08-16-2016, 10:45 AM
(08-16-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Classic is a wannabe talk host but one who is at least 20 years behind the times.
Well, that would at least put him a millennia or so ahead of Cynic.
(08-16-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Classic is a wannabe talk host but one who is at least 20 years behind the times.
(08-16-2016, 05:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](08-15-2016, 11:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]It's going to be interesting to see if Putin uses the dirt that he has on Hilary to destroy her as a candidate or whether he holds on to it and uses it to control her as President. I know what I would do knowing Hilary's type, I would hold on to it and use it to control her.
This seems sillier than your usual, which is going some.
Since Clinton 42's time, the Republicans have been trying to use scandals to make political points. They have come to believe their own lies, that the stories they concoct are somehow associated with truth, and that people who haven't bought in fully to the Republican value set will believe them. It isn't that Clinton is so much the Teflon Man because none of the Republican scandals ever stuck. It's that the Republican attempts at scandals were so pathetic.
Plan A. Hope a scandal rises up to hurt a Clinton. Lotsa luck with that.
At least this time the hope is that it isn't a Republican that creates the scandal? You're hoping the Kremlin will do it for you?
In the real world, the greater scandal is a Republican candidate who is running with the support of a foreign autocratic power... the Kremlin yet. I suspect that a certain True Republican, one who was close to the heart of the GOP back in his time, Senator Joe McCarthy, would be rolling over in his grave.
(08-16-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Would a guy who is 20 years behind the times be directly communicating with you here on the internet? Think about it. I may be 20 years behind the times as far as my writing and typing skills and musical preference . Other wise, I'm pretty much up with the times. I do not know why liberals are so foolish/clueless and continue to attack the views of a fellow taxpayer. A taxpayer who has been around and contributing to roads and schools for years.(08-16-2016, 09:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](08-15-2016, 12:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ](08-15-2016, 09:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Has government solved any REAL problems lately? Has government stopped a major flood or a hurricane lately? Reagan was right, government cannot solve problems when it's tied up with its own problems that are related to corruption, the improper use of tax payer money and regulatory powers. The day is coming liberal. The day that you will forced to chose between my values and the ones you've been clinging to your entire life. Are you ignoring Milwaukee or are you adding it to the spiral we've been experiencing as a society. Pardon me for being blunt, I don't want to a politically tainted progressive involved with actual problem solving because they to take a not so good situation or already tense situation and make it worse with their emotional stupidity and lack of sound judgement.(08-14-2016, 10:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I want to be around problem solvers. People effective at problem solving are generally intelligent.
You clearly don't get it. In the Readings according to Saint Reagan, it is revealed that the government cannot solve problems. Attempting to solve problems merely increases corruption and taxation. People who attempt to solve problems are the problem.
Go solve yourself.
Let's start with the intelligence services and the military -- and a very nasty problem that America had. Osama bin Laden. Barack Obama was flexible enough to recognize that if the ideal of arresting him and hauling him off to New York City to be tried for genocide was not going to happen while he was President (he likely would be a one-term President before the opportunity would arise), he could build trust in the CIA and the military to find a solution. Locate him and whack him, right out of the playbook of Al Capone against a rival mobster. Of course he contemplated world reaction. Russian and Chinese intelligence services and special forces would have done much the same thing.
Problem: a well-funded cult of dedicated terrorists with a reclusive leader. Solution: underworld-style hit because such is all that is available. Osama bin Laden -- dead. Problem solved. Private industry could have never done that.
Let's look at the economic meltdown that began in late 2007 as the housing bubble imploded. Of course the government contributed to that due to the sponsorship of such bubble by the awful George W. Bush. Solution: what FDR did when it was almost too late in 1933 and that Obama did in the equivalent of early 1931 -- back the banks. I'd say that that worked.
...Got a Blood Alley near you, like parts of this highway? The solution is often a freeway segment that diverts would-be speeders away from town or replaces an otherwise dangerous stretch of highway . If you are not willing to cut a deal with a private toll-road company that demands monopolistic pricing, you will need the government. If the government builds a free highway as an alternative to a "Deadman's Curve" it can also obliterate "Deadman's Curve" and ensure that nobody gets killed there again.
The Interstate Highway System has paid for itself in reductions of deaths and crippling injuries from vehicle collisions alone.
...Got mass poverty? Sure we do. We may need a CCC and a WPA to pull Appalachia out of poverty. That will take the government.
...Got a crime wave? The short-term solution is to hire more cops and public-sector attorneys and then have prisons for those convicted and sentenced for crimes. Most crimes are the result of one-person or one-gang crime waves. The private-sector solution is a lynch mob, something that few of us want.
...Disaster relief? On a small scale (lightning starts a fire that burns down your house, or someone veers drunkenly into your lane of traffic and totals your car), insurance can meet the costs. Gigantic disasters? Insurance companies can't handle them. You might as well turn to government to ensure that the little disasters of a big disaster don't escalate into pointless tragedy.
No, government is completely ineffective, a pure waste. just as you say. And breaking into a house with a pair of Dobermans living in it has no bad consequences for you.
Classic is a wannabe talk host but one who is at least 20 years behind the times. His schtick reminds me of hosts I listened to back when I was in the midst of my Hillary / Clinton hating phase.
(08-15-2016, 12:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ](08-15-2016, 09:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Has government solved any REAL problems lately? Has government stopped a major flood or a hurricane lately? ....(08-14-2016, 10:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I want to be around problem solvers. People effective at problem solving are generally intelligent.
You clearly don't get it. In the Readings according to Saint Reagan, it is revealed that the government cannot solve problems. Attempting to solve problems merely increases corruption and taxation. People who attempt to solve problems are the problem.
Go solve yourself.
(08-16-2016, 10:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ](08-16-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Would a guy who is 20 years behind the times be directly communicating with you here on the internet? Think about it. I may be 20 years behind the times as far as my writing and typing skills and musical preference . Other wise, I'm pretty much up with the times. I do not know why liberals are so foolish/clueless and continue to attack the views of a fellow taxpayer. A taxpayer who has been around and contributing to roads and schools for years.(08-16-2016, 09:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](08-15-2016, 12:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ](08-15-2016, 09:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]You clearly don't get it. In the Readings according to Saint Reagan, it is revealed that the government cannot solve problems. Attempting to solve problems merely increases corruption and taxation. People who attempt to solve problems are the problem.Has government solved any REAL problems lately? Has government stopped a major flood or a hurricane lately? Reagan was right, government cannot solve problems when it's tied up with its own problems that are related to corruption, the improper use of tax payer money and regulatory powers. The day is coming liberal. The day that you will forced to chose between my values and the ones you've been clinging to your entire life. Are you ignoring Milwaukee or are you adding it to the spiral we've been experiencing as a society. Pardon me for being blunt, I don't want to a politically tainted progressive involved with actual problem solving because they to take a not so good situation or already tense situation and make it worse with their emotional stupidity and lack of sound judgement.
Go solve yourself.
Let's start with the intelligence services and the military -- and a very nasty problem that America had. Osama bin Laden. Barack Obama was flexible enough to recognize that if the ideal of arresting him and hauling him off to New York City to be tried for genocide was not going to happen while he was President (he likely would be a one-term President before the opportunity would arise), he could build trust in the CIA and the military to find a solution. Locate him and whack him, right out of the playbook of Al Capone against a rival mobster. Of course he contemplated world reaction. Russian and Chinese intelligence services and special forces would have done much the same thing.
Problem: a well-funded cult of dedicated terrorists with a reclusive leader. Solution: underworld-style hit because such is all that is available. Osama bin Laden -- dead. Problem solved. Private industry could have never done that.
Let's look at the economic meltdown that began in late 2007 as the housing bubble imploded. Of course the government contributed to that due to the sponsorship of such bubble by the awful George W. Bush. Solution: what FDR did when it was almost too late in 1933 and that Obama did in the equivalent of early 1931 -- back the banks. I'd say that that worked.
...Got a Blood Alley near you, like parts of this highway? The solution is often a freeway segment that diverts would-be speeders away from town or replaces an otherwise dangerous stretch of highway . If you are not willing to cut a deal with a private toll-road company that demands monopolistic pricing, you will need the government. If the government builds a free highway as an alternative to a "Deadman's Curve" it can also obliterate "Deadman's Curve" and ensure that nobody gets killed there again.
The Interstate Highway System has paid for itself in reductions of deaths and crippling injuries from vehicle collisions alone.
...Got mass poverty? Sure we do. We may need a CCC and a WPA to pull Appalachia out of poverty. That will take the government.
...Got a crime wave? The short-term solution is to hire more cops and public-sector attorneys and then have prisons for those convicted and sentenced for crimes. Most crimes are the result of one-person or one-gang crime waves. The private-sector solution is a lynch mob, something that few of us want.
...Disaster relief? On a small scale (lightning starts a fire that burns down your house, or someone veers drunkenly into your lane of traffic and totals your car), insurance can meet the costs. Gigantic disasters? Insurance companies can't handle them. You might as well turn to government to ensure that the little disasters of a big disaster don't escalate into pointless tragedy.
No, government is completely ineffective, a pure waste. just as you say. And breaking into a house with a pair of Dobermans living in it has no bad consequences for you.
Classic is a wannabe talk host but one who is at least 20 years behind the times. His schtick reminds me of hosts I listened to back when I was in the midst of my Hillary / Clinton hating phase.
(08-17-2016, 02:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]... Democrats are concerned about helping the disadvantaged, the underdog, the poor, the discriminated against; those going through hard times; those who need a hand up, not just a handout. Which could be you or me. Republicans represent those like Donald Trump or the Koch Brothers who kick people out on the street, who exploit people with low wages and bad working conditions, and who destroy the environment and speculate with the economy. They support gutting social programs for the poor, on the theory that if you then give tax breaks to the rich, business will improve and the benefits will trickle-down, and the poor will either learn self-reliance, or suffer due to their own failure, or their membership in some inferior group. That's what Reagan thought, and that's what he did. But those policies have "died of a theory," just like racism before the Confederacy. They don't work, because if you give the breaks to the already wealthy and powerful, they say thank you very very much, and then pocket the money. There is no trickle; it's a tinkle.
(08-17-2016, 02:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](08-16-2016, 10:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ](08-16-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Classic is a wannabe talk host but one who is at least 20 years behind the times. His schtick reminds me of hosts I listened to back when I was in the midst of my Hillary / Clinton hating phase.Would a guy who is 20 years behind the times be directly communicating with you here on the internet? Think about it. I may be 20 years behind the times as far as my writing and typing skills and musical preference . Other wise, I'm pretty much up with the times. I do not know why liberals are so foolish/clueless and continue to attack the views of a fellow taxpayer. A taxpayer who has been around and contributing to roads and schools for years.
I'm fine with you contributing your views. But it's not your skills or music that's behind the times, it IS your views. And they are actually quite a bit further behind than 20 years; more like about 5 turnings at least.
(08-17-2016, 02:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](08-16-2016, 10:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Would a guy who is 20 years behind the times be directly communicating with you here on the internet? Think about it. I may be 20 years behind the times as far as my writing and typing skills and musical preference . Other wise, I'm pretty much up with the times. I do not know why liberals are so foolish/clueless and continue to attack the views of a fellow taxpayer. A taxpayer who has been around and contributing to roads and schools for years.
I'm fine with you contributing your views. But it's not your skills or music that's behind the times, it IS your views. And they are actually quite a bit further behind than 20 years; more like about 5 turnings at least.
We all pay taxes for schools and roads, and we believe in this, but you don't seem to believe that contributing to your nation and your world is important too.
You said that you could accept a Democrats from decades ago, but not a Democrat of today. I saw the rebroadcast of "Reagan" on PBS's American Experience tonight (part 2 is tomorrow night). He asserted in 1964 in his famous speech that he had been a Democrat. Maybe that's what you mean; you see a "real" Democrat as a "Reagan Democrat," like Reagan himself had been. He had been a labor leader, that's true, negotiating contracts for actors; and labor leaders are Democrats. But he fought bitterly with a faction of his union that he accused of communism and fomenting violence back in 1946. He supported blacklisting and the McCarthy committee, which is why his first wife left him; the PBS doc pointed out. Then in about the late 1950s he started hosting the GE Hour on TV, and also became a national spokesman for General Electric and its corporate views on government interference and high taxes. So he was a corporate stooge going back to the late 50s and early 60s. It was a natural progression from his skill as a corporate speaker to his Pro-Goldwater speech in 1964, and the rest is history. Bottom line: Reagan was never much of a Democrat.
Democrats are concerned about helping the disadvantaged, the underdog, the poor, the discriminated against; those going through hard times; those who need a hand up, not just a handout. Which could be you or me. Republicans represent those like Donald Trump or the Koch Brothers who kick people out on the street, who exploit people with low wages and bad working conditions, and who destroy the environment and speculate with the economy. They support gutting social programs for the poor, on the theory that if you then give tax breaks to the rich, business will improve and the benefits will trickle-down, and the poor will either learn self-reliance, or suffer due to their own failure, or their membership in some inferior group. That's what Reagan thought, and that's what he did. But those policies have "died of a theory," just like racism before the Confederacy. They don't work, because if you give the breaks to the already wealthy and powerful, they say thank you very very much, and then pocket the money. There is no trickle; it's a tinkle.
(08-17-2016, 07:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](08-17-2016, 02:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](08-16-2016, 10:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ](08-16-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Classic is a wannabe talk host but one who is at least 20 years behind the times. His schtick reminds me of hosts I listened to back when I was in the midst of my Hillary / Clinton hating phase.Would a guy who is 20 years behind the times be directly communicating with you here on the internet? Think about it. I may be 20 years behind the times as far as my writing and typing skills and musical preference . Other wise, I'm pretty much up with the times. I do not know why liberals are so foolish/clueless and continue to attack the views of a fellow taxpayer. A taxpayer who has been around and contributing to roads and schools for years.
I'm fine with you contributing your views. But it's not your skills or music that's behind the times, it IS your views. And they are actually quite a bit further behind than 20 years; more like about 5 turnings at least.
I'll stick with 20 years, one turning, one generation rather than five. He sounds a lot more like Reagan than any of the late Gilded Age Republicans from the last unravelling. Mind you, Hoover and Bush 43 aren't entirely unassociated. Unravellings don't repeat, but they rhyme.
Quote:But I'll be stubborn about those 20 years. The GIs spent most of their lives living crisis era values. See problem, solve same. If S&H's theories are going to continue to have merit, we're due to get back to solving problems. This latest unraveling at least was dominated by Reagan's notion that the government trying to solve problems is the problem. I'll concede that crisis intensity problem solving can't and shouldn't be maintained indefinitely. By Reagan's time the GIs and to a lesser extent the other generations had earned a break.
(08-17-2016, 06:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ](08-17-2016, 02:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]... Democrats are concerned about helping the disadvantaged, the underdog, the poor, the discriminated against; those going through hard times; those who need a hand up, not just a handout. Which could be you or me. Republicans represent those like Donald Trump or the Koch Brothers who kick people out on the street, who exploit people with low wages and bad working conditions, and who destroy the environment and speculate with the economy. They support gutting social programs for the poor, on the theory that if you then give tax breaks to the rich, business will improve and the benefits will trickle-down, and the poor will either learn self-reliance, or suffer due to their own failure, or their membership in some inferior group. That's what Reagan thought, and that's what he did. But those policies have "died of a theory," just like racism before the Confederacy. They don't work, because if you give the breaks to the already wealthy and powerful, they say thank you very very much, and then pocket the money. There is no trickle; it's a tinkle.
This is the old Democratic focus that is just not there anymore. Today's Democrats favor niche movements, primarily minority based. They also favor Wall Street. Their coalition is the result of decades of drift; the GOP is similarly changed. Bernie tried to move them back in the direction they occupied at their policy peak, and that may still happen in time ... just not this time.
(08-17-2016, 12:14 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]I'd love to have the power to control the environment. As far as your question, I don't know the answer. I'm not a liberal who appears to believe that we can control the environment or the world with sacrifices.(08-15-2016, 12:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ](08-15-2016, 09:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Has government solved any REAL problems lately? Has government stopped a major flood or a hurricane lately? ....(08-14-2016, 10:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I want to be around problem solvers. People effective at problem solving are generally intelligent.
You clearly don't get it. In the Readings according to Saint Reagan, it is revealed that the government cannot solve problems. Attempting to solve problems merely increases corruption and taxation. People who attempt to solve problems are the problem.
Go solve yourself.
How do you stop a flood or a hurricane???
This is exemplary of what passes as 'thinking' on today's Right. This is the basic problem with them.
Could you imagine asking a small business air conditioning repair shop if it has stopped summer from getting hot?
These nitwits actually believe that unless the government has completely eliminated a problem it has failed, and the real solution is to instead do nothing about the problem - and magical ponies will fly down and fix the problem.
One cannot argue with people like Classic; all we can do is defeat them and make them a non-entity in our political discourse. They do offer some entertainment value, but even that shtick has gotten old.
(08-17-2016, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Conservatives already have all the answers they need, hence they see no profit in looking for new ones.(08-17-2016, 12:14 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]I'd love to have the power to control the environment. As far as your question, I don't know the answer. I'm not a liberal who appears to believe that we can control the environment or the world with sacrifices.(08-15-2016, 12:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ](08-15-2016, 09:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Has government solved any REAL problems lately? Has government stopped a major flood or a hurricane lately? ....(08-14-2016, 10:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I want to be around problem solvers. People effective at problem solving are generally intelligent.
You clearly don't get it. In the Readings according to Saint Reagan, it is revealed that the government cannot solve problems. Attempting to solve problems merely increases corruption and taxation. People who attempt to solve problems are the problem.
Go solve yourself.
How do you stop a flood or a hurricane???
This is exemplary of what passes as 'thinking' on today's Right. This is the basic problem with them.
Could you imagine asking a small business air conditioning repair shop if it has stopped summer from getting hot?
These nitwits actually believe that unless the government has completely eliminated a problem it has failed, and the real solution is to instead do nothing about the problem - and magical ponies will fly down and fix the problem.
One cannot argue with people like Classic; all we can do is defeat them and make them a non-entity in our political discourse. They do offer some entertainment value, but even that shtick has gotten old.
(08-17-2016, 12:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a follower of Reagan. If anything, I'm a follower of Ross Perot. BTW, I tend to lead more than follow.(08-17-2016, 07:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](08-17-2016, 02:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](08-16-2016, 10:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ](08-16-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Classic is a wannabe talk host but one who is at least 20 years behind the times. His schtick reminds me of hosts I listened to back when I was in the midst of my Hillary / Clinton hating phase.Would a guy who is 20 years behind the times be directly communicating with you here on the internet? Think about it. I may be 20 years behind the times as far as my writing and typing skills and musical preference . Other wise, I'm pretty much up with the times. I do not know why liberals are so foolish/clueless and continue to attack the views of a fellow taxpayer. A taxpayer who has been around and contributing to roads and schools for years.
I'm fine with you contributing your views. But it's not your skills or music that's behind the times, it IS your views. And they are actually quite a bit further behind than 20 years; more like about 5 turnings at least.
I'll stick with 20 years, one turning, one generation rather than five. He sounds a lot more like Reagan than any of the late Gilded Age Republicans from the last unravelling. Mind you, Hoover and Bush 43 aren't entirely unassociated. Unravellings don't repeat, but they rhyme.
Classic Xer does sound more like Reagan than Coolidge (but not much more). But I see Reagan as well behind the times, not a man of his times. His goal was to rescue America from liberalism. I don't think the country needed to be rescued from it. He blamed the 60s for the recession of 1980. He was wrong; progress on civil rights and poverty was NOT the cause of the recession of 1980. Nor were high taxes, which had already been reduced. It was the Vietnam War, and the energy crisis, that caused that recession. Carter cured inflation and the recession it caused by appointing Paul Volcker, and by keeping us out of war. Reagan was the beneficiary. Also, economic cycles happen, and recovery follows recession. Lower taxes can be a stimulus. But Reagan made sure that the boom was severely restricted to the upper classes.
Quote:But I'll be stubborn about those 20 years. The GIs spent most of their lives living crisis era values. See problem, solve same. If S&H's theories are going to continue to have merit, we're due to get back to solving problems. This latest unraveling at least was dominated by Reagan's notion that the government trying to solve problems is the problem. I'll concede that crisis intensity problem solving can't and shouldn't be maintained indefinitely. By Reagan's time the GIs and to a lesser extent the other generations had earned a break.
I disagree, as you know. Reagan wasn't necessary at all, even if it's true that some level of compromise is needed with free enterprise values, and that people want a break from too much change. Reagan did not compromise; he was trying to roll back the Great Society (the PBS doc yesterday confirms that Reagan said this specifically), not provide a break or a vacation from further progress.
Unravellings happen, I admit, and the danger is there that they go too far toward individualist values. That does not mean they are merely a break when they go too far. They are a regression. Reagan was not a break-giver; he was a regressive; big time! So, Classic Xer is a follower of Reagan, who was a follower of Coolidge. So, Classic Xer is 5 turnings or more behind, not one.
(08-17-2016, 06:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]It never was a Democratic focus. The Populists and the Socialists had this focus, which today shows up in Trump's and Sander's appeal. It was never a majority. The Democratic party as Labor Party-lite was an artifact arising out of the 1932 election. A "1932 moment" has been trying to form for 16 years now. Two massive bubble bursts have occurred that would in the past have collapsed the economy and forced a "1932 moment". In both, the establishment has managed to craft a response that allowed the status quo to continue.(08-17-2016, 02:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]... Democrats are concerned about helping the disadvantaged, the underdog, the poor, the discriminated against; those going through hard times; those who need a hand up, not just a handout. Which could be you or me. Republicans represent those like Donald Trump or the Koch Brothers who kick people out on the street, who exploit people with low wages and bad working conditions, and who destroy the environment and speculate with the economy. They support gutting social programs for the poor, on the theory that if you then give tax breaks to the rich, business will improve and the benefits will trickle-down, and the poor will either learn self-reliance, or suffer due to their own failure, or their membership in some inferior group. That's what Reagan thought, and that's what he did. But those policies have "died of a theory," just like racism before the Confederacy. They don't work, because if you give the breaks to the already wealthy and powerful, they say thank you very very much, and then pocket the money. There is no trickle; it's a tinkle.
This is the old Democratic focus that is just not there anymore. Today's Democrats favor niche movements, primarily minority based. They also favor Wall Street. Their coalition is the result of decades of drift; the GOP is similarly changed. Bernie tried to move them back in the direction they occupied at their policy peak, and that may still happen in time ... just not this time.
(08-17-2016, 12:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Classic Xer does sound more like Reagan than Coolidge (but not much more). But I see Reagan as well behind the times, not a man of his times. His goal was to rescue America from liberalism. I don't think the country needed to be rescued from it. He blamed the 60s for the recession of 1980. He was wrong; progress on civil rights and poverty was NOT the cause of the recession of 1980. Nor were high taxes, which had already been reduced. It was the Vietnam War, and the energy crisis, that caused that recession. Carter cured inflation and the recession it caused by appointing Paul Volcker, and by keeping us out of war. Reagan was the beneficiary. Also, economic cycles happen, and recovery follows recession. Lower taxes can be a stimulus. But Reagan made sure that the boom was severely restricted to the upper classes.
I Wrote:But I'll be stubborn about those 20 years. The GIs spent most of their lives living crisis era values. See problem, solve same. If S&H's theories are going to continue to have merit, we're due to get back to solving problems. This latest unraveling at least was dominated by Reagan's notion that the government trying to solve problems is the problem. I'll concede that crisis intensity problem solving can't and shouldn't be maintained indefinitely. By Reagan's time the GIs and to a lesser extent the other generations had earned a break.
I disagree, as you know. Reagan wasn't necessary at all, even if it's true that some level of compromise is needed with free enterprise values, and that people want a break from too much change. Reagan did not compromise; he was trying to roll back the Great Society (the PBS doc yesterday confirms that Reagan said this specifically), not provide a break or a vacation from further progress.
Unravellings happen, I admit, and the danger is there that they go too far toward individualist values. That does not mean they are merely a break when they go too far. They are a regression. Reagan was not a break-giver; he was a regressive; big time! So, Classic Xer is a follower of Reagan, who was a follower of Coolidge. So, Classic Xer is 5 turnings or more behind, not one.
(08-17-2016, 01:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a follower of Reagan. If anything, I'm a follower of Ross Perot. BTW, I tend to lead more than follow.
(08-17-2016, 02:16 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ](08-17-2016, 06:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]It never was a Democratic focus. The Populists and the Socialists had this focus, which today shows up in Trump's and Sander's appeal. It was never a majority. The Democratic party as Labor Party-lite was an artifact arising out of the 1932 election. A "1932 moment" has been trying to form for 16 years now. Two massive bubble bursts have occurred that would in the past have collapsed the economy and forced a "1932 moment". In both, the establishment has managed to craft a response that allowed the status quo to continue.(08-17-2016, 02:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]... Democrats are concerned about helping the disadvantaged, the underdog, the poor, the discriminated against; those going through hard times; those who need a hand up, not just a handout. Which could be you or me. Republicans represent those like Donald Trump or the Koch Brothers who kick people out on the street, who exploit people with low wages and bad working conditions, and who destroy the environment and speculate with the economy. They support gutting social programs for the poor, on the theory that if you then give tax breaks to the rich, business will improve and the benefits will trickle-down, and the poor will either learn self-reliance, or suffer due to their own failure, or their membership in some inferior group. That's what Reagan thought, and that's what he did. But those policies have "died of a theory," just like racism before the Confederacy. They don't work, because if you give the breaks to the already wealthy and powerful, they say thank you very very much, and then pocket the money. There is no trickle; it's a tinkle.
This is the old Democratic focus that is just not there anymore. Today's Democrats favor niche movements, primarily minority based. They also favor Wall Street. Their coalition is the result of decades of drift; the GOP is similarly changed. Bernie tried to move them back in the direction they occupied at their policy peak, and that may still happen in time ... just not this time.
Some of the romantics here feel the end will come when the disgruntled working Americans, either on the Right or the Left, rise up and demand a new deal. Plenty of scholarship has shown that this simply does not happen. The times when it appears to happen (e.g. 1789, 1917) it turns out that the movement was led by some dispossessed elites who mobilized the masses to put themselves on top in place of the old elites (i.e. meet the new boss--same as the old boss).
If the economic problems of our time are to be resolved in this 4T, it will come from a subset of the political elite who determine that it is in their own best interest to abandon their old economic elite allies to either gain or preserve political power. Right now the route to career success amongst political elites is to maintain existing arrangements with economic elites and to continue to see the world as they do. A collapse of the economy will change that calculus, creating another "1932 moment" when some group of political entrepreneurs, probably from within one of the existing parties will decide to abandon the economic elite to further their political fortunes.
This does not necessarily require a new election, it can be a faction of policy advisors who win the ear of a panicking chief executive.