The FDR legacy among the American right

Originally posted by sh76
I was being facetious. Although, I don't know what stations those shows air on in the mornings in NY, if they do.

maybe NY is too conservative for their listeners.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
maybe NY is too conservative for their listeners.

It is interesting that, even in NYC area, generally a bastion of liberal politics, talk radio is dominated by the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks and Sean Hannitys.

Fascinating.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
No I don't think so. I think he's trying to empower people to stand up to statism and corruption in our political system. If the tea parties, town halls, and recent elections are any indication he's been pretty successful.

Beck's style really bugs me, but there's a lot more there than just gloom and doom. Overall, he's delivering an an empowering message and he's having a big impact.

Beck's empowering message is: C'mon!! Everyone Unite!! Get really really ANGRY! Shake your fists in the air! Shout from the mountaintops that "We're NOT gonna take it!!" (Twisted Sister music optional). Unfurl the Revolutionary Banner!!!

(this message brought to you by the Fortune 500. Now have a nice day.)🙂

Originally posted by Melanerpes
But the American people's effort to dismantle the state will peter out at the moment the first "death panel" is created to decide which ones are the first to have their Medicare benefits cut.

A conundrum.

Yeah, there's the rub. How to curtail statism when so many now depend on the state? Sacrifices will have to be made. Those sacrifices will come anyway though, if not in our generation then in the next. The wheels are going to come off this Ponzi scheme one way or another.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Yeah, there's the rub. How to curtail statism when so many now depend on the state? Sacrifices will have to be made. Those sacrifices will come anyway though, if not in our generation then in the next. The wheels are going to come off this Ponzi scheme one way or another.

That's why Beck and all the other right-wingers need to start focusing on what specific kinds of sacrifices the people need to make. Come up with specific ideas for reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits. Come up with specific ideas for reducing the size and scope of national defense. Come up with specific ideas for reducing the costs of education. And urge everyone to oppose ALL tax cuts until the budget is balanced.

And please tell Mr. Liddy that the gold market is looking an awful lot like the housing market in 2006

Originally posted by Melanerpes
That's why Beck and all the other right-wingers need to start focusing on what specific kinds of sacrifices the people need to make. Come up with specific ideas for reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits. Come up with specific ideas for reducing the size and scope of national defense. Come up with specific ideas for reducing the costs of education ...[text shortened]... ase tell Mr. Liddy that the gold market is looking an awful lot like the housing market in 2006

"Come up with specific ideas for reducing the size and scope of national defense."

Why would any one in their right mind want to do this?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
"Come up with specific ideas for reducing the size and scope of national defense."

Why would any one in their right mind want to do this?

It's part of the evil big gummint that's run by the statists.

It's also a big welfare program providing education, healthcare benefits, jobs, self-esteem, and community development. The ads always talk about how they'll make your KID army-strong, they don't ever talk about how your kid can make the ARMY strong.

Obviously, we need to have a strong defense system to protect America's interests. But surely there's a lot of wasteful spending in there that could be cut.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
It's part of the evil big gummint that's run by the statists.

It's also a big welfare program providing education, healthcare benefits, jobs, self-esteem, and community development. The ads always talk about how they'll make your KID army-strong, they don't ever talk about how your kid can make the ARMY strong.

Obviously, we need to have a strong d ...[text shortened]... ca's interests. But surely there's a lot of wasteful spending in there that could be cut.

But this was not the role of the federal government set in place by the Founding Fathers. The areas that were given them to govern were national defense, immigration, issuing currency, raising revenue to operate the federal government, foreign relations, and resolving conflicts between the states. So what you say the federal government SHOULD do is NOT what how the system was set up. This is what federalism is all about. The issues you brought up should be settled on a state by state level. This is one of the rubs against progressivism. They seem to wish to set up a new form of government. An example is FDR's second bill of rights. This includes a right to a "good" paying wage and a retirmement and health care and a home etc, etc etc. Compare that to the fisrt bill of rights set in place by the Founders such as freedom of religion and freedom to bear arms etc etc. One bill of rights wishes to empower the state over our lives to "give" us things as where the other seeks to restrain the government from taking things away from you. So as we see, the progressive model takes things from us forceably but the other wishes to restrain such powers.

Originally posted by whodey
But this was not the role of the federal government set in place by the Founding Fathers. The areas that were given them to govern were national defense, immigration, issuing currency, raising revenue to operate the federal government, foreign relations, and resolving conflicts between the states. So what you say the federal government SHOULD do is NOT what ...[text shortened]... gressive model takes things from us forceably but the other wishes to restrain such powers.

So if this is what Beck and the Tea Party Movement want, they need to come right out and say it.

State very clearly that you want to eliminate programs like Medicare and Social Security that were not envisioned by the founding fathers, and replace them with entirely state-run programs, and specifically support only those candidates that pledge to do this.

Perhaps Beck is afraid that the mere thought of just slightly cutting Medicare and Social Security might cause many of the Tea Partiers to hurl Beck himself into Boston Harbor. If so, I hope someone gets the video up on You Tube 😀

Originally posted by Melanerpes
So if this is what Beck and the Tea Party Movement want, they need to come right out and say it.

State very clearly that you want to eliminate programs like Medicare and Social Security that were not envisioned by the founding fathers, and replace them with entirely state-run programs, and specifically support only those candidates that pledge to do th ...[text shortened]... to hurl Beck himself into Boston Harbor. If so, I hope someone gets the video up on You Tube 😀

The point is that federalism has been dying a slow death. Is this a "good" thing? Well if you are a progressive the answer is yes. What you want is state run this and that at a centralized level.

Regarding Social Security and Medicare, however, there are identifiable issues now that they are in place. As I have stated time and time again social security is being robbed by the statists. Money is thrown into the fund and payed out and then anything left over is stolen with a big old IOU put in its place. How can any statist justify this? How can any socialist justifiy this? In fact, it is unjustifiable yet the statists and their supporters defend the program as if it were a sacred cow. In addition, Medicare is said to be headed toward insolvency. In fact, the statists such as Obama have said as much. I think their confession regarding this has to do with the fact they were pushing for an even bigger government health care program. Otherwise I doubt they would have said such things about it. The bottom line is that change is needed whether you be a statist or otherwise.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Why would any one in their right mind want to [come up with specific ideas for reducing the size and scope of national defence]?

I think there is wide acknowledgement that U.S. defence spending, after decades of gravy trainism, is bloated beyond all reason. The U.S. could probably defend itself just as credibly and effectively on 50% of its current budget.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think Beck's message is that doom is a-coming, and we might as well buy some gold since it's a good investment.

Wait a minute! Beck has a message? He's not just an act? I thought he was like Colbert? Isn't he a comedian? I think he's got some of you people snowed. I think it is really just about Beck making some cash.

Originally posted by FMF
I think there is wide acknowledgement that U.S. defence spending, after decades of gravy trainism, is bloated beyond all reason. The U.S. could probably defend itself just as credibly and effectively on 50% of its current budget.

50% to 70% of the current military budget is economic welfare. A fraction of which gets farmed back into local communities to keep the country afloat while the only thing of value we still produce is weapons. There's hardly a semi-productive activity that happens in America without some tie back to government cash. Start just cutting the chaff and you might find a yourself in a hole - but that is true about any chunk of spending. That's the rub with our current system (and incidentally the only real difference between Democrats and Republicans - they represent different corporations.)

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Start just cutting the chaff and you might find a yourself in a hole - but that is true about any chunk of spending.

I won't accept that 'military spending' is an effective welfare system - and it's not what you are suggesting, I know. As you say only a fraction of it gets farmed back into local communities to keep the country afloat. So the depth of the 'hole' the U.S. might find itself in if spending were to be reduced would surely be mitigated by the same money being used for a more targetted and efficient form of welfare. Weapons production for export is one thing, but weapons production for 'domestic consumption' is surely just inflationary and a cackhanded mechanism for upward wealth redistribution.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay, since my wife won't drive in a snowstorm I had to drive the kiddies to school today. Of course, there are always a few morons out there who think it's unsafe to drive more than 5 MPH when it's snowing, so traffic slows to a crawl. So, I ended up being in the car for 90 minutes this morning between dropping off the kids and driving to work.

So, as you c s comparing Obama to FDR something that Glenn Beck believes will inspire hatred of Obama?

As I have told you in the past, you need to read Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Lavine. He writes, "In the 1930's during the Great Depression, the Statists successfully launched a counterrevolution that radically and fundamentally altered the nature of American society. FDR and an overwhelmingly Democratic congress through an array of federal projects, entitlements, taxes, and regulations known as the New Deal breached the Constitutions firewalls. At first the Supreme Court fought back, striking down New Deal programs as exceeding the limits of federal constitutional authority, violating state soverignty, and trampling on private property rights. But rather than seek an expansion of federal power through the amendment process, which would likely have blunted Roosevelt's ambitions, Roosevelt threatened the very makeup of the Court by proposing to pack it with smpathetic justices who would go along with his counterrevolution. Although Roosevelt's plan failed, the justices had been effectively intimidated.j And new justices, who shared Roosevelt's statism, began replacing older justices on the Court. It was not long before the Court became little more than a rubber stamp for Roosevelt's policies. The federal government began passing laws and creating administrative agencies at a dizzying pace, increasing its control over economic activity, and, hence, individual liberty. It used taxation not merely to fund contstitutionally legitimate governmental activities, but also to redistribute wealth, finance welfare programs, and establish pension and unemployment programs. Roosevelt used his new power to expand political alliances and create electoral constituencies--unions, farmers, senior citizens, and ethnic groups. From this era forward, the Democratic party and the federal government would become inextricably intertwined, and the Democratic Party would become as dependent on federal power for its sustenance as the governmental depedence it would create. Ironically, industrial expansion resulting from WW2 eventually ended the Great Depression, not the New Deal. Indeed, the enormous tax and regulatory burden imposed on the private sector by the New Deal prolonged the economic recovery. The significance of the New Deal is not in any one program, but in its sweeping break from our founding principles and constitutional limitations. Roosevelt himself broke with the two term presidental-term started by George Washington by runnig for four terms. His legacy includes a federal government that has become a massive, unaccountable conglomerate. It is the nation's largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contract, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor."

"There was a time when FDR, the Statist's favorite president, was an Originalist who respected the Constitution's wise formulations and purpose. In 1930, as governor of New York, he delivered a speech condemning "the doctrine of regulation by "master minds" in whose judgement and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce....Were it possible to find "master minds" to unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost god-like in their ability to hold the scales of Justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interest of the country, but there are none such on our political horizen, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history. He added, "Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government." But alas, Roosevelt went on to become the very "master mind" he had denounced earlier in his political career. In his 1944 State of the Union adress to Congress, Roosevelt declared, "This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable rights--among them the right of free speech, free press etc. They were our rights to life and liberty. But for Roosevelt, these rights were no longer enough. He went on to propose a second bill of rights based upon "security and prosperity". The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or forms of mines of the Nation; to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living, of every business, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; of every family to a decent home; to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; to a good education.
This is tyranny in disguise. These are not rights. They are the Statist's false promises of utopianism, which the Statist uses to justify all trespasses on the individual's property. Liberty and private property go hand in hand. By dominating one the Statist dominates both, for if the individual cannot keep or dispose of the value he creates by his own intellectual and/or physical labor, he exists to serve the state.. The Second Bill of Rights and its legal and policy progeny require the individual to surrender control of his fate to the government."