By the way, a huge part of the reason we've got an unbalanced budget? Wars started that greatly economically benefit oil companies. How about that uncanny coincidence.

Again - short-term profits. That's all a CEO cares about if he's not emotionally invested in his business' success (like Steve Jobs, for example - a man whose products I hate, but who was undeniably a great innovator), because that's what raises shareholder's profits, and that's what it's the CEO's job to do.

The government is in bed with the industry. Whether they realized it would happen or not, it's contributed to the detriment of the middle class.

Long story short: these people don't need more money for any reason. Your neighbors are STARVING or receiving food from a food bank. That's the America you want to live in?

You all who are against this situation are missing the forest for the trees. This isn't 1920. You can't act like we need the same business rules that we did before some people had complete and utter monopolies on entire industries.

It's not in their short-term economic interests, which is what CEOs are worried about, so they aren't going to fund it. It's much easier to pay $6.8 million in fines than to spend what could potentially be billions on R&D.

The government doesn't have billions of dollars in taxpayer revenue right now to spend on incentives, do they? We can barely pay our bills as it stands now (in fact, we can't).

So it's David fighting back against Goliath, for the betterment of mankind and the advancement of science, and you're against it because it might cost a multi-billion dollar international corporation a couple billion. Phenomenal.