Romney in Iowa: 'Corporations are people'

You do realize not all corporations are public, right? Close corporations?

 

please, read again and stop repeating the same old bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

So what? your not making any sense, again.

even small companies have stock that is owned.

 

What an idiot, thats why I will not support him. But him or Mickey Mouse over Obama.

 

Sure, in those instances they are run pretty much like any non-incorporated business (i.e. Sole Prop, Partnership, etc.) so... what about them being a "corporation" makes them any more evil than those forms of business?

 

Our government does not claim to be a person. That's the difference.

How can a corporation be a person if it's not a human?

 

Classic. I'm making plenty of sense. You know it, too. You just don't like it that your absurd "Corporations are people" argument is blowing back in your face.

Face it, not everybody has a say in a company or corporation like they would in a democracy. I'm working an entry level position at a small company and I have virtually no say at all.

 

There's actually some major difference between a company that is incorporated and one that isn't such as the ones you've mentioned. Incorporation largely prevents liability and comes with certain tax advantages.

Assigning any label of 'good' or 'evil' to a business is nonsense, those labels don't apply to emotionless entities, only to those people who run them.

 

I will say this one more time.

When Romney says they are people, he doesn't mean they are actual individuals. They are an entity made up of PEOPLE. Hence, the phrase, they are people.

Everything the corp does, did, and will do is done by people.

Meaning that when people trash companies, and try to play a warfare game against them, they are doing so against the workers, owners, and stockholders.

Its pretty simple if you just put some thought into it.

 

so is the govt a person the same way corporations are?

 

Cons argument is everybody has a say in corportion like they do in the government. That's not true though because not everybody has a say in a corporation.

 

If you have no say, than why are you working there?

 

I'm well aware of these differences but they are irrelevant in the context of this discussion, I was simply making the point you make below:

Also, since you are familiar with corporations I would assume that you are aware of "double taxation"? I would hardly call that a "tax advantage".

 

And... not everybody has a say in the government. So what?

 

Holy Strawman, Cons! Is this basically an admission on your part?

 

His ENTIRE quote:

Question from listener: Do you agree that Social Security should take no part in the deficit reduction negotiations?

Romney: Is that your question? Can I answer now? Your question is 'Do you agree that Social Security should take no part in the deficit reduction negotiations?' Is that the question? And the answer is this. Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid account for nearly half of the federal spending.

[heckling and jeering crowd]

Romney: Hold on. About half of federal spending. And if we are ultimately, and not just this year, but over the coming decades going to be able to balance our budget, and not spend more than we take in, we have to make sure the promises we make with Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is we can raise taxes on people. That's not the way...

[jeering from crowd about corporations]

Romney: Corporations are people too, my friend. You can raise taxes on

[hecklers laugh and break in]

Romney: of course they are, everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people.

[more jeering from hecklers]

Romney: Where do you think it goes?

[Into pockets! heckles the crowd]

Romney: Into whose pockets? Peoples pockets! Human beings, my friend. So number one you can raise taxes. You can raise taxes. That isn't the approach I would take. Number 2, you can make sure that the promises we make are promises that we can keep, and in my view the areas that you have to consider are; higher income people earning less rapid growth in the investments and benefits, and their inflators. You don't agree with that? You want to give wealthier people bigger portions, then that's your right. I think that we should have whats known as progressive indexing. I think that we should all consider a higher retirement age. Those are things that should be considered part of... that's my view. You may disagree with it, that's my view, and my view is we do not make promises we can't keep.​

This is how the left demonstrates what he said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KlPQkd_AA6c

Here is ACTUALLY what he said:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ8w4ZBXUbo"]Mitt Romney Confronted by Angry Crowd 'Corporations Are People' www.RightFace.us - YouTube[/ame]

So what we have here is the usual suspects, quoting a very small portion of what he is saying, and then trying to make some absurd claim that he thinks corporations are ACTUALLY people rather than they (and their protections) benefit people at all times.

He is saying that RAISING TAXES, is the same thing as raising corporate taxes.

Any moron who understands that corporations simply pass their tax costs off on their customers understands this simple concept.

 

First, your delusional if you believe your vote, which makes up a very tiny fraction of the total votes in any given election has any effect on the outcome.

Second, why should everyone have a say in how a corporation is run? If you just started you have very little invested (if anything) so there are virtually no consequences to make poor decisions.

Corporations, as far as taxes are concerned, aren't really all that different from people and at the rate at which they raise money for PACs and influence elections I'd say they much more than a person. I suppose I fail to understand what the big deal is with this verbal misstep.

 

The problem is that you Rightists for the last couple years have been pushing the idea that Corporations (not the people that make them up, the Corporations themselves) are Persons and that they should have all the same rights that a person does. However, you guys seem to only want to apply that to the aspects of personhood that benefit the corporations and not any of the aspects that would be negative.

It's further complicated by the fact that in and of itself it makes no sense. How can a person exist that is not human? Unless of course you believe in the idea of Collective Rights, but it's clear you Rightists don't, seeing how you rail against the idea of collective bargaining and unions.

 

Meh... the first thing you've said that makes sense to me. And... explains a lot.

But at least you're working, so gotta give you props for that.

 

good question...

is a hostile takeover considered assault?

 

Romney negatives...

1. RomneyCare
2. Gun control bill
3. Raised taxes
4. Pro-amnesty
5. AGW alarmist
6. And he has as much excitement and enthusiasm as a gnat.

Romney positives...

?

 

great, then raising taxes wont cost us jobs, it will just increase prices.

and does this mean conservatives will stop saying the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes?

 

Romney is right on this one.

 

The Supreme Court basically ruled that Corporations are People. I think it was a horrific ruling.

Corporation should not be able to act like private citizens when it comes to campaign contributions. In fact, we should reform the whole system to the following. (Note: I think all reasonable Americans regardless of ideology will agree.)

A candidate, measure, proposition, or anything else on the ballot can only receive donations from citizens in the area which they will effect/represent. In other words. A candidate for Senate in California may not receive funds from outside of California and can only receive funds from citizens of California.

No monies can come from Corporations, Special Interest Groups, Unions, etc...

I would limit the donation amount to $5,000 per citizen and and no more than $10,000 per citizen in a total fiscal year. If people want to donate their time, then they can certainly do that.

This will take the big money out of politics and force the representatives to start governing on behalf of the citizens.

 

Tell that to Cons. He believes the U.S. is 'for the people, by the people.'

Tell that to Cons. He believes every shareholder has a say.

Yeah, except there's thousands of more loopholes/credits for corporations than there are for individuals.