Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Dahobbs 17692]

32 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I am not the one imagining some fictional world where a business can completely insure every risk associated with operating a business.  

 

I never suggested that at all. I said reduce risk, not eliminate it. 

I dont buy the argument that this creates more liability for the lender than the borrower. At most, the lender has the same the liability. But the actual risk is reduced because, like stop loss insurance, the liability is only triggered when losses exceed the assets of the borrowing entity. If anything, this would prevent lenders from lending to small borrowers for these large scale projects, which I think is somewhat desirable. 

The best argument against is the short term disruption caused by a sudden and dramatic change in the rules coupled with the fact that other methods of addressing the concern would be as, if not more, effective. 

[Incredulity 11683]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

I dont buy the argument that this creates more liability for the lender than the borrower. At most, the lender has the same the liability. 

This is 100% factually wrong.

Debt holders (lenders) have no liability. Full stop.  Their risk in a loan is the money.  Proposing them to be liable absolutely increases their risk.  Exponentially in the example AOC proposed with regard to “climate change liability”.

 

Call CHUBB and see if they offer a climate change liability policy.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Incredulity

[Incredulity 11683]

22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

God forbid we expect someone to be responsible for harm they cause to others. Thank god that’s not something we’ve ever been dumb enough to try!

Not even remotely related to anything being discussed.  But thanks for sharing.

[77horn 216]

23 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

God forbid we expect someone to be responsible for harm they cause to others. Thank god that’s not something we’ve ever been dumb enough to try!

You are begging the question by assuming there is a causal connection between providing financing and some hypothetical environmental accident.  How does providing a loan cause the accident other than a post hoc fallacy?

[Dahobbs 17692]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

This is 100% factually wrong.

Debt holders (lenders) have no liability. Full stop.  Their risk in a loan is the money.  Proposing them to be liable absolutely increases their risk.  Exponentially in the example AOC proposed with regard to “climate change liability”.

 

Call CHUBB and see if they offer a climate change liability policy.

Jesus christ, yes, I obviously known that. This was a discussion about changing the law. My point was that the actual increase in risk to the lender is substantially smaller than the total exposure to the borrower. The whole point of the proposal is to use the additional risk added to lender to incentivize particular behavior. Seriously, how the fuck have you missed that?

Edited March 16, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17692]

5 minutes ago, 77horn said:

You are begging the question by assuming there is a causal connection between providing financing and some hypothetical environmental accident.  How does providing a loan cause the accident other than a post hoc fallacy?

That was a side conversation, I dont think wildcat was suggesting what you are saying at all.

[Dahobbs 17692]

7 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Lenders would have more liability than the SHAREHOLDERS of the borrower in your example, i.e. more liability than other funding sources for the borrower.  Without near the same upside as a shareholder.  

You’re saying lenders should have more liability than investors, except with no profit sharing and personal liability even though the lender has no control over the borrower or its management.  What a deal!  

Wells Fargo would turn the deal over to their private equity business and insist on getting a controlling equity stake to fund the deal under those circumstances - unless, again, you’re also going to implode the very concept of corporations and the liability shield for equity investors.

From a practical standpoint I think this concern is overblown. Yes, if the operating entity collapses, the lender has additional exposure. But, you dont analyze risk merely by looking at total potential exposure without also accounting for the probability of the liability actually triggering. The lender is protected by the assets of the borrowing entity (equity of the shareholders). Basically, the shareholders are first up in the firing line. Any liability would have to first complete drain the equity of the borrower's shareholders before reaching the lender. The chances of an event actually triggering liability on the lender is relatively small given that constraint. And the lender could reduce that risk further by only lending to adequately sized or insured entities, which most lenders do to some extent anyways. 

The lender and the shareholder would then have different risks and benefits. Shareholders get potentially unlimited return. But that return is contingent on the business doing well. And their investments are directly at risk in the case of a negative business event. And even if the business doesn't collapse, it could very well chug along with minimal return indefinitely. The lender on the other hand has a relatively guaranteed rate of return on investment. Its risks are the nonpayment, and (assuming this system is in place), the possibility of more exposure if the borrowing entity fails entirely.

The latter possibility is why lenders would shy away from lending to small entities. For the type of major projects we are discussing, it seems like it could be a positive for society. An entity that engages in activity that has the potential to severely damage the public should have sufficient resources to handle that possibility. 

[Dahobbs 17692]

19 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

 

And can I get a list of industries that don’t have the potential to severely damage the public?  To your point, Wells Fargo isn’t making a billion dollar loan to some small entity that doesn’t know what it’s doing as things stand now, anyway.  But I’m curious to hear where and how we are drawing the line on what industries or projects essentially should not be allowed to have startups or small businesses involved.  

This would be quite a boon to the giant corporations who would have even less reason to fear upstart competition or new innovation.

I think this is an interesting point. I didnt have a particular criteria, but my gut reaction was it would have to be limited to very large scale projects for some of the reasons you highlighted. This is more of a bit of theory crafting the idea, and not about its application to a particular industry or how that industry operates now. It would definitely be disruptive. I think in time things would level out and be fine, but is that level of disruption worth the benefit? Almost certainly not given that alternatives exist to accomplish the same goal.

I just dont like foreclosing completely an idea without discussing how it would work in theory. It isn't absurd to consider (we have analogs in the law now), but it is impractical given our starting point. If we were building a world from scratch, the analysis would be much different. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Zavala 1384]

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Zavala

[Biff Tannen 45750]

Weird how relatively silent the Rs have been about AOC since Beto announced.

[Dirk X West 772]

28 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Weird how relatively silent the Rs have been about AOC since Beto announced.

The long game smear is an effective weapon for the GOP, but it doesn't work as well when they have multiple targets to focus on.  The average R voter can only properly obsess about one D politician at a time, it seems.   

[Bash Riprock 1695]

she's regarded

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Fox News is so jealous 

[elfenix 34338]

chris hayes is very punchable.  i bet he reminded the teacher she hadn't taken up the homework.

[Incredulity 11683]

Chris Hayes’ face is very punchable.

[Bullneck 19215]

On 3/15/2019 at 11:59 PM, UpperWestside said:

I am proud of how ambitious she is and that she wants to do things to help out the segment of our population that needs it. 

She does say some things that are wrong and uninformed. What I chalk that up to is she is 29 years old. She has a whole lot to learn about the world around her. With age and experience you learn from things you said or did that were wrong or incorrect.

To be that age though and trying to fundamentally reshape how out country works is a pretty daunting task, but she's trying. I think she will eventually find that she needs to meet folks halfway if she wants to get at least some of her agenda passed. 

This.  

Frankly I know about 0 about AOC.  She's young and will make mistakes (mostly small ones the haters will try to turn from molehills to mountains) but mentally and philosophically she's on the right track.  That's more than you can say for 100% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats.

[Bullneck 19215]

27 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Fox News is so jealous 

That fucking weird looking dude is weird looking.

 

I'd like to explore AOC's bottom up. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Glade to see AOC doing the job of the Republicans now. 

[fattyflattie 4638]

I couldn't give af about her politics, but I cant believe some of y'all find her attractive.  Cue only bangs 10's joke, but for real.  I guess if your really into lots of toof and horse face, to each their own.

[cdain3 3454]

36 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I couldn't give af about her politics, but I cant believe some of y'all find her attractive.  Cue only bangs 10's joke, but for real.  I guess if your really into lots of toof and horse face, to each their own.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

9 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I couldn't give af about her politics, but I cant believe some of y'all find her attractive.  Cue only bangs 10's joke, but for real.  I guess if your really into lots of toof and horse face, to each their own.

You're looking at it the wrong way.  Its all relative.  Imagine you are on a summer retreat only with members of Congress.  She is easily in the top 10. Maybe even top 5.

[Incredulity 11683]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

You're looking at it the wrong way.  Its all relative.  Imagine you are on a summer retreat only with members of Congress.  She is easily in the top 10. Maybe even top 5.

No AOC fan, but really can't come up with 4 hotter members of Congress.  Maybe if you age normalized there could be a discussion.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

No AOC fan, but really can't come up with 4 hotter members of Congress.  Maybe if you age normalized there could be a discussion.

Let's see.  Ilhan Omar, Katie Hill, maybe Ayana Pressley.  If you age normalize, its probably Pelosi in the 1960s.

[Incredulity 11683]

ummm... no.  conceding that attractiveness is pretty subjective though.

[elfenix 34338]

sinema has to be top 3

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

sinema has to be top 3

I was just going with the House, but yes.

[UncleCharlie 334]

On 3/15/2019 at 10:14 AM, Incredulity said:

I absolutely understand all of that.

As Sloan said lenders aren't the business operators.  Making lenders quasi-operators is a bad idea.  

For one it would put more economic power in the hands of lenders.  Is anyone in favor of large banks and quite specifically WF having greater control and responsibility for economic activity?

Pass a law that pipeline operators have to carry an environmental bond or some other financial surety.(frankly, they may well have to today)  That is the correct way to deal with it.

So force them to buy insurance?  How very Socialist of you....

 

What's next forcing everyone to buy health insurance or face a penalty for not doing so?

[Incredulity 11683]

1 minute ago, UncleCharlie said:

So force them to buy insurance?  How very Socialist of you....

 

What's next forcing everyone to buy health insurance or face a penalty for not doing so?

nah, its telling everyone they have to buy health insurance or face a penalty. 

 

Then you provide no clarity on insurance requirements, keep changing the timeline to comply and finally not enforce said penalties.  Then blame Republicans.

[ChickenSandwich 9853]

If UFCU finances a car to a person with a history of DWI and they kill someone while driving, should they be held at least civilly liable for their irresponsible lending?

[Incredulity 11683]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

If UFCU finances a car to a person with a history of DWI and they kill someone while driving, should they be held at least civilly liable for their irresponsible lending?

We should at least consider it./libtard

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[tx 3 putt 77535]

strong clap back game 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

This wouldn’t have been possible without Fox News.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Incredulity 11683]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This wouldn’t have been possible without Fox News.

 

  Hide contents

 

That hidden comment is an extremely racist commentary on women of latin origin and facial hair.

[Jive Turkey 12648]

 

[Incredulity 11683]

OMG she has AIDES?!!!?!??!  WNB

[Macanudo 13017]

I hope that's free trade coffee poured by a barista making a fair wage with healthcare.

[GSU&UT 1798]

 

[ChickenSandwich 9853]

uniformed, decisive and inflammatory.  Just another day at the office.  Her entire platform is Victim-hood and lies, but at least she starts a conversation

Loves POC, just don't be Asian.

 

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/new-york/districts/new-york-city-public-schools/stuyvesant-high-school-13092/student-body

 

 

Economically Disadvantaged Students

These are the percentages of the school's students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, based on data reported to the government.

Free Lunch program (% of total) 32% ?

---

Reduced-Price Lunch Program (% of total) 11% ?

---

Total Economically Disadvantaged (% of total) 43% ?

 

Ethnicity/Race

Minority Enrollment (% of total)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

0.2%

 

Asian

74%

 

Black

1%

 

Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander

0%

 

Hispanic

3%

 

White

19%

 

Two or More Races

3%

 

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Bat Guano 359]

23 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

uniformed, decisive and inflammatory.  Just another day at the office.  Her entire platform is Victim-hood and lies, but at least she starts a conversation

Loves POC, just don't be Asian.

 

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/new-york/districts/new-york-city-public-schools/stuyvesant-high-school-13092/student-body

 

 

Economically Disadvantaged Students

These are the percentages of the school's students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, based on data reported to the government.

Free Lunch program (% of total) 32% ?

---

Reduced-Price Lunch Program (% of total) 11% ?

---

Total Economically Disadvantaged (% of total) 43% ?

 

Ethnicity/Race

Minority Enrollment (% of total)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

0.2%

 

Asian

74%

 

Black

1%

 

Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander

0%

 

Hispanic

3%

 

White

19%

 

Two or More Races

3%

 

 

Nah, no uniforms at Stuyvesant.

Maybe you meant uninformed. What did she write that is incorrect?

[jimmyjazz 46225]

35 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

 

 

I predicted this weeks ago -- now she's being cast as a puppet.

It's almost as if old racist whitey Republicans can't stand the idea of an engaging, high energy, intelligent brown woman actually getting shit done in Washington DC.

Incredulity, ChickenShit, I'm talking to you.  At least you're both too fucking stupid to actually hide your motivations.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Maybe Fox News was smart to Benghazi the fuck out of AOC early.  She’s a clear and present danger to the GOP long term.   

Glad Hillary’s replacement is much better than Hillary.

[Incredulity 11683]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 

I predicted this weeks ago -- now she's being cast as a puppet.

It's almost as if old racist whitey Republicans can't stand the idea of an engaging, high energy, intelligent brown woman actually getting shit done in Washington DC.

Incredulity, ChickenShit, I'm talking to you.  At least you're both too fucking stupid to actually hide your motivations.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

13 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Nah, no uniforms at Stuyvesant.

Maybe you meant uninformed. What did she write that is incorrect?

Well, she did use combined black and latino numbers for her citywide statistic and compared that to only black enrollment at Stuyvesant.

Black students actually make up 26% of public school enrollment citywide.  It would still be damaging when compared to the .7% black enrollment at Stuyvesant.  Instead, she, perhaps intentionally, used an incorrect comparison in order to artificially inflate the difference.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Bat Guano 359]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Well, she did use combined black and latino numbers for her citywide statistic and compared that to only black enrollment at Stuyvesant.

Black students actually make up 26% of public school enrollment citywide.  It would still be damaging when compared to the .7% black enrollment at Stuyvesant.  Instead, she, perhaps intentionally, used an incorrect comparison in order to artificially inflate the difference.

Fair point. She could also have combined the 3% Hispanic enrollment with the <1% black and then compared that to the 68% combined citywide black and Hispanic populations.

[jimmyjazz 46225]

20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

Well, you got me there.  Wicked.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Fair point. She could also have combined the 3% Hispanic enrollment with the <1% black and then compared that to the 68% combined citywide black and Hispanic populations.

The real issue isn't Stuyvesant. Kids are tracked into it from gifted and talented middle schools. There are very few open slots in g and t schools for kids who didn't start in one in kindergarten. The real problem occurs when wealthy parents send their 3 and 4 year olds to year long study and memorization courses for the kindergarten placement test. There is no equivalent free course for poor people, and preparation and memorization is going to beat raw potential every time. 

Universal pre K is a great and fairly new thing. It might make a small difference in Stuyvesant enrollment in 7 years. But even it does little to prep a kid for a standardized test. Only expensive prep courses do that. There either needs to be free prep for all, or the tests need to be ditched in favor of Pre-K teacher recs. 

[ChickenSandwich 9853]

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 

I predicted this weeks ago -- now she's being cast as a puppet.

It's almost as if old racist whitey Republicans can't stand the idea of an engaging, high energy, intelligent brown woman actually getting shit done in Washington DC.

Incredulity, ChickenShit, I'm talking to you.  At least you're both too fucking stupid to actually hide your motivations.

I’m sorry quoting her directly and pointing out facts offends you so much. 

And she won an audition she didn’t even bother to enter for congresswoman. How is that our motivation?  She freely offers that up and does not deny this  

on the other hand, can you point to ANY political activity, policy stances, or grassroots movements she participated in prior to her brother entering her in the audition?  A tweet?  A written paper?  Volunteer work?  Anything at all?

your motivations are quite clear Jim.  Anyone who doubts or questions AOC has to be a racist. You would simply rather shut the conversation down.  

And of course she is a puppet , as are most politicians, especially the lifers  

 

 

[jimmyjazz 46225]

7 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I’m sorry quoting her directly and pointing out facts offends you so much. 

And she won an audition she didn’t even bother to enter for congresswoman. How is that our motivation?  She freely offers that up and does not deny this  

on the other hand, can you point to ANY political activity, policy stances, or grassroots movements she participated in prior to her brother entering her in the audition?  A tweet?  A written paper?  Volunteer work?  Anything at all?

your motivations are quite clear Jim.  Anyone who doubts or questions AOC has to be a racist. You would simply rather shut the conversation down.  

And of course she is a puppet , as are most politicians, especially the lifers  

 

 

You brought the race, not me.