Neil Howe: 'Civil War Is More Likely Than People Think'

[Marypoza]

(11-23-2016, 02:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 02:54 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 02:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think if CA secedes, it should develop nuclear weapons, if Red America threatens attack. So with any other blue states so inclined. It doesn't matter if the population here is more concentrated. The possession of nucs deters any nation from attacking another.

With our greater technical know-how, we'll be able to develop a better nuclear shield too.

It will be an interesting situation in DC too, since it votes 90% or more Democratic. Could the capital declare secession? Would Red America have to relocate its capital to Montgomery Alabama, like Jefferson Davis eventually did?

Mind you, secession cannot be a legal matter; it would not get the support needed to pass legally.

-- & that's where things get messy. CA has what- Edwards, Vandenburg, San Diego, the Alameda Shipyards.. would the Govt even let CA secede? Or would the personnel on these bases be called on to stop move for secession?

That's where things get messy, all right. Californians would have to be ready militarily to defend themselves and to take over those bases. That's how the Civil War started, when a military base was taken over in SC.

-- really? l thought it was when a ship got sunk. the Monitor, Merrymack, something like thst

[Warren Dew]

(11-24-2016, 05:53 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 02:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 02:54 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 02:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think if CA secedes, it should develop nuclear weapons, if Red America threatens attack. So with any other blue states so inclined. It doesn't matter if the population here is more concentrated. The possession of nucs deters any nation from attacking another.

With our greater technical know-how, we'll be able to develop a better nuclear shield too.

It will be an interesting situation in DC too, since it votes 90% or more Democratic. Could the capital declare secession? Would Red America have to relocate its capital to Montgomery Alabama, like Jefferson Davis eventually did?

Mind you, secession cannot be a legal matter; it would not get the support needed to pass legally.

-- & that's where things get messy. CA has what- Edwards, Vandenburg, San Diego, the Alameda Shipyards.. would the Govt even let CA secede? Or would the personnel on these bases be called on to stop move for secession?

That's where things get messy, all right. Californians would have to be ready militarily to defend themselves and to take over those bases. That's how the Civil War started, when a military base was taken over in SC.

-- really? l thought it was when a ship got sunk. the Monitor, Merrymack, something like thst

He's referring to the battle of Fort Sumpter, which is arguably when the Civil War started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

[Marypoza]

(11-24-2016, 11:15 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-24-2016, 05:53 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 02:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 02:54 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 02:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think if CA secedes, it should develop nuclear weapons, if Red America threatens attack. So with any other blue states so inclined. It doesn't matter if the population here is more concentrated. The possession of nucs deters any nation from attacking another.

With our greater technical know-how, we'll be able to develop a better nuclear shield too.

It will be an interesting situation in DC too, since it votes 90% or more Democratic. Could the capital declare secession? Would Red America have to relocate its capital to Montgomery Alabama, like Jefferson Davis eventually did?

Mind you, secession cannot be a legal matter; it would not get the support needed to pass legally.

-- & that's where things get messy. CA has what- Edwards, Vandenburg, San Diego, the Alameda Shipyards.. would the Govt even let CA secede? Or would the personnel on these bases be called on to stop move for secession?

That's where things get messy, all right. Californians would have to be ready militarily to defend themselves and to take over those bases. That's how the Civil War started, when a military base was taken over in SC.

-- really? l thought it was when a ship got sunk. the Monitor, Merrymack, something like thst

He's referring to the battle of Fort Sumpter, which is arguably when the Civil War started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

-- ok thanx

[Anthony '58]

The more I see of the left in general, and the Millennial Left in particular, my money is on mass emigration, not civil war - provided, of course, that the left loses the election that touches the would-be conflict off.

And if the Republicans don't get a filibuster-proof majority in the 2018 mid-terms, that election will be the 2020 Presidential election, not the one we have just had.

If Donald Trump doesn't keep his promises to the "white working class," he won't repeat his victories in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin; and the MLP - the Miller Lite Party, because if you can combine Christian fundamentalism with Social Darwinism, then you can combine anything! - could lose North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, and even Arizona as well.

[Mikebert]

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay.  So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does.  Thanks for the info.

That is what happened with Obama on the right.  But I actually think Democrats will work with him even though Republicans never return the favor.  For example, Bush passed two tax cuts without having the 60 vote majority in the Senate that Obama needed to pursue his agenda.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump is going to tell Democrats "I don't need you". He doesn't need Democrats in any role in what will operate very closely to a single-Party state. The Republican Party is consummately ruthless.

Except for local offices and a handful of State governments, Democrats will be limited to protests and demonstrations. The next step is to make American government more centralized, weakening the power of any State to operate in any way contrary to the Trump dictatorship.

I expect to hate life every day that Donald Trump is President. Any joy in life will be tainted.

[Eric the Green]

(12-10-2016, 06:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Donald Trump is going to tell Democrats "I don't need you". He doesn't need Democrats in any role in what will operate very closely to a single-Party state. The Republican Party is consummately ruthless.

Except for local offices and a handful of State governments, Democrats will be limited to protests and demonstrations.  The next step is to make American government more centralized, weakening the power of any State to operate in any way contrary to the Trump dictatorship.

I expect to hate life every day that Donald Trump is President. Any joy in life will be tainted.

If he does that, he will be inviting secession, and if he resists this, the possible civil war we imagine.

I would not underestimate Donald Trump. His capacity for evil is certainly being demonstrated, and has been. It doesn't look good, especially for the first term. If he survives in office, and our nation and world is not ruined, then the hope is that he can be shifted if the Democrats recover and take congress back in 2020, if not the White House. If Donald still wins, but loses the congress in 2020, and even more in 2022, then his noted "flexibility" might come into play and he might play with the Democrats.

Trump may be unable and unwilling to be well-informed, but he is not a stupid man. He made more mistakes and gaffes than any other candidate in history, and still won, because he was smart enough to hone and project the right message, especially in his ads; while smart-as-a-tack Hillary could not. He has at least spoken like a Democrat in the past, about 10-15 years ago. So, if forced to by the people and a new congress, he might switch back.

I'm looking at the cosmic probabilities now, that say that the incumbent party will win the popular vote in 2020. It's not guaranteed, but it's over 80% likely. At the same time, the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of Dec.2020 in early Aquarius portends the shift in direction that happens every time, on cue, when this conjunction happens every 20 years at the start of the decades. And if Trump is ousted for terrible misdeeds-- even bad enough for the Republicans to take action against him-- or retires because he's tired, or tired of the job, and we get an inferior candidate Mike Pence running in 2020, then the probabilities rise for a Democratic win, along with the change of direction. But if Trump survives and keeps his popularity (whether deserved or not, as we might see it), then the "change of direction" (IF it happens, as I expect) would occur in congress, and take shape also as Trump going along with it.

[Warren Dew]

(12-10-2016, 04:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay.  So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does.  Thanks for the info.

That is what happened with Obama on the right.  But I actually think Democrats will work with him even though Republicans never return the favor.  For example, Bush passed two tax cuts without having the 60 vote majority in the Senate that Obama needed to pursue his agenda.

Obama's agenda was much more radical.  But we'll see if Obamacare can be repealed without a 60 vote majority, or if the Democrats stonewall that.

[Eric the Green]

Bush's tax cuts were what was "radical." It was an extremism unknown for decades before Reagan's time. He made extremism acceptable. Obamacare was a Republican program. Quite moderate. Romneycare.

[FLBones]

Obamacare needs to be replaced with Medicare for everyone.

[Warren Dew]

(12-10-2016, 09:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Bush's tax cuts were what was "radical." It was an extremism unknown for decades before Reagan's time. He made extremism acceptable. Obamacare was a Republican program. Quite moderate. Romneycare.

Having lived under both Romneycare and Obamacare, I can say that they were not at all the same thing.  In fact, Obamacare made many of the best features of Romneycare illegal.

[pbrower2a]

(12-10-2016, 10:21 PM)FLBones Wrote: Obamacare needs to be replaced with Medicare for everyone.

I concur. It would be far less expensive. It would free competitive enterprises and government bureaucracies of a cost-loading system that no other country has.

Physicians are still going to live well enough on a single-payer system, and those whose extreme capacities merit extraordinary pay will still get it as extreme specialists.

Medicare works well enough to keep elderly people from being priced out of medical care and into the grave. The medical insurance business did not want responsibility for the elderly in intensive care.

[Mikebert]

(12-10-2016, 08:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 04:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay.  So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does.  Thanks for the info.

That is what happened with Obama on the right.  But I actually think Democrats will work with him even though Republicans never return the favor.  For example, Bush passed two tax cuts without having the 60 vote majority in the Senate that Obama needed to pursue his agenda.

Obama's agenda was much more radical.  But we'll see if Obamacare can be repealed without a 60 vote majority, or if the Democrats stonewall that.

Well that's a value statement.  Obviously people on different sides have different beliefs.  I suspect I feel pretty much the same about Trump as you feel about Obama.

[Warren Dew]

(12-11-2016, 08:20 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 08:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 04:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay.  So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does.  Thanks for the info.

That is what happened with Obama on the right.  But I actually think Democrats will work with him even though Republicans never return the favor.  For example, Bush passed two tax cuts without having the 60 vote majority in the Senate that Obama needed to pursue his agenda.

Obama's agenda was much more radical.  But we'll see if Obamacare can be repealed without a 60 vote majority, or if the Democrats stonewall that.

Well that's a value statement.  Obviously people on different sides have different beliefs.  I suspect I feel pretty much the same about Trump as you feel about Obama.

My first sentence is perhaps.  Seeing if Obamacare can be repealed without a 60 vote majority is a hypothesis that can and will be tested.  If a straight repeal is passed with enough Democratic senators to get 60 votes, I'll agree that Democrats are working with him.

I think it's much more likely that the Republicans will have to come up with a bipartisan compromise, or that they will complete the Democrats' job of eviscerating the filibuster.

[Eric the Green]

(12-10-2016, 10:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 09:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Bush's tax cuts were what was "radical." It was an extremism unknown for decades before Reagan's time. He made extremism acceptable. Obamacare was a Republican program. Quite moderate. Romneycare.

Having lived under both Romneycare and Obamacare, I can say that they were not at all the same thing.  In fact, Obamacare made many of the best features of Romneycare illegal.

You could pick out a few small things that favor free enterprise, perhaps, and say they were the best features of Romneycare. The fact remains that most of the features of the two programs are the same, and that the features of Obamacare were originally Republican proposals.

Now the extreme laissez faire trickle-downers have completely taken over your Party, and they will not compromise or come up with anything workable or useful to the people at all. Except perhaps, in a few states like yours where they have to work with Democratic majorities.

[Kinser79]

(12-10-2016, 08:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 04:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay.  So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does.  Thanks for the info.

That is what happened with Obama on the right.  But I actually think Democrats will work with him even though Republicans never return the favor.  For example, Bush passed two tax cuts without having the 60 vote majority in the Senate that Obama needed to pursue his agenda.

Obama's agenda was much more radical.  But we'll see if Obamacare can be repealed without a 60 vote majority, or if the Democrats stonewall that.

The GOP has the votes now to repeal Obamacare as soon as Trump is sworn in--Obama is obviously going to veto that. It is the replacement of it that would require 60 votes.

Ideally, the best solution is to take Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and etc and combine them all into a Medicare that covers everyone from birth to death. Eliminating health care insurance except for special circumstances would dramatically bring down prices, end front loading of costs, and aid in industrial competitiveness as no other country insists that employers provide health care to their employees--in fact it is an artifact from regulations put into place during WW2.

The method I indicated above would dramatically reduce waste, fraud and abuse in insurance and government.

[Ragnarök_62]

(12-12-2016, 03:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: mbine them all into a Medicare that covers everyone from birth to death.  Eliminating health care insurance except for special circumstances would dramatically bring down prices, end front loading of costs, and aid in industrial competitiveness as no other country insists that employers provide health care to their employees--in fact it is an artifact from regulations put into place during WW2.

The method I indicated above would dramatically reduce waste, fraud and abuse in insurance and government.

I'd add we need to add loser pays for all of those  stupid malpractice law suits.  I mean, Doctors ain't Dog. The choice is between adequate health care vs. the occasional fuckup getting paid off.  A better way is for the fuckups to get compensated from adequate social insurance.

[Ragnarök_62]

(12-10-2016, 08:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Obama's agenda was much more radical.  But we'll see if Obamacare can be repealed without a 60 vote majority, or if the Democrats stonewall that.

Medical care and retirement provision are 2 things I don't think free enterpriseTM handle.  As such they should be public goods. 

Medical care depends on random stuff like an odd mutation which causes cancer or losing the genetic lotto and getting early heart disease , type I diabetes, going blind, etc.  There's also random stuff like car wrecks.

Retirement and running out of money is where you win the genetic lotto sorta, but losing the economic lotto and winding up with a body wearing construction job.


Whaddya think, and why?

[Warren Dew]

(12-12-2016, 08:24 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 08:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Obama's agenda was much more radical.  But we'll see if Obamacare can be repealed without a 60 vote majority, or if the Democrats stonewall that.

Medical care and retirement provision are 2 things I don't think free enterpriseTM handle.  As such they should be public goods. 

Medical care depends on random stuff like an odd mutation which causes cancer or losing the genetic lotto and getting early heart disease , type I diabetes, going blind, etc.  There's also random stuff like car wrecks.

Retirement and running out of money is where you win the genetic lotto sorta, but losing the economic lotto and winding up with a body wearing construction job.


Whaddya think, and why?

I think a medical system that relies primarily on treatment rather than prevention is ridiculously messed up.  We save a few bucks eating and drinking cheap, mass produced junk food, then spend thousands of dollars of "other people's money" fixing the cancer, diabetes, and heart disease that result.  The problem is, we end up also being those "other people" who pay for everyone's medical expenses.  And we're so far into the system - more than a generation - that most people have forgotten what healthy food actually is.  It's a terrible system.

Did you know there's an inexpensive supplement that has been shown in clinical trials to prevent 77% of cancers in older women?  Unfortunately since it's cheap, there's no money in marketing it, or even in testing it on men or on younger women.  And since it's an off patent supplement, FDA rules prohibit its sellers from advertising the health benefits, because that would be a problem for the companies that make really expensive, marginally effective cancer drugs who have lots of money for lobbying the FDA.  You've heard of this supplement, even if you didn't know it prevents cancer.  I've written about the cancer result more extensively here:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/53503.html
http://psychohist.livejournal.com/67372.html

The best approach would be for everyone to pay for their own food, doctor's visits, and health insurance; that way, they'd be able to pick a balance that offered them the most benefit for the least cost.  Current employer contributions to health insurance could be turned into pay which people could choose to use on any of these things.

Some level of regulation would be needed to ensure that the insurance companies were able to make good on their promises.  Some level of subsidy could be provided for the poor by state government or private charity, which might cover a minimum level of medical care in the event of a catastrophic eventuality.  But that's as far as I'd really want it.

Auto accidents would be covered by auto insurance, of course.

Except for the part about auto insurance, though, that's so far from what we have that we'll probably need to take baby steps even to start moving in that direction.

[Ragnarök_62]

Rags Wrote:Medical care and retirement provision are 2 things I don't think free enterpriseTM handle.  As such they should be public goods. 

Medical care depends on random stuff like an odd mutation which causes cancer or losing the genetic lotto and getting early heart disease , type I diabetes, going blind, etc.  There's also random stuff like car wrecks.

Retirement and running out of money is where you win the genetic lotto sorta, but losing the economic lotto and winding up with a body wearing construction job.

Whaddya think, and why?

Warren Dew Wrote:I think a medical system that relies primarily on treatment rather than prevention is ridiculously messed up.  We save a few bucks eating and drinking cheap, mass produced junk food, then spend thousands of dollars of "other people's money" fixing the cancer, diabetes, and heart disease that result.  The problem is, we end up also being those "other people" who pay for everyone's medical expenses.  And we're so far into the system - more than a generation - that most people have forgotten what healthy food actually is.  It's a terrible system.

Wrt junk food. I think most folks know how bad the stuff is.  However, consider the dual minimum wage house hold where mom and dad work their asses off and have no time or energy to cook like the "good old days" with stay at home moms. So to enable folks to procure the more expensive fruits/veggies and cook them, we'd need to either raise the minimum wage [I work minimum wage and my employer doesn't even provide me with health insurance so no savings there] or have a guaranteed national income provided or not with an expanded EITC.  

Quote:Did you know there's an inexpensive supplement that has been shown in clinical trials to prevent 77% of cancers in older women?  Unfortunately since it's cheap, there's no money in marketing it, or even in testing it on men or on younger women.  And since it's an off patent supplement, FDA rules prohibit its sellers from advertising the health benefits, because that would be a problem for the companies that make really expensive, marginally effective cancer drugs who have lots of money for lobbying the FDA.  You've heard of this supplement, even if you didn't know it prevents cancer.  I've written about the cancer result more extensively here:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/53503.html
http://psychohist.livejournal.com/67372.html

Yup. JohnMc'82 told me about vitamin D when I bitched on the old forum about all of the nuisances of being homozygous HLA DQ2.5. I don't have celiac disease but I do have a bunch of allergy crap.

http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2780726

Quote:The best approach would be for everyone to pay for their own food, doctor's visits, and health insurance; that way, they'd be able to pick a balance that offered them the most benefit for the least cost.

1. That would work if everyone had enough funds for ordinary medical expenses.  Drugs and routine medical visits. The health insurance would need to work like homeowners insurance and be fore catastrophic stuff equivalent to a house fire.

2. The routine stuff can still add up a lot for poor folks though.

3. Uh, what about the folks who won the genetic lotto and outlive their savings?  The stawk market is not sane or predictable. I mean why did the stawk market go up after Brexit, Trump win, and now Italy's vote?  I'll never understand the stawk market and hell if I can time the thing.

Quote:Current employer contributions to health insurance could be turned into pay which people could choose to use on any of these things.

Yes, that's a hangover from WWII wage/price controls.  It's obsolete and stupid.  Nuking the tax deduction should wipe it out.  I certainly don't like a subsidy to health insurance companies by proxy , tax write offs. The concern I have is the freed up money would be used to pad profits and CEO pay. There's way too much of that going on. I'd really like to nuke tax write offs for CEO pay, financial engineering stuff like stawk buybacks, mergers, spinoffs, etc. The corporate tax rate can be cut, ... but after the top income tax rate needs to go up to at least 50%. Eh, while I'm at it, I'll go into
  mode.  Lessee,  no more mortgage deductions, abolish all housing agencies [Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, HUD, FHA, VHA, etc.],  abolish useless government agencies Education, DHS,  fucking worthless duplicate agency that is. We already have the FBI/CIA.  The DEA also needs to go.  It's a Nixon legacy and thus sucks. I'd also apply the chainsaw to the defense budget.  Let's close 100+ offshore military bases. We're fucking broke.  Death to empire, death to NATO, death to wars of choice.death to NeoCONS, Death to the war on drugs! Let's all peace out, man.




Here's a Christmas tree Rags wants, but can't have 'cause of the stupid DEA. Who needs lights with this kind of tree since the tree will light you up?

Warren Dew Wrote:Some level of regulation would be needed to ensure that the insurance companies were able to make good on their promises.  Some level of subsidy could be provided for the poor by state government or private charity, which might cover a minimum level of medical care in the event of a catastrophic eventuality.  But that's as far as I'd really want it.

Uh, "private charity" ?.   That's an Oklahoma state government special.  I can tell you first hand, that option is a no go. Hell, even state government here is a no go , come to think about it.  All the Oklahoma state government cares about is law enforcement and jails.  Lot's of money goes to those 2 . Yeeahyaaawwwww.  The wahoos we've elected are idiots. Like they cut the income tax just right before the oil price crashed and we have major shortfalls.  If I could, I'd pack up and move to a sane state like Colorado. That's why I never bitch when Eric pans Oklahoma, 'cause he's right.

Quote:Auto accidents would be covered by auto insurance, of course.

I see big numbers for auto insurance bills to pay for lifetime disability payments.

Quote:Except for the part about auto insurance, though, that's so far from what we have that we'll probably need to take baby steps even to start moving in that direction.

I have an idea that will save lots of money, but it'll be a big fuck in the ass for Big Pharma.  Let's legalize importation of drugs from the cheapest locations that adhere to generic drug specifications by the FDA?  I say bring 'em in from Mexico/Canada and even India.