US Founding Fathers - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Rich
Decky wrote:As a matter of fact I agree with Regan when he claimed that "these men are the moral equivalents of the American founding fathers." Right wing terrorist nutjobs all tend to be more or less the same in most respects.

The American founding fathers were left wing not right wing. There will always be special snow flakes who want to define left wing or right wing as me and my two mates. Most of the founding fathers were Republican when this was still an extreme radical view. Of course being Republican in today's America doesn't make you left wing.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
Rich wrote:The American founding fathers were left wing not right wing. There will always be special snow flakes who want to define left wing or right wing as me and my two mates. Most of the founding fathers were Republican when this was still an extreme radical view. Of course being Republican in today's America doesn't make you left wing.

They were uber conservative compared to the levelers of the English civil war, they wanted to remain under the Monarchy until things spun out of control. They also wanted to make GW the King of the US. So spare me they were leftist garbage.
By Rich
The left right spectrum is not an unchanging timeless absolute. It is very much relative to time and place. A single dimensional spectrum is obliviously a crude simplification, but it is a surprisingly effective model. Issues change and sometimes left and right can even reverse on an issue, we particularly see this with the Republican and Democratic parties. The Founding fathers were left wing and radical left wing for their time and place. Sorry if this upsets you.
My 2 cents worth --
The Founding Fathers were a mixed group.
Most were not "Conservatives" by which I mean those who want to conserve the status quo or roll things back a few decades.
Most were liberals by which I mean those who favor the rich over the mass of the people but who favor business over feudalism and those who give some rights to all citizens.
A few were Progressives by which I mean those who favor the welfare of the mass of the people while also wanting businesses to prosper. They give more rights to all the citizens. I think Thomas Jefferson was in this group.

You need to remember that there has been a strong tendency for the "business interest" to take over the Party in power. This started with the Federalist Party which started off controlled by business interests, if we can agree that the Plantation owners were businessmen. Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party started off being Progressive, but as the Federalists became the Whigs and then faded away, the business interests took over the renamed Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was for a while the only national Party with power.
. . Then the Republican Party arose. That it started off Progressive can be seen by its Platform of internal improvements to roads and river navigation; land-grant colleges; repealing the fugitive slave act, overturning Dred Scott, and keeping slavery out of the territories; building the transcontinental railroad; and replacing the system of selling western land to speculators who resold it to the settlers with the Homestead system which almost gave the land away. All of these favored the poorer people or extended Federal power. But then, the business interest took over the Republican Party leading to the 'Gilded Age'.
. . Then Teddy Roosevelt brought Progressivism back. After some confusion things settled in the 20s with the Republican Party being for the business interest and the Democratic Party being more Progressive. Then in the 30s and 40s Progressivism took over both Parties. Gradually the business interest took back the Republican Party (by the late 50s) and then took over the Democratic Party by the mid 90s.

Today we really need the Progressives to take over the Dem Party and work for the welfare of the mass of the citizens.. This is necessary because the business interest has taken it too far and is shooting itself in the foot one toe at a time. It is running out of toes now and will have to get more radical and soot itself in the main part of its feet. What I mean is that the people NEED more income so they can spend it to buy things & services that businesses need to sell to make a profit. The people have run up private debt and the corps have run up corp debt to such levels that it can't be paid back with the current income. The only way to get more income is for the US Gov. to run big deficits that go more toward the masses. Since the Natl' Debt can never and will never be paid down let alone paid-off, the deficits will never be a bother. The only risk is inflation. And inflation in moderation reduces the debt burden on the people and corps and can be controlled if the Gov. acts correctly.
. . The economic theory of MMT is the wave of the future. It has just one policy change, which is to have a national system of a locally controlled Job Guarantee Program that offers a job at about $15/hr. doing something that helps society but usually will not make a profit. This is too replace the current Unemployment Insurance system to control inflation. The lack of a profit doesn't matter, did it matter that the CCC of the New Deal didn't make a profit planting trees? The whole point is to keep everyone working doing something useful. Other than this policy, MMT is just an accurate description of how modern economies work [except those in the Eurozone and maybe the EU as a whole].
. . What I'm saying (when I say big business is shooting itself in the foot) is that-
There are some things that are good for each individual, but very bad for the economy if everyone does it. The most famous example is the Paradox of Thrift. That is, if too many people save more and spend less then this causes the GDP to drop and can lead to a Recession. Here what I'm talking about above is the Paradox of Suppressing Wage Growth. Each Corp. gains if it can keep its workers from being able to demand higher wages, but if/when all corps can do this at the same time this causes the GDP to drop which can lead to a Recession. To explain further, the workers can still spend if they can borrow from a bank, but someday they have to stop borrowing (if their wages have not gone up) and this will certainly cause a Recession. The Western World is at a crisis point from this exact problem today.

Joe Biden is a major career criminal politician th[…]

Language and reality

I think there is good reason to consider how think[…]

@Tainari88 You are absolutely right Tainari88 […]

@Atlantis Ohhh the moral superiority coming o[…]