Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" Fraud

[Amskeptic]

Okay, I want to add to my last post. I was in a hurry to head out and get some errands done. I dislike trips to the store to buy things.

Colin, you have pointed to FDR saving those poor people during the depression by forcing companies to pay more. Were there not probably many other options to this problem? It is like you are saying, the ONLY solution was to get the government to force the companies to pay more. I am sorry, but I think one needs to look deeper into the cause of the problem and look at what the other options and fixes were and are. You speak as if the ONLY option was to have the GOV FORCE companies to pay more. For starters I dislike that option because it was using guns and the threat of jail to force companies to pay more to people. Any type of politics that works on using force, violence, threats of guns and jail does not sound like a good system to me. There were other solutions and options, to think there was only one is incorrect. Now one should ask what is the benefits of that one option seeing how people want the masses to believe it was the only option. It gave gov control over businesses. Is there a form of politics that works on the premise of gov controlling business? I am not sure if that is what Communism or Fascism is? It seems to me gov control of business is a Socialist thing? It is interesting, the philosophy of Cecil Rhodes, who the Cliintons' and Obama's follow, besides saying do what ever it takes to get into power cause you can't do anything unless you are in power, they also have view of the world that is very closely related to communism and socialism. Could that maybe be why we are led to believe the ONLY solution to people living in an area not able to make enough dollars to live their was the GOV forcing business' to do things?

Steve, I don't think I have actually said a damn thing about ONLy this and ONLY that. A problem here is if participants in this discussion declare what others have said or believe and then run with it into some ridiculous corners. I have not had an opportunity to share my perspective *before* being told that I have some absolutist perspective about "government controlling business". That is way too small.
Then when you write:
I think your policies and belief's Colin are one of the worst things that could have happened to this country and the American people. well . . . the conversation gets mired in closed judgments before the conversation has fairly started. My policies and beliefs?

You may rejoin that if I write: If you fall for this horseshit, then you have no fucking heart for the lives of millions of real human beings who had to live through the Depression while the rich partied on. then I too am painting you with closed judgments, and you'd be wrong!!! You get to respond to my "If you fall for" comment with all number of clarifications and I can listen to them. It was a conversation starter, believe it or not. There are questions today about our humanitarian responsibilities as people talk about "that's the way the system works". I personally do *not* believe that systems are separate from PEOPLE.

Speaking of FDR, I am of the mind, as are many, that federal public works are a very effective moderator of capitalist expansion/contraction cycles and they have a deeply human and important moral facet, to keep people HUMAN BEINGS!! enfranchised!
Colin

[steve74baywin]

Steve, I don't think I have actually said a damn thing about ONLy this and ONLY that.

. the conversation gets mired in closed judgments before the conversation has fairly started. My policies and beliefs

Colin

The ONLY statement I made comes from logic and thinking. When your post to explain why my thinking and belief's, or that article is wrong is because FDR saved POOR people by what he did, what else am I to think? Your saying what I said is wrong because he did what he did to save poor people. It is applied and meant to be assumed that what he did was right like there is nothing else right that could have been done. If you don't want to stand behind the ONLY statement then lets discuss it. Whether you want to adhere to the ONLY statement or not let's discuss what I posted, the meat of what I posted, not the word ONLY.


As far your comment about me not knowing your policies and thoughts on this, um, Colin, I actually do have a somewhat good memory and I do recall tons of what we have posted and talked about, I do read what others post, I do not use the ignore button. You and I have actually discussed this before, not the article I posted, but you brought up years ago how you like the Dem party so much because they saved the poor people who were forced to work in such horrid conditions for low pay, and I explained my thoughts, etc, etc. If your views have changed this is the opportunity to let me know, or you can state your case a different way, which is what I am doing.
I am ready to continue discussing this...I know you try to spend less time in here because you have a business to run, so I understand that. But if you can find the time to rebuttal my post that would be great.

[Hippie]

Why now? Because of the laissez faire economics movement? Laissez faire leads to communist or fascist dictatorships. No one has an excuse to not know that. Or is this part of the new world government plan?

I do not understand what you are saying.

Of course you do. It's history. Is collapse and world government on your agenda, or are you brainwashed?

[turk]

Why now? Because of the laissez faire economics movement? Laissez faire leads to communist or fascist dictatorships. No one has an excuse to not know that. Or is this part of the new world government plan?

I do not understand what you are saying.

Of course you do. It's history. Is collapse and world government on your agenda, or are you brainwashed?

I don't get it.

[steve74baywin]

Why now? Because of the laissez faire economics movement? Laissez faire leads to communist or fascist dictatorships. No one has an excuse to not know that. Or is this part of the new world government plan?

I do not understand what you are saying.

Of course you do. It's history. Is collapse and world government on your agenda, or are you brainwashed?

I hear what your saying, but we never had it truly and the constitution was written in a manor that allowed it to be changed into what we have today. We need it written with no ability to grow into the monster it is today.
If we had the correct form and stuck to it, it wouldn't be this horrid system we have today.
History shows what happens when you do not have the limited form of government, when you have one that can grow, it will grow into this monster.

[Amskeptic]

History shows what happens when you do not have the limited form of government, when you have one that can grow, it will grow into this monster.

Our form of government has not grown into a monster. The bureaucratic machinery as a percentage of GDP has been remarkably stable, its appetite as far as expenses is now lower as a percentage of GDP since 1949.
Come on. We have a complicated modern industrial economy, we have many millions more citizens, we have financial barons that MUST BE REGULATED and there is nothing better than a healthy representative democracy to find the right balance of unfettered vitality and sensible checks and balances.
... something to strive for.
Colin

[JLT]

If Bovard really believes that there is no moral imperative to free people from want and fear, I can only recommend that he spend some time in a third world country, perhaps in Africa or South America, where he can see people enslaved by want and fear every single day.

Or he can watch "Freedom Riders," that show that just aired on PBS, which showed all too clearly how racists in the South depended on fear to keep the Black population in subjugation. It required pressure from the government to turn that situation around, and I think that this is the sort of government intervention that Roosevelt was talking about. (It should be noted that little of this particular intervention happened on his watch, although he laid the groundwork for it. Even the Kennedys were unwilling to enter the fray until it became clear that the tide of history was running against them, and that it was time to put up or shut up.)

[steve74baywin]

History shows what happens when you do not have the limited form of government, when you have one that can grow, it will grow into this monster.

Our form of government has not grown into a monster. The bureaucratic machinery as a percentage of GDP has been remarkably stable, its appetite as far as expenses is now lower as a percentage of GDP since 1949.
Come on. We have a complicated modern industrial economy, we have many millions more citizens, we have financial barons that MUST BE REGULATED and there is nothing better than a healthy representative democracy to find the right balance of unfettered vitality and sensible checks and balances.
... something to strive for.
Colin

Colin, we have a monster. Money is taken from me every week against my will via the use of guns and the threat of jail. I do not know about you, but I do not like any bombing or shooting in any of the countries we are in, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan where ever. They steal my money with guns and then kill others with guns. I do not like this. It is a monster.
Earlier on in this post you said

do you personally fall for statistical sleight-of-hand that says Americans are richer now than ever before? without adjusting for the explosion of wealth at the top while in fact poverty now has over 1 in 4 of our nation's children?

Do you think economically then things are good or bad for people with this monster of a gov?
I think bad.
You say we need to regulate the Barons. Have you considered other options? How about undoing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that this monster gov created? That took our money system away from our gov and gave it to the Baron's? How about reversing a wrong once in a while instead of stacking more wrongs on top of wrongs to make the monster bigger.

[Lanval]

Colin, we have a monster. Money is taken from me every week against my will via the use of guns and the threat of jail. I do not know about you, but I do not like any bombing or shooting in any of the countries we are in, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan where ever. They steal my money with guns and then kill others with guns. I do not like this.

1. They're not stealing your money. The methods were voted on by representatives of the people, elected by, for and from the people, and made law.

2. You don't have to live here. Your willingness to give the money constitutes in every way an acceptance of the terms of the republic.

3. You could choose to NOT pay, and risk the consequences of having the courage of your convictions. Worked for Rosa Parks.

4. You could take your tinfoil hat off, run for office and change the things you dislike.

But I'm willing to bet that you'll continue to carp about mythical dragons from the comfort of your desk in the safety and comfort of an American republic that is made with the money you claim is "stolen" from you.

Commentary is easy; conviction is hard. Stand up for what you believe in; if all you do is attempt to convert others and ask them to make the sacrifice you're no better than the old men who send young men off to war.

L.

[steve74baywin]

Colin, we have a monster. Money is taken from me every week against my will via the use of guns and the threat of jail. I do not know about you, but I do not like any bombing or shooting in any of the countries we are in, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan where ever. They steal my money with guns and then kill others with guns. I do not like this.

1. They're not stealing your money. The methods were voted on by representatives of the people, elected by, for and from the people, and made law.

2. You don't have to live here. Your willingness to give the money constitutes in every way an acceptance of the terms of the republic.

3. You could choose to NOT pay, and risk the consequences of having the courage of your convictions. Worked for Rosa Parks.

4. You could take your tinfoil hat off, run for office and change the things you dislike.

But I'm willing to bet that you'll continue to carp about mythical dragons from the comfort of your desk in the safety and comfort of an American republic that is made with the money you claim is "stolen" from you.

Commentary is easy; conviction is hard. Stand up for what you believe in; if all you do is attempt to convert others and ask them to make the sacrifice you're no better than the old men who send young men off to war.

L.

I am sorry you don't see things my way.
Response to
1)
The money is stolen. Those elected officials were never given that power. And if they did, it was someone other than me who probable was alive before me. They can't give someone the power to take money from me. Do they own me? Am I a slave? Do we need to fight for a free country? Someone would have to ask me. No one, no elected official has that power and authority, they can only have it if I give it to them, I do not. And, it was not the way this country started out, we went till around 1913 without an income tax. There are certain things someone else can decide or vote on for you. Sorry, you may think someone else can do this to you, but not me. They use guns and the threat of jail to take money from me against my will, and use it for things I do not like.

2) I don't have to live here. That statement says so much, he heaps tons of negative thoughts upon you. What is it you are saying to me when you say something like that. I don't want to put words in your mouth so I won't say what I feel it translates to. I am a human, and I was born here. So if I don't like the tax situation your saying I don't have to live here. Expand upon that please.

3) And have them use guns to force me to court and to jail.. What a nice, loving, Jesus country we live in. OMG, we are so free.....

4) There is the Tin Foil Hat again. What makes you think I have one. You are such and nice guy, we can have a conversation exchange back and forth a few times, being polite and stating our opinions, but then when what? When I don't agree, or when your comments don't have the effect you hope, or I counter them, you have to divert to name calling. That's okay, I forgive you and still love you even though I never met you.
It doesn't surprise me though, coming from someone who is for someone using a gun to take money from me, and from someone who things I need to let them have my money or leave North America. Run for office, the only puppets that get elected have tons of money to advertise to deceive the sheep people. I would need the top 5 International Banking Firms that Supported Obama for his Senate race to support me.

Mythical Dragons, is that what you reply with when you no longer can continue discussing this.
I told you what I believe and why, what else do you want from me, besides leaving the country.

Edited to add
I actually have changed my life quite a bit since my views have changed.
Someday I think it is inevitable that I will stop paying taxes and filing a return.
Just haven't done so yet.
I may not have a Drivers License in 2014 or 2017 when I have to renew and the comply with the Real ID Card act of 2008.
I no longer look for a job in corporate America.
I have avoided flying since they went along with the Terror BS. I drive a long distance in my VW Bus to get my son from college in IA. It cost me more money than a plane ticket.
Someday I may become what they call a Sovereign Citizens or Free Man on the Land.
It is where you ditch your SS card, birth certificate, drivers license, and other things.
That is a whole other subject in itself.

[turk]

Like a lot of things, this is definitely worth "discussing", of course without the innuendoes and smarminess. I am a greenhorn on this. Let's just say the Four freedoms intrigues me on some level, because the Roosevelts came up with this idea at a time when lots of events converged, and the second two "freedoms" are not freedoms enumerated in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Sure, they sound like basic human rights, but if we look closer at these ideas, I think it's a political ploy to a declaration of interdependence, made at a time when it seemed appropriate that interdependence was crucial to avert an economic disaster. Now, I'm not sure how much the idea actually improved the economy then. I would credit some of the economic rebound to the guns and butter trope that put so many people back to work and started the military industrial complex. That was when the economy rose out of the depression as far as I know. It's also interesting to note, they were distant cousins of an elite family. Eleanor and Franklin I mean. So, I'm not necessarily jumping on the bandwagon that FDR's policies are the root cause of the wealth that America enjoyed in the 20th century, or her standard of living. I would bet it's just a little more complicated than that. By the same token, I don't credit JFK and the moon-shot, or NASA with creating the wealth that succored the nation through the turbulent sixties. This is a fascinating thread, but I want more. It's like the idea Clinton created the surplus through triangulation. Not that simple I think.

[Amskeptic]

I am going to offer not a rebuttal, but a stream-of-consciousness reflection to Steve's observations.
I choose not to see stealing at gunpoint. I like paying my taxes. It helps me feel a part of the whole. I like to think I participate in the building of our roads and electrical grid and the programs that I believe in like AmeriCorps and food stamps and NPR too.
I choose to realize that Steve has probably infringed upon the freedoms of his own young anarchist children running amok in his house and he knows damn well why he had to do so.
I think Steve can answer Lanval more directly about the hypothetical-but-certainly-true argument that he is free to leave this country so he is in fact tacitly accepting the conditional terms of this country by staying here and enjoying the benefits of the labors of many over hundreds of years.
I think Steve understands that, in the same way he was a less than perfect arbitrar and judge and economic resource dispensor for his own children who love him anyways, our country is also flawed and selfish at times, with a lot of arguing, yes, but it is still pretty cool. In the same way that there is pathology and mental illness in his family, there is pathology and mental illness in the American politic. And Steve, please do not play the jails and guns card on your lily white suburban life, this country has been far harsher to people of color for reasons far less significant than your desire to opt out of paying taxes. And yet, as noted (thank you!!), those Freedom Riders still managed to love this country.
Colin

[Cindy]

The Great Depression was not caused by the Federal Reserve Act. It was brought about by rampant, unregulated speculation--people betting money they didn't have.

Americans HAD lost control over their livelihoods but not because of government. The republican ideal was utterly dead by the 1930s--few people could live within its original promise of self-sufficiency and political independence. Industrialization (NOT government) had changed the meaning of work forever. It took away a man's direct relationship to his labor and, therefore, his fate. More problematically, it created the need for capital, which created the dividend, which created the evil of abstract wealth. The world was in the early stages of globalization--unavoidable interconnection ("the grid") was forming. Modern life and the many demands of capitalism took away your freedom. It wasn't the president.


Cindy

[steve74baywin]

I choose not to see stealing at gunpoint. I like

I choose to realize that Steve has probably infringed upon the freedoms of his own young anarchist children running amok in his house and he knows damn well why he had to do so.

I think Steve can answer Lanval more directly about the hypothetical-but-certainly-true argument that he is free to leave

I think Steve understands that, in the same way he was a less than perfect arbitrar and judge and economic resource dispensor for his own children who love him anyways, our

I don't want to beat a dead horse much longer. I do appreciate you taking the time Colin, but--

You don't like seeing it as stealing at gunpoint. That is okay I guess. I get accused of fantasy and myth, but actually think it is the other way around. I choose to look at truth and reality. You can choose to see it differently, but IT is what IT is. Guns and threat of jail to take money from me against my will. Reality, reality, reality.

Well, the free to leave argument really is a beauty, nothing personal L, cause I have heard in many times before. In fact I think it is one of those phrases people have been conditioned to say. That means to me my rights as stated by some founding this country are shit then I guess. I must except this excessive rule that has come about in the last 100 years or I leave. Leave as opposed to trying to change it.??? That statement speaks as if some human, or group of humans actually thinks they own a piece of land on this planet, and or are GOD. It is one thing to throw a murderer off of it, but someone promoting liberty and freedom? I think it is hypocrisy. So very counter the image that is promoted. In one hand speak like it's all for the people, especially those in need, but only if they believe the controls it does, if not, get out. Very, very conditional. Almost like a cult. Seriously, one needs to really, really think about that statement. It shines a light on the true motives of those who say it. I am at a loss of words ATT to try to convey my feelings on it. About the only way I can express my thoughts on it would involve a very rude and insulting sentence. Maybe if some just think about it some, I won't have to say what I think.
Maybe this is a good one, A statement like that clearly show the need for the protecting of individual rights and it clearly shows the dangers, harm and evil of Democracy. Yes, that is it, it clearly shows how letting a group have such power is about a messed up as things can get. A group which speaks of democracy like it is such a great thing, tells those other humans living here who don't agree that they can leave. When what they are not agreeing to is using guns and force to extract labor and then use it sometimes to kill others around the world, if someone isn't for that, the group says leave...No thanks to democracy, it is mob rules just like I read. Please keep you democracy to yourself.

As far kids in my house
I did have some rules, but they were at minimum, and although I will agree that I couldn't have been perfect, I am dam happy and can't really think of anything I would do differently when it comes to the kids. Once my kids hit 18, I don't rule them. They are free, not my possession. Just as I am not my countries possession, nor is the country my parent, warlord, master, or king.

[steve74baywin]

The Great Depression was not caused by the Federal Reserve Act. It was brought about by rampant, unregulated speculation--people betting money they didn't have.

Americans HAD lost control over their livelihoods but not because of government. The republican ideal was utterly dead by the 1930s--few people could live within its original promise of self-sufficiency and political independence. Industrialization (NOT government) had changed the meaning of work forever. It took away a man's direct relationship to his labor and, therefore, his fate. More problematically, it created the need for capital, which created the dividend, which created the evil of abstract wealth. The world was in the early stages of globalization--unavoidable interconnection ("the grid") was forming. Modern life and the many demands of capitalism took away your freedom. It wasn't the president.


Cindy

Sorry Cindy, I do not agree. The Fed Reserve may have not have been the single thing, but it plays a major part in messing up the economy. Chee, it gave control of our money to private banksters who also own these corps we blame, and those banksters help cause the depression. Government my not have been the direct cause, but it was not the answer either which is what I was saying, and Roosevelt's solution caused problems later down the road. Those who hijacked the money system of this country, are also those behind the big corporations. This is part of why myself and others speak of the international banking cartel that worked with a few politicians to create the Fed Reserve Act, who instigated the depression, who own those bad corporations, who trashed our medical industry.


Extra info.
Have you ever come across this quote by FDR?
A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, l933

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."

Or this by FDR's son-in-law?
Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law

"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations-One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.

"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power.

"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."

"Franklin Deleno Roosevelt, 1933-1945 D, died
33rd Degree Masons, Skull and Bones, Council on Foreign Relations "