"absent political adjustment" yes, it's absent and will stay absent
anecdote: NPR had a great one.
Some group sent identical letters to Congressman, except for one difference. Some letters were from "cons uents" and other from "donors". Guess which letters got the overwhelming response?
"war" After the US explosion of wealth after WWII, then VN, Iraq, Afghanistan were relatively cheap for USA, not disruptive.
"depression" the recent worst depression in 80 years, still in progress, INCREASED inequality.
it's present in US history. how you explain the New Deal?"absent political adjustment" yes, it's absent and will stay absent
hard to see how you can rule something similar happening again. you don't know the future, you're just wedded to being a Cassandra.
The New Deal had the very unusual combination of an atypical 1%er in the WH and a compliant Congress, although the Repugs fought hard to stop FDR and are still fighting to destroy everything he did, as they are fighting hard to destroy the PROGRESS of the 1960s as well as the 1930s.
So FDR was able to create a middle class with Social Security, unions, tax rates, and extensive Keynesian spending/invesment which America is STILL benefitting from.
"The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from 1933 to 1969), with its base in liberal ideas,
the white South,
traditional Democrats,
big city machines,
and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities.
The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, and liberals accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient.
The realignment crystallized into the New Deal Coalition that dominated most presidential elections into the 1960s, while the opposition Conservative Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963.
By 1936 the term "liberal" typically was used for supporters of the New Deal, and "conservative" for its opponents.
From 1934 to 1938, Roosevelt was assisted in his endeavours by a "pro-spender" majority in Congress (drawn from two-party, compe ive, non-machine, Progressive, and Left party districts).
As noted by Alexander Hicks, "Roosevelt, backed by rare, non-Southern Democrat majorities—270 non-Southern Democrat representatives and 71 non-Southern Democrat senators—spelled Second New Deal reform."[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
There's no effective split on the Repug side now as there was in the 1930s, as those (poor) racist Southern Dems converted to Repugs in response to the 1960s.
Kock Bros tea baggers intimidate any moderate Repugs who might want to go along with Dems. The polarization driven by the Repugs is effectively impregnable for decades out.
Cassandra? give me HARD REASONS, EVIDENCE, DATA why I'm wrong, or GFY.
Voter suppression, gerrymandering, and $Ts from the VRWC will keep the Repugs in power in red states, and in the House. The Senate will be dangerously in play.
you don't need a crystal ball to see the present, but it's absurd to think the current political situation extends indefinitely into the future.
absurd?
what's absurd is you imagining, looking at the present impregnable power of the VRWC/1%/UnitedCorporationsOfAmerica and the pro-wealthy/pro-business extreme right wing SCOTUS majority, a future where the status quo will disappear or just change for the better.
While bd may be Cassandra, you're outlook is a bit Pollyanna considering current realities.
how so? please be specific, if you can.
linking examples from this thread would be nice
and bearing in mind, I hope, the detailed context I've given the OP
which you probably haven't read through
We just faced our own catastrophic moment, the solution was to feed the rich not eat the rich. Embraced by both parties and the American people.
I don't see any political solution until once again it all crashes down for the rich and the so called middle class. Then we can look at a graph showing how equal things are and proclaim that because we are more equal, we must all be better off. JMO
"Embraced by both parties and the American people."
Where did the American people become informed about the bailing out the financial sector? Where did they vote for it?
"until once again it all crashes down for the rich"
won't happen. Fed will bail out the financial sector indefinitely, printing $Ts, buying/eating toxic from the financial sector(aka QE), etc, etc.
They vote for it in every election.
The financial sector is continues to create toxic globally. The Feds power is not infinite.
Stick it to them till they squeal. When they squeal back off and comfort them. When they feel comforted, stick it to them again.
That doesn't make any sense. Obama and McCain were both s for the Paulson bailout, and were the only two choices thanks to our cons ution (since a strong third candidate would mean congress picks the president).
You can come up with any number of excuses...they're still voting for it. I'm glad they do.
What excuse?
I don't feel like going around in circles today. I think the American people are getting exactly what they are voting for and you disagree..that's fine by me.
the candidates they vote for are mostly chosen by the political power brokers, or intimidated by the well-financed howling mob of Christians, rednecks, etc, who of course want to maintain the current system, no disruption.
You don't feel like going around in circles because you do not have the knowledge or the ability to back up your argument.
I thought it was because I didn't much sleep last night but your smarter than everyone else so you could be right.
Did you give up on trying to insult me for making money without much effort and having a wife that makes money too? I enjoyed that.
No. And the insult is not that you're wife makes money...it's that she's the primary bread winner. The fact that you make a a few scraps off her earned income by playing in the wallstreet casino all day is just a side bar.
Oh that's the insult. Man, that's harsh. I feel like less of a man now. it, I'm divorcing this physician and finding me a good cashier or maybe a hairdresser to pump up my ego.
You should have bought 25k shares of UPIP around the middle of last week. Few clicks of the mouse...pretty nice scraps tbh.
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 03-27-2014 at 07:09 PM.
Meh. I know your type. You were gainfully employed then got laid off at some point along the way. Initially you tried to get back up on that horse and find a job, but eventually just dropped out of the labor force. Some dudes start "their own business" that barely breaks even...since you're wife makes a decent living you play in the casinos all day.Oh that's the insult. Man, that's harsh. I feel like less of a man now. it, I'm divorcing this physician and finding me a good cashier or maybe a hairdresser to pump up my ego.
You should have bought 25k shares of UPIP around the middle of last week. Few clicks of the mouse...pretty nice scraps tbh.
So which bloated firm laid you off initially? Had to have been the .com bubble based on your age.
lol you got me all figured out.
Revealed a bit about yourself though. How unsuccessful does a woman have to be before you can overcome your insecurity and feel like man around her?
My wife is very successful. She actually makes more money than me
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
