FDR's Economic Bill of Rights: A Good or Bad Idea?

[Publius1787]

FDR's Economic Bill of Rights: A Good or Bad Idea?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=effDfpKYcVo]FDR's Economic Bill of Rights - YouTube[/ame]

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.

Seems as though I've seen these rights in other constitutions.

USSR: 1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part I
North Korea: DPRK's Socialist Constitution (Full Text) 5:Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens
China: Constitution
Cuba: Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992
Vietnam: 1992 Constitution
Nazi Platform: http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf
Italian Fascist Platform: http://www.saukvalley.com/2011/05/17/fascism-points-more-toward-left-than-right/amwrxif/

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ridiculous.... all this does is ensure more people just say "fuck it" and take the easy way out... and why not? Why try if your ensured the same outcome as the guy who busts his ass?

 

[Publius1787]

Ridiculous.... all this does is ensure more people just say "fuck it" and take the easy way out... and why not? Why try if your ensured the same outcome as the guy who busts his ass?

You know how the Soviets overcame that problem?

These people weren't pulling their weight. This is what happens when leftist policies fail due to human behavior. They don't change the policy, they target the people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR: 7 years of 20% average UE. Why would anyone listen to him?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

FDR's policies extended the Great Depression for years.... he's a model for what not to do.

 

[Pennywise]

I would have preferred a poll choice of "abominable anti-liberty nightmare".

Bad enough we have Federal intrusion on wages.

 

[Publius1787]

Hmmmm, perhaps I should have called it "FDR's Second Bill of Rights." For what reason this post ended up in "Economy" I do not know.

 

[Moonglow]

Workers rights were important before the reforms brought about during the Great Depression.
.
Yeah, the only good economies during the same period were fascist's, communist's or Nazi's.

 

[Wry Catcher]

FDR's Economic Bill of Rights: A Good or Bad Idea?


FDR's Economic Bill of Rights - YouTube

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.

Seems as though I've seen these rights in other constitutions.

USSR: 1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part I
North Korea: DPRK's Socialist Constitution (Full Text) 5:Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens
China: Constitution
Cuba: Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992
Vietnam: 1992 Constitution

Gee, a new take on an old scare. Well, not new; this list was posted a couple of weeks ago. The ideals in the list only callous conservatives resist and inhibit; real Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. and caring persons would support.

Comporting such ideals into an ideology known for its authoritarian and totalitarian governments isn't logical - but the politics of hate and fear never are. The RED SCARE has become the argument against the liberal paradigm and social contract theorists the basis of our Constitution.

Hate, fear, the RED SCARE and the use of pejoratives are the cornerstone of all 'arguments' against efforts to make the lives of all of our citizens better, healthier and enriched. Simply listen to Limbaugh for an hour, or watch a Hannity 'interview', or read the posts which echo these and other purveyors of propaganda who post on this forum. What you will see and hear and read are the words of callous conservatives.

 

[Publius1787]

FDR's Economic Bill of Rights: A Good or Bad Idea?


FDR's Economic Bill of Rights - YouTube

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.

Seems as though I've seen these rights in other constitutions.

USSR: 1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part I
North Korea: DPRK's Socialist Constitution (Full Text) 5:Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens
China: Constitution
Cuba: Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992
Vietnam: 1992 Constitution

Gee, a new take on an old scare. Well, not new; this list was posted a couple of weeks ago. The ideals in the list only callous conservatives resist and inhibit; real Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. and caring persons would support.

Comporting such ideals into an ideology known for its authoritarian and totalitarian governments isn't logical - but the politics of hate and fear never are. The RED SCARE has become the argument against the liberal paradigm and social contract theorists the basis of our Constitution.

Hate, fear, the RED SCARE and the use of pejoratives are the cornerstone of all 'arguments' against efforts to make the lives of all of our citizens better, healthier and enriched. Simply listen to Limbaugh for an hour, or watch a Hannity 'interview', or read the posts which echo these and other purveyors of propaganda who post on this forum. What you will see and hear and read are the words of callous conservatives.

Don' look now, I added more! Indeed, there is a reason totalitarianism results from a solid welfare state.

USSR: 1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part I
North Korea: DPRK's Socialist Constitution (Full Text) 5:Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens
China: Constitution
Cuba: Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992
Vietnam: 1992 Constitution
Nazi Platform: http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf
Italian Fascist Platform: http://www.saukvalley.com/2011/05/17/fascism-points-more-toward-left-than-right/amwrxif/

 

[Nosmo King]

Pushing FDR's round peg of an industrial economy where things were produced through the square hole of today's financial economy where the banking system moves money around for profit is a fool's game.

If Americans had access to solid middle class jobs, FDR's wisdom would be applicable. But in a system where wealth is not creates by creating but created by holding wealth, those with means would never acquiesce their hold on economic power. Thus we have a greater comcentration of wealth among the very few and an erosion of the middle class for whom FDR advocated.

What's amazing is the attitude of the contemporary America Comservative. His praise of this lop sided system shows he has no idea what he is championing. It is, in fact, the economic demise of America in praise of greed.

 

[Publius1787]

Pushing FDR's round peg of an industrial economy where things were produced through the square hole of today's financial economy where the banking system moves money around for profit is a fool's game.

If Americans had access to solid middle class jobs, FDR's wisdom would be applicable. But in a system where wealth is not creates by creating but created by holding wealth, those with means would never acquiesce their hold on economic power. Thus we have a greater comcentration of wealth among the very few and an erosion of the middle class for whom FDR advocated.

What's amazing is the attitude of the contemporary America Comservative. His praise of this lop sided system shows he has no idea what he is championing. It is, in fact, the economic demise of America in praise of greed.

FDR granted more access to the wealthy to influence government than any other president in US history. All he had to do was to simply expand the role of government beyond the confines of the U.S. Constitution. He did so. Now stop complaining about conservatives who rejected the FDR welfare state.

 

[Publius1787]

Workers rights were important before the reforms brought about during the Great Depression.
.
Yeah, the only good economies during the same period were fascist's, communist's or Nazi's.

Oh yeah, fascists and Nazi's! I will make the correction in the OP.

 

[Wry Catcher]

FDR's Economic Bill of Rights: A Good or Bad Idea?


FDR's Economic Bill of Rights - YouTube



Seems as though I've seen these rights in other constitutions.

USSR: 1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part I
North Korea: DPRK's Socialist Constitution (Full Text) 5:Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens
China: Constitution
Cuba: Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992
Vietnam: 1992 Constitution

Gee, a new take on an old scare. Well, not new; this list was posted a couple of weeks ago. The ideals in the list only callous conservatives resist and inhibit; real Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. and caring persons would support.

Comporting such ideals into an ideology known for its authoritarian and totalitarian governments isn't logical - but the politics of hate and fear never are. The RED SCARE has become the argument against the liberal paradigm and social contract theorists the basis of our Constitution.

Hate, fear, the RED SCARE and the use of pejoratives are the cornerstone of all 'arguments' against efforts to make the lives of all of our citizens better, healthier and enriched. Simply listen to Limbaugh for an hour, or watch a Hannity 'interview', or read the posts which echo these and other purveyors of propaganda who post on this forum. What you will see and hear and read are the words of callous conservatives.

Don' look now, I added more! Indeed, there is a reason totalitarianism results from a solid welfare state.

USSR: 1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part I
North Korea: DPRK's Socialist Constitution (Full Text) 5:Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens
China: Constitution
Cuba: Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992
Vietnam: 1992 Constitution
Nazi Platform: http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf
Italian Fascist Platform: Fascism points more toward left than right | SaukValley.com

There is more than one reason Russia, China, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba etc. are totalitarian. To attribute the ideas of Marx to anyone of these authoritarian nations is a far reach, as well as ignorance of his ideas. The utopian ideas Marx wrote of were unrealistic and likely would only be successful in an agrarian society where many of the inhabitants were related, competition was unnecessary for there were few unfulfilled needs, and little or no outside influence existed. In today's world such a place does not exist and human nature makes such cooperation most unlikely.

Notice how many nations call themselves "Democratic" or "People Republics" and yet by law restrict voting by allowing only one party to participate - gee, wasn't Tom Delay hoping to establish a one party majority and isn't the GOP hoping to restrict voting by putting in roadblocks into the law (all passed by Republican Majorities in State Legislatures and signed by GOP Governors)?

BTW, I suggest those who believe in democratic- republican governance and buy what the new conservative movement does (not says) see where the propaganda each of you believe fits within the ideas of our founders and that expressed in the Constitution. Read the Preamble as a Mission/Vision Statement without biases.

 

[expat_panama]

...wealth is not creates by creating but created by holding wealth...

Having trouble following your thinking, but if we're talking monetary wealth --net worth-- what it amounts to is assets minus debts, so we're talking making assets (say, building houses creating a business) and paying off debts. This is where the hard work comes in.

Almost all wealth is created by just hard work --but hey, hard work is fun!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Workers rights were important before the reforms brought about during the Great Depression.
.
Yeah, the only good economies during the same period were fascist's, communist's or Nazi's.

USA under Harding and Coolidge

Look it up

 

[Publius1787]

Gee, a new take on an old scare. Well, not new; this list was posted a couple of weeks ago. The ideals in the list only callous conservatives resist and inhibit; real Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. and caring persons would support.

Comporting such ideals into an ideology known for its authoritarian and totalitarian governments isn't logical - but the politics of hate and fear never are. The RED SCARE has become the argument against the liberal paradigm and social contract theorists the basis of our Constitution.

Hate, fear, the RED SCARE and the use of pejoratives are the cornerstone of all 'arguments' against efforts to make the lives of all of our citizens better, healthier and enriched. Simply listen to Limbaugh for an hour, or watch a Hannity 'interview', or read the posts which echo these and other purveyors of propaganda who post on this forum. What you will see and hear and read are the words of callous conservatives.

Don' look now, I added more! Indeed, there is a reason totalitarianism results from a solid welfare state.

USSR: 1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part I
North Korea: DPRK's Socialist Constitution (Full Text) 5:Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens
China: Constitution
Cuba: Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992
Vietnam: 1992 Constitution
Nazi Platform: http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf
Italian Fascist Platform: Fascism points more toward left than right | SaukValley.com

There is more than one reason Russia, China, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba etc. are totalitarian. To attribute the ideas of Marx to anyone of these authoritarian nations is a far reach, as well as ignorance of his ideas. The utopian ideas Marx wrote of were unrealistic and likely would only be successful in an agrarian society where many of the inhabitants were related, competition was unnecessary for there were few unfulfilled needs, and little or no outside influence existed. In today's world such a place does not exist and human nature makes such cooperation most unlikely.

Notice how many nations call themselves "Democratic" or "People Republics" and yet by law restrict voting by allowing only one party to participate - gee, wasn't Tom Delay hoping to establish a one party majority and isn't the GOP hoping to restrict voting by putting in roadblocks into the law (all passed by Republican Majorities in State Legislatures and signed by GOP Governors)?

BTW, I suggest those who believe in democratic- republican governance and buy what the new conservative movement does (not says) see where the propaganda each of you believe fits within the ideas of our founders and that expressed in the Constitution. Read the Preamble as a Mission/Vision Statement without biases.

Never attributed anything to Marx.
Republicans aren't going to stop anyone from voting.
Read the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist 51 bred from Anti-Federalist criticisms whereas Madison essentially stated that the federal government wont be able to go beyond it's enumerated powers under the guise of "general welfare." It wasn't until FDR, and after the threat of packing the courts, did the SCOTUS reject Federalist no 41.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Don' look now, I added more! Indeed, there is a reason totalitarianism results from a solid welfare state.

USSR: 1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part I
North Korea: DPRK's Socialist Constitution (Full Text) 5:Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens
China: Constitution
Cuba: Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992
Vietnam: 1992 Constitution
Nazi Platform: http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf
Italian Fascist Platform: Fascism points more toward left than right | SaukValley.com

There is more than one reason Russia, China, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba etc. are totalitarian. To attribute the ideas of Marx to anyone of these authoritarian nations is a far reach, as well as ignorance of his ideas. The utopian ideas Marx wrote of were unrealistic and likely would only be successful in an agrarian society where many of the inhabitants were related, competition was unnecessary for there were few unfulfilled needs, and little or no outside influence existed. In today's world such a place does not exist and human nature makes such cooperation most unlikely.

Notice how many nations call themselves "Democratic" or "People Republics" and yet by law restrict voting by allowing only one party to participate - gee, wasn't Tom Delay hoping to establish a one party majority and isn't the GOP hoping to restrict voting by putting in roadblocks into the law (all passed by Republican Majorities in State Legislatures and signed by GOP Governors)?

BTW, I suggest those who believe in democratic- republican governance and buy what the new conservative movement does (not says) see where the propaganda each of you believe fits within the ideas of our founders and that expressed in the Constitution. Read the Preamble as a Mission/Vision Statement without biases.

Never attributed anything to Marx. Huh?
Republicans aren't going to stop anyone from voting. Bullshit
Read the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist 51 bred from Anti-Federalist criticisms whereas Madison essentially stated that the federal government wont be able to go beyond it's enumerated powers under the guise of "general welfare." Fallacy of the Appeal to Authority.

It wasn't until FDR, and after the threat of packing the courts, did the SCOTUS reject Federalist no 41.

Explain your last comment in detail with probative evidence.

 

[Publius1787]

There is more than one reason Russia, China, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba etc. are totalitarian. To attribute the ideas of Marx to anyone of these authoritarian nations is a far reach, as well as ignorance of his ideas. The utopian ideas Marx wrote of were unrealistic and likely would only be successful in an agrarian society where many of the inhabitants were related, competition was unnecessary for there were few unfulfilled needs, and little or no outside influence existed. In today's world such a place does not exist and human nature makes such cooperation most unlikely.

Notice how many nations call themselves "Democratic" or "People Republics" and yet by law restrict voting by allowing only one party to participate - gee, wasn't Tom Delay hoping to establish a one party majority and isn't the GOP hoping to restrict voting by putting in roadblocks into the law (all passed by Republican Majorities in State Legislatures and signed by GOP Governors)?

BTW, I suggest those who believe in democratic- republican governance and buy what the new conservative movement does (not says) see where the propaganda each of you believe fits within the ideas of our founders and that expressed in the Constitution. Read the Preamble as a Mission/Vision Statement without biases.

Never attributed anything to Marx. Huh?
Republicans aren't going to stop anyone from voting. Bullshit
Read the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist 51 bred from Anti-Federalist criticisms whereas Madison essentially stated that the federal government wont be able to go beyond it's enumerated powers under the guise of "general welfare." Fallacy of the Appeal to Authority.

It wasn't until FDR, and after the threat of packing the courts, did the SCOTUS reject Federalist no 41.

Explain your last comment in detail with probative evidence.

1. I did not mention Marx
2. You cannot point to anything Republicans have done that will effectively prevent voting.

3. Pointing to the father of the Constitution is indeed, an appeal to an authority. This does not make it a fallacy. If appeal to authority did not count as evidence than every academic who ever wrote a book is null and void. Indeed, Federalist no 41 was written to persuade the Anti Federalists and the American people that the words "general welfare" were not an unlimited grant of power. The Anti-Federalists charged that "General Welfare" amounted to an unlimited authority. James Madison told them that this was ridiculous, after all, why enumerate powers at all if the government can do anything under the guise of "general welfare?" He also advocated for a Bill of rights complete with the now 10th Amendment (The first amendment proposed) to mitigate these concerns.


Court Packing Scheme that preceded the two Supreme Court Cases.
The switch in time that saved nine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Supreme Court cases interpreting the words "General Welfare"
Steward Machine Company v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUBH1dygxyE]FDR Fireside Chat 9: On "Court-Packing" - YouTube[/ame]

Federalist No. 41

...... Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

You see, FDR is why we have so much corruption and corporate favoritism in government today. He expanded the power of the federal government and all the fat cats rushed in for influence. It's called lobbying and the larger the government the more lobbying you get.

 

[Nosmo King]

...wealth is not creates by creating but created by holding wealth...

Having trouble following your thinking, but if we're talking monetary wealth --net worth-- what it amounts to is assets minus debts, so we're talking making assets (say, building houses creating a business) and paying off debts. This is where the hard work comes in.

Almost all wealth is created by just hard work --but hey, hard work is fun!

Sorry. Blame it on spellcheck and an iPad keyboard.

My point is wealth was once created by creating things. Now, wealth is created by making a killing in the market. Which is more sustainable, accessible and noble?