|
Servaetes posted:I personally think 2016 was a pretty good year because I did a bunch of exciting life changing things so I can't really agree with Mr Oliver's assessment, but yeah, boo Trump, yay Hillary, row row fight the power Yeah, barring one or two things my 2016 ranks up there amongst the best. Everything around me has been such a clusterfuck I feel selfish that I've had such a good year.
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Veskit posted:It's a lot easier to dismantle or obstruct than it is to build dorkus. Also the bank bailouts were an example of him addressing fundamne... you know what gently caress it I'm all out of teaching monetary/fiscal policy for all of 2016 it's pointless. Lol, keep on preaching that neoliberalism on the eve of Year of our Lord Trump 2017.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:That twitter guy is kinda dumb if only because you can exist in opposition and build a powerbase without being a worthless obstructionist tantrum thrower. Every single person appointed or in consideration for appointment in his government is either a typical conservative or alt-righter. But I am sure that pivot is coming any day now...
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Every single person appointed or in consideration for appointment in his government is either a typical conservative or alt-righter. But I am sure that pivot is coming any day now... Second amendment solutions may be necessary from the left as well (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I think the most shocking/telling point so far was how Reince Priebus immediately accidentally called the 2-term President of the United States of America "osama" three loving times in a row. One hit came back for a piece posted yesterday on occupy democrats, which is one of those clickbait sites with misleading/unreliable info. Finally, please don't call for violent action against elected persons on these forums as I enjoy these forums and do not want to lose them thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Lol, keep on preaching that neoliberalism on the eve of Year of our Lord Trump 2017. Neoliberalism is dead. We've been taught there's no such thing as being 'moderate' anymore. Welcome to the era of archliberalism. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:well regardless, obama never proposed any policies that would've addressed the underlying problems of the economy, and we can thank him for bank bailouts, unremarkable improvements in healthcare, a huge surveillance state (soon to be under the purview of Bannon/Trump), global terrorism using drone strikes, etc. Obama had nothing to do with any of this. All of this happened under Bush, or his healthcare policies were butchered by others. Obama's original healthcare proposal would have made the U.S. the best country for healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Obama had nothing to do with any of this. All of this happened under Bush, or his healthcare policies were butchered by others. Obama's original healthcare proposal would have made the U.S. the best country for healthcare. ??? Nothing to do with any of that? I'll agree that for the most part Obama was railroaded by the most obstructionist Congress in modern American times, but I really think he had a hand in everything the other poster mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
Drifter posted:??? Well, for instance Obama bailed out the Auto Industry, not the banks. Bush is the one who bailed out the Banks with TARP, which happened before Obama took office.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
My bad, Obama did in fact bailout the auto industry and not the banks. He did however put the same people in power that precipitated the bank crisis, and presided over limp dick banking reforms. As for the auto bailouts, more neoliberal bullshit while the auto industry continued to push jobs overseas. Obama was just one more neoliberal in a long line of neoliberals. Median household income has gone down since 1997. Poverty has gone up. Unemployment is sky high (and mostly hidden by the government numbers). Healthcare, education, etc costs have risen. Inequality has soared. Neoliberalism is great because Rated PG-34 fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:As for the auto bailouts, more neoliberal bullshit while the auto industry continued to push jobs overseas. Do you actually know anything about the auto industry?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Obama, as both President and 'leader of the Democrats', bet on the notion that governing was partly about bipartisanship and civility, and the idea that you could do slow incremental progress and be rewarded for it, and be able to improve upon it over time. It's pretty clear that he was wrong, that what Americans are willing to accept from the people they voted for is different than what he thought it was, that the punishment that you might get from being obstructionist is not what he thought it was, and that incremental progress is the path to success is not really the only way. He'll end up having had a decent, 'civil' presidency whose achievements will be undone almost immediately, followed by one that'll probably be pretty catastrophic. He, like many of us, didn't realize the times we were living in, until they ran us over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
There are plenty of jobs out there. Americans are just lazy and stupid and the vast majority of us deserve to be in the place we are in. Obama can't help the lazy rear end in a top hat population. I know a lot of you are going to say I am being harsh, but every single one of you knows I am right because these same people voted for Trump despite his obvious lying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Do you actually know anything about the auto industry? They make cars. People buy the cars. It's not rocket science, not that rocket science is particularly complicated. I said come in! posted:There are plenty of jobs out there. Americans are just lazy and stupid and the vast majority of us deserve to be in the place we are in. Obama can't help the lazy rear end in a top hat population. I know a lot of you are going to say I am being harsh, but every single one of you knows I am right because these same people voted for Trump despite his obvious lying. Lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Veskit posted:It's a lot easier to dismantle or obstruct than it is to build dorkus. Also the bank bailouts were an example of him addressing fundamne... you know what gently caress it I'm all out of teaching monetary/fiscal policy for all of 2016 it's pointless. Just so you know, I completely understand the frustration of trying to explain why the bailouts were really really necessary to people who think they were just giving free money to greedy bankers. Or why prosecuting the banks was probably untenable without the application of retroactive justice. Or why stuff like Solvency 2 and Dodd Frank have done a lot of legwork in suring up the financial system against future shoc... You know what never mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Well, for instance Obama bailed out the Auto Industry, not the banks. Bush is the one who bailed out the Banks with TARP, which happened before Obama took office. You're entirely right. 2008, I always assumed. That's on me. Jesus, our calamitous events just blend together for me.  Yorkshire Tea posted:Just so you know, I completely understand the frustration of trying to explain why the bailouts were really really necessary to people who think they were just giving free money to greedy bankers. Start somewhere, at least. And the bailouts may have been necessary, but we were giving money to greedy bankers whose only lesson learned was that they did nothing wrong. Those aren't exactly exclusive. Drifter fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:They make cars. People buy the cars. It's not rocket science, not that rocket science is particularly complicated. So you don't know how the auto bailout effectively saved the economy of Southeast Michigan, helped preserve one of the country's largest unions, and prevented foreign manufactures from gaining an even larger stake in the international auto market. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
The fact that it looked like the banks were not held accountable, especially after their actions which was arguably fraudulent, stuck in some people's craw. That's why Occupy Wall Street happened, for all the good it did. There was one conviction of a low level banker, not even a trial for some of the higher ups. The rust belt folks saw Clinton and linked her with Wall Street's interests. Whether that is the case in reality or not, Clinton did not do enough to counter that. The auto bailouts are a different story. Had they not happened, you might only have Ford as the domestic auto company.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 17:58
|
|
wins.
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:Just so you know, I completely understand the frustration of trying to explain why the bailouts were really really necessary to people who think they were just giving free money to greedy bankers. It's all so god drat complicated and all you can do is post Mark Blythe and even then it's so GOD drat COMPLICATED to explain that people just tune out and get mad. Also Dodd Frank is even harder to like explain that it's good and flawed and needs a tweaking. FINANCE IS HARD PEOPLE. This is the best I can do for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:So you don't know how the auto bailout effectively saved the economy of Southeast Michigan, helped preserve one of the country's largest unions, and prevented foreign manufactures from gaining an even larger stake in the international auto market. Got it. The "American" auto industry isn't as American as you think it is when they own factories throughout the world, and they actively relocate jobs out of the United States. They also actively work to destroy unions. As for preventing foreign manufacturers getting a larger stake, Fiat now owns Chrysler. Obama effectively bailed out large multi-national firms that happen to have some presence in the United States, providing a very short term solution from the perspective of the American working class. Rated PG-34 fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Every single person appointed or in consideration for appointment in his government is either a typical conservative or alt-righter. But I am sure that pivot is coming any day now... My man I believe if you look at the list of things I suggested are on the table are things a cabinet has nothing to do with, and nobody should've expected a loving single surprise on cabinet appointments. Any pivots on policy are gonna come from the man himself. I don't think they're a sure thing either, I'm just looking at his statements historically and recently and pointing out he isn't literally loving hitler or whatever other hysterics centrists are howling about. Worst case he's gonna be another loving republican president, and this outcome is still the fault of the DNC and people who were willing to settle for a candidate that told the rust belt and the rest of working america to go gently caress themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Look, I can't possibly explain this to you in the time we have because of how unbelievably dense you are, but you'll have to take my word for it that capitalism is great and the very idea that either the banks or the auto industry isn't obviously more important than the poor is ridiculous. Besides, thanks to the heroin epidemic half of the residents of poor small towns have AIDS anyway, so they'll go away soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:The "American" auto industry isn't as American as you think it is when they own factories throughout the world, and they actively relocate jobs out of the United States. They also actively work to destroy unions. As for preventing foreign manufacturers getting a larger stake, Fiat now owns Chrysler. Obama effectively bailed out large multi-national firms that happen to have some presence in the United States, providing a very short term solution from the perspective of the American working class. I live in Southeast Michigan, and a huge section of the state's economy is propped up by auto manufactures and suppliers. Michigan was already hit hard by the housing crisis, and had GM and Chrysler gone belly-up at that point in time, the economic devastation to the state's working class would have been utterly ruinous. And if you want to talk unions, just this past year the UAW signed a new collective bargaining agreement that reversed many of the pay cuts that were implemented after the crash, while also negotiating to keep manufacturing plants open even as production of some cars was transferred to Mexico (To make way for new cars built in the US). You think that would have happened if GM's heavily unionized workforce had been laid off seven years ago? Seeing the auto bailout as anything but a good thing is to take an extremely ignorant view of that particular area of the US manufacturing sector.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Start somewhere, at least. And the bailouts may have been necessary, but we were giving money to greedy bankers whose only lesson learned was that they did nothing wrong. Those aren't exactly exclusive. Okay. So the question of a lot of the financial crisis is whether what the bankers did was against the law. The first thing to note is that they almost certainly weren't guilty of fraud. There wasn't evidence of fraudulent reporting in any audits that they went through and if there was the regulatory bodies would have come down hard on them. After Enron sunk an entire audit firm you best believe the auditors were all over that poo poo. The banks just weren't misrepresenting the assets and liabilities that they had, that the crisis happened isn't evidence of that. Fraud is a really specific legal offence that is clearly defined. So perhaps you can get them on negilgence. Except what they were doing on an individual level wasn't negligent. So subprime is a massive pain to explain, but at it's core, you had a debt that you were unlikely to be able to pick up, but placed this debt in a package with other debts that were dead certain. You'd document this and market the debt to be sold at a price that was reflective of its value. The thing is, because of your rating as a bank by the credit agencies the debt package that you put out would be rated highly since you're backing it, despite the fact that some of it is bad debt. If you've documented what's been done to the extent of market regulation and some moron buys it anyway, you're not acting negligently as a salesperson. The problem is all the banks were doing this and nobody was picking up on it. Individually they were doing nothing wrong from a legal perspective but combined you have potential for a massive systemic failure. Long story short proving wrongdoing from the banks with defenses that really do seem intuitive was going to be nigh impossible. Even if you thought you had a reasonable case, you'd still have to deal with their lawyers and be unlikely to be able to do anything whilst costing the taxpayer millions. A lot of the bankers didn't get away for free, many lost their jobs as their companies had to restructure and did so for individually being stupid enough to buy up sub-prime. But a lot of the heads did get away and in fairness, their ability to see what was coming would have been limited at best. Like if your managing director of property securities is saying everything is fine and showing you numbers and reports that indicate everything is fine and your auditors are saying the number is fine, then what ability do you have to know that everything isn't in fact fine? When you find out, you fire the head of that division, but why should you lose your job over it when you did everything you reasonably could to know about it? And the boards of many banks agreed and didn't want to fire people who had been doing good work elsewhere. But public perception is a completely different beast and don't get me wrong, an injustice was visited on the people who suffered a recession because the banking system was too lax with regulation. How does one reconcile this anger with the fact that no legal cases would stick and that the only way to recovery was via bailout and that many of the regulators that failed were still the best placed people to correct what flaws exist in the system? The problem is that I don't think you can. Edit: Please note, I am by no means an expert on this. I was an auditor late in the financial crisis and low on the totem pole at that. But broadly, from speaking to people who are a lot smarter than me within industry, this is my perception. Happy to be corrected on anything I get wrong. Natural 20 fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I live in Southeast Michigan, and a huge section of the state's economy is propped up by auto manufactures and suppliers. Michigan was already hit hard by the housing crisis, and had GM and Chrysler gone belly-up at that point in time, the economic devastation to the state's working class would have been utterly ruinous. And if you want to talk unions, just this past year the UAW signed a new collective bargaining agreement that reversed many of the pay cuts that were implemented after the crash, while also negotiating to keep manufacturing plants open even as production of some cars was transferred to Mexico (To make way for new cars built in the US). You think that would have happened if GM's heavily unionized workforce had been laid off seven years ago? Chrysler and GM were bailed out, but Detroit was never bailed out. As you mention, with the bailout the UAW had to agree with disgusting pay cuts for new workers, meaning the local economy could not easily recover. Detroit pensions were also gutted as the city went bankrupt. Where's their bailout? This is classic neoliberalism: one set of rules for the powerful, another set for the poor. The powerful auto industry companies and their investors get a bailout, while the common American worker gets the shaft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Chrysler and GM were bailed out, but Detroit was never bailed out. As you mention, with the bailout the UAW had to agree with disgusting pay cuts for new workers, meaning the local economy could not easily recover. Detroit pensions were also gutted as the city went bankrupt. Where's their bailout? This is classic neoliberalism: one set of rules for the powerful, another set for the poor. The powerful auto industry companies and their investors get a bailout, while the common American worker gets the shaft. So what would have been better-letting Chrysler and GM die, putting tens of thousands of people out of work, and crippling the UAW? You're arguing that it was harder for the economy to recover with the pay cuts implemented after the crash (Which as I've said, have since been reversed), but you're still ignoring the fact that it would have been impossible for the economy to recover had the industry collapsed. And for the record, Detroit going bankrupt has nothing to do with the bailout, and everything to do with Giant rear end in a top hat Rick Snyder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:So what would have been better-letting Chrysler and GM die, putting tens of thousands of people out of work, and crippling the UAW? You're arguing that it was harder for the economy to recover with the pay cuts implemented after the crash (Which as I've said, have since been reversed), but you're still ignoring the fact that it would have been impossible for the economy to recover had the industry collapsed. I'm arguing why people are seeing the auto bailouts as fundamentally unfair. How about bailing out the city of Detroit, funding pensions and creating jobs for people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:My man I believe if you look at the list of things I suggested are on the table are things a cabinet has nothing to do with, and nobody should've expected a loving single surprise on cabinet appointments. Ah, yes. Advisors, people on health and human services, the people he picks to be his liaisons to congress have nothing to do with implementing UHC, higher minimum wage, and maternity leave. Trump is essentially going to bypass Priebus and Bannon on negotiating with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell for these things, and the names fluctuated for Health and Human Services (Jindal, Tom Price, Rich Bagger) will all go "yeah, maternity leave and universal healthcare, Im all in." Bannon will be all "hey, Ive run story after story attacking minimum wage increases, but, you, Donald J Trump, are so strong willed and care so much about policy that I will totally help you with this."
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:I'm arguing why people are seeing the auto bailouts as fundamentally unfair. How about bailing out the city of Detroit, funding pensions and creating jobs for people. I mean, maybe that's how you see it, but I seriously doubt that many people living in SE Michigan look at it that way-after all, Obama won the state in 2012 by ten points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I mean, maybe that's how you see it, but I seriously doubt that many people living in SE Michigan look at it that way-after all, Obama won the state in 2012 by ten points. Obama ran against someone who would've done the exact same thing. Trump ran a campaign on telling the working class that he would be different, and look where the cookie crumbled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:How about bailing out the city of Detroit, funding pensions and creating jobs for people. So you mean like keeping 10000 workers directly employed with a bailout that also protected the 50k service jobs in the area that those 10000 primary manufactures utilized. Those 60k jobs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Bannon will be all "hey, Ive run story after story attacking minimum wage increases, but, you, Donald J Trump, are so strong willed and care so much about policy that I will totally help you with this." Trump proved that was an actual useful strategy. So I don't see why not. Un-truth as a weapon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:So you mean like keeping 10000 workers directly employed with a bailout that also protected the 50k service jobs in the area that those 10000 primary manufactures utilized. Those 60k jobs? Auto executives also got some phat bonuses. I maintain that while those jobs were saved, it's a short term solution to a state facing systemic economic woes that Obama and other neoliberals failed to address in a manner that fairly addresses the needs of the people and not just Big Business. That's why people are angry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Trump proved that was an actual useful strategy. So I don't see why not. Un-truth as a weapon. I don't see how you go from "these people decided to openly lie during the election" to "they secretly intend to push the most progressive agenda in the modern history of this country."
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I don't see how you go from "these people decided to openly lie during the election" to "they secretly intend to push the most progressive agenda in the modern history of this country." I'm not defending Trump. What I'm saying is that its entirely possible Bannon will keep publishing crazy things on Briebart and Trump can keep claiming he's the best by doing his own ideas anyway. Its a Win-Win for both media bubbles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Ah, yes. Advisors, people on health and human services, the people he picks to be his liaisons to congress have nothing to do with implementing UHC, higher minimum wage, and maternity leave. Trump is essentially going to bypass Priebus and Bannon on negotiating with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell for these things, and the names fluctuated for Health and Human Services (Jindal, Tom Price, Rich Bagger) will all go "yeah, maternity leave and universal healthcare, Im all in." Bannon will be all "hey, Ive run story after story attacking minimum wage increases, but, you, Donald J Trump, are so strong willed and care so much about policy that I will totally help you with this." Cabinet positions go to people who helped get him elected. It's why Obama had and has a bunch of garbage appointees too. You desperately want this to be an apocalyptic no win situation, but if democratic law makers don't declare jihad on him there's a decent chance this is gonna be a boring, potentially good four years. And honestly i think TPP has a good chance of dying and that's the best possible outcome from either candidate and it was was way more likely to survive and be ratified had clinton won. TPP death could excuse an otherwise W. Bush esque presidency
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Obama ran against someone who would've done the exact same thing. Trump ran a campaign on telling the working class that he would be different, and look where the cookie crumbled. Obama ran against someone who literally penned an editorial called "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Obama ran against someone who literally penned an editorial called "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" Okay, thanks for the correction. The democrats have always run against the republicans on the platform 'we won't gently caress you as much as the other guy'. Sometimes it works, but people aren't stupid, they're tired of it, and here we are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:Cabinet positions go to people who helped get him elected. It's why Obama had and has a bunch of garbage appointees too. There is a massive difference between "apocalyptic no win situation" and "Donald Trump is going to implement UHC, raise the minimum wage and create maternity leave despite what his cabinet and the leadership of both houses say." But at this point I can't tell if you are just trolling or if you are really this ignorant about how government and politics work. But sure, keep waiting for that pivot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Okay, thanks for the correction. The democrats have always run against the republicans on the platform 'we won't gently caress you as much as the other guy'. Sometimes it works, but people aren't stupid, they're tired of it, and here we are. The auto bailout was a good policy that saved a tremendous number of working-class jobs, and Obama won handily in Michigan in part because of that policy. You really do not know what you're talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 21:50
|
|