Sunday, July 26, 2009


bill maher- 'not everything in america has to make a profit'

h/t dandelion salad


an average patriot said...

America certainly does not seem to have to make a profit. I firmly believe we need a good dose of socialism to rescue us from Bush's mess!


I saw this post also (another blogger - under the lobsterscope - is the name of the blog) where he made his comments and provided the link.

I guess having worked for very large corporations and seeing how they use the tax loop-holes to WRITE DOWN AND OFF 'overhead and expenses' that are not always truthful in their reporting to the IRS, I know that many 'not for profit' groups, still are taking home big dollars at a personal level.

So, even though not every business has to 'make a profit' to stay in business, a great number of them have learned how to create 'retained revenue' in a way that isn't taxed, and often it is this form of 'accounting' that allows them to still operate and make claim to not making a profit.

If you'll notice, the Associated Press makes claim to being a 'not for profit' industry yet it owns about 1400 publications, and no doubt it uses this same type of 'creative accounting', to keep them the large news source that it is.

Sadly, the big business of health-care is truly a 'for profit' industry, and I think this is a key obstacle in providing the kind of medical care that could be made available to everyone, if they'd just 'fess up' to the fact they're only in it for the money; make a humane and concerted effort to reduce their profit to no more than 10% (like many government suppliers are required to do by law), and give the benefit of that adjustment back to the people.

When I worked with Hughes Aircraft; as well as a sub-contractor to Boeing Airplane Division and AMF Scientific Drilling, we were held to a very strict set of rules; required to provide extensive documentation to PROVE, that our NET PROFIT was 10% OR UNDER.

What I'd like to see is if those companies and organizations who profit MORE THAN 10% would be required to 'donate' that extra money to targeted and well-defined national benefits for the under-insured; un-insured, those on welfare and other supplemental programs, just how much of a benefit and positive difference it might make to the overall economic picture in this country.

Sadly, I doubt anyone who is an elected official (or appointed official) will ever seek to present such a plan, because it's always about politics; them getting re-elected, or keeping the lobbyists well-paid and happy in Washington, DC.