You aren't following the argument. The point is that your bootstraps argument is over a decade late to be made, and there's now an overwhelming amount of counter-evidence to support her viability outside of her marriage.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
ClassyPenguin
Banned
And if you don't confirm to a poster's certain narrow requirement you're labeled as like a corporate or administration apologist. OT has been getting really frustrating with all these supposed experts.
Yep. I made my comment in the thread and was immediately attacked because of it.
Could the guarantee make financial institutions a little more reckless with their securities?
Black Mamba
Member
That's the point of making the fee large enough that if they are still reckless it will overall pay for itself.
This part is key: "The private sector would have to shoulder some of the initial losses if defaults were to rise, a condition usually triggered by falling home prices"
Basically, they'll have some skin in the game even if the taxpayers pick up most of the tab. It's not a perfect solution; IMO no one should be allowed to package mortgages into things like CDOs. The law should require the private institution to keep the loan for its entire duration.
Am I the only person who thinks that the government should step back from its major roles in housing and student loans? I'm definitely open to arguments that I'm being an idiot, as usual, but it seems to be that (in the ideal world) we should be pushing for more responsible and accessible private loans.
(This is irrespective of trying to help people out of the current mess; I'm talking future outlook.)
Black Mamba
Member
No, I agree somehwat. We should heavily regulate the industry, not have to protect it with money. But if we're going to allow financial institutions to repackage loans in derivatives, which again I think should be illegal, we at least need some safeguards out there to prevent what happened the in the mid 2000s.
get rid of these derivatives, require minimum money down requirements, plus proper avenues for financial advice. But we don't get that with our gov't.
Without govt involvement FHA and Fannie Mae wouldn't exist. So there would be no loans over an 80 LTV or with a term longer than 5-10 years. Banks are very stingy with their money especially over terms of 20-30 years. The only way to effectively offer loans to people they have to be packaged as long term investments but most banks don't have cash reserves to sustain mortgages for their entire life and there aren't enough branches nationally to satisfy demand.
Without FHA and FNMA and 3.5-5% down payments no one would be able to afford homes.
the ideal situation would be ONE nationalized bank offering mortgages and holding the notes individually with branches throughout the country but lol socialism. I'm a licensed mortgage loan originator and even I think the whole system is stupid.
It's not even a policy! Ugh. It's about as reasonable as an argument of "well he campaigned on Hope & Change so where is it?!?!"
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I think I've gotten into a few NSA/internet privacy/Israel/I think drones debates to know there is no such thing as shades of gray for most of the OT. I'm really trying to stop going in those threads. I get sucked into responding and I've realized they're not listening and instead are looking for a single point they can hammer incessantly
They are literally the equivalent of the tea party of the left. I mean that in the complete self delusion
There is no attempt to understand why thing exist they way they do or how history or political systems work. They read one article on the internet and that informs them of the subject. That and the tend to completely discount anyway or any source that doesn't agree with them as compromised.
And I go crazy every time I hear them complain about "nothing ever will be done" "the people are happy with their iPods and video games" "I can't wait till people rise up/are in the streats" The historical ignorance and self-religiousness is off the charts. As much as Poligaf is prone to group think, in my years lurking and posting I've at least found people uses sources, aren't afraid of backtracking when wrong and generally like a discussion to be open to arriving at where ever it arrives at.
I think most of the people drive-by shitposting "fuck obama" are actually latte liberals who usually don't pay attention to politics.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
No doubt. They've read a few chomsky posts so they "understand the way the world works".
Most of the forum has careers in tech so politics isn't something they'd follow all too much. I always remember this when they have the threads about college degrees. I don't know anyone else with a PoliSci degree or really any liberal arts.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
It's like that with everything, though. Same with diet and fitness or international relation threads(Gibraltar thread, any North Korea thread). All of a sudden people think they have all kinds of experience, credentials and are like expert analysts and any sort of reason or calmness is responded by antagonism.
eBay Huckster
Member
I should really start posting in those threads.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't know if this is a commonly held stereotype, but when I was considering a polisci degree (decided on theatre) people would ask if it meant I was a Republican, because only conservatives are supposed to be invested in politics. It's strange. I'm probably one of the most liberal people I know and certainly the most invested.
rocketknight
Member
My liberal arts degree in French is obviously what allows me to be such a high quality PoliGAF poster.
Edit: And feminazi affirmative action, of course.
What the fuck is this shit?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/erin-bur...-a-reminder-that-there-has-got-to-be-answers/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/erin-bur...-a-reminder-that-there-has-got-to-be-answers/
rocketknight
Member
I just saw that Bezos bought the WaPo. Is there any chance he'll make it less stoogey and/or bring Wonkblog back to the proletariat?
Black Mamba
Member
One of my degrees is in polisci, though I focused mostly on Constitutional Law. But the courses I took that weren't Con Law, regulation, or International Relations tended to have mostly liberals in them. Socialists, often.
I think it depends on the school more than the actual degree. There weren't a lot of Republicans at my university.
Although I do remember in one boring poli-sci class at the time I started to hit on this one girl and walking her back to her dorm she confided to me how much she hated gay people and how awful gay marriage was and how GOD hated it, etc. I have no idea why she thought I was so conservative to confide this to me, we had barely known each other. I remember she invited me in but I was all BAILOUT.GIF after that. IIRC I barely showed up to class after that event as well, lol.
rocketknight
Member
My International Relations course was mostly conservatives, too, although I figured it was just because my university was conservative.
Dear god, of course this is coming from her. Such garbage.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I'm pretty sure a good portion are also conservatives who use the opportunity to vent, considering this place usually leans left on most topics. Instead of revealing their actual policies, they just join in with "Yeah, Obama sucks! He's the same as Bush! Worst president ever!"
The Librarian
Banned
Isn't it sexist to say that a woman owes her entire political career to her husband?
Hey! It's not my state, I just live here and will be leaving as soon as I can.
So Reince Priebus is on FOX News threatening a Republican boycott of future CNN and NBC presidential primary debates because those networks are planning to air Hillary Clinton specials in the near future and in doing so are in his mind "doing the work of the Democratic Party".
Yep, never mind that 2016 is a long ways off or that she has not even announced an intention to run.
GOP running to Fox crying about media bias. Wow. Not surprised the irony is lost on them.
Here's video of Reince Priebus whining on Hannity: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/priebus-defends-ultimatums-we-have-to-control-referees
Here's video of Reince Priebus whining on Hannity: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/priebus-defends-ultimatums-we-have-to-control-referees
Didn't think it was thread worthy, but I stumbled across this and when I tried to Google it for non-conservative sources, I couldn't find anything:
Since January 2009, Republican's are claiming that Obama's job strategy has added 1.9million part time jobs vs 270k full time jobs - they are blaming Obamacare for some reason.
What's US GAF's position on this?
Since January 2009, Republican's are claiming that Obama's job strategy has added 1.9million part time jobs vs 270k full time jobs - they are blaming Obamacare for some reason.
What's US GAF's position on this?
The Librarian
Banned
Good in the short term more people having jobs, whether they be part time or full time, is good for the economy because that puts money in it but not as good in the long term, as it doesn't do enough to help with poverty rates and having enough to adequately live on, as well as taxing purposes.
Hopefully Wonkblog or some other economic site covers it. When a piece starts with "House Republicans have crunched the numbers" I become intensely dubious of the result of said number crunching.
Do you think if it comes out to be accurate, it will be a powerful political tool for Repubs?
Yeah, when I googled it and only found conservative sources, I became a bit more cautious about it.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Businesses have been sitting on money since the crash, that's not a lie. But obviously the economy has added more than 1.9m jobs in the last 5 years...
Consumer spending is slowly rising but the market remains uncertain. It seems like they'll continue sitting on assets until something spurs the economy, be it a tax cut or spending. Neither of which seem likely with this congress and a White House with a puzzling position on creating jobs. I must say I'm stunned no one is talking about small business relief outside of ridiculous tax cuts on the right and meaningless tax credits on the left.
Consumer spending is slowly rising but the market remains uncertain. It seems like they'll continue sitting on assets until something spurs the economy, be it a tax cut or spending. Neither of which seem likely with this congress and a White House with a puzzling position on creating jobs. I must say I'm stunned no one is talking about small business relief outside of ridiculous tax cuts on the right and meaningless tax credits on the left.
It's in the Washington Times, so I'm already assuming it won't be accurate. Nor is it necessary to assume any sort of special factors to assume that, in a slow and lagging recovery due to spending cuts, part-time work will grow faster than full-time work -- it's a straightforward way to reduce employee compensation, which, if the government doesn't act appropriately during a recession, is the only way to return to balance.
Here's Yglesias with the same point:
slate said:
Several conservatives chided me for not recognizing that the increase in the number of people who say they're part-time for economic reasons is clearly due to the influence of the Affordable Care Act and its employer mandates. I think this aspect of the law is misguided and ought to be changed, but as you can see above the rise in part-time work happened well before the law was passed. It was part and parcel of the general economic decline that began in early 2008 and continued until the spring of 2009.
And my point is that this kind of thing is a sure sign of a demand shortfall. The part-time for economic reasons worker isn't unemployable. In fact, he's employed. And he says he's eager to work more hours at the same wage. But his employer doesn't have enough customers for that to make sense.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/15/obamacare_part_time_work.html
I'm cackling at my desk. Holy shit at that graph.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
I love Yglesias, man.
That graph! :lol
Makes no sense. It's code for "we don't want to expose our fringe candidates to the masses."
PhoenixDark
Banned
Why should CNN/NBC care if they lose the republican debates lol. Maybe they'll pick up an extra democrat debate.
Not as much comedy potential
Frankly, it's probably a really good idea for the GOP, because they really don't want to expose their fringe candidates to the masses.
Of course, then CNN and NBC will presumably just cover the Fox coverage of the events.
PhoenixDark
Banned
and play the offending soundbites over and over and over again.
You think that'll change anything? :lol
Yeah, I honestly don't see the downside for the GOP in this at all. Probably the smartest thing Reince has thought of during his tenure.
Oh god no, I'm being facetious.
That graph is incredible. :lol :lol
Do you really need to ask when someone uses examples that are exclusively women and describes them with a gendered slur.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked