I think it makes him both a socialist and a decent human being. I feel that it is evil to say that the word socialist is a bad word. Only the selfish, greedy, corrupt, and non-evolved could ever consider sharing a bad thing. The quotes are awesome, and it tells me that if he really believed what he was saying, then he was very evolved, with a true understanding of the way things really should be in this world. *sm*
2007-10-26 07:38:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by LadyZania 7
·
9⤊
2⤋
He was a socialist democrat -- which equals a decent human being.
There's nothing wrong with capitalism, but I think that any corporation getting tax breaks should have to donate 5%-10% of their profits into some sort of social service endeavors that would help house and feed and clothe the needy. It is an absolute obscenity in this great country to have people forced to live on the streets because of hard times. Hungry children without medical insurance -- wow, ain't America grand!
By the way, I'm actually a fiscal conservatives in many ways. For example, I think anyone receiving welfare should do SOME sort of public work in exchange for that money if they're physically able -- even something as simple as picking up trash for an hour a day.
2007-10-27 18:13:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by The Snappy Miss Pippi Von Trapp 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Translations:
Quote #1- Human beings should rise above economic anarchy ( which is the REAL name of laissez-faire capitalism ) and form an economic system that takes care of all people.
Quote #2- Becoming desperate and weak because of poverty produces compromises to ones freedom for the sake of survival.
Quote #3- It's easy to selfishly increase the wealth of the rich and powerful but it shows how much we have progressed as an ethical nation when we see to it that the poorest are taken care of.
VERDICT- Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a decent human being.
2007-10-26 12:30:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 6
·
4⤊
1⤋
I would say decent human being, but hey a man can be both. Socialism is generally based upon compassion for all people rather than greed which is the basis of capitalism. The pure form of either is ill advised though, because they each have their problems. Socialism tends to become bureaucratic and inefficient when used on a large scale. Capitalism basically promotes a two classed system with those with money oppressing those without money. The rich dictate everything in capitalism and sometimes even resourceful and intelligent people can't get past that. Some will argue that is a good thing I argue that that is in essence wage slavery. Mixed together you do get a balance between helping those who have little while not overly constricting those who have more.
2007-10-26 07:45:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by UriK 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
Some people would argue that "socialist" and "decent human being" are synonymous. Remember, socialism is NOT communism. A free, capitalist society can also be a socialist society if it has a responsible government...
2007-10-26 07:42:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Most countries that care about their people have a certain amount of socialism. There's nothing wrong with taking care of or sharing with the less fortunate or less capable. That's what loving your fellow man is all about. "No man is an Island onto himself". Roosevelt was a decent, caring man.
2007-10-27 03:24:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by mstrywmn 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nope, just a decent human being and a pragmatist. Those captains of industry and right wing critics of him who gratuitously use the word "socialist" like a curse word seem to forget that the implementation of the New Deal social programs actually helped to save American business and the capitalism system.
Sometimes purists just can't see the forest for the trees.
2007-10-26 09:22:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Silverkris 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
America was in a much different social setting when just emerging from the Depression.
(and I'd love it if a contemporary Democrat could be counted on to protect America like FDR did)
2007-10-26 07:35:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Kubla Con 4
·
1⤊
7⤋
I'd say a decent human being.
The phallacy of capitalism is that the free market is the end all be all. We don't currently operate in a free market system and if we did, as any economist will tell you, the economy would suffer tremendously. It stifles competition and runs over the common man. It has very few benefits for the general public. We have tons of regulations and market checks in place.
2007-10-26 07:36:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by BROOOOOKLYN 5
·
10⤊
1⤋
It doesn't take a brainiac to figure out that if you raise the standard of living of the lowest income level, all the income levels above will rise as well.
Roosevelt was a demand side economist.
2007-10-26 11:33:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Perplexed Bob 5
·
3⤊
0⤋