>> ^pyloricvalve:

Sorry I don't get it. What's wrong with this idea? If states could secede you could have a more diverse set of regimes and people could choose more the style of government they prefer by moving state... It seems like quite a good idea. I'm not an American so maybe I'm missing something but why is there animosity about people suggesting the idea? I don't mean to provoke. I'm just curious...


The US fought an extremely brutal war in the 1860s over this issue.

And this title is disingenuous. Better title: A few tens of thousands of people, out of a over a hundred million, in 20 states, signed a petition, largely as a joke, to secede from the US.

Income taxes started in the 1860s. Not sure about capital gains. I don't buy your point that poor immigrants got wealthier when there were no taxes. Wealthy individuals have most often gotten rich on the labor of poorer people (think slavery).
Diverting from productive to unproductive is a matter of opinion on what is productive. I think we waste so much money on the military, but politicians are afraid to say that. Only a small percent is spent on welfare and I would argue that does improve our chances in the future.
Not sure if you've seen this... http://videosift.com/video/Understanding-the-National-Debt-and-Budget-Deficit I am concerned about the debt, but I also believe it's being used to score political points and is part of the fear agenda.
It's class envy (or wealth redistribution) when you talk about raising taxes on the rich, but what was it called when the tax rates were decreased and the loopholes were created.
>> ^BansheeX:

>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.

And 100 years ago the income tax and capital gains tax was 0... for everyone. And the rate of growth during that period of time has never been equaled since. So here we have a clear point in history where rich people were not being taxed at all and poor immigrants got much wealthier in short order.
The main difference then was that government was much smaller. It didn't divert resources from productive places to unproductive places. It wasn't able to run huge deficits because of the gold standard, so the interest on the national debt never became a burden...And when the government borrows from other countries, 99% of it is spent on welfare and warfare rather than something that increases future returns to make the debt repayable.
...The point is, using class envy is a political game that needs to be ignored...

You also might have heard that it was an extremely close election, and the balance was tipped by adding several anti-slavery states over the span of several decades once popular sovereignty became the political compromise to determine whether slavery would be legal or not in the new territories. I'm thinking it's a little late to go invade Mexico, carve it up into states that are pro-drug, and join them to the Union by now.

The issue of illegal drugs isn't particularly regional. IE, you won't win a bunch of states if you favor it at the cost of losing some. Prior to the Civil War, strongly opposing slavery would help you win Northern states, at the cost of the southern states. Then, it simply became how to turn a state or two left to win the presidency. If you favor legalizing drugs, there's little assurance you gain any states quite honestly, so it's not a viable campaign strategy.

And note that Lincoln won in 1860, not 1820. He'd never have been elected in 1820.

I don't mean a pro-drug legalization candidate will never win the presidency. I simply mean Obama, even if he did favor legalization of pot or other illegal drugs, knows it would seriously jeopardize his chances of winning. I also think he doesn't consider it a priority even if he did favor it. He's far more focused on the economy and foreign policy.

>> ^messenger:

Lincoln, so I've heard, was elected on a pro-slavery platform.>> ^heropsycho:
Obama, like any another politician, can't do jack unless he's elected. The US is not going to elect someone in favor of legalizing pot. This has nothing to do with what's the right policy.

Just some history of the 2 parties......Setting aside the fact the the KKK was formed by the all inclusive tent of the Democrats...to scare the southern brother who remained Republican up until the 60s.



The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina.

Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights.
The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.

The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats.
One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death.

Link

>> ^VoodooV:

proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man



So who is opposing the Black Man? Which party enslaves the Black Man today? Democrats use the welfare system which keeps many enslaved into poverty. Republicans want to help those get out and become free men and women to make free choices for themselves.

If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. Democrats want to feed the poor fish-sticks. Republicans want to teach how to fish.

@quantumushroom, sounds to me like that's 5 different ways of saying slavery.

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

From the site you cited:

[T]he 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.

So, the Southern economy was based on slavery, the Northern economy wasn't.


2. States versus federal rights

As I said before, the origin of this concept was the schism over slavery. The South wanted to be able to hold slaves, and the North wanted them free. The compromise was the concept of "state's rights".


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

Hey, that one's obviously about slavery.


4. Growth of the Abolition Movement

Uhh, that one too.


5. The election of Abraham Lincoln

From the site you cited:

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.

And yes, Lincoln said otherwise. Amazingly enough, the South projected all their worst fears and prejudices on a well educated, liberal, African-friendly President from Illinois back in 1860 too.

I think there's something you should know about traditional photographs... people have been manipulating them either in camera or in the darkroom for as long as photography has been around. Jimbo's big bag'o'trivia article on the subject is rather conservative, but cites a portrait of Abraham Lincoln from the 1860s which was manipulated - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation

Your concerns have been valid as long as there have been images to manipulate, distort, and finangle... and one more tool doesn't really change much.

Edit: Although it is an extremely cool tool It looks like you could have quite a lot of fun with it.
>> ^A10anis:

The old statement; "The camera never lies," has forever been changed to; "never trust any image taken by a camera." When this technology becomes widely available, I predict an upsurge in "real" UFO, Ghost, and paranormal activity, allegedly captured on camera. Sad really, what can we say is real anymore, what can we say is true, and how will we know the difference?

I want to repeat first your original claim is the US outproduced the rest of the world many fold from 1700 to 1900, which as I stated is absurdly false.

Percentage of increases is NOT total GDP. Just because we grew more doesn't mean we outproduced another country. Higher GDP = higher production.

Right now, China's economy is growing faster than the US economy. Does that mean their GDP is higher? According to you, apparently, the answer is yes, but it's not. US GDP is higher than China.

Of course, this also doesn't take into account that population impacts GDP, as the larger your population, the more labor resources you have to produce goods and services. GDP per capita also comes into play in factoring relative productivity.

Using your own link, Great Britain's total GDP was higher than the US all the way up to 1913. Therefore, sometime between 1870 and 1913, the US GDP surpassed Britain and every other country on earth in raw amounts, but to claim we did from 1820 - 1913 is by your own data patently false. We outgrew everyone else, this is true, but we did not outproduce everyone else that entire time. In fact, for most of that time, we were outproduced by several Western European countries in raw amounts.

Then there's the question of GDP per capita.

In 1913, US population is estimated to be about 100,000,000. 517,000/100000000=0.00517

In 1913, the British population is estimated to be about 45,000,000. 225000/45000000 = 0.005.

IE, RIGHT ABOUT around 1913 the US began to be more productive per capita than Great Britain, but for most of 1870 to 1913 (and prior), Great Britain outproduced the US per capita. Therefore, your assertion the US outproduced every other country on earth per capita is wrong, and Great Britain outproduced the US in raw amount in 1870.

As I said, most historians do not consider the US an economic superpower until at least WWI. There's ample explanation for this. Great Britain industrialized before the US did. The US also suffered a massive interruption in economic production due to the US Civil War in the 1860s. This is plain as day fact, even with your own data you're providing.

And btw, what were the contributing factors to the US surge in production? Industrialization coupled with massive immigration. To discount the role of immigration into the US as a key contributor and say it was all about free market economics is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we need to allow Mexicans and anyone else to immigrate into the US again?! We also cashed in on imperialist gains at the expense of Mexico, gaining a massive amount of natural resources in the Mexican Cession. You don't honestly think the US Industrial Revolution would have been as wildly successful as it was without that massive resource of various metals, do you? So we're supposed to start taking land from other countries because it's god's will?

And now, to my absolute favorite part of your analysis. You attempted to show the US's slowing economic growth in the 20th century compared to the previous century, because that central banking and regulation we got post 1913 apparently really hurt us.

1820 - 1870 = 50 years
1870 - 1913 = 43 years
1913 - 1950 = 37 years
1950 - 1973 = 23 years
1973 - 1998 = 25 years

So how much did we grow comparing 1870-1913 vs 1950 - 1998, over a comparable time span?

526% vs. (7394598-1455916)/1455916 = 407%

Considering how unproductive humans were before and after industrialization, improving on top of that another 407% is EXTREMELY impressive. On top of that, US economic output was severely reduced because of the Civil War in the 1860s and had not recovered from it by any stretch of the imagination, so simply recovering from that would fuel a massive percentage increase. By 1950, we had already recovered from the Great Depression, and we STILL managed to grow the US economy 4x in the next 50 years.

Now, on top of that, keep in mind that with smaller numbers, percentage growth gets exaggerated compared to bigger numbers. IE, it's easier to double when you start with 1 than 1,000,000.

From 1820 to 1913, US GDP went from 12,548 to 517,383. From 1913 to 1998, we went from 517,383 to 7,394,598! That's less successful?! OH POOR US!

Compared to the rest of the world, we didn't grow as fast percentage wise from 1950-1998. We did however grow the most in raw amounts. By your analysis, Mexico has done a better job growing their economy from 1973 to 1998 than the US did because of percentage growth. Uhh, seriously?! growing 279,302 to 655,910 is more impressive than 3,536,622 to 7,394,598?! Then WHY ARE MEXICANS TRYING TO IMMIGRATE HERE!?

Why is Africa, Asia, etc. growing so much faster than we did? Because they are industrializing, which results in percentage gains greater than the switch to info tech because they're starting from a very low number. That doesn't mean they're outproducing us. It means they have more low hanging fruit to improve their productivity than we do. You're also cherrypicking another historically convenient time. Europe and Asia in 1950 were still recovering from the destruction of WWII, where entire cities were leveled. Simply rebuilding from that would give a massive boost. US industrial capacity was never threatened during WWII. Therefore, we won't start suddenly artificially lower in 1950 compared to a Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, or Russia.

Your historical analysis is laughable. I have never seen anyone claim that the US economy was better off from 1800-1900 than they have been from 1900-2000. Kudos for attempting to provide statistics for your crackpot retelling of American history.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.
In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.
From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.
Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%
And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.
But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.
Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

@Yogi

This is the clause of the pledge that they're interpreting:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."
-Full document: https://motherjones.com/files/marriagevow.pdf

Readers are free to interpret that either as:
1. "African-American children were better off during slavery."
2. "Unhealthy average rearing environments in African-American culture are an injurious problem of a similar nature to slavery."

*dupeof=http://history.videosift.com/talk/YTTM-1860-to-2010-YouTube-videos

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by geo321.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/First-Recorded-Sound-Circa-1860

>> ^iwastheturkey:

first!


No, sir. You weren't first, nor was Thomas Edison. *rolleyes*

Invocations (dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/First-Recorded-Sound-Circa-1860) cannot be called by rgroom1 because rgroom1 is not privileged - sorry.