I used to work for a small software company that had had hired a DC lobbying firm and gotten their hands on a $12 million per year pork grant that was ostensibly to be used for improving manufacturing in our (very rural and very red) state. My company couldn’t just pocket this money, so instead they had set up another corporation which was probably a legitimate legal entity but was actually run by one of our employees out of a closet-sized office rented in a generic building downtown. This mostly bogus corporation would dole out the $12 million to other companies (most of which weren’t even really in our state) which would in turn hire us as consultants at inflated hourly rates to produce software that nobody ever used. And as anyone could expect, the owners of my company were rabid conservatives who loved to rant about “welfare queens”.
You could call this “one hand washing the other” but “circle jerk” is a lot more appropriate. And this little bit of corruption was an absolute drop in the fucking bucket in terms of what’s really going on out there.
The only moral abortion is my own.
This is just how their brains work. It’s us vs them, not right and wrong. That’s why brain damage sometimes turns people into a conservative. I honestly believe their brains are not up to par in some ways.
Socialise the cost, privatise the profit.
In case you’d like to discuss this uncited social media post screenshot with others, a good place to begin would be this Forbes article, which focuses on Walmart primarily. https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/
This is the very horseshit that the American K-12 public school system brainwashed me into thinking was “socialism”. SNAP is a governmental bandaid that exists as a symptom of a labor market predated upon by the already wealthy.
Every corporate employee in the United States could be paid a living wage, be dignified with healthcare, and know that when their working days are over that they can rest without worrying about housing or food insecurity AND the rich can still have their yacht with a swimming pool.
I don’t want the rich exist, but my point is - if this society wants the rich to exist, okay - I guess, they can, but the very poor don’t have to. That’s an optional thing because our society tolerates artificial scarcities created by the rich.
Every corporate employee in the United States could be paid a living wage, be dignified with healthcare
I’d say every person should have UBI and healthcare regardless of employment status, but I guess your position is a good start.
My ideals extend beyond my pragmatism in my comment. UBI for every human being would be terrific.
I have a medical condition that seems to be cheaper in countries that have socialized healthcare as a non-citizen, than it is here with insurance.
“We the people” indeed.
Carrot & Stick. The carrot is you get a fraction of the money you make your boss; the stick is you will live on the street if you don’t. Capitalism needs a pool of desperate/poor/unemployed workers.
But… if the people had homes, healthcare, and a general sense of security then they would actually show up to vote, show up to protest, and hold the greedy bastards accountable who have captured the government.
This is why there will never be universal healthcare in the USA.
thats why dnc would never support it(pretend to support it knowing there was a backdoor deal between both parties to kill it or neuter it), they need cannon fodder for the military, and low wage just as much as the gop does. once in a while they throw a bone, so both parties wont complain.
🪟🔪👑⚜
It’s way more shortsighted than that. It has nothing to do with voting, or protests, or holding people to account.
People having homes, healthcare, and a reasonable quality of life would result in less money for the people at the top of the entire system.
Yeah but the rich can’t have a yacht with a yacht and a speedboat and a helicopter and a rocket ship so best we can do is a band aid
Same for McDonald’s
Working at Walmart was how I found out I qualify for food stamps in the first place.
It highlights how ridiculous “the rich will give to charity” is.
Every corp will offload costs to taxpayers and avoid paying their own taxes as much as legally possible. Anything else would make stock prices go down, and that is actually illegal. They’re legally required to “maximize share holder value”. Giving crumbs to charity and PR, so it’s fine.
Actually paying their fair share, would make the oligarchs want to make an example of whatever CEO did it.
They’re legally required to “maximize share holder value”.
That’s a lie based on a misunderstanding of Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. that’s perpetuated as an excuse, but it isn’t actually true.
It doesn’t matter if we think it isn’t true since they and the courts do.
Which courts? Got an example?
Is there an article or a video that ELI5s this in context?
Because what the court said was:
A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.
And I am not even remotely fluent in legalese.
I’m not a lawyer, but this is how I read it:
[Directors are] employed to [further the corporation’s purpose of creating profit for the stockholders]. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of [how to create that profit]. [Their discretion] does not extend to a change [in the goal of creating shareholder profit], to the reduction of profits, or to [withold profits from] stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.
TLDR: Their purpose is to create profits for shareholders and investors. They may choose how to do that, but they have an obligation to not intentionally reduce the corporation’s profits or take actions that would deprive shareholders from accessing the profits.
So instead of “legally required to maximize shareholder profits” it’s “don’t intentionally lose or hide shareholdermoney.”
The implication of that highlights exactly how disgusting corporate and industry lobbying is.
Increasing expenses to sway politicians on some topic is, in itself, an expense that runs contrary to the goal of increasing profits. Therefore, the only way it would be justifiable to spend money on lobbying is if there’s a genuine belief or expectation that it will result in a return on investment that exceeds the amount spent.
Welfare queens is putting it lightly. They think they are entitled to everything from everyone everywhere. And they don’t want laws to apply to them, and they think they can use the Us military and intelligence agencies as means to bully the world to give them what they want. They fill the media with propaganda, they poison the minds of your children. And they are ruining life in this planet for this and future generations.
Some context:
My Canadian province has the lowest minimum wage at $15/hour. ($10.71 USD)
They manage to pay that and still make a killing here.
