08-19-2016, 09:28 PM
(08-19-2016, 06:36 PM)taramarie Wrote:America has a lot of heart.(08-19-2016, 06:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:I hope there are people who have a heart because if not that is a depressing world. I have collaborated with a Canadian who is helping me to help a lady in Sth Carolina who may end up an amputee unless we fund for her to get to a specialist as the health care system is apparently shit. We should help each other (not to the extent we destroy a nation of course).(08-19-2016, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:I don't know many of the old Reagan memes. I can remember one when I was older during his second term, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall". BTW, greatness doesn't withdraw and isolate oneself to ones room or office and make demands of subordinates to only give him good news that supports his narrative and blames Americans for the position that he's been in for the bulk of his term. Obama is actually more likeable when he's powerless.(08-18-2016, 10:54 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I may come across as being a lot like Reagan or very Reagan esque . However, Reagan wasn't the one who inspired me to become politically active and begin voting. The one who actually inspired me to become active and begin to vote was Ross Perot. I'm not a follower of Reagan in the way liberals often say that I am, portray me a being and come across to me as believing. I liked him as President and I view him as the best president that I've seen during my life so far. But that it, I have no significant value placed on him. As I recall, Reagan was a transplanted Midwesterner like myself.
I'll confess I'm not the best at distinguishing between the various major conservative unraveling figures. There is a saying that all sheep look alike, except to shepherds and other sheep. I've been calling the base ideas of the unravelling the 'Reagan Memes'. If you can suggest another phrase that might get the same idea across, I might consider. Meanwhile, it has been an effective enough phrase to get the idea across, and Reagan was an important figure in selling them to the public and making them happen.
Not the only figure, but quite an important one.
There are other phrases that can be used, such as 'trickle down voodoo'. That sort of thing can be overdone.
Meanwhile, there have been successful big government programs, and unsuccessful one. There have been times when the people have needed a lot of help, and times they do OK with less help. There have been times and places where the government can become ingrown and corrupt, and times when they are less so. Depending on what times and places one focuses on in US history, one can learn very different ideas on how America works, what is wrong with it, what is right, and what could be better.
Mikebert brought up a point a while back that certain values can shift easier than others. People get different ideas on how the world works, different focuses on what goals ought to be pushed for to improve life. He has a point that beliefs that can be blatantly disproven by example can be superseded rather quickly. I'd also think values that are religious or emotional might have more staying power than objective ideas that can more clearly be shown to be false.
But you can't doubt that many of the key divides in the current Red / Blue divide are extremely stubborn. I can find merit and historical cause for both sets of ideas, perhaps because my own values hold that world views that succeed became strong because they worked or seemed to have worked in their time. I lived through the 60s and remember the notion that big problems ought to be confronted and solved, and this often involved throwing lots of money at problems. I also saw the National Malaise, with the string of failed US policies and projects that disillusioned many about the effectiveness of the government.
There are two sets of lessons learned. I think we would be better off if everyone tried to learn both sets of lessons.
But that's sure not what is happening. Partisans like you and Eric will cling to the lessons and policies of one time and with intense prejudice find ways to reject the lessons and policies of other times. This is going to the point of demonization, where anyone who holds the other set of values must be stupid, deluded, brainwashed, evil or a clone of Hitler. Folks from either extreme aren't considering where the other side might be coming from. They would rather assume that the other side is totally flying mammal excrement out of their minds.
I don't see either side as being more or less evil, deluded, stupid or etc... I do see a pendulum that ought to be swinging with the cycles. At the moment we have a large division of wealth and entrepreneurs are having no difficulty raising funds. There is no current need for supply side stimulus, to take from the poor to give to the rich. There is a real lack of jobs paying living wages. This makes it a good time for demand side stimulus. Money has to be inserted onto Main Street, where it will allow folk to buy and sell stuff, to get goods and services moving freely again. If we can improve infrastructure, education and health care in the process, it's worth doing.
It's not a matter of one ideology or the other always being better. It is a matter of honestly looking at what the nation needs and adjusting policy to match the current needs, not what the needs were when last a given party sized power. Right now, Main Street has a lot more genuine needs than the Robber Barons. The Robber Barons are riding as high as they ever have.
Now, I might wish Mikebert could be proven right. It would be nice if people could just look at the world, see policies that didn't work, that aren't working, and just let go of old ideas that might no longer be effective. This doesn't seem to be happening, though. You and Eric are representative in being able to see only one side of the picture. Both of you have lots of company, clinging to the extremes. It seems that modern society is complex enough that many people cannot see things well enough to shift positions.
I don't think it ought to be all that difficult to open one's eyes, to see all of America and its history rather than focusing on selective bits that reinforce what one wants to believe. Still, the partisan divide continues.
I'm familiar with the concept of supply side economics (voodoo/trickle down economics). I have a fairly good grasp as far as how it's intended to work, how it actually has worked for most American voters including ourselves and how it tends to go against older liberal tax and spend logical as far as its ability to generate more revenues. Your tax and spend logic is outdated. Your logic is from an age that didn't have computers tracking everything. You represent the logic that used to be used by most prior to the technological age. I represent the logic that has been gained since the technological age which began for us with the election of Ronald Reagan.
Like you, I don't wear my heart/compassion on my sleeve. I'm not a so-called bleeding heart liberal or a so-called compassionate conservative. I don't automatically feel sorry for everyone who has an issue or problem and I'm not interested in saving soles or saving everyone. I would say most Americans are very similar to me in that way. What I found interesting with our old battles (battles during the Bush years during the Iraq war), as you were using compassion for the poor Iraqi's our military was killing and the oil that our country was interested in taking, you weren't seeing the compassion that I had for the soldiers you were accusing and the poor Iraqi's who are now under the brutal control of ISIS now. Now, whether that was real compassion or political passion for ones side, only you would now and only I can assume based on the use of my knowledge and intelligence. I assume that your political passion got in the way of your rational judgement at the time. Just so we are clear, Reagan Bush I and Bush II have no emotional value to me. The term Republican has some value to me but not enough to beak down and cry over if its politically defeated or gets replaced by another term.