Less than 150 years ago, the five-year American Civil War came to a halt.
In that short adding up to merely two average lifetimes, America grew to the point where it made full reparation for its early transgressions by electing a non-white man to free it from the social and economic tyranny of financial giants.
The first Civil War fought with armed weapons led to the eventual abolition of all forms of slavery.
The War itself, however, broke out over the question of secession.
According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, seceding States held the view that the United States was a voluntary coalition and entities could withdraw at any time.
Union states held that the Constitution bound all signatories into an indissoluble sovereignty.
An outcome of the war was the strengthening of the role of the central government.
That was evidenced by the thirteenth amendment to the constitution and the next two to complete the guarantees of freedom set in motion by the 1862 emancipation proclamation a year into the war.
The 2008 US election took place in the midst of an unprecedented global financial crisis at the end of an eight-year conservative administration that began with a $230 billion surplus and ended with a deficit of nearly $455 billion.
Also authorized was $700 billion for bailing out America's financial institutions, half of which was doled out during the three-month transition with no accountability required.
The bailout made no impact on the deteriorating economy in which another half million Americans every month joined those already unemployed, foreclosed and without credit.
Therefore, new administration stimulus programs centered on creating jobs and loosening consumer credit so as to jump start the spending process at the heart of America's industry.
The strategy was spelled out in the new President's first press conference on September 9.
Opposition, however, continued.
Conservatives wanted more tax cuts for those most able to stimulate the economy.
By definition, those would be the very financial giants unwilling to unplug the economic clog.
Bankers did appear before Congress on February 11 to address questions about bailout expenditures and billions in bonuses.
Bloomberg, among others that day, reported that the bankers had promised to reform their practices to increase the flow of lending to consumers.
But on the Sunday prior to that appearance, three of the bailed out banks had placed full page ads in the New York Times to present their cases to the public.
Bank of America, after receiving $45 billion in taxpayer money, had listed investments that had been made and ended by saying those investments proved why America trusted that bank more than any other with its hard-earned cash.
Citigroup, similarly bailed out with a total of $45 billion in taxpayer funds, cited investment in General Electric as an example of how it was helping clients prosper as "complexities" were navigated "together.
" Finally, in its ad, Wells Fargo said it was recognizing its 281,000 team members in print since press exposure had forced it to forego a "team recognition" event planned for Las Vegas.
The bank cited those in the banking, airline and hospitality industries who would be hurt by the cancellation.
It said the event was to have been financed from the "profits" that increased when competitive excellence was recognized rather than from the $25 billion in taxpayer dollars received from the government.
As the stimulus initiatives were debated and pared by mere million dollar "pennies" relative to the trillions under consideration, a January 30 New York Times article made clear America's situation.
Based on data provided by the Internal Revenue Service, the income of the wealthiest 400 Americans had swelled in 2006 to an average $263 million per annum over the previous year.
Since 1996, that group had nearly doubled its share of all income earned in the United States.
They also paid just more than $18 billion in taxes, compared with nearly $1 trillion paid by all other taxpayers that year.
Thus, the New Civil War of the 2008 US transition was fought with words and seemed to revolve around economics.
In the 2008 election, the American people had voted to break the global racial barrier by backing the leader most likely to cure the global financial crisis in which America was central.
But as the new administration's proposals continued to meet resistance and the economy continued to deteriorate, the true picture became more consistently clear.
Like America's first Civil War, the new War was also about secession.
America's financial titans had seceded from the Union.
For the sake of sovereignty, the renegades had to be wrestled back to the fold.
In that short adding up to merely two average lifetimes, America grew to the point where it made full reparation for its early transgressions by electing a non-white man to free it from the social and economic tyranny of financial giants.
The first Civil War fought with armed weapons led to the eventual abolition of all forms of slavery.
The War itself, however, broke out over the question of secession.
According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, seceding States held the view that the United States was a voluntary coalition and entities could withdraw at any time.
Union states held that the Constitution bound all signatories into an indissoluble sovereignty.
An outcome of the war was the strengthening of the role of the central government.
That was evidenced by the thirteenth amendment to the constitution and the next two to complete the guarantees of freedom set in motion by the 1862 emancipation proclamation a year into the war.
The 2008 US election took place in the midst of an unprecedented global financial crisis at the end of an eight-year conservative administration that began with a $230 billion surplus and ended with a deficit of nearly $455 billion.
Also authorized was $700 billion for bailing out America's financial institutions, half of which was doled out during the three-month transition with no accountability required.
The bailout made no impact on the deteriorating economy in which another half million Americans every month joined those already unemployed, foreclosed and without credit.
Therefore, new administration stimulus programs centered on creating jobs and loosening consumer credit so as to jump start the spending process at the heart of America's industry.
The strategy was spelled out in the new President's first press conference on September 9.
Opposition, however, continued.
Conservatives wanted more tax cuts for those most able to stimulate the economy.
By definition, those would be the very financial giants unwilling to unplug the economic clog.
Bankers did appear before Congress on February 11 to address questions about bailout expenditures and billions in bonuses.
Bloomberg, among others that day, reported that the bankers had promised to reform their practices to increase the flow of lending to consumers.
But on the Sunday prior to that appearance, three of the bailed out banks had placed full page ads in the New York Times to present their cases to the public.
Bank of America, after receiving $45 billion in taxpayer money, had listed investments that had been made and ended by saying those investments proved why America trusted that bank more than any other with its hard-earned cash.
Citigroup, similarly bailed out with a total of $45 billion in taxpayer funds, cited investment in General Electric as an example of how it was helping clients prosper as "complexities" were navigated "together.
" Finally, in its ad, Wells Fargo said it was recognizing its 281,000 team members in print since press exposure had forced it to forego a "team recognition" event planned for Las Vegas.
The bank cited those in the banking, airline and hospitality industries who would be hurt by the cancellation.
It said the event was to have been financed from the "profits" that increased when competitive excellence was recognized rather than from the $25 billion in taxpayer dollars received from the government.
As the stimulus initiatives were debated and pared by mere million dollar "pennies" relative to the trillions under consideration, a January 30 New York Times article made clear America's situation.
Based on data provided by the Internal Revenue Service, the income of the wealthiest 400 Americans had swelled in 2006 to an average $263 million per annum over the previous year.
Since 1996, that group had nearly doubled its share of all income earned in the United States.
They also paid just more than $18 billion in taxes, compared with nearly $1 trillion paid by all other taxpayers that year.
Thus, the New Civil War of the 2008 US transition was fought with words and seemed to revolve around economics.
In the 2008 election, the American people had voted to break the global racial barrier by backing the leader most likely to cure the global financial crisis in which America was central.
But as the new administration's proposals continued to meet resistance and the economy continued to deteriorate, the true picture became more consistently clear.
Like America's first Civil War, the new War was also about secession.
America's financial titans had seceded from the Union.
For the sake of sovereignty, the renegades had to be wrestled back to the fold.
Source...