Up until Barack Hussein Obama, FDR was the biggest disaster of a president. Hey Nicky boy, you forgot how FDR locked up Japanese Americans in the internment camps, how he confiscated American citizen private property(gold coins), and let's not forget how this no talent ass clown of a President goaded the Japanese to attack us first.

@Johnny Blade...LMAO! You obviously don't have a clue about other human beings. As far as FDR being a communist hack; it was him that effectively cut the legs out from under the communists that were gaining ground during the Great Depression. Read some history my friend, it might be quite revealing. They do have audio books now so you could listen rather than attempt to decipher the written word.

@jeff gerardo...I agree that the Japanese internment camps were a sad day in our history. However, history has proven that FDR did not goad the Japanese into attacking us. We were restricting oil to fuel their war against China. Using your logic; since we are restricting trade with Iran, are they justified in attacking us?

@jeff gerardo....Google Abraham Maslow and his Hierarchy of Needs and learn something.

@Greg..."a solemn obligation under G-d to serve this Nation", you've got to be kidding. You would support this nation even if it was wrong, destructive and evil? "My nation, right or wrong'?

Uh, I think "serve this Nation" in this context was meant as a call to civic service. You know, work to better yourself, get a job and pay your taxes, maybe help out around the neighborhood. It's never evil to do your best to help make the place you live a better place.

I think you have confused serving society with serving a particular governmental authority. Certainly you can disagree with a political regime and still do what you feel will best serve the nation?

Lyle (you fish), that was the last line of the same speech that Poulos quoted.

@GearHead...Your description of things to come sounds exciting.

@JRH...Why not, he has the right to teach whatever he wants. It is the students responsibility to choose the truth and reject falsehood. Give the students more credit, they are your future too.

@tom munson....You have the right to keep your money as long as you pay your fair share.

@Lyle -

Do I really have to explain why that would be wrong on so many levels?

@Steve...Wow, what a red herring. Just because you pay someones wages, that's where your power ends. Work for wages, then the employee has free will and choice.

I think that you missed his point, Lyle. What one considers a 'living wage' may be considered to be totally inadequate as a 'living wage' to another. The line between 'luxuries' and 'necessities' (or 'needs' and 'wants') has been blurred in recent years. How are we defining what paying a 'living wage' actually means?

Lyle you completely missed the point, again but I am not surprised. Notice most of those monthly payments above we did not have 15 years ago. But all I hear you socialist liberals cry about is the middle class is shrinking.

But we need more middle class spending because that is the only way to increase this Obama economy.

Well every middle class Joe has all of the above, which takes spending money, so why cry when they don't have "enough" money or a living wage?

"If you have money for drink and merriment, then you have money to pay more taxes."

- Prince John

@Lyle -

So no one should be able to afford luxuries?

If we have money for luxuries, that money should be going to the government instead?

OK comrade Ruble!

Was he really a prince? So you are quoting a monarch?
Unless you pay yourself your income is already taxed before you receive it.

@Steve.....Yes it is Prince John who became king of England upon Richard the Lionheart's death.

@JRH...I don't care what people spend THEIR money on. Most people have very little left after living expenses. Supporting a family is expensive between food, clothing, shelter, transportation, healthcare and education expenses. After all that outlay, for most, luxuries are few and far between. I remember that at one time $50K a year, before taxes, could support a comfortable middle class life for a family, but that was maybe two or three decades ago.

@Lyle -

But you say that if you have money to afford luxuries, then you should be paying more in taxes, right? So if you carried this concept out to it's natural conclusion, any money that one has above and beyond meeting their necessities should all be going to the government, right?

Or is the quote not representative of your personal position on the issue?

hahahahahahha . You really quoted a monarch about taxes?!?!! You educate for a living right now correct?

►between food, clothing, shelter, transportation, healthcare and education expenses.◄

You contentedly left out my examples from above.

@Steve & JRH...My quote about Prince John was really tongue and cheek in response to the Margaret Thatcher quote. If one remembers the conditions that John encountered was a kingdom that had been broken financially to ransom Richard. He continually taxed the aristocracy to the point where they were in open rebellion and it finally led to the signing of the Magna Carta restricting the rights of a monarch. Just as pupdog1's quote is irrelevant to the argument, my quote is irrelevant to the argument. What is relevant is the perspective of what constitutes needs and wants. I maintain that as an employer, you have absolutely no right to judge what an employee does with their wages. If personal habits interfere with an employee's ability to perform their assigned tasks, then the employer can judge based on job performance. Proponents of free choice should understand that not only should the government be limited so should employers be limited on restricting free choice.

@Lyle -

So who exactly is arguing that an employer should have the "right to judge what an employee does with their wages?"

I believe that the point is that the government should not be providing social safety net assistance to those who purchase luxuries such as cell phones, cable/satellite tv, bling, fancy shoes, etc. If they have money to spend on that crap, then why do they need government assistance?

@JRH...Referencing Steve, 2:14 PM, Friday, August 10, 2010 - "Define living wage please.

If I pay you $50,000/yr but you want $120/mo cell phone bill, $100 TV bill, $80 internet bill, $10 netflix, $400 car pmt, $50/week bar bill, $15 XM radio, $400/mo toy fund... should I feel bad and pay you more so you can have a "living" wage?"

Steve is not talking about those on public assistance, but actual working people, who pay taxes and go to work everyday. He's placing himself as judge and jury; and, in my opinion is stepping beyond the bounds of an employer. It reminds me of Dicken's "A Christmas Carol".

Another thing is that a living wage has to increase to keep up with inflationary rise. I'm sure Steve and others raise the price of their goods and services from time to time to account for increased business costs. Why should the rising cost of labor be excluded from the business costs? You be the judge.

@jbw...Please define comfortable. After living expense you have to have something left to invest.

So why does Obama give billions to certain energy companies and not others? Why does he require that work must be completed by a minority contractor and that all employees on the project must be a resident of the local community? Why does he give money to invest in GM and not Ford? Why do certain political donors receive frequent visits from the IRS, OSHA, and the EPA?

Why are you not writing about how evil Obama is picking winners and looser with your money. This seems like something you really are into. You should find an organization backing Obama and type over and over about how they are evil and destroying America. How they have taken over the presidency and our country. Where is all of this?

@Nick -

This is the USA - United States of America.

Not the USSSA - Union of Soviet Socialist States of America.

@Greg....Sorry Greg, but Benjamin Franklin never was president.

@ Lyle, but Max Weber used Franklin heavily as a justification for economic success.

"Remember that time is money... that credit is money... that money is of the generating prolific nature... The good paymaster is lord of another man's purse" Max Weber quoting Franklin in The Protestant Ethic.

Franklin's view is one of lifting yourself up by your own britches. He wasn't a president, but we cannot refute his success. I am not saying that he was right but I think it is a good addition to Greg's quote.

Franklin in many ways represents our view of economics today. My personal problem is that we only teach one way of learning economic success. there are multiple ways of being economically successful. For example, larger governments require higher taxes, whereas smaller governments means tax cuts. This is an example taught in economics now, but many people do not even understand socialism. We have successful socialist programs even now. Take for example our firefighters. At one point in time firefighters would only put out fires for people if they had bought their services. If you did not have a plaque on your building, then they would arrive to watch it burn. Making firefighters a socialist program is to our benefit but we do not teach that to be the case in economics classes.