begooode

So they are just going to shelve all these promotion candidates to bring in another group of loyalists or blatantly filter through the current group and capriciously deny deserving promotions until they pinky swear an oath to maga? I'm skeptical.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) announced on Tuesday that he is ending his months-long blockade on hundreds of military promotions. Tuberville said that he is jumping on board with an idea presented by Sens. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) that would release all of his holds on military officers at the 3-star level and below. A hold will remain in place for the roughly ten nominations for 4-star generals and officers. “I am not going to hold the promotions of these people any longer. We just released them,” Tuberville told reporters after informing Senate Republicans of his decision. At issue was a Pentagon policy, enacted last year, that was put into place last year allowing service members to be reimbursed for travel to receive abortion care. In total, the holds lasted nearly 10 months and became a thorn in the side of the Senate GOP conference, with many hesitant to choose between the military and pro-life issues. The pressure on Tuberville to alter his tactics only increased as Senate Democrats planned to hold a vote in the coming weeks that would temporarily change the rules of the upper chamber in order to advance the more than 400 nominees that were being affected. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4343067-tuberville-release-hold-military-promotions/

dang it Bobby, you know it's always safety first when dealing with proPANE.

When I read that Jesus’ own teachings from the sermon on the mount were chastised as “liberal talking points”, I kinda figured the writing was on the wall: Trump > the Bible, to go along with Trump > the constitution. And while the US could cloak itself in a reasonable argument of representing a moral high ground in the global context, now with Trump 2.0 we’d be just another country (albeit a superpower) led by a capricious strongman.

LOL at the fabulist finally getting his comeuppance and dramatic exit: The House voted Friday to expel Rep. George Santos, ending the New York Republican’s tumultuous tenure in Congress and officially etching his name in the history books as the sixth lawmaker ever to be ousted from the lower chamber. The extraordinary move, unseen in 20 years, took three attempts over six months and required support from large numbers in both parties to meet the inflated threshold — two-thirds of the chamber — for expelling a sitting member. The final tally, 311-114-2, surpassed that mark, with 105 Republicans joining almost all Democrats to remove the scandal-plagued Santos after just 11 months in office. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4337205-house-expels-george-santos/

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-about-carter This is an overly rosy Carter piece, imo, but based on the facts presented I'll concede the topic and take an L, that with the benefit of hindsight Reagan was likely overrated / Carter underrated. That said, perception often fuels reality when it comes to leadership and Carter's inability to project confidence in spite of the messy environment of 1979-80 was a reasonable assessment by the electorate, and got him voted out. Yes, Ted Koppel on every night to tell us about the Iran hostages certainly didn't help, nor did Carter's failed military rescue attempt that resulted in downed choppers and dead troops. sidebar -- I'm not seeing a significantly better world leader from the 80s, but I'm biased. sidebar2 -- the parallels for the ex post assessments for Reagan and Thatcher are essentially mirror images. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-world-leaders-in-positions-of-power/#google_vignette

More good news on the economy: The Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation fell to its lowest level in more than two-and-a-half years, taking more pressure off the central bank to make another quarter-point rate hike before the year is out. The personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index held steady on the month and fell to a 3-percent annual increase in October, down from 3.4-percent increases in the previous three months. That’s the lowest number since March 2021. https://thehill.com/homenews/4335349-key-inflation-measure-drops-ahead-of-feds-last-meeting-of-the-year/ Mortgage rates continued to drop this week. It’s the fifth straight week rates have moved lower. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage fell to an average of 7.22% in the week ending November 30, down from 7.29% the week before, according to data from Freddie Mac released Thursday. A year ago, the average 30-year fixed-rate was 6.49%. “Market sentiment has significantly shifted over the last month, leading to a continued decline in mortgage rates,” said Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s chief economist. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/30/homes/mortgage-rates-drop/index.html

I apologize for being an ahole, man. It's just that you have your perspective , and many of your points are built around supporting your perspective; and I have mine. That said, it's a joke how much you want to diminish Reagan's impact to the collapse of the USSR, how much you want to diminish his impact to an overall net favorable 80s economy that included unprecedented interest rates and corporate restructuring. How much you want to negate that, warts and all, Reagan led this country from the nasty post-Vietnam / post-Watergate era of anxiety/doubt. Jimmy Carter is an honorable man, diligent and smart. His post-presidency impact on international peace affairs and personal legacy of giving should be held in the highest regard. That said, he was just not the guy who inspired confidence to lead the country through those terrible times. Reagan's favorability is attested to far beyond my cheerleading, but as you condescendingly noted 'he gave a few speeches and I guess people loved him'. Just a bunch of idiots and hayseeds who can't pretend to understand ex-post 'it was just stagflation, and Russia was going to bust anyway because of', okay thx for the invite to the player haters ball, LOFL.

The “pent up demand” argument completely misses the impact of the boomers coming online, imo. Also, the high earning tax rates were a mess prior to the epic (and bipartisan) tax reform act in 1986 — between the +70% nominal rates and IRS tax shelter games, determining the effective rates was difficult and individually specific. Yes, history has showed the widening of the wealth gap during Reagan’s time, with tax cuts being part of that. What it also shows is that America led the world in design and innovation during that period, along with capital market efficiencies waking up and ensuring the flow of capital to good ideas in the marketplace and/or to shareholders (mostly American investors at the time, including pension funds). Also, recall that Reagan was pro growth including reasonable and robust immigration and America was (and remains) the destination of choice for skilled as well as unskilled talent despite the widening wealth disparity. That immigration was net positive for labor, innovation, entrepreneurship, and cultural diversity. Domestically Reagan was too favorable to business, certainly. Big business overreached, unions lost their way and the government conceded too often. Agreed on all points. Internationally, Reagan was not perfect, but was pretty much unmatched on the world stage, imo. https://news.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx

so a feckless Carter who was overwhelmed and rendered reactionary by domestic economic problems would have suddenly projected US power and lead us to prosperity? He would have injected confidence into our consumer spending dependent economy while dealing with 20% interest rates and the terrible 1982 recession. I’m very skeptical. Gorbachev’s reforms came later in the 80s were needed because Russia’s military spending was no longer sustainable and no longer desirable from its people. Reagan forced his hand, period. Europe was freed decades before some organic implosion would have happened. Thanks Reagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika

Fair enough, I was being opaque. More directly, this place seems stressed and does not like to discuss Biden’s negative points or topics where the Dems are vulnerable, imo. Agreed, right wing pro Trump pablum should be called out and ridiculed mercilessly.

You’ve presented a lot of unattributed contradictions here, regarding the USSR, while also putting stank on the outcome of their collapse leading to undesirable consequences that were outside of Reagan’s tenure. You need to put out a fire first before talking about what the embers shoulda/coulda/woulda caused, imo. America bankrupted the USSR’s economy and their people who were starting to see the prosperity regular Americans/West Europeans enjoyed in capitalism led by liberal democracies created that internal pressure to change that you seemingly argue originated organically from nowhere. Russia’s command economy, 5 year plans that were DOA, demotivating, corrupt, and built upon a worthless captive currency were incapable of paying the bills for the arms race and military build up from the US. Subsequently, the wall coming down — that Reagan called for — was the greatest event in the West post WW2, and the revisionists can go chase another white whale, not this one imho. Noted that the domestic economics of the problematic late 70s involved many moving parts — including oil crisis and post Vietnam stagflation with interest rates people cannot relate to anymore (banks regularly paid 5.25% interest on savings). That said, the overriding driver for much of 1980s economic growth was boomers, painful but necessary corporate upheaval from Wall Street, and deregulation. But I’m certainly glossing over other factors, and will gladly concede on several points. And not sure what to make of your Afghanistan reference as a driver of change as it was always going to be a loser for the Russians, just like it was for us decades later. Yes, we made it more painful for them (typical proxy war), but wide-ranging mountainous areas of hostile populations have historically never been conquered. Lastly, from the world leaders in the 80s, who rocked it better than my man Reagan? And please don’t tell me Mondale or Dukakis (or chappaquiddick Ted) would have fared much better

I would characterize it differently, saying this place reflects our polarized political climate and in taking anti-Repub stances (mostly correct, imo, in our current Trump tainted politics) has allowed itself to become not friendly to centrist/right-centrist views or topics. We seem to come here to yell and not to learn, which comes across as a lost opportunity imo.

A few thoughts/opinions -- Reagan was the right guy at the right time with an overall message of confidence that the post-Vietnam, economically stalled USA sorely needed. Regarding economic policy, Reagan benefitted from the demographically dominant boomers (with higher % of college grads) entering prime wage earning and home-buying years. Moreover, Volcker's --> Greenspan's monetary policy -- which made up for middling legislative economic policies -- was laser-focused on stopping inflation which set us up for decades of economic stability and prosperity -- real gains, not inflationary top-line growth. Reagan's deregulation helped ease the hardship of the contracting economy early in his tenure (prime rate of 21%) and regarding energy, allowed us to believe our oil-based economy wasn't always going to be dictated by the OPEC nations that we made wealthy. In the capital markets , the go-go greedy days of 1980s Wall Street did have a net benefit of forcing complacent companies to become more agile, properly risk-adjusted, and increasing their return on investments, and allowing that value to be disbursed to investors and reinvested. Going into the 1980s we thought Japan was going to kick our ass. By 1990, we were making jokes about their bloated almost incestuous keiretsu organizations and their 'lifetime' employees staring out windows Destruction of the middle class was from globalization, and our inability to switch quickly to an information driven economy without severe dislocations. It was accelerated under Reagan's policies, but the writing was on the wall as America was not going to pivot towards the socialistic, pro-worker West European model. The impact of the fall of the USSR is underappreciated now, and it's a bit much to have beneficiaries who never had to worry about the old Soviet union to not respect it more. imo, we should always hold this in the highest regard as Reagan's America bankrupted and overturned the second world's entire military/economic model without firing a shot. Impacts: No more Truman doctrine proxy wars in remote areas of the world, or rando petty despots playing both sides of the Cold War for weapons ultimately used against their own country's people. In control of our military's budget. Nuclear weapons accounted for, and decreased in volume. The Guns v Butter on steroids + the threat of an Iron Dome in Space (Star Wars) seemingly worked https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gunsandbutter.asp Yes, bad stuff occurred under Reagan, especially Iran/Contra, but the USA did reassert itself within 5-6 years of our most embarrassing military loss. Reagan commanded respect from world leaders and conveyed his charisma and swag without being too smarmy and projected hope that the American ideal (yes, born of capitalism) would be well positioned going into the 1990s. Booming economy, Rebuilt/Restored #1 military, Russia was gone, Japan was waning, China was still sleeping, and Europe was reunited. Good job, Ronald.

Whenever I watch Newsome speak, I get J Peterman vibes from Seinfeld