President roosevelt: "the economic bill of rights"

[8537]

You're as wrong as Krugman. Go back and check your math.

US Army Air Force would have left Soviet armor as a smoking pile of scrap metal. Losses in the millions?

FDR surrendered tens of million in Eastern Europe to one of history's greatest Mass murderers "Uncle Joe"

It was estimated to take a million men to get from the coast of Japan to the end of Operation Olympus - and you think we could have gotten to Moscow with multiples less?

Gotten to Moscow?

When did I saw we were going to Moscow?

Well you might remember the Soviets weren't inclined to give up even after another army took most of Stalingrad, put Leningrad under siege and approached Moscow. But I'm sure this time would be different...somehow.

All I said was that we could have inflicted a massive, crushing defeat on the USSR right in Eastern Europe with our airpower and that would have been enough to get them to withdraw back to their border and behave like normal fucking people and not the murdering thugs they turned out to be.

Oh right. That worked so well a few years previous.

 

[Murf76]

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT: "THE ECONOMIC BILL OF RIGHTS"


"***


“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union

"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

Source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950), 40-42

Franklin D. Roosevelt - American Heritage Center, Inc."<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
======================================================

Roosevelt's words convey as much meaning as they did when first uttered,
and they are as timely today as they were then.

Ugh. Well, this is going to be a long post, so bear with me if you will.

First, what if every one of FDR's proposed rights said something along the lines of "Citizens will...", ie. "Citizens will be employed in useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation" or, "Citizens will earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation".
Doesn't sound quite as nice, does it? But doesn't it stand to reason that a contract might end up running both ways?



I think you have to go all the way back to John Locke and earlier philosophers who explored natural law in an effort to understand "unalienable rights". In a nutshell though, our "unalienable rights" are self-fruitful in that they stem from our condition as human beings.

Dogs are dogs and behave as dogs; monkeys are monkeys and behave as monkeys; humans are humans and behave as humans. We are capable of speech, therefore we have a right to speak. We can make tools, build homes, and defend those homes, therefore we have a right to our property. This might suggest to you that ANY behavior we might find prevalent in human beings would be acceptable. ie. We can steal from our neighbor, therefore we have a right to. But no. The concept involves EACH person as having the same and equal rights, so in the exercise of our own unalienable rights, we are not free to abrogate or interfere in another individual's.

The ultimate reasoning behind having laws to begin with is to create a peaceful society. What we learn in the study of natural rights is that there's a predictable negative reaction when these rights are not respected. IOW, if your neighbor steals from you, and you have no law to protect you, tumult and chaos become predictable. It's not human nature to simply allow such insult to pass. Your "right" to your own property has been abrogated, and chances are high that you'll seek to right that wrong.

Of course, our Founders had studied such philosophies; they were well-read men. And in designing the freest society they could imagine, prescient in their understanding that times would change but the nature of man would not... they chose to RESTRAIN government rather than citizens. They understood that even though human beings typically choose social constructs; nations, tribes, clans, families... trouble ensues when the rights of INDIVIDUALS are obstructed.

When you look at FDR's proposal, it's easy to see that it would be impossible to refrain from the abuse of individuals. Some people won't want that "right to a job" or "right to a home". Do you MAKE them accept it? And even if you don't, NONE of these proposed rights can be described as "self-fruitful". We can't do our own heart surgery. We can't always teach ourselves all the skills we need. These things depend upon the resources of others.

Let's take one example to it's extreme-most conclusion, just as a thought exercise...
Let's say that the government has guaranteed each citizen a "right" to healthcare. And let's further say that the field of medicine is no longer profitable and no longer appealing to students. We've imported as many doctors and nurses as we can, we've put as many incentives on the study of medicine as possible. There are not enough and we can't get any more. What happens next?
It's a "right". It MUST be provided. And because it MUST be provided, the only thing left to do is to conscript one citizen to serve another. And in so doing, we have abrogated that citizen's natural rights. We have made him a slave.

You might say that this is not so different from drafting soldiers. But bear in mind that we don't draft soldiers anymore. Military conscription has always been controversial, because as discussed earlier, it does abrogate natural rights, and thus results in predictable tumult.

At the bottom line, FDR's system of positive rights cannot be accomplished without abrogating the unalienable rights we've become accustomed to. You can have one system or the other, but not both. They cancel one another out. If we were to adopt FDR's Second Bill of Rights, we become dependent upon the political class to treat us fairly, as it is they who will be distributing our wealth, talents, and property, and no longer we ourselves.

 

[8537]

Not many.

After the US P-51's destroyed the entire Soviet Third Shock Army in under 20 minutes the USSR would have to rethink that whole "Dominate Eastern Europe through armor" strategy

Are you talking about these P-51s?

"... and on 21 May, targets were expanded to include railways, locomotives and rolling stock used by the Germans to transport materiel and troops, in missions dubbed 'Chattanooga'.[24]

"The P-51 excelled at this mission, although losses were much higher on strafing missions than in air-to-air combat, partially because like other fighters using liquid-cooled engines, the Mustang's coolant system could be punctured by small arms.

The USSR strategy of dominating Eastern Europe stems from the number of times Russia had been invaded by European armies; the last thing Stalin needed in 1945 was an arms race with a continental superpower whose homeland's infrastructure was untouched by WWII.

It wa$ Truman who in$tigated the cold war in Europe and in Korea.

North American P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you support giving Eastern Europe to Stalin?

How many American casualties are you willing to suffer in 1946 in order to try to drive the Soviets out?

 

[8537]

the TROLL doesn't care about history and shows no propensity to learn it. He's a hack on his mommy's computer getting in as many hits as he can before she gets home.

I really don't think folks who put the Purges after WW2 should talk about history.

 

[georgephillip]

Not many.

After the US P-51's destroyed the entire Soviet Third Shock Army in under 20 minutes the USSR would have to rethink that whole "Dominate Eastern Europe through armor" strategy

Are you talking about these P-51s?

"... and on 21 May, targets were expanded to include railways, locomotives and rolling stock used by the Germans to transport materiel and troops, in missions dubbed 'Chattanooga'.[24]

"The P-51 excelled at this mission, although losses were much higher on strafing missions than in air-to-air combat, partially because like other fighters using liquid-cooled engines, the Mustang's coolant system could be punctured by small arms.

The USSR strategy of dominating Eastern Europe stems from the number of times Russia had been invaded by European armies; the last thing Stalin needed in 1945 was an arms race with a continental superpower whose homeland's infrastructure was untouched by WWII.

It wa$ Truman who in$tigated the cold war in Europe and in Korea.

North American P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you support giving Eastern Europe to Stalin?

"give
(transitive) To transfer one's possession or holding of."

Eastern Europe wasn't mine or Winnie's or FDR's to "give."

Russia had been invaded several times by European armies.
They had just lost 20,000,000 of their citizens to Hitler's invasion.
When it became apparent Truman needed an arms race to prevent the US from back-sliding into depression, Stalin had little choice about using Eastern Europe as a buffer against capitalist expansionism.

That wasn't the case in South Vietnam and South Korea when the US defied popular opinion and imposed western puppets on the populations.

 

[Unkotare]

there is frank posting again, so he can use the N word

Do you have a problem with LBJ's racism?

you just love using that N word, hey, i know, i have a whole bunch of friends who would like to invite you to come and use it in front of them, game?

You must be a serious hard-ass to hide behind "a whole bunch of friends" like that.

 

[The T]

Do you have a problem with LBJ's racism?

you just love using that N word, hey, i know, i have a whole bunch of friends who would like to invite you to come and use it in front of them, game?

You must be a serious hard-ass to hide behind "a whole bunch of friends" like that.

That idiot doesn't know WHO he is let alone anything else.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Do you have a problem with LBJ's racism?

you just love using that N word, hey, i know, i have a whole bunch of friends who would like to invite you to come and use it in front of them, game?

You must be a serious hard-ass to hide behind "a whole bunch of friends" like that.

hide?

hmm, a guy uses the N word over and over, loves to use it and I point out the obvious

i dont have to be a hard ass, i am on the right side, I am not the filthy fucking racist, you are



by defending him i guess you are a filthy fucking racist too

shut up racist...you are the minority now, we outnumber you filthy fucking disgusting racists

 

[Unkotare]

Well you might remember the Soviets weren't inclined to give up even after another army took most of Stalingrad, put Leningrad under siege and approached Moscow. .

You stopped thinking about that too soon.

 

[georgephillip]

P-47 Strafing a Tiger Tank - YouTube

Can you imagine the absolute damage and devastation the 47's and 51's would have done to Soviet armor?

The only hope the USSR would have had is it we would have run out of ammo

Suppose we had destroyed most of Stalin's armor...how would that have affected the division of Berlin?

FWIW, I'm about ten years older than you.
Both my parents served in WWII.
I remember mom telling me that many vets from that conflict wanted to finish off Stalin so their children wouldn't have to.

If you were Stalin and your allies destroyed most of your armor AFTER your population sustained most of the casualties in the War in Europe, how would you have reacted?

 

[regent]

P-47 Strafing a Tiger Tank - YouTube

Can you imagine the absolute damage and devastation the 47's and 51's would have done to Soviet armor?

The only hope the USSR would have had is it we would have run out of ammo

Suppose we had destroyed most of Stalin's armor...how would that have affected the division of Berlin?

FWIW, I'm about ten years older than you.
Both my parents served in WWII.
I remember mom telling me that many vets from that conflict wanted to finish off Stalin so their children wouldn't have to.

If you were Stalin and your allies destroyed most of your armor AFTER your population sustained most of the casualties in the War in Europe, how would you have reacted?

I don't think vets wanted to tackle the Soviet Union, I'm a vet and I think all we wanted to do was come home. To have the magic 85 points meant you might go home.
I talked with a German officer soon after the war, he had fought on both eastern and western fronts, and one day he said to me in all seriousness I don't know if the Americans could have stood up to the Russians. He was not trying to scare me but just inform me of his experiences.
And destroying their armor meant what, it was the infantry that you had to destroy.
The Japanese had nothing left, no navy, not much of an airforce but an entire population that was ready to meet us head on.
Yep, we just wanted it to be over and come home. Tackle Russia, are you crazy?

 

[georgephillip]

I didn't mean to imply all vets wanted war with the Russians.
I'm not really sure Crusader thinks turning on an ally would have made the US any safer.
Possibly, one reason for the German officer's opinion was that the Russians were defending their homeland. I suspect the Axis would've found it tough going in places like New Jersey and Texas. (Not to mention the South Bronx)
I'm glad you made it home alive; maybe someday sacrifice like yours won't be required.

 

[8537]

Well you might remember the Soviets weren't inclined to give up even after another army took most of Stalingrad, put Leningrad under siege and approached Moscow. .

You stopped thinking about that too soon.

I don't think I did.

 

[Unkotare]

Well you might remember the Soviets weren't inclined to give up even after another army took most of Stalingrad, put Leningrad under siege and approached Moscow. .

You stopped thinking about that too soon.

I don't think I did.

That's why you are mistaken.

 

[Trakar]

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT: "THE ECONOMIC BILL OF RIGHTS"


"***


“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union...

Oops!

Wrong president Roosevelt,...nevermind!

 

[Unkotare]

you just love using that N word, hey, i know, i have a whole bunch of friends who would like to invite you to come and use it in front of them, game?

You must be a serious hard-ass to hide behind "a whole bunch of friends" like that.

hide?

hmm, a guy uses the N word over and over, loves to use it and I point out the obvious

i dont have to be a hard ass, i am on the right side, I am not the filthy fucking racist, you are



by defending him i guess you are a filthy fucking racist too

shut up racist...you are the minority now, we outnumber you filthy fucking disgusting racists

You wanna back up that accusation with ANTHING AT ALL, YOU FUCKING LIAR? Or do you need "a bunch of friends" to do that? Are you ready to demonstrate that you have even the slightest shred of character, you fucking douchebag?