>If you're rich. Providing social programs is a key sector
>of the government's responsibility. Why else would you want
>a government? Wealth is in a process of centralization
>(intense centralization) and without social programs the
>poor get ground under the bootheel of "progress".

too bad for them. if you cant keep up, then shutup. its a free country, figure out a way to make some money. it isnt that hard.

>Here's what's wrong. American companies get tax incentives
>and bailouts (corporate welfare) to set up shop with the
>rationalization being that it's going to provide jobs to the
>American population. That isn't happening. Multinationals
>are moving and outsourcing production, resulting in
>thousands of American job losses. These multinationals
>typically get "tax holidays" in the country that's hosting
>them, meaning they pay no tax in that country either for
>from one to five years (it can be as many as ten). Overseas
>production typically takes place in EPZs (export processing
>zones), destitute areas that, for legal purposes, aren't
>part of the country. There are almost no environmental or
>labour regulations aside from those self-imposed by the
>beneficent corporations. The Third World is forced to lower
>environmental and labour regulations to attract new
>corporations in the hope that they'll stay after the
>"holiday" is over. Not likely.
>
>It's public money for private profits. If the people were
>reaping the rewards (read:profits) it wouldn't be a problem.

the public still controls the fate of business. and the public still elects its officials. obviously the majority of this country could either care less or has bigger things to worry about. when it becomes a big problem, something will be done.