In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
The United States could not have multiple parties without serious constitutional reform and asking either of the dominant two parties if they want to push for that reform is asking the Turkey to push for more Thanksgivings. You're stuck with a dysfunctional two party system.
On April 12 2016 07:39 KwarK wrote: The United States could not have multiple parties without serious constitutional reform and asking either of the dominant two parties if they want to push for that reform is asking the Turkey to push for more Thanksgivings. You're stuck with a dysfunctional two party system.
How third parties work in the US is they co-opt and/or push out an existing party. So we can get a third party but they inevitably either get absorbed by or replace one of 2 existing parties.
It would look like the green party (and a scattering of other groups) and berniecrats supplanting the Democratic party establishment or Trump and the tea party on the right.
Basically whichever group decides more connects them with each other than themselves and the establishment first gets to be the new party and the other side has to get reabsorbed into the establishment or be called a spoiler.
On April 12 2016 07:32 Reaper9 wrote: No matter how I look at it, it is going to be an interesting fall. Honestly, at this point, you can even say we have 4 separate parties ( I mean with a large number of voter support and what is the traditional sense of Democrat and Republican, although if I think about it, not quite traditional sense either). And there is a huge chance of an actual third party being born. Only time will tell what will happen.
Honestly, I don't see the Dems as two parties. The leftist/centrist Dems are much easier to reconcile than the convoluted mess that is the Republican party.
On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote: Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue.
I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable.
This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen.
And how often were those armed questions a direct consequence of socialism? Because it seems to me that the countries which were already strong functioning democracies had no issues with socialism whereas the countries which one would expect to become more totalitarian, regardless of socialism, did.
That's the disconnect here. It's not that I don't think things were shitty behind the Iron Curtain, it's that I don't think electing Bernie is step 1 to getting there in the US. A long history of totalitarian rule, no history of civic involvement and democracy and a military and police force loyal to the regime, rather than the people, would probably be step 1.
Actually yes.
Outside of first world economies, the primary forms of employment are farms and home run businesses. As such, socialist reforms in those states is the acquisition and redistribution of businesses (farms) and giving it to the workers (laborers) resulting in people having their homes taken and given to the workers. This shift causes revolutionaries to crop up on both sides with one group wanting to take back the homes that they lost, and the others wanting to fight against the people resisting the social revolution.
Go to first world countries where most of the labor is an office of some kind, heavier controls on those means of production translates to heavier regulations, but people are not kicked out of their homes. So yes, it is a direct result of the socialist policies. And no, my family was in neither the iron curtain or china. Socialist movements always start out promising, always. And so long as you're in first world countries, it is usually okay. But pretending that one country's experience counts less than another country's experience because of selective bias is the opposite of being logical.
Is Bernie running for President in your home country too? Because if not we seem to be agreed that he's no threat in America. You're taking your experience and trying to create a general rule which will apply to America and therefore socialism in America while simultaneously arguing that "outside of first world economies", of which America is one, it works the way you describe.
This also where you're wrong. I am not arguing that socialism is inherently bad. I'm saying that pretending it is inherently good is blinding of the fact that there definitely reasons why people would be cautious of it. One of the big reasons why it doesn't happen in the US (And even the EU) was because of how much a panic the cold war was and so all explorations of socialist ideals were always tempered with the mentality of "so long as we don't go too far." Socialism, as a thing, is not scary so long as that self awareness is maintained--so when people start silencing others for voicing concerns, that is when it starts sounding scary to me.
For the most part, I am scared of fundamentalists. Not just religious ones, but also economic and class ones.
Your concerns with socialism apply to literally every ideology.
On April 12 2016 04:46 Kipsate wrote: Its more relevant because we are talking about America
what the actual fuck?
And you're saying there isn't a large population block in america with xenophobic tendencies paired with a strong interest in removing limits to gun control while limiting the size of government in all things except for police and military spending who are interested in creating a uniform state where their values are more important than the values of others.
Are you saying there isn't a group like that in the US?
Are you actually trying to argue that if the US tendency were to adopt more socialist patterns they are more likely to be like Venezuela than like Sweden?
I'm saying that we shouldn't automatically assume things will be fine just because an idea sounds good. I'm saying being vigilant, questioning, and cautious is safer than assuming things will automatically end one way and not another. The US is not Venezuela--but the US is not Sweden either. And we shouldn't assume we will end up as one or the other--since we will most likely end up with something different altogether.
I don’t think anyone in the thread is going to disagree with on that subject. But constantly dwelling on the slippery slope fallacy is not a productive way to talk about the subject of socialism. All systems can be abused and lead to repression.
Not trying to dwell, I just don't like it when experiences are considered invalid just because they go against what the preconceived conclusions are supposed to be.
No one is declaring your experience invalid, but simply pointing out that their experience provides with a different perspective on the subject. For reference, you are claiming that our experience with the US and its culture are invalid due to your own preconceived conclusions.
What example would you have to use for the US testing a socialist system on the greater economy because I don't see it--for the most part a US experience would be exploration of increased and decreased governmental control on various aspects of finance and banking practices in combination with variations in specialized tax reforms. But please, talk about the time the US attempted a whole scale socialist system.
The great depression and the creation of social security? The creation of HUD and section 8 housing? The creation of the ACA?
All of the socialist countries you know in the EU did not become that way in one massive, socialist movement. It was a slow process of creating and refining systems.
None of those are economic reforms. Unless of course you believe in simply the act of creating a welfare state to be the core of socialism. Even the ACA is merely the formalization and regulation of a still very privatized industry. Its a first step, sure, but not something you would call a move towards socialism as much as it is a move towards a more strictly regulated capitalist system.
And yes, I do recall the great depression's effects on america. Mass migration and an increased emphasis on corporate power over worker's rights as we became very protective of the factories and businesses that were available. For the most part, a lot of recent american history is a good argument against the socialist system if we were to look at it purely from a national output metric as opposed to to personal feelings metric.
But no, when land reforms were made in my country, when my father's lands were seized in the name of the people, when you were as likely to be blackmailed by police as you would be by rebels. We found out really quickly what equality means. And when time passed and the people who were simply given resources by our government turned out to not have the training, experience, or knowledge of how to actually use the lands and the earth turned fallow and production dropped--things only got worse from there such that marshal had to be put in place just to keep the peace.
Much like all countries that aspired to the socialist idea, we too thought it was a good plan. The people were excited, the lower class were excited--and people thought it would mean equality at last. It turned out to not be the case, it turned out were more excited about the idea than we were about wanting to hash out the details and consequences of those ideas. When my family moved here, it was with the idea in mind that we will not be taking those claims lightly ever again.
On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote: Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue.
I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable.
This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen.
And how often were those armed questions a direct consequence of socialism? Because it seems to me that the countries which were already strong functioning democracies had no issues with socialism whereas the countries which one would expect to become more totalitarian, regardless of socialism, did.
That's the disconnect here. It's not that I don't think things were shitty behind the Iron Curtain, it's that I don't think electing Bernie is step 1 to getting there in the US. A long history of totalitarian rule, no history of civic involvement and democracy and a military and police force loyal to the regime, rather than the people, would probably be step 1.
Actually yes.
Outside of first world economies, the primary forms of employment are farms and home run businesses. As such, socialist reforms in those states is the acquisition and redistribution of businesses (farms) and giving it to the workers (laborers) resulting in people having their homes taken and given to the workers. This shift causes revolutionaries to crop up on both sides with one group wanting to take back the homes that they lost, and the others wanting to fight against the people resisting the social revolution.
Go to first world countries where most of the labor is an office of some kind, heavier controls on those means of production translates to heavier regulations, but people are not kicked out of their homes. So yes, it is a direct result of the socialist policies. And no, my family was in neither the iron curtain or china. Socialist movements always start out promising, always. And so long as you're in first world countries, it is usually okay. But pretending that one country's experience counts less than another country's experience because of selective bias is the opposite of being logical.
Is Bernie running for President in your home country too? Because if not we seem to be agreed that he's no threat in America. You're taking your experience and trying to create a general rule which will apply to America and therefore socialism in America while simultaneously arguing that "outside of first world economies", of which America is one, it works the way you describe.
This also where you're wrong. I am not arguing that socialism is inherently bad. I'm saying that pretending it is inherently good is blinding of the fact that there definitely reasons why people would be cautious of it. One of the big reasons why it doesn't happen in the US (And even the EU) was because of how much a panic the cold war was and so all explorations of socialist ideals were always tempered with the mentality of "so long as we don't go too far." Socialism, as a thing, is not scary so long as that self awareness is maintained--so when people start silencing others for voicing concerns, that is when it starts sounding scary to me.
For the most part, I am scared of fundamentalists. Not just religious ones, but also economic and class ones.
Your concerns with socialism apply to literally every ideology.
Yes--hence why I said I am scared of fundamentalist. Anyone who thinks something is a great idea without being honest about the many ways it can go wrong are very scary people to me. The moment you start thinking "how can it happen here" is the moment that life teaches you very harshly how it can.
On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote: Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue.
I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable.
This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen.
Again, emotional argument that's completely useless in the context of the US. Secret police in the US? That's a fucking joke. Our government isn't stupid enough to be that open and heavy handed with its laundry. They already have so much power that instituting what you fear would essentially be tantamount to relinquishing control, not gaining it.
Being selective of some countries over other countries as your anecdote does not make you less emotional. It simple shows your racial bias.
Please do inform me of my racial bias and its effects on my argument.
You're using the fact that socialist movements worked in white countries (like Sweden) allow you to pretend that socialist movements in other countries don't count (China, Philippines, South America, etc...)
So telling people of color that your white examples are more relevant than their non-white examples shows a lot about your bias.
For the sake of someone having said it, the difference between those two sets isn't that one is white and the other isn't. The difference is that one case refers to a social democracy movement and the other refers to a socialist movement under the american (or historical) definition. Your examples aren't dismissed because they aren't white enough. They are because we're not talking about the same thing.
Problem with the GOP is that there are quite a few voters who'd prefer the Republican economic system, foreign policy, immigration, small goverment and dislike say Obamacare or want an alternative to Obamacare but things such as Gay Marriage, Abortion and a myriad of other social stances prevent them from voting Republican. So they either don't vote at all or vote Democrat. Makes it very hard for them to get the youth vote, granted youth vote less then old people but it will be a problem when your base is literally dying.
GOP can't say yes to say abortion either because it would piss off a lot of the current Conservative Republican base.
Bernie has a chance to fully distance himself from his angry old man moments. He can use the fact that he's in Clinton's state to change the tone of the campaign. I'm getting close to regretting the $100 I threw at him. Please, focus on economic issues rather than paid speeches.
On April 12 2016 08:11 Kipsate wrote: Problem with the GOP is that there are quite a few voters who'd prefer the Republican economic system, foreign policy, immigration, small goverment and dislike say Obamacare or want an alternative to Obamacare but things such as Gay Marriage, Abortion and a myriad of other social stances prevent them from voting Republican. So they either don't vote at all or vote Democrat.
GOP can't say yes to say abortion either because it would piss off a lot of the current Conservative Republican base.
An interesting thought: What is the GOP's post-social conservatism future? Social conservatism is a dying brand and has been for a long time. College enrollment goes up, social conservatism goes down. College enrollment is only going to go up.
Gay marriage is done. We still see these "religious freedom" dying last breaths. The same will be true for abortion. I feel like the GOP is not doing a stellar job at guarding its future.
On April 12 2016 03:48 kwizach wrote: The NY Daily News just released the transcript of the interview they did with Hillary Clinton. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her views, I don't think anyone can dispute that she's incredibly more knowledgeable on the issues (and on what should be done) than Sanders. Compare it to his interview - the difference in detail is breathtaking.
On April 12 2016 03:48 kwizach wrote: The NY Daily News just released the transcript of the interview they did with Hillary Clinton. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her views, I don't think anyone can dispute that she's incredibly more knowledgeable on the issues (and on what should be done) than Sanders. Compare it to his interview - the difference in detail is breathtaking.
It's all true, but that's not Bernie's appeal. Jeb got body slammed by Trump. Experience isn't what this cycle is about.
On the left, it's a battle to make the most ambitious memes On the right, it's a battle to be the most assertive, dominant, manly, whatever you wanna call it, while still making it clear how badly you're gonna destroy washington.
On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote: Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue.
I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable.
This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen.
Again, emotional argument that's completely useless in the context of the US. Secret police in the US? That's a fucking joke. Our government isn't stupid enough to be that open and heavy handed with its laundry. They already have so much power that instituting what you fear would essentially be tantamount to relinquishing control, not gaining it.
Being selective of some countries over other countries as your anecdote does not make you less emotional. It simple shows your racial bias.
Please do inform me of my racial bias and its effects on my argument.
You're using the fact that socialist movements worked in white countries (like Sweden) allow you to pretend that socialist movements in other countries don't count (China, Philippines, South America, etc...)
So telling people of color that your white examples are more relevant than their non-white examples shows a lot about your bias.
For the sake of someone having said it, the difference between those two sets isn't that one is white and the other isn't. The difference is that one case refers to a social democracy movement and the other refers to a socialist movement under the american (or historical) definition. Your examples aren't dismissed because they aren't white enough. They are because we're not talking about the same thing.
You mean you guys didn't make reform laws through the democratic process and had the side effects happen only after passing it through legal means? Or are you mainly imagining China and Cuba's rise to communist power when you imagine social reforms.
Sometimes trying to fix the economy by giving more power to the workers does not work. Sometimes it leads to bloodshed, and other times it doesn't. Don't pretend that somehow the US is safe from these issues just because you imagine it is more similar to the EU than to the non-white social reform states. So when people share their stories about what has gone wrong, listen to them. And makes sure to develop safeguards against it. Remember that the power you give to the good leaders will be the same ones used by the bad ones who came later. Do not think of things as being innately good or innately bad--but as mere options that you have to take in context with the resources available, the people available, and the types of leaders you can envision following after you.
On April 12 2016 08:16 kwizach wrote: Nobody commenting on this?
On April 12 2016 03:48 kwizach wrote: The NY Daily News just released the transcript of the interview they did with Hillary Clinton. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her views, I don't think anyone can dispute that she's incredibly more knowledgeable on the issues (and on what should be done) than Sanders. Compare it to his interview - the difference in detail is breathtaking.
It's all true, but that's not Bernie's appeal. Jeb got body slammed by Trump. Experience isn't what this cycle is about.
On the left, it's a battle to make the most ambitious memes On the right, it's a battle to be the most assertive, dominant, manly, whatever you wanna call it, while still making it clear how badly you're gonna destroy washington.
With 2milion more votes than Bernie, a delegate lead over bernie, and a superdelegate lead over bernie I think the only folks who don't care about experience are bernie supporters.
On April 12 2016 08:11 Mohdoo wrote: Bernie has a chance to fully distance himself from his angry old man moments. He can use the fact that he's in Clinton's state to change the tone of the campaign. I'm getting close to regretting the $100 I threw at him. Please, focus on economic issues rather than paid speeches.
On April 12 2016 08:11 Kipsate wrote: Problem with the GOP is that there are quite a few voters who'd prefer the Republican economic system, foreign policy, immigration, small goverment and dislike say Obamacare or want an alternative to Obamacare but things such as Gay Marriage, Abortion and a myriad of other social stances prevent them from voting Republican. So they either don't vote at all or vote Democrat.
GOP can't say yes to say abortion either because it would piss off a lot of the current Conservative Republican base.
An interesting thought: What is the GOP's post-social conservatism future? Social conservatism is a dying brand and has been for a long time. College enrollment goes up, social conservatism goes down. College enrollment is only going to go up.
Gay marriage is done. We still see these "religious freedom" dying last breaths. The same will be true for abortion. I feel like the GOP is not doing a stellar job at guarding its future.
Reagan era GOP is dying its last breaths. Much like it always has, the party's themselves will evolve. Because as much as people want to pretend its a rigged system, the government merely reflects what we already are--just pushed to a more extreme stance.
On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote: Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue.
I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable.
This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen.
Again, emotional argument that's completely useless in the context of the US. Secret police in the US? That's a fucking joke. Our government isn't stupid enough to be that open and heavy handed with its laundry. They already have so much power that instituting what you fear would essentially be tantamount to relinquishing control, not gaining it.
Being selective of some countries over other countries as your anecdote does not make you less emotional. It simple shows your racial bias.
Please do inform me of my racial bias and its effects on my argument.
You're using the fact that socialist movements worked in white countries (like Sweden) allow you to pretend that socialist movements in other countries don't count (China, Philippines, South America, etc...)
So telling people of color that your white examples are more relevant than their non-white examples shows a lot about your bias.
For the sake of someone having said it, the difference between those two sets isn't that one is white and the other isn't. The difference is that one case refers to a social democracy movement and the other refers to a socialist movement under the american (or historical) definition. Your examples aren't dismissed because they aren't white enough. They are because we're not talking about the same thing.
You mean you guys didn't make reform laws through the democratic process and had the side effects happen only after passing it through legal means? Or are you mainly imagining China and Cuba's rise to communist power when you imagine social reforms.
Sometimes trying to fix the economy by giving more power to the workers does not work. Sometimes it leads to bloodshed, and other times it doesn't. Don't pretend that somehow the US is safe from these issues just because you imagine it is more similar to the EU than to the non-white social reform states. So when people share their stories about what has gone wrong, listen to them. And makes sure to develop safeguards against it. Remember that the power you give to the good leaders will be the same ones used by the bad ones who came later. Do not think of things as being innately good or innately bad--but as mere options that you have to take in context with the resources available, the people available, and the types of leaders you can envision following after you.
I don't mean that and I'm not pretending any of this. I usually mean what I write. You are putting in the same sentence political tendancies that are different and you've said that the only reason we're not putting them in the same sentence is because we don't care about non-white people experience. You are incorrect. We're not putting them in the same sentence because they don't belong in the same sentence. That is the entirety of what I'm saying.
Goldman Sachs has become the latest big bank to agree to a multibillion-dollar settlement over the way it packaged and sold mortgage-backed securities in the heady days of the housing boom.
The Justice Department said Monday that Goldman had agreed to pay $5.06 billion over its conduct in the packaging and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities between 2005 and 2007.
Investors lost billions of dollars during the period by purchasing securities based on mortgages that were often much riskier than they were presented to be.
"Today's settlement is another example of the department's resolve to hold accountable those whose illegal conduct resulted in the financial crisis of 2008," said Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department's Civil Division. He added:
"Viewed in conjunction with the previous multibillion-dollar recoveries that the department has obtained for similar conduct, this settlement demonstrates the pervasiveness of the banking industry's fraudulent practices in selling RMBS, and the power of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act as a tool for combatting this type of wrongdoing."
Goldman had announced it January that it had tentatively agreed on a settlement.
U.S. officials say that as part of the settlement, Goldman agreed to a statement of facts about its handling of the securities. For example, although the firm originally stated that the loans underlying the securities were made in accordance with underwriting guidelines, that wasn't always the case, the statement said.
EPT
