News media often compare some government administrations to others, either in the same nation or that of other countries.
Currently, historians compare the Trumpian goals to those of others, and topping the list is mid-20th Century Germany and early 19th Century America.
Was treason involved? That is the question. Some 200 years ago, Aaron Burr was the target of that accusation, and the issue was fought at court levels all the way to the Supreme Court. But the question of jurisdiction stalled any action there, and it may be the same now.
Historians go into great detail when writing about Burr and his activities, and some are reluctant to give an answer to the treason question, just as some others stress his guilt, even though he was not convicted.
Now, the issue of treason is at the root of debates on the episode of January 6, 2021, especially whether it was spontaneous or planned by allies of the president at the time, Donald Trump.
As governments in other countries swerve to the political right wing, scholars and journalists ask whether the U.S. is participating in this movement.
Next month, Americans will choose a new set of representatives for Congress -- all members of the House and a third of those in the Senate.
Other nations are also experiencing a shift to the political right, and victorious conservatives act quickly to reduce or eliminate government welfare programs that tax the wealthy for funds to assist those who are not.
It's certainly understandable that many of the wealthy want to keep as much as they can without crossing the border into greed. Many others, however, have already crossed that border and resist any program that would trim their wealth in any way. Not all the rich are that way, of course, but many are.
That's why they are called conservatives. They want to conserve as much of their wealthy as they can. An acceptable goal, but part of this belief is the idea that the poor are poor because they deserve it, and therefore the rich are not obliged to help them in any way.
Circular reasoning.
Complicating this is the reality that the economy is taking a growth break, and the non-wealthy are having a more difficult time than before. That's called a recession, because buying and selling activity recedes from its previous levels.
Another part of the worry is caused by news media that play up any change, so that it sounds worse than it really is.
For example, broadcasters lament that 30-year mortgage rates have "soared" to 7 percent, compared to its substantially lower rates a year ago, causing substantial financial harm to home buyers.
Not mentioned is the fact that the lower interest rate holds at that level for 30 years. That's why it's called a 30-year mortgage. (The term "mortgage," by the way, comes from the French, and it means that the loan dies after a specified period of time, typically 30 years.) Therefore, a family that bought a home a year ago is not affected by the current rise in rates.
Also not mention is history that a mortgage rate of 7 percent was common a few decades ago, and was considered a bargain because not long before that the typical rate was above 10 percent.
At that time, a home priced at $1 million was exceedingly rare, well past the status of a luxury mansion affordable to only a rare few. Now, finding a home in a good suburb below that price is a major accomplishment -- depending, of course, on what part of the country a home buyer is looking.
One reason for the high price is that more people can afford it, especially in prominent suburbs near major cities.
Income levels also play a part in home prices. Some years ago, a job that paid more than $400 weekly was available only to highly skilled professionals.
Now, with minimum wages set at $15 an hour in some regions -- well above state requirements -- that pay level goes to part-timers at unskilled jobs.
But prices have also soared, so that leaves many workers in the same predicament. Their income does not cover monthly living expenses.
So who's responsible for the disparity in income versus expenses? Political candidates typically blame their opposition for the problem, even when a reality check reveals that the problem began when their side was dominant in government.
Neutral economists point out that government has limited influence on the economy as a whole, and should resort to high spending only when needed to stimulate economic health. Otherwise, government intervention becomes interference.
Somewhere there is a middle ground between major government control and total industrial freedom. And that is the inherent difference between full socialism and absolute capitalism.
Historically, America has sought that middle path ever since the rise of the labor movement and its challenge to what was sometimes despotic industrial control.
The challenge now is to stay on the middle path.
Currently, historians compare the Trumpian goals to those of others, and topping the list is mid-20th Century Germany and early 19th Century America.
Was treason involved? That is the question. Some 200 years ago, Aaron Burr was the target of that accusation, and the issue was fought at court levels all the way to the Supreme Court. But the question of jurisdiction stalled any action there, and it may be the same now.
Historians go into great detail when writing about Burr and his activities, and some are reluctant to give an answer to the treason question, just as some others stress his guilt, even though he was not convicted.
Now, the issue of treason is at the root of debates on the episode of January 6, 2021, especially whether it was spontaneous or planned by allies of the president at the time, Donald Trump.
As governments in other countries swerve to the political right wing, scholars and journalists ask whether the U.S. is participating in this movement.
Next month, Americans will choose a new set of representatives for Congress -- all members of the House and a third of those in the Senate.
Other nations are also experiencing a shift to the political right, and victorious conservatives act quickly to reduce or eliminate government welfare programs that tax the wealthy for funds to assist those who are not.
It's certainly understandable that many of the wealthy want to keep as much as they can without crossing the border into greed. Many others, however, have already crossed that border and resist any program that would trim their wealth in any way. Not all the rich are that way, of course, but many are.
That's why they are called conservatives. They want to conserve as much of their wealthy as they can. An acceptable goal, but part of this belief is the idea that the poor are poor because they deserve it, and therefore the rich are not obliged to help them in any way.
Circular reasoning.
Complicating this is the reality that the economy is taking a growth break, and the non-wealthy are having a more difficult time than before. That's called a recession, because buying and selling activity recedes from its previous levels.
Another part of the worry is caused by news media that play up any change, so that it sounds worse than it really is.
For example, broadcasters lament that 30-year mortgage rates have "soared" to 7 percent, compared to its substantially lower rates a year ago, causing substantial financial harm to home buyers.
Not mentioned is the fact that the lower interest rate holds at that level for 30 years. That's why it's called a 30-year mortgage. (The term "mortgage," by the way, comes from the French, and it means that the loan dies after a specified period of time, typically 30 years.) Therefore, a family that bought a home a year ago is not affected by the current rise in rates.
Also not mention is history that a mortgage rate of 7 percent was common a few decades ago, and was considered a bargain because not long before that the typical rate was above 10 percent.
At that time, a home priced at $1 million was exceedingly rare, well past the status of a luxury mansion affordable to only a rare few. Now, finding a home in a good suburb below that price is a major accomplishment -- depending, of course, on what part of the country a home buyer is looking.
One reason for the high price is that more people can afford it, especially in prominent suburbs near major cities.
Income levels also play a part in home prices. Some years ago, a job that paid more than $400 weekly was available only to highly skilled professionals.
Now, with minimum wages set at $15 an hour in some regions -- well above state requirements -- that pay level goes to part-timers at unskilled jobs.
But prices have also soared, so that leaves many workers in the same predicament. Their income does not cover monthly living expenses.
So who's responsible for the disparity in income versus expenses? Political candidates typically blame their opposition for the problem, even when a reality check reveals that the problem began when their side was dominant in government.
Neutral economists point out that government has limited influence on the economy as a whole, and should resort to high spending only when needed to stimulate economic health. Otherwise, government intervention becomes interference.
Somewhere there is a middle ground between major government control and total industrial freedom. And that is the inherent difference between full socialism and absolute capitalism.
Historically, America has sought that middle path ever since the rise of the labor movement and its challenge to what was sometimes despotic industrial control.
The challenge now is to stay on the middle path.
No comments:
Post a Comment