What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

So the President is here in Alaska. That's cool.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

So the President comes here to Alaska, says the US isn't doing enough about climate change, needs to take a lead.

Meanwhile everybody here hates him either because he's not going to be open to more oil exploration in the Arctic and Alaska's economy is *ed right now because of low oil prices (you know, because we apparently don't have ability to not put all our eggs in one basket) or they hate him because he hasn't completely shut down all oil drilling and the environment and all that.

Meanwhile, the comments section on every local media site is an embarrassing trifecta of "GO HOME!!!", "Not My President!", and thinly veiled racism. Completely ignoring the fact the State is finally getting attention for something that isn't a dumb reality show or the Palins latest stupidity (or FSM help us both).

Finally getting to see the terrible divisiveness that has racked this country first hand.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Jimjamesak said:
So the President comes here to Alaska, says the US isn't doing enough about climate change, needs to take a lead.

Meanwhile everybody here hates him either because he's not going to be open to more oil exploration in the Arctic and Alaska's economy is *ed right now because of low oil prices (you know, because we apparently don't have ability to not put all our eggs in one basket) or they hate him because he hasn't completely shut down all oil drilling and the environment and all that.

Meanwhile, the comments section on every local media site is an embarrassing trifecta of "GO HOME!!!", "Not My President!", and thinly veiled racism. Completely ignoring the fact the State is finally getting attention for something that isn't a dumb reality show or the Palins latest stupidity (or FSM help us both).

Finally getting to see the terrible divisiveness that has racked this country first hand.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the divisiveness is so different than past presidents. Everyone loved Bush, Clinton Bush Reagan etc
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

walrus said:
Yeah, the divisiveness is so different than past presidents. Everyone loved Bush, Clinton Bush Reagan etc
Click to expand...

Well by the end I think we were all in agreement about Nixon... :D

The last president who didn't provoke bitter divisiveness during his administration was this guy.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

geezer said:
It's tough to be a moderate... er, hypocritical coward.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to the Shell decision. But I'm not sure if Trump, Carson, Cruz, etc would do more for the environment.

Is Obama truly environmentally adverse? Here's an article that says he could make a claim as the environment president. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/obama-makes-bid-to-be-environmental-president.html In the end, Obama is a fair amount pro environment...but he's also a fair amount pro business. Neither the left nor the right seem to think he's doing enough...probably means he's good for the country.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

5mn_Major said:
I can't speak to the Shell decision. But I'm not sure if Trump, Carson, Cruz, etc would do more for the environment.

Is Obama truly environmentally adverse? Here's an article that says he could make a claim as the environment president. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/obama-makes-bid-to-be-environmental-president.html In the end, Obama is a fair amount pro environment...but he's also a fair amount pro business. Neither the left nor the right seem to think he's doing enough...probably means he's good for the country.
Click to expand...

No doubt he's the most pro-environment president we've had. My point was more that he can't win in public perception no matter what (I agree with your last sentence). Slate is a very liberal site and they certainly don't approve.
The one big continuing concern I have with his "progressiveness" is that he hasn't seemed to make any attempt whatsoever to get big money (corps, lobbyists) out of politics and in fact may be more beholden than most... which is also just a sign of the times.
I think that's a big part of The Donald's appeal, too. He sincerely wants to set his own agenda (even though it's a bizarre and probably insane one).
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

geezer said:
The one big continuing concern I have with his "progressiveness" is that he hasn't seemed to make any attempt whatsoever to get big money (corps, lobbyists) out of politics and in fact may be more beholden than most...
Click to expand...

This is my biggest concern as well. It makes me think the rot has spread to both parties now. Ten years ago crony capitalism was a bug for the Dems and a feature for the GOP. Now it seems that both parties have become corrupted. The GOP is still worse -- they actively seek to free corporations from any sort of government regulation or oversight in their blind allegiance to the invisible hand. But the Democrats have completely turned their back on liberal positions on campaign finance reform.

It's hard to see how you get bribery out of a system once it's in, since those interests will "meta-bribe" to keep their bribery power, and TR is not walking through that door.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Kepler said:
This is my biggest concern as well. It makes me think the rot has spread to both parties now. Ten years ago crony capitalism was a bug for the Dems and a feature for the GOP. Now it seems that both parties have become corrupted. The GOP is still worse -- they actively seek to free corporations from any sort of government regulation or oversight in their blind allegiance to the invisible hand. But the Democrats have completely turned their back on liberal positions on campaign finance reform.

It's hard to see how you get bribery out of a system once it's in, since those interests will "meta-bribe" to keep their bribery power, and TR is not walking through that door.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. The SCOTUS has eviscerated campaign finance laws. The Dems now have to play the game according to the rules handed down to them. The big BIG difference is I don't see the Dem candidates (Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, etc) flying out to a major donor's house to sit up, roll over, play fetch, and all the other things the Koch brothers had every single GOP candidate not named "Trump" do a few months ago. How quickly we forget. Only 5 or so short years ago the Dems kneecapped Wall St with Dodd-Frank, bringing into law regulatory powers on a level not seen since the New Deal. I also don't see the Dems lowering pollution standards and the like because corporate money asked them to.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Rover, this time it's you who has drank (drunk?*) the Kool-Aid. Dodd-Frank was a 2 in a situation that required a 9. 2006 required a huge response: breaking up the banks and reimposing regulations far more stringent than the New Deal. Instead we got a puny reform movement and stony silence for OWS which ought to have been led from within the party rather than ignored outside it.

The national Democratic party apparatus failed us MISERABLY in the wake of the Great Recession. I realize fully that the GOP is a monster waiting to call any effort TEH COMMUNISM!!!1! but those idiots are always going to do that -- it's their prime directive and the reason their donors feed them bribes. But, distinct from prior crises, this time the Democrats did virtually nothing, which is highly suggestive that the bribes flow to both sides and they were playing along. The Obama and Clinton Rolodex is full of financial sector contacts and they happily continue the fox guarding the hen house practice of staffing federal oversight with the next guy through the Goldman Sachs revolving door.

I'm not playing false equivalency: the GOP is terrible. They are completely bought and paid for by the 0.1%. But the Dems are basically bought and paid for by the 5%, and as a member of the 5% I think that sucks.

* edit: ...it is you who has drunk...
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I think we're all on the same page. In FF's old 'most critical problem we face' thread, my thinking was corporate special interests was and will continue to be #1.

I'm guessing we'll never see a president that goes to the wall on the topic of special interests in government. Its either that presidents focus on fighting today's battles rather than the rules of warfare...or that the powers lined up against changes in special interest influence are greater than we know.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Kepler said:
Rover, this time it's you who has drank (drunk?*) the Kool-Aid. Dodd-Frank was a 2 in a situation that required a 9. 2006 required a huge response: breaking up the banks and reimposing regulations far more stringent than the New Deal. Instead we got a puny reform movement and stony silence for OWS which ought to have been led from within the party rather than ignored outside it.

The national Democratic party apparatus failed us MISERABLY in the wake of the Great Recession. I realize fully that the GOP is a monster waiting to call any effort TEH COMMUNISM!!!1! but those idiots are always going to do that -- it's their prime directive and the reason their donors feed them bribes. But, distinct from prior crises, this time the Democrats did virtually nothing, which is highly suggestive that the bribes flow to both sides and they were playing along. The Obama and Clinton Rolodex is full of financial sector contacts and they happily continue the fox guarding the hen house practice of staffing federal oversight with the next guy through the Goldman Sachs revolving door.

I'm not playing false equivalency: the GOP is terrible. They are completely bought and paid for by the 0.1%. But the Dems are basically bought and paid for by the 5%, and as a member of the 5% I think that sucks.

* edit: ...it is you who has drunk...
Click to expand...

Oh please. I'm in the financial industry and if that law is a 2 I hate to see what a 9 actually is. Breaking up banks is a feel good mantra but what problem does it solve? Lending problems were industrywide. Affected banks paid back far, far more than they received. You can no longer pull an AIG and be on the opposite end of every hedge with no ability to cover. You need a huge amount of liquid capital by law to survive another crisis.

This is one area where I worry about Sanders. He had some odd statement about the primary focus of banks is to make loans to small business or something like that. Um, no Bernie, there's nothing wrong with banks lending money to large corporations either or writing mortgages provided they're doing it legally. Not every financial institution need be a credit union. I'd like him to explain what he's seeking to accomplish with a big bank breakup and how big does he plan on allowing them to be?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Rover said:
Oh please. I'm in the financial industry and if that law is a 2 I hate to see what a 9 actually is. Breaking up banks is a feel good mantra but what problem does it solve? Lending problems were industrywide. Affected banks paid back far, far more than they received. You can no longer pull an AIG and be on the opposite end of every hedge with no ability to cover. You need a huge amount of liquid capital by law to survive another crisis.

This is one area where I worry about Sanders. He had some odd statement about the primary focus of banks is to make loans to small business or something like that. Um, no Bernie, there's nothing wrong with banks lending money to large corporations either or writing mortgages provided they're doing it legally. Not every financial institution need be a credit union. I'd like him to explain what he's seeking to accomplish with a big bank breakup and how big does he plan on allowing them to be?
Click to expand...

Well, this explains a lot, anyway. We're just going to disagree on the proper way to rope in Wall Street. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is probably an unbridgable gap between our experiences and our opinions. This does clarify though why you like Hillary: she is the ideal candidate for someone who is socially liberal and who does not regard large Wall Street firms as functionally malevolent.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Kepler said:
Well, this explains a lot, anyway. We're just going to disagree on the proper way to rope in Wall Street. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is probably an unbridgable gap between our experiences and our opinions. This does clarify though why you like Hillary: she is the ideal candidate for someone who is socially liberal and who does not regard large Wall Street firms as functionally malevolent.
Click to expand...

Large Wall St firms are useless. Yes Citi should have gone out of business by right and you get what you deserve with Goldman and Morgan. However, that's not the whole of the banking industry. That's where people are getting confused. Reign in Wall St bonuses all you want, or charge a transaction tax on high speed trading which I'm in favor of. However, make sure when you throw a dart you hit your intended target, and don't take down someone else when your target ducks.

So, if Bernie is for reinstating Glass-Steagel (sp?) I get that. But if he's going beyond that, we need the details. Is he arbitrarily coming up with an ideal bank size that he wants to see? What's his criteria for being too big (assets under management? deposits?). How much would it cost to implement a wholesale breakup of the top, what 5, 10, 20? banks, banks + brokerages, banks + brokerages + asset managers???

As this is an industry I know well, this is where I have extra interest in the plans much like medical professionals are more keyed into the ACA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top