Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[saveliberty]

What makes you think the 16th allows for a progressive tax. Where is the language in it that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another? Seems that would violate the equal protection guaranteed elsewhere.

Weird, you don't know the 16th created an income tax that exempted about 99% of the people?

So when was the 16th amended to allow more people to be taxed?

 

[Londoner]

Does the OP know the dollar amount of subsidies that go to corporations every year?

Answer: no.

Has the OP ever compared the dollar amount of corporate subsidies to say the dollar amount of food stamps?

Nope.

If you want to whine about confiscatory taxes, go for it. I'm with you. But you need to broaden your information sources so that you're not merely a broken record for the Republican Party, which has always under-reported corporate welfare.

In the meantime, check out the subsidy tracker . . . and learn about trickle up wealth.
Subsidy Tracker 2.0 Good Jobs First

(Silly Rabbit. The system always benefits those who own it.)

 

[Dad2three]

What foolishness to say that these quotes advocate for the confiscation of wealth in order to redistribute it. You realize, don't you, that the young nation was a republic without an inherited aristocracy or nobility? It had no unmerited accumulation or inequality of riches. By virtue of the natural law, all citizens - president and yeoman farmer - were peers.

I don't suppose you did realize that.

But how about some quotes relating to our government and Constitution?

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“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.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

Oh, and like your Franklin quote that is not about the Constitution, here's another one likewise:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

Another quote not about the government or Constitution:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

The Fake James Madison


Selectively reading Madison

...While conservatives’ narrow understanding of the spending power finds no support in the text of the Constitution or in the Supreme Court’s decisions, Sen. Paul is correct that it does have one very famous supporter. In an 1831 missive, former President James Madison claimed that the best way to read the Spending Clause is to ignore its literal meaning and impose an extra-textual limit on Congressional power:

With respect to the 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.

Sen. Paul suggests that Madison’s extra-textual limit is both authoritative and binding—even if it means that programs ranging from Social Security to Medicare to Pell Grants must all cease to exist. But it is a mistake to assume that Madison’s preferred construction of the Spending Clause must restrict modern-day congressional action.

First of all, even the most prominent supporters of “originalism”—the belief that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was understood at the time it was written—reject the view that an individual framer’s intentions can change constitutional meaning. As the nation’s leading originalist, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, explains, “I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.”

Indeed, Madison himself would have been dismayed by the claim that an established understanding of the Constitution must bend to his own singular views. Like Scalia, Madison rejected the notion that the framers’ personal desires can defeat the words they actually committed to text. As he explained to future President Martin Van Buren, “I am aware that the document must speak for itself, and that that intention cannot be substituted for [the intention derived through] the established rules of interpretation.”


Secondly, Madison embraced a way of interpreting the Constitution reminiscent of the evolving theories of constitutional interpretation that are so widely decried by modern conservatives. Although Rep. Madison opposed on constitutional grounds the creation of the First Bank of the United States in 1791, President Madison signed into law an act creating the Second Bank in 1816. He “recognized that Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and (most important, by failing to use their amending power) the American people had for two decades accepted” the First Bank, and he viewed this acceptance as “a construction put on the Constitution by the nation, which, having made it, had the supreme right to declare its meaning.”



...Hamilton’s understanding of the spending power was one part of a broader, more expansive vision of congressional power that also included a robust interpretation of Congress’s power under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause. This broader understanding of Congress’s role prevailed over Madison’s very limited one during the earliest days of the Republic. Hamilton was the chief advocate who convinced President George Washington to sign the First Bank bill over Madison’s objections.

The Fake James Madison Center for American Progress



The point here is not that constitutional interpretations should be played like the card game “War,” where conservatives play the Madison card and everyone else plays the Washington card, and whoever plays the higher card wins. Rather, the point is simply that conservatives are wrong to treat the Founding Fathers’ statements as if they were a menu that lawmakers can search through and order the kind of Constitution they want. The Constitution is not a scavenger hunt.




Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal "negative" (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.

James Madison Godfather of the Constitution - The Early America Review Summer 1997

 

[eagle1462010]

Does the OP know the dollar amount of subsidies that go to corporations every year?

Answer: no.

Has the OP ever compared the dollar amount of corporate subsidies to say the dollar amount of food stamps?

Nope.

If you want to whine about confiscatory taxes, go for it. I'm with you. But you need to broaden your information sources so that you're not merely a broken record for the Republican Party, which has always under-reported corporate welfare.

In the meantime, check out the subsidy tracker . . . and learn about trickle up wealth.
Subsidy Tracker 2.0 Good Jobs First

(Silly Rabbit. The system always benefits those who own it.)

I agree and disagree. Implied maybe. We have Career politicians on the dole doing the bidding of their corporate donors. Which is why some of us want them all out. The Status Quo of Career Politicians created this mess and we can't expect them to fix it, just as in Ancient Greece which collapsed under their stupidity.

 

[Dad2three]

You ... are are chastising ... me ... for not backing up a claim? That is just too funny. I ask you questions over and over and get no answer. And you demand an answer? You? LOL, here's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for you.

So for the 4th time someone is asking you to back up YOUR claim, is 4 the charm? Doubtful!

 

[Dad2three]

You're full of crap, the definitions of words on a page don't change with age, they say what they say.

Yes, meaning of words NEVER change *shaking head*

LIVING DOCUMENT

 

[eagle1462010]

You're full of crap, the definitions of words on a page don't change with age, they say what they say.

Yes, meaning of words NEVER change *shaking head*

LIVING DOCUMENT

To spend on whatever your heart desires because it's a living document. Isn't that sweet.................

Who's paying the bills..............and who gets to pay it back as we continue to live beyond our means.....................

Kick the can as always.

 

[norwegen]

What foolishness to say that these quotes advocate for the confiscation of wealth in order to redistribute it. You realize, don't you, that the young nation was a republic without an inherited aristocracy or nobility? It had no unmerited accumulation or inequality of riches. By virtue of the natural law, all citizens - president and yeoman farmer - were peers.

I don't suppose you did realize that.

But how about some quotes relating to our government and Constitution?

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“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.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

Oh, and like your Franklin quote that is not about the Constitution, here's another one likewise:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

Another quote not about the government or Constitution:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

The Fake James Madison


Selectively reading Madison

...While conservatives’ narrow understanding of the spending power finds no support in the text of the Constitution or in the Supreme Court’s decisions, Sen. Paul is correct that it does have one very famous supporter. In an 1831 missive, former President James Madison claimed that the best way to read the Spending Clause is to ignore its literal meaning and impose an extra-textual limit on Congressional power:

With respect to the 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.

Sen. Paul suggests that Madison’s extra-textual limit is both authoritative and binding—even if it means that programs ranging from Social Security to Medicare to Pell Grants must all cease to exist. But it is a mistake to assume that Madison’s preferred construction of the Spending Clause must restrict modern-day congressional action.

First of all, even the most prominent supporters of “originalism”—the belief that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was understood at the time it was written—reject the view that an individual framer’s intentions can change constitutional meaning. As the nation’s leading originalist, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, explains, “I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.”

Indeed, Madison himself would have been dismayed by the claim that an established understanding of the Constitution must bend to his own singular views. Like Scalia, Madison rejected the notion that the framers’ personal desires can defeat the words they actually committed to text. As he explained to future President Martin Van Buren, “I am aware that the document must speak for itself, and that that intention cannot be substituted for [the intention derived through] the established rules of interpretation.”


Secondly, Madison embraced a way of interpreting the Constitution reminiscent of the evolving theories of constitutional interpretation that are so widely decried by modern conservatives. Although Rep. Madison opposed on constitutional grounds the creation of the First Bank of the United States in 1791, President Madison signed into law an act creating the Second Bank in 1816. He “recognized that Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and (most important, by failing to use their amending power) the American people had for two decades accepted” the First Bank, and he viewed this acceptance as “a construction put on the Constitution by the nation, which, having made it, had the supreme right to declare its meaning.”



...Hamilton’s understanding of the spending power was one part of a broader, more expansive vision of congressional power that also included a robust interpretation of Congress’s power under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause. This broader understanding of Congress’s role prevailed over Madison’s very limited one during the earliest days of the Republic. Hamilton was the chief advocate who convinced President George Washington to sign the First Bank bill over Madison’s objections.

The Fake James Madison Center for American Progress



The point here is not that constitutional interpretations should be played like the card game “War,” where conservatives play the Madison card and everyone else plays the Washington card, and whoever plays the higher card wins. Rather, the point is simply that conservatives are wrong to treat the Founding Fathers’ statements as if they were a menu that lawmakers can search through and order the kind of Constitution they want. The Constitution is not a scavenger hunt.




Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal "negative" (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.

James Madison Godfather of the Constitution - The Early America Review Summer 1997

How original.

And relevant.

Only Aselclaps or whatever the hell his name is - rivals you in intellect. Very impressive.

 

[Dad2three]

Excellent post, fellow lybyryl! Idiotic conservatards just don't get it, so can you post some dumbed-down proof that the Founding patriarchal scum intended the Constitution to be a living document subject to changing interpretation over time?

\

The framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document.

By its nature, the "living Constitution" is not held to be a specific theory of construction, but a vision of a Constitution whose boundaries are dynamic, congruent with the needs of society as it changes.


How can the Constitution be referred to as a living document?


When our founding fathers created the Constitution they realized that any document meant to frame a government needed flexibility. They wanted the Constitution to be able to stand for generation after generation. In recognizing this they incorporated two important features:



ELASTIC CLAUSE
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18

In this clause our founding fathers state that congress may pass all laws necessary and proper. This then allows for a loose interpretation of the constitution and allows constitutional flexibility. Thomas Jefferson was very much opposed to this clause and as you can well imagine Alexander Hamilton was it's author.

Some examples of the elastic clause in action include Hamilton's creation of the National Bank and Jefferson's purchase of the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon. The fact that Jefferson actually used the elastic clause is an irony not lost on either Hamilton or Jefferson.

Here is the original text:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


THE AMENDMENT PROCESS
Article V

There are several ways to amend, change, the constitution.

STEP ONE - Proposal

• Must pass 2/3 the House of Representatives and the Senate.
  or
  
  
• Must pass 2/3 of states at a National Constitutional Convention if one is called.

STEP TWO - Ratification

• 3/4 of the state legislatures must vote yes.
  
  or
  ​
• 3/4 of state held conventions.
  
  
  JUDICIAL REVIEW AND INTERPRETATION
  The court, through the power of judicial review, lends a certain flexibility to the Constitution. When justices make a decision, take for example Roe v Wade, they are interpreting what the Constitution meant and said. In Roe, Justice Blackmun claimed that women had had a "right to privacy" and that as a result the state could not pass laws restricting women from having abortions. There is nowhere, however, in the Constitution where you will find this "right to privacy." Blackmun and others on the bench determined via interpretation that it was understood. They felt that the umbrella of Constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights created an unstated right to privacy. Other Supreme Courts have agreed. There are many other examples of interpretation as well. For example, in Gideon v Wainright the Court ruled that a lawyer had to be provided if the accused could not afford one. The Constitution merely states that citizens RIGHT to lawyer cannot be infringed. The Court interpreted this to mean that the state had to provide one if you can not afford one. There is nothing to say that later courts can not disagree and change the official interpretation of the Constitution but this too provides flexibility to meet the needs of a changing nation.
  
  It should be noted that this is not even in the Constitution, it is custom or precedent. This speaks to the evolving and flexible nature of the document.
  
  
  All of these portions of the constitution provide for flexibility and enable the constitution to truly be a "living" document.
  
  Constitutional Flexibility
  

 

[saveliberty]

SCOTUS does not interpret the Constitution, it applies it.

 

[Dad2three]

LOL, do as you say, not as you do. What an intellectual shill.

So let's recap the conversation. You claimed that Obama proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 28%. I said that he did not just propose doing that, it was part of a broader package.

Now you have butt hurt that you want me to find links to disprove your unsubstantiated claim. You have no responsibility to prove anything, it's my job to prove what you say wrong. And I'm failing miserably at that. And you're mad as hell about it. LOL, can't make up the shit you people believe.

I am not disproving your claim no matter what a bitch you want to be about it, my dear. It's YOUR claim. You back it up. You back up that Obama proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 28%, no strings attached.

OMG, you people are hilarious. It's not to be believed. Can you blow your stack again that I am shirking my message board duty by not proving you wrong? LOL, what a tool. Now that's funny.

BROADER package meaning going from 35% to 28% and getting rid of current loopholes and using the extra monies to pay for infrastructure? Horrible right?

I guess Corps paying an average tax rate (EFFECTIVE) in the teens, instead of right wingers 'highest Corp tax rate in the world' myth is just more bullshit then? lol

 

[saveliberty]

Ah yes, Hamilton:

“Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority .... Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.”
― Alexander Hamilton

“To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection.”
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

 

[dblack]

The framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document.

By its nature, the "living Constitution" is not held to be a specific theory of construction, but a vision of a Constitution whose boundaries are dynamic, congruent with the needs of society ...

I hear ya....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

A Flat Tax at a set rate for everyone would conform to the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution. Eliminated the need for a large staff at the IRS. Because people get returns after paying 0% we are losing revenues in excess of 200 BILLION A YEAR.

We have waste and Fraud in Gov't, including duplicate programs being performed by several agencies which if corrected could save us possibly 200 Billion a year.

We give foreign aid that we have to borrow every year to the tune of nearly 50 Billion a year.

We pay farmers not to farm.

We pay 6% to sell bonds on the debt. Given to the Stock Holders of the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve gives out .25% loans to themselves and their buddies but charge us for loans on our own currency.

If people think this is normal and we can't cut then I believe they need to get their heads examined. They may make the call from their Gov't supplied Cell Phone Free of Charge to them paid for by the Tax payers of America.

Correct, I could name 50 government programs supported by either major party that could be or eliminated within a week and the only people who would notice the difference are the people administering said programs and the people stealing from said programs.

That's sad

 

[Dad2three]

LOL

It was Gov't incompetence that has caused all the Depressions, by Not Doing their JOB. Not regulating commerce and cranking out Fiat Currency to inflate markets which screwed everyone.

Andrew Jackson ended the 2nd National Bank of America after the 1st Great Depression because they bloody well caused it, and again after Wilson enabled them, and again after we took away the Glass Steagal Act.......

So, let me get this straight...........Gov't screws up and breaks chit.......and then comes back and says we are here to fix it.....................

Kinda like getting an arsonist to build your house after he burns it down. No thanks.........

Here I thought 'markets' would self regulate? Weird you disagree

Dubya's recession had ZERO to do with the repeal of G/S but was REGULATOR FAILURE (like when Ronnie ignored the regulator warnings with the S&L that started in 1984 that would've stopped 90%+ of the crisis)

WEIRD, ELECT GOPERS WHO 'DON'T BELIEVE IN' GOV'T OR IT'S REGULATORS' AND WE GET THE FIRST GOP GREAT DEPRESSION, RONNIE'S S& L CRISIS AND DUBYA'S SUBPRIME PONZI SCHEME!

MORE ON DUBYA'S

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

Aristocracy is going to have a bit of a problem with one man one vote.

Sure

The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. Our results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/G...ens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf

Distilled down into simple terms: The U.S.A. is now provably an oligarchy; we are a democracy in name only.

 

[Dad2three]

You couldn't build the steel mills, which built the railroads, which moved the oil, which promoted the auto industry without great amounts of capital in the hands of a few visionaries.

Sure, because when those were created the men who did it had so much money? lol

 

[Dad2three]

They were Libertarians as they wrote the Constitution........Liberals of today are nothing of what it meant in the past either.

Just say I want I want I want like a kid at the candy isle at the store like you always do...............Like a spoiled brat who wants more than can be payed for...........If no cash.......No problem.....run up the debt our children will handle it.

Weird, the guys who supported a STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T OVER STATES RIGHTS WERE LIBERTARIANS? THE GUS WHO SUPPORTED STRONG PROTECTIONISTS POLICIES? THEY OPPOSED REGULATIONS? THEY LIMITED CORP POWER? LIMITED MONEY IN ELECTIONS?



"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations," THOM JEFFERSON

THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution. Today's far-right activists, we're told, are the ideological descendents of the Founding Fathers.


George Washington belonged to the Established Church (Episcopalian) of the State of Virginia; he also was the chief vindicator of national power in the new republic. Thomas Jefferson determined to wage war by simply denying foreigners the right to trade with the U.S. So did Madison. What libertarian has ever thought the government could cut off trade between free individuals?

Further, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine supported the French Revolution. That revolution denied there was anything the state could not do in the name of the people. Jefferson never repudiated his support for that tyranny and Thomas Paine was only slightly more dismissive even after it nearly killed him. [...]

The Founders believed in carefully delineated federal powers either broad (Hamilton) or limited (Jefferson, sometimes) but all believed in a more powerful state than libertarians purport to believe in. If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.

The Washington Monthly

 

[saveliberty]

Aristocracy is going to have a bit of a problem with one man one vote.

Sure

The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. Our results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens homepage materials/Gilens and Page/Gilens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf

Distilled down into simple terms: The U.S.A. is now provably an oligarchy; we are a democracy in name only.

You missed this part:

It turns out, in fact, that the preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly

highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites (see Table 2.) Rather
often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things
from government.

 

[saveliberty]

You couldn't build the steel mills, which built the railroads, which moved the oil, which promoted the auto industry without great amounts of capital in the hands of a few visionaries.

Sure, because when those were created the men who did it had so much money? lol

The very thing you wish to destroy.