Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_T
ParticipantStating the obvious . . . if the Dems retake Congress later this year, the Trump plans may fall apart. But nothing is a given in this environment. It’s not even a given that the Dems will figure out how best to deal with all of this even if they do regain power.
I’m exhausted by this spectacle too.
Billy_T
ParticipantI think the evidence is overwhelming that Trump colluded with the Russians. In fact, the sheer overwhelming nature of the evidence may be helping Trump. His scandals, his endless lies, cover-ups, obstruction of justice, have hit the “unbelievable” point, and too many Americans have either tuned it all out, or just don’t believe it’s possible…
It’s like an en masse TL;DNR syndrome. Too long, did not read. Americans, already weakened by the Internet and smartphones, just don’t have the attention span anymore for this kind of onslaught . . . and I’m guilty of this too.
But that doesn’t matter.
Donald Trump, and his associates, are not being tried in the court of public opinion. They are going to be tried elsewhere, and whether Americans have combat fatigue or not is not relevant at this point. Everybody treats this like what matters are his poll numbers.
Public opinion will matter only if Mueller turns the entire enchilada over to congress where all those assholes will decide to impeach or not based on their own constituencies.
But when that happens…the entire thing will get a reboot. That is…all the charges will be laid out specifically, and everybody will pour over the actual charges. Right now, like you said, it’s overwhelming and hard to follow. But once it’s laid out, it will be classified by category (financial crimes, Russian interference, campaign coordination, transition contacts, and obstruction of justice), and the lists of names, dates, and crimes will all be laid out. It will be overwhelming because this thing is a fucking Gordian knot, and some shit is going to still be Classified since it will involve people/contacts still in “the field,” but my point is…the actual conclusion of the investigation is going to hit the reset button, and we will start brand new with everything laid out clearly.
So right now, it is overwhelming as we learn something new almost every day, and you’ve got Trump and his supporters out there running their fog machines full blast, and everyone claiming Mueller is just making crap up out of nothing…none of that will matter when he drops his set of encylopedias on the table.
I realize there’s a huge difference between the public “ruling” (or opinion-making) and the legal one. But Trump and company no doubt hope they can sway public opinion for at least two reasons:
1. If they actually allow Mueller to drop those encyclopedias, and I don’t think they will, Trump is trying to set up a bogus, entirely “political” case for ignoring the results entirely. If the GOP-controlled Congress fears that public view enough, they may well dismiss the findings too, or seek ways to suppress them. They suppressed a recent study on unsafe drinking water across the nation. Why wouldn’t they suppress Mueller?
2. The public crusade is there to give Trump and friends cover for killing the investigation, firing all those involved, and the GOP obviously won’t stop Trump from replacing these people with sycophants. He’s already done a ton of that.
In short . . . while I HOPE you’re right about this, I’m not sanguine about it at all at this point. Trump has gotten away with more than I thought humanly possible already. I fear he’ll get away with this too . . . one way or another.
Billy_T
ParticipantAnd here is a WaPo article that came out a couple of days ago giving more detail about the intelligence source Nunes tried to get information on from the Justice Dept.
I can’t read that without access. I suppose I could get access, but not today. As a favor, if anyone does have access to the Washington Post, could you copy that here? Thanks.
…
ZN,
Just clear your cache, cookies and history, and you can view articles there. It’s annoying, but you have to do this every two or three articles. Use Firefox to make this a little easier, and set it to clear all of that when you close the browser.
Also, ccleaner is a pretty good cleaner for your computer, and it has a free version.
https://www.ccleaner.com/ccleaner
I’d do both/and.
Billy_T
ParticipantAn attempt at not being TL; DNR:
I find it appalling that a sitting president may well get away with calling for a DOJ investigation INTO the investigation INTO his own criminal activities.
Anyone who enables this, directly or indirectly, is aiding and abetting a thug, a monster, and the monstrous ideology that surrounds him — which is far right. That some of this comes from “the left” makes it all the more sickening.
Goddess, but I want to leave this country a thousand times over. We’ve jumped the proverbial shark.
Billy_T
ParticipantThis is a provocative, and somewhat disturbing, read. A very good piece that argues that the US may already be effectively under Russian control.
link: https://lithub.com/rebecca-solnit-the-coup-has-already-happened/
Thanks, Zooey.
Good article.
I think the evidence is overwhelming that Trump colluded with the Russians. In fact, the sheer overwhelming nature of the evidence may be helping Trump. His scandals, his endless lies, cover-ups, obstruction of justice, have hit the “unbelievable” point, and too many Americans have either tuned it all out, or just don’t believe it’s possible. But in case after case, the reporting has been confirmed. It always turns out that, yes, Trump, his associates, or his family did in fact do X, Y or Z, though they denied it for as long as they could.
It’s like an en masse TL;DNR syndrome. Too long, did not read. Americans, already weakened by the Internet and smartphones, just don’t have the attention span anymore for this kind of onslaught . . . and I’m guilty of this too.
Another thing that pisses me off to no end these days . . . is the continued work of people like Glenn Greenwald, who have been Trump’s truthers, in effect. It seems to me they’d rather believe anything than what’s right in front of their faces, so they spin their speculative yarns about the CIA, the FBI, and the “deep state” as if the GOP doesn’t run all of those things, as if it makes any logical sense that Trump is the victim of a coordinated attack against him by his own party.
I’ve mentioned it before, but holding Trump accountable for his obvious crimes — which long ago reached the impeachment threshold — in no way redeems Clinton or the Dems, and even if it miraculously did (in the minds of some) as a bi-product, that’s still not reason enough to block investigations into a crime family boss (Trump). IMO, any public figure on the left who aids and abets Trump is a useful idiot now. Nothing more. They’re not a “freedom fighter” or “speaking truth to power.” They helping power (Trump/GOP) destroy what’s left of our democracy. Shame on them. Shame. On. Them.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_T
ParticipantBilly,
Can you compare the growth in income in, say, the last 2 years of Obama and Trump’s first 18 months?
That’s a significant piece of the picture. I cite manufacturing jobs, because as I said earlier, I see the crappy jobs added by Wal-Mart, McDdonald, Home Depot as part of the problem.
The fact that WalMart continues to expand and add jobs is not encouraging.
The growth in income is lower under Trump, compared with Obama’s last six years.
I’m trying to find good articles about this, or the clips from Morning Joe. But they’ve put up the charts several times in the last few months showing this. I’ll post them when I can.
Enjoying the discussion, Cal. Gotta head out.
Billy_T
ParticipantAlso, Cal, and this is where Republicans benefit from silencing environmental studies, which they recently did with regard to water safety. They actually crushed the report that was due to tell us that the entire country was in danger of unsafe drinking water, not just places like Flint.
Trump and the GOP have slashed regulations that protect the environment for all of us. They’ve made it easier for corporations to dump toxic sludge into our lakes, streams and rivers, and that all ends up in the oceans. They’ve made it easier for coal companies to dump toxic shit in mountain regions, which will make people living there sick. They’ve rolled back hundreds of protections like that, and at the workplace, placing us all at risk.
Tragically, we tend not to track things like the above in the way we track job numbers, GDP, wage growth, etc. etc. But they should be included in the “costs” of legislation. They actually increase our risk of death, sickness and shorten our lives, not to mention wildlife.
Trump and the GOP also sold off more than two million acres of protected wilderness which Obama had saved. It’s now in the hands of Big Oil and Big Coal. Aside from the added risk to human and other life, this is stripping us of our national heritage. These are also “costs” that should be factored in when legislation is done.
They aren’t. Trump and the GOP never mentions them.
In short, if you want an accurate picture of things, you’re not going to get it from Trump or the GOP. And, remember, he won in part by scaring his base to death about the supposed hell hole America had become. In reality, he hasn’t improved it at all. Same country. It was never in flames the way Trump described it. It wasn’t being overridden by hordes of brown people — net border crossings were waay down. It wasn’t in the midst of a Great Depression, though a large number of people were struggling. They still are, btw, under Trump, too. None of that has changed according to that study I posted from the United Way.
I don’t trust either of the major parties to tell us the truth. But, IMO, the GOP is exponentially worse when it comes to serial lies, distortions, and the silencing of public information. We deserve better.
Billy_T
ParticipantBut what are those policies, Cal?
I paid very close attention to Trump during the campaign, and he never spelled them out for anyone. And I would ask his supporters what they were, and they couldn’t answer, other than to say Make America Great Again.
If he does get credit for the economy, it will likely only be among the people who would vote for him anyway, and he’ll get it from them without ever revealing exactly what he’s done to “earn” that credit.
I have no interest in defending Trump. But what I would like to do is have an accurate picture of the conditions in our country.
How would you explain the fact that an important industry saw a small retraction in 8 of the 12 months before Trump AND then reversed course and saw significant growth in 12 of the 13 months after Trump took office?
Is that just a coincidence? Maybe, the economy does seem a bit mercurial to me.
But i know–and I think you do too–what Republicans will say.
And they have a damn good argument too.
Here’s a link to an interview from the time of the discussions about the tax cuts that underscores the arguments that Republicans will be making in the mid-terms if the trends in job growth continue.
I don’t know about that one change. But, again, overall, Trump has fewer new jobs per month than Obama averaged in his last six years, and income gains for workers are lower under Trump, too.
What’s more important? The overall numbers, or one small sector?
Anyway, I personally don’t think the GOP has any good arguments regarding the economy. They always do very stupid things when they gain control. No credible economist, for instance, thought it was a good idea to slash taxes in the middle of one of the longest recoveries on record, when unemployment was already at 4%, corporations were already sitting on trillions, the debt was already at 20 trillion and counting.
And, remember when the GOP bashed Obama endlessly for deficits? Suddenly, since they’re in power again, deficits don’t matter. They meant the end of the world while Obama and the Dems ran things. Now they’re apparently meaningless.
The smart thing to do would have been to actually raise taxes on the rich — it would have been a Nixon goes to China moment — balance the budget while times are good and start to pay down the debt.
America is pretty much the only OECD country not to try to some form of debt reduction while the economy is relatively good.
Billy_T
ParticipantTake a closer look at manufacturing jobs which is the type of job Americans need to return.
Manufcturing jobs have declined have declined steadily–in 2000 there were 17.3 million manufacturing jobs in the US. The US kept losing those jobs with a low of 11.5 million jobs after the Great Recession.
Under Obama, manufacturing jobs rebounded steadily before plateauing at 12.3 million jobs in the beginning of 2015.
A year and a half later there were still only 12.35 million manufacturing jobs by August 2016, just months before the election.
In the year before the election, Obama’s economy lost manufacturing jobs in 8 out of the 12 months.
Since 1/17 Trump’s economy has lost manufacturing jobs just one month. By 1/18 manufacturing jobs had ticked upwards to 12.6 million.
After stalling at 12.3 million for Obama, Trump has steadily added 300,000 manufacturing jobs.
If this trend continues all summer, I fear 2018 will be more disappointing than we’d like.
Trump and his policies WILL get credit for this growth in the economy.
But what are those policies, Cal?
I paid very close attention to Trump during the campaign, and he never spelled them out for anyone. And I would ask his supporters what they were, and they couldn’t answer, other than to say Make America Great Again.
If he does get credit for the economy, it will likely only be among the people who would vote for him anyway, and he’ll get it from them without ever revealing exactly what he’s done to “earn” that credit.
That said, the Dems could very well blow this on their own. If I could direct them in any way, it would be to forget about Russia, concentrate on Trump’s corruption, grifting and pay to play while in office, run against Washington using all of that, and push an agenda for workers, by, for and on behalf of workers.
Promise a $17 minimum wage
Tuition-free college in all state schools
Medicare for all, with a buy-in too until we can transition fully to the new systemI’d also promise to overturn every single anti-labor and anti-union law or regulation on the books, by whatever legal means possible. Taft-Hartley and all the rest.
For starters . . .
Billy_T
ParticipantBy my math, the US spent 560 billion on safety net programs (SNAP, EIC, Medicaid, TANF, HUD) in 2016.
We spent 2.4 Trillion on everything besides medicare and social security, which should be paid for with payroll taxes. See my link to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:CBO_Infographic_2016.png
So, about 1/5 of the budget, apart from medicare and social security costs, went to supporting the safety net.
Based on that graphic from Occupy Democrats, I would have paid 200 bucks in taxes if 1/5 of my taxes went to supporting the safety net. I paid a helluva lot more than that last year. And I’m probably unusual in that I can claim 3 kids.
I’m not against helping the poor. I’m just arguing that the system is broken and conservatives who complain about an over sized safety net have a point.
This country needs to do a better job of providing poor people with good paying jobs.
Cal,
The problem with conservatives in this case, though, is that they’ll never force companies to pay better wages. In fact, their agenda is to remove the all too lax regulations we do have on the books, and to crush unions to death, which once were able to ensure higher wages for everyone — even non-union workers — and much better benefits.
In short, they want to shrink the safety net but offer nothing else to replace it. Just more of the same old same old hard neoliberalism. The Dems, unfortunately, counter with soft neoliberalism, so there is no party in power fighting for workers, the poor, the consumer or the environment — at least not enough to matter.
As mentioned upthread, I’d rather we had the kind of economy that provides for everyone upfront, so no government offsets are needed later. I’d rather it do its job so there isn’t any need for help from charities or the public sector.
As long as we have capitalism, however, that’s not going to happen. Capitalism is built to concentrate wealth, income, privilege and power at the top. It’s always going to generate poverty in its wake, and the working poor, and a shrinking middle. If there isn’t any government intervention to offset this, those people will suffer even more.
In short, we can’t have capitalism and no safety net at the same time. That’s just sadism on steroids, and we’d end up with revolution in the streets, too.
Billy_T
ParticipantYeah, a lot of where the credit is placed will depend on which side does the better job of spinning.
My thoughts are North Korea isn’t coming to the bargaining table because of Trump. They’re coming now because they finally have something to bargain with; ie, a middle that can strike a part of the US. Trump is going to take credit and probably will be able to convince a lot of voters that he is responsible for NK’s willingness to negotiate. However, Trump has said that he is looking for full nuclear disarmament in the part of NK. NK has said that ain’t gonna happen. So I’m not convinced any deal is gonna be struck anytime soon.
Trump is getting credit for creating jobs but job growth in his first year lags behind Obama’s last 4 years. Trump is trying to take credit for the improved economy but it could be argued that what’s happening with the economy is just a continuation of what was happening during Obama’s second term. But the picture isn’t all rosey as many companies are laying off workers or moving operations overseas despite the tax breaks. And as you said there’s still a dearth if good paying jobs. Many people are under employed. The economy isn’t as healthy as Trump likes to claim, but I think his supporters believe it is and convincing them otherwise will be a challenge.
I agree with all of that, Nittany.
I’m really not seeing what Trump has done to help the economy at all. Deregulation doesn’t do that. Privatization doesn’t do that. Tax cuts for the rich doesn’t do that. Unless by “the economy” people mean just Ownership/CEOs, and not workers and consumers. And the deregulation and privatization is definitely killing the planet.
No workers have benefited from the Trump/GOP agenda. In fact, they’ve all be hurt by it. Less safe in the workplace. Less secure in their jobs. It’s now much easier for companies to export jobs, reduce benefits, pay less. Trump and the GOP have helped Capital tremendously. But not Labor, and they’ve been devastating to the environment.
Billy_T
ParticipantThere is a shift in the political wind. It’s happening. I don’t know how big it is, but it’s underway. And not just because Trump is a jerk, but…because of his policies.
I don’t want to sound like a Trump supporter because…well gag me.
But there’s a ton of positive stuff happening for Trump right now.
The North Korea talks and reconciliation with South Korea is amazing. Before those developments there seemed to be murmurings in the MSN about Trump’s incompetence leading to a nuclear showdown. Now peace seems to be on the horizon.
Again, I hate the guy, and wonder how much–if any–credit he deserves for this development. But you know he will take credit for resolving the problem. And millions of Americans will accept that and give him credit.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. The economy keeps adding jobs. Manufacturing has added 245,000 jobs going back to last April. Again, Trump will attribute this growth to his tax cuts and take credit.
I suspect people who are now working and making more money won’t argue with him.
Mining industries have added 86,000 jobs since last April. Do you think that growth would have occurred with anyone besides a Republican?
Trump appears to be actually fighting and working for American manufacturing jobs. I know your no fan of Obama, but I can’t recall Obama doing much to defend and support American manufacturiong.
(All this info comes from the bureau of labor and statistics. Just google “job reports”)
When I read the tea leaves I don’t see much positive apart from the Mueller investigation. We’ll see, but I’m not hopeful.
Cal,
Trump is averaging fewer jobs per month so far than Obama did in his last six years. It’s roughly 187K to 203K. He’s also averaging a lower rate of income gains than Obama.
I wasn’t a fan of Obama’s governance, because I saw him — and still do — as governing like a moderate Republican. But the results were better for him than for Trump.
Also, if people are happy with a few dollars more on their paychecks (after the tax cuts), they should think about a coupla things at least:
1. All of that money was borrowed and has to be paid back.
2. The tax cuts made economic inequality skyrocket, because most of them went to the rich. Trump himself should pocket tens of millions more each year, and his heirs could potentially pocket billions — if he’s as rich as he says he is.Billy_T
ParticipantWe have far better and more accurate ways of identifying people in need today than 50 years ago. I say that’s a good thing not a bad thing.
Maybe that explains the growing safety net, but I don’t thinks so.
The amount the US pays for SNAP has tripled since 2000 and doubled since 2007. Our ability to identify people who need help hasn’t grown that much since 2007.
I’ve not investigated this, but I’d guess we’d find the same trend for WIC, EIC, Medicaid, etc.
I would guess the increasing cost of helping poor people can be linked to Wal-Mart and McDonald’s trends in America. Instead of decent paying full time jobs, people now are forced to work at Wal Mart and make 10 bucks an hour.
As a result, Wal Mart owners and execs are billionaires and millionaires while the US tallies a bigger and bigger debt for my kids’ future in order to save poor people from abject poverty.
I think Bernie might have put forth a version of this argument in 2016.
Cal,
I posted the other response before reading this one. It looks like you already get a lot of the reasons for the changes.
Also, you have to factor in the crash of 2008. The increase in the numbers had a LOT to do with the tens of millions throw out of work because of the Great Recession.
Families really haven’t recovered even to this day.
This report just came out from United Way. Their ALICE project. It’s pretty shocking:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html
Excerpt:
The economy may be chugging along, but many Americans are still struggling to afford a basic middle class life.
Nearly 51 million households don’t earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That’s 43% of households in the United States.
Related: Unemployment is below 4% for the first time since 2000
The figure includes the 16.1 million households living in poverty, as well as the 34.7 million families that the United Way has dubbed ALICE — Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. This group makes less than what’s needed “to survive in the modern economy.”
“Despite seemingly positive economic signs, the ALICE data shows that financial hardship is still a pervasive problem,” said Stephanie Hoopes, the project’s director.
Billy_T
ParticipantBT wrote
I’d also disagree with Trump voters who claim the government’s social safety net is out of control. It’s actually been curtailed
The number of people who receive benefits like SNAP has steadily increased since the 1970’s. Back then, it was 7-9% of the population that received SNAP benefits.
Currently that number is 13% or so. When the US pays SNAP benefits for an extra 4% of the population that’s over a billion dollars a year. It’d be nice to put those billions dollars a year to solve some other problems.
And that’s just SNAP. I’d bet there’s been a similar increase in the percent of people who receive WIC, EIC, Mecicaid, housing, and other benefits.
Cal,
SNAP goes to mostly children and the elderly. They are the largest recipients, by far. That’s food they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford. It keeps those 45 million people from going hungry. To me, there isn’t a better way to spend that money . . . and it all works its way through the economy too. Not only does it feed children and the elderly, it also boosts the economy, from farms to grocery stores, etc. etc.
As for why the numbers have grown: Wages for the rank and file in America have been largely flat since 1973, which was the end of our one and only middle class boom. Since then, more and more families had to switch from one income to two, and then use a credit card, and then mortgage their house, just to keep above water. If business owners/corporations paid better wages, we wouldn’t need the SNAP program, or most of the rest of the safety net. It’s there because of the immense greed at the top of the pyramid.
If the private sector paid fair wages, we could do without a great many of the programs that bother you. Walmart is a great example of this. Many of their employees are on SNAP — this while their CEO makes 1200 times as much as their rank and file.
Billy_T
ParticipantWhile I don’t have any sympathy for wealthy people who complain about paying taxes, as a middle class person trying to raise three kids I am sympathetic to Trump voters who complain about big government.
Trump voters complain about a government that year after year runs big deficits partly because of a social safety net that has grown by billions and billions of dollars since the 70’s.
Yes, it’s important to help lift people out of poverty. But something seems broken at this point.
Schools are a mess.
Young people incur massive debt getting a college education.
Health care is a mess.
The economy is supposed to be strong and running smoothly but it seems broken.I can understand people who are pissed off, tired of paying taxes, and what to get theirs before this ship goes down.
It’s not a smart, rational response but I understand the emotional appeal behind giving a big F U to the system.
All that said, I hate Trump. At this point I would pay to see someone call him lying sack of dog shit in a nationally televised debate if he makes it to the next election.
Hey, Cal,
Hope all is well.
You make a lot of good points.
Thing is, taxes have fallen steadily for Americans since LBJ lowered the top rate from 91% to 70% in 1964. Both parties have slashed them . . . and for corporations, estate taxes, gift, capital gains, etc. etc. No one pays anything close to what they paid back in the day — from FDR thru LBJ, or from Nixon thru Carter. Not even remotely close.
Obama, remember, made the Bush ten-year tax cuts permanent, and even raised the top bracket from 250K to 400K, so his tiny increase at the top only impacted dollars made from that point on. From your first dollar to that 400K point, under Obama you were paying the Bush marginal rates.
Ironically, the major reason why kids today pay so much in tuition is because of the tax cut craze in the states which started in the 1970s, and accelerated under Reagan. New York and California, when I was young, had free state schools, and my own state, Maryland, supported Higher Ed enough so my tuition was a few hundred dollars a semester when I did my first round. I went back to school two more times, in two other decades and one other state, and the tuition rose as states cut back on their support.
The national debt, of course, is as massive as it is because of all of those tax cuts. Well, and endless wars, too. But you can’t slash taxes, especially on rich people and corporations, almost non-stop for decades and not have a debt problem.
I’d also disagree with Trump voters who claim the government’s social safety net is out of control. It’s actually been curtailed — again, in Dem and Republican administrations. Clinton, remember, “ended welfare as we know it,” and government has privatized and deregulated aggressively since the early 1970s.
Fun fact: We have fewer Federal employees today than we did in 1962, even though we’ve added roughly 150 million new citizens.
In short, I think Trump voters, in general, aren’t seeing things as they are.
Just my take, anyway.
Billy_T
ParticipantA side note on the “self-interest” thing.
Read an excellent history of the Paris Commune of 1871, its backstory and the philosophy of several of its major thinkers, especially Peter Kropotkin, William Morris and Elisee Reclus:
Communal Luxury
The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune
by Kristin Rosshttps://www.versobooks.com/books/2253-communal-luxury
She touches upon a very interesting divergence between Western and Eastern (in this case, Russian) evolutionists. We in the West take for granted the idea of the survival of the fittest, and a kind of endless battle to stay alive. The Russian evolutionists of the time — mid to late 19th century — were convinced that a very different scenario took place, that we survived as a species because we worked together, worked cooperatively, and instead of fighting each other to the end, as if we were automatically each other’s enemies, we joined forces to fight against our real enemies, or obstacles, or dangers . . . the elements, predators in the wild, etc. etc.
I took this to also mean that Darwinian theory may well have been influenced by capitalism and its modus operandi . . . competition. That Darwin and his followers may well have been overly influenced by their own day’s economic system, back-dating its rules and internal logic . . . and forcing it to fit our earliest days on this planet.
Personally, I think the Russian evolutionists make a hell of a lot more sense. I don’t think we ever would have survived if we had the dog eat dog mentality of the capitalist world back then. Hobbes’ war of all against all would have meant some other species would have surpassed us, most likely.
Billy_T
ParticipantEver notice this about discussions with right-wingers, Republicans, right-libertarians? While there are always, always plenty of exceptions, this is typically how things go, when talking about public policy. Emphasis on public policy . . .
They tend to always invoke “I” or “me” or “I get this out of it” or “It’s good for me.”
Lefties, OTOH, will almost always talk in terms of broad effects on other people — which is the entire point of public policy to begin with. It’s not about you and me. It’s about the entire country.
Next time you’re in a room with Republicans, take note of that. If you’re lucky and it’s a nice mix of leftists, Dems and Republicans, you’ll see quite different starting points for these issues. Online as well.
To threw a bit of, well, irony, in the mix, on a personal note, I think it’s more than fine to think in terms of “me, myself and I” or “My family and me” when it comes to one’s own life, one’s duty’s to those close to us, to our personal interaction with the world. It’s more than logical and there’s nothing wrong with this.
But when it comes to making public policy, for the public, for society, it is the last thing we should be doing.
IMO . . .
;>)
Billy_T
ParticipantI have many republican friends. Some are wayyyyyy to the right whom I don’t care for. Others are moderate. But to a person they ALL say they would vote for Trump again notwithstanding their distaste to the man himself.Their reasons? His policies.
Notwithstanding the polls-I think this is a real problem. We are born with “self interest” and he preaches to that. We want what WE want-not what others need. The capitalistic system teaches us that our happiness is dependent on what we “gather” not what we can give. Trump’s claimer is “hey I may be an Ass hole but I can give you (not others in need ) more toys you can enjoy.
So what can be done?
While I have been an optimist for soooooo many years I no longer am. Not because of Trump but because of my “friends” who I talk to. Where in the world did they learn its all about “them”. Is there anything that can practically be done?
Here’s what I think we should do: Stop trying to understand, court, pamper, coddle or work with right-wingers when it comes to making public policy. Instead, we on the left should do everything we can to defeat them and keep them from power. Just utterly defeat them, keep them from power, and once we’re in power, make the best public policy we can for everyone — which necessarily means ignoring right-wingers.
The reason I say the above: It goes to your discussion via “self-interest.” That view is itself “self-serving,” because it’s not at all supported by science, common sense, history or logic. As in, we never would have survived as a species if not for literally hundreds of thousands of years of communal organization, sharing everything, cooperating with each other, helping each other out. I think the vast majority of people prefer that way of life to the dog eat dog world promoted by capitalist propaganda, and I know it’s the better way to view things when making public policy.
(To keep the post relatively short, I’ll add to this later)
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_T
ParticipantWV,
Can a news show get any more one-sided than that? And there’s your absence of context.
And far more of our tax dollars go to Israel — probably by a factor of 1000 — which commits state terrorism on a daily basis.
Personally, I condemn violence against civilians no matter where it comes from — including when we do it, which is more often than any other nation in the world. I’d say Israel is probably number two. But I don’t support it when it comes in response to that either . . . on any side. That might make me a bit of an outlier in some groups, but that’s my stance. No violence against civilians. No blowing them up. No dropping bombs on them. No fire-bombing them. You do that, even in the name of “the state,” and you’re engaging in terrorism and war crimes, if there’s an actual war going on.
Anyway . . . it’s also crazy to think our support for Israel is in our interests. It’s not. Quite the opposite. As is our support for the Saudis and any dictatorship anywhere. It always, always causes blowback against Americans, and it’s never defensible from a moral or ethical pov.
Blaming this all on Hamas is pure cowardice too.
Sheeesh, but this is all beyond despicable. I wish the Jewish state had never, ever been formed, at least not there. We should have welcomed Jewish refugees fleeing from Hitler — we mostly turned them away — but no Jewish state was ever necessary to save their lives. Sticking it in the Middle East, in fact, endangered Jewish lives a thousand fold.
Maybe back in 1948 they could have found some (mostly) uninhabited land in Montana, and parts of Canada nearby . . . and if the few people there said they’d be fine with it, create it there. But, really, it should never have happened. And there really is a massive difference between anti-zionism and anti-Semitism. I reject zionism as pure fantasy, tinged with racism, and the second as unconscionable bigotry. Being anti-zionist is NOT anti-Semiticism . . .
Billy_T
ParticipantThis reminds me a bit of football games and referees who see the last punch thrown, not what preceded it.
Israel restarted the conflict with Iran AND the Palestinians, attacking both, provoking a response. They responded in their various ways, and Israel hit back, saying they had the right to defend themselves. Blamed Hamas and Iran for it all.
Israel was like the offensive linemen who cuts blocks the DE, trying to end his career. The DE sees what just happened and responds. The referee ONLY sees that response.
Of course, it’s far, far worse than that, because, when it comes to the Palestinians, it’s like a thousand NFL offensive linemen trying to end the career of a Pop Warner DE.
I despise bullies.
Meanwhile, we had split screen images of Trump, his family, the Kushners oblivious to all this, talking about peace while they no doubt cut their kickback deals to enrich both families. And they brought with them among the most despicable and odious far-right pastors on the planet.
Billy_T
ParticipantPortugal is supposedly a pretty reasonable place to retire, financially. It’s one of the countries I will be looking at myself.
I’ve heard that too, Zooey.
My mom and step-father loved Lisbon. They lived in Europe, in Holland, for four years back in the 1980s, and Portugal was probably their favorite place to visit.
I don’t know how much it’s changed since then, but it’s supposed to be affordable in several regions. And it’s beautiful, a cultural candy store, and the music, food, etc. etc.?
Plus traveling elsewhere is pretty easy.
If all goes well, just a few more years and I’m there.
Hope all is well in Cali.
Billy_T
ParticipantI was thinking this morning about Cohen’s pay to play stuff, in relation to Maher’s bit about the mob.
DC, prior to Trump, did its graft, grifting, bribery and pay to play in a much different manner. Most of it was legal, and was almost always done according to Hoyle. Trump campaigns on a promise to end all of that, and his fans bought it, hook, line and sinker.
In reality, what Trump has done is to break apart the process and go direct. Instead of doing the deals according to Hoyle, and filling out all the paperwork — like, if you’re a foreign agent or domestic lobbyist, you fill out the paperwork for this, etc. etc. . . . Trump, Flynn, Manafort, Cohen and Pruitt, et al, have basically just bypassed the usual channels.
One could say this is “refreshing.” Or, one could step back and think of a third option. Rather than accept the old ways, the legalized graft, grifting and bribery, end all of it. Trump could have gone that way. But he chose, instead, to innovate off the old system while retaining the graft, the grifting and the pay to play.
I hope smart people don’t see him as some kind of heroic rebel against the establishment. Cuz that’s not what any of this is. To be heroic would mean to end the corruption, period, not redirect it and cut out most of the middlemen.
==================
And now that Trump has lowered the bar so completely — and now that people see that IT WORKS — things will never be the same.
I’m not sayin everyone will be as bad as Trump but things will never go back to the pre-trump level of corruption and loathsomeness.
…i really wish i could get a Finland-English newspaper everyday. One assumes humanity looks a bit better from Finland. Are there more critical thinkers in Finland, BT? Or am i just imagining a place where peoples brains havent been so damaged and colonized…
Is it fair to say Fox News, Talk Radio, and the Corporate-MSM do ‘violence’ to citizens’ brains? The lies/propaganda is incessant now. 24 hours a day. Lies beaming into citizens brains. Has there been anything quite like this before?
Can we compare this to Nazi Germany or not? Is propaganda more effective now or not? More subtle?w
vI agree with what you say above, and your questions are beyond fair.
Finland? I have no first hand experience, but judging from results, pretty much all of Europe has better education than we do, better public access to cultural venues, free tuition for colleges . . . with some countries (like Germany) even willing to pay overseas tuition . . . They live happier, healthier, longer lives . . . and they beat us on pretty much every quality of life metric there is.
I’m guessing they have their issues too, like anywhere else, but in relative terms? It’s a better overall place to grow up and grow old. It’s a better place to try to cut through the bullshit.
I would have moved there long ago if I could have afforded it . . . well, plus family matters, health issues, etc. etc. But I’m still hoping to retire to Portugal, or France, or Spain, or Ireland, if the fates allow.
Billy_T
Participant…It’s almost as if they all got the same memo..
============
Well we are down to, what?, six corpse that control almost all the tv-media now?
…Imagine a land where religion, nationalism, consumerism, self-absorption, racism, sexism, and corporate-capitalism were transcended. Wouldnt that be nice
Not gonna happen though is it. I guess we just have to fight for one policy at a time, and hope for the best no matter what. And somehow find meaning,
in a shit-storm of sureal-created-stupidity. 🙂w
v
—
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need…Love that song. Lennon and the Beatles were wonders.
I’m guessing you have this issue too. I imagine all leftists do. In political discussions, we have three, four, a dozen minds. Do we talk in the context of what is currently feasible, given the duopoly and corporate realities? Do we try to stretch the boundaries of the feasible? Or do we come out with our ideas, unapologetically, for how things ought to be — not just within the likely realm of possibility, but as they flat out really should be?
Lots of shades within that too, degrees, variations, etc. etc.
Do we discuss our options in the context of this eternal Dem versus Republican shit show? Or do we push for things well outside that dynamic, and make the case for that.
Sanders gave us a bit more room to work with, but my own “ought” extends well beyond his policies. I don’t think he goes nearly far enough, for instance, on a host of things, though he is going in the “right” direction (meaning further left).
How best communicate leftist principles, ideals, policies, etc. within the current context of political discussion . . . . which, IMO, has to be among the most narrow and limited in the world. As in, it’s A to B, rather than A to Z.
???
Billy_T
ParticipantI was thinking this morning about Cohen’s pay to play stuff, in relation to Maher’s bit about the mob.
DC, prior to Trump, did its graft, grifting, bribery and pay to play in a much different manner. Most of it was legal, and was almost always done according to Hoyle. Trump campaigns on a promise to end all of that, and his fans bought it, hook, line and sinker.
In reality, what Trump has done is to break apart the process and go direct. Instead of doing the deals according to Hoyle, and filling out all the paperwork — like, if you’re a foreign agent or domestic lobbyist, you fill out the paperwork for this, etc. etc. . . . Trump, Flynn, Manafort, Cohen and Pruitt, et al, have basically just bypassed the usual channels.
One could say this is “refreshing.” Or, one could step back and think of a third option. Rather than accept the old ways, the legalized graft, grifting and bribery, end all of it. Trump could have gone that way. But he chose, instead, to innovate off the old system while retaining the graft, the grifting and the pay to play.
I hope smart people don’t see him as some kind of heroic rebel against the establishment. Cuz that’s not what any of this is. To be heroic would mean to end the corruption, period, not redirect it and cut out most of the middlemen.
Billy_T
ParticipantMaher is real hit or miss. That was good.
“…how did the salt of the earth people get hooked up with the salt in the wound people…”
Umm….maybe because the Corporate-Dems didnt give a shit about the salt of the earth people.
w
vThat’s it in a nutshell.
I try to tell Dems this, especially after they’ve just gotten finished saying that Trump stole the election, or that Jill Stein stole it from HRC, etc. etc.
The Dems turned their backs on the New Deal, unions and the working class 40-50 years ago . . . and since that time, have spent most of the subsequent years building up an impossible, unworkable coalition of minorities, women and Wall Street . . . to be a bit too simplistic about it (to save space).
Basically, they’ve tried to have their cake and eat it too. Please the hell out of their corporate donors, make rich people very happy, and try to appeal to folks hurt by those same rich people/corporations.
This turned them into Republican Lite, and they’re not even good at it. And it set the table for Trump . . . just as the same kind of mushy centrism, corporatism, and “take a thousand years to fix a problem” mode has set the table for the Le Pens and the Wilders in Europe.
People want action NOW. And since the establishment doesn’t listen to them or care, they’ll go to someone who lies to them with far more effect, like Trump. He’s just much better at telling lies than the Dems, and he adds supreme confidence, which they lack, and anger, and hatred, and that stirs a lot of people too.
In short, he sold a poisonous vision — handed to him by Bannon and Cambridge Analytica — of hordes of brown and black people coming to steal American jobs, and the Dems had no answer.
They still don’t.
Billy_T
ParticipantStrangely enough, WV, there ARE some ways the MSM actually help Trump tremendously and hurt the Dems’ chance to return to power.
One biggie I’m noticing now? The normalization of corruption. It’s almost as if they all got the same memo. Whenever they talk about Cohen taking all of that money from corporate America and a few corporations overseas, they feel the need to add, “Well, this is the way DC works.” I rarely ever see their talking heads outraged over this direct Pay for Play, even though they covered it whenever Trump accused HRC of this during the campaign. Now it’s all supposed to be normal and A okay.
They did the same with Kushner when he took meetings with two large corporations in the Oval Office and then got 500 million in loans from them.
Trump has set new records for grifting while in office, and before he got there, and as mentioned earlier, Americans are being overwhelmed by this. I think the MSM too often treats it as just another day in the neighborhood, and might as well just add “blah blah blah” to each story.
Naturalizing and normalizing Trump era corruption helps him and the GOP and hurts the Dems.
As usual, the caveat for me is: I want BOTH parties to get the hell out of Dodge. Forever. They make me sicker than the chemo.
Billy_T
ParticipantS . . . . I don’t agree. It’s asymmetrical, to begin with, and, as mentioned, I don’t think the first part exists.
I think ALL of the MSM tilts right, and that the only reason it appears, in places, at times, to prefer the Dems to the GOP .
==============
But Billy, the Dems ARE to the right nowadays. Yes its ALLL to the right. But there’s still a Dem-Right and a Rep-Right. Both have moved further and further Right.
I still see MSNBC and NPR/PBS as leaning toward the Dems. (again, thats still leaning RIGHT). The main reason i see it that way is because they just rip Trump. They dont rip Obama’s policies or Clintons or Dem Policies. Its mainly just anti-trump stuff. No context in other words. Without context all trump-hating does is assure that the Dems will be back in office to run the system.
w
vThanks, WV. That clarification helps. I definitely agree with you that the Dems are center-right. I’ve been saying that forever. I don’t think they could even remotely call themselves even “liberal” after the 1960s.
But, again, I don’t see being anti-Trump as necessarily being pro-Dem. I watch the MSM. I don’t know why I put myself through that, but I do. I watch the Bill Kristols, Joe Scarboroughs, David Frumms, Rick Wilsons, Nicole Wallaces — all conservative Republicans — bash Trump all day long. I guarantee you, once Trump leaves office, they’ll resume their regularly scheduled programming and go after the Dems, instead of Trump and his supporters.
This is temporary, IOW.
Trump is the guy creating these strange bedfellows. When he goes, it will all return to the old Dem versus Republican foodfight . . . the center-right against the increasingly hard-right.
Billy_T
ParticipantSo, again, WV, I probably misunderstand you. But if you’re seeing a symmetrical dynamic of some kind between a “Dem-MSM” and a right-wing MSM . . . . I don’t agree. It’s asymmetrical, to begin with, and, as mentioned, I don’t think the first part exists.
I think ALL of the MSM tilts right, and that the only reason it appears, in places, at times, to prefer the Dems to the GOP is when it’s just impossible for them to maintain the lie regarding “balance” or “both sides are the same” or “they both have equally valid positions.”
When they can no longer play that game, and they finally come out and show the reality that the GOP engages in more destructive shhht than the Dems, it just seems they back the Dems.
It’s not going to happen in my lifetime, but I hope America evolves beyond the two party system, cuz it’s killing us. Both parties are horrifically bad for us, and the planet, with the GOP being substantially worse. Our only chance is to move beyond them to include the far, far better voices, ideas, ideals and policies to the left of the Dems. Well to the left of them, IMO.
. . . . The Dems are the real “conservative party” now, and have been, really, since the early 1970s. In order to actually represent the entire political spectrum, they should be considered America’s “right-wing” party, and they should be opposed by true left-wing alternatives which I’d support . . . again, like the DSA platform and further to the left. My own preference being for staunchly anticapitalist, small is beautiful, localized, egalitarian, cooperative economies, federated, under a fully democratized economy and society . . . . antiwar, mind-your-own business, protector of the environment, etc. etc.
Billy_T
ParticipantOf course, if they were exposed to actual leftist ideas, philosophy, principles, ideals and policies, they’d dump BOTH the major parties and vote for something like the DSA platform. They’d say fuck off to the Dems AND the GOP, if they were really enlightened and voted their interests.
But with the game rigged against alternatives, and for the duopoly, the MSM HAS to keep the contest alive.
In short, IMO, there is no such thing as a “Dem-MSM.” But there is such a thing as right-wing media, and the latter doesn’t try to play things down the middle to keep the contest going.
Billy_T
ParticipantWell before we even get to the changed landscape between now and the 70’s — there’s the issue of THE TAPES. Nixon taped himself doing all this shit. Without that unique dynamic, Nixon would have stonewalled and survived.
But as to the video — 70 percent of Americans trusted the MSM back in the 70s. Was that a ‘good‘ thing? Good ole days of trusting the corporate media?
I agree with the commentator that things are a dumpster-fire now. And i agree that things have changed with the rise of the rightwing-lie-machine.
But things were not good in the olden days either. It was a different kind of dumpster-fire back in the 50’s, 60s, and 70s, etc. Back then i was listening to TV-MSM and i was being mislead every night. (Now, with the internet I have at least a small chance of finding my way toward the light.)
I think the vid makes some good points about the change, but where I’d disagree is that he kinda tries to make the case that the MSM was more truthful back in the 70’s — because there was hardly any rightwing media. But i think the MSM has always been in the pocket of the Corps, as Chomsky talked about in the 80’s in Manufacturing Consent. Its just that now we have the Right-MSM lying to us from the right, and the Dem-MSM lying to us from the ‘left’. What do we do with that?
Its also been my experience that Tucker Carlson (wacko that he is) is sometimes way more insightful on some issues than the Dem-MSM. On Syria for example. What to do with ‘that’ ?
To me the voters are staggering toward catastrophe because they DO trust EITHER Fox OR NPR/MSNBC. They ought look at both behemoths as Factories-Of-Lies. But they trust one or the other. They ‘say’ they dont trust the MSM but they do — they trust one of the lie-machines. Or the other.
Used to be we had one lie machine. Now we have two. So yes, things have changed.
Just my opin-yun. Call me Mary Sunshine.
w
vGood point about the tapes.
We agree about so much of the above . . . but I part ways with you on the concept of a Dem-MSM and a right-wing MSM. Though I’m probably misreading you . . .
I don’t see NPR or MSNBC as necessarily pro-Dem or anti-Republican. I see some individual water-carriers for the Dems, like Maddow and Hayes, but if you look at their entire lineup, it leans to the right. They have as many conservative hosts as so-called “liberal” hosts. It’s just that their conservatives can’t stand Trump, but they don’t support the Dems, at all.
NPR is deathly afraid of offending conservatives, so it tends to be as straight down the middle as possible, which will always skew reality. The reality is, from empirical evidence, that the right’s view of the world, on down to its individual issues, is just not in sync with that world, and wrong on solutions. So if media try to be “fair and balanced,” and give as much validity to right-wing thought as left of center, it’s not telling us the truth. If you have an argument between a flat-earther and a normal human, and you set things up as equally valid, you do the nation a huge disservice.
But that’s what the MSM does. And it doesn’t want the Dems to win more often than the GOP. It wants a a horse race, a food fight, a conflict — that sells. It doesn’t want reality, evidence or facts to overcome “fake news” as presented by the right, because that hurts ratings. It wants a horse race between the two parties . . . which wouldn’t occur if Americans actually knew what was going on and voted their own best interests. Roughly 90% of them, at least, would vote Dem over Republican, with just those two choices.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts