FDR at the time when he made these statements had no idea that he was so INCREDIBLY WRONG at the time.. The founding fathers in their brilliance wrote the perfect document known as the bill of rights.. They EXCLUDED the provisions that FDR wanted in "his" 2nd bill of rights for good reason.. That reason was LIBERTY>> In 1936 the Soviet Union Constitution was implemented.. Verbatim, it was the 2nd bill of rights. It led to walls, murder, and starvation.. FDR was wrong, because history proved it
@SuperGuitarman69 "The founding fathers in their brilliance wrote the perfect document known as the bill of rights.. They EXCLUDED the provisions that FDR wanted"
Of course they excluded all of FDRs sh%$, cuz that sh&% didnt even exist back then, man! The best deal Washington and co could give the American people at the time was the L.L.H. and it was pretty fu%$in good. FF to today, who the fu%$ runs America? Aint the same folks running the show 200 years ago...New ball game dude.
I say America can either go back to the Wild West days of the 19th century...which aint all THAT bad...heckuva lot more freedom, or we can go FDRs way and become Europe 2.0. I like the Wild West days myself.
min 1:40 "Without security here in America there CANNOT be lasting peace in the world"
Wow...4 terms as POTUS, defeated Germany, Japan and Italy which helped jump start this country out of the Great Depression. Republicans can say what they want, but FDR knows what he´s talking about.
@RideMyF150 FDR's 2nd bill of rights was exactly verbatim a mirror image of the 1936 Soviet Union Constitution.. Our founding fathers new that to give "state" granted rights, would be a destruction of liberty and had the potential of economic suicide to the United States.. Turns out they were correct.. The Soviet Union and Europe falling into bankruptcy etc.. The loss of liberty in the world etc... For the Democrat to say this is the right course? Is the same as saying "I am an idiot!"
@SuperGuitarman69 "Our founding fathers new that to give "state" granted rights, would be a destruction of liberty and had the potential of economic suicide to the United States"
The MIC (Military Industrial Complex) muthafu$#a! Now THATS destruction of fu%$in liberty man, not givin free food and medication to some elderly folks. Libertarian muthafu%$as aint got the balls to go up against the real tyrants, pushin around the needy and the hungry makes fascists feel REAL fu%$in tough.
Poor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he looks so exhausted... the Depression and the war have taken their toll on him, and it shows in the way he looks... and it shows in his eyes.
@scottsway I think you misunderstood me, I meant how the office has aged him dramatically from the (relatively) energetic fellow he was in 1932, being President of the United States is quite possibly the hardest, and loneliest job on the face of the Earth, I have nothing but respect for Franklin Roosevelt.
@glamedrehl Besides that it's impossible, more expensive on the people, less efficient and basically undermines what a Bill of Rights is; there are reasons for people to be against this. Nobody is denying it's not noble or for a good cause but that doesn't disguise the practicality of it. A second bill of rights of this sort would lower the standard of living and slow down growth. Freedom to help one another is much more aligned to morale than being forced collectively
@batman93oo nonsense, take sri lanka for example they formed a welfare system wich gave the people of the island a average life expectancy of 75 as high as many eastern european countries. they are as poor as most third world countries but their is no hunger no misery wich could have been avoided. no price is to high for a world were all are cared for. the goal of the economy is to supply all, not make a few rich. what use is growth when not all benefit?? the rich care for nobody but their own
@glamedrehl Yes sri lanka is poor because they prefer a system of satisfaction than of progress. It seems you are advocating that it doesn't matter where the standard of living is as long as the gap between who is wealthy and who is poor is as minimal as possible. Income gaps are for one created on the basis of directing wealth and not by markets. How has the world not benefit from growth? The internet, computers, and etc lead to the wealthy of a few but benefit all. Not all the rich are greedy
@batman93oo no that is not what i am saying. i am saying that i don't think it is acceptable that in a country where thousands of people can't afford basic health care, education or even healthy meals, that their would be rich people, people who benefit from the economy while others don't. the pc a benefit for all? Coltan(a mineral)it's in every pc and cellphone, a mineral dug up by child slaves in Congo paid for by african states and bought up by western companies. you can live with that?
@batman93oo rich that aren't greedy, let's take bill gates for example. yes he's giving lot's of money away. that's a good thing but does he do it for publicity and as a misplaced marketstunt or for charity? for his companie uses companies in the third world for production centers where people work shift of twelve hours a day for less then minimum wages. off course they are greedy how did got rich?? rich people want more and will never have enough, how do you think the economy got tho hell?
@glamedrehl So where does the line end to whom is being greedy and who is being genuine. The economy is in pure rut right now due to interventionism policies that helped shove money to the top while we were stuck with the tax of inflation. The point is that bad market practices are not just created by the "rich" but are welcomed by open arms by governments. Worldwide poverty is caused by the restriction of free trade and nationalism. You are arguing on the surface of things and not the root.
@batman93oo no worldwide poverty is created because the currunt world system is based on a partition of the worlds in zones and every zone has it's functions in that system. that same system keeps the elite of the poor countries rich so they don't complain and keeps the majority in the core areas wealthy to keep them agreeing with the situation. but the rest of the world population just has to shut up and listen and accept their poor.
@batman93oo what this world need is to accept that it isn't right to keep millions poor. we in the western nations need to reflect and ask ourselves do i really need a bigger television? a second car? two bathrooms? we need to accept that we can live with less. poverty is a cause for sadness but i have never met a depressed person who became happy by buying a new luxery item. if we accept that, then this world has enough and then their would be no need for more economic growth
@glamedrehl Your morale is a biased account, from that statement alone I can infer you would like to put those views on everyone. But my point is yes the zones are created by nations and the best way to increase progress is through free trade, things would be equal, and we would be free to what satisfy us. Your sociologist/ borderline marxist views of things would single handily throw the world into serfdom.The best way to happiness is through freedom and interaction
@batman93oo so because i am against exploitation of capitalism, that instanly wants me to form a soviet style regime? look i am not against free trade what i am against is unfairness. i believe in a free trade between nations and groups in the nation. but it is the role of the government to aid those who can't benefit to correct the mistakes of the market. and i am for a rule that says the top wage in nation can't be more then 10 times the minimum wage.
@batman93oo if you believe in freedom how can you support the current system who keeps millions in slavery. the slavery of avoidable misery. you know this discussion reminds me of quote, when i give money to the poor, they call me a saint. if i ask why the poor are poor, they call me communist and despise me.
@glamedrehl Who said soviet? there is a difference between that and marxism . Who said I supported our system right now? I was merely commenting on the principles on what you were arguing for, which were the change in human values and FDR's second bill of rights. The market would work fine with a fixed set of rules that were based on legal rule of law. Government will always hinder the market that benefits one interest over the other, you wouldn't have to worry for a huge gap of income otherwise
@batman93oo then what do you suggest: a set of laws to guide the economy and to prevent the bankers from wasting the money of hardworking people, enforced by the government but who doesn't intervene otherwise?
@glamedrehl Bankers only get money of Hardworking people through government intervention. The FED is the #1 source to where the inequality of wealth come from. Fractional reserve banking sends all the money to the top leaving us with the inflation tab. stopping Intervention practices would stop protecting interests of certain people over the other. Certain laws are needed for the protection of necessities, theft, and upholding of contracts. Those with money would not get away w/ actions w/o gov
@batman93oo oh come on do you really believe those teaparty morons? the bankers used the money of the commons by luring them into a system of spending through excessive credit use. the government did nothing to stop them because bankers lobby groups and financing prevented them. the inequality of wealth comes from not enough government support of the poor. and they have to be supported cause if the commons don't spend(wisely) the economy will collaps. btw the bankers controls the FED
@glamedrehl You clearly don't understand economics and if you do you're just reading someone like Krugman. This whole thing the Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac was a push by government to help poor families get houses with more affordable loans, they rated people as reliable to pay back loans when they weren't. The bankers very well knew that these people were not going to be able to pay back loans and decided instead of losing money traded them in derivatives. Plus low interest rates & list goes on
@batman93oo let's take a step back here, we're not going to try explain our visions of the recession here. what i am trying to emphasise here is that public spending must go up and other expenses go down. the banks be under federal control, a finance minister who isn't connected to any bankgroup, a campain to promote wise spending, helping people who made mistakes. that's what i believe is nececarry
@glamedrehl That would just give power to a coercive force. The point of Free markets is choice, so if all the banks are under federal control, interest rates would all be the same, and an increase of debt on the state itself. There would be a demand to keep interest rates low which will lead to malinvestment and high inflation. Banks would not have the power they have w/o the FED or fractional reserve banking. The point to going to Free Markets is no one would hold power because of a system.
@batman93oo are you really that naïve to think that their could be a world were nobody is leader or could hold power? in a free market system the biggest companies make deals divide the market and keep prices high. they have more mony and influence then most nations. let's take a historical example of a companie with power: the VOC a dutch trading company that commanded armies, fleets of warships enslaved thousends all in the name of profit.
@glamedrehl When the VOC was a result of mercantilism and not free markets, the very things that Adam Smith spoke out against. Companies only have the power they have because they are protected as special interest by government. Monopolies in the 19th century were created by government incentives to a few businessmen and huge tariffs. Democracy does not lead to freedom, you can very well have tyranny of the majority. Rule of law and freedom is what enlightenment philosophers preached.
@glamedrehl Yes Democracy is important but it doesn't hold higher precedent than freedom itself. Democracy can lead to tyranny of the majority has exemplified in periods in America such as post civil war where people undermined the 14 & 15 amendments to oppress the minority, or the rise of Fascism in Germany. So the point is to keep freedom within a rule of law than by rule by law from a centralized figure or a majority.
@batman93oo about the rise of fascism hitler got about 36% of the votes that means 64% thought he was an insane maniac who should not rule. hitler abused certain loopholes in the german weimarrepublic along with force and intimidation, to get power. democracy worked because the majority was against him.
@glamedrehl Yet he was approved th eb chancellor and people welcomed him as Fueher once he attained the postition, and in Italy fascism became popular even with all its violence. Yes the Rule of law has to be approved by a majority at first but the Rule of law is to stay so freedom is within the law. Democracy doesn't mean freedom necessarily. . The constitution is filled with negative rights, stuff the government can't do, leaving me with Freedom along with a bill of rights
@batman93oo yet italy also had a very large leftist undeground front and mussoline was removed from power by italian high officials. but why then are you against a goverment that suppllies all the things roosevelt proposes and don't say it's impossible because their are enough countries on the map who have these services and are democratic and have economic growth. giving state support doesn't undermine any freedom and aiding the poor is te best protection agaisnt extreme opinion
@glamedrehl Yeah and the countries that do have lower economic mobility than that of the U.S. Now a lot of government guarantee things make it more expensive because there is a lot of waste and cost a lot more because it demands resources on a large scale. I'm not against local or state governments doing these programs because they have that constitutional right and if someone disapproves of the program they can move to another state. It would do more harm than good nationally.
@batman93oo well let's make a compromise. the federal government states these are basic rights but for the implementation gives the power to individual states where the residents of the state can vote and give suggestions how to implement them. however when even a small group of people who want social care or children of some extreme groups are not receiving them then the fedral goverment must act.
@glamedrehl I'd like to but I'm sorry to say we can't compromise. We just have different views on what is a right. Health care isn't a right it's a service, it requires someone else so it's not born given right same goes for housing and jobs. We have a system of opportunity of course and the point is that we shouldn't have it nationwide and it just should be selective up to states so people can choose to live in that state or not.
@batman93oo health care and most of what FDR said are rights accepted as part of the universal declaration of human rights articles 22,23,25,26 and 30 this was signed by the united states so they are obliged to provide them.
@glamedrehl That isn't in our constitution, which is the document the federal government must follow. The left side of the argument has long changed the definition of rights from what they really are. The rights we are given in the bill of rights are rights given at birth and right to live within what is set. Health care does not pertain to an individual right it merely is the provision of a service from one man to another.
@batman93oo do you tell yourself that whenever you see a homless person? do you repeat this whenever you read about people who can't afford essential medical care? i dare you go out their and tell the people who can't afford basic medical care that they have no right to them. they only have the right to complain and see people don't give a damm. it's people like you normal regular people who silently agree that keep this in the world. It's people like you who keep poverty alive
@glamedrehl See you are judging a man for no other reason other than he does not mingle compassion with politics. I donate to people all the time and living in NYC you better carry more than a few dollars whenever walking in the train in order to have the money to give to some of the people who need. There are a lot of charities and individuals act on their own but its up to each individual to decide how to help people in much more efficient ways than what you are advocating for.
@glamedrehl Cont. Also it doesn't mean that I don't believe that on a much more local level can communities and local governments provide health care but doesn't mean it's a right. Health care is a service like the term or not. Should the man who doesn't eat right or exercise receive the same health care when he has clearly, like it or not, cost more on the system than someone who may have. You have completely invalidate this good debate by personally attacking me.
@batman93oo no i have not. politics should be about compassion. i believe politics should be made by people who care. you're speaking of a utopia of everybody helping each other wich is literally a medival idea. if you start compare people with each other and give them values then you have lost you're moral compass. what are you suggesting we let all the people be judged according to value and let all who don't pass die? ?? or let them suffer??
@glamedrehl 2. And I don't put a value on people that is a very left socialist idea of collectivism. I was simply stating with that example is that health care can not be a right because it involves variables of personal responsibility and like it or not a socialized health care system would lead to people being subjective to who receives what. Also the idea of individualism is far from medieval it is the idea of the enlightenment philosophers that we give freedom to each individual (Cont.)
@batman93oo let's reanalyse the universal declaration of human rights. universal= all and everywhere human=people and based on compassion rights= somthinjg you're guranteed. the us signed the decleration so unless us citizens are no longer human beings the state has to provide if the private sector can't give or support the poor to buy from the private sector.
@batman93oo i cannot do anything without letting my heart speak. for i care. but wake up how many people you don't give anything to charity? so many people don't care and the innocent have to suffer because of it. politics without emotions? we're not robots you know.
@glamedrehl You're completely missing the point of compassion in politics because it can blind one to the point that they ignore the facts. Socialized health care is more expensive, less efficient, and would lead to more deaths for simple fact of the matter that it's not a free service and requires tremendous amount of bureaucratic oversight to see how funds are being distributed and see who needs what. (Cont. moral question in next comment)
@glamedrehl 3. I never said politics without emotion either but you have to make sure that it's reasonable, now giving everybody a standardized health care system is noble but what are the effects? How is it proven any more efficient? How is it run? What happens when shortages happen, who receives what? Does everyone value health over wealth? I am very optimistic that humans have the incentive to do good themselves and the individual should never compromise his values to that of the collective
@batman93oo wen we have shortages wich we rarely do the children, pregnant women the very ill, the weakest of society will receive first not the wealthy. i believe that individsualism as what you see it is an illusion. people live in collectives people always chose habitation work friends religion on the basis of what they believe in,
@glamedrehl Yes but that is up to the individual to which group he associates with, it is totally different when a collective spearhead puts down a policy that conflicts on the views of others. You don't understand collectivism vs individualism. Western Europe is in fiscal calamity because of how its system depends on heavy taxation and bureaucratic nightmare. We have moral expectation to help one another but not through polices that are irrational and violate the others freedom
@batman93oo what violation? oh yes a forced cheaper social security and pension plan. oh no save us oh defendors of liberty. freedom, is to say what you want without hurting one, it's organising without disriminating someone. we have that we have freedom. besides i worked at the ministiry of pensions in Belgium it's not chaos it's a public institution where anyone can come to and ask questions and receive help.
@glamedrehl Exactly Belgium, small country with a population smaller than states in the US. Besides the point western europe is filled with a bunch of micro-managing policies combined with private special interest. It's the reason why the Euro has had booms and busts in such a little lifetime. Social security hasn't ever been proved to be cheaper and never can because it takes income from one person, whether it be from increasing labor cost or people who work more, and gives it to another
@batman93oo hasn"t proved to be chaeper are you blind??? poor people ,;can't afford health care in the US but will receive health care here in Belgium. so it's cheaper for those with low incomes and more expensive for the wealthy wich is good. let the weakthy pay more then the poor that's how democracy and economy should work
@batman93oo but how many people wrote the law? was it written for the benefit of few or many? the majority will should be stronger then the law as long as it isn't used to target certain people. besides if you say the law should be stronger then the peoples will, do we still have a democracy then? what is freedom then? you didn't awnser that question what is your vision on freedom?
@batman93oo what i meant with control over the banks is that their actions are made public and those isane bonusses kept in check. thats the point of democracy, public control for public benefit.
@corinthian313 Yeah, I'm just a long-haired, pot-smokin', guitar-operatin', incense-burnin' left-of-Kucinich-leanin', tie-dye shirt wearin', Red Chinese Communist Marxist, supporter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
@pf91rodman why what is it whith the US and the state? it's not some evil god who wants to enslave us all. the state is made by the people, people determin how it operates. you want to live without a state go live in somalia and see how you like it.
Capitalism can provide those things and better. Please understand that everything the government touches gets more expensive and the quality gets worse. Take Heathcare or Education for example. That's why I think government should stay out of it and just allow the market to work. Government should only do what they're meant to do and that is to protect Life, Liberty, Property, and the Constitution
@pf91rodman where did you get that information the republican propaganda websites? have you ever been to a country with fully goverment supplied education and healthcare? even so if. let's assume you're right that private is better. that doesn't help anyone who can't afford the private help and education.
I get my information from small government independent thinkers who understand how to free market works and who believe the government shouldn't step outside the boundaries of the Constitution. You claim that if we privatize things such as education and Healthcare, people won't be able to afford it. That's far from the truth. In a free market society, Competition is what drives prices down to affordable prices not only does it get affordable, but the quality also goes up.
@glamedrehl The problem with government is that they have interfered with the free market by eliminating competition.Sure,Medical,Medicaid,and guaranteed student loans may sound good,but they are actually the problem.They're the reason why healthcare and education are getting more and more expensive.College and Healthcare was affordable before there were any of those things. Let the free market decide the prices not the government, because the market does a better job.
@pf91rodmani live in a country that garantees education and medical care. their is a state run and a private run sector for both schooling and medical care. the goverment declared both must have the same high quality so inspects both. my doctor has a private clinic and i pay there but the state insurance will pay back about 2/3 of what i paid. before this was implemented the majority of the population didn't have access tot decent medical care and schooling(wich is also supported)
I don't know if you ever heard the old economic saying, "there's no such thing a a free lunch" because that certainly applies here. Nothing is free, and there's a cost to everything. The government is proven to be inefficient when dealing with cost and quality. Government wastes more when it spends. The government can't force businesses private or public to be high quality because it will just cost more for the taxpayer and business owner. Quality and lowprice should come naturally.
@pf91rodman besides look up you're own history in the 1920ties communist parties were very popular in many large cities in the US why because so many wanted help and didn't get any. you're logic doesn't make sense if the majority takes support from the goverment that means it's cheaper then private so if their would be reel competition the private sector would lower it's prices as well. but theyd don't why? because the corporation who make the medicans want big profits
My logic does make sense. You seem to believe the government should provide everything. But you seem to forget where to money is coming from. The tax payer. If you think taxpayers should pay more for things that are more expensive and less quality, then your logic doesn't make sense. Government doesn't make things cheaper, why do you think Education is so expensive now?Explain.
@pf91rodman but education is cheap in belgium where i live and that's goverment supported. you have a blind idealistic view of capitalism. the pharmacy world is a small world where the big companies decide a price to keep it artificially high. they don't care about the market they want money and care how.
@pf91rodman i don't believe goverment should supplie everything, as i said have you ever been to a country with state supported social programs? i live in one. the state supports the people who can't afford to pay in full. their is a private school secor but they pay(the teachers) as much as the public one and at the same quality. it's cheaper because all the people pay for the system it's calles social solidarity. we believe we should work together to built a better society. power trough unity
@glamedrehl Also, the reason why private sector isn't lowering prices is because the government has eliminated that by interfering with the free market and by eliminating competition. You can't have low prices if people would rather go to the so called "free" public schools instead of private schools because the school wouldn't be able to stay in business if it offers prices like that. They have eliminated the competition. Like a Wal-mart would to any small businesses around it.
@pf91rodman look i have a friend who's from eastern siberia he wans't even born when the soviet union fell. but he told countless stories of how lucky he was he had an uncle in Belgium because in siberia since the fall of communism people get poorer every year. the buissness sector doesn't invest, the private hospitals aren't visisted by the masses because they can't afford, their's no region in Russia today were they scream as hard for a return of goverment support systems and institutions
@glamedrehl A real country "for the people" would be one that allows people to start their own business and prosper.Business would have to compete with one another to offer cheaper and better quality products and services. Businesses would have to compete with one another to buy Labor. If one business offers higher wages than the other people would go there instead. That is what really works. Wages were actually a lot higher before Government mandated businesses on how much they must pay workers
@pf91rodman you believe humans always follow the rational economic choise, it doesn't work like that. small example i never by from the cheapest butcher in my town. why? because my familie is friends with the other one. people let emotions and personal relations help decide where they work and where they buy.
I'm so glad FDR never got this passed. We would only have increased poverty, hunger and bad health for today's world. Gov't is not magically capable of giving you a decent standard of living. Never has. Never will.
I always knew that he was a tool, just didn't know he was that big of a tool. He really had no clue. He is one of the main founding fathers of the collapse we are seeing today.
@Ed534 This "Socialist" Got the country out of the depression and was re-elected for a third turn because the people wanted it, and fourth if possible but as you said, good thing he died, otherwise who knows what would've happened?! We would all be better off! Holy shit, but I'm glad the country is on the shit state it is now, hell it gives rise to abortions like yourself :D . One of the good last presidents of the USA, a man who wanted the best for the People. :)
At the cost of the taxpayer... Nothing comes free and this is just another socialist idea that, luckily, didn't go through, otherwise we'd have less freedoms than we (barely) already do thanks to the government's interference in our lives.
@wedjlok Every single one of the rights Roosevelt mentioned would be easily funded if we didn't spend so much money on wars and military armaments and global bases.
@AWesome61696 I believe we should spend a LOT less on foreign wars and armaments... save it for defense. But you say easily funded, so by whom? By the taxpayer, of course. Certain things should not be considered "rights", and the government taking care of people wholesale is definitely not a right. We have the right to the pursuit of happiness, and liberty, not government free housing at the expense of others, nor any other welfare state instituted "rights" at the expense of other people.
@wedjlok Yes taxpayers must pay for programs that contribute to the well being of society. As a liberal, I beleive people whould have a right to ONE house or apartent, at the expense of people who have many houses and many cars and boats- because rich people do pay most of the taxes anyway. My ideology beleives in a welfare state, if you just wanna say "screw those people, I my money back!" be my guest.
@AWesome61696 Taxpayers MUST? See, that's exactly why the "liberal" idea is one of force. It would seem better to empower those people that rely on others to take care of them in such a welfare state instead of making them dependent upon others even more. The problem is that the gov't decides what is the "well being of society", and that's NOT their job. Therefore, a welfare state is one where MY money is stolen (taxed) and used for something that I may not agree with. That's a tyranny.
@wedjlok You see, it's not a tyranny, because the people voted for the leaders who created welfare programs, and the leaders who expanded these programs. If you personally didn't, well, tough luck. That's basic Majority-Rules democracy. The majority of Americans support welfare programs.
Oh, and the "empowering" crap is empty rederick. If a house is burning down, the firemen don't say "let's do nothing, and empower those people to help themselves and not rely on the taxpayer dollars."
@RogerOnTheRight I have no idea what your talking about. But I beleive that every American is entitled to a minimum quality of life in this country, and that this new, militant, libertarian-right movement on Youtube only cares about less government. How about less poverty? How about a higher standard of living for all Americans regardless of economic status?
This was what Roosevelt envisioned. A United States that takes care of it's citizens in addition to guaranteeing liberty.
Well, you seem to laud "majority rules" democracy. We live in a constitutional republic, carefully designed to avoid the mob rule exhibited by the French Revolution's Reign of Terror. Pure democracy is evil. Ask any Jew who lived in Germany in the early 20th century.
This entitlement, however, is certainly not part of the Constitution. I mean, in order to ensure you get your house or car or whatever, something has to be seized from someone else.
@RogerOnTheRight Off course it's not part of the constitution. The constitution is the most important document in the United States, yet that doesn't mean we are strictly bounded by it. Remember, the constitution was written in the 18th century. We now live in the 21st. Progress has happened. The first world nations have reached consesus that people are entitled to healthcare and education.
I don't beleive in pure democracy, I beleive in technical democracy, which is for a whole new story.
If the Constitution is the most important document, then what is wrong with adhering to it?
And what consensus have we reached? If you think we have a consensus on expropriating from one group to give to another, then get a constitutional amendment passed to provide for just that.
Until then, your notion of consensus means exactly bupkis.
@RogerOnTheRight Once again, your mis-interpreting my argument. Our government can adhere to the constitution while adding new programs or policies, nothing in the constitution prohibits that. And every other country in the first world has universal healthcare except ours. The UK, Conservative Party's official platform is one of public healthcare, showing how backwards the GOP truly is.
What is wrong with providing healthcare to those less fortunate? Can you explain this to me?
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes free.
The demand for things subsidized is unlimited. Right now, hospitals are shutting down because emergency services-- free-- are swamped. People sometimes use e-rooms for trivial issues. Why? Free!
And the U K system is a mess. It is broken, and rationing is normal. People wait for basic diagnostics, and die in the process.
So, the point is, you might have the best of intentions, but to follow and copy a program that fails is simply stupid. Better to fix our current system, which is clearly the best in the world, to make it more competitive and thus available at lower prices.
@RogerOnTheRight Clearly the best in the world... really? The gap between the richest and the poorest grows every year. Unemployment is the highest it has been since the 1930s. Poverty is rampantly growing too. Class warfare is at its meanest. Bottom line, "freedom" is not free; someone has to pay, and for the past 30 years it has been our middle class that has paid, so that our richest might live in larger mansions from which they invest their mountains of wealth in global assets.
You fail to account for the economic fluidity our society has. Many of those at the top were not there until recently, and most of those at the bottom won't be there in 10 years. Reporters often make the mistake of assuming a static economic class structure, which does not exist.
Moreover, presumed disparity between rich and poor does not negate the fact our medical care is indeed the best in the world. People don't travel to Canada to get medical treatment.
But you are correct, freedom is not free. You have to fight for it. But, you also need to understand where the fight is.
If you worry about unemployment, then consider the history of the subject and note the patterns. Government intervention causes unemployment. Shrink government, grow jobs. And freedom.
@RogerOnTheRight You keep saying the same thing over and over, yet you don't justify the claim. WHY does smaller government lead to jobs? When the government quit intervening, we watched an exodus of companies that moved overseas. They haven't come back, and no amount of inaction has helped.
Furthermore, the government is meant to be a tool of the people. It has been taken over by private interests, which is dangerous, but the problem lies not within the concept of government itself.
When government intervened with massive spending in 1930, what started as a bad depression turned into a depression. And as gov't spent more, things got worse. Unemployment stayed in the teens for about a decade. WW2 did not end it, either. Little wealth was created during the war.
After the war, gov't spending dropped dramatically, and then the private sector took off, growing rapidly.
Also, during the 70s, government spending (and tax rates) grew dramatically, largely from social programs legislated in the 60s. The private sector languished as jobs became scare and money became tight.
As to your statement about gov't "quit intervening", the government has never quit intervening. So what are you talking about?
I agree, private interests ought not take over gov't. That is my point. Expanding gov't only creates more cronyism.
@RogerOnTheRight Yes, the private sector surged following the war, but there were a lot of factors that play into that. Moreover, the majority of important legislation passed during FDR's presidency stayed intact until long after that. I refer to Glass-Steagall, along with other legislation, which protected especially the middle class from exploitation. When these were repealed, especially in the Reagan era, banks and Wall Street went right back to their pre-Depression ways.
What factors were at play? We have huge numbers of people leaving the military, so unemployment ought to have surged. And government spending dropped like a rock, so the "stimulus" effect would have been reversed. And still, nobody had any money, having gone through 15 years of deep depression.
Glass-Steagall was not repealed by Reagan. The repeal was signed by Bill Clinton. And regulation did not cease to exist, not by a long shot.
Beat in mind, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose failure triggered our current financial mess, did not exist during the Great Depression. Those are creatures of a modern Congress, along with the abuse that always accompanies well-intended government intervention into otherwise free markets.
@chazman800 : Does that "Less Government" extend to gay marriage and women's rights? If less government is what people want, I'm no one to say its not fair.. but what I need is consistency. It seems the ones screaming "less government" the loudest are the first to stick their big government noses in our personal lives.
If the government has "no place" in our finances, why then would they have a place in our personal decisions?
As usual, a perceived conservative's economic view is brushed off due to his perceived idea of personal liberties. It happens the other way around too. Have you yet realized that both liberals and conservatives are hypocrites? But there is another way. There is a group that realizes that believe the government should be out of people's civil AND fiscal life. A group that is against the Patriot Act AND these "liberties" that FDR wanted (at the hands of the taxpayers).
As most of us know this bill was never enacted, FDR died before he could propose this 2nd bill of rights to congress. How ever it did benefit two countries, Japan and Germany ..After the war FDR s advisors helped rebuild both countries and and instilled these same ideas into their new "constitution" now japan and germany are two of the wealthiest countries in the world..Organized labor does work just ask Japan and Germany..
@ole6"they just dnt make American presidents like this anymore" You mean american president that forced a portion of its citizens into concentration camps because of a perceived threat and where a bunch of innocent civilians were slaughtered during the tokyo bombings and the dresden bombings that took place during Roosevelt's presidency, and turn our economy into a command economy? Yeah, they certainly don't make presidents like FDR anymore, despite trying to leave up to his horrible legacy.
FDR at the time when he made these statements had no idea that he was so INCREDIBLY WRONG at the time.. The founding fathers in their brilliance wrote the perfect document known as the bill of rights.. They EXCLUDED the provisions that FDR wanted in "his" 2nd bill of rights for good reason.. That reason was LIBERTY>> In 1936 the Soviet Union Constitution was implemented.. Verbatim, it was the 2nd bill of rights. It led to walls, murder, and starvation.. FDR was wrong, because history proved it
SuperGuitarman69 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperGuitarman69 "The founding fathers in their brilliance wrote the perfect document known as the bill of rights.. They EXCLUDED the provisions that FDR wanted"
Of course they excluded all of FDRs sh%$, cuz that sh&% didnt even exist back then, man! The best deal Washington and co could give the American people at the time was the L.L.H. and it was pretty fu%$in good. FF to today, who the fu%$ runs America? Aint the same folks running the show 200 years ago...New ball game dude.
RideMyF150 5 days ago
I say America can either go back to the Wild West days of the 19th century...which aint all THAT bad...heckuva lot more freedom, or we can go FDRs way and become Europe 2.0. I like the Wild West days myself.
RideMyF150 1 month ago
min 1:40 "Without security here in America there CANNOT be lasting peace in the world"
Wow...4 terms as POTUS, defeated Germany, Japan and Italy which helped jump start this country out of the Great Depression. Republicans can say what they want, but FDR knows what he´s talking about.
RideMyF150 1 month ago
@RideMyF150
FDR's actions dragged out, not jump started, the economic recovery after WWII.
s9z9s 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@s9z9s "FDR's actions dragged out, not jump started, the economic recovery after WWII."
According to who? Flush Bimbaugh? 1950 to 1970 were the decades of fastest economic expansion the world had ever seen up to that point.
RideMyF150 5 days ago
@RideMyF150 FDR's 2nd bill of rights was exactly verbatim a mirror image of the 1936 Soviet Union Constitution.. Our founding fathers new that to give "state" granted rights, would be a destruction of liberty and had the potential of economic suicide to the United States.. Turns out they were correct.. The Soviet Union and Europe falling into bankruptcy etc.. The loss of liberty in the world etc... For the Democrat to say this is the right course? Is the same as saying "I am an idiot!"
SuperGuitarman69 5 days ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "Our founding fathers new that to give "state" granted rights, would be a destruction of liberty and had the potential of economic suicide to the United States"
The MIC (Military Industrial Complex) muthafu$#a! Now THATS destruction of fu%$in liberty man, not givin free food and medication to some elderly folks. Libertarian muthafu%$as aint got the balls to go up against the real tyrants, pushin around the needy and the hungry makes fascists feel REAL fu%$in tough.
RideMyF150 5 days ago
@RideMyF150 Um? A bit drunk when you typed that comment were you? If you were not drunk? Then seek some help okay?
SuperGuitarman69 5 days ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Dude, its YouTube, we´re all armchair warriors, right? :D
RideMyF150 4 days ago
@RideMyF150 Lol, well that is about the truth of it my friend for sure..
SuperGuitarman69 4 days ago
There are advantages and disadvantages in every society...whenever money becomes an issue everything reacts abnormally.... Think about that
swilliy2k 1 month ago
Poor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he looks so exhausted... the Depression and the war have taken their toll on him, and it shows in the way he looks... and it shows in his eyes.
Lordmaster36 2 months ago
@Lordmaster36 what a dick comment - oh but why should that not surprise me? Because you're a typical ignorant right wing asshole!
scottsway 2 months ago
@scottsway I think you misunderstood me, I meant how the office has aged him dramatically from the (relatively) energetic fellow he was in 1932, being President of the United States is quite possibly the hardest, and loneliest job on the face of the Earth, I have nothing but respect for Franklin Roosevelt.
Lordmaster36 2 months ago
@Lordmaster36 Forgive me, sorry about that you are correct indeed...
scottsway 2 months ago
Wow. FDR sounds like a social democrat compared to today's Democratic Party.
TheForwardGaze 3 months ago
how can anyone be against this??? what possible rational arguments can be said to be against social security, health care, education for all.
glamedrehl 3 months ago 13
@glamedrehl
Um that a right to health care, has been dead since 1991 lol red commie.
SunofAusterlitz1805 3 months ago
@SunofAusterlitz1805
glamedrehl 3 months ago
@glamedrehl
Cool story bro!
SunofAusterlitz1805 2 months ago
@SunofAusterlitz1805 thanks
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl Besides that it's impossible, more expensive on the people, less efficient and basically undermines what a Bill of Rights is; there are reasons for people to be against this. Nobody is denying it's not noble or for a good cause but that doesn't disguise the practicality of it. A second bill of rights of this sort would lower the standard of living and slow down growth. Freedom to help one another is much more aligned to morale than being forced collectively
batman93oo 3 months ago
@batman93oo nonsense, take sri lanka for example they formed a welfare system wich gave the people of the island a average life expectancy of 75 as high as many eastern european countries. they are as poor as most third world countries but their is no hunger no misery wich could have been avoided. no price is to high for a world were all are cared for. the goal of the economy is to supply all, not make a few rich. what use is growth when not all benefit?? the rich care for nobody but their own
glamedrehl 3 months ago
@glamedrehl Yes sri lanka is poor because they prefer a system of satisfaction than of progress. It seems you are advocating that it doesn't matter where the standard of living is as long as the gap between who is wealthy and who is poor is as minimal as possible. Income gaps are for one created on the basis of directing wealth and not by markets. How has the world not benefit from growth? The internet, computers, and etc lead to the wealthy of a few but benefit all. Not all the rich are greedy
batman93oo 3 months ago
@batman93oo no that is not what i am saying. i am saying that i don't think it is acceptable that in a country where thousands of people can't afford basic health care, education or even healthy meals, that their would be rich people, people who benefit from the economy while others don't. the pc a benefit for all? Coltan(a mineral)it's in every pc and cellphone, a mineral dug up by child slaves in Congo paid for by african states and bought up by western companies. you can live with that?
glamedrehl 3 months ago
@batman93oo rich that aren't greedy, let's take bill gates for example. yes he's giving lot's of money away. that's a good thing but does he do it for publicity and as a misplaced marketstunt or for charity? for his companie uses companies in the third world for production centers where people work shift of twelve hours a day for less then minimum wages. off course they are greedy how did got rich?? rich people want more and will never have enough, how do you think the economy got tho hell?
glamedrehl 3 months ago
@glamedrehl So where does the line end to whom is being greedy and who is being genuine. The economy is in pure rut right now due to interventionism policies that helped shove money to the top while we were stuck with the tax of inflation. The point is that bad market practices are not just created by the "rich" but are welcomed by open arms by governments. Worldwide poverty is caused by the restriction of free trade and nationalism. You are arguing on the surface of things and not the root.
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo no worldwide poverty is created because the currunt world system is based on a partition of the worlds in zones and every zone has it's functions in that system. that same system keeps the elite of the poor countries rich so they don't complain and keeps the majority in the core areas wealthy to keep them agreeing with the situation. but the rest of the world population just has to shut up and listen and accept their poor.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@batman93oo what this world need is to accept that it isn't right to keep millions poor. we in the western nations need to reflect and ask ourselves do i really need a bigger television? a second car? two bathrooms? we need to accept that we can live with less. poverty is a cause for sadness but i have never met a depressed person who became happy by buying a new luxery item. if we accept that, then this world has enough and then their would be no need for more economic growth
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl Your morale is a biased account, from that statement alone I can infer you would like to put those views on everyone. But my point is yes the zones are created by nations and the best way to increase progress is through free trade, things would be equal, and we would be free to what satisfy us. Your sociologist/ borderline marxist views of things would single handily throw the world into serfdom.The best way to happiness is through freedom and interaction
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo so because i am against exploitation of capitalism, that instanly wants me to form a soviet style regime? look i am not against free trade what i am against is unfairness. i believe in a free trade between nations and groups in the nation. but it is the role of the government to aid those who can't benefit to correct the mistakes of the market. and i am for a rule that says the top wage in nation can't be more then 10 times the minimum wage.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@batman93oo if you believe in freedom how can you support the current system who keeps millions in slavery. the slavery of avoidable misery. you know this discussion reminds me of quote, when i give money to the poor, they call me a saint. if i ask why the poor are poor, they call me communist and despise me.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl Who said soviet? there is a difference between that and marxism . Who said I supported our system right now? I was merely commenting on the principles on what you were arguing for, which were the change in human values and FDR's second bill of rights. The market would work fine with a fixed set of rules that were based on legal rule of law. Government will always hinder the market that benefits one interest over the other, you wouldn't have to worry for a huge gap of income otherwise
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo then what do you suggest: a set of laws to guide the economy and to prevent the bankers from wasting the money of hardworking people, enforced by the government but who doesn't intervene otherwise?
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl Bankers only get money of Hardworking people through government intervention. The FED is the #1 source to where the inequality of wealth come from. Fractional reserve banking sends all the money to the top leaving us with the inflation tab. stopping Intervention practices would stop protecting interests of certain people over the other. Certain laws are needed for the protection of necessities, theft, and upholding of contracts. Those with money would not get away w/ actions w/o gov
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo oh come on do you really believe those teaparty morons? the bankers used the money of the commons by luring them into a system of spending through excessive credit use. the government did nothing to stop them because bankers lobby groups and financing prevented them. the inequality of wealth comes from not enough government support of the poor. and they have to be supported cause if the commons don't spend(wisely) the economy will collaps. btw the bankers controls the FED
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl You clearly don't understand economics and if you do you're just reading someone like Krugman. This whole thing the Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac was a push by government to help poor families get houses with more affordable loans, they rated people as reliable to pay back loans when they weren't. The bankers very well knew that these people were not going to be able to pay back loans and decided instead of losing money traded them in derivatives. Plus low interest rates & list goes on
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo let's take a step back here, we're not going to try explain our visions of the recession here. what i am trying to emphasise here is that public spending must go up and other expenses go down. the banks be under federal control, a finance minister who isn't connected to any bankgroup, a campain to promote wise spending, helping people who made mistakes. that's what i believe is nececarry
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl That would just give power to a coercive force. The point of Free markets is choice, so if all the banks are under federal control, interest rates would all be the same, and an increase of debt on the state itself. There would be a demand to keep interest rates low which will lead to malinvestment and high inflation. Banks would not have the power they have w/o the FED or fractional reserve banking. The point to going to Free Markets is no one would hold power because of a system.
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo are you really that naïve to think that their could be a world were nobody is leader or could hold power? in a free market system the biggest companies make deals divide the market and keep prices high. they have more mony and influence then most nations. let's take a historical example of a companie with power: the VOC a dutch trading company that commanded armies, fleets of warships enslaved thousends all in the name of profit.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl When the VOC was a result of mercantilism and not free markets, the very things that Adam Smith spoke out against. Companies only have the power they have because they are protected as special interest by government. Monopolies in the 19th century were created by government incentives to a few businessmen and huge tariffs. Democracy does not lead to freedom, you can very well have tyranny of the majority. Rule of law and freedom is what enlightenment philosophers preached.
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo wait a minute you're doubting the values of democracy? And what is freedom to you?
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl Yes Democracy is important but it doesn't hold higher precedent than freedom itself. Democracy can lead to tyranny of the majority has exemplified in periods in America such as post civil war where people undermined the 14 & 15 amendments to oppress the minority, or the rise of Fascism in Germany. So the point is to keep freedom within a rule of law than by rule by law from a centralized figure or a majority.
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo about the rise of fascism hitler got about 36% of the votes that means 64% thought he was an insane maniac who should not rule. hitler abused certain loopholes in the german weimarrepublic along with force and intimidation, to get power. democracy worked because the majority was against him.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl Yet he was approved th eb chancellor and people welcomed him as Fueher once he attained the postition, and in Italy fascism became popular even with all its violence. Yes the Rule of law has to be approved by a majority at first but the Rule of law is to stay so freedom is within the law. Democracy doesn't mean freedom necessarily. . The constitution is filled with negative rights, stuff the government can't do, leaving me with Freedom along with a bill of rights
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo yet italy also had a very large leftist undeground front and mussoline was removed from power by italian high officials. but why then are you against a goverment that suppllies all the things roosevelt proposes and don't say it's impossible because their are enough countries on the map who have these services and are democratic and have economic growth. giving state support doesn't undermine any freedom and aiding the poor is te best protection agaisnt extreme opinion
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl Yeah and the countries that do have lower economic mobility than that of the U.S. Now a lot of government guarantee things make it more expensive because there is a lot of waste and cost a lot more because it demands resources on a large scale. I'm not against local or state governments doing these programs because they have that constitutional right and if someone disapproves of the program they can move to another state. It would do more harm than good nationally.
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo well let's make a compromise. the federal government states these are basic rights but for the implementation gives the power to individual states where the residents of the state can vote and give suggestions how to implement them. however when even a small group of people who want social care or children of some extreme groups are not receiving them then the fedral goverment must act.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl I'd like to but I'm sorry to say we can't compromise. We just have different views on what is a right. Health care isn't a right it's a service, it requires someone else so it's not born given right same goes for housing and jobs. We have a system of opportunity of course and the point is that we shouldn't have it nationwide and it just should be selective up to states so people can choose to live in that state or not.
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo health care and most of what FDR said are rights accepted as part of the universal declaration of human rights articles 22,23,25,26 and 30 this was signed by the united states so they are obliged to provide them.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl That isn't in our constitution, which is the document the federal government must follow. The left side of the argument has long changed the definition of rights from what they really are. The rights we are given in the bill of rights are rights given at birth and right to live within what is set. Health care does not pertain to an individual right it merely is the provision of a service from one man to another.
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo do you tell yourself that whenever you see a homless person? do you repeat this whenever you read about people who can't afford essential medical care? i dare you go out their and tell the people who can't afford basic medical care that they have no right to them. they only have the right to complain and see people don't give a damm. it's people like you normal regular people who silently agree that keep this in the world. It's people like you who keep poverty alive
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl See you are judging a man for no other reason other than he does not mingle compassion with politics. I donate to people all the time and living in NYC you better carry more than a few dollars whenever walking in the train in order to have the money to give to some of the people who need. There are a lot of charities and individuals act on their own but its up to each individual to decide how to help people in much more efficient ways than what you are advocating for.
batman93oo 2 months ago
@glamedrehl Cont. Also it doesn't mean that I don't believe that on a much more local level can communities and local governments provide health care but doesn't mean it's a right. Health care is a service like the term or not. Should the man who doesn't eat right or exercise receive the same health care when he has clearly, like it or not, cost more on the system than someone who may have. You have completely invalidate this good debate by personally attacking me.
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo no i have not. politics should be about compassion. i believe politics should be made by people who care. you're speaking of a utopia of everybody helping each other wich is literally a medival idea. if you start compare people with each other and give them values then you have lost you're moral compass. what are you suggesting we let all the people be judged according to value and let all who don't pass die? ?? or let them suffer??
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl 2. And I don't put a value on people that is a very left socialist idea of collectivism. I was simply stating with that example is that health care can not be a right because it involves variables of personal responsibility and like it or not a socialized health care system would lead to people being subjective to who receives what. Also the idea of individualism is far from medieval it is the idea of the enlightenment philosophers that we give freedom to each individual (Cont.)
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo let's reanalyse the universal declaration of human rights. universal= all and everywhere human=people and based on compassion rights= somthinjg you're guranteed. the us signed the decleration so unless us citizens are no longer human beings the state has to provide if the private sector can't give or support the poor to buy from the private sector.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@batman93oo i cannot do anything without letting my heart speak. for i care. but wake up how many people you don't give anything to charity? so many people don't care and the innocent have to suffer because of it. politics without emotions? we're not robots you know.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl You're completely missing the point of compassion in politics because it can blind one to the point that they ignore the facts. Socialized health care is more expensive, less efficient, and would lead to more deaths for simple fact of the matter that it's not a free service and requires tremendous amount of bureaucratic oversight to see how funds are being distributed and see who needs what. (Cont. moral question in next comment)
batman93oo 2 months ago
@glamedrehl 3. I never said politics without emotion either but you have to make sure that it's reasonable, now giving everybody a standardized health care system is noble but what are the effects? How is it proven any more efficient? How is it run? What happens when shortages happen, who receives what? Does everyone value health over wealth? I am very optimistic that humans have the incentive to do good themselves and the individual should never compromise his values to that of the collective
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo you obviously never been to western europe or canada have you? you obviously don't really know wha
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@batman93oo wen we have shortages wich we rarely do the children, pregnant women the very ill, the weakest of society will receive first not the wealthy. i believe that individsualism as what you see it is an illusion. people live in collectives people always chose habitation work friends religion on the basis of what they believe in,
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl Yes but that is up to the individual to which group he associates with, it is totally different when a collective spearhead puts down a policy that conflicts on the views of others. You don't understand collectivism vs individualism. Western Europe is in fiscal calamity because of how its system depends on heavy taxation and bureaucratic nightmare. We have moral expectation to help one another but not through polices that are irrational and violate the others freedom
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo what violation? oh yes a forced cheaper social security and pension plan. oh no save us oh defendors of liberty. freedom, is to say what you want without hurting one, it's organising without disriminating someone. we have that we have freedom. besides i worked at the ministiry of pensions in Belgium it's not chaos it's a public institution where anyone can come to and ask questions and receive help.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl Exactly Belgium, small country with a population smaller than states in the US. Besides the point western europe is filled with a bunch of micro-managing policies combined with private special interest. It's the reason why the Euro has had booms and busts in such a little lifetime. Social security hasn't ever been proved to be cheaper and never can because it takes income from one person, whether it be from increasing labor cost or people who work more, and gives it to another
batman93oo 2 months ago
@batman93oo hasn"t proved to be chaeper are you blind??? poor people ,;can't afford health care in the US but will receive health care here in Belgium. so it's cheaper for those with low incomes and more expensive for the wealthy wich is good. let the weakthy pay more then the poor that's how democracy and economy should work
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@batman93oo but how many people wrote the law? was it written for the benefit of few or many? the majority will should be stronger then the law as long as it isn't used to target certain people. besides if you say the law should be stronger then the peoples will, do we still have a democracy then? what is freedom then? you didn't awnser that question what is your vision on freedom?
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@batman93oo what i meant with control over the banks is that their actions are made public and those isane bonusses kept in check. thats the point of democracy, public control for public benefit.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl I'm right there with ya. Unfortunately, some call it socialism. Well, if thats socialism, I'm a filthy, nasty liberal socialist.
corinthian313 2 months ago 2
@corinthian313 it's not socialism it's humanity and compassion and a sense of justice. tell that to those right wing supporters.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@corinthian313 Yeah, I'm just a long-haired, pot-smokin', guitar-operatin', incense-burnin' left-of-Kucinich-leanin', tie-dye shirt wearin', Red Chinese Communist Marxist, supporter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
corvusblog 2 months ago
@glamedrehl
I'm fine with it as long as the government doesn't provide these things
pf91rodman 2 months ago
@pf91rodman why what is it whith the US and the state? it's not some evil god who wants to enslave us all. the state is made by the people, people determin how it operates. you want to live without a state go live in somalia and see how you like it.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl
Capitalism can provide those things and better. Please understand that everything the government touches gets more expensive and the quality gets worse. Take Heathcare or Education for example. That's why I think government should stay out of it and just allow the market to work. Government should only do what they're meant to do and that is to protect Life, Liberty, Property, and the Constitution
pf91rodman 2 months ago
@pf91rodman where did you get that information the republican propaganda websites? have you ever been to a country with fully goverment supplied education and healthcare? even so if. let's assume you're right that private is better. that doesn't help anyone who can't afford the private help and education.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl
I get my information from small government independent thinkers who understand how to free market works and who believe the government shouldn't step outside the boundaries of the Constitution. You claim that if we privatize things such as education and Healthcare, people won't be able to afford it. That's far from the truth. In a free market society, Competition is what drives prices down to affordable prices not only does it get affordable, but the quality also goes up.
pf91rodman 2 months ago
@glamedrehl The problem with government is that they have interfered with the free market by eliminating competition.Sure,Medical,Medicaid,and guaranteed student loans may sound good,but they are actually the problem.They're the reason why healthcare and education are getting more and more expensive.College and Healthcare was affordable before there were any of those things. Let the free market decide the prices not the government, because the market does a better job.
pf91rodman 2 months ago
@pf91rodmani live in a country that garantees education and medical care. their is a state run and a private run sector for both schooling and medical care. the goverment declared both must have the same high quality so inspects both. my doctor has a private clinic and i pay there but the state insurance will pay back about 2/3 of what i paid. before this was implemented the majority of the population didn't have access tot decent medical care and schooling(wich is also supported)
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl
I don't know if you ever heard the old economic saying, "there's no such thing a a free lunch" because that certainly applies here. Nothing is free, and there's a cost to everything. The government is proven to be inefficient when dealing with cost and quality. Government wastes more when it spends. The government can't force businesses private or public to be high quality because it will just cost more for the taxpayer and business owner. Quality and lowprice should come naturally.
pf91rodman 2 months ago
@pf91rodman besides look up you're own history in the 1920ties communist parties were very popular in many large cities in the US why because so many wanted help and didn't get any. you're logic doesn't make sense if the majority takes support from the goverment that means it's cheaper then private so if their would be reel competition the private sector would lower it's prices as well. but theyd don't why? because the corporation who make the medicans want big profits
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl
My logic does make sense. You seem to believe the government should provide everything. But you seem to forget where to money is coming from. The tax payer. If you think taxpayers should pay more for things that are more expensive and less quality, then your logic doesn't make sense. Government doesn't make things cheaper, why do you think Education is so expensive now?Explain.
pf91rodman 2 months ago
@pf91rodman but education is cheap in belgium where i live and that's goverment supported. you have a blind idealistic view of capitalism. the pharmacy world is a small world where the big companies decide a price to keep it artificially high. they don't care about the market they want money and care how.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@pf91rodman i don't believe goverment should supplie everything, as i said have you ever been to a country with state supported social programs? i live in one. the state supports the people who can't afford to pay in full. their is a private school secor but they pay(the teachers) as much as the public one and at the same quality. it's cheaper because all the people pay for the system it's calles social solidarity. we believe we should work together to built a better society. power trough unity
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl Also, the reason why private sector isn't lowering prices is because the government has eliminated that by interfering with the free market and by eliminating competition. You can't have low prices if people would rather go to the so called "free" public schools instead of private schools because the school wouldn't be able to stay in business if it offers prices like that. They have eliminated the competition. Like a Wal-mart would to any small businesses around it.
pf91rodman 2 months ago
@pf91rodman look i have a friend who's from eastern siberia he wans't even born when the soviet union fell. but he told countless stories of how lucky he was he had an uncle in Belgium because in siberia since the fall of communism people get poorer every year. the buissness sector doesn't invest, the private hospitals aren't visisted by the masses because they can't afford, their's no region in Russia today were they scream as hard for a return of goverment support systems and institutions
glamedrehl 2 months ago
@glamedrehl A real country "for the people" would be one that allows people to start their own business and prosper.Business would have to compete with one another to offer cheaper and better quality products and services. Businesses would have to compete with one another to buy Labor. If one business offers higher wages than the other people would go there instead. That is what really works. Wages were actually a lot higher before Government mandated businesses on how much they must pay workers
pf91rodman 2 months ago
@pf91rodman you believe humans always follow the rational economic choise, it doesn't work like that. small example i never by from the cheapest butcher in my town. why? because my familie is friends with the other one. people let emotions and personal relations help decide where they work and where they buy.
glamedrehl 2 months ago
I'm so glad FDR never got this passed. We would only have increased poverty, hunger and bad health for today's world. Gov't is not magically capable of giving you a decent standard of living. Never has. Never will.
redcups21 4 months ago
Sounds GREAT, but from a lot of theses comments it sounds like a lot of people been brainwashed by the 1%...
videovoid 4 months ago
I always knew that he was a tool, just didn't know he was that big of a tool. He really had no clue. He is one of the main founding fathers of the collapse we are seeing today.
chrisjstone1975 4 months ago
welfare statism is unsustainable, and every day europe proves this to be more and more correct
StatelessEuphoria 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank God he's dead.
tehsuperepicpwnzor 4 months ago
What a SOCIALIST!!! Good thing he died before he could act on those things in his 4th term. ;-)
Ed534 4 months ago
@Ed534 This "Socialist" Got the country out of the depression and was re-elected for a third turn because the people wanted it, and fourth if possible but as you said, good thing he died, otherwise who knows what would've happened?! We would all be better off! Holy shit, but I'm glad the country is on the shit state it is now, hell it gives rise to abortions like yourself :D . One of the good last presidents of the USA, a man who wanted the best for the People. :)
KorruptedCell 4 months ago
How to work like a statist like FDR:
1. Take some sort of personal issue
2. Call it a "right" for everyone
3. ????
4 PROFIT!!! (for the state)
pwnurnoobazz 4 months ago 2
@pwnurnoobazz
how to be a libertarian
1) Take some sort of personal issue
2) Call it freedom
3) ???
4) PROFIT!! (for yourself at the expense of others)
unassumption 3 months ago
At the cost of the taxpayer... Nothing comes free and this is just another socialist idea that, luckily, didn't go through, otherwise we'd have less freedoms than we (barely) already do thanks to the government's interference in our lives.
wedjlok 4 months ago 2
@wedjlok Every single one of the rights Roosevelt mentioned would be easily funded if we didn't spend so much money on wars and military armaments and global bases.
AWesome61696 4 months ago
@AWesome61696 I believe we should spend a LOT less on foreign wars and armaments... save it for defense. But you say easily funded, so by whom? By the taxpayer, of course. Certain things should not be considered "rights", and the government taking care of people wholesale is definitely not a right. We have the right to the pursuit of happiness, and liberty, not government free housing at the expense of others, nor any other welfare state instituted "rights" at the expense of other people.
wedjlok 4 months ago
@wedjlok Yes taxpayers must pay for programs that contribute to the well being of society. As a liberal, I beleive people whould have a right to ONE house or apartent, at the expense of people who have many houses and many cars and boats- because rich people do pay most of the taxes anyway. My ideology beleives in a welfare state, if you just wanna say "screw those people, I my money back!" be my guest.
AWesome61696 4 months ago
@AWesome61696 Taxpayers MUST? See, that's exactly why the "liberal" idea is one of force. It would seem better to empower those people that rely on others to take care of them in such a welfare state instead of making them dependent upon others even more. The problem is that the gov't decides what is the "well being of society", and that's NOT their job. Therefore, a welfare state is one where MY money is stolen (taxed) and used for something that I may not agree with. That's a tyranny.
wedjlok 4 months ago
@wedjlok You see, it's not a tyranny, because the people voted for the leaders who created welfare programs, and the leaders who expanded these programs. If you personally didn't, well, tough luck. That's basic Majority-Rules democracy. The majority of Americans support welfare programs.
Oh, and the "empowering" crap is empty rederick. If a house is burning down, the firemen don't say "let's do nothing, and empower those people to help themselves and not rely on the taxpayer dollars."
AWesome61696 4 months ago
@AWesome61696
So, the tempering of raw power by the Constitution does to count?
Oh, and this is "rederick", as opposed to "bluerick"?
RogerOnTheRight 4 months ago
@RogerOnTheRight I have no idea what your talking about. But I beleive that every American is entitled to a minimum quality of life in this country, and that this new, militant, libertarian-right movement on Youtube only cares about less government. How about less poverty? How about a higher standard of living for all Americans regardless of economic status?
This was what Roosevelt envisioned. A United States that takes care of it's citizens in addition to guaranteeing liberty.
AWesome61696 3 months ago
@AWesome61696
@RogerOnTheRight
Well, you seem to laud "majority rules" democracy. We live in a constitutional republic, carefully designed to avoid the mob rule exhibited by the French Revolution's Reign of Terror. Pure democracy is evil. Ask any Jew who lived in Germany in the early 20th century.
This entitlement, however, is certainly not part of the Constitution. I mean, in order to ensure you get your house or car or whatever, something has to be seized from someone else.
RogerOnTheRight 3 months ago
@RogerOnTheRight Off course it's not part of the constitution. The constitution is the most important document in the United States, yet that doesn't mean we are strictly bounded by it. Remember, the constitution was written in the 18th century. We now live in the 21st. Progress has happened. The first world nations have reached consesus that people are entitled to healthcare and education.
I don't beleive in pure democracy, I beleive in technical democracy, which is for a whole new story.
AWesome61696 3 months ago
@AWesome61696
If the Constitution is the most important document, then what is wrong with adhering to it?
And what consensus have we reached? If you think we have a consensus on expropriating from one group to give to another, then get a constitutional amendment passed to provide for just that.
Until then, your notion of consensus means exactly bupkis.
RogerOnTheRight 3 months ago
@RogerOnTheRight Once again, your mis-interpreting my argument. Our government can adhere to the constitution while adding new programs or policies, nothing in the constitution prohibits that. And every other country in the first world has universal healthcare except ours. The UK, Conservative Party's official platform is one of public healthcare, showing how backwards the GOP truly is.
What is wrong with providing healthcare to those less fortunate? Can you explain this to me?
AWesome61696 3 months ago
@AWesome61696
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes free.
The demand for things subsidized is unlimited. Right now, hospitals are shutting down because emergency services-- free-- are swamped. People sometimes use e-rooms for trivial issues. Why? Free!
And the U K system is a mess. It is broken, and rationing is normal. People wait for basic diagnostics, and die in the process.
RogerOnTheRight 3 months ago
@AWesome61696
So, the point is, you might have the best of intentions, but to follow and copy a program that fails is simply stupid. Better to fix our current system, which is clearly the best in the world, to make it more competitive and thus available at lower prices.
Freedom works. Try it some time.
RogerOnTheRight 3 months ago
@RogerOnTheRight Clearly the best in the world... really? The gap between the richest and the poorest grows every year. Unemployment is the highest it has been since the 1930s. Poverty is rampantly growing too. Class warfare is at its meanest. Bottom line, "freedom" is not free; someone has to pay, and for the past 30 years it has been our middle class that has paid, so that our richest might live in larger mansions from which they invest their mountains of wealth in global assets.
jumpbacktome 3 months ago
@jumpbacktome
You fail to account for the economic fluidity our society has. Many of those at the top were not there until recently, and most of those at the bottom won't be there in 10 years. Reporters often make the mistake of assuming a static economic class structure, which does not exist.
Moreover, presumed disparity between rich and poor does not negate the fact our medical care is indeed the best in the world. People don't travel to Canada to get medical treatment.
RogerOnTheRight 3 months ago
@jumpbacktome
But you are correct, freedom is not free. You have to fight for it. But, you also need to understand where the fight is.
If you worry about unemployment, then consider the history of the subject and note the patterns. Government intervention causes unemployment. Shrink government, grow jobs. And freedom.
RogerOnTheRight 3 months ago
@RogerOnTheRight You keep saying the same thing over and over, yet you don't justify the claim. WHY does smaller government lead to jobs? When the government quit intervening, we watched an exodus of companies that moved overseas. They haven't come back, and no amount of inaction has helped.
Furthermore, the government is meant to be a tool of the people. It has been taken over by private interests, which is dangerous, but the problem lies not within the concept of government itself.
jumpbacktome 3 months ago
@jumpbacktome
When government intervened with massive spending in 1930, what started as a bad depression turned into a depression. And as gov't spent more, things got worse. Unemployment stayed in the teens for about a decade. WW2 did not end it, either. Little wealth was created during the war.
After the war, gov't spending dropped dramatically, and then the private sector took off, growing rapidly.
RogerOnTheRight 3 months ago
@jumpbacktome
Also, during the 70s, government spending (and tax rates) grew dramatically, largely from social programs legislated in the 60s. The private sector languished as jobs became scare and money became tight.
As to your statement about gov't "quit intervening", the government has never quit intervening. So what are you talking about?
I agree, private interests ought not take over gov't. That is my point. Expanding gov't only creates more cronyism.
RogerOnTheRight 3 months ago
@RogerOnTheRight Yes, the private sector surged following the war, but there were a lot of factors that play into that. Moreover, the majority of important legislation passed during FDR's presidency stayed intact until long after that. I refer to Glass-Steagall, along with other legislation, which protected especially the middle class from exploitation. When these were repealed, especially in the Reagan era, banks and Wall Street went right back to their pre-Depression ways.
jumpbacktome 3 months ago
@jumpbacktome
What factors were at play? We have huge numbers of people leaving the military, so unemployment ought to have surged. And government spending dropped like a rock, so the "stimulus" effect would have been reversed. And still, nobody had any money, having gone through 15 years of deep depression.
Glass-Steagall was not repealed by Reagan. The repeal was signed by Bill Clinton. And regulation did not cease to exist, not by a long shot.
RogerOnTheRight 3 months ago
@jumpbacktome
Beat in mind, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose failure triggered our current financial mess, did not exist during the Great Depression. Those are creatures of a modern Congress, along with the abuse that always accompanies well-intended government intervention into otherwise free markets.
RogerOnTheRight 3 months ago
@wedjlok You'd rather pay taxes for other peoples' antique commodes?
guruguru687 2 months ago
HIS IDEAS HAVE BEEN USED TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY!! now we need less government
chazman800 4 months ago
@chazman800 : Does that "Less Government" extend to gay marriage and women's rights? If less government is what people want, I'm no one to say its not fair.. but what I need is consistency. It seems the ones screaming "less government" the loudest are the first to stick their big government noses in our personal lives.
If the government has "no place" in our finances, why then would they have a place in our personal decisions?
Anyone feel free to answer.
Javajunki03 4 months ago
@Javajunki03 I MEAN NO WELFARE, NOTHING I AM NOT TEA PARTY , REPUBLICAN OR LEFT, i want them the hell out of my personal space.
chazman800 4 months ago
@Javajunki03
As usual, a perceived conservative's economic view is brushed off due to his perceived idea of personal liberties. It happens the other way around too. Have you yet realized that both liberals and conservatives are hypocrites? But there is another way. There is a group that realizes that believe the government should be out of people's civil AND fiscal life. A group that is against the Patriot Act AND these "liberties" that FDR wanted (at the hands of the taxpayers).
Libertarians!
handsockpuppet 4 months ago
As most of us know this bill was never enacted, FDR died before he could propose this 2nd bill of rights to congress. How ever it did benefit two countries, Japan and Germany ..After the war FDR s advisors helped rebuild both countries and and instilled these same ideas into their new "constitution" now japan and germany are two of the wealthiest countries in the world..Organized labor does work just ask Japan and Germany..
ellabella030508 5 months ago 2
@ellabella030508 Nice rip off of capitalism, a love story.
jimbo111589 4 months ago
they just dnt make American presidents like this anymore
ole6945 7 months ago 3
@ole6945 because back then, the president ran himself, now, he's just a puppet for the Bilderberg Group and others like it.
sw204me 6 months ago 3
@ole6945 You mean greedy corporations don't pay for presidents like this anymore...
jimbo111589 4 months ago
@ole6"they just dnt make American presidents like this anymore" You mean american president that forced a portion of its citizens into concentration camps because of a perceived threat and where a bunch of innocent civilians were slaughtered during the tokyo bombings and the dresden bombings that took place during Roosevelt's presidency, and turn our economy into a command economy? Yeah, they certainly don't make presidents like FDR anymore, despite trying to leave up to his horrible legacy.
Pentazoid111 4 months ago 4
The man was a true saint, its sad that men of this calibre go unheard.
PuppKill3r 1 year ago 2