Does Trump Get Impeached or Get Two Terms?

I appreciate your focus on the politics of Trump’s economics, but I think you consistently ignore his militarism and threats.

I believe that he will use the military and ICE to express his personal narcissism and need for bullying power. He doesn’t need Congressional approval to do this, and he can act quickly and in the short term. Use of nuclear weapons by America again seems more likely now than under any President since Kennedy.

The effects of his military adventures may be felt long before any massive consequences of the Republican economic policies, and they may be very bloody and painful. However, if these bloody and painful escapades are primarily targeted at brown or Moslem people in other countries, he will call it “winning” and “America First” and use them to rally his base.

Then I expect the inevitable blowback on American soil will be fierce, and will also be used to rally his base.

Needles to say, I am not optimistic.

If personnel is policy (as it was in the case of Obama’s economic team), I believe he’s already a dead man walking. I mean, c’mon! Mnuchin??

But knowing Trump, he can fail his supporters and still win a second term if the Dems nominate another hapless elite…

I have zero respect for the million women march, most of whom admitted not voting. They should have voted then.

Any event Trump just finished a new bitchslap to the manufacturers and laid out his carrots and his sticks. The CEOs were fidgeting, giving nervous laughs at Trump’s jokes, and looking like they wanted to flee. Good, they should be afraid.

@ Tom

As I sampled the women’s march, and saw all the unbelievable public coarseness and vulgarity in which they took such obvious delight, not to mention the Madonna whore fantasizing about “blowing up the White House,” I could not help thinking, as these same women have told me so many times, “What about the children?”

The best thing about these times, from a reality checker’s point of view, is how thoroughly and completely the left is revealing itself to be the home of unprincipled hypocrites, on so many levels.

We have to purge ourselves of all the built-in dishonesties we have allowed ourselves to accept, which should never have been acceptable.

Honorable goals lose their luster if pursued through dishonorable means. And dishonorable means have become the order of the day, from all the public players.

Agree 100% with Ian.

There are many things Trump could do. Make examples of his political enemies (John McCain, Lindsey Graham, people in the CIA, etc..) as Ian has alluded to previously. So far Trump has not done that, instead he seems to be trying to be conciliatory.

Besides SS/Medicare/Health Care, Trump could do some really positive big thing to turn his image around. For example, Trump supporter Scott Adams has suggested Trump should propose reparations for descendent’s of black slaves (it would have little chance of passing but nonetheless would make Trump look like a good guy). He could propose free Medicare-for-All (again having little chance of passing but nonetheless would make Trump look like a good guy).

Anything could happen but at this point Trump seems to be trying to go along with Republicans which could be a trap as Reich’s conversation laid out.

It sounds right to say that Trump will succeed if he makes his supporters happy. But I’m not sure that really gets us anywhere unless we have a sense of what exactly is going to satisfy his voters. The implication in this article seems to be that Trump will succeed if he improves his voters’ economic circumstances. But even this is not as simple as it seems, since one way to do this is to reduce the status and well-being of other groups that are hated by Trump voters. People always judge their well-being relative to others, not in absolute terms. But even if one accepts the idea that Trump will be judged on how he improves his supporters’ economic circumstances, it’s very difficult to tell a coherent story about how policies Trump is likely to adopt will improve the lives of the white working class. Whatever infrastructure plan finally emerges is looking increasingly like it will be a privatization-of-infrastructure plan focuses on lucrative transport and communications infrastructure. Plenty of money in that for the finance class, not much for the workers. Unless you think Trump is going to be willing to demolish the parasitic control of the financial class over the nation’s economic life, it’s highly unlikely he going to alter the system that continues to send all the rewards of economic life upwards to the owners of capital. It’s not clear how national right—to-work legislation, or eliminating the CFPB, is going to help his voters. And exactly the same is true in health care. The only way of improving health care is ending the role of private insurance and the dominance of private hospital systems. Unless you think Trump is going to do that, anything the GOP is likely to do on health care will make things worse.
On the other hand, there is plenty that Trump might do to raise the status of his voters, by doing the kind of things that won’t really threaten the class structure, or indeed threaten the ruling class’s desire for profits. For instance, the ‘consent agreements’ the DOJ has reached with seriously abusive police depts are likely to be halted and probably rescinded. This is one of a series of measures Trump is likely to consider to raise the relative status of whiteness, in relation to the other groups. Criticisms of policing in communities of color are interpreted by Trump supporters as attacks on whiteness. This is an area he can win their trust, without improving their lives in any material way. Building the wall, rescinding Daca, etc, are also actions that will prove to be very popular with his supporters, even though they will do absolutely nothing for them economically. Trump’s white nationalism is likely to be pursued in these areas that don’t threaten the existing structure of class economic power. This will be an attempt to restore the cultural benefits of whiteness (not having to press 1 for English, etc.), rather than an attempt to improve their economic circumstances.

This whole issue has me buffaloed. The college crowd needs their “safe spaces” because they cannot bear to be exposed to hearing words that cause emotional damage. Women by the tens of thousands go on marches because Trump said insulting things about them, while supporting a woman who enabled her husband to commit sexual assault on female interns for decades.

To any person of maturity and sanity, words simply should not have that kind of importance. If I paid that much attention to every chance remark my wife has uttered over the last 20+ years, and she to may remarks, we would not still be married. But she has also said and done some very lovely things, and we are still married because we pay attention each to who the other is.

Essentially all of the anti-Trump rants that I have heard and read have been based on one remark or one tweet. People come completely unglued because he used a word that they consider impolitic. When did we quit teaching our kids to be mature as they grew up?

@ Frank Stain

I was impressed with the good analysis contained in your second paragraph above, and the thought that immediately came to my mind was, “Gee, that is exactly what happened with Obama and the black community!”

So, now the question is begged, should we expect the Trump base supporters to behave more intelligently than the black community did, or less intelligently than the black community did?

And, whichever answer you choose, the really important thing is to explain “WHY.”

@Ian Welsh

Fox News actually asked them this question as part of their reporting. Most were upfront and said no they did not vote and could not give an answer on why they did not vote.

If they didn’t vote, then fuck them, they are part of the damn problem. Shit, when I was 17, I went and registered to vote so it would be valid come my 18th Birthday and tried to interest my fellow classmates to register as well so we could vote in the 2004 primaries. No one took up the offer and I was the only student at my High School who registered and voted.

Despite that my High School graduated 17 Valedictorians and 15 Salutatorians… Yet of my High School Class, I was the only one to get a College Degree which was useless as I graduated as the crash occurred and wound up going into EMS instead of Law, and I’m a Licensed Paramedic now… Despite not even being part of the Honor Roll or taking one AP Course… Fuck I had to fight just to get into Lifeguard Training because the High School Administrators didn’t think I would make it in the class, yet I was the only one to pass it and get a Lifeguard Certificate.

From time to time I see my old teachers and schoolmates and they are still amazed that I achieved what I did as they thought I just wouldn’t make it.

@realitychecker

Yeah, my rage is unbridled. Check that reality and go fuck yourself.

I do not recall that you were heard the comment, annone.

There are at least a couple of problems with the impeachment scenario. First, it’s extremely risky, as no one can know all the possible consequences of attempting it. Second, as a hypothetical it’s been telegraphed on the internet for months now, and while Trump may be some degree of stupid there surely are many loyal people in his orbit who would see it coming a mile away. So, even if Trump founders I don’t see it happening, though possibly it will if something really egregious comes up.

@ anonone

You’ve shown yourself to be a disgusting piece of shit.

Congratulations, loser.

Enjoy the Trump era, and this video, which might be of you, your mother, your sister, your lover, someone with your warped sense of appropriateness.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-passengers-cheer-woman-berating-trump-supporter-kicked-off-plane/

It looks as if Reich’s unidentified friend is as butt-hurt about Trump’s victory as some of the snowflakes, he must have been a Jeb Bush supporter.

These sick fantasies about impeaching Trump just show how deep the brain rot has progressed among the chattering classes. They do realize that their positions with access and some influence no longer exist and they’re desperate for the gift of a disabling stroke so Trump would fall into their feeble scenario. The republican congresscritters already know how quickly and publicly Trump responds to any important missteps they make so they will mostly behave.

Social Security and Medicare are dangerous third rails he must eventually address because they are or will, not too far into the future, become insolvent. There is no way to change the population/age distribution numbers we face but I don’t see much will to cut current or near term recipients benefits. Everyone faces massive cuts when these pay-go systems become insolvent so they will have to be restructured.

anonone,

I’m mostly here to learn. I like Ian’s style and appreciate his take. Like others, I occasionally comment, especially where I could use more information. Sadly, we sometimes have to deal with the underemployed attorney bored with the porn sites, who couldn’t care less about a lesser being’s curiosity. Or so I’m guessing. But again, I wouldn’t mind more information. https://darkpsychology.co/troll/
Any thoughts?

I had been thinking along the same lines, Ian. The Rs would happily impeach and remove Trump given a chance, especially if he keeps his past promises that actually help ordinary people and hurt the Masters of the Universe. They could easily do this because the Dems would join them.

I thought that Trump’s selecting Pence was a mistake, like Lisa, not only for the reasons she gave (he didn’t need to grovel for the theocrat vote to win, most of his core voters don’t care, and his past history is that personally he’s not one of them) but also because you don’t want to give the Rs in Congress a vice president they’d be happier with than you.

Peter

Social Security and Medicare are dangerous third rails he must eventually address because they are or will, not too far into the future, become insolvent. There is no way to change the population/age distribution numbers we face but I don’t see much will to cut current or near term recipients benefits. Everyone faces massive cuts when these pay-go systems become insolvent so they will have to be restructured.

No, no no.

SS is not “going broke” because of demographics. Demographics and our aging population were taken into account in the 1983 reforms. What *is* causing SS to go broke is that the assumption made in 1983 was that real wages would keep up with inflation. This has *not happened*, due to the machinations of the Masters of the Universe to maintain high unemployment as “normal” and also to ship good-paying jobs overseas. As SS is paid for by wage incomes, essentially, with a cap (currently at $118,500) this means that the fewer ordinary Americans who can get jobs, and the lower-paying those jobs are, ends up starving Social Security’s funding. It’s that simple.

Moreover, if you remove the cap, and make the SS tax apply to ALL INCOME, regardless of source (hello, capital gains!) so much money would be flowing into SS that you could a) lower the retirement age by 3 years across all three tiers and b) double the payouts; and the program would still be in the black as far as the eye can see. Ever note that our Pete Petersons doom-and-gloom prophets never want to mention THAT as an option, eh?

As for Medicare, simply opening it up as an insurance program for those younger than 65 improves its funding, as was one of the ideas floated back in 2009 in the ACA debate (i.e., with more younger, less sick people paying into the system you get more money in and proportionately less money paid out). Again, the “we can’t afford this” crowd doesn’t want this to be an option.

@Willy,

Any thoughts? Yes, we fight.

Anybody – yes, anybody – who supports the criminal, bigoted, lying lunatic now occupying the Presidency.

And, yes, sexual assault is a crime for people in the 2d tier of our criminal justice system. Not so much for those in the 1st tier, like Trump.

@realitychecker

I think that’s a fair point. Today, the average African American household has less wealth, in comparison with the average white household, than it did eight years ago. Whatever advantages accrued to the black community from Obama’s eight years did not in any shape or form threaten the power of organized wealth. So, mostly symbolism, and some worthwhile initiatives in criminal justice that are unlikely to survive. This is entirely in line with the view of Obama as a neoliberal technocrat willing to use expertise to shape policy, but totally unwilling to threaten the power of capital.
As to judging the ‘intelligence’ of the response, you’d have to have some sense of strategy in relation to existing possibilities. Given that one of the two major parties in U.S. politics is actively trying to stop blacks from voting and is rapidly morphing into a white nationalist party, the black community does not actually have the luxury of voting according to their policy preferences.
As for Trump’s voters, that depends on what you think they want out of it. Trump voters are, on average, somewhat wealthier than the population as a whole, although stuck in struggling regions. Their whiteness once brought tangible benefits to these voters (union jobs and mortgage-guaranteed homes in stable communities built w/ federal loans, etc.) which Trump is never going to bring back. But perhaps he can create enough of the illusion of a shift in status that might be enough for him in four years’ time.

Impeachment is about as likely as hereditary president for life — and neither one is impossible given the current state of political and governmental chaos in Washington.

Trump thrives on chaos, as do any number of his acolytes, but the permanent government abhors what’s happening, and they can quite easily put a stop to it.

Last I checked, the core Trump voters, his vaunted “base,” are doing better economically than the average schmucks out there, so what’s this notion of improving their economic lot all about? Really? Of course his base voters want to do better than they are doing, but most of them are doing just fine as it is. If they can stick it to somebody else down the ladder, that may make them feel good, and maybe that’s what they want to see more than anything. As long as the suffering is confined to the useless eaters and other unworthies, what’s to worry, right?

And as for dismissing the turn out on Saturday, the millions in the streets, the coalitions building against the Trump regime, it’s a little early to dismiss them, don’t you think? They haven’t coalesced yet, but localized organizing was a big part of what was going on Saturday, and it’s a big part of what continues. Whether that effort will succeed or not remains to be seen. But the paranoia about a Color Revolution (Soros funded of course) may not be entirely misplaced. Did you see all those pussy-pink hats? Well, there you are then. The color is pink. The hand-sign is yet to be determined.

Delegitimizing Trump? No, he’s doing that himself, ably assisted by his loyal flacks and consummate liars Kellyanne and Sean and whomever else wants to give it a go. He was well known and understood to be a liar from the get, so there’s nothing new there. But it doesn’t much matter any more whether he’s a “legitimate” president or not. As long as he’s able to play the president on teevee, it’s all good. How much longer he’ll be allowed to do that is the question.

And that does not depend on improving the already pretty good economic well being of his base.

@StewM

I doubt you can show calculations that verify your claim that inflation tracking income increases from the declining ratio of people paying into the system compared with the increasing recipients would change the calculus that predicts insolvency. It would have extended it further into the future but I doubt it could escape it.

The most efficient remedy is to increase the payroll tax for everyone by 1.4% which plugs the coming gap completely although raising the income cutoff point a reasonable amount would also help.

Your other Mad Taxman ideas are social engineering not Social Security where people are not forced to pay for something they don’t directly benefit from.

Oh, even more interesting! Peter not only believes in the merits of a fat and happy oligarchy, he is one of the Simpsons-Bowles types who thinks that Social Security is going to go bankrupt any day now. If nothing else, this whole Trump exercise is going to be indeed very revelatory and instructive — “neoliberalism” really was for some people just a shibboleth-word for whatever they disliked about Clinton, Obama, etc. (Regardless of what it may actually be.)

I think that the most likely scenario is one term for Trump, although maybe not with better than even odds. The reason is that he has a Republican Congress and Senate that opposes his populist agenda, and maybe even his nationalist agenda, but which is nominally on the same side. I, too, was surprised that Obama got a second term, but people could always blame the Republican Congress for his failures. If disappointed Trump supporters want to cast blame in ’18 or ’20, they can also blame the Republicans, but that might make them vote Democrat or Libertarian, or not vote at all. Somehow the Republicans are good at casting blame on the Democrats for Republican sins, so who knows?

I doubt if the Republicans will openly confront Trump. They will pass legislation that he will not veto, probably including clever ways to undermine Social Security and Medicare, as Obama tried to do. Otherwise they will drag their heels while saying nice things about Trump and his ideas. Open confrontation is risky, and they can be satisfied with 3/4 of a loaf.

I think it’s swearing “about” not “for”.

Couple other minor points:
I don’t see how Trump preserves any leverage with Congress if he immediately signs their beloved tax cuts into law. If he goes along with Paul Ryan without getting anything for his voters first he’s probably finished.

Trump’s promise on SS and Medicare reminds me a lot of Bush I’s “read my lips”. We all know how that turned out.

@reslez

There are many things he could be doing to boost his sinking popularity and all but ensure a second term — if not a lifetime presidency — but he’s not doing them. Your suggestions are specific and pretty easy to do if he wanted to do them.

But instead, he reinforces the neoliberal paradigm, doubling or tripling down, and functionally if not rhetorically ignores his base and makes decisions and appointments contrary to their interests just like standard model Rs and Ds have been doing for a generation.

Gee. Who’d a thunk.

The best thing about these times, from a reality checker’s point of view, is how thoroughly and completely the left is revealing itself to be the home of unprincipled hypocrites, on so many levels.

and themselves to be just as religious as the crazy religious right. with their hardened beliefs in utterly imagined truths.

the power of belief. off with the heads of those who don’t believe like you.

ashley judd’s epic rant.
i’d love to hear prof camille paglia’s remarks on such put-on pedantic “rage.” garbage. stomached 75 sec. women of decency and IQ would be ashamed.

That Republican talking to Robert Reich…

I’m pretty sure if Trump read the comments, he will be thrilled.

Why? Shows that the Republicans have a short memory. They already forgot how Trump destroyed the other Republican candidates.

It is awesome to be constantly underestimated. It means that your enemies will keep loving the smell of their own farts and scorn Trump when they shouldn’t.

I have to point out an irony: Trump talks about draining the swamp. I find that ironic because he himself is a big crocodile in another noxious swamp, the one called NYC. You do not reach the heights Trump reached by being… clean. Not really. The Republicans underestimate Trump at their own peril.

I do suspect that Trump will end up making an example of some Republicans. How? Stir up his base to recall the hapless unfortunate Republican. It is rare but recalls do happen. The last big one was Gray Davis. There may be a bumper crop if Republicans get into Trump’s way.

The Republicans, if the one talking to Robert Reich, is an indication… it shows me that the Republicans have not realized the game has changed. The rules are different now. Both Republicans and Democrats are still stuck in the past.

It’s going to be quite the ride, the next few years.

Re insane plans, Trump wants to cut $10.5 trillion in government spending over ten years. That’s about a trillion a year. But here’s the deal. Entitlements, those third rail programs Ian was talking about like Social Security and Medicare, make up most of the federal budget. This part of the budget is called nondiscretionary spending. Discretionary spending is everything else. It comes to about $1.2 trillion a year and is almost evenly split between defense and everything else that makes up the federal government. You see where the problem is? If you cut a trillion a year, there is no federal government. But Trump also wants to greatly increase defense spending. There are three possibilities. The math does not add up, period. Trump will cut entitlements. 1 and 2 with a favorite Washington sham accounting technique called backloading. The really big cuts get slated sometime toward the end of a projected second Trump term and beyond. Cuts 6 to 10 years out are meaningless. We don’t even know if Trump will be around. The CBO often can’t get it right projecting even one year out. And I think the OMB’s record is even worse.

A much smaller insane issue is Trump’s plan to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This is a love gift to Jared and Ivana, the supposedly sane ones in Trump’s Administration, but it is going to get Americans killed. Is it worth it? Of course not, but it does illustrate something essential about the Donald. He has never had to pay for his mistakes. He started out rich but made his billions keeping the profits from his successes and dumping the costs of his failures on to those around him. I think he will certainly try to keep doing this as President. I just don’t think it is going to work.

As Truman pointed out in the Oval Office, the buck stops here. Americans know that, and however much Trump might wish it different, they will hold him to it. Sorry, Donald, you can’t declare bankruptcy and get a do-over as President. And more than this, as Ian says, Trump must deliver in ways that make a difference in people’s lives. It is not enough to renegotiate NAFTA if there are no results that directly impact American lives in a positive way. Bringing back a few jobs from overseas won’t gain him a thing if they pay crap wages and are few and far between.

Finally, “over-rated, sad” has already become a running joke in my household. I expect “alternative facts” will soon join it. Starting out as possibly the most disliked President in our history, and not even a week into his Presidency setting himself up as a bad joke does not bode well. It looks like it’s going to be a very, very long four years for us all.

@realitychecker wrote:

“My specialty is finding and denouncing hypocrisy wherever it actually exists.”

Well, aren’t you precious? Bless your little heart. That is a great contribution to society that you’re making. What a specialty! What could possibly be more useful? How do you possibly find them?

They should give you a Noble Prize for such difficult and time consuming work.

And, my, my, what do you do when you find HYPOCRISY that ACTUALLY exists? It sounds sooo scary! Do you have a strong string of pearls to clutch when you denounce it? I hope so. You should wear a blue suit with a big red “HD” on the front for “Hypocrisy Denouncer Man!” And a mask that says “SCOLD” across the forehead.

And once you have found ALL the hypocrisy wherever it actually exists, then you could find grass on a lawn. Or fish in a river. Or trees in a forest.

Your mother must be extra super proud of you! Go Hypocrisy Denouncer Man!

@anonone

Fox interviewed Hundreds of People with that question. Nationwide Polls showed the majority of Americans did not vote who were eligible to.

I’m where I am today because I am not insecure and able to adapt, often on the fly, whereas others fell on their faces and did not get up. I was also willing to fight.

Also you keep continuing to underestimate Trump and thus keep making yourself his bitch. That won’t get you anywhere. Hillary did the same shit as you did and lost, when she should have focused on a message of jobs, healthcare, and simple slogans.

@Peter

I doubt you can show calculations that verify your claim that inflation tracking income increases from the declining ratio of people paying into the system compared with the increasing recipients would change the calculus that predicts insolvency. It would have extended it further into the future but I doubt it could escape it.

I’m not sure what you mean, but you can read the whole 1983 report here. It does mention demographics.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan.html

The problem is, because wages and employment have not kept up. The original SS tax covered 90 % of wage income. Now, because the incomes of the rich have shot up, and those of everyone else has gone down, both by deliberate neoliberal policies, so now it only covers 83 %. There’s your shortfall.

To double SS, as I recommended, requires $650 billion of additional revenue. Removing the cap on wage income gets $377 billion of that. Source is here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/dont-cut-social-security-double-it/266095/

Taxing capital gains at the same rate would pull in another $209 billion (nearly all capital gains are received by the top 20 % of income earners, who take in half of total US income ($17.9 trillion) and as such it makes up 18.8 % of that income, so that calculation is easy to do. Interest and dividend income makes up about 10 % of US income so taxing that at 12.4 % gives you another $220 billion. That leaves about $770-$800 billion to double SS and you only needed $650.

Fair enough?

Your other Mad Taxman ideas are social engineering not Social Security where people are not forced to pay for something they don’t directly benefit from.

What, you have to personally benefit form a government program for it to a good idea? So childless couples don’t benefit from universal education, or non-sick people from good sanitation and comprehensive health care?

Besides, everyone benefits from SS. If you doubled SS as I propose only about the top 2 % would pay in more than two do now without commiserate increases. As those same top 2 % are the same people who have pushed the policies that have starved SS for funds, it’s perfectly morally justified.

I doubt you can show calculations that verify your claim that inflation tracking income increases from the declining ratio of people paying into the system compared with the increasing recipients would change the calculus that predicts insolvency. It would have extended it further into the future but I doubt it could escape it.

I’m not sure what you mean, but you can read the whole 1983 report here. It does mention demographics.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan.html

The problem is, because wages and employment have not kept up. The original SS tax covered 90 % of wage income. Now, because the incomes of the rich have shot up, and those of everyone else has gone down, both by deliberate neoliberal policies, so now it only covers 83 %. There’s your shortfall.

To double SS, as I recommended, requires $650 billion of additional revenue. Removing the cap on wage income gets $377 billion of that. Source is here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/dont-cut-social-security-double-it/266095/

Taxing capital gains at the same rate would pull in another $209 billion (nearly all capital gains are received by the top 20 % of income earners, who take in half of total US income ($17.9 trillion) and as such it makes up 18.8 % of that income, so that calculation is easy to do. Interest and dividend income makes up about 10 % of US income so taxing that at 12.4 % gives you another $220 billion. That leaves about $770-$800 billion to double SS and you only needed $650.

Fair enough?

Your other Mad Taxman ideas are social engineering not Social Security where people are not forced to pay for something they don’t directly benefit from.

What, you have to personally benefit form a government program for it to a good idea? So childless couples don’t benefit from universal education, or non-sick people from good sanitation and comprehensive health care?

Besides, everyone benefits from SS. If you doubled SS as I propose only about the top 2 % would pay in more than two do now without commiserate increases. As those same top 2 % are the same people who have pushed the policies that have starved SS for funds, it’s perfectly morally justified.

Nice to see Peter already deep into the alternative facts meme of his master. 1) Everything the government does whether it is being run by liberals or conservatives, or anyone else, is social engineering. You may not like what the government does, but that’s what it’s there for. 2) The 2008 meltdown was the result of derivatives, like CDS and synthetic CDOs, blowing up the financial system, not the FHA. I think what Peter is alluding to is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These were publicly owned but government sponsored enterprises, known as GSEs. They were big players who got caught up in but mostly were not forced into the housing bubble that popped in August of 2007. It is important to remember that the housing bubble was heavily pushed by the Bush Administration to stimulate the economy after the dot com bubble went splat in 2001. That’s the social engineering that Peter seems to have forgotten. Along with this, an example of alternative facts that has persisted, not because it is true, but because it is convenient, is that millions of Americans who probably have trouble balancing their checkbook somehow snookered the lawyers and accounting staffs of the big banks and GSEs. The banks were the victims of devious homeowners!

And again, the TPP was dead from the moment that McConnell decided not to schedule a vote for it in the lame duck session. All Trump did was administer a late coup de grâce.

Very nice @reality checker, very nice.

Millions of women worldwide are all hypocrites.

Your stance might be better appreciated if there was some positivity in your assessment.

What’s truly harming children is the worldwide pandemic of misogyny. How do you suggest we (we as in the vagina and the non-vagina world) deal with that?

As for you linking the word whore with humor, there is no humor in shaming female sexuality.

So, I’m a little curious about our new hypocrisy self-improvement exercise. If we do succeed, do we then go out and convert some conservative evangelicals over to our side?

Heh. Aheh heh. Bwahahah…

@anomone

58% of registered voters voted, not 58% of eligible voters, ie those eligible to vote but did not register.

You want change, get off your ass and get people registered to vote, get them to the party hq of the Democrats, bitchslap the party leaders in line, and field a candidate who can rally the base and woo independents while bitchslapping the deep state.

Otherwise continue to be irrelevant because you can’t transform your rage into concrete action.

Ian, I find all of this a plausible scenario IF his base is actually disappointed and abandons him.

I’m not so sure they will abandon him, even if he fails to deliver. I find this argument equally plausible: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2017/01/trump_sold_america_a_miracle_cure_it_will_fail_he_ll_get_off_for_free.html

I guess we’ll find out.

@SomeGuy

Even more than usual, I feel like a bystander these days, watching two factions I increasingly can’t stand acting like lunatics and with no idea where it will all lead.

Before I make it the rest of the way through this comment thread, let me just say to you “Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!!! Same here!” Both my signif other and myself have felt this way for a long time. Except I think I have a good idea of where it’s going to lead if we don’t fix things and I kinda like this world and wish it not to die.

In case I don’t have time/energy to say more when done catching up–I wanted to give Trump a chance to actually get in office and do things before criticizing him. Okay, he’s in office, and he’s done things. Between cabinet appointees and reinstating the gag order, he is likely to suckety suck suck. Not a huge surprise, since I figured we were all screwed as soon as Bernie was out of the race, but I wanted to leave room for hope.

I consider the gag order worse coming from Trump than I would have from Pence–he’s someone who used to be publicly and almost certainly still is pro-choice, but he figures this is any easy thing to throw to his base, because he simply doesn’t think women’s bodily autonomy is an important issue. I’m betting on four years, with his only possible hope being that Dems learn absolutely nothing from the last election and keep doubling down on present tactics. Even then, Trump eaked out a win based on a mixture of hope and rage. I think there’s a good chance the hope will be gone and he will be one of the people being raged against, so even a neolib admitting to being a neolib will probably beat him. Not that such a win will matter much except in the very short term.

whoops, here’s link:

http://prwatch.org/news/2017/01/13204/marc-short-koch-dark-money-operative-trump-legislative-director

Oh Peter, please stop with the trite.

If I had a gun for every “snowflake” you utter, I could arm a town the size of Abilene.

And I’m sure you’ll call me a snowflake for calling you out on your banality, but that will only go to show the depths of your trolldom.

So please, for your own sake, give it a rest. You’re not impressing anyone and you make me embarrassed for you when I read through the otherwise informed and eclectic commentary on here.

@ Webstir

“If I had a ghun for every “snowflake” you utter, I could arm a town the size of Abilene.”

Amigo, I think the word you were searching for there was “gub.” (h/t Woody Allen) 🙂

@Amonone

Even using your numbers, roughly half the eligible voting age population did not vote. So my point still stands.

Also, I suggest looking at the five Muslims Countries that have elected Female Presidents and Prime Ministers, especially Banegladesh which has been rule by two women in alternate cycles for the past 25 years with a minor period of civil strife where the military tried to take control and got bitchslapped back into the barracks.

Look at and see how they succeeded and follow their approach, which involved working with men, not starting a gender war, and maintaining the function of the family instead of tearing it down.

Or continue your current path. It makes no difference to me.

realitychecker and Tom,

Just look at what the “women’s” movement has become. What a horror show. A time traveler could take Ashley Judd’s “poem” (lol) of grasping rage, and convince Elizabeth Cody Stanton herself that the 19th Amendment would have been a mistake.

Your tax dollars go to fund your daughters’ indoctrination into this quintessentially modern cult of ugliness, lies, and vice.

Burn the academic left to the ground, and salt the earth.

If Trump gets impeached and Pence becomes President it’s clear to most of us how much damage they will do to the public.

This morning I started to wonder what comes after all of that? What happens when Pence runs for re-election?

If these folks do so much widespread damage to so many people, how do they avoid getting buried alive in a landslide vote for their opposition is they stand for re-election?

That’s the missing puzzle piece for me. Do they expect their powers of persuasion to be so great (when combined with accelerating economic desperation) that they will be able to convince voters that scapegoats did it all? Will they find a way to have a war? Will they stage a crisis and suspend elections?

@ Webstir

Good morning, good sir.

I had a little trouble sleeping, because I took to heart your criticism of Peter’s repeated use of “snowflakes.”

It’s actually a pretty good term, IMO, and when originally introduced into the public dialogue it seemed to capture the essence of the chronic whiners and crybabies it was meant to describe.

But, alas, all good things do lose a little luster with overuse. And thanks to your prodding of Peter, I am now convinced that we need a new term to refer to these ultra-fragile-yet-rageful folks.

But, how to choose? It will take a collaborative effort to consummate such a demanding task, methinks. I totally reject my own first attempt at fashioning the new term, which was “pioneers.” (Even “pie-in-ears” seemed to miss the mark by a wide margin, although the image it activated was a pleasing one lol,)

So, please, can the thoughtful community here marshal its resources, and address this new and pressing need for descriptive nomenclature?

I can, after some ponderance, offer up “safe space addicts” and “egglings” for consideration, but I think more effort may be warranted. (E.g., Astronauts might object to the former, and I fear the new resident harpies might rush to denounce “egglings” as misogynist, opening me up to charges of entrapment. You know, this work is extra difficult when one is cursed with a penis lol.)

In any event, I would appreciate any good input you could offer in this timely endeavor. As a lawyer, I know you must have some talent as a wordsmith. The community needs your help, but everybody should try to make a contribution to ameliorate this problem.

To Hugh and the other Trump skeptics, thoughts on this? The union leaders came out of their meeting optimistic.

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/823651540678234112

It’s pretty simple, as I see it. If we don’t destroy capitalism soon–raze it completely so it can’t regenerate–then we will cease to be a viable species on this planet.

All this other stuff we talk about here is window dressing, so to speak. Decentralization through anarchist principles is the commonsensical way forward, the only sane way forward. We cannot sustain this civilization as it is organized now. Endless growth, the primary rubric of Western capitalism, is a chimera. How is it possible on a finite planet? We think we can just continue to use up Earth’s resources without a reckoning? The economists are disingenuous. This is just common sense, folks.

@Peter
I have no problem with the idea itself. As realitychecker says above:

“when originally introduced into the public dialogue it seemed to capture the essence of the chronic whiners and crybabies it was meant to describe.” I agree.

Now, pull out your dictionary. Look up the words trite and banal. Then re-read your post above and tell me if any part of it touches on what I was saying.

Boor’s are boring, buddy.

@ the commentariat
Apologies, I seem to be struggling with the simple act of not posting the same comment twice. I’ll work on it …

@Anarcho

If someone could destroy capitalism they would also be destroying western industrial civilization and with most people living in cities dependent on that civilization they would be destroyed also.

If 10% of that population survived and could be educated and trained in anarchist method and ideas they might be able to resist the dominance of the warlords and petty potentates that would surely arise. With enough local farming and the huge store of resources that could be mined in the abandoned cities they could prosper for centuries without doing extreme damage to the planet.

This ignores what may happen elsewhere in the world especially in a country such as China where they may not want to destroy their new capitalist prosperity and they may also be able to respond better to a worldwide collapse. The new emperors there along with their hundreds of millions of survivors may decide that the unguarded, fertile, mostly fallow agricultural heartland of the former US is too attractive to resist and come to take it.

Anarchists have made good resistance fighters before but there would be some irony in this conflict between the once communists China and the newly minted anarchists of the former US.

This site needs moderation. Too bad because there’s some intelligent stuff here, and Ian is a smart guy…

@ Neil Tuchin

This blog is not a safe space. Debate is permitted. Moderation is censorship, and censorship is authoritarian.

It’s good to know where you are coming from, stranger.

BlizzardofOz, unions are important, or at least could be important in protecting workers’ rights and increasing their wages. But there has been a war against them since Wilson. That’s a hundred years. Today they are shadow of what they used to be, both in terms of their power and their numbers. Only 6.7% of workers in the private sector are unionized, and 35% in the public/government sector.

The truth is most labor leaders are Establishment liberals who sold out their memberships decades ago. They have been in the bag for the Democrats even though the Democrats have regularly sold them out since Carter. About the only group left with strong unions is the police, and that isn’t always a good thing when they defend bad cops and worse policies. About the only union that hasn’t sold completely out is National Nurses United.

With Trump’s and the Republicans’ victories in the election, there has been a surge in state legislatures to pass so-called right to work laws. These should be called right of employers to pay crap wages laws. They seriously undermine already weak, decimated unions. It has been forgotten that when unions were strong, they pulled up everyone’s wages, not just those of their members.

So what does all this have to do with union leaders meeting with Trump? Well, unions are weak. Their leaderships are corrupt. They have sold out repeatedly on issues like benefits and two-tiered wage structures. They looking at 4 years minimum of being trampled into the ground by Republican controlled state legislatures. Trump’s pledge to bring back manufacturing jobs is about the only bright spot in a very bleak scene, and although Trump has a history of being anti-worker, anti-union, and against increasing the minimum wage, I think they see him as “moderate” in comparison with all the other Republican officeholders out there.

It takes a simpleton to think everything is simple.

Until the left stops thinking in strictly linear, short-term, and binary fashion, and starts allowing the concept of jiu-jitsu into their thinking, there is no hope for a victory of progressive values.

Because the enemies of the left are very adept at mindfuckery. And, as of now and in recent history, lefties are very vulnerable to mindfuckery.

I’d like to see the left win some victories that matter, not mere symbolic ones scornfully tossed as crumbs to keep them passive.

It takes a simpleton to think everything is simple.

Until the left stops thinking in strictly linear, short-term, and binary fashion, and starts allowing the concept of jiu-jitsu into their thinking, there is no hope for a victory of progressive values.

Because the enemies of the left are very adept at mindfuckery. And, as of now and in recent history, lefties are very vulnerable to mindfuckery.

I’d like to see the left win some victories that matter, not mere symbolic ones scornfully tossed as crumbs to keep them passive.

But in orderto learn how to be more effective, it is first necessary to cometo terms with and then change what you have been doing wrong.

So far, the left just keeps insisting it did NOTHING wrong. That won’t get us anywhere.

“It takes a simpleton to think everything is simple.”
A comment more self-serving than instructive. Most voters are “simpleton”. Good luck reaching them with dismissive sarcasm.

“…the concept of jiu-jitsu into their thinking”
Clear examples would be most excellent. For starters, things successfully done to the left, lefty success stories employing such concepts, self-defense…

“lefties are very vulnerable to mindfuckery”
See above. Productive examples might include

“But in orderto learn how to be more effective, it is first necessary to cometo terms with and then change what you have been doing wrong.”
Now we’re getting somewhere.

“So far, the left just keeps insisting it did NOTHING wrong. That won’t get us anywhere.”
You entirely sure about that? I’m seeing terminology such as “neoliberalism” and “third way” finally gaining some traction, after all these years. And I do believe it takes a while for such ideas to trickle down to the simple, comprising the overwhelming majority.

@realitychecker

Your repeatedly gross generalizations of and disdain for feminists as well as your description of the recent marchers as “amoral harpies” (only women can be amoral, never men), are a clear indication that you offer no solutions but are part of the problem.

@Blizzard — given that Trump and Bernie were the only recent presidential candidates who didn’t openly view the American working class w/open contempt, the union leaders reactions to their meeting with him is not surprising. He at least pretends to like and care about them, and I believe (despite what I said above and am about to say after this) that Trump will be better on trade (at least from an American worker perspective) than Obama was or Hillary would have been; at worst, he’ll say better things and then do something similar to what they would have. And my other reasons for preferring him to HRC still stand.

But . . . he’s not running in an either/or against Hillary anymore. “The other side sucks worse in some ways” is not going to be a winning argument for Trump any more than it was for the Dems; less so, since people’s patience with our ruling class is getting understandably short and Trump has less good will to work with than Obama did.

And otherwise, he’s not impressing thus far. He appears to be letting Pence determine his position on social issues, we have an incoming CIA director who’s written an op-ed urging collection of data on American citizens and the whole administration seems to have an environmental agenda geared to destroying the world as fast as possible. And “better than the pro-TPP crowd on trade and jobs” is sort of like saying “better than Inhofe on environmental issues”, one is true for Trump, the other is true for pretty much even the worst of the neoliberal dems, but it’s too low a bar to get very happy about by itself–the question is “will it be enough better?”. And if we kill the whole biosphere, honestly, none of the rest of this will even matter.

adena, the amoral harpies I referred to were not the marchers, they were you and anonone, for your professed adoration for hypocrisy.

I love feminists, I hate amoral idiots. Sorry.

Yeah, I thought so. I demanded nothing, and am far from “arrogant” or “entitlement mentality”.

You’re not here for the reasons you claim.

“getting ornery”? It’s who you already are. I wouldn’t have given you a second thought if you weren’t so emotionally invested in trashing, yet so disinvested in an equal or lesser effort of teaching.

@ wendy davis

“but my personal fave was close to: “wot? some mezzican is callin’ me ‘little man’”?”

Really, Wendy, that’s what got your attention today?

Maybe you should instead tell your pet Mexican, one of only a half dozen who still comment at your own personal ‘Algonquin table,’ that if he is stupid enough to use “little man” as a derogatory attack against someone he has never met, then he invites the possibility that it may get shoved back into his teeth?

In future, please try not to act like a scorned woman, OK? If you try to bite me, you will get bitten back, but for the sake of our former friendship, I prefer not to have to do that.

@ realitychecker

You make far too many snap assumptions and accusations to be worthy of respect. If everybody was as rational and integrous as you’re ‘trying’ to get lefties to be, you never would have had a law career. Reality is what it is. Everybody is imperfect. A blog known as Trump central (Gateway Pundit), is notorious for having all the rationality and integrity of the National Enquirer. Think we can win any of them over by demonstrating what you’re trying to force here?

@ Willy

“If everybody was as rational and integrous as you’re ‘trying’ to get lefties to be, you never would have had a law career.”

Please, just shut up, it’s too painful to watch you self-demolish.

At the least, please don’t direct any more comments to me. People like you never learn anything, anyway.

@ Lisa

Can’t help myself, darling, from employing your own logic against you, to wit:

All you ever talk about is your transgenderedness. That must mean you are secretly straight and have a good idea of what you want to do with your genitalia.

See the stupid in your pop psychology?

Stick to data analysis, you actually have some talent for that. This last comment of yours stupidly offensive and is way beneath you, and makes it very hard to respect you. That’s about your mind, not your genitalia.

Peter

The fixation on low wage growth as the cause of the SS shortfall leaves out the equal or more negative effect of the hollowing out of our industrial base and replacing those skilled high pay jobs with low wage service work. A skilled union worker pays in about four times as much into SS as a low skill service worker.

Low wage growth that failed to keep up with inflation and caused the SS shortfall is largely the result of the “hollowing out of the industrial base” you speak of (there’s other reasons, too, I’d rank outsourcing as #1, union-busting as #2, failure to keep the minimum wage up with inflation #3, and immigration a distant #4).. That “hollowing out of the industrial base” is in turn the result of neoliberal policies pursued and enacted by the top 2 %. Taxing them to make up the shortfall is both smart and fair.

Besides, why should wage income be taxed at a higher rate than the income sources of capital? (Dividends, interest, and capital gains). I am merely advocating that these be taxed at the same rate, essentially a flat tax on these incomes, which is hardly a “mad taxer’ scheme.

Many people approaching retirement are not prepared and will spend much of their money servicing the debt they will carry into retirement. The causes of these problems you mention are valid to some extent but many people made bad decisions that didn’t help their position.

“Bad decisions” have little to do with it. Are the people laid off from good-paying jobs in their 50s or 60s before they are ready to retire to blame because their highly-profitable company decided to replace them with cheap youngsters with no benefits to hand over more loot to Wall Street? Are the workers to blame because highly profitable companies ditched or froze their pension plans to give more to Wall Street? Are workers to blame because the minimum wage (which acts as an “floor” for wages) is even by the government’s dubious inflation calculations at the lowest point since the 1940s? Are workers to blame because the government’s refusal to enact anti-trust laws (in effect, suspended since Reagan) means that they get massively ripped off which diminishes their ability to save?

All these trends are “bad decisions”, all right, but decisions not made by the victims. They were made at the top, to knowingly transfer wealth from the bottom to the top. Again, it’s only fair to tax and right to tax them because of it.

And I add–there is a reason why the period from 1948-the early 70s was the good economy, and our high marginal tax rates on the wealthy were an integral part of that. Not the whole part, mind you (Lisa’s comment about financial deregulation is also true, as well as no longer enforcing anti-trust laws) but still a very important part. You punished the rich for rewarding themselves, and because of that more money both flowed into workers’ pockets but also flowed into new capital and to R&D which kept American technology the world’s best. I see that in the history of where I work now.

Relevant to this topic:

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2017/1/22/113420/648