The longstanding project called the General Social Survey, which has polled Americans about their feelings on a variety of political and social issues for more than 35 years, just recently came out with their preliminary 2008 data (which, I should warn you, is a little bit cumbersome to access).
One of my favorite sets of questions on the GSS is one that asks Americans about their degree of confidence in various social institutions; here is what those numbers looked like in 2008 as compared with eight years earlier before George W. Bush won the Presidency, as well as in 1976 when this question was first posed:
The only major institution to have gained a statistically significant about of trust since 2000 is the military, which is now the most trusted major institution in the country . The gain came as a result, presumably, of 9/11, with the number of Americans expressing a great deal of confidence in the military shooting up from 41 percent in 2000 to 57 percent in 2002. The figure peaked at 59 percent in 2004 and has fallen slightly since, but the rating was slightly higher in 2008 than it had been in 2006 before the Iraq conflict had begun to wind down.
Trust in major corporations plummeted following the Enron scandal and is off slightly further since. In fact, the 16 percent of Americans who said they have a great deal of confidence in such institutions is the lowest figure on record. Banks and financial institutions were holding up a bit better ... until last year, when the trust score dropped to 19 percent from 30 percent two years earlier. This is not an all-time low -- confidence in the banks had been slightly lower during the S&L crisis of the early 90s -- although we'll see where we end up once the financial crisis ends.
Confidence in organized religion also fell significantly under Bush's watch, although most of the decline came between 2000 and 2002, when the rating dropped from 29 percent to 19 percent. I'm not sure whether that was the result of the Catholic priest scandals, some odd kind of ricochet from 9/11, or something else, but the scores have yet to really recover.
Medicine is less trusted than it once was -- the 39 percent score it achieved in 2008 was an all-time low -- and to a lesser extent so is science. Nobody, whatever their political persuasions, has much trust in the press, although the decline came long ago in the 1980s, perhaps as conservatives learned the utility of bashing the institution. And some instutitons are perennially unpopular -- particularly the Congress, which has never polled higher in this survey than 17 percent (in 1984).
We are not a very trusting bunch, it would seem.
3.12.2009
Americans Losing Their Faith in Faith ... And Everything Else
by Nate Silver @ 1:02 PM...see also institutions, religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

253 comments
When Nate says we aren't a trusting bunch... he isn't kidding. Wow, I didn't think these numbers would be so bad.
Wow something is wrong in a country when its army is its MOST trusted organisation. (Not that I don't trust ordinary soldiers, but I think a healthy disregard for generals is always a good thing!) And how bad in the current climate is it that politicians are less trusted than businesses and financial institutions!
Kind of all goes to show that these types of surveys are seemingly not worth very much!
Well, you underpay people for several decades and keep them in a state of anxiety about job security.
Follow this with a wild free for all in hustles of every description as these presumed humans are transformed by the alchemy of fraud into walking consumption nano gdps.
Dangle unattainable but coveted parakeet toys before their dazzled eyes and offer crippling debt disguised as attainability,
Of course, it helps to con them into betting on bubbly equities markets that such nest egg hatches will have the viability of ostrich eggs on an interstate fast lane.
And finally pollute, degrade and banalyze everything and make them way overpay for that travesty of cubicle certification that passes for 'education' so they will be drowning in debt before their 25th year.
Follow this regimen fully and watch the fabulous blossoming of mistrust, suspicion and rising fury.
Not a happy report, but fear and mistrust has been the working method for the Gang Of Pirates over many years. The good standing of the military is also an artifact of that program from the other side.
I think Sarah and the witch hunters(as well as a whole list of fallen leaders) has done real damage to Organized Religion generally, and certainly hurt McCain.
The Military is also avoiding blame for the likes of Blackwater and KBR where before those would have been in house snafus and corruption.
Well, lets see. When you've got Republicans rallying against every form of Government to not trust them I'm not surprised by many of these numbers.
They have 30% of the population 100% against most Government agencies.
It will take an Obama or two to re-build that confidence in Government.
The high level of trust in the press in 1976 might have been a blip caused by Watergate/Woodward and Bernstein.
It will take an Obama or two to re-build that confidence in Government.
A couple of Madoffs, KBRs, Blackwaters, AIGs and a few Enrons and confidence in Corporations will hit bottom as well and the need to Socialize the Gang Of Pirates will help government's numbers a bit.
Actual leadership to dramatically exercise oversight would get a lot more confidence right now than any Congressional overstepping. The biggest drop I saw was due to Dem inaction rather than the excess of it.
Was reading on another blog today and someone who was familiar with "MuleRider" said that they found out he had been fired from his job and arrested for terroristic threatening. That may be why we haven't seen him posting here in quite some time.
They finally got that sicko. Thank heavens!! Just wanted to share that with everyone.
How can anyone have a great deal of confidence or trust in the military, they just got caught covering up exposing soldiers to toxic chemical known to cause cancer and heart problems, which said soldiers are now suffering from. All this information does is confirm what imbeciles the general population are.
John-
Got a link?
Hmm... confidence in the military at 52%, while confidence in the executive branch and congress is at 11%?
Guess we're about ready for a military coup. Heck, they might as well take over television and the press too, while they're at it...
20% trust organized religion, but 85% identify with a relgion, go figure...
fred,
They didn't offer any kind of link on that blog as proof of an arrest or firing. So maybe it is just hearsay, but this person acted like they knew the troll.
> Guess we're about ready for a military coup. Heck, they might as well take over television and the press too, while they're at it...
Somehow I'm guessing that the public's confidence is more like: "Holy cow, the military has managed to restrain itself from coup? That's really big of them. If that was me I would have friggin shot my boss now". :)
Thanks John - I think he did cross the line to real threats on several occassions.
It is scary bad when we believe in nothing...
The military trust is because military families always support strongly and broadly when the kids are overseas...
Alternative title:
"America grows up at last?"
Good to see that the "Scientific Community" and "Supreme Court" are holding up well.
I am surprised at the SCOTUS I would have thought that Bush v Gore would have put a real dent in that
Wider availability of "alternative" media has destroyed the sense of unanimity by increasing the number of voices from each set of organizations. Media, religion and science have had fewer voices and a greater sense of expertise in the past. With ideological television and the internet, internal debates become very public.
C'mon! You guys!
The obvious explanation is the information and technology revolution; the more of the "inside baseball" story we know, the more cynical we become, and also the more cynical people that are out there, the more likely they are to uncover waste, fraud and corruption.
Look at all the lies caught on cell-phone cameras and hidden equipment; look at how fast Jon Stewart can show liars lying and make fun of judges, cops, politicians and pundits.
It is a good thing! Religion is hard to swallow whole when you are exposed to a hundred channels of cable and can read and watch whatever you want on the Internet. I am with 18-24 year olds all day long, and there is a lot of spirituality and mystical thinking there, but not very much acceptance of religious dogma or organized religion.
Faith in institutions is a form of trust, and trust is an emotion that can lead us astray. Hopefully, people are learning they shouldn't be trusting strangers with their money, their rights, and their governance, they need a verification program for all of that.
I'd think that "confidence" should not be interpreted as "trust" in analyzing these numbers. "Confidence" is more a measure of competence. "Trust" has a leadership quality - not only are they competent, but they also need good judgment for you to "trust" them.
I'm mostly "confident" that the U.S. military can beat down most any other, but I wouldn't "trust" them in deciding anything.
Unbelievable Stuff from the Obama Budget
From the WSJ (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/the_obama_rosetta_stone.html)
Turn to page five of Mr. Obama's federal budget, and one may read these commentaries on the top 1% datum:
"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not."
"Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected."
"There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."
As the article points out, no Democratic president in 60 years has been this explicit.
The rancorous language used to describe these taxpayers makes it clear that as a matter of public policy they will be made to "pay for" the fact of their wealth -- no matter how many of them worked honestly and honorably to produce it.
Obama sees the accumulation of wealth as a moral failing and it is clear that his stimuless and budget are meant to address it. Growing the economy and indeed economic recovery must be a secondary consideration to one so focused on such “immorality”.
Nowhere in any of this is there a shred of evidence that the smoothing out of income differences will be accomplished by making the poor richer. Instead it is purely calculated to make the rich poorer. That it won’t create more jobs or expand industry is of no consequence. Those nasty one percenters are just too damn rich. When we are all poor won’t we all feel better?
I guess Joe the Plumber had him caught!
Obama: Redistributionist in Chief?
Reading Obama’s budget and these extraordinary statements it seems he is more motivated by retribution than redistribution. I am sure even those of you on the left are shocked (tho’ perhaps pleased) at the audacity of these statements.
And you wonder why business has its asshole puckered and is unwilling to commit to hiring and growth with this man in the WH?
There seems to be a correlation between being democratically elected and lacking confidence.
The least democratic parts of the government (SCOTUS and the Military) are much more trusted than the President or Congress
This is obviously the result of our aging population...many more of us are over the age of 30 and therefore not worthy of trust.
Oh dear Petey,
Your whole blathering boils down to commentary on these quotes:
"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not."
"Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected."
"There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."
Guess what?
THEY'RE ALL TRUE.
Sorry that your precious millionaires, of which you are most certainly not and will never be one, have to pay the socialist rates they did in the 90s. Obama campaigned specifically on that and he's doing what he promised.
Feel free to run on tax cuts for the rich in 2012.
Your election process has been nasty, just flat out nasty. Lee Atwater and proteges really upped the ante and it left everyone looking bad.
But it isn't just that, I think Tony has it dead right about the technology fueled information revolution. We are seeing a lot of the chaff being settled out in that list as the light of day is shown on the inner workings.
AySz88 also has a very good point about confidence versus trust. There is confidence that the military will execute it's job (likely augmented by being out in the field right now, as well as benefiting from some of the light propaganda that always happens during wars).
John-
Do you have a link to the "other blog"?
While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not
This is a gross over-simplification and is misleading, at best, and a populist, class-warfare untruth, at worst.
I won't argue that the affluent and opulent classes can be blamed for some serious gaffes related to our economy, what about those thousand and thousands (millions) of people making just $35k, $40k, $45k, and $50k per year - at the very heart of the "middle-class" - who went out and bought $300k, $350k, and $400k homes they couldn't afford. To make a blanket statement that they have been "playing by the rules" and "living up to their responsibilities" is off the mark. Yeah, maybe most of them have been, but you can't ignore the hordes that weren't or didn't. They're as much to blame as anyone.
Obama right again, Wall Street surges!
This is off topic but I have to respond here
While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not."
False
There is some understandable outrage about the financial industry. For the vast vast majority of upper income individuals they also play by the rules. Interestingly enough the mortgage bailout is rewarding the irreposniblity and idiocy of mayn lowerclass individuals. Not to mention the cuntless dollars being spent in urban and rural areas that are not making any dents in poverty or income improvement essentially being wasted.
"Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected."
I actually agree with this one mostly. Prudent is the important word though and some of Obamas proposals aren't very prudent. Also everyone got tax cuts. Percentage wise they wern't huge for the wealthy
"There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."
This is the one I have the biggest problem with. This is outright admitted income redistribution (how else would the playing field be tilted). Is government going to be in the business of dictating wages and deciding where to draw the line. Thats a very dangerous road to be going down.
This is America the land of opportunity. Income is directly related to your education, career field, your job performance, networking skills and some luck for good measure.
Yes there is a wealth gap but nothing is stopping anyone from grabbing their piece of the pie. Most of the truely wealthy are the entrepuners and business ownere who were willing to take risks and provide jobs for other people. Ask the countless immigrant business owners how they managed to bridge the uneven playing field.
I won't argue that the affluent and opulent classes can be blamed for some serious gaffes related to our economy, what about those thousand and thousands (millions) of people making just $35k, $40k, $45k, and $50k per year - at the very heart of the "middle-class" - who went out and bought $300k, $350k, and $400k homes they couldn't afford. To make a blanket statement that they have been "playing by the rules" and "living up to their responsibilities" is off the mark. Yeah, maybe most of them have been, but you can't ignore the hordes that weren't or didn't. They're as much to blame as anyone.
==
Yeah. Damn those lower-middle class folks for conning the banks and brokers into giving them loans they couldn't afford. How dare they pick on Countrywide like that?
These numbers are for those who have a great deal of trust in the institutions being tracked, however. After the repeated shocks of the last 8 years, I find myself doubting whether very many people have a 'great deal' of trust in anything, even before the economic collapse. What portion of the respondents do these people represent?
If you have the data handy (and use a handy enough charting package), can you whip up a chart that shows the distribution across the answer spectra for each of these? (Colors or thickness, I guess.) I'd be interested in seeing if there was any significant movement. I'm especially surprised that confidence in the media has eroded so little in the last decade.
Trusting the military means something like supporting the troops and believing that when the military is told to do something that they'll actually do it. If the President says "kill a bunch of people over there", I trust the military to do it. They might not kill the right people, but that's another matter.
Nova middle man and Smoking Aces have served up some pungent analysis of the Obama's budget which is aimed not at assuring recovery but calss warfare.
Such rhetoric from an American President is astounding. This is not at all what Obama campaigned on. Although in truth it is what some hoped and some feared.
Class envy at the end of the day does not make the poor any wealthier.
More than that there is no shame in wanting to be rich. It usually means that you are ambitious. Except for the Kennedy's its seems, we have few dynastic wealthy families in this country.
America's richest man made it on his own by creating a new industry. He was a poor guy and made it big, no one tilted the playing field in his favor.
Are you listening, President Obama?
(You can now follow me on Twitter - PeteKent01)
Yeah. Damn those lower-middle class folks for conning the banks and brokers into giving them loans they couldn't afford. How dare they pick on Countrywide like that?
Your sarcasm is bullshit and unwelcome and you know it. I never lobbied for the fraudulent banking and mortgage loan industry. Not one bit. Show me where I'm standing up for them. They certainly take plenty of blame for this. But you're fooling yourself if you don't think a lot of middle class people didn't overextend themselves on their own volition and were not conned by anyone. They simply bought more shit (a house, mainly) that they couldn't afford.
But that spending also encompassed too many new clothes, too many new vehicles, too many times going out to eat, too many vacations, etc. Want to explain to me how someone was "conned" into buying a new Chevy Malibu every three years? Want to explain to me how someone was "conned" into going to Ruth's Criss steakhouse 5 times a month? Want to explain to me how someone was "conned" into going to Tahiti twice a year and Disneyland in between? And these "someones" were/are all middle class people. I've witnessed firsthand the self-destructive over indulgence of many a person making less than $50k per year, and it had nothing to do with a mortgage. Tell me about that, Mason. Now who's got the flawed argument. You were on my ass yesterday crying about me having a "flawed argument" over something petty, now bone up and give me an answer on something serious.
You can't blame the insidious mortgage industry on everything. The personal savings rate went below 0%, on average, across the country. A lot of that over-indulgence had nothing to do with deceitful mortgages but was every bit as ruinous. Don't make Countrywide your scapegoat. They're assholes, no doubt about it, but you can't excuse the woeful economic decisions of millions of people just like that with one sarcastic - and very dull and immature - comment.
I think John's comment about Mule Rider is apocryphal, which is a nice way of saying bullshit.
To the topic at hand -- the stats seem to indicate that Americans are ripe for a military coup. I find the stats chilling. I would have hoped that dentists and podiatrists would at least be well trusted. What is this world coming to.
(Also, I note the slide for newspapers. Where are the stats for the last 8 years at least for bloggers and the Internets?)
I see that Smoking Dope, I mean Aces, is back to his bluster and blather. That's right, Smoking, blame the current crises on poor people.
You are truly a piece of work.
More than that there is no shame in wanting to be rich. It usually means that you are ambitious. Except for the Kennedy's its seems, we have few dynastic wealthy families in this country.
Rockefeller, Hilton, Bush, Carnegie, Astor, Gore...
What was it you were saying?
Pete:
Actually, what he said in those quotes is EXACTLY what he campaigned on, every word.
And your interpretation of the quotes grossly misleads, and shows your own viewpoint instead of what you would normally take from an analytical standpoint.
That's right, Smoking, blame the current crises on poor people.
Liar! Where above do I say anything about poor people?! Point it out! I dare you. See if I even use the word. Come on, you can do it. You don't even have to go tracking anything down. Just 'scroll up'. And read.
I talked about the "middle class" maybe. I definitely used those terms...specifically mentioning people making $35-$50k per year. By definition, that's right around middle class...middle of the road for incomes at least with median persona income around $40k.
And I didn't lay the blame solely at their feet. I merely pointed out that they shouldn't get a blanket pass as if they've done nothing wrong. The words "played by the rules" and "living up to their responsibilities" were used. I'd say anywhere from a quarter to a half of the middle class people I know personally did neither. Maybe that's anecdotal, but the evidence suggests bad decision making was far more pervasive among the middle clasa. Were some duped and/or conned? Most certainly. Were most the victim of their own over-indulgence and lack of judgment? Absolutely.
Now go back and find where I "blame" the "poor." I'm waiting dickhead.
PK claimed
Except for the Kennedy's its seems, we have few dynastic wealthy families in this country.
----------------------
Seriously thats the biggest load of b*lls**t ever. Ever heard of the Rockefellers? Or the Fords? The most insidious thing about wealth in the US (and elsewhere for that matter) is that it doesn't HAVE to be coupled with political power because economic power is plenty enough.
And we've been through my views on the whole 'class warfare' argument with far more respectful and intelligent commenters than PK so I won't bother rehashing too much. except that Obama is no more about wealth redistribution than any other president (including Bush). Why is iot so bad to redistribute money downwards, but so good to redistribute money upwards? Why is a tax hike on those who can afford so deplorable, but say policies that force the poor to be unable to afford health coverage fantastic? I might be able to buy into a sensible conversation about tax if the right didn't have such a disingenuous attitude to the language they use.
One thing about the whole 'These people borrowed more money than they could afford' thing that a lot on the right use. Where is the greater fault, on the money lenders who threw money at people, or on the people who were conditioned to expect to be able to get a new car and a new house and a fancy holiday, through advertising and the constant hum of the American Dream?
People make out that people who are maybe behind in there mortgage payments have been reckless, and don't ask why they have been pushed into this recklessness.
Well, we've had 'Nickname unavailable' grace us with a drive-by insult and lie and Mason gift us a bit of misleading sarcasm, which they've both been called on, and neither one has an answer for their previous statements.
The only major institution to have gained a statistically significant about of trust since 2000 is the military, which is now the most trusted major institution in the country.
That's fucked up. The U.S. military is infested with thugs and psychopaths. The ones with an ounce of humanity left got out a long time ago.
People make out that people who are maybe behind in there mortgage payments have been reckless, and don't ask why they have been pushed into this recklessness.
Come on, markymark, you can do better. You are generally very keen and sharp as a representative of the left, so I'm a little disappointed you would use this line of excuse.
Pushed into recklessness? Really? I won't deny money was easy, credit was flowing, and many people took advantage. And some people went to far on the basis of farfetched promises. I'm not denying many of those lenders and issuers of credit definitely own much blame.
But the personal savings rate fell below 0% on average, my man. No amount of glitz and glamor and questionable promises of the good life to come excuse being that reckless with your finances. People got out of control. That's it in a nutshell. Most of the rest of us knew to keep a cool head when the fast money was rolling, so I don't have much sympathy for those who didn't.
For the autoworker in Detroit who has or is losing his job and is punished through no fault of his own, yeah, I feel for him.
To the ass who bought two spec homes to flip in Boca Raton, Florida while living above his means in an Atlanta suburb while golfing every other weekend and eating out all the time, no, I don't have any sympathy at all.
Nickname,
You're yet to find where I blamed things on "poor people", I'm assuming? Still looking?
The rancorous language used to describe these taxpayers makes it clear that as a matter of public policy they will be made to "pay for" the fact of their wealth -- no matter how many of them worked honestly and honorably to produce it.
It pains me to feed the dumbass troll, but I have to ask it a question.
Show me a wealthy person who worked honestly and honorably to get there.
Just one.
While it is a nice thought that MR is locked up where he should be, the fact that he is here posting under smoking aces shows he is not locked up.
Why is it that the quality of the commentary declines once PK and SA show up?
Must be a coincidence!
Befondled,
What the hell are you talking about?
And if you're so sheltered as to not know one person with wealth who as worked honestly and honorably to achieve their success (I agree it's not solely on their back and they have probably benefitted at least tangentially from societal influences and opportunities), then you need to crawl back under that bridge or into your cave, and never come out again. We don't want you out here sharing the sunlight with us. You are, by definition, a troll.
I am not surprised at the results of this poll. Except for trusting the military, which is odd.
Nearly every one of those categories, especially those related to business, religion, and politics has devolved into the lowest common denominator.
I think organized religion infecting everything was the turning point into decline.
And if you're so sheltered as to not know one person with wealth who as worked honestly and honorably to achieve their success
Then name a honest, wealthy person.
...the quality of the commentary declines...
Yeah, I noticed that too, and because of things I contributed too....shocked that I would admit that?
It seems like I pointed out a few basic facts and called out a couple of people on their lies and sarcasm, and they went scurrying back into their little holes in the wall.
Actually, the commentary wasn't all that bad until you showed up, but now there is definitely a rotten stench in the air. You're the only one bringing the discourse down a notch or two. So why don't you leave?!
Then name a honest, wealthy person.
First of all, define wealthy. I need to know the parameters before I throw just anything out.
According to the discussion yesterday, which I think you contributed, almost anyone making $250k per year (or maybe even a little less) on up to Bill Gates is wealthy.
Is that still the standard? Do I just have to find one person out of all those thousands and millions of people who are making $250k per year or more that is making their money honestly and honorably?
Is that all? Is that the standard? Don't do a double-take and go against what the liberal argument was yesterday...I'd hate to have to call you out and embarrass you.
Smoking Aces,
Don't get me wrong these people made choices that led them to the position they are in BUT at the same time the finance industry was almost throwing money at people without the level of rigor that they should have been using to assess the level of risk.
And society encourages this level of recklessness. The American dream says that people should own there own homes etc. Amd I am not talking about the 'ass who bought two spec homes to flip in Boca Raton, Florida while living above his means in an Atlanta suburb while golfing every other weekend and eating out all the time'. Those people deserve our scorn. The honest hardworking guy who felt the push to own his own home, whether or not he could afford it, because thats what he is told to strive for, well I do have sympathy for him.
Maybe I am just a sap!
Your sarcasm is bullshit and unwelcome and you know it. I never lobbied for the fraudulent banking and mortgage loan industry. Not one bit. Show me where I'm standing up for them. They certainly take plenty of blame for this. But you're fooling yourself if you don't think a lot of middle class people didn't overextend themselves on their own volition and were not conned by anyone. They simply bought more shit (a house, mainly) that they couldn't afford.
I don't care if it's unwelcome to you or not. I'm pulling rank on you, as I've been here longer and anyone who remembers MR's pwnage would attest.
The point is that blaming the customer misses the point. No one connned anyone. Yes, the customers were dumb for taking out big loans, but the banks were moronic for extending them. You're a bank! You're supposed to make money by loaning it out and getting it repaid with interest.
A bit of background: I bought a house in 2006 and Wells Fargo wanted to give me a loan about 6x my household income (About $90,000 at the time). SIX TIMES!!! This was for a 30 year fixed mortgage! God knows what kind of crazy ass loan I could have had if we'd been willing to take on some ARM. I relate this because of the sheer recklessness that the bank showed in measuring me as a risk. Mortgage payments on a house for that mortgage would have been about 45% of my gross. I'm not a minority, so I'm not going to sue for discriminatory loan practices. That was just the normal MO for giving out loans.
So why would they do that? Why would they offer to extend me (and everyone else) so much credit that I can hang myself before I'd even unpacked? There are two reasons. Firstly, orginator fees are larger on a larger loan. Secondly, a higher loan means a greater risk, and a higher rate. For a bank that doesn't sell the loan, this means greater returns down the road, which is not such a bad thing because they hold the risk and the reward. Thus, they have an incentive to properly calculate my risk. On the other hand, packaging my loan in a CDO/ABS and selling it to 100 different entities completely decouples the risk from the reward. Once you do that, you've changed the calculus of how to make the most money. No longer do you make your money off of me paying you back. You make your money on fees, and the sale of you CDO/ABSs, and you have been disincentivized from properly adjudicating the risk of those assets. You make your money on quantity of loans, not quality.
People get told no all the time. It's a part of life. No, you can't get into that school. No, you can't have that job. No, I'm just not that into you. No, you can't do 95 on 95. People get used to it. It is lender's responsibility to its shareholders, accountholders, and its borrowers to say "No" when they determine that the borrower is not qualified. This was the step that was missed, and this is the greatest reason we are where we are.
But that spending also encompassed too many new clothes, too many new vehicles, too many times going out to eat, too many vacations, etc. Want to explain to me how someone was "conned" into buying a new Chevy Malibu every three years? Want to explain to me how someone was "conned" into going to Ruth's Criss steakhouse 5 times a month? Want to explain to me how someone was "conned" into going to Tahiti twice a year and Disneyland in between? And these "someones" were/are all middle class people. I've witnessed firsthand the self-destructive over indulgence of many a person making less than $50k per year, and it had nothing to do with a mortgage. Tell me about that, Mason. Now who's got the flawed argument. You were on my ass yesterday crying about me having a "flawed argument" over something petty, now bone up and give me an answer on something serious.
Consumer credit card debt, while a bad thing, was not the genesis of this crisis. Nobody shows up with the marshals to pitch you out if you make the minimum payment on your creditcard. How do you think people were paying off the credit card bills? In trouble? Refinacne your house!
I was on your ass for using estimates when real numbers were available, jackass. You were using some 2006 thinktank report when the IRS had actual numbers on it's website. Real data trumps estimates every fucking time. That's why many Gov't economic numbers come out two or three times per reporting period.
You can't blame the insidious mortgage industry on everything. The personal savings rate went below 0%, on average, across the country. A lot of that over-indulgence had nothing to do with deceitful mortgages but was every bit as ruinous. Don't make Countrywide your scapegoat. They're assholes, no doubt about it, but you can't excuse the woeful economic decisions of millions of people just like that with one sarcastic - and very dull and immature - comment.
They're not assholes. They're incompetent and that's why they're out of jobs. They and their ilk in the CDS biz just managed to take everone else over the falls with them.
And to be called immature by you? That's richer than someone with $250,000 of taxable income, that's for sure.
For all of those slamming Smoking Aces scroll down the previous thread. Markymark and him were having an excellent debate.
Both sides need to watch the rhetoric and tone need to keep it civil and mature here. Like I have constantly said. Most of the rude behavior is fed by each side.
Not to beat a dead horse but I am curious to here MarkyMarks reply. He is a very good representative of the left usually. I am curious to see him wiggle out of this one :-p.
My argument is personal responsibilty has been lost. Its across all class levels. Big business and execs want to be bailed out, middle class over extending want to be bailed out and lower class white/black rural/urban want handouts. It goes against all that America stands for.
Government is not santa clause. Time to man up face the consequences of your actions and move forward. Its going to be painful but its possible and USA is still near the top if not at the top for opportunity and advancement through hard word and determination.
By the way, there are plenty of honest wealthy people. Just as there are plenty of dishonest poorer people.
While it is a nice thought that MR is locked up where he should be, the fact that he is here posting under smoking aces shows he is not locked up.
The fun part is that we can talk about him like he's not here and he has to pretend he's someone else.
Befuddled said yesterday:
If you struggle on $250K you are living beyond your means.
That wasn't an endorsement of it being the threshold of wealth, but it was the closest statement I could find.
Now, you may not know of anyone making $250k or more who does it honestly and honorably, but I do.
The surgeon who worked on my cousin when he had kidney trouble two years ago? He makes a boat-load of cash per year. If I remember right, he grew up poor, worked hard in grade/high school, got Pell grants and scholarships for college, was an outstanding student, went on and did his residency and further clinical studies - and all that other shit that takes another 8-10 years of your life - and is now practicing.
As far as I know, he's never screwed anybody over. Not intentionally for sure. He is lauded in the area as one of the top surgeons in the country. He often works 60-80 hours a week.
He's just one example.
Nova,
firstly my point isn't denying that some people got themselves into debt way over there head in a reckless way. More that they weren't alone and that the finance industry helped people push there limits. I am sure there are some people who were reckless beyond belief, but I think that also some people were helped into recklessness. My point really only being that people on the right use fairly incediary language against all those facing foreclosure forgetting that many of these people find themselves in a very human tragedy that they were, if not pushed, then at least nugdged into.
I'm pulling rank on you, as I've been here longer
That's infinitely comical. Like your tenure as a commenter on this blog is worth the underside of a cat's tail. Pulling rank on me? I just have to type that out again so I can laugh at it.
The rest of your argument is just superfluous ranting.
Get educated and get a decent response and then get back with me. Until then, your ideas are irrelevant.
The surgeon who worked on my cousin when he had kidney trouble two years ago? He makes a boat-load of cash per year. If I remember right, he grew up poor, worked hard in grade/high school, got Pell grants[, Federally guarenteed loans,] and scholarships for college [and medical school] was an outstanding student, went on and did his residency and further clinical studies - and all that other shit that takes another 8-10 years of your life - and is now practicing.
SOCIALISM! OMG!
The point is that blaming the customer misses the point.
Eerily familiar to that old lame adage...
"It weren't that murderer who killed 'dem people, it was 'dat gun he was usin'."
And, no, assigning blame where blame is do very much doesn't miss the point. You'd be laughed out of a debate forum making a statement like that. Try harder. You'll get there.
America's richest man made it on his own by creating a new industry. He was a poor guy and made it big, no one tilted the playing field in his favor.
Sorry, but this is flat-out wrong. Not only did Bill Gates inherit a fortune from his millionaire father, his misdeeds in the expansion of his wealth are well-document and he only got away with it because the government let Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist. He's a PERFECT example of the playing field being tilted in favor of the wealthy.
I'm pulling rank on you, as I've been here longer
That's infinitely comical. Like your tenure as a commenter on this blog is worth the underside of a cat's tail. Pulling rank on me? I just have to type that out again so I can laugh at it.
The rest of your argument is just superfluous ranting.
Get educated and get a decent response and then get back with me. Until then, your ideas are irrelevant.
I see we have someone who doesn't like to read and has a thin skin. Too bad.
And, no, assigning blame where blame is do very much doesn't miss the point. You'd be laughed out of a debate forum making a statement like that. Try harder. You'll get there.
I do not absolve them. Read further.
I see we have someone who doesn't like to read and has a thin skin. Too bad.
Touchè.
I've called you out for offering nothing of substance, and you're crying like a little girl who has scraped her knee on the asphalt.
And what was the purpose of the SOCIALISM! OMG! sarcastic quip? A complete red herring. That had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I was helping Befondled with an example of someone honest and honorable who makes a lot of money.
Did I say anything against Pell grants [federall guaranteed NO SHIT SHERLOCK loans]
Again, you are just grasping at straws. Until you make more informed statements, at least within spitting distance of what markymark has had to offer (who, by the way, doesn't go down the road of pointless, petty arguments nor resort to annoying sarcasm), then I'll have to consider you a troll and ignore you.
So let me save you the trouble, 'cause I know you're just going to come back with a sarcastic "Aw shucks, that's too bad...I'm a gonna miss ya!!"
Don't even bother.
All this talk about who is morally superior, the rich or the poor, is pure drivel. It has nothing to do with the post, or anything else for that matter.
As for the topic at hand - It would appear that the expressed attitudes should be encouraging to the GOP. After all they are the pro-military, pro-religion, anti-government, anti-press, anti-science crowd. Judging from the level of discourse from conservative commentators, we could probably throw in anti-civility, but it was not part of the poll. With the exception of religion, the country is moving exactly in the direction that the GOP would like.
Of course these stats may be somewhat misleading. For example, what would the favorability of congress be, if there weren't any republicans in congress? What would the favorability of the executive branch be, if we had not just been subjected to 8 years of outright deception and incompetence?
The GOP has indeed managed to tarnish the brand appeal of many U.S. institutions. But the stain that they have added is largely attributed to their own slime. Hardly a way to win the publics favor.
I can think of reasonable justification for each of these categories with the exception of science and medicine. I can't think of someone would trust a doctor circa 1976 more than today. Is there something I'm missing?
I apologize if this post is a little on topic.
Touchè.
I've called you out for offering nothing of substance, and you're crying like a little girl who has scraped her knee on the asphalt.
I wrote a small essay relating my personal experienece with the recklessness of the mortgage to the current situation. That's substance right there.
And what was the purpose of the SOCIALISM! OMG! sarcastic quip? A complete red herring. That had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I was helping Befondled with an example of someone honest and honorable who makes a lot of money.
Dense like MR! The point was that your rich doctor example you gave benefitied greatly from social programs that so many conservatives, such as yourself, rail against mightily.
Did I say anything against Pell grants [federall guaranteed NO SHIT SHERLOCK loans]
Quick to anger, like MR.
You? No. Your conservative bretheren? If I had a dime...
(PS. I was refering to Stafford Loans, which are a separate program from Pells.)
Again, you are just grasping at straws. Until you make more informed statements, at least within spitting distance of what markymark has had to offer (who, by the way, doesn't go down the road of pointless, petty arguments nor resort to annoying sarcasm), then I'll have to consider you a troll and ignore you.
Hehe... He called me a troll. Rich.
So let me save you the trouble, 'cause I know you're just going to come back with a sarcastic "Aw shucks, that's too bad...I'm a gonna miss ya!!"
No. If you dropped off the site again, I really wouldn't miss you at all. You add little.
SA -
Did you have a point to your comments today? All I ever see are an endless stream of "back at you" insults. Was there ever anything that you brought to the discussion that was worthy of consideration?
If you have a point, restate it so that others may comment.
No. If you dropped off the site again
I'm new here, so I don't understand the "again" comment.
I really wouldn't miss you at all.
I can guaran-***-damn-tee you that I wouldn't miss talking to you at all. You are nothing more than a pest who has added nothing but pointless snark the last couple of days I've talked to you. So you wouldn't miss me and I wouldn't miss you. Guess that evens out about right. Oh wait, I'm guessing you'll tell me that you're pulling rank again and remind me of all that tenure you have posting comments on here and how that means your "missing me" is more noteworthy than me "missing you." Go ahead and give us all a reason to wet our pants with laughter, you dipshit.
You add little
Again, touchè. Nobody's twisting your arm to talk to me or about me. You engaged me. I didn't engage you. I was responding to the one comment was made, I made a point, and left it at that. You came through and added the sarcastic quip:
Yeah. Damn those lower-middle class folks for conning the banks and brokers into giving them loans they couldn't afford. How dare they pick on Countrywide like that?
Next time, do me a favor and just keep on walking. Your commentary is pointless, and I don't need to see it. Maybe some of the others enjoy engaging you, and more power to you if that's the case, but I could care less.
Funny, though, as I haven't seen anyone else from either side of the aisle engage you very much as if you were the big mighty tenured poster that you act like. Seems like if you were so important, you'd have more name recognition.
Beat it, kid.
The GOP has indeed managed to tarnish the brand appeal of many U.S. institutions. But the stain that they have added is largely attributed to their own slime. Hardly a way to win the publics favor.
I would agree with what others have said here about the enduring "trust" of the Millitary. Despite the problems that other instiutions, specifically the decision-making ones have or are seen to have, the US Millitary has done what is asked of it. Perhaps there might be a siver-lining in that for the other listed institutions, as a sudden outbreak of competence could boost those numbers.
Nick-
The amount of time that people actually spend with their doctors has fallen. Less contact, less trust?
Also, pharma ads on TV might have something to do with it. They could instill a sense of, "Your doctor doesn't know about this wunderdrug you should be on." Dunno...
No. If you dropped off the site again
I'm new here, so I don't understand the "again" comment.
And I'm Juan Carlos I.
Saint Dude,
This was my original post. It was in response to a discussion PeteKent and Adam were having. It was off-topic, I admit, but it was being commented on...I offered the following, and left it at that. Nova and markymark had a couple of good follow-up comments. Mason burst out into a fiery ball of sarcastic and inane drivel. I was doing fine except for having to fend off his ridiculous comments and veiled insults through sarcasm.
While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not
This is a gross over-simplification and is misleading, at best, and a populist, class-warfare untruth, at worst.
I won't argue that the affluent and opulent classes can be blamed for some serious gaffes related to our economy, what about those thousand and thousands (millions) of people making just $35k, $40k, $45k, and $50k per year - at the very heart of the "middle-class" - who went out and bought $300k, $350k, and $400k homes they couldn't afford. To make a blanket statement that they have been "playing by the rules" and "living up to their responsibilities" is off the mark. Yeah, maybe most of them have been, but you can't ignore the hordes that weren't or didn't. They're as much to blame as anyone.
Nick -
I don't think your post is off topic at all.
As for why people have less trust in doctors no than in 1976, I can think of a number of reasons.
1) There is an overall growing disdain for education, science, and facts, and along with it a disdain for the educated.
2) Medical costs have become crippling for many American families. And people have decided that doctors can't possibly be worth what they are paid.
3) There is more pseudo-medical information available via the web. Consequently, many more people have confidence (appropriate or not) that they can self diagnose just as well as any quack doctor.
4) The whole stem cell debate has provided a wedge between the die hard religious crowd and the medical establishment.
5) Documented instances of doctors/pharmacists using their religion as an excuse to deny care (birth control, emergency abortions, and the like) have caused many on the left to lose some manner of respect for the profession.
The list could probably go on a bit more. But you get the point.
It would be nice if the 'rider of asses' got what he deserved. I kind of left this site for awhile due to the vehemence of the flame wars.
SA -
I don't see any problem with your assertion that many middle class families have behaved poorly in the years leading up to our current financial meltdown. Even though I am certainly a liberal, I agree whole heartedly.
The rest of the back in forth is a bit distracting though.
Next time, do me a favor and just keep on walking. Your commentary is pointless, and I don't need to see it. Maybe some of the others enjoy engaging you, and more power to you if that's the case, but I could care less.
Who the heck do you think you are? You're not the abriter of anything, so stop acting like it. I rub you the wrong way when I cut at your flaccid thoughts? Tough. Get more rigorous. Until then STFU and take it.
I agree, Davy. They had kept me from coming back too, but it looks like they've kicked up again. Mason stirred up the hornet's nest with SA, and then it went downhill. The comments are unreadable because of it.
Brilliant work today by Smoking Aces!
He must be exhausted fighting all you Libs!
Imagine having to put up with nonsense like being challenged to name one honest rich person.
Ted Kennedy?
As far as dynasties go in this country, they go. the money disspates in the generations because we have a fluid meritocracy and in fact the rich don't necessarily get richer. Which is to say we have no oligarchs running things here.
Gotta run.
(You can follow me now on Twitter - PeteKent01 -- and limited to only 140 characters!)
From a Capitol Hill News Service:
FBI Raids Former D.C. Office Of CIO Kundra, Arrests Two
Judiciary.
FBI agents raided the former District of Columbia government office of President Obama's federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra today and arrested two individuals as part of a federal investigation, FBI Washington Field Office spokeswoman Katherine Schweit said. Yusaf Acar, an information systems security officer, and Sushil Bansal, the founder of a local IT consulting firm that was awarded city contracts, were expected to be arraigned as early as this afternoon, but no other details were available. Before being named to the OMB post last week, Kundra served as the city's chief technology officer under Mayor Adrian Fenty. His last day on the job was Feb. 4. An OMB spokeswoman would not comment on the investigation.
*****
OPbama and his friends sure keep interesting company.
I am going to look back and laugh!
I don't see any problem with your assertion that many middle class families have behaved poorly in the years leading up to our current financial meltdown. Even though I am certainly a liberal, I agree whole heartedly.
Thank you. And I certainly didn't mean to imply the 'big wigs' were off the hook. I'm a little more conservative, but I place plenty of blame on the 'power structure' of lenders and CEO's and so forth.
The rest of the back in forth is a bit distracting though.
My apologies. I went wallowing in the mud with a pig, and I'm sorry. He flamed me with sarcasm, and I felt the need to respond. Nothing good comes from that.
Who the heck do you think you are? You're not the abriter of anything, so stop acting like it. I rub you the wrong way when I cut at your flaccid thoughts? Tough. Get more rigorous. Until then STFU and take it.
...
Step 1, recognizing the problem. Step 2, ignoring it, and letting it wallow around in its own stench.
Sorry, Richard. I'll C&D with him after he answers this simple question.
Who is responsible for an unintended pregnancy - the mother, or the father?
It has been posted many times on this site, "don't feed the trolls".
The problem is 2 fold -
1) It is an oversimplification. It is perfectly valid to engage in topic based discussions, even with those that are frequently off the deep end. The issue really boils down to what is troll food?
Troll food is back and forth name calling and dick measuring contests. As long as commentators are hell bent on one upping each other, and rubbing the noses of their chosen adversaries in excrement, then they are engaging in trolling. Doesn't matter if they hang to the right or the left.
2) Calling someone a troll, is a good insult, and a good way to kick off the name calling party.
That said, there are a number of commentators that I simply skip over, as they never seem to post anything interesting or worth commenting on.
Let the record show SA went ad hom and escalated this at 15:30.
Your sarcasm is bullshit and unwelcome and you know it.
Personally? I think we agree. We're just both assholes.
(PeterKent)> Brilliant work today by Smoking Aces!
He certainly has been busy following your lead this thread; fabricating strawman, crying "VICTIM!", and spreading obsification . :(
SA went ad hom and escalated this
But Mason, an ad hom attack is, according to the first line or two at wiki - "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim." - I read the posts from above. You really didn't have anything of substance to tackle. Not defending SA in any way as he certainly showed his ass by flaming you in subsequent posts, but you didn't offer much to begin with.
That's just a 3rd party observation. Don't get me involved in your fight. I resent this back-and-forth crap.
He certainly has been busy following your lead this thread; fabricating strawman, crying "VICTIM!", and spreading obsification . :(
First of all, it's "obfuscation." I make typos myself, but that looks like an outright misspelling.
Secondly, I fail to see any "strawman" arguments I've made.
Lastly, the position I'm taking is hardly the "VICTIM!" one. If anything, it's those I've been arguing with. They are the ones who've argued the "victim" card more loosely than I have. Go re-read the posts. You'll see what I mean.
Ahhh, poor Smaoking Aces, he wants a giant military and wants to pay for it by taxing people who don't have money. How very sensible the republican party has become.
I make more than 250K, tax me! I can afford it! Of course, I quinbble some tax breaks - such as for children - aren't my school taxes enough for your kids? I quibble with giving people money back for their social taxes if they don't make money as they are the ones most dependent on it. But these are quibbles, we must tax someone and people with money have the money to be taxed!
Blood from a turnip and all that.
Troll food is back and forth name calling and dick measuring contests. As long as commentators are hell bent on one upping each other, and rubbing the noses of their chosen adversaries in excrement, then they are engaging in trolling. Doesn't matter if they hang to the right or the left.
That was hilarious Saint Dude. Funniest thing I've read today. Thanks for that!
Ahhh, poor Smaoking Aces, he wants a giant military and wants to pay for it by taxing people who don't have money. How very sensible the republican party has become.
That's a lie. I never said I want a giant military, and I damn sure never said I wanted to tax people who don't have money.
Give me a second and I'll point you to my tax idea from the other day! Then you can give my your knowledgeable insights about my tax policy!
If you don't have the Greasemonkey 538TrollRemover script yet, you don't know what you're missing; pristine, troll-free comments!
Once we get people to stop responding to the trolls altogether, we can go back to civilized point-counterpoint on the issues at hand (as the comment page was intended).
Agree, but not so sure that is what the comment thread was intended. I have said this before, but the comment thread used to be a discussion section, more of a bunch of friends talking over coffee - even some repubs. Then the site got popular, then all the pre-election posters left.
fred,
I posted this just yesterday on the thread about the millionaire tax bracket at 12:53 p.m.
This tax thing could be made very simple - a quasi-flat tax without all of the bureaucracy. First of all, as we've already mentioned, tax everything the same: earned income, dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.
Second, give everyone a standard deduction that's above the poverty line but a little below the median personal income level. Or maybe make it at the median personal income level. For full-time workers, I think it's around $40,000, so let's use that as a starting point for convenience and expediency's sake and move forward from there, indexing it with inflation. Give people deductions for spouses, children, and other dependents of $3,000 or so.
Make the marginal tax rate on the first $100,000/year about 15%, keeping in mind that people won't be paying anything on the first $40,000 or so. Tax income from $100,000 to say $1,000,000 at around 40%. Then tax income above $1,000,000 at 65%.
How's that?! Simple, effective, and fair. And this comes from a fiscal conservative.
Wealthy is not $250,000 a year. It is millionaires and billionaires.
You point out a truly wealthy person and I will show you a trail of crushed necks, immoral activity, ethics violations and downright outlawry.
Without exception.
From Gates on down.
Agreed, fred; there used to be a higher standard of discourse here. Hell, even the Republicans were well-behaved. Now, it's overwhelmingly copy pasta, trolling, and troll feeding.
Which is why I'm pimping the Greasemonkey script :-P
liberal_defender_of_freedom said...
Obama right again, Wall Street surges!
March 12, 2009 3:02 PM
***********
Wall Street surges ??
Madoff in Jail ??
damn.
I guess Limbaugh is just a little pissed off...
By the way, there are plenty of honest wealthy people
Funny how no one can name any.
Get educated and get a decent response and then get back with me. Until then, your ideas are irrelevant.
This may be the most ironic statement this troll ever wrote.
Funny what seems like an educated response looks different from the trailer park.
I'm new here, so I don't understand the "again" comment.
You aren't fooling anyone AssRider.
PeteKent said...
Are you listening, President Obama?
(You can now follow me on Twitter - PeteKent01)
March 12, 2009 3:27 PM
********
Nope Petey,Obama is not listening.
Sorry.
He has not time to spend for your jokes.
...and BTW,I also think He won't follow You on Twitter.
Wealthy is not $250,000 a year. It is millionaires and billionaires.
You point out a truly wealthy person...
Ahhh....we have our award winner for Hypocrite of the Day. Funny how the argument shifts depending on the point of view you're trying to represent. Yesterday, conservatives were arguing $250k was more middle class to argue against tax hikes while liberals were saying, "Oh no, by God, that's wealthy!!" Now, Befondled wants a wealthy person, and it's, "Oh, no by God, wealthy isn't $250,000 per year, it's millionaires and billionaires."
First of all, one can make $250,000 a year and be a millionaire. Salary/income is different than wealth.
How about this: a wealthy person is someone who could retire today, and be able to buy homes, vacations without worry.
Funny how you still can't come up with a name Ass Rider.
I'll bite, though. How 'bout Richard Branson - English industrialist - just to name a "wealthy" name?
Now I want to see proof of "crushed necks, immoral activity, ethics violations and downright outlawry."
Is outlawry even a word?
Here is something comical from the far right loony bin.
Palin whines again!
So she trots out he sleazy knocked up daughter in some weird attempt to attract self-righteous pricks and now she cries and the mockery her trailer-trash family gets?
Too funny.
I don't see why you feel the need to insult me with the "ass rider" comments. You're the one with the bellicose tone. I'm trying to be civil....it's getting harder and harder.
> Lastly, the position I'm taking is hardly the "VICTIM!" one. If anything, it's those I've been arguing with. They are the ones who've argued the "victim" card more loosely than I have. Go re-read the posts. You'll see what I mean.
I have gone back and reread it, I did before I posted this. And yes, you do have a point that there was simplification in that blurb. Unfortunately that has lead to some to read in malice, an imagining of intent to "punish" people whose taxable income is higher than some threshold. Pure hubris.
> First of all, it's "obfuscation." I make typos myself, but that looks like an outright misspelling.
Close enough you knew what the word was. Perhaps you should have moved on instead of a petty playing of the Spelling Card, a well known sign of desperation and weakness of position. :/
P.S. It was actually a copy-paste error, apparently I flubbed pasting the correct spelling. *shrug*
Aces said...
I'm trying to be civil....it's getting harder and harder.
March 12, 2009 6:09 PM
**************
Nope.
You usually try to be a teacher...and it's harder and harder to bear your commentary...but I am doing my best...
I think this is a good thing, except that I wouldn't trust the military either.
Blind faith is just that-blind. The only thing I trust is change itself.
Skepticism is healthy. Be a light unto yourself. Life can be pretty scary when you look at it with your eyes are open. Just keep walking-your legs are strong and you can carry yourself as far as you need to go. Remember the good time s when bad times come along-and remember that everything is temporary, and even the bad times will pass eventually. Take comfort in the temporary nature of all things.
I was just trying to point out that a lot of middle class people had not "played by the rules" or "lived up to their responsibilities." Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who read more into that was trying to play the Petty Oneupsmanship Card - not only a sign of desperation but a sign of immaturity and obnoxiousness.
What you interpret as a sign of weakness doesn't mean a whole lot to me...just like you might perceive me leading with a check-bet when I'm actually holding Pocket Aces. You perceive a weaker hand to your Q-J suited pre-flop, so you bet. And then you raise my check pre-turn only to get burned when I check-raise you after I've caught my set.
Hear that? SA wants to give all of us a hand job. He's jerking us off.
You point out a truly wealthy person and I will show you a trail of crushed necks, immoral activity, ethics violations and downright outlawry.
Yes.As Balzac said "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."
To Smoking Aces and nova_middle_man...
Class warfare? Let's talk about class warfare.
The joint marginal income tax rate for the middle class (most of their annual income is earned income) is 25%. Add in Soc Sec and Medicare and you're looking at a rate of over 32%. If self-employed, add in another 7.65% to bring it over 40%.
Long term capital gains rate (where much of the upper class derives THEIR income) is 15%. No Soc Sec. No Medicare.
So basically if you try to get a leg up from making $50K by starting your own side business, you're raped before you ever get a chance to invest your earnings and pay that nice low 15% rate. Even short-term gains are taxed at 28%. And dividends now get a special break.
And that's why the current tax code favors the rich. It punishes work.
markymark—
The family Mellon came to mind.
---
The comments section here (as it is most everywhere when comments are unmoderated and the site is well known) has been full of all sorts of idiocy and venom since the hardcore Clinton supporters finally started to deal with reality. It's no coincidence, of course, that that had something to do with this site becoming popular. Some of the idiocy and less of the venom has been amusing and some of idiocy and none of the venom has been educational and some of the idiocy and most of the venom has been boring. I do find concern trolls annoying (Why bother?) and either I'm not reading enough or they seem to be on holiday lately.
> ...just like you might perceive me leading with a check-bet when I'm actually holding Pocket Aces.
LOL, No need to hold up on that hubris now Mr. 2-7 Off Suit. You gave up your hand when you started linking ID sites. :)
Dwight,
Whatever. I don't agree with your take on me but at least you don't go into gory details and litter the thread with paragraph after paragraph trying to one-up me in every way with sarcasm and petty bickering.
I appreciate that. Truce on our opinions and let it go at that. I'll even take the hubris label if you insist. I prefer confident to cocky, though.
ok.
It is already friday 13th in Europe.
I need some sleep.
Have fun with SA.
Good night.
;)
p.s.
word verification:Muley.
I'm not sure whether that was the result of the Catholic priest scandals, some odd kind of ricochet from 9/11, or something else, but the scores have yet to really recover.
I lost my faith after 9/11. I never really had any tbh. I don't remember ever really thinking about God or praying or anything.
I think the overall trend is that people are realizing that religion is a lie.
Interesting data. Trust in science/medicine has gone down, but still held up better than most. It puts a responsibility on those of us in that field, which I hope we actively use.
btw, SA seems like he's, at least initially, trying to make some sincere reasonable points. If we treat all conservative posters like assholes, only asshole conservatives will post. So why not lay off and be civil?
But Mason, an ad hom attack is, according to the first line or two at wiki - "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim." - I read the posts from above. You really didn't have anything of substance to tackle. Not defending SA in any way as he certainly showed his ass by flaming you in subsequent posts, but you didn't offer much to begin with.
This is not even close to true. His 14:57 post suggested he believes that the genesis of this crisis lies squarely at the feet of borrowers . I offered, in an admittedly sarcastic fashion, that I disagreed with his characterization of the genesis of the financial crisis. If you read between the lines of what I said, at 15:05, it is clear that I am suggesting that the banks are at least equally responsible for the current situation. I then expounded upon that at 16:32, but he was already in passive-aggressive, "Woe-is-me, asshole!" mode, and ignored my rather typical story of being offered (and later rejecting, I might add), a conservative home loan for WAY too much money. Along the way he raised silly complaints about credit card debt, as if that has anything to do with the housing crisis.
I do find his continual laying of blame squarely at the feet of non-expert borrows while at the same time ignoring the culpability of "expert" lenders amusing. That he does so while baying about the president's "class warfare" deserves to be pointed out and ridiculed. Where is the popular revolution? Where are the beheadings? Where are the studientki soviet? WHERE IS THE BLOOD IN THE STREETS???
It's not there, because it's hyperbolic rhetoric and he knows it.
MBW-
I would suggest that anyone calling current policy "class warfare" is not being reasonable or civil. It's a ridiculous assertion.
@mason- Sure that's a ridiculous assertion, but that's the thing about people with whom you have big disagreements- they make ridiculous assertions. You don't have to buy the ridiculous stuff to engage with the serious part. In this case, that's the idea of a simple progressive tax code, and the claim that the general culture is way too consumerist.
MBW-
The problem is dividing the ridiculousness from the reasonable.
Such is life, I guess.
Ben said: "The high level of trust in the press in 1976 might have been a blip caused by Watergate/Woodward and Bernstein."
I can't reconcile the GSS data with Harris Poll data I've been kicking around for my thesis. These are the data points for confidence in the press (the questions are almost identically worded):
1967: 29
1977: 18
1987: 19
1997: 11
So only one year after the 1976 GSS
found that 29% of respondents trusted the government, the Harris Poll assessment of the same dimension dropped to 18%? That seems wonky to me. I'm not discounting the possibility of a Watergate bump for the press, but... hm.
> btw, SA seems like he's, at least initially, trying to make some sincere reasonable points.
Yeah, I think he's markedly improved his posting since he blew the Crazy Fuse spamming curses at Nate.
The people who keep insisting that SA=MR seem to think that there's only one obnoxious person on the right. Would that that were true.
Paul,
It's not just that:
-The style is the same.
-The arguments are the same.
-They don't overlap.
-MR was always challenging Nate to debate and then calling him a wanker. SA demanded a response to an article he posted and then began spewing insults. I guess he thought it would give him cover if he asked a question first?
-MR also challenged Nate/Sean to a poker match because he wanted to "clean them out", because he was SUCH a better poker player. This guy's name is a poker reference, and if I'm not mistaken, it is a reference to a particularly good hand.
-SA completely misses even the smallest subtext, sarcasm, humor, or implication if it is convenient to him, just as MR did. Futhermore, he responds in exactly the same way: anger, not curiosity. He lashes before thinking.
No... There's plenty of assholes in the world, but there's only one MR/SA.
Progressives still fail to understand that the average American respects and support the Armed Forces. The wars augment that, but we still had decent numbers in '76, right after Vietnam.
The fact is that the military has consistently shown its willingness to obey the president, follow the chain of command, and fight wars to its best ability. And, most Americans admire that.
Lord have mercy! The only institution scoring over 50% is the military? The President and the Congress are trusted each by a bare 11%?? Sounds more like the statistics of a banana republic!
There's a difference between asking people if they trust "organized religion" and if they trust _their_ religion. "Organized religion" seems to conjure up the large and powerful institutions, often without anyone to answer to, and that's scary. Especially since even people who have faith find _other_ people's organized and powerful religions disconcerting. On the other hand, if you asked if people trust the leadership at their particular church, the numbers would be much higher. A lot of people like their religion and their expression of it, but not a sweeping term like "organized religion."
PeteKent said...
America's richest man made it on his own by creating a new industry. He was a poor guy and made it big, no one tilted the playing field in his favor
Idiot Pete Kent,
Please, then, explain to me, if America's richest man (Bill Gates) made it on his own, without the assistance of ANY estate funds (you know - those funds that death taxes (ooooooh, scary words!) eat up so the children of the rich will have to live as upper middle-class or lower-class rich), how did Mr. Gates make it without the assistance of an estate giving him a boost up?
Why do GOOPers keep telling us that 'so and so' or 'such and such ethnic group' pulled themselves up by their boot straps. That means they didn't have any estate to help them, doesn't it?
Why then, do the GOOPers scream about the death tax (ooooooh, scary words!) when they say that anyone, Anyone, ANYONE! can pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Aren't you being disingenuous with the death tax (ooooooh, scary words!) argument, but also making the boot strap argument?
Of course, GOOPers saying contradictory things out of both sides of their mouth (let alone out of any other bodily orifice) isn't anything new to anyone who has watched the political scene for some time, especially any time in the last 15 years.
Steve said...
There's a difference between asking people if they trust "organized religion" and if they trust _their_ religion. "Organized religion" seems to conjure up the large and powerful institutions, often without anyone to answer to, and that's scary.
That describes my mother and one of my aunts to a 'T'. If you say 'organized religion' to either of them, they automatically think of the Roman Catholic Church - something that they were brought up to hate and abhor. As a result, they would have a very, very negative opinion of the term 'organized religion'.
If you were to ask them about 'Christianity' or 'religion' in a term that they would not automatically think of as descriptive of the RCC, they would not have near the negative opinion of it. Of course, if the term were so undefined that it might include Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or other non-Christian religion, their opinion of it would dip again (but probably not as far as if they thought you were speaking of the RCC - yes, what they were taught as youth about the RCC WAS that bad).
> yes, what they were taught as youth about the RCC WAS that bad
Theologically speaking the RCC has built much upon the Bible over the 1700ish years. Think if it as a re-imagining. For Christians following a much more literal interpretation of the Bible, as is common among protestant and especially evangelical Christians in the US, this is seen as a perverse abomination. A corruption of the Word of God, if not outright Antichrist status of the Pope.
It was no small thing that J.F. Kennedy overcame that to win the Presidency. It is also something that'll work against Jindal if he seeks the Republican nomination.
that's true!你 漸 漸 消 失 在 我 的 空 間 令 我 纏 綿 的 夢 也 該 醒 了
Every time someone posts something in Chinese in these Comments fields, I keep expecting the characters to move back and forth like Space Invaders.
Re: honest rich person -
I'm not sure Richard Branson strictly qualifies. Scuttlebutt is that he got his start (as a record tycoon) by smuggling records over from the Continent without paying duty on them. He is certainly shrewd but not a little slick.
Instead, I'll give you Warren Buffett. If there's any dirt on him I certainly haven't heard about it, and I've actually met the man (did you know he plays the ukelele?). The Wiki page on him makes for a fascinating read. You've gotta love a guy who, when he started his first paper route, deducted the cost of his bicycle from his income taxes as a business expense.
By God, I'm going to get the last word in on this little lie-fest that Mason is hell-bent on in engaging in. And I'll prove it....
Mason said:
This is not even close to true. His 14:57 post suggested he believes that the genesis of this crisis lies squarely at the feet of borrowers.
Let's take a look at that 14:57 post.
This is a gross over-simplification and is misleading, at best, and a populist, class-warfare untruth, at worst.
I won't argue that the affluent and opulent classes can be blamed for some serious gaffes related to our economy, what about those thousand and thousands (millions) of people making just $35k, $40k, $45k, and $50k per year - at the very heart of the "middle-class" - who went out and bought $300k, $350k, and $400k homes they couldn't afford. To make a blanket statement that they have been "playing by the rules" and "living up to their responsibilities" is off the mark. Yeah, maybe most of them have been, but you can't ignore the hordes that weren't or didn't. They're as much to blame as anyone.
Let me repeat what I said - They're as much to blame as anyone. Can any reasonable person really make the case that I'm suggesting the genesis of the crisis lies squarely at the feet of borrowers? He's the one who set up a strawman just to try and tear me down. Label me right off the bat as anti-middle class and placing all the blame solely on them. Of course that's not what I said.
More Mason drivel:
Along the way he raised silly complaints about credit card debt, as if that has anything to do with the housing crisis.
A red herring. The discussion wasn't just about the housing crisis. I just used that as an example. I sounded off about the quote that middle-class people were all "playing by the rules" and "living up to their responsibilities" and said that wasn't completely true. Any reasonable person can see this. The topic was not narrowed to the housing crisis. I used that as an example. The floor was open to any example, and I simply added that later to make the point.
More Mason drivel:
I do find his continual laying of blame squarely at the feet of non-expert borrows while at the same time ignoring the culpability of "expert" lenders amusing.
Again, I didn't "squarely lay the blame" on anybody. I said, and I quote, "they're as much to blame as anyone." That's full acknowledgement that it was a broader spectrum of players to blame.
That he does so while baying about the president's "class warfare" deserves to be pointed out and ridiculed. Where is the popular revolution? Where are the beheadings? Where are the studientki soviet? WHERE IS THE BLOOD IN THE STREETS???
It's not there, because it's hyperbolic rhetoric and he knows it.
That's bullshit and he knows it. I said the message was somewhere between misleading (at best) and populist class-warfare (at worst). You can see the quote. Again, any reasonable person can see what I wrote and realize that Mason grossly mischaracterized my position (classing example of a strawman).
He is a disgusting troll/thread flamer for fueling that flame when none was needed.
Let me repeat what I said - They're as much to blame as anyone. Can any reasonable person really make the case that I'm suggesting the genesis of the crisis lies squarely at the feet of borrowers?
Yes! You say that, but you don't mean it because you spend the rest of the paragraph talking about irresponsible borrowers. For God sake man, people recognise a rhetorical throwaway line when they see one!
Along the way he raised silly complaints about credit card debt, as if that has anything to do with the housing crisis.
A red herring. The discussion wasn't just about the housing crisis. I just used that as an example. I sounded off about the quote that middle-class people were all "playing by the rules" and "living up to their responsibilities" and said that wasn't completely true. Any reasonable person can see this. The topic was not narrowed to the housing crisis. I used that as an example. The floor was open to any example, and I simply added that later to make the point.
Hillarious. You call me out for a red hering for calling out your red hering. Have you no shame? The topic was narrowed to the housing crisis BY YOUR INITAL WORDS! YOU TALK SOLELY ABOUT THE HOUSING CRISIS! Furthermore, I would suggest that running up massive credit card debt and paying at least the minimum, while unwise, is within playing by the rules. Again, not a single bank has collapsed nor home been forclosed upon because of cardholders paying the minimum on the credit card debt.
And don't get me started on credit card companies extending credit limits at the drop of a hat and sending credit card offers to any name possible. My dog has been offered three Visa Platinums and an amex in the last year! My dog!! How did they even get her name?
That's bullshit and he knows it. I said the message was somewhere between misleading (at best) and populist class-warfare (at worst). You can see the quote. Again, any reasonable person can see what I wrote and realize that Mason grossly mischaracterized my position (classing example of a strawman).
Back to the ad homs? Whatever. Yeah, they can look at the quote and see that you have no concept of what "class warfare" is. The things I mentioned are what happens when there is honest "class warfare". To characterize what we have now, a proposal for a more progressive tax system and agressive social policies, even by qualifiying it by saying "at worst is dishonest just as describing the "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty" as a War is dishonest. Words have meaning, and when you misuse them, don't get huffy when someone calls you out.
(You just can't quit me, MR.)
I can see this comment thread has long since devolved to the inevitable name calling, but Nate if you're still there is it possible that this is not a decline in confidence, but a 'growing up' on the part of the population as a whole, in which we continue our country's social evolution by gradually realizing that all these are institutions of fallible people?
"Let me repeat what I said - They're as much to blame as anyone. Can any reasonable person really make the case that I'm suggesting the genesis of the crisis lies squarely at the feet of borrowers? He's the one who set up a strawman just to try and tear me down. Label me right off the bat as anti-middle class and placing all the blame solely on them. Of course that's not what I said."
Sure but your argument here is totally phony and the term "class warfare" is itself a ridiculous bit of propagandist hyperbole. Read Orwell's Politics and the English Language sometime.
Various competitors in the financial industry spend an exceptional amount of money presenting themselves as being the trustworthy financial equivalent of a family doctor. The idea has really been that they are professionals that will have your best interests in mind.
Now, would I have been naive enough to take a variable interest rate loan put on my houses equity? Hell no, but I have a 135 IQ and and am generally cynical as well. I wasn't stupid enough to invest in real estate when it was obviously a bubble either.
This is sort of like blaming somebody who believed that the a fraudulent mechanic was telling them the truth when he said it needed an extra $1,000 of crap. People who don't know go to professionals who should. If said professional doesn't know enough to tell when a client really can't afford something they are primarily to blame because that is part of the service they are hired to perform. They went to school and got those business degrees, they should have been very aware of what they were doing.
What would be interesting to compare is this data to that of a country on the verge of collapse, if it exists. The data you present, Nate, is alarming in itself but I wonder if diminishing trust in these institutions may have future implications.
Words have meaning, and when you misuse them, don't get huffy when someone calls you out.
Yes, they do. And you twist them and lie worse than anyone I've ever seen. You are a fool, and your arguments are irrelevant. You bitch and whine like a little girl. You haven't called anyone out. And you damn sure haven't called me out. As I said, until you offer anything intellligent, STFU!
You just can't quit me
That's hilarious hypocrisy coming from you shit-for-brains. You've been an annoying little gnat pestering me with your inane and sarcastic drivel after nearly every comment I make. I think I could just as easily say that you can't quit me.
You need to be more clever because, frankly, you're an intellectual dullard. Nothing new. Just whining and lying. You evidently suffer from Napoleon syndrome. More like little dick syndrome. Probably picked last in gym for kickball and picked on by the kids half your age.
That's why you're like a crack addict who likes to come on here and talk shit and take home the imaginary trophy in these debates.
Get over yourself and your grandiose, self-delusional complex. Nobody cares about you. Nobody likes you. You're just a shit-talker in an obscure corner of the comments section on a political blog. The noise you create on here isn't changing anything, and it's just more garbage to filter through. So again, I say, get informed and make an intellectual comment or just STFU and keep walking.
(Oh, and don't ever be a bitch-ass little whiner and use that line about pulling "rank-and-file" on me again, mister. I'll embarrass you more than I already have.)
I might as well knock down his entire argument, because I'm going to wind up doing it anyway.
Yes! You say that, but you don't mean it because you spend the rest of the paragraph talking about irresponsible borrowers. For God sake man, people recognise a rhetorical throwaway line when they see one!
What the hell is that even supposed to mean that I "don't mean it." That was just the initial paragraph. I gave the most prominent example which, and any reasonably intelligent person would agree, is the housing market. Did you want me to go into gory, lengthy details right from the get-go? It's not necessary, especially on a forum where brevity is appreciated. No sense in piling on unecessary commentary and bullshit (like you insist on doing), only to have people go "TL;DR". I made a quick and concise point and moved on, yet you read what you wanted to out of it and that's intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
Hillarious. You call me out for a red hering for calling out your red hering. Have you no shame? The topic was narrowed to the housing crisis BY YOUR INITAL WORDS! YOU TALK SOLELY ABOUT THE HOUSING CRI,
Again, my initial comment. One comment. Just one!! Do you get that, you imbecile?! I mention the other problems in the very next post. Get over yourself, 'cause you evidently have no shame, asshole.
Furthermore, I would suggest that running up massive credit card debt and paying at least the minimum, while unwise, is within playing by the rules.
Ahh, maybe playing by the rules but what about "living up to their responsbilities"? You just twist and spin everything don't ya? And conveniently leave out or overlook anything that doesn't fit your argument. You're a liar! And a little bitch! Those two specific comments - "playing by the rules" and "living up to their responsibilities" - were what I commented on, so don't twist this again to fit your sick needs to look like you know what's going on.
Again, not a single bank has collapsed nor home been forclosed upon because of cardholders paying the minimum on the credit card debt.
Hah!! That's ignorance of the highest order. First of all, a bank collapsing or being foreclosed upon wasn't even part of the initial topic (remember, you're holding me to my initial post that was focused squarely on irresponsible borrowing for home ownership - if I'm doomed to talk about anything else because I didn't get the words out in my first post, then you need to STFU about it too).
And don't get me started on credit card companies extending credit limits at the drop of a hat and sending credit card offers to any name possible. My dog has been offered three Visa Platinums and an amex in the last year! My dog!! How did they even get her name?
So what? Again, now you're stretching the argument when you won't allow me to? That's bullshit and you know it...well, probably not, because you're an annoying and delusional twit with a grandiose sense of self-worth who thinks he's some national championship debater or something trying to call everybody out with his vast array of knowledge. Oh, and talk about hyperbole and throwaway lines, I think you're lying about your dog getting a credit card offer. Either way, I don't condone the craziness with which credit was extended. But again, some personal responsibility has to kick in.
Back to the ad homs? Whatever. Yeah, they can look at the quote and see that you have no concept of what "class warfare" is. The things I mentioned are what happens when there is honest "class warfare". To characterize what we have now, a proposal for a more progressive tax system and agressive social policies, even by qualifiying it by saying "at worst is dishonest just as describing the "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty" as a War is dishonest. Words have meaning, and when you misuse them, don't get huffy when someone calls you out.
I'll keep that in mind and point that out the next time you skew words, you little asshole. Most people can read your quotes and see you have no clue what's going on, except for maybe the moonbats who are wasted off of the kool-aid they've been drinking. Get over yourself, you little prick. Next time, I'm going to make you look like shit and really embarrass your ass. No point in going much further here as this thread has been abandoned. You lost when you opened your ignorant mouth, and I'll have the last word on this even if it kills me.
I'll say again, when you have something intelligent or worthy to say to me as a rebuttal (or possibly in agreement?) to anything I say, I'll gladly listen. But until then, keep your asinine comments to yourself and just keep walking.
holy god, aces has given mason the equivalnet of a pistol whippin.
Did he? I stopped reading when it became apparent that the two of them were just metaphorically laying them out on the bar for measuring. I mean: "STFU!" "No, you STFU!" "No, you!" ad infinitum, ad nauseam, ad stupidum
Get a room, you two.
牙醫,植牙,假牙|矯正|牙周病,牙醫診所、植牙,紋身,刺青,TATTOO,皮膚科,痘痘,雷射、脈衝光、除斑,洗包包|洗鞋子|清洗包包,中醫,糖尿病,飛梭雷射,肉毒桿菌,玻尿酸,痘痘,脈衝光,醫美,醫學美容,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,網路行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,關鍵字行銷、seo,關鍵字廣告,網路行銷,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,自然排序,部落格行銷,網路行銷,網路爆紅。
Gyrate,
I realize I jumped right in on the "dick-measuring contest," but I made a fairly straightforward and honest (and more importantly: civil) comment about something that was brought up, and Mason was the one who snarked in a way that insinuated he was pulling his dick out and twirling it at me.
From there, he did nothing but lie and distort everything that was said and done, and I simply bitch-slapped him back into irrelevancy, which is where he belongs. Nothing else to see here. Mason lost. My dick is bigger.
Then may I suggest dramatically reducing the invective and relying on the facts to make your case for you. I suspect that most of the onlookers can't be bothered to dig through piles of bulldookey in the hopes of finding a few nuggets of gold within.
A better technique is to calmly give your opponents rope and let them hang themselves.
AhYup has said exactly what I've been attempting to say. Bravo.
A better technique is to calmly give your opponents rope and let them hang themselves.
That is far too subtle an approach for MR/SA.
From there, he did nothing but lie and distort everything that was said and done, and I simply bitch-slapped him back into irrelevancy, which is where he belongs. Nothing else to see here. Mason lost. My dick is bigger.
You're a bigger dick, alright.
I realize I jumped right in on the "dick-measuring contest," but I made a fairly straightforward and honest (and more importantly: civil) comment about something that was brought up, and Mason was the one who snarked in a way that insinuated he was pulling his dick out and twirling it at me.
Straight-forward? Yes.
Civil? Not on your life. "Populist class warfare". Those were your words.
Something that was brought up? PeteKent doesn't count. Everybody knows that.
Connected to reality? Hardly. You then say that the folks "making just $35k, $40k, $45k, and $50k per year - at the very heart of the "middle-class" - who went out and bought $300k, $350k, and $400k homes" are "as much to blame as anyone" for the current situation. I'm sorry, but for the reasons so well put forth by AhYup, that's just not true.
Mason,
It's over. You lost. You are irrelevant. A pesky little troll. I've bitch-slapped you and made you look like a fool. I'll have the last word, no matter what. Just STFU and leave it be. It's over. You lost. I repeat. You lost!
You're a bigger dick, alright
That's hilarious coming from the truest personification of a penis. You are a walking, talking example. D-I-C-K.
That is far too subtle an approach for MR/SA
Nice excuse from a shitbag with such a weak argument he didn't have anything to offer - subtly or not - to hang myself with.
You are an irrelevant fool. And you're making yourself look like a complete douche with the relentless posts when the argument is long gone.
@SA:
You are an irrelevant fool. And you're making yourself look like a complete douche with the relentless posts when the argument is long gone.
Sounds like you, dumbass. In fact your invective doesn't take down anybody. It might make you feel better, but get ahold of the rage. If you think you won, why keep fighting?
But don't bother to answer, I have already unsubscribed to this thread before this post; so you will be talking to thin air.
Sounds like you, dumbass. In fact your invective doesn't take down anybody. It might make you feel better, but get ahold of the rage. If you think you won, why keep fighting?
Oh, I agree I'm wallowing in the mud, but Mason hurled the first fecal bomb, and I'm going to make damn sure I get the last word on the matter. That's why I'm still fighting. The argument may be long gone, but I'd sooner get kicked in the balls than let the little shit-for-brains come on and have the last word with one more smart-ass comment. There's no rage. Mason is just a troll, and I'm putting him in his place. He thinks he's the most resilient son-of-a-bitch on here, but he's far out-matched in that area.
But don't bother to answer, I have already unsubscribed to this thread before this post; so you will be talking to thin air.
I'm not worried about responding to you. You're not who the fight is with...although I'm perplexed as to why you'd want to come in and give a drive-by tongue-lashing only to run away into the night.
Nice excuse from a shitbag with such a weak argument he didn't have anything to offer - subtly or not - to hang myself with.
Said the fish on the lure.
Look, a fair reading of my inital comment would be that I believe that the bankers, whose job it was to write sound loans to sound borrowers, failed to do their jobs. Did I do so sarcastically? Yes, but I don't understand the bile you've directed at me. I insulted neither you nor anyone who thinks like you.
Nonetheless, here's my last bit on this: Medical Malpactice. The term conjures up images of surgeons chopping off the wrong leg, but the root cause is something much simpler: a bad History. Often these mistakes happen due to language-barrier issues, altered-mental status issues, patients just not understanding the question, or doctors just not asking the right one (they're human!). In all of these cases, though, no one blames the patient. Physicians are blamed for bad histories because they are the experts. It is their job. It's also why H&P is a huge focus in all levels of Medical Education and CME, but I digress.
Often, however, the poor patient outcomes of a poor history can be avoided by other tests. Take physical activity, for example. We know we need more. Many of us lie in our histories (look it up). Our physicians are skeptical because we have hypertention and elevated LDLs, so they treat the symptoms by giving us a script for statins and anti-hypertensives, and telling us lower our salt intake and get more excercise. They performed additional tests, gathererd additional information, and came to conclusions independent of what we told them. If they had just gone off what we said, we'd be at increased CV, stroke, and renal risk. We lied, but our body didn't.
In the world of finance, we've had a different story with, sadly, a different outcome. People lied, and the experts believed them. When you're writing a loan, you have the right and obligation to digg in to the potential borrower's fiances to determine if they are a good risk. Sure, they'll give you some information, but it's your job to cross-check it. Is it correct? Is is sufficient? If not, then don't write the loan! This was the step that was missed over, and over and over again, and in the end, it cost them their jobs and our financial stability. The question of "assigning blame" thus comes down to this:
Who is more culpable? The millions of non-expert people who fucked up once by buying a home they couldn't afford? Or the group of experts who fucked up repeatedly at their jobs by writing loans to people who couldn't afford them?
I suspect that this is a question that will rage for years.
...but the root cause is something much simpler: a bad History.
Should be
...but the root cause is often something much simpler: a bad History.
There's lots of reasons for medical errors, and I didn't mean to imply that bad H&P is the sole reason.
Mason,
You are a pathetic dimwit. Really grasping at straws now comparing medical malpractice to the shady lenders. I agree there were shady lenders. They take plenty of blame in this. I never said they didn't. The quote came down (from Obama and Co.) that the middle class had "played by the rules" and were "living up to their responsibilities." I merely said that wasn't completely true. I pointed out the over-borrowing as an example? I furthered the point by mentioning over-spending on other items, particularly discretionary spending (eating out, etc.). People spent too much. They lived outside of their means. No expert is there to tell you whether or not you should go play golf on Saturday or whether you can afford it. No expert is there to tell you whether or not you can afford to go out to eat Friday night. You can't make all of the so-called "experts" out there - wherever they may be in the shadows - the scapegoat.
There is personal responsbility. A lot of middle class people dropped the ball on that responsibility, negative outside influences and pressures notwithstanding. Shady lenders and credit issuers are definitely to blame. So is the government. So are the rich. So are the poor. You can find people to blame in every segment of every corner of society. Don't patronize the middle class as ignorant sheep so you can scapegoat a particular group of people (i.e. those who control capital, be they individuals or institutions). Most of them are not ignorant. They willfully made decisions they thought were intelligent and weren't influenced by outside forces (these shady lenders you reference). They simply made poor choices. In my mind, that's not "living up to their responsibilities" in my book. I called them out for making that statement. I embarrassed anyone who made it, ascribes to it, or defends it, and that most certainly includes you.
You are a buffoon of the highest order, and I'm going to keep embarrassing you as long as you keep coming back for more.
Oh, I agree I'm wallowing in the mud, but Mason hurled the first fecal bomb, and I'm going to make damn sure I get the last word on the matter. That's why I'm still fighting. The argument may be long gone, but I'd sooner get kicked in the balls than let the little shit-for-brains come on and have the last word with one more smart-ass comment. There's no rage. Mason is just a troll, and I'm putting him in his place. He thinks he's the most resilient son-of-a-bitch on here, but he's far out-matched in that area.
Number of sentences: Six.
Number of insults: Four.
Keep working! Eventually you'll get to 1:1. Sorry there's no prize money in it, though.
Sorry there's no prize money in it, though.
Yep. Just like there's no prize in you still yapping your nonsense at me. It's over and done. You're finished. Now go pull "rank-and-file" on your smart mouth and STFU!
Again:
You said that the president's quote could rise to the level of "populist class warfare" because people were profligate.* Have I got that right? Okay. People were wasteful. Do you want a cookie? It's just not that important a point because as I initially suggested, the people who control the capital were profligate on orders of magnitude larger scale. If I file for bankruptcy, I'm not going to take down the economy. If JP Morgan Chase files for bankruptcy, look the fuck out. Personal responsibilty is critical for people. You can't be the master of your domain without being responsible for it. Everyone gets that. The question is what amount of responsibility do we expect from those who call themselves the "Masters of the Universe."
Tens of millions of people fuck up once. Tens of thousands of people fuck up a thousand times each. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I don't think it goes up any further than that, but it doesn't need to. You can talk about "shady lenders"**, but it comes down to each bad loan having a borrower and a lender. The borrower lied, and the lender believed him just as he had believed dozens or hundreds of people before.
*In a way, the bailout represents classical class conflict moreso than anything that the president is proposing. Give money to the banks while they're foreclosing on the middle and working classes. Marx would be amused at the capital-controlling classes and the power classes looking out for one another.
**A term you used, and I never did. They're not shady. They're just incompetent. The whole argument doesn't work if they're "shady" as that implies some level of cunning, when in fact, I am claming it was their complete lack of cunning and professional aptitude that enabled us to get to this point. Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Yep. Just like there's no prize in you still yapping your nonsense at me. It's over and done. You're finished. Now go pull "rank-and-file" on your smart mouth and STFU!
We're playing pickup, not in a league. There's no ref, timekeeper, and no scores to report.
I just had to spell it out so I (and anyone else can get to laugh out loud at it)...
Mason equates people who chose to go golfing every other Saturday and chose to eat out every other meal and chose to get a manicure and their hair done twice a month and chose to buy a house 10 times their annual household income as that poor person on the operating table who gets the wrong kidney removed and wind up in really shitty shape.
Is that true? Do you really believe that? All those people who made "epic fail" personal economic decisions, which were, in aggregate completely boneheaded and meant they weren't "living up to their responsibilities" are on the same level as the poor guy who is misdiagnosed, has the wrong leg amputated or wrong organ removed, when they had absolutely no choice in their screwing? Really?! Really?!!!
I just can't believe you're that much of an ignoramus.
We're playing pickup, not in a league. There's no ref, timekeeper, and no scores to report.
You'd better be glad, because if there was an official report, you'd be suffering a bloodbath.
To address something you said about me, yes, I did indicate that some of Obama's rhetoric could rise to that of "class warfare." The merits of that can be debated, but the main point was what he said (he being Obama, who, being the President, is far more important than I) the middle class had "played by the rules" and "lived up to their responsibilities."
I called out that assessment. Any reasonable person on a kindergarten reading level or higher would understand my complaint and the vast majority would agree that not all middle class get that cover as "playing by the rules" or "living up to their responsibilities."
I keep emphasizing those two phrases because they are the keystone remarks I centered and directed my attention on...you spun this out of control and wrapped yourself around arguments that were tangential to my initial comment.
Mason equates people who chose to go golfing every other Saturday and chose to eat out every other meal and chose to get a manicure and their hair done twice a month and chose to buy a house 10 times their annual household income as that poor person on the operating table who gets the wrong kidney removed and wind up in really shitty shape.
Huh. I see you're no longer actually reading me honestly. You saw "medical malpractice" and went straight for the wrong kidney/leg/arm/lung thing when it's pretty clear that that's not what I mean. It might help to figure out what an H&P is first.
To be fair to you, the sentence that I corrected as:
The term conjures up images of surgeons chopping off the wrong leg, but the root cause is often something much simpler: a bad History.
should be:
The term conjures up images of surgeons chopping off the wrong leg, but it comes in many much less obvious forms, and often the root cause is something much simpler: a bad History.
So no. I'm not talking about somebody having the wrong kidney removed. Most of the time, that's not an H&P issue anyway, because if you're to the point of surgurey, you're WAY beyond H&P. Errors at that point usually would mostly be due to scribbled, unclear orders.
I think the better analogy, if you're going into the medical malpractice realm, would be there were people looking for cheap and beautiful plastic surgery and went to doctor's with fake creds or were flat-out snake-oil salesman. They did this to "cheat" the system, knowing you're not supposed to get wonderful cosmetic surgery for pennies on the dollar for what it normally cost, just like people should have known that (and this could include just some or all of the below) having a personal savings rate below 0%, buying a $400k home on $40k per year, eating out at nice restaurants 10 times a month, and spending like drunken sailors on shore leave in general is and was too good to be true.
You haven't and can't adequately address where the "professionals" and "masters of the universe" are that tell someone when and how much they should go and spend on eating out, on clothes, on a vehicle, on golf or other recreation. You know why? Because those "masters of the universe" ultimately come back to some form of responsbility to the individual, who I'm saying is culpable for at least some of their actions and were, contrary to Obama's own words, irresponsible.
Anyway, back to the analogy, so then people's nose job came undone, the cellulite came back threefold, the flabby arms returned, etc.
And now it's blame blame blame on those docs they sought out and tried to do business with to have things done that should have been know were too good to be true. I'm saying they're both to blame. The fake docs (those incompetent financial institutions you speak of) are certainly to blame. Just like a doctor posing as something he isn't should be. But people looking to get a new face (like Angelina?) for $50 have to be held accountable for their irresponsible behavior too.
You fail to see that. You are a bozo. The gloves are off. I've kicked your ass. Pick up your broken bones and your blood and get the hell out of my way.
Huh. I see you're no longer actually reading me honestly.
That's hilarious that you even say that, you brainless imp. You haven't been reading me honestly since the beginning.
As proof, you even dismissed something I said that you didn't like (but couldn't actually refute) by saying, "But you didn't mean that!"
Talk about a 2-year old. I can just see you in diapers crying, "Waaaaaahhhhhhh! You didn't mean it!!!!"
No matter how honestly and accurately I read your analogy on medical malpractice, what's at the heart of the matter is that you're dragging in a ridiculuous comparison to obfuscate the point, which you no longer stand on firm ground to make and have lost all credibility.
I called out that assessment. Any reasonable person on a kindergarten reading level or higher would understand my complaint and the vast majority would agree that not all middle class get that cover as "playing by the rules" or "living up to their responsibilities."
I keep emphasizing those two phrases because they are the keystone remarks I centered and directed my attention on...you spun this out of control and wrapped yourself around arguments that were tangential to my initial comment.
It is not tangential to point out that the sole example of middle-class irresponsibility you provided requires an expert counterparty to fail at judging the party's responsibilty. You said that the borrowers were irresponsible. I said the banks were as well, to a more concentrated degree. That's it.
You two get a fucking room! Mason, you lost. Get over it. Move on. This shit won't end until you just walk away and let him stew by himself.
As proof, you even dismissed something I said that you didn't like (but couldn't actually refute) by saying, "But you didn't mean that!"
The clarifacation and added phrase makes it clear that your "refutation" is specious.
Besides, anybody who knows what an H&P is and when they get taken and used would know that that wasn't what I was saying. I just clarified it for your benefit.
Let he who is without typos cast the first red pen.
You two get a fucking room! Mason, you lost. Get over it. Move on. This shit won't end until you just walk away and let him stew by himself.
Thanks for the heads up, but nobody makes you read this far back. Go on back to the frontcourts. It far more fun over there.
It is not tangential to point out that the sole example of middle-class irresponsibility you provided requires an expert counterparty to fail at judging the party's responsibilty. You said that the borrowers were irresponsible. I said the banks were as well, to a more concentrated degree. That's it.
And after you pointed out there was an expert counterparty for home mortgages, I furthered my point by saying there was no expert counterparty for decisions related to almost all other discretionary shopping and spending. Then, you created a tangential argument and point about why that didn't matter and I couldn't use it for my point simply because I didn't cite it initially as part of the problem.
That's bullshit. You know it, as I do. I wanted my full argument heard, and just because I didn't offer full disclosure in my initial post, that doesn't discount anything I said in subsequent posts or make them inaccurate. You seem to have trouble understanding that and have engaged in these "tangential" flame wars and analogies to obfuscate the point. That's it.
The fake docs (those incompetent financial institutions you speak of) are certainly to blame.
They're being bailed out because they're big and important. Then we have to listen to them complain about "class warfare" and loser homeowners when we try to regulate them so that they don't screw the pooch again.
But people looking to get a new face (like Angelina?) for $50 have to be held accountable for their irresponsible behavior too.
They are. Perhaps you haven't heard of the rise in forclosures?
The clarifacation and added phrase makes it clear that your "refutation" is specious.
Nope there's nothing specious about my clarification, and there was no added phrase. It's all real simple. Even to the mentally handicapped.
Obama said the middle class had "played by the rules" and "lived up to their responsibilities."
I said they didn't and were owed at least as much blame as many of the other scapegoats.
I cited over-borrowing for home mortgages initially. When the shady and/or incompetent (whatever suits you) practices of lenders was mentioned to abscond the middle class of responsibility (which, I admit has merits and is valid, although not in every case as there were people - millions of middle class who didn't buy a home or bought one they couldn't afford who still made other very bad personal economic decisions), I merely furthered my point by brining up the areas the middle class failed to "play by the rules", or at least "live up to their responsibilities" by listing numerous other areas of personal financial malpractice (to steal a word from you) where there was little or no counterparty responsibility.
You have yet to refute that very non-specious point!! You have engaged in ad hominem attacks and reckless sarcasm and ridiculous analogies, though, to try and make your point. All have been an epic fail.
which, I admit has merits and is valid, although not in every case as there were people - millions of middle class who didn't buy a home or bought one they couldn't afford who still made other very bad personal economic decisions
should read:
or bought one they could afford
They are. Perhaps you haven't heard of the rise in forclosures?
Don't patronize me with this inane sarcasm! I'm saying Obama is wrong for saying that all of those people (he made no exceptions with what he said, so I'm left to assume he meant all middle class) lived up to their responsiblities.
If you want to discuss this rationally and face-to-face, I'll be glad to meet you for coffee so we don't just keep flaming this thread, which I'll gladly do ad infinitum or until you leave. You don't even have to admit defeat. Just. Walk. Away.
But I live a little outside of Philly, so if you're pretty much anywhere on the East Coast from Boston down to Raleigh, NC, where I travel regularly, I'd be glad to meet up and discuss it man to man and let you make your points out from behind the blogger smokescreen. Hey, I'm game. I get free time now and again.
And after you pointed out there was an expert counterparty for home mortgages, I furthered my point by saying there was no expert counterparty for decisions related to almost all other discretionary shopping and spending.
False. Credit cards come from banks who determine how big of a risk you are when determining your credit limit. Furthermore, many households got into this mess by doing cash-out refinances of their mortgages to pay credit card bills. So we're back to experts writing loans for people with massive credit card debt.
Then, you created a tangential argument and point about why that didn't matter and I couldn't use it for my point simply because I didn't cite it initially as part of the problem.
Look... You want to talk about credit card debt? It's a different, but related issue. It's different, in that it is revolving uncollateralized debt that you can pay far less of at a much larger rate. It's related in that people were getting collateralized loans to cover uncollateralized. Should they have been getting those loans is the question. (Hell... It's basically been answerd: No.)
Don't patronize me with this inane sarcasm! I'm saying Obama is wrong for saying that all of those people (he made no exceptions with what he said, so I'm left to assume he meant all middle class) lived up to their responsiblities.
You've been nothing but patronizing.
But that's what you get with a phillies fan. Give them one World Series win and they stick out their chests.
Shane Victorino is a bitch.
Oh... And the clarifacation was that I wasn't talking about gross malpractice like getting operating on the wrong side. That's all. A history could tell you where to start looking, or where to look carefully, but it sure as hell wouldn't be your only diagnostic tool before you operated. I don't think anyone would read that and think that I was suggesting that bad histories could lead to wrong-side operations.
I'm saying Obama is wrong for saying that all of those people (he made no exceptions with what he said, so I'm left to assume he meant all middle class) lived up to their responsiblities.
Do you seriously believe that to be the case? What's the limit in his suggested homeowner bail-out program? Owing 105% of the total value of the home? If he believed what you are arguing against, don't you think that limit would be a little bit higher, or even non-existant? I think you may be tilting at a windmill here, because I don't think that the president who believes that all middle-classers are virtuous exists.
You want to talk about credit card debt?
No, I want to talk about (really I don't, though, as I'm not trying to stir up a new conversation piece) the conscious decision-making of millions of middle class who chose, all by their lonesome self, to go out to eat more than they could afford, to play more golf than they could afford, buy more vehicle than they could afford, buy more shoes than they could afford, go on vacations they couldn't afford.
You can't just dismiss their personal culpability with a, "Damn those credit card issuers! Damn them all! They're to blame!!"
People made decisions. They were irresponible. Obama was misleading with what he said by not acknowledging it and indicating they were. That's what I've been trying to say from the get-go!
By the way, I hate the Philles, and Shane Victorino is a bitch.
I think you may be tilting at a windmill here, because I don't think that the president who believes that all middle-classers are virtuous exists.
But he used those words, you pompous little windbag. He USED THOSE WORDS!
Words have meaning! Remember?! You scolded me for how I worded something. You jumped all over my hint of 'class-warfare rhetoric.'
I'm jumping all over Obama's hint of 'a middle class that played by the rules and lived up to their responsibilities' with no exceptions. He didn't say, "A middle class that's played by the rules and lived up to their responsibilities, except for a few greedy and incompetent ones."
If you live on the East Coast, meet me for dinner and discuss this man to man. If you don't, then bid this conversation adieu and leave the thread. I've had it with showing you up and rubbing your nose in it. It's no longer fun.
Make your points to me face to face. That is, if you're serious about discussing this. If you won't discuss this face to face over a few beers and some food, then you are a coward.
Plain. And. Simple.
A coward!
I'll repeat the post above ad infinitum unless you either leave or agree to meet me.
Ah. So you're not from there. It must be unbearable up there. Don't worry, they'll slide back to sucking soon.
No, I want to talk about (really I don't, though, as I'm not trying to stir up a new conversation piece) the conscious decision-making of millions of middle class who chose, all by their lonesome self, to go out to eat more than they could afford, to play more golf than they could afford, buy more vehicle than they could afford, buy more shoes than they could afford, go on vacations they couldn't afford.
You can't just dismiss their personal culpability with a, "Damn those credit card issuers! Damn them all! They're to blame!!"
Have you ever had someone in your family be addicted to something? I haven't, but I've been a key thing for those around an addict is to not be an enabler. By rasing limits on demand and sending offers for "FREE 0% balance transfer rate" credit card companies were enablers. Where they went from being enablers to being pushers, and unwise ones at that since mortgages are hardly an addicting product, was when they started suggesting that people essentially pawn the equity in their house in order to pay off those credit cards.
The credit cards have high risk and high intrest (22-33% APR if you default in some case), where as HELOCs and refis were much, much lower. Again, we've got a basic risk management failure by the experts. They're in over their head already and struggling to swim, so lets throw them a rope tied to an asset we have chained to us. Yeah, that's the ticket!
If you live on the East Coast, meet me for dinner and discuss this man to man. If you don't, then bid this conversation adieu and leave the thread. I've had it with showing you up and rubbing your nose in it. It's no longer fun.
Make your points to me face to face. That is, if you're serious about discussing this. If you won't discuss this face to face over a few beers and some food, then you are a coward.
Plain. And. Simple.
A coward!
I'll repeat the post above ad infinitum unless you either leave or agree to meet me.
I'll repeat the post above ad infinitum unless you either leave or agree to meet me.
I'll repeat the post above ad infinitum unless you either leave or agree to meet me.
But he used those words, you pompous little windbag. He USED THOSE WORDS!
More insults? Sigh.
Words have meaning! Remember?! You scolded me for how I worded something. You jumped all over my hint of 'class-warfare rhetoric.'
He didn't say, "A middle class that's played by the rules and lived up to their responsibilities, except for a few greedy and incompetent ones."
What is the meaning of a word never said?
Leaving out a qualifying phrase vs. misusing an inflamatory one. I'll grant you that they're both rhetorical errors. I'd imagine that if you asked him, he'd probably say that the qualifacation is too damn clunky, and he only has limited time. What's your excuse for using the wrong word?
If you live on the East Coast, meet me for dinner and discuss this man to man. If you don't, then bid this conversation adieu and leave the thread. I've had it with showing you up and rubbing your nose in it. It's no longer fun.
Make your points to me face to face. That is, if you're serious about discussing this. If you won't discuss this face to face over a few beers and some food, then you are a coward.
Plain. And. Simple.
A coward!
I'll repeat the post above ad infinitum unless you either leave or agree to meet me.
Post a Comment