- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,405
- Reaction score
- 67,609
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
me through the govt, absolutely.
Please quote the relevant portion of the Constitution that gives you the right to tell these US companies what they must do with all that money they are "hoarding".
You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.
I'm disagreeing with your contentions about what the government's role is. You think they should do those "good" things you spoke of. I think they should leave people alone and mind their own business...you know, do what they are required to do in the Constitution.
are you really unaware that corporate charters can be revoked?
wow.
the relevant part would pertain to my right to vote for someone who will work to revoke their charter, should it be appropriate.
Yep, see PPACA and the federal, state and local minimum wage laws. The new trend is not to take money, via taxation, and to then supply public benefits but to mandate that employers do so as directed by the government.
What's the difference between the Koch Brothers and Soros?! If you have to ask, you haven't been paying attention, mate!
There's no better summation of the constitutional role of the government then to promote the welfare of its citizens!
There's no better summation of the constitutional role of the government then to promote the welfare of its citizens!
are you really unaware that corporate charters can be revoked?
wow.
the relevant part would pertain to my right to vote for someone who will work to revoke their charter, should it be appropriate.
The article is about S&P 500 corps and since all of them have offered health insurance for years and have very few MW workers, it's unlikely that your obsession with those two issues has anything to do with their hoarding cash.
But hey, repeating it will get you likes from the partisan hacks.
This thread seems to be about what the government can (or should) do about preventing the "hoarding" of cash - clearly unfunded mandates are designed to do exactly that.
One is a die hard Democrat and the other a die hard Republican which utilizes their funds to try to enforce their political beliefs upon the rest of us. You like and forgive Soros for doing exactly what the koch's do because he fits your political beliefs. You condemn the other because he doesn't. One is a hero to you, the other a villain, one is good, one is evil.
The bottom line their goals are the same. Only from opposite spectrum's of the political landscape.
Actually, there IS a better summation of the Constitutional role of the government. Here it is:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You see, promoting the "general" welfare is only one small part of the role of the government...not the only part. And when you trample on the other parts in your zeal to promote the welfare of the citizen, you are trampling on the reason we have a Constitution in the first place.
Actually, there IS a better summation of the Constitutional role of the government. Here it is:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You see, promoting the "general" welfare is only one small part of the role of the government...not the only part. And when you trample on the other parts in your zeal to promote the welfare of the citizen, you are trampling on the reason we have a Constitution in the first place.
Why would they? What's their incentive?
Taking of life, liberty or property requires due process of law - we have yet to establish such a law. On what basis could how one chooses to spend (or not spend) their earnings allow the government to seize those earnings? PPACA comes very close yet sets clear limits as to how much can be taken and under what conditions.
PPACA and MW laws have nothing to do with S&P 500 corps hoarding cash.
Find something else to spin into a cause....something relevant
I'm sure everyone has ideas on what people or companies should do with their money, but does anyone have the right to tell people or businesses what to do with their money? Do you? Does the government?
What benefit to the business would unilaterally increasing their labor costs (wages/benefits) provide? If the business later wished to expand then they would have less capital available as well as higher labor costs to contend with compared to their competition.
"because Obamacare" seems threadbareI think in this case it would be "thanks Congress". But presumably, from your chuckle, you believe there's no issue related to the ACA and businesses expanding and hiring during the uncertainty, nor any other chill related to the EPA, labour, and other issues directly affecting businesses. We'll see.
Depends on your definition of humane. Is it humane to encourage people to expect more than their labors actually are worth, discouraging them and others from bettering themselves? How "humane" would it be to take those wages and benefits away when economic times get tough?
Sometimes what seems inhumane on a micro-scale is the best and most humane on the macro-scale. On a micro-scale, the individual, it may seem inhumane to let someone suffer the depredations of their own choices. While on the macro-scale, national or human wide, it is very much the best option and most humane for the most people.
Loosers, aka, Leftist, should quit worrying or carrying about what others have and focus on achieving what they want through their own labors.
I know what you mean, but I also know too many friends and acquaintances who have not been gainfully employed in years, despite their best efforts searching for work.
Bean counters will always make the case that costs must be cut, so I understand your point.
I guess what I'm saying is that some sense of justice start developing in this country, or at least in our corporate masters, what is right versus what is wrong. I say when so much of the total wealth is controlled by such a small part of society, that is a bad situation, ready for abuse, if it's not so already.
And there are individuals who run businesses that take care of the employees, actually care about the employees rather than trying to cut costs at employee expense. Doesn't anybody take pride in caring for your fellow man, with something as ephemeral as small amounts of money?
Elections have consequences.
Maybe you should relay that onto your buddies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?