"Those who do not learn history ..."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/30/im-a-depression-historian-the-gop-tax-bill-is-straight-out-of-1929/
Saturday, December 2, 2017
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
John Kelly and Robert E Lee
Of particular interest: the pattern.
Secretary Kelly praises traitorous, insurrection-leader Lee (who was never legally a general), implying that Lee wouldn't have opposed compromise.
But the slaver side -- Lee's side -- refused compromise. The abolitionists worked hard to avoid war, arguably far harder than they should have. The their efforts to compromise with slavers might be the greatest taint on the legacy of the abolitionists. In the end, Lee's side utterly rejected working with those who wanted progress, even if Lee's side would have gotten excessive concessions in the bargain.
Today, we can see this in the party whose members typically praise Lee, today's Republicans. Today's Democrats were so desperate to improve healthcare that -- failing to get Republicans to accept their ideal -- they settled for adopting a Republican plan (which became Romneycare and then the ACA / Obamacare) ... just to have some chance of finding a way to compromise and get some meager improvement. But the Republican party rejected compromise, even if that compromise was built upon accepting their designs, their approach.
It's no wonder they praise the Lee's of history. They are the inheritors of Lee's anti-compromise, anti-progress ways in all but name.
Secretary Kelly praises traitorous, insurrection-leader Lee (who was never legally a general), implying that Lee wouldn't have opposed compromise.
But the slaver side -- Lee's side -- refused compromise. The abolitionists worked hard to avoid war, arguably far harder than they should have. The their efforts to compromise with slavers might be the greatest taint on the legacy of the abolitionists. In the end, Lee's side utterly rejected working with those who wanted progress, even if Lee's side would have gotten excessive concessions in the bargain.
Today, we can see this in the party whose members typically praise Lee, today's Republicans. Today's Democrats were so desperate to improve healthcare that -- failing to get Republicans to accept their ideal -- they settled for adopting a Republican plan (which became Romneycare and then the ACA / Obamacare) ... just to have some chance of finding a way to compromise and get some meager improvement. But the Republican party rejected compromise, even if that compromise was built upon accepting their designs, their approach.
It's no wonder they praise the Lee's of history. They are the inheritors of Lee's anti-compromise, anti-progress ways in all but name.
Friday, September 15, 2017
The Latest WSJ Revelations on Flynn and Russian Involvement While On the NSC
"According to the [Wall Street] Journal, the ethics advisors on the National Security Council actually told him to remove himself from this project but quote the activity continued." - Rachel Maddow
See the rest in "New revelations deepen Flynn legal jeopardy".
See the rest in "New revelations deepen Flynn legal jeopardy".
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Payroll Coasting
A picture of coasting:
What was the question we collectively were asking ourselves? Perhaps, "Hey, what would happen if -- before really fully recovering -- we stopped pushing the economy back towards health as soon as we pulled it out of actively crashing?"
If we aim a car up a very slight incline and get going pretty fast and don't hit the brakes, it'll keep going at a fairly steady pace for a while even after the driver's foot leaves the accelerator. Not forever. But for a while.
Realistically, the foot isn't all the way off the pedal. It's more like we've cut back on the gas after quickly getting up to speed on the on-ramp.
We're way below speed limit though. Was that the plan? Why did that seem like a good idea?
What was the question we collectively were asking ourselves? Perhaps, "Hey, what would happen if -- before really fully recovering -- we stopped pushing the economy back towards health as soon as we pulled it out of actively crashing?"
If we aim a car up a very slight incline and get going pretty fast and don't hit the brakes, it'll keep going at a fairly steady pace for a while even after the driver's foot leaves the accelerator. Not forever. But for a while.
Realistically, the foot isn't all the way off the pedal. It's more like we've cut back on the gas after quickly getting up to speed on the on-ramp.
We're way below speed limit though. Was that the plan? Why did that seem like a good idea?
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
How Necessities Have Eaten America's Personal Discretionary Spending Capacity
A Business Insider article tells us "How America's spending habits have changed since 1941".
Spending "habits"? How about how costs have changed?
Seriously, who really believes that Americans want to allot such large portions of our income to housing -- whether rent or mortgage -- and transportation? Let's not forget about debt service, largely for housing and for investing in education to get jobs. And how many wouldn't want to be able to spend more on clothing, food & dining, and personal care?
New headline: how necessities have eaten America's personal discretionary spending capacity.
Thursday, June 8, 2017
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)