A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 112 of 725
Quote:No, I did not. What the article calls "the inflection point" is NOT the inflection point, and anyone except SECOND can see that by simple visual examination of the curve. Or you can use fancy math, if you want but you'll reach the same point.
If I had to take a guess I'd say the REAL inflection point occurred around 1969. That's when the line turns around from "going lower" to "going higher". That's what "inflection point" means. (Well, technically, IIRC an inflection point is where the second derivative crosses zero.)
At that time LBJ (a Democrat) was busy spending money on BOTH the Vietnam War AND his "Great Society". That led to inflation, so that by 1973 Nixon had to take the USA off the gold standard (again. FDR originally took the USA off the gold standard in 1933). Going off the gold standard meant that money could be inflated ... i.e. created by the banks without restriction. At that point, one's "access to money" becomes THE defining factor in whether your ascent to wealth remains on-par with the wealthy. And since the wealthy always have better access to freshly-created (at-the-moment un-inflated) dollars they will always get richer faster. Both Democrats AND Republicans were complicit with this scheme.Quote:FIFY - SIGNY
It would be nice if commentators who accuse Republicans of lacking new ideas knew something about this history.
I was 17 years old in 1969, the year Signym says the Inflection Point began. You moved that point from 1980 to shift the blame to Democrats.
Quote:Correct, he attained office in Jan 1969, my bad. All of that inflationary spending was done by LBJ BEFORE Nixon came to office. LBJ included Social Security in the Federal budget (which had a surplus) to hide the debt generated by his deficit spending.
I am not believing Signym's alternative history because I was in Texas in '69. Nixon was President then.
Quote:https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html LBJ's inflationary spending is a historic and economic fact, so get over it.
In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget."
Quote:From your link ...
He committed treason by extending the Vietnam so he could get elected in '68.
Quote:So, you mean like Kerry was/is violating with Iran?
Nixon's newly revealed records show for certain that in 1968, as a presidential candidate, he ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade them to refuse a cease-fire being brokered by President Lyndon Johnson.
Nixon's interference with these negotiations violated President John Adams's 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation.
Quote:You shouldn't have volunteered anyway, it was a pointless war; that aspect was being discussed then so you don't have the excuse of not being able to know or find out.
Personally, if I had known I would not have volunteered for Vietnam.
Quote:Yes, but like all government economic policies, it takes YEARS to take effect. Obama wasn't responsible for the Great Recession, and Nixon wasn
Nixon also toke the U.S. off the gold standard. Nixon’s treasury secretary and former governor of Texas John Connally said "My philosophy is that all foreigners are out to screw us and it’s our job to screw them first." Connally convinced Nixon to unleash the infamous Nixon Shock upon Europe’s unsuspecting political leaders. At the end of a crucial weekend of consultations with key advisors, President Nixon decided to make a startling announcement on live television: the global monetary system, which America had designed and had been nurturing since the end of the war, was to be dismantled in one fell swoop. The calendar read Sunday, August 15, 1971.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The chart shows 1968. That was LBJ.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If I had to take a guess I'd say the REAL inflection point occurred around 1969. That's when the line turns around from "going lower" to "going higher". That's what "inflection point" means. (Well, technically, IIRC an inflection point is where the second derivative crosses zero.)
At that time LBJ (a Democrat) was busy spending money on BOTH the Vietnam War AND his "Great Society". That led to inflation, so that by 1973 Nixon had to take the USA off the gold standard (again. FDR originally took the USA off the gold standard in 1933). Going off the gold standard meant that money could be inflated ... i.e. created by the banks without restriction. At that point, one's "access to money" becomes THE defining factor in whether your ascent to wealth remains on-par with the wealthy. And since the wealthy always have better access to freshly-created (at-the-moment un-inflated) dollars they will always get richer faster. Both Democrats AND Republicans were complicit with this scheme.Quote:FIFY
It would be nice if commentators who accuse Republicans of lacking new ideas knew something about this history.
1969 was RMN.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:No, I did not. What the article calls "the inflection point" is NOT the inflection point, and anyone except SECOND can see that by simple visual examination of the curve. Or you can use fancy math, if you want but you'll reach the same point.
If I had to take a guess I'd say the REAL inflection point occurred around 1969. That's when the line turns around from "going lower" to "going higher". That's what "inflection point" means. (Well, technically, IIRC an inflection point is where the second derivative crosses zero.)
At that time LBJ (a Democrat) was busy spending money on BOTH the Vietnam War AND his "Great Society". That led to inflation, so that by 1973 Nixon had to take the USA off the gold standard (again. FDR originally took the USA off the gold standard in 1933). Going off the gold standard meant that money could be inflated ... i.e. created by the banks without restriction. At that point, one's "access to money" becomes THE defining factor in whether your ascent to wealth remains on-par with the wealthy. And since the wealthy always have better access to freshly-created (at-the-moment un-inflated) dollars they will always get richer faster. Both Democrats AND Republicans were complicit with this scheme.Quote:FIFY - SIGNY
It would be nice if commentators who accuse Republicans of lacking new ideas knew something about this history.
I was 17 years old in 1969, the year Signym says the Inflection Point began. You moved that point from 1980 to shift the blame to Democrats.Quote:Correct, he attained office in Jan 1969, my bad. All of that inflationary spending was done by LBJ BEFORE Nixon came to office. LBJ included Social Security in the Federal budget (which had a surplus) to hide the debt generated by his deficit spending.
I am not believing Signym's alternative history because I was in Texas in '69. Nixon was President then.Quote:https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html LBJ's inflationary spending is a historic and economic fact, so get over it.
In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget."Quote:From your link ...
He committed treason by extending the Vietnam so he could get elected in '68.Quote:So, you mean like Kerry was/is violating with Iran?
Nixon's newly revealed records show for certain that in 1968, as a presidential candidate, he ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade them to refuse a cease-fire being brokered by President Lyndon Johnson.
Nixon's interference with these negotiations violated President John Adams's 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation.Quote:You shouldn't have volunteered anyway, it was a pointless war; that aspect was being discussed then so you don't have the excuse of not being able to know or find out.
Personally, if I had known I would not have volunteered for Vietnam.Quote:Yes, but like all government economic policies, it takes YEARS to take effect. Obama wasn't responsible fo
Nixon also toke the U.S. off the gold standard. Nixon’s treasury secretary and former governor of Texas John Connally said "My philosophy is that all foreigners are out to screw us and it’s our job to screw them first." Connally convinced Nixon to unleash the infamous Nixon Shock upon Europe’s unsuspecting political leaders. At the end of a crucial weekend of consultations with key advisors, President Nixon decided to make a startling announcement on live television: the global monetary system, which America had designed and had been nurturing since the end of the war, was to be dismantled in one fell swoop. The calendar read Sunday, August 15, 1971.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I suppose a decision to commit nuclear suicide would immediately destroy an economy, but short of that the economy has to be at a really unstable point before it can be pushed into freefall by one decision or one event.
Government Economic Policies for Improvement can take years to become effective.
But Government Economic Policies to destroy the Economy are relatively immediate in their effect.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Or an event which forebodes 4 years of disaster.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I suppose a decision to commit nuclear suicide would immediately destroy an economy, but short of that the economy has to be at a really unstable point before it can be pushed into freefall by one decision or one event.
Government Economic Policies for Improvement can take years to become effective.
But Government Economic Policies to destroy the Economy are relatively immediate in their effect.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Trump administration made a peculiar foreign policy move that seems associated with Trump family business interests. Last year the administration, bizarrely, backed a Saudi blockade of Qatar, a Middle Eastern nation that also happens to be the site of a major U.S. military base. Why? Well, the move came shortly after the Qataris refused to invest $500 million in 666 Fifth Avenue, a troubled property owned by the family of Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/weeks-before-blockade-qat
ar-denied-money-to-kushners-firm.html
And now it looks as if Qatar may be about to make a deal on 666 Fifth Avenue after all. I wonder why?
www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2146664/kushner-f
amily-likely-be-bailed-out-qatari
Did Trump teach Qatar a lesson? Did the president of the United States betray the nation’s security in 2017 to punish Qatar for not loaning $500 million to his son-in-law?
Don’t say that this suggestion is ridiculous: Given everything we know about Donald Trump, it’s well within the bounds of possibility, even plausibility.
Don’t say there’s no proof: We’re not talking about a court of law, where the accused are presumed innocent until proved guilty. Where the behavior of high officials is concerned, the standard is very nearly the opposite: They’re supposed to avoid situations in which there is even a hint that their actions might be motivated by personal gain.
Oh, and don’t say that it doesn’t matter one way or the other, because the Republicans who control Congress won’t do anything about it. That in itself is a key part of the story: An entire political party — a party that has historically wrapped itself in the flag and questioned the patriotism of its opponents — has become entirely complaisant in the possibility of raw corruption, even if it involves payoffs from foreign powers.
Democracies have ethical rules: Justin Trudeau would be in big trouble if Canada were caught funneling money to the Trump Organization. But if the King of Qatar or Xi Jinping of China or Vladimir Putin of Russia make payoffs to a U.S. politician’s son-in-law, who’s going to stop them?
The main answer is supposed to be congressional oversight, which used to mean something. If there had been even a whiff of foreign payoffs to, say, Gerald Ford’s or Jimmy Carter’s in-laws, there would have been bipartisan demands for an investigation — and a high likelihood of impeachment.
But today’s Republicans have made it clear that they won’t hold Trump accountable for anything.
www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/opinion/trump-china-bribe-national-security
.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, You DO realize that you're becoming PIRATE NEWS-like? You're absolutely obsessed with Trump. You bring up one allegation, and when it's been found to be wrong, irrelevant, or trivial, rather than discussing THE TOPIC you drop that one and move on to another. Clearly, you have a longstanding hard on for the guy.
Just to go back to a previous discussion about your personal history, I can't imagine what would have propelled you to volunteer for Vietnam. Was it your family? I don't think so, because they're Jehovah's Witnesses, right? And eschewing politics, don't they also eschew military service? So, not your family. Republican friends, maybe? The zeitgeist of Texas? Desire for action and adventure? Whatever it was, it left you with permanent consequence. Well, whatever. I wanted a child, and we ALL have permanent consequences! Life happens, and at least it wasn't fatal. You were 17 at the time, give yourself a break. If we knew the future, we wouldn't make mistakes. But we don't, and we do. Stop blaming everyone else for your decision, and then forgive yourself. Shit happens. Really.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't understand. Maybe an example would help.
I suppose a decision to commit nuclear suicide would immediately destroy an economy, but short of that the economy has to be at a really unstable point before it can be pushed into freefall by one decision or one event.- SIGNY
Or an event which forebodes 4 years of disaster.- JSF
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Such as the Election of Obama. Or the impending doom preceding it.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I don't understand. Maybe an example would help.
I suppose a decision to commit nuclear suicide would immediately destroy an economy, but short of that the economy has to be at a really unstable point before it can be pushed into freefall by one decision or one event.- SIGNY
Or an event which forebodes 4 years of disaster.- JSF
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Who is going to believe anything spouted by all of these known and proven liars?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, You DO realize that you're becoming PIRATE NEWS-like? You're absolutely obsessed with Trump. You bring up one allegation, and when it's been found to be wrong, irrelevant, or trivial, rather than discussing THE TOPIC you drop that one and move on to another.
Do you these Chicken Little Libtards even realize how much they have weakened their own positions? After knowingly fabricating, obstructing, Maliciously persecuting for so long, if they ever stumbled across a valid dispute, who could believe them?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME