The Housing Bubble

That doesn’t stop landlords from raising rents, as many HBB-ers are currently reporting.

True, but generally landlords can’t raise rents beyond affordability as they will end up with vacant units. Supply and demand plays a big factor… i.e. in Boston, landlords can charge higher rates because of the need for College student housing.

Raising rents? HA! Maybe on the coasts. The Denver troll says they’re going up 30% here and that all the buildings are fully rented. NOT!

Raising rents? HA! Maybe on the coasts.

I’m an hour outside of Boston and I have very little means to raise rents beyond where they are currently… vacancies are somewhere around 10% in my area. In Boston or in the better towns within 495, it’s a different story. Buyers complaining of limited inventory and renters complaining of rising rents, with low vacancies.

Mike, it sounds like you have several good reasons to keep the house. It’s not always about the money. As you say - 5% is a good return these days. Not good enough for a long distance rental but you’ll be nearby visiting the folks a lot.

Also - with credit blown you might have a hard time buying another house on retirement. Another good reason to keep the place.

And the old screwing the productive(the young) has been around longer.

I’m baffled by the blue-hairs that seem to want to deny medical insurance to those who have none, yet everyday, these these same uninsured people go to work and fund the blue hairs SS and medicare.

When I go to work and fund SS and medicare I don’t do it voluntarily. If it was voluntary I would opt out because it is an unsustainable ponzi scheme.

I may seem to want to deny coverage in your eyes but not agreeing to pay for another unaffordable, unsustainable, unconstitutional scheme is not the same thing as denying coverage.

And when you opt out of all insurance, you’ll have credibility.

It’s not the blue hairs, it’s the politicians.

And when you opt out of all insurance, you’ll have credibility.

I had coverage for a few years when I was in the Carpenters Union but otherwise I have lived without coverage. I have none today.

There is nothing in the Constitution that specially denies SS or any other form of citizens assistance. In fact, the Constitution’s main underlying theme is the welfare of the people.

RAL-

Not to worry. It’ll switch soon (15 to 20 years). By the year 2030, society will be taking from the elders to pay off massive debts incurred by the young.

Baby Boomers will make sure that today’s 40 somethings will be paying for today’s 20 somethings.

Count on it.

No, it’s not. The underlying theme is freedom for the individual.

+100, Posers.

otherwise I have lived without coverage. I have none today.

Then if you get a major illness or hit by a car you will be a deadbeat with public taxes and other people’s medical insurance hikes paying for you care.

Many see themselves as such rugged individualists in their own eyes….. until they’re whimpering like a baby on a hospital gurney. Then some of them realize it was a lie.

The underlying theme is freedom for the individual.

The underlying theme of the constitution is freedom for the individual and forming a nation that can promote and protect the general welfare of the people.

Freedom does not exclude welfare, a word specifically used in the Constitution, the context of which is “promote the general welfare.

And while not binding because it is in the preamble, it is a statement of the desired result.

Again, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that denies assistance to the citizens. Where do people get this idea?

Freedom does not exclude welfare

“Promote the General Welfare” (definition)

Promote: Further the progress of, support or actively encourage

General: Affecting or concerning all or most

Welfare: The health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group

By definition The Constitution specifically intended to further in progress and support the health of all or most Americans. With 1/3 of Americans having no insurance or junk insurance, this part of the social contract has been broken.

I have none today.

WTF, CharlieTango? At your level of income/assets, aren’t you at all concerned about being one serious health event or car accident away from having no assets again?

I had coverage for a few years when I was in the Carpenters Union but otherwise I have lived without coverage. I have none today.

For all intents and purposes, I’m in the same boat. Got a crappy junk insurance policy from a Goldman Sachs-owned company that’s being sued by the city of Los Angeles.

Sad thing is, this POS policy’s about all I can find. I’m almost 55 and I’m sure that there’s at least one pre-existing condition that would disqualify me from coverage.

As far as I’m concerned, the sooner we get single payer in this country, the better.

I’ve spent most of the last 45 years unable to purchase medical insurance due to a pre-existing condition.

I’m not concerned about that catastrophic event, if it happens it happens. My good friend and neighbor, experienced his catastrophic event recently and he refused treatment. I would likely do the same.

My good friend and neighbor, experienced his catastrophic event recently and he refused treatment.

Yikes. Was that due to it truly being untreatable, or because he was unwilling to deplete his assets to buy a limited amount of time?

Is that a heart condition, btw?

last 45 years unable to purchase medical insurance due to a pre-existing condition.

Wow, that really sucks. I wish we had a decent single-payer system that would take care of your care.

Yikes. Was that due to it truly being untreatable, or because he was unwilling to deplete his assets to buy a limited amount of time?

Bruce sustained major injuries in a car crash when he was young and recently it happened again. He wasn’t willing to loose a leg and go through re-hap. It wasn’t about money but quality of life.

I wish we had a decent single-payer system that would take care of your care.

I would like to be free of this burden but not at the expense of govt provided health care. I have no faith that the govt will do anything but make our health care system worse.

“The underlying theme is freedom for the individual”

That stuff was tacked on to the end and added later.

The main theme of the Constitution is the responsibilities of (and method of choosing) the three branches of government.

“General welfare” is largely a rhetorical flourish.

45 years unable to purchase medical insurance due to a pre-existing condition.

I’m sorry to hear that. California now offers a plan (PCIP) for those with pre-existing conditions. It was part of Obama’s federal Affordable Care Act of 2010. The chances of you choosing to die instead of receiving healthcare you can’t afford are slim. A lot of people live OK even after $200K medical bills. If you get creamed by a car but know you can recover to a decent life after a couple years of recuperation you’re not going to pull your plug. Few people can pull their own plug where the rubber meets the road.

I have no faith that the govt will do anything but make our health care system worse

I have no idea what you base this no faith on other than dogma or propaganda. Canada spends 11% GDP on health-care the USA 18% and Canada has similar or better health-stats but insures everyone. Medicare and the VA all are run cheaper and more efficiently than private insurance.

45 years unable to purchase medical insurance due to a pre-existing condition.

People, this is where America’s health policy is insane. That a tax-paying American cannot get coverage due to a pre-existing condition totally violates ANY social contract that can exist. Think about it: A country sets up a system where it’s population HAS to seek private insurance to get decent healthcare but allows the mandatory private system to deny the product because you NEED the product??? Say whaaaat??!

Are you kidding me? This is INSANE. The foreign tourists I’ve talked to about this in Brazil DO NOT BELIEVE SUCH A SYSTEM IS POSSIBLE! Some think I’m mistaken and one asked me if Americans were BARBARIANS! Maybe the mandate is flawed but at least Obama tried to add some justice to our healthcare. REPEAL!!! REPEAL!!! (and just die FREE)

“General welfare” is largely a rhetorical flourish.

It is not. Unless you think spending the past 200 years and especially the last 80 years improving most American’s lives a rhetorical flourish.

The main theme of the Constitution is the responsibilities of (and method of choosing) the three branches of government.

Main theme? And what was the purpose of the theme? To have a theme? George Washington said to Jefferson, “We need a theme of 3 branches of government so we can have a coherent theme.”? Jefferson: “That’s good because I like themes. The theme of my Declaration of Independence was that a Colonist could write well.” (Just havin’ fun here)
But no. Here follows the purpose of the theme.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

“Here follows the purpose of the theme.”

Once again, …x3 Cheers for Rio!

He wasn’t willing to loose a leg and go through re-hap. It wasn’t about money but quality of life.

Wow. I would choose otherwise myself, but I fully support his right to make this decision for himself.

I would like to be free of this burden but not at the expense of govt provided health care. I have no faith that the govt will do anything but make our health care system worse.

I would like to be free of the burden of knowing I live in a country where people choose not to seek even emergency care because of the financial implications. The interview with the guy in Sicko who lost a few fingers to a table-saw, and couldn’t afford to have them put back on (because he lived in the US) vs the guy in Canada who could and did have them put back on, sickened me.

Sorry, Rio. Laws are laws. The 3/5ths solution wasn’t established to promote the general welfare. Neither is the requirement that the electoral college choose the president with outrageous over-representation by the smallest states by population. They put together a form of government that had never existed before and it has worked fairly well. That is accomplishment enough without attributing some extraordinary meaning to the words they used as an introduction with no legal weight at all. Congress has the power to pass health care because of the commerce clause, not because it “promotes the general welfare.”

No Congress would ever pass a law that they didn’t think (whether self-servingly or not) would promote the general welfare. A restiction on power that can never be violated is no restriction at all. The federal government has restrictions on its powers that would not exist if it really had the power to do anything to promote the general welfare. It was rhetoric. The founding fathers understood the power of it. It was part of the trivium in classical education.

The interview with the guy in Sicko who lost a few fingers to a table-saw, and couldn’t afford to have them put back on (because he lived in the US) vs the guy in Canada who could and did have them put back on, sickened me.

Prime, I get where your heart is, but who’s job is it to work to pay for this? Those that can, because they’re able?

I don’t think there’s a right answer here. I’m always to hear the thought process/debate from folks who aren’t prone to simply reacting on an emotional level.

Sorry, Rio. Laws are laws.

Sorry Polly, but there is much more to life and countries than laws, and laws are passed for reasons other than to simply to have laws.

It’s not

“We the people of the United States, in order to have laws and employ police and lawyers…”

Prime, I get where your heart is, but who’s job is it to work to pay for this? Those that can, because they’re able?

drummin, I appreciate that first comment. And I’m not generally one to think that bigger government is the solution to all of our problems—far from it.

But if you happen to drive by just as a person jumps out of a burning vehicle, and that person goes up in flames, and you have a fire-extinguish readily at hand in your vehicle, do you have a moral obligation to stop and put them out?

Sure, you paid for the extinguish, and of course you would have to bear the financial burden of recharging it…

Ok, I know I’m cherry-picking a fine reductio ad absurdum example, but I do feel that as a society we have some moral obligation to help each other. I do not think this extends to providing extreme or hugely expensive care (no new heart for Cheney!), not to bear all of the costs routine taking care of oneself, but some care.

Knowing where to draw the line is the hard part IMHO…

But I know I’d like that guy to still have his fingers. Accidents do happen…

Knowing where to draw the line is the hard part IMHO…

Agreed. And moral obligations are different from legal ones. I think that’s the big difference.

If I fail to follow through on a moral obligation, I simply get shunned by society and probably feel crappy about myself. If I fail to follow through on a legal one, I end up in jail. I lose my freedom.

I’m not arguing against the moral obligation (honestly, I struggle with this at times. I’m more likely than the average bear to stop and help someone on the side of the road. But I don’t stop every time I know that I could help someone due to the inconvenience to myself). I do have an issue with the legal one, which is what it would be if gov’t stepped in to pay for all of this.

(now commence the unfounded personal attacks from the usual suspects about how selfish I am, unwilling to help others etc. )

Rio-

Perhaps Americans could pay more for general welfare healthcare of its own people if the US government wasn’t subsidizing the development of Brazil’s offshore oil industry.

I don’t see you faulting the U.S. for that. Where’s your furor about major U.S. oil companies doing business in Brazil?

Brazil’s people obviously are quite happy to accept our money in exchange for (according to you) substandard medical care in the USA.

I’m alwayswilling to hear the thought process/debate from folks who aren’t prone to simply reacting on an emotional level.

So watching someone suffering in pain is a “thought process”??? No, pain and suffering is an emotional response and therefore I will continue to respond emotionally.

So watching someone suffering in pain is a “thought process”???

Thank you for providing the counterpoint to what I appreciate in Prime’s response/reaction to things.

(that “whoosh” you heard was what I said going right over your head)

I went without insurance in my 20s, and part of my 30s. My brother went without until he hit 65, and just didn’t go to the doctor. We didn’t cost anyone anything.

I think young people especially should have the freedom to take the risk, but they won’t here pretty soon, unless the Court overturns this thing. They’ll be required by law to buy full-bore insurance they don’t need (statistically) in order to subsidize insurance for older people.

Yes, RIo, there is a lot more to the country than its laws. Lots lots more. But those things don’t get put in the document that is the supreme law of the land and given legal authority.

The Preamble of the Constitution
Judicial relevance

The courts have shown interest in any clues they can find in the Preamble regarding the Constitution’s meaning.[4] Courts have developed several techniques for interpreting the meaning of statutes and these are also used to interpret the Constitution.[5] As a result, the courts have said that interpretive techniques that focus on the exact text of a document[6] should be used in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, so the Preamble provides additional language against which to compare other parts of the Constitution…the Preamble is also useful for these efforts to identify the “spirit” of the Constitution.

Additionally, when interpreting a legal document, courts are usually interested in understanding the document as its authors did and their motivations for creating it;[8] as a result, the courts have cited the Preamble for evidence of the history, intent and meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders.
wikipedia

The 3/5ths solution wasn’t established to promote the general welfare

Of course it was, it promoted the general welfare of white men, who ran the government at that time and who made up the social contract. Social contracts do not have to be egalitarian- as we define it now- to have existed. They just have to be commonly agreed upon by the people who control society- which was once white men. As the country has evolved in its thinking (and with a little help from brute force), we have included women and non-whites into the social contract, which is encapsulated in the Preamble of the Constitution.

Thanks for the productive exchange, drummin. It doesn’t surprise me that you would be the type to render assistance on the side of the road…

And I get the line that you are drawing between moral and legal obligations.

I’m curious: would you say that you believe that moral obligations should never translate into legal obligations? Or are you ok with some legal compulsions to behave morally? Most non-sociopaths consider murder a moral issue, but most societies also make that a legal constraint.

Or are you drawing a line between legal restraint, vs legal compulsion?

Americans could pay more for general welfare healthcare of its own people if the US government wasn’t subsidizing the development of Brazil’s offshore oil industry.

Poser, Are you making that up? America subsidizes nothing when it comes to Brazilian oil. Every dime Chevron, Exon puts in Brazil will return much more than that dime.

The 3/5ths solution wasn’t established to promote the general welfare.

A bit but mostly for the Preamble’s concept of “Insuring domestic tranquility” 1. It was a compromise 2. It reflected the times. We can’t judge it totally by our times.

Neither is the requirement that the electoral college choose the president with outrageous over-representation by the smallest states by population.

The electoral college would fall under “In order to form a more perfect union” It too was a compromise to form a more perfect union but to also be somewhat true to America’s history of states rights. IMO, it was genius.

It was rhetoric

The Preamble stated the reasons why the Constitution was written. The reasons came first as they always do. The Law of the Land came second. Reasons why, and motivations always come before laws. And they always will.

Social contracts do not have to be egalitarian- as we define it now- to have existed. They just have to be commonly agreed upon by the people who control society- which was once white men.

There it is. The Social Contract evolves.

“2) The trickle of new workers coming up the ranks is small compared to the looming tsunami tide of Baby Boomer retirees?”

Incorrect. Gen X & Y FAR outnumber the boomers and both are ALREADY in the workforce, with their offspring already in the pipeline. This is EASILY verified by googling.

The lack of workers is a LIE perpetuated by Wall St. in a long range plan to privatize SS to steal your money to play the Wall St casino.

Forget this at your peril.

The lack of workers is a LIE perpetuated by Wall St. in a long range plan to privatize SS to steal your money to play the Wall St casino.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

I read a blog post recently (can’t remember where) that explained that in Sweden (perhaps one of the other Scandanavian countries) the equivalent of Social Security was paid for out of current collections. No trust fund. No issues with promised amounts being too high. Whatever the government collects is what is distributed according to whatever formula they use. If you are part of a very large retirement “wave” that is supported by a smaller group of workers, you will get less money. If you are part of a baby bust group that is supported by a lot more wokers, you get more. But there is no worry about the system taking on debt and burdening future generations. It simply doesn’t work that way.

Whatever the government collects is what is distributed according to whatever formula they use. If you are part of a very large retirement “wave” that is supported by a smaller group of workers, you will get less money.

This is the way it should be in SocSec and all public pensions IMO.

States giving set amounts based on investment returns that are never “set” does not compute.

Whatever the government collects is what is distributed according to whatever formula they use.

This is the way our system should be structured as well. The promise of a set amount is the root of the problem.

This would be the most sensible “fix” for SS.

Polly-

While I’m fundamentally against government-provided assurance/insurance of any type, what you have described re: Sweden makes a great deal more sense than what we have here. Not only is it a great deal more efficient and cost effective, but it’s also a great deal more ETHICAL(!)
Imagine that.

Here, we have a government that cannot even establish a budget, much less act like it’s on one (which must infuriate you). Lobbyists must hate Sweden.

Your final SS payments ARE determined by how much you contribute during your working life.

Lots of unemployment means you get the bare min.which believe me, is pretty damn bare at less than $900 month right now.

“The promise of a set amount is the root of the problem.”

Maybe that’s why most of y’alls have only 401(K) retirements to look forward to, at best. Defined contributions are “in”; defined benefits are “out.”

Defined contributions are “in”; defined benefits are “out.”

Unfortunately, that is not true for SS…

The rugged individualists will scream about having to pay for health care for others,

I know, and it boggles my mind that so many on the right let propaganda frame the issue in their mind that way because if they have private insurance and don’t get sick, they are “paying for someone else’s health care” already. Their taxes are already “paying for someone else’s health care” already with Medicade and Medicare not to mention higher insurance premiums. How can they not see this?

But alas, you are probably correct in that it’s too pragmatic.

Their auto and homeowners insurance premiums also pay for other people’s misfortunes. Yet you never hear any squawking about that.

Yet you never hear any squawking about that.

There is squaking when it’s related to government mandated auto insurance.

But generally speaking that’s because folks have the freedom of choice. I can choose to defray my risk, or I can choose to assume it all myself. Right now I choose to keep collision insurance on a car with 200k miles on it. I arguably should self-insure, but I get to make the choice, and I get to shop around for prices.

With gov’t mandated insurance, that’s not the case - no choice, and I’m forced to subsidize other’s poor choices with no ability to influence them.

Police, fire, FDLE, FWC, etc.

I guess I’ll need to be a tad more blunt:

Yes, the FED and the BANKS/GOVERNMENT are benefitting from the non-stop printing press and a weak dollar. A weak dollar means gas prices go UP despite supply increases and decreasing demand (which is a boon for a power-mad, screw the masses government). A weak dollar also is advantageous to the stock market.

For the peoples, the scenario sucks. But for the Fed, the Government and the Banks, it’s hugely advantageous.

I recall seeing billboards on the PA turnmpike promoting coal as a green energy.

That came from the same public relations firm that came up with the name “The Patriot Act”.

They are very good but expensive.

coal as a green energy.

But coal is green!

1) Plant TREE.
2) Grow TREE.
3) Chop down TREE and bury it in your back yard.
4) Wait a few million years.
5) Voila! You and the SUN have created GREEN energy! Your own coal in your back yard.

The way Brazil has accomplished this is brilliant.

We should be requiring that all new gasoline-fueled cars are flex-fuel today. That would pave the way to a future where we manage to drive up our production of cellulosic ethanol, or import cheaper ethanol from abroad. (Down with corn-based ethanol!)

Stop putting words in my mouth, Rio. I’m getting rather sick of it.

I have ZERO problem with taxpayer support of the construction of tens of thousands of natural gas filling stations. The USA is loaded with nat gas reserves and should take advantage of it.

The USA also is loaded with oil reserves and should be taking advantage of that as well. Taxpayer money should be going toward construction of refineries.

The USA also should be building nuclear power plants at a rapid clip, especially in the South where it makes most sense economically to do so. Taxpayer money should be used there, too.

Conversely, taxpayer money should NOT be sunk into unions and lobbyist groups to further Obama’s cause, nor should it be used to fund socialized medical care, nor should it be used to bail out irresponsible homeowners and banks.

There. Clear enough?

Now, that said, how come your don’t complain about U.S.A. taxpayer supported (and Obama and Soros supported) subsidization of oil drilling development off the coast of Brazil?

Why should taxpayer being paying for _any_ of those forms of energy development—much less ALL of them??

Energy users should pay for the costs of development in their rates.

Stop putting words in my mouth, Rio. I’m getting rather sick of it.

What words did I put in your mouth? I made a comment on a post.

Ah, the old “The wealthy continue to get wealthier and make up an increasing share of consumer spending, making poor/middle class spending irrelevant”.

I just scanned the article, but got the gist. Thanks for the link…

Gracias! E-mail’s been sent to that address I’ve used for contacting you in the past.

Good for you, Charlie!

“then HOW IS THIS OBAMA’S FAULT??? The blame sits on those past adminstrations.”

To be fair, he did say, “The monetary policy of this and the past administrations is/was to weaken the dollar to “save” the economy”. So, he implied it without actually naming them.

To be fair, he did say, “The monetary policy of this and the past administrations is/was to weaken the dollar to “save” the economy”. So, he implied it without actually naming them.

To be fair he also said:
It’s Obama’s fault, it’s Geithner’s fault and it’s the Bernanke’s fault.

That’s saying, not implying.

“That’s saying, not implying.”

True, but the part I quoted was the implying part.

That’s why Dean Baker’s recent eBook argued that free trade should also apply to highly paid pros like accountants and doctors. If the average Joe and Jane could consult with lower paid doctors in India via telemedicine, imagine the howling that would happen here. The AMA would be weeping crocodile tears all over Capitol Hill.

Then there’s the pharma street gang. Imagine the hue and cry if Americans were able to purchase prescription drugs at the much lower prices charged to citizens of other countries. Now, there’s some free trade that could work for the rest of us, and not just the elites. But the pharma folks would be so charged up that they’d make MS-13 look like wimps.

I am sure that once the market works to benefit the health care industry’s bottom line, they will quickly embrace offshoring. I love the double standard of the “free” market.

Double standards are what this country is all about.

b-hamster, ever hear of “medical tourism?”

I fear the day when my insurance company will say: “we won’t cover that operation unless you take time off work to go to Thailand/India where it’s cheaper.”

And I heard that the moment Obamacare passed, companies in India rang up the insurances companies, offering their cheaper medical record services in order to save on admin and improve the medical loss ratio.

It’s already happening.

True. Your radiologic studies are being interpreted in India– have been for years. Secondary doc-to-doc consultations, too, then billed through US entities.

Billing, reports, transcriptions, records– all outsourced.

Billing, reports, transcriptions, records– all outsourced.

Why hasn’t that driven our costs down, then?

Zimmerman stalked and killed the kid.

That’s one way to consider events that night. Another would be that Zimmerman was attacked by a punk and defended himself from attack… too bad for the punk.

What witnesses say in Trayvon Martin case

“Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin and began walking back to his SUV; Martin approached him, according to the Sentinel account.

Martin asked Zimmerman if he had a problem; Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police.

Martin said, “Well, you do now” or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, Zimmerman said, according to the Sentinel.

Zimmerman said Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head into the sidewalk. The police report described Zimmerman’s back as wet and covered with grass, as though he had been lying on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head, the police report said.

“I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me,” Zimmerman told police.”

Which part of “are you following him”, “Yes I am” from the OFFICIAL 911 tape, did you miss?

soldin04=troll

Which part of “are you following him” cuz he’s got skittles…did you miss?