I’m arguing against a “new deal” democrat who calls himself an independent, I’m trying to show him that FDR’s policies favored the rich and he thinks big government competes with big business. Can anyone debunk this myth for me?
This is what he said:
"would you say that government was really in the pockets of the rich when FDR passed social security amongst other things? Would you say that the government was really in the pockets of the rich when LBJ passed Medicare and Medicaid?
New Deal and Great Society programs weren’t exactly handouts for the rich. Whether one likes these programs or not, most were big and effective programs that positively impacted the majority of Americans. They were passed with a dem president and dem majorities in the congress back in the days when the dems actually did things.
The disappointment has been with the dems unable to do much good now for the majority of Americans even when they have the presidency and majorities in the congress."
Government is in bed with a lot of interests, mostly corporate. But not only corporate. The government is in bed with any interest it can convince large parts of the populace to allow it to spend money on and create debt. This way the corporate interest in control of the FED can make even more money. This is not something I would be trying to disprove.
I would try to convince him that the more we support welfare, the more money corporate interests in control of the FED make. Anarchy is a valid argument for both sides. Government only provides benevolent things if the elite’s can make money off it.
Trust me, Im a New Deal Democrat (by vote, for practical reasons. I actually would rather we get rid of the state all together and provide this through social means. But in the meantime, I am not just going to sit on my hands)… as far as you can trust a leftist anyway lol.
Hah, the new deal was a set of giant special privileges for farmers and unions at the expense of everyone else… I can’t do the research for you though.
His basic assumption is that the people in office give a damn whether the common man goes to bed hungry. They might if votes mattered, but they don’t. Each individual realizes the probability that his vote will matter is low, and finds it a waste of time to pay serious attention to elections. As a result, political officials can get away with a looot of crap.
The disappointment has been that the dems don’t understand economics or history or political philosophy but still view themselves as the lightbringers and saviors of the poor and downtrodden. Its really cute.
The disappointment has been that the dems don’t understand economics or history or political philosophy but still view themselves as the lightbringers and saviors of the poor and downtrodden. Its really cute.
I know, we’re all just ignorant bufoons right? We don’t see the subjective nature of human interaction the same way you do, so we must have a mental disorder… right? You do know they would say the same thing about you, right (like the right wing belief that if you are rich, you must have worked hard for it [inheritance is hard work lol])? Why don’t we just move past such petty and childish notions and go after the real enemies.
inds it a waste of time to pay serious attention to elections. As a result, political officials can get away with a looot of crap
You’ll get no argument from me there. It is a travesty. Even tho I don’t really support the state in the first place, large portions of the populace refusing to vote gives them all the consent they need. As George Carlin once said, “maybe it’s not the politicians that suck, maybe it’s the public.”
he new deal was a set of giant special privileges for farmers and unions at the expense of everyone else
Why would you need research, I thought that was self-evident? But, you forgot the FED, the one who got the biggest handout of them all. (You also forgot veterans and the unemployed but, eh)
The New Deal “saved capitalism from itself,” right? Well, what is this “capitalism” they’re talking about? They’re talking precisely about the corporate system, one where big companies and particularly the cabal of bankers have special privileges. Such a system does, indeed, destroy itself - it’s called the Austrian Business Cycle. What happens after the crash? Reallocation of resources - i.e. the big corporations fall apart and a new distribution of wealth appears. That’s what FDR stepped in to prevent!
I will try to dissect his social security argument. First, the objective of social security wasn’t to provide for the poor by taking from the rich. The objective of SS was to put more money into the pockets of politicians who could then hand it out to their political buddies. This is confirmed by the fact that the government has been consistently taking money from the SS fund [ process also known as robbing the cookie jar ] to spend on various programs. Basically, whenever the inflow of cash to SS fund outweighs the outflow , the government takes the surplus cash and gives in return special issue bonds to the SS fund(promise to pay cash back to SS fund). Currently, the government owes 2.5 trillion to the SS fund, which it will never repay. This 2.5 trillion has been spent on various programs that have benefited the buddies of politicians. Who is more likely to influence politicians-poor or rich?! If you look the expenditures of the government, you can see that great deal of money goes on national defense, which generally represents a handout to military-industrial complex. Military industrial complex took off with Roosevelt administration and his involvement in WWII. Also, LBJ was a big favorite of the military industrial complex since he escalated involvement in Vietnam.
Back to SS. Since SS is a gigantic Ponzi scheme and by definition has to go bust, the ultimate loss is taken by future generation who will end up subsidizing retirees but will never get their share of benefits when the system goes bust. In the meantime, as far as the tax burden goes, the people who make more money end up paying more into the SS fund but then again they are entitled to more in benefits when they retire. However, I am not sure if actuarial formulas are rigged to benefit more the poor contributors. Now, your opponent could argue that employers have to match the employee contribution to SS fund so that in reality workers (who are poor) are getting a handout from employers (who are rich------I understand that this simple division is idiotic, but my guess is that this is how you friend views the world). However, this would be a false argument since employers simply shift the burden to workers by giving them smaller wages.
As for the effectiveness of these programs, all you have to tell him is that they are all about to go bust.
I don’t know much about New Deal, but my basic understanding is that it destroyed a lot of small competitors of bigger firms. I am sure somebody here could help you with the specifics of New Deal. As for Medicare and Medicaid, I think those are pretty much the same as the SS story.
Social Security: Corporations don’t have to offer pension plans because the gov will take care of people in old age. People are more likely to demand a pension or savings plan from their employers if there was no SS to take care of them. This is similar to how corporations offload the cost of educating their employees by having the gov subsidize education.
Medicare: It results in an increase in spending in the medical sector of the economy. Taxes are taken from everyone’s income and funneled into medical care for old people, etc. More is spent on health care than would be otherwise. Now tell me that every doctor, hospital, nursing home, pharmaceutical company, and medical lawyer doesn’t approve of this.