Okay Left, Progressives, Liberals and Democrats - Here is your chance!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Another option I'm not sure I agree with but make the housing market so expensive it keeps out the riff raff ala San Diego, also helps it's a military town, keeps crime down lol

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I "want" a lot of the things that would firmly identify me as "left."

From universal healthcare to universal systems to directly meet the basic needs of everyone in the nation. Where, I am defining "basic needs" as the standard food, water, shelter, but also "those items whose net benefit of their inclusion, even in the abstract, outweigh the cost of their implementation." I could go into that more, but does it really matter?

However,

Just because I want something to happen absolutely does not mean I think it should happen. Im not simply going to support something as if its implementation and execution is merely incidental relative to the concept. And even if the implementation is sound, that doesn't mean it will benefit everyone by making it happen as fast as possible.

Basically, it puts me in a position where all the things I care about have been minimized and corrupted into absurdity. Where the narrative has determined exactly what someone means when they bring up the topics of globalism, environmentalism, healthcare, social safety nets. And, when discussion is actually attempted, the conversation invariably shifts to focus on that narrative and its most vocal, zealous advocates. If someone makes a great post, which is then followed by a one liner of zealous partisanship.. the great contribution of the former will be ignored to make sure the religious zealot "knows whats what."

Im certainly not saying I make great posts, but our neurology tends to chew on the negative in proportion to how much we disagree. Ten great things that happen on a given day will immediately be forgotten for the one bad thing that happened. Same thing happens in internet discourse: Ten great posts will immediately be put aside in favor of addressing the one that offends us the most. In the end, we all just end up spending our precious time "battling" the things we hate the most.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

The downside to that is that when you overly restrict a place like that, it makes those places unaffordable to live. And when people desire to live there, you can't prevent them from moving in. That helps cause the current housing and homeless crisis that Cali is experiencing.

a reply to: ketsuko

a reply to: ketsuko

Well if you can afford it you're golden, if you can't it will be a nice place to visit that you WOULD want to live, not too many places that fit that criteria anymore

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: pexx421

Great response! I actually agree with every one of your points.

I do have a question though about your 3rd point though . You state...

I want housing to be based upon cost rather than hyper bubble bankers profits

I'm not sure I understand how you remove market demand (i.e. location, etc) out of real estate prices. I'm all for it, but I just don't see how you accomplish this.

Most of the housing bubble comes from bank fraud. They are giving people loans at 50% of their income level which they know people can’t afford. And then they sell them to avoid responsibility. And studies have shown that the cost of housing is directly linked to how much a bank will lend for it. This is unrealistic and destructive. Home loans should be pegged at absolutely no more than 25% of total income. Further, in places like New York or Cali, many foreign oligarchs, drug cartels etc use housing as a way to act as a bank account and launder money. They buy up a bunch of properties that they don’t even use, even apartment complexes, and let them sit as an asset. This drives up the market as well, and something should be done to regulate it.

a reply to: pexx421

And some of that was tied back to government telling banks they couldn't withhold loans from certain lenders and demographics because of an effort to increase minority home ownership too. So in many cases they were forced to extend loans to bad risks because to not do it was racist.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: pexx421

want corporations to be subject to and held accountable for actions that result in death or injury just like people are. 

If by that you mean making and selling defective products, I fully agree.
But is someone uses a baseball bat to kill a person, is the company responsible ?
Is Ford responsible for a drunk driver killing someone ?
Is Sabatier at fault of someone is stabbed with a kitchen knife ?

Absolutely not. I’m referring to companies who have explosions because they bribe inspectors rather than having their pipelines and infrastructure meet regulations, or cause catastrophic loss of life or cancer for tribal groups due to oil spills, or hide the fact that their own research shows their products cause cancer, etc.

a reply to: Freeborn

Affordable healthcare.
management of the opioid problem
Better roads and airports
Living wage for all
affordable higher education
protection of women's health issues including the right to choose when or if to start a family.
head start programs for pre K in communities in need.
My husband to take out the garbage without being asked but after thirty seven years I dont hold out much hope there.
I just put that one in to see if everybody is listening ( or reading if you will)

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

With a field of twenty or more your bound to have more than a few inconsistencies.
That's what the primaries and the debates are for.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

And some of that was tied back to government telling banks they couldn't withhold loans from certain lenders and demographics because of an effort to increase minority home ownership too. So in many cases they were forced to extend loans to bad risks because to not do it was racist.

I’ve heard that, and I’d like to see the exact regs and requirements you refer to. All I’ll say on that is 1) the banks made a ton of money off of it, and 2) the banks are NEVER the victims.

a reply to: pexx421

New York Times

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

Loosened restriction and lowered interest.

And they acknowledged the increased risk!

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Complete with possible bailout.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

I think the OP intended the list to be what can be obtained by electing certain people to office.

There's a lot that govermnent has no place in in your list.
Lovely as it is and I am sure most of us want the same kind of world but
for now what would you like government to do?
Because they are not going to do anything about keeping families together and as for cleanliness well thats what homeowners associations are for lol.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Tax breaks, incentives for families that stay together. High fines for littering, I remember don't mess with Texas, not sure if they take littering as seriously as they used to. Government can do something about education and health care. Limiting corporations and making an equal playing field will help return of mom and pop shops. The other things can solve themselves if families stick together, got to have a good work ethic to support your family, sticking together breeds family values etc etc

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

New York Times

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

Loosened restriction and lowered interest.

And they acknowledged the increased risk!

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Complete with possible bailout.

See, perfect example. First off the housing bubble ballooned after that and secondly it says right there that the banks were pressuring them to push that through. So the banks pressure for it to get passed, then cry that the govt forced them to do it. Sounds about right.

Quality infrastructure is a big one.

a reply to: pexx421

Skipped right over the part where the Clinton Administration was pressuring on its own at the same time did you? It's not like the sainted government was blameless they got what they wanted too out of the deal since subprime borrowers happen to mainly be the same kind the government wanted more loans given to.

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
Quality infrastructure is a big one.

Isn't it interesting that Trump wanted an infrastructure deal?

I think again there is disagreement over how that should be done. One side wants to use union labor because unions support them heavily which ties back into corruption.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

First I would like everybody to know that I am not left or right. Just want to get that out of the way.

I shall speak for the part of me that is left though.

1. What I would like to see is a reform of our healthcare system. More specifically big pharmaceutical companies have there lobbyists taken out of the equation so we can get prices of medications and treatments down to a reasonable price.

2. I would also like for for the over prescribing of medication to be stopped.


Btw great thread FCD. And thank you for not putting this in the pit. A truly great way to generate a sincere conversation.

I want to be a millionaire and live like the Kardashians.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

Skipped right over the part where the Clinton Administration was pressuring on its own at the same time did you? It's not like the sainted government was blameless they got what they wanted too out of the deal since subprime borrowers happen to mainly be the same kind the government wanted more loans given to.

First, I think you’re departing from the main premise of the op. And secondly what’s you’re point? That the govt was catering to the banks?? Good point! I agree completely, because as I stated in my list, the govt represents corporations and not the citizens. Was your post meant as an attack on my stance because Clinton did it? I’m a leftist, not a neoliberal, Clinton (and Obama, pelosi, etc) is a neoliberal not a leftist. You obviously don’t understand the difference, and I’d appreciate you not attacking my points by pointing out that neoliberals contributed to them. I know that, and I think they’re part of the problem.