• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. companies hoard record amount of cash

me through the govt, absolutely.

Using, exactly, what constitutional government power(s) to do so? What a business/individual does with its/their net (after tax) profits/income is the very essence of freedom.
 
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".

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.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
What's the difference between the Koch Brothers and Soros?! If you have to ask, you haven't been paying attention, mate! :)

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.
 
There's no better summation of the constitutional role of the government then to promote the welfare of its citizens!

How is robbing Peter to pay Paul and Mary promoting the general welfare? Is your logic based on the democratic principle of their being more poor folks than rich folks or "from each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free stuff)"?
 
There's no better summation of the constitutional role of the government then to promote the welfare of its citizens!

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.
 
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.

My personal citizenship can be revoked, as well. Do you contend you have the right...or the government has the right...to do so just because they want to? Do you think you are justified in voting for someone who will work to revoke my citizenship...just because you want to?

You are a very dangerous person...dangerous to liberty and justice.
 
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.
 
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.

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
 
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.

Exactly!!!!!!!!
 
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.

Promoting the general welfare is about promoting the opportunity for all - not income redistribution to promote equality of outcome for some.
 
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.

Of course it is. Ensuring the liberty, tranquility defense and welfare of its citizens are the governments role and responsibility. And you are the threat and the danger.
 
Why would they? What's their incentive?

Their sense of conscience? A sense of what is right and what is wrong? Assuming that a compassionate conservative really does exist, and I happen to know a few do exist.

Or is it right that the 99:1 ratio exists as it does in this country today? I say no.
 
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.


if I recall correctly, the govt did exactly that during WW2 with rationing and collection of resources.

given the modern state of the Post911 Patriot Act USA, hoarding of cash and its associated fallout on the US economy could be viewed as a national security concern/violation and hence, charter revocation.


(no I do not think this *will* happen)
 
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

Ever since the Bush induced Great Recession ended, corporations have been holding onto a bit more of their profits. No corporations are blaming the PPACA for this.
 
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?

Until they see long term growth trends they will sit. They would be stupid not to. Their job is to make money, not squander it.
 
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.

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?
 
I 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.
"because Obamacare" seems threadbare

Maybe you're entirely right.
:shrug:

haven't seen the case you're making.

No mention of Obamacare in the OP's article.
 
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.
 
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.

Elections have consequences.

Maybe you should relay that onto your buddies.
 
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?

It is not so much that labor costs must be cut, but that they may not rise so much as to give the competition an artificial advantage. If company A becomes too generous then they start losing customers to company B which can then offer similar goods/services at lower prices. Do you shop for a fence/deck based on what the install crew gets paid or based on what that fence/deck costs you to have it built?
 
Elections have consequences.

Maybe you should relay that onto your buddies.

Yes they have consequences, for sure, but the actual true benefit to the people is usually illusory.

The theory that the people actually control the government by way of elections was shown to be invalid many years ago. I'm not against elections, I'm just saying they don't accomplish in reality what they do in theory.
 
Back
Top Bottom