[Vision2020] The 1% in Congress

[Paul Rumelhart]

Because I've only seen the term used in reference to income, personal 
wealth, or personal income tax paid.  As in "the top 1% made X in income 
but only paid Y% in taxes" or whatever.  If you allowed corporate assets 
into the game, then the 1% would probably all be corporations.  Which 
makes sense, because corporations are groups of people working together 
to do what few of us could do alone.

I'm as against the overarching rights that have been granted to 
corporations as you are.

Oh, and there's no need to be so formal.  Feel free to call me "Paul".

Paul

On 11/12/2011 10:29 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:
> Paul Rumelhart falsely suggests and inquires . . .
>
> "Corporations can't be one-percenters, can they?  That concept (so I 
> thought) relates only to people."
>
> Corporations achieved the "one-percenter" moniker, and the attributes 
> that accompany it, when they were granted first amendment rights and 
> continued to pursue loftier goals at the costs of . . . well, you know.
>
> Question, Mr. Rumelhart:  What is it about corporations, in your 
> opinion, that makes them ineligible for the "one-percenter" tag?
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "If not us, who?
> If not now, when?"
>
> - Unknown
>
> On Nov 12, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>> Corporations can't be one-percenters, can they?  That concept (so I 
>> thought) relates only to people.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20111112/c7432d0a/attachment.html>