Originally Posted by playwrite

Ron Paul - an economic depression that will make the 1930s look like a summer's day picnic.

Get a clue.

The funniest part of you and MMT is that you fail to see what is standing in your way. Ron Paul is right about the diagnostic: The Federal Reserve has stripped financial and monetary power from the collective people and monopolized it for the benefit of a few.

Like Marx though, Ron Paul sees the problem and misses the solution. Were we to get rid of the Federal Reserve system we would probably be better served by retiring the myth that governments must borrow to spend, establishing a similar network of member-owned credit unions, and aggressively employing monetary sovereignty to put cash on citizens' pockets and build 21st century transportation systems. Maybe a new orbital base... yeaahhh...

But yeah. It won't happen. The U.S. isn't monetarily sovereign in a practical way. And the banking institutions who do control it aren't going to give it up because of the domestic and international advantages they personally receive from artificial scarcity in the world's reserve currency.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What's missing on that chart is likely economic outcome. Let me fill it in for you:

Obama - muddle through
GOP candidates other than Paul - another Great Recession
Ron Paul - an economic depression that will make the 1930s look like a summer's day picnic.

Get a clue.

Dude. You know the guy that you're telling to "get a clue" has been well separated from reality for years now, right? And I'm not just saying that to be cruel; click on his name and look over his posts.

When you're spoiling for an argument so badly that you try to engage someone who's pretty obviously suffering from serious mental problems, you might want to grab hold of your desk and push yourself away for at least a couple of hours.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What's missing on that chart is likely economic outcome. Let me fill it in for you:

Obama - muddle through
GOP candidates other than Paul - another Great Recession
Ron Paul - an economic depression that will make the 1930s look like a summer's day picnic.

Get a clue.

"Kathaksung" has made a name for himself in the Urban Dictionary as an extreme crank.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...erm=kathaksung

He's banned at "The Straight Dope", reasons that I won't take the time to seek out, but the post says it all:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...ad.php?t=76832

DO NOT ENGAGE!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Kathaksung" has made a name for himself in the Urban Dictionary as an extreme crank.

DO NOT ENGAGE!

He is one of the few I have on ignore.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

The funniest part of you and MMT is that you fail to see what is standing in your way. Ron Paul is right about the diagnostic: The Federal Reserve has stripped financial and monetary power from the collective people and monopolized it for the benefit of a few.

Like Marx though, Ron Paul sees the problem and misses the solution. Were we to get rid of the Federal Reserve system we would probably be better served by retiring the myth that governments must borrow to spend, establishing a similar network of member-owned credit unions, and aggressively employing monetary sovereignty to put cash on citizens' pockets and build 21st century transportation systems. Maybe a new orbital base... yeaahhh...

But yeah. It won't happen. The U.S. isn't monetarily sovereign in a practical way. And the banking institutions who do control it aren't going to give it up because of the domestic and international advantages they personally receive from artificial scarcity in the world's reserve currency.

Hmmmm... Well yes, the FED is quite like , say polonium-210 a product of the modern age. However, there is a solution.
To take the polonium-210 analogy as an example. It has a known half life and you can shied yourself from its effects with a heavy metal, lead.
Likewise, dollars also have something similar. Their purchasing power also has a series of half lives, X. While polonium-210's half life is known, the dollar's purchasing power varies. However, you can shield yourself from the ill effects of purchasing power decay with the heavy metals, gold and silver.
HTH- Rags.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I was watching a Santorum interview this evening in which he was arguing that he is the most conservative candidate therefore, he should get the nomination. This was one of his arguments. "There has only been one in time in history when a Republican candidate has ever beaten a Democratic incumbent president." Then he went on to say it was because the Republican party ran a "true conservative". Which, of course, was Ronald Reagan...Well, I would argue that Reagan looks pretty moderate compared to Santorum, but that's beside the point. I thought the thing that was interesting was the part about how that has only happened once in history.

I don't know what Santorum has been smoking, but he's obviously not sharing, because Benjamin Harrison (R) beat Grover Cleveland (D) just fine in 1888. And Harrison was anything but Conservative--at least how Santorum would describe it with his "Billion Dollar Congress", his "High Tariff", wanting to secure voting rights for African-Americans, and Harrison wasn't a friend of big business what with his antitrust laws. So again, I don't know what Santorum's been smoking, but he's obviously not sharing. Which isn't cool of him at all.


~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I don't know what Santorum has been smoking, but he's obviously not sharing, because Benjamin Harrison (R) beat Grover Cleveland (D) just fine in 1888. And Harrison was anything but Conservative--at least how Santorum would describe it with his "Billion Dollar Congress", his "High Tariff", wanting to secure voting rights for African-Americans, and Harrison wasn't a friend of big business what with his antitrust laws. So again, I don't know what Santorum's been smoking, but he's obviously not sharing. Which isn't cool of him at all.


~Chas'88

It is a pretty impressive fact nevertheless that Santorum cited, which applies to the Republicans ever since they have been more-or-less the Republicans we know today--- since 1892 in fact, when Cleveland got back in with help from rising populism boosting the Democrats. It indeed says more about Republicans than it says about Reagan. Republicans screw things up, and sometimes they get booted out for it. Harrison, Taft, Hoover, Ford, Bush 41-- 5 times in the modern era, vs. once when Reagan beat Carter.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I don't know what Santorum has been smoking, but he's obviously not sharing, because Benjamin Harrison (R) beat Grover Cleveland (D) just fine in 1888. And Harrison was anything but Conservative--at least how Santorum would describe it with his "Billion Dollar Congress", his "High Tariff", wanting to secure voting rights for African-Americans, and Harrison wasn't a friend of big business what with his antitrust laws. So again, I don't know what Santorum's been smoking, but he's obviously not sharing. Which isn't cool of him at all.


~Chas'88

LOL Chas...my quotes to you are showing up here too. That's okay, buddy. I don't mind. But I did respond to you on the other site.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I don't know what Santorum has been smoking, but he's obviously not sharing, because Benjamin Harrison (R) beat Grover Cleveland (D) just fine in 1888. And Harrison was anything but Conservative--at least how Santorum would describe it with his "Billion Dollar Congress", his "High Tariff", wanting to secure voting rights for African-Americans, and Harrison wasn't a friend of big business what with his antitrust laws. So again, I don't know what Santorum's been smoking, but he's obviously not sharing. Which isn't cool of him at all.


~Chas'88

Good catch. There were no liberals by modern standards in either party in 1888. Incidentally, Cleveland's three elections were three of the closest in American history. He won the popular vote in 1888, one of three people to do so and lose the election. One state--New York--decided every one of those elections by razor-thin margins. The electorate voted on its ethnic identity and attitude towards the Civil War. Sound familiar?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Good catch. There were no liberals by modern standards in either party in 1888.

True; modern or industrial liberalism began to exist right about then, as we approached the Missionary Awakening, and did not take the White House until 1901 when William McKinley was assassinated and replaced by Theodore Roosevelt. Liberalism had to make the transition from an agrarian to an industrial context, just as now it has to make a similar transition and is similarly confused.

Incidentally, Cleveland's three elections were three of the closest in American history.

Between Lincoln and FDR, it was rare for Democrats to win a presidential election at all. They always took the South, but seldom took enough outside the South to win the EC vote. The Republicans today are bidding fair to move into the exact same position, except that they have kept the low-population mountain states, the only part of their former domain that they haven't lost. The Northeast, the upper Midwest, and the West Coast used to be solidly Republican.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Good catch. There were no liberals by modern standards in either party in 1888. Incidentally, Cleveland's three elections were three of the closest in American history. He won the popular vote in 1888, one of three people to do so and lose the election. One state--New York--decided every one of those elections by razor-thin margins. The electorate voted on its ethnic identity and attitude towards the Civil War. Sound familiar?

...except that in 2000 and 2004 the two parties were a conservative party and a semi-fascist party. Of course fascism did not exist in the 1890s, but I can easily see machine-boss tendencies in Karl Rogue and Grover Norquist. Plutocracy was the norm, and there had been a recent and nasty panic (1893, much like 1930 and 2008).

In any event America had recently left a High that had much of the feel of a 3T. The Gilded acted much like a Civic generation in its culture (secularism, prudery, bland culture, male chauvinism, protective attitudes toward women and children, a love for doing things on a grand scale, long tenure in political office) if it wasn't quite as smart and communitarian but was extremely materialistic as the usual Civic generation.

The 2008 election was definitely not close, although that may reflect a collapse by the McCain-Palin campaign.

There is no such thing as a 'normal' election.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is a good point that Republicans nominate the guy who comes in second last time. I just tend to think Santorum is an inherently weak candidate in an inherently weak field. A field with no incumbent in 2016 will attract better candidates.

Republicans are likely to win in 2016,

It depends on which GOP shows up in 2016.
By that I mean that if the Tea Party oriented groups still dominate the party's base then it liikely won't matter who the eventual nominee is. They may well pull the nominee too far to the right in the primary process much like what has happened to Romney this year.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm thinking now. It is better (IMO) if they win then, than in 2020; because 2020 will set the direction for the next 10 years at least. There is near certainty that the 2020s will be more progressive than this decade, and it is certain there will be increasing reform and action as the decade proceeds; either no more gridlock, or no more United States of America.

.

Oh yes, the demographic of the new 1T era will be upon us by the year 2020. We already know that people under the age of 35 or 40 have little enthusism for culture war politics and we already live in an economy where anyone over the age of 45 or 50 is doomed to a lifetime of poverty if they lose their current professional level job. Those two factors will converge by 2020 and result in an electorate that not only is not interested in inner world crusades but also literally can not afford them.
This is a 4T and the new generational allingment is working its slow bit sure changes.

Of course the old way still has a few years of relative domanance. So a lot of inner driven crazyness is still possible over the next decade or so.
At least it won't be boring!!

Originally Posted by herbal tee

It depends on which GOP shows up in 2016.

Also which Democrats.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...except that in 2000 and 2004 the two parties were a conservative party and a semi-fascist party. Of course fascism did not exist in the 1890s, but I can easily see machine-boss tendencies in Karl Rogue and Grover Norquist. Plutocracy was the norm, and there had been a recent and nasty panic (1893, much like 1930 and 2008).

In any event America had recently left a High that had much of the feel of a 3T. The Gilded acted much like a Civic generation in its culture (secularism, prudery, bland culture, male chauvinism, protective attitudes toward women and children, a love for doing things on a grand scale, long tenure in political office) if it wasn't quite as smart and communitarian but was extremely materialistic as the usual Civic generation.

The 2008 election was definitely not close, although that may reflect a collapse by the McCain-Palin campaign.

There is no such thing as a 'normal' election.

I think you're on to something here. . .the "war on terror" was used like the Civil War--to create a culture war and to divide the country for at least a generation. Meanwhile, the Republican Party, in both cases, made unprecedented concessions to business interests and in effect left the Democrats no option but to play along. I suspect that once Obama is gone the choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee will be even narrower.

By the way, my son just sent me a long youtube video of Rick Santorum in Janesville and told me to listen at about 30 minutes. He didn't realize how funny it was. Santorum explains that his grandfather left Fascist Italy in 1925 or so to come to the US because it was the land of freedom, not the land of entitlements. Do you know how funny that is--the real reason his grandfather left Fascist Italy? I'll explain if no one does.

If you really want to understand why our politics are in such a wretched state, check out the NPR stories here. I believe I heard the second one on the air yesterday. It was mind-boggling--I know this is reality, but to hear it first hand. . .

No wonder we have such clowns in Washington. They spend 3-4 hours a day telemarketing themselves. Prostitution has more dignity.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think you're on to something here. . .the "war on terror" was used like the Civil War--to create a culture war and to divide the country for at least a generation. Meanwhile, the Republican Party, in both cases, made unprecedented concessions to business interests and in effect left the Democrats no option but to play along. I suspect that once Obama is gone the choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee will be even narrower.

By the way, my son just sent me a long youtube video of Rick Santorum in Janesville and told me to listen at about 30 minutes. He didn't realize how funny it was. Santorum explains that his grandfather left Fascist Italy in 1925 or so to come to the US because it was the land of freedom, not the land of entitlements. Do you know how funny that is--the real reason his grandfather left Fascist Italy? I'll explain if no one does.

Here is a report saying that the Santorum family had close ties to the Communist Party in Italy. Rick's grandfather is identified as a "liberal man" by one of his relatives.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

It depends on which GOP shows up in 2016.
By that I mean that if the Tea Party oriented groups still dominate the party's base then it liikely won't matter who the eventual nominee is. They may well pull the nominee too far to the right in the primary process much like what has happened to Romney this year.

That's possible, but on the other hand, I'm not sure there is a question of "which" GOP. The Republicans of whatever stripe today are all so far to the right anyway, that it doesn't matter much. Romney, McCain, Bush 41, Bush 43, Reagan, Ford--- there's not much difference from a Santorum. They were still able to win, and do a world of damage, all of them. All they need is someone with more brains and charisma than the current field, but still just as dedicated to the right-wing cause. By my estimate, Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush are the most likely candidates to do well, followed by Cristy or Rubio. Of course, a lot could affect who actually gets into the race 3 or 4 years from now.

Oh yes, the demographic of the new 1T era will be upon us by the year 2020. We already know that people under the age of 35 or 40 have little enthusiasm for culture war politics and we already live in an economy where anyone over the age of 45 or 50 is doomed to a lifetime of poverty if they lose their current professional level job. Those two factors will converge by 2020 and result in an electorate that not only is not interested in inner world crusades but also literally can not afford them.
This is a 4T and the new generational alignment is working its slow but sure changes.

Of course the old way still has a few years of relative domanance. So a lot of inner driven crazyness is still possible over the next decade or so.
At least it won't be boring!!

I don't quite see things that way. Even by 2025, we will only have reached the 1T demographic at the earliest time the authors forecasted a switch. Just as my crystal ball was able to tell me that the actual start would be 2008, not 2005; so now it tells me that the 1T will start in 2028. That would also make up for some of the previous turnings that ended too early (the previous 4T in 1946 and 1T in 1964).

"Inner driven" is a very charitable title to give the mindless culture wars the Republicans have imposed on us. There is nothing "inner driven" about them at all. They are sheep following authority. Superstition, maybe; inner driven? Hardly. On the other hand, the culture war is not the nub of the red/blue divide today anyway, since we are in a 4T. Something like 40% of the people are hooked, hook, line and sinker, on the Reagan economic philosophy. The culture wars of the religious right do feed into that, mainly by giving people the habit of fanatic, unthinking belief. It remains to be seen if the religious right will decline enough as millies mature in red areas so that it separates its influence from the economic free-market, "help-the-job-creaters" dogma that is now the main element of right-wing politics.

If millies approach things as seeking solutions to the situations they face, rather than by embracing fanatical dogmas and Saint Ronnie, then that will bode well for a constructive ending to our crisis in the mid-2020s. But I certainly don't see the 4T ending before 2027 at the earliest, even if it is a milder winter than the previous one.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

If you really want to understand why our politics are in such a wretched state, check out the NPR stories here. I believe I heard the second one on the air yesterday. It was mind-boggling--I know this is reality, but to hear it first hand. . .

No wonder we have such clowns in Washington. They spend 3-4 hours a day telemarketing themselves. Prostitution has more dignity.

...It is probably easier to get huge chunks of money in large pieces than it is to get them in small pieces. Politicians can more easily tailor an intimate message for an interview discussion of the political needs of some executive, big landowner, or heir ("We need to cut your taxes and give regulatory relief for your business interests. Can I be of help?) than to people whose needs are more subtle but have smaller amounts that they could give if they are willing to give up some minor indulgence like a dinner out at some chain restaurant. Efficient fundraising obviously works to the advantage of 'conservative' politicians and of course their natural constituencies until those interests become blatantly toxic.

Clowns? Maybe. But circus clowns are very serious about their performances. Politics can become an activity of deadly seriousness, especially in a 4T. For some people, easy profits from a blank-check system of paying for medical care are to be protected even at the cost of the lives of poor people; and wars for profit that cost the lives of people largely from areas of economic distress might enrich a defense contractor, secure a client state with plenty of cheap labor, and expand an American market.

Citizens United may be the most catastrophic decision of the US Supreme Court ever. If the 2010 election is an indicator, then democracy as we know it may have been distorted into something unrecognizable. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson simply confirmed a nasty reality already fixed in American life. Korematsu was limited to one small minority and was transitory in effect. Citizens United can establish the principle by which Texas oilman H.L. Hunt claimed was the right (and Right!) way to do politics -- "I believe in the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules."

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think you're on to something here. . .the "war on terror" was used like the Civil War--to create a culture war and to divide the country for at least a generation. Meanwhile, the Republican Party, in both cases, made unprecedented concessions to business interests and in effect left the Democrats no option but to play along.

When Bill Clinton was in office, the "War on Terror" had not yet begun, and by the time it had begun, the Culture Wars had been raging for decades. Let's not exaggerate the importance of 9/11.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The Republicans today are bidding fair to move into the exact same position, except that they have kept the low-population mountain states, the only part of their former domain that they haven't lost.

Except that they have lost their grasp on some of the states in the non-coastal west in the last couple of decades. Montana, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are no longer reliably Republican.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Citizens United may be the most catastrophic decision of the US Supreme Court ever. If the 2010 election is an indicator, then democracy as we know it may have been distorted into something unrecognizable. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson simply confirmed a nasty reality already fixed in American life. Korematsu was limited to one small minority and was transitory in effect. Citizens United can establish the principle by which Texas oilman H.L. Hunt claimed was the right (and Right!) way to do politics -- "I believe in the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules."

I've said it here before and I'll say it again: Depending on how the 4T turns out, I think Citizens United could very well be this saeculum's Dred Scott decision in terms of how it fueled public disgust with the status quo and fired up the sentiments of those who believe it was symptomatic of a sick society.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Except that they have lost their grasp on some of the states in the non-coastal west in the last couple of decades. Montana, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are no longer reliably Republican.

Wow. You're right. That makes things even worse for the GOP than I had supposed.

Going by the polls and the electoral map, it is something like 310 Obama and 200 Romney. Iowa, Colorado, and North Carolina look like the only real battlegrounds. Florida was close for a while, but it hasn't been in the last two months.

I think people are realizing that Obama isn't going to fight Congress much, so we need a better Congress. Definitely not a Romney... lol...

Anyway, here's the kicker:



Romney won the orange states, and Santorum won the green ones.

This means that the Republicans from safely red states won't be too enthusiastic about showing up on election day: They don't like Romney, either!

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I've said it here before and I'll say it again: Depending on how the 4T turns out, I think Citizens United could very well be this saeculum's Dred Scott decision in terms of how it fueled public disgust with the status quo and fired up the sentiments of those who believe it was symptomatic of a sick society.

As do I. Hold on, because the next 15 years are going to be a wild ride.

Romney has an additional primary advantage in that some of the most conservative western red states, are also Mormon states. Utah will be the last one to vote.