Customer Discussions > History forum

After seeing the new film 'Lincoln', I'd like to know - at what point in time did the Republicans start becoming the party of the rich ?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 37 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jan 11, 2013 10:18:04 AM PST
Steelers fan says:
When informed "Silent Cal" had died, Dorothy Parker asked, "How can they tell?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2013 10:13:31 AM PST
Far Lefkas says:
R.B.,
According to the account of Mencken (who was around then), it indeed was Coolidge who failed to rein in outta-control spending during those Roaring Twenties, & when Hoover got roasted & fricasseed by the Depression, Cal was "safely in the hay" (he evidently napped alot during his Presidency) @home in MA.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2013 7:30:05 AM PST
Lientje says:
Robert: Probably around the time when being a Republican meant being right wing. I know that it
had something to do with the carpetbaggers, and so many people from the south joined the Democratic
party because they didn't want to be associated with the Republicans who freed the slaves.

And still today we have people like Jonah Goldberg who tell us how the Democrats treated the blacks in the
South in the early to mid 1900's, and expect us to think that is significant.

Posted on Jan 11, 2013 7:15:34 AM PST
Billy says:
In contrast to the Democrats, the Republican Party still gets 90 percent of all its donations in increments of $100 or less. They are the more grass roots party of the two.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2013 7:11:54 AM PST
JR Fleming says:
RB,
T. Roosevelt also contributed to the shift when he ran for Pres. under his own party label (Progressive or Bull Moose Party) in 1912. When he did that he took a lot of the liberal element out of the Repub. party and they never really went back

Posted on Jan 11, 2013 6:49:15 AM PST
Steelers fan says:
A nation with one-third of its work force unemployed is a ticking time bomb, and a prescription for disaster. Roosevelt was aware of this. The New Deal had a morale-building purpose, apart from economic objectives.

Posted on Nov 21, 2012 11:31:32 AM PST
My understanding is that it was Calvin Coolidge's negligence to install economic regulations during the so-called "Roaring Twenties" that contributed mightily to the Great Depression occurring, and that he should have been blamed much more so than Herbert Hoover.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 6:54:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 6:59:23 AM PST
freedom4all says:
Nancy that is government school house history. FDR prolong Hoover's interference into a great depression.

FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 2:24:47 PM PST
Doog37 says:
I think it seems obvious that collusion and price fixing was not a solution for an economic downturn. When there is not enough competition prices rise and rising prices damage an economy where free flowing cash is in short supply. Of course too much competition is bad but tends to be fixed by natural market forces (companies going out of business) but collusion and market dominance need to be managed by outside forces, because once a company has too large of an advantage competition becomes nearly impossible without a change in the paradigm.
The authors decided to focus on what would get them the most recognition which is providing a scapegoat for the Great Depression lasting so long, but really do not provide any insight as to what should have been done. This is important because the causes of the Great Depression and the recession we face now have the same cause... too much leverage. When you allow for too many loans with too little collateral you artificially increase the money supply and create unsustainable growth that once a slowdown happens, everything comes to a halt. When banks don't trust people to pay back loans and customers don't trust the banks the flow of money stops and when there is literally no enough cash (or gold) to go around everything contracts economically.
First everything is so interconnected globally and financial transaction happen so quickly that movement is felt immediately exaggerating both upturns and down swings. Add to that the fact that the over inflation of real estate is much more personal affecting individuals not just businesses. People don't need to have investments (although they probably should) but they need someplace to live and even if you rent the price of real estate affects everyone directly (except for the increasing rare person who fully owns his/her own home). The economic stimulus enacted by Bush and Obama were the right way to go as they allowed the flow of money to keep going. So in some ways the current recession has been extended past its natural length, but not out of foolishness. The recession was extended by preventing a complete global depression which may have resulted in complete economic instability that would have changed the entire global economy and not for the better. Instead of having a 6 month complete crash where credit was non-existent commodity prices skyrocketed and inflation was immediate and huge we have a long period of economic slowdown as the underlying causes were resolved. The reason why things are still not back for the average American is that the distribution of wealth is now so skewed and the demand for labor so diminished that those who are in the working class (blue collar or unskilled labor) are struggling even when they do have jobs since the haves are able to use their buying power against the have-nots in a way not seen since feudal times. Every family that has to compete for goods and services with people who have vastly more money than they do just pushes up the price of everything. I do not think Socialism is the answer but we still do not have a reasonable solution to the healthcare issue in this country and I do not see many new jobs for low skill workers coming back to America ever again.
Add to this the final piece of the puzzle that has not resolved itself... the looming doom of $14 trillion plus of national debt and we have a situation that still has not fully resolved.
Wow way too much time on this.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 2:16:10 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 2:19:43 PM PST
Bubba says:
Domenico Rosa says: "It is truly mindboggling that a self-described "Christian pastor" would stab Jimmy Carter in the back in such a blatantly false way."

I don't find it at all surprising that a Christian minister would stab anybody in the back, _especially_ when he was a Republican at the time. It was done for the "unborn children" and to "preserve marriage". Remember that Lying for Jesus is A-OK with Jesus.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 2:06:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Aug 3, 2013 5:14:53 PM PDT
Doog37 wrote: <<By taking advantage of the Conservative Christian Right and a "family values" platform, GOP leadership was able to get support for corporate agendas by selling the Republicans as the party of the "good Christians".>>

President Jimmy Carter wrote the following on Page 469 of White House Diary .

"that autumn [1980] a group headed by Jerry Falwell purchased $10 million in commercials on southern radio and TV to brand me as a traitor to the South and no longer a Christian."

It is truly mindboggling that a self-described "Christian pastor" would stab Jimmy Carter in the back in such a blatantly false way.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 1:41:14 PM PST
Doog37 says:
I think you forgot a lot of what happened in the 1980s. Reagan might have appealed to the working man, but he sure did kick him in the groin. At every turn Reagan was pro-business and anti-worker. It was during the Reagan Adminstration that "trickle down" economics started and let's face it the only thing trickling down should have been promptly flushed.
By taking advantage of the Conservative Christian Right and a "family values" platform, GOP leadership was able to get support for corporate agendas by selling the Republicans as the party of the "good Christians". Bush was actually more moderate than Reagan but at that point GOP leadership in Congress had their agenda and had the momentum to get what they wanted for their supporters (donors not voters). Reagan might not have thought up the agenda, but he was the perfect figure head to attach it to.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 1:33:49 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 2:01:18 PM PST
When Republican leaders like Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens were no longer around, the Republican Party quickly succumbed to the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 12:50:39 PM PST
Greg Goebel says:
Bill says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Show post anyway?]

No.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 12:06:27 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 12:08:19 PM PST
Billy says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 11:58:06 AM PST
King's Kid says:
I'm not rich and I am a conservative. Party labels are useless.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 11:42:57 AM PST
Astrocat says:
Bill, the "blueblood elitist" saved this country from a much worse disaster than would have been the case. If it hadn't been for the CCC and the WPA, and his other social programs, even the 2nd WW wouldn't have been enough to bring us back from the brink.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 5:31:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 5:33:19 AM PST
Billy says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 12:02:05 AM PST
Astrocat says:
In 1886 there was a Supreme Court judgement - Santa Clara vs The Southern Pacific, that stated that corporations are people, or at least must be treated the same as individual persons. That's when the ball really got rolling.

Posted on Nov 19, 2012 11:47:23 PM PST
DarthRad says:
Bill,
"Both parties have ALWAYS been controlled by the rich primarily, and neither has ever really tried to change that fact"

You forget about FDR and his New Deal, and LBJ and his Great Society programs. These were the basic building blocks of the social safety net for the poor and downtrodden of America that the Taliban Tea Party hates so much and wants to roll back.

Teddy Roosevelt would be right in there as a reformer for good government. But things were so horrible back then in the days before "guvment regulation" that what he did would be regarded as basic to any modern society.

Imagine going back to the days where there was no FDA regulation of slaughterhouses and they could just put whatever they felt like into sausages. America had a truly unregulated free market back then and things got pretty ugly.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 10:57:54 AM PST
libloon2 says:
Robert Bykowski says: //what were the central events in history that switched the Republicans over to becoming the party of the rich...//

The civil war itself made the "industrial" north, even more rich. The progression just followed from that.

Posted on Nov 19, 2012 10:51:47 AM PST
Greg Goebel says:
"Remember the Golden Rule!"

"What's that?"

"Whoever has the gold -- makes the rules!"

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 6:11:10 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2012 1:47:28 PM PST
Billy says:
Both parties have ALWAYS been controlled by the rich primarily, and neither has ever really tried to change that fact (other than disingenuous rhetoric aimed at voters that both have used at times).

This is just the way the real world works. People with money are more able to make things happen. Ergo, they end up running any such political body. This is not necessarily a bad thing, nor a good one. It's just a structural inevitability in a real-world society.

Posted on Nov 18, 2012 1:28:54 PM PST
DarthRad says:
Robert Bykowski,

Ford's biological father was wealthy, but his mother divorced (because of domestic violence) and remarried, and Ford's stepfather was fairly middle class. Here's an interesting bit from wikipedia on Ford:

------------------------
Ford was born Leslie Lynch King, Jr., on July 14, 1913, at 3202 Woolworth Avenue in Omaha, Nebraska, where his parents lived with his paternal grandparents. His mother was Dorothy Ayer Gardner, and his father was Leslie Lynch King, Sr., a wool trader and son of prominent banker Charles Henry King and Martha Alicia King (née Porter). Dorothy separated from King just sixteen days after her son's birth. She took her son with her to the Oak Park, Illinois home of her sister Tannisse and brother-in-law, Clarence Haskins James. From there, she moved to the home of her parents, Levi Addison Gardner and Adele Augusta Ayer in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Dorothy and King divorced in December 1913; she gained full custody of her son. Ford's paternal grandfather Charles Henry King paid child support until shortly before his death in 1930.[4]

Ford later said his biological father had a history of hitting his mother.[5] James M. Cannon, a member of the Ford administration, wrote in a Ford biography that the Kings' separation and divorce were sparked when, a few days after Ford's birth, Leslie King threatened Dorothy with a butcher knife and threatened to kill her, Ford, and Ford's nursemaid. Ford later told confidantes that his father had first hit his mother on their honeymoon for smiling at another man.[6]

After two and a half years with her parents, on February 1, 1916, Dorothy married Gerald Rudolff Ford, a salesman in a family-owned paint and varnish company. They then called her son Gerald Rudolff Ford, Jr. The future president was never formally adopted, however, and he did not legally change his name until December 3, 1935; he also used a more conventional spelling of his middle name.[7] He was raised in Grand Rapids with his three half brothers by his mother's second marriage: Thomas Gardner Ford (1918-1995), Richard Addison Ford (born 1924), and James Francis Ford (1927-2001).

Ford also had three half-siblings from his father's second marriage: Marjorie King (1921-1993), Leslie Henry King (1923-1976), and Patricia Jane King (born 1925). They never saw one another as children and he did not know them at all. Ford was not aware of his biological father until he was 17, when his parents told him about the circumstances of his birth. That year his father Leslie King, whom Ford described as a "carefree, well-to-do man who didn't really give a damn about the hopes and dreams of his firstborn son", approached Ford while he was waiting tables in a Grand Rapids restaurant. The two "maintained a sporadic contact" until Leslie King, Sr.'s death.[5][8]

Ford maintained his distance emotionally, saying, "My stepfather was a magnificent person and my mother equally wonderful. So I couldn't have written a better prescription for a superb family upbringing."[9]
----------------

Ford was a strong supporter of the ERA and Roe vs. Wade, married a strong (and divorced) woman, Betty Ford, and you see how his early life affected his attitude towards women.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 6:01:35 AM PST
Debunker says:
Hey Larry,

How does my pointing out the idiocy of clowns like you make me "..a coward and insecure individual who doesn't fit in well with people, etc. etc."?

Looking forward to what's sure to be an idiotic response, since you'll be making it.

Thanks!!!
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0x9f9738c4)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  18
Total posts:  37
Initial post:  Nov 17, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 11, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions