[thecavemaster]

What kind of assurances do you mean? If you make operating a business in the US more attractive than operating elsewhere in the world, then there is no logical reason for businesses not to expand and new business ventures to be formed. Do you prefer having Exxon-Mobil expanding its operations in other countries, where it will employ fewer American workers?

To socialists, companies like Exxon-Mobil, whose profit margin is dwarfed by many companies in other industries, just represent a source of cash that rightfully belongs to "the people." They do not seem to grasp the notion of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The last time I checked, Exxon-Mobil pays about three times as much in various taxes in this country as it makes in profits.

Why should I care if those profits are more than the GDP of many small countries in this world? In fact, why should Americans not celebrate those profits? Profitable companies employ more people and afford employees better salaries and working conditions than less profitable companies. Of course, it is hard to top the working conditions and wages of the federal government, which pays employees with other people's money and never has to balance its books.

I'm using the "GDP" thing as a way of distinguishing what I'm talking about. I'm talking about huge, mulit-nationals, the uber rich. The goose that lays golden eggs also leaves a wake that is often destructive of the environment and human rights. You seem to think, Hoot, that if a man gives you a job, he has a right to rape your daughter, in a manner of speaking. That's foolishness. The clear cutting of rain forest land is not made more palatable because the clear cutter is generating income in the American economy. That's short sighted and, frankly, grossly immoral. Mr. Peadbody's coal train may create jobs, but cutting all the timber and raping the land? Tough tradeoff. (See history of resource use in eastern Kentucky).