I came across this today in my reading and thought it might make a good post, providing it does not get too political. Which, I mean, I suppose it is political, but I am more interested in from an economic standpoint. All my life I have always heard people talking about FDR being a great president. But as I read more about him throughout life, I liked him less and less. Well, anyways, I came across this today. It is from the 1944 SOTU address, and has been dubbed the economic bill of rights. In my opinion, FDR and many of the policies he implemented, were the beginning of the end of capitalism in this country. I would make the argument that he was one of the worst presidents this country has ever had.




My question to this would be, at whose expense? I think we all know the answer to that.

I don't see any of those as "rights"....Looks more like socialism.

"Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"....Ben Franklin

I wish I could find that funny.....

FDR was a big fan of communism, not just watered down socialism. He thought communism was the ideal, but that it would have to be worked towards incrementally.

I believe the right to a good education is critical to the country, the important part of that statement is “good” and that’s the issue today people can have 20 plus years of education and know less that people did in the 30’s with 8 years of education.

I bet Bernie Sanders has an FDR poster above his bed.

Yep one of the worst. Added onto the beginning of the government overreach into private sector and pro labor visions of his distant cousin Teddy

So you believe education is a right? I do not.... good or otherwise. I feel that everyone has the right to pursue an education for themselves or their children, but not a right to have one provided them at no cost. Because "no cost" does not exist. Everything has a cost. As I said in my first post.... at whose expense? Why should I, who have no children, have to pay for LaShondra's 8 kids with 7 different daddies' educations? Or for that matter, yours? Why would anyone have children and expect someone else to pay to educate them? How is it different than having kids and expecting someone else to feed them via food stamps? It's not!

The Declaration of Independence promised man the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Keyword there being pursuit. In other words, Americans have the right to live in freedom, and to take the steps necessary to procure a successful and happy life for themselves and their families. It does not give them the right to emburden others by forcing them to pay for their pursuit of happiness.

Hahahaha!!! Dang it!!
Chocolate milk out of my nose!!! Hahahaha

Was it FDRs plans that pulled the United States out of the depression or was it the war??

That young lady had just minutes to live on that bus ride!
That poc sitting behind her killed her just after the photo.

The 1:00 MINUTE MARK!

I have no problem with tax dollars being spent on public education. What I have a problem with is faceless bureaucrats, a thousand miles from here, dictating what that education should look like.

Even someone without kids benefits from public education.

The option of private school exists for those who want it.

P.S. No way to know with any certainty but I believe FDR prolonged the depression. I also believe that U.S. involvement in that European abortion known as WWI is the reason we had WWII. That was a conflict the U.S. should never have gotten involved in. Until the U.S. showed up, Europeans had fought themselves into a standstill. Drafting school boys to go and fight.

Germany sank some U.S. ships and was the catalyst for U.S. entry. Newspapers stirred folks up claiming Germany sank passenger ships. How many innocent passengers were on their way to a war zone? U.S, companies were selling supplies to England. Those supplies were on those ships. Germany took out full page ads in NY newspapers warning those ships were going to be sunk.

Thomas Sowell has some great thoughts on public education and FDR’s policies

If anyone hasn’t already read his work,,,, you should

Probably could do a AI summary search and get a taste,,,,,



Huge Thomas Sowell fan here!!!

One of the brightest minds in recent times,,,

I despise taxes, welfare and am in no way a fan of the government.

We nonetheless need an educated society and I can live with funding it. This especially includes trade schools.

However, I acknowledge the public education system is jacked up generally--even though we have a great school system in our town. Demographics and parent involvement are huge factors.

I also acknowledge that there are some really low IQ.people, deadbeats, nutjobs and/or others in this country who were never educated despite having public education available. And this cycle repeats in each generation.

Sometimes I wish we could just shake the Etch A Sketch and start over.

FDR, the only president to toss aside the two term standard set by George Washington and get elected 4 times. He then died in office shortly after being elected for the 4th time in 1944. The Constitution was changed during Truman's presidency to impose a limit of 2 terms as president, with Truman excepted. Regardless, Truman chose to serve out the FDR term and was elected 1 time in 1948.

Truman's contemporaries were Stalin and Churchill, both who had no limits on how long they could lead their respective countries.

Obviously the war but every 9th grade civics student is taught otherwise during the course of their Publix education

I think the Iranians have it all wrong. FDR was the Great Satan IMO.

What is "good", "adequate", "decent", "enough"? And who gets to define what those terms mean?

Bernie Sanders lite.

I think FDR saw some of the same things Theodore Roosevelt saw when he decided to form the Bull Moose party.

that there was plenty of room for the rich business men to make money but that they needed to also treat employees well and not just use them.

greed tells them to just use the disposable people as stepping stones to their near unlimited wealth.

I would expect most of you who have businesses treat your people well , fair wage , reasonable hours , you want hard work but not to the point they die in a extremely hazardous working condition you created

this isn't a conscious all business owners have and the more removed from the day to day and face to face with the employees the less the employees are seen as people and more as serfs.

if business reinvested 50% of earnings in employees none of this would have ever been an issue. but greed won't do that.

the "rights" enumerated by FRD were a way to try and put some balance in place so that there was an educated , healthy , fed , active electorate and not a bunch of serfs who would just vote for being promised food.

I can make the argument that while you say he was embracing communism , he was also setting the stage to not have a nation of useful idiots like the states of the USSR. a people who could have small businesses and farms that weren't solely run by oligarchs.
look at Austria , they elected a dictator because they were in a awful economic place.

lots of small business and not a hand full of monopolies is what made this country so strong for so long.

when every man is pulling for a better place for his family they work harder , if you take those opportunities away then you lose the very people you all are. Free trappers individuals who can do it your way.

If anything what this country needs now is more diversification in business we are getting too much power in a few corporations.

Yet the programs he advocated for led us to the mess we have today. Its why the great depression lasted as long as it did because of his policies and was only brought out of it because of WW2. And he tried his best to become a dictator so much so that even his own party had to put a stop to it. He did oppose government workers being unionized so he has that going for him.

Who gets to set the limits Greencountypete? Big business has big influence in those decisions. Limits on campaign donations, no donations from any corporation or business, no foreign donations, would help that situation a bunch IMO. Much more so than another government entity picking winners and losers.

Pure capitalism (with no safeguards) is what drove America into the big depression to start with. It will always be a blend of socialism and capitalism for a country to treat its citizens right imho.

BTW, no mention made of the FDR's invention the CCC (1933-38) which really helped hundreds of thousands of struggling families. Ingenious. I think that program really helped give Americans hope at a time when everything appeared hopeless.

obviously big business getting involved in politics is a problem

and who sets the limits is an issue

foreign donations also an issue

we had limits on what companies could put in and those safeguards being removed have led us where we are as much as anything from 70 years ago.

none of it is perfect , the important part is that we as a educated people set the tone of government to set the standards of corporate conscience of large companies since they will not have one on their own.

yes the CCC was ingenious , I think a modern program like it that teaches young people to work would be excelent.

I have a daughter who teaches for MKE public schools , we have regular discussions on how the district is failing their students and how other districts large and small fail students.

the biggest problem is parents failing their kids , always has and probably always will be.
I can generally tell you by the kindergarten holiday program and the little milk and cookies in the classrooms after. what kids are going to do well and what kids are going to have a real struggle ahead of them.
why , because your kid doing well in school is 97% parental involvement. If you are there and involved and caring for your student , you will see they do well.

the same thing in most success , sure we all have an adict in the family some place or one with just a broken attitude, but in large if mom and dad are present , good caregivers and care , teach kids about voting and civic responsibility they will have it. and if they don't they won't.

Agreed

Interested in your thoughts on teacher unions and their role in public education.

Public education works great in many places to this day for the reasons you mentioned here. It also sucks many places for the exact same reasons. You can not fairly lump all public education, all public education teachers, and all teachers unions into one.

If the home life was the same today as it was 50 years ago, public education would be the same too. You can not fairly lump all parents together either, as many are great, and many others suck.

Ultimately. they are your kids and you are responsible for how they turn out, not their teachers, schools, etc... this was understood 50 years ago, now,,, not so much.

Agreed. Having supper together, no phones and talking about the day goes a long way when raising kids imo. I called it “the debriefing hour”.

Hear, hear! I've made that exact argument many times. You are the one who chose to have kids, why should I pay for your kids?

The government being in charge of education and requiring children to be taught (indoctrinated) with whatever the government deems necessary is a totally different argument.

What a bunch of socialist hogwash. Anyone, be it a private business owner, a partnership, or a mega corporation has the right to offer to pay XXX amount of money along with XYZ benefits in exchange for fulfillment of some task or job. And any individual then has the choice to weigh the pros and cons of that offer and determine for themselves whether or not they are willing to do that job for the pay and benefits being provided. If they feel the wages are fair, they can take the job and if they do not they are free to turn it down and find better employment. If no one is willing to do the required job for the provided wages, the company will have no choice but to increase the wages being offered.

Some will make the argument that people accept wages they feel are unfair because they are in desperate need of the money. This is understandable, and I can certainly see working for an unfair wage in a time of economic crisis.....temporarily. But if I worked at a job that I felt I was not being adequately compensated for, every moment of my spare time would be spent either looking for, or creating, a better opportunity. I have never understood those who work at a job they are not happy with and then spend all their free time complaining about that job, or striking, and whining. Wouldn't that free time be much better spent either finding better employment, OR learning the skills required to make themselves a more valuable employee and therefore worth higher wages?



No, a basic understanding of economics and business "won't do that". Greed has nothing to do with it. You say earnings, but I suspect or at least hope you meant profits, and not actually earnings. So assuming you did mean profits, and 50 % is given off the top to the employees. That leaves 50% left to be divided between retained earnings and the shareholders. How should that be divvied up? Unless a company is showing very strong growth (i.e.- increasing share price), shareholders will expect to receive some value either through the payout of dividends or through share buybacks (which increase the share price). If all of the remaining money is retained, and dividends not paid out to shareholders, but the company still does not grow at a rapid enough pace to satisfy the market, shareholders will sell, leading to a decline in market cap. If instead the remaining money is all paid out to shareholders, there will be none left for the company's growth, resulting in stagnation. If it were divided between the two groups, growth would likely still be sluggish with little room for innovation, R&D or expansion.

Why would you suggest that a company pay employees more than what the market deems to be a fair wage for that job? Out of benevolence? Do the shareholders get a say in this? After all, it is they that own the company, and their money that you are wishing to redistribute to employees that have not earned it.

I just can't understand this line of thinking at all. It's such a contradiction to reason.

So Danny, if you feel businesses should not be allowed to make campaign donations, you must agree that unions should also not be allowed to?

that I can agree to

unions turned into big business

Corporate conscience?!?! Now you're really doubling down on the socialist nonsense. Corporations do not, literally cannot, have a "conscience". A corporation consists of many individuals that have chosen to invest their wealth into that company by purchasing shares of the company on the open market. Those individuals are the owners of that company. When you purchase stock, you are purchasing a share of the company, and you become a partial owner of that company, commonly referred to as a shareholder.

The term corporate conscience is defined as being the idea that a corporation has moral responsibilities beyond making money — such as acting ethically, protecting stakeholders, or contributing to society. That's insanity. Only people have moral obligations, and corporations are not people. The only obligation a corporation can have is to maximize shareholder value. CEOs of major corporations do not own the corporations, they are representatives working for us shareholders. If a CEO were to spend company money on social, political, or environmental causes (that do not increase the value of the company), that would be a grievous misuse of the money I invested in the company. I did not invest money to become a social justice warrior, I invested money to make money, and that, and ONLY that, is the corporation's duty... to maximize the return on the money I chose to invest in it. Why should someone with no skin in the game, someone who has no money invested in the corporation, have any say whatsoever regarding what that corporation does with MY money?? If you want a say, put your money where your mouth is and invest, then you'll have a vote on the issues and the people running the corporation the same as I do.

We shareholders choose executives that will run the company to maximize shareholder returns. When a company is ran this way, profits naturally flow towards uses that will maximize production, increasing revenue, which in turn leads to innovation and growth, resulting in job creation and a wealthier society as a whole.

What right does an executive of a corporation have to spend MY money on issues that I very well may not agree with? I couldn't care less what his personal, political, or social views are, that's not what he was hired for. Would you be okay if you invested money in a corporation only to have the CEO of that company come out in support of gun control for "the greater good of society"? Or would you prefer, no DEMAND, that he do what he was hired to do, which is maximize the return on your investment????

As a side note... a shareholder and a stakeholder are NOT the same thing. A shareholder is an owner of the company due to having purchased shares of the company. A stakeholder is someone that has NOT purchased shares of the company, has absolutely nothing invested in the company, yet for some inexplicable reason feels they have a right to have a say in how the company operates.......

Start and run a successful business. You will do more for America than any other activity, especially anything connected to government...

earnings / profits , the problem is the definitions get abused.

I mean 50% of what is brought in after the liabilities of building , energy , property taxes , materials , and other production costs are covered.
get reinvested in the employees under vice president.

you can take that other 50% and split it 25% to top employees and 25% at building updates and expansion.

everyone walks away from that well paid , business thrives

it's not going to happen because taking care of employees and building them as your biggest resource isn't valued

you can call me a socialist or whatever

I hate government getting into regulating business but it also won't take care of it's employees if it isn't required to in some way.

share holders should get value from the safety of the companies standing and growth when they sell their shares.
they are there to earn profit by lending money as stock and getting paid back in interest when the stocks are sold or repurchased by the company.

as long as you only view a company as an investment on a balance sheet , the people behind that product and service are worker drones without names or faces to be used or disposed of as line items.

the president of company should be looking the majority of his employees in the face daily seeing they are people whom he/she has the responsibility of doing right by.

making corporate decisions that are in the best interest of the company which includes the well being of the families that make up that company.


so yes I work for a smaller company , yes I know the names and families of all senior management.
yes I talk with them at company events or in the hall way or brake room.

yes it is a privately held company

we take care of the customer and production and that makes it a good place for all of us.

we have a lot of multi generational family names where I work.

parents who's kids and even grandkids are now working here.

it's a special place and there are not a lot of businesses like it around

our customers see the difference and they have a huge level of trust in us and clearly our employees see the difference , we have an almost unheard of employee retention rate. I am in year 28 with the company myself.

so sure I am a socialist or whatever you want to call me , I am Family , Company , Wisconsinites and Americans' first. We build strong family , company , state and country , we all thrive.

Agree with this.

I am not a fan of unions generally.

How much do you expect a company to grow if now 75% (50% was bad enough!!!!) of its profits are being handed out to employees in addition to the wages the employees agreed to work for? You realize that things like R&D, as well as the literal building of new facilities capable of keeping up with the ever changing technology require HUGE capital expenditures, right? Where do you think the money for that comes from??? It comes from the profits you're wishing to hand out to employees who did nothing to earn them......

So the company........ which you own no part of.... but are gracious enough to allow 25% of the revenue to be reinvested into...... may be able to scrape by on that but they surely will not be able to innovate or expand.

You do realize that investing in the market comes with RISKS right, and that those who invest in companies expect to earn a return that makes it a risk worth taking?

In your scenario, an investor would have to be stupid to invest in a company that's only returns will be based on the tiny amount the company will be able to grow due to strangling labor costs.... anyone with even the most basic knowledge of economics would know it would be much more prudent to instead put their money in no-risk (or almost no risk) options such high yield savings accounts or government securities.

But really, your arguments have just gotten so far out in left field now that I'm finding it hard to even debate this with you.

“If socialist’s ACTUALLY understood economics,,, there wouldn’t be any socialists”

Great quote!