What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[tar]

Well, for my part in this discussion, I would just say that the strong defense of the Democrats by the democrats and the Republicans by the republicans, is based on the desire that each of us has, to "be right", and to have made choices and affiliations in the past, that were wise, based on good judgment, and consistent with the survival and prosperity of our families, friends, neighbors and the associations of men and women that we care about, and believe in.

 

Such a desire is evident by the partisan reactions to each other's comments, here.

 

I would like to offer the middle ground, where certain of our decisions and affiliations are more consistent with our will, desires and hopes, than others.

 

I don't think its a black and white world, but instead very complex, and ever changing. Forgiveness and reconciliation, from time to time, has its place. But sometimes it is hard.

 

Right now, I have on the multifaith service being held underground at the retaining wall beneath the 9/11 memorial. The twin towers were taken down by fundamentalist Muslims in the name of God. Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian & Muslim clergy are now together saying something different.

 

There is a common humanity that there is to appeal to.

 

In regards, to the service, we are talking about the world. In regards, to this thread we are talking about America, but the lesson, the point, the idea of a multi-faith service is to reach across the isle, and find the common ground, where everybody wins and losers are not generated.

 

It is difficult to be at the site of such a raw wound, and consider words like peace and forgiveness...

 

The Pope is now talking. I will listen.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

Well, for my part in this discussion, I would just say that the strong defense of the Democrats by the democrats and the Republicans by the republicans, is based on the desire that each of us has, to "be right", and to have made choices and affiliations in the past, that were wise, based on good judgment, and consistent with the survival and prosperity of our families, friends, neighbors and the associations of men and women that we care about, and believe in.

 

Such a desire is evident by the partisan reactions to each other's comments, here.

 

Facts are not partisan, though. One is entitled to one's opinion about things, but it's entirely different when one asserts things that aren't true as a way to justify holding that opinion.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Asserting things that aren't true is different than having a reason for holding an opinion.

 

There are plenty of areas in human interactions, where trust and hope and love and other somewhat unweighable considerations are in play.

 

For instance, I, as an atheist can watch an interfaith service and understand the real, truthful components of the ideas in play. I might know that "the Holy father" is not a true entity, but the collective will of a billion people, all referring to the same entity that I was brought up being taught was real and true, actually makes a "true" objective, real objective judge of me.

 

The Pope today didn't talk so much about God, as he talked about all of us being part of the same creation. There is not a bit of that that is untrue.

 

So my point is that if one person takes something literally and another takes it figuratively and another does it for pay and another does it for self actualization, and one frames it as creation, an another frames it as the universe an another frames it as being math, it is difficult to tell one they are making an untrue claim, because the other is making a "true" claim.

 

For instance, I have followed the arguments about the cause of the bad loan recession. Some blame banks, some blame bad loan originators, some blame federal law seeking to make home ownership more accessible to all. None of those things are untrue. I was there. I watched it happen. We wanted people to have homes and we relaxed the requirements a little too much, and let people who could not maintain payments, take loans. WE did it. It is stupid in my estimation to try to prove it was "them" that did.

 

Regards, TAR

If the Pope talks about the aspirations of every human heart...that is why he is loved, and honored, listened to, and followed.

 

Boehner's resignation was not unrelated to his talk with the Pope.

Edited September 25, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

I would just say that the strong defense of the Democrats by the democrats and the Republicans by the republicans, is based on the desire that each of us has, to "be right", and to have made choices and affiliations in the past, - - -

- - -

Such a desire is evident by the partisan reactions to each other's comments, here.

- - -

Whose "reaction" are you calling "partisan" ?

Not mine, I hope. There isn't a partisan sentence in any post of mine in this thread. Neither is there a single sentence "strongly defending" Democrats or the Democratic Party - two separate entities you have a tendency to confuse, much as you confuse the Republican Party with Republicans, "conservatives", and so forth.

Not forgetting that minor challenge I posted above, to demonstrate your claimed familiarity with leftwing ideology by paraphrasing or applying some to one of the standard, familiar, major political situations in which leftwingers had specific and identifiable and characteristic things to say.

 

For instance, I have followed the arguments about the cause of the bad loan recession. Some blame banks, some blame bad loan originators, some blame federal law seeking to make home ownership more accessible to all. None of those things are untrue

Those factors all existed. Of them, "banks" was a major cause, and "bad loan originators" a minor factor, and those Federal laws a negligible triviality, in any reality based analysis of the recent economic crash and recession.

So describing it as a "bad loan recession" is misleading. Describing it as a "bad loan recession" while referring specifically only to a trivial fraction of the bad loans involved is extremely misleading. Mentioning a non-factor such as Federal laws making home ownership more accessible is borderline deception in itself. Setting out trivial factors as equivalent to major ones is a species of bullshit, and in this case a major aspect of a purposeful media operation designed to obscure the major factors and deflect the earned blame for the economic disaster they caused.

And so we come around to America's biggest problem - in which the most significant cause or factor behind the recent economic disaster, the earner of blame for it, and the authors of the ass-covering media operations, should certainly make the short list. Right?

Edited September 25, 2015 by overtone

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

Asserting things that aren't true is different than having a reason for holding an opinion.

 

True, but AFAICT, irrelevant in terms of the discussion. puppypower was asserting a viewpoint backed up by incorrect information, or by giving no justification whatsoever. I'd like to ascertain of those, too are based on falsehoods.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Understood.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

The "left" takes no blame for anything. This is unrealistic, as any one person holds opinions that are sometimes right and sometimes wrong and change all the time to fit with reality.

 

You ranked the causes of the economic downturn according to your preference. What "snowballs" and what effects are reactions to other effects has to be taken into context in any situation.

 

I was "there" as much as you were. I saw the problems as they developed. The inappropriate valuation of bad debt, on the part of financial institutions, that lumped various loans into packages that became worth less and less, as defaults increased, caused the value of collateral that backed up all sorts of investments, tied to home loans, to decrease in value. The banks had to "write down" their equity positions. Since one dollar of equity backed up 10 dollars in loans, the defaults ate up the backing and the thing snowballed to where people where concerned that the banks might not be able to make good on a request for withdrawal. The banks after all, hold our savings accounts and checking accounts and CDs, as liabilities. They owe us those funds. If they loan out our funds and the loans default, somebody is in trouble. In a interrelated financial situation where everybody relies on everybody else, a lack of trust, results in a run on the banks.

 

The blame in a run on the banks belongs to everybody. The banks for closing their doors, and the people making the panic withdrawals, that reduce the equity of the bank even further.

 

There were many packages of loans that included loans with high chance of default, or that had defaulted. Without payments coming in, those packages became junk. Even the good loans, packaged in with the bad, could not prevent the value of the whole package from plummeting to pennies on the dollar. The financial institutions had to write these loans down. Taking billions in losses lowered the value of their stocks, and people sold, reducing the equity of the banks even further. The people backing the people backing the loans took losses. The insurers of loans, took losses. The interconnected financial situation of the whole world took loses. The Federal reserve had to make up funds and shift their balance sheet around to back up everybody's bad loans.

 

Started by Joe Smoe defaulting on his mortgage.

 

This thread is about the biggest problem in America. I suggested it was lack of trust. I would like to add another. Lack of taking responsibility for ones own actions, and blaming someone else.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Its like taking a jet to a global warming convention. People have a tendency not to see where "we" are part of our own problems.

 

 

 

 

Regards, TAR

I have bears in my neighborhood. I had one in the tree in front of my house that scared the willies out of me when he hissed at me, me standing on my front steps in the early morning dawn, out to see why the dogs were barking. Is that a "problem"?

No, I have bears in my neighborhood.

One morning my daughter had this fellow, perched in my neighbor's beautiful ancient oak that overhangs my driveway, watching her get into her car. Notice the hornet's nest as well. Problems?

Depends on your point of view.

Edited September 26, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

The "left" takes no blame for anything.

Yet more evidence you have no idea what the left has ever done or said about anything. I have been suspecting that all along, and you've basically proven it there.

 

 

This is unrealistic, as any one person holds opinions that are sometimes right and sometimes wrong and change all the time to fit with reality.

The notion that everyone who has a wrong opinion about anything is equally responsible for anything bad that happens is ridiculous. The causes of preventable disasters are not everyone's opinions, but the crimes and mistakes of those who committed the crimes or made the mistakes.

 

 

 

I was "there" as much as you were. I saw the problems as they developed.

How come you leave out the biggest ones, then, and so badly exaggerate minor factors?

 

The inappropriate valuation of bad debt, on the part of financial institutions, that lumped various loans into packages that became worth less and less, as defaults increased, caused the value of collateral that backed up all sorts of investments, tied to home loans, to decrease in value.

That was a major factor. The people who did that deserve a large share of the blame. Note that the people who did that are not "everybody", or even close to being "everybody". Note also that by "various loans" you at first expanded the reference far beyond retail home mortgages - that's very important, and far less deceptive, - but then you backslide a bit into specific "home mortgage" language.

 

The banks had to "write down" their equity positions.

They didn't, until the crash forced them - and sometimes not even then. That failure was a big part of the problem. Again - "everybody" was not involved or even close to being involved.

 

Since one dollar of equity backed up 10 dollars in loans, the defaults ate up the backing and the thing snowballed to where people where concerned that the banks might not be able to make good on a request for withdrawal. The banks after all, hold our savings accounts and checking accounts and CDs, as liabilities. They owe us those funds. If they loan out our funds and the loans default, somebody is in trouble. In a interrelated financial situation where everybody relies on everybody else, a lack of trust, results in a run on the banks.

Ordinary people becoming concerned about their ability to withdraw their savings or write checks had nothing to do with causing the crash of 2008. Depositors' runs on retail banks were not involved.

 

 

The blame in a run on the banks belongs to everybody. The banks for closing their doors, and the people making the panic withdrawals, that reduce the equity of the bank even further.

Even in that kind of mess, blame depends on what actually happened. The blame for a run on a bank caused by the discovery of massive embezzlement that has precipitated that bank's failure and loss of depositor's money, does not belong to even the body of depositors, let alone "everybody".

 

 

There were many packages of loans that included loans with high chance of default, or that had defaulted. Without payments coming in, those packages became junk.

That in itself had nothing to do with the disaster. Putting together packages of loans with high chances of default is normal - there is an entire business of financiers making and dealing in high risk/high reward loans, and if engaged in honestly this does not lead to snowballing disaster.

 

 

Started by Joe Smoe defaulting on his mortgage.

Joe Smoe defaulting on a properly rated mortgage sold honestly and priced at its likelihood of default doesn't hurt a banking system. Joe Smoe's odds of default are supposed to be figured in, and failure to do so is not Joe Smoe's failure in the least. Joe had nothing to do with that. Nothing "starts" with Joe defaulting on his mortgage, except the hassle of foreclosure and repossession.

 

The idea that a few people defaulting on their mortgages crashed the entire banking system of the Western economies, so the crash was significantly their fault, is ludicrous.

 

Factoid: the US share of the derivatives market that imploded in the crash was more than ten times the size of the entire US home mortgage market - not the bad loans, certainly not the small fraction of the bad mortgage loans that were Federally abetted via CRP etc: all of them. And the CRP loans had a lower default rate than the average similar mortgage. Back of the envelope arithmetic finds that the Joes's federally abetted defaults on foolish mortgages were less - far less - than 1% of the crash.

 

You ranked the causes of the economic downturn according to your preference.

No, I didn't. I ranked only your partial and misleading list of causes, according to their relative contribution to the eventual disaster. I have no preferences in the matter. You left out the biggest causes, and included stuff - like the Federal encouragement of mortgage loans - that was hardly involved.

 

Its like taking a jet to a global warming convention. People have a tendency not to see where "we" are part of our own problems.

It's like claiming the people who take jets somewhere don't see the part jets play in global warming.

 

And then claiming that global warming is partly the fault of everyone who flies in a jet to a global warming convention - listing that factor right next to, say, oil company lobbying and necessary military support, or power production by burning coal.

Edited September 26, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

This sort of thing

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/25/last-british-detainee-in-guantanamo-bay-to-be-released

[tar]

Overtone,

 

"The blame for a run on a bank caused by the discovery of massive embezzlement that has precipitated that bank's failure and loss of depositor's money"

Citation needed.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

The derivative market in terms of dollars was larger than the mortgages the derivatives were based upon, but the mortgages at the base of the system were what failed, causing the derivatives to lessen in value. You say that Joe's mortgage was only 1% of the failure. That is like saying that removing the keystone had nothing to do with the arch falling, as it was only 1% of the weight of the arch.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

Many pension plans and other financial instruments owned by "the people" by their fiduciaries and plans, the retirement plans of university professors and steel workers alike, held some of the derivatives we are talking about. Everybody had to make good on their "bad investments", made bad by Joe's inability to keep his promise to pay.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

Few people are concerned with what is being burned in order for there to be electricity when they flick the switch.

 

My point here, is that when coal is burned or natural gas is burned, or when Uranium heats up the steam that turns the turbines on the other end of the switch, the person that flicks the switch can not disavow any responsibility for the effect they are having on the environment.

 

It is we who drive our cars that rely on the oil industry. The oil industry is not an enemy. It is part of us.

 

Regards, TAR

Back to my picture.

 

A bear killed a hiker in Apshawa preserve, about 2 or 3 miles from the tree pictured. It was the first time in recorded history that a black bear killed a human in NJ. I was at first concerned that it was "my bear" that killed the hiker, as I did not see him after the event, and the guilty bear had been killed when it would not stop circling the partially eaten body when it was found. Fortunately my neighbor saw our bear two days later, so it was not "my bear", that did the deed. What the bear did in Apshawa preserve should not reflect on my bear. On the morning of the picture, my daughter had seen the "big bear" across the street in a yard with some fruit trees, and when my neighbor called to my daughter to be careful of the bear, she said "yeah I see him", and the neighbor said, "no, look up!" There were two bears within "striking distance" of my daughter that morning, as they can run 35 MPH.

 

Some might prefer to kill all the bears. There was a bear hunt after the fatality to lower their population in the area, but most people in town consider it the bear's home, and we coexist with the bears.

 

So we try to make noise, and be big, and not make eye contact, when they are in the area and feeling a little too comfortable around us. We are mostly Republican around here, but have voted in, along with the rest of New Jersey, a Highlands protection act. We cannot build except on existing footprints, and there are many things we do and don't do, to protect the ground water, as we drink from wells, and there are many reservoirs around here that serve more highly populated areas in Passaic and Essex county. We are the stewards of those watersheds, and pay our taxes to maintain services in Paterson, that we have nothing directly to do with. We sacrifice for, and think about our neighbors and our fellow New Jersey inhabitants.

 

On the hornet's nest. My neighbor across the street is allergic to bees. I would like to get rid of it. Have sprayed it, after dark on several occasions with Wasp and Hornet spray, but it is still active.

I am reluctant to continue to spray it, because the chemicals drip to the driveway and will eventually get into the ground and the ground water, and the reservoirs. I think about that stuff. My wife was about to use a chemical to get rid of a fungus on our Hemlocks, and we read the label and saw that the main ingredient might kill bees. We rely on the bees to pollinate our pear trees and tomatoes and my wifes flowers, so we returned the stuff and just washed the trees with some soap. But the bear has been in my back yard over the years to eat pears. He has broken my fence a number of times in a number of places. I could get rid of my trees, but I like them. I have some pearple (pear and apple sauce canned in the basement that I will gift and enjoy this winter) as we had a bumper crop of pears that I cleared from the trees, the day after a bear came over the new fence section, broke 5 big branches off the Starking, was treed in one of the hemlocks by my dogs, and generally caused a frightful episode. So, bees and bears are both "a problem" and part of my environment that I consider part of me.

 

I would think, or like to think, that I am a loved member of the country, doing my part, respecting others, respecting the law, respecting the environment.

 

In regards, to this thread, I would like to propose that 90 percent of us are the same way. We are good people, good judgement, good character, good hearts.

 

And our biggest problem is we let the 10% that are not of good will make us think that the world is against us. I

 

I would hope it is proper to instead assume that 90% are good, and together we should intervene between the 10% and their inappropriate actions and desires.

 

A simple back of the envelope calculation would show however, that neither all Republicans, nor all Democrats can fit in the 10% of people of bad will. Therefore most Republicans and most Democrats are probably OK, and we should give them the benefit of the doubt, trust them, and protect them, and consider them fellow Americans.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 26, 2015 by tar

[swansont]

Taking billions in losses lowered the value of their stocks, and people sold, reducing the equity of the banks even further.

 

How does selling stock on the secondary market affect the equity of the bank (or any business)?

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

I am not a financial whiz, but the price of a company's stock, affects the value of the company. If the value of the company goes down, the price of their stock follows. And if the price of the stock goes down, the value of the company is less. Consider the IPOs that have happened. The higher the price of the stock the more equity the company accrues. I know you said secondary market, but the price of the stock is a reflection on the earning power of the company. If a pension fund holds 1000 shares of Citibank and the price goes from 40 dollars to 4 dollars, because they had to write down billions of dollars of loan value, the pension funds just "lost" that value.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

 

 

Overtone,

"The blame for a run on a bank caused by the discovery of massive embezzlement that has precipitated that bank's failure and loss of depositor's money"

Citation needed.

Citation for what? You need some professional philosopher of blame to support that? Runs on banks have many possible causes - the blame is apportioned depending on the actual cause(s) in the particular event.

 

The derivative market in terms of dollars was larger than the mortgages the derivatives were based upon, but the mortgages at the base of the system were what failed, causing the derivatives to lessen in value.

You are making a claim of fact there, and you happen to be wrong. The failure of the honestly expected percentage of mortgages does not affect the value of a properly priced and honestly marketed derivative.

But even if you were right, that failure of those mortgages and lessening of derivative value would not have collapsed the entire financial economy of the Western world. It wouldn't have been big enough.

 

Many pension plans and other financial instruments owned by "the people" by their fiduciaries and plans, the retirement plans of university professors and steel workers alike, held some of the derivatives we are talking about. Everybody had to make good on their "bad investments", made bad by Joe's inability to keep his promise to pay.

1) The investments were not made bad by Joe's inability to pay - that's just a pricing factor. They were made bad by swindlers concealing Joe's inability to pay when selling them, in order to sell them at a larger profit.

2) The specific investments discussed, retail home mortgages, were not the biggest share of the dishonestly marketed investments that crashed the Western economy in 2008.

3)Meanwhile, "the people" had no influence, no say, no information, and no control over these investments. The people who did were making mistakes and committing crimes, and their mistakes and crimes were what made the investments bad ones. Not "the people", who had no say in the matter.

 

It is we who drive our cars that rely on the oil industry. The oil industry is not an enemy. It is part of us.

The people who lie, cheat, bribe, embezzle, threaten, and so forth, in order to become rich and powerful at the expense of those they have robbed, conned, cheated, and abused, are to blame for their crimes and abuses.

 

A simple back of the envelope calculation would show however, that neither all Republicans, nor all Democrats can fit in the 10% of people of bad will. Therefore most Republicans and most Democrats are probably OK, and we should give them the benefit of the doubt, trust them, and protect them, and consider them fellow Americans.

So?

What does that have to do with the problem we face in the form of the current Republican Party, its nature and behavior and media influence and electoral support? We have a big problem here, and happy talk about how we're mostly fellow Americans and honest people of good will is not going to solve it.

Look: if the term "honest man of good will" has any meaning, there are people to whom it does not apply. And such people have been running the Republican Party, organizing its core electoral support, and increasingly gaining media influence, since Lee Atwater's time - a dishonest man of bad will whose deathbed admission and apology came too late. This is a problem. I'm nominating it as the biggest problem America faces.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Not enough to crash the Western financial world...except that it did.

 

I will continue to not accept your take as factual.

 

I think you are bias in your assessment, and that you don't accept that everybody involved in making loans that turned to junk are partially responsible.

 

It was us that encouraged low income families to become home owners. We can not now say we did no such thing.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

As to the current state of the Republican party since the Tea Party took over, I would have to side with you. I think we need an intervention. But I am not with you in carrying blame to all Republicans for the last 40 years. Its just not realist, factual, possible or helpful to look at it that way.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

I am not a financial whiz, but the price of a company's stock, affects the value of the company. If the value of the company goes down, the price of their stock follows. And if the price of the stock goes down, the value of the company is less. Consider the IPOs that have happened. The higher the price of the stock the more equity the company accrues. I know you said secondary market, but the price of the stock is a reflection on the earning power of the company. If a pension fund holds 1000 shares of Citibank and the price goes from 40 dollars to 4 dollars, because they had to write down billions of dollars of loan value, the pension funds just "lost" that value.

 

Regards, TAR

 

In an IPO the company raises money by issuing stock. Once that stock is in the hands of the public, the company makes (or loses) no money from changes in the price. The shareholders do. So the pension fund loses the money (if they sell the stock), as you say, not Citibank. Citibank lost money because they had to write off the loan. Two events where money is lost, but they happened to different entities.

[overtone]

Not enough to crash the Western financial world...except that it did.

No, it didn't. Not only do se know better, having followed events, but that would have been impossible - it wasn't big enough.

 

 

I will continue to not accept your take as factual

Of course not. But why not? Mine makes sense, and agrees with the facts. You can check any of my claims (such as the structuring and pricing of derivatives, or the nature of the subprime mortgage market, or the manner in which financial frauds of this kind are perpetrated) in any sufficiently advanced economics textbook, or on line, or in back issues of reputable magazines, compared with the sequence of events. You can read careful investigation reports and competent journalist's accounts (I recommend Matt Taibbi on the collapse of Lehman Bros and subsequent negotiations, for example). Yours, meanwhile, is a product of what you can plainly see, all around you, is a continually and blatantly deceptive propaganda operation without basis in factual reality, currently trying to sell you on a revision of recent history in which "both sides" and "everybody" is to blame for all the bad stuff that some bad guys did and got rich doing.

 

 

I think you are bias in your assessment, and that you don't accept that everybody involved in making loans that turned to junk are partially responsible.

But I do accept that everybody involved in making junk loans is partly responsible for making junk loans. I insist on that. I insist on assigning responsibility to those people for making those loans, according to their role in the making of them.

 

But not everybody involved in making junk loans turned around and marketed them as high quality loans. There is a legitimate market in junk loans, as there is in junk bonds and penny stocks and imitation Rolexes and glass jewelry. But there are also swindlers and con artists who deal in glass jewelry and fake Rolexes in an entirely different manner - and if they are not regulated and curbed and prosecuted for their frauds, they not only can but will destroy the entire market for jewelry and Rolexes.

 

 

It was us that encouraged low income families to become home owners. We can not now say we did no such thing.

But we can say that such a minor, trivial factor was not to blame for the crash. We can say that by doing arithmetic, and by tracking how many of those low-income borrowers defaulted

 

(a lower percentage than in the rest of the retail housing market of the runup, which itself was a smaller fraction of the bad loans than the commercial real estate market beset with organized financial crime and the consumer credit boom beset with usury and manipulation and so forth).

 

and by determining that without crime and fraud no level of default among the encouraged low income borrowers, let alone the small percentage that actually defaulted prior to the crash, should have had any effect at all on the bottom lines of the major US banks.

 

But I am not with you in carrying blame to all Republicans for the last 40 years. Its just not realist, factual, possible or helpful to look at it that way.

But i'm not. I have been very clear about that, repeatedly emphasizing that your continual confusion of the Republican Party with "all Republicans" is mistaken. I have used strong terminology here, words such as "delusion" and "fantasy". Why do you insist on that?

Edited September 27, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

You go after the Party AND the constituents. You go after me, just for having announced that I am registered Republican and live in the suburbs. You assume I am also in need of intervention, and use bad judgement, am influenced by manipulators, and have questionable allegiances.

 

I for instance do not consider my take on the crash revisionist history. I don't go by what anybody else has to say. I was friendly with my broker at UBS and spoke with him every day during it, about what was going on, as I "played" the market and bought shorts and longs and double shorts and longs, based on whether we thought things were going up or down. I listened to Bloomberg radio and the various experts they had on, all during the thing. I was not a big investor, but I watched the situation closely, looking for a way to position myself that would increase my holdings. Because of UBS rules (they were under scrutiny themselves) they stopped my ability to buy double short and double long instruments. My investment scheme was no longer workable under the new rules and I had to sell, knowing I could not buy. I chose to keep my short instruments and sell my long, which turned my 50 thousand into nothing in the following years, as the market recovered under the quantitative easing of the Fed. I actually had 100 shares of Citibank that I purchased at under 5 dollars, that I sold, when I sold all my long positions, that would have been worth a lot more, had I kept them. I tell the story, not only to complain about the effects on people of changing the rules in the middle of the game, but to let you know that I was paying attention at the time, saw the whole thing develop from the eyes of knowledgeable financial folk and reporters on Bloomberg and my broker who enjoyed discussing stuff with me, from UBS.

 

I am not doing any revisionist history modifications of the facts.

 

My point in this thread, and in general when speaking to you Overtone, is that you don't give people you don't agree with, the benefit of the doubt. You have the way you think things were, are and should be, that makes you right, and smart, and good, and you have whole blocks of people who are doing it wrong.

 

America, when it does something, is the people, and the leadership, and the power structure, the bosses and the workers, the teachers and the students, the clerks and the CEOs, the brokers and the dealers, the clients and the fiduciaries, the farmers and the artists. It is not only people like you, that make up America. The problem with America is not that there are too many people that are not like you. The problem is you don't accept that somebody could be not like you, and still be a good American.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

You are, for instance, on general principle, FOR honesty and transparency and fair, realistic dealings. You applaud the regulators for stepping in a halting unfair dealings.

 

How would you feel if the Fed had people that bought stock to keep the market from going down? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing? Would that be for the people or against us? Would that be something you would support and defend, or something you would rail against? Parties aside, just on general principle, what would you think about that.

 

It is of course hypothetical, but it is a theory that my broker and I had, watching the action of stocks and the size and timing of the purchases, that the Fed had a crash protection team.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

You go after the Party AND the constituents.

Some of them, probably - assuming some of the core electoral support mentioned (the 27%) is formally Republican, which I do not claim as a fact and do not care about.

 

Forty years ago (which should be 47+, I carelessly grabbed 40 as sort of a round number that works, but it omits the Nixon campaigns) a good share of that core was formally in the Democratic Party. Like I said - I don't care, and haven't bothered with Party lines here.

 

 

You go after me, just for having announced that I am registered Republican and live in the suburbs.

No, I never did that. Why do you think I did that?

 

You assume I am also in need of intervention,

That was your analogy, that "family" schtick. What I described as in need of intervention was the "family member" of the "family" - the Republican Party and its media enablers, at the time.

 

and use bad judgement, am influenced by manipulators, and have questionable allegiances.

Well, yeah. That's obvious. For example: You're posting the standard bothsider crapola, even trying to lay off part of the responsibility for the crash of '08 on the CRP program and a few poor people who got conned and coerced into ARMs by lying pos (and criminal, btw) moneylenders; I know where that bizarro world "history" comes from; and it's not from sober and informed evaluation of the causes of that crash.

 

So?

I for instance do not consider my take on the crash revisionist history. I don't go by what anybody else has to say.

I listened to Bloomberg radio and the various experts they had on, all during the thing.

 

Hello?

 

 

 

I am not doing any revisionist history modifications of the facts.

You are posting revisionist history, chaff and nonsense invented by others for the purpose of obscuring rather than explicating the disastrous political history of the US since 1965. Your use of facts is part of that - your posted explication of the crash of '08 being the example at hand.

 

 

The problem with America is not that there are too many people that are not like you. The problem is you don't accept that somebody could be not like you, and still be a good American.

So now you are projecting the "both sides" frame unto me - apparently: I divide Americans into "like me" and "not like me", I blame the ones not like me for all the bad stuff, and I can't tell the ones not like me apart from each other - they are all bad Americans together in my mind, you claim.

 

That reveals a lot more about you than it does about me.

 

When you are done projecting poorly informed and obviously media manipulated notions about me unto my posting here, the matter at hand will remain: the current Republican Party, its media enablers and core electoral support included, has been nominated to be America's biggest problem. Reasons were given, illustrative aspects posted (and could be multiplied by the hundreds).

 

Do you have a counter argument, other than revising recent history to absolve that political movement of responsibility for its behavior, or objecting to the idea on principle as disrespectful to some fellow Americans, all of whom deserve respect - regardless of their behavior, or what they have done to this country, or why they did it.

Edited September 27, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

no, I will admit the current republican party, led by the Tea Party are a family problem and we should shun the bigots and the folks that have forgotten there is a separation of church and state in this county

 

But I will not, and do not call republican leadership in the last 47 years bad for the country. I don't agree with your take on Iraq or Iran or with your take on the economic downturn.

 

I still maintain that we are a great country, if maybe not as great as we used to be, but part of the reason is that we exported a good deal of wealth and knowledge and good will to the rest of the world. We have taken care of children and poor, we have defeated Imans and dictators, and stopped ethnic cleansing on various occasions. People round the world follow our lead in finance, technology, art, music and science. We are not the only engine of peace and prosperity in the world, but we are still a major engine of good. We have problems, historically and currently, but the best way to address them is together. United, not divided. That is all I am saying. Your tongue lashing is too strong, too wildly directed, too erroneous and too politically slanted, to be helpful in this regard.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

 

 

But I will not, and do not call republican leadership in the last 47 years bad for the country.

You can't address what you deny exists, or deal effectively with the consequences of what you deny happened.

 

I don't agree with your take on Iraq or Iran or with your take on the economic downturn.

Ok - but you have offered no argument or evidence for your dubious assumptions. You have opinions, but without any apparent basis in physical reality. You have no idea what my "take" on Iran or Iraq is, for example, but you think you do. You have a few poor people unable to meet their house payments in the US a major factor in the crashing the entire Western financial system, for example, and you refuse to acknowledge the obvious impossibility of that claim. This is untenable delusion, a bizarre fantasy of how the US political world has been operating for your entire adult life. Where did it come from?

 

 

We have problems, historically and currently, but the best way to address them is together. United, not divided. That is all I am saying.

 

If I am correct that the biggest problem American faces is the current Republican Party etc - and I offered argument and evidence and illustration, and am prepared to drown this thread in further examples and more of the overwhelming evidence supporting this claim - what exactly would you mean by "uniting" the country with that political movement?

 

Edited September 28, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I don't think you can tell a person to think like you. But then I have always been sort of type that marched to the beat of my own drummer. On many occasions you say the world is square where I know from experience that it is round. These two points of view are not mutually exclusive (as I know from working with the 12 segments of the sphere/cube.)

 

For instance, I was raised at a time in this country where women and men had different roles. The men brought home the bacon, the women took care of the house and children. Since, the roles of men and women have blurred, but workable situations have not always come to pass. The role of family in a society is significant.

 

The generation before me, had something called the extended family, where it was not just the couple that lived in a house with their children, but like the Waltons, the grandparents were there as well.

 

These major roles are not written in stone, and can change, person to person and family to family. The expectations are different if you live on the family farm or work for a company that might relocate you. It is easier to pick up just your self and move than it is to pick up yourself and your significant other...or take your kids out of the school and the neighborhood they have developed as their own and move them to a place where they are a stranger.

 

What we have developed, as roles, in cities is different than that in the countryside, different ethnic groups and nationalities have different ideas of what family is. Different levels of when inappropriate behavior brings shame upon the entire family.

 

After all, they stone a woman that has sex outside of marriage in some countries, even today.

 

But we have single mothers, fathers who have children with multiple women, divorce, same sex marriage, and any number of living conditions. Each with a variation of how much is taken care of by the union and how much is taken care of by relatives, how much is taken care of by friends, how much help is hired in, how much help comes from charity, how much help comes from the government (local, county, state and country) and how much help comes from the neighborhood.

 

You ask, how we should unite with bigots and fundamentalists, and treat them as family.

 

The constitution gives us the framework. You let everybody follow their own god, but pledge your fortune and honor to the union.

 

We have been working the bugs out of the system since 1776. Abolition of slavery, franchisement of women, we even tried getting rid of alcohol and have waged wars on drugs.

 

Saw a window sticker yesterday that told me that we are Americans...We shoot guns, drink beer and speak English.

 

All three of those thing actually applied to me. I shot 22s at cans in the swamp when I was 13, I shot shotgun at a pheasant when I was 18, I have gone skeet shooting, and have been in the army and fired an M16 (along with a LAW and an M60 machine gun.) I drank every day through college and the army (up n 'til I quit over 30 years ago) and do indeed have only one language I am fluent in.

 

The last 47 years have shown many changes. Some progress has been made on several fronts. Some stability and workability has been lost on several fronts. We have some "problems" in this county...like the young men who for some reason need to shoot up schools and movie theaters, and the drug gangs in Paterson, teenage pregnancy, and whatever else. But these things are "our" problems. Meth addiction broke up a family very close to me.

 

We don't need more rules and laws, especially laws that are not agreed upon by 90 percent of the population. We need each of us to police ourselves and follow the laws we have together put in place. There will always be politics. Differences of opinion as to who should be in control, who should pay taxes, and what the taxes should be spent on. Who should be taking care of who, and what and who should be taken care of, will always exist. That is why we have elections.

 

For you overtone to say that your way of looking at the world is the only correct way flies in the face of reality. We are a melting pot of many traditions, values, hopes and desires. We keep each other honest and hold each other to our constitution. We protect our way of life, from those who would take it away. The "family values" that have been a main plank in the Republican platform for the past 47 years are important to this country. The motto of "personal responsibility" has been a main plank in the Republican party for the last 47 years. Neither idea is a "problem".

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 28, 2015 by tar

[swansont]

The last 47 years have shown many changes. Some progress has been made on several fronts. Some stability and workability has been lost on several fronts. We have some "problems" in this county...like the young men who for some reason need to shoot up schools and movie theaters, and the drug gangs in Paterson, teenage pregnancy, and whatever else. But these things are "our" problems. Meth addiction broke up a family very close to me.

 

Teenage pregnancy is down — but not as much if you're in a region that teaches abstinence only. Abstinence-only education as had no measurable effect on teen pregnancy.

 

http://mic.com/articles/98886/the-states-with-the-highest-teenage-birth-rates-have-one-thing-in-common

There's a map showing the decline from 1990-2012

"In 2012, there were 34.3 teenage births per 1,000 women, the lowest since 1946"

"teenagers who received comprehensive sex education were 60% less likely to get pregnant than someone who received abstinence-only education."

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/409-the-truth-about-abstinence-only-programs

 

 

The "family values" that have been a main plank in the Republican platform for the past 47 years are important to this country.

Whose (and which) family values would these be?

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

 

I am not Catholic, and I believe in birth-control and planned parenthood.

 

The point of not getting pregnant out of wedlock, is that out of wedlock you don't have a partner to help you raise the kid. The family value I am talking about, is having one (a family.)

 

The personal responsibility I am talking about, is providing for your own children and not expecting someone else to do it.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

 

I am not Catholic, and I believe in birth-control and planned parenthood.

 

The point of not getting pregnant out of wedlock, is that out of wedlock you don't have a partner to help you raise the kid. The family value I am talking about, is having one (a family.)

 

The personal responsibility I am talking about, is providing for your own children and not expecting someone else to do it.

 

Regards, TAR

 

But you were talking about this in the context of a plank of the GOP platform. Birth control and planned parenthood are decidedly not part of that "family values" plank.

[tar]

The Pope said many things that I agree with.

 

He is not Republican, not an American, not an atheist.

 

He said more things that follow traditional liberal and progressive lines, than that follow traditional conservative and hard-line Catholic lines.

 

His words helped Boehner make his decision to leave congress. Democrats will not shed a tear on losing Boehner. They probably should though, as he at least tried to reel the Tea Party in. A voice of moderation, so to speak.

SwansonT,

 

The right to lifers have a point. A fetus does not have no rights, just because it is attached to its mother.

The choice advocates have a point. A woman's body belongs to her, and is not somebody else's property because a fertilized egg is in there.

 

Personally I side with my Aunt, who is a strong feminist and choice advocate, in that a woman should not be forced to carry a baby to term, that she does not want. Especially in the case of rape.

 

But the lines blur in my mind as the fetus is older and older and more viable, especially with technology the way it is today where premature births can be handled. And the "choice" to terminate a pregnancy because tests show the fetus is not perfect, is putting a life and death decision in the hands of the mother and the doctor. It is worth thinking about when abortion is a medical procedure to protect the life of the mother, and when it is murder of choice. Regardless of what the bible says. Just from an atheist's point of view.

 

Could a democrat not be grossed out by the thought of crushing the skull of a near term baby, on purpose?

 

Regards, TAR

My wife has a friend whose daughter had twin girls. One with Cerebral Palsy. I held that little girl in my lap for an hour and fell in love, holding my fingers over her fingers and feeling her responses and movements. I don't know what that has to do with the discussion. I don't think abortion was ever even a thought, but on a TV show the other week there was somebody with a Down's Syndrome baby, and there was discussion of whether it should be aborted or kept.

 

It is a moral question. It does speak to where we draw the line on who and what we should protect. Regardless of religion or politics. Just life.

we have neither the right to take such a life, nor the right to stop someone from avoiding an existence they cannot sustain

well actually the pope is an American. A South American. Just not an American in the sense of a citizen of the United States of America.

Edited September 28, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

 

You ask, how we should unite with bigots and fundamentalists, and treat them as family.

No, I don't. I ask how you plan to unite with the current Republican Party, its media enablers, and core electoral support.

 

The constitution gives us the framework. You let everybody follow their own god, but pledge your fortune and honor to the union.

Which brings us to the question of what should be done about a political Party, its media enablers, and core electoral support, that refuses to pledge its fortune and has no honor and is acting as the thug arm of criminal pillagers.

 

The "family values" that have been a main plank in the Republican platform for the past 47 years are important to this country. The motto of "personal responsibility" has been a main plank in the Republican party for the last 47 years. Neither idea is a "problem".

And neither idea is in fact characteristic of the actual behavior, nature, legislative doings, or visible principles of action of the Republican Party, its media enablers, or its core electoral support.

So nobody is labeling fine, sane, conservative ideas a problem. But if you want political representation for them, you have to go elsewhere than the Republican Party, platform or no platform. And the deception inherent in such platforms being employed to obtain votes and power for the implementation of other and very different agendas entirely, is among the reasons the Republican Party, its media enablers, and core electoral support, is such a big problem for America.

 

For you overtone to say that your way of looking at the world is the only correct way flies in the face of reality.

One of the many reasons I never say anything like that.

 

But the lines blur in my mind as the fetus is older and older and more viable,- -

The standard liberal position, enshrined in Roe vs Wade. Acting according to that position is what the pro-life movement has been working to persecute and make criminal. The Republican Party panders to the prolifers in return for electoral support, thereby power - for other agendas, of course. Edited September 29, 2015 by overtone