Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (10065)	10/3/2009 12:20:25 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

in only a few months has become the most egregious wasteful spender in American history. By a mile. I think LBJ gives him some competition, in the context of the times, at least. Also, you have to consider the intent vs the results. They all may say that they want fiscal restraint but that doesn't mean they either want it or get it. Even Obama claims his big spending plans will save money. Maybe he, like the others, really believes it. In any case, comparing stated intent with results or anticipated results is apples and oranges.

To: i-node who wrote (10065)	10/3/2009 4:26:26 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<FDR would NEVER, EVER had considered a national health care program such as what Obama is trying to do >>> Franklin D. Roosevelt “The Economic Bill of Rights” Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure. This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: 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. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

To: i-node who wrote (10065)	10/5/2009 10:33:50 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." - John F. Kennedy What did Kennedy cut the top tax rate from, and what to?

To: i-node who wrote (10065)	10/13/2009 4:01:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

FDR did support the idea of "a right to health care", along with things like "a decent home", and a right to a job with a decent income. Hard to get more to the left than that without starting to propose mass nationalizations. If it was just his "2nd Bill of Rights" idea than perhaps it could be dismissed as political posturing but he also extended taxes, regulations, subsidies, and general government involvement in the economy more than any president before or since. So I'd say FDR was to the left of Obama. LBJ might be as well, he did start Medicare, Medicaid, all of the "Great Society" programs including the "War on Poverty", started the process of the feds having a greatly expanded role in education. Kennedy? Probably not. As you point out Kennedy cut tax rates, he also didn't introduce any very large new programs that I can think of. So I'd say Obama is to the left of Kennedy. Carter? That's the most difficult, but I think Obama is to Carter's left, if your talking about programs and proposed programs, rather than just the types of statements the two are prone to make. For example Carter started moves to deregulation that Reagan continued and is more known for. So I'd only agree with Road Walker about FDR (definitely) and LBJ (probably). (With Carter as probably not, and Kennedy as definitely not.)