tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post5567007392726688334..comments2023-07-07T04:02:25.375-04:00Comments on Sane Political Discourse: FDR's Fifth TermPatrick Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-18814726533719492072009-01-11T23:23:00.000-05:002009-01-11T23:23:00.000-05:00Saty: Probably. That's why I favor a constitutio...Saty: Probably. That's why I favor a constitutional republic rather than the grabtastic ubermom that is our currents state of affairs.<BR/><BR/>Arthur: Yeah, it was conservatism that did everything. Whatever. <BR/><BR/>First of all, Reagan was one smart motherfucker. However, he was one man, and conservatism left the GOP shortly after he left office. It started to make a comeback in 1994, but was more or less gone by 2000, then essentially forgotten in the rush to bail shit out.<BR/><BR/>But you also have corruption and criminal acts, which the Dems have in equal measure. Need I even start in Chicago? Both parties need to exorcise (or maybe exercise (until heart attack)) the scum from their party. We'll take the specifics as they come.<BR/><BR/>So I know exactly what I'm wishing for.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-13811852467419198612009-01-10T15:17:00.000-05:002009-01-10T15:17:00.000-05:00PatrickM typed:'A weak government is just weak, an...PatrickM typed:<BR/><BR/>'A weak government is just weak, and could be any kind of government that isn't doing its job.'<BR/><BR/>Ronald Reagan:<BR/><BR/>"Government isn't the solution government. Government is the problem."<BR/><BR/>And so his and subsequent Republican administrations set out to make this prophecy come true. Political cronyism, corruption and criminal acts have marked Republican/Conservative rule since 1981. The federal government has taken a drastic turn to becoming as corrupt and ineffectual as those I mentioned.<BR/><BR/>As I said. Be careful what you wish for. <BR/><BR/>Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-85576019155472002312009-01-10T14:58:00.000-05:002009-01-10T14:58:00.000-05:00government (the usurper of personal freedom).Isn't...<I>government (the usurper of personal freedom).</I><BR/><BR/>Isn't this the basis for the anarchist movement?Satyavati devi dasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13980257934310271457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-47993368686411311142009-01-10T09:21:00.000-05:002009-01-10T09:21:00.000-05:00Shaw: So it's a matter of throwing more money aft...Shaw: So it's a matter of throwing more money after the first trillion?<BR/><BR/>The problem is not that Roosevelt didn't spend enough. It's that the government got into the business of trying to drive the economy in the first place. And while I wouldn't necessarily want us get rid of everything that came out of the New Deal, it's the idea of government as a rescuer that is my issue. Because when government gets involved, there's usually larger consequences.<BR/><BR/>Related note: I watched a 2-hour show on the Dust Bowl last night (primarily because it fit into my current line of thought. Essentially, it was caused by the combination of a cyclical drought and overtilling of the land by farmers. They were lured out there by the promise of large tracts of "free land" by none other than the federal government (I forget which president is to blame for it). So naturally, disaster ensued. And of course it cost an assload of money to bail them out. But at least we got the concept of soil conservation out of it.<BR/><BR/>Arthur: There's a difference between a limited government and a weak government. A limited government has specific territory they manage and control, and their primary purpose is secure individual rights. A weak government is just weak, and could be any kind of government that isn't doing its job.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-8447362579198535362009-01-09T17:27:00.000-05:002009-01-09T17:27:00.000-05:00Patrick M typed:... limiting government (the usurp...Patrick M typed:<BR/><BR/>... limiting government (the usurper of personal freedom).<BR/><BR/>Remember.<BR/><BR/>Somalia has a very weak, ineffective governmental institutions at all levels.<BR/><BR/>Ditto Haiti. Ditto Afghanistan. Ditto Sudan. Ditto Pakistan. Etc. Etc.<BR/><BR/>Be careful what you wish for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-32065587829411931542009-01-09T15:07:00.000-05:002009-01-09T15:07:00.000-05:00Crikey. That should read "...Roosevelt DIDN'T do ...Crikey. That should read "...Roosevelt <B>DIDN'T</B> do ENOUGH--spend enough for recovery."Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-41519986367930626012009-01-09T13:53:00.000-05:002009-01-09T13:53:00.000-05:00Much of what Obama is facing is exactly what FDR d...<I>Much of what Obama is facing is exactly what FDR did. And the New Deal isn't going to work any better this time than it did the last time.</I><BR/><BR/>Critics have said the New Deal didn't work as well as it could have because Roosevelt did do ENOUGH--spend enough for recovery.<BR/><BR/>Also, in those days, there was no such thing as unemployment, Social Security, and other safety net programs. We have those programs in place to day so that even though the situation is bad, it isn't as horrid as in the '30s.<BR/><BR/>I'm not an economist, and neither are you, and economics is not an exact science anyway.<BR/><BR/>Obama at least has some of the best brains in the country advising him--chosen because of their expertise and not their ideological loyalties. Because his particular plans don't agree with your libertarian philosophy, that doesn't mean they're not viable and sound.<BR/><BR/>Even the best doctors will disagree on how to go about curing a life-threatening disease, but they do agree on one thing--they want to save the patient's life.<BR/><BR/>I think the same thing is applicable in this situation.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-48887500676113934152009-01-09T13:26:00.000-05:002009-01-09T13:26:00.000-05:00Soapster: I probably would. I'm assuming the pre...Soapster: I probably would. I'm assuming the premise is that the New Deal sucked and that it did nothing but grow and entrench government in our daily lives while providing "hope" until some external event saved us.<BR/><BR/>Probably why Arthur doesn't like the guy.<BR/><BR/>Arthur: It's never been about right wing vs left wing for me. It's about unlimiting personal freedom and limiting government (the usurper of personal freedom).Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-65171482659653402142009-01-09T13:08:00.000-05:002009-01-09T13:08:00.000-05:00The life of John T. Flynn is indeed eerily apropos...The life of John T. Flynn is indeed eerily apropos of the political climate of today. A fighter in the cultural wars which rage today between left (godless Marxists) and right (real Americans).<BR/><BR/>A Norman Thomas supporter turned Joe McCarthy acolyte.<BR/><BR/>Setting the stage for a generation of right-wing opportunists?<BR/><BR/>Michael Medved. David Horowitz. Hitchins. etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-14410680717066405282009-01-09T11:52:00.000-05:002009-01-09T11:52:00.000-05:00Patrick, if you can get your hands on a copy, I'd ...Patrick, if you can get your hands on a copy, I'd recommend a book titled:<BR/><BR/><I>The Roosevelt Myth</I> by John T. Flynn<BR/><BR/>I'm reading it right now (my Grandfather sent it to me). It's eerily apropos to the political climate of today. Given your posting here, you'd probably enjoy it (if for nothing more than vindication).Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-61220968226128735232009-01-09T09:09:00.000-05:002009-01-09T09:09:00.000-05:00Shaw: I'd file it under snark, if I were you.Firs...Shaw: I'd file it under snark, if I were you.<BR/><BR/>First of all, it is my hope that President Obama will do the things that will get us out of this mess we're in.<BR/><BR/>But after the speech today, I'm lacking on hope (as in screaming obscenities at the TV), because there were two things I took out of the speech. And this was before I heard the reactions of the talkers.<BR/><BR/>First, I hear a program where we are going to be throwing TRILLIONS (with an f'ing "T") to 'fix' this problem. If you remember how much yelling I was directing at Bush and Boehner, and the assface (no need to name him), and all the big government Republicans, then you can see why the promise of more and bigger government solutions is bound to piss me off, especially when I see....<BR/><BR/>Second, there's a reason I went back and read through an entire FDR speech. It's because, in essence, Obama's economic plan (as far as I've seen) is essentially another plan to spend a lot of money, make a lot of 'make work' jobs, further entangle the government in every damn aspect of our lives, and ultimately make the situation worse for the next generation (New Deal 2.0). And we're probably not going to have a world war to rescue us this time.<BR/><BR/>The simple fact is that hope will not dig us out of this. We're facing a recession that has been delayed for years by continued government involvement in 'regulating' the economy, a mentality that we should only be growing, and reliance on building credit. Much of what Obama is facing is exactly what FDR did. And the New Deal isn't going to work any better this time than it did the last time.<BR/><BR/>And if you're familiar with that history, the New Deal just kept us limping along until a second recession in 1937, and only the fact that we had to gear up and fight a war saved us, eliminated our personal reliance on credit, and focused us as a nation.<BR/><BR/>So if Barack Obama wants to "trade old habits for a new spirit of responsibility" and "finally change the ways of Washington," then he's going to need to do one thing. And that's reverse a trend that's been going on since 1930!Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-14794474412298224862009-01-09T08:38:00.000-05:002009-01-09T08:38:00.000-05:00I'm not sure if your final remark about "change we...I'm not sure if your final remark about "change we can believe in" is a whine or a snark.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me as well as quite a few other Americans that Barack Obama has been working diligently to get his team ready to hit the ground running on January 20.<BR/><BR/>This country faces enormous challenges, and no one person has the answer to all its problems.<BR/><BR/>Obama isn't the only one who understands that we face problems quite similar to those Roosevelt faced in his first term.<BR/><BR/>If Obama is using some of the ideas as a guide to develop programs to get our economy moving and people working, why is that a reason to snark "change we can...etc"?<BR/><BR/>Do people believe he should experiment with this situation--see what works and play around with more disaster?<BR/><BR/>There's nothing wrong with using the tools that other leaders used to solve economic problems in the past.<BR/><BR/>It is naive to think that Obama will do the exact same thing as did Roosevelt, since we do not live in the same times.<BR/><BR/>I pointed out in a post on my blog that a lot of people forget that after our last horrendous disaster (9/11), Pres. Bush had a 90% approval rating--that means a whole lot of Democrats were behind him and his policies for dealing with the terrorists who attacked us. And Bush also had a majority of Americans supporting him when he decided to invade Iraq. People have forgotten that he had this majority support. Well he did.<BR/><BR/>It was only after the American people began to see how disasterously the war was being conducted, only after the terrible blundering of Hurrican Katrina that his popularity eroded, and never recovered.<BR/><BR/>I bring this up to point out that it will do this country no good to whine and piss on Pres.-elect's plans--(he's not president yet). We have to see how his programs will play out.<BR/><BR/>We did it for Bush, we can do no less for Obama, as he faces the worst economic situation since Roosevelt did when he spoke to the American people and gave them something to hope for.<BR/><BR/>*she steps off her soapbox and quietly leaves the room*Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.com