[kenberg]

Somehow my editing led to a double post. Sorry.

[kenberg]

mike777, on 2016-October-02, 01:16, said:

Ken you suggest that
1) teach without any great knowledge
2) make bucks, many bucks
3) so what?

I try to tackle these. I elect to go in reverse order.

3) So what?
I have often expressed skepticism about college education as being either necessary or sufficient for a person to have a reasonably satisfactory life. I just know of too many examples to the contrary. But a decent education, learning some science, some history, how to write a decent sentence [yes, if you browse my postings I am sure you will find grammatical errors, I am vague on the pluperfect tense among other things, but you know what I mean], the basics of civics and a host of other things is essential. A young person can make a living in many ways. I delivered furniture, I crated farm machinery, I did wiring jobs, etc. many of these jobs still exist. But to move up to a better paying job you need to be able to read, write, generally communicate, and, importantly, not be an embarrassment to the company. I think this last item is often overlooked. Maybe it's unfair, but if I bring my car into the shop and find a bunch of slovenly dressed guys mumbling incoherently I take the car elsewhere. Again don't take me too literally here, I drive a fairly new Honda and outside of an oil change it needs little.

Anyway, I see education as essential. I don't see how we can have a smoothly running society if large numbers of people are poorly educated. Dealing with this reality is directly important for them, but also essential for the country as a whole.

2) make bucks, many bucks.
I am not sure what you are getting at. I think fixing the problem will cost money. I do not think money is the whole issue, not by any means.

1) teach without any great knowledge

This is subtle. My high school chemistry teacher's knowledge was adequate, sort of. But he respected the subject. On various occasions he told the class of evening lectures at the University on scientific matters. I went, no one else did, so what, he was showing interest. It was also a fine way to demonstrate that scientific knowledge evolves and grows. It is not possible and not necessary to have every high school chemistry classroom taught by an expert. But it should be taught by a person who has a decent knowledge and, I think more importantly, finds the subject that s/he is teaching to be interesting. This was not always the case, and I think that in some schools the problem now is considerably worse than it was in my youth.


This country has problems. Education sits at the core of many of them. If a 16 year old does not want to engage in the learning process, it can be tough to change his/her mind. Very tough. Even tougher to force him/her to learn against his/her will. But the opportunity has to be there. I think that, too often, it isn't.
Put another way: Don't expect miracles, but don't settle for the way things are either.

[PassedOut]

Donald Trump’s appeal was just perfectly summed up by Chris Matthews

Quote

A lot of this support for Trump, with all his flaws which he displays regularly, is about the country — patriotic feelings people have, they feel like the country has been let down. Our elite leaders on issues like immigration, they don't regulate any immigration it seems. They don't regulate trade to our advantage, to the working man or working woman's advantage. They take us into stupid wars. Their kids don't fight but our kids do.

It's patriotic. They believe in their country. .... [There is a] deep sense that the country is being taken away and betrayed. I think that is so deep with people that they're looking at a guy who's flawed as hell like Trump and at least it's a way of saying I am really angry about the way the elite has treated my country. And it's so deep that it overwhelms all the bad stuff from Trump. It's that strong. It's a strong force wind.

When there was a strong and vibrant middle class, few folks felt betrayed. The class warfare waged against the middle class over the past three decades has been very successful, but the results of that victory bring a dangerous resentment. I think that the problems of income inequality need to be addressed quickly, or the results will be very unpleasant.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2016-October-02, 11:02, said:

Donald Trump's appeal was just perfectly summed up by Chris Matthews


When there was a strong and vibrant middle class, few folks felt betrayed. The class warfare waged against the middle class over the past three decades has been very successful, but the results of that victory bring a dangerous resentment. I think that the problems of income inequality need to be addressed quickly, or the results will be very unpleasant.

I agree with this, but I want to pull out more from the article you cited. This next is from the article's author, not from Matthews:

Quote

The most important thing about Trump that Matthews gets is that the Republican nominee's appeal is fundamentally an emotional one. It's heart, not head. Spending time wondering why all of the fact-checking in the world doesn't change peoples' minds about Trump misses that point entirely. It's about a gut feeling that things are screwed up, and this guy is the only person who gets it. No fact-check changes how people feel.

Of course! Of course! And we all do this. I know I have told this before, an early experience with "fact" versus "gut". I was 11 when the Korean war broke out and in the fall I had a teacher who spoke often about the red menace. From tthe beginning I followed the news about the war daily, and I mentioned to my mother about the teacher. She rarely commented on my schooling but she was deeply upset by the teacher's views. It went like this:

Mother: Wars are abou oil. All wars are about oil. They send our kids over to keep the oil for Rockefeller.
Me: mom, I don't think there is any oil in Korea.
Mother: They are fighting there, there is oil there.


We all approach these things with our emotional views of who we can trust, who we cannot. Of course rational thought plays a role, or at least it can, but I think that anyone who believes his views are solely the result of rational analysis is deluding himself.


Also:

Quote

The other key element to Matthews's analysis of Trump is the revulsion with elites. The ever-widening economic and cultural disconnect between coastal elites, which includes the leaders of both political parties, and the average person sits at the very heart of Trump's appeal. It's a classic "us" vs. "them" message. THEY think you're stupid. THEY think they're better than you. THEY think they can tell you what to think and how to act.

I think this is very important. And an important part is that "THEY think you're stupid. THEY think they're better than you. THEY think they can tell you what to think and how to act." is not entirely a misconception. There is a frequent air not only of intellectual superiority but also of moral superiority. This can easily produce the result that we are seeing.



But I also want to link to another story, that one will get a post of its own.

[kenberg]

The Post ran a detailed story focused one one Trump supporter. if you read it, you could easily conclude that support for trump is based on severe mental problems. Partly so, but I think some deeper thought is worthwhile. How did we come to this? One person thinking that Barack Obama is gay, Michelle Obama is a transvestite, the kids are adopted or maybe stolen, can be written off as mental illness. But the story, or a similar story, appeals to many.

We have a problem here.

Btw, I have to wonder a little about this story. There is a lot of detail spread over a lot of time. But I suppose, at least in the large, it is accurate.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2016-October-02, 11:02, said:

Donald Trump’s appeal was just perfectly summed up by Chris Matthews


When there was a strong and vibrant middle class, few folks felt betrayed. The class warfare waged against the middle class over the past three decades has been very successful, but the results of that victory bring a dangerous resentment. I think that the problems of income inequality need to be addressed quickly, or the results will be very unpleasant.

I am sure you are aware that it really isn't so much income inequality but wealth inequality that has created the problem. When the vast preponderance of productivity growth goes to increasing stock values the wealthy gain a huge (make that mega) advantage over the middles classes. Much of this has been caused directly by policies and belief in a flawed ideology. Some has been technological advances and some has been demographics changing.

The questions should not have to be about "how we got here" but instead about "where do we go from here and how do we change". The problem, though, is that there is a healthy plurality who still cling to their failed ideology, whose strongest belief is that the fantasy of a return to yesteryear will magically return yesteryear's glories.

You cannot get ready for tomorrow by daydreaming about yesterday.

[PassedOut]

Ten times Trump shamed others on tax

Quote

The Republican presidential candidate has used his Twitter megaphone in recent years to wag a finger at everyone from Barack Obama to Mark Zuckerberg on paying their fair share.

Maybe this plays into his refusal to show tax returns. Some voters might disapprove of Trump's "genius" being demonstrated by his ability to stiff the whole USA...

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2016-October-02, 14:33, said:

Ten times Trump shamed others on tax


Maybe this plays into his refusal to show tax returns. Some voters might disapprove of Trump's "genius" being demonstrated by his ability to stiff the whole USA...

Being a simple minded soul, I have a simple question. If DT avoided taxes through declaring a billion dollars. give or take a bit, does this mean that he actually lost a billion or is it a gimmick? A billion dollar gimmick would be impressive. Maybe he could explain to us how it works.

Or, since he no doubt won't be giving such an explanation, I will pose it as a question for fact checkers or investigative reporters: Is it possible to legally declare a billion dollars in losses without actually suffering much of any actual loss?

Time, way past time, to write this guy off as a bad mistake. Or as Jim Croce would have put it
There ain't gonna be a next time this time

[Winstonm]

Surely the Republican Party is toast. Its members rejected its most Republican candidates in favor of a non-Republican con artist.

This country needs a two-party system but it no longer needs to be a party to nonsense.

[akwoo]

I think I should start building my fallout bunker.

We're going have the 80% of the world that doesn't have the intellectual capability of an average college graduate competing for the 50%, then 40%, then 30%, of the work available to people who don't have the intellectual capability of an average college graduate. A lot of these people never had the opportunity, some had the opportunity but didn't take it, but a significant portion simply weren't born with the right talent, and only the most cold-hearted Calvinist would blame them for not being born with the right talent.

UBI isn't going to solve the problem. People like being contributing members of society. Sure I could go on UBI and think I'm contributing to society by writing a symphony that will be lauded as an unknown masterpiece when rediscovered a century later, but people who can't graduate from college generally harbor no similar delusions. Also, the people who have the non-intellectual jobs will think they deserve them over the unemployed, and they'll be against any policies that "take from them and give to the undeserving".

Brexit, Trump, Poland, Hungary - these are the first symptoms of the problem. People who can't (through no fault of their own) compete for themselves seek a champion to compete for them. (See I Samuel 8:20)

You have a crowd of unemployed people, and there's only enough work for half of them. Except some of the unemployed people can get their hands on nukes.

[cherdano]

It's quite amazing how Trump managed to go from a 1 billion dollar loss in 1995 to a net worth of 10 billion in 2016. I think he should release 20 years of tax returns, and everybody will be so impressed that he will win in a landslide.
Go for it Donald!

[mike777]

cherdano, on 2016-October-02, 16:54, said:

It's quite amazing how Trump managed to go from a 1 billion dollar loss in 1995 to a net worth of 10 billion in 2016. I think he should release 20 years of tax returns, and everybody will be so impressed that he will win in a landslide.
Go for it Donald!

I have noted over many years here in the forum, taxable income is complicated, confusing.

Arend you raise not for the first time, wealth tax.


As you point out a wealth tax will also be confusing. You are a math genius but yet tell us nothing.

edit....again perhaps i come across too harsh in these posts......


tax policy is harsh and hard./

[kenberg]

This election is strange.

Tax law needs attention. I don't want Trump anywhere near the effort.

Events in Syria lead to enormous suffering and the refugee crisis is overwhelming Europe. I don't want Trump involved.

Income inequality is a problem. I don't want Trump messing with it.


Trump does not give details of what he would do, but, oddly, this fits fine with my thinking. Usually in an election I want to hear what the candidates believe we should do. With Trump, it doesn't matter. Whatever he would do, or says he would do, it doesn't matter. I don't want him anywhere near a position of power.

There is an odd symmetry here. Just as I find him so repulsive that I don't really need to, or even care to, hear the details of his policy suggestions there are many people who find him such a compelling figure that they will support him without any specifics of his plans.

This is not a healthy situation but it is where a lot of us are. I think there are quite a few Clinton ideas that could use some careful scrutiny, some that should be challenged. Try to find any discussion of this in the Washington Post. Diatribes from the extremes are predictable but useless. This is the least issue oriented campaign that I can recall ever. It comes down to Trump enthusiasts versus those of us who see him as an erratic egotistical con man. That's an issue of sorts, but a deeper discussion of where we are headed would be nice.

[Winstonm]

I may be hardcore, but I still believe come election day Trump will be blown out of the water regardless of current polling results. Regardless of polls, I refuse to believe there are so many people willing to suspend reason long enough to actually support this guy. Con men work best in short strides - the longer they remain on the scene the more vulnerable they become and the more likely it becomes that their schtick fails to sway.

Presidential campaigns take a long time - far too long for a con man to keep a crowd bedazzled with nothing more than sleight of mouth.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-04, 07:30, said:

I may be hardcore, but I still believe come election day Trump will be blown out of the water regardless of current polling results. Regardless of polls, I refuse to believe there are so many people willing to suspend reason long enough to actually support this guy. Con men work best in short strides - the longer they remain on the scene the more vulnerable they become and the more likely it becomes that their schtick fails to sway.

Presidential campaigns take a long time - far too long for a con man to keep a crowd bedazzled with nothing more than sleight of mouth.

I have thought some about this. We often gripe about our very long election campaigns. We joke about it gripe about it ridicule it. In this case it might very well be saving our butts. I think, or at least I like to hope, that the Donald is finally starting to wear out his welcome with quite a few people. if so, whew.

Sometimes I think little things playa big role. People have to wonder if they want a guy for president who gets up in the middle of the night to tween about a disgusting sex tape that nobody has seen made by a Miss whatever who few people could have identified at all a week or two earlier. Without being too techncal, the guy sounds like he has a screw loose somewhere.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-04, 07:30, said:

I may be hardcore, but I still believe come election day Trump will be blown out of the water regardless of current polling results. Regardless of polls, I refuse to believe there are so many people willing to suspend reason long enough to actually support this guy.

Hitler was elected. Berlusconi was elected several times. Chavez was elected. Greece, France and Austria might well get facist governments next time. Poland, Hungary, Philipines and Russia already have and in Russia the facists remain hugely popular after a couple of decades in power.

I don't think US voters are more enlightened than the people of those countries.

Let's just hope that a 49-51 statistical fluke will save us this time.

[WellSpyder]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-04, 07:30, said:

I may be hardcore, but I still believe come election day Trump will be blown out of the water regardless of current polling results. Regardless of polls, I refuse to believe there are so many people willing to suspend reason long enough to actually support this guy. Con men work best in short strides - the longer they remain on the scene the more vulnerable they become and the more likely it becomes that their schtick fails to sway.

Presidential campaigns take a long time - far too long for a con man to keep a crowd bedazzled with nothing more than sleight of mouth.

Didn't I read not so long ago exactly the same opinions about how he could never last through the primaries to become the republican nominee? There seemed to be a lot of confidence in this point of view from people I would regard as reasonably sane.

[PassedOut]

helene_t, on 2016-October-04, 08:09, said:

Hitler was elected. Berlusconi was elected several times. Chavez was elected. Greece, France and Austria might well get facist governments next time. Poland, Hungary, Philipines and Russia already have and in Russia the facists remain hugely popular after a couple of decades in power.

I don't think US voters are more enlightened than the people of those countries.

Let's just hope that a 49-51 statistical fluke will save us this time.

After the first debate and Trump's actions afterwards, prospects today look a bit better: Who will win the presidency? It's one thing when folks elect an unsuitable leader for themselves, but elections in the USA (and in some other nations, too) affect folks in other places who have no vote in the matter. It's important not to screw that up.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2016-October-04, 08:09, said:

Hitler was elected. Berlusconi was elected several times. Chavez was elected. Greece, France and Austria might well get facist governments next time. Poland, Hungary, Philipines and Russia already have and in Russia the facists remain hugely popular after a couple of decades in power.

I don't think US voters are more enlightened than the people of those countries.

Let's just hope that a 49-51 statistical fluke will save us this time.

I hope we do better than 51-49. I accept the uncertainty of it, but I hope we do better. PassedOut is completely correct that the significance is worldwide. Yes, you are of course correct that Hitler was elected. By no means do I claim that 2016 Americans are morally or otherwise superior to 1933 Germans. They made a drastic mistake with horrible consequences, it could happen anywhere. Nonetheless, we have a responsibility here and now, and I hope we fulfill it. I hope the decision is not close. I hope it makes clear that while we may not be wise, while we may have our failings, there are some things that we can get right.

Electing HC will not make us look like geniuses but right now we need to not look, and more important not be, totally irresponsible.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-October-02, 16:12, said:

Being a simple minded soul, I have a simple question. If DT avoided taxes through declaring a billion dollars. give or take a bit, does this mean that he actually lost a billion or is it a gimmick? A billion dollar gimmick would be impressive. Maybe he could explain to us how it works.

The author of "The Making of Donald Trump", who is also a Daily Beast reporter, was on NPR yesterday. He also explains some of it here:

http://www.thedailyb...voided-tax.html

The losses were incurred in his businesses, but there are special tax loopholes for real estate businesses that allow them to pass losses through to the owner. Meanwhile, the companies still paid him multi-million dollar salaries as the CEO. And these were Net Operating Losses, not Capital Losses -- they can be carried back 2 years and forward for 15 years, for a total of 18 years of offsetting income.

And when he told his mortgagers that he couldn't pay back the loans, most of them took the fraction that he offered. Normally this forgiven debt would be considered income, but there's another loophole: if you choose not to depreciate the property, you don't have to declare this income.

Then after he arranged for all these tax benefits to himself, he turned his business into a publically-traded corporation, so the investors took on the burden that was left over.