Mr Khan said:
I thought you trended more libertarian, didn't you? Both Roosevelts should be anathema to Libertarian doctrine, but TR more so because he set the precedent for big federal government in a way that no president had since Lincoln Really, libertarians will hate all of America's so-called "greats." Even Jefferson pulled that illegal federal power grab to buy Louisiana without the immediate consent of congress or the states. |
I'll put my political views this way...
I'm a vegetarian when i'm eating at a restruant that doesn't know how to safely cook meat.
The United States of America is too big, and it's polticians too incompetant to run the government with any kind of efficency. As such i tend to skew libretarian on American issues.
If the USA could run like say... New Zealand. That'd be fine.
The US government though is like a crappy manager. Giving him too much responsibility is worse then letting the workers do everything themselves.
Another way to put it I suppose is to look at the bank bailouts. I would of said the best option would be to not bail them out. I would of said the second best option would be to bail them out... on the condition that they be broken up into smaller regional banks and not be allowed to merge with each other for 10 years. What they chose was the worst option. Saving "Too big to fail" banks, while keeping them too big to fail, ensuring that if they need to be bailed out again they will, because you know... too big to fail.
Then you end up with Dodd-Frank. Which is going to consolidate power in the "Too big to fail" banks by making it near impossible for smaller banks to be able to afford to run. You can tell basically by the fact that the only thing big banks complain about is the Volker rule, because the Europeon Union never followed through on their promise on a similar law... well that... and it's called Dodd-Frank. Two senators who specifically have been investigated for illegal bribes from big banks. Who the fuck let them right the legislation regarding big banks? I mean, did they actually even wirte it, or did the bank Ceo's write it for them?
That said, Roosevelt would be a lot more conservative then either the Republican or Democratic candidates today. I mean, he busted monopolistic trusts and coproations that bundled stuff together for unfair advanages. He was however a big fan of buisnesses and big corporations
Made it so meat plants were more sanitized, which was needed.
Heck even everything is the "Square deal" is stuff I wouldn't object too.
Well except the inheritance tax.
There is just something preverse about taxing someone for receiving money from there dead parents. Espiecally since it's already been taxed as income once before... and it doesn't really bring in any real amount of income to the US government anyway. I mean, back then it brought in a lot more money....
but today, it's just around because it was around then and because some people find it cathartic. (Take that rich guy! Your kids don't get to be as rich as you wanted them to be!)
Either way, i think a post Square Deal US is about the perfect level of government involvement. (Yes i realize he never actually got to pass the Square deal.)
Well outside of new laws needed for things since then, of course the civil rights stuff and some more focus on research. (Actual research though, not subsidies.)
Oh and if they could find a poverty/race uplifting program that would actually work that'd be great too... something like a Transformative asset bank. The shit we do right now seems to be having an opposite negative effect.
Of course... I question the governments ability to make a transformative asset bank pay off.
I'm not against socialistic ideas. I'm against bad ideas...
and unfortunitly, the focus is on keep trying bad ideas that don't work.
