ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
By and large, today's Democratic Party is not nearly as liberal as it once was. For example, LBJ was well to the left of Obama. FDR was well to the left of any modern Democrat. The only area where Democrats are more liberal today is on some social issues.
Well, I'm not sure I can agree completely. I see a tremendous tilt towards Progressivism, which is certainly more liberal than what I consider was the standard among Democrats before. There continues to be a massive increase in regulatory powers, and those societal issues aren't just window dressing, but represent significant changes.
Of course then there is Obamacare, which some would argue far overshadows any Great Society objective LBJ set.
Obamacare is minuscule in its scope compared to the Great Society. For example, Medicare is not just the largest socialized health program in America, it is the largest socialized health program on earth. Johnson signed into law 40 anti-poverty programs and 60 education programs. Half of the federal government today was enacted in the 4 years he was in office.
HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963 DEC. 16, 1963
PREVENTION & ABATEMENT OF AIR POLLUTION
(THE CLEAN AIR ACT) DEC. 17, 1963
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT OF 1963 DEC. 18, 1963
INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT JAN. 22,1964
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 JULY 2, 1964
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964 JULY 9, 1964
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1964 AUG. 13, 1964
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 AUG. 20, 1964
FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964 AUG. 31, 1964
WILDERNESS ACT SEPT. 3, 1964
NATIONAL ARTS CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1964 SEPT. 3, 1964
MANPOWER ACT OF 1965 APRIL 26, 1965
OLDER AMERICANS ACT OF 1965 JULY 14, 1965
SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1965 JULY 30, 1965
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 AUG. 6, 1965
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965 AUG. 10, 1965
PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965 AUG. 26, 1965
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT SEPT. 9, 1965
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS & THE HUMANITIES
ACT OF 1965 SEPT. 29, 1965
AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT OCT. 2, 1965
AMENDMENT TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OCT. 3, 1965
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 NOV. 8, 1965
CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966 OCT. 11, 1966
CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1966 NOV. 3, 1966
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT MAY 8, 1968
Obama is a Goldwater Conservative compared to LBJ. Most people today do not realize how far to the right both parties have moved in the last 40 years. For the Republicans it started with Reagan, then the Gingrich Congress, and now with the Tea Party. With the Democrats the transition resulted from the DLC in the 80s and 90s.
Since there are those who argue Obamacare was designed to open the door to single payer, such a result would play pretty well against the various programs you listed.
I think it's a stretch past the breaking point to suggest Obama is a Goldwater Conservative compared to LBJ. When one looks at initiatives involving education, environment, "social justice", etc., there are some seriously liberal/progressive ideologies in force, with profound impacts on every person living in the U.S., not just those the government deemed needy in the '60's.
With such agendas at work, I'm thinking "far to the right" is a phrase that is completely vacant from any reference to President Obama.
By and large, today's Democratic Party is not nearly as liberal as it once was. For example, LBJ was well to the left of Obama. FDR was well to the left of any modern Democrat. The only area where Democrats are more liberal today is on some social issues.
Obamacare is minuscule in its scope compared to the Great Society. For example, Medicare is not just the largest socialized health program in America, it is the largest socialized health program on earth. Johnson signed into law 40 anti-poverty programs and 60 education programs. Half of the federal government today was enacted in the 4 years he was in office.
HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963 DEC. 16, 1963
PREVENTION & ABATEMENT OF AIR POLLUTION
(THE CLEAN AIR ACT) DEC. 17, 1963
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT OF 1963 DEC. 18, 1963
INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT JAN. 22,1964
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 JULY 2, 1964
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964 JULY 9, 1964
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1964 AUG. 13, 1964
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 AUG. 20, 1964
FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964 AUG. 31, 1964
WILDERNESS ACT SEPT. 3, 1964
NATIONAL ARTS CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1964 SEPT. 3, 1964
MANPOWER ACT OF 1965 APRIL 26, 1965
OLDER AMERICANS ACT OF 1965 JULY 14, 1965
SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1965 JULY 30, 1965
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 AUG. 6, 1965
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965 AUG. 10, 1965
PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965 AUG. 26, 1965
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT SEPT. 9, 1965
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS & THE HUMANITIES
ACT OF 1965 SEPT. 29, 1965
AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT OCT. 2, 1965
AMENDMENT TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OCT. 3, 1965
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 NOV. 8, 1965
CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966 OCT. 11, 1966
CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1966 NOV. 3, 1966
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT MAY 8, 1968
Obama is a Goldwater Conservative compared to LBJ. Most people today do not realize how far to the right both parties have moved in the last 40 years. For the Republicans it started with Reagan, then the Gingrich Congress, and now with the Tea Party. With the Democrats the transition resulted from the DLC in the 80s and 90s.
If Obama was as far to the right as you say, there would be no need for the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is nothing new. Its nothing but the old Religious Right repackaged. Every time a Dem gets in office the far right starts screaming communism. They did it while JFK was in office, they did it while LBJ was in office, they did it while Clinton was in office and they are doing it today. It is nothing new.
Many factors affect one's outlook about various things - history, current events, politics, religion, media, family & friends, personal character traits, life experiences, environment, upbringing, education, etc. etc. etc.
Just curious. Nothing ulterior, just curiosity.
What is your outlook re the future of the United States of America - and maybe why?
Very Optimistic
Somewhat Optimistic
Dunno
Somewhat Pessimistic
Very Pessimistic
I think you need to read up more on the Great Society then. Its scope was well beyond anything the Obama Administration has pushed for. Moreover, the New Deal was as well. Its not like Obama in response to the Great Recession put tens of Millions of Americans to work for the federal government.
That all said, I have no doubt that in California there are some extremely liberal Democrats. I think I would be a conservative if I lived in California. However, they are not in any way representative of the party as a whole anymore.
Well, as a Baby Boomer, I've lived through the initiatives, and I've listened to the debates, so I do have some working knowledge of LBJ's Great Society. I do think there is a difference between what has been accomplished, certainly. But I suppose the question relates to President Obama and what he has proposed, versus what he has accomplished.
If the measure is "accomplished" I can see where one might suggest President Obama does not measure up to the liberalism of LBJ. If the measure is "proposed", I think President Obama stacks up quite well.
There are massive changes in society taking place as a direct result of President Obama's intiatives. Again, from education, to energy, to environment, to government roles in family and government roles in business. These aren't small moves, these are society changing moves, much like those put in place during LBJ's administration. I think it's a mistake, or an omission by design, to suggest otherwise.
The fact that Obama said upfront that he wanted to "fundamentally transform America," should have been a wakeup call to everyone that loves our Country and what it stands for. We were warned, and it is taking place! Unfortunately I would have preferred that statement to be merely braggadocio, rather than actual. :thumbdown:
Nice list of donors. If you care to take the time, you will discover some of the most prolific Progressive operations on the planet. All part of the great Soros Progressive Machine. Check out the Ford Foudation for example. Interesting how they and George Soros are joined at the hip in so many of these trusts and "charitible" organizations. You should learn about Soros' Democracy Alliance.
Then there's the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, the Progressive brains behind the California Education Policy Fund.
As I have been writing, the information you're counting on has all been prepared by those who have a bias, and an interest in more money the CTA is trying to confiscate from taxpayers in California. The Prop 13 story is complete BS. Nothing presented by these highly dubious sources stands up to the smell test. The facts are inescapable.
I have to tell you I am VERY informed and involved in these matters in California, and you truely are in a no-win scenario with this issue you're attempting to debate.
:doh. Um, I gave you two sources about prop 13 that were from conservative sources. Not only are you unwillingly to admit to that, now you are unwillingly to look at hard numbers about per pupil spending because you are trying to connect Ed Source to Soros in some bizzaro way. Sources don't create the formula that is used for per pupil spending. Talk about willful ignorance.
Your sources were not convervative, but that makes no difference. EdSource is a Progressive organization backed by Progressive groups. Many of those Progressive groups are directly connected to George Soros and his Progressive Machine operations. I've suggested you look into Soros Democracy Alliance, but apparently you have decided to claim the connection bizzaro, rather than learning for yourself.
Nothing I have posted is not backed up facts available directly from actual sources. Your sources, on the other hand, are directly connected to source with money in the game. Not a good place to get accurate information.
So be it.
A crock of BS. You have not stated different per pupil spending!!! You just tried to pull an ad hominem with mine. GO ahead, I dare you to post something saying CA is different in per pupil spending than what is reported by several other sources. Go ahead....give me ONE. TIA
I already have. Not my first rodeo rabbit, so your demand doesn't change anything. It's apparent logic is lost in the face of the Progressive sources you've chosen to believe. They count on that.
Continuing to use ad Hominem shouldn't be confused with presenting evidence.
Continuing to ignore presented evidence doesn't change the end result, regardless of how hard you want to try.
You're welcome to believe what you read from the sources you chose, and I will continue to the same. I prefer accuracy.
I see no numbers. Where are your numbers?
Sigh.
You can go here:
Education Budget - Reports (CA Dept of Education)
Here:
Qualified School Construction Bond (QSCB) - Facilities (CA Dept of Education)
Here:
http://www.cta.org/~/media/Documents/PDFs/About/Retired/CaliforniaPublicPension.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20140126T0700231894
And here:
Data & Statistics (CA Dept of Education)
Not one of those links shows that CA pays more per pupil spending than other states. The fact is they do not. They are 49th. You give me a link on construction bonds and my question to you is what state does not use bonds to help pay for school infrastructure??? Also, most states also have pensions for teachers so you can't use that as a CA has to pay pensions so we really pay more toward pupil spending.
Where do your sources indicate California ranks against other states when all actual spending on education is factored in?
Ha, I'm still waiting for your numbers. None of your links give me this ranking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?