UConn James Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 I thought of state funds too, but the legislature, not the governor, actually spends the money. I would think he'd be OK, but I might very well be wrong. It'd be interesting to see how that would work out. 473175[/snapback] Wouldn't be surprised if he would be able to appoint someone to oversee the team while he would stay hands-off for anything relating to them. Kind of like how many high-level pols put their stocks and such in a blind trust. I don't think he'd have to sell 51% or something like that. Holding office doesn't mean that you can't own a business. Just that there can't be any hoochie-koochie, and people with an interest are going to watch you pretty closely.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 Because Golisano is a BILLIONAIRE, and his company pays HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in NYS Taxes every year, and he looks at NYS Government and sees a bloated, inefficient and wasteful bureaucracy; and he figures that if he can get elected, he can reduce the amount of NYS Government waste, thereby reducing NYS Taxes, thereby reducing the hundreds of millions of taxes every year that NYS soaks him and his company for. And this is bad because....? 473443[/snapback] Because corporations SHOULD pay taxes! If he's only paying hundreds of millions, it's not enough. According to the local radio stations in DC, they shouldn't even be allowed to make profits (to quote them: "Why should companies be allowed to make profits?"), as they only make them on the backs of the little people. They should be required to give away services, and any money they happen to collect in the process should be immediately confiscated - er, taxed - by the government and redistributed to the oppressed masses. Note for the sarcasm-impaired: this was sarcasm.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 Because corporations SHOULD pay taxes! If he's only paying hundreds of millions, it's not enough. According to the local radio stations in DC, they shouldn't even be allowed to make profits (to quote them: "Why should companies be allowed to make profits?"), as they only make them on the backs of the little people. They should be required to give away services, and any money they happen to collect in the process should be immediately confiscated - er, taxed - by the government and redistributed to the oppressed masses. Note for the sarcasm-impaired: this was sarcasm. 473446[/snapback] Koom-by-yah...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 Koom-by-yah... 473458[/snapback] Yeah...well, the only radio station in the area with decent traffic reports spouts that nonsense every day. And they actually believe it. And I'll bet they're a very profitable radio station, too. ("But they shouldn't be! They should be giving their service away free; after all, the provide a necessary public service to hundreds of thousands with traffic and weather reports, why should they profit from it!" Have to remember that next time they go on one of their anti-free-market rants. )
sweet baboo Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 In addition to saving the Sabres, Golisano has donated millions to charity in Rochester including major support of Strong Memorial Hospital. 473207[/snapback] my research lab is in Golisano Children's Hospital at Strong
jshockeyguy7 Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 Because corporations SHOULD pay taxes! If he's only paying hundreds of millions, it's not enough. According to the local radio stations in DC, they shouldn't even be allowed to make profits (to quote them: "Why should companies be allowed to make profits?"), as they only make them on the backs of the little people. They should be required to give away services, and any money they happen to collect in the process should be immediately confiscated - er, taxed - by the government and redistributed to the oppressed masses. Note for the sarcasm-impaired: this was sarcasm. 473446[/snapback] thanks for clearing that up for me
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 Because corporations SHOULD pay taxes! If he's only paying hundreds of millions, it's not enough. According to the local radio stations in DC, they shouldn't even be allowed to make profits (to quote them: "Why should companies be allowed to make profits?"), as they only make them on the backs of the little people. They should be required to give away services, and any money they happen to collect in the process should be immediately confiscated - er, taxed - by the government and redistributed to the oppressed masses. Note for the sarcasm-impaired: this was sarcasm. 473446[/snapback] CTM, is that quote for real? Wow. Really, just wow. On one side of the modern US political spectrum, we have the people who interpret the Bible literally. And then on the other, we have that radio station .
KRC Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 On one side of the modern US political spectrum, we have the people who interpret the Bible literally. And then on the other, we have that radio station . 474104[/snapback] ...but yet, nobody wants to "throw away their vote" on a third party/independent candidate because that candidate is too "radical."
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 Well, Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) I believe is still a majority owner of the Milwaukee Bucks...how the NHL handles this, I don't know. 473274[/snapback] Is Kohl a member of the Kohl family made famous by the Kohl's store chain?
Alaska Darin Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 Is Kohl a member of the Kohl family made famous by the Kohl's store chain? 474143[/snapback] Yes.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 CTM, is that quote for real? Wow. Really, just wow. On one side of the modern US political spectrum, we have the people who interpret the Bible literally. And then on the other, we have that radio station . 474104[/snapback] For real. The context was drug companies selling vaccines/antibiotics...and the statement was most likely supposed to mean "Why should companies be allowed to profit from selling necessary commodities?"...which is still wrong. Corporations make profits from the sales of goods and services because that's the definition of a corporation!!!! I really wanted to call and say "Well, your weather and traffic reports provide a public service to the greater DC area...you should call your corporate officers and tell them they shouldn't be allowed to profit from it."
Recommended Posts