General Discussion

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)

102. I'm not sure how it follows that the existence of AIM (founded 1968) means that Nixon

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 09:15 AM

Apr 2012

didn't reform the feds' relationship with the tribes in the direction of greater self-determination.

No more than the founding of the Black Panthers (1966) meant that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a bust.

Nixon reduced defense spending. "Topline," which probably doesn;t take all the hidden stuff into account,but nevertheless the biggest reduction since Eisenhower.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/img/historical_defense_budget_charts.html

And he dramatically increased social spending: "By 1977 defense expenditures amounted to only 23.7 percent of the budget, whereas non-defense comprised 76.3%..." With social spending being 55.9% of the total v. 28.7% in 1960, and v. the 49-51 split of defense v. non-defense in 1960.

http://books.google.com/books?id=u_37SCBc3u0C&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=nixon+social+spending+military+spending&source=bl&ots=tO3YIz274X&sig=mDFl6StYQ0Xx6YjQ2ZlvdSDr1jw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wKR5T4-LLcXWiALng_inDg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=nixon%20social%20spending%20military%20spending&f=false

Just because it's the Nixon library doesn't mean it's a lie.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The individual mandate, a Republican idea which shows how far to the right the Dems have gone [View all] MadHound Apr 2012 OP

seems Phlem Apr 2012 #1

Yea, this site is nothing like it was six or eight years ago nolabels Apr 2012 #6

You know what? There are those of us who feel we are not allowed to say that the mandate is LEFT, patrice Apr 2012 #26

It may be a lot of things ... but it is not 'left'. earthside Apr 2012 #62

Dont forget Dokkie Apr 2012 #69

Just maybe it's Obama's way of ensuring that the individual mandate is off the table forever? nanabugg Apr 2012 #80

Obama is either that smart or instinctivly that lucky nolabels Apr 2012 #142

Or it could be used to provide "universal" health care through health savings accounts or some HiPointDem Apr 2012 #85

Well, that is a telling statement about how far to the right you and a lot of this country have gone MadHound Apr 2012 #86

Universal? Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #130

It was rejected b/c the insurance industry was still being unregulated. FarLeftFist Apr 2012 #2

There's only one meaningful regulation that is in the ACA MadHound Apr 2012 #8

So you say the MLR is meaningless? The PCORI??? wow. patrice Apr 2012 #16

If individual states can strike down MLR restrictions, and they can MadHound Apr 2012 #18

The PCORI doesn't do that for gov't; It's the tool by means of which CONSUMERS affect the exchanges. patrice Apr 2012 #24

You apparently haven't read the bill MadHound Apr 2012 #42

Why do you discount the fact that the PCORI is built out of actual empirical PATIENT CENTERED data? patrice Apr 2012 #57

And deregulation will come again. earthside Apr 2012 #11

With 1/2 a trillion of taxpayer money and ongoing premiums from vast numbers of captured customers Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #25

Question CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #27

I don't think they have been non-profit for a long time now.n/t Cleita Apr 2012 #32

K. I seem to remember them being one. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #41

And most people were never aware of the fact that among the truedelphi Apr 2012 #54

Supposedly from cutting "waste and fraud". But I think that is BS. I think it's more along the HiPointDem Apr 2012 #87

I agree with you - it will go down this way. CrispyQ Apr 2012 #115

The Dems are leaning right CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #14

Don't forget that the Republicans now rejecting the mandate have moved even further to the right libinnyandia Apr 2012 #3

The Republicans are moving further and further. . . Stargleamer Apr 2012 #4

Not Really liberalmike27 Apr 2012 #67

Watching The Sunshine Boys today, I realized that it has been 43 years EFerrari Apr 2012 #5

Nixon: the last gasp of liberalism. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #89

Some of that is right wing padding to make Nixon look EFerrari Apr 2012 #95

I'm not sure how it follows that the existence of AIM (founded 1968) means that Nixon HiPointDem Apr 2012 #102

Um, no one has made the inflated claims for the Civil Rights Act EFerrari Apr 2012 #103

I think wonkette leans left, and I believe her column was tongue in cheek. The nixon library, HiPointDem Apr 2012 #108

Well, I agree with the premise. EFerrari Apr 2012 #110

The mandate ProSense Apr 2012 #7

Yes, and all those plans, excepting Clinton's were Republican plans MadHound Apr 2012 #10

Huh? ProSense Apr 2012 #12

You said it, not me MadHound Apr 2012 #15

I didnt know you were a former Hillary supporter.. DCBob Apr 2012 #20

Umm, I think you are slightly lacking in reading comprehension MadHound Apr 2012 #31

FYI Dokkie Apr 2012 #70

Ok, yes, I did misread your post. DCBob Apr 2012 #73

No ProSense Apr 2012 #23

So you support Romney care, a Republican policy MadHound Apr 2012 #33

Regardless ProSense Apr 2012 #38

So again, you will support Republican policy, MadHound Apr 2012 #40

Again, ProSense Apr 2012 #51

Wow, you're linking to your own posts within the same thread now? MadHound Apr 2012 #81

Nixon's proposal was better, and didn't include a mandate. I believe this is descended from the HiPointDem Apr 2012 #93

Sad isn't it, when a Nixon policy proposal is better than a Democratic law. MadHound Apr 2012 #127

How so? Doesn't look similar to me. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #128

I don't understand: If you don't stand-up for a LEGAL mandate, HOW can you get to Single Payer? patrice Apr 2012 #21

Mandate to purchase a product from a for profit company MadHound Apr 2012 #34

Also a big, big similarity: Government REQUIRED to implement Health Care, ergo a mandate of somekind patrice Apr 2012 #43

You are stretching too far to try and make a point that simply isn't there. MadHound Apr 2012 #47

And you are not stretching far enough, in an extremely complex & dynamic REALITY. nt patrice Apr 2012 #52

Why? . . . please. patrice Apr 2012 #59

There is no such trigger in the bill, Patrice. TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #71

Nixon's plan *didn't* have a mandate. Like I told you before. Why do you keep saying it did? HiPointDem Apr 2012 #91

the mandate will always be a corporatist's wet dream.... mike_c Apr 2012 #9

This is crazy. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #44

Because while the "progressive" judges are indeed progressive on social issues, MadHound Apr 2012 #49

In transition from the GOP. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #55

They're not even all that progressive on social issues.. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #148

Because there hasn't really been a progressive judge on the court Pab Sungenis Apr 2012 #109

What do you think he would have done? CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #116

I honestly don't know. Pab Sungenis Apr 2012 #122

I am trying to figure the diff CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #123

I would have called both of them both. Pab Sungenis Apr 2012 #124

I think CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #125

Why did the Medicare Part D program get by with making us choose an insurance company for that jwirr Apr 2012 #13

Because the huge corporations own all the politicians. It is called Corporatism. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #17

Medicare Part D is a big fat boondoggle because of the corporate welfare factor. Zalatix Apr 2012 #82

Agreed but what I was asking is why it was constitutional and the HCR may not be? jwirr Apr 2012 #113

the notion that ins. cos. won't immediately start working to bypass any regulations in the ACA KG Apr 2012 #19

And there will be NO grounds to defend against those attacks if we yeild the Constitutionality of patrice Apr 2012 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #28

Excellent point. OccupyTheIRS Apr 2012 #29

Stereotypical characterizations don't include minimal hypothetical analysis of any other factors. patrice Apr 2012 #37

You know, it really is insulting when you accuse people of being tools, or victims, of the media MadHound Apr 2012 #46

What is not insulting about the assumptions which YOU make???? I will not attack your right to make patrice Apr 2012 #53

Not trying that shoe on, MadHound Apr 2012 #83

You Got It. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #45

And why, one may ask, has the media never spoken up for the truedelphi Apr 2012 #56

This is likely one reason they are rapidly losing viewership. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #74

I think it's very interesting how so many assume that O yeilded to the mandate out of some kind of patrice Apr 2012 #30

Given that he went from supporting single payer, then promising a public option, MadHound Apr 2012 #39

Well, he as sure as fuck wasn't going to be able to go anywhere with any of it unless he was elected patrice Apr 2012 #50

Refreshing honesty: kiva Apr 2012 #63

So you are admitting that Obama is simply another politician, MadHound Apr 2012 #88

No, he yielded the public option Maven Apr 2012 #76

yup, KNR hfojvt Apr 2012 #35

It really is amazing how the Republicans keep getting what they want obxhead Apr 2012 #36

Makes no sense. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #48

The "Liberal" (ha!) justices are establishing Constitutional authority for gov't implemented HC. nt patrice Apr 2012 #60

I would like to see that road map. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #61

I predict that they will uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate. And will do so HiPointDem Apr 2012 #96

Yep. Plus, the Republicans will likely lose this election anyway EFerrari Apr 2012 #98

And it's a nice set-up for the Republicans' return in 2016, maybe with Jeb. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #101

There are NO "Liberal" judges anymore, bvar22 Apr 2012 #152

Please, tell us why you know MORE about this than John Kerry does. nt patrice Apr 2012 #58

"Appeal to authority" = logical fallacy. Debate the argument or the information. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #92

Can you spell collusion? woo me with science Apr 2012 #64

Agreed. Heritage came out for the mandate in 1989. Now they're against it. (Wink, wink) HiPointDem Apr 2012 #97

Yes I can spell collusion Autumn Apr 2012 #129

knr Douglas Carpenter Apr 2012 #65

du rec. nt xchrom Apr 2012 #66

K&R /nt Dragonfli Apr 2012 #68

I have been watching the Republicans attack the very SomethingFishy Apr 2012 #72

The FIRE sector took over the Democratic party some time in the 90s.. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #75

It's the only way to get guaranteed issue. Recursion Apr 2012 #77

Thanks for saying this. progressoid Apr 2012 #78

The amicus briefs to the SCOTUS to shoot down the law tell you which side is REALLY right wing. joshcryer Apr 2012 #79

No, it is actually a well documented fact, MadHound Apr 2012 #84

It has nothing to do with "Obama support." joshcryer Apr 2012 #99

So why are Democrats such as yourself now pushing a plan that has its origins MadHound Apr 2012 #126

I'm not pushing it nor advocating it. joshcryer Apr 2012 #131

Ah, so you're saying we should have had the intermediate step MadHound Apr 2012 #141

What? Social Security had its own intermediate steps. It only paid workers. joshcryer Apr 2012 #144

Obama disagrees with you on a mandate for private insurance.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #90

Yep, and we laughed at that junior senator from Ill. joshcryer Apr 2012 #100

With the MLR cap on the insurance companies a sure fire way for them to make more profits is.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #105

It's a way ProSense Apr 2012 #106

No, the aggregate industry will not in fact make more profits. joshcryer Apr 2012 #132

It takes us in exactly the opposite direction.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #137

ALEC would agree with ya. joshcryer Apr 2012 #139

That doesn't ProSense Apr 2012 #104

One of the prime reasons I preferred Barack to Hillary was Hillary's support for a private mandate.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #107

That is one of the MAIN reasons I did not support her, as well. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #119

That was the only real difference between the two. joshcryer Apr 2012 #134

I suppose you championed his Harry and Louise ads, too. joshcryer Apr 2012 #133

So tell me... Fumesucker Apr 2012 #136

I'm familiar with that Drudge inspired stuff. joshcryer Apr 2012 #138

Hillary was inspired by Drudge? Fumesucker Apr 2012 #140

I post a link to a Media Matters article that references a Drudge talking point and you ... use it? joshcryer Apr 2012 #143

I wouldn't know if it's a Drudge talking point or not.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #147

The link I gave man, it's right there in the link! First paragraph! joshcryer Apr 2012 #149

Personal responsibility.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #150

Single payer would have a very real aspect of personal responsiblity. joshcryer Apr 2012 #151

My point being that "personal responsibility" has been a Republican talking point for quite a while. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #153

Eh, it was in the context of Hillary. joshcryer Apr 2012 #154

Oddly, my comment was also in the context of Hillary.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #155

True that. joshcryer Apr 2012 #156

Now that I look more closely I think I better read up before I shoot off my mouth. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #94

I have to laugh to see so many Dems - Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #111

Obviously ProSense Apr 2012 #112

I don't really care that much about it, but I do not like being framed as a right winger... joshcryer Apr 2012 #135

This: CrispyQ Apr 2012 #114

It's everywhere in the Party. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #118

The pattern over the last 10 years is frightening: bvar22 Apr 2012 #121

Thank you for that -- Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #145

Hear Hear! grahamhgreen Apr 2012 #117

I'll let THIS guy explain why a The Mandate is BAD for America: bvar22 Apr 2012 #120

Who IS that guy? progressoid Apr 2012 #146