Ha, Donald Trump is seriously considering running for President. Oh sure, that will get corporate interests and Wall Street out of Washington...not.

I am never ceased to be amazed by the ego of this guy. Not only is it not enough for him that he has more money than God, has written several books and has his own TV show, now he wants to be president? Good Lord.

I'm sure he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, but the way things are going in this world of ours, who knows? All I can say is that if some Donald Trump sort of person wins the next presidency, start making your "Will work for food" signs and finding your tin cups folks. We will all end up begging on the street corners.

I can't speak for the national scene, but out here there is a quiet but decided revolt against the Promoter types who were running our state up until quite recently. Mayor Marty Chavez was ousted in favor of the fiscal conservative Richard Berry, whose actions have not only been prudent, but (unlike the usual stereotype of conservatives) fair.

Governor Bill Richardson was ousted in favor of Law & Order & fiscal conservatism ex-prosecutor Susana Martinez, and a friend of mine, a long-time Democratic Party activist, was one of those who voted for her. My friend's reason, given in conversation last night, was that the Democratic candidate was (to paraphrase what she said) as crooked as a hound dog's hind leg. Or, rather, deeply embedded in the old-boy-and-girl network of decades past.

If this trend is also happening elsewhere, I do not think the future looks very bright for the Promoter types on the national scene. Sorry, Donald, off to the Gordon Gekko Museum of 20th Century Anachronisms with you.

I am beginning to think that the burden of being the first black President in the midst of our second-worst depression is too big to carry. Here is a long article on the incredible racial gap in the midterm elections. 60% of white people, the highest number in history, voted Republican. Ouch.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I am beginning to think that the burden of being the first black President in the midst of our second-worst depression is too big to carry. Here is a long article on the incredible racial gap in the midterm elections. 60% of white people, the highest number in history, voted Republican. Ouch.

On the other hand: ..."a solid 73 percent of all nonwhite voters"... voted for Democrats. However, my take is this is not a question of race, but of values. The nonwhite voters would vote democratic without out regard to the race of the nominees. And conversely the white voters would have voted Republican without regard to the race of either candidate. I think that the focus on race obscures the real reasons for voting patterns.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I am beginning to think that the burden of being the first black President in the midst of our second-worst depression is too big to carry. Here is a long article on the incredible racial gap in the midterm elections. 60% of white people, the highest number in history, voted Republican. Ouch.

Could it be that white people are on the whole more gullible with respect to contemporary propaganda? It would seem that if a devious cause wants to win, then it would have more success trying to fit the propaganda to the sensibilities of white people. White people remain the majority, and it is hard to believe that blacks or Hispanics fall for the crasser expressions of right-wing demagoguery.

It could be culture. White people have less cause for distrust of right-wing ideology, whether it manifests itself in fear, as in "severed heads all over the desert" and "death panels", cranky economics (tax cuts pay for themselves, especially if they are targeted at elites) and other manifestations of supply-side economics, and trust in rapacious elites. Blacks, Hispanics, and to a lesser extent women are less likely to believe that Corporate America is 100% benign. Perhaps white people are more likely to believe that if anything does trickle down, then white privilege somehow attracts it toward them. -- or that somehow, if things go bad and the Right is in charge, then the Right will at the least give some 'protection' to white people.

Sure, this is as cynical material as I can write, but the Hard Right is almost-pure cynicism itself.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Could it be that white people are on the whole more gullible with respect to contemporary propaganda? It would seem that if a devious cause wants to win, then it would have more success trying to fit the propaganda to the sensibilities of white people. White people remain the majority, and it is hard to believe that blacks or Hispanics fall for the crasser expressions of right-wing demagoguery.

Republicans know their base and that it is made up of whites.

Sharron Angle was not trying to win the votes of Hispanics when she made this ad.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Republicans know their base and that it is made up of whites.

Sharron Angle was not trying to win the votes of Hispanics when she made this ad.

You can also speak of Jan Brewer.

As notably, the GOP is willing to offend minorities. White people used to not be as hostile toward Latinos as they were to blacks, but that has changed. The "illegal alien" demagoguery is obviously not directed at blacks. The GOP seems willing to allow most blacks and Hispanics feel that they are "outsiders" in America, which is extremely disgusting. Although it doesn't sink to Nazi, Apartheid, or Jim Crow racism, it is right-wing demagoguery that seeks to 'divide and conquer'.

We have had a long time of economic distress for working people, and this time, while blacks and Hispanics still get hit harder, white people have been hit hard too. Whites not in the economic elite, that is. The housing bubble that allowed people to accumulate equity despite stagnant wages (stagnant wages were the problem) allowed the illusion of prosperity. The breaking of the housing bubble hit Mexican-Americans particularly hard in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico hard because at the same level of income as other groups, Mexican-Americans are more likely to buy into housing.

We are in a Crisis Era, and labor-management relations will be a significant aspect of its solution. One of two things will happen: working people of every ethnicity are going to recognize the futility of trusting arrogant, selfish, ruthless executives and tycoons to threat them humanely and act in solidarity as they did in the 1930s... or ruling elites are going to establish themselves as the only source of power, in which case toil will be at most a temporary (twenty to thirty-year) method of fending off starvation, and the worker who can no longer work will be disposed of some way. The ruling elites want an atomized society in which all are obliged to show faith in people who deserve no faith. They want people to act without thinking except of consequences that the ruling elites want to force upon anyone who rebels against or even shows waning allegiance.

The GOP is playing for absolute power -- effectively a single-party state. I can see it tolerating minor parties (including Democrats) representing areas in which the GOP has no credibility or specialized economic groups, but that know that they dare not challenge the GOP. That is how East Germany and Communist Poland did things and that is how China does things now. The propaganda machine that disparaged everything liberal or Democratic will be back in action in 2012, and it will be targeting what remains of the Democratic majority in the Senate and of course the President.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Could it be that white people are on the whole more gullible with respect to contemporary propaganda? It would seem that if a devious cause wants to win, then it would have more success trying to fit the propaganda to the sensibilities of white people. White people remain the majority, and it is hard to believe that blacks or Hispanics fall for the crasser expressions of right-wing demagoguery.

It could be culture. White people have less cause for distrust of right-wing ideology, whether it manifests itself in fear, as in "severed heads all over the desert" and "death panels", cranky economics (tax cuts pay for themselves, especially if they are targeted at elites) and other manifestations of supply-side economics, and trust in rapacious elites. Blacks, Hispanics, and to a lesser extent women are less likely to believe that Corporate America is 100% benign. Perhaps white people are more likely to believe that if anything does trickle down, then white privilege somehow attracts it toward them. -- or that somehow, if things go bad and the Right is in charge, then the Right will at the least give some 'protection' to white people.

Sure, this is as cynical material as I can write, but the Hard Right is almost-pure cynicism itself.

Since the per-centage of non-whites voting Democratic is 77%, I fail to see why you would focus only on whites being more guliable to propaganda. Neither side is innocent on the propoganda front.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

You can also speak of Jan Brewer.

As notably, the GOP is willing to offend minorities. White people used to not be as hostile toward Latinos as they were to blacks, but that has changed. The "illegal alien" demagoguery is obviously not directed at blacks. The GOP seems willing to allow most blacks and Hispanics feel that they are "outsiders" in America, which is extremely disgusting. Although it doesn't sink to Nazi, Apartheid, or Jim Crow racism, it is right-wing demagoguery that seeks to 'divide and conquer'.

We have had a long time of economic distress for working people, and this time, while blacks and Hispanics still get hit harder, white people have been hit hard too. Whites not in the economic elite, that is. The housing bubble that allowed people to accumulate equity despite stagnant wages (stagnant wages were the problem) allowed the illusion of prosperity. The breaking of the housing bubble hit Mexican-Americans particularly hard in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico hard because at the same level of income as other groups, Mexican-Americans are more likely to buy into housing.

We are in a Crisis Era, and labor-management relations will be a significant aspect of its solution. One of two things will happen: working people of every ethnicity are going to recognize the futility of trusting arrogant, selfish, ruthless executives and tycoons to threat them humanely and act in solidarity as they did in the 1930s... or ruling elites are going to establish themselves as the only source of power, in which case toil will be at most a temporary (twenty to thirty-year) method of fending off starvation, and the worker who can no longer work will be disposed of some way. The ruling elites want an atomized society in which all are obliged to show faith in people who deserve no faith. They want people to act without thinking except of consequences that the ruling elites want to force upon anyone who rebels against or even shows waning allegiance.

The GOP is playing for absolute power -- effectively a single-party state. I can see it tolerating minor parties (including Democrats) representing areas in which the GOP has no credibility or specialized economic groups, but that know that they dare not challenge the GOP. That is how East Germany and Communist Poland did things and that is how China does things now. The propaganda machine that disparaged everything liberal or Democratic will be back in action in 2012, and it will be targeting what remains of the Democratic majority in the Senate and of course the President.

I would say that our real political divide at the moment is between conservative Republicans, called Republicans, and moderate Republicans, known as Democrats. A one-party state is not possible because the country has been deteriorating economically for the last 35 years and when things are really bad the electorate is bound to vote the party in power out, even if they are Republicans (see 1992 and 2008.) In addition, because the Republican base has gone crazy they have a candidate problem. Democratic victories do not have any real effect, however, especially in foreign policy, since Democrats pursue the same policies. There was one major exception--Clinton's brilliantly successful 1993 tax increase--but the Republicans have now managed to make sure that could not happen again.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I would say that our real political divide at the moment is between conservative Republicans, called Republicans, and moderate Republicans, known as Democrats. A one-party state is not possible because the country has been deteriorating economically for the last 35 years and when things are really bad the electorate is bound to vote the party in power out, even if they are Republicans (see 1992 and 2008.) In addition, because the Republican base has gone crazy they have a candidate problem. Democratic victories do not have any real effect, however, especially in foreign policy, since Democrats pursue the same policies. There was one major exception--Clinton's brilliantly successful 1993 tax increase--but the Republicans have now managed to make sure that could not happen again.

I think you have nailed it. The question is whether this is a good development compared to the alternatives.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I would say that our real political divide at the moment is between conservative Republicans, called Republicans, and moderate Republicans, known as Democrats. A one-party state is not possible because the country has been deteriorating economically for the last 35 years and when things are really bad the electorate is bound to vote the party in power out, even if they are Republicans (see 1992 and 2008.) In addition, because the Republican base has gone crazy they have a candidate problem. Democratic victories do not have any real effect, however, especially in foreign policy, since Democrats pursue the same policies. There was one major exception--Clinton's brilliantly successful 1993 tax increase--but the Republicans have now managed to make sure that could not happen again.

There isn't going to be a tax increase until we have a military coup that establishes the sort of government that can get away with a tax increase due to the absence of elections that offer an opposition that offers to rescind the tax increase as a "tax cut".

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

There isn't going to be a tax increase until we have a military coup that establishes the sort of government that can get away with a tax increase due to the absence of elections that offer an opposition that offers to rescind the tax increase as a "tax cut".

I have not seen any evidence of a military coup. How about the possibility cutting spending to balance the budget?

Originally Posted by radind

I have not seen any evidence of a military coup. How about the possibility cutting spending to balance the budget?

The Right and the Left have their own 'untouchable' pet spending. The Right would cut social welfare spending but leave business subsidies alone; the Left would cut out business subsidies and leave welfare alone.

Originally Posted by radind

I have not seen any evidence of a military coup. How about the possibility cutting spending to balance the budget?

I'll answer that one. There is no such possibility. Do the math.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I'll answer that one. There is no such possibility. Do the math.

But , I would prefer budget cuts to a military coup( which appears extremely unlikely)

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I'll answer that one. There is no such possibility. Do the math.

Simpson/Bowles did the math. About 75% spending cuts and 25% increased taxes. It is very possible.

James50

I don't understand what you guys are talking about. A Coupe sounds pretty "cherry" to me!
http://www.youtube.com/v/xa9hXEHDkYI?fs=1&hl=en_US

PoC67

PS: Oh, C-O-U-P........Nevermind!

Originally Posted by James50

Simpson/Bowles did the math. About 75% spending cuts and 25% increased taxes. It is very possible.

James50

We just need our Congress to act.

Cuts to Entitlements is a MUST; Probably Economic Growth as well. There is no Nominal Level for Tax Rates that is Optimal as some would have you believe. Policy is either Expansionary or Contractionary. Even if we had a Tax Rate(whatever kind) of ZERO, raising it would be Contractionary. You have to look at it in relation to the current Environment, not a Historical Nominal Level.

Both aspects of the Solution are perceived as being Pro-Right/Anti-Left(and probably rightfully so IMO). Because of this, the Oppressor/Oppressed, Criminal/Victim Narratives will most likely continue. Defense of either Side's Position will be framed as Guilt as can be seen all too often. Class Warfare is only trumped by Racism in the: "Ridiculous Political Talking-Point Narratives Arena".

Here's the Solution to our Impending Doom(fill-in the Context and Archetypes):
http://www.youtube.com/v/bXIqfHI0hQY?fs=1&hl=en_US

PoC67

PS: I believe We'll survive, but after how much damage....and to Whom. Luckily I've got the Millenium Falcon and it made the "Kessel Run in under 12 Parsecs", Baby! If only the Death Star didn't have a freakin' Tractor Beam!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I'll answer that one. There is no such possibility. Do the math.

The point: it is highly unlikely.

Coups have happened in other countries when the government is incompetent, unpopular, and marginally legitimate. If the President and Congress should ever be 'elected' in an environment of intimidation or fraud, act contrary to the Constitution, and prove incompetent and unpopular, then some catastrophic event could precipitate a coup. Dubya was a shabby a President as we ever had, but by 9/12/2001 that was not his problem. In September 2008 he was generally understood to be the worst economic bumbler since Herbert Hoover, but at that point the Secretary of the Treasury, the SEC Chairman, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve were able to force very limited objectives, all of them economic. I can imagine a scenario of the time in which the President, largely a purist on economic issues, might have balked, but the message was likely "bail out the economy or I know someone who will do what I tell HER what to do". Her first name is Nancy, third in line to the Presidency. I can't say that the Joint Chiefs of Staff weren't in on the preliminary discussions.

...I am going to figure that people might accept tax increases or new taxes if the alternative is a forced sale of the Interstate Highway system to some profiteering monopolist who makes no "improvement" to the Interstates except to impose heavy tolls on what used to be freeways, or in the case of the states, selling off the state university systems to monopolists. Putting a 15c-per-mile toll on what used to be a freeway would make commuters very angry very fast and would impose huge increases in costs for anything delivered by truck over any distance, and turning attendance at Kegger State from a $10,000-a-year proposition to a $60,000-a-year proposition could make people very angry.

"Go ahead and raise income taxes", "Drop the home mortgage deduction", or "Add a 5% VAT" might be more attractive than selling off the public sector to some profiteering monopolist who makes something very necessary very expensive. If the alternative to higher taxes if something far worse, people will support higher taxes even if they seem inequitable. A 4T always presents stark and dreadful alternatives to failure to make necessary changes in personal and community life.

FWIW, there are no longer any Silent governors. The last ones were:

Kulongoski '40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kulongoski

Strickland '41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland

Carcieri '42

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Carcieri

The oldest governor is a Boomer on the cusp of Silent, Bredesen form TN.

Originally Posted by James50

Simpson/Bowles did the math. About 75% spending cuts and 25% increased taxes. It is very possible.

James50

I think David is referring to the idea that it is impossible to balance the budget with just spending cuts.

I was actually surprised at Nader's delight with Ron Paul (Libertaian) and Bernie Sander's (Progressive) partnership, considering his past disagreements with much of the Libertarian way of thinking. As I read the article, I can see the possibilities for real change with this duo. Not just the snake oil salesman type.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/p...c-ralph-nader/

Originally Posted by Deb C

I was actually surprised at Nader's delight with Ron Paul (Libertaian) and Bernie Sander's (Progressive) partnership, considering his past disagreements with much of the Libertarian way of thinking. As I read the article, I can see the possibilities for real change with this duo. Not just the snake oil salesman type.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/p...c-ralph-nader/

Senator Conrad has decided to retire which opens up a great opportunity for the Repubs to pick up a seat adding to the odds they'll take the Senate in '12....

Originally Posted by Weave

Senator Conrad has decided to retire which opens up a great opportunity for the Repubs to pick up a seat adding to the odds they'll take the Senate in '12....

The state is easy to flood with television ads because the state is basically the Fargo/Grand Forks and Bismarck TV markets and lots of satellite repeaters in small towns. Unlike, for example, Texas, the state could be an easy buy.