The Fork In The Road...

[PoliticalChic]

With election season in full swing, the editorial in today's WSJ is on point, and a reminder to all of us that there decisions that will detemine the future of this great nation.

Simply put, individual liberty, or serving the collective.

From the Op-Ed by Professor Pestritto

1. ... the original progressives—including leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt—rejected America's founding principles....today's leftist policies are the culmination of a journey begun by progressives over a century ago.

2. The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic. America's original progressives were convinced that the country faced a set of social and economic problems demanding a sharp increase in federal power. They also said that there was too much emphasis placed on protecting the liberty of individuals at the expense of broader social justice.

3. ... in his 1887 essay, "Socialism and Democracy," Wilson considered the socialist principle—"that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view"—to be entirely consistent with democratic principles: "In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. . . . Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."

4. ...in his famous "New Nationalism" speech of 1910, [Roosevelt] said it was necessary that there be "a far more active governmental interference" with the economy. "It is not enough," he said, that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."

5. To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached. This is why Roosevelt railed against court decisions, like the famous Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905), that upheld individual property rights against progressive legislation ...

6. Today, a congressman such as Pete Stark can simply boast that the federal government "can do most anything in this country." And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't even consider the constitutionality of a government takeover of health care a "serious question." Given this state of affairs, it does not seem unreasonable to reflect on the origins of the disdain for the Constitution in the Progressive Era.
Ronald Pestritto: Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me - WSJ.com

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of limited government that were the basis of the American republic.

A limited government couldn't have protect farmers from unjust and unreasonable railroad shipping rates, secret rebates and price discrimination against small markets.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of limited government that were the basis of the American republic.

A limited government couldn't have protect farmers from unjust and unreasonable railroad shipping rates, secret rebates and price discrimination against small markets.

People forget this. In order for a free market to continue to exist you have to have a government willing to regulate to keep the playing field fair. Otherwise free markets tend towards stagnation and monopolies.

Reasonable Regulation isn't the problem. In fact, Regulation is what keeps people investing. Without bank regulations people would have never taken the money out of their mattresses back in the 40's and put it in banks where it could get out into the market.

Its when Regulation crosses the line from "Leveling the playing field" to closing down new business that you run into trouble.

 

[midcan5]

More horse manure from the conservative/corporate think tanks who brought you the near collapse of the entire financial structure, while they monitor your bedroom activities and your freedom in life to marry your loved one, and decide for you when you are ready to take on the responsibility of raising children. Wingnuts rejoice, your brain has received another revisionist update, no need to puzzle over what to think next: 'Tool programming complete.'

I can't even read this stupidity any longer, anyone who reads the history of the 20th century, knows the 'progressivism' of the early part of the century made great progress. The irrational exuberance of the twenties led straight to the GD, which FDR helped pull us out of a near catastrophe till Reagan began the destruction of the middle class and the regulatory structures, that protected the nation till the 80's. Reagan also brought an insane militant hubris that made George W. Bush invade countries totally in opposition to the values of America. I have asked a hundred times for an accomplishment of any of these republicans comparable to FDR or LBJ's civil rights, and I get no answer. They are lost in think tank propaganda, because in the end, republicans like this author are simply corporate hacks.

The Claremont Institute - About the Claremont Institute
The Claremont Institute - Ronald J. Pestritto

....
Coolidge / Hoover - Banks collapse, economy collapses
Great Depression begins - Hoover ineffective
FDR rescues the nation from Great Depression, creates regulatory structure
FDR creates the greatest single asset for all Americans: Social Security
FDR masterfully fought WWII along with Churchill and help from Stalin
Truman ends the savagery of the war with Japan with the ultimate savagery
Truman extends New Deal and Civil rights
Eisenhower ignores right wing war mongering republicans, extends civil rights
Warren court hands down ruling on public school segregation
Eisenhower continues progressivism, Vietnam involvement continues from Truman
Eisenhower commits to helping South Vietnam
'Cold War' clouds the mind of America creating contradictory values
WWII end brings prosperity due to GI bill, home growth, and durable goods growth
Kennedy buys into ridiculous Bay of Pigs plan from Eisenhower administration
America's youth gain power prestige and purchasing power
Battle for space with Russia consumes America's resources
Blacks decide waiting any longer for equality is too long
LBJ foolishly listens to war cries concerning domino effect and tragically involves US in Nam
LBJ advances civil rights and extended welfare so all Americans can have a little of the pie
Nixon has secret plan for ending Vietnam but paranoid personality ruins administration
Nixon opens up trade to China
Anti war demonstrations change attitudes and hurt LBJ social achievements
Carter inherits stagflation economy from Nixon / Ford
Carter supports Afghanistan against Russian occupation, seeds are set for growth of insurgency terrorism
Oil embargo hurts Carter but efforts at energy policy are forgotten as Reagan wins
Reagan starts the destruction of the middle class in part by making government a problem
Reagan starts destruction of regulatory agencies that eventually lead to the Great Recession of today.
Bush Sr experiences effect of Reagan economic policies, economy collapses, real estate boom crash, S&L scandal, bailouts to rescue nation again after republican policy
GH Bush losses as Republican policy fails once again
Clinton raises taxes, economy recovers aided by millennium and Internet bubble
Clinton buys into financial nonsense, supporting NAFTA, regulatory and welfare reform
Armies of money and power go after Clinton spending publicly and privately millions
Bush-Gore election goes to Bush as SCOTUS has moved from liberal to fascist
Bush proves inept in all ways, but 911 attack creates fear and more war cries
Bush proves himself an incompetent leader who creates massive debt and death
Clinton surplus is squandered on tax relief primarily for the wealthy
'War on Terror' clouds the mind of America creating contradictory values
Bush invades Iraq based on trumped up nonsense about WMDs and fear
Economy collapses under Bush and bailouts are once again required after a republican administration
Obama wins election for 'change' due to the failure of Bush and the republicans
Armies of money and power again mount offensive attacking the American values of justice and fairness represented by Obama
Obama passes Healthcare policy, keeps promises on wars
Once again the economy is moving in the right direction but the armies of money and power are greater today and propaganda and revisionist history have gained large footholds in the minds of the uneducated....

And so it goes....republicans fail democrats try....it would seem monkeys and humans never learn....


The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press
"He argues that a triplet of 'rhetorical' criticisms--perversity, futility, and jeopardy--'has been unfailingly leveled' by 'reactionaries' at each major progressive reform of the past 300 years--those T. H. Marshall identified with the advancement of civil, political and social rights of citizenship...Charmingly written, this book can benefit a diverse readership."

 

[PoliticalChic]

The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of limited government that were the basis of the American republic.

A limited government couldn't have protect farmers from unjust and unreasonable railroad shipping rates, secret rebates and price discrimination against small markets.

While the theme of the OP, i.e. the choice between individual liberty and the collective, is centerstage today, the reasons that you point to for progressivism are no longer evident.

Progressivism as an idea had arisen in the 1880’s, when America was transforming from a largely agricultural country into a burgeoning urban one. But many Americans who had emigrated prior to the Civil War retained a certain moral nostalgia for their American past. While they enjoyed modernization, and wanted to share in the profits of industrial American, and the benefits of city life, they, somewhat paradoxically, yearned for the albeit mythological decency of a rural America. Today, most Americans share the opportunity and the American dream.

a. The Progressive movement at first was made up of consumers and taxpayers who were challenging the accumulated wealth and power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. But by 1912, it had become largely farmers and industrial workers seeking relief from the onerous power of the great monopolies. James Chace, “1912,” p.100

What is the reason that we require the same level of government, when more than half of Americans are owners of the great corportations?

 

[PoliticalChic]

More horse manure from the conservative/corporate think tanks who brought you the near collapse of the entire financial structure, while they monitor your bedroom activities and your freedom in life to marry your loved one, and decide for you when you are ready to take on the responsibility of raising children. Wingnuts rejoice, your brain has received another revisionist update, no need to puzzle over what to think next: 'Tool programming complete.'

I can't even read this stupidity any longer, anyone who reads the history of the 20th century, knows the 'progressivism' of the early part of the century made great progress. The irrational exuberance of the twenties led straight to the GD, which FDR helped pull us out of a near catastrophe till Reagan began the destruction of the middle class and the regulatory structures, that protected the nation till the 80's. Reagan also brought an insane militant hubris that made George W. Bush invade countries totally in opposition to the values of America. I have asked a hundred times for an accomplishment of any of these republicans comparable to FDR or LBJ's civil rights, and I get no answer. They are lost in think tank propaganda, because in the end, republicans like this author are simply corporate hacks.

The Claremont Institute - About the Claremont Institute
The Claremont Institute - Ronald J. Pestritto

....
Coolidge / Hoover - Banks collapse, economy collapses
Great Depression begins - Hoover ineffective
FDR rescues the nation from Great Depression, creates regulatory structure
FDR creates the greatest single asset for all Americans: Social Security
FDR masterfully fought WWII along with Churchill and help from Stalin
Truman ends the savagery of the war with Japan with the ultimate savagery
Truman extends New Deal and Civil rights
Eisenhower ignores right wing war mongering republicans, extends civil rights
Warren court hands down ruling on public school segregation
Eisenhower continues progressivism, Vietnam involvement continues from Truman
Eisenhower commits to helping South Vietnam
'Cold War' clouds the mind of America creating contradictory values
WWII end brings prosperity due to GI bill, home growth, and durable goods growth
Kennedy buys into ridiculous Bay of Pigs plan from Eisenhower administration
America's youth gain power prestige and purchasing power
Battle for space with Russia consumes America's resources
Blacks decide waiting any longer for equality is too long
LBJ foolishly listens to war cries concerning domino effect and tragically involves US in Nam
LBJ advances civil rights and extended welfare so all Americans can have a little of the pie
Nixon has secret plan for ending Vietnam but paranoid personality ruins administration
Nixon opens up trade to China
Anti war demonstrations change attitudes and hurt LBJ social achievements
Carter inherits stagflation economy from Nixon / Ford
Carter supports Afghanistan against Russian occupation, seeds are set for growth of insurgency terrorism
Oil embargo hurts Carter but efforts at energy policy are forgotten as Reagan wins
Reagan starts the destruction of the middle class in part by making government a problem
Reagan starts destruction of regulatory agencies that eventually lead to the Great Recession of today.
Bush Sr experiences effect of Reagan economic policies, economy collapses, real estate boom crash, S&L scandal, bailouts to rescue nation again after republican policy
GH Bush losses as Republican policy fails once again
Clinton raises taxes, economy recovers aided by millennium and Internet bubble
Clinton buys into financial nonsense, supporting NAFTA, regulatory and welfare reform
Armies of money and power go after Clinton spending publicly and privately millions
Bush-Gore election goes to Bush as SCOTUS has moved from liberal to fascist
Bush proves inept in all ways, but 911 attack creates fear and more war cries
Bush proves himself an incompetent leader who creates massive debt and death
Clinton surplus is squandered on tax relief primarily for the wealthy
'War on Terror' clouds the mind of America creating contradictory values
Bush invades Iraq based on trumped up nonsense about WMDs and fear
Economy collapses under Bush and bailouts are once again required after a republican administration
Obama wins election for 'change' due to the failure of Bush and the republicans
Armies of money and power again mount offensive attacking the American values of justice and fairness represented by Obama
Obama passes Healthcare policy, keeps promises on wars
Once again the economy is moving in the right direction but the armies of money and power are greater today and propaganda and revisionist history have gained large footholds in the minds of the uneducated....

And so it goes....republicans fail democrats try....it would seem monkeys and humans never learn....


The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press
"He argues that a triplet of 'rhetorical' criticisms--perversity, futility, and jeopardy--'has been unfailingly leveled' by 'reactionaries' at each major progressive reform of the past 300 years--those T. H. Marshall identified with the advancement of civil, political and social rights of citizenship...Charmingly written, this book can benefit a diverse readership."

1. "...More horse manure from the conservative/corporate think tanks who brought you the near collapse of the entire financial structure,...."
And, of course, it was progressive's policy, from the GRE's of 1938, to the housing policy of Clinton-Cuomo, to Dodd-Frank...ect. that is, in major part, the cause of same.

2. "I can't even read this stupidity any longer, anyone who reads the history of the 20th century, knows the 'progressivism' of the early part of the century made great progress."
Progess toward replacing the primacy of the individual, on which this nation was based, to primacy of the state.

You've spent far too much time at the Emmanuel Goldstein hissing sessions.

3. BTW, I saw the graph that 'USA Today' published, of the close correspondence beween the plummeting of President Obama's poll numbers and Midcan's corybantic effusions.
While I envy your popularity, I worry about your health.
Calm down.

 

[del]

The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of limited government that were the basis of the American republic.

A limited government couldn't have protect farmers from unjust and unreasonable railroad shipping rates, secret rebates and price discrimination against small markets.

While the theme of the OP, i.e. the choice between individual liberty and the collective, is centerstage today, the reasons that you point to for progressivism are no longer evident.

Progressivism as an idea had arisen in the 1880’s, when America was transforming from a largely agricultural country into a burgeoning urban one. But many Americans who had emigrated prior to the Civil War retained a certain moral nostalgia for their American past. While they enjoyed modernization, and wanted to share in the profits of industrial American, and the benefits of city life, they, somewhat paradoxically, yearned for the albeit mythological decency of a rural America. Today, most Americans share the opportunity and the American dream.

a. The Progressive movement at first was made up of consumers and taxpayers who were challenging the accumulated wealth and power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. But by 1912, it had become largely farmers and industrial workers seeking relief from the onerous power of the great monopolies. James Chace, “1912,” p.100

What is the reason that we require the same level of government, when more than half of Americans are owners of the great corportations?

umm, because having a couple of shares of Exxon in your 401(k) isn't the same as owning standard oil?

even for you, this is some weak stuff.

keep swinging

 

[uscitizen]

Be an individual join the Tea Party!



LMAO

 

[PoliticalChic]

More horse manure from the conservative/corporate think tanks who brought you the near collapse of the entire financial structure, while they monitor your bedroom activities and your freedom in life to marry your loved one, and decide for you when you are ready to take on the responsibility of raising children. Wingnuts rejoice, your brain has received another revisionist update, no need to puzzle over what to think next: 'Tool programming complete.'

I can't even read this stupidity any longer, anyone who reads the history of the 20th century, knows the 'progressivism' of the early part of the century made great progress. The irrational exuberance of the twenties led straight to the GD, which FDR helped pull us out of a near catastrophe till Reagan began the destruction of the middle class and the regulatory structures, that protected the nation till the 80's. Reagan also brought an insane militant hubris that made George W. Bush invade countries totally in opposition to the values of America. I have asked a hundred times for an accomplishment of any of these republicans comparable to FDR or LBJ's civil rights, and I get no answer. They are lost in think tank propaganda, because in the end, republicans like this author are simply corporate hacks.

The Claremont Institute - About the Claremont Institute
The Claremont Institute - Ronald J. Pestritto

....
Coolidge / Hoover - Banks collapse, economy collapses
Great Depression begins - Hoover ineffective
FDR rescues the nation from Great Depression, creates regulatory structure
FDR creates the greatest single asset for all Americans: Social Security
FDR masterfully fought WWII along with Churchill and help from Stalin
Truman ends the savagery of the war with Japan with the ultimate savagery
Truman extends New Deal and Civil rights
Eisenhower ignores right wing war mongering republicans, extends civil rights
Warren court hands down ruling on public school segregation
Eisenhower continues progressivism, Vietnam involvement continues from Truman
Eisenhower commits to helping South Vietnam
'Cold War' clouds the mind of America creating contradictory values
WWII end brings prosperity due to GI bill, home growth, and durable goods growth
Kennedy buys into ridiculous Bay of Pigs plan from Eisenhower administration
America's youth gain power prestige and purchasing power
Battle for space with Russia consumes America's resources
Blacks decide waiting any longer for equality is too long
LBJ foolishly listens to war cries concerning domino effect and tragically involves US in Nam
LBJ advances civil rights and extended welfare so all Americans can have a little of the pie
Nixon has secret plan for ending Vietnam but paranoid personality ruins administration
Nixon opens up trade to China
Anti war demonstrations change attitudes and hurt LBJ social achievements
Carter inherits stagflation economy from Nixon / Ford
Carter supports Afghanistan against Russian occupation, seeds are set for growth of insurgency terrorism
Oil embargo hurts Carter but efforts at energy policy are forgotten as Reagan wins
Reagan starts the destruction of the middle class in part by making government a problem
Reagan starts destruction of regulatory agencies that eventually lead to the Great Recession of today.
Bush Sr experiences effect of Reagan economic policies, economy collapses, real estate boom crash, S&L scandal, bailouts to rescue nation again after republican policy
GH Bush losses as Republican policy fails once again
Clinton raises taxes, economy recovers aided by millennium and Internet bubble
Clinton buys into financial nonsense, supporting NAFTA, regulatory and welfare reform
Armies of money and power go after Clinton spending publicly and privately millions
Bush-Gore election goes to Bush as SCOTUS has moved from liberal to fascist
Bush proves inept in all ways, but 911 attack creates fear and more war cries
Bush proves himself an incompetent leader who creates massive debt and death
Clinton surplus is squandered on tax relief primarily for the wealthy
'War on Terror' clouds the mind of America creating contradictory values
Bush invades Iraq based on trumped up nonsense about WMDs and fear
Economy collapses under Bush and bailouts are once again required after a republican administration
Obama wins election for 'change' due to the failure of Bush and the republicans
Armies of money and power again mount offensive attacking the American values of justice and fairness represented by Obama
Obama passes Healthcare policy, keeps promises on wars
Once again the economy is moving in the right direction but the armies of money and power are greater today and propaganda and revisionist history have gained large footholds in the minds of the uneducated....

And so it goes....republicans fail democrats try....it would seem monkeys and humans never learn....


The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press
"He argues that a triplet of 'rhetorical' criticisms--perversity, futility, and jeopardy--'has been unfailingly leveled' by 'reactionaries' at each major progressive reform of the past 300 years--those T. H. Marshall identified with the advancement of civil, political and social rights of citizenship...Charmingly written, this book can benefit a diverse readership."

BTW Middy, while it was nice of you to provide the link to the Claremont, you might have included this paragraph:

"The mission of the Claremont Institute is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. These principles are expressed most eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." To recover the founding principles in our political life means recovering a limited and accountable government that respects private property, promotes stable family life, and maintains a strong national defense."

Succint, well written...don't you agree?

 

[PoliticalChic]

A limited government couldn't have protect farmers from unjust and unreasonable railroad shipping rates, secret rebates and price discrimination against small markets.

While the theme of the OP, i.e. the choice between individual liberty and the collective, is centerstage today, the reasons that you point to for progressivism are no longer evident.

Progressivism as an idea had arisen in the 1880’s, when America was transforming from a largely agricultural country into a burgeoning urban one. But many Americans who had emigrated prior to the Civil War retained a certain moral nostalgia for their American past. While they enjoyed modernization, and wanted to share in the profits of industrial American, and the benefits of city life, they, somewhat paradoxically, yearned for the albeit mythological decency of a rural America. Today, most Americans share the opportunity and the American dream.

a. The Progressive movement at first was made up of consumers and taxpayers who were challenging the accumulated wealth and power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. But by 1912, it had become largely farmers and industrial workers seeking relief from the onerous power of the great monopolies. James Chace, “1912,” p.100

What is the reason that we require the same level of government, when more than half of Americans are owners of the great corportations?

umm, because having a couple of shares of Exxon in your 401(k) isn't the same as owning standard oil?

even for you, this is some weak stuff.

keep swinging

I may keep swinging, but you seem to keep striking out:

"And where are the kudos for Big Oil, without which we couldn’t get to work? Or should we go after the owners of Exxon with pitchforks an firebrands? Better not, after all they is us! “Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html


Care to retract?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Be an individual join the Tea Party!



LMAO

Did that actually seem to make any sense at all when you first thought of it?

 

[del]

While the theme of the OP, i.e. the choice between individual liberty and the collective, is centerstage today, the reasons that you point to for progressivism are no longer evident.

Progressivism as an idea had arisen in the 1880’s, when America was transforming from a largely agricultural country into a burgeoning urban one. But many Americans who had emigrated prior to the Civil War retained a certain moral nostalgia for their American past. While they enjoyed modernization, and wanted to share in the profits of industrial American, and the benefits of city life, they, somewhat paradoxically, yearned for the albeit mythological decency of a rural America. Today, most Americans share the opportunity and the American dream.

a. The Progressive movement at first was made up of consumers and taxpayers who were challenging the accumulated wealth and power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. But by 1912, it had become largely farmers and industrial workers seeking relief from the onerous power of the great monopolies. James Chace, “1912,” p.100

What is the reason that we require the same level of government, when more than half of Americans are owners of the great corportations?

umm, because having a couple of shares of Exxon in your 401(k) isn't the same as owning standard oil?

even for you, this is some weak stuff.

keep swinging

I may keep swinging, but you seem to keep striking out:

"And where are the kudos for Big Oil, without which we couldn’t get to work? Or should we go after the owners of Exxon with pitchforks an firebrands? Better not, after all they is us! “Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html


Care to retract?

no, care to stay on topic?

 

[PoliticalChic]

umm, because having a couple of shares of Exxon in your 401(k) isn't the same as owning standard oil?

even for you, this is some weak stuff.

keep swinging

I may keep swinging, but you seem to keep striking out:

"And where are the kudos for Big Oil, without which we couldn’t get to work? Or should we go after the owners of Exxon with pitchforks an firebrands? Better not, after all they is us! “Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html


Care to retract?

no, care to stay on topic?

The 'topic' to which I responded was "because having a couple of shares of Exxon in your 401(k) isn't the same as owning standard oil?"

The NYTimes helped me shred your attempt to deny that Americans own major corporations.

You should see a medical professional about that ADD....there are meds that may be helpful. See if they are right for you.

 

[MaggieMae]

The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of limited government that were the basis of the American republic.

A limited government couldn't have protect farmers from unjust and unreasonable railroad shipping rates, secret rebates and price discrimination against small markets.

While the theme of the OP, i.e. the choice between individual liberty and the collective, is centerstage today, the reasons that you point to for progressivism are no longer evident.

Progressivism as an idea had arisen in the 1880’s, when America was transforming from a largely agricultural country into a burgeoning urban one. But many Americans who had emigrated prior to the Civil War retained a certain moral nostalgia for their American past. While they enjoyed modernization, and wanted to share in the profits of industrial American, and the benefits of city life, they, somewhat paradoxically, yearned for the albeit mythological decency of a rural America. Today, most Americans share the opportunity and the American dream.

a. The Progressive movement at first was made up of consumers and taxpayers who were challenging the accumulated wealth and power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. But by 1912, it had become largely farmers and industrial workers seeking relief from the onerous power of the great monopolies. James Chace, “1912,” p.100

What is the reason that we require the same level of government, when more than half of Americans are owners of the great corportations?

Half? Isn't that a stretch?

Regarding the opportunity to share the great American Dream today, it should be clear to just about anyone able to read that the "Dream" is out of reach for probably half.

 

[del]

I may keep swinging, but you seem to keep striking out:

"And where are the kudos for Big Oil, without which we couldn’t get to work? Or should we go after the owners of Exxon with pitchforks an firebrands? Better not, after all they is us! “Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html


Care to retract?

no, care to stay on topic?

The 'topic' to which I responded was "because having a couple of shares of Exxon in your 401(k) isn't the same as owning standard oil?"

The NYTimes helped me shred your attempt to deny that Americans own major corporations.

You should see a medical professional about that ADD....there are meds that may be helpful. See if they are right for you.

shred? buy a dictionary and read it sweetcheeks. you've shredded nothing.

i never denied americans own shares of major corporation. you asked why regulation was still needed if individual americans *own* the corporations. i replied that having a couple of shares of exxon in your 401(k) isn't the same as owning standard oil. you came back with a blurb that basically said "a lot of americans have a couple of shares in exxon"

ADD can be treated; stupid not so much

hint:standard oil isn't exxon and joe blow isn't john d rockefeller

bon chance

 

[Toro]

People forget this. In order for a free market to continue to exist you have to have a government willing to regulate to keep the playing field fair. Otherwise free markets tend towards stagnation and monopolies.

Reasonable Regulation isn't the problem. In fact, Regulation is what keeps people investing. Without bank regulations people would have never taken the money out of their mattresses back in the 40's and put it in banks where it could get out into the market.

Its when Regulation crosses the line from "Leveling the playing field" to closing down new business that you run into trouble.

Not only that, but in a "free" society, people are free to give as much money as they want to politicians. Because politicians need money, they become captive and will forge legislation that profits their contributors. Hundreds of billions of dollars isn't spent in Washington for nothing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A limited government couldn't have protect farmers from unjust and unreasonable railroad shipping rates, secret rebates and price discrimination against small markets.

While the theme of the OP, i.e. the choice between individual liberty and the collective, is centerstage today, the reasons that you point to for progressivism are no longer evident.

Progressivism as an idea had arisen in the 1880’s, when America was transforming from a largely agricultural country into a burgeoning urban one. But many Americans who had emigrated prior to the Civil War retained a certain moral nostalgia for their American past. While they enjoyed modernization, and wanted to share in the profits of industrial American, and the benefits of city life, they, somewhat paradoxically, yearned for the albeit mythological decency of a rural America. Today, most Americans share the opportunity and the American dream.

a. The Progressive movement at first was made up of consumers and taxpayers who were challenging the accumulated wealth and power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. But by 1912, it had become largely farmers and industrial workers seeking relief from the onerous power of the great monopolies. James Chace, “1912,” p.100

What is the reason that we require the same level of government, when more than half of Americans are owners of the great corportations?

Half? Isn't that a stretch?

Regarding the opportunity to share the great American Dream today, it should be clear to just about anyone able to read that the "Dream" is out of reach for probably half.

"Here is the problem. Just because you don't own stock doesn't mean you won't be affected. You probably own stock but don't know it. Do you have a retirement fund or pension fund? Do you have a 401K, 457K? anything of that sort? Do you put money in a bank in a savings or checking account? Your money doesn't just sit in a vault somewhere with your name on it. It gets invested into funds that are made up of yes.... stocks.

The percentage of Americans that own stock, directly or indirectly is probably close to 100 percent. Unless you have your money under a mattress, then stocks will affect you.

Also, you have to include employer issued stock. Stocks are traded daily, which fluctuates the value of your employer issued stock. As far as what to do articles, it does help you plan what to do. Should you buy that car or house? Should you pay your credit card off now as opposed to paying only the minimum? Unfortunately, it effects everybody.

The closest thing I found was that 56.9 million households in the US own stocks.
Source(s):
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/w…"
What percentage of Americans own stock? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[Dr.Traveler]

People forget this. In order for a free market to continue to exist you have to have a government willing to regulate to keep the playing field fair. Otherwise free markets tend towards stagnation and monopolies.

Reasonable Regulation isn't the problem. In fact, Regulation is what keeps people investing. Without bank regulations people would have never taken the money out of their mattresses back in the 40's and put it in banks where it could get out into the market.

Its when Regulation crosses the line from "Leveling the playing field" to closing down new business that you run into trouble.

Not only that, but in a "free" society, people are free to give as much money as they want to politicians. Because politicians need money, they become captive and will forge legislation that profits their contributors. Hundreds of billions of dollars isn't spent in Washington for nothing.

That gets into "bad" regulation, i.e. stuff that is on the books specifically to make it hard for new players to get into the free market.

Regulation, and attitudes toward it, run in cycles. When times are bad you have to have regulations in place to encourage people to invest to get things going. The creation of the FDIC and banking regulations in the Depression helped insure that banking as institution continued to exist. Those same regulations helped prevent runs on the banks this time around.

When times are good, people want government out of the way so they can get in there and make money too.

Then, we learn which regulations really were necessary as it is frequently rolled back regulations or unregulated activity that lead to behavior that crashes the market, causing more regulation, etc.

I think that if the GOP listens to the Right Wing Radio, and pushes for reduced regulation right now it'll be a mistake. I know I'm not investing again until I feel like I can get in on a level playing field and I'm not likely to take a candidate seriously that argues against Wall Street reform.

 

[MaggieMae]

While the theme of the OP, i.e. the choice between individual liberty and the collective, is centerstage today, the reasons that you point to for progressivism are no longer evident.

Progressivism as an idea had arisen in the 1880’s, when America was transforming from a largely agricultural country into a burgeoning urban one. But many Americans who had emigrated prior to the Civil War retained a certain moral nostalgia for their American past. While they enjoyed modernization, and wanted to share in the profits of industrial American, and the benefits of city life, they, somewhat paradoxically, yearned for the albeit mythological decency of a rural America. Today, most Americans share the opportunity and the American dream.

a. The Progressive movement at first was made up of consumers and taxpayers who were challenging the accumulated wealth and power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. But by 1912, it had become largely farmers and industrial workers seeking relief from the onerous power of the great monopolies. James Chace, “1912,” p.100

What is the reason that we require the same level of government, when more than half of Americans are owners of the great corportations?

Half? Isn't that a stretch?

Regarding the opportunity to share the great American Dream today, it should be clear to just about anyone able to read that the "Dream" is out of reach for probably half.

"Here is the problem. Just because you don't own stock doesn't mean you won't be affected. You probably own stock but don't know it. Do you have a retirement fund or pension fund? Do you have a 401K, 457K? anything of that sort? Do you put money in a bank in a savings or checking account? Your money doesn't just sit in a vault somewhere with your name on it. It gets invested into funds that are made up of yes.... stocks.

The percentage of Americans that own stock, directly or indirectly is probably close to 100 percent. Unless you have your money under a mattress, then stocks will affect you.

Also, you have to include employer issued stock. Stocks are traded daily, which fluctuates the value of your employer issued stock. As far as what to do articles, it does help you plan what to do. Should you buy that car or house? Should you pay your credit card off now as opposed to paying only the minimum? Unfortunately, it effects everybody.

The closest thing I found was that 56.9 million households in the US own stocks.
Source(s):
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/w…"
What percentage of Americans own stock? - Yahoo! Answers

You first link doesn't work anymore and the second is two years old. While stock held within 401k's two years ago might have been healthy, how many people lost a fortune since then? How many have had to cash in their 401k's just to make mortgage payments or pay the doctor/hospital when they got sick after getting laid off?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Half? Isn't that a stretch?

Regarding the opportunity to share the great American Dream today, it should be clear to just about anyone able to read that the "Dream" is out of reach for probably half.

"Here is the problem. Just because you don't own stock doesn't mean you won't be affected. You probably own stock but don't know it. Do you have a retirement fund or pension fund? Do you have a 401K, 457K? anything of that sort? Do you put money in a bank in a savings or checking account? Your money doesn't just sit in a vault somewhere with your name on it. It gets invested into funds that are made up of yes.... stocks.

The percentage of Americans that own stock, directly or indirectly is probably close to 100 percent. Unless you have your money under a mattress, then stocks will affect you.

Also, you have to include employer issued stock. Stocks are traded daily, which fluctuates the value of your employer issued stock. As far as what to do articles, it does help you plan what to do. Should you buy that car or house? Should you pay your credit card off now as opposed to paying only the minimum? Unfortunately, it effects everybody.

The closest thing I found was that 56.9 million households in the US own stocks.
Source(s):
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/w…"
What percentage of Americans own stock? - Yahoo! Answers

You first link doesn't work anymore and the second is two years old. While stock held within 401k's two years ago might have been healthy, how many people lost a fortune since then? How many have had to cash in their 401k's just to make mortgage payments or pay the doctor/hospital when they got sick after getting laid off?

1. So, where's the 'stretch'?

2. So, where are your stats?

3. Do you wish to claim that 'few' or 'almost none' is the operative for stockholding in America?

If not, where's the beef?