U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Felya]

In before "glass steagal caused it all". The Financial sector is already one of the most heavily regulated areas of commerce, yet all the regulators failed. How many people were held responsible for fraud during the crisis? Roughly 0. The main regulators knew about Libor manipulation, what did they do? Nothing.

How is government supposed to punish investment banks using commercial funds for risky investments, when the law regulating it is gone? Yes, there were punishments that should have been handed out, but after the deregulation of the law that made such actions illigal. What law did they break to put them on trial?

All removing the FDIC would have done, is mean people with saving in banks like WM, would lose their savings and the people responsible would still not have broken any laws and get to keep their golden parachutes. Removing the FDIC only punishes those who had money in the commercial banks, which were used to buy the risky investments. Without the regulation in place, it didn't mater what the risky investment was, be it Internet collapse or the housing, they broke no law in doing so...

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 06:24 PM ----------

You missed a large section of conversation. 1920s Harlem did more for race relations than everything in the CRA. If the thought is that by forcing people to treat each other as equals will eventually make them see each other as equals, the last 50 years will have shown that to be wrong thinking. No amount of forcing people to be civil to each other will make them like each other. The CRA simply enabled minorities to continue living in a "good enough" existence surrounded by people who hate them.

We have a black president... It's working... It doesn't mean racism is gone, but to say it's not working is absurd. By forcing people to coexist, the majority have been able to see past differences. It's ridiculous to bring 1920s and say it was the wrong thinking... It worked...

[Laize]

How is government supposed to punish investment banks using commercial funds for risky investments, when the law regulating it is gone? Yes, there were punishments that should have been handed out, but after the deregulation of the law that made such actions illigal. What law did they break to put them on trial?

All removing the FDIC would have done, is mean people with saving in banks like WM, would lose their savings and the people responsible would still not have broken any laws and get to keep their golden parachutes. Removing the FDIC only punishes those who had money in the commercial banks, which were used to buy the risky investments. Without the regulation in place, it didn't mater what the risky investment was, be it Internet collapse or the housing, they broke no law in doing so...

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 06:24 PM ----------



We have a black president... It's working... It doesn't mean racism is gone, but to say it's not working is absurd. By forcing people to coexist, the majority have been able to see past differences. It's ridiculous to bring 1920s and say it was the wrong thinking... It worked...

If you think a black president means its working, I'd like to point out that you can win a presidency without winning a single southern state. Oh hi there, 2008 election results!

The only southern state Obama won was Florida which is a state full of liberal retirees and immigrants. Even then it was a toss up state.

[Stankymcgee]

anyone who uses the phrase tea baggers is not even trying to have an intelligent discussion. If you have to use derogatory names for groups of people, you aren't really trying. If you support him I guess you are irrelevant too. Or maybe , as a democrat, you have his same way of derogatory thinking.

They are Tea Baggers!
Though they campaigned on a platform of reducing the deficit and ridding wasteful spending, more than a half-dozen Tea Party congressmen have collectively spent over $100,000 in taxpayer money on personal vehicles.
ThinkProgress examined spending records for the 112th Congress and found seven GOP freshmen — Reps. Chip Cravaack (R-MN), Sean Duffy (R-WI), Bill Flores (R-TX), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Bill Johnson (R-OH), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), and Steve Womack (R-AR) — who had spent an average of $15,000 on cars for themselves. All together, their taxpayer bill totaled $106,643.
There is nothing illegal about the practice of using taxpayer money to lease personal-use cars, but it smacks of hypocrisy for Tea Partiers like Duffy who promised to “lead by example” when it comes to deficit reduction.
Many of the vehicles go beyond a standard sedan. For example, Cravaack is charging taxpayers more than $1,000 a month to pay the lease on his 2011 Chevy Equinox, a crossover SUV with all-wheel drive.
Here’s what the seven Republican freshmen’s congressional offices have spent on cars in the past year and a half:
Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN): $25,580.84
Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI): $24,525.00
Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX): $10,997.45
Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO): $20,978.07
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH): $4,889.76
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS): $8,848.00
Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR): $10,746.59
TOTAL: $106,643
Data from this report was compiled from the House of Representatives’ official Statement of Disbursements, a quarterly publication regarding all expenditures for House offices, for the 112th Congress.

To clarify, these payments were not personal expenditures from each congressman’s $174,000 salary. The $106,643 in car payments were discretionary office expenses.

[Spectral]

If you think a black president means its working, I'd like to point out that you can win a presidency without winning a single southern state. Oh hi there, 2008 election results!

The only southern state Obama won was Florida which is a state full of liberal retirees and immigrants. Even then it was a toss up state.

Virginia and North Carolina are Southern...

[eriseis]

If you think a black president means its working, I'd like to point out that you can win a presidency without winning a single southern state. Oh hi there, 2008 election results!

The only southern state Obama won was Florida which is a state full of liberal retirees and immigrants. Even then it was a toss up state.

Texas votes red regardless of race.

[Laize]

Virginia and North Carolina are Southern...

While you're right from a historical standpoint, I hardly think the line of North and South is appropriately drawn along the Mason-Dixon these days. Who considers Maryland Southern anymore?

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 06:42 PM ----------

Texas votes red regardless of race.

And California votes blue even if it bankrupts them. What's your point?

[Spectral]

While you're right from a historical standpoint, I hardly think the line of North and South is appropriately drawn along the Mason-Dixon these days. Who considers Maryland Southern anymore?

Both states are interesting, geographically. If you head to the rural areas of Virginia and NC, they feel every bit as deep Southy as anywhere else in the South. The big time tech/income centers (DC area for VA, research triangle for NC) don't have that feel at all, instead feeling young, sophisticated, and advanced. Overall, I don't know what we should be classing those states as for electoral purposes. They're not the same thing as Louisiana or Mississippi, but they're not the same as New York or PA either.

You're definitely right about Maryland. It feels weird crossing the Mason-Dixon line and not being in an area that anyone would consider the South.

[Catta]

I should have specified that I buy good local beer.

Oh. No. You. DIDUNT!

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 08:47 PM ----------

Texas votes red regardless of race.

Omg they are communists! GET THEM!

[Felya]

If you think a black president means its working, I'd like to point out that you can win a presidency without winning a single southern state. Oh hi there, 2008 election results!

The only southern state Obama won was Florida which is a state full of liberal retirees and immigrants. Even then it was a toss up state.

That is only assuming that you think south votes based on racism. The fact that we have a black president who won the majority vote, means that it's working. It doesn't mean it eliminated racism completely, but I wouldn't say south or north voting is driven by race. A man who was competent won and it happens to be that he is black. Something that wouldn't have happened in the 20s...

[eriseis]

That is only assuming that you think south votes based on racism. The fact that we have a black president who won the majority vote, means that it's working. It doesn't mean it eliminated racism completely, but I wouldn't say south or north voting is driven by race. A man who was competent won and it happens to be that he is black. Something that wouldn't have happened in the 20s...

That's why I pointed out Texas would vote red regardless of race. It's not that Texas is racist, it's just that Travis County is the only blue spot on the map.

[belfpala]

Both states are interesting, geographically. If you head to the rural areas of Virginia and NC, they feel every bit as deep Southy as anywhere else in the South. The big time tech/income centers (DC area for VA, research triangle for NC) don't have that feel at all, instead feeling young, sophisticated, and advanced...

This is sort of a tangent, going off your comment.

What you said there is why I think the argument that "State/Local Government is best equipped to deal with their local issues" is kind of invalid. Upstate New York is nothing like New York City or Long Island. Greater Pennsylvania is nothing like Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. Greater Montana is nothing like Bozeman. Northern California is nothing like Southern California. And so on, and so on.

Even if you go to smaller levels of quantization... for example, the block I live on. The north side of the block is residential, and the south side of the block is commercial. Even if you go that small, you're not going to fully capture the interests of everyone involved with one view or one philosophy.

I don't really have a point to make here. Just an observation, really.

[Laize]

That is only assuming that you think south votes based on racism. The fact that we have a black president who won the majority vote, means that it's working. It doesn't mean it eliminated racism completely, but I wouldn't say south or north voting is driven by race. A man who was competent won and it happens to be that he is black. Something that wouldn't have happened in the 20s...

I don't think that's true at all. A minority being voted into office is a great thing (assuming he's qualified) to be sure. But to use the Presidency as a yardstick is ignorant.

Before Obama, there had been 123 blacks who had served in the United States Congress as early as 1870. And holy shit the first one represented Mississippi. Yeah. The first black Congressman in US history represented Missifuckingssippi. Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice back in 1967. Back in 1872, Louisiana had the first black governor in the United States. Yes, he served only 35 days, but he served because he had been the Lieutenant of a white governor in (and I can't stress this enough) LOUISIANA.

I would say being a democratically elected black Senator from Mississippi just 5 years after the Civil War would have been a bigger milestone than a black president. Especially since they did it before the CRA came along and allegedly made everything "much better" for minorities.

[belfpala]

Before Obama, there had been 123 blacks who had served...

This statement tells me something. And not just what it literally says.

I would say being a democratically elected black Senator from Mississippi just 5 years after the Civil War would have been a bigger milestone than a black president. Especially since they did it before the CRA came along and allegedly made everything "much better" for minorities.

You understand the dynamics of the reconstruction, right? It's actually no surprise that the first black senator came from the South shortly after the war. At least not to me.

[Laize]

This statement tells me something. And not just what it literally says.



You understand the dynamics of the reconstruction, right? It's actually no surprise that the first black senator came from the South shortly after the war. At least not to me.

You know what? I'll actually admit that I don't fully understand the era of Reconstruction. Please enlighten me as to why it's no surprised the south would elect a black senator or governor.

[Wells]

Including benefits in compensation doesn't really give you the full picture though. Purchasing power is the real issue.

When you put wages against the CPI the picture looks just as grim.



Historical purchasing power of minimum wage is even more depressing.

---------- Post added 2012-07-30 at 01:23 AM ----------

You know what? I'll actually admit that I don't fully understand the era of Reconstruction. Please enlighten me as to why it's no surprised the south would elect a black senator or governor.

Huge, huge numbers of black people and no one had a chance to gerrymander or jim crow them out of existence yet because a) it was too soon and b) the federal government was keeping a very close eye on what was going on.

[Laize]

Including benefits in compensation doesn't really give you the full picture though. Purchasing power is the real issue.

When you put wages against the CPI the picture looks just as grim.


Historical purchasing power of minimum wage is even more depressing.

Those inflation adjusted earnings still do not take benefits into consideration (Unless there is something listed on the page that doesn't come through in the graph) which can be quite expensive. Health insurance, 401(k) matching/management, stock purchase plans... those can be extremely expensive.

Huge, huge numbers of black people and no one had a chance to gerrymander or jim crow them out of existence yet because a) it was too soon and b) the federal government was keeping a very close eye on what was going on.

But there were black politicians from the south all the way up until the 1900s. Even after Jim Crow.

Note: I'm not trying to whitewash the Jim Crow laws. I'm just not sure how black elected officials even after they were codified are no big surprise.

[belfpala]

But there were black politicians from the south all the way up until the 1900s. Even after Jim Crow.

Note: I'm not trying to whitewash the Jim Crow laws. I'm just not sure how black elected officials even after they were codified are no big surprise.

Gerrymandering doesn't have any effect on Senate elections (unless we start manipulating state boundaries... this comment is not directed at you, Laize).

One of the dynamics I was referring to was readmission to the US.

[Sunseeker]

This is sort of a tangent, going off your comment.

What you said there is why I think the argument that "State/Local Government is best equipped to deal with their local issues" is kind of invalid. Upstate New York is nothing like New York City or Long Island. Greater Pennsylvania is nothing like Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. Greater Montana is nothing like Bozeman. Northern California is nothing like Southern California. And so on, and so on.

Even if you go to smaller levels of quantization... for example, the block I live on. The north side of the block is residential, and the south side of the block is commercial. Even if you go that small, you're not going to fully capture the interests of everyone involved with one view or one philosophy.

I don't really have a point to make here. Just an observation, really.

Sure, and what you're getting at is what I've always felt the problem with the "state vs fed" argument is that it can be applied at any level. County is better than State, City is better than County, suburb is better than City, block is better than suburb, my personal ideas are better than block.

The government is stratified for a reason. The Fed is at the top for a reason, and it all works down from there for the simple fact that there are major issues in the country upon which there should be NO variance between states.

[belfpala]

I think it's wise to take a step back and see what libertarian ideals did to the massive amounts of freed slaves in the south, and why their lives were even worse after slavery. The free market is brutal, it does not always work itself out.

Take this post with a grain of salt, however, because I'm only asserting that it was libertarian ideals in the frame of the conversation you've been having over the past day or so.

Eh... there was massive Federal interference in the South after the Civil War.

That doesn't invalidate your point at all. Once the Fed got out of the way, we had the Jim Crow period.

Edit: to be fair to Laize and such... there also good stories. The Western states were the first to give women the right to vote, and that was largely based on libertarian ideals.

[Wells]

Those inflation adjusted earnings still do not take benefits into consideration (Unless there is something listed on the page that doesn't come through in the graph) which can be quite expensive. Health insurance, 401(k) matching/management, stock purchase plans... those can be extremely expensive.

Yes but there is more information of relevance than just pure adjusted income with benefits. Like purchasing power as shown above.

---------- Post added 2012-07-30 at 02:43 AM ----------

Eh... there was massive Federal interference in the South after the Civil War.

That doesn't invalidate your point at all. Once the Fed got out of the way, we had the Jim Crow period.

Edit: to be fair to Laize and such... there also good stories. The Western states were the first to give women the right to vote, and that was largely based on libertarian ideals.

Libertarianism and Progressivism were far more in line in the 1800s