The Housing Bubble

“…Offshoring, government handouts and book cooking seem to be some of the more popular ways to boost profits in the 21st century….”

Or in this case, massive denials of service and unconscionable premium increases.

Speaking of medical costs, I just went to the dentist because a filling in my molar cracked off. I have no insurance. I was told I need a root canal, and then a crown. I’ve had one root canal in my life, and no crowns. The last root canal, seven years ago, cost me $350 cash. There was a cash discount. Now, this dentist (different) is quoting $1,000 for a root canal. I asked about a discount. They’d go 7% so it’s $930. Woohoo- pffffft.

Then there’s the crown. $1350. They’d also offer me a whopping 7% off that. So, $2200+ for one tooth, with no guarantees that it won’t decide to fall out. Or, I can go to Dr. Bloodletter down the road, who is busy tending to the sick and the poor, and get the tooth pulled for $100.

The last root canal, seven years ago, cost me $350 cash. There was a cash discount. Now, this dentist (different) is quoting $1,000 for a root canal. I asked about a discount. They’d go 7% so it’s $930. Woohoo- pffffft.

I’d shop around if I were you.

Why? Because a lot of dentists are really hurting these days. More than a few went into cosmetic dentistry in a big way, and now that the housing ATM has shut down, they’re not getting the smile makeover crowd the way they used to. So, they have to drum up biz any way they can.

Also, it never hurts to get a second (or third) opinion. I did that a couple of years ago and sidestepped a $655 unnecessary procedure.

The problem with getting second and third opinions is they cost $75 each.

The problem with getting second and third opinions is they cost $75 each.

Don’t go, call around. Some will give you price ranges. Tell them the exact tooth and procedures needed. Check out dental schools/clinics. Fly to Mexico.

Comfort Dental in Boulder is great for that kind of thing. Wife just had an emergency root canal that was cheap. I’ve heard that not all offices may be as good, though.

NYC has seen more than a few handouts lately. That gives us all the right to backseat drive.

With *ahem* our money.

It is unsustainable for any length of time, so it is fine for an organization that has a large endowment and wants to spend it down to nothing (Gates Foundation), but is less than ideal for an organization that wants to provide services over an extended (unlimited?) period.

Nonprofit doesn’t describe the expected results of the organization, anyway. It is really a kind of short hand for “any profits may not be paid out to shareholders or other owners.” And they are required to only pay executives reasonable compensation, but reasonable is determined by figuring out what other people in similar positions make and…well…you can guess where that gets you.

I thought it was real f$ckin funny.

Congrats. While I may not like your politics, I don’t like to see anyone treated like you were, assuming you’re a good person, which is questionable. LOL, just kidding. (I crack myself up)

Hey great Alpha,

So now we know that:

It is a myth that Kennedy was assassinated. His family will be so comforted. Someone should alert the media.

It is a myth that Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110.
Must have been Jackie impersonating him.

Just a question, what conspiracy are you referring to?
Jim Marrs didn’t create my post, and I didn’t mention him, his book, or the word “conspiracy”.

Zapruder film has been altered..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-rcdBNFnGs

On the contrary, simply removing the income cap on social security taxes would make them solvent at current retirement age for the foreseeable future.

And all we’d be asking is for the rich to pay the same rate as we already do.

They’d still be rich.

How’s that for shared sacrifice?

That would suit, but it doesn’t sound like as much fun and carnage as I was imagining.

Wisconsin grassroots groups have announced movents to RECALL key Wisconsin robber Baron Senators that stand with King Walker, the Decider II .

The Chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party and The Service Employee Union International(SEUI) have just signed on for the rumble.

Get out your checkbook Koch, the little People of Wisconsin aren’t Going Down without a Fight!!

The small town meeting that I wrote about in Dodgeville, Wi on Monday night sure made an impression on supposedly Dale Schultz(R) as he mentions it in this radio interview about Walker and his Party over-reaching and leaving the opposition to pound sand.

It is worth listining to what he says…

http://tinyurl.com/47ncxpd

Still, if he votes with Walker’s gang on this bill, moderate or not, we are going after him too…Full Freakin’ Bore.

So there !!

Ooops…that was supposedly “moderate”.

Hey, I’m plotting War here !!

Little people don’t need to fight to go down. But can they balance a beer on their heads?

“Yeah, but now a penny defaulted-on is also a penny earned.”

True dat. But your operating word is the word “now”.

Now will not be forever. And what these defaulters are doing now may come back to bite them later. The larger this pool of defaulters grows the more profitable it will be to find ways to dip into this pool and extract some money.

but now a penny defaulted-on is also a penny earned

Not only that, the penny defaulted on isn’t taxed, while the penny rightfully “earned” is.

I need a drink.

+1, drummin. +1.

And a dollar not spent is more valuable than a dollar earned.

A silver dollar is worth more than the dollar saved in the bank.

“A silver dollar is worth more than the dollar saved in the bank.”

That is a good indicator for a future decrease in the silver content of ’silver dollars.’

…And a freshly-printed fiat dollar just rolled off the FED printing press (not worth the paper its printed on) is worth the same as a dollar that has been saved for 100 years.

“…is worth the same as a dollar that has been saved for 100 years.”

Right. But the dollar saved for 100 years used to be worth maybe 33 times as much…

+1zillion.

This was never constitutional. Congress _should_ challenge this to prevent the encroachment on their mandate.

A politician’s pledge is not worth the paper it is written on.

Congress _should_ challenge this to prevent the encroachment on their mandate.

I wonder if the taxpayer has standing to sue the executive and take this to the supreme court?

Polly? I have a feeling there are laws exempting the executive branch from being on the receiving end of such a suit?

They don’t have to challenge it, if my challenge you mean go to court. All they have to do is forbid any money go to supporting F&F. It can be done by law. I’m not even sure that is needed. The president “pleding” anything is subject to the House appropriating the money. I don’t think there are that many billions unallocated in the budget at all.

Taxpayers never have standing to sue the government on the way revenue is spent. It is a long standing doctrine.

Taxpayers never have standing to sue the government on the way revenue is spent

Is this not a different issue, though? It’s not about allocation of funds by Congress. I’m not sure how one would even phrase it.

Who has standing to sue when the executive (or legislative, or judiciary) oversteps their constitutional authority?

The branch that they stepped on, I think. At least that is what the analysis has been on the recent administration decison about Defense of Marriage Act. The administration is still enforcing the law (not letting a federal employee married to a same sex partner in MA put said spouse on his or her health insurance) but said they wouldn’t defend the law in court if someone sued because they think it is unconstitutional. They said they are still enforcing so the legislature could take up the defense.

No idea how this would work with the judicial branch, though. If the Supreme court says it is Constitutional it is.

Seems they think that cutting the spendable income of public sector employees (with ~90% of their money going directly back into their local communities) is going to make them rich!

Who ever asserted something so ridiculous?

Public sector cuts = reduction in taxes (or lack of raise in taxes) = private sector workers have a chance of keeping their heads above water.

Seriously, can we lay off the hyperbole and strawman arguments here?

I guess they need to write bad checks and demand banks honor them. After all these are “heroes” we are talking about!

Seriously though, I am out of the “union” fight. It is frankly ridiculous. I think Government workers are SO fantastic they deserve millions a minute and billions a year in pensions each, but given the economy continues its downward slide, that may be up to the Chinese government and not any of us here.

There are a lot of smart people visiting this blog. We need to figure out what can be done rather than what cannot be done to fix things.

drumminj,

Let’s just say that *expenses* (not taxes) would be lowered by 10%. Do you think workers’ taxes would be lowered by 10%, or do you think some other new campaign contributors (developers/builders/big box stores getting new credits or grants, etc.) might welcome themselves to that 10%? Look at what’s going on in WI. The Koch family wants to buy publicly owned assets for pennies on the dollar…NO BID!!! If the govt loses revenue from those assets, that cuts into the pie that you think you’re going to get a piece of.

What might end up happening is that taxes go UP for working stiffs as “favors” are doled out to large contributors, and it won’t necessarily be going back into your community, it could go to China, or into commodities, or RE somewhere else, etc.

I really think you underestimate what unions do. Even though it might be in their self-interest, unions DO watch out for “favors” being handed out to private entities. And because of their union status (protection), they’re able to do something about it.

Even though it might be in their self-interest, unions DO watch out for “favors” being handed out to private entities. And because of their union status (protection), they’re able to do something about it.

I think you’re painting with a *REALLY* broad brush here. Unions in and of themselves do no such thing. Certain union members might, but they would do it whether they’re union or not. I challenge you to prove the union is a factor at all.

And then we can look at all the things that public employees do that are BAD for the taxpayer, yet they’re protected by the unions.

No-bid contracts are bad. I’m not arguing against that. By if public employee compensation continues to rise, then taxes are certain to rise as well

ie I don’t see unions fighting to take the money from elsewhere in the system. If teachers unions were fighting to remove levels of administration to reduce costs, I’d be behind them 100%. Instead, they’re always out there, pushing for every bond measure “for the children”.

yes I think he is as disgusted as I am.Just trying to vent.

For a long, long time, too…

The articles I post are generally not meant to represent my beliefs. They are merely intended to stimulate discussion. I do my best to post as many articles as possible that challenge the entrenched bigotry on display in others’ posts.

Wow. Is that a shot? I’m sure you don’t have any bigotry at all.

I don’t. I am above bigotry…

mostly.

But alas, not above personal attack.

Nobody is perfect; particularly, I am not perfect.

Nobody is perfect;

perhaps then you shouldn’t be telling people to refrain from personal attacks if you yourself aren’t willing to do the same.

Pot meet kettle.

PB is one of the most insightful and educated posters here. I’ve never seen him make personal attacks unless someone asks for it, and usually they’ve asked for it multiple times.

I’ve never seen him make personal attacks unless someone asks for it, and usually they’ve asked for it multiple times.

I see…so he only does it when you think someone’s “asked for it”, so it’s okay?

Others seem capable of remaining respectful even when individuals here “ask for it”. But that’s too much to ask of “one of the most insightful and educated posters” here. Got it.

When I say they “ask for it,” it’s because they’ve made personal attacks first.

It’s fine to disagree, but too many people are intentionally offensive, and that degrades the quality of conversation we can have here.

but too many people are intentionally offensive, and that degrades the quality of conversation we can have here.

Perhaps you should call out your beloved PBear when he engages in this behavior, as he most certainly does.

Just NY City Boy.

I guess you never heard of trickle-down economics — the kind Ronald Reagan put into force to start the trend towards the largest gap between rich and poor in America since the Great Depression?

What about the trickle down belief that if you pay government employees high salaries it is good for the economy because it will trickle back to the taxpayer?

“What about the trickle down belief that if you pay government employees high salaries it is good for the economy because it will trickle back to the taxpayer?”

That hypothesis is currently being tested at the state level in California, and may soon get a repeat of the federal-level test that was conducted in 1995.

My guess is that with lower government paychecks, the economy is more likely to go into a double-dip recession, and housing prices in DC are likely to fall by more-than-expected as a consequence, but I don’t have a crystal ball that lets me say this with absolute certainty.

Stabenow wants Congress to lose pay in shutdown
Published: Tuesday, March 01, 2011
By Charles Crumm and Carol Hopkins
For the Daily Tribune

U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow wants members of Congress to forfeit their pay if the federal government shuts down over a budget impasse.

The Michigan Democrat said she’s sponsoring legislation to stop lawmakers’ paychecks if there’s no deal to keep the government running by Friday.

“If there is a government shutdown, it’s very important that lawmakers be held accountable and members of Congress see their paychecks stopped along with everyone else who is affected,” Stabenow said by statewide conference call Tuesday.

A shutdown, while it wouldn’t affect all government operations, would stop the paychecks of hundreds of thousands of federal workers, including those of her staff and other staff in Congress, the senator said.

“Members of Congress have special treatment,” Stabenow said. “If we were shut down, paychecks would stop. It’s not right; it’s not fair that members of Congress are exempt from that happening.

“Lawmakers should be held accountable and feel the same impact under a government shutdown,” she said.
…

So the serfs continue to be debt slaves after a couple crumbs trickle down to them?

Belief? Our economy is ~70% consumer driven.

That’s not a belief. It’s a fact. And has been for decades.

Excuse me, I wasn’t advocating for “federal subsidies in this and other programs,” okay? Your assumption that I support *every* government program is precisely what what I mean by an all-or-nothing mentality.

I was saying that this ONE program is essential to lift some renters* out of rentership. Presumably their numbers, compared to the overall housing market, is too few to drive prices into a bubble. FHA did it for years without causing a bubble. It was only when the sheer masses got involved with all those “other programs”** that the SHTF.

—————
*How many renters have a stable job, a 3% down payment, and intend to live in the primary house? Maybe one fifth of the ~30% who rent?

**Low interest rates (thanks Maestro), MID, tax breaks on profit from selling (flip me!), implied guarantee on crap loans (which removed down payment safety net and promoted mortgage-by-FICO alone), loans up to $417K (too high), banks allowed to lend on 30:1 leverage on reserves, and other programs and deregulatory failures.

“Your assumption that I support *every* government program is precisely what what I mean by an all-or-nothing mentality.”

I never said you support *every* government program, just that you think the first-time home buyer market should be subsidized; this doesn’t seem fair to non-first-time buyers.

Why do you advocate discriminatory housing policy?

Presumably because the non-first time buyers were first-time buyers themselves at one point, and they availed themselves of the government program back then? Everybody gets the benefit, once. That’s not discriminatory, no?

I don’t want to be “lifted out of renting”. Keep your meat hooks away from me.

Why is it that Hwy50 thinks it is essential for the government to run programs offer homesteading to make housing unaffordable land available to first-time landowners?

There is a loan program that is pretty discriminating - the VA. The catch is you have put your convenience, comfort and personal safety at risk in order to qualify.

That setup seemed to work well enough before.

I have to agree with oxide on this one. The key is to not overwhelm the market, so there needs to be an annual cap on the number of people who can qualify for the program. It also needs to have very strict underwriting qualifications.

We are all better served if more people can become homeowners of **affordable** homes, rather than having landlords make profits on the backs of poor people.

We are all better served if more people can become homeowners of **affordable** homes

How is a homeowner innately better than a renter? Are you suggesting only poor people rent? Or that landlords don’t provide a valuable service to the renters?

I’m suggesting that, in general, and under normal circumstances, owner-occupiers take better care of their homes. They also tend to be more invested in their communities.

Also, I feel it’s important to have a paid-off house before retirement. Renters can’t do that.

Right now, we are helping to support my MIL’s 90-year-old companion, as he has run out of funds. He’s a renter, and rents have risen significantly over the past few decades. If he had owned a house and paid it off a couple of decades ago, he would be in a very different position.

There is nothing worse than having to watch a WWII veteran — who has long prided himself on his ability to take care of everything — sink into poverty and have to rely on friends and family just for basic needs. It sucks.

The middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos. - Jim Hightower

Other great quotes from Jim Hightower:

Politics isn’t about left versus right; it’s about top versus bottom.

The corporations don’t have to lobby the government anymore. They are the government.

The issue isn’t just jobs. Even slaves had jobs. The issue is wages

But the good news is that out in the countryside, just about every place that’s got a zip code has somebody or some group of people battling the economic and political exclusion that Wall Street and Washington are shoving down our throats.

-Jim Hightower

Jim Hightower

“George W. Shrub was born on third, but thinks he hit a triple…”

“George W. Shrub was born on third, but thinks he hit a triple…”

-at least he was born in America.

Great quote, Steve J.

are you suggesting that many in the states (let alone on this board) think that a progressive income tax system is “fair”? That wealth redistribution (whether up or down) is “fair”.

I am suggesting you pull you head out of your , sand as to what most real American’s think is fair.

Americans Want Wealth Spread More Evenly, Even the Wealthy

http://www.financial-planning.com/news/wealthy-spread-2671551-1.html

The gap between the richest and poorest Americans is at historic highs, with estimates suggesting that the top 1% of Americans hold nearly 50% of the wealth, topping even the distance before the Great Depression in the 1920s….

….Do Americans know what the gap is and is it what they want?

A survey from the psychology journal Perspectives of Psychological Science concluded that Americans desire a more equal distribution of wealth, and dramatically underestimate the current gap. Perhaps surprisingly, this was true for Americans at all wealth levels and among those who voted for George Bush over John Kerry.

…In the survey, respondents viewed three unlabeled pie charts, one showing a perfectly equal distribution of wealth, another reflecting the status quo nationally, and a third that fell in-between, based on Sweden. When asked which nation they would choose to live in, assuming that they would be randomly assigned their place, 92% preferred the pie chart based on Sweden, including 90.6% of men, 90.2% of Bush voters and 89% of those with income of more than $100,000.

Slightly more Americans preferred the Swedish model than a perfectly even distribution.

In two other tasks, respondents were asked to create a pie chart reflecting the United States and another pie chart on how the United States should look. The group believed that the top 20% held about 59% of the wealth—underestimating the actual figure of 84%. In their ideal distribution, they assigned 32% to the top 20%. Men, Bush voters and those with incomes of more than $100,000 all created an ideal pie chart that was more equal than their estimate of the American status quo, which was also much more equal than a true chart.

A large nationally representative sample of Americans seems to prefer to live in a country more like Sweden than like the United States,” …

…Why then is there so much disagreement over taxes and other issues related to wealth equality?

Ariely and Norton suggest that people may have “overly optimistic beliefs about opportunities for social mobility in the United States,” related to their ignorance about the actual wealth distribution. They also suggest that disagreements about the causes of inequality seem to drown out the consensus that the inequality is undesirable.

are you suggesting that many in the states (let alone on this board) think that a progressive income tax system is “fair”?

Yes, but only because I can read.

Most Americans Say Tax The Rich To Balance The Budget: Poll Reuters 1/3/11

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/03/usa-taxes-poll-idUSN0317867520110103

….NEW YORK: Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released on Monday.

….Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed.

The next most popular way — chosen by 20 percent — was to cut defense spending.

Some American’s views on “wealth re-distribution”

Americans Support Extending Tax Cuts, But Not For Wealthiest Americans
Gallup Outsidethebeltway dot com

Majority support expiring Bush tax cuts for wealthy
CNN/Opinion Research/Society for Human Resource Management and National Journal Congressional Connection

Poll: Most Tea Party Supporters Say Their Taxes Are Fair
cbsnews dot com

Most Americans Say Tax The Rich To Balance The Budget: Poll
Reuters dot com

Gallup poll finds majority favor ending tax cuts for the rich
thehill dot com

Some American’s views on “wealth re-distribution”

Seems to support my assertion, no?

are you suggesting that many in the states (let alone on this board) think that a progressive income tax system is “fair”?

It would appear that I forgot the word “don’t” in there. My apologies.

It would appear that I forgot the word “don’t” in there. My apologies.

Then mine too.

Then mine too.

Given our newfound understanding, let’s get back to the term “fair”.

Are you suggesting that wealth re-distribution is “fair” by your definitions posted above?

I would most certainly argue that is not the case. It is not equitable nor without bias.

It can be if you consider the benefit the wealthy person receives. If you had an extraordinary amount of wealth, how much would you pay to keep in place the social constructs (public safety, courts, tranportation systems, public education of the people who will eventually become your employees, etc.) that allow you to earn and keep your wealth and your life? Quite a bit, I expect.

And if you had nothing? Well then you might want all those things, but you wouldn’t be able to pay anything for them, because you have nothing to give.

Are you suggesting that wealth re-distribution is “fair” by your definitions posted above?

Are you suggesting that wealth re-distribution is “fair” by your definitions posted above?

Yes, It is fair and equitable for the rich to pay much higher taxes because they benefit more from the system than do poorer people. That they are lucky or “work harder” does not negate the fact that they extract more wealth out a system that needs paying for than do poorer people. Plus the super-rich do not really work harder than a teacher or plumber and much of their wealth was re-distributed from the middle-class. This is why the wealth gap is most extreme now since the Great Depression. See article snip below.

The second reason progressive taxes are fair is because it is just. Part of the definition of justice involves the concept of equitableness and righting wrongs. Middle class and poor have not gotten a fair shake the past 40 years as compared to the rich. Therefore even if one is prone to think progressive taxes are “unfair” in general, recognizing the concepts of justice and equitableness one would come the conclusion that progressive taxation is definitely fair at this point of American History.

Progressive tax is the fair solution
chicagotribune dot com

…This is not to say that people don’t deserve to keep what they earn. The key word is “earn.” Over the past 30 years, according to IRS data, the richest 1 percent has TRIPLED their share of America’s total income, AFTER TAXES, while the bottom 90 percent has seen their share drop over 20 percent. If this had not happened, the average middle-class family would be making $45,000 a year instead of $35,000.

The tripling of income by the wealthy is the result of money-transferring financial strategies, government deregulation, and tax cuts — NOT because they worked three times harder than everyone else.

@Rio - you make a lot of leaps of logic in your argument there.

Let me summarize your point as far as I see it:

1) “fair” is paying taxes based on how much one benefits measured in terms of “wealth extraction”. It is completely disconnected from use or benefit of the things actually paid for by the taxes.

2) “fair” is getting paid based on how hard you work, not based on how valuable a service you provide, how efficient you are, or the cost to replace you.

3) “fair” is having a totally uninvolved individual being punished (taxed) for wrongs done to a second, unrelated party, by a third, also unrelated party.

Your comments absolutely support my assertion that “fair”, as proposed = socialistic. And your argument does nothing to support progressive taxation. You talk only about the top 1% - the “super-rich” as you call them. Progressive taxation affects everyone. If you want to say progressive taxation is “fair”, then you need to stop focusing on the top 1% and tell me why it is fair that *I*, an individual who makes > $100k a year, should pay for the government services (and cut a check in addition) to other, unrelated parties.

And your argument does nothing to support progressive taxation. drumminj

Of course it does. And along with the other posters, it does a fine job supporting progressive taxation. Just not to those who don’t listen to reason.

As I’ve told you in the past drumminj. What your opinion on the matter is of not much concern to me because it comes from an inflexible ideology. From the many polls, studies and articles I’ve posted today and in the past, it is clear that the majority of Americans think as I do, that in fact, progressive taxation is “fair”. Now that’s a fact.

And, I’m sure after reading everyone’s both sides arguments today more people on the fence will have come to that same opinion held by the majority of Americans that progressive taxation is fair and just.

Just not to those who don’t listen to reason.

If you’re going to attack me directly, don’t pussy-foot around it. Man up and quit with the passive aggressiveness.

it is clear that the majority of Americans think as I do, that in fact, progressive taxation is “fair”. Now that’s a fact.

And there it is. To you, “fair” is not something objective. It is subject to the whims of the populace. I suppose you would then argue that oppression of a minority population is “fair”, as the majority of the population would think so?

And, I’m sure after reading everyone’s both sides arguments today more people on the fence will have come to that same opinion

Yes. Pat yourself on the back. People think “fair” is whatever is in their best interest.

Notice how you haven’t directly addressed a single issue I’ve raised? To you, my ideology is “inflexible”, and that’s a flaw because you can’t change the subject and make yourself “right”. I actually want you to discuss the facts at hand, and you’ve clearly shown you’re unwilling to do so.

If you’re going to attack me directly, don’t pussy-foot around it. Man up

Not attack, fact. I said you don’t listen to reason. It’s my opinion. Is that a big deal? No because you don’t. If you think it’s pussy-footing around I can step it up easily but you’re the one always complaining about attacks.

Notice how you haven’t directly addressed a single issue I’ve raised? To you, my ideology is “inflexible”, and that’s a flaw because you can’t change the subject and make yourself “right”. I actually want you to discuss the facts at hand, and you’ve clearly shown you’re unwilling to do so.

One can’t address issues with you. Because you don’t address the addressing in a logical manner. I’ve posted articles, studies, poll after poll, my opinion, my take, my counter to your points. It’s enough today. One can only put their side out there to compete with yours and let others decide who makes the best points.

The wealthy increased their income by over 300% over the last 30 years.

J6P saw his DECREASE.

But the wealthy are paying less taxes in their tax bracket than at any time during the last 70 years.

But you call this fair.

Ye… ah.

But you call this fair.

actually, no where did I do that.

The wealthy paying less than any time in the past 70 years isn’t relevant to any “fairness” on it’s own. Fair is presumably a function of how much one pays vs another. Comparing a single entity/group against itself 70 years ago doesn’t really allow for any evaluation of “fair”.

In this context, I don’t care who’s income increased and who’s decreased. The “why” of which direction it went (or didn’t) is certainly relevant.

If you go back and look at my initial comment, I was questioning the whole concept of trying to evaluate or base anything on the concept of “fairness”, and instead deferring to the rule of law and constitutionally-protected rights.

” I was questioning the whole concept of trying to evaluate or base anything on the concept of “fairness”, and instead deferring to the rule of law and constitutionally-protected rights.”

If ‘fair’ doesn’t matter, why are you always bitching about how unfair it is that you have to pay taxes that might benefit others?

It’s precisely the ‘rule of law’ that says you have to pay taxes, including graduated income taxes. There’s no ‘Constitutionally-protected right’ that says you don’t have to pay taxes. Quite the opposite.

It’s precisely the ‘rule of law’ that says you have to pay taxes, including graduated income taxes. There’s no ‘Constitutionally-protected right’ that says you don’t have to pay taxes. Quite the opposite.

I agree. It is the “rule of law” that says I have to pay taxes. I would, however, make 2 arguments.

1) all rights not specifically granted the federal government in the constitution are my “Constitutionally-protected” rights, not just those specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights

2) I would argue that a progressive income tax, or arguably any income tax, is unconstitutional. I don’t expect you (or many others, or even the supreme court) to agree with that outlook, but you asked why I bitch about taxes (and of course twisted my position into being against my taxes “benefitting others”…can’t even resist misrepresenting my position in the slightest)

In this context, I don’t care who’s income increased and who’s decreased. The “why” of which direction it went (or didn’t) is certainly relevant.
——————–

I can answer that one.

The reason for the growing wealth disparity is largely due to the credit bubble, which has pushed asset prices higher relative to wages over the past few decades. Wage earners have seen their purchasing power decrease, while the wealthy (asset holders) have seen their purchasing power increase.

Add to that the “tax cuts for the rich” which accelerates the compounding of wealth, and we get the wealth disparity.

Looking forward to addressing this in tomorrow’s Bits Bucket.

“It’s not fair to make the rich pay more taxes ,is the notion . It’s a commie plot ,a redistribution of the wealth downwards ,the elite propose .It’s a violation of capitalism the elite would like you to think , its discrimination ,we deserve our profits .”

On the other hand, like the ’straw in the milk shake’ analogy used to describe stealing oil wealth from your neighbor in the movie There Will Be Blood, the Fed’s printing press sucks wealth out of the dollar holdings and fixed dollar obligations of non-indexed pensions and Treasury bonds and into the hands of whomever is well-positioned to catch the helicopter drops of newly-created liquidity.

For instance taxpayers give the oil industry 40 billion a decade
in subsidies per decade when their net profit is over a trillion
What’s fair about that ,along with all the other way in with the fat cats avoid taxes . What is fair about that welfare to the rich ?

The mortgage deduction helps the higher classes more than the
middle and lower class . The poor would be cutting into their food money if they paid more taxes ,its enough that they pay all the sales taxes and other hidden taxes in terms of where their money has to go for min. survival .

It’s evident that the Fat Cats want to take more from the teachers and the government worker sector now . The fat Cats don’t want it to be clear that they are the greatest
beneficiaries of the “System “.

Really when the health care industry wants to take 25% of the average workers salary per month and the housing industry wants to take over 50% ,and the food industry wants to take
a higher percentage ,and the rich want to shift the tax
burden to the middle class and poor ,and just take more ,whats fair about that ?

It cracks me up how the rich think they are just going to
make hay on the emerging markets . They are not going to make money if the emerging poor don’t have money ,especially when their exploited on wages .

Corporations /Fat Cats are nothing but power hungry mad-hatter money making machines that want the government to give them anything that increases their profit margins .

Tax policy goes a long way toward sitting up the inequities
in life ,but if the rich can distract us with attacks on the welfare sector being deadbeats ,or the teachers being
overpaid they are successful .

More great posts, Wiz.

Thank you.

Oh no ,I hit the button twice .

As often as they stay friends with the right people at the country club.

Was this a trick question?

No question unemployment is higher BECAUSE of STIMULUS SPENDING.

If I were unemployed I would look for work but I damn sure would not take the first part-time, no benefit, WalMart type crap job that was available.

Hunting for a non-menial job is … a full time job. When I was laid off 2 years ago I would spend hours everyday searching for jobs, fine tuning resumes and cover letters for each job. It takes a lot of time to do that, time I wouldn’t have had available had I picked up a couple of menial, P/T, minimum wage jobs.

You can’t. It’s yet another right-wing anecdotal fantasy crock.

Either that, or those right-wingers sure know a lot of deadbeats. Birds of a feather ?

Our society would be a lot better off if we brought back some of that old-fashioned shame that seemed to work pretty well. Two years ago I accidentally overdrew my checking account because I mistakenly used the wrong account for an online purchase. It was the first time this happened in 20 years of having a checking account. I was embarrassed and disgusted with myself. I moved money over right away to cover it. I swore that it would never happen again. I guess shame is for suckers like me.

It is a two edge sword for the recipients. Here in the Centenial state our online system is buggy as hell and people sometimes have to wait weeks or even months before their benefits arrive. At least under the old system where you went to the office, once you were approved things would happen.

The online systems are there for one reason: to reduce head count at the UE office and to close UE offices.

As for adding “shame”, why should I be “ashamed” of collecting UE. something that my employers have contributed to over decades for me if I am laid off?

What would be far more helpful in getting people off of UE and welfare would be good paying jobs. Of course the race to the bottom precludes that.

You should be ashamed that you are not a wealthy CEO of a corporation. Or the son of a wealthy CEO. Or married to a wealthy CEO. They are the New Royalty of society. Anyone else is a mere peon.

You’re right. Nobody in our society should be ashamed of their actions. I was wrong. As long as their are shameful CEOs everybody should be free to do whatever they want. Thank you for setting me straight.

“You’re right. Nobody in our society should be ashamed of their actions. I was wrong.”

Who said that?

All I said is that after decades of paying into the UE pool, that if I’m laid off why should I be ashamed of collecting UE while I look for a new job?

Not sure what part of the country you’re in but there are plenty of jobs. Sure, many of these jobs are entry-level and/or not preferred…but guess what? If you’re unemployed you should strive to work for a living. It doesn’t have to be permanent and even Wal-Mart has management. I don’t understand the attitude that many people have about not wanting to take “that kind of job.” The last time I was unemployed I went back into retail. Why? Because it was work. I eventually went back into my profession.

When were you on unemployment, Slim?

1980.

Plus ten, Andy.

I call BS on your claim that “there are plenty of jobs”. My college age daughter works in retail and there are weeks when she’s only scheduled a couple of 4 hour shifts (her ideal is 20 as it fits in with her school schedule). Supposedly the UE rate in our county is 7%, but I know so many long term unemployed people, at all levels, that I can only conclude that the 7% number is pure BS.

I am still haunted by a story about when a new hotel opened locally (an Embassy suites). They had about 100 openings, mostly for menial P/T positions. As the hotel construction was wrapping up they held a job fair: over 2000 people showed up, the majority had a least some CC credits. 2000+ showed up to apply for $10/hr jobs.

The last time I was unemployed I went back into retail. Why? Because it was work. I eventually went back into my profession.

From my retail jobs, I’ve learned a lot about business. And that knowledge has served me in good stead.

As for the professional jobs? They were better for specific skills training. For business training, not so much.

So yay, retail. Best business school I ever attended.

I call BS on your claim that “there are plenty of jobs”

My company is trying to hire ~100 ppl (we’re a little over 200 ppl at the moment). There certainly are jobs out there for qualified people.

No offense Colorado, but college age kids working retail aren’t going to get the hours because they don’t have open availability. That goes back to my college days.

As for the job fair, how many people do you think are going to show up for 100 positions? When I post a position I get a lot of response. Many of the respondents want to get rich quick and the unemployed ones don’t want to leave their unemployment check with anything short of a six figure offer.

I call BS on your claim that “there are plenty of jobs”

I bet he hasn’t applied for a minimum wage job since the great recession started. If your over 40, no one wants you.

If your over 40, no one wants you.

My company has hired several people over 40 in the past year. And has many older employees on top of those we’ve hired.

That may be true in general, but it’s certainly not true across the board.

If you’re willing to go through the schooling for a license I for one don’t care if you’re 20 or 60. In fact I’ve found the best employees to be over 40. It’s a different work ethic than the younger generation. I don’t feel that my position is unique. I think in fact many over 40 don’t recall a job market this tough searching for work and blame it on age instead.

As I said, there are plenty of jobs but you have to be willing to go outside of your box to get them.

“No offense Colorado, but college age kids working retail aren’t going to get the hours because they don’t have open availability.”

Its not just her, everyone in the store has been cut back. She was scheduled to work last Saturday and they called her, telling her that her shift had been cancelled. The reason: slow sales that day.

6-12 months ago she was getting her 20 hours a week, sometimes even more, as were he coworkers. Now they’re luck if they get 10.

“My company is trying to hire ~100 ppl (we’re a little over 200 ppl at the moment). There certainly are jobs out there for qualified people.”

Whenever we have a req open for a engineering position we get buried in resumes. Finding the right person is never a problem.

“There certainly are jobs out there for qualified people.”

How many of those jobs are for qualified people with 4-5 years experience in a specific set of skills? In 2003 when I was looking for work, you couldn’t get past the automated HR screening system unless you had every one of a specific skill set.

“there are plenty of jobs but you have to be willing to go outside of your box to get them.”

If you are outside of your box of skills, good luck. There are hundreds of people that are a better fit.

If the job is outside of your local area, good luck. Most jobs are “Local Candidates Only”. And relocation expenses are a thing of the past. Pick up and move and take a chance that things will be better elsewhere? That is a true desperation move and if you have exhausted your resources in your home town, a quick way to the homeless shelter.

Start your own business - you’ll need really good luck and can expect to make less than a part time living for the first year, if you make any profit at all. Undercapitalization contributes to a lot of start up failures.

Re-invent yourself? E.g. start at the bottom. For someone who is sole support for a family, it can mean severe poverty for a minimum of several years.

Plenty of jobs? There are plenty more unemployed. And some employers are passing them over in favor of those who still have jobs.

Maybe you can take any job to get by. But it may not be the best solution. Sit on your butt at home and apply online may also not be the best strategy.

How many of those jobs are for qualified people with 4-5 years experience in a specific set of skills?

At my company? Several. We’re hiring very senior folks (> 10 years experience), as well as fresh college grads. The ideal candidates would actually be the ~4-5 year experience folks you mention.

The core of your post seems to be that finding a new job can be hard, and that there are risks involved. My initial response to that is “no sh*t”. Do you expect it to be handed to you?

Yes, starting a business is risky. And so is moving to another city. Do you expect someone to make it easy and risk free? Who should do that?

I tried applying for jobs in another city. I didn’t get very far. So I simply flew up there and contacted the companies while I was in town. I landed two interviews and had two strong job prospects - it only happened because I took the initiative and risk to fly up there. I then committed to move up there, and did move. Without a job. And without friends or family in the area to fall back on.

Was it risky? Sure. I went 9 months without a job. I did very targeted job hunting. I did my best to network with friends, friends of friends, and former coworkers. I went to job fairs. I eventually drummed up some contract business to keep me afloat (just as my bank account balance was hitting zero*), and eventually got a contract job with a horrible commute (2 hrs a day in the car). When my lease was up I moved closer, and eventually found a full-time job with good benefits and good pay.

Does it work out this way for everyone? Of course not. But that’s not my point. Life is risky. It’s not handed to anyone on a platter, even those who appear “successful”. Who’s going to give anyone that safe, easy, well-paying job just for existing?

Exactly my point, drumminj. Life is risky. I get irritated when posters trivialize the risks.

For many people, collecting unemployment is the less risky thing to do, at least in the short term. To say that they should just take any job is to minimize the risks involved in doing that.

To say that they should just move to where the jobs are is to downplay the risks.

Some people also collect too long. There is a risk of your skill set becoming obsolete while you are out of work. I remember thinking the last time I was out of work that every day I was not working, was a day that someone else was getting experience I needed.

I have done the long distance move to find a job several times, once with a baby in the car. It is not for the faint of heart.

But ,when you have discrimination in hiring practice it can get really rough . Corporations that provide medical insurance don’t want to hire older workers (in spite of them being more qualified ) because they pay more for medical .
Health Insurance Companies would get mad at them if they had to many older workers in the risk pool of workers . Thats why you have to de-couple health care from employment . But if
Employers don’t provide health benefits ,than they would have to give higher salaries to make up for it because the worker would have to take care of that themselves ,yet industry is giving less of both wages and benefits to workers .

Industries likes to say that they don’t have qualified workers
to get from the employee pool ,so this is the grounds for outsourcing . They have plenty of qualified workers that they either don’t want to pay what they command or they can
get it elsewhere . This is evident by the fact that Industry will hire low-skill labor for answering phones even when they can barley speak understandable English in these call centers ,its the low price ,not that American workers aren’t there to
fit into those jobs . No offence to foreign workers ,but how many jobs are your Corporations giving USA workers .

Some of these factors are making it very difficult for USA workers to get jobs in a shrinking job market .

My nephew with 2 kids finally got a job ,but they give him no benefits ,he couldn’t find any other job . He longs for the days when he had benefits with the job .

Its not a matter anymore of the employee being in the position to dictate their worth ,its just the Employer being
in the position of to many people wanting that job ,some of which are outside our Country .

So,if you say that employees have risks ,I say they have uneven risks by not being able to command their worth .

The person I know that was a 99′er never looked for a job.

“Yeah, you click the button online that says you looked for work. That is how shoddy the easily-gamed system really is.”

FYI — that’s not true in CA.

Back in the early 70s I got UE for a few months, and I remember I had to show three places I looked for work. I really thought they were going to check up on me.

People sure send mixed messages as to whether the unemployed should take “menial” jobs. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I promised myself I would start looking immediately, even if it’s economically “stupid,” because I could really get used to not working.

The sis now lives in Florida but was laid off in Michigan, and has to report in every Monday to the state of MI.

If you enter nothing, you don’t get any UE. If you do, you do. I am assuming that those lines are being checked (or at least spot checked) since if you miss a signature or a check box anywhere, they send it back to you to fix it. I suppose that you could put down that you were working for Yoyodyne Inc., but I would think that they’d check it.

Perhaps not.

Well, he said he voted for Obama.

A lot of well intentioned folks voted for Obama.

A lot of well intentioned Fiscal Conservative / Compassionate Conservative folks voted for Obama Cheney-Shrub.

I swear I tagged it with s and slash-s.

isn’t the tag “strike”?

P.S. True story: My maternal grandfather joked that the depression-era WPA stood for “We Piddle Around.”

My father told me the same thing.

I agree the dominoes were falling fast and the crash would have taken down the entire banking system.

Would this have been a bad thing though?

Budgets - Actually there has been a slight increase but

Total government purchases of goods and services have gone up. But adjusted for inflation, they rose only 3 percent over the last two years

This doesn’t seem to support your claim that spending hasn’t increased?

Does this “total” include city, state, county, and federal government?

What’s the mix of jobs that have been added at the fed level vs those lost at the state levels? What are the salaries/total compensation amounts? Laying off state workers who make $50k but adding federal workers making $80k certainly wouldn’t result in less overall government spending.

It doesn’t increase it above the normal trend which is due to population and GDP growth. ie no stimulus.

How did it crowd out private investment?

Perhaps you and I are considering different things when we think about “the stimulus”. Are we talking about TARP? Or The ARRA (I think it was?)

Certainly private money was crowded out by below market interest rates, by the AIG bailout, by the gov’t support of big banks, the guarantees on MMFs, raising of the FDIC limits, and by explicit guarantees of Freddie and Fannie and now the fact that they are responsible for the bulk of residential mortgages.

To me, that is all part of the “stimulus”. But perhaps I’m taking a broader view than you are?

I have my bailouts and stimuli all mixed up.

The idea of crowding out is that when the state borrows that they take money that would have gone to the private sector and this drives up interest rates for corporations.

Corporate interest rates are at rock bottom. The FED is printing for anyone who will borrow. It’s not crowding out.

The idea of crowding out is that when the state borrows that they take money that would have gone to the private sector and this drives up interest rates for corporations.

No, it’s not. But feel free to re-state the issue and attack your version of it rather than what’s presented.

The idea of crowding out is that there’s no room for private investment because the gov’t is flooding the folks with money instead. For example, in the current housing market, FHA, Fannie, and Freddie are crowding out private investment.

measton: “The idea of crowding out is that when the state borrows that they take money that would have gone to the private sector and this drives up interest rates for corporations.”

drumminj: “The idea of crowding out is that there’s no room for private investment because the gov’t is flooding the folks with money instead.”

As usual, you’re wrong, drumminj:

wikipedia
“Usually when economists use the term “crowding out” they are referring to the government spending using up financial and other resources that would otherwise be used by private enterprise.

Crowding out can, in principle, be avoided if the deficit is financed by simply printing money, but this carries concerns of accelerating inflation. “

As usual, you’re wrong, drumminj:

How unsurprising that you would exclude the sentence that followed the one you quoted:

However, some commentators and other economists use “crowding out” to refer to government providing a service or good that would otherwise be a business opportunity for private industry.

I will concede that there are two working definitions for the term “crowding out”- one that follows what measton said, and one that aligns with my statements. Of course, if you look at I actually said, my meaning and intent should be clear: “IT CROWDED OUT PRIVATE INVESTMENT”.

Care to try again?

Beck

Ha, different shaped faucet, same drippings from the “TrueToxic™” water source…

Again, the people who have time for this sort of thing are either nuts or nasty.

You start a movement, you have to let lots of people in to grow. And pretty soon the people in control are nuts or nasty.

That’s the good thing about the major parties. For the most part, only thieves rise to the top.

Beck, Hannity and Limbuagh don’t speak for all conservatives.

They don’t need to. They TELL them what to say.

I’m waiting for you to compare Walker to Hitler. Come on. You can do it. You know you can.

“You conservatives”. LMAO.

Walker is a free market guy. Your pro-public sector union stance may be damaging your judgment. Comparing the two is way out of line. Just because you disagree with someone’s viewpoint doesn’t mean you can compare him to a dictator in training.

Really a freemarket guy

1. How is the no bid purchase of state power plants behind closed doors free market?
2. How is the recent change in Set back laws on wind power free market? It will make 80-90% of planned wind projects unviable? They compete w his coal interest donors. Note that he recently refused to enforce waterpollution laws because they would be too hard on business, ie his favored campaign contributors.
3. HOw is accepting a paid vacation in California from a campaign backer free market??

No Walker is all about special interests that supported him. HIs union busting thing has nothing to do about costs and everything about taking out the competition. No different than firing state workers who don’t support him, we’re probably one step away from that.

“No bid deals” are free market?

Seriously. No… seriously. Can you even hear yourself?

1. How is the no bid purchase of state power plants behind closed doors free market?

ANSWER PLEASE

You mean $79,000 salaries for kindergarten teachers might be unsustainable? And this doesn’t even touch on the benefits portion of her compensation.

I was just pointing out that she is paid a decent salary and can’t make ends meet and complains endlessly as if she made next to nothing. I thought it was funny that she is also so messy and lazy about her house. I wonder what she teaches the kids.

Muggy is trying to be a teacher so he takes personal offense at the questioning of any teacher’s salary. It must mean we hate the middle-class and want everybody to make $2 per day. Honesty often ends where self-interest begins.

NYCityBoy, what do you do for a living, and how much do you make?

It must mean we hate the middle-class and want everybody to make $2 per day. Honesty often ends where self-interest using strawmen begins. NYCityBoy

I work in the private sector without any contract. I can be fired at any time. I lost my 401k match the moment the “financial crisis” began. I get paid what it would take to hire a qualified person to do my job. If my employer decides to cut that pay I either accept it or find another job.

Prior to finding my job they had gone through multiple people that could not do this job at the salary offered.

I also live and work in the area that has the highest cost of living in the U.S.

Did you get the part about being paid according to what it would take to replace me with another person qualified and willing to work for the wage, the loss of benefits or the ability to be replaced at any time? And I don’t cry to anybody that it is not fair. I don’t hide behind a mob to extort anything extra from my neighbors.

Sorry, let me rephrase my question: NYCityBoy, what do you do for a living, and how much do you make?

let me rephrase my question:

Way to go, Muggy. If you don’t like the conversation try to change it. That happens all the time. When the public unions are being discussed I see, “well, Wall Street did this” or “the Republicans did that”.

Children learn that tactic at a young age. Being a teacher I would expect you to know that. “Well, what about Johnie?” “What about Suzy?” “What about you?”

Would you also like to know my favorite color or a list of my turn-ons? Should I upload some revealing photographs? That would distract from the issue. Boy, would it.

I thought it was a relevant subject, this kindergarten teacher, with all of the discussions of late. I know you want everything to be about me but, trust me, it isn’t all about little old me.

NYCityBoy, it would help me understand your perspective if you shared what you do for a living, and how much you make.

What do you do for a living, and how much do you make?

Tut tut. It’s ok to criticize someone else’s income, but don’t you dare question mine and nobody else lives in as high a cost of living area as I do!

Keep on it, Muggy.

“I see the sharing of an anecdote, but no generalizations drawn from that regarding “all teachers””

Oh, o.k.

It WOULD be an anecdote except their anti-teachers pay position has been repeatedly stated previously.

Intent and pattern.

It WOULD be an anecdote except their anti-teachers pay position has been repeatedly stated previously.

If you want to make that inference, that’s your choice, but also your issue to address not theirs.

The anecdote posted stands just fine on it’s own. Without political agenda.

Couldn’t find the article This is what Consumer guide said about the 2011 Prius

Consumer Guide Automotive places each vehicle into one of 18 classes based on size, price, and market position. Midsize Cars represent the heart of the U.S. car market. Most are price-sensitive, conservatively designed, family-oriented sedans and wagons. Our Best Buys include the Ford Fusion, Hyundai Sonata, Kia Optima, and Toyota Prius

“Let the auto-centric culture itself be questioned because before the automobile came along the ecological footprint of just about everyone was a heckuva lot smaller - and so was their personal debt.”

Very true. We’d have no personal debt at all, but my wife came with a car. Such as deal! It’s a Mini and we still have a bit of debt on it that slated to be paid off in January. We’ve got no other debt, as I said, and we’re building our nest-egg of a year’s worth of cash in the bank at a post-tax savings rate of 43% at 0.0001% APR. That doesn’t include the silver that I brought to the relationship.

The money is just sitting in checking because the APR on the car debt is “only” 6%. I’m still not sure whether to keep the cash or to hold the debt if we enter a sudden inflationary or deflationary environment. Are we splitting hairs here?

All that stuff about the bike said, it’s nice to have a car available in an emergency or when your bike gets stolen like mine two weeks ago, but I’m going to get a cheap beater bike and a newer main ride this weekend, so I’ll rarely have to “pay at the pump”.

MrBubble

How about “you really need to use your brain?” Less offensive?

I’m sure you’re capable of seeing that’s personal attack and adds nothing to the conversation.

Do you think it somehow makes your position any stronger/more reasonable to attack the individual rather than or in addition to the comments they make?

I somewhat agree with you, a little provocation isn’t bad. The mud flies back and forth on this board.

Point
You were commenting on how funny it is to call prius drivers smug right? I don’t see much of a difference.

Cheers

The mud flies back and forth on this board.

Agreed, and I don’t think that’s a good thing. We have a lot of smart people here. There’s no reason to resort to personal attacks. Most here seem quite capable of debating the facts without having to resort to ad hominems to try to make a point.

You were commenting on how funny it is to call prius drivers smug right?

Actually I commented on how the south park episode was funny. You’re right that the episode addresses the smugness of prius owners, but that doesn’t mean I am calling anyone smug, or even found that element of the episode to be funny

Duck, weave and blow smoke all the while constantly accusing everyone of personal attacks. Good grief.

You’re not even smart enough to address the points I made.

Seriously you can’t see how the authors bias of assuming the Hummer would live for 300,000 miles and saying the Prius would only live for 100,000 miles is a HUGE bias toward the hummer.

He’s saying that the environmental damage of building 3 Prius cars to cover that 300,000 miles is greater than building 1 Hummer.

The evidence I presented shows that these cars can run for 200 - 300k no problem.

Your total contribution to the conversation has been to post a totally biased article and then to call me gay. Not one comment defending the article. You are not smart enough to present your case. It’s kind of sad.

Meatson, forget the Hummer, that is what we call an exaggeration. Compare your dirty Prius to a Golf TDI or the new 71 mpg Polo. Your turn to get all mad again.

Prius sucks because it it neither here nor there. It is a crappy performing gas car and an anemic electric one, yet it is neither one on its own. In a short time I envision mechanics offering conversions to remove all of the batttery/electric crap so owners can still drive their Prius without investing in an expensive new battery. Hummers are yet another chapter in the crappy car story. Diesel cars are night and day superior to hybrids. I am just disappointed that they are not more readily available in the US.

Meatson, forget the Hummer, that is what we call an exaggeration.

Funny you didn’t call it an exageration when you posted it you said it was “scary”

Compare your dirty Prius to a Golf TDI or the new 71 mpg Polo. Your turn to get all mad again. Why?

1. Polo is not available in the US and I believe the 71mpg rating is imperial gallons.
2. I don’t care, I think diesel is a great option in a number of situations and have said so.

Liz
Prius sucks because it it neither here nor there. It is a crappy performing gas car and an anemic electric one, yet it is neither one on its own. ???? I”m still waiting for the issue of rare earth metals to be settled??? You’ll have to be more specific on performance acceleration handling. What exactly do you meen by anemic electric.

Debating you and Avacodo reminds of the saying
Never teach a pig to sing.

In a short time I envision mechanics offering conversions to remove all of the batttery/electric crap so owners can still drive their Prius without investing in an expensive new battery. Mechanical hybrids aren’t an option for a reason.

Thanks for getting mad again. Your arguments are boring.

There’s no reason to resort to personal attacks. Most here seem quite capable of debating the facts without having to resort to ad hominems to try to make a point.

And we see that AV0CAD0 is clearly not. WTF?

Yep
He brought up the topic of the Hummer being a greener option. I pointed out how he was wrong. His response
1. Calling me gay
2. Changing the subject.

Not one defense of his original post.

Can I call him a name now??

Can I call him a name now??

I think liz pendens took care of that below

No I think Liz was referring to Mr. Bubble

guy sounds like a poo-poo head…

+1

That flaccid insult gets “+1″? Come now… Really let it all out.

OK, +2

I dont think any of us care what Meatson drives. I just wanted to educated him. The Prius is bad for the planet, maybe good for his pocketbook though and good for acid rain fans.

I just wanted to educated him

I’m not sure how that translates in any way to making personal insults and gay bashing on top of it.

Oh sorry, I meant Hass Avocado.

Cholula sauce + Avocado = Hot ass avocado

asking us to research the environmental cost of a car purchase is a tall order.

I’m not suggesting everyone should. However, if you’re going to tout the environmental friendliness of your car (or any other purchase/choice), you should look at the whole picture.

Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

oh meatson, stop kicking…