Should Apple be nationalized and Tim Cook either imprisoned or executed,

[Nye Bevan]

even though Apple has broken no laws?

Through perfectly legal strategies used by many other corporations, Apple's corporation tax bill has not been as high as some DUers would like. In response to this, DUers have called for Apple to be nationalized and for Tim Cook to be either imprisoned or executed, even though no laws have been broken.

23 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes. Apple should be forcibly nationalized and Tim Cook should either be imprisoned or executed.
	9 (39%)
	No. Apple should not be nationalized. Tim Cook should be neither imprisoned nor executed.
	14 (61%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Orrex]

1. Apple should be executed and Tim Cook should be nationalized

[Warren Stupidity]

2. This op should be executed as meta, Tim cook should fuck off, and apple

should pay their fair share.

[marmar]

3. Well played.

[SharonAnn]

64. Better that GE, who payed NO taxes despite record profits, should PAY UP!

And the other companies who game the system, taking government rebates and refunds without paying any taxes, should PAY UP!

At least Apple is paying some taxes.

I worked for a company 15 years who had all kinds of holding companies, off shore corporations, etc. all as tax dodges. And they had annual revenue of less than $1 billion.

[Chan790]

7. +1 nt

[Nye Bevan]

15. -2 nt

[Nye Bevan]

8. No chance of a DU rec then? I'm hoping to get to the Greatest page (nt)

[former9thward]

23. What is their fair share?

Please no generalizations. An actual number. Just go to Yahoo finance, put in AAPL and you will get their financials. Then you should be able to give an actual number instead of "fair share".

[Warren Stupidity]

24. They paid 26% on reported profits while sheilding 74b over the last three years.

Their effective tax rate is far lower than the reported 26%. Our infrastructure is crumbling, we are being told that our senior citizens are going to have to take steep cuts in Medicare and social security, and we continue to coddle binaries and global corporations with tax subsidies.

[former9thward]

25. The 74b has been deferred not shielded.

They pay more federal taxes ($6 billion) than any other person or corporation in the U.S. to the U.S. I didn't think I would see a definition of "fair share" from you.

[HiPointDem]

100. it's parked overseas waiting for a tax holiday, which they're lobbying for. it's just apple's PR

Department that says they pay more taxes than anyone else.

In 2012 the 5 biggest corporate taxpayers were Exxon, Chevron, Apple, Wells Fargo & Walmart -- IN THAT ORDER.

Exxon paid $31 billion. Apple paid $14 billion.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/17/companies-paying-highest-income-taxes/1991313/


and in 2011 the apple didn't break the top 5. so much for their PR department.

“Compare that with the $33 billion that Apple made in 2011 on $128 billion in revenues and Microsoft‘s $23 billion income on $72 billion in sales. Those margins are 26% and 32%. And yet Apple enjoyed a low effective tax rate of 25% and paid a relatively meager $4 billion in income taxes, putting it in ninth place on our list of the biggest U.S. corporate taxpayers, while Microsoft had an effective rate of just 16% and paid $5.3 billion, placing it sixth.”

http://energytomorrow.org/blog/forbes-big-oil-biggest-taxpayers/

[cali]

4. no. Tim Cook should be held in utter contempt and

disgust and Apple should reap some really terrible publicity and falling sales due ti it.

And your way of phrasing your op sucks shit. Skirting the truth is close to a lie

[Nye Bevan]

5. If Apple were to voluntarily pay more taxes than legally required,

they would increase the price of their products accordingly, and *then* they would suffer falling sales.

And thank you for the kind remarks.

[Pelican]

29. As an Apple shareholder...

... I have to say I would not be pleased.

[Myrina]

32. Their shit's already too expensive.

n/t

[Atman]

35. And they would open themselves up to a shareholder lawsuit.

Apple's corporate charter does not require them to be angels. Like all for-profit corporate charters, Apple is required to return maximum value to their shareholders. We want to envision some companies as "good citizens," but when you run a multi-billion dollar corporate, with billions of shareholders, your only "job" is to increase profits and returns year after year.

If anyone has a bitch, it should be directed toward the Congress who writes the tax laws. Period.

[Bake]

38. Why aren't you this outraged about GE, AT&T, and every other Fortune 50 company that pays zero

in taxes?

Why just Apple?

Change the damn tax laws.

Bake

[HiPointDem]

101. 'it's the hypocrisy'

[Seeking Serenity]

6. I like pie

[Egalitarian Thug]

9. Neither. We should seize and distribute Apple's assets to non-managerial workers and then

eat Tim Cook and serve him at the ensuing gala.

[Nye Bevan]

10. Definitely a "just deserts" joke in there somewhere (nt)

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. I keep coming back to a Hawaiian reference (Cook), but haven't been able to work it out.

Maybe something about nasty, cheap sparkling wine?

[Rectangle]

11. No---Apple, and it's products should be shunned and boycotted.

That would be the best medicine!
The company is Un-American and Unpatriotic!

[OhioChick]

12. +1000 n/t

[Bake]

39. Go right ahead.

I'll keep my iPhone that WORKS.

Bake

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Apple uses slave labor and avoids paying taxes. What makes them different than any other company?

Nothing that I can see.

[hunter]

14. Just because something legal doesn't make it right.

Frankly this guy should be sold to a sweat shop in the far east.

That would be justice.

Or maybe he could reduce his salary to five times his lowest paid contract worker. That seems fair. Of course he wouldn't be making as much as any Wal-Mart worker in the USA, but maybe he should have thought of that before he exported all that work.

If I was emperor of the earth I'd tax the very wealthy out of existence.

Guys like Tim Cook or Bill Gates would be ordinary fellows living down the street, maybe driving a nicer car than you do, a few extra bedrooms, but that's just about it. CEO of Apple, surgeon, high school teacher, public defender, factory worker, shopkeeper, everybody living in one big happy neighborhood.

Guys like the Koch brothers, or any number of bankers, oil company executives, real estate tycoons, and defense industry contractors... now them I'd put in prison.

[Myrina]

31. ^^ This ^^

[Bake]

40. Do the same thing to every other Fortune 50 company that outsources labor.

Stop singling out Apple and change the damn laws.

Bake

[hunter]

43. I wasn't picking especially on Apple here.

I'd say the same about most big corporations.

Nevertheless, Tim Cook is the highest paid CEO on earth. His lowest paid workers, people who are paid very little, make toys and trinkets for people who are wealthy. It's not an ethical business model.

Henry Ford, fascist pig that he was, understood that his employees should be part of the economy he was creating his product for; that a person working in an automobile factory ought to be able to afford an automobile.

People working in Nike or Apple sweatshops are not participants in the economy where Nike or Apple products generate Tim Cook's wealth. An 18 year old whose parents buy her an iPhone and a Macintosh as they send her off to college lives in an economic universe entirely segregated from the 18 year old assembling those products in China.

That's not right.

[Bake]

44. There are no more Henry Fords.

Cook, Immelt, all the rest ... they all need a good public thrashing.

But again, let's change the damn LAWS, and THEN hold them accountable.

Bake

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. "If I was emperor of the earth I'd tax the very wealthy out of existence."

And then where would you go for future government revenue?

[hunter]

56. You are telling me Tim Cook would quit working if he couldn't make the kind of money he does now?

That it would demotivate him if, after paying taxes, his take home pay was the same as his next door neighbor's, a prominent heart surgeon?

Do you think it would infuriate him to live in the same general neighborhood as his Apple Store sales people?

"Hi, Mr. Cook!"

"Fuck you, apartment dwelling loser. You're fired.... mutter... mutter... mumble. )"

"Gee thanks, Mr. Cook! I was looking for some reason to go back to school!"

Do you think a Mr. Cook or a Bill Gates would have no motivation to do anything but sit at home and sulk if they were only making some reasonable multiple of their companies' lowest paid workers?

Poor fellows, if that's the case, I pity them.

I'm serious. I think the tax rate should be steeply progressive, with rates approaching 90% for any income exceeding some multiple of the minimum wage, probably a multiple of less than twenty. Wealth should be taxed too, making it impossible to pass along anything more than a comfortable middle class existence to one's heirs.

People making minimum wage would pay no income taxes, people making 20 times the minimum wage would pay significant taxes, and people making huge incomes would pay huge taxes making it impossible for them to accumulate vast wealth or buy political influence with congress people, federal regulators, or the President.

The world does not need any royal families and dynasties established by amoral business people.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. I'm not saying he would quit working

I'm asking what would you do if the rich were taxed out of existence. That is the declaration I'm asking about. He could work but he wouldn't be rich because the stated objective of the law is to destroy wealth.

Okay, so suppose you destroy wealth. Suppose you actually achieve this goal through legislative (or other) means. Then what happens in the following years?

I would also note that you assume he and other rich people are amoral. I presume you mean they lack human empathy and sympathy. If you actively work to destroy their wealth, deny them any opportunity to accumulate wealth in the future then by what motive do you think they would work to support your system at their expense?

[hunter]

63. I wouldn't "destroy wealth." I'd spread it around.

Sharing is good.

Everyone would have the same motive to work as everyone else, to enjoy a better life, and nobody would have to work in abusive, inhumane, and dangerous conditions for fear of starvation or lack of shelter.

I'd establish a general welfare system and public employment that competed directly with the crappiest, most horrible jobs many of the "working poor" are now forced to endure. Abusive employers offering low wage work would be unable to find or keep any employees.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. I'm not sure how you can claim to not destroy wealth

when you clearly stated you would tax it out of existence. To drive something out of existence is to destroy that thing. In the context of wealth: as soon as you do that then all revenue collections cease unless they then fall on the backs of the non-rich. You cannot cut the goose open and take all the golden eggs for yourself.

I have a feeling you spoke prematurely, not fully considering the effects of your words.

[hunter]

86. You are confusing wealth with wealthy people.

I would establish a tax system that would reduce the significant disparities of wealth that exist within our current economic system.

There would be no more extremely wealthy individuals, but the nation itself would be wealthy, so wealthy that nobody would be forced to work for abusive employers at miserably low wages.

It's quite conceivable that an economy organized in this fashion would have greater overall wealth than our current system. It simply wouldn't have unconscionably wealthy individuals. If that leads to a government that has controlling shares in the economy as a whole, so be it. That's the way it should be, one citizen, one share each, one vote, a healthy mix of socialism and well regulated free market capitalism where, by explicit design, a "rising tide" really does raise all boats.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

89. If one man is homeless can another man own a luxury yacht?

[hunter]

93. Depends on what services are provided to the homeless guy.

If a homeless guy can walk into any social services office within a few hours have a place he can call his own and the services he requires to become a non-homeless person, sure, buy a yacht.

If there is adequate agency to figure out why the extremely rare "voluntary" homeless have rejected society, sure, buy a yacht.

If children are homeless and hungry and illiterate, no, no yacht for you, mister. Society still has some homework it needs to do. Forget the toys and apply your skills to solving that problem.

Are you building yachts for wealthy people?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. What if I don't want to build homes for the homeless

but I choose to build yachts because it pays better and allows me to provide better for my family?

[hunter]

95. Don't ask me. My wife and I have always chosen overworked underpaid altruistic professions.

We were big city public school science teachers when we met.

I was at a school where the substitute teachers would sometimes check out for the day weeping and never come back. I used to sweep the floor of my classroom after school to calm my nerves enough to face the bumper-to-bumper commuter traffic on the way home. The floor would be spotless by the time the custodian showed up.

That was the most money I ever made. I even bought a new car. I won't do that again.

From there we went to even grittier work serving another "underserved" community, and we had kids too.

Thankfully we no longer live in the sort of neighborhood where I'd have to rush our kids to the back bedroom to play on the floor whenever we heard gunshots out in the street, but we still have a lot of trouble with gang graffiti on our back wall and we stay out of the way of police when they are chasing someone.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. I really don't think you've put as much thought into your ideas.

[hunter]

97. I've put a lot of thought into them.

My goal is a world with much reduced fossil fuel use and a sustainable, humane economic system.

But no one is going to pay any attention, climate change is going to kill billions of people in pretty horrible ways, and the very wealthy and powerful people who got us into this mess will sit within their fortresses sipping their iced hard liquor believing they earned their good fortune or that God favored them.

I'm trained as an environmental biologist. I think economics is a foolish science disconnected from the hard realities of nature.

Humans are just another species experiencing exponential population growth, no different then many other species throughout earth's history. The end is always the same.

Next comes the bust. We could study all the energy and resource flows as an ecologist explores an ecosystem, and maybe design a way to bring this civilization in for a soft landing, but we won't. We'll just keep creating increasingly bizarre economic theories, which are essentially religious institutions and ideologies based upon complex numerologies, a deceptive game entirely unrelated to the natural world, and then our population and civilization will crash, taking much of the Holocene environment with it.

[morningfog]

16. How do you even claim to be a Democrat?

[Nye Bevan]

17. Well, I agree with President Obama on almost everything.

The many free-trade agreements he has signed, for example. His support of NAFTA. And his position on corporate taxes:

Obama and Republicans are closer together on the need to revamp corporate taxes, with both sides backing a lower top rate. The current statutory rate of 35 percent is the steepest in the industrialized world, although some companies pay far less, and others pay more.

The White House proposed a "framework" for corporate tax reform last year, that called for trimming the rate to 28 percent. Republicans generally want to pare it to 25 percent.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92D12Q20130314?irpc=932

[morningfog]

18. Hilarious that you quote where Obama and the repukes are close as your support.

That is perfect. Too fucking funny.

Edit to add:

Q: How do you claim to be a Democrat?

A: Because Republicans are close to Obama!

[Nye Bevan]

19. On most economic issues, Obama and the Republicans are fairly close.

I am sure you remember in the Presidential debate when Obama said that his position on Social Security was similar to Romney's. And Obama was happy to make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent.

So not much difference in economic policy, but I trust Obama as being more intelligent and competent.

I am also a big proponent of the ACA and I think trying to overturn it (as the Republicans are continually attempting) is stupid as well as cruel.

On social issues, no comparison. The Republicans are batshit insane, and Obama is not perfect (I wish he would stop the medical marijuana persecution) but vastly preferable, especially since his epiphany on marriage equality.

So there you have it.

[question everything]

20. While, as TIME magazine said, Tim Cook keeps his personal life

"extremely private," I think that he is a role model, like Anderson Cooper.

Leave him alone.

On Edit: did you post something similar about GE? Which actually got back money from the government? Why picking on Apple? Rather, I can see why the Republicans in Congress do, but why DUers?

[DBoon]

21. Apple should be made a national wildlife preserve

and Tim Cook should serve Walmart as a greeter for the rest of his life

[NightWatcher]

22. This post looks cool on my iphone

I can almost taste the sweet tears of the makers of this device.

[CincyDem]

26. How about the guys that jury-rigged the tax code...we call them "representatives". Right.

What's the issue here.

There are tax laws written by congressmen and their office staffs. Lots of input from lots of people. In the end, they passed the law.

Apple looked at the law and said - here's all the things we can do while operating within the law.

May not be right but remind me how many of us are volunteering to pay more taxes than the law requires. Anybody out there choosing to NOT deduct home mortgage interest? How about the earned income credit, taking a pass on that too ???

Apple is the symptom...smart guys taking advantage of bad laws. Instead of vilifying Tim Cook, how about we go after the guys that created the loophole. After all, they wouldn't have put it in there if they didn't mean for someone to use it. Tough shit that they didn't see the smart guys at Apple coming but WTF...point to the broken law before we serve up Cook on a spit with an Apple in his mouth.

[Nye Bevan]

28. Criticizing corporations for legally minimizing their tax bill

is like criticizing a fox for eating the chickens when it was the farmer who left the henhouse gate open.

[CincyDem]

46. Corporations have a "fiduciary obligation" to maximize their profitability. It's the law

Until the California concept of a B-Corp expands and becomes more prevalent...this is the way of the world. If Cook knew how to reduce Apple's taxes legally and decided to NOT do it, he would open the firm up to shareholder lawsuits for disregarding their fiduciary obligation.

As I understand it, a B-corp is a structure wherein leadership is obligated to maximize profitability while minimizing the firm's environmental foot print and acting in a socially responsible way. In today's standard corporation, even their social programs have to be articulated in the form of how they will help make more money (sell more stuff). In a B-corp, it's ok to be socially responsible BECAUSE it's socially responsible. It may even cost money but that's ok because if fulfills the social platform of the firm's purpose.

I think there are a couple other states experimenting with this.

Until it becomes the norm, let's not be surprised when CEO's follow the law.

[Myrina]

27. Not nationalized, but yes, Cook (and Apple's tax dodging accountants) should be imprisoned.

n/t

[Nye Bevan]

30. And he was right there, at the Congress. The Capitol Police could have arrested him then and there,

and dragged him off to prison.

[Myrina]

33. Nah, but they could have made him take out his checkbook or ATM card ...

... a healthy downpayment on 'back taxes due' would have been a nice gesture.

[Bake]

42. Imprisoned?? For breaking WHAT laws, exactly?

If you don't like it, CHANGE THE DAMN LAWS.

Otherwise, STFU.

Bake

[Myrina]

47. Tax dodging ... as a CEO, he signs off on the company's financials.

If they're wrong, knowingly or not, it's on him.

Don't tell me to STFU. You don't know me.

[Bake]

50. And tell me what LAWS he has broken.

Sounds like most people here just don't like the LAWS. If Apple violated the law, fine, otherwise, change the damn laws.

Bake

[Myrina]

51. You really need a valium, dude.

This is a DISCUSSION BOARD. Where people post OPINIONS. It's not HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

Roll a J, take a deep breath, sit back and chill for awhile and then come back online.

[Bake]

59. No, you need to stop accusing people of tax-dodging when they are obeying the law.

Is Cook or Jeff Immelt or any other CEO my favorite person in the world? Hell no. And they certainly have their fingerprints all over the tax code. But you can't blame THEM for that--of COURSE that's what they're going to do! The SYSTEM is what's broken.

So here's what you do. You take the corporate money out of politics. Then you fix the law. Betcha Apple, GE, et al. will comply.

Bake

[Dreamer Tatum]

52. Wasn't it you who JUST condemned EVERY BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES?

Yeah, it was.

Oh, but Apple isn't a business to you and certain others...it's a religion.

[Bake]

54. No it's not a religion.

And no, I still think most (if not all) businesses are MFers. But you can't throw somebody in jail unless they BREAK THE DAMN LAW. So I repeat, show me a provision of the USC that Apple has violated and I'll lead the charge with the pitchforks.

Otherwise ...

Bake

[Dreamer Tatum]

55. If it was Monsanto or Halliburton, let me hazard a guess as to what your position would be

Seriously - the Apple apologists and worshipers are increasingly like Scientologists.

[Bake]

57. And your guess would be wrong.

GE hasn't paid a DIME in taxes in years. AT&T little or no taxes. They have armies of lawyers that scour the tax code to make sure they're in compliance, just like most other major corporations.

Do I think that sucks? Of course I do. But the problem isn't the corporations, it's the damn TAX CODE. You can't throw people in jail for following the rules that they are given.

So I repeat (broken record here ...) CHANGE THE DAMN TAX LAWS.

Bake

[Dreamer Tatum]

60. I would bet a lot of money I'm not

but whatever. Apple is probably working on shiny new things to make you feel sleek and European.

[Bake]

61. I'm typing this reply on a Windows PC

The only Apple device I have is an iPhone. I like it. It works.

I'm FAR from a "fanboy." You, on the other hand, appear to be one of DU's resident Apple-haters. Kinda like penis envy, apparently.

Bake

[Dreamer Tatum]

62. No, just hate hypocrisy more than anything else on Earth

And Apple apologists may be the most inconsistent and hypocritical people in the world.

[Bake]

73. And I'm not one.

Here's a hypocrite: someone who trashes Apple for the Foxcomm labor conditions, while using a Samsung phone made in the same plant.

Bake

[Dreamer Tatum]

77. And here's an equally bad hypocrite

"COME ON, EVERYONE DOES IT!"

[Egalitarian Thug]

65. The 2012 U.S. Tax Code is over 73,600 pages long. The system has been grown to

such absurd proportions in order to ensure that there is no law, only opinions. This creates the environment where those that can afford it (i.e. the rich) can buy their own opinion to counter the opinion of the IRS, leaving the courts as the only option. Going through the courts is prohibitively expensive and takes years. So, the reality this achieves is that the IRS goes after the low hanging fruit and those unable to defend themselves, leaving the rich what amounts to an honor system. We all know how much honor a large corporation has.

To ask what specific law is broken in a tax case is disingenuous at best, since a specific answer requires years and millions of dollars.

[Bake]

75. But you cannot imprison someone unless guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proven

that they broke a specific law.

Or we can all grab pitchforks and torches, and storm the castle.

Like I said, change the damn law.

Bake

[Egalitarian Thug]

82. Did you not understand that there is no specific law? That buried in 70,000+ pages there

hundreds or thousands of contradictions galore and the whole thing boils down to battling opinions and how deep the participant's pockets are?

Changing the law is not a choice for us, and there is nobody that does have that choice that wants to as it would severely hurt bribes campaign contributions.

Your demand is nothing more than appearing to defend a man or company that you like by evading the issue. If the IRS went after them, there is no doubt that violations could be found and prosecuted and 10 or 15 years from now we might get a judgment.

[Dash87]

34. Executed? Lol

Sure, why not.


I'm joking, btw.

[HughBeaumont]

36. All the money should go to corporations so they can execute the population.

Because "economic fairness" = "Vlad Lenin". Or something.

[NCTraveler]

37. I have no problem with what Apple is doing with respect to taxes.

I have a huge problem with our current tax laws.

[flamingdem]

41. Death to Apple!

.. where's my iphone at

[MineralMan]

48. I don't know of any way to nationalize a company in the USA.

Do you know how that might be done?

I don't think there's any mechanism that allows such a thing.

[hunter]

67. The USA needs some kind of corporate "death penalty"

One way would be to freeze share and bond prices at the instant a corporation is formally charged with a crime.

Upon conviction and sentencing, those shares and bonds would be transfered to a government agency, and shareholders and bond holders would be compensated with government treasury notes. If those holding the bonds and shares were in any way involved or associated with the crime, they might receive some fraction of or no compensation for the shares and bonds they controlled, as determined by the court.

A complete corporate "death penalty" would release intellectual property, including trademarks, patents, and copyrights to the public domain, compensate innocent bond and share holders (ordinary retirees, etc.) with government notes of equal value, remove top corporate officials and board members responsible for the crime without compensation, and restructure the corporation under government supervision for sale in part or in whole. In all cases the former share and bond holders, and the intellectual property, would be severed from the reorganized corporation. The intellectual property would belong to humanity forever, and former bond and share holders would be barred from reinvesting in the reorganized corporation for a certain amount of time measured in years, maybe a decade.

[MineralMan]

68. No such thing exists in our laws.

Again, none of this is possible in the US at this time, so it's a waste of energy to discuss it.

What is needed is better regulation of multi-national companies and their taxation. That is something Congress can enact without violating the Constitution. That is what is needed, not pipe dreams.

[olddots]

87. Ending slavery was once a pipe dream

n.t.

[MineralMan]

90. Was it? Not really. People who believed that slavery

was immoral worked very, very hard to end it. A war was fought. A constitutional amendment was passed. It can be done.

However, making it possible to nationalize or forcibly close a major corporation is not likely to be approved, either by Congress or the Constitutional amendment required ratified by enough states. It would be a very unpopular idea, and would certainly fail.

Nothing of the sort will happen in my lifetime, I'm certain. Do I wish it would? I'm unsure. There's a great potential for harm in the proposal. Enabling the government to take over a business has far-reaching ramifications that could create opportunities for tyranny.

Such things require very careful consideration, and I don't believe that's been done with this idea.

[hunter]

88. People make the law, people can change it.

Maybe I should decloak my starships now and declare myself emperor of the planet.

Your current "leaders" have been bought, and your people vote against their own interests.

BWAHAHAHA.....!!! (I'm practicing my benevolent emperor laugh.)

[MineralMan]

91. They can, but it's not easy. What is being suggested would

require a constitutional amendment, and those are notoriously difficult. I doubt there is anything close to a majority that would support such an amendment.

Anybody's welcome to try, though.

[hunter]

92. I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional, but I ain't no lawyer.

If we can take peoples' homes to build a baseball stadium or a shopping center, surely we can take a corporation that engages in criminal behavior.

[NewJeffCT]

79. I think Truman tried it

with the steel industry, but the courts put a stop to it.

[MineralMan]

80. Yes. It can't be done in a constitutional way.

That's already been ruled on.

[Recursion]

99. That's all the FDIC does nowadays

They sell the banks afterwards, sure, but they nationalize the hell out of several dozen a month.

[Champion Jack]

53. definitely one of the dumbest polls ever

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

72. I think the poll was intended as satire. Unfortunately a lot of people didn't see it that way.

[Arcanetrance]

66. It amuses me how many are defending apple

Just last year we were tearing Mitt Romney and his company for doing this same thing. But with apple people are saying well they're well within the law we can't have it both ways.

[HappyMe]

69. Uh oh.

Don't be pointing that out!

[name not needed]

81. Well, they are.

Are you suggesting we start imprisoning people for acting in a way that is deemed legal by the current tax code?

[Arcanetrance]

83. Not at all I'm suggesting that we apply the same standard of outrage and demand for the law to be

changed.

[nomorenomore08]

70. I picked "neither." Because this poll is a strawman.

Raising taxes on large (and highly profitable) corporations is not cruel and unusual punishment, no matter how their CEO's might piss and moan about it.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

71. It's astonishing that more than one third of the people have chosen an answer that is completely

inconsistent with our form of government.

[Socialistlemur]

76. Maybe they are North Koreans?

Don't assume everybody is American. Nationalization is ridiculous in this case, but in some nations people think its fine. They tend to be communists and things lie that.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

78. I believe a more accurate term would be authoritarian

The idea that the state should have absolute power to imprison people, seize assets, etc. at will without what we call due process of law.

[Socialistlemur]

98. It can be done with due process but...

I have seen countries where due process was followed to nationalize a company or farms. For example the Spanish government nationalized three failed banks, and the USA took over General Motors for a short period of time. When I lived in Argentina the phone company was public and they had lousy service. After privatization it improved enormously. In a country such as Venezuela nationalization has been a disaster, but in Ecuador it has been handled a lot smarter and it's done very selectively. We can also see the reverse, China is moving from communism to fascism and privatizing the bulk of their economy, but they are not protecting the working class. They grow the economy as if on steroids because communism is so inefficient but they have too much inequality...and a terrible dictatorship legacy of its communist past.

[Nye Bevan]

84. Here's a post advocating that the US military be used to seize overseas corporate assets.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1967044

This kind of thing isn't unusual here.

[leveymg]

85. How do you know what laws have been broken? We'll find that out when we torture Cook

and cook the rest of the Board. Then, we eat the rich or something like that.

Pass the mallet, Nye. This is almost as much fun as a crab feast.