FDR MEme

Are they worse just because they have money?

wow

You obviously don't see the irony. Sanders is out there saying that he told Obama to be like FDR, when he is not one bit like him. The person most like FDR this year is Bloomberg, who Sanders tells us to hate simply because he earned a lot of money.

I concede the fact that you agree with me, while making it look like you disagree with me. Who are you trolling for, again?

you are making my point by continuing this abysmal,and historically unsubstantiated claim that Bloomberg is an FDR democrat.

he is not,and if you were aware of his political record you never would have even attempted to make such a ridiculous claim.

do you know who IS promoting FDR democrat policies?
Bernie sanders.

hence the irony.

now you are absolutely free to disagree with sanders proposals,but you ARE not going to drop a turd like that and disregard decades of recorded,and documented,policies from both men,just so you can make a political point.

now I know I will not change your mind,and I am not even trying to my friend.
I am just drawing attention to your..let's just say "flawed"..political comparisons.

I don't want people visiting this meme thinking you are putting forth a valid political point.
now you can attempt to make the case that Bloomberg is a FDR "new deal" democrat,but I will murder that puppy right quick..and reveal a man who is more authoritarian than trump...and further to the right.

Bloomberg is the epitome of the glaring rot in our system.
and the American people know it.
it appears some die hard dems,however..do not.

To start with, FDR and Bloomberg were/are members of the Democratic Party. Mostly right wing Republicans call it the Democrat Party, as an affront.

FDR famously said that he was not a socialist. When he sensed the end of his life was near, he dumped Progressive, Henry Wallace, from his ticket and brought in Traditional liberal Harry S Truman as VP. The reason almost all of the programs of the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act of 1935 required people to work for money, is that FDR did not like the "dole," (what we call welfare) and paying able bodied people who did not work. His "Social Security Insurance," program was designed to protect workers from being destitute when they were old, and no longer able to work. It is easy to surmise that a man who believed people should work for what they get (FDR) would not support all of the "free," programs Sanders proposes.

As the Myers-Briggs program points out, a person as far to the left as is Sanders will see almost everyone else as being to the right. One of the things that Bloomberg proposes is to fix the problems created by Reagan that underpays large numbers of people on Social Security who worked and paid in for decades. Many of these are school teachers, whose retirement programs do not pay into Social Security. Reagan used that as an excuse to reduce their benefits for work they did that was covered by Social Security. Why didn't Bernie fix this, his many years in the House and Senate? I guess taking care of working people is not high on his list of "revolutionary" ideas.

Medicare wasn't even a consideration for FDR. The germ of the idea was introduced by Truman, who Henry Wallace ran against, after quitting the Democratic Party. So much for so-called progressives being loyal.

If FDR lived in these times, he would be worth many tens of millions of dollars and would have the types of investments Sanders condmened in Hillary Clinton. There is no reason to think that Sanders would hide his disdain for the very rich FDR. And, FDR would have little regard for the socialist, Sanders. Don't try to re-write history. If necessary, I will go back and refresh my memory. Sanders is not, and has never been a New Deal type of Democrat. Bloomberg comes a hell of a lot closer to being like FDR, than does Bernie, no matter how much you dislike him.

well,i do appreciate the time you put in your comment.that should always be acknowledged.

i also respect your open-ness to "re-visit" the history.that is a sign of good character.

but as i stated,i commented not to change your mind,because i feel that an exercise in futility,but rather put in to question your claims.which i feel are not rooted in solid political thinking and based on poor historical understandings.

but i should clear up a few things.
1.i do not use the term "democrat" as a pejorative.

2.when i use "new deal" i do so more in reference to the political climate at the time rather than a direct comparison.maybe calling much of sanders policies more a "social democrat" would be more accurate and less confusing.(i think him utilizing "democratic socialist" to be an unsound tactic).

3.where the comparison IS apt,is the political climate at the time of FDR to now.where the elites were running the table,and had just collapsed the entire system.now there is some controversy over whether FDR actually saved capitalism,but i am of the thinking that is exactly what FDR did.

4.we also need to understand the differences in both times,which are stark.
back then America had a far more diverse political makeup than the highly polarized landscape we experience today.back then we had socialists,communists,wobblies,etc etc and one of the most powerful labor coalitions in our history.

and i think right here is key to our disagreement.i am basing my opinion on the comparison between the political landscape of back then, to now.you are attempting to make direct comparisons and i think that is a logical fallacy.because while the situation may have similarities..the politics has greatly become more partisan,divided and limited.

40 years of neo-liberalism has created a serious odd duck politically speaking.words are losing their meanings,and some labels have lost their meanings all together.
example:classic liberal is just libertarian.
but is now used to mean republican.(kinda)

which is another predictable example of our disagreement.
words,labels and their meanings..which have been butchered of late.

when i say Bloomberg is authoritarian right.
that is exactly what i mean.
if you lived in new York,and paid attention,my comment would be non-controversial.
i could link-blast you on this,but i leave that to you.

these are very interesting times.with the rise of the populist left and right globally.
trump being populist right and sanders being populist left.

Did Bloomberg ever lock up an entire ethnic group, like FDR? I had friends whose families were rounded up and put in places like Manzanar. That was the "mood," back then.

FDR was not the first choice of Democrats. He didn't win the nomination until the fourth ballot, and only after his lieutenant, James Farley, worked the smoke filled rooms.

The news media was not allowed to photograph him in his wheelchair, or write about how polio limited his mobility. I suspect the FDR you remember is the kindly grandfather his propaganda machine concocted. His iron fisted approach to running things make Bloomberg look like a pussycat.

The communists of FDRs day were strongest in the labor movement. But, they attacked him for supporting the war effort by France in resisting Germany and found themselves on the outside, for the duration. FDR did not suffer fools.

FDR not only saved capitalism, he re-shaped it through control of lending and taxing to create the carrot/stick of how our modern economy worked after the Great Depression. By pumping money in the economy, as Keynes had predicted, capitalism was in recovery. After WWII, it hit its stride.

What I cannot understand is why Bernie spent almost sixty years trying to convince every one that he was serious about being a socialist, only to spend recent months trying to convince us that he is not? I don't think he cares, as long as he is the center of attention.

for anyone looking for a laugh,and to learn a bit about Bloomberg.
check out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2iKT21Efms
if political satire if your thing.
/whispers----->it is totally my thing.