Baculus Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Who is "your people"? And, I am not "named after a guy who was named after Harry". I am named after a fictional movie character, Truman Burbank.I'm not sure why you have gone down this road. What does Obama remotely have to do with any of those presidents you listed. It's certainly not from any political philosophies they share. FDR would have to be the closest because of the big federal government programs, but I don't believe even he envisioned what the federal government has grown into today. Obama is a progressive similar in the same mold as FDR, who, BTW, was in charge during a large federal expansions. This creation and expansion of federal programs was aimed directly to "attack" the Great Depression. (The interesting detail is that, at the same time, FDR and the Democrats at that time were also pushing for a reduction in federal spending though the consolidation and abolishing of unneeded federal departments and a balanced budget.) Here is quote from the 1932 Democratic platform, elements of which would be "radical" even today in the 21st century. "In this time of unprecedented economic and social distress the Democratic Party declares its conviction that the chief causes of this condition were the disastrous policies pursued by our government since the World War, of economic isolation, fostering the merger of competitive businesses into monopolies and encouraging the indefensible expansion and contraction of credit for private profit at the expense of the public." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1932 Obama is a left wing liberal with strong socialist ideas. I don't think we've had a president (or even presidential candidate except for maybe McGovern) that was as liberal as he is. Please demonstrate this further, and also please demonstrate how his platforms is strongly "socialist." Let's not mix-up American Progressivism, purveyed by folks such as Teddy Roosevelt, Robert M. Lafollette, and FDR, and social democracy with socialism. They are not one and the same. Once you start describing some of these "socialist" attributes, you may realize that some of them are already here. Even our public utilities and services are often centralized and "socalized." It's here. It's just a question to what degree it will continue, or expand, in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 Once you start describing some of these "socialist" attributes, you may realize that some of them are already here. Even our public utilities and services are often centralized and "socalized." It's here. It's just to degree it will continue, or expand, in the US. Oh, no doubt, this is pretty much a socialist country already. I stated that in Burgold's thread about this being a socialist country. And the blame lies just as much with the Congress and the American people, not just with the presidents that have come and gone. I also agree, it's a question of to what degree it will continue to expand. I personally would gut the Federal government and not kind of gutting that the loon Ron Paul proposes. I would keep in place those departments and programs that provided a true "safety net" for the less fortunate. Wasn't that the original intention of FDR's New Deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Oh, no doubt, this is pretty much a socialist country already. I stated that in Burgold's thread about this being a socialist country. And the blame lies just as much with the Congress and the American people, not just with the presidents that have come and gone. I also agree, it's a question of to what degree it will continue to expand. I personally would gut the Federal government and not kind of gutting that the loon Ron Paul proposes. I would keep in place those departments and programs that provided a true "safety net" for the less fortunate. Wasn't that the original intention of FDR's New Deal? Yeah, in modern terms, it really isn't "socialism," in the strict doctrine of the word. That is why I sometimes mention social democracies which we see in the West that have elements of socialism, but they also some of the attributes of liberal democracies. (That is, personal property, the free market, strongly developed individual liberties, etc.) Social "safety nets" are also one of the hallmarks of modern social democracies. (But so is a higher level of taxation as well, which is the trick, for citizens to figure out how much do they want to pay and for what services.) And yes, FDR's New Deal did advocate the creation of such safety nets. The 1932 Democratic platform, in 1932, stated the following: "We advocate the extension of federal credit to the states to provide unemployment relief wherever the diminishing resources of the states makes it impossible for them to provide for the needy; expansion of the federal program of necessary and useful construction effected [sic] with a public interest, such as adequate flood control and waterways." There are certainly debates to the pros and cons of New Deal policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUVEM&HATEEM Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Obama gets busted lying again. This time using the financial crisis to scare the elderly. Here's the link:http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/696969.html Excerpt: And here's another Obama lie about Social Security. Here's a link to FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/scaring_seniors.html Excerpt: Obama's campaign is getting dirtier by the minute. It doesn't get any worse than trying to scare the elderly. This will surely backfire on him. What about all Mcsame lies. He has allways been on Bush supporter. Now he acts like he is against him and says Bush administrations was a failure. Why did he say that when 2 weeks ago he said the economy is strong, he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time so why is he running now. He is the same he is old and out of whack. Then he goes and gets a woman out of a small town that dont even relate and know what is going on in the real world. She hunts moose and twerks all day and lies constantly(bridge 2 nowhere). How would you feel with her as the president she wont be running nothing her husband will probably be telling her what 2 do. you c he got her under control with all them kids he keep planting in her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 What about all Mcsame lies. He has allways been on Bush supporter. Now he acts like he is against him and says Bush administrations was a failure. Why did he say that when 2 weeks ago he said the economy is strong, he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time so why is he running now. He is the same he is old and out of whack. Then he goes and gets a woman out of a small town that dont even relate and know what is going on in the real world. She hunts moose and twerks all day and lies constantly(bridge 2 nowhere). How would you feel with her as the president she wont be running nothing her husband will probably be telling her what 2 do. you c he got her under control with all them kids he keep planting in her. May I request that your next post be written in English. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 May I request that your next post be written in English. Thank you. When I read posts like that I think about how Democrats claim to be the intelligent ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.