Absolutely the perfect day for this article David; "the headline screamed US to a hit 40 trillion dollars in debt months sooner than expected." Any guess on how much of that debt came while trump was president during his two terms?
We've elected morons to run the country based on feelings and misunderstandings of even the most basic of economic functions. They simply spew the nonsense, and those who do understand watch in horror. But what the hell, the only barometers that really matter are the stock market (propped up by AI) and trump's personal wealth accumulation via his grift.
What can possibly go wrong?
The best reads from EE's free emails are in the comment section. OMG, other than the occasional leg-humper, trump et al is being vilified. The good news for trump is vance is even more the foolish one. I guess there was purpose in the vance selection after all.
Can prices ever be too low? What is too low is the inability of too many people to engage in critical thinking. The MAGA crowd loves the sound bites provided by Trump and Vance never dwelling too deeply into the contradictions espoused by their heroes. How can Vance be the heir apparent to Trump when there is such profound difference in their thinking concerning the dollar reserve currency status? How is the USA being made great again when both Trump and Vance have complimentary things to say about Russia and Chine while attacking our traditional allies or using them as tools? Trump doesn't appear capable of thinking too deeply about his various positions but Vance seems downright dangerous with his desire to isolate our concerns tot he Americas and by default allow Russia and China to dominate Europe and Asia.
The Dems may have moderates within their ranks but the Democratic Party is a collection of disparate special interest groups whose views do not necessarily align other than in opposition to the "right". Does the LBGTQ crowd really expect Islamist Democrats to defend their rights? How can a Jew vote Democrat when antisemitism runs rampant in the party?
With the advancements in technology and social media Americans are becoming more and more ADD or ADHD. If a thought cannot be captured in a headline or a 30 second bite that thought all too often falls to the wayside. We have progressive college professors talking about college students who cannot perform basic math functions coming our of our progressive public schools. Great novels are attack because they represent the social mores of society when the novels were written. If our young people are not exposed to great writing or cannot comprehend what they are reading how can they listen to divergent thought and reach logical conclusions?
Or reject them all. Over the last 28 years I have morphed into a political outcast. I have no reason to support any Democrat and the rise of Trump and his overall affect on Republicans has me running from them as well.
Our first-past-the-post system inevitably leads to a two-party system, and there's no reform of that without getting one of the parties to back it and gain enough votes to enact said reforms
My recommendation is to focus on protecting our liberal systems - because the only other option is illiberalism.
I'll support classical liberalism but not the current version of it which calls for larger government having a larger role in our daily lives. Calling any political movement that opposes liberalism, illiberalism is wrong.
Your last statement is written confusingly: are you saying that any political movement that opposes liberalism is illiberalism and thus wrong - or are you trying to say something else?
I believe in classical liberalism which is very different from our current liberal systems. Classical liberalism is something to be conserved and protected. That being the case, I must disagree with your statement concerning the only option to protecting our liberal systems with the only other option being illiberalism.
Just to point out: political parties are generally "collection[s] of disparate special interest groups whose views do not necessarily align" on all topics. That's not unique to the Democratic Party: the GOP is/was made of different groups - fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, etc... - that allows together to advance shared interests.
A single-issue party may work here and there, but most of the time that ends up limits that party's reach and power.
They are there, but divisions are amplified by the media (at least for Democrats) as that generates more clicks.
The Democrats are generally pro-capitalism and pro-social safety net. There are groups within that are not pro-capitalism and only focused on the social safety net aspects - but there are unifying bonds there.
Perhaps that will change as it did for the GOP - which dropped its unifying bonds of exchanging votes for fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. If any party is driven solely by animus for the other, I'd say the GOP has had a lock on that for decades.
I’ll agree that Democrats are pro-social safety net but calls for raising minimum wage, support of labor unions, calls for higher taxes on the “rich”, bloated business regulations, etc ate not indicative of Democrats being pro-capitalism. Both parties are ripe with corruption and very quick to defend immoral and unethical colleagues while accusing the other.
That's going to be true of any group, pretty much - but I think you're dismissing the prosecutions of Eric Adams and Steve Menendez during the Biden administration. And to my knowledge, there has never been a majority of the GOP that would ban stock trading by members of Congress/POTUS/etc... while there have been multiple bills put forward by Dems to do that very thing.
Welfare, regulation, and tax levels aren't anti-capitalism - at least, not inherently. They can be useful tools to manage the excesses of capitalism and prevent the boom/bust cycle that typified capitalist economies prior to their implementation. I like the analogy of capitalism being like fire: unconstrained, it consumes all fuel available until it burns out (boom/bust). Restrained like in an internal combustion engine, you get a more efficient and safer system overall.
Then again, it'd be great if we could go back to arguing about which tax level is appropriate, or which regulations are unnecessary/counter-productive, or how we ultimately pay for things (as an aside, a balanced budget amendment that sets tax levels based on our spending would be an interesting experiment).
One thing that is very true is that an anti-corruption plank would gain a lot of support across the country.
"ONLY THREE STATES approve of Trump in a new Newsweek poll. Can you guess them?"
My guesses before I look:
Wyoming
Oklahoma
Alabama
Drat - I ALMOST had Idaho instead of Alabama.
Forgot about West Virginia, but I'm still surprised that they're one of them.
Absolutely the perfect day for this article David; "the headline screamed US to a hit 40 trillion dollars in debt months sooner than expected." Any guess on how much of that debt came while trump was president during his two terms?
We've elected morons to run the country based on feelings and misunderstandings of even the most basic of economic functions. They simply spew the nonsense, and those who do understand watch in horror. But what the hell, the only barometers that really matter are the stock market (propped up by AI) and trump's personal wealth accumulation via his grift.
What can possibly go wrong?
The best reads from EE's free emails are in the comment section. OMG, other than the occasional leg-humper, trump et al is being vilified. The good news for trump is vance is even more the foolish one. I guess there was purpose in the vance selection after all.
Can prices ever be too low? What is too low is the inability of too many people to engage in critical thinking. The MAGA crowd loves the sound bites provided by Trump and Vance never dwelling too deeply into the contradictions espoused by their heroes. How can Vance be the heir apparent to Trump when there is such profound difference in their thinking concerning the dollar reserve currency status? How is the USA being made great again when both Trump and Vance have complimentary things to say about Russia and Chine while attacking our traditional allies or using them as tools? Trump doesn't appear capable of thinking too deeply about his various positions but Vance seems downright dangerous with his desire to isolate our concerns tot he Americas and by default allow Russia and China to dominate Europe and Asia.
The Dems may have moderates within their ranks but the Democratic Party is a collection of disparate special interest groups whose views do not necessarily align other than in opposition to the "right". Does the LBGTQ crowd really expect Islamist Democrats to defend their rights? How can a Jew vote Democrat when antisemitism runs rampant in the party?
With the advancements in technology and social media Americans are becoming more and more ADD or ADHD. If a thought cannot be captured in a headline or a 30 second bite that thought all too often falls to the wayside. We have progressive college professors talking about college students who cannot perform basic math functions coming our of our progressive public schools. Great novels are attack because they represent the social mores of society when the novels were written. If our young people are not exposed to great writing or cannot comprehend what they are reading how can they listen to divergent thought and reach logical conclusions?
Jews need to pick through the hate from both left and right across both political parties.
Or reject them all. Over the last 28 years I have morphed into a political outcast. I have no reason to support any Democrat and the rise of Trump and his overall affect on Republicans has me running from them as well.
Our first-past-the-post system inevitably leads to a two-party system, and there's no reform of that without getting one of the parties to back it and gain enough votes to enact said reforms
My recommendation is to focus on protecting our liberal systems - because the only other option is illiberalism.
I'll support classical liberalism but not the current version of it which calls for larger government having a larger role in our daily lives. Calling any political movement that opposes liberalism, illiberalism is wrong.
Your last statement is written confusingly: are you saying that any political movement that opposes liberalism is illiberalism and thus wrong - or are you trying to say something else?
I believe in classical liberalism which is very different from our current liberal systems. Classical liberalism is something to be conserved and protected. That being the case, I must disagree with your statement concerning the only option to protecting our liberal systems with the only other option being illiberalism.
Just to point out: political parties are generally "collection[s] of disparate special interest groups whose views do not necessarily align" on all topics. That's not unique to the Democratic Party: the GOP is/was made of different groups - fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, etc... - that allows together to advance shared interests.
A single-issue party may work here and there, but most of the time that ends up limits that party's reach and power.
All very true. There should be some common bonds though and I don’t see those bonds within either party beyond were go ooo d and they’re evil all.
They are there, but divisions are amplified by the media (at least for Democrats) as that generates more clicks.
The Democrats are generally pro-capitalism and pro-social safety net. There are groups within that are not pro-capitalism and only focused on the social safety net aspects - but there are unifying bonds there.
Perhaps that will change as it did for the GOP - which dropped its unifying bonds of exchanging votes for fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. If any party is driven solely by animus for the other, I'd say the GOP has had a lock on that for decades.
I’ll agree that Democrats are pro-social safety net but calls for raising minimum wage, support of labor unions, calls for higher taxes on the “rich”, bloated business regulations, etc ate not indicative of Democrats being pro-capitalism. Both parties are ripe with corruption and very quick to defend immoral and unethical colleagues while accusing the other.
That's going to be true of any group, pretty much - but I think you're dismissing the prosecutions of Eric Adams and Steve Menendez during the Biden administration. And to my knowledge, there has never been a majority of the GOP that would ban stock trading by members of Congress/POTUS/etc... while there have been multiple bills put forward by Dems to do that very thing.
Welfare, regulation, and tax levels aren't anti-capitalism - at least, not inherently. They can be useful tools to manage the excesses of capitalism and prevent the boom/bust cycle that typified capitalist economies prior to their implementation. I like the analogy of capitalism being like fire: unconstrained, it consumes all fuel available until it burns out (boom/bust). Restrained like in an internal combustion engine, you get a more efficient and safer system overall.
Then again, it'd be great if we could go back to arguing about which tax level is appropriate, or which regulations are unnecessary/counter-productive, or how we ultimately pay for things (as an aside, a balanced budget amendment that sets tax levels based on our spending would be an interesting experiment).
One thing that is very true is that an anti-corruption plank would gain a lot of support across the country.