If you think for a moment that by posting the Part D bill I was somehow endorsing it, you would be wrong. To champion a program you don't have the means to pay for is complete lunacy in my humble opinion no matter who is proposing it. As for our founding fathers , thats a subject very near and dear to my heart. In fact I have another thread going on the subject. I will say this though, my view is that the founding fathers were very clear on their views that Govt. power should be limited to those spelled out in the constitution i.e. Madison, that is of course unless you read Hamilton, which I'm sure if your of the FRD mold then Hamiltons views would be more to your liking. No matter, all of the founding fathers had in mind that the Govt. existed at the will of the people and not the other way around. Commerce was an institution of good and an exercise of the people which under the guise of the framers was the responsibility of the Govt. to regulate and provide a means by which commerce would thrive. The so called " general welfare " view that Hamiton was so known for was not something shared by the father of the constitution Madison, or Jefferson. In fact this thinking can be traced back to Helvering v. Davis when the court sided with Hamiltons views. However in 1951 Justice Roberts commented that in order to make the decision on social security the court needed to go against the constitution in favor of popular sentiment.
You are somewhat correct in your assesment on corporations when it comes to the founding fathers. I say somewhat because I believe that it takes a leap of faith to assume that the founding fathers did not want corporations at all. In fact IMO most of the laws at the time reflected the founding fathers experience with the East India Company and thus you ended up with laws that put severe limits on them. In fact Jefferson was very much against large corporations having a huge influence on policy..
"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."
That is exactly why, its my opinion that the founding fathers gave the power to regulate commerce to the Govt, which in my opnion they have done a piss poor job of and that goes for both parties. I cannot however agree that the founding fathers were against the formations of corporations all together or their success because that would run contrary to the notion of liberty in the hands of it's citizens that many so strongly favored.
Some of the restrictions on corporations during that time period were as follows..
1) Corporate charters were granted for fixed periods of time, usually between 10 and 40 years.
2) Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm.
3) Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
4) Corporations could not own property that was not essential to the fulfilling of their chartered purpose.
5) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations.
6) The personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corpoate behavior.
It's clear that the founding fathers while not against commerce, were more in favor of the rights of the people not to be tread upon and those corporations be subject to the will of the people as the the Govt. was to be subject to the will of the people. We have come a long way from those notions in my opinion and I do believe that the founding fathers would be shocked at how much we have actually stepped on the original notion of a Govt. by the people and for the people.
Good post Navy...we are much more in agreement than apart...although I believe liberals would side with Jefferson over Hamilton on almost every issue. I surmise you're applying the label of liberals as portrayed by the right...
There's no question we live in a much different world than our founding fathers. But I'm confident a "man for all time" like Thomas Jefferson would adapt to today's world. I think President Obama framed the issue of government's role perfectly in his Inaugural Address...I see the Lincoln in him...
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln
, there is more leeway in a public forum such as political rally or city/county/state meeting than on front porch of your home. D'oh
