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 209







Post#5201 at 12-22-2011 01:47 AM by Alioth68 [at Minnesota joined Apr 2010 #posts 693]
---
12-22-2011, 01:47 AM #5201
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Minnesota
Posts
693

As for Ron Paul, it goes without saying that I have a lot of disagreement with him on the economic front--but the guy has principles which would make him less corruptible. If he sticks to his principles, he won't put his thumb anywhere on the scale between corporations and people--unlike our present government that has its thumb firmly on the scale in favor of corporations or others who "pay to play". I would have to call just that a net plus, although laissez-faire alone wouldn't be sufficient to address all the economic problems we have either. The question is, just how much would a President Paul actually be able to change, and where would his priorities be assuming he can't do everything he wants (and he won't be able to).

If he is actually able to do away with most of the invasive "national security" apparatus, Patriot Act, etc., that would be a tremendous plus. And we know where he stands on starting wars.

Should he somehow win, and actually accomplish a lot of his goals, progressive strategy would become more naturally focused on the state level--let Texas or Utah do what they will, but progressives in Oregon or Minnesota or Vermont can focus on making their own states better places to live (and actually be more empowered to do so, with much less federal interference). I can live with that (although depending on how Virginia goes, I'd probably urge my struggling sister and her family to come join me up here, although I've already been hinting that I'd like her to do so for some time now).

I have already said that, if it turns out Obama leads or wants to lead us into unjustified war with Iran, I may actually vote for Paul if he's on the ballot in some capacity. I do think he is the best of the GOP bunch, and may do the political debate a lot of good if he were head-to-head with Obama. May actually make a progressive out of Obama yet, even.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." --Kosh Naranek
"...Your side, my side, and the truth." --John Sheridan

"No more half-measures." --Mike Ehrmantraut

"rationalizing...is never clear thinking." --SM Kovalinsky







Post#5202 at 12-22-2011 05:00 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-22-2011, 05:00 AM #5202
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by TeddyR View Post
Studies have shown that once a level of fair compensation has been met, the single biggest motivator in the workplace is autonomy. It is a bigger motivator than bonus plans, which can sometimes be demotivating.

Autonomy in how to do the work, when and where to do it, and who to do it with. These conditions most closely match "flow." That is when you are doing something for the sheer enjoyment of it. When you are doing something and you are so engrossed, you don't notice how much time has gone by. Can't achieve flow all the time, but by trusting employees, they will almost always do better work than when micromanaged.

Daniel Pink wrote a great book on this subject: http://www.danpink.com/drive

I have adopted a lot of this in a pretty traditional environment. It works, although it is constantly under attack from the outside, but the results, and employee satisfaction, make the case. Most controversial is letting people work whatever hours they want -- wherever they want to do the work (i.e. home, starbucks, etc..). Paradoxically, my group works more hours than the 9-5 clockwatcher divisions, but do so on their own accord. Even more importantly is that their level of engagement and productivity is higher.

In my experience, Boomer hates this approach to management and will attack it. Xer loves it. Millie takes a little prodding, but once they get the hang of it, they exceed at it.
On the contrary, Boomers invented it, and were the main force for change in the workplace; for flex time, and for working at fulfilling jobs. If Xers and Millies want this, it is because Boomers paved the way. Boomers are a generation that insisted on greater control of their own destiny in life, including at work and for careers that are satisfying instead of just for making money. That came out of the counter-culture, and from a generation that was the first to not be primarily concerned with mere survival because they grew up in a more prosperous post-war society.

Silifi attacked Medicare, though, as an example of "centralization not working." But Medicare is not a system of control by national micromanagers and health czars. It is a single payer system, and it works well; people like and depend on it and don't want it cut. National institutions can work to provide opportunity for health care or other servcies. I would say a decentralized approach to running the system would probably be better, once we have a single-payer system in place nationally.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5203 at 12-22-2011 05:20 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-22-2011, 05:20 AM #5203
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Silifi View Post
There's no point in talking to you if you are just going to talk right past me.
Or if you are going to just make up reality as you go along.

Environmental laws in some cases allow people to sue, but in other cases they create limited liability, for example CERCLA, which puts in place mechanisms by which tax payers are held liable for environmental hazards. There are other examples, but the basic premise of most environmental laws is that you cannot sue a company with a tort involving environmental damages unless they have violated EPA standards: which means that where these standards are low, there's nothing that can be done about it except to go to the legislature.

Polluters should be forced to pay for absolutely all damages they cause, and environmental laws protect them from doing so.
I just don't know what universe you live in. Even today the EPA announced tougher enforcement of pollution regulations against power plants. They are being forced to clean up mercury and other pollutants emitted from their factories. The idea that we should not have regulations, just because they might not be adequate, is ridiculous. If the Republicans have watered down these laws, then yes they need to be fixed by legislation. I don't doubt that this has happened after 30 years of trickle-down rulership. More often it is because under Republicans the EPA has been run by the polluters. The answer to low environmental standards, is not to stop having standards and rely on free market mechanisms instead. That is turning the sheep over to the wolves. Standards and regulations work. Not having them does not work. To claim so, is just more trickle-down economics.

What besides environmental laws do you suggest as a way of forcing polluters to pay for their damages?

Some do, some don't. You can't paint everyone with a broad brush. The real reason that few advocate simple federalism is because the media environment drowns out anyone who takes a nuanced position.
I'm not sure I understand your point. It seems to me clear that Republicans are not interested in state vs. federal. They are interested in corporate vs. the people. They are interested in lower taxes and fewer regulations on business. There is no nuance, and to suggest there is, is to cover up the dire situation that exists because Republicans have deceived the people into voting for them, and thus for the corporations and the wealthy, in spite of their own interests.

Not entirely, otherwise there would be no need for a Department of Education. NCLB is a prime example of the federal government taking over large portions of education policy.
NCLB is a Republican Bush policy; Republicans are not interested in education, but only in lower taxes. NCLB was bad, bad policy; whether it was federal, or whether it would have been a state policy, it makes no difference. It was not put in place by the Dept of Education, but by the Republican president and a Republican congress. CA governors put in place similar things; it is just politicians trying to run education based on the "back to basics" prejudices of the people, instilled by Republicans and conservatives worried about their taxes, instead of letting educators run education. Abolishing the Dept. of Education may be wise, or not, I dunno; but it has little to do with how education is run, and nothing to do with bad policies like No Child Left Behind.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5204 at 12-22-2011 05:32 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-22-2011, 05:32 AM #5204
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by wtrg8 View Post
I think if the main pollsters would even place him on the Polls, he would be better known. The GOP establishment and the MSM, want Newt or Mitch to have the opportunity to run against Obama, we have no choice. They are running scared because a Libertarian Candidate may win Iowa. The jackals are out.
You are probably right. The GOP is very set in its ways. It seems it has been forced to admit Ron Paul, although they have tried to ignore him, and although that Jewish GOP group wants to exclude even him. Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer are both gadflys in the Republican soup, and they can only let one gadfly in at a time, or their soup might be "corrupted" by more tidbits of truth.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5205 at 12-22-2011 11:00 AM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
12-22-2011, 11:00 AM #5205
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by Alioth68 View Post
I have already said that, if it turns out Obama leads or wants to lead us into unjustified war with Iran, I may actually vote for Paul if he's on the ballot in some capacity. I do think he is the best of the GOP bunch, and may do the political debate a lot of good if he were head-to-head with Obama. May actually make a progressive out of Obama yet, even.
Ron Paul versus Obama would definitely make an interesting debate. That would possibly surface that Obama is also a GOP candidate.

From many indicators, we are in for some more very rough times. Maybe a Republican getting elected would ultimately be the best case scenario. Then *they* would be blamed for the continuing downhill spiral of a decaying economy.

And like I asked in another post; "How many second term presidents actually accomplish major sweeping changes?"
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#5206 at 12-23-2011 10:03 AM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
12-23-2011, 10:03 AM #5206
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Its so funny to me that the Democrats are the ones who have been absolutely insisting on a tax cut and using all the old Republican arguments. There have to be some Republicans wondering if they haven't entered some alternate universe.

As David Kaiser has pointed out - the GWB philosophy seems to win every time.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#5207 at 12-23-2011 10:39 AM by TeddyR [at joined Aug 2011 #posts 998]
---
12-23-2011, 10:39 AM #5207
Join Date
Aug 2011
Posts
998

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
Its so funny to me that the Democrats are the ones who have been absolutely insisting on a tax cut and using all the old Republican arguments. There have to be some Republicans wondering if they haven't entered some alternate universe.

As David Kaiser has pointed out - the GWB philosophy seems to win every time.

James50
The biggest takeaway for Dems from the Reagan years was that the GOP had effectively painted Dems as the "tax and spend" party. Raising taxes became a sure road to electoral defeat. Cutting taxes became the turbo button to approval. This was underscored by George HW Bush and his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge which went bust along with his reelection.

Out of this fear, Dems will only propose modest tax increases on the mega-rich. That is the only "safe" way to raise revenue.

Got to hand it to Obama, Schumer and Reid. Not only did they create an alternate universe where Dems are pressing for cuts, they made the GOP look like they were fighting against the cuts (i.e. supporting a de facto tax increase).

Ever since the GOP forced Obama to delay his speech to the joint session of Congress, Obama has been throwing big league high heat and making the GOP leadership look like AAA players.

Ironically the reason the GOP delayed the President's address was so their debate scheduled for that night would not be distracted from. These debates have been disastrous and have made the candidates (and the blood-thirsty audiences) appear cartoonish and unpresidential.

I expect the GOP will get its act together at some point. If they don't, they will surely be accused of snatching defeat from the hands of victory.







Post#5208 at 12-23-2011 01:22 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
12-23-2011, 01:22 PM #5208
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
On the contrary, Boomers invented it, and were the main force for change in the workplace; for flex time, and for working at fulfilling jobs. If Xers and Millies want this, it is because Boomers paved the way. Boomers are a generation that insisted on greater control of their own destiny in life, including at work and for careers that are satisfying instead of just for making money. That came out of the counter-culture, and from a generation that was the first to not be primarily concerned with mere survival because they grew up in a more prosperous post-war society.
If Lily Tomlin & Jane Fonda are to be considered Boomers that is, Dolly Parton is one--to be sure. Tussilago thinks so, and he often thinks of the Boomer generation as 1938 - 1958. We used to get into arguments about it.

IMO it was a tag-team effort by both Boomers & Silents. With the Silents in the leadership position passing the approvals & championing the causes. The Boomers there to lodge the complaints and be number support. Boomers couldn't have gotten it through without the help of the Silents. Similar to right now as Millennials have yet to do much of anything substantive because they haven't convinced Xers that they're serious yet.

However IME Boomers typically hate this style of working AS MANAGERS. You guys may love it as workers, but you hate it as managers--detest it, loathe it, spit on it, and stamp it into the ground. And this has been true of all my Boomer bosses to date. Even the current one. Thank god an Xer is there though to balance her out.

~Chas'88
Last edited by Chas'88; 12-23-2011 at 01:36 PM.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#5209 at 12-23-2011 01:46 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
12-23-2011, 01:46 PM #5209
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
Its so funny to me that the Democrats are the ones who have been absolutely insisting on a tax cut and using all the old Republican arguments. There have to be some Republicans wondering if they haven't entered some alternate universe.
I ran into this same assertion on another forum. It's a fallacy, though. The Republican argument is and always has been that tax cuts FOR THE RICH will boost the economy. The payroll tax cut is not a tax cut for the rich. A tax cut for the rich is supposed to increase available capital and incentive to invest it. A tax cut for the middle class is supposed to increase consumer demand. They are fundamentally different arguments, the only similarity -- that both involve a tax cut for someone or other that will do something or other -- being superficial.
Last edited by Brian Rush; 12-23-2011 at 01:49 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#5210 at 12-23-2011 02:12 PM by millennialX [at Gotham City, USA joined Oct 2010 #posts 6,597]
---
12-23-2011, 02:12 PM #5210
Join Date
Oct 2010
Location
Gotham City, USA
Posts
6,597

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
If Lily Tomlin & Jane Fonda are to be considered Boomers that is, Dolly Parton is one--to be sure. Tussilago thinks so, and he often thinks of the Boomer generation as 1938 - 1958. We used to get into arguments about it.

IMO it was a tag-team effort by both Boomers & Silents. With the Silents in the leadership position passing the approvals & championing the causes. The Boomers there to lodge the complaints and be number support. Boomers couldn't have gotten it through without the help of the Silents. Similar to right now as Millennials have yet to do much of anything substantive because they haven't convinced Xers that they're serious yet.

However IME Boomers typically hate this style of working AS MANAGERS. You guys may love it as workers, but you hate it as managers--detest it, loathe it, spit on it, and stamp it into the ground. And this has been true of all my Boomer bosses to date. Even the current one. Thank god an Xer is there though to balance her out.

~Chas'88
In my work place, we still have a Boomer CEO, but the once strong Boomer presence is dwindling fast.

The environment does feel different. Very casual now...yet the Hipster millies are dressing up with their skinny ties, vest and stuff.

The point is that the Xer/ Millie bond is tight and productive creativity has killed our office culture wars and the Boomer CEO elders, who are still around, are now laid back and returning to their young visionary child- like self (and not micro managing).

I can't wait for the rest of the country to follow and I think I actually have a hint of the HIGH (good and bad side) due to the shifts at my company.

If you are wondering what the bad side is, btw...theres this "let's do everything together and always meet in and out of office....i wanna be your friend...vibe." One late wave Xer took advantage of that new vibe, which created a mild police state in certain areas. Some acts are now being monitored to maintain peace and unity for all.

In other words...we are still trying to figure out our personal boundaries in this whole new unity push.
Last edited by millennialX; 12-23-2011 at 02:18 PM.
Born in 1981 and INFJ Gen Yer







Post#5211 at 12-23-2011 02:27 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
12-23-2011, 02:27 PM #5211
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
I ran into this same assertion on another forum. It's a fallacy, though. The Republican argument is and always has been that tax cuts FOR THE RICH will boost the economy. The payroll tax cut is not a tax cut for the rich. A tax cut for the rich is supposed to increase available capital and incentive to invest it. A tax cut for the middle class is supposed to increase consumer demand. They are fundamentally different arguments, the only similarity -- that both involve a tax cut for someone or other that will do something or other -- being superficial.
The problem is that this 'tax cut' is from the SS account. The tax debate should be on general taxes and not SS.







Post#5212 at 12-23-2011 02:34 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
12-23-2011, 02:34 PM #5212
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
If Lily Tomlin & Jane Fonda are to be considered Boomers that is, Dolly Parton is one--to be sure. Tussilago thinks so, and he often thinks of the Boomer generation as 1938 - 1958. We used to get into arguments about it.

IMO it was a tag-team effort by both Boomers & Silents. With the Silents in the leadership position passing the approvals & championing the causes. The Boomers there to lodge the complaints and be number support. Boomers couldn't have gotten it through without the help of the Silents. Similar to right now as Millennials have yet to do much of anything substantive because they haven't convinced Xers that they're serious yet.

However IME Boomers typically hate this style of working AS MANAGERS. You guys may love it as workers, but you hate it as managers--detest it, loathe it, spit on it, and stamp it into the ground. And this has been true of all my Boomer bosses to date. Even the current one. Thank god an Xer is there though to balance her out.

~Chas'88
My current boss is a '82 cohort Y-Cusper and she is the best boss I've ever had. She can put her foot down when necessary, but usually she just lets everyone do their thing. To use Spiral Dynamics terminology, she is a good example of GREEN/yellow.
Last edited by Odin; 12-23-2011 at 02:36 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#5213 at 12-23-2011 02:38 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
12-23-2011, 02:38 PM #5213
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
My current boss is a '82 cohort Y-Cusper and she is the best boss I've ever had. She can put her foot down when necessary, but usually she just lets everyone do their thing. To use Spiral Dynamics terminology, she is a good example of GREEN/yellow.
See it works.

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#5214 at 12-23-2011 03:46 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
12-23-2011, 03:46 PM #5214
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

A Paul presidency could do a lot for the progressive cause. Paul would be unable to effect too much radical change domestically, because much of this is determined by Congress and Democrats in Congress could block most of it using the fillibuster. Republicans could of course do away with the fillibuster, but I doubt they would want to. Paul's domestic policy would be very unpopular, and Republican Congressmen would be loath to give Paul what he wants. By preserving the fillibuster they get to blame lack of Congressional action on Paul's domestic program on evil Democrats without ever having bringing it up for a vote that would force them to make politically untenable votes.

On the other hand, as commander in chief President Paul would be able to dismantle the empire if he so chooses by simply ordering a withdrawal of US forces abroad. The net result could end up being more progressive than conservative (as these terms are presently defined).
Last edited by Mikebert; 12-23-2011 at 03:48 PM.







Post#5215 at 12-23-2011 03:51 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
12-23-2011, 03:51 PM #5215
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
If Lily Tomlin & Jane Fonda are to be considered Boomers that is, Dolly Parton is one--to be sure. Tussilago thinks so, and he often thinks of the Boomer generation as 1938 - 1958. We used to get into arguments about it.

IMO it was a tag-team effort by both Boomers & Silents. With the Silents in the leadership position passing the approvals & championing the causes. The Boomers there to lodge the complaints and be number support. Boomers couldn't have gotten it through without the help of the Silents. Similar to right now as Millennials have yet to do much of anything substantive because they haven't convinced Xers that they're serious yet.

However IME Boomers typically hate this style of working AS MANAGERS. You guys may love it as workers, but you hate it as managers--detest it, loathe it, spit on it, and stamp it into the ground. And this has been true of all my Boomer bosses to date. Even the current one. Thank god an Xer is there though to balance her out.

~Chas'88
Some of the worst bosses I or my husband have ever had are micro-managing and punitive Xers. I have also heard this from some of our realatives and friends who are not Boomers.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#5216 at 12-23-2011 03:56 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
12-23-2011, 03:56 PM #5216
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
A Paul presidency could do a lot for the progressive cause. Paul would be unable to effect too much radical change domestically, because much of this is determined by Congress and Democrats in Congress could block most of it using the fillibuster. Republicans could of course do away with the fillibuster, but I doubt they would want to. Paul's domestic policy would be very unpopular, and Republican Congressmen would be loath to give Paul what he wants. By preserving the fillibuster they get to blame lack of Congressional action on Paul's domestic program on evil Democrats without ever having bringing it up for a vote that would force them to make politically untenable votes.

On the other hand, as commander in chief President Paul would be able to dismantle the empire if he so chooses by simply ordering a withdrawal of US forces abroad. The net result could end up being more progressive than conservative (as these terms are presently defined).
The *empire* consists of a partnership between corporations and government. This is an entangled situation where both entities would have to be addressed. This isn't an either/or situation. By just dealing with the war issue and not the unfettered corporations, he would just be dealing with one head of a two headed snake.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#5217 at 12-23-2011 04:03 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
12-23-2011, 04:03 PM #5217
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
The *empire* consists of a partnership between corporations and government. This is an entangled situation where both entities would have to be addressed. This isn't an either/or situation. By just dealing with the war issue and not the unfettered corporations, he would just be dealing with one head of a two headed snake.
Zombie Jackson/Zombie Teddy ticket?

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#5218 at 12-23-2011 04:06 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
12-23-2011, 04:06 PM #5218
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by TeddyR View Post
The biggest takeaway for Dems from the Reagan years was that the GOP had effectively painted Dems as the "tax and spend" party. Raising taxes became a sure road to electoral defeat. Cutting taxes became the turbo button to approval. This was underscored by George HW Bush and his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge which went bust along with his reelection.

Out of this fear, Dems will only propose modest tax increases on the mega-rich. That is the only "safe" way to raise revenue.

Got to hand it to Obama, Schumer and Reid. Not only did they create an alternate universe where Dems are pressing for cuts, they made the GOP look like they were fighting against the cuts (i.e. supporting a de facto tax increase).

Ever since the GOP forced Obama to delay his speech to the joint session of Congress, Obama has been throwing big league high heat and making the GOP leadership look like AAA players.

Ironically the reason the GOP delayed the President's address was so their debate scheduled for that night would not be distracted from. These debates have been disastrous and have made the candidates (and the blood-thirsty audiences) appear cartoonish and unpresidential.

I expect the GOP will get its act together at some point. If they don't, they will surely be accused of snatching defeat from the hands of victory.
There was one exception. Bill Clinton's tax hike may have helped cost the Dems the Congress in 1994, but he was handsomely re-elected all the same and balanced the budget in his second term.







Post#5219 at 12-23-2011 05:47 PM by summer in the fall [at joined Jul 2011 #posts 1,540]
---
12-23-2011, 05:47 PM #5219
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
1,540

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
Ron Paul versus Obama would definitely make an interesting debate. That would possibly surface that Obama is also a GOP candidate.

From many indicators, we are in for some more very rough times. Maybe a Republican getting elected would ultimately be the best case scenario. Then *they* would be blamed for the continuing downhill spiral of a decaying economy.

And like I asked in another post; "How many second term presidents actually accomplish major sweeping changes?"
And I've said it before (many times actually), what does that look like for our courts appointment-wise, especially the Supreme Court?

Cheers.







Post#5220 at 12-23-2011 05:53 PM by summer in the fall [at joined Jul 2011 #posts 1,540]
---
12-23-2011, 05:53 PM #5220
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
1,540

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
If Lily Tomlin & Jane Fonda are to be considered Boomers that is, Dolly Parton is one--to be sure. Tussilago thinks so, and he often thinks of the Boomer generation as 1938 - 1958. We used to get into arguments about it.
There is no way that I can conceive of Lily Tomlin as a Boomer (Jane Fonda neither, if I think about it). Tomlin exudes everything about Silents. So you'll have to direct me to those arguments.

Cheers.







Post#5221 at 12-23-2011 06:27 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
12-23-2011, 06:27 PM #5221
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by summer in the fall View Post
And I've said it before (many times actually), what does that look like for our courts appointment-wise, especially the Supreme Court?

Cheers.
I would rather have Obama appointing justices than Mitt Romney. I don't want anyone in this current crop of GOP candidates anywhere near the Oval Office.







Post#5222 at 12-23-2011 09:44 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
12-23-2011, 09:44 PM #5222
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
Zombie Jackson/Zombie Teddy ticket?

~Chas'88
Good God, Not Zombie Andrew Jackson. He was a horrible president.
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#5223 at 12-23-2011 09:56 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
12-23-2011, 09:56 PM #5223
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Ron Paul is a major bigot and a lunatic.

Ron Paul’s 1980 and 1990’s newsletters — and their incendiary content — are coming to the forefront of the campaign as the candidate surges to the front of the pack in Iowa.

It’s hard to overstate just how extreme these publications are, from comparing blacks to zoo animals to speculating about Israeli involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Paul denies having written or read the offensive material in question, but even a casual glance at the newsletters would have revealed their basic formula. As a recently uncovered direct mail piece advertising the newsletters demonstrates, the most out there passages were the chief selling point, not out-of-context asides.

The New Republic, which first obtained the archives during the 2008 campaign, have recently posted images of several issues of the newsletters. Here are 10 of the most shocking quotes from the publications and related materials.

1. “Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to collect their welfare checks. The ‘poor’ lined up at the Post Office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries) — and then complained about slow service.” -Report on LA riots, June 1992

2. “I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)” -Direct mail ad promoting Paul’s newsletters, written from Paul’s perspective, 1993

3. “It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.” -‘The Disappearing White Majority,’ January 1993

4. “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they ‘came out of the closet,’ and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?” -June 1990

5. “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” -‘The New York Bombing,’ April 1993

6. “An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).” ‘Blast ‘Em’, October 1992

7. “The opposition will do its best to provoke some precipitous action on on our part to discredit us and our cause. Follow the orders of Captain Parker at Lexington: Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” -Militia’s 10-point advice to other militias, January 1995.

8. “When the New Money is imposed, every American family must have a Survival Kit of highly liquid, small-denomination silver and gold coins for hand-to-hand use. The Ron Paul Survival Kit — now an industry standard — comes in an official World War II US Army ammo holder.” -Ad for ‘The Original Famous Ron Paul Survival Kit,’ undated

9. “[Martin Luther King, Jr.], the FBI files reveal, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys…And we are supposed to honor this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?” -December 1990

10. “It turns out that the brilliant [Bobby Fischer], who has all the makings of an American hero, is very politically incorrect on Jewish questions, for which he will never be forgiven, even though he is a Jew. Thus we are not supposed to herald him as the world’s greatest chess player.” -November 1992, background on Fischer’s “politically incorrect” views (which include Holocaust denial) here.
He is a virulent racist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite. Oh, and he also thinks slave owners should have been bailed out for losing their slaves rather than crushing their treasonous asses, proving that he thinks property rights are more important than the rights of human beings.

If there is a Hell, he's going there, along with everyone else who agrees with his reactionary brand of so-called "Libertarianism".
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#5224 at 12-23-2011 11:01 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
12-23-2011, 11:01 PM #5224
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

And thus the smear campaign begins. I guess we've moved from the "First, they ignore you" stage to the "Then they fight you" one.

If this is the best they've got (oohh... once upon a time, people used Paul's name to say bad thing...), then Paul's got nothing to worry about at all. At least, unlike the current and previous (and so on) holders of the office, he doesn't kill people.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#5225 at 12-23-2011 11:23 PM by Galen [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 1,017]
---
12-23-2011, 11:23 PM #5225
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
1,017

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
He is a virulent racist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite. Oh, and he also thinks slave owners should have been bailed out for losing their slaves rather than crushing their treasonous asses, proving that he thinks property rights are more important than the rights of human beings.
Not really. What you fail to realize is that many people do not believe the mythology that surrounds Lincoln or the War Between the States. The fact of the matter is that the British ended slavery in much the way that Ron Paul believes it should have been ended. It might be worth reading what Abel Upshur had written about the nature of the union. In fact the New England states considered secession at the Hartford Convention and did use nullification on more than on occasion.

Even on this issue Ron Paul is showing a strict adherence to the Constitution along with a preference for solutions to problems that don't require coercion or a high body count.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises

Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long
-----------------------------------------