192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
blatham
 
  4  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 06:48 am
A very interesting piece at the NYer
How a Liberal Scholar of Conspiracy Theories Became the Subject of a Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory Here's one bit which has particular relevance to what goes on here and elsewhere...
Quote:
In the original “Republic”—the one by Plato—a distinction is made between dialectic and eristic. The former is argument made in good faith, with the goal of apprehending the truth; the latter is argument as performance, with the goal of tearing down one’s opponent. Sunstein confesses that he is so devoted to the dialectic, and so suspicious of the eristic, that he sometimes fails to recognize the latter’s power.
layman
 
  -4  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 06:54 am
Quote:
Obama’s Plan to Destroy America Hatched at Columbia Says Classmate

President Obama and I were college classmates at Columbia University, class of ’83. I know all too well how mindlessly leftist the students and faculty of that institution can be, and Barack Obama is certainly no exception. My time at Columbia made it crystal clear: leftists always believe they are morally superior. While they publicly state that their mission is to save the world from prejudice, patriotism, racism, greed, and inequality, they are, in fact, hostile and resentful towards anyone who has achieved self-made success through American values. It is in this cesspool of intolerance that Obama and his Marxist cronies hatched their plan to destroy our country.

The plan was revolting, but brilliant. Cloward and Piven taught that America could only be destroyed from within. Only by overwhelming the system with debt, welfare, and entitlements could capitalism and the America economy be destroyed. So the plan was to make a majority of Americans dependent on welfare, food stamps, disability, unemployment, and entitlements of all kinds. Then, under the weight of the debt, the system would implode and the economy collapse, bankrupting business owners (i.e. conservative donors). Americans would be brought to their knees, begging for big government to save them. Voila – you’d have a new system.


http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/obamas-plan-to-destroy-america-hatched-at-columbia-says-classmate

If you have any doubts about this, just google "Cloward and Piven." They did indeed formulate the plan and help implement it. Everybody knows that Obama was a self-professed hard core Marxist, so no need to google that part.

There was a time in our history when living off of charity was something people, out of simple pride, did their best to avoid. These prof's realized that, given the laws on the books, millions of people were "entitled" to welfare benefits that they were not "demanding." These commies worked hard to make sure every "entitled" person demanded cash, etc., from the government, knowing that would bankrupt them.

It worked. By 1975 NYC was functionally bankrupt.

blatham
 
  4  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 07:02 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
that would be funny if it wasn't truly stupid
Many modern US right wing types can be counted on to speak and behave as lunatics when guns are at issue. But I suspect a coincident motivation here - attempts to limit citizen speech acts which criticize that local government
layman
 
  -4  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 07:07 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
In the original “Republic”—the one by Plato—a distinction is made between dialectic and eristic. The former is argument made in good faith, with the goal of apprehending the truth; the latter is argument as performance, with the goal of tearing down one’s opponent.


It's not called "erisitic" anymore. It's called "sophistry." But, as an avid devotee of sophistry, I suspect you know that already, eh?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -4  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 07:18 am
@layman,
Quote:
If you have any doubts about this, just google "Cloward and Piven."


Here, I'll give alla yawl a little head start, eh? You're welcome:

Quote:
Cloward–Piven strategy

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".

Cloward and Piven were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in the liberal magazine The Nation titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty." The two stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

layman
 
  -4  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 07:28 am
@layman,
Here's a little more detail, eh?:

Quote:
They further wrote:

"The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income."

Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."

In his 2006 book Winning the Race, political commentator John McWhorter attributed the rise in the welfare state after the 1960s to the Cloward–Piven strategy, but wrote about it negatively, stating that the strategy "created generations of black people for whom working for a living is an abstraction".

According to historian Robert E. Weir in 2007: "Although the strategy helped to boost recipient numbers between 1966 and 1975, the revolution its proponents envisioned never transpired."


Close, but no big-ass seegar just yet, eh, commie-ass cheese-eaters?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  6  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 07:29 am
@ehBeth,
Great compilation of quotes, Beth. It's gratifying to find someone else who suspects that the #metoo movement arose as it did and when it did because Trump was a catalyst.
Quote:
In the ten months of 2016 prior to the election, around 1,000 women reached out to the organization to learn how to put together a campaign. Since the election? 22,000.

That is really amazing. I had no idea the increase in attention to politics was this great.

GOP strategists will be well aware of the electoral risks they face with an energized and activist women's movement. Though they are already quite expert at demeaning women, I have few doubts that they'll find ways to do more of this.

blatham
 
  5  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 07:36 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
@ehBeth,
Lash's theory that #Me Too is an intentional plot against Trump has more credibility than yours.
Lash can be forgiven for saying she believes this idiocy because she's running a covert game of protecting Trump and the GOP while pretending something quite different.

You don't have that excuse.
blatham
 
  4  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 08:00 am
Unanimous winner of today's No ****, Sherlock! award
Quote:
Report: Trump Legal Team Plans To Cast Flynn As ‘Liar’ If He Implicates Others
TPM
hightor
 
  4  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 08:09 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
That is not true in the least. Reagan saw twice the economic growth that Obama saw in his "recovery".

Of course these are different times with different underlying conditions. I'm glad you phrased it as something Reagan saw as opposed to something he actually did. Individuals get way too much credit — and blame — for complex events which result from many other factors.
Quote:
...and monumentally under Reagan due to the failure of his tax cuts to stimulate the economy.

I don't think the tax cuts, per se, stimulated the economy. And neither does this guy, who is in a position to know what he's talking about:
Quote:
The Reagan tax cut did have a positive effect on the economy, but the prosperity of the ’80s is overrated in the Republican mind. In fact, aggregate real gross domestic product growth was higher in the ’70s — 37.2 percent vs. 35.9 percent.

Moreover, GOP tax mythology usually leaves out other factors that also contributed to growth in the 1980s: First was the sharp reduction in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. The fed funds rate fell by more than half, from about 19 percent in July 1981 to about 9 percent in November 1982. Second, Reagan’s defense buildup and highway construction programs greatly increased the federal government’s purchases of goods and services. This is textbook Keynesian economics.

Third, there was the simple bounce-back from the recession of 1981-82. Recoveries in the postwar era tended to be V-shaped — they were as sharp as the downturns they followed. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery.

Finally, I’m not sure how many Republicans even know anymore that Reagan raised taxes several times after 1981. His last budget showed that as of 1988, the aggregate, cumulative revenue loss from the 1981 tax cut was $264 billion and legislated tax increases brought about half of that back.

Today, Republicans extol the virtues of lowering marginal tax rates, citing as their model the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate to just 28 percent from 50 percent, and the corporate tax rate to 34 percent from 46 percent. What follows, they say, would be an economic boon. Indeed, textbook tax theory says that lowering marginal tax rates while holding revenue constant unambiguously raises growth.

But there is no evidence showing a boost in growth from the 1986 act. The economy remained on the same track, with huge stock market crashes — 1987’s “Black Monday,” 1989’s Friday the 13th “mini-crash” and a recession beginning in 1990. Real wages fell.

Strenuous efforts by economists to find any growth effect from the 1986 act have failed to find much. The most thorough analysis, by economists Alan Auerbach and Joel Slemrod, found only a shifting of income due to tax reform, no growth effects: “The aggregate values of labor supply and saving apparently responded very little,” they concluded.

Bruce Bartlett

Anecdotally, where I live we didn't see a big economic boost until the 90's.

Quote:
Thom Hartman... radio host?

For the sake of accuracy, Neil Edwards was the author, not Hartmann.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
hightor
 
  5  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 08:15 am
The Leap to Single-Payer: What Taiwan Can Teach
By Aaron E. Carroll and Austin Frakt
Dec. 26, 2017

Quote:
Taiwan is proof that a country can make a swift and huge change to its health care system, even in the modern day.

The United States, in part because of political stalemate, in part because it has been hemmed in by its history, has been unable to be as bold.

Singapore, which we wrote about in October, tinkers with its health care system all the time. Taiwan, in contrast, revamped its top to bottom.

Less than 25 years ago, Taiwan had a patchwork system that included insurance provided for those who worked privately or for the government, or for trade associations involving farmers or fishermen. Out-of-pocket payments were high, and physicians practiced independently. In March 1995, all that changed.

After talking to experts from all over the world, Taiwan chose William Hsiao, a professor of economics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, to lead a task force to design a new system. Uwe Reinhardt, a longtime Princeton professor, also contributed significantly to the effort. (Mr. Reinhardt, who died last month, was a panelist on an Upshot article comparing international health systems in a tournament format.) The task force studied countries like the United States, Britain, France, Canada, Germany and Japan.

In the end, Taiwan chose to adopt a single-payer system like that found in Medicare or in Canada, not a government-run system like Britain’s. At first, things did not go as well as hoped. Although the country had been planning the change for years, it occurred quite quickly after democracy was established in the early 1990s. The system, including providers and hospitals, was caught somewhat off guard, and many felt that they had not been adequately prepared. The public, however, was much happier about the change.

Today, most hospitals in Taiwan remain privately owned, mostly nonprofit. Most physicians are still either salaried or self-employed in practices.

The health insurance Taiwan provides is comprehensive. Both inpatient and outpatient care are covered, as well as dental care, over-the-counter drugs and traditional Chinese medicine. It’s much more thorough than Medicare is in the United States.

Access is also quite impressive. Patients can choose from pretty much any provider or therapy. Wait times are short, and patients can go straight to specialty care without a referral.

Premiums are paid for by the government, employers and employees. The share paid by each depends on income, with the poor paying a much smaller percentage than the wealthy.

Taiwan’s cost of health care rose faster than inflation, as it has in other countries. In 2001, co-payments for care were increased, and in 2002, they went up again, along with premiums. In those years, the government also began to reduce reimbursement to providers after a “reasonable” number of patients was seen. It also began to pay less for drugs. Finally, it began to institute global budgets — caps on the total amount paid for all care — in the hope of squeezing providers into becoming more efficient.

Relative to the United States and some other countries, Taiwan devotes less of its economy to health care. In the early 2000s, it was spending 5.4 percent of G.D.P., and by 2014 that number had risen to 6.2 percent. By comparison, countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development spend on average more than 9 percent of G.D.P. on health care, and the United States spends about twice that.

After the most recent premium increase in 2010 (only the second in Taiwan’s history), the system began to run surpluses.

This is not to say the system is perfect. Taiwan has a growing physician shortage, and physicians complain about being paid too little to work too hard (although doctors in nearly every system complain about that). Taiwan has an aging population and a low birthrate, which will push the total costs of care upward with a smaller base from which to collect tax revenue.

Taiwan has done a great job at treating many communicable diseases, but more chronic conditions are on the rise. These include cancer and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, all of which are expensive to treat.

The health system’s quality could also be better. Although O.E.C.D. data aren’t available for the usual comparisons, Taiwan’s internal data show that it has a lot of room for improvement, especially relating to cancer and many aspects of primary care. Taiwan could, perhaps, fix some of this by spending more.

As we showed in our battle of the health care systems, though, complaints can be made about every system, and the one in the United States is certainly no exception. For a country that spends relatively little on health care, Taiwan is accomplishing quite a lot.

Comparing Taiwan and the United States may appear to be like comparing apples and aardvarks. One is geographically small, with only 23 million citizens, while the other is vast and home to well above 300 million. But Taiwan is larger than most states, and a number of states — including Vermont, Colorado and California — have made pushes for single-payer systems in the last few years. These have not succeeded, however, perhaps because there is less tolerance for disruption in the United States than the Taiwanese were willing to accept.

Regardless of which health system you might prefer, Taiwan’s ambition showed what’s possible. It took five years of planning and two years of legislative efforts to accomplish its transformation. That’s less time than the United States has spent fighting over the Affordable Care Act, with much less to show for it.

NYT
revelette1
 
  4  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 09:37 am
I found the following interesting, not meant to make any kind of point.

Analysis: World leaders adapt to Trump’s strange handshakes(WP)
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  -1  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 09:51 am
@blatham,
I missed Lash's claim that #MeToo is a plot against President Trump. If she's actually claimed this, she's lost all credibility with me; and I feel like a fool because I was sympathetic to her point of view.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 09:58 am
@blatham,
When I'm looking for you to excuse me, I'll let you know.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 10:00 am
https://pjmedia.com/video/three-families-find-just-tax-bill-will-affect-merry-christmas-around/?utm_source=PJMFacebook&utm_medium=post

The fools!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 10:21 am
@layman,
'Unclear, unfunny, delete': editor's notes on Milo Yiannopoulos book revealed
Quote:
Court submissions in lawsuit over far-right provocateur’s memoir reveal concerns over weak arguments, boasting and racism
[...]
In July, Yiannopoulos set out to sue Simon & Schuster for $10m for breach of contract. As part of the case, Simon & Schuster have submitted documents that reveal the problems they had with the book. Among other criticisms, the publisher’s notes say Yiannopoulos needed a “stronger argument against feminism than saying that they are ugly and sexless and have cats” and that another chapter needs “a better central thesis than the notion that gay people should go back in the closet”.

In addition to the documents, a full copy of an early manuscript of the book, complete with the Simon & Schuster editor Mitchell Ivers’s notes, is available to download from the New York state courts’ website. [>here<]

The tone is set in notes on the prologue to the manuscript. Ivers writes to Yiannopoulos: “Throughout the book, your best points seem to be lost in a sea of self-aggrandizement and scattershot thinking,” and adds: “Careful that the egotistical boasting … doesn’t make you seem juvenile.”

“Add something like this – only less self-serving” reads another comment early in the manuscript.

Ivers frequently calls on Yiannopoulos to back up his assertions in the text. In the first nine pages of chapter one, notes include: “Citations needed”, “Do you have proof of this?”, “Unsupportable charge” and “Cite examples”.
[...]
Dangerous was eventually self-published in July 2017. While Yiannopoulos claimed that it had sold 100,000 copies in its first few days on sale, data revealed that it had in fact sold fewer than 20,000.


wmwcjr
 
  0  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 10:43 am
@izzythepush,
I'm convinced that many of the American evangelicals, had they been Germans living in Germany during the early 1930s, would have supported Hitler. During the Jim Crow era in the U.S., many of the white fundamentalists were among the most outspoken of the segregationists. (See Politically Incorrect by Ralph Reed, President of the so-called Christian Coalition.) For example, Bob Jones University was founded by a spokesman for the Ku Klux Klan. I speak as a Christian, by the way.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Thu 28 Dec, 2017 10:54 am
@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:
I'm convinced that many of the American evangelicals, had they been Germans living in Germany during the early 1930s, would have supported Hitler.
During the Nazi period, we had had the Kirchenkampf ("church struggle") here in Germany. That was (mainly) the dispute between the "German Christians" (Deutsche Christen) and the "Confessing Church" (Bekennende Kirche) over control of the Evangelical (Protestant) churches.

Quote:
German Christians (German: Deutsche Christen) was a pressure group and a movement within the German Evangelical Church aligned towards the antisemitic and Führerprinzip ideological principles of Nazism with the goal to align German Protestantism as a whole towards those principles. Their advocacy of these principles led to a schism within 23 of the initially 28 regional church bodies (Landeskirchen) in Germany and the attendant foundation of the opposing Confessing Church.
wikipedia
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.09 seconds on 11/12/2024 at 07:31:26