Opinion of Lyndon B. Johnson

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Wow. The vote is almost the same as Harrison.

Yeah, except the Harrison thread only had 30 votes, so I don't think people cared a whole lot about him.

No one really cares about Benjamin Harrison.

[ElectionsGuy]

Wow. The vote is almost the same as Harrison.

Yeah, except the Harrison thread only had 30 votes, so I don't think people cared a whole lot about him.

No one really cares about Benjamin Harrison.

Oh no, I'm talking about William Henry Harrison, the 9th president.

[Goldwater]

Wow. The vote is almost the same as Harrison.

Yeah, except the Harrison thread only had 30 votes, so I don't think people cared a whole lot about him.

No one really cares about Benjamin Harrison.

Oh no, I'm talking about William Henry Harrison, the 9th president.

No one cares about him, either.

[ElectionsGuy]

Wow. The vote is almost the same as Harrison.

Yeah, except the Harrison thread only had 30 votes, so I don't think people cared a whole lot about him.

No one really cares about Benjamin Harrison.

Oh no, I'm talking about William Henry Harrison, the 9th president.

No one cares about him, either.

Hence my original response to Obamanation.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

It's a shame Oldiesfreak didn't show up. He and his revisionist history is always funny to watch.

[DevotedDemocrat]

I wouldn't have health insurance if not for LBJ. My mother wouldn't have become a nurse and I would not be here if not for LBJ's Nurse Training Act. Civil rights might have been delayed had it not been for LBJ's legislative skill and devotion to civil rights; millions of elderly people would've been dead without health insurance or deeply in debt if not for LBJ, the environment might be in much worse shape and our roadways and highways might still be messy and shim and his wife. Millions of immigrants, legal immigrants, who have brough new life and diversity to our shores, would not be here if not for his Iimmigration Act of 1965. Millions of children would not have had access to schools.

To be liberal and denounce LBJ is to denounce liberalism. The man and his flaws and complexities and yet greatness mirror liberalism itself. I see liberals here complaining about the tea party and how we've drifted rightward as a nation, and yet you put down the last truly liberal President we had, the last New Deal supporting liberal who fought for the Great Society because he believed in the vision of FDR and wanted to finish it.

LBJ may have been a pragmatic, opportunistic politician when he was on the rise, but when he had full executive power, the guy devoted t to liberal causes, even at the price of his political capital and the New Deal Coalition. Democrats worship a do nothing President like Clinton and praise his Third Way wife when we should be trying to rehabilitate LBJ.

Many of the same so called 'liberals' who voted HP for LBJ will vote FF for Reagan You guys deserve the Tea Party.

[Oakvale]

I wouldn't have health insurance if not for LBJ. My mother wouldn't have become a nurse and I would not be here if not for LBJ's Nurse Training Act. Civil rights might have been delayed had it not been for LBJ's legislative skill and devotion to civil rights; millions of elderly people would've been dead without health insurance or deeply in debt if not for LBJ, the environment might be in much worse shape and our roadways and highways might still be messy and shim and his wife. Millions of immigrants, legal immigrants, who have brough new life and diversity to our shores, would not be here if not for his Iimmigration Act of 1965. Millions of children would not have had access to schools.

To be liberal and denounce LBJ is to denounce liberalism. The man and his flaws and complexities and yet greatness mirror liberalism itself. I see liberals here complaining about the tea party and how we've drifted rightward as a nation, and yet you put down the last truly liberal President we had, the last New Deal supporting liberal who fought for the Great Society because he believed in the vision of FDR and wanted to finish it.

LBJ may have been a pragmatic, opportunistic politician when he was on the rise, but when he had full executive power, the guy devoted t to liberal causes, even at the price of his political capital and the New Deal Coalition. Democrats worship a do nothing President like Clinton and praise his Third Way wife when we should be trying to rehabilitate LBJ.

Many of the same so called 'liberals' who voted HP for LBJ will vote FF for Reagan You guys deserve the Tea Party.

Would you say you're an LBJ Revivalist?

[dead0man]

What percentage of the FF voters in this thread would have voted HP if alive in 1968?
85% is my guess.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Since LBJ supported Brazilian Coup D'Etat of 1964, as a Brazilian I would give him and almost every President of this thread a Horrible Person vote since the American Foreign Policy tends to be a lot of intrusive on Brazilian's public life, although I can't put all the blame on the American people. Ironically, I believe that LBJ would have had much more ideological similarities with Mr. Goulart than with the Presidents of the Civil-Military Dictatorship that we have had in Brazil from 1964 to 1985.

So, for the purpose of this forum and for the purpose of this kind of thread, I tend to vote as an American Voter.I don't really appreciate Lyndon B. Johnson methods and  I am not a fan of Machiavellian Politics either. Moreover, I'm in most of the cases staunchly against war and I would never support the Vietnam War but I don't think I can give LBJ a Horrible Person vote because this man had a great record when it comes to Domestic Policy. Hence, I will give him an FF vote.

Yes, LBJ was wrong about Vietnam but many others were and he didn't tried to use this conflict as a campaign tool just like Richard Nixon did, in 1968, destroying the Peace Accords, and in1972, by using the Vietnam War against McGovern.In many ways, Vietnam is a greater problem and LBJ cannot hold the responsibility for many of the things that happened there.

LBJ was a wheeler-dealer in many ways. This was a good thing and a problematic thing. His capacities as a negotiator where key to see his thousands of progressive ideas pass in Congress but his insistence that everything could be solved with this kind of "You help me and I help you, but if you don't I kill you" strategy was not really helpful for his Foreign Policy. He thought that the Bombing Halts, the Escalation and the increase in participation of American forces coupled with a huge set of investments plans in Vietnam would make both sides of the war go to the table. But he didn't know who he was dealing with and Hoi Chi Min was really not the kind of guy that can be easily dealt. Summing thins up, Wheeler-dealers don't go well with Revolutionaries.

However, just as the DevotedDemocrat pointed out, when it comes to Domestic Policy, LBJ's Great Society made many of the things that Truman desired on his Fair Deal initiative. This was the guy that invested a lot on higher education in the United States, this was the man that invested a lot on American infrastructure and, more importantly, he was the man that passed two significant Civil Rights Bills and that created both Medicare and Medicaid.  It was the apogee of Progressivism and it was definitely one of the fairest eras, economically speaking, to live.

The Middle Class destruction is LBJ fault? Give me a brake of baloney!

You can blame Nixon, too, if it makes you happy

Now, regarding to this baloney, I cannot say that about Nixon but the existence of a Middle Class and a strong Middle Class is, in many ways, a result of government action towards social justice and the reduction of inequalities. I could understand a libertarian or a conservative economist saying that Liberal Policy is the reason why the economy was not doing well but I can't understand why would someone blame LBJ for the Middle Class collapse.

In a very enjoyable book of Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal, Mr. Krugman shows with thousands of facts how the Movement Conservatives were  the main responsible for the weakening of the Middle Class. Although technological development and the increase of free trade could in fact raise income inequality, the significant dismantling of Social Security and welfare mechanisms by Presidents like George H. W Bush (more shyly) and, especially, Ronald Reagan are the main reasons why the Middle Class has been reducing since the early eighties.

Middle Class was always stronger when welfare investments were greater and we can check that on History. The "Golden Era" of American Capitalism, the early 1900s, was also one of the eras with greater economic disparities of American history and unsurprisingly it was also the era where welfare was almost non-existent, then we have the crash of 1929 and after that a strengthening of the Middle Class specially after the WWII, all of that with greater investments of government in people's standards of living. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ and even Nixon (with some reservations) faced an America with a strong market based economy but also with a strong Middle Class. I'm not sure about Gerald Ford's and Jimmy Carter data, but the Middle Class remained pretty stable and the economic downturn of the final seventies and early eighties were largely caused by the oil prices and by miscalculations of monetary policy.  And then we have the gutting of the Middle Class once more, Reagan, Bush I and Shrub slashing social expenditure while increasing military expenditures and raising regressive taxation and Slick Willie being a Moderate Hero failing to pass significant progressive reform.

[AggregateDemand]

Now, regarding to this baloney, I cannot say that about Nixon but the existence of a Middle Class and a strong Middle Class is, in many ways, a result of government action towards social justice and the reduction of inequalities.

No. The American middle class was created by military spending during WWII, not liberal social justice. Throughout the 50s 60s and 70s, military spending averaged roughly 10% of GDP (compared to 4.5% today) and roughly 55% of all government expenditures (compared to 20% today). Since the military provided education, healthcare, pension, and other benefits; as well as a disciplinary structure, military built the strongest middle class in the world by taxing just 19% of GDP. No middle class has ever reproduced that achievement, besides a brief moment during the dot com bubble.

Eisenhower complained bitterly about the military industrial complex, which isn't necessary bad by itself, but it wasn't until LBJ that DC established a framework for slashing military spending, and transferring the funds into non-investment handouts. LBJ had to dismantle JFK's New Frontier policies to make it happen. Nixon saw the potential of LBJ's new vote buying arrangement so he made expansions. As soon as the Tet Offensive was contained, military spending tumbled. Military spending received a temporary boost during the Reagan admin, but it quickly plummeted to 4% GDP during Clinton's presidency.

Liberal social policy could be responsible for building the most powerful middle class on earth, but politicians have figured out it's easier to make specious economic arguments and then buy votes with social programs. Conservative Republicans were not responsible for defunding the military and transferring the spending to economically ineffective programs. Conservatives and Libertarians are the result of bureaucratic malfeasance around the world.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Now, regarding to this baloney, I cannot say that about Nixon but the existence of a Middle Class and a strong Middle Class is, in many ways, a result of government action towards social justice and the reduction of inequalities.

No. The American middle class was created by military spending during WWII, not liberal social justice. Throughout the 50s 60s and 70s, military spending averaged roughly 10% of GDP (compared to 4.5% today) and roughly 55% of all government expenditures (compared to 20% today). Since the military provided education, healthcare, pension, and other benefits; as well as a disciplinary structure, military built the strongest middle class in the world by taxing just 19% of GDP. No middle class has ever reproduced that achievement, besides a brief moment during the dot com bubble.

Eisenhower complained bitterly about the military industrial complex, which isn't necessary bad by itself, but it wasn't until LBJ that DC established a framework for slashing military spending, and transferring the funds into non-investment handouts. LBJ had to dismantle JFK's New Frontier policies to make it happen. Nixon saw the potential of LBJ's new vote buying arrangement so he made expansions. As soon as the Tet Offensive was contained, military spending tumbled. Military spending received a temporary boost during the Reagan admin, but it quickly plummeted to 4% GDP during Clinton's presidency.

Liberal social policy could be responsible for building the most powerful middle class on earth, but politicians have figured out it's easier to make specious economic arguments and then buy votes with social programs. Conservative Republicans were not responsible for defunding the military and transferring the spending to economically ineffective programs. Conservatives and Libertarians are the result of bureaucratic malfeasance around the world.

If welfare programs are truly inefficient, what difference does it make if they're provided as military benefits, instead?

[AggregateDemand]

If welfare programs are truly inefficient, what difference does it make if they're provided as military benefits, instead?

Because military expenditures for soldiers often make their way into the economy in some productive capacity, and we all benefit. When the military train medics and engineers, like they did for my grandmother and grandfather during WWII, those soldiers are eventually discharged, and the general economy benefits from well-trained civil engineers and medical workers. GI Bill education also improves economic productivity. Even during active duty, soldiers and equipment provide an economic benefit by contributing to global stability, though our Iraq operations have put that goal in jeopardy.

The welfare state does not have the same track record, neither does the FICA retirement state. The extraordinary tax rates inherent to the welfare system keep people trapped in poverty. Transfer payments, SNAP, Medicaid, etc often produce nothing other than prolonged poverty. Social Security payments and Medicare go to people who've dropped out of the labor force, though retirees still produce some imputed economic activity.

I'm not saying we should turn into heartless technocrats, but we are the opposite of heartless technocrats at the moment. We are killing ourselves with bad charity because the optics are good for politicians.....as long as you ignore the national debt.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If welfare programs are truly inefficient, what difference does it make if they're provided as military benefits, instead?

Because military expenditures for soldiers often make their way into the economy in some productive capacity, and we all benefit. When the military train medics and engineers, like they did for my grandmother and grandfather during WWII, those soldiers are eventually discharged, and the general economy benefits from well-trained civil engineers and medical workers. GI Bill education also improves economic productivity. Even during active duty, soldiers and equipment provide an economic benefit by contributing to global stability, though our Iraq operations have put that goal in jeopardy.

The welfare state does not have the same track record, neither does the FICA retirement state. The extraordinary tax rates inherent to the welfare system keep people trapped in poverty. Transfer payments, SNAP, Medicaid, etc often produce nothing other than prolonged poverty. Social Security payments and Medicare go to people who've dropped out of the labor force, though retirees still produce some imputed economic activity.

I'm not saying we should turn into heartless technocrats, but we are the opposite of heartless technocrats at the moment. We are killing ourselves with bad charity because the optics are good for politicians.....as long as you ignore the national debt.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Going by your posts, you seem to be under the impression - and, correct me if I'm wrong - that we are still living in the New Deal era.  This is certainly not the case.

While it is true that Social Security, welfare, etc. live on, the New Deal era came to an end around the mid-70s with the rise of corporate special interests.  (It was in 1975 that the SUN-PAC decision legalized corporate PACs, the lobbyist organizations that bribe Congress today.)  The number of PACs exploded ten years after that.  Ever since the Carter administration, lobbyists have enjoyed a number of victories on Capitol Hill from deregulation, capital gains tax cuts, Social Security tax increases, and they even persuaded Congress to impose a tax on unemployment benefits.

Keep in mind that much of our domestic spending goes to middle-class entitlement programs like student loans, school lunches, job training, and Medicaid.  Medicaid, by the way, is the largest item of those four, and most of Medicaid represents profits for hospitals and doctors.  It should not be described as an anti-poverty program.

I don't disagree that military aid has boosted the economy, but military dollars have to be spent in a way for vets and troops to actually benefit.  How about stopping all those contracts for building bigger and better weapons to kill more people and ending all the wars?  How about investing more in the troops themselves instead of fueling our already bloated military industrial complex?  There is a better way to reduce military spending without suppressing economic growth: cut the Pentagon budget, invest more in domestic programs which create more jobs than military spending.  And the automatic budget cuts of the Budget Control Act simply take military budgets back to where they were in 2007.

All of that in mind, and the US still spends 43% of global military expenditures.

[AggregateDemand]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Going by your posts, you seem to be under the impression - and, correct me if I'm wrong - that we are still living in the New Deal era.  This is certainly not the case.

While it is true that Social Security, welfare, etc. live on, the New Deal era came to an end around the mid-70s with the rise of corporate special interests.  (It was in 1975 that the SUN-PAC decision legalized corporate PACs, the lobbyist organizations that bribe Congress today.)  The number of PACs exploded ten years after that.  Ever since the Carter administration, lobbyists have enjoyed a number of victories on Capitol Hill from deregulation, capital gains tax cuts, Social Security tax increases, and they even persuaded Congress to impose a tax on unemployment benefits.

Keep in mind that much of our domestic spending goes to middle-class entitlement programs like student loans, school lunches, job training, and Medicaid.  Medicaid, by the way, is the largest item of those four, and most of Medicaid represents profits for hospitals and doctors.  It should not be described as an anti-poverty program.

If you want to discuss socio-economics, you need to make it less obvious that you've never read a federal budget. We spend $1.7T on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Keep in mind that 60% of present Medicaid outlays go to senior citizens for LTC and LTCI premiums. We spend another $400B on Welfare/Unemployment (includes SNAP) and $220B on interest to finance the explosion of entitlement spending. The budget is about 65% entitlement spending for the elderly and poor, and 35% on productivity spending for the middle class. In the 1960s, the formula was reversed.

Education, by comparison, is a paltry $85B budget. Transportation is an anemic $90B, DOJ is around $30B, agricultural development is just $35B, and government administration is only about $30B.

Are our problems becoming more evident? We've turned the entire diet into calories from fat. We have heart disease.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Going by your posts, you seem to be under the impression - and, correct me if I'm wrong - that we are still living in the New Deal era.  This is certainly not the case.

While it is true that Social Security, welfare, etc. live on, the New Deal era came to an end around the mid-70s with the rise of corporate special interests.  (It was in 1975 that the SUN-PAC decision legalized corporate PACs, the lobbyist organizations that bribe Congress today.)  The number of PACs exploded ten years after that.  Ever since the Carter administration, lobbyists have enjoyed a number of victories on Capitol Hill from deregulation, capital gains tax cuts, Social Security tax increases, and they even persuaded Congress to impose a tax on unemployment benefits.

Keep in mind that much of our domestic spending goes to middle-class entitlement programs like student loans, school lunches, job training, and Medicaid.  Medicaid, by the way, is the largest item of those four, and most of Medicaid represents profits for hospitals and doctors.  It should not be described as an anti-poverty program.

If you want to discuss socio-economics, you need to make it less obvious that you've never read a federal budget. We spend $1.8T on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Keep in mind that 60% of present Medicaid outlays go to senior citizens for LTC and LTCI premiums. We spend another $400B on Welfare/Unemployment (includes SNAP) and $220B on interest to finance the explosion of entitlement spending. The budget is about 65% entitlement spending for the elderly and poor, and 35% on productivity spending for the middle class. In the 1960s, the formula was reversed.

Education, by comparison, is a paltry $85B budget. Transportation is an anemic $90B, DOJ is around $30B, agricultural development is just $35B, and government administration is only about $30B.

Are our problems becoming more evident? We've turned the entire diet into calories from fat. We have heart disease.

Are you intentionally ignoring parts of my post?  That's been happening a lot to me today.

12% of the 2012 budget went toward safety net programs, which provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to families in poverty.  We spend a whopping 7% on federal retirees and veterans.  Stop confusing entitlements with anti-poverty programs.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

If I need to tell you, then you obviously don't know me.

[AggregateDemand]

Are you intentionally ignoring parts of my post?  That's been happening a lot to me today.

12% of the 2012 budget went toward safety net programs, which provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to families in poverty.  We spend a whopping 7% on federal retirees and veterans.  Stop confusing entitlements with anti-poverty programs.

"Entitlements" is just shorthand for social spending distributed directly to individual tax payers. Nothing has been confused on my end.

If you want me to address all of your post, I will. As appealing as it might be to think that the world revolves around PAC regulations, it doesn't. Macroeconomic policy plays a central role, and we learned that an economic model called the Phillips Curve functions differently than we anticipated, especially with fiat currency. Improper use of the Phillips Curve model led, in part, to stagflation. The rise of monetarism, neoliberalism, neoclassicism, and supply-side economics were the real driving force behind the Reagan Revolution (a revolution Goldwater strated 16 years earlier, to build on JFK's New Frontier). Despite much pomp and circumstance from Republicans and Democrats, the federal spending trends have not changed.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

He was a Democratic party loyalist, but he had too many problems to be good. He was racist, sexist, and homophobic. Vietnam was righteous originally, but later devolved into horror. His entitlement programs were later found to be economically unnecessary even by presidents in his own party. He was just a trainwreck president.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Are you intentionally ignoring parts of my post?  That's been happening a lot to me today.

12% of the 2012 budget went toward safety net programs, which provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to families in poverty.  We spend a whopping 7% on federal retirees and veterans.  Stop confusing entitlements with anti-poverty programs.

"Entitlements" is just shorthand for social spending distributed directly to individual tax payers. Nothing has been confused on my end.

But you're misrepresenting the disparities between Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP and safety net programs.  You cannot include middle-class entitlements in figures designed to discredit the War on Poverty.  I already described how our military expenditures are not being used to spur growth and linked you to a study proving that domestic spending creates more jobs, which is entirely contrary to your premise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're missing the entire point.  My point was that the government has shifted focus away from anti-poverty spending and many of the New Deal/Great Society-era initiatives have been scaled back, in part due to the rise of special interests.

[AggregateDemand]

But you're misrepresenting the disparities between Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP and safety net programs.  You cannot include middle-class entitlements in figures designed to discredit the War on Poverty.  I already described how our military expenditures are not being used to spur growth and linked you to a study proving that domestic spending creates more jobs, which is entirely contrary to your premise.

If I were trying to disparage the War on Poverty, I'd point out the high marginal tax rates on the poor, and the paternalistic futility of expanding non-cash benefits, other than healthcare perhaps. I'd point out that the feds have let senior citizens raid Medicaid. I wouldn't bother trying to misrepresent funding.

My post was about LBJ's Great Society, which started dismantling the military (the middle class entitlement of the day) to build Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, Food Stamps, and HUD. Over time, Great Society programs have expanded so rapidly that they've crowded out proper investment and productivity spending for the middle class. The negative-feedback cycle created by the Great Society breeds poverty, and we've been deficit spending since the 80s to counteract the lack of middle class investment. Great Society has also eliminated class mobility for people born into poverty.

GS looks good on paper, and that's why Nixon tried to steal it for Republicans, which gave him a landslide victory in 1972. Unfortunately, the underlying economics behind the Great Society are quite grotesque. Most people don't understand how bad the problem really is.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

But you're misrepresenting the disparities between Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP and safety net programs.  You cannot include middle-class entitlements in figures designed to discredit the War on Poverty.  I already described how our military expenditures are not being used to spur growth and linked you to a study proving that domestic spending creates more jobs, which is entirely contrary to your premise.

If I were trying to disparage the War on Poverty, I'd point out the high marginal tax rates on the poor, and the paternalistic futility of expanding non-cash benefits, other than healthcare perhaps. I'd point out that the feds have let senior citizens raid Medicaid. I wouldn't bother trying to misrepresent funding.

My post was about LBJ's Great Society, which started dismantling the military (the middle class entitlement of the day) to build Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, Food Stamps, and HUD. Over time, Great Society programs have expanded so rapidly that they've crowded out proper investment and productivity spending for the middle class. The negative-feedback cycle created by the Great Society breeds poverty, and we've been deficit spending since the 80s to counteract the lack of middle class investment. Great Society has also eliminated class mobility for people born into poverty.

GS looks good on paper, and that's why Nixon tried to steal it for Republicans, which gave him a landslide victory in 1972. Unfortunately, the underlying economics behind the Great Society are quite grotesque. Most people don't understand how bad the problem really is.

I'm going to keep this post as brief as possible, because I don't think I could do otherwise without repeating myself.

We can't make the mistake of conflating military spending with veteran's spending.  If you mean to suggest LBJ dismantled veterans' benefits for entitlement programs, I cannot verify or dispute that, but I have very strong doubts that he did.  (Though, interestingly, it is Republicans who have consistently opposed raising VA benefits and, up until very recently, supported expanding the military industrial complex.)  12% of the 2012 budget went toward safety net programs, 7% went to veterans, and 19% went to defense (the Pentagon).

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Can we get to the Nixon thread now?

[ElectionsGuy]

Excellent turnout once again, almost matching the FDR thread. Still 4 hours to vote.

Can we get to the Nixon thread now?

If you haven't noticed, its only been three days, this thread just got a sh!tload of responses. Mostly due to arguing and debating. But yeah the thread has been made.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Sorry, I was just getting sick of all the arguing and just wanted to go on to the next one.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Sorry, I was just getting sick of all the arguing and just wanted to go on to the next one.

This is a political forum. We argue here.