Re: OT - society's obligation? VERY LONG

One could argue that we have been on a slow Socialist course since FDR and the New Deal.

While I have supported Free Enterprise to the fullest for most of my adult life, there are some areas which may find me to be contradictory.

Capitalism, in my opinion, does require regulation. There have been too many situations where when it was not done so, abuses and outright crimes have been committed. We can argue how much regulation, but I believe we cannot be without any regulation. Too much regulation however often leads to stagnation, scarcity and overall lack of entrepreneurism.

The "redistribution of wealth" concept can have its extremes and failures just as much as the 'trickle down economy" concept. In my opinion, both can be dangerous or even unobtainable without some government intervention. The notion of taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor is hardly new as the history of society has taught us. The concept of Social Darwinism actually backfires in most cases. Marx clearly defined the war between the "lower class " or proletariat versus the "upper class " or bourgeoisie in his definition of Communism.

Eventually, the proletariats win but in most cases, only for a limited time. As the proletariat rules and rises to a new power, they indeed become the new bourgeoisie they once fought against and thus the cycle again begins.

I believe FDR understood this better than he led on. While FDR spearheaded a complete watershed of government programs and policies, he also warned of the powerful "narcotic" the creation of dependency would become if left to grow. FDR was a strong Capitalist, and he felt government would always be the catalyst of the improvement of the economy in America. He did however whether intended or not move us on a Socialist road.

As we moved out of the Great Depression and a later emerged from a world war, the entire generation of "New Deal" Americans changed everything. The GI Bill and the Veterans Housing programs changed everything. The attitude of government being more than just a catalyst but of actually being the creator and regulator of the economy and Capitalism became a mantra of America.

Truman, Kennedy and especially LBJ took the concept even farther into the 60's generation. Kennedy and LBJ led this newer generation of baby boomers on a "New Frontier" and "Great Society" in which GOVERNMENT was going to end Poverty, enforce Civil Rights, and improve our society. And most of us at that time embraced it.

I think most can argue that things in America did indeed get better but also came at a price. Our nation began to spend more and save less. We created massive deficits and began a debt. Some of us called attention to it in the late 60's but most of us really didn't worry enough about it.

The Energy Crisis in 1973 changed everything-forever. Many of you probably do not remember (or were not even born) the first Energy Crisis in America. I can remember Las Vegas being only about 1/2 lit up and many parts of the strip having the lights turned off. I can remember PRICE FREEZES from a REPUBLICAN president named Nixon who was as anti Socialist as they came. He was anti Communist too but went to "RED" China. Seems we don't use that word "Red" when we talk about China anymore. Nor do we use the word "Peiking" to describe their capital city. Nixon and Ford moved us in a "Socialist" direction more than ever before. They had to make decisions they felt best for the times.

We as Americans became fed up with all that (of course) and elected an 'outsider' named Jimmy Carter to toss all them damn republicans out and "Watergate" with them. Some feel that while Nixon's Price controls were very Socialist, we also may have tossed out good fiscal policy and foreign policy when Carter came in.

Carter also supported Lee Iacocca and helped to save Chrysler If anything was an act of Socialism, it was government's intervention with Chrysler. Most people embraced it and many feel it worked.

Carter and Alfred Kahn however managed to create double digit inflation, massive interest rates (anyone remember 20%), a recession and high unemployment all at the same time. Think Bush is bad? Check out Carter in 1979. And let us not forget Iran and the hostage crisis. America was seen as a timid blind bull in a China shop. We were the paper tigers of the world.

So, we Americans became fed up-again-and we tossed out our incumbent president-again. In came the
great communicator, the savoir of America, the last crusader of Capitalism, rugged individualism, and leader to that shining city on the hill---RONALD REAGAN! Out went peanuts and beer and in came Jelly Beans and Booze.

But more importantly out went the New Deal, New Frontier, Great Society, Peace with Honor, WIN (Whip Inflation Now--remember those silly buttons?) Crises of Confidence, and Less is Better.

In came Trickle down Economics, Supply Side Economics, Reaganomics, Just Say NO (to Brezhnev and Gorbachev, the Air traffic controllers-more than drugs), Religion, Astrology, and the problem with Government is that GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM. Eisenhower was back! We got us a REAL Cowboy in the White House and he isn't a TEXAN (they would com later.) And boy did we embrace that! Enough of this wimpy stuff. Enough of this FDR, Marshal Plan, Kennedy/LAB/Carter Sissy crap! Nixon/Ford? Old stuff-gone!

REAGAN! REAGAN! REAGAN!

And like the Kennedy/LAB years, life in America became good again. Inflation went down, economy went up, big business rebounded, and America became the badass of the world again. But everyone seemed to like America being a badass again-especially the world and I personally believe RR made the world a safer place. Heck even "Gorbie" liked him and Mrs Thacher had the hots for him!

Most importantly, America LOVED Ronald Reagan and still misses him. For a while there, even the liberals were hiding from Ronald Reagan. (Some actually became Reagan Democrats-but more on them later.)

Then he couldn't run for a third term (and his mind was slipping anyway) but if he had run, he would have won even with his mind going. So we turned to George Herbert Walker Bush. Or Bush 1. Actually, we would never have had Bush in my opinion if Dukakis had kept campaigning. He handed that election to George.

But George was what we got and for a while things looked pretty good with George. He continued Reaganomics and Reagan foreign policy pretty much. He let Wall Street do its thing-unregulated-and America
was fine with that. Heck, everyone was making money, right?

Well not exactly. It seems several of the Savings and Loans in America were 'cooking the books'. Anyone remember some 'kid' named Neil Bush? Isn't he the brother of Bush 2? (Ugh, yeah). Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion. Neil Bush, was Director of Silverado at the time. Most blamed the S & L Scandal and Crisis on lack of proper regulation. I blame it on that an Congress being asleep at the switch. Sound familiar?

Then came the recession of 1990-91 and even though Bush 1 did a good job in Iraq and pulled us out quickly as promised-lots of people objected to him NOT taking out Saddam. My guess was that the biggest one to object was his son-George Walker Bush (better known as W or Bush 2.-but more on him later.)

So we voted to toss another incumbent-again-and vote in a new fresh face-again. George was really not that bad, but the guy running against him was a better communicator than RR-if that was even possible. While RR could make you kiss your sister on the lips, this guy could make you stick in your tongue and enjoy it!

Bill Clinton was the Democrats version of Ronald Reagan. Damn, how I wish the two could have debated and run against each other! Anyone who calls Bill Clinton a liberal is a fool. While Reagan was indeed a Conservative, Bill Clinton was even better-he was (and still is) a PRAGMATIST. Bill Clinton can agree with you on both of the issue, lie thru his teeth and still get away with it. He truly earns the mantle of the words, "The Comeback Kid". Hillary Clinton may rise and fall-but not Bill! Have you seen him on the campaign trail "running for Barrack Obama"?

Are you kidding me?

Bill is still running for Bill. If Obama wins, Bill will stand in his shadow worse than Teddy Roosevelt did for Howard Taft. And Bill never shuts up. He just cannot help himself. Reagan Democrats will only return to the party if Bill leads them-not Hillary and NEVER Obama.

I will skip "W" as he has been bashed enough. My biggest disappointment with Bush 2, was not the things that happened around him that he could not control-(911, a do nothing Congress, and finally the Wall street Mess) but the things I feel he could have controlled.

Bush never seemed to rally or galvanize the American people for any real long period of time on anything! He had a great chance after 911 but blew it. More transparency and better preparation on his speeches would have helped him greatly. YOU MUST COMMUNICATE WELL WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! FDR wrote the book on it. Bush need a victory somewhere and perhaps thought it would be Iraq.

Even a do nothing President can salvage his presidency with the American people if you learn to communicate! History will show us that Clinton accomplished almost as little as W. But people will remember Clinton in a more positive light than W because Bill communicates!

Which finally brings me to Obama. Is Obama a Socialist? Ok, but only as much as FDR, Kennedy and LBJ were. But is he more a Pragmatist like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton?

OH ABSOLUTELY! My prediction is if he wins, he will come out of the starting gate as liberal as he has always been, but like Clinton, after getting his ass slammed by Congress after the first two years, he will move quickly to the Center. But will the country turn more Socialist...it never really stopped. Perhaps it slowed down a few times, but we are still moving towards it. Obama's victories will come if he moves more to the Center.

The question is our we a Socialist Republic or a Capitalist Republic (or a little of both)? But we have not been a Democratic Republic since 1929.

I welcome your opinions.

Mike









































"Nonnymus" <awss@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:RsaLk.6490$ys6.3605@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
salmoneous@xxxxxxx wrote:
It is called Socialism. We work, the gov;t takes the $$$ and hands it
out as they please. Lenin loved it.- Hide quoted text -

Actually Don, that isn't what is called socialism. I know you and all
the Obama bashers seem to think so, but it isn't. There are things
called dictionaries. They even exist online. Use one and learn what
the word means.

The concept of working and paying taxes that the government spends -
believe it or not - is the system we've had in the US for a long time.
Anyone who insults that system is insulting America. As it usually
happens, the folks bashing the American way are on the Right, not the
Left.

Socialism begins when the gummint goes from building and maintaining an infrastructure to redistributing earnings to the masses in order to buy their way into office.

--
Nonnymus-

We have reached a time in our nations history
where the grasshopper is slowly consuming
the ant. Whatever happened that made thrift, hard
work and family the target of liberal rage?

.

Loading