IN THE COMMENTS: AJ Lynch had written:
In the last 20-30 some years, the fed govt has not fixed even one big thing. Not one. Simplifying the tax code, securing the borders, infrastructure, longterm national defense plan, reforming the 80 year old bankrupt social security system, the economy and jobs, a consensus & sensible foreign policy. Those are big things I consider as needing fixing. Yet not a one has been fixed in 20-30 years. I think the voters feel Trump will fix at least one big thing and that is what counts. Voters won't care about this eminent domain case or any other crap MSM libs dig up unless the voter is just looking for an excuse to vote for the same old same old Dem BS [is that perhaps you Althouse?]My response was:
Fixing one big thing... sounds like what Obama did.Reading the rest of the comments this morning (Sunday, 6 a.m.), I realize that AJ Lynch and many others didn't understand the point in the post, and I feel that almost no one understood my response to AJ Lynch.
First, the post was not about caring about "this eminent domain case," but the way Trump's use of eminent domain should undercut the belief that Trump is a conservative. Trump's favorite words include "big" and "love." You're going love the big things he's going to do. It's gonna be great. Trust him! If that pumps you up, you are not conservative. Or it's not the conservative part of you that is responding to Trump. So what is it? Illegal immigrants?
Second, this idea of fixing one big thing. That's what Obama did with health care. He focused on one big problem that needed fixing, and he devoted his presidency to that one great reform. Oh, but you don't like that fix, perhaps. What makes you think you're going to like Trump's big fix? He's mostly threatening to fix illegal immigration, and sure, that, like health care, is a huge problem. How do you think Trump's ideas about that are going to work in practice? You think that will be less of a clusterfuck than Obamacare? It will be more. Much, much more. Anyone who's leaning back and enjoying the idea of Trump "fixing" things for us is juvenile, dreaming of magic big government. Again: not a conservative. Hopey-changey.
Posts
232 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 232 of 232Matt said...
self-evidently a moron.
Don't be so hard on yourself buddy, math is hard. The Great Bush Recession was more than 3 times deeper than the 2001 recession and was accompanied by a global recession that rivaled the Great Depression in some countries and is still ongoing in many. Yet, the recovery in the US was at the same rate as the recovery from the 2001 recession. I am not arguing that the economy wasn't severely damaged by the Great Bush Recession. If you start a massive conflagration that reaches across the globe you can't complain when the fire department struggles to fix the problem.
Shorter Republican Mantra: "You're not fixing our recession quickly enough! Now allow us to re-enact nearly every policy that got us into it!"
What math have I gotten wrong? I made a statement, you responded in a way that showed you did not understand what I wrote; therefore, I am bad at math? For you, that's almost logic. To a reasonable person, you are flailing in an effort to ignore the facts laid bare before you.
Hey ARM, how much of the recovery do you think fracking is responsible for? Is it reasonable for the President to take credit for that?
Matt said...
lying hack.
You had to stretch for a guest commentary curated by Forbes Opinion that is a year and a half old in order to back your argument? That is called desperation in my book.
Ah, Ritmo, remember when I got you to admit you are just here to troll and you said I "tricked" you into doing so? Good times... Anyway, I am not a Republican. Now, try and post something... substantive.
Apparently some morons are "self-evidently" morons, and other morons became that way through numerous layers of bullshit that nurtured their heavily ingrained, heavily moronic thinking.
Well done, ARM, attack the source and not the content... that shows DEEP THOUGHT. You moronic hack.
Come on math guy, what did they get wrong? Show us your super smarts!
Wow Matt. Are you saying you "got me to admit" that substantive conversation with you was impossible? Pat yourself on your hunched back for that one, but it doesn't take much investigating to realize that substantive conversation with you is impossible. As it is with anyone as invested into believing as much unsubstantiated self-serving bullshit as you believe.
Matt believes that I am trolling him but that Trump, and the other "non-Republicans" that Kochsuckers like him look to for political direction, aren't. Try figuring out the logic in that.
You can't reason someone out of something that took no reason to believe in the first place.
I am trying to understand why Althouse thinks ObamaCare fixed the "health care problem". It seems to me it made the whole thing worse and was based on lies to boot.
Rick Caird:
Althouse does not think that. She is saying that empty promises based on hopes will get similar results the second time around, regardless of alleged party or alleged leadership.
What happened, ARM, is that guys like Matt and his fellow Republicans misunderestimated the depth and extent of their Great Recession.
I don't think Trump's message is conservative. I think patriotic populism is a more apt description. That's why the National Review and the Weekly Standard are in such a snit about him; he's not one of them. I think Ann has a point about the similarity between Obama's 08 message and Trump's '16 message. Our whole political culture has lost its mooring, especially to the Constitution. Remember, the Democrats started this, and its not just Obama's fault ("We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." Nancy Pelosi.) The Supreme Court instead of holding Congress and the President to the words in the Constitution, tries to make the Constitution fit the acts of Congress. With that in mind, I think many Democrats who were cheering a few years back will rue the day that might be about to come, as the Republicans may rue these upcoming years as well. Maybe then, we will all regain our faith in the wisdom of James Madison
and don't forget about the gop saboteurs...
But the fix will be yuge, and classy. With top men.
"You think that will be less of a clusterfuck than Obamacare? It will be more. Much, much more. Anyone who's leaning back and enjoying the idea of Trump "fixing" things for us is juvenile, dreaming of magic big government. Again: not a conservative. Hopey-changey."-- Ms. Althouse
What problem has Obamacare solved? We haven't even seen the full implementation yet-- remember significant parts of it have been delayed until after the 2016 election.
What evidence do you have that it will be worse-- much, much worse to get serious about controlling illegal immigration? And no, fixing the illegal invasion at our southern border is not a magic big government fix. The federal government has done everything in its power to stop the states from implementing reasonable steps to control it..
So instead of any analysis, what you offer is snark. Hmmm. I guess that's the best we can hope from a constitutional law professor.
I would prefer to hear an your side of the argument whether a case could be made that birthright citizenship isn't a constitutional right. Granted, given the extreme nature of the supreme court, we aren't likely to get much legal thought-- since I think your characterization of hopey, changey is likely to sum up any decision by the low court of the land.
It appears that the country is now on a race to the bottom-- with the progressives leading the charge.
And let's leave xenophobic, racist charges out of this. It seems in progressive circles that constitutes an argument.
Matt said...
Well done, ARM, attack the source and not the content.
I am supposed to take an advertorial seriously? When did that become a rule?
I can now post properly, not one handed with Android -
Labor force participation ages 25-54 - No question of Boomer effects or any "demographic trends"
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=l6Q
This is down 4%, with no sign of recovery.
This alone makes the official unemployment rate a fairy tale.
Worse is youth unemployment -
http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LNS11324887Q;jsessionid=5AE5154FC2DBE69386001347CDCF7548.tc_instance6
Down 6% - also stuck with no sign of recovery - note the timing. These kids didn't just suddenly decide to go to college come the recession. That also is a fairy tale.
As for the "Boomers" -
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS11324230
Participation IMPROVED by a %
R&B, you haven't got a point that I can see.
But Trump is the best of both worlds. He is willing to take on and win the many battles necessary to save our asses from intentional Obama sabotage tricks, and when he is finished we can say we never liked his style either...it was not pure Conservatism which we could have done ourselves if we had had the leadership and communication skills of a Trump.
It is not fair that Trump by getting impossible things done quickly which has eliminated the need for our Philosophical Conservatism criticizing those eliminated problems as a lack of doing what we told people to do for the last 30 years and were ignored.
And of course median household income -
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Down $3-4K from pre-recession with no sign of recovery.
It is absolutely no surprise that there is a populist uprising.
I am supposed to take an advertorial seriously? When did that become a rule?
Probably sometime after Citizens United. The new standard for empiric proof must take into account the amount of money used to pay for each argument and weigh heavily in favor of finding greater accuracy and intellectual authority in the better funded position.
Blogger Rick Caird said...
I am trying to understand why Althouse thinks ObamaCare fixed the "health care problem". It seems to me it made the whole thing worse and was based on lies to boot.
8/23/15, 3:52 PM
She should have, and possibly might have, meant "fix" as in the fix is in.
The fix is to make Obama seem like he cares/d about people getting healthcare since America is such a rich country it would abolish pain if it only cared.
That is, cared as much as the Great Carer Obama. You see, Obama cares/d so much about healthcare, NOT INSURANCE COMPANY PROFITS HE BENEFITS FROM, he didn't supervise the implementation of his major accomplishment, but had to read in the news how people were harmed because some darn company Obama hired was probably racist.
Like Bush, and anyone who runs for POTUS with a couple million dollars of donations securing credulity, the main concern the candidate has is people like them and their legacy.
Somehow Trump is the exception in that he wants to trash his reputation among partisan Democrats while guaranteeing Hillary wins.
I understand how some think being POTUS isn't worthy of what Trump thinks of himself and I declare you are wrong.
Who was the richest American in 1961?
1982?
1866?
Do you know who was POTUS during those years?
Do you really need me to explain to you why being the most powerful man in the history of the world appeals to Trump, as opposed to the idea Trump just wants to help Hillary and hope everything works exactly as planned for 18 months and then the Clintons(!) show their loyal gratitude?
Alright conspirators, let's name a number Trump accepted to run for POTUS thus guaranteeing Hillary wins.
50 million?
500?
A couple trillion?
All to be paid in a couple of years based on Trump's trust of the Clintons whilst Trump spends his days and nights interacting with the hoi polloi in Alabama and Iowa instead of making many millions with very little criticism in elegant locales such as Paris and Hong Kong and places rich people go I don't know about.
Or are you trying to bait Trump into a Perotesque "POTUS sucks and sane people wouldn't want to put up with the BS that goes with it?"
The government doesn't fix things, so much as break them.
Hence, when Obama tinkered with healthcare and made the government bigger and larger in order to make health care better, the obvious thing happened. He made it worse. Much worse. Because the more layers of bureaucratic nonsense you stick into a thing, the worse that thing gets.
How does that compare to Trumps fixing immigration?
Well, if you're thinking about it along the lines of the way Althouse is thinking about it, you might think Trumps fixing Immigration will be like Obama fixing healthcare.
In that, a promise from Trump to fix immigration will mean better and stronger immigration, sorta like a promise to fix health care by Obama will mean better health care.
But we don't want better and stronger immigration. We want to gum up the works. Slow it down. Keep people out. Not start bringing more people in. We want to make it harder for people to get into the United States.
The government is really good at that. Which is why, even with all the pro immigration politicians out there, our immigration system still sucks.
Now you get someone like the Donald in? And he'll fix it good, real good.
Buwaya,
As Bill McBride has said, "Complaining about the decline in the overall labor force participation rate is the last refuge of scoundrels."
You have now retreated from that position and wish to focus on the decline in prime participation, only you wish to advance your skewed views on why this is rather than apply reasoned analysis based in demographic trends. The first thing that should give you some pause before continuing to repeat establishment Republican propaganda is that the decline quite clearly began during the Bush presidency.
As to the stalling of median salaries, this began during Reagan's term when he killed unions and made it easier to shift jobs overseas. Who could have guessed that that would affect working people's income?
Buwaya, I question your time management skills in stooping to pearl this particular swine, but I do look forward to seeing the color of his insides when you have done. He embodies the joke about why you don't play chess with a pigeon.
So, we have established that Nichevo is intellectually incapable of contributing to this discussion. It is a small point, but a definitive one.
How did you establish that, ARM? Jeez, like you never enjoyed lying back and getting a little skull without having to do all the work...or am I giving you too much credit?
Anyway, I thought you just offered me a hit on the peace pipe. Don't make me doubt your sincerity.
I agree with "A Reasonable Man." The decline in the labor force participation rate started on or about January 2007, well before President Obama started at his current job.
If only there were something that happened, perhaps some sort of political event, that could explain why the labor force participation rate started its descent at that time.
The mind boggles.
If you actually look at the graph the decline started in 2000, although, to be fair, it had plateaued a decade earlier.
Post a Comment