The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump

[ceecee]

It has always fascinated me that 'conservatives' in the US who profess to hate being controlled by 'big government', which they can influence, virtually welcome being fucked over by big business, over which they have no control whatsoever.

I love love love how many of them refuse to grasp how this works.

Govt. program created to benefit people
Conservative interests with private business can't profit
Oh no what to do?
Pay conservative lawmakers to defund govt. program and cut staffing
Govt. program created to benefit people barely works
Conservative lawmaker - let's privatize this program since it's working so bad
Conservative interest with private business profits, oversight is removed, benefits no one but conservative business owner and conservative lawmakers
Blue collar Conservative and right wing voters cheer lead these measures even though the managerial class and ownership despise them and use them for profit and free advertising.

Yes Dems have played this game too but Conservatives really perfected it and Trump has elevated it to an art form. Pay to play at it's finest.

 

[Nicodemus]

It's probably a cultural thing. Stems from some sort of pride people take in not being seen as leeches on the system, even though we all are in this day and age.

I was just at a party at someone's house recently and some people were going on and on about people who take handouts and don't "pay their own way". One of them was a veteran who didn't seem to see the hypocrisy in his own willingness to take the free healthcare he gets via the VA.

To be honest, I am not really ignorant of how it works.

Following the Civil War, America's global ascent was largely fueled by big business, which thrived because there was very little regulation in place. It allowed a handful of people (think: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gould, etc.) to build gigantic enterprises that really managed the US government rather than the over way around. Obviously, a lot changed in the course of the 20th century, especially after Republicans and Democrats basically switched sides about the progress of human development. But apart from rare moments of civil clarity, money has always ruled the US. The remarkable part is that propaganda has been so successful in inducing common people to willingly undermine their own interests. Why else would rural Republicans vote for tax cuts for the rich that will do nothing for their own prospects? Roger Ailes did not exactly take his cues from Jesus Christ.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It's probably a cultural thing. Stems from some sort of pride people take in not being seen as leeches on the system, even though we all are in this day and age. I mean, if we drive on the roads funded by ttaxpayers, it could be argued we're taking advantage of the system. Versus real rugged individualists who always drive off road or pave their own roads LOL

In my book it is really more geographical actually, what then produced the culture. America was founded on the idea that this is a huge piece of land without any too strict forms of government. Therefore it is up to an individual to have it's own gun and get rich in slave trade, gold mining etc. America was founded on the idea that this is isolated place where no one can really reach you and where you can do almost whatever you want. Therefore as a person you carry little to no responsibility for everyone else, what worked for a very long time.



However with more modern age this is starting to shift because you are no longer isolated due to modern transportation and especially internet. What made your entire culture suddenly out of date. While it also gave the advantage to the ones that are into collective "hold the line" logic. It is kinda bizarre to say it but America is actually crippled by the fact that it never really had a modern war on its soil. Which would have "forced" you to rethink your attitude towards "governing", money, individualism ... etc. Because the lack of this war made you think that anything is possible, while globalized overpopulated world is going exactly in the opposite direction. Plus due to this you aren't open minded towards fundamental change, what has huge impact on the lawmaking that is more and more out of touch with global reality. Many other countries changed a number of constitutions over the last 200 years but in doing so they always got new one that is more up to date, plus they developed adaptability. While US did not (and it is even proud of it).


Fundamentally it is a lot like developing an immunity to a disease. Global economy is a team sport and you don't really play as a team, while you will shoot at your own basket if it will win you quick benefit. However global market is ruthless and that is why I say that you like to ride into tank battles on a horse. Since most of your social systems and paradigms are unprepared for what it is out there in the nations that are about collective holding the line: in production, in healthcare, in education etc.. Why America never really got over 9/11 shock ? Because that is the day when a paradigm died and reality knocked on your door. The reality most of us others know for a long time, which is that you can be attacked even in your own "house". Because no man is an island on the long run and that is just how the game works. You got "interesting" starting cards but the game simply goes on.

 

[anticlimatic]

Holy shit yes^, exactly.

Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, not that the resident bigots here care about understanding people on the right- at least beyond anything that might confirm or justify their hate for them- but there is a bit of an internal debate with us over cronyism. Fairly recently, like over the last decade or so, there has been something of an internal awakening about capitalist parasites who buy government backing and subsidization. Typically, the higher the level of involvement that businesses have with government- which we on the right see as inherently 'evil' in a way, the less we care for them. A normal business that sucks will die to its competition- but a monopoly backed by the government that can't die regardless of how awful it is because of that backing is not playing by the rules that most conservatives endorse- and a lot more of us are aware of that than we used to be. Still, bad companies are still easier in the states to get rid of than bad government programs, for whatever reason, so nobody on the right is going to want to solve this internal debate by adopting the left wing preference for more government. Here's a list of some of the archaic government programs that no longer serve any purpose, yet live on somehow:

10. In 1935, the Natural Resource Conservation Service was set up to help farmers minimize soil erosion. Today, this 12,000-person agency has 2,500 field offices and costs taxpayers a cool $800 million per year. Yet the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has found zero difference in soil erosion between areas that participate in the program and those that don't. If Congress cut this program it would save taxpayers $3.5 billion over five years.

9. The Rural Electrification Administration (REA), also created in 1935, was supposed to help bring electricity to rural areas. In 1949, it expanded to include telephone service. Last time I checked, just about everybody in America except the Unabomber had electricity and telephones. Think it might be time to get rid of this one? Five-year savings: $1.8 billion.

8. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was established in 1879 to catalog the geology and mineral resources of the United States. Mission accomplished! Yet the USGS still gets $739 million taxpayer dollars per year. If we want fancy, detailed maps showing every gopher hole in the country, there's no reason a private company can't do it. Five-year savings: $3.4 billion.

7. The Rural Housing Development Service (RHDS) provided housing loans to rural residents during the Great Depression. Lawmakers who open their history books will find an amazing fact: The Depression is over! Private lenders now serve rural residents well. Yet the RHDS still lends more than $1 billion each year, with one of the highest default rates of any government program. Eliminating it would save taxpayers $2 billion over five years.

6. The Small Business Administration (SBA) was created in 1954 to foster small business development. Yet the SBA is totally irrelevant to small business: Of the estimated 780,000 new businesses formed in the United States in 1995, 98.4 percent were started without SBA loans. Getting rid of this irrelevant program would save $3.3 billion in five years.

5. The Public Health Service Commission Corps was created in the late 1800s to provide health care to merchant seamen. Its members still have military ranks, are paid according to Pentagon pay scales, and are eligible for retirement pensions after 20 years -- yet they haven't been part of the military since 1952! They do practically nothing in their official capacity (their leadership lobbied Congress to avoid service in the Gulf War!), yet they cost taxpayers $452 million in 1994. Decommissioning the corps would save taxpayers $625 million over five years.

4. The Depression-era Davis-Bacon Act requires companies contracting with the federal government to pay "prevailing wages" -- meaning union-scale -- to their workers. Meant to protect unionized contractors from lower-cost competitors, the Act's ulterior motive was to discriminate against contractors using non-union workers -- frequently minorities. Ending this competition-stifling measure would save taxpayers nearly $9 billion over five years.

3. The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) was established in 1962 to decrease the number of nuclear weapons the United States and the Soviet Union were aiming at each other. Hmmm, let's see: Deployed strategic nuclear warheads on both sides increased from a few hundred to more than 10,000 between 1962 to 1990. The only thing ACDA did successfully was negotiate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, which keeps America from defending itself against missile attack. The Cold War is over, folks. Five-year savings: $42 million.

2. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) was created in 1967 when people only had access to a few broadcast stations with limited viewing fare. Am I mistaken, or is this no longer a problem? People get upset about cutting "Sesame Street." So privatize it. The success of "Car Talk" and Garrison Keillor means PBS (public television) and NPR (National Public Radio) can make it on their own. After all, federal funding covers only 14 percent of public broadcasting's funding anyway. Five-year savings: $1.3 billion.

And the No. 1 federal boondoggle lawmakers could eliminate tomorrow without hurting anyone at all: The Economic Development Administration (EDA), which duplicates the activities of at least 62 other community development programs. The EDA will spend $350 million this year to spur local economic growth. Yet a recent GAO study found the EDA had no impact at all. Zippo. Five-year savings: $933 million.

 

[Yuurei]

It has always fascinated me that 'conservatives' in the US who profess to hate being controlled by 'big government', which they can influence, virtually welcome being fucked over by big business, over which they have no control whatsoever.

Reminds me of some stupid shit a republican friend of mine said the other day.

We were lamenting being priced out of our home towns. She went on to blame ‘the government’ because apartments are not only overpriced but all require 3x rent to qualify, making previously ‘expensive*’ housing utterly unattainable.

Uum...the equity company is the one making those requirements. The government is the reason we have ‘affordable housing’. It would also be the only one able to jump in and stop this 3x rent BS as unconstitutional ( because it is. They are denying human beings a roof over their heads based on pre-judging them as incapable of managing their own expenses) They can’t because a corpertaiobs right to orofit is greater than a person’s right to a home.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, not that the resident bigots here care about understanding people on the right- at least beyond anything that might confirm or justify their hate for them- but there is a bit of an internal debate with us over cronyism.

So would you say most of 'you' actually have a problem with Ivanka and what's-his-face (her husband) being taken on as senior White House advisors? They seem like prime examples of what you're talking about? That's just about one of the highest government jobs in the land and they are absolutely unqualified for it. The fact that they don't get a direct paycheck from the government is the single only reason they're getting away with it.

And I guess overall, I don't see how this happens more in government than private business? At least where government jobs are concerned - because taxes pay the salary - citizens can collectively voice an opinion about it (I mean, pointing at specific incidents where individuals do not merit their position). There's no such power - however small it may seem - with private businesses.

Fairly recently, like over the last decade or so, there has been something of an internal awakening about capitalist parasites who buy government backing and subsidization. Typically, the higher the level of involvement that businesses have with government- which we on the right see as inherently 'evil' in a way, the less we care for them.

Would you give a couple examples of bought government backing?

A normal business that sucks will die to its competition- but a monopoly backed by the government that can't die regardless of how awful it is because of that backing is not playing by the rules that most conservatives endorse- and a lot more of us are aware of that than we used to be. Still, bad companies are still easier in the states to get rid of than bad government programs, for whatever reason, so nobody on the right is going to want to solve this internal debate by adopting the left wing preference for more government.

Do some of the biggest behemoths like Amazon or Walmart have this bought backing? Because the drastic tax cut this administration gave them - paying *no* federal taxes at all in 2018 - certainly helped them become bigger/stronger, in addition to things like lax minimum wage requirements. It's my understanding that the biggest behemoths out there, the ones shutting down/drowning all the smaller independent businesses, thrive precisely because of what most conservatives endorse.

Maybe we have a different definition of "bad company". What is a "bad company"?

Here's a list of some of the archaic government programs that no longer serve any purpose, yet live on somehow:

I do understand the frustration with tax dollars getting thrown at ridiculously half-ass endeavors. Is there a site you pulled this list from?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Going back a little and going a little of track, but this is still niggling at me.

Meh, privileged right-wingers railing against the elites is a common trope in American politics. I don't think I need supply you with an example (and that's not the only one). They're not perceived as elites because they dislike or fear the same things (or at least, they create that impression).

A grad student with purple hair who works as a barista is an "elite" to them, while being a billionaire does not necessarily qualify.

Potentially a stupid question, but I've wondered for a while and I've never seen a direct explanation: does anyone know why a group comprised of the majority of citizens is called "the elite"? I have my own cynical assumptions, I'm just wondering if I'm wrong.

 

[anticlimatic]

So would you say most of 'you' actually have a problem with Ivanka and what's-his-face (her husband) being taken on as senior White House advisors? They seem like prime examples of what you're talking about? That's just about one of the highest government jobs in the land and they are absolutely unqualified for it. The fact that they don't get a direct paycheck from the government is the single only reason they're getting away with it. And I guess overall, I don't see how this happens more in government than private business? At least where government jobs are concerned - because taxes pay the salary - citizens can collectively voice an opinion about it (I mean, pointing at specific incidents where individuals do not merit their position). There's no such power - however small it may seem - with private businesses. Would you give a couple examples of bought government backing? Do some of the biggest behemoths like Amazon or Walmart have this bought backing? Because the drastic tax cut this administration gave them - paying *no* federal taxes at all in 2018 - certainly helped them become bigger/stronger, in addition to things like lax minimum wage requirements. It's my understanding that the biggest behemoths out there, the ones shutting down/drowning all the smaller independent businesses, thrive precisely because of what most conservatives endorse. Maybe we have a different definition of "bad company". What is a "bad company"? I do understand the frustration with tax dollars getting thrown at ridiculously half-ass endeavors. Is there a site you pulled this list from?

What I meant by bought backing is essentially lobbying. It's bullshit that even conservatives- especially small business conservatives such as myself- can smell.

I am pointing this out because it's common ground across the aisle, and if people could chill out on the petty go-nowhere grievances it's something we could work together for.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Going back a little and going a little of track, but this is still niggling at me.



Potentially a stupid question, but I've wondered for a while and I've never seen a direct explanation: does anyone know why a group comprised of the majority of citizens is called "the elite"? I have my own cynical assumptions, I'm just wondering if I'm wrong.

Wait, what do you mean by a majority of citizens?

 

[Virtual ghost]

It has always fascinated me that 'conservatives' in the US who profess to hate being controlled by 'big government', which they can influence, virtually welcome being fucked over by big business, over which they have no control whatsoever.

I agree with this in general expect one detail. They do have a control over big business, but for that they should organize and pressure with various boycotts, suits and etc. Which is exactly why it is vital that the country stays dived among itself. Therefore what fascinate me is that judging by general atmosphere on the internet they don't seem to realize this. Basically every time American strikes American on in the internet they both lose in the grand scheme of things. MSM are existing for a reason and what we have here is textbook "divide and conquer".

 

[ceecee]

What I meant by bought backing is essentially lobbying. It's bullshit that even conservatives- especially small business conservatives such as myself- can smell.

I am pointing this out because it's common ground across the aisle, and if people could chill out on the petty go-nowhere grievances it's something we could work together for.

Would you actually consider backing a bill to address lobbying and lobbyist? Because the pipeline is Congress and directly to K St. If so, Bernie and I think Warren have proposals for it. Because going by what you have said previously, voting for either if them is not something you could do, no matter how much you agree with a proposed policy.

 

[Jaguar]

The Small Business Administration (SBA) was created in 1954 to foster small business development. Yet the SBA is totally irrelevant to small business: Of the estimated 780,000 new businesses formed in the United States in 1995, 98.4 percent were started without SBA loans. Getting rid of this irrelevant program would save $3.3 billion in five years.

To call the SBA irrelevant announces a particular level of ignorance I don't see every day. Thankfully.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Wait, what do you mean by a majority of citizens?

There are more liberals than conservatives in this country. I only hear grievances about "the elite" here and there, rarely from people I actually know, but I assume it's intended to mean all liberals? Am I wrong? It seems like I hear the term interchangeably with Democrats/liberals. (I mean honestly, I didn't pay attention to the term specifically before 2016, so I don't know. So maybe I should be asking "Who the fuck is 'the elite'"? If it does include even the Starbuck baristas who happen to be liberal, then I'd assume it means something interchangeable with 'liberal'.)

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I am pointing this out because it's common ground across the aisle, and if people could chill out on the petty go-nowhere grievances it's something we could work together for.

Yeah, this is the God's honest truth.

 

[anticlimatic]

Would you actually consider backing a bill to address lobbying and lobbyist? Because the pipeline is Congress and directly to K St. If so, Bernie and I think Warren have proposals for it. Because going by what you have said previously, voting for either if them is not something you could do, no matter how much you agree with a proposed policy.

I'd support that policy for whoever wins the election, but like anyone else I'll vote for whoever has the most policies I support.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

There are more liberals than conservatives in this country. I only hear grievances about "the elite" here and there, rarely from people I actually know, but I assume it's intended to mean all liberals? Am I wrong? It seems like I hear the term interchangeably with Democrats/liberals. (I mean honestly, I didn't pay attention to the term specifically before 2016, so I don't know. So maybe I should be asking "Who the fuck is 'the elite'"? If it does include even the Starbuck baristas who happen to be liberal, then I'd assume it means something interchangeable with 'liberal'.)

U.S. Still Leans Conservative, but Liberals Keep Recent Gains

Americans' assessment of their political ideology was unchanged in 2018 compared with the year prior when 35% on average described themselves as conservative, 35% as moderate and 26% as liberal. Although conservatives continue to outnumber liberals, the gap in conservatives' favor has narrowed from 19 percentage points in Gallup's 1992 baseline measurement to nine points each of the past two years.
...

Appears that no time in almost 30 years did liberals outnumber conservatives, the echo chamber of the internet and academia notwithstanding.

 

[ceecee]

There are more liberals than conservatives in this country. I only hear grievances about "the elite" here and there, rarely from people I actually know, but I assume it's intended to mean all liberals? Am I wrong? It seems like I hear the term interchangeably with Democrats/liberals. (I mean honestly, I didn't pay attention to the term specifically before 2016, so I don't know. So maybe I should be asking "Who the fuck is 'the elite'"? If it does include even the Starbuck baristas who happen to be liberal, then I'd assume it means something interchangeable with 'liberal'.)

Regardless of the country itself leaning right ( there are vast problems with sexuality of all kinds, religions outside of Christianity, equality and so on ) the actual conservative voting base is shrinking as in the population of the party. I think it has been for some time so they have taken to things like gerrymandering in the extreme, appointing as many conservative judges as possible to use the courts as a cudgel against progress and keeping conservatives in power. Some of these judges have never heard a case, never called a witness, never taken a deposition and are rated "not qualified". It's how the GOP and conservatives intend to stay in power because that's really all they have left. And Trump.

Republican Conservative Base Shrinks

The Incredible Shrinking GOP | The New Republic

GOP shrinks as young and ‘NeverTrumpers’ walk away, increasing Donald Trump’s power in the party - oregonlive.com

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Regardless of the country itself leaning right ( there are vast problems with sexuality of all kinds, religions outside of Christianity, equality and so on ) the actual conservative voting base is shrinking as in the population of the party. I think it has been for some time so they have taken to things like gerrymandering in the extreme, appointing as many conservative judges as possible to use the courts as a cudgel against progress and keeping conservatives in power.

I guess I don't recall actually directly reading anywhere that liberals were the majority, and I probably made an assumption/conflated it with how the majority don't support Trump. And stuff like maps I've seen on how the vote count (not electoral) added up in 2016 (not taking into account how many conservatives voted for Hilary - and I mean, more of the conservatives I personally know well enough to talk about it with voted for her than not) and knowing about the gerrymandering issue and mad rush to appoint conservative judges and all that (all because they know it's the only way to hold power - I probably assumed it was because they were already minority). The last Republican POTUS to win popular vote (along with electoral) was 1988. eta: Plus the established reliance on voter suppression. /eta So in my defense, it wasn't a huge leap. (Though I admit, I'm a bit surprised).


*Anyway*, that's still a whole lot of people to call "the elite". Who exactly are "the elite"? eta: And I should probably specify, I'm looking for a better answer than what google gives. The description google gives actually sounds more like Betsy Devos type conservative shitbirds, so it's never made much sense to me.

 

[ceecee]

I guess I don't recall actually directly reading anywhere that liberals were the majority, and I probably made an assumption/conflated it with how the majority don't support Trump. And stuff like maps I've seen on how the vote count (not electoral) added up in 2016 (not taking into account how many conservatives voted for Hilary - and I mean, more of the conservatives I personally know well enough to talk about it with voted for her than not) and knowing about the gerrymandering issue and mad rush to appoint conservative judges and all that (all because they know it's the only way to hold power - I probably assumed it was because they were already minority). The last Republican POTUS to win popular vote (along with electoral) was 1988. eta: Plus the established reliance on voter suppression. /eta So in my defense, it wasn't a huge leap. (Though I admit, I'm a bit surprised).


*Anyway*, that's still a whole lot of people to call "the elite". Who exactly are "the elite"?

To me, the elite are the billionaires, the 1%, the people with the money and power to live beyond the laws or the plutocracy that buys entire state legislatures to do their bidding then moves on to Washington (like the DeVos's). It's certainly not the academics or the baristas or conservatives that voted for Hillary because they didn't want to assist in bringing tribal nationalism to the front of the class.

How America'''s Elites Lost Their Grip in 2019 | Time

But I guess the definition depends on who you ask.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

To me, the elite are the billionaires, the 1%, the people with the money and power to live beyond the laws or the plutocracy that buys entire state legislatures to do their bidding then moves on to Washington (like the DeVos's). It's certainly not the academics or the baristas or conservatives that voted for Hillary because they didn't want to assist in bringing tribal nationalism to the front of the class.

How America'''s Elites Lost Their Grip in 2019 | Time

But I guess the definition depends on who you ask.

Ha! I edited my post (to be more specific) before I saw this and also mentioned Devos as an example of what I consider "elite" according to how google defines it - except for the "liberal" part. The "liberal" part of google's definition doesn't make sense to me - which is why I'm posting the question here.

She's the worst. I saw a fact check article recently confirming she's the most disliked member of this administration. Politifact, I think.

eta: That article makes "the elite" sound more like a Koch Brothers thing than a liberal thing too. I mean, how and when did "the elite" begin to refer to liberals?

Maybe it's an attitude? Like a snobbish college professor kind of attitude, looking down at podunk yokels? Because I know educated people (amongst the bottom 90% of wealth) tend to be liberal, and it seems like conservatives are forever whining about a liberal bias in universities.