|
I feel like the easily doable part would have been nailing down the individuals that actually signed risky loans, but they were kind of the sludge at bottom of the financial feeding trough. They wouldn't have a lot of resources behind protecting themselves in court, and you might be able to actually show how they ignored or didn't do risk assessments for their clients. Getting the managers that made them get anything they could snatch, the bundlers that bought up the loans sight unseen, the quants that chopped them up into tranches, and the fund managers that sold those "AAA" investments would all get logarithmically more difficult to do anything with. They've got lots of money and (re-)insurance and lawyers and are less and less directly connected to the hands that did actual illegal actions. Obama did miss a poo poo-ton of chances to stomp down on foreclosures and support pro-consumer level protective actions though. He probably couldn't make the wounded companies act correctly by presidential fiat, but shoveling some more Consumer Protection Acts through Congress or appointing a proletariat-aid czar, etc. certainly could have been good for the Party (and possibly kept a few more people off the streets).
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
The 2008 crash and it's aftermath had more to do with the Democrat's recent decline than any particular failing of Obama and his presidency. In some ways the Democrat's decline has been a surprise, as following the crash there was widespread recognition that the laissez-faire approach to finance had failed (again). The deregulatory approach to financial markets pushed by Republicans (and neoliberal Democrats too, remember Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall) was discredited, along with the libertarian notion that the government shouldn't interfere in the "free market" (the US federal govt was the only thing preventing global financial collapse following the demise of Lehman Brothers). Given the context it seemed like it was the Republican party that was on the verge of destruction, intellectually discredited and at a long-term demographic disadvantage. The 2008 election seemed to support this. I claim the recent decline of the Democrat party has largely been due to the failure to address the personal and financial damage caused by the 2008 crash, and more broadly globalization and it's effect on the labor market. In principle the Democrats explicitly recognize the necessary role of the government and redistribution of wealth for a functioning society and to guarantee a good quality of life. In practice Democrat's couldn't deliver on this promise of a financial security due to Republican opposition, internal disagreements and the uncompromising nature of global capitalism. The failure of the left to provide substantial economic relief in 2008-2010 (for whatever reasons) emboldened efforts to reform the government by the reactionary right (the Tea Party) and right-wing economic populism (Trump). Obama could have been more effective at passing progressive legislation and holding financiers accountable post-2008, but the gulf between what the Democrats could achieve and what was needed to provide financial security to economically precarious Americans was too large. A new "New Deal" was required, but Democrats struggled to pass even no-brainer obviously necessary healthcare reform (not to downplay the complexity of healthcare as an issue). This is a systemic problem and can't be blamed on any single person. Obama could have been the second-coming of LBJ hybridized with FDR and probably wouldn't have done much better (especially after 2010).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:The 2008 crash and it's aftermath had more to do with the Democrat's recent decline than any particular failing of Obama and his presidency. In some ways the Democrat's decline has been a surprise, as following the crash there was widespread recognition that the laissez-faire approach to finance had failed (again). The deregulatory approach to financial markets pushed by Republicans (and neoliberal Democrats too, remember Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall) was discredited, along with the libertarian notion that the government shouldn't interfere in the "free market" (the US federal govt was the only thing preventing global financial collapse following the demise of Lehman Brothers). Given the context it seemed like it was the Republican party that was on the verge of destruction, intellectually discredited and at a long-term demographic disadvantage. The 2008 election seemed to support this. I think you're overthinking it. The main reason for the backlash was the election of a Black Democratic President.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think you're overthinking it. The main reason for the backlash was the election of a Black Democratic President. Exactly. Well that and all the signals that our consumption based model is failing outright. Truth is, there is no way to save the vast swaths of rusting Midwest. We simply do not need those people for the production side of the production/consumption model. This is the labor apocalypse and it is coming and it will never stop. In a way Donald Trump's election is a desperate subconscious signal of a certain section of white people to validate that what they have ownership over, the status quo, actually works. I'm not sure why Hillary Clinton couldn't serve as that proxy as well...Oh wait, she could have, if she didn't run an absolutely terrible campaign where it mattered...but that's neither here nor there. Whatever. Point is; white people are the in-group, poo poo is failing and they know it. Maybe Trump can magically wish the hurt away, or so they hope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Exactly. Part of the hurt is probably helped by having someone who looks like them in the white house. That is what this election was about and it's why no matter what Trump does he has a hard floor of approval.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
ThaGhettoJew posted:I feel like the easily doable part would have been nailing down the individuals that actually signed risky loans, but they were kind of the sludge at bottom of the financial feeding trough. They wouldn't have a lot of resources behind protecting themselves in court, and you might be able to actually show how they ignored or didn't do risk assessments for their clients. Getting the managers that made them get anything they could snatch, the bundlers that bought up the loans sight unseen, the quants that chopped them up into tranches, and the fund managers that sold those "AAA" investments would all get logarithmically more difficult to do anything with. They've got lots of money and (re-)insurance and lawyers and are less and less directly connected to the hands that did actual illegal actions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think you're overthinking it. The main reason for the backlash was the election of a Black Democratic President. The To be a little mean, the US isn't the only country in the world and a wider perspective might prevent the tendency for Americans to reduce every political issue into a personal drama featuring their TyroneGoldstein posted:Whatever. Point is; white people are the in-group, poo poo is failing and they know it. Maybe Trump can magically wish the hurt away, or so they hope. This is 100% correct. It's magical thinking, the con-man heading the rich-person party is somehow going to make their lives better just because they're white. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think you're overthinking it. The main reason for the backlash was the election of a Black Democratic President. You see America is so racist that it took everyone 8 years to realize that Barack Obama was black and then get super mad and fail to elect a white lady. Because racism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Yes everything is because racisms. There is nothing wrong with the DNC. Hillary was a great candidate. There is a lot wrong with the DNC and Hillary was a poo poo candidate. Also racism is real and pervasive. What happened in 2010 and 2014 if it took them 8 years to get mad?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:The US Democrat party is no exception. Just as an aside: Will you stop doing this, please. It makes you sound like a worthless flack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Radish posted:Didn't the guy that prosecuted the people involved in Savings and Loans crisis recently say that there were totally people that could have been nailed? It seems like it's more that there was zero political interest into punishing anyone involved rather than everything being absolutely, for reals on the up and up. Bill Black and he loves to say Neoliberal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:There is a lot wrong with the DNC and Hillary was a poo poo candidate. Also racism is real and pervasive. What happened in 2010 and 2014 if it took them 8 years to get mad? Because the Democrats moved on healthcare, the exact same thing happened 16 years before 2010 with Gingrich and the Republican 1994 revolution (which made the house red for the first time since the 1950s) which came on the wake of Clinton's failed Hillarycare plan While racism against Obama is real, it's way to simple to boil down everything to simple racism against Obama
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Can Obama be blamed for the Democrats decline? No, however, Trump and Republicans won because Obama was black. That isn't Obama's fault and it'd be hosed up to say that is why, but it is true Republicans gained ground to stop and destroy the legacy of Black President. 90% of Americans politics and political history can be summarized as "kill n*****rs, enrich the white devil" so this isn't really a surprise. It's simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Covok posted:Can Obama be blamed for the Democrats decline? No, however, Trump and Republicans won because Obama was black. That isn't Obama's fault and it'd be hosed up to say that is why, but it is true Republicans gained ground to stop and destroy the legacy of Black President. Did the Republicans gain >900 state level seats since 2010 because Obama was black? They definitely won some number of state seats that way, but I'm skeptical it's the only factor. A more interesting question than determining Obama's precise level of guilt is correctly identifying what contributed to the Democrat's loss in 2010. In retrospect that was a crucial turning point, possibly even more important than the 2008 election itself. It ended any chance for the Democrat's to pass progressive legislation at the federal level, ensuring that Democrats had no ability to address the ongoing damage caused by the aftermath of the 2008 crash. The state level wins allowed the Republican gerrymandering of congressional districts, leading to the defacto Republican control of the house until AT LEAST 2020. It arguably set the stage for the Republican takeover of the Senate and effective theft of a Supreme court appointment. The modern decline of the Democrat party and it's ability to govern was essentially determined in 2010. TyroneGoldstein posted:Just as an aside: Will you stop doing this, please. It makes you sound like a worthless flack. In point of fact I'm an opinionated know-nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Covok posted:No, however, Trump and Republicans won because Obama was black. lol that people actually believe this did Brexit happen because Obama was black too? racism is literally a non-factor in why the Democrats are losing seats, taking a cursory glance at the rest of the first world should be a bit of a clue Obama crushing Mitt Romney and John McCain should be a pretty big hint too as to whether racism prevents Democrats from winning elections NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:
I wouldn't say that and racism is a huge reason why the far right is so powerful in the rest of the first world the far right has being siphoning votes from social democrats and a major reason behind that is because of the perception that the center-left is soft on immigration
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Typo posted:I wouldn't say that and racism is a huge reason why the far right is so powerful in the rest of the first world Nope, it's just what liberals blame their own failures on. quote:the far right has being siphoning votes from social democrats and a major reason behind that is because of the perception that the center-left is soft on immigration Wrong, they are siphoning votes from the "left" because it's failed to do anything positive for the people. The economy is in shambles and nobody will confront inequality. Expect the rich "establishment" to keep losing as long as they hold on to their billions for dear life. Here's a thought, why do you think people vote for anti-immigrant politicians? Hint: they think it will fix the economy(it won't but hell when you're out of choices...) and nobody else is even willing to try. Xenophobia is the symptom, not the cause. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:
lol no it's not it's because keeping the browns out and the image of a brown muslim man raping a white woman is powerful enough with 0 economic issues behind it
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Typo posted:lol no it's not it's because keeping the browns out and the image of a brown muslim man raping a white woman is powerful enough with 0 economic issues behind it And yet, Obama, a brown man with Hussein as his middle name, beat two of the whitest men on the planet. How do you square that circle exactly? Could it be... that he... campaigned way to the left of where he was? And that the American people are actually interested in addressing inequality? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Something about 2010. While it was going to be a bad election the fact that just like in 2014 the democrats had a tendency(and in 2014 they actually were endorsed by the DNC) to attempt to run against Obama and assume that would get them votes. If Obama is to be blamed he should be blamed for not having the DNC take money away from such people as an example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Here's a thought, why do you think people vote for anti-immigrant politicians? Hint: they think it will fix the economy(it won't but hell when you're out of choices...) and nobody else is even willing to try. Didn't someone post some article in some other thread basically using nordic countries an example of why the intense anti-immigration sentiment doesn't wholly stem from economic anxiety (i.e. there's intense anti-immigration sentiment despite those countries having strong social welfare)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:And yet, Obama, a brown man with Hussein as his middle name, beat two of the whitest men on the planet. How do you square that circle exactly? Obama got 53% of the votes after the least popular presidential administration since at least Carter if not Nixon on the wake of the worst financial crisis since 1929, to put things in perspective: that means with a GOP president at ~20% approval still meant the GOP candidate got 45% of the votes. This is after the complete disaster of the Iraq War, the democrats sweeping congress in 2006, and at the height of the financial crisis. The core of the Republican party is based on white people racial identity politics with some evangelical just as the Democratic party's politics is at its core idpol for minorities. God, Guns and Gays are core cultural reasons why white working and middle class people go Republican. However, this doesn't mean economics aren't vital or that Bernie is wrong, because even if 80% of the Trump base is voting GOP based on abortion and browns sniping off 20% of them with economic issues still give you a yuge win. Typo fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:
And it's telling that Obama never won a commanding majority: FDR won 1932 with a D+17 victory is a good comparison
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Didn't someone post some article in some other thread basically using nordic countries an example of why the intense anti-immigration sentiment doesn't wholly stem from economic anxiety (i.e. there's intense anti-immigration sentiment despite those countries having strong social welfare)? Do you think that nordic countries aren't suffering from issues of economic inequality? Typo posted:Obama got 53% of the votes after the least popular presidential administration since at least Carter if not Nixon on the wake of the worst financial crisis since 1929, to put things in perspective: that means with a GOP president at ~20% approval still meant the GOP candidate got 45% of the votes. Again, Trump didn't win because he was Xenophobic, he won because Obama has exposed centrism for the failure it is. Working class whites didn't turn out for Hillary because they don't want more of the same and that's all she offered. What is so unbelievable about economic inequality driving the discontent the public has with the political elite? It's the single unifying theme we see in all of the first world countries grappling with this and yet everyone wants to find some complex multi-faceted reason behind it so they can continue to fail to address the elephant that's been sitting in the room for the past 20 years. Typo posted:And it's telling that Obama never won a commanding majority: FDR won 1932 with a D+17 victory is a good comparison Yeah that's because Obama is a centrist hack and FDR actually had a plan for the country he managed to implement and it did good things. Obama in 2008 was also a centrist. It's just that even giving lip service to leftist policy can sway the election in your favor since the Democratic base has been basically waiting for another left of center presidential candidate since carter. Also he was running against Hoover lol NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you think that nordic countries aren't suffering from issues of economic inequality? No, but if you believe the correlation is btwn far right parties electoral success and inequality is primarily a protest against inequality (as oppose to immigration) then you would have expected there to be less success in countries with lower inequality, are the Swedish democrats particularly unsuccessful relative to the rest of their first world counterparts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Typo posted:No, but if you believe the correlation is btwn far right parties electoral success and inequality is primarily a protest against inequality (as oppose to immigration) then you would have expected there to be less success in countries with lower inequality, are the Swedish democrats particularly unsuccessful relative to the rest of their first world counterparts? We live in a global economy, elections don't happen in bubbles. Economic inequality is accelerating worldwide, not just in the US or the first world or what have you. This isn't a "put in inequality value, get out election results". The global economy is stagnating for a vast majority of the electorate worldwide. They know it. They might not know why and honestly it doesn't matter if they do. What matters is that a politician actually provides a solution people can believe in. The center continues to fail at doing that. See: "america's already pretty great!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yeah that's because Obama is a centrist hack and FDR actually had a plan for the country he managed to implement and it did good things. Obama in 2008 was also a centrist. It's just that even giving lip service to leftist policy can sway the election in your favor since the Democratic base has been basically waiting for another left of center presidential candidate since carter. quote:Could it be... that he... campaigned way to the left of where he was? And that the American people are actually interested in addressing inequality? he was still stuck with a narrow majority, because the core of Republican voters are voting for cultural and racial issues and not economic issues in 2008 quote:FDR actually had a plan for the country he managed to implement still got a 17 point victory and not a 8 point victory Typo fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:We live in a global economy, elections don't happen in bubbles. Economic inequality is accelerating worldwide, not just in the US or the first world or what have you. This isn't a "put in inequality value, get out election results". The global economy is stagnating for a vast majority of the electorate worldwide. They know it. They might not know why and honestly it doesn't matter if they do. What matters is that a politician actually provides a solution people can believe in. The center continues to fail at doing that. See: "america's already pretty great!" tbh you are much much better off making this argument about left-wing populist movements in Europe (Podemos in Spain, SYRIZA in Greece, SNP in Scotland) then trying to white-knight every single Le Pen voter
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Typo posted:So he didn't look like a centrist hack based on his campaigning, his victory was still a D+8 and not a D+17 And what about the Democrats? Or the 50% of the country that doesn't vote? Why is everyone so concerned about the 15% of the country that votes straight ticket R. quote:No he didn't, FDR campaigned to the right of Hoover and wanted balanced budgets, cutting public spending and his VP literally called Hoover a socialist I'm not really trying to have a discussion about the 1932 election but FDR introduced the new deal when he won the primary. Hoover had way more problems than his policy, like the fact his own party wasn't behind him. Typo posted:tbh you are much much better off making this argument about left-wing populist movements in Europe (Podemos in Spain, SYRIZA in Greece, SNP in Scotland) then trying to white-knight every single Le Pen voter I don't think you know what white knight means But thanks for adding some more supporting examples of what im talking about
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol that people actually believe this They lose those seats because the far right HATED Obama and were frothing at the mouths to vote against him any chance they got. Why do you suppose that was?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:They lose those seats because the far right HATED Obama and were frothing at the mouths to vote against him any chance they got. What do you suppose that was? The far right always hated Obama. What happened is the people who voted for Obama in 2008 stopped caring because he showed himself to be a lying piece of poo poo like the rest of them. Let me guess, it's the GOP's fault that Democratic turnout dies during midterms?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The far right always hated Obama. What happened is the people who voted for Obama in 2008 stopped caring because he showed himself to be a lying piece of poo poo like the rest of them. It was a combination of both. But the narrative that Obama's voters hate him now isn't born out by any polling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It was a combination of both. But the narrative that Obama's voters hate him now isn't born out by any polling. I didn't say they hate him, they just aren't willing to vote for his party. Because they failed. Over and over again. The Democrats will blame the far right for their losses, hell, even the "far" left (lol Democratic Socialism in the US) for their losses, but there's never any discussion over their failure to govern. As far as Obama and Clinton are concerned they did a good job from 2008 to 2016 and the people would be stupid to not vote for them. Unfortunately they live in a bubble of the ultra wealthy and rich which means they have no loving idea what reality is like for the average american. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:And what about the Democrats? Or the 50% of the country that doesn't vote? Why is everyone so concerned about the 15% of the country that votes straight ticket R. quote:I don't think you know what white knight means You are playing with a straight face the idea that far right parties are primarily gaining electoral victories because of inequality as oppose to racial animus and the refugee crisis, which display ridiculous amount of naivity w.r.t NF voter motivations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/BS_mEpwhuil/ This just isn't a great look...
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Typo posted:You are playing with a straight face the idea that far right parties are primarily gaining electoral victories because of inequality as oppose to racial animus and the refugee crisis, which display ridiculous amount of naivity w.r.t NF voter motivations. I'm saying that only a small portion of her base, much like Trump, has real pieces of poo poo. Most of the people voting Le Pen, Trump, Syzria, or any "outsider" party are doing so because of the failure of the establishment more than the policies espoused by the parties themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
lol I'm sure next week when the French electorate are heading to the polls the avg le pen voter is thinking of a chart of global gini-coefficient as oppose to brown muslims rioting in the parisian suburbs
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Typo posted:lol I'm sure next week when the French electorate are heading to the polls the avg le pen voter is thinking of a chart of global gini-coefficient as oppose to brown muslims rioting in the parisian suburbs lol if you think anyone goes to the polls with either of those things in mind
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'm saying that only a small portion of her base, much like Trump, has real pieces of poo poo. Most of the people voting Le Pen, Trump, Syzria, or any "outsider" party are doing so because of the failure of the establishment more than the policies espoused by the parties themselves. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
Typo posted:lol I'm sure next week when the French electorate are heading to the polls the avg le pen voter is thinking of a chart of global gini-coefficient as oppose to brown muslims rioting in the parisian suburbs the idea that the economy only exists in the form of global gini-coefficient graphs, and not in the form of your wallet being appreciably lighter, explains everything you need to know about the catastrophic failure of centrist liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:28
|
|