Witness To History

[Steven_R]

Only because the law was later changed. But it's happened before and can happen again.

Unless you can physically put your hands on the precious metals you own, you're at risk of the same thing. Even then, if precious metal possession becomes illegal again, finding a market to sell it in might be difficult anyways.

It isn't the sure thing goldbugs try to make it out to be.

 

[gipper]

Instead of the hushed tones and hagiography of the FDR-sycophants, a study of those closest to Roosevelt, and closest to the communists, poses important questions about Franklin Roosevelt, and his intentions.





1. For whatever reason, FDR wasted no time in welcoming the sociopath of the community of nations, the USSR, with open arms.
He assumed office in March of 1933, and on November 16th, 1933, signed a worthless agreement with Litvinov, recognizing the USSR.
Four previous Presidents and six Secretaries of State had refused to do same. What did they know that FDR didn't know.....or did he know?

2. Ironic....normalizing relations with the least normal of nations.
The major thesis of Diana West's block-buster, "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character, " is that the acts of FDR in this endeavor, led to the moral breakdown of our nation. Once the horrors of the Holocaust became known, Progressives, who had earlier loudly proclaimed kinship with both Hitler and Mussolini, scattered like roaches when the lights are switched on.

Yet...they clung...and cling....to the Soviet murderers and cutthroats to this day.
It is worth considering.

a. If one need an explanation for the postmodernism, the moral relativism that pervades our society....Don't miss West's exposition.





3. But, to move on to a brighter light in the historic firmament, there was FDR close friend, on equally a Sovietophile, William Christian Bullitt, Jr.
Also an extreme Liberal, a radical, he had worked for Woodrow Wilson, and, of course, was a fervent believer in internationalism.
"Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.

4. An aside here...William Bullitt, Jr., was not, it seems, the brightest light in his own family. At the same time that the press was trumpeting his role in the Roosevelt/Litvinov Agreement, "Soviet Pact Held Bullitt Triumph," his uncle, Archdeacon James F. Bullitt, was making headlines of his own: "Bullitt's Uncle Says Soviet Deal Disgraces The United States." 'Russia will keep no promises with us."
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 82





5. Ambassador Bullitt soon recognized the truth. Every 'pledge,' 'promise,' and 'assurance," that the Soviets had tricked Roosevelt into believing- if 'believing' is the accurate explanation- on war debt, on the treatment of American nationals and property in the USSR, on religious freedom, on subversion in the United States, and, of course, on fomenting revolution in the United States, was worthless. As dense a Liberal as Bullitt was, he saw Stalin convene the world's Communist parties, including the American Communist Party (CPUSA), in the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, 1935. CPUSA leaders Earl Browder and William Foster took leading roles. So much for the pledges.
West, "American Betrayal," p. 197.

a. "This not only proved that [the Soviets] still pursued the goal of world revolution, but it also proved that they were breaking their promise in the letters exchanged between Roosevelt and Litvinov in November 1933 which stipulated that Moscow would have nothing to do with the American Communist Party."
Dunn, "Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin," p. 49.





6. Bullitt suggested that Roosevelt would feel obliged to break relations. He was wrong. "If we should not [break relations] the Soviet Government would be convinced that it could break its pledges with impunity and would feel free to direct actively the American communist movement."
Bullitt, Op. Cit., p. 130-131.

See what I mean about FDR pushing America down the path to moral relativism?

Future ambassador William H. Standley gave similar advice to FDR.....which he also ignored.


a. "... he later became an outspoken anticommunist..... Though Bullitt arrived in the Soviet Union with high hopes for Soviet-American relations, his view of the Soviet leadership soured on closer inspection. By the end of his tenure he was openly hostile to the Soviet government. He remained an outspoken anticommunist for the rest of his life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.



Ambassador Bullitt was sent to Moscow by FDR and was a witness, a primary source, sending the cables to FDR.
He learned first hand the horrors of communism.
But not FDR.



FDR, Bullitt...and the fork in the road.

Still think we took the right...er, left one, as the correct course?

The thread brought to you by the Ministry of Truth's RED SCARE division. Any resemblance to actually reality is entirely coincidental.

Could you please point out the statements in this thread that are incorrect?

Merely stating your opinion, without backing it up with facts, are the actions of a dunce.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ah yes, now, thanks to a poster, I remember that Bush wanted to "privatize" or something Social Security but that didn't last long. I guess privatize meant give the program to the boys in the back room or kill it. But after some trial balloons Bush's plan died a quiet death.
But even as silly as Bush's plan was, the Republicans giving the health care plan the name, Obama-care was as dumb. America's health plan will be known by Obama-care for the next 100 years or more, or as long as America lasts, what a legacy.

The private sector wants to manage your retirement money, of course. But they want a much bigger fee for that than Social Security will ever take.

Didn't Gore propose, instead of the bushii tax cuts, giving people a tax credit roughly equal to the Soc Sec surplus, so long as the money was put into a sort of IRA index fund that managers couldn't rip off? Bushii mocked it (it's your money so you should choose to buy a four wheeler instead), but in retrospect, we'd be better off with Gore's proposal, and Vanguard has proven the wisdom of low cost funds.

You know what the really really big problem with a privatization of Social Security would be?

Once payroll taxes started going into private accounts instead of into the SS Trust Fund,

they could not be used to pay current retirees who remain on the current system.

To pay them, the Trust Fund would have to be drawn down, which means the government securities that the Trust Fund is invested in would have to be cashed in,

which means the federal government would have to pay back Social Security all that borrowed money,

a couple TRILLION if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Foxfyre]

The private sector wants to manage your retirement money, of course. But they want a much bigger fee for that than Social Security will ever take.

Didn't Gore propose, instead of the bushii tax cuts, giving people a tax credit roughly equal to the Soc Sec surplus, so long as the money was put into a sort of IRA index fund that managers couldn't rip off? Bushii mocked it (it's your money so you should choose to buy a four wheeler instead), but in retrospect, we'd be better off with Gore's proposal, and Vanguard has proven the wisdom of low cost funds.

You know what the really really big problem with a privatization of Social Security would be?

Once payroll taxes started going into private accounts instead of into the SS Trust Fund,

they could not be used to pay current retirees who remain on the current system.

To pay them, the Trust Fund would have to be drawn down, which means the government securities that the Trust Fund is invested in would have to be cashed in,

which means the federal government would have to pay back Social Security all that borrowed money,

a couple TRILLION if I'm not mistaken.

And that would be worse than running up the tab another trillion or more each and every year?