The Democrat Thread

[Y2HH]

Can we stop pretending like these budgets even matter? Whether they have them or not, it's not like they have to actually follow them. There are ALWAYS ways around any kind of budgetary constraints within a government.

[lostfan]

Can we stop pretending like these budgets even matter? Whether they have them or not, it's not like they have to actually follow them. There are ALWAYS ways around any kind of budgetary constraints within a government.

Really? Tell the boss at my job, he'd LOVE to know how to do that

[Y2HH]

Really? Tell the boss at my job, he'd LOVE to know how to do that

 

I'm talking about congress/presidential powers here, these all-encompassing budgets they pass don't mean anything. I wasn't saying a budget for a specific section of government can be ignored, but there are vast areas where they can be, because they simply vote for additional "emergency funds". This isn't something your boss has the power to do on his own.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

A Stupid Death in a Stupid War: Remembering Michael Kelly

 

War is stupid. War kills people. War kills people in stupid ways, and in unanticipated ways, and in multiples. These are not complicated facts, but they were too complicated for Michael Kelly. They were too complicated for a lot of people, 10 years ago and, despite everything, remain so even now. Kelly’s wrongness about war, though, was loud and it was authoritative, and it is still out there being received as wisdom—the wisdom possibly of a saint, martyred to the cause of journalism.

 

[...]

 

It’s not simply that Kelly was wrong, nor that he was wrong about important things. It’s that he was aggressively, manipulatively, and smugly wrong: deep, subtle, and clever…pontificated…we live in reality again.

 

[StrangeSox]

TNC has some thoughts as well:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...l-kelly/274696/

[StrangeSox]

How does this even happen?

 

Lunch denied to some Attleboro students

 

As many as 25 students at Coelho Middle School were denied meals or told to throw their lunches away Tuesday because they could not pay or their pre-paid accounts did not contain enough money, school officials said today…

 

Parents said they were told by their children that some pupils in the cafeteria line had already picked up their lunch and were told at the checkout they had to throw it away.

 

Victoria Greaves, 11, a fifth grader at Coelho, said a cashier told her to throw away her lunch because there was not enough money in her account. She said she threw her meal away and got nothing to eat.

 

Telling children to literally throw food away because their meals accounts didn't have enough money. WTF.

[CrimsonWeltall]

How does this even happen?

 

Lunch denied to some Attleboro students

 

 

 

Telling children to literally throw food away because their meals accounts didn't have enough money. WTF.

 

At my kid's school, they cannot refuse a kid the basic lunch, even if they cannot pay. They just build a tab and hound the parents if it stays in the red.

[lostfan]

How does this even happen?

 

Lunch denied to some Attleboro students

 

 

 

Telling children to literally throw food away because their meals accounts didn't have enough money. WTF.

Yeah I would be pissed as f*** if this was my kid. Geez we are talking about like 2 bucks - if my kid doesn't have enough on their account it's probably because I forgot to add more and/or didn't see the reminder. Since this is kind of a revolving credit kind of deal, is it that important that it doesn't just show -1.00 or whatever?

[StrangeSox]

Not just refused to serve them, but had them throw perfectly good food into the trash because of account balances that are entirely outside of their control.

 

How could this ever cross an adult's mind as a reasonable thing to do?

[StrangeSox]

Time to make some calls, people

 

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_info...te&Sort=ASC

http://www.house.gov/representatives/

 

(Washington, DC) -- A United States senator will join organizations representing tens of millions of Americans to deliver more than two million petition signatures opposing cuts to Social Security benefits to the White House on Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. ET.

 

 

Leading progressive organizations and groups representing retired Americans were quick to denounce the White House proposal for “Chained CPI” -- which would cut Social Security benefits for millions of seniors and veterans. Grandparents who retire today would get $650 less a year when they are 75 and over $1,100 less a year when they reach age 85, according to the Social Security Administration.

 

 

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), who will join the event, vowed last week to “do everything in my power to block President Obama’s proposal to cut benefits for Social Security recipients through a chained consumer price index.”

WHO: -Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

-Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)

-Former Obama for America Supporters & Seniors on Social Security

-Stephanie Taylor, Progressive Change Campaign Committee Co-Founder

-Jim Dean, Democracy for America Chair

-Max Richtman, Nat. Cmmte. to Preserve Social Security and Medicare President and CEO

- Bonnie Grabenhofer, National Organization for Women Executive Vice President

-Roger Hickey, Campaign for America’s Future President

-Manny Hermann, MoveOn.org Deputy Dir. of Online Organizing Platforms

 

WHAT: Delivery of more than 1 million petition signatures directly to the White House

 

WHEN: Tuesday April 9, at 12:30pm (ET)

 

WHERE: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW - Washington DC (In front of the White

House opposite of Lafayette Square)

[StrangeSox]

Not just refused to serve them, but had them throw perfectly good food into the trash because of account balances that are entirely outside of their control.

 

How could this ever cross an adult's mind as a reasonable thing to do?

Related:

 

“American Dream”: Food loaded into Dumpsters while Hundreds of Hungry Americans Restrained by Police

 

 

In a capitalist society, the motive behind the production of food is not to feed people, housing is not made to give them shelter, clothing is not made to keep them warm, and health care is not offered primarily to keep people healthy. All of these things, which are and should be viewed as basic rights, are nothing other than commodities—to be bought and sold—from which to make a profit. If a profit cannot be made, usually due to overproduction in relation to the market, the commodity is considered useless by the capitalist and destroyed.

[lostfan]

When the foreclosure crisis first started really getting rolling in 2009 or so you see these empty houses and new constructions unoccupied, while you see people being kicked out of their houses and unemployment spiking while more people go homeless. It makes you wonder what for. And then you see the banks get protected (because they're the ones running the show, and they wrote all the laws) and you have your answer.

 

This isn't normal and doesn't have to be inevitable, but it's what happens when you defend any type of activity and chalk it up to the "free market" (as though such a thing existed in a concurrent reality that we can never touch) like putting a stop to it is going to do harm.

[Jenksismyhero]

When the foreclosure crisis first started really getting rolling in 2009 or so you see these empty houses and new constructions unoccupied, while you see people being kicked out of their houses and unemployment spiking while more people go homeless. It makes you wonder what for. And then you see the banks get protected (because they're the ones running the show, and they wrote all the laws) and you have your answer.

 

This isn't normal and doesn't have to be inevitable, but it's what happens when you defend any type of activity and chalk it up to the "free market" (as though such a thing existed in a concurrent reality that we can never touch) like putting a stop to it is going to do harm.

 

I agree with what you're saying generally, but the counter to that argument is that had the government not meddled with the private mortgage business over the last 50 years the housing bubble would have never burst. There would have been no government backing mortgages, there would have been no forcing banks to loan to people who shouldn't have purchased homes, down payment requirements would have been higher, etc. The result would be that banks wouldn't have been so risky with their money and they would have loaned at much more reasonable level.

 

You can't really blame it on the no-rules free market when that free market doesn't exist.

[StrangeSox]

Oh god, not that crap again.

 

It was the private market that led the way on the s***ty mortgages, completely unforced by any sort of CRA or other requirements. Freddie and Fannie were late getting into the sub-prime game as well. And of course government regulations had nothing to do with all of the exotic gambling/financial products and banks leveraging themselves 40-1. The worst parts of the financial crisis were the unregulated parts--the NINA loans, the CDS's and MBS's, the leverage ratios, the mixing of investment and commercial banking. CRA loans performed better than private mortgage loans. This has been well-documented for years now.

 

Why on earth do you think banks wouldn't be risky with their money? They over-leverage themselves and use bank funds like a casino all the time. If management takes big risks and produces huge (short-term) profits, they'll make themselves a small fortune every year. And, if they f*** it up, they'll ride to safety on their golden parachute.

[Balta1701]

I agree with what you're saying generally, but the counter to that argument is that had the government not meddled with the private mortgage business over the last 50 years the housing bubble would have never burst. There would have been no government backing mortgages, there would have been no forcing banks to loan to people who shouldn't have purchased homes, down payment requirements would have been higher, etc. The result would be that banks wouldn't have been so risky with their money and they would have loaned at much more reasonable level.

 

You can't really blame it on the no-rules free market when that free market doesn't exist.

Virtually none of that is true, just so it's said. The number of loans banks were "forced" to make was tiny and those didn't fail nearly as often as the ones they made by choice. Virtually none of the "Sub prime market" or the Alt-A market were forced upon banks; they did that entirely by choice.

 

If the government did something that allowed banks to be risky with their money, it was allowing them to grow to a scale where they realized they had an implicit guarantee beyond what their own assets provided.

[Jenksismyhero]

Are you guys seriously contending that the idea that government will back a risky mortgage doesn't play into the thought process of a lender? That the government creating a program back in the 40's or whatever it was to lend to low and middle class people didn't change the risk tolerance of lenders? You don't think it created a shift in lending practices when I no longer accept 20% down but can now accept 5%?

 

I'm not at all suggesting that corporate greed and just straight up s***ty people aren't to blame for the bubble bursting, which is why I said I generally agree with his point. But you can't argue in absolutes when the absolute condition doesn't exist. Mortgage lending is heavily regulated, in some ways for good reason. It is in no way shape or form a "free market."

Edited April 9, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Oh god, not that crap again.

 

It was the private market that led the way on the s***ty mortgages, completely unforced by any sort of CRA or other requirements. Freddie and Fannie were late getting into the sub-prime game as well. And of course government regulations had nothing to do with all of the exotic gambling/financial products and banks leveraging themselves 40-1. The worst parts of the financial crisis were the unregulated parts--the NINA loans, the CDS's and MBS's, the leverage ratios, the mixing of investment and commercial banking. CRA loans performed better than private mortgage loans. This has been well-documented for years now.

 

Why on earth do you think banks wouldn't be risky with their money? They over-leverage themselves and use bank funds like a casino all the time. If management takes big risks and produces huge (short-term) profits, they'll make themselves a small fortune every year. And, if they f*** it up, they'll ride to safety on their golden parachute.

 

Or a bailout, which is the complete opposite of a "free market." No downside, no risk. I can lend/do business however the hell I want. That was the culture and has been for decades.

[StrangeSox]

Mortgage lending of the type that caused the collapse was the most unregulated segment of mortgage lending.

 

I don't think the lenders gave one s*** about who would back a mortgage--they weren't holding on to them for any length of time. They were re-selling them to people who would then chop them up and securitize them after paying S&P to give them a AAA ratings while others were selling Credit Default Swaps based on those s***ty mortgage-backed securities and everyone leveraged themselves to insane levels because there was little or no regulations on them doing that. Oh, and we got the mixing of commercial and investment banking thanks to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which again only made matters worse. Every step towards deregulation was a step that fueled the crisis. And, again, Freddie and Fannie were way late to the whole sub-prime game and started getting into it because they were losing market share and getting hammered by investors for it.

 

Accepting only 5% down wasn't the problem. The problem was giving out mortgages to anybody and everybody without verifying income or assets in any way, even going so far as to lie on application forms so that people would get approved. Originators made money this way, the banks that securitized it made money, the ratings agencies made money, the insurance companies made money. Lots and lots of people made huge fortunes exploiting the system in every way possible. Nowhere does "forced by government to make bad loans" enter into this.

 

There's no such thing as a completely free market in reality because there are always governments and always laws. It's just a No True Scotsman to try to downplay the role that deregulation and lack-of-regulation played in this.

[StrangeSox]

Or a bailout, which is the complete opposite of a "free market." No downside, no risk. I can lend/do business however the hell I want. That was the culture and has been for decades.

 

The bailouts were necessitated because we allowed banks to merge investment and commercial, putting the entire economy at risk and leaving us with only a handful of mega-banks.

 

But the bailout (which has now morphed from "too big to fail" to "too big to prosecute") is separate from the compensation package structures for management that reward and encourage excessive risk-taking. The bailout just means that the last guy there doesn't lose the game of hot potato.

[lostfan]

If you have any type of regulation at all, any whatsoever, then it's not a "free market." Such a thing doesn't exist and never has no matter how many times people say it does, not even in the Gilded Age. The market is whatever we say it is. Then it adapts accordingly. Whether it adapts in a positive or negative way is what we argue about.

 

Whenever people talk about the government (some phantom nefarious entity) "interfering" they miss the obvious. Who is it, exactly, that's interfering? Where does it start? Look at who's left with all the money. Again, there's your answer. How many people should've been in prison after 2008? How many people actually went?

 

Y'all don't want me to be president because I will have these people in guillotines with their executions broadcast during prime-time along with the sentencing and verdict being read aloud. I'm not even kidding.

[lostfan]

Mortgage lending of the type that caused the collapse was the most unregulated segment of mortgage lending.

 

I don't think the lenders gave one s*** about who would back a mortgage--they weren't holding on to them for any length of time. They were re-selling them to people who would then chop them up and securitize them after paying S&P to give them a AAA ratings while others were selling Credit Default Swaps based on those s***ty mortgage-backed securities and everyone leveraged themselves to insane levels because there was little or no regulations on them doing that. Oh, and we got the mixing of commercial and investment banking thanks to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which again only made matters worse. Every step towards deregulation was a step that fueled the crisis. And, again, Freddie and Fannie were way late to the whole sub-prime game and started getting into it because they were losing market share and getting hammered by investors for it.

 

Accepting only 5% down wasn't the problem. The problem was giving out mortgages to anybody and everybody without verifying income or assets in any way, even going so far as to lie on application forms so that people would get approved. Originators made money this way, the banks that securitized it made money, the ratings agencies made money, the insurance companies made money. Lots and lots of people made huge fortunes exploiting the system in every way possible. Nowhere does "forced by government to make bad loans" enter into this.

 

There's no such thing as a completely free market in reality because there are always governments and always laws. It's just a No True Scotsman to try to downplay the role that deregulation and lack-of-regulation played in this.

The industry players, the regulators, the government, they become one messy confluence where one is indistinguishable from the next because we aren't paying attention.

[Y2HH]

Mortgage lending of the type that caused the collapse was the most unregulated segment of mortgage lending.

 

I don't think the lenders gave one s*** about who would back a mortgage--they weren't holding on to them for any length of time. They were re-selling them to people who would then chop them up and securitize them after paying S&P to give them a AAA ratings while others were selling Credit Default Swaps based on those s***ty mortgage-backed securities and everyone leveraged themselves to insane levels because there was little or no regulations on them doing that. Oh, and we got the mixing of commercial and investment banking thanks to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which again only made matters worse. Every step towards deregulation was a step that fueled the crisis. And, again, Freddie and Fannie were way late to the whole sub-prime game and started getting into it because they were losing market share and getting hammered by investors for it.

 

Accepting only 5% down wasn't the problem. The problem was giving out mortgages to anybody and everybody without verifying income or assets in any way, even going so far as to lie on application forms so that people would get approved. Originators made money this way, the banks that securitized it made money, the ratings agencies made money, the insurance companies made money. Lots and lots of people made huge fortunes exploiting the system in every way possible. Nowhere does "forced by government to make bad loans" enter into this.

 

There's no such thing as a completely free market in reality because there are always governments and always laws. It's just a No True Scotsman to try to downplay the role that deregulation and lack-of-regulation played in this.

 

It's the fault of a LOT of people, from the borrowers to the lenders, to the lawmakers, to the auditors that combined, allowed this to happen, and watched WHILE it was happening. It was then the fault of the insurance underwriters claiming the mortgages were safe, and when they could no longer do that, accepting 'bundles of mortgages', and instead calling those safe when they could no longer be called that on their own. It was then the fault of the likes of AIG and other insurance carriers ACCEPTING and backing those loans.

 

Deregulation of the mortgage industry led to this, because the things they did were simply never before thought of...and when you deregulate an industry thinking they do things XYZ, but suddenly they begin doing them ABCXYZ under the new regulations, which didn't account for the ABC, this is what you get.

[StrangeSox]

My avatar is a policy suggestion, time to bring back the Committee of Public Safety for the bankers

 

[StrangeSox]

It's the fault of a LOT of people, from the borrowers to the lenders, to the lawmakers, to the auditors that combined, allowed this to happen, and watched WHILE it was happening. It was then the fault of the insurance underwriters claiming the mortgages were safe, and when they could no longer do that, accepting 'bundles of mortgages', and instead calling those safe when they could no longer be called that on their own. It was then the fault of the likes of AIG and other insurance carriers ACCEPTING and backing those loans.

 

Deregulation of the mortgage industry led to this, because the things they did were simply never before thought of...and when you deregulate an industry thinking they do things XYZ, but suddenly they begin doing them ABCXYZ under the new regulations, which didn't account for the ABC, this is what you get.

Yeah, I'm not letting the government(s) off the hook here. They clearly failed to protect American citizens and to foster a strong, robust economy with solid foundations.

[Y2HH]

Yeah, I'm not letting the government(s) off the hook here. They clearly failed to protect American citizens and to foster a strong, robust economy with solid foundations.

 

In fairness, on the way up, that looked to be exactly what they were doing.