Donald Trump 2018

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

From what I understand we're now approaching (and may have exceeded) Gilded Age levels of wealth inequality.  

But regardless, I disagree with your conclusion.  The robber barons were indeed rapacious.  But there is are two critical differences:

1) The Gilded Age rich used their enterprises to feed their greed.  The desperately wanted the government not to interfere with their fleecing of the masses (whether it be by breaking up trusts or imposing safety/workplace standards or permitting labor organization).  

In contrast, the rich today use the government directly to increase their wealth by transferring it from the poor, instituting subsidies (both direct and indirect), and regulating out competition.  

2) Both out of a belief in American meritocracy and out of a sense of self-preservation, the robber barons spent more on philanthropic endeavors and supported some limited progressive public policies.  For the most part, we don't see that today.  

Instead, the very rich today are dead set against any change.  They act as though they can keep a hold of this pressure cooker by just tightening down the clamps further.  It's the same thing the Russian aristocracy thought in 1910.  They were wrong.

It's been written out of American history save for the Haymarket case and the Sacco / Vanzetti trial, but there was a decades long wave of assassinations and bombings that came in the wake of the Gilded Age and ushered in the progressive reforms that came in the teens. If we continue on the course we are on right now we are about to see another wave of assassinations and bombings. 

[Fozzz 152]

Are the rich less philanthropic today?  I think one difference would be that today’s wealthy are trying to unwind prior achievements that did not exist at that earlier time - there was little wealth to transfer from the poor.  However, they also used the government as a tool for extracting wealth.  For instance, see our activities in Latin America, Hawaii, and the Philippines during that time. 

[Ghost of LL 15606]

I hope that's not true.  There's a way to prevent it at the ballot box starting this November.  

And I've come increasingly to believe that doing so is a matter of national survival.

[hayden_horn 11374]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

Or Carnegie Mellon University or Stanford University.  Or for that matter any number of hospitals, libraries, and parks.

When was the last time you heard of that kind of philanthropy?

 

 

 

And no--paying the difference between a utilitarian TXDOT-funded bridge over the Trinity River and one designed by an overrated Spaniard doesn't count.

the thing was, and this is to your point, i think, there was a high minded mentality to make an actual impact on society - your noblesse oblige that you reference. yeah, these guys are called robber barons because of how they approached their business, however, they would turn around and be lavish on the other end trying to make a positive impact. it was a sense of balance for these guys. rockefeller would crush his competition with a ruthless efficiency, he would buy refineries to close them and put people out of work, just the worst side of business conduct possible. he sought total control over means of production and got extraordinarily rich doing it. he was a colossal asshole.

however, he is also said to have said "think of giving not as a duty, but as a privilege." he philanthropic contributions are almost immeasurable, and to list them out would take me forever. you see bill gates and warren buffet doing that. and...maybe some others? everyone gives to charity, but not at the scale that rockefeller did.

“The best philanthropy,” he wrote, “is constantly in search of finalities—a search for a cause, an attempt to cure evils at their source.”

you just don't see that today.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

There is a formal agreement of 154 billionaires who have pledged to give away at least half of their wealth. Some, like Buffet, are giving away the majority  

Some are giving away more than half.  Some are even giving away a majority!

[WhatTheBuck 28852]

1 hour ago, Hank Scorpio said:

One thing is for sure, cutting taxes for the uber wealthy, slashing social safety net programs, rabid hard-line immigration policies, and going to war with Iran are NOT and HAVE NOT ever been a part of the mainstream Republican platform. This is all new and comes from Trump because he is not a Republican. The GOP never advocated such extreme positions before Trump. Yep. All Trump. 

Cutting taxes on the rich while cutting spending on social programs and education have been staples of Republican policy since Reagan. With Trump the enemy "them" are the immigrants. Under Dubya it was the gays. Under Reagan it was the welfare queens. Bush's fucked up foreign policy was Iraq, to the benefit of Iran. Trump is going to work his way through the rest of Bush's "Axis of Evil."

This isn't new. It was all foreshadowed, especially by Bush/Cheney. 

[staboner 5017]

1 hour ago, Hank Scorpio said:

One thing is for sure, cutting taxes for the uber wealthy, slashing social safety net programs, rabid hard-line immigration policies, and going to war with Iran are NOT and HAVE NOT ever been a part of the mainstream Republican platform. This is all new and comes from Trump because he is not a Republican. The GOP never advocated such extreme positions before Trump. Yep. All Trump. 

yes, sarcasm aside. its been a republican platform forever now. the way its discussed and executed has change, but same same. 

Trump is just the best at getting the have nots to get behind it, thats the problem. along with some haves who simply have forgotten how to perceive correctly. its frightening

[staboner 5017]

59 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think I agree with this.  

I say this as a former conservative myself--and I say "former" only because I don't think conservatism in any coherent form exists anymore--conservatives never adhered to the nihilism that  distinguishes Trumpism.  And I think it is rooted in the newfound and astonishing rapaciousness of many of the very rich in this country.  That's a new development; it's a characteristic unique to the baby-boomer generation.  This concept of "I'm going to get everything I can and fuck everyone else"--we haven't seen that before.

It used to be that there was a sense of noblesse oblige among the insanely rich.  Sure--to some degree it was patronizing and patriarchal.  But at the same time, it resulted in private philanthropy that built hospitals and schools.  It resulted in a governmental structure that funded the government from the people with sufficient funds for the purpose.  There's still some of that around with people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, but they're outnumbered now by the likes of the Mercers and most of the Waltons.

And I'm not going to tell you that it was purely a noblesse oblige brought of altruism.  It came from a peculiarly American idea that people of merit could rise above the station of their birth through talent and hard work.  And that through the rise of such people, the entire society is benefited--especially the rich who might benefit from their talent and hard work in the course of their rise.  

That sense informed conservatism for more than a century.  Conservatives supported policies that encouraged work and furthered a meritocracy, and they disapproved of policies that disincentivized work (e.g., certain welfare programs) and undermined merit-based advancement (e.g., certain affirmative-action programs).  Yeah--there was the support of "liberty" that is peculiar to that class that has the time and money to enjoy the fruits of "liberty" if the government would just ignore your eccentric behavior.  And yeah--there was a loathing of anything that had the whiff of socialism.  But there was also a recognition that society had to be governed by certain norms, and that the poor needed a hand up from the government in order to be in a position to advance (though programs such as public education).

What's unique and different about Trumpism is that all of that is gone.  It has been replaced with a morality of absolute solipsism among our upper class.  Steal everything you can now before you die, because who cares what happens after that?  And to get away with that, they have imbued the society with a sort of nihilism that tells people that nothing is really true; nothing is really right; nothing is really false; nothing is really wrong; nothing is really real.

And ultimately, there is a real and abiding loathing of the poor.  Real, deep-seeded hatred.  I don't get it.  I'll never understand it.  But it's there.

And somehow, notwithstanding that, they've gotten people who they would regard as "poor" to adopt their nihilism, to their own detriment.  So yeah--cancel all the programs that keep you from crippling poverty, all so that a rich guy in Manhattan can have a few million more.  And don't worry about the debt--that rich guy will be dead long before it's a real problem.

Yeah--none of that is consistent with conservatism; at least not the conservatism I grew up with under Reagan and Bush.  It's more the conservatism of the early 20th Century Russian aristocracy.

just hope that its the bottom of the American experiment and not taking us there. 

[hayden_horn 11374]

1 minute ago, staboner said:

yes, sarcasm aside. its been a republican platform forever now. the way its discussed and executed has change, but same same. 

Trump is just the best at getting the have nots to get behind it, thats the problem. along with some haves who simply have forgotten how to perceive correctly. its frightening

the tax rate for the wealthy in rockefeller's time was SLIGHTLY different as well.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/18/the-rich-havent-always-hated-taxes/

it's a dated article, but nonetheless still relevant:

Quote

Mitt Romney has proclaimed, “I pay all the taxes that are legally required, not a dollar more.” While most Americans may not agree with his tax rate (14%), few would disagree with his sentiment. Almost no one willingly pays more taxes than required. Yet there was a time when elites willingly acknowledged that they should pay far higher rates than others. In fact, when the income tax was first regularly put into place in 1913, the well-off were the only ones required to pay it.

<snip>

According to Felix Frankfurter’s book Mr. Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court, Justice Holmes told a young law clerk who complained about paying them, “I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.” When John D. Rockefeller Sr. died in 1937, the estate tax was nearly 70%, yet complaints from his family would not be publicly heard. Two years earlier his son earned more than $5 million; this gave him the distinction of being the only person in America’s highest tax bracket (at a rate of 63%). No editorials were written by John Jr. to suggest class warfare, or that the rich were being unfairly singled out.

Yet in the 1970s, this attitude began to change. Elites began to use their increasing political power to lower their taxes, an effort that came to fruition under Ronald Reagan. Today our elites employ what political scientist Jeffrey Winters calls “the income defense industry” to greatly reduce their taxes. These lawyers, lobbyists, and tax consultants have worked to protect the wealthy with special laws, legally move money to special places like the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, and undermine progressive taxation.

The results have been successful. As economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez have shown, between 1970 and 2004 the rich cut their overall effective tax rate by more than half — from 75% to 35% — while the American average has remained at 23% (this includes individual, corporate, payroll and estate taxes). But at what cost? Inequality has increased, mobility has declined, and the American Dream is dying. Not every wealthy American believes they are being robbed — both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have taken the position that loopholes for the wealthy should be closed, taxes should be raised, and billionaires should pledge to give away at least half their fortunes. (When Warren Buffett was married in 1952 he had a discussion with his new bride about the fact that they were going to be rich. “We agreed with Andrew Carnegie, who said that huge fortunes that flow in large part from society should in large part be returned to society.”) But the rich who lobby against progressive taxation have replaced the civic principle of taxing on the basis of the ability to pay with the individual principle that nothing should get in their way of being as rich as possible.

even with that taxation, these guys had no problems remaining rich.

[SaucyJack 3504]

35 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

And the men who hold high places
Must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality
Closer to the heart

 Unfortunately, it appears we have more of a “Trees” scenario. Hehe. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Trump will back out of the Iran deal for one reason and one reason only. Obama signed it.

Thats all the policy analysis the toddler in chief needs. Time to institute temporary age limits on voting. 

[WhatTheBuck 28852]

10 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

wut.

Whoosh!

[Native Horn 3524]

^^^ "toddler in chief."  Heh.

[WhatTheBuck 28852]

10 minutes ago, staboner said:

yes, sarcasm aside. its been a republican platform forever now. the way its discussed and executed has change, but same same. 

Trump is just the best at getting the have nots to get behind it, thats the problem. along with some haves who simply have forgotten how to perceive correctly. its frightening

Oh, that was sarcasm? Then "whoosh!" on me. 

I don't think others stating that there aren't great similarities between Dubya and Trump were being sarcastic. 

[staboner 5017]

54 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this is an extremely thoughtful post, and underlines sort of where i am at with republicans. the old saying goes "the older you get, the more conservative positions you'll take." i've found the opposite, as i used to identify far more with republicans. 

but nihilism is a good way to point out what's going on with the power structure in this country. as well as the "real, deep-seeded hatred" of the poor. being poor sucks. people act like it's lobster and iphones. it's not. it sucks.

conservative politics don't exist. i have certainly trended to much more conservative policies in certain ways now that i am older. so to your point - that shit happens and its natural.

but we don't even have conservative policies. we don't even fucking have policies. we have a fake culture war with all kinds of odd bedfellows making a go at it. its awful. 

posters like *redacted because i am not trying to pick a fight here* are all conservative posters that i have back and forth with over the years. they hide behind their hatred of the democratic machine as a way to support a deathwish like trump. they were their conservative nametags while do this - which is just BS. 

then you have Tahoe who is so goddamn malleable he would try to sell you goose stepping as a form of civil disobedience so long as the R in the office is with it. that mindset is frightening. tahoe sold out a long time ago. tahoe over country. 

then you have moderate conservatives - i would argue lots of posters here - that are simply holding their hands out going WTF world. this is my adulthood? really!?

i would say i am a moderate liberal with a bend towards ensuring a smallish government as a way to keep this BS from happening in the first place. i got nothing.

beautiful day out my Gs. hope the googles work today

[WhatTheBuck 28852]

4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I think you and that other guy didn't understand me correctly. Unless y'all think 50% is a majority.

You said a bunch are pledging to give away "at least half" and some like Buffett are even giving away a majority. You can't see the humor in that? That was funny. Just laugh it off. 

[wildcat09 29454]

2 minutes ago, staboner said:

conservative politics don't exist. i have certainly trended to much more conservative policies in certain ways now that i am older. so to your point - that shit happens and its natural.

but we don't even have conservative policies. we don't even fucking have policies. we have a fake culture war with all kinds of odd bedfellows making a go at it. its awful. 

posters like *redacted because i am not trying to pick a fight here* are all conservative posters that i have back and forth with over the years. they hide behind their hatred of the democratic machine as a way to support a deathwish like trump. they were their conservative nametags while do this - which is just BS. 

then you have Tahoe who is so goddamn malleable he would try to sell you goose stepping as a form of civil disobedience so long as the R in the office is with it. that mindset is frightening. tahoe sold out a long time ago. tahoe over country. 

then you have moderate conservatives - i would argue lots of posters here - that are simply holding their hands out going WTF world. this is my adulthood? really!?

i would say i am a moderate liberal with a bend towards ensuring a smallish government as a way to keep this BS from happening in the first place. i got nothing.

beautiful day out my Gs. hope the googles work today

I don't think having a smaller government keeps this stuff from happening in the first place, it just changes how it happens. While Ghost of LL has made some very good posts, I think he's a bit off in his take on the robber barons' opposition to using government to enrich themselves. There wasn't as much use of the government for self-enrichment because there was much less government, so less need to do so. When there's no regulatory system to speak of, you don't need to capture that system to enrich yourself. You just do your dirty work directly. But they had no problem using the government when it benefited them. Just look at their history of hiring police and even enlisting the aid of the US Army as strikebreakers.

There have always been people who want everything and will do anything to get it. How they obtain everything they get their hands on may vary based on their environments, but at the end of the day their only goal is more. However, I do think Ghost of LL is right that that sense of noblesse oblige some of them had is now mostly gone, and the hatred for the poor is new (most robber barons probably used to essentially ignore the poor until they went to church on Sundays and were reminded that the people they were crushing were actually people like them). I'm not fully sure what explains that, but I think the writings of Ayn Rand certainly contributed.

[Tuco 5085]

  

Delete - misread post.

56 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Are the rich less philanthropic today?  I think one difference would be that today’s wealthy are trying to unwind prior achievements that did not exist at that earlier time - there was little wealth to transfer from the poor.  However, they also used the government as a tool for extracting wealth.  For instance, see our activities in Latin America, Hawaii, and the Philippines during that time. 

I think the biggest difference (maybe) is that the wealthy have convinced themselves that they are in the right.  They honestly think that cutting off funding to welfare programs will somehow help the poor and that increasing their post-tax profits will improve the economy, which will benefit everybody.  Maybe that's always been the case, but there seems to be this desperate, religious fervor to their beliefs, which completely precludes any kind of scientific analysis.  Many of them are intelligent, kind people, who truly believe they can get something for nothing, despite all historical data to the contrary.  And since it defies any analysis, there is no balance.  There is no optimum point.  Less taxes on the riches is always good.  And if they need to build a Tahoe-coalition with racists and religious bigots to guarantee that something-for-nothing, then so be it.  The ends justify the means, even though the ends, by any reasonable analysis, is unsustainable and increases public misery. 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Tuco

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't think having a smaller government keeps this stuff from happening in the first place, it just changes how it happens. While Ghost of LL has made some very good posts, I think he's a bit off in his take on the robber barons' opposition to using government to enrich themselves. There wasn't as much use of the government for self-enrichment because there was much less government, so less need to do so. When there's no regulatory system to speak of, you don't need to capture that system to enrich yourself. You just do your dirty work directly. But they had no problem using the government when it benefited them. Just look at their history of hiring police and even enlisting the aid of the US Army as strikebreakers.

There have always been people who want everything and will do anything to get it. How they obtain everything they get their hands on may vary based on their environments, but at the end of the day their only goal is more. However, I do think Ghost of LL is right that that sense of noblesse oblige some of them had is now mostly gone, and the hatred for the poor is new (most robber barons probably used to essentially ignore the poor until they went to church on Sundays and were reminded that the people they were crushing were actually people like them). I'm not fully sure what explains that, but I think the writings of Ayn Rand certainly contributed.

you think these fuckers read Ayn Rand?

you think these fuckers read anything important at all?  not that Rand is anything remotely important.

no...this is sheer avarice; instinctual and a some of it retributive due to the false Obama narrative.

simply put, they're getting while the getting is good. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Kyrie Eleison

[Fozzz 152]

I think the wealthy thought they were right in the earlier period, but the propaganda in support of inequality has changed (at least in Europe) from necessity (socialism is impossible due to limited resources) to meritocracy.  Piketty talks about this a little bit in his book.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Fozzz

[ChiTownDoc 21257]

4 hours ago, SameSame said:

This is why I will never for as long as I breathe vote for the right again.  Not as long as they are aligned with these people.  And not that I auto vote left, the left has a shitload of problems themselves, but nothing bothers me more than the hypocritical religious folk who hide behind their bullshit and always act as if they're on a higher plane where reason doesn't matter, because you know that's the way God wants it and he told them personally.

SameSame, indeed. 

Fuck these assholes.  The holier than thou attitude while being two faced, despicable shitheads is as low as it gets.  

[atomheartbevo 90143]

59 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

It's been written out of American history save for the Haymarket case and the Sacco / Vanzetti trial, but there was a decades long wave of assassinations and bombings that came in the wake of the Gilded Age and ushered in the progressive reforms that came in the teens. If we continue on the course we are on right now we are about to see another wave of assassinations and bombings. 

Every time somebody gets their panties in a wad over some "terrorist" killing a small number of people, it's just reinforced how tone-deaf we are to our history - we had some eras that make today's attacks and school shootings look fairly tame.  

Nearly a century ago, we had a school bombing that killed dozens of kids.  A century ago, we had a major newspaper bombed, killing 21.  A century ago, we had a police station bombed, killing around 10.  A bombing on Wall Street in the 1920s killed 40 and wounded 400.

People have truly forgotten that Americans are extremely good at getting pissed off and blowing shit up or assassinating people.

This is from 1920 (Washington Post) after the Wall Street bombing, where people wanted to shut off immigration from Europe.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5141]

I think Ghost pretty much nailed it.  I also think the sooner we get the baby boomers out of power, whether in office, industry, or the voting booth,  the better off we're going to be. Its a generation of folks raised by the Greatest generation who took it into their heads to do their worst, and have succeeded.

[4th&Five 41725]

This guy is borderline retarded. 

[Native Horn 3524]

Serious lulz at toddler in chief using a fuckin 1/2" sharpie to sign his executive memo.  Was hoping he would shove up his bunghole afterwards.  Leaving disappointed.

[Brisketexan 105701]

I think the biggest difference (maybe) is that the wealthy have convinced themselves that they are in the right.  They honestly think that cutting off funding to welfare programs will somehow help the poor and that increasing their post-tax profits will improve the economy, which will benefit everybody.  Maybe that's always been the case, but there seems to be this desperate, religious fervor to their beliefs, which completely precludes any kind of scientific analysis.  Many of them are intelligent, kind people, who truly believe they can get something for nothing, despite all historical data to the contrary.  And since it defies any analysis, there is no balance.  There is no optimum point.  Less taxes on the riches is always good.  And if they need to build a Tahoe-coalition with racists and religious bigots to guarantee that something-for-nothing, then so be it.  The ends justify the means, even though the ends, by any reasonable analysis, is unsustainable and increases public misery. 
 
 

We used to laugh at Judge Smayles’ quip about sending young boys to the electric chair - “I didn’t want to, but I felt I owed it to them.”

Now, that ethic is our governing philosophy.

[Fozzz 152]

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There have always been people who want everything and will do anything to get it. How they obtain everything they get their hands on may vary based on their environments, but at the end of the day their only goal is more. However, I do think Ghost of LL is right that that sense of noblesse oblige some of them had is now mostly gone, and the hatred for the poor is new (most robber barons probably used to essentially ignore the poor until they went to church on Sundays and were reminded that the people they were crushing were actually people like them). I'm not fully sure what explains that, but I think the writings of Ayn Rand certainly contributed.

imo, accumulation is simply how capitalism tends to work when not working through some major crisis.  Where would we be today had it not been for the leveling effect that the great depression and WWII had on this country?  

[GSU&UT 1798]

3 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

One thing is for sure, cutting taxes for the uber wealthy, slashing social safety net programs, rabid hard-line immigration policies, and going to war with Iran are NOT and HAVE NOT ever been a part of the mainstream Republican platform. This is all new and comes from Trump because he is not a Republican. The GOP never advocated such extreme positions before Trump. Yep. All Trump. 

Fucking this. The GOP just has a louder and more stupid leader currently.

[Ghost of LL 15606]

56 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't think having a smaller government keeps this stuff from happening in the first place, it just changes how it happens. While Ghost of LL has made some very good posts, I think he's a bit off in his take on the robber barons' opposition to using government to enrich themselves. There wasn't as much use of the government for self-enrichment because there was much less government, so less need to do so. When there's no regulatory system to speak of, you don't need to capture that system to enrich yourself. You just do your dirty work directly. But they had no problem using the government when it benefited them. Just look at their history of hiring police and even enlisting the aid of the US Army as strikebreakers.

There have always been people who want everything and will do anything to get it. How they obtain everything they get their hands on may vary based on their environments, but at the end of the day their only goal is more. However, I do think Ghost of LL is right that that sense of noblesse oblige some of them had is now mostly gone, and the hatred for the poor is new (most robber barons probably used to essentially ignore the poor until they went to church on Sundays and were reminded that the people they were crushing were actually people like them). I'm not fully sure what explains that, but I think the writings of Ayn Rand certainly contributed.

I think these are both very good critiques of my comments.  You're exactly right that the robber barons of the Gilded Age didn't leverage the government to increase their wealth primarily (solely?) because there wasn't much government to leverage.  So I don't think I should leave the impression that their failure to do so was out of some sense of democratic propriety or altruism.  I'm sure it wasn't.  I think my only point in that regard should be that, whatever the reason, they didn't leverage the government in the way the current robber barons do.  And that bodes very ill for the government as an institution.

As to your Ayn Rand point, I would posit that the current form of evangelical Christianity, which has become the official religion of the GOP, has a lot more to do with it.  Under that perverse heresy, the rich are rich because God wants them to be rich (presumably because of some spiritual superiority), and the poor are poor because God wants that, too.  And so the poor aren't just materially lacking--they're somehow spiritually infirm.  Indeed, they're probably damned.  That damnation reflects some spiritual failing that is worthy not of sympathy, but of condemnation and disdain.

But at the end of the day--KE has it right.  It's all about avarice.  The prosperity-gospel heresy is just a way to justify their greed; to cloak their wickedness in righteousness.  To the extent such wickedness even needs a justification in an era when nothing matters.

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think I agree with this.  

I say this as a former conservative myself--and I say "former" only because I don't think conservatism in any coherent form exists anymore--conservatives never adhered to the nihilism that  distinguishes Trumpism.  And I think it is rooted in the newfound and astonishing rapaciousness of many of the very rich in this country.  That's a new development; it's a characteristic unique to the baby-boomer generation.  This concept of "I'm going to get everything I can and fuck everyone else"--we haven't seen that before.

It used to be that there was a sense of noblesse oblige among the insanely rich.  Sure--to some degree it was patronizing and patriarchal.  But at the same time, it resulted in private philanthropy that built hospitals and schools.  It resulted in a governmental structure that funded the government from the people with sufficient funds for the purpose.  There's still some of that around with people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, but they're outnumbered now by the likes of the Mercers and most of the Waltons.

And I'm not going to tell you that it was purely a noblesse oblige brought of altruism.  It came from a peculiarly American idea that people of merit could rise above the station of their birth through talent and hard work.  And that through the rise of such people, the entire society is benefited--especially the rich who might benefit from their talent and hard work in the course of their rise.  

That sense informed conservatism for more than a century.  Conservatives supported policies that encouraged work and furthered a meritocracy, and they disapproved of policies that disincentivized work (e.g., certain welfare programs) and undermined merit-based advancement (e.g., certain affirmative-action programs).  Yeah--there was the support of "liberty" that is peculiar to that class that has the time and money to enjoy the fruits of "liberty" if the government would just ignore your eccentric behavior.  And yeah--there was a loathing of anything that had the whiff of socialism.  But there was also a recognition that society had to be governed by certain norms, and that the poor needed a hand up from the government in order to be in a position to advance (though programs such as public education).

What's unique and different about Trumpism is that all of that is gone.  It has been replaced with a morality of absolute solipsism among our upper class.  Steal everything you can now before you die, because who cares what happens after that?  And to get away with that, they have imbued the society with a sort of nihilism that tells people that nothing is really true; nothing is really right; nothing is really false; nothing is really wrong; nothing is really real.

And ultimately, there is a real and abiding loathing of the poor.  Real, deep-seeded hatred.  I don't get it.  I'll never understand it.  But it's there.

And somehow, notwithstanding that, they've gotten people who they would regard as "poor" to adopt their nihilism, to their own detriment.  So yeah--cancel all the programs that keep you from crippling poverty, all so that a rich guy in Manhattan can have a few million more.  And don't worry about the debt--that rich guy will be dead long before it's a real problem.

Yeah--none of that is consistent with conservatism; at least not the conservatism I grew up with under Reagan and Bush.  It's more the conservatism of the early 20th Century Russian aristocracy.

I was with you until you said that this isn't what you grew up with Reagan. The man pushed hard for trickle-down economics theory and repealed the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 that Carter had passed. Those types of things are exactly what the GOP pushes today, tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting social services. Maybe Reagan wasn't outwardly an asshole about it like so many GOP congressmen and women now, but I see him as basically beginning the conservative movement that we find ourselves in. 

[High Plains Drifter 11085]

2 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

It's been written out of American history save for the Haymarket case and the Sacco / Vanzetti trial, but there was a decades long wave of assassinations and bombings that came in the wake of the Gilded Age and ushered in the progressive reforms that came in the teens. If we continue on the course we are on right now we are about to see another wave of assassinations and bombings. 

 

When the richest country in the world won't give the poorest children or the oldest health insurance, its time for assassinations and bombings.

[crash_davis 23176]

40 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I was with you until you said that this isn't what you grew up with Reagan. The man pushed hard for trickle-down economics theory and repealed the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 that Carter had passed. Those types of things are exactly what the GOP pushes today, tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting social services. Maybe Reagan wasn't outwardly an asshole about it like so many GOP congressmen and women now, but I see him as basically beginning the conservative movement that we find ourselves in. 

the irony is that most republicans are dyed in the wool christian who love wearing their religion on their sleeves.  i guess they are christians except for helping poor and the ones in need.  jesus kinda had a hard on for helping the poor and the needy.  but what does he know??????

Edited May 8, 2018 by crash_davis

[Brisketexan 105701]

 
When the richest country in the world won't give the poorest children or the oldest health insurance, its time for assassinations and bombings.

I certainly don’t agree with calling for those things to happen.

But I agree that we’re careening towards that being a likely outcome. And I and plenty of others have so warned - all falling on deaf ears.

The other we’re on has a likely outcome - history doesn’t repeat, but it sure rhymes. Nobody cares.

[Brisketexan 105701]

the irony is that most republicans are dyed in the wool christian who love wearing their religion on their sleeves.  i guess they are christians except for helping poor and the ones in need.  jesus kinda had a hard on for helping the poor and the needy.  but what does he know??????

Jesus would be roundly loathed and reviled by GOP “Christians.” Dirty middle eastern hippie troublemaker.

[Gil Bang 26121]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

I was with you until you said that this isn't what you grew up with Reagan. The man pushed hard for trickle-down economics theory and repealed the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 that Carter had passed. Those types of things are exactly what the GOP pushes today, tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting social services. Maybe Reagan wasn't outwardly an asshole about it like so many GOP congressmen and women now, but I see him as basically beginning the conservative movement that we find ourselves in. 

It's also noteworthy that Reagan, like Trump, got the full support of the evangelicals.   It's even more noteworthy when you consider that Reagan's predecessor (and opponent) did NOT get the support of the evangelicals, even though Carter is probably the most devout POTUS that we've seen in modern history.  

Reagan was a divorced movie star that got more than his share of starlet ass...not as big a philanderer as Dotard by a longshot, but not exactly an altar boy.  \

And I remember the Reagan years vividly, and "America Fuck Yeah" really came into fashion then, after the hostage fiasco. 

[High Plains Drifter 11085]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I certainly don’t agree with calling for those things to happen.

But I agree that we’re careening towards that being a likely outcome. And I and plenty of others have so warned - all falling on deaf ears.

The other we’re on has a likely outcome - history doesn’t repeat, but it sure rhymes. Nobody cares.

I actually heard on NPR driving home about a week ago some "conservative" crying about the mean old liberal media, and how it was time for a civil war, which "hopefully" (his word) wouldn't be violent.

 

[Longhorn94 2458]

i just finished reading A Tale of Two Cities. I have two comments:

1. Holy shit I feel like there are a lot of similarities between now and the time period immediately preceding the French Revolution. Except, our poor are in on it with the wealthy and are all like "yeah give em hell! make em suffer!!!! um, wait, what?"

2. I have newfound respect for the poster Sydney Carton.

[staboner 5017]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Jesus would be roundly loathed and reviled by GOP “Christians.” Dirty middle eastern hippie troublemaker.

its amazing how the different interests have all landed. i guess with such a free, prosperous country you get lots of factions. and with 2 parties whoring out to everyone to get a vote - you end up with Jesus holding a fucking uzi

again, i give you bill's version

 

[Mdhorn 6100]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Trump will back out of the Iran deal for one reason and one reason only. Obama signed it.

Yep, going to start a war so he can tout a deal for peace, regardless of a Nuclear deal already in place.  If one soldier dies it is on the Republicans. 

[staboner 5017]

2 hours ago, Fozzz said:

imo, accumulation is simply how capitalism tends to work when not working through some major crisis.  Where would we be today had it not been for the leveling effect that the great depression and WWII had on this country?  

don't forget teddy and busting up the steel monopolies

funny how we need a leveling but we are always just too stupid to do it ourselves

oh well, humans gonna human

[Hornius Emeritus 12517]

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Or Carnegie Mellon University or Stanford University.  Or for that matter any number of hospitals, libraries, and parks.

When was the last time you heard of that kind of philanthropy?

 

 

 

 

Well, there are several remarkable foundations ---- the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, for example ----- that are pouring billions of dollars into solving serious problems around the world. 

[Ghost of LL 15606]

3 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Well, there are several remarkable foundations ---- the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, for example ----- that are pouring billions of dollars into solving serious problems around the world. 

And I pointed out Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as notable exceptions.

[Buzzrock 15032]

Jesus would be roundly loathed and reviled by GOP “Christians.” Dirty middle eastern hippie troublemaker.

The idea that Christian conservatives are against helping those in need is absurd. There are studies that have shown that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. There are other studies that re-swizzle the numbers and nerf their contributions to their churches, but even still they drive just as much charitable giving to the needy.

What they don’t like is the federal government dictating how that giving should happen. I can’t really argue with that.

[Brisketexan 105701]

The idea that Christian conservatives are against helping those in need is absurd. There are studies that have shown that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. There are other studies that re-swizzle the numbers and nerf their contributions to their churches, but even still they drive just as much charitable giving to the needy.

What they don’t like is the federal government dictating how that giving should happen. I can’t really argue with that.

It’s not an idea. It’s a truth. For fuck’s sake, listen to their rhetoric.

If the modern evangelical movement is a friend of the poor, with friends like that, who needs enemies.

[BrickHorn 18333]

Why should the rich dedicate 20% of their income to secular causes like public schools, Medicaid, the CDC, etc. when they can tithe 2% towards things that really help the poor, like guilt-tripping them about birth control and handing out Bibles?

Edited May 8, 2018 by BrickHorn

[Nivek 17081]

Years ago there was a shooting at a lawfirm where the lawyers were challenging a guy’s worker comp bennefits and had them reduced via the court to something like $300/month for his disability.  He shot up the placd killing some attorneys.   During the interviews the lawyers blamed it on lawyer jokes. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

It’s Tuesday 

[WhatTheBuck 28852]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

the irony is that most republicans are dyed in the wool christian who love wearing their religion on their sleeves.  i guess they are christians except for helping poor and the ones in need.  jesus kinda had a hard on for helping the poor and the needy.  but what does he know??????

It's not irony. It's a direct and predictable result of Reagan inviting the evangelicals (more specifically the televangelists) into the party and giving them a voice. Now the crazies have taken over. 9/11 only made matters worse. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Bolton is whispering sweet nothings in Donald’s ear pointing to GWB’s 90% post 9-11 approval rating.  

[Gil Bang 26121]

cross post with cohen thread