Originally Posted by James50

You are right about one thing. Its not a mystery. But 71% is the right number. Facts are pesky little things.

James50

Others have already wieghed-in, but this is a nice graphic that tells the tale:



In other words, the "high-risk" loans fron the GSEs are actually pretty solid in comparison to those in the "Actual subprime" category. I'll look into default rates, if I can find anything. I suspect the ratio will be the same or worse.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

For years, I've responded to questions about my political alignemnt by saying I'm too liberal to be a Democrat. Even though I'm serious, it always gets laughs. Lately, a few people I would categorize as politically disengaged have begun to understand that yes, the Democrats aren't the liberal party any more. Once they figure that out for themselves, the Socialist/Marxist prattle from the right becomes a form of humor. Eventually it stops being funny, and just gets on their nerves.

I'm counting on that.

I second that it gets on my nerves too. I suppose the founding fathers would be seen as socialists too. They were all about a government of the people, for the people, by the people, etc. etc. (Yes, I know that was an Abe Lincoln quote, but whatever) It still came from the ideas of the constitution. The revolutionaries were sick of the crap they were getting from the rulers in England. They wanted a government that worked for them...the people. Not one that catered to the wimps of the ruling class.

Originally Posted by James50

Banks are highly regulated and only do what the government let's them do. As you say, it is astonishingly simple. We did not all of a sudden get a new breed of bankers in 2002. It was bi-partisan government policy from start to finish.

James50

OK, on one side we have Republicans Gramm, Leach and Bliley, and on the other side you have Bill Clinton. Killng Glass-Steagle was the go-ahead signal for Wild West Banking^TM to begin in earnest, and I do blame both parties. I doubt that the previous Dempocratic Southern Governor turned President would have done this, but then again, Jimmy Carter started the deregulation bandwagon, so he might have gone along too. Do you see the pattern here? It's Republicans and Southern Democrats. The liberal parts of the liberal party didn't buy-in. On that basis alone, the not guilty deserve a bit of praise ... and consideration.

Another thing I believe needs to be said here. What is the actual, as opposed to media-sponsored delusional, strength of the Tea Party? If we're going to compare them to the Nazi Party in pre-1933 Germany, what was the strength of the Nazis in terms of support by Germans? We should also bear in mind that the National Socialists were an actual political party while the Tea Party isn't. Polls put Tea Party support at a maximum of about 28%, with more opposed than supporting. On Tea Party issues, we find that almost all of them are supported only by a minority of the people, and the exceptions are ones (like excessive corporate influenced on government) that the movement shares with Occupy.

There are no poll data regarding the popularity of the Nazis in 1932-3, so we have to go by election results. The federal elections of 1932-1933 were an interesting mess, pointing to the fact that Germany was in Crisis. Two elections were held in 1932. In the first one (July), the Nazis rose to almost 40% of the Reichstag, but could not ally with another party to form a majority, nor could anyone else. Interestingly, between the Nazis and the Communists, the totalitarian parties did have a combined majority, so that no democratic majority could be formed; however of course the Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies and would never unite to form a government.

40% is of course far above both Tea Party poll support and Tea Party representation in Congress (which should not be confused with GOP representation).

The second election in November saw the Nazis lose ground, but the net result was similar. The Nazis remained first, the Social Democrats second, the Communists third. No majority could be formed.

The March 1933 election was the crucial one. Partly due to thug tactics, the Nazis still fell short of a majority but were able to form one in alliance with the fascist German National People's Party (DNVP) and pass the Enabling Act giving Hitler dictatorial power.

The 44% won by the Nazis in that election plus the DVNP's 8% equal a majority of 52%, but that is almost certainly an overstatement of the fascists' popularity, as the Nazis' strong-arm tactics distorted the outcome. Nevertheless, the victories won in earlier elections show that Nazi support far exceeded the Tea Party's support today. There is no political climate in America today that would tolerate the tactics that the Nazis used in 1933, which included violent disruption of Communist and Social Democratic party meetings and other events, and posting intimidating troops of brownshirts at polling places. Nor is there any Constitutional mechanism in this country that would allow official legal tolerance of such acts, as was granted to the Nazis by President Hindenberg. Nor is there any provision in the Constitution that allows the assumption of dictatorial powers under any pretext, as there was in Weimar Germany.

Setting aside the obvious differences in ideology between the TP and the Nazis, no realistic appraisal of the TP gives them any significant chance of repeating the Nazis' achievement. They may increase their influence over the GOP, or that influence may have crested, but it's important in any case not to blow the danger they represent completely out of proportion.

Originally Posted by James50

Where you stand depends on where you sit. I am in the private manufacturing sector. You are in the non-profit/government sector. The government is a bloated behemoth that gets in my way or in my wallet every time I turnaround. It is impossible to keep up with all the new regulations coming out on a monthly basis. I understand that you do not see this or feel its impact. To you the government is the protector and supporter of what keep our society functioning. For me, the government is the entity that keeps me in a constant low level of fear. Mostly all I can do is hope they do not notice me. I hate that feeling.

James50

There is more than a little truth in this, and why it's so is a mystery. The German government, with every bit as much control and oversight as we have here, manage to make it palatable by interacting with the commercial sector through an ombudsman. More to the point, the ombudsman has the clout to force the correction of bureaucratic malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance (a little lawyer jargon, but hey, it's their domain).

We need the things the EPA and OSHA do for us. We don't need an adversarial system to make them happen.

Originally Posted by James50

Where you stand depends on where you sit. I am in the private manufacturing sector. You are in the non-profit/government sector. The government is a bloated behemoth that gets in my way or in my wallet every time I turnaround. It is impossible to keep up with all the new regulations coming out on a monthly basis. I understand that you do not see this or feel its impact. To you the government is the protector and supporter of what keep our society functioning. For me, the government is the entity that keeps me in a constant low level of fear. Mostly all I can do is hope they do not notice me. I hate that feeling.

James50

Why does the government get in your way? What kinds of regulations get in your way? Is there a way to get out of its way? Are you willing to pay the taxes that the country needs?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

On the other side we have OWS, which is, basically, a love in. Delusional Boomer liberals here want you all to believe that that is the real political tidal wave that is going to change the country and sweep all before it. Mike introduced a note of reality above by suggesting that the "meme" of OWS is not going to play a significant role in this 4T. I agree.

Your post was good and I agree, except that, there you go agin'. Boomers are not the main ones here supporting OWS; most of us on this thread are supporting it, and Boomers are a minority on this thread. A Boomer liberal like me is also introducing a few notes of caution. So I don't know whom you mean David.

In fact, I would say that if you really think the posters on this thread are being swept along by some liberal boomers to support OWS, then it's you that is in the grip of a serious delusion! And, what does this say about your charge that boomers have ruined higher education and the discipline of history? A bit of an exaggeration there too, perhaps?

If we are going to save government in America, by which I mean state and local (equally under attack) as well as federal, we have to focus on the real threat. (I really feel like a German Social Democrat in 1931 now.) It's Obama or the deluge. Please face it.

This liberal boomer has also brought that up (and for my trouble was called an out-of-touch "Boomer stuck in the 3T"). It is a threat that all moderates and progressives must face. I have some hope though that OWS will change (and is changing) the direction of the political conversation, and that people in the movement will get politically active in whatever way they think worthwhile and appropriate, which may help not only meet this "threat to government," but move us in the direction of a better, less corporate and less unequal society.

Where this Tea Party movement came from and how it got so strong would be debated for decades by historians if historians still cared about such things.

I think it's pretty simple, and I'm sure some historians do and already have-- if by the Tea Party we mean the movement as it came to be known and influenced elections, and not the small group that started it. It is simply the history of the conservative movement in America, which goes back to McCarthyism at least, as well as to the 1920s and the late Gilded Age. But today the history of the Tea Party is mainly a history of the popularity of Ronald Reagan, and the movements that followed him such as the Contract with America. There are big money forces behind it, but also a lot of people hooked on an ideology or "meme" that they hope will reduce their tax bill and the restrictions on their business, as well as all the social conservative trends behind it. Before the New Deal and the Great Society, of course-- in the Gilded Age and the 3rd turning of that cycle-- there were fewer of these things to complain about.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why does the government get in your way? What kinds of regulations get in your way? Is there a way to get out of its way? Are you willing to pay the taxes that the country needs?

I suppose I find OSHA the most galling. We have an excellent safety record and even though we have some dangerous equipment, we often go years between lost time accidents. Recently, we had an inspection that was prompted by an agency initiative for companies which had equipment that could cause amputations (fingers is the biggest danger). We have such equipment with significant guarding. No problems there. But once in the plant, the inspector has to look at everything. He found a couple of electrical panels which did not have the required 36" clear around them. In an emergency, someone would have to push some stuff out of the way to get to the disconnect. We were also cited for some extensions cords that had been dragged across the floor to run some pedestal fans in the summer heat which had some place where the insulation was damaged.

Georgia Tech has a service where you can request an inspection. They will not report any violations found as long as you correct them. We have requested this service numerous times. Indeed, several years ago we were granted a designation from OSHA for the passing nature of our plant and our accident record. At the time we received it, we were only one of three companies in the state that had earned this.

At no time did anyone from Georgia Tech or OSHA in the past tell us the panel clear areas were a violation during numerous inspections over the years. This is only one of hundreds of details you can be fined for. The inspector said we should get the Ga Tech service. "But we already have" of course has no effect. We are still waiting to see what we will be fined. I can guarantee you that not 1 company out of a 100 has dwelt on these regulations and systems as much as we have. It is literally impossible to have a clean inspection. We know it and they know it.

Finally, another characteristic of this inspection that is not substantive but definitely annoying was that the inspector arrived at 9 AM and left at 3 PM. He did not allow anyone to take lunch. It may seem a small thing but we felt it was disrespectful of our company and the management that has struggled to maintain compliance.

Maybe another time, I can go into what it is like to keep track of environmental regulations.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I suppose I find OSHA the most galling. James50

You strike me as beeing a "good actor", someone who tries to run their business ethically. What about firms such as Massey Energy? Wouldn't you agree that regulations need to be in place to ensure safe working conditions?

Originally Posted by James50

Where you stand depends on where you sit. I am in the private manufacturing sector. You are in the non-profit/government sector. The government is a bloated behemoth that gets in my way or in my wallet every time I turnaround. It is impossible to keep up with all the new regulations coming out on a monthly basis. I understand that you do not see this or feel its impact. To you the government is the protector and supporter of what keep our society functioning. For me, the government is the entity that keeps me in a constant low level of fear. Mostly all I can do is hope they do not notice me. I hate that feeling.

James50

I have heard this from business people well to the left of you. I can believe there is plenty of truth to it, although my impression is that it's mostly petty time wasting, not actually oppressive. However, there's a big difference between cutting back on paperwork and dismantling government all levels. I'd be all for the former.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I have heard this from business people well to the left of you. I can believe there is plenty of truth to it, although my impression is that it's mostly petty time wasting, not actually oppressive. However, there's a big difference between cutting back on paperwork and dismantling government all levels. I'd be all for the former.

When you try to write it up, it never sounds as bad as it feels. It feels unjust, like a violation of the social contract, and worthy of a revolt. It sounds like mere paperwork or irritation. There is no sense of proportion in the enforcement. I can't tell you how much I despise it.

James50

James, setting aside the annoyance of dealing with these guys, how much did the fines cost you as an approximate percentage of your ordinary operating costs, and of profits?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

You strike me as beeing a "good actor", someone who tries to run their business ethically. What about firms such as Massey Energy? Wouldn't you agree that regulations need to be in place to ensure safe working conditions?

Its like asking if we need traffic laws. Yes, of course. But how do you feel when you are stopped by a cop at midnight for turning right on red when there is small but unlit sign that you did not see saying "no turn on red" and there is no one (except the cop) for hundreds of yards?

That happened to my24 year old millinneal son recently. It is the first ticket he has ever gotten. The fine was $175 paid on line. He was rightly furious. This kind of stuff is what makes people hate the government.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

James, setting aside the annoyance of dealing with these guys, how much did the fines cost you as an approximate percentage of your ordinary operating costs, and of profits?

Haven't gotten the fines yet. I would guess $10-12,000 that can be appealed to probably $2-$3000. Of course, this is nothing compared to the daily costs of compliance. You have to devote people almost full time to try to stay in compliance even though in the end you know you will fail.

As a percent of profit? Infinite as we lost a small amount of money last year. Our marketplace of commercial construction is down 40% since 2008. Our sales are down 30% so I guess we are over-achieving. Breaking even feels like an enormous accomplishment. We had some layoffs in 2009,but we did not reduce pay or hours for anyone who remained except my brothers and I who took 10% paycuts for a year.

I am headed to China on Wednesday for 10 days. It is a sales trip to see if we can build on the small China sales we have. You realize of course that we have to compete with the Chinese companies who have none of this overbearing regulation to deal with. Now, I am not advocating we do away with our protections, but it is an interesting comparison. How about a simple 5 year moratorium on new OSHA regulations? Would that really be the end of the world after 40 years of issuing new regulations every fortnight?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Haven't gotten the fines yet. I would guess $10-12,000 that can be appealed to probably $2-$3000. Of course, this is nothing compared to the daily costs of compliance. You have to devote people almost full time to try to stay in compliance even though in the end you know you will fail.

You obviously devote considerable time and energy and money to ensuring workplace safety. How much of the cost of compliance is, in your opinion, unjustified?

I'm not trying to defend bureaucratic jackasses here, just trying to put things in perspective.

As a percent of profit? Infinite as we lost a small amount of money last year. Our marketplace of commercial construction is down 40% since 2008.

Oops, my bad. I guess it was a stupid question in this economy. I hope things pick up for you soon.

How about a simple 5 year moratorium on new OSHA regulations?

Problem with this is that new technology is being introduced all the time, and bringing with it new hazards that aren't covered by existing regulation. I've seen stats that OSHA is ridiculously far behind when it comes to evaluating new industrial chemicals, for example. We need to do something but that solution strikes me as overly simplistic. Maybe M&L is right and what we need to do is look at the way other advanced nations like Germany handle workplace safety, environmental protection, etc.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Problem with this is that new technology is being introduced all the time, and bringing with it new hazards that aren't covered by existing regulation.

How about no fines if you have had no lost time accidents in the previous 6 months?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

When you try to write it up, it never sounds as bad as it feels. It feels unjust, like a violation of the social contract, and worthy of a revolt. It sounds like mere paperwork or irritation. There is no sense of proportion in the enforcement. I can't tell you how much I despise it.

James50

Back when I was in business, I got on the tax-audit merry-go-round. In three years, I was auditted for compliance on State sales tax, employee withholding (state and Federal), quarterly corporate tax deposits (state and Federal), and Workman's Compensation. I passed every audit, which seemed to have no bearing on being auditted again for other reasons. I asked the Worksman Comp guy, who was a bit of a d!ck, why he thought I was pincushion of the week. He said it was luck. According to him (consider the source), tax audits are only driven by complaints or as random events, and the random audits are typically 1 in a 100. I obviously forgot to bet on the lottery. My audit luck was running at 1 in 100⁶. I could have hit the big one.

Of course, I was a DFH at the time, so that may have contributed.

Originally Posted by James50

Its like asking if we need traffic laws. Yes, of course. But how do you feel when you are stopped by a cop at midnight for turning right on red when there is small but unlit sign that you did not see saying "no turn on red" and there is no one (except the cop) for hundreds of yards?

That happened to my24 year old millinneal son recently. It is the first ticket he has ever gotten. The fine was $175 paid on line. He was rightly furious. This kind of stuff is what makes people hate the government.

James50

I've had my share of tickets I thought were over the top, but I've also escaped when a ticket was fully justified. Interestingly, we went through a period here in Virginia where traffic fines were a politicaly acceptable alterntive to raising taxes, so they were common and ridiculously high. Luckily, that absurdity was ruled excessive, and the excessive fines were rebated.

It is a problem that some rules and fines are excessive, while others (like our current inability to inspect food, and the failures in our coal mines and oil industry) are inadequate.

Originally Posted by James50

How about no fines if you have had no lost time accidents in the previous 6 months?

I could get behind that. Like a fix-it ticket.

Originally Posted by James50

That happened to my24 year old millinneal son recently. It is the first ticket he has ever gotten. The fine was $175 paid on line. He was rightly furious. This kind of stuff is what makes people hate the government.

James50

Everyone hates the government when it does stuff like this. They've done it to me too. What I object to is using our natural disdain for "government" as a slogan to justify unregulated greed and low taxes resulting in inequality and massive debt, and yet the same people who benefit from these slogans continuing to use government to promote and subsidize big business with wars and other methods.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I feel I would have part of the key if I could understand why our very own James, who is intelligent and a gentleman, has more sympathy for the Tea Party than for the New Deal system that made his, and my, life possible. I just don't get it.

Perhaps this thread today will help you understand. You and I live in different worlds. You have a life time of righteously voting for politicians to impose regulations that have no personal effect on you. They are someone else's problem. The people like me in the regulated community are just expected to meekly take it. After all, we are the evil industrialists and need to be brought to heel. All you have to do is bring up someone like Massey Coal, and all is justified.

If I give voice to my anger or sense of injustice and dis-proportion, I only sound like a whiner. So mostly I keep my mouth shut and simply let the hatred build. I do not know how you could expect someone like me to think government is going to solve our problems if only we let it do more. The TP does have emotional appeal.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Everyone hates the government when it does stuff like this. They've done it to me too. What I object to is using our natural disdain for "government" as a slogan to justify unregulated greed and low taxes resulting in inequality and massive debt, and yet the same people who benefit from these slogans continuing to use government to promote and subsidize big business with wars and other methods.

Bigness is bad, per se. It does not make any difference whether its big government, big banks, big corporations, or big labor. Bigness and injustice go together like peanut butter and jelly. You will not solve any problems by making big government bigger. What you should be doing is figuring out how to make big institutions smaller.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Bigness is bad, per se. It does not make any difference whether its big government, big banks, big corporations, or big labor. Bigness and injustice go together like peanut butter and jelly. You will not solve any problems by making big government bigger. What you should be doing is figuring out how to make big institutions smaller.

James50

I agree, but often it's not a question of big or small, but of what it does. Government today needs to do more of some things, and less of others. I disagree with resolving these questions into the question of the size of government. We won't have a workable society if important government proposals of what it needs to do are equated with "bigger government," and opposed on that basis. If government needs to do something, then support it. If government needs to stop doing something, then support that. Government often works, just as business often works. Both can also fail to work. Address the problems, rather than use slogans about "big government."

Then, if we can make government and other institutions smaller, less oppressive, and more local, I support that where it is workable.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, with respect to election cycles, OWS is about 6 months behind the Tea Party, which first got onto the radar in the spring of 2009. By November 2010 it had a massive electoral impact. I will be very surprised if OWS has a comparable electoral impact in 2012. Surprised, but delighted.

Six months behind -- but the Tea Party Cult is already quite unpopular. The Tea Party Cult was able to influence the 2010 elections and aid the Republicans in winning some Governorships and House and Senate seats that they otherwise would not have won. Many of those look like one-time wins as they entail lockstep extremists in moderate districts. People are catching onto the Hard Right. Roughly halfway between the 2010 and 2012 elections, the approval rating for Congress is abysmal as are those for some Republican governors. The generic ballot now favors Democrats in the House, even if by a marginal amount. The Hard Right muted its agenda but offers much the same that it offered as late as 2006 -- with catastrophic failure in 2006. The problem is that it is the same questionable stuff, and no tricks of the propagandist will be able to rescue it in 2012. Electoral fraud (including intimidation)? Sure, that would work once while destroying the credibility of the Establishment. The victors would have to give us widespread prosperity that they have no means of creating.

The Tea Party Cult is at least a year ahead of OWS in decay. Remember: a sort of plexiglass principle applies in politics. Those who press too far in one direction tend to be pushed backward with equal and opposite pressure. When the Hard Right gets elected in "moderate" districts it shows what it is and what it believes in. Sure, it promised economic improvement -- and pushed first for the overhaul of every piece of liberal legislation that it could. Where are the jobs? Then there is the tendency for people to not go to the polls when they get complacent and return when they dislike the results. An electorate like that of 2010 of course consolidates the dominion of the Hard Right on America, but one like that of either 2006 or 2008 re-elects the President, keeps the Democrats in control of the Senate, and wins the House back for the Democrats.

Corporate America misbehaved badly under George W. Bush and seems intent on squeezing the common man even harder and offering less in return. The common man is beginning to recognize tycoons and executives as elites capable of inflicting any misery yet being insulated from any ill effects. Americans are beginning to know what the stakes are.