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
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
Those both work!!
And both ARE centrist....
Those both work!!
And both ARE centrist....
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
I do get a kick out of my "journey" from being a commie leftist more liberal than Mike Dukakis to someone who apparently hangs out with Joe Lieberman at the DINO social club.
While I do like people such as The Bern, I can also agree with them on principle while not wanting them to be my party's nominee. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
Ummm
Rover is a lib
Mookie is a centrist
You, ahem, are a commie/socialist
I do get a kick out of my "journey" from being a commie leftist more liberal than Mike Dukakis to someone who apparently hangs out with Joe Lieberman at the DINO social club.
While I do like people such as The Bern, I can also agree with them on principle while not wanting them to be my party's nominee. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts.mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
I do get a kick out of my "journey" from being a commie leftist more liberal than Mike Dukakis to someone who apparently hangs out with Joe Lieberman at the DINO social club.
You work in a bank and have kids.
You are therefore evolving
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
I understand that, though I think you do oppose most of Bernie's economic initiatives. You're in the financial sector, correct? I doubt you'd be pleased to see us slap the cuffs back on Wall Street the way we had them in the 50s through 70s.
I actually "oppose" Bernie in the sense of not believing he is the right messenger, and worrying that message and messenger will become hopelessly conflated if he is the sole speaker of the Gospel of Redistribution. I'd have preferred, for example, Warren, though what I most want to see is a burgeoning lefty movement with many, many energetic and innovative lefties invading the party, much in the way the right fringe took control of the GOP in the 90s.
I also think your constant drumbeat about Bernie's "martyr" follows belies your experience as a close follower of politics. Sanders' folks have not for the most part been the grubby hippies who helped Nader deliver the White House to the Chimperor. They're ward heelers and grassroots insiders, but they're also very practical and understand the Sanders' campaign mission is to push Hillary into doing what's right. Nobody has any illusions that Bernie's going to win the nomination, barring a Hillary heart attack at the 11th hour. Not to mention that since the Clintons' Achilles heel is the perception that they are arrogant and out of touch, Hillary's supporters ought to be bending over backwards to show respect for the rest of the coalition she needs to drag her across the finish line.
I do get a kick out of my "journey" from being a commie leftist more liberal than Mike Dukakis to someone who apparently hangs out with Joe Lieberman at the DINO social club.
I understand that, though I think you do oppose most of Bernie's economic initiatives. You're in the financial sector, correct? I doubt you'd be pleased to see us slap the cuffs back on Wall Street the way we had them in the 50s through 70s.
I actually "oppose" Bernie in the sense of not believing he is the right messenger, and worrying that message and messenger will become hopelessly conflated if he is the sole speaker of the Gospel of Redistribution. I'd have preferred, for example, Warren, though what I most want to see is a burgeoning lefty movement with many, many energetic and innovative lefties invading the party, much in the way the right fringe took control of the GOP in the 90s.
I also think your constant drumbeat about Bernie's "martyr" follows belies your experience as a close follower of politics. Sanders' folks have not for the most part been the grubby hippies who helped Nader deliver the White House to the Chimperor. They're ward heelers and grassroots insiders, but they're also very practical and understand the Sanders' campaign mission is to push Hillary into doing what's right. Nobody has any illusions that Bernie's going to win the nomination, barring a Hillary heart attack at the 11th hour. Not to mention that since the Clintons' Achilles heel is the perception that they are arrogant and out of touch, Hillary's supporters ought to be bending over backwards to show respect for the rest of the coalition she needs to drag her across the finish line.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
CENTRIST MOOKIE is in the industry and would reinstate glass-steagall yesterday!!!!
CENTRIST MOOKIE is in the industry and would reinstate glass-steagall yesterday!!!!
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
Well played.
Kep, I don't oppose Bernie's proposals necessarily. IMHO he should have fleshed them out a bit more at this point.
So for example, where does Bernie find Dodd-Frank to be lacking? No Glass-Steagall? Okay great, but what does he hope to accomplish by reinstating that the law hasn't already covered?
Another is his proposal to raise taxes on the rich to pay for college tuition. I love the idea. BUT - at this point in time he should have told us exactly what taxes he's raising and how much of the cost ($70B I think from his campaign) those hikes will cover. The reason is, if he has a solid proposal, like taxing carried interest as normal income, and that covers the cost, that's an easy case to make for whoever gets elected President. If his plan is to raise upper income taxes to 90%, that's not going to fly.
Love her or hate her, but Hillary has been pretty detailed thus far. Elizabeth Warren also is solid in terms of what she wants to do and how she wants to accomplish it. Sometimes Bernie seems like he's just throwing sh! t against the wall and seeing what sticks, and he'll figure out how to get it implemented when he's in the WH. As I've said before though, if he doesn't fill in the blanks, the GOP along with a compliant media will. I would also point Sanders has been in Congress a long time, but doesn't seem to have an ability to win people over to his side to get legislation passed. Yes, he's not always in the majority but that never seemed to stop Ted Kennedy.
You work in a bank and have kids.
You are therefore evolving
Well played.
Kep, I don't oppose Bernie's proposals necessarily. IMHO he should have fleshed them out a bit more at this point.
So for example, where does Bernie find Dodd-Frank to be lacking? No Glass-Steagall? Okay great, but what does he hope to accomplish by reinstating that the law hasn't already covered?
Another is his proposal to raise taxes on the rich to pay for college tuition. I love the idea. BUT - at this point in time he should have told us exactly what taxes he's raising and how much of the cost ($70B I think from his campaign) those hikes will cover. The reason is, if he has a solid proposal, like taxing carried interest as normal income, and that covers the cost, that's an easy case to make for whoever gets elected President. If his plan is to raise upper income taxes to 90%, that's not going to fly.
Love her or hate her, but Hillary has been pretty detailed thus far. Elizabeth Warren also is solid in terms of what she wants to do and how she wants to accomplish it. Sometimes Bernie seems like he's just throwing sh! t against the wall and seeing what sticks, and he'll figure out how to get it implemented when he's in the WH. As I've said before though, if he doesn't fill in the blanks, the GOP along with a compliant media will. I would also point Sanders has been in Congress a long time, but doesn't seem to have an ability to win people over to his side to get legislation passed. Yes, he's not always in the majority but that never seemed to stop Ted Kennedy.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
I think it's a fair point but only to some extent. We've seen time and time again that if you put out a hyper-detailed position paper your opponents will simply rip it to shreds, which distracts from the overall vision.
I want my think tanks telling me how to best soak the rich. It's enough for my presidential candidate to announce he favors soaking the rich, as distinct from the rest of the field who differ only in the degree to which they'll pucker up before fellating them. There is plenty of time for details after election, and of course those details will change a dozen times during the sausage-making process, so holding yourself to your campaign announced details is suicidal.
So I agree with you to the extent that, say, a candidate should say he favors replacing Obamacare with a single payer system. But as to the gory details of that system, that's something that will be fought over in the Oval Office and the cloak room, and there's no point in boxing yourself in before you get started.
Well played.
Kep, I don't oppose Bernie's proposals necessarily. IMHO he should have fleshed them out a bit more at this point.
I think it's a fair point but only to some extent. We've seen time and time again that if you put out a hyper-detailed position paper your opponents will simply rip it to shreds, which distracts from the overall vision.
I want my think tanks telling me how to best soak the rich. It's enough for my presidential candidate to announce he favors soaking the rich, as distinct from the rest of the field who differ only in the degree to which they'll pucker up before fellating them. There is plenty of time for details after election, and of course those details will change a dozen times during the sausage-making process, so holding yourself to your campaign announced details is suicidal.
So I agree with you to the extent that, say, a candidate should say he favors replacing Obamacare with a single payer system. But as to the gory details of that system, that's something that will be fought over in the Oval Office and the cloak room, and there's no point in boxing yourself in before you get started.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
I believe that would have prevented what happened in 2008. I doubt that the power structure will ever allow it to happen.
I believe that would have prevented what happened in 2008. I doubt that the power structure will ever allow it to happen.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
Re-regulation would have prevented 2007 but considering we changed nothing even after being ripped off for trillions by the speculators and banks, it's going to take a full-scale second great depression before the voters get savvy and mad enough to jail the fraudsters and nuke Wall Street.
Sadly, the only solution was to let them fail the first time. It would have increased the pain to the average citizen, but it would have freed our economy from the vampire squid and deleted the criminals from Wall Street, if not from actual existence.
Re-regulation would have prevented 2007 but considering we changed nothing even after being ripped off for trillions by the speculators and banks, it's going to take a full-scale second great depression before the voters get savvy and mad enough to jail the fraudsters and nuke Wall Street.
Sadly, the only solution was to let them fail the first time. It would have increased the pain to the average citizen, but it would have freed our economy from the vampire squid and deleted the criminals from Wall Street, if not from actual existence.
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
That's a tough call. B+ or A-. Its in that range. The international scene has become more chaotic (very little he was responsible for). Being in the chair as the markets tripled is probably a feat unique in our history. And I'm of the opinion that some of the pull back is due to election year uncertainty.
That's a tough call. B+ or A-. Its in that range. The international scene has become more chaotic (very little he was responsible for). Being in the chair as the markets tripled is probably a feat unique in our history. And I'm of the opinion that some of the pull back is due to election year uncertainty.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
It just makes you appreciate "The Big Short" even more. The explanations. The terms. Steve Carell's characters anguish. I also left that film wishing I had born with the smarts to figure it out like they had and exploit it like they did. I just don't have the DNA for that (or professional athletics, or a number of other things for that matter).
It just makes you appreciate "The Big Short" even more. The explanations. The terms. Steve Carell's characters anguish. I also left that film wishing I had born with the smarts to figure it out like they had and exploit it like they did. I just don't have the DNA for that (or professional athletics, or a number of other things for that matter).
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
See this is part of the problem for me. I need to know how realistic the guy is. That's the difference between a President who moves the ball downfield and one who doesn't. I don't need the guy to write the law and post it on his campaign website, but " how are you paying for this" isn't too much to ask. As I said before, if he doesn't fill in the blanks the Republicans will, and you know as well as I do the media will run with whatever they say about his plans unless he pushes back.
PS - I don't believe Glass-Steagall would have prevented the Great Recession. Not even close IMHO. Its just not that simple, and it misses the point that the greed of the American people themselves caused that recession, not some nefarious gubmint policy.
See this is part of the problem for me. I need to know how realistic the guy is. That's the difference between a President who moves the ball downfield and one who doesn't. I don't need the guy to write the law and post it on his campaign website, but " how are you paying for this" isn't too much to ask. As I said before, if he doesn't fill in the blanks the Republicans will, and you know as well as I do the media will run with whatever they say about his plans unless he pushes back.
PS - I don't believe Glass-Steagall would have prevented the Great Recession. Not even close IMHO. Its just not that simple, and it misses the point that the greed of the American people themselves caused that recession, not some nefarious gubmint policy.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
The issue with higher education is the costs. Schools have been able to raise their prices outside of the constraint of inflation cause very few pay the bill. Many either get government grants or borrow and worry about repaying that after graduation.
A bully pulpit holder should pull the tax-exempt status from colleges unless they cut costs in half (along with professorial salaries, administrative salaries, etc).
In fact, how about we remove salaries as a tax deduction for businesses?
Make dividends and interest regular income?
Easy starting points.
The issue with higher education is the costs. Schools have been able to raise their prices outside of the constraint of inflation cause very few pay the bill. Many either get government grants or borrow and worry about repaying that after graduation.
A bully pulpit holder should pull the tax-exempt status from colleges unless they cut costs in half (along with professorial salaries, administrative salaries, etc).
In fact, how about we remove salaries as a tax deduction for businesses?
Make dividends and interest regular income?
Easy starting points.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Houses w/o deposit banks were allowed to go under Bear & Lehamn). Then the Jamie's of the world who had a bank attached went and milked out govment money to shield themselves.
But true, even with G/S they would have scared the Feds into bailing them out at some point.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
Sure it would have. It may not have prevented the crash, but it would have protected the Banks we care about (and homes and their values) and we would have been allowed to let the risk takers take the fall.
Sure it would have. It may not have prevented the crash, but it would have protected the Banks we care about (and homes and their values) and we would have been allowed to let the risk takers take the fall.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion
Yes and no on that, with regards to who was allowed to fail and who wasn't. If you listen to BoA, their former CEO states that they was pressured to purchase Meryll Lynch by the federal government, and then hung out to dry as they failed certain federal scrutiny tests because they had insufficient resources available to them due to purchasing Meryll.
Yes and no on that, with regards to who was allowed to fail and who wasn't. If you listen to BoA, their former CEO states that they was pressured to purchase Meryll Lynch by the federal government, and then hung out to dry as they failed certain federal scrutiny tests because they had insufficient resources available to them due to purchasing Meryll.
- Status