FDR's Inaugural speech

I prefer FDR's State of the Union speech in 1944. My favorite part:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines 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 and 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 medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

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. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920’s—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.

I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights- for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the Nation will be conscious of the fact.

Our fighting men abroad- and their families at home- expect such a program and have the right to insist upon it. It is to their demands that this Government should pay heed rather than to the whining demands of selfish pressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young Americans are dying.
Click to expand...

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=463
 
Watermark said:
During those times free trade was left wing.
Even the socialists supported free trade.
Click to expand...
NO, free trade was more in favor by Dems but they were not that left in that regard. The Dems opposed it because (as I'm sure you know) they were primarily a Southern agriculturalist party at the time (or at least the ones in power) and tariffs hurt their constituents interest.
 
KingCondanomation said:
NO, free trade was more in favor by Dems but they were not that left in that regard. The Dems opposed it because (as I'm sure you know) they were primarily a Southern agriculturalist party at the time (or at least the ones in power) and tariffs hurt their constituents interest.
Click to expand...

The British Labour party was free trade, along with the Liberal party. The Conservative party were the only ones by that time advocating protectionism.

This is a pattern that repeats in just about every nation you can think of.
 
"Shantytowns formed in cities across the United States in the 1930s, built by people made homeless by the Republican Great Depression. The areas were nicknamed Hoovervilles because their inhabitants blamed President Herbert Hoover for their plight.
Most of these unemployed residents of the Hoovervilles begged for food from those who had housing during this era. Democrats coined other terms, such as "Hoover blanket" (old newspaper used as blanketing) and "Hoover flag" (an empty pocket turned inside out). "Hoover leather" was cardboard used to line a shoe with the sole worn through. A "Hoover wagon" was an automobile with horses tied to it because the owner could not afford gasoline..."

hoover was great, yea, thats the ticket, great.
 
Epicurus said:
The most hilarious thing to me is that it was the collapse of Fannie and Freddie (quasi-government entities) that really started this, and now it's being blamed on the free market.

As if the free market had anything whatsoever to do with buyers investing more and more in these securities, thinking they were backed by the Feds.
Click to expand...
Do you remember FM and FM were not the only institutions to be suffering from this mess?

Man, it is obvious the cons in the R party screwed the pooch big time with their war for oil, taxcuts for the wealthy and deregulations and lax oversight of anything corporate.

The R party is a dead man walking.
 
Desh said:
Do you remember FM and FM were not the only institutions to be suffering from this mess?
Click to expand...

Yes. I do.

Desh said:
Man, it is obvious the cons in the R party screwed the pooch big time with their war for oil, taxcuts for the wealthy and deregulations and lax oversight of anything corporate.

The R party is a dead man walking.
Click to expand...

Not my party, so I don't give a shit what it does to the Republicans.

But free trade was not to blame for this mess, if for no other reason than the fact that our current situation is NOT free trade.
 
Crashk said:
"Shantytowns formed in cities across the United States in the 1930s, built by people made homeless by the Republican Great Depression. The areas were nicknamed Hoovervilles because their inhabitants blamed President Herbert Hoover for their plight.
Most of these unemployed residents of the Hoovervilles begged for food from those who had housing during this era. Democrats coined other terms, such as "Hoover blanket" (old newspaper used as blanketing) and "Hoover flag" (an empty pocket turned inside out). "Hoover leather" was cardboard used to line a shoe with the sole worn through. A "Hoover wagon" was an automobile with horses tied to it because the owner could not afford gasoline..."

hoover was great, yea, thats the ticket, great.
Click to expand...

The ironic part is that after Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which established BIG tariffs exactly as you have desired, the unemployment rate shot up from 7.8% way into the double digits and stayed there. Tariffs make people poor.
 
Epicurus said:
Yes. I do.



Not my party, so I don't give a shit what it does to the Republicans.

But free trade was not to blame for this mess, if for no other reason than the fact that our current situation is NOT free trade.
Click to expand...


Dont you love the deregulation fools?

Everytime they deregulate and things get all fucked up they just say its because there were still some regulations left on the market.

How is it (and why) that they just refuse to see the woods from the trees?
 
Desh said:
Dont you love the deregulation fools?

Everytime they deregulate and things get all fucked up they just say its because there were still some regulations left on the market.

How is it (and why) that they just refuse to see the woods from the trees?
Click to expand...

You choose not to see the regulations that caused this to happen.

It's not as black and white as regulate or don't regulate. There are times when government regulation is needed. Regulation can work well when done right but can also negative consequences as we have seen from this debacle.
 
cawacko said:
You choose not to see the regulations that caused this to happen.

It's not as black and white as regulate or don't regulate. There are times when government regulation is needed. Regulation can work well when done right but can also negative consequences as we have seen from this debacle.
Click to expand...


What specific regulations are you talking about?
 
Dungheap said:
What specific regulations are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I should have been more specific. I had in mind Fannie and Freddie. While they are not the only cause of this financial meltdown they definitely played a role and in this case it was lack of oversight.

I wasn't attempting to make this partisan but I guess with the parts I'll highlight I am. I will also get other examples for you of poor regulations.


September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. ''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top