Originally Posted by KaiserD2

..... And I too have speculated that we could disintegrate to near anarchy in the next ten years, but I think its unlikely. If indeed Obama wins, I predict balancing the budget will become his mantra again---or rather, cutting he deficit--and if the economy recovers somewhat the crisis mood will pass, even though our economy will in some ways be weaker than at any time since the 1930s.

Private debt needs to come down. As this chart indicates -



- bringing it down halfway is likely to take until 2020 +/- 1 year. It may need to go even further which would take us to 2025 +/- 2 years. We may have relapses into putting debt back on -
http://www.truth-out.org/mortgage-ba...sks/1329673052

Mortgage-Backed Securities Make a Comeback, Despite Similar Risks

- but that will only fail into a mini-2008 financial meltdown and delay the inevitable wringing-out further into the 2020s.

During that time, there are only two sources possible for positive economic growth: net exports and federal deficit spending. We have gotten better at our exports and there is the possibility of doing something with our energy imports that could eventually tip the scale. However, for the foreseeable future, it is only federal deficit spending that is creating net economic growth. Anyone who tells you otherwise really has no idea what they are talking about - they're living in magic pony land.

Planned reductions in federal deficits (the end of the Bush tax cuts and the budget-deficit agreement for spending cuts) scheduled for the beginning of 2013 will cause the economy to contract in 2013 by 0.7% and by 2.6% in 2014 (a major recession). Every dollar of reduced federal spending or increased taxes will make that contraction worse. If people smartin up and change that planning to have less reductions in the federal deficit, then the economic contraction will be less severe and could actually go to net positive economic growth.

If, however, we get on the austerity downward spiral (i.e., NOT learn anything whatsoever from the current laboratory experiment in Europe), it could very likely get worse, much worse. As noted before -

1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.

Remember that Clinton Surplus? Why that didn't cause a depression then (outside of the dot.bomb recession) was the enormous debt binge supported by new financial instruments - we all now know that cheating death is a temporary measure with the financial meltdown of 2008. Fortunately, smarter heads got federal deficit spending up (but eventually proven not enough) to keep us from falling into a severe depression.

A path toward federal budget surpluses is a path toward a major economic depression. In addition to whatever party is in power at the time being completely discredited and likely dismantled, that path is the surest way to the possible anarchy you suggest.

As I have mentioned--in fact, I think I posted the details once and I'd love to find them here--Jamie Galbraith has a very simple set of macro-economic identities showing that the sum total of borrowing has to equal the trade deficit for any given year. So until we can reduce that the total of public and private borrowing can't fall that much. And that's what's happening now--private debt, while huge, is falling, and public debt is rising.

I think within ten years there will be more talk about "the two nations." The 99% metaphor (that's all it is) doesn't describe reality at all. I don't know where the boundary line is statistically, but the recent NY Times article about out of wedlock births, and Murray's new book, point the way to future debates. College educated people live in a different universe in every way--Xers and Boomers, anyway. They have some economic security and stable families; they have kids when they want to have them; their divorce rate is relatively low. All over the country there is a huge group living in a different world.

By the way, Colombia is quite remarkable--a thriving economy and it shows in dozens of ways. There's construction all over Bogota. (There's also a huge new traffic problem.) But these thriving cities--all the bit ones, my son says, are doing quite well--co-exist with huge areas of anarchy in the countryside. Fascinating--just the way the thriving Brazilian economy coexists with urban jungles in the hills above Rio and in Sao Paolo.

Originally Posted by radind

Just look at the the evidence of the 2008 presidential election. Obama is not a conservative.

He sold himself as a moderate, at a time when Republicans were extremely unpopular because of the Iraq war. Even then, it would have been another 2000 or 2004 if the economy hadn't crashed less than two months before the election.

Bill Clinton and the DLC had done a lot to cement the image of Democrats as moderates in the eyes of voters, and so had the Republicans by controlling Congress during his term and forcing him to adopt centrist, or even conservative policies. Obama and the Democrats tanked in the polls after they forced Obamacare through Congress, circumventing the rules and directly defying the clearly expressed will of the people. When Massachusetts elects a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy for the specific purpose of stopping a piece of legislation, you know that legislation is unpopular. The Democrats exposed themselves as extremists with that act, and lost the support of moderates, leading to 2010.

Purely "liberal" candidates cannot win nationally, but conservatives can, because the country is much more conservative than it is liberal. A Democrat candidate needs at least 86% of the "moderate" vote to win. A Republican only needs 29%. That split often happens, because most "moderates" are to the left of center, and what they really mean is "moderately liberal". The reason is that the views and policies of the 20% "true left" are extremely unpopular with voters at large. "Moderates" are more often than not those who want a small amount of liberalism implemented, but not too much.

Americans See Views of GOP Candidates Closer to Their Own

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are considerably closer to the average American's views than Barack Obama is. If he wins re-election it will be because the Republicans failed at their own process, which appears to be very possible, and because voters are satisfied with leaving him held in check by a Republican Congress. He will never be given the kind of majorities he had from 2008-2010 again, that's for sure. And it will be a long time before any Democrat is. Over the last 32 years, the Democrats have controlled the White House and both houses of Congress twice, for a total of two years each. And both times the result was a massive Republican landslide in the House.

Originally Posted by B Butler

You might also consider that FDR's New Deal was a warmed up version of Teddy Roosevelt's Fair Deal, proposed from the Republican's Liberal wing back when the primary divide between Republican and Democrat was arguably North / South. FDR might have stepped in decisively at the start of his Crisis, but the unrest focused against the Robber Barons and the notion that the government had no role in maintaining a healthy economy had been going on for quite some time. The issue had been debated and struggled over through the entire Gilded Age and beyond.

Agreed, and a cause for concern this time. For reasons not well understood by me, no authority figure and certainly no credible institution, has challenged the pervailing assumptions of the New Robber Barons^TM until just recently. Oh, the voices in the wilderness have spoken, none louder than Paul Krugman, but no has listened. Even now, the Europeans are still considering the use of catastrophic austerity to fix what ails the Greeks (and a few other countries), when all evidence points to this heaping failure on top of existing failure.

That may be changing now, but is it too late? Where were these folks ten years ago, when we needed them?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

Not insignificaant to this survey is one where the idological labels were compared to attitudes on aw ide range of political topics. Is it surprising that the labels didn't match to the policy preferences? This is actually quite common in cases like this ... and not just in the realm of politics. People adhere to a name if it's popular, and shun names associaed with negative images. There is no need for the images to align with reality.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Not insignificaant to this survey is one where the idological labels were compared to attitudes on aw ide range of political topics. Is it surprising that the labels didn't match to the policy preferences? This is actually quite common in cases like this ... and not just in the realm of politics. People adhere to a name if it's popular, and shun names associaed with negative images. There is no need for the images to align with reality.

I understand the desire of the far left to spin things in a way that makes them feel better about themselves. But it's not an issue of semantics. "Moderates" call themselves moderates in many cases because they are liberals who want to disassociate themselves from the far left, whose views are extreme and unpopular. They want a moderate amount of liberalism*.

If liberalism was more popular, the Democratic Party would have a very different approach, and a much more coherent coalition. As it is, they have the 20% of "liberals" (most of whom are wealthy whites), and a cobbling together of special interest groups who often have very non-liberal views on a variety of subjects. Blacks and Hispanics, for example, are generally conservative on social issues. The juggling act Democrats have to perform to keep their coalition together is huge. Republicans, on the other hand, have to win just enough moderates to put them over the top without alienating conservatives, and they're currently failing at that task.

*As I've said many times, the term "liberal" is inaccurate for the people it's used to describe, but I use it sometimes for the sake of convention.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

He sold himself as a moderate, at a time when Republicans were extremely unpopular because of the Iraq war. Even then, it would have been another 2000 or 2004 if the economy hadn't crashed less than two months before the election.

Bill Clinton and the DLC had done a lot to cement the image of Democrats as moderates in the eyes of voters, and so had the Republicans by controlling Congress during his term and forcing him to adopt centrist, or even conservative policies. Obama and the Democrats tanked in the polls after they forced Obamacare through Congress, circumventing the rules and directly defying the clearly expressed will of the people. When Massachusetts elects a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy for the specific purpose of stopping a piece of legislation, you know that legislation is unpopular. The Democrats exposed themselves as extremists with that act, and lost the support of moderates, leading to 2010.

"Liberal" candidates cannot win nationally, but conservatives can, because the country is much more conservative than it is liberal. A Democrat candidate needs at least 85% of the "moderate" vote to win. A Republican only needs 10%. That split often happens, because most "moderates" are to the left of center, and what they really mean is "moderately liberal". The reason is that the views and policies of the 20% "true left" are extremely unpopular with voters at large. "Moderates" are more often than not those who want a small amount of liberalism implemented, but not too much.

Americans See Views of GOP Candidates Closer to Their Own

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are considerably closer to the average American's views than Barack Obama is. If he wins re-election it will be because the Republicans failed at their own process, which appears to be very possible, and because voters are satisfied with leaving him held in check by a Republican Congress. He will never be given the kind of majorities he had from 2008-2010 again, that's for sure. And it will be a long time before any Democrat is.

In my view Obama is more progressive than moderate.
I disagree on how close Santorum is to the average USA voter. I would expect Santorum to lose in a major landslide, should he win the nomination. I think that Romney would be the strongest republican candidate still running. In Nov we will find out what the voters think.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

If indeed Obama wins, I predict balancing the budget will become his mantra again---or rather, cutting he deficit--and if the economy recovers somewhat the crisis mood will pass

If that happens, then the theory will have been proven false, there is no such thing as a Crisis era, and we will not enter a High because there is no such thing as that, either.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Actually, they're all dying off. But the balance of the young will tip it in the progressive favor.

Best...

Strange.

Planned Parenthod Statement on PRRI Poll on Millennials and Abortion

This new survey released on the Millennial Generation’s views on abortion provides valuable information on a key demographic. Most importantly, the poll highlights significant support of accessibility and availability of legal abortion.Fifty-eight percent of Americans say there should be health care professionals in their community that provide legal abortions. Millennials especially think it is important to have health care professionals in their community provide legal abortions, as their support jumps to 68 percent.

Best...

Originally Posted by radind

In my view Obama is more progressive than moderate.
I disagree on how close Santorum is to the average USA voter.

Based on the Gallup poll, the average USA voter disagrees with you. Santorum is seen as .4 to the right of center, Obama is seen as 1.0 to the left of center.

I would expect Santorum to lose in a major landslide, should he win the nomination. I think that Romney would be the strongest republican candidate still running. In Nov we will find out what the voters think.

Romney is a very weak candidate because he does so poorly with conservatives, who are the plurality of the electorate, as shown above. In each of the contests he's won (with the possible exception of NH), he's done so by driving down conservative turnout with attack ads against his opponents. The Republican Party has tried to anoint him, and in the process is destroying the momentum they had from 2010.

There is a lot of substance to this subject, because it shows how poorly the political elites understand the political landscape they're facing. Moderates are the most important group Democrats have to target. Because the left dominates the enclaves where political strategists are trained, they think the same applies to Republicans. But if you look at Reagan, the Contract With America and the Tea Party movement, which produced the biggest Republican victories in recent history, what you see is the common theme of a focused attack on Washington, in the name of cleaning up corruption and limiting the size and power of government. The most important group for Republicans is conservative independents - people who hold conservative views but have an extreme distrust of both parties. A limited government, anti-corruption message also directly attacks the Achilles' heel of the Democrats, exposing the fact that they are not "liberals" at all, but rather statists in pursuit of ever-increasing government power, who hold their coalition together through bribery and kickbacks.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party "elite" think their road to victory lies in winning over "moderates", which they will never do in large enough numbers to offset their losses among conservatives when they move left.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Planned Parenthod Statement on PRRI Poll on Millennials and Abortion


Best...

That's Planned Parenthood's spin, but you have to look at the words carefully. The options given are "Legal under any circumstances", "Legal only under certain circumstances", and "Illegal in all circumstances". Roe v. Wade established "Legal under any circumstances" as the law. 51% choose the middle option. That covers a spectrum from parental notification, banning partial birth abortion and so forth all the way to only having exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. 20% believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. And there are now more who call themselves "pro-life" than "pro-choice". This is not a winning issue for the left, and Millenals are clearly less favorable towards abortion than older groups.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

He sold himself as a moderate

I don't know anyone who thinks that, who also voted for him.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

But if you look at Reagan, the Contract With America and the Tea Party movement, which produced the biggest Republican victories in recent history, what you see is the common theme of a focused attack on Washington, in the name of cleaning up corruption and limiting the size and power of government.

Except that's not what eventually happened. The Republicans believe in big government, just to different ends than the Democrats do. And the GOP hasn't cleaned up corruption either.

The most important group for Republicans is conservative independents - people who hold conservative views but have an extreme distrust of both parties. A limited government, anti-corruption message also directly attacks the Achilles' heel of the Democrats, exposing the fact that they are not "liberals" at all, but rather statists in pursuit of ever-increasing government power, who hold their coalition together through bribery and kickbacks.

Blah, blah, blah. There aren't enough "conservative independents" out there to win an election by themselves. Certainly not in a presidential year when turnout will be up over what it was in 2010.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party "elite" think their road to victory lies in winning over "moderates", which they will never do in large enough numbers to offset their losses among conservatives when they move left.

No, they have to get them. George W. Bush got enough of them in 2000 and in 2004 to prevail.

Actually, both of those graphs that JPT posted are deliberately misleading, the only uncertain factor being whether he knows that's the case or not. As M&L pointed out, self-labeling is wildly inaccurate as a predictor of positions on issues. Or, as I've pointed out before and elsewhere, liberals outnumber self-professed liberals in this country at least two to one. Positions on the issues are what matter in terms of voting, not what label one uses for oneself.

The other graph took an extreme pro-choice position -- that abortion should be legal in all circumstances without exception -- and measured ONLY attitudes toward that one extreme position. To illustrate just how extreme it is, I, myself, would disagree with it: I think there are circumstances in which it is appropriate to ban abortion, specifically in the last few months of pregnancy when the mother's health is not in danger. Anyone who believes that abortion should be legal at the mother's discretion in the first trimester of pregnancy should be considered "pro-choice" IMO, and yet many people who believe that might answer no to that poll question.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Based on the Gallup poll, the average USA voter disagrees with you. Santorum is seen as .4 to the right of center, Obama is seen as 1.0 to the left of center.



Romney is a very weak candidate because he does so poorly with conservatives, who are the plurality of the electorate, as shown above. In each of the contests he's won (with the possible exception of NH), he's done so by driving down conservative turnout with attack ads against his opponents. The Republican Party has tried to anoint him, and in the process is destroying the momentum they had from 2010.

There is a lot of substance to this subject, because it shows how poorly the political elites understand the political landscape they're facing. Moderates are the most important group Democrats have to target. Because the left dominates the enclaves where political strategists are trained, they think the same applies to Republicans. But if you look at Reagan, the Contract With America and the Tea Party movement, which produced the biggest Republican victories in recent history, what you see is the common theme of a focused attack on Washington, in the name of cleaning up corruption and limiting the size and power of government. The most important group for Republicans is conservative independents - people who hold conservative views but have an extreme distrust of both parties. A limited government, anti-corruption message also directly attacks the Achilles' heel of the Democrats, exposing the fact that they are not "liberals" at all, but rather statists in pursuit of ever-increasing government power, who hold their coalition together through bribery and kickbacks.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party "elite" think their road to victory lies in winning over "moderates", which they will never do in large enough numbers to offset their losses among conservatives when they move left.

We clearly do not agree, so I will wait for the Nov data.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Planned Parenthod Statement on PRRI Poll on Millennials and Abortion


Best...

That's Planned Parenthood's spin...

Here's the original PPI Poll:
Survey | Committed to Availability, Conflicted about Morality: What the Millennial Generation Tells Us about the Future of the Abortion Debate and the Culture Wars

Millennials are strongly committed to the availability of abortion and are significantly more likely than the general public to say that at least some health care professionals in their community should provide legal abortions (68% vs. 58% respectively).

Best...

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Except that's not what eventually happened. The Republicans believe in big government, just to different ends than the Democrats do. And the GOP hasn't cleaned up corruption either.

The above statement is true, and it is the reason why Republicans have to work to win conservatives.

Blah, blah, blah. There aren't enough "conservative independents" out there to win an election by themselves. Certainly not in a presidential year when turnout will be up over what it was in 2010.

Conservatives are the single largest voting bloc in the country. Many conservatives are not, however, loyal to the Republican Party. If they aren't presented with an option they can support, they stay home. Democrats know how important that dynamic is to Republicans, and they always do everything they can to suppress conservative turnout, usually with some sort of "October surprise".

The number of people identifying as independents has been growing in general , and both parties have been losing numbers.

No, they have to get them. George W. Bush got enough of them in 2000 and in 2004 to prevail.

They have to get some moderates, but those moderates are right-leaning anyway, and being swing voters, they are less ideological and more driven by results.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, both of those graphs that JPT posted are deliberately misleading, the only uncertain factor being whether he knows that's the case or not.

Yeah..Gallup is known for its deliberately misleading right-wing spin...

As M&L pointed out, self-labeling is wildly inaccurate as a predictor of positions on issues. Or, as I've pointed out before and elsewhere, liberals outnumber self-professed liberals in this country at least two to one. Positions on the issues are what matter in terms of voting, not what label one uses for oneself.

The other graph took an extreme pro-choice position -- that abortion should be legal in all circumstances without exception -- and measured ONLY attitudes toward that one extreme position. To illustrate just how extreme it is, I, myself, would disagree with it: I think there are circumstances in which it is appropriate to ban abortion, specifically in the last few months of pregnancy when the mother's health is not in danger. Anyone who believes that abortion should be legal at the mother's discretion in the first trimester of pregnancy should be considered "pro-choice" IMO, and yet many people who believe that might answer no to that poll question.

The position of pro-choice activists is to oppose any and all restrictions on abortion. You disagree with that position, which would qualify you as a "moderate" on that issue. I gave a pretty good analysis of the questions in that poll above. The "middle position" (legal under certain circumstances) covers a huge range of opinion, all of which is to the right of abortion activists and Roe v. Wade.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Here's the original PPI Poll:
Survey | Committed to Availability, Conflicted about Morality: What the Millennial Generation Tells Us about the Future of the Abortion Debate and the Culture Wars


Best...

PPI is a left leaning organization, just like Planned Parenthood. They're trying to put as much of a spin as they can on what all the polls have been showing -- which is that public opinion, while still pretty evenly divided, is shifting away from the "pro-choice" side towards the "pro-life" side, and a lot of that is driven by Millenials. It doesn't mean they're jumping from one extreme to the other. But they have more qualms about abortion, and support more restrictions, than older generations.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Here's the original PPI Poll:
Survey | Committed to Availability, Conflicted about Morality: What the Millennial Generation Tells Us about the Future of the Abortion Debate and the Culture Wars


Best...

PPI is a left leaning organization, just like Planned Parenthood.

Sounds like more of your own spinning. JPT, I have given you two opportunities to explain the meaning behind this statistic:

Millennials are strongly committed to the availability of abortion and are significantly more likely than the general public to say that at least some health care professionals in their community should provide legal abortions (68% vs. 58% respectively).

...to no avail. Your claims that Millennials support more restrictions does not hold out with evidence.

Best...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I understand the desire of the far left to spin things in a way that makes them feel better about themselves. But it's not an issue of semantics. "Moderates" call themselves moderates in many cases because they are liberals who want to disassociate themselves from the far left, whose views are extreme and unpopular. They want a moderate amount of liberalism*.

If liberalism was more popular, the Democratic Party would have a very different approach, and a much more coherent coalition. As it is, they have the 20% of "liberals" (most of whom are wealthy whites), and a cobbling together of special interest groups who often have very non-liberal views on a variety of subjects. Blacks and Hispanics, for example, are generally conservative on social issues. The juggling act Democrats have to perform to keep their coalition together is huge. Republicans, on the other hand, have to win just enough moderates to put them over the top without alienating conservatives, and they're currently failing at that task.

*As I've said many times, the term "liberal" is inaccurate for the people it's used to describe, but I use it sometimes for the sake of convention.

If you look back at the last 1T, the country was anything but conservative. It was also the lst time we had a vibrant middle class. How did we get away from that?

I'll be the first ot admit that conservatives have done a bang-up jobof selling their philosophical wrapping. I'm not so sure that applies to the product inside. Some fo the most Tea Party-centric place in the country are populated by people drawing heavilkiy on entitlements or other governement programs, just to survive. Do you honestly think these folks really understand the implications of the policies they're demanding? What will happen if they win, the programs go away, the Blue areas of the country keep thier money at home, and the Red areas go down the tubes? Is that viable. Will they blame their self-inflicted wounds on "the liberals"?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If that happens, then the theory will have been proven false, there is no such thing as a Crisis era, and we will not enter a High because there is no such thing as that, either.

I disagree. There is no guarantee that things will go well in any given saeculum, but that doesn't falsify the theory. If things go bad and stay that way through the following 4T, then you're right. The theory will have failed or never was valid from the beginning. But if it's still valid, the 2T should be the opening salvo ... just like the Progressive movement of the late 19th and ealry 20th century.

We Boomers will surely miss the final act, and may only be privy to the beginning of the beginning, but we should know before we go.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yeah..Gallup is known for its deliberately misleading right-wing spin...

What Gallup is known for is conducting multiple polls, of which you have presented a small, cherry-picked and misleading sample. The only question is whether you did the cherry-picking yourself or someone else did, which is to say, whether you are lying or merely passing on lies told by others.

The position of pro-choice activists is to oppose any and all restrictions on abortion.

The position of pro-choice PEOPLE is to oppose a complete BAN on abortion. Anyone who advocates that abortion be legal and up to the women in the first trimester may not be a pro-choice ACTIVIST, but is certainly pro-choice. At most, the cherry-picked poll you presented shows that pro-choice ACTIVISTS constitute a small percentage of the population, which we really didn't need you to tell us.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I disagree. There is no guarantee that things will go well in any given saeculum, but that doesn't falsify the theory.

I'm not talking about things going "well." I'm talking about a Crisis that ends a mere four or five years after its beginning. If that can happen once in an "anomaly" (although I disagree that it actually happened that way in the 1860s), that merely weakens the theory. If it can happen any old time, the theory is invalidated completely.

The essence of the theory is that generations drive turnings and vice-versa. If the theory is correct, we will be in Crisis so long as there remain middle-aged Boomers, young-adult Xers, and child Millennials. When there are no more such critters, when all Boomers are either dead or in elderhood, and all Xers are middle-aged with the first ones pushing into elderhood, and all Millennials have come of age with the oldest edging into midlife, then and only then the Crisis will end and the High begin -- if S&H were right.

That most certainly will not be in 2013-15.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm not talking about things going "well." I'm talking about a Crisis that ends a mere four or five years after its beginning.

Of course there's no possibility you could be wrong about when the 4T started...

The oldest Xer will reach 62 (S&H's boundary for midlife) in 2023. Turnings are about 20 years long. The numbers can be off a couple of years in either direction.

Obviously, 9/11 was the start of the 4T.