Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

Ken,

 

Hope this aids understanding:

 

 

 

To be clear, the crisis of the Great Recession was a financial crisis - aided in its materialization by government policies over a number of years. It was not a creature of over-taxation and over burdensome regulation but its birth came as a result of a blinding chase for ROI coupled with regulatory changes and lack of enforcement of existing regulations, i.e., by allowing free market principles to operate unfettered.

 

Btw, Bill Clinton was a guilty as anyone on the right in embracing free market ideology in order to push his agenda.

Fiscal policy can be used to stabilize the economy over the course of the business cycle. ... There is some overlap in meaning between the terms: financial, meaning (obviously) 'involving financial matters', is a subset of fiscal, which has the additional meaning of 'relating to government revenue and taxes'.

 

Actually it does not clarify it. If, as it says, "fiscal" has additional meaning beyond the meaning attached to "financial", then it would seem that "fiscal" is a subset of "financial", meaning that fiscal policy is necessarily financial, but financial might or might not be fiscal. The quoted explanation of the terms has it the other way around. So I get to hold on to my 50 bucks as far as that explanation goes.

 

And I am not invoking some specialized mathematical meaning here. Ball games, game played with balls, are a subset of games. Friendly personal interactions are a subset of personal interactions. And financial matters involving government revenue and taxes are a subset of financial matters.

 

And then we still have to figure out what is meant by "Transforming a financial crisis into a fiscal crisis confused cause with effect." If we take the definition you quote, he is saying

"Transforming a crisis in financial matters into a crisis involving government revenue and taxes confused cause with effect." I don't understand that sentence well enough to agree or disagree. For starters, I am confused about "Transforming", I think he means "Recasting the discussion" but I am not sure. So is he saying "If we recast a discussion of financial matters as a discussion of government revenue and taxes we are confusing cause and effect"? What is he saying is a cause of what, what is the effect, how are they being confused? Well. I am confused. That much I can agree to.

 

My main point is this: We have an intelligent educated person with long experience in financial matters writing a review of a book written by another intelligent educated person with long experience in financial matters. From the writing I would guess he expects the reader to be an intelligent educated person with substantial experience in financial matters. It is no great surprise to me that I can't follow it all that well. That is intended as neither a criticism of them nor as a confession of my own stupidity, it's just a fact. The matter is complicated, I expect it would take me some time and some serious thought to even see what is being said.

 

Which reminds me of something a professor of philosophy used to insist on in my college days: "First we must understand what the author is saying. Then, and only then, we can discuss whether we agree with him." I haven't made it through the first part yet.

[Winstonm]

Actually it does not clarify it. If, as it says, "fiscal" has additional meaning beyond the meaning attached to "financial", then it would seem that "fiscal" is a subset of "financial", meaning that fiscal policy is necessarily financial, but financial might or might not be fiscal. The quoted explanation of the terms has it the other way around. So I get to hold on to my 50 bucks as far as that explanation goes.

 

And then we still have to figure out what is meant by "Transforming a financial crisis into a fiscal crisis confused cause with effect." If we take the definition you quote, he is saying

"Transforming a crisis in financial matters into a crisis involving government revenue and taxes confused cause with effect." I don't understand that sentence well enough to agree or disagree. For starters, I am confused about "Transforming", I think he means "Recasting the discussion" but I am not sure. So is he saying "If we recast a discussion of financial matters as a discussion of government revenue and taxes we are confusing cause and effect"? What is he saying is a cause of what, what is the effect, how are they being confused? Well. I am confused. That much I can agree to.

 

My main point is this: We have an intelligent educated person with long experience in financial matters writing a review of a book written by another intelligent educated person with long experience in financial matters. From the writing I would guess he expects the reader to be an intelligent educated person with substantial experience in financial matters. It is no great surprise to me that I can't follow it all that well. That is intended as neither a criticism of them nor as a confession of my own stupidity, it's just a fact. The matter is complicated, I expect it would take me some time and some serious thought to even see what is being said.

 

Which reminds me of something a professor of philosophy used to insist on in my college days: "First we must understand what the author is saying. Then, and only then, we can discuss whether we agree with him." I haven't made it through the first part yet.

 

I understand what you are saying. I do find it a little odd that you read this quote diametrically opposite to how I understand it. To me, fiscal is government + financial. Financial is only financial. The overlap only travels in one direction.

 

As to "transform", I understand the confusion - it is poorly worded. I think you are right. I understand the meaning to be that there has been some type of shenanigans to obfuscate the financial nature in order to protect the free market beliefs, thus laying the blame on fiscal policies - those of government + financial, when, it was only financial.

[kenberg]

I understand what you are saying. I do find it a little odd that you read this quote diametrically opposite to how I understand it. To me, fiscal is government + financial. Financial is only financial. The overlap only travels in one direction.

 

As to "transform", I understand the confusion - it is poorly worded. I think you are right. I understand the meaning to be that there has been some type of shenanigans to obfuscate the financial nature in order to protect the free market beliefs, thus laying the blame on fiscal policies - those of government + financial, when, it was only financial.

 

I agree with" fiscal is government + financial. Financial is only financial. The overlap only travels in one direction. ". My objection was that the quote then finds :financial" to be a subset of "fiscal'. It's the other way around. In the spirit of the times, perhaps the writer meant "not a subset". I saw this cartoon online where Kim is saying "I meant wouldn't denuclearize"

 

Mostly I do not understand what the review is saying. I try not to fuss about words if it is just for the fun of being fussy, but much of what is said in the review leaves me confused. If I wanted to criticize, and criticizing is a step further than just saying that I don't understand, it seems to me that we have one intellectual writing about the work of another intellectual and forgetting that some of us out there are not really up on the underlying assumptions and lingo in the matter under discussion. There is this old Judy Holliday movie Born Yesterday where William Holden is to help the unsophisticated (but definitely not dumb) Holliday learn about the world. He has her circle things in the newspaper that she does not understand. She circles just about everything, and when he declines to crawl into bed with her she threatens to circle him.

[Winstonm]

The arrest of Maria Butina has placed a spotlight on the early days of Russia-gate due to her influence in the hiring of K.T. McFarland as Michael Flynn's second.

 

The NYT described the hurried actions by Dennison's team to appease the Russians after Obama expelled the Russia diplomats. The article claims this was because Dennison was afraid that continued emphasis on Russian interference - or pushback by Russia - would tarnish his win.

 

This seems hard to believe. Of course, anyone running for U.S. president has a degree of narcissism. Dennison, though, is too pragmatic to care too deeply about the appearance of his win as long as he won. He is and always has been about "the deal". What would the payoff be for Russian help in winning the presidency?

 

This group almost immediately began working on undoing the sanctions against Russia - in return for what? Flynn had been working on a multi-billion dollar deal concerning nuclear plants in the middle east.

 

To me, the only thing that really makes sense is that Dennison was so concerned about the Russian probe interfering with his presidency because it would either delay or ultimately cost him "the deal" - a payoff for removing sanctions.

[y66]

I agree with" fiscal is government + financial. Financial is only financial. The overlap only travels in one direction. ". My objection was that the quote then finds :financial" to be a subset of "fiscal'. It's the other way around. In the spirit of the times, perhaps the writer meant "not a subset". I saw this cartoon online where Kim is saying "I meant wouldn't denuclearize"

 

Mostly I do not understand what the review is saying. I try not to fuss about words if it is just for the fun of being fussy, but much of what is said in the review leaves me confused. If I wanted to criticize, and criticizing is a step further than just saying that I don't understand, it seems to me that we have one intellectual writing about the work of another intellectual and forgetting that some of us out there are not really up on the underlying assumptions and lingo in the matter under discussion. There is this old Judy Holliday movie Born Yesterday where William Holden is to help the unsophisticated (but definitely not dumb) Holliday learn about the world. He has her circle things in the newspaper that she does not understand. She circles just about everything, and when he declines to crawl into bed with her she threatens to circle him.

The Judy Holliday character in Born Yesterday did not read the Financial Times or other newspapers that did not include a comics section but I'll bet she understood the concept of assets and liabilities and the importance of maintaining a reasonable balance and how not doing so can lead to trouble as it did for Japan in the 90s and for the U.S. and Europe in 2008 and, according to Wolf, is threatening to do again. Ditto for the idea that some of the changes we're seeing in our government have something to do with changes in prospects for making a decent income after taxes, getting a decent education, living in a decent neighborhood on a planet that isn't becoming a wasteland, access to decent health care and other stuff including getting laid all of which are affected more or less by prospects for stable economic growth and that a world full of ignorant people who think Trump will save them is a dangerous place even for not so dumb blondes.

 

"Billie Dawn: This country and its institutions belong to the people who inhibit it.

 

Paul Verrall: inHABit.

 

Billie Dawn: InHABit it.

"Harry Brock: How d'ya like that! He could've had a hundred grand. She could've had me. Both wind up with nothin'... Dumb chump!... Crazy broad!

 

Jim Devery: [raises a glass as a toast] To all the dumb chumps and all the crazy broads, past, present, and future, who thirst for knowledge and search for truth... who fight justice and civilize each other... and make it so tough for crooks like you...

 

[Harry stares at him angrily]

 

Jim Devery: ...AND me.

[Winstonm]

Twelve-step programs use the phrase "ruthless self-honesty" as a necessary component of healing.

 

Then The Atlantic has this:

 

What I found was that Trump embodied his supporters’ most profound beliefs—combining an insistence that discriminatory policies were necessary with vehement denials that his policies would discriminate and absolute outrage that the question would even be asked.

 

t was not just Trump’s supporters who were in denial about what they were voting for, but Americans across the political spectrum, who, as had been the case with those who had backed Duke, searched desperately for any alternative explanation—outsourcing, anti-Washington anger, economic anxiety—to the one staring them in the face. The frequent postelection media expeditions to Trump country to see whether the fever has broken, or whether Trump’s most ardent supporters have changed their minds, are a direct outgrowth of this mistake. These supporters will not change their minds, because this is what they always wanted: a president who embodies the rage they feel toward those they hate and fear, while reassuring them that that rage is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

Delusion is never good.

[y66]

From Veterans Speak Out Against The Militarization Of Sports by Howard Bryant at WBUR:

 

While researching my book “The Heritage,” I was struck by the enormous effect the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have had on sports — how they look, how they’re packaged and how they’re sold. Before 9/11, giant flags and flyovers were reserved for the Super Bowl. Today, they are commonplace. Even the players wear camouflage jerseys. The military is omnipresent. And it’s by design.

 

The public accepts this as supporting the troops, but one group of individuals — the veterans themselves — is more skeptical. One voice stood out: William Astore's.

 

"They bring out a humongous flag," he says. "Military jets fly overhead, sometimes it’s a B-2 stealth bomber, sometimes it’s fighter jets."

 

Bill Astore is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who writes about the increased militarization of sports — and its perils — on Bracing Views, his personal blog, as well as the website Tom Dispatch.

 

"I think, at first, there’s a sort of thrilling feeling," Astore says. "I’m like all the other fans: a big plane goes overhead — ‘Wow!’ That's kind of awe inspiring. But at the same time, to me, it’s not something that I see should be flying over a sports stadium before a baseball game or a football game. You know, these are weapons of death. They may be required, but they certainly shouldn't be celebrated and applauded."

 

Astore grew up in Brockton, Massachusetts, the bare-knuckle town of famed boxers Rocky Marciano and Marvelous Marvin Hagler. He’s an avid Red Sox fan, and when he watches sports, he sees the perpetual selling of war, and something very cynical: patriotism for sale, with troops as bait.

 

The MLB All-Star Game in Washington, D.C., this week was so awash in ceremony, it conjured thoughts of an old joke with a new twist: “I went to a military parade and a baseball game broke out.”

 

"I think our military has made a conscious decision, and that decision was, as much as possible, to work with strong forces within our society," Astore says. "I think our military made a choice to work with the sporting world — and vice versa. I think that's something that's in response to 9/11."

 

Before 9/11, an American flag the size of a football field was unheard of.

 

"What I remember from going to games is: I remember the national anthem, a conventional-sized American flag, and that’s all I remember," Astore says. "And I have to say that I thought that was enough.

 

"You know, after 9/11, there were so many people that I saw who broke out the flags and put them on their cars and had a spontaneous reaction to a feeling that we, as Americans, needed to come together. And that felt good."

 

In the years following 9/11, professional sports took a healing gesture and transformed it into a way to make money. In 2015, Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake released the report “Tackling Paid Patriotism,” which criticized the deceptive, taxpayer-funded contracts between the Pentagon and virtually every pro sports league. In 2012, the New York Army National Guard paid the Buffalo Bills $250,000 to conduct on-field re-enlistment ceremonies. In 2014, the Georgia National Guard paid the Atlanta Falcons $114,000 to sing the national anthem. In 2015, the Air Force paid NASCAR $1.5 million in part for veterans to shake hands with racing legend Richard Petty. Your tax dollars. At work.

 

"I hate to say it, but I wasn't completely surprised," Astore says. "But I was disgusted by it. Patriotic displays, they mean a lot more to me when they're spontaneous. But to learn that these had been paid for — that corporate teams, teams owned by billionaires, basically, were collecting money from the military. Paid for, obviously, by you and me, by the American taxpayer. Well, it was sad."

 

"Under the Bush-Cheney administration, we weren’t even able to see the caskets of dead soldiers," Astore says. "The cost of war — that very ugly face of war — was being kept from us.American flags are the ultimate Good Housekeeping seal. And thanking veterans for their service disconnects the public from what has been nearly two decades of war. The ballpark ceremony obscures the realities of war and, by focusing on soldiers, inoculates the government from antiwar criticism. Astore tells me it’s a form of emotional manipulation.

 

"And the only time we see it, sometimes, is when they bring out a wounded soldier, for example. And maybe he or she has lost two or three limbs, but they’re brought out into an NFL stadium or an MLB baseball game. And the impression that you get is, 'Everything’s OK, see?' But we don’t see this person struggling to get around at home. And maybe being depressed because they’ve suffered this horrible wound in war."

 

... Where do sports go from here? I asked one baseball executive, who told me his sport promotes the military not out of patriotism but out of fear — the fear of being called unpatriotic. Nearly 20 years after 9/11, Bill Astore believes these rituals have served their purpose.

 

"We sing 'God Bless America' during the seventh-inning stretch, because, well, that's what we do now," Astore says. "We have a huge flag and military flyovers because that's what we do. We celebrate a military person after the fourth inning because that's what we do. And we've come to expect it.

 

"I think we as Americans need to come together and recognize that all of this needs to be ratcheted back, that we need to return to a simpler time — when you played the national anthem, you respected our country and then you play ball. And you just enjoy the game the way it was meant to be enjoyed."

[johnu]

Another ripped from the headlines story

 

Without evidence, Dennison claims Russia ‘will be pushing very hard for the Democrats’ in 2018 midterms

 

Some might find this hard to believe, but it makes perfect sense to me. In other news, Fox has officially joined the Deep State and appointed Bernie Sanders as President and CEO, is replacing lead propagandist Sean Hannity with Keith Olbermann, and will be simulcasting the rest of the MSNBC lineup after firing the rest of their on air so called talent. Finally, Dennison will be taking an extended leave from office to sharpen his golf game so he can challenge Kim Jong-un to a 100 billion dollar winner take all golf match.

[ldrews]

Another ripped from the headlines story

 

Without evidence, Dennison claims Russia ‘will be pushing very hard for the Democrats’ in 2018 midterms

 

Some might find this hard to believe, but it makes perfect sense to me. In other news, Fox has officially joined the Deep State and appointed Bernie Sanders as President and CEO, is replacing lead propagandist Sean Hannity with Keith Olbermann, and will be simulcasting the rest of the MSNBC lineup after firing the rest of their on air so called talent. Finally, Dennison will be taking an extended leave from office to sharpen his golf game so he can challenge Kim Jong-un to a 100 billion dollar winner take all golf match.

 

Seems reasonable to me. As Democrats and the liberal/left have been asserting for some time that Russia was meddling and influencing the 2016 election in favor of Trump, now that Trump is President and enforcing tough sanctions on Russia, it is very credible that Russia would use the very same capabilities to oppose Trump and support the Democrats in the upcoming 2018 elections. Perhaps we need to take actions to ensure that no foreign parties are able to mess with our elections. One suggestion would be a national voter ID requirement to ensure that only valid US citizens are able to vote. This would prevent the Russians from materially interfering.

[Cyberyeti]

Seems reasonable to me. As Democrats and the liberal/left have been asserting for some time that Russia was meddling and influencing the 2016 election in favor of Trump, now that Trump is President and enforcing tough sanctions on Russia, it is very credible that Russia would use the very same capabilities to oppose Trump and support the Democrats in the upcoming 2018 elections. Perhaps we need to take actions to ensure that no foreign parties are able to mess with our elections. One suggestion would be a national voter ID requirement to ensure that only valid US citizens are able to vote. This would prevent the Russians from materially interfering.

 

It would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent the Russians messing with your election. The Russians aren't voting, they're influencing legit voters.

 

Voter ID would disenfranchise a lot of less politically engaged lower socio-economic group people who would never realise they needed to do it, and as those people typically vote Democrat, it's a big Republican idea.

[ldrews]

It would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent the Russians messing with your election. The Russians aren't voting, they're influencing legit voters.

 

Voter ID would disenfranchise a lot of less politically engaged lower socio-economic group people who would never realise they needed to do it, and as those people typically vote Democrat, it's a big Republican idea.

 

Are you saying that the Russians did not materially affect voting? But like anybody else in the world was just influencing the voting public by publishing stuff?

 

Now if the stuff being published is factual, then what is the problem?

 

If the stuff being published is not factual then how do we deter that? In fact, that is a problem for all segments of the political environment. How do we deter non-factual publication that is put forward as factual by the Russians, the Israelis, the Europeans, the Republicans, the Democrats?

 

Your objection to Voter ID is BS. Valid ID is required to open a bank account, receive Federal benefits, start a business, etc. And if you live in an inner city, you better have ID when you encounter the police. So I would think that the actual number of citizens in the US that do not already have a valid ID is extremely small. And if voting is important to those they will quickly acquire an ID. Do you think people are stupid?

[awm]

Here’s how Russia is alleged to have influenced the 2016 election:

 

1. Contributing money to the Trump campaign through outside groups (i.e. the NRA). Note that campaign contributions by foreign nationals are illegal.

2. Purchasing targeted “fake news” ads on Facebook to rile up Republicans and depress turnout for likely Democratic voters. Political ads in US election by foreign nationals are also illegal.

3. Hacking into the DNC and Clinton campaign to get information about strategy and providing that information to Republican campaigns, as well as leaking possibly embarrassing information to the press. Again, hacking into people’s computers is illegal. Knowingly taking advantage of illegally obtained information is also illegal, as is accepting a donation of analytic data from a foreign nation.

4. Possibly hacking into state voter registration databases to de-register likely democratic voters. While not directly changing vote totals, this may have contributed to very long wait times to vote in heavily Democratic districts. On the other hand, these wait times could also be a result of “legal” voter suppression by Republican state governments canceling early voting and reducing the number of polling places in these districts.

 

There is also some fear that Russia will try to hack the voting machines themselves to change vote totals, but no evidence that this was done successfully in 2016 as far as I know.

 

Which of these tactics would be stopped by voter ids again?

[Winstonm]

A quick survey. Which best describes this post on the all-time BBO list:

 

now that Trump is President and enforcing tough sanctions on Russia

 

A) Most disingenuous

B) Funniest

C) Most assinine

D) Most delusional

[Cyberyeti]

 

Your objection to Voter ID is BS. Valid ID is required to open a bank account, receive Federal benefits, start a business, etc. And if you live in an inner city, you better have ID when you encounter the police. So I would think that the actual number of citizens in the US that do not already have a valid ID is extremely small. And if voting is important to those they will quickly acquire an ID. Do you think people are stupid?

 

I'm in the UK.

 

There is valid ID which is needed for many things and valid photo ID which not everybody has which is required to vote. I don't drive, if I didn't have a passport as many in the US don't, I would have no valid photo ID of any sort.

[andrei]

I'm in the UK.

 

There is valid ID which is needed for many things and valid photo ID which not everybody has which is required to vote. I don't drive, if I didn't have a passport as many in the US don't, I would have no valid photo ID of any sort.

 

So to vote in UK one needs a valid photo ID?

No "disenfranchise" issues there?

[ldrews]

I'm in the UK.

 

There is valid ID which is needed for many things and valid photo ID which not everybody has which is required to vote. I don't drive, if I didn't have a passport as many in the US don't, I would have no valid photo ID of any sort.

 

But you could obtain one if needed, correct?

[ldrews]

A quick survey. Which best describes this post on the all-time BBO list:

 

 

 

A) Most disingenuous

B) Funniest

C) Most assinine

D) Most delusional

 

Is not the statement true? Trump is President, and strong sanctions are being applied to Russia. Please correct me, with some evidence, if I am incorrect.

[ldrews]

I'm in the UK.

 

There is valid ID which is needed for many things and valid photo ID which not everybody has which is required to vote. I don't drive, if I didn't have a passport as many in the US don't, I would have no valid photo ID of any sort.

 

In the US one normally only needs a birth certificate and with that can usually obtain a valid ID from the Drivers License agencies of the state. Not difficult.

[cherdano]

So to vote in UK one needs a valid photo ID?

No.

No "disenfranchise" issues there?

No.

 

Try again.

[johnu]

Another ripped from the headlines story

 

Without evidence, Dennison claims Russia ‘will be pushing very hard for the Democrats’ in 2018 midterms

 

Some might find this hard to believe, but it makes perfect sense to me. In other news, Fox has officially joined the Deep State and appointed Bernie Sanders as President and CEO, is replacing lead propagandist Sean Hannity with Keith Olbermann, and will be simulcasting the rest of the MSNBC lineup after firing the rest of their on air so called talent. Finally, Dennison will be taking an extended leave from office to sharpen his golf game so he can challenge Kim Jong-un to a 100 billion dollar winner take all golf match.

 

I have the greatest respect for you as one of the best posters on this or any forum, but what do you think Dennison and Putin were talking about in Helsinki??? Russia may interfere in some races where the Republicans had overwhelming 50+% wins in previous elections just so Dennison can point to the interference and claim he is not the Russian sock puppet that he is.

[johnu]

Is not the statement true? Trump is President, and strong sanctions are being applied to Russia. Please correct me, with some evidence, if I am incorrect.

 

Is not the statement true? Dennison is President, and the US still has some strong environmental laws. Therefore, Dennison is the Environmental President. Please correct me, with some evidence, if I am incorrect.

[ldrews]

Is not the statement true? Dennison is President, and the US still has some strong environmental laws. Therefore, Dennison is the Environmental President. Please correct me, with some evidence, if I am incorrect.

 

Isn't there a difference? Trump initiated the imposition of at some of those sanctions. Trump has not initiated the imposition of the environmental laws. Therefore one can assign some responsibility of the sanctions to Trump, but none of the environmental laws.

[Chas_P]

what do you think Dennison and Putin were talking about in Helsinki???

 

Maybe the same things Obama and the Russian ambassador were talking about when Obama assured the Russian President he'd have "more flexibility" on missile defense systems after his next election. Or maybe what Bill Clinton was talking about when he pulled down $500,000 for one speech in Moscow after which the Obama administration with HRC as SOS gave Putin the rights to 20% of our uranium supplies. It's all very puzzling.

[Winstonm]

A quick survey. Which best describes this post on the all-time BBO list:

 

 

 

A) Most disingenuous

B) Funniest

C) Most assinine

D) Most delusional

 

The answer is E) All of the above.

[Winstonm]

Maybe the same things Obama and the Russian ambassador were talking about when Obama assured the Russian President he'd have "more flexibility" on missile defense systems after his next election. Or maybe what Bill Clinton was talking about when he pulled down $500,000 for one speech in Moscow after which the Obama administration with HRC as SOS gave Putin the rights to 20% of our uranium supplies. It's all very puzzling.

 

What puzzles me is how someone who is smart enough to learn the complex game of bridge can be so shortsighted and silly as to believe these nonsensical stories peddled by high-school grad and radio talk show host Sean Hannity and other similar right wing propaganda merchants.