Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,492
- 245
I don't need Beck to see what is wrong with Progressive Policy. Progressive Assault on Individual Liberty, Private/Personal Property Rights, rich and Poor alike, and the Assault on Religion, God say it all. I know you don't like competition, I get it. My perspective is just different than yours, I see it as the Disease not the Cure. I don't need Beck or FOX for that. We are not Commodities for Anyone to play with.
An Audit of the Federal Reserve and making it Transparent, will end allot of the Illusion quicker than you can say 1000 point drop.
So the people back then were just too stupid to know what was wrong with society. Talk about ARROGANCE!
It's not about Arrogance, unless you mean Government playing God.
Are you suggesting People can act stupidly when misinformed. Exactly.
The Blind cannot lead the Blind. Have Faith, Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst.
There is No Collective Salvation.
Whistle all you want, you are missing the point...
From the article I posted:
Facing a rapidly industrializing economy, a swelling and diverse populace, and unstoppably powerful corporations, they sought to introduce public accountability and regulation to enhance individual freedom and opportunity.
The signal challenge of the age was the overwhelming power of the corporations. Unchecked by the government, their pursuit of profit created great wealth but consigned millions to misery and injustice. As cruel working conditions and widespread economic unfairness increasingly defied justification, Democrats and Republicans alike turned to reformist politiciansspecifically Roosevelt and Wilsonwho believed that political leadership meant tackling these problems. They wanted to maintain a dynamic capitalist economy while protecting laborers, farmers, consumers, and others who lacked recourse. Such reformers came to be called progressives.
Roosevelt and Wilson had plenty of differences, but in the long view of history their affinities loom large. For Roosevelt, presidential activism meant cracking down on the railroads, regulating food and drugs, breaking up trusts, protecting lands from exploitation, and arbitrating labor disputes. For Wilson, it involved regulating finance and the money supply, limiting the corporations' demands on their laborers, aiding farmers, preventing monopolistic practices, and making the new federal income tax a graduated one. Just three months ago, I wrote in Slate that over the last century, almost no one has questioned these achievements; clearly, I hadn't been watching enough Fox. Nonetheless, it's telling that these Progressive Era reforms have enjoyed such an enduring and uncontroversial place in our sense of what government should do. Their long-reigning acceptance shows better than anything else just how deeply reactionary Beck and company are.