[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]
Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent![/quote]

I gave you two glaring inconsistencies in his libertarian dogma. As compared to other candidates? No need, I already directed you to two inconsistencies. Do others have more? Michelle Bachmann, who I disagree with on many things, and think is incompetent to be president is reasonably consistent in her voting record. And her absolute looniness. I’m not convinced that either absolute consistency nor looniness is an asset.

I’ve explained why I think he’s unelectable. Obviously that is just my opinion. And I’ve explained why I think that. It has zero to do with his ideologies or political views. Why the perception is there, I could only surmise, but it is. His supporters point to the Iowa straw poll as evidence of his support. Really??? Less than 5,000 votes. LESS than 1% of Republican voters. Less than .4% of registered voters. He is unelectable because he has insufficient support, just as he did in his two prior presidential bids. As long as he is perceived as unelectable, he is unelectable.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]
Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent![/quote]

I gave you two glaring inconsistencies in his libertarian dogma. As compared to other candidates? No need, I already directed you to two inconsistencies. Do others have more? Michelle Bachmann, who I disagree with on many things, and think is incompetent to be president is reasonably consistent in her voting record. And her absolute looniness. I’m not convinced that either absolute consistency nor looniness is an asset.

I’ve explained why I think he’s unelectable. Obviously that is just my opinion. And I’ve explained why I think that. It has zero to do with his ideologies or political views. Why the perception is there, I could only surmise, but it is. His supporters point to the Iowa straw poll as evidence of his support. Really??? Less than 5,000 votes. LESS than 1% of Republican voters. Less than .4% of registered voters. He is unelectable because he has insufficient support, just as he did in his two prior presidential bids. As long as he is perceived as unelectable, he is unelectable.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]
Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent![/quote]

I gave you two glaring inconsistencies in his libertarian dogma. As compared to other candidates? No need, I already directed you to two inconsistencies. Do others have more? Michelle Bachmann, who I disagree with on many things, and think is incompetent to be president is reasonably consistent in her voting record. And her absolute looniness. I’m not convinced that either absolute consistency nor looniness is an asset.

I’ve explained why I think he’s unelectable. Obviously that is just my opinion. And I’ve explained why I think that. It has zero to do with his ideologies or political views. Why the perception is there, I could only surmise, but it is. His supporters point to the Iowa straw poll as evidence of his support. Really??? Less than 5,000 votes. LESS than 1% of Republican voters. Less than .4% of registered voters. He is unelectable because he has insufficient support, just as he did in his two prior presidential bids. As long as he is perceived as unelectable, he is unelectable.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]
Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent![/quote]

I gave you two glaring inconsistencies in his libertarian dogma. As compared to other candidates? No need, I already directed you to two inconsistencies. Do others have more? Michelle Bachmann, who I disagree with on many things, and think is incompetent to be president is reasonably consistent in her voting record. And her absolute looniness. I’m not convinced that either absolute consistency nor looniness is an asset.

I’ve explained why I think he’s unelectable. Obviously that is just my opinion. And I’ve explained why I think that. It has zero to do with his ideologies or political views. Why the perception is there, I could only surmise, but it is. His supporters point to the Iowa straw poll as evidence of his support. Really??? Less than 5,000 votes. LESS than 1% of Republican voters. Less than .4% of registered voters. He is unelectable because he has insufficient support, just as he did in his two prior presidential bids. As long as he is perceived as unelectable, he is unelectable.

[SK in CV]

[quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.

[SK in CV]

[quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.

[SK in CV]

[quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.

[SK in CV]

[quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.

[SK in CV]

[quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
BG’s points are hardly “hogwash” – the personal financial habits of the lower and middle classes have changed, and not for the better. People don’t save and people buy stupid, unnecessary things more than they did thirty years ago. We can blame some of it on exploitation by creditors, marketing, etc. but, in the end, it is the individual that chooses to use credit to buy shiny rims for their car.[/quote]

You’ll note that I didn’t copy her entire comment. Some of it was insightful. But some of it was obviously influenced by her ideological disdain for current consumerism. The parts that I think are hogwash:

“middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today”.

Keep in mind she didn’t say lower class, she said middle class. No references to the poor. I think there is some pretty strong evidence with regards to the poor, however, over that same period, the gap between those that have, and those that don’t has been pretty consistenly widening. Today, the bottom half of the population (income and asset wise) controls only 2.5% of the total wealth in this country. I have a recollection of statistics indicating that in 1980 that number was closer to 10%. (That 10% could be wrong, I’ll find the time to verify shortly.)

I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, the schools i went to were a mixture of lower-middle class to a very small minortiy of upper middle class. (There were a handful of “rich” people.) Times were different then. We didn’t have cable or flat screen TVs. But the vast majority of my friends had color TVs. (My family didn’t have one until AFTER I graduated from high school in 1973.) They drove new cars. Some of them had their new cars repossessed. At least 1/2 of the mothers of my peer group worked some out of the home, as mine did, 3 or 4 days a week. Was it as lavish a lifestyle as my kids grew up with? Relatively so. Mine grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood, with new cars and cell phones and flat screen TVs. Although my kids didn’t have any of those things, and neither did their parents. I drive a 12 year old car, havent had a new car since 1994. I’ve had a cell phone for work for two decades, but my wife didn’t have one until probably 8 or 9 years ago. And the flat screen TV? We got one last year. First one.

“There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care.”

Of course there were standards. Otherwise I couldn’t have known people that flunked out. Were they standard across all districts? I have no idea. But in the SD city school there were certainly standards that were maintained in my middle class high school. I knew a dozen kids who had to take summer school AFTER graduation in order to get their diploma. And a handful more that didn’t get theirs. I don’t know much about teacher’s favorites. But I do know about jocks. We had to take the exact same coursework, the same tests, the same attendance requirements. We did get to miss some classes on game or meet days in order to get to a 3:00 game sometimes. And the star athletes? Same thing. I wasn’t one of them. But my wombmate was. So I pretty much know how the stars were treated first hand. No shoddy attendance allowed. No missed homework. (And to dispel another myth, college was no different. I’m sure there are situations where star athletes got special treatment, but that doesn’t mean all of them did. My brother didn’t. The most special thing he ever got was a good referral for a job doing contruction clean-up. At minimum wage. That he got paid for only if he worked. No special treatment by professors, no waivers on tests. And he was a star. The best player on the 2nd most popular campus sport, team MVP, league MVP, honorable mention all-american. On campus, that wouldn’t get him more than a phone number from a cute girl. Not even a cup of coffee.)

“There were no health or dental plans in place for children.”

In the context of the discussion about the middle class, I’m not sure what this refers to. We had medical insurance. Most everyone did. Policies looked different than they do today, but it wasn’t any worse coverage. True on the dental insurance. As a practical matter, that was invented in the ’80s.

The title IX stuff, i agree. No idea how that fits into the discussion.

“Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. Blah Blah Blah”

Highly exaggerated, she’s describing 1955, not 1975. But in general, it’s correct that father’s rights have expanded over the last 35 years. But again, I have no idea how this fits into the argument that she’s making. Even accepting it as absolute truth, I’m not sure how it’s the least bit supportive of the thesis that today’s middle class is different than the middle class of 1975.

And just to be clear, I am not disputing that today’s middle class is different from that of 1975. Or even that past rampant consumerism is a significant factor in today’s bleak economy. Just that the facts that she’s presented are either inaccurate, broad generalizations without evidence, or simply not supportive of her thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
BG’s points are hardly “hogwash” – the personal financial habits of the lower and middle classes have changed, and not for the better. People don’t save and people buy stupid, unnecessary things more than they did thirty years ago. We can blame some of it on exploitation by creditors, marketing, etc. but, in the end, it is the individual that chooses to use credit to buy shiny rims for their car.[/quote]

You’ll note that I didn’t copy her entire comment. Some of it was insightful. But some of it was obviously influenced by her ideological disdain for current consumerism. The parts that I think are hogwash:

“middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today”.

Keep in mind she didn’t say lower class, she said middle class. No references to the poor. I think there is some pretty strong evidence with regards to the poor, however, over that same period, the gap between those that have, and those that don’t has been pretty consistenly widening. Today, the bottom half of the population (income and asset wise) controls only 2.5% of the total wealth in this country. I have a recollection of statistics indicating that in 1980 that number was closer to 10%. (That 10% could be wrong, I’ll find the time to verify shortly.)

I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, the schools i went to were a mixture of lower-middle class to a very small minortiy of upper middle class. (There were a handful of “rich” people.) Times were different then. We didn’t have cable or flat screen TVs. But the vast majority of my friends had color TVs. (My family didn’t have one until AFTER I graduated from high school in 1973.) They drove new cars. Some of them had their new cars repossessed. At least 1/2 of the mothers of my peer group worked some out of the home, as mine did, 3 or 4 days a week. Was it as lavish a lifestyle as my kids grew up with? Relatively so. Mine grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood, with new cars and cell phones and flat screen TVs. Although my kids didn’t have any of those things, and neither did their parents. I drive a 12 year old car, havent had a new car since 1994. I’ve had a cell phone for work for two decades, but my wife didn’t have one until probably 8 or 9 years ago. And the flat screen TV? We got one last year. First one.

“There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care.”

Of course there were standards. Otherwise I couldn’t have known people that flunked out. Were they standard across all districts? I have no idea. But in the SD city school there were certainly standards that were maintained in my middle class high school. I knew a dozen kids who had to take summer school AFTER graduation in order to get their diploma. And a handful more that didn’t get theirs. I don’t know much about teacher’s favorites. But I do know about jocks. We had to take the exact same coursework, the same tests, the same attendance requirements. We did get to miss some classes on game or meet days in order to get to a 3:00 game sometimes. And the star athletes? Same thing. I wasn’t one of them. But my wombmate was. So I pretty much know how the stars were treated first hand. No shoddy attendance allowed. No missed homework. (And to dispel another myth, college was no different. I’m sure there are situations where star athletes got special treatment, but that doesn’t mean all of them did. My brother didn’t. The most special thing he ever got was a good referral for a job doing contruction clean-up. At minimum wage. That he got paid for only if he worked. No special treatment by professors, no waivers on tests. And he was a star. The best player on the 2nd most popular campus sport, team MVP, league MVP, honorable mention all-american. On campus, that wouldn’t get him more than a phone number from a cute girl. Not even a cup of coffee.)

“There were no health or dental plans in place for children.”

In the context of the discussion about the middle class, I’m not sure what this refers to. We had medical insurance. Most everyone did. Policies looked different than they do today, but it wasn’t any worse coverage. True on the dental insurance. As a practical matter, that was invented in the ’80s.

The title IX stuff, i agree. No idea how that fits into the discussion.

“Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. Blah Blah Blah”

Highly exaggerated, she’s describing 1955, not 1975. But in general, it’s correct that father’s rights have expanded over the last 35 years. But again, I have no idea how this fits into the argument that she’s making. Even accepting it as absolute truth, I’m not sure how it’s the least bit supportive of the thesis that today’s middle class is different than the middle class of 1975.

And just to be clear, I am not disputing that today’s middle class is different from that of 1975. Or even that past rampant consumerism is a significant factor in today’s bleak economy. Just that the facts that she’s presented are either inaccurate, broad generalizations without evidence, or simply not supportive of her thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
BG’s points are hardly “hogwash” – the personal financial habits of the lower and middle classes have changed, and not for the better. People don’t save and people buy stupid, unnecessary things more than they did thirty years ago. We can blame some of it on exploitation by creditors, marketing, etc. but, in the end, it is the individual that chooses to use credit to buy shiny rims for their car.[/quote]

You’ll note that I didn’t copy her entire comment. Some of it was insightful. But some of it was obviously influenced by her ideological disdain for current consumerism. The parts that I think are hogwash:

“middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today”.

Keep in mind she didn’t say lower class, she said middle class. No references to the poor. I think there is some pretty strong evidence with regards to the poor, however, over that same period, the gap between those that have, and those that don’t has been pretty consistenly widening. Today, the bottom half of the population (income and asset wise) controls only 2.5% of the total wealth in this country. I have a recollection of statistics indicating that in 1980 that number was closer to 10%. (That 10% could be wrong, I’ll find the time to verify shortly.)

I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, the schools i went to were a mixture of lower-middle class to a very small minortiy of upper middle class. (There were a handful of “rich” people.) Times were different then. We didn’t have cable or flat screen TVs. But the vast majority of my friends had color TVs. (My family didn’t have one until AFTER I graduated from high school in 1973.) They drove new cars. Some of them had their new cars repossessed. At least 1/2 of the mothers of my peer group worked some out of the home, as mine did, 3 or 4 days a week. Was it as lavish a lifestyle as my kids grew up with? Relatively so. Mine grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood, with new cars and cell phones and flat screen TVs. Although my kids didn’t have any of those things, and neither did their parents. I drive a 12 year old car, havent had a new car since 1994. I’ve had a cell phone for work for two decades, but my wife didn’t have one until probably 8 or 9 years ago. And the flat screen TV? We got one last year. First one.

“There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care.”

Of course there were standards. Otherwise I couldn’t have known people that flunked out. Were they standard across all districts? I have no idea. But in the SD city school there were certainly standards that were maintained in my middle class high school. I knew a dozen kids who had to take summer school AFTER graduation in order to get their diploma. And a handful more that didn’t get theirs. I don’t know much about teacher’s favorites. But I do know about jocks. We had to take the exact same coursework, the same tests, the same attendance requirements. We did get to miss some classes on game or meet days in order to get to a 3:00 game sometimes. And the star athletes? Same thing. I wasn’t one of them. But my wombmate was. So I pretty much know how the stars were treated first hand. No shoddy attendance allowed. No missed homework. (And to dispel another myth, college was no different. I’m sure there are situations where star athletes got special treatment, but that doesn’t mean all of them did. My brother didn’t. The most special thing he ever got was a good referral for a job doing contruction clean-up. At minimum wage. That he got paid for only if he worked. No special treatment by professors, no waivers on tests. And he was a star. The best player on the 2nd most popular campus sport, team MVP, league MVP, honorable mention all-american. On campus, that wouldn’t get him more than a phone number from a cute girl. Not even a cup of coffee.)

“There were no health or dental plans in place for children.”

In the context of the discussion about the middle class, I’m not sure what this refers to. We had medical insurance. Most everyone did. Policies looked different than they do today, but it wasn’t any worse coverage. True on the dental insurance. As a practical matter, that was invented in the ’80s.

The title IX stuff, i agree. No idea how that fits into the discussion.

“Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. Blah Blah Blah”

Highly exaggerated, she’s describing 1955, not 1975. But in general, it’s correct that father’s rights have expanded over the last 35 years. But again, I have no idea how this fits into the argument that she’s making. Even accepting it as absolute truth, I’m not sure how it’s the least bit supportive of the thesis that today’s middle class is different than the middle class of 1975.

And just to be clear, I am not disputing that today’s middle class is different from that of 1975. Or even that past rampant consumerism is a significant factor in today’s bleak economy. Just that the facts that she’s presented are either inaccurate, broad generalizations without evidence, or simply not supportive of her thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
BG’s points are hardly “hogwash” – the personal financial habits of the lower and middle classes have changed, and not for the better. People don’t save and people buy stupid, unnecessary things more than they did thirty years ago. We can blame some of it on exploitation by creditors, marketing, etc. but, in the end, it is the individual that chooses to use credit to buy shiny rims for their car.[/quote]

You’ll note that I didn’t copy her entire comment. Some of it was insightful. But some of it was obviously influenced by her ideological disdain for current consumerism. The parts that I think are hogwash:

“middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today”.

Keep in mind she didn’t say lower class, she said middle class. No references to the poor. I think there is some pretty strong evidence with regards to the poor, however, over that same period, the gap between those that have, and those that don’t has been pretty consistenly widening. Today, the bottom half of the population (income and asset wise) controls only 2.5% of the total wealth in this country. I have a recollection of statistics indicating that in 1980 that number was closer to 10%. (That 10% could be wrong, I’ll find the time to verify shortly.)

I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, the schools i went to were a mixture of lower-middle class to a very small minortiy of upper middle class. (There were a handful of “rich” people.) Times were different then. We didn’t have cable or flat screen TVs. But the vast majority of my friends had color TVs. (My family didn’t have one until AFTER I graduated from high school in 1973.) They drove new cars. Some of them had their new cars repossessed. At least 1/2 of the mothers of my peer group worked some out of the home, as mine did, 3 or 4 days a week. Was it as lavish a lifestyle as my kids grew up with? Relatively so. Mine grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood, with new cars and cell phones and flat screen TVs. Although my kids didn’t have any of those things, and neither did their parents. I drive a 12 year old car, havent had a new car since 1994. I’ve had a cell phone for work for two decades, but my wife didn’t have one until probably 8 or 9 years ago. And the flat screen TV? We got one last year. First one.

“There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care.”

Of course there were standards. Otherwise I couldn’t have known people that flunked out. Were they standard across all districts? I have no idea. But in the SD city school there were certainly standards that were maintained in my middle class high school. I knew a dozen kids who had to take summer school AFTER graduation in order to get their diploma. And a handful more that didn’t get theirs. I don’t know much about teacher’s favorites. But I do know about jocks. We had to take the exact same coursework, the same tests, the same attendance requirements. We did get to miss some classes on game or meet days in order to get to a 3:00 game sometimes. And the star athletes? Same thing. I wasn’t one of them. But my wombmate was. So I pretty much know how the stars were treated first hand. No shoddy attendance allowed. No missed homework. (And to dispel another myth, college was no different. I’m sure there are situations where star athletes got special treatment, but that doesn’t mean all of them did. My brother didn’t. The most special thing he ever got was a good referral for a job doing contruction clean-up. At minimum wage. That he got paid for only if he worked. No special treatment by professors, no waivers on tests. And he was a star. The best player on the 2nd most popular campus sport, team MVP, league MVP, honorable mention all-american. On campus, that wouldn’t get him more than a phone number from a cute girl. Not even a cup of coffee.)

“There were no health or dental plans in place for children.”

In the context of the discussion about the middle class, I’m not sure what this refers to. We had medical insurance. Most everyone did. Policies looked different than they do today, but it wasn’t any worse coverage. True on the dental insurance. As a practical matter, that was invented in the ’80s.

The title IX stuff, i agree. No idea how that fits into the discussion.

“Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. Blah Blah Blah”

Highly exaggerated, she’s describing 1955, not 1975. But in general, it’s correct that father’s rights have expanded over the last 35 years. But again, I have no idea how this fits into the argument that she’s making. Even accepting it as absolute truth, I’m not sure how it’s the least bit supportive of the thesis that today’s middle class is different than the middle class of 1975.

And just to be clear, I am not disputing that today’s middle class is different from that of 1975. Or even that past rampant consumerism is a significant factor in today’s bleak economy. Just that the facts that she’s presented are either inaccurate, broad generalizations without evidence, or simply not supportive of her thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
BG’s points are hardly “hogwash” – the personal financial habits of the lower and middle classes have changed, and not for the better. People don’t save and people buy stupid, unnecessary things more than they did thirty years ago. We can blame some of it on exploitation by creditors, marketing, etc. but, in the end, it is the individual that chooses to use credit to buy shiny rims for their car.[/quote]

You’ll note that I didn’t copy her entire comment. Some of it was insightful. But some of it was obviously influenced by her ideological disdain for current consumerism. The parts that I think are hogwash:

“middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today”.

Keep in mind she didn’t say lower class, she said middle class. No references to the poor. I think there is some pretty strong evidence with regards to the poor, however, over that same period, the gap between those that have, and those that don’t has been pretty consistenly widening. Today, the bottom half of the population (income and asset wise) controls only 2.5% of the total wealth in this country. I have a recollection of statistics indicating that in 1980 that number was closer to 10%. (That 10% could be wrong, I’ll find the time to verify shortly.)

I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, the schools i went to were a mixture of lower-middle class to a very small minortiy of upper middle class. (There were a handful of “rich” people.) Times were different then. We didn’t have cable or flat screen TVs. But the vast majority of my friends had color TVs. (My family didn’t have one until AFTER I graduated from high school in 1973.) They drove new cars. Some of them had their new cars repossessed. At least 1/2 of the mothers of my peer group worked some out of the home, as mine did, 3 or 4 days a week. Was it as lavish a lifestyle as my kids grew up with? Relatively so. Mine grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood, with new cars and cell phones and flat screen TVs. Although my kids didn’t have any of those things, and neither did their parents. I drive a 12 year old car, havent had a new car since 1994. I’ve had a cell phone for work for two decades, but my wife didn’t have one until probably 8 or 9 years ago. And the flat screen TV? We got one last year. First one.

“There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care.”

Of course there were standards. Otherwise I couldn’t have known people that flunked out. Were they standard across all districts? I have no idea. But in the SD city school there were certainly standards that were maintained in my middle class high school. I knew a dozen kids who had to take summer school AFTER graduation in order to get their diploma. And a handful more that didn’t get theirs. I don’t know much about teacher’s favorites. But I do know about jocks. We had to take the exact same coursework, the same tests, the same attendance requirements. We did get to miss some classes on game or meet days in order to get to a 3:00 game sometimes. And the star athletes? Same thing. I wasn’t one of them. But my wombmate was. So I pretty much know how the stars were treated first hand. No shoddy attendance allowed. No missed homework. (And to dispel another myth, college was no different. I’m sure there are situations where star athletes got special treatment, but that doesn’t mean all of them did. My brother didn’t. The most special thing he ever got was a good referral for a job doing contruction clean-up. At minimum wage. That he got paid for only if he worked. No special treatment by professors, no waivers on tests. And he was a star. The best player on the 2nd most popular campus sport, team MVP, league MVP, honorable mention all-american. On campus, that wouldn’t get him more than a phone number from a cute girl. Not even a cup of coffee.)

“There were no health or dental plans in place for children.”

In the context of the discussion about the middle class, I’m not sure what this refers to. We had medical insurance. Most everyone did. Policies looked different than they do today, but it wasn’t any worse coverage. True on the dental insurance. As a practical matter, that was invented in the ’80s.

The title IX stuff, i agree. No idea how that fits into the discussion.

“Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. Blah Blah Blah”

Highly exaggerated, she’s describing 1955, not 1975. But in general, it’s correct that father’s rights have expanded over the last 35 years. But again, I have no idea how this fits into the argument that she’s making. Even accepting it as absolute truth, I’m not sure how it’s the least bit supportive of the thesis that today’s middle class is different than the middle class of 1975.

And just to be clear, I am not disputing that today’s middle class is different from that of 1975. Or even that past rampant consumerism is a significant factor in today’s bleak economy. Just that the facts that she’s presented are either inaccurate, broad generalizations without evidence, or simply not supportive of her thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]There is a previous discussion on this topic here:

http://piggington.com/meredith_whitney_quote_data_point

SK in CV makes relevant points, but alas, the devil is in the details. Yes, theoretically banks build up specific reserves (via provisioning) on delinquent loans as these loans move through the credit quality “buckets” (pass>watch list>substandard>doubtful>loss), but… some banks play games with both the appraisals and the required reserves. Regulators provide “guidelines” on these issues but there are no hard and fast rules. So, games can be played because banks have some discretion where these issues are concerned. It is much more difficult to play these games today, however, than it was in 2008, for instance, because both the auditors and regulators (both imperfect) are much less tolerant today than they were a few years ago.[/quote]

That’s why I cheated and said theoretically 🙂

But the question was whether the valuation and loan loss provisions are the reason that banks hold off on foreclosures. And the general rules I outlined are applied pretty stringently to banks. I should have answered the right question, instead of the wrong one. It was the wrong question because most loans aren’t owned by banks. And while the accounting rules are generally the same (If i remember correctly it’s FASBs 114 and 104 and 105, but I could be wrong on all of those.), the entities (mostly REMICS, except for the GSE’s), aren’t subject to the same regulatory guidelines and oversight that banks are. So as Yogi Berra said, in theory, there’s no difference between practice and theory, but in practice, there is.

[Author]

Posts