C-SPAN: Dennis Prager: ‘Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse’

Posted on January 23, 2012 by Erik Schneider

IHGH Video_ Dennis Prager's Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America WorseSource:Townhall– Right-wing radio talk show host Dennis Prager: speaking at the Western Conservative Summit in 2011.

Source:FRS FreeState

“Dennis Prager’s Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse. From Townhall.”

From Townhall

I think Dennis Prager is smarter than what he seems to want people to believe, especially on the hyper-partisan Right. You even hear him say things that he meets all the stereotypes of the stereotypical (meaning not real) Liberal in America:

He’s from New York

He’s Jewish

He went to Columbia University

Which tells me that Dennis Prager is not talking about Liberals, but stereotypical Liberals. (Meaning not real Liberals)

Hyper-partisan right-wingers, people who are right-wing populists, want Americans to believe that Liberal is a short way of saying anti-establishment, hipster Un-American revolutionary, who wants to move America to Scandinavia economically, politically and culturally, who hates everything that America is supposed to stand for, who wants to take down the man (meaning the white man) and replace the American government with some type of socialist state. Perhaps a democratic socialist state, but perhaps not, because remember that Far-Leftists actually don’t have any real issues with communism. And some of them are actually honest enough to admit that.

So, maybe Dennis Prager is actually talking about Socialists and like closeted Socialists in America he’s scared to death of the s-word, as well as c-word. Or he’s like these other hyper-partisan, right-wingers, who want Americans to believe Liberals actually meet the stereotypes of what Liberals are supposed to be and what they are supposed to believe in, because they’re afraid that Americans might discover that they’re actually pretty liberal and it’s not just Far-Leftists who are illiberal (meaning not liberal) but Far-Rightists are just as illiberal, because they have their own crackdowns when it comes to things like free speech, personal freedom, even property rights and U.S. Constitution. And these Far-Rightists are terrified that Americans will learn what the Far-Right really is and who they really are.

Posted in FRS FreeState, New Right, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FORA-TV: Daniel Lowenstein- Five Reasons to Keep the Electoral College

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Erik Schneider
Attachment-1-267

Source: FORA-TV– Professor Daniel Lowenstein 

Source:FRS FreeState 

“UCLA Law Professor Daniel Lowenstein offers five arguments to maintain the Electoral College as the method for choosing the President of the United States.

The Electoral College was developed by our founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution as a system of checks and balances to ensure a fair outcome in the choosing of our presidents.

However, the highly publicized 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the contest to George W. Bush, galvanized those who wish to see the Electoral College scrapped in favor of a national popular vote.

Come hear our panel of distinguished experts discuss the merits and pitfalls of the two systems, and the wisdom of moving from a tried and true process to something new – The Commonwealth Club of California

Daniel Lowenstein teaches Election Law, Statutory Interpretation & Legislative Process, Political Theory, and Law & Literature. A leading expert on election law, he has represented members of the House of Representatives in litigation regarding reapportionment and the constitutionality of term limits. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the award-winning theatre troupe Interact and regularly brings the company to the School of Law to perform plays with legal themes, such as Sophocles’ Antigone, Ibsen’s Rosmerholm, and Wouk’s The Caine Mutiny Court Martial.

Professor Lowenstein worked as a staff attorney at California Rural Legal Assistance for two and one-half years. While working for California’s Secretary of State, Edmund G. Brown Jr. in 1971, he specialized in election law, and was the main drafter of the Political Reform Act, an initiative statute that California voters approved in 1974, thereby creating a new Fair Political Practices Commission. Governor Brown appointed Professor Lowenstein as first chairman of the Commission. He has served on the national governing board of Common Cause and has been a board member and a vice president of Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights.”

From FORA-TV 

Why do we have an Electoral College in the United States? To keep elitist Democrats and Republicans who believe people who live in small states are redneck and hillbilly’s who don’t matter and that their votes don’t count, from ignoring them. If you’re in a tight presidential race and it’s going to come down to a few of states swing states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana matter and that forces you to campaign there.

And those voters get to see who’ll be the next President of the United States as well who are also taxpayers. Instead of snobby Democrats just campaigning in the Northeast, Mid Atlantic, Florida, a few big States in the Midwest and California. And just speaking to the wine and cheese yuppie crowds. Now they have to campaign in Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado.

Or snobby Republicans just campaigning in the Bible Belt Bible toting crowds and cherry pick a few states in the Midwest. In order to get elected President of the United States. Now they have to see if they can pick off Pennsylvania or Michigan or Illinois or Wisconsin or Minnesota. That’s why we have the Electoral College, to prevent snobby presidential candidates from just targeting 50% of the voting public. Plus one vote in order to get elected President of the United States.

We don’t live in a majoritarian democracy, where 50% plus one is all you need to get into power as far as being President. Or a parliamentary democracy where we let our members of Congress make these decisions for us. We live in a republic in a form of a liberal democracy and being President is harder to achieve. Is our Electoral College perfect? of course not, but I sure as hell would take over anything that the rest of the world has. But we could definitely improve it.

And if that probably takes a constitutional amendment to accomplish that, then I would be open to that. I have a problem with presidential candidates winning the popular vote in at least one case by a million votes with Vice President Al Gore back in 2000 and not winning the presidency. Even though a million more voters preferred that Al Gore be President of the United States, instead of Governor George W. Bush. I’m not saying that as a Democrat, I really have a problem with that and see that as small d and l anti-liberal democratic.

But not to the point where I’m willing to throw out the Electoral College. And replace it with a popular vote or move to a parliamentary social democracy like you see in Europe. I would like to see a political system that keeps the Electoral College, but amends it to be President of the United States, you have to win the Electoral College as well as popular vote. If there’s a split decision, we would have a runoff a week later between the top two presidential candidates. Which would be decided by popular vote.

I would like to see other changes to our presidential electoral system as well. If you only win lets says 40% of one state but finish first with multiple candidates, you shouldn’t be awarded with all the electoral votes. But instead they would be divided up for everyone. Based on what percentage of the vote they get.

If you win 60% of a state or more, then you can keep all of the electoral votes. That would be a better electoral system that would be more democratic. But not scrap the Electoral College because some people believe others have too much say based on where they live and don’t like their culture and lifestyles.

Posted in FRS FreeState, Liberal Democracy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

So This is Washington: The Real Mitt Romney?: The Multiple Choice Politician

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Erik Schneider

_ - 2021-06-29T142516.909Source:So This is Washington– U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) running for reelection in 1994.

Source:The Daily Press 

“Footage from the Romney/Kennedy Debate, October 1994”

From So This is Washington

Mitt Romney

Source:So This is Washington– U.S. Senate candidate Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) the multiple choice politician.

Who is Mitt Romney? Which is a question I would like to know the answer too and 18 years later since he started running for office in 1994, I still don’t know the answer too. I think we know who is father was, George Romney who was a Progressive Republican from Michigan and Governor of that state. But his son I think the best answer to that question is he’s whoever he thinks he needs to be at any given time depending on what public office he’s running and what jurisdiction he’s running in.

In 1994 Mitt was a Progressive Northeastern Republican, which is different from being a Progressive Democrat.

In 2002 Mitt when he ran for Governor, I think was still that Progressive Republican, but took harder right-wing stances on social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, because he wanted to run for President in 2008 as a Republican.

In 2012 Mitt sounds like a Neoconservative on foreign policy, national security, and homeland security, and a Tea Party Republican on economic policy, except for trade, because again he wants to be President as a Republican.

It’s that old pop culture cliche will the real Mitt Romney stand up. (Actually, I just invented that myself) The problem with that is there might not be a real Mitt Romney, at least not one Mitt Romney when it comes to politics. And he might not know who he is ideologically either.

Posted in The Daily Press, The Kennedys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Democracy Review: Real Time: Bill Maher ‘on Un-Presidential Campaign For President’

Posted on January 12, 2012 by Erik Schneider

IMG_5915

Source:Democracy Review– Bill Maher and panel on Sarah Palin.

Source:The Daily Press

“Sarah Palin’s Unpresidential Campaign on Real Time with Bill Maher. As they said, Palin is absolutely unbelievable….

From Democracy Review

Sarah Palin (whether she’s even aware of it or not) is not a politician. She’s barley a political activist. She’s basically a Fox News host (except she’s not smart enough for FNC to have her own show) who goes around the country telling people the first thing that comes to her mind. Which is generally very cute and funny.

As Melissa Harris Perry  on this show said, Americans are use to reality TV, even if they know it’s not real and hearing someone like a Sarah Palin speak about subjects they know nothing about like they are experts. Paul Revere being the perfect example of that.

Sarah Palin at best is a political entertainer and satirist and sometimes a damn good one who can be very funny (even intentionally) but she’s not a serious politician and perhaps never has been.

Posted in Real Time, The Daily Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

C-SPAN: George Will: ‘Dependency On Government is The Liberal Agenda’

Posted on January 5, 2012 by Erik Schneider

C-SPAN_ George Will_ 'Dependency on Government Is the Liberal Agenda'Source: C-SPAN– Conservative columnist George Will, at CPAC in 2010.

Source:FRS FreeState

“George Will: ‘Dependency on Government Is the Liberal Agenda’ Visit Polijam for all the news.”

From PoliJam

Ronald Reagan a man I’m sure the great conservative author and columnist George Will admires, had a saying and I’m paraphrasing: “That it’s not that people don’t know thats the problem, but it’s the amount that people don’t know that’s not true thats the problem.” And the people who are dangerous are the people who who know so much thats not true and actually believe what they say. Representative Michele Bachmann, qualifies for the ladder.

George Will who I like for his sharp wit and intellect about politics, sports, and other issues qualifies for the former when it comes to liberalism. I’m sure Mr. Will is a genius about everything else he talks about, but when it comes to liberalism he’s a raving moron. Sort of sounds like the drunk on the street corner who always has a bottle in his hand and perhaps is only sober when he’s asleep, who feels the need to shoot his mouth out about everything that he knows nothing about pretending to be an expert on everything he talks about.

I’m a Liberal and damn proud of it that’s how I describe my politics and it’s always how I’ve been describing my politics since I started following politics in my late teens. I’m a Liberal Democrat because I believe in liberal democracy and thats what liberalism is about: liberty for the individual. Not because I believe in the state or that government’s job is to make society equal.

Government’s role is to insure that everyone has a good opportunity to reach their potential in life. Based on what they contribute to society, not to try to manage outcomes. And thats what separates Liberals from Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, who believe the role of government is to insure that equality of outcome is insured in society. Not equality of opportunity, which are two different things.

What George Will is describing when he talks about liberalism, looks like socialism, which are different political ideology’s from liberalism. I’ve never called myself a Progressive because today’s definition of Progressive and perhaps in the past, even though the first eight letters in progressive spells progress and if Progressive is someone who believes in progress then I’m definitely a Progressive, but the popular definition of Progressive is someone who believes in using government to insure quality outcomes in society.

A so-called Someone today is someone who wants to use government to ensure equality of outcome in society. Which is different than equality of opportunity, that’s a simple definition. But the best way to ensure equality of opportunity I believe as a Liberal, is through individual liberty. Empowering people through education and job training so they can have the individual liberty to reach their full-potential. If I was a Socialist, I would believe in using government by empowering it to ensure equality of outcomes.

Socialists, would raise taxes on people who are already doing well, to take care of the people, not empower the disadvantage, but take care of the people who are disadvantage. With high tax rates on the rich and probably middle class as well. And that’s George Will’s whole point about government dependence. To talk about liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, progressivism whatever it may be, it helps to know what you’re talking about.

Assholes, quite frankly speaking out of their ass. Liberalism and progressivism, and socialism, are three different political ideology’s and not one in the same. And Conservatives especially (Christian-Nationalists, who are different from Conservatives) like to make Liberals look bad by trying to make us look like Socialists. But Liberals believe in defending liberty and expanding it for people who don’t have it. People who are struggling have the opportunity to become independent and make their own way life.

This is what Liberals believes is the proper role of government. Not to take from the wealthy to manage the daily lives of people who aren’t doing well. Or outlaw wealth all together so everyone is dependent on government. Which is what Socialists tend to push and are in favor of.

This is not a debate about government doing everything, or almost nothing. But instead a debate about government doing practically everything, versus limiting government to doing only what it does well. Including helping people who are snuggling achieve economic freedom for themselves.

The Socialist versus Liberal debate, instead of Liberal vs Liberal, radical Liberals (who are actually Socialists and even illiberal) vs Center-Right Liberals (or Classical Liberals) who push for liberal democracy and a society where everyone has a quality opportunity to succeed in life on their own.

Posted in Classical Liberalism, FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

DW-TV: Claudia Kleinert- Gorgeous, Sexy Meteorologist

Posted on December 27, 2011 by Erik Schneider

IMG_5908

Source:DW-TV– Claudia Kleinert doing the weather for DW-TV in Berlin Germany.

Source:The Daily Press

“Am Dienstagabend des 27. Dezember`s 2011 moderierte sehr charmant Claudia Kleinert das Wetter im Ersten.”

From DW-TV 

Claudia Kleinert didn’t do all of her weather reports from DW-TV in skin-tight denim jeans and boots. Sometimes she would do them in a skirt as well, but when she did them in the skin-tight jeans, they’re so memorable, because she tall, gorgeous, sexy, with beautiful legs. Sort of a stereotypical (if not typical) German woman on TV. You don’t tend to see weather reports in America from female meteorologists who are dressed like this and so sexy very often, but with Claudia you see them on a regular basis.

Claudia Kleinert

Source:DW-TV– Claudia Kleinert doing the weather for DW-TV in Berlin, Germany.

Love Claudia Kleinert period at least from what I’ve seen from her on YouTube. Great voice whether she’s speaking German or English and great face as well. She actually makes the weather seem interesting to listen to. Which couldn’t be a small task, because that would probably be like making listening to someone read from a phonebook interesting.

But I believe similar to actress’s Kim Novak and Angie Dickinson, just because of their delivery, they can make mediocre scripts sound great just because of how they deliver them. Simply because of their delivery.

But that is just how she sounds and does the weather. Throw in the skinny denim jeans in the black leather boots and she got this gorgeous sexy goddess with the body as well in that great outfit and it is just a lot of extra icing on a very large cake. A gorgeous sexy well-built women, which is very common in Germany and with German women around the world regardless of country. And she makes listening to the weather anything but like listening to a roll call in Congress, or someone reading from a phonebook.

Posted in Action, The Daily Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

David Rosman: U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy and Reverend Jerry Falwell- Liberty Baptist College (1983)

Posted on December 1, 2011 by Erik Schneider

IMG-5549 (1)

Source:David Rosman– U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) being introduced at Liberty University.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“On October 4, 1983, Rev. Jerry Falwell introduced Sen. Edward Kennedy, who gave one of his most famous and praised speeches on Faith, Truth and Tolerance in America.”

From David Rosman

“Sen. Ted Kennedy speaks at Liberty Baptist College on Oct. 4, 1983 as Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Sr. watches on the right. (Photos by Les Schofer)

Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr. said the Liberty University community will be remembering the Kennedy family in prayer.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, a friend of Liberty University’s founder, the late Dr. Jerry Falwell, and his family, died late Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Mass., after a long battle with brain cancer.

Kennedy, 77, had spoken at Liberty and conversed with Falwell, Sr. on many occasions.

Jerry Falwell, Jr. wrote about Kennedy’s relationship with his father in the July/August “Liberty Journal.” An excerpt is below.”

Ted & Jerry

Source:Liberty University– U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) and Reverend Jerry Falwell, in 1983.

From Liberty University

Senator Ted Kennedy, would be one of the few Northeastern Progressive Democrats that could give a speech at a Southern Evangelical university like Liberty University. Because Senator Kennedy was someone who could work outside of his element. Especially when he didn’t have enough power to get everything he wanted on an issue.

Ted Kennedy was a legislature before he was a politician. Which is why you see Senator Kennedy on the same stage not debating with Reverend Jerry Falwell (one of the fathers of the Religious-Right in America) and they make about as odd of a couple as Reverend Jesse Jackson giving a speech at a KKK rally. Something just seems odd about it.

But you have to remember that two of Senator Kennedy’s best friends in Congress were Senator Orrin Hatch and John Boehner. (Now Speaker of the House) Two of the most Conservative Republicans in Congress. But Senator Kennedy was one of the best speakers when it came to truth and tolerance and civil rights in America.

You don’t have the legislative record in Congress as a Senator, without the ability to not only work with your colleagues in the Senate and people in your party, but you also have to not only be able to work with Senator’s from the other party, but people in the House of Representatives as well. At least in your own party if your party is in the majority there. Ted Kennedy, understood all of that.

Perhaps not as articulate as Lyndon Johnson, Martin King or Bill Clinton, but you knew when Ted Kennedy spoke about those issues, that he was speaking from his heart that these were issues that really believed in. Which is why Senator Kennedy always had one of the best civil rights records in Congress.

And Senator Kennedy’s contribution to the immigration reform debate in 2006-07, is a perfect example of that. Truth and tolerance and civil rights, are just as important as they were in 1983 84 when this speech was given, as it is today. To speak what’s on your mind and tell the truth and what you really believe.

Tolerance and cooperation, is something we didn’t have enough in politics and the rest of the country back then. But at least in the 1980s both parties believed in government and governing. And we’re smart enough to know they had to work with the other party in order to govern.

Now it’s about how do you make the other side look bad so you can score politically. And that has just gotten worst today. Tolerance, treat people as you would want to be treated. Until they’ve proven they’re not worthy of your respect. And judge people by the content of the character, not by the color of their skin. Or the shape of their face or style of their hair or any other thing that has to do with their race or ethnicity.

Don’t judge people by their name, or what religion they practice (if any) what gender they are attracted to physically and so on. That we treat people as people not groups. We don’t treat people special because they are a member of a group, good or bad. That we judge all people as people not members of groups.

Which is something that Senator Kennedy understood very well for the most part. And is something that as we become even more diverse as a country is a message that needs to be understood and communicated even more today. Seeing Ted Kennedy with Jerry Falwell on the same stage not debating each other and actually being nice to each other.

Ted Kennedy and Jerry Falwell, were the definition of Odd Couple. Perhaps they could’ve had their own sitcom. Like the Irish Baptist, or Out of Place or something like that, Strange Bedfellows. Except they would both be straight. Jerry Falwell getting on Ted Kennedy for falling off bar stools and Ted Kennedy getting on the Reverend for preaching to the choir in their living room, literally as he’s trying to sleep. An Odd Couple that could get along.

But even people who are clearly opponents when it comes to politics and have to defeat other side to accomplish their goals, can get along with each other. If they understand that they are opponents and not enemies that are always in combat seeking to destroy the other side.

Posted in FRS FreeState, The Kennedys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Frozen Feet Films: Fritz- The Walter Mondale Story

Posted on November 21, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Walter Mondale

Source:Amazon– About the life and career of former U.S. Senator and Vice President of the United States, Walter Mondale.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“Fritz tells the story of the life and legacy of former Vice President Walter “Fritz” Mondale and his efforts to inspire a new generation to consider a life of public service. Featuring rare archival footage, family home videos, and interviews with President Carter, Vice President Al Gore, Geraldine Ferraro, Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson, friends and family reveal a man who never wavered in his commitment to civil and human rights. Throughout his accomplished career – attorney general, senator, vice president, presidential candidate, ambassador, and teacher – Mr. Mondale has remained true to his small town roots, dedicated to helping others.”

From Amazon

Walter Mondale to me is someone who was ahead of his time, the way all Vice Presidents since are judged. Because he was the first Vice President with real authority or at least the first since Richard Nixon. But Vice President Mondale designed how the Vice Presidents Office looks today, serving as the President’s Chief Counsel on policy and perhaps even politics as well. As well as basically the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration. Something he, Vice President Bush, Vice President Gore, Vice President Cheney and Vice President Biden all have done well.

Pre-Walter Mondale except maybe for Vice President Nixon, the Office of the Vice President was basically ceremonial. Counting the days to when their term was over or when it’s time to campaign again or they would preside over the U.S. Senate. When Congress was in session, it wasn’t a very important office.

Today the Vice Presidency is important. When instead of the Vice President presiding over the Senate, they are basically the President’s Chief Representative to Congress. As well as their other duties at the White House. And Vice President Mondale made that office definite.

Then Senator Walter Mondale worked out an agreement with Jimmy Carter when they ran together in 1976, that if he was to be Carter’s Vice President, that he would have to have real responsibility in that office. The Vice President under the U.S. Constitution, is the first officer in the Federal Government. Only the President out ranks him. And that’s how it was in the Cater Administration, except it was no longer just on paper, but in practice as well and I believe that job and office of the modern Vice Presidency, is a major part of Walter Mondale’s legacy.

Posted in Carter Presidency, FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Democratic Media: ‘1960 DNC: John F. Kennedy Teams Up With Rival Lyndon B. Johnson’

Posted on November 15, 2011 by Erik Schneider

DemocraticMediaMKII_ 1960 DNC_ Kennedy teams up with rival Johnson - Google Search

Source:Democratic Media– U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) accepting the 1960 Democratic Party nomination for President, in Los Angeles, California.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“JFK’s choice of LBJ helps to deliver Texas and shows running mates can help win elections.”

From Democratic Media

JFK & LBJ

Source:Ronald Wade Collections– JFK and LBJ teaming up in 1960.

1960 was the last presidential election where a Vice Presidential nomination was the difference in who was elected President. Because Jack Kennedy already had the votes of the Liberal and Progressive Democrats. Especially in the North who could care less about Senator Kennedy being an Irish-Catholic, Northeastern Liberal from Massachusetts.

But because of those factors Southern Democrats (who are Conservative Republicans today) weren’t convinced that Jack Kennedy was acceptable enough to be President of the United States. Which is why Lyndon Johnson who was also the Leader of the Senate at the time, was so critical to this ticket, because he was a Southern Democrat at least regionally.

With the Kennedy-Johnson ticket, this meant Democrats could win both the Northeast and South, as well as California. Because Kennedy could work the liberal states and Johnson could work the Southern states. Because the Northeast was probably going to vote for Kennedy anyway, but with Johnson on the ticket, Johnson could convince Southern Democrats that an Irish-Catholic, Northeastern Liberal was acceptable enough to be President of the United States. And Senator Kennedy’s speech to Southern Baptists in 1960 in Houston where he came out for being in favor of Separation of Church and State and that he wouldn’t take orders from the Pope in policy and decision-making.

In some ways Democrats in 1960 had a dream ticket, with the future of the Democratic Party. A real superstar in the best sense of the word, not a flash in the pan running with the most powerful Democrat in the country. Someone who was more than qualified to be President of the United States 1960.

This is not the last or first presidential election where the Vice Presidential nominee was important. It was also important in 1952 with Richard Nixon, 1976 with Walter Mondale, 1980 with George Bush, 1992 with Al Gore, 2000 with Dick Cheney, 2008 with Joe Biden. But 1960 was the last one where the VP nominee was able to deliver votes and states for the ticket.

Posted in FRS FreeState, JFK | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

James Miller Center: FDR Fireside Chat 7: ‘On the Social Security Act- The History of Social Security’

Posted on November 14, 2011 by Erik Schneider
New Deal

Source:James Miller Center– President Franklin D. Roosevelt and company 

Source:FRS FreeState

“Edited version of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s seventh fireside chat, delivered April 28, 1935. For full audio and transcripts of presidential speeches, please visit http://millercenter.org/scripps/archi…”

Source:James Miller Center

When Franklin Roosevelt became President of the United States in 1933, he had a mountain of challenges in front of him that he had to face. Dwarfing anything that President Obama inherited in 2009. The Great Depression was just starting and the country had then nothing to deal with it. No plan to get out of it and no safety net other than private charity to help sustain people as they go through it. These challenges were so big that it wasn’t until World War II almost ten years later that America recovered from the Great Depression. Which is why President Roosevelt and others developed the New Deal and other legislation to deal with the Great Depression. And to establish a safety net in America.

Like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Welfare Insurance. Insurance programs that people can turn to when they can’t support themselves. President Roosevelt brought economic progressivism into law in America. Something that we had very little of in America before that. We certainly didn’t have a welfare state or even a safety net prior to the New Deal. We were basically an economic libertarian society before that, where everyone was on their own. And of course a lot if not most Libertarians would like to see us move back to that libertarian society where all Americans are responsible for taking care of themselves whether they are able to or not. Whether they have access to a pension or not, lose their job, makes mistakes early in life. Like having kids before they are ready to take care of them, etc.

Now I disagree with how a lot of these programs were designed originally. I believe most Americans would reform these programs in some way. Socialists would expand them, Liberals such as myself would decentralize them and turn them over to the states. Presidential candidate Gary Johnson has a plan to do that. Conservatives would privatize them all together and Libertarians would end them calling them unconstitutional. But what the New Deal and later Great Society in the 1960s, did was at least provide a basic floor for people to turn to. When for whatever reason they weren’t able to fend for themselves and has been successful in doing that.

All of these programs need to be reformed in the financing like a lot the programs in the Federal Government. They didn’t get us out of the Great Depression, at least on their own. World War II did most of the work on that, but the New Deal did for the first time in America, provide us with a basic safety net for the country. But a lot of these programs seventy-five plus years after they were created, need to be reformed. Because of how they were designed and need to be reformed to save them so they are there in the future. Part of President Roosevelt’s legacy is that he transformed America into a country where we were basically on our own, into a country where at least to a certain extent we look after each other. Whether we want to or not, as Libertarians might phrase that. But the New Deal is not responsible for getting us out of the Great Depression. World War II and our involvement had a lot to do with that.

Posted in American Presidents, FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment