"Which one respects the office.
Many news outlets have commented on how unprepared Trump seemed for this debate, the first one-on-one he's ever had to participate in. He actually criticized Hillary Clinton for "staying home" to prepare for the debate (and she took great advantage of that dumb comment).
What does it mean for our country that Clinton was so well-prepared and Trump so ill-prepared for this debate? It means that she respects the office of President of the United States. He regards the presidency as a vehicle of his self-importance and his power to exact revenge on those who oppose him or contradict him. For Trump, to be president is to be Number One--it's all about him. That's why he hasn't bothered to make and offer plans to us about how he would handle this or that problem.
For Clinton, the presidency means taking responsibility for the well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans, and of others around the word. Working to improve lives, save lives. It's not all about her. For her, it's all about US." Constance
Really: "For her, it's all about US."
Now please remember that the Clinton's are the couple who went from broke to being worth $100+ million and having a large charity with questionable donors over a ~16 year period. And she maintained a home server so she could control public access to "her" affairs and communications. She is not a Jimmy Carter who seeks to give and help wherever he can.
I offer a different view, she believes that preparing for a debate is the best way for her to attain the power and influence that she has been pursuing for decades. I mean I understand, she is so close to attaining that power and it may be pulled away from her like it was in 2008. That would be terrifying and I would work hard to prepare.
Clinton is more of an analytical introvert and therefore to store up energy and focus she tends to seek privacy. Trump is more of a extroverted collaborator and therefore being with people listening to them is what works for him.
Having worked with both personalities for decades, neither is good or bad... They are just different." G2A
"Planning vs Reality
Since I don't like Clinton or Trump, some of my readers are telling me I should vote for Clinton because she is the safe bet. I mean she has adopted many of the far Left planks from Bernie's Social Democracy platform, and she has spent a lot analytical effort creating detailed plans for how she would do them which scares me to death. However my readers remind me that nothing she is selling will come to pass as long as the GOP controls the House, which is likely to happen.
I mean their reasoning is very logical and practical. It is very likely that a vote for Hillary is a vote for 4 more years of gridlock. Which ironically I am a big fan of. If they would only freeze governmental spending for a couple of years, force the government to become more effective / efficient and let GDP growth raise the tax revenues so we could start paying down the debt... It would be perfect !!!
So I asked the following questions: Why is Hillary making all of these promises that she will not be allowed to implement? Shouldn't she be honest with her voters and explain this reality?
Is it a bad or good thing that Trump does not sell a detailed plan that he knows may not become reality? Remember he is a deal maker so long term detailed plans are pointless to him... He will get between the GOP / DFL and see where they can agree to take things. Thoughts? " G2A
"Why should economics be divorced from morality?
It shouldn't, it isn't, and it can't be. However, one of the most usual moral criteria applied to the question:
- "How much should the people at the bottom of the wage system be paid?" is "They can't be paid so much that they're raised to our level." ("$50 an hour"?)
Questions or observations about this moral assumption are rarely raised in these discussions. Questions like:
- Why is work organized the ways it is, with arbitrary judgments about the economic value of different jobs?
- Why are making decisions about the value of other people's work financially rewarded at so much higher a level than the actual work of the economy: building, nursing, customer service, educating, making deliveries, inspecting, maintaining, cleaning?
- Who has decided that women's home and child raising work has no economic value at all?
- Why are some communities condemned to chronic poverty?
- Why is there a belief that a poor class ("the bottom of the wage system") is NECESSARY to our capitalist system?
I heard in this discussion troubling assumptions about the ability or willingness of us ordinary citizens to understand complex or even simpler political and economic issues, a distrust of direct democracy as OPPOSED TO representative democracy (they can and do coexist). I know that many of us don't trust our own abilities, either.
This can be changed, by trusting ourselves to understand even complex issues, by caring enough to find out facts and history, by trusting that even though the present system makes it hard for us to feel like important members of our semi-democracy, WE DO get to choose how much we know and how we involve ourselves in what is after all our own lives."
Here is a random comment from EJ Dionne that I felt inclined to post over here to combat your idea that govt spending does little to reduce poverty:
"Greenwald and Intercept do represent a new hope for change where investigative means asking the questions and where certainty is not a positive conclusion?
Krugman surprises me a bit ...but maybe what's happening in those supported by mainstream corporate ,media will eventually compromise to survive by being with the "winner' candidate and his/her whichever of the 'non-choice' we now are stuck with?
So it goes...if all we are left with are two unacceptable choices certainly I suppose media voices we thought were columnists with integrity will start accepting the negative foibles of whom they assume will win among our two sad choices ...and cling for survival as columnist not necessarily as wordsmiths of integrity if one wants to survive?
Sad yes,so I suggest one need to develop a most athletic mind of sorts; to read beyond what you necessarily may not believe or accept at the moment but consider alternatives to standard, mainstream journalism sources, that read too often like the minutes of the local men's club...and explore a little further without fear of being beyond the limited scope and the influence of other ideas if your mind dare explore? Maybe Intercept sets a new standard where 'investigative' means something more that soaping of the news gathering culture?
Hope this makes sense ...or scrap it, but either way one of Eric's finest articles lately...do appreciate." Beryl
"It seems the people a ways Left and Right of Center insist on seeing Heroes and Villains... When in reality these politicians are just flawed humans just like us.
Trump and Clinton are both self centered people who have willingly chosen to live in the public eye and be "successful". Both have made questionable choices and made mistakes.
How does that go... Let the perfect throw the first stone...
I wish our culture would start focusing on why the candidates would be good for the position, instead trying to scare everyone against the opponent by turning them into the "villain"...
Those Mills vs Nolan attack ads are going to get real old by Nov. But apparently us silly voters buy " G2A
"The problem with the mentality that currently dominates the republican/libertarian leadership is that it's driven by dystopian fantasy rather than evidence or reason. This mentality is part magical thinking, and part toxic sociopathic. It's magical thinking in the sense that the assumption is that no planning or policy is actually necessary, growth and prosperity are magical entities that float around and manifest themselves as long as we keep cutting taxes and don't grow government.
This mentality is sociopathic in that it takes an adolescent: "You're not the boss of me" declaration to toxic heights. This notion that any taxpayer or their like minded politicians should be able to veto any project they don't like not only violates the very premise of democracy, it makes civilization and impossible objective.
I don't know what they're doing with County Rd. 101 out in Minnetonka between 394 and Minnetonka Blvd., but it's taken about two years and I know no one ever asked me as a taxpayer whether or not not I support it. It looks like they built a new road and bridge but they had a perfectly good road and bridge already as far as know. The difference I'm not whining about my taxes, I wouldn't veto the 101 project even if I could.
Yet that's exactly how republicans think we should run things, and that's why whenever republicans are given a chance run things it literally falls apart. Remember Kiffmeyer's plan to have the contractors front the money for the 35W - 62 interchange? Yah, that was sooooooooo innovative. Whatever." Paul
"So somebody who disagrees with your position and uses political methods to block that position is Sociopathic?
Does this same concept apply when people work to block tax cuts, right to work, accountability in our public education system, etc?
I have a different view... This is Democracy a work... It may be messy, inefficient, etc but it is the best system of it's kind !!! God Bless America !!!" G2A
"A lot of very nice people disagree with each other all the time, that doesn't make us all sociopaths. In politics we have a concept of: "loyal opposition". The idea is that while we may disagree and fight for different agendas, we recognize that governance isn't a game to be won or lost, and winning elections doesn't make us dictators. The "loyalty" part is about recognizing that we are communities in a nation working towards a common "good" despite our differences. The "loyalty" is for the democratic process.
Sociopaths have no coherent concept of "community", in fact they tend to classify communities as agents of oppression and may even find the notion of being loyal to something other than themselves or their own mentality nearly incomprehensible if not outright immoral. For Libertarians this is actually a philosophy of selfishness pretending to be a fight for liberty. While reactionary republicans share some libertarian disgust for communal governance; they also have an inclination to deploy the levers of government as mechanisms of dictatorial power. In essence neither libertarians or reactionary republicans can actually believe in democracy.
Rather they tend to view democracy and citizenship itself as form of oppression that requires they submit to the will of the people rather than their own interests. Democracy is great as long as they get what they want or believe in, but it's oppression by the majority otherwise. In other words the "republicans" in question don't want to participate in the democratic process, they want to capture it and use it towards their own ends, which of course is a fundamentally undemocratic impulse.
The absence of "loyalty" to the democratic process makes bipartisan progress nearly impossible. We used to have bipartisan progress despite disagreements but in recent decades bipartisan progress has collapsed into partisan gridlock as "toxic sociopathy" has ascended to power within the republican party.
Now I should clarify that when I talk about "sociopaths" I'm describing an intellectual tendency, not labeling individuals as sociopaths per se. This is a socio-political analysis not a psychological profile. Obviously personality traits present across a continuum among individuals and aren't determined political affiliation." Paul
"Of course I disagree, I believe almost all people believe this. "Democracy is great as long as they get what they want or believe in, but it's oppression by the majority otherwise."
I mean look at how unhappy the Liberals were/are when States did not support LGBT rights.
Or when States believe in a flatter tax code, rather than the highly progressive one they prefer.
Or when the Democracy decided that welfare needed to be reformed...
As I repeatedly note, for ~100 years the Liberals have been striving to pull our country towards being a Northern European Social Democracy. (ie 7% of GDP to 37% of GDP) Now they have pulled the rubber band tight enough that the tension has increased. So of course an increasing number of citizens are becoming resistant and people are pulling back harder.
As I often ask, how many percent of your paycheck are you willing to give to the government so they can distribute it as they deem correct? You know my number is 33%... I truly think the government and our public employees should be able to fulfill their assigned duties for 1/3 of our country's GDP. That leaves 2/3rds for families to use as they wish. Or do you think the politicians/bureaucrats can make better spending decisions than us individuals?" G2A
"G2A says:
"Of course I disagree, I believe almost all people believe this: "Democracy is great as long as they get what they want or believe in, but it's oppression by the majority otherwise."
Thank for confirming that this mentality isn't just a figment of my imagination. I would suggest to the readers at large that this isn't just the view of one guy on this comment thread, as I've already stated.
I would point out however that contrary to John's assumption many Americans believe in the democratic process despite the fact that it doesn't always deliver what each of us wants and sometimes delivers stuff we as individuals don't want. We don't in fact considers ourselves victims of tyranny (Tyranny of the masses) every time a vote doesn't go our way.
This is the difference between the loyal opposition I've described, and the "disloyal" opposition we see among reactionary republicans/tea party/libertarians. I don't want subsidized stadiums and nobody asked me about paying for a County Rd. 101 rebuild but I'm not going to shut down government or try to disnenfranchise any voters in order to stop them being built. Sure, we're not always "happy", but that doesn't mean we're being crushed under the oppressive heal of the masses.
As for the movement towards "liberalism", yes, I frequently point out that the best way to get your head around the republican agenda is to accept the fact that they want to repeal the 20th century.
The government/tax percentage thing struggles to but never attains economic coherence because A.) We know our system works better than the Somali model. And B). All this "spending" the government does is the product of a democratic process. Our "government" isn't some independent entity beyond our control that collects taxes and spends money in a separate economy." Paul
"I think this must be a matter of perspective, as long as I have been paying attention / blogging, it seems the Liberals have maintained a continuous narrative that most Americans are victims of a relatively corrupt government and the companies / wealthy people who supposedly have paid for it.
Please also remember that it takes a conscience choice by 2 parties to shut down a government. Either side can sweeten the pot and get things moving again.
As for the ideal "% of GDP" target, I guess I have not heard of any politician who wants to "repeal the 20th century". Please remember that would reduce our spend to ~7% from our current ~37%. Personally I think most Americans would be happy if we could get back to 30% in good times and ~36% during recessions. This should be pretty easy to do if we actually held our politicians accountable for reducing the complexity and size of the governmental bureaucracy, and paying down the debt. And just think how happy people would be to have some more money to use as they wish.
Now I know you like to scare folks with the Somalia comparison. And yet I have to ask if you thought the USA in 1907 was a lawless state fulled with chaos and murder? If so I must have missed that when watching Little House on the Prairie..."G2A
"Sanders was attempting to stage a Socialistic coup and would have been happy to take a huge amount of wealth from the savers/investors and give to the spenders/debtors. Now I agree that Trump uses the same tools, I am not sure why you are hesitant to agree." G2AWhat I thought was fascinating was Joel's comment about "pointing out the problems with the way we are governed". To me it seems that he thinks "someone" out there is governing us... Now from a Conservative this would be a non-statement since they are certain the "Government" is a self fulfilling animal of it's own making.
"Good Lord, Sanders was trying to win an election not stage a coup. Come in off the ledge. " Sean
"Another thing Trump and Sanders had in common. :-) And yet Liberals insist Trump wants to end American democracy as we know it. Maybe both sides should come off the ledge. By the way, I agree that coup was not the correct word... The correct word was Revolution." G2A
"Revolution: Something we citizens of the United States of American can be thankful for. But maybe you can prove that Sanders was inciting hatred instead of pointing out the problems with the way we are governed. You have that opportunity." Joel
"Wiki Political Revolution "Such political revolutions are envisioned to overthrow undemocratic governments of bureaucratic privilege, replacing them with governments based on workers' democracy while maintaining state owned property relations."
I wonder if we would be the first fully transparent Democracy to have a revolution against ourselves?" G2A
"Poverty, government subsidies and income disparity
This discussion ignores a number of critical issues. First, the shrinking of the middle class in terms of the race to the bottom with wages. If you look at the minimum wage of 30-40 years ago and applied the inflation rate, the minimum wage worker would be making closer to $15 per hour than the current minimum. Likewise wages of middle class workers as the investor manager class has shifted money into their pockets.
Second, the level of poverty in our prosperous society is appalling and the children of low wage workers have little chance to get out of poverty as long as their parents don't earn enough to support a family. Single parent households - often a result of who adults who cannot have a decent lifestyle with both parents working. $3000 per year more income, chump change for most Americans, make poor families more whole.
Third, in essence government by providing social benefits to low wage adults are providing business subsidies. When a highly profitable company like Walmart force the government to support its workers, that money goes right to the company bottom line. In other words, middle class people pay for social benefits, allowing executives and stock holders to pocket bigger checks.
Finally, this dynamic fuels income disparity and creates problems through society. When people have education and good paying jobs, they are better family members, neighbors and citizens. Why should government tolerate greedy people expecting subsidies, when it creates social dysfunction. Trump supporters, you are not getting screwed by government, but by businessmen like Trump who care about nothing other than their personal bottom line. Only government action can set things right." Joel StegnerIt will be interesting to see where the minimum wage discussion goes from here. Thoughts?
"Same Old Story
1. A large majority of American Consumers want the best quality, features, performance, etc for the best price. Therefore many jobs went overseas and wages dropped. (ie the first Datsuns, Hondas, Nissans, etc)
2.Single parent households are poor because there is one adult and one or more kids. And unfortunately often the one Parent is low skilled or has low academic capability.
3. The subsidies go to those low skilled / low academically capable parents to reduce the natural consequences of their poor choices. They are better for our society than raising the minimum wage. Rationale: a higher minimum wage will increases prices for everyone, and put more pressure to off shore more jobs. Where as work credit, child credit, food stamps, etc are paid for by the wealthy and given to the poor.
4. Currently we encourage single parent households and all the societal problems they cause by paying them with medical care, food, cash, etc. This unfortunately promotes the behavior, children failing in school, generational poverty, etc. I understand your desire to double down on the "war on poverty, however I am not sure the poor or our country will be able to survive it." G2A
"Based on the last numbers I saw, net illegal immigration was about zero. Now that sounds good until one digs and finds out that it means that ~400,000 people entered the country with no backgrounds checks and that we Americans had to pay to process and deport ~400,000 people. Not to mention the amount of illegal drugs imported from down South.
What is your rationale that this is adequate / acceptable border security?
And for the folks who want higher wages for Americans with low skill and/or academic capabilities, do you support having an open border even though it keeps downward pressure on the wages of these American citizens? What is your rationale?" G2A
