is everyone just shellshocked?

Ozoneranger wrote:

Okay, Mack- I’m just not going there with the dictatorship talk. I’ve heard it all before on FB and completely dismiss such talk. About as likely as the Calexit movement.

Why? Because Trump really stands alone. He’s not the leader of any kind of movement that would overwhelm our democracy, like Hitler had in Wiemar Germany. On the contrary, the GOP- most of whom despise him- is just watching and waiting. To get what they want, then pounce when he really does something really egregious. So they ditch him, get Pence (not my favorite but has the experience to lead a government) and they look like the Good Guys.

I think that scenario is far more plausible. And I’m not the only one that’s arrived at this.

Ozone,

Hope all is well, and I second the congrats.

I can see people saying it’s hysterical to think Trump might impose a dictatorship. I’m leaning toward him not being able to go that far. But he’s already done — or tried to do — enough to alarm anyone paying attention, and I don’t think we can dismiss the idea outright . . . for several reasons:

1. He doesn’t really have to become a dictator, per se, in order to cause a great deal of destruction and harm, and he seems to have a willing partner in the GOP.
2. No one believed, at the time, that Hitler could attain such power, which is why German conservatives willingly gave it to him. They were certain they could control him.
3. Weimar Germany, unlike America, actually had a fairly strong Left to combat fringe fascist groups, as long as establishment conservatives didn’t normalize and mainstream the fringe. They did, of course, and the rest is history.
4. America, in 2017, has roughly a century of uninterrupted marginalization of its left, with no major left-wing party, and next to no AntiFa structure because of this marginalization.
5. European Fascism, in the 1920s and 1930s, had very shallow roots, exploding virtually out of nowhere, though many scholars of fascism do believe its roots were in America, especially with our KKK.
6. America fascism, in 2017, has very deep roots, going back into the 19th century. It doesn’t have to spring out of virtually nowhere, and its proven adept at using social media to spread its poison and increase its numbers. It now has several standard bearers inside the White House (normalizing, mainstreaming it), including Steve Bannon, Steve Miller and Sebastian Gorka, and outside it people like Alex Jones. If Trump is not himself a fascist, he definitely sings their tunes, and he definitely used classic fascist and nazi tropes to win this election.

Billy_T wrote:

Ozoneranger wrote:

Thanks. I look forward to the 2nd walk down the aisle.

Zooey, I just don’t see a one party state, like, say, Mexico’s old PRI. Our system has truly become a pendulum. I think both major parties recognize this. One party gets all the power (GOP in 2000, Dems in 08 and back again to the GOP in 2016) and muck things up so badly they get trounced in the mid-terms (06, 10). If Trump and the GOP screws the pooch on Obamacare, 18 will be a bloodbath and Trump will be truly alone. Back to governing by executive orders, which can be overturned by the next POTUS.

Wouldn’t that be a hoot…Obamacare, the mother of the Tea Party, becomes the chopping block on which the Elephant lays his head. That’s why just 60 days into the new Congress, the GOP is treading very lightly. The mids are less than two years away. Meanwhile, the Dems are doing everything they can to throw rocks into the Trump wheel.

It’s chaos, but I like it.

You probably don’t agree with me on this, but I see that pendulum moving from the center-right to the much further right, and it seems the Overton Window keeps moving more and more to the right of center with each new decade. Part of this is by design, IMO. As the Dems have now become the true “conservative” party, while the GOP is now the “radical” right party.

The Dems, when they gain power (basically) seem quite averse to taking the ball and running with it in the opposite direction. Instead, they sit on it and say “This is the new normal, and we won’t budge from here.” The GOP regains power and they run with it further to the right, aggressively. Then we get rinse and repeat when the Dems get their shot again. Basically, they accept most of what the GOP has done as the new normal, the new default, and then do their best to try to keep that in place . . .

It’s as if they’ve broken the laws of physics. There is no “equal and opposite reaction” when the Dems regain power. It’s more like a holding action, which is pretty stupid politically, and, in my view, deeply immoral.

Most people want “bold.” The Dems give them the fetal position. The GOP gives them boldly insane.

That’s no way to run a railroad.

Funny. Five years ago we would have been flame throwing. Yes, we’re getting old…Hahaha!

I but I digress. You’re right, I don’t agree with your assertions. I think the Dems have gone far left and the GOP doesn’t know where to go. I mean, how do you explain the ascendancy of Bernie Sanders? A socialist giving a democratic corporatist a run for her money?

I like the way things are, Billy. The electorate rules and the independents pretty much call the shots in every election now. I’m seriously considering going that route. To be free from ideological chains. That sounds really good to me.

Thanks for the props, dude.

J

Billy_T wrote:

Thing about Bernie? He lost. If the Dems really had moved to the left (as you say), he would have won, easily. But the Democratic Party made sure he didn’t, and the Media helped them to boot.

I’m also guessing you and I will disagree about this, but maybe not. Sanders didn’t even run that far to the left in his campaign — not by historical standards. I think he channeled FDR and his New Deal and updated it for 2017. Nothing to the left of that. As in, roughly “social democrat,” not “socialist,” which means replacing capitalism. Bernie never give a whiff of a hint of a remote suggestion of a future possibility of that.

(And I wish SOMEONE would!! :>)

FDR, in his day, split the difference between actual socialists, plus small “c” communists and the establishment, which was center-right. His New Deal was a “compromise,” though it’s likely that today’s right-wingers see him as “far left.” He was solidly center-left in his own time. He had to look waaaay to his left to find the “far left,” etc.

And Sanders couldn’t even win over the Democratic Party faithful with a return to FDR.

From where I sit, the Dems have moved steadily rightward for close to fifty years. The only area where they’ve moved to the left is on “social inclusion” issues. What some might call “identity politics.” That’s it. Everything else — war, the economy, empire, capitalism, the surveillance state, etc. etc. — it’s been steadily rightward.

FDR never wanted to replace capitalism. He wanted social justice. Then ironically, he locked up Japanese Americans.

Bernie was\is clueless. I think even to leftists like you. His sole argument was “free stuff,” essentially. Tuition, medical care, school lunches…even cars, maybe? To a kid facing $100k in student loans, I can see his allure. It cost me over $200k to put my daughters through school (tuition, housing, books, etc- they got jobs to pay for food and entertainment) …one public, one private. But that front end cost would have been on the back end in the form of crushing taxes for my household.

Let me ask the board…what if they capped student loans at $25K?

Edit- What the hell is a “small c communist”?

• This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by Ozoneranger.

Ozoneranger wrote:

Bernie was\is clueless. I think even to leftists like you. His sole argument was “free stuff,” essentially. Tuition, medical care, school lunches…even cars, maybe? To a kid facing $100k in student loans, I can see his allure. It cost me over $200k to put my daughters through school (tuition, housing, books, etc- they got jobs to pay for food and entertainment) …one public, one private. But that front end cost would have been on the back end in the form of crushing taxes for my household.

That’s the standard right wing talking point on Bernie–and hey–it worked. Of course it isn’t really true but it plays well on the right and to scare some moderates, I suppose. Bernie always offered to show how he would pay for things like “free tuition”. That would have been largely covered, if I remember correctly by a small tax on trades. Now you can argue with his numbers–but his proposal would raise 300 billion dollars and pay for the cost estimated at 75 billion. Again–these were proposals and and details would have to be worked out but at least he HAD some plans unlike Trump who seemed to make broad nebulous proclamations. No one cares what his wealthy tax cuts will actually cost the middle class. Or his border wall. Or for that matter what it costs to keep him secure in three separate residences. Trump gets free stuff because we KNOW he doesn’t pay taxes. But that’s okay somehow.

Bernie wants to use the wealth in this country which mostly sits at the top–to help everyone and not just a few. If that’s clueless–sign me up. It isn’t about taking from the rich–it’s about being fair. This country used to stand for “rising waters lifting all boats. It’s how we built a middle class–which will never happen on its own.

But it comes down to the type of country we want. We do not have to have a middle class. It’s a choice.

Of course some will argue that the way to achieve that is through “trickle down” economics which has never worked. Look at the Republican utopia that is Kansas right now. All those rich tax breaks did not help them. Now Republicans want to raise taxes there.

So, Bernie–clueless? I don’t think so. While he may not have achieved everything he wanted–or been able to do it the way he wanted exactly–he would always keep the people first and would walk away from an idea before it forced people into a lower standard of living.

So anyway–we disagree about Bernie.

I found this link of his proposals and how he would pay for them. It wasn’t with magic fairy dust. Or it wasn’t getting Mexico to pay for our school tuition.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

Ozone,

PA already answered it, but I can add this. And this truly isn’t personal. For example, John Lewis tried to use the “free stuff” criticism against Bernie too, which initially shocked me. So, it’s not about you. I’m directing this at politicians and public figures, etc.

Anyway, the “free stuff” argument in general is silly and juvenile. What it really means is “We don’t want the government to spend money on this, but we DO want it to spend money on that. And we’re going to label any spending we don’t like ‘free stuff,’ and we won’t call the stuff we do like that.”

One could just as easily call our trillion dollar military budget “free stuff.” Or the hundreds of billions spent on corporate welfare, etc. etc. The “free stuff” argument can be used in myriad ways, which means it shouldn’t be used at all.

We collect taxes and we spend those taxes on goods and services we decide we want or need. That’s where our focus should be, not on silly frames about what is or isn’t “free stuff.”

So, Bernie wants tuition-free public colleges, and he pays for this. Estimates actually show the costs at even less than his estimates, so it’s easily doable. It’s roughly 60 billion a year. If we can spend a trillion on the military, we can spend 60 billion to extend our “free” K-12 education system. IMO, this should include all training and lifetime learning at public schools, universities, training centers, etc. etc. . . . cradle to grave. The bang for the buck on lifetime education is incalculable, so why wouldn’t we want to do this and provide access to every single American?

(More on your next question later . . .)

The other meaning of small “c” communism . . . comes from writers like David Graeber. I agree with him and others when they say we humans are natural small “c” communists. This particular meaning isn’t “political.” It’s social. As in, we naturally, even under the thumb of capitalism, share within families, neighborhoods, even on the job, while seeking no remuneration. We share our food, our homes, our time, our knowledge and skills, cooperatively, and we’re hard-wired to do this for a complex of reasons . . . . one of the most obvious being it really makes us feel good.

The vast majority of us are not set up to be Caesars or Napoleons. Instead, we want to get along, be merry, eat, drink, make love not war. We want to share our lives with others and live in peace to the degree possible. For the vast majority, if there’s no issue of “scarcity,” we just don’t feel the need to confront others “competitively,” or violently, etc. Unless we’re confronted — or ordered to, etc.

IMO, modern society has long been crafted by the Caesars and Napoleons to their benefit, not ours, and it fits them, not us. It’s long past time we take it away from them and establish society in our own image, not in the image of the alphas and sociopaths — the few, not the many, etc.

This is all I needed to know about Bernie.

It makes no sense that students and their parents pay higher interest rates for college than they pay for car loans or housing mortgages.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) October 15, 2015

Clueless. Does he know the correlation between risk and lending in banking?

• This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by Ozoneranger.

Ozoneranger wrote:

This is all I needed to know about Bernie.

“It makes no sense that students and their parents pay higher interest rates for college than they pay for car loans or housing mortgages.”

— Sanders, post on Twitter, Oct. 15, 2015

Clueless. Does he know the correlation between risk and lending in banking?

Ozone,

Remember, those student loans are secured by the Federal government, so they hold less risk than car and home loans. But even if we set that aside, I’m sure Sanders knows the way the competitive laws of motion work in capitalist economics, and that risk is a major factor, as is the need for a tangible, recoverable asset. He knows this.

He was objecting to the immorality of this. He was talking in terms of social justice, not strict Econ101. As in, it shouldn’t be the case that something as vital for kids as a college education generates a higher loan percentage than a car or a home. Education shouldn’t be a commodity, or reified, etc.

Also, I know conservative media had a field day after his tweet, but no one should ever pay one second’s attention to right-wingers on economics to begin with. They actually believe slashing taxes for rich people “creates jobs” and brings in more revenue to the Treasury. Talk about economic illiteracy. And then to make it even worse, they call for slashing spending in the middle of a recession or depression.

If right-wingers were ever allowed to implement their full economic agenda, without restraints, the capitalist system would collapse and we’d have blood in the streets. Now, as mentioned, I definitely want capitalism to die, but I don’t want it to die that way, with all of that suffering. We need to peacefully vote it out of existence instead.

In short, Ozone, I think you’re misreading Bernie’s tweet.

Billy_T wrote:

Ozoneranger wrote:

This is all I needed to know about Bernie.

“It makes no sense that students and their parents pay higher interest rates for college than they pay for car loans or housing mortgages.”

— Sanders, post on Twitter, Oct. 15, 2015

Clueless. Does he know the correlation between risk and lending in banking?

Ozone,

Remember, those student loans are secured by the Federal government, so they hold less risk than car and home loans. But even if we set that aside, I’m sure Sanders knows the way the competitive laws of motion work in capitalist economics, and that risk is a major factor, as is the need for a tangible, recoverable asset. He knows this.

He was objecting to the immorality of this. He was talking in terms of social justice, not strict Econ101. As in, it shouldn’t be the case that something as vital for kids as a college education generates a higher loan percentage than a car or a home. Education shouldn’t be a commodity, or reified, etc.

Also, I know conservative media had a field day after his tweet, but no one should ever pay one second’s attention to right-wingers on economics to begin with. They actually believe slashing taxes for rich people “creates jobs” and brings in more revenue to the Treasury. Talk about economic illiteracy. And then to make it even worse, they call for slashing spending in the middle of a recession or depression.

If right-wingers were ever allowed to implement their full economic agenda, without restraints, the capitalist system would collapse and we’d have blood in the streets. Now, as mentioned, I definitely want capitalism to die, but I don’t want it to die that way, with all of that suffering. We need to peacefully vote it out of existence instead.

In short, Ozone, I think you’re misreading Bernie’s tweet.

No, Billy, I don’t think I am. I mean, the tweet was Trumpian. Haha!

It’s pretty basic in any economy…the higher the risk, the higher the interest rate. I mean, look at the payday loans (which should be abolished, IMO)…Houses and cars are collateral. So if you don’t pay it back, which is immoral under most circumstances, you lose the house or the car.

Another factor…parental income is always part of the equation. Up to age 24. That’s part of the FAFSA application process. I think you know that there are public and private student loans. And correct me if I’m wrong, but those secured by the Feds can’t be discharged through bankruptcy.

This may surprise you, but I’m all for increasing taxes on the rich (a million and up on income unless it’s a small-medium family biz. They can easily handle it. I’m also for slashing taxes on the middle class if not anything more than spending power. Singles too. I started filing single last year and I got hammered pretty good. I’m not a guy that needs or wants a lot, but still…I’d contribute more to the economy if my tax rate was a bit less…what is it, 40% of the country is single? The downside is I’d be addicted to Amazon Prime.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by Ozoneranger.

Ozoneranger wrote:

No, Billy, I don’t think I am. I mean, the tweet was Trumpian. Haha!

It’s pretty basic in any economy…the higher the risk, the higher the interest rate. I mean, look at the payday loans (which should be abolished, IMO)…Houses and cars are collateral. So if you don’t pay it back, which is immoral under most circumstances, you lose the house or the car.

Another factor…parental income is always part of the equation. Up to age 24. That’s part of the FAFSA application process. I think you know that there are public and private student loans. And correct me if I’m wrong, but those secured by the Feds can’t be discharged through bankruptcy.

This may surprise you, but I’m all for increasing taxes on the rich (a million and up on income unless it’s a small-medium family biz. They can easily handle it. I’m also for slashing taxes on the middle class if not anything more than spending power. Singles too. I started filing single last year and I got hammered pretty good. I’m not a guy that needs or wants a lot, but still…I’d contribute more to the economy if my tax rate was a bit less…what is it, 40% of the country is single? The downside is I’d be addicted to Amazon Prime.

Correct about the loans and bankruptcy. I paid off three different sets of them, in three separate decades. :>)

Worked with a kid (a few years ago) whose girlfriend was in major dire straits with her student loans, and she just couldn’t get out from under it, so I suggested bankruptcy. That’s when I found out the youngins can’t go that route, with their 1.3 trillion in student debt.

Yet another reason why Sanders’ proposal of tuition-free college is so important and essential now.

Also agree with you about cuts to middle class taxes and below, while raising it big time on the wealthy. I’d also like to end all business taxes and shift it to personal income. It’s an unfair burden on small businesses which can’t afford to hire tax cheats, I mean tax attorneys like the big corporations. So why not just end the charade and put it all on individual income taxes?

The key would be to increase the brackets. Have several above the current ceiling of 400K. Like 750K, 1 mil, 10 mil, 25 mil, 50 mil, 100 mil, 250 mil, 500 mil and 1 billion. Something like that. Progressively higher rates all the way up the ladder.

Top rate should be 99.8%. And if anyone replies that, “Well, they won’t try to make that kind of money if it’s all taxed.” And I’d respond, great. It’s actually terrible for the economy to have money so concentrated at the top anyway. No one spends less as a percentage of their income than the rich, which means, in essence, they take money out of the economy and kill “velocity.”

Flip side of that being, the most effective and efficient creators of velocity in capitalism are working class blokes. They spend everything here and now.

That’s where the money should be. From the bottom up into the middle, with very, very little at the upper end.

Flatten the pyramid to the extent possible and the economy will soar.