Is the new American Civil War a continuation of the first?

[caption id="attachment_20598" align="alignleft" width="300"] Confederate Cabinet of the Civil War reflected political positions similar to today's Tea Party.[/caption]

Carol Forsloff--As the United States presently struggles with the debt ceiling and the government shutdown, is this newest civil war, becoming increasingly uncivil, a continuation of the first?

Scholars now tell us that the demographics of the argument over the nation's financial issues and the choices between local control vs federal domination, the same arguments existed prior to the first American civil war.

And those who initiated and maintain the arguments continue to represent the familiar demographics, with similar arguments about who is in charge and what should be the relative relationship between local and Federal control.   Furthermore the controversies also mirror similar arguments about the role of government to take care of its poorest and most oppressed.

Fareed Zakaria of CNN is one of the foremost international journalists who has maintained that the demographics of the American Civil War are consistent with those today.  The geographical boundaries of the rebel states, including those within them, are reminiscent of the same ones that existed prior to the first Civil War.  Furthermore, the resistance to complying with Federal mandates following the Civil War and the demonizing of those who tried to comply, or forced compliance, has been maintained for generations.

In 2008, Dr. John Fleming, an M.D. and entrepreneur with a number of Subway restaurants in Louisiana, was running for the House against what some might call a more moderate opponent, if moderate defines any politician in the State.  His opponent, however, was Barack Obama, at that time running for President of the United States.  Instead of displaying the opponents positions and taking aim at those, Dr. Fleming chose to highlight his opposition to Barack Obama's Presidency with many of the same arguments now being used in his opposition to the President's policies now.  However, at the time of that original opposition, many of Obama's political opinions were somewhat different on the matter of gay rights and even health care.  So the opposition was likely influenced more by the culture of the region represented by Fleming, and his appeal to that culture, instead of current legislation.

That pattern of opposing Federal intrusion into State's authority came up at a political rally for Dr. Fleming that following year, after Barack Obama's election as President,  When Dr. Fleming answered a question about national banking, one of the members of the audience spoke of how it should be possible to oppose the intrusion of the national government in some important way and pointed to the Federal banking system.  By localizing banking, the audience member said, one would not have to rely on the Federal government in managing economic issues.  Dr. Fleming agreed and spoke of secession as a possible option for negating national control over banking as well as social and political issues as well.

This had been the South's core argument about national banking that spilled over into slavery.  Today the argument about the Federal government's rights vs. local ones continues to vacillate among a number of different areas from gun control to health care as well as gay rights and marijuana distribution.  The intractability of the positions against the Federal government's growth and control has been a pattern of the same group, now called the Tea Party and at the time of the  Civil War, the Rebels.

Despite these conflicts, there have always been those within the borders of the resistance, that Tea Party - Rebel group, who have opposed extremism, just as it is opposed in other parts of the United States, outside of the South.  The problem, however, is that opposition and the more extreme views of the region find more dramatic play in the media then those who quietly go about the business of the day, hoping, like every other American, that the conflicts might end without a worst case scenario.

During the America's first Civil War that conflict ended in war.  Many hope that today's conflict might not end in a way of a different kind that may have far more reaching effects.

Transcripts of Obama's and Boehner's speeches regarding the budget

[caption id="attachment_6386" align="alignleft" width="384" caption="Flag flying in front of Independence Hall. Philadelphia, PA Summer 2008. Photo/Kay Mathews"][/caption]

As a news organization it is our duty to provide you with the means to make informed decisions and with that responsibility in mind we have decided to include on our front page the transcripts of both Obama's and Boehner's speeches regarding the budget.

As Americans it is our duty to stay abreast of major events in our nation. We must make informed decisions when we vote and make informed suggestions when we contact our representatives. There are times when our responsibility means we must take serious considerations of both sides of the political spectrum.

Obama:

Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we've been having in Washington over the national debt - a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation's credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more - on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can't balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money - the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won't have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that's what we've been trying to do. I won't bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let's live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let's cut domestic spending to the lowest level it's been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let's cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare - and at the same time, let's make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let's ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn't happen so abruptly that they'd be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren't happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said "Yes, I'm willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem." And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn't on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach - an approach that doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about - cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn't about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don't need and didn't ask for?

That's not right. It's not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country - things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we're talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade - millionaires and billionaires - to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they've pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

"Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer."

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach - an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today's stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling - a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand - raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won't be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they'll vote to prevent America's first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills - bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans' benefits, and the government contracts we've signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country's Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis - one caused almost entirely by Washington.

Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn't solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there's no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there's an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we've seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a dangerous game we've never played before, and we can't afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can't allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington's political warfare.

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don't have to go through this again in six months.

I think that's a much better path, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress - a compromise I can sign. And I am confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don't see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They're fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can't seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They are offended by that. And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government. So I'm asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: "Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society."

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

That's who we remember. That's who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let's seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth - not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.



Boehner:

Good evening. I'm John Boehner. I serve as Speaker of the whole House -- of the members of both parties that you elect. These are difficult times in the life of our nation. Millions are looking for work, have been for some time, and the spending binge going on in Washington is a big part of the reason why.

Before I served in Congress, I ran a small business in Ohio. I was amazed at how different Washington DC operated than every business in America. Where most American business make the hard choices to pay their bills and live within their means, in Washington more spending and more debt is business as usual.

I've got news for Washington - those days are over.

President Obama came to Congress in January and requested business as usual -- yet another routine increase in the national debt limit -- we in the House said 'not so fast.' Here was the president, asking for the largest debt increase in American history, on the heels of the largest spending binge in American history.

Here's what we got for that spending binge: a massive health care bill that most Americans never asked for. A 'stimulus' bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs. And a national debt that has gotten so out of hand it has sparked a crisis without precedent in my lifetime or yours.

The United States cannot default on its debt obligations. The jobs and savings of too many Americans are at stake.

What we told the president in January was this: the American people will not accept an increase in the debt limit without significant spending cuts and reforms.

And over the last six months, we've done our best to convince the president to partner with us to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country. . .something that will boost confidence in our economy, renew a measure of faith in our government, and help small businesses get back on track.

Last week, the House passed such a plan, and with bipartisan support. It's called the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' Act. It CUTS and CAPS government spending and paves the way for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which we believe is the best way to stop Washington from spending money it doesn't have. Before we even passed the bill in the House, the President said he would veto it.

I want you to know I made a sincere effort to work with the president to identify a path forward that would implement the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law. I gave it my all.

Unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer. Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the president's demands changed.

The president has often said we need a 'balanced' approach -- which in Washington means: we spend more. . .you pay more. Having run a small business, I know those tax increases will destroy jobs.

The president is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs. As the father of two daughters, I know these programs won't be there for them and their kids unless significant action is taken now.

The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen.

You see, there is no stalemate in Congress. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support. And this week, while the Senate is struggling to pass a bill filled with phony accounting and Washington gimmicks, we will pass another bill - one that was developed with the support of the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate.

Obviously, I expect that bill can and will pass the Senate, and be sent to the President for his signature. If the President signs it, the 'crisis' atmosphere he has created will simply disappear. The debt limit will be raised. Spending will be cut by more than one trillion dollars, and a serious, bipartisan committee of the Congress will begin the hard but necessary work of dealing with the tough challenges our nation faces.

The individuals doing this work will not be outsiders, but elected representatives of the people, doing the job they were elected to do as outlined in the Constitution. Those decisions should be made based on how they will affect people who are struggling to get a job, not how they affect some politician's chances of getting reelected.

This debate isn't about President Obama and House Republicans … it isn't about Congress and the White House … it's about what's standing between the American people and the future we seek for ourselves and our families.

You know, I've always believed, the bigger government, the smaller the people. And right now, we have a government so big and so expensive it's sapping the drive of our people and keeping our economy from running at full capacity.

The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you're spending more money than you're taking in, you need to spend less of it,

There is no symptom of big government more menacing than our debt. Break its grip, and we begin to liberate our economy and our future.

We are up to the task, and I hope President Obama will join us in this work.

God bless you and your families, and God bless America.

Debt crisis insight from the 'Art of Selfishness'

[caption id="attachment_7095" align="alignleft" width="225" caption="John Galt Sign"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff  -  The organization devoted to Ayn Rand’s philosophy addresses the current budget crisis as caused by  those who seek handouts and who should be ashamed of their contribution to the collapse of industrial America by taking from productive members of the culture,

The diatribe against those takers of personal freedom begins with the view taken in Atlas Shrugged, which was the Ayn Rand tome that became the Bible of the Art of Selfishness, which was the orientation and philosophy of the author and her devotees.

The press release reminds us of the prophetic nature of Atlas Shrugged,  that “ portrays the collapse of industrial America as a war between producers and expropriators—just what we see in America today.

"To solve the debt crisis, productive Americans must declare to every elected official that they have a right to their own lives and the fruits of their labor; that government has no right to redistribute their wealth; and that other Americans should be ashamed of themselves for trying to steal it," says Edward Hudgins of The Atlas Society www.atlassociety.org .  "Productive individuals would reject government handouts and thus governments would not run up debts that will destroy the productive."

After pointing out the philosophy according to Rand with respect to producers and those seeking handouts, the Rand view is described as one that encourages producers to seek happiness and prosperity by the creation of goods and services.  These same producers seek justice and protection but otherwise want to be left alone to earn a living.  Those who wish to expropriate from them by government means are working against what is best for society, and now those productive people have awakened to what is called a “moral obscenity” inflicted upon them.

In other words, no bailout, no debt ceiling, no compromise.  Producers are the capitalists who create the value  and “paternalistic politicians” are involved in taking from them through bailouts and free healthcare and stimulus money.  What are these handouts?  Student loans, expanded health care and Social Security, the Ayn Rand group explains.

Rand belief is based on the notion that “your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness”  Altruism is a word and idea she decries, as the true purpose is not to save others but to maintain one’s own well being and that if everyone sought this same direction, then there would be no need for saving anyone.

As the two political parties struggle over the mounting debt crisis and decide whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, it is important to recognize that many of those leaders were educated in their early years during a popular wave of Ayn Rand materials.  Those who favor the Ayn Rand direction in politics promote capitalism, production and individualism.  They see Social Security, welfare and other programs designed to help the elderly and handicapped as unnecessary in a productive society where people seek to create material wealth.  It is that art of selfishness that is echoed in the halls of the Congress by those who believe that wealth will “trickle down” in some unique way so that everyone benefits from those who prosper.

A similar doctrine to Ayn Rand is this:  “We believe most Americans do not want out-of-control spending in Washington, bailouts, government controls of private businesses, socializing of Americans' health care and other non-essential government-run services,” the signature statement from the Tea Party organization.

From the conscience of a conservative: Thank you Mr. President

[caption id="attachment_4044" align="alignleft" width="222" caption="President Barack Obama"][/caption]

Samantha Torrence--It almost feels like the day after 9/11 when America huddled together for comfort, and for just one small week we were one nation. We were not liberals and conservatives, or Republicans or Democrats, we were just Americans.  That time has happened again, to help us all remember that.

It has been a harrowing ride from then until now. Our nation has seen bitterness and hatred as we have become polarized. Our relationship as a nation has been strained because of the economy, and we all know that money problems are the number one cause of fighting and divorce. Hopefully the death of Osama Bin Laden has brought us back from that brink.

In 2001 we had a President that was not well liked, but after our shock and horror at being attacked and his speech to comfort us his approval ratings shot through the roof. Now nearly ten years later we have another President who has given us another speech to inspire our patriotism. If liberals and Democrats could put aside their misgivings for President Bush then I do not think it is a stretch for Republicans and Conservatives to do the same for President Obama.

I am grateful that President Obama delivered to us the finality to our mourning and the justice we have been craving. The good he did for our country by allowing these operations to happen can hopefully help us clean this wound of the salt festering in it and begin to allow healing. Am I naïve to think this is all we will need to come together as a nation? No.

As a Conservative I still do not support many of the initiatives that President Obama, his administration, and his party are presenting or enacting. And despite the enormity of respect I have for what he has done I still have my principles. And I think that President Obama can respect that.

So while I thank President Obama with all of my heart for bringing finality and close the cycle that had begun on 9/11 there are still some things that I plan on voicing opposition to. I plan on continuing my opposition to the healthcare bill as I see it as being far too punitive on the average citizen, and not proactive enough in really providing healthcare of fixing our healthcare system. I do not plan to support raising the debt ceiling, gas taxes, and estate taxes. I am still against bail outs for any big companies especially the banks. I will continue to demand that he get tough on the out of control spending in America. I certainly plan on asking him to reign in his green initiatives till we are stable enough to proceed.

But today, I will put aside my differences and focus on the one thing he and I can agree on. I will be happy that we have seen the last of this mad man who has brought so much pain and hurt to the world, and this action happened on the watch of President Barack Obama.

Thank you Mr. President