I'm bigger on the spending issue than the taxing issue in DC at the moment. Doing a flat tax that doesn't favor anyone and closes all the loopholes would be a great start in my opinion. Doing a fixed VAT for only new goods would be even better. Either one would involve placing trust in DC not to alter the rates... that's pure fantasy. It's every bit as much fantasy to think that DC would take in extra monies and spend them responsibly. Of the two evils, I choose the lesser.
Because.... the Democratic party did such an incredible job this last go around? From what I can tell, they did what the last administration did, but doubled down on the bailouts. Do you honestly see that big of a difference between the two parties in DC right now?
I don't liken the whole of the US economy to being like Greece, but I do liken Greece to be much like a number of states within the US. Comparatively, the US is abundant in resources and ready-built infrastructure. However, we have squandered major opportunities and future resources to fix a lot of that crumbling infrastructure when we opted to bail out private companies rather than re-invest in updating the power grid, roadways, telecom, etc. This is a symptom of de-incentivizing production in favor of political maneuvering with myriad root causes. ECU is spot on when he is telling us that the next series of bubbles is going to be fiscally catastrophic.
There was quite a bit more at play when one considers the proxy fighting of Britain and France in this entire process. In this day and age, I don't think you'll get any argument for the merits of slavery. However, to lionize one side in an effort to re-write history is an invitation to take away the opportunity to learn from it from those that may draw important parallels in the future.
It's no secret that Lee was hard on everyone (soldier and slave alike) under his command. It was only when he was with Jackson that he was considered the gentler of the two.
You are correct in bringing up a singular point about slavery that I've heard no one else speak of. The quickest way to destroy a culture is to break up their families. Much like the soldiers under Lee's command, slaves were conscripted rather than brought in of their own volition.
Now. What happened after five years' time? Did Lee hold to his word?
Better yet... take a gander at Lee's actions. People can say anything (as evidenced by many a politician), but actions show the true nature of a person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E_Lee And still.... no one seeks to look to the single central question that directly challenges the notion that the Civil War was fought "to end slavery". If that was the case, would it not have been declared by the Union and Lincoln from the outset? No. As history is re-written by the victors, the Emancipation Proclamation was long after the war had ensued, and was done as a political move to keep the war going. As for claims of the confederacy wanting to invoke some imperialist notion to export slavery to other states, that is an outright falsehood. If that were the case, then explain why the majority of the large battles were fought in the confederate states rather than the northern states:
Anyone accepting this pedestrian explanation of why the war was fought likely aced the test in fifth grade. Anyone looking for actual truth found that it was very muddled and the reasons for fighting spanned a wide range of reasons. Were you to ask the average confederate soldier why they were fighting, you wouldn't get "so we can keep our slaves". Were you to ask the average union soldier what they thought of black people, they'd likely display an attitude of considering them to be subhuman/inferior. The fact is that there was a lot of consternation within the union ranks of why they were fighting at all in the earlier years of the war. A prevalent attitude was "if they want to leave, let 'em". Virginia's signing of the Constitution was on the provision that they would be allowed to leave the union should things not work out. As it turns out, this part of history shows that "you're not allowed to leave". Another truth is that one was much more likely to find a pro-slavery attitude among aristocrats in the southern states due to their economic model that had been established and was now deemed a hindrance to the aristocrats' economic model in the northern states. The rationalization between both groups of people was evident in how disparate their actions were from their talk. So, the next time someone espouses a view that seems resistant to questioning, that should be your first clue to question it. If you can't get past the first couple lines of questioning before some form of outrage comes of it, chances are likely that you've reached the end of their reasoning and emotional outburst is their only reponse in the hopes that shouting down the opposition will suffice as a victory in lieu of their debate skills.