Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Bob Butler 54]

(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.

[Eric the Green]

(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.

I wonder what Ted Cruz thinks about this Russian hacking, since he IS Joe McCarthy.

[Eric the Green]

(08-16-2016, 10:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 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.

Well, that would at least put him a millennia or so ahead of Cynic.

Probably two or three millennia.

[Eric the Green]

Trump lies and contradicts himself; will say anything to get elected (facebook video; can't find it on you tube, but it has over 3 million views; go figure)

https://www.facebook.com/TheDemocraticCoalition/videos

[Classic-Xer]

(08-16-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(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:

(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.  

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.

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.

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.

[playwrite]

(08-15-2016, 12:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-15-2016, 09:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(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.  

Has government solved any REAL problems lately? Has government stopped a major flood or a hurricane lately? ....

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.

[Eric the Green]

(08-16-2016, 10:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-16-2016, 10:30 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(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.  

Go solve yourself.  

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.

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.

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.

[David Horn]

(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.

[Bob Butler 54]

(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.

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.

But the country can't stay on vacation forever.

[pbrower2a]

(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.

Beautifully said. If anyone is behind the times with computers technologically it is I; the technology of chat lines and web searches to which I can relate has apparently advanced little from the mid-1990s. If it is culture... then I am just out of phase. I recognize the emptiness of much of the mass culture, and I suggest a return to classical norms in literary and musical taste. Or is that my Asperger's syndrome talking? If being behind the times on economics and social matters is the topic, then one has a description of Classic X'er. He may be missing the point of the theory of Howe and Strauss -- that history is cyclical. The movement of history is better described with the concept of angular momentum and not straight-line, inertial movement. Of course if the circle or cycle is large enough, circular motion and straight-line motion can seem practically identical. Over time the result of the circular motion deviates from the expected experience of straight-line motion. This says, we are generally hard-wired to fit inertial, straight-line motion.

Of course, if the cyclical or circular motion is tight enough and swift enough, we can be terribly confused. Such confusion can deliver a thrill, as with some amusement park rides that spin us or take us in circles. Such is the effect of taking sharp turns at high speeds in a car, let alone making a sharp turn in a jet aircraft. The tighter the curve and higher the speed the stronger is the effect that we experience.

History does not move like an amusement ride, a fighter jet taking turns, or a race-car driver taking a curve on a track -- except in a Crisis Era. If something so predictable as elections dictate political life, then we see such a phenomenon as a Presidential administration as much the same over eight years.  If one is old enough, then one can recall a swift transition from Carter to Reagan, a slight one from Reagan to the elder Bush, a swift and decisive one from the elder Bush to Bill Clinton, another swift and decisive one from Bill Clinton to the younger Bush, and then a very sharp transition from the younger Bush to that of Barack Obama. Like him or despise him, Barack Obama has set a rigid style in place in early 2009 that has not really changed. We will have a transition in January.

Of course if one does not adapt to the changing times one can be the cultural or political equivalent of a beached whale. That was the humor in All in the Family -- Carroll O'Connor (as Archie Bunker) was doing drama out of sync with the time while everyone else was in the 1970s. But that was laughable because "Archie Bunker" was largely an under-educated fool having to deal with a reality that he could never understand.  With his "solid grade-school education" he could never keep up with the times.

So how do people get out of sync with the times? They are stuck, or struggle to remain in an earlier time, especially
in an earlier Turning. Some people are comfortable in a Third Turning -- especially people who love the material excess, the political reaction, and the class divide. The strongest supporters of a Third Turning way of life are economic elites making easy money as people who made the right investments going into the 3T or who latched onto corporate management (getting well paid for treating others badly, well fitting the ethos of a scoundrel) or prostituted themselves as political hacks. For them, labor became cheap, pliant, and disposable with little loss in quality except that it was often being used at a low level of productivity, as in retailing, fast food, and domestic service.

A paradise for economic elites is typically a Hell, or at least Purgatory, for those who do the real work. The hypocrisy of a culture that sponsors extreme indulgence for economic elites while imposing poverty and gross uncertainty on everyone else becomes a harsh reality for most. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are for elites and contingent for everyone else. The common man matters only as a revenue stream; his life becomes a contingency; his liberty is to be destroyed; he is to become a compliant machine because he is competing with robots.

The longer that the economic elites try to maintain their plutocratic dream and workers' Hell, the nastier and perhaps more destructive that this Crisis Era will be. Even if the economic elites prevail they will destroy any bond with the common man except for fear, a fear characteristic of the victim of a loan shark today or a serf in medieval times.

[Eric the Green]

(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.

[Eric the Green]

(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.

I don't see that Democrats are just about the niche movements and not about the old focus anymore, although that focus was lost to a large extent under the "New Democrats" in the time of Bill Clinton. Hillary is now following in Bernie's direction, rhetorically, because the times demand it, whereas in Bill's time during the Third Turning (when Reaganomics still held sway) they could get away with forgetting that direction to some extent. Whether Hillary's appointments and policies follow suit, is yet to be determined. Her appointment of Salazar is not a good sign, however.

Bill Clinton famously said "the era of big government is over," but the pundits nearly always fail to quote the remainder of his sentence, in which he said "we can't go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves," which is what Reagan and the GOP wanted, and still want. The fact that the rest of his statement is suppressed, says a lot about how the elite wants to tag Bill as anti-liberal and pro-Reagan, and keep the regressive powers rolling. But Bill was NOT a Reagan clone.

https://youtu.be/yp3OXUnVK34?t=19m25s

[Classic-Xer]

(08-17-2016, 12:14 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(08-15-2016, 12:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-15-2016, 09:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(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.  

Has government solved any REAL problems lately? Has government stopped a major flood or a hurricane lately? ....

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.

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.

[Mikebert]

(08-17-2016, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 12:14 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(08-15-2016, 12:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-15-2016, 09:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(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.  

Has government solved any REAL problems lately? Has government stopped a major flood or a hurricane lately? ....

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.

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.

Conservatives already have all the answers they need, hence they see no profit in looking for new ones.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-17-2016, 12:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(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.

I'm not a follower of Reagan. If anything, I'm a follower of Ross Perot. BTW, I tend to lead more than follow.

[Mikebert]

(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.

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. 

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.

[Bob Butler 54]

(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.

Well, I consider you to be as partisan as X'er.  You've bought fully into the Blue world view and see nothing good in the Red just as Classic goes the other way.  There is a reason why Reagan was elected and became so highly revered.  He did strike a chord with many Americans.  An awful lot of folks still hear that chord to the extent of hearing nothing else.  Just because you cannot comprehend why history unfolded as it did does not in any way imply that there are no reasons it unfolded as it did.

As I've been telling him, there are reasons why conflicting value systems can be popular, reasons why the tides of opinion turn periodically.  Listening to partisans from either extreme, you can see each believes the other to be stupid, mistaken, evil, wrong, a threat to America, etc...  The other side is seen to have few or no redeeming values.  The only correct answer is to obliterate the other faction entirely.  If this isn't done, America is Doomed!  Doomed, I tell you!  Doomed!  The two of you are similarly blind in being totally unable to see or respect where the other is coming from.

Neither you nor Classic have all the answers or answers that are good all the time.  If you really want to understand US history, you have to understand both conflicting sets of values and see where each has a proper place.

Not that I think either of you will be able to see this.  The two of you pretty well represent the state of the United States today.  Two people standing on opposite mountain tops, yelling at full volume, hands covering their ears.

[Bob Butler 54]

(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.

Do you read your own posts?

[Mikebert]

Bob, you have been talking about this values stuff for years.  You have never spelt it out. Values are some of the most hard-wired aspects of a persons sense of self.  What one believes about how the world works  (what I call the paradigm) is much more changeable.  For example, I used to believe that financial panics like those in 1873, 1893 or 1929-32 did not happen anymore. So did a lot of people.  Then 2008 happened.  I changed my mind, so, I imagine, did lots of people.  Another example.  Dick Cheney and many others believed that whereas US meddling in the ME might lead to blowback overseas, it posed no threat to the homeland.  Then 911 happened, and Dick Cheney seemed to lose his marbles.

In neither of these situation did values (i.e. emotionally-charged beliefs) change.  I still hold the same things to be ethically important after 2008 as before.  I suspect the same is true for Cheney.  All that changed was value-neutral beliefs about how the world works.

[David Horn]

(08-17-2016, 02:16 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(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.

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. 

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.

If there is any validity to saecular theory, then we should see conditions for change ripen in a 4T.  Trump has pumped-up the LMC white males, and some of the women as well, but, I have to agree, I don't see Trump as a movement leader or his troops as an army.  Stagnation, on the other hand, may move the PTB toward something, but what exactly is up for grabs. 

I don't see Hillary being the change agent.  I don't see it coming from her aids either, since she tends to hang with the same unimaginative crowd.  Article I rabble rousers, like Newt, don't get far so that seems to be a dead end.  Ditto for the private sector actors who have already succeeded in stealing everything in sight, making things worse for everyone but them.  Post-modern academe is out for obvious reasons.  Barring a worse crash than 2007-9 or a major war, I don't see it happening.

It's one of the reasons I think this may fester until the next 2T.