 |
| Source:Solid Principles- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican Arizona) |
From Solid Principles
What Senator Barry Goldwater called a "Failed Liberal Agenda" (as he saw it) like the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s and even President Eisenhower to a certain extent, even though he was a Center-Right Progressive/Conservative (lets say) with the Federal Highway System of the 1950s, wasn't a "Liberal Agenda." At least in the economic sense.
What Senator Barry Goldwater called a "Failed Liberal Agenda" (as he saw it) like the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s and even President Eisenhower to a certain extent, even though he was a Center-Right Progressive/Conservative (lets say) with the Federal Highway System of the 1950s, wasn't a "Liberal Agenda." At least in the economic sense.
If you look at the word liberal and what it means politically, which is how I describe my politics, sure it was liberal in the sense of its size and how big it was and how much of it there was, but that wouldn't be the political definition of liberal.
The agenda that Senator Goldwater from an economic point of view by its political definition, is not liberal. The agenda Senator Goldwater was talking about was a social democratic agenda. Social welfare policies to create the American welfare state, which really isn't a welfare state, but a safety net and they're different.
Like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and Welfare Insurance, etc. With the New Deal in the 1930s. And Medicare, Medicaid, Public Housing, etc, with the Great Society in the 1960s.
These are all social insurance programs that Progressives and Social Democrats were able to push through Congress in the 1930s and 1960s. Now I wouldn't of designed those programs the way they were originally designed and I don't believe anyone who is not a Socialist would design those programs that way today either.
I would've designed those programs, especially for the poor and unemployed, to empower them to get themselves to self-sufficiency. And would've added choice and competition from the private sector as well, so these people would have an option of where to receive their public assistance from.
Like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and Welfare Insurance, etc. With the New Deal in the 1930s. And Medicare, Medicaid, Public Housing, etc, with the Great Society in the 1960s.
These are all social insurance programs that Progressives and Social Democrats were able to push through Congress in the 1930s and 1960s. Now I wouldn't of designed those programs the way they were originally designed and I don't believe anyone who is not a Socialist would design those programs that way today either.
I would've designed those programs, especially for the poor and unemployed, to empower them to get themselves to self-sufficiency. And would've added choice and competition from the private sector as well, so these people would have an option of where to receive their public assistance from.
And with the programs for senior citizens, again more choice and competition and the ability to finance their own retirements so people aren't so dependent on Social Security in their senior years. But these programs which by far, none of them are perfect and all of them need reform today, have all worked at least to a certain extent.
If you look at Social Security- That program has provided millions of senior citizens the ability to not live in poverty.
Unemployment Insurance- Again has provided people with the ability to not live in poverty and not go homeless.
Welfare Insurance- Which by far hasn't been an overall success, at least up until it was reformed in 1996, has given millions of Americans the ability to not go homeless.
Medicare- Which needs major reform, has guaranteed millions of Americans the ability to have health insurance once they retire.
Medicaid- Which again needs major reform, has given millions of low-income people health insurance that they wouldn't otherwise had.
Public housing- Again no one other than a sSocialist would design that program the same way today. Without that we would probably have tens of millions or more people living homeless today.
All these programs are far from perfect when they were originally designed and don't meet a lot of the demands today and all need to be reformed. But they've all contributed to making America a greater society.
If you look at Social Security- That program has provided millions of senior citizens the ability to not live in poverty.
Unemployment Insurance- Again has provided people with the ability to not live in poverty and not go homeless.
Welfare Insurance- Which by far hasn't been an overall success, at least up until it was reformed in 1996, has given millions of Americans the ability to not go homeless.
Medicare- Which needs major reform, has guaranteed millions of Americans the ability to have health insurance once they retire.
Medicaid- Which again needs major reform, has given millions of low-income people health insurance that they wouldn't otherwise had.
Public housing- Again no one other than a sSocialist would design that program the same way today. Without that we would probably have tens of millions or more people living homeless today.
All these programs are far from perfect when they were originally designed and don't meet a lot of the demands today and all need to be reformed. But they've all contributed to making America a greater society.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All relevant comments to the post that you're trying to comment on, that don't include spam or personal comments about the author, will be accepted at FRS FreeState.