President Harry Truman on Socialism

Tigerace117 said:

How was he a "war criminal" exactly? Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a huge number of lives of both allied personnel and Japanese civilians who were going to be flung into the fire in a desperate attempt to stop Downfall.

Click to expand...

You clearly have been keeping up with liberal propaganda. I dont blame you, but its true just the same.

Fletch said:

You clearly have been keeping up with liberal propaganda. I dont blame you, but its true just the same.

Click to expand...

That is not a counter argument. Shrieking “propaganda!” does not replace facts and evidence.

Purple Hearts which were created in preparation for Operation Downfall are still being issued to this day.

Purple Heart Stockpile: The WWII Medals Still Being Issued

The allied casualties were going to be, in a word, immense.

That’s not even factoring in the habit of Japanese civilians to kill themselves to avoid capture

Japanese Mass Suicides | Atomic Heritage Foundation


“In July 1944, American troops in Saipan bore witness to a “banzai” charge, where nearly 4,000 Japanese soldiers charged American troops and fought to their death. They were following the last orders of their commander, Lieutenant General Yoshisugu Saito, who had called for this all-out surprise attack in the honor of the Emperor before committing ritual suicide. American troops also witnessed a different atrocity as they saw women grabbing children and jumping from cliffs rather than submitting to capture.

As US forces pushed forward, island by island, troops continued to bear witness to Japanese soldiers and civilians taking their own lives. Okinawa was a particularly hellish scene as nearly one-third of the island population died. Among these were Koreans who had been forcibly migrated from annexed Korea to Japanese islands to be press-ganged as laborers and comfort women. While the Japanese government states there was “military involvement” in these suicides, survivors attest to a compulsory mass suicide, or shudan jiketsu.

Ota Masahide, a survivor and Okinawa historian, wrote in an article for the Asia-Pacific Journal in 2014 that the military distributed hand-grenades to the civilian population as the means to commit suicide with loved ones. Those that survived the grenades “worried” about being alive and found other ways to kill themselves with other weapons such as scythes, razor blades, ropes, rocks, and sticks. Military propaganda had warned the civilian population that if they were captured, the Americans would torture, rape, and murder them. ”

As well as Japanese civilian conscripts, poorly unarmed and barely trained

Volunteer Fighting Corps - Wikipedia

Fletch said:

You clearly have been keeping up with liberal propaganda. I dont blame you, but its true just the same.

Click to expand...

Then, of course, we get into the fact that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.

“The city of Hiroshima is located on the broad, flat delta of the Ota River, which has 7 channel outlets dividing the city into six islands which project into Hiroshima Bay. The city is almost entirely flat and only slightly above sea level; to the northwest and northeast of the city some hills rise to 700 feet. A single hill in the eastern part of the city proper about 1/2 mile long and 221 feet in height interrupted to some extent the spreading of the blast damage; otherwise the city was fully exposed to the bomb. Of a city area of over 26 square miles, only 7 square miles were completely built-up. There was no marked separation of commercial, industrial, and residential zones. 75% of the population was concentrated in the densely built-up area in the center of the city.

Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."

The center of the city contained a number of reinforced concrete buildings as well as lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses; a few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs. Many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.

Some of the reinforced concrete buildings were of a far stronger construction than is required by normal standards in America, because of the earthquake danger in Japan. This exceptionally strong construction undoubtedly accounted for the fact that the framework of some of the buildings which were fairly close to the center of damage in the city did not collapse.

The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 380,000 earlier in the war but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack the population was approximately 255,000. This figure is based on the registered population, used by the Japanese in computing ration quantities, and the estimates of additional workers and troops who were brought into the city may not be highly accurate. Hiroshima thus had approximately the same number of people as the city of Providence, R.I., or Dallas, Tex.

Nagasaki

Nagasaki lies at the head of a long bay which forms the best natural harbor on the southern Japanese home island of Kyushu. The main commercial and residential area of the city lies on a small plain near the end of the bay. Two rivers divided by a mountain spur form the two main valleys in which the city lies. This mountain spur and the irregular lay-out of the city tremendously reduced the area of destruction, so that at first glance Nagasaki appeared to have been less devastated than Hiroshima.

The heavily build-up area of the city is confined by the terrain to less than 4 square miles out of a total of about 35 square miles in the city as a whole.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries.

In contrast to many modern aspects of Nagasaki, the residences almost without exception were of flimsy, typical Japanese construction, consisting of wood or wood-frame buildings, with wood walls with or without plaster, and tile roofs. Many of the smaller industries and business establishments were also housed in wooden buildings or flimsily built masonry buildings. Nagasaki had been permitted to grow for many years without conforming to any definite city zoning plan and therefore residences were constructed adjacent to factory buildings and to each other almost as close as it was possible to build them throughout the entire industrial valley.”

Avalon Project - The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Lutherf said:

I suppose that one's interpretation of Socialism would be colored by how they interpret the term "help".

For example, back before Obamacare I had lots of choices for who I could purchase health insurance from. I could purchase catastrophic coverage plans, comprehensive plans and all kinds of plans in between. Then the Democrats decided to "help" me. I lost all those options and last year I had a grand total of one provider to choose from. This year I have two providers. I can't choose a catastrophic coverage plan. I can choose not to be covered but, before Trump signed an order getting rid of them, there were financial penalties if I made that choice.

Other people may have felt helped and I have a couple of clients who actually benefited from Obamacare but I pretty much disagree with the whole idea that the program, as a whole, really qualifies as "help".

Click to expand...

Obama care was the best the democrats could get, and they couldn't even get a public option, such was the power of lobbyists. The answer is to preserve private insurance for those who want it, and something like Medicare for all for others. Somehow the rest of the developed world and some of the poorer nations like Mexico have figured this out. We are all socialists (and capitalists), except on different subjects. We all get some help from government.

Some things never change...

Fletch said:

Really? What is it I said that isnt true?

Click to expand...

You accused Truman of being a "racist war criminal" and, as usual, never supported this or any other accusations with proof or even evidence. As you can tell, everyone has you figured out. All you do is lie.

maxparrish said:

[/I][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]Harry forgot to add the last line: "Socialism is what they call socialism" - a truism Democrats have always avoided.

Click to expand...

He didn't forget that line. He had a better way with words and a point to make that has nothing to do with that line.

Fletch said:

Truman was a racist war criminal so it isn't surprising that he would be a fan of the most destructive ideology known to man.

Click to expand...

Damn but you live in a simple, two-dimensional world. Are there only 7 colours, like a cheap cartoon show?

DifferentDrummr said:

Arguably the wisest quote every made by a president. It's no wonder he mentioned this in the age of McCarthy (1952).

Click to expand...

I guess he didn't know that at virtually the same time he uttered his wisest words socialism was busy slowly starving 120 million human souls to death? You see, when govt helps some people it does so at the expense of others thus discouraging everyone from working and encouraging everyone to starve.

bongsaway said:

A tip of the hat to your pops. My father in law is a ww2 combat vet. A jew fighting in europe against hitler. And what he sees today from republicans turns his stomach.

Click to expand...

Same with my father.
Snuck over here in the belly of a freighter while his father was in the custody of the Gestapo, got legal residency, became naturalized and then wound up right back in Germany where he came from, a Jewish man fighting Nazis.

If he was alive today this would turn his stomach, too.
The way Trump people talk today is an insult to the Greatest Generation.

"Socialism is a scareword they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people."

I wonder why it needs to be enforced with the whip, club, and gun?

Lutherf said:

I suppose that one's interpretation of Socialism would be colored by how they interpret the term "help".

For example, back before Obamacare I had lots of choices for who I could purchase health insurance from. I could purchase catastrophic coverage plans, comprehensive plans and all kinds of plans in between. Then the Democrats decided to "help" me. I lost all those options and last year I had a grand total of one provider to choose from. This year I have two providers. I can't choose a catastrophic coverage plan. I can choose not to be covered but, before Trump signed an order getting rid of them, there were financial penalties if I made that choice.

Other people may have felt helped and I have a couple of clients who actually benefited from Obamacare but I pretty much disagree with the whole idea that the program, as a whole, really qualifies as "help".

Click to expand...

Sympathize with your problem, but my wife is one of those who benefits from Obamacare rules. I have three theories on the ACA: one is that the democrats got the best they could given a system where such is the power of insurance companies, they couldn’t even get a public option into the law, something that might have helped your situation. It was a “foot in the door” strategy. Second is that whatever it’s flaws, GOP opposition to Obamacare centers on its first three syllables. Apparently not one single vote in favor from a republican for a plan that had some republican roots. And spitefully turning down expansion of Medicaid which would have cost states little. Really? The third point is obvious in the GOP chant of repeal and *replace.* Obama moved the needle on the health care debate. I can imagine 30 years from now some republicans taking offense if someone accuses them of attacking Obamacare — tho they won’t call it that. It will be as sacred a cow as it is in every developed country, as it is with Medicare.

Nickyjo said:

Obama care was the best the democrats could get, and they couldn't even get a public option, such was the power of lobbyists. The answer is to preserve private insurance for those who want it, and something like Medicare for all for others. Somehow the rest of the developed world and some of the poorer nations like Mexico have figured this out. We are all socialists (and capitalists), except on different subjects. We all get some help from government.

Click to expand...

I'm going to throw one more story about "help" out there.

Three years ago a client came into my office and asked if I could help them with an IRS problem. They owed the IRS $14,000 because they had to pay back their Obamacare subsidy. The reason that they had to repay the subsidy isn't because they made too much money or lied to the Exchange about how much their income was going to be. They had actually done everything right but hit one little snag.

They had moved to a more rural area, taken part time jobs and started collecting early social security. This gave them as much income as they would need and, with a full ride from Obamacare, they could even afford their health insurance. Unfortunately, inside of a year this client's husband started to go blind and he needed to move back to town where he could receive treatments. In order to fund the move the taxpayer pulled $20k from their 401(k) that had about $45k in it. That $20k meant that they no longer qualified for ANY Obamacare subsidy and they had to pay the $14k back. We plead poverty with the IRS and told them that there was no way these people could pay back the $14k. The IRS said, "You've still got $25k in your 401(k). Use that money". I explained to the IRS that if the taxpayer took that money out they would end up in the same situation for the current year that they were in for the prior year and all the subsidy they received would need to be paid back.

I was able to work out a deal where the IRS would allow them to pay the $14k back at $25/mo but in a year that payment would go to $250/mo. The taxpayer agreed with the understanding that when the increase was due to kick in we're renegotiate the deal and get things back to the $25. Unfortunately this particular taxpayer panicked, pulled the money out of the 401(k), never told me about it and got slammed the following year. I know that's not how it worked for everybody but it is another example of how Obamacare "helped" someone.

Lutherf said:

I'm going to throw one more story about "help" out there.

Three years ago a client came into my office and asked if I could help them with an IRS problem. They owed the IRS $14,000 because they had to pay back their Obamacare subsidy. The reason that they had to repay the subsidy isn't because they made too much money or lied to the Exchange about how much their income was going to be. They had actually done everything right but hit one little snag.

They had moved to a more rural area, taken part time jobs and started collecting early social security. This gave them as much income as they would need and, with a full ride from Obamacare, they could even afford their health insurance. Unfortunately, inside of a year this client's husband started to go blind and he needed to move back to town where he could receive treatments. In order to fund the move the taxpayer pulled $20k from their 401(k) that had about $45k in it. That $20k meant that they no longer qualified for ANY Obamacare subsidy and they had to pay the $14k back. We plead poverty with the IRS and told them that there was no way these people could pay back the $14k. The IRS said, "You've still got $25k in your 401(k). Use that money". I explained to the IRS that if the taxpayer took that money out they would end up in the same situation for the current year that they were in for the prior year and all the subsidy they received would need to be paid back.

I was able to work out a deal where the IRS would allow them to pay the $14k back at $25/mo but in a year that payment would go to $250/mo. The taxpayer agreed with the understanding that when the increase was due to kick in we're renegotiate the deal and get things back to the $25. Unfortunately this particular taxpayer panicked, pulled the money out of the 401(k), never told me about it and got slammed the following year. I know that's not how it worked for everybody but it is another example of how Obamacare "helped" someone.

Click to expand...

That stinks. It seems that US had an advantage over other countries, we could have studied what has worked and what has not in other places since they have had generations to work on this, including why they seem to be healthier, making allowances for our size and diversity. I don't understand the GOP opposition to this sort of thing, except for two theories advanced. One, by republicans, that once a benefit like Medicare is provided the populace, it is impossible to trim it or remove it. The other by democrats about republicans, that their more conservative wing doesnt want another domestic program that shows that government can work to improve people's lives, a variation on Reagan's unbelievably cruel and ignorant comment that the scariest words in the English language are "I am from the government and I am here to help you."

James972 said:

I guess he didn't know that at virtually the same time he uttered his wisest words socialism was busy slowly starving 120 million human souls to death? You see, when govt helps some people it does so at the expense of others thus discouraging everyone from working and encouraging everyone to starve.

Click to expand...

Don't the Scandinavians know this? How could they provide benefits to their people knowing that mass starvation will be the inevitable result. True, you are paying for my Medicare and SS. I am enjoying my retirement and health at your expense. Sorry But take hope that someone will contribute to benefits for your golden years. And what a disgrace, the government pays benefits far in excess of what he earned for a freeloading friend paralyzed by a stray bullet. I have to admit my wife has to push me to clean the yard and stop eating so much, and I have failed to do any research on the drugs I need for my disease.

Nickyjo said:

That stinks. It seems that US had an advantage over other countries, we could have studied what has worked and what has not in other places since they have had generations to work on this, including why they seem to be healthier, making allowances for our size and diversity. I don't understand the GOP opposition to this sort of thing, except for two theories advanced. One, by republicans, that once a benefit like Medicare is provided the populace, it is impossible to trim it or remove it. The other by democrats about republicans, that their more conservative wing doesnt want another domestic program that shows that government can work to improve people's lives, a variation on Reagan's unbelievably cruel and ignorant comment that the scariest words in the English language are "I am from the government and I am here to help you."

Click to expand...

The Democrats want a single payer system. Obamacare was their pathway to get there. As far as "socialism" goes you don't get much more socialist that essentially taking over the entire medical industry via regulation.

There were LOTS of options other than what we got but the Democrats saw their window of opportunity and went for it. The Republicans were too focused on optics to bother fighting it and Roberts was too focused on popular sentiment instead of the Constitution to do the right thing when it got to him.

If we had 50 states trying 50 different ways to deal with the issue of medical care we would likely come up with a good solution or two in relatively short order. That, however, is no longer likely to happen. We're going to be stuck with one plan nationwide that will keep getting tweaked for political purposes year after year.

Lutherf said:

The Democrats want a single payer system. Obamacare was their pathway to get there. As far as "socialism" goes you don't get much more socialist that essentially taking over the entire medical industry via regulation.

There were LOTS of options other than what we got but the Democrats saw their window of opportunity and went for it. The Republicans were too focused on optics to bother fighting it and Roberts was too focused on popular sentiment instead of the Constitution to do the right thing when it got to him.

If we had 50 states trying 50 different ways to deal with the issue of medical care we would likely come up with a good solution or two in relatively short order. That, however, is no longer likely to happen. We're going to be stuck with one plan nationwide that will keep getting tweaked for political purposes year after year.

Click to expand...

We already have socialist models: Medicare, Medicaid, and government employee health care. The VA, of course, is all out communist. I agree that the democrats saw a window of opportunity —good for them— but all they could do was preserve a system of private health insurance. Europe, Canada, Mexico, and the Aussies and Kiwis have figured this out. And they are healthier than we are. What’s not to like about single payer? I have an incurable disease (not fatal) and am doing fine on Medicare. So do others I know.

Beowulf said:

"Socialism is a scareword they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people."

I wonder why it needs to be enforced with the whip, club, and gun?

Click to expand...

Completely missed the point.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

The way Trump people talk today is an insult to the Greatest Generation.

Click to expand...

Trump can be a little rude but the Nazi Fascist Green New Deal is the death of America. Too complex for a liberal to grasp?

Beowulf said:

"Socialism is a scareword ?

Click to expand...

perhaps because it just killed 120 million??

Beowulf said:

I wonder why it( libsocialism) needs to be enforced with the whip, club, and gun?

Click to expand...

I guess because real Americans like their freedom and don't want to be like children living off the govt teat?

Nickyjo said:

What’s not to like about single payer?

Click to expand...

do you mean single payer for cars, houses, education, food and health care? We don't like that it's libNazi communist and not American. Do you understand these ABC's?

James972 said:

I guess he didn't know that at virtually the same time he uttered his wisest words socialism was busy slowly starving 120 million human souls to death? You see, when govt helps some people it does so at the expense of others thus discouraging everyone from working and encouraging everyone to starve.

Click to expand...

So you agree that his words were wise. Thank you.

DifferentDrummr said:

So you agree that his words were wise. .

Click to expand...

If I agreed I'll pay you $10,000 in legally binding bet? Bet or run away yet again with your liberal tail between your legs.

James972 said:

If I agreed I'll pay you $10,000 in legally binding bet? Bet or run away yet again with your liberal tail between your legs.

Click to expand...

You don't have the money, remember?