|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 11, 2018 12:54:52 GMT -5
I'm in between on the Trump stuff.
On the one hand, I'm with Peter. He came in to disrupt, and disrupt he will do. That isn't automatically a bad thing. Actually, I'd call it good. It's useful to shake things up a bit from time to time.
On the other hand, and contra to his critics' complaints, our systems and structures are far too robust (or you might say resilient, or obstinate, or ossified) for one man, even one President, to really matter all that much. Yes, Trump is moving things in a different direction than Hillary would have, but no matter who is President, all you can do is try to steer the aircraft carrier with an oar off the stern of the boat.
As for Trump's crudeness, vulgarity, etc, please. Seen a movie lately? Seen a TV show? "Our leadership is who we are. And we're not going to change any time soon."
Meanwhile, both parties steadfastly refuse to touch the only issue I really care about: Our ruinous fiscal trajectory that will eventually be our undoing. I don't blame them. The public doesn't care. "Our leadership is who we are. And we're not going to change any time soon."
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 11, 2018 13:50:35 GMT -5
I'm in between on the Trump stuff. On the one hand, I'm with Peter. He came in to disrupt, and disrupt he will do. That isn't automatically a bad thing. Actually, I'd call it good. It's useful to shake things up a bit from time to time. On the other hand, and contra to his critics' complaints, our systems and structures are far too robust (or you might say resilient, or obstinate, or ossified) for one man, even one President, to really matter all that much. Yes, Trump is moving things in a different direction than Hillary would have, but no matter who is President, all you can do is try to steer the aircraft carrier with an oar off the stern of the boat. As for Trump's crudeness, vulgarity, etc, please. Seen a movie lately? Seen a TV show? "Our leadership is who we are. And we're not going to change any time soon." Meanwhile, both parties steadfastly refuse to touch the only issue I really care about: Our ruinous fiscal trajectory that will eventually be our undoing. I don't blame them. The public doesn't care. "Our leadership is who we are. And we're not going to change any time soon." I'd agree, but seeing as money matters are Congressional responsibilities, I don't see anything happening until it happens there. They've become as useless as tits on a bull. So I'm focused only on what Trump has the power to do. And all the stuff I mentioned is his to correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 11, 2018 13:59:05 GMT -5
On the other hand, and contra to his critics' complaints, our systems and structures are far too robust (or you might say resilient, or obstinate, or ossified) for one man, even one President, to really matter all that much. Yes, Trump is moving things in a different direction than Hillary would have, but no matter who is President, all you can do is try to steer the aircraft carrier with an oar off the stern of the boat. Pack the Supreme Court with reactionaries or ideologues and you have something more robust than an oar. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 11, 2018 16:30:52 GMT -5
On the other hand, and contra to his critics' complaints, our systems and structures are far too robust (or you might say resilient, or obstinate, or ossified) for one man, even one President, to really matter all that much. Yes, Trump is moving things in a different direction than Hillary would have, but no matter who is President, all you can do is try to steer the aircraft carrier with an oar off the stern of the boat. Pack the Supreme Court with reactionaries or ideologues and you have something more robust than an oar. This meme just crossed my path. Perhaps it will cheer you up in the face of Kavanaugh's pending confirmation.  |
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Jul 11, 2018 16:38:01 GMT -5
I'm in between on the Trump stuff. On the one hand, I'm with Peter. He came in to disrupt, and disrupt he will do. That isn't automatically a bad thing. Actually, I'd call it good. It's useful to shake things up a bit from time to time. On the other hand, and contra to his critics' complaints, our systems and structures are far too robust (or you might say resilient, or obstinate, or ossified) for one man, even one President, to really matter all that much. Yes, Trump is moving things in a different direction than Hillary would have, but no matter who is President, all you can do is try to steer the aircraft carrier with an oar off the stern of the boat. As for Trump's crudeness, vulgarity, etc, please. Seen a movie lately? Seen a TV show? "Our leadership is who we are. And we're not going to change any time soon." Meanwhile, both parties steadfastly refuse to touch the only issue I really care about: Our ruinous fiscal trajectory that will eventually be our undoing. I don't blame them. The public doesn't care. "Our leadership is who we are. And we're not going to change any time soon." I'd agree, but seeing as money matters are Congressional responsibilities, I don't see anything happening until it happens there. They've become as useless as tits on a bull. So I'm focused only on what Trump has the power to do. And all the stuff I mentioned is his to correct. Trump was 100% behind the tax cuts and the budget, so money may ultimately be congressional, but he doesn’t get a pass. This is what confuses me most. The party that sold itself on fiscal responsibility, family values and rule of law has turned their back on all three and not lost a voter. They’re no longer conservative by any functional definition. They’re just the right. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 11, 2018 16:45:30 GMT -5
I'd agree, but seeing as money matters are Congressional responsibilities, I don't see anything happening until it happens there. They've become as useless as tits on a bull. So I'm focused only on what Trump has the power to do. And all the stuff I mentioned is his to correct. Trump was 100% behind the tax cuts and the budget, so money may ultimately be congressional, but he doesn’t get a pass. This is what confuses me most. The party that sold itself on fiscal responsibility, family values and rule of law has turned their back on all three and not lost a voter. They’re no longer conservative by any functional definition. They’re just the right. No surprise, there. They are political. They lost that political battle. Spend enough decades getting pilloried over an issue (eg, proposing a 2% increase instead of a 5% increase in a program gets you accused of tossing old women in wheelchairs off a cliff) will have an effect. The left won that one. Good job. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 11, 2018 19:57:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 11, 2018 20:29:26 GMT -5
"Secret"?
That's tinfoil hat stuff. The Federalist Society has been operating openly and in plain sight since the early 1980's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 11, 2018 20:53:25 GMT -5
"Secret"? That's tinfoil hat stuff. The Federalist Society has been operating openly and in plain sight since the early 1980's. Yes, and they've been openly and in plain sight pursuing a reactionary political/judicial program for that whole time. The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have very specific agendas and are backed by wads of dark money. It's not a conspiracy, it's a barefaced political army. Leo's memberships and affiliations beyond the Federalist Society are as clear a signal of his political philosophy as one could want. This isn't conspiracy theory, it's observation of networking. The nation doesn't need a paleoCatholic flavor of theocrat allied with plutocrats. |
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Jul 11, 2018 20:54:58 GMT -5
Trump was 100% behind the tax cuts and the budget, so money may ultimately be congressional, but he doesn’t get a pass. This is what confuses me most. The party that sold itself on fiscal responsibility, family values and rule of law has turned their back on all three and not lost a voter. They’re no longer conservative by any functional definition. They’re just the right. No surprise, there. They are political. They lost that political battle. Spend enough decades getting pilloried over an issue (eg, proposing a 2% increase instead of a 5% increase in a program gets you accused of tossing old women in wheelchairs off a cliff) will have an effect. The left won that one. Good job. Bull shit. They didn’t add a trillion to the budget helping old women. And the truth is they’ve never been fiscally responsible. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 11, 2018 21:54:52 GMT -5
Jay Michaelson has a twitter account.
He has been addressing criticism of his article. Some of which he is annoyed at for accusing him of anti-Catholicism and publishing conspiracy theories. It is six parts if you click on it
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 12, 2018 7:24:34 GMT -5
Again, revenues are up. The old idea that tax cuts are fiscally irresponsible has been put to the test anyway (in spite of the left who is suddenly wishing for "fiscal responsiblity" which always and only means "tax more" and never means "spend less"), and revenues are up. Record levels, even.
Revenues are up. That means after the tax cut, revenues still increased. It might just be that the left's notion of economies based on limited resources has been challenged, and the right's notion of economies based on productivity, growth, and opportunity might be winning the day.
Why do Charlie Hoffman's guitars sell for considerably less than Jim Olson's?
Revenues are up, not down. The tax cut didn't "cost us". Revenues have increased.
|
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Jul 12, 2018 7:59:33 GMT -5
Revenues are up. Stock prices are up. No surprise when they inspired nearly a trillion dollars in buy backs. But buy backs don’t invent or produce anything. They don’t create jobs, preserve jobs, repatriate factories or funds. They move money from point A to point B, skimming a whole lot off into already overflowing pockets in the process. They increase executive bonuses and, for awhile, shareholder value. And revenues are up. Good for me, because my retirement account needs the boost to balance out the hits it keeps taking from Trump’s mouth. But without invention, production, expansion, it won’t last, and it sure as hell won’t “trickle down.” We gave corporations a very low tax rate, telling ourselves they would give workers bonuses and raises, bring factories and cash back home. Overwhelmingly, they bought their own stock instead, did a financial song and dance that won’t, can’t last, that will require the next Congressional top-down stimulus that never makes it down.
I don’t call that fiscally responsible. I call it the latest chapter in a systematic transfer of wealth, and an attack on American life.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 12, 2018 8:09:01 GMT -5
More Americans are currently employed than ever before.
|
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Jul 12, 2018 8:22:49 GMT -5
More Americans are currently employed than ever before. Yes. At stagnant wages in the middle, shrinking wages at the bottom, and seemingly endlessly expanding wealth at the top. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 12, 2018 8:34:17 GMT -5
...as over against stagnant wages in the middle for the past 12 years, no wages at the bottom, and still expanding wealth at the top, but evening off after the Keynsian economists in charge gave them everything we had for 8 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 12, 2018 9:03:17 GMT -5
Interesting.
Very.
|
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Jul 12, 2018 11:50:52 GMT -5
...as over against stagnant wages in the middle for the past 12 years, no wages at the bottom, and still expanding wealth at the top, but evening off after the Keynsian economists in charge gave them everything we had for 8 years. Huh? |
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 12, 2018 11:52:45 GMT -5
I unearthed Nancy's Master's thesis. It's a pretty thoroughgoing critique of Keynsian economics...back before there were no dissenting voices being heard.
Interesting.
The Nancy I knew couldn't have cared less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 12, 2018 12:13:49 GMT -5
Why do Charlie Hoffman's guitars sell for considerably less than Jim Olson's? Celebrity association? |
|
