THIS... Is Why "Movement" (See: Bowel) Conservatives Want To Dismantle The Social Safety Net

[WillyT]

GOP Rep. Broun: FDR Was A Communist (VIDEO)
Jillian Rayfield | TPMDC
April 14, 2011, 8:49AM

<snip>

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) thinks President Franklin Delano Roosevelt loved Joseph Stalin so much that he sent advisers to Russia to see "what Stalin was doing there so that FDR could replicate it here in the United States."

Broun was speaking Tuesday on the House floor about how the "original intent" of the Constitution was to promote the "general welfare of the nation, not welfare of individuals." The concept of promoting the "welfare of individuals" started with Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, he said: "Both progressives. Both had socialist beliefs."

"In fact," Broun continued, "Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent his advisers, his close friends, his Cabinet people to go visit with Stalin in communist Russia to study what he was doing, what Stalin was doing there, so that FDR could replicate it here in the United States. And he did everything that he possibly could to do so."

<snip>

Link (w/Video): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/rep-broun-fdr-was-a-communist-video.php

:wtf:

:kick:

[Vinca]

1. Broun needs a psychiatrist, pure and simple. That's nuts.

[WillyT]

2. And So Is The "Movement"...

:hi:

[Peace Patriot]

9. Georgia needs a transparent, non-corporate, non-'TRADE SECRET' code vote counting system

(and so do we all).

Enough of these nutcases running things.

[checks-n-balances]

40. You got that right.

Nobody does "insane" and "dumb" these days like some of the U.S. Reps from that state...thanks in large part to those voting machines.

Another case in point: Remember this guy?
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/23/bobby-franklin-miscarriage-naturally/

[eleny]

3. I just saw the end of that clip on Hardball and thought, WTF?!

The right wing can't win the arguments based on real facts and on the merits so they construct these bogeymen over and over. What freaking losers.

[gratuitous]

4. For a nitwit like Broun

He likes it when people are scared and feel alone. It makes it easier to rob them. When people feel secure and connected to a larger community, it makes it harder for the thieves to rob them. Broun sides with the thieves, and strong individuals make for strong communities. If thieves wanted to work that hard, they'd do something legitimate. Instead, as thieves, their life is easier when they can operate with impunity. Broun makes his livelihood by siding with the thieves. Ergo . . .

[tularetom]

5. If this guy knew anything about Woodrow Wilson he'd love him

Wilson, a not so secret sympathizer with the KKK, is generally regarded as the last openly racist president the USA has elected.

In terms of racial policies, Wilson could hardly be called a "progressive".

[mckara]

15. I'm a Liberal/Progressive and I Don't Love Wilson

Pray tell, if I were a woman or a suffragist, why should I love Wilson?

[tularetom]

31. My point exactly

Wilson's political beliefs were in all probability very similar to those of Rep. Broun.

So it would be very hard for anybody, especially Broun, to call him a "progressive".

[The Magistrate]

23. Committed U.S. Troops To Fight Bolsheviks On Two Fronts, Too, Sir

Superintended the Palmer Raids, for that matter....

[hootinholler]

36. The Klan was large and considered respectable in Wilson's day.

IIRC There were large parades in many cites.

-Hoot

Edit to add my favorite Klan photo, it's so surreal.

[dkf]

6. What exactly is a safety net though?

Shouldn't it be more tuned to compensate for unforeseen misfortune rather than poor planning? What responsibility do we have to provide for people who are reckless or who are spendthrift? What expectations do we have that people are capable of making good decisions and can plan for a future?

And yes this might need some social designing where we make sure people get paid enough to get it right. But there should be a reward for good planning And personal sacrifice shouldn't there?

[WillyT]

8. Ayn Rand... Is That You ???

:wow:

Are there no prisons... are there no workhouses?

:evilfrown:

[Enthusiast]

12. I hate her posts.

Hate.

[dkf]

30. Thanks for your thoughtful and well reasoned response.

NOT.

Geez where is the real discussion on these topics?

I just think we need to start with policies that enable us to do things for ourselves. Our educational system tells us nothing about how to plan for a lifetime and our attitude doesn't encourage being prudent, sacrificing, and saving. It's simply not part of the American Psyche from what I can see.

Frankly I look at how many people live and I am shocked at the recklessness of a lot of it. I mean the amounts people paid for some of these houses is simply crazy. And they want such big houses with granite countertops and stainless steel appliances? Again, crazy. Is there anyone here who doesn't realize the average American overconsumes?

My family has only been here since early this century. How is it we turned into being born on third base. It's so odd.

[sabrina 1]

13. Are you serious?

What responsibility do we have to provide for people who are reckless or who are spendthrift?

We give them trillions in bailout money. Then we 'move on' without investigating or prosecuting them and trust they will be 'responsible' from now on. When we see them give themselves huge bonuses AFTER we bail them out, we just look that other way.

Have you not been paying attention? Your question would make it seem that way.

[WillyT]

14. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

:yourock:

:hi:

:kick:

[hifiguy]

16. What you said, and what Willy said.

:fistbump:

[Bake]

21. You. Nailed. It.

Bravo!

Bake

[walldude]

24. Oh man...

fucking schooled! :toast:

[Canuckistanian]

38. +1000

Good comeback

[woo me with science]

17. You ought to try walking in someone else's shoes once in a while.

The arrogance in this post is stunning.

[Lyric]

18. There IS a reward for good planning and personal sacrifice.

That reward is luxury and/or leisure. You get to have nice(r) things than other people. You get to sleep at night, knowing your bills are paid and your future is secure. You get to buy nice things for your kids. You get to choose to feed your dog a better meal than the poor kids across town are getting, if you so desire. You get the privilege of having CHOICES.

The "social safety net" does not provide luxury. It doesn't even *entirely* provide the basics. It provides a small source of food and income for people who'd otherwise starve and be homeless. You're not eating poached sea bass and lobster pilaf on Food Stamps--you're eating cheap hot dogs, beans, and rice. You're not shopping at J Crew, Dean & Deluca, or FAO Schwartz with welfare benefits--you're shopping at Wal-Mart.

The social safety net doesn't "reward" people, unless you consider allowing someone to live without starving or freezing a "reward". Most people who need that help were no better or worse at "planning" than the average person; they just had less education, far fewer resources, and no support network to help them out of tight spots. They didn't have college funds. They didn't have the occasional check from Mom and Dad to cover the groceries, because Mom & Dad are even worse off than *they* are.

Frankly, what you call "good planning" and "personal sacrifice" is (not always, but quite often) more like being born on third base and thinking you hit a home run. Providing the basic essentials of life to the poorest among us is an act of mercy and national grace, not a "reward". NOBODY deserves to die of poverty, especially not in the wealthiest nation in the world. The average two-adult American family probably spends more at Starbucks every month than the average poor family gets in Food Stamps. You would think that people who enjoy such privilege and relative comfort would not so harshly begrudge the food and shelter that their tax dollars help to provide to the poor.

[Qutzupalotl]

19. Great post!

I have nothing to add except :thumbsup:

[sabrina 1]

25. Excellent post, thank you! n/t

[dkf]

26. It's not the poor I'm concerned about, it's about providing for everyone.

Almost no cohort pays more than they receive in the Medicare program. It's not actuarially sound and that is why it can't survive as is.

But I am just talking about the concept of a safety net. A true safety net is only there if you fall. Entitlements are a better name for it, not a safety net.

[WillyT]

28. And Again... + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

:yourock:

:hi:

[woo me with science]

35. Beautiful post. nt

[Urban Prairie]

32. Imagine the costs involved in deciding who is or was a so-called spendthrift

or is or was reckless? Who decides on how and what means may be used to "measure" what causes or when or how irresponsibility begins and ends? That would need to be "judged" on an individual case by case basis, IMO. For example, my wife is an ever-recovering alcoholic, and has cost us lots of money over the years directly and indirectly due to her alcohol-fueled stupidity. She claimed 8 exemptions on her W2, (we are childless) for several years, despite and over my objections. Does the IRS care who pays? Nope, but I could have used the "innocent spouse" option to bail myself out of her troubles, when I filed our taxes, but did I let her get in trouble with them, or did I take out a loan to cover for her idiocy? What would YOU have done? Don't bother to answer, as I already "no" what your reply will be.

[wickerwoman]

34. Not everyone has equal capacity.

It's a truism, but half of all people have below average IQs. Should they suffer because they're stupid? Should they suffer because their education sucked? Should they suffer because childhood abuse or neglect makes it harder for them to function today? Should they suffer because their parents couldn't afford to send them to college or provide them with mentors or point them towards opportunities to network and be successful?

And most people come into "the system" as families, not as individuals. Should kids or dependent elderly suffer because the bread-winner is stupid or reckless or spendthrift or alcoholic or any of the other millions of character flaws that could conceivably disqualify someone from help? And how many of those "character flaws" are results of mental illness like depression or schizophrenia?

Plus you can plan all your life and still get shafted by illness, extended unemployment, grifters, irresponsible family members, etc. Who decides what's a legitimate misfortune and what's your fault? If you leave your job on principle, as a whistle-blower or a striker, who's to say it isn't your fault for choosing not to work?

And even if you are just bone idle, should it be punishable by death? Because that's what we're talking about. Sending people out into the streets to die.

A strong social safety net reduces crime. It saves money through preventative medical care, through lower rates of incarceration, through more productive children in the next generation, through allowing both members of a couple to stay in the work force and paying taxes instead of one having to drop out to care for elderly or sick family members.

I'd rather have a relatively well-resourced and experienced social agency deal with my drunk uncle or my schizophrenic cousin or my stubborn grandmother with dementia than to have to tackle it all myself while also working full time and dealing with my own immediate family. Wouldn't you?

It's not just about the deserving and undeserving poor. It's about what's best for society as a whole. And sending people out to die, even when they "deserve" it, is not what's best for society.

[hifiguy]

7. Yeah, they were diplomats and military men

and they were consulting with Uncle Joe regarding the German corporal with the Chaplin moustache.

Epic stoopid, even for a Repig.

[Enthusiast]

10. Paul Broun is a complete dumb ass. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

11. Don't you have to pass some minimal mental health and basic education standards

before you can run for office?

If not, there should be.


My god, they let this guy waste air, sucking up OUR tax dollars? He should have been buried under a volley of rotten tomatoes.


(bowel) Movement is right.

[craigmatic]

20. FDR had no ideology and did what worked. It just so happened that it was progressive.

[hifiguy]

22. He'd already seen that Hooverism

was a complete and total failure, and he figured that its opposite was worth a whirl. He was right.

[OHdem10]

27. You do not believe this, I hope. Pure and simple the NEW RICH

as opposed to OLD MONEY, simply do not want to pay
the taxes.

[bobbolink]

29. Now the demonization is switching from "liberals" to "progressives". So what will Dems do now to

walk back from *that*?

[hootinholler]

33. Wait a minute....

Somebody's father actually did go to USSR and made a ton of money doing stuff for Stalin. Poppy Koch.

-Hoot

[upi402]

37. "...to ourselves and our Posterity "

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ..."

[Octafish]

39. That's what the Robber Barons have been saying since 1933.

More than a few tried to do something to protect their wealth.

Greedheads today say the same thing.