tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post8423411880584141024..comments2024-03-02T03:29:09.759-05:00Comments on SerandEz and Friends: Dink and... DoinkEzziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-35575360822518220052011-10-12T13:18:34.436-04:002011-10-12T13:18:34.436-04:00>So if it's 45-40-15, do you still think th...>So if it's 45-40-15, do you still think that's good enough?<br /><br />Hey, if I ran the zoo, we wouldn't even have a President. We'd just have a single Parliament.<br /><br />But since we're doing this, majority > minority. Who else do you give the job too? The 40% guy because he managed to win more votes within arbitrary geographic boundaries?Vox Populihttp://blox-populi.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-68730648956867660722011-10-12T09:39:00.676-04:002011-10-12T09:39:00.676-04:00If it's pure popular vote, you'll likely s...If it's pure popular vote, you'll likely see a third party have a much better shot. So if it's 45-40-15, do you still think that's good enough?Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-50382151358451012722011-10-12T03:28:38.883-04:002011-10-12T03:28:38.883-04:00>I do. Popular vote. If you've got more tha...>I do. Popular vote. If you've got more than 50%, how narrow can it be?<br /><br />What do you mean? By definition, if you a majority of voters, nobody has a bigger coalition than you.Vox Populihttp://blox-populi.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-54365062882998683312011-10-11T01:30:11.643-04:002011-10-11T01:30:11.643-04:00You restricting to majority winners only?You restricting to majority winners only?Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-37580181328191337742011-10-10T17:56:47.150-04:002011-10-10T17:56:47.150-04:00>that said, I don't know a good way to go a...>that said, I don't know a good way to go about doing it.<br /><br />I do. Popular vote. If you've got more than 50%, how narrow can it be?Vox Populihttp://blox-populi.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-88575387924595722612011-10-10T17:47:06.408-04:002011-10-10T17:47:06.408-04:00VP - I said it was interesting, didn't say I a...VP - I said it was interesting, didn't say I agreed. I liked his earlier points, but his final ones didn't make sense, particularly the line that we have majority rule within each state. I do think that the idea that the candidates are forced to have a broader group is a wise one, which was what I was trying to say earlier - that said, I don't know a good way to go about doing it.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-4238782743410646382011-10-10T17:38:26.275-04:002011-10-10T17:38:26.275-04:00It's good that you see that. :-)It's good that you see that. :-)Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-27134940463732545752011-10-10T17:36:49.509-04:002011-10-10T17:36:49.509-04:00Re George Will,
He was making sense until he star...Re George Will,<br /><br />He was making sense until he started disagreeing with me.<br /><br />But in all seriousness, he misses the basic issue at the root of both problems. That the electoral college is a screwy way to elect an active head of state. It just is. It's incredibly open to manipulation, hence the Penn. plan. It prizes arbitrary geographic boundaries over the votes of actual people. And on and on.<br /><br />His first mistake is equating the National Popular Vote plan with the Penn. plan. He assumes they're both essentially partisan tactics, and he attempts to refute them by demonstrating they could backfire for Democrats and Republicans, respectively. But the NPV has nothing to do with the Democratic party. Of course it's possible that Republicans will win the popular vote, it happens very frequently! But Republicans know that it's impossible that Democrats will win every district in PA. The NPV is designed to benefit democracy, the Penn. plan is designed to benefit the GOP.<br /><br />For instance this --<br /><br />>Deep-blue California supports the compact. But if it had existed in 2004, the state’s electoral votes would have gone to George W. Bush, even though 1.2 million more Californians favored John Kerry. <br /><br />-- is deeply stupid. He makes it sound like John Kerry won the election. After George Bush wins the popular vote (and the electoral college vote) it doesn't matter if California's votes "officially" get put in Bush's column. There's a principle here. In terms of elections, at least, majority rules.<br /><br />>Supporters of the compact say they favor direct popular election of presidents. But that exists — within each state. <br /><br />Also stupid. "Supporters of multi-party systems in China say they favor direct popular election of representatives. But that exists - you get to vote for whatever approved Communist you want." It's not a direct popular vote if the guy with less votes win, or if my votes are not direct, or if my votes are worth less than someone else's. Were it not for the fact that it's in the constitution, it would have to be struck down on equal protection grounds.<br /><br />>The Framers, not being simple, did not subordinate all values to simple majority rule. <br /><br />Eyeroll.<br /><br />>The electoral vote system shapes the character of presidential majorities, making it unlikely they will be geographically or ideologically narrow...ones suited to moderate, consensual governance of a heterogeneous, continental nation with myriad regional and other diversities. <br /><br />Wait - I was under the impression George Will was an American. Is he describing Canada's electoral system?<br /><br />Our majorities are incredibly narrow - not even majorities at all! How is Bush losing the pop. vote in 2000 evidence of a larger, wider coalition than Al Gore's? And how would requiring George Bush win the pop. vote in 2004 - which he did - make his coalition smaller? And if Kerry had gotten 40,000 more Ohio votes, would his coalition have been wider than Bush's, because he won the EC vote? It's asinine.Vox Populihttp://blox-populi.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-21444197006378085302011-10-10T15:21:36.520-04:002011-10-10T15:21:36.520-04:00Leftists aren't bad people.Leftists aren't bad people.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-11115717739328033552011-10-10T13:59:23.985-04:002011-10-10T13:59:23.985-04:00>LOL, No True Strawman?
I'm helping you he...>LOL, No True Strawman?<br /><br />I'm helping you here shmuko. I recognize that being liberal does not making you a leftist. But most , if not all leftists , are liberals. <br /><br />I do believe there is a distinction, even though it does get harder to tell them apart many times.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-25807073733928860172011-10-10T13:56:37.895-04:002011-10-10T13:56:37.895-04:00BTW- Don't confuse this with Liberals. Not eve...<i>BTW- Don't confuse this with Liberals. Not every liberal is a leftist.</i><br /><br />LOL, No True Strawman?Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-29745079162164976562011-10-10T13:33:39.825-04:002011-10-10T13:33:39.825-04:00I would love for someone to take a picture of all ...I would love for someone to take a picture of all the nerve centers in the Occupy rallies that are full of computers, cameras, etc. OR, how about the bins they have outside, so people can listen to cd's or read books. <br /><br />All of these are created by greedy corporations with their only incentive to make money, with executives making millions. They just don't want to understand that even a corporation has the right or should have the right to run a business, and make goods that eventually............even these anti-corporations can use. <br /><br />But they can't understand that because they are so fixated on the fact that others owe them something. Entitlement is the disease of the left. <br /><br />http://the53.tumblr.com/<br /><br /><br />I just hope these protests last a long long time. The more they are out there, the better it is for conservatives.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-74195294369503986362011-10-10T13:23:20.145-04:002011-10-10T13:23:20.145-04:00>The issue is the economy tanking, not spending...>The issue is the economy tanking, not spending.<br /><br />Right, and big part of that problem isssssss......<br /><br /><br />>It's always a tradeoff.<br /><br />What exactly is a being traded then?<br /><br />>It's a big, complicated problem that they're against. There is no single, simple demand that could be made. Basically, they're upset that Big Money controls government and has screwed up the economy for the rest of us while simultaneously shipping jobs overseas.<br /><br />No, its not complicated. These are people of the left. They are anti wealth when they don't have it. It's not fair. Wealth has to be distributed whether one earned it or not. All this talk of Corporate greed is bullshit. Corporations are there to make money, but they don't like it.....because they don't have any of it. <br /><br />Remember, simply put, Left=Equality of Result. Everything stems from that. <br /><br />BTW- Don't confuse this with Liberals. Not every liberal is a leftist.<br /><br />>You're shifting the goalposts here. Originally you claimed people "knowingly [took] loans they could not pay."<br /><br />Didn't shift anything. I said both types of people exist.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-50826386451530562782011-10-10T13:20:39.564-04:002011-10-10T13:20:39.564-04:00I wasn't saying loans should be chucked! I was...<i>I wasn't saying loans should be chucked! I was just commenting on the fact that you didn't get how loans can be "overbearing" for some people. Yes, if you're temporarily unemployed between upper/upper-middle class jobs, you can temporarily defer and then be fine, but if the only work you can find is lower-paying, loans can make it tough to keep up, let alone get ahead.</i><br /><br />OK, and that's how it goes. I'm not sure why that's considered overbearing. Any loans are overbearing if you don't get the income needed to pay them off. My car loan is "overbearing" since I'm unemployed, and my credit cards are, too. But that doesn't make me claim they should be forgiven, that's ludicrous! We have about $25K in student loans, and much higher expenses than most people (between kids, daycare, school, kosher food, Jewish neighborhood, etc.). I don't find the $150 or so a month "unbearable" on my $25K in loans, which according to the data is average ($23-24.5K). <br /><br />I'd love to analyze 100 average OccupyWallSt. members complaining about this to see what they spend on and what their degrees were in, what jobs they've pursued, etc. My friends coming out of law school have much greater debt and really bad prospects at the moment, but they aren't saying their debts should be forgiven.<br /><br /><i>I think the issue is that the cost of college has skyrocketed while the value of a college degree has stagnated or declined. Also, for some reason, it's now extremely hard or impossible (I'm not sure) to discharge student loans through bankruptcy, unlike every other kind of loan.</i><br /><br />Blame the government for the latter. That was pushed as a protection when government expanded the ability and amounts for student loans. This is actually a perfect example of how government involvement caused greater problems: Because they wanted to make college education more accessible to all, they made loans easier to get. More people attending college made college degrees much less valuable - instead of being a dedicated individual who clearly has a large stake in their future, everyone just goes and studies whatever. Meanwhile, the government guarantees the loans, but obviously if those could get discharged in bankruptcy the first thing anyone would do is live it up in college, then declare bankruptcy - so they had to add a regulation. <br /><br />So now, people who really work hard enter the workforce with far more seemingly equal competition, because everyone has a degree; if they struggle for a number of years, they can't declare bankruptcy to start over, because the debt won't go away.<br /><br />All these bad moves just compound on one another because you can't give things out for free and expect it to work out positively, yet government seems to think you can. It's just stupid.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-80183034157015436972011-10-10T12:29:18.657-04:002011-10-10T12:29:18.657-04:00Admittadly, I don't know much about the tax cu...<i>Admittadly, I don't know much about the tax cuts, and I wager the wars havn't done the ill that the left professes.</i><br /><br />Look it up, smart guy. The numbers are public.<br /><br /><i>But you see the same problems in other nations that have been spending like mad and now finally realizing they have to tighten their belts. No Bush tax cuts there, no wars either.</i><br /><br />The issue is the economy tanking, not spending.<br /><br /><i>At what point does social spending stop??? Every time some new group comes up with a new social service that they claim is a human right and the public has to pay for. When does it stop?</i><br /><br />It's always a tradeoff.<br /><br /><i>How did those loans default, other than people not being able to pay them? I mean, when you take a large sum, ordinarily, you would need to have a plan to pay it off. AND, I know several people that simply decided to stop paying for the fact that their property is not worth what it was before. So they stopped paying. It's a little common sense here.</i><br /><br />You're shifting the goalposts here. Originally you claimed people "knowingly [took] loans they could not pay."<br /><br /><i>Assume the worst? What worst? They are simply anti-rich, anti- corporate and pro wealth distribution... Have you gone to their websites? There is nothing concrete about any solid demand other than usual rants. Check out the forums.</i><br /><br />It's a big, complicated problem that they're against. There is no single, simple demand that could be made. Basically, they're upset that Big Money controls government and has screwed up the economy for the rest of us while simultaneously shipping jobs overseas.<br /><br /><i>Regulations existed. Why weren't they doing their jobs to make sure bad loans weren't being sold.</i><br /><br />They didn't keep up with innovation because the government wasn't interested in keeping up, in large part due to Republican beliefs that regulations are always bad and that the financial sector can regulate itself.Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-11350583985793635722011-10-10T12:24:05.138-04:002011-10-10T12:24:05.138-04:00Student loans - I don't understand. If someone...<i>Student loans - I don't understand. If someone is unemployed - they can defer their loans. If they are suffering from hardship - same. I have loans, I've been unemployed for 2 of the last 3.5 years. I deferred the first time, this time I decided to keep paying. I don't understand this idea that people feel they shouldn't have to pay back their student loans, it's absurd. No medical student I know or law student I know thinks that their loans should be chucked; why is it different for these people?</i><br /><br />I wasn't saying loans should be chucked! I was just commenting on the fact that you didn't get how loans can be "overbearing" for some people. Yes, if you're temporarily unemployed between upper/upper-middle class jobs, you can temporarily defer and then be fine, but if the only work you can find is lower-paying, loans can make it tough to keep up, let alone get ahead.<br /><br /><i>Irony of it all? If government weren't involved in these loans, nobody would be upset. It's only because people felt entitled to these loans which are supposed to be "easy" to repay that this has become an issue.</i><br /><br />I think the issue is that the cost of college has skyrocketed while the value of a college degree has stagnated or declined. Also, for some reason, it's now extremely hard or impossible (I'm not sure) to discharge student loans through bankruptcy, unlike every other kind of loan.Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-4778406308402310862011-10-09T21:56:55.523-04:002011-10-09T21:56:55.523-04:00That's awesome.That's awesome.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-85871602980264330722011-10-09T21:46:13.732-04:002011-10-09T21:46:13.732-04:00check this out.
http://the53.tumblr.com/check this out.<br /><br />http://the53.tumblr.com/Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-77405165004836071472011-10-09T21:41:35.233-04:002011-10-09T21:41:35.233-04:00>but that's life.
But Ezzie....
It's ...>but that's life.<br /><br />But Ezzie....<br /><br />It's not FAIR!!!!Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-50182764319599274982011-10-09T21:32:23.246-04:002011-10-09T21:32:23.246-04:00JA - There's so much stuff here! Argh.
Let&#...JA - There's so much stuff here! Argh. <br /><br />Let's start with one at a time? <br /><br />Student loans - I don't understand. If someone is unemployed - they can defer their loans. If they are suffering from hardship - same. I have loans, I've been unemployed for 2 of the last 3.5 years. I deferred the first time, this time I decided to keep paying. I don't understand this idea that people feel they shouldn't have to pay back their student loans, it's absurd. No medical student I know or law student I know thinks that their loans should be chucked; why is it different for these people? <br /><br />The whole purpose of taking out a loan is because you think it will advance your future earnings. If you took out a loan to get a bogus degree in a field no jobs exist for, that's your own fault. If it was for a field that is suffering now, that sucks - but that's life. We all make decisions and some of them don't turn out awesome, and we suffer the consequences. <br /><br />Irony of it all? If government weren't involved in these loans, nobody would be upset. It's only because people felt entitled to these loans which are supposed to be "easy" to repay that this has become an issue.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-59554806918465517892011-10-09T11:21:00.118-04:002011-10-09T11:21:00.118-04:00I've been enjoying reading this; will try to p...I've been enjoying reading this; will try to pipe in soon.<br /><br />Separately for Vox, an interesting piece by George Will on the topic you were discussing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/electoral-college-reform-and-tilting-the-presidential-balance/2011/10/07/gIQAluwzTL_story.htmlEzziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-19814246280391628552011-10-07T18:28:36.489-04:002011-10-07T18:28:36.489-04:00>It wouldn't have been an issue without the...>It wouldn't have been an issue without the Bush tax cuts and wars.<br /><br />Admittadly, I don't know much about the tax cuts, and I wager the wars havn't done the ill that the left professes. But you see the same problems in other nations that have been spending like mad and now finally realizing they have to tighten their belts. No Bush tax cuts there, no wars either. <br /><br />At what point does social spending stop??? Every time some new group comes up with a new social service that they claim is a human right and the public has to pay for. When does it stop?<br /><br />>Outside of your own assumptions, do you have any reason to believe that a significant number of such people even exist?<br /><br />How did those loans default, other than people not being able to pay them? I mean, when you take a large sum, ordinarily, you would need to have a plan to pay it off. AND, I know several people that simply decided to stop paying for the fact that their property is not worth what it was before. So they stopped paying. It's a little common sense here. <br /><br />>I submit YOU have no idea what they want. That's because you're more interested in assuming the worst and strawmanning than genuinely trying to understand.<br /><br />Assume the worst? What worst? They are simply anti-rich, anti- corporate and pro wealth distribution. And I would suspect many many people are simply like this:<br /><br />http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/10/07/some-‘occupy-sacramento’-protesters-lash-out-at-questions/<br /><br />Have you gone to their websites? There is nothing concrete about any solid demand other than usual rants. Check out the forums.<br /><br />>The market was "too free" in some of the worst ways. That's what caused the problem.<br /><br />That's a very nebulous comment. It doesn't mean anything. Thats sort of sounding like the no-true-scottsman fallacy. <br /><br />Regulations existed. Why weren't they doing their jobs to make sure bad loans weren't being sold.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-59306625203878808672011-10-07T16:47:42.553-04:002011-10-07T16:47:42.553-04:00And you don't think that any social spending h...<i>And you don't think that any social spending has played any role in the situation we are in?</i><br /><br />It wouldn't have been an issue without the Bush tax cuts and wars.<br /><br /><i>Of course they have done harm, but so did people knowingly taking loans they could not pay and paying that just decided to default on their loans even though they can afford it.</i><br /><br />Outside of your own assumptions, do you have any reason to believe that a significant number of such people even exist?<br /><br /><i> I was against the whole bailout. They should have faced the consequences to their actions as any business would.</i><br /><br />We would have all faced the consequences, unfortunately. We should have tied regulations to the bailouts.<br /><br /><i>But the whole Occupy Wall St. goes deeper than the real-estate bubble. They are simply against rich in general and corporations in general. I don't even think they know what they want. It's just a bunch of emotion laced tirades.</i><br /><br />I submit YOU have no idea what they want. That's because you're more interested in assuming the worst and strawmanning than genuinely trying to understand.<br /><br /><i>We have never had a completely free market. The market was regulated before. Remember the "Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight?" That was there to regulate Fannie and Freddie. So how can you come out against a totally free market when we don't have one and didn't have one before this mess?</i><br /><br />The market was "too free" in some of the worst ways. That's what caused the problem.<br /><br /><i>btw, the other side of this would have been more unemployed if all those banks had to shut their doors.</i><br /><br />You're the one who opposed the bailouts, not me. I'm not advocating shutting down the banks, just regulations that prevent them from effectively gambling the economy for their own profits.Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-32447115657215610412011-10-07T15:53:24.839-04:002011-10-07T15:53:24.839-04:00btw, the other side of this would have been more u...btw, the other side of this would have been more unemployed if all those banks had to shut their doors.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13326001.post-50792360758057122982011-10-07T15:41:05.580-04:002011-10-07T15:41:05.580-04:00btw, wasn't most of the money from TARP payed ...btw, wasn't most of the money from TARP payed back....with interest?Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.com