Willard (Mitt) Romney: Corporations Are People, Too

In the simplest terms, ten years ago the rich and the corporations started borrowing our Social Security and Medicare contributions to give themselves big tax breaks. Now they are saying they don’t want to pay us back. And Republican presidential candidate Willard (Mitt) Romney is a spokesman for the rich.

Via HuffPo:

Pressed by an attendee at the Iowa State Fair on Thursday as to why he was focusing on cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid instead of asking corporations to pay more taxes, the GOP frontrunner shot back:

“Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets. Human beings my friend.”

Of course, the “people” Romney is talking about are the top 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans. Unlike “Mitt,” most of us don’t personally know any of these people. And “Mitt” isn’t our friend.

More video from CNN

UPDATE: A commenter on TPM says:

Are you forgetting who his audience is? These are the people who have been brainwashed into believing that what benefits the rich benefits them as well. He’s campaigning to Republicans, isn’t he?

UPDATE: IRS: Nearly 1,500 millionaires paid no federal income tax in 2009.
Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes.

Group that Heckled Romney “Puts Principle Before Party,” Questions Both Parties on Social Safety Net, Making Corporations Pay

“We know where the money is. Not in the back pocket of a senior on Social Security. The money’s on Wall Street. It was their crisis and they should have to pay for it.”

Rand Paul Rushes To Romney’s Defense: ‘All Of Us Are Corporations’

UPDATE: VIDEO: Sarah Palin Tells ThinkProgress ‘Mitt Romney Was Right’ That Corporations Are People

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on August 11, 2011 - 4:44 pm

    So there can’t be any way to keep the promises of Social Security without cutting benefits?

    Corporations won’t be people until they can be run over by a car.

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on August 11, 2011 - 6:50 pm

    …Or drowned in the bathtub.

    Also – if they cut benefits they have to stop calling them “entitlements”. If I’m not entitled to them…

    well, you decide.

  3. #4 by brewski on August 19, 2011 - 3:38 pm

    Large corporations are almost entirely owned by large institutional shareholders. Large institutional shareholders are things like government employee retirement systems, mutual fund managers who manage individual 401k and IRA plans, insurance companies who invest policyholders’ premium proceeds until they need the cash to pay the policy benefits when you die, etc. So, Mitt is 100% right and the intellectually feeble left who have no idea how the world works has embarrassed themselves again. Go back to the sandbox.

  4. #5 by Richard Warnick on August 19, 2011 - 4:16 pm

    I’ll never forget CNBC’s Jim Cramer a few years ago during a sharp rise in gas prices. He said that if you don’t like it, then just buy oil company stock.

    People like Cramer and Romney have absolutely no idea what life is like for the average American. Not a single clue.

  5. #6 by brewski on August 19, 2011 - 5:11 pm

    The question was whether corporations are owned by people. The answer is yes. Period. Mitt is right and lefties are wrong. Next?

  6. #7 by Larry Bergan on August 19, 2011 - 5:23 pm

    brewski, brewski:

    Corporations aren’t owned by people; they’re owned by – stockholders – MONEY.

    Decisions based on paper, not on lives. Nothing more or less.

  7. #8 by cav on August 20, 2011 - 12:05 am

    Government is people!

    /Charlton Heston

  8. #9 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2011 - 11:57 am

    Saying that corporations = people is wrong because obscures the fact that capitalism is antithetical to democracy. In democracy, it’s one person one vote. In corporatism, the more shares you own, the more votes you have.

    The interests of the corporatists are opposed to the interests of the American people as a whole. Romney represents the top two percent, at most.

  9. #10 by Jessice on August 20, 2011 - 12:45 pm

    That is like saying economics is antithetical to democracy. If you want a say in the corporatocracy buy in. Nothing holding you back, you don’t get much of a say in any political system for just being alive. At most if you are given a vote and have no means, it is for the purpose of supporting one part of the oligarchy or the other. It is a timeless formula.

    Real plebiscite democracy leads to chaos and penury, nothing but history to prove that out. Be glad someone in the society is interested in creating value..if they were not, then what? Government will provide?

  10. #11 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2011 - 1:05 pm


    Nothing is holding people back from buying in to the corporatocracy? That’s like Jim Cramer saying if you don’t like high gas prices, just buy oil company stock. Great idea. What do we use for money? You see, the working people who truly create value in this economy are not reaping the rewards.

    With corporatists running Washington, the government is providing very well for the rich. Why not help out the rest of us? Most people just want a job so that they can work at a living wage. Is that too much to ask? In the long run, do investors want a thriving economy or an ongoing recession? Think about it.

  11. #12 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 20, 2011 - 1:16 pm

    “If you want a say in the corporatocracy buy in. Nothing holding you back,”

    That won’t give you any say, until you have enough shares to be on the board of directors the corporation is nothing more then a way to remove your power of your will on the piece of wealth or property that a corporation in reality represents.

    And the most common investment tool used by the middle class further separates them from the ability to exert their will on the property or wealth they own via the shares of the corporation even further. 401K’s leave their owners holding shares of an entity that holds shares of other entities.

    It wouldn’t matter how many shares I bought with even a upper middle class salary of say $150,000 that still wouldn’t be enough to exert pressure on say Exxon to stop doing businesses with governments that commit human rights violations.

    Currently the executives of a corporation are bound by the legal constraint of “Fiduciary responsibility” which means they are obligated to provide as good of returns for the share holders as possible not follow the collective will of the shareholders. Not to say that their is a better alternative, but at the very least understand the relationship between person and fictitious legal construct(the corporation) here.

  12. #13 by cav on August 20, 2011 - 3:01 pm

    Be glad someone in the society is interested in creating value…


    …not to dismiss the blue-collars who actually operate the tools. And certainly not to overlook the destruction of the environment. Sometimes I wonder if all this ‘Job creation’ isn’t ultimately going to end in world sprawling parking lots / strip-mines that enable not even the children of the very rich any quality of life.

    How about sharing jobs, wealth, sacrifice, and taking long, leisurly vacations?

  13. #14 by brewski on August 20, 2011 - 8:39 pm

    capitalism is antithetical to democracy.

    Versus what? Capitalism or what? Communism? Nazi-ism? Kleptocrism? Capitalism is the worst system unless you compare it to all the other ones. And again Richard, you have never demonstrated that you even know what the word “capitalism” means as you frequently describe things as being capitalism which are not. I think what you are describing is Statism/Cronyism, which is not capitalism.

  14. #15 by Larry Bergan on August 20, 2011 - 9:23 pm

    Capitalism, Communism, Nazi-ism, Statism, Cronyism, Kleptocrism?…


    The question mark is yours brewski. What is this new ism? Could it be Capitalism without regulation?

  15. #16 by brewski on August 20, 2011 - 9:30 pm

    In order for regulation to work, the regulators need to not be on the take. So this fantasy world where regulators and regulation is practiced by virtuous people solely interested in the public good, does not exist. If it did exist, we would not have tax deductions for 30,000 s.f. second and third homes.

  16. #17 by Larry Bergan on August 20, 2011 - 9:59 pm

    I need to know whether you think Elisabeth Warren is “on the take”, brewski.

  17. #18 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2011 - 11:35 pm

    We live in a Plutocracy.

  18. #19 by Larry Bergan on August 20, 2011 - 11:42 pm

    How do I put this:


  19. #20 by Larry Bergan on August 20, 2011 - 11:44 pm

    Trillion dollar babies.

    I adore ya’


  20. #21 by brewski on August 21, 2011 - 4:53 pm

    She will be.

  21. #22 by Larry Bergan on August 21, 2011 - 5:18 pm

    She will be what?

  22. #23 by brewski on August 21, 2011 - 7:33 pm

    on the take.

  23. #24 by Larry Bergan on August 21, 2011 - 8:12 pm

    What in the wide world would make you think Elisabeth Warren is “on the take”?

  24. #25 by brewski on August 21, 2011 - 9:55 pm

    She is a careerist, just like all of them. At some point they all have to make the decision, am I going to sell out and keep my career, or an I going to stick to my noble principles and be teaching a a junior college in Oklahoma. Any regular who does too good of a job will get a call from a congressman who got a call from a lobbyist or a large bundler whose company or whose jobs in their district depends on the regulator lightening up a little.

    Just ask Harry Reid how it works.


  25. #26 by cav on August 21, 2011 - 10:10 pm

    ‘Democracy’ as we know it and another good reason to yearn for the change we all seem to be longing for. But it’s happening despite the stubbornness of the lovers of status quo and the pearl clutching fear-disabled.

  26. #27 by Larry Bergan on August 21, 2011 - 10:15 pm

    A careerist?

    Elisabeth Warren?


  27. #28 by cav on August 23, 2011 - 8:12 am

    Warren’s criticism of Wall Street poses fundraising dilemma


    You cant get elected in Larceny Land unless you get bribed,and stay bribed.

  28. #29 by cav on August 24, 2011 - 8:53 am

    Revealed: Former Goldman Sachs VP Turned Issa Staffer Supervised Scheduling Of Elizabeth Warren Incident


  29. #30 by brewski on August 24, 2011 - 11:18 am

    This is pretty comical:

    ThinkProgress has now obtained more evidence that suggests that Haller’s employment under Issa is more akin to a bank lobbyist than a public servant entrusted with protecting the public interest.

    You mean, sort of like Obama’s chief of staff?

  30. #31 by Richard Warnick on August 24, 2011 - 11:51 am

    Rep. Issa has under-performed. Didn’t he threaten two investigations of the Obama administration a week? So far, he hasn’t done that much investigating, and he’s found nothing newsworthy.

  31. #32 by Larry Bergan on August 24, 2011 - 3:00 pm

    From cavs article at #29:

    …Haller, who adopted his mother’s maiden name in 2008 and had escaped public scrutiny until now…

    You don’t think Haller changed his name to ESCAPE public scrutiny, do you? I’ve never heard of anybody doing that before. 🙂

    Somebody should compile a list of corporations that change their names at least. It would be a VERY long one.

  32. #33 by brewski on August 24, 2011 - 3:18 pm

  33. #34 by Larry Bergan on August 24, 2011 - 3:53 pm

    Envirocare of Utah, Inc. pops into my head. 🙁

  34. #35 by Richard Warnick on August 24, 2011 - 4:06 pm

    How could you forget Diebold Election Systems and Blackwater?

  35. #36 by Larry Bergan on August 24, 2011 - 4:13 pm

    Diebold is a case in point because I don’t think anybody even knows what they’re calling themselves now.

    And, of course, XE!

  36. #37 by Larry Bergan on August 24, 2011 - 4:19 pm

    OH WAIT,

    Wasn’t Diebold going to be called Dominion systems, out of Canada! I haven’t heard about a final decision on that one yet.

    Maybe Governor Gary can tell us, or the present Lt. Governor can change HIS name and tell us. 🙂

  37. #38 by cav on August 24, 2011 - 7:30 pm

    And the essential interchangeability of ‘Republican’ and Teaparty.

  38. #39 by Larry Bergan on August 25, 2011 - 12:15 am

    I’m an Independent Republican. 🙂


  39. #40 by Larry Bergan on August 25, 2011 - 12:19 am


  40. #41 by cav on August 25, 2011 - 8:04 am

    “Wall Street is our Main Street”

    Why NY Attorney General Schneiderman matters.

    The issue goes beyond fraudulent paperwork to an intentional, far-reaching theft scheme designed to take junk subprime loans and disguise them as AAA-rated investments. The banks lent money to corrupt companies like Countrywide, who made masses of bad loans and immediately sold them back to the banks.

    The banks in turn hid the crappiness of these loans via certain poorly-understood nuances in the securitization process – this is almost certainly where Scheniderman’s investigators are doing their digging – before hawking the resultant securities as AAA-rated gold to fools in places like the Florida state pension fund.


  41. #42 by cav on August 25, 2011 - 8:08 am

    And by all means, dig into the comments!

  42. #43 by Richard Warnick on August 25, 2011 - 9:34 am

    Romney just executed a spectacular flip-flop into the sewer of climate denial.

  43. #44 by Larry Bergan on August 25, 2011 - 6:12 pm

    This is a serious question. Is Matt Taibbi the only serious American reporter who is actually published in the “politics” section of his publication instead of the “opinion” section.

    I guess you just have to read a music magazine to get the facts, and Matt is great at uncovering them!

    Thank goodness there are some other places you can go:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: