Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

[vt]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Agree for Shiny.

[lektrode]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Don't you mean that depends on what your definition of ISIS is? Ask this conservative:

David Stockman: Blowback—–The Washington War Party’s Folly Comes Home To Roost

yeah, its hard to argue with ole dave - but if only ole saddammy hadnt decided to push his luck, eh?

IMHO, as limited in my grasp of the history of the past 26years is - had they decided to just appease hitler with poland in 1939 - everything would of worked out just swell - right?

oh.. uhhh... wait...

oh well, so much for appeasement - but just maybe, had ole wild bill (with his sidekick hillary) - not decided to point his finger straight into the cameras and say:
"i did not have sex with that woman" -

and had they not created the single largest disruption of US.gov ops since...

TADA!!!
watergate?

and had they NOT let osama&co go when they had several chances to take him out?

and - just maybe - had they NOT decided to - as dave puts it above - OPEN THE GATES OF HELL tween the beltway and lower manhattan ?

and we'll just fuhgetabout the fact that all of billari's natl security people, the UN security council, NATO and whoever else was weighing in on the matter - all of whom were pretty much convinced at the time that saddammy had the goods (them bad ole WMD's) - maybe JUST MAYBE, mind you...

just maybe the the economy might NOT have tanked just as ole geedubya took office and maybe he wouldnt have been stuck holding the bag of s__t that the prev bunch had filled to the brim -

and - just in time for september's redux of osama's "helloooo boyz, I'm Baaaack" - this after his buddies tried to takedown the WTC back in the 90's -

and instead of treating it like what it in fact was - AN ACT OF WAR - and call in the generals - what did billary&co do?

they called in the lawyers ? - natch, since thats what they themselves are - and set the stage, as it were - for not only two massively disrupting TERROR events there in lower manhattan - but TWO WIPEOUTS OF THE ECONOMY IN 10 YEARS

which then set up the sitch purrrrfectly for the O'man, prince harry & queen nancy to ride to our rescue and 'save the economy'
what, with them/dems controlling all 3 branches of the .gov - right at exactly the right time (just as in 1913 - it just so happens) - after their enablers in the LAMERSTREAM MEDIA, essentially threw the election(s) of 2008 (&12)
(even while their largest campaign contributors rode off with TRILLIONS, as they kranked up the printing presses - along with the deficit to the tune of 10 trillion, in just the past 7 years...)

but yeah woody - them damned ole neocons started it all - while wild bill&co were hero's - right?

riiiiight.
(and we'll just annoint the O'man as 'our saviour', just so we aint rayciss...)

[Woodsman]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Lek, I just don't think life works like that, with neat little lines drawn from one event (related or otherwise) to another. We're pattern seeking apes and so can't help ourselves. We naturally seek out these sorts of connections, but more often than not we use those lines to draw the picture we see in our head.

I understand why the image of Munich looms so large in the minds of politicians, particular our current lot. They ought to know better and some likely do, but as with everything these folks do, it is more about manipulating domestic thought than any strategic imperative.

Everything that happens happens within a particular context that frames the events in the minds of the participants. The context of Munich was dominated by the collapse of the collective security regime embodied in the League of Nations and the many attempts at disarmament. Why? Because WWI and the devastation of the Continent. A war weary public and government coffers depleted by war made such conflict-avoidance very popular by people and politicians alike.

Chamberlain pursued a two-track strategy of appeasement and rearmament. Appeasement was likely the best they believed they could do until such time as enough armaments were produced and men conscripted to field a credible force. It does no good to threaten force without the ability to project it, as you well know. Speaking of the German re-annexation of the Rhineland and the tepid response, Chamberlain wrote "The hard fact is that nothing could have arrested what has actually happened [in Austria] unless this country and other countries had been prepared to use force."

Britain did not have the forces available and its people had no will to rally around leaders willing to use force. Neither did France, having adopted a defensive policy built around the Maginot Line. And neither did the Americans, at the time still revving up the production of armaments and soldiers to man them. "America First" dominated the minds of the populace and they were determined to stay out of any future European conflict. The politicians, ever courageous, followed their lead.

People on the right are fond of quoting "peace in our time" and citing the courage and resolve of men such as Churchill. But Winston was there and understood the context of the events. His judgement of Chamberlain's decisions should therefore trump our own and that of the Fox News analysts. He said, "Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged." I don't always agree with the Bulldog, but here his judgment seems sound.

It's not the same Lek and it does no good to pretend that it is. Saddam, Milosevic and now Putin are all said to be the reincarnation of Hitler, but it's a facile and emotive approach used by bad men to manipulate you into supporting something that is not good for you or anyone else, Lek. The policy of appeasement and rearmament failed to prevent a cataclysmic war in Europe. This is indisputable. Yet in the context of the time, few supporters of the policy were really prepared to seek peace at any price; few anti-appeasers were prepared for their countries to stand and fight against aggression regardless of circumstances or location.

I don't think the facts support the lines you've drawn. It may sound to your ears as some attempt to deflect responsibility from conservative Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama - that is what they are under any reasonable and objective standard we can devise. You can take comfort in the idea that Clinton "let go" of Bin Laden, but to do so you have to somehow square the circle of the ass covering by folks as different as Scheuer and Clarke.

A while back some folks were praising Rice for her conduct, but according to Clarke she refused to read his memos. Even people of the caliber of Wolfowitz did not consider Bin Laden a meaningful threat. Clarke recalls one meeting where the neocon said "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden...You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist." Now why would he say that? Because he represented the faction that wanted war with Iraq at all costs and at the time, Bin Laden was considered a bit player, a sideshow. So now we have BOTH Clinton and neocons on the same side of the field. Both ignored the warning of the intelligence community, but it was Bush who one morning picked up the Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" only to put it down and do nothing about it.

So now its not so clear who let go Bin Laden. But it is entirely clear who was in command in the final months before September 11th, who ignored the "hair on fire" warnings from CIA, and who were focused on invading Iraq to the detriment of all else. I understand why the neocons in the Bush administration and in Congress (from both parties) would want to blame someone else or change the subject. What I don't understand is why someone like you does.

As for what team jersey I wear, I admit to some disappointment that after all these years and posts folks like you haven't yet figured out that I don't even play that ball anymore. I have no tribe and have been in the wilderness longer than I can remember. The idea that the current or previous Democratic Party leader is a hero of mine or that I consider any of the a savior, well I prefer to take that as a joke rather than an insult. One thing is for sure, such a view can't be supported by anything I've written here in the past several years without misinterpretation.

I'll leave you with these two articles, both addressing the general points you raise and I made.

Understand this: Widespread global terrorism exists because of the US’s actions specifically and the West’s generally...Let us turn now to economics. Inequality has been increasing since the 1970s. It has become worse every decade, with only minor reversals. After the financial crisis, it became so bad that more than all the productivity gains in the environment went to the top three percent.

This happened in large part due to various financial, economic, and legislative “reforms.” It was deliberate, in other words. Inequality is a result of deliberate action by US leadership...

In the meantime, don’t ask your leadership to “fix” anything. That’s not what they are there for. Whenever they want to do anything, your default position should be to oppose it–unless you are 100 percent certain it’s in your interest and have done the hard, cold research and thinking to support that conclusion. Sure, sometimes you’ll be wrong, but most of the time you’ll be right, because they are not in power to make your lives better, but to enrich a small class of people and impoverish the majority.

Any knock-on effects, like terrorism, are secondary to them, and even if they had the desire to fix such problems, they cannot–they do not have the ability. They will simply make them worse, even if it was possible they were sincerely trying to do good.

If you live in the West, the great danger to your life, health, and prosperity is your leadership. It is how your society is run. This is cold, hard, and true.

Do Not Ask Western Leadership to Fix Anything

And...

For those of us who were alive at the time, the runup to the Iraq war was all about mushroom clouds and oceans don't protect us anymore and balsa wood drones of death and gotta fight them over there instead of fighting them over here and scary vials of weapons of mass destruction and we're all going to die unless we take out Saddam, basically.

Magically right about the time of the invasion, before the Bush administration had even bothered to clue in their sycophantic lickspittles in the right wing media, suddenly we we were talking about spreading peeance and freeance, about democracywhiskysexy, about painting schools, and liberty. Sure before that some eventheliberalhawks pretended this was about freedom for the Kurds, or something. Remember everyone had their own personal "real reason" we're going to war in Iraq. That there were about 17 contradictory ones didn't seem to dissuade anybody.

There are people I used to consider friends, or at least friendly acquaintances, that can piss the hell off for all I care. Not over the disagreement, but because they were assholes about it then and are and silent about it now. Oopsy! Destroyed your country! Sowwy.

Anyway, the day that people who spend most of their time advocating freedom bombing advocate spending even 20% of that cost on actual humanitarianism is the day I'll listen to them. Painting schools doesn't count.

In The Beginning Were The Mushroom Clouds

And...

Tenet vividly recalls the White House meeting with Rice and her team. (George W. Bush was on a trip to Boston.) “Rich [Blee] started by saying, ‘There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States.’" [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’”

“What happened?” I ask Cofer Black. “Yeah. What did happen?” he replies. “To me it remains incomprehensible still. I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and nothing actually happened? It’s kind of like The Twilight Zone.” Remarkably, in her memoir, Condi Rice writes of the July 10 warnings: “My recollection of the meeting is not very crisp because we were discussing the threat every day.” Having raised threat levels for U.S. personnel overseas, she adds: “I thought we were doing what needed to be done.” (When I asked whether she had any further response to the comments that Tenet, Black and others made to me, her chief of staff said she stands by the account in her memoir.)

‘The Attacks Will Be Spectacular'

[shiny!]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Excellent post, Woody. Thanks for the historical perspective. Like most Americans my age, my schooling about the leadup to WWII pretty much consisted of "Chamberlain was a pacifist coward and Churchill cleaned up his mess."

Before the Iraq war we had an afternoon talk show host named Charles Goyette on the Phoenix Clear Channel talk radio station. He was a very thoughtful, intelligent man. When everyone was shouting their 17 contradictory reasons to go to war, he delivered an impassioned argument against it. It was one of those powerful speeches that years later, you remember where you were when you heard it.

The next day he'd been fired and replaced with a couple of shallow, idiotic jingoists that their audience luuuurved. Ever since that day I've only tuned in for the traffic report.

[Woodsman]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Excellent post, Woody. Thanks for the historical perspective...

Thanks Shiny! Hugs and kisses, as best I can. I promise .

[Prazak]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Thanks Shiny! Hugs and kisses, as best I can. I promise .

That was great, Woodsman, thanks for the substance and tone of the post.

One thing I can't square with the "pox on both houses" approach taken by you and others here of differing stripes than you is the existence within the Democratic Party of a candidate like Bernie Sanders and significant political support for him and his positions among the Dems. As much as the leadership of the Party has been bought off by those who sit on the Board of Directors of America, Inc and its wholly-owned subsidiaries in the Military-Industrial and Infotainment Complexes, doesn't the existence of such a faction within the Democratic Party distinguish it to some degree from its counterpart?

[lektrode]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

That was great, Woodsman, thanks for the substance and tone of the post.

+1
woody is a master story teller, even when its the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (depending on how one defines what the word 'is' is - but i truly appreciate his efforts to give us 'the rest of the story' - at least his preferred vers of it)

and his grasp of history is certainly better than mine (without intending to damn by faint praise ;)

One thing I can't square with the "pox on both houses" approach taken by you and others here of differing stripes than you is the existence within the Democratic Party of a candidate like Bernie Sanders and significant political support for him and his positions among the Dems. As much as the leadership of the Party has been bought off by those who sit on the Board of Directors of America, Inc and its wholly-owned subsidiaries in the Military-Industrial and Infotainment Complexes, doesn't the existence of such a faction within the Democratic Party distinguish it to some degree from its counterpart?

now here's the (my) rub in that theory.

1st off - like woody - i have NO allegiance to either party - altho as i've mentioned on a number of occasions, i'm a 'small r' type and have never voted a straight party-line ticket (for prez i've typically voted 3rd choice)

but, that said - ever since i was old enough to understand what 'politix' is - being a 1976 HS grad - and having witnessed what my ole man went thru..
(a BOS-born, 1st gen american of irish ancestry - dorchester, not brookline/cambridge, nor beacon hill, since the irish werent exactly welcome in the 'proper sections' of ole beantowne in them days - tho that wasnt considered 'racist' back then - he was a 1920 model, ww2 vet/eu theater, former/prewar high-iron worker, near LIFELONG FDR DEMOCRAT VOTER - went into insurance after the war, went out on his own after 'the superstorm of the century' known as Donna/1960 wiped out the N shore of BOS, became an o/w successfully self-empl ins.adjuster - a thankless job if there ever was one - until the '70s, whereupon our former homestate passed the 1st 'no-fault-auto.ins' law in the US - at the behest of mike dukakis, D/MA, no less - which proved to be not only a DISASTER for my ole mans biz+ our family - along with just about EVERY OTHER STATE in which it was attempted, resulting in MUCH HIGHER COSTS for everyone, except for the worst drivers, the massage therapists and the ambulance chasing lawyers - hell, even the SoCal Law Review seems confused about its so-called effectiveness - never mind in that place i'm OH so familar with, them having some of the highest payouts for bodily injury, while one of the lowest incidence of collision?? - but i digress, thats another story..)

esp having had the opportunity to A: live in 2 very different bordering states (we had a weekend place north of the border, and i very seldom spent more than 4 nites in a row in either one growing up)

B: noted early on how these differences manifested themselves (esp in a snowstorm, when headed south - when the roads would be otherwise clear/passable UNTIL the border of NH/MA when i-95 went to instant disaster in white as soon as one crossed the line into MA)

C: spent time/resided in not only MA & NH, but CT, FL, CA, UT and that OH so bluest of states out there in the mid pacific, plus
having driven in all but AK, on the 95, 5, 10, 40, 70, 80, 90, et al - as well as the entire trans-canada from vancouver to montreal, eye have seen/driven on roads almost everywhere in N America, so can speak with some authority on how things happen/get-done and have noted a few things in my travels - one being that the blue states tend to have THE WORST roads.

that being here nor there, however - my personal observation being that any place where the Dems run the show?
one can count on rampant crime, rampant political class cronyism, rampant ethnic strife, out-of-control spending on .gov union featherbedding, generally failing public schools (once out of the leafy green 'burbs or away from the districts of the firmly entrenched political class' favorites - read: the politicians kids tend to goto private schools, NOT public, something that ought to be ILLEGAL)

and having personally endured the recessions of 74, 81, 91, 01, 08-9 thru-to the present 'recovery' ? (+ 7years of ZIRP thats CRUSHED my biz)

and THEN we get to whats happened just since the 90's...
(when the billary show gave away the 'key to the beltway' to the lower manhattan mob, who then welcomed him 'home' to the bronx, set them/her up with a NY senator job - basically quid pro quo for having signed NAFTA, repealed glass-steagall, deregulated derivitives trading - all with the 'approval' of the Repubs, of course - since we all know we can always count on them for that kind of stuff - but its the pure dishonesty of the Dems thats what irks the piss outa me... kinda like the scene from the movie 'the exorcist' - you remember that one: where the devil-possessed girl twists her head 360deg around on her shoulders and sez: yer mother... (does things in hell i wont type here) - just like most of the dems do, particularly the billary show - they will say ANYTHING to whatevah razor thin sliver of the electorate thats the most trendy+popular/in-the-news this week (pick one: 'affordable' health care, gun 'control', 'marriage' rights, 'free' birth control, gender rights/indentities, etc etc ad nauseum) - in short: the politix of pandering and/or the giving away of the treasury to buy the votes of some 'special interest' for their next 1-2% 'margin of victory' - while they SCREW The Rest of US

adding: (one other thing about dem party politix)

if they ever got all the various + disparate slivers of the electorate that typically vote D and gathered em all up 'in the big tent' - and gave em all FREE BOOZE?

there'd be an all out bar room brawl between all those very same disparate factions within an hour or 2!

since they really cant cobble togther a 'natural majority' - thats why they have to pander to ever smaller, razor-thin slivers of the electorate to 'win' (again, while SCREWING The Rest of US)


not that that equals an endorsement of 'team NO', aka the daddy warbux party (tho the dems are AT LEAST as culpable in that particular industrial-complex; see vietnam and/or 'the war on poverty' - both of which were simply smashing successes...)

even tho its typically the Repubs who've been stuck with the dirty job of 'holding the bag' for all of the dems mis-adventures during my time observing it all (not the least of which was - being a '76 grad - tricky dick's ending of the draft, vietnam etc - oh and yeah, dont forget the 'closing of the gold window' after kennedy's war, LBJ's clandestine escalation of it, plus 'the great society' and their bankrupting the .gov after the arabs decided they didnt like the games being played in the Mideast and having jaked up the price of oil, then demanding to be paid in the yellow stuff - but i guess thats a whole nuther 'quagmire' in itself, too - and i'll assume woody can revise my history on all that, as well.

but - getting back to whether the existence of a guy like bernie - whom i'd sooner vote for than the donald - any phreakin day (as surprising as that may seem - since IMHO, the donald is a 'stalking horse' for the 2nd coming of the billary show - and why you might wonder do i think that?

it goes like this - murphy's law - and he was an optimist, ya know:
"the fundamental solvency of any firm is inversely proportional to the opulence of the front office decor.."
and my guess is that the donald is aware that his opulence is being threatened by the so-called 'recovery' and that he'll need to
'go to the well' again pretty quick - what with several bankruptcies behind him already, an all - the casino biz in atlantic city being what it is (or aint, as the case certainly is) - he NEEDS the lower manhattan mob's cooperation -

and what better way to get it?

than to TURN OFF as many of the moderate Repubs as he can - thus smoothing the way for the queen of the banksters

and bernie?
methinks she wont even think of giving him a job after her coronation - since her style and his go together like pickels and cream
esp after teddy k stabbed her in the back the last time around, since the DNC had made the triangulation in the summer of '08 that a white woman wouldnt/couldnt bring out the inner city crowd like the O'man would - and they needed absolute veto-proof margins of control of all 3 branches to guarantee success of the bailouts of their main/largest campaign contributors - and - while they were at it - passage of the 'affordable' care act - aka: the TRILLION DOLLAR HANDOUT to the med/ins/drug/legal mob - which HAD TO BE PASSED so they could read it - just a couple daze before they all went home fer xmas that year, to boot.

its just another thing i DETEST ABOUT DEM PARTY POLITIX:

their END JUSTIFIES ANY MEANS NECESSARY methodology
(eye can just see how it musta gone: shur - why not throw hill under the bus, taking one fer the team, since afterall - its for The Good of THE Party - we'll make her sec/state, after her carpetbagging her way into the senate via NY = purrrfect setup, bought/paid-for by TBTF, GS &co
lenin/marx/hitler would be proud...)

[Woodsman]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

That was great, Woodsman, thanks for the substance and tone of the post.

One thing I can't square with the "pox on both houses" approach taken by you and others here of differing stripes than you is the existence within the Democratic Party of a candidate like Bernie Sanders and significant political support for him and his positions among the Dems. As much as the leadership of the Party has been bought off by those who sit on the Board of Directors of America, Inc and its wholly-owned subsidiaries in the Military-Industrial and Infotainment Complexes, doesn't the existence of such a faction within the Democratic Party distinguish it to some degree from its counterpart?

Prazak, I start talking about Sanders here and I might as well pack it in and start growing potatoes .

Seriously, though, the under-reporting of the Sanders phenomena - practically the anti Trump - is going to kill the last bit of credibility the so-called liberal media has with folks considering themselves in the center left lib side of the Venn diagram, as if they even care. Here there's no light between me and Lek. All but Fox is in the tank for HillBill and will carry her water as best they can until the bitter end.

Personally, I think they might be a little scared. Note than in times past when right wing candidates win in European and Canadian elections, the press try to paint it as some sort of wave of inevitability for right candidates here at home. For reasons that may or may not be obvious, that analysis does not seem to apply when left candidates win. So Corbyn's and Trudeau's landslide victories are isolated incidents with absolutely no bearing for a Sanders candidacy, thank you very much and let's change the subject please.

Our "only socialist" seems more to me like the Democrats of the late 70s and early 80s in terms of policy. Think Tip O'Neill or nearly any other mainstream liberal Democrat of that era. Of course the Overton Window has moved so far to the right, it's over on the next door neighbor's house so comparisons like that probably mean very little to folks these days. Gather 'round boys and girls and hear a tale (and almost true!) when government worked (kinda-sorta) for actual human beings and we still had a functioning small d democratic republic.

So are you asking me does the Sanders phenomena indicate that there are still smart, decent and principled people within the Democratic Party? Well, of course, otherwise we'd be even further along the road from neocon and neolib to neofascist. Same for the GOP, but I've witnessed first hand how they deal with ideological dissenters. No, I'm trying very (very) hard not to play punching bag with the GOPers, but I was there and saw it happen several times to really decent people.

And because of that I think you will find fewer of those smart and decent folks in the GOP because of their merciless party discipline. They are there, but most understand that the Party is over. The Democrats are in the same boat, but are just so diverse and represent so many coalitions that it takes longer for the same process to work through. In the short run, it means bigger bribes and payoffs to the leadership but that's no problem now that HillBill sold out the party to Wall Street and the banksters.

But does that mean the Democratic party still has a soul with Bernie its manifestation? I have my doubts and anyway I'm not sure it matters. As I've said before and genuinely believe, we are not going to vote our way out of our problems. Questions for you to consider.

• How do you do democracy in an era of ubiquitous surveillance?
• What does republican government mean when all your communications, movements and transactions are recorded and analyzed by the State?
• How does one organize a movement to wrest some form of power from the powerful, when they hold all the cards and can spend unlimited dollars to advance their agenda?

People can organize, but the State operates "fusion centers" where they share all of this cornucopia of private information with your local Barnie Fyfes and Andy Taylors (and even "auxiliaries" operating under color of law or tacit approval) who happily arrest and harass, monkey-wrench operations, sabotage events, and sow dissent and distrust among the ranks via agent provocateurs.

Bernie, for all his socialism is a US Senator and operating entirely within the bounds of the system, so we're not really talking about him here. Of course, they used to save those fun and games for the hippy trippy freaks and black folks back in the day, but these days COINTELPRO has gone retail and CHAOS has an app. We practically surveil ourselves these days and while there's still a policeman inside our heads, we seem to like him there now. But if The Bern really takes off an wins some early primaries, doing to HillBill what Trump has done to the GOP elites, who knows, maybe that will change?

I'm a pessimist at heart, politically the still living remnant of my conservatism back when the word wasn't a punchline. So yes, I think a red white and blue form of fascism will continue to blanket the country and things will get, well interesting. Wish I had a better forecast, but as Mr. Don is fond of saying, those of a certain age have seen this before.

Of course, it will blow up in their faces as it always does. But in the meantime, a whole bunch of people will suffer and die before we get through to the other side. I hope I can stick around to help my loved ones and see it to the other side, but if there's a Hell I will likely be knock knock knocking on that door well before we reach anything like an end or new beginning. It didn't have to be this way, but the Big War empowered the worst sort of monsters at home. Americans should never forgive St. FDR for failing to deal with the traitors among us. Some animals just won't stay caged.

I will say that if you are under 30 years of age, it would be stupid not to support Sanders with everything you have. Vote, donate, volunteer, plant signs, tell your friends to do the same. For sure, at the very least - even if my doomer scenario is really just a psychological artifact of my own impending death - it is indisputable that the generations before you are Hell bent on sticking you with the bill for a 50 year old bender and reducing you to peonage for the privilege of keeping the value of their assets safe. Believe it.

I don't think it will make a difference, but my generation is on the way out and it will be the youngsters who will have to do the heavy lifting so it's not really the ideas and opinions of people like me that matter here. Just note the hate and vitriol the older generations reserve for Millennials and young people, generally, and let that guide your actions, kids.

So yeah, vote Sanders. Just remember, the Carlin Thesis remains untouched and you should expect disappointment.

[vt]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

At least we can agree that NO one here wants Trump.

Woody, please remove Trump's picture. You're giving him free advertising. Bernie's fine as a replacement.

IMHO socialism can't work, but neither does the current cronyism.

Webb, who was against Iraq, and does care for the poor and blue collar worker is the least corrupt out there.

Check him on the issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/James_Webb.htm

[shiny!]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

That was great, Woodsman, thanks for the substance and tone of the post.

One thing I can't square with the "pox on both houses" approach taken by you and others here of differing stripes than you is the existence within the Democratic Party of a candidate like Bernie Sanders and significant political support for him and his positions among the Dems. As much as the leadership of the Party has been bought off by those who sit on the Board of Directors of America, Inc and its wholly-owned subsidiaries in the Military-Industrial and Infotainment Complexes, doesn't the existence of such a faction within the Democratic Party distinguish it to some degree from its counterpart?

Sanders is a phenomena for sure, but I don't know that it speaks to a pre-existing faction in the Democratic party so much. I think he persuaded people that there was a need for a faction and created it through sheer persistance and moral outrage. I'm probably wrong but that's the way it looks from where I sit.

Speaking as someone who frequently rips out her hair and screams, "A pox on both their houses!" I'm actually kinda/almost/maybe a fan of Bernia Sanders. Even when I disagree with him, I like him because his principles don't change according to the latest poll. He has a true north and sticks to it. Can't say that about any of the others.

I think he's nailed the problems well. I don't necessarily agree with his solutions. But at least he seems honest, and that's almost reason enough for me to vote for him. But I'm with Woody- nothing we can do now in the political sphere can save us.

[shiny!]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

At least we can agree that NO one here wants Trump.

Woody, please remove Trump's picture. You're giving him free advertising. Bernie's fine as a replacement.

IMHO socialism can't work, but neither does the current cronyism.

Webb, who was against Iraq, and does care for the poor and blue collar worker is the least corrupt out there.

Check him on the issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/James_Webb.htm

Actually socialism works quite well in some areas of society.

Labels like socialism, conservative, liberal, etc do more harm than good because they're a shortcut substitute for critical thinking. If someone predisposed to dislike socialism hears a solution for a problem that makes sense, they might like it if they don't know the source. But if you tell them ahead of time that the person proposing the solution is a socialist, they'll automatically reject it. The label is a box imprisoning their mind.

True story: I work in an office of conservative Jews. They hate Pat Buchanan because in their opinion he's anti-semitic. I'm not a fan of old Pat, either, but one day I read something he wrote that made a lot of sense to me. I printed it up without attribution and showed it around the office. Everyone thought it was terrific! Then I told them Pat Buchanan wrote it. The looks on their faces was priceless.

Then I did the same thing in a forum populated by people who think Republicansare puppy killers. They loved the piece, until I told them who wrote it.

"Don't think outside the box. Get rid of the box!" - Deepak Chopra

[vt]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Good points Shiny. Socialism seems to work in some European nations with smaller, homogeneous populations. It seems to work in public schools.

But the experience Europe has seen with the EURO, and with open borders meeting the refugee test, suggests that socialism may not work in larger, diverse populations.

The United States is a great laboratory of 50 state governments with different tax and regulatory systems. Blue states are more socialist and red states more free market.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next few decades.

You are entirely correct about labels and content. Somehow the author can influence more than the content.

[shiny!]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Good points Shiny. Socialism seems to work in some European nations with smaller, homogeneous populations. It seems to work in public schools.

But the experience Europe has seen with the EURO, and with open borders meeting the refugee test, suggests that socialism may not work in larger, diverse populations.

The United States is a great laboratory of 50 state governments with different tax and regulatory systems. Blue states are more socialist and red states more free market.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next few decades.

You are entirely correct about labels and content. Somehow the author can influence more than the content.

Calling a policy a success or failure depends on whether its benefits outweigh its cost. Saying something doesn't work because it's "socialist" makes no sense to me.

Our national highway system isn't a success because it's "socialist." It's a success because the benefits it provides us outweigh the dollars it costs. We measure how well the highway system works or doesn't work by many metrics, but "socialist" isn't a useful metric.

An open border policy can be declared a failure when its costs to society outweigh the benefits. You measure the social impact it has on things like public education delivery, public safety, hospitals and health care, social safety net, etc. If the numbers or types of immigrants coming in through an open border hurt these social institutions more than they help, then the policy is a failure. If they benefit society more than they harm it, then the policy could be deemed a success. But it doesn't succeed or fail because it's "socialist."

[vt]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Sorry Shiny. To clarify I meant that free markets do many things better than government run enterprises. The military and police functions are best run by governments, as well as schools.

The best economies have a mix of both private enterprise and government run institutions.

It's best not to have political conversations because there are so many interpretations and nuances.

[shiny!]

Re: Is America Approaching A Golden Age Or A Deep Decline?

Agreed, vt! shutting up now :-)