The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(07-27-2020, 03:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-26-2020, 10:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't always like to pay taxes, and I wouldn't like to pay too much. I don't like paying high prices. I'm glad I don't have to pay the extremely high rents that people pay where I live. I understand that you don't want to pay.

Back in 1932, the USA learned, as I see, it, that we need that "free stuff" from the government. Without it, people had been starving and dying by the millions. We Americans learned that we could not rely on businessmen to provide for us, give us jobs, or pay us well. We needed the government to provide work and set up youth conservation corps. We needed unions to make sure we were paid well and were provided with the benefits we needed. We set up social security to provide for ourselves in old age instead of just dying away in some tenement or in some back room in our childrens' house. Now in 2020 we are learning that we need a government to lead in response to a virus, and that because we have forgotten this, 147,000 of our people have needlessly died.

Folks like you since Reagan did not have to live in the upstairs-downstairs, unequal, starving world of 1929-1932, so you forgot the need for a social safety net. But even the Roman Empire had it. Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar, and unto God what is God's. It's really an easy concept. If we are required to contribute something to society, then we all do well. If we rely on voluntary charity, it's sometimes-at-least not enough to meet the need, just as it was not in 1929. Every other developed country is better at this than the USA. They pay high taxes and still have their homes and businesses and have better rights of citizenship than we have. We are a backward country largely because we are stuck with backward states like Alabama and the rest of those states in Dixie and their superior representation in our government; states that allow that "steady stream of poverty" that is like the worst third-world countries.

We do need the police. Maybe some people are going overboard attacking the police these days. I am not one of them. The police, however, have gone overboard in trampling and kneeling on our rights. We need the police, but we need rational and just policies and laws. I'm sorry if some of the police don't want to live up to their responsibilities and follow the law. They can find other work. Those who remain will do their job and we'll all be just fine.

I'm sorry that you have so little sense of justice that you think a flag that represents people being bought and sold is a symbol of American defiance, instead of what it is, a symbol of defiance against America. I'm sorry that you are so blinded by your dislike of paying taxes that you can't even see that you defend a symbol of racism. I can't help you with that. I can only hope that one day that amazing grace will come to you, and like Mr. Newton discovered while traveling on that slave ship and writing that song, that you will see that you have been blind. Most Americans are sickened by what your type of folks do who wave that flag and grin while choking a black man like George Floyd to death. Most Americans are rediscovering that we did not go far enough yet in the sixties, that racists like you still exist, and that you guys need to be disempowered from ruling our country, and your candidates taken out of office.

The Democratic party wasn't into giving away "free stuff" during the the Great Depression. It was into funding public works and building/modernizing American infrastructure. Have you ever seen the Hoover dam or jigged for fish along man made a wing dam on a major river or traveled on a US highway or freeway? I recognize the need for social safety nets and I wish the liberals were capable of saying no (to) the other programs and add on's and expansions and global initiates and global commitments and so forth so that we can properly fund them and keep them available for our use versus trying to fund them along with everything else that the liberals keep committing us to pay for these days.

No that's not true. They gave away money to fund these projects. "emergency food programs were set up to prevent starvation. For instance, surplus agricultural goods were distributed to the poor. Also, a relatively small-scale “food stamp” program was established for needy federal workers."... "This first set of reforms, as previously stated, was an emergency stop-gap measure. From November of 1934 to November of 1936, the Roosevelt Administration implemented a second set of reforms meant to define an ongoing responsibility of the federal government, a responsibility for social welfare similar to that found in European nations.19 The major piece of legislation passed during this period was the Social Security Act of 1935.

This legislation constituted a package of social programs consisting of both insurance and poor relief (later referred to as “public assistance” or “welfare”). With respect to insurance, the act contained both unemployment insurance and old age pensions (commonly known as “Social Security”). Unemployment insurance was very unpopular with business leaders. To illustrate, as late as 1931, Henry Ford persisted in blaming mass unemployment on individual laziness. He claimed there was plenty of work for those who wanted it!20 Yet, packaging unemployment insurance with more popular programs such as old age pensions, Roosevelt was able to pass the legislation. The Social Security Act also contained several federal poor relief programs. Meant to be a continuing federal responsibility, these programs included Old Age Assistance, Aid to the Blind, and Aid to Dependent Children (ADC).21 ADC, as the name suggests, targeted relief to poor children in single parent families. It was not until 1950 that the single parent became officially eligible for assistance also. Note that prior to the New Deal, relief was a tool used by social workers to rehabilitate.22 To get relief, a person had to accept rehabilitation services from a social worker (including a significant dose of moral instruction!) With the New Deal, poor relief became a right of American citizens meeting certain eligibility standards, including of course, financial need. In other words, poor relief became, not a “means” to rehabilitation, but rather, an “end in itself.” The Social Security Act promoted cooperation between the federal government and the states in providing poor relief through the use of “matching funding formulas.”23 That is, for every dollar of state funding expended in the Old Age Assistance, Aid to the Blind, and Aid to Dependent Children programs, the federal government contributed a specified percentage of funding. Yet, the legislation allowed each state to determine eligibility standards and levels of benefits. Also contained in the legislative package were a number of smaller scale health and human service programs.
These included child welfare and maternal health programs in Title V of the act and public health programs in Title VI of the legislation. During this second round of reforms, the Roosevelt Administration continued to confront massive unemployment and labor unrest. Numerous strikes took place throughout the country. To support the rights of union organizers, the Wagner Act was passed in 1936.24 This legislation established the National Labor Relations Board. The board enforced the right of workers to start their own unions. For instance, specific procedures for starting unions were outlined, including voting procedures for choosing a collective bargaining agent. The Roosevelt Administration also implemented major federal initiatives during this “second New Deal” that were later terminated.25 One was the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which replaced the Federal Emergency Relief Administration created at the start of the New Deal. About 85% of program participants were receiving poor relief. Program eligibility was limited to one member of each family..."

https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/er...-and-wwii/

Our "global commitments" like foreign aid have been drastically cut back in recent years. "everything else that the liberals keep committing us to pay for these days" consists of needed programs for today. You can't expect "liberals" to pay attention only to the needs that were noticed in the 1930s. Perhaps you refer to medicaid, developed as part of the "great society" that expanded on the 1930s reforms, or maybe food stamps or Obamacare. But I don't know what you mean. In the last 40 years of Reaganomics, liberals have gotten very little new programs passed, and the ones that survive have been cut back. Welfare is no longer free and can be taken away before the need is over.

Just because liberals want to have these programs does not make them "Marxists." Yet you accuse all liberals of being Marxists because they support these liberal reforms. You and your president constantly put out misinformation like this in order to arouse prejudice and hatred among the gullible.