L
Le Quack
FDR is considered one of the best presidents of our time, and this is what he had planned.
- Status
FDR is considered one of the best presidents of our time, and this is what he had planned.
K
Kitty Sinatra
Well, that's one more vote for Health Care as a right.
Dammit, why do I keep crossing threads? :laser:
Dammit, why do I keep crossing threads? :laser:
L
Le Quack
No, but FDR totally called republican's fascists.
K
Kitty Sinatra
eh, espy? I don't see anything ridiculous (in the text link, didn't watch the video) there, especially given that this is a speech and a little hyperbole is alway present. What do you find ridiculous?
A
Armadillo
Bill of Rights-enumerates what the government cannot do to its citizens and what it cannot take away. Things like free speech, right to bear arms, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, right to not self-incriminate, and so on. Increases freedom and self-determination.
This "Bill of Rights"- things the government would provide its citizens, essentially making them more dependent on the state for their happiness and well-being. Decreases freedom and self-determination.
FDR isn't universally thought of as one of the best Presidents we've ever had. Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.
This "Bill of Rights"- things the government would provide its citizens, essentially making them more dependent on the state for their happiness and well-being. Decreases freedom and self-determination.
FDR isn't universally thought of as one of the best Presidents we've ever had. Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.
If you take "rights" as something the government must provide for you, than it seems pretty over the top for me. For me it is more the protection of our ability to achieve it.
For example, "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;". I don't see that as saying the government must make sure we all have a job, just that we should all have the right to be able to secure a job. That we shouldn't be discriminated against for any reason. Not that the government should provide a job for us.
For example, "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;". I don't see that as saying the government must make sure we all have a job, just that we should all have the right to be able to secure a job. That we shouldn't be discriminated against for any reason. Not that the government should provide a job for us.
K
Kitty Sinatra
Same here. And I saw no hint of that definition in those points (excepting health care, but that's personal, national bias here).
I saw the suggestion for a need for sufficient regulation to help provide those "rights" - things like anti-monopoly laws, minimum wage laws, and things like that.
L
Le Quack
Just because we have the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean we must be provided with it.
How about:
Just because we have the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean the government must provide us a podium to speak our mind from.
L
Le Quack
The text document doesn't say all of his speech. If you listen to it, there's a bit more that goes into it.
---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------
Im not sure why the transcript cuts off the last few minutes of the speech. But he talks about "right reactionaries" and giving into the spirit of fascism.
---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------
Im not sure why the transcript cuts off the last few minutes of the speech. But he talks about "right reactionaries" and giving into the spirit of fascism.
I can't watch it now, but I found what is maybe the full version. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16518
---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------
Do you mean:
---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------
Do you mean:
He's calling people who want to go back to the ideals of the 20's fascists, not republicans. Ideals change over time, I don't know any republicans that think going back to the way businesses were run and employees were treated in the 20's is a good thing.
L
Le Quack
Check itFDR said:
K
Kitty Sinatra
Well given that the speech was made during WWII and fascism was a sort of legitimate political philosophy at the time with proponents in the US, I'm not surprised he'd mention something like that. It's not significantly different than if Obama would caution against giving into religious Fundamentalism, or Bush cautioning against Liberalism, or any other example you can give about presidents mentioning a bogeyman to help shore up their own position.
L
Le Quack
He's saying that it is a danger of "rightist recationaries."
Also, he asks the Congress to explore the means of the economic bill of rights.
I'm of the understanding that these were rights already available, and thus must be meaning the means to make them available.
If that doesn't mean "provide a means" to make the rights available, my bad.
Also, he asks the Congress to explore the means of the economic bill of rights.
I'm of the understanding that these were rights already available, and thus must be meaning the means to make them available.
If that doesn't mean "provide a means" to make the rights available, my bad.
K
Kitty Sinatra
I'm not sure what we're discussing here, but I'm gonna reply anyway.
I don't see why "provide a means" should mean "have the government provide these directly" (like Covar seems to believe) as opposed to "have the government create the conditions."
Things like minimum wage laws, anti-monopoly laws do the latter. Those may have indeed been in place before this speech, but that makes sense too as in his speech FDR talks about not just what's planned, but what's come before his speech and what's happening currently (FDR mentions legislation passing through Congress right then).
But all this is secondary from what I don't understand here: Is the whole thing ridiculous because he refers to them as "rights"? Is that one single word really getting your craw up? (By "you", I mean whoever has their craw up; I don't know who or what I'm actually talking to or about here)
I don't see why "provide a means" should mean "have the government provide these directly" (like Covar seems to believe) as opposed to "have the government create the conditions."
Things like minimum wage laws, anti-monopoly laws do the latter. Those may have indeed been in place before this speech, but that makes sense too as in his speech FDR talks about not just what's planned, but what's come before his speech and what's happening currently (FDR mentions legislation passing through Congress right then).
But all this is secondary from what I don't understand here: Is the whole thing ridiculous because he refers to them as "rights"? Is that one single word really getting your craw up? (By "you", I mean whoever has their craw up; I don't know who or what I'm actually talking to or about here)
It's been 60 years since that speech. "Rightist reactionaries" means something completely different now.
As for asking for the means to implement it, he just wants to secure those right through legislation. Minimum wage, anti-discrimination laws, worker safety laws, actually breaking up monopolies, unemployment benefits, all of those are implementations on those ideals.
As for asking for the means to implement it, he just wants to secure those right through legislation. Minimum wage, anti-discrimination laws, worker safety laws, actually breaking up monopolies, unemployment benefits, all of those are implementations on those ideals.
This speech was the basis of the minimum wage, agricultural price supports, and a renewed interest in breaking the monopolistic competition that is against the ideals of capitalism and freedom. They acted on several of those points in the past. And the Democratic party has continued to push for reforms along those lines.
The only people I've ever heard say this are foaming-at-the-mouth neocons and libertarians.
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid"
L
Le Quack
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid"[/QUOTE]
"You're a dumb prick"
I can do it too.
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid"[/QUOTE]
"You're a dumb prick"
I can do it too.[/QUOTE]
You know, quoting a person doesn't necessarily mean you're talking to/about them. The only guarantee is that it relates to what they've said.
I had hoped you'd have something to say about the line. Sorry I hurt your feelings.
L
Le Quack
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid"[/QUOTE]
"You're a dumb prick"
I can do it too.[/QUOTE]
You know, quoting a person doesn't necessarily mean you're talking to/about them. The only guarantee is that it relates to what they've said.
I had hoped you'd have something to say about the line. Sorry I hurt your feelings.
[/QUOTE]Well, I took it as a personal insult. If that was not the case, my bad.
When I think of the word right, I think that nothing can stop a person from getting that.
Not this its a right if you have the money to buy it, or It's a right if you say what we want you to say.
Right now, that is my opinion on Health Care. Because it is not widely available to everyone (aside from ER), then it is a broach of rights.
He's saying you have a right to, among other ridiculous things, a job, clothes, recreation, etc.
It's like every bad campaign promise ever made.
Like I said in my post, I think you missed it, these aren't "bad things" but they are hardly things the government should provide for you.
---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------
Excuse me? Anyone can go see a doc. Is your real issue that people don't currently have the right to have someone else pay for their healthcare? The real issue as far as I'm concerned isn't the availability of healthcare, because it IS available to everyone, is the waste in the system, the costs driven up by insurance, etc. If we could streamline the system, if we could get tort reform in and make healthcare more affordable, then BAM! You have my support.
That's not really taking into account what was going on.
Minimum wage and overtime laws had just been passed in 1938. Health insurance had really just started to be offered. Previously it was either a pre-pay plan or you pay it all out of pocket. Social security was started in 1935.
It was 1944 and there were people that wanted to undo these changes. This speech was pushing back against those that wanted to go back to the way it was, rather than a call for government giving you jobs and houses. It was a reminder that if we want to continue to grow we need to make sure the working class is not taken advantage of.
A reading of the speech doesn't seem to indicate that he was calling for these rights to be enshrined in the same way the bill of rights are, as constitutional amendments.
At best I believe he was calling for us, as a nation, and as human beings, to continue to move toward these goals. Not calling for a national mandate that these become law.
Compare them to other 'rights' speeches, such as MLK.
-Adam
At best I believe he was calling for us, as a nation, and as human beings, to continue to move toward these goals. Not calling for a national mandate that these become law.
Compare them to other 'rights' speeches, such as MLK.
-Adam
That's not really taking into account what was going on.
Minimum wage and overtime laws had just been passed in 1938. Health insurance had really just started to be offered. Previously it was either a pre-pay plan or you pay it all out of pocket. Social security was started in 1935.
It was 1944 and there were people that wanted to undo these changes. This speech was pushing back against those that wanted to go back to the way it was, rather than a call for government giving you jobs and houses. It was a reminder that if we want to continue to grow we need to make sure the working class is not taken advantage of.[/QUOTE]
And that's fair. Wanting to see these things happen, like I said, is great. If one wanted to use them as a bouncing board to try and implement legislation, eh, I'd probably say, "hold on a minute..."
A
Armadillo
The only people I've ever heard say this are foaming-at-the-mouth neocons and libertarians.[/QUOTE]
...which makes sense, if you think about it. Libertarians are for as little state involvement in daily life and business as humanly possible, something FDR most certainly WASN'T all about. Therefore, it stands to reason that libertarians wouldn't be too fond of Roosevelt, just as we're not too fond of the current administration (or the last one, or the one before that, or...)
- Status