Originally Posted by Deb C

My deep concern is that he is another deficit hawk. Notice that he mentions/scapegoats Medicare and SS but never mentions taxing the rich or those loopholes for corporations. And those security concerns he mentions, appears like more big spending on military and the other economic implications of that so called war on terrorism.

This could possibly be a sign that he will want to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and poor. While I need to read more about him and his positions, I have some real concerns. He was way too Orweillan for my taste.

This is what raised a red flag for me:

Thanks for bringing out those points.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Just what I reported before; articles in major national magazines that showed significant migration of young intelligensia out of red states, and migration of those who don't like cultural diversity out of blue states. At the moment I don't know which relocation, economic or ideological, is stronger. But they are both recent trends that might continue in future years.

Sophisticated people prefer Greater Chicago to the bland plains of central Illinois. Chicago has culture that can appeal to people from places as dissimilar as Russia and India. Small-town life remains provincial. But as significant as that -- sophisticated people could also be moving to places like Memphis, Dallas, and Omaha from the "sticks". In contrast, rural life is more predictable, inexpensive, and not so intellectually-challenging. So if you never watch a foreign film, never listen to classical music, never visit an art gallery, and prefer meat loaf to anything 'exotic', then small-town life may be right for you.

The real issue for elections and politics in America, is how entrenched it is in polarization. The USA cannot continue with the political system it has now without becoming a second or third-rate power by the time this 4T is over. The main theme of it has to be to break through this deadlock. Moderate pundits will say we need a moderate third party; those on the left like us might hope for a liberal third party or a revolutionary movement. But it seems clear that if this nation has an ounce of spark left in it (and in the younger generation I think it still does, and perhaps in some older Boomers still willing to be leaders as they are supposed to be), then that spark is going to ignite before this 4T is over in the late 2020s, and explode this deadlocked political system. I tend to think major systemic changes will be needed, and will happen. I think they all will be on the table, but which ones are adopted will be decided in the course of events.

A 4T tests what succeeds and what fails. The last one tore any regional differences apart as forcefully as possible for the time. Politicians who try to win by pandering to regional differences while selling out to special interests intent on $crewing everyone else nearly ensure failure at some stage. Bad policies stand to hurt everyone except profiteers. Does anyone believe that a plan to privatize the public sector for the gain of profiteering monopolists will be popular in "Red" America?

What has disappeared is the genuine conservatives, the sorts of people who protected the social and gains of the recent past, from extremist measures of reaction on the one side and left-wing populism on the other side. Such people always recognized the need for the common man to have a stake in the system.

This systemic political change will not be the only change needed either; it will be driven by the issues, which is another long list. But since NO issue will be dealt with unless the political system changes, and changes radically, I would list these as possibilities.

1. One or several parties displace the Republican Party as 2nd party, and perhaps also the Democratic Party as first party. Proportional representation and ranked-choice voting will be set up to facilitate the power of other parties (and perhaps more than 3 of them) besides the current corrupt and non-functional duopoly.

Possible. The GOP could go the way of the Whigs and Federalists due to irrelevance and misconduct. After the Federalists and Whigs went into oblivion, the Democratic Party eventually split.

2. Several states might secede, and a number of them might form red or blue coalitions. A looser federation or a mutual trade and foreign-policy cooperative will be developed in North America. By the way, I think smaller nations, not larger ones, are the route to an eventual workable world federation; not big nations like the USA that inevitably dominate it.

Even with the second-most-powerful military in the world at the time, the Confederacy lacked economic viability. It had its large fifth column of slaves who would have broken away at the first opportunity. It had primitive industry and banking, and comparatively few railroads -- and some of those proved convenient paths for the Union Army. If "Red" America should adopt a hierarchical, inegalitarian, and repressive political order and show hostility toward ethnic and religious minorities, then just think of how vulnerable it would be. It would quickly become technologically backward.

3. Our current elected-king, commander-in-chief system will be updated to a parliamentary system, like most democracies have-- and that even we the USA set up as the new system in our Iraq colony.

Maybe -- and maybe not. Such would require a huge amount of Constitutional change. I can imagine that being forced by a country that defeats America in war. Parliamentary democracies have failed. Just think of Weimar Germany. France went to a semi-Presidential system in 1958. Party bosses can accumulate huge power in such a system. A parliamentary system would perfectly serve someone like Karl Rove, who has occasionally spoken of or written of the prospect of a "Permanent Republican Majority".

4. Radical new rules to take money out of politics and make campaigns freely transmitted over our media.

Which of us mice will put the bell on the cat?

5. Better world institutions that are enabled to break through national sovereignty to deal with issues like climate change.

Not so long as the oil cartel has such power as it has in our political system.

That our current political system needs to be replaced, is a given. The question is, with what.

Lots of luck!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Just what I reported before; articles in major national magazines that showed significant migration of young intelligensia out of red states, and migration of those who don't like cultural diversity out of blue states. At the moment I don't know which relocation, economic or ideological, is stronger.

In other words, you DON'T have any evidence. Just as I thought.

The real issue for elections and politics in America, is how entrenched it is in polarization.

Much less so than you seem to believe. The current dynamic involves the utter discrediting of the radical right. Once that's done, the dynamic of the future will involve a dialog between progressives and genuine conservatives -- those who question the need for significant reform.

I'm saying this partly because of what I see happening now, and partly because that's the way it's been in every 4T we've ever been through. Polarization of this sort is temporary; a cyclic change and not a linear one. It will not last.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In other words, you DON'T have any evidence.

Reports of statistics. I saw what I saw.

Much less so than you seem to believe. The current dynamic involves the utter discrediting of the radical right. Once that's done, the dynamic of the future will involve a dialog between progressives and genuine conservatives -- those who question the need for significant reform.

I'm saying this partly because of what I see happening now, and partly because that's the way it's been in every 4T we've ever been through. Polarization of this sort is temporary; a cyclic change and not a linear one. It will not last.

It took bloodshed to break through it, in most cases. Certainly radical changes were necessary to break through it, and the conflict resurfaced afterward too. FDR was able to break through, at least on the domestic level, because the crisis was so severe. How severe will the crisis have to be this time, to convince the vast mobs of right-wingers in this country to give up the ghost?-- right-wingers who still want to dismantle even what FDR accomplished-- and have already largely succeeded? The Great Recession did not do it. So, what will?

Parliamentary systems work well in most places; that's why most countries have that system and not ours.

Originally Posted by James50

538 has interesting poll results about a shift toward more Libertarian Views. I think the Tea Party is a more logical vehicle for the libertarian impulse than the left wing insurgency as the LI is more interested in expanded government power.

No doubt, we will find out as the election season progresses.

James50

Counterpoint, sort of:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...and-government

Basically, after a reversal starting in 2009 and peaking around the mid-terms, a majority of Americans now say they want the government to do more to help people according to the poll. Also, look at the long term trend on the graph. In the early 90's it was nearly 2 to 1 in favor of the people who thought that the government was doing too much. Around the year 2000 the number of people thinking that the government did too much and the number thinking it did too little were about equal, and during the subsequent decade a clear majority of voters began to favor more government action. That reversed itself of couse starting in 2008, but now it looks like that countertrend ended, at least for the present.

I think that the article I linked gives a plausible explanation for the shifts in attitudes. Around 2008 the government started to undertake a series of unpopular measures such as the bailout, the stimulus, and health care reform. At the same time the economic situation worsened for most people. Now the debate is shifting to cuts in popular programs like social security and medicare, and people are starting to feel the effect of cuts in services at the state level, so people's attitudes might be shifting again.

That being said, the CNN poll Nate linked to and the one that the Economist linked to both show different trends for that question from the 90's to the present, despite being virtually identical in size and methodology. I'm not sure why that is the case.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...0Filled-in.pdf

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/im...2/new.poll.pdf

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Reports of statistics. I saw what I saw.

What you saw was not evidence that migration for political reasons outweighs economic migration, which is what you need. Lacking that, you have nothing.

It took bloodshed to break through it, in most cases.

Not in the last one, and I don't think it will this time, either. I think we may have grown beyond that need.

Checking in from Italy here. . . .

It's amazing what only a few days away can do for your perspective. Some reading I'm doing--by a favorite UK Silent--is helping as well.

Our political class is totally bought and paid for. The Republican blithering about a balanced budget is a counterpart to "waving the bloody shirt" in the Gilded Age--it's a way to mobilize certain peoples' resentments without doing anything. The left has no real leadership, least of all in the Democratic Party.

I see the President is expected to announce some Afghanistan withdrawals, maybe fairly big ones, tonight.That is at least one step in the right direction. We should be lucky with whatever we can get. I expect elections to remain close for quite a while. That was the Gilded Age pattern too--never has the US had a series of such close elections as we had from 1876 through 1892--if I am not mistaken, every single one of them could have been altered by a change of one state. But, of course, none of those Presidents left a lasting mark on history, either. So it shall be for the foreseeable future.

I would regard secession of one of the coasts as a possibility if either one had any strong liberal political leadership. But they don't. In any case, as Bill Strauss and I agreed on the last time I saw him, at least the Boomers haven't started a civil war. . . .

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Our political class is totally bought and paid for. The Republican blithering about a balanced budget is a counterpart to "waving the bloody shirt" in the Gilded Age--it's a way to mobilize certain peoples' resentments without doing anything. The left has no real leadership, least of all in the Democratic Party.

The GOP has no lack of leadership. It may be pathological, but it has so far been effective. It has united purpose, reflecting that it has become at the least an authoritarian Party.

I see the President is expected to announce some Afghanistan withdrawals, maybe fairly big ones, tonight. That is at least one step in the right direction.

Nothing fails like a commitment to a failure. It's far past the time for the Afghan government to clean up its act. Too late?

We should be lucky with whatever we can get. I expect elections to remain close for quite a while. That was the Gilded Age pattern too--never has the US had a series of such close elections as we had from 1876 through 1892--if I am not mistaken, every single one of them could have been altered by a change of one state. But, of course, none of those Presidents left a lasting mark on history, either. So it shall be for the foreseeable future.

Of course, the Gilded Age was a 1T -- definitely not a 4T. America was regionally polarized -- especially after the 'conservatives' consolidated power in the South and established a new feudalism that would last for about a century there. At much the same time, the new energy, rail, and banking cartels took command of Northern politics except in the giant cities. If you see the Hard Right taking over -- and they are trying -- in the northern US, then maybe we are in for something like the Metternich era in Austria -- repressive, reactionary, and hierarchical. The process itself would be ugly. I can imagine vote fraud characteristic of eastern Europe in the 1940s... but on behalf of devotees of Ayn Rand instead of Karl Marx. I have had encounters with both Marxists and Randites -- and both are similarly obnoxious.

I would regard secession of one of the coasts as a possibility if either one had any strong liberal political leadership. But they don't. In any case, as Bill Strauss and I agreed on the last time I saw him, at least the Boomers haven't started a civil war. . . .

If the Midwest goes fascist, then I can easily see the Northeast and the Pacific Coast attempting to secede. Sure, I dislike using the word fascist, but I look at Scott Walker and I see the pattern for a political order more similar to a fascist dictatorship than to anything that America has ever recognized in itself. Note well that even in the South the anti-egalitarian order was an agrarian oligarchy that at the least worked for local leadership.

That is if the political pattern of 2010 prevails -- and that one is the optimum for the economic elite of ownership and the bureaucratic elite of economic command.

Of course, the cause of the bitter division we face is Boomers. And as they continue to slide into irrelevancy, solutions will be possible. I don't remember how long it's been since I posted in this thread, but it's exactly as it was when I left it -- aging left wing Boomers blathering on, not realizing that their grip on society is nearing its end.

For the Boomers, I present your Gray Champion:



Take it or leave it. It's all you've got.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Of course, the cause of the bitter division we face is Boomers. And as they continue to slide into irrelevancy, solutions will be possible. I don't remember how long it's been since I posted in this thread, but it's exactly as it was when I left it -- aging left wing Boomers blathering on, not realizing that their grip on society is nearing its end.

As with many Xers, you evidently suffer from delusions of adequacy.

If you don’t have low self-esteem, you should.

Originally Posted by playwrite

As with many Xers, you evidently suffer from delusions of adequacy.

If you don’t have low self-esteem, you should.

Go diddle a housekeeper, trust-fund-child. Leave the adults to their conversation.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Do you really think that the amount of wealth a particular thing is inclined to siphon off for itself has anything at all to do with the amount of wealth that can possibly be generated, or even with the amount of actual wealth available for use? Do you seriously not understand the concept of capacity? Or are you just going non sequitor as if that were an argument?

Let's take the "amount of actual wealth availble for use" part first. The answer is "yes." US GDP is over $14 Trillion per year; each 1% raise in taxes would be $140,000,000,000. Maybe I don't get it, but that sure seems like a whole hell of a lot of Benjamins available for use.


Next, let’s take the “ amount of wealth that can be generated." The answer is "yes." We are currently in a "savings glut" and a “liquidity trap” (look them up) - unprecedented money is sitting in bank reserve and in cooperation balance sheets. Much of the money that is going out is going into non-productive energy and commodities speculation (something you rail against) as well as in to overseas investments to improve other nations' capacity. Not only is the nominal amount of all these funds not in our productive part of the economy but we are missing the multiplier effect (look it up) of these monies being circulated in the economy - something know as the velocity of money ( look it up). Government spending on infrastructure and people (why unemployment benefits are far more than just helping people out but are critical as countercyclical measure - again, look it up.) is very much a means to generating wealth particularly in the economic situation we have today.

I understand capacity and its limits - in a $14 Trillion dollar economy; we are far, far, far away from that. I also understand expenditures and (something you ignore) their limits - all the functions of government have current and projected limits (perhaps more detailed than any in the private sector). This is more a matter of balance and distribution of capacity and expenditures, not some infantile black-and-white alarmist bullshit.

Originally Posted by playwrite

As with many Xers, you evidently suffer from delusions of adequacy.

If you don’t have low self-esteem, you should.

I could tell from your posts on the other thread, you were looking for a 'flame war.'

Okay, here's one -

Your life sucks because you suck.

Now, come on, admit it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

For the Boomers, I present your Gray Champion:



Take it or leave it. It's all you've got.

I don't know about the Boomers, but I'd be happy with a New York City firefighter as GC.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Let's take the "amount of actual wealth availble for use" part first. The answer is "yes." US GDP is over $14 Trillion per year; each 1% raise in taxes would by $140,000,000,000. Maybe I don't get it, but that sure seems like a whole hell of a lot of Benjamins available for use.

You make clear right away that you do not in fact understand. That's fine -- you've probably never had to. In simple terms, currency is not wealth. A lot of benjamins should, to be sure, represent a lot of wealth -- that is, ultimately, capacity to support life and thriving. It need not be, however.

In fact, your fallacy-of-the-benjamins is a major obfuscatory factor contributing to the mess of shit we're in. People act as if benjamins were wealth, spend real things as if they were as plentiful as benjamins, and run against real limits far before the benjamins-presses (or whatever electronic equivalent) even start to show strain. Our limits are in the real world. It may be too late for you, were you to start visiting there at your advanced age (), to really grasp how the real world works. But one thing about it is that it works, no matter whether we grasp it or not.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You make clear right away that you do not in fact understand. That's fine -- you've probably never had to. In simple terms, currency is not wealth. A lot of benjamins should, to be sure, represent a lot of wealth -- that is, ultimately, capacity to support life and thriving. It need not be, however.

In fact, your fallacy-of-the-benjamins is a major obfuscatory factor contributing to the mess of shit we're in. People act as if benjamins were wealth, spend real things as if they were as plentiful as benjamins, and run against real limits far before the benjamins-presses (or whatever electronic equivalent) even start to show strain. Our limits are in the real world. It may be too late for you, were you to start visiting there at your advanced age (), to really grasp how the real world works. But one thing about it is that it works, no matter whether we grasp it or not.

Okay, I see your tapped into the groove again -



- let us know when you've climbed back down for a serious discussion.

The half-govenor says bye-bye again -


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...gh.php?ref=fpa

Sarah Palin Reportedly Quits Bus Tour Halfway Through

Clearing the field for the real nut case -

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Of course, the cause of the bitter division we face is Boomers. And as they continue to slide into irrelevancy, solutions will be possible. I don't remember how long it's been since I posted in this thread, but it's exactly as it was when I left it -- aging left wing Boomers blathering on, not realizing that their grip on society is nearing its end.

Judging by what you say passes for "solutions," I'd say the above post richly qualifies as blather.

The cause of division is not much the personality of Boomers, or their ideas. It is that a large number (perhaps a majority) of Xers (like you JPT, children of Ronald Reagan), and a lot of Silents and perhaps up to half (at least sometimes, more or less) of the Boomers as well, have bought into an extreme right-wing ideology, consisting of economic extremism and cultural extremism (or else one or the other). You JPT are the prime example on this site of someone who has bought into both. That is not even to mention the 3rd neo-con ideology of militarism. This ideology is both stubborn and extremely out-of-touch with reality. There is no other outcome to between 25-55% of the voting public (depending on moods of a particular election season, and who actually votes) being suckered into this ideology, than total gridlock, deadlock, and bitter division. There is no other cause of all of our problems today.

That said, I will give you a sort of compliment JPT, as I have before. I would not put you on ignore. I can't say that about Mr. Glick. You are the opposite of me. He is not even on the field.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Checking in from Italy here. . . .

It's amazing what only a few days away can do for your perspective.

Doesn't seem to have altered it much...

I see the President is expected to announce some Afghanistan withdrawals, maybe fairly big ones, tonight.That is at least one step in the right direction. We should be lucky with whatever we can get. I expect elections to remain close for quite a while. That was the Gilded Age pattern too--never has the US had a series of such close elections as we had from 1876 through 1892--if I am not mistaken, every single one of them could have been altered by a change of one state. But, of course, none of those Presidents left a lasting mark on history, either. So it shall be for the foreseeable future.

That will be proven false in Nov.2012 when Obama is reelected by a comfortable margin.

I would regard secession of one of the coasts as a possibility if either one had any strong liberal political leadership. But they don't. In any case, as Bill Strauss and I agreed on the last time I saw him, at least the Boomers haven't started a civil war. . . .

The Civil War came at the end of a 4T (which I can say since I don't buy the anomaly); whatever breakup we may have will come at the end of this 4T too, which will not be until at least 2028. Plenty of time for Boomers to start a civil war, if they choose to.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What you saw was not evidence that migration for political reasons outweighs economic migration, which is what you need. Lacking that, you have nothing.

What I have is evidence of a trend, which is not nothing; but no I don't know if it is greater than economic migration right now, or which trend will be stronger in the future.

Not in the last one, and I don't think it will this time, either. I think we may have grown beyond that need.

At least domestically, that's right, and I also think we may have grown past that. What I see though, is a very stubborn level of polarization that is crippling the country. I think it may lead to some drastic actions or changes.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Nothing fails like a commitment to a failure. It's far past the time for the Afghan government to clean up its act. Too late?

Subject for another thread no doubt, but it is a question that if the Afghans themselves toppled the Taliban with virtually no US ground troops helping them, why can't they keep the Taliban from taking back the government on their own? Perhaps they can't, if they've proven themselves too corrupt to gain Afghan confidence. If so, again, propping them up seems as doomed to fail as propping up the South Vietnamese government was.

If the Midwest goes fascist, then I can easily see the Northeast and the Pacific Coast attempting to secede. Sure, I dislike using the word fascist, but I look at Scott Walker and I see the pattern for a political order more similar to a fascist dictatorship than to anything that America has ever recognized in itself.

Indeed. It is the question of how far the Scott Walkers of the Midwest will get. They are trying to do as much damage and consolidate as much power as they can before they get booted out.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The half-govenor says bye-bye again -


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...gh.php?ref=fpa



Clearing the field for the real nut case -

It would be difficult to say which one of them is nuttier.

just checked the net and I see the Republicans have walked out of the budget talks because the Democrats insist on some tax increases. So Obama has a chance to stand up for at least a Clinton-era level of responsibility. The Republicans however have no freedom of action in this matter. Grover Norquist owns them all. He may be, next to Clinton and Bush, the most powerful Boomer in our political life. He is also a lifelong frriend, business associate and political associate of Jack Abramoff.

All the buzz is about Cantor having some kind of temper tantrum.