It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well, VOX doesn't jive with just about EVER OTHER SITE:
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Funny, those "plucky group of colonists" were pretty anti-aristocratic...
And these days? The party that venerates them (The GOP/Republicans) kiss and kneel before the wealthy.
Somehow folks of this political persuasion believe the neo-aristocracy will bestow upon them blessings of trickle-down wealth if only they serve with unquestioning loyalty and loving adoration.
That's some straight up brainwashing if you ask me.
The government is just a front for the corporations and wealthy. It adds legitimacy, gives a softer "for the people" mask to the people. The corporations and wealthy elites run the show, and use the government as if it were one of their own limbs. The 'government' doesn't do anything on its own, it does what its paid to do by the people with the money to pay it.
What they opposed and were "anti" was excessive taxation, regulation, and meddling in the business of the individual and individual communities by a centralized power. They flat out rejected the idea of a central government serving as mommy, daddy, and concubine.
Assuming he could actually make that happen, which is a giant assumption -- on both ends.
Early Americans were all too familiar with European Aristocracy and as they began to conceive this new nation they wanted a new idea based not on Aristocratic order but on shared political power. For that to happen they believed there had to be relative equity in wealth among the citizens of America. There was a strong belief that inherited wealth would lead to a rising Aristocracy with wealthy families consolidating unfair political power. Both Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith, that great Conservative champion, found it impossible to accept that great wealth should be passed on from parent to child. Because of this they stood firm on a redistribution of wealth in the form of an inheritance tax.
If developing laws and tax policies that redistributed wealth with the specific purpose of creating relative equity among the citizenry were priorities for the Founding Fathers, how would they feel about the current marriage of politics and economics in our country today? Would they be horrified by the American Aristocracy and its spokesman, Mitt Romney's comments about the 47%? Would our Founding Fathers, knowing even then how extreme wealth corrupts democratic institutions, condemn or accept the Citizens United ruling? Would the Founding Fathers shake their heads at the lowest tax rates going to those who, by luck of their own birth, inherited their wealth as well as to those who do no actual work for their gains?
If you could get single payer health insurance and federally funded schooling you just may fair better under the higher tax rate.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: burdman30ott6
They were wealthy - there is no question about that. But the claim that they were "self-made men" is very dubious.
They were aristocrats from birth. Privileged and moneyed "gentlemen." Educated, literate, philosophically educated, etc....in fact, at the beginning no one who wasn't "as smart or rich" as they were, COULD NOT VOTE. And no women at all could vote.
So - splain that!!
Franklin was the youngest son of 17 children. His father was a poor candle-maker. He simply couldn’t afford to supply his youngest son with opportunities early in life. Franklin decided that it was up to him to make his own way in the world.
So, they may have been well-educated and had some money ... but the real rich and wealthy folks were back over in England still. Making your way to America was kind of a big gamble back then.
In fact, a lot of people escaping things in Europe came to America... lol A lot of us have criminals in our family tree if we go back far enough