AIG

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I think it is pretty crummy too, although it is misleading to say the teamowner takes all the profit while taxpayers paid for it. Teams either lease the use of the stadium or have put significant sums into the purchase and share the profits according to contracts agreed to by the cities in which the stadiums were built. I have the same 'not with my tax money' reaction to, though.

Taxpayers who don't live in the area where the stadium is being built should not have to pay for it.

Walmart provides insurance benefits for fulltime employees. I know they use the old 35 hour per week, part time employee escape, but the employees do choose to work there. The reason the owners are rich and the company makes huge profits is because they manage their p/l statements that tightly. Taxpayers are unfortunately stuck paying for some benefits for these low pay employers just like we do for the low pay grocery store clerk and the unemployed guy on his couch. That's the nature of the beast.

Even with some of the people who work full time, unless they are managers or higher ups, many of them can't afford the insurance and so they still end up on medicaid. WalMart should pay them enough to afford to buy insurance, or they should provide it to them.

*R&D is subsidized through grants and the like but the companies spend far more in drug trials and development. They are private corporations who pay their employees to do a job. Instead of despising their profit, you should applaud it.

Why? We are paying for a lot of the research and development, then charged extremely high prices for the very drugs we helped pay to develop. What we are paying for is advertising. Why should drug companies even be advertising? That should be between a doctor and their patient. If people really want to know about new drugs, there are plenty of ways to get information about them. Drug companies are extremely corrupt, and they are very profitable. Health care should not be about profit, it should be about helping people.

Do you mean in dollars or percentages? I guarantee there is NO millionaire paying less in either category than someone making $30K/ year. That is a nice fallacy though.

Warren Buffet has even said he pays less than his secretary. Not in actual dollars of course, but the % he pays is less than hers. That is very common.

There we agree. Those companies shouldn't be bailed out. If they aren't strong enough to compete and succeed they shouldn't exist.
Too true. That is the very hallmark of a poorly managed company that should fail.

Yeparoo.

You've thrown out the usual statements but without an idea of how to make it better they don't mean much.

Well, we could start by putting some regulations back into place to stop corruption, have serious oversight and transparency, and we could investigate and try people who break the law or are unethical with regard to how they conduct business. We could reform the tax code. We could stop subsidizing private corporations, or companies that make more than $500,000/year. We could provide health care for everyone so the burden doesn't fall on corporations, and then charge them a higher tax rate to help pay for it. We could stop bailing out companies that fail. We could start enforcing antitrust laws, and break up companies that are too big to fail. And, we could have some kind of regulations about how executives are paid, and have a living wage for workers, so people make enough money to live and afford things. And lastly, we could reform the advertising industry. how is that for a start?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Well, we could start by putting some regulations back into place to stop corruption, have serious oversight and transparency, and we could investigate and try people who break the law or are unethical with regard to how they conduct business.

I love this idea - Lets start here

Barney Frank is the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Committee Members
The #1 guy responsible for oversight. And paid rather handsomely for it as well. Do you think he owes us a refund too?

Here is just a tidbit from the site:

The Financial Services Committee is responsible for the oversight of the U.S. banking industry.

The extraordinary increase in subprime mortgage lending over the past decade has made credit and home ownership opportunities available to millions of consumers who could not qualify for conventional mortgages. The Democratic Caucus of the Committee has long advocated expanding access to credit for such consumers and this is a goal the Caucus continues to pursue.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

And lastly, we could reform the advertising industry. how is that for a start?

Wha Wha What?????

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

I love this idea - Lets start here

Barney Frank is the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Committee Members
The #1 guy responsible for oversight. And paid rather handsomely for it as well. Do you think he owes us a refund too?

Here is just a tidbit from the site:

Yes, I do think people in government, who should've been doing their job bu weren't, should also be held accountable.

Wha Wha What?????

Advertising is the bane of existance.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

And lastly, we could reform the advertising industry. how is that for a start?

Why? It's the only one that works.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Why? It's the only one that works.

It doesn't work in a very good way though. Advertising is part of the problem. It should be reformed as well.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

It doesn't work in a very good way though. Advertising is part of the problem. It should be reformed as well.

Good way? There is no "good way" in advertising under capitalism. There is "successful" and "unsuccessful". If that is unacceptable, you'll have to find a new system.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Good way? There is no "good way" in advertising under capitalism. There is "successful" and "unsuccessful". If that is unacceptable, you'll have to find a new system.

Advertising is the bane of an enlightened society.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

It's about something I posted earlier. You have to go back and read the post.

Are you talking about it in general or something specific?

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Advertising is the bane of an enlightened society.

Bullshit.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Bullshit.

It's my opinion. We are bombarded every second of every day with advertisements for things we don't need. People have too much stuff. And if you don't have the very latest stuff, then you won't be happy and you certainly won't be cool. We are being brainwashed into thinking stuff will make us happy (well, some of us anyway. The rest of us are asleep when it comes to this particular topic). It's part of the reason why we're in such a mess now financially, and why the world is toxic. (Do you even know how many toxic chemicals go into the creation of cell phones and computers and other electronics? And people go through them like candy. Do you know how many tons of waste are created just to make one ton of stuff? Do you realize the implications of that?) And advertising, since it makes people yearn and want things, also creates envy and greed. Do you see the implications of that? I see it everywhere. Even as aware as I am of the problem, I am not immune to it.

No, advertising is definitely the herion of the masses. umhuh.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Advertising is the bane of an enlightened society.

Good thing I don't live in Tibet, then.

TGRR,
Would not have known to avoid "The Angry Whopper", had he not seen the commercial.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Good thing I don't live in Tibet, then.

TGRR,
Would not have known to avoid "The Angry Whopper", had he not seen the commercial.

Have you ever noticed how a lot of commercials make men look really dumb? Angry whooper. LOL