Why America is Moving Left

[horses4courses]

Food for thought....

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/

It's a fairly long article - here are some highlights:

The more I examined the evidence, the more I realized that the current moment looks like a mirror image of the late ’60s and early ’70s. The resemblances are clear, but their political significance has been turned upside down. There is a backlash against the liberalism of the Obama era. But it is louder than it is strong. Instead of turning right, the country as a whole is still moving to the left.

That doesn’t mean the Republicans won’t retain strength in the nation’s statehouses and in Congress. It doesn’t mean a Republican won’t sooner or later claim the White House. It means that on domestic policy—foreign policy is following a different trajectory, as it often does—the terms of the national debate will continue tilting to the left. The next Democratic president will be more liberal than Barack Obama. The next Republican president will be more liberal than George W. Bush.

In July 2014, the Pew Research Center reported that 46 percent of Americans agreed with the statement “Our country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites.” By July 2015, after the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore and the rise of Black Lives Matter, that figure had risen to 59 percent. From the summer of 2013 to the summer of 2015, according to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who declared themselves “satisfied with the way blacks are treated in U.S. society” dropped from 62 percent to 49 percent. In 2015, public confidence in the police hit a 22-year low.

On issue after issue, it is the young who are most pleased with the liberal policy shifts of the Obama era, and most eager for more.

According to Microsoft’s betting market, Predictwise, Democrats have close to a 60 percent chance of holding the White House in 2016. That’s not because Hillary Clinton, whom the Democrats will likely nominate, is an exceptionally strong candidate. It’s because the Republicans may nominate an exceptionally weak one. According to Predictwise, in early November Marco Rubio—widely considered the GOP’s strongest general-election candidate—had a 45 percent chance of winning his party’s nomination. But according to Predictwise, there was also a 37 percent chance that Donald Trump, Ben Carson, or Ted Cruz would win the nomination. And if any of them did, Clinton’s election would be all but assured.

Barack Obama sought the presidency hoping to be the Democrats’ Reagan: a president who changed America’s ideological trajectory. And he has changed it.

An era of liberal dominance doesn’t mean that the ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans disappear. It means that on the ideological playing field, the 50-yard line shifts further left. It means the next Republican president won’t be able to return the nation to the pre-Obama era.

[ArlJim78]

Number of people on food stamps:
2000 17 million
2014 47 million

this is in part why we continuously move to the left (bigger, more authoritarian gov).

[Stillriledup]

Blacks don't have equal rights with whites?

[hcap]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/the-gops-millennial-problem-runs-deep/

The GOP’s Millennial problem runs deep

[Tom]

Left = lazy.
That is why.

Left = leeches.
Don't forget that one.

Handouts are hard to turn down.
The 47% has grown.

[rastajenk]

The article cited in the original post may be accurate, but that surely doesn't mean it's a good thing. Here is the other side of the movement (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016); the age of totalitarianism.

Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.

And much more about the craziness on campuses and on the streets of American cities.

But hey, it can't happen here, right? :mad:

[boxcar]

Number of people on food stamps:
2000 17 million
2014 47 million

this is in part why we continuously move to the left (bigger, more authoritarian gov).

And this bigger more authoritarian government loves catering to more and more dependents. The the ever-increasing numbers of leechers in this country will keep it moving to the left.

[classhandicapper]

Before anyone declares victory, here are my predictions.

1. If we continue moving left, the political response from the right will get more and more extreme. Guys like Trump will be the moderates.

2. If we continue moving left, the economy will continue to under perform, deficits and debt will continue rising along with the demographics and promises that already can't be kept, and the smart money will start trickling out of the US to countries that are more friendly to free markets.

3. The trickle will eventually turn to a stampede as conditions worsen. Investment dollars will be harder to come by and the economy will start really suffering.

4. The dollar will crash. Inflation will rise sharply. The government will be forced to make drastic cuts to the social safety net programs. Social unrest, riots, and mayhem prevail as the left wing government cannot meet its promised obligations to the people.

5. Classhandicapper will order another pina colada at Flemington Racecourse and be yelling "I told you so" between races.

We either fix this now or this is the future.

[delayjf]

On issue after issue, it is the young who are most pleased with the liberal policy shifts of the Obama era, and most eager for more.

The younger generation is always more liberal than presiding generations - they have been coddled and spoiled by their parents and see no reason why the Gov should continue to do the same thing - they think that's how life is always supposed to be.

[woodtoo]

Before anyone declares victory, here are my predictions.

1. If we continue moving left, the political response from the right will get more and more extreme. Guys like Trump will be the moderates.

2. If we continue moving left, the economy will continue to under perform, deficits and debt will continue rising along with the demographics and promises that already can't be kept, and the smart money will start trickling out of the US to countries that are more friendly to free markets.

3. The trickle will eventually turn to a stampede as conditions worsen. Investment dollars will be harder to come by and the economy will start really suffering.

4. The dollar will crash. Inflation will rise sharply. The government will be forced to make drastic cuts to the social safety net programs. Social unrest, riots, and mayhem prevail as the left wing government cannot meet its promised obligations to the people.

5. Classhandicapper will order another pina colada at Flemington Racecourse and be yelling "I told you so" between races.

We either fix this now or this is the future.

You've gone to far, if you were more leftish the correct answer would be
"At this point, what difference does it make"
Just because you've made your own bed doesn't necessarily mean you have to sleep in it.

[Hank]

America moving to the left? Really,I don't think so.The Owner's of the country are allowing for some leftward movement on some social issues but on the issues they care about not so much.Don't be mislead by an increase in food-stamps and such,this is merely a self-serving accommodation, a modern version of the bread and circuses stratagem.A true full spectrum leftward shift would not allow for this economic reality.











.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/america-not-moving-left-213095

[Tom]

You've gone to far, if you were more leftish the correct answer would be
"At this point, what difference does it make"
Just because you've made your own bed doesn't necessarily mean you have to sleep in it.

What the Hell do mean I have to make my own bed??

[woodtoo]

What the Hell do mean I have to make my own bed??
What? You'd rather have Hillary make it. :lol:

[mostpost]

Number of people on food stamps:
2000 17 million
2014 47 million

this is in part why we continuously move to the left (bigger, more authoritarian gov).
Republican policies caused the second largest Depression in this countries history. (They also caused the largest.) That is one reason so many people are on food stamps. Another reason is that Republican policies have depressed wages.

Despite your idiot brother, Tom's assertion that left equals lazy; the fact is that most people on food stamps are working. They just are not earning enough money.

People are moving to the left not because of what the left is giving them, but because of what the right is trying to take away.

[mostpost]

The article cited in the original post may be accurate, but that surely doesn't mean it's a good thing. Here is the other side of the movement; the age of totalitarianism.

Quote:
Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.


And much more about the craziness on campuses and on the streets of American cities.

But hey, it can't happen here, right?
Rick Perry was not indicted for vetoing a piece of legislation. He was indicted for abuse of power. He used that veto to withhold funding in an attempt to force a duly elected district attorney to resign.

[Tom]

mostie, you are wrong.
Go figure.

[mostpost]

The article cited in the original post may be accurate, but that surely doesn't mean it's a good thing. Here is the other side of the movement; the age of totalitarianism.

Quote:
Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.


And much more about the craziness on campuses and on the streets of American cities.

But hey, it can't happen here, right?
Wrong again. They-along with twenty Republicans-voted to repeal the fake first amendment. The one that says "Corporations are people" and "Money is speech." They voted to fix the Supreme Court decision which threatens the real First Amendment.

[classhandicapper]

Republican policies caused the second largest Depression in this countries history.

You don't have the faintest idea what causes the 2008 debacle.

[Tom]

Corporations ARE people, and money is a form of free speech.
Your opposition to that is your problem.
You have no problem when a union does the sames thing a corporation does.
We call that being a hypocrite.

[zico20]

Republican policies caused the second largest Depression in this countries history. (They also caused the largest.) That is one reason so many people are on food stamps. Another reason is that Republican policies have depressed wages.

Despite your idiot brother, Tom's assertion that left equals lazy; the fact is that most people on food stamps are working. They just are not earning enough money.

People are moving to the left not because of what the left is giving them, but because of what the right is trying to take away.

Whatever happened to people working two jobs to support themselves. Oh that's right, work one job and have the government make up the difference. :ThmbDown:

[Saratoga_Mike]

And this bigger more authoritarian government loves catering to more and more dependents.

Well said Box.

[Rookies]

Rick Perry was not indicted for vetoing a piece of legislation. He was indicted for abuse of power. He used that veto to withhold funding in an attempt to force a duly elected district attorney to resign.

That slack jawed Cleetus SHOULD be indicted for running for Prez, when he was unable to count to 3! :lol: :rolleyes: :bang:

[Saratoga_Mike]

You don't have the faintest idea what causes the 2008 debacle.

You don't believe the Dem narrative, i.e. Bush's tax cuts caused the downturn? It's so simple.

You probably think the 2008/9 downturn was the result of a massive debt bubble, fueled by the post-Volker Federal Reserve.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Rick Perry was not indicted for vetoing a piece of legislation. He was indicted for abuse of power. He used that veto to withhold funding in an attempt to force a duly elected district attorney to resign.

Do you mean the district attorney arrested for drunk driving prior to the veto? He vetoed $7.5 mm in public corruption funding for her office, as he asserted her office had lost the public's confidence (he wanted her to resign). He had every right to veto that funding under the Texas constitution.

It's amusing how you're concerned about Rick Perry's "abuse of power" on this petty issue, but never, ever criticize Obama on such issues. His unilateral moves on any number of issues are much more troubling. If I didn't know better, I'd call you a hypocrite.

[Saratoga_Mike]

That slack jawed Cleetus SHOULD be indicted for running for Prez, when he was unable to count to 3! :lol: :rolleyes: :bang:

I'm no Rick Perry fan, but he had major back surgery during the last campaign cycle, right in front of his famous brain freeze. He could barely walk off the stage after that debate, and he was literally getting an hour or two of sleep per night. I'm sure you know all this, but others might not.

[mostpost]

Whatever happened to people working two jobs to support themselves. Oh that's right, work one job and have the government make up the difference. :ThmbDown:
Why should a person have to work two jobs to support themselves? Whatever happened to one job paying enough to do that? Like it did until the advent of Reaganomics. Now, not only can a person not support his family on one job, he is vilified for not working the second job he can't get. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[mostpost]

Do you mean the district attorney arrested for drunk driving prior to the veto? He vetoed $7.5 mm in public corruption funding for her office, as he asserted her office had lost the public's confidence (he wanted her to resign). He had every right to veto that funding under the Texas constitution.

It's amusing how you're concerned about Rick Perry's "abuse of power" on this petty issue, but never, ever criticize Obama on such issues. His unilateral moves on any number of issues are much more troubling. If I didn't know better, I'd call you a hypocrite.
It does not matter if she was arrested for drunk driving or not. She was an elected official just like the governor. He has no right to use his power to attempt to force her to resign. I seriously doubt that the Texas constitution says he does.

If you can't see the difference between Obama-or any president's use of executive orders and what Perry did, then it is hopeless to try and explain it to you.

[mostpost]

You don't believe the Dem narrative, i.e. Bush's tax cuts caused the downturn? It's so simple.

You probably think the 2008/9 downturn was the result of a massive debt bubble, fueled by the post-Volker Federal Reserve.


A massive debt bubble fueled by the Bush tax cuts. But that isn't what caused the Depression of 2008-as I have decided to call it. It was caused by the collapse of derivatives based on mortgages, which caused the failure of several major financial institutions. It also caused foreclosure of many homes which ruined family financial prospects.

[MutuelClerk]

If your party can't beat Barrack Obama and possibly/probably Hillary Clinton instead of wondering why everyone is moving left maybe you should take a hard look at your party and what it's become. Isn't that more telling?

[classhandicapper]

You don't believe the Dem narrative, i.e. Bush's tax cuts caused the downturn? It's so simple.

You probably think the 2008/9 downturn was the result of a massive debt bubble, fueled by the post-Volker Federal Reserve.

Pretty close. ;)

[zico20]

Why should a person have to work two jobs to support themselves? Whatever happened to one job paying enough to do that? Like it did until the advent of Reaganomics. Now, not only can a person not support his family on one job, he is vilified for not working the second job he can't get. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

So everyone currently working two jobs should be able to quit one of them and have the government pay the difference. Terrific idea.

Why can't someone get a second job. It is called sacrificing for your family or putting in extra work to move ahead in life. I guess only the government can get people ahead according to you. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[horses4courses]

O

The younger generation is always more liberal than presiding generations - they have been coddled and spoiled by their parents and see no reason why the Gov should continue to do the same thing - they think that's how life is always supposed to be.

Plenty subscribe to that point of view.

There is another vein of youth, however,
who works hard to achieve and maintain,
a decent and comfortable living.

Traditionally, it is as this younger generation
attains that higher standard of living, grows
older and, consequently, more conservative,
protective, and cynical.

Repeat cycle.....

[mostpost]

So everyone currently working two jobs should be able to quit one of them and have the government pay the difference. Terrific idea.

Why can't someone get a second job. It is called sacrificing for your family or putting in extra work to move ahead in life. I guess only the government can get people ahead according to you. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:
I can't believe that someone could so badly misinterpret what I wrote. A person should not have to work two jobs, because one job should pay enough to support that person and his family. This has nothing to do with the government paying anyone anything.

People can't get second jobs because jobs are not available. Your whole idea that liberals don't believe in earning what you get and depend on government for everything is stupid beyond belief. I worked just as hard as you did during my life; probably harder. The difference between us is that I don't feel the need to put others down to make myself feel better.

[LottaKash]

I The difference between us is that I don't feel the need to put others down to make myself feel better.

Then why, thru the years of reading your posts, do you call people fools, jerks, idiots, insane, assholes, mindless, morons, clueless, and the like, when they disagree with you ?..

[mostpost]

O

The younger generation is always more liberal than presiding generations - they have been coddled and spoiled by their parents and see no reason why the Gov should continue to do the same thing - they think that's how life is always supposed to be.
That is not true. Generally-not always-a generation is more what their parents were not. Conservative generations are followed by liberal generations which are followed by conservative generations. Sometimes it takes more than one generation for the change to take place. Just saying that the younger generation is spoiled and coddled is pure nonsense.

The younger generations support of liberal policies manifests itself more in social issues; in things like gay marriage and civil rights. Young people nowadays think nothing of attending school, living in the same neighborhoods with or dating persons of another race. When I was growing up those things were unheard of. This is better.

[mostpost]

Then why, thru the years of reading your posts, do you call people fools, jerks, idiots, insane, assholes, mindless, morons, clueless, and the like, when they disagree with you ?..
Because those particular people are fools, jerks, idiots, insane, (I don't think I have ever called anyone an asshole), mindless, morons, clueless and the like.

What zico20 does is to assume that everyone who is unable to get a job or is unable to make ends meet because their job does not pay enough, is lazy and irresponsible. Zico 20 has never met those people, has never talked to them, has never even engaged them in on line dialogue. Yet he knows their character.

If I call people by unkind names, it is because of their repeated refusal to acknowledge well proven facts and their insistence on clinging to demonstrable falsehoods.

[Rookies]

I've taken a good look at that potty mouth Donald's junior whacko- Cruz.

If you stuck a Keffiyeh on that receding hairline melon and focussed on those darting, beady black eyes and Durante shnozz, wouldn't he look like a card carrying member of ISIS? :lol: He's got a face for Radio blogs.

And to think he once held the fabulous status of Canadian citizen. Oy vey! Thank God, that's been resolved favourably- for us. :lol:

Rubio easy by February.

[LottaKash]

If I call people by unkind names, it is because of their repeated refusal to acknowledge well proven facts and their insistence on clinging to demonstrable falsehoods.

Mostpost: "The difference between us is that I don't feel the need to put others down to make myself feel better."

Why call unkind names at all ?...Because you disagree ?... Do you listen to your self at all ?...

Vanity is why, pure and simple.. or sickness, your call..

[MutuelClerk]

Wash.

Rinse.

Repeat.

[Tom]

Why should a person have to work two jobs to support themselves?

So someone else doesn't have to do it for them.
What a pathetic reply.

People like YOU are why this country is in the toilet.
You takers disgust me.

[Tom]

And to think he once held the fabulous status of Canadian citizen. Oy vey! Thank God, that's been resolved favourably- for us. :lol:

Most people come here to better themselves.
Perfect example, ay?

[Saratoga_Mike]

It does not matter if she was arrested for drunk driving or not. She was an elected official just like the governor. He has no right to use his power to attempt to force her to resign. I seriously doubt that the Texas constitution says he does.

If you can't see the difference between Obama-or any president's use of executive orders and what Perry did, then it is hopeless to try and explain it to you.

Your record stands: you've disagreed with Obama once in 7 years. Pitiful. Think for yourself.

[Tom]

Then why, thru the years of reading your posts, do you call people fools, jerks, idiots, insane, assholes, mindless, morons, clueless, and the like, when they disagree with you ?..

Because he is:

a) a fool
b) a jerk
c) one of those
d) mindless
e) clueless
f) all of the above

[Saratoga_Mike]

A massive debt bubble fueled by the Bush tax cuts. But that isn't what caused the Depression of 2008-as I have decided to call it. It was caused by the collapse of derivatives based on mortgages, which caused the failure of several major financial institutions. It also caused foreclosure of many homes which ruined family financial prospects.

Total leverage in the system started to inflect higher in the 1982/3 timeframe, after Volker successfully killed inflation. Go to the St. Louis Fed and search for "Total debt to GDP." I can't have an exchange with you if you aren't informed. I criticize GWB all the time on the foreign policy front. If there were merits to your claim (the first sentence), I would not hesitate to agree with you. But it is without merit. You radically underestimate the power of the Fed.

[Saratoga_Mike]

So someone else doesn't have to do it for them.
What a pathetic reply.

People like YOU are why this country is in the toilet.
You takers disgust me.

It's a lost cause. His mentality has won the war, which is why Hillary will probably be our next president.

[Tom]

I just cannot believe there are people stupid enough to vote for Hillary.

Other than a few here, of course.

[classhandicapper]

Total leverage in the system started to inflect higher in the 1982/3 timeframe, after Volker successfully killed inflation. Go to the St. Louis Fed and search for "Total debt to GDP." I can't have an exchange with you if you aren't informed. I criticize GWB all the time on the foreign policy front. If there were merits to your claim (the first sentence), I would not hesitate to agree with you. But it is without merit. You radically underestimate the power of the Fed.

Your understanding of these issues is several levels above the average person's. That not meant to insult anyone. It took me many years of reading and research to formulate a decent model of thinking that was consistent with observation of how the world was working. It's a never ending process.

Most people are not going to be able to make the leap that some debacle that occurs years from now had its roots in monetary and fiscal policy during Obama. Politicians and the media do not understand the Fed and do not think long term. There's kind of like a small sub group of people on Wall St that "get it".

[mostpost]

Total leverage in the system started to inflect higher in the 1982/3 timeframe, after Volker successfully killed inflation. Go to the St. Louis Fed and search for "Total debt to GDP." I can't have an exchange with you if you aren't informed. I criticize GWB all the time on the foreign policy front. If there were merits to your claim (the first sentence), I would not hesitate to agree with you. But it is without merit. You radically underestimate the power of the Fed.I did as you instructed me. I went to the St. Louis Fed and searched "Total debt to GDP." I guess what you wanted me to find was that after the percentage of debt to GDP dropped from 40.3% in 1966 to 30.8% in 1981, it rose to 62.7% during the Reagan and George HW Bush administrations. It doubled. Then it dropped 7.75% under Bill Clinton. Enter Dubya and we get another rapid increase in the debt to GDP ratio; this time 23% +.

I appreciate you helping me find that out.

[mostpost]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
A massive debt bubble fueled by the Bush tax cuts. But that isn't what caused the Depression of 2008-as I have decided to call it. It was caused by the collapse of derivatives based on mortgages, which caused the failure of several major financial institutions. It also caused foreclosure of many homes which ruined family financial prospects.

If there were merits to your claim (the first sentence), I would not hesitate to agree with you. But it is without merit. You radically underestimate the power of the Fed.
There is considerable merit to my first sentence, but you completely missed its reference. You said this in a response to classhandicapper, "You probably think the 2008/9 downturn was the result of a massive debt bubble, fueled by the post-Volker Federal Reserve. My response in that first sentence was that the massive increase in the national debt was caused by the tax policies-and other policies- of George W. Bush on top of the policies of Ronald Reagan and Poppy Bush. Nowhere did I say that the tax policies of GWB were the cause of the recession. Read the rest of my paragraph above.

[mostpost]

You two seem to be the ones promoting the theory that the Fed is the group or agency responsible for the Great Recession.

In simple terms, tell me what policies of the Fed caused the Great Recession and how they did so.

[classhandicapper]

You two seem to be the ones promoting the theory that the Fed is the group or agency responsible for the Great Recession.

In simple terms, tell me what policies of the Fed caused the Great Recession and how they did so.

We do not have a free market for interest rates. In a free market, some people would save and some people would borrow. The interest rate would be the price that balanced the two. If people were borrowing a lot, rates would tend to rise to choke off the credit expansion and encourage more savings. If people weren't borrowing or savings were high, rates would tend to fall.

In our system, the Fed sets short term interest rates, which in turn impacts other interest rates, and how people people behave.

If for example the Fed sets interest rates too low, people are less likely to save and more likely to borrow. They can borrow to consume, buy houses, stocks, bonds, farm land etc... There is no formula that tells you what they will use the money for. It depends on lot of things including government policy here and abroad. But if you make money cheap enough to borrow people are more likely to borrow.

If they start borrowing heavily, instead of rates rising and choking it off like would happen in a free market, the Fed can simply print more money and create the bank reserves needed to keep the borrowing going even though there are no savings available. It's new credit coming out of thin air. That fuels the boom further. That's how excesses form. Cheap easy money from the Fed is the fuel.

The mainstream view is that the Fed can simply raise or lower interest rates depending on economic activity to keep things balanced. The reality is that the Fed is not smarter than the market and often makes mistakes. Those mistakes usually occur on the side of making credit too cheap because they are trying to keep the economy going.

Those mistakes then lead to credit excesses (booms and then busts).

Just in my investment career we've had commercial real estate and LBO excesses, telecom and dot.com excesses, real estate excesses, junk bond excesses, and others. Each resulted in a boom and then bust that was a multi year process.

In recent cycles, rather than allowing the excesses to purge themselves completely in a recession, the Fed has been propping them up with ever easier money. This time around the Fed printed trillions of dollars and set real interest rates to negative just to keep the balloon expanded. All that government borrowing, all that printed money, and all that cheap credit is paving the way for the next bust.

I'm not arguing here that the Fed is the only one the blame. Some of the blame falls on politicians that borrow recklessly and put bad policies into place. Some of the blame belongs on bankers and people that behave greedily, irresponsibly and ignorantly. But the fuel for it all comes from the Fed.

[mostpost]

We do not have a free market for interest rates. In a free market, some people would save and some people would borrow. The interest rate would be the price that balanced the two. If people were borrowing a lot, rates would tend to rise to choke off the credit expansion and encourage more savings. If people weren't borrowing or savings were high, rates would tend to fall.

In our system, the Fed sets short term interest rates, which in turn impacts other interest rates, and how people people behave.

If for example the Fed sets interest rates too low, people are less likely to save and more likely to borrow. They can borrow to consume, buy houses, stocks, bonds, farm land etc... There is no formula that tells you what they will use the money for. It depends on lot of things including government policy here and abroad. But if you make money cheap enough to borrow people are more likely to borrow.

If they start borrowing heavily, instead of rates rising and choking it off like would happen in a free market, the Fed can simply print more money and create the bank reserves needed to keep the borrowing going even though there are no savings available. It's new credit coming out of thin air. That fuels the boom further. That's how excesses form. Cheap easy money from the Fed is the fuel.

The mainstream view is that the Fed can simply raise or lower interest rates depending on economic activity to keep things balanced. The reality is that the Fed is not smarter than the market and often makes mistakes. Those mistakes usually occur on the side of making credit too cheap because they are trying to keep the economy going.

Those mistakes then lead to credit excesses (booms and then busts).

Just in my investment career we've had commercial real estate and LBO excesses, telecom and dot.com excesses, real estate excesses, junk bond excesses, and others. Each resulted in a boom and then bust that was a multi year process.

In recent cycles, rather than allowing the excesses to purge themselves completely in a recession, the Fed has been propping them up with ever easier money. This time around the Fed printed trillions of dollars and set real interest rates to negative just to keep the balloon expanded. All that government borrowing, all that printed money, and all that cheap credit is paving the way for the next bust.

I'm not arguing here that the Fed is the only one the blame. Some of the blame falls on politicians that borrow recklessly and put bad policies into place. Some of the blame belongs on bankers and people that behave greedily, irresponsibly and ignorantly. But the fuel for it all comes from the Fed.
Thank you for your reply. I must admit it was not quite what I anticipated. I will have to ponder this before responding. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas. If that is how you roll.

[delayjf]

Then it dropped 7.75% under Bill Clinton.

That was only because under the Clinton administration, The federal Government was able to borrow from SSN to finance itself and did not have to issue bonds instead - pure accounting sleight of hand.

[delayjf]

Just saying that the younger generation is spoiled and coddled is pure nonsense.

Any generation that grew up in the past 30 years or so has been spoiled and coddled. They have had it much easier than either the Baby Boomers or the Greatest Generation before them.

[classhandicapper]

Thank you for your reply. I must admit it was not quite what I anticipated. I will have to ponder this before responding. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas. If that is how you roll.

Have a great Christmas and new year.

[Valuist]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/the-gops-millennial-problem-runs-deep/

The GOP’s Millennial problem runs deep

Eventually they are no longer young. And they see they will be worse off than my generation, who will be worse off than their previous generation. And the future children of millennials? They will be worst off of all. Eventually they will understand the errors of Keynesian thinking and how it will destroy the US economy.

[classhandicapper]

Eventually they will understand the errors of Keynesian thinking and how it will destroy the US economy.

There can be self serving reasons why someone might be more interested in the short term than the log term. If you are a politician worried about the next election you might put your own career ahead of the country.

I don't understand why it isn't intuitively obvious to most reasonably bright people that we are on the wrong path long term.

I've read quotes from Krugman where he actually said publicly that the US economy needed a bubble somewhere to start growing again. Someone like that should be in a psyche ward somewhere not giving advice to world leaders.

[barahona44]

There can be self serving reasons why someone might be more interested in the short term than the log term. If you are a politician worried about the next election you might put your own career ahead of the country.

I don't understand why it isn't intuitively obvious to most reasonably bright people that we are on the wrong path long term.

I've read quotes from Krugman where he actually said publicly that the US economy needed a bubble somewhere to start growing again. Someone like that should be in a psyche ward somewhere not giving advice to world leaders.
ALL politicians put their careers ahead of the country unless they never get challenged electorally.And sooner or later, they will be challenged and that's when the weaseling starts.
As Charles de Gaulle said, "Politics is too important to be left to politicians."

[Tom]

Some people trust politicians.
They are called victims.

[no breathalyzer]

Republican policies caused the second largest Depression in this countries history. (They also caused the largest.) That is one reason so many people are on food stamps. Another reason is that Republican policies have depressed wages.

Despite your idiot brother, Tom's assertion that left equals lazy; the fact is that most people on food stamps are working. They just are not earning enough money.

People are moving to the left not because of what the left is giving them, but because of what the right is trying to take away.


might be the shit post of the yr! ... before you blast back.. i know i lived it. i experienced it .. i'm not going to give life lessons here but i know first hand.. statement is complete horse shit..... matter of fact might even be more accurate to say more people trade there stamps/ link card for cash 60 cents on the dollar

[no breathalyzer]

http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=33412.. here some facts just in case.. you don't believe me . someone making $8.00 an hr full time are not Eligible and do not qualify in Your state ILL.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Despite your idiot brother, Tom's assertion........

What are you going to do with all that coal you found in your living room this morning?

[mostpost]

might be the shit post of the yr! ... before you blast back.. i know i lived it. i experienced it .. i'm not going to give life lessons here but i know first hand.. statement is complete horse shit..... matter of fact might even be more accurate to say more people trade there stamps/ link card for cash 60 cents on the dollar
60% of the people on food stamps who are expected to work-that is excluding children and the disabled-are working. 60% is most.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/dec/11/barbara-lee/barbara-lee-says-60-percent-people-food-assistance/

[mostpost]

might be the shit post of the yr! ... before you blast back.. i know i lived it. i experienced it .. i'm not going to give life lessons here but i know first hand.. statement is complete horse shit..... matter of fact might even be more accurate to say more people trade there stamps/ link card for cash 60 cents on the dollar


While there has been an increase in the number of persons selling their food stamps at 60 cents on the dollar, the fact is that less than 4% of food stamps are disposed of that way. So, that would not be more accurate.

Let's look at your SNAP chart from Illinois. A single person earning $1276 or less per month is eligible for food stamps. The maximum benefit that person can receive each month is $194. If he sells those stamps at a 60% rate, he gets $116.40. He gets 3/5 of what he would get if he spent the money on food and he still has to buy food. Obviously no one who needs food stamps to buy food is selling those stamps.

So, who is selling those stamps? Two groups come to mind; addicts and people who are receiving the stamps fraudulently. I'm not sure what we can do about addicts, but every effort should be made to keep people from receiving food stamps who are not eligible. That does not mean we should do so by punishing those in need.

[mostpost]

What are you going to do with all that coal you found in your living room this morning?
I'm going to sell it and donate the proceeds to those poor coal mine owners who are suffering under that damn Obama. :rolleyes:

There are benefits to being naughty.

[MutuelClerk]

Because the right took all the money?

[woodtoo]

might be the shit post of the yr! ... before you blast back.. i know i lived it. i experienced it .. i'm not going to give life lessons here but i know first hand.. statement is complete horse shit..... matter of fact might even be more accurate to say more people trade there stamps/ link card for cash 60 cents on the dollar
I recall reading a story about just this from down south MS I think. Where a bunch of small convenience store were giving about 50 cents on the dollar.
They made a big bust and found they were sending money back to the middle east to support terrorism.

[Tom]

Because the right earned all the money?

FTFY

[no breathalyzer]

[/B]

While there has been an increase in the number of persons selling their food stamps at 60 cents on the dollar, the fact is that less than 4% of food stamps are disposed of that way. So, that would not be more accurate.

Let's look at your SNAP chart from Illinois. A single person earning $1276 or less per month is eligible for food stamps. The maximum benefit that person can receive each month is $194. If he sells those stamps at a 60% rate, he gets $116.40. He gets 3/5 of what he would get if he spent the money on food and he still has to buy food. Obviously no one who needs food stamps to buy food is selling those stamps.

So, who is selling those stamps? Two groups come to mind; addicts and people who are receiving the stamps fraudulently. I'm not sure what we can do about addicts, but every effort should be made to keep people from receiving food stamps who are not eligible. That does not mean we should do so by punishing those in need.

Working full time at $8.00 an hr means you don't make the cut.. you understand this rite? ... people on food stamps are not working full time jobs period.. that 60% stat is either total bs or misleading .. i don't know which one cause i don't click bs links full of bs..... the only people on stamps are dope heads/homeless.. people working part time... or ghetto mfers with 6 children.. will add the people that really need help , don't seem to get it or don't ask for it cause they have self pride and will fight for their own necessity.. they hand outs have gone way to ****ing far.. why do you think Trump is leading the vote.. months after the experts said he would crash despite the medias attempt to shot him down.... it has gone way to far.. that is the give me give me give me mentality

[no breathalyzer]

working class middle america is tired of being shitted on

[mostpost]

Working full time at $8.00 an hr means you don't make the cut.. you understand this rite? ... people on food stamps are not working full time jobs period..
I said they were working. I did not say it was necessarily full time. You assumed that.

that 60% stat is either total bs or misleading ..
What it is, is accurate. The link you didn't look at is Politifact.

i don't know which one cause i don't click bs links full of bs.....
Go ahead, wallow in your ignorance.

the only people on stamps are dope heads/homeless.. people working part time...
You figured it out, but you didn't figure it out. We have been trying to tell you. People are on food stamps because they can't get full time work. They are not lazy people who are unwilling to work.

or ghetto mfers with 6 children..
You are a racist and your language is disgusting.
will add the people that really need help , don't seem to get it or don't ask for it cause they have self pride and will fight for their own necessity..
You mean they are fools who would rather their children starve than ask for help.


they hand outs have gone way to ****ing far.. why do you think Trump is leading the vote..months after the experts said he would crash despite the medias attempt to shot him down.... it has gone way to far.. that is the give me give me give me mentality
Because Republicans are fools. He is leading among Republicans in Republican primary polls. There is not a Democrat alive who would vote for Trump and a lot of Republicans wouldn't either.

[woodtoo]

Because Republicans are fools. He is leading among Republicans in Republican primary polls. There is not a Democrat alive who would vote for Trump and a lot of Republicans wouldn't either.
There you go again Bull$$ttin your way to the bottom of the heap.

[classhandicapper]

There is not a Democrat alive who would vote for Trump and a lot of Republicans wouldn't either.

He has support among blue collar and union type workers that feel they've been screwed by both parties in bad trade deals that sent their job overseas and by immigration rules that added competition and put downward pressure on wages.

Many of those people traditionally vote for democrats.

Some of them are moving away from traditional democrats like Hillary and toward Sanders but some are moving towards Trump.

[Pick 'em Charlie]

The only thing constant is change. In the end, we have to be progressive and move forward. Some might not like it, but it is inevitable.

[Tom]

Oxymoron - being progressive is moving backwards.
The very heat of liberalism/the left, if to have enough rich people to blame and leech from. Reduce their numbers and you end up with 5 year plans.

Progressives/liberals do not create prosperity, they take it from others.

[dartman51]

Because Republicans are fools. He is leading among Republicans in Republican primary polls. There is not a Democrat alive who would vote for Trump and a lot of Republicans wouldn't either.


That's a LIE. Maybe no Liberal will vote for him, but I know 2 Democrats that will vote for him, if Hillary is the Dem nominee. And if I know 2, than it's a safe bet that there are more.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

While providing some nice historical context of how Democrats use racism as a tool to maintain power, Mr. Beinart failed to mention the most obvious reason why America is moving left (which I agree with) - and that is that the "American Dream" is dead for the millennials.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/10/48-percent-of-millennials-think-the-american-dream-is-dead-heres-why/

Since bigger, more powerful government can only lead to a more "fair" distribution of wealth (/sarcasm), it's hardly a surprise that younger voters are feeling cheated and want a piece of the pie. Or, as they are more accurately known, the Free Shit Army will demand more and more freebies..... :ThmbDown:

[Tom]

The democrats depend on the laziness of others.
Couple that with ignorance and you've got a real big tent.

[Pick 'em Charlie]

Oxymoron - being progressive is moving backwards.
The very heat of liberalism/the left, if to have enough rich people to blame and leech from. Reduce their numbers and you end up with 5 year plans.

Progressives/liberals do not create prosperity, they take it from others.

This is axiom? And besides, prosperity is but one measure of moving forward. Health, happiness, education, and security are some other measures. The free market under government supervision has worked well for producing prosperity.

[mostpost]

Oxymoron - being progressive is moving backwards.
The very heat of liberalism/the left, if to have enough rich people to blame and leech from. Reduce their numbers and you end up with 5 year plans.

Progressives/liberals do not create prosperity, they take it from others.
As Col. Sherman Potter would say, "Horse Puckey." Progressives want everyone to have the just fruits of their labor. Conservatives, on the other hand are sycophants for the rich and powerful.

[mostpost]

This is axiom?
Does axiom mean something stupid that exists only in Tom's mind? Then yes, it is axiom.

And besides, prosperity is but one measure of moving forward. Health, happiness, education, and security are some other measures. The free market under government supervision has worked well for producing prosperity.
This is something conservatives will never get. The free market needs government supervision to be at its most effective. Or to even exist.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why should a person have to work two jobs to support themselves?Because they're too stupid or too uneducated to support themselves with one good-paying job?

Why is the person never to blame for their own shortcomings when it comes to Democrats?

[woodtoo]

Keep your hands off my fruit basket, is what we all want.

[PaceAdvantage]

If your party can't beat Barrack Obama and possibly/probably Hillary Clinton instead of wondering why everyone is moving left maybe you should take a hard look at your party and what it's become. Isn't that more telling?No. It's no more telling than the other way around.

Like Michelle Obama, I will be very ashamed of my country if Hillary Clinton is elected president. Talk about non-presidential...ever look at her track record? All the scandals she's been associated with? I know..I know...all nothing but a big right-wing conspiracy against her. The same right wing that you guys like to claim is absolutely powerless and shunned by the majority of the nation.

And they say Donald doesn't deserve to win because he has a big foul mouth.

Yeah, whatever.

[PaceAdvantage]

Because Republicans are fools. He is leading among Republicans in Republican primary polls. There is not a Democrat alive who would vote for Trump and a lot of Republicans wouldn't either.According to what I hear personally from some very educated people (even those who are registered Democrats), this isn't the case.

And I live in NY. Imagine what it might be like elsewhere.

To sum it up, you are severely underestimating the draw of a Donald Trump on the general electorate. His success is NOT just with dumb white southern right-wing racist rednecks...as the media would have you believe and you swallow eagerly.

[Greyfox]

No. It's no more telling than the other way around.

Like Michelle Obama, I will be very ashamed of my country if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

The reality is Hillary Clinton is going to be hard to beat for any of the GOP candidates, even though several might more competent as President.

[Pick 'em Charlie]

This is something conservatives will never get. The free market needs government supervision to be at its most effective. Or to even exist.

I'm not calling anybody stupid especially Tom. What I was suggesting was to examine the underlining premise. Sometimes we envision a world based on a false premise that doesn't correlate to reality. I believe his premise to be false. On the other hand, us liberals need conservatives questioning our premise. The check and balance which our government is built on. Back to the OP. We must move forward. There isn't any other way.

[Tom]

There is a difference between government regulation and strangulation.
What mostie supports is government robbery.

btw
Thanks, Charlie.

[delayjf]

I found this reading an article by Mark Steyn and found that I believe is related to the topic of this thread. The emphasis is mine. The full article is below.

http://www.steynonline.com/7393/societal-stockholm-syndrome

~Brendan O'Neill has a thoughtful essay on "identity politics and the death of the individual". The Caitlyn Jenner story was one of the most important of 2015 - not because one member of a professional reality-show family choosing to get breast implants and female hormone shots is a big deal in and of itself, but because even supposed "right-wing" outlets such as Fox News felt obliged to treat the occasion as cause for celebration, and those few individuals who rained on the parade (Tom Cruise's son) were soon clubbed into submission. As I said back in June, there was something "coercive and authoritarian in the uniformity of the mandatory jubilation". Mr O'Neill writes:

That everyone from the Passport Office to Smith College now nods dutifully along as a man tells them 'I am a woman' confirms that the cult of self-identification cannot be put down to crazy individuals claiming to be things they aren't, or obsessing over the most narrow, least interesting things that they are: black, gay, whatever. Rather, society itself is complicit in this process, and as such it inflames it. Incapable of reconstituting the old validation of people for what they did, or for who they became through achievement, work, discussion, interaction and other social and political accomplishments, society instead gives the green light to the celebration of people for their 'traits', or for their narrow cultural or biological identity, or, increasingly, for who they claim to be, with little in the way of objective reasoning.

[thaskalos]

I found this reading an article by Mark Steyn and found that I believe is related to the topic of this thread. The emphasis is mine. The full article is below.

http://www.steynonline.com/7393/societal-stockholm-syndrome

~Brendan O'Neill has a thoughtful essay on "identity politics and the death of the individual". The Caitlyn Jenner story was one of the most important of 2015 - not because one member of a professional reality-show family choosing to get breast implants and female hormone shots is a big deal in and of itself, but because even supposed "right-wing" outlets such as Fox News felt obliged to treat the occasion as cause for celebration, and those few individuals who rained on the parade (Tom Cruise's son) were soon clubbed into submission. As I said back in June, there was something "coercive and authoritarian in the uniformity of the mandatory jubilation". Mr O'Neill writes:

That everyone from the Passport Office to Smith College now nods dutifully along as a man tells them 'I am a woman' confirms that the cult of self-identification cannot be put down to crazy individuals claiming to be things they aren't, or obsessing over the most narrow, least interesting things that they are: black, gay, whatever. Rather, society itself is complicit in this process, and as such it inflames it. Incapable of reconstituting the old validation of people for what they did, or for who they became through achievement, work, discussion, interaction and other social and political accomplishments, society instead gives the green light to the celebration of people for their 'traits', or for their narrow cultural or biological identity, or, increasingly, for who they claim to be, with little in the way of objective reasoning.
The general populace is bored with their own lives...and are looking to the "celebrities" for a little "escape" from their mundane existence. What Mr O'Neill calls "society", is just the "entertainment engine" in this country...which sells us what we think we need to amuse ourselves. "Society" is us...and we are the ones who find the bizarre entertaining...and we clamor to it. And, where there is a demand...there is a supplier. "Society gives its green light..."...what does that even MEAN?

When the bizarre is elevated to celebrity status...it shows that we as people are regressing as human beings. And we didn't need Caitlyn Jenner to prove this to us. We saw it with the wild popularity of the Kardashians.