Posted on 10/11/2009 3:28:57 PM PDT by combat_boots
I'm going to go back to this quote by Barney Frank of the US House, because it says everything those in state and local governments need to know:
Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview that the defaults were, in essence, worth it.
“I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the bad loans occurred,” he said. “It was an effort to keep prices from falling too fast. That’s a policy.”
Got it? It's a policy to screw the state and local governments.
Huh, you say? It's simple, really: State and local governments rely on property tax revenues. Yet defaulted mortgages don't pay property taxes. Yes, there's a lien on the property but this doesn't help the municipal budget now.
And suffer they are:
Tax revenues used to pay teachers and fuel police cars continue to trail even the most pessimistic expectations, despite the cash from the economic stimulus plan pouring into state coffers.
"It's crazy. It's really just unbelievable," said Scott Pattison, executive
(Excerpt) Read more at market-ticker.denninger.net ...
Oh I wasn’t considering this as argumentative at all...this is a good discussion. I appreciate the opportunity for these views to air.
I agree wholeheartedly that the emancipation declaration was an astute political move to bolster northern support for the war and to undercut the Confederacy’s attempts to get international recognition (particularly in Britain, which was very anti-slavery). That much is for sure. But I also think it accorded very nicely with his own views.
He was of the school that thought that “slavery would die of natural causes” but given his statements before the war, I am personally convinced he would not be above giving it a quick “push” in the right direction if the opportunity arose.
I know he stated his only wish was to “preserve the union”, but I think he would have to say that in order to retain the loyalty of the border States, as I stated earlier.
As to your other point, if “preserving the union” was the absolute top priority in his agenda, then surely he wouldn’t have stood for the office of president in the first place? After all, it was his election that provided the final spark that started secession off, and given the rhetoric that was being thrown about in the late 1850’s he must have known there was a strong danger that would happen. For goodness sake his name wasn’t even on the ballot paper in most of the deep south States!
And Article I gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..." That gave Congress all the justification it needed.
We as a nation are batting .500 in that area.
I agree, if if doesn't flip in 2010 start watching for Form 1040 burning parties.
Interesting point. Also all the raw materials, oil, gas, nuclear power etc. etc.
Well... all seriousness aside, I really don't think that'll work. But, a good example of our dilemma is Olympia Snowe. I have heard many people who don't live in Maine say today that "we" need to get rid of her because of her vote on the Democrats (APUTA) Great Leap into Health. She votes with the Democrats (APUTA) much of the time and, still, the people of Maine continue to re-elect her. It appears that the people of Maine approve of the way in which she represents them. So, who is the problem: Ms Snowe or the people of Maine; and how do "we", who can't vote for or against her, vote her out of office? Sending money to her opponent is a somewhat over-rated gesture and, I think, accomplishes about as much as pi$$ing in the creek.
Your whole thesis is predicated on the assumption that everyone knows the Constitution, what it requires, and will play by the rules. The DemocRATS have proven time and time again that they do not know the Constitution and they have no use for it. They have proven that they will break all the rules because for them “the end justifies the means.” This is why so many fear a Constitutional Convention, because they can see the damage that will occur when people get involved who want to win at any cost. Remember, Hillary wants to do away with the Electoral College! That is just one of the many changes that could be forced through if a Constitutional Convention were called, and we could end up in a worse mess than we are already in. At least right now we have a solid Constitution that would work quite well - if everyone abided by it.
If Texas seceds, the first thing that will be done will be to close the borders, so it will not ever be a Mexican state!
seceds = secedes
Just because the South lost the War of Northern Aggression, does not mean that the North was right. Our country has been ruined by the Northern elites trying to tell the rest of us how to run our lives. The Northern elites reframed the War from “States’ Rights” into “the abolition of slavery.” Then, when they won, they immediately enslaved all of the South for 10 years under Reconstruction. The Northern elites have always had the attitude that “they know best for us peons out here.” Forget that!
I appreciate the response. It’s my take that those comments of Lincoln’s couldn’t have been made if he was to the core against slavery. They’re just too diametrically opposed to the view of someone who thought slavery was something that must be abolished right away.
For that reason, I’m going to have to come down on the side of Lincoln not being in the war to end Slavery.
This leads me to see his war efforts in a less than favorable view. The political outcome of the war was negative for the nation. Therefore I’m not inclined to view Lincoln favorably.
His term in office was a pox on this nation, even though the ending of slavery was an important positive offshoot of the war.
If we sacrificed state sovereignty on that alter, the overall effect of that war was far more negative than positive on the political front.
I should add, that view is based on the perception that the outcome of the war actually enslaved us all. We now have a dictatorial federal government, that doesn’t answer to us at all. We are merely it’s cash cows.
Ah but was that an outcome of the ACW, or was the American Civil War just one step along the path? I think there have been too many other steps taken since the 1860’s to blame it all on the civil war.
I’m not so sure. He was a very astute politician. One can be to the core against something and yet not immediately show it.
We will never know what might have happened. If the South had not seceded, perhaps he would have pushed legislation through to abolish slavery. He certainly would have attempted to contain it. The South certainly thought that he was a threat to the institution, or they wouldn’t have seceded. As for the nation become enslaved as a result of his term in office, well his second term was never completed. Perhaps he would have been wiser than the men who replaced him in reconstructing and reuniting the nation.
I suppose it’s somewhat of a chicken and the egg argument.
Some of this would have unquestioningly happened without the ACW. I still believe the ACW did pave the way for much of it.
It wound up as a moment in time that let the states know who was boss. Hey, that’s how I see it.
I sure hate to think we are going to have to stand up to the fed, but it’s clear we either do it or become ‘the evil empire’ Reagan tried to destroy.
I believe that in one of your posts, you stated that the election of Lincoln was the precipitating event that cause the South to secede. If that is your perception, then Lincoln’s presentations must have been very causal.
Now you make the case that he may have been wiser than those who followed him. I don’t believe his rhetoric that led to the war, would buttress that argument very well.
Making this argument makes it sound like I was in favor of slavery. That isn’t the case. I do however question if forcing a resolution to that problem at that time was wise.
The federal government forced a situation that did result in the end of slavery. Did it end the mistreatment of slaves? Did it garner respect for or from the slaves? Was the issue of slave mistreatment resolved in that era?
One hundred and fifty years later (almost), we have a situation where the descendants of the slaves (to a larger degree than any of us would like) absolutely detest Whites and the nation as we know it.
Lincoln didn’t end problems. He made more problems. If it took fifty years longer to end slavery, yet it was done by consent and amicable terms and the best interests of slaves, wouldn’t we be better off today?
We would have avoided a very destructive war. We could have had a lot better chance of facilitating an environment of respect for the former slaves. We probably could have helped them succeed to a much better extent than we did.
The events of Lincoln’s day certainly makes our Founding Fathers look like sages by comparison.
Yes it is a bit of a chicken and egg argument, although I agree the ACW did pave the way for much of what followed. It showed it COULD happen.
Well, the South certainly took his election as a sign that their interests and the norths were no longer the same. The original declaration of secession by South Carolina states quite baldly that his election was one reason for their leaving the Union,
Am I making the case that he may have been wiser than those who followed him? Not really, Im just saying that as he was not around for the reconstruction period we dont know how he would have handled it. I suspect with considerably more mercy and a more delicate touch than those who did do it.
I’m sure you are not in favor of slavery. I agree, if it took fifty years longer and no war the US probably would be better off than it is today. Most of modern America’s social problems can be traced directly back to the civil war. But that is to see the problem with that most excellent of all vision, 20-20 hindsight. Looking back, if the abolotionist movement had said “ok, we shall end slavery by redemption of the slaves - the Fed will buy them out at top market price” - that would have been far less expensive than fighting a four year war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and economic ruin for most of the South, but no-one but the most fervent would have supported the tax rises neccesary to finance that. Those selfsame tax hikes might very well have caused problems - after all, they would have given the fed a lot of power too.
Lincoln may not have been perfect, and his political views unclear or even contradictory, but at the same time he was not God, he couldn’t look into the future. No one can exactly know what the consequences of their actions will be, nor what might have been. He did not have absolute power to defuse sectional tensions and prevent war, in which case, you can’t really assign him all the blame for it.
One more thing. I think there is a case for arguing that Lincoln altered the balance of power in the country as a side effect of doing the things that he had to do to win the war. In other words, the Fed gained those powers because it needed them to win. Now, maybe if he had lived, Lincoln would have redressed that after the war. Maybe he wouldn’t.
I agree with your comments. My only difference would be that not giving Lincoln most of the blame for what took place is like not blaming Johnson for the Great Society fiasco.
Sure, nobody can tell the future. None the less, their actions precipitated that future, and so they carry the blame just as they would the praise if what they had proposed had worked marvelously.
That being said, nobody at that level acts alone. There are movements, and the government and private people who back them, share in that shame (thought mostly nameless).
Intent cannot exonerate people for extreme negative outcomes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.