The Housing Bubble

Comments like that might actually help sales, by grabbing prospective buyers’ attention…

“If this is the ‘durable white’ binder, where do they keep the weak and fragile ones, or the women of color? “

No idea. There couldn’t be 800 comments on all the binders, could there? I only got this link.

Muggy, any of the guys are, or course, welcome to enjoy, but I was most sure that the four people I pointed out would enjoy it. If you think your sense of humor is similar, you would probably enjoy it too.

I did enjoy it.

I was just messin’… unless I am talking about charter schools, please take 99% of my comments as clownin’ around.

FWIW, K12 education is 90%+ women. I prefer to work with women. There is nothing worse than going out to lunch with a buncha dudes that want to talk 100% sports.

I too am tired of penis people.

“I too am tired of penis people.”

Then I suggest you avoid the debates like the plague.

Who would win an actual fistfight between Obama and Romney?
Every other animal species on the planet uses physical violence to determine leaders, so why not humans?
Thursday, October 18, 2012 - Reality 101 by Richard Townley

DOTHAN, AL, October 18, 2012 — Governor Romney and President Obama mixed it up pretty good in their second debate. Despite the town hall format that usually dampens aggressive behavior, they got into each other’s space like a couple of angry bulls.

The reaction from most men I know was positive. We are crude and primitive and we understand using physical force. I am referring to old-fashioned alpha males, not the newer variety of apologist, gender confused beta males. Based on his “everything needs to be fair” approach to politics I wrongly assumed Obama to be a “kinder, gentler” beta male like the ones who often got pushed into lockers at my old high school.

If both candidates wanted to appeal to women during the debate, they probably failed. Women in general are not very interested in watching the opposite gender fight for dominance, and please note that I am speaking in generalities just to make a point. Even back in caveman times, Oona had better things to do than sit around while Og and Zurg fought over a rabbit pelt.

But men, again in general terms, love watching a good fight. I thought the debate was great. At last, both men acted like real men, testosterone levels were over the top, tempers flared and a few times it even seemed as if one or the other would throw a punch and start a brawl.

This of course raises the question of who would actually win a fistfight, Romney or Obama? Ladies, you can sit this next section out if you want since it basically abandons all reason and common sense. A September 2012 poll, done by Langer Research Associates for Esquire magazine and Yahoo! News, asked respondents which presidential candidate they thought would win in an actual fistfight. 58% opted for Obama, 22% for Romney and 20% (probably women) had no opinion.

Considering age and physical ability I would have to go with Obama too, but Romney is bigger and might get in some lucky blows. A more balanced approach would be a tag team event. Adding Ryan and Biden would definitely even the playing field and please President Obama by making the matchup “fair for everyone.”
…

So male politicians should stop debating and try to grow some really beautiful tail feathers to get the women’s vote? Why didn’t someone tell me these things?

Why didn’t someone tell me these things?

We didn’t want to worry your pretty little head.

This of course raises the question of who would actually win a fistfight, Romney or Obama?

Is this a joke? Obama at any adult age would kick Romney’s A$$. Unless Romney got 5 of his friends to hold Obama down as Romney did in high school. Romney is a coward and a rich boy bully, and the kind of boss who requires you to laugh at his jokes.

Yesterday at 12:21 PM

Romney Son Says Other Romney Son Doesn’t Really Want to Punch President Obama

By Sarah Frank

Ann Romney appeared on The View today, replacing her husband who cancelled his interview following his comments that the co-hosts were “high risk.” As backup, Ann brought her son Josh, who is not the son that said he’d like to punch President Obama for calling his dad a liar during the second presidential debate Tuesday night. Of course Josh had to answer for his brother Tagg’s remarks: “You really don’t like to see your dad get beat up by the media or President Obama, so you take it pretty personally,” assuring the hosts it would’ve been a weak punch anyway. “That brother has slugged me a couple times … President Obama has nothing to worry about.”
…

4) Create a business and regulatory environment that creates near-insatiable desire to set-up shop/produce in the United States.

4) Create ’sweat shops’ and gut the regulations so we’re on par with 3rd world labor and living conditions for the serfs.

(there fixed it for you MB, why not come out say the obvious !!)

Sickening, but you’re probably right. Still, tho, it’s better to have the jobs here rather than there.

It’s not as if we are going to rely on Europe or Asia to pay for our entitlement programs. Right? Or depend on their military to protect us as we allow our “workers” to retire at age 50.

Might as well hit the skids now so that we can begin to rebuild that much sooner.

Rebuild? Won’t that have to wait for when their workers (and all the workers of the world who live in places where corporations are willing to do business at all) are paid enough so that, with US productivity taken into account, our workers are paid no more than their workers?

Or are you also advocating for massive tariffs and closing down international trade?

No, I’m anti-tariff.

By rebuild, I mean returning to some semblance of what this country was established to be: A republic. We’ve strayed a long way from that.

A republic. We’ve strayed a long way from that.

How are we not a republic?

Being a republic won’t allow American workers to live on the wages that compete with the wages paid to workers in Vietnam.

I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. Certain people on this forum are always railing about how unions are destroying America by making corporations uncompetitive. Now that a union made lower wage concessions, they are now being blamed for not protecting their workers. In short, according to some posters, unions are evil because everything they do is evil, even if it is not. With attitudes like that, I am not surprised that the American standard of living is eroding.

I think you missed the sarcasm in my post.

I’m sorry. Great points.

Ford and GM have made a quality product for at least 15 years.

They have, but it’s taken some time to shake off the image of poor quality they had. Many still refused to give them a second chance. And that forced them to discount heavily on cars.

Plus even if the reliability is acceptable (what most people seem to mean when they say “quality”), that doesn’t mean they make what I want. I’m picky…I want more than just A to B transportation, and I want specific features. I’m not a brand snob, but they literally don’t make what I want. I wish they did.

‘retirees will be asked to give up’

As long as they are just asked. But does the govt ask for things or do they tell us how it will be? And what if we don’t do what they say?

‘We SO need a Medicare-for-all’

Are you proposing we ask everyone if they want this? Or are you saying we all must take it?

See, voluntary involvement is kinda important to some of us.

“…voluntary involvement is kinda important to some of us….”

I’d like to be consulted about spending public monies on drones, or maintaining armies on foreign borders, or bailing out banking executive’s bonuses, but I’m not. Yet because I ostensibly benefit from defense and banking infrastructure in this country — and because if everyone felt as I do and refused to take part until we confronted armed foreign soldiers in our city financial districts, we’d be in a pickle — I reluctantly help to pay for them.

Our medical system of research institutions, hospitals and clinics, outreach, training, and emergency services is the same sort of thing: we expect it to be there when we need it, but don’t want to pay for it until we do. And when we do, far too many of us claim it’s “too expensive” and leave someone else to pick up the bill.

Insurance is supposed to be our hedge here, but insurance — just like defense or education — can only work if there is a large enough actuarial pool to sustain the infrastructure. And until we institute a nationwide means of paying for it, we can’t.

Whether or not we admit to it, we ALL use our medical/health system every day of our lives, not just when we’re scooped off the pavement and brought into a trauma department, or keel over in an Arby’s with an infarct.

Ben, if the govt bails out a company, then does’t the govt have the right to tell the company how it will be? No agree, no bailout for you? That’s why the UAW accepted $14/hour in the first place, I thought. I may be wrong.

Are you proposing we ask everyone if they want [Medicare for all]?

Hmm, let me rephrase. We SO need to convince enough people to voluntarily involve themselves by exercising their right to vote, and vote for Representitives and Senators and a President who will in turn vote for an appropriate Public Option insurance law.

Medicare-for-all-who-want-it means that the insurance companies get to offload the sickest, most expensive people onto Medicare. I suspect you are not willing to pay taxes to fund it. Insurance premiums might not go down for healthy people, if the insurers decide to pocket the profit.

Medical costs and insurance premiums continue to rise faster than wages. Every year, more of us are priced out of necessary medical care. This is not sustainable. Eventually, we will see a drop in consumption of medical care. Fewer people wil buy insurance. Fewer people will see the doctor. A glut of doctors will lead to doctors going out of business or moving to countries with nationalized health care. Healthy people will forego insurance and use free clinics and emergency rooms for primary care.

Infectious diseases will be spread by people who cannot afford to see the doctor. Chronic diseases will become less chronic as people die from their complications.

What is the price of your voluntary involvement? Voluntary involvement in vaccinations has led to an increase in whooping cough.

+1 gajilion, ahansen. Well said.

Insurance premiums might not go down for healthy people, if the insurers decide to pocket the profit.

I’m sure they’d love to. However, I’d expect the premiums to be forced down significantly if there were a free-but-minimal option.

TB is also making a comeback.

+2 Ahansen…

The Country has a fundamental first question that needs to be answered before any discusion can occur beyond its answer…Is health care a right or a privilege in the USA ??

If its a privilege, then why she we be building and paying for free county hospitals and doctors and it should be every man for himself…

If its a right, then we should be working on cost effective solutions to provide it in a way that everyone is contributing something towards its cost…

‘because I ostensibly benefit…I reluctantly help to pay for them’

I suspect you pay for the same reason most do; because the IRS will take all your stuff and put you in jail if you don’t.

‘Insurance…can only work if there is a large enough actuarial pool to sustain the infrastructure’

Some of us think the reason health care is so expensive is because of insurance.

It doesn’t really matter; the new health care thing is law and we’re stuck with it. If DC was smart, they would sunset these things and say, ‘in ten years if costs aren’t lower we’ll scrap this system and do something else.’

But I expect it will be dragging us down the rest of my life, at least. Now that the govt can force me to pay for their insurance, I wonder what they will force me to do/buy next?

‘What is the price of your voluntary involvement’

Yeah, I know, expecting to live in a free country isn’t very popular anymore. I guess this is what happens when you put freedom to a vote.

If DC was smart, they would sunset these things and say, ‘in ten years if costs aren’t lower we’ll scrap this system and do something else.’

I’m all for it. Let SS sunset too. Predicated on returning to me the money I contributed.

I get it. Individual freedom is your highest value.

Are you prepared to force others to die for your beliefs? The uninsured die prematurely every day from lack of access to health care.

Public health should be funded by everybody.

Do you really want to risk TB or whooping cough when they can be controlled by treating the infected or vaccination?

Free birth control opens up options to low income women to get IUDs or implants. It reduces pregnancies and abortions. It reduces the load on social programs and charities. These are common goods. Do you really want to live in a society like India where the poor are everywhere? How free are you in a place like Watts?

“I guess this is what happens when you put freedom to a vote.”

I’ve seen this happen for years in Arizona with the initiative and referendum process. Where the majority is free to vote away minority freedoms yearly. Time for a SUPER majority rule…say 75% or greater for any law that would raise a tax or affect the rights of citizens and businesses.

Unless you happen to like large scale deadly plagues, public health should be a very high priority.

Mutated diseases don’t care how much money you have or what you believe in.

Evidently, the lesson of the Spanish Flu of 1918 has been forgotten. No problem, Nature WILL remind us again.

‘Are you prepared to force others to die for your beliefs? The uninsured die prematurely every day from lack of access to health care’

I guess that’s the difference between you and me. I’m not forcing anyone to do anything, while you’ve apparently got a list of stuff you want forced on everybody.

‘The uninsured die prematurely every day’

Funny you mention that. I’m uninsured. Have been for many years. And I still don’t want the govt to stick a gun in your face and tell you to pay my bills.

‘Public health should be funded by everybody’

You might have heard we have a process. People are elected and are supposed to make laws, subject to constitution restrictions. Now, I believe this was put to a vote, and we got a law that the health insurance industry wrote.

So are you now saying it isn’t good enough? Dang, I think I’m dizzy! It must be whooping cough. Help, I’m uninsured and dieing prematurely!

‘The uninsured die prematurely every day’

When was the last time someone who was uninsured got turned away from the ER? It doesn’t happen and it’s something that big government leftists use to perpetuate lies to bring fear to everyone.

I personally know 3 people who died young because they couldn’t afford early detection.

I know several other who would be dead if they didn’t have good insurance.

This is not abstract bull crap about philosophies, but real life and death.

‘The uninsured die prematurely every day’

When was the last time someone who was uninsured got turned away from the ER?

Yea, the ER is the same as having good health-insurance and routine health care. Jeez.

Not turned away, stabilized and sent away.
Friend got hit by a car, hit & run. Emergency xrayed his broken elbow and sent him home.

It took a year for he and his wife to save enough and find doc & hospital who would discount the bill. Then, after a year of living in pain from a broken elbow, he was able to have it fixed.

But as the injury had been so long, his elbow was never right again.

after a year of living in pain from a broken elbow, he was able to have it fixed (but) his elbow was never right again.

“Uniquely American”

“Not turned away, stabilized and sent away.”

Kind of hard to stabilize advanced cancer that could have been nipped in the bud with preventive care.

“Uniquely American”

Prove it.

I think I understand now. You have been boycotting the insurance companies.

It’s very big of healthy libertarians to say that there should be no health care for those without money or those that blow through the caps on their insurance or loose out in the market. Call us when you get colon cancer and can’t cover the curative surgery. Call us when your mother and father are sick and can’t pay for nursing home or hospice care.

Bingo, scdave.

Our country gives lip service to medical care as a right, yet treats it as a commodity by expecting middleman to pick up - and profit from –the cost. Until we resolve this issue, how we implement public health care will remain a truncated mess. Personally, I like Ben’s suggestion that we give Obamacare a decade then put it up for a vote.

Then, no matter what we decide, there is the thorny issue of where to draw the line on what constitutes a public health need. Is obesity surgery a legitimate public medical expense? How about hepatic failure due to a lifetime of alcohol abuse? How about infertility? Tuberculosis acquired in one’s home country? Viral emergency? End-of-life hospice care?

“Now that the govt can force me to pay for their insurance, I wonder what they will force me to do/buy next?”

Houses, anyone? (Even if you don’t have to buy one, you may nonetheless find yourself forced to help somebody else pay their exorbitant mortgage…)

Call us when you get colon cancer and can’t cover the curative surgery.

They won’t call us. They won’t have to. They’ll get treated anyway,on our (those of us who do buy health insurance) dime.

‘It’s very big of healthy libertarians to say’

What difference does it matter what libertarians say? We’ve got zero representation in congress. Whatever happens in the future, it has nothing to do with libertarians.

‘Call us when you get colon cancer and can’t cover the curative surgery. Call us when your mother and father are sick’

Yeah, when my grandfather died of colon cancer, the family wrote a check and that was that. The bill was not that high and nobody had health insurance then. When my dad had a cardiac arrest and was brain dead, we took him home and cared for him for 5 months until he passed. But now that all your failed policies have caused prices to exceed what any normal family can pay, you revel in the idea that some will get sick and not be able to pay for it. Wow, what a great caring bunch you are.

The bill was not that high and nobody had health insurance then.

That’s because care was far more basic (and less successful- hence the far lower life expectancies) then. If you get sick today, you’ll want every possible procedure available to keep you alive, at least until there’s no rational hope left. Everyone does, when TSHTF. Some of us admit it in advance, and buy insurance. Others deny it, and live off those of us who do pay. They’re the deadbeats.

‘you’ll want every possible procedure available to keep you alive…Everyone does’

When my granddad was dieing of colon cancer, he begged my mom to bring him a gun, the pain was so bad.

You know, just when I think I couldn’t dislike a poster more, I find that I can.

When my granddad was dieing of colon cancer, he begged my mom to bring him a gun, the pain was so bad.

I’m sorry for him. Really. He had more balls than most.

just when I think I couldn’t dislike a poster more, I find that I can.

Because of his politics? Well. That’s just piss-poor.

‘That’s just piss-poor’

I don’t like you either. You can piss off anytime and I won’t miss you one bit.

I don’t like you either. You can piss off anytime and I won’t miss you one bit.

No. But I like you. Because you say you believe in freedom and liberty of thought, speech and ideas.

just when I think I couldn’t dislike a poster more, I find that I can.

You should hear me after I’ve had a few.

BTW- All this opprobrium on me and Rio, and never a word about RAL’s bullying attempts to censor others’ speech? It’s stuff like this that makes me doubt the bona fides of many libertarians.

“…You can piss off anytime and I won’t miss you one bit….”

I would, Ben. Just as I would miss your moderation of the conversation here, and the commentary of some of our more radical partisans. They add to our knowledge and challenge our preconceptions. We all need that; that’s why we come here.

The point is your Dad shouldn’t have had to suffer in pain AT ALL when society could have reasonably provided him palliative care in an at-home hospice situation at minimal cost. Surely he earned that as an American citizen?

More to the point, when you need it, so should you. Would that everyone in this country took the same personal responsibility for their health that you do. (Seriously.)
Yet what happens when circumstances beyond your control slam you into a brick wall of circumstance? Should we all just turn our backs and say, “Dang. Too bad our Ben didn’t have insurance”?

We spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, prolonging the lives of people who by all reasonable standards would have died years ago but for taxpayer-subsidized technological intervention. At some point rationality and personal responsibility must come into our public health policy.

Those who care to pay for elective and exceptional services should be free to do so, but they shouldn’t expect the rest of us to provide it for them free of charge. Conversely, when responsible citizens confront exceptional adversity, there should be some sort of backstop beyond just setting a broken femur and saying, “okay, you’re on your own now. Good luck.”

‘your Dad shouldn’t have had to suffer in pain AT ALL’

My dad was dead before he hit the ground. We would never have strangers taking care of him for something so personal after that. We talked about it and decided we would take shifts 24/7 and that’s what we did.

When my granddad was dieing, the doctor told us the amount of morphine he was going to be given, at each stage. He said ‘at the end it won’t matter how much morphine we give him.’ He was right.

Your still skipping over the question of why prices are so high. Why were we able to cover almost all these costs out of pocket, not in ancient times, but when I was young? IMO it’s govt mandated insurance; that’s what’s changed. Now address that possibility. Because if that’s the case, many people have and will suffer because of it.

Prices are so high because we allowed corporate and private middlemen into the equation between providers and patients.

Specifically, in 1982 the Reagan administration redefined Medicare to allow institutional providers to bill Medicare DIRECTLY instead of having patients submit billing to their insurers for reimbursement.

Commie talk!

Today’s social Darwinists forget that the not very smart people are and always have been the majority and when they get pissed, you end up on the wrong of that social Darwinism.

Marie Antoinette didn’t get it either.

Not just the 120 IQ crowd, but the $120K a year crowd. Because those are the only kids who are going to be able to afford to “study harder” and “choose another career path” in college.

“I thought that the point of having a healthy economy was so that everyone could live above poverty, not just the 120+ IQ crowd. We used to be able to do it.”

Exactly when was it that everyone could live above poverty?

Everyone? It was never about everyone. It was about MOST people could live above poverty. Hell, they could even be middle class!

In case you missed it, the middle class is now a minority. Just barely, but a minority nonetheless.

I personally believe that I should pay zero taxes, and we should raise them on the middle class. I create jobs. Like, shine my shoes boy. Now get to crackin’!

-Mitt

Sorry, nothing special about these people or the whining involved because others make more than they do.

Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You’re the same decaying organic matter as everything else.

What sort of IQ does an angry MOB need before they are able to mug you, break into your house, burn down the neighborhood, or shop lift stores out of your neighborhood? What sort of IQ do they need to get sick with TB not get medical care and then spread it around your town? What sort of IQ do these guys need to vote in a Chavez or a true communist or dictator?

You guys are F’n amazing.

“What sort of IQ do these guys need to vote in a Chavez or a true communist or dictator?”

60 to 80. Some higher IQ folks may go for that idea having been politically indoctrinated by armchair revolutionary college professors.

I think it’s just a matter of the unwinding not yet reaching the 10%’s industry or corporate tier yet. But the unwinding really hasn’t even begun. Those that think they’ve triumphed should really hold their laughter.

Our family income has not yet been touched. In fact it’s gotten even better in the last few years. But I’m not so arrogant to sniff at those who are already suffering. When people say those sufferering deserve what they get, I think they’re using denial as a mechanism to dismiss how much danger their future income is in. So although we might be one of them, I’m gonna giggle just a little when I see these holier than thou’s taken down a notch. Why do I believe the loudest whining will come from them? The rest of us that recognized the truth and prepared a hedge will quietly carry on when it happens.

The “choice” to “be smart” is laughable. Every kid I saw who “worked hard” ended up better than 80% of the rest of the students. It’s an insult to 90% of the STEM crowd to say they are genetically lucky. They know about all the parties they missed, sports they skipped, spring break vacations they gave up etc… to get where they are. Yeah, 10% of them were geniuses who had to do little or nothing to “get it”; the rest made it on long hours and ramen noodles. Now the 80% want to vote more tax increases on them because their hard work and sacrifice paid off.

Guess what, in the past Marie Antoinette had to worry about the “little people”. Now the STEM crowd might send predator drones out to take care of the “little people” if they start getting all riled up.

Now the 80% want to vote more tax increases on them because their hard work and sacrifice paid off.

But your math does not address the math, “mathguy”.

Again:
When you have 10% of American compensation keeping pace but 90% of American compensation falling, just snarling that the 90% should try to do what the 10% does is mathematically and practically meaningless.

Guess what, in the past Marie Antoinette had to worry about the “little people”. Now the STEM crowd might send predator drones out to take care of the “little people” if they start getting all riled up.

Yep revolution even if you are armed is getting harder by the minute. You say oh look at Syria. Lots of foreign aid and covert ops are propping up those rebels. Same with Lybia.

“They know about all the parties they missed, sports they skipped, spring break vacations they gave up etc”

I missed the parties because I was not invited. I missed the spring break vacations because there was no money for them.

I did participate in the sports. Growing up before Title IX, all I had to do was show up. In that era, playing sports hurt my social life.

Studying was not work. It was fun and interesting. Should I get credit for following my natural inclination? Should I denigrate those whose inclinations and abilities are not suited to a modern economy?

Nope, but since I’m from Michigan I have enough friends and family that I can weigh in on it. NOT SKILLED!

Things that are beyond anyone’s control

We’re calling BS, birdboy. There are NO circumstances that can’t be over come by good old-fashioned, rugged individualist, bootstrapping!

“You work three jobs? How uniquely American” - George W. Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger_myth

I think you deliberately misinterpret arguments against tax cuts for the wealthy as a part of a plan to balance the budget.

If balancing the budget is the objective, then both spending cuts and tax increases is a fair approach.

What Republicans are proposing is tax cuts, spending cuts for social programs, and spending increases for defense. This is not a recipe for deficit reduction. The effect will be shifting costs from those who earn the most to those who earn less. They know this, but deliberately obfuscate the effects on the middle class.

Cutting social programs means more hungry, desperate poor people who will be the neighbors of middle class folks.

What I don’t understand is why you think you are immune from the Dickensian future this plan will bring about.

They don’t even understand what “Dickensian” means or why it’s a bad thing.

Let’s be clear here. No party is proposing any kind of spending cut. At most some party is proposing a smaller than standard increase and calling it a “cut”. The dems are just as bad as the repubs or vice versa.

What I don’t understand is why you think you are immune from the Dickensian future this plan will bring about.

Because he’s been a boot licker he believes that those with boots will let him sleep on the porch.

“Let’s be clear here. No party is proposing any kind of spending cut. At most some party is proposing a smaller than standard increase and calling it a “cut”. The dems are just as bad as the repubs or vice versa.”

One party is proposing spending cuts for programs they don’t like. They have proposed completely cutting PBS Planned Parenthood.

Let’s be clear here.

You’re clearly full of it. Thanks for the misinformation, masquerading as “plain talk”.

My answer is the elite who extract more and more revenue from the gov but pay effective tax rates of <10%. They extract more and more from the economy outsourcing jobs and raiding companies pension funds. They extract more and more from the exonomy by manipulating markets. They extract more and more from the economy by getting bailed out when their bets are bad. They extract more and more from the economy by borrowing massive amounts at 0 % and loaning it to the masses at 5-30%.

An idea that has been proven century after century the antithesis to the very concept of “society”.

In other words, how’s that working out for Somalia?

According to Rio it’s the fact that you might want to keep your money so you can decide what’s best for you as opposed to the government.

Bad Andy, you’re FOS as usual. I only think the BushTaxCutsForTheRich should expire on the rich. I don’t think for a second that 2bananna (or you) are rich.

And I think the bush tax cuts should be abolished entirely. The system needs to be scrapped. Too many loopholes that benefit too few. An efficient tax code wouldn’t allow for deductions at all.

Things that have been added to the tax code since the Reagan simplification:

Deduction of student loan interest
Life long learning tax credit
Another education tax credit whose name I don’t remember
increases to the amount of retirement money that can be saved in tax deferred accounts
Child tax credit
Additional child tax credit
Flex spending accounts (for health expenses, dependent care and one other category)
Child care deduction
various credits for insulating homes and/or buying electric cars
cap gains elimination on selling a house every two years even if you don’t buy another house rather than only getting to do that once
capital gains taxed at much lower rates than ordinary income
“carried interest” getting taxed as capital gains

There are plenty of others that the last tax simplification did leave in like MID, exemption for employer provided benefits, etc.

““carried interest” getting taxed as capital gains”

This was not added to the tax code, but inherent in “flow through” entities–which only made a difference once there was a difference between capital gains and ordinary income.

If I’m wrong, I would like you to explain when between 1986 and now it was added.

@Bad Andy:

I agree. I find it hypocritical that the Obama team likes to point to the Bush tax cuts as a major reason for the deficit, yet they aim to keep 80% of them (the estimate I saw was $4T over 10 years for all the cuts, and $800B of that coming from the top bracket), and make them permanent.

If people are worried about the impact on the economy, how about setting up a glide path to their removal, so people have time to adjust?

I find it hypocritical that the Obama team likes to point to the Bush tax cuts as a major reason for the deficit, yet they aim to keep 80% of them

Something is not adding up.

“A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies….

The Bush-era tax cuts were designed to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and the benefits of faster growth were then supposed to trickle down to the middle class. But the economic impact of cutting capital gains rates and lowering the top marginal tax rates never materialized for working families. Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3% during the 2002-07 economic expansion, which holds the distinction for being the worst economic expansion since World War II.” epi dot org

Oops, I meant “Houston”.

Yup. Tripping over each other promising the guaranteed availability of debt slavery for all. Neither directly answered 20 year old Jeremy Epstein’s question.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion about “binders”.

both candidates were pimping debt slavery this past tuesday.

That is there main goal. Cheerleading citizenry to enter debt slavery. The are the Royal Pimps. Yes. Both of them.

And never forget their paid minions and hacks propagandizing through every media outlet. They’re even right here on this blog.

What? Binders?

http://patterico.com/files/2012/10/Clinton-Binders-of-Women.jpg

See the Amazon link I posted at the top. The comments are hilarious.

Outstanding!

It’s not the current system of student loans. The current system of student loans was government takeover of student loans brought on by the Obama administration.

Government takeover of loans does nothing to address the cost of education!

Please Bad Andy

You can’t possibly believe that banks lending money to students with federal backing up any losses and rules allowing them to pursue debtors indefinitely is a free market.

They were basically stripping wealth from the government and students.

Now if they were making the loans without federal backing then you could say that government took over the business but they weren’t they were basically taking money from the gov loaning to the students with a federal guarantee that they wouldn’t loose money. They were wealth strippers.

“Really poor kids. Make them take a financial basis class including extensive explantion of their responsibilities before they get the loan.”

“Hey kid, where do you live?”

“Where do I live for real or where do I live on paper?”

“How about both.”

“For real I live with my rich parents. On paper I live with my poor grandparents who - on paper - are barely able to get by on Social Security.”

Polly, it would work, but you would lose an entire generation of educated kids during the college bankruptcy bloodbath that would ensue.

I think a kinder and gentler partial solution is find ways to work and avoid college — or at least avoid 4 years of unnecessary electives when 18 months of specialized training will suffice.

The transition would either have to be brutal or very, very long (as in the new rules don’t apply if you took out your loans under the new system). I don’t see another way. There is no reason to provide government backed loans to people who are already middle class or even wealthy. Just as there is no reason to provide government backed/subsidized mortgages at a time when renting is cheaper than buying. When buying is cheaper - yes, it can give a family a new option for lower priced housing if they are too poor to be able save when their rents are higher than a realistic monthly nut. But you don’t do it when the alleged “leg up” is just going to make them worse off.

Excellent Polly. I would add to your restrictions that the loan or grant be paid directly to the bursar’s office for on-campus expenses (tuition, board, food, books) to circumvent those who take their grants and use them to buy a new car or spend a “pre” semester in Las Vegas studying poker strategies.

Of course not, but it’s like any industry where the first one costs a lot to create and you’re not going to sell very many. Then having a small target market that must buy them to reach their goal allows the gouging to commence. I’ve seen professors write their own book knowing they could force their students to buy them. Then if they can convince any other professor to use them, that’s just gravy. Probably not a huge payoff for the number of hours spent, but that doesn’t seem to deter them. Maybe it’s an ego thing, as well as being easier to teach from something you wrote.

No it doesn’t. Text book publishers are like big pharma.

The cost that is impossible to understand is the cost to continually update the book. I’m sure this is where the argument is made for higher prices.

And this is where technology will make it cheaper to disseminate the knowledge.

The afghanis have great dope from what i hear….no sense letting the Taliban back in power they burned all the poppy fields last time they took over.

The increased viewership increases the chances that Iowa and Ohio vote for Romney since the premise that Fox is just increasing it viewership in “Red States” is without any basis.

Actually I do have the breakdown for Rasmussen:

The president leads by four among women, while Romney is up by 10 among men.

What about the white vote, especially white elderly votes? Didn’t Dems basically shoot themselves in the foot by trying to look hip and cool with single women and minorities?

It’s a serious question. Please don’t say it’s racism.

Good question Ross.

Also, what about the stealth Romney vote? Lots of people may secretly vote for Romney when they close that curtain?

Plus, many black people will not openly come out against Obama for fear of being put on a black “black list”; when that happens, even white people can’t help you.

“once you go against Obama, you must hate your momma”

Also, what about the stealth Romney vote? Lots of people may secretly vote for Romney when they close that curtain?

I doubt there’s a big chunk out there. I mean those who didn’t vote Obama last time around aren’t going to be bothered again. The ones who voted for Obama, since they already proved that they are no “racis”, they will not be aplogetic about this time to vote Romney.

Why would Fox’s viewership be rising in the United States but not in Ohio and Iowa, you really are reaching? In fact, logic would tell you that since the Red states were already satuated with Fox viewers so the most likely place to be picking up audience is the blue and purple states.

Look if you could pick voters like you pick a team and you had the same on both sides, which is what a tied polls means:
You would pick white voters over minority voters because history shows they are much more likely to vote.

You would pick wealthy voters over poor voters for the exact same reason.

You would pick old voters over the young for the exact same reason.

You would pick women and men but there is not a large gap between their voting patterns and historically that was not the case but I think a lot of male voters stayed home the last few election cycles due to unappealing candidates. But even within that group you would pick married women over single women and guess how married women vote? Pro Republican.

Thus, it is very clear that Romney has the historically better voters and thus even a tie is not a tie. However, he has a two point lead in the Rasmussen poll and now a 7 point lead in Gallup so he is not tied. Clearly, the last debate has not helped Obama. Like I said Wednesday, Obama bet the farm making Romney an unacceptable candidate, every debate just makes him more acceptable. Obama can win a debate on style but as his record gets laid out, he loses votes.

Clearly, the last debate has not helped Obama.

Clearly it has and will a lot. Reason: There were way more gotcha moments (at Romney’s expense) and internet meme’s coming from this debate than from the first. (binders, lol) Your polls don’t reflect the debate yet. You are babbling.

This debate also fired up the Dem’s base and the ground game.

women over men not women and men

Sorry Rio, they are tracking polls. You babble. Not all the days are post debate but the Rasmussen poll counts two days which were post debate out of three, although I would count it as 50% because one day had both post and pre debate results.

Sorry Rio, they are tracking polls.

I know you are sorry. Especially when it comes to recognizing the implications of trends - economic or scientific. Now we shall see what we shall see on your political predictions. I’ll bet Romney’s 7 point Gallup poll lead will evaporate by next Tuesday. There is just too much laughing at Romney now all over the internet to not drop Romney’s numbers IMO.

FiveThirtyEight, which looks at state-by-state electoral votes, not meaningless national polls, has Obama with a 70% chance of winning.

Ladbrokes Casino odds:

Obama 4 to 11 (bet $11 to win $4)

RMoney 2 to 1 (bet $1 to win $2)

‘People benefited all the way down the line’

And that’s what produced this:

‘in 2003, the peak of the era of financial globalization, financial services accounted for “an absurdly high percentage of the U.S. stock market’s earnings—30 percent.’ What’s more, financial services companies accounted for fully 40 percent of corporate U.S. profits’

Recall what was being said at this time; globalism is working! We don’t need to make stuff anymore, we can finance it.

Those trade guys I knew were blowing and going. Big trucks, toys, some even bought a house, on credit of course. They saved almost nothing, so as soon as it slowed down, poof, they were gone.

I was speaking of globalization, not just the housing bubble.

Globalization has been ongoing since the 1980s and every single indicator shows J6P wages have not kept up with inflation nor gains in productivity of his labor.

People complain about 401(k)s and I admit they can be poor compared to a great pension, once you’re vested. But as someone who spent one enlistment in the military I’ve been quite happy to not need to spend 20 years somewhere just to get something for retirement. I have a deep need to be able to bail quickly when things get stupid and 401(k)s are great for that.

Don’t forget you’re supposed to “live within your means.”

I wonder just how many flipped a house and paid off their student loans…..

I’d rather have a 401(k) than a pension plan. I can take the 401(k) with me when I swap jobs. I have money I put away 5 jobs and one degree ago that’s still around. Any money I stuck into a pension wouldn’t have come all this way with me.

In fact, the loss of good wages was one of the main reasons FOR the housing bubble speculation.

Turkey Lurkey,

You don’t have to have classified intel to see what’s been going on. You just have to look past the MSM, which doesn’t want their President to be damaged by the news.

If you question who this author is, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson

Thanks for the link.

Yes, he does have good credentials.

Would you like to point out in the transcript where he specifically calls it a terrorist act?

Would you like to point out in the transcript where he specifically calls it a terrorist act?

The next day describing the act and our response:
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,”

(Now here comes Bad Andy’s Repub, biased, tortured and obtuse argument that twists the concepts of communication and insults the intelligent person’s comprehension of the English language.)

The question is really was this a terror plot or due to a spontaneous act based on the film? The Obama administration clearly tried to claim it as the latter for two weeks. They also claimed they had no reason to believe the Consulate would be attacked. Both are bold faced lies and Obama was still repeating them when he addressed the UN.

But if you want to have the idiotic debate saying that no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve, is not specifically labeling the event as a terror attack.

But if you want to have the idiotic debate saying that no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve, is not specifically labeling the event as a terror attack.

In a pig’s eye maybe.

The question is really was this a terror plot or due to a spontaneous act based on the film?

I think not. I think the “question” is that Romney got caught big time on national TV wallowing in his BS. And Obama spanked him hard.

‘Any other cogent arguments against means-testing’

Some would say it will expose the ponzi scheme for what it is.

PBS ran a show a while back, comparing the single payer plans in Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan, etc., with what we had.

Sure, they had their problems. A lot of doctors in those countries don’t like it, because they can’t make high six/seven-figure salaries like doctors can make here.

OTOH, they don’t have to worry about malpractice suits, or six figure balances in their student loan accounts, or paying a bunch of people to process/game the insurance claims system. The low pay (relative) problem can be addressed.

If nothing else, we’ll find out which doctors are genuinely interested in treating patients, and which ones are in it for the money.

What was interesting was the fact that NONE of the J6Ps interviewed in these other countries would trade their system for ours.

What was interesting was the fact that NONE of the J6Ps interviewed in these other countries would trade their system for ours.

Our system is viewed with revulsion and horror outside of the USA, except by the foreign rich who can afford to be treated at our elite hospitals (say Cedar Sinai or Mayo Clinic)

Our system is viewed with revulsion and horror outside of the USA,

When I described the USA health-care system to an Australian, he asked me if Americans were barbarians.

Yet if we put end of life decisions fully in the hands of the medical community (as is the case in many of the countries with a single-payer system), we would call that barbaric…

No discussion about healthcare in this country should be had without an open airing of the EOL decision making process. This is a major driver of the difference in cost between the US and other countries.

Exactly rental I want a Dr. Kevorkian at my side when I make that choice and i want NO ONE sued or arrested..

Our system is viewed with revulsion and horror outside of the USA

Utter rubbish. I am in constant contact with foreigners, nobody ever mentioned that US has an inferior health care system.

‘we would call that barbaric’

It’s interesting that those advocating force call those opposed barbaric. I suppose that it’s humane to forcibly taking money from people to pay for, say, having some toilet paper removed from my ear.

When I described the USA health-care system to an Australian, he asked me if Americans were barbarians.

Can’t blame the guy after regarding the source.

@Ben, I think the EOL stuff is tough, with no bright lines.

“Life” is “precious”. We all agree.

Now, define “life”, and define “precious”.

Is a 90-year-old body functioning with machine assistance with a 90-year-old mind in a vegetative state “living”? Some might say yes. Others would say no.

Is that condition “precious” enough to warrant, say resources that could be used to vaccinate 10,000 kids per year? 1,000?

I think that example is among the easier.

The line gets more difficult with other decisions. How about an expensive procedure on a dying patient to extend their life by 6 months, what’s that “worth”? Resources that could otherwise provide quality prenatal care for 500 pregnant women? Quality prosthetics for 10 folks who have lost a limb? Treatment for 1,000 people with a curable infection?

What about if the probability of death on the operating table is 75%? What about if the probability of cure is 5%?

If you are paying for it all yourself, do what you want.

If you are paying for insurance, and your deal with the insurance company is that they cover the procedures, go for it.

If it is a government program, where more money spent equals taxing others more, who should decide (it’s awfully easy to spend someone else’s money)?

Rental,

Good stuff about the EOL and it’s the politics that’s getting in the way. Left doesn’t want to be told by Insurance companies that they can’t have extra care. Right doesn’t want to be told by the government that you must die. Furthermore, if pro lifers get their way we will most likely have Terry Schivos in every houseold. May be not if the insurance company cuts of the care?

Yet if we put end of life decisions fully in the hands of the medical community (as is the case in many of the countries with a single-payer system), we would call that barbaric…

Why would we call that system “barbaric” relative to America’s system when most people with single-payer systems live longer and healthier than Americans?

The USA health-insurance system is much more barbaric than say Canada’s by almost every measure.

I am in constant contact with foreigners,

On Facebook?

nobody ever mentioned that US has an inferior health care system.

“91% of Canadians prefer their healthcare system instead of a U.S. style system.[9][10] Plus 70% of Canadians rated their system as working either “well” or “very well”.[11]

A 2009 Harris/Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, more than ten times as many as the 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system for Canada[12] while a Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S.” wiki

Ross,

Or what we’ll have is what exists in countries like the UK, a public system with a private system still in place.

Those with the means frequently have private insurance to go along with public care, because for many people, the public care is not good enough.

It’s interesting that those advocating force call those opposed barbaric.

It’s interesting that someone who is uninsured and might someday end up uninsured and in an ER costing the taxpayer money also advocates for personal responsibility and freedom.

>i>Utter rubbish. I am in constant contact with foreigners, nobody ever mentioned that US has an inferior health care system.

Sez you. All my European relatives react as Rio’s Aussie acquaintance did.

‘82% of Canadians preferred…’

A lot of people who drew 3000% more than they paid into Social Security undoubtedly preferred the system too. Maybe an even higher percentage of those who got out of a ponzi scheme early preferred it as well.

‘82% of Canadians preferred…’

A lot of people who drew 3000% more than they paid into Social Security undoubtedly preferred the system too.

Apples and Oranges.

The Canadian health care system is solvent, insures 100% of Canadians, costs way less per person than American’s system and has better health-care stats than America’s system.

‘might someday end up uninsured and in an ER costing’

I’m used to being uninsured. I grew up in a middle income family with seven children. We didn’t have health insurance; didn’t need it. On the occasion someone had to see a doctor, the price was low enough that my parents could just pay it. My mom had those seven children and they simply wrote a check when she left the hospital. And when you don’t have health insurance, you don’t go to the doctor every time you have the flu.

People will say, ‘but we have so much more technology these days.’ Wrong; technology makes things cheaper, not more expensive.

It’s obvious something is wrong with the price of health care. Many of us think it’s mainly government intervention through insurance mandates. And what’s going on now is moving in the wrong direction.

Many of us think it’s mainly government intervention through insurance mandates. And what’s going on now is moving in the wrong direction.

I agree with you on that point. What I do not agree with is that other forms of universal health care violate freedom. The might violate SOME freedoms but the freedoms they bestow greatly outweigh the freedoms they hinder.

If we look at a list of the most economically free countries in the world, almost all the top 10 have universal coverage and the name at the top, Hong Kong has a truly socialized health system based on Britain’s.

Entrepreneurship and Capitalism has been, can be, and is greatly enhanced by universal health care.

91% of Canadians prefer their healthcare system instead of a U.S. style system.

Fact: 99.9% of canadians will never experience US system so I don’t think they are qualified to judge which system is better.

Fact: If you polled Russins during the commuism, I bet a large percentage would chose communism to other forms of government.

See the connection? Opinions of brainwashed masses doesn’t worth a $hit.

Fact: 99.9% of canadians will never experience US system

Canadians know all about our system. Many Canadians have lived in America and still do. Many Canadians have relatives in America. Canadians are like our neighbors. I think we have a border with Canada and some Canadians can even read I’ve heard.

Opinions of brainwashed masses doesn’t worth a $hit.

I agree, that’s why Ross Peroxide rarely says anything original or of objective value.

“Fact: 99.9% of canadians will never experience US system”

You sure about that. There are a lot of Canadians who come to Florida and other spots in the US for at least part of the year. They buy health insurance for when they are here. I doubt it is less than a tenth of a percent of the population.

Yes that’s it

The Canadians don’t have news, they don’t travel, and they can’t understand our system. ????

They are just distracted by the fact that their medical care system costs half as much and provides better outcomes and treats more people.

Unfortunately fixer, the whole plan was to keep people unemployed so that Obama wouldn’t have a second term.

And of any increases in Federal employees (if any)…..

-How many of them were DoD? TSA? Border Patrol? Homeland Security of various descriptions?.

-Do “contractors” count as Federal employees? Lots of contractors are rebuilding/repairing/overhauling military equipment coming back from the Middle East.

What was Dubya’s record on this from 2000-2008? Clinton’s? Bush-Uno’s?

Every Federal government office I deal with is dealing with hiring freezes, or not filling open positions when people retire.

“Ignorant” would be a polite way of putting it.

Homeland security! ding ding ding! you would not believe how much waste is in that organization. Add in DoD and how much is that anti-terrorist stuff costing us?

Conflicting info on this, IBD had a chart this Summer which showed federal government employment actually rising over 200,000 if you exclude the post office.

So I wonder if these cuts are post office jobs which is a quasi government organization which is suppose to be free from the government.

June 8th IBD blog:

Payroll change since January 2008

Total: -5.01 million -3.6%

Private: -4.61 million -4%

Government: -407,000 -1.8%

Federal Government: (excluding post office) +225,000 11.4%

Sources: Labor Department, Datastream
Have not verified identified source but it should not be hard so I don’t think Rand Paul is necessarily wrong.

Really?

Obama didn’t undertake tax reform because he sees it as a useless exercise, since once you change the code, it will simply be changed back?

Really?

If you really believe that, it is the best reason yet to give someone else a chance at “changing” Washington, because this president has given up.

“Let It Crater”

When I find myself in a sea of Bull$hit……