The end of your republic

[Aris Katsaris]

The Senate just decided that it was perfectly fine for a US president to try to overthrow the constitution and democracy, and that it was perfectly fine for him to declare anyone who opposed his scheme a 'traitor', and it was perfectly fine for him to set loose a mob on Congress in order to overturn the results of an election.

I'm only an outsider, commenting from Greece, but this is what I predict: That this will be marked as the beginning of a Second Civil War and possibly the end of your Republic. Trump will redouble his attacks on democracy, and the Capitol Riots will be repeated a hundredfold, now that it's perfectly okay for Trump to have done what he did.

And everyone who voted for Trump, and especially those who still support the fascist piece of *censored*, you can go *censored* yourselves.

[TheDeamon]

Second Civil War? Possible. End of the Republic? Questionable.

Although the start is another matter, another prelude certainly?

But when you get down to that, look at the first Civil War.

I kind of suspect January 6th may be viewed much like John Brown's attack on Harper's Ferry in the future, but time will tell(and who wins will play a factor on that).

But Harper's Ferry didn't start the Civil War, although it certainly was a prelude and warning sign.

Before there was Harper's Ferry, there was "Bloody Kansas" as well, and a number of other things. All clear warning signs in retrospect, but not "the start" of the war.

The other side is the "next civil war" which hasn't actually started yet, is going to be mostly 4th and 5th Generation Warfare, it's going to look a lot more like Iraq or Afghanistan, or even some echoes of the Spanish Civil War.. But reality is, I don't think it's going to get very far. The Silent Majority is still a very real thing, and they're not going to stand for it, and once everyone gets a taste of what a real civil war with open violence/hostility looks like, things are likely going to walk back from a lot of the insanity... But it's likely to get positively nasty before it gets better.

[cherrypoptart]

It seems more likely that we're going to suffer the fate of Greece with ever mounting debt and unaffordable interest payments on it that cut into all the social programs and "free money" that are promised by the left to the left until the disaffected members of the left take to the streets and riot over proposals of "austerity" which by that time will amount to cutting some of the free money being handed out to leftist lackadoodles to levels that will by then be getting reduced to 90% of what they are at the time which will still be thrice as high as what they are right now. We'll be right where Tytler predicted when he said that, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Just like Venezuela. Then the war against the government will come from the left because there isn't any more toilet paper.

[Aris Katsaris]

It seems more likely that we're going to suffer the fate of Greece with ever mounting debt and unaffordable interest payments on it that cut into all the social programs and "free money" that are promised by the left to the left

Cute, but your ignorance is showing: It wasn't a leftist, but rather the right-wing Greek PM Kostas Karamanlis that was most responsible for the Greek economic collapse; the center-left government of Simitis that had preceded him was generally fiscally responsible. Another characteristic of Kostas Karamanlis, btw, was that he was a faithful servant of Russia, just like Trump.

Put a servant of Russia in a country's leadership and your country gets inevitably ruined, since Russia is always playing a negative-sum game with every other nation in the world, and it's deliberately supporting the most destructive choices for other nations.

[msquared]

Cherry,

Where was your complaint when Trump did his tax cuts for the rich and the corporations and ballooned the deficit by trillions, all of this before the pandemic?

[cherrypoptart]

Trump's plans would have worked. If you cut taxes for the rich but revenues to the Treasury continue to rise then that means it's good. That's better than raising taxes on the rich and corporations if it results in wealth flight, reduced productivity because the money is taken instead of reinvested back into the business to expand it, and in the end lower total revenues raised. And Trump's immigration policies were going to help American wages and benefits go up too and we're about to see the exact opposite of all of that. Of course the virus was the black swan that flew away with all of that. When the Democrats get their way it's going to go the way it always goes, straight into the abyss. They never factor human behavior into their models. On both sides it will work against them as the more benefits they dole out and the harsher they punish productivity the less people will feel the need to work and sure you can bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants, legal and otherwise, during a pandemic and hope they'll pick up the slack but that's only going to make the entire situation worse both economically when the unemployment rate is already high and with the virus unless the vaccines work sooner and better than expected.

[cherrypoptart]

Admittedly I don't know anything about Greece except they had a big debt problem and the solution of austerity was not well received. Whoever caused it and why would be interesting to learn about and there's no doubt that under Trump our debt soared too. Maybe it doesn't really matter who's in charge and it's inevitable just like that Scotsman predicted and now the Democrats just won a Pyrrhic victory because to mix metaphors the music for the game of musical chairs is about to stop and they're going to be left holding the bag.

[yossarian22c]

Trump's plans would have worked. If you cut taxes for the rich but revenues to the Treasury continue to rise then that means it's good. That's better than raising taxes on the rich and corporations if it results in wealth flight, reduced productivity because the money is taken instead of reinvested back into the business to expand it, and in the end lower total revenues raised.

We've covered this in another thread. But revenues increased at lower than the rate of inflation during the Trump years with a growing population. Revenues were 5-6% lower than they would have been without the tax cuts.

[cherrypoptart]

Yes, I remembered. I just skimmed a pretty good article about the concepts in play to refamiliarize myself with them.

https://taxfoundation.org/does-lowering-taxes-increase-government-revenue/

Of course the problem is that it's anyone's guess where tax rates are on the Laffer curve and changes to them may take years to manifest results all the while numerous other variables are constantly in play and in motion.

But the point is our country is much more likely to fall because of debt and overspending than it is because of a revolution arising from the right. The so called Green Revolution is a greater danger than a white nationalist revolution. And I'm actually all for a green revolution but one that's technology based instead of the one the Democrats are planning which is based on social justice which often amounts to throwing large amounts of money that we cannot afford at problems and getting results that make things worse for everyone anyway.

[Aris Katsaris]

At this point economy talk about Trump's term all sounds (to me at least) as "He made the trains run on time".

Even if true (which I don't know if it is), no longer particularly relevant. Attempted overthrow of democracy kinda trumps (pun intended) everything else.

[TheDrake]

So we're going to fail because we do similar things to Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Ireland? Those countries don't seem to be failing. The VAT hasn't turned their countries into jobless wastelands. National healthcare as a human right hasn't caused their society to crumble into a dystopian police state. No matter how much our conservatives nightmares are full of such outcomes.

[rightleft22]

In 2018 trump Tax cuts allowed big cooperation's that earned billions in profit to avoid paying any taxes leaving less money for Government to work with leading rising deficits
The GOP demand for lower taxes for the rich then complaining that the government can't solve problems, problems that require money to solve. They then argue that government services should be dealt with by the market. 

No longer government of the people but of the corporation.   You can't trust government look how it handles money that we keep taking away through lower taxes and increased spending the security complex. Best to hand governance of things like healthcare, education, transportation, housing... to the cooperation and the elite businessmen that run them. Sure the average CEO earns 125 times more then their average employs who works for the shareholders. You can trust them to have your best interests at heart. Anyone working for a corporation knows your family... untill your not.

I watch those Trump supporters at those rallies foolishly working against their own self interest and they don't even realize. I suspect is the hope that just maybe one day they will invited into the company of the business elite's.  Perhaps a lucky 1% might but the rest will feed continue to feed off the left overs and wonder why they are so angry... Must be Immigrants fault.

[TheDrake]

I argue that they do not work against their self-interest. If you're talking about their personal outcomes, measured myopically by "how much stuff do I have", then you're accepting the same metrics of the uber rich that you are railing about. Has the monk that takes a vow of poverty worked against his own interest? Ones values are often not measured by goods and services. It can be more important to someone to have a free market healthcare system than having actual access to healthcare. The reason those people feel marginalized is people deciding for them what their values should be. They prefer to live in a world where Bezos and his ilk use their dominant power to minimize any amount expended on their workforce or given to the evil government to distribute to lazy people. I've met people whose convictions in this area who feel strongly enough that they don't file for unemployment when it is available to them, and they've paid into the system.

[yossarian22c]

Yes, I remembered. I just skimmed a pretty good article about the concepts in play to refamiliarize myself with them.

https://taxfoundation.org/does-lowering-taxes-increase-government-revenue/

Of course the problem is that it's anyone's guess where tax rates are on the Laffer curve and changes to them may take years to manifest results all the while numerous other variables are constantly in play and in motion.

No its pretty clear we're at the point on the Laffer curve where lowering taxes reduces revenue. That's exactly what the last set of tax cuts showed. Tax revenues grew at below the level of inflation and way below the levels of inflation plus population growth. You can claim no one knows but we just did an experiment with lowering taxes and revenues were down from where they would have been absent the cuts. There isn't any better evidence than that in economics.

To be on the other side of the Laffer curve tax rates would have to be so high that people curbed profitable economic activity because they didn't want to pay taxes on it. Right now that isn't happening on a large scale or if one individual decides they don't want an opportunity someone else is willing to take it.

[rightleft22]

I argue that they do not work against their self-interest. If you're talking about their personal outcomes, measured myopically by "how much stuff do I have", then you're accepting the same metrics of the uber rich that you are railing about. Has the monk that takes a vow of poverty worked against his own interest? Ones values are often not measured by goods and services. It can be more important to someone to have a free market healthcare system than having actual access to healthcare. The reason those people feel marginalized is people deciding for them what their values should be. They prefer to live in a world where Bezos and his ilk use their dominant power to minimize any amount expended on their workforce or given to the evil government to distribute to lazy people. I've met people whose convictions in this area who feel strongly enough that they don't file for unemployment when it is available to them, and they've paid into the system.

As we move closer and closer to government by the corporation, handing more and more of what power we do have over to the corporation value will most certinarly be measured by goods and services. 

"The reason those people feel marginalized is people deciding for them what their values should be" I usually hear this argument or complaint made by those that want others to live by their values.
For example say society allowing men to marry men goes against ones values. Is society telling you what values you should live by?

I suspect someone could make a good argument that many of those who attempt the Trump rally is to force everyone to live by their values - how they see things.
Its difficult to measure as it likely depends on perspective so this is not a right or left issued unique to one side.

[TheDrake]

I argue that they do not work against their self-interest. If you're talking about their personal outcomes, measured myopically by "how much stuff do I have", then you're accepting the same metrics of the uber rich that you are railing about. Has the monk that takes a vow of poverty worked against his own interest? Ones values are often not measured by goods and services. It can be more important to someone to have a free market healthcare system than having actual access to healthcare. The reason those people feel marginalized is people deciding for them what their values should be. They prefer to live in a world where Bezos and his ilk use their dominant power to minimize any amount expended on their workforce or given to the evil government to distribute to lazy people. I've met people whose convictions in this area who feel strongly enough that they don't file for unemployment when it is available to them, and they've paid into the system.

As we move closer and closer to government by the corporation, handing more and more of what power we do have over to the corporation value will most certinarly be measured by goods and services. 

"The reason those people feel marginalized is people deciding for them what their values should be" I usually hear this argument or complaint made by those that want others to live by their values.
For example say society allowing men to marry men goes against ones values. Is society telling you what values you should live by?

I suspect someone could make a good argument that many of those who attempt the Trump rally is to force everyone to live by their values - how they see things.
Its difficult to measure as it likely depends on perspective so this is not a right or left issued unique to one side.

There is a big difference between using ones values to justify restricting society and using ones values to justify not restricting society. Any kind of regulation by definition is a restriction on action. Stopping people from getting married, having abortions, and lots of other things is restricting others. If someone wants to stop corporations from making political donations, that's a restriction. If someone wants to tell corporations that they must do this or must do that, it is a restriction. I'm not making any claims that a policy is better than another one in this instance, only trying to address your dubious assertion that "they are acting against their own self-interest". Are you more qualified to decide what their self-interest is than those people whom you criticize or demean? Because you are implying that if you take any action that doesn't have a monetary self-interest, then you must be wrong or confused or stupid.

According to that logic, I should rail against any tax increases that cause me to have less money in my pocket. It would be in that narrow definition, against my own self interest.

[rightleft22]

Because you are implying that if you take any action that doesn't have a monetary self-interest, then you must be wrong or confused or stupid.

That wasn't my point, the opposite in fact as my point was that government by corporation would lead to that.

There is a big difference between using ones values to justify restricting society and using ones values to justify not restricting society. Any kind of regulation by definition is a restriction on action

I agree. Freedom is a exercise of setting boundaries that may or may not be justified by ones values. What one person experiences as a restriction another may experience as a opening up. Attache value measurements to that and it gets tricky 

Are you more qualified to decide what their self-interest is than those people whom you criticize or demean

I am criticizing in the classic sense. Is criticism demeaning? Perhaps for the new far left...has the far left gone so far as to meet up with the far right?

Who indeed  is qualified? We each have values even if often our actions and values don't match up.  The example I gave came from a argument I heard made by Ted Cruz (I think it was him) He argued that same sex mirage went against his and those that supported him values. He and his supporters were being discriminated against by those that did not share that value. Forcing them I guess to live in a society were men married men.   Its a perspective but who was trying to forcing people to LIVE whos values? 

In a Democracy no one gets to have everything their way. No one should be 100% happy. Democracy requires compromise, a balancing of freedoms binderies for he greater good. 
Hand that power over to the corporation and see just what boundaries of freedom they create and what values they base those boundaries on.

Yes I think many on the right, like the unionist supporting Reagan, are working against their own best interest.

[TheDrake]

I guess I have to be more clear.

I watch those Trump supporters at those rallies foolishly working against their own self interest and they don't even realize. I suspect is the hope that just maybe one day they will invited into the company of the business elite's.

Do they have to be foolish? Maybe they know they'll never rise above their current job, but still prefer policies that promote a wealth gap. Maybe they fear corporate power less than they fear government power. I'm sure they think you are also foolishly working against your own self interest in promoting more government power.

I think unionists supporting trade unions are foolishly working against their own best interest myself. Including rewarding seniority over ability. Including clawing out work in conflict with other trade unions. Including being forced to pay union dues when they don't want to. Including getting their head cracked in by fellow union brothers and sisters for having the temerity to decide to work instead of strike.

[rightleft22]

Do they have to be foolish?

I sand corrected, no they don't have to be foolish. I apologize, Sorry If I trigger you.

That said I am unable to ascribe to them the motivation of selfless action or values for the greater good. theloudses argument I hear from the group is what I feel is a unfounded belief that lower taxes (for the rich) is for the greater good and make there lives better.

[TheDrake]

Do they have to be foolish?

I sand corrected, no they don't have to be foolish. I apologize, Sorry If I trigger you.

That said I am unable to ascribe to them the motivation of selfless action or values for the greater good. theloudses argument I hear from the group is what I feel is a unfounded belief that lower taxes (for the rich) is for the greater good and make there lives better.

It's not about triggering, its that if we don't have empathy and simply look down on people and dismiss them, then how are we supposed to make any progress in persuading them? I struggle against that tendency myself with varying degrees of success. If the Dalai Lama can have compassion for the Chinese soldiers looking to hunt him down and wipe out his religion, I guess I can probably find some for a guy who wants lower corporate taxes.

[rightleft22]

Begs the question when can a person be considered to be acting foolish - lack of good sense or judgment.

If a person is acting against the greater good and their own best interests - cutting of their nose to spite their face - due to ignorance or not taking the time to consider the ramifications of their actions. Can that be labeled as foolish? Should they be called out. Would the politically correct language be 'lacking in judgment'?

The GOP as moved to a platform of blind de-taxation and deregulation the majority of which help the élite rich businessman and the corporation become richer. The infrastructure that those big corporations need to run is being payed for by the middle class, while the blind lowering of taxes decreases services available to the poor and middle class. When the blind deregulation causes the next crises its never those responsible that pay the price.   Supporting de-taxation (for the rich) blindly without considering the impact, or maybe not understanding the impact is I think by definition foolish.

When a big corporation can manipulate a base to march for them by blowing the dog whistle of de-regulation and lower taxes, without that base paying any attention to the motives of the corporation, without "following the money" then they may want to stop and question what their doing. Not doing so might be called foolish.