The Housing Bubble

and what are can you put on the table to show that you are not ignorant?

and what are can you put on the table to show that you are not ignorant?

Well, pointing out Krugman’s advocacy of the housing bubble as a huge failure, for starters.

Instead of getting talking points from H. Hoover why not get them from J.M. Keynes who suggested governments should borrow and spend in bad times and PAY BACK WHAT WAS BORROWED in the good times.

Seems as though spenders, government or otherwise, only listened to half of what Keynes said.

only listened to half of what Keynes said.

Something tells me Keynes wasn’t ignorant to the “genie out of the bottle” principle.

PAY BACK WHAT WAS BORROWED in the good times.

Are we in ‘the good times’ now? Exercise is beneficial, but not when you have the flu. The early stages of a great depression is no time for morality plays.

The flu is something you get from external causes. We do not have the flu - we have a hangover.

Perhaps you believe in hair-of-the-dog as a cure, but it’s a free country and you can believe what you want.

Hair-of-the-dog works, as long as you don’t follow it up by going on another bender.

Like - a housing bubble? (see below)

What if the good times were caused by borrowing? That’s how they got to be good times. The only exception was in the 90’s, under Evil Bill Clinton.

The only exception was in the 90’s, under Evil Bill Clinton.

A good example of ‘paying it back’ when times are good. It happens, just not under Republican administrations of recent vintage.

What if the good times were caused by borrowing? That’s how they got to be good times. The only exception was in the 90’s, under Evil Bill Clinton.

Fine and good except one thing - good times don’t have to be due to borrowing, e.g. the 1950’s and 1960’s (as well as most everything pre-1920 or so).

Indeed the only good times we’ve had since the late 1970’s that wasn’t due to big increases in borrowing was during the Clinton era. However lest we pat Bill on the back too much - he did have the benefit of the biggest stock market boom since the 1920’s going for him, as well as no wars (justified or not).

The only exception was in the 90’s, under Evil Bill Clinton.

A good example of ‘paying it back’ when times are good. It happens, just not under Republican administrations of recent vintage.

Except Bill didn’t pay anything back. The federal debt went from $4.2 Trillion to $5.7 Trillion during his tenure. The only year that the debt actually went down any - 2000 - wasn’t due to decreased spending, which rather went up by 5%; it was due to the huge windfall of stock market bubble capital gains profits.

Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy though.

Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy though.

Well, show us one of your famous real world charts- how about historical US debt to GDP?

You know Alpha, you are just so patisan it’s difficult to take.

Clinton got out before the tech bubble burst and he is a genius.

If bush had lost his second term would he have been hailed as a genius and Kerry as a dolt?

It is a very tirering rhetoric from you. We have a clear problem with too much debt. The banks and consumers can’t handle it. Throwing it on to the government has been the bankers strategy and getting another spin at the wheel. So, running up more debt will just be another service for the rich class of bankers that make money on the churn.

Course a fool of a socialist like you would like that. Anything that gives the government a bigger share of the pie, eh?

For the most part, we’ve shipped our good times overseas. And don’t forget that in the 50s and 60s the labor pool was much smaller.

Look a couple of posts up - there it is.

How about this one: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

James- I’m sorry if my patisan rhetoric is so tirering. Feel free to take a knap after reeding it, or just skrol on by.

So I point out that Keynes’s theories worked quite well for 40 years, and I’m told that doesn’t count. I point out that debt skyrocketed only after Reagan took office, and I’m told that doesn’t count. I point out that debt was being paid back (or at least not increasing) under Clinton, and I’m told that doesn’t count. I point out that debt began skyrocketing again under W, and I’m told that doesn’t count.

What counts? (Sorry if I’m boring you- Feel free to go back to blaming your ingrown toenails on Obama.)

Feel free to go back to blaming your ingrown toenails on Obama.

And to think that I was about to blame mine on the fact that my walking shoes might be getting too small.

If there’s any skyrocketing in this graph, I’d have to say it’s around the time Obama took office.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1980_2010&view=1&expand=&units=k&fy=fy11&chart=H0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Federal%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s

Now in your mind Obama’s gotta sky-rocket the debt in order to pay for Bush’s mistakes. By analogy did Reagan have to increase the debt in order to pay for Carter’s mistakes?

More and more I think I see how your mind works. Liberal=good. Conservative=bad. Democrat=good. Republican=bad. Agree with me=you’re right. Disagree with me=you’re stupid. It must be nice to see everything in such vivid black and white.

How about this one: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Interesting how Bush II immediately gets the hit for the upswing in the beginning of 2001 when he takes office, yet continues to take the hit 17 months after Obama takes office.

Also interesting that the chart leaves off FDR’s New Deal legacy.

I never have stated that Reagan or the Bushes were fiscally responsible; quite the contrary in fact. My statement above was in response to the assertion that Clinton actually paid back some of the debt, which he did not, and to assert that he was more a beneficiary of circumstance than of fiscal prudence.

MV - the debt did begin to skyrocket before Obama took office. Zoom in some.

Feel free to take a knap after reeding it, or just skrol on by.

Ad hominem- the last bastion of a failing argument. - alpha-sloth

MV - the debt did begin to skyrocket before Obama took office. Zoom in some.

I zoomed in to various {2005-2007}-2010 intervals and it always appears like the debt really took off sometime in 2008; no doubt the TARP payment was the start. So is the point “Obama has to keep the debt going up at an astronomical rate because Bush came up with the TARP payment”? It seems to me that Obama could come in and stop the exponential rise in debt if he wanted to. What I see is that he has put the spending pedal to the medal. If it’s okay for him to spend, why wasn’t it okay for Bush?

That hominem asked for it!

Actually, I apologize if I offended you, James. I know you’re a good spellr, I just assumed you’d started drinking earlier than usual today.

The big picture grows more hazy and contentious in the humid summer days.

But through the late June heat and thundershowers it becomes more clear that it might have been Bush’s and his soon to be golfing buddy Obama’s fault after all.

It sounds to me like he’s not recommending a housing bubble- he’s pointing out the Fed had no other way to stimulate its way out of the 2001 recession. I don’t think he’s saying it’s a great plan. If he is, then flesh it out with a few more lines. From this snippet, it just sounds like he’s just stating an occurrence, not cheering it. It also sounds like exactly what many here, including myself, have been saying- that the economic recovery of 2001 was a false one, based on the RE bubble. We were just going from one bubble to another.

But you can read it how you want, it’s a free country.

There’s a difference between opinion and comprehension.

Perhap’s it’ll be more clear if I add the fact that the title of Krugman’s piece was “Dubya’s Double Dip?”, and this as the preceding paragraph to the one above:

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ”double dip,” a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I’ve repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn’t a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Between this and tons of other Krugman writings (e.g. today’s article) he’s proven to be an uber-Keynesian. Well if the housing bubble and the European debt crises aren’t enough to convince one that Keynesian spending tactics only serve to postpone to the doo-doo and make it deeper when you get to it again, then one is… well… a little light in the loafers shall we say.

then one is… well… a little light in the loafers shall we say.

Ad hominem- the last bastion of a failing argument.

Your extra paragraph in no way proves Krugman was cheering the fact that the Fed saw no other way get out of the recession than to blow another bubble. The reading comprehension problem is on your end.

BTW- I’m not saying he didn’t call for a housing bubble, I honestly don’t know. I’m just saying this snippet doesn’t show that he did. Perhaps you have yet more paragraphs?

Perhaps you have yet more paragraphs?

Here’s quite a collection. Krugman advocated housing stimulus/bubble all the way, as a way out of the 2001 recession.

And he was right - a housing bubble did take us out of that recession. Problem was it took us out by creating an even bigger bubble, leading to a far worse recession.

And he’s right now - Keynesian stimulus can take (and to a certain degree has taken) us out of the current recession.

The problem is - each stimulus has to be bigger and bigger, and has less and less effect, until finally no amount of stimulus will work. That day is not too far off. We will then have one of two choices:

1. Hope that another world war comes along that leaves us unscathed while the rest of the world is mostly destroyed (good luck with that), or

2. Accept the final economic crash-and-burn - most likely far worse that the Great Depression, and most likely emerging with permanent global economic stagnation.

D) Blame the previous owner, take out a 300% loan against the value of the car and drive straight at incoming traffic?

do you guys really believe that *driving* a country like ours is just like driving a (broken) car?

You are driving in the rain down a hill and there is a sharp curve ahead. Times have been tight and you have bald tires and no brakes. Do you:

There was a men’s health article (I think it was) that covered this. You…

Put your car into the guard rail

You let it fail and then get some government cheese in the form of a “cash for clunkers” deal.

2009? I guess they mean 2011. Whatever. I can’t argue tax policy with you; I don’t have the education or the time. I remember vaguely that Obama wanted to keep the tax cuts for the under $250K crowd and “raise” taxes only on the rich to — oh horrors! — the same tax rates under Reagan, but i don’t know how that turned out. I also remember vaguely that estate tax only kicks in if the estate is $2(?) million or more. Even then, “you” are not taxed when “you” die; your heirs are simply taxed on what is essentially a windfall. Luntz & Co changed it to “death” tax to fool the masses.

Won’t the increase in taxes help to decrease that debt/deficit that the conservatives have been squawking about lately, and rather loudly so?

I don’t agree that raising taxes on the rich will affect the economy all that much. The original idea was that cutting taxes would stimulate the economy and create jobs. The only jobs created were temporary housing bubble jobs, which evaporated. The sustainable jobs were outsourced anyway, tax breaks or no.

Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;

GOOD.

Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;

GOOD.

Seconded.

As a single person who has never had children, I have never received an equivalent credit.

As a single person who has never had children, I have never received an equivalent credit.

One day you will. The day you collect your first social security or medicare payment is the day you take your equivalent credit right from those younger taxpayers…

you take your equivalent credit right from those younger taxpayers…

Umm…SS/medicare is something we’ve already contributed to. A tax credit for having children is quite different.

I’m thinking the tax increases will be deflationary as well.

Even if the govt spends/squanders it, they will run up slightly less debt.

Velocity will be lower.

Well, hell’s bells, I will be paying a lot of taxes. Sigh.

Better than having me hide it in a safety deposit box, eh?

A tax credit for having children is quite different.

And for those of us who’ve never had children, there is no Non-Breeder Tax Credit.

Umm…SS/medicare is something we’ve already contributed to. A tax credit for having children is quite different.

—————–

With due respect, because of the prior administrations (going back years), money was contributed and already spent on things other than SS/medicare, and thus we have a big debt today.

It’s the equivalent of saying that I put money in my 401k, but then raided it to buy several cars over the years. It’s a good thing that I’ve saved up for retirement…

I’m not saying I agree with the tax credit for children (even though I have two kids–I’m not even sure that I get the credit, given my income bracket), but countries with big issues are those without a growing population.

It’s the equivalent of saying that I put money in my 401k, but then raided it to buy several cars over the years. It’s a good thing that I’ve saved up for retirement…

No, it’s not, because the person doing the raiding isn’t me. It’s the Congress that I have not voted for, acting against my best interest.

If I raid my 401k, I have no one to blame but myself.

Ain’t Democracy a b*&#!?

While any individual can say the same thing, one thing is certainly true: A 21 year old on average will bear more of the burden of any US austerity measures and is less at fault than a 62 year old when it comes to which politicians were in office and what policies they pursued.

I would also be very curious if no politician that you have voted for in all the years of deficit spending (let’s go back 30 years) has ever won…

My best and only solution isn’t a solution at all, but an effort to change mindset. I think a progressive tax code is a good thing to a certain extent. However, it becomes a big problem when ~50% of the population do not very visibly pay taxes. I think regardless of the changes in store for the US, every voting citizen needs to be paying something in tax (the more visible the tax, the better). Then voters will finally see what the government is spending as THEIR money, not someone else’s.

I think regardless of the changes in store for the US, every voting citizen needs to be paying something in tax (the more visible the tax, the better). Then voters will finally see what the government is spending as THEIR money, not someone else’s.

Agree with the sentiment. My solution is those that receive gov’t funds get a reduced vote. This way those that are funding the gov’t have more of a say.

People getting child tax breaks aren’t making fat bank. But you wouldn’t know the cost of raising a child as you don’t have one, would you?

And don’t even start with “If you can’t afford one don’t have one.” While a sound idea, one can never accurately predict the future of their job security. Some just think they can.

Where do you people get this “50%” don’t pay taxes? That is flat out wrong.

irs.gov
census.gov

Point Taken.

The top 50% of taxpayers pay 97.1% of individual taxes as of 2007 (irs.gov).

For the lowest 50% of taxpayers, that’s an average of $457 per tax return (irs.gov).

From CBS in 2009 - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml

in 2009, the number paying NO tax was 43.4% (original source was pretty credible according to the website)

Is the argument at all diminished with these numbers?

Looks like my earlier post didn’t make it. Long story short:

1. About 43.4% of folks in 2009 are estimated to have paid $0 in taxes (from CBS news in April 2009), in April of 2010, the number I saw for tax year 2009 was approximately 47%;
2. The top 50% of individual tax returns make up 97% of taxes paid;
3. The rest average approximately $460 per year paid in taxes.

So, 50% paying $0 is an exaggeration, but is the conclusion any different at 43% or 47%? What numbers do you see?

People getting child tax breaks aren’t making fat bank. But you wouldn’t know the cost of raising a child as you don’t have one, would you?

How is that relevant? Just because it’s pricey to have a kid doesn’t mean that I have to subsidize it. And just because they’re not making “fat bank” doesn’t make it just.

It’s not about the dollar amount, nor whether those receiving the credit are sitting pretty. It’s that I find it unjust that those w/o kids are forced to subsidize those w/ kids.

I assume Rental is talking about income taxes. Eco, please don’t go off on “they pay sales taxes, etc”. The point stands as is, with that clarification.

And the fact they pay other taxes doesn’t mean they’re pulling their weight in any way, shape, or form, as those of us paying the bulk of income taxes AS WELL AS those other taxes.

Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;

GOOD.

Yeah, those people raising young kids sure are greedy. It’s the childless who are the real heroes. I mean, who else would spend their time traveling the world or gambling in Vegas or whatnot? That’s real sacrifice right there. Giving up things like that to raise kids? That’s just pure greed.

yeah I see your sarcasm. I don’t consider self-indulgence greed though. I consider it “living your life.” Your sarcasm does not score you any points on this one. Life is to be enjoyed, explored, lived. You haven’t made us childless boomers on this thread guilty one instant - at least this one. I have two sisters who never gave birth. Out of four siblings, only 25% of us had kids. Good? Bad? Personal decision. Our parents were wonderful parents. No drugs or anything. We were just brought up to NOT TAKE UP DEBT.

Debt will set you free, will make you a parent, will buy you time (for awhile). Will get you a McMansion. But we are not in debt - none of my siblings.

I expect 95% of single childless people to have not fallen into the credit trap and 99% of those with children to depend on credit of some form. If you made it out in 2005, congratulations, but the credit bubble is over with. The emperor has no clothes. The next several years will be the real birth dearth in all the developed countries. The middle class died out over 30 years ago and there will be no credit to cover that up for a couple of generations.

Yeah, those people raising young kids sure are greedy. It’s the childless who are the real heroes. I mean, who else would spend their time traveling the world or gambling in Vegas or whatnot? That’s real sacrifice right there. Giving up things like that to raise kids? That’s just pure greed.

Nice strawman.

Let’s stick to the facts and the issue raised here. Federal tax filers get a CREDIT (not just a deduction) for each child they have. That means that money is being taken from the pocket of those without children and given to those with. Do you really consider that moral, just, and fair?

I never said anything about greed. Honestly, I find it sickening that you believe that you (assuming you have children) are ENTITLED to my hard-earned money. That you get to benefit from my hard work and sound financial decisions.

Never mind that I might be supporting an aging parent, or a spouse who is unable to work. You’re entitled to it more than anyone I might choose to give it to.

I didn’t take any of your money. I pay taxes just like I should. I just pay a little less than I would without kids. When you retire, you will be taking money from other peoples’ kids. My kids’ taxes will help to fund SS and medicare right when are taking it. So I figure the child tax credit just helps to correct this injustice. I wonder about people who throw around terms like “breeder”. How do you figure you got into this world? What if your mom felt the same way that you do?

I just pay a little less than I would without kids.

Perhaps you still contribute overall. Doesn’t change the fact that I am subsidizing your life choices. And it’s not just a “little less”. The child tax *CREDIT* is $1000. Not chump change. It doesn’t phase out until an AGI above $75k. Add to that the deductions for head of household and each dependent, and the fact that I heavily subsidize your children’s education as well (Assuming they go to public school). How much of my money do you think you deserve, really?

So you’re saying that I’ve not contributed my part to SS and Medicare? That somehow I’m taking from your children, and thus you’re entitled to my hard-earned money? I will get far out of SS and Medicare than I have put in, surely.

How do you figure you got into this world? What if your mom felt the same way that you do?

I wouldn’t exist, and as such I wouldn’t care. What kind of argument is that? Am I supposed to feel guilty because my parents had sex? Be grateful?

I wouldn’t exist, and as such I wouldn’t care. What kind of argument is that? Am I supposed to feel guilty because my parents had sex? Be grateful?

If you’re actually not grateful to your mom for giving you life, that tells me a lot about you. The SS taxes you pay are going to pay the benefits of current retirees. You know, like the kind of people who sacrificed to bring you into this world and raise you. Did you go to public school when you were a kid? Were you so bitter at the time that taxpayers had to subsidize that? Or maybe you went to private school? I suppose your parents owed that to you, and you’re not grateful for that either. The adultists on this board crack me up. You really can’t see any value in the raising of children. Unfortunately for you, society as a whole *does* see the value, and had decided to incentivize it accordingly.

The adultists on this board crack me up. You really can’t see any value in the raising of children

You like to resort to strawman arguments, eh? Nowhere have I stated that I don’t see the value of children or of raising them, nor even broached the subject. Nowhere in your rant do you address the root of the issue - ME being FORCED to subsidize anyone with more children than I have.

Does that have anything to do with whether I went to public school, or whether I’m grateful my parents had sex?

If you want to criticize me for the CHOICES I make with my money, that’s one thing. But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about the money that is forcefully taken from me and given straight to others, including you.

Yes, due to the way that SS has been managed, the cash forcefully taken from my paycheck right now is being immediately paid out to those currently receiving benefits. Does that mean that I haven’t ‘earned’ any SS I might collect in the future, and as such I’m somehow taking it from the future taxpayers?

Sorry, but unless I collect more than was taken from me (I won’t even argue for adjusting for inflation), I’m not taking anything from ANYONE, your children or otherwise.

Their endings justifies their beginnings:

Cheney-Shrub Legacy Effect #3: “We left y’all with the worst economy in 80 years…see ya!”

http://img1.eyefetch.com/p/5t/718264-4ab731bb-aad2-4439-9a01-8de92227fff2l.jpg

Gift wrapped for lil’ Opie (The Non-Hawaiian):

Shrub’s 2001 tax breaks for the wealthy
8 year WAR to promote the Cheney-Shrub initiated policy of: Shazam-Islam-is-now-democracy
Homeownership advocacy
immigration reform
TARP (Original)

BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! (fpss™)

He may have inherited some of the problems, but he didn’t inherit the wars.

And he didn’t inherit tax cuts that started what had become massive deficit spending even before the economic meltdown. Much of the larger deficit spending that followed has been in an attempt to soften that meltdown.

alpha, you mention the wars. Is it OK with you that we are still there?

“alpha, you mention the wars. Is it OK with you that we are still there?”

The main reason I voted for Obama was to bring the troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m not impressed in the least with his effort in this area.

I’m not impressed in the least with his effort in this area.

The actions of the Dems voted into Congress in 2006 was a good indication that Obama wouldn’t follow through….

“What exactly are the merits of his message?”

Availing ourselves of policy measures that might reduce the possibility of a depression or at least blunt some of the worst aspects of one, perhaps?

I’m not sure we can avoid a deflationary depression, even if we were to do as Krugman would recommend. However, if we do as others are pushing at the moment, sharply curtail government spending, then no other outcome seems likely. I don’t see the advantage of doing things that would worsen what quite possibly would already be a substantial and prolonged economic contraction.

I’d rather see unemployment extended in a form that puts people to work doing a variety of infrastructure type projects and much more spent on developing an economy of the future rather than trying to sustain the corpse of the old economy. This would at least put some kind of floor under the pain while the economy is restructured to something more sustainable.

There are no good outcomes, at least in the context of what was considered “good” even though I might consider what was considered to good to be otherwise. The danger of too much pain is that the economic problems could morph into some of the worst non-economic problems of the 1930’s.

proposed cure still lives in the realm of theory.

I assume you’re talking about the Austrian school, whose tenets have never been tested.

Keynes theories worked quite well for forty years, in the real world. They began to be ignored under the Reagan administration, culminating in where we are today.

“Keynes theories worked quite well for forty years…”

That’s attributing an awful lot to the man’s theories, don’t you think? This discussion can’t really continue without consideration of the wider global context of that period. Ex: I’ll argue that the mere existence of the Soviet Union did more for American postwar “prosperity” than Keynes’ theories ever could. Bombed out competition also didn’t hurt.

And Ronnie and his bunch never abandoned Keynes at all, they just made some substitutions, like school lunch ketchup for aircraft carriers.

Keynes theories worked quite well for forty years, in the real world. They began to be ignored under the Reagan administration

Yep, that ’70’s economy sure set the gold standard! What were we thinking in abandoning such sound Keynesian principles??

Keynes theories worked quite well for forty years, in the real world.

LOL. Yeah the fact that rest of the world’s infrastructure was destroyed by WWII, while ours was unscathed, had nothing to do with it.

Now that we’re back on level playing ground, Keynesian theory is proving to be quite faulty, as evidenced by the housing bubble and its aftermath itself.

Oh, it was ‘different that time”, eh? Didn’t count- only lasted 40-some odd years. And, of course, when half the world is destroyed, it’s impossible to have bubbles, right? Why?

And where is a comparable run of the Austrian school’s good, common-sense theories?

How are you counting 40-some-odd years? 1945 to 1969 is 40-some-odd years? And ignoring the pesky eras of GD I and the 1970’s?

Re: Austrian theories, try the German post-war Wirtschaftswunder.

Re: Austrian theories, try the German post-war Wirtschaftswunder.

They weren’t on a gold standard, they had fractional reserve banking, and strong government involvement in the economy. Doesn’t sound like the Austrian school to me.

If you’re searching for the Austrian school’s theories at work, try 19th century America. Booms, busts, bank runs, and robber barons. Oh, and poisonous ‘medicines’, food and water. And wholesale corporate corruption on and off Wall Street. Happy times…

bank runs

I did not realize that the FDIC was part of Keynesian economics.

Oh, and poisonous ‘medicines’, food and water. And wholesale corporate corruption on and off Wall Street

What does this have to do with economic theory?

“A 300-million person country simply cannot support a billion people.”

Testify. However, that’s not going to stop third world immigrants, illegal and otherwise, from screwing their brains out to produce more future government dependents. I was watching a story on CBS or ABC news posted on the internet, about a family leaving Arizona because of the new law. Parents are illegal, but hey, they have ten, count ‘em TEN, children born on US soil. Those children are considered “citizens”. Bwahahaha! Future dependents of the state? Or future forced labor? You decide.

Of course, right now, those ten kids are their parents’ meal ticket. That’s a LOT of weffare $$$.

I was watching a story on CBS or ABC news posted on the internet, about a family leaving Arizona because of the new law. Parents are illegal, but hey, they have ten, count ‘em TEN, children born on US soil.

And they wonder why we Arizonans so strongly favor SB 1070. (Last I checked, it was supported by 70% of us.)

Of course, right now, those ten kids are their parents’ meal ticket. That’s a LOT of weffare $$$.

It will be interestting to see what these people will do when the Welfare money is gone, which can’t be too far off given the state of perpetual deficits and budget cuts most states are enduring.

While 2010-2011 won’t be all that bad for Colorado (a “mere” 100 million dollar deficit to cover via budget cuts) the following year will be brutal as a 1 billion deficit is projected for 2011-2012. TABOR restricts the state’s ability to raise taxes so they are going to have to cut, and cut big.

I suspect that other states are in similar predicaments (if not worse). At some point taxpayers will revolt in these other states, which will have no choice other than to cut spending. California comes to mind.

“Of course, right now, those ten kids are their parents’ meal ticket. That’s a LOT of welfare $$$.”

As much as I’ve argued for greater targeted government spending, state and local spending is going to decline. I would not want to bet on that declining spending going to welfare for dependents versus retirees or the unemployed.

If you have ten kids, you might just have to find a way to take care of them with little or no government assistance beyond their education. We don’t need more people, we need less and those that remain are going to have to be productive enough to support the lifestyle they would like to sustain.

jobs will never abound again.

Jobs are as natural as breathing. People can easily give each other things to do and trade services. But the value of different services (or of all services) can fall. The problems arise when governments and corporations artificially prop up wages and salaries to benefit preferred groups of people. This is what causes unemployment.

A 300-million person country simply cannot support a billion people.

With free-market policies in place, we could easily support multiple times our current population. See:

fatknowledge dot blogspot dot com/2008/11/how-many-people-can-earth-support.html

“Jobs are as natural as breathing.”

Ye… no.

“OK 2 million people couldn`t find anything to do in 99 weeks. Maybe after say week 52 you could consider moving to gain employment or perhaps god forbid delivering pizza or driving a truck or delivery service or work at a printing shop or waitress or waiter or work at a convinence store or learn while you earn being a plumber or AC person. All of which I have seen HELP WANTED SIGNS in SE Florida a hard hit area for unemployment.”

With 5 people looking for work for every job available, doing any of the things you suggest doesn’t go very far. Employers have been surprisingly open that they won’t hire anyone that’s currently not working. What should those people do? Older workers that have lost jobs are in despair. No one will hire them, but they aren’t old enough to retire. What should they do?

There are no easy answers here. But blaming the unemployed during a period of near depression levels of unemployment/underemployment doesn’t seem to be productive.

There are no easy answers here. But blaming the unemployed during a period of near depression levels of unemployment/underemployment doesn’t seem to be productive.

But it’s easy.

I was one of those unemployed for 4.5 months. I was more fortunate than others. I’m debt free and was actually able to live of UI.

However, if there had not have been government support for medical insurance, that would have had to go.

I was one of the lucky ones. I do feel for everyone who is losing their benefits. Their fear must be awful. And more foreclosures to come.

SDGreg

One of my old line coaches used to say getting blocked is not a sin. Staying blocked is.

“There are no easy answers here. But blaming the unemployed during a period of near depression levels of unemployment/underemployment doesn’t seem to be productive.”

Staying unemployed for 99 weeks and looking doesn’t seem to be productive either.

It’s also a play on the rap song that was used in the movie Office Space while they were destroying the printer, “Damn, It Feels Good to be a Gangsta”.

Even if the job was a poof job, they were NOT lazy and they were not sucking off the government for a living.

What about the 4th category. The ones who just try and try and try, and still don’t get offered work.

That would be #1. $0 is less than the unemployment benefit.

How do they prove that they have been applying for two jobs per week, in order to continue receiving their benefits ?

Does anyone else have the feeling Tony Hayward will be appearing on the next season of Trump’s apprentice TV show?

They may get to use all those vans they have stored at the jacksonville airport. (tinfoil hat alert).

The map of the expected spill flow appears to indicate most of the Atlantic deep sea fishing areas will eventually be affected. So I guess I’d better get my fill of my favorite off New England varieties this year.

Yes, of course. How close do you live to the coast?

I flew over the gulf last week, from Dallas to Tampa. Unfortunately I forgot to look out at the water when we were off Louisiana, and didn’t look until farther out. When I did look out I saw what I was sure at first was oil sheen, though it continued all the way to Tampa, so then I ended up figuring it was probably wind, since I don’t believe the oil has reached to Tampa.

Here’s a pic I took actually. Note the streaks - those were actually more directly reflective than the bulk of the surface; it looked like most of the surface had a dull sheen, with some more clear streaks through it. Any thoughts? I don’t remember if I’ve seen that on other flights or not. Like I say I think it was just the wind patterns, but it did look odd.

Also another odd thing was some interesting orange/tan “blooms” of something in the water just offshore on the north side of Tampa. Any idea what those might be? It actually looked like something was leaking out from underwater there, but in hundreds of spots all spread out over miles. Maybe some kind of algae?

“So I guess I’d better get my fill of my favorite off New England varieties this year.”

You’re too late.
http://tinyurl.com/268zc6o

“How close do you live to the coast?”

About 10 minutes to the sand beach at Little Harbor resort in Ruskin, in South Hillsborough on the eastern shore of Tampa Bay. St. Pete is pretty much directly across, you can see the skyline.

In the event of a hurricane, I’m east of I-75, so I wouldn’t have to evacuate and could just hunker down in my concrete villa. But toxic fumes might be another matter, I’m not so sure they’d dissipate, evidently they’re not dissipating over the Gulf, so I doubt if they’d dissipate over the short mileage between my place and Tampa Bay.

I think those orange/tan blooms might be the results of the corexit chemical meant to break up the oil. There has been news footage of that stuff pretty much since the first week of the blowout, when they started spraying the dispersant. Looks like floating diarrhea.

But there could be some sort of algae. Remember, the Tampa Bay area is home to the infamous “red tide”, where you just about hack up a lung even looking at the beach. If the spill is producing “nutrients”, we could be seeing red tide on steroids.

That would explain spiking autism rates.

“It does mean, however, that there is concern about toxic fallout from the Gulf spill and that it is not limited to the site of the blowout.”

Here is a news story of crop damage just north of Memphis that might be related to toxic fallout from the Gulf:

http://www.wreg.com/wreg-mystery-crop-damage,0,711604.story

If the crop damage and dead birds is due to toxic fallout, that is scary indeed given the distance from the Gulf.

After a tornado event years ago, I found paperwork from 400 miles away on my lawn.

My proposal was to create a “jack ring” - basically a huge round steel plate with a hole in the middle, suspended above the BOP (probably via cables) until the jacks would hold it up. The hole would allow the oil to flow up through until the hold could be plugged. The jack ring would be held down to the BOP via cables strapped to the BOP assembly. Then jacks would be pointed down, and would push down on something to plug the hole - that something could be a small steel plate, a rod, a cone, or some combination - whatever would work best to fit into and over the hole in the top of the BOP.

Alas though - I got a rejection letter the other day stating they had either already received the idea or it just wasn’t feasible. (form letter)

Seems like it’d be feasible, but oh well.

(no pun intended)

If I’ve interpreted the corporate BS correctly, I think what they’ve been saying for quite a while now is that there’s no point in plugging the hole. They seem to think that the oil will just blow out around the casing if we plug the top. So therefore we have no choice but to let the oil keep flowing, we just have to find a way to contain/harvest it.

Well - that’s why I was thinking a rod would be necessary, rather than say a flat sheet of steel or even a cone. The BOP has multiple sections, so perhaps the top section (above the ram stacks) is indeed too weak to withstand the pressure.

However it seems like if something like a rod was shoved down into the BOP, then the oil wouldn’t bust out the bottom of it, since the bottom is supposed to withstand the pressure of course, e.g. if the rams had been activated.

No…if I understand correctly, they screwed up (fractured) the rock around the casing badly enough that they think it will blow out around the casing…all the way from the bottom of the casing thousands of feet down.

Should I have written in or found an obscure third party candidate to vote for that would have suited me better?

Yes What’s the point if you’re not voting for the person you think best represents your interests?