Originally posted by Pudgenik
There is something that is totally overlooked when millionaires/billionaires give money to charity. They don't really give anything. If there is a loss in profits, they just up the cost. Take a look at the oil companies. 40 billion profit in a quarter of a year. Oh, ok the oil company donated 100 million to a charity. Then upped the price of oil.

The profits of large corporations, like oil companies, mostly go to dividends, and to appreciation of their stock, which supports a host of things like mutual funds, pension plans, and the like.

Originally posted by normbenign
The profits of large corporations, like oil companies, mostly go to dividends, and to appreciation of their stock, which supports a host of things like mutual funds, pension plans, and the like.

No doubt about that.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
There is something that is totally overlooked when millionaires/billionaires give money to charity. They don't really give anything. If there is a loss in profits, they just up the cost. Take a look at the oil companies. 40 billion profit in a quarter of a year. Oh, ok the oil company donated 100 million to a charity. Then upped the price of oil.

Oil companies cannot and do not control the price of oil. Even OPEC has little power to control global oil prices.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
It's all relative to your income. Many family making $50,000 per year can't afford to give even 1% of their income.

Billionaires can give 80% of their income without even affecting their quality of life.

But let me give you a taste of your knuckle dragger logic. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both Liberals, both give a higher percent of thei ...[text shortened]... paying employees so the preacher can drive a Mercedes, etc. is NOT money spent helping the poor.

Warren Buffet is going to give his money to Bill Gates. You thought he was giving it to the poor?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Many industrialized nations allow people to stay on unemployment benefits indefinitely. Many of those nations employ a larger percentage of the workforce than the US does. But don't let facts get in your way, bashing "lazy" unemployed people is obviously a lot more fun than admitting that most people who are unemployed would rather find a job.

Staying on unemployment benefits indefinitely isn't unemployment. It's welfare. You should at least call it what it is

Originally posted by TheBloop
Warren Buffet is going to give his money to Bill Gates. You thought he was giving it to the poor?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/

You realize that giving it to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not just giving it to Bill Gates don't you? Or do you?

The foundation is run by Bill and Melinda Gates but is a non-profit company that does help the poor.

Originally posted by whodey
What do you think and why?

I don't think we'd have reason to even suspect Obama might care about the poor or middle class.

Originally posted by TheBloop
Staying on unemployment benefits indefinitely isn't unemployment. It's welfare. You should at least call it what it is

No, you should call it bagoogle dobble zoo. That will definitely change everything.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, you should call it bagoogle dobble zoo. That will definitely change everything.

If selling programs by altering their name and label doesn't mean anything, then why does it happen?

Originally posted by techsouth
I don't think we'd have reason to even suspect Obama might care about the poor or middle class.

The more they seem to "care", the worse it seems to get for them

Go figure.

I reckon democrats will always point the finger at "W" and Reagan as to why. LMAO!!