Theextremeorz issues #2
Psycho Dave
>
>It was socialism that boomed the economy in the 1950's? Did he have
>any socialist administrations during the 1950's? Let's see:
>
>Harry S. Truman
>
>Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
>Both were not socialist, nor did we have a majority of socialist in the
>senate or congress, or in any level of american politics. So that
>assertion is just plain stupid.
>
Sure, but the idea of using public funds to enhance the lives of
citizens in such a way as the G.I. Bill did is a purely socialitic one.
Many of them had nothing before joining the army, and would have gotten
nothing upon leaving, had it not been for the GI bill. Socialism is
about using the combined wealth of the citizens to benefit everyone.
>
>The New Deal plan was in the 1940's by the way, and was defeated by the
>much more successful Fair Deal. Anyone who thinks the New Deal was
>anything but buracratic and fascist is stupid.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Deal
>
Hahahahahahaha!!! You really are a dildo, aren't you? You're making up
history as you go along, and giving wikipedia links that you obviously
haven't even read! Hahahahahahaha!!!
Go read that link you provided. It says:
"In United States history, the Fair Deal was U.S. President Harry S.
Truman's policy of social improvement, outlined in his 1949 State of
the Union Address to Congress on January 5, 1949. Truman stated that
"Every segment of our population, and every individual, has a right to
expect from his government a fair deal." He was unable to pass any
major part through Congress. Only one of his Fair Deal bills, an
initiative to expand unemployment benefits, was ever enacted."
Much more successful?
It also states:
"The range and breadth of Truman's "Fair Deal" proposals stretched from
increased welfare to slum clearance. However, he was able to pass
almost none of the proposed plans. Truman supported increasing Social
Security benefits, unemployment relief, and a national healthcare
plan."
Gee... Sounds like the fair deal offered more socialist-style reforms.
But the fact remains that you fairly and squarely disproved your own
claims by providing a relevent link, and you also showed what a dipshit
you are for not even bothering to read it!
Also, the claim of the fascism is not well-founded. In fact, few
historians still think that. Most of the claims are superficial.
According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_new_deal#Claims_the_New_Deal_adopted_fascist_models
"Other scholars reject linking the New Deal to Fascism as overly
simplistic. As a leading historian of fascism explains, "What Fascist
corporatism and the New Deal had in common was a certain amount of
state intervention in the economy. Beyond that, the only figure who
seemed to look on Fascist corporatism as a kind of model was Hugh
Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration."[29] Johnson
strenuously denied any association with Mussolini, saying the NRA "is
being organized almost as you would organize a business. I want to
avoid any Mussolini appearance -- the President calls this Act
industrial self-government."[30] Donald Richberg eventually replaced
General Hugh Johnson as head of NRA and speaking before a Senate
committee said "A nationally planned economy is the only salvation of
our present situation and the only hope for the future."[31] Historians
such as Hawley (1966) have examined the origins of the NRA in detail,
showing the main inspiration came from Senators Hugo Black and Robert
Wagner and from American business leaders such as the Chamber of
Commerce. The main model was Woodrow Wilson's War Industries Board, in
which Johnson had been involved. No historian reports that any New Deal
agency was copied from Italy, Germany or any other country."