2019 American Political Scene

[montgomery]

Jimmy Carter is a highly intelligent, thoughtful, caring Christian man, and the best former president the US has ever had.
The Trumpet is the opposite of all of that, and the sooner he is a former president the better.

A theory for you as the Dem supporter on the board.

The Dems' media are frantically promoting all the candidates except Bernie, but Bernie is one of the frontrunners. This is the Dem establishment's demonstrating that they are much too establishment to accept the social change Bernie is trying to bring about.

Unless the party can come together, that's a fatal split of the supposed American left. We know that both Bernie and Trump promoted the same sort of social change that would help the middleclass and the poor, but of course Trump is a corporate psychopath who lied. And the Dem establishment destroyed Bernie in favour of Clinton.

The question now is, how alive is the movement that became Trump's base and are still fooled into thinking Trump is going to bring back good times? And how alive is the support that hated Hillary and supported Bernie. If those people still have hope then the Dem establishment is their hope, and that's the reason the party is fatally flawed. The best hope is in the peasants who support Trump, coming to their senses.

And in the meantime the attempts by the Dem party to destroy Bernie's chances, provides entertainment at least. Social reform is threatening the US status quo and the American way. People are starting to hear about real health care and how capitalism is working in the world's happiest countries.

[Double Edge]

China is said to have placed 120 soldiers in Venezuela, along with tons of humanitarian and military aid. China denies it. The story can be found at RT.com

Yeah sputnik said China did the same in Pakistan. When you look to corroborate it there is nothing. Where are these Chinese soldiers in Pakistan

There is one thing in common.

Veneuzela is $65bn in hock to China and the Paks a third of that amount.

[montgomery]

Yeah sputnik said China did the same in Pakistan. When you look to corroborate it there is nothing. Where are these Chinese soldiers in Pakistan

Shouldn't your position be that China is lying about not putting the 120 soldiers in Venezuela? You have yourself agreeing with China now!

There is one thing in common.

Veneuzela is $65bn in hock to China and the Paks a third of that amount.

Yes! Maybe we agree on a lot more too?

You must be aware that today is the anniversary of the British massacre in India.

[Double Edge]

Shouldn't your position be that China is lying about not putting the 120 soldiers in Venezuela? You have yourself agreeing with China now!

Can't have a position unless this news has been verified

You must be aware that today is the anniversary of the British massacre in India.

We should surpass them some time this year in terms of GDP. The last time that was true was two hundred years ago.

[tbm3fan]

[QUOTE=montgomery;1049841
You must be aware that today is the anniversary of the British massacre in India.[/QUOTE]

Relevant because???

[montgomery]

Relevant because???

Irrelevant in your opinion? Thanks for your opinion!

[tbm3fan]

Irrelevant in your opinion? Thanks for your opinion!

Well, lets see.

Double Edge was his comment relevant to you in a thread about the 2019 American Political Scene? I see zero connection other than throwing it out there.

Only interested in what DE thinks and not your thoughts.

[DOR]

A theory for you as the Dem supporter on the board.

The Dems' media are frantically promoting all the candidates except Bernie, but Bernie is one of the frontrunners. This is the Dem establishment's demonstrating that they are much too establishment to accept the social change Bernie is trying to bring about.

Unless the party can come together, that's a fatal split of the supposed American left. We know that both Bernie and Trump promoted the same sort of social change that would help the middleclass and the poor, but of course Trump is a corporate psychopath who lied. And the Dem establishment destroyed Bernie in favour of Clinton.

The question now is, how alive is the movement that became Trump's base and are still fooled into thinking Trump is going to bring back good times? And how alive is the support that hated Hillary and supported Bernie. If those people still have hope then the Dem establishment is their hope, and that's the reason the party is fatally flawed. The best hope is in the peasants who support Trump, coming to their senses.

And in the meantime the attempts by the Dem party to destroy Bernie's chances, provides entertainment at least. Social reform is threatening the US status quo and the American way. People are starting to hear about real health care and how capitalism is working in the world's happiest countries.

As I said in some detail before, define your terms.
(1) What the hell is “The Dems’ media” ?

(2) What the hell is “the Dem establishment,” other than the DNC (which has no real role to play prior to the first primaries) Are they the same as the folks who decided to limit the voting power of super delegates?

Are they the same ones that engineered Barack Obama’s nomination over Hillary Clinton, or are these the ones that engineered Hillary Clinton’s nomination over Bernie Sanders? Seriously, they cannot be the same since all three are from different wings of the party (well, two: Sanders isn’t a Democratic except in presidential primaries).

If you really believe there is a "Dem establishment" that beats down any non-mainstream candidate, then why didn’t the Democratic Party fatally split in 2008? It certainly was the most wide-open nomination competition in living memory!

(3) What makes you think the Democratic Party represents the Left, rather than occupying the center?
Obamacare?
Defense of Social Security?
Support for a decent minimum wage?
Fiscal responsibility?

(4) Why in the world would anyone think The Trumpet supports anything at all that is supported by Bernie Sanders? Is there a single issue where the two have actually worked together? And, no, I’m not talking about campaign rhetoric: real stuff, with citations, if you please.

As long as The Trumpet’s base thinks it is more likely that Clinton was involved in murder and a Pizza-based pedophile ring than it is that they were played for dupes by Putin, he will continue to have his 40% approval rating.

(5) “World’s happiest country” ? What does Finland have to do with any of this?

[montgomery]

As I said in some detail before, define your terms.
(1) What the hell is “The Dems’ media” ?

The opposite of Fox noise.

(2) What the hell is “the Dem establishment,” other than the DNC (which has no real role to play prior to the first primaries) Are they the same as the folks who decided to limit the voting power of super delegates?

The two major US parties are the establishment and represent the American way, which I call greedy capitalism. I compare it to successful capitalism in the world's happiest countries..

Are they the same ones that engineered Barack Obama’s nomination over Hillary Clinton, or are these the ones that engineered Hillary Clinton’s nomination over Bernie Sanders? Seriously, they cannot be the same since all three are from different wings of the party (well, two: Sanders isn’t a Democratic except in presidential primaries).

I wouldn't rule out any of your suggestions. But the relevant one in this conversation is the 'engineering' (your word) of eliminating Bernie and promoting Hillary. That came back to burn their asses. And now I'm suggesting that they're doing the same thing again against Bernie. It's not surprising at all because Bernie has the potential to break the establishment mold.

If you really believe there is a "Dem establishment" that beats down any non-mainstream candidate, then why didn’t the Democratic Party fatally split in 2008? It certainly was the most wide-open nomination competition in living memory!

In fact, I think that a lot of Dem supporters walked over to Trump because they were taken in by Trump's promises. And of course there was no way a lot of them would have ever voted for Hillary. Trump and Bernie were offering the same solutions to the ordinary people. Trump lied. Bernie was sincere.

(3) What makes you think the Democratic Party represents the Left, rather than occupying the center?
Obamacare?

In Canadian terms, there really isn't a 'left' in the US. So their left is more like Canada's Con party. Bernie would be the left.

Defense of Social Security?
Support for a decent minimum wage?
Fiscal responsibility?

Obviously all priorities of the 'left' But there's much more. And fiscal responsibility must be defined because it means different things to different people.

(4) Why in the world would anyone think The Trumpet supports anything at all that is supported by Bernie Sanders? Is there a single issue where the two have actually worked together? And, no, I’m not talking about campaign rhetoric: real stuff, with citations, if you please.

We're in agreement on that. I was pointing out that the similarity was only in Trump's rhetoric. And I've pointed that out more than once. Read what I wrote. Otherwise, you nailed it bang on when you suggested 'campaign rhetoric'!

As long as The Trumpet’s base thinks it is more likely that Clinton was involved in murder and a Pizza-based pedophile ring than it is that they were played for dupes by Putin, he will continue to have his 40% approval rating.

I would make the point in a different way but nonetheless, I agree!

(5) “World’s happiest country” ? What does Finland have to do with any of this?

I provided a link for the 10 happiest. They are all capitalist countries which practice 'socially' responsible capitalsm. The US refers to those governments as socialist or communist but that's where they're wrong. And that's where this conversation should start.

That's what Bernie Sanders was proposing and will again as long as he's not beaten down by the Dem establishment. And you'll find that's just exactly what I suggested.

[snapper]

How to tell a "stable genius" from a moron? The 'stable genius' says "oranges" instead of 'origins'.

[montgomery]

How to tell a "stable genius" from a moron? The 'stable genius' says "oranges" instead of 'origins'.

Trump's behaviour was psychoanalyzed that day by a professional shrink and her opinion was that Trump was under unusually high stress. It was claimed that Trump's unusual behaviour on his good days is amplified when he's in a stressful situation. This is normal for most people and is something to always watch for in politicians, and especially the lying ones.

My guess is that that is true and the stress was brought on by Trump's realization that he's not going to get away with the report he arranged with Barr, his lackey.

Great entertainment!

[DOR]

montgomery,

The Dems Media is the opposite of Fox noise … OK, Fox lies, so the Dems Media must be the truth.
That doesn’t sound to me like “frantically promoting all the candidates except Bernie,” and it does sound to me a whole lot like “if the GOPers do it, the Democrats must do it to.”
Nope.

The two major parties are the establishment.
So, no difference between them?
Nope.

If you ever have a chance to attend a Democratic Party function (and, I’ve been to many), what you’ll find is a multitude of different views, cultures, voices, and candidate preferences. While there are some influential people in senior positions who prefer this candidate over that one, the party unites behind whoever gets the nomination. You won’t find an “Anybody but …” wing. Except, maybe in the case of Socialist Sanders. He isn’t really a die-hard Democrat, as he says himself.

Show me some tiny shred of evidence that your comment about Democrats supporting Trump. I’m getting a bit tired of the citation-free commentary.

“Trump and Bernie were offering the same solutions to the ordinary people.”
Was that, “Repeal Obamacare,” or “Lock her up” ?

The US isn’t Canada. Don’t define American politics by Canadian positioning.

Fiscal responsibility.
“It's official: New York Times columnist David Leonhardt pronounced the Democrats as the party of fiscal responsibility. In contrast to three of the last four Republican presidents who raised deficits with big tax cuts for the rich and increases in military spending, the last Democratic presidents sharply reduced the budget deficit during their term in office.”
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-...responsibility

“Trump continues Republican hypocrisy on fiscal responsibility. Fueled by Donald Trump’s corporate tax cuts and large spending increases, the government announced that the federal budget deficit ballooned a whopping 17 percent to $779 billion in 2018.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...responsibility

“President Obama tasked the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform with recommending ways to bring the federal budget back into balance and to improve its long-run viability. The commission created a six-part plan outlining comprehensive tax reform, Social Security reform, cuts in discretionary spending, health care cost containment, mandatory personal savings, and changes to the budget process.”
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brie...-december-2010

http://www.levyinstitute.org/publica...y-does-it-mean
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1...esponsibility/
http://www.aei.org/publication/what-...sibility-mean/
http://www.crfb.org/papers/twelve-pr...responsibility

And now, The Trumpet wants to appoint Herman Cain to the Fed …

HERMAN CAIN ?!?!?

[DOR]

What Herman Cain belives

“More people are losing their insurance (due to Obamacare) than are becoming newly insured.” Nov 4, 2014.

America's Uninsured
2010 _ _ 46.5 mn (17.8%)
2011 _ _ 45.7 mn (17.4%)
2012 _ _ 44.8 mn (17.0%)
2013 _ _ 44.4 mn (16.8%)
2014 _ _ 35.9 mn (13.5%)
2015 _ _ 29.1 mn (10.9%)
2016 _ _ 26.7 mn (10.0%)
2017 _ _ 27.4 mn (10.2%)
(latest data available)

“Over the last 40 years, real wage growth has been flatlined because of the policies of the Federal Reserve.” Aug 26, 2014.
Median real wages for workers 16 and older rose 6.3% in 1979-2018. That’s “real,” as in “after inflation.”
Unless you are a woman. In that case, the increase was 25.1%. That’s up from 62 cents on the dollar to 81 cents.

“The founder of Planned Parenthood wanted to prevent black babies from being born.” At least, that’s what Angela Davis said and Herman Cain believed it. Nov 1, 2011.

75% of all PP clinics are in black communities. The first one, opened in 1929 in Harlem at the request of the black-led Urban League, had an entirely black advisory board of doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. WEB DuBois and Martin Luther King, Jr, approved of Planned Parenthood and its very early thorough integration.

“Number one, we know that terrorists have come into this country by way of Mexico.” Nov 11, 2011. Even if DJTrump believes it, that doesn’t make it so.
“The complexity (of the US tax code) costs us $430 billion a year.” That’s an awfully accurate number for “complexity,” and it isn’t supported by any real evidence. A study by the Government Accounting Office said in 2005 that compliance – not complexity – costs $100-200 billion a year, but it couldn’t get any more exact than that.

[montgomery]

montgomery,

The Dems Media is the opposite of Fox noise … OK, Fox lies, so the Dems Media must be the truth.
That doesn’t sound to me like “frantically promoting all the candidates except Bernie,” and it does sound to me a whole lot like “if the GOPers do it, the Democrats must do it to.”
Nope.

The two major parties are the establishment.
So, no difference between them?
Nope.

If you ever have a chance to attend a Democratic Party function (and, I’ve been to many), what you’ll find is a multitude of different views, cultures, voices, and candidate preferences. While there are some influential people in senior positions who prefer this candidate over that one, the party unites behind whoever gets the nomination. You won’t find an “Anybody but …” wing. Except, maybe in the case of Socialist Sanders. He isn’t really a die-hard Democrat, as he says himself.

Yeah, all that to say the same as I was saying. Except that you're not right about Bernie being a socialst. He's only a socialist in American minds and would fit in nicely with Canada's Liberal party. You don't seem to be able to understand what socialist or socialism even means.

Show me some tiny shred of evidence that your comment about Democrats supporting Trump. I’m getting a bit tired of the citation-free commentary.

Read what I say more carefully. I didn't say that Democrats supported Trump, I said that Trump stole a lot of voters who were never going to vote for Clinton. And then I gave an explanation of why that was. Would you like to hear it all explained again or would you prefer to just read carefully what I said. Or stamp your feet and hold your breathe if you'd rather.

“Trump and Bernie were offering the same solutions to the ordinary people.”
Was that, “Repeal Obamacare,” or “Lock her up” ?

Trump promised social change to the people and a bunch of them bought into it. If you can show any sincerity in learning then I'll be happy to continue with you. Those comments are just stamping your foot and holding your breathe. Trump did promise better health care but he lied because he doesn't have a clue on what that would be.

The US isn’t Canada. Don’t define American politics by Canadian positioning.

I've spoken of the differences only because it interests me, and apparently you too. It's about socially responsible capitalism vs. greedy capitalism which serves only the wealthy.

Fiscal responsibility.
“It's official: New York Times columnist David Leonhardt pronounced the Democrats as the party of fiscal responsibility. In contrast to three of the last four Republican presidents who raised deficits with big tax cuts for the rich and increases in military spending, the last Democratic presidents sharply reduced the budget deficit during their term in office.”
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-...responsibility

I see more possibility of social change with the Dem party but it's inadequate change and it's not enough. My whole theory is that the last election was a move against the estabishment. Two ways: The rejection of Hillary and the acceptance of Trump. I think there may be a glimmer of hope in Julian Castro but it's likely not going to be enough to grab the hearts and minds of those who have had it with their lousy lot in life. Which brings us right back full circle to Bernie being the only real hope. And the Dem establishment are running shit scared of him and consequently trying to destroy his chances. But then you will know that yourself.

“Trump continues Republican hypocrisy on fiscal responsibility. Fueled by Donald Trump’s corporate tax cuts and large spending increases, the government announced that the federal budget deficit ballooned a whopping 17 percent to $779 billion in 2018.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...responsibility

Absolutely! But the Repub priorities on fiscal responsibility has been abandoned, yet Trump is still a threat.

“President Obama tasked the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform with recommending ways to bring the federal budget back into balance and to improve its long-run viability. The commission created a six-part plan outlining comprehensive tax reform, Social Security reform, cuts in discretionary spending, health care cost containment, mandatory personal savings, and changes to the budget process.”
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brie...-december-2010

Now yer talkin! Obama tried to bring about huge social change and I don't have to tell you how the Repubs were able to destroy all his efforts. (except his successful gambit on Syria, as I've mentioned.)

http://www.levyinstitute.org/publica...y-does-it-mean
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1...esponsibility/
http://www.aei.org/publication/what-...sibility-mean/
http://www.crfb.org/papers/twelve-pr...responsibility

And now, The Trumpet wants to appoint Herman Cain to the Fed …

HERMAN CAIN ?!?!?

[/quote]

Exactly! and your ?!?! show me that you're in agreement with my suggestions of your politics being completely fu--ed up.

[montgomery]

Your Levy Economics link contains this paragraph. It's a well written paragraph that explains fiscal responsibility as well as any I've seen. And do there's no need to get into your other links or even the following explanations contained in that link. So let's have a quick look at what it says:

Fiscal Responsibility: What Exactly Does It Mean?
The use of government fiscal stimulus to support the economy in the recent economic crisis has brought increases in government deficits and increased government debt. This has produced an interest in sustainable government debt and the role of deficits in the economy. This paper argues in favor of a concept of "responsible" government policy, referring to positions held by Franklin and Marshall Professor Will Lyons. The idea is that government should be responsible to the needs and desires of its citizens, but that this should go beyond physical security and education, to economic security. Building on the fallacy of composition and misplaced concreteness, it suggests that in an integrated macro system an increased desire to save on the part of the private sector will be self-defeating unless the government acts in a responsible manner to support those desires. This can only be done by government dissaving via an expenditure deficit. The outstanding government debt simply represents the desires of the public to hold safe financial assets, and can only be unsustainable if the public’s desires change. The government should always be responsive to these desires, and adjust its expenditure policy.

And so when I talk of 'socially responsible government', I've just edited that paragraph down to three words.

Here's the sentence with the most meat in it:

The idea is that government should be responsible to the needs and desires of its citizens, but that this should go beyond physical security and education, to economic security.

Yet it still opens up a can of worms for us. That can of worms is in the differing meanings of what entails 'economic security', and the degree of taxatin which is appropriate to satisfy our respective needs and wants. And in saying that, I'm also suggesting that it's then mostly about how the tax burden is applied.

This is all very basic economics but my explanation of my understanding seems to be necessary because you continue to think we are at odds with the basics. That which we are at odds on is my suggestions that the Dem establishment hasn't solved the problems that are causing the near resorting to revolution by the poor and even the middle class. And of course, my suggestion that only somebody like Bernie is going to make that change.

In order to bring about real fiscal responsibility, your country must come to grips with social responsibility. The two are the same thing. And that's not socialism.

As an aside for discussion: The Moore/Laffer book is titled Trumponomics. It is those two supply side clowns describing Trump's supplyside leaning and I suspect they are totally right. And of course, as we now agree, SS eoconimics is total bullshit. But you can't write it off as ancient history when it's so obviously Trump's agenda.

I'm guessing that you understand what the Supplyside theory and the Laffer curve is all about? If you don't then you better learn soon. My challenge to you of point B on the Laffer curve being 80%, was an attempt by me to find out if you were informed enough to answer. So far you haven't tried.

And fwiw, I can't imagine any professed economist not knowing!