The Housing Bubble

“a college education gives you the correct attitude about minorities, and the means to move away from them”

I suspect most people don’t want to live near high-crime areas, whether those areas are black or white or etc. The question is, would they be upset if a minority member bought a house in their nice neighborhood? That’s where you separate the racists from the rest.

I have no problem with anyone of any race, creed or color living in my neighborhood, but I don’t want to live near a crime-ridden ghetto of any color.

“The question is, would they be upset if a minority member bought a house in their nice neighborhood?”

http://www.southflorida.com/news/fl-high-hud-rentals-20120907,0,2597098.story?track=rss

The answer is: YES!!!!!!!

And, as some commenter noted on one of the blogs regarding this issue, these Western Broward County HOAs are chock full of “egalitarians”, many retired northeastern/mid-Atlantic liberals. Some of that area is Debby Wasserman Schultz (whatever, I’m too lazy to verify the spelling) territory. LOL, LOL, these are the folks who want us to “CO-EXIST”, but in some other neighborhood, not theirs.

“I don’t want to live near a crime-ridden ghetto of any color.”

Where are the white ghettos? Just curious. I’ve asked this question of others and all I get is some vague answer about trailer parks. I’m referring to the US of course.

The white ghettos are whole swaths of the south and midwest. They have pretty much all over the same problems as the black ghettos, except they are spread out over a larger geographical area, and white people like to pretend that they don’t exist.

*all OF the same problems. Typo.

these are the folks who want us to “CO-EXIST”, but in some other neighborhood

I thought we were told just last week of the paucity of “COEXIST” bumper stickers in Florida.

And Bub Diddley answered the where are the white ghettos question quite well. If you live in the South and you’ve never seen one, well then maybe…

“If you live in the South and you’ve never seen one, well then maybe…”

I’ve never seen one, but then, Florida couldn’t really be considered the South, could it?

But you still haven’t answered my question. Where in the South or Midwest are these white ghettos? Do they have names? For example, Atlanta has the Bluff. I’ve heard of Cabrini Green in Chicago. Parts of Harlem in NY. Ft. Apache the Bronx.

Do we have named white ghettos?

Do they need a name when they are composed of the majority?

Sigh. I guess we have to define the terms first:

ghet·to/ˈgetō/Noun: 1.A part of a city, esp. a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups.
2.The Jewish quarter in a city: “the Warsaw Ghetto”.

ghet·to (gt)
n. pl. ghet·tos or ghet·toes
1. A usually poor section of a city inhabited primarily by people of the same race, religion, or social background, often because of discrimination.
2. An often walled quarter in a European city to which Jews were restricted beginning in the Middle Ages.
3. Something that resembles the restriction or isolation of a city ghetto: “trapped in ethnic or pink-collar managerial job ghettoes” (Diane Weathers).

So it basically means a slum. Occupied by a group of people with common characteristics in addition to poverty.

Jeebus, the whole conflict over race and poverty starts to look like a dog chasing its tail.

Except, now I can name a white ghetto. Except it’s in the south Boston area and was featured in the movie Mystic River. I’ve been in that area, lived close to it back in the day.

Florida couldn’t really be considered the South, could it?

Depends. Northern Florida is the South. Southern Florida is the North.

these white ghettos? Do they have names?

You want a name of a big white ghetto? Appalachia.

Most neighborhoods have names. I was just trying to think of a specific white ghetto nabe. After looking up the various definitions of ghetto, I came up with one. Interestingly, it isn’t in the South, it’s in the Boston area. My post on this hasn’t shown up yet.

I think at one time Hell’s Kitchen was a white ghetto, too. As featured in the movie “Sleepers”. That’s in New York.

So much for “whole swaths” of the South and Midwest.

“You want a name of a big white ghetto? Appalachia.”

Ok, we’re starting to get warm here, alpha, so work with me on this. Would you call all of Detroit a ghetto? Appalachia is a huge area, it’s really a region. And I’m sure many affluent residents of, say, Asheville and Greenville and Louisville and Bentonville (hmm, lots of “villes” there) would be shocked to learn they’re living in a “ghetto”. At one time much of Appalachia was a depressed area, for sure, but I’m trying to zero in on a white slum area. I did come up with a couple in the Northeast.

Your working White class has been moving out to places like Colorado to avoid paying for the services demanded in education, housing, food and medical care by the new arrivals.

Actually, we have a boatload of them here too. It’s par for the course anywhere in the Western USA.

Asheville and Greenville and Louisville and Bentonville

Parts of the ghetto get gentrified sometimes, don’t they?

BTW neither Louisville nor Bentonville are in Appalachia.

So much for “whole swaths” of the South and Midwest.

I can take you to a white ghetto in any city in the South or Midwest. They’re often trailer parks, but are also often neighborhoods of identical white frame shotgun shacks with chain-link fences around the front yards to keep in the ubiquitous pit bulls. And huge pick-up trucks parked all over the street.

“BTW neither Louisville nor Bentonville are in Appalachia.”

yer right! Just missed it on Louisville, though. And I didn’t realize that Atlanta falls partially within Appalachia.
Interesting.

“I can take you to a white ghetto in any city in the South or Midwest. They’re often trailer parks, but are also often neighborhoods of identical white frame shotgun shacks with chain-link fences around the front yards to keep in the ubiquitous pit bulls. And huge pick-up trucks parked all over the street.”

Name one, please.

Trailer parks. There it is.

Do you not believe there are crappy, high crime white neighborhoods anywhere in the US? Because I can take you to at least 5 or 6 right here in my little city, and I’m sure more if I thought about it. And I could have done it in any of the other cities and towns I’ve lived in across this great country.

Granted, a lot of them are somewhat ‘mixed’ now, but the whites are just as ghetto as the others.

I think a ghetto requires population density. And I think high crime areas generally require anonymity. Most criminals are not going to rob their neighbors (addicts excluded).

Small towns generally do not reach the level of density required. Even though they may have a significant number of poor folk, the population is small enough that nobody is completely anonymous.

A lot of the rural South and Midwest is low enough density as not to rise to the level of ghetto. You might find white ghettos in mid-sized Midwestern cities, like Souix City, Iowa or Rapid City, South Dakota or Lincoln, Nebraska. I don’t know enough about any of those cities to name a neighborhood. But if I were looking for white ghettos, that is where I would start.

I think most of the Southeastern mid-sized cities have a significant black population so that they would not be exclusively white ghettos. And Southwestern cities in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona probably have significant Hispanic populations.

The “born on the wrong side of the tracks” meme testifies to the presence of white ghettos, at least in the mid-20th century.

I expect that a lot of ghettos are now more mixed than they were 50 years ago before integration.

“Most criminals are not going to rob their neighbors (addicts excluded).”

I forgot about affinity criminals - those scam artists who target their neighbors or those of the same culture.

And even violent crime is not limited to strangers.

But it is stranger-initiated violent crime that worries people the most.

Two major white “ghettos” within an hour of me are Oildale and Lake Isabella. Fontana certainly used to qualify, as, ironically, did Poway.

Seems like po’ folk come in all cultures.

You seem stuck on the idea that a “ghetto” is an urban phenomenon, limited to neighborhoods that have a specific name. This seems like just moving the goalposts to try to deny the existence of these places. Okay, so how about the term “rural slum” instead?

Pick most towns in Missouri or Kansas, for example, with populations under 1000 people that are far from any major urban areas, and I can show you a rural slum. The ENTIRE TOWN won’t be a slum, there might be some nice houses or wealthier people who live there, but there are going to be plenty of trailers or run down houses with crap strewn all over the yard, and a bunch of junked vehicles parked there. There will be problems with drugs (probably meth), teen pregnancy and single mothers, unemployment, people with no education - pretty much all of the same pathologies identified with urban, black-majority ghettos. But the people living there will be white.

Why is it a difficult concept for you to accept? There are more poor white people than there are poor minorities in this country, and they are spread out everywhere, not just concentrated in specific neighborhoods.

I had to put my shorts in the laundry. Dang.

I had to put my shorts in the laundry. Dang.

Don’t worry. I think Honey Boo Boo’s parents are voting Romney.

Where the hell DOES Romney “live” anyway? Sure Obama wandered while he was still in school, but he settled in Chicago. For all his houses, I can at least pin McCain down to Arizona. I can’t even pin Romney down to a state. I’ve heard Michigan (I think he’s gone from there now), Massachusetts, California, New Hampshire, and Utah. ??

Don’t most of us “live” in a particular place due to not having enough money to just be wherever we feel like being at that moment? If I had 250 million it would be hard to figure out where I lived, too. But then again I probably wouldn’t waste my time in politics if that were the case.

Don’t forget, too, that many of the founding families of the State of California were and are of Mexican ancestry. (Ahem Palmy.) And the Spanish land grants to Grandees covered much of its southern half. The main reason CA is bankrupt is not its illegal alien population (which ebbs and flows) so much as its subsidies to its land, water, and oil dynasties. Oh, and its “irrevocable” block concessions to its public workers unions.

“And you Dio, are too racist to see why.”

What Dio doesn’t recognize is that the greatest enemy of whites is, uh, other whites. What he really objects to is one of the greatest white on white crime. waves. ever. It’s an elitist thing. They use members of other races to perpetrate those crimes at the everyday living level. It’s a pretty good smoke screen, as far as it goes. And a great defense, too, because you can always label someone a “racist” if they object. Also there is pretty good money in it.

Failure to recognize this point led to the rise of the KKK and other similar groups in the South. Instead of targeting the wealthy slave-owning landed gentry, they targeted the slaves and their descendants, even sacrificed their lives for them in the bloody Civil War. Downtrodden po’ white trash in the South couldn’t get a decent paying job why? Who needs to employ po’ white trash when you’ve got slaves?

Similar today. Illegal immigrants are not the problem. Their employers and government enablers ARE the problem. Government re-distributionists are the problem.

And never forget who the founders of this country were fleeing when they came to North America. Other whites.

“Posted by ahansen: Maintaining their own private roads, water wells, caches, and hooks-up for State Fire services (”services” which are mostly outsourced to illegal immigrant and prison labor.”

“Many of the founding families of the State of California were and are of Mexican ancestry. (Ahem Palmy.)”

Hey, I’m not the one complaining. I didn’t write that post at the top of the blog. You did. Go ahead and pay tribute to the founding families of the State of California and anyone else you want to. You’re going to have to, anyway, so who cares?

My sincere apologies, Palmster. I meant Dia.

OK, I have to admit, that was a good shot, hansen.

Dang, I can read ya like a book, girlfriend!

The main reason CA is bankrupt is not its illegal alien population (which ebbs and flows) so much as its subsidies to its land, water, and oil dynasties. Oh, and its “irrevocable” block concessions to its public workers unions.”

I think that’s correct so what to do ?

Similar today. Illegal immigrants are not the problem. Their employers and government enablers ARE the problem. Government re-distributionists are the problem.

I agree with a lot of what you said except “Government re-distributionists are the problem”.

Sure in some areas re-distributionists are a problem but they are not THE MAIN problem. Rather I think they are a band aid on the problem. They also are a symptom of the problem.

The main problem is increasing wealth and income inequality. Re-distributionists did not CAUSE the main problem.

“Re-distributionists did not CAUSE the main problem.”

You bet they did. WTF do you think the repeal of Glass-Steagall was?

“Re-distributionists did not CAUSE the main problem.”

You bet they did. WTF do you think the repeal of Glass-Steagall was?

And WTF are you cussing for? Re-distributionists did NOT CAUSE the main problem if you are using the term “re-distributionists” in the usual way to to define “taking” money from the rich to give to the poor.

If you are using the term “re-distributionist” defining the end result of taking money from the middle-class to give to the rich, you are accurate. But that is a rare use of the word.

The main problem is increasing wealth and income inequality. Re-distributionists (as described by the right) did not CAUSE the main problem.

So WTF do you think about that?!

“So WTF do you think about that?!”

I think you have an effing agenda, is what I think. I think you’re the pot calling the kettle black, er, uh, whatever. I think you’re phonier than a three dollar bill and I think if you ever realized your wet dream of become a Stalinist apparatchik, you’d be more ruthless than a Romney could ever dream of being. All Diogenes wants is to be left alone and not forced into some sort of obscene social engineering. YOU, however, with your Newspeak redefinitions, are a George Orwell nightmare.

Since when did “re-distributionist” have any meaning other than what it is? Taking something from one place and re-allocating it to another? Rich or poor, who cares? It’s still being taken from one party and given to another. That’s what re-distribution means.

All Diogenes wants is to be left alone …. I think you’re phonier than a three dollar bill

OK, I’ll use my “talking to a drunk” tone…… Sorry. I’ve never acted phony but you are and I’ll explain why. Maybe I hit a nerve because I illustrated your inconsistency, your needing to revert to profanity because of your lack of ideas and your irrationality. Maybe you are drunk, IDK.

Seriously. You’ve never gone off the deep end as you just did. You’ve agreed with me many times. “All Diogenes wants is to be left alone” proves my point. That is total jive.

Dio just want’s to be left alone? BS. We are not ignorant. We read Diogenes’s racist, paranoid posts. “All he wants to be is left alone”? No. If he wanted to be just left alone he would not spread racist, and very dumb crap.

Your vapid and biased question: “Since when did “re-distributionist” have any meaning other than what it is?” is ignorant.

If you want to “come out of your closet” and admit that wealth has been redistributed from the middle to the rich, just do it. Don’t freak out and and bore us with your coming out-realizing what is is.

Just do it without all the drama. Because FACT: Wealth HAS been redistributed from the middle to the rich the past 30 years. If you agree but it still freaks you out so much that you have to cuss and call names (while at the same time agree with the premise) well…….. I can’t help you. You are lost. Good luck.

Question: Since when did “re-distributionist” have any meaning other than what it is?

Answer: Since the right-wing tried to deflect from the fact that middle-class wealth has been redistributed to the rich starting in 1981.

To cite your politically motivated, but very misapplied reference, it IS Orwellian to use the word “redistribution” to describe American wealth going from rich to middle/poor. In fact, since 1981 wealth has been redistributed from the poor and middle-class to the rich.

This is fact. This USA today. This is what you seem to be coming out of the closet kicking, screaming and calling names realizing.

A wee bit nippy 300 mph wind at that.

No, no, no. You just roll them down on the tarmac when you’re waiting for takeoff. Enjoy a last minute smoke. Then the pilot will say, “Please roll up your windows, we’re taking off.”

It’ll work great!

More stupidity. It’s endless.
I did not say the window system did not have to be designed. And for your stupid comments, seeming to show your “intelligence”, jet aircraft typically cruise at about 500 to 550 mph.
You could design the system to remain sealed at speeds above say 200 or above altitudes with severe cold (yes it’s FREEZING at high altitudes, too), or so that the “window” would only “crack open 1/16 of an inch at high speed and open gradually to another vent level as speeds declined, to FULLY open on the Tarmac.

There are always ways to make things work.
Safety is another issue. It’s simply easier and cheaper to provide a central ventilation system and seal all the windows.
Pressurization is actually a relatively late creation, anyway. Planes flew for the first half of the last century without it. Jet engines came before pressurized cabins.

You could design the system to remain sealed at speeds above say 200 or above altitudes with severe cold (yes it’s FREEZING at high altitudes, too), or so that the “window” would only “crack open 1/16 of an inch at high speed and open gradually to another vent level as speeds declined, to FULLY open on the Tarmac.

And after all the expense of designing and installing these windows, then what? You can’t climb through the opening. You’d just feed the fire with fresh air. Bigger windows that we can climb through? Perhaps we need emergency exits on every row. Or is this just a fresh air thing?

Should the government pass a new regulation requiring this?

“Should the government pass a new regulation requiring this?”

lol

“More stupidity. It’s endless.
I did not say the window system did not have to be designed. And for your stupid comments, seeming to show your “intelligence”, jet aircraft typically cruise at about 500 to 550 mph.
You could design the system to remain sealed at speeds above say 200 or above altitudes with severe cold (yes it’s FREEZING at high altitudes, too), or so that the “window” would only “crack open 1/16 of an inch at high speed and open gradually to another vent level as speeds declined, to FULLY open on the Tarmac.”

That’s it. Dig yourself deeper. Add massive complexity to the aircraft, with the attendent expense and safety risk. Hell, why not put armrests on the windows! Let the dog hang his head out!

Let me guess: You studied engineering in college and dropped out.

Go post your brilliant idea on an aircraft enthusiast board. You’ll doubtless find even MORE stupid people. How they giggle and titter, the chuckleheads! They know nothing.

Add massive complexity to the aircraft, with the attendent expense and safety risk.

An there is the issue of weight.

. Hell, why not put armrests on the windows! Let the dog hang his head out!

Romney would put the dog on the roof of the plane.

Just for you, alpha. Here’s Ry Cooder with the Mutt Romney Blues

“…take me down
from this roof
Please massa Boss,
woof, woof, woof.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0evVfwOIlM

http://creationmuseum.org/

I don’t believe in Evolution, and I’m from Florida. Evolution is NOT science. It is speculation of the worst kind. There is no “evidence” to support the theories. Darwin proposed the fossil record would contain many “transitional” forms, and it doesn’t.
That’s why we went to the “punctuated equilibrium” theory, since it proved to be unsupportable. That hasn’t stopped the true believers.
The fossil record disproves evolution and more importantly, since we have gone from the origin of “species” to the origin of life, there is absolutely no natural mechanism for the creation of cells.
the Stanley Miller experiments with the toxic gases in the tank to produce amino acids has long been disproven as mechanism for creating DNA. It has been suggested that RNA must have been the precursor to cell formation, but there is absolutely NO natural mechanisms whereby this can occur.
That is why we have new FAITH-based ideologies of PAN-spermia, that life must have originated on other planets and migrated here on a comet.
It’s ALL conjecture. Only the truly scientifically ignorant, with high school educations of evolutionary theory cling to these ideas.
I also find it most interesting how each of the “sciences” builds one to the next on the theories of “evolution”. Psychology must be linked to our ‘past development’, etc. etc.
I listen to Micheu Kuckoo on the Science fantastic radio program on occasion. His whole world revolves around evolutionary theories. It’s pretty easy to provide counter explanations to all his theories, but it would require a leap of faith, from a materialistic foundation to a more supernatural one.
It can’t happen for avowed atheists. It’s too big a leap. They can’t “evolve”.

“Children play and dinosaurs near Eden’s River.”

Why aren’t there any ancient cave paintings that include dinosaurs?

Diogenes: I don’t believe in Evolution, and I’m from Florida.

I rest my case.

“Darwin proposed the fossil record would contain many ‘transitional’ forms and it doesn’t.”

Wiki-up “horse” and you will be presented with some information about transitional forms regarding horses.

Same goes for dogs. Would you buy into the idea that all dogs evolved from wolves?

There are. They just aren’t in your textbooks.
Several S. American locations show dinosaurs in their building sites. But what’s the point.
You think a few cave paintings show the full panorama of life in the past?
Evidence that supports a contrary point of view is usually suppressed by supporters of the “scientific view”.
There is evidence to show the entire earth was covered with water. It’s known as the K-t
boundary. It’s fairly high in the layers of deposits around the planet. “Scientists” won’t allow that view. Why? If everything was underwater, then the entire life cycle would be wiped out and the “evolutionary” process would have to start all over again.
So, no, it’s all be the result of “localized” flooding.
There is subterranean evidence to show continental-wide water flows based on stream flow data (fossils tend to lay in particular directions, not randomly). The evidence is overwhelming, but ignored.

Can’t let facts get in the way, as the other side is so fond of saying.

As for yesterdays comments i read concerning the ICE SHEETS and ICE cores, that again is stupidity and “science” stood on its head. ICE cores are NOT like tree rings.
Ice levels measure “events”, not YEARS.
There are world war II aircraft that have been recovered from the northern regions under 50 feet of ice. In that ice were thousands of “layers”. ARe the aircraft 1000’s of years old? ridiculous.
The same applies to the “layers” in the fossil record.
The concept that all these layers were put down, one atop the other, as “millions of years” of erosion” is preposterous. A single flood will deposit multiple sorted layers of material as a single event, and fossilization can occur in a very short time.
Go check out Mt. St. Helens and see what a massive flood can do to the local terrain and the trees that were there. Many are fossilized. It took a couple of years.
MILLIONS OF YEARS? No. Just a few.
I could write on this for hours, but I have things to do and I’m sure Ben has got better things to do than screen all my posts.
I just get tired of the “scientific” people discrediting the “NON-believers” as ignorant hicks because the didn’t believe in “Nebraska Man” or Piltdown Man or any of the other dozens of scientific hoaxes.
Get a Real education. Find out the contrary views and the reasons for them.

“There are. They just aren’t in your textbooks.
Several S. American locations show dinosaurs in their building sites.”

Okay, where in S. America?

Adam and Eve road to Sunday School on a dinosaur.

Get a Real education.

This is awesome. We have the Republican, self-admitted racist arguing against science. (You just can’t make this stuff up)

I told you Romney was a genius compared to much of his base.

You are confusing diversity of species with evolution. Horses are horses and dogs are dogs.
The fact that there are many kinds, sizes and types of dogs and horses shows simply the diversity of the gene pool.
I don’t support that dogs came from wolves. You do.
The entire system of evolution is that one thing came from another.
If that were true, why aren’t there more kinds of “extinct” dogs?
The “system” of creating the tree of life is a MAN-made system that sorts the fossils from small to large and from simple to complex.
If I gave you a bunch of dog bones from 100 different dogs, or even just gave you a bunch of dogs and told you to sort them, you would.
Usually, small to large, groups of long-hair and short hair, long snout and short, short legs and long legs. You would derive a system that made perfect sense, but you would not claim that one came from the other, or that this demonstrates evolution.
They are ALL dogs.
Fossil records of humans have been sorted in the same way. If the fossil has shorter legs, it must be older and the precursor of the bigger one. I can come up with all kinds of sorting systems too, and put them in a textbook.
AS for the horse, i’ve seen the textbook writings. And the “First” horse is what a “supposedly” would look like “artists rendering”, just like “nebraska man”. It did not exist in the fossil record. More conjecture. More faith-based “science”.

Wiki-up “La brea tar pits” and you will be presented with an extensive list of some of the remains of ancient animals that have been extracted from the pits and NONE of these remains include the remains of dinosaurs.

Holy moley. So, you think that evolution is BS, but think a story about a guy building a ship with 2 of every animal on it is a reasonably scientific explanation?

I understand that people can just choose “not to think about it” and believe religious teachings regardless of the evidence otherwise. But actually poking holes in someone else’s theory when yours has so many holes that 3rd grader with only a modicum of intelligence can shred your entire belief system? That’s a real stretch.

The tar pit represent the type of animals living in that area during it’s formation.
You assume dinosaurs lived everywhere on the planet. You probably won’t find any whale fossils, either.
But, concerning Le brea, don’t you think it odd that “gas bubbles” continue to migrate to the top of the tar pit? Why haven’t they quit?
According to the “scientists”, it’s MILLIONS of years old.

When does the migration of air pockets from things that formed MILLIONs of years ago in the ground stop?

What animal remains found in the tar pits are land dwellers. Since whales are not land dwellers then it is reasonable to not to expect to find any whale remains in the pits. But dinosaurs - some of them at least - WERE land dwellers and no remains of dinosaurs have been found in the pits. Do you not find that a bit strange if dinosaurs were roaming about side-by-side with other land dwellers?

It’s true the oil is millions of years old but it’s only been in the past thirty-eight thousand or so years that this millions of years old oil has been bubbling up to the surface and trapping animals.

And, again, the animals that have been trapped do not include dinosaurs.

Diogenes: I don’t believe in Evolution, and I’m from Florida.

I think we’re done here.

More faith-based “science”.

Science is based on observation, testing and evidence.

Religion is based on pronouncements of those proclaiming to either be God, or to represent God (or g/Gods).

Is there junk science out there? Yes. Agenda driven social science typically. Poorly done science. Is it used for political purposes? Yes. But to throw science out, which has yielded so much information about the world we live in, because some junk science exists is a path back to living in huts.

As far as trying to figure out how the physical mechanisms of the universe we live in work, science has had a pretty good track record of revealing them. Religion, not so much.

One can assert that there is a tremendous amount of evidence for a 6000 year old earth, versus a 5 billion year old earth. But, the scientific evidence is not there. The theory for the 6000 year old earth is based in religion.

Science is based on observation, testing and evidence.

The Republicans don’t believe in science anymore, and apparently scientists don’t believe in the Republican party anymore:

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll
Sahil Kapur
Huffington Post

A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America’s scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they’re Democrats.

The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were “conservative” while 52 percent described themselves as “liberal,” and 14 percent “very liberal.” The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.

Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.

Regarding the claim that the earth was once entirely covered in water, two questions come to mind:

1. Where did all the water come from?

2. Where did all the water go?

It is reasonable to buy into the idea that all parts of the planet were, at one time or another, completely covered in water, but it is not reasonable to believe this was a single event, that all parts of the planet was underwater at the same time.

It’s all there. God just miracled the mountains up a good bit.

If you want a clear-cut example demonstrating how one species of animal can evolve into another wiki-up “Evolution of the horse”.

FWIW.

And there’s also the mechanism of “what goes around, comes around”.

It’s actually pretty much true. Sometimes it takes a while. With individuals, you don’t usually see them “getting theirs”, but they do. Often it’s later, rather than sooner, but it happens.

It can happen to countries as well.

+1

+2

That didn’t really bother me. Wouldn’t mind if he adopted some of Israel’s immigration policies, though.

Bernie Sanders sounding a warning on what Obama will do in the lame duck session if re-elected:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/obama-and-social-security_n_1910498.html?ncid=webmail2

The Picture of Dorian Gray?

Remember four years ago how many people the world over Hoped for hope that Obama would usher in an era of peace? I don’t sense any of that feeling just now.

Make that “Kathy Fiscus”. Wiki-up her name for more info.

More about this …

Sports viewing is about watching an event as it unfolds, that has an outcome that nobody can predict. And sports fans have been known to go sort of nuts whenever their viewing is interrupted.

Wiki-up “heidi game” for an example.

Don’t look for logic here: There isn’t any. The game will progress as it should whether a particular fan is following it on TV or not, but nevertheless the fan may go nuts if he is not allowed to see how it plays out.

Got that right.

SO…the public option is worse than the private yet better than nothing…

What conclusion can we draw from this?

Any conclusion is for Brazil and really can’t apply to countries like Canada who provide excellent universal coverage to all its citizens.

My conclusion is that Brazil considers basic public health-care a right, but you are free to utilize the free-market if you want to and can afford it. But if you’re poor, Brazil is going to provide for you basic health-care and actually more than just basic health-care in most cases.

81.6% of Americans have health insurance. Medicaid is in place already for the poor.

So the way I see it, the cost of care has to come down to make insurance more affordable to everyone who wishes to purchase it. Requiring people to purchase it isn’t going to accomplish that goal.

Requiring everyone who can afford it to buy insurance reduces the cost of insurance because it means that people who are generally healthy and think that insurance costs too much given their guess at how much they will use it also pay into the pool. That means that the average medical need of the people in the individual insurance market is lower.

However, the most important thing about requiring all to have coverage is that it is the ONLY way to require insurance to cover preexisting conditions. If you require insurance to cover conditions that are already known, then you can’t let people just get diagnosed and then buy the insurance to cover it. At that point there is no incentive (other than paying for the occasional diagnostic test) to buy insurance before you are injured/sick. The rates would be sky high because everyone buying insurance would need a lot of care.

Insurance is risk shifting. To shift risk you have to have both healthy and sick people in the pool.

It’s like telling an auto insurance company that they must insure everyone regardless of driving history. It just doesn’t work that way.

I wouldn’t be object to a high risk pool similar to state pools for auto and property insurance. It would be expensive and should only cover catastrophic illness (you know like a high risk pool should) but at least it would provide an option.

Simply forcing people to buy coverage will not lower premiums especially with all of the new provisions in the health care law.

The law requires just such a pool similar to car insurance pools, though mostly for the poor.

The combination of requiring fairly healthy people to buy insurance and requiring at least 80% of revenues to go to “medical losses” will reduce premiums per person covered.

Highly simplified example.

There are 10 people in the country. All in the individual market. All are either sick or healthy. The healthy people use about $500 of health care per year. The sick ones use $2000 per year. I’m going to go with seven healthy and three sick in this universe.

If only the three sick people buy insurance, the insurance company has to charge $2000 per year in premiums plus overhead and profit. No risk shifting has occurred. No insurance. All that has happened is the three sick ones got together under the umbrella of the company to negotiate for that $2000 cost. If they had been trying to get care as individuals, maybe what costs $2000 would really cost $3000.

Maybe one of the healthy ones buys insurance too because his employer pays for it or he is worried about becoming one of the sick ones too and if he buys insurance, it will take a year before his actual illnesses are covered. That means the charge for insurance can be a little less than $2000 plus costs and profit, but not by much. And the company knows that the healthy customer wouldn’t buy it if there wasn’t a good chance of becoming sick soon anyway.

Now imagine that all 10 people have to buy insurance. The insurance company will have medical losses of $6000 from the sick people as before, and another $3500 of medical losses from the healthy people. Total medical losses of $9500 and 10 people buying insurance. The company now needs to collect $9500 plus costs and profit from their pool of customers or $950 plus per person. The sick people have much lower premiums. The healthy people pay more than the $500 they would have spent on health care costs without insurance, but have protection if they become a new sick person and don’t have to play some sort of odd guessing game as to whether they will become sick. And with even more people in the pool, the insurance company might be able to negotiate an even lower cost for the health care. If at least 80% of the premiums have to go to medical losses, the premiums will be less than $1200.

Please note that this is a better argument for single payer than for requiring purchase of private insurance, but the entire Romneycare/Obamacare idea is a compromise on single payer that keeps the insurance companies in the game. But it does demonstrate why requiring coverage lowers premiums per person. It gets rid of healthy people simply assuming that they won’t need the risk shifting this year and not paying into the overall pool of coverage.

Insurance is risk shifting.

Private (risk shifting) insurance is communism. I don’t like communism so I’d rather have “socialized” health insurance with private health-providers as Canada has.

Why do the healthy people cost $500/yr? Is there some provision that requires them to visit a doctor every year?

Sorry, that’s just too commie for our free market system.

Efficiency can only come from the free market.

/sarcasm

if any, that fills out a simple code on a simple form

How many forms are required in USA? Lawyers are ruining everything in this country and I am not even talking about malpractice law suits…..

It’s not the lawyers, it’s the insurance companies. Specialized procedures and processes are all part of customer “lock in.”

If you don’t know what “customer lock in” means, you should look it up.

The inefficiency due to the unneeded complexity directly contributed to mistakes. Mistakes that cause lawsuits.

This is NOT unique to just the insurance industry.

It’s not just insurance companies, it’s the government, too. Ever help a cancer patient get through their bills, from their insurance AND Medicare? Talk to an oncologist sometime about how many staff members they need just to deal with Medicare.
Medicare, when it works, is great, but when it breaks down, and it does very often, it’s a nightmare of government incompetency.

“busily house-hunting”…

Really? Seriously? You’re clueless…. and a pimps apologist.

“home buyers”

What kind of fem refers to a house as “home”?

I still have my “home” on a boat (under the bridge). The building I bought is for a workshop, just to refresh your memory, so it’s a hobby extravagance not a market timed economic strategy. Someone else can convert it to a home after I’m dead.

I never criticize people for trying to follow their life strategies, I criticize them for being deluded about investment strategy, bad math, stupid science, and always about leveraging up to make a profit in this housing market.

What kind of fem refers to a house as “home”?

One who knows how much it irrationally irks you.

And ‘fem’? You’re the one who squealed like a little girl when Jethro bought his home, demanding to see pictures! I thought you were going to hold a house-warming party for him. And you used to post pictures of the new dream home- er, shack- that you were making a lowball offer on, excitedly telling us how well-built it was. Then you’d get mad when your lowball offer was rejected.

Face it, pimp, you’re a house-hunter. trying to talk the market down, just like I said.

so it’s a hobby extravagance

Ah! That’s much more rational than buying a house to live in.

The only offer I’ve written was two years ago and you never saw a photo of it. Get your facts straight and quit lying.

And Jeff Saturday is in your head that deep? No wonder you’re throwing myths about like a frantic housing hooker.

Carry on with your election whoring and pandering.

Carry on with your househunting.

The two I own are two too many.;)

Nice try though.

The definition of “rational” is buying lingerie for one’s girlfriend.

Putting it on a credit card and paying double for it long after the love is gone is irrational.

Putting it on a credit card and paying double for it long after the love is gone is irrational.

So the key difference is paying cash or borrowing?

If you have the cash, it’s rational to buy a house now?

“The two I own are two too many.”

So, since according to you, values are collapsing, when are you going to list them for sale?

As you say, you should get out now before it’s too late!!!

Hypocrite.

And according to you, people should buy when prices are falling.

Liar.

Housing and mortgages are a proxy for sex and marriage. You can afford to enjoy the first with no guarantees for the future. The second is going to cost a lot more, with the only guarantee being that you will pay and pay and pay. It’s a different issue with timing, when hormones run high, timing can be off.

The two I own are two too many.

So, by your own admission, you own two houses, and were looking for another one relatively recently- back when prices were higher, right?

And you’re telling everyone else to run for the exits? Sell now or be doomed?

Like the man said, sounds kinda hypocritical.

two years ago is “recently”?

Another misrepresentation from you? Why would you do that?

Why would you do that?

Why were you househunting?

Why do you own two depreciating assets?

He can’t disagree with the message, so why not try to prick the messanger?

“And according to you, people should buy when prices are falling.”

The only economic difference between buying and not selling something you already own is transaction costs. If you think prices are going down more than 6% to 8%, not selling while telling others that it is stupid to buy is hypocritical in a very large way.

Again Alpa….. why are you misrepresenting the truth? You know 2 years ago isn’t “recent”.

Why are you misrepresenting that?

He can’t disagree with the message,

You’re the one who just bought a house- er, hobby-hut. And he’s the one who owns two houses and was recently looking for another.

Why are you guys such hypocrites?

so why not try to prick the messanger?

That’s rich. We must not hurt RAL/Pimp Watch’s feelings. He’s so kind and sensitive to others.

“If you think prices are going down more than 6% to 8%, not selling while telling others that it is stupid to buy is hypocritical in a very large way.”

We build and sell every day. Nothing hypocritical there.

And how about you when you know rental costs are a fraction of buying at current inflated asking prices…… you seem reluctant to mention it even though this blog is precisely about exposing the fraud that is housing.

Why is that?

Polly I think you are being a little superficial jumping on that bandwagon. We all have some things that we would not sell despite knowing that they would sell for less later. Take Grandma’s wedding ring for example, or a place you use as an office for your business. Nobody here gave me a rash for not selling my boat a few years ago when prices were crashing.

The message is for the house investor, the debt poser who brags up their future profits and perfect timing.

“The message is for the house investor, the debt poser who brags up their future profits and perfect timing.”

There it is….

That’s right…. who comes here daily and demonstrates they’ve pinned their entire future on a tragic financial decision they made in spite of everything we’ve discussed here? Who was it again? You know… that deep psychosis like denial….

We all have some things that we would not sell despite knowing that they would sell for less later. Take Grandma’s wedding ring for example, or a place you use as an office for your business

Or a house?

The message is for the house investor, the debt poser who brags up their future profits and perfect timing.

Wow. The message is a lot more subtle and nuanced that what we’ve heard. What we heard was, “Sell now or die! If you buy now, you will never recover! Real estate is overpriced now and will fall from here to eternity”

In fact, your version of the message pretty much lets off the hook most of the posters here who recently bought. But whom you and RAL attack for buying.

Again, why the hypocrisy?

Last week you said something to the effect; “Just got done writing an offer at 40%(of asking price?)”. Which either was misunderstood by some here, that you would be a buyer at what you considered to be the right price, or you are not Truthing.

And are woefully over-exposed to real estate if you believe your own advice. you should sell now rather than sell later for 50% of what you could get for your shacks currently. Are you secretly waiting for a recovery? For housing to “come back?”

So forgive some for thinking you were house hunting.
But why sell today when you can sell later at 60% less?
You will never get close to what you paid from your house; heaven forbid you need to sell one or both.

I too can make statements even though I really have no idea if they are actually true.

“or house”

Houses depreciate.

Now why are you misrepresenting the truth about my offer I made 2 years ago?

Now why are you misrepresenting the truth about my offer I made 2 years ago?

Why were you house-hunting two years ago, when prices were higher than now?

Why do you own two depreciating assets when you regularly advise everybody else to sell?

“Last week you said something to the effect;”

That was a quote from a blog entry. Do you not read?

“And are woefully over-exposed to real estate if you believe your own advice.”

Not really. Not at all. We build for a living. It’s our stock in trade. It’s our job to expose YOU.

“But why sell today when you can sell later at 60% less?”

That answer ought to be self evident to you.

“You will never get close to what you paid from your house; heaven forbid you need to sell one or both.”

I don’t have anything in them. You on the other hand have your entire future locked up into a depreciating asset.

“I too can make statements even though I really have no idea if they are actually true.”

Then maybe you shouldn’t make them.

What is true is that current asking prices of resale housing is double digits higher than construction cost+profit.

That is your reality to deal with.

I owe my son $50 too. I am so ashamed.

Blue Skye:

You can’t replace Grandma’s wedding ring easily. You can easily rent a boat, or another office, etc.

That’s beside the point though. There is a difference between:

1. Understanding that depreciable assets lose value over time, and DESPITE THAT, continuing to own because you are used to the asset, there is comfort in controlling your destiny, and it continues to have utility for you; and

2. Rabidly declaring that home values are going to crash everywhere, and declaring that everyone who buys is foolish (regardless of their reasons and the math) or a liar, while at the same time owning not ONE, but TWO homes.

#1 is the reality we all live with (with respect to our cars and homes especially).
#2 is hypocrisy.

Prices aren’t “going”to go down everywhere. The ARE going down everywhere.

Now why are you LYING about it Rental Pimp?

You LIE about your “construction” experience.

You LIE about the housing market.

YOU are a LIAR

Well, #2 is just rabid. We allunderstand keeping something because it suits you to do so, regardless of the math. There is no hypocracy in a builder telling you that it is a stupid time to buy, because prices are way too high and are inevitably going to go down.

I believe he told me something to the same effect. It’s true. Saying it over like a wood pecker makes it rabid I suppose. There really are posters here, though maybe transient, that boost buying a house like it was a genius move, and they harp and hide their numbers and fil hundreds of pages with ranting. I suppose that broaches on the rabid as well. Some are better than me at a short reply, some even better to skip over when reading. Some not.

Alpha,

Let’s take a look at your direct quote from above;

RAL/Pimp Watch, who’s busily house-hunting while ridiculously trying to talk the entire market down?blockquote>

This is a lie. I’m not “busily house-hunting”.

Why did you lie?

Apt rents are not going down in my area.

I don’t know about SFH rents as they are not part of my need-to-know.

What does grandma’s ring have to do with it? Grandma’s ring is unique since it is the only one she owned and that you saw on her finger when you went to visit. Houses are all the same and can be rented for less than half the cost of owning according to you, Pimp. If you think that house prices are going to drop by 50% and that the present costs of renting are less than owning (and that transaction costs are significantly less than 50%) you have NO reason not to sell and rent while the drop in prices takes place. None.

This isn’t about me. This all about you liars.

“There is no hypocracy in a builder telling you that it is a stupid time to buy, because prices are way too high and are inevitably going to go down.”

If you play back the tape on RAL, he goes WAY farther (telling people who already own to sell while there is still time, etc.)–based on the garbage he’s spewing, he’s a hypocrite if he owns two houses.

Spewing garbage?

Like you LYING about your construction contract experience?

Like you LYING to the public about the massive inventory?

Like you LYING to the public about construction costs?

Like you LYING about current market fundamentals?

I know I’ve grown tiresome for you liars. But make no mistake….. have no doubt in your corrupt minds….. I’m going to be here every time you post another lie.

Prices aren’t “going”to go down everywhere. The ARE going down everywhere.

They are not “going down everywhere”. Get real. Good God Man, have you no reality? Everywhere? Quit calling everyone a “liar”. Maybe you are a liar now.

WRONG again.

PPSQ they’re falling EVERYWHERE.

A few days ago you posted that you can build for $60 sf and that is reasonable assuming you add lot and site development costs to that figure.

But earlier you claim you can build and sell a 1000 sf townhouse for less than $50/sf including lot/site costs.

It appears that Pimp watch is a liar. That makes sense as we tend to be the most insensed about faults that we find present in ourselves.

Man, RAL you must have taken some serious losses. 2 years holding 2 houses. What’s that, about half a million in losses? No wonder you’re so cranky all the time. Spill with the numbers.

RAL: Hey Dude, you dropped a Twenty.

LLL: No, I planted it. I will pick Fifties from the vine pretty quick.

RAL: No way, it will just get shredded by the passing heavy equipment. It’s on the road to Less Dude! Your leverage is going to jack you good. Don’t seal your fate!

Skye: Couldn’t we just talk about sex and mortgages?

LLL: You just hate me for my success. I’ve got this thing scoped and timed. you are the loser. I am going to be rich!

Polly, Sloth, Rio et al: AMEN! RAL is a piss ant.

RAL: uh, you are lying! Lying!

LLL: That makes sense as we tend to be the most insensed about faults that we find present in ourselves.

RAL: ……………..I’ll be back.

I’m just curious, what do you think I’ve said about my “construction contract experience” or about “construction costs”.

LOL, Skye.

Hi Skye, I bought most of my houses in the 70’s. Great investment strategy if you can invent a time machine.* I’m as skeptical as you are about the current market, although my carpenter is buying foreclosures for $25-30K and renting them for 6-700/mo and those numbers should work.

Needless to say we are not in California.

Hi LLL,

The same can be seen here, occasionally. The all cash buyer is a rare bird, and pretty stingy.

I’m just curious, what do you think I’ve said about my “construction contract experience” or about “construction costs”.

They’re your statements Rental Pimp. Why are you asking us?

That’s the “T” in GTA.

WT im off greenpoint ave in queens and No fios even RCN wires up sunnyside gardens but wont come to this side of the 7 tracks…

Non compete with cablevison?