I think the first two actually happened dureing the Revolution when the Epispical Church split from the Church of... England

"Religion played a large part in founding of our country and while government can't force religion on the people, people can force religion on the government.
"

Quite true religion played a large part in the founding of this country. People fled here to escape persecution for their beliefs, and at times their lack of them.

As far as people forcing religion on the government, that violates the constitutional rights of those who do not share the religious views. The Supreme court has upheld that freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.

There are plenty of religious governments should you choose one.

---

Janice

The problems we now face are due in large part to religion. Jew's , Moslems, Christians etc.

It's now the third millenium, people, and time to cast off the yoke of voodoo and ignorance.

Well, you certainly have just about the same understanding of history. Must be rather lonely being among the only few in the universe with a clue.

Dena -- you and ID seem very sympatico....

No, we just both understand our history and asked the question Where did the country go wrong?

But it is OK for the ultra wealthy and corporations to have all the power? When Senators were bought (ah er selected) by the state house, that was clearly going on -- today it would be far more pronounced.

I am glad though in your historical revision position that you by implication endorse totally open immigration and virtually no drug laws.

Reverting the country back to the early 20th century is a rather curious proposition.

l is to prevent anyone from having much power. Once anyone person or group gain a large amount of power it will be abused. Currently the bought off voting public and the Federal government are calling the shots which is offensive to the remainder of us as we are the ones paying the bills. A republic was the best balance our founding fathers could come up with and it worked well till the public figured out how to profit off it. This was something our founding fathers were aware of and tried to prevent it with the constitution, but the people found a way around it.

Ah find us an honest man (in 1913 women lacked the right to vote. Politicians of the 19th century were not particularly honest of moral.

I personally don't insist a person running for office be religious, but I do want them to be moral to the point where they will not cheat the public or betray the country.

"Religion played a large part in founding of our country and while government can't force religion on the people, people can force religion on the government.
"

Quite true religion played a large part in the founding of this country. People fled here to escape persecution for their beliefs, and at times their lack of them.

As far as people forcing religion on the government, that violates the constitutional rights of those who do not share the religious views. The Supreme court has upheld that freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.

There are plenty of religious governments should you choose one.

The revolutionary churches were very active in spreading the word about the revolution and getting people to fight for the revolution. The name of the Black Robe Brigade has almost been totally removed from our history book but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. One must not always take Supreme court rulings as absolute because often in the past they have gotten it wrong. As I said, nothing prevents people from forcing religion on the government BUT the government must never force it on the people. If you don't wish to believe in religion, the government must never force you to. There may be the 10 commandments on public building and In God We Trust on money but you have the right to think they are graffiti and in no way binding on your life. As you have the right not to believe in religion, the public has the right to believe. If we don't tolerate each other, the next step will be burning down churches because they offend a right not to believe and if you don't see a problem with that, then I would have issues with you.

---

Ah find us an honest man (in 1913 women lacked the right to vote. Politicians of the 19th century were not particularly honest of moral.

I personally don't insist a person running for office be religious, but I do want them to be moral to the point where they will not cheat the public or betray the country.

Yes, but with out money, the damage was limited.

---

But it is OK for the ultra wealthy and corporations to have all the power? When Senators were bought (ah er selected) by the state house, that was clearly going on -- today it would be far more pronounced.

I am glad though in your historical revision position that you by implication endorse totally open immigration and virtually no drug laws.

Reverting the country back to the early 20th century is a rather curious proposition.

l is to prevent anyone from having much power. Once anyone person or group gain a large amount of power it will be abused. Currently the bought off voting public and the Federal government are calling the shots which is offensive to the remainder of us as we are the ones paying the bills. A republic was the best balance our founding fathers could come up with and it worked well till the public figured out how to profit off it. This was something our founding fathers were aware of and tried to prevent it with the constitution, but the people found a way around it.

If you don't have a huge budget, you are limited in the favors you can give your political contributers. That's not to say there is nothing you can do. I haven't said anything about Immigration or drugs in my post so I don't know where you got that idea, but consider drugs. If somebody wants to kill themselves with drugs, you aren't going to stop them. We tried it with prohibition and we were a total failure as the result was the creation of a powerful mob. Today we are destroying Mexico with drug wars. If drugs were provided buy the government to registered addicts at a dollar a dose, crime would be reduced and there would be almost no motive to get somebody else hooked so you could support your habit.
I personally think doing drugs is a dumb thing to do, but the governments approach has been a total failure.
The government could have fixed the immigration problem years ago but failed to do so. The solution is now going to be much more complex and there is a good possibility the government will not follow up on the fix and we will see even a worst problem in the future. Think Mexican Drug gangs moving to the United States because it is safer than operating in Mexico. I don't know what the solution is, but the problem is leaders that spend to much time on things that are not their job and to little on things that are.

---

All I have to say is this. If you think austerity is a good idea, a problem solver that will save everything, just look at how well it's worked for France and Greece...


I'm sorry but I feel we are so past those days, so past being able to function like that, so past a time when infrastructure wasn't needed, that it is just not the proper solution in the modern world economy.

If you want revolt, famine, and the possibility of civil war, then by all means lets tea party it up...

But if you want to stay afloat, I'd argue that there are much more viable alternatives.

---

#resist

Hmm, perhaps truly Native Americans and Mexicans might differ regarding the limited damage...

The thing is, this is, after all, the 21st century - running a country of 300 million plus under fixed concrete rules which were put in place in the 18th century for 3 million people might be just a bit more complicated than that.

Also, consider the relative value of railroad right of way granted in the 19th century to the railroad companies -- revalue that in 21st century dollars.

Yes, but with out money, the damage was limited.

Dena, on this I think we can agree -- but as to what their is (or should be) I suspect we'd be in deep disagreement.


"I don't know what the solution is, but the problem is leaders that spend to much time on things that are not their job and to little on things that are. "

"I don't know what the solution is, but the problem is leaders that spend to much time on things that are not their job and to little on things that are. "

Very simply, if the Federal Government stayed within it's confines the spending would almost stop over night. All the departments could be cut over night. Starting with all of them made up before 1913. All of that sould be pushed back down to the states where they can make up their minds on what is and isn't needed. And if the state was smart they would push that back down to the county level. Right at the county level you have cut out the middlemen and more of the dollar given in tax makes it where it is really needed.

"I don't know what the solution is, but the problem is leaders that spend to much time on things that are not their job and to little on things that are. "

Very simply, if the Federal Government stayed within it's confines the spending would almost stop over night. All the departments could be cut over night. Starting with all of them made up before 1913. All of that sould be pushed back down to the states where they can make up their minds on what is and isn't needed. And if the state was smart they would push that back down to the county level. Right at the county level you have cut out the middlemen and more of the dollar given in tax makes it where it is really needed.

What I was trying to say is everyone in congress takes a oath to protect and preserve the constitution and the first vote they take breaks the oath. The power and the money is so strong that they will violate their word to get it. The people are so uninformed that they will not remove these congress members. Thats the problem I don't know how to solve.

---

"I don't know what the solution is, but the problem is leaders that spend to much time on things that are not their job and to little on things that are. "

Very simply, if the Federal Government stayed within it's confines the spending would almost stop over night. All the departments could be cut over night. Starting with all of them made up before 1913. All of that sould be pushed back down to the states where they can make up their minds on what is and isn't needed. And if the state was smart they would push that back down to the county level. Right at the county level you have cut out the middlemen and more of the dollar given in tax makes it where it is really needed.

What I was trying to say is everyone in congress takes a oath to protect and preserve the constitution and the first vote they take breaks the oath. The power and the money is so strong that they will violate their word to get it. The people are so uninformed that they will not remove these congress members. Thats the problem I don't know how to solve.

Yes Ma'am, it's a conundrum.

We have to correctly inform the public.

And you and I might have to run for office.

My take on the US presidential elections.
This bloke is as good as any running in 2012 and probably better.

From 1980

T.A.

"I don't know what the solution is, but the problem is leaders that spend to much time on things that are not their job and to little on things that are. "

Very simply, if the Federal Government stayed within it's confines the spending would almost stop over night. All the departments could be cut over night. Starting with all of them made up before 1913. All of that sould be pushed back down to the states where they can make up their minds on what is and isn't needed. And if the state was smart they would push that back down to the county level. Right at the county level you have cut out the middlemen and more of the dollar given in tax makes it where it is really needed.

What I was trying to say is everyone in congress takes a oath to protect and preserve the constitution and the first vote they take breaks the oath. The power and the money is so strong that they will violate their word to get it. The people are so uninformed that they will not remove these congress members. Thats the problem I don't know how to solve.

Yes Ma'am, it's a conundrum.

We have to correctly inform the public.

And you and I might have to run for office.

You maybe but not me, My years on the Home Owner's association showed me I do a good job but the only way I can get elected is when nobody else wants the job. It would be a big waste of money to try and run me for office. I never wanted the power, I only did the job because it need to be done and by the time I got on the board, we were in a deep hole we needed to get out of. A little bit like the United States.

---

What I am reading here is a position taken by a few folks to 'return to the good old days' -- 1912 for some, 1787 for others. One rational offered is that this would reduce the power of the Federal government and in so doing, everything would be so much better.

Another way of reading this is an advocacy for the good old days when Anglo males controlled the country. A Republic which restricts the rights (and power) of women and non-Anglo males would (for these folks) be a return to simpler better times (at least for Anglo males).

I can understand the attraction of this approach specifically for that *increasingly small* minority of this country. Democracy which allows power to accumulate outside this small minority is troublesome to them.

By the way, one might acknowledge that the first real concentration of power in the Federal government (as well as the first application of a graduated income tax) was during the Civil War. Then again, some of that Anglo male population just might see the Civil War as the first step toward 'bad times' and wish to revert to the good old ante-bellum days.

What I am reading here is a position taken by a few folks to 'return to the good old days' -- 1912 for some, 1787 for others. One rational offered is that this would reduce the power of the Federal government and in so doing, everything would be so much better.

Another way of reading this is an advocacy for the good old days when Anglo males controlled the country. A Republic which restricts the rights (and power) of women and non-Anglo males would (for these folks) be a return to simpler better times (at least for Anglo males).

I can understand the attraction of this approach specifically for that *increasingly small* minority of this country. Democracy which allows power to accumulate outside this small minority is troublesome to them.

By the way, one might acknowledge that the first real concentration of power in the Federal government (as well as the first application of a graduated income tax) was during the Civil War. Then again, some of that Anglo male population just might see the Civil War as the first step toward 'bad times' and wish to revert to the good old ante-bellum days.

It's not so much the time before 1913 as the Roaring 20s, the Reagan years and some might even argue the last 6 Clinton years might be time periods to look at. In the above examples, government was restrained and times were good or at least far better than the years before.
We look to 1913 to learn where history went wrong. The world today requires us to have a larger military and social programs such as medicare and social security can't be killed cold turkey. They must be backed off slowly or restructured so they won't destroy the country. While a smaller government will solve many problems, there are limits to how much it should be reduced. The year 1913 just took the limits off how much government could grow.

---