Shouldn't corporations regard the federal government as just another shareholder?

Corporations will take and exploit whatever they can, whenever they can, to maximize their profits. Without regulation, this is entirely what they exist to do. It is our government's job to regulate corporations and ensure that they behave in the best interest of our nation and all Americans.

Which is why Republicans must go. For over 3 decades they have been nothing more than shills for the wealthy, who simply pretend that "Government is the problem" and therefore we must shrink it and work to get "We The People" out of the way of the wealthiest giant transnational corporations... and somehow, perhaps by magic, everything will be better, and the wealthy will start handing out decent middle class wages to working people.

The bigger the corporation we are going to allow to exist and operate in this nation, the bigger government will need to be to regulate these corporations to ensure that they are operating in the public good.

My thought is you're babbling incoherently, and demonstrating that you have corporatophiba. You irrationally hate corporations, and should seek counseling from a professional psychiatrist who could help you see the errors in your reasoning.

Here's a start: corporations are not a flock of sheep who all want the exact the same thing. Microsoft does not want the exact same thing as United Airlines, who do not want the exact same thing as Exxon, who do not want the exact same thing as General Foods, and so on. Please remember to look at corporations as if there are MANY of them, not a congealed mass of monsters. SOME corporations are monstrous, but not all are. SOME corporations donate money to the campaign treasuries of Democrats and SOME corporations donate to Republicans. SOME corporations have enough profits that they could easily handle an increase in the minimum wage, and would even endorse the idea that the wage should be raised, but other corporations are struggling and would oppose an increase in minimum wage. And corporations also have to deal with the fact that labor unions have lobbyists too.

Why government, or why only government? Why not the country women's association, the local soccer club, and you?

What you have given is not a reason in favour of government having a share in other people's property, it's an argument in favour of reducing government.

All you have is a slave philosophy. If what you were saying were true, there's no reason why everyone shouldn't simply be a chattel owned by government. You are worshipping an irrational superstition that is as anti-social as it is possible to be. You are worshipping at the anus of government.

If you actually had an education you never would have asked this "question", and you would probably know that many corporations do not pay dividends to share holders (loot as you so moronically called it), and they do not have to.

It is called taxes and they pay them. What stake does the government have in the business - they don't care if it makes it or not

They are viewed as "stakeholders"

Please get off of your corporate created

computer

Hypocrisy at its finest

no