Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Income gap isn't the issue. The working people of today could care less about the rich and their lifestyle. The working people of today are concerned about their individual lifestyle's and sustaining them.

Ah but you probably should care. For every Bill Gates who actually contributes something to earn their fortune, there are probably about ten who built their massive wealth on manipulation of laws, government intervention to prevent competition, and downright corruption. There's a big difference between a free market that encourages hard work and the current form of state-sponsored monopoly capitalism.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

But those deferments were rationed. Basically each congregation could only have one missionary out at a time, or maybe send one each year. (The system would be different now. A serving missionary still couldn't be drafted, but would usually be considered to be in prime draft age when he got back.) Anyway, many returned missionaries wound up getting drafted, including my 1946 father-in-law.

Interesting data. There still must be a story in this--about how this became deferable. And since Mitt was, I think, only in France for two years, he would have returned in 1971 when the draft was still in effect. We should find out what his 1969 lottery number was, which wouldn't be difficult. I spent a year trying to get deferred, then joined the reserves. Had I been able to, perhaps I would have spent two years in France proselytizing Unitarianism or something.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Where do you come up with this stuff? I saw a blue bimbo open her mouth and say something really stupid that offended a poster here and unknown numbers of women who are like her which could loose their votes which resulted in rather large scale damage control.

You are a sexist.

Income gap isn't the issue. The working people of today could care less about the rich and their lifestyle. The working people of today are concerned about their individual lifestyle's and sustaining them.

"lifestyle"

I haven't seen anyone use that word for 15 years. But if it is a matter of having consumer choice -- higher incomes imply more choices. Vote R if you are a worker and you vote for lower wages, less economic security, and harsher management. The opportunity created is only for people to do domestic service for elites.

Checking, I find that Mitt had a draft number of 300, which put him pretty much in the clear in any case, and most definitely by 1971.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think you're right. At some not-too-distant time, we're going to let the 'freedom-lovers' have a go at it, but we're not quite there yet.

Unless the economy falls apart between now and November, which I don't think is going to happen, 2016 looms are a year fraught with danger IMHO.
I write this because unless Obama is re-elected and manages to get at least one more appointment onto the Supreme Court, we are going to go into the 2016 election cycle with Citizen's United in full effect and without the mitigating factor of a reasonably popular, despite the post crash economy, incumbent president able to run again.

Originally Posted by M and L

The social side is further ahead than the economic side, so the libertarian dream machine will be at least partly a left-driven movement. But so what? Being allowed to marry is a long way away from being able to survive, and when that dawns on the next crop of Prophets - Katy bar the door.

Good summing up.

Originally Posted by M and L

I'm sad I'll miss it ... unless I'm part of that 1% who live to a century.

I too lament that at best I will be too old to have an active role in the next awakening.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Interesting data. There still must be a story in this--about how this became deferable. And since Mitt was, I think, only in France for two years, he would have returned in 1971 when the draft was still in effect. We should find out what his 1969 lottery number was, which wouldn't be difficult. I spent a year trying to get deferred, then joined the reserves. Had I been able to, perhaps I would have spent two years in France proselytizing Unitarianism or something.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Ann Romney during the 1969-1971 period.

Immediately after Romney's return from France in December 1968, the pair reconnected and agreed to get married as soon as possible.^[12] Ann Davies and Mitt Romney were married by a church elder in a civil ceremony on March 21, 1969, at her Bloomfield Hills home, with a reception afterward at a local country club.^[4][12] The following day the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony inside the Salt Lake Temple; her family could not attend since they were non-Mormons, but were present at a subsequent wedding breakfast held for them across the street.^[4][14]

The couple's first son was born in 1970^[12] while both were undergraduates at Brigham Young,^[15] living in a $75-a-month basement apartment,^[16] which Mitt had transferred to based upon her request.^[13] After he graduated, the couple moved to Boston so that he could attend Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. Slowed down by parenthood, she later finished her undergraduate work by gaining a semester and half's worth of credits via taking night courses at Harvard University Extension School,^[15] from which she graduated in 1975^[1] with a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree with a concentration in French language.^[17]

So Romney returned from being a missionary in 1968, returned to school, married Ann Romney in 1969, and became a father in 1970. Would that have affected his draftability?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Here is what Wikipedia says about Ann Romney during the 1969-1971 period.



So Romney returned from being a missionary in 1968, returned to school, married Ann Romney in 1969, and became a father in 1970. Would that have affected his draftability?

Oh, my. This is confusing. He actually got the deferment when he dropped out of college, at the height of the war, to become a missionary. There must indeed by quite a story in that. A straight divinity student couldn't get one, obviously, until he had finished college and was in grad school. (See Stockman, David, '46.) The other thing about this is, he presumably registered in Michigan, not in Utah, where the board would have been full of sympathetic Mormons. Or--maybe not.

Marriage was no help by that time, but the kid was. Once he drew 300 in September 1969, though, he was in pretty good shape.

It's hard to think of me saying anything good about Rick Santorum aside from the apparent fact that he is a good family man. One is that despite his shoestring campaign and his gross bigotry he stood up well against the seemingly-unlimited funds of Mitt Romney. Unlimited funds might propel a candidate above the others in a primary campaign, but let us remember that Santorum isn't that different from Romney on economic issues. The money dried and his campaign died.

So what relevance is that in the Presidential election? President Obama is a far stronger candidate as an incumbent than is Rick Santorum as a challenger. How much money will it cost to win a vote in November? I doubt that there is enough. President Obama can far more effectively distinguish himself against Mitt Romney than could Rick Santorum. He doesn't have immoderate social issues to drag him down.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

You are a sexist.

This is a personal attack that can be used against you.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I haven't seen anyone use that word for 15 years. But if it is a matter of having consumer choice -- higher incomes imply more choices. Vote R if you are a worker and you vote for lower wages, less economic security, and harsher management. The opportunity created is only for people to do domestic service for elites.

Blue gibberish

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Minor figure, hence not a lot of legs? In this campaign? This is a year in which someone jumps on every word out of anybody's mouth, even if it's the housekeeper's assistant's second cousin who said it. I was about to say the partisans would do this even if it were Jesus Christ Himself --- and then remembered what the Powers That Be did to HIM!

Heehee. Thanks, Pat, for the laugh.

Cheers.

Whateves...



Best...

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Unless the economy falls apart between now and November, which I don't think is going to happen, 2016 looms are a year fraught with danger IMHO.
I write this because unless Obama is re-elected and manages to get at least one more appointment onto the Supreme Court, we are going to go into the 2016 election cycle with Citizen's United in full effect and without the mitigating factor of a reasonably popular, despite the post crash economy, incumbent president able to run again.

Mitt Romney would be much like Dubya -- a weak leader easily manipulated by people who have clear purpose and no ethical constraints against doing whatever they want. Apparatchiks like Rove, Armey, and Norquist will wield the real power. The Supreme Court could make a decision as momentous as to rule that freedom to contract implies the inability of those not involved to judge the contracts made. Watch for minimum wage laws to be declared unconstitutional. America could be the sort of country from which industrial workers seek to emigrate.

We have seen right-wing state governments in action in such moderate-to-liberal states as Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Methods are different from the blatant attempt to sell off the public sector (Florida) to the destruction of workers' rights (Indiana) and the gutting of the formal power of local governments (Michigan). What the Republicans have tried to do in these states they surely wish to do -- all of it at once -- in New York and California. And then there is the war on women, perhaps followed by repression of religious minorities. Giant businesses will use their power to crush small business as competition. If you have entrepreneurial skills that have worked well in America until then, then they might be welcome in other countries.

The Tea Party shows what happens when Americans end up with political stooges as legislators. Government by lobbyist is so unprecedented a style of government that it has no obvious name... but it would be a novel form of dictatorship. To the extent that those who wield political power are not responsible to voters democracy does not exist. Just think of the US Congress as a right-wing version of the Supreme Soviet...

It's obviously ugly. Think of the antics of Jan Brewer, Rick Scott, and Scott Walker on a national scale.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It's hard to think of me saying anything good about Rick Santorum aside from the apparent fact that he is a good family man. One is that despite his shoestring campaign and his gross bigotry he stood up well against the seemingly-unlimited funds of Mitt Romney. Unlimited funds might propel a candidate above the others in a primary campaign, but let us remember that Santorum isn't that different from Romney on economic issues. The money dried and his campaign died.

So what relevance is that in the Presidential election? President Obama is a far stronger candidate as an incumbent than is Rick Santorum as a challenger. How much money will it cost to win a vote in November? I doubt that there is enough. President Obama can far more effectively distinguish himself against Mitt Romney than could Rick Santorum. He doesn't have immoderate social issues to drag him down.

I think that you will see and learn that Obama is a far stronger candidate as a largely unkown challenger who was also happens to be the first black candidate for President. How many more billions upon billions that accumlate to trillions (tax payers dollars) in social and ecomonic promises is it going to take for Obama to win in November?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Unless the economy falls apart between now and November, which I don't think is going to happen, 2016 looms are a year fraught with danger IMHO.
I write this because unless Obama is re-elected and manages to get at least one more appointment onto the Supreme Court, we are going to go into the 2016 election cycle with Citizen's United in full effect and without the mitigating factor of a reasonably popular, despite the post crash economy, incumbent president able to run again.

We'll see if your prediction holds up. It might, but I think things probably will get worse by about 2020 or so.

I too lament that at best I will be too old to have an active role in the next awakening.

We can enjoy what "awakening" is still going on, such as it is. But OWS is an indication that this 4T will have some aspects of a 2T as well, as I predicted.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I think that you will see and learn that Obama is a far stronger candidate as a largely unkown challenger who was also happens to be the first black candidate for President. How many more billions upon billions that accumlate to trillions (tax payers dollars) in social and ecomonic promises is it going to take for Obama to win in November?

It will be important for every progressive, Democrat, or even concerned moderate, to point out the true situation. It is this: Obama was able to spend billions on a stimulus, and bail out GM, in his first term. There was some indication of a recovery brewing in 2010. Although we had to rebound from a huge depth of depression, created by Bush policies, jobs improved in every month since his inauguration. Charts have been posted to that effect here before. But after the Nov. 2010 election, the Republicans have been effectively in control, not Obama. The president has not been able to spend anything. The only thing he could do was lower taxes, and keep the Bush tax cuts too. So he has enacted Republican policies. Another huge factor is that in 2011, job gains were more than offset by cuts to the public sector enacted by Republicans. That, plus the lack of any stimulus by the Democrats-- thanks to Republican opposition-- means that Republicans are responsible for the lackluster performance of the economy, NOT Obama.

Romney is skilled in his rhetoric, calling this "an excuse," and says Obama is "running out of time, and excuses." Clever indeed, but totally deceptive and obfuscating. The truth needs to be told over and over to counter this wool being put over peoples' eyes. I think the people will see it, and that Obama will be re-elected by about the same margin as last time. That will also be because people like him better than Romney. Since this latter factor has no effect on congressional races, sadly it appears the House will stay Republican. I hope this will change by November, and Obama grows some coattails, but it does appear, as I have predicted, that it will likely be the 2020s before we see any real constructive change in this country; in other words, Republicans out of office.

Here's his speech, if you can stomach it. The quote at 4:00
http://youtu.be/zPVxsHJwfcg

Sorry, Eric, but it is not correct that jobs improved in every month of this administration. They were continually lost for the first six months at least. Not his fault, no, but nonetheless, the peak of unemployment was well into the Obama Administratino.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davecjo...1219/lightbox/
Something like this graph was posted here. I guess what it says is that job losses decreased all during his administration, whereas they had increased rapidly right up to the time Bush left. So there were still losses for a year or so, though much fewer after Spring, and modest gains since.

Romney's argument is something like, "things haven't gotten worse" is not "the American way." So, in effect, let's go back to the policies that caused the free fall, instead of the policies that have caused a tepid recovery.

http://progressivewomencolorado.com/...dministration/

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

... The whole of the political class is entirely out of touch with reality... the big shots in both parties have more in common with each other than they do with any one of us.

I missed this the first time, but have to say I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

The whole of the political class is entirely out of touch with reality... the big shots in both parties have more in common with each other than they do with any one of us.

And I will second that, or third it. But that's more than likely been that way since the beginning for most political big shots. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington weren't exactly paupers either.

Originally Posted by ASB65

And I will second that, or third it. But that's more than likely been that way since the beginning for most political big shots. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington weren't exactly paupers either.

... but they did have different points of view. Even that is obscured now.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I think that you will see and learn that Obama is a far stronger candidate as a largely unkown challenger who was also happens to be the first black candidate for President. How many more billions upon billions that accumlate to trillions (tax payers dollars) in social and ecomonic promises is it going to take for Obama to win in November?

Almost every time, incumbents either run on their records and win or run from their records and lose. Americans desperate enough to vote for Barack Obama for President because the economy was in a meltdown that began to look like that of 1929-1932 and because America was entangled in costly and increasingly-pointless wars will decide whether he has solved those problems. He succeeded at both, stopping an economic meltdown remarkably similar to the one of nearly eighty years earlier in the equivalent of the Spring of 1931 instead of the Autumn of 1932. What he couldn't do is to stop the slander machine of ideologues who want America to work only for an elite nearly devoid of virtues.

For two years President Obama did as much as was possible to apply Keynesian stimulus to an economic meltdown... and that stimulus worked. The meltdown stopped. President Obama saved the system from catastrophic failure even if such meant the rescue of Big Business. The investment went back into the economy largely as taxable income. Just think of what would have happened to tax revenues had America undergone a concatenation of business failures as those from the summer of 1931 to the autumn of 1932. Beginning in 2011 President Obama has had to rely upon monetarist methods to keep the economy going -- because monetarist methods don't require legislative approval.

The last incumbent President to run from his record was Jimmy Carter, and we well know how that worked. Jimmy Carter may have been the least effective President since Herbert Hoover as shown in the paucity of his legislative achievements. When he ran for re-election he had to make fresh promises of what he would do in a second term and effectively gave up the usual advantage of an incumbent (as if that hadn't been taken away from him) while Ronald Reagan offered tried-and-true measures (or at least presented them as such) that Americans thought that they wanted. Reagan won.

Right-wingers might wish to see Barack Obama as the new Jimmy Carter... but unlike Jimmy Carter he has a rich record of legislative achievements when he had majorities in both Houses of Congress. Carter achieved little with such majorities. President Obama can show that the international scene is safer than it was -- the opposite of how things were under Carter.

President Obama is above all else a student of history. He may admire Abraham Lincoln -- but he may end up more like Harry Truman. After all, President Obama is a Reactive/Nomad, as shown in the gangland-style hit on Osama bin Laden (the style is that of Al Capone even if the purpose is honorable). If he is to be an effective President in a second term he will need majorities in both Houses of Congress. I can already predict that he will run against a Congress that has achieved little except to offer extremist solutions. The Truman analogy isn't perfect:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Under Dewey's leadership, the Republicans had enacted a platform at their 1948 convention that called for expanding social security, more funding for public housing, civil rights legislation, and promotion of health and education by the federal government. These positions were, however, unacceptable to the conservative Congressional Republican leadership. Truman exploited this rift in the opposing party by calling a special session of Congress on “Turnip Day” (referring to an old piece of Missouri folklore about planting turnips in late July) and daring the Republican Congressional leadership to pass its own platform. The 80th Congress played into Truman's hands, delivering very little in the way of substantive legislation during this time. The GOP's lack of action in the "turnip" session of Congress allowed Truman to continue his attacks on the "do-nothing" Republican-controlled Congress. Truman simply ignored the fact that Dewey's policies were considerably more liberal than most of his fellow Republicans, and instead he concentrated his fire against what he characterized as the conservative, obstructionist tendencies of the unpopular 80th Congress.

Here is the source.

But if the undistinguished 80th Congress failed to achieve the somewhat-progressive promises that Tom Dewey stood for in his campaign, the dreadful 112th Congress offers little. The House is in the hands of reactionaries more intent on undoing the current Presidency and perhaps a century of social advance and even such personal freedom as reproductive rights.

President Obama is a student of history, and if he can't be a Lincoln he can at least be a Truman... but Truman is generally understood to be one of the strongest Presidents that we ever had.

I recall that phrower once listed 4T Nomad leaders...Obama might concievably try to emulate Truman, but Truman was president during early 1T, rather than early 4T.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Almost every time, incumbents either run on their records and win or run from their records and lose. Americans desperate enough to vote for Barack Obama for President because the economy was in a meltdown that began to look like that of 1929-1932 and because America was entangled in costly and increasingly-pointless wars will decide whether he has solved those problems. He succeeded at both, stopping an economic meltdown remarkably similar to the one of nearly eighty years earlier in the equivalent of the Spring of 1931 instead of the Autumn of 1932. What he couldn't do is to stop the slander machine of ideologues who want America to work only for an elite nearly devoid of virtues.

For two years President Obama did as much as was possible to apply Keynesian stimulus to an economic meltdown... and that stimulus worked. The meltdown stopped. President Obama saved the system from catastrophic failure even if such meant the rescue of Big Business. The investment went back into the economy largely as taxable income. Just think of what would have happened to tax revenues had America undergone a concatenation of business failures as those from the summer of 1931 to the autumn of 1932. Beginning in 2011 President Obama has had to rely upon monetarist methods to keep the economy going -- because monetarist methods don't require legislative approval.

The last incumbent President to run from his record was Jimmy Carter, and we well know how that worked. Jimmy Carter may have been the least effective President since Herbert Hoover as shown in the paucity of his legislative achievements. When he ran for re-election he had to make fresh promises of what he would do in a second term and effectively gave up the usual advantage of an incumbent (as if that hadn't been taken away from him) while Ronald Reagan offered tried-and-true measures (or at least presented them as such) that Americans thought that they wanted. Reagan won.

Right-wingers might wish to see Barack Obama as the new Jimmy Carter... but unlike Jimmy Carter he has a rich record of legislative achievements when he had majorities in both Houses of Congress. Carter achieved little with such majorities. President Obama can show that the international scene is safer than it was -- the opposite of how things were under Carter.

President Obama is above all else a student of history. He may admire Abraham Lincoln -- but he may end up more like Harry Truman. After all, President Obama is a Reactive/Nomad, as shown in the gangland-style hit on Osama bin Laden (the style is that of Al Capone even if the purpose is honorable). If he is to be an effective President in a second term he will need majorities in both Houses of Congress. I can already predict that he will run against a Congress that has achieved little except to offer extremist solutions. The Truman analogy isn't perfect:



Here is the source.

But if the undistinguished 80th Congress failed to achieve the somewhat-progressive promises that Tom Dewey stood for in his campaign, the dreadful 112th Congress offers little. The House is in the hands of reactionaries more intent on undoing the current Presidency and perhaps a century of social advance and even such personal freedom as reproductive rights.

President Obama is a student of history, and if he can't be a Lincoln he can at least be a Truman... but Truman is generally understood to be one of the strongest Presidents that we ever had.

Nice insights and summary.

To put it in graphical form -

When it comes to domestic policies, particularly in regard to economic, these proportions hold true -



- with the Prez being the somewhat diminutive force to the larger Congress.

While I can understand the frustrations with Obama from my friends from the Left, most often at the root is their basic lack of full appreciation of these proportional differences in the setting of domestic policies. What's really funny, however, is when they claim the inevitable outcome is because there is no difference between the forces.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Perhaps this is more relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWxlZ52O0rI&t=4m0s

Note the announcers - "He's crazy to attack!"

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We'll see if your prediction holds up. It might, but I think things probably will get worse by about 2020 or so.

Oh, don't misunderstand me. 2016 and 2020 could well both be election fraught with peril.
However, after 2020 the changes in demographics of America, especially the rise in voting age non whites, should render the current balance of power that has made the culture wars so effective obsolete.