Ok I know he was a Republican, the 38th President and seemingly decent guy but I found this intresting from Wikipedia:
In October 2001, Ford broke with conservative members of the Republican Party by stating that gay and lesbian couples "ought to be treated equally. Period." He became the highest ranking Republican to embrace full equality for gays and lesbians, stating his belief that there should be a federal amendment outlawing anti-gay job discrimination and expressing his hope that the Republican Party would reach out to gay and lesbian voters.[162] He also was a member of the Republican Unity Coalition, which The New York Times described as "a group of prominent Republicans, including former President Gerald R. Ford, dedicated to making sexual orientation a non-issue in the Republican Party".[163]
To my knowledge it seems Ford was the last truly non-ideological President. Carter and Obama were progressives all the way and Reagan and Bush jr were conservatives all the way. Clinton and Bush sr had to be more moderate due to the othe opposing party controlling Congress (Tho Bush sr was a slightly liberal person prior to his Vice Presidency and seemed more naturally moderate anyway)
Like Ford says stuff like above, was pro-choice and ect was progressive on some issues but was conservative on other things. What kinda of label of poltical ideology would you give Ford? and would anyone like to return back to the days politicians were not full blown right or left but a nice mix of both that benefited the people?
Ford was a centrist Republican. Keep in mind that he was not elected to the office and was only the CINC because the <not allowed>, Dick Nixon was forced to resign in humiliation for orchestrating the Watergate debacle. ;D
Moderator edit: Removed bashing phrases.
Ashley,
That was such a different time. Back then the enemy was the Soviet Union. Now the enemy seems to be our neighbor who has a different viewpoint than us. It is a shame. Back in the old days it was African Americans fighting for rights and paying a high price. We were invisible. Their fight isn't over but now we are no longer invisible and we want our rights too. Unfortunately, our rights will come at a price too.
Monica
You may have a leg up, being Canadian.
Yes, Nixon was a ,not allowed. What is sadder is the fact he was given a 49 state win over George McGovern, who was a good man unlike Nixon. But Ford seemed pretty cool from what little I know of him. Unlike Nixon I could have seen myself vote Ford if i was an American and alive back then.
And yes Moni, being Canadian is very awesome! no anti-trans bathroom bills here!!
Moderator edit: Removed bashing descriptions.
Gerald Ford was chosen by Nixon to be his VP after Spiro Agnew stepped down after pleaded no contest on various graft charges when he was the Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland and the US VP. There were even Spiro Agnew watches sold before this scandal. I was on beach guard duty at the gate of a minesweeper base near Edinburgh, Scotland when a local cabby told me that my VP has resigned. Gerald Ford was also on the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of John F Kennedy as well.
He did a lot of cleanup in the White House after Nixon resigned. Nixon was no different than a lot of the US presidents before him. There were worse. A rouge FBI agent known as "Deep Throat" back then and two mediocre reporters broke the story. "Deep Throat" was a well publicized porno movie back then. Nixon and his White House cronies, er, "Watergate Hotel plumbers" were dirty.
There was a successful program for alcoholics in the Navy that helped my shipmates that also helped Betty Ford get over her alcoholism. They renamed that program after her. Her life was stressful as the First Lady and then the candidate's wife when Gerald Ford ran against Jimmy Carter. My politics are along the same line as the late former president.
Joelene
Thing is, back in those times, sure people weren't as ideological either way that they are now. But by the 60s, things forever changed. This was even before abortion, LGBTQI rights, and other cultural issues. It's kind of like comparing today to the way things were in the 18-19th century.
And fiscal conservatism still sounds good in principle. I mean, What is the alternative to lower taxes for everyone?
Ford was also anti-war prior to Pearl Harbor. He was in an anti war group called "America First Committee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
The Republicans also started going off track with Nixon, in that he started trying to woo the religious groups to support them, a move Barry Goldwater opposed, as they'd soon be controlling the party. That happened and now we have the current disaster that's so harmful to so many.
Yea... they dont make them liker Gerald Ford.. he seemed so chill :)!! Tho I am very progressive in my politics I gotta say I have a lot of respect for Barry Goldwater. He had little issue calling out people who were being wrong. My only critque of Barry is that he opposed the 1964 civil rights act, not on racist grounds of course but due to a beleif it was not enforceable and got government too involved. On other civil liberties (including civil rights bills of '57 and '60) he was awesome!
Quote from: redhot1 on May 06, 2017, 04:37:19 PM
What is the alternative to lower taxes for everyone?
Getting value for the taxes we pay!
There are several nations with much higher tax rates than us where the people don't mind paying. Denmark has one of the highest rates it's also rated as one of the best places in the world to live.
QuoteAnd fiscal conservatism still sounds good in principle. I mean, What is the alternative to lower taxes for everyone?
A healthier economy. Taxes pay for so many things we need, yet all these tax cuts have been crippling needed services. Up until Reagan's tax cuts, the standard of living had been rising for decades. Then he (or rather his buddies) came up with the idea that if taxes were cut for the wealthy, they'd spend more and everyone would benefit. Problem is, that's absolute nonsense. Money doesn't trickle down, it flows up. As a result, he reversed the rise of standard of living and it's been falling for 3 decades, with the wealthy getting ever more so, and everyone else getting less. One of the purposes of taxes was supposed to be to redistribute the money, so the economy as a whole benefits, not just the privileged few. Now, we've got Trump following in Reagan's footsteps, to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. His health care plans show exactly that.
Quote from: AnneK on May 06, 2017, 10:17:59 PM
A healthier economy. Taxes pay for so many things we need, yet all these tax cuts have been crippling needed services. Up until Reagan's tax cuts, the standard of living had been rising for decades. Then he (or rather his buddies) came up with the idea that if taxes were cut for the wealthy, they'd spend more and everyone would benefit. Problem is, that's absolute nonsense. Money doesn't trickle down, it flows up. As a result, he reversed the rise of standard of living and it's been falling for 3 decades, with the wealthy getting ever more so, and everyone else getting less. One of the purposes of taxes was supposed to be to redistribute the money, so the economy as a whole benefits, not just the privileged few. Now, we've got Trump following in Reagan's footsteps, to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. His health care plans show exactly that.
There is vastly different view (http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it) that has been around well over 200 years.
Regardless, it is true that our middle class is shrinking, real wages have contracted over the past 35 years, and that we have the most expensive healthcare that yields the poorest health outcomes in the developed world. Something is not working. So what is the solution? Our leaders say more of the same.
"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein on the definition of insanity
Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote
Quote from: Deborah on May 06, 2017, 11:57:21 PM
Regardless, it is true that our middle class is shrinking, real wages have contracted over the past 35 years, and that we have the most expensive healthcare that yields the poorest health outcomes in the developed world. Something is not working. So what is the solution? Our leaders say more of the same.
"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein on the definition of insanity
Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote
Didint they also kill or gut Obamacare just this past Friday?
The House of Representatives passed a bill that would significantly worsen healthcare access for tens of millions of people. They will be faced with insurance premiums two to three times higher than now. For many, that means that insurance will cost 50 to 100 percent of their income effectively denying it to them. Before it becomes law the Senate has to also pass the bill. So for now, nothing is changed.
Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote
QuoteThere is vastly different view that has been around well over 200 years.
Where does that different view say anything about what we're talking about? What's happening in the U.S. (and elsewhere) is called a plutocracy, where those with money make the laws, usually to their own benefit. Trump's recent health care act in the U.S. is a perfect example of this, where the government takes from the average person and gives benefit to the wealthy. It's just another example of Reaganomics.
Just because people don't mind paying higher taxes in Denmark doesn't mean people here don't mind it. I guess were talking about the US in this context.
There are a lot of people everywhere, but particularly in the U.S., who don't want to help others and don't think the government should either. The problem is these people are often the ones who make it difficult for others to survive. I believe it was Warren Buffet's son Peter, who said that many charities would not be needed, if employers paid people a living wage. And even Warren Buffet said the wealthy should pay more tax.
Quote from: AnneK on May 07, 2017, 09:23:16 AM
There are a lot of people everywhere, but particularly in the U.S., who don't want to help others and don't think the government should either. The problem is these people are often the ones who make it difficult for others to survive. I believe it was Warren Buffet's son Peter, who said that many charities would not be needed, if employers paid people a living wage.
It's still a little cruel to say there are people here don't want themselves or the government to help others. I can believe that those who genuinely need help might deserve government assistance, but we need to be more conservative about welfare and protection spending at the same time. And just because Jesus said he wanted to help the poor doesn't make it any more right or wrong for the government to do so. I doubt he had the government in mind.
I do respect the grievance that America has become more ideologically divided left and right. Unfortunately, people think that as a rule, democrats hate Trump. I'm sad, that's what my dad's opinion is, I wish he could change or know a little better.
I think it's good to keep a perspective on U.S. Income Taxes to understand the source of some of the current tax policy and rhetoric. Up until 1963, the highest individual marginal income tax rate was 91%, meaning that for income in excess of $200k U.S. annual income ($or $400k for married couples) any income in excess of $200k was taxed at a rate of 91%. Mind you, this is normal income, not capital gains, etc... This max rate was cut to 70% in 1965, where it remained until the Reagan cuts in 1982. The top income rate has wavered between 30 and 40% since, but look at the rates Reagan was trying to lower versus those today. It's become a standard plank in the Republican Party's platform to reduce taxes, because reducing taxes is always "good."
The truth is that the source of Reagan's proposed tax cuts is an Arab economist, Ibn Khaldun, who published his theory in 1377, offering that if tax revenues will tend to go to zero with rates equal to either 0 or 100%, then there will exist a rate in the middle that gives a maximum overall revenue. Taxation rates either above or below this maximum would give less than the maximum total revenue. Reagan's view was that a maximum rate of 70% must be in excess of that point of maximum revenue, so lowering it ought to give more tax revenue. As the max rate has been continuing to drop via subsequent cuts, it seems ludicrous to continue to claim this benefit, especially now that we can look back in retrospect at the result of these cuts and see that they haven't brought the desired result.
Second, it seems to me that the electoral process here in the U.S. has drifted away from generally selecting candidates with overall popular appeal to selecting candidates with strong idealogical ties to the right or left, depending upon which party they belong to. In 2012, Mitt Romney, a very centrist Republican, had to practically lean over backwards to his right to keep the nomination from falling to one of his far more conservative rivals. In a similar fashion, Hillary Clinton, in 2016, had to adopt policies far to the left of her record, which was arguably closer to Reagan's than to Kennedy's, in order to wrest the nomination from Bernie Sanders, who was positioned on the far, far left of the Democratic Party.
Hard to say what all contributed to this extreme polarization, although the demise of network media in TV, newspapers, magazines, etc... in favor of more biased new sources with more deliberate leanings is at least helping to maintain this gap of information between sides. One proposed solution is the opening of primaries, requiring candidates to appeal to broader populations across party lines, which might tend to encourage more centrists, like Gerald Ford. Just a thought.
Erin
QuoteIt's still a little cruel to say there are people here don't want themselves or the government to help others.
Take a look at the minimum wage laws and the number of people living in poverty. Employers claim they can't afford to pay more, but if the minimum wage was raised, it would also affect their competitors. It would mean customers would be paying closer to the actual cost of what they buy. Then take a look at some of the large corporations, such as Walmart. It is owned by some of the richest people in the U.S., yet often pays poverty wages, to the point the employees are forced to take state benefits in order to survive. This means that taxpayers are being forced to subsidize Walmart and the billionaires that own it. This sort of situation is a very big part of the problem. The wealthy keep taking more and more, forcing others into poverty. If they paid living wages, then the social programs wouldn't be needed to help those employees survive. As mentioned earlier, the 30 odd years of "Reaganomics" has caused a severe decline in the standard of living, pushing many into poverty. Trump's plans are just more of the same
Quote from: AnneK on May 07, 2017, 07:16:34 AM
Where does that different view say anything about what we're talking about? What's happening in the U.S. (and elsewhere) is called a plutocracy, where those with money make the laws, usually to their own benefit. Trump's recent health care act in the U.S. is a perfect example of this, where the government takes from the average person and gives benefit to the wealthy. It's just another example of Reaganomics.
I try not to argue politics on the site because it can cause hurt feelings and that's something that a moderator shouldn't do. I will say that I have studied this in great detail and where we are now is the result of about 150 years of history. The transition point for what we have today started with the 16th and 17th amendment when we went from the government our founding fathers envisioned to what we have today. The 18th amendment cut off a major source of government funding and the 16th replaced the funding with a far more lucrative source putting the money into politics.
Quote from: redhot1 on May 07, 2017, 09:33:11 AM
And just because Jesus said he wanted to help the poor doesn't make it any more right or wrong for the government to do so. I doubt he had the government in mind.
The Republicans are continually harping that this is a Christian country founded on Christian values. If that is truly so the the government certainly should reflect that in more ways than simply restricting abortion. Providing universal access to decent healthcare would be a start.
I guess they just like the sound of their words without embracing all they connote.
Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote
Let us be careful where this interesting discussion is going and maybe try to keep it on track in non-partisan way?
May I put forward a point from maybe a wild field.
Politics and in particular democratic and socialist political point of views have not weathered well with the opening of debate from 'commoners' through social media and the internet. Our values as humans seldom change. We are born, we need nutrient, we breed, we die. How we do this is the basis of social evolution.
Ignoring local issues, as in USA, v Russia v Europe v Asia, (and the local politics involved) how do we as humans who now transcend countries deal with the remnants of an archaic local political system.?What is the forward vision rather than the clinging to the structures?
I'll have sensible debate and comment but let us be mature and sensible. Please!
Quote from: Cindy on May 07, 2017, 10:47:41 AM
how do we as humans who now transcend countries deal with the remnants of an archaic local political system.?What is the forward vision rather than the clinging to the structures?
Cindy, I love this view point! This is the kind of thing we should all be thinking about.
I have worked in manufacturing for many years and I firmly believe that we will someday get to the point that we have eliminated most jobs through automation. When we get to that point and no one has to work much anymore what happens to all of our economic systems? How do we prepare for something like that.
Something like this may be closer that we think. Manufacturing jobs over the last 50 years have been eliminated through automation and process improvements. The majority of those lost jobs didn't go to other countries, they simply don't exist anymore. For those of you not involved in manufacturing, there are some amazing things being implemented now that will continue to drive down costs and eliminate even more of those jobs.
I believe it's coming too. It will require a wholesale restructuring of the economic system as capitalism will no longer be relevant. The biggest obstacle we will face will be changing the way people think since for a large segment of America capitalism is thought of in nearly religious terms.
Unfortunately, as much thinking as I have done on the subject, I have failed to come up with a solution.
Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote
QuoteWhen we get to that point and no one has to work much anymore what happens to all of our economic systems? How do we prepare for something like that.
It wasn't that long ago, that people worked 5.5 or 6 days per week. As productivity increased, the work week was shortened. This meant the increased productivity was shared with the employees, instead of all the benefit going to the top.
QuoteI'll have sensible debate and comment but let us be mature and sensible. Please!
Aww, Gee... That's no fun! ;)
Quote from: Deborah on May 07, 2017, 12:18:32 PM
I believe it's coming too. It will require a wholesale restructuring of the economic system as capitalism will no longer be relevant. The biggest obstacle we will face will be changing the way people think since for a large segment of America capitalism is thought of in nearly religious terms.
Unfortunately, as much thinking as I have done on the subject, I have failed to come up with a solution.
The reason it's so difficult is because people are greedy and favor taking care of themselves or their family before they would consider caring for others. Capitalism is the best was to allocate resources when greed is a part of the system. Unless you can figure out a way to override the basic human nature of greed, you will find it very difficult to replace capitalism.
If you consider this view wrong, then let me ask you a question. Would you give up the money used for your medical treatment so that another could receive treatment? I thought not. There isn't a problem with greed unless you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. Greed is healthy and it keeps you alive as long as it doesn't harm another.
I agree with your diagnosis. It is Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy which is the cornerstone of conservatism today.
I believe your question is flawed. The issue for the future is how to provide for a growing population where the work no longer exists for them to earn money for anything. Capitalism has worked in the past because work existed for people. Under future conditions where work is scarce, capitalism relegates an ever increasing segment of the population to homelessness, starvation, and death.
Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote
No, there is conservatism and libertarianism. Conservatives are more about the enforcement of tradition or norms, but libertarians are more like live and let live. There is a little difference.
It isn't capitalism that's causing these problems, it's government interference. Paying people not to work and then importing labor to fill the jobs that nobody is taking is a major portion of the problem. In addition, with so much of the profits transferred from companies to the government, there is little incentive for business to expand. It's possible that some day in the future the need for labor will be reduced but that could be solved by a shorter work day or a shorter work week.
One of the issues with the homeless dates back to Lessard v. Schmidt (http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2281&context=mulr) (something I know a great deal about having lived with the stories most of my life). It's no longer possible to help people who need mental help if they don't want it. Many of the people on the street need medications which they are unwilling to take thus resulting in a major portion of the homeless population.
QuoteIn addition, with so much of the profits transferred from companies to the government, there is little incentive for business to expand.
That goes back to Reaganomics, cut taxes, create more jobs and everyone benefits. The problem is it has long been shown to be nonsense. Unless taxes are excessive, and they're no where near that, then tax cuts will only help the wealthy and corporations, precisely as has happened over the past 3 decades. When the money is transferred to the government, what happens to it? Does it just disappear in a puff of smoke? Or does it get spent helping people, building infrastructure, buying stuff from businesses etc.? No, it doesn't just disappear, it gets moved into a different part of the economy, to where it's needed. Throughout most of history, the money has always moved up, benefiting only the few, with the bulk of the population barely surviving. By redistributing the wealth, the standard of living for the entire population improved. It's not hard to make the argument that the government has the responsibility to help everyone, not just the privileged few. They do that through taxes, with the wealthier paying a greater share. That is the only way forward, with declining employment. Unchecked capitalism is the cause of many problems. While I am certainly in favour of capitalism, it must be moderated, so all benefit.
Quote from: AnneK on May 07, 2017, 01:31:39 PM
That goes back to Reaganomics, cut taxes, create more jobs and everyone benefits. The problem is it has long been shown to be nonsense. Unless taxes are excessive, and they're no where near that, then tax cuts will only help the wealthy and corporations, precisely as has happened over the past 3 decades. When the money is transferred to the government, what happens to it? Does it just disappear in a puff of smoke? Or does it get spent helping people, building infrastructure, buying stuff from businesses etc.? No, it doesn't just disappear, it gets moved into a different part of the economy, to where it's needed. Throughout most of history, the money has always moved up, benefiting only the few, with the bulk of the population barely surviving. By redistributing the wealth, the standard of living for the entire population improved. It's not hard to make the argument that the government has the responsibility to help everyone, not just the privileged few. They do that through taxes, with the wealthier paying a greater share. That is the only way forward, with declining employment. Unchecked capitalism is the cause of many problems. While I am certainly in favour of capitalism, it must be moderated, so all benefit.
Warren Harding/Calvin Coolidge at Andrew Mellon's recommendation did it and it resulted in the roaring twenties.
Congress forced Truman to do resulting in the real end of the great depression and it resulted in the Eisenhower years of prosperity.
John F Kennedy did it and it resulted in a healthy economy which helped pay for the Vietnam War.
Art Laffer studied Warren/Coolidge, coming up with the Laffer curve which pulled us out of a really deep depression and because of a Republican congress, made Clinton look very good.
There is a chain of history that is often overlooked and it's unless you look at all of history, it's easy to simplify the solution resulting in more damage instead of a fix.
Quote from: Dena on May 07, 2017, 01:46:09 PM
Congress forced Truman to do resulting in the real end of the great depression and it resulted in the Eisenhower years of prosperity.
Not to mention the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII and still recovering through the 1950s. That alone enabled our manufacturing base to operate throughout that period with no competition. That is arguably why the 1950s were prosperous regardless of the tax rate.
Those economic conditions no longer exist.
Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote
Quote from: Deborah on May 07, 2017, 02:21:13 PM
Not to mention the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII and still recovering through the 1950s. That alone enabled our manufacturing base to operate throughout that period with no competition. That is arguably why the 1950s were prosperous regardless of the tax rate.
Those economic conditions no longer exist.
Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote
I would agree that's somewhat true however we were also spending to rebuild Japan, Germany and Europe. Also after WWII we returned to the an economic slump and something was needed to kick start industry as it was no longer powered by a war time economy. The Truman tax cut wasn't large and the resultant tax rates were still pretty high but at that level, any reduction in taxes helped.
Did this thread turn into a debate between capitalism vs socialism?
Quote from: redhot1 on May 07, 2017, 03:33:42 PM
Did this thread turn into a debate between capitalism vs socialism?
Looks like it xD
Back to Ford, he is the only President to survive TWO assassination attempts... Can you say da' Boss? lol
Dena, I'd disagree on quite a few of your points of causation however I have neither the stomach nor the inclination to take up that debate here.
Your original question in this thread was a strawman about how I'd allocate my own healthcare $. Let me say, since we're talking politics, not economics I feel the better question is do I vote my wallet or my conscience.
I have yet to vote my wallet over my conscience. Whether casting a vote against Tip O'Neil (arguably the most corrupt polnof his day and very good at bringing federal $ home to my state) or in voting for liberals when I was well off and conservatives when I was poor.
I will also say I choose to spend my money toward the greatest good. I don't buy anything from Walmart, where possible i buy local and where possible i buy US manufacture. I only eat organic both for my own health and the health of the planet. I don't eat meat from feedlots (fed by tax subsidized corn and requiring huge doses of antibiotics just to tolerate the unnatural feed).
All of these choices mean I have less stuff than I might otherwise. I'm happier and healthier with the simpler life I have now.
@sm ford was cool enough however I don't forgive his choice to pardon dick Nixon.
Also, I forget who posted it but the America first movement was a shameful thing in our history. Roosevelt was supporting Britain long before Congress allowed and the America firsters wanted to keep us out of the war for selfish, not pacifist reasons.
It's actually hard for me to even consider Gerry a Prez since no one elected him to do the job and they threw him out at the first opportunity for a Peanut Farmer. No other person that held the office was not elected at least once. Hence, I see Mr. Ford as a caretaker between Nixon and Carter.