Bits Bucket for October 6, 2012
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
October 2025 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
An observation: If a market is driven by prices instead of fundamentals then there is no way to measure just how high prices will rise.
A fundamental-driven market has a price limit because the price rise will tend to dampen demand - the price will get out of line with the fundamentals and this will cause buyers to stop buying.
But a price-driven market has no limits because it is the price rise all by itself that creates the demand. In this type of market value is not determined by the fundamentals, instead value is determined by the price: The higher the price rises the more the value increases. The price rise generates demand and this demand generates a price rise which generates more demand … and off and running it goes, until:
1. The price-driven market runs out of eager buyers, or
2. The eager buyers run out of access to money.
One or the other has to happen for the price to peak out, and once the price has peaked out everything goes into reverse. And once everything goes into reverse something else begins to happen: The knifecathers begin to appear on the scene.
The mentality of the knifecatcher is, first of all, Price equals Value, or rather a previous price equals value. Most likely it’s the peak price that equals value.
If something once sold for a hundred dollars and it can now be bought for fifty dollars then one can buy it at a fifty percent discount. This is a nifty thing to be able to do in a market driven by fundamentals but is somewhat less-than-nifty thing to do in a market driven by price increases.
Anyway, just a few thoughts, FWIW.
Combotechie,
I posted a comment late last night about a new documentary called “Four Horseman” you might enjoy watching. If you thought “The Power of Nightmares & The Century of Self” were good you will like this. I am making a few copies to pass out later this week. I got my copy from Usenet binaries but it may be available via P2P or youtube.
http://www.fourhorsemenfilm.com/
Thanks.
I know that Four Horsemans will be a movie that speaks my theme song just by the trailor I looked at .
A few quotes from the Four Horseman,
“We are governed by Corporations today, often by Corporations that don’t have very much interest in the United States of America .”
“Lobbying has reduced the American Political system to a mere clearing house for the concerns of the rich.”
Interesting thought…that knifecatchers are driven by the idea of fundamentals. Except that they don’t understand them. Basically just department store shoppers excited by today’s “half off” sale.
“Interesting thought … that knifecatchers are driven by the idea of fundamentals.”
I know a couple of guys in the late Nineties who worked for Lucent and bought Lucent stock when it was selling in the Sixties and kept buying large chunks of the stock as it dropped all the way down to below a dollar.
Oh, and during this time they decided to retire (why go to work when you can just sit back and allow the stock market to make you rich?) so there was no way for them to make back the money they had lost.
“…and kept buying large chunks of the stock as it dropped all the way down to below a dollar.”
That is known as the magic of exponentially-compounded fifty-percent discounts…
In the case of Lucent is was in the area of ninety-percent discounts.
Which is good thing if the price goes back up again, less than a good thing if it doesn’t.
“In the case of Lucent is was in the area of ninety-percent discounts.”
My point can be illustrated by solving this equation:
(100%-90%) = (100%-50%)^x
x = ln(0.1)/ln(0.5) = 3.322.
So a succession of three 50% declines plus a slight additional loss compounds to the 90% “discount” of your example:
(1-0.5^3.322) X 100% = 90% loss.
Your example of Lucent is not an atypical example of an exchange listed company. MOST companies don’t survive “the long haul”, and typically, those that do, have a VERY SHORT high rise of about 1 to 2 years where the stock price is multiples of where it started.
They typically peak, and then drop, reverse to the upside, but NEVER return to the place where they peaked out.
There is typically a long-term decline to where the stock floats in a range for long periods of time, if the company survived.
Buying on the way “down”, thinking you are buying at a “discount” will most often lead to poverty. It’s a fools game and Many brokers advise buying “on the dip”.
That’s true if it’s a dip in an upward trend, but too often, when the stock goes down 50% or more, it’s not a dip, it’s a downward trend.
My brother bought the Nasdaq at 2500 back around 2000 to 2001 because it was 1/2 off, to watch it decline to 1200 and below and take more than 10 years to get even. He made no money.
He bought a few companies the same way, and watched them descend to ZERO. It’s a way to lose most of what you had. But it’s a method the “really smart” people employ. often.
They typically peak, and then drop, reverse to the upside, but NEVER return to the place where they peaked out.
Yeah, that Apple stock @ $2/share will never get back to where it once was.
And that AIG stock @ $1.20/share, it aint never goin back up either.
Please send me a copy of your investment book pronto.
Go look at AIG before 2000 and tell me your story, ignoring that the company was bailed out by the government. Bailouts don’t count as market fundamentals.
As for APPL, they were toast until, lo and behold, Steve Jobs gets back and brings in new products, so, yes, they have been on an upward trajectory.
Steve is gone. Keep buying APPL. It will never go down.
As an aside, as usually, a made a generalized statement and said “TYPICALLY”, so, of course, you will go and find a couple of odd-ball stocks that don’t fit the pattern to prove that this is patently false.
Get a life.
I wonder how many latter-day Silicon Valley dot com millionaires have watched their early retirement plans get similarly Zynga’d?
And by the way, those who watched the early-2000s dot com collapse realize it turned out to be a harbinger of a broad, protracted Wall Street bear market. I realize this time is different and all, but…
October 5, 2012, 7:25 p.m. ET
Silicon Valley’s Stock Funk
By SHIRA OVIDE and SCOTT THURM
Sliding shares of newly public Internet companies are depressing employees—and their finances—after years of long hours and high expectations.
Rank-and-file workers at four of the highest profile Internet companies that began selling shares in the past 16 months have collectively lost about $9 billion on paper since their initial public offerings, according to calculations by compensation researcher Equilar Inc. and The Wall Street Journal.
Most of that decline—$7.2 billion—is at Facebook Inc. (FB -4.73%). The average nonexecutive Facebook employee remains enviably flush, holding stock or stock options valued at an average of roughly $2.5 million as of Friday.
But they have lost roughly $2 million of wealth on average since the company’s May IPO.
Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg last month said the social network’s sagging stock is hurting morale, and he predicted some employees will defect. Facebook declined to comment.
Employees at social games maker Zynga Inc. (ZNGA -11.90%) have endured a harsher blow to their wealth. Zynga’s shares have fallen about 75% since the December IPO, including 12% on Friday after the company warned of weaker financial results.
The drop has left nonexecutives there holding equity valued at an average of $132,000, down 79% from $635,000 at the time of its December 2011 IPO. In all, Zynga employees have lost $1.4 billion on paper since the IPO.
Niko Vuori, a 34-year-old general manager at Zynga, said he deferred plans to buy the Oakland, Calif., home he is renting because the restricted-stock units he owns have lost value.
“It’s disappointing; nobody is going to pretend it isn’t,” said Mr. Vuori, who has worked at Zynga since July 2011. But Mr. Vuori says he likes working at start-ups to help build companies and new products. “If you’re in it for the long haul, it’s a temporary blip.”
…
Zynga won’t be around for the long haul. The conditions that allowed them to rise no longer exist.
FB should have merged with a bank instead of floating an IPO.
Zynga has no viable business model, at least none that I can see.
FB… I’m less likely to call them dead in the water. They have a massive user base and a very good product. Very high barrier to entry to get in and try to compete with them (probably almost impossible today to pull FB users away because all their friends are there and there’s so much invested in all the pictures/tweets/updates/etc that would be lost if you changed). However, I’m still not clear how them monetize this model. Frankly, even Google, I can’t remember the last time one of their AdWords influenced my behavior. I love the product (as I do FB), but, as a business, I’m really not sure..
FB is only a few bad updates irrelevance.
…i’m gonna blame this on goldman sachs, just for the hell of it….they’ve already won the election…
coming to a stock market near you (not exactly, but some bs thing)…soon…imho.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-05/nse-probing-freak-trade-that-caused-price-error-on-bourse.html
I know some folks in the most recent cycle who were buying REIT stocks as they collapsed based on their understanding of the fundamental value of the commercial real estate. Not all understood the fundamentals as well as they thought…however, some did.
One person in particular was the director of one of the REITs, so you can actually see this through the SEC filings when he was buying and how much he paid (he needed to file after trading). He started buying when the stock somewhere around $10. He bought more in the $5’s. He bought his last big chunk at around $2. His blended average based on my math (from the filings) is about $5.
He is generally considered one of the most shrewd RE investors around and he actually DID understand the fundamental value of the real estate owned by the REIT.
The stock price is now up around $13.
If you do understand the fundamentals, then buying on the way down isn’t always a bad thing, as long as you don’t go all-in right away (because the market can be disconnected from fundamentals for longer than you think).
If you don’t understand the fundamentals, don’t play…
“…that knifecatchers are driven by the idea of fundamentals.”
I dispute that, having just watched a colleague at work sell a home over a two-year period of time for a (roughly) $500,000 discount from initial asking price.
I believe the eventual sale price represented the intersection of desperation (they were “motivated buyers” all along) with determination to get the most possible on the sale. Since the eventual sale price was still at a large (5X?) multiple of the early-1990s purchase price, and was made to a buyer who was qualified to buy in the $1M+ range, I am missing the fundamentals angle. All I see is a slow-motion Dutch auction…
But then maybe I just missed your point? Perhaps the new buyer is the real knifecatcher, and we should see at what price level he eventually sells before coming to any conclusions. (I’m reminded that the last home we owned and sold in the mid-2000’s is now surrounded by cookie-cutter comps selling at a rough 60% discount to the price at which we sold; not sure what the new owners’ plans to eventually sell are…)
“But maybe I just missed you point.”
Part of my point is one should understand just what it is that drives a particular market. If a market is driven by fundamental values then he should act in one way, if the market is driven by price increases then he should act in another way.
Knifecatchers who believe they are buying in a declining fundamental market but are actually buying in a declining price-is-value market are going to get hosed.
“Knifecatchers who believe they are buying in a declining fundamental market but are actually buying in a declining price-is-value market are going to get hosed.”
Especially when the all-cash Canadian and Chinese flippers, who knew all along they were in a ‘price-appreciation-is-value’ market, collectively try to sell at the next bubble wave crest.
If a market is driven by fundamental values then he should act in one way,
Can you name any markets that are currently driven by fundamental values?
“Can you name any markets that are currently driven by fundamental values?”
1. Beanie Babies
2. Dry bulk shipping
3. Used books
“But a price-driven market has no limits because it is the price rise all by itself that creates the demand. In this type of market value is not determined by the fundamentals, instead value is determined by the price: The higher the price rises the more the value increases. The price rise generates demand and this demand generates a price rise which generates more demand … and off and running it goes, until:
…
2. The eager buyers run out of access to money.”
You are on the right track, but point 2. normally creates an upper limit on how high prices can go, in the form of a budget constraint. For example, even in the era when central valley ag workers making $30,000 in household income were able to borrow $700,000 to buy a McMansion, the same household would likely not have been able to borrow, say, $7,000,000 dollars to buy a real mansion. Apply such a budget limit to everyone who might want to buy a house, and at least in principle, you have a well-defined upper limit on prices.
Contrast that to the situation where a central bank with a fiat money press can create whatever amount of money it chooses as an electronic book entry and loan it out to its private banking partners at zero percent interest. In this case, I fully agree with you: There is no upper bound on how high prices can rise.
I have no doubt that if conditions were a bit different the $700,000 doll McMansion could have gone up to well over a million. But it didn’t because conditions didn’t allow it to - the conditions that led to the market peaking out was reached before the million-dollar level was reached.
Which goes back to my original premis which is in a price-driven market there is no way to measure just how high the price will rise.
During the runup in a price-driven market the term “overpriced” has no meaning. Meaning only gradually comes to light after the price has already peaked out and is in decline.
IMHO.
And my point is that the reason prices peak out is that each potential market participant has some limit on the amount they are either willing or able to pay. Unless there is an infinitely-deep source of funding (e.g. a central bank with an electronic fiat money press with no limit on the amount of money it can inject into the system) and an infinite amount of leverage (e.g. loans in any denomination with infinite terms at zero interest rates), there is some effective upper limit on future price appreciation that will be reached when the last potential buyer has gone as high as he is willing and able to go.
As this upper limit is approached, price appreciation begins to slow, which starts to cast doubt in the minds of new prospective buyers whether recent price gains are sustainable. This makes the new entrants to the buyer pool reduce the amount they are willing to pay for housing, to account for lower anticipated future appreciation than the previous generation of buyers anticipated. And in self-fulfilling prophesy style, the less enthusiastic new buyers serve to slow the rate of price appreciation even further.
You can easily see that without government-sponsored price supports, the above tail-chasing downward spiral could quickly slide into Darrell’s “cascading debt default into depression” scenario!
“If something once sold for a hundred dollars and it can now be bought for fifty dollars then one can buy it at a fifty percent discount.”
It’s quite nifty indeed until the buyer realizes that fifty percent discounts some times compound exponentially. Case in point: check out the Baltic Dry Index level now compared to its level at the beginning of 2012, which in turn was well below 50% off from its mid-2000’s peak.
Good morning buckaroos!
With good GOP leaders like this there is nothing that can stop us from taking this country back… to the 1400s.
“God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.
“And what I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.”
————–
Free at last, thank god my mind is free* at last!
I am so proud of our leaders! This is our nation’s chairman in the House Science Committee’s panel on investigations and oversight. I hope this guy gets more power if Romney gets elected.
*Free of rational thought.
Video link: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14203607-video-shows-scientist-in-congress-saying-evolution-is-from-pit-of-hell?lite&google_editors_picks=true
That is enough to make me want to me a Democrat. Fortunately there are enough atheists in the libertarian revolution, but religious nuts are starting to take over the political machinery. They have an uphill battle. Atheiss who cannot tolerate big government or any government have no other place to go but libertarianism, and will fight to the end to prevent its non-aggression theme to be twisted to religion-based. This is why I strongly defend pro-choice.
Wait until he gets sick and insists on going to one of those hell-spawned medical doctors to get some of those devlish anti-biotics.
“…It teaches us how to run our lives …how to run our families…”
I like the part about stoning our children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsIMNDfe9Ws
But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society.
The Book of Acts chronicles how early Christians lived communally, sharing their wealth with each other (2:44-45).
“44 And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.”
But Fundies would call that “Godless socialism”.
But Fundies would call that “Godless socialism”.
Wrong again.
We would call it living in a “Christian Community”.
You may recall that the Church was started during the Roman Empire.
This was a community living under Roman Rule.
There was NO “socialism”. The Government was not the Church. It was a dictatorship.
You are suggesting that the Emperor should tax the people for a redistribution scheme and call it “Christian Fundamentalism”.
Stop pulling up passages that you think prove a point, but have no relation to the context.
The Fool sayeth “There is no God”…….what ?
See! See! The Bible says “There is no God”.
It’s really tiresome.
Acts (2:44-45). “44 And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.”
We would call it living in a “Christian Community”.
Thank you for admitting “sharing the wealth” and wealth redistribution are Christian concepts. And as we know, most of our law is based on Judeo-Christian concepts. And now, after your help Diogenes, we can now see that our progressive tax laws are based on Judeo-Christian concepts.
I knew he would fall for it.
Well, no, we are not talking about “Christian Concepts”, we are talking about the Church.
So, if you agree that all should be governed by the Church, perhaps we could be going in that direction.
However, to be in the Church will require a “conversion”. No Atheists, Buddists, etc.
All must become a part of the Church and then we can live under the same precepts.
We can’t really say we are “sharing” with our Christian “brothers” when Wiccans want to sit at the table and consume the food of the Church. And certainly, the “pagans” would not provide ANY support to the members of the Church. We see all the time how folks like you go bonkers whenever any “public” money may get directed toward “religion”.
So the “redistribution” argument doesn’t wash.
That is YOUR proposition.
Your arguments get more spurious as time goes on.
Your arguments get more spurious as time goes on.
You mean my argument that when God created the earth 6000 years ago, the Indians needed a bunch of fast horses to get away from the dinosaurs?
But that was not an argument. That was just a logical, scientific and possible answer to your question on why there are so many horses around today.
You may recall that the Church was started during the Roman Empire.
This was a community living under Roman Rule.
Wrong the church was the government. The ministers acted as judge, president, and a group of elders as congress.
I just love it when the Religion of the Left (evolution) gets a kick. It seems to make their whole world come unglued. Evolution is “fact” you tell us. Anyone who disputes it is a kook.
I’ve looked at a lot of the so-called “evidence” and found it to be full of holes. No matter, the “intellectuals” have enough faith in their model that any problems can be overlooked until the holes can get filled with future discoveries.
I see the atheists piling on here. But I wanted to make a short comment. Some months ago we had brief discussion of “evolution” and the so-called evidence. I go the usual links to Talkorigins and a couple of people wanted me to link: wiki on horse evolution. I didn’t need to because i’ve already seen the “charts” and the stories related to them and was familiar with the Hyracotherium proposed as the “ancestor” of modern horses.
I also recall a video I had seen from an “anti-evolution”, so-called creationist about this ancestor. My recollection was that there really wasn’t a fossil record and that this animal was another “nebraska man”, a illustration dreamed up by some artist. The reason for this was that he has shown a picture next to some exhibit and it provided an explanation as to the exhibits origins as “theoretical”, not actual fossil record findings.
But, I digress.
I spent some time today trying to find useful information as to the origin of this mythical beast and how it related to horses. Link, after link, after link showed the same basic mythology, presented as fact, with all the same dates and all the same “trees” of evolutionary wonder.
I finally found another link that pointed to many of the “problems” with the horse evolutionary models of origins and was astounded by the Contrarian view. Lots of stuff to digest.
SO in contrast to: TalkOrigins,
Here is: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm#informed
The anti-thesis of your horse-evolution story.
By the way, why are so many horses today? If someone asked you to put them into some kind of sequence you probably could do that, but it doesn’t mean one was the progenitor of the other. And it doesn’t support “punctuated equilibrium”, the latest Darwinian cop-out.
By the way, why are so many horses today?
Because when God created the earth 6000 years ago the Indians needed a fast way to get away from the dinosaurs?
If you like that you should check out flatearth.com
Evolution is a theory, and it may seem a bit preposterous. However, compared to the “sky wizard” theory, it looks pretty reasonable.
How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless and the Middle Class Got Shafted
Bill Moyers: What’s your greatest fear?
Mike Lofgren: My greatest fear is that this whole impasse simply carries on. And this country becomes more and more polarized and ungovernable. And we could be faced with a very bad situation, internationally and domestically.
Bill Moyers: And what is your greatest hope?
Mike Lofgren: My greatest hope is that we can govern ourselves again in a spirit of bipartisanship.
Here’s a link to the transcript:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/11304-the-party-is-over
Oh yes, much tsk, tsking about our ‘leaders’ being polarized. Only if we could come together in a spirit of bi-partisanship! What a load of horse-sh$t.
‘Wednesday night’s debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney underscored a core truth about America’s presidential election season: the vast majority of the most consequential policy questions are completely excluded from the process. This fact is squarely at odds with a primary claim made about the two parties – that they represent radically different political philosophies – and illustrates how narrow the range of acceptable mainstream political debate is in the country.’
‘In part this is because presidential elections are now conducted almost entirely like a tawdry TV reality show. Personality quirks and trivialities about the candidates dominate coverage, and voter choices, leaving little room for substantive debates.’
‘But in larger part, this exclusion is due to the fact that, despite frequent complaints that America is plagued by a lack of bipartisanship, the two major party candidates are in full-scale agreement on many of the nation’s most pressing political issues. As a result these are virtually ignored, drowned out by a handful of disputes that the parties relentlessly exploit to galvanise their support base and heighten fear of the other side.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/04/third-party-us-presidential-debate-deceit
“What a load of horse-sh$t.”
And that’s all this political charade is.
Zen attempts to burst the constraints of our thought processes and bring sudden awareness of a higher reality by using illustrations that are a contradiction such as “the sound of one hand clapping.”
Ben - your rebuttal was perfect Zen.
+1
By the very definition of “clapping”, it requires 2 hands, so I see the illustration as an exercise in trying to reconcile things that don’t make sense.
It’s like “gay” marriage, which to me is simply and oxymoron.
It shouldn’t bother you when people that have nothing to do with you engage in the silly practice, then. Why are you so interested in telling others how to live their lives?
I really can’t tell the difference between Romney and Obama.
Insurance covering pre-existing conditions seems to be the only sticky point.
I thought coverage of pre-existing conditions was the major common point!? -
Lofgren is a RINO (Republican in Name Only):
His definition of bipartisanship is the same as any Progressive. The Progressives decide what’s the best plan and the Republicans go along like flaccid lap dogs.
We don’t need bipartisanship if it means the Government keeps growing.
You just need your party in power to ensure the government will keep growing. They tell you they’ll put an end to it, but they never do… and you believe the lies again every election cycle because they’ve taught you to be terrified of anybody else.
I think the Rep’s are the best hope for controlling the growth of government, as experience shows the Dems are worse. I am aware that the Republicans aren’t exactly frugal.
Bush’s government got large, but Obama’s government wants to put the government in charge of everything.
the Rep’s are the best hope for controlling the growth of government, as experience shows the Dems are worse.
No. Experience shows the Repubs are worse. Check the factcheck chart using CBO numbers. Spending rose faster under Bush than it did under Obama.
http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/06/Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png
And much of “Obama’s spending” was baked into the cake by Bush policies already in place.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
but Obama’s government wants to put the government in charge of everything.
They just better not try to take over my mom’s Medicare!
No. Experience shows the Repubs are worse.
Darn those pesky facts.
Rio and the rest of the progressives/communists on this board, I have a question for you:
You seem to support all things government, more is better regardless of the loss of individual liberty. That being said, would you have supported the national socialist government of WW2 Germany or the Fascist Government of WW2 Italy?
In other words, where does it stop? How much liberty are you willing to cede? Will you take it to the point of mass killings and starvation? It just seems to me that enough is never enough for the progressives and communists.
nickpapastupido- Since you are against all things government, are you an anarchist?
Are you anti-progress?
First, you did not answer the question.
Second, I am just anti-communist and anti-dictatorship. If you have read any of my previous posts on the subject, you would know that I actually like some of the projects funded by the government.
If you have read any of my previous posts on the subject, you would know that I actually like some of the projects funded by the government…
Oh, really? So…
…would you have supported the national socialist government of WW2 Germany or the Fascist Government of WW2 Italy?
No, but I support the Hoover dam, the Interstate Highway system, and our military equipment. Also high speed rail if anyone ever has the balls to roll it out.
All or nothing is for ideologues like communists and progressives.
“…and the rest of the progressives/communists on this board…”
Dumb questions of the day: WTF is a progressive? And why is one and only one poster on a nonstop diatribe against them?
It’s really just a name designed as subterfuge for a cross breed of nanny statists and communists in this country. You can find them in all political parties. I first started to notice progressives back in California in the mid to late 80’s, I realized quickly that they were a force to reckoned with and must be stopped. I will always call them out, somebody has to.
Lip, You are right. Also the complaint that it’s hard to get things done is ridiculous. The founders designed the system to make it challenging to get legislation passed. They knew only too well the greed of governemt and tyrants.
How long did it take them to pass the Patriot Act?
Terrorism is just the thing to bypass all legislative safeguards. Go against us, and you want Amercians to DIE in FLAMES!
Much like the bible bangers and their armageddon, come to think of it. “Do as we say, or our sky wizard will burn you!”
My argument against the complaints about polarization is this: Don’t these same people complain about there not being any difference between the Demopublicans?
With a clear mind the fact is the two big political parties representatives from national to local levels are all redistributing your wealth which belongs to you. The joke is on the stupid voters, 99.9999% of them. Sheep.
The joke is that the two Politicial parties both want big government for different reasons and the same reasons
The joke is the Rep’s wants a big Government and big Military more in the sense of a pawn for BIG BUSINESS ,while they pay a low share of the tax burden in terms of percentage . Anything that doesn’t support business isn’t worth it in their book .Tax the middle class to pay for the poverty class is their motto ,just don’t ask more of the rich and corporations and government should be the pawn of business ,not people .Every government program should be aiding big business ,not the sheeple .
The issue isn’t big government verses small government , The issue is who gets the Government cheese and who gets the shaft ,and who get austerity ,while the rich take the money and run in the grand heist . Who get the control and buying power
and wealth . Its scary for Rep’s for people to have to much power .If the people get to much freedom they will demand more basically .
Lofgren = Rodney King, “Can’t we all get along…”
No. I want heads on pikes to ring the Washington Monument.
Rodney King = convicted felon violating parole
Rodney King = motorist (as defined by bleeding heart main steam media pushing the liberal* agenda)
*Now rebranded as progressive.
Rodney is dead, give it a rest.
and the internet has been scrubbed and sanitized of Trayvons transitioning from a cute black kid into a ghetto thug…..
It was the ghetto thug suspended from school that approached zimmerman not the cute kid.
It was the ghetto thug suspended from school that approached zimmerman not the cute kid.
It was Zimmerman doing the approaching, against the advice of the 911 operator.
I prefer my motorists and liberal media steamed, not streamed, and my property on the Andreas fault shaken, not stirred. we can Bond - wink!
Someone is handing out lube at gas stations in CA with the Goldman logo on it.
I also think they painted giant hand with the middle finger extended on all of their fuel storage tanks.
Local farmers are fighting gas thift. One was staking out guards with guns after $10K loss.
Seems like the recent gas price spike is regional. I paid $3.39 a gallon last night here in Dallas.
$5.20 here in Mammoth yesterday, Looking for $6.00 today to match Calabasas.
Ditto Bakersplat yesterday, where they have refineries and are surrounded by producing oil fields. Of course, just like the produce grown in the Central Valley, it all gets shipped to Japan and China first so it can be shipped back and sold here in its own backyard.
$3.55 ’round herebouts.
Isn’t this wonderful no environmental damages from any NEW refining plants….all you cali greenies should be happy to pay the piper..
dj, if you had a marketable IQ, you would have read that refining goes on as always. The resulting fuel is shipped overseas. More refineries would simply mean MORE fuel shipped overseas to profit Big Oil.
Personally, I can’t wait for gas to go to $10 a gallon and get all these ninnies off my roads.
Not much room for error:
The immediate cause of the California price rise was a power failure at Exxon Mobil’s Torrance, Calif., refinery on Monday that shut down some production units at the 150,000-barrel-a-day facility. The company on Friday said the refinery had resumed normal operations. Supplies on the West Coast had already been tight because of an Aug. 6 fire at Chevron’s 245,000-barrel-a-day Richmond, Calif., refinery, which has still not been restored to full production.
Gasoline supplies are traditionally tight this time of year as refiners do maintenance work to switch from summer to fall gasoline blends mandated by the California pollution-reduction regulations.
Don’t kid yourself. The oil refined in Torrance gets shipped straight to Japan out of the LA Harbor. Iran is withholding oil in response to the US-led embargo and the speculators are having a long-delayed field day. Elections are less than a month away, and the Chency oil cartel ain’t going down without a fight.
Well those people got what they wished for no more refineries in their back yard.
$10 gas wont affect me that much since i have 71K miles on a 15 year old car, my metrocard will go up but then i have many alternate ways of travel. Biking is not one of them too many hills where i live, so its not friendly to beginners or light users.
With brains like this, it’s hard to imagine why employers aren’t flinging themselves at you to provide you with secure lifetime income.
Did anyone dine at Applebee’s last night? Given the recently-announced improvement in the unemployment number (improvement meaning a lower number), was the wait any longer?
Why would anyone eat at Applebee’s?
Ditto
To gauge US Americans’ economic health?
2 for 1 drinks. ( I’m not that cheap, but some of my friends are.)
No but we ate at Outback last night for our anniversary. The wait was about 1/2 hour. The weather was crappy, I expected little or no wait.
Outback’s food quality has gone downhill over the last five years. Probably cost cutting measures…not sure really.
The one that’s closest to us sucks. For some reason the one the other direction and a little farther away is quite good. Normally chains are pretty consistent, so I’ve been a little confused by this. I know a manager can make a big difference, but in this case there also seems to be an ingredient quality issue. I expect that to be the same everywhere…
Yeah, my wife would order the prime rib, over time it started to become smaller and more fatty. For the price they charge, I would expect better quality. The Alice springs chicken is still good.
Agreed. Outback is slowly morphing into Sizzler.
Student loans make for desperate inflatables?
HUGS.
Oh, for pete’s sake!
If people are that starved for attention, why don’t they get out into the real world? Y’know, the place beyond the computer?
Who knows, they might just make some friends out there.
I’ve read that the younger generation has fewer partners and encounters of a carnal nature than we did when we were younger. Maybe this is sort of a compensation for not making it to home base.
Thank goodness I grew up in the previous generation.
You guys had sex with everyone, and as a result AIDS/herpes became epidemic and the young people now a days have to be careful.
It was fun while it lasted.
It was a relatively small number of people with a particular orientation who had the 1000+ lifetime partners that vectored that out to the rest of us.
You mean that there is life beyond this computer screen?
Oh shoot! You weren’t supposed to find out!
There is a flaw in the Matrix!
Anon in DC - run to a payphone quick! There is a telephone number tattooed on your head - shave your head and you’ll find it and we’ll beam you up.
I predict at least one Like-A-Hug wearer will make it to the Darwin Awards.
Perhaps due to becoming unable to reproduce rather than actual death.
HeHeHeHe
The vest inflates when friends ‘Like’ a photo
How about a Send-A-Fart whoopie cushion in your pants? Hours of entertainment as you and your friends send each other uncontrollable ‘farts’ via an expanding whoopie cushion located in the seats of your pants. “Fart” your friends when they’re out on first dates, or with their in-laws.
“Dude- you Farted me at my job interview! I blew it!”
Ages 2 and up.
There was actually an iSmell device in development at one point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISmell
Perhaps they failed because they lacked your whoopie cushion component.
Rio,
I read your post of a few days ago about your ear plug dilemma reminded me of my own similar story.
I ruptured an eardrum while in Cabo in 1987. I was killing time in between scuba dives. Bored out of my mind, I spied a huge rock in San Lucas Bay. Anybody thats been there probably knows what I’m talking about. So SV decides to become an “Acapulco Cliff Diver”. Long story short I perforate my drum.
Bottom line is I ended up at a government clinic. The taxi ride cost me more than the doctor visit.
It’s a long story best told over a few cervezas.
“Long story short I perforate my drum.”
Dumb question: How can cliff diving perforate your eardrum?
Sudden change in pressure.
Is that due to rapid decent to depth upon entering the water?
How do professional cliff divers avoid this?
“descent”
Damn Latin spell checker ain’t working…
Inner ear and outer ear pressure doesn’t equalize when one dives that quickly.
I assume they wear ear-plugs of some kind.
On that note, I’m grabbing my earplugs and heading over to the pool for a morning swim (no cliff diving plans!)…
With practice one can control the opening up of his eustachian tubes. Yawning is one way to do this. Holding the nose and gently blowing is another. A third way involves training the associated muscles.
It’s these tubes that the body uses to equalize pressures between the inner ears and the outside world.
I once read of a carnival guy who had both his eardrums blown out and hence was able to make money in the carnival tent by being the guy who could blow cigarette smoke out of his ears.
Ask me nicely and I will tell you of the carnival guy who could pound nails into his eyes.
Is it too late now to get into the stock market and capture a piece of the QE3-fueled rally to all-time highs?
Oct. 5, 2012, 6:02 a.m. EDT
Stock investors: Don’t fight QE3 in Q4
Commentary: Election year bodes well for market to hit new highs
By Jeffrey A. Hirsch
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (MarketWatch) — Despite weak fundamental data, Europe’s debt crisis, escalating geopolitical tensions and the pending “fiscal cliff,” the U.S. stock market continues to drift higher with only an occasional pause.
There’s good reason for this. Central banks the world-round have either pledged to or have already begun to refill the punch bowl. Yet at some point soon, most likely before the middle of next year, the well will run dry again. But for now the market seems to care little about anything except QE3 and European Central Bank rhetoric. Read more: How to brace for more volatile markets.
The Fed has basically backstopped the stock market and said, “We are here.” Reading between the lines of the Fed’s statements it is clear that they are waging all-out war against unemployment the best they can, by throwing bundles of $100 bills at it. Whether they will ultimately succeed or not is anyone’s guess. In the meantime, the old adage “Don’t fight the Fed” is best heeded.
…
How is the picture shaping up for investors these days, in the face of the following realities?
1) The real global economy is majorly f’d.
2) Central bankers are trying to offset economic reality by pumping in unlimited amounts of newly-created fiat.
Oct. 5, 2012, 6:02 a.m. EDT
Cash is king over stocks, bonds and REITs
Commentary: Take money off the table; markets poised to fall
By John Coumarianos
NORTHVALE, N.J. (MarketWatch) — Investors: It’s time to raise some cash.
If the current quarter brings more gains, you’ll miss out, but that’s better than being exposed to expensive asset classes.
Of course, you’re losing money to inflation sitting in cash, which pays nothing, but you’re reserving the opportunity to buy stocks, bonds, REITs and other investments at potentially cheaper prices later this year. To paraphrase value investor Howard Marks, we can’t predict what will happen — certainly not in one quarter — but we can prepare. Read a counterpoint: Don’t fight QE3 in Q4.
Let’s go through some asset class valuations and expected returns starting with bonds to see why raising cash is a good idea over the next few months.
…
I took some huge profits and it’s sitting in my brokerage accounts. But did not bother my retirement plans, which are all in aggressive stock funds. My staffing company survey among employers of IT comes out quarterly and I have been reading these reports since 2004. They have been very accurate. The forecast for the next twelve months by the employer survey calls for an expected increase in hiring in IT.
I expect a general 20% correction anytime and have some wish list stocks. Don’t like being in a lot of cash though. My wish list includes Ford, BAC, Southwest Airlines, Toyota, Hess, Master Card, Google, Qualcomm, US Airways, Pinnacle West (I sold all my shares of that in June with a $4200 gain), my company stock which I buy already thru ESPP, LNC, NYB, TROW.
In a few weeks we will see if the WARN layoff notice have any effect on the election a couple days later.
You are very brave to be investing in airlines.
I am not investing in them. They are on my watch list. They are what I think are some of the riskiest stocks. The best way to buy them is if it is 2003 or early 2009! I lost 50% in tech stocks in 2000. I did make a long term gain on AWA $3000 worth of gain before the merger with US airways. I will wait for a correction before I buy airline stocks. My modest amount of MA and of WFM are both up 20% from the June days when indices were down for awhile.
Is it fair to say that a Romney presidency would result in less educational TV for our kids, but more drone strike capability?
PBS CEO Paula Kerger: Mitt Romney’s Debate Attack Was ‘Stunning’ (VIDEO)
The Huffington Post | By Jack Mirkinson Posted: 10/04/2012 11:26 am EDT Updated: 10/04/2012 5:26 pm EDT
The CEO of PBS fired back at Mitt Romney Thursday, saying that it was “stunning” that the Republican candidate had singled her network out in Wednesday’s debate.
Romney had one of his most memorable moments when he vowed to cut the federal subsidy to public broadcasting.
“I’m sorry Jim, I’m gonna stop the subsidy to PBS,” he told moderator Jim Lehrer, who has worked for PBS since the 1970s. “I like PBS, I love Big Bird, I actually like you too, but I’m going to stop borrowing money from China to pay for things we don’t need.”
…
I notice everybody likes to focus on the Big Bird part of that sentence and ignored the “stop borrowing money from China to pay for things we don’t need” part. I thought it was a good point. Except that I have zero confidence he will ACTUALLY do that.
It’s either kill Big Bird or stop borrowing from China?
Sure…
everybody likes to focus on the Big Bird part
I just heard that PBS gets 450 million a year from the Federal government and that’s equal to 6 hours of Pentagon spending. Can that be real?????
If it’s true we need to kill Big Bird fast..
Nobody gets it…..Its not about PBS its the FCC allocated only so many frequencies and radio stations in the 88-92mhz educational band.
PBS aka public radio has hogged up so many high powered channel allocations that the Public….as in public radio has been shut out of participating for years more like decades.
What you have today is Government controlled Radio….Government approved radio and tv shows.
Slims radio station is the rare exception, because of its location…. community radio is practically non existent in America because of PBS..
Colleges with great journalism and broadcasting schools are shut out from even getting a 10 watt station let alone 1000 watts to practice on, because PBS must have 3 networks all with different programming..I could go on
All i want is the public to be involved in public radio…and that means ending funding for all PBS stations….give back your licenses….
One of our city’s high schools has a radio station. Great selection of oldies and no commercials. 2 stations associated with the U and a non-commercial Americana station. Mid size city a little larger than Tucson. I don’t see the squeeze.
My local (University of Kentucky) college radio has 7900 watts…WRFL Rocks!
They were grandfathered in…cant get one today….Broadcasting began in 1988 using a 250-watt tower. In 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved the station for an upgrade to 7,900 watts,
WUKY helped create National Public Radio and was one of the first stations to carry NPR’s “All Things Considered” when it debuted in 1971. We’re licensed to the University of Kentucky and serve the Lexington and and central Kentucky area with 100,000 watts.
So anyone in this coverage area is SOL today
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WUKY&service=FM&status=L&hours=U
Oh and its a directional antenna probably protecting another station farther south on 88.1 or 88.3 and tv6 audio which is 87.75….
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WRFL&service=FM&status=L&hours=U
Aside from the normal objections to the methods used to calculate the CPI we clearly need to make some new adjustments to the cost of food due to the rapidly increasing use of food stamps and disability checks. In current CPI calculations consumers if consumers pay $X for their food using Federal Reserve Notes. Instead the CPI should be calculated as $X less the value of the food paid for with food stamps. Therefore we need a new food stamp deflator variable added to the CPI to adjust the value of food.
“foodstamp usage for both persons and households, has jumped to a new all time record… since December 2007 those added to foodstamps and disability rolls, has increased by a unprecedented 21 million”
Likewise with other subsidies from student loans, disability checks, section 8 housing subsidies, if we add a deflator for each of these to the CPI we find the price gains are much lower than currently estimated.
The rate of increase in the value of the deflator is increasing over time. If we calculate forward the first derivative of the value of the CPI less the deflator over the change in time we can therefore show that the CPI converges at the zero bound.
By subsidizing market prices net prices to the consumer can be optimized and perhaps with sufficient subsidies all elements of the CPI can approach a deflator adjusted value close to the zero bound. Hence government intervention in the market can lead to a greater prosperity for the average citizen.
These policy adjustments would therefore lead to a adjusted value in the Taylor rule used as the basis for setting Central Bank Monetary Policy. In a soon to be release paper we demonstrate that the consequence of these CPI adjustments requires a much larger Fed balance sheet and therefore a much larger quantitative easing than we have currently.
By the way - this is all tongue and cheek. If sending everyone in the country a check for their food, rent and education was the path to prosperity Communism wouldn’t have failed. Don’t let anyone making specious arguments per above fool you into thinking otherwise. Just because it cites the use for The Calculus doesn’t make a model correct.
Warning, highly elitist comments below:
My wife’s mother is in town to visit. Now, hold all the in-law jokes, she’s a very nice woman, and, if I had to guess, is a very good indicator of “middle America”. She’s also a very devout born-again follower and has a firmly middle-class job (medical billing). Also, for the sake of completeness, I’d guess her IQ is about average for the country (around 100 or so). I mention this because, in my day to day life, I don’t deal with many people who are “average” intelligence; if I had to guess, my peers at work are all 115+ IQ, with my boss being a real standout, certainly 125+. My friends, in general, I would also peg as at least 110+. Again, this post isn’t about IQ, it’s about the stratification of society and the shocking level of distance there is between most people and people who circulate in my peer group.
Anyway, I know she is a republican (as am I) so I asked her what she thought of the debates. She, as was I, was very happy with R’s performance and thought he did a great job. The next part of the conversation, however, is where the wheels came off. She then asked me if I heard that O intended to institute a $1 “tax” for every time you use an ATM machine. I looked at her kind of funny (ugh, think it through, what would happen if you did that). She went on to mention that O was preparing to open up the FEMA camps to suppress the voice of the religious right. And then she finished with; “and he’s a Muslim”.
Well, the last statement I knew, factually, to be false.. So I asked her, “where did you hear that O’s a Muslim”? Answer, “Church, we talk about it every week, everybody there knows it”. That was also the answer, BTW, for where she heard the first 2 myths as well.
Now for the elitist part. And I’m going to try to say this in as non-inflammatory a way as possible. Are these really the people that we want deciding elections? This woman is not “dumb”, she’s average, and she’s a very nice person. Again, I would likely pin her IQ at about 100 or so, certainly nowhere near either “substandard” or “gifted”. But, the speed at which she was hoodwinked, and the way in which her religion has totally colored her world-view. It’s just dumbfounding to me, it took me about 10 seconds with Google to debunk both of those myths, and yet, she never even thought to question what her church going peers and preacher had delivered as gospel. I was really almost afraid after this conversation, is it really that easy to brainwash people by putting on a robe and claiming you’ve got God on speed dial?
I guess an interesting way to end this; what percentage of the people who vote do you think are even the slightest bit informed on the issues? How many people do you think vote for/against a candidate based on totally incorrect information like was detailed above? Do you think that Republicans generally seem to be less intelligent than Dems (I am a Repub, so, I’m sure the answer from some folks on this board will be, “if you’re any indication, he** yeah)…
Oh, an finally, given her income bracket, my MIL would be FAR better off voting for O. She’s retiring soon and doesn’t seem to understand that the Republican platform of “lower taxes” doesn’t mean squat to her. It’s the “restore religion to America” that she loves about R, although, I’m sure if I asked her what that meant, she’d have no idea (because R has no idea, he’s saying that to placate people like my MIL, not because he’s actually going to do anything).
Do you think that Republicans generally seem to be less intelligent than Dems
I think a few things. Firstly I believe the Right-Wing’s propaganda machine is FAR superior to that of the left. I also believe the right’s PR machine plays much dirtier and lies much more. Any intelligent, objective person can see this currently manifested in the Romney campaign. Heck they themed and entire day of their convention on a lie about Obama was talking about. “We built it” Romney lied through his teeth at the debate and Ryan’s convention speech was
peppered with lies. (Now you can call these things shadings of the truth but when their target is busy, distracted people with average IQ’s of 100, I call them LIES)
Also the right has greater influence in the churches. You saw where your MIL got some her right-wing PR lies. In her church. Churches are powerful influences on those who hold them important in their lives.
(She has a) firmly middle-class job (medical billing).
“Uniquely American!”
(Countries with universal health-care don’t as many of those relatively non-productive jobs as does America)
Correction:
(Countries with universal health-care don’t (NEED) as many of those relatively non-productive jobs as does America)
It has nothing to do with intelligence in my opinion. You can find equally deluded people across the bell curve. Just as has been pointed out here in many threads you can find many unattractive traits spread across the bell curve such as corruption, fraud, ill temper, herding mentality, intolerance, etc. Mental acuity is not a prophylactic against other abhorrent traits.
In fact I personally know many very intelligent people on the right and left even those with successful careers and wealth that believe exactly as your MIL does.
I’ve traveled a lot off the beaten path all over the world and especially in the third world. I would posit that mass reinforcement of delusion is the rule and not the exception in the human condition at large. In most countries that narrative about how things came to be is completely deluded. Most world views are spread like old ladies gossiping. Much of it full of justifications and vindications that allow the narrator to deflect the ills of the world.
The world is one big cult. Very few ever escape the small sphere they are brought up in. The evidence is clear. From beliefs in religion, politics, economics and social norms few rarely escape the small sphere of reinforcing group-think. It’s rare indeed that a person is able to escape whichever cult they were born into. It is a long and painful process that requires stripping each facet of one’s ego away. Our entire concept of the universe is built on certain building blocks, many little pieces that fit together to form our perception of our world. To step outside of these requires the faith that you can leave everything you know behind and you can step off of a cliff and into the darkness and start over. It means leaving behind everything and everyone that matters to you. How many people ever make that leap?
I agree with you, there are very intelligent people who hold religion in the utmost importance in their lives. However, those people are rare (they are the exception), as IQ rises, so does religious belief. And frankly, if you have a high IQ, even if you spend every waking minute in a church, I can’t believe that you wouldn’t question things like my MIL heard and not do some independent research. Most of the church’s teachings are impossible to research (was Jesus the son of God, good luck finding that one out on Google), however, “Is Obama going to open internment camps”, that’s pretty easy to figure out.
I suppose I agree with you, I was brought up by athiest parents, and that’s where I’ve remained. However, they did send me to Catholic school for many years to try to get me to build my own world-view, and they never discouraged me from following a religion, they just said it was not for them. Now that I’m much older, we can have intelligent discussions about it, and they are very happy that neither my brother or I decided to get involved with religion, but, at the same time, they would have supported our decision had we decided it was going to be an important part of our lives.
Sorry, I meant:
“As IQ rises, do does religious DISBELIEF”
Does it? I don’t know the data on that. You may be correct.
I would imagine that more intelligent people tend to get secular educations in fields like the sciences and therefore are exposed to ideas of atheism and learn about evidence that conflicts with the Bible. Less intelligent people don’t get as much exposure to science. At least in the U.S.
If you look outside the U.S. like in Saudi Arabia nearly everyone is religious a person. And they are smart people. They were enjoying the bronze age and developing complex math while my stone age Scottish ancestors were wearing horns on their head and inventing Scottish ales. I dunno - maybe it was just a hang over from all the beer.
LOL
It does, at least with some regularity, correlate with intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
There are a lot of studies out there that show this effect as well, but it’s pretty consistent, the higher your IQ, the less likely you are to follow an organized religion.
“the higher your IQ, the less likely you are to follow an organized religion.”
I guess I’m an outlier, then. The way I see it, religion doesn’t contradict conventional science - more like it supplements it. Something like an additional dimension that hasn’t been explored scientifically.
Needless to say I am not a fundamentalist.
That the thing that you always have to remember with IQ studies, although it can tell you something “in general” it most certainly cannot tell you if the individual standing in front of you who happens to be religious is in fact a moron or a genius. There are outliers; there are idiot atheists and brilliant fundamentalists. I happen to think that most of the brilliant religious folks are “pruning” (as you mention you are) the dogma to fit their world view, just as a moron atheist is likely not really without belief, he/she just hasn’t had the exposure to religion or to one that fits his/her view of the world.
“Needless to say I am not a fundamentalist.”
What, you mean to say that you don’t believe that the translated writings that come out of an oral tradition are 100% factually correct and inerrant in spite of seeming contradictions?
Heh. Me neither. I’m Catholic and we get to do textual criticism of the Bible.
And frankly, if you have a high IQ, even if you spend every waking minute in a church, I can’t believe that you wouldn’t question things like my MIL heard and not do some independent research.
Nobody puts a lot of effort into disproving things that they want to believe.
“Nobody puts a lot of effort into disproving things that they want to believe.”
That is certainly not true. I personally spent days of my life reading (to keep this somewhat OT) books on the housing bubble (like the Learah’s classic) to try to see if there was a good reason that I was missing that were pushing housing prices up. I wanted to believe that there was a bubble (because I couldn’t afford a house, so wanted prices to come down) but spent a lot of time trying to prove myself wrong.
I think lots of people do this. Before I buy a stock I typically do the same thing. Look at it from the other side, try to blow a hole in my reason for buying stock XYZ; shoot down my own reasoning.
I try to question my assumptions as much as possible because, frankly, I think it’s the only way to “grow” as a person. If my beliefs are set now and will never change, how can I continue to evolve and become “better” than I am today.
I spent a lot of time in church when I was young, and still consider a few times a year, if my non-religion is the right choice for me. Does religion have anything to offer me? Should something happen that I simply cannot explain with science and/or logic, I may change my mind on that too.
Maybe “nobody” was a SLIGHT exaggeration. I was wondering if I’d get called on it. But we must have a very different definition of “lots”. I bet it’s less than 1% of the total population.
” I bet it’s less than 1% of the total population.”
Sadly, I’m afraid that this number I may not be able to dispute. Critical thinking is in short supply in our country, I’d like to think it’s more like 5-10%, but, whatever the number, it’s FAR too small.
Does she have an Iphone? Steve Jobs said smartphone users dont use search they use apps…so if they aren’t not trained to use search…then how will they know any better?
Ask any kid these questions you’ll get the same dumb look…The world at their fingertips and clueless…
We had to use the library or go to the neighbors who just bought the latest encyclopedia..my parents never bought them since we had at least 5 neighbors on the street that did….so it gave us a reason to do our homework together.
———-
what percentage of the people who vote do you think are even the slightest bit informed on the issues?
“Ask any kid these questions you’ll get the same dumb look…The world at their fingertips and clueless…”
See, now that’s terrifying. Older generation, I can understand, to a certain extent, not being comfortable with things like Google and other search tools. But the younger generation, they also are not familiar with them because there’s no “app” for that? Ugh..
I can’t tell you how many days of my life I’ve spent just lost in Wikipedia. It’s fascinating, the amount of information there about just about any topic you can dream up. And the links to learn more about some particular part of what you started searching on in the first place? It’s probably one of my most visited websites (certainly by time spent), I absolutely love it. It would be a crying shame if the younger generation wasn’t exposed to it as well.
If you had a computer with Wikipedia access 50 years ago (and somehow nobody saw what you were doing) you would have been the smartest person on the planet. The breath and depth of knowledge there is staggering.
Exactly …following links…sometimes you get so involved in discovering so why aren’t the 20 something talking about this? why aren’t they protesting about student loans, the trillion a year debt… why isn’t there a 20 year old Drudge?…or a young Geraldo…exposing this?
Even on internet radio the 20 somethings seem to watch Spike TV and MMA….and pole dancing….not much politics i can find. And how many 20’s ever posted here??
Overtaxed, my sister and her two adult kids, one kid a recent college graduate and the other a dropout who is now middle aged effectively at 35, are staunch Republicans. I betch take the religious fundamentalism out of Republican and put it in Democrat they would fiercely defend socialism like they are now fiercely defending small government.
The only reason why my sister is working is our dad died in 2000. Her economic support stopped after the humble inheritance. She herself is college educated but works a low income job.
I strongly doubt the evangelicals care to think it through, follow the premises, of individualism. Religionists Glenn Beck championing atheist Ayn Rand. I also strongly think the left, who want big government and the nanny state care to think their premises through either. With ever greater taxes comes ever greater foreign intervention. Democrat Woodrow Wilson was blunt from the beginning. He welcomed a permanent income tax so he and his successors could enjoy consistent revenue to “make the world safe for Democracy.”
The epitome of shallow thinking is in the form of restricting individual liberty. Both the left and the right are such.
Great post Bill, and, I couldn’t agree more. The religious folks just want to vote in someone who they think agrees with them, regardless of what that person’s other views are. And yes, the Glen Beck thing really makes my head hurt.. Did he even read Atlas Shrugged?
Frankly, the majority of people in this country are likely better served by voting for Democrats; I suppose that’s why the Repubs have to glom on to some idea of religious fundamentalism to try to get people who are blinded by that to vote against their best interests. I can’t stand that part of the Republican party, and I also can’t stand the restriction (that they are so keen on) of individual liberties. Probably the easiest of these is abortion, a “hot button” issue that seems to make people vote R or D more than many others.
People.. Let me tell you something that you don’t seem to be able to understand (voters). Neither D or R is going to do anything to abortion. It will always be there, and, with new technology, it just becomes more and more pervasive (ie, morning after pill). There’s absolutely nothing you can do to stop it, the very best you could possibly hope for is to push it underground (illegal abortions) for the poor and force the rich to go to another country (where it’s legal) to have Dr’s do it for them. It’s a one time procedure, and it’s going to be legal somewhere. It also doesn’t require a ton of sophisticated equipment to do, hence the back alley abortions.
Frankly, I find abortion to be a real horror in this world. I hate the idea of it, but, at the same time, I recognize the reality of the situation; the knowledge needed to do this is common across the world, there’s no stopping it now that the genie is out of the bottle. So, as a compromise, we should place some reasonable rules around it and regulate it so that women who want them can have a safe abortion. Also, it’s worth reading some books about how society has changed since abortion became more widespread (less unwanted children means less maladjusted adults in jail). Doesn’t excuse the behavior, but, on the whole, it’s probably a net positive for society.
However, I’ve digressed… The point of this is that people seem to vote “R” “cause they gonna stop the baby killing”. No, they are not. There’s nothing that they can do to stop it, the best they can do is make it less available so that poor people have to go back to using sharpened sticks and middle class/wealthy have to fly to Mexico/Canada/etc to get it done. And that’s BEST CASE, if you somehow get a president to flat out make it illegal. So, why even vote on the issue, no matter what happens, the result isn’t going to change. And yet, people blindly vote that particular issue every day. I see the “religion” thing the same way. What the heck is Mitt or O going to do to change religion in this country? How on earth does having a president who supports “religion” in the office help you (and, frankly, what the h3ll does that even mean)? But, Mitt talks about his “faith” all the time and somehow, that makes him a good candidate for you? Even though your on food stamps and your 99th week of unemployment, the very kinds of things that the Republicans look to cut? Have you thought this through?
The other thing.. How many of these people (in high office) are using religion as a “tool” compared to how many actually “believe”? I’m sure that some believe, but, at the same time, I’m sure that a LOT of them say what they think others want to hear and, go home, watch Bill Mahar and laugh their a**es off at how silly their stated “beliefs” are.
Blind the sheep with religion then sheer the sheep.
” Are these really the people that we want deciding elections? This woman is not “dumb”, she’s average, and she’s a very nice person. Again, I would likely pin her IQ at about 100 or so, certainly nowhere near either “substandard” or “gifted”. But, the speed at which she was hoodwinked, and the way in which her religion has totally colored her world-view.”
You could say the exact same thing about the brainwashed progressives being churned out on every college campus in this country…you know…the ones wearing red and black, carrying communist flags and wearing Che Guevara T-Shirts. Do we really want these people deciding elections? I think they cancel each other out, although I think a 100 IQ would be generous for the latter.
I find that the farther folks are to the right or to the left, the more inclined they are to believe what people on their side say, and disbelieve what those on the other side say.
Regardless of whether it is true or not.
My familial example. My MIL (quite left) was talking about how Romney has no humanity, and not a generous bone in his body. I asked whether she read the NYT article about how he lent money to a family so that they could buy the house they were renting from him when he was looking to sell.
Lending money to them meant he didn’t displace them, not lending money to them meant he kicked them out and sold to someone else.
They have been grateful since–because without the loan, they would not have been able to purchase.
Her response…”there must be more to the story”. I said “why?” Ultimately, she couldn’t believe that it was true, despite coming from the NYT, because it was counter to what she was hearing from the far left. Frankly, she just said she didn’t like him.
My new litmus test for people when they want to talk politics is whether they have recently (within the past decade or so) voted for a candidate that is NOT of their party affiliation. If they say “no”, then I fear they have lost the ability to be objective.
”there must be more to the story”
I’m sure there is. He probably lent them that money at some reasonable interest rate and is now making some profit. I view this as a good thing, it’s an arms length transaction, both the borrower and the lender benefited. The far left would decry that as “he doesn’t need the money, that should be a 0% loan, or he should just give them the house”. I view that as a “good deal” for everyone involved, he makes a reasonable profit, they get the house they wanted. That; IMHO, is how the economy is supposed to work.
His work in high finance, I fear, was much less “value generating” than this particular example. Pushing numbers around on a spreadsheet typically generates very little value for most people and an extreme amount of profit for others.
“My new litmus test for people when they want to talk politics is whether they have recently (within the past decade or so) voted for a candidate that is NOT of their party affiliation.”
Does Ron Paul count? I have never voted for a Democrat, but I would, if they would push some of the liberal issues that I care about (drug legalization, more personal autonomy, etc). If O came out tomorrow and said a major part of his platform for his next term will be to legalize MJ and soften drug laws for other substances, I would vote for him. However, his platform, as it currently stands is totally at odds with my beliefs, as is typical with most Democratic candidates. Drugs and abortion; two hot button issues that candidates talk about, get into office, and then promptly do nothing with. Drug policy is also one of the few things that a president could fix almost unilaterally.
Wow. Just wow.
” Chinese funding Florida charter schools
Investment money is pouring into Florida from wealthy Chinese who find that Florida has exactly what they are looking for — and what they need to secure US green cards.
Chinese investors are taking advantage of the EB-5 investment visa program, the so-called “green card via red carpet,” by putting millions into Florida’s charter schools and an aquaculture farm in Central Florida.
Under the EB-5 program, through investments of at least $1 million — or $500,000 for “targeted employment areas” — foreign nationals are able to obtain legal residency in the US so long as the money they invest will help secure or create at least 10 full-time jobs.”
http://www.miamitodaynews.com/news/121004/story1.shtml
Yesterday FPSS lashed out and said I was just “making up” numbers. Someone called it BS. That is wrong. Some of this stuff is just obvious but here my sources below proving my point. (Thanks Ryan for the math correction)
My general premise was that the majority of uninsured in the USA are women and children and the demographic most responsible for blocking universal health-care is the Republican, older white male. (including both politicians and voters)
Therefore: The demographic group most responsible for blocking health-care for our women and children is the Republican older white American male. My premise is fact. Here’s my proof:
Firstly: Who’s most responsible for blocking health-care?
–The Republican Party had been most responsible for blocking universal health coverage the past 20 years. (*1)
–Republican voters are about 90% white, (*2)
and more likely to be older and male. (*3) (*4)
–Republicans in the House and Senate are about 90% male. (*5)
Conclusion: My premise is proven CORRECT. The demographic most responsible for blocking universal health-care is the Republican, older white male. (Including both politicians and voters)
Secondly: Are the majority of uninsured women and children?
–There are about 46 million Americans without health insurance. (*6)
–”There are more than 17 million uninsured women (aged 18–64 years) in the United States.” (*7)
–There are 8 million uninsured children in America. (*8)
–17 million women and 8 million children equals 25 million uninsured. 25 is a majority of 46 therefor the majority of uninsured in America are women and children.
Conclusion: My basic premise is proven CORRECT.
“the majority of uninsured in the USA are women and children and the demographic most responsible for blocking universal health-care (Including both politicians and voters) is the Republican, older white male. Therefore: The demographic group most responsible for blocking health-care for our women and children is the Republican older white American male.”
Modified from yesterday: “Now what can you say about a society where most white males will stand up and scream about any small tax increase “punishing” the “producers” but then we throw women and kids under the bus? I’d say we’re much better than that.”
Sources:
*1. Behind the GOP’s 20-Year Campaign to Kill Health Care Reform
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/behind-gops-20-year-campaign-kill-health-care-reform
*2. In the Long Run, Is the GOP Dead?
http://news.yahoo.com/long-run-gop-dead-070000773.html
*3. Gallup
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150386/republicans-nationwide-similar-composition-2008.aspx
*4. Republican primary voters older, over 90% white
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/09/1072522/-Republican-primary-voters-older-over-90-white
*5. Republican women: A minority in a minority
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22342.html
*6. Census Bureau: Number of Americans without health insurance rises to 46.3 million
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-09-10/news/17930863_1_health-insurance-uninsured-last-year-number-of-uninsured-children
*7. Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women
http://www.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/Committee_Opinions/Committee_on_Health_Care_for_Underserved_Women/The_Uninsured
*8. Number and Percentage of Uninsured Children in Each State
http://www.childrensdefense.org/policy-priorities/childrens-health/uninsured-children/uninsured-children-state.html
My premise is proven CORRECT
I knowed this might been bad grammer but didn’t care much because I was in a Hurrry.
In addition to: “My premise has been proved correct” what is another way to say this? “My premise is proved correct” ? “My premise has proved correct”?
My premise has (or is) proved (or proven) correct.
I think all are acceptable.
Preferably, my premise has now been proven (to be) correct.
Your second point:
“17 million women and 8 million children equals 25 million uninsured. 25 is a majority of 46 therefor the majority of uninsured in America are women and children.”
Total uninsured:
17 million adult women (aged 18–64 years)
21 million adult men (aged 18–64 years)
8 million children (aged 18–64 years)
——–
46 total uninsured
Your argument is based on the “new” math.
Last I checked 21 million was *greater* than 17 million. Therefore more men are uninsured than women based on your own data.
Your conclusion is silly because I could just as easily say most of the uninsured are men and children:
“21 million men and 8 million children equals 29 million uninsured. 29 is a majority of 46 therefor the majority of uninsured in America are men and children.”
Right?
That’s not to mention you completely ignored all the data I posted yesterday. What is your response to my post from yesterday?
Last I checked 21 million was *greater* than 17 million. Therefore more men are uninsured than women based on your own data.
Hey! You are entirely correct on your math.
I did not catch your math point. Thank you. However your math point does not negate my point when American/Western family values, traditions and roles of the sexes are brought into the picture. (Which they have to be because they ARE involved.)
According to my research:
The point of women and children being
thea majority of the uninsured is correct.The point of men and children being a majority of the uninsured is also correct.
But there is a big difference between “women and children” and “men and children” in our traditional roles and in society.
The phrase “women and children” is a common association for a good reason. In anthropology, civilization and families, “women and children” is an entirely different and more culturally important concept than “men and children”. Throughout history “women and children” have been the grouping that men were charged to protect and have protected.
“Women and Children First!” to the lifeboats was the cry as the Titanic sank. My point is not “silly”, but officers yelling “Men and Children First” on the Titanic would have sounded pretty darn silly. Why? Because “Men and Children” is not a usually associated group in society (thank goodness! lol) whereas “women and children” is the natural association - especially in the sphere of protection and providing for.
My point that it has been males (90% white, older and Republican) that have blocked women and children’s health care is entirely correct and culturally relevant.
Blocking health-care for women and children goes against men’s traditional role of taking care of women and children. This is a case where mostly conservative/traditional men have neglected their traditional, conservative duty to take care of many of America’s women and children.
Your point was correct mathematically as well but not damaging to my point because it only requires me to change the word “the” to “a”. And even in doing so, my point does not resonate less.
TheA majority of the uninsured in America are women and children. It has been the traditional and conservative role of men to provide for, and protect women and children. But the demographic group most responsible for blocking health care for the uninsured women and children are older, white, “conservative” Republican men.(and I didn’t see your remarks yesterday, I didn’t read the whole day’s stuff)
Let me restate your logic using different terms:
We have a population of lab mice comprised of:
20% Red Mice
20% White Mice
20% Blue Mice
40% Green Mice
I make the claim that the green mice are the most represented in the group of lab mice.
Your argument is that the red, white and blue mice combined make up 60% of the total and therefore they are the majority and the green mice are the minority. And then you go on to justify this leap of faith because red, white and blue has a more culturally significant meaning in the American culture and therefore you grouping is valid.
The facts:
16.7% of the U.S. population is uninsured.
Only 10% of children are uninsured. So by and large if you are a child in the U.S. you have a much *higher* likelihood of being insured than if you are an adult. So your whole premise is flawed. 90% of children in the U.S. are insured compared to 16.7% for the population as a whole.
By race only 10% of whites are uninsured. Only 10% of white women 10% are uninsured. I actually think it is pretty amazing that 90% of white women and 90% of all children.
So who are the 16.7% of the population that are uninsured? One third of Hispanics are uninsured. Non-citizens are more likely to be uninsured than citizens, with a 43.8% uninsured rate. The longer a non-citizen immigrant has been in the country, the less likely they are to be uninsured. In 2006, roughly 27% of immigrants entering the country before 1970 were uninsured, compared to 45% of immigrants entering the country in the 1980s and 49% of those entering between 2000 and 2006.
Most uninsured non-citizens are recent immigrants; almost half entered the country between 2000 and 2006, and 36% entered during the 1990s. Foreign-born non-citizens accounted for over 40% of the increase in the uninsured between 1990 and 1998, and over 90% of the increase between 1998 and 2003. One reason for the acceleration after 1998 may be restrictions imposed by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. Almost seven out of ten (68%) of uninsured non-citizens live in California, Texas, Florida, or New York.
That my friend Rio who the uninsured are.
Can we do better than the 90% level? Sure we can but I doubt it’ll ever reach 100%. There are some people that choose to be “off the grid.” I think there is one in each family. And there are a certain number of people at any given time in a transition like leaving home before starting a career. Still maybe we could get that up higher.
So I can’t accept the argument that the U.S. doesn’t want to take care of its women and children. The key issue is we have had a flood of immigrants from Mexico and they are taking a while to be assimilated into the economy. And do many republicans not want to pay for their health care? On that point I’d guess you are correct. I don’t think most republicans want to pay for that.
Now I think the most intelligent thing I read in response to your post yesterday was “Housing Wizards” diatribe about how Obamacare is structured for the sale purpose of sending money to big pharma and health insurers. Obamacare is a rip-off. If you want a socialist medical system a single payer system which the health system is run by the government is the only affordable option. That means cutting out the insurance middlemen and negotiating bulk discounts from big pharma.
And lastly I want to point out that many people are not opposed to paying for socialized medicine including the rich. What they are opposed to is borrowing money from China and other countries to pay for socialized medicine. That is not sustainable and can only end with a major default. That’s not going to be good for the poor, the children or our women.
And then you go on to justify this leap of faith because red, white and blue has a more culturally significant meaning in the American culture and therefore you grouping is valid.
It was a good try but you lost the point. Unlike “Men and Children”……..”Women and Children” is a natural grouping, concept, and relationship in EVERY CULTURE IN THE WORLD SINCE HISTORY BEGAN. You loose. You are now looking silly trying to defend a silly position.
Check it out…..Google search:
“men and children: About 2,420,000 results
“women and children” About 55,200,000 results
“Women and Children” has more relevance by a factor of almost 30. Almost 30 times more! lol Why? Well you know why, I know why and everybody reading this know “why”.
So your argument is based on the number of google results?
red, white and blue about 264,000,000 results
green about 3,870,000,000 results
“green” has more relevance by a factor of almost 15. Almost 15 times more! lol Why? Well you know why, I know why and everybody reading this know “why”.
And I can repeat this for every other combination of colors.
So your argument is based on the number of google results?
Yes. And also history, anthropology, sociology, family dynamics, child raising, role of the sexes, tradition, common sense, reality, objectivity, facts, figures, and also as they relate to the hypocrisy of white, older Republican men.
My argument is won on this point. Now you’re just sounding weak-sauce and reaching by not admitting the anthropological importance of the grouping of “women and children”.
I mean come on. Give it a rest. Who reading here hasn’t heard the term, understood the implications of and naturally made the association of “Women and Children”
On this issue, now you’re just wasting my time and this blog’s bandwidth.
10% of children are uninsured….if you are a child in the U.S. you have a much *higher* likelihood of being insured than if you are an adult. So your whole premise is flawed.
Wrong. How does your above statement “flaw” my premise? I does nothing of the sort. My premise was not that kids were more uninsured than adults. You are not reading carefully.
Again, here’s my premise:
A majority of the uninsured in America are women and children. It has been the traditional and conservative role of men to provide for, and protect women and children. But the demographic group most responsible for blocking health care for the uninsured women and children are older, white, “conservative” Republican men.
By race only 10% of whites are uninsured.
It’s not 10%. It’s 11.7% according to the 2010 census. But who cares? This fact does nothing to dent my premise above.
I can’t accept the argument that the U.S. doesn’t want to take care of its women and children.
Fine, don’t accept it. But your “not accepting it” does nothing to disprove, dent or weaken my above premise.
What is “WIC” based on?
The ball is in your court Rio.
I’d like to ask your opinion on another topic: should we fund socialized medicine in the U.S. by borrowing even more money from China and other countries? Keep in mind we already borrow 40% of the money required to fund current programs. Only 60% of current spending is funded by taxes. If we push our debt much beyond 100% of GDP history suggests we’ll have a complete economic collapse. We just reached a debt level of 100% of GDP. Would a complete economic collapse be good for the women and children you are concerned with? I personally don’t think it would be good for them. And I think the people you criticize realize it would be bad for this cohort and therefore are trying to protect them by demanding Washington first brings its fiscal house in order before they borrow more money for new spending programs.
Take Argentina as an example of a failed state that already tried to do this. And then they defaulted on their debt which they could no longer service so they took the wealth and income from the rich and then they exhausted that. So they took the savings of the middle class. And they exhausted that. So now they’ve blow the nations savings, they can’t borrow anymore and they are quickly swerving of the cliff and into the abyss. I don’t think that will be good for their women and children. That is the imagine that comes to mind of the Republicans you are criticizing.
Yet all the Repubs agree spending on Defense must go up and Medicare/Social Security are offlimits but taxes need to be cut…the numbers just never add up.
Lay me out your numbers please.
I was brave and I laid out how I would balance the budget yesterday on this forum. I didn’t get a single argument against my numbers.
3.2 Trillion in spending and growing
-2 Trillion in taxes collected
————-
1.2 Trillion Deficit (and growing) being borrowed from the likes of China each year.
Oh and in case you missed it the Chinese are now rioting and chanting “Pay us our money back!” I don’t think they’ll be lending to us for much longer if they don’t want to trigger social unrest China. The Chinese are paying for our deficits that we use to fund out military and our social programs while they go without a social safety net and want to project military power. You see why that might make them a little cranky?
Top income taxes next year will be in the range of 39.5% Fed + 3.8% Obamacare + 13.2% CA State = 56.5%
In fact I’d like to hear a budget balancing plan from anyone on the forum. If you want socialized medicine then balance the budget in a way that pays for it.
Give me a number? How much do you raise the each tax rate?
How much to you cut on each program?
How do you pay for socialized medicine?
In fact I’d like to hear a budget balancing plan from anyone on the forum. If you want socialized medicine then balance the budget in a way that pays for it.
Give me a number? How much do you raise the each tax rate?
How much to you cut on each program?
How do you pay for socialized medicine?
1. Socializing medicine will cut health care costs for the country by about 50%. We currently spend 2.6 trillion.
2. Bush Tax cuts will cost 1 trillion over the next decade
3. If we mandated that all money over 1 million a year was taxed at 40% that would bring in a large amount of revenue. Romney alone would pay 20 x.4 = 8million extra.
4. Yearly military spending 700 billion
5. Farm subsidies cost 20 billion a year, limit subsidies to people who live on and work their farm, no corporate farm support save 10billion
6. Carried interest and tax breaks for big oil would bring in billions as well.
I just think that the crack our backs medical costs needs
to come down in costs by 50% .By coming down I don’t mean that people should be deprived/rationed of health care, or that people are denied health care . I mean the actual costs needs to come down . A singer pay system most likely would bring major costs down and the Pharma business needs to be adressed as far as a great expense concerning the medical system today . A reexamination on preventative medicine and more responsibility put on people to have good lifestyles ,rather than the take a pill with side effects to address disease . This bizarre increase in drugs prescribed in the last 20 years ,but no improvement on overall health of the Nation ,in fact people are getting sicker ,is obivious .
One advantage of the Government running health care is that if people improve their health and money isn’t spent on health as much you don’t have a private insurance company that profits from that and the government just pays less .
“1. Socializing medicine will cut health care costs for the country by about 50%. We currently spend 2.6 trillion.”
Link? Assumptions?
I think he is basing it on other Western Medicine Coutries
do it for 50% less ,which he has posted those stats many times .
The ball is in your court Rio.
Actually it was in yours but you missed. See my post above on “women and children” vs your “men and children”.
No I responded to that one too - see above.
And you are still ignoring all the facts and figures I posted above just like yesterday.
should we fund socialized medicine in the U.S. by borrowing even more money from China and other countries?
If done right, we’d save money. Most countries with socialized medicine spend much less per person and less as a percentage of GDP on healthcare than does America. The socialist VA system provides care much cheaper than the BlueCross type system.
One solution would be to expand the VA or Medicare systems and start letting people buy into them by paying premiums to the government. Public options would keep costs down too. I think part of the reason Brazilian private healthcare costs are kept more in check than America’s is because of the competition with the public health-care.
All things being equal it is cheaper to run a single payer system run through the government that bypasses private insurers and brokers discounts with big pharma similar to what they do in Europe or Brazil in terms of total percent of GDP spending on medical care than it is to implement and run Obamacare. I think most informed people would agree with that. Given a choice between Obamacare which funnels money to private insurance companies and pays full sticker price for drugs (which no other civilized nation does) and a truly government run single payer system I would pick the government run single payer system. On that I think we both agree.
However, we currently are in an economy with a privately funded medical system. To move to either of the above systems we have to move all those expenses on to the federal government. That government is broke. Therefore in order to fund it we are going to borrow the money from China and the like. So basically you are saying we should borrow money from China in order to pay socialize the cost of medicine. So we’re not actually spreading the cost of health care over the U.S. population. We’re asking the Chinese to pay for our health care. And the Chinese have some of the worst healthcare in the world. They have no social safety net. And last I checked they were rioting in the street telling the U.S. to stop debasing our currently by overspending and pay them back the money we borrowed. If that unfolds in a way similar to how it unfolded in Argentina we will be cut off from borrowing and then the women and children you are seeking to protect will be thrown to the wolves.
If it was simply a matter of taxing our population to pay for a social health care system it would be a different matter. But in no scenario would that be the case.
And you are still ignoring all the facts and figures I posted above just like yesterday.
I dAre you talking about the facts and figures in the post where you mistakenly put white uninsured at 10%? I addressed that post. None of it dented my premise.
So basically you are saying we should borrow money from China in order to pay socialize the cost of medicine.
So basically you are putting words in my mouth with a straw man argument.
I already addressed in my post stamped 2012-10-06 13:08:49 what I thought were solutions and which would require less borrowing.
Let me back that up. In 2013 our top tax rate under the law will be:
Top income taxes next year will be in the range of 39.5% Fed + 3.8% Obamacare + 13.2% CA State = 56.5%
If we are going to just balance the Federal budget the top tax rate would be:
75% Fed + 3.8% Obamacare + 13.2% CA State = 92%
But wait that doesn’t cover the state deficit. In order to cover that too the rate would be about:
75% Fed + 3.8% Obamacare + 18.2% CA State = 100%
OK now we’ve balanced the budget. But wait we haven’t paid for Obamacare or your socialized medical program yet!
Do you see a problem here? You can’t tax more than 100% of income to fund this. It has to be borrowed from the likes of the Chinese and they don’t want to fund our social safety net. They just got done getting rid of their own communist system and they are a little pissy about it.
When you give all of your labor away for free in exchange for food, rent and medical care it’s called communism. History shows it always fails. But I’m pretty sure you are a closet communist. You think this time it’ll work. I’m not criticizing you for it. I just don’t believe it’ll work this time. I don’t think it’ll ever work. Now if that is what the disagreement comes down to than I accept that.
OK now we’ve balanced the budget. But wait we haven’t paid for …..your socialized medical program yet!
Do you see a problem here?
Yea. I see a big problem. Your bias. Your constant straw-man arguments, putting words in others mouth and your poor reading comprehension.
My “socialized” medical programs addressed at 13:08:49. Would lessen the debt. Besides single-payer that has a history of LOWERING health care costs I suggested BUYING INTO the VA system and Medicare. What part of BUYING INTO don’t you understand?
I think you’re just saying it because you were spanked on your “men and children” argument but if you really think I’m a “closet communist” because I advocate a less expensive universal health-care coverage and I support Obama over the party of the lying plutocrats, you are ignorant of a lot of politics, a lot of American and world history and many American traditions.
SF you are full of BS
You posted
Let me back that up. In 2013 our top tax rate under the law will be:
Top income taxes next year will be in the range of 39.5% Fed + 3.8% Obamacare + 13.2% CA State = 56.5%
If we are going to just balance the Federal budget the top tax rate would be:
75% Fed + 3.8% Obamacare + 13.2% CA State = 92%
Then you suggest that you own or start small businesses.
I can guarantee you are not paying anywhere near these rates as a small business owner. Mitt Romney pays 13% or 8% if you include his 100,000,000 IRA, and 6% or so if you include off shore accounts, children’s trust funds that he controls, and his off shore accounts.
Rio you have a romantic narrative about the American women and children who are uninsured and unloved by their greedy men. Yes 90% of women and children are insured and most of the 10% who are not are recent immigrants. And men are 25% more likely to be uninsured than women or children. And if you look at the facts about who are uninsured are 49% of recent immigrants are uninsured. That is who is uninsured. 49% of them! That’s a lot. That is who is poor and not being taken care of by your white republican males not their own women and children. Their women and children are being taken care of.
I’ll tell you my narrative. American men take very good care of their women and children. They want to send their kids to the best schools they can afford. They work much harder than most of the men in Brazil (I’ve been there I know). They insure their family even if it means they can’t insure themselves. They put off having a family until they can afford to have children which they can afford and have proper insurance for. They don’t just pop ‘em out.
And what’s more I see a young Mexican men coming over the border to the U.S., sometimes on a perilous journey to earn money to send home to their women and children in Mexico. They are heroically trying to do the best for them.
Any women worth their salt know that men will die for their family. When the titanic sunk the men gave up their lives for the women and children. They’ll give anything. I just don’t buy your whole premise. It seems to be based on a narrative of victimhood conglomerated with reactionary feminism.
Rio you have a romantic narrative about the American women and children
Nice speech. I agree with a lot of it but does not address the issues in my premise. Because your 10% this, 49% that, 90% whatever and your “hard working American” “dying for his family” have nothing to do with, and do nothing to disprove ANY aspect of my premise.
To my premise, I added the word “politically” so you older, white, “conservative” Republican men won’t feel so badly)
And this premise does not leave you white Republican women off the hook either. You’re majorly responsible too. (And maybe even more than the men) Why? Because it is more in a Women’s nature to show concern for uninsured children but you didn’t. You let political dogma override a part of your women’s human nature IMO. Because of that, you should be ashamed.
The premise:
A majority of the uninsured in America are women and children. It has been the traditional and conservative role of men to provide for, and protect women and children. But the demographic group most (politically) responsible for blocking universal health care for the uninsured women and children are older, white, “conservative” Republican men. (Both the Republican politicians and the Republican voters who support and vote for them)
I just don’t buy your whole premise.
Then you are hopelessly biased. How can you not “buy” facts. Read the above premise again. I think I’ve proved EVERY aspect of it. And some with your help. I’ve proved 1+2+3+4=10 in a systematic way with facts, proofs, and 7 or 8 cited sources.
(Your premise) based on a narrative of victimhood conglomerated with reactionary feminism.
“Feminism”?? Now that’s a hoot. I’ll bet there are a few feminists seething at me right now because of my stressing men’s role to provide for and protect women.
Rio I posted a long and final comment but it has been blocked. I don’t know when or if it will be posted. But I’ll says this - that ws not your premise yesterday. You changed it around completely and setup a new strawman argument to defend it today. In my comment that hasn’t posted and I cut and pasted your premise from yesterday. And note you changed the women -or- children yesterday or women -and-children today. And then you spent most of the day proving the meaning of -and-. It’s silly.
You came into this debate assuming that men are well cared for compared to what you thought were neglected children or women. You ended up learning that wasn’t the case. I’m glad you learned something.
And your claim that I made a strawman argument is not correct because I clearly stated that I would like your opinion on a *separate topic*. By stating that I clearly wasn’t bring up that discussion to try to resolve the first debate. I stated quite clearly up front that this was a new topic by saying it was a *separate topic*.
I’m not going to debate the meaning of -and- and -or- with you all day. That’s not why I came to this forum. I want to establish the facts so we know what problems need to be solved. Then look at various scenarios to solve them and see if any of those are viable. There are a lot of wild assumptions out there like your original premise from yesterday. Those need to be corrected. If you are serious about defining the issues and their resolutions I’d like to talk. Define the problem and outline your solution like I did yesterday. Show me why it works. But if you want to play silly grammar games and then re-word your premise from yesterday so you can prove it while leaving out the fact that men are the largest cohort of uninsured well that’s just disingenuous and I don’t have time for it. Ping me if you are really genuinely interested in mapping out a solution. I know you are capable of it because you did a much better job in your last debate. But you are going to have to expose your ideas more to honest debate and scrutiny otherwise you are just going to be stuck in dogma.
Rio when you posted your premise yesterday you clearly had in mind that most men had jobs and insurance and a higher percentage of men had insurance compared to the percentage of women with insurance -or- children with insurance. And then you submitted that must be so because men are not doing a good job taking care of their families. You were wrong. As it turns out a lower percentage of men have insurance than women or children by a large margin. It seems that men go out of their way to protect their family and / or put off having a family if they can’t afford it. But you didn’t want to believe it. So I proved to you. And I showed you who wasn’t getting insurance - 49% of recent immigrants - most of them men who are probably here from Mexico to send money back to their family. Again men taking care of their family.
Let’s look at your original premise from yesterday that you claim to be supporting:
“Moving those percentages to the USA situation I think we can safely say that the vast majority of uninsured in the USA are women or children. So as a society, I would say the USA is not doing a very good job taking care of our women and children when it comes to protecting their health.”
Notice you said -or- not -and-. You were saying that more men were insured then women or children. So today you come back and you change it to and to come up with a bogus argument proving that if you combine both groups which each have a *higher* insured rate they it now proves or original claim. You have now resorted to complete nonsense to try to justify your claim. Now you are changing articles and your post today completely ignored that fact that many more millions of men are uninsured than women in a slide of hand. This is no longer a debate but has become a Clinton-esque what the definition of “is’ is. I’m sorry your socialist dogma turned out not to be true.
Sorry you lost this argument. Men in the U.S. take care of their women and children. Both women and children in the U.S. enjoy a higher rate of insurance coverage than men.
Period full stop end of discussion.
Notice you said -or- not -and-. You were saying that more men were insured then women or children.
Wrong. That is a strawman. A false argument. I was referring to women and/or children were the majority without insurance. I clarified that in a later post yesterday. The main thing I’ve changed today is the word “the” to “a”. (Because of your kind help.) (See, I don’t ignore facts as you do because of dogmatic reasons.) Fact: Women and children (grouped together) make up a majority of the uninsured. “Women and Children” are commonly grouped together. Now those are facts.
And note you changed the women -or- children yesterday or women -and-children today.
No, I changed it YESTERDAY in a later post to be more clear. AND used the word “assume”. At first I was just throwing out ideas - actually looking for feedback like Ryan gave me and you gave me today. So you are WRONG again.
Proof from yesterday’s later post:
2012-10-05 12:43:51
it is logical to assume the majority of Americans without health insurance or lousy health insurance are women and children.
See? You’re wrong. It was changed yesterday in an evolving premise.
Men in the U.S. take care of their women and children. Both women and children in the U.S. enjoy a higher rate of insurance coverage than men.
These are facts but also Straw-men in this discussion. Those were not my arguments and that statement does not dent one bit my factual premise yesterday or today.
You have now resorted to complete nonsense to try to justify your claim.
Yea. The concept of “women and children” being grouped together when discussing public policy, anthropology and society is “complete nonsense.” Good Lord. Hey maybe your willfully ignorant Republican thinking on stuff like this is why the Democrats have a 20 point advantage with women! Maybe because women understand the linkage of “women and children” Jeez.
The human motto: Women and Children First!
The Republican motto: Women and Children Last!
Period full stop end of discussion.
I don’t blame you. You got hammered on something you should have walked away from. If you thought my argument was “silly” you wouldn’t have spent so much time feebly attempting to debunk it with straw-men, distortions, ignoring of human conditions (the women and children concept) and putting words in my mouth. Why? Because of politics. On this subject, you sounded like a reaching, uncomprehending, straw-manning dogmatist.
In contrast, my premise CAN evolve if any more facts come to light. “The” has already changed to the word “a”. Today I’ve added the word “politically” and now I’m adding the phrase “grouped together” to be more clear. I’m not emotionally attached to this but so far, these are the facts.
The (so far evolved) premise:
A majority of the uninsured in America are women and children (grouped together). It has been the traditional and conservative role of men to provide for, and protect women and children. But the demographic group most (politically) responsible for blocking universal health care for the uninsured women and children are older, white, “conservative” Republican men. (Both the Republican politicians and the Republican voters who support and vote for them)
I just got back from my run. You said -or- dude. You lose. Give it up. You are still trying to lawyer up rather than learn something.
If you really want to make a cogent argument against republicans (which you clearly hate) than at least come up with an argument that holds water based on the actual fact and not on some fictional majority that happens to actually be the minority.
“A majority of the uninsured in America are recent illegal immigrants. It has been the traditional and conservative role of men to welcome new immigrants as a source of cheap labor. But the demographic group most (politically) responsible for blocking universal health care for the uninsured illegal immigrants are older, white, “conservative” Republican men. (Both the Republican politicians and the Republican voters who support and vote for them) ”
There - that’s substantially similar to what you said. I only changed one or two words. But it’s about 70% closer to the truth. Possibly you could actually do something about something that is true as opposite to a complete fabrication.
P.S. “The native born wives and children of older, white, “conservative” Republican men enjoy nearly a 100% health insurance coverage.”
So if I get seriously ill after Romney got elected my choices are bankruptcy, death or marrying a republican???
Jeez - so much for working for yourself. It makes me SICK to see that liar say he supports small business and 2 minutes later announce he will deny us the opportunity to purchase insurance unless we are 100% healthy.
P.S. “The native born wives and children of older, white, “conservative” Republican men enjoy nearly a 100% health insurance coverage.”
Drinkin’ rum and co-ca co-la,
Go down Point Koo-ma-na
There is state sponsored insurance for poor children and their custodial parents. Which are more likely to be female. That is the reason for the discrepancy, not any sort of chivalry.
So long as the Fed stands by with QE unlimited, why should stock market investors concern themselves about the real economy?
The world economy
Investors, beware
As long as politicians in the world’s big three economies continue to dither, another global recession is possible
Oct 6th 2012 | from the print edition
FOR investors around the world, the recovery seems assured. The MSCI global share index has risen almost 10% since July. The credit for this largely goes to central bankers. In July Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank (ECB), said he would do whatever it takes to hold the euro together. In early September the ECB pledged to be a lender of last resort to governments, albeit under certain conditions. Soon afterwards the Federal Reserve launched a new round of quantitative easing (printing money to buy bonds) and promised to keep buying assets until American unemployment was “substantially” less awful. Other central banks followed with loosening of their own, in part to stop their currencies from rising (see article). All this activism boosted share prices.
But is it justified? The surge in shares certainly looks odd in light of the recent economic statistics. Over the past few months global growth has slowed to its weakest pace since the 2009 recession, as the world’s big economies have lost steam simultaneously. American output is growing at less than 2%. Growth in China, which until recently was in double digits, appears to have slowed to around 7%. Japan’s economy almost certainly shrank in the third quarter. And the euro zone’s recession shows no sign of easing.
…
Posted: 10:25 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012
Man charged with impersonating cop for free food
The Associated Press
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. —
Authorities in southwest Florida have arrested a man they say pretended to be an officer in an attempt to get free food.
Pinellas County Sheriff’s deputies said Joseph Pineda rolled up to a McDonald’s drive-through Friday saying he deserved free food because he was a cop. Authorities said he flashed a badge and gun and told restaurant employees he had just come from a sting and didn’t have his wallet.
Employees called the police. Pineda initially ignored commands to show his hands but eventually surrendered at gunpoint.
Authorities said they found two fake police badges and a handgun in the center console.
Thirty-three year-old Pineda was charged with impersonating a police officer and improper exhibition of a firearm.
He was being held in the Pinellas County Jail.
Copyright The Associated Press
Well ,at least the guy wasn’t collecting food stamps ..he he .
Man charged with impersonating cop for free food
“Will
workeat doughnuts for food”I bet he was counted in the jobs numbers as having found a job.
Ring-ring
Hello, have you recently found a job?
Yes, I pretended to be a police officer so I can eat free at Dunkin’ Donuts but I would like a full time job.
Thank you, click.
I bet he was counted in the jobs numbers as having found a job.
Seeing as he was pretending to be a cop, I bet Rasmusssin was counting him as a Republican voter.