If the GOP could roll back the New Deal or Great Society

[etv78]

And they can pick 1 OR the other, which would they pick? IMO, their aminity is more directed toward FDR than LBJ.

[Recovering Republican]

I think this actually belongs in "Great Debates" more than here.

But I'd vote to get rid of the "Great Society". It created the welfare mentality that the world owes you a living.

[foolsguinea]

Can we define terms?

The Great Society included the Civil Rights Act, Medicaid & Medicare. The New Deal included Social Security & various public works.

I invite conservatives to denounce any or all of those as full-throatedly as I did when I was a young anarcho-capitalist. And you'll be disregarded as fully.

[etv78]

I'm refering to the social safety net apparatusses constructed. In this case: New Deal=Social Security/Medicare Great Society=Medicaid/AFDC ("welfare")

[Simplicio]

Medicare was part of The Great Society programs.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by etv78

I'm refering to the social safety net apparatusses constructed. In this case: New Deal=Social Security/Medicare Great Society=Medicaid/AFDC ("welfare")

Just remember that the party that wants to remove the safety net is also the one that throws people over the cliff.

[etv78]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Medicare was part of The Great Society programs.

You're right about Medicare Simplicio!

[foolsguinea]

AFDC has been gone for over a decade.

[JimH52]

Damn those poor people! They sure mess it up for all the rich Republicans.

[gonzomax]

They would go after either one. Then the other. They are relentless about eliminating programs that don't make the rich richer.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

There is also a lot of welfare that's useless and going to people who basically leech off it for an example. Republicans can't (even if they wanted to) completely get rid of the New Deal or Great Society but we can cut the fat from it.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

There is also a lot of welfare that's useless and going to people who basically leech off it for an example. Republicans can't (even if they wanted to) completely get rid of the New Deal or Great Society but we can cut the fat from it.

I think it's safe to assume that you can delete one for the purposes of this question.

[Boyo Jim]

Republicans would reverse the outcome of the Civil War if they could.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

There is also a lot of welfare that's useless and going to people who basically leech off it for an example.

Cite?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Republicans would reverse the outcome of the Civil War if they could.

Indeed. Did Nixon know what his "Southern Strategy" would start? The Party of Abraham Lincoln is now the Party of Jefferson Davis.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Indeed. Did Nixon know what his "Southern Strategy" would start? The Party of Abraham Lincoln is now the Party of Jefferson Davis.

The Southern Strategy is largely a myth.

In 1968 Nixon lost much of the South to Humphrey (Texas) and Wallace (GA, AL,MI,LA,AR).

In 1972, he took the entire south, but he took the entire Midwest, West, and all of the Northeast except the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

Now, on to the original point. Obviously the problem with the crowning acheivements of these programs- Social Security and Medicare- is that they are unsustainable. They are going broke, and we can't maintain them without massive tax increases, or without cutting them back.

More pointedly, the real problem with these programs is that they are "entitlements". The very notion is the problem. You are "entitled" to these things. You don't necessarily have to work for them, we are just giving them to you because you are 'entitled' to them.

Now back in the oldy days, when you gave someone unfortunate a hand up (which you should do), it was clearly understood and they had a word for it. It was called "Charity". We help you out this time, but it's incumbant on you to try to better your lot in life.

Today. Nope. It's an entitlement. The world owes you. Especially if you belong to a group where they did something nasty to your ancestors and we can play on liberal white guilt.

What we should do is replace "welfare" with "workfare". If the private sector can't find a useful function for you, the government will, even it it's picking up trash in the street or cleaning graffitti off walls.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

The Southern Strategy is largely a myth.

It's such an enduring myth that even the people who you say didn't do it think they did! Funny that. GOP operatives have admitted to the strategy several times (and more recently tried to apologize for it). Trying reading something other Free Republic and Stormfront.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

It's such an enduring myth that even the people who you say didn't do it think they did! Funny that. GOP operatives have admitted to the strategy several times (and more recently tried to apologize for it). Trying reading something other Free Republic and Stormfront.

So a few republican operatives got guilted into buying into a meme.

I don't read anything like you said, and frankly, I even found Town Hall too right wing for me. (Of course, you people are reminding me why I'm a Republican to start with, so I guess I am grateful for that.)

Fact is it was southern Democrats who fought desegregation tooth and nail all the way up until it finally happened, and you jokers keep trying to leave that ugly baby on our doorstep.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Cite?

Any grocery store where a Jerry Springer fan is living large on a LINC card.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

So a few republican operatives got guilted into buying into a meme.

You mean guilted into it in 1970?

Originally Posted by Kevin Phillips

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats

Kevin Phillips was a strategist for Nixon. The quote is from the New York Times.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

You mean guilted into it in 1970?

Kevin Phillips was a strategist for Nixon. The quote is from the New York Times.

But if I'm reading that quote right, Republicans are encouraging southern racists to be Republicans by ENFORCING the rights of blacks to vote?

Wouldn't they get more votes if they DIDN'T enforce the rules?

If you want to ask why Southern Whites joined the GOP pretty much after the racial issues were decided, it has a lot more to do with the fact the Democrats embraced the McGovern platform of "Abortion, Acid and Amnesty"* in 1972. Do you think that there are all that many Southerners who care about the racial issues today?


(* This term describing how the radicals took over the Democrat Party was coined by none other than Hubert Humphrey.)

[Chronos]

What we should do is replace "welfare" with "workfare". If the private sector can't find a useful function for you, the government will, even it it's picking up trash in the street or cleaning graffitti off walls.

I thought you were opposed to government jobs, and that they didn't really count?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

I thought you were opposed to government jobs, and that they didn't really count?

Missing my point entirely.

I wouldn't expect these people to do anything critical.

I would expect them to get an object lesson in the fact that they need to work for their existence.

If you are going to pay them money anyway, might as well make them work for it, and maybe show them the error of their ways.

You are correct, though, that if the government ran such a thing, they would find a way to screw it up.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

What we should do is replace "welfare" with "workfare".

Weren't the Clinton reforms supposed to do that?

[fumster]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Cite?

Agricultural subsidies, oil depletion allowance, lower capital gains tax rates, FEMA, ethanol subsidies. It goes on and on. I'm not sure why conservatives are always sucking off the public teat.

[J Cubed]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Now, on to the original point. Obviously the problem with the crowning acheivements of these programs- Social Security and Medicare- is that they are unsustainable. They are going broke, and we can't maintain them without massive tax increases, or without cutting them back.

More pointedly, the real problem with these programs is that they are "entitlements". The very notion is the problem. You are "entitled" to these things. You don't necessarily have to work for them, we are just giving them to you because you are 'entitled' to them.

Now back in the oldy days, when you gave someone unfortunate a hand up (which you should do), it was clearly understood and they had a word for it. It was called "Charity". We help you out this time, but it's incumbant on you to try to better your lot in life.

Today. Nope. It's an entitlement. The world owes you. Especially if you belong to a group where they did something nasty to your ancestors and we can play on liberal white guilt.

What we should do is replace "welfare" with "workfare". If the private sector can't find a useful function for you, the government will, even it it's picking up trash in the street or cleaning graffitti off walls.

Gah, it's like you know just enough to be astoundingly ignorant. The word "entitlement" just means that you have the legal right to the benefit if you meet the eligibility requirements specified in the law when it was passed. It's not because welfare queens have a sense of entitlement and get to buy Cadillacs with your hard-earned tax money.

Social Security and Medicare are not even entitlement programs; I don't know about you, but I've been paying into them my whole working life. They're much more like insurance programs. It doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to recognize the benefit of insurance, and having as wide a pool as possible. Especially when there's nobody

About charity: it would be great if there were enough upstanding citizens like you who actually gave to charity, but the US has one of the lowest charitable giving rates, and too much of it has strings attached, like being "deserving" according to some Puritanical standard.

I would almost be inclined to believe Republicans who talk like you if they ever made any effort to improve the efficiency of welfare or intelligently enforce some standard to prevent cheaters, but mostly you just want to blow the whole thing up and see what happens.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by J Cubed

Gah, it's like you know just enough to be astoundingly ignorant. The word "entitlement" just means that you have the legal right to the benefit if you meet the eligibility requirements specified in the law when it was passed. It's not because welfare queens have a sense of entitlement and get to buy Cadillacs with your hard-earned tax money. .

Sure seems like it to me.

.

Social Security and Medicare are not even entitlement programs; I don't know about you, but I've been paying into them my whole working life. They're much more like insurance programs. It doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to recognize the benefit of insurance, and having as wide a pool as possible. Especially when there's nobody .

Except those programs are now broke, and we have to risk default to continue paying for them. The thing is, they were ponzi schemes. You were paying into them, but they immediately gave that money to other people who more often than not, didn't pay as much in. It wasn't like there was a nice big account with your name like that. And like all Ponzi schemes, eventually, someone ends up holding the bag.


.

About charity: it would be great if there were enough upstanding citizens like you who actually gave to charity, but the US has one of the lowest charitable giving rates, and too much of it has strings attached, like being "deserving" according to some Puritanical standard. .

You mean not being on drugs, not indiscriminately breeding, not expecting the world to owe you a living. Man, how medieval.

I would almost be inclined to believe Republicans who talk like you if they ever made any effort to improve the efficiency of welfare or intelligently enforce some standard to prevent cheaters, but mostly you just want to blow the whole thing up and see what happens.

Yeah, sometimes you got to knock down a rotting building to put up something worthwhile. The first and foremost thing we need to get rid of is the mentality that "the world owes you". If you get something, it is because other people worked hard for it and are generously sharing some of it, and it's incumbant upon you to better yourself.

I've had some terrible setbacks in my life. (Both of my parents died when I was 19). There was never a point where I said, "Well, gosh, gee, poor me, where's my gummit check?" Yeah, I took advantage of things, but I gave back. Served a total of 11 years in the military.