Joe M writes:
Bush's limited government policies do not align with FDR. FDR really intervened in the economy. He regulated Wall Street. He created Social Security, and Bush wants to privatize it.
Bush is not much of a limited government guy and is a big spender. FDR was fairly fiscally responsible and I do not think he would have supported Bush's prescription drug program and seemed to support some privatization. This is from Wikipedia:
A research note by the Social Security Administration shows the Social Security bill originally submitted by Roosevelt contained a provision for voluntary annuities whose main purpose was to cover persons not included in the compulsory system. These voluntary annuities, however, "could also be used by insured persons as a means of supplementing the old-age income provided under the compulsory plan." Although Congress removed this provision before final passage, it shows that FDR did support voluntary accounts to supplement payments made under the compulsory Social Security program. Unlike Bush, however, FDR did not intend for voluntary accounts to replace any part of the compulsory system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Hume.
Also FDR said in 1939:
We shall make the most lasting progress if we recognize that social security can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts: http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html
He and his wife Eleanor are touchstones of liberalism and most modern liberal ideas come from their legacy.
But much of what was liberal back then is now called conservative by much of the Democratic Party today. For instance, in 2000, Joe Lieberman was liberal enough to be the vice president nominee, but today he is attacked as being a Bush clone by many Democrats.
He basically blames businessmen, capitalism, and greed for the economy being bad. Doesn't sound like any modern conservative.
I never said FDR was a conservative, but in most ways neither is Bush.
FDR represented the liberal wing of the party at the time, and campaigned for the liberal candidates in the Democratic primaries during the midterm elections. Before we entered into World War 2, he decreased military spending.
But he increased it before we entered the war and did some under the table deals to assist England.
Nuclear Energy is not an issue that Republicans can claim. We have had four years of a Republican controlled government and nuclear energy is not even close to being what it should be.
But Bush has been pushing for more nuclear energy since he came into office and most Democrats have opposed him.
Also, in France, the country that conservatives love to boycott for being too liberal, 75 percent of their energy comes from nuclear energy.
But that does not negate my point that conservatives in the U.S. are the main supporters of Nuclear energy. Technically, moving toward nuclear energy is a liberal thing, but ironically mostly supported by those who call themselves conservatives.
Winston Churchill, while in the conservative party when he was Prime Minister, switched back and forth between the Liberal and Conservative parties throughout his career.
I realize this, but he was a conservative during the war which was the time under discussion.
We are spending altogether too much money for government services which are neither practical or necessary.
FDR campaigning against Hoover
Copyright © 2006 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved