Why did our founding fathers hate corporations?

[Liberty]

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

I understand that GE paid 3+%.

Your point is a point that I'm making. Unless I missed something.

Small business can't just pick up and leave. So small business is picking up the majority of the tab. And getting crushed.

The income tax must go.

 

[Liberty]

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

Bfgrn, read common sense, the decleration of independence, the federalist, and anti-federalist papers, and then read the constitution. Of course there is much more good reading to go through, but this will give you a good understanding of what you don't know.

Otherwise, stop making an idiot out of yourself, and shut TFU!.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

REALLY Dixie...

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.

Not only don't you know what you are talking about, you don't even know WHAT YOU SAID...LOL

 

[Minister of Truth]

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.

Not at all. The Founders believed that the failing of the English model had been the unspecificity of an unwritten constitutional framework, that could be interpreted any which way. They realized that common law and tradition were not enough, and that no one could assume the constitution would guarantee them their rights.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

You provided perfect parameters for this analogy.

You claim a right to LIFE, a right to SUSTAIN your life. So, what is THE paramount requirement to live and sustain your life? Money? Shelter? No, the only true essential to live and sustain your life is your HEALTH. A man with all the money in the world cannot buy a cure for disease or illness.

You say: "I have a right sustain my life with,,, lets say, "a fishing rod (property) with bait" with as little regulation and restriction as possible."

So tell me lib, HOW DID THIS HAPPEN???

In 48 states, at least some of the fish are unsafe to eat. In fact, the only two states where all of the fish are still safe to eat are Alaska and Wyoming, where Republican-controlled legislatures have refused to appropriate the money to test the fish. In all of the other states, at least some, most, or all of the fish are unsafe to eat.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

REALLY Dixie...

Not only don't you know what you are talking about, you don't even know WHAT YOU SAID...LOL

Except that one isn't saying something contradictory of the other. Where did I state that government should be completely and entirely out of the way of capitalism, and let it do whatever it wants to do? I merely suggested we reduce the amount of regulation and interference, you interpret that as me claiming to want no regulation or interference, we have a problem with how you are interpreting things. AGAIN!

 

[Phantasmal]

Except that one isn't saying something contradictory of the other. Where did I state that government should be completely and entirely out of the way of capitalism, and let it do whatever it wants to do? I merely suggested we reduce the amount of regulation and interference, you interpret that as me claiming to want no regulation or interference, we have a problem with how you are interpreting things. AGAIN!

Let Capitalism run its natural course, ahahahahahahahahaha, big fish eat little fish till there is no more little fish and ONE WORLD ORDER! Dixie wants one world order! One big corporation running the whole world, like in Sleeper! It will become both the government and business!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let Capitalism run its natural course, ahahahahahahahahaha, big fish eat little fish till there is no more little fish and ONE WORLD ORDER! Dixie wants one world order! One big corporation running the whole world, like in Sleeper! It will become both the government and business!

Again, you are a pinhead reading what you wish I were saying, into what I actually said. Capitalism requires some reasoned restraints, and government can provide those. I have not argued against this... We want the Federal government to monitor companies who produce our food, to ensure health regulations are followed... We want government to make sure drug manufacturers have adequately tested their products... We want government to regulate how industries dealing in hazardous waste, dispose of it... We want government to maintain certain standards for practicing medicine... operating a commercial airliner... etc. These are all areas where it is perfectly appropriate for the Federal government to get involved and have regulation and oversight. But what we currently have, is a government which wants to completely take over corporations, or regulate them out of business, in some cases. We have an onerous bureaucracy, which tends to stifle small business and start-up corporations, and prohibits them from thriving and creating new jobs.

 

[Phantasmal]

Again, you are a pinhead reading what you wish I were saying, into what I actually said. Capitalism requires some reasoned restraints, and government can provide those. I have not argued against this... We want the Federal government to monitor companies who produce our food, to ensure health regulations are followed... We want government to make sure drug manufacturers have adequately tested their products... We want government to regulate how industries dealing in hazardous waste, dispose of it... We want government to maintain certain standards for practicing medicine... operating a commercial airliner... etc. These are all areas where it is perfectly appropriate for the Federal government to get involved and have regulation and oversight. But what we currently have, is a government which wants to completely take over corporations, or regulate them out of business, in some cases. We have an onerous bureaucracy, which tends to stifle small business and start-up corporations, and prohibits them from thriving and creating new jobs.

Big fish eats little fish, till there are no more fishes except the big fish...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Big fish eats little fish, till there are no more fishes except the big fish...

And such is the order of nature, there are always little fishes, the big fish haven't run out of them yet.

Again, what you are trying to insinuate, is that I want NO government control of regulation of capitalism whatsoever, and that isn't what I said. Yes, I want LESS of it! Yes, I think we have too MUCH of it! But I believe there is a broad spectrum between the two extremes of having total government control of capitalism, and having no control whatsoever.

 

[Liberty]

You provided perfect parameters for this analogy.

You claim a right to LIFE, a right to SUSTAIN your life. So, what is THE paramount requirement to live and sustain your life? Money? Shelter? No, the only true essential to live and sustain your life is your HEALTH. A man with all the money in the world cannot buy a cure for disease or illness.

You say: "I have a right sustain my life with,,, lets say, "a fishing rod (property) with bait" with as little regulation and restriction as possible."

So tell me lib, HOW DID THIS HAPPEN???

In 48 states, at least some of the fish are unsafe to eat. In fact, the only two states where all of the fish are still safe to eat are Alaska and Wyoming, where Republican-controlled legislatures have refused to appropriate the money to test the fish. In all of the other states, at least some, most, or all of the fish are unsafe to eat.

First off you're wrong.

What makes you think the fish in Texas is bad? To eat? It seems that you're easy to manipulate, if you ask me. Go to North Korea if you're so freaked out so much over the propaganda about what crap you eat here.

Parameters?

You Bfgrn said, and asked, "So, what is THE paramount requirement to live and sustain your life?"

My answer, "You're alive!" The fact that you're alive! You mindless shithead!

I guess you missed that.

Also, my health is not your right to see over. Unless you, by force, mandate it.

How about I pay more in taxes to help make sure you can continue to sit on your ass at my expense?

Isn't that what you really want?

 

[Bfgrn]

First off you're wrong.

What makes you think the fish in Texas is bad? To eat? It seems that you're easy to manipulate, if you ask me. Go to North Korea if you're so freaked out so much over the propaganda about what crap you eat here.

Parameters?

You Bfgrn said, and asked, "So, what is THE paramount requirement to live and sustain your life?"

My answer, "You're alive!" The fact that you're alive! You mindless shithead!

I guess you missed that.

Also, my health is not your right to see over. Unless you, by force, mandate it.

How about I pay more in taxes to help make sure you can continue to sit on your ass at my expense?

Isn't that what you really want?

What makes me think the fish in Texas is bad? To eat?

REALITY...

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department - Fish Consumption Bans and Advisories

Only a person who is fed and believes propaganda controlled by corporate polluters is unaware of this. So it is you who lives in a self imposed North Korea.

Your 'personal' health is yours to see over. But shared resources that effect the public health is the responsibility of all of us. The 'commons', the public trust belong to everyone. It is not some radical 'leftist' belief, it goes back to the Magna Carta.

The 'commons' are defined as the elements of the environment - forests, atmosphere, rivers, fisheries or grazing land - that are shared, used and enjoyed by all. The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They're not and never will be private property, owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them. Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others.

You are either very young or very uninformed, which is it lib?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The 'commons' are defined as the elements of the environment - forests, atmosphere, rivers, fisheries or grazing land - that are shared, used and enjoyed by all. The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They're not and never will be private property, owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them. Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others.

Can you name such a place in America? National Parks are owned and operated by the Government, they tell you when you can use them, and what rules you must follow when using them. I know of no public fisheries or grazing lands, free for any of us to use as we please... can you tell me where these are located?

 

[Bfgrn]

Can you name such a place in America? National Parks are owned and operated by the Government, they tell you when you can use them, and what rules you must follow when using them. I know of no public fisheries or grazing lands, free for any of us to use as we please... can you tell me where these are located?

The commons are all around us Dixie. The air you are breathing, the water source you drink from, the fish you eat...

The National parks were created to protect a reserve of natural land and set it aside for human recreation and enjoyment, animal and environmental protection and restriction from development.

You right wingers are such insecure and childish creatures...the government only tells you you can't abuse the park. And any fee you are charged is used to perpetuate that protection.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The commons are all around us Dixie. The air you are breathing, the water source you drink from, the fish you eat...

The National parks were created to protect a reserve of natural land and set it aside for human recreation and enjoyment, animal and environmental protection and restriction from development.

You right wingers are such insecure and childish creatures...the government only tells you you can't abuse the park. And any fee you are charged is used to perpetuate that protection.

My source of water is Montgomery Water Works, and they charge me about $40 a month for the privilege. I have no idea where you find free fish to eat.. I can't even catch fish without a license.

The National Parks tell us a whole lot more than "you can't abuse the park" ...have you read the park rules and regulations? You can only use the park during designated hours, you can't be in the park after dark, the gates close... No glass bottles... No loud noise... No loud music... Camping only in particular areas, some places don't allow camping at all... No campfires unless in a fire ring... and most of them have a fee for usage, they aren't FREE!

 

[Bfgrn]

My source of water is Montgomery Water Works, and they charge me about $40 a month for the privilege. I have no idea where you find free fish to eat.. I can't even catch fish without a license.

The National Parks tell us a whole lot more than "you can't abuse the park" ...have you read the park rules and regulations? You can only use the park during designated hours, you can't be in the park after dark, the gates close... No glass bottles... No loud noise... No loud music... Camping only in particular areas, some places don't allow camping at all... No campfires unless in a fire ring... and most of them have a fee for usage, they aren't FREE!

Well Dixie, it must be those liberal 'eco-fascists'...maybe you should move to a country that is much more conservative. Yours and Mao's view of liberals is mutual.

pinhead in Chinese - 革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂，使团结涣散，关系松懈，工作消极，意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律，政策不能贯彻到底，党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency."
Chairman Mao Zedong - Combat Liberalism 1937

Moscow

Beijing

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[DamnYankee]

Cite evidence supporting your assertion.

Bump for Bfgrn.

 

[DamnYankee]

Well Dixie, it must be those liberal 'eco-fascists'...maybe you should move to a country that is much more conservative. Yours and Mao's view of liberals is mutual.

pinhead in Chinese - 革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂，使团结涣散，关系松懈，工作消极，意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律，政策不能贯彻到底，党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency."
Chairman Mao Zedong - Combat Liberalism 1937

Moscow

Beijing

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

China is communist, dumbass. That's to the left of socialism, which is to the left of you.

 

[Bfgrn]

China is communist, dumbass. That's to the left of socialism, which is to the left of you.

No, Russia and China are communist which is conservative. If Russia and China were 'liberal', they would be a run by a bunch of 'tree huggers'

You folks just can't make the connection. EVERY oppressive or totalitarian society is ruled by conservatives, it is what they do...

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

 

[Topspin]

bf nice moron burn.