The Housing Bubble

And lease-hold rent on the land.

I am hoping for a newcomer. The “do nothing” GOP needs a smart one this time.

Ron Paul and a super sharp outsider will get my vote.

http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/03/repubs_evolution.jpg

This good enough? Thier leaders don’t understand science, why whould the followers?

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ — The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution

A.—-flat earth society with beaucoup buckaroos—-

B. —The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution—-

Me. Point B is irrelevant to point A.

Try to stay on topic, guys

They look like the same point to me. Round earth is only a theory after all.

“They look like the same point to me. Round earth is only a theory after all.”

Typical liberal thinking.

Maybe evil was contesting the “beaucoup buckaroos” contention? He’s too smart not to see the anti-science connection….

Jim “They look like the same point to me. Round earth is only a theory after all.”

Straw Man. Weak one at that. You sound angry.

Smart coward maybe.

Actually, it was an observational comment, followed up by a what I would call a generalized ad hominem attack.

Comment by NYGoon—Smart coward maybe—-

It uses mindless ad hominem insult, lacking ability to generate issues-oriented argumentation. It thus invalidates anything it subsequently has to say.

As a great physician once said, “I see the Klingon’s lips move, but no sound emerges”

Straw Man remains

“generalized ad hominem attack”

RNC trolls are especially gifted in that area…

And a troll too.

“RNC trolls are especially gifted in that area…
And a troll too.”

It uses mindless ad hominem insult, lacking ability to generate issues-oriented argumentation. It thus invalidates anything it subsequently has to say.

As a great physician once said, “I see the Klingon’s lips move, but no sound emerges”

“generalized ad hominem attack”

“RNC trolls are especially gifted in that area…”

Wait, I thought thats what I was trying to attack the RNC with??
I’m so confused.
/Breaks out internet debate strategies for dummies.
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html Hmmm.

“Please present documentation to support claim”

Completely unnecessary for anything so totally obvious to anyone who is paying attention and has an IQ of 70 or more.

“theory of evolution”

It has always been just a theory, there is not proof. So count me in as one of those who do not believe. Nobody knows how we came to be, you have theories and faith, that’s it. I would lay down a large amount of money (if I had it) that I am not an evolved ape. Java man, Homo Erectus…give me a break.

Thank you.

“It has always been just a theory, there is not proof.”

And there you have the non-scientist politician’s argument in favor of teaching Creationism, Creation Science, Intelligent Design, and any number of other non-theories in U.S. public schools as though they should be treated as equally plausible explanations for the Origin of the Species as the Theory of Evolution.

I suppose you are now going to explain to us that the theory the earth revolves around the sun has never been proven, either, and hence we should continue to entertain the earlier theory that the sun revolves around the earth?

CIBT: “Completely unnecessary for anything so totally obvious to anyone who is paying attention and has an IQ of 70 or more.”

It uses mindless ad hominem insult, lacking ability to generate issues-oriented argumentation. It thus invalidates anything it subsequently has to say.

As a great physician once said, “I see the Klingon’s lips move, but no sound emerges”

I was just saying that my non scientific opinion is that I don’t know. Maybe I will know after I die, maybe I won’t, but there is no absolute proof in either direction. Evolution is a scientific theory and Intelligent design is also a theory only faith based. I have no problem with both being taught in school with proper context.

Why not throw in a few more religious crackpot theories and pretend they also qualify as science? Most Americans are too poorly educated to know the difference. We will be the laughing stock of the developed world, but so what? This is ‘Mericuh…

Nicky,

It would be useful if you took the time to educate yourself as to the scientific usage of the term “theory.”

Gravitation is a “theory.” That germs can cause disease is a “theory.” Evolution is a demonstrable fact, a set of readily accepted and provable principles. A “theory.”

It concerns me that you have the vote.

Sigh.

Intelligent design is taught in this country because we have a Judeo-Christian heritage, it should not be presented as fact, but as a predominant faith based view in this country. I am pretty sure we share other faith’s views of how we came to be at some point in a child’s academic career.

Other than that, school should be religiously neutral…I remember living in Texas back in the 70’s in second grade, we had just moved there from the bay area, we had to recite the lords prayer just after the pledge of allegiance. That was a bit strange and the practice was stopped just after I moved to a different school district a year later.

Ms. Hansen,

I will take the IQ Pepsi Challenge with anyone on this board +- 10pts.

Thank you.

I’m not saying he nor Mitt is reasonable per se, just that they are reasonable compared to the raving nutters that the GOP is fielding this time.

I’m actually hoping Romney wins at this point, just so one of the bible freaks doesn’t get in.

As for policy, seems Romney’s agenda would be pretty much exactly the same as Obama’s, so no big changes there.

Yea, it’s always been a wonder to me, how a bunch of “scientists” can’t forecast the proper weather pattern a week ahead of time, but can come up with models that project the change in “global climate” by using a set of past data, and ignoring the effect of the sun? I can’t quite have a lot of faith in the whole process.
By the way, did Anthropods burn up a lot of the forests and cause the ice sheets to melt? Must be so. It couldn’t be that Natural processes, primarily solar flares and changes in topography (volcanic eruptions and plate upheaval) cause major changes in environment.
It’s got to be CO2 emissions.

Climate scientists don’t profess any expertise in the practice of medicine.

Perhaps you shouldn’t assume that an MD gives you any particular expertise in climatology– let alone peer-reviewed scientific research?

I think this article combined with the article of yesterday is the most important news of the year: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110614-sun-hibernation-solar-cycle-sunspots-space-science/

After 50 years of hyperactive solar activity it appears that our Sun is going to become rather dormant. The periods of low solar activity have been cold periods and that is a matter of historical fact. One interesting side note is this solar cycle is going to peak at the end of 2012 or the beginning of 2013, roughly the end of the Mayan Calendar. So maybe they saw a new ice age coming? I have my spam and wine so I will be fine, plus growing up in Vermont and experiencing times during the Winter when below zero weather was common, I think I can endure the New Mexico winters for sometime, even if they become much colder.

Ahansen: Climate scientists don’t profess any expertise in the practice of medicine.

Perhaps you shouldn’t assume that an MD gives you any particular expertise in climatology– let alone peer-reviewed scientific research?

Straw man. Really, “A”, in general I expect better from you. This blog with 400 posts or so per day about the Economics of Housing has how many board certified economists (oh yeah, we mock economists), and how many people in the business of buying/selling/trading/marketing… housing? Oh yeah… we mock them too. Maybe Mr. Jones should close down the blog since essentially no one who plays here has *formal* qualifications to opine

But, having dismissed the straw man point and note instead that thoughtful people of decent intellect and common sense can take issue with highly debated (and debatable) science, which has players on both sides, save that the monied class that stands to make billions from the claim, all fall on one side.

I’m barely old enough to recall when stomach ulcers where known to be caused by acid, stress and such, and when those deniers of this Scientific Theory, suggesting instead that infection could play a big role, where laughed out of the room by Establishment scientists. The examples cascade from there.

I mean, really, I make no claim that having a degree in Mol Bio from Princeton makes me per se an expert in doing “global warming” research. I’m impressed how many believe being Algore makes one such an expert.

“The periods of low solar activity have been cold periods and that is a matter of historical fact.”

True, from what I’ve read. It could possibly mitigate FOR NOW the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem will come with the next wave of high solar activity in conjunction with what we’ve put in our atmosphere. Might be another hundred years or so. Sounds like kicking the can down the road, as y’all like to say here.

dan,
It’s not so much a matter of “hotter” or “colder” as it is of CO2 concentrations and the atmospheric consequences– which are reaching, if not at a catastrophic tipping point.

At one time, you may recall from geology 101, the planet was inhabited by methanogenic bacteria– which metabolized themselves out of existence by off-gassing too much oxygen.

Let me toss the bomb in the pond, metaphorically speaking.

Let’s say AGW is all true and we are all doomed.

My assertion is that all proposed solutions, even at their most extreme, must fail. Seriously. Won’t work. We will all die.

Anyone care to explore why that is so?

Hint: Current solutions for AGW overlook the actual core problem.

Yes, but the question is how much of the recent warming really has been caused by CO2 when the last 50 years has been the most active sunspot period in a 1000 years? BTW, continental drift was rejected by geologists and I believe the promoter had no expertise in the area, actually think he had expertise in weather but I might be wrong on that. Sometimes common sense just beats a degree and the group think of the profession blinds more than it enlightens. However, even the founder of weather channel does not believe in AGW so this pronouncement of uniformity of opinion to close debate only makes me more suspicious.

Article on Bill Gray and AGW as a religion:

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2008/04/william-gray-global-warming-is-a-religion/

The science is NOT debated by the relevant scientific community any more than germ theory is debated by the medical community.

Yes, there are a few MD’s who contend that human immunodeficiency virus does not cause AIDS just as there are also a few MD’s who espouse creationism. But their pseudoscience does not pass peer-review, relying instead upon faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and the misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data.

The science IS “debated,” however, by those who profess an expertise they do not possess, and their equally-ill-informed political acolytes who invoke the name of Galileo (for example,) to bolster their weak and discredited arguments with false equivalencies. (See: “Five Hundred Scientists Named Steve.”)

Kay, evil, I’ll play.

There is a high likelihood that humanity will be eradicated by a series of pandemic viruses before it is wiped out by the effects of anthropogenic pollution.

Should we therefore stop trying to develop anti-viral vaccines? After all, Big Pharma stands to make trillions off of the scare-mongering….

Despite the RECORD setting drought, heat and wildfires, most people in Texas still insist global warming is a conspiracy.

Funny when people that talk about one region being colder than another they are referred to as ignorant not knowing the difference between weather and climate by AGW advocates. How is the weather in South America during their winter our summer? Perhaps one of the coldest on record? For that matter, show me a graph of world weather including so far this year and compare it to 1998? Where is the warming since we know with China growing 10% a year burning coal that there is a lot more CO2 in the air.

South American link: http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/26/south-america-gripped-by-brutal-winter/

The periods of low solar activity have been cold periods and that is a matter of historical fact.”

thats like saying heat comes from the sun !!

oh wait……

A-Dan, as with any asymmetric disturbance of a complex cyclical oscillating system, the effects are not perfectly linear and only become apparent over the span of the complex cycle when it goes back to the first step.

…currently, the observable effects are record weather extremes as the system tries to find its previous equilibrium.

Despite the RECORD setting drought, heat and wildfires, most people in Texas still insist global warming is a conspiracy.

——-
Actually TX fell one day short of setting a record for most consecutive days over 100F, passed the record (by like 2 days) of most days over 100F non-consecutive, set a few lack-of-rainfall records, but didn’t pass last year’s single day high temp of 112F.

So I don’t think global warming is a conspiracy but I also don’t think this particular year has anything important to say about it.

This year had a La Nina, they tend to be cooling on a global scale but the Southwest can expect to be dry.Thus, no need for an AGW explanation for what is going on. Last year was an El Nino and strong ones produce warmer worldwide temps. and it did. Finally, you have the PDO which tends to run in 30 year cycles. Up to a few years ago it was in a warm cycle and it tends to warm the entire earth and in particular the waters in the Pacific, actually causes poor salmon runs on the West coast. It also either enhances or diminishes the other shorter cycles. About 1977 was the bottom of the last PDO (its coolest point) with 2008 being the top. Thus it is not surprising we had a thirty year run of increasing temps. How exactly an active sunspot cycle plays into these other events, be dammed if I know but would not be surprised if there is a connection. However, Co2 is now running against the PDO and soon will be running against the sunspot cycle and I think it will be clear that Co2 is a very weak warming mechanism.

Evildoc (I) wrote:

Let’s say AGW is all true and we are all doomed.

Hint: Current solutions for AGW overlook the actual core problem.

Per Ahansen Kay, evil, I’ll play.

Should we therefore stop trying to develop anti-viral vaccines? After all, Big Pharma stands to make trillions off of the scare-mongering….

Ok then. Welcome to the game

I certainly cannot exclude the possibility of other cataclysms, but in this case… no… because my challenge relates specifically to the thesis of A] Anthropogenic warming and b] Warming being a bad thing. If either is untrue, then we have no worries, either the warming (if there is warming) is not due to us and even if there is warming it is not harmful.

So, for this game we have human-caused warming AND because of that we are all… DOOMED.

Viruses are a confounding variable and thus don’t count.

However, the very solutions bandied for Warming, putting aside making a fortune for their purveyors, won’t work.

USA is 5% of world population and a significant carbon generator as it has been said (i lack proof on hand) that we use about 20% or more of the world’s energy output.

So, fine, we squelch our usage and drop it by 10-20% and maybe even make the generation of what we use a bit more green (assuming one accepts the definitions of what sort of energy usage leads to more warming).

Meanwhile, as the USA economy tanks (spoken of at length in HBB), those parts of the world what have, oh, 2-3 billion people (vs our 300 million) are ramping up their energy usage as they fight to free themselves from the shackles of 3rd-worlds status. After all, a big chunk of what separates mainstream mcmansion USA from mud-hut starvation ethiopia is… per capita energy use.

So, I see— or I hypothesize– that in best case scenario, Algore becomes a billionaire from bank assets in cap-trade scenarios and perhaps the USA– per capita– drops energy consumption a bit and makes a bit greener use of energy over the next 30 years.

Meanwhile our population doubles in 30 years, meaning in 30 years the USA is putting out 150% or more carbon/heat/etc as now, even IF we do everything Al wants us to.

Meanwhile, earth population doubles in thirty years as well from 6- 12 billion people, with half of that in areas that are increasing their carbon footprint per capita, so, let’s say Chindia goes from 2 to 4 billion people in thirty years and its carbon footprint more than doubles, maybe quadruples, as population goes up and clearly energy use is going up. There is after all a reason Ford put new plant in India not Detroit.

So, if USA goes a Gore shade of Green, our carbon footprint goes up 150% IN 30 years and Chindia goes up 400% and rest of world who knows somewhere in between.

If we are, truly, doomed now by AGW if we don’t cut our absolute carbon footprint, then, verily we really are doomed, as in 30 years the planet’s carbon footprint will triple.

So… solutions? Answer isn’t pretty, if one believes in AGW

The world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, let us descendant children of x1 Adam & x1 Eve argue, then pray for the truth. How’s that angle of organismic logic working out?

“So… solutions? Answer isn’t pretty, if one believes in AGW”

Climate change doesn’t care if you believe in it. I need go no further than Mount Ranier to see the effects on its glaciers over the last 50 years.

IMO, a lot of the folks who argue against it simply don’t want to have to change their behavior. Perry is beholden to oilmen who prefer a “Drill, baby, drill” approach. These are the same people who argue against peak oil and alternative energy and the EPA. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo as long as possible. If they can cast doubt on the science, then they don’t have to fight the policy proposals.

Solutions? IMO, an increase in gas taxes solves several problems. It would cut consumption and it would isolate the economy from the effects of volatility in the price per barrel. It lets people make their own decisions about how much to consume. It favors public transportation and denser living, which also helps to preserve farmland and open spaces. It is simple to implement and it increases revenue, which could be used to reduce the deficit (although it probably wouldn’t be). It would increase farm costs and probably the price of food. And there would be other impacts on prices of other goods, which overall reduces consumption and the associated manufacturing and distribution emissions.

Similar taxes on coal and natural gas could also be implemented.

OTOH, whether one believes in AGW or not, we can stick our head in the sand, make no changes, and burn carbon based fuels at an increasing rate (as populations grow and Chindia consumes at a greater rate per person). We can continue to trash environments globally so that when everything crashes, we won’t even be able to live off the land. Unless you believe in a scientific breakthrough or the magic hand of the free market.

—Climate change doesn’t care if you believe in it. I need go no further than Mount Ranier to see the effects on its glaciers over the last 50 years.—–

A. Lack of “anthropogenic” climate change also doesn’t care if you believe in it. Its not there. Or it is there. But neither has anything to do with the post to which you responded, which assumed– for sake of argument– that A] it is present and B] it is a bad thing.

—Solutions? IMO, an increase in gas taxes solves—-

As noted in my post, just prior to your response, if AGW is severe enough to threaten us now, currently proposed solutions, of which “yours” is a subset, do not allow humanity to continue living. AGW is too big.

—OTOH, whether one believes in AGW or not, we can stick our head in the sand, —-

A. If one does not buy the AGW tale, then not following aggressive “solutions” is not sticking one’s head in sand… it is being reasonable.

—We can continue to trash environments globally so that when everything crashes, we won’t even be able to live off the land. Unless you believe in a scientific breakthrough or the magic hand of the free market.—–

Ahhh, so it’s not about “Warming” then? Warming is just an excuse to do other behaviors we might happen to deem good?

You missed the point of my post. I tossed out some basic numbers (including one in error, not yet noted by anyone) to show that none of the proposed solutions stop global warming from being 3x as bad in 30 years as it is now. The global warming alarmists (whether right or not ultimately) have claimed we already are toast if we don’t change our ways. I showed that changing our ways as they would have us do, is no solution.

So, then, is “sticking head in sand” for believers of AGW the act of believing the Gorean solutions will work? Self delusion? Denial?

And, then, how does one abort life threatening global warming. The answer seems there. But, denial is powerful…

A minor quibble, Overdog. Texas officially set the record for the overall hottest place in the entire nation this year… ever.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44441386/ns/weather/

I just noticed a notice that over 1.4 million people are off line. No electricity, Nada, zero volts and If it lasts more than 8 hours there will be a hit to the regional economy. Now I’m sure it will pop right back on soon and there will be cries for investigations for who’s fault it is.
It’s funny because today was a new record low price per watt for solar panels. I have reached to point I’m putting my money on the line. I’m getting ready to buy 20, 235w solar panels for a price of $1.60 per watt for $7,520 + $250 SH. That’s 4,700 watts and it will cut my electric bill by over 65%. After adding batteries/inverter/ground mounting I hope to spend less than $14,000 before rebates or tax credits. In 5-6 years they will be paid off and when I have to re-roof my house I can just add more panels till I’m completely off the grid.

Search eBay for “SOLAR SHARP NU-235FB1″

But…. the non-believers wont even admit it has been getting warmer and the ice is melting. Yes, the cause for it is up for debate.

I do like clean air.

BlueStar - dont forget to insulate and make your house “smart” you may be able to cut back 25% just doing that.

“You missed the point of my post.”

“If either is untrue, then we have no worries”

As you did mine. My point is that belief in AGW is irrelevant. We have other, major problems that would be mitigated by changing our behavior, which would also mitigate global warming.

Meanwhile, as the USA economy tanks

An assumption. If we make major investments here in changing energy infrastructure, the economy may improve.

“ramping up their energy usage “

It doesn’t matter if we change unless China and India also do? My father never let me get away with the everyone else is doing it argument. If we develop a better energy solution, they will adopt it.

“cap-trade “>

“I tossed out some basic numbers (including one in error, not yet noted by anyone)”

I don’t care about your numbers.

“And, then, how does one abort life threatening global warming. “

There are a number of technological solutions that have been proposed, either blocking sunlight (like a Krakatoa event) or reflecting sunlight. I am not certain that any of them are called for at this point. But if we are in crisis in 30 years, they may be tried.

There may be events that cause the planet to cool, like a drop in solar output or a major volcanic eruption, but they do not necessarily negate the validity of AGW.

Good for you BlueStar!

(look at those costs people. I told for the the price of a new economy car you can power your house!)

But you’re looking at your payback wrong. Electricity is going to keep going up EVERY YEAR.

Happy to be heard

Me then: “You missed the point of my post.”

“If either is untrue, then we have no worries”

You: As you did mine. My point is that belief in AGW is irrelevant. We have other, major problems that would be mitigated by changing our behavior, which would also mitigate global warming.

Me now: You continue to respond to the wrong post, or show lack of awareness of the thread into which you have asserted yourself. The entire post assumed AGW is real and is threatening. The point of the post is that all proposed solutions cited fail to solve it and that we remained…. DoooOOOOooomed. DOOOOOooooooomed.

Your distraction and admission that whether or not we are doomed, AGW is just a manipulation to try to get us to “live greener” or some such, is telling. But, since for the moment, we are DOOOOOmed by AGW, my initial challenge, which Ahansen embraced to play, was… why are we DooooooOOOOOOmed no matter the solutions proposed to AGW. You still fail to save us from that Doooom.

Me Then: Meanwhile, as the USA economy tanks

You : An assumption. If we make major investments here in changing energy infrastructure, the economy may improve.

No. Rather, one of the core reasons for existence of this blog. No no jobs. Real joblessness at Depresssion levels 19% not 9% as gov’t says, discounting people out of work too long. Overwhelming debt for country. Real incomes not up in a decade. Economy is tanking. Whether it can be saved is a worthwhile question that by no means makes the “tanking” an assumption.

Me then, on Chindia et all: “ramping up their energy usage”

You now It doesn’t matter if we change unless China and India also do? My father never let me get away with the everyone else is doing it argument. If we develop a better energy solution, they will adopt it.

As noted, it indeed does not matter if we change even if Chindia stays the same and it does not matter if we change even as Chindia grossly worsens the posited AGW. By the criteria of the AGW’ers, we will be DoooOOOOooomed, as per my post, even with the best plans per the Greenies, successfully implemented. Still dooomed. Our better energy solutions as claimed by Gore et al., do not prevent the Doooooom.

So, what’s the only Doooooom blocker, if one believes in AGW? That was in the opening post too.

Me then: “cap-trade “

YOU: Now you are talking policy. This is independent of belief in AGW. I think cap and trade is not very good policy. Too complicated. Too susceptible to being gamed.

You now: I don’t care about your numbers.

Me Now; THEN, you are an irrelevancy, chiming in on an issue in which he did not read the terms and fails to understand the game. I pity you.

Me Then: “And, then, how does one abort life threatening global warming. “

You now: There are a number of technological solutions that have been proposed, either blocking sunlight (like a Krakatoa event) or reflecting sunlight. I am not certain that any of them are called for at this point. But if we are in crisis in 30 years, they may be tried.

Per the greenies, we already are in crisis, and science fiction (assuming for moment that AGW is real) is irrelevant. If that solution– and if it is one– is found, then the other stuff proposed by the Greenies is unnecessary. If not, we all are DoooOOOOoomed, so it doesn’t matter. Still the solution is ducked.

You: There may be events that cause the planet to cool, like a drop in solar output or a major volcanic eruption, but they do not necessarily negate the validity of AGW.

Me Now: You did not read the thread, your posts are irrelevant. The validity of AGW certainly is in question, but for the sake of those who care and who believe, AGW’s validity was accepted as a given at the start of this thread. And, given that, we are DoooOOOOoomed. No solution posited by the greenies overcomes the population effect, which– by the numbers you don’t care at all about– give us with 3x current “disastrous” carbon footprint next generation, assuming we do all the solutions the greenies would have us do. Look out melting icebeeerg.

Who said anything about “warming,” Dr. Strawman? At issue here is anthropogenic pollution and its atmospheric effects– both near and long-term.

It stands to reason that any ameliorating efforts that begin with and are mandated by the USA will be followed by its trading partners. (Look to the brouhaha over California’s emission standards for the precedent.) PRC is already far ahead of America in its “clean” technologies, as is most of Europe and SEAsia. Anti Cap’n Trade efforts are spearheaded and financed by American oil interests. That fact alone tells us all we need to know about the “science” behind it.

Whether any of these efforts will make a dent in what is likely an irreversible cascade is debatable. But what is certain is that without these efforts initiated and promulgated by the US, catastrophic climate change is inevitable.

Personally, I’m going with financial disincentive. Your ahem, mileage may vary.

“Dr. Strawman”

That’s Dr. Evil Strawman to you…

—Who said anything about “warming,” —-

Everyone involved in the AGW, until they.. .didn’t. Then it became “climate change”. Go figure. But, AGW does stand for “warming”. IN any case, it offers s till with big bucks for Algore if the “solutions” are implemented.

I will forgive you for using disparaging personal name for me. It reveals you are insecure about your argument. I shall endeavor not to stoop to mutating your name in our dialogue. I do find it interesting how many people on blogs start using crabby names for people with whom they disagree, rather than affording them the same courtesy they would want for themselves.

—At issue here is anthropogenic pollution and its atmospheric effects– both near and long-term.—-

Well, no. This is not a thread on pollution. It is a thread on AGW- which, per those who worry about it- will kill humanity and render our planet uninhabitable, a point which for the sake of argument I accepted in order to initiate this thread strand about why we are doomed- per the tenets of AGW- even if we implement the solutions posited by the green crowd. A thread on “pollution” might have merit, but it would be a different thread. Verily, few people advocate, per se, increasing pollution for its own sake. As with most actuarial discussions, the question then is how much pollution can be tolerated, and what costs are acceptable to minimize. But, again, for another thread.

—It stands to reason that any ameliorating efforts that begin with and are mandated by the USA will be followed by its trading partners.—-

It stands to reason that most claims starting with “it stands to reason” often don’t stand to reason ;)’

But, again, as per my first “bombshell post”, my core assertion here is that *even if* our trading partners follow our plans and *even if* we and they manage a 10-30% per capita decrease in carbon footprint, if one believes in AGW then this merely guarantees that all humanity dies from AGW. That’s the key point that has been skirted.

—PRC is already far ahead of America in its “clean” technologies, as is most of Europe and SEAsia.—

Yes, the same PRC that had to close itself down in order to have clean enough air to host the Olympics. The same PRC frantically building ghost cities (sorry to corrupt this AGW thread with a housing reference). And, again, even if per-energy-use carbon footprint improves a bit, the per-person energy consumption of Chindia stands to staggeringly skyrocket over the next generation. So, China’s energy consumption might quadruple, so that even if 15% cleaner from a carbon standpoint, Chindia will more than triple the carbon print, while *maybe* the USA only increases (yes increases) its carbon footprint by 50% (our population doubles, our print-per-person decreases 20%)

—Anti Cap’n Trade efforts are spearheaded and financed by American oil interests. That fact alone tells us all we need to know about the “science” behind it.—

Well, no. That stoops to, say, dismissing anything said ever by any liberal because he is… gasp… a liberal. Or conservative. Or Jew. Or Christian or… whatever.

Indeed, Gore stands to benefit personally more from Cap and Trade than any single oil executive from “anti cap n trade”, not that this matters if one wishes to examine issues only.

Again, AGW is debatable. But the point of this thread is not to debate it. Again, for sake of argument, I’ve conceded that AGW is real and that it will kill us all. My challenge was… why does it not matter if all the proposed solutions (never mind the personal gain they offer some people) are implemented? And, as has been teased out to some degree, the demographic bomb will trump the savings efforts. Modest cut per person in some countries while their person count doubles? Carbon footprint jumps. And, recall, we already are doomed by AGW, so any worsening only confirms doom. And, Chindia et all will see a skyrocketing of carbon, even if clean steps are implemented, because not only are populations jumping, but energy use per person is jumping due to increased industrialization, as already happened in USA. We are thrice doomed.

—Whether any of these efforts will make a dent in what is likely an irreversible cascade is debatable. But what is certain is that without these efforts initiated and promulgated by the US, catastrophic climate change is inevitable. —

No. This is a hedge. Per AGW we are already doomed if we don’t improve. It is clear that AGW will only worsen- drastically- despite even severe steps as outlined by the USA Green Types– as the per-person carbon footprint still will jump due to industrialization or first-worldization of third world lands, and will jump far more even then as there will be far more people on average making bigger carbon footprint per person despite cut-back steps.

So… my post was not (really wasn’t) a snark post.

What’s the only way to avoid death by AGW for the planet? It should be obvious. At some level just as that other fellow started to use worries about AGW as a tool for other green goals he had, I suspect the AGW is displaced anxiety tied to subconcious realization about the real problem on Earth.

And that is…. ????

I have a fan base!

I feel so… validated.

“…Everyone involved in the AGW, until they.. .didn’t. Then it became “climate change”. Go figure….”

Science is like that, you see. When new data become available, positions get reevaluated and refined.

“Global warming” is your conceit, not mine. I’ve not used the phrase; hence my calling you to account for your hypocritical use of the “strawman” moniker on others. Nonetheless, you raise some valid issues here which no one has adequately addressed.

Allow me?

But not on Ben’s bandwidth. You may contact me offsite at dee vee ess en tee tee at bee enn eye ess dot net, if you wish, and we can continue this discussion. I sense philosophical layers beyond the subject at hand — which I’ll be glad to respond to if you’d like.

Cheers,
a

To the moon,…Alice…to the moon! Ralph Kramden, bus driver

Nope they hid the cannibalization with a GIANT debt bubble. The currtain is now being raised and the formerly middle class and upper middle class and lower end elite are about to find out that the elite have been drinking their milkshake.

“Evildoc”

RNC troll alert.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2011-09-08 16:59:23 ““Evildoc” RNC troll alert.”

It uses mindless ad hominem insult, lacking ability to generate issues-oriented argumentation. It thus invalidates anything it subsequently has to say.

As a great physician once said, “I see the Klingon’s lips move, but no sound emerges”

evil, darlin’,

You’re not like your usual well-reasoned self today. Whatever has lodged itself in your nether cavities, I hereby wish it elsewhere and away from your generally-good-witted person.

BEGONE demon! Fie thee from our evildox!

There now. Feel better. Okay?

Hugs.

You will be disappointed to learn I don’t vote based simply on your wishes and directives. You use mindless ad hominem insults in place of issue-based discussion, which has the effect to trivialize your input. Very disappointing.

Too, it is a bit prideful of you to believe “we” worry too much how “you” think of “our” party, if I must retreat to simplistic jargon such as you offered.

My issue-oriented observation in that the Republicans stand pretty good chance to take the General Election, whichever of current candidates wins nomination.

The current occupant of high office, having had no prior executive experience, and at least superficially demonstrating narcissism which transcends that of the republican candidates, has been a bloody disaster. The opposition candidates might or might not be great, but they have been handed a remarkable opportunity to win, sans greatness, due to the course of the current administration

“evildocs”

Can’t the RNC find a better place to fish for votes?

If I were to guess, I would say that Ben’s blog is getting a little too successful and little too sensible for the R’s comfort zone. The wouldn’t send the paid trolls otherwise. Maybe they’ll click on a few ads while they’re here.

MSNBC and CNN comment boards have already been overrun with them.

Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©:

Can’t the RNC find a better place to fish for votes?

Golly and gee willikers. Is the DNC mad that the RNC also has follower here. That is a pity for certain.

Weird how this RNC guy (I s’pose now I must join, having been so instructed), chats issues, to which others respond with Straw Men

Snort!

I apologize if that came off as an ad hominem insult, or a personal insult.
It was, however, meant to be a direct observation and opinion that the modern day Republican Party has come to be the party of ignorance and theocracy. They are no longer the party of economic conservatism and small reasonable government; they have become the party of christian only corporations. I believe that their core supporters (or at least the ones they pander to) are no longer remotely rational, and their leadership and actions has come to reflect this.
This may not be the makeup of the entire party, or even a majority, however, this is what it looks like from the outside.

“The current occupant of high office, having had no prior executive experience, and at least superficially demonstrating narcissism which transcends that of the republican candidates, has been a bloody disaster.”

You hate him….. no reason to tapdance. Be a man about it.

Now we return at least to a semblance of issue-based discussion. That’s a start.

Yeah, so, people in general are morons. I get it. Said moronitude (sic) manifests with different irrationalities for different groups of the morons. I get that too. Where I start to laugh is when one of the “Yankees better! No! Mets better!” political groups starts to believe the “other side” has monopoly in this arena.

We have the religion of “flood and no dinosaurs” for some. We have the religion of “global warming”, right down to Indulgences and to freedom to practice not as they preach for the High Priests, for others. Never mind mapping these schisms to the ecomony? Entitlements for all? Or Social Darwinism? And, yeah, I have a solid science background and read science journals weekly, but remain unconvinced by AGW. But, that’s a tangent. And, yeah, I read multiple econ blogs daily. No doubt that leaves me in position to save the world.

And, yeah, there are oodles more examples bilaterally. I see little evidence that Prez’s who pander to atheistic elitists hypergreens do better for the country than do Prez’s who cater to those who derive their morality from their understanding of Divine Law. I see media Left see racism at every turn, in those who disagree with the Prez, seriously leading me to see major projection going on.

I invite you to investigate the the psych theory of Backfire Effect, which anyone who posts on a blog should read. The basic notion that most who enter have preconceived notions and that contrary info has the effect of *reinforcing* their preconceived notions, that few enter ambivalent and really wanting to learn, that most want to *seem* right- win the brawl- more than they want actually to *be* right, to know truth, recognizing of course that the process of “knowing truth” is a bumpy path.

Does someone *really* believe tossing “RNC member” as a response to an issues-oriented post with which he disagrees, is likely to convince either his target or casual observers of the merit of his *own* position? Nah. No one could be that foolish, right?

To return to your point, in my view, both parties have to cater to common denominator populations. Sad. But, all else aside, it is far from clear that catering to those who buy into morality derived from Judeo-Christian heritage are doing worse for the country than those who cater to those who want monstrous entitlements and to punish those who create business. Yeah, each Party has way more to it and each of those points (J-C heritage vs Entitlements) can lead to pages of debate. So it goes.

From an econ side, if I must post my own actual beliefs, instead of simply picking at nonsense I see tossed about, I believe our society is suffering from a 40 year failure process. It wasn’t Shrub’s fault. It’s not Oblamer’s fault. To a degree they are bobbers on the tidal wave. Where Obama has alienated many neutrals, has not been his failure to save economy, but has been his incessant complaining the economy was other people’s fault. That too, can give pages of comments.

Well, my thoughtful long response seems to have been eaten by the system or in moderation for length. We shall see if it shows up.

—-“The current occupant of high office, having had no prior executive experience, and at least superficially demonstrating narcissism which transcends that of the republican candidates, has been a bloody disaster.”

You hate him….. no reason to tapdance. Be a man about it.
————

Ahhh, the next step beyond Straw Man and Ad Hominem attack. We call this one The Telepath

How to respond at this level???

Let’s see…

“I know you are but what am I”

“Neener neener”

“Don’t hold back ‘realtor”, you know you really miss Bush”

And so forth.

Gosh, at least Jim switched back to issues oriented discussion. Some of you guys are pretty week. Do research the Backfire Effect.

Fun Stuff

All that writing in an effort to appear agenda-less and you still negatively characterize those you disagree with and use positive language for positions you anchor to. You label us “partisan” and accuse us of attempting to persuade or convince the other side…. and that is precisely what you’re doing. Persuading others is a losers game and you’re still playing it.

Actually, I don’t think he was trying to criticize the attempt at persuasion, just the manner used in the attempt.
And he’s right about that, coming into an internet forum calling people names will not convince anyone to change their view on things. It is, however, fun.

/rest of what NYGoon said seemed about right though.

Of course E-Doc can’t respond because it’s true. He has a burning hatred for O.

“Ahhh, the next step beyond Straw Man and Ad Hominem attack. We call this one The Telepath

How to respond at this level???”

The hell with that, I’m taking it to the NEXT level.

You are now breathing manually.

You are now blinking manually.

Your head itches.

The Final Countdown is playing in your head.

MWHAHAHAHAH

Next, I shall levitate your cat using the power of my mind alone!!

“The current occupant of high office, having had no prior executive experience…”

Do any of them ever?

Term limits, how do they work?

Some goon wrote ——All that writing in an effort to appear agenda-less and you still negatively characterize those you disagree with and use positive language for positions you anchor to. You label us “partisan” and accuse us of attempting to persuade or convince the other side…. and that is precisely what you’re doing. Persuading others is a losers game and you’re still playing it.—–

Evildoc’s Response: Projection is a terrible curse. I’m sorry you suffer for it. I have the most vague recollection that all responses by me of this sort have been prompted by some other critters’ responding to my issues-based posts with retorts of “RNC member and Troll”. Soooooo…. who be da partisan here, matey?

Snort!

Some lying realtor wrote, “Of course E-Doc can’t respond because it’s true. He has a burning hatred for O.”

Hey, I like the Story of O.

I laugh heartily at folks who pretend to read minds, while contributing nothing but mindless ad hominem attacks to what could be an issues-based conversation.

I invite evidence that I hate… anyone.

Snort!

Well, if that’s a real question, the real answer is yes, some of the have prior executive question. Then of course, if I may hand you your next and perhaps stronger question, would be, “does prior executive experience correlate to being a better Prez?”

Of course, then we need to define “better”

And… off we go

Well technically, Grover Cleveland did.

You have a burning hatred for O. Face it.

——Comment by Realtors Are Liars® You have a burning hatred for O. Face it.———-

A. It uses mindless ad hominem insult, lacking ability to generate issues-oriented argumentation. It thus invalidates anything it subsequently has to say.

As a great physician once said, “I see the Klingon’s lips move, but no sound emerges”

B. Snort!

Narcissistic Personality Disorder alert!

More accurately Obama Derangement Syndrome. (now tapdance Waldo)

And that’s the challenge. Having the wrong litmus test, or let’s say, “being simplistic in a complicated world”.

Believing or not in Evolution no doubt raises some political challenges for some followers of politics and for some who wish to play in politics.

Buuut… so too does not believing in secure borders, such that a chunk of entry level jobs no longer are available to citizens with limited skill sets.

Soooo…. vote for a group because (assuming one believes it) it would improve border security, even if some of its members disagree with me as to how humanity came to be here, or vote for the other guys, because over beers I might be happier chatting evolution with them, even as they embrace illegal immigration and trash the country. Which is worse, how to choose how to choose

Thanks evildocs. I can’t tell if I agree with you or not on issues, but I like your style.

And that’s the challenge. Having the wrong litmus test, or let’s say, “being simplistic in a complicated world”.

Believing or not in Evolution no doubt raises some political challenges for some followers of politics and for some who wish to play in politics.

Your demand was that we present documentation that most Republicans don’t much believe in mainstream science- which we did, and I guess that’s why you’re now trying to change the argument into whether belief in science is germane to political judgement. I say yes, as would any reasonable person, for reasons too obvious and tiresome to state, other than to point out that recognizing reality would seem important to any type of judgement.

Next absurd argument?

===present documentation that most Republicans don’t much believe in mainstream science- which we did, and I guess that’s why you’re now trying to change the argument ===

Nonsense. Your gripe was with a single issue, a microcosm. I embrace the macrocosm. Too, given that most of these arguments are used by people to say, “here’s why you should vote for Party X not Party Y”, I simply skip the obfuscation and get to the real issues.

Checkmate

It’s possible to offshore even if you’re not bought off. Offshoring is classic Tragedy of the Commons. The other guy did it, therefore I have to do it too or go out of business. As a corollary, the honest ones who don’t offshore go out of business and disappear, so everyone left is dishonest by definition selection.

The only way to get around it is to pass laws preventing it to everybody.

I agree. Even if the state kills one innocent person, that’s one too many.

No, more like considering the audience. Anyone sitting in that audience likely doesn’t want to admit that it was the black man, and not the golden boy, who got the brown man.

I also do not have a problem with the death penalty. However, I consider it an evil, even if a necessary evil.

When applied, it may be justified, but that doen’t mean that its use was not sad.

I would never applaud its use.

Yeah, there were murders so we killed the murderer!! Woot woot.

IN theory, I am fine with the death penalty. In practice, we keep executing innocent people, especially Texas. They keep finding more and more cases where people have been proven innocent by better forensics, or crooked courts. The death penalty is too final.

“proven innocent by better forensics, or crooked courts. The death penalty is too final.”

Bingo. In theory I can live with the death penalty, provided no innocent person would ever be executed. Don’t know if we could ever get there, given the imperfect and corruptible nature of our system.

IN theory, I am fine with the death penalty. In practice, we keep executing innocent people, especially Texas.

There’s a lot more people killed by repeat murderers than even the grandest claims of people killed by wrongful execution.

Plus, there’s deterrence. We’re expected to believe that incarceration does in fact deter, yet a harsher penalty like the death penalty does not? Absurd.

Bingo. In theory I can live with the death penalty, provided no innocent person would ever be executed.

By that standard, we wouldn’t let people drive, fly in airplanes, build buildings, or go swimming. Or, even incarcerate people. Because innocent people die as a result of all those things.

“There’s a lot more people killed by repeat murderers than even the grandest claims of people killed by wrongful execution.”

And you don’t see any problem with the state being the one that does the executing of an innocent person? It is only a matter of numbers? Never mind that the issue can be solved by not paroling convicted murderers.

The only situation in which I could ever see agreeing with the government excuting someone is if that person proves that even prison is not enough to keep them from killing again. It might be appropriate for a person who cannot be kept from killing even by incarceration in a supermax. But even then I see that as our failing that should be corrected, not really a reason to have the state decide who lives and dies when isolation from the rest of society should be enough for our protection.

“There’s a lot more people killed by repeat murderers than even the grandest claims of people killed by wrongful execution.

Plus, there’s deterrence. We’re expected to believe that incarceration does in fact deter, yet a harsher penalty like the death penalty does not? Absurd.”

All irrelevant. When the state kills an innocent citizen, EVEN ONE, it has lost all moral standing.

“By that standard, we wouldn’t let people drive, fly in airplanes, build buildings, or go swimming. Or, even incarcerate people. Because innocent people die as a result of all those things.”

Those are not done at the hands of the state. Huge difference that should be obvious. And incarceration leads to death? By that measure, so does living. And as I recall, prisoners get free health care.

The only situation in which I could ever see agreeing with the government excuting someone is if that person proves that even prison is not enough to keep them from killing again.

We had a famous case in Maryland where a double-murderer, shackled hand and foot, managed to kill another prisoner, during a bus ride.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-13-124197955_x.htm

All irrelevant. When the state kills an innocent citizen, EVEN ONE, it has lost all moral standing.

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. I disagree.

There is no way to deal with murderers without getting your hands dirty. I prefer to err on the side of safety. And execute them.

It’s the closest thing to justice we can reach; it prevents them from killing again; and it deters as least as surely as the lesser punishment of incarceration.

I think we can all agree that it is better a thousand innocent men be executed rather than let one guilty one escape punishment. Remember, everone is guilty of something. It is what our legal system is founded on.

And you don’t see any problem with the state being the one that does the executing of an innocent person? It is only a matter of numbers?

One has to look at this in context. Putting people in jail already results in the death of innocent people. All the time. It creates a risk, when violent offenders are housed together. That risk is realized.

So, you have one criminal justice policy that definitely results in the death of an innocent person. I see few objecting to that policy.

You have another criminal justice policy, execution, which may result in the death of an innocent person. There are vague, grand claims about innocents executed, but no credible evidence of any innocents executed, since the reintroduction of the death penalty in the 70s.

One can object to the death penalty. But objecting to it on the grounds of the possibility of the innocent executed, and then not objecting to incarceration with its observable high body count, seems to… not be looking at the totality of the issue, only one side.

I think we can all agree that it is better a thousand innocent men be executed rather than let one guilty one escape punishment. Remember, everone is guilty of something. It is what our legal system is founded on.

So it’s better to let 10 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man.

So - how about letting 5 spree killers and 5 serial killers go free, to keep that innocent man out of jail?

It’s all about the cost/benefit.

Bingo. In theory I can live with the death penalty, provided no innocent person would ever be executed. Don’t know if we could ever get there, given the imperfect and corruptible nature of our system.

I think I’ve mentioned this before. I think we need two tiers of guilt. Beyond a reasonable doubt, and beyond all doubt. The second being defined by some combination of witnesses and confessions, and being the only category eligible for the death penalty.

Witnesses and confessions are both notoriously unreliable. And, yes, I am completely serious.

Yeah, I know. There ought to be some threshold that could be legally defined, though. There are probably some cases that would fit even a very stringent definition. And those are the ones people get so upset about when the person is not executed and lives to commit more crimes.

My problem with convicting and executing the innocent is that there is a guilty person loose who is still free to commit mayhem.

I hope every state will eventually decide to abolish the death penalty. Over zealous prosecutors, lying cops and circumstantial evidence have all led to executions and that is shameful.

You’re catching on.

A long trial would have been a GIANT Propaganda gift to Al Queda.

PS What’s to say OBL isn’t in some cave coughing up intelligence as we speek?? Do you have any proof that this is not the case?

measton, there’s the Photo of the Hanging Eyeball, or so I hear. That’s about as good as we’re going to get.

I have shot human-sized animals in the head before. On at least one occasion eyeballs came out of their sockets. Not the grossest thing I’ve ever seen, but enough that I have no desire to see any OBL pictures. I wouldn’t have any way of knowing for sure it was him in the picture anyway.

“Sinister but effective”

What on Gawd’s earth is your objective:

Having your and my kids taught Creationism along side of the (just a) Theory of Evolution?

Having your teenage daughter undergo mandatory vaccination against HPV with a Merck pharmaceutical product (think quid pro quo…)?

Perry will be effective, all right…

—-What on Gawd’s earth is your objective:

Having your and my kids taught Creationism —-

DNC Troll Alert

‘how Texans elects such governers’

It’s the two party system. Chances are, one party’s candidate is going to win. This is because the people are sick of the last bastard. So the nomination process begins and 1 or 2 % of the population actually pick the nominee. That person wins and everybody wonders, how did we end up with that fool?

It works the same way when they migrate up to federal office.

Anyway, every school boy and girl in Texas knows the Governor is a figurehead, and the LT Gov actually runs the state govt.

Getting rid of housing stock will just screw renters even more. Who’s our Austin poster — his rent went up 20%(?) and he had no other choice because all LL’s were raising rent at the same time.

Hey, Ben, thanks, I should have known that, actually.

With all the crap Texans have taken over the years, I’m surprised they’re still standing. A real testimony to the character of the Texan.

Of course, it’s been my experience that where people are at their best, the bastards move in to hold them down.

I’ve lived in Texas many decades, and you give them too much credit.

Mostly, they’re just too damn dumb to know they are being effed over.

As stated, lots of vaccines are manditory and paid for by parents.

The problem with this one was the STD nature of it. The Bible Thumbers in Texas didn’t want to send “mixed signals” to girls. Same as their abstenance only education.

I guess they like lots of teen moms with STDs in Texas.

The problem with this one was the STD nature of it.

Care to back that up?

Perhaps it has to do with the real risk of transmission to classmates. Other mandatory vaccinations are for diseases that are airborne…this one is not, and as such doesn’t exactly pass the same muster for mandatory vaccination.

Do you really claim to know why people objected? Can you back up your statement that people objected due to the “STD nature” of it.

I can. I live here and he’s right.

For more info, search the state newspapers, especially the comments sections on their websites.

The second most important factor of concern is the fatal reaction risk to the vaccine.

“The problem with this one was the STD nature of it. The Bible Thumbers in Texas didn’t want to send “mixed signals” to girls. Same as their abstenance only education.”

The ScriptureSlingers went berserk over this “issue” no different than all their other sex related manufactured nonsense.

It’s the rush of the vaccine Gardasil to market, and the newly discovered side effects. Seizures after the final injection, have been reported as a side effect.”

my step daughter who works in the medical field warned me about this, at the school my younger kids go to they were pushing this but it was not mandatory.

so we said no thanks

“I can’t help but notice the trend of the folks who resort to strawmen and ad hominems.”

Easily eliminated: Keep the RNC trolls off the HBB.

—–Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower© Easily eliminated: Keep the RNC trolls off the HBB.———

Sigh. We’ll have to purge CIBT from the board. Too bad. I like political trolls.

troll. Troll. TROLL. Ooooh, so empowering for him. It can’t think. Just babbles. I like you CIBT

“Easily eliminated: Keep the RNC trolls off the HBB.”

Yeah, it’s terrible living in a country were multiple points of view exist. If only the poor progressives could just rule the airwaves and the blogosphere uninhibited.

Why are these RNC trolls coming out of the woodwork here? I repeat: This is not a political blog. Go pump Cretin Science education on some other blog, pleeze…

Why are these DNC trolls coming out of the woodwork here? I repeat: This is not a political blog. Go pump Cretin Science education on some other blog, pleeze…

Nope, but if I am to be called a Troll after all these years of posting, I would prefer to be called a Libertarian Troll.

Thank you.

I repeat: This is not a political blog. Go pump Cretin Science education on some other blog, pleeze…

PBear, you really need to look in the mirror here. You raise politics day in and day out.

You’re right, the subject of this blog is not politics. However many posters engage in political discussion as it relates to housing and our current economic mess. You are just as guilty as the rest of us. Do you really think you somehow have the moral high ground here such that you can tell others to stop it and go away?

Please, keep your ad hominems to yourself. Labeling anyone with a different point of view is a “RNC troll”? You are so ridiculously closed-minded. Yet here you go on hurling insults at people who are religious (note the crack against mormons above).

You really need to take a long look at your own behavior here before you start criticizing others and trying to chase them off. Sure, you post a lot of articles. Outside of that, you simply stir the pot, call people names, and insult people. Is that really all you’ve got to bring to the table?

Weak.

The bargaining stage?

Just once lets try a bottoms up approach

or we can rasie gas taxes which would start filling the highway trust fund tomorrow and we can put people to work quite quickly repaving and filling potholes….

Fine the crap out of, or put anyone and everyone hiring illegals in jail, and you wouldn’t need a fence.

“Fixed defenses are monuments to man’s stupidity”

George S. Patton

“Fixed defenses are monuments to man’s stupidity”

I know they’re a good way to lose to any player that’s not stupid in the game Starcraft.

In Big Bend National Park, you can simply walk across the mudflats to Mexico in the dry months(assuming your vaccinations are upto date).

Does the fence work when it’s actually still a fence?

I know they’re a good way to lose to any player that’s not stupid in the game Starcraft.

exactly. It’s all about the siege tanks.

In SC1 I like huge herds of hydras. In SC2 I like to turtle and tech and then send out the void rays. I’m not a “real” player, though.

Do the electric fences still work when the Southern part of CA and the Northern part of Mexico lose power due to a monitoring problem in AZ?

Like today??

Nothing like seeing stupidity surrounding me every day, to bring out my natural sarcastic nature.

I agree, but my medical costs so far have been low, as have the ones actually paid for by her, so I think we’re coming out ahead so far.

I’m sure I’ll get good and sick as I get older for them to claw back though.

You’ve completely missed the point, Overdog. The “no free lunch” meme isn’t that one particular person can’t come out ahead. It is that someone, somewhere is paying for it. Your wife’s free lunch is paid for by a drug company because doing so encourages the doc to prescribe more drugs on patent from that company. That increases drug costs which makes private insurance and goverment provided health care more expensive and we all pay for that.

“I’m ahead of the game so far” isn’t an answer.

I think I got that point across with the comment with “The medical industry is seriously messed up” that I made, but that would require you to be able to read, which I guess is a high requirement.

…as viewed from the ivory tower.

The banks are keeping their Fed-funded-at-ZIR powder dry at the moment for the fire sale of the 21st century. At what point will it make sense to purchase banking stock shares to avoid catching a falling knife yet also share in the Fed’s largess?

“STFU!”

Getting a little testy, are we?

I was just trying to point out that there is a $15bn or so transfer effect involved with taking away future interest rate payments from GSE MBS owners and handing it over to underwater homeowners. Whether that is a good or bad thing is someone else’s call. I’m just trying to help publicize the actual public choice involved, in contrast to the propaganda that has been floated about how the cost of the program will be $0 or so.

“…changes in the mortgage business over the time period that the owners held the bonds…”

Like a ‘business decision’ to transfer billions of dollars in wealth from bond owners to home owners, for instance?

Yup. It is an economic change. It is not reimbursable. You can’t sue for it. There is no legal damage.

And I was prevented from making a cell phone call for a few minutes when the earthquake happened and I wanted to call my family and let them know I was fine. So what? The cell phone contract does not guarantee conectivity at all times. If I assume it does, then too bad for me.

“What PB describes is like a run on a bank, versus routine daily withdrawals and deposits.”

I’d go one step further: It is more of a government-sponsored, financially-engineered run on the bank, conducted under the cover of propaganda to sell it as a ‘Free Lunch’ program (i.e. it doesn’t cost anyone a penny).

I prefer honesty about who gets to pay for political giveaways. At any rate, it’s not as though the owners of those MBS don’t understand they would pay for the financially engineered wave of refis.

“…when the earthquake happened…”

Are you making an analogy between stealth financial engineering plans and earthquakes? Hmmmm… now that you mention it, it sort of fits…

Oops, I thought you were talking abut mortgage rates in general. I didn’t know that Obama’s proposals were as specific as 4.375. I thought they were being vague with 6% –> 4%.

Obama’s plan is for people that are upside down, but Fannie and Freddie are already on the hook for the loss, to refi to the same balance but a lower rate.

There are two side effects.

1) No chance the loan could be returned to the bank that originated it.

2) The current MBS holders that are collecting high rates with no principal risk, get paid the outstanding balance but lose the future higher interest they thought they were going to collect virtually risk free.

Government intervention into everything. Deficit spending
up the wazoo. A nanny state where everyone looks to the
government to solve all their problems. A media propaganda
machine that constantly distorts and lies about the truth.And
an education system that has been bastardized by the left.

GIVE him some examples.

Socialism is where the state or the workers control profitable industries so their profits can be equitably shared by the population at large.

What we have under Bush/Obamanomics is the state assuming or guaranteeing the debts of failing industries (TARP, GM, Chrysler, now Solyndra) so that their losses can be shared by the population at large.

So whatever the hell this is, it ain’t socialism.

What do you call the tax system thats been in place for years,
Federal, State and Local; its all about redistibution. That is
socialism.

GIVE an example.

So whatever the hell this is, it ain’t socialism.

Corporate Communist Capitalism©®™ is what it is.

unc, there will always be redistribution. Would you like American redistribution or Somali redistribution?

a

Don’t forget alpha-sloth that the democrats have had control
of both houses of congress for a vast majority of the last
approx. 70 years and republicans just 8 months in the house of the last almost 3 yrs. of “Hope and Change”.

unc, you’re wrong.

Repubs controlled all branches of government from the first day Bush Jr was elected and did so until just 3 years ago.

Repubs once again control the House and the Dems really only had a technical majority anyway, which means they did NOT really “control” anything.

This might help you get a grip on reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congresses

Go to the bottom of the page to “External Links.” The table called “United States Congresses (and years begun)” has the EXACT makeup of each Congress ever convened.

Why is a person who takes food from a program for the needy when they are not in need your friend?

“something tells me that fifty years from now the poor will still vastly outnumber everyone else.”

“You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.” John 12-8

“…but you will not always have me.”

Apparently only half that prediction panned out…

Ha!

Who was it that said “an honest politician is one who stays bought”?

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.

~P.J. O’Rourke

oxide
I liked your post. On things we don’t agree, we can agree not to. I agree that the stinch leans more to the right, so to speak. You’re opinionated but diplomatic. I respect that.

” I believe that 90% of the R’s are bought off, and about 20% of the D’s are truly bought off.”

i “believe” different.

I believe that 90% of the R’s are bought off, and about 20% of the D’s are truly bought off.

Actually that’s not correct. 80 to 90% of republicans would vote the way they have been voting because of their ideology. No reason to buy them off. It’s the democrats who are truly bought off who say one thing but do exactly opposite. And that includes Obama.

Time for another presidential mottocade to a CEO this weekend…..

i “believe” it’s about equal.

just because you agree/support/side with the one doing the buying…doesn’t make it more or less justified.

“i “believe” it’s about equal.”

I agree with michael. Corporations are buying access and they do it where they will get the most bang for their buck. They watch the polls and side with the leader. Where the races are fairly even, they play both sides. It’s a classic hedge strategy.

Blue-
I’m in no rush. My mortality is hitting me hard this year. I can lie to myself all I want, but I’m getting old!

I am getting there too. The best bankruptcy is a well planned bankruptcy. That said, why can’t you make payments on the mortality patches on a 100 year plan? The continued availability of patches might hang in the balance.

Polly -
Thank you for the reply.
With $ for a house (paying cash in So Ca), a stellar 825 FICO, no debt, and sound sleeping, I would only do a Medical BK.

I’m old school. Job loss & medical should be the triggers for personal bk. Living large shouldn’t be (in my way of thinking).

Awaiting, I rather wondered about this. If you have a substantial amount to pay cash, why buy in SoCal? (family reasons?) You sound like a prime candidate for Oil-City-Plan. You could buy something for under $100K in the sticks, find a McJob,* and have several hundred thousand cash cushion.

Something like this:

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/205-Barbe-Ct-Arbuckle-CA-95912/18561279_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-list-address}

1997 3/2 on 0.3 acres in Arbuckle, which is up Route 5 from San Fran. $92K. Forgive me, i don’t know CA at all, this was just a first glance.

————-
*If you’re making 1/6 of your previous income, the pay from a McJob can’t be much lower.

You can have the 1955 tax code (the whole thing, not just the top rates) if I can have 1955 government spending as a percent of GDP.

Deal??

“Deal??”

Sure! As long as we institute a national single-payer health care coverage system to get there. That’s where all the money goes. Fix that, and tax the rich at the average rate of modern American history, and it’s all good. We can be a first-world country again.

Very different demographics in 1955. Much fewer old people, no globalization, energy demands etc.. Can’t compare to today.

It’s not just the 1955 tax code. It’s also pre-outsource (no place to outsource TO) and an economic structure which allowed mom to stay at home with the kids.

I remember in 2000-2001, there were quite a few news stories where parents ran the numbers and concluded that it would make no difference finanially if mom (or sometimes dad) quit and stayed home. It was catching on, until the housing bubble blew up. Suddenly you needed two incomes to afford a house again, and families were put back on the hamster wheel.

Going back to a one-income household structure would almost immediately solve the unemployment problem.

Yes, it’s a fair point that 1955 is not like today. Which is why it’s inane to assume that raising the top tax rate to 1955 levels will produce 1955 levels of prosperity.

I’m fine with the bringing back the pre-Reagan top tax rates as long as we bring back income tax rates across -all- income levels, and bring back the pre-Reagan deductions too.

How about we just stop giving tax breaks to companies for offshoring our jobs?

“I’m fine with the bringing back the pre-Reagan top tax rates as long as we bring back income tax rates across -all- income levels, and bring back the pre-Reagan deductions too.”

Tax lawyer/accountant full employment act of 2012?

To go a step further, Keynesian is economic theory is the only approach that government could rationaly take.
1. Constant surplusses make no sense.
2. Constant deficits will ultimately lead to disaster; we’re just waiting to see which kind of disaster.
3. Trying to budget exactly according to revenue won’t work since government can’t predict what the economy will do. Any success in cutting spending before or during economic downturns will magnify the recession.
4. Budgeting below anticipated revenues with the intent of building reserves makes sense. When a recession happens govt can maintain or strategically increase spending by using reserves. Strategic spending could be an increased rate of infrastructure work or replacing vehicles/equipment or the like.

It is indeed. His name is also all over the Mammal Hall in the Natural History Museum on the Mall (complete with evolution movie).

I gotta wonder how much he gave them. Was it more or less than the $30 million he gave to George Mason U, mostly to the Mercatus Center?

This is from the acknowledgements page of the exhibit that was named for him. No numbers included. Smithsonian might have a place where they thank donors in various ranges. I’ll see if I can find anything another time:

Acknowledgements
The David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins and the Human Origins Initiative of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History are made possible through the generous support of the following individuals and organizations:
David H. Koch

Peter Buck

The National Science Foundation

The Ruth and Vernon Taylor Foundation, Montana

Mr. and Mrs. Jeffery Meyer

Charles E. Dern

Joan and Robert Donner

That’s the official story, but the one that makes sense is that large corporations get to borrow at very low rates, at the expense of people who used to depend on interest earnings on their money to pay living expenses.

Theoretically the low rates were meant to juice the economy like so much Mad Dog 20/20 but that hasn’t worked in a long time.

There are a couple of reasons of pretty obvious reasons for that. Interest rates were already pretty low before the recession started, so the Fed couldn’t push them down much.

The other effect achieved by lowering interest rates in past recession has been to increase housing starts. Of course, that doesn’t work now because there are so many empty houses.

OK, I’ve heard this one several times. Is there some GOP email forward going around that “Obama never had a real job?”

Well - stop tap dancing and TELL US WHAT IS WAS.

Community organizor?
Assistant eidtor of the Law Review?
State senator?

Community organizing is a job, whether you think it is or not.
Law lecturer at U Chicago is a job, lesson plans and grading.
Civil rights attorney… wonder what kind of caseload he had.
Editing is a job, but wasn’t that while he was a student?
Studying for the bar is a job in itself.
If all else fails, Obama is an author and speechwriter — also a job.

Now, if you’re asking the working-class question “does he have a REAL job” like flipping burgers, or stocking boxes, or robosigning foreclosures, or perusing the tax code for loopholes, or killing Iraqis, well, then I guess you win.

The reason Obama didn’t have a job is because he is an entrepreneur. He wrote books and ran for public office rather than working for a corporation or in a public bureaucracy.

Is that bad?

The reason Obama didn’t have a job is because he is an entrepreneur.

Exactly. What he did was write two books and do very well on the sales of those books and spinoff products like the audio versions.

Yes, having a well-known name and a top literary agency certainly helped him, but there’s the other factor. That is the ability to make the money and keep making it.

The entertainment and creative arts worlds are full of people who made it big at one time, and well, then it was all gone. Think the “one-hit wonders” vs. perennial sellers like the Beatles. Of course, an argument could be made that, right before the band broke up, Apple Records was a badly mismanaged free-for-all, but steps were taken to fix that. Read Chris O’Dell’s book, Miss O’Dell, if you want the details.

A lot of other entertainers/creators find themselves in trouble after they signed contracts in which others got most of the money and they didn’t get much, if anything.

Jason Wilber’s song, “Pay Bo Diddley” speaks to this problem. It’s about how Bo was still owed money by Chess Records lo these many years later.

Since Obama is a lawyer, it’s a pretty fair bet that he knows how to work a publishing contract in his favor.

So, it’s not enough to be an entertainer/creator, you also have to be savvy enough to manage your career. For more on this topic, read David Cutler’s Savvy Musician.

That’s not a job. Its a position of power and corruption.

toe?

Ah. sorry, it was buried in your paragraph, NGV and coal. Only if you want to destroy the environment. Then again, maybe it would be better to get the soldiers out of the Middle East and use those resources to make sure that the coal is clean and that NGV doesn’t destroy the environment, and I like my Appalacian Mountains thank you very much. However, I’m still in favor of electric, at least as the source of power in the end-consumer machine (car). Then you can use the coal and NGV in the power plant where it’s easier to contain the pollution, and you can switchover to wind if you want.

The cub was too playful and I was afraid would want to come and investigate. Mama bear was too big and could even out run me in my youth when I ran track. And I vividly remember a fellow HBBer who had a nasty encounter with one. Any one of the previous statements was enough to trigger a hasty retreat.

No meaningful increase in government spending? Of greater importance was the meaningful increase in the gap between revenues and spending. Darn facts indeed!

And of utmost importance is the unwillingness to raise revenue(or save revenue from high growth years) in order to balance the budget.

facts….. tsk tsk.

It was left to the individual to do this “saving”. Now the savings are being called in.

No silly…. Govt.

Not that complex! I was referring back to about 1980, when the someone ran up the credit a little quicker than usual.

I’m not watching him that close, but I think he acts like he’ll have nothing to do with resolving “any of this”.

Supposed to be a speech tonight, so we’ll see what comes of his recent reclusive thoughtfulness.

“Extensions of payroll tax cuts”

We all know the Republicans are against any tax increase, and as they made clear during the possible expiration of the Bush tax cuts, cuts expiring ARE tax increases.

“Tax breaks for businesses

Obama is likely to propose extending the payroll tax cut to employers as a means of boosting hiring.”

Another idea Republicans have been requesting.

Well woopde-friggin do what is that really going to accomplish
when he will also propose some other tax increase that the
net effect will be more job losses and more pain especially on
the people that create the jobs.

For this country’s growing number of non-employer businesses, a payroll tax cut won’t mean fiddly. What we most need are:

1. More customers
2. Health insurance that doesn’t feel like an intrusive procedure. Especially in the paying-for-it.
3. See #1

NOBODY.

Funny how its the “conservatives” here who are calling people “goons” and “thugs”.

…then rail about ad hominem attacks.

Not just victims, but effing hypocrites as well.

And our troll posing as an MD keeps running from his own Obama Derangement Syndrome. MD’s are suppose to heal themselves I thought.

“…troll posing as an MD…”

Probably good old Eddie…

From my perspective evildocs probably has a good 40+ IQ points over Eddie.

“Securities raters provide language in their ratings saying that they are not to be relied upon.”

Then why the heck are their unreliable ratings required or accepted? In my business, if we used the term “the work you pay us to do can not be relied on”, we would have been gone gone gone years ago.

Then why the heck are their unreliable ratings required or accepted? In my business, if we used the term “the work you pay us to do can not be relied on”, we would have been gone gone gone years ago.

Because they’re part of a scam. Marble floors, mahogany desks, blue suits all add to the image of legitimacy.

But they’ve been able to loot amounts of money from the public that would make mobsters sob with envy.

Let me clarify/correct my statement.

The raters provide their opinion letters to the issuer of the securities. In the letter it states basically that their analysis is just what they think of the securities in question and it doesn’t mean that the securities can’t behave very differently than other ones with the same rating. It also states that the opinionis ONLY for the issuer and no one else can rely on it for anything ’cause they aren’t talking to *them.* It is this little bit of language that means that no one else can sue the rating agency. My guess is that the issuer might (emphasis on might) have an action if they could prove the rating agency decided the rating of the security by the “pile of docs at the top of the stairs being hit by a tennis racket and give top ratings to anyone who gets more than three steps down from where they started” and didn’t disclose that this was their method.

They get the rating because despite the language saying you can’t rely on it, purchasers do rely on the ratings believing the rating agencies are experts at assessing the risk. Mostly they are used by the sales guys at the investment banks to get people to buy the stuff. And a number of states have laws requiring certain types of entities (like insurance companies and pension funds) to keep a portion of their assets in “safe investments” that are above a certain rating.

“The holders of the MBS get the interest, but Uncle Sam eats the losses on foreclosures.”

Not if the loan is refinanced.

For some reason, they do not take my calls.

But is the 2.3% is used to fund more medical procedures for more people, increasing demand and revenue… yeah, stfu!

Especially when upto half your current demand already comes from government spending.

Abortion opponents whacked by abortion supporters? Body count of zero, last time I checked.

Not disputing your statements, but more pointing out I think you miss the point. It’s just not just about abortion. It’s about violence being tolerated, regardless of the issue.

“Body count of zero, last time I checked”

Pretty sure it is in the 10s of millions.

Abortion opponents whacked by abortion supporters? Body count of zero, last time I checked.

As one of my non-believing acquaintances likes to say, “Have you ever noticed that there are no atheist suicide bombers?”

“Pretty sure it is in the tens of millions.”

By your definition. That I don’t agree with.

Along with most other Americans.

That’s OK fixer, and I don’t hold it against you. Some things one must grapple with outside the sway of what the majority thinks and find their own answer. Something that most Americans do not do for themselves and cannot respect in others, IMO.

It’s about violence being tolerated, regardless of the issue.

Who it exactly, that you referring to? Who is tolerating violence?

Also, the original article pasted by 2banana specifically says, “No one was hurt”.

Who it exactly, that you referring to? Who is tolerating violence?

The unions and the folks who support them in this instance?

Also, the original article pasted by 2banana specifically says, “No one was hurt”.

I’d argue that violence doesn’t have to be directed at individuals, and when it is, doesn’t always end in casualties. Is flipping over cars and starting fires not “violence”? If I tackle you and pin you to the ground, even if I don’t break a bone or cause you to bleed, is that not a violent act?

Union violence is sanctioned mob violence by a “party”. Case cited of abortion violence is individual crime. Not same thing.

Hoffa et al. Union thugs. Nancy, Dingy Harry and Oblamer call out “right wing rhetoric”. Should look first to their own organized criminals.

Marie Antoinette didn’t get it either.

Trolls don’t care to get it.

Thus, you don’t get it.