Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

The authors' most significant discovery may be that one of the first laws enacted by Congress, a 1792 subsidy to revive a cod fishing industry ravaged by the British Navy, directed most of the money not to the wealthy ship owners, but to a class of fisherman known as "sharesmen." They earned a portion of the profits, under contracts negotiated in advance, somewhat like modern unions bargaining with management.

esearch commissioned by Thomas Jefferson found that, when fishermen bargained for their pay in advance and shared in the profits, the operations were highly efficient.

Washington and Jefferson recommended giving sharesmen five eighths of the subsidy, with the rest to ship owners. Owners who paid a fixed wage got nothing. It was a government carrot promoting both bargaining power for workers and more profitable enterprises.

Madison once extrapolated the U.S. population into the early 1900s and concluded that not everyone could farm. But he wrote that since no limit existed on businesses, government could encourage ownership shares to counter what he wrote were the "evils" of concentrated wealth.

Blasi and his co-authors show that in the late 19th century, paying workers a share of profits helped build the fortunes of many of the most successful businessmen. John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil, George Eastman of Eastman Kodak, William Cooper Procter of Procter & Gamble and grain merchant Charles A. Pillsbury all used profit-sharing to attract the best workers, discourage unions, reduce turnover and give employees a greater incentive to make their businesses prosper. "They did it, for sure, out of self-interest," Blasi says, "but it was an enlightened self-interest that benefitted society as a whole."

http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why- ... aring.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Commies.

Funny how you are so keen on listening to THESE words from our founding fathers as gospel, as you fellate your hero Obama while shreds the constitution into irrelevance on a daily basis--a document, ironically written by these SAME men.

AZGrizFan wrote:Funny how you are so keen on listening to THESE words from our founding fathers as gospel, as you fellate your hero Obama while shreds the constitution into irrelevance on a daily basis--a document, ironically written by these SAME men.

Funny how conks want the country to be run exactly how they think the founding fathers would have wanted, while conveniently ignoring stuff like this.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Funny how you are so keen on listening to THESE words from our founding fathers as gospel, as you fellate your hero Obama while shreds the constitution into irrelevance on a daily basis--a document, ironically written by these SAME men.

Funny how conks want the country to be run exactly how they think the founding fathers would have wanted, while conveniently ignoring stuff like this.

That's my argument. You can't use it to. Find your own irony.

AZGrizFan wrote:Funny how you are so keen on listening to THESE words from our founding fathers as gospel, as you fellate your hero Obama while shreds the constitution into irrelevance on a daily basis--a document, ironically written by these SAME men.

Hey doofus...

Both sides highlight the parts of the Constitution and ideas of the founding fathers they like and try to minimize the parts they don't like. James Madison = usually a Conk quote machine. Alexander Hamilton = usually a Donk quote machine.

This is just a side I don't see as often here. Usually it's misattributed Thomas Jefferson quotes.

AZGrizFan wrote:Funny how you are so keen on listening to THESE words from our founding fathers as gospel, as you fellate your hero Obama while shreds the constitution into irrelevance on a daily basis--a document, ironically written by these SAME men.

You gotta excuse lubejob, Z.
Jefferson may have favored profit sharing in certain industries, but there is a vast difference between that and what 0bama is doing with his failed health care plan by forcing people to participate or suffer consequences (as an example).

Ironically enough, I very seriously doubt he can fathom the difference.

It's almost as if the ff 's were aware of the threat of entrenched power and wealth.

Btw , Skelly, I thought Hamilton was the conks man.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Funny how you are so keen on listening to THESE words from our founding fathers as gospel, as you fellate your hero Obama while shreds the constitution into irrelevance on a daily basis--a document, ironically written by these SAME men.

Hey doofus...

Both sides highlight the parts of the Constitution and ideas of the founding fathers they like and try to minimize the parts they don't like. James Madison = usually a Conk quote machine. Alexander Hamilton = usually a Donk quote machine.

This is just a side I don't see as often here. Usually it's misattributed Thomas Jefferson quotes.

If you think Alexander Hamilton was a donk, you need your ass kicked. Well, you need your ass kicked anyway.

Do you really think these guys were talking about redistribution of wealth. What they were talking about was decentralization of power, economic liberty and the creation of the middle class, which did not exist in any nation of the world at the time. They succeeded and fuckers like you want to centralize government authority and make everyone economically equal regardless of the ultimate aggregate standard of living.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Hey doofus...

Both sides highlight the parts of the Constitution and ideas of the founding fathers they like and try to minimize the parts they don't like. James Madison = usually a Conk quote machine. Alexander Hamilton = usually a Donk quote machine.

This is just a side I don't see as often here. Usually it's misattributed Thomas Jefferson quotes.

If you think Alexander Hamilton was a donk, you need your ass kicked. Well, you need your ass kicked anyway.

Do you really think these guys were talking about redistribution of wealth. What they were talking about was decentralization of power, economic liberty and the creation of the middle class, which did not exist in any nation of the world at the time. They succeeded and fuckers like you want to centralize government authority and make everyone economically equal regardless of the ultimate aggregate standard of living.

Not a peep mentioned by Skelly regarding wealth redistribution or Obama yet they both are used against him early in the thread.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
If you think Alexander Hamilton was a donk, you need your ass kicked. Well, you need your ass kicked anyway.

Do you really think these guys were talking about redistribution of wealth. What they were talking about was decentralization of power, economic liberty and the creation of the middle class, which did not exist in any nation of the world at the time. They succeeded and fuckers like you want to centralize government authority and make everyone economically equal regardless of the ultimate aggregate standard of living.

Not a peep mentioned by Skelly regarding wealth redistribution or Obama yet they both are used against him early in the thread.

He is the only person who defends Obama more than you do.
I'm sure he isn't a fan, either.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Not a peep mentioned by Skelly regarding wealth redistribution or Obama yet they both are used against him early in the thread.

He is the only person who defends Obama more than you do.
I'm sure he isn't a fan, either.

You' are confused. I was calling out typical conk deflection and bullshit. Too bad because this could be an interesting discussion. But if I believed in free market pixie dust I'd probably hijack it too...

CitadelGrad wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Hey doofus...

Both sides highlight the parts of the Constitution and ideas of the founding fathers they like and try to minimize the parts they don't like. James Madison = usually a Conk quote machine. Alexander Hamilton = usually a Donk quote machine.

This is just a side I don't see as often here. Usually it's misattributed Thomas Jefferson quotes.

If you think Alexander Hamilton was a donk, you need your ass kicked. Well, you need your ass kicked anyway.

Do you really think these guys were talking about redistribution of wealth. What they were talking about was decentralization of power, economic liberty and the creation of the middle class, which did not exist in any nation of the world at the time. They succeeded and fuckers like you want to centralize government authority and make everyone economically equal regardless of the ultimate aggregate standard of living.

I didn't say he was a Donk... I said he is a Donk quote machine... meaning he provides a wealth of quotes that Donks can point to.

Hamilton one of the leaders of the Federalists and advocated a strong federal government (while others like Madison and Jefferson argued for a weak federal government and strong state governments). He created the first bank of the United States -- enraging anti-federalist Southerners like Madison and Jefferson. The debate over whether the first national bank was constitutional or not is the same one we still have about the Fed, etc. (Hamilton argued it was constitutional under a broad interpretation of the Constituion... Madison and Jefferson argued it was unconstitutional because it wasn't a power specifically enumerated in the Constitution... and should be left to the states).

They were having very similar arguments amongst themselves that we have on this forum every fucking day. We've resolved very, very little in the history of our country...

Yeah, Hamilton wasn't a "Donk"... but...

Democrat:Republican::Federalist:Democratic Republican

James Madison was right!

What's the problem here?

We have a rich history of profit sharing in the U.S. Want more? Go buy some stocks.

Instead, a great majority of employees today go out and buy beer, big screen TVs, processed foods, and a whole load of crap they don't need (except in their own silly race to keep up with the Joneses).

Hey, back in the day, some of those fisherman also spent their share of the profit money on beer and wasted their lives away. The difference is that the government back then didn't try to demand that the drunk fisherman's neighbors be forcibly taxed in order to give the drunkard first class access to the latest gadgets and the best medical aid.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Funny how you are so keen on listening to THESE words from our founding fathers as gospel, as you fellate your hero Obama while shreds the constitution into irrelevance on a daily basis--a document, ironically written by these SAME men.

Hey doofus...

Both sides highlight the parts of the Constitution and ideas of the founding fathers they like and try to minimize the parts they don't like. James Madison = usually a Conk quote machine. Alexander Hamilton = usually a Donk quote machine.

This is just a side I don't see as often here. Usually it's misattributed Thomas Jefferson quotes.

There are no parts of the constitution that I don't like. It's the fucking constitution, for Christ's sake.

AZGrizFan wrote:
There are no parts of the constitution that I don't like. It's the fucking constitution, for Christ's sake.

If so, my bad. Assumed you were like most Republicans.

Are you in favor of birthright citizenship? Are you in favor of the income tax? etc.

I think Republicans are working on repealing 3 or 4 amendments atm.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
There are no parts of the constitution that I don't like. It's the fucking constitution, for Christ's sake.

If so, my bad. Assumed you were like most Republicans.

Are you in favor of birthright citizenship? Are you in favor of the income tax? etc.

I think Republicans are working on repealing 3 or 4 amendments atm.

Until they're not in the constitution, I support them. But let me tell you a story: the father of one of my daughter's dance friends is Lebanese. He's married to an American (has been for 16 years), but has never bothered to get his American citizenship. His pregnant sister is (obviously) also Lebanese. She's coming to America from Lebanon this week to (for the third time) have her child in America. Why, you might ask? Why to gift that child with all the rights and benefits that go along with being born on American soil, despite the fact that neither she nor her husband are American citizens. Do you or do you not have a problem with that?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
If so, my bad. Assumed you were like most Republicans.

Are you in favor of birthright citizenship? Are you in favor of the income tax? etc.

I think Republicans are working on repealing 3 or 4 amendments atm.

Until they're not in the constitution, I support them. But let me tell you a story: the father of one of my daughter's dance friends is Lebanese. He's married to an American (has been for 16 years), but has never bothered to get his American citizenship. His pregnant sister is (obviously) also Lebanese. She's coming to America from Lebanon this week to (for the third time) have her child in America. Why, you might ask? Why to gift that child with all the rights and benefits that go along with being born on American soil, despite the fact that neither she nor her husband are American citizens. Do you or do you not have a problem with that?

What do you call a Lebanese dinosaur?

A lickalotopus.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
If you think Alexander Hamilton was a donk, you need your ass kicked. Well, you need your ass kicked anyway.

Do you really think these guys were talking about redistribution of wealth. What they were talking about was decentralization of power, economic liberty and the creation of the middle class, which did not exist in any nation of the world at the time. They succeeded and fuckers like you want to centralize government authority and make everyone economically equal regardless of the ultimate aggregate standard of living.

I didn't say he was a Donk... I said he is a Donk quote machine... meaning he provides a wealth of quotes that Donks can point to.

Hamilton one of the leaders of the Federalists and advocated a strong federal government (while others like Madison and Jefferson argued for a weak federal government and strong state governments). He created the first bank of the United States -- enraging anti-federalist Southerners like Madison and Jefferson. The debate over whether the first national bank was constitutional or not is the same one we still have about the Fed, etc. (Hamilton argued it was constitutional under a broad interpretation of the Constituion... Madison and Jefferson argued it was unconstitutional because it wasn't a power specifically enumerated in the Constitution... and should be left to the states).

They were having very similar arguments amongst themselves that we have on this forum every fucking day. We've resolved very, very little in the history of our country...

Yeah, Hamilton wasn't a "Donk"... but...

Democrat:Republican::Federalist:Democratic Republican

Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? Your view of Hamilton tells me that you haven't. It is ridiculous to equate Federalists with modern Democrats. Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton would all be appalled by the current size, functions and centralized power of the federal government.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
If you think Alexander Hamilton was a donk, you need your ass kicked. Well, you need your ass kicked anyway.

Do you really think these guys were talking about redistribution of wealth. What they were talking about was decentralization of power, economic liberty and the creation of the middle class, which did not exist in any nation of the world at the time. They succeeded and fuckers like you want to centralize government authority and make everyone economically equal regardless of the ultimate aggregate standard of living.

Not a peep mentioned by Skelly regarding wealth redistribution or Obama yet they both are used against him early in the thread.

You're pretty fucking thick if you think that the purpose of his post wasn't related to redistribution.

Cluck U wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Until they're not in the constitution, I support them. But let me tell you a story: the father of one of my daughter's dance friends is Lebanese. He's married to an American (has been for 16 years), but has never bothered to get his American citizenship. His pregnant sister is (obviously) also Lebanese. She's coming to America from Lebanon this week to (for the third time) have her child in America. Why, you might ask? Why to gift that child with all the rights and benefits that go along with being born on American soil, despite the fact that neither she nor her husband are American citizens. Do you or do you not have a problem with that?

What do you call a Lebanese dinosaur?

A lickalotopus.

We don't call them Lebanese anymore. The correct term is "vagitarian".

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: He is the only person who defends Obama more than you do.
I'm sure he isn't a fan, either.

You' are confused. I was calling out typical conk deflection and bullshit. Too bad because this could be an interesting discussion. But if I believed in free market pixie dust I'd probably hijack it too...

So what has done more to lift people out of grinding poverty than the free market system?
Unicorns? The pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? The Tooth Fairy? "progressivism"?

And the "War on the Rich" continues.

Education, risk taking, and hard work apparently have limits in the Donk world. We must now spoon feed those that, to date, have been unwilling to make sacrifices so that they can eat at the table they already have a seat at.

CAA Flagship wrote:And the "War on the Rich" continues.

Education, risk taking, and hard work apparently have limits in the Donk world. We must now spoon feed those that, to date, have been unwilling to make sacrifices so that they can eat at the table they already have a seat at.

Well said.

Donks are always waiting for someone to help them help themselves to someone else's.