Political Humor ?

[Uncle Al]

You've gotta give credit that some political humor has a basis in
true facts and happenings. Case in point......Do YOU feel the 'Bern'
“Walter's thoughts on the 2016 election" | Jeff Dunham: Politically Unbalanced Ep. 1

And the 'Bern' goes on.......

Bernopoly 2015-05-30.jpg

At a given point in time, my late father said that an actor could
not be elected as the Governor of a state. Then he later said
elected to the Presidency. He agreed that Pres. Reagan did a
fine job. Then my father passed away. Pres. Reagan was a
primary figure in the bringing down of the Berlin Wall.

THINK ABOUT IT - This scenario with Donald Trump is quite similar
to what the U.S. went through with, and about, Pres Reagan.


Uncle Al

[Caultron]

Bernopoly 2015-05-30.jpg

Sorry, we aren't even close to Laffer Curve territory.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Caultron, do you mean the Laughable Curve? that has never had a real world example to demonstrate.

In my opinion, Uncle Al, Ronald Reagan was the worst thing that ever happened to our economy because he tore the foundation out from under the middle class and out from under the ability of the working class to earn middle class incomes. Just for good measure Reagan over-invested in the military creating the insane national debt that Republicans now complain about as crippling the economy. Worse yet, military spending has a negative multiplier effect.

As far as the Berlin Wall coming down goes the credit shouldn't go to Reagan because it belongs to the nerds of Silicon Valley. According to syndicated columnist Bernard Gelb the Russian General who was Gorbechov's equivalent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs did some deep thinking at one point and realized the next world war would be fought on an electronic battlefield so he looked at the comparative advantages of the 2 superpowers. The Soviet Army didn't have enough computer power to run its payroll. In the US computers were the playthings of our children. In short, that war was lost before the first keystroke.

He took that insight to his boss and suggested he cut the best deal he could manage before us dull-witted capitalists got wise (The CIA characteristically overestimated the capabilities, economic and otherwise, of the Soviet Union.). In gratitude Gorby sacked the General. 2 years later he told the East Germans to tear down the wall.

I hope someday the country gets wise and restores National Airport to its original name.

[dillon]

Have to agree with Caultron. The condition of the economy is nothing at all like it was in 1980. At that juncture we had had years of worker wages increasing along with everyday prices. Today we are far closer to deflation than inflation. Plus, despite being retro-conservative, Reagan was a prominent part of the political establishment, having done time as Governor of California, and having already run for President in '76. I see absolutely no resemblance to Trump, who is just a foul-mouthed demagogue. Reagan never threatened to have his supporters riot if he didn't get his way. Even though Reagan was clearly impaired by Alzheimer's his last 2 years in office, hence deferring control over matters of great importance to paranoiacs like Poindexter and North, ala Iran-Contra, he had better mental stability and acumen than Trump has EVER shown. And you knew what Reagan stood for when he went into office. I defy anyone to define Trumps positions or point out any credentials he has shown that suggests he would preserve the dignity of the office or of our national character. The only promises he has made so far are ones he cannot possibly keep.

[crfriend]

I hope someday the country gets wise and restores National Airport to its original name.

I concur. However, I also have an occasionally-annoying habit of continuing to use the original names for things long after they've been renamed, so, I have never referred to Washington National as anything but. I also use the original names for subway stops in Boston because they have more contextual meaning than the new ones (e.g. "Scollay Square" instead of "Government Center" [sic] and "Washington" instead of "Downtown Crossing") and can never keep track of what various sports arenas are called from week to week. I like stability; it's the conservative in me.

I still recall the very unpleasant feeling of being an 19-year-old male, freshly registered for the Draft (Thank you, Jimmy Carter!), watching the election returns coming in on the conference-room TV at my first professional gig in late 1980. I was trembling and in a cold sweat, and recall remarking once the thing had passed the point of no return, "Well, it's just a question now of who he declares war on. It'll be either the world or the United States." It turned out to be the latter.

[Caultron]

Sorry, we aren't even close to Laffer Curve territory.

Caultron, do you mean the Laughable Curve? that has never had a real world example to demonstrate...

The US had a personal income tax rate of 94% above $200,000 from 1946-1964, so I don't think too many people took salaries above that.

But I'm sure the wealthy took advantage of stock plans, retained earnings, and so forth to avoid that.

Conservatives just get so starry-eyed at the idea that cutting taxes can increase government revenue that they start seeing the opportunity everywhere. Especially the cutting taxes part.

[crfriend]

The US had a personal income tax rate of 94% above $200,000 from 1946-1964, so I don't think too many people took salaries above that.

Also of note, it used to be that unearned income (investment income, property income, &c) was typically taxed at a much higher rate than earned income (wages); this situation became reversed in the 1980s and the disparity in rates has been widening ever since. Many of the woes our society faces today could be eased measurably by restoring the original system and by stopping the penalisation of folks who work for a living. Of course, $200,000 in 1964 -- nevermind 1946 -- was an almost unheard-of sum.

But I'm sure the wealthy took advantage of stock plans, retained earnings, and so forth to avoid that.

Of course they did, but it was more difficult to avoid tax completely 50 years ago than it is now.

Conservatives just get so starry-eyed at the idea that cutting taxes can increase government revenue that they start seeing the opportunity everywhere. Especially the cutting taxes part.

It's only certain taxes that get cut -- capital gains, property income, &c -- taxes on earned income have only increased, and have done so very quietly. It's all down to "Trickle-Down Economics" (an outright fraud if there ever was one).

I ran an detailed analysis of my tax cross-section a number of years ago and was appalled when it topped 50% (Federal, State, excise, fees, &c all included). Thanks to Romneycare, it's now likely slightly upwards of 60%. It is entirely probable that as an individual I pay more in tax than major multi-billion-dollar corporations or most of the top 0.05% of the ones at the very top of the economic pile. I understand and value the fact that societies take resources to run, but the fact that I, personally, pay so much -- and receive so little in return -- grates on me.

[Caultron]

...It is entirely probable that as an individual I pay more in tax than major multi-billion-dollar corporations or most of the top 0.05% of the ones at the very top of the economic pile. I understand and value the fact that societies take resources to run, but the fact that I, personally, pay so much -- and receive so little in return -- grates on me.

Grates? Grates? That's all? I'm mad as hell and looking for a way, any way, to stop taking it any more.

But redirecting either of the major parties is really tough, and creating viable third parties even tougher. But Sanders or some multi-billionaire follower could start constructing a populist version of the Tea Party.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

I most certainly agree that as much as I hated Ronald Reagan I would take him any day over Donald Trump.

At least Reagan had some class and therefore wasn't an international embarrassment as Trump is already.

And Ronnie was mentally stable, declining, misguided, but never unstable. And a decent human being. Sometimes a jerk (aren't we all?) but generally affable and good-hearted. Trump is ruled 24/7 by his anger. He isn't thin-skinned he's no-skinned. And vindictive.

[dillon]

Now that documents are being unsealed that seek to charge Trump with fraud over his "Trump University" venture, it seems we could have a new "first" in American politics: two candidates "duking it out" from opposite ends of a Federal Minimum Security Penitentiary...

Trump University proves the old saying "There is a sucker born every minute, and two to take his money". While the cynic in me would say that that anyone dumb enough to kiss the feet of that silly huckster deserves to be "Trumped" in the a--, the social scientist in me sees in the matter, on a positive note, an undeniable confirmation of Darwinism in it's non-natural, socio-predatory permutations. Let's hope the US electorate at large is more intelligent than the would-be Trump U students, and will pull their heads out of their Trumps before it's too late. "Trump U!" is now as much a humiliating dismissal as the moniker of the scam.

[Judah14]

Hell, even Rodrigo Duterte is WAY better than Trump, while he has controversial policies (such as his solution to the problem of rampant crime, as seen in the meme below) and statements (such as those regarding the Pope, whom he called a "son of a b***h" due to traffic from the Papal visit last year), he has experience as a mayor and graduated from law school.

[crfriend]

Well, for one he has good trigger-discipline. Viz our ex-Vice President (cum Regent) Disk Cheney who shot a hunting acquaintance "by accident".

[Uncle Al]

OK - I'm writing this as a contributor, NOT as a Mod.



I'm as Hell I've spent 6 days on the road driving 2425.7 miles.
After 5 days at home, yesterday was spent driving 387 miles to & from the
funeral of a friend, and former co-worker, of my wife. I get home and find
the rampid rancor about a couple of jokes. You could change any name to
another political figure and get the same results.

I originally posted this 'Political Humor' post as a way to lighten the tension
that was/is building when discussing politics. EACH presidential candidate
has, for years, been the brunt of jokes. You couldn't open any newspaper and
NOT see a cartoon about someone in politics.

By the responses this post has received, especially from the left coast, I did
not succeed in my efforts. YES, I believe that Trump - if elected - will surprise us all.
President Reagan was a good president regardless of what some people say. Some of you
may say that President D.D.Eisenhower was not a good president. I will steadfastly
dis-agree. How many of you know that President Eisenhower signed, in 1956, the
authorization to found the U.S. Interstate Highway System? That I.H.70, going from
the East coast to the West coast, has been named the Dwight D. Eisenhower memorial highway?

20160520_095934.jpg

This came about due lack of good roads and that it took 62 days to travel from the
East coast to the West coast.

Some people here feel that we(America) do not need a military. That it is currently
funded way to much. If that was the case many years ago, you wouldn't
be speaking English, you wouldn't have the right to 'free-speech' as we have today.
You'ld be speaking German, plain and simple. BUT for the might of the U.S. Military,
who came to the aid of Europe in a time of need, Hitler would've won the war.

Question; Isn't it better to have a strong military, and not need it,
than to have no military power and desperately need it in a time of crisis?

Do YOU want to bow to Mecca and pray Islamic prayers? So far, B.H.O. is giving
our country away to any and all Islamic powers. Nancy Pelosi is right next to Bernie Sanders
in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. These two people are an example of why
the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution should in itself be amended to include members
of Congress.

If my parents were alive today, they would laugh at the humor and cringe at what the
current members of Congress are doing to America. They, my parents, lived through
the Great Depression, survived WW2 and the Korean conflict.

BTW - "Now consider a group of baboons. They are the loudest, most dangerous,
most obnoxious, most viciously aggressive and least intelligent of all primates.
And what is the proper collective noun for a group of baboons?
Believe it or not ... a Congress! Jan 2, 2012
Published Mar 4, 2016 - Do not believe a group of baboons is called a “congress.”
Not only is it wrong, it disrespects baboons. They are called a 'Troupe'.
Yet a troupe works together. So far, the Government 'Troupe' has not worked well
with each other.

Getting back to [why] I'm - - Yes, it is OK to have, and voice, your opinion
here at S.C. What is not OK is the intimidating attitude that only you are right, and
everyone else is wrong. Cutting down a person's honest attempt at humor deserves
a black mark in my book.

So, take this missive for what it is - a gripe about not keeping civil to the members of S.C.
DO NOT TRY TO TEAR ME DOWN AGAIN - I'LL LOAD BOTH BARRELS AND RETURN FIRE



Uncle Al

Who is NOT going to anymore

[Sinned]

U.A. where did that rant come from. Maybe as a Brit I haven't understood what the h_ll you are all on about with Bernie and so on, but I do get the gist about Trump, never liked him and anyone with so ridiculous a hairstyle deserves what he gets. From what I have seen on the news of his gaffs and performance on the stump if he gets elected as President then you deserve what you get. As for Hilary, apart from being the wife of the other Clinton with a fondness for cigars and interns, not necessarily in that order, I don't know what she stands for. Not a great follower of American politics and only follow British politics because it affects me so much. You don't really WANT to know my thoughts on politicians in general but they aren't pretty. But I don't see anything vicious in the previous posts, only the normal slagging off of the various candidates, politics and economics in general, resulting from an initial posting. I don't see anything directed at U.A. personally. So maybe I just don't understand and my little corner of the garden is sheltered from the real world, and long may it be so.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Hello Uncle Al,

I am sorry for your loss.

I am also sorry you took offense at my response to your initial post, but I didn't feel you were trying to inject some humor into the current political discussions. It was clear to me that you were trying to belittle Bernie Sanders. By the way, Sen. Sanders stays a whole closer to the facts than Donald Trump.

You made a number of assertions about our country's recent history and I tried to set the record straight. Just because every time someone challenges a statement by Mr. Trump with facts he takes it as an insult doesn't mean you have to. I reread my posts and the only thing that comes close to a personal attack is my calling the Laffer Curve the Laughable Curve. Even that was meant to underscore how ridiculous it is to base public policy on that thesis rather than it being a personal attack on Mr. Laffer himself.

As far as I am concerned, the biggest thing that is missing in our current political discourse is, well, discourse. The Republicans started down this rude, arrogant path of smashmouth politics and obstructionism during the Reagan administration and now it's become a way of political life. Compromise has become a dirty word. I would like to suggest to any of you feel that way to go back to your American history lessons, in particular the accounts of the writing of the Constitution. That document is full of compromises so it's fair to say our country was founded on compromises. It's the only way to get things done over the long haul.

Al, please give it some thought, do you really think American Democracy is going to be advanced by the kind of bombastic belittling and bullying Donald Trump has been practicing so far? What makes you think that will change if he gets elected? He's already said, a number of times, he's not going to change. And he's proven it by his actions.

I get it that you're a conservative. I also get it that liberals and progressives need to be reined in from time to time because we all get carried away with our ideas and none of us have all of the answers.

Let me review an example from our adulthood. Acid rain was a big problem in the 70's and 80's and about as controversial as climate change is today. Liberal Democrats were going to end it by telling industry in minute detail how to operate their plants. When conservative Republicans saw that despite their efforts to deny that acid rain was killing the forest of the NE US, they didn't have the votes they quite rightly pointed out they were trying to solve the future's problems with yesterday's technology. How about if specified how much pollution industry could release, based on science, and let the businesses figure out how to get there. In other words, cap and trade. The Dems went along with that and acid rain was solved more quickly and thoroughly than anyone ever imagined. This is what happens when both parties remember they wanted to get elected to govern and solve the country's problems.

Since then the emphasis is on winning elections by discrediting the other side. So much so that the Republicans refused to even consider using cap and trade on the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. They refused to acknowledge that global climate change is happening on a systemic basis and decried cap and trade as a socialist notion. Kind of like calling Romneycare when the President tried to apply it to the whole nation, Obamacare. I wish you conservative Republicans had coalesced behind Kasich or someone like him so we could have a real debate on how to make our country better. Kasich has gotten some things done first as a congressman and then as a state governor.

Hello Sinned,

Hillary is such a policy wonk and politician she reminds me of a story about Franklin Roosevelt. He was asked what his political beliefs were. He answered, "I believe in the Democratic Party winning elections. Period." He left policy and philosophy to his staff and his wife, Eleanor. She was a progressive. So is Hillary, but she usually keeps that fact under wraps. I doubt she has the kind of sweeping vision that Sen. Sanders does, but who knows. She is most certainly highly intelligent and knows how to get things done in Washington, DC.