Politics for dummies

[Maturin]

My problems with conservative politics as it exists today are several, among which is the fallacy that decreasing taxes on the wealthiest among us will create jobs. What I have seen is that decreasing the taxes for that group only serves to increase the wealth gap, but produces no jobs. As evidence for that, I submit the recession of 2008. Unemployment (as it is incorrectly estimated these days) went up to 17? %. The tax rate had been lowered under GWB to a top rate of 35% from the previous 39.6%. The jobs, those paying $11/hr or better, did not come until 2013 -- after the top tax rate increased, not decreased, and Romney was defeated. This country became the strongest nation in the world with a top tax rate exceeding 90%. Jobs were created because it was counter-productive for the wealthy to sit on their cash. It forced them to actually DO something with their money other than invest in stocks and bonds.

Another problem I have with conservatism is the notion that we can allow the wealth gap to continually increase, doing nothing to stop or slow it, and expect to survive as a nation. Without a strong and growing middle class, we will eventually have nothing but dirt poor and obscenely rich. You speak of socialism as a bad thing. How about class warfare? Is that a good thing? How about if it comes to the scenario I just described and the poor decide they are going to engage in REAL class warfare, a la France 1789? The super-wealthy may be able to hire armed protection, but, through attrition of those forces, eventually the .1%-ers will be slaughtered. A man with a consistently full belly doesn't turn his thoughts to anarchy and vengeance. But, if something isn't done to correct the extreme imbalance that now exists, it IS eventually going to come down to a real class war. In the meantime, be happy the increasingly poor have a crust of bread and quit bitching about socialism. Every day, all day long, socialism beats the hell out of anarchy and mass murder. If you doubt this will ever happen, or you think you can hold off those who will want to raid your larder, there aren't enough bullets manufactured in all of history to stop them all. Think of socialism as a kind of life insurance.

Education is not the silver bullet all the politicians claim. Once you reach 45, if not 40, if you become unemployed your hopes of finding a job that will be suitable to your experience level (your KSAs, as the guvmint is so fond of referring to it as) are nearly non-existent, and it's highly unlikely you will ever reach your prior peak again in earnings potential UNLESS... you're seeking a senior VP job or a C(x)O job. You have become an insurance risk and you have skills that give you an expectation of a certain salary range. Why pay you what you're worth when they can hire a fresh college grad, pay him nothing, and pocket the rest? It doesn't matter that he won't have your level of expertise. All that matters these days is ensuring the CEO's annual bonus is in the 8-digit range. The white collar jobs he's been sending to India, Brazil, China, Malaysia, Viet Nam, and Philippines are the ones you were counting on being able to get if your company let you go, and they collected tax credits for having off-shored those jobs. All the college degrees in the world aren't going to get you anywhere in that situation. Your only hope is self-employment, and that's a truly slim hope for the overwhelming majority. Finding a niche that isn't beyond being saturated is a challenge that few can overcome.

After reading and nodding my head in agreement to most of your posts TxFeller, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Bernie Sanders? I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that in one of your posts you said you were a republican voter, is that correct? But I think you might actually be a progressive democrat as most of what you've written agrees with Sen. Sanders position re. fair taxation on the wealthiest. 

I'm a Brit, so apologies if I get US political terms wrong but I've been following Sanders for a number of years and am delighted that, if the polls are to be believed, he will beat Clinton to the presidential nomination.  He has common sense policies, is not financed by big money and is a very believable character who would do credit to the US on the world stage.

What I don't understand is why more Americans are not heeding what he has to say, his policies will benefit every working American and every poor American - the only people who will lose out are big corporations and rich people who will have their tax breaks cut - why can't working republican voters see past their tribal allegiances and the lies from their candidates and get behind this guy?  To me it's clear that the Rep. Party are working for the big money of the Koch brothers, do Rep. voters not see how undemocratic, anti-American and risky it is to vote for a party that has openly sold itself out?

Apologies again if you are actually a democrat voter! :D

[Maturin]

Here he is talking about our Prime Minister in waiting Jermey Corbyn - but there's also a moment in there where he shows just how fed up he is with the current system.

[Guest TxFeller]

After reading and nodding my head in agreement to most of your posts TxFeller, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Bernie Sanders? I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that in one of your posts you said you were a republican voter, is that correct? ut I think you might actually be a progressive democrat

Yes, I am a Progressive on most issues,  not so much on gun control,  though. I feel a common sense approach is sufficient in that regard.  But on social issues, definitely Progressive.

[Guest TxFeller]

I do not see how sucking money from the productive middle and lower classes for the purpose of re-distribution to politicians and their wealthy supporters or unproductive-but-voting poor masses helps the economy.

I don't  either, but that's the platform objective for the conservative party,  so why do you support them?

[Guest TxFeller]

I should clarify... I do not see why the poor and middle class should have all their wealth, meager as it may be, sucked into the vacuum of the disgustingly wealthy's coffers. But, with a Republican congress unwilling to reform the tax code and close the loopholes, that vacuum will remain on high suction, putting all the wealth into the hands of an extremely tiny minority.

Now, back to my diatribe....

We continually hear from Republicans, "We can't afford that" with regard to social programs, more often than not. Then, when they're in charge, the tax rate on the wealthy goes down and their statement becomes self-fulfilling. Less money coming in means there's less to help those who really do need it, so social programs as well as aspects of education that students in the 70s and prior are no longer provided. But, there's always money for some new military gadget, you can be sure. Not so much for the veterans, but for active army, there's no limit to the funding they're willing to hand out. Unfortunately, some problems were not anticipated, so funds were not allocated to address those problems, specifically IEDs exploding under the Humvees without said Hummers having enough armor to protect the soldiers inside, resulting in many lost legs and other body parts.

An aside: Does anyone have the latest figure for how deep in the red Kansas is due to Sam Brownback's tax slashing? (Kansas being home to the Koch brothers, such a program as instituted by Brownback should have come as no surprise.) I don't mind saying Kansans got exactly what they deserved.

[mr1010]

I am a strong liberal and not afraid to say it. No "patriots" could ever intimidate me! So, don't try!

Helping fellow human beings and being part of humanity is what is important. If you are not willing to do that, you betray your species. I think being a homo sapien trumps (sorry for the pun) just being an American. After all, helping the world is what America is about, it is what we stand for!

Having said all that, we as Americans have the role as leader of the free world to help other countries in need and defend them and ourselves. So we cannot shrink from our responsibilities as the leader and where it is required we get involved and sometimes that means military action or defense.

So I am perhaps a bit of a hawk when it comes to America's role in the world. But we don't get to dictate to others however. Our ideas are not always just or humane. So we need to listen to others as well.

Some wars were not justified. Like Vietnam or the 2003 war in Iraq. Iraq wasn't justified and was stupid! We have now created ISIS with that war (Zarqawi was the first head of the predecessor of ISIS and he was in Iraq and operating only because we invaded there) and we have made Iran powerful in the region! They now control Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a bulwark to Iran whether we liked him or not. And he was never going to attack us.

But now that we have created ISIS, we have the obligation to the world to destroy them, whatever it  takes! And we must do something about North Korea before they can minaturize a warhead to put on a nuke headed for our shores! What are we waiting for?

And keep Russia in place, not allow it to threaten or invade its neighbors, using sanctions.

And watch China and keep it from dominating Asia.

And on and on! The world is a very dangerous place. We can not shrink into a cocoon and hope it does not notice us!

And none of this requires us to imprison or evict ordinary american muslims! We don't have to make enemies, we have plenty already.

And refugees from a war in Syria that we are somewhat responsible for because we didn't confront Assad and from Iraq because of our wrong invasion, who have suffered bombings after bombings and suffered so much, deserve our help, not our emnity. Otherwise we as Americans have no soul! 

[mr1010]

Guest Tx, you are a man after my heart. I will be here to support you.  I am an unavowed liberal! 

[mr1010]

By the way, Foamy, a little history lesson. Did you know that David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, admitted that the tax cuts were a fraud, "trickle down" theory! They knew that the rich would get theirs and everyone else would get butkus. He admitted that! That means the great Ronald Reagan was a liar and a fraud! The reason it gets worse and worse for the middle class is two things: one, Reagan's said policies, and two, the control corporations have over our political process. Through money in politics they control politicians (even Democrats) and they literally write the laws that benefit them and the rich.

There is no hope for the middle class now. Unless we get money out of politics we are doomed. They will keep writing the laws and tax cuts that benefit them. And once tax cuts deprive the government of revenues, they say they need to cut out social programs that help the poor and middle class. Sure because they starved the economy!

It is a fact that has been researched that when taxes have risen (not on middle class though) that the economy was good and jobs were created and the deficit dropped! Under Republicans, taxes have dropped and he economy has fallen apart. So, if you want to lose jobs and money, elect conservatives.

[Thestarider]

58 minutes ago, mr1010 said:

By the way, Foamy, a little history lesson. Did you know that David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, admitted that the tax cuts were a fraud, "trickle down" theory! They knew that the rich would get theirs and everyone else would get butkus. He admitted that! That means the great Ronald Reagan was a liar and a fraud! The reason it gets worse and worse for the middle class is two things: one, Reagan's said policies, and two, the control corporations have over our political process. Through money in politics they control politicians (even Democrats) and they literally write the laws that benefit them and the rich.

There is no hope for the middle class now. Unless we get money out of politics we are doomed. They will keep writing the laws and tax cuts that benefit them. And once tax cuts deprive the government of revenues, they say they need to cut out social programs that help the poor and middle class. Sure because they starved the economy!

It is a fact that has been researched that when taxes have risen (not on middle class though) that the economy was good and jobs were created and the deficit dropped! Under Republicans, taxes have dropped and he economy has fallen apart. So, if you want to lose jobs and money, elect conservatives.

Mr.1010,  I do not agree with a lot of what you say, and we certainly are different on our political views: 1st lets about one of the greatest presidents this country has had in the last 50 years OK. 

We will just start with ten accomplishments and leave his wife out it, who absolutely would run circles around this wantabe HILLARY.

 

1.  Ending the Cold War:  The Cold War had raged since World War II and communism‘s quest for world domination remained an existential threat to the United States when President Reagan took office.  Reagan reversed the policy of detente and stood firm against the Soviet Union, calling it the Evil Empire and telling Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” in Berlin.  He was relentless in pushing his Strategic Defense Initiative and gave aid to rebels battling Soviet-backed Marxists from Nicaragua to Angola.  Those efforts were critical in the ultimate collapse of the Soviet empire and essentially ended the Cold War.

2.  Reaganomics:  Reagan’s mix of across-the-board tax cuts, deregulation, and domestic spending restraint helped fuel an economic boom that lasted two decades.  Reagan inherited a misery index (the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates) of 19.99%, and when he left office it had dropped to 9.72%.  President Obama take note:  Under Reaganomics, 16 million new jobs were created.

 

3.  Revitalizing the GOP and the conservative movement:  The Republican Party was at its nadir after Watergate, but Reagan was able to form a winning coalition of fiscal conservatives, family-values voters, blue-collar Reagan Democrats and neo-conservative intellectuals and set the stage for future GOP electoral gains.  His free-market, small-government, pro-liberty conservatism helped to revitalize the GOP and his influence resonates today as conservative candidates still invoke Reagan as their standard-bearer.

 

4.  Peace through Strength:  The military was diminished during the Carter years, but Reagan reversed that by rebuilding the armed forces.  His Peace Through Strength philosophy was manifested by his reviving the B-1 bomber that Carter canceled, starting production of the MX missile, and pushing NATO to deploy Pershing missiles in West Germany.  He increased defense spending by more than 40%, increased troop levels, and even got much-needed space parts into the pipeline.  Those efforts ensured that America remained a military superpower.

 

5.  Morning in America:  It was basically a slogan for Reagan’s 1984 reelection bid, but Morning in America symbolized a new beginning for the country.  Reagan’s jaunty optimism and an economic boom was a much-needed tonic for a country that had experienced the malaise of the Carter years and the traumas of Watergate and Vietnam.

 

6. Star Wars:  Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative was derided by his opponents as being technologically unfeasible, but the mere threat of the U.S. building the system was instrumental in the Soviet Union’s collapse.  The successful use of Patriot missile batteries in the first Gulf War proved the critics wrong, and the missile defense system that ensued has lessened the threat of ballistic missiles.

 

7. Nuclear weapons cuts:  Even as massive demonstrations were held in Europe against Reagan’s hawkish stance on nuclear arms, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty he signed with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.  He also laid the framework with Gorbachev for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which reduced both countries’ arsenals of nuclear weapons.

 

8. Voiced values:  Reagan gave voice to the values that had served America well—thrift, patriotism, and hard work—and often recounted the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.  He also championed the causes of the pro-life and family-values movements that sought to counter the societal upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s.

 

9. Tax reform:  Not only did he cut tax rates, but the Tax Reform Act of 1986 simplified the income-tax code by eliminating many tax shelters, reducing the number of deductions and tax brackets.  Reagan’s dream of tax returns fitting on a postcard has been nullified as Congress has regressed and continued to make the tax code more complex, necessitating a new push for reform.

 

10. Taking on PATCO:  Early in his administration, members of the federal air traffic controllers union (PATCO) went on strike, violating a federal regulation.  Declaring the strike a “peril to national safety,” Reagan gave the workers an ultimatum and ended up firing more than 11,000 of the controllers, sending a strong signal that union workers needn’t be coddled.

 

It is not difficult to identify the principal initiatives for which Ronald Reagan will be remembered. After a decade of national defeatism and doubt, he strode into office in 1981-confident of America's ideals and promise, and of the ability of his countrymen to conquer their malaise. He instituted startling tax-rate reductions and other measures that have produced (his supporters argue) the longest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the United States. In foreign policy he initiated a massive rearmament program to contain Soviet imperialism and expounded America's democratic faith without shame. In doing so he broke, without fully dispelling, the debilitating grip of the "post-Vietnam syndrome" and the mentality of "blame America first." In the realm of social issues, he set out deliberately to curb the "imperial judiciary" and reorient a left-leaning Supreme Court.

Not all of his accomplishments were so programmatic.

Perhaps equally significant is the fact that during the Reagan years principled, articulate conservatives gained unprecedented access to executive power and to the nation's policy-making elite. The Reagan Revolution of 1981 was not a conventional shift in legislative priorities and personnel; it was an intellectual challenge that undermined the sanctity of the status quo. It did not overthrow that status quo; Reagan never had the votes-or perhaps the intent-to do so. But his administration for at least a time altered the terms of public debate and tarnished the intellectual pretensions of social democracy. In these subtle but influential ways Reagan altered American politics more than he did public policy.

 

 

 

Eisenhower's Augustan Age

How,then, will Ronald Reagan go down in history? As a conservative Roosevelt who redirected America's course for half a century? As a second Coolidge of liberal caricature who fiddled while the economy burned? As a benign, Ike-like grandfather who ruled for an insignificant interlude during America's inexorable march toward socialism? As a rejected prophet like Wilson whose vision triumphed only after his death?

My own hunch is that an Eisenhower analogy may be the closest one-although not the analogy dear to yesterday's liberals. A generation ago, when Eisenhower left office, he was widely disdained by "the best and the brightest" as an aging golfer whose presidency had brought little but stagnation. It was time, his youthful successor asserted, to "get America moving again." The sequel was the hubris and tragedies of the '60s. Only now, a generation later, have historians begun to perceive Eisenhower as an effective, "hidden-hand" executive who governed during what in retrospect appears an Augustan age.

Will historians someday gaze similarly on our own decade and its dominant public figure? No one can say. But I do venture to predict that our 40th president will be adjudged a singular statesman, and for a reason few of his critics understand. As the finest political orator of our era, Ronald Reagan reaffirmed with eloquence the continuing validity and vitality of the American Dream. In this more than in any policies or decisions lie his legacy and enduring claim to greatness.

 

 

 

[Thestarider]

But political leaders are, thankfully, not necessarily lawyers. Their job is to define the terms of the debate. They should leave the details to, well, people like me.

Any effort to go down into the weeds has two fatal consequences for the politician who wants to be a statesman. First, it narrows the scope of the principle so that the general public can no longer figure out where their political leader stands. Second, the public emphasis on minutiae presents the image of the postmodern man consumed by doubt and devoid of inner conviction.

Leadership cannot thrive on nuance or uncertainty. It depends on unshakable commitments to sound principles.

That is where Ronald Reagan excelled as a president. On the domestic front, Reagan insisted that the essence of a free society rested on these key building blocks: individual freedom, personal security, limited government and states' rights. The political theorist in me says he misfires on every point: His respect for freedom does not talk about the need for taxation or the regulation of public utilities, each worthy of a lifetime of study. Bald claims for personal security make no references to the limits on self-defense. Even the most limited of governments have their work cut out in providing national defense, preserving order and maintaining infrastructure. States' rights overlook the need for a federal government to preserve a national market, and to counter local forms of racial and social intolerance.

But these details do not define presidents whose job is to control public discourse by setting the right starting points. The values articulated will in the end become presumptions that should yield in time to prudent exceptions. But the key insight is that free society has to start with the right presumptions. It must reject the absolute power of the state to impose whatever laws it conjures up in the name of community and the common good. Those starting points play out in concrete cases. Perhaps the most dramatic incident of the early Reagan years was his confrontation with the more than 11,000 air traffic controllers he fired in August 1981 when they refused to return to work. Reagan broke a union.

[Thestarider]

He is an actor, how the hell can an actor be a good President?  He is just businessman, How the hell can a businessman be a good President ? Sounds somewhat familiar !!!!! 

In a dog eat dog world, only the strong survive, WE the US are perceived as weak in the world, soon we will have a choice, are we going to try to become strong again, or are going to remain weak ?

Just look at how strong have eaten us alive around the world ???

This countries best and most notable Presidents in history, all had one thing in common, THEY DIDN'T TAKE SHIT FROM ANYBODY, BUT STOOD ON PRINCIPAL AND DIDN'T WAIVER !!!!!!

No matter what party they were affiliated with.

[mr1010]

Thes, you give as usual a very reasoned and logical defense and I actually agree with some of it.

His truth but verify approach to foreign policy and all the missiles in Europe were great helps to end the Cold War (although it turns out the Soviet Union fell of its own weight).

I don't agree with any of his domestic policies and I strongly would disagree that his policies did anything but help the rich (which I am guessing neither of us is). That legacy is still with us today. And he didn't cut the budgets, he raised the deficit greatly. And the Clinton years gave us our boom. It turns out tax cuts starve the economy and tax hikes (to the rich and corporations only) made the economy roll! Those are statistical facts. And his budget director did admit the trickle down economics was a fraud meant to help the rich, who I gather naive Reagan thought would generously help us with all those gains;they did not.

Now as to individual responsibilities and respect for values, on that he excelled.

So I won't totally slam him. 

And I am a bit of a hawk on foreign policy and agreed with his approach to  the Soviet Union! When the Soviets downed KAL the plane in 1982, I wanted to go to war (but a little thing in me about nuclear armeggedon stopped me!).

 

Oh and Thes, Carter was a complete and utter disaster on that we agree. He was so bad I voted for John Anderson a republican for  president against Reagan and Carter! The only time I ever voted for a republican.

I don't even want to touch current politics Thes. You are my friend and I can accept my friends feeling and thinking differently.

So we can argue history, it is esoteric anyway. But not current politics my friend. Ok? Not you and I. 

You know you often believe in the politics you were brought up with and the region you are in,  so if I hated you for thinking this way, I should just as much hate you for the religious you were born in, how you dress, eat,etc. etc.! I really like you as a friend and I will not care how you think or are except as a person and that I like! So, I think we should stay away from these things and accept our differences. It is fine with me.

Please don't think of me differently now, pal!