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

[Bob Butler 54]

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

Could you expand your list of talking points a bit?  I'm not the liberal.  I'm the cyclical history fan.

When Reagan first started implementing his programs, I was more or less with him.  The Democrats had been holding undisputed power in Congress too long.  I don't think that is a problem anymore.  

I never did like voodoo economics, the theory that by cutting taxes one could improve the economy to the point that income to the government would increase even with the lower tax rates.  That never worked in practice.  The attempt resulted in ballooning deficits.  Not everything Reagan did worked.

But over all, given the unravelling mood, Reagan did the right things for his time.  LBJ had taken tax and spend too far for too long.  The many failures during the 1970s reduced the sense that the US could successfully throw money at any problem.  Crisis thinking -- working together for the common good and be willing to make sacrifices -- can not and should not be sustained indefinitely.

From my point of view, there are two ways the government might help the economy.  If there isn't enough money available to finance innovation and expansion, supply side stimulus tries to make such money available.  You take from the poor to give to the rich.  Thing is, this is absolutely useless when there is no difficulty rising money for expansion and innovation.  If interest rates are low, if floating new stocks isn't difficult, if there is a huge division of wealth where the robber barons already have more money than they can find good investments for, then supply side stimulus is at best worthless.  At worst...

If the common folk haven't got enough money to buy stuff, it isn't profitable to make stuff.  At such times you want to take from the rich to give to the poor.  This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents moved through tax rates.  It is also a matter of providing services desperately needed.  Rebuild infrastructure.  Provide handicapped access to schools.  Provide healthcare to individuals who would otherwise be totally ruined by assured medical costs.  There is lots of stuff that is desperately needed if one of the many flaws in the current society lands like a ton of bricks on a typical family.

Right now we have an absurdly historically high division of wealth.  So long as that division of wealth is at absurd levels, there is room to help the People.  This doesn't mean we ought to go back to LBJ and beyond, spending in excess, with corruption and not particularly effectively.  Still, the division of wealth is so absurdly high that pushing for more supply side policy taking from the poor to give to the rich is beyond absurd.

Red and Blue partisans take many conflicting positions to opposing extremes.  As I see it, there are times in history and times in the cycles when getting close to either extreme might be a prudent and wise move.  The Red and Blue value systems came into existence and became strong for good reason.  Each worked at different times.  They helped this group or that at different times.  It is hardly surprising that this group or that would become fond of one set of values or the other and push for extreme policies that favor them at all times.

I see this as particularly stupid and dangerous.  Understandable?  Certainly.  Still, stupid and dangerous.

Bushes 41 and 43 demonstrated how badly the Reagan memes work out of season.  When the Robber Barons already benefit from absurdly historically high division of wealth, take more from the poor to give more to the rich?  The result was disastrous.  It would be disastrous again if pushed again.  We are at a point in time where we don't need to make more money available for investment.  We need to insert money directly into Main Street, make it available to the common folk, and do so doing useful things like rebuilding infrastructure, providing health care and providing education.

Right now, given the current real world state of the economy and the more abstract state of the S&H cycles, I am leaning towards the liberals.  Still, you don't seem to be listening.  I'm not a full time liberal who will push for ever more extreme liberal policies regardless of the state of the economy and the cycles.  The goal should not be to push for one extreme, the same extreme, regardless of what is happening in the real world.  The goal ought to be to figure out which party has had too much influence lately and has pushed their ideals beyond the point of reason and time of season.  The goal is to find a proper balance in the middle, to flame at whichever set of extreme partisans are hurting America, to base one's position during a given time on the reality of what is going on at that time.

Now, I've tried to say this many a time in many ways.  I don't think you are capable of understanding it.  You are so married to one particular approach to partisan thinking that you can't comprehend any other way of looking at problems.  In this you are not alone.  Total commitment to partisan thinking is more the norm than unusual.

But I'm vaguely hoping that some other readers aren't as stuck in their thinking.