It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Hey there ATS. I stumbled across this article this morning, shared via Facebook from a relative of mine. I found this to be a rather interesting insight into the corruptional influence that Big Corporations have on our political and electoral systems.



Citizens United. This is the 2010 Supreme Court case that shocked America, influenced an election, and reversed over 100 years of campaign finance laws. In this case, corporations were declared as people and as such declared to have the same rights as people do. It also opened the doors for corporations to pour unprecedented amounts of campaign donations into elections, and what’s more, these donations can be totally secret. Corporations can now literally and legally buy elections and shape the government like never before in our nation’s history.


Moving along, there are some interesting quotes from Jefferson and Adams reguarding Big Banks (Also Corporations).


“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”



Jefferson

And...



“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”


Adams

The truth is, Money can be a motivator towards greed and corruption just as we are witnessing today. It seems as though TPTB can blatanly admit this corruption, and we are somehow supposed to accept the way things be.

The way things be is a completely different thread... we will not go into that here



I would like to hear fellow members thoughts. I feel this article has some very strong and valid points. Also, keeping in mind that the author obviously runs under a Democrat label, and since to a majority of us, political parties, allbeit Democrat or Republican are one in the same. Both are paid to wage votes.... the sad fact is... laws and government policies are BOUGHT with lobbyists offering up the money they saved.... because they can.... because they get so many darn "Tax Breaks" and because, IMO they are without any integrity for the well being of the American people.


Enjoy the read, and have a great day ATS!


My apologies for getting you all worked up when initially creating this thread and NOT including the STINKY LINKY Guess I was somewhat nervous since it is not often I create threads. Shoot... I don't post very much period as I often prefer to read threads created by other members.

www.addictinginfo.org...
edit on 5/17/2012 by forall2see because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/17/2012 by forall2see because: Added Link




posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Comment withdrawn.

edit on 17-5-2012 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


Lol! Been awhile since I've posted a thread.... and there I go forgetting to add the link!


Link



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Neutralism.

I think we should tweak the system to one of economic Neutralism. We retain the economic control and motivations of interest but it cancels on payment, along with principle. This way money comes from nothing, and returns to nothing. All that's left is profit.

Profit = sale - (principle + interest).

Real money for real work. Or, at least as real as money can be.

All economic motivations and opportunities remain. We currently have a system in which the interest burden can only grow. .Exponentially. Ending interest dividends among asset holders provides a plughole down which debt can leave the system, after it has served its function. The amount of principle in the system is dynamic based on reserve requirements. It disappears the same way it was created. We should do the same for interest.

We currently separate monetary control from government because it otherwise has too much power. A line is drawn between military + financial control. And so we take this power from one agency and give it to another, the bank. This expects that they are immune to the same concerns. Truth is, no-one can be trusted with this burden of responsibility and temptation. So, with the stroke of a pen we tweak the system. The interest dividend is not even required for an economy based on the monetisation of work anyway. It's an indulgence. And you can still get as rich as your stamina, talent and luck permits.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
The moment I read the claim that the Supreme Court "declared" corporations as people, I knew I was reading a propaganda piece completely and totally at odds with the truth. So, the first thing I did was visit the link you provided, read the entire article and then clicked About Us:


Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads.


That just the first sentence! Right-wing, left-wing, both are guilty of spreading lies, and when it comes to this particular article - which is an obvious attempt to woo conservatives to their point of view - it is clearly the left spreading lies. The Supreme Court has never declared corporations people. Not most recently in the Citizens United ruling, and before this ruling it was a lie when the left was claiming that the Supreme Court "declared" corporations as a person in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Anyone who has seen the documentary The Corporation - which was released before the Citizens United ruling - knows full well that the left have been making the claim that the Supreme Court has "declared" corporations a person long before Citizens United, so why is it then since Citizens United the left no longer mentions the Santa Clara County ruling? Because their new lie is fresher and has had the advantage of a corporate media banging the drums loudly that the Supreme Court "declared" corporations a person. That's right, the very, very, very, corporate media is outraged that the SCOTUS "declared" corporations a person. Why is that, I wonder?

I wonder what the Founding Fathers thought about out of control legislatures? Because this is what the Supreme Court did in Citizens United; they struck down a portion of a bill that violated the First Amendment. Imagine that! The oh so extremely corporate media doesn't want anyone discussing the fact that the SCOTUS declared the Bi-Partisan Finance Campaign Reform Act as a violation of the First Amendment. Why is that I wonder?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Very valid points. I simply read the story and thought it was interesting in how it ties together with the way our system is run today.

In seeing how the lobbyists seem to control our legislature, it is nice to know that BF and JA had an idea how corrupt things could get, especially with Private Reserve currencies with literally no transparency.... oh yeah... Transparency.... another leftist lie.

My oh my, our POTUS.... so full of dignity... holding so true to his word.



new topics

top topics
 
6

log in

join