Comments by Ianmac37

In an empire undergoing decline, which is a good description of what is happening in America, the critical infrastructure erodes. That includes human capital as well as physical capital. So, I watch the Republican'ts (Repubs with the watchword "can't) destroy teaching as a profession as well as bureaucrats (otherwise known as public servants).

It took several hundred years to completely dismember the Roman Empire. How long will it take for the USA? Remember, we live in a smaller and more fast-paced world.

All the data show that there has been a massive shift of income share from the middle class (and from the poor) to the very rich. One can quibble about the exact percentages and one can also quibble about what types of income, or wealth, to include. What no one can dispute is that the shift has happened.

Then, we know that the rich, however defined, spend their income in a different pattern than the middle class or the poor. That is a given for any economist. That, sir, is what I see as the key to what has happened in America. Not the only key, of course, but the first of two major changes that have been brought about by "conservative" economic dogma. My count starts with Ronald Reagan and his tax cuts that kicked the ball into motion.

The second major change has a somewhat longer time frame. It involves the change in how retirement plans are composed. At one time the employer created a retirement fund that was invested in stable and predictable stocks and bonds and offered defined benefits after certain periods of work. That has almost disappeared into 401k plans, IRAs, and similar individual investment plans. A complete industry sector has evolved that promises rapid growth of individual investments, but based on frequent buying and selling of stocks (wherein the broker takes a percentage of each transaction). We have day traders and salesmen on the TV promoting their easy and computer driven frequent stock trading. This system has vastly increased the income of Wall Street investment operators and led to the invention of more and newer types of securities (junk bonds, and derivatives, etc.). Wall Street became a great gambling casino and the newly wealthy who benefited from the Republican social redistribution of income and wealth became avid players. Everybody else lost! Stocks and securities no longer were valued on the basis of individual company profit or loss, but on the churning of the stock in and of itself. Real estate values followed the same pattern. Then everything crashed. Because that system was unsustainable.

In the 1960s and 1970s we had, in America, reached an economic equilibrium that consisted of a strong middle class, a moderate number of poor, and a moderate number of rich. The results of the two phenomena I describe above has led to a new economic equilibrium of a much larger number of poor; a much smaller number of middle class, and a slightly larger number of richer rich. It will take serious work to disable this equilibrium and create a new one with more middle class and less poor.

We cannot do it by starving government.

Mr. Ryan's budget plans are a disaster in the making. Medicare works but would be unavailable for the poor seniors if the Republican voucher system were used. Far better to tighten up on the fraud that is endemic in current Medicare and to eliminate Medicare "Advantage," which is no advantage at all except to insurance companies. Why do I receive telemarketing calls every week from some new company who wants to provide me with diabetic supplies for free? Why can Hoveround run expensive advertisements regularly on TV that promise a "free" motorized chair for seniors? And there are more such ads. They are obviously extra profitable and should be regulated (a word Republicans do not like). That's where the Medicare savings can be found. There are other means that would not destroy Medicare but make it more efficient. The Rethuglicans want none of that and simply want to enrich their business friends at whatever cost in money and health for seniors like me.

One possible explanation for different response time frames in different conflicts could be the availability and quantity of external support. In Vietnam there was a constant and plentiful resupply of weapons, support, and personnel. In Afghanistan somewhat less so (but there does seem to be more weapons supply than what should be assumed from a purely indigenous group). The Mau Mau had a much greater difficulty in getting supplies of all kinds. This analogy can be repeated going back to much longer history than the authors of this formula consider. Think the American Revolution and the much forgotten support we got from France!

"Islamic does not mean islamist.." True, and Christian does not mean evangelistic. However, Evangelic Christians are much more likely to be anti-democratic right-wing fanatics just as fundamentalist Muslims are much more likely to be similarly anti-democratic. Mild religion, which is tolerant of other religions as well as rational people (atheists, for example) can exist within a democratic government system. Conservative religions, when allowed political power, tend towards authoritarian government -- much like their pattern of religion.

So, the stronger the religious leanings of the Arab revolutionaries the less likely I consider the possibility of any true democracy emerging.

The "Arab Awakening" does not seem to include any desire for freedom for women. In each of the uprisings I see every woman wearing the slave suit and the only places where women had education and good chances at creating a professional life (doctor, lawyer, etc) were dictatorships. When the dictators were overthrown, the women lost out.

Someone needs to point out that freedom comes only when religion is kept separate from government. Otherwise, like Iran, one authoritarian government is removed only to put another in its place.

Since 1981 there has been a massive shift in income distribution to the richest five or, at most, ten percent of the population. This has led to a corresponding shift in the market basket, on average, in America and is the major reason we see our economy hunting for a new equilibrium. The new equilibrium will include more low wage jobs than in the past (in terms of percentage) and lower average benefits. There will be great gains by the richest sector of wage earners and a corresponding rise in the proportion of luxury goods as a percentage of the market,

The whole equilibrium will come apart when the large mass of low wage people try to retire and find that Social Security has not kept pace, if the Republicans have not killed it by then, and medical costs have risen so much that only the rich can afford to be healthy.

Judging from what we see the Regressives doing in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Arizona, I am willing to bet that the Democrats (Progressives) will recover all their 2010 lost ground when the 2012 fog clears. Current Regressive demands for budget cutting exercises at the federal and at the various state levels will insure that unemployment will remain high and, probably, increase during the next fiscal year. Just look at unemployment versus changes in the federal spending during the 1930s -- that's exactly what happened then for the same reasons. And, for the same regressive economic and social policies the Regressives currently tout.

The police and firefighters seem to have a too-generous retirement system, perhaps because they risk their life in the performance of their duties. Teachers, on the other hand, do not enjoy similar retirement benefits and are paid less than their educational peers who work in private industry. To understand Wisconsin you only have to note that the teachers are being targeted while the police and firemen are not. Therefore, the prime reason for the attack is simply to destroy the unions, a long time Regressive goal.

The Regressives are making sure there are tax breaks for the rich and for big corporations while they raise the fees and taxes paid by the poor and middle class. This is nothing less than an attempt to destroy America as we know it and as it has developed since WWII. The Regressives want to return to the way things were in the 19th century and we will all suffer for it.

If the benefits earned by teachers are so bad, why are the much larger perks "earned" by Wall Street brokers so good? The middle class is demonstrating in Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, and Libya. When will we do so in the US? Do we have to wait until the Regressives destroy the economy?