The Republicans, the Destroyer of Worlds

Nice spin on putting Putin in the trump detractor category when even Trump finally admits Putin helped him to win the 2016 election.

 

Yeah, that last one was a real haymaker huh?

 

You probably aren't giddy over public surveys that confirm both his domestic and international disrepute either, but that's the way it is.

 

I'll draw your attention to reply #50 ... I'm perfectly comfortale with my opinions and assessments.

 

The Messiah himself proclaimed that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his fans would not care. Such a gross abjuration of moral sensibility identifies a "cult."

If you are able to back up your claim with documentation, please do so.

I assign no credibility to television entertainers either.

Your veneration of Trump blinds you. - Yes, my pretending to know that you worship your Messiah is as silly as your presumption that I feel "hatred" toward the very unpopular POTUS. My sympathy is entirely with those he duped. His transference of wealth to the wealthiest elite, his filling the Washington swamp with toxic Wall Street landfill, and his impotence in resurrecting the coal mining industry are conspicuous amidst his betrayals.

 

Please yourself, by all means.

 

The ultra-poor have had Medicaid -- free medical care -- for decades.
You say Obamacare gave us good things like pre-existing coverage, "children" coverage until 26, and other things. That's mostly true. But then you sneak in "without extra cost." That is where you fall off the cliff. Obamacare has cost tens of millions of insured tons of money: double, triple or more premiums, 5 to 10 times deductibles, plus the non-monetary loss of doctors and medical facilities. It has also cost the taxpayers $1 trillion in government subsidies over its first ten years, and now estimated to cost another $1.4 trillion 2014-2024..

 

I do not "venerate" President Trump. I never liked him. I didn't vote for him.

But.

I feel compelled to defend him because I think the hatred (and you know its hatred) toward him is very damaging AND I believe that any effort to remove him from office will be far, far more destructive than allowing him to stay in office.

Lots of us could not stand President Obama. But I don't remember any kind of widespread denunciation or vilification of President Obama's supporters.

 

I well recall the seething hatred for Obama and the "Liberals!" that supported him; it was relentless. In addition to the personal vilification, one vile clown even led the crackpots in denying his legitimacy via a wacky conspiracy theory that he was not born in the US.

Yet he was elected by a majority of America's voters to two terms and completed his presidency with 59% Approval/ 37% Disapproval. That stands in sharp contrast to Trump who lost the popular vote by 2.9 million and is currently assessed at 36% Approval / 58% Disapproval

My estimations of the two align with the general view of Americans.

My repugnance for Trump as a vile person - whom I had previously ignored as just shlock tv performer - began with his cruel public mocking a handicapped person, and was confirmed when he was exposed as boasting that his celebrity licensed him to sexually violate women.

Still, I would not allow my acknowledging that he is a narcissistic lowlife to influence my impression of him in his capacity as a POTUS, savaging American values and demeaning the US on the world stage. I do not indulge in "hate" and feel sorry for those he has duped.

If the Special Counsel appointed by the Trump Justice Department, Republican-run investigative Senate committees, and Republican-run House investigative committees find cause to remove him from the office he has disgraced, I fear the replacement of an impotent figurehead with a character that would collude with his extremist cronies in Congress, succeeding in depriving tens of millions of Americans of health insurance, driving up the price for the elderly, and all whist transferring wealth to the wealthiest.

"Hate" -and there is plenty to go around - will have nothing to do with it.

 

Do you have links to posts here at PoliticalForum of people espousing hatred for the "liberals" as you
claim?

 

Yes. Dehumanize people who have different beliefs then you. Boldedly and unfoundedly claim that if I disagree with you it's because I want to destroy the world. That mindset always works out great and never ends in, idk, some guy trying to assassinate dozens of government officials.

 

Where did I ever claim that I had "links to posts here at PoliticalForum of people espousing hatred for the 'liberals'"? Please cite even one instance of my ever saying such a thing.

As I noted, there is plenty of hatred to go around, but if you need to deny that, there is nothing to prevent your doing so.

 

You said

I well recall the seething hatred for Obama and the "Liberals!" that supported him

Given that we're posting here on Politicalforum and you are making that assertion here, logic dictates that you must have observed some of the "hatred" or President Obama's supporters here on this forum.

That does not make sense to you?

 

So, you admit that I never said anything about "links to posts here at PoliticalForum of people espousing hatred for the 'liberals'" - although contempt for "Liberals!" is a meme of right wing media entertainmenters that is frequently parroted by their followers.

"Hatred" for politicians is undeniable, but what is more significant is that, at the end of Barack Obama's term, he registered 59% approval with Americans surveyed, and 64% of global respondents in the recent Pew poll said they were confident in Obama, compared to 22% who have confidence in Trump. 74% of those surveyed said they have no confidence in Trump - a negative estimation that is also expressed by most Americans. The world has a low opinion of Trump, and Americans largely agree.

 

You are doing the exact same thing in the OP as you are doing in this answer. There is literally nothing but conjecture in your first post, how can someone actually discuss what you wrote?

Over sensationalizing of the issues is a huge problem in America and your rhetoric only fuels the fires

 

History paints another picture of the post WW II growth of the middle class in America. Several factors were involved, all of which contributed to that growth. Economists point to the GI Bill that provided both formal education as well as technical job training for millions of those returning from the war.

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/r...ots-of-the-middle-class/stories/201111200308/

In the same article linked above it also address Federal Housing Administration that provided assistance for home ownership and the resulting creation of the suburbs in the 1950's as well as the pre-WW II unions that emerged after WW II stronger than ever albeit with the involvement of organized crime until the 1960's when, as Attorney General, Robert Kennedy initiated a major law enforcement effort against organized crime.

Also of great significance is globalization that originated under President Truman. Truman knew that to be a world political power the United States, by necessity, had to be an economic power. The United States was the highest producing nation after WW II and it was the opening up of world markets that provided the additional revenue to fund the dramatic expansion of the middle class.

Politically the middle class in American was a result of the economic policies and agenda of FDR and Truman that supported strong organized labor, government programs that benefited lower income Americans, and globalization trade policies.

The Republican assault on the middle class began virtually before it existed with the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 that required an over-ride of Truman's veto. The purpose of Taft-Hartley was to gut the power of the unions but it took over twenty years for that to happen when President Reagan used Taft-Hartley to eliminate the Air Traffic Controllers union in 1981.

The Democrats also played an unintentional role in stripping the unions of power when Robert Kennedy initiated a campaign by the Justice Department to remove organized labor from the unions. During the 1950's and 1960's organized labor had used "unlawful" coercion to secure lucrative contracts for workers. They were able to secure significant wage and benefit increases based upon the increased productivity during this time period. With the loss of the (illegal coercion) of organized crime the unions didn't have the lawful power necessary to negotiate increased compensation and benefits based upon increased productivity. The last of the contracts where that was accomplished ended in around 1973 which is why there was a divergence between productivity and hourly wages that year.

What needed to happen was that when organized labor, that had been using illegal coercion to secure contracts, was expelled from the unions the government needed to provide additional "lawful" power to the unions to replace the power that was lost. Instead, at that time, the Republicans established their "anti-union" agenda with propaganda condemning the unions citing the involvement of organized crime that no longer existed by the 1970's.

So in 1973 the unions had lost the power to negotiate increases in compensation based upon productivity, the Republicans had taken over the presidency and were successful in replacing the economic policies of FDR and Truman with the new Republican economic policies. The divergence between productivity and wage and the beginning of the income and wealth inequalities began in the early 1970's under Nixon, got worse under Reagan that destroyed any remaining power of the unions with Taft-Hartley, and supply side economics that resulted in the bottom 50th percentile having zero or negative real income growth during his administration and the most harmed were the bottom 10th percentile, that could afford it the least, saw their real income decline by over 14% by 1989.

As experts on globalization note there have been economic challenges for the United States because developing countries don't have the expenditures that an advanced nation has our challenges isn't because of globalization itself. Our challenge is really about the inequality of wealth distribution were the wealthy are receiving more while everyone else is receiving less. We're producing far more and selling far more that ever before but the money's going into the pockets of the wealthy, not the middle class, because "trickle down" has never "trickled down" below the very top income brackets.

Protectionism and the withdrawal from international trade agreements is going to cut off a primary source of revenue for American workers. The wealthy are harmed by protectionism, just the average person is harmed. For example Trump just initiated a tariff on Canadian lumber. Guess who pays the tariff. It's not the Canadian lumber industry. We're going to pay that tax the next time we purchase a new home or build a swing-set out of wood in our backyard. The US can also lose entire markets as was the case when Trump withdrew from the TPP. China is stepping in to fill the void with their own free trade agreement, they've become the economic power in the Pacific. China will bess the nation furnishing goods that used to be produce in the United State before Trump withdrew from the TPP. China gets political power, increases it's exports, creates jobs to provide the exports while the US will have lower exports, jobs will be lost, and the US has no say politically in the Pacific region. Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris accord and gave the leadership to China. China's going to make the money on renewable fuel and green friendly products while the US loses it's leadership role and will not see the growth in the "green energy" market where the projected job growth dwarfed the losses in the coal energy fields.

If we want to tank the US economy for the middle class we don't really have to do anything different than today because our current economy is based upon Republican economic polies that have been destroying the middle class since the early 1970's With control of the Congress and White House the Republicans are going to merely accelerate the destruction of the Middle Class.

Note: It's not the economic policies for the wealthy that critiques cite as being Nazi inspired. It's the discrimination against "Mexicans" and the religious intolerance of Muslims by Trump and his White Nationalist supporters. Trump's mass deportation plan (that's resulted in more detentions and fewer deportations) and his Muslim travel ban (based upon an opinion as opposed to facts establishing a real threat) that justify the awarding of Donald Trum Trump (and Trump supporters) with the "Nazi" logo.

It was far more than just a tweaked right wing think tank recommendations. But as accurately noted the Democrats considered recommendation by the Heritage Foundation that may have arguably been the underlying foundation was the Republican "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993."

In addition to the 1993 law and the Heritage Foundation recommendations the Democrats reviewed the committee advice by Congressional Republican in 1998 (as I recall) and they addressed the provisions of Romneycare that was working in Massachusetts. The Democrats took all of the Republican proposals on health care over the years and that provided the structure that the ACA (Obamacare) was built around. They tried to get Republicans involved in addressing how to fill in the necessary requirements to make the prior Republican proposals work with fewer glitches. If the 1993 Republican proposed legislation was good enough for Republicans to use against Hillarycare in 1993 then the updated version incorporating the Republican proposals and advancements in addressing health care reform should have gained instant support from Republicans.

Unfortunately by late 2009 and early 2010 the Republicans had already adopted the "Oppose Anything Obama/Democrats" position especially if it might be something beneficial to Americans. The last thing they wanted was for Obama to get any credit for any accomplishments beneficial to the American people while in office.

Hundreds of hours of broadcast committee meetings and not one Republican proposal on how to implement or overcome any problems related to these conservative health care proposals. Republicans went off on tangents, basically wasting committee time, in addressing issues that wouldn't have provide insurance to one poor or low income household in America.

Obamacare was specifically designed to provide health insurance to the poor either by the expansion of Medicaid that had been traditionally underfunded since it's creation in the 1960's to those that could only afford part of the costs and required subsidies, to those with pre-existing conditions where the insurance costs were so high that a person had to be a millionaire to afford the insurance.

The rapidly rising premiums, the increased deductibles and copays, the lack of subsidies for those that need a subsidy but don't qualify we can blame the Republicans that have controlled the House since 2011. All of these problems related to funding of Obamacare that comes from America's wealthiest households. You and I don't fund Obamacare, the wealthy that can afford the small tax imposed upon them fund Obamacare. I've heard Republicans say Obamacare is too expensive Americans and that's kind of stupid considering that it's not costing anyone with less than $200,000/yr ($250,000 for joint returns) a dime.

Yes, Obamacare has some problems and Democrats even identified many of those problems in 2014 during Obamacare's very first year. The problems have been identified along with numerous proposals to fix them. Two out of three Americans don't want Obamacare repealed, they want it fixed. Every major medical organization wants Obamacare fixed and not repealed.

America's problem is that virtually every friggin' Republican wants to repeal Obamacare, un-insure over 20 million Americans, and watch them die by the tens of thousands every year because they lost their health insurance and can't afford to see the doctor without it, just so they can provide a tax cut to the super-wealthy that already have more money than they could spend in a dozen lifetimes.

Of course that's not the only reason Republicans are the "Destroyer of Worlds" because we can look at the elimination of environmental protection, abandonment of our public school systems, the attack on our civil rights, and their refusal to reduce CO2 emissions to curb global warming (after the three hottest consecutive temperatures for the planet on record) that even the Pentagon states is the greatest world threat today.

 

Presidents that are out of office or on the verge of leaving office routinely get a spike in approval numbers.

If you have read recently you will see that the over maligned President Bush has gotten a considerable bump in approval.

 

Bush absconded after his two terms with a favourably-disposed FOX/Opinion Dynamics rating of 34%/ Approval/ 58% Disapproval - and several other polls were even worst for him, about 30 approval points below Obama. Whether Obama's numbers improves even further over time, only time can tell. It can be kind to ex-presidents, Jimmy Carer being the prime example.

 

Which goes to show just how worthless it can be.

 

Public opinion during a presidency and, especially, at it's end when the public has a retrospective view that still fresh in their minds is as valid a gauge as we have.

Ex-presidents tend to improve with age because they are no longer in office, the less popular aspects fade, and there is sometimes even a PR effort to build them up.

 

That is certainly true with the repulsive President Carter.

 

Reagan's image-making machine was truly masterful. Carter has simply been a far better ex-president than he was a president.

 

Yes, Carter spent years trolling for a Nobel Peace Prize. Something he only got as a reaction to President George W. Bush (Nobel committee member said that outright).

But Carters unwanted intervention in the North Korean crisis in 1994 prevented President Clinton from ordering an attack on North Korea. Thanks to Jimmy Carter, tens of millions of North Koreans have languished in brutal oppression for another quarter century and several million have died.

That far outweighs building some houses.

Ronald Reagan's "image making machine" was the Berlin Wall coming down less than a year after he left office when his policies were still in effect and only a couple of years after he called on Gorbachev to "tear down this wall".

 

Carter's Habitat for Humanity work won him much acclaim. His anticipating Dennis Rodman in his North Korean naïvité was just foolish.

Reagan's supplying arms to terrorists scandal and his putting US military personnel in an extremely vulnerable position in Beirut where 241 were slaughtered (after which he cut and ran despite his promise of a retaliatory strike) are aspects that his pr team have worked hard to downplay.

Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson gave him a great line in 1987, but it wasn't really hyped until 1989, after the wall had come down. Of course, many had predicted the imminent collapse of the USSR, but some - the CIA conspicuous among them - were surprised by it.

Michael Deaver was Reagan's pr genius.

 

People had predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union for years. And I do remember his "tear down this wall" portion of his speech when it was made. Reagan himself insisted it be added.

And the U.S. did conduct repeated retaliatory strikes in Lebanon after the Marine Barracks bombing.