Huffington Post: Opinion- David Woolner- Seeking The Four Freedoms is as Important Today as it Was 74 Years Ago

Four Freedoms
Huffington Post: Opinion: David Woolner: Seeking The Four Freedoms is as Important Today as it Was 74 Years Ago

If today’s so-called Progressives, believe that Hillary Clinton is going to run for President as the female Bernie Sanders and the other self-described Democratic Socialist, or even as an FDR Progressive, to quote the heavy metal band Judas Priest, which I’m not a fan of and especially heavy metal, they have another thing coming. Hillary, will speak to Democratic economic concerns and the broader economic concerns of the country and even offer policies to address those concerns. But don’t expect some expansion of the New Deal or a Swedish welfare state. Other than new infrastructure investment job training for displaced, unemployed and low-skilled low-income workers.

Center-Left Democrats, which is Hillary Clinton is one, should be all about freedom and pushing for it and that includes economic freedom. But we need to be more clever and go even further and put more thought into how we accomplish it. Instead of being about individual rights and trying to out socialist Socialists and what government can do for people and how government can take care of people, we should be about individual rights. And what government can do for people who are struggling to move ahead, or even keep current pace, to be able to move forward on their own and achieve economic freedom for themselves by empowering them to improve their own skills. And encouraging more economic, especially small business development. Even for people who are current unemployed or underemployed.

Democrats, could expand economic freedom, by first getting elected and getting reelected. But to do that, by talking to Americans who are struggling regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, that they have a plan to help them get ahead. Improve their skills through further education and job training, including college. Infrastructure investment for underserved communities. Small business expansion and even cooperatives for workers who are struggling to move ahead and give them the opportunity to become successful small business owners. But if Democrats talk about how big government can take care of you, if we just give them more money and not have to do things for ourselves, it will be 1972 George McGovern again. Because Americans, are still a people that like to move ahead, live in freedom and be able to take care of themselves.


About Derik Schneider

Blogger on everything that interests me and that I'm knowledgeable about.
This entry was posted in Democratic Party and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Huffington Post: Opinion- David Woolner- Seeking The Four Freedoms is as Important Today as it Was 74 Years Ago

  1. anniepani says:

    What are the four Freedoms, sorry I’m a foreigner:
    The freedom to starve
    The freedom to die with out medical care
    The freedom to get shot by the bloke next door because you annoyed him
    DAMN!!! I can’t think of a fourth one!

  2. anniepani says:

    North Korea is not the only poor country in the word. Hundreds of millions of people live in poor countries where they have these freedoms. Some countries used to be rich but are now poor because they’ve been brought these liberties like Iraq and Libya.

    In the USA everyone isn’t rich like you, and everyone can’t afford healthcare. In my country the UK everyone gets access free at the point of use to unlimited healthcare of a very high standard and the cost is remarkably low to the nation as a whole, it’s an extremely efficient system.

    Once the idea of anyone going hungry in the UK was absurd, but the recent years we’ve imported ideas from America and now a million people are queuing up at ‘Food Banks’ for charity food hand outs, while the super rich go flying off into space.

    I don’t see a system which puts the interests of the richest 1% first and ignores the other 99% as democratic.

    • First of all, you don’t know who you’re talking to. That is obvious by assuming that I’m rich. Second, you really should know this, assuming that you actually are British. But the Brits don’t get free health care either. Unless they are poor. The Brits, pay for their health care through taxes. Taxes, is money that people pay to their government for public services. As far as the guns, no one knows who you’re responding to. Since this piece is not about guns!

    • You mean the freedom to starve? The freedom to go without health care? The freedom not to be able to speak? The freedom to work for nothing? The freedom not to be educated? I mean what freedoms are you talking about exactly?

  3. anniepani says:

    Oh, as for guns, a recent news report on UK TV claimed, (I have not checked the statistics), that the number of deaths by shooting in the USA in one day is equal to the number in the UK in one year. The population of the USA is only about six times the population of the UK.

  4. anniepani says:

    I did once check the statistics on deaths by shooting some years ago. In the 2006 the number of deaths by shooting in the USA was 44 times higher per head of population. If thre TV statistics are correct this figure has risen significantly in the intervening years.

  5. anniepani says:

    I am British and I said free ‘at the point of use’. which means if you are poor and you need an operation costing £10,000 and you only earn £10,000 per year, someone else’s taxes pay for your healthcare. If they then need another £20,000 worth of treatment they get it. If you look at total UK health spending it’s about 8% of national wealth which is not great by the standards of developed western countries.

    Incidentally I had an American neighbour who’s mother was British (son of a USAF sergeant).He moved to the US and served in the US Army, then worked for thirty years in the USA. When he got old and started to develop the chronic health problems which everyone gets in later life, he used up all his health insurance couldn’t afford to pay as much as was being demanded and was forced back to live in the UK even though he wanted to stay in America. In the UK the NHS provided him with countless expensive heart operations even though he hadn’t been paying his taxes in this country.

    Since Thatcher came to power Britain has increasingly imported ideas such as deregulation, privatisation and commercialisation of all aspects of life. The results have been:

    Private utility monopolies which are making people’s costs of living impossible.

    A financial sector which although making unimaginable amounts of money is also volatile and unstable and eventually ate itself in 2008. The public was then expected to borrow £500 billion (70% of one year’s government spending) and gave it to the banks to save them, but the debts were mostly left in place anyway, so the whole system is choked in debt still, despite this. Even though the public gave the banks £500 billion, we still owe them most of the money from before.

    During the coalition government some £375 billion was printed (half of one year’s government spending), while the government was claiming to be broke and to require mass spending cuts. Local governments had to cut their budgets by 30 – 40%. That’s why all the roads are full of pot holes and breaking up.

    Instead of the printed money being given to the government to invest in boosting the economy by building infrastructure etc., it was given to the city financial institutions under the name of QE ‘monetary policy’ as opposed to Keynesian ‘fiscal policy’. This meant they invested it in speculating on land and property. There is a housing crisis in the UK because no one can afford the costs of buying a house or even renting because prices have gone so high. The government responds by leading money to first-time buyers, which means people taking on mortgages they will never be able to pay back, does that ring any bells?

    Nothing has been done to prevent the catastrophe of 2008 from happening again because everyone accepts the argument that financiers in the city know best and they should be allowed to do whatever they want without interference from the government.

    The labour situation is terrible, deteriorating pay (in real terms), conditions of employment and quality of jobs (not careers, they’re just jobs now). For several years employers were being allowed, often with the connivance of the benefits agencies, to force people into ‘Zero Hours Contracts’. Originally these were exclusive, so people had to sign contracts which did not require the employer to provide any work, but blocked the employee from seeking other work. Because they were now technically employed they were not eligible for many state benefits. After several years a public outcry forced a change in the law. These contracts are no longer exclusive by law, but a lot of harm was done to a lot of people in the meantime.

    The ideas on free markets and free movement of labour mean that the population of the UK is growing by about one million per year as hundred of thousands of east Europeans flood into the country, from their own countries where pay is only one fifth of what they get in Britain, and where public services are poor. These people are not coming to visit, they are coming to settle because they know that they can bring up their children with access to good schools and hospitals which either don’t exist, or they can’t afford at home.

    Poland which has followed the American prescription about how to develop its economy, is supposed to be the success story of the transition economies because it has relatively high growth rates, but it is ‘jobless growth’, so Polish will soon be the second most spoke language in Britain, if it isn’t already.

    Britain is being destroyed by uncontrolled market forces and unregulated financial predators who are robbing us all. At the same time London has become the playground of the super-rich.

  6. anniepani says:

    Freedom to starve means, why should I pay taxes so you can eat? Freedom to die without medical care means why should I contribute to your healthcare if you can’t afford the insurance?

  7. anniepani says:

    On one point about the NHS you might not be clear on, everybody gets it free ‘at the point of use’, however rich they are.

  8. anniepani says:

    Sorry, just noticed a slip in my statistics, NHS spending is about 8% of government spending (i.e. about 16% of national income), but the comparison with other countries stands.

    • anniepani says:

      Damn I was right the first time! I think, I’m just rushing about so much, getting myself muddled! 16% of government spending, which works out as about 8% of national income!

      • Again, you’re off topic here. It is hard enough to pay attention to everything going on in a country of 315 million people like America. Plus keep up with what is going on in a country 60 million people. So I don’t know who you’re talking to. Perhaps you would be better putting all of your material on your own blog. And see who reads it.

        One comment I would make about Maggie Thatcher though. And I’m not a fan of hers. But if you’re interested in facts, she inherited a failing Marxist oriented economy. With all sorts of failing state-owned business’s. And left Downing Street with Britain being one of the top economic and military powers in the world. Where they’ve remained ever since. Under Conservative and Socialist leadership.

  9. anniepani says:

    Ok, fair enough I appreciate you taking the time to listen to my ancient ramblings. thanks. I just want to give one prediction, very many of my predictions have been proved correct over the years.

    In 2005 I predicted that Britain would be a third world country in twenty years. In 2008, a lot sooner than I expected, the entire social and economic system was nearly destroyed by the volatility and instability of under-regulated financial markets. Fortunately we had the most left-wing, and therefore the most interventionist PM in the form of Gordon Brown. He made a massive intervention to prop up the failed banking system. Unfortunately he made the wrong type of intervention and many aspects of the problem were left in place. Nothing has been done to rectify the underlying problems.

    I predict that sometime in the next 10 – 15 years Britain will suffer another 2008 type crisis, but that this time the state and the public sector will not be in a fit state to save the private sector from its own greed. Britain will collapse.

    Incidentally Britain’s status as a world power is based on few pillars: A small arsenal of nuclear weapons, hence membership of the UN P5, the fact that it is a key strategic US base and is full of US military facilities, and the huge amounts of money essentially printed by the City Financial Institutions, because that’s basically what they do by creating bubble markets.

    If you look at the statistics for British military spending you might be surprised how small it is and how it is steadily being reduced, even under the Tories.

    I am also interested in policy, in order to have an opinion on policy I look at what experiences other countries have had and I educate myself so I can make some informed decision. I recommend that you look beyond the USA to learn about the consequences of various policies. And the USA is the world’s only super-power and has used it power to force its prescriptions down other people’s throats. You should make yourself aware of what your government’s policies do to other countries. If you check my facts you will find they are all accurate.

    [BTW I know all about Britain in the 60s and 70s I lived in it, the seventies were a great time for lots of people, (but not the richest 1% who’ve now seized all the power and corrupted our democracy.) I’m old enough to know. I was there.]

    • You know at risk of sounding obvious, what works in one country, doesn’t automatically work everywhere else. The mistake that Socialists make in Britain, Europe and even America, is that what works for them will automatically work in America. Sweden, a country roughly the size of Turkey physically which makes it a big country, but it only has nine-million people and yet they are energy independent. They can afford to be very Socialist. Not Marxist, but with their oil and gas revenue they know they’ll have the money to finance their welfare state. Britain, I believe is also an energy independent country. Canada, which is larger than America physically, but with 1-9th our of population, is also energy independent. They can afford a very socialist welfare system. America, is a giant both physically and in population. We have all of resources in the world and yet we’re still importing oil. We are also the most racially and ethnically diverse country in the world and perhaps the most culturally and politically diverse country in the world. It is almost like we have several large countries inside of one huge country. Which means if you want to do well in America, you need to get yourself a good education and be very productive. Because we don’t have, or want a welfare system that is going to take care of us all our lives. Unless we are disabled. I’m all in favor of looking at and seeing what works and doesn’t work in other countries. Which is what I do on my blog. But at the end of the day countries need to do what works for them. Even if that makes them a lot different from other countries. Liberalism, liberal democracy, economic and personal freedom, which is what we have in America, works very well here and has served us very well for a long time. Doesn’t mean it would work everywhere else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s