What does the term "United States" mean to you?

[donttread]

And do you think we still deserve that name?

[Peter1469]

It means what our Founders made it.

I think 99% of Americans today don't have a clue.

[Kalkin]

I often say "If the left had their way, we'd be the Subjugated States, not the United States. The former implies centralized control, the latter voluntary association.

[Trish]

When I was younger and naive the meaning seemed clearer then it does today. I can't say what it means to me any more but I remember when it meant we were all connected. It was a symbol of sacrifice and pride. We stood together against external interlopers and those around the world understood that we would always remain one force against all others.

These days I don't feel it means any of those things. Our country is vulnerable because we no longer stand united. If I'm being honest, I have this anxiety about where the country is going and whether our civil liberties are under attack. I don't feel like I can count on my fellow countrymen and women.

As far as whether we deserve the title "United States" I would say that I prefer the term "The Americas".

[Ransom]

It means we unite and take states like Michigan and Ohio and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And turn them red.

[Captain Obvious]

The Republic.

A term bedwetters learned recently in a rude awakening.

[donttread]

It means what our Founders made it.

I think 99% of Americans today don't have a clue.


I agree, they just think it's a name

[donttread]

It means we unite and take states like Michigan and Ohio and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And turn them red.

No. It means a limited federal government to provide certain enumerated functions for otherwise independent states.

[donttread]

I often say "If the left had their way, we'd be the Subjugated States, not the United States. The former implies centralized control, the latter voluntary association.


Correct, but in my few both "major parties" have violated the Constitution, subjugated us and we are now just another federally domiinated nation in a world full of them.

[donttread]

When I was younger and naive the meaning seemed clearer then it does today. I can't say what it means to me any more but I remember when it meant we were all connected. It was a symbol of sacrifice and pride. We stood together against external interlopers and those around the world understood that we would always remain one force against all others.

These days I don't feel it means any of those things. Our country is vulnerable because we no longer stand united. If I'm being honest, I have this anxiety about where the country is going and whether our civil liberties are under attack. I don't feel like I can count on my fellow countrymen and women.

As far as whether we deserve the title "United States" I would say that I prefer the term "The Americas".

It had to do with state independence from the necessary evil of a limited federal government. That government is no longer limited, the states are no longer independent and I agree that we should be called America as we no longer meet the defintion of "United States" or a "Union of States"

[OddFellow]

Honestly I have very little faith in the United States anymore, it means very little to me anymore. The United States was a nice idea hundreds of years ago and might of worked then, but it is failing now for the poor and lower classes. We need to scrap it and replace it with a socialized government or Communism in my opinion.

Unfortunately we got brainwashed as kids that Socialism and Communism were such bad words. The rich and uppercases wouldn't like Socialism or Communism they would see all their money go down the tubes, but the poor and lower classes would be better off. The rich fund schools to teach how awful Communism and Socialism is to keep themselves rich, why? Because if we switched to that system they could no longer be the greedy money hungry businesses that they are, they would see their fat paychecks slashed to a fraction and given to those who need the money most... awww poor babies.

I have studied the communist manifesto. Carl Marx said for Communism to work at first you need Capitalism then you replace capitalism with socialism. The reason other communism countries failed was because they didn't have a capitalism system that was thriving like in the US first. That is a must for communism to work in the long run, you need a strong capitalism system first.

We are in a great position now to replace our government with a socialized or communist government. We are brainwashed by greedy wealthy businesses this is so bad! why? because they don't want to see their billions of profit taken away from them and redistributed to the poor and lower classes, that is exactly what the idea of socialism is to do. socialism or communism is really the best interest and way for the US to go now into the future.

[Peter1469]

Honestly not much anymore. The United States was a nice idea hundreds of years ago and might of worked then, but it is failing now for the poor and lower classes. We need to scrap it and replace it with a socialized government or communism in my opinion.

Unfortunately we got brainwashed as kids that socialism and communism were such bad words. The rich and uppercases wouldn't like socialism or Communism they would see all their money go down the tubes, but the poor and lower classes would be better off.

I have studied the communist manifesto. Carl Marx said for Communism to work at first you need Capitalism then you replace capitalism with socialism. The reason other communism countries failed was because they didn't have a capitalism system that was thriving like in the US first. That is a must for communism to work in the long run, you need a strong capitalism system first.

We are in a great position now to replace our government with a socialized or communist government. We are brainwashed by greedy wealthy businesses this is so bad! why? because they don't want to see their billions of profit taken away from them and redistributed to the poor and lower classes, that is exactly what the idea of socialism is to do. socialism or communism is really the best interest and way for the US to go now into the future.

Socialism and communism have always failed outside of a very small scale.

On a large scale look to free markets.

[donttread]

Socialism and communism have always failed outside of a very small scale.

On a large scale look to free markets.

Yes, things are good for the decades the free markets exist, before they turn into megacorp manipulated markets like we see today.
The difference from the to 60's to now is largely increased megacorp ownership of government and manipulation of markets rather than competition within them . A sure sign of this process is the upward transfer of wealth.
If we could eliminate or seriously curtail the megacorps things could be good again.

[Captdon]

It means the same to me as it did our founders. We went from United Colonies to United States. We declared we were no one's colony.

We are still one nation. Time shifts states in different directions- first one way and then another. The Democrats thought they had a permanent lock on the White House with their Blue Wall. Trump tore it down. This is one example.

[Kalkin]

Honestly I have very little faith in the United States anymore, it means very little to me anymore. The United States was a nice idea hundreds of years ago and might of worked then, but it is failing now for the poor and lower classes. We need to scrap it and replace it with a socialized government or Communism in my opinion.
Great plan. See: Venezuela.

[AZ Jim]

All these super smart "analysts", I love it.

[Kalkin]

A sure sign of this process is the upward transfer of wealth.

In our country, wealth is freely traded by willing individuals. It does not go "upward" or "downward". It is used to improve each persons life as they see fit. Some are better at consolidating it, others prefer the "spend it while you got it" model. Choose wisely.

[Kalkin]

All these super smart "analysts", I love it.

Maybe you'll learn something.

[Chris]

LIFE IN THESE, UH, THIS UNITED STATES (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/002663.html): "In an interview for the documentary that appeared in the companion book The Civil War: An Illustrated History, Foote said: Before the war, it was said 'the United States are.' Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always 'the United States is,' as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is.'"

Then there was 'These United States': How Obama's Vocal Tic Reveals a Polarized America (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/these-united-states-how-obamas-vocal-tic-reveals-a-polarized-america/275739/).

Congress renames the nation “United States of America” (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-renames-the-nation-united-states-of-america): "A resolution by Richard Henry Lee, which had been presented to Congress on June 7 and approved on July 2, 1776, issued the resolve, 'That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States….' As a result, John Adams thought July 2 would be celebrated as 'the most memorable epoch in the history of America.' Instead, the day has been largely forgotten in favor of July 4, when Jefferson’s edited Declaration of Independence was adopted. That document also states, 'That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.' However, Lee began with the line, while Jefferson saved it for the middle of his closing paragraph."

[donttread]

It means the same to me as it did our founders. We went from United Colonies to United States. We declared we were no one's colony.

We are still one nation. Time shifts states in different directions- first one way and then another. The Democrats thought they had a permanent lock on the White House with their Blue Wall. Trump tore it down. This is one example.


That's a really bas answer, That's not what those terms meant to the founders at all. . Look it up. There was oppostion that wanted an even more limited federal governement and it looks like they were right. "Union of States " meant the states ran themselves for the most part within the Constitution and the feds dealth collectively with our countries.

[donttread]

In our country, wealth is freely traded by willing individuals. It does not go "upward" or "downward". It is used to improve each persons life as they see fit. Some are better at consolidating it, others prefer the "spend it while you got it" model. Choose wisely.

Yes it does and the stats for the last 20-30 years show that wealth is moving upward, Especially since the IRS pushed everyman towards the stock market. The super rich and big corps use undue influence to get leagal advantage. That is NOT a free market.

[Hoosier8]

No. It means a limited federal government to provide certain enumerated functions for otherwise independent states.
Long since ruined by progressives starting in 1913.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes it does and the stats for the last 20-30 years show that wealth is moving upward, Especially since the IRS pushed everyman towards the stock market. The super rich and big corps use undue influence to get legal advantage. That is NOT a free market.
I mean this in the most helpful way. You do know you are a kook, don't you?

[Kalkin]

Yes it does and the stats for the last 20-30 years show that wealth is moving upward,
Only if you equate "upward" with money. Personally, I've known many unhappy people with money who I don't consider above happy people living paycheck to paycheck.

Especially since the IRS pushed everyman towards the stock market.
The IRS never forced anyone to gamble in the stock market. Incentivized, perhaps. Just because Vegas offers you a free room doesn't mean they have made you gamble.

The super rich and big corps use undue influence to get leagal advantage. That is NOT a free market.
What advantage are you talking about?

[donttread]

I often say "If the left had their way, we'd be the Subjugated States, not the United States. The former implies centralized control, the latter voluntary association.


But the right likes to control too. They just like to control different things. The "left " wants your guns but some of the "so called right" wants to ban pot. What do the sides have in common? Control freakism.

[AeonPax]

`
`
"The United States of America" is the official title, is it not?

[donttread]

Only if you equate "upward" with money. Personally, I've known many unhappy people with money who I don't consider above happy people living paycheck to paycheck.

The IRS never forced anyone to gamble in the stock market. Incentivized, perhaps. Just because Vegas offers you a free room doesn't mean they have made you gamble.

What advantage are you talking about?

1) Yes, in the case of upward transfer of WEALTH I am taking about money, albeit mostly e-money, but money nonetheless.
2) Forced I guess not. I can pay taxes on my dollar and invest the remaining 65 cents in a local business or I can NOT pay taxes on that dollar until much later and invest the whole dollar in a form acceprtible to them. Some choice!
3) Why do you think megacorps and the super rich spend so much money on politicians? Social conscience? No it's to tilt the table towards them and their offspring. The biggest predicter of your income is your parents income, or at least it was the last time I checked. So modern megacorps buy influence so that they can manipulate whole markets rather than truly competing within them. Like Citi-Bank holding millions of gallons of oil to push the price up while we bailed the rich basards out. Or like an oil industry so powerful in Washington that we fight wars to prevent the nationalization of their foreign assests and they never really pay the true cost of production. But they sure do reap the profits. That's what I'm talking aboyt. Influence bought to circimvent real free markets and competition.

[donttread]

Long since ruined by progressives starting in 1913.


The year the death warrant of the Republic was illegally signed. What we see today are simply the death throws.

[donttread]

`
`
"The United States of America" is the official title, is it not?

Yes. But at one time it meant something. American exceptionalsm wasn't about us being better than everyone else. It was about our system being different. Independent states represented by a limited federal government, grugingly created to collectively deal with other nations. Not to micro manage the states or the citizens.

[Standing Wolf]

Yes. But at one time it meant something. American exceptionalsm wasn't about us being better than everyone else. It was about our system being different. Independent states represented by a limited federal government, grugingly created to collectively deal with other nations. Not to micro manage the states or the citizens.

I agree with much of what you've written, and there is no question but that federal authorities have overstepped any boundary the Founders may have thought to set. The major problem, however, inherent in prohibiting virtually any federal oversight on "state matters" is that it leaves American citizens without a vitally important ally in defending their right to equal treatment and due process by state and local governments.

Perhaps it didn't seem like "any big deal" to Americans in 1789 if the Catholic citizens of a neighboring state were not permitted to hold public office, or if the citizens of another state were legally forbidden to marry someone of another race; but by 1869, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, I think the idea of American citizenship conferring certain rights and privileges that are and should be inviolable by state legislators and local bureaucrats had begun to develop. Without an ally in the Congress and the federal courts, the last four words of the Tenth Amendment - "...or to the people" - are just empty words on old parchment.

[Chris]

`
`
"The United States of America" is the official title, is it not?


Yes, but the history is interesting.

According to Congress renames the nation “United States of America” (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-renames-the-nation-united-states-of-america)


A resolution by Richard Henry Lee, which had been presented to Congress on June 7 and approved on July 2, 1776, issued the resolve, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States….” As a result, John Adams thought July 2 would be celebrated as “the most memorable epoch in the history of America.” Instead, the day has been largely forgotten in favor of July 4, when Jefferson’s edited Declaration of Independence was adopted. That document also states, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.” However, Lee began with the line, while Jefferson saved it for the middle of his closing paragraph.

But wait, according to Who coined the name 'United States of America'? Mystery gets new twist. (https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0816/Who-coined-the-name-United-States-of-America-Mystery-gets-new-twist)


Several references mistakenly credit Paine with formulating the name in January 1776. Paine’s popular and persuasive book, "Common Sense," uses “United Colonies,” “American states,” and “FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA,” but he never uses the final form.

The National Archives, meanwhile, cite the first known use of the “formal term United States of America” as being the Declaration of Independence, which would recognize Jefferson as the originator. Written in June 1776, Jefferson’s “original Rough draught” placed the new name at the head of the business – “A Declaration by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in General Congress assembled."

...Beginning in March 1776, a series of anonymously written articles began appearing in The Virginia Gazette – one of three different Virginia Gazettes being published in Williamsburg at that time. Addressed to the “Inhabitants of Virginia,” the essays present an economic set of arguments promoting independence versus reconciliation with Great Britain. The author estimates total Colonial losses at $24 million and laments the possibility of truce without full reparation – and then voices for the first time what would become the name of our nation.

“What a prodigious sum for the united states of America to give up for the sake of a peace, that, very probably, itself would be one of the greatest misfortunes!” – A PLANTER

The article speculates whether A PLANTER was Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Jefferson, John Adams, aor Benjamin Franklin.

But wait, according to The forgotten Irishman who named the “United States of America” (https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/the-forgotten-irishman-who-named-the-united-states-of-america):


The phrase “United States of America” was, of course, used in the Declaration of Independence so Jefferson must have been using it in drafts before that. However, other delegates to the Continental Congress are known to have used the phrase at that time.

Yet, none of them – as far as current research shows – had used the phrase before April 1776, when it was used in an anonymous essay published in the Virginia Gazette. That usage was discovered by Byron DeLear a couple of years ago, but then last year he announced he had found an even earlier reference to the “United States of America” in a letter from Stephen Moylan to Joseph Reed.

Reed was a colonel in the Continental Army and George Washington's secretary. In January 1776 Reed was on leave in Philadelphia when Moylan, who was filling in for Reed, wrote to him and said that he wanted to go to Spain on a mission to seek help for the fight against Britain “with full and ample powers from the United States of America.”

There it is, the earliest documented use of the phrase “United States of America,” in a letter written by Stephen Moylan.

Luck of the Irish!

[Chris]

Yes. But at one time it meant something. American exceptionalsm wasn't about us being better than everyone else. It was about our system being different. Independent states represented by a limited federal government, grugingly created to collectively deal with other nations. Not to micro manage the states or the citizens.


Grudgingly is a good way to express it. I'd recommend Sheldon Richman's well-documented America's Counter-Revolution to see just how much. The revolutionaries were radicals who wanted local government. They had after all fought against British central government. And many of them resisted implementing years later the implmentation of a federal government with the Constitution. As for the expansive nature of the government that followed unto this day, Richman blame's Madison's implied powers doctrine. Madison proposed as the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There was much debate, ed by South Carolina's Thomas Tudor Tucker, that, like in the Articles of Confederation, it should read "The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Inclusion of "expressly" limited the powers to those enumerated, or, of course, ammended. Without it, there was no real limitation.



Not to micro manage the states or the citizens.

Indeed. The idea of the Constitution was to manage the government. Now I doubt you or anyone object to the supreme law of the land forcing the states to also protect the rights of the people, sodme of which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. No, the objections are likely to be to those intrusions into our personal lives and social interactions by imposing the views and values of some on others.

[MisterVeritis]

But the right likes to control too. They just like to control different things. The "left " wants your guns but some of the "so called right" wants to ban pot. What do the sides have in common? Control freakism.
I suppose one can find someone in any group that wants to control someone else's life. I will be happy with the US following federalism as established by the US Constitution. The Constitution calls for very little control.

[MisterVeritis]

3) Why do you think megacorps and the super rich spend so much money on politicians? Social conscience? No it's to tilt the table towards them and their offspring. The biggest predicter of your income is your parents income, or at least it was the last time I checked.
I grew up very poor. If you want to do well graduate from high school, get married and have children in that order. If you want to do even better defer marriage until after you graduate from college with a degree that will retain its value. That does not include degrees in most of the so-called social sciences. If you want to do even better get a college degree in a science, engineering or math field. And if you want to do better still learn how to run a business and start one.

[AeonPax]

Yes. But at one time it meant something. American exceptionalsm wasn't about us being better than everyone else. It was about our system being different. Independent states represented by a limited federal government, grugingly created to collectively deal with other nations. Not to micro manage the states or the citizens.
`
`
It still means something to me....an abstract idealism, also called a "country".

[Kalkin]

But the right likes to control too. They just like to control different things. The "left " wants your guns but some of the "so called right" wants to ban pot. What do the sides have in common? Control freakism.
Hence my leaning towards libertarian philosophy. Smoke weed if you want. Own a gun if you want. It's not a problem until you do something to harm others by your actions. Freedom comes with responsibility. Behave irresponsible, lose freedom.

[Kalkin]

1) Yes, in the case of upward transfer of WEALTH I am taking about money, albeit mostly e-money, but money nonetheless.
It's a voluntary transfer. Like I said, some save, some spend. Spenders are more concerned with the present, savers, the future. To complain about this free flow of wealth is silly, imho, if you're a supporter of free choice in such matters.

2) Forced I guess not. I can pay taxes on my dollar and invest the remaining 65 cents in a local business or I can NOT pay taxes on that dollar until much later and invest the whole dollar in a form acceprtible to them. Some choice!
I'm not a fan of government trying to incentivize behavior via the tax code. We should have a flat consumption tax, imo. That being said, if we are to incentivize through the tax code, it should be with lower rates, not credits.


[QUOTE=donttread;2146257]3) Why do you think megacorps and the super rich spend so much money on politicians? Social conscience? No it's to tilt the table towards them and their offspring.
Because politicians are inherently corruptible. If we gave them less power, the bribe money would be greatly reduced.

3)The biggest predicter of your income is your parents income, or at least it was the last time I checked.
Nothing wrong with that.


So modern megacorps buy influence so that they can manipulate whole markets rather than truly competing within them. Like Citi-Bank holding millions of gallons of oil to push the price up while we bailed the rich basards out. Or like an oil industry so powerful in Washington that we fight wars to prevent the nationalization of their foreign assests and they never really pay the true cost of production. But they sure do reap the profits. That's what I'm talking aboyt. Influence bought to circimvent real free markets and competition.
Again, too much power centralized will always breed such corruption.

[donttread]

Grudgingly is a good way to express it. I'd recommend Sheldon Richman's well-documented America's Counter-Revolution to see just how much. The revolutionaries were radicals who wanted local government. They had after all fought against British central government. And many of them resisted implementing years later the implmentation of a federal government with the Constitution. As for the expansive nature of the government that followed unto this day, Richman blame's Madison's implied powers doctrine. Madison proposed as the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There was much debate, ed by South Carolina's Thomas Tudor Tucker, that, like in the Articles of Confederation, it should read "The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Inclusion of "expressly" limited the powers to those enumerated, or, of course, ammended. Without it, there was no real limitation.




Indeed. The idea of the Constitution was to manage the government. Now I doubt you or anyone object to the supreme law of the land forcing the states to also protect the rights of the people, sodme of which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. No, the objections are likely to be to those intrusions into our personal lives and social interactions by imposing the views and values of some on others.


Many don't know thwt the main opposition to the Constitutional government we got was from those who wanted even more limits on federal power. Turns out they were right!

[Ransom]

I mean this in the most helpful way. You do know you are a kook, don't you?
Now....I don't f'n care who you are...but that is some funny shiit right there.

[Ransom]

Many don't know thwt the main opposition to the Constitutional government we got was from those who wanted even more limits on federal power. Turns out they were right!
Can you provide a link to show you're right, donttread?

Watch this....this should be good.

[CaveDog]

May as well chime in. Better late than never.

In the late 17th century John Locke asked in his second treatise on civil government, why, long ago before government as we know it was established, would people have surrendered the absolute liberty they would have enjoyed in a "pure state of nature" in order to form "political" societies broader than the natural society of family? The answer is simple and obvious. Such societies afford a fair measure of certainty in an uncertain world. In order to enjoy the benefits of such a society people would have been willing to delegate some of the corresponding absolute individual authority they held in such a state of nature to government and refrain from exercising certain rights, allowing government to exercise those rights on their behalf using the authority delegated to it in order to better preserve that society and it's benefits. That is the essence of the "social contract". No more, no less.

I think that in the eyes of the founders, or at least the Jeffersonians among them, individual states weren't unlike individual people. The states would join the union and delegate the necessary authority to the federal government to preserve and defend that union. Nothing more, nothing less. To that end and that end only did we become the "United States". Like a social contract in theory exists among individuals for their own benefit, a social contract in the form of the constitution exists among the states for their own benefit. As the tenth amendment states, all other rights remain with the states and the people themselves.

[Peter1469]

Well said.

May as well chime in. Better late than never.

In the late 17th century John Locke asked in his second treatise on civil government, why, long ago before government as we know it was established, would people have surrendered the absolute liberty they would have enjoyed in a "pure state of nature" in order to form "political" societies broader than the natural society of family? The answer is simple and obvious. Such societies afford a fair measure of certainty in an uncertain world. In order to enjoy the benefits of such a society people would have been willing to delegate some of the corresponding absolute individual authority they held in such a state of nature to government and refrain from exercising certain rights, allowing government to exercise those rights on their behalf using the authority delegated to it in order to better preserve that society and it's benefits. That is the essence of the "social contract". No more, no less.

I think that in the eyes of the founders, or at least the Jeffersonians among them, individual states weren't unlike individual people. The states would join the union and delegate the necessary authority to the federal government to preserve and defend that union. Nothing more, nothing less. To that end and that end only did we become the "United States". Like a social contract in theory exists among individuals for their own benefit, a social contract in the form of the constitution exists among the states for their own benefit. As the tenth amendment states, all other rights remain with the states and the people themselves.