|
We got USPol back? Thank god, now we don't have to pretend the Trump thread is USPol. edit: catte tax 
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Condiv posted:gently caress off with this  Ze Pollack posted:good news, everyone: Cory "importing cheaper drugs from Canada would be bad because, uh... safety" Booker (He also voted for a similar amendment with stronger safety measures, but muh narrative) Thanks for the link though. Interesting to continue to see people who've historically been skeptical about Single Payer line up behind it now that there's zero chance it's implemented for 4 years. Hopefully this will inspire the wonkclass to start piecing together details for paythroughs, transitions, and avoiding a potentially crippling blow to unions. fakeedit: Condiv posted:forgive me if i can't tell the difference anymore after dems spent 2016 pretending raising the minimum wage, single payer healthcare, and free college were appeals to racism
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
quote:“Not everything is about an economic theory, right?” Clinton said, kicking off a long, interactive riff with the crowd at a union hall this afternoon. add on all the racist, sexist bernie bro bullshit too. dunno why you're pretending that stuff didn't happen, cause it did
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
There is already a thread devoted entirely to Dem issues, friends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
I don't think it's possible to measure how unsurprising this is to me. There was a glut of house flipping shows on TV before the crash and all of those 'make millions flipping houses in your spare time!' stuff. It was only a question of when the bottom would fall out of that thing. Paracaidas posted:Yes, this, a thing that totally happened. When the only thing you know how to do is blame the dems, you become Condiv.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:There is already a thread devoted entirely to Dem issues, friends. it wouldn't leak over if people weren't trying to punch left while we were discussing a multiracial kid getting lynched Condiv fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:They barely got Ed Gillespie, a really rather boring man, past Corey Stewart, actual Neo Nazi. Gillespie faces current lieutenant governor Dr. Ralph Northam, who's also a boring man. If the Republicans had run their boring man last time they probably would have won. Instead they huddled together and chose a Christian fundamentalist shitsmear instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
This was already known this since the subprime owners defaulted at a lower rate than average. The only people pushing the idea that they were the cause were friends of the financial guys that helped caused the mess in order to shift the blame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:The amendment he voted against was totally safe, y'all. It's why Paul, Cruz, and Lee voted for it! Are we that far through the looking glass? Is it now a betrayal to insist on stronger safety standards than the unpasteurized milk crowd? This turned out to be total horseshit actually. Booker knows perfectly well that drug safety was not an issue with that (purely symbolic bill): quote:The safety excuse has long been a refuge for policymakers who don’t want to assist Americans struggling with prescription drug costs. Bills to legalize importation passed in 2000 and 2007, but expired after the Clinton and Bush administrations refused to certify that it would be safe. The Obama administration also cited safety concerns when opposing an importation measure in the Affordable Care Act. Dude's cynical as all hell. He deserves his reputation as an underhanded used car salesman-type. e: Glad he's co-sponsoring this bill though. He knows which way the wind is blowing. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:forgive me if i can't tell the difference anymore after dems spent 2016 pretending raising the minimum wage, single payer healthcare, and free college were appeals to racism This literally never happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it wouldn't leak over if people weren't trying to punch left while we were discussing a multiracial kid getting lynched Your initial reaction makes far more sense now. For the record: I was not punching left. "Economic Anxiety" was neither primarily nor exclusively a left meme during the election, but a mainstream media creation that spawned a boatload of thinkpieces and ManOnTheStreet pieces from nearly every outlet. Typically they were dispatches from the Rust Belt. As most of journolist and many writers of color have noted (TNC most recently), this is to absolve white America of guilt: there is no endemic racial problem in the community, it's definitely not what it looks like. The parallels to the NH situation are clear. As to your other post-there is a wide gulf between "pretending [progessive goals] were appeals to racism" and messaging that you disagreed with or an acknowledgment that some people who supported a candidate with progressive goals were racist/sexist pieces of poo poo. Majorian posted:This turned out to be total horseshit actually. Booker knows perfectly well that drug safety was not an issue with that (purely symbolic bill): Booker voted for the importation bill with stricter safety standards and against the one with less stringent regulations. This is either because A: As he stated, he is pro-importation but felt the initial bill was unsafe(which would explain the Cruz/Lee/Paul abandonment) or B: Because his votes are being influenced by pharma donors (leaving open the question of why Cruz/Lee/Paul flipped).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This turned out to be total horseshit actually. Booker knows perfectly well that drug safety was not an issue with that (purely symbolic bill): Read the actual text of Sanders bill. It had zero safety provisions and only required that the drugs be routed through Canada. They could have been source from anywhere and they didn't have to meet any saftey criteria. Sanders wrote a poo poo bill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Not even a little. Factually, everything in my post was correct, No, it really was pretty inaccurate and misleading. No one on the left is calling for lower safety standards - they are only pointing out that Booker's excuse for capsizing a non-binding amendment is nonsense, which it is. These medications already meet our safety standards, because they were manufactured in the U.S. originally before being imported by Canada. That is why this process is calling reimportation - because we would simply be buying back the drugs that we already sold to Canada. Again, as it was a non-binding amendment to a budget appropriations bill that he voted down, and given how much money he gets from Big Pharma, it's not exactly a stretch to deduce why Booker voted the way he did. He's a massive whore for Big Pharma. Xae posted:Read the actual text of Sanders bill. It did not need safety provisions, because the drugs were manufactured in the U.S. and already met the safety standards. It wasn't even a bill; it was a non-binding amendment. Get your facts straight. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Your initial reaction makes far more sense now. For the record: I was not punching left. i don't agree with all of this, but i don't want to continue this derail any further thanks for not punching left, though i'd prefer if you just call these shithead kids what they are, racist murderers
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:31
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:This literally never happened. Not as widespread as condiv thinks it was, but there were quite a few people screaming about how bernie didn't care about black people ( http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707 ) and it's not that big of a leap to go from "bernie doesn't care about black people" to "everything bernie wants doesn't help black people." There was a lot of gross poo poo happening during 2016 everywhere. Hell, there were people yelling about how Clinton was racist, too: https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/ So, yeah, it did happen.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Not as widespread as condiv thinks it was, but there were quite a few people screaming about how bernie didn't care about black people ( http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707 ) and it's not that big of a leap to go from "bernie doesn't care about black people" to "everything bernie wants doesn't help black people." There's a strain of leftism that wants to believe "no war but the class war," and in so doing they do not give proper attention to issues of racial equality. That is a far, far cry from "calling minimum wage increases racist."
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
They also tend to react rather poorly to when people point out that this country has a rather ugly past of Social Programs having a (only for whites) bit attached to it, thus causing PoC to be rather dubious of any claims about being helped up by Social Program X.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Even up in Georgia, Irma is no joke. Taken on my walk to buy noodles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
Stop using secondary sources when you can get the primary source.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
That's sorta accurate...more accurate would be that the financial industry caused it and house flippers were a symptom. But yeah if you think poor people crashed the economy LOL
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's sorta accurate...more accurate would be that the financial industry caused it and house flippers were a symptom. yeah, i mean you can claim house flippers were the majority of bad loans, but the financial industry knew they were making bad loans and didn't care cause it got them bonuses
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Xae posted:Like I said: Read the text yourself. I have. What point are you trying to make, that this amendment would actually have been binding, and that it was therefore very important for Booker to help defeat? Because I hate to tell you, but that's not the case at all. Hellblazer187 posted:There's a strain of leftism that wants to believe "no war but the class war," and in so doing they do not give proper attention to issues of racial equality. That is a far, far cry from "calling minimum wage increases racist." The people you're describing here are a marginal percentage of left-Dems, Sanders supporters, DSA members, etc, though. The vast majority of these groups (and certainly their leaders) fully acknowledge that issues of racial inequality need to be addressed with extra emphasis, and that economic justice will not lead to an end to racism. e: Good typo catch, thanks Condiv! Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's sorta accurate...more accurate would be that the financial industry caused it and house flippers were a symptom. It never occurred to me that people would blame the recipients of
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The people you're describing here are a marginal percentage of left-Dems, Sanders supporters, DSA members, etc, though. The vast majority of these groups (and certainly their leaders) fully acknowledge that issues of racial inequality need to be addressed with extra emphasis, and that economic justice will lead to an end to racism. i think you mean will not maj
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:It never occurred to me that people would blame the recipients of Americans are endless in how gullible they are about poor people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:It never occurred to me that people would blame the recipients of Oh sure. It's part of the broader mindset of, "Well, THOSE people just can't be trusted to use money responsibly; that's why it's ethical for society to keep giving people like ME more money, because I know how to use it better! Silly poors!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's sorta accurate...more accurate would be that the financial industry caused it and house flippers were a symptom. Blaming the financial industry is convenient but misses the whole story. The system failed because of fuckups at every step of the system. From the zoning to the builders to the homebuyers to the mortgage brokers to the originators of the loan to the investment bankers who created MBS to the regulators who where asleep at the wheel. All of them failed. Cities only zoned for single family houses. Builders only built luxury homes. Homebuyers bought too much and research the financing too little. Mortgage brokers lied and manipulated people. The bankers drank their own KoolAid. Regulators were completely unable to keep up and more interested in their own post government careers. If any single group had been functional instead of dysfunctional the collapses wouldn't have happened. Majorian posted:I have. What point are you trying to make, that this amendment would actually have been binding, and that it was therefore very important for Booker to help defeat? Because I hate to tell you, but that's not the case at all. It was baby's first power play from Sanders. He left out key wording from the Amendment to poison pill it. It was a loyalty test. Xae fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Xae posted:It was baby's first power play from Sanders. He left out key wording from the Amendment to poison pill it. It was a loyalty test. Bullshit, if that were the case, more Democrats (particularly centrists) would have voted against it. Again, it was a non-binding amendment, so there was really nothing to poison pill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:It never occurred to me that people would blame the recipients of Right after the crash there were a ton of articles blaming loan recipients who "Should have known better." This sounds like just another scapegoat for the Wall St. fucks who did the real damage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
What is the logic of Booker voting against one reimportation amendment and for another one in the same day if he was voting against the first one to send a message?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Xae posted:Blaming the financial industry is convenient but misses the whole story. No, I'd say that the commodification and derivatives of mortgage debt and the demand it placed on the housing market was the driver, and all the rest was a result. You can blame buyers for not researching but we never had a situation where people were actively trying to lend to people who couldn't afford before, there was never incentive. Everything else was a symptom being driven by the finance industry gravy train.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Bullshit, if that were the case, more Democrats (particularly centrists) would have voted against it. Again, it was a non-binding amendment, so there was really nothing to poison pill. It wasn't designed to pass. It was designed to fail so people like you would get pissy and enraged.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Right after the crash there were a ton of articles blaming loan recipients who "Should have known better." This sounds like just another scapegoat for the Wall St. fucks who did the real damage. Even the most financially-illiterate person should probably have known that something was up when they were denied by every bank for any traditional mortgage, but offered a $425,000 mortgage with 3% down on a $30,000 a year salary. How some of those loans were ever approved is beyond belief.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Even the most financially-illiterate person should probably have known that something was up when they were denied for any traditional mortgage, but offered a $425,000 mortgage with 3% down on a $30,000 a year salary. Simple: The lender wasn't going to be own the debt when it failed. Possibly they weren't going to own it longer than 24 hours. The people buying the debt were buying it piecemeal and being told it was AAA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:No, I'd say that the commodification and derivatives of mortgage debt and the demand it placed on the housing market was the driver, and all the rest was a result. Borrower failure is priced into the market. It's something that happens from time to time (multiple times a day), but the impact is both built into budgets and is spread across the lending institutions. The bundling and derivatives turned those bits from little hits here and there to bombs with lit fuses and the market played hot-potato with them until they went off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Even the most financially-illiterate person should probably have known that something was up when they were denied by every bank for any traditional mortgage, but offered a $425,000 mortgage with 3% down on a $30,000 a year salary. The common talking point at the time was that the market will only ever go up from here, so you can't possibly lose money. It's how they made their bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Even the most financially-illiterate person should probably have known that something was up when they were denied by every bank for any traditional mortgage, but offered a $425,000 mortgage with 3% down on a $30,000 a year salary. or maybe they thought they caught a lucky break? don't blame the conned for being the prey of con-artists
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
A house is an investment that will never lose value!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:The common talking point at the time was that the market will only ever go up from here, so you can't possibly lose money. It's how they made their bonuses. Correct. The assumption was that even if you have to report in a few years the property will have increased in value so much that you'll just resell and make money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Spun Dog posted:The common talking point at the time was that the market will only ever go up from here, so you can't possibly lose money. Yes, that's why people were willingly doing it. I was just saying that 90% of the blame lies with the lenders and financial institutions, but most people who bought into it with the expectation that they would flip their house or that housing can only ever go up were not blameless. People saw a bubble and thought they could get in and make a ton of money without ever putting down any of their own money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:07
|
|