Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

Yet another example of phony outrage dominating the debate when it turns out only a tiny minority give a shit. But unforunately, that minority dominates all of academia and 90% of the media.

[Wild Hoss]

As important, most Americans know persons who have been "eliminated" from well-paying jobs by government regulatory action (eg. coal workers).

I cannot even name one.

I know a LOT who were involved in real estate eight years ago though...and haven't been since. There's your employment shift.

[hack]

Good on your Grandma, Talent. Sounds like a successful final chapter.

[entropy]

I cannot even name one.

I know a LOT who were involved in real estate eight years ago though...and haven't been since. There's your employment shift.

yes.. thank you Bill Clinton

[Wild Hoss]

LOL

[lineygoblue]

I do like that 43 percent of the GOP believe he is a secret Muslim.

I don't think he's made any secret at all of the fact that he is sympathetic to Islam. Is he a practicing Muslim? No, I don't think so, but there cannot be much argument that he's shown that he's more comfortable talking about his Muslim heritage (thru his dad) than he is about his claims to be a Christian. Even Bill Clinton was more comfortable speaking about his own faith than Obama is.

Just watching the man shows he's not secret about his beliefs at all.

[Wild Hoss]

I don't think he's made any secret at all of the fact that he is sympathetic to Islam. Is he a practicing Muslim? No, I don't think so, but there cannot be much argument that he's shown that he's more comfortable talking about his Muslim heritage (thru his dad) than he is about his claims to be a Christian. Even Bill Clinton was more comfortable speaking about his own faith than Obama is.

Just watching the man shows he's not secret about his beliefs at all.

My question: why is this even an issue?

[UMStan White]

Godspeed Talent. My mother died last month 2 hours short of her 91st birthday. As a friend said ninety trips around the sun makes for a very full life.

[Dr. Strangelove]

If you're going to offer more equivocation, just say I don't know the answer or I disagree with your assertion. At least that'd a direct response. Then you can get into all of the other stuff -- stuff which is interesting, generally thoughtful and worth reading -- but it's not an answer to what I asked.

It's worth clarifying that the original link blamed Progressives and Trump supporters as opposed to Ds and Rs. That said, Trumpees generally believe in "America" -- they may think it's no good now, but the belief is there; I don't think marxo-progressives believe in "America" in any way, shape or form. I think you'd be FAR more likely to get a Trumpee to say "America is great" than a marxo-progressive -- it may be that only 10% of Trumpees would say it, but that'd still rate 10x more than marxo-progessives in my opinion.

Finally, I'm happy to discuss lurches in each direction. I assume you mean a lurch right on civil LIBERTIES not civil rights. Civil rights move inexorably in one direction and it ain't fucking "right". And as noted previously, you can point to instances of de-regulation and I can point to the massive growth of the administrative state and, TBH, the massive increase in the Administrative code. I feel pretty good about my macro argument on this one. Further, there's no question this is part of a massive expansion of Executive power. I'm not sure if I consider a hugely expanded Executive power to be a left/right issue, but it's certainly anti-"classical liberal" and "founders".

Fair enough. If you're going with "was their ever a version of America that would make most Progressives extremely satisfied?" I imagine that a smaller number would say yes than Trump voters, who have an idealized version of America somewhere in the past. Maybe the 1950's, maybe the 1880's, maybe the 1790's. My bone I was picking was which side is more pessimistic with what America is TODAY. Because Easterbrook (and you?) appear to be advancing the argument that we've never had it better. That implies the 1790's, the 1880's, the 1950's actually Were NOT the golden time for America. So which side (Trump voters or Sanders voters) would dispute that more? I don't think either side has a significant edge. Call that equivocating if you like, fine. I hear plenty of anger about today's America from Trump voters and Trump just wiped the floor with all those sunny, National Review-endorsed Republicans like Rubio.

And good correction on civil 'liberties', which indeed is what I meant.

And sorry to hear about your grandma. But sounds like she lived a good life.

[Wild Hoss]

Echoing grandma sentiments. Lost my last one two years ago.

[lineygoblue]

I'll add my condolences to you and your family Talent.

[Dr. Strangelove]

For some perspective...the Sanders people appear to be less bitter about losing than Hillary supporters in 2008.

[ame]https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/733433076777422849[/ame]

The last months of the 08 primary were a lot uglier

https://newrepublic.com/article/133587/comes-losing-ugly-bernie-nothing-hillary

[Da Geezer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Geezer View Post

I said

As important, most Americans know persons who have been "eliminated" from well-paying jobs by government regulatory action (eg. coal workers).

Wild Hoss replied:

I cannot even name one.

I know a LOT who were involved in real estate eight years ago though...and haven't been since. There's your employment shift.

If you can't name one, I'll help. Coal. The whole executive branch has openly declared that they intend to make mining coal non-economic, and they have done so. Then there are related jobs like power production that have been also been eliminated.

As for real estate, you are right. In 1999-2008 the qualifications you had to have were no job, no down payment, no credit, and no income, and you qualified for a loan under the Community Redevelopment Act. We all know the story.

I worked on bank fraud from 2002-2006 for the FBI. The untold story was that appraisers routinely over-appraised property under the CRA. If an appraiser did not over-appraise the homes, the banks went outside the area in order to find "accurate" appraisers, meaning those who would tack 25% or so onto the real value of the homes. Then, the "sales" that were over-appraised became the "comparables" for new appraisals. Remember, all this started when folks who had no concept of value (no money, no job, no credit), were willing to overpay for homes, and the government was willing to purchase the loans. If the banks were required to keep their loans on their own books, there would have been no housing meltdown. When I say "banks" I mean finance companies (Quicken) too.

[Wild Hoss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Geezer View Post

I said

Wild Hoss replied:

If you can't name one, I'll help. Coal. The whole executive branch has openly declared that they intend to make mining coal non-economic, and they have done so. Then there are related jobs like power production that have been also been eliminated.

As for real estate, you are right. In 1999-2008 the qualifications you had to have were no job, no down payment, no credit, and no income, and you qualified for a loan under the Community Redevelopment Act. We all know the story.

Doubtful.

Freddie and Fannie as executors of Congress' will to give away houses (i.e. "The Gubermint!") are longtime scapegoats for the Right, but the GAO has long since discredited that line of thinking, as they held only a fraction of the total subprime loans. Not that subprime loaning was the sole cause either....not when people in AZ, CA and FL were defaulting on 2nd and 3rd homes bought with ARMs. At the end, subprimes were less than a quarter of the market:



...which was high, historically speaking, but defaults on those loans did not match the highest rates of overall loan defaults geographically.

The real issue was the ARMs, coupled with the Bush Administration forcing interest rates down, which allowed greed to run rampant and create a bloated real estate industry built on nothing but...greed. I have read estimates that show 3 million construction jobs alone were lost following the housing crash, to say nothing of losses in banking and sales, and the subsequent trickle-down losses in retail and other areas where those people spent their money.

People wonder why employment hasn't recovered? It has. This is economic reality, sans a ginned-up housing market.

[froot loops]

This is actually the type of recovery that the GOP has preached about, private sector jobs have rebounded and drove the recovery. The public sector has lagged, mostly at the state and local government levels.