How’s That Tea Party Thing Workin’ For Ya?

Howard Dean speaking at DNC event

Image via Wikipedia

I posted an article the other night on the fear of anon-white planet by the Republican hard right. Tonight, Howard Dean echoed some of the same sentiment on Rachel Maddow’s show. He also repeated his belief that the Democrats would retain control of both chambers of Congress.

 

Many of us have voiced an opinion that we don’t believe that there will be a ‘November tsunami’. We read Nate’s numbers to the contrary and listen to the media’s warning based on how it has always happened in the past and most of us admit that it’s a gut feeling that this turnover will not take place.But what is the source of that gut feeling? Why are we so sure?

Let’s consider some numbers. Census data show that minorities are quickly becoming the norm and that low birth rates amongst whites is decreasing their numbers. So, as Governor Dean pointed out, young white people are increasingly surrounded by and befriending minorities, gays, Muslims,and accepting ideals outside of those of hard right Republicans. The ‘other’for them is…well…the norm. That has to be a frightening prospect for the ultra-conservative; to be a dying breed. Young people just aren’t buying the crazy. The only thing that will save ultra conservatives is if the younger population has a big apathy reaction to politics.

And fearful Republicans are circling the wagons. The Tea Party is alienating just about everyone who doesn’t share their limited worldview. They’re fighting DADT, taking a hard line on immigration reform, fighting help for the middle class. They’re raising obsolete culture issues like extreme anti-abortions stances and banging the drums of fear like a drumline on ecstasy. Having your perspective become obsolete has to be hard.

The other dynamic in play here is that communication technologies have changed considerably and Republicans and pollsters are slow to catch on to that. I don’t even know anyone under thirty with a landline.And despite pollster’s assurances that they have taken this information into consideration, I remain skeptical that the data is accurate.

So, that’s what my gut is telling me. Largely white aging boomers are losing touch with reality, or should I say, reality is losing touch with them. They are experiencing a fearful, knee-jerk reaction that the world they grew up in as children is gone. Well, adaptation is critical for survival in any changing environment because nature abhors a vacuum. I suggest that adaptation is a property they adopt quickly.


About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

155 Responses to How’s That Tea Party Thing Workin’ For Ya?

  1. Jungle Jim says:

    Did we really believe that the billionaires that own our goverment would relinquish their cash cow, just like that? In a way, the TP is made up of Republicans who have rejected the party of the rich, without realizing they are still doing its bidding. They may in fact win this election, but those poor saps are in for a rude awakening.

  2. Philip2 says:

    I, too, believe not enough attention has been paid to the margin of error. There are so many factors that can lead to a historical degree of poll inaccuracy today, the prime one being bias, IMO.It’s not that there aren’t respectable polls out there. It’s that those polls aren’t being covered to the same extent that the questionable ones are. And even the respectable polls, as with all polls, can include flawed questions that do not tap into what they are intended to.But, ultimately, and I think as you imply, the fact that the populace has and continues to change really has to make one wonder if ANYONE responds to polls the way they used to. And by “responds” I don’t mean “agrees to participate” in them. I mean actually answers the questions without inserting their own agendas in their responses–and possibly even attempting to manipulate the results in the variety of ways that can be done.None of this is being considered. Everyone is making assumptions about polling methodology and about what people do when they are polled. If the country is experiencing rapid sociological change, how can “the way it was” still be “the way it is”? I just don’t see how that can be.

  3. Philip2 says:

    BTW, I suspect that if the election produces a significant number of unexpected results, some institution will pursue an experimental study to discover just what people ARE doing when they get polled. (And I’d bet they’d find that they sure ain’t answering honestly MOST of the time-or at least a certain subgroup isn’t.)

  4. GROG says:

    I love how you guys are nervously trying to convince yourselves that things won’t be that bad for you in November. “Census data show that minorities are quickly becoming the norm and that low birth rates amongst whites is decreasing their numbers. So, as Governor Dean pointed out, young white people are increasingly surrounded by and befriending minorities…”Is that what the Democratic party has been reduced to? You can’t attract people based on your ideas, ideology, or results anymore. Your only hope is for demographics to change. This is why Dems are pro illegal immigration. It has NOTHING to do with right and wrong. It has only to do with getting votes. It’s a sad state of affairs ove there on the left.

  5. shiloh says:

    @mentally challenged grogIs that what the Democratic party has been reduced to? You can’t attract people based on your ideas, ideology, or results anymore. Your only hope is for demographics to change. ~~~~~~~~~~Again, (((69 million))) voted for Barack Hussein Obama, the 1st bi-racial, African/American President of the United States of America! :)7.5 million more than cheney/bush in 2004 and the best performance by a Dem since 1964, the last time IN and VA was won by a Dem president (44) years ago!Indeed, the demos are changin’ in favor of the Dems makin’ the 2008 result even more troublesome for wingers, eh.Be afraid, be very afraid!Oh yea, once again grog, thanx for playin’ …take care, blessings

  6. shrinkers says:

    Groggy, I don’t know of anyone who is “pro illegal immigration.” That’s just absurd.And the reason you give is even sillier – “It has only to do with getting votes.”Are you aware that non-citizens can’t vote?

  7. shrinkers says:

    This is just a test to make sure the blog software is working.

  8. filistro says:

    I’m starting to think the left has been greatly benefited by all the talk of tsunamis and the polling that showed such huge GOP gains. The GOP momentum peaked at just the right time… late enough that people were paying attention, early enough to give voters time to think seriously about its implications.And just when folks began to really ponder the prospect of a GOP takeover, they were treated with chilling up-close images of your Tea Party in action… Christine o’Donnell acting like ignorance on skates, Joe whatisname up north joining the group of moral absolutists who think 12-year-old-girls should be forced by the government to bear babies conceived through rape and/or incest, people marching against the building of peaceful places of worship.The public is alarmed. GOP generic numbers are plummeting. Local polls are tightening. Teaper rallies are being canceled, and their panicky candidates are avoiding the media. But it’s too late. Laws of gravity decree that once something begins to fall, it tends not to go up again inless its properties change. And if there’s anything the Teapers have told us, it’s that they never, under any circumatances, have any intention of changing any of their veiws.So… thanks for the party, guys. It’s been…. fun.

  9. filistro says:

    (324 characters)I’m starting to think the left has been greatly benefited by all the talk of tsunamis and the polling that showed such huge GOP gains. The GOP momentum peaked at just the right time… late enough that people were paying attention, early enough to give voters time to think seriously about its implications. (cont…)

  10. Bart DePalma says:

    Mr. U:Abandon reality often? Talk about your faith based views of the world. U: “Let’s consider some numbers. Census data show that minorities are quickly becoming the norm and that low birth rates amongst whites is decreasing their numbers.”1) What do projections to the middle of the century have to do with 2010?2) Religious whites are having kids at over the replacement rate. Secular whites are not. Guess which group votes Dem.3) This glorious new Dem majority-minority utopia assumes continued massive latin immigration becoming naturalized Dem voters. Neither the immigration nor continued Dem voting when immigrants hit middle income can be assumed.U: Young people just aren’t buying the crazy.Young people grow up, get married, have kids, handle responsibility and then become conservatives. Boomer flower children become Reagan revolutionaries and so it will be with their children. U: “The Tea Party is alienating just about everyone who doesn’t share their limited world view.”Indi support of the Tea Party is now up to 45% in the latest polling, far more popular than the Dems.http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-independent-voters-20100921,0,3993224.storyTime to wake up from the dream to see the world how it is in the bright sunshine of reality.

  11. shrinkers says:

    This is a test of the blogging software. Please ignore…..+….1….+….2….+….3….+….4….+….5….+….6….+….7….+….8….+….9….+….0….+….1….+….2….+….3….+….4….+….5….+….6….+….7….+….8….+….9….+….0….+….1….+….2….+….3….+….4….+….5….+….6….+….7….+….8….+….9….+….0….+….1….+….2….+….3….+….4….+….5….+….6….+….7….+….8….+….9….+….0….+….1….+….2….+….3….+….4….+….5….+….6….+….7….+….8….+….9….+….0….+….1….+….2….+….3….+….4….+….5….+….6….+….7….+….8….+….9….+….0….+….1….+….2….+….3….+….4….+….5….+….6….+….7….+….8….+….9….+….0….+….1….+….2….+….3….+….4….+….5….+….6….+….7….+….8….+….9….+….0….+….1….+….2….+….3….+….4….+….5….+….6….+….7….+….8….+….9….+….0….+….1….+….2….+….3….+….4….+….5….+….6….+….7….+….8….+….9….+….0….+….1….+….2….+….3….+….4….+….5….+….6….+….7….+….8….+….9….+….0

  12. shrinkers says:

    @BartThe survey you linked said 40% of Indies planned to vote Republican. It also said 45% had a favorable view of the Teapers. Not sure what that means. It also said the survey was conducted by a “center-right” organization. I’d like to see their raw data. What the survey was missing was, what percentage of that group of self-identified Indies had identified themselves as Republicans up until a year or two ago? Are the actually lifelong Republicans who are merely too embarrassed by the party to admit it now?You keep saying that Indies are “breaking for” Republicans. But you have refused to show us how many of them were Indies last year or last election.They’re not “breaking for” Republicans. They always were Republicans. Provide your data showing that they ever voted anything other than Republicans if you want to sound convincing.

  13. Bart DePalma says:

    Shrinkers: “You keep saying that Indies are “breaking for” Republicans. But you have refused to show us how many of them were Indies last year or last election.”I refused to show? I do not run these polls.I too would love to see the pollsters question the Tea Party folks far more closely about their prior voting patterns. I have only seen one question last spring asking for who they voted for President in 2008 and that only included the folks who voted.Anecdotally, it is my experience and has been extensively reported that large numbers of Tea Party rally and meeting participants say they are new to the political process. I would like to get a scientific polling handle on how many new voters we are bringing into the process in 2010.

  14. shrinkers says:

    @Bart1) What do projections to the middle of the century have to do with 2010?They show how things are changing. Each election cycle is an incremental step in the same direction. 2010 is two years farther along that curve than was 2008, and four years farther than 2006.2) Religious whites are having kids at over the replacement rate. Secular whites are not. Guess which group votes Dem.However, whites as a whole are a shrinking percentage of the voting public. Your argument is that the religious composition of that shrinking segment is also changing. Fair point, but it doesn’t alter Mr. U’s point.3) This glorious new Dem majority-minority utopia assumes continued massive latin immigration becoming naturalized Dem voters. Neither the immigration nor continued Dem voting when immigrants hit middle income can be assumed.True. A) sane immigration laws need to be in place, and 2) no party can take any segment of its coalition for granted. But historic patterns are still worth examining.

  15. shrinkers says:

    @Bart1) What do projections to the middle of the century have to do with 2010?They show how things are changing. Each election cycle is an incremental step in the same direction. 2010 is two years farther along that curve than was 2008, and four years farther than 2006.2) Religious whites are having kids at over the replacement rate. Secular whites are not. Guess which group votes Dem.However, whites as a whole are a shrinking percentage of the voting public. Your argument is that the religious composition of that shrinking segment is also changing. Fair point, but it doesn’t alter Mr. U’s point.3) … assumes continued massive latin immigration becoming naturalized Dem voters. Neither the immigration nor continued Dem voting when immigrants hit middle income can be assumed.True. A) sane immigration laws need to be in place, and 2) no party can take any segment of its coalition for granted. But historic patterns are still worth examining.

  16. filistro says:

    Shrinkers… my hero!… has me up and running again but it looks like clearing my cache has also wiped my stored message :-(I was just going to add that… at the very moment voters started paying attention, we had Christine O’Donnell looking like ignorance on skates, and crazy Joe Whatsisname up north joining the Teaper moral absolutists who want govt. forcing 12 year olds to bear babies conceived through rape, and Teapers howling about the construction of a peaceful place of worship and community.All very daunting to your average citizen. Really quite scary.And so… polls are tightening. Generic numbers are moving back to even. Teapers are canceling rallies and avoiding the media.Timing… as they say… is everything 🙂

  17. shrinkers says:

    @filistroGlad to be of service, ma’am. Of course, now I’m the one having the problem …

  18. shrinkers says:

    @Bart (part 2)Young people grow up, get married, have kids, handle responsibility and then become conservatives. Generalize much? Actually no, what happens is that the rest of the nation continues to move left, so that the positions of yesterday’s young people now seem more conservative. That’s why we’re not still hunting Communists or segregating lunch counters. It’s why no one (except Teapers) questions whether women should vote.

  19. shrinkers says:

    @filistro,I think you’re right about timing. The R’s created the Teapers to kill HCR, but then the monster refused to die, and even turned on them. Still, Party Frankenstein thought they could continue to use this vicious creature, and could build on it indefinitely. But the popularity of these things has a limited halflife, especially when the critters grow more insane as they age.The question is — will the creature live long enough to completely kill its creators?

  20. Realist says:

    I worry greatly when I see blog posts and associated comments that focus attention on reducing those who disagree with them.We just got through reading Nate’s observation that the Tea Party is a loose affiliation of people whose common element is fiscal conservatism. And yet, here we have the usual stuff:- Teapers are all racist homophobic religious fundamentalists- Liberals only care about immigrants because they will vote for liberalsNone of this advances the discussion.Now, I’m sure that there are some political strategists who are sufficiently Machiavellian that they support immigration solely with a view toward future demographics and associated voting patterns. I’m pretty sure that, to the extent that they exist, they represent an infinitesimally small percentage of Democrats.And there’s ample evidence of Teapers who are pretty far out there. We’ve seen the YouTube videos. There is substantially less evidence that they represent the majority of the Tea Party.So, from where I sit, this seems to quickly devolve into arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Why not focus on substance, instead of reductionism?

  21. filistro says:

    Realist, that’s an interesting point. I think the problem is that we have this huge thumping creature in the room but it’s under a blanket and we still don’t know for sure if it’s an elephant or a gorilla.ARE the Teapers primarily socons or fiscons? We don’t really know, do we? And so far the polling is pretty amorphous and inconclusive.I do know the Freepers, who are about 95% quite rabidly socon, are also strongly committed Freepers. They attend the rallies, support the policies and send their money to the candidates. But as I said to Mike… I don’t know how many Teapers are also Freepers.I also know many Teapers are racist (unlike Bart, I just don’t believe a group of highly respected black lawmakers and various witnesses are all “lying” when they report specific racial slurs.)My personal opinion is that the Tea Party certainly started out as an expression of fiscal conservatism… but as the energy grew it became co-opted by socons, birthers, racists and assorted kooks, and I truly believe the latter are now in the majority and driving the bus.I could certainly be wrong, though. I guess only time will tell.

  22. filistro says:

    Sorry, meant to say Freepers are strongly committed TEAPERS..Jeepers creepers. I need new peepers.

  23. Bart DePalma says:

    Shrinkers:There has been no substantive shift in the proportion of minority citizens eligible to vote over the past cycle because there is no amnesty for the 11 million illegals. Indeed, since the recession hit, the number of illegals heading home has been increasing.The 2008 election had a historical turnout of already eligible minority voters because Barack Obama was a fresh African American face. However, hispanic support for Obama has fallen off substantially and African American turnout has gone back to its normal low since 2008.What has shifted in a seismic way since 2008 are the Indis to the GOP. If this shift is lasting, then 2010 could be a realignment election to the GOP. I am not saying it is a realignment election. We will not know that until 2012 and after. However, the Dem left base is simply too small to win national elections on its own. Dems need most of the Indis to overcome the conservative plurality of voters.

  24. DC Petterson says:

    There are a pair of interesting new articles on the NYT blog. One of them talks about how and why Democrats seem to be doing better in polls that test actual candidates, than in “generic” polling. (And, as Filistro pointed out, the generic polls are tightening.)The other discusses the NY Governor race, whether Cuomo is handily leading Paladino. The latest Rasmussen poll puts Cuomo comfortably ahead. But the poll suffers because it didn’t include Lazio as the Conservataive Party candidate. When Lazio is mentioned, Paladino’s numbers look still worse.This leads to the question (and Nate alludes to it) of how much the current polling (which is often dominated by Rasmussen) is structured in a way to favor a narrative over revealing the truth. Certainly Rasmussen’s current poll shows Paladino with some momentum; it probably wouldn’t, if it had more honestly included Lazio.Someone might want to start a new thread (I don’t have time today) discussing the convergence of these ideas – if the generics are tightening – and the Dems are doing significantly better than the generics indicate – and the polls as they exist are creating a misleading narrative – what can we realistically expect?

  25. DC Petterson says:

    Bart:”What has shifted in a seismic way since 2008 are the Indis to the GOP.”I would dispute this. It seems, rather, that what has shifted is GOP voters who now identify themselves as Indies, thus misleading people such as yourself.But I suppose we’ll see in a few weeks.

  26. filistro says:

    @GROG (on demographics)… This is why Dems are pro illegal immigration. It has NOTHING to do with right and wrong. It has only to do with getting votes.Groggy, you know I love you, but that’s a truly AWFUL thing to say. In fact, I find it as infuriating as the various wingers who have smugly told me “you just hate Sarah Palin because she refused to abort her less-than-perfect baby.”Republicans as a whole have difficulty grasping that people could have any motivations beyond the knee-jerk, simplistic rationale of the right. Maybe I have really strong personal reasons for supporting a “path to citizenship” that have nothing to do with votes. Maybe I have strong private reasons to be deeply, passionately offended when I’m accused of “hating” a woman who won’t abort her damaged infant. Assuming you know the motivations of others is a failure of imagination. That’s a dangerous tendency to have on a national, policy-making level… it was a failure of imagination that caused the Bush administration to totally overlook the idea that terrorists might fly planes into buildings.I think we all need to move past our sound-bites and preconceptions and start trying to grapple with the world as it REALLY is. Maybe websites like this are a good start. At least we’re talking to each other… (and sometimes even listening, too..)

  27. Bart DePalma says:

    DC:Here is my response to Nate’s discussion of the differential between generic and named polling:Generic: On average, over the 31 districts, Republicans led on this question by 6 points: 39 to 33.Named: On average, over the 31 districts, Republicans led on this question by 2 points: 45 to 43.Nate: “That might imply that the generic ballot overestimates Republicans’ standing by about 4 points, at least in swing districts.”The correlation is uncertain because part of the GOP generic lead may fall among the undecided in the named poll.As a rule, the undecided generally break against incumbents who are below 50% and are facing a hostile environment as suggested by the generic polling. If these Dem incumbents are also trailing in the named polling, they might as well give notice of vacating their DC apartments.

  28. DC Petterson says:

    Bart:Nate also made it a point to mention the poll involved was taken by “American Action Forum, a conservative-leaning 501(c)(3) organization that has released polls in 31 House districts so far.” One poll by a partisan organization is hardly sufficient to make anyone want to “give notice of vacating their DC apartments,” particularly when the trend lines are tightening.However, your triumphalist prognostications are appreciated.

  29. parksie555 says:

    I am not even sure why anybody cares about generic polling at this point. There is so much race-specific polling data out there at this point that any generic polls are pretty much superfluous. Will be nice to see the lefty hand-wringing though when everyone starts looking at LVs instead of RVs. And as an aside did everyone see Nate’s shot across Ras’ bow in 538 late yesterday? I actually think Nate has a pretty good point this time around. Pretty hard to defend Ras leaving Lazio out of the NY poll. See lefties? Even Parksie is “fair and balanced” :).

  30. Jungle Jim says:

    Bart bloviates:As a rule, the undecided generally break against incumbents who are below 50% and are facing a hostile environment as suggested by the generic polling. If these Dem incumbents are also trailing in the named polling, they might as well give notice of vacating their DC apartments.Not so fast ,Bart. That only applies in a normal election year. This isn’t a normal election and the “rules” don’t apply. All this proves is something we already knew: that you can fool some of the people all of the time( you, for example). I’ve noticed that Rasmussen, Fox, and well, you- are so over the top on this I can only conclude that none of you really believe this, you just really want other people to believe it. You’re hoping this bluff will fool your disenchanted Republicans into voting for this new brand, and hoping to convince Dems that resistance is futile. This plan may work, but you’re in for a big dissappointment if you think this is anything other than temporary,or that your TPs can actually govern, or that it will be anything approaching a fundamental shift, or that you can fool all of the people all the time. Nice try though.

  31. Bart DePalma says:

    Parksie:Generic polling is not a prediction of actual turnout for candidates of each party in a specific race. It is simply a thermometer of general preference which can be used to give a ballpark prediction a party seat totals when compared to historical data.Historically, the GOP can expect a 60+ seat pickup under the current generic RV numbers.

  32. Realist says:

    @Parksie,”There is so much race-specific polling data out there at this point…”My goodness…must you see everything in terms of race?(For the humor impaired, it’s a joke)

  33. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “As a rule, the undecided generally break against incumbents who are below 50% and are facing a hostile environment as suggested by the generic polling.”Jungle Jim: “Not so fast ,Bart. That only applies in a normal election year. This isn’t a normal election and the “rules” don’t apply.”I could not agree more. However, there is no enthusiasm chasm in favor of the Dems which suggests that Dem voters will show up in numbers larger than the polling. Rather, that enthusiasm chasm favors the GOP. The polling has been underestimating GOP votes starting back in 2009 and extending to the O’Donnell victory in DE. Thus, it is very likely that the current general election polling is again understating the actual turnout for the GOP, especially for Tea Party candidates.

  34. Realist says:

    @Bart”Historically, the GOP can expect a 60+ seat pickup under the current generic RV numbers.”The problem here is that historical data looks at times that were less heavily partisan. Not to say that it won’t produce the same results this time, but the climate today is much more politically divided today than it was in 1994.From a purely academic perspective, I’m very interested to see the results. From the perspective of an interested party, I’m more than a little wary of the results.

  35. Jungle Jim says:

    The flaw in that argument is confusing enthusiasm with voting intention, Bart. At the moment, I’m not feeling very enthusiastic. But you can bet your last tea bag I’m going to vote. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

  36. Bart DePalma says:

    Speaking of head to head polling, the Dem and now Kos firm PPP has Johnson above 50% and leading Feingold by double digits in WI and Raese over Manchin by three points in WV.Wow…Surf’s WAY up!

  37. parksie555 says:

    Bart, I’ll take the under on the 60+, to be honest. I trust Nate’s forecasts far more than any historical correlation based on generic ballot preference, especially now that all the primaries are resolved. I put the generic polling data in the same category as Presidential approval numbers – headline makers when there is not much else going on, pretty much useless at any other time.PS – I was very disappointed in the Tea Party in Delaware – a certain Senate pickup now a certain loss. You gotta teach those old boys to use their heads a little more – this is Delaware for Chrissake! Even you can’t be happy with O’Donnell as a candidate. Map of the voting was fascinating – all of her support was in the south – just a little bit of New Castle County and all of Kent & Sussex. She has a tough row to hoe, I am afraid.

  38. shiloh says:

    Speaking of Kos, Bart’s fav: 😉Perhaps Dems aren’t so doomed in 2010Simon Rosenberg:Both the Real Clear Politics Congressional Generic average and the new Gallup track show similar national trend lines – Dems gaining ground, GOP dropping. Similarly, the Gallup track has Obama’s approval rating improving by 10 net percentage points in the past month, from 42/51 to 47/46 (RCP has shown movement despite 2 clear outlier Rasmussen and AP polls). If these trend lines are true, no one should be surprised. The underlining favorability of the Republican Party is still far below that of the Dems and Obama. This election has never been like 1994 where at this point there had been both a fall of the Dems and a rise in the GOP. The memory of the disasterous GOP reign in the last decade is still too fresh, their leaders still to unreformed, their candidates far too wacky, and their ideas still to reckless for the current GOP to have fully taken advantage of the Democratic under performance this past cycle. This election, like all elections, is not like any other election. It has its own contours, its own dynamics. Like all elections it is sui generis.Oh, one last point:USA Today/Gallup, 9/7/08: McCain 54, Obama 44ABC/WaPost, 9/7/08: McCain 49, Obama 47Gallup, 9/9/08: McCain 48, Obama 43Gallup, 9/12/08: McCain 47, Obama 45Hotline, 9/12/08: McCain 45, Obama 44Rasmussen, 9/13/08: McCain 50, Obama 47ARG, 9/15/08: McCain 48, Obama 45Gallup, 9/15/08: McCain 47, Obama 46Rasmussen, 9/16/08: McCain 48, Obama 47GWU/Tarrance, 9/18/08: McCain 47, Obama 45We even had a 10-point Gallup deficit in 2008! Then, late September, the numbers started turning. Here is a chart of the presidential polls between 9/1/2008 and 9/22/2008:Pollster.com~~~~~~~~~~As Bartles continues to obsess re: the 2010 election! :)Again Bartles you should constantly thank Mr. U and Nate for providing you an outlet for your pent-up teabagger frustrations er to make a winger fool of yourself on a daily basis, thereby preventing you from going postal! 😉 at least until after the 2010 election lol.Indeed Bart, since I’ve been on the net discussing politics, you are truly unique in your 24/7 desire to shout above the crowd at entertaining/informative/intelligent liberal blogs.Again because sadly 😉 the winger/conservative/hatespeak/division/ counterpart has no such animal, eh ie redstate, freeperville, drudge, malkin, fixednoise, etc.In a nutshell, Bart, 538’s obsessive john bircher er teabagger lives his life at liberal blogs.Oh the humanity!but, but, but …Mr. U and Nate are extremely honored 😉 to have you aboard … All aboard the liberal Love Train! :)take care, blessings

  39. GROG says:

    shrinkers the following gross generalization on 9/20:”Bart, the Republican idea of “free markets” is basically to let corporations do what they want.”Tody shrinkers lectures Bart:Generalize much?”Shrinkers, are you a hypocrit much? Or is it a case of do what I say, not as I do?

  40. shrinkers says:

    Bart, I’m still curious to know if you taste your dog food before you buy it.If you’ve forgotten the context of the question, I’d be glad to remind you.

  41. shiloh says:

    grog, congrats on continuing to show up in this thread after everyone easily made you look like a complete fool, as per usual …take care, blessings

  42. Realist says:

    OK, GROG, I’ll take the bait.Enlighten me as to the differences between the Republican notion of free markets and laissez-faire.

  43. shrinkers says:

    GROG, if Bart wants to correct me on the Republican definition of “free markets,” I would appreciate that. You must admit, we’ve heard a lot of complaints about “regulation” and a lot of support for the idea of getting rid of those pesky things. Why, Bart even refers to regulation as “tyranny.”If he thinks free markets can or should be managed by governmental regulations and / or agencies for the good of the nation and the consumer, he is welcome to correct me, and invited to do so.

  44. shrinkers says:

    @shilohPerhaps Dems aren’t so doomed in 2010You’re always a ray of sunshine :-)Even if worst comes to worst — I’m gonna rely on you for perspective.

  45. Bart DePalma says:

    Speaking of African American Tea Party candidates, here is a commercial by Colorado’s own Ryan Frazier:

  46. Bart DePalma says:

    Shrinkers:Which Republican’s definition of free markets? Between the regulations, corporate welfare and the degradations of basic property rights, I wonder sometimes if anyone in DC has the vaguest idea what free means.My definition of free markets is a market completely free of government intervention apart from laws enforcing contracts and prohibiting fraud and any other acts which objectively harm someone else.

  47. Realist says:

    As I think more about the makeup of the Tea Party, I am starting to see a delicious irony, which can be summed up thusly:”I’m not a member of an organized party. I’m a Teaper.”

  48. Realist says:

    @Bart”My definition of free markets is a market completely free of government intervention apart from laws … prohibiting … any other acts which objectively harm someone else.”I took the other stuff out to focus attention. I want you to elaborate on acts that objective harm others. For example, wild salmon fishers depend on there being sufficient river water to permit salmon to spawn. Farmers depend on the same river water. It’s a zero-sum game. So, when there’s scarcity, and a farmer continues to take the same amount of water from the river as in past rainier years, has the farmer harmed the salmon fisher?

  49. shrinkers says:

    Re: free markets. Thanks, Bart. Not far from the definition I supplied earlier. Your admission of the need for contact enforcement, and prohibitions on fraud and harm are noted.How do you feel about consumer protections? They are designed to address fraud and harm.Also, environmental protections — clearly addressing harm, to a large area, millions of people. Surely these would fit your definition of necessary (or at least allowable) “government intervention”?

  50. shrinkers says:

    Bart, I’d also be curious on your opinions regarding antitrust regulations, price fixing, monopolies, and the like.

  51. Jean says:

    All,Bart’s carefully crafted language, “…which objectively harm someone else” is the exact language my teaper social conservative use to explain their anti-abortion position.Apparently Bart is not only a fiscal conservative, but a social conservative as well.

  52. filistro says:

    Oh, and Bart… while you’re responding to this set of excellent questions, could you name for me even one financial regulation that is NOT put in place to prohibit “acts which objectively harm someone else?”Thank you.

  53. filistro says:

    Jean… Bart believes (and has clearly stated) that any woman who gets an abortion should be charged with homicide.

  54. shrinkers says:

    I keep thinking of questions –Since you don’t like “government intervention” or “corporate welfare,” I assume you think corporate income should be taxed at the same rates as personal income, since corporations are legally persons and the government should not intrude into the marketplace. No more tax breaks for investment, depreciation, special oil allowances, nothing for farmers or any other special industry incentives, yes?Capital gains are income, and should be taxed as income, yes? After all, to do otherwise in unnecessarily complicating the regulatory tax structure. (I know, that’s a silly question.)How about labor regulations — should we eliminate child labor laws and equal rights protections? Women should be paid less, if corporations decide to do so, right? I know you’d want to repeal all Affirmative Action. And defund OSHA. No more workplace safety requirements — or maybe some of that, since it has the potential to harm workers. Yes or no? That’s a tough one.Certainly, no minimum wage laws (that was a Republican idea, by the way – T. Roosevelt), no laws regarding overtime pay or the length of the work week, no mandated benefits for workers. Right?

  55. filistro says:

    shrinkers (or any other techno-geeks out there)… I was taken for a nice lunch today (by an exceedingly nice man…:-) and the whole time I was distracted by this puzzle… how could something in MY browser cache trigger a “message moderation” screen at a DISTANT website?If there’s a simple explanation… (something at the Browsing For Dummies level) I’d be grateful.Note: If it requires big words like “compatibility” or “data transference”… you would probably be wasting your time on me. Thanks.

  56. Realist says:

    One need not be a social conservative to be anti-abortion. It is perfectly reasonable for social liberals to conclude that life begins at conception. Given that human development is a continuum, any point along that continuum is inherently arbitrary.Regardless of where one draws that line, there is inevitably a question of how to address instances where a decision must be made regarding the relative harm to both parties (mother and child). Is one’s life worth more than the other? Does the answer to that question depend on physical, mental, financial, social, and/or other attributes? Does certain harm to one have greater weight than likely harm to the other?This is a topic that has few bright lines in it.

  57. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “My definition of free markets is a market completely free of government intervention apart from laws … prohibiting … any other acts which objectively harm someone else.”Realist: “I want you to elaborate on acts that objective harm others. For example, wild salmon fishers depend on there being sufficient river water to permit salmon to spawn. Farmers depend on the same river water. It’s a zero-sum game. So, when there’s scarcity, and a farmer continues to take the same amount of water from the river as in past rainier years, has the farmer harmed the salmon fisher?”When you are dealing with alternative harms, you balance the law so the least harm is done. The lesser of two evils. This is basic concept of equity law.shrinkers: “How do you feel about consumer protections? They are designed to address fraud and harm.”You need to be WAY more specific. Generally, laws which promote transparency so consumers know what they are bargaining for are enough. It is not the bureaucracy’s place to substitute their decision for the consumer’s.shrinkers: “Also, environmental protections — clearly addressing harm, to a large area, millions of people.” This is where the objective in objective harm comes into play. Unless there is substantive evidence of harm, you decline to regulate. Exs. Smog yes, CO2 no.shrinkers: “Bart, I’d also be curious on your opinions regarding antitrust regulations, price fixing, monopolies, and the like.”Once again, is there objective harm? Simply being large does not cause harm and is in many ways more efficient. Robert Bork did some great work in this area.There is a very interesting question arising these days whether a bank can be too large if its failure would harm other banks. I much prefer breaking up the mega banks than having the government run them and then bail them out as in the financial regulation bill just passed.

  58. Realist says:

    “Bart believes (and has clearly stated) that any woman who gets an abortion should be charged with homicide.”And this position is perfectly compatible with the belief that life begins at conception. Although I would certainly want to know how he would address my previous questions regarding relative harm.

  59. filistro says:

    @Realist: It is perfectly reasonable for social liberals to conclude that life begins at conception. Of course it is. But given that others may, in all sincerity, reach a different conclusion… and there is, as you say, no “bright line”… it is not perfectly reasonable to require the government to force one conclusion on all. (Nor is it “conservative”… but that’s a different argument.)

  60. shrinkers says:

    Oh, no import or export tariffs, right? No restrictions on hiring illegal aliens — damn regulations. Hell, no restrictions in importing aliens, or any other products. Food inspections would seem to be okay, since they prevent objective harm to people, so we can keep that. Right? And the FDA. But no R&D tax breaks for pharma. And we need to allow purchased of drugs across national lines, people can buy their prescriptions in Canada — otherwise that is unneeded governmental intrusion.Certainly we need to go back to allowing insurance companies to drop you whenever they like. In fact, no more state regulation of the insurance industry. Otherwise, it’s not a free market. Consumers should be able to tell, in advance, if a given insurance company will rip them off and then will choose wisely.Since employer benefits should not exist, we’re all in the insurance market as independent purchasers, so we’ll rely on the excellent and accurate reporting these companies will provide in their TV commercials — which also are unregulated. Well, there is some fraud protection allowed, I guess. (Do you taste your dogfood before you buy it?)And when you’re harmed by a corporation, and you sue them — no limits on how much you can collect, right? Because that would be government interference. A jury of your peers would be far better at setting fair compensation than any gummint bureaucrat, right?I’m having fun imagining what a truely free market would be like!

  61. Realist says:

    @Bart”When you are dealing with alternative harms, you balance the law so the least harm is done. The lesser of two evils. This is basic concept of equity law.”This can be fairly easy to do when you’re talking about two parties, and nearly impossible to do when you’re talking about hundreds or thousands of parties. How would you propose addressing conflicts in the latter case?”Generally, laws which promote transparency so consumers know what they are bargaining for are enough. It is not the bureaucracy’s place to substitute their decision for the consumer’s.”So what about the case where a consumer, left to his own devices, would choose to buy something that, while more beneficial to the consumer (e.g., cheaper), is more harmful to people around the consumer? Should the consumer be held liable? Does the consumer need to fully research all possible outcomes in order to ascertain potential liability associated with every purchase?”Unless there is substantive evidence of harm, you decline to regulate. Exs. Smog yes, CO2 no.”I understand you don’t believe in AGW. Let’s assume for the moment that you’re wrong about AGW. Should CO2 then be regulated?”I much prefer breaking up the mega banks than having the government run them and then bail them out as in the financial regulation bill just passed.”So would I. So how would you propose implementing such a policy?

  62. Realist says:

    @filistro”But given that others may, in all sincerity, reach a different conclusion… and there is, as you say, no “bright line”… it is not perfectly reasonable to require the government to force one conclusion on all.”Others may, in all sincerity, reach the conclusion that the point on the continuum where life begins is at some point after birth, particularly in instances where the newborn has a serious congenital malfunction. Should the government allow for infanticide among people who sincerely have that belief?I have trouble with the “people differ in opinion, so government should stay out of it” argument. It runs counter to the principle of equal protection under the law.

  63. shrinkers says:

    filistro – how could something in MY browser cache trigger a “message moderation” screen at a DISTANT website?Your computer communicates with the webserver. The websever sends it information about the page to be displayed on your screen. That information includes stuff about what to do when you respond. So when you make a change on your page and send it back (like when you hit a button), the response has some pre-determined features in it. The web server looks for those features, which tell it what kind of things you want it to do. For example, you might tell it to post your comment, or moderate it, or whatever.Note: these features were all built by whoever designed the web site. You often don’t have a choice about it (for instance, you may not like to get your posts moderated, but the web designed built it that way anyhow).A previous interaction with the web server might have left stuff in your cache. When you post back to the server, stuff from your cache could get sent back also. The server might interpret it as, for example, a command to impose moderation on your post. (How it got into your cache is anybody’s guess — probably a bug in the server that made it previously send you some bad data.) By clearing your cache, you get rid of all that old and perhaps erroneous data.How’s that?

  64. filistro says:

    Realist: Others may, in all sincerity, reach the conclusion that the point on the continuum where life begins is at some point after birth,No they can’t. And they don’t. Have you ever known anyone who “in all sincerity” suggested that a viable already-born infant is not yet “alive”.. or should be murdered if defective? However in the case of very severe abnormalities, it IS common to withdraw artificial life-support. Can someone “in all sincerity” find that practise unacceptable as well?There is nothing in anybody’s holy book that states human life must be extended by all artificial means available for as long as scientifically possible.

  65. shrinkers says:

    “I much prefer breaking up the mega banks than having the government run them and then bail them out as in the financial regulation bill just passed.”So would I. So how would you propose implementing such a policy?Excellent question. I’d think having the gummint break up big banks would be the best possible example of gummint “tyranny”. It would certainly set a precedent that the gummint could break up companies simply because they got too big.Anyway, Bart is misstating the new financial regulations. Banks will NOT BE BAILED OUT. When they fail, they will be allowed to fail, and will be broken up. Bart is either misinformed of is being dishonest.

  66. filistro says:

    shrinkers… crystal clear. Thank you.I should have asked you BEFORE lunch… I would have been a less-preoccupied companion 🙂

  67. Realist says:

    @filistro”Have you ever known anyone who “in all sincerity” suggested that a viable already-born infant is not yet “alive”.. or should be murdered if defective?”Believe it or not, yes I have. Though “murder” is not the word they use, just as someone having an abortion doesn’t say “I’m going to have my baby murdered.””However in the case of very severe abnormalities, it IS common to withdraw artificial life-support. Can someone “in all sincerity” find that practise unacceptable as well?”Yes they can. And they do. Which is precisely my point. When it comes to life-and-death questions, things are often perfectly clear to the individual while very murky at the group level.

  68. shrinkers says:

    shrinkers: “Bart, I’d also be curious on your opinions regarding antitrust regulations, price fixing, monopolies, and the like.”Once again, is there objective harm? Simply being large does not cause harm and is in many ways more efficient.I want to be clear, so I don’t misunderstand. In general, you oppose antitrust regulation, anti-monopoly legislation, and laws against price fixing and collusion? Is that correct?

  69. Realist says:

    @shrinkers”Anyway, Bart is misstating the new financial regulations. Banks will NOT BE BAILED OUT. When they fail, they will be allowed to fail, and will be broken up. Bart is either misinformed of is being dishonest.”Banks won’t be bailed out as a direct consequence of the legislation, to be sure. But on another level, Bart is correct. There is nothing in the legislation that fixes what got us into the situation of needing bank bailouts in the first place. If history repeats itself (or rhymes) with respect to the financial institutions, the next round of failures will necessarily follow the same path of government bailouts…because they’ll still be “too big to fail.”Now, Bart is being misleading by tying the future bailouts to the bill just passed. It’s the lack of action that will cause the bailouts, so he could have just as easily tied it to any other piece of legislation that passed in the past two years. In that sense, Bart isn’t misinformed; he’s dishonest.

  70. filistro says:

    @Realist When it comes to life-and-death questions, things are often perfectly clear to the individual while very murky at the group level.Yes, precisely. So the wise decision at the group level (since there are no objectively “right” or “wrong” answers) is to leave these difficult decisions entirely up to the individual.

  71. shiloh says:

    @shrinkersHow’s that?~~~~~~~~~~hmm, garbage in garbage out er another glitch in the ever changin’ time/warp continuum.>Ctrl + Alt + Del: the history…How the most popular shortcut in computer history was created by Dave Bradley of IBM (at the time, now retired), and who helped to popularize it!.Thank this guy for ‘control-alt-delete’Every time a software program locks up and you want to start over, every time you need to change your password or log on or off your computer, you can thank David J. Bradley.That’s the same David Bradley who was the “answer” to Final Jeopardy on an episode of that show’s special college edition last fall.It’s the same David Bradley who saved Bill Gates’ derriere before the Windows operating system became the monster it is today.Bradley is the man who gave the world “control-alt-delete.””It was not a memorable event,” said Bradley, a longtime IBM employee, speaking of that day in 1980 or ’81 when he discovered control-alt-delete.”It wasn’t intended as something we were going to tell the customers about,” he says. “Then it turned out that this reset was a problem-solver for people who were writing the programs and writing the instruction manuals.”He’s much too modest. Would Alexander Fleming have said, “It wasn’t a memorable event,” when he discovered penicillin?Would Albert Einstein have said, “I really can’t recall when I discovered E=MC squared?”…~~~~~~~~~~carry on

  72. shrinkers says:

    @Realist Thanks for your additional expansion regarding banks.It is true, that banks already are taken over and — in a sense — “bailed out” all the time. It’s been happening at a rate of a dozen or so a year (at least — i could be lowballing it) since the Great Depression. When a bank fails, the FDIC moves in, protects the depositors, and restructures the bank. Sometimes its assets are sold to other banks. Sometimes it is dismantled completely. Sometimes it goes into the equivalent of a bankruptcy and keeps functioning while the problems are repaired — this is really a “bail out”.It happens all the time. Not unusual. Not the threat to civilization that the Republicans have tried to make it out as.The new financial regulations make this process far more predictable, and establish definite procedures, even for large banks. Further, it establishes a way to get the funds to do this process, something other than a taxpayer-funded bailout like we needed in 2008 / 2009. (Republicans blocked the creation of a standing fund for this purpose — instead, there are provisions for the money to be borrowed from other banks.)IN any case, Bart seems to have been intentionally misrepresenting the new regulations and their effect and intent.

  73. Realist says:

    “So the wise decision at the group level (since there are no objectively “right” or “wrong” answers) is to leave these difficult decisions entirely up to the individual.”Except…there are two individuals involved. For one of the parties to deny the personhood of the other is dangerous. At one time in this country, blacks were denied personhood. Should the individual still be allowed to make that denial?Look, I’m happy for you that you’re entirely comfortable with your position. But the arguments you give are both somewhat arbitrary and moreover have dangerous implications when taken to their logical conclusions.

  74. shrinkers says:

    on group vs individual decisions –The right course is a compromise. Reasonable regulation. Example for terminating a pregnancy, at the “group level” often abortions are allowed up until the point where the fetus would probably be viable on its own, that is, the third trimester. However, the decision whether or not to have an abortion at all is left up to the individual.Thus, there are some group-level limits which we, as a society, impose. Then there are individual decisions within those limits which are left up to the individual. That seems to be the best sort of compromise. And it works in all the cases we’re discussing, even financial regulation and free markets.As a nation, we decide on some general limits, for example, some things companies are not allowed to do. Can’t hire 5-year-olds to do factory work. Can’t have businesses collude on price fixing. Then we allow individual decisions within those limits. Businesses can hire nearly anyone of legal age, and can set the price of their products pretty much wherever they want.What Bart and his ilk (and a strange ilk it is) get upset, is when the limits we have set as a society do not match what they personally prefer. Some individuals — and corporations — don’t like these limits. Of course, that’s the whole reason we have them, because businesses and individuals would freely violate them if we didn’t. And we, as a society, have already seen the horrors that result when these limits are not in place.The Far Right complains about “regulation” because it puts limits on their ability to screw people, to screw the country, and / or to do damage to the things (like the environment) that we hold in common.

  75. filistro says:

    @Realist… But the arguments you give are both somewhat arbitrary and moreover have dangerous implications when taken to their logical conclusions.When we distill this down from the philosophical and abstract to the REAL… the level where actual individuals live… the simple facts are these: * If my sweet and beautiful 12-year-old niece is impregnated by some teenage thug who rapes her in an alley behind her school, I want my brother and sister-in-law to be able to take her to the doctor and have her pregnancy terminated without facing a prison term.* If one of my daughters learns through ultrasound that she is going to give birth to an anencephalic child (one with only a brain stem and no higher cortical functions) I don’t want them to be bankrupted by having, under pressure of law, to bear that child and then keep it alive indefinitely on a ventilator and feeding tube.* If my 50-year-old menopausal friend feels unwell and turns out to be pregnant with a fetus that will potentially cause her already-high blood pressure to reach life-threatening levels, I want her doctor to be able to remove that fetus without losing his license and facing charges of homicide.And that’s my final contribution to this discussion…. but thank you for being polite and reasonable. I do appreciate your views.

  76. Bart DePalma says:

    Natinal Review Online blogs Campaign Spot and Battle ’10 are providing the best coverage of head to head House race polling on the web. Local LV polling has the GOP winning handily in a number of districts that are not even supposed to be in play. If you can take a Jack Nicholson moment of handling the truth, check these blogs out once a day.

  77. shiloh says:

    @Bartlescheck these blogs out once a day.~~~~~~~~~~Not everyone is as politically possessed as you. Again Bart, how does your small law firm function when you’re on the net 24/7 obsessing re: teabaggers being in the minority …Rhetorical question.take care, blessings

  78. Realist says:

    @filistroI do understand where you’re coming from. And it illustrates what I mentioned much further back, that there’s some sort of natural tension involved. All three scenarios you described involve some sort of harm to the mother (mental, financial, and physical), which is exactly what I brought up.This is why it becomes a murky topic.I have tremendous ambivalence about abortion because of the complexities involved with competing needs, competing damage, and relative (no pun intended) value.From the tone of your last response to me, it seems that I have upset you. To some degree, that was intentional, because close examination of abortion should be uncomfortable, regardless of your conclusions.I haven’t been arguing with you because I agree with Bart. Rather, I’ve been arguing with you because abortion is one of those topics that, more than most, starts with the conclusion and then moves to justification of that position. Based on discussions with many people, I believe most are too cavalier about it for that reason, and should more seriously consider the full scope of the issue.I won’t say anything more regarding abortion. Well, except if Bart responds to my earlier (oblique) request for an explanation of how he would assess the relative value and harm of varying scenarios (including the ones you outlined above).

  79. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist:1) Objective harm is harm, regardless whether the victim is a second or third party.2) In the case of alternative harms, I do not see how the number of victims changes the equation of doing the least net harm – it just makes it harder to make the determination.3) If there were substantive objective evidence that CO2 caused global warming,we would next have to determine whether that is actually a net harm or may even be a net benefit.4) To break up banks, you add harm to other banks or the financial system to the anti-trust law. Defining the objective harm is going to take some research.

  80. Bart DePalma says:

    Folks,Apart from the old management and the shareholders, all other stakeholders in a nationalized bank under the new legislation are protected at taxpayer expense as the government runs the bank at a loss.Even the management and shareholders can be bailed out if the government determines that the presumption against doing so has been overcome by other considerations. There is no ban on such bailouts, only a presumption against them.

  81. Realist says:

    @Bart”In the case of alternative harms, I do not see how the number of victims changes the equation of doing the least net harm – it just makes it harder to make the determination.”Based on this statement, I suspect you are unfamiliar with the difference between P and NP calculations. You say “it just makes it harder” as if it were linearly more complex as you add parties to the scenario. It’s not. At some point, you have to make some pretty wild assumptions that ultimately make an accurate quantitative analysis impossible.”If there were substantive objective evidence that CO2 caused global warming,we would next have to determine whether that is actually a net harm or may even be a net benefit.”So if there were a global net benefit, then the fact that it causes local net harm to various parties is irrelevant? Those parties harmed by it would have no recourse in your world?”To break up banks, you add harm to other banks or the financial system to the anti-trust law. Defining the objective harm is going to take some research.”You were pretty cavalier about it earlier this afternoon. But I’m glad you’re being more thoughtful about it now. Please don’t drop the topic…I want to hear in the near future how you propose addressing breakups of banks.

  82. shiloh says:

    RealistRather, I’ve been arguing with you because abortion is one of those topics that, more than most, starts with the conclusion and then moves to justification of that position.~~~~~~~~~~The obvious:Abortion is a political discussion that, as a rule, ends up going nowhere at blogs w/a very high emotional level attached ~ much like evolution vs creationism. Which is why I try to avoid the futility of both topics.And have mixed emotions also because I was adopted.>Suffice it to say, the Rep party has been playin’ the evangelical right for patsies in that they just want to use abortion as a wedge issue for fund raising and have no intention of ever overturning Row v. Wade ie Reps are totally disingenuous re: abortion, not wanting to piss off the female vote any more than they already have, eh. Total frauds as Reps are on most issues!>And of course overturning Roe doesn’t outlaw abortion, it just sends it back to the states to decide.All part of how the goobledygook Rep party operates ~ all hat, no cattle …carry on

  83. Mr. Universe says:

    Bart said;I too would love to see the pollsters question the Tea Party folks far more closely about their prior voting patterns. I have only seen one question last spring asking for who they voted for President in 2008 and that only included the folks who voted.Believe it or not, so would I. The problem is that the Tea Party is not a real party so it’s difficult to quantify their number (which they have historically been prone to exagerate).And in regards to your belief that I’m wrong, you could be right. I just have a gut feeling. But it’s based on everything I read or watch, which happen to be mostly liberal leaning.@RealistAre you familiar with the 2001 water wars in the Klamath River Basin? It was an actual example of your scenario.

  84. Realist says:

    @Mr. Universe”Are you familiar with the 2001 water wars in the Klamath River Basin?”Very much so. That’s why I brought the scenario up. Conservatives tended to land on the side of the farms, and liberals on the side of the fish. Seemed silly (fishy?) to me for it to be a partisan issue, but somehow every dispute these days goes partisan.

  85. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist:What is your question concerning breaking up banks?I would like to make clear that I am not arguing for this, but only noted that there is an interesting argument hypothesizing that growing past a certain size endangers the economy should the bank fail with Lehman Brothers being the example.The failure of Lehman Borthers did cause a substantial market panic, but most of that loss was rcovered within months. Thus, I would not think that the possibility of market panic alone is enough to break up banks.The more interesting question is whether the failure of one big bank would cause a chain of failures at other banks. I do not pretend to know the answer to this question, but would ove to read some research.

  86. Realist says:

    @BartI was under the apparently mistaken assumption that you were advocating breaking up banks, as an alternative to bailouts.Since you are not arguing for this, my question becomes broader:Given the scenario we had (and very well may have again in the future) of banks sufficiently large that a collapse of one of them is sufficient to produce an economic meltdown, what would you propose be done about it?

  87. Realist says:

    @BartI should add that I agree that Lehman’s failure did not by itself cause a meltdown. But that’s in large part due to a bailout from JP Morgan that was backed by the Federal Reserve. In other words, a government bailout.

  88. shrinkers says:

    @BartIf there were substantive objective evidence that CO2 caused global warming,Bart, I have serious question for you. Are you unaware of how the physics of greenhouse gasses works?There is no doubt whatever that increased CO2 in the atmosphere raises global temperature. I am asking an entirely honest question here. Did you not know that this is established physics, having to do with the fact that ultraviolet radiation from the sun easily passes through CO2 (and certain other gasses) but radiant heat from the ground does not?

  89. Bart DePalma says:

    Shrinkers:The CO2 driven global warming theory is contrary to physics:http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2009/03/physical-impossibility-of-green-house.htmlIn any case, the relatively small amount of CO2 we emit into the atmosphere is not moving the percentage of atmosphere made up of CO2:http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-co2-rise.html

  90. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist: “Given the scenario we had (and very well may have again in the future) of banks sufficiently large that a collapse of one of them is sufficient to produce an economic meltdown, what would you propose be done about it?”Never EVER again allow regulatory agencies to gut underwriting standards for consumer debt held by banks, especially large debt like home mortgages.The bank panic was not caused by the size of the banks, it was caused by many banks of every size owning toxic debt created by mandate of the Fed, HUD and Justice in the 90s. The banks stopped lending to one another and the financial system froze up.

  91. shrinkers says:

    Bart, don’t quote yourself if you want to be convincing. You are entirely wrong about the level of CO2. But thank you for acknowledging that the science is sound.

  92. Monotreme says:

    I find myself appalled and delighted in equal measure.Appalled that Mr. DePalma thinks that he knows the first thing about atmospheric and climate science.Delighted that he doesn’t claim expertise in neuroscience.

  93. Bart DePalma says:

    Quinnipiac has Paladino cutting Cuomo’s lead by more than half and is now within 6 points.Paladino needs to keep hammering Cuomo as one of the architects of the subprime market while running the Clinton HUD and thus partially to blame for the recession.

  94. shrinkers says:

    Quinnipiac seems to have the same problem Rasmussen has — they left out Lazio.Interesting that Paladino being “within 6 points” gives him a chance, whereas when Dems are trailing by that much anywhere else, their situation is hopeless. But then, Bart, you’ve revealed that what you write is nor more than political hackery, with no actual belief behind any of it.

  95. filistro says:

    Bart, now you’re backing PALADINO? You’ve really moved on from “what’s best for the country,” haven’t you? Now you’re on “win at all costs.”Bart’s gone to the mattresses. Panic mode. The trend is not your friend.I sense the same uneasiness amongst the Freepers. They can just feel it starting to slip away.Ignore the article and skip down to the comments. Among the first dozen or so they worry they might have “over-hyped” and fret that Christine O’Donnell is now costing them votes nationally. I note there is also getting to be a lot more squabbling and backbiting among the faithful.SURF’S UP!!! 🙂

  96. Bart DePalma says:

    Shrinkers:It appears that the RINO sore losers running as third party candidates are doing a better job taking moderate Dem and Indi votes away from the Dem candidate than splitting the conservative vote. This leaves the GOP candidate with a conservative plurality and a double digit lead over the Dem and the RINO. See Florida and Alaska.I would be interested to see if this is also the case with Lazio.

  97. Bart DePalma says:

    filistro:Paladino’s platform of cutting back NY’s insane spending to say that of California appears to be rather moderate.

  98. filistro says:

    Paladino is a nasty, bigoted, obscene, foul-mouthed, racist pervert.(And I mean that in the nicest possible way.)

  99. shortchain says:

    Every once in a while, I like to drop in on Bart’s blog and see if there’s anything there that could be amusing.This CO2 discussion is a perfect case in point. What do we find in his link? Absolutely nothing but an extensive quote from a paper which Bart understands no more from than that it appears to support his point, and a link to another right-wing blogger who understands nothing more than he does, but whom he’s more than willing to quote (can you say “confirmation bias”, folks?). It’s basically the whining of a theoretical physicist that climate science is too complicated.Apparently, for these guys, if you can’t write an equation on the back of a napkin, then the phenomena don’t exist. Bart doesn’t understand that, of course. He has no concept of what happens when new forcing functions are introduced into nonlinear systems with massive feedback paths which were, before the introduction, in chaotic equilibrium.But there is not enough time in the universe to plumb the depths of Bart’s ignorance. He is a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

  100. Bart DePalma says:

    filistro: “Paladino is a nasty, bigoted, obscene, foul-mouthed, racist pervert.”Don’t hold back now. Tell us all what you really think?Now, do you have any evidence to back up these allegations?

  101. Monotreme says:

    @shortchain:That’s why periodically, Shrinkers pesters Bart about dog food.The nutritional analysis is too complicated for poor Bart to understand. He is forced to taste the food to see if it’s any good.

  102. filistro says:

    Bart… from “Daily Gotham”..Paladino has sent emails that include: # A popular video among white supremacists called “Obama Inauguration Rehearsal,” that includes dancing African tribesmen. [Racist and Birther BS] # A video titled “Miss France 2008 fucking,” that Paladino called “a keeper.” [Basic Pornography, not a biggie except for the hypocrisy it exposes] # An image of Barack and Michelle Obama dressed like a pimp and a prostitute, with the subject line, “White House ball.” [Racist] # An image with the caption, “HOLY SHIT, run niggers, run.” [Racist] # A bestiality video featuring a man and a horse, and another featuring young women and horses. [Bestiality]“All-American family values,” Bart. Charming, eh? PS… A while ago I went to the trouble of looking up all the e-mails listed above that Paladino has sent to “friends and supporters.” You could too, if you cared at all what kind of people you support. And yes, they really exist, and they’re really that bad. (And I’m no prude.)YUCK.

  103. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain wrote: “This CO2 discussion is a perfect case in point. What do we find in his link? Absolutely nothing but an extensive quote from a paper…”:::sigh:::That “extensive quote” is what is known as the authors’ abstract of his paper. I provided you with the cite for the full paper concerning the analysis of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You can buy the paper from any number of academic paper sites on the web.The paper discussing the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere was linked in toto. Read it and learn something.

  104. shortchain says:

    Bart,Double major in math and physics here. I looked at the paper, and summarized it above. Learn to read.Having a complete scientific ignoramus like yourself telling me to “learn something” about science is a big hoot.

  105. Bart DePalma says:

    Filisto:I assume that you are quoting from the Daily Gotham post linked below:http://www.dailygotham.com/mole333/blog/paladino039srepublicanvaluesracismpornographybeastialityUmmm… Where are these alleged emails?Without the emails, why are you giving this claim any credence at all?

  106. Monotreme says:

    @shortchain:Now you see the motivation for my comment at 10:07 pm yesterday.

  107. filistro says:

    @Bart.. Ummm… Where are these alleged emails?Good grief, you spend enough time online… find them yourself. If I did, you certainly can. Just input the key words plus “Paladino,” and they’ll pop right up there on your screen in all their racist, porno wonderfulness.Well, except for the “horse sex” ones which are widely discussed but a bit harder to actually SEE. (Well worth the search, though.)

  108. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain summary about physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich’s analysis of the physics of CO2: “It’s basically the whining of a theoretical physicist that climate science is too complicated.”Is this kind of incisive and insightful analysis of scientific research well received where you work?Here is the abstract:The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. Ac- cording to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm sci- entific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green- house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.Address the content, admit your ignorance of the subject matter or concede the points.BTW, do not engage in credentialing pissing contests with me. In court on cross examination, I have discredited the unfounded claims of far more credentialed witnesses than you.

  109. shortchain says:

    Monotreme,Yup, appreciated that comment.It’s fascinating, in a twisted sort of way, to observe a person with, apparently, almost no capacity to learn from his mistakes. But we’re bordering on neuroscience here, a field about which I know only the surface.

  110. shrinkers says:

    Bart, it’s not necessary to read any further than “According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.” If the writer knows anything about physics, he’s clearly a hired hack, and if he doesn’t — well, he’s clearly a hired hack.And since you’ve proven you don’t usually believe a word of what you post, I don’t see any point in pursuing it further. I’d rather discuss the topic with someone who is honestly thinking about it, than someone who merely and knowingly invents crap for the sake of attempting to gain a political advantage.

  111. Monotreme says:

    @shrinkers:I strongly suspect you’re right about Bart. Still, the teacher in me soldiers on…Bart, when your so-called expert says, in essence:”According the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist”Scientists who have taken courses like physics, biophysics and physical chemistry read:”In a theoretical contruct that demands a closed system, an open system can never exist.”That’s your problem, right there. You ran over a skunk about 20 miles back and its carcass is stuck to your muffler.

  112. filistro says:

    Poor old Bart. What a smackdown.Unfortunately, Bart is a Weeble.And we all know that Weebles wobble, but they don’t fall down.

  113. shortchain says:

    Bart,Did you have trouble understanding when I said I had looked at the paper? Are you incapable of understanding simple English?Please note that your extract is nothing but a series of assertions. If you search on their paper, you’ll find this, which basically points out the authors of your paper get the basic physics fundamentally wrong — as was obvious to me just skimming it.Read the refutation, come back and we’ll discuss it. You won’t, of course. You didn’t read the original paper — or if you did, you didn’t understand more than the “executive summary”, and not all of that.As for credential contest — that wasn’t the purpose of my comment. It was to point out that a DUI lawyer from far Colorado suburbia is not in a position to teach me physics or math. You can try, of course, but you’ll just appear foolish, since all you’ll manage is a bunch of links to minimally more informed folks than yourself, or to papers which, like the above, are of doubtful quality.

  114. Bart DePalma says:

    filistro:Paladino certainly is crude. If you could peek into Cuomo’s emails, what do you think you would find there?In any case, what does any of this have to do with the issues facing NY?If I was a New Yorker, any desire I might have to vote for Cuomo would end when I learned the man was abusing HUD to sue banks forcing them to make subprime loans than then enacted regulations requiring Freddie and Fannie to dedicate half of their portfolio to buying over a trillion dollars of this trash. Cuomo is a primary architect of the current recession, has destroyed the wealth of hundreds of thousands of home buyers and should be allowed nowhere near a position of authority. If NY elects this man, they deserve everything they get.

  115. filistro says:

    And once again, Bart’s point is refudiated by HIS OWN LINK: Having said all that, the deal is not sealed, and Republicans shouldn’t presume they have this demographic locked up: Walmart Moms who say they plan to vote Republican this fall are less committed to their candidate than those voting Democratic. Democrats may still have time to make their case to Walmart Moms before November 2nd. While a majority of the Walmart Moms who are planning to vote Republican say they are committed to their candidate (57%), a significant 43% say they could still change their mind before the election. This is in contrast to those planning to vote Democrat in the fall, where 69% say they are committed to their candidate and just 31% say they could still change their mind.Bart, Bart…. (shaking head)

  116. shortchain says:

    Bart,So your response to being shown to have pointed us to a questionable (at best) article which you didn’t really analyze or investigate is…to repeat the action?(I’ve read your “evidence” that the Great Recession was due to all those low-income borrowers, and it’s garbage. And the NR is nothing but a joke.)

  117. filistro says:

    @Bart: If you could peek into Cuomo’s emails, what do you think you would find Well, just a wild guess here… but probably not sex with horses and president as black pimp.

  118. shrinkers says:

    In any case, what does any of this have to do with the issues facing NY?Oh. My. Gods.Bart is complaining that someone else isn’t talking about the actual issues.The king of misdirection and disinformation.Now that you’ve been smacked down on your global climate change nonsense, are you ready to answer any of the questions we’ve been asking you for months?Start with this — You claim unlimited corporate money in political advertising will not have any adverse effect on elections, since voters will rationally consider the facts and arguments which will be rationally presented, and reach a decision made after careful research. Consumers never make irrational decisions based on false information in advertisements. So I ask again – do you taste your dogfood before you buy it?

  119. Bart DePalma says:

    Shrinkers:Dr. Gerlich’s primary observation is:In the language of physics an effect is a not necessarily evident but a reproducible and measurable phenomenon together with its theoretical explanation.Neither the warming mechanism in a glass house nor the supposed anthropogenic warming is due to an effect in the sense of this definition:• In the first case (the glass house) one encounters a straightforward phenomenon. • In the second case (the Earth’s atmosphere) one cannot measure something; rather, oneonly makes heuristic calculations.The explanation of the warming mechanism in a real greenhouse is a standard problem in undergraduate courses, in which optics, nuclear physics and classical radiation theory are dealt with. On this level neither the mathematical formulation of the first and second law of thermodynamics nor the partial differential equations of hydrodynamics or irreversible thermodynamics are known; the phenomenon has thus to be analyzed with comparatively elementary means.However, looking up the search terms “glass house effect”, “greenhouse effect”, or the German word “Treibhauseffekt” in classical textbooks on experimental physics or theoretical physics, one finds – possibly to one’s surprise and disappointment – that this effect does not appear anywhere – with a few exceptions, where in updated editions of some books publications in climatology are cited. ***The hysterical critiques to which you linked simply offer the assumptions concerning the effect of CO2 on warming contained within computer models – none of which have proven accurate. There is no offer of scientific proof where the claimed calculation was lab tested and reproduced.Next, your critics offer the lame assertion that a physicist commenting on physics should not be credited because he is not a credentialed climatologist. (What is it with credentials with you people on the left?) Given the number of recently disclosed errors and lies by leading climatologists in the AGW movement, proclaiming “I am a climatologist, you can believe me over the physicist” is hardly an effective argument.

  120. Bart DePalma says:

    Filistro:No “deal is done” in an election. You can only take folks at their current word and the so called Walmart mom’s current word is that about a fifth of them are bailing on the Dems.The women who are shifting are normally a Dem constituency. If they realign, that is another couple feet on the tsunami. If they join a majority of the Dem base in staying home in disgust, that counts as an effective half vote for the GOP.

  121. shortchain says:

    That sound you hear coming from Bart’s direction is the goalposts being moved. Of course, by Bart’s definition, all quantum mechanics has few “effects”.Try looking up “greenhouse effect” in astronomy textbooks and you might get a shock yourself.You really have no clue how stupid you sound, do you?

  122. shrinkers says:

    Bart, I understand that accept Gerlich’s absurd arguments. It’s an excellent example of the question I’ve been asking you.Do you taste your dog food before you buy it?In this case, you’re buying a ton of gerlich, even though you clearly know nothing about the topic. He’s selling snakeoil.Further, you clearly also didn’t understand — or, probably, even read — the critiques to which I linked.Gerlich’s objected, for instance, that since the air is cooler than the ground, it can’t be keeping the ground warm. That is adequately addressed in the responses, and a single example from the real work displays it; insulation around a thermos bottle is cooler than the hot liquid within, yet it keeps the liquid warm.The mathematics and physics of heat absorption and heat radiation determine the maximum temperature the surface of Earth can be without an atmosphere. Gerlich also relies on this math. Yet the surface of the Earth is at least 33 degrees Centigrade warmer than that — proof that the atmosphere does, indeed, prevent the heat from dissipating. It is further known, through experiment and physics, that some gasses are better at trapping radiated heat than others. Ergo, Gerlich is simply wrong, and the question is completely noncontroversial.By the way, there is experimental proof of all this, on a planetary scale. Not only do we know the composition of the atmosphere and average temperature of the Earth going back millions of years, we also have a second instance to observe. The planet Venus is a product of a runaway greenhouse effect. It has a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead (this is known through direct observation, from probes that have penetrated to its surface), and the primary cause of that is an atmosphere composed mostly of greenhouse gasses.I’m sorry you don’t trust simple math and physics. You may need some other way to determine how you bill your clients. You may also want to give up computers, which function on these same principles. Your computer includes a heat sink that keeps the CPU from overheating. All the same math and physics is used to make sure it functions properly.Once again – do you taste your dogfood before you buy it? Clearly not. You’re willing to swallow anything, if it advances your political agenda.

  123. Realist says:

    @BartThe bank panic was not caused by the size of the banks, it was caused by many banks of every size owning toxic debt created by mandate of the Fed, HUD and Justice in the 90s. The banks stopped lending to one another and the financial system froze up.You keep surprising me, and not in a good way.Yes, banks lent money in a way that created toxic debt. If you look at the defaults, they weren’t primarily from loans to low-income people; rather, they were loans to the middle-class. Please point to the Fed, HUD, and Justice actions that mandated loans to middle-class people who were getting in over their heads.But you’re missing some larger issues. The toxic loans weren’t held by the lenders. They were sliced up, commoditized, and resold to investment firms, many of whom were the same institutions as banks due to the repeal of Glass-Steagall many years earlier. (And, in case you feel like calling attention to it, I’m aware that it happened while Clinton was in office. Just because we had a Democrat as President doesn’t mean I thought it was a good law.)It was the investment sides of these firms that initiated the meltdown, not the banking sides. Once the investments started collapsing, banks that had been lending to people who were getting in over their heads suddenly were left with a bunch of loans that they couldn’t sell on the secondary market, because everything froze up. That’s when the banking side started to collapse.Now, if some small banks did this, the impact on the economy would have been minimal. FDIC would step in, cover the deposits, and life would go on. But what we had were institutions that were sufficiently large to completely drain FDIC’s coffers. That’s one of the reasons bailouts were needed.At least the last sentence in your post was true.

  124. Monotreme says:

    Bart made me LOL!(What is it with credentials with you people on the left?)What is it with credentials with you lawyers? All this nonsense about having to attend law school. We should just let randomly-selected citizens make laws, interpret them, and deprive people of liberty. We should do it like Survivor or Big Brother and just vote people out of the house!You really don’t understand that you come across as a massive tool about 99% of the time.

  125. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist:The subprime mortgages were not limited to the poor. The non-creditworthy of all incomes jumped on this bandwagon. Moreover, the failures were indeed concentrated in the subprime market.Kristopher S, Gerardi and Paul S. Willen, “Subprime Mortgages, Foreclosures and Urban Neighborhoods,” Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Public Discussion Papers, no. 08-6.Rakesh Kochhar, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera and Daniel Dockterman, “Through Boom and Bust: Minorities, Immigrants and Home Ownership,” Pew Hispanic Research Center, May 12, 2009. http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=109Todd J. Zywicki and Joeseph D Adamson, “The Law and Economics of Subprime Lending,” University of Colorado Law Review 80 (2008).In general, read:Raguhuram Rajan, Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy (Princeton University Press 2010).Peter Schweizer, Architects of Ruin (Harper Collins 2009).

  126. shiloh says:

    Again Bart, when do you find time to run your smallish, mom and pop, lawyer firm …Rhetorical question.And your Google profile page allows potential clients to know how much time you obsess re: winger/teabagger politics, thus telling them how time you will have to spend on their individual cases, eh.but, but, but you definitely are out there 😉 as you don’t hide what a stark raving winger lunatic you really are …take care, blessings

  127. Realist says:

    @BartApparently you missed this request amongst the rest of the text in my previous comment. I’ll re-ask here:Please point to the Fed, HUD, and Justice actions that mandated loans to middle-class people who were getting in over their heads.This is very important, because it’s the crux of your claim.

  128. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist: “Please point to the Fed, HUD, and Justice actions that mandated loans to middle-class people who were getting in over their heads.”These actions literally fill the books and studies I recommended for your reading. I will briefly summarize the major actions taken by each agency. If you do not believe me, read the sources.1) Starting in 1993 and led by the Boston Fed, the Federal Reserve issued published and unpublished guidance girded with express threats of regulations and CRA lawsuits laying out in detail how standard underwriting standards were to be gutted.2) Justice sued mortgage lenders throughout the 90s for failing to extend mortgages to minorities using a disparate impact theory and settling the suits for agreements to meet home mortgage lending targets.3) HUD launched a series of suits along the same lines as Justice. However, the bans dragged their feet in complying with all of the above until HUD enacted regulations requiring Freddie and Fannie to buy the resulting trash mortgages. At that point, the banks jumped on the subprime bandwagon so long as they could offload the resulting toxic loans on Freddie and Fannie with an implicit taxpayer guarantee. What they did not calculate was that these toxic loans would be mixed in with standard mortgages into AAA rated asset based instruments the banks parked their cash into.I did extensive research into this subject for a chapter in the book I am writing, which is why I was able to whip out multiple cites from my endnotes for your review. It is obscene the way banking regulators tasked with ensuring that the banks maintain goo practices are substantially responsible for one of the greatest financial mismanagements in history.

  129. shiloh says:

    @BartlesI did extensive research into this subject for a chapter in the book I am writing~~~~~~~~~~Indeed, forgot about Bart’s Socialism tome er pamphlet he is writing about Obama lol as well as being on the net 24/7.Clients are flocking to Bart’s legal firm even we speak …take care

  130. shrinkers says:

    I did extensive research into this subject for a chapter in the book I am writing, … like the chapter which you extensively researched to show that Obama’s speeches tanked the DOW. You still haven’t offered any evidence of that absurd claim, either.We’ve heard this song before, Bart, different verse, same melody…

  131. shrinkers says:

    Bart,One notes, by the way, that your attempted nonsense reply does not address the question Realist asked, or even pretend to. Mere misdirection and disinformation, yet again…

  132. Realist says:

    I started reading the studies you sent, which is why I asked. Thus far I haven’t seen anything in them that talked about lawsuits. However, I do recall actions being taken in the 1990s against lenders who were redlining neighborhoods rather than using a consistent set of income and credit criteria for potential lendees. Is this the situation to which you refer?

  133. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist:I do not know whether the suits you are recalling are the same which came up in my research.The linked cites that you are probably reading were provided in response to your proposition that defaults were not concentrated in the subprime market.The two books I provided discuss the suits in detail. If you google “Cuomo HUD housing lawsuits” you should get some articles on the subject. I had to dig deeper concerning the Justice lawsuits because the AG was not grandstanding for the press as was Cuomo and there were fewer news stories.Cuomo is a self promoting walking disaster. NY had better beware making him their governor.

  134. Realist says:

    @BartThe linked cites that you are probably reading were provided in response to your proposition that defaults were not concentrated in the subprime market.You really do have reading comprehension problems, don’t you? What I said was:If you look at the defaults, they weren’t primarily from loans to low-income people…Now, granted, I misunderstood your statement to which I was responding. This is due to your reference to HUD, which is generally associated with low-income, not middle-class, people. But that wasn’t a reading comprehension issue on my part; rather it was an incorrect inference due to insufficient context.I’ll have to dig deeper to find out more about the lawsuits.

  135. Realist says:

    @Bart,I did the search using the parameters you provided, then did a bunch more with varying terms to try to find some case where he even threatened to sue (let alone actually sue) anyone for not lowering their lending standards. I could not find one.I did find several editorials in WSJ and the Washington Times that claimed he did, but nothing anywhere on the ‘net outside of the conservative media and blogosphere. To the extent that they made any references, they were to each other. Kind of like the early days of Google when people wanted their sites to be ranked higher.I also found suits he filed against lenders who were tested by having identical applicants of different races, where the non-white applicant was consistently given a higher mortgage rate. Your Pew Hispanic reference corroborates this via empirical evidence.So I’m tossing the ball back into your court. Give me something better than the search term you supplied. I’m still digging.

  136. shortchain says:

    Apparently, when it comes to a conclusion that he wants to find, a requirement that it be clearly demonstrable through mathematical and experimental cause-and-effect is not a requirement for Bart to speak with unquestioned certainty.

  137. shrinkers says:

    Realist — Bart may simply quit this thread now. You may have to ask him again on another thread. He may ignore you.It is not uncommon for Bart to refer to rightwing nutbat commentators as “evidence” of his claims, and to be unable to provide any actual data. Nutbat opinion pieces are all he needs to set him off. If my accusation of his inability to produce data helps prod him to produce data in an effort to prove me wrong, all the better. But unless he does, I’ll point out that Bart has almost never been able to actually support one of his insane claims. I don’t doing this won’t be any different.

  138. Realist says:

    @BartOne more thing. As I continue to pore over the references you provided, a few things are becoming clearer to me.You are conflating sub-prime and predatory lending.You are using that conflation as the basis for taking an anti-regulation stance on lending.This is problematic. Zywicki and Adamson are careful to draw the distinctions, as well they should. The tinderbox was set up by a bunch of factors, but the spark came from the predatory lending.Predatory lending was made much easier when the lenders were able to decouple their income from their risk by selling the risk liability (i.e., reselling loans) without full disclosure of the product they were selling. That, of course, is fraud, and many of those lenders were charged, and some convicted, of the fraud. However, the damage to the housing market was already done, and couldn’t be undone. The tinder had been lit.

  139. shrinkers says:

    RealistBart does not believe “predatory lending” exists. If someone is too stupid to see that they’re getting ripped off, that’s their problem. In fact, if the loan is bad, it is the debtor’s fault, not the lender. No one should take out a loan they can’t pay back.So yes, he conflates sub-prime mortgages with predatory practices. Sub-prime mortgages are, by definition, less than ideal. The (Democratic) government shouldn’t have allowed them, and the borrowers shouldn’t have demanded them. Lenders were forced to give out these loans, so you can’t blame them for following the law and making their entirely legal profits.The economy collapsed because of Democratic mismanagement and predatory borrowers.See how that works?

  140. Realist says:

    @shrinkers,Actually, I’m altogether sidestepping the issue of fault between lender and borrower. Sure, there are cases of lenders who can come out ahead on foreclosures by lending to someone foolish enough to go in over his head. That scenario is damaging to the borrower, but not so much to the economy as a whole.No, what I’m talking about is the case where the lender had no reason to care about the risk on either side of the transaction, because he was fraudulently reselling the lending risk to someone else. That scenario is damaging to not only the borrower, but also the economy as a whole. It’s a far more dangerous form of predatory lending.

  141. shrinkers says:

    @Realist,You’re absolutely right. And yes, that was a big factor in the meltdown. Intentionally making bad loans, packaging them up into huge securities, dividing them into pieces, selling them with false ratings, knowing all along they were going to fail — that was an enormous part of what went wrong, and directly attributable to a lack of regulation, and a lack of enforcement of what little regulation remained. There were other big factors too — a decade of stagnant wages, which encouraged people to go massively into debt; they reached their limits and began defaulting and about the same time lenders ran out of ways to lend; credit dried up, as lenders found themselves unable to collect on debts; business froze; demand plummeted; people lost their jobs, which made all these problems worse; etc.But Bart insists it was all about Democratic lawmakers forcing Fanny and Freddy to make sub-prime mortgages, and those evil poor people who knowingly tried to defraud the innocent bankers. And we need more deregulation to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

  142. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist:1) If you are looking for primary sources, read the endnotes in the books I cited.2) Subprime lending is lending to folks who would not otherwise be creditworthy using traditional underwriting standards before the banking regulators gutted them.Predatory lending is normally understood as fraudulently misleading the borrower about the terms of the loan. There is no evidence that fraudulent loans make up a significant portion of the defaulted subprime market.3) The government’s creation of a secondary market for home lenders to unload toxic loans on Freddie and Fannie was probably the major factor in the growth of the subprime mortgage market. Whether this opportunity to unload risk facilitated fraudulent loans is something I have not looked at.4) What triggered the defaults in the subprime market starting in the summer of 2006 was the combination of bubble high cost of homes and the non-creditworthiness of the borrowers. The mortgages took up higher percentages of the borrower’s income and these borrowers were not responsible enough to arrange their finances to meet their obligations.Once the home price bubble burst, folks who could otherwise pay their mortgages declined to do so because they were paying more than the value of their mortgages.By 2008, rising unemployment caused folks to be unable to pat their mortgages, adding further to the defaults.

  143. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist: “No, what I’m talking about is the case where the lender had no reason to care about the risk on either side of the transaction, because he was fraudulently reselling the lending risk to someone else.”Freddie and Fannie are sophisticated financial companies and are more than capable of determining loan risk. The problems were that their HUD mandate was to buy this trash and their management was corruptly making millions in commissions doing so. As an aside, the Boston Fed President who put out the guidance to the banks to gut their underwriting standards made a fortune later as Freddie’s President, continuing to buy this garbage even after his CFO warned him that the entire house of cards was about to collapse.My friend, read the books I suggested.

  144. filistro says:

    re: not campaigning on HCR… the GOP seems to be totally missing one little fact. Okay, TWO little facts:1.) there are six weeks left2.) timing is everythingFor instance, several key points in the HCR kick in TODAY… free preventive care, no denial for kids with existing conditions, kids stay on parent’s plan, etc. It’s a nice coincidence to have those things become operative the SAME DAY the “Pledge” vows to repeal the bill.I already notice some frantic back-pedalling. One Gooper, asked by an MSNBC anchor today whether they intend to repeal all that stuff too, said rather lamely that they want to REPEAL it in this Congress, and then REPLACE it in the next. Well, parts of it. Well, just the bad stuff. The really bad stuff. Not all of it. Not the good parts. No.A really powerful message, eh?On the other hand, 39% in the new AP poll believe “death panels” are still part of HCR. I assume they’re all Republicans, but what’s less clear… is this just mischievous, like telling a pollster you believe the Pres is a Muslim even though you don’t actually, just because it’s a fun thing to say?

  145. filistro says:

    Ooops.. posted that last HCR thing in the wrong thread. I’ve just reposted it at the top in teh Pledge thread where it belongs. Now I look like Pete Kent 😦

  146. shrinkers says:

    You will never look like PK (shudder)

  147. Realist says:

    @Bart,Freddie and Fannie are sophisticated financial companies and are more than capable of determining loan risk. The problems were that their HUD mandate was to buy this trashThanks for pointing me to this topic. I had to go back and relearn what I initially learned back in the 90s about this.Fannie and Freddie were tasked with buying conforming loans. The market for conforming loans was stable, even though Fannie’s auditing of loan documentation was far from sufficient. That is, people buying conforming MBSes were led to believe that there was sufficient validation of loan applications. There wasn’t.It’s kind of like how people blithely assume when they buy food at the grocery store that the food suppliers have sufficient oversight. As is evidenced by the increasing amount of massive food recalls, that assumption is patently false.But it was the (very active) non-conforming secondary market that triggered the broader denouement. Fannie and Freddie were prohibited from buying non-conforming loans, so they weren’t involved in that. Once things started falling apart in the non-conforming space, suddenly everyone was interested in auditing everything. And, of course, we saw the results.So it wasn’t the pressure to lend more, per se, that was at the root. It was insufficient auditing.

  148. shiloh says:

    @filiNow I look like Pete Kent~~~~~~~~~~No, you already mentioned some time ago, you look like Sally Field 🙂 which of course made your legend loom larger 😉 knowing you look like Gidget and The Flying Nun.Had a Sally Field fetish in the late ’60s …btw, the security code was 66662carry on

  149. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist: “Fannie and Freddie were tasked with buying conforming loans.”That is the point. Freddie and Fannie had no substantive underwriting standards to which the loans needed to conform.F&F were actually urging its home mortgage lenders to count black market income in making subprime loans and to extend these loans to “certain nonpermanent immigrants” known otherwise as illegal immigrants.Natasha Shulman, “Reaching the Immigrant Market: Creating Home Ownership Opportunities for New Americans,” p. 56 Institute for the Study of International Migration, Georgetown University 2003.Remember Anthony Mozilla of Countrywide infamy? Freddie and Fannie were egging him on to send them business.Gretchen Morgenson, “Housing Policy’s Third Rail,” The New York Times (August 7, 2010). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/business/08gret.html?src=buslnMy friend, you are not going to be able to put lipstick on this pig and pass it off as Miss America.The problem was not a lack of regulation, but rather an abuse of regulation to destroy any semblance of underwriting standards to reach a political goal of socializing the home mortgage industry.

  150. Realist says:

    @BartFreddie and Fannie had no substantive underwriting standards to which the loans needed to conform.Apparently you are unfamiliar with what “conforming” means in the context of mortgage lending. All of the loans they assumed were conforming loans. Every single one.F&F were actually urging its home mortgage lenders to count black market income in making subprime loansSource? Given that everything else you’ve said on this topic has been misrepresented, I’m skeptical…but willing to be proven wrong.and to extend these loans to “certain nonpermanent immigrants” known otherwise as illegal immigrants.No, they are not. The explicit definition given for “nonpermanent immigrants” was those who had visas to study or work on a temporary basis. How do I know this? You gave me enough information to research it myself. Maybe you need to do the same before you draw incorrect conclusions.The problem was not a lack of regulation, but rather an abuse of regulationBecause what? F&F forced lenders to loan the money? That would be an abuse of regulation. The only evidence I’ve seen thus far says that they weren’t sufficiently auditing and being audited. That sort of thing is caused by insufficient regulation, not excessive regulation.

  151. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist:I am getting tired of these games.I have provided multiple sources and misrepresented nothing.You have offered no rebuttal evidence.Read all of my sources, especially the books which take a comprehensive look at the problem, and then get back to me with contrary evidence.

  152. Monotreme says:

    @Realist:That’s how you know you’ve won.

  153. Realist says:

    @Bart,You provided seven sources. Five are available for online research, and two are books.I followed up on all five online sources. Not a single one of them corroborated your claims, and most contradicted them. If I were on a jury, I’d say your credibility was shot.You “got” me on one point. I thought you were talking about low-income lending when you apparently were talking about subprime. The rest I have rebutted very clearly. Most recently, I pointed out that “nonpermanent immigrants” were explicitly defined in a way that explicitly excluded illegals. Do you need the exact quote and location? Is that the level of public humiliation you’re aiming for?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s