Capitalism and Socialism

#52
#52
In all fairness to FDR, he did warn that his policies were a temporary fix that the rest of Congress was too lazy to look at rewriting. Those policies were to be in place long enough for everyone to get to work, then government was supposed to let go of the policies and return America to her former small government glory, however politicians after FDR decided the best thing to do was keep control and thus we have the current ever-expanding government we do now.
 
#53
#53
joevol24 said:
In all fairness to FDR, he did warn that his policies were a temporary fix that the rest of Congress was too lazy to look at rewriting. Those policies were to be in place long enough for everyone to get to work, then government was supposed to let go of the policies and return America to her former small government glory, however politicians after FDR decided the best thing to do was keep control and thus we have the current ever-expanding government we do now.
Click to expand...

I truly believe this about FDR as well. In that time people didn't want handouts. For the most part they were much prouder and wanted to work for what they were given. We are a far cry from that social climate.

Once people learn they can legislate what to do with other people's money they will never stop. That is the biggest lesson in all of this.
 
#54
#54
Lexvol said:
I truly believe this about FDR as well. In that time people didn't want handouts. For the most part they were much prouder and wanted to work for what they were given. We are a far cry from that social climate.

Once people learn they can legislate what to do with other people's money they will never stop. That is the biggest lesson in all of this.
Click to expand...

I have always struggled with FDR as well, I think his intentions were good and he did not intend for this to become a permanent fixture. At the same time I believe he was rather naive to think that other politicians would not seize on this idea to further their causes and bolster their power.
 
#55
#55
The thing about politicians, is they don't want to stop at regulating your money, once they get control of that, they find something else to regulate and before you know it, you are in a full blown communist society. The more freedoms we give up now, the more they will take from us tomorrow. They will not be satisfied for long by just owning the banks. Big Brother is watching you. Be careful of the mindspeak. They are already warning against opposition thinkers calling it right wing extremism. If we continue on the path Obama and his cronies have started us on, the prosperity of America is all but forgotton. Until we get back to the Constitution, which expressly forbids pretty much everything we are doing now, we are headed for a world of trouble.
 
#56
#56
KB5252 said:
I have always struggled with FDR as well, I think his intentions were good and he did not intend for this to become a permanent fixture. At the same time I believe he was rather naive to think that other politicians would not seize on this idea to further their causes and bolster their power.
Click to expand...

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

James Madision - Federalist Papers (my favorite section)

System of checks and balances (i.e. the constitution) was the auxiliary precaution. FDR ignored the constitution and the Supreme Court (he personally appointed 9 justices) at that time let him get away with it.
 
#57
#57
By your assertion then, since Woodrow Wilson was in office, our system of checks and balances has been ignored. Not a president since has went by the letter of the law, Some for good reason, others just because they could.
 
#59
#59
joevol24 said:
By your assertion then, since Woodrow Wilson was in office, our system of checks and balances has been ignored. Not a president since has went by the letter of the law, Some for good reason, others just because they could.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court validated his unconstitutional programs. See Social Security and one of the worst decisions ever by the Court. Social Security was clearly unconstitutional but the decision was reached during a crisis and has not been overturned by the court. The decision has since become precedent for other far reaching programs that would shock our forefathers.

The Supreme Court was supposed to be the checks and balances for FDR but by expanding the court, he found a way to change its balance.
 
#60
#60
Why is it that far left liberals deny being socialists, even when they really are. Most conservatives proudly claim to be capitalists.
If you're going to have a political opinion, be mature enough to own it.
 
#61
#61
I'm a liberal! And I'm not socialist. Just because I want the government to take care of me (seeing as how I'm a single mother) it does not make me a socialist. I am all for free enterprise and all that stuff. I think, though, that subsidized housing and welfare and medicare are all great programs that help my quality of life and my son's. All of you conservatives are the one's that are ruining this country. Just look at Bill Clinton, and then look at GWB. Any questions?
 
#62
#62
UpTownGirl said:
I'm a liberal! And I'm not socialist. Just because I want the government to take care of me (seeing as how I'm a single mother) it does not make me a socialist. I am all for free enterprise and all that stuff. I think, though, that subsidized housing and welfare and medicare are all great programs that help my quality of life and my son's. All of you conservatives are the one's that are ruining this country. Just look at Bill Clinton, and then look at GWB. Any questions?
Click to expand...

:popcorn:
 
#63
#63
UpTownGirl said:
I'm a liberal! And I'm not socialist. Just because I want the government to take care of me (seeing as how I'm a single mother) it does not make me a socialist. I am all for free enterprise and all that stuff. I think, though, that subsidized housing and welfare and medicare are all great programs that help my quality of life and my son's. All of you conservatives are the one's that are ruining this country. Just look at Bill Clinton, and then look at GWB. Any questions?
Click to expand...

So because you made bad choices, the government should take money that I earn and hand to you. Makes sense to me. Why is it the governmentÂ’s (my) responsibility? Where is your family, church, etc..?
 
#64
#64
UpTownGirl...

Do you want to stay on these programs, or are you actively looking and working to find ways to support yourself?
 
#65
#65
UpTownGirl said:
I'm a liberal! And I'm not socialist. Just because I want the government to take care of me (seeing as how I'm a single mother) it does not make me a socialist. I am all for free enterprise and all that stuff. I think, though, that subsidized housing and welfare and medicare are all great programs that help my quality of life and my son's. All of you conservatives are the one's that are ruining this country. Just look at Bill Clinton, and then look at GWB. Any questions?
Click to expand...

You just typed the very issue that makes one socialist. Those who want or need to depend on the government for their needs are socialist.

Clinton had the republican majority to keep him in check. Bush didn't have that until Pelosi and Reid took control, even then under the leadership of Pelosi it was still a disaster. And Bush was terrible. Most republicans will tell you that, mostly because he grew the government and spent like a drunken sailor.

I would suggest you do some reading about socialism, it looks like you have no clue as to what it means.
 
#67
#67
UpTownGirl said:
I'm a liberal! And I'm not socialist. Just because I want the government to take care of me (seeing as how I'm a single mother) it does not make me a socialist. I am all for free enterprise and all that stuff. I think, though, that subsidized housing and welfare and medicare are all great programs that help my quality of life and my son's. All of you conservatives are the one's that are ruining this country. Just look at Bill Clinton, and then look at GWB. Any questions?
Click to expand...


How are conservatives ruining the country?

By your logic the conservatives have all the money that is paying for your government assistance. You should be thanking them!

:banghead2:



Bubba was great because he had a check with a republican congress.

I would take Bubba over W and Obama any day!
 
#68
#68
UpTownGirl said:
I'm a liberal! And I'm not socialist. Just because I want the government to take care of me (seeing as how I'm a single mother) it does not make me a socialist. I am all for free enterprise and all that stuff. I think, though, that subsidized housing and welfare and medicare are all great programs that help my quality of life and my son's. All of you conservatives are the one's that are ruining this country. Just look at Bill Clinton, and then look at GWB. Any questions?
Click to expand...

OK, did one of you veteran posters make a new user profile and post this? Very funny :)
 
#73
#73
Lexvol said:
What 378 is saying is that the Dems can't wait for WWIII to pull us out of this economic slump!
Click to expand...

Wrong.... We wouldn't be in an economic slump if war could pull us out of it.

What I was and am saying is the Great Depression and the economic slump we are in now both happened during Republican leadership.... no one can deny that !!!!
 
#74
#74
volinbham said:
What's wrong in you post is the causal attribution. :hi:


Here's another example: During Bush's term, Jimmie Johnson won 3 consecutive Sprint Cup Championships. Therefore, Jimmie Johnson is responsible for the economic situation.
Click to expand...

Typical Republican response.... Facts are the GOP was in control when the Great Depression started and when the economic slump we are in now started...

If Bush and the Republicans in Congress had followed Jimmie Johnson lead and turned left a little more we may not be in the mess we are now....
 
Last edited:
#75
#75
Vols378 said:
Wrong.... We wouldn't be in an economic slump if war could pull us out of it.

What I was and am saying is the Great Depression and the economic slump we are in now both happened during Republican leadership.... no one can deny that !!!!
Click to expand...

A limited engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan can hardly be compared to WWI or WWII.

As to the second point......what's your point? Are you saying republicans concocted a plan to drive America into the ground? That they are poor leaders, just what are you trying to get at here?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top