After Obama endorsed marriage equality, there was a 36-point surge in black support for gay marriage in Maryland

Osterstriker · 2012-05-25T12:22:10.114901+00:00

Saying in a TV interview that you think same sex couples should have the right to marry and doing only that isn't a result of any kind of leadership.

I disagree inherently and entirely. The President has little power to effect change regarding the issue except in the institutions directly under his power (in which he has already effected the most significant pro-LGBT change in American history).

One of the President's main jobs is to use the bully pulpit, to talk to and convince Americans of things. Doing an interview about LGBT rights is the equivalent of a Fire Side Chat. It's not only Leadership, it's one of the most obvious and oft-used tools in any President's toolbelt.

betterth · 1 day

and we're in the same situation as Greece.

I disagree, Greece cannot control their currency, and we can. Which makes what Greece is experiencing neigh-impossible for us to experience.

And the CBO report said the recession from the $560bn deficit reduction (after factoring in loss of revenue/jobs) would cause a 1% contraction in the first half of 2013, and what a 2% expansion in the second half. That's not bad when you consider it's a permanent reduction of the deficit by almost half.

But it's a moot point, without Ben on board, he would counteract it someway.

Grdeken · 1 day

We need to think differently about whether the govt really is in a position to eliminate risk for individual depositors, or whether individual depositors are just going to need to get smarter about how they manage their own money

They won't be, they will act like a mass, and they will run the banks. It is not a question of education, it is a matter of time. Without FDIC protection if I got wind that my bank was having trouble funding deposits, you better fucking believe I'd run as fast as I could to get my money safe. I'm not going to be the sap that is left with the loss. That's how people treat it. People are doing that in Greece, today.

But I do understand the frustration inherent in regulation and how poorly it ends up working.

betterth · 1 day

I still don't buy it. If we forgo the system of selling sovereign debt (or can no longer use it), we do so by instead funding our deficit with the printing press and inflation, which will weaken our currency and our financial standing world wide.

We are a bit of a unique case: when we do that, we don't just weaken our currency, we weaken the assets of almost every major economy who use our debt as an asset. They will not be happy with the increased erosion of their assets.

As for Japan having low rates... I kind of feel like the Japanese debt is a ticking time bomb. Their interest is growing and growing and they cannot continue to make good faith interest payments without severe devaluation of their currency, can they? Their debt value approaches our own, despite how much smaller their economy is. That cannot be sustainable!

Grdeken · 1 day

The FDIC backstop prevents bank runs by giving depositors a sense of safety. It is sad that it also gives the banks a sense of safety. I wish we could have one without the other.

betterth · 1 day

Do you really think that Ben would try to offset $560bn in deficit reduction? I don't have the formulas but wouldn't that be a massive amount of liquidity/inflation to pull off that much of a shift? And wouldn't such a move dramatically hasten the demise of the US reserve status? China is already calling for a new reserve and the new normal is already to make direct trade relationships that don't involve the dollar. Seems like that'd be a death blow to our reputation.

betterth · 1 day

Fear the cliff because shrinking the economy for the sake of deficit reduction is insane. It entails giving up the real, which is jobs and output, because of an idea that we're limited by the virtual, scorekeeping fiat money created from nothing.

I'm not sure I buy the idea that our debt or deficit is virtual. The entire world financial system is based on that virtual concept. The deficit has very real implications for the creditworthiness of our nation, which has very real implications for the global finance system. Considering how ingrained our economy is with the world economy, it seems ridiculous to say "we should abandon the world finance system for short term 'real' growth instead of working within the system to ensure the possibility long term growth". I guess your way would end globalization as we know it, but that's a big change.

I guess my point is that if you're going to write off our entire system of credit/debt financing/etc, it's disingenuous to not admit that you're basically delinking the biggest and most vital economy from that system.

And that is vote of no confidence in modern finance by the biggest economy and the largest financial sector in the world.

I don't see how that is better than fixing our revenue/deficit and getting the debt under control, within the system.

TheGhostOfNoLibs · 1 day

I've begun to think that there are two ways out of a muckup like this:

You burn the investment banks or you burn main street. You can only pick one. If you prop up risky investment trading, believing that it will continue capital access for main street investment, you will be tricked. Those banks will continue looking for the most profit, which is rarely commerical banking (making loans to businesses, mortgages, etc). So they promise to take care of main street but really just take your money and invest it in whatever new shiny version of Casino Capitalism that Washington hasn't noticed yet.

Or, you say screw them. You let them fail. You watch them crumble. The income of the top 0.1% is decimated as the built-in financial industry cruft melts away. As corrupt and inefficient firms used to feeding on systemic largesse can no longer leech from us.

And in that aftermath is the only recovery Main Street will ever see.

I'd love to hear why I'm wrong about this though, so please reply /r/economics!

Grdeken · 1 day

What then?

It perverses the economic incentive for proper banking. Instead of playing safe with your investment assets, you're free to use commerical assets to back risky trading.

Your risky trade goes belly up? That's okay, many of the assets you used to back that trade are Federally Insured (aka the taxpayer is ensuring that the bank won't have to pay for losses of what is actually taxpayer despoits...). And the FDIC is woefully incapable of bankrolling these risky trades. (Jamie Dimon's fluxup of a prop trade has cost them, what, $8bn now? What happens when it's not a bad trade from one desk, but rather a bad idea from every major trading desk in America? In the West? Global Financial Crisis, part 2!)

betterth · 1 day

Perhaps I'm out of line but why should we fear the looming 2013 fiscal cliff?

The CBO estimates that after the effects of cutting spending are counting (lowered revenues from lowered employment, etc), and based on projections of new revenues from the ending of tax cuts, we'd reduce the deficit by $560 billion.

If the deficit is what, $1.2 trillion this year, than $560bn is a cool 46% of the deficit.

So what is the price of cutting out half the deficit in one fell swoop? Contracting economy that would likely be classified as a recession.

Even if their estimates are off and we don't start growing again in the second half of 2013, would a slight recession be terrible?

Our economy is almost unnaturally pushed into growth and the majority of the job generation is minimum wage / part time.

But, ultimately: I am not an economist. So why shouldn't this be a viable option? Why should we fear the cliff?

anutensil · 2 days

But Democrats don't/rarely say "DINO". We rarely denigrate our moderate side. I've heard some liberals bitch about the blue dogs but never like what I hear from rank and file Republicans about good moderates like Olympia Snowe.

I agree that the dems are polarizing as well, but it simply is not of the same magnitude as the Republicans... whose list of moderates post 2012 will be basically nonexistent.

And unlike the republicans, there isn't some cult of authority around the extremist branch of the democrat party, and democrats are allowed to be far far more moderate than liberal/socialist without facing massive backlashes from inside and outside the Congress.

ashuman · 2 days

p.s. It's sad to see Democrats and left-leaning writers try to spin the numbers to make it look like they actually don't like to spend money on people's behalf. That's your platform, guys. Own to it. Or change your message.

It's sad to see right-wingers ignores the massive savings possible from our disgustingly corrupt, outdated and inefficient healthcare system. I know you're no stranger to the metrics of how much we spend -- our private spending AND our public spending BOTH individually exceed the total costs per person paid by other country. Combined, we're out of the park on $/person metrics. You must know this. This isn't normal. This isn't natural and it sure as shit isn't sustainable. So why ignore it when talking about the fact that Obamacare costs money?

So yes, implementing and maintaining new programs costs. Obamacare costs.

But that doesn't give you carte blanche to completely ignore the money that it saves us, personally, as businesses and as taxpayers.

Do you even realize that emergency care is required to be provided, and when no one picks up the bill, the taxpayer does? Do you realize the public cost of that kind of reactionary emergency fully guaranteed care?

It's enormous. And by getting 30,000,000 of the ~50,000,000 uninsured to get insurance, to get routine care and to use emergency services responsibly, it saves us a shit a ton of money. It reduces our strained emergency services and it improves the aggregate health of the country.

But no, can't let the facts stand in the way of making fun of the opposite political party.

goodtimes50 · 2 days

Someone should quality control my comments, damn.

anutensil · 2 days

they'll come after the moderate Christians. "Oh, dear, you're not Christian enough, pack your bags, you're coming with us."

It's the way of authoritarian cultures. They already do it to moderate Republicans. "RINO" and other perjoratives. Most of the moderates have quit or been run out of office.

When it comes to the new Right Wing Universe it's simple: You agree absolutely or you are what is wrong with America.

goodtimes50 · 2 days

I think you're looking for "N&F has better quality control"

-from a guy in quality control

RyRyFoodSciGuy · 2 days

Ultimately I agree. I prefer to err on the side of 'delayed gratification' instead of 'innovation (lazy)' when it's close.

RyRyFoodSciGuy · 2 days

If someone common eats these type of meals, and chooses the longest cooking meal the least, I do not think that is laziness. The point of frozen food is literally convenience. Arguing that it takes too long is valid! Is it lazy to bitch that McDonalds took too long to prepare your order, or choose Chik Fil A over McDonalds because they are quicker?

I do hear you, I'm just feeling devils advocate-y today. And yes, in the grand scheme of how long most humans spend on meal preparation, it's a tiny amount of time.

RyRyFoodSciGuy · 3 days

Also tends to be seasonal and hard to get ahold of good quality. I don't know how it works in factories with Nestle, if they start with all fresh and then flash freeze or whatever, but if they're starting with fresh I imagine that they're limited on selection. We always were when I worked for a big restaurant chain known for decent veggies.

RyRyFoodSciGuy · 3 days

Meh, if you think about it, all abstractions can be made to sound lazy. But that doesn't make it bad -- all tools are inherently an abstraction of the work.

Sure, it sounds lazy that he wants the preparing process to be more simple. But if you called for a more simple operating system on your computer, would you also be lazy?

If you called for an automatic car instead of a manual one, is that lazy? It's less work for the same result: transportation.

Etc, etc, ad nauseum.

rhapsody1447 · 3 days

You're absolutely right, the Democrats were defending the GSE's, which ultimately turned out to be a terrible bet on their part. I absolutely concede that -- you're totally right.

However, blaming Barney Frank for this mess is disingenuous -- he was ranking member, not Chairman. Mike Oxley was the Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services from 2001 to 2007, presiding OVER Frank, so don't try to lay blame like that. Republicans controlled the Committee, they controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, and they controlled the Presidency. And you're telling me Barney Frank stopped six years of honest, persistent Republican attempts? I'm just not buying it.

You give me political platitudes: bits about Hillary Clinton and quotes by ranking minority members of government to explain away the failures of the leaders of government. The fact is: Republicans held almost every significant seat of American power from 2001 to 2007, including the Senate, the House, almost every single Committee and the Presidency.

I'm sorry that I need more than a quote by Barney Frank to suddenly decide not to blame the leaders instead of the minority party.

You're absolutely right, the democrats fought for continued access, but they were the minority party, and history shows us that their use of the filibuster was far less significant than current Republican efforts (ie far less overt obstruction) -- so what's the deal. Why do you blame the minority party during a period of total Republican control?

rhapsody1447 · 3 days

The regulatory failures did not come from "deregulation" as much as they came from the failure to update and implement new regulation to adapt to the ever-evolving financial system.

Thanks, I definitely think you're right on the mark with that. Blaming deregulation like Glass Steagal is definitely wrong, I shouldn't have.

rhapsody1447 · 3 days

Okay, let's take a step back here: GSE reforms would have reduced only the tip of this iceberg. GSE's were responsible for, as a I said, 17% of the sub-prime, alt-a and mortgage backed securities that were at the center. So even if the Democrats had played nicer and Republicans had wised up sooner (wasn't Bush pushing for 5 million new homeowners, not renters, in 2001?), we still would have been left with the very legal, very broken lending of the other 83% of the market. That's better, but still a giant bubble, and still a giant crash.

I still maintain that deregulation is what led to the bubble, and continued deregulation is leading to the next bubble. That impotent oversight caused in so small part by tiny budgets for regulators is ensuring that we won't know what the banks are doing until it's too late. And that until Glass-Steagal/Volcker is instituted, the incentives to capitalize risky trading decision with commercial assets will remain. Hell, Jamie Dimon just proved that with his $5 billion prop loss. No trade is too risky, not when the US homeowner and the US Govn't are guaranteeing you!

rhapsody1447 · 3 days

Your over-willingness to blame a partially public institution, or one linked with democrats, as opposed to rationally assessing the size and major culprits of the subprime mortgage crash is rather unbelievable, as well.

The GSE's were required by law to hold very little of the subprime and alt-a mortgages, and even at the very end in 2007, they represented 17% of the loans active.

Sure, they did have a part to play, but they did not lead the charge, they followed the herd and sought to maintain their market share.

As for your claim that:

The Democrats refused any attempt by George Bush to streamline Fannie and Freddie til it was too late

Haha! Revisionist history, the best kind. Remember, Republicans had a clean sweep of Government from 2003 to 2007. Bush and the entire Congress. I'm not buying your implication that Republicans were stopped by the Democrats. And, to add to the amusement, the only GSE regulation bill introduced was done so by a Democrat.

Baldric88 · 3 days

As someone who has lived in the South their entire life: this article is an entire fabrication, likely by someone who doesn't live here.

It is also where, a truly conservative “revolution,” as well as ”folk-communities” are likely to arise on the basis of the values which, though forgotten elsewhere, can still be found in the South. In contrast, the materialistic, spiritually vapid North holds little hope of any sort of revival.

Hahahahaha. Note that there is no data or information provided, because this is a narrative. A story. Not even a single town or community that fits this bill. This isn't even a true story about a real town, it's wishful thinking about a fantastical world that never existed. (Because, likely, rural northern towns are similar to southern ones, and the author is trying to make us confuse north vs south as rural vs urban, even though both have both).

It's rural vs urban all over again -- The urban moral decay will destroy and implode while the "good ole' rural communities" will truck on.

Notice the why: "morality". Them folks down south got a good sense of morals in their head, so they'll be just fine. What a crock. The Bible never prevented a civilization from being destroyed. Quite the opposite -- Romans had their golden era prior to it's adoption of good old fashioned Christianity (as the author alludes is the saving grace of the South).

Will the South be Ok? Don't bet on it: The Southern Fields are worked by hated Latin immigrants, mostly illegal. After kicking many out this year our fields in Georgia went shockingly under-worked and crops wasted in the fields. Southerners won't work agriculture, we're too good for it. And if not for agriculture, what does the South have? The rural communities (because this author isn't talking about Nashville, Atlanta, Miami or Charlotte, clearly) are broken and scattered and what few remain are likely entirely dependent on state and federal aid for existence (how many rural towns will be annihilated when social security ends -- and the massive wealth transfer from urban areas to rural ones ends with it?) or will be washed away in the next big depression.

No, the south is every bit as rotten, materialistic, welfare-addicted and broken as the rest of the country.

To pretend otherwise is literal fantasy.

rhapsody1447 · 3 days

Yes because the massive bubble that burst in 2008 and caused the loss of over 8 million private sector jobs was started in 2006 with the turnover. It was an amazing feat to watch the largest bubble in history form in under 18 months, but wow those democrats couldn't manage anything!

If you use this to respond to the chart, you're worse than a liberal using it:

The job losses were a direct result of a bubble that took almost two decades of bipartisan failure to create.

However: the decades of deregulation leading to that bubble formation, that is the question, and we can find an answer.

Do we continue MORE deregulation and continue to prevent any meaningful oversight and new regulation as the Republicans have committed to in the past 4 years? Or do we want more regulation and oversight, via Dodd Frank or similar, and a reinstatement of Glass Steagal, as the Democrats want.

That's the real question but anyone pretending that the Tea Party Freshman Failure (and Cantor/Boehner's inability to begin to control them) and McConnell's legendary abuse of the fillibuster is what is to credit for job creation isn't worth debating with.

Four-Year Club	Rally Monkey Tent number = 2
Summer Santa 2010	Charter Member
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2009

betterth

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login