08-17-2016, 01:33 PM
(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.