Adam Smith was a Marxist

[PaintMyHouse]

Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society, wanted no taxes on necessities but was fine with taxes on luxuries, and wanted corporations to continue to be banned. That Marxist enough for you?

Originally, there were no income taxes. Taxes were on goods to keep the government going and it made sense to have higher taxes on pricier items, which would affect the wealthy more.

Not what Smith said but do try to rationalize things away.

Doesn't really matter what he thought. That isn't how the constitution was written so it's a moot point.

I have already stated what Smith believed. If you wish to replay history that is your call, but it is of no interest to me.

 

[Vigilante]

BTW, PaintMyShitHouse, Moonbeam is pulling away from you as TOP POSTER for the month.... slacker!

 

[georgephillip]

We saw with the HHS convention scandals how government employees safeguard the public treasury. Fraud is a characteristic of government. When you are spending other people's money, the temptation to divert some of it to yourself is irresistible.

Governmental fraud isn't incentivized by profit the way private sector malfeasance is. A collection of "one strike laws" that mandate sentences of 25 years to life for the first conviction for fraud against the public treasury would put an end to the massive looting we see today in Pentagon contracts, especially if those convicted were required to spend 25 years behind bars before becoming eligible for their first parole hearing.

 

[georgephillip]

Again, you're implying that politicians send thousands of people to their deaths so they can do favors for their defence contractor cronies

Their cronies earn profits from the deaths of thousands of (mostly) innocent people because the profit motive supplies politicians with the incentive to wage imperial wars of aggression. Tax the profits into extinction and you end the incentive for war.

 

[bripat9643]

We saw with the HHS convention scandals how government employees safeguard the public treasury. Fraud is a characteristic of government. When you are spending other people's money, the temptation to divert some of it to yourself is irresistible.

Governmental fraud isn't incentivized by profit the way private sector malfeasance is. A collection of "one strike laws" that mandate sentences of 25 years to life for the first conviction for fraud against the public treasury would put an end to the massive looting we see today in Pentagon contracts, especially if those convicted were required to spend 25 years behind bars before becoming eligible for their first parole hearing.

What "private malfeasance?" When does a private corporation allow itself to be looted by rapacious contractors? That only happens with government because government bureaucrats are spending other people's money, not their own.

Fraud is already against the law, so why isn't anyone going to jail? How would any of this fraud occur without the cooperation or incompetence of the government bureaucrats who sign the papers? Why should anyone be subjected to a cruel and unusual prison sentence simply because government officials are corrupt and incompetent?

The people who need to go to jail are the ones working for the government who sell out the taxpayers. Corporations are just doing what they always do, charging whatever the traffic will bare. It's unfortunate that in the case of government that's quite a lot.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, you're implying that politicians send thousands of people to their deaths so they can do favors for their defence contractor cronies

Their cronies earn profits from the deaths of thousands of (mostly) innocent people because the profit motive supplies politicians with the incentive to wage imperial wars of aggression. Tax the profits into extinction and you end the incentive for war.

In other words, exactly what I said. You're claiming that politicians send thousands of people to their deaths so they can do favors for their defence contractor cronies. Having government build the weapons itself doesn't stop wars. Did that stop the Soviet Union from invading Poland, Finland or Afghanistan? If anything, socialist countries are more warlike than capitalist countries where private corporations build the weapons.

Your theories are obviously absurd. You're just trying to deflect the blame for wars from where it belongs: the elected representatives of the people.

 

[bripat9643]

Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society, wanted no taxes on necessities but was fine with taxes on luxuries, and wanted corporations to continue to be banned. That Marxist enough for you?

Originally, there were no income taxes. Taxes were on goods to keep the government going and it made sense to have higher taxes on pricier items, which would affect the wealthy more.

Not what Smith said but do try to rationalize things away.

Doesn't really matter what he thought. That isn't how the constitution was written so it's a moot point.

I have already stated what Smith believed. If you wish to replay history that is your call, but it is of no interest to me.

You mean you lied about what Smith believed.

 

[georgephillip]

n other words, exactly what I said. You're claiming that politicians send thousands of people to their deaths so they can do favors for their defence contractor cronies

Exactly. If you eliminate the profit motive from building weapons you deincentivize the government's need to use up the inventory in wars of aggression. BTW, the Pentagon also regards climate change as a threat to national security, which could mean millions of new jobs that don't involve killing innocent civilians?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Liberalism doesn't kill people dummy, although it can and does go to war against Fascists, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, and the like when necessary.

dear, are Founders tried to make all forms of big central govt illegal in the USA. They were not interested in whether the rational was liberal Nazi communist monarchial or fascist.

Do you understand??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Exactly. If you eliminate the profit motive from building weapons you deincentivize the government's need to use up the inventory in wars of aggression

actually the govt does not make a profit on weapons. Too stupid and liberal by 100%.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Exactly. If you eliminate the profit motive from building weapons you deincentivize the government's need to use up the inventory in wars of aggression

actually the govt does not make a profit on weapons. Too stupid and liberal by 100%.

Not the government, dummy, the people who make the weapons.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Liberalism doesn't kill people dummy, although it can and does go to war against Fascists, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, and the like when necessary.

dear, are Founders tried to make all forms of big central govt illegal in the USA.

No, they didn't, but they also saw no reason for one and were worried about government overreach and the pitchforks voting and destroying the place. They were right on both accounts but the fix is not to go back the government of the times when people shit in the woods and got their water from a stream. How big the government should be for a nation our size today they would have been fighting over as well but they weren't dumb like you guys so they wouldn't have said Hey, let's go back to what we had 220 years ago. Times change. They knew that so why don't you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Exactly. If you eliminate the profit motive from building weapons you deincentivize the government's need to use up the inventory in wars of aggression

actually the govt does not make a profit on weapons. Too stupid and liberal by 100%.

Not the government, dummy, the people who make the weapons.

dear, please re read he said deincentivise the govt. See why we say the liberal will be slow?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You mean you lied about what Smith believed.

Nope. There is no need for me to lie about Smith, the person you little morons would call a Marxist now.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Exactly. If you eliminate the profit motive from building weapons you deincentivize the government's need to use up the inventory in wars of aggression

actually the govt does not make a profit on weapons. Too stupid and liberal by 100%.

Not the government, dummy, the people who make the weapons.

dear, please re read he said deincentivise the govt. See why we say the liberal will be slow?

If you can't make a profit off of making weapons then your buddies on Congress and the Pentagon will have less incentive to go to war. Once you make a toy you have to play with it and it's a vicious circle.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, are Founders tried to make all forms of big central govt illegal in the USA.

No, they didn't,?[/QUOTE]

they why no BIll of Rights, no income tax, why only a few enumerated powers, why federalism, why 3 competing branches, and why did Madison say:

Welcome to your first lesson in American history:

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."
67)James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

68)
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.- Madison

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison



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
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You mean you lied about what Smith believed.

Nope. There is no need for me to lie about Smith, the person you little morons would call a Marxist now.

dear, why be so stupid!! Name a modern conservative who calls Smith a Marxist. See why we say a liberal will be slow??

 

[PaintMyHouse]

dear, are Founders tried to make all forms of big central govt illegal in the USA.

No, they didn't,?

they why no BIll of Rights, no income tax, why only a few enumerated powers, why federalism, why 3 competing branches, and why did Madison say:

Welcome to your first lesson in American history:

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."
67)James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

68)
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.- Madison

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison



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
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148[/QUOTE]
I know the history, that's why I'm right. They were my people, not yours. Yours fled to Canada.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You mean you lied about what Smith believed.

Nope. There is no need for me to lie about Smith, the person you little morons would call a Marxist now.

dear, why be so stupid!! Name a modern conservative who calls Smith a Marxist. See why we say a liberal will be slow??

You dummies would, but you are reactionaries. When someone says it's okay for the rich to pay more, that corporations should be banned, in your worldview that is a Marxist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How big the government should be for a nation our size today they would have been fighting over as well

why do you say that?? I don't recall one single word about the govt growing ever or for any reason. In fact the entire document was one big worry about whether the monster could be controlled in the future.

Do you ever think before you write?

Again, liberal, welcome to your first lesson in American History:

Thomas Jefferson:
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.