BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 1071 Pages +
  • « First
  • 885
  • 886
  • 887
  • 888
  • 889
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#17721 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2021-February-04, 06:12

David Leonhardt at NYT said:

https://messaging-cu...896ed87b2d9c72a

The Lucy theory of politics

To understand the back and forth over President Biden’s coronavirus relief bill, it helps to look back at a little history.

In Bill Clinton’s first weeks as president, he pushed for legislation meant to reduce the deficit, bring down interest rates and spark the economy. It received no votes from Republicans in the House or the Senate and passed only when Vice President Al Gore broke a 50-50 Senate tie.

In Barack Obama’s first weeks as president, he pushed for legislation to halt the financial crisis and revive the economy. It received no votes from House Republicans and only three from Senate Republicans, one of whom (Arlen Specter) soon switched parties.

This week, when I first saw the Biden administration’s unenthusiastic reaction to a coronavirus proposal from Senate Republicans, I was confused. Biden views himself as a dealmaker, and a president typically benefits from forging a bipartisan compromise.

So why isn’t Biden pursuing a two-step strategy — first pouring himself into a bipartisan deal and then following up with a Democratic bill that fills in the pieces he thinks were missing? Why does he instead seem to be leaning toward a single bill that would need only Democratic support to pass?

The answer has a lot to do with history: For decades, congressional Republicans have opposed — almost unanimously — any top priority of an incoming Democratic president. Biden and his aides believe they will be playing Charlie Brown to a Republican Lucy if they imagine this time will be different.

The parties aren’t the same

Democrats, of course, also tend to oppose Republican presidents’ policies and often try to obstruct them. But on the question of legislative compromise, there really has been a recent difference between the parties. (Which can be a difficult thing for us journalists to acknowledge: We’re more comfortable portraying the parties as mirror images of each other.)

In 2001, George W. Bush’s tax cut was supported by 12 Democrats in the Senate and 28 in the House. His education bill also received significant Democratic support, as did multiple virus relief bills during Donald Trump’s presidency. Some Democrats saw these bills as opportunities to win policy concessions.

Republicans have a taken different tack. Perhaps the clearest example is Obamacare, the final version of which received no Republican votes even though it included conservative ideas and Obama was eager to include more in exchange for Republican support. But top Republicans, led by Senator Mitch McConnell, thought that any support of the bill would strengthen Obama and weaken them.

“It’s either bipartisan or it isn’t,” McConnell told The Times in 2010, explaining the strategy.

Counting to 10

On the surface, this time seems different, given that 10 Republican senators went to the White House on Monday to talk with Biden about a compromise virus bill. But that meeting may have been as much about show, on both sides, as substance.

Of the 10 Republicans, a few — like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney — have occasionally sided with Democrats on a major issue. Others, however, have not — including Jerry Moran of Kansas, Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Todd Young of Indiana. And Biden would need at least 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster. With any fewer, he would be back to pursuing the same 51-vote strategy (known as reconciliation) he now seems to be pursuing.

Democrats’ central fear is a repeat of Obamacare, in which months of negotiation in 2009 nonetheless ended without Republican support. Biden would have then wasted his first months in office — and the country would have gone without additional money for vaccination, virus testing, unemployment insurance and more.

As Carl Hulse, The Times’s chief Washington correspondent, told me: “Democrats, including many now in the White House, remember 2009 very clearly, and they fear being strung along for months only to come away empty-handed. That’s not to say Republicans aren’t bargaining in good faith, but holding that 10 together could be difficult.”

Biden himself has made the same point in private conversations. “He said, basically, ‘I don’t want to go down the path we went down in 2009, when we negotiated for eight months and still didn’t have a product,’” Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia said on “Morning Joe” yesterday.

One more point: Neither side is committing itself to a strategy yet. If Democrats proceed with the reconciliation approach, they and Republicans can continue negotiating over the substance of the bill. Bush used reconciliation for his 2001 tax cut and still received 40 votes from congressional Democrats in the end.

The latest: Biden met with congressional Democrats at the White House yesterday. He said he was open to restricting eligibility for his proposed $1,400-per-person checks but not to reducing the maximum amount. “I’m not going to start my administration by breaking a promise to people,” Biden reportedly said.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#17722 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,052
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2021-February-04, 10:06

The very last part is the key

Quote

The latest: Biden met with congressional Democrats at the White House yesterday. He said he was open to restricting eligibility for his proposed $1,400-per-person checks but not to reducing the maximum amount. “I’m not going to start my administration by breaking a promise to people,” Biden reportedly said.



I suppose if someone wants to give me $1400 I'll take it. But I would be hard-pressed to give an argument as to why the government should do so. Others need it. Some desperately. If Re[publicans cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this, it is hard to take them seriously.
Ken
3

#17723 User is offline   shyams 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,546
  • Joined: 2009-August-02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2021-February-04, 10:37

View Postkenberg, on 2021-February-04, 10:06, said:

The very last part is the key

Quote

The latest: Biden met with congressional Democrats at the White House yesterday. He said he was open to restricting eligibility for his proposed $1,400-per-person checks but not to reducing the maximum amount. “I’m not going to start my administration by breaking a promise to people,” Biden reportedly said.


I suppose if someone wants to give me $1400 I'll take it. But I would be hard-pressed to give an argument as to why the government should do so. Others need it. Some desperately. If Re[publicans cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this, it is hard to take them seriously.

I agree. There is another thing that President Biden did which can be used as a political escape route while leaving the GOP looking bad.

That was when those GOP Senators met up with the President and his key advisers. These Senators were present on behalf of the entire GOP and they categorically said that only $600 is possible. This allows the Dems to claim something like "Look, the other side was insisting we compromise at $600 but we refused to settle for anything less than what we asked for in the first place." What remains to be seen is whether the Dems will use such (somewhat dicey) positioning statements to obtain political mileage with the voters.

Also, Sen Schumer has begun Senate proceedings to include many of the President's promises as Budget Reconciliation. This is a very good development. They now have to keep the pressure on those 2-3 wavering Dems to ensure that the unamended Budget Reconciliation passes through the Senate. From what I read, the process is slow but at least it is guaranteed to succeed --- provided all Dems vote in favour of the main Budget and against any wrecking amendments introduced by the GOP.
0

#17724 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,833
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2021-February-04, 14:33

View PostChas_Troll_NoDignityNoIntegrityNoHonesty timestamp=, on 2021-February-03, 18:50, said:

::If only Scranton Joe had been at the helm! We could have all lived happily ever after. ::::::::::sigh:::::::::::

Your ignorance is stunning, but completely expected. The FBI arrested the so called 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui on August 16, 2001 after a tip from a suspicious flight instructor. If you are date challenged, this was almost a month before September 11, 2001. Bush II received presidential briefing about Bin Laden planning to hijack commercial airliners in August 2001.

At the time, Bush was on vacation on his Texas ranch doing very important things like clearing brush and doing photo ops. (for students of history, he was also busy doing "important" things on his ranch when Hurricane Katrina was destroying New Orleans and the gulf coast). Nobody can tell for sure if the 9/11 hijackings could have been prevented if added security measures were rushed into place, but we all know what happened when there was absolutely zero response at all.

Even something as non-technical and taking zero money and resources such as having a press conference and announcing to the public and law enforcement that bin Laden was planning to hijack airliners may have been enough to prevent 9/11, or maybe just stop 1 plane from being hijacked.
0

#17725 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,620
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 2021-February-04, 18:11

The speed at which important 'things' are achieved by Democracy in America is reflected in the amount of time it takes the House of Representatives to vote on anything.
I am now watching 'in real-time' the vote on whether or not to remove the Green troll from its committee appointment.
Yea=217 Nay=92 Pres=0 and NV= 22

It looks like a competition to see what comes first - the end of the vote or Passover.

Imagine how long it will take them to do something of actual value to the world economy, climate change, war or pestilence.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. What a Karr crash, it's enough to make you doubly critical.
Only ~11,000 viewers.
Started more than 5 hours ago.

Apparently, in the House voting is compulsory. I wonder what America would be like if the same applied at elections.
If 'management' of voting times. methods and boundaries could not be used to disenfranchise voters.
Nearly done!
230 vs 199 - the resolution is adopted.
Here it is: https://www.govtrack...117/hres72/text
If you have trouble sleeping watch all 6 hours here.
0

#17726 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2021-February-05, 08:08

Stephen Colbert said:

Online, Greene also has endorsed the idea of executing Democratic leaders. Kind of a bad look when you’re OK with your new co-workers getting murdered: ‘Hey guys, I cannot wait to join the team. Tell you what, I’m going to cut your hamstring and give you a 30-minute head start before I hunt you with a crossbow.’

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#17727 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,052
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2021-February-05, 11:45

Perhaps I'll actually do this

https://www.washingt...tch-super-bowl/


Quote

When we watch football, we're watching the events as they take place, according to a 94-page book of rules. There are seven referees on the field in every NFL game, and even that's not enough: We accord such importance to exactly matching the facts on the field to the rules of the game that we have a whole system of instant replay and review for the close calls. I love those moments:
Yes, that's it … zoom in a little closer, slow down that motion a little more so I, leaning forward on my couch, can see if he had both feet in bounds when he caught the ball. Okay … now show me that four more times. It's important we get this right.[/color]

That's some deep need for a shared reality.



Shared reality. Yep, maybe we could have a bit of that.

Yes, I was until now unaware of who was playing. Possibly some voters are similarly unaware. It's difficult to explain some results otherwise.


Ken
0

#17728 User is offline   Chas_P 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,511
  • Joined: 2008-September-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gainesville, GA USA

Posted 2021-February-05, 20:11

View Postjohnu, on 2021-February-04, 14:33, said:

Your ignorance is stunning, but completely expected.


Well darn Johnboy. I was trying to agree with you that life would be perfect under Democrat rule all the time. And now you've hurt my feelings. I was considering moving to Seattle to enjoy the Utopia with you. But I'm having second thoughts now.
0

#17729 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2021-February-06, 09:06

Matt Yglesias said:

Mitt Romney’s child allowance is pretty great

Mitt Romney rolled out a plan on Thursday to provide a nearly universal child allowance to parents, $350 per month for kids under 6 and $250 per month for kids ages six to 17.

Per my Niskanen Center colleagues Samuel Hammond and Robert Orr, this has a fairly dramatic impact on child poverty, and as readers of “One Billion Americans” will know it probably has a meaningful impact on fertility as well.

Posted Image
In “What The Inflation Contrarians Get Right And How To Fix It,” I defend this general approach to the question.

But the politics and the details here are interesting. Democrats have been pushing for a while to do something very similar to this by making the Child Tax Credit “fully refundable” (i.e., available even to people with no taxable earnings). Joe Biden was a holdout on this idea, but he adopted a version of it as a temporary emergency measure and included it in his COVID-19 package. Romney improves on the Biden plan by making it a proper spending program administered by the Social Security Administration rather than a tax credit run by the IRS.

Romney’s plan is also a bit more generous than Biden’s, even when you consider that Biden pays for it in part by scrapping some existing anti-poverty spending like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and most of the Earned Income Tax Credit. That’s because he also eliminates what’s left of the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction to raise extra money. SALT is regressive, but Democrats tend to like it because it helps residents of blue states that have higher taxes. So Romney is owning the libs here, and then owning them again by doing it in a way that progressive wonks are likely to support. More on Romney and the criticisms of his plan from the left and right next week.

https://www.slowbori...iden-popularity

Dylan Matthews at Vox said:

The bottom line: The Romney plan would make a real dent in poverty

Democrats do not, on their own, have 60 votes in the Senate, which means that Republicans opposing a bill can block it by filibustering. The only way around that, for the time being, is the budget reconciliation process, which enables 51 senators (or 50 and tiebreaker Vice President Kamala Harris) to pass legislation.

It’s hard to see Romney’s proposal gaining enough Republican support to get the plan above 60 votes, though I’d be thrilled to be proven wrong on that front. But it could easily, with Romney, Democrats, and maybe a few other Republicans on board, make it into a reconciliation package.

The difficulty with reconciliation packages is that they normally cannot increase the deficit after 10 years. When George W. Bush passed his tax cuts in 2001 through reconciliation, those tax cuts had to sunset in 2011. A permanent child allowance, without any pay-fors, would definitely increase the deficit. That’s part of why the Biden administration has so far only proposed a one-year variant of its plan to expand the child tax credit.

So Romney’s plan offers a plausible and appealing alternative. It’s almost as effective at reducing poverty, even when taking into account its pay-fors, as the Biden plan, and because it’s deficit-neutral, it can be enacted permanently as part of a budget reconciliation package. And obviously, a permanent plan is more valuable to poor families than Biden’s one-year package.

If Biden wants to tweak it by slightly changing the pay-fors, that’s fine; I’d prefer a more generous allowance paid for by higher taxes on the rich, to make up for the EITC cuts. But it’s important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And as it stands, the Romney plan is better than the Biden plan, in my estimation, if only because it’s permanent. A Romney aide told me they have reached out to the president already on the topic and are hoping they can negotiate.

It might not be Chuck Schumer’s ideal plan, but it would help millions of families with children in a straightforward way. It would meaningfully slash poverty and provide a base from which to slash it more in the future. Programs that give families cash, according to UC Irvine economist Greg Duncan, result in better learning outcomes and higher earnings for their kids. One study found a $3,000 annual income increase for poor parents is associated with 19 percent higher earnings for their child once he or she grows up. That implies that a child allowance of that size could dramatically improve the lives of children decades later.

Romney’s plan presents an opportunity to enact that kind of profound change in the lives of millions of impoverished children. Congress shouldn’t pass it up.

https://www.vox.com/...ks-parents-4200

I'm happy to see we have two plans on the table that seek to improve the lives of millions of impoverished kids. Can Biden and Romney negotiate in good faith to come up with a decent compromise? I think so.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
2

#17730 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,052
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2021-February-06, 10:58

View Posty66, on 2021-February-06, 09:06, said:

I'm happy to see we have two plans on the table that seek to improve the lives of millions of impoverished kids. Can Biden and Romney negotiate in good faith to come up with a decent compromise? I think so.


Man, I really hope so. If the two of them, backed by others, can come together with a plan that gets implemented it would of course address a serious problem. It would also be a good start on a return to normalcy. One person says "Let's do this", another says "I agree with the goals but I suggest an alternative approach", they sit down and discuss it and come together on a plan.

I realize that such idealism does not always happen in practice but what we have had recently is beyond description. Reasonable people listening to each other and working together. What an idea.
Ken
4

#17731 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2021-February-06, 15:47

Matt Yglesias said:

Seems like Denver added social workers without cutting cops, made everyone happy, and it’s working well.

Posted Image
In the first six months of health care professionals replacing police officers, no one they encountered was arrested
DPD Chief Pazen, who is fond of the STAR program, says it frees up officers to do their jobs: fight crime.
https://denverite.co...d-was-arrested/

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
2

#17732 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2021-February-06, 19:41

Michael Grynbaum at NYT said:

In just a few weeks, lawsuits and legal threats from a pair of obscure election technology companies have achieved what years of advertising boycotts, public pressure campaigns and liberal outrage could not: curbing the flow of misinformation in right-wing media.

Fox Business canceled its highest rated show, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” on Friday after its host was sued as part of a $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit. On Tuesday, the pro-Trump cable channel Newsmax cut off a guest’s rant about rigged voting machines. Fox News, which seldom bows to critics, has run fact-checking segments to debunk its own anchors’ false claims about electoral fraud.

This is not the typical playbook for right-wing media, which prides itself on pugilism and delights in ignoring the liberals who have long complained about its content. But conservative outlets have rarely faced this level of direct assault on their economic lifeblood.

https://www.nytimes....pgtype=Homepage

This suits me too.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#17733 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,052
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2021-February-06, 19:59

View Posty66, on 2021-February-06, 19:41, said:

This suits me too.


As a general view, I hate to see it come down to the lawyers. But when you need it you need it. Sort of how I feel about an enema. It seems that we need it.
Ken
0

#17734 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,620
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 2021-February-06, 23:17

View Postkenberg, on 2021-February-06, 19:59, said:

As a general view, I hate to see it come down to the lawyers. But when you need it you need it. Sort of how I feel about an enema. It seems that we need it.


Are you saying that lawyers give you the ...?

I think Trump should get Bridge Directors to defend him.
0

#17735 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2021-February-07, 09:06

Larry Summers said:

My column on the stimulus sparked a lot of questions. Here are my answers.
https://www.washingt...are-my-answers/

Quote

5. So what should the legislative package look like?

I have a lot of respect for the economic team Biden has assembled, and I know firsthand the difficult choices his officials are being forced to weigh in a critical moment in our history. There are no easy answers here. In my view, there is nothing wrong with targeting $1.9 trillion, and I could support a much larger figure in total stimulus. But a substantial part of the program should be directed at promoting sustainable and inclusive economic growth for the remainder of the decade and beyond, not simply supporting incomes this year and next. An approach of this kind, spending out more slowly, will reduce possible inflation pressures and also increase the economy’s capacity. We will be borrowing to finance sound investments rather than consumption. As Biden has emphasized, it will enable us to build back better.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
1

#17736 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,190
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2021-February-07, 11:27

I only have one quibble with Larry Summers's views:

Quote

We will be borrowing to finance sound investments rather than consumption corruption (of the previous administration).


FHP
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#17737 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2021-February-08, 07:37

Jonathan Bernstein said:

The death of American statesman George P. Shultz at 100, just before the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump … well, it’s hard to not see it as a symbol for everything wrong with today’s Republican Party.

Shultz was a good example of how a reasonably healthy party operates. Parties need governing professionals — people who actually know how to make things work after an election is won. And healthy parties look out for and promote talented people. Shultz worked for Dwight Eisenhower’s Council of Economic Advisers. He was Richard Nixon’s labor secretary, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and treasury secretary. Then from 1982 on, he was Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state.

By all accounts, he acquitted himself well in each of these jobs. Most notably, he played an important role in recognizing that Mikhail Gorbachev’s Soviet Union was very different from what had come before, and that real progress was possible on issues such as arms reduction. He refused to help Nixon’s corrupt plans during Watergate, while the schemers within the Reagan administration worked behind his back during the Iran-Contra affair. That’s not to say that none of his policy decisions over the years were without controversy. But he served the nation well, and the Republican Party was better off with him as one of its leaders.

It’s not the 1950s. Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan (and Democrats of the time as well) recruited from a very narrow slice of the population. Shultz, who went from a Connecticut prep school to Princeton, then rose through the meritocracy to earn a Ph.D. before entering government service, traveled paths that were closed off to most Americans. Joe Biden’s administration, like Barack Obama’s before it, shows how a reasonably healthy party can be open to many previously excluded sources of governing professionals. Of course, we won’t know for some time which of Biden’s picks are Shultz-like successes and which are failures. But we do know that Democrats (like Republicans in the 1950s through the 1980s) keep replenishing their talent pool.

And then there’s the Trump Republicans. It’s hard to identify many veterans of that administration who appear ready to staff the next Republican presidency, let alone be a future George Shultz. And after George W. Bush made progress in diversifying the party’s governing professionals, Trump walked it back several steps. All this matters: Bill Clinton’s presidency, which came after a long stretch of mostly Republican administrations, didn’t have a lot of executive-branch experience to rely on — which helped to produce a wasted honeymoon.

Again, experience doesn’t necessarily produce success, but inexperience is a serious obstacle to any administration. And cultivating people willing to work with Trump doesn’t seem like a promising way to build a party’s governing capacity. So the current Republican Party might want to reflect a bit on George Shultz, a hero of the republic, and think about how to produce more like him.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#17738 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,052
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2021-February-08, 08:27

George Schultz inhabited a different world. I have spent some of the morning, and I will do more, reading about his life, his intelligence, his dedication. It's like reading history, politics, economics. all at once.

Just for starters, from https://www.washingt...309_story.html;


Quote

Mr. Shultz taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Chicago and Stanford, where at his death he was emeritus professor at the Graduate School of Business. He also was president of Bechtel, the multinational construction and engineering firm, for eight years.

or

Quote

Mr. Shultz specialized at first in labor relations and employment. He held a succession of academic posts at MIT and the University of Chicago, where he became dean of the Graduate School of Business in 1962.
He interrupted his university career in 1955 for the first of many government posts, working for President Dwight D. Eisenhower as a senior staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers.




And for amusement, from the Nixon years:


Quote

Mr. Shultz emerged unscathed from the Watergate scandal that enveloped the administration near the end of his tenure. He refused to allow the Internal Revenue Service to investigate Nixon's political enemies, and Nixon referred to him as a "candy-ass" in one of his taped White House conversations.





Candy-ass my ass
Ken
1

#17739 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,833
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2021-February-08, 14:07

View PostChas_Troll_NoDignityNoIntegrityNoHonesty, on 2021-February-05, 20:11, said:

Well darn Johnboy. I was trying to agree with you that life would be perfect under Democrat rule all the time. And now you've hurt my feelings. I was considering moving to Seattle to enjoy the Utopia with you. But I'm having second thoughts now.


Seattle is one of the most expensive cities in the US, so you may find it difficult to afford the local housing. Fortunately, the Seattle activists are very friendly and will help you find a freeway underpass to pitch a tent.
0

#17740 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2021-February-08, 15:15

View Postjohnu, on 2021-February-08, 14:07, said:

Seattle is one of the most expensive cities in the US, so you may find it difficult to afford the local housing. Fortunately, the Seattle activists are very friendly and will help you find a freeway underpass to pitch a tent.

Very accommodating. Freeway underpass sounds like the promised land for trolls.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

  • 1071 Pages +
  • « First
  • 885
  • 886
  • 887
  • 888
  • 889
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

67 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 67 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google