On Dec 12, 10:36*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:53:20 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog







wrote:
On Dec 12, 5:23 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:53:18 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog

wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:14 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:02:08 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog

wrote:

In striking contrast, General Electric, the American industrial giant
and Siemens competitor, is looking out for its shareholders by granting
its second dividend of the year. They've gotta do something with that
$20 billion in cash they have laying around. GE will make about $7
billion in profits this year, but about $3 billion of that it is from
the bank it owns, GE Capital. That would be the same GE Capital bailed
out by the taxpayers. CEO Jeffery Immelt will collect a salary of about
$10 million, choosing for the second year to forego a huge bonus..
Meanwhile, GE is demanding Massachusetts pay them $25 million to keep a
factory open.

Speaking of General Electric and their motive for extorting funds
from Massachusetts while in a sucking for survival mode. Lets take a
look at who is at the helm. The article is a year and a half out of
date, however not much has changed with the corporation's leadership.

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker20.html

"This brief look at GE's boardroom clearly demonstrates that
representatives of the world's leading liberal philanthropies have no
qualms in maintaining intimate and profitable links to a leading
corporation in the US's military-industrial complex. Such a revelation
should give progressive activists much food for thought.

Rather than being a haven for warmongers, GE could be more accurately
described as a haven for well known liberal funders. Moreover, many of
the liberal foundations that GE board members have connections with
actually fund the most influential parts of the antiwar movement
within the United States. This is a problematic situation for
activists intent on bringing the military-industrial-media-foundation
complex to its knees. However, to date it is an issue that has rarely
been broached by the peace movement. This must change and liberal
foundation funding must be raised as an agenda item at future antiwar
meetings.?

So, in summation, big corporations do not have the best interest of
the United States in mind. They care one and only about profits.

That is your summation, D'Plume.

What about it do your find in error Mr. Dog?

Very little actually, however your summation gives quite a glimmer of
negativity. Profit is not a bad thing. All must work on a profit.
Hourly wage earners make a profit.

My summation was neither positive nor negative. I was stating fact.
Big corporations (for profit) don't care about the country except when
the country forces them to care either through regulation or
litigation.

All work doesn't have to be for profit, since there are many
non-profits that have existed for quite a while.

Now what is considered a 'fair' or an 'obscene' profit is yet to be or
never determined. What seems fair to one may be obscene to another.



Is it ok to recklessly spill toxins into the community
water supply in the name of profit without regulation?

Not at all. I never said there was, nor implied there should be.




However low, chances are there is still a profit.

Sometimes, but not always. There are many examples of lost-leader
sales and dumping isn't uncommon to gain market share.

And there is still a profit. the lost-leader as you say will be given
away at nearly or even below cost to attract shoppers to purchase
other conveniences at regular or inflated pricing. Thanksgiving
turkeys are a great example. Give away the turkey to sell more
supporting foods at regular prices.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 21:30:01 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:36*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:53:20 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog







wrote:
On Dec 12, 5:23 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:53:18 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog

wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:14 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:02:08 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog

wrote:

In striking contrast, General Electric, the American industrial giant
and Siemens competitor, is looking out for its shareholders by granting
its second dividend of the year. They've gotta do something with that
$20 billion in cash they have laying around. GE will make about $7
billion in profits this year, but about $3 billion of that it is from
the bank it owns, GE Capital. That would be the same GE Capital bailed
out by the taxpayers. CEO Jeffery Immelt will collect a salary of about
$10 million, choosing for the second year to forego a huge bonus.
Meanwhile, GE is demanding Massachusetts pay them $25 million to keep a
factory open.

Speaking of General Electric and their motive for extorting funds
from Massachusetts while in a sucking for survival mode. Lets take a
look at who is at the helm. The article is a year and a half out of
date, however not much has changed with the corporation's leadership.

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker20.html

"This brief look at GE's boardroom clearly demonstrates that
representatives of the world's leading liberal philanthropies have no
qualms in maintaining intimate and profitable links to a leading
corporation in the US's military-industrial complex. Such a revelation
should give progressive activists much food for thought.

Rather than being a haven for warmongers, GE could be more accurately
described as a haven for well known liberal funders. Moreover, many of
the liberal foundations that GE board members have connections with
actually fund the most influential parts of the antiwar movement
within the United States. This is a problematic situation for
activists intent on bringing the military-industrial-media-foundation
complex to its knees. However, to date it is an issue that has rarely
been broached by the peace movement. This must change and liberal
foundation funding must be raised as an agenda item at future antiwar
meetings.?

So, in summation, big corporations do not have the best interest of
the United States in mind. They care one and only about profits.

That is your summation, D'Plume.

What about it do your find in error Mr. Dog?

Very little actually, however your summation gives quite a glimmer of
negativity. Profit is not a bad thing. All must work on a profit.
Hourly wage earners make a profit.

My summation was neither positive nor negative. I was stating fact.
Big corporations (for profit) don't care about the country except when
the country forces them to care either through regulation or
litigation.

All work doesn't have to be for profit, since there are many
non-profits that have existed for quite a while.

Now what is considered a 'fair' or an 'obscene' profit is yet to be or
never determined. What seems fair to one may be obscene to another.



Is it ok to recklessly spill toxins into the community
water supply in the name of profit without regulation?

Not at all. I never said there was, nor implied there should be.

So, please tell us what is fair or obscene wrt to profit. Of course,
in a democracy one person's opinion only counts as on person. We've
decided as a collective to impose certain regulations and taxes.




However low, chances are there is still a profit.

Sometimes, but not always. There are many examples of lost-leader
sales and dumping isn't uncommon to gain market share.

And there is still a profit. the lost-leader as you say will be given
away at nearly or even below cost to attract shoppers to purchase
other conveniences at regular or inflated pricing. Thanksgiving
turkeys are a great example. Give away the turkey to sell more
supporting foods at regular prices.

Maybe or it might be just to gain market share... as I said happens
with dumping. And, you still haven't addressed non-profits.

On Dec 13, 3:12*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 21:30:01 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog







wrote:
On Dec 12, 10:36 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:53:20 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog

wrote:
On Dec 12, 5:23 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:53:18 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog

wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:14 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:02:08 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog

wrote:

In striking contrast, General Electric, the American industrial giant
and Siemens competitor, is looking out for its shareholders by granting
its second dividend of the year. They've gotta do something with that
$20 billion in cash they have laying around. GE will make about $7
billion in profits this year, but about $3 billion of that it is from
the bank it owns, GE Capital. That would be the same GE Capital bailed
out by the taxpayers. CEO Jeffery Immelt will collect a salary of about
$10 million, choosing for the second year to forego a huge bonus.
Meanwhile, GE is demanding Massachusetts pay them $25 million to keep a
factory open.

Speaking of General Electric and their motive for extorting funds
from Massachusetts while in a sucking for survival mode. Lets take a
look at who is at the helm. The article is a year and a half out of
date, however not much has changed with the corporation's leadership.

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker20.html

"This brief look at GE's boardroom clearly demonstrates that
representatives of the world's leading liberal philanthropies have no
qualms in maintaining intimate and profitable links to a leading
corporation in the US's military-industrial complex. Such a revelation
should give progressive activists much food for thought.

Rather than being a haven for warmongers, GE could be more accurately
described as a haven for well known liberal funders. Moreover, many of
the liberal foundations that GE board members have connections with
actually fund the most influential parts of the antiwar movement
within the United States. This is a problematic situation for
activists intent on bringing the military-industrial-media-foundation
complex to its knees. However, to date it is an issue that has rarely
been broached by the peace movement. This must change and liberal
foundation funding must be raised as an agenda item at future antiwar
meetings.?

So, in summation, big corporations do not have the best interest of
the United States in mind. They care one and only about profits.

That is your summation, D'Plume.

What about it do your find in error Mr. Dog?

Very little actually, however your summation gives quite a glimmer of
negativity. Profit is not a bad thing. All must work on a profit.
Hourly wage earners make a profit.

My summation was neither positive nor negative. I was stating fact.
Big corporations (for profit) don't care about the country except when
the country forces them to care either through regulation or
litigation.

All work doesn't have to be for profit, since there are many
non-profits that have existed for quite a while.

Now what is considered a 'fair' or an 'obscene' profit is yet to be or
never determined. What seems fair to one may be obscene to another.

Is it ok to recklessly spill toxins into the community
water supply in the name of profit without regulation?

Not at all. I never said there was, nor implied there should be.

So, please tell us what is fair or obscene wrt to profit. Of course,
in a democracy one person's opinion only counts as on person. We've
decided as a collective to impose certain regulations and taxes.



However low, chances are there is still a profit.

Sometimes, but not always. There are many examples of lost-leader
sales and dumping isn't uncommon to gain market share.

And there is still a profit. the lost-leader as you say will be given
away at nearly or even below cost to attract shoppers to purchase
other conveniences at regular or inflated pricing. Thanksgiving
turkeys are a great example. Give away the *turkey to sell more
supporting foods at regular prices.

Maybe or it might be just to gain market share... as I said happens
with dumping. And, you still haven't addressed non-profits.

D'Plume. some people profit very well from non-profit organizations.


* As of 2010, Marsha J. Evans, was no longer employed by the
American Red Cross. According to United Press International, Gail
McGovern took over as CEO of the American Red Cross in 2008 at an
annual salary of $500,000 plus a signing bonus of $65,000.


* Brian Gallagher is still President and CEO of United Way, and
currently earns $1,037,140 a year, according to a December 2010 report
from the American Institute of Philanthropy.

Gerald Weinberg, Muscular Dystrophy Association CEO: about $412,000

Local Metro Atlanta chapter charities

* Dr. John H. Klippel, Arthritis Foundation CEO: $432,083
* Arthur J. Stein & Linda Dozoretz, Children’s Wish Foundation
executives: $520,000
* John Seffrin, American Cancer Society CEO: $1,045,887
* Milton Little Jr., United Way of Metro Atlanta CEO: $435,962
* Cancer Fund of America execs: $537,981 for father, 3 sons
* Peter & Julia White, Southern Center for International Studies:
$271,796
* Average ATL non-profit CEO: $173,691
* Harry Johnson (president): $289,645; Richard Marshall (CFO):
$203,715; Ed Jackson Jr. (executive architect) $211,374
* Gary Black, agriculture commissioner-elect: $154,000
* Helene Gayle, CEO of CA $431,000


Mo

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x2102532

On Dec 13, 8:46*pm, wrote:




nonsense removed

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:11:44 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Dec 13, 8:46*pm, wrote:




nonsense removed

That post gets the Post of the Year Award for 2010.