It's a byproduct forced upon them against their will. There is something called a B corporation that actually takes the public good into consideration when making decisions, and it is part of how they do business. I'm speaking of intentions.
Instead of just destroying the environment without regard for the future, the B corporation takes pollution and climate change into consideration, along with their employees.
So yes, the typical American corporation would NOT exist if the greedy robber barons could not make a substantial amount of money from them. How many times have conservatives claimed that corporations exist SOLELY to make a profit, and everything else is simply a byproduct? Countless.
I'm arguing that all corporations should be B types. Are you seriously trying to argue that the regular American corporation's main INTENTIONS are not just to make a profit? Most are not Bs. If corporate taxes were lowered to 0, there would be no public good for them to consider. B corporations would STILL take the public good into account, even if we all only paid 5% in income taxes.
The intention of a typical corporation is to increase profits, and the intentions of a B corporation are not necessarily against profits, but they also don't act as though the lives of human beings do not matter. Public good is part and parcel of how they do business.
So you are right that there are corporations who do exist without the main intention being private gain, but these are the Bs.
And in case it's not obvious, the Law (one of the laws, this being the foremost) that I'd do away with is the inhumane, criminal-based one that says a woman has the right to MURDER an innocent child just because it's in her womb.
Men's rights are already being stomped on. Have been ever since women decided the father of his AND her unborn child has no say in whether that child lives or dies. So much for your supposed fighting for fair civil rights.
"More kids for black-market babies, selling on the foster-care child-line, drug mules, child-prostitution and satanic sacrifices. Way to go Cons!!"
Really?? 50+ MILLION babies have been killed in this country because of "choice" so I'll take the risk of having bad things happen kids before just killing them! OH! and Last time I checked, If it has a heartbeat, IT'S ALIVE!
And yea it sucks there are GAY priests in the Catholic church doing those horrible things. On the other hand though, you'll never hear about the other gay ministers in other religons doing the same thing.. HMMMM wierd!!!
POCATELLO, Idaho - An Idaho woman arrested for inducing her own abortion is taking her case to federal court. Jennie Linn McCormack was charged last year under an obscure Idaho law for ending her pregnancy with RU-486. She joins an increasing number of women who get the so-called abortion pill off the internet.
I like the idea of legalizing all drugs,regulate and tax them like cigarettes,this would be the huge revenue investment we need and would eliminate cartels and drug lords. It would also free up a lot of room in over crowded prisons.
Very good point Tammy. Plus, I think the drug lifestyle would lose a lot of appeal to younger kids. Especially when they wouldn't have to hangout with the shady people to get their drugs. Less kids would get tempted or pulled into the hard stuff.
I could kind of get behind marijuana because I favor taxing things I don't do, but I really don't know about the harder stuff. Their addicts tend not to function well as productive citizens, so I think the tax revenue boost would be short-lived.
I'm with you on that. I'm more apprehensive about the addictive drugs. Maybe we could make them legal, and then require background checks to get them. Also, there would be a limit on how many a person could get in month.
This might just leave the black market going though.
Why would the pot statement be a joke? It's actually a very good idea with many good reasons. Even a lot of people who are straight edge or don't smoke it agree it should be legalized. There haven't been any bad scientific studies on it, and the only downfall would be that smoking it is like smoking a TON of cigarettes, but still safer since it's free of those disgusting chemicals.
Now if people would EAT it instead, that just completely bypasses the above issue with smoke.
"Marla Tipping's 14-year-old son Cam has to have his blood cleaned every two weeks. He has a rare condition that makes his body produce too much cholesterol.
Tipping says her family has had "to be absolutely vigilant in never having a lapse in coverage ... because many carriers would never carry you with a preexisting condition again."
That was the case before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Now, children like Cam cannot be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. (Similar protections for adults are set to start in 2014.) While Tipping says she and her husband still pay between twenty and twenty-five thousand dollars out of pocket every year for costs their insurance won't cover, the ACA at least guarantees that they'll be able to find some kind of policy for Cam, even if they are forced to leave their current plan.
Likewise, Stacie Ritter, a mother who participated in protests supporting the ACA's passage, no longer has to worry if her twins, who have a rare form of leukemia, will be denied coverage if they have to change insurance providers.
"This law protects them from being discriminated against if my husband lost his job," Ritter says. "Right now what's protecting us is the fact that my girls can't be discriminated against, we don't have to fear that we don’t have access to insurance. That's a really scary thought if the law is repealed."
I am glad that these people find comfort and support from the law. But if we allow the mandate to stand, what choices will the government strip from us next? If our senators and representatives sign another bill to find out what is in it, what will we be forced to swallow next? For the moment the people you talk about are getting the help they need. What happens to them when the bean counters decide that the treatments have been going on too long with no discernible improvement, making the expenditure to great and suspend the coverage as not cost effective? Where will they turn? When we, as citizens, allow the government to take away our freedom to choose what we want to buy, we have in effect turned our lives over to them. We will have lost our freedom.
"Margaret Atwood warned us in The Handmaid's Tale:
Commonly referred to as the “fetal pain bill” by Georgian Republicans and as the “women as livestock bill” by everyone else, HB 954 garnered national attention this month when state Rep. Terry England (R-Auburn) compared pregnant women carrying stillborn fetuses to the cows and pigs on his farm. According to Rep. England and his warped thought process, if farmers have to “deliver calves, dead or alive,” then a woman carrying a dead fetus, or one not expected to survive, should have to carry it to term"
Even if Terry England HAD made a bad comparison, it would've been NO worse than the liberals' comparison of a fetus to a useless PARASITE. But he didn't make a bad comparison.
And once again it looks like you've inserted paranoia into the assessment of a Republican's words.
I watched a video of England's words, and he was simply trying to simplify the intent of the proposed Bill. He was saying that since compassion is felt and shown for EVEN ANIMALS, then much more compassion and recognition of LIFE should be shown for HUMAN BEINGS!
He even explains this on his webpage. (He shouldn't even HAVE TO explain it, and if people would actually listen and read without jumping the gun and immediately jumping on a Representative because he's CONSERVATIVE, then there would be no controversy.)
NOBODY but YOU, lovemychris, and liberal-agenda-activists, are saying that the Bill means Republicans want to make women carry DEAD fetuses to term. Some people are just determined to blow everything out of proportion because they want to be able to KILL unborn babies.
Most corporations are owned by stockholders, who are people. 401Ks grow from investing in corporations. Major charities benefit a great deal from corporations. Most major charities are corporations themselves. Corporations to my knowledge take money from us on a schedule as does the government. Do corporations fire people? yes does government fire people? yes. Do investors thrive when the corporation grows? Yes, dividends increase, jobs increase. Do people thrive when the government grows? No, taxes increase to cover the increased cost. What is wrong with corporations.
Oh..and as long as that egg can't live without its host....the Host is the one that matters.
Feel freee to offer your wombs to be host Brenda and jane...that would be walking the walk.....after all--If you are going to demand your ideology be law of the land....that fetus is your responsibilty. IMO
Abolish Obamacare that has anything to do with corporate health insurance. Instead, instate universal health care, with a low copay (free for indigent patients) for all US citizens. Corporate health insurance would be seperate from government health care and can used for non-emergancy or life/limb threatening injuries and illness where the patient would be on a waiting list, i.e. old high school football injury.