President Biden thread

3 hours ago, Beerman said:

Whatever.   I could keep looking ip sources for you to ignore.  But, as I said, I'm not looking to rehash a debate we've had in the past. 

You fail to ever acknowledge that the Democrats are to ever share some blame or do wrong on anything.  And any opposing view you blame on the media choices of the person you're disagreeing with. Your objectivity is questionable, and you aren't here to share ideas and participate in meaningful discussion as you keep attempting to claim.  

I don't have a NYT subscription.  So, you should be able to see the articles I see.  

I can definitely recognize that Democrats are not perfect and make mistakes.  I asked you to quote the specific language in your citation that supports your claim because I no longer have a subscription and have no further free views of the content.  If you don't want to rehash old debates then you shouldn't resurrect old rhetoric and talking points about economic policy as related to the political parties.   

You actually don't get to say why I'm here, you just get to share your opinion about why I'm here.  Is it possible that the evidence might hint that maybe you aren't very objective in your appraisal of my intentions?

4 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

What's important is not whether we can refresh or memories  but whether or not we make claims and state them as fact when we haven't refreshed our recollection enough to actually know the facts. Yes, the bailout focused upon the financial institutions that were too big to fail...that included funding the huge bonuses that those troubled institutions had promised their executives.  You remember that part, right? Sure, some of those lenders helped their consumers but that was not the focus of the funds.  

You don't need to to take my word for it, you've been provided credible and expert analysis of the Bush financial crisis.  

I let my subscription to the NYT go so you'll have to quote the portion of that article that describes how democrats ignored the consequences of the policy that led to the financial collapse. 

 

 

I had to read a couple of books banking crises that happened because of lax banking regulations to get any understanding of how carelessness on the part of the banks ld to economic failures.  For me Michael Lewis covered the 2008 debacle in enough depth for a layman to understand the chain of failures starting with Glass Steagall's effect on investment banking that was suddenly allowed to sell any crap product they could event.  That led to them going really stupid unable to resist all the money floating around in mortgages.  When they realized what awful products they were selling, they hid the worthless loans into their bonds (well hidden in a complicated produc,  and then hedged against their own products that they knew were losers but sold them anyway to people managing things like pensions (no shame here!) .  It's not the bailouts that caused people to lose their houses;  it was allowing the investment bankers to play in a much larger playpen of money.  Bank deregulation is a Republican mantra, not a Democratic one.  But Obama's administration really is responsible for the FMae and FMac give aways to people who had no business owning a house but were assaulted by predatory lenders.  We more seasoned folks understood why 20% down was a good start to owning a house and have equity at the same time.  This is what bank deregulation does.  The richest of the rich made lots of money and the littlest guys lost their houses.

5 minutes ago, subee said:

I had to read a couple of books banking crises that happened because of lax banking regulations to get any understanding of how carelessness on the part of the banks ld to economic failures.  For me Michael Lewis covered the 2008 debacle in enough depth for a layman to understand the chain of failures starting with Glass Steagall's effect on investment banking that was suddenly allowed to sell any crap product they could event.  That led to them going really stupid unable to resist all the money floating around in mortgages.  When they realized what awful products they were selling, they hid the worthless loans into their bonds (well hidden in a complicated produc,  and then hedged against their own products that they knew were losers but sold them anyway to people managing things like pensions (no shame here!) .  It's not the bailouts that caused people to lose their houses;  it was allowing the investment bankers to play in a much larger playpen of money.  Bank deregulation is a Republican mantra, not a Democratic one.  But Obama's administration really is responsible for the FMae and FMac give aways to people who had no business owning a house but were assaulted by predatory lenders.  We more seasoned folks understood why 20% down was a good start to owning a house and have equity at the same time.  This is what bank deregulation does.  The richest of the rich made lots of money and the littlest guys lost their houses.

Very true about Mae and Mack...

7 hours ago, Beerman said:

No thoughts on the State of the Union address?  That's telling. 

I missed it.

I watched it...we watch most SOTU addresses.  It sounded like Biden was looking to find areas of agreement.  

Would you like a summary, a link to a transcript or video so that we could talk about his remarks?

7 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I watched it...we watch most SOTU addresses.  It sounded like Biden was looking to find areas of agreement.  

Would you like a summary, a link to a transcript or video so that we could talk about his remarks?

Let him have a copy of the sermon on the mount.  If J Christ himself came down to Washington and delivered a state of the union address, it would be criticized for promoting the re-distribution of wealth.

I watched the SOTU as I usually do. I find all of the applause and standing ovations to be quite annoying, and I wondered if it triggered some of Biden's stutter. 

I found most of it inspiring, and a few flags went up about numbers, and I see from fact checking, that there were some inaccuracies. Yeah, that shouldn't happen, but I blame speech writers as much as Biden. 

Thought the guests were inspiring, especially the kiddo with T1D. This is personal for me, and I am all for lowering the price of insulin! 

I didn't hear the heckling, but saw stories later. I agree with Psaki, that it says more about the heckler than the speaker. 

Yes, I think it was a speech about unity and what has been accomplished, and plans to come, not about gloom and doom and what is wrong with the opposing party. 

21 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I wonder why his stutter that hasn't really been noticeable in his adult life is now appearing in his later years?

Are you looking for information on stuttering or was this just you insinuating something unflattering about Biden that you don't want to say directly? 

There has been been evidence of Biden's stutter all through his public speaking life, maybe you didn't notice before he became the focus of partisan animosity.