Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Malaise Speech for the Current Time
(04-01-2017, 12:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 09:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 10:15 AM)David Horn Wrote: So you're arguing that it's all a ploy, and Trump, et al, are really playing a deep strategy.  That's nonsense.  If you read Trump's book, you'll see that he is intellectually and emotionally incapable of doing that.  By his own words, his modus operand was: go to the office, sit down and wait for something to happen.  He made a point of being unprepared in advance, and totally reactive to events.  Bannon may be a strategist, but he's not the guy in charge.  Unless he becomes a true puppet master, with his hand firmly up his boss's butt 24/7, any strategies he spins will be overturned by Jarret Kushner of Ivanka, both of whom have Trump's ear much more than Bannon.

Rolleyes   Seriously.  Here, lets have Scott Adams explain as he always does what's really happening.

I like Dilbert as much as the next guy, but really?

I don't know about you but I go with what works and whose right. When Scott Adams' track record is better than CNN's who would you go with? Also Dilbert is fairly entertaining on its own, but his blog is more important.

Kinser Wrote:We see three different levels where Trump wins, one where Ryan loses, and of course the clueless are just as confused as ever.

Level 1:  Trump weakens Ryan who is a snake, and is hated by the Trumpist base.  Remember the GOP is also embroiled in its own civil war between nationalist and globalist factions--the globalists are losing so I expect by the end of the decade the Dims to swing more to the right (and they may also purge their SJW elements).  Meanwhile the GOP will move further left, but be overtly nationalist and populist.

Where we are is just where we, and the Europeans, should expect to be.  A long-followed governing model that's become sclerotic and ineffective will always trigger an antithetical response.  So what?  I see no chance that the neo-nationalists have anything approaching a workable model, and that's becoming clear to others as well.  When the sound asleep finally awaken, this movement will be toast.

That still leaves a need for a workable model, of course.  Bernie Sanders was pretty close to an answer, so look in that quadrant.  The only issue is: how soon?


The current system isn't working--but there isn't a solution at least not one that can be implemented this cycle (the whole order still has yet to be discredited--you know Mega-Unraveling), and it certainly isn't Bernie Sanders. The Europeans all have much larger welfare states than the US and they're failing too.

Even if we agreed Sanders had the solutions to our problems where would we get the funds to pay for all these programs and such like? Massive raising of taxes? Massive printing of money? You know because raising taxes and inflation never causes problems.

Kinser Wrote:Level 2:  The Dims still own Obamacare, and as it collapses under its own weight delaying actually helps the president--so it can be repealed (and maybe replaced--with something that actually works).  As for the replacement I'm in favor of the "buy your own goddamn insurance" model.  If we can trust adults to buy mortgages, and car insurance they can be trusted to buy health insurance.  If need be we can even have it cross state lines.

If the plan is to have an insurance-based system of healthcare finance, then the ACA is the least bad option.

No the least bad option is to have people buy their own damn insurance. We trust the free market to provide us with bread and vegetables and junk food all of which are in such abundance even the poor are obese but we can't trust it to provide a plethera of insurance options? Seriously if there is a profit to be made someone will try and make it.

Quote:Going to "buy your own goddamn insurance" guarantees that the poor, sick and elderly will be priced out of the market and the healthy young will simply opt out.

So what you're saying is people cannot be trusted to buy their own insurance. Yet they certainly can be trusted with buying home owners insurance, renters insurance, car insurance and so forth. Are you sure you want to go that route?

Granted some people will be priced out, some will opt out. In any freedom based system you're going to have that. So unless you're proposing forcing everyone buys a certain product approved by the state or they are jailed, the ACA or any other force based insurance system is not going to work. And that doesn't even get into the whole one-size does not fit all situation (which is a whole other kettle of fish).

What I do find interesting though is someone on Medicare, who isn't effected by the ACA is attempting to dictate why this terrible piece of garbage is good for me and good for business.

Quote:  If employers opt out too, and I think they are looking for an excuse to do just that, then the actual healthcare system will collapse due to lack of funding.

Two issues: 1. Employers only started offering health insurance during WW2 due to war time wage caps.
2. Employers only continue to do so to retain employees because health insurance is non-taxable compensation.

Ideally employers should not be paying for health care insurance. Maybe if the tax system was structured in a different way they could offer their employees enough money to buy their own damn insurance. Finally, for those who have employer provided health insurance what happens to their insurance when they get laid off or their job is sent to Chi-nah? Oh they lose it....with the "Buy your own damn insurance" system they have their insurance whether they work or not as long as they can pay the premium. And this doesn't even get into the whole not wanting to hire older workers or workers with pre-existing conditions in situations where companies (many of who can't really afford to provide insurance to their full time workers--or they would without being forced to) because doing so would raise their rates.

Quote:BTW, that's the true definition of a death spiral.

No that's the sound of a bubble popping. If people have to buy their own insurance then they are most likely going to go for what they need and not for what some third party is going to pay for. This means single men aren't going to have coverage for mammograms--cause guess what men don't need that. I imagine single women will not want their prostate exams covered (you know not having a prostate and all). I figure if an adult human is competent enough to dress themselves then they are compotent enough to buy what kind of health care coverage they need.

Kinser Wrote:Level 3:  The Leftist meme "Trump is literally Hitler zomg" is permanently broken.  Now the meme is "He's incompetent" as Scott Adams points out the meme will be different by summer. 

I could care less about the meme.  I call what I see, and I see a 70-year old adolescent playing at being President.  I doubt he'll make it through his entire term.

Yeah like a sick, corrupt, career politician--the very essence of everything wrong in Washington was any better. As for being a 70 year old adolescent...I can't tell if that is a statement from ignorance as to how New Yorkers behave, or if you're simply delusional. Were he some unchecked over grown teenager he wouldn't have been able to make 1 Million into Billions.

Or is it that you're secretly jealous of Daddy in that the presidency is the cherry on top and all you have to look forward to is hopefully dying before dementia sets in?

Kinser Wrote:And at the price of what?  A terrible bill no one wanted.  Sounds like the President got a bargain.

Who was arguing for the AHCA POS?  Not me!

And you think I was?

AHCA was never going to pass because it isn't a repeal, and it also wasn't a replace either--unless the goal was to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Kinser Wrote:Also which book?  He's written around a dozen books.

I only found two, and The Art of the Deal is the biggie.  That's the one that cites his management style -- in his own words.

I have The Art of the Deal, I actually bought a copy but that is hardly his only book. It was written 30 years ago and is all about business and business management. [Incidentally that is why I bought the book.] It is not about politics at all except where he exposes how inept many politicians he dealt with over the years were. Most of those politicans retired 20-10 years ago, so...I'm not following your logic (assuming you even have one).

Trump has written more than two books. It is clear you didn't google hard enough.

Time to Get Tough: Making America No. 1 Again (2011), co-written with Wynton Hall, ISBN 978-1-59698-773-9
Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again (2015), ISBN 978-1-5011-3796-9

Great Again: How to Fix Our Crippled America (2016), ISBN 978-1-5011-3800-3

Are the three books that deal with contemporary politics. In all three he explained what he thinks is wrong, and offers several solutions on how to fix it. His solutions may or may not work--they need to be tried before we know for sure. But I know what won't work--doing nothing or doing the same thing that has been done before. It depends on how one looks at the world though--as Scott Adams pointed out. Are goal orientated or systems orientated.

Kinser Wrote:WRT Ivanka and Mr. Ivanka, I imagine that one's daughter and Son-in-law are relatively important figures in his life.  Such is natural.  How much influence over policy remains to be seen--I know that Bannon heavily influences the President--he's been hired twice to do exactly that.  Remember, the hardest part of running a business is not hiring people--it is firing them.  Trump made "You're Fired" a catch phrase.  Obviously for someone to not only not get fired by Trump, but to be hired a second time indicates that he values Bannon's opinion.

Also don't be surprised at how much leeway White House staff is likely to get.  Trump's business model consists largely of delegating tasks to competent people.  He's built an empire on that particular skill.

Trump is operating on bravado, which may work in his chosen field but not in the public domain.  He isn't a king, and acting like one won't change that one iota.

You know who else operated with bravado and was a very successful president? Andrew Jackson. It is not for no reason I have named Trump the "Jacksonian GC" in my own words. Do not be surprised should, you live to see it--and I'm likely too, if people in the future do not brag about being born in or coming up in the Age of Trump.

History may not repeat but it certainly rhymes.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.

Messages In This Thread
RE: A Malaise Speech for the Current Time - by Kinser79 - 04-01-2017, 09:32 PM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ken Burns, commencement speech. Stanford University, 2016. pbrower2a 2 1,884 06-14-2016, 08:02 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)