The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

Unfortunately the patriarchy still exists, albeit weakened, And yes the  "feminist ideal" has evolved but the ideal gets muddied with identity politics which, except for opinion news shows,  the majority couldn't care less about.

lord_pabulum said:

Nope, my opinion based on discussions with people and things I've read.  If you pasted my whole quote you would note that I prefaced it with "I believe...".   

Oh, ok. I've always understood feminism to be about choice, about women not being forced into roles and subjected to rules created by men and society. (Anyway, you can hardly throw a baby in this town without hitting a stay-at-home feminist mom.)

That's not to say there is monolithic thought on the subject, of course.

It's funny you should say that, because actually what I really enjoy is reading a bunch of guys like myself mansplaining feminism to each other.

ridski said:
It's funny you should say that, because actually what I really enjoy is reading a bunch of guys like myself mansplaining feminism to each other.

 A koan if there ever was one: Can men mansplain to other men?

Klinker said:

mtierney said:
 Let’s all agree that DJT is not a historical poster child for the Presidency, but he just might be the right man to deal with the world’s dictators.

 Um.... no.
If you think DJT's meeting with Kim is going to be anything but a lose for the US you are even stupider than he is. We are putting a man who thinks his bankruptcies are evidence of his mastery of the "art of the deal" in a room with a man who has managed to be the last man standing in a political system where the loser is (literally) fed to the dogs.  How can that be anything other than a disaster for the US?

 I don't think DJT ever went bankrupt.  

Tell me how you eliminate (or reduce) non-recourse debt used to finance real estate (when asset values are down).  Or, how do you refinance, or reduce,  junk bonds when asset values, such as real estate, have significantly decreased (thus, you are upside down - assets worth less than liabilities).   Asset values decreasing to the point that the liabilities, including non-recourse debt and other liabilities, exceed the asset value.  

Many bankruptcies are reorganizations rather than liquidations.  I am non fan of DJT. But when asset values go down and you have crushing debt load, often the only solution is a reoganization under the bankruptcy code.  Are you against reorganizing businesses?  

ridski said:
It's funny you should say that, because actually what I really enjoy is reading a bunch of guys like myself mansplaining feminism to each other.

ridski said:
It's funny you should say that, because actually what I really enjoy is reading a bunch of guys like myself mansplaining feminism to each other.

 Ha.  Which is ironic given the push for equality 

lord_pabulum said:

ridski said:
It's funny you should say that, because actually what I really enjoy is reading a bunch of guys like myself mansplaining feminism to each other.

 Ha.  Which is ironic given the push for equality 

 Sure, if you're Alanis Morissette.

lord_pabulum said:

ridski said:
It's funny you should say that, because actually what I really enjoy is reading a bunch of guys like myself mansplaining feminism to each other.

 Ha.  Which is ironic given the push for equality 

 This seems to be this week's theme.  Example from last evening, from a "shining example" of the right: "Feminism has become much more about hating men than empowering women"

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1003469315042152449

'has become"?

The right has been using this trope for decades.

Idiot.

RealityForAll said:  
Many bankruptcies are reorganizations rather than liquidations.  I am non fan of DJT. But when asset values go down and you have crushing debt load, often the only solution is a reoganization under the bankruptcy code.  Are you against reorganizing businesses?  

Give me a break. Declaring bankruptcy is the same as reorganizing businesses? Are you serious? So what do you call WW2? "International Disagreement II"?

DJT's bankruptcies meant: he borrowed a lot of money (or, consumed goods and services that he did not pay for), ran the business into the ground (meaning he value of assets dropped way down below outstanding debt and unpaid creditors), declared bankruptcy meaning he just walked away with the "reorganized" as you call it) business, and all creditors and lenders lost all their money.

Am I against bankruptcy? Of course not, as a matter of last resort. But if abused as just "another way to make money in business" (which is what DJT admitted he did, and some others do too): you bet I am against that.

feminism has always trumpeted choice, except when it was objectionable to the feminist creed.

Back in the ‘70s, the latch key child showed up in school as women began to re-enter the job market — most often part time. The elementary schools at that time did not have lunch rooms and kids went home to eat.

Recognizing a need, PTAs created a brown bag lunch area in auditoriums so kids could stay on school. Volunteer moms served as watchful eyes.

Neighhood watchers placed signage  in their windows to alert a child that it was safe to come to the house if they had a need for an adult.

Will continue commenting  later - 

mtierney said:

Neighhood watchers placed signage  in their windows to alert a child that it was safe to come to the house if they had a need for an adult.

I don't remember this being done in the '70s.  But I have to say that with the perspective we have in 2018, that practice sounds way more dangerous than having kids go to their own empty homes.  If this was a real program, I doubt anyone was doing extensive background checks on those people inviting other people's kids into their homes.

mtierney said:
feminism has always trumpeted choice, except when it was objectionable to the feminist creed.

and this is just nonsense.

gerritn said:

RealityForAll said:  
Many bankruptcies are reorganizations rather than liquidations.  I am non fan of DJT. But when asset values go down and you have crushing debt load, often the only solution is a reoganization under the bankruptcy code.  Are you against reorganizing businesses?  

Give me a break. Declaring bankruptcy is the same as reorganizing businesses? Are you serious? So what do you call WW2? "International Disagreement II"?
DJT's bankruptcies meant: he borrowed a lot of money (or, consumed goods and services that he did not pay for), ran the business into the ground (meaning he value of assets dropped way down below outstanding debt and unpaid creditors), declared bankruptcy meaning he just walked away with the "reorganized" as you call it) business, and all creditors and lenders lost all their money.
Am I against bankruptcy? Of course not, as a matter of last resort. But if abused as just "another way to make money in business" (which is what DJT admitted he did, and some others do too): you bet I am against that.

Here is a link that explains how a chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code is primarily used for reorganization.  See https://www.justia.com/bankruptcy/docs/basics/chapter-11/  Please let me know whether you now agree that  "Declaring bankruptcy [under chapter 11] is the same as reorganizing businesses?"   

Once again are you against reorganizing businesses that are insolvent?  Or would you prefer that that insolvent businesses all be liquidated (and, therefore, the business be put out of business with resulting job losses).  Sometimes, businesses have one line that is having problems and another line that is successful.  A situation that frequently calls out for a reorganization.

NRLs with no or few carveouts were at one time pretty common (think 1980s).  Non-recourse loans ("NRL") have evolved over time.  See Greenbaum Rowe article below which discusses such carveouts that have evolved over time.

Does a borrower really have an obligation to refuse NRLs (especially when the lenders are sophisticated banks and insurance companies?  I do NOT  believe that the debtors (the sheep) have a general obligation to protect the banks and insurance companies (the wolves) and explain the downsides to NRLs.  By the NRL (back in the 1980s) meant that the lender for real estate was merely a general unsecured creditor rather than having a security interest in the real estate (the case with most individuals' mortgages (this is called a recourse loan).  Genetrally, if an individual fails to pay the bank for a sufficient period then the bank forecloses on loan.

=============================================================

Additionally, here is an excerpt from  a Greenbaum Rowe publication  (they can explain this in better detail than I can):

"Historically, in the context of commercial real
estate mortgage loans, a non-recourse loan was
one where the lender agreed to look solely to
the mortgaged property and any related collateral for
repayment of the loan in the event of a default. It was
a simple concept; no exceptions. The non-recourse
loan structure originally emerged in response to the
tax advantages it offered a borrower, but over time
it became a common structure for mortgage loans
without regard to tax benefits. However, although the
designation ‘non-recourse’ continues to be used widely,
truly non-recourse commercial mortgage loans have
not been seen since about the early 1980s. Over time,
exceptions—recourse carve outs—have developed, as
a result of which the borrower and guarantors incur
personal liability. The borrower in a non-recourse loan
is not permitted to own any other properties or conduct
any other business, which leaves the borrower unable to
satisfy any liabilities beyond those that can be paid from
either cash flow from the property or liquidation of the
collateral. As a result, it is the guarantors who are left
with the risk of the liability from recourse carve outs."

See https://www.greenbaumlaw.com/media/publication/342_NJSBA%20-%20NonRecourseLoans%20LCS.pdf

Latch-key kids were known in the ‘50s and ‘60s around the world, depending where you lived, they weren’t a sign of the rise of feminism but of factory shiftwork which tended to be the kinds of work most single (widowed or divorced) mothers were able to get as families struggled in post-war economic rebuilding.

There was a strong movement to have Safety Houses, along with Adopt a Grandparent programs, in community development in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Yes, there were background checks done by local schools and Neighbourhood Watch groups because these teams worked together to run the programs, publicise them and ensure the neighbourhood schoolchildren knew about them. Usually the homes involved were Neighbourhood Watch homes, and were also linked with the early Walking School Bus program (although that came later).

RealityForAll said:  
Once again are you against reorganizing businesses that are insolvent?  Or would you prefer that that insolvent businesses all be liquidated (and, therefore, the business be put out of business with resulting job losses).  Sometimes, businesses have one line that is having problems and another line that is successful.  A situation that frequently calls out for a reorganization.

Once again, I am for Chapter 11 to rescue what can be rescued from a struggling business, which is the way it was meant.

What I am against is people like DJT using this as a business tool, playing with other people's money, and when it goes wrong basically being able to walk away without paying the bills. Or, if you don't think that's what he did, please take a look at DJT quote from Sept 16 2015 GOP primary debate: "hundreds of companies, hundreds of deals, I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing. I'm in business. I did a very good job." Yeah, excellent job, for himself maybe.

it wasn’t factory or shift work back in the late ‘60s - ‘70s which triggered latch key kids in Maplewood as I recall. My 4 kids were in Tuscan (went to 6th grade then) and I was not ready to consider work outside the home. I was very active in the PTA, having such a big investment in what was going on at the school.

Of course, steps were taken by the community police and fire depts to insure that the child’s welfare was paramount. Window signs were only given to approved sites.

Tbc

gerritn said:

RealityForAll said:  
Once again are you against reorganizing businesses that are insolvent?  Or would you prefer that that insolvent businesses all be liquidated (and, therefore, the business be put out of business with resulting job losses).  Sometimes, businesses have one line that is having problems and another line that is successful.  A situation that frequently calls out for a reorganization.

Once again, I am for Chapter 11 to rescue what can be rescued from a struggling business, which is the way it was meant.
What I am against is people like DJT using this as a business tool, playing with other people's money, and when it goes wrong basically being able to walk away without paying the bills. Or, if you don't think that's what he did, please take a look at DJT quote from Sept 16 2015 GOP primary debate: "hundreds of companies, hundreds of deals, I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing. I'm in business. I did a very good job." Yeah, excellent job, for himself maybe.

 Yeah, Trump has pretty much bragged about getting rich on other peoples money.

gerritn said:

ridski said:
Sorry everybody. This seemed like the place.


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

Single-payer health care would be fantastic in the US. It would save us all a lot of money, and it would deliver health care for all. And if, in order to get there, it has to be the conservative's idea (however distasteful) then so be it.
However, the case in the article is somewhat flawed:

• It claims that there is objective data that single-payer would objectively lower costs and increase health, and therefore conservatives will support it. I would counter that with: so how did that work out for global warming?
  ...

Good point. The modern conservative has an aversion to data.

I also don't think we'd see much of an improvement in overall costs with single-payer, unless and until we cut doctor salaries in half and removed/restricted patent protection on drugs. Those are two of the biggest factors causing our medical costs to be so out of whack.

drummerboy said:

gerritn said:

ridski said:
Sorry everybody. This seemed like the place.


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

Single-payer health care would be fantastic in the US. It would save us all a lot of money, and it would deliver health care for all. And if, in order to get there, it has to be the conservative's idea (however distasteful) then so be it.
However, the case in the article is somewhat flawed:

• It claims that there is objective data that single-payer would objectively lower costs and increase health, and therefore conservatives will support it. I would counter that with: so how did that work out for global warming?
  ...

Good point. The modern conservative has an aversion to data.
I also don't think we'd see much of an improvement in overall costs with single-payer, unless and until we cut doctor salaries in half and removed/restricted patent protection on drugs. Those are two of the biggest factors causing our medical costs to be so out of whack.

So anyone who uses data must be a liberal then.  Which would include Wall street technical traders, bankers, credit analysts, engineers and FOX News pollsters.  What is a modern conservative? Are there old fashioned or even ancient conservatives? 

lord_pabulum said:

drummerboy said:

gerritn said:

ridski said:
Sorry everybody. This seemed like the place.


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

Single-payer health care would be fantastic in the US. It would save us all a lot of money, and it would deliver health care for all. And if, in order to get there, it has to be the conservative's idea (however distasteful) then so be it.
However, the case in the article is somewhat flawed:

• It claims that there is objective data that single-payer would objectively lower costs and increase health, and therefore conservatives will support it. I would counter that with: so how did that work out for global warming?
  ...

Good point. The modern conservative has an aversion to data.
I also don't think we'd see much of an improvement in overall costs with single-payer, unless and until we cut doctor salaries in half and removed/restricted patent protection on drugs. Those are two of the biggest factors causing our medical costs to be so out of whack.

So anyone who uses data must be a liberal then.  Which would include Wall street technical traders, bankers, credit analysts, engineers and FOX News pollsters.  What is a modern conservative? Are there old fashioned or even ancient conservatives? 

I've said this many times before at MOL, but if a financially successful conservative ever applied their political thinking methods to their businesses, they'd be broke.

drummerboy said:
Good point. The modern conservative has an aversion to data.
I also don't think we'd see much of an improvement in overall costs with single-payer, unless and until we cut doctor salaries in half and removed/restricted patent protection on drugs. Those are two of the biggest factors causing our medical costs to be so out of whack.

Time magazine had a very interesting issue on the costs of healthcare back in 2013. One of the striking things from that article is that Medicare, because they are so huge, and because they collect all this data, has the best leverage when negotiating with health care providers, and as such they may actually be able to break the ridiculous rise in healthcare cost. Turns out Medicare has so much data and therefore leverage, that they negotiate even better rates than private insurance companies.

Link to the Time article is here: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2136864-1,00.html

It is still a good read, but long. The part on Medicare & data & leverage starts on page 2.

gerritn said:

drummerboy said:
Good point. The modern conservative has an aversion to data.
I also don't think we'd see much of an improvement in overall costs with single-payer, unless and until we cut doctor salaries in half and removed/restricted patent protection on drugs. Those are two of the biggest factors causing our medical costs to be so out of whack.

Time magazine had a very interesting issue on the costs of healthcare back in 2013. One of the striking things from that article is that Medicare, because they are so huge, and because they collect all this data, has the best leverage when negotiating with health care providers, and as such they may actually be able to break the ridiculous rise in healthcare cost. Turns out Medicare has so much data and therefore leverage, that they negotiate even better rates than private insurance companies.
Link to the Time article is here: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2136864-1,00.html
It is still a good read, but long. The part on Medicare & data & leverage starts on page 2.

Another good point. Once Medicare becomes Medicare-for-all, their negotiating position would be galactic.

mtierney said:
it wasn’t factory or shift work back in the late ‘60s - ‘70s which triggered latch key kids in Maplewood as I recall. My 4 kids were in Tuscan (went to 6th grade then) and I was not ready to consider work outside the home. I was very active in the PTA, having such a big investment in what was going on at the school.
Of course, steps were taken by the community police and fire depts to insure that the child’s welfare was paramount. Window signs were only given to approved sites.


Tbc

 Continuing...

Brown bagers grew in number and the PTA volunteers diminished as the task grew harder. The PTA used its own money to hire “matrons” to keep things orderly- I recall the huge sum of $5 an hour. We could not let the kids out into the playground to run off steam after bolting their lunches since the school nurse went home for lunch. If a kid skinned a knee, we had a problem.

Bottom line, it took a bunch of parents to recognize a major social need of other parents and work out a stop gap solution. You would be amazed how hard it was to convince the BOE to recognize what was happening in our district. Mostly it was the same parent groups who pressed the issue before the Board.

mtierney said:
My 4 kids were in Tuscan (went to 6th grade then) and I was not ready to consider work outside the home. 

 Your husband couldn't have taken care of them? The fault was in the paradigm.

drummerboy said:

gerritn said:

RealityForAll said:  
Once again are you against reorganizing businesses that are insolvent?  Or would you prefer that that insolvent businesses all be liquidated (and, therefore, the business be put out of business with resulting job losses).  Sometimes, businesses have one line that is having problems and another line that is successful.  A situation that frequently calls out for a reorganization.

Once again, I am for Chapter 11 to rescue what can be rescued from a struggling business, which is the way it was meant.
What I am against is people like DJT using this as a business tool, playing with other people's money, and when it goes wrong basically being able to walk away without paying the bills. Or, if you don't think that's what he did, please take a look at DJT quote from Sept 16 2015 GOP primary debate: "hundreds of companies, hundreds of deals, I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing. I'm in business. I did a very good job." Yeah, excellent job, for himself maybe.

 Yeah, Trump has pretty much bragged about getting rich on other peoples money.

 I would suggest to you that Trump is always promoting Trump.  As a result, when a Trump business gets reorganized and Trump loses his equity stake in the project in exchange for a modification of the junk bond interest rate, Trump frames the situation as being caused by his business acumen (IOW DJT's narrative requires that DJT got over on someone in order to make DJT appear more capable from DJT's perspective).  Trump always exaggerates in order to make it appear that he has a special inside track.   Violating bankruptcy rules in the form of creditor fraud comes with stiff criminal penalties (think Leavenworth).  Trump was never prosecuted for such behavior (bankruptcy fraud) and thus, I am very skeptical.

Moral of the story:  don't believe everything that you hear (especially when uttered by DJT) from an individual, such as DJT, who believes that life is a zero sum game.

drummerboy said:

gerritn said:
Time magazine had a very interesting issue on the costs of healthcare back in 2013. One of the striking things from that article is that Medicare, because they are so huge, and because they collect all this data, has the best leverage when negotiating with health care providers, and as such they may actually be able to break the ridiculous rise in healthcare cost. Turns out Medicare has so much data and therefore leverage, that they negotiate even better rates than private insurance companies.
Link to the Time article is here: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2136864-1,00.html
It is still a good read, but long. The part on Medicare & data & leverage starts on page 2.

Another good point. Once Medicare becomes Medicare-for-all, their negotiating position would be galactic.

Medicare is NOT allowed to negotiate drug prices. I wouldn't be surprised after we get Medicare-for-all that lobbyists will manage to get laws passed preventing Medicare from negotiating anything.  

BG9 said:

drummerboy said:

gerritn said:
Time magazine had a very interesting issue on the costs of healthcare back in 2013. One of the striking things from that article is that Medicare, because they are so huge, and because they collect all this data, has the best leverage when negotiating with health care providers, and as such they may actually be able to break the ridiculous rise in healthcare cost. Turns out Medicare has so much data and therefore leverage, that they negotiate even better rates than private insurance companies.
Link to the Time article is here: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2136864-1,00.html
It is still a good read, but long. The part on Medicare & data & leverage starts on page 2.

Another good point. Once Medicare becomes Medicare-for-all, their negotiating position would be galactic.

Medicare is NOT allowed to negotiate drug prices. I wouldn't be surprised after we get Medicare-for-all that lobbyists will manage to get laws passed preventing Medicare from negotiating anything.  

 Yes, that's a possibility, and gets back to my earlier comment that however it might happen, unless salaries and drug prices come down, we won't be saving much money on healthcare, even with single-payer.

OTOH, even the modest efforts of the ACA managed to "bend the curve" of rising health care cost. It didn't lower costs so much, but at least slowed down the growth year to year. 

At least until Trumpcare happened.

"Latchkey children" is in fact even older than I thought, and is a Canadian term. 

My Oxford Dictionary (the 26 vol set) confirms it, but this quote is from the Wikipedia article:

History of the term

The term refers to the latchkey of a door to a house. The key is often strung around the child's neck or left hidden under a mat (or some other object) at the rear door to the property. The term seems to first appear in a CBC radio program called "Discussion Club – Topic: How War Affects Canadian Children" in 1942, due to the phenomenon of children being left home alone during World War II, when the father would be enlisted into the armed forces and the mother would need to get a job. Given that the "Discussion Club" participants are all familiar with the term and allude to it being in colloquial usage, it likely predates 1942. In general, the term latchkey designates "those children between the ages of five and thirteen who care for themselves after the school day until their parents or guardians return home".