Failure of the Welfare State

[PoliticalChic]

Ooooookay, Academia is just a big liberal conspiracy... Got it.

I mean, I guess they deviously hid the truth about Calvin from you in things called "Books", but there's a reason they don't name ships or schools after this guy.

He sucked.

Even Republicans are moderately embarrassed by him.

You realize that this is a non-post....jejune and vapid.


Do you really want to pretend that academia isn't a progressive-liberal luncheon club?

C'mon..say it.



You are my best example of same....…daring to stand up against the common themes, with the concomitant fear of having your fellow leftists accuse you of being against ‘progress and enlightenment” or call you an “airhead”- makes left-wingers tremble and weak men liberals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Another dunce screaming that the policies of a conservative President weren't responsible for huge successes that benefited all!

I love it!

Am I prescient or am I prescient!!!


Hey, Einstein...would you say the same about any recent stock market improvements?
"the Obama 'summer of recovery'... fueled by the natural rebound of a business cycle..."



More Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this
bull before....

Do you want to dispute the facts of my post or not?

The 80's expansion had little to do with Reagan being a conservative. If you needed a conservative president for an economic expansion, you wouldn't have the expansion of the 90's.

What I want to dispute is the know anything!

I'm astounded that you can frequently find you way back to that refrigerator box you call home.

You spelled 'No, I can't' wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you want to dispute the facts of my post or not?

The 80's expansion had little to do with Reagan being a conservative. If you needed a conservative president for an economic expansion, you wouldn't have the expansion of the 90's.

What I want to dispute is the know anything!

I'm astounded that you can frequently find you way back to that refrigerator box you call home.

You spelled 'No, I can't' wrong.

Guess you don't realize that your trying to change the subject is an admission of defeat...


You’re the proof that most people with low self-esteem have earned it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sorry, have a degree in history.

There isn't a serious historian out that that doesn't think Calvin Coolidge was a complete fucking retard.

And the quote is actually pretty stupid in itself. It's a rather silly defense of plutocracy which by 1929, was clear didn't really work.

America did not become great until the New Deal reforms that opened prosperity to everyone, and Republicans after Coolidge got the point. Ike, Nixon, Ford, all realized this. It wasn't until Reagan that somehow, Coolidge started getting this warm-over that ignored how he caused the Great Depression by letting the wealthy run amok.

1. "Sorry, have a degree in history."

So....you're proving that said degree means nothing?

2. "There isn't a serious historian out that..."
Since everything that I posted is absolutely true...all you are saying is that the word 'serious,' to you, means 'liberal progressive Janissary of the Left."


3. " by 1929, was clear didn't really work."

Of course it worked...as even you cannot deny the 'Roaring Twenties.'
Only a dim-wit would think there was no business cycle....and it only 'works' if so in perpetuity.


Here, me try the same nonsense: FDR was a catastrophe, since he caused the meltdown of 2007....

4. "America did not become great until the New Deal reforms that opened prosperity to everyone,..."
What better proof that you have been propagandized...and are unable to think beyond same.

The Roaring Twenties benefited all.
Pick up a book.


Again...the anti-constitutionalists Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ destroyed the economy and saddled America with the debt burdens under which we labor today.

Ronald Reagan created as much debt in 8 years as every previous President...COMBINED. Trickle down didn't work when Coolidge was president and it didn't work when Reagan was president.

Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt
Among the Republicans who prophesied the default doomsday scenario was none other than conservative patron saint, Ronald Reagan. As he warned Congress in November 1983:

"The full consequences of a default -- or even the serious prospect of default -- by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar."

Reagan knew what he was talking about. After all, the hemorrhage of red ink at the U.S. Treasury was his doing.

As most analysts predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-setting debt. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."

Forced to raise taxes eleven times to avert financial catastrophe, the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It's no wonder Stockman lamented last year:

"[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

It's no wonder the Gipper cited the skyrocketing deficits he bequeathed to America as his greatest regret.

George W. Bush Doubled the National Debt
Following in Reagan's footsteps, George W. Bush buried the myth of Republican fiscal discipline.

Inheriting a federal budget in the black and CBO forecast for a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, President George W. Bush quickly set about dismantling the progress made under Bill Clinton. Bush's $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a $550 billion second round in 2003, accounted for the bulk of the yawning budget deficits he produced. (It is more than a little ironic that Paul Ryan ten years ago called the tax cuts "too small" because he believed the estimated surplus Bush eviscerated would be even larger.)

 

[JoeB131]

[
1. I just love the dance you marionettes perform...

....I haven’t seen such contortions since you gave birth to yourself.

Sorry, Schnukums, not a liberal or a Democrat. I was a REpublican until the party got hijacked by Crazy People and the Mormon Cult.

2. Somehow, the "Roaring Twenties" had nothing to do with the governmental policies of a conservative President....

....but there were magnificent benefits due to FDR's policies....no matter that it's recognized today that he managed to extend the downturn by about a decade.

I gave TWO specific reason for why there was an economic boom, neither of which had anything to do with Coolidge, who even George Will has called an ineffectual president. (I guess George is a liberal, too.) FDR effected the economy by design.

Actually, FDR did extend the depression because he listened to the Austerity nuts. By 1936, he had reduced unemployment from 29% to 15%, and the economy was in positive growth again. Then he cut back on the government spending an attempted to balance the budget. Not suprisingly, unemployment shot back up again. Then WWII came along, and he could do Keynesian spending on a level that the New Deal never allowed him to do, and we pretty much had 30 years of prosperity after that.

Incidently, one thing that did happen under Harding did have a positive effect. Harding cut taxes in the face of the mild 1921 recession, but he increased tariffs to protect American industry from foreign competition when the warring powers shifted their economies back to consumer production. No free trader/Corporatist Republican would ever do that today.

Bet you don't believe that President Reagan had nothing to do with the 'Reagan Boom.'

Diaphanous.

Not sure how the discussion got to Reagan.

3. Another perfect example of how you Lefties are totally hypnotized:

" Warren Harding. (Who actually despite some scandals, was a decent human being.)...

Would you say the same about JFK?
" Kennedy: (Who actually despite some scandals, was a decent human being.)"?

Harding was a Republican. He also wanted to continue the progressive policies of Teddy Roosevelt that Taft had abandoned. He was also one of the first guys who wanted to address our racial problems. TeaPot dome pales in comparison to the Koch Brothers and Soros and all the shit they're pulling.

And as said above, he was the one who used Tariffs to protect American workers and create prosperity through the creation of a middle class. Coolidge was only happy if the rich were happy, and we got the expected result. The worst depression ever six months after he left office.

Kennedy and Harding served as President for almost the same length of time. Harding’s reputation suffers due to the Teapot Dome Scandal, and Harding’s Attorney-General Daugherty charged with bribery (and acquitted). Jeremy Rabkin: 'Harding must be considered the most successful postwar presidents in American history.”

Kennedy’s record was decidedly mixed, as well…Bay of Pigs, and involvement in Vietman vs. the Cuban missile crisis and the nuclear test ban. Both men were “chick magnets.” Clearly, the two are not given equal shrift in the popular literature and Liberal hagiography.


Admit it.

Personally, I think Harding is underrated and JFK is overrated. JFK also had the advantage of being one of the first presidents to really effectively use television. So was Reagan. Now Television makes presidential candidates their bayitches and frankly, we are all poorer for it.

 

[JoeB131]

Ooooookay, Academia is just a big liberal conspiracy... Got it.

I mean, I guess they deviously hid the truth about Calvin from you in things called "Books", but there's a reason they don't name ships or schools after this guy.

He sucked.

Even Republicans are moderately embarrassed by him.

You realize that this is a non-post....jejune and vapid.

Do you really want to pretend that academia isn't a progressive-liberal luncheon club?

C'mon..say it.

You are my best example of same....…daring to stand up against the common themes, with the concomitant fear of having your fellow leftists accuse you of being against ‘progress and enlightenment” or call you an “airhead”- makes left-wingers tremble and weak men liberals.

Not at all. I'm just finding it hard to take a comment that Coolidge was a great president and FDR a bad one seriously.

I know that in the bizarro world of common Republican thought, you either have to try to rewrite history or rehabilitate reputations.

Fact is, Ronald Reagan would be driven out of the GOP on a rail today. That's how far the GOP has disconnected from normal, sane people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ooooookay, Academia is just a big liberal conspiracy... Got it.

I mean, I guess they deviously hid the truth about Calvin from you in things called "Books", but there's a reason they don't name ships or schools after this guy.

He sucked.

Even Republicans are moderately embarrassed by him.

You realize that this is a non-post....jejune and vapid.

Do you really want to pretend that academia isn't a progressive-liberal luncheon club?

C'mon..say it.

You are my best example of same....…daring to stand up against the common themes, with the concomitant fear of having your fellow leftists accuse you of being against ‘progress and enlightenment” or call you an “airhead”- makes left-wingers tremble and weak men liberals.

Not at all. I'm just finding it hard to take a comment that Coolidge was a great president and FDR a bad one seriously.

I know that in the bizarro world of common Republican thought, you either have to try to rewrite history or rehabilitate reputations.

Fact is, Ronald Reagan would be driven out of the GOP on a rail today. That's how far the GOP has disconnected from normal, sane people.

".....FDR a bad one...."


A careful study of the magnificent panorama of American history, viewed through the prism of the Founders' design, would indicate that the single greatest mistake was made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt....

....it was called "the second Bill of Rights."

 

[The T]

You realize that this is a non-post....jejune and vapid.

Do you really want to pretend that academia isn't a progressive-liberal luncheon club?

C'mon..say it.

You are my best example of same....…daring to stand up against the common themes, with the concomitant fear of having your fellow leftists accuse you of being against ‘progress and enlightenment” or call you an “airhead”- makes left-wingers tremble and weak men liberals.

Not at all. I'm just finding it hard to take a comment that Coolidge was a great president and FDR a bad one seriously.

I know that in the bizarro world of common Republican thought, you either have to try to rewrite history or rehabilitate reputations.

Fact is, Ronald Reagan would be driven out of the GOP on a rail today. That's how far the GOP has disconnected from normal, sane people.

".....FDR a bad one...."


A careful study of the magnificent panorama of American history, viewed through the prism of the Founders' design, would indicate that the single greatest mistake was made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt....

....it was called "the second Bill of Rights."

Then all it was was Socialism in the spitit of WILSON...

And NOT needed. The first time by the founders was sufficient.

FDR wasn't happy with it.

 

[Bfgrn]

You realize that this is a non-post....jejune and vapid.

Do you really want to pretend that academia isn't a progressive-liberal luncheon club?

C'mon..say it.

You are my best example of same....…daring to stand up against the common themes, with the concomitant fear of having your fellow leftists accuse you of being against ‘progress and enlightenment” or call you an “airhead”- makes left-wingers tremble and weak men liberals.

Not at all. I'm just finding it hard to take a comment that Coolidge was a great president and FDR a bad one seriously.

I know that in the bizarro world of common Republican thought, you either have to try to rewrite history or rehabilitate reputations.

Fact is, Ronald Reagan would be driven out of the GOP on a rail today. That's how far the GOP has disconnected from normal, sane people.

".....FDR a bad one...."


A careful study of the magnificent panorama of American history, viewed through the prism of the Founders' design, would indicate that the single greatest mistake was made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt....

....it was called "the second Bill of Rights."

Yea, surfs shouldn't have any rights.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[JoeB131]

".....FDR a bad one...."


A careful study of the magnificent panorama of American history, viewed through the prism of the Founders' design, would indicate that the single greatest mistake was made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt....

....it was called "the second Bill of Rights."

The "Second Bill of Rights", part of his 1945 innagural address, was never imposed.

And it had such horrid ideas like universal health care and the right for everyone who wants to work to have a job. The horror of it all.

The funny thing is, going with what FDR wanted to do, we have 30 years of prosperity after the war. then someone decided the rich just didn't have enough, the poor dears, and we've been declining ever since.

 

[Bfgrn]

What liberals believe:

“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

VS.

What conservatives believe:

 

[Neotrotsky]

The Great Society was suppose to end poverty

Another failed leftist program

 

[JoeB131]

The Great Society was suppose to end poverty

Another failed leftist program

Was it ever promised to end poverty, or just make it more tolerable?

The problem isn't the welfare state, it's the vanishing of middle class jobs and salaries.

There will always be that part of society who suffer from what Heinlein called the "Socialist disease" - the belief the world owes you a living.

The problem with our modern economic system is that it pits people perfectly willing to work for their keep against each other for increasingly smaller slices of the pie.

if we don't address that, things are going to get ugly very soon.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The Great Society was suppose to end poverty

Another failed leftist program

Was it ever promised to end poverty, or just make it more tolerable?

The problem isn't the welfare state, it's the vanishing of middle class jobs and salaries.

There will always be that part of society who suffer from what Heinlein called the "Socialist disease" - the belief the world owes you a living.

The problem with our modern economic system is that it pits people perfectly willing to work for their keep against each other for increasingly smaller slices of the pie.

if we don't address that, things are going to get ugly very soon.

Sure it was, when he was trying to sell the Great Society


President Johnson had introduced his vision of a “great society” in a May 22, 1964 speech: “The great society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or if you prefer

“In our lifetime, we will wipe out poverty in America"-so said
Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Many of the promises made on this program have not delivered
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three generations on welfare is saying
the system does not work

Pie smaller, shrinking middle class....

It is too be expected when you have a growing dependent class

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a person can live better not working, say at a low wage
then why would they?

The system today has turned into a voting getting machine
and away from the goal of "ending poverty"

Really, take any man give a job that is not dependent on gov't funds
make him pay taxes- he tends to be more conservative

 

[rdean]

Since Republicans make up the single biggest group of those that get food stamps and all their policies are failures, then I would say that in this case, there is a failure here. So the solution of other Republicans are "let them die" or "if you feed the poor they'll breed". Only the Republican base mistakenly thinks they are talking about black and Hispanics. Pity.

 

[starcraftzzz]

The Great Society was suppose to end poverty

Another failed leftist program

I see so taking poverty from 50% to 10% is a now considered a failure. Menaign you are a dumbass

 

[Neotrotsky]

Since Republicans make up the single biggest group of those that get food stamps and all their policies are failures, then I would say that in this case, there is a failure here. So the solution of other Republicans are "let them die" or "if you feed the poor they'll breed". Only the Republican base mistakenly thinks they are talking about black and Hispanics. Pity.

You mean white
how liberal of you to assume they must be Republican

Really the question is


Economy Statistics > Welfare Caseloads > Total recipients (most recent) by state

# 1 California: 1,085,627
# 2 New York: 341,004
# 3 Texas: 333,435
# 4 Pennsylvania: 207,429
# 5 Michigan: 202,469
# 6 Ohio: 188,108
# 7 Tennessee: 180,466
# 8 Washington: 140,721
# 9 Indiana: 140,571
# 10 Georgia: 132,003


How many of those states voted for Papa Obama?

 

[Neotrotsky]

The Great Society was suppose to end poverty

Another failed leftist program

I see so taking poverty from 50% to 10% is a now considered a failure. Menaign you are a dumbass

Speaking of dumb ass

the poverty rate for all Americans has not changed that much

the percentage of Americans whose income is lower than the federally determined poverty line --
1965 -17.3
2009 -14.3 percent


Truth is hard for the Left
In fact it is their worst enemy

 

[JoeB131]

The Great Society was suppose to end poverty

Another failed leftist program

Was it ever promised to end poverty, or just make it more tolerable?

The problem isn't the welfare state, it's the vanishing of middle class jobs and salaries.

There will always be that part of society who suffer from what Heinlein called the "Socialist disease" - the belief the world owes you a living.

The problem with our modern economic system is that it pits people perfectly willing to work for their keep against each other for increasingly smaller slices of the pie.

if we don't address that, things are going to get ugly very soon.

Sure it was, when he was trying to sell the Great Society


President Johnson had introduced his vision of a “great society” in a May 22, 1964 speech: “The great society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or if you prefer

“In our lifetime, we will wipe out poverty in America"-so said
Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Many of the promises made on this program have not delivered
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three generations on welfare is saying
the system does not work

Pie smaller, shrinking middle class....

It is too be expected when you have a growing dependent class

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a person can live better not working, say at a low wage
then why would they?

The system today has turned into a voting getting machine
and away from the goal of "ending poverty"

Really, take any man give a job that is not dependent on gov't funds
make him pay taxes- he tends to be more conservative

The pie is not getting smaller because the dependent class is growing. It's getting smaller because the wealthy are taking bigger and bigger slices.

1% of the population controls 42% of the wealth in this country. The top 10% controls 90% of the wealth. And the rest of us, working schlubs and folks who sit at home watching Jerry Springer, are down here at the bottom fighting over the last 10% of the pie.

I agree that making a guy a taxpayer makes him trend more conservative, but that's the problem. That's not been the goal of the Mitt Romneys of the world. They've downsized, offshored and Six-Sigmaed the Middle Class out of existence, pretty much.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not at all. I'm just finding it hard to take a comment that Coolidge was a great president and FDR a bad one seriously.

I know that in the bizarro world of common Republican thought, you either have to try to rewrite history or rehabilitate reputations.

Fact is, Ronald Reagan would be driven out of the GOP on a rail today. That's how far the GOP has disconnected from normal, sane people.

".....FDR a bad one...."


A careful study of the magnificent panorama of American history, viewed through the prism of the Founders' design, would indicate that the single greatest mistake was made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt....

....it was called "the second Bill of Rights."

Yea, surfs shouldn't have any rights.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

"....surfs shouldn't have any rights."

Instructive how the Left cannot win without cheating.....you know this has nothing to do with rights....

.....the 'Second Bill of Rights' was about entitlements.....gifts provided by the Left by taking away the fruits of others' labor.


Being both conservative and civil I avoided the word 'liar,' but you should consider how it applies....

Now, for your edification:


Rights vs entitlement and privilege

“True” rights are inalienable. They exist whether or not they are recognized, and whether or not the ability or the will to defend them exists.

True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us. In fact, rights exist in greatest measure when we are each simply “left alone”.

If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.
Rights vs entitlement and privilege | Breckshire … World with a View