Listening to the concerns of the other political side...

[arkieb1]

AnnaH - I think we have rehashed your political process only because HotPozzum asked how it worked.

So back to the question some of the conservatives seem to be avoiding on page 1, did you specifically feel "ignored" or "marginalised" when Obama was president and if so why? The conservatives on here claim it's not a race issue, they claim it's not a religious issue, what is an issue over money? Over class?

 

[AnnaH]

I was not calling the electoral side issue rehashing. It was in reference to the wider discussion. Your questions are vague. Ask something specific, and I will try to answer.

 

[arkieb1]

I just did but I'll ask it again, did you feel marginalised/ignored/forgotten when Obama was president, and if so why? And if not if you know other family members or friends that felt that way why?

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

You asked about an example of regulations that are burdensome on business. Yesterday, Trump signed an executive order rolling back regs for financial advisors and to look at the Dodd-Frank(bank regs) for changes.

JPM, one of our best banks, run by a Jamey Dimon, considered Americas best banker, came out yesterday to say that they needed to pay for regulation monitors some billions in costs. In fact the people, just to do this would fill up 1-2 football fields. They have a monitor who sits in at every board meeting.

Now we did have a crisis in 2008, of which JPM was not involved, but the Gov't made them take money so all the banks would look as if they all needed capital. Now, the Gov't has been paid back and made a substantial profit on the bank-bailout, has increased capital requirements substantially, and should no longer require the amount of monitoring, as the crisis is past and the banks are well capitalized. Some regs ought to go.

I looked at your chart of subsidy and the way I see it is the US has low subsidy, agriculture is one. I see Australia has none, but not much activity either.

I have a hard time dealing with folks who seem to think if they link to articles that it gives them credibility. I seem to remember my teachers telling us we had to be able to tell it in our own words so that she/he knew we thought about in our own heads and understood it ourselves.(not always and not you Arkie) love you for trying to have a decent discussion.

Annette

 

[Tekate]

Hi,

You asked about an example of regulations that are burdensome on business. Yesterday, Trump signed an executive order rolling back regs for financial advisors and to look at the Dodd-Frank(bank regs) for changes.

JPM, one of our best banks, run by a Jamey Dimon, considered Americas best banker, came out yesterday to say that they needed to pay for regulation monitors some billions in costs. In fact the people, just to do this would fill up 1-2 football fields. They have a monitor who sits in at every board meeting.

Now we did have a crisis in 2008, of which JPM was not involved, but the Gov't made them take money so all the banks would look as if they all needed capital. Now, the Gov't has been paid back and made a substantial profit on the bank-bailout, has increased capital requirements substantially, and should no longer require the amount of monitoring, as the crisis is past and the banks are well capitalized. Some regs ought to go.

I looked at your chart of subsidy and the way I see it is the US has low subsidy, agriculture is one. I see Australia has none, but not much activity either.

I have a hard time dealing with folks who seem to think if they link to articles that it gives them credibility. I seem to remember my teachers telling us we had to be able to tell it in our own words so that she/he knew we thought about in our own heads and understood it ourselves.(not always and not you Arkie) love you for trying to have a decent discussion.

Annette

Speaking of linked articles, it should give one creds if it upholds their thoughts are beliefs, I never post a pointer unless I have read it and it speaks to what I am saying most usually in a better, more concise and shorter way. I always meander.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-08/jpmorgan-algorithm-knows-you-re-a-rogue-employee-before-you-do

I disagree with what you say about Dimon and Bear Stearns. They were not forced to take Tarp funds.

JPM was indeed involved in the financial collapse of 08. For one, Bear Stearns.


What regs should go? I know the fiduciary should stay.. that is very helpful to the average person who is saving for retirement.

ETA: I should add, my son is involved in compliance at a HUGE BIG company in the USA so I could be tainted, but I don't think so.

 

[t-c]

Hi,

You asked about an example of regulations that are burdensome on business. Yesterday, Trump signed an executive order rolling back regs for financial advisors and to look at the Dodd-Frank(bank regs) for changes.

JPM, one of our best banks, run by a Jamey Dimon, considered Americas best banker, came out yesterday to say that they needed to pay for regulation monitors some billions in costs. In fact the people, just to do this would fill up 1-2 football fields. They have a monitor who sits in at every board meeting.

Now we did have a crisis in 2008, of which JPM was not involved, but the Gov't made them take money so all the banks would look as if they all needed capital. Now, the Gov't has been paid back and made a substantial profit on the bank-bailout, has increased capital requirements substantially, and should no longer require the amount of monitoring, as the crisis is past and the banks are well capitalized. Some regs ought to go.

The banks are better capitalized now because they were required to by regulations issued in response to the financial crisis, including Dodd-Frank. BofA, Citibank, and Morgan Stanley had trouble getting unconditional pass grades in previous years' stress tests, with Morgan Stanley still not getting it as recently as 2016. Sure, the stress tests may be burdensome for business, but it helps ensure that banks won't collapse with a sudden rise in inflation, or stock market crash, or oil price drop, or GDP drop, or combinations of these. These regulations protect the our economy - lessening the chance that we would need to bail banks out again -- and individuals' money. (I'm not going to post my source in case you think I don't have any credibility)

You think that just because banks are currently well capitalized they will remain that way once the regulations that force them to be well capitalized is removed? That's naive.

I have a hard time dealing with folks who seem to think if they link to articles that it gives them credibility. I seem to remember my teachers telling us we had to be able to tell it in our own words so that she/he knew we thought about in our own heads and understood it ourselves.(not always and not you Arkie) love you for trying to have a decent discussion.

In light of "alternative facts", I think it's better when people actually show where they get their information from. I think it gives them a lot more credibility. Just because someone types things here doesn't mean they actually "thought about it in [their] own heads and understood it [themselves]." Wasn't there an instance of a thread started here with fake news?

 

[arkieb1]

I just did but I'll ask it again, did you feel marginalised/ignored/forgotten when Obama was president, and if so why? And if not if you know other family members or friends that felt that way why?

The sounds of crickets chirping........

 

[bunnycat]

I just did but I'll ask it again, did you feel marginalised/ignored/forgotten when Obama was president, and if so why? And if not if you know other family members or friends that felt that way why?

The sounds of crickets chirping........

I'm sorry you didn't get much response on that front. I didn't really expect it....

Maybe you might get some sort of answer by asking if they have ever voted anything other than republican?

Since I did not vote republican in this election, I will tell you how I felt in previous admisnistrations (as it is clear how I feel now, ie that we are on the precipice of deeply disturbing events regarding our economy and democracy as a whole, from what I have gathered in the EO's coming down the pipeline. People do forget that these are EO's. They bypass Congress, yes, but if you research back through the administrations you will see they often end up in court...)

So anyway - I have to go back to Bush. Did life (mine personally, not people as a whole) get better or worse under Bush. It was fine at first. Towards the end in 2007 I started seeing some bad signs (I own my own business) and sales were beginning to drop. By 2008, sales were bad enough I had to go look for a supplementary job. By end of 2008, I had lost almost 90% of my business. I've now spent the past 8 years rebuilding it, and I fear strongly under Trump, that it will happen again.

Then, enter Obama. Same question...did my life personally get any better or worse? I struggled with finances for a couple of years, went through a divorce, ended up remarrying, and rebuilt my business. Technically, since I am an artist, I sell nonessential luxury items. I think people began feeling like they could spend on these again, and so business increased to a certain level but nowhere near what it used to be, and so in my own personal situation, the effects were ok....overall better.

Now, I really wasn't a fan of HRC myself though not for the reasons others usually mention, but I did my research, came to the conclusion that some of my ambivalence was my own personal lack of knowledge about her MO and seeming very cold or unfeeling (which from what I read by people who worked with her on projects is really that she operates by listening, note taking, then problem solving, which is kind of not how men tend to approach issues). So I made my peace and went with it.

If a CENTRIST republican had run, I would not have been averse and perhaps might even have broken with my own tradition of voting democrat...but a Centrist did not run, so here we are now.

 

[arkieb1]

Hi,

You asked about an example of regulations that are burdensome on business. Yesterday, Trump signed an executive order rolling back regs for financial advisors and to look at the Dodd-Frank(bank regs) for changes.

We have heavy regulations for financial advisors in Australia to protect the people, what was occurring here is that they were setting up large companies that were supposed to be either investing in shares (the stock market) or investing in thing like real estate projects, which were usually big apartment complexes or shopping complexes. What happened when we had a less regulated environment here is they would take the whole of the retirement savings from various people some rich, some Mom and Pop investors and put them into these supposedly "safe" investment funds. So when the GFC hit here funds that had peoples money invested heavily in the stock market lost all of the investors money and funds here that had invested in large real estate projects also lots vast amounts of consumer money when the property market contracted.

The next point is after the GFC, when our economy was doing O.K, there were a lot of large investment funds here set up and run by financial advisors, some were even run by big banks and others, run by private companies that invested part of the money from every day investors into the things listed above but several of the financial advisors themselves were skimming money, or building properties for themselves and misdirecting where those fund were going. In this country we are forced to put away/save part of what we earn into superannuation (retirement) funds, people were taking money out of these funds that were safely watched/regulated by our government and putting them into other mortgage funds or other managed investment schemes as already described. Several years ago more than 20 000 small investors lost almost a billion dollars of their money in one such property development fund. More recently a larger number of every day people lost a similar amount of money from a fraudulent financial advisor that worked out of and in conjunction with one of our largest banks.

The point I am making with these long winded examples is that if financial advisors are not regulated heavily that is what can and will happen.

Moving on the Dodd-Frank (bank regulations) - I know enough basic economics to assume you mean that banks will become less risk adverse if regulations are lifted, this has the short term effect of injecting money into your economy as they are willing to issue more loans, it also sets up your economy for the same conditions that helped create the GFC in the first place. The second point I wish to make is globally both in your country and mine the sole purpose of banks is to make huge profits for their shareholders I know in my country they have no reservations in screwing over us, the people, with things like charging high fees for services (which are much higher and less competitive in Australia than they are in the US) and basically lending money to people and businesses that can't afford it - which is never going to end well either.

I'm happy and interested to hear why you think rolling back or getting rid of these regulations is a good thing, I know what has happened historically in Australia would suggest that it's not a good thing, and I would go so far as to say it probably won't be for your country either but you clearly disagree

JPM, one of our best banks, run by a Jamey Dimon, considered Americas best banker, came out yesterday to say that they needed to pay for regulation monitors some billions in costs. In fact the people, just to do this would fill up 1-2 football fields. They have a monitor who sits in at every board meeting.

Yep I understand it costs billions to monitor what they do, and as my basic examples above hopefully demonstrate when they aren't being watch and or regulated then that allows them to rip off consumers the same amounts i.e billions of dollars or more and investment brokers/advisors IMHO left unchecked are even worse

Now we did have a crisis in 2008, of which JPM was not involved, but the Gov't made them take money so all the banks would look as if they all needed capital. Now, the Gov't has been paid back and made a substantial profit on the bank-bailout, has increased capital requirements substantially, and should no longer require the amount of monitoring, as the crisis is past and the banks are well capitalized. Some regs ought to go.

I don't think it's as simple as saying they now have the funds available to lend now it's about keeping them on a path where firstly they don't over lend again and create another GFC and it's about keeping them honest and accountable to you the consumer

I looked at your chart of subsidy and the way I see it is the US has low subsidy, agriculture is one. I see Australia has none, but not much activity either.

We always consider in Australia that the US has heavy subsidies in agriculture, I googled this to make sure and everything I can read on the internet suggests that you do, do you have a different definition of what a "subsidy" is to the one I do? Google Farm subsidies 2016 US and you should get a long list of what these were, in 2016 they were many billions of dollars see chart below. Links to read;

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-11/farmers-get-biggest-u-s-subsidy-check-in-decade-as-prices-drop

All of the articles I can find suggest you pay over $25 billion per year in Agricultural subsidies;

https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

I have a hard time dealing with folks who seem to think if they link to articles that it gives them credibility. I seem to remember my teachers telling us we had to be able to tell it in our own words so that she/he knew we thought about in our own heads and understood it ourselves.(not always and not you Arkie) love you for trying to have a decent discussion.

When I link articles or put in graphs, photos or tables it's to try and illustrate a point I'm making, I hope that is O.K, I asked my husband who knows far more about your economy than I do about agricultural subsidies so I'm not just relying on the articles I have linked and what I have read on the internet and he said your farming has been heavily subsidised to the tune of billions for decades, up to and including 2016.
Annette

 

[katharath]

Oh Arkie, showing up with all of these pesky facts!

It's entertaining watching the KellyAnne Conways of Hangout twist reality to fit their perspectives. Why let a few facts stand in the way?

 

[bunnycat]

Hi,

You asked about an example of regulations that are burdensome on business. Yesterday, Trump signed an executive order rolling back regs for financial advisors and to look at the Dodd-Frank(bank regs) for changes.

We have heavy regulations for financial advisors in Australia to protect the people, what was occurring here is that they were setting up large companies that were supposed to be either investing in shares (the stock market) or investing in thing like real estate projects, which were usually big apartment complexes or shopping complexes. What happened when we had a less regulated environment here is they would take the whole of the retirement savings from various people some rich, some Mom and Pop investors and put them into these supposedly "safe" investment funds. So when the GFC hit here funds that had peoples money invested heavily in the stock market lost all of the investors money and funds here that had invested in large real estate projects also lots vast amounts of consumer money when the property market contracted.

The next point is after the GFC, when our economy was doing O.K, there were a lot of large investment funds here set up and run by financial advisors, some were even run by big banks and others, run by private companies that invested part of the money from every day investors into the things listed above but several of the financial advisors themselves were skimming money, or building properties for themselves and misdirecting where those fund were going. In this country we are forced to put away/save part of what we earn into superannuation (retirement) funds, people were taking money out of these funds that were safely watched/regulated by our government and putting them into other mortgage funds or other managed investment schemes as already described. Several years ago more than 20 000 small investors lost almost a billion dollars of their money in one such property development fund. More recently a larger number of every day people lost a similar amount of money from a fraudulent financial advisor that worked out of and in conjunction with one of our largest banks.

The point I am making with these long winded examples is that if financial advisors are not regulated heavily that is what can and will happen.

Moving on the Dodd-Frank (bank regulations) - I know enough basic economics to assume you mean that banks will become less risk adverse if regulations are lifted, this has the short term effect of injecting money into your economy as they are willing to issue more loans, it also sets up your economy for the same conditions that helped create the GFC in the first place. The second point I wish to make is globally both in your country and mine the sole purpose of banks is to make huge profits for their shareholders I know in my country they have no reservations in screwing over us, the people, with things like charging high fees for services (which are much higher and less competitive in Australia than they are in the US) and basically lending money to people and businesses that can't afford it - which is never going to end well either.

I'm happy and interested to hear why you think rolling back or getting rid of these regulations is a good thing, I know what has happened historically in Australia would suggest that it's not a good thing, and I would go so far as to say it probably won't be for your country either but you clearly disagree

JPM, one of our best banks, run by a Jamey Dimon, considered Americas best banker, came out yesterday to say that they needed to pay for regulation monitors some billions in costs. In fact the people, just to do this would fill up 1-2 football fields. They have a monitor who sits in at every board meeting.

Yep I understand it costs billions to monitor what they do, and as my basic examples above hopefully demonstrate when they aren't being watch and or regulated then that allows them to rip off consumers the same amounts i.e billions of dollars or more and investment brokers/advisors IMHO left unchecked are even worse

Now we did have a crisis in 2008, of which JPM was not involved, but the Gov't made them take money so all the banks would look as if they all needed capital. Now, the Gov't has been paid back and made a substantial profit on the bank-bailout, has increased capital requirements substantially, and should no longer require the amount of monitoring, as the crisis is past and the banks are well capitalized. Some regs ought to go.

I don't think it's as simple as saying they now have the funds available to lend now it's about keeping them on a path where firstly they don't over lend again and create another GFC and it's about keeping them honest and accountable to you the consumer

I looked at your chart of subsidy and the way I see it is the US has low subsidy, agriculture is one. I see Australia has none, but not much activity either.

We always consider in Australia that the US has heavy subsidies in agriculture, I googled this to make sure and everything I can read on the internet suggests that you do, do you have a different definition of what a "subsidy" is to the one I do? Google Farm subsidies 2016 US and you should get a long list of what these were, in 2016 they were many billions of dollars see chart below. Links to read;

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-11/farmers-get-biggest-u-s-subsidy-check-in-decade-as-prices-drop

All of the articles I can find suggest you pay over $25 billion per year in Agricultural subsidies;

https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

I have a hard time dealing with folks who seem to think if they link to articles that it gives them credibility. I seem to remember my teachers telling us we had to be able to tell it in our own words so that she/he knew we thought about in our own heads and understood it ourselves.(not always and not you Arkie) love you for trying to have a decent discussion.

When I link articles or put in graphs, photos or tables it's to try and illustrate a point I'm making, I hope that is O.K, I asked my husband who knows far more about your economy than I do about agricultural subsidies so I'm not just relying on the articles I have linked and what I have read on the internet and he said your farming has been heavily subsidised to the tune of billions for decades, up to and including 2016.
Annette

Arkie- I love reading you charts. Y'all went over my head for some of it, but on the Dodd-Frank I am in agreement (also my hubbles knows a lot more about the economy too, so I tend to converse with him in my researching). Reversing it, plus some of the others things they may be planning will give a short term boost but long term, aaaaayyyyyeeee......

I do believe agriculture here has been heavily subsidized.

 

[arkieb1]

I just did but I'll ask it again, did you feel marginalised/ignored/forgotten when Obama was president, and if so why? And if not if you know other family members or friends that felt that way why?

The sounds of crickets chirping........

I'm sorry you didn't get much response on that front. I didn't really expect it....

Maybe you might get some sort of answer by asking if they have ever voted anything other than republican?

Since I did not vote republican in this election, I will tell you how I felt in previous admisnistrations (as it is clear how I feel now, ie that we are on the precipice of deeply disturbing events regarding our economy and democracy as a whole, from what I have gathered in the EO's coming down the pipeline. People do forget that these are EO's. They bypass Congress, yes, but if you research back through the administrations you will see they often end up in court...)

So anyway - I have to go back to Bush. Did life (mine personally, not people as a whole) get better or worse under Bush. It was fine at first. Towards the end in 2007 I started seeing some bad signs (I own my own business) and sales were beginning to drop. By 2008, sales were bad enough I had to go look for a supplementary job. By end of 2008, I had lost almost 90% of my business. I've now spent the past 8 years rebuilding it, and I fear strongly under Trump, that it will happen again.

That was the GFC and I think it impacted just about everyone in business in the US.

Then, enter Obama. Same question...did my life personally get any better or worse? I struggled with finances for a couple of years, went through a divorce, ended up remarrying, and rebuilt my business. Technically, since I am an artist, I sell nonessential luxury items. I think people began feeling like they could spend on these again, and so business increased to a certain level but nowhere near what it used to be, and so in my own personal situation, the effects were ok....overall better.

Did you feel that Obama was focusing more on other groups of people rather than small business owners, did you feel that he wasn't doing enough to give small and medium business owners financial support with things like tax concessions etc, and personally like DancingFire did you see people doing things like buying inappropriate items with food stamps and rorting the social welfare system?

Now, I really wasn't a fan of HRC myself though not for the reasons others usually mention, but I did my research, came to the conclusion that some of my ambivalence was my own personal lack of knowledge about her MO and seeming very cold or unfeeling (which from what I read by people who worked with her on projects is really that she operates by listening, note taking, then problem solving, which is kind of not how men tend to approach issues). So I made my peace and went with it.

I think that is a difficult one for me because yanno if she was more caring then she is labelled too female and emotionally unstable to run a country and if she acts more like a man then she isn't making people feel warm and fuzzy about her either. What I am saying is it's a tough gig for women.

If a CENTRIST republican had run, I would not have been averse and perhaps might even have broken with my own tradition of voting democrat...but a Centrist did not run, so here we are now.

Yes I think much the same way as you do, if the Republicans had a more middle of the line and decent choice I would have no problem with the Republican party either, and I wouldn't be beating the anti-Trump drum, and if the Dems had of had a more likeable candidate with less baggage then in theory they should have won more votes.

 

[bunnycat]

I don't think I have enough information to answer about the govt programs and Obama but I'll give you what I know or think.

I rarely see people using Food Stamps. (That could partly be a product of the time of day I shop...I go when it is slow.) In the few instances when I have, I not really noticed anything out of the ordinary, but then I'm not nosy and it's not like it's something I'd keep tabs on. It seems to me, if a person is buying things with FS, then shouldn't the cashiers also know what items are FS eligible or it be programmed in the computer? They sure are fast with a person when you try to use a discount coupon that you forgot to pick up the item for....

Also, things are also not always what they seem. And I try not to go on visual appearances. My father helps foster a child who was removed from parental custody because of drug addiction of the mother. The state helps supplement the child probably with food stamps to the fostering relative, who is a good friend of my dad. So, I imagine they use food stamps to go to the store. Even though my dad does not collect them himself, he does sometimes go to the store for them because the relative is partially invalid so I imagine people see him using them to pay.

As for other businesses, I know the Obamacare/ACA was a massive bone of contention. And I can only say I am fortunate that hubs and I had insurance already. I do know people that are grateful for it (mainly self employed artist/dancers/writers etc...) even though it was a royal pain in the rear getting in. But I've certainly heard the stories of people who were being crippled under the premiums they had to pay for their businesses too....

I'm going to be a heretic for a moment and say my belief is that Obamacare is not the answer, and neither is getting rid of it going to help people that are expecting ditching it will help. In both cases (keep or ditch), we would still be throwing more (of our) money at the actual problem (the insurance companies and doctors and hospitals who keep overcharging to squeeze everything they can out of the insurance companies) instead of addressing the actual problem of all the overcharging, which is in part of result of the hospitals charging others more to pay for the cost of the uninsured getting care.....it's basically a huge mess....and one that I will admit I have not delved in to deeply enough to have any further thoughts....

And guns...don't forget those...for 8 years people lived in fear for their guns being taken. Well, it didn't happen...not only did it not happen but while Obama was in power, guns sales reach all time highs as people stock piled...and sales took a sharp drop once the R's won....

 

[AnnaH]

I just did but I'll ask it again, did you feel marginalised/ignored/forgotten when Obama was president, and if so why? And if not if you know other family members or friends that felt that way why?

The sounds of crickets chirping........

Not on here 24/7.

Apologies, Arkie, that I missed your intent here. You ask how the Obama administration made me "feel." I don't think of it that way and wouldn't base my votes on "feelings" anyway. I have friends and relatives who voted the same as I and ones who voted differently. Can't think of anyone that talked about their decisions in terms of "feelings."

 

[arkieb1]

I just did but I'll ask it again, did you feel marginalised/ignored/forgotten when Obama was president, and if so why? And if not if you know other family members or friends that felt that way why?

The sounds of crickets chirping........

Not on here 24/7.

Apologies, Arkie, that I missed your intent here. You ask how the Obama administration made me "feel." I don't think of it that way and wouldn't base my votes on "feelings" anyway. I have friends and relatives who voted the same as I and ones who voted differently. Can't think of anyone that talked about their decisions in terms of "feelings."

AnnaH - this is a quote below in red from CoJenCo which I notice has now interestingly enough been removed from the front page of this whole dialogue;

I'm sorry others feel they are 'suffering', but I and many others made it through eight years of worrying about this country, its direction, feeling ignored or marginalized, questioning if our leadership mistook the constitution for toilet paper; so, I'm confident others will make it, too.

This was my question - So the obvious question is you feel ignored and marginalised by the other political side because they ignore working class people? Country people? White people? You feel ignored, so what I am asking is why?

I'm not attempting to trap any of you into admitting you are racists, you are sexist, or that you are anything at all one way or the other believe it or not, I'm trying to understand why when I keep reading and hearing a number of conservatives say they felt "marginalised" under Obama and he did a as you can clearly read in her statement crappy job of upholding your constitution, why you would then vote for or indeed by not voting, or by voting Republican effective hand over the job to someone that is inherently more racist, more sexist and less concerned about upholding your rights and the constitution than the last guy was.

I dunno maybe CoJenCo was the only one of the conservatives on here (other than DancingFire who seems to put all people on food stamps into the same category as welfare cheats) to feel "marginalised" and maybe after writing that, and since removing it she knows how unpalatable the real honest answer is, but then I am making assumptions about her, and I don't know her or her set of circumstances well enough to do anything other than speculate on those assumptions, and given the amount of ire from both sides on here I can totally understand if people don't want to or can't answer honestly.

 

[bunnycat]

Ahhhh Texas.... here you go arkie.....

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/hour-from-austin-trump-first-two-weeks-are-cause-for-celebration/4h8oKwdJQuXUAK73suLPmN/

 

[OreoRosies86]

I just did but I'll ask it again, did you feel marginalised/ignored/forgotten when Obama was president, and if so why? And if not if you know other family members or friends that felt that way why?

The sounds of crickets chirping........

Not on here 24/7.

Apologies, Arkie, that I missed your intent here. You ask how the Obama administration made me "feel." I don't think of it that way and wouldn't base my votes on "feelings" anyway. I have friends and relatives who voted the same as I and ones who voted differently. Can't think of anyone that talked about their decisions in terms of "feelings."

AnnaH - this is a quote below in red from CoJenCo which I notice has now interestingly enough been removed from the front page of this whole dialogue;

I'm sorry others feel they are 'suffering', but I and many others made it through eight years of worrying about this country, its direction, feeling ignored or marginalized, questioning if our leadership mistook the constitution for toilet paper; so, I'm confident others will make it, too.

This was my question - So the obvious question is you feel ignored and marginalised by the other political side because they ignore working class people? Country people? White people? You feel ignored, so what I am asking is why?

I'm not attempting to trap any of you into admitting you are racists, you are sexist, or that you are anything at all one way or the other believe it or not, I'm trying to understand why when I keep reading and hearing a number of conservatives say they felt "marginalised" under Obama and he did a as you can clearly read in her statement crappy job of upholding your constitution, why you would then vote for or indeed by not voting, or by voting Republican effective hand over the job to someone that is inherently more racist, more sexist and less concerned about upholding your rights and the constitution than the last guy was.

I dunno maybe CoJenCo was the only one of the conservatives on here (other than DancingFire who seems to put all people on food stamps into the same category as welfare cheats) to feel "marginalised" and maybe after writing that, and since removing it she knows how unpalatable the real honest answer is, but then I am making assumptions about her, and I don't know her or her set of circumstances well enough to do anything other than speculate on those assumptions, and given the amount of ire from both sides on here I can totally understand if people don't want to or can't answer honestly.

Arkie I commend you for asking these questions. I've been very frustrated seeing content written and removed, and feel like I'm in a spin cycle never getting a straight answer. I don't like when the media (liberal, conservative or otherwise) tries to tap dance around things and distract with fluff and I don't care for it here either.

 

[smitcompton]

HI,

Just a few points for clarification.

Arkie, I did say we subsidize agriculture. The meaning of my sentence was in other areas we do not subsidize heavily. but do subsidize argriculture.. We removed Steel Subsidizies, but apparently will put them on again.

I never advocated the removal of Dodd-Frank, just what may be excessive regulation. Of course we need regulations.
I thought Trump had a good idea when he informed all agencies that if they wantd to impose a new Reg, they must remove 2 standing ones, I thought it clever until I learned that they took it from a 2013 English "law", that imposed this rule. It has to date been very successful in England. The tendency is to overshoot at times of crisis.

Tekate my dear, Of course JPM was involved in some aspect of the financial crisis, but they did not need capital. They weren't going under, whereas, Bank of America, and Citi Bank and Wamu, and others would have failed.

I do not want all regs removed, Drs complain, small business complains, and so many others. Some are good, some are not.

Annette

 

[AnnaH]

Have answered before and did so again on this thread why I voted for Trump and against Clinton. I'm not going to pretend to hate people just to validate the feelings/thoughts/beliefs of a little group of online liberals.
That was said without rude emojis or vomit memes, but not without snark. That's what happens when one answers a question and the response is, "You are a liar."
This is not directed to every toward the left poster here or in other threads. Not everyone approached this discussion combatively, but some just couldn't help themselves. Jenn chose to skip this thread. So what?

 

[t-c]

HI,

Just a few points for clarification.

Arkie, I did say we subsidize agriculture. The meaning of my sentence was in other areas we do not subsidize heavily. but do subsidize argriculture.. We removed Steel Subsidizies, but apparently will put them on again.

I never advocated the removal of Dodd-Frank, just what may be excessive regulation. Of course we need regulations.
I thought Trump had a good idea when he informed all agencies that if they wantd to impose a new Reg, they must remove 2 standing ones, I thought it clever until I learned that they took it from a 2013 English "law", that imposed this rule. It has to date been very successful in England. The tendency is to overshoot at times of crisis.

Tekate my dear, Of course JPM was involved in some aspect of the financial crisis, but they did not need capital. They weren't going under, whereas, Bank of America, and Citi Bank and Wamu, and others would have failed.

I do not want all regs removed, Drs complain, small business complains, and so many others. Some are good, some are not.

Annette

You posted previously that the banks are now well capitalized, therefore we don't need these regulations. This was a direct result of Dodd-Frank. If you don't want to roll back Dodd-Frank, what regulations do you want lifted exactly. What regulations on banking/finance do you deem excessive and why?

 

[arkieb1]

Have answered before and did so again on this thread why I voted for Trump and against Clinton. I'm not going to pretend to hate people just to validate the feelings/thoughts/beliefs of a little group of online liberals.
That was said without rude emojis or vomit memes, but not without snark. That's what happens when one answers a question and the response is, "You are a liar."
This is not directed to every toward the left poster here or in other threads. Not everyone approached this discussion combatively, but some just couldn't help themselves. Jenn chose to skip this thread. So what?

Got it you don't hate anyone and you personally never felt marginalised. I was writing specifically to the person that said she did and that without Trump and his right wing policies, I quote "the US will end up speaking Farsi or Chinese, etc" which don't seem like rational or indeed plausible arguments to me.

As stated many times I have no problem with a conservative government, I have an issue with a severe right wing government with a whole set of agendas based on statistically improbable rationales. I have a huge issue with Trump himself, as noted many of you on both sides of the political divide do too, this thread was started in the hope that we could at least agree on that, not as some sort of conservative witch hunt.

 

[arkieb1]

HI,

Just a few points for clarification.

Arkie, I did say we subsidize agriculture. The meaning of my sentence was in other areas we do not subsidize heavily. but do subsidize argriculture.. We removed Steel Subsidizies, but apparently will put them on again.

I guess, then, you were arguing you don't subsidise agriculture "heavily" the 20 billion+ a year you spend on agricultural subsidies probably doesn't get that far but compared to a country like mine, as an outsider looking in, we consider this to be a "heavily" subsidised sector, you also subsidise things like oil and gas (I'd argue heavily as well) and business like Boeing aerospace get $13.18 billion per year in subsidies, General Motors around $3.58 million a year, and Fiat Chrysler around $2.06 billion per year in subsidies (I took these figures from 2015). Even if I put aside any political feelings I have one way or the other aside for the time being, I could probably argue successfully that you do in fact "heavily" or if we disagree in terminology "moderately" subsidise a whole range of businesses and industries in the US compare to the rest of the world. Your whole argument from the outset is you can't compete with other countries that "heavily subsidise" their industries, what I am saying is what the average American probably doesn't realise is that you are indeed already one of those countries.

Basic principles of economics tells me that if you keep that up or increase it AND you then adopt a set of policies that restrict or restrain international trade (known by economists as protectionism) then what will happen short term is YES you will create more jobs, people who voted for Trump all applaud the guy, and yet two, three, four years down the track what will happen economically (and this is basic economists at it's finest) will in turn cause inflation, which in turn unless wages rise substantially will impact upon everyone's cost of living. For the non economists put bluntly the price of everything goes up and the amount you are all being paid doesn't keep up with that, so your cost of living rises, everything costs more. Sure this occurs naturally anyway, but heavy or moderate subsidies plus protectionism is a recipe for creating more short term jobs, but more long term poverty, and it's also more likely to create the same set of conditions that cause the GFC in the first place

I never advocated the removal of Dodd-Frank, just what may be excessive regulation. Of course we need regulations.
I thought Trump had a good idea when he informed all agencies that if they wantd to impose a new Reg, they must remove 2 standing ones, I thought it clever until I learned that they took it from a 2013 English "law", that imposed this rule. It has to date been very successful in England. The tendency is to overshoot at times of crisis.

I'm sure there are some excessive regulations, the issue I have is the ones Trump and his political henchmen want to remove so far are the ones put there for the protection of both your citizens and for the protection of your economy to try and ensure the conditions that created the GFC don't occur again. The next point I wish to make is that Trump himself is said to have at least $250 million dollars worth of loans to banks in the US and another $300 million plus in loans to the Deutsche bank, so when he is removing regulations and doing deals with the banks, I'd argue who is he really benefitting, you, the American people, or his own interests?

Tekate my dear, Of course JPM was involved in some aspect of the financial crisis, but they did not need capital. They weren't going under, whereas, Bank of America, and Citi Bank and Wamu, and others would have failed.

I do not want all regs removed, Drs complain, small business complains, and so many others. Some are good, some are not.

Agreed - some are good, some are bad, but, so far the ones he wants to remove and this concept he has of protectionism saving your society are economically flawed. That was and is the point I am trying to make.

Annette