Interesting post. However, I'm not sure how the "corporation" post plays in though.

Hi Libertydrum, The Supreme Court ruled that business corporations have the same rights as people. That is why super packs have the right to openly insfluence our elections. Corportations have money and power over our government.

***********************

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/aut...

This blog is listed under, "Thomas Jefferson quotes on liberty" on bing. Lets play a game. Post a comment about America today and see if what Jefferson said about it!!

John Adams the second President of the United States said,

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation.
One is by the sword.
The other is by debt"

These corporations which are funding theses huge political PACS are simply purchasing the elections because our people have become sheep which sit before television and computer screes and soak up non factual "opinion and analyses" from paid commentators.

Listen, there's very little reason to get worked up over the "Citizens United" case of 2010, and inturn the recent issue of the SuperPacs. You need to take yourself out of the whirlwind, and look at the facts.

As I'm sure you already know, the whole case ruling came about when the Federal Goverment censored the anti-Hillary Clinton film called "Hillary the Movie," by Citizens United. Lower courts ruled that it violated the McCain-Feingold act, which limited what independent groups could say about politicians before an election. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court to rule that this violated the First Amendment of a group of individuials that came togther to present their message.

26 states already allowed corporate donations before this ruling (Georgia included). Do you think states like NY and MA are less corrupt for NOT allowing such donations (before this ruling) than states such as FL, & MS?

Also, for years, corporations have been involved in the politicial process before this ruling. Going so far as to openly endorse a specific canidate. You know these better as; the NY Times, MSNBC, News Corp, Wall Street Journal,USA Today, or every major newspaper in the country. If you can withstand Ed Shultz or Sean Hannity telling you who to endorese, I'm sure we can withstand Coca-Cola telling you who is the best choice.

And more speech is never a bad thing, especially right before an election when it REALLY matters. The problem would be if the Govt was continued to trample upon free speech, wheather it be from an individuial or a group of them....

As for the "SuperPacs" they are the next big "freak out" issue. Which again, similar to the Citizens United case if you listen to it second-hand (especially after it's been spun).

As you know, political contrubutions have been limited by Federal laws in the past, but SuperPacs allow groups, such as non-profits, to spend unlimited money on speech, as long as they dont coordinate with a specific canidate.

Yet, the heart-ache comes in the form of class-warfare. In the sense that, "rich people" will be able to "buy" elections. But, as you know, the wealthiest have ALWAYS been able to contribute what they want, as long as they make independent contributions. Honestly, the wealthiest have always been able to get there message across without SuperPacs. Do you think Warren Buffet gets the President's ear because of a SuperPac? No, of course not. All a SuperPac is doing is allowing the rest of us to keep up, less we choose to do so.

Also, SuperPacs, which aren't allowed to coordinate with specific party groups, takes power out of the specific canidates hands, and speads it out more people. This has to be better than allowing the candidates be the only ones telling you about themselves.

More speech is ALWAYS better than less speech, so lets relish the fact that, once in awhile, the Supreme COurt does it's job and upholds out amended rights.

Lastly, when I say "you," I don't mean you, specifically, Ted Harris, but rather use it in a general term for all readers. Just making that clear, so I don't offened anyone.

"And more speech is never a bad thing..."

and

"More speech is ALWAYS better than less speech..."

Yes it is, and not necessarily. Free speech is NOT a license to say anthing to anyone for any reason at any time. There ARE limits - and in a civilized society there should be. To me, as time passes those limits are eroding due to changes in our culture and the influence of money. IMHO - all of these changes have NOT necessarily been for the better or are a "good thing."

The last time I checked, the Supreme Court generally seems to err on the side of categorizing speech as FREE, which is why many targets of such speech don't relish being a target. Now billionaires can give limitless amounts of cash to support their candidate of choice under the guise of "free speech." Meanwhile, you and me get to reap what they sow in the form of the candidates THEY want running OUR country the way they (the "free speech" donators) want.

Is this a "good thing?" Is this "better than" less "speech?"

I, for one, (in the tradition of a born and raised Chicagoan) - vote NO twice.

Sebekm,

You have proved my point for me. For may, this is an issue of "us vs. them," "rich vs. poor," etc, etc.

"they sow in the form of the candidates THEY want running OUR country the way they (the "free speech" donators) want.
"

Allow the Govt to take away a little, they will continue to take away it all. Such is the way of the State; it expands, it does not retract. Much like a ratchet strap.

Yet still, if a person who wishes to use his money to produce a political ad, make flyers, donate, etc. Why should that have limits? Is it not his right to spend his own money how he wishes? Do not let the State dictate your money, or what you can do with it. That truly is a subtle form of slavery, my friend.

Still, this whole talk of campaign finance reform is nothing more than a symptom of an ever expanding Govt. The stakes are too high at this point to simply, "cap" spending at some arbitrary amount, which the Washington elites feel the "masses" should be spending.

I am one who firmly believes that if State power comes down on political donations more, the money will simply go underground. No law in history has been able to stop a buyer and seller completly. Hence why we have black markets.

But why would it go underground? Why is there a seller in this transaction, you might ask?

Simply because many politicians (not all) are up to sell something. May that be, friendly legislation, postion appointments, earmarks, public work projects, etc. The problem isn't the companies putting up the money. They are only looking out for their best interest, as everyone of us does. But rather, the problem is that politicians are able to sell these things. Cut off the "favors" in Washington; the advatages given to the few, at the cost of the many, and the "purchasing" of politicians will cease.

If I proved YOUR point, then you stated it inartfully. MY point was that more free speech is NOT always better, and CAN BE a bad thing. That was my ONLY point, and that was the only part of your argument I disagreed with. You can ramble on all you want on the issue, because - after all - that's what we do here in the Cyber Schiesse Haus. But don't portray my comments as disagreeing with the rest of your argument - because I DON'T.

Understood. Speech has been ruled to have its limits. I believe it was, Schenck v. United States which coined the phrase "can't yell fire in a crowded theater." (But I could be wrong on the title, so please fact check me)

Yet, in the context of politicial speech, I feel that more people, whether it be a single person, or as a group, is better than less people.

More speech scrubs every point of a canidate or legislation. Less speech limits the knowledge.

More speech gives more people a voice. Less speech limits it to a few.

However, I do understand and respect your point of view, less I come across as otherwise.

We are on the same page.

More speech gives us unlimited campaign contributions, too - where the voice that speaks the loudest (i.e., the RICHEST) carries the most weight.

Libertydrum, Thomas Jefferson would agree with Sebekim. In today world most of the largest corporation are global in nature, and they have raped our nation of it wealth. In 1990s 54% of the worlds wealth was in America. Today it is less than 24%. Because the people don't vote have gave them the power to rule over the USA.
**************************

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

Why are we still at war?

Hi Ted. I'm afraid the answer to your question is because WE CAN. Our "national interests" are being defined by the people who speak the loudest. My hunch is that it has always been that way, and that the concept that WE THE PEOPLE are actually in charge of this country may just be an illusion.

But at least here there's an attempt to bring reality to the illusion. In other places, they don't even try.....

Timeontarget you hit the nail on the head. We have war and debt and long hard road ahead of us. Free speech is the key and the Occupy Wallstreet protesters have lost their momentum and have not uses free speech to their advantage. They have yet to articulate their goals and objectives clearly.
**************************

It is our duty still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.
Thomas Jefferson

...and speaking of "speaking the loudest," I always liked the way Jerry Lewis did it with pantomime and jazz in his movies. Here's his version of the corporate board room, as "directed" by the Chairman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS21T_...

"Libertydrum, Thomas Jefferson would agree with Sebekim. In today world most of the largest corporation are global in nature, and they have raped our nation of it wealth. In 1990s 54% of the worlds wealth was in America. Today it is less than 24%. Because the people don't vote have gave them the power to rule over the USA."

Please explain to me how we have been "raped of wealth."

I was a DOD prime and sub contractor from 1978-1990. One project require 20 tons of steel tubing. The contract stated that we had to order steel from Mexico. O'Nell Steel Company was 5 hours away in AL..

American steel company were cut out of DOD contract and they advised contractors to purchase material from foreign countries.
Where the steel and aluminum companies were subsidize by their governments. Korea, Europe and Mexico.

It was the funny math.
Mama and Papa Kettle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfq5kj...

Libertydrum 95% of all new inventions start in America, and are manufactured overseas.

Money, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations.
Thomas Jefferson

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.
Thomas Jefferson

Ted, can you cite something as to where you got that number?

Also, let me pose a question. Why do you think items are manufactured overseas?

Those were the numbers, ninety five percent when I lost my business. I owned Quality Machine & Tool co. were I specialize in prototype development & design, precision machining and CNC machining. At one time in my life I had a net worth of $500,000.00, but that was another life.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Thomas Jefferson

I understand those where the numbers. I was just curious as to where you got them, and if I could see them too; none the less. Why do you think manufacuring goes overseas? Being a business man, I believe you'll have a great understanding of this.

I would like to present my favorite Thomas Jefferson quote. Since you seem to be a fan, I think you'd appreciate it.

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quo...

Is it possible that those manufacturing goods have gone overseas because our corporate tax rates have become too high?

I think that has something to do with it.

Another small thing is that it has become more attractive to work in the public sector than in the private sector.

Government employees, local, state and national have become over paid and not enough people are attracted to "real Jobs" in free enterprise.

Capitalism is the backbone of America.

TOT, that is a very big factor. Many politicians have taken for granted what actually brought this country up. It's sometimes forgotten that not that long ago, the country was mainly sustained by agricultural enterpise; back breaking work. But people made due with what they had avaiable, to turn a profit for food and shelter.

Now, with the aid of technology we have an abundance of goods/services at our disposal. Even more so that we trade with other nations.

To demagogue the businessman, and the economic factors that rose us out of poverty, is to forget where we came from.

To somehow think, we can strip ourselves of the free-enterprise system, and somehow have the level of luxury we do, is simply ludacris. No central planner (or central Gov't) in history has been able to provide for the mass amount of people than the free-enterprise system. Less anyone think I am wrong, I welcome any historical example that proves otherwise.

TOT good point, but in the news lately they stated that the US corporate tax rate is 35%. Yet US corporations play less than 6% because of corporate loop holes. A millionaire like Libertydrum pays more in taxes than some of our major corporations.

Thomas Jefferson has call it a crime, but most his quotes the topic are missing as people rewrite history. The government as not taken one banker to court over our housing mess. Our government as let all Americans know that crime don't pay!!

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

Thats not entirely true. Corporations pay NO taxes, only people pay taxes.

You can't tax a building,
You can't tax a car,
you can't tax a gallon of milk,

none produce revenue, only the individual.

In the case of corporations, taxes are paid by either a decrease in labor wages, or an increase in the price of final goods.

Mr. Harris, I'm sure being a businessman, that you understand this very well. If you continue to produce something, but your tax rate goes up, that extra cost needs to come from somewhere, correct?

Yet the myth continues that somehow this country pays less in taxes. Corporate tax at 35% is still higher than many of the other advanced nations including; France (34%), Japan (30%), UK (28%), Italy (28%), Canada(18%) and Germany(15%).

But on a more basic note, the idea to increase taxes on corporations is to promote inefficency.

Mr. Harris (and any business for that matter) makes money because he provides a good/service that the consumer values MORE than the money they are turning over (otherwise the exchange would not occur). So in principal, he is providing a public service, which-if desirable-will continue to grow. Once it grows to provide for more people, our legislature decides to punish that by taking more of the money it uses to provide for the population. There by REMOVING money from an otherwise productive means, and than TRANSFERING it to an unproductive means.

Simple put, you can't multiply wealth by dividing it.

For a more detail analysis on this, and other economic subjects, I would suggest the book;

Economics in One Lesson ~ by Henry Hazlitt

The Live Oak public library has it avaiable.

http://webcat.liveoakpl.org/uhtbin/is...

LD what is the name of your Institute? What does your symbol mean on your battle standard? Why are you here? Why are you pushing such hard politics on people LD? Did you make money on the Harrisburg's Nightmare?

I will take flawed capitalism over flawed socialism any day. I will take state capitalism, crony capitalism, or corporate capitalism over state socialism, democratic socialism, or national socialism.

Ludwig von Mises Institute, "Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School. Faculty of 16

Thomas Jefferson has call it a crime, . The government of the United States of America as let all Americans know that, "CRIME DOESN'T PAY"!!

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

Ted, I'm confused. Can you explain what you mean? How am I "pushing" anything? Can you please elaborate on your point?

I am not confused at all the topic of this blog. Thomas Jefferson 2012. You are advancing the liberty in the tradition of Austrian schools. You are Austrian and never answer questions.

Liberty county Georgia is the the land of my ancestors and I was born here. We are the home of Two of the signer of the Decoration of Independents. Layan Hall Button Gwinnett.

A little rebellion now and then... is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
”The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government

Thomas Jefferson

Ok, Ted, I'm not sure if your understanding what I'm getting at. Are you reading my replies?

You said;

"LD what is the name of your Institute? What does your symbol mean on your battle standard? Why are you here? Why are you pushing such hard politics on people LD? Did you make money on the Harrisburg's Nightmare?"

Of which I replied,

"Ted, I'm confused. Can you explain what you mean? How am I "pushing" anything? Can you please elaborate on your point?"

You than replied with this;

"I am not confused at all the topic of this blog. Thomas Jefferson 2012. You are advancing the liberty in the tradition of Austrian schools. You are Austrian and never answer questions."

And than gave a short history on Liberty County.

I asked two question;

How am I pushing anything onto anyone?

What question am I not answering?

Let me know what you mean, and I'll glady discuss it with you. But your not describing you point, but rather cuting and pasting T.J quotes, which can't help your case until you proclaim exactly WHAT your point is.

The 2nd Amendment, what are your views.

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

Ok Ted, I am starting to wonder about you. Each time you post, it's on a subject competley different than the last.

I have clarified our exchange, in hopes, that you would do the same, but now you are starting on the subject of the second amendment, and disregarding all of the previous conversations (or lack there of).

I appreciate your input, but sadly, I do not follow your logic and there for can not continue this discussion. Reply if you like, but I will not be checking back. Thank you.

Thank You LD For a scholar you had very little to add on America Histroy.

One of the most surprising fact that Thomas Jefferson would find in 2012 is that the American government has abandons the Americans people and workers. The happiness of American Families has been lost, because for decades, the USA has stop signing treaty with foreign countries.

There is a big different between Treaties and Agreement. Congress requires a 60% majority to pass a Treaty and only 50% plus 1 to pass an Agreement. Agreement is for business, Treaties are good for the American people

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=531

Of all the Jefferson quotes, I like these the best:

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which 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, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

But he also said this:

"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."

See: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/aut...

Great quotes sebekm ! Jefferson words make it clear that he would have hated NAFTA.

I still can't believe that we had the five most recent Presidents (Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton and Bush the Younger) ALL endorsing NAFTA. And I've seen nothing recent that modifies President Obama's "new" position on NAFTA (i.e., that it's "not so bad after all"). See:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magaz...

and

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...

It makes no sense to me. There must be some "hidden truth" involved....

Not only is NAFTA a epic fail!!!

Americans businessmen don't want to go to Mexico, because of the war on drugs. What in the world were our presidents thinking. How can we have free trade with Mexico while there number one export is drugs.

http://tv.ibtimes.com/mexico-s-drug-w...

Legalize them (drugs), and tax them,(heavily) take the narco terrorists out of the equation. The economy will take off like a Jet on an aircraft carrier in the middle of a wet and stormy nite.

Yes and double Yes.

The economy will once again become positive.

I simply don't understand the opisition.

????????????????????????????????????????????

My phone and internet service has been out since Tuesday. I’m glad Comcast finally fixed the problem that has been affecting a few of my neighbors.

I believe its time for America to take a serious look at the decriminalization of marijuana at the founding pf out nation, the founding fathers felt it was every American patriotic duty to grow hemp for our textile industry.

Another surprising fact, I learned watching the history channel is the fact that, wine ale and beer was their choice drinks. Countries south of the border are talking about legalization

http://www.examiner.com/immigration-i...