Visual Inflation

[thegreekdog]

Arguably indeed.

I'm not sure what a picture of slaves has to do with anything, but okay.

[Juan_Bottom]

You don't need God for morality. Firstly, several studies (I can cite the major if need be) have proven that basic morality is inherit to a person. The same way that a bird knows to fly south for the winter, the human being knows not to murder.
Second, 97%+ of American prisoners are self-identified Christians.
Third, and Philosophically, the Bible/Koran/everything teaches you to be good to avoid being hurt and going to the hurt place. So what's the difference if you behave to avoid a teacher's wraith or a God's wraith?

Arguably, Lincoln single handedly did more to make sure wealth would be accumulated in the hands of the few than any other president.

SLAVES!

I'm not sure what slaves have to do with anything, but okay.

[Army of GOD]

"human beings know not to murder"

oh really? like how animals know not to kill their fami..oh wait, no, some animals do kill their families. Morality is an artificial concept.

[thegreekdog]

You don't need God for morality. Firstly, several studies (I can cite the major if need be) have proven that basic morality is inherit to a person. The same way that a bird knows to fly south for the winter, the human being knows not to murder.
Second, 97%+ of American prisoners are self-identified Christians.
Third, and Philosophically, the Bible/Koran/everything teaches you to be good to avoid being hurt and going to the hurt place. So what's the difference if you behave to avoid a teacher's wraith or a God's wraith?

Arguably, Lincoln single handedly did more to make sure wealth would be accumulated in the hands of the few than any other president.

SLAVES!

I'm not sure what slaves have to do with anything, but okay.

I would be scared of any wraiths and I'm not sure what God has to do with inflation.

Are you saying that because President Lincoln was instrumental in securing freedom for slaves that he was making sure wealth was not accumulated in the hands of the few? Seems like a stretch to me.

[Juan_Bottom]

No, you just said that Lincoln arguable did more to help wealth accumulate in the hands of the few. I'm saying it's quite easy to argue against your conclusions because he freed the slaves, who were, slaves. Yes, a nearly insignificant portion of them did accumulate wealth and some did buy freedom. But they did so with the blessing of their owner.
Your argument would have us ignore the freedom of the slaves who were a significant percentage of the American population. I would go after other presidents way before I'd target Lincoln for that. Martin Van Buren and George W. Bush for example.

[Juan_Bottom]

[thegreekdog]

No, you just said that Lincoln arguable did more to help wealth accumulate in the hands of the few. I'm saying it's quite easy to argue against your conclusions because he freed the slaves, who were, slaves. Yes, a nearly insignificant portion of them did accumulate wealth and some did buy freedom. But they did so with the blessing of their owner.
Your argument would have us ignore the freedom of the slaves who were a significant percentage of the American population. I would go after other presidents way before I'd target Lincoln for that. Martin Van Buren and George W. Bush for example.

I don't disagree (mostly because there are too many variables to determine whether one president did more to get us to where we're at now than anyone else). My point is that before Lincoln, we had a weak, decentralized federal government. After Lincoln, we had a strong, central government. President Lincoln ensured that we would have a strong central government thereby taking any number of powers away from the people. The two I'm most concerned with is the right to privacy and the ability of rich people and organizations to control elections of a small(er) group of elected officials and unelected officials. I can explain in further detail if anyone cares enough.

[BigBallinStalin]

Argument: Lincoln did not "help wealth accumulate in the hands of the few" because he freed the slaves.


1) Did he free the slaves?

Lerone Bennett Jr., "is an African-American scholar, author and social historian, known for his revisionist analysis of race relations in the United States. His best-known works include Before the Mayflower and Forced into Glory (wiki)," says, "oh, no he didn't!"

Spoiler

...Sources favorable to Lincoln were even more emphatic. Lincoln crony Henry Clay Whitney said the Proclamation was a mirage and that Lincoln knew it was a mirage. Secretary of State William Henry Seward, the No. 2 man in the administration, said the Proclamation was an illusion in which "we show our sympathy with the slaves by emancipating the slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

The same points have been made with abundant documentation by 20th-century scholars like Richard Hofstadter, who said "it did not in fact free any slaves." Some of the biggest names in the Lincoln establishment have said the same thing. Roy P. Basler, the editor of the monumental Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, said the Proclamation was "itself only a promise of freedom...." J. G. Randall, who has been called "the greatest Lincoln scholar of all time," said the Proclamation itself did not free a single slave. Horace White, the Chicago Tribune correspondent who covered Lincoln in Illinois and in Washington, said it is doubtful that the Proclamation "freed anybody anywhere."

There, then, the secret is out! The most famous act in American political history never happened....

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _59110854/

So, hopefully that's cleared up.

[BigBallinStalin]

No, you just said that Lincoln arguable did more to help wealth accumulate in the hands of the few. I'm saying it's quite easy to argue against your conclusions because he freed the slaves, who were, slaves. Yes, a nearly insignificant portion of them did accumulate wealth and some did buy freedom. But they did so with the blessing of their owner.
Your argument would have us ignore the freedom of the slaves who were a significant percentage of the American population. I would go after other presidents way before I'd target Lincoln for that. Martin Van Buren and George W. Bush for example.

I don't disagree (mostly because there are too many variables to determine whether one president did more to get us to where we're at now than anyone else). My point is that before Lincoln, we had a weak, decentralized federal government. After Lincoln, we had a strong, central government. President Lincoln ensured that we would have a strong central government thereby taking any number of powers away from the people. The two I'm most concerned with is the right to privacy and the ability of rich people and organizations to control elections of a small(er) group of elected officials and unelected officials. I can explain in further detail if anyone cares enough.

Type, my good man. Let thy thoughts flow.

[Juan_Bottom]

Van Buren is the guy who's credited for creating Big Government. I question why McKinley doesn't get the title, but whatever.

I believe we need a strong central government. But it takes the people to hold the government accountable. Lincoln and Jefferson both said that it's up to the people to violently overthrow bad government and avenge base villainy.
Today the people don't even hold themselves accountable. That's where we fell apart. But over time, all $$$-hijacked governments fall.

[Juan_Bottom]

Pretty much any Civil War historian will tell you that John Brown was the most responsible person for freeing the slaves.


EDIT: How could the Emancipation directly free the slaves that were in foreign and hostile territory? That's a duh situation. It was a promise that was kept.

[Phatscotty]

Arguably indeed.

I'm not sure what a picture of slaves has to do with anything, but okay.

Slavery is their answer for everything

[thegreekdog]

Campaign Donations:

David Cordani (Cigna)
- 10/2/2010 - $1,000 to Jason Altmire (Democrat)
- 10/9/2010 - $2,000 to Kevin McCarthy (Republican)
- 10/2/2010 - $2,000 to Kelly Ayotte (Republican)
- 7/29/2011 - $1,000 to Thomas Carper (Democrat)
- 10/2/2010 - $1,000 to Daniel Coates (Republican)

Stephen Hemsley (UnitedHealth)
- 8/26/2010 - $500 - Francisco Canseco (Republican)
- 10/7/2010 - $10,000 - Massachusetts Republican Party (Republican)
- 10/25/2011 - $2,500 - Orrin Hatch (Republican)
- 7/9/2010 - $5,000 - United Health Group Inc. PAC (Republicans and Democrats)
- 6/7/2011 - $5,000 - United Health Group Inc. PAC (Republicans and Democrats)
- 3/23/2012 - $2,500 - Peter Roskam (Republican)
- 3/25/2011 - $5,000 - Scott Brown (Republican)

Angela Braly (WellPoint)
- 6/15/2011 and 3/14/2012 - $4,000 - The Proctor & Gamble Company Good Government Fund (Republicans and Democrats)
- 5/28/2010 - $1,000 - Kelly Ayotte (Republican)
- 3/30/2010 - $1,000 - Roy Blount (Republican)
- 6/25/2011 - $2,000 - Orrin Hatch (Republican)
- 4/13/2012 and 9/14/2010- $35,000 - National Republican Senatorial Committee (Republican)
- 5/20/2010 - $750 - Mitch McConnell (Republican)
- 9/10/2010 - $1,000 - National Republican Congressional Committe (Republican)

Allen Wise (Coventry)
- 2/15/2012 - $200 - Paul Ryan (Republican)
- 3/31/2012 - $250 - International Bank of Commerce Committee for Improvement and Betterment of the Country (Republicans and Democrats)
- 6/6/2010 - $500 - Robert K. Wasinger (Republican)
- 2/15/2012 - $250 - NRA Political Victory Fund (Republican... I assume)
- 8/31/2011 - $200 - James Inhofe (Republican)
- 9/2/2010 and 10/14/2010 - $500 - James Lankford (Republican)

Mark Bertolini (Aetna)
- 3/29/2010 - $1,000 - Robert Simmons (Republican)
- 3/3/2012 - $2,500 - Saxby Chambliss (nice name... Republican)
- 11/9/2010 - $1,500 - Kelly Ayote (Republican)
- 5/11/2011 - $2,500 - Max Baucus (Democrat)
- 11/5/2010 - $1,000 - Ronald Wyden (Democrat)
- various dates from 2010 through 2012 - upwards of $9,000 - AETNA Inc. PAC (Republicans and Democrats)
- 11/1/2010 - $1,000 - Roy Blount (Republican)
- 11/1/2010 - $2,400 - Rob Portman (Republican)
- 11/24/2010 - $1,000 - Dan Coates (Republican)
- 11/2/2010 - $500 - Charles Shumer (Democrat0
- 2/15/2012 - $2,500 - Mark Warner (Democrat)

Michael McCallister (Humana)
- 3/18/2010 and 6/21/2011 - $4,000 - Americas Health Insurance Plans PAC (Republicans and Democrats)
- 9/27/2010 - $2,400 - Kevin McCarthy (Republican)
- 8/4/2010 - $500 - Rudy Moise (Democrat)
- 6/22/2010 - $1,200 - Rob Portman (Republican)
- 7/1/2011 - $2,500 - Greg Walden (Republican)
- 9/15/2010 - $2,400 - Jason Altmire (Democrat)
- 3/31/2012 - $2,500 - Mitch McConell (Republican)
- 10/18/2011 - $1,500 - Bill Nelson (Democrat)
- 9/4/2008 - $250 - Barack Obama (?)
- 5/13/2010 - $1,400 - Trey Grayson (Republican)
- various dates - upwards of $5,000 - Humana Inc. PAC (Republicans and Democrats)

[thegreekdog]

Van Buren is the guy who's credited for creating Big Government. I question why McKinley doesn't get the title, but whatever.

I believe we need a strong central government. But it takes the people to hold the government accountable. Lincoln and Jefferson both said that it's up to the people to violently overthrow bad government and avenge base villainy.
Today the people don't even hold themselves accountable. That's where we fell apart. But over time, all $$$-hijacked governments fall.

I would argue it's FDR followed closely by Lincoln and GW Bush (that's my argument anyway). Lincoln paved the way (honestly) for torture and the Patriot Act. Small price to pay for freeing the slaves and he was under extreme stress (so was the country), but one thinks of the Ben Franklin quote on liberty and tyranny and whatnot.

How could the Emancipation directly free the slaves that were in foreign and hostile territory?

There was a backlash against the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves (given that was a proclamation against states no longer in the US and not under federal control). I naturally backlashed against the backlash (what was Lincoln supposed to do?).

Slavery is their answer for everything

Oh stop it.

[Woodruff]

The problem is that people in this country lack self-control and almost feel entitled to have certain things.

That is the goal of what the public education system strives for, that is what they produce and what we are trained to be, whether people want to admit it or not.

It most certainly is NOT what the public education system strives for, nor what the public education system produces. In fact, I would state that it is far more prevalant at the university level, where diplomas are created simply to make money, than it is in public education.

I'm not sure why you have this hard-on against public education, other than that you clearly don't understand it very well. What you want to blame on public education more accurately rests with the parents of the children in public education.

Emotions are allowed to run wild and even encouraged, and we neglect passing on anything close to actual discipline (getting suspended from school can be easily justified by the suspended as a good thing these days).

Very rarely is being suspended considered to be a good thing by those suspended. I'm not even sure what you mean about emotions being allowed and encouraged to "run wild"...perhaps you could clarify? And actual discipline certainly is not neglected, other than by the parents I mentioned previously.

Teachers do not have the power to punish children anymore

That's not true at all. My school's administration absolutely supports my decisions about punishing students, whether it be staying after school, suspension or whatever (as long as it's legal, of course). That doesn't mean they won't ask questions or gather information (as they should), but I have never felt unsupported at all.

and it's more likely that students physically attack their teachers

In my five years of teaching, I have never once seen this happen nor have I heard of it happening in the two schools I've taught in. And one of those schools had metal detectors at the doors. You're buying into the hype if you believe this is a routine occurrence.

And then we pulled the trifecta, tearing God out of every inch of every school, while failing to reinstall any workable system of morals in it's place.

The idea that schools fail to install any system of morals is thoroughly ignorant. In fact, I would state that most schools follow the Judeo-Christian model of morals for the most part, they simply don't outline it as being such.

I think the sense of entitlement can also be attributed to being born into debt like we are.

I don't think it's a sense of entitlement so much as a lack of understanding of the very real consequences.

[Woodruff]

You don't need God for morality. Firstly, several studies (I can cite the major if need be) have proven that basic morality is inherit to a person.

I think the key to morality is largely nature with some nurture (particularly involving the parents) involved. I agree God is not necessary for morality and in fact hinders it at times.

[Woodruff]

Arguably indeed.

I'm not sure what a picture of slaves has to do with anything, but okay.

Slavery is their answer for everything

Who is "they" in this context, Phatscotty?

[Timminz]

Arguably indeed.

I'm not sure what a picture of slaves has to do with anything, but okay.

Slavery is their answer for everything

Who is "they" in this context, Phatscotty?

He was responding to an American, so he probably meant Americans.

[Woodruff]

Arguably indeed.

I'm not sure what a picture of slaves has to do with anything, but okay.

Slavery is their answer for everything

Who is "they" in this context, Phatscotty?

He was responding to an American, so he probably meant Americans.

He (as an American) does seem to be the one that talks about racism the most, so that could be right.

[thegreekdog]

No, you just said that Lincoln arguable did more to help wealth accumulate in the hands of the few. I'm saying it's quite easy to argue against your conclusions because he freed the slaves, who were, slaves. Yes, a nearly insignificant portion of them did accumulate wealth and some did buy freedom. But they did so with the blessing of their owner.
Your argument would have us ignore the freedom of the slaves who were a significant percentage of the American population. I would go after other presidents way before I'd target Lincoln for that. Martin Van Buren and George W. Bush for example.

I don't disagree (mostly because there are too many variables to determine whether one president did more to get us to where we're at now than anyone else). My point is that before Lincoln, we had a weak, decentralized federal government. After Lincoln, we had a strong, central government. President Lincoln ensured that we would have a strong central government thereby taking any number of powers away from the people. The two I'm most concerned with is the right to privacy and the ability of rich people and organizations to control elections of a small(er) group of elected officials and unelected officials. I can explain in further detail if anyone cares enough.

Type, my good man. Let thy thoughts flow.

Do work or respond to BBS? No contest...

(1) Privacy. Prior to Abraham Lincoln, there were local and state situated militias. Alone, these were not enough to fight the federal government to the extent the federal government wished to exert its will (see, e.g. The American Civil War), they did protect some modicum of privacy. This was also a holdover from the 18th and early 19th century when everyone had a gun (yeah, I typed it). In any event, it was less likely that the federal government would come down and break into your house. Fast fowrad to today where the federal government is a monolith that can do pretty much whatever it wants without any repurcussions, much less outright rebellion that Juan talks about. The only check on the executive and legislative branches is the Supreme Court and they seem to be rubber stamping any sorts of violations of rights to privacy. I blame Lincoln.

(2) Small number of people in power in a central government = easier to corrupt. We have some hundreds of Congress people, one president, and a host of regulatory workers that work in one place for one government. Rich people, companies, and interested parties can find it much easier to monetarily control these people rather than having to control, say, thousands of members of Congress or legislatures across the states. Who took the most power away from the states and consolidated a lot of that power to the federal government? Abe.

Caveat - I still consider him the greatest president in history.

[Juan_Bottom]

Fast forward to today where the federal government is a monolith that can do pretty much whatever it wants without any repurcussions, much less outright rebellion that Juan talks about.

We. We are talking about...

[Lootifer]

Ironically Australia has just announced a new 20k grant to new home buyers...

I mean its not nearly as bad as subprime mortgages and other bubbles... BUT COME ON! WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUT HOUSING?!?!!?!

[BigBallinStalin]

Ironically Australia has just announced a new 20k grant to new home buyers...

I mean its not nearly as bad as subprime mortgages and other bubbles... BUT COME ON! WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUT HOUSING?!?!!?!

That subsidizing housing can be politically profitable in the short-run,* and that if things go sour, blame the market?

That worked very well in the US for nearly all politicians.



*and probably also in the long-run, if (A) the "informed" public can be easily misled, (B) the voting public is misinformed, (C) the voting public has a short memory and short attention span, etc.

[huamulan]

Once you realize that humans are predisposed to short-term thinking then all of this will be less of a puzzle to you.

It's basic psychology that most people will take 1 sweet now rather than 3 tomorrow.

[Juan_Bottom]

Once you realize that humans are predisposed to short-term thinking then all of this will be less of a puzzle to you.

It's basic psychology that most people will take 1 sweet now rather than 3 tomorrow.