Thread: The Real Causes of Income Inequality

Originally Posted by Wlessard

I think two words respond to the above.


To Late

As for controlling forums, Unions get together just as much as corporate managers and decide what they will do and how they will react to what happens.

The problem with Republicans is they compromise too much and by doing so have lost the truth they once championed that did make this country strong. Why, well I don't know but that is what has happened in our government. That and the States bending over and letting the Federal stick the 10th Amendment where the sun don't shine.

War of Northern Aggression sort of let the states know what will happen to them if they protest.

Originally Posted by 9aces

War of Northern Aggression sort of let the states know what will happen to them if they protest.

Most of what has been a transfer of power to the Federal through non-enforcement of the 10th Started with the 17th.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Most of what has been a transfer of power to the Federal through non-enforcement of the 10th Started with the 17th.

And when was the 17th passed?

Originally Posted by 9aces

And when was the 17th passed?

The Amendment passed between 1911 and 1912 through Congress. April 8, 1913 was when the States themselves ratified it with 3/4ths of the States doing so to finally make it part of the Constitution. It was also almost 2 months to the day after the 16th was ratified.

Whats your point. It was about 50 years after the Civil war.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

The Amendment passed between 1911 and 1912 through Congress. April 8, 1913 was when the States themselves ratified it with 3/4ths of the States doing so to finally make it part of the Constitution. It was also almost 2 months to the day after the 16th was ratified.

Whats your point. It was about 50 years after the Civil war.

The point is the 10th amendment being completely useless was decided in the War of Northern Aggression. 50 years before you seem to think it did.

Originally Posted by 9aces

The point is the 10th amendment being completely useless was decided in the War of Northern Aggression. 50 years before you seem to think it did.

In that I don't agree with you. The Civil War did not counter the 10th Amendment as Presidents and Congresses afterwards did not pursue signifigant changes till the early 1910's. 16th and 17th being the biggest Federal grab of power.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

I mark my timeline by the laws passed which in this case started in the 1910's.

FDR being the biggest one to move away from States Rights.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

In that I don't agree with you. The Civil War did not counter the 10th Amendment as Presidents and Congresses afterwards did not pursue signifigant changes till the early 1910's. 16th and 17th being the biggest Federal grab of power.

You are denying the significance of the Federal power grab in the War of Northern Aggression to deny the right of the people to alter or abolish their government. It took 50 years to stabilize the submission of the States before your timeline begins. Note well: The 14th Amendment does not require the federal government to have equal protection of the law nor was it properly ratified, http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/14thAmendment.pdf

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

You are denying the significance of the Federal power grab in the War of Northern Aggression to deny the right of the people to alter or abolish their government. It took 50 years to stabilize the submission of the States before your timeline begins. Note well: The 14th Amendment does not require the federal government to have equal protection of the law nor was it properly ratified, http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/14thAmendment.pdf

John, I don't deny that the Civil War was the United States invading and conquering a foreign country that had established it's own laws, Constitution and everything else that makes a country a country. Also that the Confederation of States did not seek aggression or expansion into the United States and therefore Lincoln's actions were UnConstitutional. President started a war with another country as far as I know without a Declaration of war from Congress. I am not a big Civil War buff so I haven't researched that. I am however an early 1900's buff.

From what I saw of laws and regulations coming out of the Federal, I feel that the real takeover of the Countries that comprised the United States by the Federal, started with the 16th Amendment and continued through the New Deal and many of the other FDR policies even though the Supreme Court slapped him down on most of it. And continue from that point to today.

I am pointing out my opinion and why I arrive at that opinion. You and 9aces have a different opinion on when it started. I also base my opinion from when the lower 48 were finalized Arizona being 1912. Alaska and Hawaii are several decades later. Either way we both can agree I think that the Federal Grab of power from the 50 States has gone unchallenged for the most part primarily in the 20th century. The Socialists and Communists were not satisfied with the Soviet Union they wanted the United States as well.

A couple of points on the Civil War:

1) The South fired the first shots. It is unlikely that Lincoln could ever have been able to go to war had not the South fired first.
2) If a state or states seceded today, there is no way the public, nor Congress, would tolerate a war to force that state or states to stay in the union barring some overwhelming moral cause like slavery. Going to war over say, health care or marijuana or gun laws or immigration, would be a non-starter. So the right of states to secede has not been put to rest. That's just hopeful liberal historical revisionism.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

John, I don't deny that the Civil War was the United States invading and conquering a foreign country ... I am pointing out my opinion and why I arrive at that opinion. You and 9aces have a different opinion on when it started ... that the Federal Grab of power from the 50 States has gone unchallenged for the most part primarily in the 20th century.

Wlessard, I am glad you acknowledge the usurpation and tyranny of the USA starting with the Lincoln regime. But am perplexed at why you do not see the "Progressive Amendments" (16, 17th, etc) as a continuation of that power grab. I mean, do you see these as separate thoughts and why do you not see them as connected, one extension of power leading to another extension of power?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Wlessard, I am glad you acknowledge the usurpation and tyranny of the USA starting with the Lincoln regime. But am perplexed at why you do not see the "Progressive Amendments" (16, 17th, etc) as a continuation of that power grab. I mean, do you see these as separate thoughts and why do you not see them as connected, one extension of power leading to another extension of power?

Did I mistype somewhere. I have never said I support the 16th or 17th. As a matter of fact in your quote of what I stated was that the 16th STARTED the power grab. Not sure where you are getting that I don't include them in my thinking.

I am just saying that the early 20th Century was when a concerted and systematic effort to take away States Rights was started. I don't agree that the Civil War was the germination of those policies. From all that I have read the 50 years between the Civil War and the 16th/17th Amendments was the biggest expansion of the US territories since the Louisiana Purchase.

Originally Posted by adaher

A couple of points on the Civil War:

1) The South fired the first shots. It is unlikely that Lincoln could ever have been able to go to war had not the South fired first.

Depends on how you look at it.

If you consider the South seizing Fort Sumter by the South after they had defined their borders and erected their Constitution and such then yes. If you consider the north trying to take back a Fort that was legitimately owned by the South then no.

2) If a state or states seceded today, there is no way the public, nor Congress, would tolerate a war to force that state or states to stay in the union barring some overwhelming moral cause like slavery. Going to war over say, health care or marijuana or gun laws or immigration, would be a non-starter. So the right of states to secede has not been put to rest. That's just hopeful liberal historical revisionism.

I would hope not but are you sure? I sadly think that the US would fracture. Also a good movie to check out would be "The Second Civil War" with Beau Bridges, I think I have the right Bridges brother.

Originally Posted by goober

I'm sorry, it's just when I see a circle jerk of ignorance going on, I can't resist, why don't you do this, why don't you learn about economics, then you wouldn't be making so many stupid statements, and I'd have nothing to point out as being ridiculous...

Laugh Out Loud! So predictable.

You might learn that the theory of marginal utility is the basis of all economic theory, and not something stupid that leftists made up to raise taxes...

:rolleyes: That' the theory of the marginal utility of goods goober, the marginal utility of wealth is a fiction brought to us and pushed by stupid leftists. But like so many leftists on the forum, if you don't buy into their bullshit, they'll call you stupid. Typical.

tashi deleks,

M