[worry]

amphibian, on 20 January 2017 - 05:49 PM, said:

More like all the Goldman Sachs executives will steal tons and tons of money, all arts funding will be cut (providing 0.02% of the targeted 10 trillion budget cuts), all school meal programs for poor kids will be cut (30 million kids affected by this), tens of millions lose their medical insurance coverage, our infrastructure falls apart, our nuclear weapons become as unsecure as those of the former USSR, and even worse things happen.

Gonna mourn the NEA and Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Mourning all the suffering and dead to come might be too much to handle. Can't believe there's still talk of "hope" here. Really baffling. I don't mean that as a provocation, just as an honest reaction. It is literally detached from reality. All hope is in resistance. Not surprised the police are already cracking heads. I'm worried for my friends who will be attending the Women's March tomorrow; I have no doubt DJT wanted to plan something nasty for them, but if he's taking the weekend off, as he said, maybe it'll go alright.

[worry]

I have a feeling live newscasts of Trump are, from now on, going to have a minimum of 3 Standards & Practices violations from the audience.

Anyway, maybe I was too hasty above on my thoughts regarding expressions of 'hope': http://motherboard.v...e-house-website

[Vengeance]

It has begun
Screw the American people

https://www.reddit.c...PAR&sh=5d820a59

Start off by screwing the middle class out of the door

https://www.reddit.c...OIC&sh=8afc5ccd

Screw them again

https://www.reddit.c...FT0&sh=c0904d8c

[MTS]

Ok, so the land transfer and the FCC thing I can at least get my head around, from a pro-state's rights/business agenda perspective. I don't see how it helps the 'forgotten man' one iota, but anyway. What is the ostensible upside for reversing the FHA rate cut though? Most of the Reddit comments are (surprise!) unhelpful, calling Trump a crook and a shill for the banks. The cynic in me suggests it's a provision crafted just to help banks make more profit off FHA loans, but I'm trying to see the other side here. The article talks a lot about protecting the solvency of the fund, but why in God's name make that a Day 1 priority? I don't imagine it's a huge line item that needs immediate attention.

[worry]

It's a real mystery, especially because: Julian Castro, Obama’s HUD secretary, said when the fee cut was announced that the FHA’s reserve fund had grown by $44 billion in the last four years and that it was time to share these gains with borrowers.
http://www.huffingto...04peymcm84r6bt9

Does that seem like a solvency crisis?

[MTS]

death rattle, on 21 January 2017 - 02:44 AM, said:

It's a real mystery, especially because: Julian Castro, Obama’s HUD secretary, said when the fee cut was announced that the FHA’s reserve fund had grown by $44 billion in the last four years and that it was time to share these gains with borrowers.
http://www.huffingto...04peymcm84r6bt9

Does that seem like a solvency crisis?

Not at all. If you're thinking economically, presumably you would also want to be lowering the threshold for home-ownership as much as is responsible, thereby creating more stimulus for home construction, leading to, you know, jobs? Not only that, for existing homeowners who save money, they can then distribute that into the local economy.

This post has been edited by MTS: 21 January 2017 - 03:07 AM

[Silencer]

MTS, on 21 January 2017 - 03:05 AM, said:

death rattle, on 21 January 2017 - 02:44 AM, said:

It's a real mystery, especially because: Julian Castro, Obama’s HUD secretary, said when the fee cut was announced that the FHA’s reserve fund had grown by $44 billion in the last four years and that it was time to share these gains with borrowers.
http://www.huffingto...04peymcm84r6bt9

Does that seem like a solvency crisis?

Not at all. If you're thinking economically, presumably you would also want to be lowering the threshold for home-ownership as much as is responsible, thereby creating more stimulus for home construction, leading to, you know, jobs? Not only that, for existing homeowners who save money, they can then distribute that into the local economy.

The keyword there is "responsible". Remember the last time America had a low barrier to entry in the housing market? They caused the fucking GFC. The way it is now is about as low as the barrier can get without returning to those times.

Then again, because going back to the whole sub-prime mortgage situation is exactly what Trump and Co want... Yeah, makes sense. Which leads us back to your original gut instinct of - this is just designed to make more money for the banks/wall St. And possibly fuck over the economy again, for everyone not already super rich.

[Silencer]

Also that FCC appointment is the death of a free Internet. Next we'll be having the Verizon and Comcast merger, the AT&T and Time Warner merger going through, and American net will be owned by a virtual monopoly.
Meanwhile any semblance of consumer protection from price hikes, and probably all the progress made on net neutrality and paying for data as well as speed will go out the window.

Yay.

It's day fucking one. And already most of the progress Obama made over the past 8 years is being wiped out. I guess for people like Nico that seems like a good thing, but for anyone who actually knows how much better off the country was under Obama its a fucking disaster, with zero potential for gains (seriously, the debt will get worse under Trump, guaranteed, after Obama was one of one two presidents in the last 40 years to reduce the deficit).

[EmperorMagus]

You have to admit Trump & Co are being very efficient in dismantling every part of the US government that is working for ordinary people and reducing profits as a result.

I watched the Warren/Franken sections of the Betsy hearing today. I'm feeling very sorry for Americans. You are experiencing what having Ahmadinejad for president is like.

[EmperorMagus]

Silencer, on 21 January 2017 - 03:59 AM, said:

Also that FCC appointment is the death of a free Internet. Next we'll be having the Verizon and Comcast merger, the AT&T and Time Warner merger going through, and American net will be owned by a virtual monopoly.
Meanwhile any semblance of consumer protection from price hikes, and probably all the progress made on net neutrality and paying for data as well as speed will go out the window.

Yay.

It's day fucking one. And already most of the progress Obama made over the past 8 years is being wiped out. I guess for people like Nico that seems like a good thing, but for anyone who actually knows how much better off the country was under Obama its a fucking disaster, with zero potential for gains (seriously, the debt will get worse under Trump, guaranteed, after Obama was one of one two presidents in the last 40 years to reduce the deficit).

The net neutrality thing is important, but honestly, the problem can be solved for people with knowhow by a simple VPN from a net neutral country (and paying for high speed access to that VPN). The mergers though, they are going to be painful for everyone.

Although there is this thing in the back of my mind that says "Hey, ISP mergers will be good for America, what better way to stop grandma and grandpa believing fake news than to make internet too expensive for them ..."

Then I remember there are millions of people that need accessible internet to live their lives who are going to get fucked.

[worry]

I understand that the huge conglomerates hope to benefit, but how are chambers of commerce across the country gonna be okay with this? Internet access is ingrained into so many areas of business, not to mention access to government agencies top to bottom.

[MTS]

Silencer, on 21 January 2017 - 03:51 AM, said:

MTS, on 21 January 2017 - 03:05 AM, said:

death rattle, on 21 January 2017 - 02:44 AM, said:

It's a real mystery, especially because: Julian Castro, Obama’s HUD secretary, said when the fee cut was announced that the FHA’s reserve fund had grown by $44 billion in the last four years and that it was time to share these gains with borrowers.
http://www.huffingto...04peymcm84r6bt9

Does that seem like a solvency crisis?

Not at all. If you're thinking economically, presumably you would also want to be lowering the threshold for home-ownership as much as is responsible, thereby creating more stimulus for home construction, leading to, you know, jobs? Not only that, for existing homeowners who save money, they can then distribute that into the local economy.

The keyword there is "responsible". Remember the last time America had a low barrier to entry in the housing market? They caused the fucking GFC. The way it is now is about as low as the barrier can get without returning to those times.

Then again, because going back to the whole sub-prime mortgage situation is exactly what Trump and Co want... Yeah, makes sense. Which leads us back to your original gut instinct of - this is just designed to make more money for the banks/wall St. And possibly fuck over the economy again, for everyone not already super rich.

Uhhh...it was the Obama admin that decided to reduce the fees as the reserve fund was over-capitalised, thus reducing the barrier. It had the added effect of meaning banks would get less cash for FHA loans in the future. Trump and the team are merely keeping the status quo. Meanwhile FHA loan recipients aren't protected from likely interest rate rises in the future.

[Silencer]

Oh, I know. The fund reducing its fees wasn't a bad thing as it helps protect people from the effects of being over-leveraged on property. Trump bringing it back is doing the opposite for the inevitable return to the pre-2008 method of operation for Wall St (properly, at least, they didn't really suffer any consequences after the GFC).

The point being, Trump is reducing access to a safeguard. To fuck people over. On the pretext that the fund was somehow in danger without the fees. >.>

[Primateus]

death rattle, on 21 January 2017 - 04:20 AM, said:

I understand that the huge conglomerates hope to benefit, but how are chambers of commerce across the country gonna be okay with this? Internet access is ingrained into so many areas of business, not to mention access to government agencies top to bottom.

Pish posh, they'll just siphon off the cost to the actual consumers, no problem.

[HoosierDaddy]

So many protestors out today. Kind of shocked.

We'll power through.

(Also, sorry BK.)

[Mezla PigDog]

My friend from Tennessee went to the London one and bumped into Peter Capaldi!

[HoosierDaddy]

The international protests are surprising. Nato comments have to hurt him.

[Mezla PigDog]

HoosierDaddy, on 21 January 2017 - 07:25 PM, said:

Nato comments have to hurt him.

In what way? His core support won't care what NATO members say, surely? It's the same mentality as we have here about letting in refugees. Why should we pay for other people when we can only afford to put food on the table, heat our homes, keep clothes on our backs, send our kids to school and receive free healthcare?

Unless ego plays a big part and his support enjoy feeling like the US keeps the world from falling apart (which in the case of Russia it does but the nuance may be lost).

[HoosierDaddy]

Mezla PigDog, on 21 January 2017 - 08:25 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 21 January 2017 - 07:25 PM, said:

Nato comments have to hurt him.

In what way? His core support won't care what NATO members say, surely? It's the same mentality as we have here about letting in refugees. Why should we pay for other people when we can only afford to put food on the table, heat our homes, keep clothes on our backs, send our kids to school and receive free healthcare?

Unless ego plays a big part and his support enjoy feeling like the US keeps the world from falling apart (which in the case of Russia it does but the nuance may be lost).

Sorry, that was assumption. What reason for other nation's protests? Serious question.

[worry]

The images today are beautiful and heartening.

http://www.motherjon...trump-updates-2