ROMNEY: "Corporations are People, My Friends" Video LOLOLOL

[Soul Crusher]

Then 50 people make 50 individual contributions from their separate individual taxable incomes.

That's the difference. 

Why? 

[OzmO]

Why? 

why what?

[OzmO]

"as a result of the war, corporations have become enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its rule by preying upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is concentrated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

[Soul Crusher]

And?  What would you do about it? 

[OzmO]

And?  What would you do about it? 

Why what? (from the other question)

Second,  i have been posting on this thread what should be done about it. 

Abe Lincoln figured it out, so did TJ.

[Soul Crusher]

Why what? (from the other question)

Second,  i have been posting on this thread what should be done about it. 

Abe Lincoln figured it out, so did TJ.

Figured out what?  Again what would you do to rectify the matter?  Do you think individuals who donate to pols are not equally looking for favors?   

[OzmO]

Figured out what?  Again what would you do to rectify the matter?  Do you think individuals who donate to pols are not equally looking for favors?   

I can't believe you are actually this thick on this subject.

Abe Lincoln figured out that allowing corporations more influence will corrupt our system of government.  the quote is from him.

Here's what Thomas Jefferson (TJ) said:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance the laws of our country."

Allowing a CEO of let's say Exxon to freely fund any campaign he wants with his 50+ billion a year in profit, (even if its just 1% of it) puts corporations in an even stronger position to control our country by buying government.  We are quickly becoming a corporate democracy NOT a democracy by the people for the people.



 

[GigantorX]

Shareholders, employees, retirement funds, bondholders, regular investors, amateur investors, people who build and design products, people who mop the floors, local/national/global economies.

Those are comprised of people, a whole lot of fucking people. A corporation isn't just some faceless fatcat with a cigar in his mouth on the 100 floor suite, a corporation is comprised of people. Now how that corporation is directed at the top and how the govt. see's fit to regulate the field is another story entirely.

[Soul Crusher]

And?   Why are you only looking at one side of the equation?  with the growth in the power of govt, many corps seek the equivalent of "protection money" from these parasitic pols who also have the power to regulate and shut them down at the whim of nearly anything.  


You want to empower people like holder, napolitano, et all even more?   Yeah, that will work out well.  


The problem is the tax code and tax system to where pols are able to reward and punish citizens and businesses.  

We need to take away that power from these ravenous leeches in the govt.  

Funny too how you brought up Exxon.   funny fucking shit.   They make 10% on a gallon of gas and people like yourself scream and stamp your feet like a baby while the govt takes many times that much in taxes and did absolutely nothing to bring the gasoline to market.


But oh "BIG OIL" is who I should get angry at.      

Yeah whatever - grow up.  
  

[OzmO]

Shareholders, employees, retirement funds, bondholders, regular investors, amateur investors, people who build and design products, people who mop the floors, local/national/global economies.

Those are comprised of people, a whole lot of fucking people. A corporation isn't just some faceless fatcat with a cigar in his mouth on the 100 floor suite, a corporation is comprised of people. Now how that corporation is directed at the top and how the govt. see's fit to regulate the field is another story entirely.

Of course corporations are comprised of people.  If "People" want to contribute to a particular campaign they are free to do so.  People can band together and can start a PAC if they want.  However a corporation is not an individual person and not recognized by our constitution as a person.  A corporation's CEO or BoD should not (but does now) have the right to fund campaigns with corporation's (this group of people as you have defined) money the way they see fit.  

[Soul Crusher]

Of course corporations are comprised of people.  If "People" want to contribute to a particular campaign they are free to do so.  People can band together and can start a PAC if they want.  However a corporation is not an individual person and not recognized by our constitution as a person.  A corporation's CEO or BoD should not (but does now) have the right to fund campaigns with corporation's (this group of people as you have defined) money the way they see fit.  

Funny I never have seen you say the same things about teachers' unions, AFSME, CSEA, AFL, etc 

[OzmO]

And?   Why are you only looking at one side of the equation?  with the growth in the power of govt, many corps seek the equivalent of "protection money" from these parasitic pols who also have the power to regulate and shut them down at the whim of nearly anything.  


You want to empower people like holder, napolitano, et all even more?   Yeah, that will work out well.  


The problem is the tax code and tax system to where pols are able to reward and punish citizens and businesses.  

We need to take away that power from these ravenous leeches in the govt.  

Funny too how you brought up Exxon.   funny fucking shit.   They make 10% on a gallon of gas and people like yourself scream and stamp your feet like a baby while the govt takes many times that much in taxes and did absolutely nothing to bring the gasoline to market.


But oh "BIG OIL" is who I should get angry at.      

Yeah whatever - grow up.  
  

Funny I never have seen you say the same things about teachers' unions, AFSME, CSEA, AFL, etc 

There are plenty of things wrong with our system right now.  Just because i don't rail on every one of them doesn't mean anything you are suggesting. 

So sorry, 33333 i don't have the time to post 62,000 times.   

Our system if fucked up beyond all reason right now.  Too many lobbyists, too many special interest groups, too many ear marks, too much pork, too many government agencies etc.. 

And allowing corporations unlimited campaign funding only moves farther away from what our founding fathers envisioned. 

[Soul Crusher]

Yes i agree with you, but you are blaming the symptom, not the problem. 

The problem is the power and authority of the govt to pick winners and losers via regulation, taxes, etc. 


We need to scrap the entire IRS tax code, repeal the income tax altogether and move to a flat sales tax. 

[OzmO]

Yes i agree with you, but you are blaming the symptom, not the problem. 

The problem is the power and authority of the govt to pick winners and losers via regulation, taxes, etc. 


We need to scrap the entire IRS tax code, repeal the income tax altogether and move to a flat sales tax. 

I don't know that it is the best answer, but its got to be better then what we have now. 


The only thing i see is our middle class and small business getting the short end.  whether that's too much government or too much power from large corporations i don't know.  I think its both

[Soul Crusher]

I don't know that it is the best answer, but its got to be better then what we have now. 


The only thing i see is our middle class and small business getting the short end.  whether that's too much government or too much power from large corporations i don't know.  I think its both

Here is the thing - you can set the tax rate at whatever you want, however, if there are enough carve outs, deductions, breaks, etc, it wont matter at all. 

It would be far better for GE to pay a 100% of a 5% corporate tax rate, than it is for them to pay 0% of a 35% tax rate.   

Govt would end up with a shit load more money and you take out the lobbysits, scams, etc. 

[240 is Back]

let's face it, hugo and Oz...

If OBAMA had said the exact same thing, 33 wouldn't be on here defending the idea.

He'd be calling Obama a tool of big interest, big business.

Since Romney (whom 33 voted for in 2008) said it, 33 feels the need to defend it.

[Soul Crusher]

let's face it, hugo and Oz...

If OBAMA had said the exact same thing, 33 wouldn't be on here defending the idea.

He'd be calling Obama a tool of big interest, big business.

Since Romney (whom 33 voted for in 2008) said it, 33 feels the need to defend it.

Hey idiot - I am defending the proper statement of existing law for the last 2 hundred years.   

[GigantorX]

Of course corporations are comprised of people.  If "People" want to contribute to a particular campaign they are free to do so.  People can band together and can start a PAC if they want.  However a corporation is not an individual person and not recognized by our constitution as a person.  A corporation's CEO or BoD should not (but does now) have the right to fund campaigns with corporation's (this group of people as you have defined) money the way they see fit.  

True.

Funny I never have seen you say the same things about teachers' unions, AFSME, CSEA, AFL, etc 

Also true. Why not a peep about unions? The dues the members pay go to fund candidates that share the Union bosses views, if no one complains that organized labor can take political contributions from its members and donate it to candidates why can't a corporation?

I don't like the fact that either can do it, by the way, but unions have been doing this shit forever.

[blacken700]

[bears]

Of course corporations are comprised of people.  If "People" want to contribute to a particular campaign they are free to do so.  People can band together and can start a PAC if they want.  However a corporation is not an individual person and not recognized by our constitution as a person.  A corporation's CEO or BoD should not (but does now) have the right to fund campaigns with corporation's (this group of people as you have defined) money the way they see fit.  

i think you're missing the point.  physically corporations are not people.  however, corporations are built by people living in a free market where they are allowed to invest money in whichever corporation they desire or not.  corporations also are beholden to those same people.  if the shareholders don't like something a particular corporation is doing (funding a particular political party) they absolutely do have a say, it's called getting rid of their stock and investing in another corporation.

What do you think?  Starbucks wants to buy Fair Trade Certified coffee and give the millions and millions of dollars they give to charity every year?  NO.  They do it because they know that their stockholders demand this of them.  They need to bend to the will of the stockholders or they will pay the price in profits.  That is the upside of a free market.  WE THE PEOPLE can choose how we spend our money and if a corporation is not acting in a way you see fit, you have the choice not to invest.  It's become popular with liberals to demonize all corporations in any way possible and portray them as "evil".  But the truth is that although there is abuse and some corporate CEO's are cheating their investors and the American people, there is still a lot of positives they bring to the table; jobs, charity, tax revenue, etc.  To deny that is silly.  And to pick and choose which groups of people you want donating to what is just plain unfair.  To echo what the above poster said, do you share the same animosity towards unions who give political contributions?  

[OzmO]

i think you're missing the point.  physically corporations are not people.  however, corporations are built by people living in a free market where they are allowed to invest money in whichever corporation they desire or not.  corporations also are beholden to those same people.  if the shareholders don't like something a particular corporation is doing (funding a particular political party) they absolutely do have a say, it's called getting rid of their stock and investing in another corporation.

What do you think?  Starbucks wants to buy Fair Trade Certified coffee and give the millions and millions of dollars they give to charity every year?  NO.  They do it because they know that their stockholders demand this of them.  They need to bend to the will of the stockholders or they will pay the price in profits.  That is the upside of a free market.  WE THE PEOPLE can choose how we spend our money and if a corporation is not acting in a way you see fit, you have the choice not to invest.  It's become popular with liberals to demonize all corporations in any way possible and portray them as "evil".  But the truth is that although there is abuse and some corporate CEO's are cheating their investors and the American people, there is still a lot of positives they bring to the table; jobs, charity, tax revenue, etc.  To deny that is silly.  And to pick and choose which groups of people you want donating to what is just plain unfair.  To echo what the above poster said, do you share the same animosity towards unions who give political contributions? 

I don't think Unions have the same amount of money.  Are there Unions who post 1+ billion a year in profits? 

I am not against large corporations.  They employ 75% of the workforce.  I am however, for small business.   When large corporations are allowed to fund campaigns they gain the ability to buy government.  That is not in the best interest of the people of our country.

Obviously stock holders can sell their stock if they don't like  who the company is backing, but why would they?  They didn't buy stock because of the companies political stance.  They bought it to make money.  Allowing corporation to fully fund candidates tips the scales of a "fair" election skewing it favor of corporations and NOT people. 

[Soul Crusher]

I don't think Unions have the same amount of money.  Are there Unions who post 1+ billion a year in profits? 

I am not against large corporations.  They employ 75% of the workforce.  I am however, for small business.   When large corporations are allowed to fund campaigns they gain the ability to buy government.  That is not in the best interest of the people of our country.

Obviously stock holders can sell their stock if they don't like  who the company is backing, but why would they?  They didn't buy stock because of the companies political stance.  They bought it to make money.  Allowing corporation to fully fund candidates tips the scales of a "fair" election skewing it favor of corporations and NOT people. 

Unions bankroll many many many campaigns.   Whether its the AFT, AFSME, AFL, CSEA, et al - they have a huge sway in many places.

Just look at Wisconsin.  The Unions used 35 Million TAX DOLLARS in that recall nonsense.   

[Hugo Chavez]

He goofs a date but this is good:

[OzmO]

Unions bankroll many many many campaigns.   Whether its the AFT, AFSME, AFL, CSEA, et al - they have a huge sway in many places.

Just look at Wisconsin.  The Unions used 35 Million TAX DOLLARS in that recall nonsense.   

But the comparison is a farce.  Unions are a problem in America, but they do not have near the money GE, Sachs, Exxon etc do.

[Soul Crusher]

But the comparison is a farce.  Unions are a problem in America, but they do not have near the money GE, Sachs, Exxon etc do.

Oh fucking please!   

In many states like Cali, New york, Illinois, the public sector unions bankrolls politicians who keep fucking the taxpayer in favor of the the public workers and unsustainable reckless spending. 

They have MILLIONS AND MILLIONS at their discretion OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS!