Whatever happened to FDR's second bill of rights?

reply to post by neo96


how are basic human needs funny?
Answer this; what happens if you don't eat?
What happens if you don't have shelter?
If it were you would you feel differently?
What about all those people who worked so hard and suddenly lost everything?
Should they just die if they lose a job, become disabled or elderly?
DO you really believe that person does not deserve at least a room to themselves and food? If someone is homeless they need that help because most people will not hire the homeless.
What are they supposed to rob a bank, steal or do something illegal?

meh your boring me.

simple fact people who think like me made this country

PEOPLE LIKE YOU are destroying it.


so im moving on.

How I am destroying it by having simple human compassion and love?
WEIRD! Answer my questions or do you not want to think about it.
Put yourself in this situation; you are suddenly kicked out of your place because you fell on hard times. You have no where to go and now family to help. Every single person is like you so you get no oppurnities to pull yourself back up.
What would you do?
By the way I was in this situation. I was almost homeless but because someone had human compassion for me I found a place to live. It could be anyone! We are all connected as human beings.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by dreamseeker]

How I am destroying it by having simple human compassion and love?
WEIRD! Answer my questions or do you not want to think about it.
Put yourself in this situation; you are suddenly kicked out of your place because you fell on hard times. You have no where to go and now family to help. Every single person is like you so you get no oppurnities to pull yourself back up.
What would you do?

by the way what is the incentative in working hard if your basic needs aren't meet. Some people work yet still can't afford their own homes.

You could what would generate incentives better than our current capitalist system?

If business firms were run democratically and people were payed not with an hourly wage, but based on their work output and quality of that work.

Welcome to Co-Operative Economics!

reply to post by zroth

There is no way that anyone in power would have allowed this to be pushed forward. FDR knew that he screwed America when he sold her to the bankers.

it was Woody Wilson ! not FDR that sold her to the Bankers ! TPTB !

see source even tho its wiki ! LOL
en.wikipedia.org...

History of the Federal reserve
www.bos.frb.org...

Woodrow Wilson, 1916, said: A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men. === TPTB

Source below on 100 page (106 of 114 )
National Economy and baking system

ia310842.us.archive.org...

quotes.liberty-tree.ca...


Woodrow Wilson was just the beginning
you would have to look deeper into the rabbit hole !

People warning of a nanny state that discourages productivity:

You have a point. But consider that America's natural rate of unemployment is at least ~5% This means millions of Americans are in poverty at any one time, and that for many of them, their poverty is due to no fault of their own.

Now, how about you think of a way to feed and shelter every American while encouraging productivity, or give your thoughts on my and dreamseeker's proposals.

IMHO, when the government doesn't do anything to stop people from dying, that's murder. Something needs to be done about this yesterday. Not even yesterday, more like last century. FDR was as frustrated about this in his time as we are now.


Also, whoever proposed raising the retirement age to 75:

According to UN estimates, the average life expectancy for males is 75.6 years. For females, it's slightly better--80.8 years. The point is, raising the retirement age to 75 years will cause many (even more?) people to work until they die, depriving them of the chance to have golden years.

[edit on 7/9/10 by skooper1895]

reply to post by skooper1895


we do have some good ideas some people are just so afraid it will take away from them that they can't see how it will help others.
Public housing is actually a good thing and should only be for those who are either disabled, elderly, very low income (under $15,000 per year); or homeless.

reply to post by dreamseeker


I agree with all of that.

But how likely do you think it is that our government will pass a proposal like ours anytime soon? That's not a rhetorical question; I'm just asking what you think.

I know that the Republicans will vehemently oppose such a proposal, and I have a gut feeling that the sensationalist mainstream media will cause it to be unpopular. For now, the responsibility to get it through without screwing it up will fall on the Democrats.

[edit on 7/9/10 by skooper1895]

reply to post by skooper1895


we can only hope. I know that if we can just get the right president and right officals in we might be able to do it.
It probably won't happen real soon but in the future I am hoping for a change...

reply to post by neo96

IT WAS clinton WHO BANNED all us defense stocking piling back in the 90s.

do you have any idea HOW MANY BILLIONS IF NOT TRILLIONS we would haved saved if we had continued to stockpile us arms and ammunition ?

Alright, and? I don't recall ever slapping Clinton on the back or fawning all over him in my posts, so whats your point, exactly?

NOONE GAVE the founding fathers crap.
NOONE GAVE out great grandfathers,fathers NOThING!

THEY fought,bled,sweat and made this country with their own to hands.

THIS IS what this country has become a bunch of lazy azz people who have no freaking clue how to survive and flourish without handouts.

Well, the Founding Fathers did make this country, but what did make this country a powerhouse was protectionist trade policies.

That's a fancy way of saying 'government regulated of trade'. And easier way of saying that is "it wasn't free markets".

reply to post by dreamseeker
You have completely misinterpreted Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs."
You will never understand sociology unless you consider the leading theories in context, and as a whole; not just in hand-picked slices.

He does not ever espouse that these are RIGHTS, but that to achieve self-actualization, a person must have certain preliminary considerations satisfied.

It is a theory of MOTIVATION: What makes people do what they do?

Note the main thrust: SELF-Actualization.

How can a person reach "autonomy" if they are reliant upon others for their lower, more basic needs?

The whole point of Maslow's theory and diagram are that man must "move up the ladder" from the most primitive of life's necessities to those of freedom and comfort. The achievement of these goals are his MOTIVATION.

He never suggested that the State or others should provide for or even enable the attainment of the core needs of civilized men.

When you boil Maslow down to the essentials, you see that self-reliance, independence and freedom from interference are the keystone to the development of a self-actualized person.

When people are motivated to achievement, they can reach self-actualization. If everything is given to them, motivation is unnecessary and ceases. Hence the failure of communist and socialist experiments.

You should re-take the course or change professors. Maslow was neither a collectivist, nor a socialist.

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by dreamseeker

At one time the rich paid 90% of all taxes and they still were rich. I don't want to take from the middle class to feed the poor.

People earning $141,000 and above STILL pay 90% of income taxes and their proportionate share of all consumption taxes - the more they consume, the more they pay in taxes.

If you think about a family of 4, with a mortgage, $141,000 gross income is far from "rich."

People earning $56,000 (US median income), pay over 86% of income taxes. Still very far from"rich."

Government already "takes from the middle class" more than enough to 'feed the poor,' is it weren't squandered, wasted and distributed to satisfy politically-correct or expedient parasites.

reply to post by jdub297

When people are motivated to achievement, they can reach self-actualization. If everything is given to them, motivation is unnecessary and ceases. Hence the failure of communist and socialist experiments.

Yeah, like those Nordic mixed-economy welfare states. There's totally no way that those countries are successful. Right?


I mean, just look at Norway.

Following the ongoing financial crisis of 2007–2010, bankers have deemed the Norwegian krone to be one of the most solid currencies in the world.... Norway maintains a Scandinavian welfare model with universal health-care, subsidized higher education, and a comprehensive social security system. Norway was ranked highest of all countries in human development from 2001 to 2007, and then again in 2009. It was also rated the most peaceful country in the world in a 2007 survey by Global Peace Index.... The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors.

Huh. I guess I was wrong about Norway.


Well, what about Denmark? They suck, right?

Denmark, with a mixed market capitalist economy and a large welfare state, ranks as having the world's highest level of income equality. Denmark has the best business climate in the world, according to the U.S. business magazine Forbes. From 2006 to 2008, surveys ranked Denmark as "the happiest place in the world", based on standards of health, welfare, and education. The 2009 Global Peace Index survey ranks Denmark as the second most peaceful country in the world, after New Zealand. In 2009, Denmark was ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world according to the Corruption Perceptions Index, ranking second only to New Zealand.

Now, I'm not saying that the USA should become as socialist as Denmark or Norway. But it seems that countries that were built from the ground up as social democracies can do pretty well.

[edit on 7/11/10 by skooper1895]

reply to post by skooper1895
You really need to reconsider your "examples," neither of which are socialist, but true capitalist economies.

From your source:

Norway was a founding member of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). In 1981, a Conservative government ... replaced the Labour Party with a policy of stimulating the stagflated economy with tax cuts, economic liberalization, deregulation of markets, and measures to curb the record-high inflation (13.6% in 1981).

Norway is a wealthy shipping and oil-producing nation. Its great oil resources and relatively small population allows the government to function with SURPLUSES of cash, with which it finances social welfare programs not available in other countries and larger populations. Its state-funded pension/sovereign wealth fund is second only to Dubai's.

Norway has never been socialist; it is a constitutional monarchy, much like the UK and other EU nations.

Same for Denmark, but with a much greater tax burden on individuals :
25% VAT
income tax rate is 42% to over 60%,
8% healthcare tax
180% tax on private vehicles on top of VAT.

Moreover, you seem to ignore that these are countries with populations of 4.9 and 5.5 million respectively; about the same as Alabama and Maryland or Wisconsin!. Give any American state the unlimited resources these little countries have, and they will have similar demographics.

They are almost entirely populated by indigenous people representing nearly 90%; there is no "melting pot" in either.
Their natural resources fund all social services. Are you advocating we close our borders and "drill, baby, drill?"

Just as your "Dreamy" friend should re-take sociology, you may want to consider 'social studies' as well.

Your "examples" fail.

jw

A lot of you seem to have missed this part in FDR's speech:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

I may never understand the idea of blaming the poor for their poverty. How it's completely acceptable that a priveleged few control the lives of so many, how fealty to a landowner is somehow considered 'free' in this country.

'But links, who will pay for all this?!'
You and I! Don't you understand the concept of working for the greater good? Working, not for the monetary exchange of your labor to some capitalist business owner, but for the betterment of your neighbor?

How many empty suburban homes are there since the collapse of the housing market? Millions.

How many people are homeless right now? 1.6 million!

This is NOT the 18th century, this is the 21st! We, as a species, are capable of progress! Not just in technology but in humanity.

Actually, YOU seem to have missed the point:

Originally posted by links234
A lot of you seem to have missed this part in FDR's speech:

... “Necessitous men are not free men.” ....

I may never understand the idea of blaming the poor for their poverty. How it's completely acceptable that a priveleged few control the lives of so many, how fealty to a landowner is somehow considered 'free' in this country.

By "privileged few," certainly you include the Obama administration and its endeavors to enslave more of the American public through government give-aways and "guarantees" that are anything but. Sadly, in an era of government-paid healthcare, education, food and housing subsidies, many of the "poor" are so by choice.

Don't you understand the concept of working for the greater good? Working, not for the monetary exchange of your labor to some capitalist business owner, but for the betterment of your neighbor?

What about the 'capitalist business owner' who provides opportunity, subsidized healthcare insurance, and a fair wage "for the betterment of [his] neighbor?"

Isn't it HE who drives the economy, providing the government with taxable revenue and wages to fund the subsidies of the poor?

Where, exactly, does the means of providing for one's neighbors come from, if not the industry and trade of the 'capitalist business owner?"

How many people are homeless right now? ... 1.6 million!

That's about 0.5% of the populace; what would you do to improve that (other than wring your hands and whine)?

This is NOT the 18th century, this is the 21st! We, as a species, are capable of progress! Not just in technology but in humanity.

Every species has its infirm and unproductive members. I'm pretty sure that Obama's new recess-appointed "healthcare rationing" czar will take care of ours.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
Actually, YOU seem to have missed the point:

What point is that?

By "privileged few," certainly you include the Obama administration and its endeavors to enslave more of the American public through government give-aways and "guarantees" that are anything but. Sadly, in an era of government-paid healthcare, education, food and housing subsidies, many of the "poor" are so by choice.

You say it like the administration will never change and that having healthcare provided to you is somehow enslavement...the fact that it's not provided as a public option but mandated with subsidies is not something I'm really cheering about. Perhaps you were referring to MEDICAID or something...

As long as your child is educated, that's fine...you don't have to send them to public school if you don't want to. I have no problem with the public school system, I wish the districts wouldn't bend to the will of a few parents though.

What about the 'capitalist business owner' who provides opportunity, subsidized healthcare insurance, and a fair wage "for the betterment of [his] neighbor?"

Isn't it HE who drives the economy, providing the government with taxable revenue and wages to fund the subsidies of the poor?

Where, exactly, does the means of providing for one's neighbors come from, if not the industry and trade of the 'capitalist business owner?"

Those are all, actually, pretty wonderful examples. At what point does the 'neighbor' start being simply a 'tenant' or an 'employee'? The same people that can offer this can also take it away. When employee benefits and wages are kept at a minimum level to maximize the profits of their employers is when it becomes a problem.

That's about 0.5% of the populace; what would you do to improve that (other than wring your hands and whine)?

How about putting some of them in those big, empty houses?

Every species has its infirm and unproductive members. I'm pretty sure that Obama's new recess-appointed "healthcare rationing" czar will take care of ours.

jw

Death-panels, zomg! Seriously though, rationing of healthcare happens everyday in this country. Now, we have public officials whom we can hold accountable...instead of some board of directors that will wave you away a let you die because you can't pay.