Did this kind of crap happen when Civil Rights, Medicare and Social Security were enacted?

This article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_threats

I wasn’t alive when SS was started but I have some memory of Medicare/Medicade. I have a lot of recollections of the Civil Rights movement.

Certainly there were a lot of bigots that were incensed with Civil Rights legislation. I can’t recall direct threats against legislators that voted for it although I’m sure it happened. Civil Rights was an issue that inflamed a certain raciest element. I can see it for what it was. Yet, years later, many of those that opposed Civil Rights legislation apologized for their earlier stance.

What’s with the vitriol about the Health Care legislation? It’s groundbreaking but it’s not a fundamental attack on any element of American society? Probably everyone knows someone that will benefit from it. Where is the hate coming from?

I think part of it is that the overton window has moved pretty far to the right since the 30s and 60s.

Medicare is a single payer system that covers the elderly while medicaid is a system that covers the poor. The reforms just pushed aren’t anywhere near to the left of those agendas. But the rage has been intense.

Reagan said medicare would bring about dictatorship back in the 60s.

But I seriously doubt he wanted to assassinate people who voted for medicare.

Were people this angry over Civil Rights? You have to ask that question? Seriously?

Okay, on the one hand, you have people making death threats because of health care reform.

On the other hand, you have people blowing up churches full of little girls because of the Civil Rights Movement.

You tell me which subject got people angrier.

I tried to indicate that I could understand the vitriol of Civil Rights legislation, Intellectually, I can understand where that comes from. Social Security, Medicare/Medicate, Unemployment insurance, those are programs that should resonate with the “middle class” even if they are “white”. Those programs are not race based.

The nonsense that has we’ve seen the past few days is disturbing. It indicates a level of understanding rooted in hate, not in knowledge.

I was 14 during the Medicare debate. The AMA was deadset against it, and TV was full of anti-Medicare ads. I don’t recall this level of vitriol, but I’m not sure LBJ, who had a big majority, bothered to consult the GOP. He also knew where all the skeletons were hidden in the Senate.

As for civil rights, remember that passing that bill caused most of the southern Democratic senators to turn Republican.

We’ll see.

Exactly, I think that should have been a tactic of some Dems when talking about the Health Care Bill. Just say, “ya know, when Civil Rights passed, many folks , particularly in the South did not want it” That does mean it wasn’t the right thing to do morally"

This issue should have been framed as a moral issue. The government is not going to obey majority rule at all times and nor should it. Sometimes the gov’t just needs to do the right & moral thing and let the consequences fall where they do. At least at the end of the day they can look back and say, “I tried to give the people what they need”.

Or is that too idealistic??

You have to remember that the two parties weren’t as diametrically opposed in those days as they are now. The GOP still had a socially liberal wing that wasn’t afraid to defy the more reactionary elements in the party, and as you mentioned the Democrats still had their fair share of ultraconservatives racists. Often your political enemy may have been someone of the same party as you, but of an opposite ideology. Likewise it was easier for people to find common ground with those in the other party.
But, yeah, Civil Rights was an incredibly incendiary issue. Southern Democrats in the Senate effectively killed any effort to pass Civil Rights legislation from the end of Reconstruction to the Eisenhower era. The first major piece of CR legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, was, like the health care bill, basically just a watered down, bastardized version of what its supporters had originally wanted. Still it was a miracle they got even that passed.
“Master of the Senate” the third volume of Robert A. Caro’s biography on LBJ paints a good portrait of the legislative battle for Civil Rights. Basically it makes the effort to get HCR passed look like a cake walk.

Basically CR had both parties involved. Health care has become Dems we have a majority in both houses, Reps go sit in the cornor while we do this.

It’s a deliberate strategy. The Republicans asked for – and got – concessions in the bill, but not one of them voted for it, because their strategy sessions suggested that defeating the bill would seriously weaken the opposing party’s President, which they see as desirable, despite decades of Republican language supporting a strong presidency. It’s purely a deliberate choice to demonize and oppose the plan – and they would have done so regardless of the contents of the plan. The point is to oppose and defeat, not to govern or to decide how to ration health care (health care, as we all know, was already rationed under the old system – it was just rationed differently.)
.

OK, I agree. And I assume you’ll agree when the government says, “Abortion is now illegal. It’s a right and moral decision; let the consequences fall where they do. I am giving the people what they need.”

Sounds like a plan?

Or maybe… just maybe… there isn’t universal agreement on what things are right and moral?

Are you serious? Obama and the Democrats in Congress bent over backwards in their attempts to invite the Republicans in.

You can’t say that one party was shut out when that party basically refused to come to the table, despite near-constant and offensively (to me) effusive invitations to do so. The Democrats were infinitely more inclusive to the Republicans on HCR than the Republicans were to the Democrats at any single bill they voted on when the Congress was in their exclusive hands.

This kind of crap also happened when LBJ-style welfare, prohibition, and the draft was proposed. Opposition may not mean it’ll fail, but noble indifference to public opinion is no guarantor of success.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Several speakers stated, after the bill was passed, that the bill contains about 200 Republican-proposed amendments. Is this information untrue? If so, how many Republican-proposed amendments does the final House bill contain? If not, how many more Republican-proposed amendments did the bill need to contain in order to be determined to be a bipartisan bill?

The plot (if it can be called that) against the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s was a result of controversy over the New Deal. By the standards that had prevailed before that time, the New Deal was practically communism. Social Security was the least of it, and that only went through by disguising a federally-funded dole for the retired as a pension plan. The Roosevelt administration effectively banned using gold as money, confiscated specie and forced it’s replacement with legal tender. It introduced farm subsidies that led in some cases to forbidding farmers from growing grain to feed their own animals on their own land. It dramatically expanded the power of federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. When the Supreme Court struck down New Deal legislation as unconstitutional, Roosevelt threatened to pack the court, and the Supremes got the message and started finding legalistic excuses to deny challenges to federal law. All this was bitterly controversial at the time and only the desperate circumstances of the Great Depression allowed it, when the alternative seemed to be actual armed rebellion by the masses.

And you know what . .

. . . sometimes you have to accept a better form of government that is more beneficial to what your country (or the world) has become instead of falling back on the absolute righteousness of political theory the may have been well thought out many, many, many years earlier and never had the capacity to anticipate what advancements might occur in the future (mechanization, computerization, information technology, ecological considerations, etc., etc.). That’s why governing has to be a fluid process.

Back to the OP. What’s right or wrong with the Health Care legislation, Medicare/Medicade, Civil Rights legislation or the New Deal isn’t the point. What I was asking was whether the elected individuals that were part of the voting process were personally targeted in the past in the manner we have seen lately. Representative being harassed, spit on, verbally abused, and otherwise being threatened is something that I thought we had gotten past. I can sort of understand how it might have happened with the Civil Rights bill because bigots are bigots. I am surprised at the vitriol that has been directed at members of Congress. I really thought we were beyond that.

The central principle of the bill (mandating the purchase of private insurance, with subsidies) is based on Republican ideas. The Democrats just passed what the Republicans proposed in 1994 in opposition to Clinton’s plan. IOW, the “Stalinist takeover of the U.S.” that so many Pubs and teabaggers denounce is merely the implementation of the Republicans’ own plan from 1994. There might be some liberal garnishments, but the core is solidly pro-capitalist.

Thanks for this information! Some posters in the other threads on this issue had posted similar stuff, which I didn’t remember as I was pretty apolitical back in the 90s.

But, it doesn’t really answer my questions regarding whether or not the statements made about the Republican amendments to the bill were true or not. And that’s really what I want to have answered.

So, again, those of you who are saying that this bill is not bipartisan and was done without Republican input - I repeat my questions:

Were the statements made regarding the approximately 200 Republican-sponsored amendments true? If not, how many Republican-sponsored amendments were there to the bill that the House passed? If so, what’s the magic number of Republican-sponsored bills or Republican-based ideas that would make the bill bipartisan?

The problem really started in November 2008 with the election of Barack Hussein Obama, an event that instantly deprived millions of Americans of their right not to have a black President. On January 21st 2009 they discovered that the US budget was running a deficit and rightfully blamed it on the 2008 Obama bailouts of the financial industry and the Obama recession. After healthcare got passed the one consistent thing that I’ve read Teabagger leaders claim is that “we can’t afford” healthcare reform, despite the fact that the bill will reduce the deficit. There’s no intellectual consistency or intellectual anything with these people, they’re just a bunch of angry ignorami.

It’s always been like this with every liberal reform. We’re told that America is at threat and this reform, no matter which one it is, will be the one that tips us into socialism/communism/scary thing du jour. The rabble get roused by the powers that be in defence of the status quo but then everything settles down and they even start eventually to cling to their government programs, even when they’re comically unaware of it eg. get your government hands off my Medicare.