If you could go back in time and stop one historical event, what would it be?

[Foxfyre]

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

Even Adam Smith did not believe in the "invisible hand" of the marketplace, unhindered by regulation.

That form of folly required the "more perfect" idiocy of the corporate cultists of our own supremely brainwashed society.

They are incapable of understanding that the "invisible hand of the marketplace," devoid of appropriate regulation, leads inevitably to the "invisible mind of the marketplace," and to the imbecility and disaster which followed the Neo-Con swindlers dismantling economic regulation.

.

Adam Smith, however, did not advocate regulation of the type that is social engineering. He strongly spoke against it. The regulation he favored was the necessary enforcement of anti-trust regulations to prevent intentional economic violence. He supported a role in government to enforce contracts and patent protections.

In Wealth of Nations he didn't dwell a great deal on the welfare state as such was unthinkable in his time. But of charity he did say (paraphrased): "Charity, while a virtuous act, cannot alone provide the essentials for living. Self-interest is the mechanism that can remedy this shortcoming." Said Smith: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

The Founders intended people to be free to pursue whatever their hearts led them to pursue short of trampling on the rights of others. And if their hearts led to to pursue acquisition of great fortunes, that was good and fine. Because nobody can do that without creating opportunities for others along the way. And also the wealthy have the means and the leisure to do good public service and works that are not a prerogrative for those of more limited means.

If TR Roosevelt had spent more time studying such concepts and less time building a personal fiefdom, we would be much much better off now than we are.

 

[S.J.]

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

"Promote", not "Provide". I'm sure the founding fathers would appreciate you not butchering the preamble.

I'm sorry, but it's "provide"!

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's really funny!! Talk about "hoist by his own petard"!!!

S.J., like so many who yak about the Constitution, doesn't even know what it says!! · ·

.

The Preamble to the Constitution is what defines the intent, and it clearly says "PROMOTE the general welfare".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nevertheless, does "provide for" mean the same things as "provide"? Subtle difference there. But the bottom line is what the Founders understood the 'general welfare' to be. And it was not to give taxpayer money to the poor or anybody else. In every aspect of the Constitution, they took great care to ensure that federal laws and policy would not favor or disfavor any individual based on their age, politics, or socioeconomic circumstances, or any other variables. The federal government's role was to promote the general welfare of the country fairly and equitably among all states and citizens. To target anybody or anything for favorable treatment was not to be the prerogative of the federal government.

Can you please instances where the federal government is targeting "anybody or anything for favorable treatment"?

 

[FA_Q2]

Nevertheless, does "provide for" mean the same things as "provide"? Subtle difference there. But the bottom line is what the Founders understood the 'general welfare' to be. And it was not to give taxpayer money to the poor or anybody else. In every aspect of the Constitution, they took great care to ensure that federal laws and policy would not favor or disfavor any individual based on their age, politics, or socioeconomic circumstances, or any other variables. The federal government's role was to promote the general welfare of the country fairly and equitably among all states and citizens. To target anybody or anything for favorable treatment was not to be the prerogative of the federal government.

Can you please instances where the federal government is targeting "anybody or anything for favorable treatment"?

Marriage tax breaks, tax breaks for children, tax subsidies to green energy companies, tax subsidies for buying the approved governmental light bulb, tax subsidies for oil, tax deferments for large corporations manufacturing or office space, tax subsidies for the government approved window or water heater, special tax considerations for investments over labor, obamacare applying to different entities with different rules (like unions) governmental kickbacks for states that pass certain laws (anyone know how drinking laws were nationalized). Really, did you have to ask such an obvious question? Virtually everything the government does these days is targeted to one group or another rather than the general welfare. Want to know what a general welfare item is?

Roads, police and fire protection, parks etc. You know, things that are available to everyone in the same manner without consideration to who you are. You know one of the common threads here is taxation. If we normalized taxes then the government would lose most of the asinine powers that it uses to steal from everyone to feed special interest machines.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nevertheless, does "provide for" mean the same things as "provide"? Subtle difference there. But the bottom line is what the Founders understood the 'general welfare' to be. And it was not to give taxpayer money to the poor or anybody else. In every aspect of the Constitution, they took great care to ensure that federal laws and policy would not favor or disfavor any individual based on their age, politics, or socioeconomic circumstances, or any other variables. The federal government's role was to promote the general welfare of the country fairly and equitably among all states and citizens. To target anybody or anything for favorable treatment was not to be the prerogative of the federal government.

Can you please instances where the federal government is targeting "anybody or anything for favorable treatment"?

Marriage tax breaks, tax breaks for children, tax subsidies to green energy companies, tax subsidies for buying the approved governmental light bulb, tax subsidies for oil, tax deferments for large corporations manufacturing or office space, tax subsidies for the government approved window or water heater, special tax considerations for investments over labor, obamacare applying to different entities with different rules (like unions) governmental kickbacks for states that pass certain laws (anyone know how drinking laws were nationalized). Really, did you have to ask such an obvious question? Virtually everything the government does these days is targeted to one group or another rather than the general welfare. Want to know what a general welfare item is?

Roads, police and fire protection, parks etc. You know, things that are available to everyone in the same manner without consideration to who you are. You know one of the common threads here is taxation. If we normalized taxes then the government would lose most of the asinine powers that it uses to steal from everyone to feed special interest machines.

Thank you and yes, I did. Because you highlighted what I expected you would. That the "targets" for "special treatment" cover the entire spectrum of everyday life and economic life. The next questions should be even more revealing. How do these "targeted tax breaks" for "special treatment" even come about? Who is responsible for them? Can you honestly say that they are more prevalent for one political party or the other?

The answers to those questions are corruption and both parties. You raised the issue of "normalized taxes" as a means to bring an end to this practice. Does that mean that when Rand Paul and Chris Christie were jabbing at one another Kentucky would lose it's $0.50 federal tax dollar subsidy and NJ would regain the$0.40 that it is currently giving away? If so then we are talking of some serious economic hardships for the states that are currently enjoying those federal subsidies.

 

[FA_Q2]

Can you please instances where the federal government is targeting "anybody or anything for favorable treatment"?

Marriage tax breaks, tax breaks for children, tax subsidies to green energy companies, tax subsidies for buying the approved governmental light bulb, tax subsidies for oil, tax deferments for large corporations manufacturing or office space, tax subsidies for the government approved window or water heater, special tax considerations for investments over labor, obamacare applying to different entities with different rules (like unions) governmental kickbacks for states that pass certain laws (anyone know how drinking laws were nationalized). Really, did you have to ask such an obvious question? Virtually everything the government does these days is targeted to one group or another rather than the general welfare. Want to know what a general welfare item is?

Roads, police and fire protection, parks etc. You know, things that are available to everyone in the same manner without consideration to who you are. You know one of the common threads here is taxation. If we normalized taxes then the government would lose most of the asinine powers that it uses to steal from everyone to feed special interest machines.

Thank you and yes, I did. Because you highlighted what I expected you would. That the "targets" for "special treatment" cover the entire spectrum of everyday life and economic life. The next questions should be even more revealing. How do these "targeted tax breaks" for "special treatment" even come about? Who is responsible for them? Can you honestly say that they are more prevalent for one political party or the other?

The answers to those questions are corruption and both parties. You raised the issue of "normalized taxes" as a means to bring an end to this practice. Does that mean that when Rand Paul and Chris Christie were jabbing at one another Kentucky would lose it's $0.50 federal tax dollar subsidy and NJ would regain the$0.40 that it is currently giving away? If so then we are talking of some serious economic hardships for the states that are currently enjoying those federal subsidies.

Can you point to any post where FF or I have ever tried to claim this was not inherent in both parties? Methinks that mayhap you are far too used to dealing with the hacks here, I certainly do not lay this just at the democrats feet even if I disagree with them politically.

No, it would mean to me that we taxes all dollars earned the same amount period. That to me would be the best way forward. Many do not agree (even on my side there is debate between flat tax on goods and one on income) but that would really clean shit up and, as a consequence, raise the taxes on those rich that the left so loves to target being that they enjoy the majority of the tax breaks and special interest kickbacks. It would also mean an end to the asinine practice of HIDING taxes against the middle and poor classes through employer sided tax levies though the poor would be hit as the subsidies would end. The real winner is the middle class.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Marriage tax breaks, tax breaks for children, tax subsidies to green energy companies, tax subsidies for buying the approved governmental light bulb, tax subsidies for oil, tax deferments for large corporations manufacturing or office space, tax subsidies for the government approved window or water heater, special tax considerations for investments over labor, obamacare applying to different entities with different rules (like unions) governmental kickbacks for states that pass certain laws (anyone know how drinking laws were nationalized). Really, did you have to ask such an obvious question? Virtually everything the government does these days is targeted to one group or another rather than the general welfare. Want to know what a general welfare item is?

Roads, police and fire protection, parks etc. You know, things that are available to everyone in the same manner without consideration to who you are. You know one of the common threads here is taxation. If we normalized taxes then the government would lose most of the asinine powers that it uses to steal from everyone to feed special interest machines.

Thank you and yes, I did. Because you highlighted what I expected you would. That the "targets" for "special treatment" cover the entire spectrum of everyday life and economic life. The next questions should be even more revealing. How do these "targeted tax breaks" for "special treatment" even come about? Who is responsible for them? Can you honestly say that they are more prevalent for one political party or the other?

The answers to those questions are corruption and both parties. You raised the issue of "normalized taxes" as a means to bring an end to this practice. Does that mean that when Rand Paul and Chris Christie were jabbing at one another Kentucky would lose it's $0.50 federal tax dollar subsidy and NJ would regain the$0.40 that it is currently giving away? If so then we are talking of some serious economic hardships for the states that are currently enjoying those federal subsidies.

Can you point to any post where FF or I have ever tried to claim this was not inherent in both parties? Methinks that mayhap you are far too used to dealing with the hacks here, I certainly do not lay this just at the democrats feet even if I disagree with them politically.

No, it would mean to me that we taxes all dollars earned the same amount period. That to me would be the best way forward. Many do not agree (even on my side there is debate between flat tax on goods and one on income) but that would really clean shit up and, as a consequence, raise the taxes on those rich that the left so loves to target being that they enjoy the majority of the tax breaks and special interest kickbacks. It would also mean an end to the asinine practice of HIDING taxes against the middle and poor classes through employer sided tax levies though the poor would be hit as the subsidies would end. The real winner is the middle class.

Sorry, did not mean to imply that either you or FF were saying that. As for discussing the merits of various tax policies we will have to start another thread since that will be completely derailing this one. And yes, I am guilty to bringing it up in the first place.

 

[Bfgrn]

For the sake of argument only these questions are directed at Predfan and LadyGunSlinger. Assuming you were successful in returning 100% of the slaves to Africa who do you think would be occupying that rung on the economic ladder today if the descendants of the slaves were not around? Who would have "become a permanent parasite on the American economy" instead?

Probably a proportional mixture of races. Mostly white of course, some hispanic, some black, all in proportion to their population in society. Not grossly out of proportion as it is today.

All you guys have to do is eliminate Roosevelt's "Square Deal" that opened the gates to excessive federal meddling and the welfare state, and the descendants of those slaves would not now make up the core of the permanent underclass dependent on government benevolence and seeing that as their right. At the time of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives, those descendants of slaves were the most rapidly advancing demographic economically. But the expansion of the welfare state pretty much stopped that advancement cold. Left alone they would almost certainly be fully assimilated into American culture and society today and far better off than they have been with all that what should have been illegal government meddling. Without TR Roosevelt's "Square Deal" there would have been no "New Deal" and no "Great Society" and we would not be sinking under unsustainable entitlements and an almost 17 trillion dollar national debt now.

Foxfyre, you have carried this TR thing to the level of absurd. You have conflated one president into the most sinister person who ever lived, created a mental genocide of 4 generation of Americans and you have removed all sheds of personal responsibility.

What you are saying is that whole generations of Americans who defended this country in 2 world wars and built America with their sweat and blood were just a bunch of stupid sheep, UNTIL YOU came along. They just didn't know any better, but YOU KNOW, you are special.

You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt what I said before. You are a haughty narcissist.

 

[numan]

Foxfyre, you have carried this TR thing to the level of absurd. You have conflated one president into the most sinister person who ever lived....

You are so right!! Everybody knows that George W. Bush is the most sinister person who ever lived !!

What you are saying is that whole generations of Americans who defended this country in 2 world wars and built America with their sweat and blood were just a bunch of stupid sheep....

But...but...whole generations of Americans who defended this country in 2 world wars and built America with their sweat and blood WERE just a bunch of stupid sheep !!!

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nevertheless, does "provide for" mean the same things as "provide"? Subtle difference there. But the bottom line is what the Founders understood the 'general welfare' to be. And it was not to give taxpayer money to the poor or anybody else. In every aspect of the Constitution, they took great care to ensure that federal laws and policy would not favor or disfavor any individual based on their age, politics, or socioeconomic circumstances, or any other variables. The federal government's role was to promote the general welfare of the country fairly and equitably among all states and citizens. To target anybody or anything for favorable treatment was not to be the prerogative of the federal government.

Can you please instances where the federal government is targeting "anybody or anything for favorable treatment"?

The federal government gives taxpayer money to poorer Americans while threatening more affluent Americans with ever higher taxes. That is giving favorable treatment to one group and not another.

The federal government gives subsidies and tax incentives to some industries while imposing punishing restrictions on others. That is giving favorable treatment to one group and not another.

The federal government fills every single spending bill with pork for this state or that constituency or that project. That is giving favorable treatment to some that is not available to all.

I can go on and on. The federal government is bloated, expensive, and almost totally corrupt in this regard. It uses our money to coerce us, force us, bribe us, bully us, and influence us almost exclusively to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

TR Roosevelt never intended the consequences of what has resulted from his 'Square Deal", but he opened the gates that have allowed others to bring us to this destructive way of conducting government. And that is why I chose THAT as the one event in history that I would change.

 

[numan]

Can you please instances where the federal government is targeting "anybody or anything for favorable treatment"?

Marriage tax breaks, tax breaks for children, tax subsidies to green energy companies, tax subsidies for buying the approved governmental light bulb, tax subsidies for oil, tax deferments for large corporations manufacturing or office space, tax subsidies for the government approved window or water heater, special tax considerations for investments over labor, obamacare applying to different entities with different rules (like unions) governmental kickbacks for states that pass certain laws (anyone know how drinking laws were nationalized). Really, did you have to ask such an obvious question? Virtually everything the government does these days is targeted to one group or another rather than the general welfare.

Tell you what, FA, let's give you everything you want, provided it becomes a felony for any corporation or its agents to have any non-official, non-public contact with any government official; and further, that it be a felony for any public official to receive any money or any employment from a corporation, for a period of ten years after he leaves office.

Deal? · ·

,

 

[Foxfyre]

Can you please instances where the federal government is targeting "anybody or anything for favorable treatment"?

Marriage tax breaks, tax breaks for children, tax subsidies to green energy companies, tax subsidies for buying the approved governmental light bulb, tax subsidies for oil, tax deferments for large corporations manufacturing or office space, tax subsidies for the government approved window or water heater, special tax considerations for investments over labor, obamacare applying to different entities with different rules (like unions) governmental kickbacks for states that pass certain laws (anyone know how drinking laws were nationalized). Really, did you have to ask such an obvious question? Virtually everything the government does these days is targeted to one group or another rather than the general welfare.

Tell you what, FA, let's give you everything you want, provided it becomes a felony for any corporation or its agents to have any non-official, non-public contact with any government official; and further, that it be a felony for any public official to receive any money or any employment from a corporation, for a period of ten years after he leaves office.

Deal? · ·

,

It is much simpler to just make it the rule that the federal government cannot provide money or rules or benefit for any individual or corporation or any other entity or demographic that it does not also provide for all. You know, the concept that WAS the rule in the federal government until the TR Roosevelt administration.

Do that and 90+% of the corruption in government will be eliminated and fiscal sanity can be restored.

 

[numan]

It is much simpler to just make it the rule that the federal government cannot provide money or rules or benefit for any individual or corporation or any other entity or demographic that it does not also provide for all. You know, the concept that WAS the rule in the federal government until the TR Roosevelt administration.

Do that and 90+% of the corruption in government will be eliminated and fiscal sanity can be restored.

And let the monopolists give as much money as they want to officials, and use lobbyists to corrupt congressmen and get the legislation they want?

You must think you can sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, Foxy !!

.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is much simpler to just make it the rule that the federal government cannot provide money or rules or benefit for any individual or corporation or any other entity or demographic that it does not also provide for all. You know, the concept that WAS the rule in the federal government until the TR Roosevelt administration.

Do that and 90+% of the corruption in government will be eliminated and fiscal sanity can be restored.

And let the monopolists give as much money as they want to officials, and use lobbyists to corrupt congressmen and get the legislation they want?

You must think you can sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, Foxy !!

.

Sure. But why would they if they can receive nothing in return for all that lovely money? You see? If they cannot benefit from what Congress does, there would be no point in funneling bribes to members of Congress or appointees or bureaucrats.

The concept is not to restrict the rights of any citizen to do with his/her money whatever he/she wants to do with it.

The concept is to make it unproductive to bribe those in government and thereby restore government to public service rather than existing to enrich itself.

 

[Ernie S.]

It is much simpler to just make it the rule that the federal government cannot provide money or rules or benefit for any individual or corporation or any other entity or demographic that it does not also provide for all. You know, the concept that WAS the rule in the federal government until the TR Roosevelt administration.

Do that and 90+% of the corruption in government will be eliminated and fiscal sanity can be restored.

And let the monopolists give as much money as they want to officials, and use lobbyists to corrupt congressmen and get the legislation they want?

You must think you can sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, Foxy !!

.

I doubt she could sell you a bridge, but I'm betting you'd still buy stock in Solyndra.

Your distaste for corporations seems only directed at corporations that don't follow your rules. Foxfyre is proposing ending targeted tax benefits for corporations and individuals, but you would only end what you call corporate welfare to oil companies so you could spread the wealth to so called "green" companies and others that donate to liberal politicians and causes.

 

[numan]

'

That was remarkably incoherent, even for an Alabaman.

.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Maybe I'd stop the creation of islam....

Can you imagine how much more advanced humanity would be?

 

[g5000]

It is much simpler to just make it the rule that the federal government cannot provide money or rules or benefit for any individual or corporation or any other entity or demographic that it does not also provide for all. You know, the concept that WAS the rule in the federal government until the TR Roosevelt administration.

Do that and 90+% of the corruption in government will be eliminated and fiscal sanity can be restored.

And let the monopolists give as much money as they want to officials, and use lobbyists to corrupt congressmen and get the legislation they want?

You must think you can sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, Foxy !!

.

Why would a corporation or any special interest give money to a congressman if the congressman cannot provide special rules for them? If the congressman cannot write a regulation which favors that special interest, and cannot add a tax loophole for that special interest, you have removed the motive for providing that congressman with campaign cash.

Cure the disease, not the symptom. No campaign finance reform of the past 40 years has had any effect whatsosever on the re-election chances of an incumbent. It is time to admit curing the symptoms is not working.

The real way to level the playing field is to ban all tax expenditures and eliminate regulatory capture. Those are the answers you are really looking for.

 

[g5000]

Maybe I'd stop the creation of islam....

Can you imagine how much more advanced humanity would be?

For a much better result, I would eliminate bigots.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd give Augustus Caesar the H bomb

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2