US Unemployed to Lose Benefits

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
US Unemployed to Lose Benefits

It seems that many are going to lose their benefits :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25539448

One million US jobless to lose financial aid

Job seekers attend career fair in Florida (7 November 2013)

More than a million Americans will lose their unemployment benefits after an emergency federal programme expired on Saturday.

Lawmakers failed to agree on an extension of the scheme before the US Congress began its winter recess.

Former President George W Bush introduced the assistance plan in 2008 at the start of the recession.

Under the programme, jobless people received an average monthly stipend of $1,166 for up to 73 weeks.

The White House says the benefits have kept millions of families out of poverty, but many Republicans argue that the scheme's annual $25bn price tag is too expensive.

The stalemate comes two months after a budget fight in the US Congress led to the partial shutdown of the government.

'Urgent priority'

 

resident Barack Obama has vowed to push for the renewal of the expired programme when Congress reconvenes in early January.

"The president said his administration would, as it has for several weeks now, push Congress to act promptly and in bipartisan fashion to address this urgent economic priority," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

An estimated 1.3 million people will initially be cut off with the end of the "emergency unemployment compensation", US officials say.

Millions more could be affected next year after they lose state benefits, which in many states expire after six months.

The financial aid was designed to help US citizens who lost their jobs during the recession and were unable to find new work while receiving the state benefits.

The US unemployment rate fell to a five-year low of 7% in November, according to the US Labor Department.

But the long-term jobless rate remains a problem for the economy, with some 4.1 million Americans currently out of work for six months or longer.

There has been repeated political wrangling between the Republicans, who control the lower house - the House of Representatives - and the Democrats, who have a majority in the upper house, the Senate.

Because of disagreements between the two houses over federal government spending, the US Congress failed to pass a budget before the fiscal year ended on 30 September.

Both sides eventually struck a last-gasp deal in October to end the federal shutdown and raise the federal debt limit.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Rushing to revolution

Rushing to revolution

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Rushing to

Vastet wrote:
Rushing to revolution



if only... buy me a plane ticket and have my dad's rifle waiting on the tarmac for me. we'll gut this rotten fish they call the US, from the constitution out.



"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Good, maybe employers will

Good, maybe employers will be able to start hiring people who are actually working instead of continuing to pay the bill for people who aren't. Ohio's unemployment fund is 60% below safe levels because those fuckers in the federal government decided to "help" with a few bucks and demand endless unemployment benefits. The amount the feds pay is nowhere near enough to cover the actual costs and is only a loan that has to be paid back by the states. The states which in turn pass it directly on to the employers. When you are paying the salaries of people who haven't worked (and therefore have made you no money) for a year or two, that hinders your ability to hire new employees.

Unlike politicians like to think, our pocketbooks aren't fucking bottomless. You make it more expensive to hire employees and you have less hiring. It is the most basic truism of economics, cost matters and directly effects behavior whether you are a consumer walking through a store or an employer looking for labor. And why the fuck does anyone think they should get one damn dime from anyone when they haven't worked for a fucking year? That is just sheer fucking self centered greed. It isn't that difficult to figure out something you can do to help your neighbors for a few bucks.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Catch 22's result in dead

Catch 22's result in dead rich people, so yeah it's definitely a good thing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Good,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Good, maybe employers will be able to start hiring people who are actually working instead of continuing to pay the bill for people who aren't.

Typical blame the poor bullshit. Unemployment is a TAX, when you work you pay into that, just like social security is a TAX, unemployment is not a freebee. Otherwise when you retire don't accept your social security check.

You might masturbate right now at my admission that I just lost my job. I am 47 and since I was 18 always had a job. AND in all that time the tax I paid went to unemployment. I am going to fucking take it asshole because I paid into it.

Social safety nets are not mooching. Mooching is getting tax breaks everyone else pays for without investing into the communities and workers that make them rich.

I gave 7 years of my life to my prior job, showed up on time and did MORE than I had to. The owner is the greedy fuck, not me. I got two raises under the prior owner WITHOUT asking for them. 3 years ago under the new owner my prediction came true. He gutted everyone's hours to save money despite our hard work. I know his type. Just like when I worked for Papa Johns. Just like Walmart. Just like Dish Network.

I knew 3 years ago at our first meeting that we were fucked. He started his conversation off with " Nothing is going to change", then right after that said "I want several of these" meaning xerox the place like WalMart.

IF IF IF IF IF  a business owner is ethical and not greedy, then it should not be about them. It should be about creating social stability through BETTER WAGES so that those they hire don't have to depend on the government they falsely claim are mooching off of.

 

Do not stand on those who make you rich and piss on them and blame them.

 

BETTER WAGES, MORE HOURS, MORE JOBS. NOT MORE TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY!

 

The economy we have now is a class plutocracy, not one based on a fair market and certainly not consumer driven.

 

But I will say this, IF my unemployment is approved, if it were not for my own ethics, I'd like to stick it to that FUCKER and take a long term vacation. But no, I will take it because I have bills to pay, and when someone accepts me I will take that job.

 

HE is the one crying wolf. He is the one fucking the rest of us over. He cares only about himself. He fucked me over, so to expect me to give one fuck about him. If he cared about me he would have not done what he did to me.

 

Same with food stamps. That money is actually a subsidy for  big business and it creates dependency. I am applying for it NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO FUCKWAD, but because I have to. When I get it, I will merely be the middle man, a gofer between the government and the business I hand that money ultimately over to.

IF YOU WANT ME OFF UNEMPLOYMENT AND FOOD STAMPS YOU CAN DO THAT, JUST DONT CLAIM THAT YOU WANT TO.

There are welfare queens and it is not the working class and working poor.

I AM COMPLETELY FUCKING SICK OF ASSHOLES LIKE YOU BLAMING THE POOR FOR THE POWER THE RICH HAVE OVER THEM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Typical blame

Brian37 wrote:

Typical blame the poor bullshit. Unemployment is a TAX, when you work you pay into that, just like social security is a TAX, unemployment is not a freebee. Otherwise when you retire don't accept your social security check.

The unemployment tax is not paid by the employee. It is paid directly by the employer and the amount of the tax is directly related to the amount of benefits that ex employees from that particular employer have made claims. Every employer pays a small amount, for established employers with few claims it might be as low as 0.3% here in Ohio (it is 2.7% for new employers). If you have someone sit on unemployment for a year, your rate could rise as high as 8.5% until the account assigned to the employer is back into positive territory. So while the unemployment payment comes from the government and is guaranteed by the government, those funds are recovered through the tax on the employer unless the employer goes out of business completely, at which point it is absorbed by the rest of the employers.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Brian37 wrote:

You might masturbate right now at my admission that I just lost my job. I am 47 and since I was 18 always had a job. AND in all that time the tax I paid went to unemployment. I am going to fucking take it asshole because I paid into it.

No dumbass, you did not pay into it. Your boss will pay for it next year when his experience rate is recalculated. It will come out of his pocket which may or may not influence his decision on whether to hire a replacement for you or how much he pays them.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Social safety nets are not mooching. Mooching is getting tax breaks everyone else pays for without investing into the communities and workers that make them rich.

Both are forms of looting.

 

Brian37 wrote:

I gave 7 years of my life to my prior job,

Lol, "gave"? really?  Somehow I think the day you stopped getting a paycheck would have been the same day you stopped "giving". You exchanged you labor for a regular paycheck for 7 years. You weren't "giving" shit to anyone.

Brian37 wrote:

showed up on time and did MORE than I had to. The owner is the greedy fuck, not me. I got two raises under the prior owner WITHOUT asking for them. 3 years ago under the new owner my prediction came true. He gutted everyone's hours to save money despite our hard work. I know his type. Just like when I worked for Papa Johns. Just like Walmart. Just like Dish Network.

I knew 3 years ago at our first meeting that we were fucked. He started his conversation off with " Nothing is going to change", then right after that said "I want several of these" meaning xerox the place like WalMart.

Well then you should have been looking for a job for 3 years and you wouldn't be unemployed right now. If you knew the place was being ran into the ground and knew that it was likely you would lose your job eventually, you have no one to blame but yourself for not seeking other employment or starting your own thing. It is much easier to find another job while you are employed. Frankly, the way you bitch about your boss like he is the most evil person in the world, it is amazing you have been employed this long. If even an ounce of your attitude here makes it to work, I would have canned you in a heartbeat.

 

Brian37 wrote:

IF IF IF IF IF  a business owner is ethical and not greedy, then it should not be about them. It should be about creating social stability through BETTER WAGES so that those they hire don't have to depend on the government they falsely claim are mooching off of.

 

What business is it of yours if people want to be unethical and greedy?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Same with food stamps. That money is actually a subsidy for  big business and it creates dependency.

You have been criticizing me for saying that exact thing for 6 years. Why do you support subsidies for big business? I thought you opposed that.

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am applying for it NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO FUCKWAD, but because I have to.

You don't have to. I guarandamntee there is a food pantry near where you live. No one is forcing you to sign up for anything. You want to. At least have the balls to admit it. I know you don't pay attention to what I write, but I am not anti-food stamp. I do think that you shouldn't just assume the government is the end all be all answer. Imo, it is more moral to go to a food shelf and accept charity that is voluntarily given rather than government which uses a system that is less than voluntary. That is my moral preference, but as I said before, I don't think morality is sufficient enough reason to support laws.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

IF YOU WANT ME OFF UNEMPLOYMENT AND FOOD STAMPS YOU CAN DO THAT, JUST DONT CLAIM THAT YOU WANT TO.

I wouldn't hire you if you were willing to work for $1 an hour, your attitude is shitty and I have no desire to have that kind of rancor in my organization. So since I am unwilling to offer you a job (and even if I did I would bet a lot of money that you would never relocate-if you are serious about accepting any job they are begging for people in the Dakota oil fields and are paying ridiculously high wages for everything, including restaurant jobs), there is absolutely nothing I can do to get you off of unemployment or food stamps. I could offer you advice on finding jobs, resumes, interviewing and negotiation to help you find a good job. I doubt you would pay attention to it. 

Anyway, FWIW I hope you find a new job that you actually like. It sounds like you have been miserable at your job for years and maybe getting fired will turn out to be a great thing when you find some place you like better. The short term always sucks after losing a job suddenly because of the practical realities of needing cash, but for me, getting fired was probably the best thing that ever happened because it set me down the path I am on now by forcing me out of a job I had grown complacent in.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:if you

Beyond Saving wrote:
if you are serious about accepting any job they are begging for people in the Dakota oil fields and are paying ridiculously high wages for everything, including restaurant jobs



fascinating. i don't fancy working in an oil field but when i was in my early 20s, single, just out of college, and under the influence of kerouac, i flirted with the idea of going to work on an off-shore oil rig, as far north as possible. i heard the work is brutal but they pay pretty damn well, and there's not a lot out there to eat into your salary. i was in love with the idea of weeks away from civilization, testing my limits in harsh arctic conditions, punctuated by the occasional weekend off, full of gulping down enough whiskey to kill a bull elephant, visiting whorehouses, getting in pointless fights, and waking up in alleys.


then i decided to stay in europe and get married. now i'm 31, out of shape, teaching english, with a 2 year-old son and another baby on the way. and i'm actually happy. but my mind still wanders to that fantasy oil rig occasionally...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Rushing to

Vastet wrote:
Rushing to revolution

Oh please. If all these unemployed people are so highly skilled at waging modern war(designing high tech weapons, cyberskills), they'd be able to get a job in the private sector or defense industry. I'm not shaking in my boots that people that don't get out of bed before noon then watch cable TV the rest of the day are somehow going to organize into a highly disciplined army.

If there is going to be a second American revolution, it's going to be independent minded people rebelling against intrusive government and high taxation.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet

EXC wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Rushing to revolution

Oh please. If all these unemployed people are so highly skilled at waging modern war(designing high tech weapons, cyberskills), they'd be able to get a job in the private sector or defense industry. I'm not shaking in my boots that people that don't get out of bed before noon then watch cable TV the rest of the day are somehow going to organize into a highly disciplined army.

If there is going to be a second American revolution, it's going to be independent minded people rebelling against intrusive government and high taxation.

Brainless as always, Numbers win revolutions, not weapons or training or technical toys.

And no they wouldn't be able to get a job. The private sector isn't hiring. I love how you prove how much of a clueless shit you are every time you poke your head in here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Typical blame the poor bullshit. Unemployment is a TAX, when you work you pay into that, just like social security is a TAX, unemployment is not a freebee. Otherwise when you retire don't accept your social security check.

The unemployment tax is not paid by the employee. It is paid directly by the employer and the amount of the tax is directly related to the amount of benefits that ex employees from that particular employer have made claims. Every employer pays a small amount, for established employers with few claims it might be as low as 0.3% here in Ohio (it is 2.7% for new employers). If you have someone sit on unemployment for a year, your rate could rise as high as 8.5% until the account assigned to the employer is back into positive territory. So while the unemployment payment comes from the government and is guaranteed by the government, those funds are recovered through the tax on the employer unless the employer goes out of business completely, at which point it is absorbed by the rest of the employers.

 

At a restaurant I once worked at, I recall how one of the other bussers routinely complained about the job, and how much he hated it there.  I asked him why he didn't just quit; he responded, "I want to, but they won't take me out of the computer".  He complained to me on another occasion he'd even stolen from the owners, and they still wouldn't get rid of him.  I couldn't comprehend why he wouldn't resign, or just stop coming in, if he wanted out so badly.  

As was explained to me later:  He wanted to get unemployment, for which he would only be eligible for if he was fired; not if he quit voluntarily.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It works differently here.

It works differently here. You get unemployment guaranteed if you are laid off, but if you're fired you can be denied. Depends on the reason, but the government isn't going to support you if you tried to get fired. You're more likely to get it if you quit, though you need a good reason to have done so. Not liking the job lsn't good enough.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
[quote=VastetAnd no they

Vastet wrote:

And no they wouldn't be able to get a job. The private sector isn't hiring.

Bullshit, these people don't have the skills employers want, they don't want to move or take a minimum wage job. That is why they remained unemployed.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote: And

EXC wrote:
Vastet wrote:

And no they wouldn't be able to get a job. The private sector isn't hiring.

Bullshit, these people don't have the skills employers want, they don't want to move or take a minimum wage job. That is why they remained unemployed.

Bullshit. There aren't enough jobs. Minimum wage or otherwise.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:EXC

Vastet wrote:
EXC wrote:
Bullshit, these people don't have the skills employers want, they don't want to move or take a minimum wage job. That is why they remained unemployed.
Bullshit. There aren't enough jobs. Minimum wage or otherwise.
 

When I was in school, I found it curious that on my way to campus I could encounter panhandlers -- able-bodied Americans, fluent in English, some in their 20s or 30s -- then on campus find the groundskeeping and janitorial work being done by immigrants -- Hispanics or Bosnians, with little or no fluency in English, some in their 50s.  (I don't know if any of the immigrants were illegal.)  

My question is:  How are there citizens incapable of finding work when immigrants (whether legal or not) are able to?  It stands to reason employers would prefer immigrants for menial jobs, since they will work for less pay and benefits, and have less recourse if their rights as workers are abused.  It may also be that a mandatory minimum wage prices citizens and legal immigrants out of menial jobs, and some employers will risk flouting the law to hire illegals for less than minimum wage (as Wal-Mart was caught doing).  However, it may also be that citizens can more easily avail themselves of social services, and manage to scrape by -- perhaps with some panhandling when necessary.  

My intention is not to sound elitist in raising this question.  Rather, I'm sure I'm overlooking some factors crucial to the problem, so am asking for other perspectives.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Canada doesn't have much in

Canada doesn't have much in the way of illegal immigrants because it's pretty easy to come here. So I can't really address that question. All I can address is the trend of ceo's and boards cutting wages and schedules and jobs to save money, at the cost of overall health & safety, quality of product and/or service, and employee dedication and loyalty.
A great example is the train explosion in Lac Megantic a few months ago. The assholes running the company cut positions and sallaries to save a few bucks, and as a direct result dozens of people died. The company went bankrupt but those people who were responsible are laughing it up because they still have their money and they can just buy or start a new company and do it all over again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Bullshit.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've already posted links

I've already posted links that refute your lies. I'm not going to bother repeating myself just because you have a misinformation fetish.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Canada doesn't

Vastet wrote:
Canada doesn't have much in the way of illegal immigrants because it's pretty easy to come here.

Another reason might be that Canada does not share a border with an impoverished nation.  Should the rest of the U.S. go the way of Detroit, there might be a sudden influx of ondocumented Yankee labor.

Quote:
All I can address is the trend of ceo's and boards cutting wages and schedules and jobs to save money, at the cost of overall health & safety, quality of product and/or service, and employee dedication and loyalty. A great example is the train explosion in Lac Megantic a few months ago. The assholes running the company cut positions and sallaries to save a few bucks, and as a direct result dozens of people died. The company went bankrupt but those people who were responsible are laughing it up because they still have their money and they can just buy or start a new company and do it all over again.
 

That is of course a problem, but I don't know what a good solution would be.  Increased government involvement isn't a guaranteed fix; just as eaily as CEO's can compromise safety/quality to save a few bucks,  officials can be persuaded by a few bucks to overlook violations.  Furthermore, consumers may still go with the cheapest price, regardless of what corners were cut in order to provide it.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A giant leap in the right

A giant leap in the right direction would be removing personhood from corporations. So when something hideous happens you can sue and/or imprison the people who made the decisions instead of being forced to pursue a dissolved and bankrupt corporation.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I've already

Vastet wrote:
I've already posted links that refute your lies. I'm not going to bother repeating myself just because you have a misinformation fetish.

Yes. Everyone is lying except the you and the Occupy Wall Street types.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:A giant leap in

Vastet wrote:
A giant leap in the right direction would be removing personhood from corporations. So when something hideous happens you can sue and/or imprison the people who made the decisions instead of being forced to pursue a dissolved and bankrupt corporation.

Corporate personhood has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people making decisions can be held criminally or civilly liable for any of their actions. What revoking corporate personhood would do, is make it impossible to sue a corporation (legally you can only sue or be sued by a person); for example, if a company was dumping sewage into a river you would be unable to sue the corporation, you could only sue the individuals that you could prove were involved with and aware of the action. It would allow corporations to easily scapegoat low level employees, who have no assets to sue for anyway, while protecting the assets of the corporation at large. Large corporations routinely make settlements and are sued for the negligence of low level employees, at amounts that are significantly higher than that employee makes.

The idea that removing corporate personhood would somehow harm big corporations and hold corporate big wigs' feet to the fire is a ridiculous fiction believed by leftists who are completely ignorant of how law works. The only immediate drawback for corporations would be that it would remove their first amendment rights to free speech and donate money for political purposes. (It would also remove the free speech rights for organizations like unions, ACLU, NRA, Greenpeace and any other group of people that formally band together for any purpose) In short, it would make free speech essentially meaningless for anyone who doesn't have enough money to personally fund massive advertising as an individual.

There is absolutely nothing in the law that protects a person from being sued or imprisoned for their personal actions just because they belong to a corporation, and several have. The most notable example right now is the case against Flying J, while the corporation itself settled by paying $85 million, the government has pursued criminal cases against many of its executives and is currently investigating Haslam, who of course denies knowing what was going on. So far, 10 high level executives have plea bargained and are cooperating with investigators. It is becoming increasingly likely that the government is going to build enough evidence to get an indictment against Haslam. Whether they can get enough to get a guilty verdict will remain to be seen. Even billionaires get to have a trial and are innocent until proven guilty.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:I've

EXC wrote:
Vastet wrote:
I've already posted links that refute your lies. I'm not going to bother repeating myself just because you have a misinformation fetish.

Yes. Everyone is lying except the you and the Occupy Wall Street types.

No, just you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:
Corporate personhood has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people making decisions can be held criminally or civilly liable for any of their actions.

Bullshit. In the example you give, every person in a position of authority in the waste disposal division of a company all the way up to the CEO is automatically responsible. All you have to do is prove the company is spewing sewage into a river.

Beyond Saving wrote:
What revoking corporate personhood would do, is make it impossible to sue a corporation

It's already one step short of impossible to sue a corporation. And it is the people running the corporation (including shareholders), not the corporation itself, that should be liable when it is those people who are responsible. Why should janitors, secretaries, and line workers shoulder the blame of the rich assholes who made the decisions? You say it would allow management to scapegoat low level employees, but in fact that's the way things are now. If a company gets sued successfully it is the general labourers who see jobs and hours cut back. The CEO still gets his pay and his bonus, except in the rare circumstance when a CEO actually accepts responsibility and willingly takes a cut.

The idea that removing corporate personhood would only hurt the little guy is a ridiculous fiction perpetrated by right wing nut jobs who don't know the definition of responsibility. And so what if corporations and unions don't get free speech or the ability to lobby government? Unions are practically dead anyway, and there are altogether far too many special interest groups pulling the governments chain, nullifying the presumption of democracy. And it would hardly effect them anyway. The people in those organisations are still people, still have free speech, and still would have the ability to pool resources.

Beyond Saving wrote:
There is absolutely nothing in the law that protects a person from being sued or imprisoned for their personal actions just because they belong to a corporation, and several have.

And far more haven't been, because you have to prove the person in question was directly responsible, when in fact responsibility automatically comes with authority.

If you run a company that's breaking the law, you're a criminal. It's your job to make sure the people under you are doing their jobs within the bounds of the law. And usually when they aren't it's because you want it that way. If not you are grossly negligent and incompetent and should face the consequences.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Bullshit. In

Vastet wrote:

Bullshit. In the example you give, every person in a position of authority in the waste disposal division of a company all the way up to the CEO is automatically responsible. All you have to do is prove the company is spewing sewage into a river.

Which is precisely what corporate personhood does, it allows you to sue the people who own stock in the company by suing the company and therefore all of them, even if the person who owns the company does not participate in the operation of it at all (which is the case in most large corporations). Without corporate personhood, you would have a hard time proving in court that someone who doesn't even have an office in the company and collects no salary had anything to do with it. Not to mention the complete impracticality of suing hundreds of separate people.  

 

Vastet wrote:

It's already one step short of impossible to sue a corporation. And it is the people running the corporation (including shareholders), not the corporation itself, that should be liable when it is those people who are responsible. Why should janitors, secretaries, and line workers shoulder the blame of the rich assholes who made the decisions? You say it would allow management to scapegoat low level employees, but in fact that's the way things are now. If a company gets sued successfully it is the general labourers who see jobs and hours cut back. The CEO still gets his pay and his bonus, except in the rare circumstance when a CEO actually accepts responsibility and willingly takes a cut.

When a corporation pays a lawsuit, where do you think the money comes from? It cuts into the profits of all of the shareholders. And yes, that often means that those shareholders have less money to pay employees. Where the fuck do you think money to pay employees comes from? It comes from the pool that is owned by the corporation-ergo all the share holders. When you have less money, you hire fewer people.

CEOs often (almost always) get fired whenever stock performance is poor, even if there are strong arguments that it isn't their fault. Turnover for CEOs is high, the average tenure of a CEO is under 6 years, not very long for a job that you have probably worked 30+ years to get and some CEOs have held the job for less than a day. It isn't a job where you sit on your laurels and rake in the dough for decades.

Stock performance is directly tied to the size of profits and a large lawsuit almost always hurts profits. BP for example fired Tony Hayward (without a bonus) and everyone closely associated with him after the oil spill. The corporation itself still has not recovered its stock price 4 years later. Everyone who owns stock in BP lost money, from Brian37's mom to Blackrock. 

 

Vastet wrote:

The people in those organisations are still people, still have free speech, and still would have the ability to pool resources.

Only if you break a significant number of tax laws. Suppose RRS decided we wanted to run an advertisement, so we start collecting money. I can give Brian up to $14,000 as a gift. Anything beyond that, I have to pay 40% tax on it, even if I am giving him the money solely for the purposes of buying advertisements in my name. Even Brian accepting smaller gifts could run into trouble with the IRS when you start getting into significant money. The IRS is aware of and polices people who try to work and claim all their customers are giving them "gifts". Unless we register as a corporation, in that case, me giving money to Brian is giving money to myself and thus no tax liability and Brian is the person vested with the responsibility of determining how the money is spent. Additionally, trying to do any political activity as an individual while receiving donations from others without being a legal corporation runs you into numerous campaign finance laws. You could physically do it, but it would be illegal.

All a corporation is, is a group of people joining together for a specific purpose and appointing individuals with the power to act on their behalf. So if we form the RRS corporation, I am giving Brian legal authority over any money I put in the corporation and am therefore legally liable for whatever Brian does with that money. As opposed to if I give him a gift, I have no legal tie whatsoever to however Brian decides to spend his money- because it is his, not ours. Legal personhood is nothing more than the recognition that individuals do not lose their legal rights, or responsibilities just because they decide to work as a group.  

 

Vastet wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
There is absolutely nothing in the law that protects a person from being sued or imprisoned for their personal actions just because they belong to a corporation, and several have.
And far more haven't been, because you have to prove the person in question was directly responsible, when in fact responsibility automatically comes with authority. If you run a company that's breaking the law, you're a criminal. It's your job to make sure the people under you are doing their jobs within the bounds of the law. And usually when they aren't it's because you want it that way. If not you are grossly negligent and incompetent and should face the consequences.

The same can be said of any law. Only about 60% of murderers are caught and that is assuming that every person arrested is actually guilty, which we know isn't true. An even smaller percentage is ever convicted and we know that not everyone convicted is guilty. People break the law all the time and get away with it. That is as true for corporations as it is for individuals.

To some extent, supervisors are held liable for gross negligence. It isn't an easy thing to prove, especially in a large corporation where things are so bureaucratic that a person one or two levels up cannot possibly know everything that is happening. Should we impeach Obama because of the IRS office in Cincinnatti that was clearly breaking the law? Just because he is the executive and he "runs" the IRS? Some people have suggested it, but clearly, it is ridiculous to believe that he knew anything at all about what was going on. No single human can know everything happening in a bureaucracy that large, it is physically impossible. If you can show that anyone in management knew illegal activites were happening, encouraged them or commanded them, then you have a case for criminal prosecution. And there is absolutely nothing in the current law or about corporate personhood that would prevent that criminal case. If you removed corporate personhood overnight, it would not make it any easier to pursue a lawsuit against an executive. It would make it substantially harder to recover anything from absentee shareholders.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Which is

Beyond Saving wrote:
Which is precisely what corporate personhood does, it allows you to sue the people who own stock in the company by suing the company and therefore all of them, even if the person who owns the company does not participate in the operation of it at all (which is the case in most large corporations).

Not true. When you sue a company, all expenses are the company's. Noone on the board, no ceo, and no manager spends a single penny on lawyers or fees or settlements or decisions by the court. The company bankroll pays for all of it. If the company bankroll can't, the company declares bankruptcy and the criminals walk away scot free.
The only time any actual person spends a penny is if that person is sued directly. And even then the company usually steps in on their behalf.

Beyond Saving wrote:
When a corporation pays a lawsuit, where do you think the money comes from? It cuts into the profits of all of the shareholders.

Potential profits. Until a shareholder is actually paid all he has is a piece of paper. It doesn't actually COST them anything at all.
And a fired ceo often (almost always) gets a huge severance package and finds a new position in a few weeks or less.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Only if you break a significant number of tax laws. etc.

Only if tax laws remain as they are. Something you and I both think shouldn't be, albeit for different reasons in some cases.

Beyond Saving wrote:
The same can be said of any law. Only about 60% of murderers are caught and that is assuming that every person arrested is actually guilty, which we know isn't true. An even smaller percentage is ever convicted and we know that not everyone convicted is guilty. People break the law all the time and get away with it. That is as true for corporations as it is for individuals.

There is a massive difference in scale. No single individual can cause as much harm to as many people as a company can. Which is part of why allowing corporations to have personhood is ludicrous. Even the most capable thieves and murderers can't hold a candle to a corporation.

Beyond Saving wrote:
To some extent, supervisors are held liable for gross negligence. It isn't an easy thing to prove, especially in a large corporation where things are so bureaucratic that a person one or two levels up cannot possibly know everything that is happening.

They don't have to know everything that is happening. All they have to do is ensure the people directly under them are doing their jobs, legally. If someone at the very bottom is breaking the law, then his supervisor isn't doing his job. Which means HIS supervisor isn't doing his job. Which means HIS supervisor isn't doing his job. All the way to the top of the ladder. They are all responsible and all liable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
Which is precisely what corporate personhood does, it allows you to sue the people who own stock in the company by suing the company and therefore all of them, even if the person who owns the company does not participate in the operation of it at all (which is the case in most large corporations).
Not true. When you sue a company, all expenses are the company's. Noone on the board, no ceo, and no manager spends a single penny on lawyers or fees or settlements or decisions by the court. The company bankroll pays for all of it. If the company bankroll can't, the company declares bankruptcy and the criminals walk away scot free. The only time any actual person spends a penny is if that person is sued directly. And even then the company usually steps in on their behalf.

And who does that pool of money being used by the corporation belong to?

 

Vastet wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
When a corporation pays a lawsuit, where do you think the money comes from? It cuts into the profits of all of the shareholders.
Potential profits. Until a shareholder is actually paid all he has is a piece of paper. It doesn't actually COST them anything at all. And a fired ceo often (almost always) gets a huge severance package and finds a new position in a few weeks or less.

The loss is still a cost, and often greater than whatever fine the corporation pays when their stock price drops, since the net worth of a company is usually much higher than its assets. It is real cash that belongs legally to everyone who owns stock in the corporation and can be dispersed in full or in part whenever the board decides to do so. To say it isn't real is no different than claiming that cash isn't real because until you actually trade it for goods or services, it is only a piece of paper.

 

Vastet wrote:

There is a massive difference in scale. No single individual can cause as much harm to as many people as a company can. Which is part of why allowing corporations to have personhood is ludicrous. Even the most capable thieves and murderers can't hold a candle to a corporation.

By far the most devastating force in the history of the world is governments. Even corporations can't hold a candle to them. Does that mean we should eliminate government? Yes, groups of people are capable of greater harm than individuals. They are also capable of greater good, which is why we organize into them in the first place. 

 

Vastet wrote:

 They don't have to know everything that is happening. All they have to do is ensure the people directly under them are doing their jobs, legally. If someone at the very bottom is breaking the law, then his supervisor isn't doing his job. Which means HIS supervisor isn't doing his job. Which means HIS supervisor isn't doing his job. All the way to the top of the ladder. They are all responsible and all liable.

So are you therefore responsible anytime a government official breaks a law? After all, his supervisor is responsible, and his supervisor all the way to the top dog who appointed the head of the department, who was in turn selected by you through your vote. Your idea of liability is completely fucked up and ultimately impossible to implement. Every company would have to spy a ridiculous amount on all of their employees and control their employees lives at an absolutely tyrannical level to have any kind of confidence that none of their employees were breaking the law. You are suggesting creating an absolute police state by deputizing employers as the police.

For my appraisal company, my employees are required to drive rather long distances. They do this on the clock and are reimbursed for the expenses. Suppose one of my employees decides to get drunk at lunch and then drives for work purposes, gets in an accident and kills someone. Should I, as their employer and supervisor of the supervisor, be charged with negligent manslaughter? I certainly didn't tell them to drink, in fact if I knew I'd have fired them on the spot and done everything in my power to avoid paying unemployment.

Under your idea of liability, I would have to put breathlyzers on every single one of my employees cars and a governor to prevent them from speeding. I might put a GPS tracker on their cars because it is the only way I could ensure they were obeying traffic laws that I am going to potentially face criminal charges if they break. Even then I would have no guarantee. Personally, I would probably get out of the hiring business completely, because I don't want to go to jail for the actions of someone else. Anyone who did hire would certainly be far more choosy about who they employ. Anyone with a traffic violation would have a hard time finding an employer, which seems at odds with your original appraisal of the problem that there are not enough jobs.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:And who

Beyond Saving wrote:
And who does that pool of money being used by the corporation belong to?

Investors.

Beyond Saving wrote:
The loss is still a cost

No, it isn't.

cost [kawst, kost]
noun
1.
the price paid to acquire, produce, accomplish, or maintain anything: the high cost of a good meal.
2.
an outlay or expenditure of money, time, labor, trouble, etc.: What will the cost be to me?
3.
a sacrifice, loss, or penalty: to work at the cost of one's health.
4.
costs, Law.
a.
money allowed to a successful party in a lawsuit in compensation for legal expenses incurred, chargeable to the unsuccessful party.
b.
money due to a court or one of its officers for services in a cause.
verb (used with object), cost or for 10, costed; costing.
5.
to require the payment of (money or something else of value) in an exchange: That camera cost $200.
6.
to result in or entail the loss of: Carelessness costs lives.
7.
to cause to lose or suffer: The accident cost her a broken leg.
8.
to entail (effort or inconvenience): Courtesy costs little.
9.
to cause to pay or sacrifice: That request will cost us two weeks' extra work.

I don't see anything about potential income being lost in the definition of cost. Quite the opposite.Cost is an immediate effect, not a delayed effect on imaginary numbers that haven't been realised.

Beyond Saving wrote:
By far the most devastating force in the history of the world is governments. Even corporations can't hold a candle to them. Does that mean we should eliminate government? Yes, groups of people are capable of greater harm than individuals. They are also capable of greater good, which is why we organize into them in the first place.

Last I checked, governments don't have personhood. I'm not suggesting the elimination of corporations, I'm suggesting the elimination of rights they enjoy that they have no business having. I can't punch Walmart in the face. I can't rape Radioshack. I can't kill McDonalds.

Corporations are NOT people. Period. They have no business being treated as if they were. Period.

Beyond Saving wrote:
So are you therefore responsible anytime a government official breaks a law?

Ultimately yes. Where do you think governments get the money to pay out when they get sued? That's right! From taxpayers.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Your idea of liability is completely fucked up and ultimately impossible to implement.

Bullshit.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Every company would have to spy a ridiculous amount on all of their employees and control their employees lives at an absolutely tyrannical level to have any kind of confidence that none of their employees were breaking the law.

Bullshit. If an employee smokes crack at home or goes around breaking windows then the company has nothing to do with it. Employing a criminal isn't a crime.
All a company has to worry about is what their employees do at work. Literally at work. Not smoking a joint while at work, but their work at work.
And they already do that anyway.They'd just have to actually do it by law instead of inconsistently applied corporate decree.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
And who does that pool of money being used by the corporation belong to?
Investors.

Exactly. So the investors lose money, just like you want. 

 

Vastet wrote:

I don't see anything about potential income being lost in the definition of cost. Quite the opposite.Cost is an immediate effect, not a delayed effect on imaginary numbers that haven't been realised.

Nonsense. Many of the things in the definition you provided are delayed or things yet to be realized. And many of the things specified in your definition are necessarily things in the future, such as time, health, lives or "two weeks extra work". But that is pointless because the cost in this case is not future profits. The cost is to the immediate assets of the corporation. Which as you pointed out above belong to the investors. So any time the corporation spends from those assets, it is a real and immediate cost to the investors. Whether they intended to use those funds for profits, expansion, day to day operations or a party in Vegas are irrelevant. Those funds are gone and can no longer be used for other purposes, purposes that would be determined by the investors or more often agents acting on behalf of the investors.   

 

Vastet wrote:

Last I checked, governments don't have personhood. I'm not suggesting the elimination of corporations, I'm suggesting the elimination of rights they enjoy that they have no business having. I can't punch Walmart in the face. I can't rape Radioshack. I can't kill McDonalds. Corporations are NOT people. Period. They have no business being treated as if they were. Period.

You need to check again. Government entities are granted the same legal personhood that corporations are on a regular basis. So are estates, trusts, partnerships and even northern spotted owls have been granted legal personhood. http://elr.info/litigation/%5Bfield_article_volume-raw%5D/20277/northern-spotted-owl-v-hodel

Corporations are groups of people. You could kill McDonalds, it is a hell of a lot of people to kill, but every single share holder of McDonalds is a person (well maybe a few dogs, sometimes rich crazies give their estates to their pooch, but you can kill dogs too). Maybe you aren't skilled enough to do so and I certainly hope you aren't psychotic enough to do it. You could go around and sucker punch every owner of Walmart too if you had the time and means to track all those people down.

Legal personhood is nothing but a convenient fiction so that laws that say "person(s)" apply to entities that are not precisely people. Both to allow them to prosecute and so that they can be prosecuted. In the US, that means that certain Constitutional rights also apply, although not all of them. A corporation cannot plead the fifth for example because they are considered a public entity with no right to privacy. 

 

Vastet wrote:

Bullshit. If an employee smokes crack at home or goes around breaking windows then the company has nothing to do with it. Employing a criminal isn't a crime. All a company has to worry about is what their employees do at work. Literally at work. Not smoking a joint while at work, but their work at work. And they already do that anyway.They'd just have to actually do it by law instead of inconsistently applied corporate decree.

What about my scenario of the drunk worker causing an accident while at work? Am I liable? If so, how do you justify that, and if not, then what fucking difference is that from the way the law is now? Because right now, my corporation would face civil charges, since the worker as a representative of my corporation caused an accident. My liability insurance would pay the claim, I fire the worker and he/she presumably faces criminal charges from the state and that is the end for me.

It is no different if I am me or Walmart, except that I might be more inclined to put more time into fighting for a lower settlement than a larger corporation. But either way, personally I am not liable for civil or criminal charges- my impression of your argument is that you are saying I should be. If my corporation goes bankrupt because I don't have insurance or enough money, my personal assets outside the corporation are safe. 

Now, on the other hand, suppose an employee was in the office obviously intoxicated and I sent them out to drive on company business. Now, not only does my corporation face charges, but I can- and likely will- face a personal civil lawsuit. Whether or not criminal charges can be pressed is more dicey and depends on the state. In some states you can be found criminally liable for not preventing a drunk person from driving, others have no such law. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Exactly.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Exactly. So the investors lose money, just like you want. 

Nope. You can't lose what you don't have.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Nonsense. Many of the things in the definition you provided are delayed or things yet to be realized.

Rubbish. ot one single thing.

Beyond Saving wrote:
And many of the things specified in your definition are necessarily things in the future, such as time, health, lives or "two weeks extra work".

None of which is potential, all of which is immediate and measurable.

Beyond Saving wrote:
You need to check again

No I don't.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Corporations are groups of people. You could kill McDonalds, it is a hell of a lot of people to kill, but every single share holder of McDonalds is a person (well maybe a few dogs, sometimes rich crazies give their estates to their pooch, but you can kill dogs too). Maybe you aren't skilled enough to do so and I certainly hope you aren't psychotic enough to do it. You could go around and sucker punch every owner of Walmart too if you had the time and means to track all those people down.

Ridiculous. Killing the people who own McDonalds isn't killing McDonalds. McDonalds isn't alive. Your tenuous grasp on reality has slipped beyond repair. Clearly you don't have the faculties for this conversation.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
Exactly. So the investors lose money, just like you want. 
Nope. You can't lose what you don't have.
Beyond Saving wrote:
Nonsense. Many of the things in the definition you provided are delayed or things yet to be realized.
Rubbish. ot one single thing.
Beyond Saving wrote:
And many of the things specified in your definition are necessarily things in the future, such as time, health, lives or "two weeks extra work".
None of which is potential, all of which is immediate and measurable.
Beyond Saving wrote:
You need to check again
No I don't.
Beyond Saving wrote:
Corporations are groups of people. You could kill McDonalds, it is a hell of a lot of people to kill, but every single share holder of McDonalds is a person (well maybe a few dogs, sometimes rich crazies give their estates to their pooch, but you can kill dogs too). Maybe you aren't skilled enough to do so and I certainly hope you aren't psychotic enough to do it. You could go around and sucker punch every owner of Walmart too if you had the time and means to track all those people down.
Ridiculous. Killing the people who own McDonalds isn't killing McDonalds. McDonalds isn't alive. Your tenuous grasp on reality has slipped beyond repair. Clearly you don't have the faculties for this conversation.

I'll take your complete inability to address even a single one of my points as a concession. *wins*

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X