The Housing Bubble

‘One person’s debt is another person’s money.’

But the people on NPR said it was the BANKS! We bailed them out and I want a free house. Look at how much those CEOs make; it’s inequality, I tell you.

Now the government tells me I have to PAY for health insurance? Have you seen the cars those doctors drive? The profits big pharma makes? You know what, these are the 1%’ers!! No way am I gonna pay these fat cats; they are gonna pay ME!

“One person’s debt is another person’s money.”

So, the [2003] $275,000 home that $old for $693,000 in [2007] and then $uddenly is recon$idered anew value to a [2012] price of $443,00 means that, …
some poor $on-of-a-buck is OWED “right-@-this-very-moment!” the amazing amount of $250,000 $mack-aroo’$

How $hamefull!, but who should help this poor $on-of-a-buck GET his money put back into it’s rightful place: His Wallet! WHO? It’s just not right, he’s OWED that $250,000 and by gawd someone has to PAY!!!!!!!

let’s repeat the que$tion:

“One person’s debt is another person’s money.”

“let’s repeat the question:”

“One person’s debt is another person’s money.”

Question? Is it really a question?

That’s an interesting point that one person’s debt is another person’s money.

Over the July 4th holiday I looked at the Vanguard Mutual Fund website. Some of my retirement money is in a balanced index fund which holds 60% stocks and 40% bonds. The bond component is invested in an underlying Vanguard fund, the Total Bond Market II Index fund. 26.1% of this fund is invested in Government Mortgage backed bonds and another 42.6% of it is invested in Treasuries and Agency bonds. If I’m not mistaken, Agency bonds are issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The individual mortgage loans may be serviced by the likes of JP Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank and their TBTF peers, but the underlying bonds are owned by virtually everyone who has money in a Money Market or a so-called low risk Bond fund.

In a jubilee, the ultimate lender gets stiffed. That goes far beyond the 1% crowd.

“One person’s debt is another person’s money. Jubilee away a debt and somebody’s else’s money gets jubileed right along with it, dollar for dollar.”

Securitization drove a wooden stake through the heart of jubilee.

If I give you $10 for a bucket of wheat to re-sell to someone else for $15, then I anticipate a profit of $5. If by the time I get to market the price has crashed to $7, then I lose $3 if I sell now, and lose all $10 if I refuse to sell until the wheat goes bad.

However, if I borrow $10 to pay you $10 for a bucket of wheat, and the interest means I owe the lender $2 next week, so I have to come up with $12. If by the time I get to market the price has crashed to $7, then if I sell now I’ll get $7, if I pay all that to the lender I still owe the lender $5.

Why should we forgive this debt? The lender, expecting to get $2, may have already made other contracts dependent on that $2.

I think the only debt-forgiveness that should happen ever is if someone has been paying a debt for a long time, the interest is found to be usury, the lender has already re-couped the principle the person borrowed PLUS enough to cover a non-usury interest rate, and the borrower has been unable to afford other basics of life (food, shelter, clothing of a modest kind). And, I don’t think that applies to students and I don’t think that applies to home-borrowers.

IAT

Yes, Debt is ALWAY$ que$tionable.

[I reckon one could ask a in$urance company that had a Titanic $ort of claim going against it.]

“Hey, how much is that $hip worth sitting @ the bottom of the Atlantic?”

If you have a million dollars stuffed in your mattress does that make you a millionaire?

If you take this million dollars out of your mattress and stick into the bank are you still a millionaire?

If the bank promises to pay back to you the million dollars but fails to do so are you a still a millionaire?

If you have a million dollars in gold, and gold price crashes, are you still a millionaire?

“If the bank promises to pay back to you the million dollars but fails to do so are you a still a millionaire?”

The bank does not make a promise to pay you back, … they don’t OWN YOUR million, they are just $toring it for you.

Checking account = $afety Depo$it Box [laughing]

“One person’s debt is another person’s money.”

Careful there. You’re crossing a line…

The entire notion of borrowing for 30 years is a complete fraud and hoax. It exists only to inflate prices by 3X. (Yes…. current resale asking prices are inflated by 2.5 to 3X).

It was a hoax in your grandpa’s time too! Too bad you didn’t figure it out before the bust.

Some of the richest people I know rent. They get paid income. They don’t owe anyone anything.

Their

s/Their/There/

“Their is a fundamental “biological debt” that we all bear.”

This is the part that worries me: The Mad Max/ The Road / Solar Babies / Florida Realtor Bath Salt Zombie scenario. I’m not sure how close we are to crossing this line.

Kunstler always harped on the 3,000 mile salad, but what this tells me is that there is a lot of space for deflating the Ag markets. That is the only solace I find in considering all of this.

I can handle raising my kids without Applebee’s, but I really don’t want to be stabbing people for rice.

I seriously doubt you’d be stabbing people for rice.

This country has a lot of issues and they are real. However, it’s always been absurdly productive and still is rich.

This place tends to have a bias towards the sensational and the melodramatic (not unlike the mass media, I would observe.)

We’ll muddle through. A lot of people will realize that they are not as rich as they thought they were. A lot of older people will not be able to travel to Turkey and Thailand in their old age, and a lot of young people will learn to live in more chastened circumstances.

Hardly the province of fire and brimstone but that’s not what sells these days.

“A lot of older people will not be able to travel to Turkey and Thailand in their old age”

Stop raining on my parade.

“This country has a lot of issues and they are real. However, it’s always been absurdly productive and still is rich.

This place tends to have a bias towards the sensational and the melodramatic (not unlike the mass media, I would observe.)”

Part of the reason I’m here less than I used to be (besides the fact that as of Friday I’m one of those evil FB’s ) is the depression I would get from reading all the doom and gloom. Come here and you do start to think the world is going to end and utter chaos will soon fill the streets. I head to work or to interact with “normal” people and they just don’t see all the signs of the coming apocalypse! It’s just easier to bury my head in the sand like everyone else, and also realize that things are bad, but the world is not ending.

Besides, how bad can it be with people like y’all in the world?

+1, SD. And congrats on your FB status. You’ve waited a long time for this, I hope it turns out to be just what you always wanted.

Weekend topic suggestion: HBB Bloggers who have bought in the last year. Where, why, how, howmuchamonth, and change in value vs. todat.

Weekend topic suggestion: HBB Bloggers who have bought in the last year. Where, why, how, howmuchamonth, and change in value vs. todat.

I love this idea. But RAL might have a seizure…

Interesting question.

My first thought was that I don’t see why they would wait. After all, the FB’s tax situation does not bear directly on the banks.

But then again, there might be some leverage in the situation for the banks. Can they use the threat of having the IRS come after the FB’s to negotiate a more palatable outcome? Perhaps. For example, they might use the threat of a 1099 to get the FB to sign some sort of promissory note on the deficiency…

PIC,

I asked this question the other day.

If I bought at bubble pricing of $600,000 (and borrowed $550,000).

And now have a short sale of $350,000 where is the tax problem?

I understand debt forgiveness income (the 1099) of $200,000. I get that.

But isn’t there also a loss on the sale of the house of $250,000?

While character of income/loss may differ, causing a timing/cash flow problem, isn’t the net result a loss of $50,000 flowing through to the homeowner?

I understand that the $200k of debt forgiveness income may not be offset by the $250k loss (ie. character of income problem), and that the $250k loss may be subject to limitations.

Is that the gist?

And before 2013, there is no debt forgiveness income…right?

Rental Watch, I believe your interpretation is correct for a short-sale; and yes, there shouldn’t really be any taxable income in that case.

My understanding is a bit more vague when it comes to a foreclosure; what is your “sale price” on the disposition of the asset in that case? There isn’t really any obvious number to put on it. I suppose the best approach would be the valuation on the day the transfer of ownership occurred, but no one gets an appraisal on that day. If the bank sold it quickly, that would provide an indication of value; but in many cases they do not.

I also don’t know whether the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, when it removed the tax on the phantom income, also removed your ability to claim the corresponding loss. I don’t believe that it does—or at least, I have never heard that it does. So FB’s essentially have a huge tax windfall, in that they can take the loss but not pay taxes on the associated forgiven debt. Nice.

If commercial property rules extend to residential, then the sale price of a foreclosure is either a) the price at which the home sells at auction, or b) the credit bid (in the case the property becomes REO). Both would be the sales prices.

Oops—Rental Watch, I think I goofed in my answer to you.

Yes, there is a corresponding loss to offset the phantom income. But the problem is that the tax code does not treat them equally.

The phantom income is taxable as _income_. In other words, you pay it at your marginal rate.

The taxable loss on the sale is a _capital_ loss. In other words, you can only deduct it to the extent that you have other capital gains to offset it. You can carry forward the taxable loss to future years, but you can only deduct ~3K/yr (iirc) that is over and above the gains you have in any particular tax year.

So you owe income taxes on the phantom income immediately, and then you might or might not recoup those in future years, depending on your gains and how long you live.

I have fallen into this same class of “tax traps” with other investments in the past…

I understand that the $200k of debt forgiveness income may not be offset by the $250k loss (ie. character of income problem), and that the $250k loss may be subject to limitations.

Yes, you had the gist of it right.

But I think you underestimate the pain for most people of being in this situation. The ~$50K of taxable income would be due immediately, in the TY of sale. The loss may or may not have value to them in the future. Most people couldn’t come up with the $50K.

And before 2013, there is no debt forgiveness income…right?

Correct. The 2007 act addressed the problem, but only through the end of 2012; unless it is extended, some FB’s are going to be in for a world of tax hurt…

Yes, I thought that would be the case, as I noted above, where the $200k of income may not be offset by the $250k loss due to a difference in character of income.

I understand this is the case for other investment activities, but was unsure whether there were special rules related to losses on primary residences.

And now have a short sale of $350,000 where is the tax problem?

much of the phantom income comes from re-fi’s.

but was unsure whether there were special rules related to losses on primary residences.

I don’t know of any special-cases related to losses on primary residences…

PIC: Actually, I think the $50k, is more like $200k of income in my example, with the $250k of capital losses to only come over time (if at all).

And CT, yes, the biggest issue will be with people who bought for $200k 15 years ago, refinanced into a $500k loan, spent the money, and now short sold/foreclosed at $350k. They have debt forgiveness income of $150k right away, and no offset ever.

And if the government wasn’t so generous with the $500k exclusion (why do we have this again?), they would be hit with a tax bill on sale for the cap gains.

I think the three of us probably understand this far better than most people for whom this actually matters.

What do you want to bet the congress extends this bit of legislation? Since any 1099s won’t be issued until the first part of 2014 for income related to transactions starting in 2013, they have plenty of time to “fix” this problem.

Oh, and another thing, you better believe the lenders are still able to realize the loss…great huh, socialize the loss (lack of tax revenue from defaulted borrowers), and privatize the gain (banks still able to take the loss against their profits).

Why would it not be perfectly legal? Assignment of deeds have been done for a long long time. The thing that was questionable was when servicers were initiating foreclosure while MERS still held the rights to do so; they have stopped doing that.

You mean people in power perverted a philosophy just so they could preserve their perks and power? I never knew such a thing could EVER happen.

IAT

I just find it hilarious Gawd’s biggest joke on mankind to have all the major religions fight over the same piece of property

Human folly at its best!

Musta had some good weed that day.

“Musta had some good weed that day.”

Thirty feet down the water temperature off the coast of Beirut is in the eighties, no chit. Can you imagine what the weather is like?

Gawd worked for NAR… Location, location, location.

These have to be the most insane places to live in the summer Ive seen dew points near 90 and heat indexes at 140+

Bandarabass Iran lots of oil refineries…
http://classic.wunderground.com/global/stations/40875.html

Hodeidah, Yemen the moisture of the red sea hitting mountains..and stays there
http://classic.wunderground.com/global/stations/41431.html

kish island:
http://classic.wunderground.com/global/stations/40882.html

———Can you imagine what the weather is like

“I’m not a big fan of hot weather. Sailing in the Persian Gulf on the USS Estocin (FFG-15) during summer in the mid-1980s was a scorching experience. The air temperatures never seem to cool. After each flight in our Kaman SH-2F Seasprite, a ship-based helicopter, it was my responsibility to climb to the top of the helicopter and grease the main and tail rotors. At times it was so hot, the red-colored grease would lose some of its viscosity and came out of the grease gun more like 90 weight oil than waxy jelly. Glimpses of the gulf waters through the tail rotor inspired foolish notions of jumping in to cool off.” –Columnist John Lindsey, SLO Tribune, Sunday, Jul. 08, 2012

If you know anything about Marxism you’ll know that the Soviets violated several tenets of Marxism. Just like if you know anything about Democracy you know that the U.S. violates several tenets of Democracy. Would you really judge the philosophy based on a perversion of it?

I’m not saying everything about Marxism is right. But, palmetto, are you really saying we should close the kindergartens to any kid who can’t pay to go? Are you really saying society is better off if we deny treatment to people with communicable diseases (which means they’ll never come forward, they’ll just go around infecting everyone else)? Do you really think you are better off if your neighbor is starving?

If this is REALLY the view of people around here, I think I’ve fallen into the sociopath convention, masking as concern with housing and fairness.

IAT

‘Would you really judge the philosophy based on a perversion of it?’

Like capitalism?

“palmetto, are you really saying we should close the kindergartens to any kid who can’t pay to go? Are you really saying society is better off if we deny treatment to people with communicable diseases (which means they’ll never come forward, they’ll just go around infecting everyone else)? Do you really think you are better off if your neighbor is starving?”

You know, I just don’t recall where I ever said that. If you can find that post, let me know.

But I WILL say one thing: Nobody owes anyone else their help. Help is something that can and should be given freely, not enforced. Enforced help with no pay is slavery of a sort.

I agree. There is no pure capitalism anywhere on the globe. The capitalist class engages in socialism — as soon as they hit a crisis, they ask (demand) the government (i.e., taxpayers) save them. My question: If even capitalists turn to socialism when they hit the skids, why can’t we devise a system so that everyone is protected, so there’s oh, I don’t know, we might call it . . . yeah, that’s it, a SAFETY NET! We let people do all sorts of things, but we assure no matter how risky the action, no one will end up homeless, starve, or be denied healthcare.

If we want to judge unperverted capitalism, we have to:

1)end all regulation of industry — if your neighborhood has dirty air, its because you refused to send the right market signal to the city ten miles away that has the factories that belch the soot that is giving your kids asthma.

2)end all payments for those who do not work — social security, smocial security, if you can’t work, you either depend on charity, or go crawl into a grave.

Wise people can see where this leads without having to go all the way to this extreme of pure capitalism. But, as they say, experience runs a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.

IAT

IAT writes

Comment by Itsabouttime 2012-07-08 08:56:44 :

palmetto, are you really saying we should close the kindergartens to any kid who can’t pay to go? Are you really saying society is better off if we deny treatment to people with communicable diseases (which means they’ll never come forward, they’ll just go around infecting everyone else)? Do you really think you are better off if your neighbor is starving?

Palmetto responds:

Comment by palmetto 2012-07-08 09:08:29 :

You know, I just don’t recall where I ever said that. If you can find that post, let me know.

So, what does this mean?:

Comment by palmetto 2012-07-08 08:48:49

Yep, really worked out well in the Soviet Union.

Claiming that teaching the young, feeding the hungry, and healing the sick, regardless of their ability to pay, “really worked out well in the Soviet Union” certainly sounds like you are saying we should NOT teach the young, feed the hungry, or heal the sick unless they can pay. If that is not what you meant, then, what is the point of bringing up the Soviet example?

IAT

‘I think I’ve fallen into the sociopath convention’

Well, who got up on their high horse this morning?

‘are you really saying we should close the kindergartens to any kid who can’t pay to go…if we deny treatment to people with communicable diseases…better off if your neighbor is starving’

As far as I know these are things the US govt provides. If they don’t get them, who do you blame? Bill?

I don’t think you are really a Marxist, but I’ll play along. There are more US citizens living in poverty, we are told, than at anytime since the great depression. Funny how the govt can’t fix that. But they can provide an illegal immigrant college grants. They run social security, which is as regressive a tax as there ever was, then they take the money, and among other things, spend more on the military than most nations combined.

The thing about Marxism is it doesn’t work. It drags the economies down to make almost everyone poor. What we have in the US is something else, but the comparisons are valid. Why are we getting poorer? Why are we consuming products made in horrendous labor/environmental conditions? And yes, I would add, why is a median priced house in Flagstaff out of reach for a typical family without taking on a mountain of debt?

Now put that in your Marxist pipe and smoke it.

My question: If even capitalists turn to socialism when they hit the skids, why can’t we devise a system so that everyone is protected, so there’s oh, I don’t know, we might call it . . . yeah, that’s it, a SAFETY NET! We let people do all sorts of things, but we assure no matter how risky the action, no one will end up homeless, starve, or be denied healthcare.

We already have most of it. We already have socialism for rich and decent safety net for the poor masses. It’s the working class and middle class, that are fooked.

“Claiming that teaching the young, feeding the hungry, and healing the sick, regardless of their ability to pay, “really worked out well in the Soviet Union” certainly sounds like you are saying we should NOT teach the young, feed the hungry, or heal the sick unless they can pay. If that is not what you meant, then, what is the point of bringing up the Soviet example?”

If making a sarcastic comment about how that’s not how it worked out in the Soviet Union SOUNDS LIKE the above to you, I can’t help you out, since I’m not trained in ministering to the functionally illiterate.

This all started because BiLA claims Obama is a Marxist. Calling a Marxist just indicates the person either:

1)Does not know anything about what Obama has been pushing;

2)Does not know anything about Marxism, or,

3)Both.

Which of these Obama policies are Marxist:

1)Extend the Bush tax cuts?
2)Bail out the banks with no strings attached?
3)Sign a hot-button health care law that still fails to provide health care for everyone?
4)Overrule his own Environmental Protection Agency and postpone tightened smog regulations?
5)Assassinate Americans overseas without due process?
6)Renew the Patriot Act which expands police powers and undermines oversight?

You can treat “Marxist” as an epithet, like, “jerk” and “idiot” and “a**hole.” But, if you want to have a useful conversation, you have to consider what Marx really said, what the content of Marxism is. And, you have to be able to distinguish what is Marxist and what is done by those who claim to run Marxist governments but isn’t consistent with Marxism.

Above, 1, 2, and 3 are anti-Marxist, they contradict Marxism, in fact, they contradict the core of Marxism. Marx said little on environmentalism, so 4 is unclear, though most contemporary Marxists would say this Obama move also contradicts Marxism. Points 5 and 6 concern what powerful leaders do under every banner of political thought, so it’s not uniquely Marxist. It is still shameful, and enough reason to vote against Obama by itself, whether you are or are not a Marxist. (Unless you want to maintain that Bush was a Marxist because he signed the original Patriot Act).

We shouldn’t have to agree on what policies are wise. But, we’ll get nowhere if we can’t agree on what words signify.

And, by any reasonable or content-focused understanding of the term, OBAMA IS NOT A MARXIST.

IAT

In the middle of this serious discussion on what words mean, you attack me, whom you now seem to suggest you agree with, as illiterate? Why? What’s the point of that? Is this just basic pseudo-leftist circular firing squad behavior?

If you think I’m illiterate, you must be an idiot. If I am writing here, I can’t be illiterate. This reveals how little you understand of the meaning of words.

IAT

…….fascinating exchange.

Jeebus, don’t get your boxers all in a bunch because you didn’t get the sarcasm. That’s not my fault.

First rule of thumb is never take political insults seriously. Obama is not a marxist and Bush was not a hitler. Not long ago we also had a discussion on the meaning of word “Neocon”. Obama is a neocon. Anyone oppose that?

Are you really saying society is better off

Nobody really cares if “society” is better off. Most people are just thinking about how “they” are doing.

However, IAT, let me say that I did take a crappy, cheap shot at you and I apologize for it. You’re not illiterate, and your basic desire to see misery eased in others is a very decent thing.

I guess I was just trying to point out that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I didn’t do a very good job.

Again, I apologize for taking a crappy, cheap shot at you.

‘We shouldn’t have to agree on what policies are wise’

In this system we have, a vote is taken somewhere. But the goals should be easier to reach consensus on. For instance, Marxists didn’t think anyone should be rich (or religious for that matter). Hands up all those who think there should be zero wealthy individuals.

IMO the way our constitution laid it out was pretty good. Protect the individual liberties and rights. Within that, let each state develop a system that suits its citizens as they see fit. The relative success and failure of these state policies are an example the rest are free to emulate or ignore.

One problem with the current arrangement is a very powerful and unaccountable government. The ultimate power; that of being judge jury and executioner has already been seized. One person in this country can now lay waste to entire nations. This concentration of power is incompatible with individual freedom. And because both political parties are in agreement on this ultimate power, eventually, someone will come along and take all our rights. The goal of preventing that from happening should be something we can agree on.

‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’

And viral online videos.

“And viral online videos.”

LOL, ain’ it da trute?

I appreciate your apology palmetto, and apologize for missing the sarcasm.

Ben, I totally agree that the danger we are confronting is a massive concentration of power, unprecedented in human history, and I agree that in the U.S. the Democrats and Republicans are both pursuing this disenfranchising agenda.

I also agree horrible things have been done in the name of every philosophy — Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Marxism, Capitalism, Democracy included.

Our struggle today is to push past the labels and ask ourselves:

What kind of world do we want to live in? and

How do we get there?

Tough questions to answer. But, I think we can agree that the only way we’ll answer them in a manner that furthers liberty and freedom is to focus on the content of claims, not the labels some have ascribed to those claims. Of course, the Dems and Repubs are doing everything they can to prevent us from clearly seeing through their smokescreens of slogans and labels.

IAT

Obama is not a Neocon. A Neocon would be actively supporting Assad in Syria and invading Iran.

New campaign for Romney?

Acts 4:32-37, 5:1-11

And the entire book of Luke. (the ideologues and theologues aren’t going to like it )

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Pay your taxes, says Jesus.

You are taking political insults too seriously.

“You are taking political insults too seriously.”

Unfortunately, it isn’t me that’s taking these political insults too seriously, it is all the people who claim with a straight face that Obamneycare is “socialist.”

Ya know what might genuinely be called “socialist”? A single-payer system like they have in every other industrialized nation. I would support that kind of socialism, just like I support socialized roads, utilities, garbage collection, libraries, and mail delivery, for example.

And a few unaccountable women.

Because I’m stunned at the level of corruption as it relates to GovCorp, housing and power structures, I’ve come to dislike these discussions about socialism/capitalism and other words conveniently used to shutdown conversations. However, I’m compelled to write as we are talking about J.C.

If you interested in history, specifically jewish history, you’ll know that JC came to crush the established religious and governing authorities of that time. It doesn’t matter who they were or who they were oppressing. What matters is whose cause did He champion? It was the poor, the oppressed, widows, orphans, children, the sick. And who did he admonish? The oppressors. Who were they? The powerful, the elite, the moneyed, the advantaged.

You might not like this, and you can attempt to re-engineer through some theological position, but this truth will always remain truth. He cannot be reverse engineered, dissected or boxed in. He and his life transcends all human knowledge and spin.

Spin away boyz……

Ultimately JC’s philosophy is one of humility; a means of placating the powerless so they don’t revolt. Made good sense if you were a Hebrew slave laboring in the Arabian desert 2,000 years ago. Makes good sense if you’re laboring under your political delusions in 21st century CE America.

Turn the other cheek, god-fearing people, and inherit the earth –in which you shall rest eternal.

I’m convinced JC was a cynic.

This guy really is crazier than batsh*t…talk about someone who is drunk on power to the point of having the DTs. He’s fighting some sort of battle long ago with that “free my people” crap.

Beware when people start talking about “justice” for the wrongs of long ago. Justice has NOTHING to do with it. The slaveholders of those days are long dead, but he wants to punish people whose only connection to the long dead slave owners is the color of their skin.

The guy is certifiable.

“The guy is certifiable.”

+1

More than certifiable - he is scary due to the power he holds.

Obama has surrounded himself with left-wing kooks and nuts - which says something about the man.

“he is scary due to the power he holds.”

Tell me about it. There are some major lessons to be learned from Eric Holder.

Maybe we should quarantine everyone who comes into the US.

Short of fortress America, I do not believe you can significantly slow down the spread of infectious disease by controlling immigration.

Easily accessible free clinics would have a better chance of nipping outbreaks in the bud. Even that may not be enough. People who live on the margins because they cannot get it together to hold down regular jobs are notoriously bad at completing a course of treatment even when they are diagnosed.

My support of social programs is self defense.

“Maybe we should quarantine everyone who comes into the US.”

No, just people who are ill with the more dangerous varieties of communicable diseases.

What’s wrong with that? After all, airline passengers who opt not to get a dose of the old glow-in-the-dark have to submit to a good fingering. Even grannies and babies.

“just people who are ill with the more dangerous varieties of communicable diseases.”

How do you know? I could have come back from Costa Rica with malaria or TB or bird flu and not yet have been symptomatic.

“What’s wrong with that?”

Cost. Impact to tourism. I am not saying it should not be done. I don’t think you have really thought about all of the ramifications.

There are risks and costs associated with a strict immigration policy. Policy makers are struggling not just with the political consequences but also with the practical consequences.

“And have a ratio of 99-1 cash supporters of democrats.”

LInk?

Have to call BS on this one, nan. Cops, prison guards, fire fighters, truckers, defense workers give overwhelmingly to Democratic candidates? Puhleeze.

“Cops, prison guards, fire fighters, truckers, defense workers give overwhelmingly to Democratic candidates? ”

Not by choice, but by force of mandatory union dues.