Calling Obama supporters

[cornopean]

Clearly Obama wants more and higher taxes. The American economy is teetering on the brink of recession. Now I simply want clarification from the Obama group.....when has an economy ever been saved by tax hikes? I can name numerous examples of tax hikes that wrecked an economy (our own Great Depression) but I can think of no examples of tax hikes sparking an economy. So can you clarify your candidate's position on this.

 

1. Does he want to help the economy?
   
2. Does he want to raise taxes?
   
3. Does he think raising taxes will bring about #1?

In as far as I understand Obama, he answers all three of these questions affirmatively. yes?

[Amy loves Bud]

:lurk5:

[Mrs Mungo]

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

 

eta: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html

 

He's actually proposing tax cuts for middle class Americans.

 

Quotes from the cnn article:

The tax relief plan he envisions for the middle class alone would mean $80 billion or more in tax cuts, he said.

 

Obama proposes funding the tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens and increasing the dividend-and-capital-gains tax for the wealthy, he said.

[Phred]

Clearly Obama wants more and higher taxes. The American economy is teetering on the brink of recession. Now I simply want clarification from the Obama group.....when has an economy ever been saved by tax hikes? I can name numerous examples of tax hikes that wrecked an economy (our own Great Depression) but I can think of no examples of tax hikes sparking an economy. So can you clarify your candidate's position on this.

1. Does he want to help the economy?

2. Does he want to raise taxes?

3. Does he think raising taxes will bring about #1?

In as far as I understand Obama, he answers all three of these questions affirmatively. yes?

You're listening to Rush aren't you?

 

For one thing, isn't the economy screwed up because of your retardican administration spending money it didn't have on a war that didn't need to be fought? Since when does anyone think they can spend and spend and spend and spend without consequences? Where do you think the money comes from when we go to war and spend money like we have been without raising taxes? It comes from selling bonds. During WWII WE bought the bonds that funded the war. Today our deficit is funded by bonds that other countries buy. Countries like Saudi Arabia, China and Japan. They've bought trillions of dollars of bonds over the last four years. Which is one of the reasons our dollar is worth so much less than it was four years ago. We have to pay off those bonds WITH INTEREST.

 

The current outstanding public debt as of now is:

That's $30,000 or so for every man, woman and child in the country.

 

So what was the Republican plan for this? Reduce taxes on the wealthy. Taxes have never been so low on corporations and the highest earning 1%. Perhaps, before we start looking at a candidate who's proposing fiscal responsibility we could look at your folks who've given us eight years of fiscal irresponsibility, a war that didn't need to be fought, an economy that's in the tank and a reputation around the world a bunch of fat, ignorant idiots.

[Elaine]

:lurk5:

 

Can I share? :lol:

[chiguirre]

You know guys, there's a reason we don't post about politics on this board. It's so hard to keep a civil tone when you feel your principles are being attacked. IMHO, we should just click over to Rush or Kos for this kind of discussion.

[Mrs Mungo]

I read the link Mrs. M posted. My only issue is that we live on a crazy tight budget and are considered part of "the rich" by him so we wouldn't get any of those middle class tax cuts.:glare:

 

You probably aren't wealthy enough to be affected by the closing of corporate loopholes and cracking down on offshore accounts, either. My hubby makes too much money (assuming he's not deployed the majority of the year) to qualify for the tax cuts too but Obama is not planning to raise our taxes, either.

[Mrs Mungo]

Another good link (this is a good site, in general, btw):

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

The current outstanding public debt as of now is:

That's $30,000 or so for every man, woman and child in the country.

 

 

 

I'll bet that if you edited your post so that 2/3 of the board wouldn't immediately circle the wagons, a few of the folks in those wagons would listen to you. :glare: ;)

 

The fact that China and Saudi Arabia owns our country at the present time completely freaks me out. COMPLETELY. And I would say it no matter what the reason for the indebtedness.

 

We sure can't print more money to pay the debt. How in the world else are we going to raise revenue? What is the plan? To pay ourselves "back" for (as we said) liberating Iraq by taking a percent off their oil sales for awhile?

[Nestof3]

the wealthy

 

Oh, yes -- the evil wealthy. The ones funding most of the federal programs.

[cornopean]

You're listening to Rush aren't you?

I never listen to Rush. I like him, but rarely hear him.

 

 

For one thing, isn't the economy screwed up because of your retardican administration spending money it didn't have on a war that didn't need to be fought?

first, I wouldn't call it "MY" administration. :)

second, we spend very little on defense in this nation relative to other spending.

 

 

 

Since when does anyone think they can spend and spend and spend and spend without consequences?

well I agree with you on this but I am more worried about Social Security and Medicare than the war.

 

 

 

Where do you think the money comes from when we go to war and spend money like we have been without raising taxes? It comes from selling bonds. During WWII WE bought the bonds that funded the war. Today our deficit is funded by bonds that other countries buy. Countries like Saudi Arabia, China and Japan. They've bought trillions of dollars of bonds over the last four years. Which is one of the reasons our dollar is worth so much less than it was four years ago. We have to pay off those bonds WITH INTEREST.

do you think raising taxes will help our economy?

 

 

 

 

The current outstanding public debt as of now is:

That's $30,000 or so for every man, woman and child in the country.

this is a problem but not our biggest problem.

 

 

 

I guess I am still wondering about whether you think taxes will better our economy. I didn't see an answer in there anywhere. :001_smile:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Oh, yes -- the evil wealthy. The ones funding most of the federal programs.

 

Are you a flat tax kinda gal?

[Kelli in TN]

 

For one thing, isn't the economy screwed up because of your retardican administration spending money it didn't have on a war that didn't need to be fought?

 

 

because of your retardican administration

Do you know something about the OP? Maybe you know her in real life and so you know how she votes? Because the OP does not claim any particular political leanings. She is only asking a question.

[Nestof3]

 

Honestly, I don't know. I lean toward it at times.

 

I do know I'm not "the wealthy" but I see that phrase thrown around like it's a bad word. The wealthy own many companies that I'm glad exist, and they do pay more federal taxes (many people on this forum probably don't pay any at all), and I just don't like to see them talked about like being wealthy is a bad thing. That's all. I also don't like seeing corporations talked about badly -- I hear "those corporations." Think of how much we, the general public, depend on "those corporations."

[cornopean]

You probably aren't wealthy enough to be affected by the closing of corporate loopholes and cracking down on offshore accounts, either. My hubby makes too much money (assuming he's not deployed the majority of the year) to qualify for the tax cuts too but Obama is not planning to raise our taxes, either.

I guess I want to challenge the notion that Obama isn't planning on raising your taxes. Here is my argument;

Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Bush cut taxes on corporations.

Corporations never actually pay their taxes; they hand them down to customers in the form of price increases or lower pay or no promotions for employees.

Hence, Obama is not directly raising YOUR tax but he is going to cost you a great deal more money than the present system.

[Melinda in VT]

I think reducing debt will improve the economy. It seems clear that we need to raise taxes as well as cut spending to do that. And I have no philosophical problem with raising taxes on the wealthy.

[Joanne]

For one thing, isn't the economy screwed up because of your retardican administration spending money it didn't have on a war that didn't need to be fought?

 

I understand your perspective.

 

I've got a stepson proudly serving his second tour in this war. I don't expect you or anyone else to support that. But it would sure be nice if the anti-current war crowd would admit that the issue of national security, terrorism, commerce, oil and the US role in international relations is:

 

1) Complex

2) Pre-dates the administration you hate so much, and pre-dates those before that one

3) Presents no one correct action; are choices emerging from circumstances that stink and presents options that are the best of the worst

4) Every word against the war *is* a word against those proudly serving

[astrid]

Perhaps the OP's question, "Does he want to help the economy?" indicates her politcal leanings. I mean, what kind of a yahoo would run for president on the platform, "I don't give a fig about the economy, and I in no way plan to help it." It's kind of a no-brainer question, IMHO. But unfortunately, that's what's being ASSumed about several candidates.

 

Hmmm......wasn't it John McCain who, when asked about the economy, replied that he really didn't know much about it, and would have to read up and get educated on it? :001_huh:

[Mrs Mungo]

Oh, yes -- the evil wealthy. The ones funding most of the federal programs.

 

I think there's a pretty broad range between working class and "wealthy." I didn't see anything to indicate that making over $50K/year makes one wealthy.

 

This article talks about the possiblity of reimposing the Social Security tax for certain income brackets (either above $97.5K/year or above $200K/year depending on the plan).

 

Another article about his tax plans and the wealthy

A quote from that one:

Mr. Obama's plan would create a refundable income tax credit of up to $500 a person and $1,000 a family to offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 of their earnings. His advisers said they have not determined a precise income cut off, but they said about 95% of working taxpayers would be eligible and that the tax credits would phase out for households with annual incomes in the $150,000 to $200,000 range.

 

Do people making $150K-200K/year really need another tax break?

[Nestof3]

Corporations never actually pay their taxes;

 

Huh?

 

My husband owns a corporation and we do indeed pay taxes. Of course a profit needs to be made -- are you suggesting companies run themselves out of the goodness of their heart? Sure, my husband's corporation is small, but corporations also pay a myriad of taxes -- down to litter tax for some of them.

 

And let's remember, half of the social security and medicare is paid for by those corporations.

 

OOPS -- Sorry, I misunderstood your post. Of to dinner and to shut my big mouth.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I guess I want to challenge the notion that Obama isn't planning on raising your taxes. Here is my argument;

Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Bush cut taxes on corporations.

Corporations never actually pay their taxes; they hand them down to customers in the form of price increases or lower pay or no promotions for employees.

Hence, Obama is not directly raising YOUR tax but he is going to cost you a great deal more money than the present system.

 

 

Soooo, you weren't actually interested in answers or discussion, but rather wanted to set the mood to make a political point?

 

 

?? Or did you actually want us to spend time looking and clarifying our answers to perhaps see a different viewpoint or understand ours?

 

I was pretty annoyed when someone rated this thread with one star, but I am now leaning toward abandoning that annoyance.

[Melinda in VT]

I understand your perspective.

 

I've got a stepson proudly serving his second tour in this war. I don't expect you or anyone else to support that. But it would sure be nice if the anti-current war crowd would admit that the issue of national security, terrorism, commerce, oil and the US role in international relations is:

 

1) Complex

2) Pre-dates the administration you hate so much, and pre-dates those before that one

3) Presents no one correct action; are choices emerging from circumstances that stink and presents options that are the best of the worst

4) Every word against the war *is* a word against those proudly serving

 

I agree with you that the existing situation is complex. However, I do not understand, and never have, the belief that questioning whether we should be at war is disrespectful of those fighting it.

 

My brother is in the Navy Reserves (was active duty for years). I love him. I respect that he has pledged his life to defend our country. I also think that the *best* way I can support him is to do my part to see that the leaders of this country don't put his life on the line unnecessarily.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Are you a flat tax kinda gal?]

 

Honestly, I don't know. I lean toward it at times.

 

I do know I'm not "the wealthy" but I see that phrase thrown around like it's a bad word. The wealthy own many companies that I'm glad exist, and they do pay more federal taxes (many people on this forum probably don't pay any at all), and I just don't like to see them talked about like being wealthy is a bad thing. That's all. I also don't like seeing corporations talked about badly -- I hear "those corporations." Think of how much we, the general public, depend on "those corporations."

 

Yep! I have to agree with that sentiment.

 

Taxes will be raised. It's interesting to see what a candidate proposes. (And what God or Congress will dispose of post haste anyhow! :D)

[Mrs Mungo]

I guess I want to challenge the notion that Obama isn't planning on raising your taxes. Here is my argument;

Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Bush cut taxes on corporations.

Corporations never actually pay their taxes; they hand them down to customers in the form of price increases or lower pay or no promotions for employees.

Hence, Obama is not directly raising YOUR tax but he is going to cost you a great deal more money than the present system.

 

OR (here's an idea!) they could quit buying corporate boxes for every major sporting event, corporate jets, golf vacations for their execs and so forth. Sorry, I firmly believe most large corporations (and by large I mean multinational, publicly traded, etc) are flat-out evil so you aren't going to get anywhere with me with that argument.

[Angela in TN]

Do people making $150K-200K/year really need another tax break?

 

I'd say yes because depending on where you live that really isn't that much. Why is it "fair" to take more from someone who has worked hard to get into a certain income bracket? I'm not saying that those who make less don't work hard BUT my dh has always worked in a field that is mostly commission only. He's worked hard put in his time and now all that work has come to fruition. So now we are in the bracket that Mr. Obama wants to stick it to. What really scares me about his views on taxes is that it should be "fair". But apparently "fair" only extends to a certain demographic and smacks of a political leaning that is less than democratic.

[Tatt2mama]

Think of how much we, the general public, depend on "those corporations."

 

 

While I do somewhat agree-I also think those corporations depend on the people that run them, and the American consumers that keep them going, as much as we depend on them. And when I see that the CEO of the company that supplies my electricity and gas (not the publicly-held utility, but the private company that supplies the publicly-held utility) made something like $30 million last year-it just makes me wonder. I know that the guy has a big job and has worked his way up to that job and I'm sure works very hard and is deserving of a big salary. But that kind of a salary just seems so ridiculously out of line with what the average person is making-I mean how much do you have to work in a year to justify $30 million?

 

I read something in Time Magazine about how the recent economic growth since about 2000 has resulted in salary gains for 1% of the work force. And that those making an "average" salary have actually lost money since 2000 when you adjust for inflation. That also makes me wonder.

 

But I don't think raising taxes alone is the answer-AND I'm an Obama supporter.

[Jennifer in NH]

Oh, yes -- the evil wealthy. The ones funding most of the federal programs.

and employing most of America..ducking now!

[Joanne]

My brother is in the Navy Reserves (was active duty for years). I love him. I respect that he has pledged his life to defend our country. I also think that the *best* way I can support him is to do my part to see that the leaders of this country don't put his life on the line unnecessarily.

 

It's certainly your right. I find the decision that the current administration is solely responsible for this war to be short sighted, simplistic and, well, disrespectful to those serving. I'm not saying you hold that belief, but I do find it prevalent in many of the anti-current war rhetoric.

 

The quote I used:

 

For one thing, isn't the economy screwed up because of your retardican administration spending money it didn't have on a war that didn't need to be fought?

 

Is, indeed, disrespectful and is a statement not only against the administration, but those serving in a war. Many of them voluntarily, having joined *since* the war initiated.

[Kelli in TN]

Perhaps the OP's question, "Does he want to help the economy?" indicates her politcal leanings. I mean, what kind of a yahoo would run for president on the platform, "I don't give a fig about the economy, and I in no way plan to help it." It's kind of a no-brainer question, IMHO. But unfortunately, that's what's being ASSumed about several candidates.

 

Hmmm......wasn't it John McCain who, when asked about the economy, replied that he really didn't know much about it, and would have to read up and get educated on it? :001_huh:

 

Maybe she's a Hillary fan?

[Crissy]

You know guys, there's a reason we don't post about politics on this board. It's so hard to keep a civil tone when you feel your principles are being attacked. IMHO, we should just click over to Rush or Kos for this kind of discussion.

 

 

If the tone becomes less than civil, I am certain the board admins will take care of it.

With this new format, it is so easy to skip those threads you don't care to read. Asking folks to avoid discussion on a discussion board isn't necessary, is it?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

4) Every word against the war *is* a word against those proudly serving

 

Oh my. I couldn't agree less. And that's pretty unusual, me disagreeing with you. As the wife of a very recently retired active duty Army vet of 24 years, those who proudly serve do so at least in part so that in this country at least, we have the option (nay, obligation) of holding our leaders' feet to the fire and demanding that their actions be righteous and honorable. They deserve our deep admiration, respect, and thanks for that service.

 

The "if you're not for me, you're against me" argument doesn't go very far with me.

[cornopean]

I think reducing debt will improve the economy. It seems clear that we need to raise taxes as well as cut spending to do that. And I have no philosophical problem with raising taxes on the wealthy.

allow me to challenge this as well. what principle justifies requiring the rich to pay more of their income in taxes than anyone else? simply b/c they can afford it? or b/c they were successful? why?

 

I do have a philosophical problem with taxing the rich more. there are economic reasons not to tax the rich as well.

[Joanne]

For one thing, isn't the economy screwed up because of your retardican administration spending money it didn't have on a war that didn't need to be fought?

 

More. This quote uses a term I'd "call out" my kids for using. I'm not a fan of uber-political correctness. However, the term "retardican" is juvenille and insulting. I do not allow my 13 year old to use the term to mock his friends as it insults his friends by calling them the name of people whose brains to not function "normally".

 

For an adult to use the term in context of elected, adult officials and in the context of discussing a war many proudly serve; I find the phrasing inappropriate.

[cornopean]

 

Do people making $150K-200K/year really need another tax break?

I would say yes. These are the productive people in society. The rich are the people who are making the stuff we desire and providing the services we want. by lowering taxes on these people, we enable them to take that money and create more wealth. they start new factories, hire more people, invent new gadgets, etc. etc. this makes all of us better off.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Maybe she's a Hillary fan?

 

She's a he.

[Joanne]

Oh my. I couldn't agree less. And that's pretty unusual, me disagreeing with you. As the wife of a very recently retired active duty Army vet of 24 years, those who proudly serve do so at least in part so that in this country at least, we have the option (nay, obligation) of holding our leaders' feet to the fire and demanding that their actions be righteous and honorable. They deserve our deep admiration, respect, and thanks for that service.

 

I agree. My point is that "righteous and honorable" actions are not clearly delineated in this situation. It's not as simple as "go to war" OR "don't go to war". This situation has far too much history and is far to complex to land intelligently on either extreme.

 

The "if you're not for me, you're against me" argument doesn't go very far with me.

 

And my viewpoint is not quite as simple as that, either. ;) It's more the tone and wording used in a significant percentage of anti-this-war rhetoric than the fact of being against this war (a stand I don't embrace, but understand why people would).

 

I'm bother, particularly, but the "retardican" comment.

[Mrs Mungo]

I would say yes. These are the productive people in society. The rich are the people who are making the stuff we desire and providing the services we want. by lowering taxes on these people, we enable them to take that money and create more wealth. they start new factories, hire more people, invent new gadgets, etc. etc. this makes all of us better off.

 

Trickle-down theory almost destroyed the economy once, you're willing to take that chance again?

[cornopean]

Oh my. I couldn't agree less. And that's pretty unusual, me disagreeing with you. As the wife of a very recently retired active duty Army vet of 24 years, those who proudly serve do so at least in part so that in this country at least, we have the option (nay, obligation) of holding our leaders' feet to the fire and demanding that their actions be righteous and honorable. They deserve our deep admiration, respect, and thanks for that service.

 

The "if you're not for me, you're against me" argument doesn't go very far with me.

It is one thing to advocate and suggest different methods and/or procedures in our war on terror. But for a person to claim that they support the troops but want us to lose, that is not possible. The SUPPORT THE TROOPS; END THE WAR crowd are self-contradictory IMO.

you can't say "I am a Yankees fan" but then want them to lose.

 

the crucial question here is do you want us to win. the democratic party, for the most part, does not want us to win.

[Kelli in TN]

She's a he.

 

Cornopean, Please forgive me!!!! :001_huh:

[cornopean]

Trickle-down theory almost destroyed the economy once, you're willing to take that chance again?

I deny the charge. :001_smile: what are you referring to?

[Mrs Mungo]

It is one thing to advocate and suggest different methods and/or procedures in our war on terror. But for a person to claim that they support the troops but want us to lose, that is not possible. The SUPPORT THE TROOPS; END THE WAR crowd are self-contradictory IMO.

you can't say "I am a Yankees fan" but then want them to lose.

 

the crucial question here is do you want us to win. the democratic party, for the most part, does not want us to win.

 

What are we winning? How many combat veterans do you know? I know hundreds of them and I've seen a wide variety of opinions from them-some Republican, some Democrat.

[Jennifer in NH]

While I do somewhat agree-I also think those corporations depend on the people that run them, and the American consumers that keep them going, as much as we depend on them. And when I see that the CEO of the company that supplies my electricity and gas (not the publicly-held utility, but the private company that supplies the publicly-held utility) made something like $30 million last year-it just makes me wonder. I know that the guy has a big job and has worked his way up to that job and I'm sure works very hard and is deserving of a big salary. But that kind of a salary just seems so ridiculously out of line with what the average person is making-I mean how much do you have to work in a year to justify $30 million?

 

 

I know 30 million may be a lot, but why is it okay for movie stars to make that and more but not a corporate exec?

[Mrs Mungo]

I deny the charge. :001_smile: what are you referring to?

 

You imply that if the wealthy pay less in taxes they will create more wealth for everyone else. I think that was proven false in Reagan years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I agree. My point is that "righteous and honorable" actions are not clearly delineated in this situation. It's not as simple as "go to war" OR "don't go to war". This situation has far too much history and is far to complex to land intelligently on either extreme.

 

 

As my intelligence about it grows, I am tending to the one extreme to the point that I feel comfortable speaking (and weeping) about it to the exclusion of the other. Does that make any sense?

 

I'm bother, particularly, but the "retardican" comment.

 

Yeah.

 

Guys (most) are so used to the "take no prisoners; yeah, so's your mama" kind of discussion boards that I find that they occasionally find our gentle ways :lol: limiting. And they revert back to name-calling and such. I found it amusing that he referenced Rush, whose tone and horribly uncivilized way of speaking is what I abhor most about him, in the opening sally!

 

(Sorry, Phred. I'm talking about you like you're not here. But you know I appreciate you, I hope.)

[8filltheheart]

Sorry, I firmly believe most large corporations (and by large I mean multinational, publicly traded, etc) are flat-out evil so you aren't going to get anywhere with me with that argument.

 

I will never discuss politics on this board. However, I can say my dh is employed by one of the largest corporations in the US. We have absolutely fantastic benefits, they pay him a very generous salary, they respect his role as a family member outside of work.

 

I am sorry that you have such an incredibly poor view of corporations. There are some bads ones, yes. But.....goodness, EVIL......yikes.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I know 30 million may be a lot, but why is it okay for movie stars to make that and more but not a corporate exec?

 

In the case of this particular CEO, the electric company in the Baltimore area raised the price of electricity SIGNIFICANTLY -- and boy, do I mean significantly -- while at the same time raising (IIRC) this man's salary. Some people were choosing between heat and food the next winter.

 

Movie stars get paid big bucks if people voluntarily pony up the price of the ticket. If not, too bad. Their salaries are not dependent on gouging customers of a public utility.

 

Does that make sense?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Cornopean, Please forgive me!!!! :001_huh:

 

Yeah, we don't want this thread to get confused with that... other thread.

[Jennifer in NH]

In the case of this particular CEO, the electric company in the Baltimore area raised the price of electricity SIGNIFICANTLY -- and boy, do I mean significantly -- while at the same time raising (IIRC) this man's salary. Some people were choosing between heat and food the next winter.

 

Movie stars get paid big bucks if people voluntarily pony up the price of the ticket. If not, too bad. Their salaries are not dependent on gouging customers of a public utility.

 

Does that make sense?

 

It sure does! That being said, I do get annoyed when people complain about how unfair it is that this or that person makes so much money....

for the record, whether I am agreeing or disagreeing with any of you, I am enjoying this thread...not much name calling yet! so why not talk politics...

Jenny

[Melinda in VT]

Why not reduce spending? Why should people pay a higher percentage of their income to the government simply because they were financially successful? This is really a sincere question. I like to understand the "other side" of the argument because I know we all come from different experiences and I find it interesting.

 

We should absolutely reduce spending. I just think we are in a bad enough position that we need to do both--reduce spending and increase taxes.

 

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Consider the outrageous sums of money CEOs are getting in many companies these days. (Someone else mentioned that in this thread too.) I think it is fair to require those who have been more fortunate to contribute more financially. In part I think this is because I know in my own life, my success has not been totally due to my own efforts. I've been blessed with a good brain, a stable childhood, access to education, and just some lucky career breaks, to name a few things.

[Mrs Mungo]

I will never discuss politics on this board. However, I can say my dh is employed by one of the largest corporations in the US. We have absolutely fantastic benefits, they pay him a very generous salary, they respect his role as a family member outside of work.

 

I am sorry that you have such an incredibly poor view of corporations. There are some bads ones, yes. But.....goodness, EVIL......yikes.

 

My father worked for a very large corporation for 30+ years. The older CEOs retired and younger CEOs came in. They purchased 6 corporate jets and spent plenty of other money on frivolous pursuits. Once our state became a right-to-work state they fired all their union workers and moved the warehouse to a city about an hour away. They told the workers they could "apply" for jobs but then refused their applications on the basis they didn't have enough references (many of them, like my dad, had worked for them for 20 or more years and had never worked anywhere else). I'm sure from the perspective of an executive it was a great company to work for, it even made Fortune 500's list one year soon after the fiasco I describe. That has zero to do with how they treated their laborers.

 

My uncle works for a multinational company that was recently fined by Target for their use of child labor. My uncle was annoyed by it-saying the kids needed those jobs to help their families stay afloat.

 

I'm not saying *every* corporation is evil but in my opinion many of them are.