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

[Derideo_Te]

Exactly. Even the most cursory examination of the Founding documents makes it clear that the Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody. To a man, they knew how corrupting that would quickly become. The GENERAL welfare was that which benefitted all the states and all the people without regard to politics, religion, demographics, or socioeconomic status. Restoring allegiance to that single fundamental concept would do wonders to replace career politicans and bureaucrats with honest public servants again; it would do wonders to stabilize the economy and restore the American dream.

And that is why my choice of an event to change in American history is to negate the corruption of the Constitution done in the T Roosevelt administration. That simple change of history would almost certainly have avoided us at least most of the mess we are currently in.

With all due respect, Foxy, the world of the Founding Fathers predated the industrial revolution. The world was a very different place when TR took office. The FF's understood that the world would change and they did not create a rigid document with which to dictate how America must be run. Instead they were deliberate in choosing terms like the "general welfare" knowing full well that what was defined as "general welfare" in 1795 would be different to what it would be in 1895 and different yet again by 1995. Society evolves because we are transforming our world like no species since the Carboniferrous period. To ignore that change or to want to roll the clock 225 years is unrealistic in my opinion.

They knew the general welfare, as they defined it, would change over time yes. But the principle that the general welfare referred to all of society, without regard to politics or demographics or socioeconomic standing, was not expected to change. If the government's ability to curry favor with one group at the expense of another group, to rob Peter to pay Paul, was corrupting and detrimental to all our freedoms and concept of self governance then, it is equally if not more true today. The industrial revolution changed the dynamics of what the general welfare might include; i.e. some pollution issues that did not exist in colonial times. It did not change the principle itself.

You are absolutely correct that it did not change the principle. What changed was society itself. When people were born, lived and died on the same piece of land that essentially fed and clothed them too there was never a problem when one became too old to work. The next generation was there to farm the crops and make the clothes. When people left the land and started working in factories they found themselves destitute once their working days were over. They no longer had an income so they became poverty stricken. The concept of Social Security and Medicare were devised as a means to ensure that 100% of all Americans would not find themselves destitute once they could no longer work for a living. From the perspective of the government this is clearly in the "general welfare" of the people because with large groups of destitute elderly people you are going to have to deal with rampant crime, slums and disease. Since this is available to 100% of the people it is not a means to "curry favor with one group at the expense of another group, to rob Peter to pay Paul". Instead it is a humanitarian solution to what would otherwise be a serious threat to the economic stability of this nation.

 

[Bfgrn]

Exactly. Even the most cursory examination of the Founding documents makes it clear that the Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody. To a man, they knew how corrupting that would quickly become. The GENERAL welfare was that which benefitted all the states and all the people without regard to politics, religion, demographics, or socioeconomic status. Restoring allegiance to that single fundamental concept would do wonders to replace career politicans and bureaucrats with honest public servants again; it would do wonders to stabilize the economy and restore the American dream.

And that is why my choice of an event to change in American history is to negate the corruption of the Constitution done in the T Roosevelt administration. That simple change of history would almost certainly have avoided us at least most of the mess we are currently in.

With all due respect, Foxy, the world of the Founding Fathers predated the industrial revolution. The world was a very different place when TR took office. The FF's understood that the world would change and they did not create a rigid document with which to dictate how America must be run. Instead they were deliberate in choosing terms like the "general welfare" knowing full well that what was defined as "general welfare" in 1795 would be different to what it would be in 1895 and different yet again by 1995. Society evolves because we are transforming our world like no species since the Carboniferrous period. To ignore that change or to want to roll the clock 225 years is unrealistic in my opinion.

They knew the general welfare, as they defined it, would change over time yes. But the principle that the general welfare referred to all of society, without regard to politics or demographics or socioeconomic standing, was not expected to change. If the government's ability to curry favor with one group at the expense of another group, to rob Peter to pay Paul, was corrupting and detrimental to all our freedoms and concept of self governance then, it is equally if not more true today. The industrial revolution changed the dynamics of what the general welfare might include; i.e. some pollution issues that did not exist in colonial times. It did not change the principle itself.

"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

 

[Foxfyre]

He was not speaking of the Constitution in that comment Bfgn. He was referring to the social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that. Jefferson's federal government was not in the business of making institutions, even though even he veered a bit off course in the case of higher education, but in the end chose wisely and looked to his beloved Virginia to provide that. But the institutions were not to belong to the federal government but were left to the people to design and preserve.

 

[Bfgrn]

He was not speaking of the Constitution in that comment Bfgn. He was referring to the social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that. Jefferson's federal government was not in the business of making institutions, even though even he veered a bit off course in the case of higher education, but in the end chose wisely and looked to his beloved Virginia to provide that. But the institutions were not to belong to the federal government but were left to the people to design and preserve.

Really? Can you produce this "social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that "?

 

[Billo_Really]

And by "welfare", they weren't talking about public assistance.

General welfare is exactly what it say's. Whatever is in the general welfare of the country, it's Congress job to provide it. If high un-employment happens to be harming the country and the private sector isn't hiring anybody, then it's the governments job to get people back to work, because American's with jobs is in the best interests of this country. And it doesn't matter whether it's a public dollar or a private one, the main thing is to get American's paychecks. And when Americans get paychecks, they spend it on rent, food, housing, transportation, etc., which is putting money back into the system. They're not hoarding it like major corporations, waiting for demand to pick up before they do anything.

 

[Billo_Really]

Exactly. Even the most cursory examination of the Founding documents makes it clear that the Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody.

Does that include major corporations getting tax breaks?

 

[Foxfyre]

Exactly. Even the most cursory examination of the Founding documents makes it clear that the Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody.

Does that include major corporations getting tax breaks?

As corporations weren't taxed when the Founders were in charge and such a concept would have been abhorrent to them, the subject didn't come up. In fact they did their damndest to originally fund the federal government by imposing taxes on foreign imported products only--no internal taxes at all. When that wasn't quite enough they imposed a few consumption taxes on luxury items only--ever conscious not to hinder commerce and trade or impose a hardship on any citizen.

Even their method of covering deficits was great. Believing a balanced budget essential to the prosperity and integrity of the nation, they assessed each state a portion of the deficit based on how many representatives that state sent to Washington. It was up to the states how they would raise the money for their assessment. Can you imagine a better system to encourage the states to keep an eye on the spending habits of their elected federal representatives?

But if the HAD taxed corporations at the federal level, they absolutely would say if one got taxed, they all would be taxed at the same rate. And if one got a tax break they all would get a tax break.

 

[S.J.]

And by "welfare", they weren't talking about public assistance.

General welfare is exactly what it say's. Whatever is in the general welfare of the country, it's Congress job to provide it. If high un-employment happens to be harming the country and the private sector isn't hiring anybody, then it's the governments job to get people back to work, because American's with jobs is in the best interests of this country. And it doesn't matter whether it's a public dollar or a private one, the main thing is to get American's paychecks. And when Americans get paychecks, they spend it on rent, food, housing, transportation, etc., which is putting money back into the system. They're not hoarding it like major corporations, waiting for demand to pick up before they do anything.

You're wrong. It's their job to create an environment by which free enterprise and private industries can thrive, not to redistribute wealth and control businesses, which is what you are suggesting here. The founding fathers would laugh at that interpretation.

 

[Billo_Really]

You're wrong. It's their job to create an environment by which free enterprise and private industries can thrive, not to redistribute wealth and control businesses, which is what you are suggesting here. The founding fathers would laugh at that interpretation.

Bullshit!

The document say's...

"We the people..."​

not​

"We the people, Inc."​

This country was not created for the benefit of business, but for the benefit of its people.

 

[Billo_Really]

And if one got a tax break they all would get a tax break.

Well, I can say with absolute certainty, I don't get the same tax breaks GE does.

Now who's side are you on? GE's? Or mine?

 

[Foxfyre]

And if one got a tax break they all would get a tax break.

Well, I can say with absolute certainty, I don't get the same tax breaks GE does.

Now who's side are you on? GE's? Or mine?

Clue time. G.E. did not exist in the 18th Century or the first 3/4ths of the 29th Century as no businesses were taxed at all in the 18th and 19th centuries. Taxes on businesses is a 20th Century invention AFTER Teddy Roosevelt dumped the Constitution in favor of ever increasing and authoritarian government.

So perhaps you could enlighten me as to what G.E. had to do with the Founders and the principles they held as convictions because that is what we were talking about.

 

[Foxfyre]

He was not speaking of the Constitution in that comment Bfgn. He was referring to the social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that. Jefferson's federal government was not in the business of making institutions, even though even he veered a bit off course in the case of higher education, but in the end chose wisely and looked to his beloved Virginia to provide that. But the institutions were not to belong to the federal government but were left to the people to design and preserve.

Really? Can you produce this "social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that "?

I can point to the Constitution and all the documents the Founders left us that provide all the rationale that went into the Constitution. I spent several years studying those in both highschool and college. It is a shame everybody didn't.

 

[S.J.]

You're wrong. It's their job to create an environment by which free enterprise and private industries can thrive, not to redistribute wealth and control businesses, which is what you are suggesting here. The founding fathers would laugh at that interpretation.

Bullshit!

The document say's...

"We the people..."​

not​

"We the people, Inc."​

This country was not created for the benefit of business, but for the benefit of its people.

EXACTLY!!! "We The People", not "We The Government".

 

[Billo_Really]

EXACTLY!!! "We The People", not "We The Government".

What?

Will you explain to me how that ties in to your previous statement?

 

[Billo_Really]

Clue time. G.E. did not exist in the 18th Century or the first 3/4ths of the 29th Century as no businesses were taxed at all in the 18th and 19th centuries. Taxes on businesses is a 20th Century invention AFTER Teddy Roosevelt dumped the Constitution in favor of ever increasing and authoritarian government.

So perhaps you could enlighten me as to what G.E. had to do with the Founders and the principles they held as convictions because that is what we were talking about.

I'm not talking about what the Founders said, I'm talking about what you said. Which was....

And if one got a tax break they all would get a tax break..

Well, GE gets tax breaks I don't get, but I don't see you bitching about that!

On the one hand, you state...

Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody.

Which is an obvious reference to social programs. But when I bring up the issue of "charity" going to corporations in the form of tax breaks, you give me this deer-in-the-headlights look , "Whoa, where did that come from?"

I'll tell you where it came from. It came from your hypocrisy as demonstrated in this ongoing war your having with the lower class, then looking the other way when the upper class is gets the same treatment.

 

[S.J.]

EXACTLY!!! "We The People", not "We The Government".

What?

Will you explain to me how that ties in to your previous statement?

What's to explain?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd convince Napoleon not to invade Russia in 1812. If he didn't invade Russia, Europe would of been one since that time...

This would of = no world wars.

Likely no Marxism and bloody 20th century.

 

[Bfgrn]

He was not speaking of the Constitution in that comment Bfgn. He was referring to the social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that. Jefferson's federal government was not in the business of making institutions, even though even he veered a bit off course in the case of higher education, but in the end chose wisely and looked to his beloved Virginia to provide that. But the institutions were not to belong to the federal government but were left to the people to design and preserve.

Really? Can you produce this "social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that "?

I can point to the Constitution and all the documents the Founders left us that provide all the rationale that went into the Constitution. I spent several years studying those in both highschool and college. It is a shame everybody didn't.

Did they teach you this?

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.

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

Early laws regulating corporations in America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

 

[ScienceRocks]

Or maybe I'd go back in tell god to make all human races equal. That would make the world a better place. Hopefully on the higher side of intelligence.

 

[FA_Q2]

Or maybe I'd go back in tell god to make all human races equal. That would make the world a better place. Hopefully on the higher side of intelligence.

You would tell God?

Did the arrogance of that statement go right over your head? I mean really, I am an atheist and I don’t think that I would tell God anything if I found myself with that possibility; I don’t think I could be that presumptuous.