Why do they say Obama is a socialist?

Because Matt Drudge told them so.

GOP seizes on Obama ‘redistribution’ remarks
By ANDY BARR
Tuesday, October 28, 2008

A 2001 radio interview of Barack Obama lamenting that the Warren Court “never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth” resurfaced on Sunday, giving conservatives and Republicans a new opportunity to pin the “socialist” label on the Illinois Democrat as the 2008 presidential campaign winds to an end. (Hear the interview)

A recording of then-state Sen. Obama speaking with Chicago public radio station WBEZ was posted Sunday on YouTube by Naked Emperor News, a conservative site that focuses on Obama videos, many related to his association with 1960s radical William Ayers.

“Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered,” the headline on the site reads. “He wants to radically reinterpret the constitution to redistribute wealth!! Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a redistribution of wealth!!!”

Early Monday morning, the Drudge Report highlighted the video with the blaring headline “2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT ‘REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH’ NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT.”
Source: www.ajc.com

You can listen to the radio interview here. (I also linked it above)

Do I know whether he will try to “redistribute the wealth” in this country if elected President? No. Do I think he would be able to, assuming that is his true goal as a muslim-commie-sleeper candidate? No.

The President only signs legislation into law. He doesn’t create it. Even if that guy is 100% Commie Pinko Liberal, just how in the hell is he supposed to “change” the economic fabric of the country singlehandedly? That’s not what I learned on Saturday morning watching cartoons. And we all know, cartoons do not lie.



Update: Reader CJ Eder provided link to with different editing, more contextual if you will, of that fateful radio interview. Available here: www.youtube.com. The entire radio piece is here: apps.wbez.org. Good write up from the folks who actually produced the original show here: www.wbez.org.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather

About big jonny

The man, the legend. The guy who started it all back in the Year of Our Lord Beer, 2000, with a couple of pages worth of idiotic ranting hardcoded on some random porn site that would host anything you uploaded, a book called HTML for Dummies (which was completely appropriate), a bad attitude (which hasn’t much changed), and a Dell desktop running Win95 with 64 mgs of ram and a six gig hard drive. Those were the days. Then he went to law school. Go figure. Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

35 thoughts on “Why do they say Obama is a socialist?

  1. Since when is Socialism so fucking bad?? Hello?? I think Finland, Sweden, and Canada resent that. You don’t see any of those fuckers lining up to move here do you?? I mean REALLY dude???
    our government now owns most of our banks and the biggest insurance and financial company in our country?? We are already there sans healthcare and believe me when China and India switch to that model we will HAVE to follow suit to keep up in the global economy.
    MARK MY WORDS, we will resemble more of a socialistic system than a democratic capiitalistic society in 25 years or less. Don’t be so fucking short sighted and open your tiny little conservative “the sky is falling” minds.
    Like Zach de la Rocha says “WAKE UP!!”

  2. We already have the biggest redistribution of wealth programs going, progressive tax brackets, medicare, medicaid & social security.

    Socialism is bad in ‘merika because we allow such atrocities in the gubmint as:
    1) No bid contracts
    2) Serving in the executive & awarding a company contracts that you’re on the board of.
    3) $700 hammers
    4) $1400 toilet seats
    5) Zero oversight

    I know a lot of people without health insurance, and the fact of the matter is that the majority of them choose to not have it b/c they’d rather watch 300 cable channels on their big screen that they picked up in their dope ass Suburban w/ 22s.

    You’re punishing people who live within their means to reward people who are irresponsible.

  3. First, as for the interview, it was apparently heavily edited. A greater portion of the video is produced in context here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34yRmKPnDQ

    As for the insulation that congress offers from presidential policies, School house rocks omits two key points. First, the president has enormous powers to propose legislation. It is hard to say that the Authorization to Use Military force in Iraq would have been approved if it was sponsored by a senator.

    Second, the executive authority goes far beyond just “signing a bill into law.” Most laws require the executive to issue rules and regulations in order to effectively enforce the congressional mandate. These rules have the force of law insofar they are not contrary to unambiguous text of the law passed by congress. Where congress fails to expressly explain a statute, the executive was broad authority to fill in the blanks.

    The biggest innovation of the Bush administration was the efficacy with which it was able to make changes within the executive branch. Nowhere was this more evident than in the area of the environment. One such rule change allows pesticides when sprayed directly into water to not be considered a pollutant for the purposes of the Clean Water Act. (by comparison things like heat and turbidity are pollutants under the act) Wild shit huh?

  4. Obama says he will redistribute wealth. That is socialism. Check Prairie Fire by William Ayers for the definition of socialism. Yeah, that Billy Ayers. (Prairie Fire — dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, among others. Wonder how Teddy feels about that?)

    Page 41 “Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit. Socialism means control of the productive forces for the good of the whole community instead of the few who live on hilltops and in mansions. Socialism means priorities based on human need instead of corporate greed. Socialism creates the conditions for a decent and creative quality of life for all.”

    Hey Big Jonny — how about you apply your Palin – AIP analysis to what Ayers was attempting to do. Yeah, Obama’s “close friend” Billy Ayers. Treasonous? Sedition? Violent overthrow of the establishment?

    Oh yeah, and after Ayers et all accomplished their violent overthrow of the U.S. Government and apportioned the country among North Viet Nam, Cuba, China, and Russia, the group pondered what to do with the 25 million Americans they estimated would remain hardcore capitalists. What to do with them? Eliminate them. Kill them. They pondered the logistics of killing 25 million Americans. see the bottom of the page at http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/

    With whom else has Obama socialized? (Love that unintended pun!)

    Frank Marshall Davis: member of Communist Party USA; Obama’s mentor in High School.

    Kenny Gamble (aka Luqman Abdul-Haqq; head of Muslim-only residential area in Philadelphia )

    Khalid Al-Nansour: Black Muslim who raised money for Obama’s education at Harvard.

    Marilyn Katz: head of Security for Students for a Democratic Society.

    Mazen Ashabi: ties with CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations); Hamas; and the North American Islamic Trust

    Minka Husaini: (same as previous)

    Raila Odingo: Islamist thug; Prime Minister of Kenya.

    Rashid Khalidi: member of Palestine Liberation Operation, and fund raiser for Obama.

    Saul Alinsky: wrote ‘Rules for Radicals.’

    Heard a former NSA member last night commenting on whether Obama could qualify to become NSA. No way. Too many improper associations. And now he’s likely going to become CIC.

    If you judge a person by the company he keeps, well, there you go.

    Obama proclaims that in five days the Country will undergo a “fundamental change.” Why does the U.S. need to undergo a fundamental change away from Capitalism and Democracy? Because if you’re a Socialist-Marxist, the fundamental juxtaposition away from capitalism and democracy is socialism.

    No one is putting words in Obama’s mouth. He’s told us who he is with his actions, associations, and campaign speeches. He is a socialist. And with advisors like Billy Ayers, you better fall in line so you don’t become one of the 25 million hard core capitalists.

    So when it comes time to eliminate us 25 million, please be kind and shoot carefully so that my wife and kids don’t have to watch me suffer too long before I expire.

    “Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgesie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat…”

    You fucking morons that are voting for Obama-Obiden. You fucking morons.

    Smarter Thanyou,
    but not Holierthanthou

  5. Damn, that was my favorite schoolhouse rock, the bill. A redistribution of wealth? Bring it on, the other 95% of us need it.

  6. “How do you cut taxes for 95% of the people when less than 95% of people pay taxes?”

    KG, et al-

    Heh, good one.

    Mikey

  7. “You’re punishing people who live within their means to reward people who are irresponsible.”

    mx-

    Well, some of those “irresponsible” people are the ones serving our lunch and cutting our lawn. We sort of need them around. The Palestinians may be deadbeats, but they argue this point pretty well with Israel. Why do you suppose thousands of Palestinians enter Israel every morning?

    “allows pesticides when sprayed directly into water to not be considered a pollutant for the purposes of the Clean Water Act. (by comparison things like heat and turbidity are pollutants under the act)”

    CJ-

    The environment is fucked. This, from a confirmed tree hugger. I even go hiking sometimes, yo.

    Mikey

  8. Since when does Ayers get to be the official definer of “socialism”?

    And are taxes not in themselves a redistribution of wealth? I don’t have children yet I fund my neighbor’s kids schools. Sounds like redistribution to me.

    I am now completely sick of hearing about this redistribution of wealth of bullshit, not much more than desparate republicans clinging to their only security blanket outside of terrorism. and bill fucking ayers.

    And seriously, what is everyone afraid of with Obama? Is he gonna run this ship aground? Convert us all to muslims? Bomb us? Tax us into hell? Go ahead and tax me more, I am way more concerned with my devasted 401k right now. A few % more taxes isn’t going to equal those losses anytime soon. Guess we need more taxes to pay the war bill and the bailout anyway. Fuck new schools and repaired bridges.

    Someone want to impress me big time? Seriously.
    Tell me how much differnt this country will be in 4 years if Obama wins vs. if McCain wins. Specifics too. Like “policy X will make this happen/not happen”. You can’t do it. Its a guessing game.

    And Smarter – would McCain get NSA clearance? Nope, not after what he has been through. Palin? not looking good for her either.
    And talk about putting words in mouths, nice job stating that “fundamental change” means going away from democracy and capitalism. I must have missed that part of Obama’s speeches.

    And speaking of associates, what do you think of G. Gordon Liddy? Do you like him, want a president who associates with him? Remember Watergate?

    Blind obedience

  9. Smarter than you, I think your tag name says it all. Blinded by your passive agressive false sense of all knowing.

    Two words:

    Total douche

  10. Good post Humpty agreed….Smarter thanyou is a shining example of how different the 2 halves of this country are, granted that might be to the ultra right wacked out Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, listening type folks that belive every word they say. But it gos to show how vastly different we’ve become..Scarry and getting worse. No matter how great a job Obama does if he is elected..these cheesedicks will hate him and cling to there ideas of a hidden agenda and this Socialism bullshit..filling the airwaves with hate and discontent. Do they not see that Bush and Co. have brought about more Socialism upon us than ever before…duh!

  11. It’s not a motherfucking football game damnit. People on both sides need to start pulling their heads out of their assholes most rickey-tick and actually work on solutions, not point fingers and and say “I (we) can’t because…”

  12. On capitalism, socialism and the redistribution of wealth:

    The difference between socialism and capitalism is who owns the means of production, ie capital. In a capitalist system, choices regarding capital, the money that is used by business to do business, are in the hands of people to buy sell and trade. The idea is that if you allow a profit incentive to trade capital on the market, they will have an incentive to make it more available, allowing economic growth. Most would agree that these tenants ring true.

    Socialism, on the other hand, finds that the profit motivation results in oppression of those without access to the capital markets. Their alternative is to limit or disallow private ownership of capital and take a more central role in the decisions regarding how we make money available to business.

    One should note that a free market is present in both systems at least in some degree (socialism’s most radical form, communism, sees dramatic restrictions of free market behavior, but such is not a necessary component of a socialist state). The difference is only that the free market for capital is significantly restricted in the socialist state, wheras it is promoted a capitalist state. Next, it is difficult to distinguish between the two systems on the presence of government participation in the market. In capitalist systems, the government intervenes in efforts to improve the flow of capital, and in socialist restrict it. The recent financial bail out package is a great example. While the action involves a high degree of government intervention, it is hardly uncharacteristic of contemporary capitalism, which uses the state as an apparatus to ensure the performance of the system.

    This brings me to redistribution of wealth schemes. Like government involvement, redrisbution is a feature of both socialist and capitalist systems. Under socialism, the idea is to improve the productive capacity of labor by ensuring they reap the greatest benefits of their activities. It is in essence a fairness argument, but also a utilitarian one. The idea was to increase production by moving wealth downward.

    In capitalist systems we learned early on that redistributive schemes were central to stability of the system. During the Roosevelt administration, a progressive tax was used to maintain the political viability of the capitalist system by striking a compromise with labor in which government distributed wealth was exchanged to prevent the rise of the socialist movement in the United States. During the new deal, redistributive schemes were used to jump start the economy by invigorating consumer spending.

    Today, the idea of redistribution, by itself is an uncontroversial tool to regulate consumer spending, the foundation of American capitalism. I have absolutely no doubt that George Bush, John McCain, or even Palin (well maybe not Palin) would disagree. None are calling for a flat tax. To do so would be suicide. With consumer spending already contracting, reducing the average person’s real income would result economic collapse.

  13. They say it, my dearest Jonny… they say it because that is the only thing they can think of. It is the only thing they are being fed. They say it because he once knew a guy who had ideas about breaking the (as mr Ayres saw it…) corrupt and evil government during the Vietnam war.

    Using the Rethug’s logic here… Who went to school with people 20 years ago who were dealing drugs or doing shit that was illegal? Does that mean you are palling around with Drug Dealers?

    Do the people you now know or work with ever try drugs? Well, then you’re palling around with Drug-users.

    Does someone you talk to on a regular basis have a skeleton in their closet? Say… the choice to not have a child because they were stupid in high school and had to deal with the consequences of that stupidity? Well then, you’re palling around with baby-killing abortionists.

    See how easy it is to make assumptions about you NOW, if we just look back at what someone you might have known might have done 20 years ago?

    So, before you all start digging around let me be clear… Using the ill-logic of the Repub’s these days, I would be a socialist (my mother is Swedish) baby-killing (I know people who have had to make that heart-wrenching decision) alcoholic (this is DC.. it’s in the fucking name, ffs.) drug using AND dealing (admitting your errors is the first step, right; and living in the ‘hoods I did, it was hard NOT to know someone who was a dealer….) gang-banger (again… where I’ve lived and who I’ve known…) who is also a racist (Thanks, dad… you were the best dichotomy I’ve known…) homosexual AND homophobe (see where I’m going with this…?)

    Redistribution? Bring it on. I’d like to have the people screaming about Socialism start explaining away the government subsidies to Farmers that keep them afloat. I’d like them to explain to the seniors why Social Security and MEdicaid/Medicare isn’t around anymore. THATS socialism.

    Fer Fucks Sake people.

    —bp.

  14. Smarter Thanyou:
    I will say just this as I study Contracts in the library on a Saturday…

    Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie. . .

    Barak Obama is the bourgeoisie. He is a Harvard educated millionaire, for Christ’s sake. A member of the Proletariat he is not, by any stretch of the imagination.

    The Palin-AIP analysis is inappropriate in this instance. The point of the Palin-AIP analysis was to demonstrate the illogical and hypercritical; not further it. Sorta like calling Obama a socialist is fucking batshit crazy.

  15. Honestly I’m not sure what some us voters think socialism is. Over here we have an alleged socialist party in power, life is as capitalist as you like. . but we still have universal healthcare. Whoever you elect won’t even get close to the red under the bed being suggested. .

  16. Definitions of socialism from republicans are about the same as Jewishness being defined by the protocols of the elders of zion.

    I have always had a penchant for the social sciences, even straight120 proof sociology. You may know him as Karl,..but his friends call him chuck.
    It’s mighty hard to deny chuck’s contribution, but they pretend he doesn’t exist. Same way they pretend John Maynard Keynes didn’t exist either. Or Darwin, for that matter.
    I’m waiting for the R’s to repudiate computing any day now because Turing was gay.
    Fuck-tards.

    They are useful for training though. Just think republicans when you want to kick up the cadence to an unsustainable plateau, huffing up the mountian.

  17. a bit embarrassed to point this out BJ, but you misused the semicolon. your law professors won’t be too thrilled at that. cheers!

  18. Hell, half the Obama supporters in this thread called him a Socialist. He’s a fucking Socialist, embrace it already.

  19. The anti-obama crowd seem to think that is not enough to disagree with someone on policy positions, but rather that they have to paint him as some combination of Marx and Satan. Is it because they don’t actually understand any of the policy issues, and it has to be all about a simple good versus evil dichotomy?

    I would like to think of the two party system as similar to two people looking at a map trying to figure out the best way to get to a destination, but disagreeing about the route to take. Unfortunately, the substantive policy issues are pushed aside by those that throw around perjoratives like “Socialist” without really understanding the term. They just know that they are supposed to hate it.

    Our economy is always going to operate somewhere on the spectrum between socialism and laissez faire capitalism. Advocates for both demonize the others, but the pure form of either is never going to happen in reality. Without profit motive some people will get lazy, and without oversight some people will get greedy. We are all human.

    That said, the famous line about “spread the wealth around” was not about direct redistribution, but about the fact that a society is better off if the growth in wealth is more broad-based, rather than concentrated at the top. In the last eight years the incomes of those at the top have grown astronomically, but the vast majority have not seen much real change. The anger felt by the working class is founded on the fact that most of the work is done by relatively low-paid employees, while the average CEO makes 400 times more than the average worker. There is nothing anyone can do that is worth that much more, and as the recent economic fallout has shown, many of them were just gambling anyway. If you strip away any judgement about who “deserves” what, it is flat out bad for a society to have such a huge concentration of wealth. Something has to be done to narrow that gap not because the rich don’t “deserve” to have what they do, but because it is in the best interest of America. Ideally that means bringing up those at the bottom, which is what those of us that are supporting Obama are advocating. This is going to require some investment in things like education. (CEOs can understand investing in their business) Those that have already done well in this economy are going to pay a larger share of this investment, because they have alreay reaped a bigger share of the reward from previous investments. Most of their employees have been educated in public schools, their goods are transported on public roads and when something starts on fire, someone from the fire department will come put it out.

    We all stand to gain from these investments, and name calling in elections is neither helpful nor accurate.

    .

  20. “The anti-obama crowd seem to think that is not enough to disagree with someone on policy positions, but rather that they have to paint him as some combination of Marx and Satan.”

    This coming from the people who called Palin a cunt and suggested that her husband molested their oldest daughter? Yes, it’s the evil anit-obamaists who avoid the issues.

    Yes pointing out that Obama is rooted in radical left ideology outside the realm of political discussion but but cartoons about Palin’s Down Syndrome child are spirited debate.

  21. Of course there’s going to be extremes on both sides of the issue. Good to point out the crazy’s that attack McCain’s vulnerabilities (palin).

    Regardless, since it’s not profitable for the repubs to chant war-mongering rehtoric, they’re resort to fear-mongering. I think it’s page 234 of the republican play-book… not sure. Regardless, their ignorant constituency (generally speaking) hangs on every word, because that’s the only thing they’ve got.

    Sad times when a good man (McCain) can’t even defend his position with honor because it has no effect and is not marketable.

  22. You know that’s true, Gnome. And I might have supported the middle-of-the-road, I-feel-we-need-to-work-across-the-aisle McCain. But he went way right, and that sucks. You had to know that when Rush Limbaugh was screaming his head off about NOT wanting McCain to win the nom, that he WAS something different. Then, he gets the nod, and BAM…he becomes McSame. Its actually a McShame.

  23. Socialism, for most Americans, isn’t an economic system, but an accusation. When people say it they intent to illicit a Pavlovian response that envisages, depending on the generation, Stalin and the Gulags, Khrushchev and the Cuban missile crisis or Broderick and War Games. The only relevance of socialism is this election is its irrelevance. This will be the first presidential election in almost a century with voters who never knew of the fear of the socialist threat, never were trained to hide under their desk, and never heard of the domino effect.

    This is just one indication, that no matter who we elect, change is inevitable.

  24. Change is inevitable? that’s just way too far out on a limb.
    Change is very evitable.

    This US boat doesn’t turn on a dime;

    Common Sense governance will not catch on as fast as internet porn.

    Statehouses, & the courts continue as is; safe seats in the House and too few Senators will change.

    We continue apace.
    Evitablly.

  25. guys, it’s just the old FDR recitation of the “four freedoms”:

    Freedom of speech
    Freedom of religion
    Freedom from want
    Freedom from fear

    As noted earlier in this thread, “redistribution” is the creation of the strong middle class that we desperately need to drive this economy.  FDR created it with the “freedom from want” part.  The destruction of the middle class is suicide, even if the far fright can’t see the forest for the trees.

    In the last few weeks, the consumer is hiding under the bed.  Take that as the warning shor across the bow.  If we continue to kill the middle class (the engine of the consumer economy) all the trickle down in you can imagine won’t mean shit.

    And even that asshat “W” can see that.  That’s why he’s trying to bailout the credit markets.  His advice is skewed toward the Wall streeters, cuz Karl and Darth Vader told him it’s so, but he’s right that the consumer markets need to be protected.

    Too bad he thinks that we can base an economy on selling shit to each other without really producing anything tangible.

  26. Oh yeah.  FDR re-engineered our system, but he wasn’t a socialist, just a progressive liberal.

    He was right, but the “law of unintended consequences” kicked in and government became vast and unwieldy. 

    (BTW, Dubya hasn’t figured it out yet, but the L of U.C. results in the Iraq we see today.)

  27. Politicians always take the worst attribute about themselves, and then accuse their opponent of that very behavior.

    Take Alaska.  Alaska claims that every resident owns partial oil mineral rights to the state.  Basically, the state owns the mineral rights, and it shares those rights with its residents.  Exxon and friends pay a state tax when they drill for oil.  That tax money goes to paying every resident of the state about $3k a year just for living there.

    If Alaska were a proper capitalist state, it would privatize its oil fields.  Then the state would get the heck out of the way of the oil companies.  Land owners would be allowed to sell their rights to Exxon, and Exxon would then own the oil and wouldn’t have to pay taxes just to get it out of the ground.  But Alaska ain’t capitalist, it’s a bit socialist, see.  Alaska likes to have the State own what should be private, and then it likes to Share the Wealth with its residents.  Clearly, the Sovereign State of Alaska knows better than its residents…I didn’t say it, Palin did.

    Reid.out

  28. Merkin — nice handle.

    Do you really want to run to the FDR card as an excuse to support Obama?

    FDR’s policies extended the Great Depression by 7 years, say UCLA economists.

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

    Really, Obama Kool-Aid drinkers, quick, name that socialist country that’s been more successful at creating jobs and promoting prosperity than good old fashioned American capitalism?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Anyone?

    Right, it just hasn’t been done correctly, but Obama will do it right and break the unbroken string of failures.  Which country succumbed first to the credit crisis caused by falling real estate values.  You are correct, Sir, socialist Sweden.

    100% Auction on Green House Gas credits.  Go Obama, raise those energy costs!

    I used to respect Judge Richard Posner until he advocated doubling gasoline prices by taxation to curb its use.  Why didn’t he see that petroleum is the blood of the economy?Gasoline doubled on its own accord, and what happened?  it was the straw that broke the economic camel’s back.  The world economies broke.  So fall into line, Obama, take just that course of action, except this time to coal prices, and what do you think will happen? Nationwide prosperity?  Or more economic breakdown?

    Even you drunk Obamites can grasp supply and demand 101, can’t you?  Higher prices = lower demand, less economic velocity, fewer dollars sloshing around, fewer taxes into public coffers, etc.  Or in your unrealistic worldview, do economics not matter?

    History is staring you in the face, you Obama-supporting morons.  What do you learn?  When will you learn?

  29. Smarter Thanyou:

    Could you define what makes American capitalism unique?  Do you think that the housing bubble and associated credit crisis, significant trade deficits to china, and overall high level of debt are characteristic of that system or deviations from it?  In either case, does American capitalism need repair?

    As for FDR, I have not been a very large fan.  He was incredibly prone to excessive, knee jerk policies.  He was after all the president of the Japanese internment.   There is little doubt that several new deal policies caused may have exacerbated the depression.  Accordingly it is a mistake to say that the New Deal got us out of the great depression.  But I doubt that was the only objective of the New Deal.  For the 40 years prior to the Roosevelt administration, the country was locked in an intense debate on the role the federal government would play in the rapidly developing industrial economy. The threat that the politics of American labor would lead not just to socialist policy, but a potential communist revolution was palpable. Progressives, like Teddy Roosevelt, took the position that the federal government would need to step in and enforce a compromise between the interests of labor and business, an effort not to stabilize the economy, but the American civilization.

    A conservative Supreme court significantly curtailed these economic reforms:  we got things like antitrust legislation, but many of the issues that mattered most to workers, like improved working conditions and an end to child labor were overturned by the court.  When the depression hit matters the economic crisis gave way to a larger political crisis.  FDR knew there existed in the United States the climate for a more radical political revolution.

    It is easy in hindsight to say that FDR’s New Deal policies were incorrect.  Before going on anti-socialist tirades keep in mind, that the purpose of the American version of the welfare state was the prevention of socialism not the promotion of it.  That said there might be a silver lining on this cloud.  Whatever role the New Deal played in making the great depression worse, it likely made the economic prosperity of the post war years all the better, at the very least for the middle class.  Moreover, Roosevelt preserved a political consensus that saw us through World War II.

    Keep that in mind when you explain to me what is American about American capitalism.

  30. When it comes to security methods, particularly for companies, I have to go along with what you’ve said totally. You’ll find so many possibilities on the market, it is crucial for a expert to know what is idealfor his or her scenario and additionally specific office building. The remarks you are supplying will be a wonderful support to businesses along with security professionals as well. Many thanks once more!