"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
The author was none other than Dwight David Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States and a Republican. He said this on November 8, 1954. Do you think he'd guess that a Texas oil millionaire would try to do just those things 50 years later?
11 comments:
Not quite, Scott. Bush doesn't want to dismantle Social Security, just change it so it won't destroy our country in 30 years or so. And I've heard no talk about dismantling unemployment insurance. As far as farm programs... The world has passed by many American farms. It can be done cheaper elsewhere, and paying farmers subsidies to not grow food in this day and age is ridiculous. It made some sense in the first part of the 20th century, but now is economically inane.
And if you say that Bush is trying to do all those things, then Eisenhower was obviously wrong, because the Republican Party is not going anywhere, and will be heard from far in to the future.
Mike, don't forget George Soros, who made his billions on the backs of a whole bunch of other people's livelyhoods. His currency speculation caused a lot of Brits to lose their life savings. But hey, he's a lefty, so he gets a free pass to screw over whomever he wants, so long as he gives money to defeat Bush and increase citizens' dependency on government for their welfare.
Wow. It's like when you turn over a rock in your yard and the normally docile ants are scurrying around trying to repair their world.
Explain to me how if farm subsidies are going up, that makes them efficient and productive?
And Ben, currency speculation didn't cause Brits to lose their life savings any more than Martha Stewart caused Imclone investors to lose money. Soros merely profited from the fact that the Bank of England was refusing to either match its interest rates to the rest of Europe or let its currency float. In that case, at least, he didn't "screw" anyone, unlike buddy-boy "W" who drove Harken Energy into the ground but sold his stock just in time.
It was just a quote. The power in the quote is that despite being 50 years old, it invokes such a powerful reaction. I guess it's just coincidence, then that Eisenhower's son, a 50-year Republican campaigned against Bush last year.
Thanks for visiting, and reading, my blog. I'm very flattered. And thanks for the night owl test. I'm decidedly a night owl! Wow, you're blog makes my topics seem incredibly superficial talking about shoes and email and the like.
Ike also founded People to People, a program that sends our young people to foreign countries to spread goodwill. He believed that the only way to ensure peace in our world is to bomb countries we don't like....just kidding. The only way to ensure a safe and stable world, according to Ike (who, as both a general and president, should have a better overall view into the intricacies of this issue than most), was through diplomacy. By sending our young citizens out into the world, they would learn about other countries, and the people who come into contact with them would learn about the US, and we'd all see how we're not all that very different from each other....what a hippie-freak.
Cut your hair and get a job, Ike!!!
(Go to www.studentambassadors.org for more info)
Maria Shriver is NOT NOT NOT Ted Kennedy's daughter. Her father is Sargent Shriver. Her mother, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, is Teddy's sister. Which makes Ahnold Ted's nephew-in-law. Worry about your own facts before you go yelling at Scott about his. Besides, everyone knows that in-laws are totally irrelevant when it comes to political leanings.
OK, Mike - Bush isn't trying to get rid of farm subsidies. He's trying to pay off the farmers to vote Republican. I apologize for not altering Eisenhower's quote. And he's not trying to eliminate labor laws (yet), just weaken them (new overtime rules, etc). But I do believe he is trying to abolish social security, not make it stronger. I can't even imagine what you mean by the word "Stronger". Social Security is an insurance program, not a savings account. If by stronger you mean he's trying to fund it fully, there are two ways to do it - increase taxes or reduce spending. He wants to do neither. So my comment on SS stands without amendment.
First of all, I said Bush was weakening labor laws, not labor unions. I agree with you that unions have in a large way outlived their usefulness, at least in their current form. However, the dilemma is finding a better system to protect workers (read: Americans). I would be interested in seeing this "proof" that companies are falling all over themselves to provide better wages and benefits. Certainly that happened to some extent during the latter Clinton years when the techs were booming, but today pensions are disappearing, wages are stagnant, and companies are requiring longer hours for the same amount of pay. History has truly shown that when there are people desperate to feed themselves, they will work for below-standard wages. Sweatshops aren't imaginary and they aren't things of the past. See this article about a Manhattan sweatshop.
I wish Bush would kill social security. I'd say good for him. Also, I bet if Ike were alive today, he'd find far more in common with Bush than most of what passes for a political party onn the left. The 50's were a pretty conservative decade and Ike sent us to Korea to, god forbid, kill people in the name of freedom. He'd be right up there with Zell Miller saying that the Dmeocrats are weak on security and Bush is the man for the job.
This Ike comment made it onto Snopes .
I have stuff to say with regards to labor unions, but that'll have to wait until I have time. :(
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0505/USDA_dietary_conflict_of_interest.php3
Interesting column on farm subsidies. A lot of information I was not aware of, much of it regarding the fact that the subsidies that are paid have little to do with what's good for America. Most subsidies are paid to groups that have had them forever, and use their lobbying power to keep them, even if it's not in the best interests of our economy.
Post a Comment