Are today's mainstream politicians to the right or left of FDR's template?

[financeguy]

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”
---FDR, 1944

Food for thought, it seems to me that much of what is listed above would be described as socialism in today's environment.

 

[indra]

Food for thought, it seems to me that much of what is listed above would be described as socialism in today's environment.

Yup.

 

[Caleb8844]

I would've described it as socialism then, too.

 

[BVS]

I would've described it as socialism then, too.

Doubt it.

 

[Caleb8844]

...Did you seriously just tell me what I would think?

 

[BVS]

...Did you seriously just tell me what I would think?

Have you ever described Reagan, Bush Sr or Bush Jr as socialists?

 

[Caleb8844]

Reagan, no. But Bush Jr, and Sr both spent money like a drunk sailor at a brothel, so I'm not sure I'd consider them socialistic (I'd have to have a bit more knowledge of their policies than I do to make that decision) but I'd definitely consider them extremely careless with the nation's finances.

 

[BVS]

Reagan, no. But Bush Jr, and Sr both spent money like a drunk sailor at a brothel, so I'm not sure I'd consider them socialistic (I'd have to have a bit more knowledge of their policies than I do to make that decision) but I'd definitely consider them extremely careless with the nation's finances.

There's a consistency issue with many republicans today, they have new found "principles" with no sense of context. If you were to call that socialism, like you said, then in order to be consistent you would have to call Reagan a socialist.

 

[Caleb8844]

Explain to me exactly what policies republicans would consider socialistic thatReagan instituted. Not being argumentative, I just would like to know if they're are things I'm not aware of, or if we just disagree on this.

 

[BVS]

Explain to me exactly what policies republicans would consider socialistic thatReagan instituted. Not being argumentative, I just would like to know if they're are things I'm not aware of, or if we just disagree on this.

How about this; you show me one of those rights on the list that Reagan was against, didn't sign or maintain policy regarding? And I'll show you your consistency problem. Sound fair?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Reagan, no. But Bush Jr, and Sr both spent money like a drunk sailor at a brothel, so I'm not sure I'd consider them socialistic (I'd have to have a bit more knowledge of their policies than I do to make that decision) but I'd definitely consider them extremely careless with the nation's finances.

I don't really understand how you're linking spending and socialism.

And besides, doesn't Reagan easily pummel them all in terms of spending/deficit? Or did Bush Jr manage to trump even him?

 

[Caleb8844]

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;


It's hard to find a particular quote from Reagan about this, but he IS the only president to not raise minimum wage. So that says something.


*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;


He did break up some monopolies, so I'll give you that.


*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;



Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <---I'd say it's a safe bet that he didn't support the idea of government right health care.


*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;


He had suggested privatizing socail security, or making it optional. So it doesn't appear as though he wanted government too involved in those matters either


My point is, regardless of whether he believed in these rights, he didn't view the central government as the best means to supply them.

 

[Caleb8844]

I don't really understand how you're linking spending and socialism.

And besides, doesn't Reagan easily pummel them all in terms of spending/deficit? Or did Bush Jr manage to trump even him?

I associate the two because, in my mind, more government spending leads to more government control.

Change in debt in terms of GDP during Reagan's first term: +11.3%
during his second term: +9.3%
during George Bush Sr's term: +13%
during George Bush Jr's first term: +7.1%
during his second term: +20.7%
during Barack Obama's first YEAR: +9%. Extrapolating that for his full term (which is, admittedly, not an extremely accurate practice) would have him increasing the debt percentage by 36%, which is completely unprecedented.

 

[BVS]

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;


It's hard to find a particular quote from Reagan about this, but he IS the only president to not raise minimum wage. So that says something.

He gave amnesty to how many illegal citizens? And part of his reasoning was so that they had the opportunity to earn.

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;



Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <---I'd say it's a safe bet that he didn't support the idea of government right health care.

Reagan cut taxes in 1981, but then raised them in 4 other times. He raised them in 1983 to pay for Social Security and Medicare.

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;


He had suggested privatizing socail security, or making it optional. So it doesn't appear as though he wanted government too involved in those matters either

I'm sorry, did he privatize Social Security? No, in fact he never made one move to do so. Hell even W went on a 4 state speaking tour to try and gain support for it. But he failed miserably, even in his own party.

My point is, regardless of whether he believed in these rights, he didn't view the central government as the best means to supply them.

You need to learn a little more about Reagan. The real Reagan, not his myth. So if what you said is true, Reagan is a socialist by your definition.

 

[BVS]

I associate the two because, in my mind, more government spending leads to more government control.

Change in debt in terms of GDP during Reagan's first term: +11.3%
during his second term: +9.3%
during George Bush Sr's term: +13%
during George Bush Jr's first term: +7.1%
during his second term: +20.7%
during Barack Obama's first YEAR: +9%. Extrapolating that for his full term (which is, admittedly, not an extremely accurate practice) would have him increasing the debt percentage by 36%, which is completely unprecedented.

Now look at these numbers closely and tell me honestly if you believe they tell the whole story?

Wow, look at those Reagan numbers... Where are Clinton's numbers?

 

[Caleb8844]

He gave amnesty to how many illegal citizens? And part of his reasoning was so that they had the opportunity to earn.

It's a commonly held belief that he granted amnesty to those illegal citizens to provide for more cheap labor for employers.

Reagan cut taxes in 1981, but then raised them in 4 other times. He raised them in 1983 to pay for Social Security and Medicare.

While he did raise taxes eleven times, all the tax raises together only managed to eat up about half of the effects of his first tax cut. I'm can't find any documentation about the reasons for the tax increases, so I'll take your word for that. I was nowhere close to even being alive back then, so I have no idea

You need to learn a little more about Reagan. The real Reagan, not his myth. So if what you said is true, Reagan is a socialist by your definition.

What exactly did I portay my definitions of socialism to be, in your opinion?

Now look at these numbers closely and tell me honestly if you believe they tell the whole story?

Wow, look at those Reagan numbers... Where are Clinton's numbers?

I'm not sure it does. But what exactly do you think is ignored by those numbers?

I chose not to list the Clinton numbers, because we were only discussing Reagan and the Bush's at the time, but Clinton's numbers were absolutely extraordinary: -9.7%!

 

[BVS]

What exactly did I portay my definitions of socialism to be, in your opinion?

Um, your first post in this thread, that's what started this whole discussion.

 

[Caleb8844]

Well then, yes. I believe that feeling that the government is the sole provider for the "rights" listed at the beginning of this post is somewhat socialistic.

 

[BVS]

I'm not sure it does. But what exactly do you think is ignored by those numbers?

I chose not to list the Clinton numbers, because we were only discussing Reagan and the Bush's at the time, but Clinton's numbers were absolutely extraordinary: -9.7%!

You equate spending with socialism, so why don't reagan's high numbers bother you?

I'm just trying to understand your, and the right's inconsistency?

 

[BVS]

Well then, yes. I believe that feeling that the government is the sole provider for the "rights" listed at the beginning of this post is somewhat socialistic.

Now you're changing your tune. There was NO mention of 'sole' provider.

 

[Caleb8844]

Now you're changing your tune. There was NO mention of 'sole' provider.

With the list being compared to the Bill of Rights, I inferred it to have a direct connection with the rights being supplied by the government. Sorry if i failed to explain my thinking fully, or if i misinterpreted the nature of the first post.

 

[purpleoscar]

Those right$ are nice but in order to achieve them you need to pay for them via taxation of other profitable enterprises and individuals. If an economic downturn occurs it means you can't pay for the particular right or it has to be reduced to some level recipients don't like it makes that right hard to be inalienable. Maybe the taxpayers should have a right that their money is spent properly and that budgets have to be balanced. If taxes had to go up more often (and sooner) instead of relying on borrowing the public would be more skeptical of benefit increases.

 

[BVS]

With the list being compared to the Bill of Rights, I inferred it to have a direct connection with the rights being supplied by the government.

Does the government supply your gun, or just your right to own?

 

[Caleb8844]

The right to own a gun, and the right to make a certain salary are completely and totally different.

 

[BVS]

The right to own a gun, and the right to make a certain salary are completely and totally different.

You are reading FAR too much into these quotes. Where is the dollar amount salary stated?

If some on the right would spend as much energy studying context and history that you do on trying to find socialism and communism where it doesn't exist we wouldn't be where we are today.

 

[Caleb8844]

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation"

Whether or not it states a dollar amount salary, it does imply a guaranteed level of economic prosperity.

 

[BVS]

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation"

Whether or not it states a dollar amount salary, it does imply a guaranteed level of economic prosperity.

ADEQUATE food, ADEQUATE clothing, ADEQUATE recreation. So in order to not be socialist a government should butt out of all employment regulations and allow for naked, starving servitude?

Seriously? And we wonder why we're here?

 

[Caleb8844]

ADEQUATE food, ADEQUATE clothing, ADEQUATE recreation. So in order to not be socialist a government should butt out of all employment regulations and allow for naked, starving servitude?

Seriously? And we wonder why we're here?

And here's where Liberals and Conservatives differ: I don't think there's any possible way for the government to supply people with an acceptable level of life for any significant period of time. Private enterprise, initiative, and hard work is the only way to make absolutely sure to procure that for oneself. The more government is involved in granting everyone a similar standard of living, the lower that similar standard is.

Now I understand that there's probably no way we'll ever agree on this, because I think we both come very opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but I'm just trying to explain that it's not that I'm AGAINST these rights. Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Convservatives, me, you --- we ALL can agree that everyone should have the right to have the ability to live in an acceptable, comfortable manner. We just disagree on the best way of providing it. Can we agree on that?

 

[BVS]

No one said anything about 'supplying' the means. You keep twisting words, is this what you mean by idealogical spectrum? If so you're right, I don't want to twist words.

But a government can and should provide the regulations that bar servitude.

 

[Caleb8844]

If the government leaves everyone in "starving, naked servitude" as you so quaintly put it, by butting out, it is implied that the government is needed to supply these things. I'm tired of this debate though, because you just want to argue.