Marco Rubio's speech at the Reagan library (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2011/08/24/your-daily-dose-of-marco-rubio-his-speech-at-the-reagan-library/

23 minute speech, but well worth listening to. Rubio is an excellent speaker. He is VERY conservative, but he makes a persuasive, intellectual argument on behalf of his ideas, totally opposite the simplistic sound byte crap we're getting from most politicians on both sides these days. I love this sort of thoughtful oratory.

I haven't paid too much attention to this guy, but I understand now why conservatives have been raving about him. He is truly something special.

 

[timschochet]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

 

[rodg12]

We need to get this guy on the Republican ticket for 2012.

 

[Slapdash]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

 

[humpback]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

 

[humpback]

We need to get this guy on the Republican ticket for 2012.

From the speech:“I have no interest in serving as vice president for anyone who could possibly live all eight years of the presidency,” Rubio, a U.S. Senator from Florida, said to laughter Tuesday night.

 

[NJDawgPound]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

So you're saying a nation of codependent people > a nation of independent people?

 

[rodg12]

We need to get this guy on the Republican ticket for 2012.

From the speech:“I have no interest in serving as vice president for anyone who could possibly live all eight years of the presidency,” Rubio, a U.S. Senator from Florida, said to laughter Tuesday night.

Damn.

 

[Slapdash]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't think that social safety net programs weaken a society.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

We need to get this guy on the Republican ticket for 2012.

From the speech:“I have no interest in serving as vice president for anyone who could possibly live all eight years of the presidency,” Rubio, a U.S. Senator from Florida, said to laughter Tuesday night.

Damn.

It doesn't mean anything. It's one thing to say it in a speech. It's another thing if Romney or Perry or whoever calls you up and offers you the spot.

 

[Slapdash]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

So you're saying a nation of codependent people > a nation of independent people?

No, but I do doubt the premise that America was a nation of independent people before the advent of our meager social welfare programs. Or that it would be desirable.

 

[timschochet]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't think that social safety net programs weaken a society.

And that's fine. It's a difference in political philosophy. Liberals are going to think one way about this, conservatives another. As I wrote earlier, Rubio is VERY conservative. But what's impressive to me is how well he makes his argument.

 

[bigbottom]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

So you're saying a nation of codependent people > a nation of independent people?

I wouldn't necessarily call people who rely on societal institutions to take care of them as "independent."

 

[humpback]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't think that social safety net programs weaken a society.

I didn't listen to the speech, so I don't know the context or anything, but that's not how I take that comment. I take it to mean that people themselves are weaker than past generations because they have these programs to fall back on, and I agree. I don't think society is worse off or anything overall because of them, and I don't think that's what he meant by it.

 

[jamny]

And he's quick to react too!

 

[DrJ]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

So you're saying a nation of codependent people > a nation of independent people?

I wouldn't necessarily call people who rely on societal institutions to take care of them as "independent."

The process that they have to go through to get help might make them so, however. It's a lot easier to dial up a faceless organization to get a check than it is to admit to your immediate support structure that you need help.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And he's quick to react too!

Seems like he was the one that dropped her in the first place there.

 

[bigbottom]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

So you're saying a nation of codependent people > a nation of independent people?

I wouldn't necessarily call people who rely on societal institutions to take care of them as "independent."

The process that they have to go through to get help might make them so, however. It's a lot easier to dial up a faceless organization to get a check than it is to admit to your immediate support structure that you need help.

So having the wherewithal to ask for handouts is now the hallmark of independence?

 

[Slapdash]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't think that social safety net programs weaken a society.

I didn't listen to the speech, so I don't know the context or anything, but that's not how I take that comment. I take it to mean that people themselves are weaker than past generations because they have these programs to fall back on, and I agree. I don't think society is worse off or anything overall because of them, and I don't think that's what he meant by it.

Fair enough. I don't think that people themselves are weaker because they have government programs to fall back on either. A person that does not have anything to fall back on if they fail or have misfortune is not stronger because of it.

 

[eoMMan]

We need to get this guy on the Republican ticket for 2012.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too religious for my tastes.I'm in FL so I might here more about this guy than others, but I'm not a fan.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Thanks for the laugh, Marco. Too bad all the poor people didn't tell FDR they were just fine.

 

[Statorama]

We need to get this guy on the Republican ticket for 2012.

From the speech:“I have no interest in serving as vice president for anyone who could possibly live all eight years of the presidency,” Rubio, a U.S. Senator from Florida, said to laughter Tuesday night.

"Rembember me?"- John McCain

 

[DrJ]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

So you're saying a nation of codependent people > a nation of independent people?

I wouldn't necessarily call people who rely on societal institutions to take care of them as "independent."

The process that they have to go through to get help might make them so, however. It's a lot easier to dial up a faceless organization to get a check than it is to admit to your immediate support structure that you need help.

So having the wherewithal to ask for handouts is now the hallmark of independence?

It's one of the traits that would help the person become more independent. I'm sure the people providing the help become more independent as well, rather than just paying your taxes and being done with it.

 

[NJDawgPound]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

So you're saying a nation of codependent people > a nation of independent people?

No, but I do doubt the premise that America was a nation of independent people before the advent of our meager social welfare programs. Or that it would be desirable.

Fair enough, there have always been a segment of society that needed help. However, I think that many systems are abused, and some of them enable some people to settle instead of prosper.

 

[oso diablo]

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2011/08/24/your-daily-dose-of-marco-rubio-his-speech-at-the-reagan-library/23 minute speech, but well worth listening to. Rubio is an excellent speaker. He is VERY conservative, but he makes a persuasive, intellectual argument on behalf of his ideas, totally opposite the simplistic sound byte crap we're getting from most politicians on both sides these days. I love this sort of thoughtful oratory. I haven't paid too much attention to this guy, but I understand now why conservatives have been raving about him. He is truly something special.

 

[humpback]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't think that social safety net programs weaken a society.

I didn't listen to the speech, so I don't know the context or anything, but that's not how I take that comment. I take it to mean that people themselves are weaker than past generations because they have these programs to fall back on, and I agree. I don't think society is worse off or anything overall because of them, and I don't think that's what he meant by it.

Fair enough. I don't think that people themselves are weaker because they have government programs to fall back on either. A person that does not have anything to fall back on if they fail or have misfortune is not stronger because of it.

You don't think someone who works their way up from the lower to middle to upper middle class is stronger than they would be if they had found a bag of money and ended up in the same spot?

 

[DrJ]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Thanks for the laugh, Marco. Too bad all the poor people didn't tell FDR they were just fine.

And look at how few poor people we now have today. Oh, wait...

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Right, it all changed. The economy began to grow at a much faster pace, people saved more for their own retirement than ever before, private investment skyrocketed, the poor (particularly poor children) and elderly got better and more reliable access to health care, poverty rates for seniors dropped significantly as did overall poverty rates, charities continued to thrive and were able to to provide better services. Nice to see that Rubio is in touch with the economic and social trends of the last half century.

 

[oso diablo]

"I know that it is popular in my party to blame the President, the current President. But the truth is the only thing this President has done is accelerate policies that were already in place and were doomed to fail. All he is doing through his policies is making the day of reckoning come faster, but it was coming nonetheless.

What we have now is not sustainable. The role of government and the role that government plays now in America cannot be sustained the way it is."

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You don't think someone who works their way up from the lower to middle to upper middle class is stronger than they would be if they had found a bag of money and ended up in the same spot?

If Republicans think this, they should be huge fans of the estate tax.

 

[humpback]

You don't think someone who works their way up from the lower to middle to upper middle class is stronger than they would be if they had found a bag of money and ended up in the same spot?

If Republicans think this, they should be huge fans of the estate tax.

I do think that people who have earned their money are stronger than those who have inherited it, all things being equal. Doesn't mean you should be a fan of the estate tax, just like you don't have to want to remove the social net to believe it has made people weaker.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

"I know that it is popular in my party to blame the President, the current President. But the truth is the only thing this President has done is accelerate policies that were already in place and were doomed to fail. All he is doing through his policies is making the day of reckoning come faster, but it was coming nonetheless. What we have now is not sustainable. The role of government and the role that government plays now in America cannot be sustained the way it is."

I sort of agree with this, but in my option the only thing unsustainable is the way we handle healthcare spending. We spend roughly twice per capita (public and private) what the rest of the developed world does, despite the fact that we only cover a fraction of our population. To put it another way, we're in the top 3 nations in public per capita health spending, but directly cover less than half of healthcare expenses while the other countries in the same general range all have universal coverage.

 

[oso diablo]

Best part of speech

Doubt most will watch all 23 minutes of this, so above link should take you to the last few minutes, where Rubio talks about his Cuban grandfather and why American was so important to him, and thus to Rubio now. Very good stuff.

 

[DrJ]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Right, it all changed. The economy began to grow at a much faster pace, people saved more for their own retirement than ever before, private investment skyrocketed, the poor (particularly poor children) and elderly got better and more reliable access to health care, poverty rates for seniors dropped significantly as did overall poverty rates, charities continued to thrive and were able to to provide better services. Nice to see that Rubio is in touch with the economic and social trends of the last half century.

The poverty rate is getting back up to where it was in the 60's. The growth of the economy has stagnated and isn't anywhere near it was in previous generations. And this is before Bush took office. While the stock market was doing good in the 1990's, the growth rate of the GDP had completely stagnated compared to previous generations. Here's a look at the GDP figures: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history. 80% growth from 1950 - 1960.

97% growth from 1960 - 1970.

168% growth from 1970 - 1980.

108% growth from 1980 - 1990.

71% growth from 1990 - 2000. 2nd lowest

45% growth from 2000 - 2010. lowest

So no, I wouldn't say the trends of the last half century indicate shrinking poverty or a more rapidly increaing economy.

 

[toadstool]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't think that social safety net programs weaken a society.

I didn't listen to the speech, so I don't know the context or anything, but that's not how I take that comment. I take it to mean that people themselves are weaker than past generations because they have these programs to fall back on, and I agree. I don't think society is worse off or anything overall because of them, and I don't think that's what he meant by it.

Fair enough. I don't think that people themselves are weaker because they have government programs to fall back on either. A person that does not have anything to fall back on if they fail or have misfortune is not stronger because of it.

You don't think someone who works their way up from the lower to middle to upper middle class is stronger than they would be if they had found a bag of money and ended up in the same spot?

This is why we need to tax the hell out of inheritance.

 

[Slapdash]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

So you're saying a nation of codependent people > a nation of independent people?

No, but I do doubt the premise that America was a nation of independent people before the advent of our meager social welfare programs. Or that it would be desirable.

Fair enough, there have always been a segment of society that needed help. However, I think that many systems are abused, and some of them enable some people to settle instead of prosper.

Undoubtedly many are abused, I would probably disagree with you on the scale. I don't really agree on the second part though. I'm sure there are some elements of programs that would cause people to settle, but there are also many things about not having programs that incent people to behave in ways that hurt prosperity as well IMO. It is a balance. My position is that they can be structured to better ameliorate your concerns even though I maintain we are better off with the current structure than their absence.

 

[krsone21]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't think that social safety net programs weaken a society.

Yet they do weaken a society, because people get lazy and dependent upon those social safety net programs.

 

[Slapdash]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't think that social safety net programs weaken a society.

I didn't listen to the speech, so I don't know the context or anything, but that's not how I take that comment. I take it to mean that people themselves are weaker than past generations because they have these programs to fall back on, and I agree. I don't think society is worse off or anything overall because of them, and I don't think that's what he meant by it.

Fair enough. I don't think that people themselves are weaker because they have government programs to fall back on either. A person that does not have anything to fall back on if they fail or have misfortune is not stronger because of it.

You don't think someone who works their way up from the lower to middle to upper middle class is stronger than they would be if they had found a bag of money and ended up in the same spot?

I don't think that providing a backstop for the poor, elderly, and disabled is equivalent to handing someone a bag of money that makes them upper middle class.

 

[humpback]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't think that social safety net programs weaken a society.

I didn't listen to the speech, so I don't know the context or anything, but that's not how I take that comment. I take it to mean that people themselves are weaker than past generations because they have these programs to fall back on, and I agree. I don't think society is worse off or anything overall because of them, and I don't think that's what he meant by it.

Fair enough. I don't think that people themselves are weaker because they have government programs to fall back on either. A person that does not have anything to fall back on if they fail or have misfortune is not stronger because of it.

You don't think someone who works their way up from the lower to middle to upper middle class is stronger than they would be if they had found a bag of money and ended up in the same spot?

This is why we need to tax the hell out of inheritance.

Not sure if this is serious or not, but if you actually agree with this reasoning, then you should agree with getting rid of safety nets too.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why are we so worried about making everybody stronger anyway? I'd prefer it if everyone was funnier and nicer. That's what we need to be incentivizing.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Right, it all changed. The economy began to grow at a much faster pace, people saved more for their own retirement than ever before, private investment skyrocketed, the poor (particularly poor children) and elderly got better and more reliable access to health care, poverty rates for seniors dropped significantly as did overall poverty rates, charities continued to thrive and were able to to provide better services. Nice to see that Rubio is in touch with the economic and social trends of the last half century.

The poverty rate is getting back up to where it was in the 60's. The growth of the economy has stagnated and isn't anywhere near it was in previous generations. And this is before Bush took office. While the stock market was doing good in the 1990's, the growth rate of the GDP had completely stagnated compared to previous generations. Here's a look at the GDP figures: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history. 80% growth from 1950 - 1960.

97% growth from 1960 - 1970.

168% growth from 1970 - 1980.

108% growth from 1980 - 1990.

71% growth from 1990 - 2000. 2nd lowest

45% growth from 2000 - 2010. lowest

So no, I wouldn't say the trends of the last half century indicate shrinking poverty or a more rapidly increaing economy.

So you really want to argue that the problems of the last decade were caused by social legislation enacted in the 1930s and 1960s? The only significant changes made in that time were a substantial rolling back of government poverty benefits in the mid-90s and the expansion of drug coverage in the mid-00s. Compare poverty rates from the 30s, 40s and 50s to now, even when we're having a severe economic event.

You are also looking at current year GDP growth, which doesn't account for inflation (which is why the 1970s look so high). The growth rate since the 50s has been much more stable and the 90s reflect the overall strong growth if you look at real GDP.

 

[humpback]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't think that social safety net programs weaken a society.

I didn't listen to the speech, so I don't know the context or anything, but that's not how I take that comment. I take it to mean that people themselves are weaker than past generations because they have these programs to fall back on, and I agree. I don't think society is worse off or anything overall because of them, and I don't think that's what he meant by it.

Fair enough. I don't think that people themselves are weaker because they have government programs to fall back on either. A person that does not have anything to fall back on if they fail or have misfortune is not stronger because of it.

You don't think someone who works their way up from the lower to middle to upper middle class is stronger than they would be if they had found a bag of money and ended up in the same spot?

I don't think that providing a backstop for the poor, elderly, and disabled is equivalent to handing someone a bag of money that makes them upper middle class.

I didn't say it was. Use whatever analogy you'd like- I think in general, overcoming something on your own makes you stronger than if you had help. Again, not saying we should do away with the programs or that they don't have a net positive impact overall, just speaking on the strength issue.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Right, it all changed. The economy began to grow at a much faster pace, people saved more for their own retirement than ever before, private investment skyrocketed, the poor (particularly poor children) and elderly got better and more reliable access to health care, poverty rates for seniors dropped significantly as did overall poverty rates, charities continued to thrive and were able to to provide better services. Nice to see that Rubio is in touch with the economic and social trends of the last half century.

Right-wing talking point - "The new deal was a disaster."

 

[DrJ]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Right, it all changed. The economy began to grow at a much faster pace, people saved more for their own retirement than ever before, private investment skyrocketed, the poor (particularly poor children) and elderly got better and more reliable access to health care, poverty rates for seniors dropped significantly as did overall poverty rates, charities continued to thrive and were able to to provide better services. Nice to see that Rubio is in touch with the economic and social trends of the last half century.

The poverty rate is getting back up to where it was in the 60's. The growth of the economy has stagnated and isn't anywhere near it was in previous generations. And this is before Bush took office. While the stock market was doing good in the 1990's, the growth rate of the GDP had completely stagnated compared to previous generations. Here's a look at the GDP figures: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history. 80% growth from 1950 - 1960.

97% growth from 1960 - 1970.

168% growth from 1970 - 1980.

108% growth from 1980 - 1990.

71% growth from 1990 - 2000. 2nd lowest

45% growth from 2000 - 2010. lowest

So no, I wouldn't say the trends of the last half century indicate shrinking poverty or a more rapidly increaing economy.

So you really want to argue that the problems of the last decade were caused by social legislation enacted in the 1930s and 1960s? The only significant changes made in that time were a substantial rolling back of government poverty benefits in the mid-90s and the expansion of drug coverage in the mid-00s. Compare poverty rates from the 30s, 40s and 50s to now, even when we're having a severe economic event.

You are also looking at current year GDP growth, which doesn't account for inflation (which is why the 1970s look so high). The growth rate since the 50s has been much more stable and the 90s reflect the overall strong growth if you look at real GDP.

No, I'm arguing that your assertion that these programs vastly diminished poverty while also contributing to vast economic expansion previosly unseen isn't supported by the data.

 

[RCon]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't think that social safety net programs weaken a society.

I'd argue that some do and others don't, depending on how they're designed and implemented.

 

[Todd Andrews]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

I dont see social security/Medicare/Medicaid cutting the US elderly in poverty rate in half over a matter of decades as something that "weakened us as a people." Rubio has a very strange interpretation of "weakening".

 

[Go DC Yourself]

I think it is safe to say the Rubio has zero understanding of, nor the inclination to learn, what America was like in the 30s and before for working people in this country. But I imagine that is not who he is interested in representing anyway.

 

[siffoin]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Couple of notes that make a difference between today and those "good ol' days of yesteryear.#1: Life expectancy in 1930 was less than 60 years. Today it is close to 80. That's a HUGE difference. People didn't save for retirement..they died before they retired.#2: Most people in 1930 were less than 1 generation removed from working the land or had family who did work the land. That "system" meant self-sufficiency. It was more the norm to know how to grow food, store food, mend/make clothes etc than what we have today. Sufficiency meant in lean times your skills could be used in barter. In addition in 1930 there were less than 125 million people in the US...only about 2 billion in the world. Today there is more than 3x that...meaning the ability to secure resources is more stretched. In addition: Our system today is 100% reliant on consumerism...which depends on a lack of self-sufficiency to maintain. Consumerism means you are reliant on others for everything. There is no barter. All this in a world that is competing for fewer and fewer resources.#3: In general family systems pre-1930 were much closer in location and because of that they were able to rely on each in times of need. Today societal divorce/fractured families and the spread of families across distances for personal reasons or employment reasons makes it impossible to rely on the family system in times of need.#4: Prior to fiat currency (a gold standard currency)...one could expect very little inflation throughout ones life. Very very different from what we see today. With little expected inflation over a life-time one would be able to survive and thrive to age 60 far easier than today.So basically because people lived far shorter lives; Because people had a greater connection to the land and were more self sufficient; Because resources were easier to obtain; Because families were closer in location and bound tighter for need; And because one could expect little inflation over ones lifetime...Support needed throughout life was minimal and could be handled by family, church, and neighbors. The reality of today is a global consumerist world, with resources increasingly limited; disconnected from self-reliance for anything; individuals often living apart from their families; the impact of inflation from birth-80+ years is dramatic...there is actually need for a governmental system-wide "safety-net" because family, neighbors and churches cannot handle 20+ years of care for an ever aging population*. If you want to talk about real solutions...I can think of only one...and that is a geriatric pandemic that resets the life-span to 60 years. Do that and we can get rid of most of our problems.* On Jan 1, 2011- the first of the baby boomer generation began to reach retirement age (65). 10,000 boomers "retire" every day...and will do so every day for the next 18 years. (I read that somewhere so hope it is true...regardless, I think you get the jist)

 

[Ministry of Pain]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Why do you disagree?

This was the first time I stopped in the thread as I had the same question. Slap has been flying up my boards lately of people I want to read more of but this had me at a loss. I like folks that can find good on both sides, Slap can do that but here he sort of shows an immediate shut down to Marco Rubio. I am a native Floridian and Rubio is way too conservative for me but he does speak well and he does have some good ideas...he also can be pretty nutty. Just for the record...did anyone think the Nancy Reagan fall was planned? Make Rubio look even more hero like as he saves the 1st Lady from falling to the floor.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

I dont see social security/Medicare/Medicaid cutting the US elderly in poverty rate in half over a matter of decades as something that "weakened us as a people." Rubio has a very strange interpretation of "weakening".

Please...if the elderly didn't want to be poor they should work like the rest of us.