The Housing Bubble

“F-350 with plastic testicles on trailer hitch”

F-350 with plastic steel testicles on trailer hitch

“Real American” rugged individualists drive cost overrun F-350 with plastic testicles on trailer hitch government cheesechecks.

Apparently not. My bad.

statist progressive

yada yada yada dude. Face the facts nick. America IS progressive. You are the one who is out of touch. You are the one who’s party’s ideas are being swept into the dustbin of history.

Facts:
Most Americans want a more progressive tax system.

Most Americans wanted a public health-care option.

Most Americans want their Medicare the way it is.

Most Americans want their Soc/Sec the way it is.

Most Americans want less wealth and income inequality.

Most Americans want a progressive president.

You are the dinosaur Nick. You are swimming against the current of most of America. Your decrepit, infirm and dense GOP party has won only one (1) popular presidential election in the last 6 presidential elections! 92,96,2000,2004,2008,2012 A period that will cover 24 years! Good Lord!

And your party’s leaders are too bitter and downright dumb to see the writing on the wall. Our country, America is now progressive. Snarl “progressive” this and “progressive” that all you want nick.

Your views are now firmly in the minority and are increasingly becoming more irrelevant.

Sorry Rio, the progressive’s run is coming to an end.

Also, I don’t have a party, only the religious left pleasures itself on party politics.

You see…. the blog communists don’t know they’re communists. They really believe the thieves they anxiously defend are really on their side.

It’s sad. Even the retardicans are communists. Their motto is “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine…… now get to work.”

You also appear to be defending statism. Do you get off when thugs from the government violate the liberties of individuals?

‘the blog communists don’t know they’re communists. They really believe the thieves they anxiously defend are really on their side. It’s sad. Even the retardicans are communists’

Read this twice:

‘They really believe the thieves they anxiously defend are really on their side’

In my part of the universe 5k a month is middle class, 10K a month is rich. It is called fyover country.

Do you get off when thugs from the government violate the liberties of individuals?

You must nick. You must get off when thugs from the government violate the liberties of individuals.

“Citizens United” was a Repub only SCOTUS decision that grossly violates American’s liberty.

Most recent SCOTUS decisions that violate Americans liberty come from Republican appointed judges.

Our police-state is mostly a result of Repub “get tough on crime” initiatives.

Hey, some of us who are ecstatic that the Romney chameleon d-bag lost are annoyed that we haven’t seen the cuts materialize as well. I was hoping we’d at LEAST get the military budget frozen, if not outright cut, and Social Security retirement ages reindexed for current demographics. Also, Medicare needs work. Unfortunately, the RIGHT way to fix medicare funding, to make it universal single payer coverage, is apparently unpalatable to America still. Insurance works best when you have a large risk pool filled with high and low risk patients and no profit motive. What we have is publicly funded high-risk patient insurance and private profit driven insurance for low-risk patients (the ones that pay in!)

With me, it’s not an issue that “romney lost”.
It’s about using the SAME metrics when reviewing a person’s position.
The Criticism from the “Media” was that ROMNEY didn’t give “Specifics”. He said he would work with Congress to come up with specific cuts.
Neither did Obama, so the Criticism is just a political ploy to favor Obama.
But, more importantly, O Bumma said, consistently that he favored a “balanced approach”, meaning more taxes AND CUTS in SPENDING.
Well, PUT the CARDS on the TABLE.
What cuts do you propose??
WE all know the answer. He will not propose any. He will criticize Republicans for not “moving forward” with more spending, and His Plan which we have to “pass, so we can know what is in it”>
Where are the CUTS for the “balanced” approach.
Where are the “media” in asking for answers??
Doing what they usually do, diverting embarrassing questions to other topics.
What ever happened in BENGHAZI? HuuuMMM? Oh. Hillary is “sick”. Critical. CAn’t talk. Most of us saw that one coming.

“You sound like you are still bitter that Romney lost.”

You sound like a statist progressive who looks at our country as some kind of political game.

Yes, but the difference is that Paul Ryan wanted to tweak the plan to make it work, not ignore it altogether.

Ryan’s problem with the plan was that he didn’t think the math worked. Specifically, the plan calls for the elimination of the business deduction for healthcare benefits, and Ryan was concerned that once that deduction was eliminated, the number of businesses offering healthcare benefits would shrink, thus increasing the cost of Obamacare. The Simpson/Bowles projection included all the increased revenue from taking away the deduction, but Ryan believed it underestimated the cost of Obamacare because of this consequence of taking the deduction away. This meant that the plan as-is wouldn’t reduce the deficit as described.

Apparently when Obama’s staff invited all the members of the Simpson Bowles commission to a speech at George Washington U, Ryan’s initial thought was optimism that the S/B plan would be the topic on how they were going to make it, or something like it work…unfortunately, the speech was lambasting Ryan’s Budget (with him in the audience)…further screwing up the relationship between Obama and House Republicans.

the number of businesses offering healthcare benefits would shrink, thus increasing the cost of Obamacare

How would fewer businesses offering health bennies make Obamacare more expensive?

It would add to the number of people who get subsidies from the US government to pay for their health insurance.

It would add to the number of people who get subsidies from the US government to pay for their health insurance.

How?

Yes, but the difference is that Paul Ryan wanted to tweak the plan to make it work, not ignore it altogether ??

Nice but one could say the same about Obama not embracing it…Dio wants to put all the blame on Obama…You want to justify Ryan’s rejection of it…It cuts both ways…

If you don’t get health insurance from your employer (Ryan surmised that without the deduction, more employers would cease this benefit), you are required by law to buy it on the private market.

If your income isn’t high enough, the government gives you assistance in forms of tax credits, tax breaks, etc., so you CAN buy insurance on the private market.

The employer is only required to pay a penalty if you are full-time (officially). Whether that penalty paid to the government is enough to make up for the tax credits, etc. provided BY the government is an open question, and unanswerable until you know how employers are going to try to get around the penalties prescribed in the law.

Since only businesses over a certain size are required to provide health insurance, you can be assured that they would stop providing coverage with the elimination of the deduction at a much higher rate than those who would be hit with penalties otherwise.

You can also assume though that employers will seek to minimize their exposure to the penalties, and that individuals buying health insurance will seek to maximize the kind of insurance they get while minimizing their direct out of pocket expense (implicit in this is maximizing what the government will pay them).

On day one, the way to pay for this was primarily penalties from businesses that don’t offer insurance, but also 3.8% additional tax on investment income for the 1%.

You seem to imply that I’m missing something here (as would Paul Ryan)…if so, what is missing?

Embracing it “as-is” is one thing.

Embracing the overall concepts, but adjusting it to your own liking is another.

Rejecting it for specific reasons, and proposing and fighting for a different solution is something different yet.

Obama did none of the above, and for that I blame him for lack of leadership on his own debt/deficit commission. He did note a desire to do something along the lines of the commission in his acceptance speech at the Dem Convention, but so far, he has had two opportunities to use a moment of fiscal crisis to push forward such a plan (the first debt ceiling debate, and the fiscal cliff), and so far he has progressed the discussion little in the direction of Simpson Bowles (which would reform tax code and entitlements). He will have another opportunity in February/March.

You might say that Obama did propose an alternative plan, his budget, that went 0-414 in the House, and 0-99 in the Senate–either not a serious budget, or he’s unable to get even minor support from Democrats on it.

I hope I’m proven wrong and he can lead on the matter, but so far, he’s 0 for 2 (if not 3–if you count when the report first came out) in my book.

Ryan gave a specific reason for rejecting the plan (which presumably could have been addressed in an amendment to the plan), and proposed something else as well (which, unlike Obama’s plan, which got no Democratic support, got nearly all GOP members of the House voting in favor).

How many people currently:

A) Work for a small employer of 50 or less. (All larger employers will have to provide health care to their employees, or pay a fine to cover any gov subsidy.)

B) Have employer provided health care insurance.

AND

C) If they lost their coverage, would make so little that they’d be on government subsidies to afford health insurance.

I’m guessing very few, unless I’m overlooking some group?

You guys are actually missing the entire thing.

There were procedural requirements in place so that if S-B came out of the committee with 18 (I think) votes from the committee members, it would have to be voted on in the Senate and House, up or down, with no amendments. But Paul Ryan stopped that by making sure it wouldn’t get the 18 votes in the committee. So if Congress had tried to bring S-B up for a vote, it would have been open season on everything.

Deciding not to have that fight at that time was pretty much the same thing as deciding not to come up with a whole brand new package to fight over. Nothing that could have come out of the amendment process would have looked anything like the original S-B. Nothing. And with the election still coming up, there was no way that anyone could have put together something that would have passed both the House and the Senate.

Once everyone knows that neither side is going to win, they usually cancel the game. Guess what happened?

@Polly

I’m not missing your point. You rightfully note the practical situation for the up/down vote (even if the plan got the votes). I’m simply noting that there was no support rallying at any level for any part of the plan from the White House following the release of the report.

3 GOP voted against, 4 Democrats against. Obama was given the longest runway possible before an election to try to take that plan and do SOMETHING with it (or any elements of it)…which is why the plan was released in December 2010, and not before the 2010 election…in the two years he had, he didn’t move the ball forward at all, on any aspect of the plan…and he ran for re-election on tax policy that was opposite the plan. If the excuse for not fighting for the plan (or any parts of it) is “there is an election coming up”, then Obama is the wrong person for the fight, since there is always an election coming up if your timeframe for worrying about an election is two years.

Don’t know the Democrats’ reason for opposition, but I believe all three GOP gave the healthcare reason (Woodward documents where Simpson, thinking the “no” reason was Norquist based, went to meet Ryan to lambaste him over being an idealogue…until he was given the reason–which he felt was an honest reason).

And according to Woodward’s book, Ryan wrote a statement to append to the final report:

“The Fiscal Commission has been a success,…Although I could not support the plan in its entirety, many of its elements surely are worthy of further pursuit.”

If this isn’t an invitation to Obama to continue working on this as the solution, I don’t know what is…and certainly underscores Ryan’s belief that Obama was going to pick up the ball and tweak the plan to try to get it through when he spoke at George Washington U (Speech was in April 2011…long before the 2012 election).

And Obama said (again re-quoted from Woodward’s book): “The commission’s majority report includes a number of specific proposals that I–along with my economic team–will study closely in the coming weeks as we develop our budget and priorities for the coming year.”

Have any specific proposals come out of that “study”ing? I saw nothing…and I’ve been looking, since the day the S/B report came out, I’ve been a proponent.

Obama himself told Woodward that it was a death sentence to take the plan to a vote (as you suggest), but that the framework was the right one…he’s done nothing with the framework.

And with this most recent “fiscal cliff”…there is NO further elections for Obama, and he again diverted widely from any aspect of the S/B plan…of course I understand there was very little time, but he could have taken steps toward a S/B type solution in a deal with Boehner…but we got more can kicking–led by the Senate, not the White House.

@Alpha…
Employers with fewer than 50 employees? 5.8 Million (96% of all businesses).
This representing 34 million workers.

Apparently 4 of the 5.8 million small businesses can get some tax credits to go toward the cost of healthcare, but only if they pay a fair amount of the premiums.

Source: Whitehouse report called “The Affordable Care Act Increases Choice and Saving Money for Small Businesses”

I can’t find the answer to your second two questions quickly, but let’s say of these 34 million workers, many have families that would also be covered under Obamacare if they fell through the cracks. You can see why, based on Woodward’s book, Ryan was concerned with Obamacare needing to support a lot more people than it planned for if the healthcare deduction was eliminated for businesses. $1,000 subsidy per person per year (not an unreasonable amount at less than $100 per month per person) is $10B per extra million people covered per decade. How many more would need to be covered under Obamacare (some part of 34 million PLUS family members) if the deduction was eliminated for all businesses?

5 million? 10 million? 25 million?

Whether you like him or not, you must admit that Ryan had a point.

Large employers can get out of this requirement by cutting hours, making their employees “part time”…see plenty of restaurants playing this game.

Simpson Bowles never made it to Congress…there was nobody but Simpson, Bowles and a few congressmen to lead on the matter. Apparently Simpson and Bowles have now taken their framework and turned it into legislative language…they are now doing the legwork to try to get enough support to push it through the legislative process.

Notably absent from this effort (other than a few lines here and there in speeches) is Obama.

The problem with Simpson Bowles is that it’s rooted in supply side economic theory. The creators admit it is based on the idea that lower tax rates will spur economic growth. These lower rates are made possible by cutting entitlement programs.

Sound familiar? It’s supply-sider dogma, with a sheen of bipartisan/let’s-get-real BS over it.

“Just a little more wealth disparity will fix everything.”

From what I’ve read, the lower rates are allowed by the elimination of deductions/loopholes, and making capital gain tax rates the same as income tax rates.

The plan is part raising revenue, part cutting spending (through entitlement changes/reform).

Where do you hear that the lower rates are made possible by entitlement programs? Again, from what I read, the plan is rooted in the belief that we need to get spending down to approximately 21% of GDP (down from about 25%), and revenues up to approximately 18-19% of GDP (up from approximately 15%).

The tax and entitlement reforms are meant to cut spending and increase revenues.

I have yet to hear a better plan (Ryan’s is too far right for my taste, and Obama’s so far is some undefined promise of reform, but absolute revenue increases).

The lower tax rates on individuals and corporations are made possible by:

$785 billion in new revenues from tax reform by lowering income and corporate tax rates and broadening the base by eliminating tax expenditures. An additional $210 billion in revenue is also raised in other revenue by switching to the Chained-CPI and an increase in the federal gasoline tax

$341 billion in federal health care savings by reforming the Sustainable Growth Rate for Medicare, repeals the CLASS Act (which has already happened), increase Medicare cost sharing

$215 billion in other mandatory savings by moving to the Chained CPI for all inflation-indexed programs

$238 billion in Social Security reform…by slowing benefit growth for high and medium-income workers, increase the early and normal retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075 by indexing it to longevity, index cost of living adjustments to the Chained-CPI,
wikipedia

In other words, austerity for the middles and the poors, tax cuts for the rich.

@Alpha, read the report. Tax revenues from individuals go up–there are no tax cuts in the S/B plan.

To shrink the deficit, you need to increase revenues or cut costs, or a combination of both.

If you do the math, you will see that there are not enough rich people to tax (this is not solely a GOP view, but the view of those from the left as well).

They lower income tax rates, increase capital gains rates, cut deductions, and reform corporate taxes…the net effect of this is raising revenues from individuals and corporations by $785 Billion from 2012 to 2020.

Gas tax increase adds $114B.
Chained CPI adds $96B.
Discretionary Spending Caps (not Social Security or Healthcare cuts) yields $1.66 Trillion in savings.
Adding Healthcare Reform and other items adds only about $560 Billion in savings.

On Social Security, they raise $138B by increasing the cap on Wages faster than the current plan (ie. making those who make more, pay more).
Go to Chained CPI, which saves $89B
Other changes are another $11B in savings.

Net of $238B increase in the SS Trust Fund…MORE of this comes from increases in tax than reduction in benefits.

The rest of the $4.1T in savings comes from lowering the amount of interest we pay on the debt.

This is page 65 of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform report, titled “The Moment of Truth”.

The detail is on the prior pages. Read it.

If you do the math, you will see that there are not enough rich people to tax

Your point is irrelevant and a smokescreen to take the eye off the ball.

Taxing the rich people will help a lot.

No, my point is not irrelevant.

Alpha is implying that the Simpson Bowles cuts taxes (ie. a handout to the rich), to raise revenue via growth.

The truth is that Simpson Bowles raises revenue through tax reform (ie. taxing the wealthy more–the big one is lumping capital gains in with regular income, so the highest tax brackets pay 28%, not 15%, now 20% on capital gains).

And taxing the rich does help a lot. I agree.

However, my point is that raising this revenue only solves part of the problem…you need to also make real cuts–most of which Simpson-Bowles puts NOT on entitlement, but with caps on discretionary spending.

You think I’m saying that we can cut our way to a deficit solution…I’m not saying that at all, and neither does Simpson/Bowles.

Tax revenues from individuals go up–there are no tax cuts in the S/B plan.

The revenues supposedly go up, because they lower top rates on individuals and corporations, and supposedly this will increase tax revenue- classic supply-sider nonsense.

Why is Simpson Bowles so obsessed with lowering top rates on the wealthy (already at near historic lows) if its goal is reducing the deficit?

Why should entitlements be cut at the same time rates on the richest go down- as they would under Simpson Bowles?

Only explanation? Supply-sider economics.

Simpson Bowles cuts taxes [on the rich] to raise revenue via growth

Supply-sider dogma. Exactly what Reagan et al told us when we started down this path of financial deregulation and wealth disparity.

So, “renting” is not “spending”?
Oh, I see, it only cost $100/month instead of the $2000 cash. It’s even worse than buying.

The meme shall not be challenged!

The only people who pay taxes are white.

The only people on food stamps are black/brown.

It’s true, it was in a Breitbart article linked from the Drudge Report.

No one said anything about “race”. How did you guys come to this conclusion?
Is there something “societal” wherein you can deduce that what I have written applies to particular racial groups?
If so, then you must have “racist” attitudes.
Imagine that.

can you be rich without federal reserve notes?

Never been poor have you?

Love your posts and insider information, but you know nothing about being poor.

I know quite a few people with great skills, credentials, work ethic and education who lost their jobs and were poor for several years.

Some never fully recovered.

Their mindset had nothing to do with their company going bankrupt, job being sent overseas, divorce, unexpected tragedy or the serious illness they contracted and the ever shrinking decent paying jobs.

ecofeco stop being such a buzzkill with the class warfare and politics of envy again. Your looser friends need to get bootstrapping and Horatio Alger themselves out of the gutter and stop being such crybaby loosers!

Again, this is about the mindset, not financial poverty. There are people who have tough circumstances for sure. This is something that society needs to address, to create a situation where a safety net is in place that leaves incentives for people to work their way up and where infrastructure provides reasonable transportation access to job opportunities. Public education is another important key. I’d argue that national single payer health care is in there as well.

I’ve also repeatedly stated that our tax code is ridiculous in that relatively small tax breaks are dangled to the working poor and lower middle class, yet massive tax breaks go towards rent-seeking businesses which lobby heavily for regulations that freeze out real competition.

Again, for the last time (today, anyway) I’ll say it: If you don’t have $250 for some type of routine car repair, you’d probably be better off without the car. The mindset of a poors is week to week, check to check.

You’re right. I’ll never make the “right” insider connections and find a good patron with that attitude.

Woe is me.

I prefer “dulls” to “dumbs”. It also encompasses the complete lack of creativity or individuality.

The mindset of a poors is week to week, check to check.

Possibly because being poor makes it hard to make good long-term financial decisions.

It’s not that the poor don’t think enough about money…it’s that they think about it too much. Shafir likes to cite a survey the researchers did at Boston’s South Station. They asked arriving train passengers what the starting fare is on Boston taxis. Rich travelers take more cabs than poor ones, but low-income respondents were much more likely to know what it costs to take a cab, because in thinking about the decision between taking a cab or a bus, a couple of dollars one way or another really matters. This attentiveness ensures that they have enough cash to finish the day, but all of these immediate distractions—deciding whether to buy a muffin or some other minor indulgences; comparison shopping cereal brands; calculating and recalculating expected expenses against a dwindling bank balance—threatens to leave no mental space to consider the bigger picture of managing finances for the long-term. (The time-scarce similarly expend so much effort dealing with the minutiae of getting through the day that they fail to think about making their lives less harried and more productive in the future.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2012/12/new_year_s_resolutions_economists_on_how_to_make_better_ones.html

Another facet: the “poors” is more like to know his cab fare because he counts out cash money to pay for it. A rich guy just swipes a credit/debit card without looking at the meter.

I guess Shafir run across any staffers from the former Romney campaign.

“I know quite a few people with great skills, credentials, work ethic and education who lost their jobs and were poor for several years.”

FWIW, your friends weren’t poor, they were short of money; there’s a huge difference. A poor person could win the lotto and be broke within a year.

Why didn’t you become a boot strapping job creator like your boy Mittens?

“…So I took the job as a environmental regulator….”

Who doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change and uses an arbitrary starting point to mask a long-term trend as his primary argument.

Ermagerd.

420,000 years is arbitrary? We are colder than any peak during interglacial period during the last 420,000 years. As I pointed out and provided a link, the AGW did not think it was arbitrary to use 1998, that is why the lied about, manipulated data and pressured scientific journals not to publish people that pointed out that the warming stopped contrary to the models.

You see I care enough about the working class that I do not want to impose higher energy prices on them for the purpose of an elitist agenda. Must be nice A Hansen to be a trust fund baby where you do not have to worry about such things.

In case you missed the link before:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

Explain this pie chart again, please, AQDan?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html

“AGW believers” instead of just AGW above.

Have to go, traveling today but I can’t wait to the hard data comes out about the average global temperature for the 2012. We already know that the December to November average was .53 C (above the 1951-80 totals )compared to .59 in 1998. Funny when people first pointed out that we were cooler than other periods in the last 420,000 years, it was said that the 1979-1998 period was conclusive proof that it was man made and not nature but an over 15 year period is now not considered significant. However, their efforts to hide the data shows otherwise.

I’m not going to forgive him unless he agrees to pay for one year’s worth of repairs on my car. And I get to pick the year.

LOL. Excellent.

joesmith is not rich… I see nothing particularly snotty about his attitudes

He’s stated himself that he’s in the top 2-3% in previous posts. That puts his household income in the $250+ bracket. Seems pretty wealthy to me…

He is constantly talking down to others here and his “superiority complex” comes through in every post… he obviously thinks he’s special because:

1. He is a lawyer.
2. He makes more money than 97% of Americans
3. He attended an ivy league University.

In reality, he’s nothing special.He comes off as a limousine liberal, knocking anyone who eschews conservative values, hard work, etc. His attitudes towards those less well off than him are disturbing. His political stance is inconsistent given he has stated he’s a “conservative”, but agrees with every liberal talking point put forward. As far as I’m concerned, he can take a long walk off a short pier, as there is nothing of value in his posts and his constant knocking of those viewed “inferior” to him get’s tiresome.

You’re not your job. You’re not how much money you have in the bank. You’re not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet. You’re not your f******g khakis. You’re the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

He’s stated himself that he’s in the top 2-3% in previous posts. That puts his household income in the $250+ bracket. Seems pretty wealthy to me…

He is constantly talking down to others here and his “superiority complex” comes through in every post

You pretty much just described yourself there, no, Mr. Boot Strapping Job Creator?

knocking anyone who eschews conservative values, hard work, etc.

I don’t think “eschew” means what you think it means. I think you meant “advocate for.”

Your problem with me is that I’m not conservative in the way you are “conservative”. And it’s amplified because you desparately want to be a “job creating” “boot strapper” but are misguided and think that the way to do that is to write some cra**y app in your spare time. Meanwhile, what the GOP defends as “bootstrapping” is rent-seeking small business owners who pay lawyers and accountants instead of American workers.

A better word for my views would be classical liberal, however there is some progressive mixed in. I don’t much care for your views against same sex marriage, a woman’s right to choose, immigration, etc. Too bad you’re more of a Koch Brothers Conservative. Get over it.

Most tea-billies envision themselves as “job creators” and “bootstrappers” when they are neither.

Some of the ones I’ve known do manage to create a few of the least desirable jobs that I’m aware of.

except that it wasn’t inadvertent…

I love that movie.

that is not a lot of money.
$20K in 2013 is like $200 in 1913, when the Fed was hatched.
In 1914 Henry Ford started paying his full-time workers $5 a day in mixed hourly & bonus compensation.

I thought he was talking about 20K/yr? That’s not “chump change” for most people..

“Like when he said a $20,000 raise was chump change”

No, I was speaking about 20k total. As in a lump sum. I forget the exact context, but I believe it was in regards to whether someone should be fretting about if their house might be worth 20k less when it’s time to sell. Or if they put 20k of work into the house. I was arguing that people should look at the big picture rather than the abstract idea of 20k. 20k put into a house where a person lives for 10, 20, 30 yrs is certainly not a lot of money. People should not be thinking about what a house is worth or will sell for, other than how it fits into the long term picture. The obsession of treating houses as if they were investments is ridiculous. And it’s ridiculous for BOTH housing bulls and bears. Again, it goes to one’s mindset.

If you are talking about whether a house has lost $20K of value when it is time to sell, whether that is a lot of money is entirely dependent on circumstances.

If the $20K means that you make a profit of $80K, not $100 K on the sale, then, yeah, it isn’t that meaningful.

If the $20K means that you have to bring a $20K check to the table and your total liquid assets are less than $3k, then, yeah, for a lot of people that is meaningful.

Overgeneralizing is for people who have access to capital. Not everyone does.

Let’s take your example and someone “pays” (signs a mortgage) for 100k for a house. 10-20 years later they absolutely need to sell the house, for whatever reason. And let’s say they sell for 80k. So they “lost” 20k.

My initial observation is, 20k is worth considerably less in 10-20 years compared to today.

Secondly, if they’re making their mortgage payments, they shouldn’t need to bring money to the table. If they’re smart and they put 10% or 20% down, the balance on their mortgage should be 50 or 60k. So they will walk with some money–not much, but some.

Thirdly and finally, the 20k they “lost” (in your scenario) is really just a sort of rental payment. If you live in a house for 10-20 years and you “pay” 20k at the end, this is nothing to cry over. The reason people cry over things like this is because they just assume “the house will pay for itself” or “the house is an investment”. Or they have magical thinking where you can own an asset, use/consume the asset (floors, bathrooms, kitchen, HVAC) without paying for it in some form at some time.

You are still talking like what you are - a person who has access to capital. And you are trying to apply your rational economic thinking to a situation where it doesn’t apply. Who cares if the $20K buys fewer loaves of bread when they have to pay it than it was when they borrowed it? They don’t have the money. They might never have $20K. And they can’t borrow it at a good rate to pay it off over 40 years. The situation I describe means bankruptcy assuming they can even afford to go bankrupt.

And it is only similar to a rental payment if someone tells them about it before the “lease” starts.

You seriously need to do some pro bono work with people who are actually poor. You are a poor excuse for a human being when think it is fine to live your life with no empathy.

correction:

You are a miserable excuse for a human being when you think it is fine to live your life with no empathy.

I do have empathy, but I became sickened over the past 18-24 months by the rah-rah-Romneying, Ryan-ing, and Rand-ing I’ve seen from an alarming percentage of the population.

Second off, where do you get off saying I don’t have empathy? As an HBB’er, my primary m.o. is to criticize the assumptions the Right has about who *really* benefits from our tax code, our government’s spending, etc. Hint: It is most certainly not the most needy among us. I am fairly progressive, although not across the board. I’d like the see the government change its focus from fighting “wars” abroad and against (most) drugs. In place of these wars, I’d rather see the country develop some incentives so work will really make job creation and work will make sense again. Let’s be honest–right now what makes sense is only doing work in the US that needs to be in the US.

As for empathy more broadly, I’m not really sentimental or overly emotional. But this has nothing to do with not feeling for truly down and out people. Or marginalized groups (homosexuals, minorities). Which, I will note that numerous HBBers regularly question whether these groups are equal.

Also overlooked is the reason I have “access to capital” is because my parents actually did bootstrap. And I can tell you that what “boot strapping” means in 2012, with this tax code, doesn’t mean what it used to mean. They’d tell you the same thing–the best investment a “small business” can make in 2012 is to pay workers very little but pay accountants and lawyers lavishly. As lavishly as 2banana thinks Linda the Lunchlady lives.

I’m criticizing the policies that favor screwing over the working people in favor of the asset/capital class. How exactly does this lack empathy? My views are pretty progressive, so I’m missing where the lack of empathy is? This country should be waging wars for education, infrastructure, and real tax fairness but instead we wage them against “terrrrrism”, marijuana, and immigrants.

And before people get carried away defining progressive, I’ll definite it how I’m using it. I favor people’s right to do anything that doesn’t harm others or the property of others. And the government should be quite a bit smaller, but the reductions should largely be in the realm of the military. The primary difference between someone like BiLA and myself is that I’d say that a lot of the regulation done by governments is valuable. I do want a government that looks at power plant emissions, mining practices, water polution, food safety, etc.

I’m really not seeing how I lack empathy. If I was more syrupy and emotional, you’d like me more?

“Also overlooked is the reason I have access to capital is because my parents actually did bootstrap.”

Proceeding nicely, joe.

I’m not knocking you, I just wanted you know that your view of being poor wasn’t very accurate.

But the rest of your observations are generally dead on. I know because I’ve also worked with and for the very wealthy and they’ve often mistaken me for “one of them” and spoken very candidly in my presence.

And yes, among the poor there is a prevalence of poor attitudes. But most people can’t take the kind of beat down that being poor brings. Most of the family murder suicides you hear about are directly money related. Specifically, the lack of and the terrifying realization that it’s out of their control after years of blaming other poor people.

STFU with your partisan BS

Talking about a hypothetical poor person as if they should be grateful for owing $20K of money that they have no chance of paying at a given moment because it was just money that they didn’t have to pay before (and didn’t know about) and because that $20K can purchase few goods than it might have during the previous 10 years isn’t empathy. It is shows a profound lack of understanding of how other people live.

And I didn’t say sympathy. I’m not overly emotional myself. But if you have never looked into the eyes of another person and seen the terror they have of maybe not being able to pay a tax bill, then your dismissal of the notion that $20K is a lot of money is pathetic. Economics and psychology have finally gotten together to realize that poor people think differently than well off or middle class people for several perfectly valid reasons. Risks are much higher for the poor. Making a mistake costs them more. And they are obliged to make high risk decisions constantly because even very small economic decisions can be life turning for them. They are emotionally exhausted. And you have no recognition of that at all. Saying they should just be living on less income is your favorite catch all. Nice idea if it is possible. It isn’t always. And even if it were, they are often making that high risk decision to live in a place with a higher cost of living to protect their kids.

And, honestly, I became a better person after my action became the reason a mother, watching her son die of AIDs over several miserable weeks, was able to make medical decisions for him once he slipped into a coma and the doctor was willing to tell anyone involved that he was never going to wake up again. You need that sort of experience very badly. Hating Mitt Romney and the tax system is no excuse for blaming the poor for their misery as if fixing it were just a matter of trying a little harder. You sound just like the people you claim to despise and have decided to emulate.

Bot Fight!!!

My advice to the US would be to kill all the lawyers and accountants. (Maybe not all–that was hyperbole).

But you know why it will never happen? Because “small business” “job creator” “invisible hand of the free market” types are the ones who need lawyers and accountants and bankers.

Meanwhile, you enthusiastically support the “pro business” GOP party, such as your boys Romney & Ryan. You realize Romney and Ryan are both “rich lawyers” who actually hate American workers, right?

Your problem is that I tell you how your beloved Koch Brother “creators” and “bootstrappers” think. This bothers you, to see it laid out. LOL that you want your kids to grow up in a country like this is becoming. Luckily, it can’t continue like this because so many of your age retiring is going to force military cuts, tax hikes, and reprioritizing towards education and infrastructure. Meanwhile you’ll be pining for the “good old days” when Bush 43 worried about the capital gains tax burdens of his real key demographic (hint: not teabillies who supported him at the polls).

Meanwhile, you enthusiastically support the “pro business” GOP party, such as your boys Romney & Ryan. You realize Romney and Ryan are both “rich lawyers” who actually hate American workers, right?

I forgive you, joesmith!

‘I forgive you, joesmith”

So says the supporter of war criminals, Occupy movement destroyers and 1% backer.

I supported the Occupy movement and its attacks against the 1% back when many here were attacking them. And I support them still.

Let’s not rewrite history.

Keep pimping inflation.

Liar.

Heck, if any repair on my VW had cost $250, I would have turned a cartwheel in the store. Everything was $600, or more. Everything.

Exactly.

The reason this discussion over alternators started last night was my saying that I’m going to buy my wife a Honda CRV for her b-day, becuase in my experience Hondas are reliable, the parts are relatively cheap, and Hondas generally make good beater/high mileage cars.

So basically the fruitcake is complaining about $250 routine maintenance/repairs and saying I’d be throwing away money buying a Honda that will “CRATER!!!!”

In reality, I’d be super happy getting her the Honda CRV because it’s nice enough and presentable enough for my wife to drive it, yet not super expensive to fix like the alternatives she’d accept. A Honda will save a lot of money compared to an Audi or Lexus, for example.

A little jug of the special purple antifreeze is only $60.

Heck, if any repair on my VW had cost $250, I would have turned a cartwheel in the store. Everything was $600, or more. Everything.

Just for kicks, I priced a thermostat for the Buick: $14.

Yesterday I learned a new meaning for an old word:

beater: A car that is six years old.

presentable enough for my wife to drive

Please proceed, joe.

I said 6-8 years it will probably become the mileage-eating car. And I said 100k miles.

You probably don’t realize this, but a lot of people (foolish, I think) keep trading in cars every few years. I’m basically saying I would *not* trade in a Honda, I’d keep it around.

The other thing you fail to mention is that my wife and I are a 1 car couple. The CRV will be car two. It’s a very modest buy compared to the alternatives and when it hits 100k miles, it will probably replace my current car (’05 Honda) as my daily driver/mileage eater.

Either way, we’ll need a new car around that time. And I’m the one that will drive the beater. I fail to see how this is super uppity… seriously, we’re arguing about overspending or frivolousness of Hondas?

Yeah but $200 thermostats are cheap!

That’s what InflationPimpJoe is saying. What a freak.

beater: A car that is six years old.

OMG. My precious 2004 RX330 is a beater? Who knew.

Proud owner of a 2006 Pontiac Vibe here. Remember when they built Pontiacs? Seems like just yesterday

Paid cash for it in 2007 (had 18,000 miles on it). I hope she’s still running 8 years from now so I can give to my son when he starts driving.

Guess I’m ghetto.

OMG. My precious 2004 RX330 is a beater? Who knew.

The salesman at the Lexus dealer?

I wonder what percentage of Lexi are leased? I wouldn’t be surprised if more than half of new Lexus vehicles are leased.

But yeah, if you take care of your car, even if it’s 10 years old it can still be reliable and a “non-beater”.

we’re arguing about overspending or frivolousness of Hondas?

Given that the new threshold for being allowed to own even a beater car is a $250 alternator, yes I guess we are.

Ask, and ye shall receive from Teh Goog, if a little outdated.

“The German brands are also benefiting from a higher rate of leasing among U.S. customers than Lexus, Truecar.com’s Toprak said. More than 60 percent of Mercedes-Benz vehicles are leased, compared with less than 30 percent of Lexus vehicles, he said. ”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-22/lexus-recalls-risk-ceding-brand-s-decade-long-u-s-dominance-to-mercedes.html

Beater = A car that you have to give a “briefing” on, before other people can drive it.

“But yeah, if you take care of your car, even if it’s 10 years old it can still be reliable and a “non-beater”.”

That’s right.

And doing so is like money in the bank, generally speaking. Auto loans are the bane of the middle class.

So modified fast cars are a subclass of beaters…kind of makes sense I guess :-).

To me a beater is anything that I can loan out and I won’t care a whole lot if it doesn’t make it back. If they total it I’ll genuinely be happy for them that they didn’t ruin their good car. It only gets sticky when my beater is better than their good car.

My 2004 car has 55,000 miles on it, and even to my critical eye still looks pretty good. Think I’ll keep it a while longer. Say, another 8 years or so.

My Tahoe 2000 has 140k and runs perfectly, while my 1976 Chevy 3/4 ton truck with 68k
miles runs just as well. Maintenance is your friend and will save you thousands.

Well… after all… it is a Chevy and it’s 3/4. HUGH difference between it and all half’s.

” It only gets sticky when my beater is better than their good car.”

Brilliant. I consider my car a beater (97 Taurus) and it is definitely better than the “good car” of one of my friends. They rely on that thing for their business. Not only that, but I could live indefinitely without mine entirely. They couldn’t.

I consider my car a beater (97 Taurus)
I wore out an 87 Sable Wagon and then a 90 Taurus wagon, both of which I bought new. Both of them had the fan in the cab heating system die when the cars racked 88,000 miles (+/-2,000 miles). The replacement part cost $80 at the dealer, labor would have been 4-5 hours at $70/hour due to all the parts that had to be removed & then re-installed. I did all the work myself & so saved $700 or so. That 2nd repair really went fast. Hate to think what the same repair would cost in your 97 Taurus.

Less than a year and a half left until my dad has promised to sell me the 2007 Civic. It has actually been a pretty good car for me. Still feels too big, though.

““But yeah, if you take care of your car, even if it’s 10 years old it can still be reliable and a “non-beater”.”

That’s right.

And doing so is like money in the bank, generally speaking. ”

****************
But yeah, if you take care of your HOUSE, even if it’s 100 years old it can still be reliable and a “non-beater”.”

That’s right.

And doing so is like money in the bank, generally speaking.

Consider my 93 Saturn - once its hydraulic clutch goes out the value will CRATER.

I should probably take your advice:

“Get what you can get for your car today because it’s going to be much less tomorrow for many many years to come.”

Fortunately a converted Victorian (100 yr old McMansion) in a trendy neighborhood will throw off enough money each year for a good used car.

And the difference that you are clearly misrepresenting to the public?

The 10 year car still depreciated.

And the 10 year old house depreciated.

And both will continue to depreciate ALWAYS.

17 yr old Volvo 310K miles (I bought it new.) She’s on her decline but no breakdowns. No car payments in 13 yrs.

Cars are such a waste of $ imho.

At least it’s a real Vulva instead of a Ford or now chinese Vulva.

I lived in Charlottesville VA in grad school, I hated it. Absolutely hated it. Nice campus, good nature, but no I would not live there. Partly because of the absolute dependence on cars due to the far-flung, sprawl-like nature of the place.

There are all kinds of situations. I can relate to eco’s comment as I believe we live in the same area. If you don’t live where public transportation is available then you must have a car if you want to get to work. I’ve been in both situations mentioned. When I was married, a $250 repair bill to the car was devastating. That was due to, shall we say, the poor financial management skills practiced by my ex. Now that I’ve been back on my own for quite some time, $250 seems like, yes, “chump change” to me. On the other hand, my brother and sister (who both work retail) would be in serious trouble should a car repair bill of even $250 come their way. I am thankful that I am now able to help them when they need it. So again, there are many, many situations and viewpoints here.

Half the working population makes $500 a week or less

And half of the HBB makes $5,000 a week or more. And the other half of HBB makes $10,000 a week or more.

Instead of being such a bellyaching looser, ecofeco, maybe you should have been born to rich parents. And gone to Princeton for undergrad. And gone to U of Virginia for grad school. Everybody else here on HBB did, why didn’t you?

The Big Lie our friend “Joe” put out there was that he’s going to buy a Honda CRV because “parts for them are cheap”. To which I said, “$250 for an alternator is not cheap.”……. And it’s not considering a new/reman alternator for a domestic model is a fraction of that amount.

Partly because of the absolute dependence on cars due to the far-flung, sprawl-like nature of the place.

But real Americans drive 10 mpg pickups, preferably with a pair of stainless steel truck nutz dangling from the trailer hitch!

Cville is pretty “crunchy”, kind of like I imagine Boulder to be. Not a lot of pick ups, but this was during the housing bubble and the informal town boundaries moved out at least a mile in each direction during my time there. This made student housing very cheap but made having a car a must.

Then you do get it.

See, there often isn’t a choice. Poor people don’t get choices. All they get is lesser of 2 evils and you had better be right every, single, time.

Poor people make lots of wrong choices, most of which are not game enders. Friends help. Concessions are made. Next week is a new ball game. There is a limit to what they can lose. Do you really have poor friends?

Bush just drove his ol’ pickup back and forth between the White House and his play ranch in Texas. Or Daddy’s compound on the beach. (While taking more vacation days than any president since Hoover, possibly more than any ever. Even far more than three-term FDR.)

Wake me when Boenher flies commercial.

“Wake me when Boenher flies commercial.”

Where do you get info that he is not flying commercial? News reports are they find no evidence indicating use of military or government owned aircraft. Do you have special insight?

Boner makes a big deal of his flying commercial. Of course, he walks right by all the security check points and right on to the plane with no waiting.

Joe,
Mitt fixes sick businesses and he could have fixed the USA.

What does your savior propose? Essentially nothing, just more blather about making everyone pay their fair share.

We don’t have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.

And people like you who help Mittens achieve their “goals.” Let’s not forget you also happily take a good cut of the loot.

Did I miss something? What sick business did Mittens ever fix? I know of a couple of good businesses that his company bought, gutted, and then sold off the remnants to China. Seriously, I would like to hear about a good turnaround achieved by Bain Capital.

Romney brought government mandated health insurance to Mass.

That’s a pretty big win.

You statists love mandates no matter what party creates the legislation.

How can you say Uncle Mitty hates the American worker? Look how much of his personal fortune he’s paid them trying to get elected over the last eight years.

I’ll bet his Cayman/Bermudan/Swiss/Luxembourg accounts, er, SuperPacs are seriously diminished after this last fiasco.

You only like when global progressives have the wealth of Mitt. Let’s audit the Hollywood, Education, Banking and Government elitist progressives, I bet some of them would make Mitt look like a choir boy. I bet Mitt would win the Pepsi Challenge when it comes to charitable donations as well.

(For his 2 cherry-picked released tax returns) “I bet Mitt would win the Pepsi Challenge when it comes to charitable donations as well.”

Don’t be silly. Houses have ALWAYS been underwater until the bubble years of 1998-2008. You just not honest enough to account for all the costs associated with a house.

You will eventually…… whether you agree with it or not.

Let no dollar escape taxation.

I suspect a hell of a lot of highly distortionary and destructive taxpayer-funded giveaways are passed on the basis that ‘there is no political benefit to opposing it.’

No wonder Congress enjoys an approval rating of 13%.

Those signs have been up for 3 or 4 years.
In 1987 I went to a movie in a Detroit suburb. They had those magnetic loop weapons detectors that the customers had to walk through to see a movie. At that point I vowed never to set foot in Detroit again.

+1 tresho.

I wouldn’t set foot in some trash theatre which wouldn’t allow me to protect myself with my personal Bushmaster either.

Mad Max: Pizza Delivery Guy

A great movie concept!

Love it!

Might make a good reality TV show.

Communists have killed over 100 million souls during peace times. Communism should never be considered a viable alternative system under any circumstances.

Bad goon, bad bad goon.

“Trough in values”??

You have a trough in values. In moral values.

My understanding is that it is easier to qualify only in the respect that your income doesn’t need to be as high given how low rates are, but like CO said, you need to prove income, employment, etc.

No NINJA loans yet.

I even know of some people who don’t NEED the mortgage, but want the mortgage because it is cheap money, and ran into problems. One such person came armed with a bank statement with cash in the bank equal to a multiple of the requested loan, but since he isn’t working, had no W-2. It took him 3 tries to find a lender to lend to him.

I don’t often agree with you and can see the flaws in this plan… but I LIKE IT anyway!!

+1

I guess it depends on what the Indian is doing. If the daughter of a poor farmer gets a job in a call center, I’d call that poor to working class. If the call-center girl’s son could afford school and now does IT in Mumbai, that’s working class to middle class.

At this point, I’m not sure about the comparison of Indian middle class to American middle class. There is definite lacking in American features like roads and transport, reliable electricity, and probably no SFH or suburbs. I don’t know about health care and basic sanitation.

NO is like Las Vegas, 5% of it is really fun.

Since most companies have required people to apply for jobs thru their HR sites, I haven’t been able to get an interview ONCE.

It’s a weird game, where resumes are filtered by a computers using strange logic. And they don’t always play by the same rules. I’ve submitted resumes for position for which I thought I was a perfect fit and never heard back from them. I’ve also applied for jobs for which I thought I was only a “so-so” fit and heard back from the recruiter the next day.

The only thing that saves us, is that other countries are worse.

And that’s what’s really scary, if you ask me.

Here is a story that will warm your heart X-GS:

Back in the 80’s and 90’s, AeroMexico used to fly DC-10’s on its Tijuana/Mexico City route.

One day, the DC-10 takes off from TJ International and one of the landing gear units fails to retract. So the plane turns around and lands. The local mechanics take a looksie, do something and send the jet on its way.

So it takes off again and … the same unit fails to retract. So the jet once again turns around to land.

And when it does, the offending landing gear unit collapses when a tire explodes and the engine nacelle on that wing scrapes on the tarmac. I’m sure that more than a few passengers soiled their undies when that happened.

Apparently AeroMexico’s mechanics weren’t up to snuff.

I later heard that McDonnell Douglas sent some mechanics down to TJ to reattach the landing gear to the wing and that a factory pilot flew it out of TJ to Long Beach with only two of the three engines (which a pilot friend told me was a really big deal).

And check this out, I found the story on google. It doesn’t match how I heard it 100%, but it was close.

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-11-08/local/me-21503_1_aeromexico-dc-10

Knowing people who know people is the new job search technique. Not that it wasn’t always a very good way to go - it was always the preferred way. But, way back when, a good resume and being willing to pound the pavement wasn’t an impossible way to get a job. It doesn’t work anymore.

Polly you still dont get it….they put the dumbest ones up front to cover up the dirt in the back

Don’t be absurd. They hire pretty things to greet customers because they are pretty. The same reason why the bank lobby is shiny and impeccable. It’s called “image”.

It’s the same reason why high end hotel lobbies are nice and the people working at the reception desk are young and good looking. It has absolutely nothing to do with corporate malfeasance.

It also has to do with the pretty young things will most likely leave before they’re no longer young & pretty. They’ll either get married or have kids. They won’t age in place and need to be moved to another job and/or fired.

The people at the front desk don’t refuse to take your resume because they are dumb, dj. They refuse to take your resume because that is part of their JOB. They are told not to take resumes that way and to tell you to apply on line.

That is why networking is the only way to get a good job, though being extremely qualified for a position in which few people have the qualifications and your skills and experience match exactly will work on occasion.

Complaining that you can’t just drop off your resume with the front desk like you used to do and have it magically get elevated to a hiring manager who will love what he/she sees and call you back for a pro forma interview followed by an offer on the spot is as absurd as whining that Congress doesn’t pass a law to give you $3000 just because you want it.

I think you’re right, but basically you’re saying that people who can’t/won’t/don’t network are screwed. Which is kinda what dj is complaining about if I’m understanding correctly. And I do sympathize that it doesn’t seem right that a competent person is screwed just because they can’t network.

He is screwed. The last time I was out of work, my previous employer gave me a few months with a very good outplacement firm. They said that in the old days, 60% of jobs were found by networking. They also said that they strongly suspected the real numbers for that time were north of 70%. And that was quite a while ago. Depending on dropping off resumes is or posting your resume on Monster is pretty much the equivalent of not looking at all.

When you add in the circumstances that oxide pointed out below (his skills are hopelessly out of date), djs only hope is starting a small business or trying to network. Given his time out of work, I’d say even the networking is a long shot for him. But the stuff that he currently says he is doing? We are getting into “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride” territory. Wishing on a star and looking for a fairy godmother would be more effective.

I still think your best bet is to move to a southern Oil City.

My guess:

His GF won’t/can’t leave because she’s a ‘New Yahkah’ and can’t drive a car or function anywhere else on the planet (he’s said as much). Dj probably uses that as his excuse- “I can’t find work around here, and you can’t leave…so you have to support me while I (pretend to) look for work”.

It’s all very predictable and tiresome. Sounds like it’s hitting endgame, though.