Corporate profits way up, quality of life for us, way down

Beeks wrote: In other words, you made a mistake, should have attributed the quote to the Declaration, but you can't admit that you are wrong.....

The Declaration of Independence states it. The Constitution is what guarantees it. Hence the Supreme Court statement. I never said it was written in the Constitution did I? But like a good lib you read what you wanted to see.

And if the corporations simply followed laws and regulations that were set by the government, I might buy it. But, we don't live in a vacuum. The process of establishing those laws and regulations (way too many of them, I think we can agree on that) is influenced to a huge degree by those same corporations, or by the former executives and CEO's that are now in the employ of the government. Your say that their sole purpose is to make a profit for their investors, but they will play the "we create jobs and help the economy card" whenever it's convenient to them.

Yeah, sorry, "trickle down" doesn't work on the larger scale. Didn't work for Reagan, and hasn't worked for anyone since. Just because some NY caterers do well when corporate profits are up isn't an indicator that TD is sound economic policy.

Your quote....

The Constitution guarantees everyone the right to the "pursuit of happiness" not the right to happiness.

Nowhere does the constitution guarantee the right to the pursuit of happiness, unless I missed that quote. A good lib? You obviously don't know me at all.....

What you believe and what is reality are obviously 2 different things. If you don't think that you could turn the lights off in Seattle if tomorrow Boeing and Microsoft packed up and moved to NY, then you are in denial. Think back to the flap last year when Republic announced it was moving all Frontier executive jobs from Denver to Indianapolis. No one will take time to do a study, but what you will find is that caused people in Denver to lose jobs and businesses in IN to hire people.

Yep, no argument from me. But in the end, I doubt that corporations moving does a darn thing for increasing the net number of jobs in this country. It's all about making more money by taking advantage of tax breaks and subsidies. I would be interested, if anyone has done the research, to know if Frontier now employs more or less people than they did when they were here in Denver.

Beeks wrote: Your quote....

The Constitution guarantees everyone the right to the "pursuit of happiness" not the right to happiness.

Nowhere does the constitution guarantee the right to the pursuit of happiness, unless I missed that quote. A good lib? You obviously don't know me at all.....

The SCOTUS has also found the Constitution guarantees the right to abortion. Please demonstrate where this guarantee is written. I am not telling you or anyone else that you have to accept it, it is just that when I last checked SCOTUS has the final say. Take it up with them if you think you shouldn't have the right to pursue happiness.

I imagine you could look to Roe v. Wade, though I'm not familiar enough with it to know exactly what the text of the decision is. I believe that it's geared more toward the concept that the government can't prevent a woman from doing as she wishes with her own body rather than guaranteeing the "right" to abortion, but perhaps I'm wrong. Can you point to a court decision that explicitly addresses the right to pursue happiness? Isn't "happiness" a bit vague and subjective?

LadyJazzer wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Stocks are trickling down profits.

How elitist... Forget about working for a living, or having a job that will feed your family... Yeah, that's it! EVERYBODY should be invested in the stock market! But only if you know how to invest wisely! There ya go... Instant profits, and no employment hassles...

Dang! I should alert the Media and let them know! All those unemployed folks just don't "get it"! The stock-market is the answer to ALL of their troubles!

Oh, THANK YOU!!!!

You are welcome. Oh, please do alert the media
Most of us have to work for a living and I imagine most people have held a job at one point or another. This thread is about those profitable corporations isn't it and that they are to blame for all the ills in America. Damn, I should have known that they are responsible for making sure that everyone in America is doing well. Perhaps, it's time to ask the question why jobs are going overseas instead of to American workers. Likely it's because they can't compete.

What I said, and you chose to snip, is that those profitable corporations are run by smart people who know how to invest wisely. No one said that all men are created with equal smarts, a willingness to take risks, or for that matter apply themselves, But, that is what your view is all about. Regardless of the differences, you want everyone to be on equal footing and therefore make those who take the risks, and have the smarts responsible for those who don't have it. Yep, that is the way to make America number one again and solve all those problems.

And thank you for recognizing me as an elitist. You haven't got a clue who I am or how I got to be who I am.

Beeks wrote: Yep, no argument from me. But in the end, I doubt that corporations moving does a darn thing for increasing the net number of jobs in this country. It's all about making more money by taking advantage of tax breaks and subsidies. I would be interested, if anyone has done the research, to know if Frontier now employs more or less people than they did when they were here in Denver.

They were purchased out of the bankruptcy court. How many jobs were saved as a result of the acquisition vs the alternative, closing the doors?

You keep harping on the making money thing. Do you begrudge others making money? The corporation is bound by the laws which govern it. It's first duty above all is to make a profit within the parameters set forth by the govt. If you object, take it up with the people making the laws under which they operate. In fact attend a shareholder's meeting and express your disgust with the company for making them a profit and get back to me with your findings, when you get out of hospital.

Beeks wrote: I imagine you could look to Roe v. Wade, though I'm not familiar enough with it to know exactly what the text of the decision is. I believe that it's geared more toward the concept that the government can't prevent a woman from doing as she wishes with her own body rather than guaranteeing the "right" to abortion, but perhaps I'm wrong. Can you point to a court decision that explicitly addresses the right to pursue happiness? Isn't "happiness" a bit vague and subjective?

I already cited the court said the two were inextricably bound together. The second document affirming the first. If you feel that is to vague, take it up with them.
They said it.