NationStates Jolt Archive

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Given recent events, I think it's worth considering: was Ike right in this prediction? Or was he wrong, and is it more than "a tiny splinter group" that believes in the causes he mentions in this snippet from a letter to his brother?

A prof. at my school has this on his bulletion board, along with a lot of other political stuff.

Sadly, you'll hear of the party again... but he was right on some parts. You can guess which ones I mean. ;)

social security isnt called the third rail of national politics for nothing

Given recent events, I think it's worth considering: was Ike right in this prediction? Or was he wrong, and is it more than "a tiny splinter group" that believes in the causes he mentions in this snippet from a letter to his brother?
Some people, including Grover Norquist, want the Republican party to do just that. They want to make it seem neccessary to the American people by cutting taxes, increasing spending, and using the resulting financial crisis to justify destroying those programs.

Apart from the number being negligible, Ike hit it right on the head. And it's quite likely that the number was much smaller in Ike's day, so I can't criticize him on that score either.

In my opinion, Eisenhower was the last US president to display the quality called wisdom. Since then, it's been fools, damned fools, and goddamned fools.

:rolleyes:

We can only hope.

The problem is that the American dream has become the American delusion, and so many small potatoes think they're going to be benefitted from the same policies that benefit corporations. Everyone wants to hear that they're upwardly-mobile and can become rich with hard work, not that they need to learn how to live with their lower-middle-class wages because few hard-working people are rich and few rich people are hard-working. And this party you speak of is only too happy to tell them exactly what they want to hear.

Given recent events, I think it's worth considering: was Ike right in this prediction? Or was he wrong, and is it more than "a tiny splinter group" that believes in the causes he mentions in this snippet from a letter to his brother?
I have to admit I'm one of those people he described. Right now, the climate in Washington is so poisoned that you'd be laughed outta town if you mentioned that. A few decades ago, however, it was suicide. This group is gaining numbers, but whether it does or doesn't is of no concern to me. I follow it, and that is all that matters.

how in gods name did they get the nickname ike from dwight david eisenhower?

Given recent events, I think it's worth considering: was Ike right in this prediction? Or was he wrong, and is it more than "a tiny splinter group" that believes in the causes he mentions in this snippet from a letter to his brother?

I think he's right in essence. The Republican and Democratic Party today may be at best ambivalent about government, but when things collapse around Washington's ears, they are quickly going to see that anyone who tilts at Norquist's windmill is going to be out of office so fast it'll make their head spin. When all people have left is government services, with the exception of those same millionaires who tout Making America Better by investing in the Cayman Islands, you are going to see a very vicious and virulent backlash against them.

You've already seen some evidence of this already: the sudden staunch opposition to Social Security Privatization, the expansion of government's mission to include education and medical care, the absolute inability for markets to cope with situations like Hurricane Katrina, and the fact that youth today are much more civically minded than their parents. Put together, I think you are going to see some resistance to anarcho-capitalism among Boomers, coupled with a rising generation that wholeheartedly disavows that egoistic view of the world, all of which means that we are now near or at the Gettysburg of libertarianism for the forseeable future.

We can only hope.

The problem is that the American dream has become the American delusion, and so many small potatoes think they're going to be benefitted from the same policies that benefit corporations. Everyone wants to hear that they're upwardly-mobile and can become rich with hard work, not that they need to learn how to live with their lower-middle-class wages because few hard-working people are rich and few rich people are hard-working. And this party you speak of is only too happy to tell them exactly what they want to hear.

i disagree with your assumption that most rich people don't work hard. most rich people became rich with their own wit/ingenuity/drive and, yes, hard work.

as for the American Dream being a delusion, that's exactly what the democrats want the poor man to think... give out the message of no hope, and the poor man will be glad to keep taking hand-outs that the democrat promises him... and will continue voting for democrats.

I wish we could pay off social security and then trash it. It is just another tax. People should be able to keep that money -- which they earn, point of fact -- and invest in their own retirement with it.

how in gods name did they get the nickname ike from dwight david eisenhower?

http://www.mlcsmith.com/humor/eisenhower/

During his school days young Dwight, nicknamed “Ike” by his friends, would inscribe small pictures of himself to on his homework papers, books, small despondent furry creatures (using a knife), and people calling him “Ike.” The teachers would say things like, “Look at this picture of Ike on this vole.” Thus, these small pictures became known as “icons.” Ike's favorite school subjects were doodling, wood carving, head waxing, and geometry. In sports he starred in coin collecting and very small discus. Ike spent his extra time caring for the school’s boa iconstrictor.
--------

It might have been a family thing. All boys were called Ike at one time or another.....

The "American dream" is the hope a person has to carve out his little space in the world, work it, be self-sufficient and happy, and increase his wealth, then pass it on to his children when he dies.

As the Hebrew saying goes, "Every man under his own fig tree."

I don't see Democrats saying that it's impossible; rather, I see politicians of all stripes either working to make it less attainable or simply standing by and letting it happen. On the national level, I don't see the Republicans standing by.

I personally think it's impossible, but not irredeemable, if we work at it and accept that some people are just not going to get the same opportunities to benefit themselves that others are. That's why we should make available to everyone the basic human needs of decent food, decent housing, health care, and education.

Granted, if you don't know anyone who would benefit from those things you might not understand why anyone wants them (given that cutting them might save tax money!) but those of us who do know such people tend to give these issues a second thought.

how in gods name did they get the nickname ike from dwight david eisenhower?
"Ike" is cool though.

Some people, including Grover Norquist, want the Republican party to do just that. They want to make it seem neccessary to the American people by cutting taxes, increasing spending, and using the resulting financial crisis to justify destroying those programs.
Is this true? Evil!

"Ike" is cool though.


Is this true? Evil!
Sure is true. Look up "Starve the Beast". It's a term used to represent this strategy.

http://www.wordspy.com/words/starvethebeast.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve-the-beast

i disagree with your assumption that most rich people don't work hard. most rich people became rich with their own wit/ingenuity/drive and, yes, hard work.

I think you really should study social mobility in the USA m8. Most people become rich by the simple expedient of "being born to rich parents". A very small minority become rich by the methods you mention.

I think you really should study social mobility in the USA m8. Most people become rich by the simple expedient of "being born to rich parents". A very small minority become rich by the methods you mention.
The statistic I saw most recently was that only 20% are born rich, but that was on a site that seemed biased. Anyway, I once heard that Finland had more social mobility than the US. So at least the American dream is doing well somewhere.

If anyone has a reliable link to the percentage of wealthy Americans who inherited their money I'd be curious to see it.

The statistic I saw most recently was that only 20% are born rich, but that was on a site that seemed biased. Anyway, I once heard that Finland had more social mobility than the US. So at least the American dream is doing well somewhere.

If anyone has a reliable link to the percentage of wealthy Americans who inherited their money I'd be curious to see it.

"Thus the picture that emerges is that Northern Europe and Canada are
particularly mobile and that Britain and the US have the lowest intergenerational mobility across the European and North American countries studied here. The USA is seen by some as a place with particularly high social mobility. In part this is a consequence of using measures of class to estimate mobility (these will be affected by changes in the class structure over time). However, the idea of the US as ‘the land of opportunity’ persists; and clearly seems misplaced."

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf

To be honest, i don't understand the graphs, i'm just quoting from the study.