I'd like to take this time to blame boggling ignorance, leading to being vulnerable to ideology leading you to wrong opinions.
LBJ didn't have a "Golden Society" program. He had a "Great Society" program. Not important except for reflecting how familiar you are with what you opine on.
I'm sorry, golden and great are very similar in my first language, apologies.
In fact, LBJ's Great Society programs, while flawed, did great good for the country, doing what society SHOULD do, help its citizens - not to mention the economic benefits of having the poor better off, more consuming - his programs cut the long-term poverty rate in the US by a third. Improved education, etc. (Not enough, as you prove).
Which is why they were immediately followed by one of the longest economic recessions in American history, because high budgetary expenditures obviously work.
What makes his war in Vietnam (started to appease Republican pressure for it to help get support for his programs to aid American) plural, warS in Indochina?
We were involved in the conflict in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as well as parts of Thailand. We did not rage war on merely North Vietnam but each of these nations as well as the communist movement within South Vietnam itself. There were multiple wars raging at the same time in Indochina, many (if not all) were marked with American involvement. We, in the United States, merely group them into one big war. This is not historically correct.
While the US was active in the region, the President who made that plural was Nixon, with his secretly starting war in Cambodia.
Were we doing raids into Cambodia since 1965... I wonder how Nixon managed, time travel?
You are very, very confused about the issues of government spending, the economy, debt. It's all the same to you - spending that helps the country, and corrupt spending. Indeed, you don't even mention one word about 'corrupt spending' - only the right-wing ideology about things like the Great Society.
I'm sorry, but I'm an not sure why you equate "laissez faire" economics with right wing, but it is most certainly liberal in nature. To me, all spending is corrupt. Taxation is violence (application of force is involved in its collection), and thus theft. Any spending of this money is inherently corrupt.
It's citizens like you, who are choosing ignorance, who are the crux of the problem, blindly supporting the forces that misinform you to vote for the actually bad policies.
And who misinforms you of the wonderful nature of your proposals? The state. I'm not sure if you realize, but spending other people's money until we spend more than we all have together, is not a stable foundation for an economy. In fact, it is probably one of the leading causes of global warming: consumerism and overconsumption due to ignoring economic realities.
Back when Mao tried Soviet farming systems, and they failed miserably, his response wasn't to end them - it was to say the problem was, they weren't Soviet ENOUGH. He greatly expanded them and made them even more 'communist' and millions of Chinese starved. You are kind of like that.
Wait, are you actually arguing that forcing kolkhoz systems is a good idea? Not even the Marxists will say that is a good idea. I have no idea what you are smoking but collective farming only works if it is on an voluntary basis, look at the Hutterites of the Great Plains for an idea of how collective farming should work. If we use your logic, we should pursue every bad program. This is unacceptable and a free and open market would not allow such. This is the inherent inefficiency of the state, an inability to admit failure and self-correct (through bankruptcy and other more economically natural processes). The decision to start organizing farms by force is what caused famine, as well as the "kill sparrow" programs which increased infestation of crops by plague incests. Additionally, the five year plans prioritized steel production over agricultural production. The entire incident of Maoist China was caused by central planning, which is inherently inefficient.
Not a word about the CORPORATE policies for their own benefit over the people, about the people drained to benefit the rich who are skyrocketing to a record of wealth.
The corporate system that manufactures inflationary tendencies that cause higher prices for the average person as well as squandering of federal expenditure is due to just that: the federal (and state) expenditure. If the government had no means with which to exercise influence, there would be no possible way of taking money from others (via taxation) and distributing it to corporations. The system that exists in the United States (and most of the world) is inherently corporatist. These companies will extort the system, that we've created and allow them to. The solution is not to spend more as they'll just take advantage of it. Look, for example, at General Electric. The government announces a plan to fund wind power, so they begin constructing wind turbines (in Brazil, no less) and collect federal money and subsidies to sell them at what would be a loss. And now the government announces a high-speed rail project, so they being a plan to start constructing trains in China and selling them to the government, at GE's profit. This would not happen, if we did not have a powerful government. Spending of any sort can be corrupted, from social aid, to subsidies and most certainly defense expenditures. The fact of the matter is that you cannot eliminate this by spending more, but less (ideally none).
Your answer: we need MORE of these polices, cut the benefits for the public more!!!!
My answer is to cut all spending. Although I didn't outline it in the previous post, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Essential to a voluntary free market system is the lack of a state and with it the collection of taxes. Benefits for the public, are no more than a forced system of theft and perceived "gifting". The majority of people suffer a net loss under such a system, again due to the inefficient distribution of resources, as described above. Your answer: we need bigger government that spends on programs that will surpass our entire expenditure by 2040, continue the system of abuse that builds mega-corporations. Now, stop projecting my argument beyond the extreme (it is already extreme enough). Thank you.
Facebook
Twitter