Monday, February 28, 2011

Bail out versus corporate welfare, which is most appealing?

Bail sounds very fitting, considering that at last night's Oscars, the winner for the documentary, "Inside Job," questioned why the financial executives were not in jail. The financial executives should be in jail and they should be released in the monetary amount of bail that they received from the bail out funds.  I have a feeling that won't be happening. It is logical, it is consistant with the justice system, but there is always an exception to the rule and corporations are usually the exception. The corporations' indiscretion shows their influence over the government and sometimes makes me question if they are running the government. That previous statement conjures memories of Halliburton and Cheney. . . 

It is all in the language that we use. A corporation receives "bail out funds" but let us instead use the term welfare. Because, in reality, that is what is happening. Corporations file bankruptcy and receive welfare paid by courtesy of the American taxpayers. I have often heard people complain about the welfare recipients being supported by their tax dollars, but I have heard very few complain about the corporations doing it. These corporations fare very well, indeed. So well, in fact, that they make huge profits and fail to repay the money.  Some, such as Bank of America, don't even pay taxes. How is this legal? Corporations are some of the most heavily protected entities under the law. Yes, they function better than being a human being. I have considered becoming incorporated myself and that way, I can receive money and not be stigmatized for being on welfare, but rather, filing bankruptcy in my corporation's name. I would not do that because I have integrity.

The teachers and other social assests to the nation are suffering. Why are they not receiving money? (Does taxation without representation sound familiar? Bingo!) I want them to fare well more than any large company. The most famous social asset, who was a welfare to billions story in the UK, is J.K. Rowling. She was a single mother on welfare and she wrote the Harry Potter series and reversed her social conditions. Rowling got children and people of all ages to read. I would see people of all ages reading thick her books. If the corporations had such a positive impact on society, I would not have an issue with them receiving money, but when it is reported how much their CEO and other top employees are paid, I wonder what is their contribution to society.

The corporations have greedily taken too much of the public's money. It is time to resuscitate the areas in the most need. The people in Wisconsin and other U.S. states are appealing to the government for what they need. The protests in other countries seem to be effective, but do we have people power anymore? Or do we have to be a corporation in order to receive money?

No comments:

Post a Comment