Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: 2012 Elections - Page 62







Post#1526 at 05-27-2011 05:59 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
05-27-2011, 05:59 PM #1526
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Weave View Post
Not trying to be snarky here...

In my view if you're looking for productivity you should not de-incentivize achievement. Imagine a Hollywood actor who would like to make more than one movie a year, why would they if they are going to be punished simply for making more than your income limits. The same could be said for a business. Why invest to expand the business which would create a lot of benefits for society as a whole like more jobs, more tax revenue on the 25% rate that my plan collects, etc....

Why be productive if your rewards are only limited?
Maybe the solution would be to impose the tax only on executive compensation. That is where most of the economic pathology of our time originates -- that people are getting paid very well to do nasty things to people. Screen actors and professional athletes aren't the problem. Executives are being rewarded mostly for cutting wage compensation and employment as a whole. So why shouldn't our tax policies discourage activities that do real harm to people?



Much of the
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1527 at 05-27-2011 07:55 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
05-27-2011, 07:55 PM #1527
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Despite the miles of long-winded text, the last few pages of this thread illustrate something important generationally. The number of people in the post-Boomer (X/Millenial) generations who buy into the "rich people are evil" class hate that drives the Boomer left is almost nil. Brian Rush, pbrower, playwrite, etc. illustrate a dying mindset that will not be supported or continued by the generations that follow. The only areas where left wing Millenials have shown any real support for left-Boomerism are on things like legalizing drugs, foreign policy (war) and so forth. On the economic stuff, they're not there. There are some Xers, especially earlier born ones, who buy into some of the economic stuff, but not many.

Unfortunately, what we have is a demographically super-sized generation of increasingly old people that continue to dominate the political sphere. So while "Hands off my Medicare!" may continue to win the day, we are going nowhere but downhill if it does. The Boomer left are the defenders of the status quo on budgetary matters. The Democrats have clearly decided to refuse any attempts at reform, play politics, and drive the country into bankruptcy rather than give any ground. If they were at least out there promoting an honest platform of massive tax increases, we would have a real debate. But they know they would lose if they did that, so they're trapped. But they don't care, because they believe they can pull out all of the old standbys, and the increasing number of Boomer seniors will stick with them on refusing entitlement reform. They may be right, but if so, we're headed for collapse.

There are some things working against them, though. First and foremost, the economy. Second, the longer they hold the Republicans off, the closer they are to Obamacare going into effect. When that happens the Democrats are in serious trouble, because it makes things worse for the vast majority of Americans, in order to make it slightly better for a few. The political games of the moment cannot avert reality from setting in.







Post#1528 at 05-27-2011 08:55 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-27-2011, 08:55 PM #1528
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Weave View Post
Not trying to be snarky here...

In my view if you're looking for productivity you should not de-incentivize achievement.
What exactly is "achievement"? Is making a huge pile of money "achievement," no matter how it's done?

Imagine a Hollywood actor who would like to make more than one movie a year, why would they if they are going to be punished simply for making more than your income limits. The same could be said for a business. Why invest to expand the businees which would create alot of benefits for society as a whole like more jobs, more tax revenue on the 25% rate that my plan collects, etc....
Setting aside the movie actor, let's deal with the business -- and with actual history. The top marginal income tax rate varied from 70% to 92% during the years from 1940 to 1980. During those same four decades, growth in per-capita GDP exceeded what it was both earlier and later -- under lower top marginal taxes -- by more than two to one. I say this prior to answering your question, in order to show that in fact high taxes on the rich do not discourage economic growth. The surface-layer evidence is that they encourage it, although in reality I believe that they do so only in conjunction with other policies, and by themselves would not have the same effect.

Now the answer as to why is that very, very, VERY little of the economic growth we see is motivated by people trying to achieve stratospheric incomes. Almost all of it is motivated by people trying to make a small business show a profit at all, or managers trying to do their jobs with respect to a big business and so help their stockholders, most of whom don't make over a million and a half a year. In fact, encouraging concentration of wealth in huge amounts encourages people to seek quick-paying, short-term investments, rather than the longer-term slower-paying investments that actually grow the economy.

That's the "why," which explains the historical reality as I just outlined it.

Regarding the (as usual) unsupported assertion from JPT that support for toadying to rich people grows with the generations (something totally counter-intuitive as regards Millennials), consider this:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/1...#ixzz1KBJXfBzA

Support for raising taxes on those with income above $250k: 64-33 yes.

Support for cutting Medicare and Medicaid: 80-18 no.

Couldn't find a breakdown by generations/age, but the idea that this is all due to Boomer/Silent respondents is pretty lacking in credibility.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1529 at 05-27-2011 09:47 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
05-27-2011, 09:47 PM #1529
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Despite the miles of long-winded text, the last few pages of this thread illustrate something important generationally. The number of people in the post-Boomer (X/Millenial) generations who buy into the "rich people are evil" class hate that drives the Boomer left is almost nil. Brian Rush, pbrower, playwrite, etc. illustrate a dying mindset that will not be supported or continued by the generations that follow. The only areas where left wing Millenials have shown any real support for left-Boomerism are on things like legalizing drugs, foreign policy (war) and so forth. On the economic stuff, they're not there. There are some Xers, especially earlier born ones, who buy into some of the economic stuff, but not many.
Get me right, please!

Rich people are evil only if they do evil things to get rich or consign others to hopeless poverty. As you should notice by now, most of my populist screeds are directed at the executive elite which has begun to act much like the old Soviet nomenklatura -- people who exploit bureaucratic power to enrich themselves. If anything, it is the bureaucratic elite of capitalism declining into a quasi-aristocratic order that will get terribly unpopular. As for consumer credit crreating the illusion of prosperity as early in the Double-Zero Decade -- that has failed.

It's enterprise that creates wealth and fosters innovation -- not bureaucratic power. Honest pay for honest work will be enough to create prosperity as it did in the past... when America worked better and was more just. Maybe we would be better off if our economic and administrative elites -- yes, mostly Boomer, now, with some pathological Generation X figures, too, weren't so damned narcissistic.

Unfortunately, what we have is a demographically super-sized generation of increasingly old people that continue to dominate the political sphere. So while "Hands off my Medicare!" may continue to win the day, we are going nowhere but downhill if it does. The Boomer left are the defenders of the status quo on budgetary matters. The Democrats have clearly decided to refuse any attempts at reform, play politics, and drive the country into bankruptcy rather than give any ground. If they were at least out there promoting an honest platform of massive tax increases, we would have a real debate. But they know they would lose if they did that, so they're trapped. But they don't care, because they believe they can pull out all of the old standbys, and the increasing number of Boomer seniors will stick with them on refusing entitlement reform. They may be right, but if so, we're headed for collapse.
Most people collecting Social Security and Medicare have earned it. So what do your pet politicians want to do -- turn it into a voucher system that some monopolist takes while charging the customer a balance that that monopolist decides is optimal for maximum profit? If that doesn't make Americans pine for a socialistic welfare state, then what will?

Few people, elderly or near-elderly, are willing to make the huge sacrifices necessary to have your ideal of an economic system that gouges the elderly for some profiteering monopolist. Most people lack the ability to save more than half their income. If the government were to do turn 'entitlement' into a casino, then you would find many people solving the deficiency of the system with... dare I say suicide? Or is it just part of a plan to replace the 40-hour workweek and 70-hour lifespan of modern times for working people with the 70-hour workweek and 40-year lifespan for the working poor? If you want a reversion to such cruel times for the enrichment of an economic elite -- then you are evil.

One thing that we 'aging Boomers' have over you is that we heard the tales of the Lost Generation -- not so much the literary elites as the hired shopkeepers, farm workers, and industrial laborers who were fortunate to see the end of the bad era in which capitalism fit the ugly caricature that Karl Marx depicted. Maybe you should have heard some of those stories -- but you were probably too 'busy' playing Space Invaders.


There are some things working against them, though. First and foremost, the economy. Second, the longer they hold the Republicans off, the closer they are to Obamacare going into effect. When that happens the Democrats are in serious trouble, because it makes things worse for the vast majority of Americans, in order to make it slightly better for a few. The political games of the moment cannot avert reality from setting in.
It's the Republicans who are now in deep political trouble. All the talk about NY-26 is not about some north-south highway in upstate New York.

As for drugs -- except for legalizing marijuana (harm of the criminal treatment of marijuana is far worse than the drug itself). I am as anti-dope as anyone.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 05-27-2011 at 10:11 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1530 at 05-27-2011 11:45 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
05-27-2011, 11:45 PM #1530
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
It's the Republicans who are now in deep political trouble. All the talk about NY-26 is not about some north-south highway in upstate New York.
Sure...one special election, with a phony "Tea Party" third candidate taking away a percentage from the Republican that was twice the margin of victory...

This is the future:
Health Insurance Premiums Continue to Rise Under RomneyCare

Leaving aside what this means for Romney, the bottom line is that the only effect Obamacare will have on the overwhelming majority of Americans is to increase their health insurance premiums. That is a ticking time bomb of political disaster for the Democrats, on top of the dismal economy and exploding debt. They have no answers for any of those problems. Bill Clinton has even started making noises, warning the Democrats that they're headed for trouble. Despite his many failings, Clinton has always known which way the wind is blowing. The Democrats are operating on premises that are totally devoid of substance. Political calculation and ideological madness are all they've got. Even if Obama manages to hang on in 2012, they are in serious trouble in the near future.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 05-27-2011 at 11:48 PM.







Post#1531 at 05-28-2011 12:19 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-28-2011, 12:19 AM #1531
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Sure...one special election, with a phony "Tea Party" third candidate taking away a percentage from the Republican that was twice the margin of victory...
Polls indicate that nowhere near 100% of Davis' support came from the GOP candidate. More like 60%. The Democrat would have won even if he had never been in the race.

As for the article: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Premiums were going up before the ACA and they continue going up under it. (And under Massachusetts' system.) This shows that the reform was inadequate. It does not, however, show anything to the benefit of Republicans.

And no, it is not just the NY-24 election, although that's quite eloquent. Did you see the polls I posted above? The voters are totally hostile to the Republicans on the issues that are currently under discussion. They want taxes to go up on the rich, and they absolutely don't want cuts in Medicare or Medicaid. (They say they don't want an increase in the debt ceiling, either, but that's because most people don't know what failing to raise it would actually entail. If the Republicans act on this and paralyze the government's ability to borrow, the consequences will be a severe voter education in a big hurry.) Acting as if they had been given a "mandate" by the 20-odd percent of the voters who put them in office last year, they have overreached big-time and left themselves highly vulnerable.

In fact, what I think may well happen from this is a complete discrediting of the "conservative" movement. This will leave the future elections deciding between progressives and genuine conservatives (who in our weird political climate are called "moderates"). To the extent that serious reform is perceived to be needed, the progressives will win; to the extent things are perceived to be all right, the status-quo conservatives (or "moderates") will win. That's the way things should go in a healthy progressive society, and we now have an opportunity to make it that way once more.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1532 at 05-28-2011 12:51 AM by Exile 67' [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 722]
---
05-28-2011, 12:51 AM #1532
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
722

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Polls indicate that nowhere near 100% of Davis' support came from the GOP candidate. More like 60%. The Democrat would have won even if he had never been in the race.

As for the article: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Premiums were going up before the ACA and they continue going up under it. (And under Massachusetts' system.) This shows that the reform was inadequate. It does not, however, show anything to the benefit of Republicans.

And no, it is not just the NY-24 election, although that's quite eloquent. Did you see the polls I posted above? The voters are totally hostile to the Republicans on the issues that are currently under discussion. They want taxes to go up on the rich, and they absolutely don't want cuts in Medicare or Medicaid. (They say they don't want an increase in the debt ceiling, either, but that's because most people don't know what failing to raise it would actually entail. If the Republicans act on this and paralyze the government's ability to borrow, the consequences will be a severe voter education in a big hurry.) Acting as if they had been given a "mandate" by the 20-odd percent of the voters who put them in office last year, they have overreached big-time and left themselves highly vulnerable.

In fact, what I think may well happen from this is a complete discrediting of the "conservative" movement. This will leave the future elections deciding between progressives and genuine conservatives (who in our weird political climate are called "moderates"). To the extent that serious reform is perceived to be needed, the progressives will win; to the extent things are perceived to be all right, the status-quo conservatives (or "moderates") will win. That's the way things should go in a healthy progressive society, and we now have an opportunity to make it that way once more.
I agree, the RW progressives are going to win. IMO, it's just a matter of time. All we need is one more Democrat victory then all the Democrats can go down with their ship, so to speak.
Last edited by Exile 67'; 05-28-2011 at 12:53 AM.







Post#1533 at 05-28-2011 01:32 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-28-2011, 01:32 AM #1533
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Exile 67' View Post
I agree, the RW progressives are going to win.
"RW progressive" is an oxymoron, and no, you don't.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1534 at 05-28-2011 08:38 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
05-28-2011, 08:38 AM #1534
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Despite the miles of long-winded text, the last few pages of this thread illustrate something important generationally. The number of people in the post-Boomer (X/Millenial) generations who buy into the "rich people are evil" class hate that drives the Boomer left is almost nil. Brian Rush, pbrower, playwrite, etc. illustrate a dying mindset that will not be supported or continued by the generations that follow. The only areas where left wing Millenials have shown any real support for left-Boomerism are on things like legalizing drugs, foreign policy (war) and so forth. On the economic stuff, they're not there. There are some Xers, especially earlier born ones, who buy into some of the economic stuff, but not many.

Unfortunately, what we have is a demographically super-sized generation of increasingly old people that continue to dominate the political sphere. So while "Hands off my Medicare!" may continue to win the day, we are going nowhere but downhill if it does. The Boomer left are the defenders of the status quo on budgetary matters. The Democrats have clearly decided to refuse any attempts at reform, play politics, and drive the country into bankruptcy rather than give any ground. If they were at least out there promoting an honest platform of massive tax increases, we would have a real debate. But they know they would lose if they did that, so they're trapped. But they don't care, because they believe they can pull out all of the old standbys, and the increasing number of Boomer seniors will stick with them on refusing entitlement reform. They may be right, but if so, we're headed for collapse.

There are some things working against them, though. First and foremost, the economy. Second, the longer they hold the Republicans off, the closer they are to Obamacare going into effect. When that happens the Democrats are in serious trouble, because it makes things worse for the vast majority of Americans, in order to make it slightly better for a few. The political games of the moment cannot avert reality from setting in.
Your babbling prose of conjecture and hyperbole is worthy of inclusion in the worst of Ayn Rand alarmist fiction.

Let's look at what "reality setting in" really means -



Just one specific example -



So SS only able to pay 78% of benefits three decades from now (= to 125% of today's benefits in real dollars) is a crisis, but moving the top marginal tax rate for the top 2% income households from Bush's 35% back to Clinton's 39.6% will send all our supermen CEOs and hedge fund managers to the glutch to pout and thus destroy our economy?

That's your 'reality'? Well then, what is this -



Hmm, this take-down just happens to coincide with another take-down in the larger arena -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...art-1-million/

Budget Disinformation, Part 1 Million

I’m late in getting to Glenn Hubbard’s debt column, but it still needs further bashing. Here’s what Hubbard says about the Obama administration:

Ruling out long-term entitlement spending restraint, Mr Obama has argued that fiscal sustainability can be accomplished by raising marginal tax rates on households earning more than $250,000 per year.

This is what is technically known as a “lie”. Has Obama ruled out entitlement spending restraint? Here’s his health policy head, explaining the plan:

While we’ve made real and significant progress, there is more work to do to strengthen Medicare for future generations. That’s why the President’s framework for shared prosperity and shared fiscal responsibility includes reforms that would save at least an additional $200 billion for Medicare over the next decade. The framework would:

-Bend the long-term cost curve by setting a more ambitious target of holding Medicare cost growth per beneficiary to GDP per capita plus 0.5 percent beginning in 2018, through strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

-Reduce Medicare’s excessive spending on prescription drugs and lower premiums for beneficiaries without shifting costs to seniors or privatizing Medicare.

You can be skeptical about whether this plan will work — but it’s just a lie to say that Obama is “ruling out” spending restraint; and it’s equally false to say that he’s relying on tax hikes to do the whole job.

Then, of course, there’s the howler: describing Paul Ryan’s plan as “well-crafted”. It is, on the contrary, ideology aside, a piece of junk on simple technical grounds — and obviously so.

Oh, and while some people are still trying to praise Ryan for starting a useful conversation, the reality is that he’s totally unwilling to let facts enter the debate. Look at his exchange with Ezra Klein over health care costs: this is not the sound of a sincere, open-minded guy,. Notice how he evades Klein’s attempt to get him to accept the overwhelming fact that other countries pay much less for health care than we do.

Sorry, but we are not having a discussion — nor will we, as long as right-wingers like Hubbard and Ryan [and JPT?]feel that they can distort the facts with impunity.
By the way, where in Krugman's piece his statements look like just conjecture without data, his original piece provides hyper-links that takes you to references where hard data backs up his claims - that reality is exactly the opposite of your posts.


"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#1535 at 05-28-2011 12:22 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
05-28-2011, 12:22 PM #1535
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

I have not really changed my position at all, Brian. What I am suggesting is that the Tea Partiers are similar to radical Republicans in the Grant Administration, let's say. They are still talking the talk about undoing the welfare state in the same way that their counterparts were talking the talk about black suffrage in the South. But it's quite possible that we will have a compromise of 1876 which will leave things pretty much as they are right now. That is certainly what Obama is working for. That's the best case scenario--the worst case scenario is that they do leave older folks without health care.

One of the bizarre things about the budget debate, by the way, is that Medicare and Social Security are still paying for themselves at the moment. And cutting them for people 55 and under will do nothing to help the mess we are in. Since discretionary domestic spending can hardly be cut much further, the only way to fix the deficit now is to cut the military or raise taxes, and the Republicans won't do either. The Democrats won't propose to do either.

However you define the dates of this 4T--whether you think it might have 3 years to run, as I do, or 15--I see no way that either party will liberate itself from corporate money by the time it's over. So there's not a hope of a major set of progressive reforms. Again, the situation in the 1870s and 1880s was identical.







Post#1536 at 05-28-2011 12:44 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-28-2011, 12:44 PM #1536
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
I have not really changed my position at all, Brian. What I am suggesting is that the Tea Partiers are similar to radical Republicans in the Grant Administration, let's say. They are still talking the talk about undoing the welfare state in the same way that their counterparts were talking the talk about black suffrage in the South. But it's quite possible that we will have a compromise of 1876 which will leave things pretty much as they are right now. That is certainly what Obama is working for. That's the best case scenario--the worst case scenario is that they do leave older folks without health care.

One of the bizarre things about the budget debate, by the way, is that Medicare and Social Security are still paying for themselves at the moment. And cutting them for people 55 and under will do nothing to help the mess we are in. Since discretionary domestic spending can hardly be cut much further, the only way to fix the deficit now is to cut the military or raise taxes, and the Republicans won't do either. The Democrats won't propose to do either.

However you define the dates of this 4T--whether you think it might have 3 years to run, as I do, or 15--I see no way that either party will liberate itself from corporate money by the time it's over. So there's not a hope of a major set of progressive reforms. Again, the situation in the 1870s and 1880s was identical.
Not even close, David.

First of all, the radical Republicans of the Grant administration were on-message for the saeculum -- too progressive to be practicable at that time, but along the right vector. They achieved the end of slavery, but could not achieve the full racial equality that their morality, but NOT the nation's dire need, required. This is one thing to keep in mind: in a social moment, particularly a Crisis era, we make the reforms that we have to, not the ones that progressives want to necessarily (unless the two are the same). Thus, in the Civil War Crisis, we abolished slavery because we had no choice. The nation could not survive with slavery intact. But it could survive without racial equality, and did. The radical republicans were pushing in the right direction, but wanted to go too far for the times. By contrast, the Tea Party want to push us in a direction that is inherently unworkable and self-destructive. I think this is one thing you've not understood, frankly: that they will not achieve their goals because their goals literally cannot be achieved; they are incompatible with the survival of the nation. Reality intrudes and what cannot work will not be implemented. Politics does not operate in a vacuum. Just because there is a faction advocating something, just because it can achieve (by one means or another) enough popular support to win power, doesn't mean that faction's goals will prevail. Sometimes, as happened in Germany in the last Crisis, the faction's goals simply cannot work. That is even more true of the Tea Party agenda than it was of the Nazi agenda, which did have a few redeeming features.

One can see a parallel between the radical Republicans and the socialists in the next Crisis. Again, right direction, but more progressive than the nation's circumstances required. However desirable implementing their full program might have been, it was not a necessity and so it was not achieved. Regulation of the economy and a more compressed income gap was required, and so it was achieved. We should expect the same now. What must be achieved in order for us to survive will be achieved. What need not, will not -- yet. And what is completely divorced from reality, such as the current Republican agenda, will not happen at all.

Regarding a party liberating itself from corporate money, please note that a part of the Democrats already are so liberated. There are three factions in Congress today, not just two; the progressive Democrats, the conservative/corporate Democrats plus the few moderate Republicans who survive; and the right-wing Republicans. What I'm seeing right now is the right-wing Republican faction discrediting itself. The agenda is being presented to the public and is being rejected handily. One or two more election cycles and I predict it will be effectively gone. Either the Republicans will dwindle to also-rans, or (rather more likely IMO) they will have a sea change and become moderates. Either way, we will have a debate after that, in the second half of the Crisis, between the progressives and the moderates. And as always, it is reality and practical necessity that will drive the extent to which the progressives win that debate. The outcome will be imperfect. It always is.

As for your final sentence, the 1880s certainly and at least part of the 1870s were a First Turning. Expecting major reforms at such a time is not realistic. The major reforms, those necessary for national continuation, had already been made; no more were really needed. Expecting major reforms now, however, is quite realistic -- this is not politics as normal. This is a Crisis era. We will have major reforms because we have absolutely no choice about that whatsoever. We will have them or die. End of story.
Last edited by Brian Rush; 05-28-2011 at 12:51 PM.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1537 at 05-28-2011 01:14 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
05-28-2011, 01:14 PM #1537
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Sure...one special election, with a phony "Tea Party" third candidate taking away a percentage from the Republican that was twice the margin of victory...
No. It's one special election in a district that Democrats just don't win. The Reactionaries (including fronts like "Americans for Prosperity [for the well-connected Few]" and Karl Rogue's "[Double] Crossroads America") lavished money on the Republican candidate just as they did in many contested races in 2010... and this time it didn't work. Maybe it's because people now know what the current GOP is -- the same old Rove/Santorum/Cheney/Bush stuff that failed badly in 2006 and 2008. The GOP showed that it had learned nothing from defeats in 2006 and 2008 except to be more shrill, devious, demagogic, and duplicitous. Now that we all know, it is only a matter of time.

I'm not going to claim that the Democrats will hold this seat in 2012, but I am going to claim that enough Republican House seats flip that Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House in a little more than nineteen months.

What is new about a monopolized and unregulated industry imposing ever-increasing costs upon the rest of us?

Leaving aside what this means for Romney, the bottom line is that the only effect Obamacare will have on the overwhelming majority of Americans is to increase their health insurance premiums. That is a ticking time bomb of political disaster for the Democrats, on top of the dismal economy and exploding debt. They have no answers for any of those problems. Bill Clinton has even started making noises, warning the Democrats that they're headed for trouble. Despite his many failings, Clinton has always known which way the wind is blowing. The Democrats are operating on premises that are totally devoid of substance. Political calculation and ideological madness are all they've got. Even if Obama manages to hang on in 2012, they are in serious trouble in the near future.
No, it is the monopolistic characteristics of the methods of paying for medical care that create the related crisis. Medicare looks pretty good in contrast to the wild, monopolized "free market" system for the rest of us. Note well that when Paul Ryan proposed the privatization of Medicare that the GOP got into trouble.

Nobody wants to starve to support a monopolistic hustle. Nobody wants to be priced out of even the most basic of medical treatment into the grave. But such is what the GOP proposes on behalf of people out only for themselves -- and the current GOP leadership and its myrmidon fools are the last to know. The first Wednesday in November in 2012 will be very educational for Republicans, many of whom will have changed the channel to NBA or NHL games as the evening progresses, and not because they have tuned to a different channel once the games are over.

...Speaking of educational -- have you started reading Keynes? I didn't think so.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1538 at 05-28-2011 02:07 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-28-2011, 02:07 PM #1538
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

I've had some thoughts about the course of a Fourth Turning arising from my last discussion with David Kaiser, but I think they belong on a different forum. I'll create a new thread over on "The Book and Theories of History."
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1539 at 05-28-2011 03:17 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
05-28-2011, 03:17 PM #1539
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
"RW progressive" is an oxymoron, and no, you don't.
I think I'd rather ask him what he meant by "RW Progressives." In a bipolar world, oddballs like Left Libertarians are also accused of being oxymorons, so I would really be interested in this new mutation of what is, after all, a plane and not a line.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#1540 at 05-28-2011 03:44 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-28-2011, 03:44 PM #1540
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
I think I'd rather ask him what he meant by "RW Progressives." In a bipolar world, oddballs like Left Libertarians are also accused of being oxymorons, so I would really be interested in this new mutation of what is, after all, a plane and not a line.
I might have done that if I thought he was to be taken seriously. I'm sure, though, that he was just mouthing off.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1541 at 05-28-2011 03:48 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
05-28-2011, 03:48 PM #1541
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
I might have done that if I thought he was to be taken seriously. I'm sure, though, that he was just mouthing off.
Sorry. You socially adept people who can tell what others are thinking sure leave me in the dust!
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#1542 at 05-28-2011 04:25 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-28-2011, 04:25 PM #1542
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
Sorry. You socially adept people who can tell what others are thinking sure leave me in the dust!
Well, if he wasn't just mouthing off, he can explain what he meant. Frankly, I don't have the time to bother on my own. Nor do I especially care about being polite to someone who can't be bothered doing that himself.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1543 at 05-28-2011 09:58 PM by Exile 67' [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 722]
---
05-28-2011, 09:58 PM #1543
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
722

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
I think I'd rather ask him what he meant by "RW Progressives." In a bipolar world, oddballs like Left Libertarians are also accused of being oxymorons, so I would really be interested in this new mutation of what is, after all, a plane and not a line.
Brian and I are damn near complete opposites. Brian looks to and relies on others to do things for him. I look within myself and prefer to do things for and by myself. Brian believes in the power of government and aligns himself with government power. I believe in the power of the individual and align myself with individual power. In short, I could care less what happens to our government because I'm a capable individual who lives in a world with millions of capable individuals like myself who will rise up, move in, remove and become government. Like Brian, I do consider myself a modern day progressive.
Last edited by Exile 67'; 05-28-2011 at 10:08 PM.







Post#1544 at 05-28-2011 10:15 PM by Exile 67' [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 722]
---
05-28-2011, 10:15 PM #1544
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
722

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Well, if he wasn't just mouthing off, he can explain what he meant. Frankly, I don't have the time to bother on my own. Nor do I especially care about being polite to someone who can't be bothered doing that himself.
Well, you can view it as "just mouthing off" at this moment because we ain't there yet.







Post#1545 at 05-28-2011 10:19 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-28-2011, 10:19 PM #1545
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Exile 67' View Post
Brian and I are damn near complete opposites.
How the hell would you know? It's not as if you can even begin to get a clue who I am, as evidenced by the remainder of your post which was one hundred percent wrong.

In fact, that's a large part of why I don't take you seriously. It's possible you aren't even able to understand what I'm talking about here, and I know for sure you aren't going to try even if you could do it.
Last edited by Brian Rush; 05-28-2011 at 10:22 PM.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1546 at 05-28-2011 10:45 PM by Exile 67' [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 722]
---
05-28-2011, 10:45 PM #1546
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
722

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
How the hell would you know? It's not as if you can even begin to get a clue who I am, as evidenced by the remainder of your post which was one hundred percent wrong.

In fact, that's a large part of why I don't take you seriously. It's possible you aren't even able to understand what I'm talking about here, and I know for sure you aren't going to try even if you could do it.
We obviously aren't the same or even close to being the same. We differ on most things. We are only similiar in our tolerence and acceptance of social change. Exmaple: Neither of us are opposed to working women or the idea or vision of a minority succeeding in life. Where am I wrong?
Last edited by Exile 67'; 05-28-2011 at 11:09 PM.







Post#1547 at 05-28-2011 10:48 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
05-28-2011, 10:48 PM #1547
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Exile 67' View Post
Brian and I are damn near complete opposites. Brian looks to and relies on others to do things for him. I look within myself and prefer to do things for and by myself. Brian believes in the power of government and aligns himself with government power. I believe in the power of the individual and align myself with individual power. In short, I could care less what happens to our government because I'm a capable individual who lives in a world with millions of capable individuals like myself who will rise up, move in, remove and become government. Like Brian, I do consider myself a modern day progressive.
Whatever, Mr. Galt.

"He who has no need for society must be either a beast or a god" ---Aristotle

The RWers think they are gods, but act like beasts.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1548 at 05-28-2011 11:24 PM by Exile 67' [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 722]
---
05-28-2011, 11:24 PM #1548
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
722

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
So what's the difference between "society" and the "millions of capable individuals" that Exile mentioned?
Good question.







Post#1549 at 05-28-2011 11:26 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
05-28-2011, 11:26 PM #1549
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
So what's the difference between "society" and the "millions of capable individuals" that Exile mentioned?
Society is a whole organism, not "just" the sum of individuals. The notion expounded by Thatcher, "There is no such thing as society, just individuals and families" as an attitude popular among many Americans, and it's dead wrong.

Everything we do is in some way related to what others have done. you cannot make an income off of transporting goods by road or train unless someone builds the roads or train tracks.

Historically, an interventionist state that invests tax revenues in infrastructure is more wealthy and productive, and thus more powerful, than a state that does not.
Last edited by Odin; 05-28-2011 at 11:29 PM.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1550 at 05-28-2011 11:40 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
05-28-2011, 11:40 PM #1550
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by Exile 67' View Post
Brian and I are damn near complete opposites. Brian looks to and relies on others to do things for him. I look within myself and prefer to do things for and by myself. Brian believes in the power of government and aligns himself with government power. I believe in the power of the individual and align myself with individual power. In short, I could care less what happens to our government because I'm a capable individual who lives in a world with millions of capable individuals like myself who will rise up, move in, remove and become government. Like Brian, I do consider myself a modern day progressive.
You're an Xer; Brian is, what, a Boomer? I see where you're coming from and it's a good quality and attitude to have as part of yourself. As a whole, as a survival strategy I'd have to add mutual aid, mutual self-help as the other component, for just as we are not ants or bees, we are not great cats either.

But where does the term progressive come in and in what sense are you using it? I'm having a little trouble with the definition of the terms.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
-----------------------------------------