When Was America Great?

[boatsnguitars]

"Republicans, over all, recall the late 1950s and the mid-1980s most fondly. Sample explanations: “Reagan.” “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values.” The distribution of Trump supporters’ greatest years is somewhat similar to the Republican trend, but more widely dispersed over the last 70 years. Supporters of Ted Cruz picked best years that were similar to the party’s trend over all. The sample of John Kasich supporters in the survey was too small to detect any patterns."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... in/481167/

This is fascinating to me. Republicans almost completely choose years in which Democrats held power, and describe them as “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values.”



We all know Republicans can't govern, and GOP supporters are well known for their contradictions, but this is rather stark. Also, consider this:



Note how Republicans opinion about the Federal Government vastly changes based on who wins the Presidency - yet, generally, the House and Senate stay the same, but certainly, the entire Federal Government generally stays the same, as the Government employees and laws are pretty much the same year to year. This suggests to me Republicans react to the figurehead, and have no understanding of how government works.

This graph shows how Republicans have become more extremist suddenly, rushing to extreme Conservatism while most people are more Moderate. And this graph ends in 2011 - it's gotten worse.

So, when was America Great? Was it when Democrats were in charge - and is it time to return to “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values”?


Special challenge: Please post a graph that adds to your comment. Let's try to get this filled with charts and graphs!

[Purple Knight]

America was at that point doing well for making Americans well-off, arguably at the expense of everyone else. One good example is that immigration restrictions were draconian, and of course, that raises wages.

https://cis.org/Report/Wages-Immigration

Now, most sources will say immigration actually raises wages, because, according to the Cato institute, the idea that there are a fixed number of jobs is naive. Immigrants, they say, increase demand for goods and services - thus opening opportunities to fill that demand, in other words, creating a job - for every job they take away.

https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall- ... -skill-mix
It is not that immigration can never affect native-born wages. But it has the potential to impact wages not when it just raises the absolute number of workers (which is why the two models presented above are wrong), but rather when it affects the relative numbers of different kinds of workers. Workers only compete with other workers who have similar skills. Immigrants who, say, tend to work as construction laborers do not drive down the wages of lawyers or economists (or pundits at anti-immigration think tanks, for that matter). In fact, workers with different skills often complement, rather than compete with one another; they make each other more productive. For example, adding a secretary to handle paperwork might free a doctor to spend more time with her patients.

Here is the model Cato presents as correct.



However, Cato's model is also naive. They think in terms of everyone being a producer - a value to everyone else not in their specific industry. While they admit that immigration reduces wages for unskilled labour, this is not all it does. We add a few construction workers, and this is good for everyone who is not a construction worker. We add a few cooks, and see, this is good for everyone who is not a cook. Overall, see, it is good for everyone.

What they miss is what we never add: Wealth holders, property owners, people who make money from already having money. The boon of immigration is always distributed to them, because they do no job at all, so it goes without saying that they're not going to be outcompeted. Thus, for every labourer added, the wealth of the wealthy only increases.

If everyone both laboured and consumed, adding more labourers would hurt no one, exactly as Cato's model says.

But who benefits are property owners, who demand more productivity and pay people less.

[boatsnguitars]

There is also a very simple economic process when the lower and middle classes get more money: they actually buy things.

Conservatives believe in a form of Trickle-Down that says if you give wealthy people money, they create factories to make things. That may be somewhat true - but only to an extent. First, they create safe havens for their money. When they are taxed very low, they don't feel the need to invest in factories, as businesses are risky. So they will find shelters for their money. When taxes are higher than the risk of starting a business, wealthy people invest more - they diversify. (It's a main reason for the collapse of NYC in the 80s - Reagans tax cuts made investors pull their money out. They could make billions in safer investments, and could afford to lose a little due to inflation - rather than risking large loses by investing in real estate. As things got out of kilter, there were other economic policies that helped protect the wealthy and caused real estate to explode in a spectacular bubble. Don't worry - the Millionaires and Billionaires were fine.

When wealthy people have lots of cash on hand, they don't invest in businesses. They buy art, classic cars, property, and other luxuries that do very little to increase the wealth of the lower classes.

With income distribution (if we were to have 90% taxes on anything made over $100M dollars, say), then we'd be able to give money to poorer people to do what? Buy toilet paper, food, shoes, etc. That is, they'd start buying what factories make. They'd put that money straight back into circulation, and if done right, they have the extra income to do preventative care, start businesses, etc.

Instead, Conservatives believe the money they make is their own to spend lavishly - they don't appreciate that lower paid workers, such as teachers, cops, government workers, military, etc. contribute to a stable country that allows them to make so much money, especially if they are unscrupulous in getting it.


References:

The principle behind Obama administration's actions was referred to as trickle-up economics,[14] but the term bottom-up economics was also used for it.[15] On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a $787 billion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the economy recover from the deepening worldwide recession.[16] The act included increased federal spending for health care, infrastructure, education, various tax breaks and incentives, and direct assistance to individuals.[17] Democrats overwhelmingly supported this measure, while only a few Senate Republicans supported the law.

The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimated that the ARRA would positively impact the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and employment, with primary impact between 2009 and 2011. It projected an increase in the GDP of between 1.4 and 3.8% by late 2009, 1.1 and 3.3% by late 2010, and 0.4 and 1.3% by late 2011, as well as a decrease of between zero and 0.2% beyond 2014.[18] The impact to employment would be an increase of 0.8 million to 2.3 million by last-2009, an increase of 1.2 million to 3.6 million by late 2010, an increase of 0.6 million to 1.9 million by late 2011, and declining increases in subsequent years.[18]

You'll love this one:

[Purple Knight]

Instead, Conservatives believe the money they make is their own to spend lavishly - they don't appreciate that lower paid workers, such as teachers, cops, government workers, military, etc. contribute to a stable country that allows them to make so much money, especially if they are unscrupulous in getting it.

This. (Except that it's more emblematic of Libertarians.)

The kind of survival-of-the-fittest economy they think they believe in, includes the idea that anyone can just hit you and take your stuff. It might be morally wrong, but sometimes it does happen, and protecting the rich from those outcomes costs money - other peoples' money.

I for one think the only way to show this kind of people that they don't in fact believe in that, is to let them opt out of paying taxes.

...And stop protecting them.

[marke]

"Republicans, over all, recall the late 1950s and the mid-1980s most fondly. Sample explanations: “Reagan.” “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values.” The distribution of Trump supporters’ greatest years is somewhat similar to the Republican trend, but more widely dispersed over the last 70 years. Supporters of Ted Cruz picked best years that were similar to the party’s trend over all. The sample of John Kasich supporters in the survey was too small to detect any patterns."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... in/481167/

This is fascinating to me. Republicans almost completely choose years in which Democrats held power, and describe them as “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values.”



We all know Republicans can't govern, and GOP supporters are well known for their contradictions, but this is rather stark. Also, consider this:



Note how Republicans opinion about the Federal Government vastly changes based on who wins the Presidency - yet, generally, the House and Senate stay the same, but certainly, the entire Federal Government generally stays the same, as the Government employees and laws are pretty much the same year to year. This suggests to me Republicans react to the figurehead, and have no understanding of how government works.

This graph shows how Republicans have become more extremist suddenly, rushing to extreme Conservatism while most people are more Moderate. And this graph ends in 2011 - it's gotten worse.

So, when was America Great? Was it when Democrats were in charge - and is it time to return to “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values”?


Special challenge: Please post a graph that adds to your comment. Let's try to get this filled with charts and graphs!

America has never been great apart from those Americans who honored God.

[placebofactor]

"Republicans, over all, recall the late 1950s and the mid-1980s most fondly. Sample explanations: “Reagan.” “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values.” The distribution of Trump supporters’ greatest years is somewhat similar to the Republican trend, but more widely dispersed over the last 70 years. Supporters of Ted Cruz picked best years that were similar to the party’s trend over all. The sample of John Kasich supporters in the survey was too small to detect any patterns."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... in/481167/

This is fascinating to me. Republicans almost completely choose years in which Democrats held power, and describe them as “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values.”



We all know Republicans can't govern, and GOP supporters are well known for their contradictions, but this is rather stark. Also, consider this:



Note how Republicans opinion about the Federal Government vastly changes based on who wins the Presidency - yet, generally, the House and Senate stay the same, but certainly, the entire Federal Government generally stays the same, as the Government employees and laws are pretty much the same year to year. This suggests to me Republicans react to the figurehead, and have no understanding of how government works.

This graph shows how Republicans have become more extremist suddenly, rushing to extreme Conservatism while most people are more Moderate. And this graph ends in 2011 - it's gotten worse.

So, when was America Great? Was it when Democrats were in charge - and is it time to return to “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values”?

Special challenge: Please post a graph that adds to your comment. Let's try to get this filled with charts and graphs!

America has never been great apart from those Americans who honored God.

Words, words words! I'm a conservative, and I'm not extreme. I am retired; 87 years old, born in 1937, live in a mobile home, and consider myself fortunate. I have my health, and the few good friends who are alive, friends that I would trust with my life. I lived during World War 2 and remember it well. I recall clearly when the war ended, and the joy of everyone, especially those who had families serving in the military. Back then, families were close, people went to church an prayed, everyone knew their neighbors, people worked hard, they didn't sit behind a desk getting fat. My sister and I walked 2 1/2 to school every day for 12 years, no school buses. One family in 4 had a car, and phones were shared between 4 families, yet everyone was happy and helpful. We needed "Green stamps" to buy food, tires for cars, and a host of other things. Haircuts were 25 cents, milk 12 cents, bread 15 cents, gas 12 cents. No one had a TV, but everyone did have a radio. Tough times pulled everyone together. I can say, Americans worked as a team, both Democrats and Republicans.

The 1950s were the best years. The War was over, homes were being built for veterans and working families, and our farmers were producing food for the nation. Then Korea started, and it changed everything. And when Korea was over, drugs became popular, and a culture of young jerky weirdos invaded New York and California. Then Vietnam started, that war changed everything in America, right up to this day. America has not been the same since.

The problem today people are greedy, selfish, and self-centered. I live on 1500 dollars a month, and I have more than Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, David, and Solomon. Not more money, but better health care. I can travel 300 miles in 4 1/2 hours. It would have taken the ancient Kings 3 weeks. What I have, they wish they had. Air conditioning in the summer, central heat in the winter, running water, both hot and cold, modern bathroom facilities, grocery stores, and places like Lowe's are minutes away.

Democrats and Republicans are the same, there is one difference. More Christians are Republicans, and Democrats own WOKE, the weirdest thinking I have ever witnessed. Democrats, all they are is a bunch of perverts, corrupting the minds of America's future generation.

This nation is in trouble; I don't care who's running it. All Trump is going to do is slow down the corruption, no one will stop it. That's my take. Keep your eye on October 22, 2027. Do-do is going to hit the fan.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #6]

The 1950s were the best years. The War was over, homes were being built for veterans and working families, and our farmers were producing food for the nation.

There were good things about the 1950's. Most of the country had a robust infrastructure back then because corporate taxes were high. The government didn't always do the right thing, but at least it functioned. You didn't have the Executive branch refusing to follow court orders. You didn't have political candidates refusing to concede when they lost elections. Trust in public institutions was fostered, not undermined.

Then Korea started, and it changed everything. And when Korea was over, drugs became popular, and a culture of young jerky weirdos invaded New York and California. Then Vietnam started, that war changed everything in America, right up to this day. America has not been the same since.

It wasn't just Korea that started things downhill. Joe American who enjoyed the world's highest standard of living in the 1950's ended up being the Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, an increasingly frustrated and dissatisfied cog in the machine. It wasn't just the younger generation who struck out for new horizons; everyone wanted something different, and everyone had an opinion on what "different" should be. Eventually, as human nature tends to do, it polarized the crowd into hippie/redneck extremes with precious little room for anyone in the middle.

I see facets of this when looking back at my own early childhood in the mid/late '60's. My mother was highly intelligent and creative, and being a housewife drove her up the wall. She wanted more. We were lower middle-class and we all wanted more.


The mistake we make is in imagining "America" as our parent. It's not. America is our child. We create it and raise it. We make it what it is. And because there are so many of us, we have to coexist with our disagreements. Perhaps our biggest mistake is that we're not trying to create America, but trying to create Utopia. That's not going to happen. The good news is that it doesn't have to.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
---Thomas Jefferson

[Difflugia]

I'm a conservative, and I'm not extreme.

[...]

Democrats, all they are is a bunch of perverts, corrupting the minds of America's future generation.

You're "not extreme" compared to what?

[placebofactor]

I'm a conservative, and I'm not extreme.

[...]

Democrats, all they are is a bunch of perverts, corrupting the minds of America's future generation.

You're "not extreme" compared to what?

Compared to Democrats!

I know the difference between a man and a woman; Democrats don't. Dem's thought you could let 15,000,000 people into the country in 4 years, house them, feed them, and protect them. We could not, so what happened? Gangs, thefts, murder, rape, homelessness, and national bankruptcy.

Adam (the) Shaft, corrupt: Hillary (rotten) Clinton, corrupt: Joe Biden (corrupt). Russia gate (lies). Men playing contact sports against girls, more ignorant Democratic bull. etc.

Democrats like Obama, Nancy, Joe, Chucky boy, and Hillary came into Congress as middle-class Americans, and now each one is a multi-millionaire. Who ripped the country off? Not me, I worked for every nickel I earned. Over one trillion dollars is unaccounted for under the Biden administration. How do you lose a trillion dollars? You don't, it's been stolen from you, me, and every other hard-working American. That's your Democratic party of pimps and thieves.

Here's a slogan the Democrats can use: "We are the party of inaccuracies of oddities."

[Difflugia]

You're "not extreme" compared to what?

Compared to Democrats!

Or compared to what you imagine Democrats to be, anyway. To be sure, there are extremist Democrats, but the vast majority of them are moderates. This is also true of conservatives. If your rhetoric is to be believed, you're convinced that Democrats at large represent a hyberbolically radical and corrupt view of progressivism that represents at most a tiny fraction of real people and may not exist at all.

So, you're "not extreme" compared to the most exaggerated left-wing version of extremism that Glenn Beck can present? That might be true in an absolute sense, but that's not a very high bar. Again, if you believe your own rhetoric, then you are extreme compared to everyone with whom I'm acquainted, conservative or liberal.

I know the difference between a man and a woman; Democrats don't.

I find it interesting that this is your first point. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, conservatives were terrified that racial integration would upend and irreparably damage the social order. Their rhetoric was similar to that on the right today and presumably their thinking was, as well. Here is a well-known image, to which I'll assume you know the relevant background:



Do you think the people behind the black teenager were more or less frightened of changes to the social order than you are? Which of the people in that image, if any, would you characterize as extremist? With whom in that image would you most closely identify? Many of the people in that image presumably knew the difference between black and white. In what ways is that similar to your own attitude? In what ways is it different?

Dem's thought you could let 15,000,000 people into the country in 4 years, house them, feed them, and protect them. We could not, so what happened? Gangs, thefts, murder, rape, homelessness, and national bankruptcy.

Most liberals have no idea what you're talking about and assume that you're just spouting dishonest right-wing talking points. I watch conservative talking-heads, so I do, but most moderates don't enter the conservative talk bubble. How about you pick one of those and actually explain what you're talking about, where the numbers come from, and what they mean? Perhaps if you can convince us that you understand your own sources, we won't think you're an extremist.

Adam (the) Shaft, corrupt: Hillary (rotten) Clinton, corrupt: Joe Biden (corrupt). Russia gate (lies).

Moderates don't often punctuate their public rhetoric with name-calling. Do you think all Democrats do that? If not, how extreme does one have to be to start doing so?

Men playing contact sports against girls,

This is the second time you've referred to trans people. This must be really important to you.

more ignorant Democratic bull. etc.

Ignorant of what? What knowledge do you think you're privy to that Democrats aren't?

Democrats like Obama, Nancy, Joe, Chucky boy, and Hillary came into Congress as middle-class Americans, and now each one is a multi-millionaire.

In 1991, Obama graduated from Harvard Law. In 2009, Obama's net worth was quoted at $1.3 million dollars. This was after a career as a lawyer, a State Senator, and a U.S. Senator. He is also married to a lawyer. I currently make less than the public salaries of high-ranking politicians and the lawyers I know, but my net worth, which includes things like retirement accounts, is nearly a million dollars. I'm not a politician, let alone a corrupt one. In recent years, Obama has become a top-selling author, which is plausibly responsible for his subsequent increase in wealth. Simple net worth is hardly grounds for accusations of corruption and you (and Glenn Beck) will have to do better than that.

Over one trillion dollars is unaccounted for under the Biden administration. How do you lose a trillion dollars?

You'll have to tell us where those numbers come from and what they mean.

That's your Democratic party of pimps and thieves.

Here's a slogan the Democrats can use: "We are the party of inaccuracies of oddities."

This doesn't sound extremist at all.