Some things to consider. Deregulation plus tax cuts on the people who do the hiring and produce the nation's wealth. Shortly thereafter...
Lowest unemployment in forever.
Lowest jobless claims in forever.
Lowest black unemployment in forever.
Lowest female unemployment in forever.
Highest middle income worth ever.
Highest middle income assets ever.
Highest stock market ever.
Highest growth in decades.
Highest Democratic anger in years.
It's like Reagan all over again. Gee, I wonder what the common threat could have been?
The Democrats are hilariously whining that income inequality hasn't gone down since 2001 and this is Trump's fault. Notice whose entire administration rests in the middle of that period. Notice also that if income inequality didn't change, but growth is up, then everyone benefited from Trump's economy.
As an aside, I've been thinking. Do you know who Trump is? Trump is Andrew Jackson. He's the nutjob outsider who got elected despite a system rigged toward insiders, and once he got there, the insiders sh*t upon him so much that he retaliated in shocking ways like wiping out their Second Bank of the United States.
At the same time, Bush/Obama (who could easily be the same man) are basically the modern version of Ulysses Grant, generally likeable and useless, they presided over an age of massive corruption and insider dealing when the US government was for sale to the connected.
Continuing on a thread, Lebron James wants to be Oprah. He's at the end of his career and is now trying to follow in her footsteps by venturing into television production and advice giving. He opened a school, and he's even stating not-at-all controversial "controversial" opinions to sound edgy without offending anyone, just like Oprah.
Lowest unemployment in forever.
Lowest jobless claims in forever.
Lowest black unemployment in forever.
Lowest female unemployment in forever.
Highest middle income worth ever.
Highest middle income assets ever.
Highest stock market ever.
Highest growth in decades.
Highest Democratic anger in years.
It's like Reagan all over again. Gee, I wonder what the common threat could have been?
The Democrats are hilariously whining that income inequality hasn't gone down since 2001 and this is Trump's fault. Notice whose entire administration rests in the middle of that period. Notice also that if income inequality didn't change, but growth is up, then everyone benefited from Trump's economy.
As an aside, I've been thinking. Do you know who Trump is? Trump is Andrew Jackson. He's the nutjob outsider who got elected despite a system rigged toward insiders, and once he got there, the insiders sh*t upon him so much that he retaliated in shocking ways like wiping out their Second Bank of the United States.
At the same time, Bush/Obama (who could easily be the same man) are basically the modern version of Ulysses Grant, generally likeable and useless, they presided over an age of massive corruption and insider dealing when the US government was for sale to the connected.
Continuing on a thread, Lebron James wants to be Oprah. He's at the end of his career and is now trying to follow in her footsteps by venturing into television production and advice giving. He opened a school, and he's even stating not-at-all controversial "controversial" opinions to sound edgy without offending anyone, just like Oprah.
17 comments:
So the Democrats tried a typical dirty trick, dredging up a woman who supposedly has some complaint against Kavanaugh from high school! Not only does it not matter what happened in high school, but you know this woman is lying to try to stop him. She even hired a politicized lawyer. Really? When all you have to do is tell you story? Hmmm.
Anyways, it looks like that failed miserably when the FBI said they would not investigate and the Republicans seem to be sticking together on this being a dirty trick.
In other news, Cuomo won the primary in New York beating socialist lesbian Cynthia Nixon. This one has been fun to watch as the Democrats have torn each other apart. Now we'll see if Cuomo decides to run for President.
Andrew,
If we're comparing Presidents with interesting ways of retaliating to Trump, Jackson is a good choice. (Fun fact: Jackson is sometimes credited with inventing 'O.K.' Due to his notorious bad spelling, he marked figures on official documents as "O.K." or "Ole kerect"- "all correct"- and it stuck.) However, Harry Truman might work as well. Consider this letter he sent after a critic poorly reviewed HST's daughter, Margaret's, singing performance in 1950.
"Mr. Hume:
"I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an 'eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.'
"It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.
"Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!
"[Newspaper columnist Westbrook] Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.
'H.S.T.'
As for Bush and Obama, I might add Millard Filmore or James Buchanan.
Or maybe I'll describe them with this quote of Robert Louis Stevenson's: "as emotional as a bagpipe."
But one more thing...I'm a few articles late on this subject, but how can you, as a MSTie, not know who Batwoman is?! After considering subjecting you to either extended sessions of Rock Climbing or Deep Hurting, I decided to just settle on a refresher course. (Not sure if this clip was meant to portray her as a lesbian or not, but it will make you question life, the universe, and all that.)
The economy is doing great, but as is the case with Obama, the same tongue that helped win office is now getting him in trouble. How anyone can be surprised is beyond me.
Also, highest Democratic anger is not much of an accomplishment. Anger hits new highs all the time. Its previous Democratic high was the last time Republicans held the presidency, its previous Republican high was the last time Democrats held the presidency. Anger is the flavor of the era in politics and the pendulum swings a little further out each time.
Also, I just don't see 'a system rigged towards insiders'. Big talkers with short or no political resumes are doing well in recent years (nods once again towards Obama). Its telling that the other last man standing in the Republican presidential primary was not one of the governors but Ted Cruz, who made a career out of positioning himself as an outsider.
I'm no Andrew Jackson expert but I do know he was not big on government spending and refused to fund even highways. Trump has continued the trend of spending ever larger amounts of money and has slaughtered no sacred cows (not even Obamacare) and is proposing expensive new programs like Space Force.
Anthony, I think we both recognize the difference between a career politician with a thin resume that's been pushed through by his party and a non-politician who breaks in at the top despite two parties and a press trying to stop him.
Rustbelt, I thought of Truman too. Anthony, while Jackson was against federal spending no analogy fits perfectly. And Tryanmax, you're right. In addition,Rand Paul, who as a republi-libertarian actually is outside the mainstream, was knocked out pretty early, if memory serves. On top of that, everybody knew Paul wasn't actually going to get the nomination. And if Trump hadn't entered the race and absolutely spanked Jeb Bush I wonder how well Jeb would have done.
GypsyTyger
Howdy folks. Long day. Sorry I haven't responded yet.
Rustbelt, I totally forgot about Batwoman. What an awful film! LOL!
In terms of the Presidents, Grant tends to be seen as the President at the height of the Gilded Age, and I think that's what we've been in for some time. The Gilded Age, of course, spawned a massive progressive/populist movement and ended with World War I shaking the country up.
Anthony, Democratic anger/rage is a relatively new thing at in my lifetime, in a way. When I was young, yes, they were angry at Reagan and they were angry at America for not worshiping them. But their anger was mainly a fringe thing. Their middle wasn't angry. Starting after Bush "stole the election" and then the whole crap about "going to war for oil," the left lost their minds and more and more Democrats got bitten by the bug. Hence, the first mention of Derangement Syndrome. Their rage reduced when Obama got elected, but rose slightly when he blamed his failure on GOP interference. The election of Trump has spiked their rage to truly mental condition levels and has affected the Democrats broadly. (I've had some amazing conversations with seemingly normal liberals who really have developed mental conditions over this.)
In terms of corruption, there is ample evidence. Corporations getting the FDA to bless disastrous things that consumers oppose, the Big Banks writing their own regulations to eat up their competitors, both parties routinely doing the bidding of their donors, the handing over of public lands for whatever (grazing, oil, etc.) at far below market values, the rigging of the stockmarket with SEC approval, the neutering of antitrust laws, the number of billionaires who got that way because of government contracts (cough cough Warren Buffett), the rise and fall of companies like GE or Halliburton depending on which administration is in charge, the biggest gift ever to insurance carriers in the form of Obamacare, the huge gift to drug companies under Bush, both administrations forbidding the SS administration from demanding price cuts from those companies, the ignoring of illegal immigration to bring in cheap labor for large commercial farms, the granting of H-visas to replace American professionals with foreign immigrants, etc. There's way more than that too. But all of that is government bought and paid for, not party politics, not ideological politics, not representation of the public.
tryanmax, Obama was just another tool of the system. He was perfect for it. He was an egotist with no ideology who could be put in place as an "outside" face while all the same insiders kept running the government. The Treasury under Obama was practically a Goldman Sachs homecoming party.
Trump is truly an outsider who threatens the insiders because he's unpredictable and isn't beholden to the system that put him in place. Whether you like what he's doing or not, he's definitely not an insider.
GypsyTyger, No analogy does fit perfectly, but it doesn't really matter. Jackson's motivations and his war against what the DC system wanted (both parties) is very similar to what Trump is doing.
Truman is another good example of a man who wasn't accepted by DC, though I don't think the bad blood was there or the recklessness as much as with Jackson/Trump.
I'm not sure anyone else has ever been as adversarial as those guys.
On Jeb Bush, I think the Democrats would have used all the same tactics and fake outrages they are doing now... and I think Bush would have gotten blown out in the election. If he had made it this far, he would be spending his time on his knees swearing that he's not the evil sexist, racist, anti-Arabist, whatever-ist they claim he is from week to week.
Tryanmax,
The notion that the media and the Republican party tried to keep Trump out doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The guys who always support the Democrat supported the Democrat but Fox (barring that one reporter who got chased off the network), talk radio, Breitbart, Drudge and the guys who usually support the Republican were pretty big on Trump. The only unusual opponent he has had was/is a group of traditional conservatives best embodied by the National Review to whom populism is anathema. As I pointed out when the National Review came out against Trump having them for an opponent boosted his talk radio credentials.
As for the party, no 2016 Republican had control of the party apparatus the way Hillary controlled the Dems.
All that being said, I agree Trump is more of an outsider than Obama, but both appealed to the public as fresh to politics faces promising radical solutions (albeit from different directions).
Gypsytiger its true Rand Paul was knocked out early, but he was kind of a perennial also-ran who was running as a protest rather than to win. I think the key to getting an 'outsider win' is one-timing it and being unsullied by compromise.
Anthony, I notice that a majority of the cherries, er, media escaped your scrutiny.
Also, don’t forget that Jeb! Was the heir-apparent until he wasn’t.
The GOP machine tried desperately to destroy Trump. They still are. The fringe sites (talk radio, Breitbart, Drudge) liked him, after they dumped Cruz, but they're just that -- fringe.
And Fox went down the list, settling on Trump only once he became the nominee. They're front runners.
Andrew,
I suspect rage politics in its modern form dates back to the 1990s. That triggered the start of a game with no limitations.
It became possible to win both branches of government and power seesawed frequently enough that it became clear there was little point in compromise and every reason to encourage suspicion of the opposition and anyone who would work with them. Why compromise if that will be held against you and when its quite possible the next election will give you the numbers you need to make it unnecessary? Trump and Obama both took pains to criticize those with power/in leadership positions in the run up to their campaigns, which made them darlings of the fringes years before they became popular with the mainstream.
I agree with many of your examples of corruption but I Goldman Sach in particular and big business in general are well represented in the Trump administration. I don't see less corruption in the Trump administration. As we recently discussed, he loves being flattered (he has stated that is the only reason he hired Omarosa, paid her the max allowed by law and gave her unlimited access to him) which allows all sorts of people to get to him and influence him.
As for immigration and relatively free trade, I don't buy into the notion that big business is the sole beneficiary and the public are just victims. The system has been great for businesses and consumers, but tough on workers (wage stagnation and decay). However, while free trade isn't perfect, it is the best model. America's economy has done better across the board (think not only growth but wealth distribution and employment, but the entry of new people into the middle and upper classes) than the overwhelming majority of (more interventionist) economies in the world for decades. Making American economic and trade policy more like that of the rest of the world probably won't do us any favors.
Of course, the public wants to explore alternatives and so it should be tried. Now government is getting a lot more involved in economic policy (picking winners and losers based on lobbying and political power) and is handing out billions more in subsidies.
I'm sure when the Democrats seize power, they will make fans of small government look back fondly on the days of Trump.
Tryanmax,
As I stated the media sites who invariably oppose the lead Republican opposed Trump. McCain the Trump critic had a lot more media fans than McCain the presidential candidate.
As for Jeb being the heir apparent, yeah he was the 'favorite' before anyone started to vote, but a lot of governors were viewed as strong contenders and I never heard of Jeb taking over the party apparatus the same way Hillary (who wanted to make sure another Obama didn't steal her thunder) did.
Post a Comment