Down with evil corporations!!!

[Tyler90AZ]

MOST corporations donate too increase profit. The highest corporation only gave 1.7% of their earnings to charity.

Donations:

Giving Statistics

America's Most Generous Corporations - Forbes.com

Edited October 9, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[beefche]

Ok, so charity donations don't settle well with you.

Will you please answer my question on how it isn't stealing money to take from one to give to another?

[Tyler90AZ]

So your completely against taxes?

[Dravin]

I do see your point Dravin, but it's hardly going to bankrupt Walmart to provide a few extra cashiers. They would still make huge profits and provide more jobs.

Is it half-time? That was quite the goal shift.

[beefche]

You like answering questions with questions? How is taking money from one person to give to another not stealing?

[Tyler90AZ]

Christy Walton 24.5 Billion

Jim Walton 21.1 Billion

Alice Walton 20.9 Billion

S. Robson Walton 20.5 Billion

Walmart sure looks like they are required to pay workers minimum wage to secure a good profit.

[Tyler90AZ]

You like answering questions with questions? How is taking money from one person to give to another not stealing?

The workers are the driving force behind any company making a profit. Thus, they should be rewarded accordingly. To me it is stealing to pay workers minimum wage and make billions a year. If the 1% would just pay the 99% what they deserve welfare would practically be eliminated.

Answer:

Workers make the money for the company, so it is not stealing. It is just getting what they deserve.

[Tyler90AZ]

Also crime would go way down.....

[beefche]

I think I'm done talking with you. You obviously don't understand that workers are compensated for the amounts they agree to upon hiring.

Just so everyone understands, I refuse to take money from another that isn't given to me as a gift or that I don't work for. So, all those Waltons can keep their millions--I am happy to continue to work for my living and not feel entitled to other people's money.

[Tyler90AZ]

Thank you for sharing your perspective Beefche! Sleep well friend...

[bcguy]

Take a product that is manufactured over seas. The worker that manufactures it, does not have to worry about rent "housing supplied by the company". Does not need a car "housing on factory grounds". Does not need food "food supplied to dorm like kitchens".

Works 12 hours a day or more seven days a week.

-VS-

Product made at home.

Factory worker rents of pays a mortgage. Factory worker has to have a car or take the city buss. Factory work pays half of medical insurance. Factory worker gets paid much better.

In the end, the products made at home cost more, simply because of the cost to employee that employee.

[Just_A_Guy]

Christy Walton 24.5 Billion

Jim Walton 21.1 Billion

Alice Walton 20.9 Billion

S. Robson Walton 20.5 Billion

Walmart sure looks like they are required to pay workers minimum wage to secure a good profit.

Wal-Mart 2010 profits: $14.3 billion.

Wal-Mart 2010 employees: 2.1 million

Average per-employee share of annual profit: $6809.

So, if Wal-Mart gave all of its annual profits back to its workforce you'd see each employee get a $2.61/hour raise. Now, if that happened--if each and every employee of Wal-Mart earned at least $10/hour--do you think all the carping about Wal-Mart corporate greed would end? Of course not.*

And more importantly, a single-breadwinner family of four at that level is still (barely) below the poverty line, and far below the US per capita income level.

That's what a lot of people who rail about income inequality and corporate greed, fail to understand. It's relatively easy (and, for some people, rather enjoyable) to use the power of government and the threat of force to cut a millionaire down to size. But the funds you seize by so doing are finite; and the standard of living they enable for the proletariat won't be nearly what the masses think they deserve.

The Soviets found that out the hard way. In an orgy of populism the Bolsheviks killed the Romanovs (formerly the richest royal family in Europe), drove out the rest of the aristocracy, and seized their assets. But a funny thing happened to that new world order: over the course of the decade, between five and ten million Russians starved to death. Guess who the Russians had to beg for a bailout? Yep--nasty American capitalists.

It was true in 1917 Russia, it's true of Wal-Mart, and it's true of 2011 America: The rich certainly have more than "enough" for themselves; but they simply don't have enough to give you what you think you've earned.

*I won't even address the issue of whether Sam Walton would have bothered to start up his chain store knowing that he'd never be allowed to pay himself more than 150% of minimum wage.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[dahlia]

So your completely against taxes?

It is helpful, when making an argument, to use proper English.

It is 'you are,' not 'your.' Maybe you need to sue one of your government teachers.

[Traveler]

I have a problem. I understand that there are corporate problems - especially concerning the business model. I know a company that made over 100 million profit a year. (I use to work for them). They announced in a company meeting that they had lost 680 million in the last quarter and would have to down size (lay off workers) and adjust pay to prevent more layoffs. All employees would have to take a 10% cut in pay. To go along it was also announced that upper management would take a 25% cut in pay. Sounds good - right?

As a principle engineer I was somewhat involved in almost every project completed over the last 3 years - not a single project lost money. Why the 680 million loss? Answer the company was in the process of acquiring other companies to increase global market share. Upper manage had failed miserably in their do-diligence and foreign companies they acquired came with 680 million in debt which with a down turn in the world economy screwed the stock holders big time. The solution was to lay off ¼ of their skilled workforce that had nothing to do with the loses - but by downsizing the company upper management was able to maintain profitability and their multimillion dollar bonuses. No wonder they were willing to take 25% less pay on their $350,000 salary.

Now that the dust has cleared the company continued to lose money and sold off a division of the company to maintain profitability and bonuses in the following years. The company went from an 85% market share of domestic markets to 15% and stock went from $50 a share to less than $8. Most of the upper management left for greener pastures and continued bonuses. And since most of the millions were in the form of bonuses (not cash) - very little in taxes were paid.

Let’s take a look at something going on right now. The drug cartels of Mexico are currently finding more ways to make money. Remember a year or so ago when all the off shore drilling for oil was stopped for US companies. Has anyone noticed that supply has not changed? Do you know why? It seems that the Mexican drug cartels have been diverting oil from Mexican government oil pipe lines and selling large amounts of oil in international markets - and US oil companies are buying the oil. The result is that Mexican criticizes are being robbed of their oil reserves - which in essence was always happing in their corrupt government but what is more alarming to us here in the USA is that we are now directly funding some of the world’s worst terrorist organizations in our own back yard.

And so it is that the liberals have found the conservatives’ Achilles heel in corporate immorality and the supper smart conservatives instead of considering doing something are calling the attack on corporate America - class warfare. But what bothers me even more are good LDS people that do not seem to understand the “secret combination” business model highlighted in the Book of Mormon. I think it has something to do with the desire for “expensive things” and a thing called pride.

The Traveler

[Tyler90AZ]

It is helpful, when making an argument, to use proper English.

It is 'you are,' not 'your.' Maybe you need to sue one of your government teachers.

I use to instead of too alot. Prime example of why education needs to be reformed...

[Backroads]

Tyler, I completely agree with you that many corporations are corrupt. I don't have to like how a company chooses to reimburse the employees.

But (and please correct me if I'm wrong on this view) what you seem to be proposing is that we strip away personal freedom. You seem to be against people having their own businesses and making their own choices.

Who are you to determine who gets what?

No, I don't like a lot of policies. But I have no right to force a company or anyone to do anything.

Okay, so you want government to stick its nose into private lives. How far will it go?

[Backroads]

I use to instead of too alot. Prime example of why education needs to be reformed...

You also used "alot" instead of "a lot".

This is an alot.

[Backroads]

The movement atleast in my neck of the woods has no defined goals as of yet.

That does make it hard for to sympathize with them. Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to some of the ideals, but I can't tolerate a group that doesn't know what it wants or has a plan to do anything.

The main argument is the top 1% have such a ridiculous amount of wealth in comparison to the 99%. That gap is only growing year to year.

That is a tragedy. I don't think anyone is jumping for joy about that.

If the wealth was divided more evenly America would be a better place.

Agreed. It sure would be nice to have a nation without poverty.

Why couldn't businesses be required to pay x amount of profit to the employees after expenses? They would still have their fat wallets and the workers would be happy. The statement that a person agrees to terms prior to accepting a job is true. However, they are essentially required to for survival. It has only gotten worse and worse, it is pure greed.

.

All right, I have nothing against raising minimum wage, but at the same time... if they want more money, can't they find ways to advance their skills? Please note that I do support a change in education, perhaps more accepted opportunities for apprenticeship, other various ways of teaching people usable skills. I have a couple of friends that are always complaining about their lousy jobs: These people dropped out of high school, never bothered to learn valuable skills, etc. What entitles these people to lots of money when I have to earn mine?

To cut down the costs of education and healthcare we need to make changes..

Completely agree. What changes do you propose?

The top 1% need to be taxed more or the wealth needs to be divided more evenly so the 1% can afford both.

I personally don't have much opinion on who should/should not be taxed, I can see both sides.

But dividing the wealth... what exactly does that mean? The government forcing its way into private lives?

We actually need to punish white collar criminals; which costs more dollars then any other type of crime. Lobbyists need to be removed from Washington so the people are actually represented.

I don't think many will disagree with you there.

Still, there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction. Which is understandable in this economy. But I guess the price of freedom is just that: freedom. I"ll support creating laws that prevent true corruption, but if I support a person's right to choose as long as it doesn't break any laws, I have to accept that he will do things I may not like.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Backroads

[MorningStar]

This is silliness. Sounds like a group of whiny babies realizing that you actually have to work hard in order to have the things you want and need. They probably don't understand how hard their parents worked.

[Backroads]

This is silliness. Sounds like a group of whiny babies realizing that you actually have to work hard in order to have the things you want and need. They probably don't understand how hard their parents worked.

I get that these are hard times and life didn't turn out the way they planned, but in my limited world view it might be one of those things to tough out.

[FunkyTown]

This is silliness. Sounds like a group of whiny babies realizing that you actually have to work hard in order to have the things you want and need. They probably don't understand how hard their parents worked.

It doesn't sound like a bunch of whiny babies to me.

It sounds like a bunch of people getting together who know they don't like the way things are going now and want to change things, but have no coherent plan on how.

It's similar to the tea party in that regard. While individual tea partiers know they aren't happy with the way things are going and have specific plans on how they'd make it better, a lot are every bit as unfocused as this group.

In fact, many of the specific complaints they're arguing against are similar to the same ones the tea partiers are arguing. They may have different methodologies, or they may have similar ones. Frankly, I don't know. Where it comes to specific answers, about the only people on either side who have come up with concrete plans have been the people who like a man whose name sounds like Pon Raul(So as not to break the rule about specific candidates;)) and they have a wide variety of different plans, from the interesting to the downright insane.

[Guest mormonmusic]

...please don't label me as naive, I just see things differently than yourself.:)

A statement highly worth quoting...

'Corporations' are not greedy, I agree with you. But the people who make the corporations up can be.

Another way of saying this is "The corporation is perfect, but the people aren't". For me, corporations are simply lifeless peices of paper -- concepts. They have no life if they have no people.

[Tyler90AZ]

You also used "alot" instead of "a lot".

This is an alot.

Thut iss y im not a englush magor.

[HoosierGuy]

How is it not stealing or theft to take money from one person and give it to someone else? I truly do not see any other way to explain it other than theft.

That's very black or white thinking, so then you should 100 agree with my view that people and corporatiosn who send U.S. jobs to China or Mexico or some other country are commiting treason.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg = U.S. Multinationals.

Those companies that have moved out of the U.S. and the people who helped them move are committing serious injury against the parent nation - the U.S.A.

Do you really think corporations are loyal to the U.S.? Many have shown over and over they have zero loyalty to Americans or the U.S.A.

[Just_A_Guy]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Traitors.