Quote Originally Posted by KafirChobee
From 1930-35, tens of thousand (if not a million) of family farms were left bankrupt and the families dispossessed from their former traditional life style (and belief in America). We were a step away from our own October Revolution.
Not really.


And, why not? After all it seemed all the "governement cared about was "business as usual" and getting back to the good old days of stopping unionization, and continuining the growth the absolute wealthiest of families. (Sound familiar, yet?)
Unions are a good thing. The sticky point is when unions are applied to the public sphere. In a government arena the vital labor vs. owner/management relation doesn't exist and subsequently dispute resolution is skewed.

Then, something began to happen that really hadn't been thought of before - a president (his advisors) submitted a proposal that would create a "safety net" for the common folk, the elderly. Something that might assure that no American went hungry, and that the common man could take a risk and become wealthy (if he failed - well, his debt was forgiven). Social Security was born, and bankruptcy for the common man began (the Republicans Party has been trying to end them ever since - and are now within a breath of returning us to 1929).

The nanny state is too well entrenched to be anywhere close to disappearing. The Administration's proposals are geared around what are called: an ownership society. The basic thrust is to empower the common man in regards to mobile health insurance regardless of job change, choice in schooling via vouchers, choice in retirement via personal social security investments ala the Chile option etc.



I want to assure you there is a future ('til they assassinate him, of course).
Is this really a good things to say?