Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: FDR wanted these rights for all

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 12, 2011, 7 p.m. EST by FedWallFedWellFedUP (183)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

FDR wanted these rights for all: a job;to earn enough to pay for food&clothing;for businessmen to be free of unfair competition&domination by monopolies; have decent home;right to adequate medical care and...enjoy good health;to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; to a good education.

61 Comments

61 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

As did Henry Ford, Sam Walton, Steve Jobs and so many others. And there will be new job creators to come. What is different about our time? Well in my personal opinion in an attempt to stifle competition, outmoded banks and corporations feeling the pangs of mortality and an unwillingness to further educate themselves are doing their best to knock down and devalue youth, labor, educatioin, public protectiions and access to health care to secure a longer life cycle. Get rid of the upstarts, and they can continue to remain non-innovative. Go to one of their sotckholder meetings, or read their prospectus, and you will see a slavish adherance to mediocrity. That's what New Deal solutions are designed for, to offset the inevitable stagnation of innovatiion that occurs naturally in a capitalist system from time to time, it's just part of the natural cycle.

[-] 4 points by JadedGem (895) 3 years ago

YES! I'm tired of trolls who think OWS is really strange and radical liberals. Its not. Do we really have go into a huge depression before we go back to what WORKED!!! And it did work, things got better.

[-] 2 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

Well that answer is quite above my experience, but hey, a great depression will have a beginning a middle and an end. That we can assume. My focus today is to pass the word that commerial space is at an all time low, and as these idiot corporations move to the Third World, so to speak, we can re-occupy their domestic space and produce more colorful, exciting, innovative and meaninful products and services, when the big guys are glued to looking through the narrow tube of maximizing profits and making it cheaper. The manufacturers want to be bankers, and the bankers want to be day traders, the day traders want to do something meanigful, and the hard working are still hopeful, hope that helps, thank you!

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 3 years ago

What you are describing is Neoliberalism. The same ideology that brought about the Great Depession has been embraced by most of the worlds governments. They continue to cling to it despite the overwhelming evidence that it has been an abject failure.

[-] 0 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

Did you sleep through school every day?

[-] 0 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

Doh!

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 3 years ago

I guess that response was too intellectual for me to understand.

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

Liberalism was not even a glimmer in the eye of its daddy, during the great depression, it was the gilded age of social darwinism, where the weak were left to fend for themselves. And often were very short on Doe.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 3 years ago

To be more accurate, social Darwinism was what preceded (and caused) the great depression. The Depression itself was indeed when modern SOCIAL liberalism began under FDR and what brought us out of it. You might want to educate yourself to the point that you can recognize when someone is agreeing with you.

[-] 1 points by JohnsonJaimes (260) from Sanibel, FL 3 years ago

Check out Darwinian or Evolutionary economics.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 3 years ago

Yes,I'm familiar with those terms. They are pretty much the same as neoliberalism.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 3 years ago

Thanks,. I am well aware of those terms. They are pretty much the equivalent of neoliberalism.

[-] 2 points by JohnsonJaimes (260) from Sanibel, FL 3 years ago

I believe neoliberalism states that the role of the "private sector" is maximized "for the benefit of the country". I can see your point, but I believe that the "private sector maximization" is what has gotten us into this mess. Darwinian Economics states that a business that is weak and doesn't benefit the society or population as a whole will die off. Maybe we're seeing it take shape now before our eyes, but I doubt it. If it's benefits society as a whole, then we wouldn't have to protest in the streets:(

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 3 years ago

I am NOT advocating neoliberalism, read my statements carefully. Notice my user name. Not-a-neoliberal.

[-] 1 points by JohnsonJaimes (260) from Sanibel, FL 3 years ago

not really.

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

Go back and read your words, your error, then. "What you are describing is Neoliberalism. The same ideology that brought about the Great Depession" Cut and pasted here, to save you time. The cure was not the cause. Put down the bong.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 3 years ago

Again,Neoliberalism is not liberalism. They are virtually opposites. Damn, with dunces like you on our side, who needs Republicans. Are you too damn lazy to click the link?

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 3 years ago

In addition to links on neoliberalism, you might include a link to the opposite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 3 years ago

Good idea.

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

Never heard of it.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 3 years ago

Well now you have. The term is widely used outside the US,

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 3 years ago

Perhaps you do not understand the difference between social liberalism and neoliberalism, the later being an economic system that is indeed social Darwinism.

[-] 0 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

Yea, and Dorothy flew away from the Emerald City in a balllon, I saw it myself!

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

Ism is just a prison for your mind, how long are you going to stay in there?

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 3 years ago

Seriously, you need to learn about it. Protests all around the world are about neoliberalism - aka free market fundamentalism a la Milton Friedman. It's a problematic term here but if you really understand it things will click into place. Every president since Reagan has been a neoliberal. Try Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine for a good read, or watch (has been made into a film which is free online): http://vimeo.com/14847387

OWS is, at its core, a protest against neoliberalism. Once we understand that, we can see it as the global movement it is.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 3 years ago

To understand WHAT MAKES A TROLL TICK - AND have a chuckle while you're at it - go to:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-trolls-think-trollosophy-exposed/

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 3 years ago

Thanks! I needed that!

[-] 1 points by JohnsonJaimes (260) from Sanibel, FL 3 years ago

I'm from the Detroit area originally, I can remember my granddad telling us about how Ford was once the best job in town. They paid three times the prevailing wage at the time. Someone had to die before you got a job there, literally. The working conditions were so bad and dangerous that they had to pay that much just to attract enough workers to maintain. You won't hear that on The History Channel. I wonder if that's the "invisible hand" that's supposed to look over us after the republican(s) finish gutting the unions that fought for protection from such conditions.

[-] 2 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

Yes the steps to progress sometimes are often one step forward, one step back, and progress is slow at best. But, yes, the unions also provided training, a sounding board for new ideas, and have always been well worth their overhead. Today, it just does not take that many workers to build a car, and salaries and benefits go to many fewer workers. So corps should stop their whining, or is that my lose fanbelt lol.

[-] 1 points by JohnsonJaimes (260) from Sanibel, FL 3 years ago

great point!

[-] 2 points by Howtodoit (1232) 3 years ago

He was the man, the man who also signed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 into law...nice post. let's now do what FDA did and:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/its-time-for-a-million-people-march-to-capitol-hil/

[-] 2 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 3 years ago

FDR was right and if you look at the countries he sent Ambassadors to, to help rebuild after world war 2 (Germany and Japan), they are some of the most prosperous freest countries on Earth. And they are relatively small countries.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

with relative small military costs

%1 Japan Gross Domestic Product on Military

%1.4 Germany Gross Domestic Product on Military

%4.7 US Gross Domestic Product on Military

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

the US has bases in both Japan and Germany

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 3 years ago

Our money is created, not by the government, but by banks. Many authorities have confirmed this, including the Federal Reserve itself.

http://dallasfed.org/educate/everyday/ev9.html

If our government created our money rather than borrow the use of our own money from private "banksters," there would be a plentiful money supply to ensure the general welfare of our people.

http://www.WebOfDebt.com

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 3 years ago

the issue is not who issues the money. It is what the money is based on. If it is not based on objective values, things which actually exist , then we will have the same situation we have now.

Let us say that you trade me 10 dollars for a bushel of wheat. Later in the year, I try to trade you some of those dollars for something it is that you have produced, only I find that you have produced nothing. I find that the value of your money was based on what you expected to take from me as I go about the course of my life of production.

This is the nature of our system of currency. This is the nature of deficit spending. This is how our government expects things to play out.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 3 years ago

Except for coins all of what we think of as money originates as a bank loan. If all of our loans were paid we would really be in trouble because there would be no medium to exchange goods and services.

When the money supply rises with the level of goods and services, inflation and deflation are avoided.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 3 years ago

yes and no. Services are only potential value. For instance, if I fix computers for a living, I could potentially make a great deal of money or not, depending on whether or not people are willing or able to pay for my services. I provide a service which increases the value of the goods that others own, in lieu of producing goods myself. People would pay me because I have increased the value of the goods upon which I have performed my services. But that money must represent goods. Otherwise when I exchange it for goods, I am consuming something and giving nothing in return.

Regardless, when money is representative of actual goods, it doesn't matter who is printing/coining it. The only requirement is that it represents goods which actually exist.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 3 years ago

it would not matter who is printing/coining . . . except that some may take advantage of the situation . . . to enrich themselves at the expense of the others . . .

THE MONEY MASTERS is a NON-FICTION, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 3 years ago

in what way would some take advantage of the situation? And what would prevent government from doing the same?

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 3 years ago

You really should read some books on this subject. It is a clear indictment against our system that we understand so little about the monetary polcy and history of our nation and the world. At least watch the documentary . . . I posted the link above . . .

The Academy Award for Best Documentary of 2011 went to "Inside Job." about the financial crisis of 2008.

"Griftopia," by Matt Taibbi is a very interesting and highly readable book about the crisis.

"Web of Debt," by Ellen Brown is very good.

"The Creature from Jeckyll Island." by G. Edward Griffin is an account of how the Federal Reserve System was initiated.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 3 years ago

Since you did not answer my question, I will answer it. People would take advantage of the situation by printing paper money and falsifying records of the assets that they own which it represents, or by coining money and lying about the contents and purity of the coin. There would be nothing to stop government from doing the exact same thing.

An organization which coined money and lied about the value of the coin would rapidly lose credibility and nobody would use its coin. They would transfer that coin to other institutions with greater reputation who would melt it down and create new coins of a more consistent and reputable quality and value.

Paper money is a further abstraction of wealth than coined money. Paper money has very little value in and of itself, but is used to represent actual wealth held at the bank which prints the paper money (theoretically). In our system, paper money represents the fact that the government will tax us later. Thus, the government's taxing power is the standard of value for our paper money. In other words, the money which we exchange for goods represents the fact that the government owns a portion of the products of our effort, and that it will use this portion to back the value of its currency. When the Fed, under the authority of our government, loans money to its member banks, and they loan it to us, what we are being lent is a portion of our OWN EFFORT, which will later be expropriated by the government in order to secure the value of the paper money.

If the value of paper money were not enforced by the government (as it is today) individuals and banks would be free to accept or decline paper money from banks based on the merit of the bank. Anyone would be wary of paper money coming from a bank with a history of questionable reliability, and they should be able to choose to accept it or to demand the actual value which it represents.

That is why I say that if government did not have a monopoly on the legal production of currency, it would not matter who produced it. The money would represent actual value and the bank's reputation would be its only assurance that its currency would be accepted, which would encourage legitimate banking practices and discourage fraudulent ones.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 3 years ago

Well, then I suppose you don.t need to learn any thing from history. Those who REFUSE to learn from history are bound to repeat the errors. Good Luck!

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 3 years ago

That is not a refutation of what I proposed. What I said IS what I learned from history; from the history of currency not tied to objective value.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 3 years ago

The tally stick was used in England for nearly 700 years and it had no objective value. Gold has an objective value and the U.S. was on the gold standard during the great depression.

Mexico has oil and should be a prosperous country. The peso was tied to the U.S. Dollar and by short selling, the peso was brought down in value to the extent that Mexico has taken loan from the IMF. Mexico is held in debt bondage because their peso had been tied to the U.S. Dollar and thereby was vulnerable to short selling and manipulation by those that had greater economic might - the "International Banksters."

The private issuance of currency and credit has a long and sordid history. If you would like to learn about that history at least watch the video at the link I posted earlier.

"The Lost Science of Money," by Stephen Zarlenga is on my short list for reading.

http://www.monetary.org/

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 3 years ago

I am interested in reading the resources you have suggested and will make time for it. As far as the United States' implementation of the gold standard, I will quote from an essay by Alan Greenspan entitled "Gold and Economic Freedom':

"A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold, and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before the could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly re-established a sound basis to resume expansion. But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline--argued economic interventionists--why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely--it was claimed--there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper" reserves) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors."

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

Kudos, too. As the population rose from the 1800's to the present, the idea of backing every dollar with gold became impossible, but the average person could never be convinced of this because they were putting their noses to the grindstone, and not looking up much. Without increasing the supply of paper money to respond to the huge populatioin growth of the last century then a dollar today would buy a house, and a loaf of bread would cost a fraction of a cent. Working for 40 hours a week would yield a tiny fraction of a cent, and there would be no financial institutiions, because every one could carry a fortune in their hand. To propel an economy that makes sense, every once in a while dollars must be printed, like when corporations glue them to the ceiling, like they do today, instead of investing in the future, which they all think is coming to an end in an epileptic return of the Mayan culture.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 3 years ago

Absolutely, the money must get into the productive sector so that the people can prosper.

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 3 years ago

Thanks, please read my new post Facts, I'd like your opinion. Best Wishes, NS

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 3 years ago

can you provide a link ?

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

Amen brother.

Earlier post discussing FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights and his Four Freedoms speech: http://occupywallst.org/forum/fdrs-2nd-bill-of-rights-should-be-the-demands-of-t/

[-] 1 points by R3volution (19) 3 years ago

FDR arrested 110,000 Americans and sent them to concentration camps for the crime of looking Japanese.

FDR made the American citizen the enemy of the Federal government on March 6th, 1933, when he forced every American to hand over their gold coins, or face 10 years and $10,000 (1933) fine for failure to submit.

FDR was no champion of freedom and liberty. FDR was the champion of oppression and control. Anyone that admires a President that arrests thousands of Americans of a certain race and ships them to concentration camps, against their will and without trial is a criminal thug.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 3 years ago

Your right, my friend went to Russia recently and their country is doing great. Everyone there is courteous and have pride in how they dress in public as being respectible and hardly anyone drives a beat up looking car. These are just simple observations and can America be viewed in the same limelight? NO!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

I guess there's some argument that good health is contagious

[-] 1 points by MellowYellow (52) 3 years ago

That was his proposed 2nd Bill of Rights. Sadly he died before it could be put into effect. It is nice that those other countries were able to implement his ideas.

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 3 years ago

VIVA FDR, a real American hero !!!

Obama isn't even worthy of untying his shoelaces.

[-] 1 points by FedWallFedWellFedUP (183) 3 years ago

amen!

[-] 0 points by Trogdor (65) 3 years ago

He wanted communism light. Funny how much he agreed with Stalin.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 3 years ago

Actually, FDR wanted power. His New Deal was just a way to buy votes. He & his gang didn't care about people. As Harry Hopkins, Administrator of the Works Progress Administration (WPA), put it, "We will spend and spend, and tax and tax, and elect and elect." Nowhere does he mention fix the economy. I guess he knew it wouldn't do that.

[-] -2 points by oldfatrobby (129) 3 years ago

FDR wanted to -- and did -- imprison tens of thousands of US citizens with no probable cause, no trial, no evidence of any criminality whatsoever. He imprisoned them because of their national origin. He was the ultimate racist.

He firebombed and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians to wage a war of terror. He was the ultimate terrorist, the absolute worst President in American history.

SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!!!