What's wrong with the US?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by jonbig04, May 22, 2009.

  1. To me the real underlying problem in our nation doesn't have anything to do with ethics, free markets or government intervention. I believe the real problem is the polarization of two political and belief classes. Those classes being the same that they were back in the days of Hamilton and Jefferson. One thinking in terms of anarchy prevention, and one in terms of preventing tyranny by large government. We can all agree that anarchy should be prevented, and yet we can all agree that a tyrannical government has to be prevented from forming. It seems to me then that what keeps either from happening isn't one side or the other, its the conflict between those sides. Constantly keeping one another in check. However we've become so caught up on which side is best, or right that we lose sight of that. As a result we have huge swings in extremes. We have trillion dollar unregulated markets causing a nationwide economic meltdown, after that we have governmental bailouts of companies and capitalism in jeopardy. We have no government here, huge government there and on and on. We have politicians who, even now, can't see the dangers on an unregulated free market and we have ones who think they should be able to mandate how much paid vacation an employee receives in a private company. Instead of enjoying the benefits of the middle ground, with both sides in check, the complete lack of respect for the opposite view point has engendered extremism on both sides and leaves America reeling from the whiplash. With no respect for the question that keeps our country in the middle and both sides simply trying to impose their will, it leaves us to bear all the drawbacks of both sides, but few of the benefits.

    Just a thought.
     
  2. More control and intrusion of our lives is good for neither side. Of course there is a need for regulation in certain industries. You start trying to boss law-abiding Americans around..........you will have a problem (whether left or right).

    Good points though.
     
  3. Maybe we should divide into two country system. All the conservatives can move to the south and libs north.
     
  4. You have heard of the civil war, no?
     
  5. Very well said, something i find funny is flipping back and foreword between Fox news and MSNBC at the same time, or else watch one program then the other. Both fake news channells cover the exact same stories every single night, and really all they ever do is lambaste the other side.

    They do not add anything of value to what the other side has said. The Dick Cheney, Obama speeches last night were priceless, you had fox news covering what pansy Obama was and MSNBC covering what an asshole Cheney was. And neither side really going in depth as to what their own side had said.

    That being said MSNBC gushes way more over anything Obama does, and will never criticise anything from the lefties. The other night that stunned cunt Rachael Maddow was actually trying to defend Pelosi and say she was telling the truth, when it is blatantly obvious she isnt, even alot of the Dems in congress don't believe her. Atleast every once in a while fox news offers up a little bit of criticism of the right.

    I really think the news outlets are largely responsible for the divide. In canada we basically have one news source and while it leans a little bit to the left, it doesnt come out and just blatantly attack one side, and i think that because of that people are much less hateful based on political views.


     
  6. Yes, and we have been miserable since. Maybe things should have been left alone.

    http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

    1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

    With Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.

    2. States versus federal rights.

    Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

    3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

    As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called “Border Ruffians.” Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called “Bleeding Kansas.” The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina’s Senator Preston Brooks.

    4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

    Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.

    5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

    Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its “Declaration of the Causes of Secession.” They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.
     
  7. Humpy

    Humpy

    Let's face it democracy isn't competitive enough to survive in this modern world. The 2nd raters are in power and making poor decisions in politics and business.

    Change or die
     
  8. Oh. So democracy is only good if your guy wins? Some governments in South America and Africa would agree with you.
     
  9. Tom B

    Tom B

    What system is better than democracy?
     
  10. Humpy

    Humpy

    Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to think of improvements to a system almost unchanged after 200+ years.

    The politicians seem to think they can stimulate the same old economy back to health. Regretably it's like giving viagra to a sick man !

    GM, Chrysler etc. are the visible proof of this !

    The answer is definately NOT socialism
     
    #10     May 22, 2009