Yes, I left my life as a government worker and I have worked for corporations ever since...I even started one myself.
My life is much better since I stopped working for the government.
My pay is higher.
My benefits are better.
My quality of life is higher.
Thank you corporations including the corporations that created the platforms so you can read this message.
Mitt Romney Calls Corporations 'People': Do You Think Big Business Helps Us?
SodaHead Politics
2011/08/12 14:46:49
|
|
|||||
|
338 votes
|
|
60% | |||
|
227 votes
|
|
40% | |||
Republican presidential candidates, they say the darndest things.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the current GOP frontrunner (until this weekend anyway, when Texas Governor Rick Perry officially gets in the ring), served up a doozy this week at the Iowa State Fair.
It's the kind of "read my lips...no new taxes" statement that likely had President Obama and his campaign staff falling over in their chairs.
Facing an unusually combative audience, which some speculated was filled with either very liberal Republican hecklers or some Democratic plants, Romney said "We have to make sure that the promises we make - and Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare - are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is, we could raise taxes on people."
Fair enough. Then an audience member shouted "corporations!"
And Romney responded, "Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on," at which point the heckler yelled "No, they're not!"
Romney would not be deterred, adding, "Of course they are. Everything corporations earn also goes to people." That elicited some chuckles from the crowd, miffing Romney, who asked, "Where do you think it goes?" Well, into their pockets, his rival responded.
"Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets! Human beings, my friend. So number one, you can raise taxes. That's not the approach that I would take," Romney said confidently.
As Gawker pointed out, technically, Romney is right, corporations are legally organized as "people," with the same legal protections as individuals. But, as the site argued, "Mitt Romney doesn't need to be giving corporations big bear hugs at the Iowa State Fair right now while lecturing the simple folk about America's need to 'reform' Medicare and Social Security."
At least one rival, former Obama appointee Jon Huntsman, openly mocked Romney, tweeting, "Was American Pad & Paper Company a person/friend?," referring to one of the many corporations Romney made a lot of money off of ($100 million in fact) while working at Bain Capital while slowly letting it wither.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the current GOP frontrunner (until this weekend anyway, when Texas Governor Rick Perry officially gets in the ring), served up a doozy this week at the Iowa State Fair.
It's the kind of "read my lips...no new taxes" statement that likely had President Obama and his campaign staff falling over in their chairs.
Facing an unusually combative audience, which some speculated was filled with either very liberal Republican hecklers or some Democratic plants, Romney said "We have to make sure that the promises we make - and Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare - are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is, we could raise taxes on people."
Fair enough. Then an audience member shouted "corporations!"
And Romney responded, "Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on," at which point the heckler yelled "No, they're not!"
Romney would not be deterred, adding, "Of course they are. Everything corporations earn also goes to people." That elicited some chuckles from the crowd, miffing Romney, who asked, "Where do you think it goes?" Well, into their pockets, his rival responded.
"Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets! Human beings, my friend. So number one, you can raise taxes. That's not the approach that I would take," Romney said confidently.
As Gawker pointed out, technically, Romney is right, corporations are legally organized as "people," with the same legal protections as individuals. But, as the site argued, "Mitt Romney doesn't need to be giving corporations big bear hugs at the Iowa State Fair right now while lecturing the simple folk about America's need to 'reform' Medicare and Social Security."
At least one rival, former Obama appointee Jon Huntsman, openly mocked Romney, tweeting, "Was American Pad & Paper Company a person/friend?," referring to one of the many corporations Romney made a lot of money off of ($100 million in fact) while working at Bain Capital while slowly letting it wither.
Top Opinion
-
Heisenberg 2011/08/12 15:54:58
[QUOTE]
Corporate personhood refers to the question of which subset, if any, of rights afforded under the law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.
In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1][2] -
[END QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
Whether or not they SHOULD be recognized as people is another question.
This question provesd Democrats are dumb!
If you want to get rid of Big Business you must first eliminate the concept of "Money"...
Corporations have a judicial duty to their shareholders and stockholders, to be profitable and not so much to commoners like us. But they should make us happy because we determine their bottom line and so forth. I'm not going to go any further. Hopefully you get the gist.
Pablo
Pablo
The Tea party also wants smaller Government and a return to the Constitution, yet two more things we don't have.
Obama did maintain the Bush tax Tax cuts which predate the Tea Party and in effect retained the current tax levels and were not cuts at all. They were cuts when they were first implemented and now they just maintain the rates...
So in essence none of the Tea Party's ideas have been implemented. Not a single one.
""Returning to the Constitution" is just an excuse."
Incorrect. when you have the Patriot Act and violations of Bill of Rights just about across the board this becomes a major issue. Especially where the growth and meddling by Government is concerned. Higher taxes and higher deficit spending allows Government to grow out of control. This is a big ticket item.
You think we need to however cutting spending reduces the deficit and does not swipe more of the People's money.
Very doable, Google:
taking a chainsaw to the budget
John Stossel has a nice solution that achieves the following:
Total Cut: $1,882,619,000,000
Current deficit: $1,645,000,000,000
Surplus Achieved: $237,619,000,000
Of course there is room to tweak it just a tad, but to suggest we must raise taxes is simply absurd.
I understand about trimming Medicare, Medicaid, and SS, but I like my water clean and my air unpolluted thank you. I also like that if my bank goes under tat I am guaranteed some money.
Also, the Patriot Act is ridiculous, I agree. Not my administration, though.
Agree, however it passed during Bush and extended during Obama. It belongs to Both Administrations.
Seriously though, Google:
taking a chainsaw to the budget
John Stossel's solution achieves the following:
Total Cut: $1,882,619,000,000
Current deficit: $1,645,000,000,000
Surplus Achieved: $237,619,000,000
Keep in mind the above provides $237 billion surplus where you can tweak it.
But increase taxes? No, not needed, at most close a few loopholes or all of them for about $800 billion and lower them a bit giving back say $400 billion. That gives you nearly $640 billion to reallocate and pay off the debt with.
Nothing more is justified.
Maybe you misunderstand me on taxes. I don't agree with burdening the middle class any more than they're already burdened with. I support having the rich pay their fair share, which they're not.
Also, I googled it. It cuts a lot of useless things, but stops supporting a lot of necessary things. However, the necessary things that I wouldn't touch only adds up to 342 billion. The rest can be trimmed or cut.
I am not sure you are aware just how much of the taxes we get come from the rich.
The bottom 50% pays 2.7% and the top 25% pays 86.34%, I think this is more than fair. In fact I might even go so far as to say it is unfair to the "Rich" already.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/...
At any rate a cutting of the loopholes would be a requirement for your modification and would still leave a healthy surplus to work with. You might actually have a winner there.
It's always good to see a reasonable Republican around. I really don't see many here.