Okay --- so WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Spira, it is good to have even your brief appearance here! I would recommend returning not to your den but to the lounge veranda, where it's always sunny. I will put up a Do Not Disturb sign, so you can work in peace.

Delusional? If you can call yourself delusional, then you most assuredly are not. The worry is with those who believe they are NOT delusional, when they are.

While there is a certain hurt right now among those who lost causing us to blame, for ex coal miners, and feed our natural urge for comeuppance, we must keep in mind that they will be better off if we fight with them and not against them.

The following is a good read

West Virginia, “Identity Decline” and Why Democrats Must Not Look Away From the Rural Poor

Often pushed into the shadows of the national poverty debate, poor rural Americans took the spotlight throughout the 2016 presidential elections, as journalists scrambled to explain the advent of Donald Trump. “The rural poor and rural working class kind of come back into the national consciousness during the election season,” says Pruitt, the University of California—Davis professor. Yet, many establishment Democrats and Republicans alike blame a “culture of ignorance” and a “culture of fear” for the “backwardness” of rural Americans, and in doing so they skimover the economic roots of rural poverty. Despite the Democratic Party’s commitment to fighting inequality, its stance towards working-class whites in rural america is often defined by disavowal and contempt. “[Poor rural whites] have become sort of a scapegoat,” Pruitt says.

Trump did not understand the economic roots of rural poverty. He lied to those coal miners, and they bought the lie. They are good people who bought the lie. That is how demagogues work, whatever means necessary will be used to achieve their ends. In Trump's case it seems to be a deliberate lie along with being clueless about the economic roots of rural poverty. Trump had been advised to "temper his expectations". He lied anyway.

In his book, J D Vance cited a passage in a book on inner city poverty and said how that description exactly fit the poverty he grew up with in the Rust Belt. It has been those politicians, who not only do not get those economic roots of urban/rural poverty but who have continued instead to pretend that all will be well if we ignore them, who push people to put their faith and trust in demagogues.

Many progressive Democrats have difficulty stomaching the rural poor. Their values are seen as diametrically opposed to the Left’s commitment to the environment, racial and gender equality, immigration and prison reform. This ideological disconnect has, with the recent exception of Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign for president, blinded the progressive movement to the possibilities of what can be gained by uniting the urban and rural poor. If the polarization of America’s rural and urban working classes is the greatest lesson for Democrats in the 2016 election—as many progressives have argued in the aftermath of Trump’s presidential victory—then mending this rift should be the movement’s foremost assignment over the next four years.

a reply to: desert

It hurts to think about how many people are clinging to hope - and promises that will never be kept

Urban and rural poor - and those of us closer to the middle. It's going to take a WWII wartime effort I think to bring us all back. No illusions - no fantasies

Teamwork, work programs, mutual respect and and understanding that there are things we can all do together that will make this country stronger and better in every way

I know that sounds like something a politician would say :-)

But I actually think it's possible

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

It's going to take a WWII wartime effort

hahaha I'm glad you said "wartime effort" and not war. .... not like what pres G W Bush said to Argentinian Pres Kirchener in 2004, "The Democrats had been wrong [about the Marshall Plan]. All of the economic growth of the United States has been encouraged by wars."

Ok, so, like this?

Coal communities have been under pressure for decades as coal-mining jobs have been lost due to more efficient mining practices, competition from cheaper natural gas and the public’s desire to move to cleaner sources of energy. The Clean Energy Worker Just Transition Act would help coal miners and other fossil fuel workers and their families by connecting displaced workers with new job opportunities through vocational education and job skills programs. The bills would also provide support so transitioning workers and their families could maintain family-level wages, health care and pensions until they are able to start new jobs.

Sen Sanders

Submitted but never left committee. ..... Congressional Committees are quite a study in themselves, especially in light of so much money in Washington. Committees are key to power and influence.

a reply to: desert

401k's are generally preferable to Social Security. The key word there is 'generally.'

In theory, Social Security was never intended to be the sole income in retirement. It was meant to be supplementary, or at least a low safety net to keep the lights on and the belly fed. A good retirement lifestyle cannot be realisticly maintained solely on Social Security. 401k's are an investment vehicle that allows individuals to use the power of savings to provide a much more realistic and comfortable income after retirement.

In practice, Social Security has become the sole income for quite a few Americans, despite its shortcomings, because they have not had the ability (or the desire) to save up a portfolio during their employment years. 401k's have also become pawns to the stock market... while the whole idea was to minimize risk by diversification, the actual result has been more loss than gain recently because the stock market stays in such a precarious position. My mother has lost a third of her investments during Obama's administration. I believe there has been some rebound this past year, but not nearly enough to get back to zero.

In times of flux such as we have now, the successes in the stock market are from those who have the time and advice to monitor economic changes and make quick trades. It becomes a game of whack-a-mole. Heavily invest in one company when it appears to be in a good position, but then sell off next week right before the value falls. Roll that profit into the next temporary rise, wash, rinse, repeat. The average retiree does not have the advantages to work that kind of market, and the very concept of 401k's prohibit such anyway.

So what has essentially happened is that brokers have developed this system that promises a comfortable retirement (and would deliver in more stable economic times), but actually uses the savings of average people as an insurance policy against market swings. As the 401k's hang in there with individual companies through thick and thin, individuals with the means to do so switch their stocks back and forth to take full advantage of trends. They get a little more time to work their magic because of the stabilizing effect of the 401k's, and the 401k's take the brunt of losses when a stock slips.

401k's, most times, still seem to outperform other investments. But their performance benefits the wealthy more than the owners. This is why I absolutely deny any effort to judge the populous economy based on Wall Street: the two are connected in that a growing stock market tends to indicate more and better jobs, but in times of high activity that correlation is minimized.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Right? I saw that article from The Atlantic, where Beck is regretful. Made a thread about it over in "the pit".
Anyway - thank you for taking the time to stop by. I really like desert's 11 tenets from Liz....I would have been thrilled if "Run, Liz, Run!" had stuck the landing.

She and Bernie would have made one HELLUVA team....
but they're not dead. And Obama told someone recently who begged him not to just disappear, "Oh, we're not going anywhere."

I am grateful that he has Trump's ear, and that Trump appears to be open enough to guidance from Obama that they have an ongoing communication. Let's just hope they can keep it up.

I would love nothing better than for all of us (including myself) to take a collective breather. To listen to each other via whatever neutral-enough messenger we each can manage. For me, Rachel Maddow....for Mr Redneck, Sean Hannity - or I dunno who....but he can't listen to Maddow. Fair enough. I can't listen to Limbaugh, Beck, Jones, Hannity or O'Reilly without throwing up in my mouth. I can take Megyn Kelly, though.

I have talked before about how so many low-pay, no-bennies people can't afford "stocks" (which some Trump supporters report are "soaring" now!). About how abolishing the minimum wage, and SS, and Medical care, and taxes for the wealthy will hurt all of us....

But I acknowledge that I'm having a hard time breathing deeply and addressing the rote-repeated concerns of some of the Trump crowd that are obvious and oft-debunked sensationalism.
For some reason the evangelical Christians have embraced this man, and well - that's got its own whole set of red flags, right there. Not that they are all hateful and authoritarian, but those that are must be identified. Kim Davis comes to mind. Jeff Sessions. Mike Pence - whom I have recently learned is actually "in charge of" this whole transition thing. So of course he is picking the Dominionist types (uber-far-right Christian evangelical Dominionists and their ilk) and the titans of industry -----

none of whom are even remotely equipped to represent or understand the needs of the working poor and the secular homeless and enslaved and disenfranchised.

Anyway - that's all.
Thanks for stopping in, I appreciate the groundedness you and desert bring.

a reply to: TheRedneck

In practice, Social Security has become the sole income for quite a few Americans, despite its shortcomings, because they have not had the ability (or the desire) to save up a portfolio during their employment years.

THere is no such thing as a "pension" anymore - the kind the union workers got for staying at the same factory or strip-mine or corporation for their entire career (like Tillerson at Exxon).....

no. In fact, it's frowned upon now to stay at the same place of employment for more than 2 or 3 years. A multi-decade veteran is more likely to be "retired early" (like a race-horse, not like a rich CEO) and recent grads to fill his position.

Those pensions have largely gone away. Here in Kansas, there is still a very fragile "Kansas Public Employees Retirement System" that is the equivalent of a pension --- based on how many years of service, etc.

You know these things, sir. You KNOW how it used to work. That is gone, and it's not coming back. But you want to strip people of the 'entitlement' we have on account of working for "credits"? As long as we worked, we paid into SS (which taxes are what pays the now-recipients)...and we were promised that when we retired, the next generation would do like we had done, and pitch in to support us, like we did to support our now elderly parents.



But Koch (Wichita, KS) and the others intend to do away with that, too.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

But you want to strip people of the 'entitlement' we have on account of working for "credits"?

Please either show me where I suggested removing Social Security or defraim from putting words in my mouth.

I was analyzing the shortcoming of both systems and how one normally preferable has been perverted into a way to shift the load on the least preferable. Nowhere in that post, and nowhere on ATS, have I ever supported the idea of removing Social Security.

This is why you lost all three branches of government in one fell swoop last month. The lies are now seen for what they: bald-faced lies. And yet you continue to spout them, openly criticizing any attempt to help people have a better life. Keep it up and in 20 years there won't be a single left-leaning elected member of government left.

That in itself is scary to me. Your philosophical self-destruction can pave the way for ideological disaster from a different ideology.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes. Social Security was meant as a safety net to keep an elderly population from total deprivation. Americans always used to supplement their SS with savings. But then, when one thinks about it, SS was created in 1935, then WW2 started with the stimulus of govt war spending to start Americans on the road to good jobs, continuing in good jobs through the 1970s making saving easy, although savings started a general decline in the mid 1970s. As wages have been stagnant for decades, Americans have gone into debt to maintain/increase a lifestyle and have saved little to none.

Jeez, TheRedneck, what my parents were able to save would be unbelievable to most younger people today. (And the only thing my parents didn't pay cash for was a house and a car.) They would think I was either lying or can't remember correctly. But, even our generation was taught to save. That was in times when the middle class still had wealth as a group, especially without the debt. It is not that way anymore. The younger people owe/live paycheck to paycheck, and without the buying power of wages we had.

a growing stock market tends to indicate more and better jobs

Unless the jobs are not in America, or the value of stock is inflated.

Here's a good reason to have high stock values.... and it's not for the little guy

How Corporations Inflate CEO Pay With Stock Buybacks — And Why It’s Bad for the Rest of Us

and

Cisco’s chief rivals — China’s Huawei Technologies and Sweden’s Ericsson — don’t do buybacks. They’ve been investing in innovation instead and improving their competitive posture.

Investing in innovation, putting capital back into a company for capital improvements.... that was also something our generation was told investments were for. But that's back when "what's good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa".

if the republican congress doesn't like it, it will not become law, nor will the funding be legislated....trump will have to suck up to republicans in the congress....it's gonna be their agenda, not his.....

a reply to: TheRedneck

Nowhere in that post, and nowhere on ATS, have I ever supported the idea of removing Social Security.

The people you are voting for support it.

That's what matters.

There are some glaring conflicts between what Trump has said in the campaign and retirement policy going forward. Trump, for example, has said he wouldn't cut Social Security and Medicare, although Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has long pushed for privatizing both programs. That may ultimately cut benefits

"We're not going to hurt the people who have been paying into Social Security their whole life," Trump declared, calling the payment of promised benefits "honoring a deal."

But the man heading the Trump transition team's Social Security effort? Michael Korbey, a former lobbyist who has spent much of his career advocating for cutting and privatizing the program, according to Yahoo News.

"It's a failed system, broken and bankrupt," Korbey said as a lobbyist in the mid 1990s. Korbey acknowledged that some of the reforms his group backed would hurt retirees, but "our constituents aren't just senior citizens," he told a newspaper in 1996. A decade later, as a senior adviser to the Social Security Administration, Korbey was a public advocate for the George W. Bush administration's failed attempt to privatize Social Security.

Paul Ryan, who represents mainstream Republicans, has long advocated privatizing Medicare. That means dissolving the federally guaranteed fee-for-service program and handing fixed subsidies for retirees to buy private insurance? Would these private plans be affordable? It's not known, since Ryan has never released specific details.

Three Ways Trump, GOP May Cut Social Security, Medicare

Trump has softened that up, but Ryan and the other GOP guys ('team Trump') are still planning on it. They want to privatize it.

Now, granted ---- for YEARS the GOP and other fear-mongers have been saying "it's broke! it's broke!" (when really, it isn't, and there has been only sensationalized 'alarms' about it from the right-wing)........

and even if it's not what you want, or have said, or think, it is pertinent for you to look at what these people who are filling the Trump cubicals think. Or want to do.
Remember, he's not a lawyer. He's utterly dependent on his advisors. That is not a good sign. A man who says "What do I know? I only know what's on the internet!" is not qualified to direct Congress in these matters - so, Ryan will do it. And his cronies.

Thanks for resuming dialogue. Yes, I'm still upset, and I can tell that I am upsetting you, but we have to keep talking this through if there is to be ANY help for this horrendous situation.


Do you see? "Trump said it" is obviously in no way indicative of what he will - or can - actually "do."





I feel bad that you are so defensive when talking to me, and that I have been equally walled off. I respect desert's intervention here to keep the dialogue going, and I would ask you please to desist from snarling at me, just like you want me to do.........

I've looked at your reasoning. I've found it wanting. Do I not get the same thoughtful attention?

a reply to: TheRedneck

And just for the record, earlier (and I believe right here in this thread) I have made deliberate note that Trump assured us "no one will fall through the cracks on my watch."

I even made a thread about him with an optimistic slant last summer......

I believed that maybe, just maybe, some good could come from all of this --- that we would be rid of the "establishment machine" and be able to start over for realz. But what I see now is blind attack on anyone who points out his numerous gaffes and obvious shortcomings.

This man is no more an "executive" than any 'puppet' that you all claim year in and year out has been put into power.
"TPTB" are THE RICH.

I wish so much that I could require EVERY MEMBER ON THIS FORUM to read Taylor Caldwell's Captains and the Kings

One theme is the greed of those who have, as opposed to the ignorance and credulity of those who have not. The story is of Joseph Armagh's revenge on a world that forced him to deny his own identity as an Irishman and as a "Roman" (Catholic). By Joe's own characterization, mankind is the most selfish species ever "spewed out of hell," and the novel is consistent with this vision. Joe's ruthless climb to the top is a joyless quest devoid of humor, satisfaction, or empathy.

The basic plot has totally all to do with how the Civil War was armed --- captains of industry selling arms to both sides.
It has to do with how the uber-wealthy orchestrated the whole thing ---- the 'cabal' that everyone imagines/believes is behind everything (she brings it brilliantly to light in the book) is exposed and described.

It should make every one of us shudder.......
the people who run things are NOT the people we see on tv or the internet.
It's that sort of theme. Very powerful.

a reply to: jimmyx

it's gonna be their agenda, not his.

Yep. Once Paul Ryan realized he could be sure that Trump was a paper tiger, I'm sure he breathed a sigh of relief. Paul Ryan is a Koch ideology protege.

a reply to: desert

Yeah! When he emerged from his "face to face" all smiles, and said he was encouraged and optimistic ---- what the hell???

And Obama, too - is saying "oh, yes, I'll be around." It's not hard to imagine they both have realized (or Trump has confessed) that his bark is only that.

But why on earth is Ivanka being installed as First Lady? What??

a reply to: desert

Jeez, TheRedneck, what my parents were able to save would be unbelievable to most younger people today.

Same here. Of course, there is another dynamic to consider: our parents never had computers, the Internet, cell phones, video games, DVD players... my mother recently asked me to find her a new refrigerator (she's so feeble she needs me to do almost everything for her, poor thing) and I found a good deal on one that had water/ice in the door. She is as thrilled as if she were seeing streets of gold. She never had one before, although they are commonplace now.

Our standard of living, and our perceived dependence on things instead of ourselves, has increased drastically. None of these things are bad in themselves, but it seems the human propensity toward normalization of life conditions has worked against us as well.

Unless the jobs are not in America, or the value of stock is inflated.

Now that is an excellent point, and it ties back in with our previous discussion on multinationalism in corporate practice. I really wish we would bring back the anti-trust laws; they served us well for quite some time.

I have always said that capitalism, while the best economic system we have found, has two inherent flaws: the very poor who cannot compete due to their poverty, and the very rich who can control markets for unfair advantage. Anti-trust laws and a progressive tax system help in the latter case, while assistance through charities help in the former. Unfortunately, we no longer use anti-trust laws, we are becoming enamored with a flat tax system, and the destruction of the economy h as decreased charitable contributions and left more and more of the poor facing governmental regulations that one really needs an attorney to comprehend.

We no longer live under controlled capitalism; we live under unrestrained capitalism and run-amok socialism. We need both, just as potatoes need salt to become French fries, but not in the unbalanced amounts we now have.

Investing in innovation, putting capital back into a company for capital improvements.... that was also something our generation was told investments were for. But that's back when "what's good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa".

I recently posted (can't remember if it was this thread) that 'trickle-down' economics always works, except when the source of the trickle is a large multinational corporation. The whole concept is to put the money where it will stimulate the economy through spending... not to put it where it is not needed. The Mom and Pop business that expands will hire more people; the crazy guy in his basement building a new whatchamacallit will hire people to make and sell them; but GM will simply continue with business as usual and pocket the money. That's straight out of Keynesian Economic Theory.

And that's why the message of "put America first" is so appealing. We want to succeed too. But when every other country on the planet is putting their citizens first, putting ours last is a sure-fire method of economic suicide.

TheRedneck

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I feel bad that you are so defensive when talking to me, and that I have been equally walled off. I respect desert's intervention here to keep the dialogue going, and I would ask you please to desist from snarling at me, just like you want me to do.........

I've looked at your reasoning. I've found it wanting. Do I not get the same thoughtful attention?

Desert has not insulted me, nor has she tried to make light of my concerns. You have done both, and this last time tried to put words in my mouth.

Regardless of what you think of someone with an "R" next to their name, common sense should dictate that your opinions are not indicative of the entire populace. Common sense tells me, as it should you, that continual dismissing out of hand of the opinions of others will not lead to alliances.

I have read your posts as well, and found both your logic and your comprehension of my points wanting. We're even.

TheRedneck

I feel like the next step is for Trump to prove himself worthy. That means being a president for all Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. I'll admit, I think the guy is a villain and a moron. But maybe him and his fascist nazi followers and fake news guzzlers will prove me wrong. As Tom Hanks says in Saving Private Ryan... "Earn this." Time for Trump to earn this. First step- grow the F up. Second step- show some class. Third step- stop being a whiny little twitter b###h. Forth step-- attempt new skills at diplomacy rather than the constant raising of conflict. He needs to just stop bringing out the worst of the worst-- including in me. Right now, I only wish for total utter failure for him.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

When Melania married The Donald, she married a businessman. I'm sure she never in her wildest dreams believed she would ever be married to a POTUS. I would venture a guess that most political spouses, while even if they may not have initially married a politician came to find out that their husband wanted to seriously enter politics.

Melania has tried to give speeches, but those speeches have proved highly un-noteworthy. The role of the modern First Lady has come to be more than just entertaining at the White House. I don't see Melania as being the typical First Lady we have become accustomed to. But, then, nothing about this election has been typical or normal!

Personally, what Melania wants to do as First Lady is her business. Her husband was elected, she just happened to be married to him. I feel sorry for her, that she has been thrust into the spotlight in this way. I harbor no ill feelings towards her. Her life as she once had it is over for now. ..... OTOH I feel sorry for anyone she takes her anger out on with lawsuits, etc. She's in a much bigger glass fishbowl than she has been used to.... this one is filled with sharks out for blood, just ask Hillary or Michelle.

So, I can see, as has been noted historically, another woman serving the role of FL. Who knows, maybe Melania will end up living in the White House and entertaining.

What I see happening with Ivanka is her stepping not only into the modern role of First Lady, but expanding the envelope. Sitting with her Dad at meetings with foreign leaders already?? Honestly, that is more imposing herself into the role of POTUS than merely a giver of advice. We elected her dad, not her.

I wonder, though, if this closeness to her dad serves another purpose that the public has never been aware of, because it didn't matter. You know how children give comfort and aide to dysfunctional parents? I am suspicious that she is doing this, either consciously or subconsciously. Does she, for example, keep daddy from exploding in rage? Is she there to help daddy with perhaps the beginning stages of Alzheimer?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Here, here!

I have always said that capitalism, while the best economic system we have found, has two inherent flaws: the very poor who cannot compete due to their poverty, and the very rich who can control markets for unfair advantage.

And since 1980, both groups have been growing.

Hey, a couple of months ago, I looked around my living room and thought, "When I grew up we only had three lamps and a tv plugged in. Now I've got four power strips and an ungodly amount of electronics!" ..... we actually live in the living room, and, no, we don't have enough amperage plugged in to cause a fire

And side table were for holding books, magazines, and a cup of coffee. Now I see side tables (and sofas!) with usb chargers plugged in! What a world we live in!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Desert has not insulted me, nor has she tried to make light of my concerns. You have done both, and this last time tried to put words in my mouth.

I seriously do not know how you have read what I say as "making light" of ANY of this. When did I insult you? Please show me. When did I mock or make light of your concerns? Please show me.

And what words did I try to put in your mouth?

Exactly?
I really feel that you are being deliberately confrontational now. I have not insulted, dismissed, or projected anything onto you. I have responded to what you said, and tried to grasp your point. I do not feel you have done the same. You say I have trouble "comprehending" your points. Then it's your responsibility to straighten my comprehension out by putting things another way. I have very much tried to do that.

Now you are just attacking me.

Oh well. So much for establishing communication. Thank goodness for desert.

a reply to: desert

One error Reagan made, in my opinion, was not realizing the move towards multi-nationalism. He had the right idea, but the implementation was somewhat flawed. Reagan was an actor-turned-politician who had experience with state politics only.

Bush 41 just maintained the course, with an emphasis on helping the oil industry in the Middle East. He started the present stage of the Middle East problems we see today. In hindsight, I should have expected that since he was a career politician.

Clinton, despite my initial disdain for him, was able to make some good contributions. I was extremely surprised when "don't ask, don't tell" worked so well, and his WIA plan has made improvements in educating the populace. I wish future administrations had continued to follow that lead. The program could have expanded and eased some of our present policies. He also, with the aid of Newt Gingrich, balanced the budget and even gave us a surplus. Bill was a career politician as well.

Bush 43, I thought, held great promise... but as time went on, I lost faith in him completely. He was a younger version of his father, and I believe started the serious political divide through his institution of the Department of Homeland Security and escalation of a war we shouldn't have been in in the first place. Again, a career politician.

Obama has widened the political divide as well as intensified the economic difficulties. He has also taken race relations to the lowest point in decades. Another career politician.

R-R-D-R-D. It's not a political party we need to worry about, but proliferation of the problems we see around us. It's a mindset that places the well-being of the wealthy ahead of the well-being of the poor, versus placing the well-being of the poor ahead of the well-being of the successful. We will never break this cycle until we place the well-being of everyone at the same priority. Career politicians, who are more often than not enamored with increasing personal wealth, got us to this place. Perhaps someone not as 'experienced' in the political status quo can move us away from the vicious cycle.

I hope Trump will move us back toward prosperity. I know he has the ability to do so. A lot of our problems would subside if average people could prosper again, perhaps to the extent that we could start actually making real progress toward a better, more affluent, peaceful, respectful, equitable society for all. But it's hard to convince someone to care for others when they are arguing with an empty belly.

Oh, and on a side note: in 1969, a human walked on the surface of another astronomical body. Our scientists and engineers accomplished the seemingly impossible using slide rules and primitive computers that had less power than a modern scientific calculator. Today, we have problems orbiting the planet, using supercomputers and technological improvements not even dreamed of back then. Something's just not right with that picture.

TheRedneck