I have mentioined my 89 year old mother before, who grew up in the Great Depression with FDR as her hero. I might as well turn this blog over to my mother, who has the sense (as do most) not to read it--even when she is featured. Why do I say that ? Here is my mother's assessment of Obama:
"he wansts to give things to people free, and tell people what to do."
No. My mother does NOT think that FDR fits this description. My mother said FDR wanted pepeople to WORK for whtat they got, even if it came from the government. Of course, my mohter is (mainly) RIGHT about tis side of FDR, IN HIS TIME. As my motehr realizes, the GOP today is WORSE than fDR on any level (including size of government). Where my mother may be somewhat naive, and colored by here feeling that FDR made sure she got enough to eat (she has eaten REALLY slowly all of her life, and she acknowledges that not having enough food to eat early in her life is probably the reason she got in the habit of stretching out her meals, she has gotten the ESSENMCE of Obama and modern leftism in one snetence. Look at this article. My mother's devastatting assessment of Obama (and modern politicians) takes one sentence. My "explanation" takes FOREVER.
The way my mother is naive about FDR, by the way, is that FDR ws the BENINNING of modern leftist philosophy--Big Government, welfare sate philosophy. What FDR actually did was indeed MILD and mostly TEMPORARY. Sure, FDR gave us Social Security, but we SHOULD have Social Security. Even my mother NOW recofgnizes that FDR did Socail Security WRONG by making it a Bi Government program instead of FORCED RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS that are really OWNED by the people who pay their money in--in owther words, the money you pay into Social Seucrity actually going to your OWN Social Seucrity account, which you OWN. This mistake was mainly POLITCAL--trying to appeal to people who thought like my mother--since the payments for people ALREADY 65--under FDR-would have bee OBVIOUS WELFARE if FDR (and big government peole) did not SELL the supposedly "self-funding" Big Government appraoch. That is how it should have been done, however--a combination of WELFARE for the already elderly and PERSONAL ACCOUNTS for the ret. But FDR did NOT give us Medicare. That would not happen until almost 20 years after FDR died. FDR ddi NOT give us Medicaid. That did not happen unitl AFTER MEDICARE. FDR did NOT give us WELFARE (for people who did not work). The real excesses of that would also wait for Lyndon Johnson. FDR DIDD give us "keynsian economics". But thre is something a little attractive, and it attractged my mother, about the WPA as a TEMPORARY thing. What if we did INFRASTRUCTURE (now just a BUZZ WORD for Federal spending--including, again, by the GOP) maintenance with people getting MINIMUYM WAGE , instad of using UNION contractors costing way too much to HELP UNIONS> My motherf also likes that FDR OPPOSED PUBLIC UNIONS (he was right). But would FDR have LIKED all of these things if he were around NOW? I tend to thnk so, but I did not LIVE through FDR like my motehr did.
Whatever yu think of FDR, my mother is right on--in one sentence--regarding Obama and modern leftists. She is even right tao use the word "free", even though she knows it is NOT FREE. Leftists act like Federal money is "free" money, and Bernanke has virtally insitutionalized that attitude in the Federal Reserve AND THE WORLD (Wall street and Bernanke still lobbying for Europe to PRINT MONEY--bailing out big banks AROUND THE WORLD, as well aws Wall Street yet again. Bernanke remains The Worst Failure in the History of World fFinance. I think my mother agrees, but I dont' have a one sentence evaluatiln of Bernanke from her.
Oh. The GOP? I just got a headache. How can the GOP use my mother's line when they have the SAME ultimate philosopy. Look at that fraudulent "payroll tax cut" and extgended unemloyment benefits. That is EXACTLY what my mother is talking aoubt: a "free" $1000 per year for EVERY WORKER (averaged out), and PAYING LPEOPLE NOT TO WORK FOR TWO YEARS. No, if you thiknk the GOP can campaign on my mother's words, you are much more naive than seh ever was abut FDR. Gimmick after gimmick and lie after lie--about "cuts". That is ALL the GOP is now about, and why I have abandoned them FOREVER.
You proably have guessed. My mother agrees with my brothers that the country cannot stand another 4 years of Obama. Thus, she adn my brothers, all think I am betraying the country by failing to vote for the GOP nominee (if it is Mitt Romney), since my family ALL think Obama will be the end of this country (a point on which I pretty much agree). This is so even though my family, with maybe one exception, recognizes that the FOP is ALMOST as hopelless as Obama. I operate on this philosophy: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me". The GOP, to my SHAME, has fooled me (not reallyl, but I went with the lesser evil theory) manyy more times than once. I can't take it anyumore. I refuse to take it anymore. My family, and everyone else I know, can seemingly take it. I can't. My problem is that I think the GOP depedns on people TAKING IT, and it has to stop sometime, somewhere.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, I would regard Rick Santourm, who I still endorse (sort of forlornly) as a "lesser evil", but at least one that does not fell me with SHAME (if I were to vote for, say, Mitt Romney). Ron Paul is on the edge of being SHAMEWORTHY to vote for, but he is SO VERY GOOD on domesitc policy (even if the only pesnalive who would dismantle MORE of the Federal Government than I would) that I would vote for him and take the risk that his foreing policy would destory this country. Not a lproblem: Ron Paul is not going to get the nomination. Neither, I am afraid, is Rick Santorum. Is Romney "home rfree"? Not so sure abut that. I have quoted Dame Agatha: "And then there were none.' Romney could STILL be derailed. But WHO will defeat him? Interesting problem. If Dame Agatha were still around, maybe she (as the best mystery plotter who ever lived) could "solve' this mystery.