And they overestimate how badly the “other” political party is ruining the country when they’re in power.
To say nothing about lifetime court appointments. Not just in the supreme court either.
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/about-federal-jud...
https://thehill.com/regulation/3631564-five-things-to-know-a...
HN is one of those internet communities where people reply with what I read as an aggressive tone, but they agree with me, and it's as if they are angrily correcting me but they didn't realize I was saying their same thing. Is that just my perception?
Your comment encouraged me do the research myself (I didn't remember who else was lifetime from my high school classes in the late 80's) and I figured I'd share that, as well as, give another link that explains a bit more context to what I felt you left out.
I sometimes wonder if the reason no one seems super interested in fixing things is because we've been living in it for so long, we instinctively write it off as being "just the way it is" &/or "there's nothing you can do about it".
But i do think the internet, and maybe programmer communities especially, have a tendency to be dry and confrontational, focused on debate or correcting other people.
Case in point: trying to find a contact number, is intentionally buried on websites.
We live on a planet, that much seems mostly agreed upon...and, we do various things in a various way(s), "that's how it is"...and, it produces the results we see around us (which some people think are great, others not so much).
We could try doing things massively differently than the way we do now and see what results that has. Or heck, we could even imagine doing things other ways, and imagine what results that might produce. Of course, people typically lose control of their imaginations when doing this...but maybe we should try not doing that.
The reality runtime we are in seems to afford us substantial optionality for experimentation - I propose we take advantage of this option.
Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and Justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate.
So retirement is an option, which is what I am guessing most choose.
Honestly I think this is something us humans are really bad at (well we're known to be bad at this). Understanding causal effects through time. Not only are we bad at understanding causal facts but we're really bad at being forward thinking and understanding temporal phenomena.
But I think the main point that the gp is making is that most of the things that happen under a president aren't really felt till well after they have left office. Many wins that presidents have are due to effects from former presidents. Like both Obama and Trump got praised for high S&P 500 values at the beginning of their presidencies. Obama came in after a big crash. There's also no way Trump could be a causal factor for growth in the first 3 months of his presidency. You can't really have that kind of effect that early on. Yes these presidents contributed to these markets, but it would be naive to say that the growth was because of them. Or we can look at the long lasting effects of Regan. Or even Civil Rights and Johnson. While there was more immediate consequences under both these presidents there were also very long term effects that we still see today.
So I'd need a reference to support that idea.
However I'll give you another one. Most people's impression is that Carter destroyed the economy and Reagan's deregulation saved the day. But actually the facts are almost exactly reversed - Carter did the deregulating but the benefits were not seen until Reagan was in power.
See https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-a... for a reference.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_repeal_of_the...>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20111019192852/http://prospect.o...>
Canada did suffer during the 2007-8 crisis, though its banking system didn't collapse as the US system did.
The reasons suggested are various. I'm not an expert on either the US or Canadian experiences, though some quick searches suggest a few explanations, including an overall different regulatory and banking environment in Canada (far more centralised to the Federal government rather than distributed to numerous states). NBER and a few other sources look promising.
But you also seem to be assuming that there was a single causal factor or that people are claiming there is a single causal factor. Neither of these are true. There were many factors at play.
My only claim with Clinton was that he did things that helped lead to the events and people do not attribute that to him because he was not the acting head of state. My claim was not about a singular causality, and that would be a pretty bad faith read.
Yeah, not buying it. There are lots of things that happened under Bush that are also posited as contributing to the crash. And 8 years is more than long enough for Bush's policies to have contributed.
That's not the argument being made. The argument being made is that actions under a president outlast the president and have to be considered as part of their legacy. Bush isn't blameless but that also doesn't mean Clinton gets off Scot-free.
The argument is about how attribution to current events doesn't solely lie upon the current acting head of state.
But the comment I was responding to said:
> ...what led to the 2009 financial crisis was mostly done under the Clinton administration...
That goes well beyond "Clinton doesn't get off Scot-free" all of the way to, "Clinton should get most of the blame."
I'm firmly in agreement that Clinton contributed. But I'm going to need serious convincing that what he did was more important than, say, failing to enforce regulations against fraudulent advertising on subprime mortgages. Or blocking the 2005 GSE reform bill which would have allowed more action before that problem blew out of control.
I apologize, this was not my intent.
I was simply answering the question as to what might have been referred to as occurring during the Clinton administration. Not its overall significance in subsequent events.
But you seem to have offered no substantial link to the existence of MBS securities and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. so your conclusion, that arbitrary deregulation, lead to the existence of MBS securities should be even more disputed.
MBS are probably more clearly linked to the complete takeover of the mortgage market by the government. if you turn debt into a commodity you can divide it up however you want. and you turn debt into a commodity by guaranteeing it.
Seems like a lot of the drilling and EPA stuff has been gummed up in courts too
Interesting article link below talking about Biden's push and the problem with R partisan judges.
and the potential that if an order goes too far, court is given opportunity to make a broad and lasting ruling that would limit powers. I can very easily see this happening.
https://time.com/6205771/trump-judges-biden-executive-orders...
I have vague memories of other things, like maybe some Bush orders that didn't get a swift or easy rollback with Obama ... But that was longer ago.
But I think more broadly and nonpartisan, a law passed by Congress or an executive order by the president that is done when someone feels they have a mandate... Often sets broad policy for years and outlasts the mandate. More than most people understand. I think this contradicts the easy, oversimplified statement people like to make that elections don't matter and the parties and candidates are interchangable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
You can tell because of the word “act” which refer to it being a formal legislative action.
>The Act passed the House by a vote of 357–66, the Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98–1.
- abortion - environment (or you know that global warming is real and caused by humans) - LGBTQ rights - race & equity - immigration & treatment of asylum seekers - role of Fed & state regulators in markets, like energy markets (tx) - taxes - workers rights - federal govt powers
could go on and on but that's not the point of your comment is it
Well not funny. More sad and terrifying.
The difference is, republicans have always been lying about being the party of law and order. Whether through Nixon, or Iran-Contra, or everything that happened with trump (which most republicans just pretend didn't happen), they've always said that the law should apply, and then ignored it for their own.
No government hand outs. Unless it's fossil fuel subsidies for Mr. Koch.
Socialized medicine is evil. Unless my company is stealing hundreds of millions from our government/medicare (and then I became a US Senator)
Abortion is bad. Except in my instance, but it's ok because I'm not one of those girls. Or my life is in danger!
Copy pasta from Reddit, but it rings true more often than not: any accusation is an admission.
Literally just read an op-ed from conservative crying about Democrats banning books... Seriously
That's only two examples, but enough to make the point that yes, there are indeed differences.
800k shacks with outlets in LA for the homeless. The complete dismissal of the responsibility we have as a society to rehabilitate people in the prison system. the absolute abandonment of native americans that ultimately lead to an institution of sexual abuse. Unions run the schools but the worst outcomes happen in urban cities, which leads to violence.
the problems we face are complex. and I think we would do better to lean inwards than rely on looking to the fringes for our philosophical goals.
>complete dismissal of the responsibility we have as a society to rehabilitate people in the prison system
>absolute abandonment of native americans
>Unions run the schools
I am NOT AT ALL dismissing the problems of poverty, native americans, prisoners nor unions but that is some janky, janky phrasing.
Am I the only one getting a "and you are lynching negros"[1] vibe here?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
And what does: "rely on looking to the fringes for our philosophical goals" even mean, anyway?
How do you think we, the people, can make a really meaningful impact to change this?
https://mindwithcare.com/buddha-teachings-part-one-four-nobl...
I've never seen a serious left-wing voter/activist/politician come out with the claim that "well, the right are just as bad as we are".
"We are not so different, you and I" is always the last-ditch claim of the villain, knowing that they have no moral ground to stand on, trying to drag down the people who are trying to do better for not being perfect. And it's bullshit. Always has been, always will be.
I speak as someone who self-identified as on the left for many years, but no longer feels comfortable doing so because of how incurious and closed off to criticism the left has become.
BTW it's not hard to find examples of the right doing this too.
As to whether the right also does it, Eric Greitens literally released an ad showing him "RINO hunting" with a rifle (RINO meaning "Republican In Name Only"). Leftists may infight, but at least we know how to use our words.
(As compared, for example, to the 1960s and 1970s, where bombing was a much more common tool of the left. I'll definitely take the verbal infighting.)
I'm a youngin, can you provide examples you are thinking of when you say this?