Everything the boomer generation has done politically has been done try to create a globalist utopia, a world government. They have thrown away everything, our traditions, our laws, even our rights and centralized the government into a tyranny in which a handful of monied elites dictate to the rest of us how to run our lives, for this moronic goal.
(05-30-2016, 06:22 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ]Everything the boomer generation has done politically has been done try to create a globalist utopia, a world government. They have thrown away everything, our traditions, our laws, even our rights and centralized the government into a tyranny in which a handful of monied elites dictate to the rest of us how to run our lives, for this moronic goal.
That idealism is the root of all of their biggest mistakes. Not that they will ever admit to any.
(05-21-2016, 08:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Everything he's said about what boomers have done, was done by enough of them to make it a clear and distinct pattern. This is how "generaliztions" work. That you can find an exception to the generalization does not invalidate the generalization.
As for that revolution, I've seen what it appears Millenials have planned and if it is the Social Justice Utopia that is supposed to come I have absolutely no interest. I honestly don't think that our society can be fixed, we need to burn down everything that's been constructed since WW2 except those things built by the GIs we want to keep and start over from scratch.
I'm not the only Xer who has come to that conclusion.
I'm a boomer and I found the video hilarious and largely correct. Certainly the only reason I know how to use cutlery is because I was taught by a Gen X girlfriend in my 30s; most boomers probably haven't had the opportunity.
The millenials aren't doing independent plans as yet; they are following whichever boomers they trust. That "Social Justice Utopia" is planned by ex-hippies and pushed by millenials they have trained.
Be careful what you wish for about burning things down. If things are burned down in the crisis, boomers are still going to be leading, and boomers play for keeps. Don't expect the burning to be limited to conventional weapons, not in a crisis war.
(05-23-2016, 01:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 12:39 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 04:18 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2016, 09:53 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]Not so much. The Boomers really were trying to tear everything down as far as Generation X is concerned we are now reaching endgame of what they set in motion.
If you pay attention to Danilynn said in one of her later posts you would realize that something else is going on. I have said this before and you really need to pay attention. If Generation X ends up saving the world it will be a complete accident and consequence of trying to keep our own little part of the world from exploding. Indeed they are busy creating their own arrangements for surviving the stupid. Odin and Eric the Obtuse just don't like them very much.
If nomads are the ones who solve the big issues of their time why is it the civics tend to get the credit?
Probably because we don't make a lot of noise as we go about getting things done. One thing that you should know about Generation X is that we don't do virtue signaling. The GIs may have been doing the shooting but who do you think was figuring out how to go about it. The Lost were the junior and senior officers of the Second World War. They were also in middle and senior management of all of those businesses that produced what was needed.
I suspect you understand now why the GIs treated the Lost far better than anyone else did.
Yep sure do. They were the ones who fixed the mess and us civics are merely the cannon foddar.
Let's not forget the top of the constellation: FDR and Churchill were Missionary Generation. And part of why we were on the winning side was because we were led by idealists and Hitler and Tojo were Reactives. They had their little qualms about things like bombing monastaries, while the idealist leaders on our side, who are about nothing if not the nonnegotiable end justifying the means, were happy to bomb Monte Cassino, firebomb Dresden, and develop nuclear weapons to use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As for why the Civics get the credit, I think it's largely because the Idealists give it to them, or at least give them the idea they deserve it. There's no greater joy for Idealists than molding and shaping Civics to their ends - their joint ends, since properly molded Civics adopt the ends of their Idealist mentors - and the Civics know they are doing what they were meant to do. The Reactives just muddle through and make things work any way they can.
(09-05-2016, 11:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 01:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 12:39 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 04:18 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2016, 09:53 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]Not so much. The Boomers really were trying to tear everything down as far as Generation X is concerned we are now reaching endgame of what they set in motion.
If you pay attention to Danilynn said in one of her later posts you would realize that something else is going on. I have said this before and you really need to pay attention. If Generation X ends up saving the world it will be a complete accident and consequence of trying to keep our own little part of the world from exploding. Indeed they are busy creating their own arrangements for surviving the stupid. Odin and Eric the Obtuse just don't like them very much.
If nomads are the ones who solve the big issues of their time why is it the civics tend to get the credit?
Probably because we don't make a lot of noise as we go about getting things done. One thing that you should know about Generation X is that we don't do virtue signaling. The GIs may have been doing the shooting but who do you think was figuring out how to go about it. The Lost were the junior and senior officers of the Second World War. They were also in middle and senior management of all of those businesses that produced what was needed.
I suspect you understand now why the GIs treated the Lost far better than anyone else did.
Yep sure do. They were the ones who fixed the mess and us civics are merely the cannon foddar.
Let's not forget the top of the constellation: FDR and Churchill were Missionary Generation. And part of why we were on the winning side was because we were led by idealists and Hitler and Tojo were Reactives. They had their little qualms about things like bombing monastaries, while the idealist leaders on our side, who are about nothing if not the nonnegotiable end justifying the means, were happy to bomb Monte Cassino, firebomb Dresden, and develop nuclear weapons to use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Only because they had to deal with their utterly ruthless reactive fascist enemies. Like what Hitler did to Poland and Russia, for example, and the bombing and rocket attacks on London, which surely would have been nuclear had Hitler won the race to develop atomic weapons..
Quote:As for why the Civics get the credit, I think it's largely because the Idealists give it to them, or at least give them the idea they deserve it. There's no greater joy for Idealists than molding and shaping Civics to their ends - their joint ends, since properly molded Civics adopt the ends of their Idealist mentors - and the Civics know they are doing what they were meant to do. The Reactives just muddle through and make things work any way they can.
Makes sense. Reactives like Galen do not understand world trends because of their narrow, reactionary ideological perspective, just reacting as they are to the world they interpreted as screwed up by us boomers. Actually it was older generations who screwed it up, just as the boomers said. Those boomers and boomer/X cuspers who see the wider perspective create works like The Fourth Turning, and can see where we are going and what needs to be done. Reactives who can't do this, do best if they can lend their practical skills to the jobs at hand, instead of just whining as Galen does.
(05-25-2016, 12:27 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-25-2016, 12:09 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2016, 04:56 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]The last sentence regarding the prophets makes me also wonder about their archetype for my generation and how they are always going on about us as if we are the hope for the future and never go on the same way about xers. They are the parents of older millies and we are their trophy kids. I will watch your video tomorrow as it is a day off work for me and i am seriously worn out atm. Yeah i hope my generation gives me a pleasant surprise. The American millies anyway. NZ millies are living up to our role fortunately and it has been wonderful to play a part in it. Kiwi millies are competent and know team work gets a job done faster and especially without complaint. I can only hope American millies listen to xers and do the same.
You have to understand that Generation X did not turn out as planned, they never realized that the better part of an entire generation would not revere them. The Milles are simply the tax livestock they hope to bleed dry right along with Generation X. Right now the younger Millies are in the process of having life kick the shit out of them until they get a clue.
Yeah that sucks for me. Looks like I'm going into thousands of dollars in debt and being leeched off of by the Boomers who suck the Social Security net dry and leaving none for us. And the ones who won't retire have all the good jobs that us Millies are trying to get degrees for.
You have good points, from your point of view, now. From the long term, though, you might like it that boomers are pushing back the retirement ages and increasing lifespans, when you get there not so long from now. The real target of millies often is, and should be, the economics ideology set up by GI Reagan and Silent Koch Brothers and their cohorts. Government is not the solution, it is the problem; cried Reagan. Core Gen Xers like Galen believed him and went along with him. But blue boomers are the leaders and blue millies are following them in the movement to overturn the Reagan nightmare. Without liberal government, big business has full sway to do the things that have wrecked opportunities for millennials like yourself.
Supply-side trickle-down economics creates inequality, because wealthy CEOs are allowed to maximize power for themselves with lower tax rates and regulations. Liberal programs that redistribute wealth and invest in long-term growth are cut or destroyed by Reaganomic policies. Wages have stayed flat while costs have risen for young people starting out. Republican Reaganoids refuse to support reducing student loan debt and investing in education. Free trade and high tech-automation have destroyed jobs, with no liberal programs to offset or reverse these changes. The facts are clear that inequality and middle class decline corresponds to the Reagan counter-revolution and its continued dominance even during Democratic administrations. Cutting social security as Republicans want is no answer to the fear that millies and Xers might not get it; a few adjustments will save it.
Blue boomers and millies, instead of blaming and knocking each other, need to join forces with all those of all generations who want to overthrow Reaganomics so that progress can happen again. Generational blaming is not the answer; better politics and policies are the answer.
(09-05-2016, 11:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2016, 08:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Everything he's said about what boomers have done, was done by enough of them to make it a clear and distinct pattern. This is how "generaliztions" work. That you can find an exception to the generalization does not invalidate the generalization.
As for that revolution, I've seen what it appears Millenials have planned and if it is the Social Justice Utopia that is supposed to come I have absolutely no interest. I honestly don't think that our society can be fixed, we need to burn down everything that's been constructed since WW2 except those things built by the GIs we want to keep and start over from scratch.
I'm not the only Xer who has come to that conclusion.
I'm a boomer and I found the video hilarious and largely correct. Certainly the only reason I know how to use cutlery is because I was taught by a Gen X girlfriend in my 30s; most boomers probably haven't had the opportunity.
The millenials aren't doing independent plans as yet; they are following whichever boomers they trust. That "Social Justice Utopia" is planned by ex-hippies and pushed by millenials they have trained.
Justice is a good thing, I'd say
Quote:Be careful what you wish for about burning things down. If things are burned down in the crisis, boomers are still going to be leading, and boomers play for keeps. Don't expect the burning to be limited to conventional weapons, not in a crisis war.
That's right, and burning things down and starting over does not mean that people will agree any more about what's to be built. Certainly us blue boomers and the "millennials they have trained" will not agree with what the posters
here who have called for the burning would have in mind. So, without some consensus achieved about what's to replace the carcass of post war America and The West, only ashes and still more burning would be all that happens.
All that's needed is to throw out the Republicans. That is "partisan," but no less a thoughtful analysis for that, of root causes today. Burn them down, and then elect real progressive Democrats, or a multi-party working progressive majority, and the people need to hold their feet to the fire. The only way forward is to actually
move forward. You know, "progress." Progressives! Let's put the ship of state in drive, instead of reverse as it has been. Then and ONLY then will we not need to burn it down!
(09-05-2016, 11:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 01:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 12:39 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 04:18 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2016, 09:53 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]Not so much. The Boomers really were trying to tear everything down as far as Generation X is concerned we are now reaching endgame of what they set in motion.
If you pay attention to Danilynn said in one of her later posts you would realize that something else is going on. I have said this before and you really need to pay attention. If Generation X ends up saving the world it will be a complete accident and consequence of trying to keep our own little part of the world from exploding. Indeed they are busy creating their own arrangements for surviving the stupid. Odin and Eric the Obtuse just don't like them very much.
If nomads are the ones who solve the big issues of their time why is it the civics tend to get the credit?
Probably because we don't make a lot of noise as we go about getting things done. One thing that you should know about Generation X is that we don't do virtue signaling. The GIs may have been doing the shooting but who do you think was figuring out how to go about it. The Lost were the junior and senior officers of the Second World War. They were also in middle and senior management of all of those businesses that produced what was needed.
I suspect you understand now why the GIs treated the Lost far better than anyone else did.
Yep sure do. They were the ones who fixed the mess and us civics are merely the cannon foddar.
Let's not forget the top of the constellation: FDR and Churchill were Missionary Generation. And part of why we were on the winning side was because we were led by idealists and Hitler and Tojo were Reactives. They had their little qualms about things like bombing monastaries, while the idealist leaders on our side, who are about nothing if not the nonnegotiable end justifying the means, were happy to bomb Monte Cassino, firebomb Dresden, and develop nuclear weapons to use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
FDR was the idiot that got the US into that war. The oil and scrap metal embargo virtually guaranteed that Japan would go to war with the US. It is also clear FDR
knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming. In that respect the Missionary Generation generation isn't much different, as long as they get what they want they really don't care about the body count, as long its not them. Ironically, it was the Lost that were the backbone of the anti-war protests in the time just before the Second World War.
It seems ironic that the generation that produced Patton would be less inclined to get GIs killed.
(09-06-2016, 03:38 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (09-05-2016, 11:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 01:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 12:39 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 04:18 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]If nomads are the ones who solve the big issues of their time why is it the civics tend to get the credit?
Probably because we don't make a lot of noise as we go about getting things done. One thing that you should know about Generation X is that we don't do virtue signaling. The GIs may have been doing the shooting but who do you think was figuring out how to go about it. The Lost were the junior and senior officers of the Second World War. They were also in middle and senior management of all of those businesses that produced what was needed.
I suspect you understand now why the GIs treated the Lost far better than anyone else did.
Yep sure do. They were the ones who fixed the mess and us civics are merely the cannon foddar.
Let's not forget the top of the constellation: FDR and Churchill were Missionary Generation. And part of why we were on the winning side was because we were led by idealists and Hitler and Tojo were Reactives. They had their little qualms about things like bombing monastaries, while the idealist leaders on our side, who are about nothing if not the nonnegotiable end justifying the means, were happy to bomb Monte Cassino, firebomb Dresden, and develop nuclear weapons to use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
FDR was the idiot that got the US into that war. The oil and scrap metal embargo virtually guaranteed that Japan would go to war with the US. It is also clear FDR knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming. In that respect the Missionary Generation generation isn't much different, as long as they get what they want they really don't care about the body count, as long its not them. Ironically, it was the Lost that were the backbone of the anti-war protests in the time just before the Second World War.
It seems ironic that the generation that produced Patton would be less inclined to get GIs killed.
I don't disagree. When I make an observation about the facts, that does not necessarily imply approval of those facts.
It's actually kind of scary to think about how a Crisis constellation such as FDR's would have handled the Cold War in the 1980s. It might well have become an all out nuclear war.
Reagan's solution, with orders of magnitude less bloodshed, is to my mind much preferable. But then, he didn't have the massive conscript armies that FDR had to work with, instead having a smaller and more dedicated volunteer force perhaps capable of more flexible and targeted operations, and his generals and primary opponent were adaptives who were flexible and tended to look at all sides of a question rather than just finding a solution to make things work according to an defined objective.
(09-06-2016, 08:53 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2016, 03:38 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (09-05-2016, 11:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 01:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2016, 12:39 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]Probably because we don't make a lot of noise as we go about getting things done. One thing that you should know about Generation X is that we don't do virtue signaling. The GIs may have been doing the shooting but who do you think was figuring out how to go about it. The Lost were the junior and senior officers of the Second World War. They were also in middle and senior management of all of those businesses that produced what was needed.
I suspect you understand now why the GIs treated the Lost far better than anyone else did.
Yep sure do. They were the ones who fixed the mess and us civics are merely the cannon foddar.
Let's not forget the top of the constellation: FDR and Churchill were Missionary Generation. And part of why we were on the winning side was because we were led by idealists and Hitler and Tojo were Reactives. They had their little qualms about things like bombing monastaries, while the idealist leaders on our side, who are about nothing if not the nonnegotiable end justifying the means, were happy to bomb Monte Cassino, firebomb Dresden, and develop nuclear weapons to use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
FDR was the idiot that got the US into that war. The oil and scrap metal embargo virtually guaranteed that Japan would go to war with the US. It is also clear FDR knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming. In that respect the Missionary Generation generation isn't much different, as long as they get what they want they really don't care about the body count, as long its not them. Ironically, it was the Lost that were the backbone of the anti-war protests in the time just before the Second World War.
It seems ironic that the generation that produced Patton would be less inclined to get GIs killed.
I don't disagree. When I make an observation about the facts, that does not necessarily imply approval of those facts.
It's actually kind of scary to think about how a Crisis constellation such as FDR's would have handled the Cold War in the 1980s. It might well have become an all out nuclear war.
Reagan's solution, with orders of magnitude less bloodshed, is to my mind much preferable. But then, he didn't have the massive conscript armies that FDR had to work with, instead having a smaller and more dedicated volunteer force perhaps capable of more flexible and targeted operations, and his generals and primary opponent were adaptives who were flexible and tended to look at all sides of a question rather than just finding a solution to make things work according to an defined objective.
More like Reagan had to accept that the Soviet Union and US would wipe each other in a World War. I did notice that he was much less inclined toward intervention after he got a couple of hundred Marines killed in Beirut.
What should concern anyone capable of rational thought, clearly this condition disqualifies Eric the Obtuse, is that the
neocons are backing Hillary. Having listened to both Trump and Hillary, when she isn't
coughing up a lung, speak it is clear that her foreign policy will be much more aggressive towards Russia. The neocons are just stupid enough to start a war with Russia so Trump is looking much better as a consequence since I am adverse to nuclear war for rather obvious reasons.
(09-06-2016, 03:38 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]FDR was the idiot that got the US into that war. The oil and scrap metal embargo virtually guaranteed that Japan would go to war with the US. It is also clear FDR knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming. In that respect the Missionary Generation generation isn't much different, as long as they get what they want they really don't care about the body count, as long its not them. Ironically, it was the Lost that were the backbone of the anti-war protests in the time just before the Second World War.
It seems ironic that the generation that produced Patton would be less inclined to get GIs killed.
Fascism was a global threat that needed to be destroyed, FDR had far more foresight than the naive Isolationist idiots you are putting up on a pedestal.
(09-06-2016, 03:42 PM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2016, 03:38 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]FDR was the idiot that got the US into that war. The oil and scrap metal embargo virtually guaranteed that Japan would go to war with the US. It is also clear FDR knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming. In that respect the Missionary Generation generation isn't much different, as long as they get what they want they really don't care about the body count, as long its not them. Ironically, it was the Lost that were the backbone of the anti-war protests in the time just before the Second World War.
It seems ironic that the generation that produced Patton would be less inclined to get GIs killed.
Fascism was a global threat that needed to be destroyed, FDR had far more foresight than the naive Isolationist idiots you are putting up on a pedestal.
Communism wasn't? If Adolph had not attacked the Soviet Union the then the odds were pretty good that Stalin would have
attacked Germany with pretty much the same outcome. It was Operation Barbarossa that ended up breaking Nazi Germany so the outcome would have pretty much been the same. The Japanese were too obsessed with China to be a problem for the US and in fact wouldn't have bothered to attack if not for the embargo.
The somewhat larger Soviet Empire would have eventually collapsed for the same reason that it did in the nineties. It might have taken a bit longer but as I have pointed out before central planning is about the most certain way to kill an economy. In this respect Nazi Germany really wasn't all that different than the Soviet Union.
I will also note that Germany had no plans to attack the US until after the Pearl Harbor attack and the US Declaration of War on Japan.
I regard the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany to be about the same level evil and would have preferred to let them destroy each other. With a bit of luck the Soviet Union would have been in even worse shape afterwords and the nasty Cold War could have been avoided which might have prevented the creation of the military-industrial complex and police state we now have.
(09-07-2016, 12:16 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Any extremist position is harmful to the economy and its people. Leftist or right wing. Communist or fascist. We should all be able to agree on that.
The real point is that World War 2 and Cold War had a great deal to do with current US police state and militarism. Its not something that I would expect you to know that much about. It would be like me having a detailed knowledge of NZ history.
(09-07-2016, 01:01 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2016, 12:58 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2016, 12:16 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Any extremist position is harmful to the economy and its people. Leftist or right wing. Communist or fascist. We should all be able to agree on that.
The real point is that World War 2 and Cold War had a great deal to do with current US police state and militarism. Its not something that I would expect you to know that much about. It would be like me having a detailed knowledge of NZ history.
Precisely.
The kiwi gets it.
Unfortunately, I don't think Odin will.
(09-06-2016, 02:05 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Have you perhaps heard of the Appolonian/Dionysian double saeculum theory I wonder?
No, I haven't. Are there threads discussing it here?
(09-06-2016, 02:18 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, from what I have learned from you [Eric the Green] with Reagan and trickle down economics.
If you're calling it "trickle down economics" it hasn't been explained to you very well. "Trickle down economics" was the approach Hoover used, which involved giving money to large corporations in the hopes that it would "trickle down" to ordinary people, which it didn't. The closest things to "trickle down economics" that have happened in the U.S. since the 1960s have been bailouts of large corporations like the Bush/Obama banking and auto industry bailouts.
Reagan's economic theories were almost the exact opposite: they involved giving more money back to the people by cutting taxes on wage earning individuals, and hoping the benefits would "trickle up" to the corporations who employed them. That in fact worked well enough to produce a two decade economic boom in the 1980s and 1990s, interrupted only by a relatively brief recession when Bush the elder tried to "soft land" a healthy, growing economy.
(09-07-2016, 12:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2016, 02:05 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Have you perhaps heard of the Appolonian/Dionysian double saeculum theory I wonder?
No, I haven't. Are there threads discussing it here?
(09-06-2016, 02:18 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, from what I have learned from you [Eric the Green] with Reagan and trickle down economics.
If you're calling it "trickle down economics" it hasn't been explained to you very well. "Trickle down economics" was the approach Hoover used, which involved giving money to large corporations in the hopes that it would "trickle down" to ordinary people, which it didn't. The closest things to "trickle down economics" that have happened in the U.S. since the 1960s have been bailouts of large corporations like the Bush/Obama banking and auto industry bailouts.
Correct as far as that goes; although the Bush/Obama bailouts were loans that were paid back.
Quote:Reagan's economic theories were almost the exact opposite: they involved giving more money back to the people by cutting taxes on wage earning individuals, and hoping the benefits would "trickle up" to the corporations who employed them. That in fact worked well enough to produce a two decade economic boom in the 1980s and 1990s, interrupted only by a relatively brief recession when Bush the elder tried to "soft land" a healthy, growing economy.
Giving money back to the people, that is a serious laugh! Reagan gave money back to the rich, ONLY!
Again, I post:
Reagan and Bush gave money back to the "job creaters," and that's exactly what the trickle-downer Republicans
call what they are doing. That means the rich corporations! Watch what Pence says on this video, 6 years ago! Trickle-down economics was cutting taxes for the richest Americans, hoping that the rich will create jobs for most people. Meanwhile, payroll taxes went up! What happened actually was that the rich get more money and they spent it on themselves, bought other companies, fired more people, shipped jobs overseas, fired people due to automation, speculated in derivatives causing a crash, destroyed our environment, took away worker protections. That's what the rich do to us, thanks to Reaganomics! Tax and regulation cuts for the rich DOES NOT provide more prosperity to the people. The opposite happens!
There was no boom in the 1980s, except for the rich. In the late 1990s there was a boom spread more widely, thanks to Clinton's policies. A recession in the early 2000s was never recovered from, thanks to trickle down Bushonomics. Bush (and Clinton) deregulation led directly to the worst recession since the 1930s. Only Obama's stimulus did anything to cure it.
Still waiting for the trickle, are ya, Warren?
(09-07-2016, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2016, 12:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2016, 02:05 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Have you perhaps heard of the Appolonian/Dionysian double saeculum theory I wonder?
No, I haven't. Are there threads discussing it here?
(09-06-2016, 02:18 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, from what I have learned from you [Eric the Green] with Reagan and trickle down economics.
If you're calling it "trickle down economics" it hasn't been explained to you very well. "Trickle down economics" was the approach Hoover used, which involved giving money to large corporations in the hopes that it would "trickle down" to ordinary people, which it didn't. The closest things to "trickle down economics" that have happened in the U.S. since the 1960s have been bailouts of large corporations like the Bush/Obama banking and auto industry bailouts.
Correct as far as that goes; although the Bush/Obama bailouts were loans that were paid back.
Quote:Reagan's economic theories were almost the exact opposite: they involved giving more money back to the people by cutting taxes on wage earning individuals, and hoping the benefits would "trickle up" to the corporations who employed them. That in fact worked well enough to produce a two decade economic boom in the 1980s and 1990s, interrupted only by a relatively brief recession when Bush the elder tried to "soft land" a healthy, growing economy.
Giving money back to the people, that is a serious laugh! Reagan gave money back to the rich, ONLY!
Reaganomics worked great for me in the 1980s and I was making less than median income. Or perhaps your definition of "rich" is "anyone above poverty level"?
The government took a huge loss on the auto equity; that will never be paid back. Frankly, though, economic stimulus is not about being paid back; the problem with the bailouts is that they didn't actually help the economy.
(09-07-2016, 12:09 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2016, 03:42 PM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2016, 03:38 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]FDR was the idiot that got the US into that war. The oil and scrap metal embargo virtually guaranteed that Japan would go to war with the US. It is also clear FDR knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming. In that respect the Missionary Generation generation isn't much different, as long as they get what they want they really don't care about the body count, as long its not them. Ironically, it was the Lost that were the backbone of the anti-war protests in the time just before the Second World War.
It seems ironic that the generation that produced Patton would be less inclined to get GIs killed.
Fascism was a global threat that needed to be destroyed, FDR had far more foresight than the naive Isolationist idiots you are putting up on a pedestal.
Communism wasn't? If Adolph had not attacked the Soviet Union the then the odds were pretty good that Stalin would have attacked Germany with pretty much the same outcome. It was Operation Barbarossa that ended up breaking Nazi Germany so the outcome would have pretty much been the same. The Japanese were too obsessed with China to be a problem for the US and in fact wouldn't have bothered to attack if not for the embargo.
The somewhat larger Soviet Empire would have eventually collapsed for the same reason that it did in the nineties. It might have taken a bit longer but as I have pointed out before central planning is about the most certain way to kill an economy. In this respect Nazi Germany really wasn't all that different than the Soviet Union.
I will also note that Germany had no plans to attack the US until after the Pearl Harbor attack and the US Declaration of War on Japan.
I regard the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany to be about the same level evil and would have preferred to let them destroy each other. With a bit of luck the Soviet Union would have been in even worse shape afterwords and the nasty Cold War could have been avoided which might have prevented the creation of the military-industrial complex and police state we now have.
It makes some sense, what you say Galen. The embargo probably caused the Japanese to attack the USA, and then when we declared war on Japan, Hitler declared war on the USA, which caused the USA to declare war on Germany. Perhaps Germany and Russia could have been allowed to destroy each other.
The only wrinkle in that theory, is the idea that we could just allow fascism and communism to grow in the world. I'm not sure anyone could have foreseen the possibility that Hitler and Stalin would have destroyed each other. Stalin was not going to attack Hitler's Germany. He really thought that he had made a better deal with Hitler than he got from the Allies, and he gladly took his share of the spoils. I don't know of any evidence that Stalin was planning to conquer Germany. His program was socialism in one country, and that the movement (not a nation) was going to take over the world, because workers of the world would unite!
On the other hand, Hitler had already written in his book that he intended to conquer the Soviet Union. It was his primary target all along. He was not only anti-communist, seeing it as Jewish plot, but he wanted the land and resources that European Russia offered. There's little doubt also that had Britain and the USA not helped Stalin's Soviet Union survive, that Hitler would have taken over all of European Russia and confined the Soviets to the backwaters of Siberia.
There's no doubt also that Hitler would have conquered Britain had not the USA supplied Britain with ships and weapons through lend-lease and further aid programs. There's no doubt also that Hitler said that he "hated Rossevelt" and the aid he was giving to Britain, was trying to sink US ships, and that's why he declared war after the USA declared war on Hitler's ally Japan.
And Japan's ruthless expansionism in Asia could perhaps have been allowed, but then the Japanese fascist Empire would have been too strong to ever take down, and the death and destruction Japan imposed on China and other peoples would have continued unabated. So an isolationist approach says that what was going on in Asia and Europe was none of our business. But in the long run it is unlikely that most of the developed world under the thumb of fascists would have been in our interests. Our economy would have fallen flat without trade with growing democracies, as opposed to our enemies, and there's little doubt that these empires would have attacked the USA eventually anyway, and would have prevailed--sending us back to the darkest bronze age; the kind of world that Cynic Hero wants, even if not dominated by us. So, although your isolationist, pacifist program has some arguments in favor of it, in the long run is it questionable.