This is not about healthcare for the poor...they already have it. It's about the 12% of the population that elects not to purchase health care and using that to takeover the entire industry.

O-Trap;1220638 wrote:Eh, I dunno. Prohibition technically fit each of the descriptions as well. Most people hated it. Didn't improve anything. Government couldn't enforce it.

As for the worst cluster$&%, the New Deal has to rank up there.

Prohibition's goals were to increase productivity, lower poverty, reduce divorce and domestic violence.

All goals were a resounding success as men didn't waste their paychecks at a bar come home beat their families then call off sick the next day. Prohibition met its goals, however it opened up an avenue for organized crime that created a bad that outweighed the good of Prohibition.

georgemc80;1222235 wrote:Prohibition's goals were to increase productivity, lower poverty, reduce divorce and domestic violence.

All goals were a resounding success as men didn't waste their paychecks at a bar come home beat their families then call off sick the next day.

Eh, got any links to back-up that "resounding success" statement? Don't get me wrong....I do not approve of the social consequences of alcohol consumption, but I would like to know how exactly this was a resounding success.

georgemc80;1222235 wrote:Prohibition met its goals, however it opened up an avenue for organized crime that created a bad that outweighed the good of Prohibition.

When government steps in to protect us from us it usually has the exact opposite effect. We are seeing this same issue with the illegal drug problem, particularly marijuana.

I don't have any specific links off the top of my head. This was presented to me when I was a sophomore in college back in 1990, by a professor I hold in high regard. A quick google search for prohibition and success comes up with some articles that look at other measures, such as violent crimes, mental illness, and alcohol related diseases.

http://www.flushinghighschool.org/ourpages/auto/2009/1/5/44726823/NO%20-%20Was%20Prohibition%20a%20Failure.pdf

georgemc80;1222235 wrote:Prohibition's goals were to increase productivity, lower poverty, reduce divorce and domestic violence.

All goals were a resounding success as men didn't waste their paychecks at a bar come home beat their families then call off sick the next day. Prohibition met its goals, however it opened up an avenue for organized crime that created a bad that outweighed the good of Prohibition.

Odd, because it had virtually no effect on a person's ability to go to a speakeasy or bootlegger. It was illegal in name only, so this increase in productivity and lowered poverty on any measurable scale wouldn't accurately be attributed to an increase in a dry society, since society wasn't substantially any drier. They were just quieter about it. Same with drugs today. You might get the occasional would-be user who doesn't use because of the law, but since the law is almost unenforceable, you have little-to-no positive effect.

O-Trap;1221522 wrote:We still had the founding documents back then, which serve as plenty reason the New Deal should have been rejected before we got into trouble.

As for the economic struggles of the time, that should have indicated to us that economic prosperity can be seriously hampered by war spending, and though it is sometimes a necessary evil, it should be a last resort.

As it stands, we today have a Congress of bobble-heads whose heads shake or nod based on however their party wiggles them, history be damned.

The days of the party controlling their members has long passed. They vote strictly how their lobbyist masters dictate. The whole system is corrupt. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

O-Trap;1222786 wrote:Odd, because it had virtually no effect on a person's ability to go to a speakeasy or bootlegger. It was illegal in name only, so this increase in productivity and lowered poverty on any measurable scale wouldn't accurately be attributed to an increase in a dry society, since society wasn't substantially any drier. They were just quieter about it. Same with drugs today. You might get the occasional would-be user who doesn't use because of the law, but since the law is almost unenforceable, you have little-to-no positive effect.

This is not true. Alcohol consumption was reduced by about half in the 1920's and didn't reach pre-prohibition levels until the 1940's according to wikipedia. Still a massive fail but to say it had no effect is probably not true.

BoatShoes;1223121 wrote:This is not true. Alcohol consumption was reduced by about half in the 1920's and didn't reach pre-prohibition levels until the 1940's according to wikipedia. Still a massive fail but to say it had no effect is probably not true.

How was that reduction measured? If people were buying alcohol illegally, of course the stats would show a reduction.

The illegal purchase and consumption of alcohol became a social status of the elite. Critics correctly assume that Prohibition was more of a class warfare. The targets were lower and middle class Americans and immigrants as well. They attacked this demographic by destroying the saloon business. Who cares if the wealthy were productive? Money is always productive. The lower and middle class needed to be productive in the factories.

WebFire;1223237 wrote:How was that reduction measured? If people were buying alcohol illegally, of course the stats would show a reduction.

Precisely.

stlouiedipalma;1223119 wrote:The days of the party controlling their members has long passed. They vote strictly how their lobbyist masters dictate. The whole system is corrupt. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

Eh, when I see the lack of cohesion in political ideologies, it seems like the lobbyists control the parties, and the parties control the voters. Those voters will agree or disagree with the party, not the positions on issues.

[video=youtube;6e3udzHIiVs][/video]

WebFire;1222012 wrote:I read cliff notes. Poor people get free health care now (Medicaid). What am I missing?

Hard to say, since nobody's getting it for free.

WebFire;1223237 wrote:How was that reduction measured? If people were buying alcohol illegally, of course the stats would show a reduction.

Back then there were still a LOT of rural farmers and such who couldn't get access to the speakeasy's and the like and they actually did reduce their consumption apparently. I'm not an expert but that's what I gathered from when I read up on this when I first replied to the post.

BoatShoes;1227755 wrote:Back then there were still a LOT of rural farmers and such who couldn't get access to the speakeasy's and the like and they actually did reduce their consumption apparently. I'm not an expert but that's what I gathered from when I read up on this when I first replied to the post.

I honestly question the validity of any numbers that would reflect this, if only because I can't fathom how this would be tracked accurately.

BoatShoes;1227755 wrote:Back then there were still a LOT of rural farmers and such who couldn't get access to the speakeasy's and the like and they actually did reduce their consumption apparently. I'm not an expert but that's what I gathered from when I read up on this when I first replied to the post.

Back then, whiskey on the black market was readily available. I have a hard time believing anyone couldn't get access.