[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2016-July-30, 07:04, said:

Clinton's specific plans are detailed and easily accessible. It seems that's one of her problems: Hillary Clinton has a very detailed plan for the economy. That may be a problem.


My personal preference is for detailed plans. I'd like it if the White House would provide a detailed set of plans every year to support the State of the Union address. Each State of the Union address would generally explain what did and did not go according to the previous plan, how the actual performance tracked the original plan and why the variances occurred, and explain both the new and continuing goals. That would all be broad brush: I don't believe that details generally belong in a major address unless they are dramatically important and easy to state.

Beyond that, I'd like the White House to provide quarterly updates on how the latest plans are progressing. If a major change is needed mid year, the need for those changes would be explained in a short address to the nation.

But I see from this article that I might be in the minority on this. It wouldn't be the first time.

Problem with this is there is this little group called Congress who don't always adopt the plan as envisioned by the WH and who don't always follow the plan precisely. Any comparison of the plan to the actual results most likely would end up in finger pointing and little constructive details.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-July-30, 06:17, said:

I have thought a bit about why I reacted as strongly as I did to Bernie Sanders. Perhaps this: His fundamental message was "Your problems are someone else's fault". The big banks, Wall Street. The One Percent. Ok, to some extent this is true. But we still need practical solutions.

I'm not sure why you dislike Sanders but that is OK as we don't all like everybody.

Your thoughts gave me pause, though, and it made me wonder where and how his support came about. Looking closer at your quote above, it made me realize that the issues he talks about (and the details of those issues) are only found on the internet. You simply do not see newspapers, magazines, or news broadcasts talking about wealth inequality and the reasons behind it, how Wall Street evaded jail over the Great Recession, and what Democratic Socialism means in a real setting.

The internet is how the young identify, gain and pass information, and learn. I think Bernie tapped into this.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2016-July-30, 08:28, said:

Problem with this is there is this little group called Congress who don't always adopt the plan as envisioned by the WH and who don't always follow the plan precisely. Any comparison of the plan to the actual results most likely would end up in finger pointing and little constructive details.

Plans never go precisely as envisioned. That's fine.

My thought is that instead of name-calling and demonizing, the White House could say objectively whether this or that was killed in Congress, is progressing slowly through Congress, has been modified in Congress, and so on, and could describe the resulting ramifications. This process would encourage (force?) Congress to elaborate specifically upon the reasons for killing this or that, and so on. This transparency would reduce the emotional political finger-pointing and would provide those of us interested -- as well as the press -- a more objective view of the process in action.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2016-July-30, 09:30, said:

Plans never go precisely as envisioned. That's fine.

My thought is that instead of name-calling and demonizing, the White House could say objectively whether this or that was killed in Congress, is progressing slowly through Congress, has been modified in Congress, and so on, and could describe the resulting ramifications. This process would encourage (force?) Congress to elaborate specifically upon the reasons for killing this or that, and so on. This transparency would reduce the emotional political outbursts and would provide those of us interested -- as well as the press -- a more objective view of the process in action.

I like your idea but have qualms about its implementation. There would have to be the opposition party response on CNN, and then once again it deteriorates into finger-pointing.

I think President Obama hit on the real issue - as did Hillary to a tiny degree - and to a larger degree the person I think of as a friend, Kenberg, that the issue is that our democracy is not working as it should and that is our fault. The President pointed out that change is hard but it begins locally and builds outwards - Hillary talked realistically like an adult that all that can truly be expected from any one presidency is incremental movement.

To me, more than anything else, the two comventions can be simplified to the following: one used a strong father figure to promises as if speaking to a group of frightened children that "I'm here and I can keep you safe", and the other appeared to be adults respecting and speaking to other adults about what needs to be done and the difficulty of reaching those goals.

This election is about whether we decide to grow up and take personal responsibility or whether we will simply pee our pants and cry out for Daddy!

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2016-July-30, 09:44, said:

I like your idea but have qualms about its implementation. There would have to be the opposition party response on CNN, and then once again it deteriorates into finger-pointing.

I think President Obama hit on the real issue - as did Hillary to a tiny degree - and to a larger degree the person I think of as a friend, Kenberg, that the issue is that our democracy is not working as it should and that is our fault. The President pointed out that change is hard but it begins locally and builds outwards - Hillary talked realistically like an adult that all that can truly be expected from any one presidency is incremental movement.

To me, more than anything else, the two comventions can be simplified to the following: one used a strong father figure to promises as if speaking to a group of frightened children that "I'm here and I can keep you safe", and the other appeared to be adults respecting and speaking to other adults about what needs to be done and the difficulty of reaching those goals.

This election is about whether we decide to grow up and take personal responsibility or whether we will simply pee our pants and cry out for Daddy!

I don't mind the arguing and finger-pointing when there is something objective and specific to argue about. And sure, the republicans are going after the pants-pisser votes again this year, but this time the democrats are competing for those votes too -- albeit in a more adult way, without the crying for Daddy subtext.

You are right that in recent years the republicans have, sadly, abandoned the personal responsibility principle to attract votes from the irresponsible. Recall that the republican AGs for several states attacked the ACA all the way to the Supreme Court to insist that folks had a constitutional right to emergency health care paid for by those responsible enough to buy insurance -- trying hard to convince the court of a constitutional right to be a free-loader. Then there are the foolishly irresponsible people who advocate cutting taxes before cutting the required spending -- idiots for sure, but a significant voting bloc.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-July-30, 06:17, said:

We are told that we are at a crossroads. Yes, but I only wish it were that simple. I have thought a bit about why I reacted as strongly as I did to Bernie Sanders. Perhaps this: His fundamental message was "Your problems are someone else's fault". The big banks, Wall Street. The One Percent. Ok, to some extent this is true. But we still need practical solutions.

I can't explain you why you reacted negatively to Sanders, but I can explain why I did.

I think if I spent a day getting briefed on foreign policy and brain-storming possible lines of attack, I would be able to make Clinton's hawkish record on foreign policy a problem for her in a democratic primary. And as you know, mathematicians are not known for great debating skills. Sanders had months to do the same; in addition he had been a professional politician for decades, and as a Senator foreign policy had been part of his job for more than 10 years. He wasn't able to do that.

I genuinely think that on some levels, Wall Street is ripping off the middle class. When pension funds for police offers invest in high-fee blah-performance funds (rather than low-fee blah-performance index funds), when there are still TV shows providing "stock tips", when bank advisers get bonuses depending on how many high-fee investments they sell to their clue-less middle class customers, then, well, I gotto admit that there is substance to "The system is rigged" rhetoric. But what are Sanders' plans? According to everything I have read, his plan just shouted "BREAK UP THE BANKS" but would be less effective at reducing systemic risk for the financial system than Clinton's plans. And that's his signature issue.

I have great sympathy for a plan to bring universal single-payer healthcare to the US. But it is a tricky thing to make work! For one thing, you'd suddenly need more doctors. For another...well let me stop there. How did Sanders' plans address these issues? Not at all. In fact, his original plan assumed more savings from renegotiating drug prices for Medicare than Medicare is currently spending on drugs. I am not making this up.

Sanders' rhetoric is simplistic. Maybe that's intentional, because complicated rhetoric is difficult to sell. Sanders' stances on foreign policy were simplistic. Maybe that was intentional, in order to be able to focus on domestic policy. Sanders' plan for Wall Street reform is simplistic. Maybe it's intentional, because a more detailed and actually working plan would leave him fewer options once elected. Sanders' plan for universal single-payer health care was simplistic. Maybe that's intentional, as he knew he was only selling a goal that we should strive for, not something he could accomplish in his first term.

That's a lot of maybes. At some point, Occam's razor should apply. Just perhaps, Sanders' rhetoric and plans are simplistic because his thinking is simplistic.

Add to that his costly mistakes towards the end of the primary, when it was clear that he would lose. He states he wants to help Clinton win, and I believe him (while also trying to pull her and the party to the left as far as possible). But towards that goal, he should have chosen delegates who don't stage completely silly counter-productive protests at the DNC. He should have stopped his (ridiculous, in my view) "The entire Democratic party establishment is bought by Wall Street" rhetoric two months ago, not a week ago.

I am glad he pulled Clinton to the left. I am glad he won't be president, I think he'd have been a disaster - his heart in the right place, but completely incompetent at basically every relevant skill other than public speaking.

[y66]

The Path to Prosperity Is Blue

Who knew?

[akwoo]

It's hardly surprising that people who have more economically useful skills are in favor of an economy founded on global competition while people who have fewer such skills are not.

[shyams]

 y66, on 2016-July-30, 19:35, said:

The Path to Prosperity Is Blue

Who knew?

One Mississippi, Two Mississippi, Three Mississippi.

Wow!

Four Mississippi missed by a whisker.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-July-30, 19:29, said:

I can't explain you why you reacted negatively to Sanders, but I can explain why I did.

I think if I spent a day getting briefed on foreign policy and brain-storming possible lines of attack, I would be able to make Clinton's hawkish record on foreign policy a problem for her in a democratic primary. And as you know, mathematicians are not known for great debating skills. Sanders had months to do the same; in addition he had been a professional politician for decades, and as a Senator foreign policy had been part of his job for more than 10 years. He wasn't able to do that.

I genuinely think that on some levels, Wall Street is ripping off the middle class. When pension funds for police offers invest in high-fee blah-performance funds (rather than low-fee blah-performance index funds), when there are still TV shows providing "stock tips", when bank advisers get bonuses depending on how many high-fee investments they sell to their clue-less middle class customers, then, well, I gotto admit that there is substance to "The system is rigged" rhetoric. But what are Sanders' plans? According to everything I have read, his plan just shouted "BREAK UP THE BANKS" but would be less effective at reducing systemic risk for the financial system than Clinton's plans. And that's his signature issue.

I have great sympathy for a plan to bring universal single-payer healthcare to the US. But it is a tricky thing to make work! For one thing, you'd suddenly need more doctors. For another...well let me stop there. How did Sanders' plans address these issues? Not at all. In fact, his original plan assumed more savings from renegotiating drug prices for Medicare than Medicare is currently spending on drugs. I am not making this up.

Sanders' rhetoric is simplistic. Maybe that's intentional, because complicated rhetoric is difficult to sell. Sanders' stances on foreign policy were simplistic. Maybe that was intentional, in order to be able to focus on domestic policy. Sanders' plan for Wall Street reform is simplistic. Maybe it's intentional, because a more detailed and actually working plan would leave him fewer options once elected. Sanders' plan for universal single-payer health care was simplistic. Maybe that's intentional, as he knew he was only selling a goal that we should strive for, not something he could accomplish in his first term.

That's a lot of maybes. At some point, Occam's razor should apply. Just perhaps, Sanders' rhetoric and plans are simplistic because his thinking is simplistic.

Add to that his costly mistakes towards the end of the primary, when it was clear that he would lose. He states he wants to help Clinton win, and I believe him (while also trying to pull her and the party to the left as far as possible). But towards that goal, he should have chosen delegates who don't stage completely silly counter-productive protests at the DNC. He should have stopped his (ridiculous, in my view) "The entire Democratic party establishment is bought by Wall Street" rhetoric two months ago, not a week ago.

I am glad he pulled Clinton to the left. I am glad he won't be president, I think he'd have been a disaster - his heart in the right place, but completely incompetent at basically every relevant skill other than public speaking.

I am gong to give more thought to where the Dems are going, it's a big question, but first a few more words about Sanders. It is now a cliche that he did far better than anyone, probably including himself, expected. And, as the campaign progressed, I found myself more put off by him than I had expected. I am still working on figuring this out.

It is not exactly that I find him simplistic. It's more like this: Someone looks at 2008 and realizes that something is seriously wrong. It sure was/is. And some could see it before hand. I claim no expertise but in fact I realized something was amiss. We moved a little before everything hit the fan, and I had told the realtor handing the sale of my house that I wanted it sold as soon as a reasonable offer could be found, I was not after the top buck, and I thought prices were in for a crash. I had no idea of the magnitude, and no solid understanding of what was going on, but it all seemed off.

But here is where I think I part company with Sanders. I have not done a historical study, but I would be willing to bet that he was railing against banks in 2000. And in 1990. My view was and is that something was screwed up and required/requires fixing. His view, I think, was and is that banks, at least big banks, are bad. For example, while of course we would hope that bankers would take the trust of depositors seriously, it would be naive to think that suffices. For fraud, people should go to jail. But much of the problem seemed to lie somewhere between fraud and honest error . Bad choices in banking practices, even if not fraudulent, should lead to bad results for those who set the policy. This did not always happen, and even if it did happen down the line to some, the expectations were such that natural caution vanished. This needs fixing, but waving fists in the air and shouting about the One Percent is not the approach I favor.

There are many variants, not necessarily involving banks. Coal mining is a difficult and dangerous way to make a living, but not nearly as difficult and dangerous as it once was. Government action was needed, and more government action would be useful, to improve safety. Many industrial jobs are safer than they once were because of government action. But while I am willing to accept that some industrialists might well be truly evil, most are not. What is needed is proper regulation and enforcement.

Sanders comes across to me as someone who, in his 20s and in his 70s, sees and saw capitalism, industry, and in particular banks, as the enemy. He speaks of a revolution. I don't want a revolution. Not an actual revolution, and probably not a metaphorical one either.

A lot has been said about how support for Clinton or Sanders divides along lines of age. There is something to this. Although I was not much in favor of a revolution what I was 25 either.


I expect I would like some of Sanders' proposals. I think, at the root of it, I just don't like him.

I am finding many of the posts here to be of considerable interest. I do think this is a time when some political realignment is very much in the cards. I appreciate readng everyone's views.

[Winstonm]

In the Oklahoma primaries I voted for Clinton rather than Sanders, although I agree with Sanders on quite a few points. One of the reasons is that I have grown to appreciate Obama as one of the great Presidents we have ever had due to his evenhanded temperament, his intelligence, his restraint, and his long-range viewpoint. I think Clinton mirrors this to some degree. Sanders? No.

Sanders supporters want immediate change. Personally, I think this is much in keeping with an overall idea of mine that as a country we have lost understanding of the benefits of delayed gratification. The changes Sanders wants could take 100 years of incremental movement toward that goal. Hillary nailed it when she spoke of planting the seeds in a garden that we will never see. For the most part, that is how this democracy works.

[Winstonm]

Just ran into this quote from a conservative about the Democratic convention:

Quote

National Review editor Jonah Goldberg:

Why this convention is better: It's about loving America. GOP convention was about loving Trump. If you didn't love Trump, it offered nada.

The fact that someone pulling for the GOP recognizes Trump's constant need to be the center of all attention and praise is quite telling, IMO. As much as Ken hates to hear about this, I feel that it only re-enforces the notion that Trump's narcissistic tendencies make it impossible for him to make decisions that do not directly serve his ego needs, and those needs make him totally unqualified to hold the office of President - not to mention how dangerous he would be.

[kenberg]

Me? Oh I agree about Trump. I may have objected to getting too much into psychological diagnosis but in the common usage of "narcissist" I think it fits. "Bombastic jerk" might be better, but narcissist will do.

I was with my younger daughter Saturday. The occasion was a funeral, so political discussion was minimal. But she mentioned that she had tuned in for some of the convention. I asked her what she thought of Hillary's speech."I fell asleep". She puts in long hours so we might not want to draw too many conclusions, but still.

And a (somewhat distant) family member posted on Facebook that she will be voting for Trump (Becky keeps track of baby pictures and such things on Facebook, I only read what she shows me). She was a bit defiant, something like "People will say I am stupid. It's what I am doing."

I think that quite a few people who usually lean R might be willing to re-consider this year, but the case is not obvious to them. A good portion of the convention seemed to be making an effort to (re?) connect with them. We shall see how that effort goes.

[mike777]

Wow are some posters naive what living paycheck to paycheck means...It means you have no money, you are running out of money if you miss a few paychecks. It means you are indeed worried and anxious how you will pay the mortgage, rent and provide for your family. YOu most certainly do NOT have 6 months savings. I posted one study after 2 seconds search, feel free to look for years of more research if interested. The fact that posters are unaware and wish to debate evidence says it all. Evidence that so many Americans are fearful and anxious. As further evidence I point out there are what 300 million or 330 million guns in America. I dont claim a proof, I present evidence.02

---------------
---------------


All of this is driving voters not towards Republicans but towards voting Democratic.
Democrats are driving a bigger Nanny state and voters are buying.
1)More pension or social security or medicare for older folks such as myself.
2) More free college, forgive student loans for others.
3) More help/free stuff for Single moms and parents with young children.
4) MORe discussion about an income a free income from the govt for all including you.
5) MOre free healthcare for all.

etc.

-----

I still expect something close to 350-190 for Clinton but only roughly 32-34% of eligible voters for clinton.
Not sure how much it will matter if you consider Trump at Best unworthy of being President or if you prefer name calling some call Trump an excellent con man.

[mike777]

Complete side note regarding families with more than 100K of income. More than a few you may be surprised to know have less than 6 months savings. People do seem to love/live on their credit cards, even those above 100K. Heck even million dollar/euro earnings seem to find a way to spend too much.

There is even the urban story/myth?? how lottery winners go broke...dont know how much is truth or envy.

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2016-July-31, 17:08, said:

Wow are some posters naive what living paycheck to paycheck means...It means you have no money, you are running out of money if you miss a few paychecks. It means you are indeed worried and anxious how you will pay the mortgage, rent and provide for your family. YOu most certainly do NOT have 6 months savings. I posted one study after 2 seconds search, feel free to look for years of more research if interested. The fact that posters are unaware and wish to debate evidence says it all. Evidence that so many Americans are fearful and anxious. As further evidence I point out there are what 300 million or 330 million guns in America. I dont claim a proof, I present evidence.02

---------------
---------------


All of this is driving voters not towards Republicans but towards voting Democratic.
Democrats are driving a bigger Nanny state and voters are buying.
1)More pension or social security or medicare for older folks such as myself.
2) More free college, forgive student loans for others.
3) More help/free stuff for Single moms and parents with young children.
4) MORe discussion about an income a free income from the govt for all including you.
5) MOre free healthcare for all.

etc.

-----

I still expect something close to 350-190 for Clinton but only roughly 32-34% of eligible voters for clinton.
Not sure how much it will matter if you consider Trump at Best unworthy of being President or if you prefer name calling some call Trump an excellent con man.

As usual you generalize for the sake of your ideology.

Paycheck-to-paycheck living is generally understood to mean a person who would have substantial problems paying for food, rents, and transportation if one or more paychecks were missed. But there is a huge difference between someone in this category making $100,000 a year and someone making $12,000 a year.

In many cases, the problem is one of overindulgence rather than economic. Many people try to live on the edge of their means or even over their means and that can indeed cause anxiety. That is not the same anxiety felt by a 50-year-old whose factory closed and the only job(s) he could find thereafter came with nametags and a paper hat.

Trump supporters tend to be white and the least educated - that is the same group hurt the most financially by globalization. That does not explain why someone with a college education and a decent job would feel enough anxiety about living beyond their means to vote for Trump.

The answer must lie elsewhere.

Personally, I think the answer lies in the psychological makeup of voters, shaken, not stirred, with the changing times and perceived threats, both real and imagined. The two biggest motivators of human behavior are fear of loss and desire for gain. I think both are in play for Trump supporters, and the dual effect from this psychological blasting cap sets off a powerful emotional explosion that rips apart reason and cognitive skills.

[mike777]

Winston, first of all thank you for taking the time to read my post and respond.

I am not sure what your point is. Yes I am biased by my ideology. I grew up a liberal, indeed I am still a liberal and far left winger. A liberal with emphasis on individual freedom, free markets and a limited state.


Granted as I grow older i grow more tempted by free stuff which will be paid by young folks or the unborn.

-----

-----


Upon reflection perhaps the above is a bit unfair. Having been in the streets in 1968 in Chicago at the convention, liberal or conservative were not on my mind, the draft and war were. Later at 16 and making my own way, politics was nice, the war and the draft and paying my rent were more important than theory.

----


It might be cute to say at 16 and paying my own bills I was thought of free markets and a a limited state....the truth is closer to I wanted to pass my college courses and make money to pay my rent. To say i lived pAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK IS SUPREME AND DEBATE IT IS NONSENSE

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2016-July-31, 08:35, said:

ISanders supporters want immediate change. Personally, I think this is much in keeping with an overall idea of mine that as a country we have lost understanding of the benefits of delayed gratification. The changes Sanders wants could take 100 years of incremental movement toward that goal. Hillary nailed it when she spoke of planting the seeds in a garden that we will never see. For the most part, that is how this democracy works.

Of course everyone would like immediate change, but realistic people understand that you can't change the system overnight. But you have to start sometime, and most politicians aren't interested in making any radical changes to the status quo. The Civil Rights Bill was passed 50 years ago, yet there was still segregation (both official and unofficial) for decades after.

So if Sanders could become President, it's unlikely he could actually break up the banks like he suggested right away, but he'd have been more likely to propose the initial steps necessary.

Kind of like Obama and health care. The ACA is his signature legislation, but it's significantly watered down from what he proposed, because of all the compromises necessary to get it through Congress. But it's a step in the right direction.

During campaigns, politicians all make bold promises. You have to listen to them through the appropriate filter. Also, there's little point in them going into detail about how they'll achieve their plans. First, it's not generally up to them, it's up to Congress. Second, 99% of voters would have little interest in reading the details -- they don't have the expertise necessary to understand them. Campaigns are about emotional responses to the candidates, not about facts and figures. Dubya won because he was the candidate people would like to have a beer with.

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2016-July-31, 18:39, said:

Winston, first of all thank you for taking the time to read my post and respond.

I am not sure what your point is. Yes I am biased by my ideology. I grew up a liberal, indeed I am still a liberal and far left winger. A liberal with emphasis on individual freedom, free markets and a limited state.


Granted as I grow older i grow more tempted by free stuff which will be paid by young folks or the unborn.

-----

-----


Upon reflection perhaps the above is a bit unfair. Having been in the streets in 1968 in Chicago at the convention, liberal or conservative were not on my mind, the draft and war were. Later at 16 and making my own way, politics was nice, the war and the draft and paying my rent were more important than theory.

----


It might be cute to say at 16 and paying my own bills I was thought of free markets and a a limited state....the truth is closer to I wanted to pass my college courses and make money to pay my rent. To say i lived pAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK IS SUPREME AND DEBATE IT IS NONSENSE

Swell, but what about my main argument that there are substantial differences between the paycheck-to-paycheck of the working poor and the pay-to-pay of the middle and upper middle class, and that delayed gratification is a forgotten skill of those above poverty levels?

[Zelandakh]

 mike777, on 2016-July-31, 18:39, said:

I am still a liberal and far left winger.

I hope you realise that "liberal" and "far left winger" are two completely different things in every country except the USA. In many countries, such as Germany, the Liberals are regarded as a centre-right party and that is probably the best description of the original Liberal party too. From your post I would imagine you are more Liberal than left-winger. For reference, Jeremy Corbyn is left wing - how many of his personal policy choices do you agree with?

As to your previous post, you made a statement:

 mike777, on 2016-July-28, 16:07, said:

I think many posters here forget that 80-90% of voters who miss a couple of paychecks would be in deep trouble.

and when challenged tried to back that up with a link:

 mike777, on 2016-July-28, 18:37, said:

http://money.cnn.com...rgency-savings/

That link not only did not back up your "statistic" but also provided a definition for "living paycheck to paycheck" of "less cash in their savings account than 6 months' expenses". It was pointed out that this covers many people that would not ordinarily come under such a heading and now you complain that we do not understand the definition. The definition came from you Mike. If you think the definition is wrong then post a link that does not misuse a common phrase to try to grab attention. But most of all, do not post rubbish and then complain about others trying to engage with you on it. That is even worse than an AIU discussion!

For the record, I consider living paycheck to paycheck to mean that my buffer zone for expenses is less than one paycheck. That is quite often accompanied by having a period of zero cash where it is necessary to wait for the paycheck to clear before being able to pay for things. I do not consider having 6 months' worth of savings to be in a similar situation, nor do I consider ignoring assets outside of savings accounts legitimate. Level of income is also relevant in as much as beyond a certain amount it would be reasonable to assume that the individual had some non-essential expenses if they were unable to save. Even better would be some way of measuring that.

So let us go back to the beginning. Your claim is that 80-90% of American voters would be in deep trouble if they missed a couple of pay checks. let us put aside whether that would qualify them as living paycheck to paycheck and instead focus on whether this is actually true or just a typical made-up internet statistic.