Competent Republicans?

[Ten oz]

ten oz,Looking at the chart, I would say that single income families became two income families and then a combination of factors slowed the economy, took many of our jobs overseas and our workforce aged.I am thinking the proper numbers should be up near the top of the chart. We should develop industries that make renewable energy equipment, and use it, and sell it to the rest of the world. I think we should use our natural resources of shale oil and natural gas to fuel this industry, until it can sustain itself. Sell our corn and livestock and trees to the world. Mine our hills for the resources we and others need.I am not sure what you are asking. Do you think the chart somehow indicates something else?Regards, TAR

 

Was this country better off at the top of that chart? Were the early 00's better than the 40's - 80's? I believe the top of the chart may have been unsustainable which help lead to the huge crash we had. The average family was over extended. Sometimes working isn't worth it.

 

Short story (you like stories); buddy of mine was complaining one day about money. We got to talking about ways he could save money. He was living in an expensive area because it was the mid way point for his and his wife's commute. So we did the math on all the various costs associated. He is in the military so he and his wife move around a lot. As a result his wife picks of what work she can and generally does make a lot of money. By the time we finished the math for rent, gas, parking, tolls, daycare and all the little costs he realized that he would save money if his wife didn't work and just they moved into a more affordable place close to where he worked. Not only did it save him money but saved himself a few commuting hours a week and gets more quality time his family. So his wife, someone who worked during those peak chart years through the late 90's and 00' doesn't work today by choice and it is better for her and her family. I also know a stay at home dad doing it for the same reason. Duel income isn't worth it for every family. Both I and my wife work but we have very short commutes, The same hours, and no kids.

 

As for jobs going to China; innovation and new markets is the key. Holding on to old tech and old industry doesn't get it done. Intellectual property and not labor should be the focus. The jobs that went to China are generally labor heavy factory jobs that rely on old technology. Those jobs are gone. Let's focus on new ones. Btw, unemployment is down. The job market is decent at the moment.

 

We are actually producing record amounts of energy at the Moment. You mention it as if we weren't. Oil is stupid low; what positive impact do you think shale oil will have?

 

 

ten oz,do you have any Republican candidates for nomination?Regards, TAR

I am not sure I undertsand your question? I don't look at political races in terms of what I wish would happen but rather I look at them with regards to what I believe will happen. On the democratic side I like Hilary Clinton easily wins the nomination. if Bernie Sanders wins another 3-4 states total by June I will be shocked. On the Republican side It is very hard to say until March 14th. All the states between now and then are proportional. So Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush will all be collecting delegates. The Media is hyping SC as winner take all but it is actually a hybrid of sorts. The winner gets 29 of the states 40 delegates while the other 21 are awarded by district. I suspect Cruz will be in the delegate lead by March 14th but Rubio, Trump, and Bush will all be in striking distance. I will be in a better place to provide a prediction then.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

You are not even allowed on this thread. The chances of you making a nomination for a capable republican are nil.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

iNow - Judgement is still allowed.

Nobody implied otherwise, Tar.

 

Perhaps it would be wise to ask the president to pay off old debt and secure social promises already made, before launching programs that would add trillions more to our debt.

Debt cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Much of this spending is investment with huge future returns. This imbecilic tendency of folks to treat all spending as simple cost without looking at ROI just boggles the mind.

 

These are decisions, like family decisions, that choose one course of action over another.

No, they're not. Comparing a national budget to a family budget is foolish and will do little more than cause you to make false conclusions.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84790-discussions-on-political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cognition-split-requested-by-phi-for-all/?p=820610

 

In today's climate, against the rich, against wall street, against business, a basic fact of reality is being missed and missed badly.

I believe you fundamentally misunderstand what's happening right now. This isn't about being "against" the rich or "against" wall street or "against" business, but instead is about being FOR a system that's fair and FOR a system that rewards hard work and FOR the middle class and FOR the american dream and FOR stopping the ridiculous levels of corruption in our politics and economy.

 

As in the call to kill police officers, and jail CEOs. Really?

Who is calling for the killing of police officers? What kind of crazy person told you that was happening?

 

As for the jailing CEOs... If they break the law and cripple the economy, why is that a problem? You really just don't get it, and it's sad because there are people on this site that are incredibly articulate teachers good at explaining things, yet it never seems to sink in for you.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

No, I meant do you think there is such thing as a competent Republican? And if so, who is your best example of such?

 

Regards, TAR

iNow,

 

I don't need to be taught what happened during the crash. I was on the phone with my broker often, I listened to Bloomberg news every morning on the way to work.

 

I was taught what was going on, with swaps and packages of bad loans and all, as it happened. My refusal to accept the line that government loans to people that could not afford to pay them back, had nothing to do with the crash has nothing to do with my inability to learn. You and I, went around about quantitative easing as well. We still have not unwound, and the Fed is still holding a lot of paper...and much of the 85billion a month, has gone into the pockets of bankers around the world, and not into the accounts of middle class savers. Low interest rates hurt savers. We recovered on the backs of savers. You don't let me teach you this. So don't accuse me of being misinformed. Informed differently perhaps, with different judgments on the situation, but not "a global warming denier".

 

Ten Oz was saying it worked out better in the 60s when mama was barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and papa brought home the bacon. Well she did not say that, but if a republican would make that argument, she would be all over it.

 

Often on this board I am very much against false equivalences. But that includes not allowing myself to be "taught" that Bernie Madoff means that wall street is corrupt.

 

Regards, TAR

I apologize. I thought I could come to another thread and get away from Overtone's blanket detraction of the Republican Party and everything Republican. I guess I was wrong. I am sorry if I am encouraging the derailment of this thread.

Edited February 11, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

No, I meant do you think there is such thing as a competent Republican? And if so, who is your best example of such?

 

Regards, TAR

 

I addressed that question in post #12

 

Compentent Republicans are stuck in a terrible place. Run honest on the issues like John Huntsman did and get laughed out of politics or pander to uniformed voters as Mitt Romeny did and lose.

I though Mitt Romney was a competent Republican. Unfortunatley he was forced into dogmatic positions by his party. Hard to be competent when your voting base is demanding incompetent. Romney had a moderate pragmatic record. Just that to win the nomination he was forced to run away from it. John Huntsan was competent and refused to run away from his own record and failed to get any traction. It is sad; it makes me sad. John McCain was viewed as a competent serious vioce in our gevernment. Now, i can't shake the fact they he was going to make Sarah Palin the Vice President. John McCain allowed the idiots in his party to make him incompetent.

 

This year I see known. Trump and Cruz are both beyond incompetent. They are dangerous. Just their rhectoric to this points has caused harm in my opinion. Rubio and Bush appear better by comparison but are both incompetent as well.

[tar]

I did not mean to bring the "repubicans" are our problem arguments here. I meant to encourage people to look for the many ways in which republicans and status quo thinker, actually work to our advantage. Collect the garbage, and grease the wheels of industry and finance and such.

 

If it is true, that the top 10 percent of people are among the most capable and trustworthy people we have, then it is crucial that we identify those top 10 percent and keep them on our side.

[overtone]

 

 

You are not even allowed on this thread. The chances of you making a nomination for a capable republican are nil.

I have better chances of nominating a capable/competent Republican than you do. That's because I have reality based standards for capability and competence.

You are living in fiction, like this:

The effort to reduce the tax burden of the poor and increase the tax burden of the rich has already been successful. Socialism was radical in my day. Now it is mainstream policy of the Democratic party.

In reality, starting with Reagan and ever since, the tax burden on the poor has been increased and the tax burden on the rich dramatically reduced.

In reality, the last serious attempt to include a new socialist proposal among the mainstream policies of the Democratic Party was Wellstone's single payer insurance, which was dismissed from Democratic Party consideration by Hillary Clinton in 1993. Obamacare, for example, is capitalist in its formulation - which is not surprising, since it was originally a Republican proposal and like all Republican Party innovations after Nixon was built from capitalist corporate organization and market competition.

All the mainstream socialist policy of the Democratic Party - Social Security, Medicare, Veteran's Administration benefits, etc - dates back before Reagan. Most of it dates to the New Deal, some to the immediate aftermath of WWII, a couple of wrinkles to the 1960s.

So where are you getting this fictional description of the world, and the political Parties of the US, you keep posting?

If it is true, that the top 10 percent of people are among the most capable and trustworthy people we have, then it is crucial that we identify those top 10 percent and keep them on our side.

The Republican Party is not on our side. So if you want not only competence and capability, but competence and capability enlisted on our side, you have to find "republicans" who are willing to oppose the Republican Party.

Edited February 11, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz was saying it worked out better in the 60s when mama was barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and papa brought home the bacon. Well she did not say that, but if a republican would make that argument, she would be all over it.

 

 

What give you the right to outright lie about what I have posted? Are your own views so weak that they only make sense even to yourself if you lie? I have summarized how I felt you view an issue before always bothering to say "in my opinion", I think", "I assume",and etc. I would appreciate the same. In this chase you are flat out putting words and concepts out there I have never posted nor agree with.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I just watch the news.

 

I am not asking you to accept my view of the world. That is unlikely. I have had different insights and thoughts that remove me from completely agreeing with just about everybody. March to the beat of my own drummer, so to speak.

 

But there are situations, where it is required that one leave their ego at the door. In business, I learned, after years of trying to fix my company after we bought a powerful, world class organization, that took the purse strings and ran with them, and completely took over our organization, that it was not my job to fix the company, it was my job to understand what the president of the company was trying to accomplish, and to make his initiatives work.

 

As such, I give my countrymen and woman the benefit of the doubt. I will lean against the pendulum when I think the place is going wacko left or whacko right, but I will pledge my allegiance to whoever we elect, and try to make his or her initiatives work.

 

In this cycle, I want a republican candidate that can beat the democrat candidate, because I think we are losing our respect for authority and law and order, and workable principles, and the basic idea of Kennedy, that it is not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

 

I am still sure that ISIS is my mortal enemy and I need to see it destroyed. You can frame that anyway you want, ascribe to me any awful ideas your want, associate me to imperialists, and Zionists, and terrorists and KKK or whatever it is that floats your boat. I am looking at the real world, and seeing real danger to my way of life and the way of life of my allies.

 

Who I vote for for president is my business, and will be the vote that puts the reigns of the powerful U.S. in the hands of someone who I think will do my bidding. Someone who I trust and respect, and who I find capable and good. How you feel about the guy or gal, has absolutely nothing to do with reality. You have already proven to me that you have no idea of what is importantto me. I don't listen to you. And don't have to.

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

I said you didn't say it. But had I insinuated that women moving into the workplace was a bad idea, it would have proven me sexist. You were saying that the two income family was not a workable situation.

 

 

If I would suggest that having little girls in combat was a bad idea, I might be called sexist. If a future war is lost, because we capitulate rather than see our female prisoners raped and tortured, then the argument for not letting women in combat would take on a different spin.

 

There were republicans, and democrats that wanted their wives to be home to raise the children. This was part and parcel of the woman's movement. To erase this stereotype and expect woman in the workplace. In New Hampshire, the young women went with Sanders, because they already know they can work and lead, as women. They don't have to go with Hillary to fight for them, they already have the reigns of power. Interesting that Hilary and Sanders tied in Iowa and Sanders beat her 60 40 in New Hampshire and Hilary has the most delegates because of the super delegates that are there to protect the party. If the republican party had such a mechanism, we would have cancelled Trump out already. So which party is more structured to be controlled by the elite, and which to be guided by the people?

 

Regards, TAR

OK, I guess I can't talk on this thread either. I will stay off the politics thread. You guys are already closed to reason. And I hate neg reps.

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

I said you didn't say it. But had I insinuated that women moving into the workplace was a bad idea, it would have proven me sexist. You were saying that the two income family was not a workable situation.

 

 

 

 

Regards, TAR

 

No TAR, that is not what I insinuated at all.

Short story (you like stories); buddy of mine was complaining one day about money. We got to talking about ways he could save money. He was living in an expensive area because it was the mid way point for his and his wife's commute. So we did the math on all the various costs associated. He is in the military so he and his wife move around a lot. As a result his wife picks of what work she can and generally does make a lot of money. By the time we finished the math for rent, gas, parking, tolls, daycare and all the little costs he realized that he would save money if his wife didn't work and just they moved into a more affordable place close to where he worked. Not only did it save him money but saved himself a few commuting hours a week and gets more quality time his family. So his wife, someone who worked during those peak chart years through the late 90's and 00' doesn't work today by choice and it is better for her and her family. I also know a stay at home dad doing it for the same reason. Duel income isn't worth it for every family. Both I and my wife work but we have very short commutes, The same hours, and no kids.

 

 

 

What is context? We were dicussing the chart in post #21. You said participation should be near the top of the chart. I suggested that perhaps the top was too high. At the top it was 67% and today it's 62.5% a difference on less than 5%. In that context I said duel income isn't worth it for every family. You have extrapolated that out to read as a blanket statement about duel income families overall. Yet I am in one; both my wife and I work. You are intentionally playing with my words to claim some type of double standard. Take yourself down off the cross and respond to content as posted.

If I would suggest that having little girls in combat was a bad idea, I might be called sexist. If a future war is lost, because we capitulate rather than see our female prisoners raped and tortured, then the argument for not letting women in combat would take on a different spin.

 

 

Ironically throughout history the rape has normally started after the victory.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Ten oz

[EdEarl]

My political position has changed over the years, starting with my family as a Democrat, changing to Republican and now as an independent. At this time I am more anti Republican than Democrat because mega dollars have corrupted politicians.

 

I look at political agendas that will affect my children and grandchildren in relation to the World environment and the effects of human activity. Two trends concern me above all others, climate change and robot workers.

 

Powerful climate change deniers have prevented efforts to abate climate change, and according to UN and other estimates roughly a quarter million people die each year due to climate change. As far as I am concerned they are guilty of mass murder and should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Most GOP politicians and those funding their campaign are responsible. I can only hope that my progeny do not contribute to that statistic.

 

Robots are replacing workers at an increasing rate. Driverless vehicles will soon displace truck drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, and the average Joe. Some jobs, such as manufacturing and warehousing are easier to automate than others, such as doctors and lawyers. However, scientists believe virtually all jobs can be automated. Estimates vary, but it is plausible half of all jobs in the US will be automated with a few decades. The result is less expensive goods and services, and many more poor people unless government policies change to subsidize the poor or enable people to be independent without a job. Currently, Republicans are in favor of automation, but they are waging war on the poor (e.g., according to John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio). It is cruel to help corporations eliminate employees and ignore or punish those who loose their jobs. Again, I hope my progeny are not among the statistics.

 

In fact, I believe society and government must change radically, but I have no idea what will happen or how to affect it. These two issues make me strongly anti Republican at this time. Things will change, I hope is is not tragic.

[Ten oz]

 

 

Robots are replacing workers at an increasing rate. Driverless vehicles will soon displace truck drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, and the average Joe. Some jobs, such as manufacturing and warehousing are easier to automate than others, such as doctors and lawyers. However, scientists believe virtually all jobs can be automated. Estimates vary, but it is plausible half of all jobs in the US will be automated with a few decades. The result is less expensive goods and services, and many more poor people unless government policies change to subsidize the poor or enable people to be independent without a job. Currently, Republicans are in favor of automation, but they are waging war on the poor (e.g., according to John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio). It is cruel to help corporations eliminate employees and ignore or punish those who loose their jobs. Again, I hope my progeny are not among the statistics.

 

In fact, I believe society and government must change radically, but I have no idea what will happen or how to affect it. These two issues make me strongly anti Republican at this time. Things will change, I hope is is not tragic.

The printing press and cotton mill replaced a lot of workers too. A car can do the work of a hiundred horses. Holding onto old technology is not the answer. Processes have been becoming increasingly more automated for a hundred years. It has allowed us to get far more work done while freeing us to do other things. If everything was still built by hand we wouldn't be having this conversation via the internet. The future is always a bit scary. My grandmother was born in rural Nebraska before the great depression. She grew up without running water, electricity, or a phone in her parents home. By the time she passed in 1996 she had cable TV and the internet. Things that were beyond her imagination earlier in life.

[overtone]

I am not asking you to accept my view of the world. That is unlikely. I have had different insights and thoughts that remove me from completely agreeing with just about everybody. March to the beat of my own drummer, so to speak.

Everything you have posted here so far has been standard issue bs from the media influence operations of the wingnut right.

 

I can get it from Rush Limbaugh, or the American Enterprise Institute, or any of several Fox media "pundits", or Donald Trump's latest rant, or your posting here. Same words, same viewpoint, same fictional rewriting of history, same abuse of vocabulary and resort to personal attack. You didn't think any of that up for yourself, because if you had you would not have matched the specific errors and fictions one sees from the wingnut propaganda operations - you would have made your own errors. The only question is where, specifically, you found it.

 

 

In this cycle, I want a republican candidate that can beat the democrat candidate, because I think we are losing our respect for authority and law and order, and workable principles, - -

The Democratic candidates encourage far more respect for law and order than the Republican ones, by proposing justice be adhered to as a workable principle. When you discard justice as if it were an unworkable principle, you undermine people's respect for law and order - as we have seen, in the American pattern of abuse of black people by their local police forces.

 

You said you wanted a nomination for a competent, or capable, Republican - but what you really seem to want is the name of a Republican in public political life whom other people would be willing to see govern the country. In other words, not just capable and competent at what they do, but interested in doing good things that reasonable people want to see done in the way of governance. That is unlikely to be available, because the Republican Party has cleansed itself of those politicians at the national level. Gingrich did that, beginning in 1992.

Edited February 11, 2016 by overtone

[Phi for All]

OK, I guess I can't talk on this thread either. I will stay off the politics thread. You guys are already closed to reason. And I hate neg reps.

 

Reason? Closed to reason?!

What give you the right to outright lie about what I have posted? Are your own views so weak that they only make sense even to yourself if you lie? I have summarized how I felt you view an issue before always bothering to say "in my opinion", I think", "I assume",and etc. I would appreciate the same. In this chase you are flat out putting words and concepts out there I have never posted nor agree with.

Nobody implied otherwise, Tar.

 

...

 

Who is calling for the killing of police officers? What kind of crazy person told you that was happening?

 

...

 

You really just don't get it, and it's sad because there are people on this site that are incredibly articulate teachers good at explaining things, yet it never seems to sink in for you.

[rangerx]

I will lean against the pendulum when I think the place is going wacko left or whacko right.

 

Perhaps I read too much into your analogy, but like a clock, the pendulum must never be touched by the hand lest we'll be stuck in time. Our obligation to democracy is to agree to wind the clock alternately to allow the pendulum to swing naturally.

 

Republicans, by being "the party of no" and claiming candidates are "not conservative enough" are only interested in hiding the key and wedging the pendulum to the right whilst clinging the the fallacy that being right twice a day equates to being right all day.

 

This forces the president's hand to extricate the pendulum from it's mooring to allow it to swing freely again. Not necessarily pinning it to the left as Republicans would have you believe.

 

[EdEarl]

The printing press and cotton mill replaced a lot of workers too. A car can do the work of a hiundred horses. Holding onto old technology is not the answer. Processes have been becoming increasingly more automated for a hundred years. It has allowed us to get far more work done while freeing us to do other things. If everything was still built by hand we wouldn't be having this conversation via the internet. The future is always a bit scary. My grandmother was born in rural Nebraska before the great depression. She grew up without running water, electricity, or a phone in her parents home. By the time she passed in 1996 she had cable TV and the internet. Things that were beyond her imagination earlier in life.

So, the cotton mill replaced slave workers and cars replaced horses, but robot work wont replace human work? Before the industrial revolution, children worked in the fields or families would suffer. There are fewer workers per capita now than previously. The trend seems clear. , Weather changes randomly but climate change is steady; the job market is random but worker replacement by automation is steady.

 

Part of the reason jobs survived automation was people worked to improve their lifestyle. Now our lifestyle is killing us with obesity and other rich diseases. The kind of lifestyle improvement we need is personal and not the kind of thing a corporation can bottle and sell.

Edited February 11, 2016 by EdEarl

[MigL]

Don't share your views on limiting innovation to preserve labour intensive jobs, Ed.

The leading countries in the world all became world leaders by embracing innovation.

England in the 1800s, Germany in the late 1800s/early 1900s and the US in the middle 1900s.

 

I have admired a few Republicans from previous years...

I don't care what Overtone says, I always liked R. Reagan.

Always liked J. McCain, but disliked M. Romney with a passion.

I have never lost respect for R. Nixon since seeing the picture of him scolding and pointing his finger in Khrushchev's chest in the White House kitchen.

Understand that these are all subjective opinions of them as people.

 

None of the present contenders strike me as anyone I'd like to have a drink and a conversation with.

 

I liked both J. Kennedy and L. Johnson ( who was probably a bigger womanizer than JFK ).

And I bet B. Clinton has a few stories to tell ( about the bit*hes, my apologies to the ladies in the room ).

I have admired B. Obama and what he ( at least ) tried to do.

 

And of the present field of Democrats, I do like H, Clinton and would like to see her as President.

Hopefully she doesn't get cought 'diddling' one of her interns ( male or female ).

 

YOU GO GIRL !

[iNow]

My refusal to accept the line that government loans to people that could not afford to pay them back, had nothing to do with the crash has nothing to do with my inability to learn.

Then you're basically conceding, openly and without shame or repent, that you are prioritizing ideology and opinion over fact and evidence.

 

http://erwan.marginalq.com/HULM12f/ag.pdf

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2011/201136/201136abs.html

http://ritholtz.com/2011/11/examining-the-big-lie-how-the-facts-of-the-economic-crisis-stack-up/

http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/08/27/fannie-freddie-acquitted/

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/it-wasnt-fannie.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-the-big-lie-goes-viral/2011/10/31/gIQAXlSOqM_story.html

http://ritholtz.com/2011/07/why-wallison-is-wrong-about-the-genesis-of-the-u-s-housing-crisis/

http://politicalcorrection.org/mobile/factcheck/201110140001

 

Low interest rates hurt savers. We recovered on the backs of savers.

Ok, Tar.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings-2015-10-06

Approximately 62% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts and 21% dont even have a savings account.

(snip)

This is supported by a similar survey of 1,000 adults carried out earlier this year by personal finance site Bankrate.com, which also found that 62% of Americans have no emergency savings for things such as a $1,000 emergency room visit or a $500 car repair.

 

And while a low interest rate marginally lowers the incentive to save (for those tiny few not living paycheck to paycheck who actually can), the difference is tiny. While for the past few years you've made maybe $1-2 for every $1,000 saved, with a higher rate that only changes slightly to $15-30 for every $1,000 saved / $1,500 for every $100,000.

 

So don't accuse me of being misinformed.

It's not an accusation, tar. It's a verifiable fact, and one that I've supported repeatedly and respectfully on countless occasions.

[overtone]

 

 

I have admired a few Republicans from previous years...

I don't care what Overtone says, I always liked R. Reagan.

Liking him is one thing. Forgetting or ignoring what he actually did, as President, is a much different thing.

The fictional account of the Reagan tenure, especially the obscuring of the still accumulating and severe economic damage his ridiculous economic policies have imposed on the US ever since his pivotal terms in office, should be discarded forthwith. Whatever you like about the guy, launching the rollback of the New Deal, deregulating the banks and handing big tax breaks to hedge fund founders and the like, handing the economy back to the people Roosevelt had rescued it from, was a very bad - incompetently bad, significantly bad - course of action. It did harm, and does harm to this day. It's how we got into the mess we're in now.

[EdEarl]

Liking him is one thing. Forgetting or ignoring what he actually did, as President, is a much different thing.

The fictional account of the Reagan tenure, especially the obscuring of the still accumulating and severe economic damage his ridiculous economic policies have imposed on the US ever since his pivotal terms in office, should be discarded forthwith. Whatever you like about the guy, launching the rollback of the New Deal, deregulating the banks and handing big tax breaks to hedge fund founders and the like, handing the economy back to the people Roosevelt had rescued it from, was a very bad - incompetently bad, significantly bad - course of action. It did harm, and does harm to this day. It's how we got into the mess we're in now.

 

Think my vote went for Reagan, but it was a mistake. There were many factors that has contributed to the decline of the US economy and the American dream for all but a few privileged people. On the other hand, the decline began during his term and his policies did not help. Perhaps nothing could. In any case gutting the new deal was a mistake.

Edited February 12, 2016 by EdEarl

[iNow]

Tar - Please reply here in thread and not via PM. Your PMs (yes, plural) to me were nonsensical and I'd like to show you why, but here out in the open, not in secret or hidden from view.

[EdEarl]

Don't share your views on limiting innovation to preserve labour intensive jobs, Ed.

The leading countries in the world all became world leaders by embracing innovation.

England in the 1800s, Germany in the late 1800s/early 1900s and the US in the middle 1900s.

I didn't intend to sound like I want to suppress innovation; it's impossible. Things will change, but that isn't likely to be what changes.

[tar]

iNow,

 

No thank you. I am sitting out the political threads for a while.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

So, the cotton mill replaced slave workers and cars replaced horses, but robot work wont replace human work? Before the industrial revolution, children worked in the fields or families would suffer. There are fewer workers per capita now than previously. The trend seems clear. , Weather changes randomly but climate change is steady; the job market is random but worker replacement by automation is steady.

 

Part of the reason jobs survived automation was people worked to improve their lifestyle. Now our lifestyle is killing us with obesity and other rich diseases. The kind of lifestyle improvement we need is personal and not the kind of thing a corporation can bottle and sell.

 

 

I didn't intend to sound like I want to suppress innovation; it's impossible. Things will change, but that isn't likely to be what changes.

Things change. We can agree on there and leave it. I do not want to derail this thread debating something off topic.

 

Think my vote went for Reagan, but it was a mistake. There were many factors that has contributed to the decline of the US economy and the American dream for all but a few privileged people. On the other hand, the decline began during his term and his policies did not help. Perhaps nothing could. In any case gutting the new deal was a mistake.

Reagan was an actor. Not just in Hollywood but in the White House. Reagan was clearly not the leader on his own administration. That has been a theme amongst Republicans since. Bush never fully seemed to have control over his administration either. McCain got duped into put Palin on his ticket and running away from immigration. Same goes for Romney. Mitt had to sprint away from the politics of his past. I never got the impression during the Clinton years that Gore or whom every was actually behind the scenes pulling the strings. Bill was clearly his own man. Same goes for Obama. I don't get the impression Pelosi and Reid and sit Obama down and tell him what to say. Since Reagan the GOP and seemed more interested in a front many than a leader. Some to deliver policy but not come up with policy. They (GOP) have think tanks for that.

[iNow]

iNow,No thank you. I am sitting out the political threads for a while.Regards, TAR

Fair enough.

 

I wouldn't normally share a PM openly, but do feel compelled to do so due to the disgust your latest PM has triggered in me. This is not the approach of a critical thinker or someone who genuinely desires to base their positions in fact and reality:

 

I have no interest in continuing to be told that the evidence says the subprime loans crisis had nothing to do with subprime loans defaults that happened directly after affordable housing legislation...like we wanted to go into recession to prove the legislation faulty.

Regardless, I accept your implicit concession.