Posted on 11/26/2004 6:47:42 AM PST by SandRat
Impressive article for a High School sophomore!
It's doubtful liberals think wealthy Christian Republican property owners are basically good. Still, this great piece from a high school sophomore shows that liberals might have to stop depending on the public schools to hide basic economic truth.
This sums it up quite nicely.
good enough to be somebody's tagline
Redistribution of wealth away from the producers and the "can-doers" in our Nation toward the weak, apathetic slackers, (and toward the nanny state's coffer for building more self-perpetuating programs), is pure evil at the core.
That's why America will reject socialism. It creates a dependent society and stifles initiative by encouraging the status quo.
A sophomore? I'm impressed. Perhaps there IS hope!
The first step of the left is to create a problem. Then they rush in to solve it. Of course, their "solution" does nothing but create more problems, which they must then solve as well.
This kid nailed it perfectly.
The Groton influence of Endicott Peabody showed in a speech Roosevelt gave at the People's Forum in Troy, NY in 1912. There he declared that western Europeans and Americans had achieved victory in the struggle for "the liberty of the individual," and that the new agenda should be a "struggle for the liberty of the community." The wrong ethos for a new age was, "every man does as he sees fit, even with a due regard to law and order." The new order should be, "march on with civilization in a way satisfactory to the well-being of the great majority of us."
In that speech Roosevelt outlined the philosophical base of what would eventually become the New Deal. He also forecast the rhetorical mode by which "community" could loom over individual liberty. "If we call the method regulation, people hold up their hands in horror and say un-American,' or dangerous,'" Roosevelt pointed out. "But if we call the same identical process co-operation, these same old fogeys will cry out well done'.... cooperation is as good a word for the new theory as any other."
If we're going to reject it, we ought to be getting started.
PR, courtesy of the Robet Wood Johnson Foundation.
But think how many life saving techniques and life saving drugs come out of countries that have socialized health care.
1)There is the abortion pill. oops that is life taking.
2) ?
Why America will reject it? You mean vote against medicare, social security? They are both socialist programs.
"If we're going to reject it, we ought to be getting started."
In the post-Depression era, the widespread change that Roosevelt's policies brought about was needed. Welfare, his five-year plan, New Deal, the TVA and other governmental "get to work" projects, etc. were much-needed shots in the arm in order for our Nation to recover.
None were actually intended to become permanent, however.
We haven't needed those kinds of sweeping and over-reaching programs in decades. We have risen to our position in the World via individual initiative and the spirit of capitalism - which drives people to make their own improvements in their own lives.
Dependence is a self-perpetuating cycle because it easily quenches thirst for quick comfort.
The hard right course is best for long-term progress: self-reliance.
His age is certainly no argument against him, nor did I intend any offense. In fact, to the degree he sees so much more clearly than, say, a certain cadaverous Massachusetts senator with aspirations for the presidency, his age recommends him highly.
"You mean vote against medicare, social security? They are both socialist programs."
Yes, they are. Again, never intended to become permanent fixtures. Just because we have SOME socialist programs, doesn't mean we're a full-blown socialism. That's what this whole thing is addressing.
Any government will have some inherent programs to address social woes. It states in the Preamble to our Constitution: "....ensure domestic tranquility....promote the GENERAL welfare...".
Nowhere does it state that we'll fill every outstretched hand.
The more hands we quickly and easily fill, the more we'll find being stretched out.
Conservative historians seem to agree that Roosevelt's New Deal programs did little to alleviate the Depression, and in many cases exacerbated it's effects.
His pursuit of socialism was not driven out of a sense of necessity due to the economic conditions, although he did use them as a justification. The speech I excerpted from was given 17 years before the crash of '29.
hope for the next generation alert.
OK - I guess I'm missing the point you're trying to make then.
Are you agreeing with me that socialism is evil - or are you disagreeing with me when I say that America will not accept full-blown socialism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.