![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 9, 2011, at 12:52:23
A sign seen at occupy wall street:
A corporation will be a person when the state of Texas executes one. A corporation will be a person when the state taxes one.
As heard today on Democracy Now.
Posted by sigismund on November 9, 2011, at 17:40:16
In reply to Corporatehood, posted by floatingbridge on November 9, 2011, at 12:52:23
I'm reading Bacevich's "The Limits of Power. The end of American exceptionalism".
This was said around 30 years ago. From the book
'There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self interest. Down that path lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility.'
Posted by floatingbridge on November 9, 2011, at 17:49:18
In reply to Re: Corporatehood, posted by sigismund on November 9, 2011, at 17:40:16
He looks very interesting. How is the book?
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 8:54:14
In reply to Corporatehood, posted by floatingbridge on November 9, 2011, at 12:52:23
By saying that corporations are people, wasn't he saying that there is no such thing as a corporation existing on its own? That corporations are in those mutual funds that granny and grandad are funding their retirement with? That your own retirement funds might be in? That they are really just an amalgam of ownership of countless individuals, both big and small?
There is already double taxation on corporations. One when the corporation earns the money, and one when that money is distributed to its stockholders? That's the idea behind including dividends as capital gains. That there have already been taxes paid on that money. I'm not sure I agree with the policy, but I think it's founded on the idea that corporations may be legal entities, but they are really bits and pieces of ownership by countless individuals.
Not to mention the employees who owe their livelihood to said corporations.
As for not paying taxes, those tax breaks result from unfunded governmental programs. Hiring people from certain disadvantaged neighborhoods. Energy credits. Credits for investing money in bad economic times. Corporations might make use of them, but if the government didn't want the underlying result of the tax credits they wouldn't have them. Government sees it as a cheap way to obtain desirable goals.
I'm thinking perhaps he didn't explain himself well, but there was nothing wrong with his statement.
Posted by sigismund on November 10, 2011, at 18:34:56
In reply to Re: Corporatehood » sigismund, posted by floatingbridge on November 9, 2011, at 17:49:18
I like him because it as if he has no politics. I doubt if that is true. Maybe I mean that he is, at least by nature, a pragmatic sort of conservative, although he isn't now. I guess. It's great. I've almost finished.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 19:40:27
In reply to Re: Corporatehood, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 8:54:14
I'm not sure who is being discussed here. The sign was just a random sign. I liked the alliteration, and it made Amy Goodman laugh, which I always appreciate because Democracy Now can be a fairly weighty show. Perhaps it is an insider's joke. It certainly packs a lot of social commentary, and my finding it humorous says much about my own political beliefs, for one, my wish for the death penalty to be abolished.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 20:23:59
In reply to Re: Corporatehood » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 19:40:27
Romney made the remark that corporations were people. He meant what I said, but people are acting as if he was saying corporations *were* people. They are legal entities, but he didn't even mean that.
I am assuming the sign is referring to that, given the airplay it's gotten.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 23:01:04
In reply to Re: Corporatehood, posted by sigismund on November 10, 2011, at 18:34:56
Thank you. It's in my queue. I remember him now. He said he lost his son to a war he did not believe in.
I find ex-military who have come to reflect deeply on war to be very interesting thinkers because they bring their real time war experiences to bear on their thinking. It goes beyond theory.
Posted by sigismund on November 12, 2011, at 0:42:51
In reply to Re: Corporatehood » sigismund, posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 23:01:04
>I find ex-military who have come to reflect deeply on war to be very interesting thinkers
And natural conservatives (rather than right wing utopians or whatnot).
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.