Why did our founding fathers hate corporations?

[Bfgrn]

Your education has led you to believe Franklin Roosevelt is a founding father?

Roosevelt was a socialist. Quite the opposite of the founders. The founders looked at the US government much like we look at the UN today.

Oh,,,, this explains a lot of what is obvious about the crap you say. Wait until you start reading the writings of the founding fathers. This of course means that you will have to read.

Start with something easy, like "Common Sense" by Thomas Payne.

I am aware FDR was not one of our founding fathers...if you want to know how much our founding fathers were crony capitalists, which is the current economic system were live under, read the OP...

BTW, the biggest 'socialist' in our history was Ronald Reagan. But you right wing dimwits believe socialism is only a one way street. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent.

We have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the rest of us.

 

[Bfgrn]

FDR was not a Founding Father. Try again.

You are quite adapt at protecting your ignorance from anything that might enlighten you. FDR was not one of our founding fathers, but many of our great leaders from both parties have warned against the malfeasance of power by corporations and the opulent. It is most dangerous to an open and democratic society.

Why are you so determined to remain uninformed and ignorant? Do you think its macho or something? You folks on the right even ignore history and the wisdom of our ancestors... that is not what conservatism is, that is what narcissism is.

 

[Liberty]

I am aware FDR was not one of our founding fathers...if you want to know how much our founding fathers were crony capitalists, which is the current economic system were live under, read the OP...

BTW, the biggest 'socialist' in our history was Ronald Reagan. But you right wing dimwits believe socialism is only a one way street. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent.

We have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the rest of us.

Judging from your previous posts,,,, you're not aware. At all!

You're words are no different than Marx.

People here that have read the writings of the founders must scratch their heads and wonder.

 

[DamnYankee]

You are quite adapt at protecting your ignorance from anything that might enlighten you. FDR was not one of our founding fathers, but many of our great leaders from both parties have warned against the malfeasance of power by corporations and the opulent. It is most dangerous to an open and democratic society.

Why are you so determined to remain uninformed and ignorant? Do you think its macho or something? You folks on the right even ignore history and the wisdom of our ancestors... that is not what conservatism is, that is what narcissism is.

Actually, I know and read the true history, like the Federalist Papers. Those were actually written by the Founders. If you had read them then you'd be able to interpret the Constitution as originally intended, not the bastardized version that you were taught in high school.

 

[WinterBorn]

Actually, I know and read the true history, like the Federalist Papers. Those were actually written by the Founders. If you had read them then you'd be able to interpret the Constitution as originally intended, not the bastardized version that you were taught in high school.

Didn't the Federalist Papers speak out against adding the Bill of Rights?

 

[Bfgrn]

Judging from your previous posts,,,, you're not aware. At all!

You're words are no different than Marx.

People here that have read the writings of the founders must scratch their heads and wonder.

Really? I never read a word of Marx. I believe in capitalism, but not the perverted crony capitalism we have today which is socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the people.

Is that what you support, what we have today?

 

[Topspin]

fucking hillarious
do we need shareholder rights. yes
do the elite need to get off the bailout mode. Yes

that said, there is no system remotely close to ours in ability to create wealth.
Granted, most of the wealth goes to the college educated. LOL

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Didn't the Federalist Papers speak out against adding the Bill of Rights?

The Federalist papers were sort of an 'argument' for and against the various things we find in the final product, the constitution. It was each person's ideas and thoughts regarding whether we should or shouldn't include certain things in the constitution. It is often used as reference to explain intent, but also used as reference to explain the opposing viewpoint. So it's like asking; Did Roe v. Wade speak out against abortion rights? Yes it did, in the dissenting opinion! ...Trick question!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Really? I never read a word of Marx. I believe in capitalism, but not the perverted crony capitalism we have today which is socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the people.

Is that what you support, what we have today?

Maybe that's the problem, maybe you should try reading Marx? If you did, perhaps you would discover that 99% of what you and your liberal socialist friends are advocating, are right out of his Communist Manifesto! Unfortunately, I think you hit on a really big point here, too many people are ignorant of Marxism, have no idea what Karl Marx was all about, and don't have the foggiest clue that what they are supporting is pure unadulterated Marxism.

Columbia Law School did a survey in 2002, shockingly, they found that almost two thirds of Americans believe the maxim: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." was either in the constitution or written by one of our founding fathers.

[SOURCE]

 

[Phantasmal]

Maybe that's the problem, maybe you should try reading Marx? If you did, perhaps you would discover that 99% of what you and your liberal socialist friends are advocating, are right out of his Communist Manifesto! Unfortunately, I think you hit on a really big point here, too many people are ignorant of Marxism, have no idea what Karl Marx was all about, and don't have the foggiest clue that what they are supporting is pure unadulterated Marxism.

Columbia Law School did a survey in 2002, shockingly, they found that almost two thirds of Americans believe the maxim: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." was either in the constitution or written by one of our founding fathers.

[SOURCE]

Ahahahahaha, oh, Dixie, you big old bourgeoisie! This little prole loves you.

I have read Marx and hopefully the politicians on the left see that his system isn't working anymore than our current form of Capitalism, but don't worry, the IMF will come to our rescue!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ahahahahaha, oh, Dixie, you big old bourgeoisie! This little prole loves you.

I have read Marx and hopefully the politicians on the left see that his system isn't working anymore than our current form of Capitalism, but don't worry, the IMF will come to our rescue!

Our "current form of capitalism" is not working because, through the years, it has been watered down and over-regulated by the government. Get the government out of the way, and it will once again make America the greatest and most powerful economic entity on the planet.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Federalist papers were sort of an 'argument' for and against the various things we find in the final product, the constitution. It was each person's ideas and thoughts regarding whether we should or shouldn't include certain things in the constitution. It is often used as reference to explain intent, but also used as reference to explain the opposing viewpoint. So it's like asking; Did Roe v. Wade speak out against abortion rights? Yes it did, in the dissenting opinion! ...Trick question!

Actually the Federalist Papers argued that listing rights would limit the people's rights to just those specifically listed. I think it was Hamilton making that argument.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually the Federalist Papers argued that listing rights would limit the people's rights to just those specifically listed. I think it was Hamilton making that argument.

That was one of the arguments, obviously, it didn't prevail because we have the Bill of Rights. Like I said, the FP were an overview of all prevailing opinions of the time. We can look to the FP for explanation or intent in what is in the constitution, and we can also see what the concerns were, and what alternatives were debated at the time, and the justifications for those as well.

 

[Bfgrn]

Our "current form of capitalism" is not working because, through the years, it has been watered down and over-regulated by the government. Get the government out of the way, and it will once again make America the greatest and most powerful economic entity on the planet.

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

The OP clearly shows our founding fathers believed in very strict regulation of corporations, even when the stockholders are fellow citizens. They would be much more restrictive on today's corporations with foreign investors and ownership who have interests that conflict with the interests of the American people.

But to believe THAT makes me a Marxist...and to NOT believe unregulated corporations would be a boon for America makes me a supporter of pure unadulterated Marxism. Yet we tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.


"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

 

[Minister of Truth]

Didn't the Federalist Papers speak out against adding the Bill of Rights?

Not at all. The Papers were an argument for ratifying the Constitution ASAP. This meant, let's not wait for an entire Bill of Rights to be drafted, but it was not an opposition to one being added by the 1st Congress. Madison ultimately made this compromise the primary goal of the 1st Congress.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

The OP clearly shows our founding fathers believed in very strict regulation of corporations, even when the stockholders are fellow citizens. They would be much more restrictive on today's corporations with foreign investors and ownership who have interests that conflict with the interests of the American people.

But to believe THAT makes me a Marxist...and to NOT believe unregulated corporations would be a boon for America makes me a supporter of pure unadulterated Marxism. Yet we tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.


"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

Here is where you make the illogical leap in your mind, that I, or anyone on the right, is advocating for complete and total government deregulation and dismantling of oversight for all industry and business. Nothing remotely close to that has been articulated. The FF did indeed make some compelling arguments for why we should be diligent in our economic endeavors. Just like today, they realized there was an inherent need for 'central government' to maintain some level of control over unbridled capitalism. The point of this argument is not whether government should regulate, it is to what extent they should do so.

As I read the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution, I find it hard to imagine our FFs would ever advocate for 'central government' to have unfettered control over every aspect of business. The very idea, is the antithesis of freedom, and the foundational basis for Marxism. In fact, the FFs intentionally formed our government to leave as much of this up to the states and the individual citizenry, as humanly possible. Does that mean they didn't want government to regulate business? Not at all, "the government" is "the people" and we retain the right to make laws to regulate and control whatever we want to.

 

[Liberty]

Really? I never read a word of Marx. I believe in capitalism, but not the perverted crony capitalism we have today which is socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the people.

Is that what you support, what we have today?

What I support is the right to feed myself, and my family with as little restriction as possible.

I have a right to my life because I'm alive. I have a right to sustain my life because I'm alive. I have a right sustain my life with,,, lets say, "a fishing rod (property) with bait" with as little regulation and restriction as possible. Which should be what the constitution provides.

That being said, people like you buy into this crap about big business getting away with all these bad things and demand as much restriction on them as possible. Then you regulate, and restrict them enough to chase them out of the country for the most part, leaving small business (that employs 80% of the workers in this country) with a nightmare (Marxism) to deal with.

Everytime you talk about the evil big corp, small business pays the price. You're killing small business, and making it harder to sustain lives.

 

[Phantasmal]

What I support is the right to feed myself, and my family with as little restriction as possible.

I have a right to my life because I'm alive. I have a right to sustain my life because I'm alive. I have a right sustain my life with,,, lets say, "a fishing rod (property) with bait" with as little regulation and restriction as possible. Which should be what the constitution provides.

That being said, people like you buy into this crap about big business getting away with all these bad things and demand as much restriction on them as possible. Then you regulate, and restrict them enough to chase them out of the country for the most part, leaving small business (that employs 80% of the workers in this country) with a nightmare (Marxism) to deal with.

Everytime you talk about the evil big corp, small business pays the price. You're killing small business, and making it harder to sustain lives.

Why is that? Is it wrong to wish safe conditions for workers? They were leaving the country anyway for cheaper labor and resources. International corporation have no allegiance to the USA, why should we protect them?
The funny thing is, those corporations are finding that doing business with these foreigners isn't cracked up to what they thought it would be, so some of them are returning to the USA, but they want the same low costs here that they experienced in foreign countries, SCREW THAT! We can protect small business while reigning in these multi nationals! We can give deductions to small business that international corporation won't qualify for, we can start to put a tariff on foreign made goods.

The fact that corporations are suffering in the USA is a bigger pile of bull than the unions bankrupting states because of collective bargaining!

 

[Phantasmal]

What I support is the right to feed myself, and my family with as little restriction as possible.

I have a right to my life because I'm alive. I have a right to sustain my life because I'm alive. I have a right sustain my life with,,, lets say, "a fishing rod (property) with bait" with as little regulation and restriction as possible. Which should be what the constitution provides.

That being said, people like you buy into this crap about big business getting away with all these bad things and demand as much restriction on them as possible. Then you regulate, and restrict them enough to chase them out of the country for the most part, leaving small business (that employs 80% of the workers in this country) with a nightmare (Marxism) to deal with.

Everytime you talk about the evil big corp, small business pays the price. You're killing small business, and making it harder to sustain lives.

Here is an example of what I was talking about Liberty

The marginal tax rate for businesses is 35%. But the effective tax rate for large companies is much less in practice. Forbes magazine reports that General Electric, for example, won't owe any U.S. taxes for 2009, but will instead receive more than $1 billion dollars of tax benefits. That's in spite of the fact that GE generated more than $10 billion in income last year. GE usually doesn't pay much—in 2008 it paid just 5.3% of its income in taxes. ExxonMobil paid almost 50% of its $35 billion income in taxes. But according to its own Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing it doesn't owe any taxes in the United States, even though it's an American corporation and has its headquarters in Texas. Exxon says in spite of what it reported that when its taxes are finally figured it will owe a "substantial" amount—it won't say how much. But even if it does owe nothing at all it wouldn't be that out of line with other similar companies. Chevron, which is based in California, likewise paid almost all of its taxes to foreign governments. And in 2008 a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that between 1998 and 2005 two-thirds of companies operating in the U.S—including a quarter of the largest companies—didn't pay the U.S. government any net taxes at all.

http://www.independentamerican.org/2010/04/09/how-multinational-corporations-dodge-taxes/

http://bigthink.com/ideas/19511

 

[Liberty]

Why is that? Is it wrong to wish safe conditions for workers? They were leaving the country anyway for cheaper labor and resources. International corporation have no allegiance to the USA, why should we protect them?
The funny thing is, those corporations are finding that doing business with these foreigners isn't cracked up to what they thought it would be, so some of them are returning to the USA, but they want the same low costs here that they experienced in foreign countries, SCREW THAT! We can protect small business while reigning in these multi nationals! We can give deductions to small business that international corporation won't qualify for, we can start to put a tariff on foreign made goods.

The fact that corporations are suffering in the USA is a bigger pile of bull than the unions bankrupting states because of collective bargaining!

Big Business is paying congress to make rules that only they can live with. Creating a literal monopoly. Small business is in a really bad way at this time trying to compete on an uneven playing field, and the worse it gets the more tax payers will (the majority of which are small business related) demand prosperity through deregulation. It's happening right now. Defunding the EPA, Department of education, etc is on the way. Mainly because me and others can have it no other way, and the politicians (reps) are listening and fearful of getting fired by people like me, as is what's been happening. If lower taxes come through getting rid of unions, then that's what will happen.

Safe conditions are not what's at stake. Prosperity is.