Poll: What will happen if Donald Trump is elected President
He'll be a successful 2-term President
He'll be an unsuccessful 1-term President
He will be impeached or forced to resign
He will be overthrown in a coup
He will become a dictator
Something else
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What will happen if Trump is elected President
#21
Here's an attempted edit to Wikipedia in the article "Demagogue". No, I did not do it, biut even its critic recognized it as good, if not suited to Wikipedia (too au-courant on a political issue)


Donald Trump is running for President of the United States, and has won the nomination of the Republican Party. He has been accused by commentators, including on CNN, which Trump has called the Clinton News Network, of being a demagogue. Trump has been accused of scapegoating Mexicans as “criminals, drug dealers, rapists” and Muslims by saying that "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Trump has been accused of fearmongering with headlines of “Latinos Call Out Donald Trump For His Fear-Mongering Speech” from The Huffington Post. Trump has also been accused of being a pathological liar by Carl Bernstein, and has been rated at the Truth-O-Meter from Poltifact as Pants on Fire nineteen percent of the time, False thirty-six percent of the time, and Mostly False fifteen percent of the time.
Trump has been described by Alexander Hurst as using disgust and it resonating with portions of the electorate. Trump has called the news media "crooked". Stories exist of violence at Trump rallies, according to the Press. Trump has called candidates with epithets such as "Crooked Hillary" when referring to Secretary Hillary Clinton, "Lying Ted" when referring to Senator Ted Cruz, "Crazy Bernie" when referring to Senator Bernie Sanders, or "Pocahontas" when referring to Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Trump has described himself as not being a politician except for the past fourteen months. Trump has been accused by Hillary Clinton of having few ideas and lacking details, and has been accused the solution as removing illegal aliens. Trump has also denounced Ohio Governor John Kasich for having refused to attend the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

This is in the current edition of Wikipedia on "Demagogue":

The methods of demagogues


Below are described a number of recurring techniques that are reported among demagogues from many different times and places. No one demagogue uses them all, and no two demagogues use exactly the same methods to gain popularity and loyalty. Even ordinary politicians use some of these techniques from time to time; a politician who failed to stir emotions at all would have little hope of being elected. What these techniques have in common, and what distinguishes demagogues' use of them, is their consistent use to shut down reasoned deliberation by stirring up overwhelming passion.[23][24]

Scapegoating

The most common demagogic technique is scapegoating: blaming the in-group's troubles on an out-group, usually of a different race, religion, or social class. For example, Hitler famously blamed Germany's troubles during the Great Depression on Jews. Joe McCarthy claimed that all of America's problems resulted from "communist subversion." Denis Kearney blamed all the problems of laborers in California on Chinese immigrants.[23]

Fearmongering

Many demagogues have risen to power by evoking fear in their audiences, to stir them to action and prevent deliberation. Fear of rape, for example, is easily evoked. "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman's rhetoric was most vivid when he was describing imaginary scenes in which white women were raped by black men lurking by the side of the road. He depicted black men as having an innate "character weakness" consisting of a fondness for raping white women.[25] Tillman was elected governor of South Carolina in 1890, and elected senator repeatedly from 1895–1918.

Lying

While any politician needs to point out dangers to the people and criticize opponents' policies, demagogues choose their words for their effect on their audience's emotions, usually without regard for factual truth or the real severity of the danger.[26][27] Some demagogues are opportunistic, monitoring the people and saying whatever currently will generate the most "heat". Other demagogues may themselves be so ignorant or prejudiced that they sincerely believe the falsehoods they tell.[23]

When one lie doesn't work, the demagogue quickly moves on to more lies. Joe McCarthy first claimed to have "here in my hand" a list of 205 members of the Communist Party working in the State Department. Soon this became 57 "card-carrying Communists". When pressed to provide their names, McCarthy then said that while the records are not available to him, he knew "absolutely" that "approximately" 300 Communists were certified to the Secretary of State for discharge but only "approximately" 80 were actually discharged. When called on that bluff, he said that he had a list of 81, which he would use in the following weeks. McCarthy never turned up even one Communist in the State Department.[28]

Emotional oratory and personal magnetism

Many demagogues have demonstrated remarkable skill at moving audiences to great emotional depths and heights during a speech. Sometimes this is due to exceptional verbal eloquence, sometimes personal charisma, sometimes both. Hitler demonstrated both. His eyes had a hypnotic effect on many people, seeming to immobilize and overwhelm whoever he glared at. Hitler usually began his speeches by speaking slowly, in a low, resonant voice, telling of his life in poverty after serving in World War I, suffering in the chaos and humiliation of postwar Germany, resolving to reawaken the Fatherland. Gradually he would escalate the tone and tempo of his speech, ending in a climax in which he shrieked his hatred of Bolsheviks, Jews, Czechs, Poles, or whatever group he currently perceived as standing in his way—mocking them, ridiculing them, insulting them, threatening them with destruction. Normally reasonable people became caught up in the peculiar rapport that Hitler established with his audience, believing even the most obvious lies and nonsense while under his spell. Hitler was not born with these vocal and oratorical skills; he acquired them through long and deliberate practice.[29]

A more ordinary silver-tongued demagogue was the Negro-baiter James Kimble Vardaman (governor of Mississippi 1904–1908, senator 1913–1919), admired even by his opponents for his oratorical gifts and colorful language. An example, responding to Theodore Roosevelt's having invited black people to a reception at the White House: "Let Teddy take coons to the White House. I should not care if the walls of the ancient edifice should become so saturated with the effluvia from the rancid carcasses that a Chinch bug would have to crawl upon the dome to avoid asphyxiation." Vardaman's speeches tended to have little content; he spoke in a ceremonial style even in deliberative settings. His speeches served mostly as a vehicle for his personal magnetism, charming voice, and graceful delivery.[30]
The demagogues' charisma and emotional oratory many times enabled them to win elections despite opposition from the press. The news media informs, and often the information is damaging to demagogues. Demagogic oratory distracts, entertains, and enthralls, steering followers' attention away from the demagogue's usual history of lies, abuses of power, and broken promises. The advent of radio enabled many 20th-century demagogues' skill with the spoken word to drown out the written word of newspapers.[31]

Attacking the news media

Since information from the press can undermine a demagogue's spell over his or her followers, modern demagogues have often attacked it intemperately, calling for violence against newspapers who opposed them, claiming that the press was secretly in the service of moneyed interests or foreign powers, or claiming that leading newspapers were simply personally out to get them. Huey Long accused the New Orleans Times–Picayune and Item of being "bought", and had his bodyguards rough up their reporters. Oklahoma governor "Alfalfa Bill" Murray (1869–1956) once called for a bomb to be dropped on the offices of the Daily Oklahoman. Joe McCarthy accused the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Post, the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, the Washington Post, the St. Louis Dispatch, and countless other leading American newspapers of being "Communist smear sheets" under the control of the Kremlin.[31]

Violence and physical intimidation

Demagogues have often encouraged their supporters to violently intimidate opponents, both to solidify loyalty among their supporters and to discourage or physically prevent people from speaking out or voting against them. "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman was repeatedly re-elected to the U.S. Senate largely through violence and intimidation. He spoke in support of lynch mobs, and he disenfranchised most black voters with the South Carolina constitution of 1895. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that physical intimidation was an effective way to move the masses. Hitler intentionally provoked hecklers at his rallies so that his supporters would become enraged by their remarks and assault them.[32]

Personal insults and ridicule

Many demagogues have found that ridiculing or insulting opponents is a simple way to shut down reasoned deliberation of competing ideas, especially with an unsophisticated audience. "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman, for example, was a master of the personal insult. He got his nickname from a speech in which he called President Grover Cleveland "an old bag of beef" and resolved to bring a pitchfork to Washington to "poke him in his old fat ribs."[33] James Kimble Vardaman consistently referred to President Theodore Roosevelt as a "coon-flavored miscegenationist" and once posted an ad in a newspaper for "sixteen big, fat, mellow, rancid coons" to sleep with Roosevelt during a trip to Mississippi.[30]

A common demagogic technique is to pin an insulting epithet on an opponent, by saying it repeatedly, in speech after speech, when saying the opponent's name or in place of it. For example, James Curley referred to Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., his Republican opponent for Senator, as "Little Boy Blue". William Hale Thompson called Anton Cermak, his opponent for mayor of Chicago, "Tony Baloney". Huey Long called Joseph E. Ransdell, his elderly opponent for Senator, "Old Feather Duster". Joe McCarthy liked to call Secretary of State Dean Acheson "The Red Dean of Fashion". The use of epithets and other humorous invective diverts followers' attention from soberly considering how to address the important public issues of the time, scoring easy laughs instead.[31]

Folksy posturing

Most demagogues have made a show of appearing to be down-to-Earth, ordinary citizens just like the people whose votes they sought. In the United States, many took folksy nicknames: William H. Murray (1869–1956) was "Alfalfa Bill"; James M. Curley (1874–1958) of Boston was "Our Jim"; Ellison D. Smith (1864–1944) was "Cotton Ed"; the husband-and-wife demagogue team of Miriam and James E. Ferguson went by "Ma and Pa"; Texas governor W. Lee O'Daniel (1890–1969) was "Pappy-Pass-the-Biscuits".[34][35][36]

Georgia governor Eugene Talmadge (1884–1946) put a barn and a henhouse on the Executive Mansion grounds, loudly explaining that he couldn't sleep nights unless he heard the bellowing of livestock and the cackling of poultry.[37][34] When in the presence of farmers, he chewed tobacco and faked an ignorant rural accent, though he himself was college-educated, railing against "frills" and "nigger-lovin' furriners". He defined "furriner" as "Anyone who attempts to impose ideas that are contrary to the established traditions of Georgia." His grammar and vocabulary became more refined when speaking before a city audience.[38] Talmadge was famous for wearing gaudy red galluses, which he snapped for emphasis during his speeches.[35][39] On his desk, he kept three books, which he loudly proclaimed to visitors were all that a governor needed: a bible, the state financial report, and a Sears–Roebuck catalog.[38]

Huey Long displayed his common-people roots by such methods as calling himself "The Kingfish" and gulping down pot likker when visiting northern Louisiana; he once issued a press release demanding that his name be removed from the Washington Social Register.[35] "Alfalfa Bill" made sure to remind people of his rural background by talking in the terminology of farming: "I will plow straight furrows and blast all the stumps. The common people and I can lick the whole lousy gang."[34]

Gross oversimplification

Scapegoating, described above, is one form of gross oversimplification: treating a complex problem, which requires patient reasoning and analysis to sort out, as if it results from one simple cause or can be solved by one simple cure. For example, Huey Long claimed that all of the U.S.'s economic problems could be solved just by "sharing the wealth".[23] Hitler claimed that Germany had lost World War I only because of a "Stab in the Back".

Accusing opponents of weakness and disloyalty

Cleon, like many demagogues that came after him, constantly advocated brutality in order to demonstrate strength, and argued that compassion was a sign of weakness that would only be exploited by enemies. "It is a general rule of human nature that people despise those who treat them well and look up to those who make no concessions." At the Mytilinean Debate over whether to recall the ships he had sent the previous day to slaughter and enslave the entire population of Mytilene, he opposed the very idea of debate, characterizing it as an idle, weak, intellectual pleasure: "To feel pity, to be carried away by the pleasure of hearing a clever argument, to listen to the claims of decency are three things that are entirely against the interests of an imperial power."[9][40][41]

Distracting from his lack of evidence for his claims, Joe McCarthy persistently insinuated that anyone who opposed him was a communist sympathizer. G.M. Gilbert summarized this rhetoric as "I'm agin' Communism; you're agin' me; therefore you must be a communist."[42]
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#22
The word 'Demagogue' of late has been used to describe The Donald.  'Narcissist' has also been used from time to time.  Are the two related?  While 'Demagogue' might be a style of politician while 'Narcissist' would be a personality disorder, there seems to be a connection, at least in the common examples of the two types.

Anyway, a snip from Wiki's entry on narcissism to go with the demagogue equivalent above.

Wiki Wrote:A 2012 book on power-hungry narcissists suggests that narcissists typically display most, and sometimes all, of the following traits:[7]
  • An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
  • Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships
  • A lack of psychological awareness (see insight in psychology and psychiatry, egosyntonic)
  • Difficulty with empathy
  • Problems distinguishing the self from others (see narcissism and boundaries)
  • Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)
  • Vulnerability to shame rather than guilt
  • Haughty body language
  • Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
  • Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
  • Using other people without considering the cost of doing so
  • Pretending to be more important than they actually are
  • Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
  • Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
  • Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
  • Denial of remorse and gratitude
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
#23
It takes talent and practice to be a demagogue. That was a good list.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#24
(09-17-2016, 09:06 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 01:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-17-2016, 12:34 PM)Mikebert Wrote: National Review has an article on this.  It is really quite rosy and they are diehard nevertrumpers so I don't think they are trying to make him sound good. I think they paint a too rosy picture, Trump will be worse (from my perspective) than they suggest, but maybe he won't be totally awful, maybe only a bit worse than Bush and we survived him.

I thought of this, but then I think, how many Bushs can we survive? With climate change getting worse by the day, I'm not sure we can survive another. Nor can we afford another reckless foreign policy. And we are already broke; how much more debt can we pile on before we are truly bankrupt and the interest eats up our government? How much more supply-side-driven economic ruin? How much more of letting Wall Street run wild?

Clinton won't be much better than Bush if she wins narrowly and Democrats fail to take back the Senate.  Obama had a Democratic Congress for two years that allowed him to pass some stuff, including preventing the depression he inherited.  He had a Democratic Senate that allowed him to fill some appointments.  There is going to be a recession during the next presidential term. The last two business cycles have ended with an asset bubble collapse.  We currently have a stock market bubble and so this recession is going to be like the last two in that way.  The Fed was able to contain the first bubble collapse by slashing interest rates, which had the effect of creating a new bubble in real-estate, whose growth countered the recessionary impact of the falling stock bubble.  For the second recession the stock market was a damaged asset class and when the Fed slashed rates it failed to counter the effects of the deflating real estate bubble and we had a very serious recession.  Depression was avoided by a combination of fiscal stimulus (Bush's TARP and Obama's stimulus bill) coupled with extraordinary actions by the Fed (QE).

For the upcoming recession real estate is a damaged asset class, and there will be no counter for the collapsing stock bubble.  Interest rates are already low and the Fed has no room to serious cuts.  QE has been heavily utilized and its effects the first time were pretty weak and a second set of actions will be even less effective.  The GOP Congress is NOT going to pass another TARP for fear of a Tea party reaction against them.  They are not going to pass any stimulus to help Clinton get re-elected.  The most likely outcome of a recession on Clinton's watch would be a nasty recession that would probably even be worse than the last one.  Since they have already called that one the Great Recession I think we might see the D-word come back into use.

Conventional wisdom would have Democrats blamed for this downturn and that could be the end of their party.  A month ago I was envisioning a big Clinton victory with a clear Democratic majority in the Senate and a much narrower Republican majority in the house, in which investor fears could pressure Ryan to let the Clinton stimulus plan to come to a vote.  But if Ryan retains the huge Republican majority of today, I see this action as too risky for him and so and any Clinton stimulus that would have a chance of working would be DOA in the House.  This would leave starting a full scale war against ISIS or someplace else as her only out.  We saw where that led Bush.

Yes, your logic adds up. So this is about can we survive even Clinton; even if Trump loses. We probably can't survive Trump, but can we survive Hillary Clinton if she wins narrowly? Which right now it looks like, but may not look like in another month.

Since my forecast is that the next recession won't be as bad, and there won't be any real new US war until 2025 or 2026, can my prediction prevail even if the economics and the logic say otherwise? What can I point to besides my cosmic indicators?

First of all, I think the current recovery is turning out to be more robust than the last one. The Bush II economy was very sluggish. Despite what those who support Trump say, middle class income and jobs are rising. There was no stimulus after previous recessions, going back decades. This was the first time that the Democrats were able to get a stimulus past the trickle-down ideology intact for decades. Keynes was back even if only for a year or so. And it worked. It was about the only thing that worked, despite deliberate Republican efforts to slow it down or stop it and blame the results of their actions on Obama.

The other thing that's going to be happening is the green energy boom. So like the dot com bubble and burst in 2000-2001, but unlike the previous breakdown in 2008, there are genuinely-new sources of job and income that are going to be boosting and transforming the economy. The market is taking over from the Obama green energy stimuli and making this economic change inevitable.

So these two factors could slow down the next recession, even though the government in the next 4 years may have no tools to deal with it. It will have the provisions of the Dodd-Frank reforms and Warren Consumer Protection Bureau to deal with bank failures. Too big to fail will not be tolerated and will not be allowed the crash the whole economy-- unless Trump wins of course. In that case, Katy bar the door.

It's a complex situation and no particular ideas or words can encapsulate all that will be going on.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#25
Eric the Green Wrote:Yes, your logic adds up. So this is about can we survive even Clinton; even if Trump loses. We probably can't survive Trump, but can we survive Hillary Clinton if she wins narrowly?

We certainly can survive Clinton.  But what happens to her party if she becomes the Democratic Hoover?


Quote:Since my forecast is that the next recession won't be as bad, and there won't be any real new US war until 2025 or 2026, can my prediction prevail even if the economics and the logic say otherwise?

It certainly can.  2008 showed that financial panics had come back after being banished in the 1930’s. Back in the old days panic spacing had run from 14 years (1893-1907) to 24 years (1907-1932) with an average value of 18 years, about the length of two modern business cycles. If this timing is still valid then we should avoid panic in this recession, but get it in the next, which agrees with your timetable.  It also agrees with Turchin’s secular cycle concept. 
 
It does not with the S&H generational theory.  According to S&H’s theory (which is based on Karl Mannheim’s ideas, generations pick up their traits when coming of age. They express them later in life when they reach the leadership phase of life.  Thus, this 4T is generationally defined as the period when the generation shaped by the last 2T is in leadership. This generation was born over 1943-1960, according to S&H and they should be leaving the leadership role in the early 2020’s.
 
The GIs left leadership in 1976, 8 years before the end of the 2T.  If we extrapolate Howe’s data we get Boomers exiting leadership in 2024, suggesting a 4T end in 2032.  If we don’t get a panic until ca. 2027 and replace the bum in office in 2028 (regneracy), can we then go to climax and 4T resolution in just 4 years?  This seems to be a lot of really heavy lifting.  Much more likely would be nothing is done and we just continue to drift in which case it will look like we have just stayed in a 3T for 48 years, and the theory will be invalidated.

 Thus, I believe if another panic is truly in the cards (as many here, including me, think) then it pretty much has to happen now or the S&H theory is invalid.  The whole point of theory is to explain.  That requires that its use can rule out some future paths, otherwise it is no theory. It’s fish or cut bait time.  In Generations they said we should know in 30 years or so.  Well, the time is coming for their theory to deliver.

Quote:First of all, I think the current recovery is turning out to be more robust than the last one.

No, it’s not more robust.  It’s longer.  The last business cycle ended in 7 years.  If you compare where we we are the end of 2014 with 2007 you will see we lagged.
 
Quote:There was no stimulus after previous recessions, going back decades.

No, there was a Bush stimulus.  It was small but then the recession was small. 
 
Quote:This was the first time that the Democrats were able to get a stimulus past the trickle-down ideology intact for decades.

Yes, but they won’t be able to the next time.
Reply
#26
(09-19-2016, 06:49 AM)Mikebert Wrote:
Eric the Green Wrote:Yes, your logic adds up. So this is about can we survive even Clinton; even if Trump loses. We probably can't survive Trump, but can we survive Hillary Clinton if she wins narrowly?

We certainly can survive Clinton.  But what happens to her party if she becomes the Democratic Hoover?
ce my forecast is that the next recession won't be as bad, and there won't be any real new US war until 2025 or 2026, can my prediction prevail even if the economics and the logic say otherwise?

It certainly can.  2008 showed that financial panics had come back after being banished in the 1930’s. Back in the old days panic spacing had run from 14 years (1893-1907) to 24 years (1907-1932) with an average value of 18 years, about the length of two modern business cycles. If this timing is still valid then we should avoid panic in this recession, but get it in the next, which agrees with your timetable.  It also agrees with Turchin’s secular cycle concept. 
 

Quote:It does not with the S&H generational theory.  According to S&H’s theory (which is based on Karl Mannheim’s ideas, generations pick up their traits when coming of age. They express them later in life when they reach the leadership phase of life.  Thus, this 4T is generationally defined as the period when the generation shaped by the last 2T is in leadership. This generation was born over 1943-1960, according to S&H and they should be leaving the leadership role in the early 2020’s.

Boomers fell into several categories: the counterculture types who may have done more to establish the cultural norms of secular society, the religious fundamentalists who hold that no human suffering is in excess so long as it gets people 'right with God', the largely-Catholic "right-to-life" types, minority-rights advocates, and the corporatist types who believe that no mass suffering is in excess so long as it turns a profit. Of those the minority-rights advocates may be the most admirable.... but they are still the minority.

Meanwhile the old New Deal Coalition which (except for the Southern racists) could serve a workable and decent social order and economic reality,  faded away.

Do the Idealists promote culture and education or do they simply exemplify arrogance, selfishness, and ruthlessness? The Russian Civil War between the Whites and the Bolsheviks shows how nasty Idealists can get.

We have yet to see which Boom agenda will prevail.  Maybe we will not know what good can prevail until every

sordid  alternative implodes.


Quote:The GIs left leadership in 1976, 8 years before the end of the 2T.  If we extrapolate Howe’s data we get Boomers exiting leadership in 2024, suggesting a 4T end in 2032.  If we don’t get a panic until ca. 2027 and replace the bum in office in 2028 (regeneracy), can we then go to climax and 4T resolution in just 4 years?  This seems to be a lot of really heavy lifting.  Much more likely would be nothing is done and we just continue to drift in which case it will look like we have just stayed in a 3T for 48 years, and the theory will be invalidated.

The last completed Crisis had a unified America capable of smoothing most divides while facing three Evil Empires, all of which absolutely had to be defeated, at once. The previous Crisis had America rifted into warring sides over economic models incompatible with the moral values of each other.


Quote: Thus, I believe if another panic is truly in the cards (as many here, including me, think) then it pretty much has to happen now or the S&H theory is invalid.  The whole point of theory is to explain.  That requires that its use can rule out some future paths, otherwise it is no theory. It’s fish or cut bait time.  In Generations they said we should know in 30 years or so.  Well, the time is coming for their theory to deliver.

Quote:First of all, I think the current recovery is turning out to be more robust than the last one.
No, it’s not more robust.  It’s longer.  The last business cycle ended in 7 years.  If you compare where we we are the end of 2014 with 2007 you will see we lagged.
 

America got major reforms for several years after the economic meltdown bottomed out. This time the reactionary interests made sure that the only reform that would satisfy them after America got out of the worst of the meltdown would be an economic system that simply rewarded the elites with easy income on an even grander scale while exacting more toil for far lesser reward.... basically fascism without the Party militias, politicized youth groups, torture chambers, shooting pits, strutting tyrant, and militarist adventures. Something like Putin's Russia, except without state subsidies for medicine and education.

Do I trust our economic elites with my freedom? No more than I trust them with my economic welfare. They want all bounties that the economic order can offer to be easy privileges for themselves except for those that the common man can get, if at all, only for heroic sacrifices, at great cost, and at terms of the choosing of the elites.

If such is the sort of life that those elites have for me, then I hate life in a political order that took nearly a quarter of a millennium to fail. 



Quote:
Quote:There was no stimulus after previous recessions, going back decades.

No, there was a Bush stimulus.  It was small but then the recession was small. 

 A year and a half beginning in the economic meltdowns that began in the autumns of 1929 and 2007, security prices seemed to be on the same downward course. Let's remember that America underwent what almost looks like a central bankers' coup in which the Secretary of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission told the President and Congress exactly what would be done.

Quote:
Quote:This was the first time that the Democrats were able to get a stimulus past the trickle-down ideology intact for decades.

Yes, but they won’t be able to the next time.

There might never be any pretense of any bounty of capitalism trickling down to the workers. Elites will take everything not necessary for the survival of the workers that they choose to survive, and yield to those the barest means of survival -- with perhaps some cheap entertainment as the contemporary 'opiate of the masses'.

So you get to see a televised baseball game or televised rock concert as a reward for over-fulfilling a quota.

FDR -- New Deal... Donald Trump, Raw Deal.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#27
P. Brower, the Bush stimulus I was referring to was the one in 2001. Bush also signed the Economic stimulus Act of 2008 early in the year, before the crash.
Reply
#28
Correction noted on 2001.

The economic downturn of 2008 began in late 2007.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Will the real president of the United States please stand up? girlmonday 0 50 03-06-2021, 03:59 AM
Last Post: girlmonday
  What if we replaced elected politicians with randomly selected citizens? March3 10 257 03-06-2021, 02:21 AM
Last Post: MissDenver
  House of Representatives impeaches President Donald Trump Kay 51 5,911 01-27-2020, 03:31 AM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Ex-GOP Lawmaker: Trump Is “Illegitimate President,” Should Be Impeached mily 21 3,221 12-09-2019, 11:36 PM
Last Post: married1959
  Bill gives the President discretion on Intelligence spending. pbrower2a 0 969 01-18-2018, 05:05 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Elected officials attend Agenda 21 meeting in I.F. nebraska 0 560 01-16-2018, 02:55 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  ABC News Anchor David Muir Interviews President Trump taramarie 1 1,434 01-26-2017, 07:15 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  This is how realignments happen Dan '82 15 4,708 09-16-2016, 01:29 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  What will happen if Clinton is elected President MillsT_98 44 15,886 09-14-2016, 11:09 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Calls by elected officials (other than Trump) for political violence pbrower2a 3 2,333 09-13-2016, 02:52 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)