Originally Posted by TimWalker

Not a Pathleader who would lead a nation onto a very different course. But by blocking some of the worst excesses, Obama may give a Pathleader a fighting chance of accomplishing the mission.

Possibly. I think it's very likely Obama will win a second term. A lot depends on the political climate in 2013, as it will be exhibited both by the election results next year and by left-wing movements in the country and how visible they become between now and then. It's worth remembering that the significant reforms of the last Crisis didn't begin until near the end of the second presidential term, which is to say near the end of FDR's first term.

And this illustrates what I've been saying here, that the personal beliefs and inclinations of the president are less important than the pressures from below. Herbert Hoover, by personal belief and inclination, was not a conservative. He was a principled reformer, and on that basis a much better bet to handle the Depression than the relatively frivolous playboy Roosevelt. But the pressure from the left wasn't strong in the Depression's early years, and the pressure from his party and the corporations was. This prevented Hoover from taking the action that would have been needed. When Roosevelt took office, he did take more decisive action than Hoover had, but it was mostly the wrong action. Over his first term (which in saecular terms equates to Obama's second), the pressure from the left built and built and emerged in such things as the Townsend movement, the strong electoral showing by the Socialist Party, the movement started by Upton Sinclair in California, and Huey Long's movement in the South. Roosevelt adopted more progressive positions late in his first term in response to this pressure, and laid the grounds for the Second New Deal -- which is basically the "good" New Deal.

So we may see more action in Obama's second term, just as we did late in Roosevelt's first. And that will lay the groundwork for Obama's successor (since the Constitution forbids Obama from pulling an FDR himself and running for a third term).

EDIT: Another very good illustration of how a politician's actions are shaped more by pressure from below (or from the side) than by his own beliefs is the presidency of Richard M. Nixon. Nixon expanded Johnson's Great Society programs, recognized China, got arms treaties and reduced tensions with the Soviet Union, signed the Environmental Protection Act (and that wasn't an accommodation to a Democratic Congress, either, because he campaigned green in 1968), and got us out of Vietnam. A stronger contrast to the right-wing red-baiter Nixon of his Congressional and Vice Presidential years is hard to imagine.

Originally Posted by annla899

If I hear the term "hold his (or her) feet to the fire" one more time--from anyone anywhere--I just may lose it.

Yes, there are many areas in which Obama is disappointing. Arne Duncan is one of them. But since I live in IL I pretty much knew what I was getting.

I can't agree with this. We simply can't move away for the relentless rightward drift without something along those lines. It has to come sooner than 2020, and that's about as soon as it can arrive if Obama is just given his head;

Originally Posted by Deb C

This makes no sense. Keeping Obama accountable is doing him a favor. It appears that the Republicans not only have Obama running scared, which makes him lean to the right, they have most of us in their pockets too.

Of course we want him to keep his promises if we voted for him -- but if he has an unco-operative Congress, then either (1) he is an incompetent demagogue, or (2) it is our fault for electing a Congress that frustrates him at every turn. The first two years show what he can do with a somewhat-pliable Congress; the second two (and nobody expects any real change until the 113rd Congress is underway) shows what happens when Congress is intent on 'making sure that he is a one-term President' so that the Hard Right can have complete dominion over America -- right down to our souls (unless one emigrates).

If you don't believe me, then check what such entities as American Crossroads (Karl Rogue's shadowy group), the National Chamber of Commerce (not to be confused with the local boosters who are more likely to work on the county fair as to intervene in politics), the National Right-to-Work Federation, the Club for Growth, and the John Birch Society (Communism is dead, but unfortunately that group didn't go extinct) want for America -- a high-tech feudalism. If you sacrifice the good for the unattainable perfect, then you just might get something horrible as the consequence. In a 4T, the abyss awaits anyone reckless in any way.

Remember -- Karl Rogue is responsible only to his financial angels.

I did not mean to single out Brian but since he weighed in so quickly I think I should thank him for confirming everything I said.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I did not mean to single out Brian but since he weighed in so quickly I think I should thank him for confirming everything I said.

Now you're starting to sound like JPT. A line like that means you have no answer and are determined to believe what you believe, never mind the evidence.

And also: bullshit. Of course you meant to single me out. Don't lie.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

While I do not plan to name names here, I think it's time to call a spade a spade rather than refer to it metaphorically as a shovel, as that old Nomad Mark Twain liked to say.

For 45 years or so I have listened to Boomer lefties fantasize about the great progressive mass out there which has the strength to control America and the uniformly wicked ruling class. Now the actual voting population has moved steadily rightward, with a couple of blips, since then, but that has never bothered them. Neither has the disappearance of the industrial working class or of farmers, two New Deal constituencies. (I don't mean that these things haven't bothered them but they haven't affected their world view.) Their Prophet was indeed Howard Zinn, who reinterpreted the whole history of the US in this fashion. We this today when people claim, as they do, that the only reason the Republicans did so well in the last elections was that "progressives" like themselves stayed at home. (Whether they stayed at home or not.)

In fact, the United States moves leftward (1901-17, 1933-45, 1961-66 or so) when it has leaders who genuinely believe in greater equality, particularly economic equality, and how to bring it about. The worst indictment I can levy against my own generation is our nearly total failure to produce any of those kinds of leaders. Bill Clinton is going to live in history as the most left-wing Boomer President, and he wasn't very left wing. And I think the evidence is overwhelming that left wing Xers are not going to fill this void, because Xers have too little faith in institutions and are too busy looking out for themselves and their families to think broadly about what the country needs.

If there were a left-wing movement ready to lead us through the rest of our crisis and into a new promised land, we would know it by now. It ain't out there.

Except for the final sentence, I agree with all of this. I still think we have a shot at a more progressive end to the 4T, and I don't have the foggiest who will take us there or how. I only say this because the hubris on the right has now reached monumental proportions, and they honestly feel empowered to do whatever they wish. That they have chosen the debt ceiling as the do-or-die gauntlet may be their undoing. It's certainly a case of playing with fire.

Boehner has set the rules: huge cuts and no new taxes, or the debt limit stays where it is. There are only two Dem responses to that: capitulate or stand firm. If the Dems decide to capitulate, and that seems the more likely choice, then the potential disaster due to the resulting fiscal contraction will probably destroy both parties. There will simply be no less-culpable party to support. If the choice is to stand firm, then the GOP has the power to single handedly crash the economy or capitulate themselves. Only the second of those choices looks better than disastrous for them. It's also their least likely choice. I make a larger bet on mass suicide.

So its a game of chicken. So far, Obama is demanding feathers all around ... on his side, anyway. If he does that, he may very well not get reelected, even if the worst is avoided somehow. People sense when a leader is feckless, and they are rarely followed more than once. If that occurs, then the GOP will probably win big, making a disaster in the 2014 time frame highly likely.

I wish there was a safe answer. I honestly don't see one. If we avoid disaster, it will be more a case of luck than intent. Obama may muddle through and bring us an austere but survivable 1T, but it's not looking promising.

What neither of you is seeing is the potential for truly dramatic turnarounds in a 4T and how unpredictable they are. At this point in the last three Crises, the straight-line prediction would have been a victory for the right: successful crackdown by the British government, victory for the Confederacy, collapse of the economy with no end in sight. Regarding that last, it wasn't the defeat of Hoover for reelection (which WAS foreseeable) but World War II (which was NOT) that ended the Depression.

You're looking at things that matter only in the very short term, such as whether the Republicans get their way on budget cuts by threatening the government shut-down. If they do, the left will be further galvanized and we will see protests that dwarf what happened in Wisconsin. (We may see them either way.) If they don't, that moderates things only very slightly. Either way, they take a hit at the polls next year. Either way, we see a movement to push the Democrats into real reform.

I have another comment on David's last post. Essentially, he has said that failure to agree with what he argued earlier is "confirming everything he said," which is a way of dismissing counter-arguments without dealing with them in any rational manner. Presenting counter-arguments and evidence does not demonstrate a belief without foundation. The elections of 2006 and 2008 happened, and constitute hard evidence every bit as much as that of 2010. The exit polls from 2010 have been taken, and clearly show that the result was due to a change in the composition of who voted, not of people changing their minds or rejecting overreach by the Democrats. The demonstrations in Wisconsin happened, and show the existence of strength on the left when activated. I knew it was there already because I follow these things on the Internet, where they primarily connect, and do not rely on the traditional media, which remains clueless. For the traditional media, the unrest in Wisconsin came as a total surprise and an emergence ex nihilo. For me -- and I suspect for the Millennials on this site -- they did not.

The history of our prior Crises also exists and is there to be seen; the character of Roosevelt, his initially conservative program, the stark difference between the First and Second New Deals, the movements outside government that preceded his adoption of the latter -- it's all there if you're willing to see and to drop the hagiography. Why didn't Kennedy pass the Civil Rights Act? Because he was less a believer in civil rights than Johnson? No, because the civil rights movement had to happen first. Until then, until the American people became focused on the issue, pressure from Southern Democrats sufficed to prevent any action. Why did Nixon get us out of Vietnam? Because he believed we should pull out, give up the effort? No, because the people insisted and he was not a political fool. The idea of a Great Leader guiding us through the Crisis is a false idea. We are not dependent on any such serendipity. Lincoln was arguably a great leader; Roosevelt, not really. And in the Revolution crisis we didn't even have a leader to speak of. Obama doesn't look like a Great Leader at this point. It doesn't matter. We don't need one. Pressed enough, he will do what needs to be done, just as Roosevelt did. Without the pressure, he would not, no matter how great he was.

Oh, and one more thing: it is entirely impossible for him to "bring us an austere but survivable 1T." Or any other kind of 1T. He is only our first Fourth Turning president. Whether he wins reelection or not, there will be at least one more, probably two. It's not anywhere near over.

Remember the video of a GOP tracker getting pushed down by the TP candidate -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEALbyJDYZY


turns out that the tracker was Corwin's chief-of-staff! Not only are the TP people up in arms over this but even some of the established GOP are calling it idiotic on the part of Corwin. Here's what a right wingnut radio personality had to say out there -

In Western New York, the Republican Party has collapsed into Nixonian moral bankruptcy. The party leadership is worthy of nothing but indictments.
So venial and whoring is the party that it no longer pretends to care about what’s right, it bounces from con to con, screwing its principles, screwing its members, screwing our country. ...

I believe in the Republican Party, but only on the far side of the state line. I do not trust or respect its local leadership, and I consider that that leadership has neither integrity nor core belief.

They are a pack of corpulent knaves who have turned party politics into a petty organized crime. They are largely failed individuals who would have no significance whatsoever without the bossism of their offices. They whore the patriotism of others out for their own financial and ego benefit.

Jane Corwin is the straw that broke the camel’s back.

wow, baby!

Corwin's big RNCC buy ($400K) came out with this lame ad tying the Dem and TP to Pelosi -

http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/0...ched-in-ny-26/

- this is getting old even in Red State hinderlands.

DNCC is countering with a simple but blistering mulit-media attack at half the cost that revolves around this -

"VOTE REPUBLICAN
- END MEDICARE"

Nice bumper sticker, hey?

Man, I just wish we were closer to Nov 2012. Imagine that bumper sticker in Florida.

One very smart (but very nasty) Gingrich gets it -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein

Gingrich: Anti-RyanCare, pro-individual mandate

It’s not surprising that one of the guests on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” attacked Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize and voucherize Medicare while endorsing the individual mandate. It is surprising that that guest was Newt Gingrich:

DAVID GREGORY: Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors . . . some premium support and — so that they can go out and buy private insurance?



NEWT GINGRICH: I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. . . .



DAVID GREGORY: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare.



NEWT GINGRICH: I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options.

And what about the individual mandate, Newt?

DAVID GREGORY: Now I know you’ve got big differences with what you call Obamacare, but back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.



GINGRICH ON VIDEO [1993]: “I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.” . . .



DAVID GREGORY: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point?



NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay — help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond. . . .



DAVID GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?



NEWT GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.

If it walks like an individual mandate and talks like an individual mandate . . .

ye-haw!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What neither of you is seeing is the potential for truly dramatic turnarounds in a 4T and how unpredictable they are. At this point in the last three Crises, the straight-line prediction would have been a victory for the right: successful crackdown by the British government, victory for the Confederacy, collapse of the economy with no end in sight. Regarding that last, it wasn't the defeat of Hoover for reelection (which WAS foreseeable) but World War II (which was NOT) that ended the Depression.

Without agreeing or disagreeing, I'll merely note that you miss an equally important point: those previous 4Ts had well defined sides. That isn't true this time. Now, we have the firm and staunch right, the special interest pleaders of the middle, and the compromisers. This is not a 4T constellation.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

You're looking at things that matter only in the very short term, such as whether the Republicans get their way on budget cuts by threatening the government shut-down. If they do, the left will be further galvanized and we will see protests that dwarf what happened in Wisconsin. (We may see them either way.) If they don't, that moderates things only very slightly. Either way, they take a hit at the polls next year. Either way, we see a movement to push the Democrats into real reform.

I tend to care about events that trigger huge unintended consequences. Those fall in the traumatic-event category, and may actually change minds. Right now, there is a very uniform view of the world that the Right is either correct or not wrong at the very least. If that POV is maintained, then the results are predictable. For example, look at the embedded video on this page, and realize that only one talking head was actually taking a stand that falls outside the conventional wisdom.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

I have another comment on David's last post. Essentially, he has said that failure to agree with what he argued earlier is "confirming everything he said," which is a way of dismissing counter-arguments without dealing with them in any rational manner. Presenting counter-arguments and evidence does not demonstrate a belief without foundation. The elections of 2006 and 2008 happened, and constitute hard evidence every bit as much as that of 2010. The exit polls from 2010 have been taken, and clearly show that the result was due to a change in the composition of who voted, not of people changing their minds or rejecting overreach by the Democrats. The demonstrations in Wisconsin happened, and show the existence of strength on the left when activated. I knew it was there already because I follow these things on the Internet, where they primarily connect, and do not rely on the traditional media, which remains clueless. For the traditional media, the unrest in Wisconsin came as a total surprise and an emergence ex nihilo. For me -- and I suspect for the Millennials on this site -- they did not.

Now you're the one relying on cherry-picked evidence. Yes, we had a backlash against GWB, but that's been long dissipated by now. Their successes in 2010 brought some of the GOP hubris to the fore, but we'll have to see if it created real toxicity or merely a few mouthfuls of tsk-tsking. So far, I don't see enough to count on another backlash, and the last one didn't' get us much in any case.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

The history of our prior Crises also exists and is there to be seen; the character of Roosevelt, his initially conservative program, the stark difference between the First and Second New Deals, the movements outside government that preceded his adoption of the latter -- it's all there if you're willing to see and to drop the hagiography. Why didn't Kennedy pass the Civil Rights Act? Because he was less a believer in civil rights than Johnson? No, because the civil rights movement had to happen first. Until then, until the American people became focused on the issue, pressure from Southern Democrats sufficed to prevent any action. Why did Nixon get us out of Vietnam? Because he believed we should pull out, give up the effort? No, because the people insisted and he was not a political fool. The idea of a Great Leader guiding us through the Crisis is a false idea. We are not dependent on any such serendipity. Lincoln was arguably a great leader; Roosevelt, not really. And in the Revolution crisis we didn't even have a leader to speak of. Obama doesn't look like a Great Leader at this point. It doesn't matter. We don't need one. Pressed enough, he will do what needs to be done, just as Roosevelt did. Without the pressure, he would not, no matter how great he was.

I agree with almost all of this, yet have a very different conclusion from the historical evidence than you do. Yes, there was a need for the people to push for change before change was possible. Where is that push today? Other than the Tea Party, its fragmented and, typically, self servicing. That has to change prior to any sea-change in the country's politics.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

Oh, and one more thing: it is entirely impossible for him to "bring us an austere but survivable 1T." Or any other kind of 1T. He is only our first Fourth Turning president. Whether he wins reelection or not, there will be at least one more, probably two. It's not anywhere near over.

I don't see Obama bringing us anything, per se. He seems destined to be Eisenhower when we need Roosevelt. Ike only brought us what we wanted at the time, but we had the good fortune to actually articulate what that was. We don't seem to want anything all that much at the moment. If we're comfortable, we want that to continue. If we're not, then we want to get a bit of that comfort too. Of course, the already comfortable crowd says no, because it may come at their expense.

As long as it's only the 15% that's at risk the 85% will support the status quo. When that changes, the thrust of our politics will change too.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I still think we have a shot at a more progressive end to the 4T, and I don't have the foggiest who will take us there or how. I only say this because the hubris on the right has now reached monumental proportions, and they honestly feel empowered to do whatever they wish. That they have chosen the debt ceiling as the do-or-die gauntlet may be their undoing. It's certainly a case of playing with fire.

The right-wingers who would, so far as I can tell, impose some hybrid of repression characteristic of 1984 and economic hierarchy characteristic of Gone With the Wind can yet succeed, but only until the near-end of the Crisis at which time they fail. 4Ts are the times for realizing the highest dreams or the starkest nightmares. America will become more progressive of its own accord, have a more progressive ideology imposed from outside (think of Italy, Japan, and at the least western Germany after World War II after the leadership of those countries tried to impose new forms of slavery upon the rest of the world), or will be consumed in an apocalypse of its own making with no chance of recovery (human extinction or the destruction of civilization). The soundest path is major reforms that ensure that more people have a chance at the Good Life, and not that a smaller group of people get the privilege to exploit the helplessness of others for their own gain and indulgence.

Boehner has set the rules: huge cuts and no new taxes, or the debt limit stays where it is. There are only two Dem responses to that: capitulate or stand firm. If the Dems decide to capitulate, and that seems the more likely choice, then the potential disaster due to the resulting fiscal contraction will probably destroy both parties. There will simply be no less-culpable party to support. If the choice is to stand firm, then the GOP has the power to single handedly crash the economy or capitulate themselves. Only the second of those choices looks better than disastrous for them. It's also their least likely choice. I make a larger bet on mass suicide.

Speaker John Boehner has chosen to ride a tiger, so to speak. The Tea Party types have taken over the GOP, and people like him who remain from earlier times accede in Tea Party follies or get cast off. The Tea Party relies heavily on 'low-information' constituents who cleave closely to FoX 'News' and believe that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, and the like. Those who have attended college probably know that Keynesian economics offers deficit spending as an alternative to economic policies that attempt to cut spending but wreck the tax base and ruin the earning potential of those already struggling. The fortunately-educated who know any economic history have paid attention to the Great Depression that sharply disproved the ideological truisms of recent times.

The GOP has shown itself lacking in wisdom. It has seen profit as the sole measure of economic efficacy even if such profit obliges great human cost -- even starvation. We are beginning to see opposition to the economic cruelties of the Hard Right from entities that used to condemn liberals for abortion.

So its a game of chicken. So far, Obama is demanding feathers all around ... on his side, anyway. If he does that, he may very well not get reelected, even if the worst is avoided somehow. People sense when a leader is feckless, and they are rarely followed more than once. If that occurs, then the GOP will probably win big, making a disaster in the 2014 time frame highly likely

.

Games of chicken are dangerous with small reward. President Obama seems to know that if the Hard Right gets its way, he will be a figurehead as President even if he wins re-election. But who is playing chicken? Demographics show that the Hard Right can win beyond 2012 if it can cull the electorate (poll taxes, property qualifications, or "character endorsements") or rig the vote (let us say, requiring voters to vote as their employers dictate). The Religious Right isn't winning fresh converts; it is very much a Boomer constituency and utterly alien to many subcultures in America. Corporate America may have the funds with which to lavish wealth on stealth candidates and right-wing causes that people might increasingly distrust. Who wants a reversion to 70-hour workweeks and 40-hour lifespans for industrial workers of the Gilded Age? Only the people who never have to do any real work.

Like fascists of the last Crisis the Hard Right is fundamentally dishonest, ruthless, and rapacious. How long will it take Americans to learn?

I wish there was a safe answer. I honestly don't see one. If we avoid disaster, it will be more a case of luck than intent. Obama may muddle through and bring us an austere but survivable 1T, but it's not looking promising.

No. We must demand better of those wielding institutional power, and if such people can't act honorably, then most of us will need to find ways to evade the giant corporations and vote against their political puppets -- and, as in Madison, Wisconsin, protest against those puppets. President Obama will NOT get us completely through the Crisis. Howe and Strauss predicted this Crisis Era as the Crisis of 2020. We are nowhere near some moment at which the Crisis looks to have a definitive end. There is no Constitutional Convention, General Sherman has yet to liberate Atlanta, and the troops are far from landing on the beaches of Normandy. Dignity and freedom are at stake in America -- and now the worst threats to freedom and dignity are Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...Mt4G_blog.html

Paul Ryan tries to stop the bleeding

Paul Ryan is heading to Chicago today to deliver a rebuttal to critics of his Medicare plan. Chicago, of course, is Obama’s hometown. Ryan has no particular connection to the city. But it’s a good place to go if you want the media to report on you as the Republican Party’s challenger to Barack Obama. One question, though: Does the Republican Party really want Ryan — and, in particular, Ryan’s plan — as their challenger to Obama?

At this point, more prospective Republican presidential candidates have endorsed some form of an individual mandate — Romney in his state, Gingrich nationally — than have endorsed Ryan’s Medicare plan. In fact, Gingrich has come out against Ryan’s Medicare plan, calling it “right-wing social engineering.” John Boehner has walked back his support for it, saying he is “not wedded to one single idea.” Michele Bachmann says she’s “concerned about shifting the cost burden to senior citizens.” Ryan’s plan appears to have turned a special election in an extremely Republican district into a dead heat.

This better be a damn good speech Ryan is giving today.

I think this goes like the LA Lakers - swept in 4


bbbzzztttt!!!! bbbzzztttt!!!
- that's the sound the 3rd rail makes

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

..., General Sherman has yet to liberate Atlanta,...

Liberate? WTH???

Originally Posted by playwrite

bbbzzztttt!!!! bbbzzztttt!!!
- that's the sound the 3rd rail makes

If you are right (and I hope you are not), then you are predicting a Greece like scenario with debt defaults and rescheduling and a government unable to pay its entitlement obligations. All the wonderful promises disappear because of a public that refuses to to arithmetic. I think we are better than that.

At any rate, the third rail loses its oomph when their is no longer electricity in the rails.

James50

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The right-wingers who would, so far as I can tell, impose some hybrid of repression characteristic of 1984 and economic hierarchy characteristic of Gone With the Wind can yet succeed

Your rhetoric gets more and more removed from reality. Remember the left is fact based.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

If you are right (and I hope you are not), then you are predicting a Greece like scenario with debt defaults and rescheduling and a government unable to pay its entitlement obligations. All the wonderful promises disappear because of a public that refuses to to arithmetic. I think we are better than that.

At any rate, the third rail loses its oomph when their is no longer electricity in the rails.

James50

Never before viewed you as just another Randian alarmist -



more along the lines of a Milton Freeman type. Maybe I'm wrong.

Before getting all bothered by lack of electricity, I sure like to know your position on Bush tax cuts and fighting two wars because ANY sane conversation of fiscal fitness needs to start with this graphic -

Originally Posted by James50

If you are right (and I hope you are not), then you are predicting a Greece like scenario with debt defaults and rescheduling and a government unable to pay its entitlement obligations. All the wonderful promises disappear because of a public that refuses to to arithmetic. I think we are better than that.

At any rate, the third rail loses its oomph when their is no longer electricity in the rails.

James50

We can never be Greece. We have our own currency. Remember, even Iceland survived the 2008 meltdown, and for that very reason.

If Iceland can survive and thrive, so can we.

In reply to Brian may I say that I have presented ample evidence for everything I have said on many occasions and I will leave it to the rest of you to judge who has been unwilling to engage contradictory evidence.

Now, in response to M & L, my hunch--actually my hope, at this point--is that Tea Party craziness will ultimately have the effect of making Obama-style moderate Republicanism look rational. The rich will keep getting richer and the poor poorer for quite a while, our infrastructure will suffer, and our world role will decline, but we'll survive and even get Medicare. But you could be right, if they are successful enough we might be plunged into something much worse.

By the way, General Sherman did liberate a portion of the population of Atlanta, the black population. Actually Sherman and his troops went pretty easy on Georgia. South Carolina was a different story--it was the cradle of secession and they intended to make them pay.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

By the way, General Sherman did liberate a portion of the population of Atlanta, the black population.

Not to nit pick, but the first thing Sherman did was to decree a forced evacuation all of the civilians in the city of Atlanta, both back and white. I am not sure whether anyone felt "liberated" at that particular moment. His stated goal for the Atlanta campaign was to "make Georgia howl". When city leaders complained about the evacuation, Sherman uttered his famous words "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it".

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We can never be Greece. We have our own currency. Remember, even Iceland survived the 2008 meltdown, and for that very reason.

If Iceland can survive and thrive, so can we.

I don't follow this. Just because we can pay off our own debts by "printing money" says nothing about what the value of that money will be. The medicare situation will not be resolved by debt repudiation or rescheduling.

James50

Originally Posted by playwrite

Never before viewed you as just another Randian alarmist -

more along the lines of a Milton Freeman type. Maybe I'm wrong.

I contain multitudes.

Before getting all bothered by lack of electricity, I sure like to know your position on Bush tax cuts and fighting two wars because ANY sane conversation of fiscal fitness needs to start with this graphic -

I am ready to significantly reduce the defense budget (50%?). I am ready to get taxes back up to 20% of the economy. You can do both of these things and still not be able to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. What left wing shibboleths are you ready to abandon?

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We can never be Greece. We have our own currency. Remember, even Iceland survived the 2008 meltdown, and for that very reason.

If Iceland can survive and thrive, so can we.

Iceland has and is repudiating. That's a big part of the reason why things are working out for them.

Obama's Post-Bin Laden Bounce Disappears In Gallup Poll

The bump President Obama received after the killing of Osama bin Laden more than two weeks ago in Pakistan has vanished completely, according to the latest Gallup Tracking poll released Monday.

Obama's approval rating is now at 46 percent, equal to his approval rating in the last tracking poll conducted before Obama addressed Americans late on May 1 and informed them of bin Laden's death. Forty-four percent of Americans now disapprove of the job Obama is doing as president.

...

Obama's bounce is smaller in magnitude and shorter in duration than the bumps enjoyed by other presidents over the past 70 years, according to a study by Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies. For example, George W. Bush received a 15-point bump after the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003 -- a bounce that lasted seven weeks.

The poll also comes the same day as Gallup announced that three in four Americans "name some type of economic issue as the 'most important problem' facing the country today -- the highest net mentions of the economy in two years. Those numbers, combined with Obama's fleeting boost, suggest the economy remains -- by far -- the dominant issue of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Before getting all bothered by lack of electricity, I sure like to know your position on Bush tax cuts and fighting two wars because ANY sane conversation of fiscal fitness needs to start with this graphic -

You cannot project out a "cost" for tax cuts the way you can for spending programs. Tax rates by themselves do not ensure a particular amount of revenue. It is tax rates in conjunction with economic growth the determine how much revenue comes in. If you have high rates and dismal growth, you will not get more revenue to the government than you would with low rates and high growth. Since high tax rates impede economic growth, raising rates never increases revenues as much as those imposing the increases predict.

Simply put, creating a graph like the one you posted requires a variety of assumptions to be built into the tax figures. Meaning that those making it can exaggerate the "Bush Tax Cut" portion pretty much at will.