The Housing Bubble

And it will never happen if I never buy (Murphy’s law of real estate ownership for San Diegans who just want a house to live in…).

I think mortgages at 3.15% is a bailout.

I hope Congress caps the writes offs! Gotta increase revenue and cut spending to make a dent in the deficit.

I think mortgages at 3.15% is a bailout.

From what I’m hearing from friends, coworkers and others, they aren’t all that easy to get.

true, this time you need a job.

Diogenes can think.

Real Estate is a DEPRECIATING “asset”

In the totality of who’s lifetime?

And the better news is that prices resumed falling last month.

Old song

I like that groups even older songs which you can find all day long on you tube

“lucrative medical condition” = Gotta remember that one. Good phrase, as a part of all that’s wrong with the USA.

The problem is, if people want to be assured an income in case one of these medical conditions happen, they should buy insurance and pay for it throughout their working time. Insurers would be able to spread risk and also offer plans at various benefit levels, none of which should be near full-replacement-of-income level.

A lot of people get this insurance via work, but few decide to buy it on their own. Relatively few also choose to buy additional insurance against long term or short term disability. Part of this has to do with price–because insurers know there are doctors who will go along with b.s. injuries.

“lucrative medical condition” = Gotta remember that one.

+1 Disgusting isn’t it?

Relatively few also choose to buy additional insurance against long term or short term disability.

I pay $15 a month for a policy like this. Came in handy when I was pregnant, as the school district’s maternity leave (6 weeks total) only pays 50% of your salary when out on sick or maternity leave.

Pregnancy is now a disibility?

Believe it or not, many benefits department do consider pregnancy and childbirth as a “disability”. Foolish, IMO

In Germany childbirth is considered a disability for the father too, for a couple of years I have heard.

I believe they are trying to encourage Germans to have kids. Apparently it isn’t working, even with all the cheese and other freebies.

I won’t laugh at the medical issues. Getting a doctor to sign a paper is one thing, getting doctors to perform spinal surgery is another. That’s pretty risky stuff, isn’t it? But I will laugh at spending that much on housing.

Their best bet would have been to move into the condo, even with the teenage son.

What if you can see a little corner of a Ralph Lauren store?

“What if you can see a little corner of a Ralph Lauren store?”

If it’s an outlet, you’re fine. If it’s the real deal, no dice.

States are more corrupt than the Fed.

Here in Texas, Rick Perry just appointed his second staffer to the Texas Supreme Court.

Of course, the dudes never been a judge before, it’s not like that is important.

How is that different than Kagan at the SCOTUS?

SCOTUS appointments require approval by the Senate, public hearings, review of previous rulings, vetting by the media, etc.

Kagan

Well, she was dean of Harvard Law. US Solicitor General. That kind of stuff.

So you agree, she had no experience as a judge of any kind.

Being a law school professor at a good school requires nearly the exact same skill set as being an appelate level judge/justice and is harder. There were no legitimate questions about Kagan being qualified for the job when she was nominated. The biggest issue was that she would have to recuse herself from a few cases coming before the court because she had worked on them as SG. Oh, and that a bunch of people didn’t like what they presumed/guessed her decisions might be.

So bypassing any experience as a judge at all, straight to the highest court in the land because she possesses a similar skill set.

I put out a couple camp fires, changed the batteries in my smoke detector once and struck a few matches, maybe I can be the fire commissioner for FDNY now? Same skill set, no?

So you skipped the “and it is harder” part of my post. Publishing articles is harder than writing opinions. Writing briefs (as SG) is harder than writing opinions. Running a good socratic law school class is harder than asking questions in an appelate argument. Being dean of a law school is harder than getting along with eight court collegues and running a chamber with a few law clerks.

Everything she had been doing for the previous decades was superior preparation for being on the SCOTUS.

If you have an argument (other than a specious metaphor), please find it and post it.

maybe I can be the fire commissioner for FDNY now? Same skill set, no?

You are free to look up the qulaifications and apply for the position then. If the approving board (or whoever it is) accepts your skill set, then I will agree.

Next.

polly, how about a 2 year stint on an appelate court… If the law school was such good prep, why not a couple years as an actual judge?

Hey gang! Guess what John Marshall, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, and William Rehnquist all have in common?

if you guessed they were all Supreme Court justices who had no previous experience as judges, you win a red balloon!

And there are about 36 others.

While cutting deductions, yes. It was a good bipartisan plan. It is not perfect but it is far better than the path we have been on during the last two administrations.

So Social Security gets cut, and the rich get tax cuts.

And that’s the glorious ‘compromise’ of Simpson/Bowles?

Take away the tax cuts for the rich, let them go to 39.5%, and I’d see Simpson/Bowles as a compromise. As it is, it seems like cuts for the middle class, coupled with tax breaks for the 1%, probably with some lame trickle-down rationale.

It’s funny how the Housing Bubble is resulting in Social Security being cut.

Did anyone predict that 6 years ago?

it is predicted in a few years SS will be taking in 75 cents for every dollar going out. That is why I figure when calculating my retirement that I will get 75% of what SS says I will receive. Of course, if we made minor changes now people would not need to see a 25% reduction in their benefits but it appears we will be like Greece, deny we have a problem until we are forced to make dramatic cuts. As far as your question Steve J, yes I did, the bubbles created more revenue and I knew when they popped both public and private pension funds would suffer including social security. But remember during the bubble more money went into the trust fund then would have occurred so we did benefit from the bubble.

My working assumption is that SS will amount to a pittance in 37-40 yrs when I retire. Hence I do not factor it into my game plan at all.

I am less clear on what to think of Medicare. It will exist in some form, but really the best hope for the future is that things that are cutting edge treatments in 2012-2025 become relatively cheap by 2050. Humans will never “fix” the aging process or cure all diseases, but it would be fantastic if we are able to turn exceptional treatments into standard treatments.

Alpha, I suggest you read the plan. They fix Social Security by making the rich pay more, and actually strengthen the safety net.

“It’s funny how the Housing Bubble is resulting in Social Security being cut.”

Housing must be saved at all costs, even if it means taking away from people’s retirement incomes…

SS is a pittance now.

Avg SS monthly payment is around ~$1200. Tried living on that lately? That’s min wage.

And in cutting the rates, they also convert capital gain into regular income (subject to the same tiers, so low income folks pay low capital gains rates, wealthy have their capital gain rates go from 15% (or 20%) to 28%).

Their plan is as follows:

The 10/15% rates today are converted to one 12% rate
The 25/28% rates are converted to one 22% rate
The 33/35% rates are converted to one 28% rate

AND

No AMT
No PEP/Pease (???)
Maintain EITC and Child Tax Credit
No itemized deductions, standard deduction only
Capital Gains are treated just like other income
MID becomes 12% non-refundable tax credit to all taxpayers, mortgages capped at $500k, no credit from second residence
Employer HC Insurance Deduction capped at 75th percentile of premium levels in 2014, cap frozen through 2018, then deduction phased out over the next 20 years, excise tax reduced to 12%
Charitable giving 12% non-refundable tax credit to all taxpayers, available above 2% of AGI
State/Muni Bonds: New issues are taxable
Retirement: Consolidate retirement accounts; cap tax preferred contributions to lower of $20k, or 20% of income, expand saver’s credit
Other Tax Expenditures: Nearly all others are eliminated

Their estimate is that the top 0.1% pays 24% more ($735k more)
Top 1% pays 18% more ($112k more)
95-99% pays 5% more ($5k more on average)

BUT, the bottom Quintile also pays 4% more (an additional $24).

And they are not SERIOUSLY looking at this for tax reform? REALLY?

Right, but the average is definitely brought down by people who retire early, by stay at home moms, etc. At least now if you work full time from, say, age 25 to 65 and make a decent amount, you’d be retiring with 2k+. Not bad if you are married and have a paid off house. If you move to a place like FL, NV, or AZ you can even “live well” if you sell your house in the Northeast and become an equity vulture.

The bottom line is at least someone who retires today could count on SS for some baseline of money. I don’t think this will be true in 2050. SS might be reduced to a “safety net only” program that pays little to nothing if you have any real assets or alternate income. The problem is, there would be real moral hazard if they start means testing… [insert remark from polly admonishing me for mentioning perfectly reasonable loopholes]

The Simpson Bowles plan:

1. Makes the retirement benefit more progressive;
2. Creates a minimum benefit to low income workers equal to 125% of the poverty line @2017 and indexed to WAGES
3. Enhances the benefit for people over 85
4. Gradually increases the early and full retirement ages over ~60 years
5. Hardship exemption for those who can’t work beyond 62
6. Gradually increase taxable maximum to cover 90% of wages by 2050
7. Adopt chained CPI
8. Cover newly hired state and local workers after 2020
9/10. Promote personal retirement savings

Again, why aren’t we doing this?

“It’s funny how the Housing Bubble is resulting in Social Security being cut.”

You meant, funny like a heart attack funny, right?

Avg SS monthly payment is around ~$1200. Tried living on that lately? That’s min wage.

It’s not so bad when it’s tax-free, and your house is paid off.

Dear Diogenes I want to know what you mean by “redistribution of the wealth” it is from middle class to 0.1% or …USSR collapsed you are right … but current Russia experienced the same shock that U.S. for last several decades. All of USSR’s wealth Redistributed to “Oligarkhs” like in U.S…

Very simple. You are right. The very rich are much richer. The poor are living quite well, thankyou, very much.
The Middle is being bled. They pay the vast majority of the taxes and support all the systems of “government”.
The “rich” can stay in power so long as they can keep the bottom 50% happy with government support programs.
The bottom 50% blames the middle class, not the .01%. They don’t care who they get their free healthcare, housing, and food from, but it has to come from somewhere.
Stalin just stole if from the Farmers. ALL of it.
And let them die of starvation.
IN the meantime, the NYT wrote glowing articles of the success of the Soviet system.

“All of USSR’s wealth Redistributed to “Oligarkhs” like in U.S…”

You need to look up Al Gore’s role in that little phenomenon. Seriously.

When average people get their tax bill this coming year

… then the average people will remember that the Democrats voted for a bill to keep the tax breaks for them, the average people. And then the average people will remember that the Republicans filibustered, whining that the rich needed the tax cuts too.

The tax hike on the average people is ENTIRELY due to the Republicans.

And if the poor are doing quite well, then why don’t you become one yourself?

Obama will own the economy.

No single President will ever “own” the whole economy. This has been brewing for decades.

and the “redistributing” wealth doesn’t create more wealth,

When we had higher taxes on the rich, we had more money to invest in education, basic science research, infrastructure and national energy. ALL of those things created and create wealth.

The “rich” can stay in power so long as they can keep the bottom 50% happy with government support programs.

The bottom 50% is NOT happy nor lazy. The bottom 50% want good jobs and a country where hard work has rewards as it did in the past. But that would require “redistributing” priorities that the right rails against.

The poor are living quite well, thankyou, very much.

That’s why we have so many homeless shelters, people sleeping in their cars in Walmart parking lots, soup kitchens and food dispensaries, cuz the poor are living high off the hog.

The bottom 50% is NOT happy nor lazy. The bottom 50% want good jobs

Agreed. I know more than a few “po’ folks” and I would never in my wildest dreams want to trade places with them. A SNAP card does not the good life make.

“The poor are living quite well, thankyou, very much.”

You’ve never been poor, have you?

There should have been proper regulation or taxing on moving the capital from this country to developing countries in order to protect working class of loosing their good paying jobs to chip labor in developing countries. People are not lazy, if you pay half of your paycheck for housing then you can’t work for $2 an hour like those guys who make IPhones in China…

The poor are living quite well, thank you, very much.

You are being sarcastic, right? Either that, or you have completely walled yourself off from how poor people live.

I am squarely middle class, and would not switch places with anyone who is lives below the poverty line.

This says that if you make less than 69k with kids, you’d be better off making just under 29k…

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/11-2/welfare%20cliff.jpg

You’ve never been poor, have you?

There’s this belief that the poor live in gleaming section 8 houses with an Escalade in the driveway and steaks on the grill.

The ones I know live in trailers, drive beaters and live off of diets of bologna sandwiches and mac-n-cheese.

Aren’t the tax breaks that the lower/middle class have been enjoying (the Bush tax cuts) all these years because of the Republicans?

And so now the increase (back to Clinton era tax code) will also be blamed on the Republicans…

I know there is some irony in there somewhere…

“Aren’t the tax breaks that the lower/middle class have been enjoying (the Bush tax cuts) all these years because of the Republicans?”
All those years I was paying 30% on my income and Republican Romney who’s income probably 100 times bigger then mine paid 14% , isn’t it obvious that he stole from me…

Simpson Bowles tax reform would change that imbalance (which was also the case under Clinton)…but Obama hasn’t pushed that one forward…

“Aren’t the tax breaks that the lower/middle class have been enjoying (the Bush tax cuts) all these years because of the Republicans?

And so now the increase (back to Clinton era tax code) will also be blamed on the Republicans…”

Well, he was the one who put in the sunset clause on the cuts. He may have wanted them to be permanent, but that isn’t the law that he proposed or signed.

And so now the increase (back to Clinton era tax code) will also be blamed on the Republicans…

Read the damn thread.

The Democrats proposed an voted for a bill which KEPT the tax breaks for the middle class. The Republicans FILIBUSTERED it. If the Republicans hadn’t filibustered, the middle class would already have those tax cuts in the bag.

so YES, you blame the increase on the Republics because it was the Republicans who said no to not increasing it. Really, this isn’t difficult.

This is kind of a disingenuous argument. There is such a thing as negotiation. The plan for extending the tax cuts on the middle class doesn’t include a reduction in spending. So the increase in spending stays in, but the tax cuts for the rich don’t… It’s not a “holding up something we both agree on” argument. The dems are getting the spending increases, but the repubs aren’t getting to hold the line on tax increases.

So it’s not JUST about the middle class tax cuts. If the rest of the “fiscal cliff” stayed in place, but the middle class tax rates stayed low, it would be different.

Oxide:

I’m talking about vilifying the Republicans for a potential increase of taxes on the middle class, when they were the ones who gave the tax break to the middle class in the first place.

And now the Republicans are saying that they would increase taxes on the wealthy, if it is in conjunction with getting the spending side of the equation in order.

If the Democrats are not willing to get the spending side of the equation in order, then candidly, maybe letting the tax cuts expire on the whole might not be the worst thing in the world (those tax cuts do cost about $4 Trillion every 10 years, you know).

The Democrats proposed an voted for a bill which KEPT the tax breaks for the middle class. The Republicans FILIBUSTERED it. If the Republicans hadn’t filibustered, the middle class would already have those tax cuts in the bag.

Period.

Boehner put revenue on the table during the debt ceiling negotiations,

Fake Baloney.

This is why reforming the Electoral College system is a must: We currently have a system where swing states disproportionately feel the love in election season, and many of our votes have no chance of counting on the margin. One could maintain the same state-level shares of electoral college votes, but go from “winner-takes-all” to “proportion of voters X number of electoral college votes” and greatly increase democracy in the American voting system.

Didn’t read the article, just have one phrase:

Repeal of Glass-Steagall (under Clinton)

Question:

If you were unable to write off the remaining capital investment in a new plant if you were to move that plant back out of the US, would you EVER move production into the US in the first place?

Read. The. Article.

Do you understand the deductions that the Democrats are trying to end with this legislation?

If a company invests capital in a new manufacturing plant, that company can depreciate that capital investment over its useful life (ie. an expense to offset income–varying times based on what the capital investment). If there is an undepreciated portion of that investment, and the company shutters that plant to move (to a different location within the US, or out of country), and it becomes a worthless asset.

Currently the company can write off the undepreciated portion of the capital invested.

So, I ask my question again.

If the rules were changed as the Democrats want, and a multinational company were considering investing capital in the in the US (think foreign car companies looking to build cars in the US), do you think their inability to write off their undepreciated capital when they decide to move would affect their desire to move to the US in the first place?

It’s equivalent to overburdensome employment laws in places like Spain…if it becomes too expensive to ever fire someone, you may decide to not hire them in the first place.

“All I did was take the first year of interst and multiply by 0.28.”

If you ignore the option to take the standard deduction versus itemizing, your calculation is wrong.

When you figure in the standard deduction, many people in flyover country get no benefit from the MID.

The 2012 standard deduction is $11,600 for a married couple filing jointly.

You are looking at a house with at least $200k financed to gain any benefit from MID.

Both of you are free to make your own calculations and post them for the benefit of the board.

“Both of you are free to make your own calculations and post them for the benefit of the board.”

$100K house ==> 0, 0

(Calculation assumes mortgage interest plus other deductions are not enough to clear standard deduction hurdle.)

Thanks! Looks like SteveJ calculated a $200K house before MID matters too. Which interest rate was that?

Now, where would you like to institute a cutoff? And what if interest rates go up and people pay a lot more in interest? Does that cutoff still apply? Or are you counting on prices dropping accordingly?

“Now, where would you like to institute a cutoff?”

1. The question is not where, but when: Starting on January 1, 2013.

2. Grandfather in the MID for anyone who bought before then.

3. Very gradually phase out the MID for anyone buying in 2013 or later, so as to not precipitate a price crash.

4. Aim to phase out the MID entirely by 2043, including its redistribution of wealth from the 99% to the 1% and its distortionary incentive to purchase more house than households want or need in order to capture the subsidy.

Of course, most people,in the military today come
from red counties and have red county values. I do not see a civil war, I see a military coup with it being “won” by the red counties. I never thought that was possible forty years ago but now I see about a 20% possibility that a military dictatorship will occur in my lifetime. Interestingly, forty years ago there were a lot
more minorities in the military, at one time some of the services were 40% black but that changed when we went to war and the last time I looked they were just about the percentage of the overall population.

LOL, the author is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. ’nuff said.

Even more LOL, he counts NY as one of the more “strategic”, powerful states. Like anyone who lives in NY would take up arms to defend the state. LMAO! Maybe the parasites (both rich and “poor”) in the southern part of the state could dupe people in the northern part into protecting their sorry arses. I Heart NY!

I see a military coup with it being “won” by the red counties.

And NYC, Chicago, and LA just throw up their hands and say, “Those rednecks got us!”?

It is even worse for the blue counties if you consider the officer corp:

Report: Too many whites, men leading military

By Pauline Jelinek - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Mar 7, 2011 15:10:55 EST

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

I spend a lot of time around the military, this next statement is anecdotal, but, most of the military people I talk to are very unhappy with what America is becoming.

Before anyone flies of the handle, this extends back into the Bush era as well. It doesn’t take a genius to see where their sentiment lies when you realize the lion’s share of military campaign donations went to Ron Paul.

RE: Military too white, too male.

It takes all kinds in the military but the military boils down to one thing and that’s fighting. With that said, go look at any combat brigade and tell me what you see. The vast majority of the people doing the actual fighting are white or Hispanic. When you are there, ask them how they feel about women in combat roles.

That isn’t a slight against anyone, it just is.

And NYC, Chicago, and LA just throw up their hands and say, “Those rednecks got us!”?

Besides the gangs who in those cities even has a gun never mind would have any weapon to stop a M1 tank?

Besides the gangs who in those cities even has a gun never mind would have any weapon to stop a M1 tank?

The police and National Guard?

Maybe the parasites (both rich and “poor”) in the southern part of the state could dupe people in the northern part into protecting their sorry arses. I Heart NY!

So true. My nephew was in a nationalized national guard from upstate NY sent to Iraq. His unit was told they were one of the best the trainers had ever seen. They ended fighting beside the Marines in the Sunni triangle. They all grew up together hunting deer etc. My nephew was the best in his unit with the .50 cal. He lost a lot of childhood friends and received the purple heart due to Bush’s attempt to create a democracy in Iraq. However, I really do not see them fighting against the red counties.

The police do not have weapons to stop a M1 tank and the National guard will both be deployed in and from the red counties of the respective states. The blue counties would get rolled so fast in a war with the red counties it would not be the six day war it would be the six hour war.

That said once you lose a democracy it is very hard to even gain it back so everyone in red and blue counties would lose.

Upstate New York will attack NYC?

I see a military coup with it being “won” by the red counties.

And NYC, Chicago, and LA just throw up their hands and say, “Those rednecks got us!”?

You’re right, they’ll get their guns and use their superior numbers to easily break through the perimeter around their cities.

Oh…wait :-).

The vast majority of the people doing the actual fighting are white or Hispanic.

In the late 80s African Americans were very well represented in the infantry. Has that changed?

No upstate NY will not attack NYC but they are not going to die defending it either. NYC does not have anything like the Iraqi army and we saw how easily they were rolled in Baghdad.

It is superior numbers in trained and equipped troops that matter. Unarmed or badly armed civilians would be a turkey shoot if they were stupid enough to even try.

No, you misunderstand. Combat Brigades of Infantry Battalions are a lot different than supply, transport or admin.

There are plenty of Women and other groups represented across the Army but the the Combat brigades are overwhelmingly White or Hispanic…..those are the ones who do the actual fighting.

Something being overlooked is that our high tech military needs spare parts and munitions. What happens when your M1’s or your airplanes start breaking down and the critical spare parts you need are made in an inaccessible blue state?

Not much of a problem in a six hour war. Plus this is county by county not state by state. The spare parts will be secure.

I just found a great article on Syria and it shows how both Bush and Obama had set forth forces that either one of them even understand. They both caused the Shiite/Sunni split to expand in the Middle East although they both claimed their policies were to promote democracy. Syria is coming apart now but Iraq is not far behind:

This article originally appeared on GlobalPost.

DAMASCUS, Syria — Divided by history, geography and God, Abu Mohammed and Abu Hamza both smoke Marlboro cigarettes and agree on one point: The war for Syria is also a war for Iraq.

Driven from their homes by the 2003 US-led war in Iraq, both men, now in their 40s, found refuge for themselves and their families in neighboring Syria.

Nearly a decade later, both are back in the country that once sheltered them.

But this time their wives and children are no longer with them. The men are not in Syria to flee a war, but to fight one. Abu Mohammed, a Sunni, is training rebels in Aleppo. Abu Hamza, a Shiite, is battling alongside President Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Damascus.

For the war for Syria is morphing into an extension of the relentless struggle between the rival branches of Islam that was so violently unleashed when Washington toppled Saddam Hussein, a secular Baathist dictator, in Baghdad.

“People ask me why a Sunni Iraqi is fighting in Syria and I have a simple answer: ‘I am fighting in Syria to liberate my country, Iraq, from the pro-Iranian Shiite militia,” said Abu Mohammed, 46, dressed in military fatigues, with a short greying beard, cigarette in one hand, sniper rifle in the other.

Iraq, said Abu Mohammed, was now “occupied” by Shiite militias: The Mahdi Army, led by Iraqi cleric Muqtada Sadr who has long ties to Iran; the Badr Brigade, armed and trained in Iran and formerly the armed wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq; and Iran’s own Quds Force.

Abu Mohammed considers Syria’s Assad regime ― led by members of the Allawite sect, an ancient off-shoot of Shiite Islam ― to be another arm of Iran’s attempt to dominate the Sunni-majority Middle East.

Any war against Assad in Syria is thus a war against Iran’s proxies in Iraq.

“If the Syrians finish the Assad Allawite regime, then Iraqi Sunni can get more support from a new Sunni leader in Syria to finish the Iranian influence in Iraq,” he said.

One might expect such overtly sectarian rhetoric to be delivered in anger. But in an interview with GlobalPost in Aleppo, Abu Mohammed was the model of Arab hospitality, softly spoken and thoughtful.

As a former captain in Saddam Hussein’s security services, Abu Mohammed said he fled to Damascus with his wife and two children shortly after the 2003 invasion, via his home province of Anbar, the desert tribal region of western Iraq that borders Syria.

After receiving threats from what he said were Iraqi Shiite militias based in the southern suburbs of Damascus, Abu Mohammed moved his family north to Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, where the majority are conservative Sunnis.

There, in addition to starting a thriving business trading cotton socks and underwear between Aleppo and Baghdad, Abu Mohammed said he helped Islamist preachers smuggle Syrian and foreign extremists from Syria into Anbar to fight US-led troops. All of this, he said, was done with the consent of the then all-powerful Syrian security apparatus.

Abu Mohammed’s convergence of interest with the Assad regime quickly fell apart, however, after the brutal crackdown began in March 2011 on Syria’s mainly Sunni-led protest movement.

“I sent my family back to Iraq. For more than a year, Aleppo was away from the problems. But I saw how those Shiite shabiha (pro-regime militiamen) were setting up checkpoints and humiliating Sunni farmers. They put up posters of Iran’s (Ayatollah) Khamenei and Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah. So I saw it was a sectarian war in Syria between the poor and weak Sunni protesters and the Assad regime, which is getting support from Iran, Hezbollah and Iraq’s (Prime Minister Nouri) Maliki,” he said.

Abu Mohammed said he now makes regular trips back to Anbar, sneaking across the border with help from Syrian rebels, to encourage members of his extended Dulaim Tribe to join the war in Syria.

“I am not a particularly religious man but I practice all Islamic rituals and duties. But I am considered very Sunni because of my tribe and how we suffered from Shiite groups in Iraq,” he said.

During the early years of the war, US officials knew Anbar as the heartland of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda found support in Anbar among Sunni tribesman who resented their loss of power after Saddam fell and Shiite death squads began sectarian cleansing in Baghdad’s Sunni-majority neighborhoods.

Abu Mohammed draws from his long years of experience in Saddam’s Baathist security services to help Syrian rebels in Aleppo create a “security apparatus” to root out regime spies.

“The intelligence war is very important these days,” Abu Mohammed said. “If we can destroy the headquarters of the security branches in Aleppo, then the whole city will be in our hands in a few days.”

“I am not fighting in Syria to make money,” he insisted when questioned about his source of finances. “I am here looking for jihad for God’s sake. I want to be a martyr, not a mercenary.”

In Damascus, two hundred miles south, and some 1,300 years along a different path of religious history, Abu Hamza al-Ta’ay also smoked as he discussed his role in Syria’s civil war.

A burly giant of a man with a shaved head, Abu Hamza dressed in the flowing black robes of a pious Shiite, a symbol of mourning for the death of Imam Ali, who Sunni believe was the fourth of Mohammed’s ‘rightly guided Caliphs,’ but who Shiites insist was his rightful successor.

Abu Hamza was shot in the leg fighting with the Mahdi Army during the May 2004 US assault on Karbala, an Iraqi city holy to Shiites. Afterward, he relocated to the Damascus suburb of Sayeda Zeinab, home to a shrine Shiites believe contains the remains of Prophet Mohammed’s granddaughter.

By 2009, Abu Hamza had moved back to Iraq. But it was to the same shrine in Sayeda Zeinab that he returned, with an estimated 500 to 600 other Iraqi fighters, this July. They came to protect it from the “heretic” Sunnis, he said.

“I kept my ties with the Mahdi Army but stopped any military action inside Iraq. I got married and had three children. I have a small shop in Karbala,” Abu Hamza told GlobalPost as he drank tea in a house near the shrine. “When the unrest began in Syria I was not interested in it, in the beginning. But later I and all Shiites began to see slogans (by protesters) such as ‘Not Iran nor Hezbollah. We want people who fear God.’ The protesters burned Iranian and Hezbollah flags. We saw them not as protesters, but as anti-Shiite.”

In the middle of the scorching Karbala summer, Abu Hamza said, he had a visit from one of his former Mahdi Army leaders.

“He told me I should travel to Syria to protect our shrines from the Damascene Nawasib (Heretics) who took the Caliphate from Imam Ali and killed his sons and grandsons and who today want to kick all Shiites out of Syria. I accepted it as a religious duty,” he said.

Arriving in Sayeda Zeinab after the long overland journey by car from Karbala, Abu Hamza said he was warmly welcomed. Members of the regime’s so-called Popular Committees, a civilian militia paid and armed by Assad’s security forces, gave him a Kalashnikov.

Daily patrols of the shrine and mundane searches soon became a battle battle with the mainly Sunni rebels from surrounding Sayeda Zeinab.

“We have experience in this kind of war and how to use heavy weapons,” he said. “We got support from the security services and the government army to face the attacks.”

Local people have grown increasingly hostile to Abu Hamza and his black-clad Iraqi militia.

“Most Iraqi Shiite left Sayeda Zeinab so we have become like strangers in the area. We are considered shabiha by the rebels and so should be killed. Syrians have begun to hate us and discriminate against us. They don’t accept to rent us their homes, sell us goods or even drive us in taxis. When I lived in Syria before, no one asked about my background. But today, it is clear Syrians began to hate Shiites, whether Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi or Iranian.”

While Abu Hamza and Abu Mohammed frame their fight as a religious duty, politics is never far away.

Just as in 2003, when Iraq’s future Shiite politicians were living in Damascus, awaiting the outcome of the US-led war in Iraq, so today Abu Hamza sees the political fate of Iraq’s Shiites as being decided in Syria.

“The future of Iraq’s Shiite political leaders will be decided in Syria,” he said. “If the Sunnis win then Iraqi Sunnis are going to lead Iraq again and be stronger because they will get big support from their Syrian brothers. Iran will be weaker and Hezbollah will lose its arms and support.”
Close

More Hugh Macleod.

More A Reporter in Syria.

AQDan- I think you’re saying the same things the 1850’s South was saying to itself back when they were working themselves up into war mode.

“Them yankees can’t fight! Why, it’d take 5 yankees to handle a suth-uh-nuh! This war will be over in a week!…”

No upstate NY will not attack NYC but they are not going to die defending it either.

Well, NYC was attacked on 9/11/2001 and, in response, a lot of red county folks were sent over to attack Afghanistan. At least they were told that was the reason that they went to war.

Alpha, the vast majority of all the manufacturing plants and people were in the North. Despite that, Lee almost won the war. In a military coup situation they are over very quickly, just study the history of third war nations because that is what it would be like not the U.S. Civil War.

Seriously guys, do you think that the entire US military is going to suddenly unamimously and simultaneously agree overtake the government? The generals are more likely to fight it out among themselves before turning on Washington.

Despite that, Lee almost won the war.

When U.S. Grant was put in charge, Lee didn’t stand a chance in he!!.

The South got everything it deserved.

I see a military coup with it being “won” by the red counties.

That assumes that the local boyz will be home, and not stationed far away in one of our many overseas bases. And even if they are on American soil, they might very well be stationed far away from home, and most of the lads in the local red county base will probably be from somewhere else.

That said, I could see the generals saying “screw this, we’re taking over and bringing some order back to the country.”, assuming they don’t start fighting each other for power.

I’m in Texas and would be proud to be part of a fifth column. Hint to all you ‘reds’, just watch your back

Rio, the war was almost lost at Gettysburg on several occasions. The last time when the rebel calvary led by Stuart almost got behind the union lines. It was George Armstrong Custer that prevented it by attacking despite being outnumbered ten to one (did not work as well at the battle of the Little Big Horn). However, had he not done it the North, war weary, would have probably sued for peace. Yes, the South did get what it deserved. Everything it gained from slavery it lost in that war. Karma is a bit#h but if you think the South did not have a chance, you really do not know the history of the war.

if you think the South did not have a chance, you really do not know the history of the war.

If you think that I think that, you’re putting words in my mouth in your mind.

The rich in China would probably win based on a November 15th CNN article:

We found that the top 10% of Chinese households garnered 57% of total income and 85% of total assets — a concentration level of income and wealth that surpasses those of developed countries, and can only be found in some of the African countries such as South Africa and Seychelles.

Who nows? Maybe a military junta would put “America First”?

Of course, don’t get caught doing anything illegal, like smoking a joint. Your family might never see you again.

*Who knows? (My kingdom for an edit button)

I know how you feel. I often post from different computers and they all do things differently when I try to post, some type over text, some move text when I am not paying attention.

Re: #4
Or we could just cut back on our energy consumption and let the market take its course?

How does regulation allow a market to run its course?

This IS a political conversation.

1. Special interests and campaign contributions? Are you suggesting that Romney lost because he was low on money? No, more like the R’s will have to overcome Obama’s social media, acceptance of diversity, and established ground game. Good luck.

2. So you’re suggesting that voters are insulated from their local politicians too? Are you familiar with town hall meetings? Congressional offices? Phone numbers to call, websites to email? Are you familiar with the “Congress on Your Corner” events in Tucson?

3. Wait, how is not paying income tax “more revenue?”

4. I had to look for this. The Romney campaign stated that federal regulations cost us $1.75 trillion each year, which is about $5888 for each American. That’s assuming that’s an accurate number, which in itself is questionable. And that assumes that every regulation applies to me, which I’m pretty sure they don’t. But tell me, if all those regulations were lifted, would every single business, small and large, pass the savings on to me to where I could put $6K into my retirement?

1. Again, this isn’t one side vice the other. The issue is how the system operates. Regardless of who wins the election, big business always wins.

2. Absolutely, I am. Do special interest groups sit amongst the crowds at town hall meetings to petition their elected representative? Absolutely not!

3. What are you talking about? Who said anything about income tax? This is the introduction of a new tax above and beyond all other already in place.

4. Again with choosing sides. Why do you assume that I think all regulation should be lifted?

1. OK, so the whole system is bad. So how is changing our political system going to affect how much I contribute to a 401K?

2. Insulated… you mean get the money about of politics so the individual people have better voice? Most Dems and Occupy Wall Street agree with you! And Obama did just that — went to the people. Much of Obama’s victory can be attributed to his ground game, where the voters DID have a voice. The sheer numbers of voters overcame the money on the R side. (Of course obama needed money to counter, but the point is the ground game.)

3. I said people aren’t paying taxes at all, so high taxes isn’t what is preventing them from not contributing. You answered “it’s a bloated tax anyway,” and I’m still all :?:

4. You said that one reason I don’t contribute to my 401K is because I indirectly pay for all those federal regs. I answered that all those federal regs cost me a MAXIMUM of $6K a year. Getting rid of all the regs, would give me $6K for the $401K. All right. Now, if the original number is too high (likely), and if only some of the regs are lifted (likely), and if many of the remaining regs don’t apply to me (likely), and if the companies don’t pass on the cost of compliance (NOT likely) then getting rid of regs would give me even LESS money for the 401K, say, $3000. So your big bad regs are depriving me a big bad $3K. I think I’d rather have the regs.

How much does it cost you to be exposed to more dirty air and water and not have any idea what goes into your food?

1. You have to ask? You can’t picture how a limited federal government would require less in taxes putting YOUR money back in YOUR pocket.

2. Enough with the partisan BS already.

3. Who is paying zero taxes? I doubt there is any adult in America who is immune to all Federal taxes. Also, I never said bloated taxes, it’s bloated govt. perhaps that is why you are all ?

4. I pointed out one way regulation affects your budget which may affect your investing. Hell, I don’t know you, you may not invest at all, maybe it just affects the amount of Cheetos you buy each month.

The point of the original response is that you can add only so many new taxes, so many new regulations and disconnect from the people who have to live within the system so much before there is a dramatic change in attitude and behavior of those within the system. History show us this. 401(k) just happens to be the tax du jour.

1. A limited Federal government would just mean I would have to buy services from the private sector instead of the Federal government. Over my lifetime, it wouldn’t save any money and I would probably have huge health problems if I wasn’t lucky enough to be shot first.

2. Any post that repeats the usual “less tax, less regulations” talking points with no detail is partisan on its face. I asked for detail in order to make it an actual discussion, and actually relate to 401K, and therefore LESS partisan.

3. The 47% pay zero Federal taxes, at least if the Republican leaders are to be believed. And it still doesn’t answer the original question. You said that people can’t invest in 401K because they pay too much in tax. I want to know, and I still want to know, how the people who pay no (or little) tax pay so much in tax that they have to give up the 401K.

4. Yes, I read your point: regulations cost me money that I could spend on 401K instead. I answered you: it doesn’t cost that much money, and that I would rather have the regs. And it’s a moot point because the businesses would keep the regs savings for themselves anyway.

How is 401K a tax du jour? The only place I see the money going is to the private sector.

Ryan, in answer your question, “how does regulation allow a market to run its course”:

Wrong question; I was being sarcastic. But I’ll take a stab anyway.

Our government provides enormous financial and resource subsidizes to energy production; without them gasoline, for example, would be $12 a gallon and the price of transport-dependent goods and services would likely double. Then there are the costs of our wars to secure energy resources and the untold and future damages to our environment to extract them, etc.

If you’re going to ideologically consistent, abolishing the EPA would also entail abolishing government subsidies to energy production– and prices would skyrocket accordingly. In response, we would learn to use less energy. Price/scarcity equilibrium and all that.

Sorry, resource “subsidies” not “subsidizes”.

Last I checked subsidies and regulations are different animals. I don’t recall saying that he EPA should be abolished?

1. You would CHOOSE your own services, not have them dictated to you.

2. Is it? You agree with all tax and all regulation? There’s nothing in your opinion that should change? If so, I’m happy for you, you have what you want and I can understand why you defend it so.

3. You continue to put words in my mouth, I never said they can’t invest because of taxes. You think that the income tax is the only Federal tax?

4. 401k is a tax du jour because it is the latest tax put forward to gain more revenue from the middle class. Just like upcoming proposals for VAT or carbon taxes. The answer will never be fundamental shrinking governments footprint because smaller footprint equals less centralized power.

“.. EPA regulation that raises your energy bill, raising your monthly expenses ….”

Inasmuch as the EPA is a regulatory agency, the assumption is rather inherent in your statement. As stated, I was arguing the implied hypothetical in your response.

But parse away.

ahansen,

It’s kind of disingenouous to say that the US “subsidises” our energy costs without specifying what you mean by that. If you mean they provide tax breaks to energy companies because energy fuels the economy, that isn’t a “direct subsidy”. If you mean they are actively funding oil exploration, drilling, pipeline building etc.. with federal funds.. different story. If you mean they are actively engaging in military “police action” to protect corporate owned foreign energy assets, again different story.

For example, you could equally say we are “subsidizing” modern slavery by not imposing import taxes on goods from chinese “slave labor” markets. My point is, not taxing something at the same rate as other things (indirect subsidy) isn’t a “direct subsidy”. The MID is NOT a direct subsidy. Our language is becoming convoluted to where we are referring to indirect subsidies as “plain old subsidies” is kind of indicative of the “big government influence” being exerted in our culture. It’s the mindset that the government “owns” everything and its only through the benevolence and grace of our dear leaders that anyone is allowed to keep what they produce without gov’t interference and cut. Hence something that is untaxed is “subsidized”.

If you buy into that propoganda, you could say our entire economy is subsidized because there is no VAT taking its toll at every step of the way. The reality is, by not adding additional cost onto basic commodities via tax, the cost basis of all goods in our economy is lower, and the economy is able produce more goods at a lower cost. This is the basic argument in favor of globalization, treating human labor as a commodity. Of course, if you see human beings as something other than a commodity, this might not be the best policy to adopt… Still the basic rule seems to work pretty effectively for non-human commodities…

“…If you mean they are actively funding oil exploration, drilling, pipeline building etc.. with federal funds.. different story. If you mean they are actively engaging in military “police action” to protect corporate owned foreign energy assets, again different story….”

Yes. That. Plus legal exemptions, public land grants and leases, and tax breaks for R&D courtesy of the rest of us — to name a few of the many direct subsidies I’m too tired to sit down and list tonight. Assumed HBB readers were informed enough to figure it out without the exegesis.

As for the false equivalencies, no, I couldn’t.

It seems a bit of exegesis *is* necessary. After all, we don’t have the same bitter entrenchment against water companies that profit off of publicly funded canals, aqueducts, pipelines, public drilling, land grants, R&D, conflicts for water rights, and international border protection.

Speak for yourself, whiteboy.

Play that funky music, whiteboy.

You mean when our military consisted of guys riding horses and shooting rifles? When there was no highway system? No airports. When the bulk of the population lived on farms and had a 5th grade education?

Well back then the average american lifespan was 1/2 of what it is now. 3/4 of the HBB members would be statistically dead.

Well back then the average american lifespan was 1/2 of what it is now.

So no need for Social Security or Medicare! Brilliant!

Those were the best of times!

But shouldn’t we consider lifespan when we decide on the retirement age now? Even Germany uses 67. To make the fund solvent would 68 be so wrong?

I’d be OK with that if the cap were raised or eliminated at the same time.

Wow, it’s near I possible to have a conversation here without people going to extremes. The point is that any claim that taxes on the rich are the lowest ever is patently false. The point wasn’t that taxes should return to zero.

There is no logical argument for lowering the taxes on the wealthy lower than they are. I personally can’t see any way not to raise taxes in conjunction with cuts to spending (to include military spending).

The point is that any claim that taxes on the rich are the lowest ever is patently false.

Then just say that. And provide some data points, preferably ones that are not from antiquity.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

There is a nice table on the page. Rates were as high as 67% in 1917. Is that far back enough for you? So the current rates are the lowest they have been in almost 100 years, with the exception of the “roaring 20’s”, and we all know how that ended. Once the depression started they went back up, going as high as 92%.

any claim that taxes on the rich are the lowest ever is patently false.

I don’t think anyone said that. I didn’t.

I wrote:

“There has never been a 30 year period in America where effective income taxes on the rich have trended so far downward for so long.”

“The point is that any claim that taxes on the rich are the lowest ever is patently false.”

Compared to when? 200 years ago? 100 years ago? 70 years ago?

Also, the comparison was “There has never been a 30 year period in America where effective income taxes on the rich have trended so far downward for so long.”

The figures can’t travel into negative territory. So trends are pointless to discuss in this instance. Should they always trend upward in your opinion?

So trends are pointless to discuss in this instance.

You have to be joking. The following is NOT a joke. The following is reality.

“There has never been a 30 year period in America where effective income taxes on the rich have trended so far downward for so long.”

“The figures can’t travel into negative territory.”

You mean GE didn’t get a tax refund after making billions in profits last year?

Really? No. Really?

“Taxes are for little people!”

- Leona Helmsly

Citizens of the US are taxed on their worldwide income. Once he hits the mandatory withdrawal age (69 1/2?) that money will start to be taxed as well.

The destruction of the value of money has been going on, unabated since the Federal Reserve was started in 1913.

The destruction of money for everyone is only happening when the new money printed and earned (distributed) does not keep up with everyone’s experienced inflation.

Now in the past 40 years, which of these two groups have experienced the destruction of money? The middle-class or the rich? I would say the rich and especially the super-rich have not experienced the “destruction” of their money.

http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html

Inflation calculator. Everyone should bookmark this.

Has several different scenarios/inflation rates. Super easy to use.

$6B unaccounted for last I read in the UK Guardian.

Bush lost $6B in cash in a foriegn country, but neo-cons cry about a single mom getting food stamps and spending $300 locally!?!

There just isn’t a store in the nation that will accept your gold or silver coins or bars to complete a purchase

True, but if I show up at the local mall with a wad of Euros or Mexican Pesos they won’t accept them either.

Just because something isn’t “legal tender” doesn’t mean it isn’t “money”. Gold and silver are VERY liquid and are super easy to convert into legal tender. And unlike fiats they will never be worthless.

Gold and silver are VERY liquid

In ANY language.

HAHHAHAHAHA - “The US gov may get into trouble, but it’s not actually going to crash. And even if it did, a few ounces of a totally impractical metal like gold won’t do you any good; you’ll need food, fuel, ammo, etc. Nobody will want your gold by then, since they will need the same things.”

So -
1) “my head is in the sand deeper than yours!!”
2) “if it were true then dollars and gold are both worthless”
3) “since your gold is worthless in that scenario, my dollar is better because it’s just as worthless!”

Also, I was just wondering what you thought of lead and brass as money, since you would need both of those to make bullets and shell casings in the event of total chaos.

I don’t want to poo-poo gold too much. It is a store of value that is commonly accepted around the world.

Now - one cannot turn gold into food, clothes, shelter, firearms, etc, any more than than one can turn the slips of paper into food or clothes or shelter or firearms.

Remember - its value is still a logical construct, trans-national though it may be. A hungry mother and child still need to find someone who values it so that they’ll trade the actual necessities for it, so the mother and child can live. Can’t eat the gold. Or wear it. Or bind a wound with it. Or live in it.

Gold is a commodity metal, and a poor one at that (since it has few real uses). Not a “store of value”. Gold merely has the distinction of having been used as monetary media historically. That’s it. It no longer is, and it will never be used as such again. Fiat currency in an informational, industrial society is a superior invention, much like the car was over the horse, and the horse and plow was over the man with a hoe.

People continue to make the mistake of giving gold a layer of meaning that just doesn’t exist anymore. People here keep backpedaling on this “liquidity” issue, which isn’t what I said. I said gold isn’t money. That’s obviously true. Money is money instead, and money inside a national boundary is whatever that nation’s government says it is. (Which is why the “you can’t use Euros in the US” claim makes no sense. You use dollars in the US, just like you use Euros in Europe. Both totally avoid gold.)

Money is actually government authority. And the clincher is that in cases when government backing fails, people just turn to… what, gold? No, silly! They turn to a fiat currency with strong government backing, as a sort of extra-legal tool. That’s why the US dollar is being used now in Zimbabwe. Not gold. Not silver.

Very, very few people deal in gold. Most of the population really has better things to do than pay major amounts of money (real money) for a few ounces of a shiny golden metal that has almost no practical use in industry. That makes most gold transactions fairly delusional. 99% of people get along just fine without it; after all, they use money, not gold.

True. Doesn’t mean we can’t learn from them on occasion.