Thread: Creating Terrorists, Why do we continue to do it?

Originally Posted by ScummyD

My question was rhetorical to illustrate a point.

The point is that if you are dependent on somebody to provide for you then you are hesitant and reluctant to bite the hand that feeds you if not adamant in your support of them no matter how degrading your position really is in receiving the rations of slavery. It is the fundamental underpinning of American liberalism.

Freedom is . . . not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights— the "right" to education, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery— hay and a barn for human cattle.

P.J. O'Rourke

Social Security and Medicare are paid for by the people, through taxes withheld, so they are not entitlements and helped create the middle class.

If you are opposed to welfare, than pay everyone that works full time a living wage.

Improving the lot of Americans is an admirable accomplishment, and the people rewarded FDR for it by electing him 3 times.

Even today, as I have referenced above, he is still considered one of the top 3 presidents, ahead of Thomas Jefferson.

Originally Posted by Catawba

Social Security and Medicare are paid for by the people, through taxes withheld, so they are not entitlements and helped create the middle class.

They are entitlements, by defintion.

I don't need the nanny state extracting money from my checks for my own retirement, as if I'm a moron who can't take care of myself or some little 4 year old kid that can't take care of myself.

If you are opposed to welfare, than pay everyone that works full time a living wage.

If you don't like welfare do what is necessary to get a better paying job instead of acting like a parasite leaching off society.

Improving the lot of Americans is an admirable accomplishment, and the people rewarded FDR for it by electing him 3 times.

Uh, welfare does not "improve the lot of Americans." It serves up the rations of slavery and fosters soul sapping dependence.

Using the power of the federal government to forcibly extract money from one class of people you think has too much and handing it out to another class of people you think more deserving is not "an admirable accomplishment." It's not your money so taking it and giving it out should hardly be seen as "admirable."

Even today, as I have referenced above, he is still considered one of the top 3 presidents, ahead of Thomas Jefferson.

And I bet you would also cite public opinion concerning people thinking Iraq was responsible for 9-11 in some way, too, huh?

Originally Posted by cpwill

oh man, you can't make stuff like this up

then offer us your cites

Originally Posted by Catawba

When you answer my question, I will answer yours.

if you'll check out post 664, you'll note it has already been answered.

Originally Posted by justabubba

then offer us your cites

Amity Shlaes "The Forgotten Man"
Thomas Woods "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History"

those are the two books i happen to be using for a paper i'm working on right now, so i used them in the post above, but that particular policy is sort of what you call "accepted history", right along with the National Industrial Recovery Act and putting Secretary Mellon on trial. thus, it's all over the web:


Another major feature of FDR’s New Deal was the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which sought to keep agricultural prices up through the mass destruction of crops and livestock. It worked in keeping prices up, but at a time when Americans were starving, this was perhaps not the most sensible or humane approach.

Daily Kos: The essential lesson of the Great Depression was that we destroyed food to boost market prices while people were starving.

There is mounting evidence developed by dozens of economists, at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Stanford, the University of Chicago, University of Virginia, University of California (Berkeley) and other universities, that double-digit unemployment was prolonged by FDR's own New Deal policies.

How can that be? Consider just a few of FDR's policies. The New Deal tripled federal taxes between 1933 and 1940 -- excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, dividend taxes, excess profits taxes all went up, and FDR introduced an undistributed profits tax. A number of New Deal laws, including some 700 industrial cartel codes, made it more expensive for employers to hire people, and this discouraged hiring.

Frequent changes in the tax laws plus FDR's anti-business rhetoric ("economic royalists") discouraged people from making investments essential for growth and jobs. New Deal securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital. FDR issued antitrust lawsuits against some 150 employers and companies, making it harder for them to focus on business. FDR signed a law ordering the break-up of America's strongest banks, with the lowest failure rates. New Deal farm policies destroyed food -- 10 million acres of crops and 6 million farm animals -- thereby wiping out farm jobs and forcing food prices above market levels for 100 million American consumers.



sorry man, but Roosevelt had them destroy food in the middle of a recession at a time when Americans were starving. he then had the US government pay farmers not to produce food, so that the supply would be kept artificially low and the prices artificially high. where did you think we got agricultural subsidies from?

Originally Posted by Catawba

Social Security and Medicare are paid for by the people, through taxes withheld, so they are not entitlements and helped create the middle class.

both of them are a ponzi scheme, and as far as social security is concerned, it inhibits rather than increases the growth of the middle class.

If you are opposed to welfare, than pay everyone that works full time a living wage.

if i am opposed to keeping people in poverty i must instead make sure that they are unemployed in massive numbers?

Improving the lot of Americans is an admirable accomplishment, and the people rewarded FDR for it by electing him 3 times.

Even today, as I have referenced above, he is still considered one of the top 3 presidents, ahead of Thomas Jefferson.

well, no one recently has accused the American people of being too up on their history, and a significant percentage are ideologically committed to pretending like all of the consequences of the FDR's programs were somehow beyond his control.

Originally Posted by ScummyD

I don't need the nanny state extracting money from my checks...

Once you get a majority that feel Social Security and Medicaid are no longer needed, please be sure to let me know.

Originally Posted by cpwill

well, no one recently has accused the American people of being too up on their history...

Its not just historians that consider FDR one of the 3 best presidents, the majority of Americans that lived through that time also thought he was the best because they reelected him 3 times.

Originally Posted by Catawba

Once you get a majority that feel Social Security and Medicaid are no longer needed, please be sure to let me know.

to be completely honest, i can understand an older crowd feeling this way. They had so many people per retiree paying them SS up until retirement, and they are all taken care of... i suppose they would want the "nanny state" and that ever so elusive "big government" to leave them alone now.

Originally Posted by Z3n

to be completely honest, i can understand an older crowd feeling this way. They had so many people per retiree paying them SS up until retirement, and they are all taken care of... i suppose they would want the "nanny state" and that ever so elusive "big government" to leave them alone now.

Exactly why you don't see any Republican's stumping on doing away with either SS or Medicaid. Its a no win position.