Woodrow Wilson is truly the icon of the Progressives....and with good reason.
He made the United States into the first Fascist Nation....as follows:
'The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the
20th century’s first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson. During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
a. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry
b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream
d. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
g. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters
h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9
RW will not be able to deny one single aspect listed above.
He is left with no choice but to espouse Fascism.
It is the Liberal/Progressive's concupiscence.....the inordinate lust for power and control, in evidence 'til this very day.
Who was Edmund Burke?
The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.
Thread-http://www.usmessageboard.com/5001042-post1.html
"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson
Wilson was both a racist and a fascist.
Wilson's quote means nothing, dolt.
When do you grow up an recognize that reality is defined by actions, not by words?
Ever?
Can you deny any of the statements about Wilson?
Any?
None?
Now, think about what that means.
Pure right wing propaganda. The world according to the Koch Brother's propaganda ministry; funded by all the major polluters on the planet.
PC, you are the embodiment of active ignorance.
You wouldn't know Burke if it hit you in the face. There is nothing about your agenda that resembles Burke. It is so far to the right that Mussolini and Hitler would be embarrassed.
Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke
And as far as your icon Ronbo Reagan, it took every President who preceded him combined to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt. It took Reagan only five years to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
Reagan was the embodiment of the 'welfare queen' he chided. Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
Ironic you quote Murray Rothbard...
The Myths of Reaganomics
Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard
I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.
How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan's first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to "get government off our backs."
Specifically, Reagan called for a massive cut in government spending, an even more drastic cut in taxation (particularly the income tax), a balanced budget by 1984 (that wild-spender, Jimmy Carter you see, had raised the budget deficit to $74 billion a year, and this had to be eliminated), and a return to the gold standard, where money is supplied by the market rather than by government. In addition to a call for free markets domestically, Reagan affirmed his deep commitment to freedom of international trade. Not only did the upper echelons of the administration sport Adam Smith ties, in honor of that moderate free-trader, but Reagan himself affirmed the depth of the influence upon him of the mid-19th century laissez-faire economist, Frederic Bastiat, whose devastating and satiric attacks on protectionism have been anthologized in economics readings ever since.
The gold standard was the easiest pledge to dispose of. President Reagan appointed an allegedly impartial gold commission to study the problem—a commission overwhelmingly packed with lifelong opponents of gold. The commission presented its predictable report, and gold was quickly interred.
Let's run down the other important areas:
Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.
Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.
Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.
Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.
This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.
One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.
The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily