GOP'ish candidates

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh, sorry. When you lead your response with "It's about corporations being "people" I thought that was the real question. I was going to thank you for this new rational dialog we've been having the last few days. Let's keep it going rather than devolving into our usual BS. Other than the way the implications to our political system question was downplayed in your response, it didn't occur to me to respond because, other than the sides the left and right have obviously taken I see no other implications. But please fill me in.

I'm sorry, too, because I really can't follow what you write in the quote just above. Please clarify. I'm serious; I don't get the next-to-last sentence in the paragraph.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I know you wouldn't make the same mistake I made when I didn't answer your other question, so I'll wait for your answer to "What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?"

You are trying to change the subject, as usual. We can have a discussion about corporate tax rates and other criteria that might be reasonable for corporations to decide where to do business. But answer the question: do you think corporations are people in that they should have the same rights afforded to individuals (such as "free speech" as defined in Citizens United, coupled with the "right" to be completely secretive about who is actually exercising that "right")?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I'm sorry, too, because I really can't follow what you write in the quote just above. Please clarify. I'm serious; I don't get the next-to-last sentence in the paragraph.

Perhaps I was too vague. But I see from your last post perhaps what you're talking about when you say political implications. Your talking about corporations and free speech?

Originally Posted by smc

do you think corporations are people in that they should have the same rights afforded to individuals (such as "free speech" as defined in Citizens United, coupled with the "right" to be completely secretive about who is actually exercising that "right")?

Just as corporations are made up of people, and therefore already taxed, they also have the right to free speech. I know this is an issue for you and you asked me about my views on this a while back and I answered it the same way. Deja vu all over again. I think just as Hollywood puts out movies laced with the left viewpoint time after time, and the media presents the left viewpoint time after time, corporations (as the people they consist of do) have the right to free speech as well. Your argument may be that corporate speech may be banned because corporations enjoy certain privileges afforded by law. But the government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits, like barring criticism of Congress by residents of public housing. Extrapolate from there and you can forbid newspapers from making endorsements. Media companies are exempt from the ban. Why should newspapers be free to spend money urging support of a candidate while other companies are not?

Originally Posted by smc

You are trying to change the subject, as usual. We can have a discussion about corporate tax rates and other criteria that might be reasonable for corporations to decide where to do business.

You're saying we can talk about other criteria that decides where a corporation does business and remain on "subject" but not how corporate taxes influence where corporations do business? No I think that's part of the equation. Sure you can tax corporations or any other entity to its knees but there are consequences and that is part of the subject. Please answer the question.

What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Just as corporations are made up of people, and therefore already taxed, they also have the right to free speech. I know this is an issue for you and you asked me about my views on this a while back and I answered it the same way. Deja vu all over again. I think just as Hollywood puts out movies laced with the left viewpoint time after time, and the media presents the left viewpoint time after time, corporations (as the people they consist of do) have the right to free speech as well. Your argument may be that corporate speech may be banned because corporations enjoy certain privileges afforded by law. But the government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits, like barring criticism of Congress by residents of public housing. Extrapolate from there and you can forbid newspapers from making endorsements. Media companies are exempt from the ban. Why should newspapers be free to spend money urging support of a candidate while other companies are not?

I find your analogy to Hollywood movies to be rather specious, and I contend that there are umpteen movies that espouse what some might call the "right viewpoint," but be that as it may ... Here's a big difference. In a Hollywood movie, who is funding the message and stating the message is clear. When a corporation funds a political advertisement, it is not even remotely as transparent. So, would you at least agree that the transparency should be there for the corporate funders?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You're saying we can talk about other criteria that decides where a corporation does business and remain on "subject" but not how corporate taxes influence where corporations do business? No I think that's part of the equation. Sure you can tax corporations or any other entity to its knees but there are consequences and that is part of the subject. Please answer the question.

What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?

Your question is an attempt to introduce something to the equation that is tangential. Whether a corporation wants to do business here or there has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a corporation and a person are equal by definition and thus have equal "rights." I could put a map of impoverished places in the world, where all water is unpotable, disease is rampant, there are no educational opportunities, and food is scarce, and ask "What person would want to live here?" Does the answer have anything to do with our subject? Of course not.

Nevertheless, since based on experience one might reasonably assume you will pretend not to see the point and accuse me of not answering your question now asked multiple times, I will state that I don't think corporate taxes are high enough in this country. Now, you can take that up as a way of avoiding the subject I first raised ... it is my gift to you, because you are always so deserving.

(Yes, that's sarcasm.)

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

When a corporation funds a political advertisement, it is not even remotely as transparent. So, would you at least agree that the transparency should be there for the corporate funders?

Heaven forbid a voter actually try and read between the lines and think about what's really been said. Yes I agree it would be nice to know who's behind the message... but Constitutionally, I can't see the reasoning behind that.

Originally Posted by smc

Your question is an attempt to introduce something to the equation that is tangential.

You posted your cartoon about giving birth to a corporation and referenced Romney. I didn't know what Romney said about corporations being people so I googled it and found something on him talking about corporate taxes. I assumed corporate taxes were what you were talking about. And when I think about corporate taxes, whether or not the government should tax corporations is the first thing I think about and the second is the competitiveness of our corporations. You must admit we think very differently. Don't think I'm purposely trying to tick you off. I just don't see things the same way you do or have the same concerns as you.

Originally Posted by smc

Whether a corporation wants to do business here or there has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a corporation and a person are equal by definition and thus have equal "rights."

No, it doesn't, if your comment and cartoon was about the rights of a corporation. I assumed it was about taxes though. Does that mean you will not answer my question about corporate taxes?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Heaven forbid a voter actually try and read between the lines and think about what's really been said. Yes I agree it would be nice to know who's behind the message... but Constitutionally, I can't see the reasoning behind that.

That's why we have a Constitution that's meant to be interpreted. In this case, the interests of democracy might be a compelling reason to mandate such transparency.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You posted your cartoon about giving birth to a corporation and referenced Romney. I didn't know what Romney said about corporations being people so I googled it and found something on him talking about corporate taxes. I assumed corporate taxes were what you were talking about. And when I think about corporate taxes, whether or not the government should tax corporations is the first thing I think about and the second is the competitiveness of our corporations. You must admit we think very differently. Don't think I'm purposely trying to tick you off. I just don't see things the same way you do or have the same concerns as you.

I find it really, really, really, really hard to believe that you never saw the video of Romney in Iowa saying "corporations are people" and then giving a completely illogical followup to his comment that is the equivalent of saying that anything that does something for people or gives something to people is thus itself people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

No, it doesn't, if your comment and cartoon was about the rights of a corporation. I assumed it was about taxes though. Does that mean you will not answer my question about corporate taxes?

I do not think corporations pay enough taxes. Eliminate every one of the ridiculous loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes -- you know what I'm talking about -- and eliminate every ridiculous subsidy that gives our tax dollars to corporations that make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit, and perhaps I'll take a new look at the corporate tax rate. Until then, the argument is a bunch of crap, as I see it.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I do not think corporations pay enough taxes. Eliminate every one of the ridiculous loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes -- you know what I'm talking about -- and eliminate every ridiculous subsidy that gives our tax dollars to corporations that make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit, and perhaps I'll take a new look at the corporate tax rate. Until then, the argument is a bunch of crap, as I see it.

I think if you do that, whatever corporations that are still here in the US will scatter to the 4 corners of the globe and that will be it for our economy.

Kind of like what Steve Ballmer was talking about when tax increases were proposed in 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aAKluP7yIwJY

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think if you do that, whatever corporations that are still here in the US will scatter to the 4 corners of the globe and that will be it for our economy.

Kind of like what Steve Ballmer was talking about when tax increases were proposed in 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aAKluP7yIwJY

Then we could start over and build an economy based on meeting human needs, not enriching a handful of individuals at the expense of people and the environment. Think it can't be done? We have the resources to do so; it just requires a mindset change. And before they leave, we could take back whatever they've stolen.

You're welcome to scatter along with the corporations, TracyCoxx.