The Founders' actual words, myths dismantled, and ready-to-use responses
For decades, the Founders' words have been cherry-picked, misquoted, and outright fabricated to justify oligarchy, oppose social programs, and defend concentrated wealth.
This ends now.
Below you'll find comprehensive rebuttals to the most common misuses, complete with:
Every rebuttal is cited and sourced. Share liberally.
The Most Misunderstood Quote in American History
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
— Attributed to Alexander Hamilton
This is used to argue: Hamilton opposed expansive government spending and social programs.
This quote is cherry-picked and completely misrepresents Hamilton's actual position. In his Report on Manufactures (1791), Hamilton explicitly argued FOR broad government power:
"The phrase ['general welfare'] is as comprehensive as any that could have been used... this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare."
— Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures (1791)
Hamilton argued that Congress had express authority to spend on "whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce."
When Hamilton's quote is used against social programs, it's being twisted for the exact opposite of what he stood for. Hamilton believed in active government intervention in the economy for the general welfare. He was arguing against the MOST extreme interpretations of unlimited power, not against government social spending.
That Hamilton quote is taken completely out of context. In his actual Report on Manufactures, Hamilton argued that the General Welfare clause gives Congress BROAD authority to spend on agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, and education. He was a Federalist who created the national bank and supported strong central government. Using Hamilton to argue against social spending is like using water to argue against wetness.
Religious Freedom ≠ Opposition to Social Programs
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
— Thomas Jefferson
This is used to argue: Jefferson opposed taxation for social programs.
This quote is from Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779). It's about separation of church and state, specifically arguing against mandatory taxation to support churches and religious institutions.
It has NOTHING to do with social programs, healthcare, or economic policy.
"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on."
— Thomas Jefferson
When used this way, this quote is ripped from its religious freedom context and applied to economic policy in a way Jefferson never intended. Jefferson was separating church and state, not arguing against social programs.
That Jefferson quote is about religious freedom and separation of church and state, not social programs. It's from his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, arguing against forcing people to fund churches. Jefferson actually supported public education, property regulation, and preventing aristocratic wealth accumulation. Applying a quote about religious freedom to healthcare or social security is dishonest.
Jefferson Never Said This
"That government is best which governs least."
— Attributed to Thomas Jefferson
This is used to argue: Jefferson advocated for minimal government.
Jefferson never said this.
This quote actually comes from Henry David Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience" (1849), written 23 years after Jefferson's death. There is no evidence Jefferson ever wrote or said these words.
Jefferson believed in LIMITED government in terms of protecting individual rights from tyranny, not in the modern libertarian sense of opposing all government action for the public good.
This fake quote is used constantly to claim Jefferson as a libertarian icon. He wasn't. Jefferson believed in active government for the public good, just with proper checks and balances. The quote doesn't represent his views—because he never said it.
Jefferson never said that. It's a misattribution—the quote actually comes from Thoreau in 1849, 23 years after Jefferson died. Jefferson supported government-funded education, exploration, infrastructure, and the massive Louisiana Purchase. He believed in LIMITED government to protect rights, not NO government action for the public good.
Ease, Comfort, and Security
"The Founders wanted minimal government that stayed out of people's lives."
— Common Misconception
John Adams wrote explicitly about government's purpose in Thoughts on Government (1776)—the same year as the Declaration of Independence:
"We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government... the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best."
— John Adams, Thoughts on Government (1776)
Adams defined "happiness" not as mere pleasure, but as ease, comfort, security—the material conditions necessary for a dignified life.
When the Declaration of Independence says "pursuit of happiness," it doesn't mean "do whatever you want." Based on Adams' definition (written the same year), it means government should ensure people have security and comfort—the foundation for actually pursuing happiness. This is the philosophical basis for Social Security, Medicare, and the social safety net.
John Adams wrote in 1776 that the purpose of government is to provide "ease, comfort, security" to the greatest number. That's not minimal government—that's government actively ensuring economic security. Adams was in the room when the Declaration was written. When the Founders wrote "pursuit of happiness," they meant government should provide the security necessary for people to actually pursue it.
Property Is a Social Creation
"The Founders believed in absolute property rights and opposed redistribution."
— Common Misconception
Benjamin Franklin wrote:
"All property... seems to me to be the creature of public convention... The public has a right to regulate it."
— Benjamin Franklin
Franklin supported progressive taxation and believed that wealth accumulation beyond what one personally earned was a debt owed to society.
The Founder on the $100 bill explicitly said property is a social creation subject to public regulation. Modern "absolute property rights" arguments have no founding-era support.
Benjamin Franklin said "All property seems to me to be the creature of public convention" and that "the public has a right to regulate it." The Founders didn't believe in absolute property rights—they understood that property is a social creation that can be regulated for the common good. The guy on the $100 bill supported property regulation.
Context Matters
"Madison said federal powers were 'few and defined,' proving the Founders wanted minimal government."
— Common Misconception
Yes, Madison wrote in Federalist 45 that federal powers were "few and defined"—compared to state powers. He was arguing FOR the Constitution's EXPANSION of federal power compared to the Articles of Confederation, while assuring states they'd retain significant authority.
Madison was a Federalist arguing FOR a stronger central government. "Few and defined" meant "clearly enumerated" (not unlimited monarchy), not "barely existent."
The line "few and defined" is used to argue against any federal action. But Madison was arguing FOR federal power (against anti-Federalists) while promising states would retain authority too. He wanted balance, not elimination of federal power.
Madison's "few and defined" was about clearly enumerating federal powers versus state powers, not about minimizing government. He was a Federalist arguing FOR the Constitution's expansion of federal authority. The Constitution he wrote created federal taxation, military, commerce regulation, and infrastructure—that's not minimal government.
Who's Really Picking Your Pocket?
"Social programs are too expensive. Look at your paycheck—see how much they take from you to give to people who didn't earn it."
— Common Argument Against Social Programs
This is the ultimate lie—and it's been repeated for seventy years.
The ultra-wealthy have spent decades convincing the working class that their true enemy is the "welfare queen" or the "lazy millennial" living off government handouts. They've made the working poor feel like their pockets are being picked by their own neighbors.
In reality, it is the ultra-wealthy who have stopped contributing to the society that made them rich.
"All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice… a part of that accumulation back again to society."
— Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
The "Pursuit of Happiness" isn't a drain on our resources if we demand economic justice—it is the purpose of our Union. The people at the top must start paying their fair share into the system that made their success possible. They've tricked us into guarding our pockets against each other while they walk out the back door with the vault.
That's the Great Diversion in action. For seventy years, the ultra-wealthy have convinced working people that their enemies are their neighbors—"welfare queens" and "lazy millennials"—while they walk out the back door with the vault. The same class of people who tried to overthrow FDR in 1933 to kill Social Security have been running this playbook ever since. Thomas Paine himself said that wealth beyond what your own hands produce is derived from society—and you owe part of it back. The Pursuit of Happiness isn't "socialism"—it's the purpose of our Union.
How the Ultra-Wealthy Extract Wealth Without Paying Taxes
"We shouldn't tax unrealized gains—it's not fair to tax money people haven't actually received yet."
— Common Argument Against Wealth Taxes
The ultra-wealthy have created something far more insidious than simple tax avoidance. The "Buy, Borrow, Die" strategy transforms unrealized gains into absolute power while forcing society to bear every ounce of the risk.
This is economic vampirism. They're using unrealized gains—that they claim shouldn't be taxed—as collateral to extract real wealth from the system.
When the bubble bursts, the losses are "socialized"—they become YOUR debt through bailouts, inflation, austerity, and extended working years.
This isn't capitalism. It's a sophisticated looting operation that uses unrealized gains as the crowbar to crack open society's accumulated wealth, extract it, and leave the empty shell for future generations to pay off. In 2008, homeowners lost everything while banks got bailouts. The pattern will repeat—except now the numbers are exponentially larger.
The "don't tax unrealized gains" argument ignores how the ultra-wealthy actually operate. They borrow against those unrealized gains tax-free, use that money to buy political power, manipulate the system to inflate their holdings further, borrow more, and repeat. When they die, their heirs get a "stepped-up basis" that wipes out the tax bill entirely. When the bubble bursts—like in 2008—we bail them out while they keep the real assets they bought with borrowed money. They've found a way to extract real wealth while claiming they have no "realized" income to tax. That's not capitalism—it's a looting operation.
What Wealth Really Represents
"Billionaires earned their wealth through hard work and innovation. They deserve to keep what they made."
— Common Defense of Extreme Wealth
We've all heard "time is money." But flip it: Money is crystallized human time and effort. Every dollar represents someone's finite hours of life converted into exchangeable form.
Nothing has economic value without labor creating it first. That labor creates nothing of value without meeting demand.
When you hold a smartphone, you aren't just holding glass and silicon—you're holding thousands of crystallized human hours: the rare-earth miner whose lungs are heavy with dust, the factory worker whose back aches from a twelve-hour shift, the engineer who missed dinners with their family.
When an oligarch's wealth reaches $500 billion, they have captured the equivalent of 278,000 complete human working lifetimes. That's every single working person in Buffalo, for their entire careers.
They aren't just hoarding money—they are hoarding the spent lives of their fellow human beings.
The equation reveals a fundamental truth: when wealth concentrates beyond a certain threshold, the economy mathematically cannot function. The wealthy cannot create sufficient demand (one person doesn't buy a million times more groceries), and workers lose purchasing power. Value drops because Demand cannot match available Labor. This is what happened before the Great Depression, the 2008 crisis, and every major economic collapse.
A billion dollars isn't "earned"—it's extracted. At median income, $1 billion represents 25,000 years of human labor. No one works 25,000 years. That wealth represents the crystallized time and effort of thousands of other people. When someone has $500 billion, they've captured 278,000 complete human working lifetimes—every worker in a city like Buffalo, for their entire careers. The Founders understood this: wealth accumulated beyond what your own hands produce comes from society, and you owe part of it back. That's not socialism—that's Thomas Paine.
Demand Creates Jobs, Not Billionaires
"We can't tax the wealthy because they're the job creators. If we tax them, they won't create jobs."
— Common Argument Against Progressive Taxation
Demand creates jobs. Capital enables production. Labor creates value.
Jobs exist because there's demand for goods and services, not because wealthy people are generous. A billionaire doesn't "create" jobs out of kindness—they invest capital in production when they believe consumer demand will generate profit.
The "job creator" is actually the consumer with purchasing power. If nobody can afford to buy products, no amount of wealth concentration will create jobs.
The "job creator" myth serves a political purpose: to argue against progressive taxation, minimum wage increases, worker protections, and social programs. If we accept that the wealthy are doing us a favor, we accept that they deserve unlimited wealth while workers should be grateful for whatever wages they're offered. The truth: broad prosperity creates more jobs than concentrated wealth ever could.
Jobs are created when:
Jobs are NOT created by giving tax breaks to billionaires, allowing unlimited wealth accumulation, or suppressing wages. If "job creators" were really creating jobs out of their wealth, we'd see employment boom during periods of high inequality. We don't. We see the opposite.
The "job creator" myth is backwards. Demand creates jobs, not wealth concentration. A billionaire doesn't hire workers out of kindness—they hire when consumer demand makes it profitable. If nobody can afford to buy products, no amount of wealth will create jobs. The real job creators are millions of people with money to spend. That's why the economy booms when the middle class is strong, not when wealth is concentrated at the top. The Founders understood this—Thomas Paine proposed redistributing wealth, Adams said government should provide economic security, and Jefferson feared concentrated wealth would create a new aristocracy.
The United States was founded as a secular nation.
"The United States was founded as a Christian nation, and our laws should reflect Christian values."
— Common Argumennt for Religious Influence in Government and Christian Nationalism
The United States was founded as a secular nation, with a clear separation of church and state. The Founders were influenced by Enlightenment principles, which emphasized reason, individual rights, and religious freedom.
The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times. The only reference to religion is Article VI: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The Founders explicitly rejected religious governance:
"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
— Treaty of Tripoli (1797), signed by John Adams, ratified unanimously by the Senate
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
— First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
"The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (written by Jefferson, championed by Madison):
"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever."
— Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786)
This clause was designed to prevent the government from favoring one religion over another or interfering with individuals' religious practices.
The 'Christian nation' myth is used to justify religious discrimination and claim special status for one faith over others. This directly violates the Founders' vision of religious freedom for ALL Americans. When we allow one interpretation of Christianity to claim governmental authority, we betray the very principle that has protected religious liberty - including for Christians - for over 200 years. The Founders created secular government specifically to prevent religious faction from controlling others.
The United States was founded as a secular nation, not a Christian one. The Constitution doesn't mention God at all, and the Treaty of Tripoli—signed by John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate—explicitly states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." The First Amendment prevents Congress from establishing any religion, and Jefferson wrote about a "wall of separation between church and state." The Founders wanted religious freedom for all faiths, not government favoritism toward one. Claiming we're a "Christian nation" goes against their vision of liberty.
The truth about wealth accumulation in America.
"Billionaires earned their wealth through hard work, innovation, and risk-taking. They deserve every dollar because they built something from nothing."
While some billionaires may have started businesses, the vast majority of their wealth comes from systemic advantages, inherited wealth, and exploiting labor and resources.
No one becomes a billionaire through their own labor alone. Using our Economic Equation: at median income ($40,000), $1 billion represents 25,000 years of human labor. No individual works for 25,000 years.
What Actually Creates Billion-Dollar Valuations:True wealth creation involves contributing value to society, not just extracting it through systemic advantages.
Yes, they may provide vision, marketing, coordination, risk assessment. But these contributions might multiply value by 10x, maybe 100x in extreme cases. They don't justify capturing 25,000x the value of the workers who actually built the products.
Real Example from Our Equation:
When you hold that smartphone worth $1000, you're holding thousands of crystallized human hours - the miner, factory worker, engineer, truck driver, retail clerk. The billionaire CEO didn't mine the rare earth metals, solder the circuits, or write most of the software. They coordinated and marketed, but they didn't CREATE 99.99% of the value they extracted.
The "earned it" myth justifies unlimited wealth extraction while the people who actually built the products struggle to afford what they made. It perpetuates inequality and distracts from the systemic changes needed to create a fair economy where wealth is paid to those who create it.
No billionaire "earns" a billion dollars through their own work. At median income, $1 billion represents 25,000 years of human labor - no one works for 25,000 years. Billionaire wealth comes from extraction: paying workers less than the value they create, using public infrastructure they didn't build, exploiting tax loopholes, monopolizing markets, and receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies. When you hold a smartphone, you're holding the crystallized labor of miners, factory workers, engineers - not the billionaire CEO who coordinated but didn't actually build what they're claiming credit for. Yes, leadership matters, but that might justify 10x compensation, not 25,000x. The "self-made" myth ignores that extreme wealth requires extracting value from workers, consumers, and society itself. As Thomas Paine said: wealth "beyond what a man's own hands produce" comes from society - and society deserves its fair share back.
What “taxation without representation” actually meant.
"The American Revolution was about rejecting taxes. The Founders fought for freedom from government taking their money."
The American Revolution was not a revolt against taxation. It was a revolt against extraction without representation.
The Founders did not object to contributing to the public good. They objected to being excluded from the decisions about how the product of their labor was used. “Taxation without representation” was not a demand for zero taxes — it was a demand for participation.
To the Founders, taxes represented something deeply personal: the product of a citizen’s labor, time, and risk — their literal life force. Being taxed without a voice meant being reduced from a citizen to a resource.
The colonies already paid taxes — often lower than those in Britain. What they rejected was a system where their labor funded decisions made by people who neither represented them nor bore the consequences.
The Revolution was not anti-contribution. It was anti-exclusion.
In modern terms, the Founders were saying: If we are paying into the system, we must have a real say in how that system operates — because our labor is finite, our lives are finite, and our sacrifices must serve our safety and happiness.
Misrepresenting the Revolution as “anti-tax” erases the Founders’ belief in shared responsibility and democratic participation. It turns citizenship into avoidance instead of engagement, and contribution into theft instead of consent.
That misunderstanding makes it easier for modern systems to extract labor and wealth without accountability — the very abuse the Revolution was fought to end.
The American Revolution wasn’t a revolt against taxes — it was a revolt against extraction without representation. “Taxation without representation” meant the product of people’s labor — their time, risk, and lives — was being taken without a voice in how it was used. The Founders weren’t rejecting contribution; they were demanding participation. Taxes were understood as the price of membership in a republic, but only if those paying had real representation and accountability. The Revolution wasn’t anti-tax — it was anti-exclusion.
