HOW AMERICA DIED

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

GUEST BLOGGER: SUBMITTED BY BILL STEIGERWALD

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

In case you missed it, in his June 10 column Pat Buchanan cuts through the bipartisan political BS and succinctly answered the question our impoverished and oppressed kids and grand kids will be asking:

How did the richest and strongest country in history, triumphant in World War II and the Cold War, approach so soon the condition of the late Spanish and British empires as they began their precipitous declines?

Answer: We overextended ourselves. We bankrupted ourselves.

We undertook the defense of nations all over the world having little to do with our vital national interests. We fought unnecessary wars. We doled out trillions in foreign aid to ingrates, incompetents, opportunists and thieves.

We promised all our seniors Social Security and subsidized medical care for the rest of their lives and failed to put the money away to pay for it. We dropped half of U.S. wage earners off the tax rolls while creating a mammoth welfare state to dwarf anything Norman Thomas and his Socialists dreamed of in the 1930s.

Not only for the United States but also for the West, the days of wine and roses are over.

Date: June 29, 2011

Categories: Guest Blog, Politics

Tags: America, Bankrupt, Bill Steigerwald, GUEST BLOG, How America Died, Pat Buchanan

Comments RSS TrackBack 96 comments

Reply

Cary

in June 29th, 2011 @ 15:19

First of all Pat Buchanan is one of the biggest racists on television. He’s right about the wars and the military industrial complex. Wrong about the social safety net. We decided a long time ago what kind of country we want to be. Fortunately the angry, selfish white men like Pat Buchanan, John Steigerwald and apparently Bill Steigerwald, lost. Get over it.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in June 29th, 2011 @ 18:49

I guess the difference between you and me is in our definition of the word generous. See, I don’t think that, if you confiscate money from me and give it to the person you believe deserves it, you are being generous. Especially if, by your “generosity” you are creating a large group of people who are dependent upon you being generous to them with other people’s money so that they can vote for you and keep you in power. Call me crazy, but I think generosity requires voluntary giving. Check out how much Al Gore and Barack Obama gave to charity some time. Maybe “we” should realize…based on the debt…that “we” can’t be the country “we” decided to be.

Reply

saneman

in June 29th, 2011 @ 19:05

It’s too bad that you devoted no time for the amount of money Republicans have wasted thanks to the same war Buchanan blasted. Trillion is the sunk cost. the Cost of future veteran care -physical and psychological and the impact of broken families of veterans caused by the war – still counting. You savage DEmocrats for a spending program which cost a portion of the war Cheney started. Yet not a single article from you bashing Cheney.
Reply

TaxMan

in June 29th, 2011 @ 21:13

>”Check out how much Al Gore and Barack Obama gave to charity some time.”

Obama got out of law school & postponed a lucrative career to perform community service. Wouldn’t you call that being charitable?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in June 29th, 2011 @ 21:18

No. I’d call it a waste of time.

Reply

TaxMan

in June 29th, 2011 @ 21:31

Why would you call it a waste of time?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in June 30th, 2011 @ 10:42

Most of it is counterproductive. If he had been out there fighting for school choice, I might feel differently about him.

Reply

Parker39

in June 30th, 2011 @ 04:54

That’s what makes you part of the problem John, its all about greed and what can I get out of it with some people, instead of helping others.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in June 30th, 2011 @ 10:40

What if I don’t think that creating a welfare state is actually an example of helping others and is more about feeling good than doing good? What if I think that giving people unemployment checks for 99 weeks means more unemployment?

Reply

Parker39

in June 30th, 2011 @ 13:36

What in the hell does any of that have to do with Barak Obama doing community service work or volunteering his talents 30 years ago?

Reply

Gary M

in June 30th, 2011 @ 05:25

Yes, Barak became a community organizer.
He was an utter failure at the position and quit.
So far, in his Presidency, he as also been a complete failure. We can only hope that history does repeat itself.

Reply

TaxMan

in July 2nd, 2011 @ 13:34

Obama won’t quit in the middle of his term. You have him confused with Sarah Palin.

Reply

Gary M

in July 3rd, 2011 @ 17:18

Taxman
He not only quit his community organizer position; but also his position as a Senator.

Reply

DormontDirtBag

in June 29th, 2011 @ 21:35

Disregard Cary. Just a typical, gutless liberal who cries “racist” anytime he can’t refute an argument. Buchanan is 100 times the human being Cary ever was, and ever will be.

Reply

Cary

in June 30th, 2011 @ 11:10

“I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism.” – William F. Buckley 1991

“The Anti-Defamation League has called Buchanan an “unrepentant bigot” who “repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with white supremacists.”"

Based on your name he sounds like your kind of guy.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in June 30th, 2011 @ 13:55

Whose name?
Reply

DormontDirtBag

in June 30th, 2011 @ 15:55

I know all about the BS that caused Buckley and National Review to cower in the face of anti-semitism charges from the neocons. Buchanan had the temerity to criticize the first Gulf War. For that, he was deemed anti-semitic by the pansies at National Review who wouldn’t stand up to the Israeli lobby.

The point Cary is this — Buchanan admires Israel and wants it to succeed and survive. He has said as much, repeatedly. And he has more Jewish friends than you have friends. If that amounts to anti-semitism, then the term has no meaning.

Reply

Cary

in June 30th, 2011 @ 11:21

And another thing. What is with the traffic lights in Dormont? Any time of day you breeze through Mt Lebanon, and then go single file for like ten minutes through Dormont and as soon as you get out of that craphole its smooth sailing to the tunnels. How long can this go on? Seriously, get it together its an embarrassment. Put sensors at the lights, get the goddamn cars out of the road and allow people to drive at a reasonable pace. And its by far the ugliest stretch on 19. The whole place ought to be bulldozed including that disgusting pool.

Reply

DormontDirtBag

in June 30th, 2011 @ 16:03

And another thing, if Dormont is too unsightly for you, tell your dad to do a better job of picking up our garbage. And I think I know why you hate Dormont so much — I once saw a kid get beat up there simply because his name was “Cary.” If that was you, you need to get over it.

Reply

Cary

in June 30th, 2011 @ 22:44

You have a very vivid imagination. Do you also believe that cutting taxes raises revenues and Strom Thurman didn’t have a racist bone in his body.

Reply

DormontDirtBag

in July 1st, 2011 @ 09:19

In certain circumstances, cutting tax rates increases net revenues. It’s not hard to figure. If too high a tax rate dissuades people from engaging in an activity, lowering that rate will increase the activity. And since it is the activity itself that is being taxed, more activity multiplied by a lower tax rate sometimes nets more revenue than less activity multiplied by the higher tax rate.

And since you’re so quick to judge others about their supposed racism, let’s put Cary under a similar microscope. Are you telling us that you have never felt a sense of apprehension or suspicion about another person that was based, at least partially, on that person’s race/ethnicity?

Reply

Cary

in July 1st, 2011 @ 14:42

Calling Strom Thurmond an “supposed racist” is like calling you an “alleged idiot.”

Reply

DormontDirtBag

in July 2nd, 2011 @ 09:31

Strom Thurmond did more for this country than you ever will; made more money than you ever will; accomplished more in his life than you ever will; and got laid by dozens of women who would never talk to a pansy named “Cary.” But keep thinking you’re superior to him. As for the name calling, I guess it’s the same thing as calling you an “alleged” homosexual.

Reply

Cary

in July 2nd, 2011 @ 14:56

AMERICA, SAY HELLO TO THE MODERN CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT!

Thanks to your good friend Cary, DormontDirtbag has exposed himself as: 1) a staunch defender of well known racists and bigots, 2) someone who, when backed into a corner, calls people gay as a pejorative, and 3) is so uncultured he has never heard of Cary Grant. How any intelligent person could align themselves with these knuckle draggers is beyond me. But, my work here is done. YOUR WELCOME AMERICA!

DormontDirtBag

in July 2nd, 2011 @ 22:15

Gee Cary, don’t run away now.

I will defend Buchanan and Thurmond for what they are — talented, imperfect people who have done more for this country than you ever will. But please continue to think you’re better than they are — that’s what makes liberals so appealing. And liberals always paint Thurmond as the devil, yet never have a harsh word for Sen. Robert “KKK” Byrd.

I know who Cary Grant was. He was gay too — not that there’s anything wrong with that. I guess that means both guys I’ve heard of named Cary are probably gay.

I’m hoping by now even you must have caught on to my point: If you can throw around the term “racist” indiscriminately, why can’t I do the same with “gay”?

Reply

TaxMan

in June 30th, 2011 @ 18:25

I’ve had no reason to drive to Dormont ever since Incredibly Strange Video closed.

Reply

TaxMan

in June 30th, 2011 @ 18:05

>”Buchanan is 100 times the human being Cary ever was, and ever will be.”

You’re comparing a public figure whom I doubt you’ve ever met to somebody you only know from posting at this blog, & you KNOW that one is 100 times the human being the other is???

Reply

DormontDirtBag

in July 1st, 2011 @ 05:42

Yes.

Reply

Dr. Phibes

in June 29th, 2011 @ 16:34

At least we have the NFL to take our minds off our problems and….uh-oh.
Reply

Rizzenman

in June 29th, 2011 @ 19:38

Perfect name for someone most likely “Carried” along by the angry and selfish white men. Typical moronic comment. If you are so smart then provide PROOF that Pat Buchanan is a “big racist” Provide something that he said or did that can be considered racist by an impartial party. Then to top it off he states “you lost” No, America has lost, and you and your winning army will be living the nightmare down the road. Great win Einstein.

Reply

DavidMcGwire

in June 30th, 2011 @ 06:24

These comments shouldn’t be about whether or not Buchanan is a racist, but more about whether he is right or wrong.

And he’s pretty spot on with his answer, in my opinion.
Reply

GeeWhiz

in June 30th, 2011 @ 07:38

Well, just start typing “pat buchanan racist” in Google and it’ll finish it for you before you reach the ‘h.’ That usually means there’s a ton of info about it. If you have the time you can sift through all the hundreds of search results and see if there’s any evidence there.

Reply

Mike from Monroeville

in June 29th, 2011 @ 20:02

Pat Buhanan is not a racist. His father died in the camps in WW2. He fell from a guard tower.

Reply

Cary

in June 30th, 2011 @ 09:57

Yes he is.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Pat+Buchanan+racist

Reply

jethro bodine

in June 29th, 2011 @ 20:17

YIKES !!!!!!!!!!! another STEIGERWALD !!!!!! run for the hills… lol,,,,,

just kidding !!!! welcome aboard guest blogger.

signed JETHRO BODINE
Reply

Chipped Ham

in June 29th, 2011 @ 23:40

Spent a weekend at Colonial Williamsburg with the fam on the way to OBX last week. Took a nice pic of the kiddos at the statue of Jefferson writing the Declaration. I can only imagine what he would think of Entitlement America today. Bill nailed it. It’s amazing what can happen to a once thriving society in such a short time. THIS is not the country I spent so many years volunteering to defend.

A big part of me says “screw these socialist libs, let them defend themselves.” But I will stay positive, and remember that it took a Carter to get a Reagan.

“Angry, selfish white men.” Really, Cary? Seriously? Good God man.
Reply

gmuny2002

in June 30th, 2011 @ 03:55

Wow! Did he ever hit the nail on the head!
Reply

Parker39

in June 30th, 2011 @ 04:58

The “greatest generation” bore the “worst generation”, and the children of the heroes of America are the ones who introduced us to: corporate greed, narcissism, the drug culture, live on credit, if it feels good do it, etc. etc. and now they will be leaving the bill for their lifetime of gluttony to be paid by their grandchildren.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in June 30th, 2011 @ 10:38

That’s my generation you’re talking about and you’re right. The hippies of the 60s are now dominating the democratic party. Bill & Hillary Clinton being perfect examples

Reply

Parker39

in June 30th, 2011 @ 13:41

I know its your generation, and its a lot more than just Bill and Hillary. Its corporate CEO’s making $40 million a year while workers struggle to make ends meet, Its politicians selling us down the river in the parliament of whore they live in, its union “leaders” selling out their “brothers” and raiding their pension funds, its everywhere now and your correct, it all started with your generation– the worst generation in the history of America!

Reply

John Steigerwald

in June 30th, 2011 @ 13:53

Peace, man. You’re like really bumming me out.

Reply

Parker39

in June 30th, 2011 @ 16:41

I guess the truth hurts.
Reply

Mason

in June 30th, 2011 @ 16:45

Why do liberals always complain about corporate CEO’s making $20 million but don’t care about Oprah making $150 million or athletes making so much, while the average consumer struggles to pay for tickets or for products that these people endorse, etc. You guys are complete hippocrites.

Reply

DavidMcGwire

in July 1st, 2011 @ 06:32

Compared to the profits their talents bring in…professional athletes are extremely underpaid.

Reply

Mason

in July 1st, 2011 @ 07:44

And their is the lack of knowledge of the liberal mind toward business. How about the money that a good CEO brings in. It takes infinitely more talent to rise to the level of a CEO over the course of a 30 year business career than it does to hit, shoot or throw a ball.

And do not give me the garbage that some CEO’s make millions when the business loses money. There are many sports figures and movie stars that make millions when a team loses money or a movie loses money.

To be clear – I am for both the businessman and entertainer to make the money, but if you are going to argue against one, be consistant and argue against the other.

The sports figures and entertainer salaries make every product advertised or endorsed, substantially more expensive to pay that mega salary. Imagine a movie ticket being $3 because a movie star doesnt make $40 million for a picture. Or tennis shoes being $20 because sports stars aren’t being paid hundreds of milions (as a group) to endorse them.

Bottom line – liberals are hippocrates when it comes to salaries. If you are going to bash one group, bash them all.

Reply

saneman

in July 1st, 2011 @ 07:59

Who doesn’t complain about athlete’s salaries. But at least athlete salaries are a result of a free market. Problem with CEO salaries is the salary level defies true capitalism. Bill Gates , whatever you think of Microsoft, has never overpaid himself. He built the company, and could have made more money than he got if he chose. Contrast that with some other CEOs who are mere hired guns, and then justify an obscene salary based on a short term paper profit that vanishes in quite a few cases once the CEO banks his bonus. The board of directors is not truly independent and so they do not act as a check on the salary. And the ultimate joke is how a CEO justifies making 50M because the company made 100M in profit, but does that CEO give up 50M when the company loses 100M in the next year?

I do not suggest that CEO have a cap. But there needs to be more vesting clauses and more transparency in the accounting of stock options. Force the options to be of a true value when it comes to counting the income.
Reply

Parker39

in July 1st, 2011 @ 09:28

Why do you ASS-U-ME that I endorse Oprah making $150 milliiion or athletes making what ever they make from the fans dumb enough to pay $300 a ticket and $8 for a beer while watching them play?
Reply

TaxMan

in July 1st, 2011 @ 16:29

Does this really need explained? Oprah & professional athletes aren’t closing plants, laying off workers, & sending jobs overseas to protect their big salaries & their stock options. Affected workers have no choice in the matter, while nobody is forced to buy a ticket to a sporting event.

Reply

Mike V.

in June 30th, 2011 @ 20:54

The greatest generation is largely to blame for the current state of government. There was a huge expansion of government in the late 1960s when the greatest generation was in charge of government. They wanted to create a world that was just as spoiled as their children were and thye got it. Unfortunately, the bill is now due and we have no money to support what they created.

The “Greatest Generation” should not be let off the hook for what is going on right now.

Reply

Parker39

in July 1st, 2011 @ 22:43

You storm the beaches in Normandy, you defeat Hitler and save the world from tyranny, you come home to build the greatest economic power the world has ever known, then yes you get let off the hook for just about anything. Not that I agree that “the greatest generation” is on the hook for anything anyway.

Reply

Mike V.

in July 2nd, 2011 @ 15:50

The government programs they initiated are bankrupting this country. A part of me thinks they initiated those programs, not as gifts to their kids, but as gifts to themselves.

Reply

Chip

in June 30th, 2011 @ 05:06

Hi Bill. I’m glad to see you are still writing, and still cranky. Be well.
Reply

Mike from Boston

in June 30th, 2011 @ 08:14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1

To any liberals out there, I won’t bother recommending you read Atlas Shrugged, because I know you scoff at the notion of individual thought. Instead, I recommend you read Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek and hopefully you’ll realize that the socioeconomic theories you cling to are the lowest form of quackery.

Reply

Richard

in June 30th, 2011 @ 12:18

Politics aside, Ayn Rand was a terrible fiction writer. Don’t waste your time.
Reply

TaxMan

in July 3rd, 2011 @ 08:38

Liberals incapable of individual thought. That’s a good one. Every time I argue with a conservative, I hear the same arguments, delivered word for word. None of you know what you think until you hear it from Beck, Coulter, or Limbaugh.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in July 3rd, 2011 @ 10:54

Once again a liberal misses the point about Rush and other conservative commentators. Conservatives created Rush. Rush didn’t create conservatives. You went so long without hearing any conservative thought on radio and TV that you actually think conservatism is something new. I was watching Bill Buckley on “Firing Line” when I was a kid. He was the only conservative on TV.

Reply

TaxMan

in July 3rd, 2011 @ 12:04

I’m not missing any points or debating who created who. The point was that liberals are supposedly incapable of a creative thought. Why is it that I keep hearing conservatives make the same points, word for word? Did they all come up with these creative thoughts on their own?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in July 3rd, 2011 @ 13:38

They’re not creative thoughts. It’s a philosophy…..low taxes….strong military…..less power for the federal government and more power for the states. It’s been around a long time. I don’t think Thomas Jefferson and James Madison listened to Rush Limbaugh. They authored a couple of documents that express pretty much the same thing.

Reply

TaxMan

in July 3rd, 2011 @ 14:15

I don’t doubt what you’re saying, John. We seem to be arguing 2 different things. I’m just saying that I hear the same arguments, word for word, as tho’ people are reading from a position paper rather than talking about something they’ve given thought to.

It just seems that today’s conservative is SO reflexively anti-government & anti-regulation that they don’t give any thought whatsoever to whether what the government might want to do at any time is actually good. An example is when Bush, Sr. signed the ADA into law. Conservatives went ballistic & said it was a “liberal” thing to do. How dare he force businesses to spend money on making their facilities wheelchair-friendly! 20 years later, it seems ridiculous & inhumane that there was a time in our life-times when handicapped people couldn’t enter certain buildings. And arguably it’s helped businesses anyway because now this clientele can enter their premises & patronize them.

Another example: The Windfall Profits Tax on oil companies. It never gets off the ground, because opponents chant the Limbaugh mantra—”If we let the government put a limit on how much the oil companies can make, next thing you know they’ll put a limit on how much you can make.” That’s not what the Windfall Profits Tax is about at all! We had it when Reagan was President. The purpose is this: Oil companies get tons of money in government subsidies under the rationale that they wouldn’t make money without them. The Windfall Profits Tax is a way of getting these subsidies back if the oil companies turn out to be wrong in their profit projections. Why do I never hear a conservative talking about that?

How many of today’s Republicans are actually practicing this conservative philosophy anyway? They cite it when it’s convenient for them & they want to oppose something. But who the last Republican President who actually “cut spending?” Wasn’t Nixon. Wasn’t either of the Bushes. Certainly wasn’t Reagan.

If the conservatives are really anti-government, why all the subsidies for businesses? Why all the lobbyists & CEO’s buying access to legislators? Can anybody possibly think they’re spending all this money to pay somebody to DO NOTHING? If this is really all about free markets & no government interference, then let’s have free markets, & kick all these lobbyists out of Washington.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in July 3rd, 2011 @ 16:52

You sound like a charter member of the Tea Party. There is very little difference between republican and democrat. They both spend too much. There is or should be a difference between liberal and conservative. I don’t know about the windfall profits tax but my default position is that we’re all taxed too much and that includes corporations because they pass their taxes on to us. The ADA has probably done more harm than good. Read a biography of Barry Goldwater. He was a true conservative. He said that the first question shouldn’t be “Is it a good idea.” And it shouldn’t be “Is it the right thing to do.?” He said the first question should always be “Is it constitutional? We’d be a lot better off if that question had been asked more often over the last 50 years.

Reply

TaxMan

in July 3rd, 2011 @ 18:18

Not sure I qualify as a Tea Party member. I’m in favor of health care reform, so that would disqualify me right there. And in general I’m OK with the government helping those that can’t help themselves—provided they really can’t help themselves & aren’t abusing the system.

Anyway, I’m suspicious of the Tea Party. If they’re worried about the deficit, they started bitching about it 8 years too late. And once we had the 2010 election results & the Republicans succeeded in keeping Obama from increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans without any corresponding spending cuts, thus adding to the deficit, it doesn’t seem there’s as much Tea Party protest activity any more. Thus, their supporters seem to me no different than supporters of the Republican party—as long as they get their tax cuts, they don’t really give a good shit what the government does.

Would love to see a viable 3rd party, though—one that’s not beholden to any interest groups, liberal or conservative. Or better yet, get rid of the party system.

Reply

Gary M

in June 30th, 2011 @ 12:29

John,
You are way too naive in your quote:
if you confiscate money from me and give it to the person you believe deserves it
The problem is that the money is being used to buy votes under the guise of being compassionate and as a result, the % of disabled, the % of handicapped, the % of needy have all gone through the roof.

Take an example of the immigration issue. They are here illegally that should be the end of the story. But Obama said that the GOP was on the wrong side of this issue. Because he had a compelling argument for why they should be here? No way. Because, and these are his words, the GOP is discounting the number of potential voters they represented.

These huge issues are being decided by people who are not putting the people they represent as the deciding factor; but rather, the number of potential votes they represent. So why would we want them making decisions with the money we earned?
Reply

Billy

in June 30th, 2011 @ 16:22

Read about the US-Mexico soccer game over the weekend. Sad and depressing. America is going to lose the southwest.
Reply

Donald

in June 30th, 2011 @ 18:31

I’d argue that America “died” when the War of Northern Aggression was lost by the South. States’ rights were at the core of that war, and the wrong side won.

The death nail in the “republic” was when the Federal Reserve began printing phony money in 1913. Without the gold standard, money could literally be printed out of thin air. This allows practically all the assorted nonsense you see in your Leviathan government run amok. If every single dollar had to be backed by a precious metal, that limits the amount of dollars that can exist. As such, it also means EVERY expense has to be accounted for nearly directly. Want to engage in 3 wars at a time? Gonna have to pay for it DIRECTLY. See how long that would last when you have to raise taxes DIRECTLY to pay for it all. Want to feed/house/clothe/buy tvs and cellphones for some citizens at the expense of others? Doing it on fiat money is easy, just print some up! Doing it on a gold-backed dollar…. would mean raising taxes DIRECTLY to pay for it. Similar to how your locality, and State have tighter and tougher budget fights since they actually have to PAY FOR IT NOW. Unlike Uncle Sam who can just borrow another trillion from the Fed and stick an IOU on your grandkids.

Reply

Mike from Monroeville

in June 30th, 2011 @ 23:19

Could you be a bigger racist?

Reply

Donald

in July 2nd, 2011 @ 15:55

Ah, the racism card. The bastion of the ignoramus incapable of dealing in reality. At least be original, Mike.

Reply

Mike V.

in July 1st, 2011 @ 08:55

The Civil War was about slavery. States rights to do what?….Have slaves. The Civil War was a moral crusade won by the just.

Reply

gmuny2002

in July 2nd, 2011 @ 13:43

Read your history books, dude the “War Between the States” (there’s nothing “civil” about war, I was in one thank you!) originally was about keeping the “Union” together. When the North was getting their asses kicked in the beginning, Lincoln made it about slavery so he could exploit black people (i.e. manpower for the Union Army) as this country has been doing since it was founded in 1776. You can call me racist if you want, but, sticks and stones………Nah, yah, nah!

Reply

John Steigerwald

in July 2nd, 2011 @ 14:25

Lincoln believed that blacks were inferior to whites.

Reply

gmuny2002

in July 3rd, 2011 @ 09:16

He wanted to ship them all to Central America also!
Reply

Parker39

in July 4th, 2011 @ 00:03

Really, where did you get that from? If you don’t mind my asking, I’d really like to know.

Reply

Parker39

in July 4th, 2011 @ 00:04

that Lincoln thought whites where superior to blacks

Reply

Mike V.

in July 2nd, 2011 @ 15:56

I’ve read countless books on the Civil War, or whatever you want to call it. Why did they go to war to keep the union together? Because the southern states were leaving because they wanted to have slavery. The core issue was slavery.

I’m not sure how many blacks fought at Gettysburg, but I would bet the vast majority of the deaths were white people. White people paid in blood for the sin of slavery.

Reply

TaxMan

in July 3rd, 2011 @ 08:36

Like any war that we get into, the Civil War was a war about economics disguised as something more noble. Northern businesses were fed up because they couldn’t compete with Southern businesses that didn’t have to pay for labor.

Reply

Mike V.

in July 3rd, 2011 @ 14:24

Complete nonsense and a lack if understanding of the differing economic bases. The south was an agrarian society almost exclusively until the mass development of air conditioning in the 1950s and then they took steps forward. The southern economy was based upon textile and moreover, the growing of cotton for those textile mills. One cannot grow cotton in the north. There was no competition for labor.

The north was quickly becoming an industrial society during the Civil War. In the 1940s and 50s, there was mass immigration from the south to the north as factories were booming and north is where you went to get work.

Just like WWII, the Civil War was a moral crusade won by the just.

Reply

Dave H

in June 30th, 2011 @ 19:57

I’m not as wise as others on here when it comes to politics but it seems to me that what is killing America are Democrats and Republicans standing on seperate sides of the aisle pointing fingers at each other instead of working together to do what’s best for this country and its people.

I am starving for someone who can bring us together as a country.

Reply

Parker39

in July 1st, 2011 @ 09:35

Amen to that Dave! George Washington warned against the two party system.
Reply

GeeWhiz

in July 1st, 2011 @ 12:35

The only way “togetherness” seems to happen is when planes crash into buildings and they fall… and it only lasted a short time.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in July 1st, 2011 @ 13:56

Gridlock is underrated. I’d prefer that to just about anything Obama has in mind.

Reply

Chad Farthouse

in June 30th, 2011 @ 21:08

It always amazes me that the people that CLAIM to love this country the most, and naively pretend that the U.S.A. is perfect (at least under Republican administrations), and will waste little time in obnoxiously proclaiming that America is #1 in all things are also the same people that bitch the loudest about paying taxes. Deficits and debt only matter when liberals are in charge. I love living in this country, that is why I stay here, but I also know that there is always room for improvement. We should always be learning, evolving, and progressing. Taxes are the price we pay for living in “the Land of Opportunity”. I don’t mind my tax money going to help the less fortunate. I like living in a society with a safety net. If my taxes go up to help insure the uninsured, so be it. I’d rather it go to that than making obscenely wealthy people even wealthier. Tax bitchers sound petty, selfish, and cheap. Can you say broken record?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in June 30th, 2011 @ 22:10

Nobody is denying the need for taxes. The question is –or should be –when is enough enough? For me it’s more of a freedom issue than a money issue. I just don’t think how much money I make should be the government’s business. I think it goes against what a free country should be when government agents can force their way into your bank account and take your money or put a lien on your house. The income tax was never supposed to reach the point where people are forced to work for almost five months just to pay their taxes. That’s great that you think the government should be in charge of helping the less fortunate –even if James Madison, the guy who wrote the constitution did not. But how about making it voluntary? If you want to contribute to a government fund to give homes to the homeless go for it. If you don’t trust yourself to save for retirement and you want the government to take care of you, then why not make social security and option?

Reply

saneman

in July 1st, 2011 @ 08:03

And if you want to donate to an “elective war” fund, by all means do so. Don’t expect me to want to pay for dumb wars that do nothing to enhance our security . Hire your own militia if you want to do foreign adventures and I have no problem with it.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in July 1st, 2011 @ 14:07

National defense is a legitimate function of the federal government. Taking money from me to pay for your day care is not.

Reply

Blasto

in July 1st, 2011 @ 17:59

Defense ??….is that what we are doing in the middle east ?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in July 1st, 2011 @ 21:29

Yep.

Reply

Gary M

in July 1st, 2011 @ 05:46

Hey Chad,
Ask Tim Geithner about his views on paying taxes?
How about Tom Daschle?
John Kerry?
Bill Richardson?
Nancy Killefer?

See Democrats don’t like paying taxes any more than Republicans. If you want to wrap taxes around with the American flag, great. If you want to live with blinders and say you money is going to help the less fortunate and provide you a safety net, feel free. Turn you back on fraud and abuse and mismanagement and by the way, the safety net is broke….
But that in no way invalidates other people’s concerns who wish to look deeper into how their money is spent. And it doesn’t make them bitchers, whiners, or cheap…..it makes them concerned citizens.

Reply

saneman

in July 1st, 2011 @ 08:20

I will be frank. Some of those are examples of just hypocrites like Geithner Obviously they do not have my support. . However, there is no contradiction in supporting higher taxes and do everygthing LEGALLY to minimize one’s own tax burden.

Personally, I do not support higher taxes at this moment only because the government has no track record of spending my money wisely. I differ with the tea partier types(except for Ron Paul) on where those cuts come from. It is cheaper to strengthen family services than house a prisoner. Instead of spending so much energy on fighting taxes, I would rather spend more energy holding government accountable for how they function. I am fine with funding Family Services, schools, medicare, national defense, EPA, but I want to make sure there is accountability when there is proof that they are failing. Famiily Service agency workers are overworked and there is no accountability. But if we worked to improve the agency instead of trying to cut it, you can save some money in prison expenses that woudl go to housing that future criminal. Now I will be in favor of putting pressure on politicians to cut funding on agencies temporarily to punish incompetence.

But what I do not see from the tea partiers is all their concerns for spending were non existent when we were wasting money in corrupt reconstruction projects in the middle east only because their people were in power. When Obama proposes a fraction of that spending on a social “liberal” program, they go apeshit.

Reply

Mario4Prez

in June 30th, 2011 @ 22:38

Can we please stop this “China is going to own the U.S.!!!!!!11!!one!” hysteria? We have a $14 trillion debt, which I agree is way to high and is going to require in part tough cuts to social programs. But only between $3-5 billion of that is owed to China. The rest is owed either to other countries or domestic investors. In fact, while China is the foreign country that we owe the most to, the largest chunk of our debt is owed to those domestic investors (aka people who own treasury bonds and such.)

On top of that, it makes no sense for China to wreak our economy, since their whole economy is based on our dollar. The only way for them to wean their way off their dollar dependency would be to collect on their debt or, more accurately, for us to pay off our debt to them. We’re essentially joined at the hip.

Reply

Gary M

in July 1st, 2011 @ 07:41

Mario,
I don’t know where you got the:3-5 billion is owned to China ‘fact’
But right now, China owns more U.S. Treasury Securities than any other foreign entity and that number is 907B, a far cry from your number.
That means we owe China close to a Trillion dollars and since Barak wants to raise the debt ceiling without major cuts in spending, in essence, kick the can again, there will be even more debt needed.
Add to that the costs of Obamacare and you can see that we are dependent on China’s purchasing of the treasuries in order to stay solvent.
Any your assessment that the whold economy is based on our dollar is both arrogant and short-sighted. The World Bank report out last month says that they don’t believe that that will be true as soon as 2025.
These are very important times for this country and we need someone in office who is up to the task. Floppy ears press conference was as an embarrassment and shows that he isn’t up to the tasks at hand. He made the debt crisis ‘us against them’ instead of uniting this country. The sooner he’s out of office, the sooner we have a chance to move forward.
Reply

Parker39

in July 1st, 2011 @ 09:38

I find it hard to believe that we owe China only $3-5 billion, where did you get those numbers, if you don’t mind my asking?
Reply

SBM

in July 1st, 2011 @ 16:07

$3-5 Billion? That’s awesome. I love this blog. It’s actually about $700 Billion, guy. Close though.

Reply

Mario4Prez

in July 1st, 2011 @ 17:18

Mea Culpa, I meant to type $3-5 TRILLION. Sorry for any confusion.

Reply

Parker39

in July 1st, 2011 @ 22:46

Don’t worry about it, whats $4,995,000,000.00 among friends?

Reply

Mike from Boston

in July 1st, 2011 @ 20:13

Totally off topic but I don’t know where else to put this.

John I’m watching the Red Sox / Astros game on NESN and they cut away to a fan in the stands that demonstrates a new low for the absurdity of the stadium “fan experience” taking priority over the game.

At the Astros ballfield, they have one of those trendy barber shop “Sport Clips” and a fan was actually getting a haircut from his seat while watching the game. Not from inside the clubhouse somewhere, out on the upper deck in the front row. And to top it all off he took a picture of himself on his smartphone while the tv cameras were on him.

This holiday weekend is supposed to be all about celebrating what is great about America, but that sight made me want to puke.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in July 1st, 2011 @ 21:29

Just watch the game.

Reply

Mario4Prez

in July 2nd, 2011 @ 09:53

P.S. SBM is technically correct about the amount being $700 billion, but I tried to quickly calculate the interest in my head. Math was never my strong suit, so if anyone would like to correct my numbers, please do so. I think I got the ballpark figure right (the second time, obviously.)

Tweet @John

Advertisements

Past Postings

Archives

Most Popular Posts

Links

Tags

HOW AMERICA DIED

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 96 comments

Cary

saneman

TaxMan

TaxMan

Parker39

Parker39

Gary M

TaxMan

Gary M

DormontDirtBag

Cary

DormontDirtBag

Cary

DormontDirtBag

Cary

DormontDirtBag

Cary

DormontDirtBag

Cary

DormontDirtBag

TaxMan

TaxMan

DormontDirtBag

Dr. Phibes

Rizzenman

DavidMcGwire

GeeWhiz

Mike from Monroeville

Cary

jethro bodine

Chipped Ham

gmuny2002

Parker39

Parker39

Parker39

Mason

DavidMcGwire

Mason

saneman

Parker39

TaxMan

Mike V.

Parker39

Mike V.

Mike from Boston

Richard

TaxMan

TaxMan

TaxMan

TaxMan

Gary M

Billy

Donald

Mike from Monroeville

Donald

Mike V.

gmuny2002

gmuny2002

Parker39

Parker39

Mike V.

TaxMan

Mike V.

Dave H

Parker39

GeeWhiz

Chad Farthouse

saneman

Blasto

Gary M