There was a downpayment assistance program in the past that wasn’t a problem

Kamala is focusing on first Gen owners too which is essentially going to be African Americans, which I think is a great idea. We need more reparations in programs to help build generational wealth

9/5/2024 9:02:15 PM

I could see an assistance program being less likely to drive up prices appreciably, as it wouldn't be going to all buyers (or all of a class of buyers). This one seems to also be an "assistance program", but the devil is in the details of what is actually implemented. I'd still be wary, especially in a time of skyrocketing housing prices, and since I also don't trust builders not to be asses about it, either.

As for the second point, allow me to shock the hell out of you by saying that I agree. I'd like to see policies that increase generational wealth in minority communities as a form of reparations, among other things. It's far better than the oft-proposed cash handouts that will just be squandered and gone in a matter of months, and it would go significantly toward actually undoing the damage that occurred. Though, to be honest, I'd rather see significant investments in educational programs that actually fucking work.

9/5/2024 10:13:21 PM

Quote :

"If only we had any examples within, say, the past 4 years, of whether artificially increasing demand by handing out free money has an effect on prices..."

This is an extremely disingenuous read of the impact of COVID stimulus.

Quote :

"It's far better than the oft-proposed cash handouts that will just be squandered and gone in a matter of months"

The superiority of cash transfers to in-kind and other types of assistance in most situations is well-documented, and the assumption that it will all "just be squandered" in the case of reparations specifically is paternalistic at best and racist at worst. Nobody sits around fretting about seniors "sqandering" their Social Security checks.

That said, I'm not in favor of significant cash transfers as reparations for slavery/racism, partly for logistical reasons, and because I do not think it provides any meaningful sort of justice.

---

As for the downpayment assistance itself, it's fluff. It won't do any real harm but it also won't do a whole lot of good. It might be quite helpful if you're one of the recipients, obviously, but it's not going to address the underlying problems. In that way it's a bit like student loan forgiveness.

9/6/2024 11:22:47 AM

Yea, I’m thinking post-COVID inflation is due to a whole host of loose money policies (globally) that go back probably a decade.

I back checked myself on entrepreneurship data, seems like I’m out of date. Post COVID has seen a rebound in “New Business Starts” that has sustained over the last few years. New business starts were at all time lows through the twenty-teens (2012-2017 ish).

9/6/2024 8:10:28 PM

One thing Harris does that’s irksome is she puts the wrong inflection on the end of her sentences. It sounds a lot of the time that she’s asking a question when she’s making a statement. I hope she can work on this for the debate

9/9/2024 9:47:43 PM

Can someone just finally put this dude in his place already?

9/9/2024 10:25:27 PM

I'm nervous.

9/10/2024 7:39:42 AM

Quote :

"This is an extremely disingenuous read of the impact of COVID stimulus."

A little, maybe. COVID stimulus got the ball rolling on inflation, and it was very evident in some of the sectors where that money was used most prominently, namely consumer electronics and home renovations. Obviously, along came supply chain issues, followed by Russia, to finally uncork the inflation from low interest rates that had been miraculously held back for over 20 years.

Quote :

"The superiority of cash transfers to in-kind and other types of assistance in most situations is well-documented"

Yes, in regards to direct social programs such as welfare and food stamps. Not in the kinds of things that moron and I are alluding to. There also aren't studies that look at the scale of payments that are being hinted at with reparations, as no one has dropped money at that scale before, except in lotteries. I'd suggest that 2-3k a month is wildly different than 100s of thousands, possibly millions dropped on folks.

Quote :

"and the assumption that it will all "just be squandered" in the case of reparations specifically is paternalistic at best and racist at worst. Nobody sits around fretting about seniors "sqandering" their Social Security checks."

There's nothing paternalistic going on here. Dropping the kinds of sums that are generally talked about onto a group of people who have no experience with that level of finances is going to be a clusterfuck. I'm actually more worried about how white people would swindle reparations money away from blacks, because, FFS, we invented payday loans... we know how to fuck over black people when it comes to financial schemes. There's strong evidence that lottery winners go bankrupt at a higher rate than the population at large (not the 70% as claimed, but still a higher jump), and I would expect to see similar outcomes with lump sum windfalls as well. It's not a race thing at all, except inasmuch as it's black people that the US has fucked over for a few hundred years, so those would be the folks who would be getting the money.

9/10/2024 1:47:43 PM

Fair enough that $100,000 or $1,000,000+ cash payments handed to that many people all at once would be wildly destabilizing. I'm not sure what proportion of reparations advocates actually support going that route.

Quote :

" COVID stimulus got the ball rolling on inflation, and it was very evident in some of the sectors where that money was used most prominently, namely consumer electronics and home renovations."

Two areas where you would expect demand to skyrocket in a country where everyone was stuck at home for 1-2 years.

Look, I can't claim that the stimulus checks had zero impact on inflation. But next to all the other factors at play, it's small potatoes.

9/10/2024 3:16:00 PM

I know there's a lot of enthusiasm, as people want to move on from Trump (Biden was the sacrificial lamb, I guess), but what's the read on Kamala Harris's background, independent of the current situation.

Although, I guess local and city politics are inherently dubious and dirty.

9/13/2024 11:37:39 AM

Please explain your question. The contrast is night and day. If that wasn't patently obvious for anyone who actually watched the debate with an open mind, I don't know what to tell you.

9/13/2024 12:57:54 PM

Quote :

"but what's the read on Kamala Harris's background, independent of the current situation."

My question is entirely about her outside of this 'night and day contrast'. Like, let's say versus other Democrats, what do you think about her particular policy positions, whatever. I'm basically assuming her winning here, and just wanting to talk about what we think about her in a "normal context".

[Edited on September 13, 2024 at 3:38 PM. Reason : 1]

9/13/2024 3:38:45 PM

Her background? She's a politician who has been aiming for high office since day one. What's remarkable is the magnitude of her ambition and the speed with which she has pursued it. In 1998 the San Francisco DA recruited her; four years later she ran against that DA and won. Eight years after that, she's AG for California - a job she no doubt would have grabbed sooner if it had been held by anyone other than Jerry Brown. Another six years, at the earliest possible opportunity, she's a senator. She's in that office barely two years before she runs for President. It's a remarkable pace. If she wins this election, it would be like a Roman Senator being elected Consul "in their year." Just no down time, no opportunity let slip.

In the course of all this she's had to shift a lot of positions for political expediency. More than I'd normally feel great about, but it's better than constantly shifting positions on things because you're an insane old bastard reading Truth Social while Laura Loomer whispers into your ear. So at the end of the day I don't care too much about what those past positions are. If she does (or at least seriously attempts to do) the things she's saying she will, and surrounds herself with reasonably competent people to create an administration that can handle crises, then she will be a reasonably good President. Biden's "tough on crime" schtick from back in the day didn't age well, nor did his attacks on Anita Hill; these parts of his background did not age well. As President, he did better. Not perfect, but better. I'll take it from him and I'll take it from Harris, too.

9/13/2024 4:31:22 PM

Nice summary, thumbs up emoji

[Edited on September 13, 2024 at 5:28 PM. Reason : 1]

9/13/2024 5:28:07 PM

Kamala is being completely drowned out this weekend by the news of trumps people doing bomb threats against Haitians

Not seeing any of Kamala’s people able to push her message

This is as Kamala goes above 50% in more polls but battleground states still tightening

Feels like 2016 again with a logjam of negative trump news to the point you hear about nothing but trump

9/15/2024 3:10:22 PM

But why aren't people reacting to the torrent of negativity in a normal, human way and deciding to stop carrying water for this bozo?

9/15/2024 3:27:35 PM

Quote :

"Kamala is being completely drowned out this weekend by the news of trumps people doing bomb threats against Haitians "

Normally Trump sucking up all the press oxygen annoys me, but on this one I say let him cook.* I think this Haitian insanity is hurting more than helping. And I'm sure screaming about Taylor Swift is.

(* - This is only as far as electoral politics go. In the grand scheme I want him to shut the fuck up before somebody gets killed, which absolutely is going to happen.)

9/16/2024 8:31:54 AM

Quote :

"Her background? She's a politician who has been aiming for high office since day one. What's remarkable is the magnitude of her ambition and the speed with which she has pursued it. In 1998 the San Francisco DA recruited her; four years later she ran against that DA and won. Eight years after that, she's AG for California - a job she no doubt would have grabbed sooner if it had been held by anyone other than Jerry Brown. Another six years, at the earliest possible opportunity, she's a senator. She's in that office barely two years before she runs for President. It's a remarkable pace. If she wins this election, it would be like a Roman Senator being elected Consul "in their year." Just no down time, no opportunity let slip. In the course of all this she's had to shift a lot of positions for political expediency. More than I'd normally feel great about, but it's better than constantly shifting positions on things because you're an insane old bastard reading Truth Social while Laura Loomer whispers into your ear. So at the end of the day I don't care too much about what those past positions are. If she does (or at least seriously attempts to do) the things she's saying she will, and surrounds herself with reasonably competent people to create an administration that can handle crises, then she will be a reasonably good President. Biden's "tough on crime" schtick from back in the day didn't age well, nor did his attacks on Anita Hill; these parts of his background did not age well. As President, he did better. Not perfect, but better. I'll take it from him and I'll take it from Harris, too."

Agree and disagree. I think that somewhat meteoric rise is, itself, a concerning thing. There's not a lot to really know about her and her trends, especially as she has been so mercurial and politically expedient. Aside from Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Hillary's focus-grouped approach made her very untrustworthy, as you didn't know what she stood for. Likewise, with Kamala, switching from locking up every black guy she could find on low-level weed charges and "anything short of beating a defendant isn't prosecutorial misconduct" (she and her office argued that as AG, look it up) to "our criminal justice system is so unfair!" is whiplash inducing, especially over the span of such a short time. It seems worse than politically expedient, if such a thing is possible. Biden's "flip flops" happened over decades; hers happened over a few years. Her stance change is about as dramatic as Vance's, and over the same time frame. I think it's equally odd that where's she's changing isn't from ill-informed ideas in her 20s, but clearly considered ones in her 40s.

Don't get me wrong, she's got the key qualification at this point: she's not Trump. But that doesn't mean I don't trust her more than a wooden nickel.

[Edited on September 18, 2024 at 8:37 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2024 8:36:01 PM

Yeah, that's why I'm saying that her great rise is cause Trump is so obviously crazy, and that I hope she capitalizes on it when she wins.

9/18/2024 8:46:41 PM

To be fair, she is a DEI pick. That's why she was picked in 2020 as the VP, because "anti-racism" suddenly came into vogue and white people needed to assuage their guilt and self-flagellate appropriately. Some folks don't want to hear that, but it's reality. What better way to assuage that guilt than to pick a token for a position that doesn't really matter but that seems actually important. Her own party clearly didn't want her then as President, as evidenced by the fact that she failed to get a single delegate. I'd proffer that it was largely because of the very things Grumpy described. But then George Floyd got murdered for being Black in the wrong place, and the Dems couldn't just put in an old white guy. Pick a bi-racial woman as veep, and BAM, problem solved. Joe runs shit, they get to act like they actually care about "diversity," and they can drop her like a bad habit in 8 years, since they really don't like her anyway.

But then Biden had to go and get old. Trump is still a raging piece of shit hellbent on turning the country into an authoritarian wasteland, and they've now got to get someone on short notice who has name recognition, access to Biden's campaign funds, and some level of clout. That's the VP, hate to say it. Absent this perfect storm, she's thrown in the dumpster in 2028.

Just rising to Senator as she did is impressive, but that's where she would have stopped had Trump not been Trump and George Floyd not been murdered when everybody had nothing better to do than protest to get out of the house.

Yes, I'm salty as fuck

[Edited on September 18, 2024 at 9:01 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2024 9:01:00 PM

.

[Edited on September 18, 2024 at 9:57 PM. Reason : wrong thread]

9/18/2024 9:56:44 PM

^^
I’m getting what you’re saying, but you’ve just perfectly shown why the way republicans think about DEI is screwed up. You listed out a bunch of concrete, functional reasons why having a person of color is beneficial. That makes her a merit based pick, because she’s diverse and black.

Factoring in someone’s race, especially when it comes to leadership and politics and communication, doesn’t make them less meritous than if their race was not a factor, it makes them more meritous— which is the point of DEI. To see past your comfort and biases and pick form a bigger pool of candidates that can address a wider range of issues.

9/20/2024 12:36:47 AM

Quote :

"You listed out a bunch of concrete, functional reasons why having a person of color is beneficial. That makes her a merit based pick, because she’s diverse and black. "

Uhhh, what?

9/20/2024 12:38:53 AM

Having a black president in an era where black Americans are trying to reassert their civil right not to be unfairly harassed by police is a merit based qualification, not a “dei” hire which is usually used to imply someone doesn’t have the qualifications for something. Her diversity is part of her merit. 2 white people would be a lesser qualified ticket given the context of politics.

9/20/2024 1:20:03 AM

I think this Oprah interview is basically locking it up for Harris

Going to be an early night on Nov 5

I think we’ll see trump shift into election interference overdrive next week as a result

9/20/2024 11:28:21 AM

^^ That makes zero sense. The fact that she is black has no bearing on whether she would help or hurt civil rights. Mark Robinson is literal fucking proof of this! So is Ben Carson. So is Clarence Thomas. So is Herman Cain. The fact that she locked up black people in droves on low-level weed offenses is quite probative of the question as well. Nothing about "being black" suggests one way or another that she would be "good for black people," and it's fucking racist as hell to suggest otherwise. Assuming someone's thoughts/policies/opinions based on the color of their skin is, de-facto, racist. That's why the focus on "diversity" is such bullshit. It pigeonholes vast swaths of people into caricatures, and then tries to piece them together, completely losing out on the individuals involved.

Let's put this slightly differently. The Dems picked her in 2020 because she was black and *in the room*. That's it. Not black and *capable*. Not black and *experienced*. Maybe she was actually capable and experienced, maybe she wasn't, but those qualities never entered their mind. She was in the room. And black. That's not a good thing. It'd be like being in a meeting at work discussing shit and turning to a guy and saying "Frank, you're black... what do you think?" It'd get your ass fired if you did it there, but you're holding it out here as a great way to pick candidates!

9/20/2024 12:21:46 PM

^ you identified several ways her blackness matters in your post in this very page.

And your second paragraph is basically racism. They didn’t just look around for any Black person. They found a bunch of qualified people, then found someone who met the additional qualification of being credible on Black issues.

Notice that all the unqualified black people you mentioned are republicans— because conservatives somehow think DEI is merely about appeasing black people with a token. DEI is about finding better quality candidates which democrats have shown over and over.

Abrams, Crockett, AOC, Obama, Karine Jean Pierre, Ketanji Brown Jackson… all people who benefited from DEI programs in their lives, and the end result was a better choice for the people they serve. There’s a chance they would have been overlooked or settled for less, if people In charge of selection weren’t compelled to take a 2nd look or 2nd guess their choices.

[Edited on September 20, 2024 at 12:42 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2024 12:37:37 PM

Quote :

"I think this Oprah interview is basically locking it up for Harris Going to be an early night on Nov 5 I think we’ll see trump shift into election interference overdrive next week as a result"

I certainly hope so, but how do you see that manifesting? Does Oprah command a mass audience anymore? How is this even going to be distributed?

9/20/2024 1:55:03 PM

Quote :

" Let's put this slightly differently. The Dems picked her in 2020 because she was black and *in the room*. That's it. Not black and *capable*. Not black and *experienced*. Maybe she was actually capable and experienced, maybe she wasn't, but those qualities never entered their mind. She was in the room. And black. That's not a good thing. It'd be like being in a meeting at work discussing shit and turning to a guy and saying "Frank, you're black... what do you think?" It'd get your ass fired if you did it there, but you're holding it out here as a great way to pick candidates!"

on top of the usual nonsense we’ve come to expect from you, it’s cool to see that you’re a mind reader, too

9/20/2024 4:45:59 PM

^^^ Nothing I've pointed out is an argument for her, unless one is simply engaged in race-based pandering. And my 2nd paragraph isn't racist itself, but rather it points out that her selection was, itself, racist. In progressive fever dreams, it goes as you described: get a pool of qualified applicants and use as a "plus" factor, but that's simply not how it works. We've seen it in college and high school admissions, and even Biden himself admitted that he started with race and gender in picking a Supreme Court nominee. The fact is that race wasn't a "plus factor," it was a required characteristic from the beginning of the selection process that weeded out the candidate pool before they even looked at actual qualifications.

How do I know that? Because if they were honestly looking at "being credible on Black issues," they wouldn't be looking at the color of her skin. They would be looking at her actual actions as AG and DA, and she would have been disqualified from the very beginning. In fact, those actions are largely why she didn't even get so much as a sniff at the nomination in the primary, because voters rightly recognized that she was horrible on those issues. When given the chance to actually be good for black people, she chose to lock them up en masse and defend horribly corrupt prosecutors. Any notion that the color of her skin makes her "good on black issues" is completely disproven by simply looking at her actions from less than a decade prior (from 2020 when she was chosen). There's absolutely no reason to pick her on *that* qualification. Unless, of course, you are just pandering.

If you want to suggest that looking at her skin color and genitals is great for trying to right historic wrongs, fine, that's a different topic of discussion. But don't act like either of them is even remotely relevant to merit-based considerations.

9/20/2024 5:24:29 PM

^^^Oprah is trending more for her pics with that crazy rapist molestor sex ring dude

Don't get me wrong, I think Kamala is winning and solidly on an upward trend, but from what I've seen both online and in-person, leftist political people have a tendency to pat themselves on the back a ton. Like they'll see their own candidate say something they think is super amazing, like it en masse, which is fine, but then also act like everyone else thinks it is the best thing ever, when no one really cares lol

Trumpers are different cause they know everyone hates them and that's what they thrive on, ironically the victim mindset they complain about liberals for having. well, underdog when they're positive, victim when they're in the negative

[Edited on September 20, 2024 at 5:26 PM. Reason : stop posting at the same time as me, I have to edit my "^"s!]

9/20/2024 5:26:08 PM

^^About the "DEI" thing, I get what you're saying, but your particular choice of words is wrong here.
Would you say white candidates are a DEI hire, or Joe Biden was, because they needed someone "normal" to restore being normal. Or Tim Walz to balance the ticket as being a white guy, or whatever.

Your paragraph on her actually being good on black issues is irrelevant, as the way politics work, no matter whether it is race or another thing, appearance matters more than reality. Again, this isn't specific to race or culture or whatever. It's also just weird to single it down to just that, it's multifaceted, it isn't like Kamala Harris herself is a policy position.

Plus, you're thinking about it from the wrong perspective overall. Like we saw, they needed someone to respond to Trump, and they made it Kamala and hyped her up. If Pete Buttigieg was in her position, they would've hyped him up similarly. They can use really anyone who fits the basic criteria to work for the overall goal. The candidate is molding to what is expected of them, not the other way around. So, like when Biden chose Kamala, it wasn't just her "skin" (I don't blame you personally but I know you're doing that "it's rude but true routine" but you're worng here"), they needed an operative they could mold to their goals or fit in with the scheme of things.

POSWID, the purpose of a system is what it does


I've been a bit verbose and unclear here cause I'm on mobile and this webapp is screwing with my mind but I hope I made my point across here

The Coz usually tells me if I'm being unclear or not, so The Coz
do ur thing if u feel necessary

9/20/2024 5:36:14 PM

Quote :

"YOU'RE WORNG HERE"

9/21/2024 4:25:02 AM

Would you believe me if I said that I noticed the typo, but left it there for you to find?

9/21/2024 3:39:39 PM

Sure, why not.

9/21/2024 4:06:31 PM

Quote :

"sure why not"

https://youtu.be/kg2UlYDswSc?si=RBjPYqU3REH-sIvU

9/21/2024 5:14:31 PM

^LOL!

9/21/2024 7:22:15 PM

Candidates (smart ones, anyway) pick running mates who they think will help them win and not be a huge liability once in office. In the 2020 election, Democrats astutely calculated that a woman of color would be an asset in running against an administration remarkable for its issues with racism and sexism. They also no doubt considered that having a relatively young VP would be important to pair up with such a geezer at the top of the ticket. I don't see why these considerations are any more heinous than previous candidates picking "favored sons" from important states in order to gain their votes, state of birth being as relevant to one's intellect and experience as color is.

Let's also remember that one does not, under normal circumstances, become running mate for the presidential candidate of one of the two major parties without having met some fairly high thresholds for experience, capability, and visibility that weed out far more potential VPs than race does. You say she was black and "in the room." You don't get into that room without having some chops. (Does not apply to cults of personality built around geriatric proto-fascists with dementia)

9/23/2024 4:18:56 PM

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Harris was completely out of left field and had no qualifications for VP when selected. The Dems didn't just walk into a random store and pick the first black woman they saw. She's got some chops, and that no doubt is why she would have been considered. However, I'd posit that the core requirement they started with was black and female, and they picked from that pool. I'd say, generally speaking, that's quite heinous.

VP picks are generally silly, as the core requirement is to maintain a beating heart and not do too much damage to your running mate during the election (looking at you, Sarah Palin). Picking some notable politician is par for the course. A little pandery? Maybe. Not as bad as going straight to skin color and genitalia, though.

9/24/2024 10:56:42 AM

Isn't picking presidential and vice presidential candidates by race and gender the American way?

9/24/2024 12:01:48 PM

this is different, because [insert conservative buzzword of the moment here]

it’s also common knowledge that candidates are chosen solely on their merit and absolutely nothing else

9/24/2024 1:10:00 PM

Given that every VP pick for the first 200 or so years of the republic was chosen first and foremost based on race (white) and genitalia (penis), it's very hard for me to get worked up about this.

Nobody had to say, "Alright, let's come up with a white guy." It was just assumed. That makes it worse. You see how that makes it worse, right?

9/24/2024 2:23:50 PM

Kinda got a chub when vance talked about kamalas wide open southern border

10/1/2024 9:21:56 PM

Everything bad is Kamala's fault.

We could have saved a lot of time if they would just admit that the Vice Presidency is essentially a ceremonial post that does almost nothing.

10/2/2024 5:06:42 AM

Kamala on Colbert tonight, which is his only new show this week. I have to think the Late Show was going to take the week off but then Kamala was like "I can do Tuesday" and they were like bet.

10/8/2024 11:31:20 PM

she was great on Stern today, too

10/9/2024 1:05:24 AM

And the view

10/9/2024 1:11:11 AM

Going to be on fox news wednesday, interview with bret baier, hopefully she does well and wins some support

10/14/2024 10:36:08 PM

Baier is the only one left at that network with any integrity, so it might actually be a fair interview. Not that she'll actually answer any questions

10/14/2024 10:44:09 PM

set em up

10/15/2024 12:55:17 AM