The Housing Bubble

Reinstating the Fugitive Slave Act would be a good start, LOLZ.

Does THIS provide any clues?

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/10/09/opinion-obama-raises-181-million-in-september-as-foreign-donor-gate-heats-up/

One has to ask: which is worse? Being beholden to the banks or being beholden to unknown foreign entities?

Troubling. But one makes the logical fallacy of assuming that if another questions a candidate’s motives he automatically supports that candidate’s (major) opponent and, in so doing, the one making the logical fallacy rationalizes redirecting the question at hand.

The question was how will they (they being Romney/Ryan) take America back?

One also comes to the conclusion that sides are being taken, when, in fact, the other is merely pointing out that arguing either side is like watching McDonalds and Burger King argue whose french fries are healthier.

But one wonders, why would one answer a response to a question with thematically related, but not very relevant, negative information concerning an opposing candidate if one weren’t taking sides? Wouldn’t one just answer the original question, or inquire about the response to the original question?

Romney and Ryan would like to take America back to the 1920s, before that horrible FDR introduce Social Security, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, etc. They wouldn’t be able to accomplish that if elected, but they could still do some damage to the safety net.

No, because one may have already concluded that the answer to the question and the larger question in general is merely a coin-flip. The flip of a greasy, slimey coin found in a sewer manhole. Though one understands it may look like taking sides to others.

Has CONgress authorized money to be made available to pay any claims resulting from WARN notice violations? Of course not.

I think it is time to give the Constitution a proper burial and acknowledge that We The People are now We The Slaves. It’s also time to recall Jefferson’s instructive words.

“…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Polly,

Yes, I grew up in a lower middle class family, but we didn’t really know we were poor. Why do you ask?

If I may tell a personal story, my dad was shot in the right side of his neck, just behind his jaw. They took the bullet out just behind his left ear lobe and he was back to work in 2 weeks. For those that don’t know anything about the anatomy, it is “impossible” for a bullet to follow this trajectory and miss everything.

And I have to wonder, who says there is no God? My dad is still alive and healthy today.

who says there is no God

One out of five Americans, that’s who.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/09/study-one-third-of-adults-under-30-have-no-religious-affiliation/

Elect a communist muslim, and what do you expect?

TAKE AMERICA BACK!

Actually, the one in five are ‘religiously unaffiliated’ and only about 18% of them qualify as secularists of whatever flavor. But it’s a good start!

And because these representitives are strangers they have no reputation that you can rely on to help you decide whether to select them to act on your behalf or whether you should select somebody else - select some other stranger to act on you behalf. So the only thing you can rely on is information about themselves that they themselves give to you.

So the ones who present the most convincing information about themselves - the ones who are the best salesmen or con artists - are the ones who get elected.

And so here we are.

Holy $hit Combo…… you just nailed it big!

Thank you.

Welcome to the handbasket.

Welcome to the handbasket.

And if you look to your left and right folks, you’ll see an impressive vista of Hell.

You are addressing the apportionment -the number - of electors, not the concept.

The thing I wonder about is that other early democracies had direct votes and eschewed our byzantine system. If the elector could get on a stage coach and travel to DC to cast the single electoral vote, why couldn’t he just take the tally of votes from his district and report them?

This goes back to what Alpha said about the Slave States, counting slaves when allocating electoral votes gave them more clout that they would have had under a direct system (plus it also gave them more congressman). I suspect that this was the real reason for the system.

not the concept.

The concept was created by the need for the compromise, not by bad roads and weather.

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia delegation had proposed it first. The Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the President.[4] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election.[5] However, the Committee of Eleven, formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the President, recommended instead that the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-fifths compromise), but chosen by each state “in such manner as its Legislature may direct.” Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of “intrigue” if the President was chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the President if he was elected by the Congress.[6] Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:[7]

“There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.”

The Convention approved the Committee’s Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.[8]
wikipedia

The thing I wonder about is that other early democracies had direct votes and eschewed our byzantine system.

The writers of the Constitution were well aware of the direct democracies of the past- and were seeking to avoid some of their major problems when they created our system. They were also constantly confounded by the ‘peculiar’ legal needs and demands of the slaveholding states.

The problems the direct democracies of the past (like Athens) were that people proved to be easily be swayed by the emotions of the day, and were more likely to rush into for instance an ill-advised war.

In our system, the House was supposed to be the ‘direct democracy’, with its leaders essentially always up for election, and thus more subject to the demands of the street. The Senate, with its fewer members and longer terms, was supposed to be the “saucer in which the hot tea was allowed to cool”, or something like that. The writers were trying to combine the better aspects of direct democracy with the better aspects of representative democracy, all the while kowtowing to the slavers (who of course were often also the writers).

…were more likely to rush into for instance an ill-advised war.

I’m sure glad America’s Founding Fathers avoided that problem!

The writers of the Constitution were well aware of the direct democracies of the past

Actually, I meant those that followed us, not before us. And by direct vote, I meant directly electing the executive branch, not an ancient Athens style democracy.

I can’t think of any other country that elects its president (if they have one) via an electoral system like ours. I know we’re stuck with it, it would take a Constitutional amendment to change that, and that isn’t going to to happen.

Then there are Parliamentary systems, which I like even less. The whole process of selecting a Prime Minister reeks of back room deals to me. On the other hand, minority parties do seem to have more of a voice in those systems.

I’m sure glad America’s Founding Fathers avoided that problem!

Most of our actual wars- declared by Congress- have not been ill-advised. Except maybe the War of 1812, but we were newbies at the time.

It’s the ‘police actions’ and whatnot, that avoided Congress, that have been the doozies. Iraq 2 was approved by Congress after the fact, IIRC, but I’m not sure if that counts.

The senate was originally selected by state legislators and not by the people at all. It was supposed to represent the interests of the states and be completely impartial to special interests and removed from the will of the people. The house was elected by the people and represented their special more temporal interests. Thus we were supposed to have a balance between the people (house), the state powers (senate) and the federal powers. The senate was therefore supposed to be the adults in the room to make the tough choices so that the people didn’t try to get a free lunch for example. They were immune from special interests. That all changed in 1913 with the seventh amendment. The seventh amendment allowed the people to elect the senate and not the state legislatures. And since then special interests have ruled both the house and the senate. If you ask me we should repeal the 17th amendment so we have a body that doesn’t just say what people want to hear but actually look out for the good of the country. We have the house to serve and represent the people. It was actually quite an ingenious design to avoid corruption.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

United States Constitution
The Seventeenth Amendment in the National Archives

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.

They were immune from special interests.

Were the state legislators who selected them also immune?

I don’t think the reason was to be immune from special interest but to reflect the state’s interest not a national bodies interest.

To understand our constitution you have to understand why the Roman and Greek democracies failed. Particularly, the Roman democracy. The rich used the state’s funds to buy off the poor. The middle class were ignored at the end of the democracy just like they are today. The representative government was to act as a barrier to people using the bribe of bread and circuses to attain power. Today we use SNAP and free cell phones.

However, the economics works for the super rich. Adopt policies: open borders, free trade etc. that lowers workers pay by $20,000 a year and then promise them $5000 in SNAP benefits and they vote for you or more accurately your handpicked candidate. You don’t even have to pay the entire $5000 it is spread out among all the taxpayers. After you lower their pay then go after the benefits. Go from an employer model of providing health care to a government and employee funded model. Raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it, despite saying no taxes on any couple earning less than $250,000. I am just amazed how few people can see it.

Today we use SNAP and free cell phones

The Food Stamp Recovery:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_23.htm

Albuquerquedan,

I agree with you about original purpose of having a Senate selection by state legislature was mainly to raise the interests of the states. We’ve undercut the power of the states versus a monopoly power on a federal level which I think is a bad thing. As you know I’m very much against power monopoly in whatever form. It always leads to corruption.

“Raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it.” Do you mean the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? The 3.8% Obamacare tax? Rising state taxes? Or the expiration of the payroll tax?

What concerns me is that we aren’t really paying for it via these tax increases. I mean we do but not much of it. We’re still short well over a trillion dollars per year. The Fed and foreign central banks are paying for it. That will work for a while. But eventually we’ll have to add some zeros to our currency or come out with currency 2.0 if we keep it up. That’s just another stealth tax on the workers that is going to hide them much harder down the road. Why postpone it if the pain will be worse? What do you think of a green back monetary system pegged at zero inflation?

As far as taxes, I mean all you have identified and others such as a tax on medical equipment, tanning salons etc.

We need to cut the deficit but the amount should not be too drastic at once. We need to stop digging the hole first. We should not have a deficit larger that increases our gdp debt ratio. So if we can have 3% growth with 2% inflation, we can run a $800 billion deficit no larger.

I think the easiest way politically right now is an up or down vote on Bowles/ Simpson. But if not I do have some idea for revenues. A dirty import for one. China produces about 30% or 40% of the pollution on the West Coast because it does not use scrubbers. It burns coal containing excessive amounts of arsenic and mercury and other heavy metals. We should tax their imports based on this pollution. This is just opposite the philosopy of the globalists that want to tax our coal producers, send the money overseas and let China and other countries slide.

I would also increase production of oil from our country since taxes and royalties generated from that activity is in lieu of sending the money overseas. We send about $350 billion dollars a year out of this country every year to buy oil and we lose the economic multiplier due to the money leaving the country. A grand bargain of drilling in Alaska and off the coasts for increased subsidies for solar, wind, biomass and NGVs could generate more revenue and more jobs.

As far as cuts, Social security spending can be cut back if we raise the retirement age. We are living longer and we need to adjust the age. That will cut expenditures in the future without depressing output today so it is a particularly good cut. Other programs can and should be cut. Big bird should be a dead duck. etc.

…were more likely to rush into for instance an ill-advised war.

I’m sure glad America’s Founding Fathers avoided that problem!

It worked until we let them go to war without a declaration of war by congress. Didn’t it?

The senate was originally selected by state legislators and not by the people at all. It was supposed to represent the interests of the states and be completely impartial to special interests and removed from the will of the people…the state powers (senate) SF Bay Area

I said yesterday that about half of what you post is accurate and the other half is lacking or tainted by dogma. Your above post a good example of my observation.

The Senate was to be “completely impartial to special interests”? No. The Senate was ALWAYS designed to be partial to “the commercial and monied interest (of America)” as I will illustrate below.

You say the reason the Senate was to be selected by the state legislators was for state powers (states rights). Maybe somewhat, but the main reason the Senate represented and represents state powers is not HOW it was or is elected. The main factor in the Senate’s wielding states power is the fact that each state, large or small, gets 2 Senators. (The Great Compromise) The Senate still wields State’s powers today even if elected popularly.

No. The main reason the Senate was originally elected from the state legislators was to keep much of the power in the hands of the wealthy and powerful. Let’s remember, many at the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 thought the people should have much less to do with the government than the final result.

Some thought America should have a King. The Senate was to insure the power of the states AND special interests - mainly the wealthy. But it is not surprising that those on the right will play up the Senate’s “states rights” aspect while ignoring the Senate’s original purpose and continuing legacy of catering to the special interests of the wealthy.

From the book, Miracle at Philadelphia. The Story of the Constitutional Convention May to September 1787.
Catherine Drinker Bowen. Little, Brown and Co. 1966

“The practical matter of how the national legislature should be elected was to take up half the summer. Roger Sherman…declared the people “should have as little to do as may be about the government.”…..Elbridge Gerry, a man of business affairs and money, agreed. “The evils we experience” he said, “flow from the excess of democracy.”…There is small doubt the Gerry’s mind turned as he said it to Captain Shays and his band of debt-ridden farmers, breaking up the meetings of country law courts and demanding “reforms” in the legislator. That the farmers had been badly treated did not enter into Gerry’s philosophy….” (page 45)

….Gerry favored election of the Senate by the state legislatures, where “the commercial and monied interest would be more secure than in the hands of the people at large.” ……John Dickinson…wished…the American Senate to consist of the most distinguished characters - distinguished for their rank in life, their weight in property, and bearing as strong of likeness to the British House of Lords as possible. Such characters were more likely to be selected by the state legislatures than by any other mode.” (pages 78-79)

(This was not “cut and pasted” I copied it out of the book I’m reading so if there are any typos in the above quote, they are mine.)

Rio, your constant personal attacks on me are getting very old. I’m asking you to cease and desist responding to my posts if you can’t do it without getting personal. You have been chain posting on everything I post ever since I proved your theory wrong about the reason for the health insurance gap in the U.S. It’s caused by uninsured immigrants 49% of which are not insured. And I backed it up with pages of stats. If you can’t stay objective than stay out of the fight. Yesterday I answered a question regarding why Germany has so many renters and you went off on a diatribe about socialized medicine and how I toke completely different contradictory views on it. That has nothing to do with the topic. You just wanted to get in a personal attach because I don’t buy your world view.

Whenever my last post shows up…

Yes, I have a nuanced view of the world. Unlike you I don’t let party politics blind me. I think there is little or any meaningful difference between them. I actually try to gather as much data as I can and analyze it. A couple of days back you were singing the virtues of the medical system in Brazil. Several readers here posted that you must be full of it because the medical system down in Brazil sucks. I have actually been in Brazil I have personal experience with it and I’ve studied it. So I posted correctly that the evidence doesn’t support their the system down there sucks. In fact I posted that it is quick good compared to other third world countries. You apparently got all excited and thought I must be a hard core left wing socialist like you because I backed you up. I am not. But just because I don’t like socialist state doesn’t mean I’m going to put up blinders and not recognize a well functioning system when I see one. And Brazil does a decent job of treating their population. So I backed you up because what you had to say was true about the quality of care.

You then got very disappointed because I didn’t agree with your conclusions about the current health insurance gap in the U.S. and turned against me. I disagreed because the cause of the health insurance gap was due to immigration. You had your facts mixed up. 49% of immigrants have no health insurance and they make up the bulk of the uninsured in the U.S. So you started claiming my ideas were inconsistent - one day I’m a liberal and the next I’m a right wing extremist. No I just look at the facts.

Then we had another encounter here where I said that Obamacare funneled money off into big pharma and health insurance companies. And it does. Who wrote the bill? Big pharma and health insurance companies. Of course it’s in their interest. That’s why the wrote the bill! And I agreed with you that all things being equal a single payer system is more efficient Obamacare because it cuts out the insurance companies’ profit and it negotiates a discounted price for drugs like all other nations do except the U.S. which pays full sticker price for drugs under Obamacare. And you got all excited because you once again thought I must be a hard core socialist like you and I’m not. I just made a correct value judgement of the relative cost of the two systems. If anything I think this proves that the left in the U.S. under the guise of Obamacare is an epic failure.

Last post blocked too - so you are going to have to wait for them all to post rio.

Finally we had one last encounter that really sent you over the roof. And this is where you are I really don’t see eye to eye. And you take it personally which is not my problem. You are a hard core socialist and you don’t care what causes poverty and how the socialist remedies are paid for. You would like to see:

- wealth confiscation
- nationalization of means of production
- 90%+ tax rates
- hyperinflation

I think all of these things will actually cause poverty. I therefore lean on the side of a paygo system. You want a socialist state? Than you get what you can actually pay for today. You can only sustainable get what you can sustainably pay for. And that is the failure of the hard core socialist states. They see poverty in a vacuum in outer space and just want to throw freebees at it. If only it was that simple… Because it always fails because they always destroy the economy and overspend and cause even more poverty than they started with until they collapse. We just spent the whole 20th century proving it during the cold war. The communists failed.

This is like my sixth post - the rest are still blocked so wait for them rio.

So than you go off the deep end on me saying I am a totally right wing madman because I actually think that if we want socialized medicine than we need to pay for it with higher taxes and better productivity and GDP growth. That is madness! So you make up this whole story about how I’m totally against medicare and social security. When did I say any of that? I never did. You just make this stuff up. All I said is we need to pay for it in a sustainable fashion. And those systems if we want them need to be set up so they don’t fail. It isn’t rocket science. We could raise the retirement age for example. Maybe we do need to look at means testing or higher co-pays?

Another post for Rio - the rest are still blocked so wait for them rio.

So nothing I have said is inconsistent. I just have differences with you. I think we need to man up and pay for what we spend as we go. You think you can run a hard core socialist state sustainable by:

- confiscating wealth
- raising taxes to 90%+
- hyperinflation
- and so forth

All these lead to poverty - they don’t solve poverty. History has proven this over and over. And this is where we disagree.

Rio write:

“I said yesterday that about half of what you post is accurate and the other half is lacking or tainted by dogma. Your above post a good example of my observation.” - Rio

“The Senate was to be “completely impartial to special interests”? No. The Senate was ALWAYS designed to be partial to “the commercial and monied interest (of America)”” - Rio

Nice of you to go on a personal attach rather than just debating the points. You are 100% sure I’m wrong. Why not just post your evidence and wait for my response? See this is just the personal attack stuff I’m talking about and it needs to stop.

Below I’ll post my response rio.

Here are the opinions of several noted constitutional scholars that agree with my opinion and disagree with your opinion rio. Note I’m not posting any personal attack. I’m simply responding. Last I checked neither you nor I are constitutional scholars and both of us depend on them to help us understand this complex topic.

Kochan (2003) p.1053 Donald J. Kochan, for an article in the Albany Law Review, analyzed the effect of the Seventeenth Amendment on Supreme Court decisions over the constitutionality of state legislation. He found a “statistically significant difference” in the number of cases holding state legislation unconstitutional before and after the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, with the number of holdings of unconstitutionality increasing sixfold. Besides the 17th Amendment, decline in the influence of the states also followed economic changes.

Zywicki observes that interest groups of all kinds began to focus efforts on the federal government, as national issues could not be directed by influencing only a few state legislatures of with Senators of the most seniority chairing the major committees. He attributes the rise in the strength of interest groups partially to the development of the U.S. economy on an interstate, national level. See Zywicki (1997) p.215.

Ure also argues that the Seventeenth Amendment led to the rise of special interest groups to fill the void; with citizens replacing state legislators as the Senate’s electorate, with citizens being less able to monitor the actions of their Senators, the Senate became more susceptible to pressure from interest groups, who in turn were more influential due to the centralization of power in the federal government; an interest group no longer needed to lobby many state legislatures, and could instead focus its efforts on the federal government. See Ure (2007) p.293

Yes, I have a nuanced view of the world. Unlike you I don’t let party politics blind me.

I don’t buy it. You let politics blind you all the time - way more than me. That’s why about half of what you post is accurate and the other half is lacking or tainted by dogma - and many times includes straw-man/false arguments. I’ve pointed instances out many times and I will continue to do so.

And I just proved your are extremely biased again by utilizing facts and history regarding the US Constitutional Convention of 1787. When I make serious points, I back them up with facts and history.

But most of the time when someone from the far-right confronts me, they do not do it with facts and history - in fact, hardly ever. What they do is call names or engage in an ad hominem attack (like ignorantly calling me a “hard core socialist because I support things like Medicare, Soc/Sec or universal health care.) Or they, as you do, ask rapid-fire stupid questions that don’t pertain to the subject in order to try to distract from the issue. It does not bother me when they do this because it shows they’ve “got nuthin’ and I like pointing it out.

And you writing that I “got all excited and thought (you) must be a hard core left wing socialist” because you said Brazil’s public health-care was good is about the dumbest thing I’ve read today. You’re reading comprehension is lacking.

What I said was that it is one of your modus operandi to every once in awhile say something good about the left’s positions. I think you do this to appear to the middle that you are impartial. You want to appear impartial to the middle because in latter posts you then call people “commies” who advocate the same things that you have acted like you just supported.

Example: You said socialized medicine can and has worked. Now this can lead some in the middle to think SF Bay Area is objective. Then the next day you might call someone who is advocating socialized medicine or Soc/Sec or Medicare a “commie” and you’re hoping those in the middle will believe your BS because they think you are objective. (But you are NOT objective)

Another thing you and others do (that I don’t do) is use straw-man/false arguments or comparisons such as you did yesterday. Yesterday you equated by implication, Soviet Communism with those in America who do things like advocate for protecting Soc/Sec, Medicare and push for universal healthcare. This is a false BS comparison. They are not even in the same ballpark. And you make stuff up. I never said you were “totally against Medicare or Soc/Sec.” You just made that up. What I said was that you equate supporters of those things with “commies”. You’ve done it to me many times.

This is like my sixth post -

Yawn… That’s another of your posting traits. When you get called out for your BS, you rapid fire a bunch of long-winded, “throw in the kitchen sink” “baffle them with BS” posts attempting to distract, deflect and make people forget what you’ve just been called out on. But to be clear. You were called out on your straw-man/false arguments and your bias describing the reason for the original method of electing US Senators.

I apologize to everyone else on this forum to bring up the health care debate in this thread. However, I find it necessary to respond to Rio and make him stop. I’m not going to let Rio continue his personal attacks on me day after day and just make up all kinds of things about what I said and how it isn’t backed up. I won’t be intimidated by him.

Rio may have a hard core socialist ideology that borders on communists that I happen to not agree with. But I’m always interested to hear how people like rio come to their conclusions and discuss whatever as deficiencies we find in each others’ arguments without resorting to personal attacks.

Rio continues to go on the personal attack binge. He does a drive by argument. Making an axiomatic statement about how best to cure poverty in Brazil for example and then refusing to look at the results of the remedies of poverty that were tried such as hyperinflation that has resulted in Brazil and how much more poverty it has caused than it cured. That’s just one example.

So rio - if you sincerely want to look at both sides I’m willing to debate. But if you aren’t and you just want to make personal attacks than just ignore my posts from now on and more on.

So you are back to the personal attacks?

Rio, your constant personal attacks on me are getting very old. I’m asking you to cease and desist responding to my posts if you can’t do it without getting personal.

What’s “getting old”? Buck-up. These are not “personal attacks”. I just don’t think you are used to being called out on your biases. Sorry. Pointing out the intellectually flawed patterns of your posts ……is not “personal” attacks.

Pointing out your straw-man/false arguments (such as equating Soviet Communism with those in America Advocating for Soc/Sec/Medicare and Universal HealthCare …..is not personal attack.

Pointing out your biased and dogmatically influences posts (Such as your erroneous statement the the Senate was designed to not be influenced by special interest) …..is not personal attack.

Pointing out that you refuse to recognize “Women and Children” as a typical societal, anthropological, familial and political grouping ONLY because it destroys your biased and dogmatic point ….is not personal attack.

You’ve called me names MANY times. That is a personal attack. The above is not. You’ve used straw man/false arguments against me many times. I’ve not against you.

I’m going to call you on your posts SF bay area. You need to buck-up and realize what and how you are posting and that some people see your game and are going to point your game out. (So what are you going to do? Fire off 12 more frantic, rapid-fire posts now??)

Last post blocked too - so you are going to have to wait for them all to post rio.

Dang…….20 frantic posts throwing in the kitchen sink? Is this what it’s like to watch someone freak-out after being effectively challenged? I guess SF bay area is not used to that.

I find it necessary to respond to Rio and make him stop.

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YnQdBD2y64

Rio let me give you an example of how you argue:

SF Bay Area asks:
“Rio, why are so many East Germans (and former East Germans now living in Western Germany) renters. I’m listening.”

Rio responds to my question above:
“The reason why there are so many East Germans (and former East Germans now living in Western Germany) illustrates why you equating Americans advocating for universal health-care/SocSec with godless Soviet Communism is a straw-man, false argument.”

And there you have it Rio. You are telling me the reason in a nutshell there are so many former East Germans renters is because I equate Americans advocating for universal health-care/SocSec with godless Soviet Communism.

Wow! Follow that logic!

I had no idea I ever equated “godless Soviet Communism” to social security. Please show me the quote where I said that please. You made that comparison not me. And then you repeated over and over like 50 times. I never said anything of the sort. That seems to be the whole basis of your argument of why many former East Germans are renters. What?!?!

What I said was former East Germans have a 40% home ownership rate which i much lower than the 60 - 70% home ownership rate in the U.S. I reminded people that Germany was split up between the U.S., England, France and Russia after WWII. The East Germans living in the communist side lost their property to the state and the state built state housing. And when Germany re-integrated they therefore had a lot of East Germans living in state owned housing as renters living in East Germany and they had another 2.6 million former East Germans renting in West Germany that had left their homes behind and fled to the West before the put up the barbed wire and so forth to keep them in the East. And after the wall fell a lot more East Germans moved to the West to find jobs and a better way of life. And I said that’s why there are a lot of East German renters. And I posted so material to back that up.

How in the world to you get what I said above and come up with this:

“The reason why there are so many East Germans (and former East Germans now living in Western Germany) illustrates why you equating Americans advocating for universal health-care/SocSec with godless Soviet Communism is a straw-man, false argument.”

I never equated the two. You did Rio!

Here you go again:

“Pointing out your straw-man/false arguments (such as equating Soviet Communism with those in America Advocating for Soc/Sec/Medicare and Universal HealthCare …..is not personal attack.”

And that is your charge against me. Only one problem Rio - I never ever remotely made any argument to that effect. you did. And you keep attributing it to me. Show me the quote?

Rio there you go again…

“Pointing out your biased and dogmatically influences posts (Such as your erroneous statement the the Senate was designed to not be influenced by special interest) …..is not personal attack. ”

I posted three separate opinions of by noted constitutional scholars that agree with my opinion and disagree with your opinion . You posted one source from a history book you are reading that disagrees in your view. OK - that’s great! Let’s both read and learn.

But because I post a different opinion that you don’t like now I am according to you “iased and dogmatically influence(d)” and I am making “erroneous statement.” Yes that is nothing more than a personal attack.

I didn’t see anyone else personally attack me like you do over and over. Someone else responded to my post - had a different opinion and I learned something. That is dialog. You are just going off on personal attacks.

Last I checked neither you nor I are constitutional scholars and both of us depend on them to help us understand this complex topic.

Kochan (2003) p.1053 Donald J. Kochan, for an article in the Albany Law Review, analyzed the effect of the Seventeenth Amendment on Supreme Court decisions over the constitutionality of state legislation. He found a “statistically significant difference” in the number of cases holding state legislation unconstitutional before and after the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, with the number of holdings of unconstitutionality increasing sixfold. Besides the 17th Amendment, decline in the influence of the states also followed economic changes.

Zywicki observes that interest groups of all kinds began to focus efforts on the federal government, as national issues could not be directed by influencing only a few state legislatures of with Senators of the most seniority chairing the major committees. He attributes the rise in the strength of interest groups partially to the development of the U.S. economy on an interstate, national level. See Zywicki (1997) p.215.

Ure also argues that the Seventeenth Amendment led to the rise of special interest groups to fill the void; with citizens replacing state legislators as the Senate’s electorate, with citizens being less able to monitor the actions of their Senators, the Senate became more susceptible to pressure from interest groups, who in turn were more influential due to the centralization of power in the federal government; an interest group no longer needed to lobby many state legislatures, and could instead focus its efforts on the federal government. See Ure (2007) p.293

I never ever remotely made any argument to that effect. you did. And you keep attributing it to me. Show me the quote?

You think people don’t get it? Really? You do it by implication - a more insidious and slippery way. That’s your game. I know your game. It is a common game of the Republican Party Propaganda machine. Don’t worry, I’ll kindly point those kinds of things out when you do it again. Then you can explain yourself. But maybe I’m wrong, maybe you’re just misunderstood and don’t intentionally create one straw-man after another. .

No Rio maybe you just fabricated this straw-man argument
because you want to discredit what I said:

“The reason why there are so many East Germans (and former East Germans now living in Western Germany) illustrates why you equating Americans advocating for universal health-care/SocSec with godless Soviet Communism is a straw-man, false argument.”

That Rio is your straw argument. I told you why East Germany has a lot of renters compared to the U.S. It was fact based. And I made no mention of health-care and Social Security in my statements. And yet you keep chain posted this same straw-man argument because you can’t deal with my argument.

And you also use the straw-man that I’m a “Republican Party Propaganda machine.” I said I believe in Ron Paul. Does that make me a “Republican Party Propaganda machine?” Therefore are you a “Democratic Party Propaganda machine.”

It’s all just personal attacks.

So while we’re back on this topic do you want to answer my question for real this time without using a personal attack or straw-man argument?

SF Bay Area asks:
“Rio, why are so many East Germans (and former East Germans now living in Western Germany) renters. I’m listening.”

Rio responds to my question above:
“The reason why there are so many East Germans (and former East Germans now living in Western Germany) illustrates why you equating Americans advocating for universal health-care/SocSec with godless Soviet Communism is a straw-man, false argument.”

Maybe it’s for the reason I posted yesterday:

“One of the most significant obstacles for a substantial flow of investments has been the absence of a functioning real estate market. Most pre-War private property was expropriated or confiscated under the Communist regime. The first wave of measures transferring private property into the Ownership of the people” (a more appropriate term would be government or State ownership) was the so-called “Land Reform” (instituted during the Soviet Occupation between 1945 and 1949. The East German Communist government installed in 1949 continued these expropriations and confiscations that ended with a comprehensive expropriation order in 1972 that resulted in most of the remaining privately held real property and businesses, which had until then survived, finally being expropriated or confiscated. Consequently, hardly any real estate was in private hands when the Berlin Wall came down on November 9, 1989.”

Or maybe they just don’t like to own. Dunno. You tell me your opinion without all the personal attacks and straw-man arguments.

SF Bay Area, You seem a bit unhinged today. I mean look at your 20-30 posts of 80% ranting gibberish. Maybe you should get an impartial editor to condense your “ideas”. I think it was said best yesterday by another poster:

Comment by ahansen
2012-10-08 23:28:44

SFarea,

To get respect, you have to show it first.
Pax.

It’s time for me to hit the running trail Rio - I’m going to do a few miles I would be interested in your opinion without all the personal attacks and straw-man arguments.

Please don’t stop posting, Rio.

Here are the opinions of several noted constitutional scholars that agree with my opinion and disagree with your opinion rio.

Dang…….SF…….This is ANOTHER great example of you either not comprehending the issue or your bias affecting your objectivity. This is not a personal attack. It is an observation of a repeating pattern that does not do justice to your partners in discussion. In fact, it short changes your “debate” partners.

Because: My opinion was NOT related to the matter of if the 17th Amendment led to MORE special influence in the Senate. It was nothing of the kind. My “opinion” did not even mention the 17th Amendment.

I simply showed how you were wrong and that, in fact, having the state legislators elect Senators was done in great part to protect the special interests of the wealthy. That it did or didn’t do this more than the 17th Amendment was NOT the question. See?

……John Dickinson…wished…the American Senate to consist of the most distinguished characters - distinguished for their rank in life, their weight in property, and bearing as strong of likeness to the British House of Lords as possible. Such characters were more likely to be selected by the state legislatures than by any other mode.” (pages 78-79) Miracle At Philadelphia

It’s time for me to hit the running trail Rio - I’m going to do a few miles I would be interested in your opinion without all the personal attacks and straw-man arguments.

I’d run too if I were you too SF. You’ve been punked. And because you are the king of straw-men, personal attacks and now I’m calling you a liar.

Yes. You are a liar. You don’t lie? You don’t do straw-men? You don’t call names? Then what is this? I know what I think and feel and based on this post of yours, I know you are a liar and will say anything when you come unglued as you did today.

Ladies and gentlemen of the HBB jury. I submit this post which contains name-calling, straw-men arguments and flat out LIES.

Comment by SF Bay Area
2012-10-09 14:12:29
….You (Rio) are a hard core socialist and you don’t care what causes poverty and how the socialist remedies are paid for. You would like to see:
- wealth confiscation
- nationalization of means of production
- 90%+ tax rates
- hyperinflation

I rest my case. Liar.

Rio,
While I appreciate your prolific thoughts more than you know, I find it unseemly that what was obviously intended as a semi-private notation is being used to further a personal agenda. While I acknowledge that this is a public board, I’d ask that you please respect the context of my posts and not use them for ulterior purposes? I would have done the same for you, you know. Thanks.

While I appreciate your prolific thoughts more than you know, I find it unseemly that what was obviously intended as a semi-private notation is being used to further a personal agenda.

You got it A.H.. I’m sorry. I won’t do it again. But I didn’t know you’d mind and it was just so spot on - prose into poetry….. Defining the essence of the pattern is so few words.

And I’d not seen the word “sycophants” used by anyone so eloquently in some time.

But you can use my posts ANYTIME you want. (But just not against me please) (kidding)

Everybody–

I know it’s sometimes hard to rise above retaliation — especially when we’re subjected to ad hominem attack from Obvious Idiots (funny how there are so many of us…) but we’ve lost some fascinating posters here to gang-flaming over the years, and as a blog family, we’re the poorer for it. Instead of working out our ego issues on those we imagine fools, (even if they are) can we please strive for a little more civility, reason, and yes, rhetorical restraint? Especially those who amuse themselves by using buzzwords as deliberate provocation? Seriously. Go kick the hamster or something….

If you can’t bear to ask yourself What Would Oly Do?, at least show that courtesy to our long-suffering host.

Oly ruthlessly cut down and made fun of more than a few posters. I remember her taking the p1ss out of “A.B. Dada” from Chicago, and Bilious got more than he could handle out of her.

I have the private correspondence to prove it.

It’s always been thus.

The problem is that the lack of clear-market signals brings out the worst in people. Of course, the signals are still there but the “obviousness” is gone.

I think I’ll go kick my dishwasher now.

I know it’s sometimes hard to rise above retaliation — especially when we’re subjected to ad hominem attack from Obvious Idiots

(and subjected to outright, baldfaced LIES)

Comment by SF Bay Area
….You (Rio) …..would like to see:
- wealth confiscation
- nationalization of means of production
- 90%+ tax rates
- hyperinflation

These are lies.

This is long and is going to take a while to post…

Ahansen, that’s rich, you go on a full on frontal assault on me:

“your exegeses are filtered through a hackneyed knowledge of political history and the smug self-satisfaction of someone who has spent too much time in the company of sycophants.”

But then you want me not to respond.

Sorry I won’t be intimidated by you, Ahansen, or Rio.

And your one actual argument against what I said was a complete straw-man or worse:

“Perhaps the fact escapes you that the socialist programs you cite (and cite and cite) as cautionary were enacted to address rampant poverty and unsustainable wealth disparities (and the civil unrest it spawns) in the first place? This is certainly not to excuse totalitarian excess, (as some would imply), but your verbiage is glaring in its lack of perspective.”

Let’s get this right out of the way shall we? I did not start the thread in question. I didn’t come to the forum yesterday and cite (and cite and cite) all sorts of social programs meant to protect the poor. Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower posted a topic about why East Germans don’t own property. And I posted about only one “socialist program” that explained why they didn’t own property and it was because the socialist *TOOK ALL THEIR PROPERTY*. I’m sorry if that bursts your bubble and you want to not hear the truth!

Here is the original quote from Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower:

“Lastly and perhaps most importantly, demand is being undermined by broader-scale mood swings. People are beginning to accept that it isn’t necessary to own your own home, nor is it necessarily a long-term goal. That might seem like heresy in a country where property ownership has been viewed as a God-given right, but when you consider that in economic powerhouse Germany the share of residential property accounted for by rentals is more than 60 percent in most states and 90 percent in the capital, Berlin, it’s not all that strange.”

To which scdave replied:

“but when you consider that in economic powerhouse Germany the share of residential property accounted for by rentals is more than 60 percent in most states and 90 percent in the capital, Berlin, it’s not all that strange ??”

“A very interesting statistic that I was unaware of….Less than a 40% ownership rate in Germany with its high income and all ??”

And Colorado posted his hypothesis:

“I guess that since most Germans have good wages, benefits and pensions waiting for them, they don’t need “their house to work for them”?”

Scdave:

I guess that since most Germans have good wages, benefits and pensions waiting for them, they don’t need “their house to work for them”?

And I was the only person brave enough to speak the truth:

“Communism and the reunification of West and East Germany are why rental rates are so high in Germany. For those of you too young to know Germany was split into two counties after World War II by the U.S. allies and the Russians. West Germany became part of Western Europe and East Germany was run by the communist. The communist “liberated” the housing stock from the people and built large social housing projects in East Germany. Housing was owned by the state not by the people individually. When the Berlin Wall Fell and communism ended and the two parts were re-united in East Germany the housing stock became rentals. And East Germans flooded West Germany to escape of the hell hole that Communism had created in the East. The mass of East Germans were poor and rented houses in the West to find jobs and a better life. So you ended up with rentals in both the East and the West. Prices for housing in the East fell because so many people wanted to leave the East so naturally it wasn’t worth “investing” in East German real estate.”

“One of the most significant obstacles for a substantial flow of investments has been the absence of a functioning real estate market. Most pre-War private property was expropriated or confiscated under the Communist regime. The first wave of measures transferring private property into the Ownership of the people” (a more appropriate term would be government or State ownership) was the so-called “Land Reform” (instituted during the Soviet Occupation between 1945 and 1949. The East German Communist government installed in 1949 continued these expropriations and confiscations that ended with a comprehensive expropriation order in 1972 that resulted in most of the remaining privately held real property and businesses, which had until then survived, finally being expropriated or confiscated. Consequently, hardly any real estate was in private hands when the Berlin Wall came down on November 9, 1989.”

Clearly I should be sent to the thought police for my pre-crime of pointing out the obvious – that East Germans tend to not own property because it was taken from them by the Communist. Shame on me! And clearly this was done to per your quote “were enacted to address rampant poverty and unsustainable wealth disparities” Give me a break – millions of East Germans fled and their homes and farms were given to the communist poles and the soviets.

But I guess that’s just too much critical thinking to handle.

This is long and is going to take a while to post…

Long, disjointed, off topic, biased, frantic, freaked out……What’s new?

Rio, it is a lie that you support a wealth tax? I don’t think so - some classic Rio quotes:

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-05-08 10:53:01
Charge each household a lump sum tax bill based on their accumulated wealth.

PB, I like your tax proposal from yesterday—really like it.
Me too.

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=6686

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-08-21 09:24:32

Money that is poofed will not be around to circulate. Money that is not around to circulate will not be available for people to use to buy things that are for sale, which means a lot of things will not be sold.

The same thing happens when money is redistributed from the middle-class to the super rich. It has happened. It is not just theory anymore.

USA has plenty of “money”. It’s just concentrated in too few’s hands and needs to be redistributed back to levels seen when America’s middle-class was strong.

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=6195

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-09-06 09:38:12

Of course, the times that I’ve brought this up on the blog, here comes the whining about a “regressive” tax on “the poor”.

A national sales tax is a regressive tax on the poor, however if it were used in conjunction with a “wealth” tax including a tax on every financial transaction, then the entire tax burden need not be regressive.

Keep the personal attacks coming Rio - it’s all you got!

Let’s see add a 3.8% Obamacare tax + 13.3% California tax to your recommend 70% Fed tax and you get pretty close to 90%. Wow Rio - you better hope everyone has gone to bed so they don’t read about all your lies.

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=6802
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-10-19 09:23:10
We cannot continue as we have been doing for the past 10 years. Everyone is going to have to pay more in taxes.
Everyone does not have to pay more in taxes. That is a myth. We just need to go back to our tax structure of the 30s, 40’s 50s, 60s and 70s. (something the regressive-right wants us to forget)
income and wealth are now more concentrated than they’ve been in 70 years. The top 1 percent gets over 20 percent of total income and holds over 35 percent of national wealth; the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans put together.
And effective tax rates on the rich are lower than they’ve been in three decades.
We need to push for higher marginal taxes on the top, and more brackets. Incomes of more than $5 million should be subject to a 70 percent rate. (The top marginal rate was never below 70 percent between 1940 and 1980.) And they should apply to all income regardless of source, including capital gains.
This would allow for a bigger Earned Income Tax Credit (that is, a wage subsidy) for lower-income workers. And lower taxes on middle-income workers.
There should be a 2 percent annual surtax on all fortunes over $7 million. This would hit only half a percent of Americans at the very top of the heap. And would yield $70 billion a year – enough to improve our schools and make college affordable to everyone.
And a tax on financial transactions. Even a tiny one of one-half of one percent would generate $200 billion a year. That’s enough to make a major contribution toward early childhood education for every American toddler.

http://robertreich.org/post/11591880881#ixzz1bFGVCTZa

Keep the personal attacks coming Rio - it’s all you got!

No. Your 20-30 frantic, unhinged, disjointed, and devious posts show me that I have a heck of a lot more than just that. Your are running in circles. Someone has your number, your patterns.

Rio, it is a lie that you support a wealth tax? I don’t think so - some classic Rio quotes:

First of all you saying I am a hard core socialist is a LIE. No matter your stupidly trying to define it below.

I’d say your strawman post against me was 70% lies and 20% warping of the truth and 10% truth but mostly illustrating your bias, and ignorance of past American history and revenue trends. (Just as your Constitution and Senate comments were flawed and which I dismantled. Twice.)

….You (Rio) …..would like to see:
- wealth confiscation

My favorite is a small tax on all transactions. Not all taxes are “confiscation” however, thinking deeper than a one sentence response…..I might support a targeted wealth tax but mostly on the financial sector that got bailed out and monopolies who derived their monopolies through the government. But I don’t think that would be confiscation because that wealth was redistributed from the middle-class tax payers to the rich or from government corruption to the rich. Right now, I support higher progressive taxes. Over 70% of Americans believe in higher progressive taxes and 70% of Americans are not “hard core socialists” and neither am I. And I don’t believe progressive taxes or claw backs from bailouts are “confiscation” On this point, I’d say you were just partially correct.

- nationalization of means of production

I don’t support this. I do support the government coming in and temporarily supporting industries of vital national interest such as the Automotive industry. Temporarily. In March according to Pew Research, a majority of Americans held this view and they are not “hard-core” socialists.

90%+ tax rates
I’d support top rates in the 50-70% range on huge incomes. The country did not suffer when we had 90% tax rates in the 50s and 60’s but I would not go that far.

- hyperinflation
I’ve come to the conclusion that if the SHTF. USA should default and not inflate. IMO default is much more capitalistic than hyperinflation. Both are bad but hyperinflation is a more regressive tax on the poor IMO. It is socializing the losses much more than defaulting.

So I’d rate your BS, SF Bbay Area as 70% lies and 20% warping of the truth and 10% truth.

So in this case you are a LIAR. And an ignorant Liar. (See, I told you I had more than personal attacks.)

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=6391

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-16 14:12:12

Something about not “feeling” rich, wasn’t it?

How can a man feel rich when someone is richer than him? It’s human nature. I mean in America, only Bill Gates is really rich. The rest just want to be like him. Rich always want more.

This is a mental burden all “rich” people must bear and it’s sad for them so we should help them.

We could make a it a law that 200 million is the max on anyone’s personal wealth. That way all these super-rich can honestly tell everyone that they are as rich as they ever possibly could be because it would be true.

That way they will “feel” as rich as they ever could and then they’d sleep better at night.

Print baby print - all we need is a printing press and we can buy all the riches we want! - Rio!

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=6391

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-16 17:25:23

Japan’s growth will barely be affected by the earthquake and tsunami, and the economy may even expand faster than expected, its economy minister believes, as spending on rebuilding shores up output.

See? They and we have all the money in the world. It’s just we don’t get to print it nor allocate it.

But we’re being brainwashed to accept a sweet little thing called austerity. Because we’re “socialists”. Our jobs are secure, we have long, lazy vacations, cradle to grave free healthcare, nursing home care, all that free education and great benefits.

It’s time 95% of us “socialists” bite the bullet because we have it too good and besides, the owners of our media and multi-national corporations say so.

I’m going to call you 90% Rio from now on:

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=6391

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-16 13:38:11

Top income tax rate under ‘the pragmatist’ Eisenhower: 91%

Compared to today’s right wing, hypocritical, corporatist, fascist nutballs, Nixon, Eisenhower, Ford, Dole etc. were all “socialists”.

Heck, even Nixon wanted a national health plan way more “socialist” than Obama got.

In “communist” Nixon’s own collective and lefty words:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

Let’s see add a 3.8% Obamacare tax + 13.3% California tax to your recommend 70% Fed tax and you get pretty close to 90%. Wow Rio - you better hope everyone has gone to bed so they don’t read about all your lies.

We’re talking Federal taxes. If we add your Republican Propaganda stupidity tax, you and your ignorant buddies are probably paying the Federal government to work!

(that was funny!) Man you are fun.

Rio just wants the nice socialists! NAZI where the Nationalsozialismus or National Socialist. They all sounds so friendly in Rio’s brain until you actually look at examples of what he wants:

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=6391

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-16 16:15:47

but will it be socialist ala Germany 1930s

Germany was never “socialist” under Hitler. It was fascist and used the word “socialist” in its misleading name to fool the people at the beginning. It worked.

Kind of how the right want’s to now fool the unknowing into thinking that Nazism was “socialism”.

And you would ideally like to put the means of production into the hands of the state for the good of us all. I’m sure you would be in charge - I feel so much better:

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=6391

omment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-16 18:52:12

So you believe that in Germany in the 30s that each successive year did not see greater and greater government control of the means of production?

Wow. Your missing the big part. Government control of means of production as in Nazi Germany did not and does not fulfill Socialism’s main tenant and requirement of vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Rio is it true a lot of NAZI’s relocated to Brazil to escape war crime trials. Know any down there?

Heck, even Nixon wanted a national health plan way more “socialist” than Obama got.

Dude, Thank you for re-posting my posts! I love them. Spread my word! The lord works in mysterious ways!

Rio - what is your opinion on the serial hyperinflation Brazil caused by their socialist policy?

Nahhh didn’t think you’d want to answer that one. That’s only for the big boys to worry about. Not children living in their parents’ basements like you.

That’s what I’m saying 90% Rio - you are a hard core socialist. Come out of the closet - be proud.

You want:

- wealth confiscation
- nationalization of means of production
- 90%+ tax rates
- hyperinflation

You don’t need to hide it. Own it and share it.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Look in the SF Bay Area we have coming out parties all the time baby! You know what I mean. This is the gay capital of the world!

Let’s call this 90% Rio’s coming out party!

Mazel tov!

the serial hyperinflation Brazil caused by their socialist policy?

Funny, since the “socialists” Lula and “commies” Dilma took over Brazil, there has been no hyperinflation. And the middle-class has increased by 35 million people. (And Fernando Henrique Cardoso ROCKED too)

Not children living in their parents’ basements like you.

Basements? In Rio de Janeiro? Brazil? Like in a house? That’s just silly.

So you believe that in Germany in the 30s that each successive year did not see greater and greater government control of the means of production?

This is not my quote. Many tonight have not been mine. This is another example of SF bay area being a liar. And devious or at least a lazy liar.

And a real freaked out one tonight.

How many more frantic posts SF? I’m getting tired and worried for your mental health.

Maybe I’m going to stop tonight. Because I’m nice. And this movie I’m watching is much more interesting than your weirdness.

I provided links to everyone of your quotes so everyone could verify them.

Coming out party!

This will be a fun year Rio!

90% Rio’s coming out dance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqEtq34dSUo

“How can a man feel rich when someone is richer than him? It’s human nature.”

SF - it is easy to feel rich when one lives among people who are poorer than you.

I wonder if that is the root of your problem - you live among the very wealthy and it is gnawing at your soul. There are plenty of scenic small towns and cities with a high quality of life and low average income. Can you relocate???

I think I’ll post this video below every comment you make from now on. Just to give it a little color you know.

Brings back memories doesn’t it 95% Rio?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPiDTfhX86M

I think I’ll post this video below every comment you make from now on. Just to give it a little color you know.

SF. You’ve freaked. Sorry. You are grasping at unreality. A bruised ego….. Maybe not used to your BS being called out. Sorry, I think there is something off kilter going on. Your pattern, your 40-50 posts. 80% dealing with…….nothing….

Post what you want about me. It might help you. In your Twilight Zone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

localandlord that quote is from brother 90% Rio.

I personally am self made and set for life now.

“I wonder if that is the root of your problem” -localandlord

What problem would that be?

Look when 90% Rio has completed his task of:

- wealth confiscation
- nationalization of means of production
- 90%+ tax rates
- hyperinflation

I will probably take my significant other along with my three sisters + their significant others and all my nephews and nieces to a better place. I can support them all for life. I will want for nothing.

Rio on the other hand - being the young lad that he is living with his parent in socialist heaven will see his medicare and social security destroyed when he is an old man.

I am offering to give up my medicare and social security via means testing, larger co-pays and a older retirement age so that his generation doesn’t get left with Zilch - especially the poor. Unlike him I actually give a darn.

And I didn’t ask for the Bush tax cuts and I didn’t vote for bush. Tax me! Pay for the darn programs or don’t have them!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPiDTfhX86M

90% Rio:

“Post what you want about me. It might help you. In your Twilight Zone. :(”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

Great so it’s a date - you an me!

I’m in!

90% Rio like we were both there yesterday!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvnJS_zkaMY&feature=related

localandlord that quote is from brother 90% Rio.

As usual, you miss the big picture. Because of dogma.

I think localandlord is more worried about your mental well-being and apparent tortured soul than our stupid “argument”.

I personally am self made and set for life now.

No. I don’t think so at all. You don’t seem “set” for life.

Paygo brother 90% Rio - paygo!

Pay as you go! And don’t leave the debt for your children:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WpYWpN0VXU&feature=relmfu

90% Rio I didn’t know you danced in your back yard!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIADWxQMrug&feature=related

90% Rio I guess I’m making you agree because I am willing to pay my money to take of you old self 50 years from now and give up my SS and medicare. Wow. Who would have know. Paygo! Pay as you go - no generation should leave debt to their children.

90% Tax Rate Rio getting mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YsL4HXZN9E&feature=related

I will want for nothing.

Except apparently for mental toughness, higher than average subjective cognitive ability, and mental peace of mind when confronted by those who don’t agree with you.

But that don’t mean much because God loves you as he does me. God bless you brother. Peace and goodnight.

Brother Rio

Wow and you celebrated the October Revolution for Moi?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IGbjPqFFvA&feature=related

And look those nice Bolsheviks taking the German Real Estate just like we talked about!

Just like you said - it’s so easy to give away real estate when you steal it from someone else. Wow! You are totally so giving!

90% Rio and his national socialist party has a plan that doesn’t involve paying for anything! Wow they just take it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHy9ASYgVB0&feature=related

What strikes me about that last video - is if you look carefully at the women in the audience you can really see how the stress of a socialist society has aged them. Unlike 90% Rio - I have been there. I saw what they left behind after his socialist dream.

Yeah your socialist experiment didn’t end well in terms of human health:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad63Wk8550Q

Wow! 90% Rio are you sure you can take care of our health because your health record is not looking good:

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

Oddly enough my capitalist cousin Sacha Nairobi (and yes she is my favorite cousin) is looking very healthy. Coincidence? I think not. This is a much watch!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHvTbMeou38

This will life the spirit of even 90% Rio!

Darn those capitalist - she’s got three new songs on facebook! Rock on!

http://www.myspace.com/sachanairobi/music/songs/raquel-25803902

OMG! When we were down and out in California those Unions where stealing from us? And the source is a Democratic State Senator???

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444443504577601664135014368.html

90% Rio you have some splanning to do from your parents house. How you going to fix this?

sfarea,
I’m at bnis dotnet and it’s dvsntt. Pour a snifter of Hibiki and unload if you like. It’s been a long day….

‘The problem is that the lack of clear-market signals brings out the worst in people. Of course, the signals are still there but the “obviousness” is gone.’

That is a great observation which frankly eluded me. We’ve gone from market conditions where buying real estate or stocks was a complete no-brainer guaranteed to make you rich to a world where the Bearded One is using every trick in the book to pump up asset prices, with very little movement to show for the effort.

It is a puzzling situation, though fortunately not one that makes me want to kick the hamster or the dishwasher.

I mean, look at the logic.

How do faculty salaries (fictitious as they are) affect any decision of mine? Even if they were real, how does it bother me?

Ditto for China. How does China factor into anything I do right here in NYC?

I think it’s a variant of “buy now or be priced out forever” or “the Chinese are gonna buy up everything”.

I thought we were past that point but apparently not. The p1mpers are back.

What a crock!

FPSS:

Your language says a lot about your literacy level. It would reflect good of you if you use better language.
Just showing anger or using bad words doesn’t make you right.

As I said yesterday, you live in your own little world when you talk about China and its influence on US markets or even faculty salaries.

Great!

I’ll just wait for the Columbia and NYU faculty to buy out the Tisch Brothers.

That’ll be a h00t and a half!

P1mp away, baby, p1mp away. It’s quite entertaining.

I think it’s a variant of “buy now or be priced out forever” or “the Chinese are gonna buy up everything”.

That’s exactly what it is brother…… and please watch your language….. the word “pimp” is very very offensive.

You prefer Fur-Coated Vertically-Challenged Fashion-Backward Body-Salesman?

Or maybe I can use “ponce”. That’s ol’-fashioned enough to suit grandma.

I agree with you on the calling of names. However, you state that:

“The above post was for irony that media is propagating what isn’t true. China is slowing down faster than expected.”

I think that China has hit the wall and no longer has the natural resources or a cheap labor force to continue to grow at a fast clip. Many on this board saw this coming.
Moreover, I do not trust the numbers coming out of China since you will see things like electicity demand being stable but growth still around 8% in the GDP.

Bubbles can continue for quite awhile so the fact that real estate may continue to go up after the fundamentals are gone is not a surprise or evidence that we are wrong about the slowdown. While China could adopt a stimilus policy to get back to 8% growth in the short term, I believe that five years from now a China growing at 5% is much more likely than a China growing a 8% plus and the only way you will ever see 10% is if a recession occurred the year before. Just my opinion but it is based on facts.

‘According to data released by the market research division of Centaline Property Agency, during the first seven days of the National Day holiday (September 30 – October 6), 16,000 residential properties were sold in 54 cities, down 70 percent year-on-year.’

http://www.chinascopefinancial.com/news/post/17290.html

‘But has China built too many houses and roads than needed? Rohr believes it has. China’s National Trunk Highway System is already longer than the US Interstate System, while the US has three times more cars than China has. Statistics show that the average urban household in China owns 1.2 homes, which explains the anecdotal “ghost cities.”

‘Rohr holds that, in China, the wealth effect from a burst in the housing market is likely to be huge because real estate accounts for 41% of Chinese household wealth, compared with 26% in the US.’

http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/95656/A-Hangover-for-China.aspx

the average urban household in China owns 1.2 homes

That statistic right there says it all.

China is going to have the mother of all hard landings. Anyone that can’t see it and talks about “leveling off” and “soft landings” and “hangovers” simply can’t see the forest for the trees.

I think that China has hit the wall and no longer has the natural resources or a cheap labor force to continue to grow at a fast clip ??

CEO of Dow Chemical who has much business in China said over the weekend that there is no-way that China is growing at the 7-8% suggested…He said its more like 2% and that will effect negatively on several other countries including Australia & Europe & Brazil….

no longer has the natural resources

It never had the natural resources, hence China’s foray into Africa and the boom in Australia, not to mention China’s deals with Iran for oil…

It use to export oil and coal even into the early 90’s (for oil) and even later for coal. It is a vast country and still has vast natural resources. However, it has outstripped its natural resources. Thus, its industry, that runs mainly on coal, has to pay close to the world rate for oil and coal and that has been a game changer.

CEO of Dow Chemical who has much business in China said over the weekend that there is no-way that China is growing at the 7-8% suggested…He said its more like 2%…

As mentioned before, I was an economics major Back in the Day. One of my professors was a world-renowned expert on the Chinese economy.

The prof was too polite to say so, but we picked up on the notion that the Chinese government was lying through its teeth about the state of that country’s economy.

Prof stopped just short of saying so, and you could tell that he really wanted to. But he probably didn’t want to jeopardize the lives of his contacts in the PRC.

And, mind you, this was back in the 1970s in the years right after Mao’s death.

Are you trying to say you (FasterPusscatSS) are the best. (and) Others who don’t listen to your views are idiots. ?

Is that a trick question?

LOLsies!!! Awesome huh???!!!!

Yep, it’s actually really funny.

Ask yourself why a nurse and a construction worker thought they could swing almost a half-a-million dollar house (is that a typo? is that euros?)

What delusion possessed them to do that?

The answer is simple. The house was gonna make them rich. It was plain ol’-fashioned greed.

Now they’re stuck. And Ireland is a recourse country. Enjoy debt-serfdom, kids!

Yep, laughing at greed. Not really a problem.

BWAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHH!!!

even though I make multiples of what a lucky ducky does

So you’re admitting that you’re a 1%er now? Of the limousine liberal variety, looking down your nose at the common rabble from your $3.5M house in the foothills above Boulder.

RESTORE OUR FUTURE!

“Of the limousine liberal variety, looking down your nose at the common rabble from your $3.5M house in the foothills above Boulder.”

With a latte. Can’t leave that out.

“It means…I want THINGS to fill up my life not KIDS….”

Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.

True but you could do it in a house at 1/2 the price and have lots of $$ left over for other things Like travelling….guess these people want to be slaves to their house…

Forward!

I can Handel that!

Stop Haydn our greatness!

Herezh Chopin.

We need to get Holst of ourselves!

Mmmm, Holst :-). I have a really bad video of myself conducting First Suite when I was applying for commander of my National Guard band a couple of years after I got off active duty. I wasn’t very good at it but I was their best option at the time. They chose to wait for a better candidate :-).

Oh, let me try, let me try.

Housing is a NONO. Don’t be MACHAUT. It’s still un-RAVEL-ing.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

And it has MILES to go.

One doesn’t have to be a MONK about it. Just take a HOLIDAY. Otherwise, you might just get DIZZY and that would be no good.

GETZ some good advice out there about the state of housing. No point being ORNETTE about it!

“And it has MILES to go.”

Indeed it does. And frankly I’m mildly surprised that you write this.

Peace

And stop Messiaen around with housing pimps. Realtors are liars.

I’ve made a long Liszt of these liars.

Welcome back to the 19th century!

Their oil revenues are down but they still are still paying their bills within their country. So they were printing money and if the value of it falls it is excessive printing compared to their oil revenues. I don’t want to get into an endless chicken or egg type question but if your currency is not backed by something like gold as soon as people lose confidence in the fiat currency it crashes and the more you print the faster that occurs.

When I was doing post-Katrina reconstruction, I heard some rather unkind things about their response right after the storm.

People who understand the Kelly Criterion know the problems with leverage.

Of course, you probably have no idea of what I’m talking about but you might want to look that up.

I seriously doubt your “investors” do. They are probably doctors or some such.

lol.

No, they are not doctors, they are just people with far more money than either of us and who have been around for long enough to understand the long-term effects of inflation (each have net worth measured in the tens of millions).

They are not necessarily borrowing money based on an assumption they will need to bet it over and over again to do better than the 3.5% each time. And they are not running so thin as to have a long time of bad investment outcomes putting them at risk. They are simply assuming that overall in their worlds, the long term combintation of real investment returns PLUS inflation will exceed 3.5% (which today is 1.5% PLUS 2%, unless inflation goes much higher, in which case they can be at a 0% real return), which based on their LONG history of investing they feel comfortable with.

While both individuals have a healthy cash cushion, they might for instance be choosing to borrow the money to make new investments rather than liquidate other assets. The low rates allow this to actually make sense without complicated math.

Example. Let’s say you own a particular stock at a low basis that is currently paying a yield of 3.1% (with a low payout ratio). If this was part of one of my person’s portfolios (and I know for a fact that it is part of one person’s), rather than borrow money, they could sell the stock.

However, after selling the stock, they would pay about 20% of the gross revenue in tax (yes, they bought the stock post crash and it has dramatically recovered), they would only get about 80% of the gross revenue with which to raise cash (ie. not borrow from the bank). The dividend as it relates to this 80% of the after tax proceeds is 3.875%.

So, this particular person is better off by borrowing at less than 3.875% than liquidating that particular position and using the resultant after-tax cash.

And let’s say that the sum total of these positions represent a multiple (5x, 10x) of the total borrowed, so there is a huge degree of safety for any one position…do you understand yet why they are borrowing, fixed for 30-years?

I love investment theory (which I studied extensively). I especially like how theory doesn’t play itself out in real life.

Yer a clown.

He’s trying to break our sarcasm meters.