The Housing Bubble

Notice that Mauldin doesn’t mention any cuts to defense?

Your Social Security and other retirement benefits are okay to cut, but…oh no…don’t touch that defense budget. No mention that the defense budget in the US is larger than the rest of the world’s defense budgets, combined! Mauldin certainly can see the large defense “slice” when he looks at one of his pie charts.

My blood was boiling on that striking omission too to the point where I was going to e-mail him about it. But he’s hardly alone at slinking around the defense subject. In the end I was trying to think of an analyst that did dare go publically after defense. I imagined the possibility they’re afraid to wake the career saboteurs that would respond to that commentary.

I keep deleting Mauldin’s emails and have no idea how I got on his list.

Have you ever given any thought to the “Mission Creep” that the federal government has undertaken beginning in the 1930’s but accelerating starting with the 1960’s Great Society? Yes, both sides of the divide have contributed to it.

Even when the govt gets 50% of all income in the form of taxes there will be demands for more. When does it stop?

Depends on what you mean by “mission,” Bill. If we use — say — the Preamble to the Constitution as a mission statement, then the government has been promoting the general welfare (SS Medicare) pretty well. We may have creeped a little too far on securing the blessings of liberty (Defense).

I still would rather create jobs than welfare rolls. The nature paths and shelters built by the CCC are still in use today.

No, that’s providing the general welfare. Big difference.

With each election cycle the politicians will promise more, meaning higher taxes or higher deficits. Promising less is already the kiss of death for them.

We’re fooked.

I hate it when they do this (lumping SS and Medicare in with the rest of the budget to make defense spending look like a smaller share of the pie). SS and Medicare are funded via the payroll tax. DoD is not. When SS and Medicare are removed from the picture DoD is almost 28% of the budget.

I’m sure that the GOP is dying to get rid of all forms of welfare. Too bad they offshored any jobs for those people to do, but hey that’s not their problem right? If only those people got off their butts and found a non existing job, they wouldn’t need unemployment or welfare.

George Carlin (may he RIP) was right. They’re going to come after SS. That juicy payroll tax is just too good for the super wealthy to not strip mine.

The GOP war on wage earners has been very successful.

When will you fight back?

Up until this past year or so, the SS surplus was spent on Defense and other items.

The DOD budget has almost doubled in the past ten years. It’s time to end the current three wars and rein in spending.

“Want to know what I see in this budget that’s really frightening? Over 40% of of it’s aimed at the non-productive.”

This would be really frightening if productivity had not been increasing. We need fewer productive people than at any time in history. And this trend is continuing, especially in manufacturing. Factories that used to employ thousands of people can now be operated with hundreds or less. And in offices. Secretaries are becoming scarcer as software has enabled managers to do more of the work in less time. Travel agents, tellers, cashiers, realtors have been and are being replaced by software and machines.

I say we share the productivity. Our current productive set will get more free time to do with as they wish. Our current non-productive set will have an opportunity to cointribute, with all of the benefits that brings. We will build redundancy into our economy.

“Over 40% of of it’s aimed at the non-productive.”

I would imagine that many of the unemployed, as well as children receiving health insurance and food aid, will one day be productive. Or is government spending only for those who don’t need it?

I say we share the productivity. Our current productive set will get more free time to do with as they wish. Our current non-productive set will have an opportunity to cointribute, with all of the benefits that brings.

You assume the current non-productive have something to offer, or as much to offer as those who are currently productive. While that might be true for a percentage, I’m thinking that percentage is likely pretty small.

“You assume the current non-productive have something to offer, or as much to offer as those who are currently productive. ”

Am I the only one who hears echos of Hitler in words like these?

No you’re not the only one.

It’s the same shortsighted ideological rhetoric that seldom if ever plays out in practice.

The people on Medicare and SS were productive, for many years.

The people on Medicare and SS were productive

some were, some weren’t.

Most of them worked at some point, earned a paycheck and paid the payroll tax (plus their employer’s match).

“The DOD budget has almost doubled in the past ten years.”

I’m sure it’s just an inadvertent admission that Steve failed to point out that the whole federal budget has also almost doubled in the past ten years.

“The people on Medicare and SS were productive

some were, some weren’t.”

Some still are and some of them don’t get paid for their efforts.

drumminj, please define productive. Are the Masters of the Universe productive? How about the mother who volunteers at her child’s school? One gets paid and the other doesn’t. I’d rather have more of the latter than the former.

What about the grandmother, on Medicare and SS, who provides after school care for her grandchildren or neighbors children and cooks at the homeless shelter?

Will the child on Medicaid and welfare never be productive?

Is it only people who pay federal income taxes that are productive? Or do we only include factory production workers?

“You assume the current non-productive have something to offer, or as much to offer as those who are currently productive.”

Assume? I know that most people have something to offer. Very few people have nothing to offer.

The “currently productive” may be more valued by for profit businesses. In some cases they are just luckier - right place at the right time.

Can the company I work for find an exact replacement for me? Probably not. But they could find somebody whose skills and inclinations complement mine.

“I know that most people have something to offer. Very few people have nothing to offer.”

There are higher economies that numbskulls cannot perceive (in fact, none of us can conceive). In the days of cavemen, an intelligent but physically weak man was of little use, and yet today he is valued. And one day, those qualities that are valued little today will be of utmost importance- in ways we cannot imagine- just as the cavemen couldn’t imagine the value of a future computer programmer.

drumminj, please define productive.

The term ‘productive’ was already in use in the thread. You used it as well. Are you willing to do the same? You said we should “share our productivity”…”our current productive set”.

It would appear you were referring to productive = those who are working. I was simply following along in that vein.

I am not asserting that productive = getting paid. It depends on the context. Some times it means having a job. Sometimes it means paying taxes. Some times it means providing something of value to the community.

Are my statements out of line/untrue based on your meaning when you used the word?

Point taken. I should have asked CarrieAnn to define it.

I generally define productive very broadly. I object when people use it narrowly as CarrieAnn did when stating that 40% of the budget is directed at the unproductive. I used it this time in her context with a narrower definition.

I think we would find our country in better shape if more people had the opportunity for work. Work provides purpose and rhythm and self-sufficiency, in addition to a paycheck. I remember the decline in self esteem that I experienced when I took time off after the birth of my first child.

We need to open up opportunities for young people entering the workforce. We need boomers to keep working to reduce payouts for SS, Medicare, and unemployment. Current productivity trends are reducing the need for workers worldwide.

I have suggested that we should reduce the work week so that more people can experience the benefits of working. I don’t see the market solving this problem. There is an additional expense for each employee that makes it more profitable for employers to work people longer than to hire additional workers.

Your ideas WRT shorter workweeks and “sharing productivity” are excellent, Happy2bHeard.

I think we would find our country in better shape if more people had the opportunity for work.

Your point is taken - I get the spirit of what you’re saying. Individuals benefit from the feeling of accomplishment or usefulness. Society benefits from more people having skills/keeping their skills up. But I do hope you recognize that not everyone has skills to offer, and not everyone WANTS to work - has that innate work ethic or gets that feeling of accomplishment from providing value to others.

Regardless, I think you might be overlooking something in your statement…there’s an implicit assumption that someone must provide that opportunity for them - a job. I think that’s a dangerous assumption (and not just because it quickly treads on freedom of association and private property rights IMO).

It’s likely not possible for everyone who wants to be employed by someone else to do so. As you’ve alluded to, there just might not be the jobs. It may be that people simply have to work for themselves - if not in a profit-making capacity, then in a simply sustenance capacity - growing food, making and mending clothes, etc. It’s not a given that our current way of life is sustainable.

Don’t run from it. You made the accusation now provide some evidence.

Very well then. Take out campaign promises, and take out things Obama tried to do but failed because he was blocked by Republicans in Congress or by big money special interest groups.

NOW tell us where Obama lied.

Cowards always seem to run when confronted.

Take out campaign promises…….
Ah, you make me laugh…….

Why won’t you back up your own words? Why?

Very well, leave IN the campaign promises, but still take out things Obama tried to do but failed because he was blocked by Republicans in Congress or by big money special interest groups.

NOW tell us how Obama lied. And I mean lied outright. For example a campaign promise to close Gitmo isn’t exactly a “lie.” Obama’s Justice Department is trying; I think they will get there eventually. Ending DADT is a reality. Obama’s promise to end the war in Iraq seems to be going as smoothly as can be expected with anything related to the Middle East. Obama and Elizabeth Warren are protecting the consumer as best they can, given the lockstep opposition. The one “tranparency” that Obama promised was the White House visitor’s log — I just looked that up the other day on the WH website. I’m not sure Obama promised specifically to take out you-know-who, but he did it anyway. Obama’s promise to bring our economy would work if Congress would have allowed a public option, a better government stimulus, and no more tax breaks. etc.

The Bush administration would have passed health care reform?

At least they were murdered with surgical precision. I hope the engineers are proud of their handiwork.

Why, butters? Are their deaths any less significant?

great sentiment, AS.

I agree AS, but unfortunately, our country is deep in the grip of “up yours, I got mine” and “it’s your own damn fault for being poor.”

As several posters here prove every day.

Good post, Slim.

“I am surprised there haven’t been more workplace shootings.”

There are not that many people at work.

I forgot about that.

Darn,…”nag” = “and”

Besides, the last thing we need is a bunch of teachers getting brutalized by their “tough” neighboors.

Knowing teachers the way I do, they’d be the last to get brutalized by tough neighbors. Something about knowing a thing or two about classroom management.

As for handling the sketchy types in rough areas, I know a thing or two as well. When I moved into this area seven years ago, it wasn’t the best. Now it’s a lot better.

What doesn’t work is what I like to call the “Kum-bah-yah” approach. You know that one. It’s used by those who want to make friends with everyone, bring the neighborhood together, and so forth.

I know of a couple of cases where the “Kum-bah-yahs” turned tail and ran away from this nabe. The meanies were just too mean for them.

What works? Well, it’s what Muhammad Ali called the “Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee” approach. To the toughies, you look like just another quiet neighbor.

But you’re not putting up with any of their malarkey. No way.

You’re making reports via online forms, making phone calls to city authorities, taking pictures, taking notes, keeping logs of nefarious comings and goings, and sending e-mails to the neighborhood associations.

You do whatever you have to do. And, in time, the bad guys figure out that their negative behavior is no longer welcome, and they change their ways or move on.

Perhaps it’s nurturing the seeds of gentrification?

A middle/working class at least pays some taxes and may have some pride in ownership that could be beneficial in the long run.

Teachers that work within many cities probably already have experience with “tough” students.

As to artificial incentives - what about the mortgage interest deduction?

Perhaps it’s nurturing the seeds of gentrification?

A middle/working class at least pays some taxes and may have some pride in ownership that could be beneficial in the long run.

I’d be more inclined to call it “middle-class-ification.”

Why? Because there’s only so much gentry to go around. And they tend to go where the other members of their social class already are.

what’s to keep the cops or teachers from selling out and moving as soon as they can? Lots of them don’t want to live among the inmates.

“I’d be more inclined to call it “middle-class-ification.”

Why? Because there’s only so much gentry to go around. And they tend to go where the other members of their social class already are.”

Good point.

But the fashionable (deep pocketed) gentrifiers follow the artists and gays who wanted large or interesting spaces and were not necessarily so interested in quality public schools. Eventually they get priced out and have to move on to another area.

If you look at Soho in NYC, theoretically many of the residential spaces require certification as an “artist in residence”, but I don’t know too many who could afford the current prices. They moved on to Williamsburg Brooklyn and now are colonizing farther east into Bedford Stuyvesant, etc.

“But the fashionable (deep pocketed) gentrifiers follow the artists and gays who wanted large or interesting spaces and were not necessarily so interested in quality public schools. Eventually they get priced out and have to move on to another area. </I.

Exactly whyoung. I’ve pointed this out before on this blog just a few years ago. I’ve this happen time and time again.

So only poor people are rude?

So only poor people are rude?

I don’t think that’s Bill’s point. But would you disagree with the assertion that a larger percentage are?

Have you been to Walmart lately? Compared the manners of the people with those at, say, Ikea or Pottery Barn? Their awareness of the world around them?

I suspect the neighborhoods were destroyed more by black middle class flight to the white suburbs than by the war on poverty.

“But government workers are getting paid more than private workers”

Your mileage may vary. I see the job postings in my little burg for city employment, and the salary ranges are pretty anemic for everyone except cops and firefighters. I’m better paid than the library director (who has 30+ subordinates), and I’m just a lowly programmer.

Not in my state, they aren’t, Big V.

In So. Cal., it is not uncommon for a position at a two-year college to get over 200 applicants, some with double doctorates. I applied years ago for a position I was very well qualified for and never even got an interview. Only a Master’s.

Pay is $50-$76k to start but incredible benefits (pension).
Like $50-$76k is something to sneeze at. When supply far outstrips demand, the employer should make adjustments to help the taxpayers. Obviously the teachers’ union has a vested interest and is intractable. Why negotiate when you don’t have to? Administrators make even more and turn a blind eye. Pathetic. And we all pay.

Little known fact: There are more private government contractor employees than regualr federal employee in the government.

So when some of you folks bitch about the fed gov, you’re really complaining about the PRIVATE contractors.

Irony, how does it work?

Nobody ever seems willing to acknowlege that, eco. Thanks for pointing it out.

But the big 1000-pound monster in the room is the cost of the water used to flush the toilet.

AKA the “blue gold”. Electrons are cheaper and more plentiful than water in the 3rd world.

Which is why we should require greywater recycling, with the water to be used for toilets, at the very least. There is no reason for us to us potable water everytime we flush the toilet. That is so wrong, IMHO.

But one needs a piping infrastructure to deliver the recycled water to the toilets.

The money/water saved from flushing has to offset the cost of the infrastructure else it doesn’t make sense.

The easiest way to recycle gray water is to leave it in the tub after your shower or bath, and use it to flush your toilet. No new infrastructure needed other than a bucket.

Chile…. are you in the business?

In the US, infrastructure is paid for by government funding. There isn’t much profit to be had in running a sewer system for the poor. I think the point is that the third-world governments are not making it a priority to bring their citizens basic sanitation.

San Francisco sewars are having problems due to the low flow toilets not flowing enough. It will cost a lot of money to fix.

You need minimum velocity of 2.5ft/second to keep a turd moving.

San Francisco sewars are having problems due to the low flow toilets not flowing enough. It will cost a lot of money to fix.

Same thing’s happening here in Tucson.

Problem is that our county sewer system was designed for five-gallon-per-flush toilets. You can’t legally buy those in this country anymore.

“I think the point is that the third-world governments are not making it a priority to bring their citizens basic sanitation.”

That, and the genral scarcity of potable water, which IS becoming an issue in the western USA, as witnessed by falling levels in Lakes Mead and Powell. If we keep adding people in the western US something will have to give.

“Problem is that our county sewer system was designed for five-gallon-per-flush toilets. You can’t legally buy those in this country anymore.”

You can get them in Nogales, Sonora. Do Tucsonians get their 5 gallon jobs down there?

From Channel 13 News in Las Vegas.

“Federal officials say the wettest year in more than a decade will let Colorado River water managers send more water to drought-ravaged Lake Mead this year. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation says the reservoir behind Hoover Dam should rise almost 20 feet in the next 10 months.”

We got an above average snowpack in the Rockies this year, which is always welcome and good news.

My concern is what will happen if population growth in the western US contines at its torrid pace? If demand for potable water increases 50% over the next few decades, what will we do?

Others mentioned recycling “gray water”. In an indirect way, that’s what happens in flyover country. Sewage is treated a is released back into rivers. Some one else downstream then purifies it, uses it, treats it, and puts it back in the river.

Now granted, a lot of water is lost because it is used for residential irrigation. But even doing this, water is in short supply in the west and water rights are expensive and valuable.

I love how weather anomalies are sensationalized when linked from Drudge Report and politicized into political talking points for climate change deniers.

“My concern is what will happen if population growth in the western US continues at its torrid pace? If demand for potable water increases 50% over the next few decades, what will we do?”

Here in the central valley of Ca, 80% of our water goes to agriculture. (which includes alot of rice, believe it or not). Any conservation done by residents seems like a drop in the bucket, so to speak. In other words, if we residents drop our water consumption by 20% (a tall order), that’s really just 20% of the original 20% of the total water that we consume, meaning a 4% water savings. Wish us luck!

Comment by combotechie
2011-05-10 05:40:14
But one needs a piping infrastructure to deliver the recycled water to the toilets.

The money/water saved from flushing has to offset the cost of the infrastructure else it doesn’t make sense.
—————

I’m thinking of a site-based recycling system.

Here’s a very simple one:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.plumbingsupply.com/images/sloan-greywater-recycling-system.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.plumbingsupply.com/greywater-recycling-system.html&h=312&w=330&sz=17&tbnid=l_2D2eUN67QbnM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=119&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dgreywater%2Brecycling%2Bsystem%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=greywater+recycling+system&hl=en&usg=__egFYfPYBzVPiZsQZbcku8tSpK7A=&sa=X&ei=RRHKTdS7GsvdiALZ0uyUBQ&ved=0CEEQ9QEwAg

Maybe in the past, but not now. Banks get their “reserves” by borrowing it from the Fed at 0% nowadays.

Correct. Besides, J6P doesn’t have any savings to begin with.

I agree. Free trade only with countries that allow us true open access to their markets, and who have comparable or better environmental and worker protections.

‘Free’ trade with China has destroyed our industrial base, and enriched and empowered their fascist overlords and our bankster equivalent.

Or we could just default on the debt to China. I’m a strong supporter of that option, because that’s the way it’s gonna go down anyhow, so we might as well just hasten it.

+1.

I heart tariffs. Ima change my name to “Mrs. Big V Tariff”.

Palmy, Alpha, and CA +3

“Boehner has said that tax increases are the only thing that is NOT on the table.”

Well he would, wouldn’t he?

So we’re in a desperate situation, and we’ve got to get Real- but no talking about raising tax rates on the wealthy!

As usual, the Repubs want to throw a few more sticks on the backs of the middle class, while kicking them in the knees.

I guess the rich are too busy creating jobs to join in the shared sacrifice. Shared sacrifice is for the little people.

Let me add that universal health care takes a long time to implement and the republicans do not accept the economic analysis that says that it will save money.

The one thing I don’t know is the time frame the Speaker has set for the savings, so it is possible that he would consider savings that take a long time to show their value, but since future Congresses can change any deals that are made, I’m thinking he is looking at a fairly short time frame. No specific evidence on that - it is just a guess.

The Republicans do not accept science, either.

Also, they tell us that any deal can be changed by a future Congress, then they tell us they can’t support domestic production because a past Congress made a forever-deal with a bunch of other countries, wherein they promised never to “discourage consumption of foreing products”.

The many faces of the politican.

PS - the schwa sound produced by the letters “oeh” is not an A.

I’m sorry, I meant to say dipthong. Any way, it’s either boner or beaner.

I thought that “oe” was the Anglicized version of the umlaut, but German 101 was a long time ago.

Even if health care takes a long time to implement, the fact that it’s on the way will increase creditor’s confidence in the US, which makes borrowing easier.

Comment by oxide
2011-05-10 07:45:47
I thought that “oe” was the Anglicized version of the umlaut, but German 101 was a long time ago.
—————

Boener, like Koenig, should have a long-a sound, IMHO.

Keenig.

We are talking about budget cuts. Putting the same people in diferent places, may cut some costs, but it doesn’t help that much.

+1 CA renter. Putting troops on the border is gaining a lot of traction with the polulace. It makes a lot of sense.

As for cutting contractors: say what you will about “wasteful” government spending, the government is pretty stingy with their contracting dollars, at least my department. Generally there is a great deal of competition for contracts. There is a limit to how much profit a government contractor is allowed to take home. Companies who are top-heavy with highly paid management might have a low “profit,” but they are usually priced out.

It may be different for the DOD. But for my department, every penny of government cuts threatens somebody’s job.

“Putting the same people in diferent places, may cut some costs, but it doesn’t help that much.”

Well, first of all, it’s a start. Bringing our military personnel home has got to be cheaper than keeping them overseas. For one thing, weapons and provisions, etc. don’t have to be shipped as far. But using the military along the border has the added benefit of keeping out drug cartels and illegal immigrants and their future spawn who suck the system dry, lower wages and quality of life, increase law enforcement and other infrastructure costs, etc.

Gotta look at the big picture here.

It is a start doesn’t help much when you have to put together a deal cut trillions of dollars or the debt ceiling won’t get raised.

“I don’t think you can do it without defaulting on the debt or cutting SS and Medicare payments to almost nothing. I just dont’ think there is enough else that could be done quickly.”

Default on the debt, then. That really is the best option.

If our soldiers are over here the money they earn will be spent in this country and generate more tax revenues. However, the best reason for them and us is they will not be wounded in wars with the costs of these disabilities costing them and us for decades. I can’t remember who said it on this board but I agreed that nation building is expensive and rarely works, punitive attacks are cheaper. Let them know if they attack us they will lose everything they love including their mosques and they might think twice in attacking us. Closing the borders is the best use of the military. A country without borders is not really a country.

1. Soldiers are teh tip of the iceberg, military no bid contracts will end. The amount of fuel the military uses will fall. etc etc

2. The people may want troops on the border but corporate America does not so it will not happen. They own almost everything, even the minds of a large chunk of the nation via the MSM are owned by the elite.

>The trust fund will run out in 2037,

There is no trust fund.

“There is no trust fund.”

You’ve been well programmed, Mot. What else have you been taught to say?

There is no trust fund.

Funny how foreign investors still buy US government debt. I guess the SS trust fund, which is invested in US government securities, must not exist.

“The progressive income tax went down. Spending on today’s seniors’ health care went up.”

Exactly. Everything else is a distraction.

Return the tax rates on the rich to a reasonable level, institute a universal health care plan, and we can afford to be a modern country again, instead of the banana republic we’re turning into.

It’s only complicated if you want it to be- ie if it serves your interests.

Universal health care will create tons of jobs too, from small businesses who can’t afford the small pool to the unemployed over 55.

I’m not sure how many private health insurance employees will lose their jobs, but somebody needs to administer all this health care.

1. Also, if there were some kind of mild BK where an FB could give up the allegator house, rent for a bit, and start over again by buying a cheaper house, that would be a huge savings for families.

2. If we could bring back jobs that only required a two-year college tech degree nearby instead of a four-year liberal arts degree several states away, that would be a huge savings for families.

3. Needless to say, universal health care would be a huge savings to families.

These three expenses together are probably enough savings that one parent can stay home with the children. That shrinks the labor pool to where we can support the same number of households with fewer actual jobs. The decreased stress, decreased crime, decreased amount of gasoline used, etc would be a huge savings.

But instead, Lloyd Blankfein needs his fourth yacht.

Universal health care will create tons of jobs too, from small businesses who can’t afford the small pool to the unemployed over 55.

It will also spark a wave of entrepreneurship as job-locked people throw off their employer shackles and strike out on their own.

4 day work week. Bring it on. I’ve been working .9 for the past 5 years and I will take free time and a mellower way of life than more money any day.

When all is said and done, I will not be on my death bed wishing I had worked more.

I say we share the productivity. Our current productive set will get more free time to do with as they wish.

“When all is said and done, I will not be on my death bed wishing I had worked more. “

That’s just un-American!

Oxide for president!!!

Love your ideas, oxide.

> We could do with 5.

It’s currently 4.7% per wikipedia. Which might be true.

Palmy wasn’t talking about cutting all military spending. He was just talking about ending the current wars. That cuts part of military spending, but not as much as you think. Combat pay would go away. So would the contracts to feed people and do their laundry on site, etc. (assuming they were not written to require payment whether the services were provided or not). And you would use up fewer bombs and bullets. And fewer people would be killed and disabled. But you don’t eliminate the need to pay them unless you have a massive millitary RIF. They still get paid. They still train (using up bombs and bullets) and get hurt sometimes. Ending the wars doesn’t begin to eliminate the entire military budget.

Boehner’s speech is being interpreted as demanding a cut of approximately $2 trillion. No info on how many years that covers, but since he referred to the amount of the debt ceiling increase, he might be thinking about the estimated lenght of time that increase on the debt ceiling would last (until the end of next fiscal year so September 30th, 2012). $2 trillion is a lot of cuts for less than 17 months. Bringing troops home is barely a scratch.

We could have saved 2 trillion++ by not bailing out the financial sector after the “financial crisis” (that nobody could see…except for lowly bloggers with common sense, of course).

That’s different. Unions make no secret of representing labor interests, and they are not on the “same side” as management.

So then why are unions 7 out of the top 10 money contributors to politicians???

It is to get managment on the “same side” as the unions.

It is a perverse relationship that puts taxpayers on the hook for trillions in promises to public unions.

Because no one takes the “same side” as the taxpayers.

Link please?

Unions represent 7% of workers.

And if Unions are so powerful in Congress, then where is all the Union-friendly legislation ready for Obama to sign? Where are the union thugs in Obama’s advisory committees and Cabinet? Where are all the union jobs in the Midwest?

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010

You will notice:

14 out of the top 20 all time political donors are unions.

You will notice that they gave 90-99% of their money to democrats.

You will also notice that you don’t get to a slightly leaning republican political donor until #17

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Pattern? Trend? To control of political machine?

Thank you for the link. You’re right. There are a lot more unions there than I thought. What also surprises me is that all that money didn’t seem to buy them anything…

My count is five unions in the top ten, eleven in the top twenty. But I guess you’re counting every organization with a name you dislike as a union.

And if Unions are so powerful in Congress, then where is all the Union-friendly legislation ready for Obama to sign? Where are the union thugs in Obama’s advisory committees and Cabinet? Where are all the union jobs in the Midwest?

+1

Please note that these are contributions by various “organizations”. Doesn’t show the direct contributions by the top 5%er, which are overwhelmingly going to Republicans.

Don’t you get it X-GSfixr? It’s OK for the wealthy to buy out elected representatives, but it’s not OK for the little people to band together to do the same thing.

Does this include PACs? Or is it only direct contributions to political campaigns?

It IS intentional.

Ask yourself another question. WHY are they sending our jobs overseas… to a communist country?

The Repubs are TRAITORS. Period.

Welcome to the light side, x-GS. I, too, was a republican — decades ago — and am now a hybrid socialist.

Once you get enough years under your belt to understand how the world works, it’s funny how your perception changes.

My former company paid me my vacation time when I was laid off. I think I lost the sick days.

Had this argument with one of the honchos at my former company, when I went from bargaining unit to salaried exempt.

Had six weeks of accrued PTO. Lost it and had to start over when I went exempt.

Told her it was a bad precedent, because:

- It screwed the guys who didn’t use it, and it gave an incentive to the guys who burned all their sick leave to try to get into exempt positions.

- After my little episode, every guy who decided to take an exempt position suddenly got very sick, right up to the time they started the exempt job, or their PTO ran out, whichever came first.

I think that practice falls under “usual and customary”, while some states do require it.

Back in 2007, my company was bought out by Banksters doing an LBO.

We were given the option of taking a PTO cash-out, or rolling it into the new company.

Our Chief Pilot, being the Ditto-head that he was, rolled all of his, because of his faith in “private enterprise”

The other guy I worked with wondered what he should do. Told him that we didn’t know these jackazzez from Adam, and that I for one was going to take the cash and run. At minimum, your PTO would be somewhere where it was under his control.

We both cashed out. And avoided getting screwed out of our PTO less than 18 months later, when the banksters filed Chapter 7….. After running off with a couple hundred million dollars worth of customer deposits, employee payroll deductions, etc.

He has thanked me repeatedly. Especially after (on my advice) took some of that money and bought Ford Motor stock, back when it was around a buck a share.

Good moves, x-GS.

BTW, what those “capitalists” did seems to be the norm. Good to know they’re such “hard workers,” being rich and all…

At HP they used to have limitless FTO rollover. Eventually there were people with over a year’s worth of FTO, and that was put to and end. The new cap became twice what you are alloted for a year. So if you got 4 weeks a year, your cap was 8 weeks. Everyone who had more already accrued was given 3 years to use it up. Few even put a dent into it.

In the government you can accrue 30 days vacation, then it’s use-it-or-lose-it. Funny thing is, senior people get 30 days a year, so they have to disappear for 6 weeks, every year, or lose that vacation. Some people have so much vacation that they have a program where you can donate your vacation to someone else, usually someone with a real illness or a very sick child.

(if you ask me that’s a little too much of a benefit.)

Some people have so much vacation that they have a program where you can donate your vacation to someone else, usually someone with a real illness or a very sick child.

I used to work at a place that offered such a benefit. I didn’t stick around that long, but I did know people who donated time to others. To this day, I still admire them for that.

It isn’t really 6 weeks. It is 8 hours per pay period, so 26 days for the year. It can seem like 6 weeks if people take it during weeks when there are other holidays so the work week is only 4 days long. And it doesn’t get that high until 15 years after your start date.

I don’t see anything wrong with the leave bank. I’m glad to give 6 hours a year so someone else who uses up all their vacation and sick leave can still get paid. And there is a good chance that they get paid less than I do, so the government saves money.

+ Googolplex

Stay home if you’re sick. “The graveyards are full of indispensable men” –CdG (although it might have been his minister of finance talking about his passing)

I recall reading an interesting article about California K-12 Ed. IIRC graduating seniors have the option of taking an exit exam, which if they pass they get the “good” diploma. Apparently colleges in California expect their applicants to pass the exit exam.

Thing is, its possible to do K-12 in California entirely in Spanish (and probably in other languages as well). Short story, some kids demanded to take the exit exam in Spanish, as their English skills were too weak to take it in English.

Anyway, I’m wondering if the next step at Cal State schools will be to offer degrees taught en español at the Universidad Estatal de San Diego/Long Beach/Fullerton/San Jose/etc?

Anyway, I’m wondering if the next step at Cal State schools will be to offer degrees taught en español at the Universidad Estatal de San Diego/Long Beach/Fullerton/San Jose/etc?

I had classes in Spanish when I was a summer study abroad student.

That was in Valencia, Spain, and the prof didn’t speak a word of English. She taught the history of Spanish art and really made me think about it. In both Spanish and English. Good course.

How do you like your crow served Drummy?

I fail to see how I’m being served any crow? Have I made any statements that you disproved? Or are you just trying to be combative, as appears to be what passes for “discourse” here these days?

Let’s look at your claims:

1. Outsourcing has gutted environmental regs.

So you’re saying now that there aren’t environmental regs in place which are incentivizing corporations to move operations elsewhere where no such regs exist? Which is it? Either the regs are in place, and corporations are moving operations to avoid them, or they’re not in place, and as such aren’t a factor.

2. elite are just solidifying their power but it’s easy to see that as the gov becomes poorer that regulation will continue to be gutted.

So your argument is now based on something you think will happen, not on what actually exists right now?

1. Didn’t GE pay no taxes this year.

You’re saying they paid no taxes whatsoever? State, income, property, social security, cap gains, etc? They didn’t give any government a single dollar?

The Center on Budget and policy priorities reports that the corporate share of tax revenue as a % of GDP is at record lows.

This has nothing to do with the actual cost of doing business. We’re talking about corporations outsourcing and the effect of taxes on that, no? % of GDP isn’t what drives that. Are you really arguing it is? Rather than, say, the cost to employ an individual here versus elsewhere, with all the associated taxes and regulations?

China has grown because of, wait for it, the strong consumption from the middle class in the USA.

And this is relevant to the middle class being vital/necessary for a successful US how, exactly? Just because the US middle class is where China is making it’s money doesn’t mean that 1) the middle class is *necessary* for china to make money, nor 2) That it’s necessary for the US to be stable, prosperous, etc.

China is trying to develope a middle class which is hard to do on slave wages.

Can you show that China is trying do this? And let’s assume they are…how does this in any way support an assertion of the effects of the existence of a middle class in the US? Showing someone wants something doesn’t prove it’s good or bad or necessary….

And how is the assertion “it’s hard to do on slave wages” relevant at all?

Can you point to a society that was democratic and was an economic and military powerhouse with no middle class.

Let’s say I can’t. How does that prove that the existence of a middle class is a (or the) necessary ingredient, or even relevant at all? Perhaps it’s an independent variable. Perhaps the existence of a middle class has been a hindrance rather than a help.

Note they can’t have exported to the USA or other country with a strong middle class

So now you set rules on what’s valid or not? Somehow you know the elements that are necessary? How does exporting or not exporting to a country with a strong middle class support or undermine the assertion that the existence of a middle class is a necessary ingredient of anything?

Is it really that threatening for you that someone asks for a basis for some assertion that you (and others) put forth as fact?

Drumminj:

You are being willfully ignorant. Everyone knows that companies only started offshoring when stopped charging tariffs and tax penalties designed to compensate for wage arbitrage.

It is only the wage arbitrage that makes them do it.

Let’s make it simpler:

“Can you point to a society that was democratic and was an economic and military powerhouse with no middle class”- for a period of longer than half a century?

A flash in the pan doesn’t count.

All great democratic countries have had strong middle classes. Ancient Greece and Rome, Renaissance Italy, Great Britain, the US, modern western Europe.

Name some counter-examples, please.

As I’ve pointed out before, the middle class is the most reliant on, and therefore the most demanding of, a consistent rule of law.

The poor have nothing much to lose from lawlessness, and the rich can afford their own private militias and walled estates to protect themselves from lawlessness, but the middle class alone must rely on the rule of law to cement any gains they might have- the mob can take the gains from them, and the powerful rich can seize their gains, too.

Only the law allows the existence of the middle class- hence their importance to democratic civilization. They demand its essential foundation- a consistent rule of law.

I first learned about this when I drove past a local BK lawyer’s office in town. He had a big banner proclaiming: Strip away your 2nd mortgage! I later learned what that meant.

Of course, a BK can protect a 1st only holder if they are in Davey Jone’s locker with a recourse 1st. Of course they don’t get to get the house, but at that point they might as well be glad they got out of it debt free.

I didn’t read gleeful. More like relieved. She even said she was grateful.

Of course she won’t have any good credit for years. If she needs to buy a car she can forget about getting those 0% interest deals or low credit union rates. She’ll be paying double digit interest rates on the car loan and 30% interest on any balance on her Crapital One card.

Well, yeah, debt is stressful. I get it.

But what did she do with the $122,000? Can we at least start there?

But what did she do with the $122,000?

Who knows? Luxury cars and vacations? Medical bills? Supplementing a shrinking paycheck? Burly, well endowed gigolos? Drugs?

Does it really matter? Either way someone who should have known better loaned her all that money and she can’t pay it back.

I can understand that people get pissed when someone lives high on the hog and then files for BK. But even if she whooped it up, she’s small potatoes compared to the Vampire Squid.

When I think of all the buying power I’ve lost over the past 10 years, inflation coupled with stagnant wages, its a lot more than she “got away with”.

Yes, it does matter. Big time.

And me being “pissed” at her doesn’t discount the disdain for the Vampire Squid for lending to her. Why does my disdain for one imply that I don’t disdain the other? It doesn’t.

Frankly what I’m bothered by is the taxpayer funded securitization that makes them both whole. Still, her comment that it’s “wonderful” is irksome to me.

“And me being “pissed” at her doesn’t discount the disdain for the Vampire Squid for lending to her. Why does my disdain for one imply that I don’t disdain the other? It doesn’t.”

For one thing, you don’t know what her circumstances are.

Bu in the end it makes no difference as to why she got into debt, whether it was because of living high on the hog or because she was unemployed for a long time. Foolish bankers gave her money and it went poof.

What I would get angry about is having taxpayers cover the loss instead of making the banksters take their medicine. Of course, they knew they would be covered so they handed money out to anyone who could “fog a mirror”.

And since I believe the handouts to the banking clan are going to become scarcer, they will lend more carefully and will lobby to tighten BK laws even further.

“Frankly what I’m bothered by is the taxpayer funded securitization that makes them both whole. Still, her comment that it’s “wonderful” is irksome to me.”

Actually, the taxpayer funded securitazation (Freddy an Fannie) is making the banksters “whole”. Were it not there, they would get stuck with the loss, as it should be.

It may have been one of those 80/20 loans. Numbers seem to match.

Ah, so she’s a victim. I see. Had no control over the situation.

The circumstances are that she took a loan she knowingly either couldn’t afford from the beginning, or now that she’s underwater chooses not to, but she most certainly thought the numbers made sense when they worked in her favor.

That’s not a societal norm I want to perpetuate. I would think this would be obvious on this blog.