Economics

[Dad2three]

stock-based performance pay pushes executives to focus on short-term profits

I'm glad Clinton punished rich execs by limiting deductible cash salary to $1 million.

$1 Million unless it qualified as “performance based” pay




The 1980s witnessed a flourishing of different types of compensation, following Reagan's deep cuts in the top rates of income tax. Some of the techniques were seemingly unrelated to performance, such as "signing bonuses" for new CEOs and "guaranteed bonuses."


The highest federal marginal tax rate on income over $400,000 stood at 91 percent throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. Few executives in this era ever made more than 30 to 40 times the pay of their workers. By 1981, the year Ronald Reagan
entered the White House, this top rate had dropped to 70 percent. Under Reagan, the top rate quickly fell further,
first to 50, then to 28 percent.


The current top federal tax rates: 35 percent on “ordinary” income and just 15 percent on dividends and capital gains (20% today).


The pay ratio between CEOs of S&P 500 Index companies and average U.S. workers widened to 380-to-1 in 2011. In 1980, the average large company CEO only received 42 times the average
worker’s pay.



One key reason why: Our nation’s tax code has become a powerful enabler of bloated CEO pay.


Some tax rules on the books today essentially encourage corporations to compensate their executives at unconscionably higher multiples of what their average workers are paid.

Other rules let executives who run major corporations routinely reduce their corporate tax bills. The fewer dollars these
corporations pay in taxes, the more robust their cash flow and eventual earnings. The more robust these cash and earnings
numbers, the higher the “performance- based” pay for the CEOs who produce them


....Unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay

The more corporations pay their CEO, the lower their tax bill
Annual cost to taxpayers: $9.7 billion

Our laws currently impose no meaningful limit on how much corporations can deduct off their income taxes for the expense of executive compensation
.
A 1993 law capped executive pay deductions at $1 million, but left a huge loophole.


Corporations can exempt “performance-based” pay. Most companies simply limit top executive salaries to $1 million or so and then add on to that total various “performance-based” awards, with stock options making up the largest share.


http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/up...xcess-2012-CEO-Hands-In-Uncle-Sams-Pocket.pdf

....Unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay

The more corporations pay their CEO, the lower their tax bill
Annual cost to taxpayers: $9.7 billion

And when the executives pay their taxes, the Treasury gets the $9.7 billion back. So what?

Sure they do *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

$1 Million unless it qualified as “performance based” pay




The 1980s witnessed a flourishing of different types of compensation, following Reagan's deep cuts in the top rates of income tax. Some of the techniques were seemingly unrelated to performance, such as "signing bonuses" for new CEOs and "guaranteed bonuses."


The highest federal marginal tax rate on income over $400,000 stood at 91 percent throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. Few executives in this era ever made more than 30 to 40 times the pay of their workers. By 1981, the year Ronald Reagan
entered the White House, this top rate had dropped to 70 percent. Under Reagan, the top rate quickly fell further,
first to 50, then to 28 percent.


The current top federal tax rates: 35 percent on “ordinary” income and just 15 percent on dividends and capital gains (20% today).


The pay ratio between CEOs of S&P 500 Index companies and average U.S. workers widened to 380-to-1 in 2011. In 1980, the average large company CEO only received 42 times the average
worker’s pay.



One key reason why: Our nation’s tax code has become a powerful enabler of bloated CEO pay.


Some tax rules on the books today essentially encourage corporations to compensate their executives at unconscionably higher multiples of what their average workers are paid.

Other rules let executives who run major corporations routinely reduce their corporate tax bills. The fewer dollars these
corporations pay in taxes, the more robust their cash flow and eventual earnings. The more robust these cash and earnings
numbers, the higher the “performance- based” pay for the CEOs who produce them


....Unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay

The more corporations pay their CEO, the lower their tax bill
Annual cost to taxpayers: $9.7 billion

Our laws currently impose no meaningful limit on how much corporations can deduct off their income taxes for the expense of executive compensation
.
A 1993 law capped executive pay deductions at $1 million, but left a huge loophole.


Corporations can exempt “performance-based” pay. Most companies simply limit top executive salaries to $1 million or so and then add on to that total various “performance-based” awards, with stock options making up the largest share.


http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/up...xcess-2012-CEO-Hands-In-Uncle-Sams-Pocket.pdf

....Unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay

The more corporations pay their CEO, the lower their tax bill
Annual cost to taxpayers: $9.7 billion

And when the executives pay their taxes, the Treasury gets the $9.7 billion back. So what?

And liberals wonder why so many companies are leaving our shores.

Not really, we understand, it's mainly conservatives policy the past 30+ years

Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$1 Million unless it qualified as “performance based” pay




The 1980s witnessed a flourishing of different types of compensation, following Reagan's deep cuts in the top rates of income tax. Some of the techniques were seemingly unrelated to performance, such as "signing bonuses" for new CEOs and "guaranteed bonuses."


The highest federal marginal tax rate on income over $400,000 stood at 91 percent throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. Few executives in this era ever made more than 30 to 40 times the pay of their workers. By 1981, the year Ronald Reagan
entered the White House, this top rate had dropped to 70 percent. Under Reagan, the top rate quickly fell further,
first to 50, then to 28 percent.


The current top federal tax rates: 35 percent on “ordinary” income and just 15 percent on dividends and capital gains (20% today).


The pay ratio between CEOs of S&P 500 Index companies and average U.S. workers widened to 380-to-1 in 2011. In 1980, the average large company CEO only received 42 times the average
worker’s pay.



One key reason why: Our nation’s tax code has become a powerful enabler of bloated CEO pay.


Some tax rules on the books today essentially encourage corporations to compensate their executives at unconscionably higher multiples of what their average workers are paid.

Other rules let executives who run major corporations routinely reduce their corporate tax bills. The fewer dollars these
corporations pay in taxes, the more robust their cash flow and eventual earnings. The more robust these cash and earnings
numbers, the higher the “performance- based” pay for the CEOs who produce them


....Unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay

The more corporations pay their CEO, the lower their tax bill
Annual cost to taxpayers: $9.7 billion

Our laws currently impose no meaningful limit on how much corporations can deduct off their income taxes for the expense of executive compensation
.
A 1993 law capped executive pay deductions at $1 million, but left a huge loophole.


Corporations can exempt “performance-based” pay. Most companies simply limit top executive salaries to $1 million or so and then add on to that total various “performance-based” awards, with stock options making up the largest share.


http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/up...xcess-2012-CEO-Hands-In-Uncle-Sams-Pocket.pdf

....Unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay

The more corporations pay their CEO, the lower their tax bill
Annual cost to taxpayers: $9.7 billion

And when the executives pay their taxes, the Treasury gets the $9.7 billion back. So what?

Sure they do *shaking head*

Executives aren't taxed at the same rate, or higher, than corporations?

 

[Dad2three]

....Unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay

The more corporations pay their CEO, the lower their tax bill
Annual cost to taxpayers: $9.7 billion

And when the executives pay their taxes, the Treasury gets the $9.7 billion back. So what?

Sure they do *shaking head*

Executives aren't taxed at the same rate, or higher, than corporations?

First Corps skip the tax bite, second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite. third, YOU are a moron!


Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%



From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

 

[Rshermr]

$1 Million unless it qualified as “performance based” pay




The 1980s witnessed a flourishing of different types of compensation, following Reagan's deep cuts in the top rates of income tax. Some of the techniques were seemingly unrelated to performance, such as "signing bonuses" for new CEOs and "guaranteed bonuses."


The highest federal marginal tax rate on income over $400,000 stood at 91 percent throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. Few executives in this era ever made more than 30 to 40 times the pay of their workers. By 1981, the year Ronald Reagan
entered the White House, this top rate had dropped to 70 percent. Under Reagan, the top rate quickly fell further,
first to 50, then to 28 percent.


The current top federal tax rates: 35 percent on “ordinary” income and just 15 percent on dividends and capital gains (20% today).


The pay ratio between CEOs of S&P 500 Index companies and average U.S. workers widened to 380-to-1 in 2011. In 1980, the average large company CEO only received 42 times the average
worker’s pay.



One key reason why: Our nation’s tax code has become a powerful enabler of bloated CEO pay.


Some tax rules on the books today essentially encourage corporations to compensate their executives at unconscionably higher multiples of what their average workers are paid.

Other rules let executives who run major corporations routinely reduce their corporate tax bills. The fewer dollars these
corporations pay in taxes, the more robust their cash flow and eventual earnings. The more robust these cash and earnings
numbers, the higher the “performance- based” pay for the CEOs who produce them


....Unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay

The more corporations pay their CEO, the lower their tax bill
Annual cost to taxpayers: $9.7 billion

Our laws currently impose no meaningful limit on how much corporations can deduct off their income taxes for the expense of executive compensation
.
A 1993 law capped executive pay deductions at $1 million, but left a huge loophole.


Corporations can exempt “performance-based” pay. Most companies simply limit top executive salaries to $1 million or so and then add on to that total various “performance-based” awards, with stock options making up the largest share.


http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/up...xcess-2012-CEO-Hands-In-Uncle-Sams-Pocket.pdf

....Unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay

The more corporations pay their CEO, the lower their tax bill
Annual cost to taxpayers: $9.7 billion

And when the executives pay their taxes, the Treasury gets the $9.7 billion back. So what?

And liberals wonder why so many companies are leaving our shores.

OK. Tell me, oh great thinker, why do you suggest jobs are leaving our shores??

Here is an analysis of manufacturing jobs:

U.S. manufacturers have enjoyed a bounce since the end of the recession, adding nearly a half-million jobs. The industry now employs almost 12 million workers and is growing employment for the first time since the mid-1990s.

Yet those gains pale in comparison to the nearly 6 million U.S. jobs that vanished from 2000 to 2010, when manufacturing employment shrank to 11.4 million from 17.3 million. Many of those jobs ended up in China or other low-cost countries.

Can some or all of those jobs come back? Right now the evidence is thin. Most manufacturing jobs created in the past three years are the result of a recovering economy. Companies that slashed payrolls in the Great Recession have been beefing up to handle rising demand.
Bringing factory jobs back to the U.S. - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

So, jobs left primarily during the run up to the great republican recession and the first couple of years of the great democratic recovery.

Perhaps another source from a bat shit crazy conservative source will support your latest stance.

 

[Foxfyre]

Another ignorant right winger who ONLY has false premises, distortions and lies in his bucket


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory



The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes




Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

I may indeed be ignorant on many things, but you illustrate the point I was making by using the language/code words/talking points of the left to infer that the Founders meant something that they in fact did not mean at all. Certainly the goal of government should not be to help the wealthy and powerful but to treat every citizen the same and no differently than anybody else. They would have been horrified at the federal meddling in areas of welfare, entitlements, grants, etc. that they, pretty much to a man saw as no function of the central government. They would have known that the trillions that the federal government has poured into poverty programs in an effort to redistribute wealth has ultimately done more harm than good. They didn't look to anecdotal evidence but always to the whole picture.

The Founders were determined that the federal government was to NOT give anybody discretionary powers over the property of their neighbors, but the left constantly pushes for the government to control more and more of the property of its citizens.

The federal government was set up to give the people every chance to take advantage of being in a classless society. As for 'monopolies of land', what would Adams have said about a federal government that owns and controls more than 30% of the total land within the borders of the USA and is constantly seeking to control more and more? Just in these few states alone, the totals are staggering. Just look at these states alone and the percentage of land the federal government owns and manages through a dozen bloated expensive government agencies:

Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%

Before calling somebody ignorant, one should be aware of what he/she is actually talking about. Remember when you point your finger at somebody, three fingers are pointing back at you.

And all of this is important, some of it critical, to the U.S. economy.

Got it, ALL you can do is SAY they didn't REALLY mean the words I presented to you as FACTS.

THE FOUNDERS WERE THE MOST RADICAL LIBERALS OF THEIR DAY. They CHOSE the STRONG federal Gov't over the weak states rights Articles, they understood a SOCIETY was needed to create the world they wanted, they began by limiting Corporations and Corp involvement in the US society!

The Federalist Party supported Hamilton's vision of a strong centralized government, and agreed with his proposals for a national bank and heavy government subsidies. In other words, they were socialists.


The Founding Fathers supported aggressive government regulation through the Commerce Clause


If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.


Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers



The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.


US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

The Founders were not liberal with the same definition as the modern American Marxist/socialist minded liberal. The Founders were to a man 'classical liberals' very strong on a very small, efficient, effective central government strictly limited to what the Constitution specifically authorized it to do. What the local or colony/state governments did re the poor or any other matters was strictly the business of those local or colony/state governments and nobody else's.

And if you have not read, in context, the Federalist and anti-Federalist and all the other letters, transcripts, and documents that are part and parcel of the founding and organization of this nation, you won't have a clue about what the Founders meant or intended in the quotations you attribute to them. Those who quote them with no understanding of what they were actually saying only spread ignorance rather than enlightenment.

Context is everything when it comes to understanding history.

 

[Rshermr]

I may indeed be ignorant on many things, but you illustrate the point I was making by using the language/code words/talking points of the left to infer that the Founders meant something that they in fact did not mean at all. Certainly the goal of government should not be to help the wealthy and powerful but to treat every citizen the same and no differently than anybody else. They would have been horrified at the federal meddling in areas of welfare, entitlements, grants, etc. that they, pretty much to a man saw as no function of the central government. They would have known that the trillions that the federal government has poured into poverty programs in an effort to redistribute wealth has ultimately done more harm than good. They didn't look to anecdotal evidence but always to the whole picture.

The Founders were determined that the federal government was to NOT give anybody discretionary powers over the property of their neighbors, but the left constantly pushes for the government to control more and more of the property of its citizens.

The federal government was set up to give the people every chance to take advantage of being in a classless society. As for 'monopolies of land', what would Adams have said about a federal government that owns and controls more than 30% of the total land within the borders of the USA and is constantly seeking to control more and more? Just in these few states alone, the totals are staggering. Just look at these states alone and the percentage of land the federal government owns and manages through a dozen bloated expensive government agencies:

Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%

Before calling somebody ignorant, one should be aware of what he/she is actually talking about. Remember when you point your finger at somebody, three fingers are pointing back at you.

And all of this is important, some of it critical, to the U.S. economy.

Got it, ALL you can do is SAY they didn't REALLY mean the words I presented to you as FACTS.

THE FOUNDERS WERE THE MOST RADICAL LIBERALS OF THEIR DAY. They CHOSE the STRONG federal Gov't over the weak states rights Articles, they understood a SOCIETY was needed to create the world they wanted, they began by limiting Corporations and Corp involvement in the US society!

The Federalist Party supported Hamilton's vision of a strong centralized government, and agreed with his proposals for a national bank and heavy government subsidies. In other words, they were socialists.


The Founding Fathers supported aggressive government regulation through the Commerce Clause


If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.


Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers



The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.


US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

The Founders were not liberal with the same definition as the modern American Marxist/socialist minded liberal. The Founders were to a man 'classical liberals' very strong on a very small, efficient, effective central government strictly limited to what the Constitution specifically authorized it to do. What the local or colony/state governments did re the poor or any other matters was strictly the business of those local or colony/state governments and nobody else's.

And if you have not read, in context, the Federalist and anti-Federalist and all the other letters, transcripts, and documents that are part and parcel of the founding and organization of this nation, you won't have a clue about what the Founders meant or intended in the quotations you attribute to them. Those who quote them with no understanding of what they were actually saying only spread ignorance rather than enlightenment.

Context is everything when it comes to understanding history.

That would be your opinion. Which, me boy, has NO value. You seem to have a high opinion of your understanding of history. Good for you. You know how much the rest of us value your opinion.
Next time try a link to some proof. Someone may be interested.

 

[Foxfyre]

Got it, ALL you can do is SAY they didn't REALLY mean the words I presented to you as FACTS.

THE FOUNDERS WERE THE MOST RADICAL LIBERALS OF THEIR DAY. They CHOSE the STRONG federal Gov't over the weak states rights Articles, they understood a SOCIETY was needed to create the world they wanted, they began by limiting Corporations and Corp involvement in the US society!

The Federalist Party supported Hamilton's vision of a strong centralized government, and agreed with his proposals for a national bank and heavy government subsidies. In other words, they were socialists.


The Founding Fathers supported aggressive government regulation through the Commerce Clause


If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.


Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers



The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.


US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

The Founders were not liberal with the same definition as the modern American Marxist/socialist minded liberal. The Founders were to a man 'classical liberals' very strong on a very small, efficient, effective central government strictly limited to what the Constitution specifically authorized it to do. What the local or colony/state governments did re the poor or any other matters was strictly the business of those local or colony/state governments and nobody else's.

And if you have not read, in context, the Federalist and anti-Federalist and all the other letters, transcripts, and documents that are part and parcel of the founding and organization of this nation, you won't have a clue about what the Founders meant or intended in the quotations you attribute to them. Those who quote them with no understanding of what they were actually saying only spread ignorance rather than enlightenment.

Context is everything when it comes to understanding history.

That would be your opinion. Which, me boy, has NO value. You seem to have a high opinion of your understanding of history. Good for you. You know how much the rest of us value your opinion.
Next time try a link to some proof. Someone may be interested.

Thank you for your thoughtful and most gracious assessment of my opinion and your open minded approach to the topic. As for 'proof', well I could link you to the Library of Congress that most likely has ALL the documents that real students of history study on the topic, usually for years. But here's a pretty good place to start and then you can branch out from there:
Federalist Papers, AntiFederalist Papers, Amendments, Constitution

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Founders were not liberal with the same definition as the modern American Marxist/socialist minded liberal. The Founders were to a man 'classical liberals' very strong on a very small, efficient, effective central government strictly limited to what the Constitution specifically authorized it to do. What the local or colony/state governments did re the poor or any other matters was strictly the business of those local or colony/state governments and nobody else's.

And if you have not read, in context, the Federalist and anti-Federalist and all the other letters, transcripts, and documents that are part and parcel of the founding and organization of this nation, you won't have a clue about what the Founders meant or intended in the quotations you attribute to them. Those who quote them with no understanding of what they were actually saying only spread ignorance rather than enlightenment.

Context is everything when it comes to understanding history.

That would be your opinion. Which, me boy, has NO value. You seem to have a high opinion of your understanding of history. Good for you. You know how much the rest of us value your opinion.
Next time try a link to some proof. Someone may be interested.

Thank you for your thoughtful and most gracious assessment of my opinion and your open minded approach to the topic. As for 'proof', well I could link you to the Library of Congress that most likely has ALL the documents that real students of history study on the topic, usually for years. But here's a pretty good place to start and then you can branch out from there:
Federalist Papers, AntiFederalist Papers, Amendments, Constitution

Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I may indeed be ignorant on many things, but you illustrate the point I was making by using the language/code words/talking points of the left to infer that the Founders meant something that they in fact did not mean at all. Certainly the goal of government should not be to help the wealthy and powerful but to treat every citizen the same and no differently than anybody else. They would have been horrified at the federal meddling in areas of welfare, entitlements, grants, etc. that they, pretty much to a man saw as no function of the central government. They would have known that the trillions that the federal government has poured into poverty programs in an effort to redistribute wealth has ultimately done more harm than good. They didn't look to anecdotal evidence but always to the whole picture.

The Founders were determined that the federal government was to NOT give anybody discretionary powers over the property of their neighbors, but the left constantly pushes for the government to control more and more of the property of its citizens.

The federal government was set up to give the people every chance to take advantage of being in a classless society. As for 'monopolies of land', what would Adams have said about a federal government that owns and controls more than 30% of the total land within the borders of the USA and is constantly seeking to control more and more? Just in these few states alone, the totals are staggering. Just look at these states alone and the percentage of land the federal government owns and manages through a dozen bloated expensive government agencies:

Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%

Before calling somebody ignorant, one should be aware of what he/she is actually talking about. Remember when you point your finger at somebody, three fingers are pointing back at you.

And all of this is important, some of it critical, to the U.S. economy.

Got it, ALL you can do is SAY they didn't REALLY mean the words I presented to you as FACTS.

THE FOUNDERS WERE THE MOST RADICAL LIBERALS OF THEIR DAY. They CHOSE the STRONG federal Gov't over the weak states rights Articles, they understood a SOCIETY was needed to create the world they wanted, they began by limiting Corporations and Corp involvement in the US society!

The Federalist Party supported Hamilton's vision of a strong centralized government, and agreed with his proposals for a national bank and heavy government subsidies. In other words, they were socialists.


The Founding Fathers supported aggressive government regulation through the Commerce Clause


If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.


Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers



The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.


US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

The Founders were not liberal with the same definition as the modern American Marxist/socialist minded liberal. The Founders were to a man 'classical liberals' very strong on a very small, efficient, effective central government strictly limited to what the Constitution specifically authorized it to do. What the local or colony/state governments did re the poor or any other matters was strictly the business of those local or colony/state governments and nobody else's.

And if you have not read, in context, the Federalist and anti-Federalist and all the other letters, transcripts, and documents that are part and parcel of the founding and organization of this nation, you won't have a clue about what the Founders meant or intended in the quotations you attribute to them. Those who quote them with no understanding of what they were actually saying only spread ignorance rather than enlightenment.

Context is everything when it comes to understanding history.

Our Founders were uber conservative and had one overarching concern, namely, to prevent the beast from growing uncontrolably:

many did not want a Bill of Right out of fear that if govt were given the power to protect rights that largely existed in America it would subvert that power to destroy those rights. Such was the fear of liberal govt/






James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

66)James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

 

[Foxfyre]

That would be your opinion. Which, me boy, has NO value. You seem to have a high opinion of your understanding of history. Good for you. You know how much the rest of us value your opinion.
Next time try a link to some proof. Someone may be interested.

Thank you for your thoughtful and most gracious assessment of my opinion and your open minded approach to the topic. As for 'proof', well I could link you to the Library of Congress that most likely has ALL the documents that real students of history study on the topic, usually for years. But here's a pretty good place to start and then you can branch out from there:
Federalist Papers, AntiFederalist Papers, Amendments, Constitution

Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

Yes. The documents the Founders left for posterity are not easy reading and won't be even attempted by the 30-second sound bite crowd who are so eager to demonize those of us who have read them and sincerely sought to understand what they said. And the results are self-evident in the serious ignorance exhibited in the out-of-context sound bites they have been fed to use on message boards. Nor will they understand the warning contained in this:

"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God had given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."
-- Benjamin Franklin​

And IMO (which of course has been dismissed as irrelevant), ignorance in matters of economics is one of the first things the tyrants like to develop.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Thank you for your thoughtful and most gracious assessment of my opinion and your open minded approach to the topic. As for 'proof', well I could link you to the Library of Congress that most likely has ALL the documents that real students of history study on the topic, usually for years. But here's a pretty good place to start and then you can branch out from there:
Federalist Papers, AntiFederalist Papers, Amendments, Constitution

Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

Yes. The documents the Founders left for posterity are not easy reading and won't be even attempted by the 30-second sound bite crowd who are so eager to demonize those of us who have read them and sincerely sought to understand what they said. And the results are self-evident in the serious ignorance exhibited in the out-of-context sound bites they have been fed to use on message boards. Nor will they understand the warning contained in this:

"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God had given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."
-- Benjamin Franklin​

And IMO (which of course has been dismissed as irrelevant), ignorance in matters of economics is one of the first things the tyrants like to develop.

I think it worse than that. When Reagan said," isn't welfare a form of slavery" the liberals had no idea what he meant. That shows ignorance on a profound level.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure they do *shaking head*

Executives aren't taxed at the same rate, or higher, than corporations?

First Corps skip the tax bite, second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite. third, YOU are a moron!


Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%



From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

First Corps skip the tax bite,

I know, corporations get to subtract COGS, employees compensation and all sorts of other deductible expenses before they pay taxes on their profit. Just awful!
They should have to pay 35% on revenue, with no deductions. Right?

second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite.

What does that have to do with the taxes on their "income from corporate salaries"?

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

We've already discussed how S Corporations have shifted taxes from corporations to individuals.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

 

[Dad2three]

I may indeed be ignorant on many things, but you illustrate the point I was making by using the language/code words/talking points of the left to infer that the Founders meant something that they in fact did not mean at all. Certainly the goal of government should not be to help the wealthy and powerful but to treat every citizen the same and no differently than anybody else. They would have been horrified at the federal meddling in areas of welfare, entitlements, grants, etc. that they, pretty much to a man saw as no function of the central government. They would have known that the trillions that the federal government has poured into poverty programs in an effort to redistribute wealth has ultimately done more harm than good. They didn't look to anecdotal evidence but always to the whole picture.

The Founders were determined that the federal government was to NOT give anybody discretionary powers over the property of their neighbors, but the left constantly pushes for the government to control more and more of the property of its citizens.

The federal government was set up to give the people every chance to take advantage of being in a classless society. As for 'monopolies of land', what would Adams have said about a federal government that owns and controls more than 30% of the total land within the borders of the USA and is constantly seeking to control more and more? Just in these few states alone, the totals are staggering. Just look at these states alone and the percentage of land the federal government owns and manages through a dozen bloated expensive government agencies:

Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%

Before calling somebody ignorant, one should be aware of what he/she is actually talking about. Remember when you point your finger at somebody, three fingers are pointing back at you.

And all of this is important, some of it critical, to the U.S. economy.

Got it, ALL you can do is SAY they didn't REALLY mean the words I presented to you as FACTS.

THE FOUNDERS WERE THE MOST RADICAL LIBERALS OF THEIR DAY. They CHOSE the STRONG federal Gov't over the weak states rights Articles, they understood a SOCIETY was needed to create the world they wanted, they began by limiting Corporations and Corp involvement in the US society!

The Federalist Party supported Hamilton's vision of a strong centralized government, and agreed with his proposals for a national bank and heavy government subsidies. In other words, they were socialists.


The Founding Fathers supported aggressive government regulation through the Commerce Clause


If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.


Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers



The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.


US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

The Founders were not liberal with the same definition as the modern American Marxist/socialist minded liberal. The Founders were to a man 'classical liberals' very strong on a very small, efficient, effective central government strictly limited to what the Constitution specifically authorized it to do. What the local or colony/state governments did re the poor or any other matters was strictly the business of those local or colony/state governments and nobody else's.

And if you have not read, in context, the Federalist and anti-Federalist and all the other letters, transcripts, and documents that are part and parcel of the founding and organization of this nation, you won't have a clue about what the Founders meant or intended in the quotations you attribute to them. Those who quote them with no understanding of what they were actually saying only spread ignorance rather than enlightenment.

Context is everything when it comes to understanding history.

Sorry Bubba, I have my minor in history, YOU LIE.

Madison the 'father' of the US Constitution, WANTED a strong federal Gov't, in FACT he wanted a negative on state laws, the ability to veto them, going into the Constitutional convention (AND Washington agreed)

Federalists/Anti? Oh right the advertisement of it's day, that's called PROPAGANDA!


Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal "negative" (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.

These setbacks have convinced some historians that Madison's reputation with respect to the Constitution is overblown.

James Madison "Godfather of the Constitution" - The Early America Review, Summer 1997


GROW UP AND GROW A BRAIN



Thomas Jefferson Also Supported Government Run Health Care

In response to my earlier piece on “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”, the 1798 law revealing that a number of our founders were more supportive of the notion of mandated health coverage and a government run hospital system than some may have imagined, many have noted that it is not surprising that such legislation would have been signed into law by President John Adams, a noted Federalist who serves as a model for much of what today’s Tea Party finds objectionable.

Thomas Jefferson Also Supported Government Run Health Care - Forbes



(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.




Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.



The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.




American School of Economics

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)#Origins



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:


Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States




THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution. Today's far-right activists, we're told, are the ideological descendents of the Founding Fathers.


...."The great irony, of course, is that the Anti-Federalist ancestors of the Tea Partiers opposed the Constitution rather than revered it," Wood explained.


The Washington Monthly

 

[Dad2three]

The Founders were not liberal with the same definition as the modern American Marxist/socialist minded liberal. The Founders were to a man 'classical liberals' very strong on a very small, efficient, effective central government strictly limited to what the Constitution specifically authorized it to do. What the local or colony/state governments did re the poor or any other matters was strictly the business of those local or colony/state governments and nobody else's.

And if you have not read, in context, the Federalist and anti-Federalist and all the other letters, transcripts, and documents that are part and parcel of the founding and organization of this nation, you won't have a clue about what the Founders meant or intended in the quotations you attribute to them. Those who quote them with no understanding of what they were actually saying only spread ignorance rather than enlightenment.

Context is everything when it comes to understanding history.

That would be your opinion. Which, me boy, has NO value. You seem to have a high opinion of your understanding of history. Good for you. You know how much the rest of us value your opinion.
Next time try a link to some proof. Someone may be interested.

Thank you for your thoughtful and most gracious assessment of my opinion and your open minded approach to the topic. As for 'proof', well I could link you to the Library of Congress that most likely has ALL the documents that real students of history study on the topic, usually for years. But here's a pretty good place to start and then you can branch out from there:
Federalist Papers, AntiFederalist Papers, Amendments, Constitution

LOL,


Too many people today believe (and are taught to believe) that the Federalist Papers are the definitive guide to interpreting the original intent of the Constitution. Hardly anything could be further from the truth, though it has all the right hallmarks to appear as the truth. Despite this appearance, the truth is that the Federalist Papers were little more than propaganda aimed at persuading reluctant New York voters to accept a new centralized form of government they didn’t want. In the mean time, the serial publication of these persuasive pieces of genius marketing also provide a stall tactic desperately needed by the Federalist faction.

Even before the Constitutional Convention closed, forces both for and against it began to prepare for intense debate over ratification. Some states would greatly benefit from the proposed new government. These would likely ratify quickly with little discussion. Other states, however, had more to lose from a consolidated government

The American Vision | The truth about the Federalist Papers

 

[Dad2three]

Executives aren't taxed at the same rate, or higher, than corporations?

First Corps skip the tax bite, second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite. third, YOU are a moron!


Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%



From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

First Corps skip the tax bite,

I know, corporations get to subtract COGS, employees compensation and all sorts of other deductible expenses before they pay taxes on their profit. Just awful!
They should have to pay 35% on revenue, with no deductions. Right?

second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite.

What does that have to do with the taxes on their "income from corporate salaries"?

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

We've already discussed how S Corporations have shifted taxes from corporations to individuals.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

lol, Read it again Bubba.


From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.[/QUOTE]

Corps pay record 40 year low, 12% of PUS PROFIT in fed taxes!

 

[Dad2three]

Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

Yes. The documents the Founders left for posterity are not easy reading and won't be even attempted by the 30-second sound bite crowd who are so eager to demonize those of us who have read them and sincerely sought to understand what they said. And the results are self-evident in the serious ignorance exhibited in the out-of-context sound bites they have been fed to use on message boards. Nor will they understand the warning contained in this:

"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God had given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."
-- Benjamin Franklin​

And IMO (which of course has been dismissed as irrelevant), ignorance in matters of economics is one of the first things the tyrants like to develop.

I think it worse than that. When Reagan said," isn't welfare a form of slavery" the liberals had no idea what he meant. That shows ignorance on a profound level.

Reagan who gutted taxes on the 'job creators' but hiked it on the avg worker

 

[Dad2three]

Thank you for your thoughtful and most gracious assessment of my opinion and your open minded approach to the topic. As for 'proof', well I could link you to the Library of Congress that most likely has ALL the documents that real students of history study on the topic, usually for years. But here's a pretty good place to start and then you can branch out from there:
Federalist Papers, AntiFederalist Papers, Amendments, Constitution

Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

Yes. The documents the Founders left for posterity are not easy reading and won't be even attempted by the 30-second sound bite crowd who are so eager to demonize those of us who have read them and sincerely sought to understand what they said. And the results are self-evident in the serious ignorance exhibited in the out-of-context sound bites they have been fed to use on message boards. Nor will they understand the warning contained in this:

"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God had given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."
-- Benjamin Franklin​

And IMO (which of course has been dismissed as irrelevant), ignorance in matters of economics is one of the first things the tyrants like to develop.

AS you give US a fake quote from Ben, you expect to be taken seriously? lol

First, here’s the actual quotation, in context. Dr. Henry Stuber wrote, in consideration of the importance of public libraries:

Libraries were established in various places, and they are now become very numerous in the United States, and particularly in Pennsylvania. It is to be hoped that they will be still more widely extended, and that information will be every where increased. This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men, who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them, cannot be enslaved. It is in the regions of ignorance that tyranny reigns. It flies before the light of science. Let the citizens of America, then, encourage institutions calculated to diffuse knowledge amongst the people; and amongst these, public libraries are not the least important.

Second, this quotation does in fact have a connection to Benjamin Franklin; it occurs as part of a biographical sketch Dr. Stuber wrote about him. At the time the sketch appeared (1790) Franklin’s autobiography was still unpublished, but Stuber had access to part of it, in an unrevised form, and partially based his sketch on it. In the concluding part of this section of the autobiography Franklin wrote about his difficulties in establishing a subscription library in Philadelphia:

https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/category/us-founding-fathers/benjamin-franklin/

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, ALL you can do is SAY they didn't REALLY mean the words I presented to you as FACTS.

THE FOUNDERS WERE THE MOST RADICAL LIBERALS OF THEIR DAY. They CHOSE the STRONG federal Gov't over the weak states rights Articles, they understood a SOCIETY was needed to create the world they wanted, they began by limiting Corporations and Corp involvement in the US society!

The Federalist Party supported Hamilton's vision of a strong centralized government, and agreed with his proposals for a national bank and heavy government subsidies. In other words, they were socialists.


The Founding Fathers supported aggressive government regulation through the Commerce Clause


If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.


Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers



The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.


US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

The Founders were not liberal with the same definition as the modern American Marxist/socialist minded liberal. The Founders were to a man 'classical liberals' very strong on a very small, efficient, effective central government strictly limited to what the Constitution specifically authorized it to do. What the local or colony/state governments did re the poor or any other matters was strictly the business of those local or colony/state governments and nobody else's.

And if you have not read, in context, the Federalist and anti-Federalist and all the other letters, transcripts, and documents that are part and parcel of the founding and organization of this nation, you won't have a clue about what the Founders meant or intended in the quotations you attribute to them. Those who quote them with no understanding of what they were actually saying only spread ignorance rather than enlightenment.

Context is everything when it comes to understanding history.

Our Founders were uber conservative and had one overarching concern, namely, to prevent the beast from growing uncontrolably:

many did not want a Bill of Right out of fear that if govt were given the power to protect rights that largely existed in America it would subvert that power to destroy those rights. Such was the fear of liberal govt/






James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

66)James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

Not sure if it's you are Rabbi who is the dumbest conservative on this board!


THE CONSTITUTION WOULDN'T HAD PASSED WITHOUT A PROMISE OF THE BILL F RIGHTS!


Madison huh?



On the contrary, Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal "negative" (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.


James Madison "Godfather of the Constitution" - The Early America Review, Summer 1997

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First Corps skip the tax bite, second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite. third, YOU are a moron!


Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%



From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

First Corps skip the tax bite,

I know, corporations get to subtract COGS, employees compensation and all sorts of other deductible expenses before they pay taxes on their profit. Just awful!
They should have to pay 35% on revenue, with no deductions. Right?

second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite.

What does that have to do with the taxes on their "income from corporate salaries"?

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

We've already discussed how S Corporations have shifted taxes from corporations to individuals.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

lol, Read it again Bubba.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.