The Progressive Movement - A political history lesson

[PLAYER57832]

anyone with the ability and will could go to college without hocking their future earnings for the next 20 years,

What? Did they provide grants to all college students or something? You need to let me know what this progressive mandate was, because I didn't get the memo. I'm going to be hocking my future earnings for the next 30 years to pay for college and law school.

You were born at least 10 years too late, because in most of the US (not PA, ironically enough), college education WAS nearly free for students who had reasonable grades and abilities.

My entire loans, even after being cheated and having to pay one loan double (not joking there, but details would be off topic) came to just $20,000 for over 5 years of college (changed majors and schools 3 times).

childhood hunger was unknown and homelessness something experienced almost entirely by the truly derelict or, in the short term, those who suffered a tragedy (fire, etc.).

Really? So hunger and homelessness now is caused by what exactly? How many more dollars and progams are there now than there were in the 1940s and 1950s? Are they working?

They WERE working, yes, up until Reagan decided that giving well off folks tax breaks was more important than feeding hungry kids.

Of course, the 40's we had this little thing called WWII.. wonderful times, there, and of course not a penny went to the federal government then..

They created a world in which worker safety actually mattered, weekends and 40 hour work week are standard (that last is largely due to unions, I must add).

Are unions statist? I thought they weren't. In any event, weekends? 40 hour work week? Who gets that?

A lot of white collar workers, and it used to be that most blue collar workers had those hours as well.

Union workers certainly work more than 40 hours and they certainly work on weekends. I suppose government workers fit that definition. And last I checked, most office workers aren't unionized. I seriously have no idea where you come up with this stuff.

Nice try at twisting reality yourself. Unions did give us the idea of a weekend and 40 hour work weeks. Of course, that has been subverted now by the idea that only those making millions have any rights to much of anything.. and that its perfectly OK for other people to work 60+ hours, barely be able to make a mortgage that was overpriced to begin with, and oh yeah... time with kids? Superfulous.

You have already bought into the idea that you are somehow at the top and going to benefit from all this largess. Instead, you are going to pay the bills for all the tax breaks only the upper escheolon really get.

[PLAYER57832]

A few other things gained from this "stupid progressive" attitude..... research into cures for everything from malaria to cancer, technological advancements including investments in oil research and various other technologies. A well -run insterstate highway system. National Electric power and phone services....

Etc, etc, etc.

[Phatscotty]

I don't think Progressives are stupid, they just don't give a damn about anything except for their social issues. Everything revolves around race/gender/class, anything else is less important.

[Juan_Bottom]

Somewhere there there's a fair point to be made. In the 50s the head of household was the Husband, and he made enough money at his 40-hour job to support his whole family, and that's without college. Today, everything is flipped. Unions have lost support, pay for workers is on the decline, production is up, and the norm is for both parents to work 100million hours with little time for family.
I know that people blame the integration of blacks and women into the workforce, but that explanation is absolutely lacking.

[thegreekdog]

Somewhere there there's a fair point to be made. In the 50s the head of household was the Husband, and he made enough money at his 40-hour job to support his whole family, and that's without college. Today, everything is flipped. Unions have lost support, pay for workers is on the decline, production is up, and the norm is for both parents to work 100million hours with little time for family.
I know that people blame the integration of blacks and women into the workforce, but that explanation is absolutely lacking.

I never heard people say the integration of blacks into the workforce was to blame. I have heard the integration of women in the workforce had an effect. So why do you think that explanation is lacking?

[Phatscotty]

Somewhere there there's a fair point to be made. In the 50s the head of household was the Husband, and he made enough money at his 40-hour job to support his whole family, and that's without college. Today, everything is flipped. Unions have lost support, pay for workers is on the decline, production is up, and the norm is for both parents to work 100million hours with little time for family.
I know that people blame the integration of blacks and women into the workforce, but that explanation is absolutely lacking.

I never heard people say the integration of blacks into the workforce was to blame. I have heard the integration of women in the workforce had an effect. So why do you think that explanation is lacking?

see the post before his. As I pointed out, everything revolves around race/gender/class...

[PLAYER57832]

Freedom for a few is not freedom. Government ensures uniform freedom for ALL. That means that you get to do what you wish, UNTIL you start to invade my space.

BINGO! We will make a libertarian conservative (little "r" republican) out of you yet!

To teach me anything, you would first have to learn a tad of what i know. So far, you seem to prefer ignorance,

The problem is, if you ignore most biology, pretend that scientists, as a whole are just a bunch of biased folks out to attack business or Christianity or "free thinking individuals".. then you can pretend that you are not harming anyone.

But what exactly does "biology" state? At what point does your "regulation" invade my space more than the "regulation" protects yours?

Well, let's begin with the fact that you are able to create a product and show it passes an L50 standard for 20 times the normal use for a few months doesn't necessarily mean it is truly safe for the next 20 eyars or when combined with other products... and hey, maybe the people creating, selling and benefitting from those products ought to have to pay for better testing, rather than either the victims or folks who have neither produced, bought or in any way benefitted from the products.

OR... how about the "insane" idea that polluting a large swath of the Gulf of Mexico, damaging the livelihood of millions, the lives of many just might be a disaster we should not just repeat in 15 years or less...

And how did this thread get into biology?

Its called life. You know, biology is the study of it. And, well... economics rather depends upon life on earth.

[PLAYER57832]

Somewhere there there's a fair point to be made. In the 50s the head of household was the Husband, and he made enough money at his 40-hour job to support his whole family, and that's without college. Today, everything is flipped. Unions have lost support, pay for workers is on the decline, production is up, and the norm is for both parents to work 100million hours with little time for family.
I know that people blame the integration of blacks and women into the workforce, but that explanation is absolutely lacking.

I never heard people say the integration of blacks into the workforce was to blame. I have heard the integration of women in the workforce had an effect. So why do you think that explanation is lacking?

First, I am in no way shape or form suggesting YOU think this way. But, you are beginning to demonstrate the truth in the saying "he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it". Not only have those ideas very much been a part of American politics and thinking -- albiet more "backroom and boardroom" thinking than "6 O'clock news" thinking (from a time when the 6 O'clock news actually meant something), BUT it is very much a part of recent rhetoric. The "get women back in the home" bit is particularly strong within Christian right circles. The race bit is changed somewhat and is from different groups (though, like in the past, there is overlap with some conservative Christians taking both stances). Blacks are no longer the target, its "Mexicans" who are assumed to be illegal unless proven otherwise are more the target. And, of course... throw in homosexuality for good measure.

A major difference from the past is that there are more issues and so its not all the same groups opposing all of those together, even though in many cases the same folks do essentially target all three.

[thegreekdog]

Somewhere there there's a fair point to be made. In the 50s the head of household was the Husband, and he made enough money at his 40-hour job to support his whole family, and that's without college. Today, everything is flipped. Unions have lost support, pay for workers is on the decline, production is up, and the norm is for both parents to work 100million hours with little time for family.
I know that people blame the integration of blacks and women into the workforce, but that explanation is absolutely lacking.

I never heard people say the integration of blacks into the workforce was to blame. I have heard the integration of women in the workforce had an effect. So why do you think that explanation is lacking?

First, I am in no way shape or form suggesting YOU think this way. But, you are beginning to demonstrate the truth in the saying "he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it". Not only have those ideas very much been a part of American politics and thinking -- albiet more "backroom and boardroom" thinking than "6 O'clock news" thinking (from a time when the 6 O'clock news actually meant something), BUT it is very much a part of recent rhetoric. The "get women back in the home" bit is particularly strong within Christian right circles. The race bit is changed somewhat and is from different groups (though, like in the past, there is overlap with some conservative Christians taking both stances). Blacks are no longer the target, its "Mexicans" who are assumed to be illegal unless proven otherwise are more the target. And, of course... throw in homosexuality for good measure.

A major difference from the past is that there are more issues and so its not all the same groups opposing all of those together, even though in many cases the same folks do essentially target all three.

Whoa, hold on a second. I'm not suggesting women shouldn't work. I'm wondering why the explanation is lacking. If at some point in history we doubled the workforce supply and that accounts for lowered wages, why is that explanation lacking?

[Juan_Bottom]

Blacks and women had already been integrating into the workforce well before 1950. Wages continued to increase for everyone until 1970.

[Night Strike]

AND... it all began to end in the mid eighties. The election of Reagan began the return of childhood hunger (took a bit for the result to actually happen), etc, etc, etc.

Actually, I believe it's the progressives with their governmental mandates that are making children go hungry again by refusing to give them enough food:

Let me get this straight...the Republicans want to end food at school, yet you want to claim that it's the progressives that are not giving them enough food at school?

Does the cognitive dissonance ever become unbearable?

I have never once heard any Republican claim that serving food at school should be stopped. Where are your sources? I have heard about them wanting to stop the nanny-state of some school officials throwing away food bought from home and forcing kids to take school-approved lunches.


By the way, I wonder why Player has completely ignored my post......

[PLAYER57832]

Somewhere there there's a fair point to be made. In the 50s the head of household was the Husband, and he made enough money at his 40-hour job to support his whole family, and that's without college. Today, everything is flipped. Unions have lost support, pay for workers is on the decline, production is up, and the norm is for both parents to work 100million hours with little time for family.
I know that people blame the integration of blacks and women into the workforce, but that explanation is absolutely lacking.

I never heard people say the integration of blacks into the workforce was to blame. I have heard the integration of women in the workforce had an effect. So why do you think that explanation is lacking?

First, I am in no way shape or form suggesting YOU think this way. But, you are beginning to demonstrate the truth in the saying "he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it". Not only have those ideas very much been a part of American politics and thinking -- albiet more "backroom and boardroom" thinking than "6 O'clock news" thinking (from a time when the 6 O'clock news actually meant something), BUT it is very much a part of recent rhetoric. The "get women back in the home" bit is particularly strong within Christian right circles. The race bit is changed somewhat and is from different groups (though, like in the past, there is overlap with some conservative Christians taking both stances). Blacks are no longer the target, its "Mexicans" who are assumed to be illegal unless proven otherwise are more the target. And, of course... throw in homosexuality for good measure.

A major difference from the past is that there are more issues and so its not all the same groups opposing all of those together, even though in many cases the same folks do essentially target all three.

Whoa, hold on a second. I'm not suggesting women shouldn't work. I'm wondering why the explanation is lacking. If at some point in history we doubled the workforce supply and that accounts for lowered wages, why is that explanation lacking?

I never said you were suggesting that. In fact, I believe I cearly said that I did NOT think you thought that way, I was addressing the point that you don't feel other people think that way.

As for the double the workforce... There are plenty of competing issues, enough that sociologists will no doubt be debating the "true causes" and "whether the chicken or egg came first" for centuries.

1. The initial input of women into the workforce it did not lower wages, because the demand for work expanded at about the same time... and many jobs that did not require sheer physical force.
2. Women still tended to move into the lower ranks, take the "pink collar" jobs -- some of which (like day care provider) were essentially created for the needs of the "female workforce". This resulted in more men beign able to move further up.
3. Recently, the unemployment pain has often been mitigated because often at least one partner is still employed... even if for lesser wages and/or hours. Also, loss of jobs (or decreased hours) often allows shifting of childcare responsibilities and other shifts so that even while the overall work output is down, families can still "maintain".. just not progress they way they would like. (let's not forget the use of credit cards for "income" as well.. but thats off topic). Ironically, a lot of women in higher up positions sometimes stayed employed when "their men" were laid off, partly because it can be harder for a company to fire a loan woman in the department.

4.The rhetoric is not about overall lowering of jobs because women are in, its about men not getting jobs, women who are "undeserving" keeping their jobs, and push back against the idea that women should be getting more pay, in some cases against the fact that women get paid less than men for the same job (never mind that female jobs pay less than traditional male jobs, irrelevant of skills required).


Or, to put it another way, the argument is there, its just not quite as direct as you are looking for.

[Juan_Bottom]

This is a trap thread player. You gotta play at their level in here. Well, Tzor is prolly serious, so he's ok.

[PLAYER57832]

AND... it all began to end in the mid eighties. The election of Reagan began the return of childhood hunger (took a bit for the result to actually happen), etc, etc, etc.

Actually, I believe it's the progressives with their governmental mandates that are making children go hungry again by refusing to give them enough food:

Let me get this straight...the Republicans want to end food at school, yet you want to claim that it's the progressives that are not giving them enough food at school?

Does the cognitive dissonance ever become unbearable?

I have never once heard any Republican claim that serving food at school should be stopped. Where are your sources? I have heard about them wanting to stop the nanny-state of some school officials throwing away food bought from home and forcing kids to take school-approved lunches.

Hmm... maybe not directly, but what do you think happens when millions of kids are shifted to private schools, home schools. Its one of those "non-education related requirements" that get pushed aside. Also, they most certainly ARE cutting school budgets right and left.

By the way, I wonder why Player has completely ignored my post......

I responded to quite a few, but I have not been coming online as often as I have been. If I missed something you feel critical.. point it out again.

[Juan_Bottom]

I didn't respond to it because I didn't think that it was worth the time. I mean, the arguments defeated themselves.

[PLAYER57832]

This is a trap thread player. You gotta play at their level in here. Well, Tzor is prolly serious, so he's ok.

LOL.. you think? I mean, it was only sprouted from a thread in which I basically told tzor that I found calling me progressive as a slur to be funny.

Yeah. tzor can have some serious discussion. Sadly, of late it just seems to be one tangent after another.

[Night Strike]

AND... it all began to end in the mid eighties. The election of Reagan began the return of childhood hunger (took a bit for the result to actually happen), etc, etc, etc.

Actually, I believe it's the progressives with their governmental mandates that are making children go hungry again by refusing to give them enough food:

Let me get this straight...the Republicans want to end food at school, yet you want to claim that it's the progressives that are not giving them enough food at school?

Does the cognitive dissonance ever become unbearable?

I have never once heard any Republican claim that serving food at school should be stopped. Where are your sources? I have heard about them wanting to stop the nanny-state of some school officials throwing away food bought from home and forcing kids to take school-approved lunches.

Hmm... maybe not directly, but what do you think happens when millions of kids are shifted to private schools, home schools. Its one of those "non-education related requirements" that get pushed aside. Also, they most certainly ARE cutting school budgets right and left.

Well, private schools serve food too, so how is that an issue? And if a family can afford to have one parent stay home to home school, I'm assuming that family also has enough money to provide food to their own kids, so there's no issue there either. And school budgets are getting cut because states can't just print endless amounts of money to fund all the requirements the federal government puts on them.

By the way, I wonder why Player has completely ignored my post......

I responded to quite a few, but I have not been coming online as often as I have been. If I missed something you feel critical.. point it out again.

Only 3 separate news stories about how your progressives are forcing kids to go hungry at school because they aren't allowed to eat enough calories. It's not conservatives that are making kids go hungry.

[PLAYER57832]

AND... it all began to end in the mid eighties. The election of Reagan began the return of childhood hunger (took a bit for the result to actually happen), etc, etc, etc.

Actually, I believe it's the progressives with their governmental mandates that are making children go hungry again by refusing to give them enough food:

Let me get this straight...the Republicans want to end food at school, yet you want to claim that it's the progressives that are not giving them enough food at school?

Does the cognitive dissonance ever become unbearable?

I have never once heard any Republican claim that serving food at school should be stopped. Where are your sources? I have heard about them wanting to stop the nanny-state of some school officials throwing away food bought from home and forcing kids to take school-approved lunches.

Hmm... maybe not directly, but what do you think happens when millions of kids are shifted to private schools, home schools. Its one of those "non-education related requirements" that get pushed aside. Also, they most certainly ARE cutting school budgets right and left.

Well, private schools serve food too, so how is that an issue?

No, a lot do not.

And if a family can afford to have one parent stay home to home school, I'm assuming that family also has enough money to provide food to their own kids, so there's no issue there either.

Not accurate. I know quite a few homeschooling families who are on welfare.

And school budgets are getting cut because states can't just print endless amounts of money to fund all the requirements the federal government puts on them.

Exactly, like providing food... education/accomodations for kids with special needs, even things like fire alarms!
And the funniest part is the absolute worst mandates came under ye old Repub, G.W. Bush. "no child left behind".. aka "EVERY child left behind".

By the way, I wonder why Player has completely ignored my post......

I responded to quite a few, but I have not been coming online as often as I have been. If I missed something you feel critical.. point it out again.

Only 3 separate news stories about how your progressives are forcing kids to go hungry at school because they aren't allowed to eat enough calories. It's not conservatives that are making kids go hungry.

If true, those would be idiots, not progressives. Try again.

EDIT.. after reading juan's response, I can see I was wise to say "IF true".

[Juan_Bottom]

Only 3 separate news stories about how your progressives are forcing kids to go hungry at school because they aren't allowed to eat enough calories. It's not conservatives that are making kids go hungry.

Nobody is going hungry, they're just getting actual servings. Your stories are kind of dumb and didn't cite anyone with education on the matter. They're like propaganda hearsay stories. "We're getting the recommended amount of food and it's not enough for my love handles." "We need our salts and sugars." One would assume that there would be a break-in period when going from jumbo-proportions and healthy proportions. I live just fine on actual servings. Americans seem to have trouble telling the difference between "full" and "stuffed."
And the weight lifter who doesn't get enough calories? You believe schools should provide extra food to athletes? Or what's the argument there? How will the other tax-paying parents in the community feel about that?

[Night Strike]

By the way, I wonder why Player has completely ignored my post......

I responded to quite a few, but I have not been coming online as often as I have been. If I missed something you feel critical.. point it out again.

Only 3 separate news stories about how your progressives are forcing kids to go hungry at school because they aren't allowed to eat enough calories. It's not conservatives that are making kids go hungry.

If true, those would be idiots, not progressives. Try again.

PLAYER, WAKE UP!!! These are federal government mandates that are limiting the amounts of calories that schools can serve to students, not the individual school districts!! This is what you get when the government provides blanket policies for all people instead of individuals making their own decisions. One-size-fits-all does not work in a country of more than 300 million people.

Only 3 separate news stories about how your progressives are forcing kids to go hungry at school because they aren't allowed to eat enough calories. It's not conservatives that are making kids go hungry.

Nobody is going hungry, they're just getting actual servings. Your stories are kind of dumb and didn't cite anyone with education on the matter. They're like propaganda hearsay stories. "We're getting the recommended amount of food and it's not enough for my love handles." "We need our salts and sugars." One would assume that there would be a break-in period when going from jumbo-proportions and healthy proportions. I live just fine on actual servings. Americans seem to have trouble telling the difference between "full" and "stuffed."
And the weight lifter who doesn't get enough calories? You believe schools should provide extra food to athletes? Or what's the argument there? How will the other tax-paying parents in the community feel about that?

Every person's body is different. The government can't just accurately dictate how much food every kid should be allowed to eat. And the students that were needing more food for any reason were already paying for that extra food. Today, the government doesn't allow that. Kids are getting hungry in their afternoon classes because they weren't allowed to eat enough at lunch. That's not only making kids unhealthy but also hindering their learning.

[Juan_Bottom]

Also - history fact - progressives are the reason that schools serve lunches.

The idea came from this old bastard who supported England during the Revolutionary War. So he had to leave and go to Europe. There he started this forced work program for unemployed adults and children. They were forced to make clothes for the German Army. Being forced laborers, they didn't leave for lunch, they were fed barley & potato soup.
Fast forward to Depression-era America, and the School lunch program was used to combat child malnourishment.
Slow-Forward to the outbreak of WWII in America, where many draftees showed-up underweight. This time the School Lunch program was beefed-up to keep our kids healthy for the war effort and beyond.
Then in 1966 we got serious about it, and created the free-lunch program.

Problems poked through in the 1970s when soda manufactures started paying schools to allow them to set-up vending machines in school cafeterias.
And then of course, THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION cut the f*ck out of funding for schools. That's when the switch to fast food lunches happened.

[Juan_Bottom]

Every person's body is different. The government can't just accurately dictate how much food every kid should be allowed to eat. And the students that were needing more food for any reason were already paying for that extra food. Today, the government doesn't allow that. Kids are getting hungry in their afternoon classes because they weren't allowed to eat enough at lunch. That's not only making kids unhealthy but also hindering their learning.

Then where are the professionals weighing in on those "news stories?" Really what you're saying here and with those stories is that each kid should be allowed as much food as he/she thinks that he/she needs.

[Night Strike]

And then of course, THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION cut the f*ck out of funding for schools. That's when the switch to fast food lunches happened.

Where does the Constitution say that the federal government is responsible for any education/school funding?

The federal government should not be involved in either education funding or education mandates.

[Night Strike]

Every person's body is different. The government can't just accurately dictate how much food every kid should be allowed to eat. And the students that were needing more food for any reason were already paying for that extra food. Today, the government doesn't allow that. Kids are getting hungry in their afternoon classes because they weren't allowed to eat enough at lunch. That's not only making kids unhealthy but also hindering their learning.

Then where are the professionals weighing in on those "news stories?" Really what you're saying here and with those stories is that each kid should be allowed as much food as he/she thinks that he/she needs.

Well, that tends to be what happens in a free society: people make their own choices. The government does not exist to make those choices for you. And I believe at least 1 of those articles, if not all 3, quoted a dietician.

[PLAYER57832]

By the way, I wonder why Player has completely ignored my post......

I responded to quite a few, but I have not been coming online as often as I have been. If I missed something you feel critical.. point it out again.

Only 3 separate news stories about how your progressives are forcing kids to go hungry at school because they aren't allowed to eat enough calories. It's not conservatives that are making kids go hungry.

If true, those would be idiots, not progressives. Try again.

PLAYER, WAKE UP!!! These are federal government mandates that are limiting the amounts of calories that schools can serve to students, not the individual school districts!! This is what you get when the government provides blanket policies for all people instead of individuals making their own decisions. One-size-fits-all does not work in a country of more than 300 million people.

Only 3 separate news stories about how your progressives are forcing kids to go hungry at school because they aren't allowed to eat enough calories. It's not conservatives that are making kids go hungry.

Nobody is going hungry, they're just getting actual servings. Your stories are kind of dumb and didn't cite anyone with education on the matter. They're like propaganda hearsay stories. "We're getting the recommended amount of food and it's not enough for my love handles." "We need our salts and sugars." One would assume that there would be a break-in period when going from jumbo-proportions and healthy proportions. I live just fine on actual servings. Americans seem to have trouble telling the difference between "full" and "stuffed."
And the weight lifter who doesn't get enough calories? You believe schools should provide extra food to athletes? Or what's the argument there? How will the other tax-paying parents in the community feel about that?

Every person's body is different. The government can't just accurately dictate how much food every kid should be allowed to eat. And the students that were needing more food for any reason were already paying for that extra food. Today, the government doesn't allow that. Kids are getting hungry in their afternoon classes because they weren't allowed to eat enough at lunch. That's not only making kids unhealthy but also hindering their learning.

Nightstrike, I am just going to suggest that having run a daycare for several years (dealing with the federal food program, just in case you need a further hint...), having 4 kids in or through the local schools, not to mention working in food services now....

I just MIGHT have a clue about the program, a bit more than you, even. I CERTAINLY have a better grasp on the problems and why they are happening. Juan hit a lot of it.

But one factoid you have wrong. While a lot is mandate by the federal government, how each program is implemented is modified by the states and localities. So, it is controlled by all levels not just the feds.