-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Compromise?
- Thread starter flaja
- Start date
Werbung:
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
WHOOOA, now that's a real CHRISTIAN thing to say...when all else fails you and you've worked yourself into quite a little girly snit...just tell those people to "GO TO HELL".
TSK, TSK, TSK...very mature, very CHRIST LIKE and oh soooo telling
WHOOOA, now that's a real CHRISTIAN thing to say...when all else fails you and you've worked yourself into quite a little girly snit...just tell those people to "GO TO HELL".
TSK, TSK, TSK...very mature, very CHRIST LIKE and oh soooo telling
Would you like to join him? I hear Hell has a special wing just for fools like you. It is apparent that none of you libs here can engage in a worthwhile conversation. You have little command of the facts so you substitute vitriol and venomous rhetoric. You cannot help but be hostile towards people that aren’t stupid enough to fall for your rhetoric and then you get self-righteous when someone stands up to you.
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
Scroll back and re-read that first topic where you showed the depth of your 'PORN' knowledge and took the DISCUSSION straight down the slippery slope into the GUTTER...
Yep, HOOOWEEE MOMMA, you are all that and the big bag of chips too.So the question for you would be the same for 'ALWAYS': "I hear Hell has a special wing just for fools like you." you are the hand puppet for SATAN and that's the commands that you follow
at least now we'll ALL KNOW THE SERMON THAT YOU PREACH HAS IT'S ORGINS WITH THE FALLEN ANGEL THE ONE THAT GOD CAST OUT OF HEAVEN!!! Glad that you've came forward and straightened it all out...wouldn't want anyone confusing you with a 'GOOD DISCIPLE' now would we We all realize that you sweet Karl Rove, Druggie Limbaugh, Clubber Lang types liked it better when Liberals just sang give peace a chance and refused to fight the Radical Right back in kind.
Those days are over my friend. You ain't so bad...
No. If liberals were still like FDR, they wouldn’t be so bad.
flaja I want you to know we try... we really try. But when we see the harm you guys do... we just go bizerk!!!
if democrats were like JFK, they would not be so bad. at last he had some respect for the Constitution and fiscal restraint.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
State interference with the economy is what led to the recent economic collapse. Of course, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. You're convinced Americans had too much economic freedom and so your statist solution is to further limit our economic freedom. Those limits will necessarily lead to further limits and rather than solve problems, you will simply create more problems.
Controls breed controls
Like most anti-capitalists, you're conflating two philosophical concepts; capitalism and hedonism. They are not the same thing.
The interest in laissez-faire capitalism is based on respect for, and protection of, individual rights of all persons. I fail to see how my interest in seeing that everyone's individual rights are respected and protected can somehow be characterized as "greed", unless you seek to subordinate the rights of individuals to the will of the collective.
Obviously you're hostile to capitalism, so I won't waste my time trying to change your mind. Instead, I'd like to hear about the moral foundations of your preferred system... a system which you've so far neglected to name.
Lastly, you haven't answered your own question, what principles are you willing to compromise and in trade for what?
What harm?
FDR called himself a liberal and he was liberal by the standards of his day. But by today’s standards FDR was far more conservative than any of his Republican successors have been.
Unlike Republicans and Democrats of recent decades FDR was a deficit hawk. He was not interested in budget-busting federal spending even at the cost of prolonging the Great Depression. In the midst of the One Hundred Days Congress that approved, with astonishing speed, FDR’s first round of New Deal relief, recovery and reform programs in 1933 came the Economy Bill- legislation deigned to reduce federal spending by cutting veterans’ benefits and salaries for federal employees. He drastically cut federal spending for welfare and public works after 1936 when it appeared the economy was on the verge of recovery, but the resulting loss of money circulating in the economy lead to the recession of 1937- which FDR was blamed for.
All-in-all FDR was no friend to labor unions. He wanted employers and labor to get along together and then NIRA/Wagner Act gave unions guaranteed legal standing that employers were supposed to recognize, but FDR saw unions as the source of labor unrest and he believed that labor unrest would prevent economic recovery. More often than not when a union did call a strike FDR sided with management.
FDR was opposed to spending the money necessary to stimulate the economy. He didn’t entirely understand or trust what later became known as Keynesian theory whereby government spending is supposed to stimulate the economy, but FDR was never willing to spend enough money to do it. In the long run Ronald Reagan was more of a Keynesian that Roosevelt was even because of his defense build-up even though Reagan was supposed to be the champion of supply-side economics.
FDR was opposed to welfare spending as much for philosophical reasons as budgetary reasons. He (correctly) thought government handouts would encourage people to be lazy and unwilling to accept whatever jobs that may be available. Direct government payments to individuals during FDR’s administration were a pittance compared to what they become under Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Slick, Bush II and now Obama. The so-called liberal FDR was more opposed to the welfare state than any of his so-called conservative successors have been. FDR told Congress that the welfare dole was, “a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit…I am not willing that the vitality of our people be further sapped by the giving of cash, of market baskets, of a few hours of weekly work cutting grass, raking leaves or picking up papers in public parks. The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief”. No Republican president since FDR has ever had nerve enough to say this and then follow through with spending cuts.
FDR did intervene in the economy quite a bit. However much of the intervention was directed at the laissez-faire policies that had allowed the economic bubble that was the Roaring Twenties to develop and then burst. Furthermore, things like the TVA originated with Republican Progressives rather than FDR, and even the TVA was more of a conservative program than is usually thought. The TVA was no different from the roads and canals that the federal government had been subsidizing ever since George Washington was president. Our tradition of federal help for business and industry is as old as the Republic itself is. The private sector had no desire to create something like the TVA even though it was needed. While the electric power industry began around 1880 by 1935 only 10% of American households had electric power. There wasn’t enough profit for private industry to want to lay the power lines needed to serve customers that were spread out in rural areas (even with TVA only 50% of U.S. households had electricity by the year 1950). And even with the federal government building the dams individual communities had to raise the money necessary to lay the power lines.
And a lack of state intervention in the economy (SEC, FDIC for example) lead to the Great Depression. When the government refuses to regulate greed and fraud, greed and fraud will run rampant and the entire economy is put at risk.
Because you don’t or won’t see the whole picture.
Like all naive laissez-faire libertarians, you are refusing to recognize human nature for what is. When capitalism is totally unregulated by law, capitalism and hedonism are the same thing.
Prove it.
Werbung:
Roads and canals was a Whig thing intended to direct federal money to cronies which was always a disaster compared to the promised ROI.
FDR was Lincoln II and was our first socialist president.
Are there more liberal presidents than FDR ? Certainly, because he opened the door for it.
I appreciate you are a fan, I am not.
Similar threads
