(Part 2) Top products from r/Trumpgret

It's kind of funny to see conservatives think neoliberalism is some kind of left wing phenomenon.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were two of the greatest proponents of Neoliberalism - free movement of capital, people, goods, and services across borders. Everyone should read A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey.

Here's what fellow author Frederick Pohl said about this:

> But by the latter ’60s, he had become a good deal more adventurous. On meeting an attractive woman — one who was not obviously the Most Significant Other of some male friend — he was inclined to touch her … not immediately on any Off Limits part of her anatomy but in a fairly fondling way. (When I called him on it once, he said, “It’s like the old saying. You get slapped a lot, but you get laid a lot, too.”)

I also think you're too quick to dismiss the article you linked to - the letters between the Chicon chair and Asimov include both a clear reference to Asimov's behavior, both in the nature of the request itself and the comment, "frankly, your reputation". Asimov acknowledges this in his response, saying "...there is some age at which I ought to gain a kind of minimal dignity suiting my age position in life."

There is also apparently some discussion of these issues in Asimov's letters published in the book Yours, Isaac Asimov. One of the Amazon reviews mentions this, saying:

> "...and combination of feminist sympathies with a habit of what he calls "flirting" with women (but it's likely to make a contemporary reader think of sexual harassment lawsuits)."

I'm a big fan of Asimov's (more his non-fiction than much of his scifi), but that's not going to cause me to simply try to deny that he might have been imperfect. The article you linked to has a good take on that, reminding us that the problem was not just with the individuals who engaged in such behavior, but with the society that tolerated and even condoned it:

> [The slogan "We Don't Do That Anymore"] reminds us all that we have all been a part of a cultural of sexual harassment at conventions. We have been harassed and not reported it. We have crossed boundaries and not known. We have been told we crossed boundaries and not known how to make amends. We have witnessed and not intervened.

> “Don’t Do That.” But now we know better. Now we have been educated and informed. We have strategies and plans. We have people and institutions that we can trust to help us navigate the muddy waters of harassment.

> “Anymore.” We have failed in the past. We intend to fail less in the future.

I'm reading Nixonland and slowly realizing that Johnson's Great Society didn't fail because people didn't want it. It failed because people didn't want black people to have access to it.

N. Gregory Mankiw: a well-published, Tenured Harvard Professor, Former G.W. Staffer and writer of one of the most used books around the world in 101 economics courses https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Economics-Mankiws/dp/0538453052 is probably making ALOT more than 100k a year.

In fact the royalties from his textbooks alone make him a millionaire:

Since then, more than one million copies have been sold, and Mankiw has received an estimated $42 million in royalties from the book, which is priced at $280 per copy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mankiw

People in his tax bracket made out like bandits.

They just wanted change that we can believe in.

On the day of the vote, Representative Claudia Tenney (R) swore up and down that the bill would reduce the deficit; and even bring about a surplus.

-----------------------------

• NPR: GOP Rep. Tenney On The Tax Bill: 'This Is Actually Going To Work'
  
  Initially she claims that the tax cuts will fix everything:
  
  > Tax cuts make growth happen. Almost all economists are now saying: if we're to continue the 3% growth we're seeing now (without even having the tax cuts passed) - we're going to be eliminating that deficit. And not only eliminating, we could see even larger growth; as we:
  >
  > - see the stock market continue to grow
  > - see more labor participation
  > - we're seeing unemployment go down
  >
  > And those things are going to be happening in the larger scale, and we could be seeing even greater than 3% growth. Which in a short period of time we're going to reduce the deficit, and we're also going to be reducing the long term debt of this nation. Finally growth is going to catch up.
  
  First of all, that's all bullshit. All of it.
  
  But it sounds absolutely great if it were true:
  
  
• not only will the tax cuts will pay for themselves
  
• not only will the deficit not go up
  
• not only will the deficit not remain steady
  
• not only will the deficit go down
  
• it will trigger a surplus
  
  This tax cut will put the budget into surplus - something not seen since Bill Clinton raised taxes triggering the largest economic boom in 50 years. This means there will be plenty of cash to protect Medicare, Medicaid, public services!
  
  But then she notes that all of that is a lie.
  
  > Next year we're going to be reducing spending, which is going to be another aspect of this.
  
  Ari Shapiro then noted that the AARP is concerned that with this tax cut, the deficit will in fact not shrink, and the government will then try to cut in entitlement programs.
  
  -------------------
  
  > Aside: The rule long known by economists is for dealing with a depression is:
  >
  > - in tough times: the government has to prime the pump with large deficit spending
  > - and when times are good, it's time to raise taxes to pay it back
  >
  > And this /r/punchableface (who sits on the Financial Services Committee) doesn't understand that.
  >
  ----------------------------
  
  She responds to the concerns about the need to cut spending after the tax cut fails to improve the economy:
  
  > I just marvel at the sudden concern in deficit spending by the democrats and liberal organizations after eight years of unprecedented debt growth. If we do nothing we're going to see spiraling into increased debt, and into increased deficits
  
  
  
• Claim A: after this tax cut we will see the eliminate the deficit (lie)
  
• Claim B: after this tax cut we will see the spiraling of the deficit (true)
  
  Pick one.
  
  And then, as a bonus, she concedes a major selling point of the tax plan. It was supposed to simplify the tax code (the idea being save costs, and then cut taxes to make it revenue neutral). Instead the tax cuts just cut taxes, with the complicated tax plan remaining:
  
  > Ari Shapiro: Part of the original goal was to simplify the tax code and eliminate loopholes. Why didn't that happen?
  >
  > Noise Hole: I think that one of the issues as we wanted to have deeeper cuts, and deeper cuts of the lower and middle income taxpayers, we had to make a decision between:
  >
  > - simplification
  > - and deeper cuts
  
  So the goals for the tax plan:
  
  
• deep cuts for
  
  • business: ☑
    
  • rich: ☑
    
  • middle class: ☐ (sorry, we couldn't get to it)
    
  • lower class: ☐ (sorry, we couldn't get to it)
    
• simplification: ☐ (sorry, we couldn't get to it)
  
  That leaves tax cuts for businesses and the rich, all while increasing the deficit, and requiring cuts to entitlement programs, social security, Medicare, Medicaid.
  
  The ink wasn't even dry on the bill that was supposed to give the US Federal Government oodles of money to work with, and they're already in on the need to cut spending because of the deficits they're going to be experiencing next year.
  
  
  RemindMe! 1 year "Republicans full-of-shit tax plan failed to deliver, and now they want to cut spending"