Republic presidential candidate Mitt Romney was recently lambasted by the media for telling hecklers that “Corporations are people,” at the Iowa State Fair on Thursday.

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

I even got an e-mail from NY Senator Chuck Schumer (D) ridiculing his comment, saying:

“Republicans can’t even tell the difference between a flesh and blood human being and a business entity that doesn’t exist outside its legal definition.”

This raises the question: What is the definition of people versus that of corporations?

The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines people as:

plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest

Merriam Webster defines a corporation as:

a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession

Now, seeing as how People make up Corporations, I don’t agree with the grammar of Romney’s statement, but overall I agree with his point.

While it is easy for liberals to accuse conservatives of not caring for individuals’ well-being, it’s just as easy for conservatives to accuse liberals of not caring for groups of peoples’ well-being. Taking money away from corporations does take money away from their workers, in one way or another.

The real question is whether or not taxing the richest corporations more will help the general public in the long run; however, there’s no use denying that you’re still taking money away from some individuals when you give it to others (including the government). So I don’t think the criticism Romney has faced was well-deserved.

*Corporations does not appear but the plural is assumed to be analogous to the singular.

Comments are closed.