tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873572833110636287.post7554861602731235686..comments2023-03-24T02:00:45.579-07:00Comments on The Individual: What to make of questionable comments from GOP candidatesemmanuel goldsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03115737908997781255noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873572833110636287.post-16511159132855192322011-08-16T11:36:49.420-07:002011-08-16T11:36:49.420-07:00Democrats promising 3/1, 10/1 or 100/1 cuts/revenu...Democrats promising 3/1, 10/1 or 100/1 cuts/revenue increases is just like the scorpion promising not to sting the frog as they crossed the pond.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873572833110636287.post-60555604735699063222011-08-16T11:35:22.962-07:002011-08-16T11:35:22.962-07:00Of course they said they would reject a 10/1 deal ...Of course they said they would reject a 10/1 deal since the democrats would never honor it (they never have before, see other poster's comments on Reagan). What they should have said was that they would accept a deal of 10/1 BUT ONLY if revenue increases FOLLOWED cuts. So for each stepwise set of cuts they would enact appropriate revenue, not necessarily tax rate increases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873572833110636287.post-43015062219657294232011-08-16T09:41:52.846-07:002011-08-16T09:41:52.846-07:00Of course cut off both big unions and big corporat...Of course cut off both big unions and big corporations. The point is that large moneyed organizations should not be able to have a huge influence on elections.emmanuel goldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03115737908997781255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873572833110636287.post-16869466449966631182011-08-15T21:28:34.593-07:002011-08-15T21:28:34.593-07:00The BIG problem is that a 10/1 or any promise can&...The BIG problem is that a 10/1 or any promise can't be enforced unless you already have control of both houses and the executive and then you don't need a promise. The democrats have made these promises before and NEVER honored them. The most famous is Reagan's 3/1 deal with Tip O'Neil. Reagan honored his part and raised the taxes, but the Democrats NEVER allowed ANY cuts. Reagan said before he left office that he hoped to see the cuts before he passed from this world and that didn't happen either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873572833110636287.post-90856880265909728672011-08-15T20:55:39.695-07:002011-08-15T20:55:39.695-07:00I agree with both your points with a minor proviso...I agree with both your points with a minor proviso. Either cut off both big union and big corp or allow both. Then I right there with you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873572833110636287.post-32930392150219463232011-08-15T18:23:46.178-07:002011-08-15T18:23:46.178-07:00Maybe they believe that the only way to get well i...Maybe they believe that the only way to get well is to have only cuts with no increase in the addiction...but saying "I won't take a 10:1 deal" is completely out of touch with reality. The only way they'll get a spending-cuts-only solution that is meaningful is if the GOP controls the White House and both houses of Congress with a supermajority in the Senate. Even if they did, since the country is fairly evenly divided between liberals and conservatives, a bill that made significant cuts to entitlements with no new revenue whatsoever would probably be quite unpopular and result in lots of Republicans getting kicked out of office. <br /><br />It makes sense that corporations should have the same rights regarding contracts, due process, and property. But corporations are not persons for the purposes of politics; they cannot vote or run for office. Giving them the right to unlimited political donations is unfair because large corporations and unions have so much money that they can drown out individuals, while not necessarily representing the views of all of their members.emmanuel goldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03115737908997781255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873572833110636287.post-81262517938732323812011-08-15T15:25:13.698-07:002011-08-15T15:25:13.698-07:00Very interesting comments and I agree that the ans...Very interesting comments and I agree that the answer to the 10/1 question was more for the primary than for the general election. However, I also think that many of the candidates believe that, at this point, more debt is like more heroin. They believe the only way to get well is to have cuts with NO increase in the addiction. <br />On the point about the legal definition of a corporate "person": I believe Mitt was taking the business definition which I also learned in MBA school. The decision goes back to the 1886 supreme court decision: "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] the argument goes back to the supreme court decision in 1886"Arturohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192498401818303586noreply@blogger.com