The media unfortunately has delegitimized itself. The media does not report. It offers opinions. We need persons like Cronkite Jennings and Chancellor. But they don't exist. Damn. Anderson Cooper? Brian Williams? Sean Hannity? Garbage all.
Safe Space Warning - Political Economy Thread
38,708 Views |
342 Replies |
Last: 8 yr ago by calbear93
1979bear;842766168 said:
The media unfortunately has delegitimized itself. The media does not report. It offers opinions. We. Red persons like Cronkite Jennings and Chancellor. But they don't exist. Damn. Anderson Cooper? Brian Williams? Sean Hannity? Garbage all.
Again we are in the the 3rd turning, the "unraveling" where people lose faith in institutions/media/government/religion etc... It's happened many times before and will continue to recur. Countries will turn inward as opposed to working together. Economically things will continue to deteriorate everywhere. To appease the angry publics, governments look for scapegoats(other countries or domestic "threats"). Some event or events will finally light the fuse for a more global conflagration which will be the 4th turning, "Crisis." Howe-Strauss generational theory, check it out, very insightful. What's happening in Trumpusa, Brexit, Greece, Philippines,Venezuela, Brazil, Middle east, is just priming the pump.
burritos;842766193 said:
Again we are in the the 3rd turning, the "unraveling" where people lose faith in institutions/media/government/religion etc... It's happened many times before and will continue to recur. Countries will turn inward as opposed to working together. Economically things will continue to deteriorate everywhere. To appease the angry publics, governments look for scapegoats(other countries or domestic "threats"). Some event or events will finally light the fuse for a more global conflagration which will be the 4th turning, "Crisis." Howe-Strauss generational theory, check it out, very insightful. What's happening in Trumpusa, Brexit, Greece, Philippines,Venezuela, Brazil, Middle east, is just priming the pump.
Isn't the current theory by Howe that the 2008 market crash was the beginning of the 4th turning and we are now in it? The time of crisis? Of course, that doesn't preclude there being some bigger crisis to come on a global level. Per their theory, the last one began with the Great Depression (initial crisis) and was resolved with World War II (bigger one). Also, Howe himself acknowledges that these things can only be pinpointed in hindsight, so it's possible that the 3rd turning never ended.
They also talk about there being a "Grey Champion," someone of an older generation who captures the moment and leads the younger generation through the crisis (previous examples being FDR and Lincoln). Some people now suppose this is Trump, but given that his support seems to mostly come from older Americans and not the younger generation, that seems wrong. I suspect this leader is still on the horizon.
sycasey;842766204 said:
Isn't the current theory by Howe that the 2008 market crash was the beginning of the 4th turning and we are now in it? The time of crisis? Of course, that doesn't preclude there being some bigger crisis to come on a global level. Per their theory, the last one began with the Great Depression (initial crisis) and was resolved with World War II (bigger one). Also, Howe himself acknowledges that these things can only be pinpointed in hindsight, so it's possible that the 3rd turning never ended.
They also talk about there being a "Grey Champion," someone of an older generation who captures the moment and leads the younger generation through the crisis (previous examples being FDR and Lincoln). Some people now suppose this is Trump, but given that his support seems to mostly come from older Americans and not the younger generation, that seems wrong. I suspect this leader is still on the horizon.
FDR and Lincoln were, respectively, 51 and 52, when they assumed the presidency. Not exactly young, but not exactly the age I would envision as somebody referred to as a "grey champion."
It probably applies to Churchill, who was 65 when he became prime minister. (Which I always assumed was old because he had already lived a full life before then. But now, actually, it seems pretty young.)
sycasey;842766204 said:
Isn't the current theory by Howe that the 2008 market crash was the beginning of the 4th turning and we are now in it? The time of crisis? Of course, that doesn't preclude there being some bigger crisis to come on a global level. Per their theory, the last one began with the Great Depression (initial crisis) and was resolved with World War II (bigger one). Also, Howe himself acknowledges that these things can only be pinpointed in hindsight, so it's possible that the 3rd turning never ended.
They also talk about there being a "Grey Champion," someone of an older generation who captures the moment and leads the younger generation through the crisis (previous examples being FDR and Lincoln). Some people now suppose this is Trump, but given that his support seems to mostly come from older Americans and not the younger generation, that seems wrong. I suspect this leader is still on the horizon.
When 2008 was happening it may have felt like that was the "crisis" unfolding, but I think that was just early contractions so to say. I think a nuke has go off somewhere. That would be an unmistakable clarion call for a fourth turning.
BearGoggles;842761579 said:
Re #4, I think its pretty clear Obama/Pelosi/Reid overreached. Obamacare was passed without any Republican support and, as a result, has faced unrelenting opposition ever since, so much so that simple amendments have been impossible. Reid used a variety of parliamentary tricks that were questionable - guess what the republicans will do now? They lost Dem control of congress 2 years later and repeal of Obamacare has been a central issue ever since (including Trumps election). Obama pushed the limits of executive power by acting unilaterally on immigration and environmental matters that had been expressly rejected by Congress (DACA and cap and trade). How is that working out? All of that will be gone in the next few months (if not sooner). That is the lesson that I hope Trump learns - that acting unilaterally and without some democrat buy in is bad and has blowback. Not sure what you find "funny" about all this - unless you find the dismantling of Obama's legacy funny (and placed in that light, it is certainly "funny" to me).
sycasey;842761587 said:
Do you think Obamacare will actually be gone? How do the Republicans get around the bad politics of taking insurance away from 20 million people? Do they have a backup plan that will actually restore coverage for those people? What Paul Ryan has on the table seems a bit inadequate.
See, that's the thing: Republicans got to just reject anything Obama wanted for eight years and promise to repeal everything he did, but now they actually have to govern. I think they'll find that taking away some of this stuff is not going to be so easy.
Bump. Just thought I'd get in an "I told you so" here.
Over the last couple of month, it became clear that Obama won, because he changed expectations. I saw tons of stories of GOP voters talking about how the ACA has saved their lives or allowed them to afford insurance.
The GOP seemingly had a good strategy dubbing the ACA "Obamacare" and saying what a disaster it was, because polls showed that people disliked Obamacare, but amazingly they liked the ACA :p The problem is that it has come back to bite them in the ass, because instead of fixing it and saying they saved the ACA from a "death spiral" (and thus they could own it), they had no choice but to try to kill it completely and replace it with something that didn't look like Obamacare but wasn't much worse. There was no way to do that. They didn't even try. Ryan's plan had nothing to do with health.
Sadly, Trump can still effectively kill the ACA without changing the law, and he indicated that he intends to let the ACA markets implode, then blame the Democrats. However, by the time that happens, the GOP will have been in control of the executive and legislative branches for a year or more, so blaming the Democrats isn't going to work. They own the situation now.
The GOP seemingly had a good strategy dubbing the ACA "Obamacare" and saying what a disaster it was, because polls showed that people disliked Obamacare, but amazingly they liked the ACA :p The problem is that it has come back to bite them in the ass, because instead of fixing it and saying they saved the ACA from a "death spiral" (and thus they could own it), they had no choice but to try to kill it completely and replace it with something that didn't look like Obamacare but wasn't much worse. There was no way to do that. They didn't even try. Ryan's plan had nothing to do with health.
Sadly, Trump can still effectively kill the ACA without changing the law, and he indicated that he intends to let the ACA markets implode, then blame the Democrats. However, by the time that happens, the GOP will have been in control of the executive and legislative branches for a year or more, so blaming the Democrats isn't going to work. They own the situation now.
TouchedTheAxeIn82;842825450 said:
Over the last couple of month, it became clear that Obama won, because he changed expectations. I saw tons of stories of GOP voters talking about how the ACA has saved their lives or allowed them to afford insurance.
The GOP seemingly had a good strategy dubbing the ACA "Obamacare" and saying what a disaster it was, because polls showed that people disliked Obamacare, but amazingly they liked the ACA :p The problem is that it has come back to bite them in the ass, because instead of fixing it and saying they saved the ACA from a "death spiral" (and thus they could own it), they had no choice but to try to kill it completely and replace it with something that didn't look like Obamacare but wasn't much worse. There was no way to do that. They didn't even try. Ryan's plan had nothing to do with health.
"Health Care is hard"
Donald J. Trump & Paul Ryan
TouchedTheAxeIn82;842825450 said:
Over the last couple of month, it became clear that Obama won, because he changed expectations. I saw tons of stories of GOP voters talking about how the ACA has saved their lives or allowed them to afford insurance.
Conservative David Frum agrees.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-republican-waterloo/520833/
Quote:
In that third week in March in 2010, America committed itself for the first time to the principle of universal (or near universal) health-care coverage. That principle has had seven years to work its way into American life and into the public sense of right and wrong. It’s not yet unanimously accepted. But it’s accepted by enough voters—and especially by enough Republican voters—to render impossible the seven-year Republican vision of removing that coverage from those who have gained it under the Affordable Care Act. Paul Ryan still upholds the right of Americans to “choose” to go uninsured if they cannot afford to pay the cost of their insurance on their own. His country no longer agrees.
Once a public welfare program is introduced, it's extremely hard to take it away. Pretty much impossible if you're still living in any form of democracy (and even most autocrats wouldn't try it). Obama wins the long game.
[video=youtube;Nsx2IyhGlow][/video]
BearNIt;842825456 said:
"Health Care is hard"
Donald J. Trump & Paul Ryan
FIFY:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
-Donald Trump
2/27/2017
Well, if idiot Trump had read "The Healing of America," - a quick read - he wouldn't have displayed his ignorance for everyone to see. If he had delved further into the issue, he would have quickly learned how complicated it is. Actually, this isn't really true. Anyone with half a brain who had been around to watch Hilary attempt to reform medical care in the country would have immediately known it must be pretty damn complicated.
Astounding stupidity.
TandemBear;842826600 said:
FIFY:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
-Donald Trump
2/27/2017
Well, if idiot Trump had read "The Healing of America," - a quick read - he wouldn't have displayed his ignorance for everyone to see. If he had delved further into the issue, he would have quickly learned how complicated it is. Actually, this isn't really true. Anyone with half a brain who had been around to watch Hilary attempt to reform medical care in the country would have immediately known it must be pretty damn complicated.
Astounding stupidity.
Is he really stupid? I just think he's a very clever person who speaks the language very well. George Bush on the other hand almost killed himself with a pretzel.
[video=youtube;khTS0cU2IgQ][/video]
dajo9;842759948 said:
This wasn't in my note but I will also add that the deficit will be way up but nobody will be talking about that because people only care about the deficit when a Democrat is President.
nonsense, didn't you see all the media coverage of the increases in the debt while 43 was president.. your bias is showing
burritos;842826603 said:
Is he really stupid? I just think he's a very clever person who speaks the language very well. George Bush on the other hand almost killed himself with a pretzel.
Thank you for asking.
I respectfully submit Exhibit A. Does this sound like a stupid person?
Quote:
"I was a good student. I comprehend very well, okay, better than I think almost anybody."
"Now, I know a lot about West Point. I'm a person that very strongly believes in academics. Like every time I say I had an uncle who was a great professor at MIT for 35 years who did a fantastic job in so many different ways, academically he was an academic genius and then they say, is Donald Trump an intellectual? Trust me, I'm like a smart person."
"Look, having nuclear my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world it's true! but when you're a conservative Republican they try oh, do they do a number that's why I always start off: went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged. "
"I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things. I know what I'm doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I'll tell you who the people are. But I speak to a lot of people. My primary consultant is myself, and I have, you know, I have a good instinct for this stuff."
"I went to the Wharton School of Business. I'm, like, a really smart person."
burritos;842826603 said:
Is he really stupid? I just think he's a very clever person who speaks the language very well.
Wut. Trump has a particular set of skills that gave him an edge in business dealings, and which are useful tools for demagogues. These skills can be distilled down to this:
1. A pathologic ability to lie
2. No conscience
"One in five CEOs are psychopaths, new study finds"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/psychopaths-ceos-study-statistics-one-in-five-psychopathic-traits-a7251251.html
Of course he had to learn the specific techniques required to screw people in business and get away with it, and he had to learn the specific things that the deplorables love to hear, but I wouldn't call that "clever." One funny thing about Trump is that among all the lies, he's also hilariously honest. For example, he openly admitted that he doesn't like the phrase "drain the swamp." During one of his rallies someone shouted that out (the origins of the phrase itself are much older) and the crowd loved it, so after that Trump would use the phrase because his rally crowds loved it. But later on he admitted he doesn't like the phrase, and now it's clear that it was utterly meaningless as there was no draining of the swamp of corruption/insiders/whatever.
Unit2Sucks;842826616 said:
Thank you for asking.
I respectfully submit Exhibit A. Does this sound like a stupid person?
Quote:
“I was a good student. I comprehend very well, okay, better than I think almost anybody.”
“Now, I know a lot about West Point. I’m a person that very strongly believes in academics. Like every time I say I had an uncle who was a great professor at MIT for 35 years who did a fantastic job in so many different ways, academically — he was an academic genius — and then they say, is Donald Trump an intellectual? Trust me, I’m like a smart person.”
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged. …”
“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. … I know what I’m doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I’ll tell you who the people are. But I speak to a lot of people. My primary consultant is myself, and I have, you know, I have a good instinct for this stuff.”
“I went to the Wharton School of Business. I’m, like, a really smart person.”
I feel like I've heard this speech somewhere before.
sycasey;842826671 said:
I feel like I've heard this speech somewhere before.
Does this mean that Donald Duck gets whacked by Ivanka?
burritos;842826708 said:
Does this mean that Donald Duck gets whacked by Ivanka?
I think Melania is more likely to say he broke her heart.
Oakbear;842826613 said:
nonsense, didn't you see all the media coverage of the increases in the debt while 43 was president.. your bias is showing
No. No, I didn't.
dajo9;842826729 said:
No. No, I didn't.
so you see what you want to see ... very typical of biased people
dajo is this board's LaVar Ball. But dajo doesn't brag on his children, he brags on himself. He has said on this board that if he is ever wrong, he'll let us know.
Oakbear;842826736 said:
so you see what you want to see ... very typical of biased people
No, I just recall history. During the housing bubble, tax revenues were inflated and the annual deficit was trending down during much of GWB's Presidency until the Great Recession caused it to explode right at the end - but those numbers came in when Obama was President. If you think you recall the media focusing on debt when GWB was President I just don't see how that jibes with history, not to mention my personal recollection.
When I say media only cares about debt when Democrats are President I think more about the Reagan / Clinton years. Ask any American and they will tell you that Reagan cut spending - when the reality is that Reagan had the biggest deficits and was the biggest spender between World War II and The Great Recession. Meanwhile, when Clinton was President the focus was constantly on the deficit, which he brought down to zero. Debt was a big issue when Obama was President, but there is some justification since debt exploded during his Presidency mostly due to issues he inherited.
My prediction - when Trump and the GOP push for even higher deficits with their upcoming tax cut plan the voices who were loudest about Obama's debt will go silent - looking at you Fox News.
1979bear;842826740 said:
dajo is this board's LaVar Ball. But dajo doesn't brag on his children, he brags on himself. He has said on this board that if he is ever wrong, he'll let us know.
You are wrong. I told somebody who was accusing me of general wrongfulness that when I was wrong on a specific matter they should point it out to me and I'll take it under consideration. Get your facts straight.
Dajo- I looked this up. 14 of last 17 YOY deficit reductions were under Democrat presidents. Similarly democrats far more successful at increasing GDP growth while decreasing deficits. Republicans talk a big game but don't have the results to back it up.
When are people going to wake up and accept the truth about the GOP? They want to reduce government, regulations, and taxes because they're aligned and monetarily supported by corporations, wealthy elites and their interests, not because of some grandiose notion of a more free republic with less government control. Those people realized long ago that to enlist the support of the middle and lower class masses, they'd appeal to their conservative morality and create wedge issues to further their cause.
I'm hopeful that the recent Obama Care repeal disaster was a wake up call to many in the GOP base that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important to many Republicans than your life.
I'm hopeful that the recent Obama Care repeal disaster was a wake up call to many in the GOP base that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important to many Republicans than your life.
NYCGOBEARS;842826798 said:
When are people going to wake up and accept the truth about the GOP? They want to reduce government, regulations, and taxes because they're aligned and monetarily supported by corporations, wealthy elites and their interests, not because of some grandiose notion of a more free republic with less government control. Those people realized long ago that to enlist the support of the middle and lower class masses, they'd appeal to their conservative morality and create wedge issues to further their cause.
I'm hopeful that the recent Obama Care repeal disaster was a wake up call to many in the GOP base that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important to many Republicans than your life.
Sleep
going4roses;842826800 said:
Sleep
What's that mean?
NYCGOBEARS;842826798 said:
When are people going to wake up and accept the truth about the GOP? They want to reduce government, regulations, and taxes because they're aligned and monetarily supported by corporations, wealthy elites and their interests, not because of some grandiose notion of a more free republic with less government control. Those people realized long ago that to enlist the support of the middle and lower class masses, they'd appeal to their conservative morality and create wedge issues to further their cause.
I'm hopeful that the recent Obama Care repeal disaster was a wake up call to many in the GOP base that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important to many Republicans than your life.
Well said. They want government power to recede because that vacuum will be filled by big business power. Everything elseems is noise.
dajo9;842826803 said:
Well said. They want government power to recede because that vacuum will be filled by big business power. Everything elseems is noise.
< cough>... <cough>... Koch.
NYCGOBEARS;842826798 said:
I'm hopeful that the recent Obama Care repeal disaster was a wake up call to many in the GOP base that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important to many Republicans than your life.
There is some evidence that support from Trump's Republican base may be starting to erode.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/24/poll-president-trump-base-erodes-approval-rating-sinks-new-low/22009296/
Health care reform has defeated better politicians than Donald Trump and Paul Ryan.
I agree that they want to reduce taxes but in practice it's simply not true that they want to reduce government size, influence or power. Once Republicans have the power to enact their program, they just tilt it more to defense at the expense of domestic programs.
Unit2Sucks;842826814 said:
I agree that they want to reduce taxes but in practice it's simply not true that they want to reduce government size, influence or power. Once Republicans have the power to enact their program, they just tilt it more to defense at the expense of domestic programs.
Good point. Military Industrial Complex or the Prison Industry come to mind.
NYCGOBEARS;842826798 said:
When are people going to wake up and accept the truth about the GOP? They want to reduce government, regulations, and taxes because they're aligned and monetarily supported by corporations, wealthy elites and their interests, not because of some grandiose notion of a more free republic with less government control. Those people realized long ago that to enlist the support of the middle and lower class masses, they'd appeal to their conservative morality and create wedge issues to further their cause.
I'm hopeful that the recent Obama Care repeal disaster was a wake up call to many in the GOP base that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important to many Republicans than your life.
"We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of big government is over."
That was from one of my favorite presidents of my lifetime.
I told myself that I would not get sucked back into people trolling with incessant politics, but, since this is coming from you, NYC, I would like to engage because I suspect I would get a reasoned and sincere response and not some empty platitudes without personal actions to back up some easy recitations.
I think we all want to find the most efficient and humane solutions to address what most people want to address. No one of substance is truly is for poverty, no one of substance truly is for people dying for want of healthcare, no one of substance is truly for destroying the world despite our children. We all have love ones, we all have a moral center. It is not reserved for those living in the coast or those on the left. I know that a person is not a serious person when they make everything black and white because they are too lazy to see others as human beings (and not as color, religion or ethnicity) with the complexity that I am sure they adore in themselves. You don't seem to be one of those.
Also, I generally do find some offense to demagoguery of attacking "corporations", "big business" when most of us have food on the table because of big corporation, most of us are employed or are engaged by big business, most of the big businesses are owned by funds in which we contribute, etc. I have very little patience for intellectual laziness and hypocrisy of people who greedily suck on the tit while thinking they are somehow morally superior by condemning the evil milk and breast. I think we all know who those people are, but I don't think you are one of those. I think you do genuinely care for the underprivileged, and this rant is not a way to pat yourself on the back while doing exact same thing as the evil people they claim to rage against other than to say they "support" something else.
So, I think it all comes down to who is right in finding the most efficient way to address the issues before us. For me, it is not a question of who is decent and who is not. It is a question of who is right in getting to the same desired result. Is the right path more government? Is it private action? I don't know. However, I do have faith in people as individuals. I have less faith in the efficiency of government. While I do understand that bigger government is one way of forcing people to do what they should be doing without twisting their arms, it just seems like settling for the less efficient and less humane resolution because we don't have faith in each other. Maybe people just actually don't do anything directly because they are lazy and argue that their individual contribution won't matter and as such they rely on a mindless and heartless government to do what they claim they want to do but don't. I just have more faith in people and less faith in bureaucracy. But I want to get to the same place you want to get to. Now, you may think that I am just a heartless Republican, but I would guess that people who knew my background, how little value I place in material possession and how loose of a grip I have on my wealth would argue otherwise. I honestly don't care too much about what I own because I honestly believe it all belongs to my Lord, and I am just a steward of His money. I won't bury it in the ground but I will invest and earn more to use it for His purpose and not to enrich myself.
But I think the Democratic party, with their identity politics, sometimes lack of common sense over political correctness, condescension and hostility to Christians make it impossible for people like me to be a member. I can call out things that are wrong with the Republican party and I do. Most people would place God or country before their parties. Some don't, but that applies to both parties. I view everyone of every race, of every origin as creation of God who, if they are believers, will be my brothers and sisters in heaven. As such, I hate the way some people will divide us up (whether on the right or the left) by race or color. The Democrats will truly need to reassess themselves and stop thinking that the solution is dividing and hating. If the whole point is just to vent and show how much they are superior to others, then I guess they are being effective. If they are trying to convince, lead, and show a better way, they are failing miserably. And in this political climate and with this incompetent administration, that is quite an accomplishment.
Featured Stories
See All
Bastian Swinney, In His Words: Why I Chose Cal
by Bear Insider
Bears pick up commitment from Folsom QB Brody Rudnicki
by Jim McGill
Joshua Pierce, In His Words: Why I Chose Cal
by Bear Insider
The Rodcast: Michael Cooper Film Breakdown
by Rod Benson
Isaiah Crosby, In His Words: Why I Chose Cal
by Bear Insider