This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: 2020 Election Commentary  (Read 185268 times)

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2370 on: December 26, 2020, 04:18:04 AM »
Honestly, I think the whole "Jill Biden is not a Doctor!" is just as ridiculous as claiming Sebastian Gorka is not a Doctor. Yes, they are both doctors, both have PH.D's. Yes, neither one is a *medical doctor*--their respective credentials are in other fields--and this I think may be one of the reasons medical doctors have "Dr. John Smith, M.D." after their names. After reading some of these articles about medical commissions, newspaper editing standards in Canada, whatever, claiming to not call PH.D's "Doctor" and hospitals making particular distinctions about staff--*shrugs* I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong, though at my university, students, administrators, and faculty alike routinely made references to "Yes, this Philosophy class is taught by Dr. Robert Smith" ...
So much of this just seems petty to me. People that have PH.D's have attended school for 8 years or more, and have earned respect for their work. They are no less educated than a medical doctor, though have focused their academic efforts and expertise on a different field other than medicine. I think that both Dr. Jill Biden and Dr. Sebastian Gorka would likely agree with me.

Thanks, SHARK. I think like many things in English, the usage of the "Dr." honorific is inconsistent in practice. Some people with doctoral degrees use it, some don't. It's just one of those things. I can see someone arguing that we should move more towards consistency -- but that shouldn't be by attacking people like Dr. Biden or Dr. Gorka. They're justified in using it, because there are a lot of people who do use it that way.

I agree it's a petty thing to argue over, rather than the substance of political positions.

(For disclosure: I have a PhD in physics. I rarely use the title, but if I do use it, I would get annoyed at someone who called me out for doing so, since it is correct.)

Greetings!

You're welcome, Jhkim. I believe it is important to be consistent, as well as fair. I also think that holding onto a proper and healthy respect for a meritocracy, and for, well, our education system and structure is important and worthwhile. Now, having said that, I am fully aware that there are some people that have PH.D's that are mind-boggling morons. And yes, while our educational standards and processes have definitely weakened and eroded over the years, that doesn't mean that we should abandon our traditional hmmm...in the Marine Corps we had a term that I think applies well--our traditional customs and courtesies. I had some professors in college that I disagreed with--and a few I thought were fucking jello-brained, Marxist morons. That is from their political philosophy and ideology, though. From a professional, academic standpoint, even most of the professors that I thought were ideological idiots, or just mushy-minded, soft, and weak--when it comes to their particular academic discipline, whether it was History, or English, or Philosophy, or Political Science, they knew their stuff. I think anyone that actually genuinely does the academic work, and earns various degrees, whether Bachelor's, Masters, or Doctorates--or JD's for the lawyers here--have worked hard and accomplished something worthwhile and meaningful.

I had an English professor--she had a PH.D in English Literature, and I think her Masters was in Education or something obscure like that--she was Liberal. She was mushy-minded, and I thought she clearly had a logical disconnect in how she interpreted information, history, and political stuff. I LOATHED her views on politics, economics, or collectivism--but she was otherwise a sweetheart. She loved cooking, and food. She loved reading, writing, and literature, she loved learning, and she loved teaching and helping *YOU* learn, grow, and succeed. She introduced me to more skills in writing, reading interpretation, poetry, structure, characterization, all the good literature stuff. Honestly, and perhaps many here would think paradoxically--she was one of my most favourite professors and instructors. She was always positive, cheerful and encouraging. She always made time to go over your work, analyze your writing or whatever books we were reading, repeat herself however much you needed to "Get it", and she was always just such a joy to have lunch with, hang out together, and learn. She was fun, kind, helpful, and even inspiring. She was Indian, from New Delhi, India, as I recall, and had that characteristic accent that Indians have. She was often regaling us with stories of her childhood, and cooking food with her grandmother. She would have us begin every class with little periods of breathing and meditation. *Laughing*. She often dressed in a brightly coloured Sari, and was always smiling and laughing. She is a sweet and wonderful person, and an excellent professor.

I should also note, however, despite her being very Liberal, mushy-minded, and collectivistic--as well as idealistic and I would say naïve about many aspects of human nature and political reality--her constant belief in goodness, in being generous and kind, her insistence on being positive and relentlessly joyful and thankful--was inspiring and contagious. She was always so engaging and eager to discuss anything with her students. And yet, as I mentioned of her nature, unlike so many of the Liberals nowadays--this sweet woman would never insult you, or even deride your views, she would simply acknowledge that you held a "right wing perspective". She would disagree with you, she would debate and discuss all kinds of issues and problems--while also remaining humble herself. She was never arrogant or condescending. She would champion her own Liberal views not with some absurd sense of smug certainty that she was absolutely correct--or that you were wrong and a hateful, warmongering beast, all the while entertaining flaws in both Left-wing ideas or policies. She always centered her philosophy though on this dogged conviction that we should always be good, embrace excellence, integrity, and virtues, and implement policies that demonstrated trust and love and faith in people. Arrrggg. *Laughing* As I mentioned, she was quite idealistic, but her unwavering joy and constant sweet nature made her a difficult person to debate with. It was like, she always made you feel like you *wanted* to agree with her, and that you *should* agree with her. Ever know someone like that? She and I would be talking about Feminism for God's sake, maybe with some other students, and some new girl or a fellow professor would come over and join in, and she would introduce me to them, chirping that "This is Mr. SHARK, such a wonderful man and a brilliant student. He's very traditional in his views of relationships between men and women, though!--as she smiled and held my shoulder. I mean, damn, that was the worst way she would describe you, or anyone or whatever that held a different viewpoint than herself about Feminism or whatever it was we were discussing. She somehow acknowledged that while you and she may disagree on some issue, or the best ways to approach problem "X"--YOU were always assumed to be intelligent, gracious, dignified, and someone she deeply respected. How could you not want to hang out with a woman like her?

I think, well, ok, she isn't a medical doctor, and she doesn't have a degree in some uber science, but she does have a PH.D. The woman deserves respect. Maybe I'm conflating my knowledge of her personally and the personal relationship I enjoyed with her, with her degree, I admit that's possible. Maybe I'm just bristling at some of the uber hard-science snobbery that many people like to make at the Humanities expense--and yes, I KNOW their are morons with degrees in "Gender Studies" and basket weaving, and are absolutely fucking morons. I've seen plenty of that, too, you can be certain. However, I have had the honor and pleasure and good fortune to know many people that have degrees in Humanities--History, English, Philosophy, Political Science, for example, that are not only very well educated and knowledgeable, but also outstanding and wonderful people.

I don't know Dr. Jill Biden, and I hate her politics. But the whole lets jump up and down about her degree, or where she got it, arrgghh. Petty is right. It makes me feel dirty and small-minded. I feel the same way about slugs that try to do the same hit-job on Dr. Sebastian Gorka. That's a game we can all play, endlessly deriding and critiquing where person X got their degree, or what they got their degree in, and the end result being the only people you end up having respect for are people that happen to agree with you politically--and what their degree is in, or what school they got it from, is ultimately irrelevant. I just think going down that road just opens up yet another aspect or component of our lives that we just *must* politicize and bring into the gladiator's arena. I think it is a form of character assassination, though, calling back to that philosophy logic thing where you poison the well or what have you, as I recall. I don't think it is a helpful approach, and it feels unfairly demeaning and mean-spirited.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Tubesock Army
BANNED

  • Banned For Doxxing
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 534
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2371 on: December 26, 2020, 12:01:03 PM »
Greetings!

So, the claims of many witnesses testifying under Affidavit--that they saw fraud, that GOP observers were sent home, obstructed from proper participation and supervision, with many also being kept 20, 30, 60 feet or more away--so they couldn't check for a fucking thing--all of that is just bullshit, right?

All of these people's testimonies, all of the videos showing fraud and "irregularities" that's all just conspiracy theory bullshit, right?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Until someone proves something, yes. Shared delusion or dishonesty is still delusion or dishonesty. You can find a sizeable number of people who will swear under any penalty you like that vaccines cause autism. That doesn't make it so.

Finding people to make claims is the easy part. Finding people who can back their claims up with actual proof is turning out to be much harder for Trumptards.

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2372 on: December 26, 2020, 02:24:15 PM »
First of all, its patently absurd to pay 2700 dollars to receive 600 dollars, no matter how you parse it.

Depending on when you have to repay it, that would make perfect sense; many people borrow money to buy a house or car now, and repay a greater amount over time. For federal debt, it often never gets paid off; it simply diminishes in significance as the economy grows. The US owed more than its GDP at the end of World War II and never really paid off most of it; the economy grew so that the present day value of that debt, less the $3 trillion, is not really a significant part of the national debt.



See... A lot of think that is BAD. 
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

Elfdart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2373 on: December 26, 2020, 04:43:35 PM »
Its not proving a stolen election.  It is about proving that the election was legitimate.

You are confused; the burden of proof is still with those claiming it is not legitimate.

Will Pence Save America?
https://twitter.com/TheRightMelissa/status/1341579724687073280
As President of the Senate, @Mike_Pence has sole power to tell the states he will not accept their electors b/c they vioated the Constittion. At this point the legislatures will either have to select new electors or stand down This will put Dems on defense from now till Jan 6th. He cannot LEGALLY accept fraudelent electors Dec 23rd is his highest call of duty is to defend the Constitution from the States failure to follow it. These States are in breach of contract of the Constitution by allowing Governors to circumvent State legislatures.

This is in error; Pence does not decide if votes are fraudulent. The House and Senate decide if the electoral votes of any state objected to count or not, provided at least one Representative and one Senator sign onto the objection. The default is to accept the slate of electors for each state that met the safe harbor deadline. The House will not agree with any objection to Biden electors unless some actual evidence is produced, which has so far been a complete failure, and that dooms any objection (which probably won't get enough support in the Senate either, as enough Republicans have already dismissed the idea).

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641

On top of that, Pelosi would be well within her rights to refuse to seat members who claim the elections were fraudulent since they were elected in the same elections. If they want to confess to usurping office, the House majority should take them at their word and exclude them.

You dont accept an unverified election because elections are not inherently innocent until proven guilty.

You need to prove that it was both a free and fair election.

It was verified when the electors picked Biden.

Nope nope nope. Line crossed. You do not get to use the history of my families pain and death in your stupid political ranting bullshit. I mean you have the free speech right but you don't have the right to be consequence free from that fucking bullshit antic.

No, there are no concentration camps. No, nothing going on in America is comparable to Auschwitz, and nothing anyone wants to "create" is either. Yes, you're a complete fucking creepy asshole for claiming there is or plans to be. No, there is no defense other than 'I am sorry you're right I went to far on that one' for that comment.

In his case, the accusations of Nazi-ism are just projection: accusing others of one's own proclivities. Keep that in mind next time Baby Shark calls somebody a "cocksucker".

If they're going to give money away to favored corporate interests and NGOs, might as well give some to normal people.

Romney's GOP has no ground to stand on here.  They love to give away money to everyone except joe lunchpail.

What's truly funny (or scary, depending on how you look at it) is that if Trump had come out for the $2000 payments before the election, he most likely would have won.



If he had got it passed before the election, I think it would have been a landslide like Obama in 2008. This probably would have meant throwing his Senate majority under the bus, but with the White House on the line it's a small price to pay.
Jesus Fucking Christ, is this guy honestly that goddamned stupid? He can't understand the plot of a Star Wars film? We're not talking about "Rashomon" here, for fuck's sake. The plot is as linear as they come. If anything, the film tries too hard to fill in all the gaps. This guy must be a flaming retard.  --Mike Wong on Red Letter Moron's review of The Phantom Menace

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2374 on: December 26, 2020, 05:11:15 PM »
If they're going to give money away to favored corporate interests and NGOs, might as well give some to normal people.

Romney's GOP has no ground to stand on here.  They love to give away money to everyone except joe lunchpail.

What's truly funny (or scary, depending on how you look at it) is that if Trump had come out for the $2000 payments before the election, he most likely would have won.



If he had got it passed before the election, I think it would have been a landslide like Obama in 2008. This probably would have meant throwing his Senate majority under the bus, but with the White House on the line it's a small price to pay.

Here's another one from Jimmy Dore on how blocking a higher stimulus BEFORE the election was part of Nancy Pelosi's campaign strategy to get Biden elected by making Trump look bad...cuz Trump ALWAYS wanted to get people more money. It was HER standing in the way.

This ENTIRE bill was Nancy Pelosi's fault, and part of her strategy to get a racist, senile old corporatist war criminal and his "Top Cop" prisoner exploiting VP into the White House.

But keep trying to rewrite history to fit your position.


consolcwby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Feel the despair!
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2375 on: December 26, 2020, 06:52:30 PM »
Here's some Millie for those in the snow:
(aka RainbowSnatch lol )

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12M-dkEFlvTq1ckTugemuZ4xgRyFIcC57iKHvRAGHbpU/edit#slide=id.gb15f869f7e_4558_39

Drink the Biden Coolaid and TASTE THE DESPAIR!
« Last Edit: December 26, 2020, 06:59:36 PM by consolcwby »
-----------------------------------------------------------------------                    snip                    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  https://youtu.be/ShaxpuohBWs?si

rawma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1798
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2376 on: December 27, 2020, 12:34:25 PM »
First of all, its patently absurd to pay 2700 dollars to receive 600 dollars, no matter how you parse it.

Depending on when you have to repay it, that would make perfect sense; many people borrow money to buy a house or car now, and repay a greater amount over time. For federal debt, it often never gets paid off; it simply diminishes in significance as the economy grows. The US owed more than its GDP at the end of World War II and never really paid off most of it; the economy grew so that the present day value of that debt, less the $3 trillion, is not really a significant part of the national debt.



See... A lot of think that is BAD.

People think that car loans, home mortgages and economic growth are bad? LOL.

The swing by Republicans to being deficit hawks is well under way, since they have no expectation of tax cuts for the rich during a Democratic administration. They'll be back to their supply side trickle down fantasies if they get a Republican back in the White House. As it has always been since Ronald Reagan.

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2377 on: December 27, 2020, 01:45:24 PM »

People think that car loans, home mortgages and economic growth are bad? LOL.

The swing by Republicans to being deficit hawks is well under way, since they have no expectation of tax cuts for the rich during a Democratic administration. They'll be back to their supply side trickle down fantasies if they get a Republican back in the White House. As it has always been since Ronald Reagan.

Considering people getting home loans they were unable to pay off is what caused the market crash leading to the great recession, I would say the answer is

...borrowing money that you are incapable of paying back is bad.
"I have a very hard time taking seriously someone who has the time and resources to protest capitalism, while walking around in Nike shoes and drinking Starbucks, while filming it on their iPhone."  --  Alderaan Crumbs

"Just, can you make it The Ramones at least? I only listen to Abba when I want to fuck a stripper." -- Jeff37923

"Government is the only entity that relies on its failures to justify the expansion of its powers." -- David Freiheit (Viva Frei)

rawma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1798
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2378 on: December 27, 2020, 02:15:20 PM »

People think that car loans, home mortgages and economic growth are bad? LOL.

The swing by Republicans to being deficit hawks is well under way, since they have no expectation of tax cuts for the rich during a Democratic administration. They'll be back to their supply side trickle down fantasies if they get a Republican back in the White House. As it has always been since Ronald Reagan.

Considering people getting home loans they were unable to pay off is what caused the market crash leading to the great recession, I would say the answer is

...borrowing money that you are incapable of paying back is bad.

The United States is not incapable of paying off its debts. Indeed, the current interest rates it pays are below the rate of inflation. The countercyclical spending of the federal government is what keeps a Great Recession from becoming a second Great Depression.

I would say the problem in 2008 was lenders misleading borrowers to give bad loans and passing off those bad subprime loans to unsuspecting investors. But home mortgages are not themselves bad.

consolcwby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Feel the despair!
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2379 on: December 27, 2020, 09:00:26 PM »
TRUMP ~ Man Overboard?
======================
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1341799698508754944
Trump’s own team is feeding fake leaks, about a White House locked in absolute chaos, to the media. Fake leakers working for BOTH SIDES have been extremely busy this week. They’re going to get busier the closer we get to the key dates of Jan 5/6.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/attorney-sidney-attorney-sidney-powell-releases-270-page-document-on-massive-2020-election-fraud-involving-foreign-interference-releases-270-page-document-massive-2020-election-fraud-involving-foreign/
Attorney Sidney Powell released an explosive document on foreign interference to Zenger News this week! The document includes 270 pages of affidavits, evidence and testimony from numerous witnesses and sources. The 270 page document details election fraud, names and all! The document includes military and alphabet testimony, and details everything from interference, to origins of voting machine fraud, to cybersecurity intrusions into U.S. elections systems and more.

REGARDLESS OF THE UNINFORMED OPINIONS IN THIS THREAD, I SUGGEST TO READ:
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Josef Stalin
Lesson learned!
https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1343193422996393987
https://twitter.com/Raiklin/status/1342821000375898113
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/its_for_mike_pence_to_judge_whether_a_presidential_election_was_held_at_all.html

On January 6, a joint session of Congress will open with Vice President Pence presiding as president of the Senate.  His power will be plenary and unappealable.  You heard that right.  As president of the Senate, every objection comes directly to him, and he can rule any objection “out of order” or “denied.”  His task will be to fulfill his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.  This is a high standard of performance, and V.P. Pence will have two choices.  He can roll over on “certified” electors, or he can uphold the law. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution gives state legislatures “plenary authority” as enunciated in Bush v. Gore.  This is key, since the counting of votes is discussed in Article II, the 12th Amendment, and 3 USC 15.

in 1800, even with constitutional deficiencies in Georgia, Thomas Jefferson blithely counted defective electoral votes from Georgia, effectively voting himself into the presidency.  This demonstrates that the president of the Senate is the final authority on any motions or objections during the vote-counting.  There is no appeal.  That doesn’t mean there won’t be any outrage.  Whatever Pence does, people will be angry.  But what does the law demand? Seven contested states clearly violated their own laws.

An election is a process of counting votes for candidates. Only valid, lawful votes may be counted.  A valid lawful vote is:
Cast by an eligible, properly registered elector as prescribed by laws enacted by the state Legislature.
Cast in a timely manner, as prescribed by laws enacted by the state Legislature.
Cast in a proper form as prescribed by laws enacted by the state Legislature.

Any process that does not follow these rules is not an election.  Anything that proceeds from it cannot be regarded as having any lawful import.
Most commentators suggest that a process of collecting pieces of paper with marks on them is an election regardless of errors, omissions, and even deliberate malfeasance.  This is a mistake.  Imagine a golf tournament where every bad shot by one player gets a do-over, but the competing player has to follow USGA rules in detail.  One player gets to drop freely out of hazards, but the other has to tackle every embedded ball as it lies.  The result is a travesty. The same thing applies to elections.  If there are a handful of improper votes, we can suggest that there was in fact an election, perhaps tainted, but the election wasn’t materially harmed.  But when the people charged with managing the election decide to ignore the law, whatever process they supervise is not the process defined by the law.  Therefore, it is not an election.

Consider how things might go down as the two closed envelopes from Georgia are handed to the V.P.  Rather than opening them, he says:
In my hand are envelopes purporting to contain electoral votes from Georgia.  They are competing for consideration, so it is essential that I consider the law that governs this.  That law, according to the Legislature of Georgia and Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is the Georgia statute that includes procedures for signature-matching on absentee ballots, a requirement that all absentee ballots be first requested by a legitimate voter, and that election monitors be meaningfully present at all times while votes were counted. The Georgia secretary of state, who is not empowered by the U.S. Constitution to make changes to election law, entered into a Consent Decree that gutted these protections enacted by the Georgia Legislature.  The processes that he prescribed and were ultimately followed were manifestly contrary to that law.  Further, the State of Georgia, in unprecedented concert with other states, suspended counting of ballots in the middle of the night, covering its conspiracy with a false claim of a “water main break.”  We now know from surveillance video that many thousands of “ballots” were counted unlawfully in the absence of legally required observers. Finally, the State of Georgia, under the authority of secretary of state Brad Raffensperger, a non-legislative actor, used fatally flawed Dominion voting machines that have been demonstrated to be unreliable.  In testing, the error rate of Dominion machines has exceeded 60%, far in excess of legal limits.  They are designed to facilitate fraud without creating the legally required paper trail.  This alone is far more than enough to swing an election. Since the state of Georgia has failed to follow the election law established by its legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, it has not conducted a presidential election.  Therefore, no “presidential electors” were appointed in Georgia.  Further, “electors” “certified” by non-legislative actors pursuant to this process are in fact not “presidential electors.”  The competing slate of “electors” is similarly deficient, having not been elected through a presidential election. Therefore, the chair rules that Georgia has not transmitted the votes of any presidential electors to this body.  Georgia presents zero votes for Donald Trump and zero votes for Joseph Biden.

If the votes of all seven contested states are registered as zero, President Trump will have 232 votes, and Joe Biden will have 222.  The 12th Amendment says, “[T]he votes shall then be counted[.] …  The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President[.]”
In plain language, Donald Trump will be re-elected, since he has a majority of the actual electoral votes.  There will be no need to involve the House of Representatives to resolve a contingent election.

It's possible Mayor Bowser will try to shut down D.C. on the 6th:
https://twitter.com/CodeMonkeyZ/status/1343203838958817280
What will the DS do at this point? Will Joe Biden object or will they just push chaos in these states and in D.C.?
Only time will tell!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------                    snip                    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  https://youtu.be/ShaxpuohBWs?si

GameDaddy
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2931
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2380 on: December 27, 2020, 09:07:59 PM »
The United States is not incapable of paying off its debts. Indeed, the current interest rates it pays are below the rate of inflation. The countercyclical spending of the federal government is what keeps a Great Recession from becoming a second Great Depression.

I would say the problem in 2008 was lenders misleading borrowers to give bad loans and passing off those bad subprime loans to unsuspecting investors. But home mortgages are not themselves bad.

Whut?... What manner of insanity is this?... Currently, the US is not capable of paying off its debts. Doing so would bankrupt the federal government and would create an inflationary spiral so bad, it would make the stock market crash of 1927, and the economic depression that followed look like a picnic.

In 1933 every single bank in the United States was shutdown for four days by the Emergency Banking Act of 1933. The Act, which temporarily closed banks for four days for inspection, served immediately to shore up confidence in the banks and to provide a boost to the stock market. Many of its key provisions have endured to this day, notably the insuring of bank accounts by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the executive powers it afforded to the president to respond to financial crises. The Act also completely changed the face of the American currency system by taking the United States off the gold standard.

This was immediately preceded by the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation which was a United States government agency tasked with assisting the failing banking sector in the years after the stock market crash of 1929. In 1932, Congress approved for the RFC to begin business with strict mandates that required the agency to issue emergency loans to banks facing the threat of going under. Despite intentions to last only 10 years, the RFC stayed in business for decades before being dismantled in 1957. During its time of operation, the RFC expanded its authority, ultimately making loans to smaller businesses, railroads and even farmers. The RFC also developed eight subsidiaries designed to aid wartime efforts during World War II.

This was followed by the Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932. during the Hoover administration in 1932. It was designed to encourage home ownership by providing a source of low-cost funds for member banks to use in extending mortgage loans. The Federal Home Loan Bank Act was the first in a series of bills that sought to make home ownership an achievable goal for more Americans.

The Federal Home Loan Bank Act was signed by President Herbert Hoover on July 22, 1932. President Hoover said, on signing the act, that it was intended “to establish a series of discount banks for home mortgages, performing a function for homeowners somewhat similar to that performed in the commercial field by the Federal Reserve Banks through their discount facilities.”


The United States was in the Great Depression at the time of the act's passage, and banks did not have money to lend to consumers for mortgages as Americans, in a panic, had made runs on banks and withdrew all their deposits. At the same time, mortgage holders who had lost jobs were defaulting on their home loans. This defaulting further reduced the money that banks had available to lend. Architects of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act intended it to inject money into the banking system and make mortgage loans available to consumers, thereby stimulating the housing market. In the subsequent year following the Federal Home Loan Bank Act President Franklin Roosevelt formed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, created under authority of the Banking Act of 1933 (also known as the Glass-Steagall Act), insuring individual bank deposits against loss in an effort to restore faith in the banking system.

The Glass-Steagall Act was very interesting because it also placed stringent financial requirements on banks that were a part of the FDIC and separated investment banking from commercial banking in order to combat the corruption of commercial banks by speculative investing, which had been recognized as a key cause of the stock market crash. Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, however, and some believe its demise helped contribute to the 2008 global credit crisis.

Widespread Depression‐​era bank failures were primarily due to the fragility of the banking system at that time. Regulations that prohibited branch banking meant that America’s banks were frequently very small, with undiversified loan portfolios tied to the local economy of specific regions. Persistent crop failures and falling real estate values, pushed thousands of these banks over the edge. Loan‐​financed securities speculation — the target of Glass‐​Steagall —  and the cause of the stock market crashes had very little to do with it.

Likewise, during the recent financial crisis, commercial bank failures were largely driven by credit losses on real estate loans. The banks that failed generally pursued high‐​risk business strategies that combined nontraditional funding sources with aggressive subprime lending. Glass‐​Steagall would not have stopped any of this. Nor could it have stopped standalone investment banks, such as Lehman Brothers, from running into trouble.

The number of failures of FDIC‐​insured banks increased as the financial crisis went on: 25 in 2008, 140 in 2009, 157 in 2010, 92 in 2011, and 51 in 2012 — a total of 465 altogether. Between January 2008 and December 2011, 75 percent of these failures (313 out of 414) were at small institutions with less than $1 billion in assets. The Government Accountability Office’s report shows that these small bank failures were largely driven by credit losses on commercial real estate loans, especially those secured on real estate to finance land development and construction.

It is worth focusing on the two largest bank failures and examining their causes. The first was IndyMac, with assets of $32 billion in July 2008, followed by Washington Mutual, with assets of $307 billion in September 2008. In each case, the analysis provided by the Office of the Inspector General provides useful and relevant insights, showing that it was primarily ill‐​considered lending that led to these banks’ failures.

So, home mortgages, by themselves, are bad. Especially if it is tied to banks lending for commercial real estate loans, which include shopping center development, homebuilder loans, and new home loans. This, along with bad lending practices and not enough lending oversight. The real estate Industry itself is also to blame with its' inflationary selling practices, constantly upping the price on new homes to earn a greater profit margin, and this being supported by local government revenue collection which can assess more property taxes for higher priced homes, and that increased tax money is frivolously wasted by local governments with almost no accountability. This is a vicious spiral, and the banks are caught up in it.

Banks reinvesting in their communities, very important. Banks helping to build new revenue and income streams by supporting profitable merchants, manufacturers, and traders, all good. Banks lending money so that the 1% can pad their pockets with even more cash they don't even use, is a total waste of good Capital, and quite possibly the primary reason we are still headed for a global financial meltdown.

Everyone here knows Turkey has been busy fighting in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan, Armenia, and most recently Azerbaijan, as well as generally pissing on Greece and France. What people don't know is that Turkey is in dire financial straights with an economy that is teetering on the brink of collapse. Just to give you some indication of how everything there is going inflation in Turkey for 2020 is currently pegged at 49.6% annually, with no new business prospects except for a shrinking economy. Funding the military and the military expanding Turkish borders and influence to literally seize new property and businesses, including oil and agricultural rich areas of Syria, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Libya are providing emergency funds to stabilize the Ottoman nation. Behind all that Fascist rhetoric and indirect support for ISIS, is a government that has seen its' Lira devalued more than 75% against the Dollar and Western currencies during the last five years.

More on this here:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/turmoil-turkey?queryID=bea4aa61ceccdeec2fb972852df4b068       
« Last Edit: December 27, 2020, 09:12:03 PM by GameDaddy »
Blackmoor grew from a single Castle to include, first, several adjacent Castles (with the forces of Evil lying just off the edge of the world to an entire Northern Province of the Castle and Crusade Society's Great Kingdom.

~ Dave Arneson

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2381 on: December 27, 2020, 09:22:27 PM »

People think that car loans, home mortgages and economic growth are bad? LOL.

The swing by Republicans to being deficit hawks is well under way, since they have no expectation of tax cuts for the rich during a Democratic administration. They'll be back to their supply side trickle down fantasies if they get a Republican back in the White House. As it has always been since Ronald Reagan.

Considering people getting home loans they were unable to pay off is what caused the market crash leading to the great recession, I would say the answer is

...borrowing money that you are incapable of paying back is bad.

The United States is not incapable of paying off its debts. Indeed, the current interest rates it pays are below the rate of inflation. The countercyclical spending of the federal government is what keeps a Great Recession from becoming a second Great Depression.

I would say the problem in 2008 was lenders misleading borrowers to give bad loans and passing off those bad subprime loans to unsuspecting investors. But home mortgages are not themselves bad.
The federal debt is north of $25 trillion, and that doesn't include future commitments. The fiscal gap, which includes those commitments calculated over an infinite time horizon, was over $200 trillion the last time the CBO reported it.

There's no feasible way to pay that off any time in the near future. The only real option is to cut the government spending in half and keep it that level, keep taxes at current levels, and hope growth continues for about 50 to 100 years. At that point, it might be doable.

Last year the US paid $574 billion on interest payments, and that's with interest rates close to zero for the last decade. If interest rates every rose to natural levels, the US would default on its debt. That's why the Fed will never allow interest rates to rise.

The other option is to just print money. That would cause hyperinflation. This would be bad. (That's an understatement.)

The government is very poor at countercyclical spending. They spend heavily in economic downturns, and keep spending heavily in economic upturns. Even by Keynesian standards, the government has been doing a bad job.

The other explanation is it's entirely the fault of the government. By printing money to keep interest rates low, or to inject liquidity during economic downturns, they're keeping companies in business when they should be failing, and creating a false optimism that leads to a surge in investments without any corresponding increase in demand. This excess capacity and deadwood eventually has to be cleared out, leading to another economic downturn. The cyclical boom-bust cycle is caused by government intervention.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2020, 09:33:35 PM by Pat »

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 14805
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2382 on: December 28, 2020, 04:26:31 AM »
Oh look, Trump just invoked a rarely used law to redline the CoronaChan pork bill, get everybody $2k of "free money", tear Big Tech a new asshole, and have Congress hold hearings on the election fraud.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-from-the-president-122720/

On Monday the House will vote to increase payments to individuals from $600 to $2,000. Therefore, a family of four would receive $5,200. Additionally, Congress has promised that Section 230, which so unfairly benefits Big Tech at the expense of the American people, will be reviewed and either be terminated or substantially reformed.

Likewise, the House and Senate have agreed to focus strongly on the very substantial voter fraud which took place in the November 3 Presidential election.

The Senate will start the process for a vote that increases checks to $2,000, repeals Section 230, and starts an investigation into voter fraud.


Trump has also invited everybody to come to DC on January 6th. He's tweeted repeatedly "be there, will be wild" and it sounds like things are about to become even more interesting.

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 14805
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2383 on: December 28, 2020, 04:35:18 AM »
There's no feasible way to pay that off any time in the near future. The only real option is to cut the government spending in half and keep it that level, keep taxes at current levels, and hope growth continues for about 50 to 100 years. At that point, it might be doable.

Pat, your masterful use of sarcasm is a thing to behold.

Once the national debt became $10T, it might as well have become $infinity for the chances of it ever being paid off. In a few years, we'll be assigning the debt negative interest or discover some newfangled economic theory in which sage economics nod to each other proclaiming that we MUST continue wildly spending in order to solve the debt itself.

Or we'll just drag one of those asteroids with 50 tons of diamonds inside back to Earth and start handing out chunks as repayment.

myleftnut

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • m
  • Posts: 206
Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« Reply #2384 on: December 28, 2020, 05:07:00 AM »
I’m glad the $600 bonus is coming my way.  We can all bet our sweet asses we’re not getting the $2000+.