.

Economic Truths of 2012

America's "self-evident" economic truths reveal the right and only answer is :Invest in America now.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms, mines, or industry of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return, which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large or small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. Unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

If we accept these "truths" as self-evident and "obvious," we need to invest NOW in America. 

Oh! by the bye! these are not part of the Tea Party or Republican plan for America. Sadly, but truthfully, they remain "the party of no!" In fact, this posting is taken from a speech given by FDR January 11, 1944. It seems as though he got it right and so does Obama. Invest in America NOW!

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Lyle Ruble August 12, 2012 at 06:39 PM
@JRH...Referencing Steve, 2:14 PM, Friday, August 10, 2010 - "Define living wage please. If I pay you $50,000/yr but you want $120/mo cell phone bill, $100 TV bill, $80 internet bill, $10 netflix, $400 car pmt, $50/week bar bill, $15 XM radio, $400/mo toy fund... should I feel bad and pay you more so you can have a "living" wage?" Steve is not talking about those on public assistance, but actual working people, who pay taxes and go to work everyday. He's placing himself as judge and jury; and, in my opinion is stepping beyond the bounds of an employer. It reminds me of Dicken's "A Christmas Carol". Another thing is that a living wage has to increase to keep up with inflationary rise. I'm sure Steve and others raise the price of their goods and services from time to time to account for increased business costs. Why should the rising cost of labor be excluded from the business costs? You be the judge.
James R Hoffa August 12, 2012 at 07:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTZEmqDawg0 This guy demands food stamps. And yet, he apparently has money for headphones, some type of music device, a video camera, a computer, internet access, etc. How could he have money for all that crap and not have money for food? I'm really confused. Could some of the social Democrats assist in explaining to Hoffa why this guy has a point and what that point is exactly?
Greg August 13, 2012 at 08:02 PM
I would like to quote a famous President also: “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” ― Benjamin Franklin
Lyle Ruble August 13, 2012 at 08:06 PM
@Greg....Sorry Greg, but Benjamin Franklin never was president.
Andrew Ruble August 15, 2012 at 09:16 PM
@ Lyle, but Max Weber used Franklin heavily as a justification for economic success. "Remember that time is money... that credit is money... that money is of the generating prolific nature... The good paymaster is lord of another man's purse" Max Weber quoting Franklin in The Protestant Ethic. Franklin's view is one of lifting yourself up by your own britches. He wasn't a president, but we cannot refute his success. I am not saying that he was right but I think it is a good addition to Greg's quote. Franklin in many ways represents our view of economics today. My personal problem is that we only teach one way of learning economic success. there are multiple ways of being economically successful. For example, larger governments require higher taxes, whereas smaller governments means tax cuts. This is an example taught in economics now, but many people do not even understand socialism. We have successful socialist programs even now. Take for example our firefighters. At one point in time firefighters would only put out fires for people if they had bought their services. If you did not have a plaque on your building, then they would arrive to watch it burn. Making firefighters a socialist program is to our benefit but we do not teach that to be the case in economics classes.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »