Printable View
Surprise ! Back in 1964 Barry Goldwater ran on a ticket that advocated a guaranteed income... In order to do that today the Federal Government would have to :
1] Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank
2] Cancel the 'National Debt'
& 3] Cease from making War....
https://www.businessinsider.com/man-...me-bill-2017-7
Q. Why no page on Wikipedia for "1964 Republican Party Platform" ?
Wikipedia does have the 64 R platform- it's under the Republican National Convention .
I'd disagree with some of the other points. I'm not so sure about "nationalizing" the Federal Reserve- hasn't LaRouche been proposing this for decades? And I'm far from sold on the concept. Cancelling the national debt is simply a non-starter - it would wreck economies - both here and abroad that have purchased that debt.
And ending wars.... good luck with that- no matter who is president. Too much chaos in the world...and too many decades of misguided :US foreign policy to atone for. (side note- imho - we should never have changed the intent of the 2nd amendment - militias under control of the state governors rather than a standing federal military. We gave up on that long ago- and it was one of the biggest mistakes our nation ever made).
EDIT: oh... I believe Stockton has been experimenting with a guaranteed income in a limited sense. And of course- Alaska...for decades all citizens receive payments from the oil/gas industry).
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:
All I am saying is that Barry Goldwater - for all of his flaws - had a progressive point or two. I realized after I posted the initial item on this thread, however, that I had gone out on a limb as far as averring that Goldwater proposed that as part of his platform in 1964. - Because I heard that secondhand, from someone who had been, at the age of twenty-one or thereabouts, one of the Young [Goldwater] Turks & a delegate at the Republican Convention at the Cow Palace in 1964.
And, as far as the feasibility of actually Nationalizing the Fed goes, getting it to happen is a bit like trying to jump over the Moon; i.e., not very likely. But just because the late Lyndon LaRouche proposed a similar-sounding idea, does not make it a bad idea. The LaRouchies, you must know -0R- remember, with "Chairman Lyn" at their helm, were once known (back in the 1960's) as "The Labor Committees" or the "N.C.L.C." a faction within of the S.D.S., and regarded as an "old-Left" faction, at that. {See "Push Comes to Shove: the Escalation of Student Protest at Harvard" by Steve Kelman, and "S.D.S." by Kirkpatrick Sale.}
The Old Left (with the exception of the C.P.) from the 1920's on, called repeatedly for the Nationalization of the Federal Reserve Bank. There was a plank to that effect in the Progressive Party Platform of 1924; the Socialist Party Platform of 1932; and the Farmer-Labor Party Platforms of 1932 and 1934.
I certainly don't disagree that Cancelling the "National Debt(s)" - of All nations - would cause a lot of wreckage. It could also trigger World War 3 - between China & the U.S. - on account of all the T-Bills that China has purchased from the US since the Chinese Bankers were first allowed into the the Bond Auctions @ the FOMC back in the Clinton '90's.
But the System of Debt-Usury Finance Capitalism - as it stands - is a House of Cards ready to fall =OR= a ticking time bomb. Both metaphors are appropriate to describe the situation, as it stands, today.
I heartily agree with those words. =ALSO= The Union Army should have been mustered out at the End of the Civil War, instead of being sent Westward under General Phil Sheridan to conquer the Cheyenne and make Nebraska Safe for the Union Pacific Railroad Corporation.Quote:
...imho - we should never have changed the intent of the 2nd amendment - militias under control of the state governors rather than a standing federal military. We gave up on that long ago- and it was one of the biggest mistakes our nation ever made...
- :Yinyangv:
Here it is. Surprisingly 'progressive' in some ways. What an irony!
https://patriotpost.us/documents/442
I don't know Mark, the first two are feasible, but #3 would be a hard sell. :sarcasm:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Mark Evans (aka Mayacaman) writes:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by cyberanvil:
:Yinyangv:
I agree, Jefferson aka "cyberanvil" - but as an old Quaker I've got to make the pitch anyway...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRICuLy6iU4