Protest During WWII and FDR?

So were Saddam and his sons.

 

Yes. But it cannot survive as a form of selecting a government once the people discover that they can vote themselves benefits out of the public treasury, ie. democratic socialism.

 

OldReg... you might want to spell check that last post... or maybe not.

 

Can you provide any evidence of that, such as the page & paragraph number from the report?

 

Why not? We are still surviving. Socialist democracies are alive and well in Europe, particularly among the Scandinavians.

 

Is this a serious question?

I agree with this one.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scott J:
Yes. But it [democratic republicanism] cannot survive as a form of selecting a government once the people discover that they can vote themselves benefits out of the public treasury, ie. democratic socialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Originally posted by Daisy}
Why not? We are still surviving. Socialist democracies are alive and well in Europe, particularly among the Scandinavians.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The question is, how long have they survived? Show me one that has survived for as long as monarchies? It's pretty clear to me, from the rapid deterioration of our nation in recent decades, that WE won't be around for very long. Have you noticed in the description of governments revealed to Daniel (Babylon, Persia-Medes, Greeece, and Rome) that each form of government is progressively worse than the previous one? What makes you think that our government will be any different?

 

The US was never attacked by Germany or Italy. Many people both then and now suspect that FDR either allowed or even manipulated the Japanese to give him an excuse to get into the European war.

There are a little under 2000 grieving mothers due to this war. This woman is one of the few who have attempted to turn their child's act of ultimate sacrifice into a political spectacle.

You know... there were grieving mothers after the "Black Hawk Down" incident... except in that case, the administration had consciously not provided the troops on the ground with the resources and support they needed.

There were also grieving mothers in WWII- 200K+ of them.

Some of them were mothers of tankers... who lost their lives because of the political/budgetary decision that it would be better to field more inferior tanks than fewer superior ones.

The result was a 3 to 1 loss ratio against German tanks. That's right. The father of modern Democratic liberalism- his administration made the assessment that losing sacrificing 9-12 American boys was worth killing a German tank and its 4 crewmen.

Well... let's see. On June 6, 1944, 3000+ Americans died to gain a foothold from which to liberate France. Almost twice as many as the whole Iraq operation to liberate a whole country and eliminate a sponsor-state for terrorism.

Maybe its time that folks like you take an objective approach and consider the costs/benefits of this operation.

For instance, what do you think Saddam would have been doing now considering Iran's efforts to develop a nuke? Do you think he would have been playing nice and letting the UN inspectors have free reign?

Do you think we wouldn't have been handicapped if Iran and Iraq were simultaneously developing a bomb?

Sure. The better question is will you ever take time to consider how he should be given credit?

We have taken the war on terrorism to the enemy's back yard instead of letting them fight it on the streets of NY, LA, or your home town.

Al Qaeda recruits dying in Iraq... are not and will never become al Qaeda operatives killing people in their office buildings. </font>[/QUOTE]A very wonderful post, Scott! Thanks for reminding us about Mogadishu, Somalia! Note that it was Les Aspin who got fired for not sending supplies but it was never proven that it was his decision instead of Clinton's decision.

 

Why not? We are still surviving. Socialist democracies are alive and well in Europe, particularly among the Scandinavians. </font>[/QUOTE]We are experiencing the exact problem that one would predict from what I said.

We have created behemoth social programs to answer public demand for a government solution to every problem. People have already accepted the notion that no one's property is their own and secure from government confiscation (various regulations as well as income and property taxes).

Deficit spending and debts are the rule, not the exception. And before you go into that Clinton non-sense, he just happened to be in office when the technology revolution hit its financial zenith. The extraordinary spending of the Y2K scare didn't hurt either.

We have a divided society directly resulting from government classifying people to qualify them for benefits. The elderly rather than being cared for by their children and relatives as scripture commands are a political movement in frequent conflict with younger workers and families who want low taxes. Social Security, medicare, etc are untouchable due to the seniors constituency... even though the programs are almost certain to fail in the later years of baby boomer retirement (my group).

With every new program or program expansion, government gains greater control over the lives and property of both those financing the programs and those receiving them.

As for the Europeans, Germany has persistent recession and 10% unemployment. All of Europe has experienced similar circumstances.

You also cannot discount how much the US has subsidized European socialism. Less now than in the Cold War, however they would not have been able to do the things they did without our footing much of the bill for their defense.

They are also typically more homogenous culturally than we are. Nationalism helps socialism. Independence and individual autonomy are contrary to it. In other words, socialism is anti-liberty.

 

Yes.

 

Indeed which country hasn't at one point or another?


"They are also typically more homogenous culturally than we are. Nationalism helps socialism. Independence and individual autonomy are contrary to it. In other words, socialism is anti-liberty."
"
Interestingly enough most Europeans would say that the US is much more culturally homogenous than Europe.

 

Really? Swedes think that the US is more homogenous than Sweden?

 

Indeed which country hasn't at one point or another?</font>[/QUOTE] Many have. The last time the US had stagflation... Reagan was elected, pushed through tax cuts, deregulated entire industries, and led to one of the great economic recoveries in the modern era. Some of the same ideas that are now beginning to work for Bush despite the recovery being set back by Iraq and terrorism.

What do you think the chances are that the Germans will follow this proven method?

 

Hard to say.
Do they have to increase the national debt with huge military spending as well while they are reforming the economy?
If no, I could see most European countries do something like it, if their economies looked bleak enough.
Of all countries in Europe at the moment I'd say that France, Germany and Italy are the 3 countries least likely to use anything resembling such a recipe at the moment.
In Germany however such reforms are potentially only an election victory (of the CSU/CDU) away.

 

Germany has had to deal with the terrific problem of absorbing East Germany which was in terrible shape economically and otherwise.