I fail to see, why you'd single-out the corporations.
That would be because I didn't single out corporations, Dutchmaan (GGP) did. Since you sought fit to respond to Dutchmaan, I thought I might challenge your response.
So, answer the question: are you challenging the assertion that corporations are in complete control and gorging themselves at the public trough? Because that was the gist of the post to which you responded.
As a practical matter, there is a great difference between your two scenarios. I would elaborate, but the fact that you equate the two tells me not to waste my time debating you.
But, anyway, here's a couple of clues (assuming you wish to educate yourself): 1) Obama would've gotten the vast majority of the black/poor (your cell video) vote without giving away cell phones. 2) The cost of Obamaphones doesn't even qualify as a gnat's eyelash when compared the the largesse handed out to the corporations that own the US government.
Are you going to challenge the assertion, that the IRS' very purpose is to confiscate the taxpayers' monies?
Why would I? I'm not trying to change the subject and I'm not going to argue over definitions. You say "confiscate", I say "collect". Whatever term is your preference, government needs funds to operate. If you're going to have government, it has to have a mechanism to fund itself. Got a better idea than the IRS for "confiscating your monies"? Let's hear it! (anarchy doesn't count)