Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LBJ's Great Society: 40 Years Later
Townhall Soapbox ^ | 9/12/2005

Posted on 09/12/2005 5:51:41 PM PDT by StoneGiant

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-57 last
To: StoneGiant

With FDR you got Socialism with the American value of work. Sure ol FDR will give you a make-work job but you had to work for your money. Social Security was another, but you had to WORK to get it. With LBJ you got pure Socialism and transfer of wealth for those that produce nothing. WORST PRESIDENT EVER-LBJ.

Our crackpot immigration policies are a result of the Immigration Bill of 1965--just look what that has done to our country. His Welfare State has been a total disaster.


51 posted on 09/12/2005 9:15:25 PM PDT by lone star annie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lone star annie
Our crackpot immigration policies are a result of the Immigration Bill of 1965--just look what that has done to our country. His Welfare State has been a total disaster.

Agree. What an utter disaster.

52 posted on 09/12/2005 11:00:26 PM PDT by Black Tooth (The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: sine_nomine
4. Carter (for giving us Iran) but forgiven for giving us Reagan.

I would rescind that forgiveness because since he left the White House he never seems to shut up. Clinton appears to be following in Carter's footsteps in that regard. Most ex-Presidents should be seen (like at funerals for bigshots) but not heard.

53 posted on 09/13/2005 5:30:30 AM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: oldtimer

Yet, Agnew and Nixon bear more disgrace in their names than Johnson who did far more damage to America.


54 posted on 09/13/2005 5:33:39 AM PDT by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

right on target, the welfare state ruined the nuclear family in the black community, kicked out fathers, made fathers out to be a liability to the welfare payments, kept the blacks in a form of welfare/poverty/slavery, kept them housed and fed and that's about it only to exist. It's a shame and the democrats still take advantage of them at each and every election.


55 posted on 09/16/2005 7:45:57 PM PDT by Coleus ("Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: StoneGiant
"..she no longer needed a husband or the support of her family."

I read an article in the WSJ several years back that estimated that if a guy did marry one of these women, he would need to earn $60K + per year to provide the same level of income and bennies she was otherwise eligible for.

They not only made the father "unnecessary", they basically emasculated him and made him obsolete.
56 posted on 09/24/2005 11:35:07 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StoneGiant

I came across your comments regarding Liberal Socialism and felt inclined to respond, even though it was posted over a year ago.

The author does a poor job documenting his allegation that 40 years of Liberal Socialism is responsible for the plight of the poor.

First, from 1965 to 2005, Republicans were in the White House 24 years, Democrats only 16. Hardly a forty year run without interference and serious reversals, especially during the Reagan years.

Second, Europe and the Far East were busy rebuilding after the world wide massive destruction brought about by World War II. The potential to sell the production of a quickly growing US economy throughout the world had and has never been greater. Those were times when a breadwinner could find, keep and expect to retire from a good union job with pay that was increasing faster than inflation and a complete package of benefits.

Since the gap in pay between the CEO and the entry worker was no where near as obscene as it is today, the wealth from this production was more broadly spread, not only creating a higher standard of living, but even greater market demand. After all, if you or I earn an extra $2000, we are going to buy something, increasing demand. If Bill Gates earns an extra $2000, he probably will not spend one more dime than usual. So no additional demand will grow to offset the growth in supply, production will be reduced, and workers laid off. With so much idle productive capacity, no new investment was needed and the owners of the capital had additional market was under US control, as Europe had abided by the Monroe Doctrine’s declaration that the US would not share ‘its” hemisphere.

Latin America had swung to more popular elected governments, which tried to increase employment and ownership of productive assets for its citizens, the workers and small farmers. They increased employment by increasing local production. And this required increased local demand. Local demand could be increased by substituting locally-made products – this is called import substitution – an economic policy that would reduce US access to their markets.

And retaining local control of the productive assets and national resources required government control of the flow of capital in and out of the country. This interfered with the ability for US shareholders to invest their excess income in new productive assets. With the limited need for investment in the US, increasingly more idle investment dollars were chasing a fixed or decreasing amount of productive capacity. Inflation of stock prices resulted, ironically making idle investors even richer.

In the late 1960s, early 1970s Nixon and Kissinger collaborated with the Latin American military which US “advisors” had been training in several countries to implement coup d’etats, install dictators and impose the Washington Consensus or economic policies of the International Monetary Fund, which reversed the policy of import substitution in order to allow free trade “competition.” It also called for the unrestricted flow of capital across borders on order to attract “needed” foreign investors, but leaving the host countries exposed to several risks.

So, as one eighth grade girl from the inner city said at a diversity workshop I attended with my son in October, George Bush doesn’t care about me. The government has forgotten us.

How ridiculous to blame the victims for the policies of the US government. The US was
de-industrialized in the late 1970s, early 1980s in order to serve the interests of the very wealthy.

The third point has to do with the two million people in US prisons for drug related crimes. Most of these people are not criminals, but conservative drug laws have made them criminals. If drugs were legal, and sold through pharmacies, first addicts would not be in jail. They would be getting encouragement every time they went to the Pharmacy to get treatment, rather than being pushed to buy more. Drugs would be cheap, so addicts would not be tempted to commit violent crimes in order to get enough money for their next fix. Since cheap legal drugs would eliminate the disproportional profits that attract illegal drug dealers, those related crimes would decrease as well. Who knows, perhaps even a low income man might just get a job and raise his children for a better world.


57 posted on 12/04/2006 4:17:40 AM PST by goNDdan (Great Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson