The Housing Bubble

Maybe we can get the Federal Government to subsidize their pay. I mean really “think of the children”!

‘Maybe we can get the Federal Government to subsidize their pay. I mean really “think of the children”!’

Great suggestion!

Or we could go with the Republican-preferred the free market alternative form of music education for our children.

Oh CIBT you are so wrong Menace II Society is a 1993 hood film its the DEMOCRAT solution to the ghetto.

Ill get political the Repub solution is to force black people to speak English…..

Now I’m not much of a classic music buff..ok Brandenburg Concertos
But for the little money involved a few millions not billions we as a society should honor the past music….these people spend their lives perfecting and performing very intricate and complex music.

“Oh CIBT you are so wrong”

About what? That the Republican credo about how the Free Market always delivers a better result might not work 100% of the time?

Read what Olumpus has done, all robots.

there are no jobs, they went….bye, bye….

Well…there are a few new jobs with the robot manufacturer.

Oops. A little under the weather today.

4. Job stasis and lack of mobility for most.

5. Stampede calls for more education to get a better job with no guarantees whatsoever of a job after school.

I don’t understand people who wait that long. After ONE year of no raise, that’s all I need to know and would be making immediate plans to leave.

It might TAKE several years to implement, but I would have started looking the very next year after no raise. FU and goodbye!

Some employers will balk if they see a history of job hopping.

And there are other factors.

For instance, at the current job we get good health insurance and our contribution is relatively low. Many employers, especially the smaller employers, only offer HD plans. Another trend I’m seeing is that you have to pay 100% of the premium for covering dependents.

Well it should have always been like that…YOU work for the company not your family. Same for retirement GM covered a million people…at what cost.. the bankrupting of the company.

OH wait if your family is covered shouldn’t I get FREE pet insurance just to be fair?

Another trend I’m seeing is that you have to pay 100% of the premium for covering dependents.

“Another trend I’m seeing is that you have to pay 100% of the premium for covering dependents.”

“Well it should have always been like that…YOU work for the company not your family.”

Pay and compensation is not based on “should”. It is based on what is required to get someone to take the job.

Talking about “should” in the context of pay and other compensation is like saying we “should” have Mr. Fusion, flying cars, the ability to visit other solar systems, candy crappy unicorns, and the second coming (that would happen if we could just get one more Crusade fired up).

Radio Stations “should” have dj’s instead of going with the no talk, all commercials and music formats.

House prices on that small island/peninsula where EVERYONE wants to live, but few actually can fit, “should” be affordable.

Everyone “should” be able to spend less than they earn, accumulating money.

Pay and compensation is not based on “should”. It is based on what is required to get someone to take the job.

Correct, and since bennies like health insurance are considered part of “compensation” they too are being run through the wringer. So while I’m not getting a raise this year, my health insurance is cheap (my contribution) and is high quality (by today’s low standards).

As for GM covering retired people, that is the compensation they agreed to under the collective bargaining. While agreeing to do that was indeed foolish they nonetheless agreed to it back in the day.

No annual increase in healthcare contributions should be considered a raise. Mine go up every year - sometimes so much so that it offsets the sparse income increase I get.

No annual increase in healthcare contributions should be considered a raise.

I recall reading an article a few years ago the was titled something like “Guess where your raise went?”

OH wait if your family is covered shouldn’t I get FREE pet insurance just to be fair?

Just who do you think is providing my insurance? The government? The tooth fairy?

My insurance isn’t “FREE”. I receive it as part of my compensation package. If you have the skills, we are hiring, btw.

If family coverage is in your package, then why shouldn’t pet insurance be standard for single people with no kids….most have pets.

Because, as Darrell pointed out above, its part of a compensation package intended to attract and retain employees. If they aren’t offering Pet insurance (or free trips to Disneyland) it’s because employees are not demanding or expecting that, whereas if you don’t offer health insurance you’ll have a VERY hard time recruiting highly skilled employees (note: this doesn’t apply to Lucky Ducky jobs).

You should stick to complaining about how “chickie poo” HR girls just can’t see how brilliant you are.

My employer actually does offer pet insurance, although it’s not free.

that would be a useful benefit to me…and it wouldn’t discriminate against those who choose having a pet over having a child..

Total debt 1980: $3.9T
Total debt 1988: $9.4T
141% increase in debt over Reagan’s 8 years.

Obama is a horrid president because everyone is already tapped out, so he can’t get everyone to more than double their debt in 8 years.

A major increase in the rate of expansion of debt will do that to an economy.

He has increased debt by 5.4 trillion in four years not eight even adjusted for inflation a larger amount and has not had any results. Sorry your spin on facts does not work.

“He has increased debt by 5.4 trillion in four years not eight even adjusted for inflation a larger amount and has not had any results. Sorry your spin on facts does not work.”

Not to be disagreeable, but that is not exactly correct.

$5.5T over 8 years is $.7T a year. Adjusting for CPI (225/118) = $1.3T a year.

$38.2T - $34.4T = $3.8T over 3 years (z.1 doesn’t show beyond q1 2012, so I’m using end of Q4 2008 to end of Q4 2011) = $1.3T a year.

So, adjusted for inflation, total debt growth is not larger under Obama that it was under Reagan.

However, that ignores population increase. We really should adjust by both inflation and population… $.7T x (225/118) * 120/80 = So, Reagan’s debt increase of $0.7T, when adjusted for our higher population AND inflation is the equivalent to $2T a year today

Or, even better, is our ability to support that debt based on production… so let’s look at it as % of GDP. 1980, GDP was $2.7T. So, $.7T new debt a year was 26% of GDP. Obama’s $1.3T a year, off a GDP of $15T is 8-9% of GDP.

Because of having to pay interest on the existing debt, the rate of debt growth, as % of existing debt, is a huge factor. Reagan’s increase of $.7T a year, from a starting base of $3.9T is 18% a year increase in outstanding debt. Obama’s $1.3T a year, from a starting base of $34.4T is 4% a year increase.

As for, “has not had any results”, well, we went from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month to adding an average of 100K jobs a month.

Sure, not as good as Reagan, but under Reagan debt was increasing, WAY, WAY WAY faster, when adjusted for the larger economy, than under Obama.

See, this is the kind of retort I’ve been hoping for. This is a debate with hard data to back it up!

If you think debt is evil, then you must think the Reagan is the devil incarnate. He put us on the path. The 4 suck presidents since have just kept us on the path.

Your inflation adjustment goes back to 81 but most of the debt ocurred after 81. Reagan increased the GDP rapidly when the debt was accumulated unlike Obama. The 4% does not count ther first year of the Obama administration but you are counting 81 which is Carter’s budget, I think a president should count the first year but if you are not please at least be consistent. I have no idea where you get the 34 trillion since Obama started with a 11 trillion debt if you count the debt the same way as Reagan.

You are just trying to compare apples to oranges. No, you are just wrong Reagan did not increase the debt way way faster. Obama is the debt king. As far as the economy had we done nothing we would have been better off then we are. Yes, unemployment would have hit a higher level but we would have recovered faster without the policies followed by Obama.

http://www.multpl.com/u-s-federal-deficit-percent/

This site proves my point. It is an inverted scale but you will see while Reagan was running deficits of maybe 5 or 6% of GDP, Obama is closer to 8 or 9% a year. This way inflation and population are already considered. Obama has the worse deficits except for the WWI presidents.

Thus, Obama is getting much less a result than Reagan and sorry Reagan faced a much more difficult situation high inflation and unemployment at the same time. Obama’s administration was calling an end to the recession by the Summer of 2009, the first recovery Summer.

Yes, he did and it’s been proven time after time.

sorry Reagan faced a much more difficult situation high inflation and unemployment at the same time.

No. Google “worst recession since the great depression” and the Recession started under W. Bush comes up 200 to 1 compared to Reagan’s recession.

Reagan also still had industry, a middle-class, manufacturing and a jobs base that the Republican’s supply-side, garbage philosophy had not yet dismantled. On this then still existing base, Reagan had the economic structure to bounce back whereas Obama does not have this luxury.

This current recession is much worse because it is structural as opposed to cyclical. We’ve not had another one of these in most of our lifetimes.

“Your inflation adjustment goes back to 81 but most of the debt ocurred after 81.”

I respect your opinion, and appreciate you engaging me on this. However, wrong. The 118/225 are right from the BLS CPI figures, and correspond with the end of 1988 and 2011

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

I actually inflated from 1988, even though most of the debt was before that…..

“Reagan increased the GDP rapidly when the debt was accumulated unlike Obama.”

And under Reagan, debt increased at a rate of 26% of GDP per year, where as under Obama it is increasing at a rate of 8-9% of GDP.

You get faster GDP growth if you are increasing debt at a rate that is a higher ratio of GDP.

” The 4% does not count ther first year of the Obama administration but you are counting 81 which is Carter’s budget, I think a president should count the first year but if you are not please at least be consistent”

Again, wrong.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/Z1/Current/z1.pdf

I used debt at the end of 1980, since Reagan took office in Jan ‘81, then end of 1988, since he left office in Jan 1989.

Look it up at the link I just provided. You can verify the years on top represent the end of Q4 of the year by looking at the years at the bottom that are broken out by Q. Example, the number for 2006 is the same as Q4 2006. 2007 is the same as Q4 2007….

So, since the “year” numbers are end of year, then:
End of 1980, the month before Reagan took office: $3.9T
End of 1988, the month before he left: $9.4T

I used the same figures for Obama, except only for 3 years since we do not have the numbers for Q4 2012 yet.

“I have no idea where you get the 34 trillion since Obama started with a 11 trillion debt if you count the debt the same way as Reagan.”

TOTAL DEBT!!!! Public, private. National, state and local, household and business. Again, check the z.1 I linked above!

“You are just trying to compare apples to oranges”

Wrong. I used the exact same data points for each.

“No, you are just wrong Reagan did not increase the debt way way faster.”

Yes, yes he did. Whether you count total debt inflated for population and inflation, or as % of GDP, or as % of debt outstanding, Reagan is the grand daddy of turning on the debt machine.

“Obama is the debt king.”

Only if you count federal government debt, not private sector. Bringing it back to my comment, that apparently you didn’t understand. Obama is a suck president because he took office after the private sector was tapped out.

“As far as the economy had we done nothing we would have been better off then we are.”

Greater Depression. That is why BUSH did a stimulus, mailing out checks. That is why BUSH signed and handed out TARP money. That is why BUSH handed the first giant chunk of money to GM and Chrysler.

“Yes, unemployment would have hit a higher level but we would have recovered faster without the policies followed by Obama.”

I’d like to see the hard data proving that!!!!

“Reagan was running deficits of maybe 5 or 6% of GDP, Obama is closer to 8 or 9% a year.”

Right… as I said. Obama is a suck president because he took office AFTER the private sector was tapped out.

You are talking federal government debt. I am talking TOTAL public and private sector debt.

Reagan had the majority of debt flowing into the private sector, businesses and households. Obama took office when businesses and households were tapped out, unable to take on more debt…. Obama is a looooser because he can’t get the private sector to load up on additional debt as Reagan did!

Reagan is the best president because he took office when each household’s share of total debt was under 3x median household income, and he got that up to 4x before he left office.

Obama is a looooser because each household’s share of total debt was already 6.5x median income before he took office, and he hasn’t been able to keep that number skyrocketing.

Reagan put us on the path, and the 4 suck presidents since have stayed the course.

Reagan forced people to add debt? Maybe the private sector just had more confidence. There is two trillion dollars on the sidelines held by the business community just because they have no confidence in Obama. We will go from growing 1.5 to 2% to 2.5% to 3% just by voting Obama out and removing the fear that the private sector has of him.

Rio, Reagan faced both high inflation and high unemployment which until Carter created him most economists thought was almost impossible. See Phillips curve. That combination is worse than Obama faced. He was lucky to have 1.75 a gallon gasoline etc. No inflation threat at all.

Reagan’s energy policies lead to cheaper energy prices again most people thought was impossible at the time, we were suppose to already to have exhausted cheap oil. Obama’s policies have lead to higher prices and that is why we cannot get a recovery going. Every time we start to recover, higher gasoline prices kill the recovery. Had he pushed NGVs it might not have happen.

Reagan sold out America’s regulatory safeguards and looted our financial infrastructure to goose his bottom line and enrich the cronies who put him in office.

President Obama has inherited the end result.

You can bandy numbers all day and night, but the fact remains that Reagan’s creative accountancy ruined our country. (Just ask David Stockman, who tried to warn us and was “taken to the woodshed” for his troubles.)

A direct quote is not a distortion.

He basically says that he’s not convinced the national upturn has happened, but he thinks that once the upturn has occurred (and again, he’s not convinced that it has nationally), it will probably lead to a few years of price increases.

Is there any other interpretation of this phrase that people would like to offer?

I’m simply wondering if he thinks that such dynamics come into play in smaller markets than the entire nation.

” statement applies to Phoenix…” is not a direct quote. Those are YOUR words you’re attributing to him.

What did he say about Phoenix? “Get out now”.

Did you hear that? Robert Shiller said “Get out now” as it relates to Phoenix.

I did not attribute that phrase to Shiller. I asked whether he thinks the same dynamics apply to Phoenix (that once there is established price movement up, they probably will continue for a little while).

And he did not say “get out now”. He said “Maybe get out before too long.”

Stop CHANGING his words.

Here is his quote about getting out:

“SHILLER: He’s right, but you also - maybe not for the long run. Maybe get out before too long.”

Rental Pimp,

Why are you misrepresenting Robert Shiller’s words?

I’ve used direct quotes enough for people to make their own determination of what Prof. Shiller is saying.

So, let’s say a hypothetical, 1000 sqft condo selling for $50K, which is below median income and right about 3x a full time minimum wage job.

What is the magnitude of loss on that, assuming you aren’t buying as an investment, but rather as a place to house your kids, then maybe live in yourself some day, when you get tired of the big yard and having to keep the pool clean?

Would half median annual income be a reasonable bottom for such a place? 3 months of median income?

Or, are you anticipating full blown deflationary spiral causing median income to collapse, rather than just not keep up with inflation?

You’re a serial misrepresenter and liar darryl.

If you were in your 20s or 30s, you probably couldn’t afford to buy in the first place.

Most people in that age group can’t and never could.

FWIW, as a STEM employee, you’ll probably max out your income before you turn 30.

Maybe. If you’ve been at one company very long you can probably still get a raise by changing jobs…

Maybe. As I’ve related before, I’ve received job offers that pay less that my current salary and even more where they only offered to match my current salary. Once you get high enough they won’t just automatically give you 5-10% more to jump. Keeping a lid on labor costs is job #1 at many companies, and you don’t accomplish that by handing our raises.

All I know for sure is I’m making a lot more now than I did at 30.

Debt pretender. I might need it. I have a 14 year old.

“Or will we devolve in feudalistic societies, where the local overlord is a large corporation?”

Devolve? We’re already there.

I meant to the point where we don’t even pretend to have elected representation anymore.

“I meant to the point where we don’t even pretend to have elected representation anymore.”

The pretend elected representatives provide good political cover for the deep-pocket oligarchs running the show.

whats the outcome then ?
Umm… hire more government contractors?

Hey Rental Pimp… Your only two posts today consist of mischaracterizations.

Why is that Pimp?

And what is this mischaracterization? Shiller says that his data (which, by the way is paired sales data, and well respected), shows that home prices in Phoenix are up 14% year-on-year.

Or do you have a different understanding of the English language?

We once used an attorney who quoted Alice in Wonderland when referring to pathological liars who reinterpret contract language to suit their position. That quote was from Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

What do YOU think Shiller’s words mean with respect to prices in the Phoenix market?

If he thinks prices are flat to down in Phoenix, he sure has a funny way of saying it.

And you conveniently misrepresented the truth by leaving out ““Get out before too long”” .

Why are you lying to the public about housing Rental Watch?

You forgot the word “Maybe”.

I was simply addressing the comment that someone can’t find evidence that prices ARE going up. I gave no statement about the future other than up above asking above whether Shiller thinks price increases will go up for a few years in Phoenix now that there is an established move upward (the 14% up he notes).

And buy the way, prices going up for a few years does not mean they go up forever, which means that “Maybe get out before too long” also makes sense in that context.

“by the way” typing bad…

In this case, because he caused the death of 3 people. In fact, he provoked an international incident.

Everyone has the right throw a lit match onto gasoline, but is that the smart thing to do?

Negligence is not free speech. And certainly not creating or aggravating existing problem with entire nations.

The Constitution does give anyone but the government that right.

So are you saying that Michael Moore didn’t create or aggravate existing problems? What problems did he solve with his highly inflammatory statements? Did he create more animosity and derision than good feelings?

Why doesn’t the State Department censure him?

As you said, everyone has the right to throw a lit match onto gasoline, but the question remains whether it is a smart thing to do. Was Moore smart to do what he did? Really? Who gets to decide?

You seem to think that censuring the Iraeli filmmaker is understandable. Reasonable, even.

Why is that? Do you feel that all protestors should be censured? The guy was simply protesting against which he believes unjust.

Who gets to decide which type of protest is just and unjust? The government?

Appeasing Islamists will not work any better than appeasing Hitler. It was an outrage that the initial decision by this administration was to issue an apology for free speech. This country will fund “art” that is a cross in piss but we cannot offend Islam by telling the truth about it? I guess no one should be able to promote abortion rights since it offends people? The lack of consistent beliefs on the left always amazes me. Despite the fact that Islam oppresses woman, kills minority religions members, stones homosexuals to death etc., it all gets ignored since defending Islam is the pc thing to do. The DNC wanted its prayers done by an Iman.

martin luther king should have just kept his mouth shut…don’t want to light that gasoline now do we.

“In this case, because he caused the death of 3 people. In fact, he provoked an international incident.”

I understand what you are saying, but the people who killed those three people are the ones who bombed the embassy. Free speech means you get to rant against a religion even if people of that religion disagree with you. It means you can expose what you feel are truths, even if others disagree with you. Saying we are not allowed to criticize a religion because others might get violent is about as anti-American as you can get.

{But critical thinking plays a part too. Anyone who watches a film on Islam made by Jews needs to understand there may be a bit of bias, racism, and stupidity involved. Anyone who takes a propaganda piece as the complete truth already believes the propaganda.}

“In this case, because he caused the death of 3 people. In fact, he provoked an international incident.”

I’m missing the causality here. How can making a film ’cause’ the death of people around the globe?

Rev. Ike: “No one has a right to be a parasite”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eskhhls0D1w

It was an outrage that the initial decision by this administration was to issue an apology for free speech.

Since you want to make it political, here’s what the Bush administration said after the cartoons of Muhammed were published:

”We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive…

… ”Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images,” which are routinely published in the Arab press, ”as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief.””

The State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, reading the government’s statement on the controversy

I think that Bush II, Carter and Obama are all wrong, particularly on the Middle East. However, this does not sound like an apology issued after Americans have just been killed and to provide an excuse for the attack.

Correction: should say just embassy had just been violated. Attacks that killed Americans I believe occurred after the statement.

this does not sound like an apology issued after Americans have just been killed and to provide an excuse for the attack.

Really? It sounds pretty much the same to me.

it all gets ignored since defending Islam is the pc thing to do.

Cultural relativism gone too far.

Just because someone is a leftist doesn’t make them thoughtful or logical.

I’m embarrassed of my country’s response to this event. As the victim of violence, to apologize to your attackers is appalling. We are being buffaloed into submission, just what the islamists want. What a joke!

The irony of all of this is the fact that the movie calls Islam what it is, just like all other organized religion. The only difference with Islam is the extra helping of violence and today Islam’s followers proved it.

Have the wheels come completely off Obama’s foreign policy wagon or what? How much apologizing will you do? How many stable leaders (despots though, yes) will you sacrifice to the Arab Spring? I guess we’ll find out once they have had a chance to analyze polls and speak to the focus groups.

“I’m embarrassed of my country’s response to this event. As the victim of violence, to apologize to your attackers is appalling. We are being buffaloed into submission, just what the islamists want. What a joke!”

Note that the embassy raid was similar to the Abbottabad raid where OBL was killed, i.e., commando style minus the helicopters.

And masterminding the 9/11 attacks is not similar to being the country where a movie that was critical of Mohammed was produced.

The (terrible, two-year-old) movie was backed and promoted by crackpot “reverend” Terry Jones, who also incited rioting by his staged “burn a Koran” stunt — prompting the “Dude, you have no Queran” guy, Jacob Isom to snatch it away and run off before Jones could set it alight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2-KgBhslBQ

I think you must look at how a religion respounds to criticisms by its own followers.

In America, where we have Constitutional protections of religion and free speech, criticisms tend to be reasonably well tolerated.

Agreed, so why bring up the LDS? A more apt statement would be that you can critique Islam in the USA without running for cover (in the USA). You can critique the LDS anywhere without fear of violent reprisal.

This is very good, Steve. Excellent, in fact.

In the US, the only acceptable criticism of faith is islam and atheism. Any other and you’ll be labeled by the religious fundamentalists and extremists.

OMG, you will be labeled. Not burned to death, not stoned to death, labeled.

Prove it.

Prove what? That people react badly to their religion being criticized no matter who is being critical? You really think no Muslim has ever been killed for questioning Islam?

This film was inflammatory. Probably made worse being a Jewish-made production, but regardless it would have set off fireworks no matter what.

Does that mean we can’t produce anything that upsets anyone else? A little too PC gone bad for my tastes.

“Prove it.”

World
Attacker of Danish ‘Mohammed’ cartoonist sentenced to 10 years in prison
Agence France-Presse | May 2, 2012 10:13 AM ET
More from Agence France-Presse

COPENHAGEN — The Somali man who attacked a Danish cartoonist for caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed will serve 10 years in prison before being expelled from Denmark, the Supreme Court confirmed Wednesday.

“There is no reason to change the 10-year prison sentence,” Denmark’s highest court ruled, stressing that Mohamed Geele, who attacked cartoonist Kurt Westergaard at his home on January 1, 2010 with an axe, was guilty of “attempted terrorism”.

The court also confirmed that once he has served his sentence the now 30-year-old Somali citizen would be expelled from Denmark and banned from ever returning.
…

Here is a conundrum:

America respects all faiths, even those that require their adherents to kill anybody who dares to ridicule their faith.

Thats my point CIBT we have no guts to fight a religious jihad…

Be careful here, folks. Past actions do not constitute “proof” of current-day or future-day actions.

Or, are we living in a Minority Report world where you are convicted in advance of predicted future activity?

“Thats my point CIBT we have no guts to fight a religious jihad…”

The problem DJ is that if the government can wage a “jihad” against one religion it can do that with any religion (or group of people), including yours.

Plus waging a “holy war (Jihad) implies that we are not a pluralistic society. So if we are to wage a crusade against Islam, are you willing to join the “state church”?

Does that mean we can’t produce anything that upsets anyone else? A little too PC gone bad for my tastes.

Viva Pussy Riot!

“Thats my point CIBT we have no guts to fight a religious jihad”

What business is it of the US government to wage a religious jihad? By our Constitution, our government is required to be nuetral on religion.

Guts is irrelevant.

Happy Colo….we aim at the wrong targets.

Let them take over the embassy kill our people, big deal…we dont want to upset anyone …. They have been begging us to fight a jihad since 1967 0r 1973

The Yom Kippur War Egyptian and Syrian forces crossed ceasefire lines to enter the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights respectively, which had been captured and occupied since the 1967 Six-Day War.

“The Yom Kippur War Egyptian and Syrian forces crossed ceasefire lines to enter the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights respectively, which had been captured and occupied since the 1967 Six-Day War.”

How is that an invitation for the US to go to war with “Islam”? Seriously. I used to work with a guy who was a tank commander in Sinai in ‘73. After the war, he left Israel for a while to travel with some of his buddies. They went to Turkey.

Polly its always been about my gawd is better then your gawd so convert or i’ll kill you…

nothing professional, nothing intelligent, no one is right or wrong its just a bunch of rednecks in a trailer park having a pissssing contest after a couple of six packs….

“What business is it of the US government to wage a religious jihad?”

Exactly, DJ is inadvertently asking for the US to become a theocracy. If that happens, how will he feel about joining the state church, at the risk of being labelled an infidel if he doesn’t.

And bombing Mosques won’t solve the problem. Those killed will be instantly replaced by even angrier and even more militant Imams.

I cant see that happening here …way too many its all about da benjaminz type gansta criminals to fight back..plus hundreds of millions of guns…we’d have to kill 1/2 the population of America just to even think of it.

how will he feel about joining the state church, at the risk of being labelled an infidel if he doesn’t.

Our rights do not extend to other countries and never have.

You have all the right in the world to criticize anyone and anything… while you are in this country. You still do not the right to not expect a response.

But, you do NOT have that right in other countries.

And attacking other religions is seriously stupid not matter what. This was not a critique, but DELIBERATE provocation. Provocation NEVER was and never is protected free speech.

If that’s too fine a point for some of you to understand, then you just proven yourself hypocrites. See how that works?

Telling the truth about a religion is a provocation and even if it was not the truth it would not be protected? You have attacked religious right as much as anyone on the board. Your attacks are not protected by the first amendment? Sorry you understand nothing about the constitution if you don’t understand the very purpose of the first amendment was to protect the making of that type of movie, it is very political speech and completely protected.

So, do you agree that Obama slamming Catholics is okay?

Obama is not Catholic, yet he attacks them. And not all Catholics live in the United States. I guess that means that an offended Roman Catholic in Mexico can go to our embassy in Mexico City and kill Americans. Right?

Apparently, you believe in cherry-picked responses to legal and ethical questions. I don’t. I believe that rights held by one individual should be held by all individuals. Whether I like it or not.

I do not believe that murdering others is a justifiable response to being offended. Nor do I think censuring people is justified.

Whether its a provocation is immaterial.

Michael Moore provoked me (I don’t believe in the religion of The State). According to you, it is therefore okay for me to murder the guy. He did, afterall, create provocative speech and as you say, that is not protected free speech under Constitutional law.

You relativists play a dangerous game, turkey. It can lead to war.

So, do you agree that Obama slamming Catholics is okay?

Uh … how did he do that? Or are you referring to the mandatory birth control coverage that para-church organizations (like colleges and hospitals) must provide in their health care benefits?

I didn’t watch the conventions, but one thing that I Iater heard about and looked into was the whole “Nuns on a bus” thing.

To my immense surprise the DNC allowed a Catholic Sister (she doesn’t live in a cloister, so she technically isn’t a “nun”) to speak about the Ryan budget and even mention the church’s pro life stance. That doesn’t seem like attacking Catholics to me.

Here is a conundrum:

America respects all faiths, even those that require their adherents to kill anybody who dares to ridicule their faith.

It’s a tough one, but black and white only exists on paper. And in the minds of simpletons.

I support the KKK’s right to march (even though I abhor them) as well as people’s to get out there and protest against them.

“I support the KKK’s right to march (even though I abhor them) as well as people’s to get out there and protest against them.”

Agreed. When either side gets violent, that is a completely different thing.

“America respects all faiths, even those that require their adherents to kill anybody who dares to ridicule their faith.”

Respecting the faith is one thing. Killing is a whole different thing. Nobody has the right to kill someone who offends them.

You, nor anyone, has the right to decide how other people choose to live their lives in other countries, only the right to protect yourself from any of their DIRECT actions that may cause you harm.

Preemptive strikes and provocations were NEVER sanctioned by the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or the Founding Fathers.

It doesn’t get any less “relativist” than that.

Comment by sfrenter
2012-09-12 11:42:58
I support the KKK’s right to march (even though I abhor them)

———————————————-

Why do you support a terrorist group?

Are you a terrorist?

Why do you support a terrorist group?

Are you a terrorist?

I do not support any group’s right to hurt another. But I do support their right to free speech.

I will march every year in the Gay Parade, and sneer and be irritated when I pass the fundamentalists condemning me as I march by, but I would never vote to pass a law that does not allow them to stand there with their obnoxious signs.

Yes, this is a difficult concept for some to understand.

But if a law passes that bans the holding of obnoxious anti-gay signs at the Gay Pride Parade, there will soon be another vote for a law that makes it illegal for me to march in that very same parade with my sign proclaiming how happy I am to be gay.

Supporting the right of a group to engage in an activity that is protected in the Constitution (speech and assembly) is not the same as supporting that group’s illegal activities.

I will march every year in the Gay Parade, and sneer and be irritated when I pass the fundamentalists condemning me as I march by,

Rio de Janeiro:
The biggest Gay Parade in the world is about 4 blocks from my house. They say 2 million people watch it or are in it. I watched it once and it was a hoot.

I walked through the crowd for about a half a mile and I did not see any protest signs condemning anyone. (I did see a bunch of wild stuff and about 100 guys with coolers selling $1.50 cans of cold beer.)

So aim at the mosques the mullahs and leave the military and ordinary people of of it…

Dj, I haven’s said it for a while and it seems overdue.

You are an idiot.

The ordinary people go to the mosques. You can’t attack a nation’s churches and say that you are only attacking their religion, not the people.

I never found a god who was worthy enough for me to hang out with.

The ordinary people go to the mosques. You can’t attack a nation’s churches and say that you are only attacking their religion, not the people

Exactly. Talk about pouring gasoline on a fire!

DJ, just stick to complaining about chickie poo HR girls and how they only hire morons.

Is there a registered Protestors, Inc., entity as well?

Please, oh please, say yes. With sugar on top.

I so badly want to contribute to an organization that gets to decide which protests are legimate and which not. If those decisions are made according to my political and religious beliefs, all the better.

AND - if that organization gets to censure protests I find disagreeable, I’ll quadruple my contribution.

The internet is a Pandora’s box. It held great promise but we can see it maybe too dangerous if operated strictly based on free market rules.
People who have studied this since the 90s’ knew this was going to happen.
Time for Internet Version 2.1

Every country gets walled off. Their own IP space, DNS, no connections to the outside. This will eventually require biometric log on so everything is traceable & can be quarantined if needed.

Information is like a life force, a DNA if you will, so it will not be contained indefinitely but this does not mean nations won’t act to protect their own interest.

*Electronic commerce will continue through a international alliance of Central Banks.

I have not argued for U.S. intervention in Syria. The only place that I would have supported intervention was when in Iran when the people wanted to get rid of the Islamic govt which is our enemy and they would have had a secular government. Interestingly, the only revolution not supported by Obama.

No Ben, the world is not a game. It is deadly serious and sometimes you need to support allies that do not hold our values. During WWII we supported Stalin a brutal dictator that had killed tens of millions of his own people. Recent reports demonstrates that we covered up that when he invaded Poland in an alliance with Germany, he executed many prisoners. Was it right? Think so.

Does a policy of self interest work? Yes, Reagan, Bush II and Clinton all followed a policy of supporting our allies in the Middle East even when they did things not in accordance with American values, particularly fighting democracy.

Carter, Bush II and Obama all tried to support democracy in the Middle East. Not hard to pick the successful presidencies from the failures.

Exactly. The British Empire thought they were untouchable at one time as well.

‘Does a policy of self interest work?’

For some, until the money runs out. I’m sure Halliburton thinks it’s fine. And Chevron, etc. But let’s even put aside the moral/legal questions. The Spanish, British, Greeks and Romans pursued these tactics, but in a way that brought them a certain amount of wealth from their colonies. They still lost the empires under the weight of it all.

The way the US does it, oil companies and military suppliers make money, but the government gets deeper into debt. How does borrowing huge amounts of money from China to pay for all this support our self interest?

As I said the other day, it’s becoming a moot point. We’ve gone down the road you prefer for decades and probably won’t ever pay off what we owe. Someday it’ll fall apart.

Your story proves what? Reagan pushed for freedom in an area where they were prepared for it, Europe. He did not push for it in the Middle east. Bush II can say he is just promoting the Reagan policy but he was not.

I seem to recall some failed Reagan incursions into Lebanon. Remember the bomb attack on the US barracks?

Yes, Iran backed attack thanks to Carter. However, he was not naive enough to try democracy in the Moslem countries. Lebanon with its large christian population had a chance and actually did have democratic institutions but when he saw he could not do it, he cut his losses. Eisenhower did a similar operation and it worked because the Christian population as a percentage of overall population was larger.

Your example does not disprove my basic argument it confirms it. Islam and democracy does not work. The religion itself is the blame.

If this weren’t the HBB, I’d tear your BS lies to shreds.

Yes, Iran backed attack thanks to Carter.

LOL. So even the Marine barracks attack under Reagan was Carter’s fault?

It must be comforting to be able to convince yourself of anything.

“Your example does not disprove my basic argument it confirms it. Islam and democracy does not work.”

My point was that the attempt to establish democracy in Islamic countries has been bipartisan and long-term.

From the WaPo article posted above:

The nations of the Middle East, he said, are no less entitled to freedom from “despotism” than all the nations liberated in the past. He congratulated the Islamic nations he believes are making at least some progress towards democracy, mentioning Bahrain, Oman, Morocco, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait and Yemen. And he praised the governments of Egypt, which said “should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East,” and Saudi Arabia, which he said is “taking first steps toward reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections.”

Bush also said “the demand for democracy is strong and broad” in Iran, adding, “The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy.”

Have you forgotten Iran Air flight 655 and the USS Viscennes? How about all of the sinkings, shootings down of, and civilian bombings that killed Ghadaffi’s baby daughter? (Thanks, Ronnie.)

Tribalists take that whole Code of Hammurabi thing pretty seriously….

Shummah awilum awilam ubbirma, nertam elishu iddima, la uktinshu, mubirshu, iddak.

(If a man accuses another man and brings against him a charge of muder, but does not convict him, his accuser will be executed.)

Tribalists are not interested in justice.

Au contraire, Stevo. It’s a primal motivation — right after revenge.

Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. Think about where Christianity was 600 to 800 years ago. Hint: Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. Hopefully Islam will grow out of its violent adolescence as well.

Better yet, let’s hope all religions that worship invisible “deities” disappear.

Looks more like $425 million to me.

http://www.cerealfacts.org/media/Marketing_Rankings/Advertising_Spending.pdf

Military, former military, children or spouses or widow/widowers of the same. I think that your eligible parent or spouse had to actually join for you to be able to join.

Check here:

https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/why_choose_usaa_main?wa_ref=pub_global_usaaandu

There is a section for “other individuals” which says this:
USAA’s investment products, most checking and savings products, credit cards, life insurance, and shopping and discounts are available to other individuals.

So, I’d check it out even if you don’t fall under the other categories. Maybe you can just use the bank. The bill pay system is excellent. And they reimburse for up to $15 of other banks’ ATM charges per month.

Military, former military, children or spouses or widow/widowers of the same. I think that your eligible parent or spouse had to actually join for you to be able to join.

My father was in the Naval Reserve and Merchant Marine. I wonder if that counts.

Navy should count. I don’t think Merchant Marine does. If you can get him to join, then you can to and can get their insurance too. Call them. Tomorrow. Actually, I think they are open in the early evening. Call now. They might be able to give you a quote on your home owners insurance. As far as I can tell, the people on the other end of the line are in the US.

Does National Guard count?

I think so. Just call them. Best trained customer service people I have ever encountered.

Story: I checked my accounts on-line once and saw a check that didn’t belong. Looked at the image of the check (you can see it right there) and could easily see that the gentleman who deposited it put my account number on it. I called USAA. Explained the problem. Within moments there were two people on the line fixing the problem. They requested that I stay on the line as that was the only way they were able to fix the problem without written permission. When they were done, they explained that the member number of the person who deposited the check was same as my account number and he had written that number on his check for deposit. Whole thing was fixed properly in about 20 minutes. A little inconvenient for me to stay on the phone, but to make sure an 80 something WWII vet (almost certainly given how low his member number was) didn’t get stuck bouncing a check, more than worth it.

That is what dealing with USAA is like. No getting transferred all over heck and creation. No being required to fax them 12 forms. No paperwork getting lost. No trying to explain to someone who can’t speak English that I didn’t want to keep another person’s money. Just fixed.

Oh, and if you want to use bill pay to send a check to a person who doesn’t accept electronic payments from USAA? You can use the same on-line bill pay system you do for the ones that do accept it electronically. They will mail out a paper check for you.

Let’s hope not.

Yet if you believe in a cyclical nature of macro-level sociology (as I do), you realize we’re ripe for a major, violent global conflagration within the next 10 years.

Scientists believe in cyclical natural events, such as earthquake and hurricane frequency. I believe in the cyclical trend of natural occurrences, too.

Yet if you believe in a cyclical nature of macro-level sociology (as I do), you realize we’re ripe for a major, violent global conflagration within the next 10 years.

And this time many of the “players” will have nukes.

Maybe this is why we haven’t encountered any extraterrestrials. Perhaps the natural order of things is that as the beasties become too clever, regardless of planet, they end up nuking themselves into oblivion before traveling to the stars.

Didn’t Carl Sagan work on a calculation to try to predict the likelihood of there being another technologically advanced civilization to find in the universe (maybe he was concentrating on our gallaxy)? Or perhaps a group of cosmologists? Anyway, I recall the biggest controversy with the results was when they factored in whether the civilization would survive the development of nukes. People had a pretty good handle on how to establish ranges (admittedly wide ranges) of how likely it was that a planet could get water, would be located in the “life zone” around a star, whether amino acids would form, whether self-replication could get going, etc. But they had no idea how to figure out if a civilization would blow itself to bits on going nuclear.

But they had no idea how to figure out if a civilization would blow itself to bits on going nuclear.

Well, I can’t speak for potential extra terrestrials, but here on Earth I really doubt that nukes will ever be eradicated, so I suppose that it’s only a matter of time until they are used again in a war, except that next time more that one side will have them. And the ones around today are far more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In other words, we lucked out the first time they were used (well, except for the people in Japan, of course). Round 2 will be far deadlier.

Maybe I should visit New York or Washington while they’re still there.

Polly….why do you think we are the only people in the universe?

The gawds of the bible are nothing more then glorified Capt Kirks…populating similar planets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_of_the_Gods

As I said, Dj. You are an idiot.

awww shucks dang but people think i’m a cute idiot.

Their future will look a lot less like Galt Gulch and more like “Master Blaster run Bartertown!” than they expect LOL…

“Hell Comes to Frogtown”

And my other bad movie favorite “Cherry 2000″

And lets not forget the entire “Escape From…” series.

Francis Fukuyama introduced and answered questions after a free showing of Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior last night in DC.

Very cool.

Turkey we finally agree on something I have Cherry 2000 on my DVR when I want to watch bad sci fi. Las vegas never looked better.

Whose your Daddy?

I’m sure he did. But among other problems those fortunate enough to enjoy an NFL career face, they are unlikely to earn in retirement at anywhere near the rate they earned during their active careers. And I am guessing the spending habits they develop during their years on the field go away more slowly than their active career incomes.

I suppose it is possible that he did pissed it all away.

“The estate may need to bring cash to closing if the house is upside down… or, they may convince the lender to allow a short sale - I do wonder if lenders are usually more or less inclined to work with an estate than an (alive) individual.”

But only if the estate has any cash. If the person dies broke there’s no blood out of that turnip. Personally, if the estate is broke and the house is underwater I’d walk away as executrix.

In this case however, I doubt the estate was broke (retirement accounts if nothing else) and I’d also guess there’s a good chance he paid cash for the house.

“Why use the MID to save 20% on interest payments when you can buy cash and save 100% on interest payments?”

Classic error of financial analysis: Ignoring the value of liquidity.

Your financial advisers can’t make commissions on managing the money if you use it to buy a house for cash instead of letting them invest it for you for fees and kick backs.

Oxy, it’s not about the money. It’s about the game.

Your financial advisers can’t make commissions on managing the money if you use it to buy a house for cash instead of letting them invest it for you for fees and kick backs.

Polly, you’re so smart! Really. It just comes down to the fact that one must always make the final decision. Everyone has an agenda (mostly, to get paid). And your statement is so profound. Thank you for the wisdom (and insight) you post, daily!

My single, healthy, 27-year-old son pays $207/month out of pocket for a policy that covers absolutely nothing;

USA. Free-markets baby! Sign me up!

The main benefit of a policy like that is the negotiated price for treatment - in other words, not paying the rack rate. When I had my outpatient knee surgery, the rack rate was close to $16K. I paid $600 or so ($300 deductible which I hadn’t met yet that year and $300 of co-pays), but the negotiated price was in the vicinity of $2000 (excluding the original diagnosis and MRI).

And they might see you for a catastrophe which allows you to get basic care and then declare bankruptcy on the co-pay if you are completely broke.

IL

What part of IL? Cook? DuPage? Will? McHenry? What city?

You’d be surprised how different medical insurance costs can be across counties, even within the same state. Check Rockford and compare to your town, using the same insurer in both locations. You may see a massive difference.

Then check Indiana. Anywhere in Indiana.

Sometimes I think that everyone believes insurance rates to be the same everywhere in the United States. They aren’t.

“You’d be surprised how different medical insurance costs can be across counties, even within the same state.”

Is that because the costs of treating people that do not have insurance are dumped on the people that do, so the cost of insurance is heavily dependent on the percent of people in your area that do not have coverage?

What is what I hear from my wife that works in healthcare.

And this is a HUGE difference between Ryan plan for Medicare and Obama’s plan.

Ryan couples his cuts to Medicare with similar cuts to Medicaid and other programs. Increasing the number of uncovered people will push up costs faster than inflation, and the voucher ensures those costs are on the people rather than government.

Obama care increases the number of people with coverage, lowering the amount of uncovered costs that are transferred to those with coverage, lowering costs of Medicare, then only cutting spending on Medicare by that amount.

In Clinton’s speech, he mentions healthcare costs have increased by the smallest amounts in decades. The fact checkers jumped on this as a potential lie since the main aspects of Obama care have not kicked in… oh, but has kicked in is kids up to 25 being on their parents plans, whether they are full time students or not.

Hmmm… more covered people, less transfer of cost of uncovered people to covered… and costs go up slower than previously, when we were having more and more people without coverage.

Yeah, no link there.

Yeah, those poor oppressed Canucks, they don’t know what they’re missing.

Better to die at 60 after 60 years of freedom, rather than die at age 80 after 80 years of servitude.

To equate your “80″ with Canada is laughable.

Canada pushed the US from the top seven economies deemed to have an entirely free economy due to “notable decreases in financial freedom, monetary freedom, and property rights,” the [Heritage Foundation's annual] report said. nationalreview dot com

I bet it was when the Republican party was formed to make sure states rights didn’t allow slavery to spread into states that grew the same crops as the northern non-slave states.

Another one of those cases where common knowledge is flat out wrong.