Start A Petition

FDR's 47 Percent: Will The Democrats Finally Heed Their Voices?

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: FDR, democracy, americans, ethics, government, economy, republicans, politics )

- 1995 days ago -
President Obama should use the fiscal cliff to shift the debate away from deficits and take on the inequality that's undermining our democracy.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 4, 2012, 8:47 pm
Noted. Thanks.

Jason S (50)
Tuesday December 4, 2012, 8:49 pm
Hope so there will, Good posting, thanks

Susanne R (235)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 10:34 pm
Words of wisdom from FDR:

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself.” He also understood that “the Federal debt, whether it be twenty-five billions or forty billions, can only be paid if the Nation obtains a vastly increased citizen income…The higher the national income goes the faster will we be able to reduce the total of Federal and state and local debts. Viewed from every angle, today’s purchasing power—the citizens’ income of today—is not at this time sufficient to drive the economic system of America at higher speed.”

Thanks for posting this, Carrie!

Robert O (12)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 1:30 am
Thank you!

Jen S (121)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 12:44 pm
Noted and forwarded-excellent article with perspective.

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 1:38 pm
Heard Allen SiMPson say, we can't tax our way out of this.

Cutting taxes, by the federalists, for the rich is exactly why we had the great depression. FDR hiking them to 91% after the first mil. is exactly how we got out of that mess. If you wonder what all republican politicians have in common, they all adopted federalist economic policies. The better than you belief too.

Democracy has been under assault. Republicans don't care because they don't think america is a democracy. The federalists told them we are a republic, not mentioning that the constitution declares us a democratic republic. Obama would have been FDR all this time had the good guys not been filibustered or suspended the majority rule.

So, if righty like the Diane & Paul's want their own federalist republic, they need to go and find the land to live on. America's been taken.

Diane O (194)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 3:40 pm
What "inequality" are you talking about and what specific "inequality" did Roosevelt address? What are you people talking about?

Roseann d (178)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 3:47 pm
That comment just goes to show how out of touch you are Diane. The inequality as in...the elite few that use their money and influence (via tax cuts) to wield their way, be it to buy politicians, craft policies, or to try to buy elections. Yet another great reason to end the BushCo tax cuts for the rich...they sure haven't used them to create jobs over the last decade, but they have used it for darker purposes. It will help level the playing field in politics a bit...until we can get rid of Citizens United and money in politics completely.

Shirley B (5)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 5:42 pm
Ty Carrie, Jason, Roseann and Susanne, couldn't have said it better.

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 8:40 pm
I showed Diane the tax chart that lays it all out. The fall and the FDR rise and ensuing success of the US. It shows the Reagan tax cuts that started us to the 2nd great depression that led 47 million people to food stamps. She doesn't want to hear it. S/he, who ever you are, only wants to keep believing that she belongs with the federalists, fascists and that they will take care of her.
For you that want to know...
Tax cuts cause job loss, because the government needs money to build and maintain with. Our government DOES indeed create jobs. That and this is what happens when they can't. A depression.
Those that are blind will be so surprised when we'll be saying, see. I told you so. it's not rocket science, except for you, Diane. Those kids behind you will owe the college's all their lives, Just like the rest. And you thought you were helping.

Past Member (0)
Friday December 7, 2012, 2:54 pm
Well, Diane? Did you look at the tax chart? Do you understand it?

Diane O (194)
Friday December 7, 2012, 4:00 pm
Taxing the rich to "redistribute" income inevitably leads to government rewarding it's political allies: crony capitalism. Government is extremely poor at managing an economy. The record of communist's economies proves that to be the case. Roosevelt "redistributive" policies did not bring the country out of depression rather World War II did. A balanced approach is necessary but taxing the rich while protecting small business economic growth is a goal that Obama's professed policies do not achieve.

The top 1% earn such outrageous income through tax credits legislated by the government.. A better approach is to eliminate loopholes favored constituencies and encourage free enterprise and job creation through tax incentives. Consider the possibilities of taxing consumption rather than income.

One last point: The majority of people who pay NO federal income tax. This creates a biased towards unfettered government largesse through the power of the ballot box. This is a path toward DECLINE. Everybody should have "skin in the game" and a great interest and curiosity about how government spends the taxpayer's money. People do not work and produce for the benefit of the government operations. The government works for the people. To think otherwise is, frankly, unAmerican.

Diane O (194)
Friday December 7, 2012, 4:13 pm
Carrie, I can guarantee that I read far more than you do.

Carrie B (306)
Friday December 7, 2012, 5:08 pm
Diane, I must disagree, since you quite obviously ignore all facts and only promote your right wing selfish agenda. Shame on you!

Diane O (194)
Saturday December 8, 2012, 6:59 am
Carrie, just because I don't "think" like you does not make my talking points incorrect. It's the way you look at a situation and it's end result.

My money is my own. It is not yours and it is not my neighbors. I worked for it and I'll do what is best to preserve it. Unless, of course, you think I should feel obligated to give you half? That is the way liberals think, isn't it?

I pay my taxes and I follow the tax laws. I'm sure you do, too. So, what's the problem with you understanding what "personal" income means? I don't give a flip what you earn or how you earn it. I don't even care if you pay taxes or not. That's your "personal" information. People who work hard and save for the rainy day deserve to keep their own money and spend it anyway they want to spend it.

The government works for the people, Carrie. We don't work for them.

Arielle S (313)
Saturday December 8, 2012, 7:04 am
We spend almost twice as much on corporate welfare as we do on social welfare - since the government does indeed work for the people, this seems quite wrong. We could do some real good to the budget simply by ending corporate welfare.

Diane O (194)
Saturday December 8, 2012, 7:46 am
Okay, Arielle, let's play the game. Let's build a perfect liberal America:

Raise taxes on all corporations. Take away their incentives to hire and build their businesses. Then don't utter one word when they take their businesses overseas. After all, they are in business for one reason and that is to make a profit. When they make a profit they are then referred to as the rich....and are open for criticism and attacked by the liberals for daring not only to do a job but to do a job well.

Then let's do our best as liberals to mirror European countries with their so called "free healthcare for all." Then don't utter one word when you are earning $30,000 a year and your tax rate is up to 35% and factor in that you won't have any deductions to take, no child deductions, no mortgage interest rates, no charities, you get the picture....just a straight bottom line taxable income of $30,000.00 minus 35% because that's going to the government so that your neighbor who has decided that working isn't for him can have his "free" healthcare paid for by you.

There's no such thing in the liberal vernacular which comes close to "do some real good to the budget" because as you've read lately Obama already has plans to spend any little bit of revenue that comes in from raising taxes. Liberals aren't interested in fiscal responsibility. They want the money spigot wide open 7 days a week 24 hours a day. Keep raising the debt ceiling and print more money.

There's a part of me that would like to see Obama get exactly what he is asking for...raise taxes on the job engines in our country, get more and more people on welfare and food stamps, raise their healthcare costs, continue the lack of interest in foreign affairs, push for more green companies and dump billions into that deep dark hole called global warming, and tax the super wealthy and then I hope that I live long enough to see the rich in America leave and move to a more tax friendly country taking the jobs and tax money with them. I want to live long enough to see how the liberals react when America looks exactly like Greece only on a much larger scale. I call it "tough love." The liberals will call it a bump in the road and raise taxes.

Many American baby boomers have excellent credit, money in the bank and in retirement investments, own their homes or are paying it down and they will be totally unaffected by what I've stated above. Smart people insulate themselves from financial ruin no matter how high or how low their incomes. They live within their means and can withstand tax hikes, mandated health insurance, high gasoline prices and idiots in the White House. Once the baby boomers have died, it will be the end of the belief that being a burden on society was something to avoid at all costs. They hold an ace card in that they will simply stop spending money and wait it out. And, when they stop spending money they stop giving to charities and to the poor because their charity starts at home. It will be the poor who suffer because there won't be any new jobs and when there aren't any new jobs the government must take care of them with welfare checks, medicaid, vouchers, grants, etc all paid for by you. I would love to see the liberals faced with paying 50% of their salaries to the government while the government is then forced to cut the entitlements to those who need it and have paid into it because there's no more money to fund it. That's a "tough love" that I'd like to be around to witness one day. Once America hits rock bottom and it will we can begin to build it up again....the right way....with personal responsibility Americans. Keep those gates wide open to the immigrants while we are at fact, have chartered buses at our borders to bring the illegals in by the hundreds perhaps millions and tell them when they get on the bus, "Welcome to America. We will pay you social security, give you unlimited free healthcare, offer you government subsidized housing, pay your daycare costs so that you can get jobs being paid under the table so that you won't be burdered with having to pay federal and state taxes and, by the way, send for your family members who weren't able to get on the bus today and know that you have just entered America....the land of opportunity....with no rules and no red tape. Our Constitution will be no more important than an original Sears catalog.

Liberals need to have the type of government they deserve. They deserve to live that dream.


Linda C (88)
Saturday December 8, 2012, 9:30 am
I don't even know where to begin, but there is something very sick in our society when we adopt the Marxist-socialist mentality. There is absolutely no way that I want to live in a communist environment, but this form of "spreading the wealth" is nothing more than Marxist-socialism. It has never been the responsibility of the rich to give away what they have worked hard to achieve. As it is, they are those that invest their money to create those businesses and companies that give the rest of us employment, not the other way around. Is that now sharing their wealth with the rest of society.

When you adopt the "share the wealth" concept you are giving government intrusion into your life, your privacy and control over both. I prefer the free society that the U.S. stands for, the ability to maintain my freedoms.

So I guess my question is this, what wealth are we talking about. Is it not sharing their wealth when they invest in a company and employ people and pay them an income, as well as pay half of their social security premium, pay for industrial insurance, unemployment insurance in case they have to lay off someone due to lack of work, etc.? Is it not sharing their wealth to do this? The worker is not the one taking the risk, they are not the one laying out all they have to create a successful business; putting in the time and effort to find the customers for this business, etc. Therefore, why would we expect them to "share more of their wealth" when that is what they already have done.

What happened in this society to working hard for what you have, enjoying the self-confidence of knowing that you are making your own way through life, the self-respect that comes from knowing that you worked and provided for your needs and those of your family and you owe no one for that? Where is the desire to maintain the right to make your own decisions on how and where you spend your money and how much you are allowed to invest? I challenge anyone on Welfare to show where they make these decisions free of the government that gives them the money.

The mistakes of FDR's administration are living with us today. People are upset about social security and that it has failed them; it was a doomed program from day one and thank FDR for that one. What he did is established the framework for big government and it has grown and grown from his administration forward much to what should be our regret.

Why would anyone feel it advantageous to have hundreds of thousands of people administering government programs that are unnecessary, taking our hard earned tax money to do so, when so many of these agencies are redundant. We don't need all the different agencies regulating various parts of our environment when one should be sufficient. If you only were to take one agency and study the structure of that agency you would be shocked. When a doctor can have a nurse, receptionist and billing clerk and do just fine, why does a congressman/woman have to have the size of staff that they have to perform their responsibilities? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

No, I earned my money and I will keep it just the same and no, I am not wealthy and frankly, I do not want the headaches that the wealthy have, I am fine with what I have. They earned theirs and I earned mine, that is just fine with me.

Arielle S (313)
Saturday December 8, 2012, 10:51 am
And then there is the perfect GOP America - the wealthy have huge mansions and live with servants. They control everything everyone else does. There are no unions but plenty of poor houses and orphanages.
Most work 14-16 hour days.... oh, wait... I don't have to do this. We already had this in the 1600's....
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.