$2.0 Tril. Spending Cuts W/Nothing To Replace Them (Emancipation Even Again!)

mascale

Gold Member
Feb 22, 2009
6,836
800
130
The charade of the $2.0 tril. of federal spending cuts has been game-played now for two or three weeks.

1) There is no explanation of why such cuts are needed, in advanced civilization with a $52.0 tril. credit market.
2) There is no explanation of what is intended to replace the spending.
3) Mostly, even Emancipation mainly just took property and assets away!

Featured Document: The Emancipation Proclamation

Lincoln didn't even expect that the freed slaves would even be able to work for a reasonable wage. Only when allowed, should the freed slaves do that.

Outcome Then: Fewer paying customers in the stores.

Outcome Now: Intended, Fewer paying customers in the stores!

Lincoln's version of equal treatment would be said to have followed Matt 25::14-30 computing. The rich would get more, and the poor would be as well off just tossing any money into the dirt. They wouldn't have enough, and would go into foreclosure status, of that time.

The North was allowed to keep what they hast, the Southern property and assets only were taken away.

Anyone might have guessed that scholars of Abraham Lincoln would be reminding everyone that no person should ever be that insane again. The Genocide of 1861-1865--of the white people--never gets discussed much, however, in the schools!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(George Wallace Hear Our Prayer! Don't let the teachers get past the front door, ever again try to go into a school!
 
Last edited:
What do you mean we're out of money, we still have blank checks left?
 
The charade of the $2.0 tril. of federal spending cuts has been game-played now for two or three weeks.

1) There is no explanation of why such cuts are needed, in advanced civilization with a $52.0 tril. credit market.
2) There is no explanation of what is intended to replace the spending.
3) Mostly, even Emancipation mainly just took property and assets away!

Featured Document: The Emancipation Proclamation

Lincoln didn't even expect that the freed slaves would even be able to work for a reasonable wage. Only when allowed, should the freed slaves do that.

Outcome Then: Fewer paying customers in the stores.

Outcome Now: Intended, Fewer paying customers in the stores!

Lincoln's version of equal treatment would be said to have followed Matt 25::14-30 computing. The rich would get more, and the poor would be as well off just tossing any money into the dirt. They wouldn't have enough, and would go into foreclosure status, of that time.

The North was allowed to keep what they hast, the Southern property and assets only were taken away.

Anyone might have guessed that scholars of Abraham Lincoln would be reminding everyone that no person should ever be that insane again. The Genocide of 1861-1865--of the white people--never gets discussed much, however, in the schools!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(George Wallace Hear Our Prayer! Don't let the teachers get past the front door, ever again try to go into a school!

Interesting that you bring up the $2 trillion figure...as I just happened to be reading a chapter in Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny," in which he comments on the fact that the statists, progressives, have produced a Fourth Estate of our government, composed of over 2 million bureaucrats and unelected officials, that comes with a $3 trillion cost.

And, along those lines...

1. It should not be overlooked that, based on the influence going back to Woodrow Wilson, the statists have added a Fourth extra-Constitutional Branch of government, an enormous administrative branch of bureaucrats and technocrats, experts of every stripe, numbering over 2 million civilian employees. Federal Government

a. Wilson wrote in “The State,” 1889, that "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand." His writings attack the Constitution, and the ideas of natural and individual rights. Along with Frank J. Goodnow, they pioneered the concept of the ‘administrative state,’ which separated the administration of government from the limitations of constitutional government. American progressivism: a reader - Google Books

2. Former NY Senator James L. Buckley spoke at the Heritage Foundation, on his book “Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State,” and also commented on the growth and power of unelected bureaucrats.
Consider, by example, Title 42 of the US Code: Laws dealing with public health and welfare. United States Code: Title 42,TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE | LII / Legal Information Institute Today, this federal law is 1700 pages more than it was prior to the New Deal. The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!

a. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

b. A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity,

c. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.

d. While not unconstitutional, regulation may be considered extra-constitutional. There may be some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be?

3. Before one misreads the intentions of the Founders as envisioning a great and powerful central government, consider James Madison’s writing of Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” The Avalon Project : Federalist No 39
 
On Venice Beach, in CA, we have no saying, "Where did he go, and when did he know it?" We even have no saying, "Where did she go, and when did she know it!?" We have no saying, "Where did they go, And when should they have known it:" Even on Venice Beach, in CA!

We have the visuals for these kinds of matters, instead: At Venice Beach, in CA.

Income-free jobs do not make economies thrive. Haiti is not described as thriving, wherein the Spirit of Lincoln struck again--and freed them from even a pretense of having spending. East Africa in drought has no pretense of having spending. There the Spirit of Abraham Lincoln goes!

The rural South would come to have no spending, especially among the freed, who became the share-cropper labor.

The Great and Socialist advances of a centralized, credit and banking system: Actually can often spread the spending around. Finally in the Clinton Administration, even the Black and Hispanic gang cultures abated, since even those younger workers, could become employed. Police Intervention had a chance of success.

Bush and now the Obama Administration have erazed all that(?). The GOP wants any progress erazed(?)(?)! The serious Party of Abraham Lincoln routine is taking matters way to far!

"No More Spending" is actually a mantra of the Living Dead! The Party of Abraham Lincoln has been an oppressor party, from the start!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(White Eyes take even Great Polatch, away--After Lincoln, prelude to the German Third Republic!)
 
The charade of the $2.0 tril. of federal spending cuts has been game-played now for two or three weeks.

1) There is no explanation of why such cuts are needed, in advanced civilization with a $52.0 tril. credit market.
2) There is no explanation of what is intended to replace the spending.
3) Mostly, even Emancipation mainly just took property and assets away!

Featured Document: The Emancipation Proclamation

Lincoln didn't even expect that the freed slaves would even be able to work for a reasonable wage. Only when allowed, should the freed slaves do that.

Outcome Then: Fewer paying customers in the stores.

Outcome Now: Intended, Fewer paying customers in the stores!

Lincoln's version of equal treatment would be said to have followed Matt 25::14-30 computing. The rich would get more, and the poor would be as well off just tossing any money into the dirt. They wouldn't have enough, and would go into foreclosure status, of that time.

The North was allowed to keep what they hast, the Southern property and assets only were taken away.

Anyone might have guessed that scholars of Abraham Lincoln would be reminding everyone that no person should ever be that insane again. The Genocide of 1861-1865--of the white people--never gets discussed much, however, in the schools!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(George Wallace Hear Our Prayer! Don't let the teachers get past the front door, ever again try to go into a school!

Are you for real? You actually think it is good policy to continue to borrow money. when the interest alone on our debt is pushing .5 Trillion dollars a year.

If there is so much credit out there. How do you explain that 4.6 Trillion of the 14 Trillion in debt we owe. Is actually owed to SS, and Medicare in the form of IOU's.

I think you are a fool, but to each his own.
 
On Venice Beach, in CA, we have no saying, "Where did he go, and when did he know it?" We even have no saying, "Where did she go, and when did she know it!?" We have no saying, "Where did they go, And when should they have known it:" Even on Venice Beach, in CA!

We have the visuals for these kinds of matters, instead: At Venice Beach, in CA.

Income-free jobs do not make economies thrive. Haiti is not described as thriving, wherein the Spirit of Lincoln struck again--and freed them from even a pretense of having spending. East Africa in drought has no pretense of having spending. There the Spirit of Abraham Lincoln goes!

The rural South would come to have no spending, especially among the freed, who became the share-cropper labor.

The Great and Socialist advances of a centralized, credit and banking system: Actually can often spread the spending around. Finally in the Clinton Administration, even the Black and Hispanic gang cultures abated, since even those younger workers, could become employed. Police Intervention had a chance of success.

Bush and now the Obama Administration have erazed all that(?). The GOP wants any progress erazed(?)(?)! The serious Party of Abraham Lincoln routine is taking matters way to far!

"No More Spending" is actually a mantra of the Living Dead! The Party of Abraham Lincoln has been an oppressor party, from the start!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(White Eyes take even Great Polatch, away--After Lincoln, prelude to the German Third Republic!)



It must be enjoyable living unencumbered by the tethers that hold many of us to a rational understanding of the world around us.
 
Actually, Real Business lives off credit, and expects even homeowners to create credit!

So When Charles_Main poster presents as follows:

"Are you for real? You actually think it is good policy to continue to borrow money. when the interest alone on our debt is pushing .5 Trillion dollars a year."

"If there is so much credit out there. How do you explain that 4.6 Trillion of the 14 Trillion in debt we owe. Is actually owed to SS, and Medicare in the form of IOU's."

"I think you are a fool, but to each his own."

Then even ignorance of family planning(?)--like for some people on Venice Beach, In CA--is shown. Social Security is owed the money because there are legal requirements about how the Social Security Trust Funds get invested. The IOU's get paid with money. Money is even used to pay mortgage credit, auto purchase credit, and secured and unsecured credit. The IOU's are not paid with IOU's.

Businesses owners do worse on their loans than does the federal government, in fact. Out of $52.0 tril. of the total credit market, the federal government at $14.0 tril. is barely only 1/4 of it. Any household, even, knows about juggling repayments, and even including with credit. Business owners are known to factor receivables, at relatively shark level rates.

The U. S. federal government has no credit problem. The U. S. federal government has a poorly planned, emancipation kind of problem! The problem is the inherent incapability of the Party of Abraham Lincoln, incapable of sane things, even then.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred"
(White Eyes In Chimney Bonnet: Mainly hunted with generals only inclined to increase of warpath atrocities!)
 
Last edited:
The Party of Abraham Lincoln is also the Party of Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and BushI, Term I, and Bush II, Terms I and II.

Anyone could throw in Ulysses S. Grant, who might have more at home at Venice Beach, in CA--according to the legend of all the liquor.

In Matt 25::14-30, Then a computing problem--of all of history--is therein shown. Using Arithmetic, the rich get richer, and the poor don't even have enough to throw into the dirt. A kind of foreclosure crisis happens: Created from an arithmetic, inequality.

The arithmetic inequality is the kind of "Equality" envisioned of the Party of Abraham Lincoln. The Slavery was to be allowed in the North. Slavery was only abolished in the South. The rich manufacturers were able to keep their property, and with war-spending interest. The South was cast into outer darkness--of a major foreclosure kind of economic debacle, based on lack of sanity in planning.

The war would end and Amendment XIII was created--which still did noit exactly, create the end of slavery. Amendment XIV had to be included: To provide for a minimal level of equal treatment in the courtrooms. Essentially, The Party of Abraham Lincoln was in control. A fellow who can post $1.0 mil. bond can be set free, and with $5.0 mil. in insurance. Everyone else stays in jail.

Can you see how the "financial woes" are of the Party of Abraham Lincoln?

There is arithmetic in the computing created in the Party of Abraham Lincokn, that creates the woes.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred."
(Rich Get Richer, Poor Get Poorer! Banks All Fail! Families get cast out! Bankers get Bailed Out!)
 
The Party of Abraham Lincoln is also the Party of Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and BushI, Term I, and Bush II, Terms I and II.

Anyone could throw in Ulysses S. Grant, who might have more at home at Venice Beach, in CA--according to the legend of all the liquor.

In Matt 25::14-30, Then a computing problem--of all of history--is therein shown. Using Arithmetic, the rich get richer, and the poor don't even have enough to throw into the dirt. A kind of foreclosure crisis happens: Created from an arithmetic, inequality.

The arithmetic inequality is the kind of "Equality" envisioned of the Party of Abraham Lincoln. The Slavery was to be allowed in the North. Slavery was only abolished in the South. The rich manufacturers were able to keep their property, and with war-spending interest. The South was cast into outer darkness--of a major foreclosure kind of economic debacle, based on lack of sanity in planning.

The war would end and Amendment XIII was created--which still did noit exactly, create the end of slavery. Amendment XIV had to be included: To provide for a minimal level of equal treatment in the courtrooms. Essentially, The Party of Abraham Lincoln was in control. A fellow who can post $1.0 mil. bond can be set free, and with $5.0 mil. in insurance. Everyone else stays in jail.

Can you see how the "financial woes" are of the Party of Abraham Lincoln?

There is arithmetic in the computing created in the Party of Abraham Lincokn, that creates the woes.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred."
(Rich Get Richer, Poor Get Poorer! Banks All Fail! Families get cast out! Bankers get Bailed Out!)


You didn't answer my question.
 
When the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer--then anyone sees that the Party of Abraham Lincoln sees equal treatment far differently than other people.

The Party of Abraham Lincoln is all about the computing that created the Great Recession, and not the Presidency of Barack Obama.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Party of Abraham Lincoln Sees Math of Christ from Matthew 20::1-16, in Obama Schedule M, Make Work Pay Refundable Tax Credit--and take that away from all of the people! Hmmm!)
 
Last edited:
The charade of the $2.0 tril. of federal spending cuts has been game-played now for two or three weeks.

1) There is no explanation of why such cuts are needed, in advanced civilization with a $52.0 tril. credit market.
2) There is no explanation of what is intended to replace the spending.
3) Mostly, even Emancipation mainly just took property and assets away!

Featured Document: The Emancipation Proclamation

Lincoln didn't even expect that the freed slaves would even be able to work for a reasonable wage. Only when allowed, should the freed slaves do that.

Outcome Then: Fewer paying customers in the stores.

Outcome Now: Intended, Fewer paying customers in the stores!

Lincoln's version of equal treatment would be said to have followed Matt 25::14-30 computing. The rich would get more, and the poor would be as well off just tossing any money into the dirt. They wouldn't have enough, and would go into foreclosure status, of that time.

The North was allowed to keep what they hast, the Southern property and assets only were taken away.

Anyone might have guessed that scholars of Abraham Lincoln would be reminding everyone that no person should ever be that insane again. The Genocide of 1861-1865--of the white people--never gets discussed much, however, in the schools!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(George Wallace Hear Our Prayer! Don't let the teachers get past the front door, ever again try to go into a school!

I know I am going to regret this, but here I go anyway.


  1. They are needed because we have a massive deficit.
  2. There is no need to replace cuts with anything unless you want to cut taxes.
  3. The Emancipation freed people who were living in slavery, what does that have to do with anything that is happening today.
The only way this makes sense at all is if you are arguing that we are all slaves, is that what you are saying?
 
Mostly, even in the private sector, credit is used to create spending, and usually way beyond the immediate needs of repayment a week from Tuesday. If all the companies, households, and agencies--all stop spending: Then everyone dies like dogs in vomit.

Taking two trillion away is every bit similar to taking all the slave-holder assets away, on which much of ancient credit was based. The contention that no replacement of the value was necessary is not supported in any economics, anywhere,

Wherever you are now, if all the spending is taken away--for all the years right there in your area: Then Jackie Gleason may have tried to get into heaven, but most surely he have to put you on welfare. That too, is a form of spending.

You are not to be construed as being enslaved: Just because you live on planet with denominated currencies. Currencies have numbers. You work with the numbers. When you work with number, using the intentional acts of arithmetic: To those outcomes you are chained. Even the arithmetic that creates liberation, is still being chained to arithmetic. Normally that is called, "reason," or a "reasoned outcome."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Peyote a chain of Great Spirit Even--A chain you can believe in(?)!"
 
Credit may be a necessary evil in today's society if a household has a budget of $300,000 a year and an income of $150,000 and has to borrow 50% of it's budget it wont be long before bankruptcy. With our 3.2 trillion budget and 1.5trillion income are we any differnt as a country?
 
Mostly, even in the private sector, credit is used to create spending, and usually way beyond the immediate needs of repayment a week from Tuesday. If all the companies, households, and agencies--all stop spending: Then everyone dies like dogs in vomit.

Taking two trillion away is every bit similar to taking all the slave-holder assets away, on which much of ancient credit was based. The contention that no replacement of the value was necessary is not supported in any economics, anywhere,

Wherever you are now, if all the spending is taken away--for all the years right there in your area: Then Jackie Gleason may have tried to get into heaven, but most surely he have to put you on welfare. That too, is a form of spending.

You are not to be construed as being enslaved: Just because you live on planet with denominated currencies. Currencies have numbers. You work with the numbers. When you work with number, using the intentional acts of arithmetic: To those outcomes you are chained. Even the arithmetic that creates liberation, is still being chained to arithmetic. Normally that is called, "reason," or a "reasoned outcome."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Peyote a chain of Great Spirit Even--A chain you can believe in(?)!"

If you keep spending more than you make in the private sector the government steps in and stops you.

Who watches the watchers?
 
To be dispelled above is the notion that spending more than gets taken in automatically creates failure, or that the goverment will step in and make anyone legal individual--such as a business--stop. Businesses have various and sundry options, and households have various and sundry options. If the household expenditue of $150,000.00 went into stocks and bonds that tripled or better: Then that would be economcis and business at work.

Currencies use arithmetic, which invariably binds human beings to one another(?)! Arithmetic is intentional, so even if the outcome is master-slave--like for all millenia--then it is still human. It would be said labor on behalf of a leisured class. That class woud nuture entrepreneurs. That level of economics also creates innovation and advances. Great Socialism, of a central Credit Market, is one of them.

In the alternative, then there is the Party of Abraham Lincoln, what it failed to do. This below is among the last paragraphs of an article at the Economic History Association website, EH.Net, from 2010: "The Economics of the Civil War," Roger L. Ranson, UC Riverside, in California.

"Whatever the effects of the war on industrial growth, economic historians agree that the war had a profound effect on the South. The destruction of slavery meant that the entire Southern economy had to be rebuilt. This turned out to be a monumental task; far larger than anyone at the time imagined. As noted above in the discussion of the indirect costs of the war, Southerners bore a disproportionate share of those costs and the burden persisted long after the war had ended. The failure of the postbellum Southern economy to recover has spawned a huge literature that goes well beyond the effects of the war."

"Economic historians who have examined the immediate effects of the war have reached a few important conclusions. First, the idea that the South was physically destroyed by the fighting has been largely discarded. Most writers have accepted the argument of Ransom and Sutch (2001) that the major "damage" to the South from the war was the depreciation and neglect of property on farms as a significant portion of the male workforce went off to war for several years. Second was the impact of emancipation. Slaveholders lost their enormous investment in slaves as a result of emancipation. Planters were consequently strapped for capital in the years immediately after the war, and this affected their options with regard to labor contracts with the freedmen and in their dealings with capital markets to obtain credit for the planting season. The freedmen and their families responded to emancipation by withdrawing up to a third of their labor from the market. While this was a perfectly reasonable response, it had the effect of creating an apparent labor "shortage" and it convinced white landlords that a free labor system could never work with the ex-slaves; thus further complicating an already unsettled labor market. In the longer run, as Gavin Wright (1986) put it, emancipation transformed the white landowners from "laborlords" to "landlords." This was not a simple transition. While they were able, for the most part, to cling to their landholdings, the ex-slaveholders were ultimately forced to break up the great plantations that had been the cornerstone of the antebellum Southern economy and rent small parcels of land to the freedmen under using a new form of rental contract -- sharecropping. From a situation where tenancy was extremely rare, the South suddenly became an agricultural economy characterized by tenant farms."

"The result was an economy that remained heavily committed not only to agriculture, but to the staple crop of cotton. Crop output in the South fell dramatically at the end of the war, and had not yet recovered its antebellum level by 1879. The loss of income was particularly hard on white Southerners; per capita income of whites in 1857 had been $125; in 1879 it was just over $80 (Ransom and Sutch 1979). Table 5 compares the economic growth of GNP in the United States with the gross crop output of the Southern states from 1874 to 1904. Over the last quarter of the nineteenth century, gross crop output in the South rose by about one percent per year at a time when the GNP of United States (including the South) was rising at twice that rate. By the end of the century, Southern per capita income had fallen to roughly two-thirds the national level, and the South was locked in a cycle of poverty that lasted well into the twentieth century. How much of this failure was due solely to the war remains open to debate. What is clear is that neither the dreams of those who fought for an independent South in 1861 nor the dreams of those who hoped that a "New South" that might emerge from the destruction of war after 1865 were realized"

The article is a wealth of data, in one place. Buying out the slaves, for example, would have costs lots and lots of billions of dollars. Both sides apparently decided fund lots and lots of billions of war costs instead: And then like after WWI, let the "Reparations" level South bail itself out. The Party of Abraham Lincoln would actually have no part whatsoever in the "Freeing of The Slaves."

The South became impoverished.

$2.0 tril. is even more than just lots and lots of billions in spending to cut.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations would discover that too, and soon that crap-shoot makes better sense than the Party of Abraham Lincoln!)
 
Last edited:
The charade of the $2.0 tril. of federal spending cuts has been game-played now for two or three weeks.

1) There is no explanation of why such cuts are needed, in advanced civilization with a $52.0 tril. credit market.
2) There is no explanation of what is intended to replace the spending.
3) Mostly, even Emancipation mainly just took property and assets away!

Featured Document: The Emancipation Proclamation

Lincoln didn't even expect that the freed slaves would even be able to work for a reasonable wage. Only when allowed, should the freed slaves do that.

Outcome Then: Fewer paying customers in the stores.

Outcome Now: Intended, Fewer paying customers in the stores!

Lincoln's version of equal treatment would be said to have followed Matt 25::14-30 computing. The rich would get more, and the poor would be as well off just tossing any money into the dirt. They wouldn't have enough, and would go into foreclosure status, of that time.

The North was allowed to keep what they hast, the Southern property and assets only were taken away.

Anyone might have guessed that scholars of Abraham Lincoln would be reminding everyone that no person should ever be that insane again. The Genocide of 1861-1865--of the white people--never gets discussed much, however, in the schools!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(George Wallace Hear Our Prayer! Don't let the teachers get past the front door, ever again try to go into a school!

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
 
In the same article as above, the original big spending political party in Washington, D. C. is of Newt Gingrich, Whichever Romney, Nixon, Hoover, Coolidge, Lincoln, and then there was Ronald Reagan: And Bush & Bush!

"Between 1861 and 1865 the debt obligation of the Federal government increased from $65 million to $2.7 billion (including the increased issuance of notes by the Treasury). The financial markets of the North were strained by these demands, but they proved equal to the task. In all, Northerners bought almost $2 billion worth of treasury notes and absorbed $700 million of new currency. Consequently, the Northern economy was able to finance the war without a significant reduction in private consumption. While the increase in the national debt seemed enormous at the time, events were to prove that the economy was more than able to deal with it. Indeed, several economic historians have claimed that the creation and subsequent retirement of the Civil War debt ultimately proved to be a significant impetus to post-war growth (Williamson 1974; James 1984). Wartime finance also prompted a significant change in the banking system of the United States. In 1862 Congress finally passed legislation creating the National Banking System. Their motive was not only to institute the program of banking reform pressed for many years by the Whigs and the Republicans; the newly-chartered federal banks were also required to purchase large blocs of federal bonds to hold as security against the issuance of their national bank notes."

War, personal consumption expenditures, banking and finance, and intentional, lethal, arithmetic have always been of the Party of Abraham Lincoln.

Obama, by comparison, coming out of the Great Recession, is a proportional miser--at federal debt obligation creation--compared with all of the above! The Party of Abraham Lincoln increased the federal deficit by 4,100% and not the Obama percent. Obama is only at an increase of 10% and proposing reductions.

The north won, and industrialization would get a boost--necessitating the creation of the U. S. Labor Movement. The South was put into a permanent state of ruin, and the New Coalition would hold for decades.

Joe Kennedy would go on to become an early admirer of Adolph Hitler. He would then look away. Then the Party of Abraham Lincoln of Nixon would come to despise the further destruction of the Southern Way of LIfe.

Blacks themselves would first discover the strains of unrelieved unemployment in the Reagan Administration prosperity. It would take an Ivy League to celebrate that, and bring it about in the Obama. . .unrelieved unemployment in the Obama Administration relative propsperity.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken Not Stirred!"
(Great Ivy League of High Finance could not understand the "Apprenticeship" problem created in the Great Recession downturn. Mainly, Countrywide Financial, of Calabasas, CA, had created more employment opportnities that the party of Obama and of Abraham Lincoln, combined! When serious spending stopped: Real Middle Class life stopped!)
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top