Bits Bucket for January 3, 2013
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here. And check out Chomp, Chomp, Chomp by a regular poster!
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
November 2024 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
Upcoming, a House vote Friday on a $60.4 Billion (That’s a sixty BILLION, four-hundred MILLION DOLLAR) “Storm Recovery” bailout measure already approved by the Senate to help uninsured victims of Hurricane Sandy (oops) rebuild their homes, businesses, and infrastructure– dilapidated and demolished properties which no doubt will be inundated again as soon as the next big storm blows through. “But hey. we were underwater to begin with, how were we supposed to buy storm insurance too?”
Friday should be a fine day to cuddle up in front of CSPAN , what with House Republicans still steaming mad over the lack of spending cuts in the budget compromise, while their NY, NJ, CT Republican colleagues are screaming for bailouts that will total more than the annual budgets for the departments of Interior, Labor, Treasury and Transportation combined. Who’s gonna win the ideological battle as insurance companies try to weasel out of the claims and State pols grab for the golden grease that comes from all that (SIXTY BILLION DOLLARS worth of) taxpayer pork?
Should be quite the squealing and the stink this weekend.
prediction: the fat pigs will win the day.
That’s right. Chris Christie’s TRAITOR post-Sandy Obama hug stole the election and now The One will reward him with “gifts”.
I call foul: That prediction was too easy.
prediction 2: the rich will continue to get richer.
You are going wild with easy predictions…not that there is anything wrong with making predictions that are 100% certain to come true.
Why would anyone want to waste a beautiful Friday day or any day watching CSPAN. Beautiful sunrise here this morning, will be a great day to work in the garden area.
I was hoping that 2013 would be a year that sanity prevailed but I can see that won’t be the case. This will be the year of more big government with smoke and mirrors and everyone blaming every ill on everything and anybody but the party in power. As for me, it’s time to stop the spending and spend more time outside enjoying nature and spend more time with family and friends.
it’s time to stop the spending and spend more time outside enjoying nature and spend more time with family and friends.
+1. Hear, hear Ron. Same changes are being made here as well.
Sounds like you are looking at a beautiful 2013, Ron…
“Sounds like you are looking at a beautiful 2013, Ron…”
He’s got the right attitude, but he’ll need to stay off this board to make it work.
Either that or develop a very positive attitude in the face of grim reports…
Air temperature = 47
Water temperature = 53
Surf’s up!
Air temperature = 26.7°F
Water temperature = can’t measure it, there’s no liquid water out there.
Overcast!
Ditto!
Friend of a friend took this pic:
http://www.summitpost.org/rmnp-and-longs-peak-from-the-air/832305
which is an overview of the alpine squad’s destination(s) this weekend.
while their NY, NJ, CT Republican colleagues are screaming for bailouts
That’s the problem with republicans in general and most likely their ultimate downfall. Bunch of hypocrites! The fat boy and the peter king (congressman, Dublin Ireland) would not have given a flying f about a flyover country. I say let them rot…but you know Boehner, he will cry this into vote sooner or later. Fatboy and the Irishman will get what they want at our expense. Let’s not forget the democrats cronies…the bill is laden with pork.
I am sick of more taxpayers money going to NYC and DC. I still want my money back from 9-11.
Um, you do know that most of the federal money flows OUT of the coasts (you know, places with high paying jobs and a tax base) and into the flat square states.
You know nothing about central banking and its effect on middle America.
From what (little) I’ve been reading, a significant chunk of that money is intended for infrastructure repair, and Corp of Engineers-type projects.
Yep, gotta use Federal money to repair those boardwalks.
All Americans should have to chip in to repair the boardwalks which adorn properties owned by members of the 1% class.
And the subway, gotta get that fixed so everyone can get to their jobs in Manhattan. ‘Cause without those people the economy would collapse.
“But hey. we were underwater to begin with, how were we supposed to buy storm insurance too?”
What does being “underwater” have to do with one’s ability to service the mortgage? Or are they saying that the need HELOC money to make ends meet?
It’s amazing to me the Republican Congress members would vote in sufficient numbers to pass the 11th hour, 59th minute, 59th second ‘fiscal cliff’ deal, then draw a line in the sand over Sandy disaster relief.
Maybe they should replace their elephant mascot with a lemming?
GOP civil war over Sandy disaster relief
By Errol Louis, CNN Contributor
updated 9:47 AM EST, Thu January 3, 2013
Errol Louis says House Speaker John Boehner is caught between pragmatic and radical factions in his party.
Errol Louis: The conflict over Sandy relief reflects deep division in Republican Party
New York (CNN) — The battle over relief funding for areas devastated by Superstorm Sandy should leave no doubt about whether there is a war within the Republican Party over the fundamentals of taxation and spending.
On one side are old-school pols who are committed to reducing government deficits but willing to engage in traditional horse-trading with their big-spending liberal colleagues — and to support items such as relief for disasters, which can strike any region of the country at any time.
On the other side are dyed-in-the-wool budget radicals, who believe government spending must be curtailed, deeply and immediately. They are perfectly comfortable slicing, delaying or crippling normally sacrosanct programs, including disaster relief.
The two sides are engaged in an old-fashioned power struggle, with Speaker of the House John Boehner as the man in the middle, trying to keep a lid on the battle. The factional fighting delayed and nearly destroyed the fiscal cliff negotiations, with Boehner unable to persuade most of his Republican members to vote for a compromise bill that kept taxes from increasing for nearly all Americans.
Trying to get a vote on hurricane relief the same night proved to be a bridge too far. Boehner, struggling to keep his divided caucus in line — and facing a critical vote to renew his speakership — decided to kill the aid bill.
It might have kept the budget hawks happy for a moment, but Republicans in New York and New Jersey were furious. And the mood turned ugly.
Rarely do public accusations of political betrayal sound as personal — at times, nearly shrill — as the howls that came from New York and New Jersey Republicans over Boehner’s last-minute refusal to allow a promised vote on $60 billion worth of relief for areas hard hit by Sandy.
“The speaker just decided to pull the vote. He gave no explanation,” said Rep. Michael Grimm, a tea party member who is the sole remaining Republican member of Congress from New York City. “I feel I was misled from the very beginning,” he said in a radio interview.
…
The speaker just decided to pull the vote. He gave no explanation,” said Rep. Michael Grimm, a tea party member who is the sole remaining Republican member of Congress from New York City. “I feel I was misled from the very beginning,” he said in a radio interview.
So even the Tea Partiers line up a the gov teat when it’s their area that gets hit?
Says it all.
Doesn’t “say it all” to a reasonably thinking person.
Tea trash are hypocrites and liars.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-30/tea-party-congressmen-accept-cash-from-bailed-out-bankers.html
Seriously, could any telenovella hold more potential for intrigue?
Sorprendido le digo!
No.
Dogbert/Ghost Writer to CEO:
“I finished ghost-writing your autobiography: I was ridiculously lucky. The End.”
CEO: “I was hoping you’d include something about all my hard work.”
Dogbert: “You didn’t work any harder than your gardener, and he lives in his truck.”
CEO: “What about my vision and my intuition?”
Dogbert: “My first draft had a chapter on your hallucinations and magical thinking. But I covered that ground with the title: I’m a Delusional Sociopath and You Can Too.”
CEO: “I’m starting to regret paying you in advance.”
LOL! So true, they think they piss perfume and are totally worth the lotto jackpot sized salaries they are paid, even when they drive the companies into the ground.
“You didn’t work any harder than your gardener, and he lives in his truck.”
Classic, and so true…
You could say the same thing about rich progressive wall street bankers, rich progressive lawyers and rich progressive Actors/Directors etc.
I am not defending rich CEO’s, just pointing out that many in the committed left make bank and do not work as hard as their gardeners.
No argument with your point here…though I find the endless effort to put everyone into your “committed left / progressive / communist / etc” versus “good guy” boxes very tiresome.
“You didn’t work any harder than your gardener, and he lives in his truck.”
Classic, and so true…
+1.
I try to remind myself of this on a near-daily basis.
WSJ Opinion 1/2/13: Crony Capitalist Blowout
A tax increase for everyone but the favored wealthy few.
I don’t find stuff like this as outrageous as some apparently do. (I see the new talking point is ‘we’ve got all the nat gas we can handle, we don’t need this alternative energy stuff’, which seems typically short-sighted)
“Cellulosic biofuels—the great white whale of renewable energy—also had their tax credit continued, and the definition of what qualifies was expanded to include producers of “algae-based fuel” ($59 million.) Speaking of sludge, biodiesel and “renewable diesel” will continue receiving their $1 per gallon tax credit ($2.2 billion). “
What I find outrageous is the lack of understanding that we pour more oil into biodiesel and ethanol that we get in equivalent returns. Magical thinking and the green is all in the subsidies. No wonder almost half the workers in the country make below median wage!
I’m constantly amazed at how you can show the impossibility of any and all alternative fuels in one simple explanation that the worldwide community of scientists seems to be unaware of.
I guess they’re a bunch of dopes?
I’m constantly amazed at how Americans can’t demonstrate an alternate fuel source without relying on the petroleum energy input.
Alpha-sloth, show me an alternate fuel source that doesn’t rely on a fossil fuel, and offers the same cheapness, energy density and practicality that petroleum, natural gas and even coal offer. Oh wait, YOU CAN’T.
The only answer is a reduction in our standard of living, linked to a massive reduction of our energy consumption. That’s physics. So, YES, the worldwide community of scientists you’re so enamored of is a bunch of dopes.
Here’s an interesting article from the IEEE Spectrum Magazine on the alternative fuels issue:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/joules-btus-quadslets-call-the-whole-thing-off
And here’s an interesting linked graphic from that article - the world uses 1 cubic mile of oil a year:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/images/jan07/images/ncmo01.gif
That’s physics. So, YES, the worldwide community of scientists you’re so enamored of is a bunch of dopes.
Wow, you’re smarter than the lot of them, I guess. Very impressive.
show me an alternate fuel source that doesn’t rely on a fossil fuel, and offers the same cheapness, energy density and practicality that petroleum, natural gas and even coal offer
I think that’s what those dopes are working on.
Man will never fly!
“show me an alternate fuel source that doesn’t rely on a fossil fuel, and offers the same cheapness, energy density and practicality that petroleum, natural gas and even coal offer. Oh wait, YOU CAN’T.”
Correct. I don’t think anyone denies that. But it’s baby steps all the way, and anyone who doesn’t share that goal is short-sighted, to say the least. At some point, we will run out of fossil fuels. Societies best prepared for this (ones who invested alot of their available fossil fuels into producing renewable sources) will come out on top. Sure, might take a hundred years, maybe two hundred. If we keep coming up with better ways to extract fossil fuels affordably, bravo. Buys us more time to work toward the end goal. With the recent natural gas boom (and coming oil boom), we are being handed a gift. Would be a shame to look that horse in the mouth, or as folks here like to say, “kick the can down the road”. That which is not sustainable (reliance on fossil fuels) will not be sustained.
No wonder almost half the workers in the country make below median wage!
lol, thanks for that.
Magical thinking and the green is all in the subsidies. No wonder almost half the workers in the country make below median wage!
“No wonder……” makes no sense in the context of the economic/political situation and history of America.
1. It is not the job of 1/2 of working America to understand the economics of subsidies.
2. If half of working Americans make squat now when in the past they made much more as a percentage of their country’s wealth and productivity, there is something wrong with the current economic system and NOT something wrong with the intelligence of 1/2 of Americans.
As a percentage of the *worlds* wealth how is the average American doing? How about in terms of standard of living… increasing or decreasing?? From what I understand 2012 was the best year in the history of the world to be alive and kicking, and not just for the 1% (of which most americans are as compared worldwide)
2. If half of working Americans make squat now when in the past they made much more as a percentage of their country’s wealth and productivity,
Rio, you totally missed the joke—which is just sad. Please review the definition of ‘median’.
What I find outrageous is the lack of understanding that we pour more oil into biodiesel and ethanol that we get in equivalent returns.
Blue, that was true of nuclear power too, early on during its development.
Why do you believe that it will always remain so?
I by no means think “always”. I have watched programs like biodeisel and ethanol, which are well known to have a negative energy ROI, proliferated on a grand scale at huge expense. The masses are convinced that this somehow makes things better, and that it magically will support their extravagant lifestyle to infinity, when it serves the reverse. The Google and Wiki savants here should be able to figure this out in about 30 minutes if the mind was open.
I am aware of positive return schemes, some of which are old tech, but they don’t get traction. They are not trendy and do not involve grant money. We would have done better these last 10 years putting the money in research rather than in grants to waste energy.
I am aware of positive return schemes, some of which are old tech, but they don’t get traction.
Like what?
We would have done better these last 10 years putting the money in research rather than in grants to waste energy.
Research into what?
How is research different from grants? More centrally-controlled?
I think Blue is referring to Solyndra, and he has a point. Half a bil pays for a LOT of grad students and post-docs.
Put out an RFP at state schools and you’d be amazed the number of ideas you’ll get back.
Put out an RFP at state schools and you’d be amazed the number of ideas you’ll get back.
Do we not do that now? I seem to remember my local U studies biodiesel algae, or some such. Is all government research money really going into some shady or shaky business? I suspect a lot of gov money goes to state Us and the like already. Does someone know otherwise?
“I suspect a lot of gov money goes to state Us and the like already. Does someone know otherwise?”
Oddly enough, I cannot find a history chart that shows the amount of federal money given to universities.
I may be phrasing the search wrong.
You would be amazed at the number of alternative energy technologies that are bought up by DoD contractors… and buried.
That last scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was no hyperbole.
we’ve got all the natural gas we can handle…
“The report also said the Marcellus region, a rock formation under parts of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, contained 141 trillion cubic feet of gas. That represents a 66 percent drop from the 410 trillion cubic feet estimate offered in the agency’s last report.
The Energy Information Administration said the sharp downward revisions to its estimates were informed by more data. Under the agency’s new estimates, the Marcellus shale, which was previously thought to hold enough gas to meet the entire nation’s demand for 17 years at current consumption rates, contains instead a six-year supply. The report comes just five months after the United States Geological Survey released its own estimate of 84 trillion cubic feet for the Marcellus shale.” [i.e. a 3.6 year supply]
https://wellwatch.wordpress.com/2012/02/
————-
Six-year supply, yeah, real forward-looking
Even worse, frackers see the price of gas as too darn cheap. Their next goal is to pipe the gas to ports for export overseas and higher prices.
This ain’t our kids and grandkids. This is us.
Amount of recoverable gas depends on the price. As the price decreases, the amount you are able to recover economically shrinks.
I don’t disbelieve you, but is there a link for that? It’s true that oil reserves work like that, but I don’t know about Marcellus shale.
There is ‘technically’ recoverable and ‘economically’ recoverable reserves.
This is from the EIA’s own site and remember we have had just five or six years oil reserves for about 30 years now:
How much natural gas does the United States have and how long will it last?
EIA estimates that there are 2,203 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas that is technically recoverable in the United States. At the rate of U.S. natural gas consumption in 2011 of about 24 Tcf per year, 2,203 Tcf of natural gas is enough to last about 92 years.
1Technically recoverable reserves consist of “proved reserves” and “unproved resources.” Proved reserves of crude oil and natural gas are the estimated volumes expected to be produced, with reasonable certainty, under existing economic and operating conditions. Unproved resources are additional volumes estimated to be technically recoverable without consideration of economics or operating conditions, based on the application of current technology
Thanks Dan.
So if we look at ALL of the United States, and drill for EVERYTHING no matter what it costs, and don’t export anything, don’t care about the environment, and keep the same level of consumption, we have 92 years… maybe.
So what happens if we convert our fleet of cars to “cheap” nat gas as you want, and convert the fossil power plants to nat gas, and then export the nat gas? How many years will we have then? Maybe 35 years. As I said, this is US.
Fracking - The new global warming and new target for the global progressives.
It’s been proven to poison area water supplies.
Period.
I think most of the information at this point is based on hysteria and a smattering of anecdotal evidence. I will wait to see how widespread any of these problems are before I go off half cocked. The process will evolve and hopefully develop a clean track record. If not, then it should be phased out.
The most interesting thing about this piece was that the term Crony Capitalist appeared in a WSJ headline, of all places.
Damn socialist commies!
Seriously, when the WSJ condemns “business as usual”, this is a very damning statement.
That’s fantastic. I was trying to explain to my parents yesterday how the MSM sound bite on the ‘fiscal cliff’ resolution totally missed that the largest tax increase to come out of the ‘compromise’ was on the middle class.
hate to say I told you so……
I love to say, “I told you so.” (But not so much as my wife loves to say it…)
“I informed you thusly.” - sheldon cooper
the largest tax increase to come out of the ‘compromise’ was on the middle class.
What was that?
Payroll Tax. 2% increase.
It won’t go on your “income tax”, so you won’t see an increase in the taxes you file. You will see 2% LESS in your take-home pay.
Another stealth tax that NPR viewers won’t really notice, because NPR hasn’t told them they are getting a “middle class tax increase”.
Oh, that. We talked about that already. It’s the end of a tax holiday, not a tax hike. But it looks like the right wing talking point du jour. A pretty weak one.
Talking point du jur and the real information that it’s pretty much a wash for most us, is being quickly buried.
Payroll tax goes up slightly, income tax remains the same and most of us will probably get it back in refunds.
Basically, the folks who make more than 400k are pissed and many of them run our MSM, so they are doing their best to make J6P pissed as well, with certain articles being repeated and the others dropped. In today’s case, I’m seeing the AP article repeated the most and dominating the search results.
And why not? It’s worked in the past.
And THAT is how J6P always ends up voting against their own interest.
“It’s the end of a tax holiday, not a tax hike.”
Same damn effect. Stop lying about it.
Stop lying about it.
And it’s a 1% tax ‘increase/hike’. Any attempt to make it look like the middle class gets the short end of the stick because their payroll tax will ‘increase’ 1% is clearly a desperation right-wing talking point. Repeat it if it makes you happy, or if it puts you in the ‘they’re all the same except (insert my party/hero here) club’, but don’t expect the rest of us to do anything buy roll our eyes about it.
And it’s a 1% tax ‘increase/hike’.
It’s actually a payroll tax rate increase from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent.
The way most of us do math, that’s 2%, not 1%.
Maybe you personally earn twice the payroll tax cap, so your rate increase is lower?
Get out of housing and get out soon. DO NOT buy housing right now.
Looking forward to more of your reassuring consistency throughout 2013 and beyond.
Get out of housing and get out soon.
My housing is currently warm and snug, while outside it’s snowy and cold. NO WAY am I getting out of housing.
Our rental housing is perfectly satisfactory. We are sticking around for another year, in deference to your repeated warnings never to buy.
GET OUT OF HOUSING AND GET OUT SOON. Even living in a hollow log is preferable. Be sure to wear goggles and leather gloves, though. All the hollow logs in my neighborhood are currently claimed by critters with teeth and claws, however small.
I’ve heard the caves in the San Diego mountains remain quite warm year around…
I’ve heard the caves in the San Diego mountains remain quite warm year around…
But the taxes and regulations are killers, or so I’ve read.
So far as I know, you don’t have to pay property taxes (even indirectly, through high rent payments) if you live in a cave or under a freeway overpass.
you don’t have to pay property taxes
Anyone who uses money winds up paying some kind of tax. Anyone who deals with a government winds up subject to some regulation.
Rules of governance:
1. If it moves, tax it.
2. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
3. If it dies, bail it out and resurrect it as a government-sponsored zombie enterprise.
“I’ve heard the caves in the San Diego mountains remain quite warm year around…”
Heck, you couldn’t have told me about them before I moved to Kansas???
“Heck, you couldn’t have told me about them before I moved to Kansas???”
I’m 99.9999% certain your Kansas home is much nicer than a San Diego cave.
It’s getting there.
Just had my second guest stay over the holidays. So nice to have a guest room and a decent neighborhood.
I guess in the cave my only stay-over friend would be Allena’s bear.
Take a trip to Devils Den State Park in the Arkansas Ozarks. The cave stays a balmy 68 degrees year round.
“…Arkansas Ozarks…”
1. Visit Eureka Springs
2. Canoe the Buffalo River, if you are into that sort of thing.
My housing is currently warm and snug, while outside it’s snowy and cold. NO WAY am I getting out of housing.
You have a problem with cardboard boxes?
You have a problem with cardboard boxes?
Cardboard are definitely snug, but not warm enough given current conditions. Plus it rains around here when it isn’t snowing. My laptop is not supposed to be exposed to temps below 40.
You advise selling a paid-off house? Why?
Because you can buy for less in near future. Take the gain and rent for few yrs.
If your house were “paid off” you might get answer.
That makes no sense at all. Just like most of your comments.
Happy New Year, my poors!
I sometimes think of you as I sit around lounging at breakfast. Sipping my tomato juice made from the finest fruits flown over from 千疋屋 on my private jet. Sembikiya, darlings! Haven’t you heard of it?
Accompanied, of course, by an omelette made from hand-picked Himalayan hummingbird eggs topped with edible gold leaf, white truffles and Iranian caviar, I can’t but wonder what life for the rest of you must be like.
No coffee for me, thanks. Coffee is for cloosers.
My lawyer called earlier. “Oh, here we go again. Happy New Year and all that garbage. Make sure to ask him about the slag and the terrors, etc.”
I was surprised instead. Make that shocked actually.
Turns out he could only save me 20 million with all the recent changes and all that.
“Chump change,” I yell, “chump change. Not even a rounding error. What am I paying you for?”
He went to Yale, you know. “Yale or Fail”, as daddy always used to say. Nice enough chap even though his Schedule B and D are a tad light on the numbers. Still, he can afford to pay for his own lawyer which is saying something I suppose. Mentioned it once. I think his studied at Virginia or some such equally forgettable.
Turns out he’s going to get his team on it. All Yalies naturally.
It was easier in the old days. You can’t even whip them any more.
Afterwards he goes on and on about something called an “app”. Wonder what that is.
“Just buy the whole company if its any good. Chump change, my good man, chump change.”
Take care, mes pauvres. Life must be so hard having to work.
I sometimes think of you as I sit around lounging (alone and unloved) at breakfast.
Life must be so hard having to
workpose.make love, not waugh.
Turn me loose, set me free……..
“Haven’t you heard of it?”
Between babelfish and googlemaps, I have now. 千疋屋 is Ginza Sembikiya, a suburb southeast of Tokyo.
“…my poors!”
And a Happy New Year to you, sir.
Masterful. Bravo!
Except I think the young man being satired went to Princeton.
Princeton undergrad and U of Virginia Law. Unless there’s another law school in Charlottesville, VA that we don’t know about
Except I think the young man being satired went to Princeton.
Let’s just hope the “edumacated” juvenile studied his Juvenal then.
For those who bash progressives: You are bashing the clear and growing majority of your own country. Americans are more progressive than our government and our corporate main-stream media reflect. Anyone who knows what America and the American dream are really all about already knows this.
Progressive is the Most Positively Viewed Political Label in America
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/12/29/progressive-is-the-most-positively-viewed-political-label-in-america/
According to Pew Research “progressive” is now the most positively viewed political term in America. It is viewed more favorably than Capitalism, Liberal or Conservative.
Progressive is the Most Positively Viewed Political Label in America
Precisely why you see the concerted effort to demonize the word from the GOPsterbots and kochtopi. The last thing they want is progress.
It’s harder to be a robber baron in a progressive society. Which is why they fight it tooth and nail.
Would it be fair play to refer to the Kochtopi and GOP lemming party members as “regressives”?
Regressives- n. pl. 1)The drag anchors of human development. Slowing it down so their masters can get in some last minute looting.
Actually most people like the term because it takes them away from being identified with the “other” parties.
Unfortunately, they have NO idea what it means. But is sounds nice.
Dude, did you not get your Drudge Report talking points this morning?
Progressive = Obama taking your guns away
Progressive = Obama implementing Sharia law
Progressive = Obama giving money to sissy green energy companies and hating on coal/oil/gas biz
Progressive = Obama destroying American Exceptionalist way of life by adhering to socialist/internationalist climate change policies
Progressive = Obama destroying marriage by letting queers get married
Progressive = Obama taking money away from Real (white) Americans to give handouts to black/brown 47%
Apparently I need to start reading the Drudge report, so I can get on board with these redefinitions of the words in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary…
Progressive = Liberal = let someone else pay for my stuff
Rio, if it makes you feel better about your beliefs, so be it. In the end the Govmint’s gonna screw you too.
So Wall St is made up of liberals?
Who knew?
A lot of people. The media is largerly owned by big money interests both the right and left agree on that. However, study after study has shown that the MSM leans left. Do you think the big money interests would allow them to lean left if they did not lean left? Some will point to Fox but on issues such as immigration and gun control Murdock clearly leans left and he uses his station to promote the type of conservative he likes. True conservatives are marginalized.
study after study has shown that the MSM leans left
I don’t buy that anymore. I think MSM leans left of government but does not lean left of the American People.
The majority of Americans want:
More progressive taxation.
Less wealth inequality.
Less income inequality.
Stronger safety nets.
Pot decriminalization
Less police state
A Sane Repub Party etc.
Now I don’t see the MSM promoting those ideas to the extent that Americans believe in them or want them. In fact, I don’t even see it come close.
you’re kidding…the whole “inequality” thing began as a leftw-wing talking point promulgated through Journolist and other friendlies. I’ve never heard any normal people talk about inequality, even the ones living on SNAP and SSI. Even with them, it reeks too much of envy and bad faith. Or, they hold it against the anonymous 1% but not against Oprah, rich rappers or ath-a-letes.
I’ve never heard any normal people talk about inequality
You’ve got to be joking. I hear it all the time when I’m in the USA. It’s on almost every blog there is. Even sports blogs. I think you just don’t want to hear it or Montana is more abnormal than I thought.
It’s not so much “left/liberal” as it is “big government”. Have you ever thought about raising money for investment in a venture? In order to keep “the sheeple” safe from sheep sheerers, you are forced to funnel your money through lawyers, accountants, and banksters while complying with Sarbanes-Oxley, the SEC, anti-moneylaundering rules, and who knows how many other layers of permit, tax, and regulation.
It does nothing to guarantee the success of your venture. All it does is ensure you are shearing sheep with a government approved clipper that deposits a good chunk of your potential profits into the pockets of every connected protected conniver along the trail.
+1…Well said mathguy….
“…you are forced to funnel your money through lawyers, accountants, and banksters while complying with Sarbanes-Oxley, the SEC, anti-moneylaundering rules, and who knows how many other layers of permit, tax, and regulation.”
+1 None of these people create anything of intrinsic value when they “put in a day.” Enter the service economy.
Big government?
Big government caused them to lie, cheat, steal and commit fraud?
Ye…ah, no.
‘According to Pew Research “progressive” is now the most positively viewed political term in America.’
You should look into who set up and runs Pew.
Amid the seemingly never-ending “red team rah, blue team bahh!”, allow me to ask, what is all this for? What are politics for? Surely, a person can be what kind of a person they want; giving to others, or not. Most of this stuff is about government, right? When we start to tell others what they should do and be.
OK, so what is the purpose of government? And what are the problems of government?
‘Playwright Neil Simon once joked that there are only two universal truths – the law of gravity and that everyone loves Italian food. He might have, in a moment of more serious contemplation, added that it is true that every known form of government is inefficient but nevertheless exists primarily to grow and protect itself. We Americans have witnessed in the short space of eleven years a government that has metastasized built around a fiction that the American people are somehow under serious threat from foreign enemies. This has produced two large and a number of smaller wars coupled to a US military and intelligence footprint that now extends to every corner of every continent. The festering sore of Afghanistan is like the story of Uncle Remus’s tar baby – easy to get stuck to but damned hard to get away from. Under Bush and Obama the cost and size of government have doubled, and Washington has added a massive new bureaucracy that has a primary function of monitoring the American people in the Department of Homeland Security. And to our eternal shame as a nation, it has all been done on a credit card with Asian governments picking up the tab and the US treasury printing money that has no actual backing, running up the national debt to hitherto unimaginable levels while doing grievous damage to the economy.’
‘Government never thinks far enough ahead to appreciate that any action on its part will result in unforeseen and sometimes catastrophic consequences, whether in the form of unacceptable collateral damage or blowback. The war on drugs has been disastrous for Mexico while the incursions into Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are prime examples of a structural inability to look over the horizon. The United States supported both Saddam Hussein and also Osama bin Laden before they became designated enemies. Government never admits failure and its response to shortcomings is to throw more resources at the problem in an attempt to either make it go away or delay the day of reckoning. Witness how the Transportation Security Administration, which has never caught a single terrorist, responds to incidents by engaging in panic buying of screening machines being hawked by former senior bureaucrats only to find that they don’t work well and eventually wind up in a warehouse in Omaha.’
‘In that context, I read with considerable interest the Washington Post’s article about the Central Intelligence Agency’s Global Response Staff (GRS), described as a “secret security force created after 9/11…to serve as armed guards for the Agency’s spies.” It seemed to me illustrative of what happens when a government agency defines its own mission based on its own needs because it no longer knows what it is doing and why. ‘
‘One might well regard the CIA’s GRS team as a microcosm of growth in government. You start out with a threat that is not really a threat that could potentially become a problem bureaucratically if you don’t do anything. Because your basic premise is wrong, you then come to an incorrect conclusion on how to deal with it. You develop a mechanism that does not work and only makes the situation worse, as the CIA drone program has demonstrably done, but you have to build an infrastructure to support the bad idea and keep feeding it even though it is not working because to admit that you made a mistake is just not acceptable. And then you double down on your bet, making the failure even bigger, expanding the drone program to new parts of the world where you can repeat the process. Along the way you lose the ability to do what you used to do well because it is no longer relevant. Oh, but you have hired more people and your budget is bigger, allowing you to get promoted. Bigger government is a win-win all around for those in the bureaucracy but really a bummer for the taxpayer who has to foot the bill. And what is worse, it doesn’t work very well, as Neil Simon might well have pointed out.’
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2013/01/02/how-government-grows/
The “debate” should be largely about how to make government work efficiently. What we’ve got is two parties that are gorging themselves at everyone’s expense, and killing a lot of innocent people along the way.
Commie talk!
Thank a
soldiergovernment contractor for your FreedomI care not how progressive the whore claims to be, nor her subs.
What we’ve got is two parties that are gorging themselves at everyone’s expense, and killing a lot of innocent people along the way.
What’s the solution?
It’s obvious.
Hand the government over to big business. I’m sure they will come up with an unbiased, selfless, efficient solution.
Romney is known for fixing “sick businesses”, after all.
Romney is known for fixing “sick businesses”, after all.
Obviously, with your help.
Well, “bungabunga”, I wouldn’t consider loading companies up with debt before shutting them down and selling off the parts to be “fixing” “sick businesses”.
I wouldn’t either. But you very well know your role in helping Romney and others become who they are.
Without your help Romney is nobody.
The “debate” should be largely about how to make government work efficiently.
I agree that government should work together and has in the past. However the current Republican Party is not interested in that.
Even Mainstream Pundits Are Now Saying, Republicans ‘No Longer a Normal Governing Party,’ ‘Unfit for Government’
Outrage is growing over Republican sabotage of … well, everything.
December 26, 2012 |
E. J. Dionne Jr. in the Washington Post, writing in It’s our system on the cliff, (emphasis added, for emphasis)
The United States faces a crisis in our political system because the Republican Party, particularly in the House of Representatives, is no longer a normal, governing party.
The only way we will avoid a constitutional crackup is for a new, bipartisan majority to take effective control of the House and isolate those who would rather see the country fall into chaos than vote for anything that might offend their ideological sensibilities…..
…….Really, what is to be done about this Republican Party? What force can change it—can stop Republicans from being ideological saboteurs and convert at least a workable minority of them into people interested in governing rather than sabotage? … They are a direct threat to the economy, which could slip back into recession next year if the government doesn’t, well, govern. They are an ongoing, at this point almost mundane, threat to democracy, subverting and preventing progress the American people clearly desire across a number of fronts. They have to be stopped, and the only people who can really stop them are corporate titans and Wall Streeters, who surely now are finally beginning to see that America’s problem is not Barack Obama and his alleged “socialism,” but a political party that has become psychologically incapable of operating within the American political system.
http://www.alternet.org/even-mainstream-pundits-are-now-saying-republicans-no-longer-normal-governing-party-unfit-government
+1 Rio….Nice find….And there it is as far as I am concerned…In a way, its a civil war just without the guns..I agree with the articles premise…
Except uhhh, they are elected…??? Democracy isn’t just for when it’s convenient for YOU. As soon as you cross that line, that IS when all the gun toting religious nuts will come calling. As long as they have a voice and someone in congress is shouting their message they will remain passive. Even as they get steamrolled by transfers of wealth via inflation through the Fed. In fact, I kind of think that is the whole point.
It’s more amazing to me that the working class are voting for democrats OR republicans since they are basically being blindly robbed by the system in power right out in the open with Fed transfers to the banks.
The only people I think are sane at this point are the ones shouting to be in control of their own financial spending, without the feds redistributing it on their behalf.
Except uhhh, they are elected…???
Well good….Lets let the whole thing go right into the $hitter and then those that “stood their ground” can explain it to their constituents in the soup kitchen lines…
Right, because listening to someone speak (or just ignoring them) causes things to go in the shitter…. I don’t get my way so I’m going to break the toys.. I’ve heard that before…
Are you just angry because you can’t make a convincing point that spending money we don’t have is going to turn out fine?
a convincing point that spending money we don’t have
If we spent it, we had it.
What are politics for?
To decide who gives the orders and who takes them. Yes, it is about power. I don’t have a problem with that, as long as I get a say in the matter and am able to organize in order to do so. I think it’s called ‘government by consent of the governed.’ Something like that.
Ben, you are implying that large groups of people can get along together in a confined space without some form of government. If so, why don’t you start out by saying that?
Whenever and wherever you have people, you will have people doing evil things. Whenever and wherever you have groups of people pursuing common goals, some of those goals and methods will turn out to be evil, even if they don’t start out that way.
Government is a necessary evil.
Government does all of the things that need to be done, but can’t be done while making a profit.
Why do we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc? Because there was a need, that private enterprise failed miserably at providing.
‘implying that large groups of people can get along together in a confined space without some form of government’
That’s a strange thing to say. So if I’m in an elevator, I can expect to be brawling by the time I get to my floor if there isn’t a government person there? I think you are confusing laws with government.
Here’s just one issue about laws and regulations; the US government ignores them all the time. Why aren’t all these wall street crooks in jail? Why were Fannie and Freddie allowed to keep issuing billions in bonds long after they should have been de-listed by the SEC? That alone was a huge financial crime that Enron would never have gotten away with.
Why does the US president get away with killing people all over the world in violation of international laws that we signed onto? Why is he allowed to shield torturers from prosecution?
It seems like a good place to start is to insist that laws apply to everybody, and the government can’t pick and choose which ones it wants to enforce.
I think you are confusing laws with government.
I’m not the one who is confused. Just who or what ultimately enforces these ‘laws’ you write of? I am not referring to natural laws but man-made ones.
if I’m in an elevator, I can expect to be brawling by the time I get to my floor if there isn’t a government person there
This objection is nit picking that verges on changing the subject. If a brawl should break out among occupants on an elevator, there are limited possible outcomes. On the other hand, if you are alone on an elevator and a brawl breaks out,…
“So if I’m in an elevator, I can expect to be brawling by the time I get to my floor if there isn’t a government person there?”
You might want to install a government surveillance camera inside the elevator, just in case a brawl breaks out.
There wouldn’t be a brawl if everybody in the elevator had a bushmaster.
There’d be an all-American firefight!
large groups of people
There’s the problem right there. Our country is too big to govern properly. The EU is another example. Smaller nation states make democracy possible.
Our country is too big to govern properly.
You may be right. People have been discussing the nature of ‘proper’ government, how to govern & what limits government for a few millennia now. This is part of that discussion. I am glad we can discuss it.
“Our country is too big to govern properly.”
I’m not buying it.
Decentralized government (free enterprise regulated by a rule of law) can work fine in a country of our size; top-down command-and-control governance is doomed to fail.
tresho :
“I’m not the one who is confused. Just who or what ultimately enforces these ‘laws’ you write of? I am not referring to natural laws but man-made ones.”
Here is where you are missing the main point. YOU enforce the laws. YOUR SELF WILL. Everyone is responsible for enforcing the law upon themselves. The government can only intervene to punish you for transgression. A society works well when the people agree on the laws, and agree that they make sense to follow for our society, and agree that the personal detriment to themselves is outweighed by the good that they receive from a stable society and from others also following the rules.
The law can strongly motivate you, and motivate others to force you to do things, but the government is people. Even law enforcement is just people. People agreeing to accept money to perform actions directed by other people.
When the disagreement on the law between groups of people becomes too great, vigilantism, rioting, insurrection, rebellion and even civil war ensues. Don’t be so fast to ignore the elected voice of your fellow citizens. They may even have some kind of point.
Don’t be so fast to ignore the elected voice of your fellow citizens. They may even have some kind of point.
Well, they did elect Obama.
Ben,
-The elevator gets stuck and the summons button is broken.
-Someone in the elevator is lighting matches and throwing them
-Someone in the elevator has a heart attack
-The elevator operator refuses to let you on.
etc.
It’s a good analogy, but in real life whenever two parties share the same space, let alone interact, there will be room for conflict. The trick is in getting everyone on board to play by the same rules. Obviously, we’ve hit an impasse.
in real life whenever two parties share the same space, let alone interact, there will be room for conflict. That was my basic point. Turn “two” into “several million” and the situation gets really tricky.
The trick is in getting everyone on board to play by the same rules
Other issues are: who sets the rules? How can a small number of people be prevented from seizing permanent control of the rule-setting mechanism? What rules govern conflict resolution? What if some of the group just don’t want to play the game? And there are other issues.
“The trick is in getting everyone on board to play by the same rules. Obviously, we’ve hit an impasse.”
You mean “your” rules. That’s the problem with so called progressives (really statists), they want to make the rules for the rest of us to follow and it just kills them that anyone would object.
You may like this Nick:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcz5×7sOp11rszefuo1_1280.jpg
Thanks! I have to find a way to have that printed poster size
“You mean “your” rules. That’s the problem with so called progressives (really statists), they want to make the rules for the rest of us to follow and it just kills them that anyone would object.”
Because your rules are better, right?
And THAT is why we have a republic.
Ben, you are time-stamping yourself. Uncle Rhemus?
I read the story of the Tar Baby back in Elementary school.
Hilariously funny. Banned in most public schools now.
Along with Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, these books are “racially insensitive”. Must be removed from public view.
It’s the only way to keep America “free”; banning books and inserting other more “sensitive” and universal literature.
“I read the story of the Tar Baby back in Elementary school.”
As a child, I loved that story. I had no idea it was racist. The area I lived in had no significant black population and it never occurred to me that the tar baby was black. Obviously, the pictures showed it as black, but the significance of that escaped me. It did not occur to me that Brer Rabbit might have been less incensed by the Tar Baby’s refusal to talk if it had been a white tar baby. Like most small children, I was color blind. What I loved best was the way Brer Rabbit talked himself out of a bad situation - “Born and bred in the briar patch”.
“You should look into who set up and runs Pew.”
Andrew Kohut? Kimelman? The anti-war Times Mirror Corp.? PBS Newshour? What am I missing here? Seriously asking.
Another point is that “Progressive” has no bad historical connotations to overcome. Dems have to live with being the party who filibustered civil rights, and the remnants of the Bush are currently destroying the last of Republican sheen from Reagan and Eisenhower. But “Progressive” has been flying under the radar. It could be argued that there was only ONE politician in the last 150 years who used the label, and no one wants to challenge even his ghost.
“Progressive is the Most Positively Viewed Political Label in America”
because the sheeple are always right.
Progressive is the Most Positively Viewed Political Label in America
Because it’s all about the labels, y’see. There is no real reality there. However for some there is Riolity®.
Because it’s all about the labels, y’see. There is no real reality there
Yours is an unthinking straw-man 101. It’s not about labels. It’s about concepts and ideas. This is a blog, not a Master’s thesis. Labels are just short-cuts to generalize complex concepts, philosophies and ideas.
If you don’t understand that, there are some accurate labels to describe you.
Labels are just short-cuts to generalize complex concepts, philosophies and ideas.
And yours leave a great deal to be desired, Riolity®
“It’s not about labels. It’s about concepts and ideas.”
what’s the difference between a liberal hillary clinton and a progressive hillary clinton?
And (your lables) leave a great deal to be desired, Riolity®
How could my labels leave much to be desired? These are common, descriptive labels. I don’t make them up. I just use the language available to me and that we both understand. Do you want to speak in a different language with me?
1. I did not make up the label “progressive”.
2. I did not make up the research that “Progressive is the Most Positively Viewed Political Label in America”
3. It’s not my really concern that you can’t come up with much, or that you can’t process that English language labels are short-cuts to generalize complex concepts, philosophies and ideas.
what’s the difference between a liberal hillary clinton and a progressive hillary clinton?
WE HAVE A WINNER
Ignore posters who repeatedly misuse the term ‘progressive.’
PEOPLE! Don’t listen to the commie college professor, he’s trying to brainwash you! Help me somebody they’re stealing my mind! The statists are stealing my mind! Who took my dime? Do you have my dime…
Rant on, dude…
I don’t think it’s a dude :-).
“For those who bash progressives: You are bashing the clear and growing majority of your own country.”
Sorry home boy, in this country so called progressives are statists bent on stifling individual liberty and creating an all powerful state…Period.
There is nothing progressive about that, the word itself has been hijacked and will never stand for real progress, unless you consider overturning the US constitution real progress.
You will never win this argument.
You will never win this argument.
You are bashing the clear and growing majority of your own country……
It’s math……… I won.
Are you a statist? I already know the answer, just want you to confirm.
Statist?
BY definition, dictionary definition, conservatives are statist.
I don’t care about Liberal vs Conservative, a statist is a statist. You’ll get no argument from me about right wing statists, but you can’t help but notice which side of the political aisle promotes the most bans.
Some on the HBB say there’s no difference in Dems and Repubs. I say you are wrong.
So here’s a good question - a test. Part of America’s mission is to “Promote the General Welfare”. (”General” means for most and not just for the rich.)
So tell me. What Republican policies or ideas the past 50 years actually Promote the General Welfare? Which ones?
Medicare? No, that was the Dem’s thing.
Universal Health-care? No, that was the Dems.
A national energy plan? No.
Min Wage? No, that was the Dems.
Civil Rights? No.
Evolving SocSec? No, that was Dems.
Did the following checklist of the Repub’s last 50 years agenda Promote America’s General Welfare?
1. Private sector union Busting. I say no.
2. TaxCuts4TheRich? No, they did not promote the general welfare. (or create jobs)
3. Wealth inequality? No
4. Income inequality? No
5. Off-shoring jobs? No. How could off-shoring jobs promote general welfare???)
6. Cold war? No. The cold war began under Truman after WWII and Kennedy and other Dems were fierce cold-warriors too.
7. Hot-button social issues? No. Stirring up sh!t and promoting hostile division is not promoting the general welfare.
8. Corrosive rhetoric designed to instigate Americans to hate their government? No. Promoting division and hate of our own government is not promoting the general welfare.
9. “War on Terror” and an insane military size? IDK. I think much of that money would be better invested in our people economically.
10. No on gun control? IDK if we’re “better off” or not with that.
11. Bailing out Banks and being Wall Street slaves? Repubs and Dems share this blame.
12. Deregulation? The Repubs pushing Wall Street and bank deregulation led to the housing and credit bubble.
13. Turning USA into a police state? No. police states do not promote the general welfare.
14. Freedom and liberty? See #13 above.
So besides 50 years of promoting the welfare of the rich, what public policies have the Repubs pushed (or denied) the past 50 years that Promote the General Welfare? Which ones? I say hardly any, (if any) and the facts and the historical proofs are on my side.
Say what you want Rio but Obama has all but assured that the welfare state is not coming to America by signing the deal. A welfare state needs heavy taxes on the middle class. That is why liberals (progressives) so hated the Bush tax cuts, not just the cuts for people making $250,000 or more, all of them. Now, he has made the vast majority of the tax cuts permanent although not the cuts on FICA. The truly rich do not get a tax increase on their first 450,000 but the lucky ducky workers get a large increase on their FICA taxes. Had Romney done the same thing most of the board would be calling for this head.
Here is an example from CNBC of the taxes needed to maintain a welfare state and remember this does not even include VAT taxes:
2. Sweden
Highest income tax rate: 56.6%
Average 2010 income: $48,800
Sweden is one of eight European nations to make the list of countries with the highest income tax rates in the world. It also tops neighboring Scandinavian countries, which all have the tax brackets of over 48 percent.
Sweden’s marginal top tax rate kicks in at $81,000. Employees pay a social security tax of 7 percent, capped at a maximum contribution of $4,300.
Remember too while the MSM spins the FICA raise as a 2% raise, which is technically true but misleading, it amount to around a 50% increase in the FICA taxes the working class will be paying from 4.2% to 6.2%.
The Chinese invented paper money and their history is very instructive of what we are facing:
http://www.silk-road.com/artl/papermoney.shtml
“Excessive printing year after year soon flooded the market with depreciated paper money until the face value of each certificate bore no relation whatsoever to its counterpart in silver. In 1272 a series of new issues was put in circulation and the old issues were converted into the new ones at the ratio of five to one. The new issues were printed with copper plates instead of wood blocks, as had been the case before. In 1309 another conversion became necessary. In fifty years from 1260 to 1309 Yuan’s paper money was depreciated by 1000 percent. To make the situation worse, the government often refused to exchange for new issues old certificates that had been worn out through a long period of circulation.”
Not good reminds me of stock options pre IPO
Albuquerquedan, again your logic is flawed and/or you are all over the map.
You said:
“Obama has all but assured that the welfare state is not coming to America by signing the deal. A welfare state needs heavy taxes on the middle class.”
Then you say:
“while the MSM spins the FICA raise as a 2% raise, which is technically true but misleading, it amount to around a 50% increase in the FICA taxes the working class”
You basically said, “America can’t take care of our people because it requires increased taxes on the middle class and btw, we just raised taxes on the middle-class.”
You don’t make much sense.
The FICA taxes alone are no where near enough to create a welfare state. The democrats have backed themselves in a corner by telling the middle class that they can have a welfare state and not have to pay higher taxes. The voters wanted to believe it was possible so they voted to re-elect him.
However, right now Obama is paying for government spending by printing money which has always crushed the middle class, soon he will not be able to give people 100 cents of government for 60 cents and his popularity will follow the president of Argentina down.
The FICA taxes alone are no where near enough to create a welfare state.
Because we don’t HAVE a welfare state. You try to compare USA with Sweden?? Sweden is superior to the USA in safety nets AND in Capitalism itself. Yes, Sweden has a more healthy form of Capitalism than does the USA. Sweden’s form of Capitalism is not eating itself alive as is USA’s.
And no matter the degree, what you basically said is “America can’t take care of our people because it requires increased taxes on the middle class and btw, we just raised taxes on the middle-class.”
Your logic is so biased and flawed on so many issues, I’m surprised you keep trying so hard.
Your logic is the same flawed logic that is used in Brazil and is the reason that it is slowed to a crawl in growth despite the country having far lower wages than United States.
However, right now Obama is paying for government spending by printing money which has always crushed the middle class, soon he will not be able to give people 100 cents of government for 60 cents and his popularity will follow the president of Argentina down. And you can see in a story on Yahoo that the process has already began but comparing his popularity now with his popularity in 2008 and comparing his popularity to Clinton and Reagan as they began their second terms.
Sixty-seven percent of respondents in November 2008 said they felt optimistic about the president’s election and the same percentage said it made them feel proud. Last month those numbers fell to 52 percent for optimistic and 48 percent for proud. Forty-three percent of Americans surveyed also said they feel pessimistic about the president’s re-election and 36 percent said it made them feel afraid—both increases from 2008.
The president’s approval rating, however, hovered at the 50 percent threshold in the USA Today/Gallup survey. This is 1 percentage point above George W. Bush as he headed into his second term, but below the 58 percent rating held by Bill Clinton and 59 percent held by Ronald Reagan.
The poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points
Your logic is the same flawed logic that is used in Brazil
You are wrong. My logic has nothing to do with Brazilian logic. Nothing. One of my degrees is in Cultural Anthropology. And one is in a Natural Science.
Anyone who knows anything about cultures knows that American logic differs from Latin and Brazilian logic. Part is the history, part is the language.
Anyone who knows anything about math/science knows what I’m talking about too.
Again your logic and/or cultural knowledge is flawed Albuquerquedan. I doubt you have many passport stamps.
…comparing his popularity now with his popularity in 2008 and comparing his popularity to Clinton and Reagan ……The poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points
?????????…..Dude…….Albuquerquedan………Are you really going to try to interpret some more polls? You’re going to try to tell us what they “mean” and compare the “meanings” to times much different?
And after your poll interpreting, slow-motion debacle before the election? I can’t believe it. Really.
(Rasmussen has Romney winning Utah)
U.S. percentage of GDP spent on military is 4.7%
Sweden is 1.3%
U.S. percentage of GDP spent on military is 4.7%
Sweden is 1.3% ??
And ours should be 1.3 % also if we made everyone pay for us protecting their a$$….
When your only tool is a drone aircraft, everyone looks like a terrorist.
Rio, I just gave the numbers apparently you are the one that is upset about their meaning.
“And ours should be 1.3 % also if we made everyone pay for us protecting their a$$….”
I suspect many of those we think we are protecting would be happier if we decided not to do so.
Aye, chihuahua. The (righty) boards are all lit up the past two days about the FICA “raise.” Wasn’t this meant as TEMPORARY stimulus?
How has this become red meat for the right?
FICA “raise.” ….How has this become red meat for the right?
Because of bias, hatred and ignorance imo.
How has this become red meat for the right?
They love a silly talking point, don’t they?
“They love a silly talking point, don’t they?”
It’s all they can handle and even then, not very well.
The (righty) boards are all lit up the past two days about the FICA “raise.”
Yes, and you see the nitwits bringing it here, calling everyone who points out the truth about it a liar.
‘Which ones? I say hardly any, (if any) and the facts and the historical proofs are on my side’
As usual, arguing with yourself and declaring yourself the winner.
Yea it’s very Wastrely.
But carry on with your charade….. it’s mildly amusing.
As usual, arguing with yourself and declaring yourself the winner.
Hear, hear!
As usual, arguing with yourself and declaring yourself the winner.
…..very Wastrely.
…..your charade
…Hear, hear!
It was a challenge. It was like, “let’s see what you all have”. I made about 20 points and I suspect what you all have. I suspect not much.
No one else has refuted my points to any degree. They have not. Only lip below has tried and I will address his points. I see a lot of frustration and anger that my points can’t be well refuted. I see name calling from those who don’t have the proof or the knowledge to make their own good points.
Calling names is not refuting points. Telling me I’m just arguing with myself is not refuting points.
Telling me I’m just arguing with myself
is telling you your reasoning is fundamentally flawed and that refutation is unwarranted.
Riolity® always gets you in the end, though.
that refutation is unwarranted.
Of course it’s warranted. The proof that it’s warranted lies in your flailing on the issue.
If someone, point by point, attempted to demolished my political party’s history of commitment to promoting the general welfare, it would warrant my refuting.
Now if they were absolutely correct in their points and their history, there would not be much I could do to refute it. That’s what just happened to you. So now you are reduced to babbling “refutation is unwarranted”.
telling you your reasoning is fundamentally flawed
Prove it. lip tried, you didn’t.
Dear Rio,
Medicare? Going broke and being defunded per Obamacare
Universal Health-care? Going to make us all submit to a bureacrat’s ideas on what health care we need. As the US goes broke, services will be reduced. Just wait and watch.
A national energy plan? Romneys plan to become energy independent would have worked. Now we’ll get to subsidize any green energy company that promises to kick back political contributions for the Dems. The US Govmint chooses the loosers more often than not, especially in the last 4 years.
Min Wage? This prevents more lower wage people from being hired as they’re not productive enough to earn what the minimum wage pays. In the conservative thought process, we get them working, reward the ones that are productive and in the process teach them how hard work gets rewarded. This is a wash at best as none of the people are going to earn a comfortable living wage at this level, but it does keep really low level people from getting jobs.
Civil Rights? Sir, the Democrats were against this bill in the 1960’s. Review and revise your feelings please.
Evolving SocSec? Another government ponzi scheme that is going to be financed by our children and our grandchildren. Nice plan, why not encourage people to save for themselves? When was the last time the Dems even offered a plan to keep this program solvent.
Rio, your feelings are so fraught with misinformation that you’re hopeless. Democrats are loving and kind, Republicans are mean and nasty. Wake up dude.
Civil Rights? Sir, the Democrats were against this bill in the 1960’s. Review and revise your feelings please.
Truman desegregated the military.
The Dixiecrats (who later defected to the GOP) were against it. Other Dems were not. Here is the breakdown for the 1964 Civil rights act vote , from wikipedia.
“By party and region
Note: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)”
Opposition to civil rights was a “Southern” thing. Notice that not a single southern republican voted for it.
Oh SNAP!
“bureaucrat’s ideas on what health care we need”.
Right. Unlike our current system, (if you are insured) where an insurance company bureaucrat decides.
“National Energy Plan”. Doing more of the same thing is not a plan. Sometimes, doing research is figuring out what DOESN’T work.
Minimum wage- Must be nice to pronounce from on high what people are “worth”. Keep it up. It will just move the torch and pitchfork days closer. You guys have never explained what happens when the “costs” of work, exceed they pay. What do you think people are going to do, especially if you are killing Social Security, welfare, unemployment benefits at the same time.
Civil Rights- The Democrats that fought against this are all Republicans now.
Social Security- The reason we have it is because no one trusts Wall Street to with their savings/investments. This of course assumes that anyone has any money to save or invest.
I used to be a Republican. Then I got a clue.
I used to be a Republican. Then I got a clue.
I bet you still don’t. I don’t know why anybody safely assumes that just because you adopted new positions, you must be right now.
You were wrong then, you are wrong now!
You were wrong then, you are wrong now!
Brilliant counter-argument.
You were wrong then, you are wrong now!
We can’t all be perfect!
I used to be a Republican ??
As was I until the idiots elected George….
What was Romney’s plan anyhow?
He released nothing but vague esoteric rumblings.
“What was Romney’s plan anyhow?”
1. Obama sux.
2. I’m not Obama.
Me too. Took one look at the Rove/Coulter/Cheney empire and decided I had no idea who these creeps were but they didn’t represent me.
The so called “Moral Majority” scared me completely away from the Republican Party shortly after I turned 18 and was pondering what party to register as, back in 1977. Dimwit Cahtah was equally scary on the other side, since I was certainly no socialist.
Medicare? Going broke and being defunded per Obamacare
I disagree, it can be fixed. Even if you were right, this does not negate the fact that Medicare has promoted the general welfare of seniors for almost 50 years. The context of my post was comparing which party has done more to promote the General Welfare the past 50 years. All you did was bash Dem stuff which I will refute. You listed nothing good the Repubs have done on promoting general welfare.
Universal Health-care? Going to make us all submit to a bureacrat’s ideas on what health care we need. As the US goes broke……
Submitting to Blue Cross’s whims on health-care and having 50 million uninsured promotes the general welfare? Really? And part of the reason that USA is going broke is because we don’t have single-payer health care. The only party even talking about single-payer the past 50 years was the Dems.. Why was the right so afraid of a public option? Because it would have cold-cocked the higher costs of private insurance. These were all Dem ideas, not Repubs.
Min Wage? This prevents more lower wage people from being hired as they’re not productive enough to earn what the minimum wage pays. In the conservative thought process, we get them working, reward the ones that are productive
Min Wage has lagged inflation for 40 years. So if you are correct why is everyone not working? Your conservative thought process does not reward ANYONE but the rich. American productivity has skyrocketed the past 40 years. Where is this “reward” you are talking about?
Civil Rights? Sir, the Democrats were against this bill in the 1960’s. Review and revise your feelings please.
Civil Rights Bills were pushed hard by a Democratic president. Compare Eisenhower to Johnson or Kennedy. It’s no match. And most of the Southern Democratic regions that voted against the Civil Rights Bills became Republican in a large part because of racial issues. The Dems evolved on race, the Repubs devolved.
Evolving SocSec? Another government ponzi scheme that is going to be financed by our children and our grandchildren.
Yea, a ponzi scheme that has lasted almost 80 years and is still solvent with some tweaks. 80 years is a LONG time promoting the general welfare of Americans. This is fact.
why not encourage people to save for themselves?
Where you been? We’ve been encouraging IRA’s and 401k’s for over a generation. It’s hard to save when all the productivity gains have only gone to the rich the past 40 years. Do the math. You are wrong.
Rio, your feelings are so fraught with misinformation that you’re hopeless.
No. I’ve just proved again that my knowledge of American reality and history is more accurate than yours and of those on the right. That’s why many of you are continually reduced to calling names. (You didn’t)
Democrats are loving and kind, Republicans are mean and nasty.
If talking about promoting the general welfare the last 50 years, that statement is more right than wrong. The context of my post was about comparing which party has done more to promote the General Welfare the past 50 years.
All you did was bash Dem stuff which I refuted. But you’ve not listed one thing the Repubs have done to promote the general welfare.
Rio, as the recent fiscal cliff deal shows, the Republicans are worthless and have a problem sticking by their conservative beliefs.
The Dems have the predominant political power since Roosevelt and the Reps have never really gotten anything done, except maybe during the Gringrich years when we came close to balancing the budget.
So I would have to agree with you that the Republicans have hardly ever gotten anything good done. Maybe it’s time to start all over because IMO they don’t stand for much.
“… the Republicans are worthless and have a problem sticking by their conservative beliefs.”
Thanks for pointing that out.
Ted Kennedy killed Nixon’s national healthcare plan.
cibt, Your side sucks even more so I wouldn’t gloat about it.
I would prefer not to vote and think it’s a waste of time, but I register and vote anyway for other reasons for now. So it’s libertarian party or no one.
“Your side sucks even more so I wouldn’t gloat about it.”
Stop trying to cram me into your black/white world view. I don’t fit.
Medicare? Going broke ??
5% of the people on Medicare consume 50% of the funding…Just let those numbers sink in for a bit…
Our medical industry is completely out of control…The wife had a outpatient small surgery a while back…We are insured but we received a copy of the bill the insurance paid…$49,000. +
Until we solve the problem of the cost of medical care, this is a train wreck…Alternatively, I guess, we can just decide that when you are old, you are going to just live with and die with what ever desease or medical problem that you may have…Personally, I think there is a reasonable chance that this in fact will happen through allocated and tested care…70 years old, you may not get the treatment for the Leukemia that you have…You will just live and ultimately die with it..Can’t justify the $500,000. expense so you can live maybe another 10 years and that assumes it is a successful treatment…
Now, if you are a member of the 1% group…Well, you get my drift…I don’t think Romney’s or the Kennedy’s children or any future generation of them will “ever” be concerned about getting the best heath care available…
Removing the insurance industries exemption to the Shermen Anti-Trust Act would go a long ways to fixing the system.
You may think $49k changed hands, but there may have been a back room deal that negated that bill.
It is likely that the $49K was the amount billed, not the amount the insurance company actually paid. Take another look at the EOBs from the insurance company. They only pay the contract amount (less your co-pay).
And the lower amount that changed hands is not a “back room deal.” It is the amount that the provider and the insurer agreed to in their contract. Negotiated and everything. I believe this does not apply in Maryland where the state sets the rate schedule.
Insurance companies can have deals with hospitals to refer patients.
They can also collude with other insurance companies to set that $49k price.
They don’t have “deals” to refer patients. They have hospitals that are in network meaning they have a contract with that hospital. It all public information. You can find out the in network hospitals for an insurance company on their website.
If you don’t like the system, that is fine. But you can’t claim that it is behind the scenes, secret whatever. It is all as public as public can be.
And private companies get to do that - negotiate contracts with each other.
The $49K (if that is the rack rate) is just the hospital’s opening bid on what they are trying to get insurance company to pay. The insurance company never pays it. They negotiate for a better deal. You can negotiate too, though you have a LOT less bargaining power than BC/BS.
I’m under the impression that hospitals are allowed to adjust their prices according to their overall expenses, which includes services to non-paying customers. They really should have prices set to what they’re really worth, and send a bill to Washington-DC monthly for their non-paying customers. The current system obfuscates the issues to the benefit of the political incumbents.
Removing the insurance industries exemption to the Shermen Anti-Trust Act would go a long ways to fixing the system.
We have a winner.
” if you are a member of the 1% group…Well, you get my drift…I don’t think Romney’s or the Kennedy’s children or any future generation of them will “ever” be concerned about getting the best heath care available.”
Or if you are a single high earner professional who lives very cheap and drives very cheap and builds up net worth and has no debt, much of it will go to pay for perhaps 5 extra years of life after a catastrophic illness which might cost $500,000.
The primary reason that I don’t even bother to respond to those ridiculous posts any more is that any reasoned debate is simply ignored. It’s pointless.
Making a list of ALL the things that is WRONG with the American political landscape and proclaiming it the “progress” of the left is discouraging in the least.
Making a claim that the “support the general welfare” is about giving people benefits (his basic definition), makes the first 150 years of American government mostly misunderstood by the Founders.
He has discovered New meaning with his leftist friends.
His hopeless reliance on Statism to solve all problems is endless, and most discouraging are the claims that what PEOPLE WANT (make list. oh, yea, I want FREE everything, too) makes it a legitimate public policy, and the Future. It is just too sad to contemplate.
Unfortunately, he finds lots of propaganda stories, that are taking at face value by his leftist buddies, and himself as PROOF that the world is as he says it is. Au Contraire. The world is a very different place.
The primary reason that I don’t even bother to respond to those ridiculous posts any more is that any reasoned debate is simply ignored.
The primary reason that I don’t even bother to respond to your ridiculous posts is because you write too long and you don’t have paragraph breaks.
The timing of posts like these are very curious.
After the fiscal cliff has been decided….for two months. When it is pretty clear to the legacy media, big business and the leg-spreaders in D.C. that the American public is beyond dissatisfied with the overall form and function of government. This is the time you choose to write a post and other posts like it, defending the Liberal and Progressive ways?
It’s not only you and people who think like you who should be concerned. The flip-side of that nasty, dirty coin; the conservatives and neo-cons should be equally worried. Neither has clean hands in this ordeal, further they are both complicit in this decades long careening path they have taken America on. It should be clear to YOU that the majority of America don’t feel too strongly for all Progressive or all Conservative policies and this all-or-nothing approach and that both sides are taking is leading us to ruin.
I have shared this sentiment before but this behavior, the rape and pillage of America by both sides, will only be tolerated by the silent majority for so long before the day of reckoning arrives.
will only be tolerated by the silent majority for so long before the day of reckoning arrives.
I now think there will be a collapse before there is a day of reckoning. But I have been wrong so many times before, I still have hope.
I now think there will be a collapse before there is a day of reckoning. But I have been wrong so many times before, I still have hope.
Call me cynical, but even if a collapse or reckoning occurs, I think people will still refuse to take anything less than a 20% markup on their houses.
Why should they if they can live there for free?
Good point.
But my point was that if they do want to leave after a collapse for whatever reason (wagon train back to the Midwest where their parents live for instance), they’ll STILL think they deserve to make money off of it, whether that money exists or not.
I guess my point is that only a return to Mark To Market will results in them getting kicked out (if they’re not paying). Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.
I’m not talking about them getting kicked out. I’m talking about them wanting to leave and sell their house after a collapse, and thinking that it’s of any worth at all…
…I’m being cheeky of course, but the concept has been so pervasive (at least here) that I wouldn’t be surprised if it remained the norm even in event of collapse.
The timing of posts like these are very curious.
Yea. It’s raining and I have the day off. Thought I’d check in with my fellow countrymen. But I have to go have some fun soon.
It should be clear to YOU that the majority of America don’t feel too strongly for all Progressive or all Conservative policies and this all-or-nothing approach and that both sides are taking is leading us to ruin.
But it’s not equal. It’s not even close. How could it be equal? That’s not even practically mathematically possible. So how could it be possible in American politics?
The all-or-nothing approach is used much more by the radical Republicans than the Dems. The right has MUCH more destructive hatred spewing from their mouthpieces than the Dems and Americans lean more progressive than our MSM or our government. (On taxes, safety nets, pot, compromising, social issues etc. etc.)
It’s not equal and I’ve made my argument on “Promoting the General Welfare” that is is not equal. That most on the right don’t want to touch that issue on the specific points, but rather just call me names, proves the strength of their “position” is not equal to validity of my backed-up assertion.
The Austrian economics types DO have clean hands in this deal. Don’t include Ron Paul in your group with dirty hands.
Can you say biased much???
Take abortion for instance.. Agree with or disagree with, a bunch of cells are being squashed.
If you take the view that those cells have some form of human right, then the “right” is promoting the welfare of those things.
Now lets look at the variety of “social programs” you listed.
Implementing that “help” costs up to 50% of some people’s income in taxes. In addition, even all those taxes are not currently covering the costs of our current governmental operations. Please tell me this… If this country goes bankrupt or experiences hyperinflation weimar replublic or zimbabwe style.. how is that promoting the general welfare???
“Corrosive rhetoric designed to instigate Americans to hate their government?”
HA! I bet the average person’s paycheck deductions get them hotter under the collar than some windbag on TV. Further… the freedom of speech is the greatest freedom in this country. It is there so that regular people can listen to each others ideas, no matter how zany. Do you propose that we gag them when they speak? Relegate them to “free speech zones”? Ban them from speaking above a whisper? Because they disagree with your ideology ??? Hmmmm.
These aren’t thoughts that make me really want to lend much weight to the rest of your opinions…
These aren’t thoughts that make me really want to lend much weight to the rest of your opinions…
Maybe because you don’t understand the concept of “Promote the General Welfare”.
Math on a national scale is national. Math on a Constitutional scale is nationalistic.
This is your problem, and this is the ideal that our USA has drifted from - and for selfish reasons. Where did that get us? Where?
You think the nationalistic math is all for you and yours. What a joke. It’s not. It’s called a country.
Now we have a Dem Bot.
Bloomberg - Housing Lobby’s Win Costing U.S. $600 Billion:
“Congressional efforts to reduce the U.S. deficit revived tax breaks for mortgage insurance and extended interest deductions for homeowners that will cost the government $600 billion over five years.
“This is a meaningful win for the housing lobby generally and more specifically the mortgage insurance industry,” said Isaac Boltansky, an analyst for Compass Point Research & Trading LLC in Washington. “The mortgage finance establishment fared relatively well.”
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-03/housing-lobby-s-win-costing-u-s-600-billion-mortgages.html
‘The mortgage finance establishment fared relatively well’
Obama = tool of the 1%.
No that can’t be. Just ask Rio. He will copy and paste some lines how Obama’s better than Bush and not a tool of the 1%.
The dogma from the blog political pimps is stunning. “Oh….. it’s ‘our’ guy in office, therefore _________ is acceptable”.
Fawkin hypocrites.
No that can’t be. Just ask Rio. He will copy and paste some lines how Obama’s better than Bush and not a tool of the 1%.
Actually, he just admitted that:
11. Bailing out Banks and being Wall Street slaves? Repubs and Dems share this blame.”
Obama = tool of the 1%…..No that can’t be. Just ask Rio.
Obama IS a tool of the 1%. But the Republicans are much bigger tool of the 1%. A guitar is bigger than a harmonica. Really.
Is this hard or something bungabunga??
Obama = tool of the 1%.
I am a liberal and a registered DEM and I agree with this statement 100%.
The article’s author is lying. He’s assuming that Romney or the fiscal cliff or whoever would have succeeded in killing the entire MID, on everybody, for all amounts, with no grandfathering for houses already bought. I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t happen, with or without the NAR.
I didn’t know that PMI was deductable…
Bloomberg - Obama Signs Bill Enacting Budget Deal to Avert Most Tax Hikes:
“President Barack Obama signed the legislation that enacts a last-minute budget deal and averts income tax increases for most U.S. workers, marking an end to a yearlong impasse.
The legislation was sent to the White House today and a copy was transmitted to Obama in Hawaii, where he’s vacationing with his family (at a cost of $7 million to taxpayers). The president’s signature was put on the legislation by an autopen signing machine in Washington (too busy community organizing on a tropical beach to stay in DC and sign the bill).
Obama has used a mechanical autopen to sign legislation into law at least twice before (it’s only a matter of time until the autopen goes rogue and drafts and signs legislation taking our guns away and implementing Sharia law).
While at a meeting of Asian leaders in Indonesia (where he was born) in 2011 the president authorized the use of the autopen to put his signature on legislation to fund the government. It was also used the same year to sign an extension of the Patriot Act while Obama was at a summit in France (cheese eating surrender monkeys with 75% tax rates) of leaders of the world’s industrial nations.”
Hope and Change
Forward
Obama tax cuts.
Not sure how the democrats won.
Washington Post piece about Obama’s “progressive” radical homosexual agenda to take over Congress and eventually all of USA:
“Kyrsten Sinema is also — and it irks her to no end that this is such an object of fascination — an openly bisexual woman. And not just any openly bisexual woman, but the first openly bisexual person to be elected to Congress, an undoubtedly historic figure whose very presence on Capitol Hill could serve as an inspiration when she is sworn in Thursday and joins six openly gay and lesbian members in the most demographically diverse Congress in U.S. history.
“They also called me a communist, which is not true. I’m a Democrat,” Sinema says. “There’s a difference.” (no there’s not)
http://m.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/kyrsten-sinema-a-success-story-like-nobody-elses/2013/01/02/d31fadaa-5382-11e2-a613-ec8d394535c6_story.html
We’re on the slippery slope to “man on dog” action that Rick Santorum warned us about. It’s time to Take America Back!
Republicans have had a very active homosexual agenda, they just kept it under the covers.
Or inside the restroom stall.
Senator pleaded guilty, reportedly after bathroom stall incident
(CNN) — A Republican senator pleaded guilty earlier this month to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge stemming from his arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, according to state criminal records.
Roll Call newspaper reported Monday that Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho was apprehended June 11 by a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of lewd behavior in an airport men’s room.
…
+1 An airport is a great place campaign.
Yup. The communist, marxist, “free-love” Democrats can be out and not care.
The “family values” Republicans are closeted, married men who engage in inappropriate behavior with teenage male pages, seek anonymous sex partners in airport bathrooms, and do illegal meth with paid male escorts
I love seeing articles like this, because my rebuttal is always this:
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/
Where’s the guy who said rents dropping across the nation??
Houston, TX had a “16.8 percent year-over-year rise since 2011″
———–
Houston apartment rents see the highest spike in America: Huge increases a new Bayou norm
Forget the fiscal cliff negotiations. Let’s talk about something that is hitting Houstonians hard just after the holidays — our leasing costs.
If your rent got upped last year, you’re not alone: According to Fortune, the Bayou City topped the list for the highest rental spikes in 2012, with a 16.8 percent year-over-year rise since 2011.
With a vacancy rate of just three percent, twentysomethings and empty nesters looking for a decent space are willing to pay a pretty penny.
The median monthly rent in Houston runs $1,270.50 — although that’s less than, say, Oakland (which ranked No. 2 on the list with a $2,017.50 median monthly rent and an 11.6 percent increase over 2011) or Miami (which took No. 3 at $1,900 per month and a 10.8 percent increase), it’s certainly not insignificant.
Each week seems to bring news of a new young professional-geared mid-rise or a luxury high-rise breaking ground, and a recent prediction by the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors points to rising apartment costs driving more Houston residents to home ownership.
Are you buying in 2013?
The middle class has seen an erosion of their standard of living for forty years but with the continued printing of money by this administration they will see a collapse, that does more damage than the forty years combined.
While the Fed’s runaway money conjuring is bad, until it creates inflation, it won’t cause a collapse (though other factors might very well do so).
The erosion will continue. And just like how interest compounds over the years, so does erosion. You don’t need a collapse to decimate the middle class. 40 years of erosion will do the trick just fine. And since it happens gradually, people adapt and accept their lower standard of living (and if the propaganda is good, they believe that it’s their fault), whereas a collapse brings out the torches and pitchforks.
whereas a collapse brings out the torches and pitchforks.
Sometimes a societal collapse is just a collapse. The last days of the Roman Empire saw serfs and landowners going over to the barbarians, and the legions didn’t so much disband as reorganize once their expected bags of solidii from Rome stop showing up. Also see what happened in the USSR when it basically went bankrupt.
Should the US grid go down and stay there, the natural gas stop flowing through pipelines, and diesel powered semis stop delivering to groceries and to Wally World, torches may be used for illumination and pitchforks to catch rats. I don’t know what the southern states will do for air conditioning in the summers.
I don’t know what the southern states will do for air conditioning in the summers.
Too bad they don’t believe in solar power.
Too bad they don’t believe in solar power
Renewable energy is for SISSIES!
Rugged individualist “Real Americans” burn coal and gas and oil.
This is a question I’ve been wondering about for a few years:
If there is an economic collapse, would you rather be a renter, a home-debtor, or have a paid-off house?
None of the above. While the entire SF peninsula burns we will take to the hills (where our multiple caches of 1000s of rounds of 7.62×39 are buried) and re-enact critically acclaimed film Red Dawn.
If there is an economic collapse, would you rather be a renter, a home-debtor, or have a paid-off house?
I would rather be some place else entirely.
Google “ferfal Argentina”, Dmitri Orloff, and James Kunstler for thoughts on this.
Find a place to live with some basic resources, people you like & who like you, with whom you can cooperate. It’s no country for old men. Unfortunately I am one.
I guess you’re referring to only an economic collapse where you’re trying not to become a “poor,” right? Not the mad-max zombie invasion bye-bye-supply-chain like The Road.
In the econ collapse scenario, definitely a paid-off house in an oil-city type area, like a Great Lakes state not far from water and with glacially-good soil.
“If there is an economic collapse, would you rather be a renter, a home-debtor, or have a paid-off house?”
+1 I’ll take door #3.
The middle class has seen an erosion of their standard of living for forty years but with the continued printing of money by this administration they will see a collapse,
If the printed money had been distributed much more equally amongst the classes, the economy would be in a much better position as far as demand.
If there is a “collapse” the beneficiaries of the printed money will be in a much better position if only for the printed money shoveled their way and not ours.
Where’s the guy who said rents dropping across the nation??
He’s up there calling names as usual. That’s all he’s got.
I don’t know about rent prices increasing that high. But I am nearing the end of a 12 month lease in L.A. The third time I have temporarily lodged in this same complex since 2003. The management is far less friendly and far less fair to its returning residents or any resident than ever. I don’t know if I will renew my lease. If I don’t, it’s Extended Stay, and from my experience, Extended Stay sucks.
Washington Post - Federal agencies bracing for cuts after ‘fiscal cliff’ deal:
“The fiscal pact Congress reached hours into the new year will delay $109 billion in automatic across-the-board spending cuts for two months.
The eleventh-hour agreement to avoid a “fiscal cliff” of higher taxes put off the major cuts known as a sequester until March 1, when another showdown is expected over the federal debt limit and how much to reduce the size of government.
Congress and the White House agreed to find $24 billion to pay for the delay, divided between spending cuts and a tax change that allows Americans holding traditional retirement plans to convert more of them to Roth IRAs, a process that requires tax payments up front.
The remaining $12 billion in cuts to domestic and defense agencies will not take effect until at least March 27, when the stopgap budget funding the government expires.
Defense consultant Jim McAleese said the deal to raise taxes on families with incomes above $450,000 and individuals earning more than $400,000 will bring in so much less revenue than the $250,000 threshold President Obama proposed that steep defense cuts are inevitable.
Instead of the $10 billion in cuts a year over 10 years that the Defense Department could have expected to see under Obama’s most recent deficit reduction plan, McAleese said the reductions could be more in the range of $15 billion to $20 billion a year over 10 years.”
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-agencies-bracing-for-cuts-after-fiscal-cliff-deal/2013/01/02/afde65b0-5522-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html
Washington Post ignores that any increased cuts in defense will have to be approved by the House which will insist on more cuts to social programs. Which is all good since they both need to be cut to restore fiscal sanity. But Obama does not want any cuts on his watch so I bet he agrees to make even deeper cuts to entitlements since actions such as raising the age of retirement will not occur until long after he is out of office. The Republicans should demand five dollars in out year cuts for every dollar of cuts not occuring this year and be willing to go over the cliff if he refuses.
“Defense consultant”
There are many, many, many of these. A sign of how sick Washington is.
But, since they work on behalf of “private industry” and donate lavishly to Super PACs, I bet they’ll emege mostly unscathed from spending cuts. “Government spending” will be cut; private bootstrappers will take their place, charge more, and deliver a dubious value to the taxpayer (at best).
Our shop wants us to relocate to DC to work in a “Defense consultant” type role.
We said no way. Not everybody wants to “be somebody” when they grow up.
Work-life balance is more important
This “defense consultant” donated to Ron Paul and Gary Johnson for there Presidential campaigns. I did not donate to any PAC. Did donate to a candidate for Congress in my district, a young military veteran, but he lost the primary and I ended up voting for the Libertarian candidate - always less than $200 per year since I do not want my name, address and company published. None of the Democrats and none of the other Republicans want to cut defense as much as Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. There!
My best friend is retiring from the civil service. He was expecting to do it next year. He is only 55. His wife left civil service in 2003 out on medical deals - very lucrative. The take home pay was never cushy, I assure you. My friend was told by his boss that he has a chance to go out early. Do you want to be put on the list? Sure? So he was chosen and will be leaving this month.
Those two have no kids. Their lives are all about travel, camping, surfing, their dogs, watching pro tennis. They are a very bubbly and happy couple.
Work philosophy: Be at work at 7am. Leave at 4pm. No overtime. If work is piling up so much that there is overtime, the problem is poor scheduling in the first place. I remember swinging by their place one Friday night and he was closing his castle gate at 4:30 pm. Almost literally. I knew that their weekend started and they wanted no one but each other and their weekend world.
Congratulations to them! The DOD budget cuts are due to cut 108,000 civilian employees (of the civil service) this year. Hopefully their Thrift Savings Plans and pensions and whatever will see them through. I don’t remember how that works, but I’m afraid for them since they are the types who tend to be faithful that their benefits will see them to the end. They have a paid off house I think.
The most interesting part of this (and something that I haven’t heard discussed anywhere) is that by March 1st, the federal fiscal year is already half over. If you have to make 10% cuts in an agency’s 2012-2013 budget and you are starting in April, then you are actually talking about 20% cuts over half of one year (assuming that their spending level is even across the year which might not be true).
If you are going to need your passport renewed this year, you should consider doing it soon. And I’d recommend filing taxes as quickly as you reasonably can. No way to know what might happen to processing times, especially if you file a paper form.
especially if you file a paper form.
I am currently unable to get some critical paper forms I need. IRS says I’ll get them in a couple of weeks.
If you could get them mailed to you in a couple of weeks, then you should check to see if you can get them on the website earlier than that. Of course, this doesn’t help with a passport.
check to see if you can get them on the website earlier than that.
I have already looked, some forms like 5500EZ, 1099 & 1096 can only be filed on official government-sanctioned paper forms. (I manage my own tax-deferred savings plan). It’s crazy. Local libraries used to have stacks of forms available by this time of the year - not so this year, or at least not yet.
I can use Turbo Tax’s free form & filing options & have done so for several years now. My forms are quite simple. Turbo Tax says they cannot complete my nearly done 1040 since they themselves do not yet know what the regulations are that apply for the past year.
I am hoping I’ll get what I need within 2 weeks.
“It’s crazy. Local libraries used to have stacks of forms available by this time of the year - not so this year, or at least not yet.”
I’m guessing this has very little to do with crazy and quite a lot to do with budget cuts. That being said, I was able to get paper forms at the library last year. They don’t mail them out anymore.
And it is entirely unreasonable to expect the forms would be available already. Some of the stuff that was settled all of two days ago must have had some impact on the form or instructions. I don’t remember what exactly, but it was mentioned. Maybe it was the AMT fix?
I was able to get paper forms at the library last year.
So was I.
“I was able to get paper forms at the library last year.”
Last time I checked, the I.R.S. had all their forms readily available on their web site as .pdf files.
the I.R.S. had all their forms readily available
Not so, some valid forms can only be filed in a pre-printed government-sanctioned paper form. One of them that applies to me is 5500EZ. The forms of the forms are available only, but you cannot simply print those out on your home printer, fill them out & send them in.
This policy makes no sense.
AMT changes will invalidate some of the forms.
I see no possible connection between the AMT (or any recent change in tax law) and the 5500EZ, just inertia on the part of whoever sets government policy.
“One of them that applies to me is 5500EZ. The forms of the forms are available only, but you cannot simply print those out on your home printer, fill them out & send them in.”
The instructions for 5500EZ available online at wwww.irs.gov say that you can in fact fill them out, print them and send them in.
EXCERPT from instructions:
-Use the online, fillable 2011 Form 5500-EZ on the IRS Website. Complete and download the form to your
computer to print and sign before mailing. ·
-Or, use the official printed paper Form 5500-EZ
Complete the form by hand using only black or blue ink. Be sure to enter your information in the specific line fields provided, sign, and date the form before mailing.
-Or, use approved software, if available.
Sorry, when I read my own post, I saw the 2011 moniker. Quick draw, missed shot!
You’re right. Now if they will just publish the 2012 version of 5500EZ.
This is from the 2012 instructions for 1099-R, one of my other problems:
As I said above Obama will minimize cuts this year by agreeing to cut even deeper in the years he is not in office.
And I’d recommend filing taxes as quickly as you reasonably can
Wouldn’t the IRS just send you a supplementary tax form?
Let me clarify. I’m not recommending you use last year’s forms or anything like that. But paper forms must involve people at some level to get them processed. If you use paper, then you should get the forms in before an agency has figure out how to save 10% of last year’s budget over just 6 months. Employee furloughs are likely.
Same thing with a passport. You want to get your stuff in and complete before the state department is sending people home for a month without pay - though I think fed employees are eligible for unemployment during a fulough in a lot of states.
IRS hires a lot of temp workers during busy season.
“…steep defense cuts are inevitable.
Instead of the $10 billion in cuts a year over 10 years that the Defense Department could have expected to see under Obama’s most recent deficit reduction plan, McAleese said the reductions could be more in the range of $15 billion to $20 billion a year over 10 years.”
Really?
Most important lesson learned from the ‘fiscal cliff’ debacle: Lashing top government leaders to the mast of sequestration did not produce the intended result. If anything, the ominous specter of the ‘fiscal cliff’ intensified the rancor of partisan threats and grandstanding that led up to the last second compromise.
Posted on Thu, Jan. 03, 2013 09:39 AM
Congress huffs, puffs and passes timid deal
The Kansas City Star
The following editorial appeared in the Kansas City Star on Thursday, Jan. 3:
It could have been worse. No deal on the fiscal cliff really would have been inexcusable.
But that doesn’t lessen the stink of too little, too late and too timid.
By now, it’s evident that President Barack Obama and Congress squandered an excellent opportunity to make some tough decisions needed to cut spending and better control future deficits.
Instead of that kind of grand deal, the politicians put forward a far less impressive pact that - nevertheless - deserved to be approved. In fact, it pretty much had to pass to prevent a possible stock market meltdown and a double-dip recession early this year.
…
As usual, the devil of the deal is in the details.
POLITICS
January 2, 2013, 7:41 p.m. ET
Deductions Limits Will Affect Many
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
The bill approved in Congress to avert the fiscal cliff would bring the first major tax increase on high earners in 20 years. Laura Saunders breaks down how new tax increases will impact across different tax brackets. Photo: AP.
WASHINGTON—One of the biggest tax increases in the fiscal-cliff bill is also one of the least understood: a set of limits on tax deductions and other breaks that will hit far more households than the bill’s rate increases for top earners.
The bill that cleared Congress Tuesday boosts the tax rate for single filers making more than $400,000 and married couples filing jointly making more than $450,000, or roughly the top 1% of filers.
But provisions that reduce the value of personal exemptions as well as most itemized deductions, including those for mortgage interest and state income-tax payments, will affect about twice as many people since they carry a lower income threshold—$250,000 for singles and $300,000 for married couples.
Those new limits drew complaints from some groups that benefit from deductions, particularly charities that depend on tax-deductible donations. They worry that new curbs on deductions, coupled with other taxes on higher-income Americans, will put a damper on giving.
“We are concerned,” said Diana Aviv, president of Independent Sector, a coalition of foundations, nonprofits and other charitable groups. “The big question for us now is, if we are [also] increasing rates on folks…does the combination create a greater disincentive for people to give?”
…
What, if anything, are y’all salarymen (and women) planning to do to offset the payroll tax hike on your disposable household income?
Jan. 3, 2013, 12:45 p.m. EST
Cracking the 2013 tax code
A guide to the changes wrought by the fiscal-cliff deal
By Bill Bischoff
Early in the morning of January 1, Congress finally got around to dealing with the tax part of the fiscal cliff drama by passing what is inaccurately named the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. Thanks to the demise of the so-called payroll tax holiday, all workers will pay higher taxes this year, but the new law cancels federal income tax increases that would have resulted in added misery for just about everyone. The bad news is that higher-income folks will face higher rates.
Here’s a detailed summary of the most-important changes for individual taxpayers.
Payroll Tax Holiday Is Dead
For 2010-2012, the Social Security tax withholding rate on your salary was temporarily reduced from the normal 6.2% to 4.2%. If you’re self-employed, the Social Security tax component of the self-employment tax was reduced from the normal 12.4% to 10.4%. Last year, this so-called payroll tax holiday could have saved one person up to $2,202 or a working couple up to $4,404. Somewhat surprisingly, the new law does not extend the holiday through 2013. (For this year, the Social Security tax can hit up to $113,700 of salary or self-employment income.)
…
Is it a tax hike or the end of a tax holiday?
Different political spin, same effect.
same effect.
Except it’s not a tax hike, it’s the end of a tax holiday. So it’s kind of misleading to call it a tax hike, when it’s not. Unless you’re trying to make a point that the evidence doesn’t really back up.
I guess putting the tax rates back up to Clinton levels at the top is the end of a tax holiday too?
I guess putting the tax rates back up to Clinton levels at the top is the end of a tax holiday too?
Sure, why not?
The Bush tax cuts were temporary designed to act as a stimulus until Obama signed a bill making most of them permanent.The “holiday” now goes forever.
Would this be a good time to sell the rally?
Why you should prepare for zero real growth in 2013
Commentary: With continued government intervention, and recessions in Asia and Europe, the growth forecast for the U.S. in 2013 is not exactly one to get excited about, writes Kirk Spano.
The Tell
The Markets News and Analysis Blog
Nouriel Roubini is not an optimist
January 3, 2013, 9:51 AM
Nouriel Roubini doesn’t think much of this week’s fiscal cliff deal.
The NYU prof and chairman of Roubini Global Economics wrote in the FT late Wednesday that another Washington crisis will arrive shortly, when the debt ceiling has to be raised and the spending cuts deferred by this week’s deal are slated to kick in. Here’s the link. (Subscription required.)
But even a resolution of those disputes won’t end Washington’s agony.
“Later in 2013, and not before time, a bigger debate on medium-term fiscal consolidation will begin. This will lead to another dispute between Republicans, who want to shrink the size of the federal government, and Democrats, who want to maintain it but are unsure how to pay for it.”
And the expiration of the payroll tax cut is likely only partly offset by tax hikes on the wealthy and putative cuts in spending, meaning there’s now likely a 1.2% drag on GDP this year. “So the US could quite easily come perilously close to stall speed this year – or worse, if the eurozone crisis worsens.”
And that’s all before Washington even attempts to address the longer-term crisis because “The reality is that America is yet to wake up to the full extent of its fiscal nightmare.”
– Tom Bemis
ft dot com
January 2, 2013 7:35 pm
US has been let down by its leadership
By Nouriel Roubini
A deal that extends unsustainable tax cuts for 98% of Americans is no victory, says Nouriel Roubini
The deal reached in Washington on New Year’s day prevented the US economy from falling off the so-called fiscal cliff. However, given the dysfunctional nature of the American political system, it won’t be long before there is another crisis.
Two months, in fact. If no action is taken by March 1, $110bn of spending cuts will commence. At about the same time, the US will hit its statutory debt limit, known colloquially as the debt ceiling.
That is only the beginning. Later in 2013, and not before time, a bigger debate on medium-term fiscal consolidation will begin. This will lead to another dispute between Republicans, who want to shrink the size of the federal government, and Democrats, who want to maintain it but are unsure how to pay for it.
So expect a big fight about entitlements, and a series of little fights over tax reform: should the US introduce a value added tax? A flat tax? Higher (or lower) income taxes? A carbon tax? Should we close corporate tax loopholes to raise more revenue? It’ll soon get messy.
President Barack Obama and his allies will argue that the deal concluded on Tuesday raises only $600bn of revenues over 10 years rather than their initial target of $1.4tn – and therefore there is further room for tax rises, at least for the wealthy. Republicans will argue that spending should now be radically cut, since this week’s deal did not address that side of the national balance sheet. (Even the 2011 debt ceiling deal reduced prospective spending by $1tn).
In the meantime, the likely fiscal adjustment in 2013 will be about 1.4 per cent of gross domestic product. (Spread between the expiry of the payroll tax cut, the increase in the tax rates of the rich, and some eventual cuts to spending.)
This translates into a 1.2 per cent of GDP drag on the economy during the year. If the economy was happily growing above trend – at say 3.5 per cent – that would not be such a big deal, as growth would still be above 2 per cent. In the past few quarters growth already averaged about 2 per cent. So the US could quite easily come perilously close to stall speed this year – or worse, if the eurozone crisis worsens.
…
FWIW, that 98% will be paying more payroll tax.
Yes, it’s both an horrific tax increase on the 98%, and an unaffordable tax break for them, too.
It’s complex.
LOL
Interesting market developments today:
1. Wall Street stocks are holding their gains.
2. Gold is tanking (again!).
Gold up for 12 straight years but drops around 1% for a day and it is crashing. Is that really the best you have?
Dan the Inflation Pimp. You’re a dismal failure.
The inflation says otherwise.
“Inflation”? Ok Debt Pimp.
To set the record straight, it was a 1.5% drop, but then I guess that is no big deal if you already made a gazillion dollars on your gold investments from a decade back.
Jan. 3, 2013, 10:27 p.m. EST
Gold, silver futures tumble after Fed minutes
By V. Phani Kumar, MarketWatch
HONG KONG (MarketWatch) — Gold prices were knocked back below $1,650 an ounce in Asia on Friday after minutes of the Federal Reserve’s last meeting suggested the Fed’s asset purchases may likely end this year.
Gold futures for delivery in February tumbled $25.60 an ounce, or 1.5%, to $1,649 an ounce by late morning in Hong Kong, adding to the $14.20 loss suffered overnight on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange, pulling back after recent gains.
The U.S. economy may have avoided the fiscal cliff, but it is not out of the woods, says Kathleen Madigan.
The precious metal’s futures had dropped as low as $1,646.80 earlier in the day. In the spot market, gold prices were down $14.50, or 0.9%, at $1,649.30 an ounce.
The declines followed minutes of the Fed’s last meeting, which showed that several Fed officials thought the central bank would be able to slow or stop the purchases well before December 2013.
Some members didn’t set a specific timeframe for ending the Fed’s asset-purchase program, widely known as quantitative easing. Read full story on the Fed meeting minutes.
The Fed’s quantitative easing is generally recognized as a major source of liquidity that weakens the U.S. dollar and helps support prices of a range of assets, including gold.
“The range of views on the likely timing of completion of asset purchases was apparently sooner than market expectations,” analysts at Barclays wrote to clients.
…
House thieves thrive in Philly:
Stealing in the name of the lord:
Magical thinking among the rich world’s central bankers hasn’t just yet gone out of fashion.
Investment Outlook
January 2013
Money for Nothin’
Writing Checks for Free
William H. Gross
It was Milton Friedman, not Ben Bernanke, who first made reference to dropping money from helicopters in order to prevent deflation. Bernanke’s now famous “helicopter speech” in 2002, however, was no less enthusiastically supportive of the concept. In it, he boldly previewed the almost unimaginable policy solutions that would follow the black swan financial meltdown in 2008: policy rates at zero for an extended period of time; expanding the menu of assets that the Fed buys beyond Treasuries; and of course quantitative easing purchases of an almost unlimited amount should they be needed. These weren’t Bernanke innovations – nor was the term QE. Many of them had been applied by policy authorities in the late 1930s and ‘40s as well as Japan in recent years. Yet the then Fed Governor’s rather blatant support of monetary policy to come should have been a signal to investors that he would be willing to pilot a helicopter should the takeoff be necessary. “Like gold,” he said, “U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”
Mr. Bernanke never provided additional clarity as to what he meant by “no cost.” Perhaps he was referring to zero-bound interest rates, although at the time in 2002, 10-year Treasuries were at 4%. Or perhaps he knew something that American citizens, their political representatives, and almost all investors still don’t know: that quantitative easing – the purchase of Treasury and Agency mortgage obligations from the private sector – IS essentially costless in a number of ways. That might strike almost all of us as rather incredible – writing checks for free – but that in effect is what a central bank does. Yet if ordinary citizens and corporations can’t overdraft their accounts without criminal liability, how can the Fed or the European Central Bank or any central bank get away with printing “electronic money” and distributing it via helicopter flyovers in the trillions and trillions of dollars?
Well, the answer is sort of complicated but then it’s sort of simple: They just make it up. When the Fed now writes $85 billion of checks to buy Treasuries and mortgages every month, they really have nothing in the “bank” to back them. Supposedly they own a few billion dollars of “gold certificates” that represent a fairy-tale claim on Ft. Knox’s secret stash, but there’s essentially nothing there but trust. When a primary dealer such as J.P. Morgan or Bank of America sells its Treasuries to the Fed, it gets a “credit” in its account with the Fed, known as “reserves.” It can spend those reserves for something else, but then another bank gets a credit for its reserves and so on and so on. The Fed has told its member banks “Trust me, we will always honor your reserves,” and so the banks do, and corporations and ordinary citizens trust the banks, and “the beat goes on,” as Sonny and Cher sang. $54 trillion of credit in the U.S. financial system based upon trusting a central bank with nothing in the vault to back it up. Amazing!
But the story doesn’t end here. What I have just described is a rather routine textbook explanation of how central and fractional reserve banking works its productive yet potentially destructive magic. What Governor Bernanke may have been referring to with his “essentially free” comment was the fact that the Fed and other central banks such as the Bank of England (BOE) actually rebate the interest they earn on the Treasuries and Gilts that they buy. They give the interest back to the government, and in so doing, the Treasury issues debt for free. Theoretically it’s the profits of the Fed that are returned to the Treasury, but the profits are the interest on the $2.5 trillion worth of Treasuries and mortgages that they have purchased from the market. The current annual remit amounts to nearly $100 billion, an amount that permits the Treasury to reduce its deficit by a like amount. When the Fed buys $1 trillion worth of Treasuries and mortgages annually, as it is now doing, it effectively is financing 80% of the deficit for free.
The BOE and other central banks work in a similar fashion. British Chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent to our Treasury Secretary) George Osborne wrote a letter to Mervyn King, Governor of the BOE (equivalent to our Fed Chairman) in November. “Transferring the net income from the APF [Asset Purchase Facility – Britain’s QE] will allow the Government to manage its cash more efficiently, and should lead to debt interest savings to central government in the short-term.” Savings indeed! The Exchequer issues gilts, the BOE’s QE program buys them and then remits the interest back to the Exchequer. As shown in Chart 1, the world’s six largest central banks have collectively issued six trillion dollars’ worth of checks since the beginning of 2009 in order to stem private sector delevering. Treasury credit is being backed with central bank credit with the interest then remitted to its issuer. Should interest rates rise and losses accrue to the Fed’s portfolio, they record it as an accounting liability owed to the Treasury, which need never be paid back. This is about as good as it can get folks. Money for nothing. Debt for free.
…
Money for nothing. Debt for free.
Dollars for deadbeats, yes!
“Money for nothing. Debt for free.”
Unless you rely on income from CDs, short-term Treasurys or money market funds…
Over the holiday season, I cashed out some shares of a short-term Treasury fund to pay for a violin bow. I’m looking at the “Income dividend check” generated by cashing out $3K from this fund.
It’s in the amount of $0.03! My wife asked me whether I wanted her to deposit it in our checking account. I declined her offer.
300,000 pennies saved is 3 pennies EARNED, my friend!
I thought Bill Gross and Ben Bernanke share a sauna at Jackson Hole?
Suddenly the Wall Street traders’ screens all flashed red in synchrony!
The Fed admits it’s running low on ammunition
For the first time since the financial crisis of five years ago, the Federal Reserve has at last made its first signal that its extraordinary loose monetary policy will start to get tougher. (First Take)
How long before we get someone to backtrack?
How long before we get 1995 house prices?
Never? It’s what I’ve been waiting for all this time, but it appears we’ve bet the whole country on not allowing it to happen. Therefore if it does I’ll have much bigger problems than buying a house.
True, but look on the bright side. The period to follow will indeed finally be seen as the WORST time to buy real estate. Score!
One 2013 prediction by political pundits has already failed:
Jan. 3, 2013, 1:52 p.m. EST
Boehner re-elected House speaker
New Congress sworn in; Republicans vow spending focus
By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — John Boehner was re-elected speaker of the House of Representatives on Thursday, ending speculation that he would be replaced in a vote that nonetheless signaled lingering discontent with his leadership.
…
Old weepy-eyes must be weeping in joy knowing he’ll have the Speaker’s gavel clenched in his nicotine-stained fingers for two more years
His job is one I can’t imagine anybody wanting.
The lavender ties, fake hair, etc., are sickening.
Online “Crack Shack or Mansion Game: This free, Flash-based game features real Vancouver real estate listings, as of April 10th, 2010. Can you tell the difference between a crack shack and a Vancouver, BC mansion, listed for one or two million dollars? Find out!
Professional economists are beginning to suspect there might be a housing bubble…
PRELIMINARY PROGRAM OF THE ALLIED SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATIONS JANUARY 4-6, 2013, SAN DIEGO, CA
American Economic Association
Housing Bubbles: Theory and Evidence (G1)
Presiding: Kevin Lansing (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Norges Bank)
Metropolitan Home Price Dynamics Untied from Observable Fundamentals and Their Linkages
Roland Füss (University of St. Gallen and Center for European Economic Research)
Bing Zhu (University of Regensburg)
Joachim Zietz (Middle Tennessee State University and European Business School)
House Price Dynamics: Fundamentals and Expectations
Eleonora Granziera (Bank of Canada)
Sharon Kozicki (Bank of Canada)
House Prices, Expectations, and Time-Varying Fundamentals
Paolo Gelain (Norges Bank)
Kevin J. Lansing (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Norges Bank)
What Makes Residential Different from Non-Residential REITs? Evidence from Multi-Factor Asset Pricing Models
Daniele Bianchi (Bocconi University)
Massimo Guidolin (Bocconi University)
Francesco Ravazzolo (Norges Bank and BI Norwegian Business School)
Discussants:
Loriana Pelizzon (University of Venice and Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Berrak Bahadir (University of Georgia)
Tassos Malliaris (Loyola University Chicago)
Roland Fuss (University of St. Gallen and Center for European Economic Research)
Glasnost or head fake? Time will tell.
Fed sees bond buying ending this year
Several officials say well before December, others think all year
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — There was a general sense among Federal Reserve officials that their bond-buying program would last, at most, until the end of the year, according to the minutes from their meeting last month that were released on Thursday.
“Several” Fed officials thought that the central bank would be able to either slow or stop the purchases well before December 2013. Read a commentary piece: Fed says it’s running out of bullets.
A “few” members said that the plan would likely be needed until about the end of the year.
Some Fed officials did not set out a specific time frame for the purchases, the minutes noted.
…
Because they’re outta bullets…or because they think recovery and growth will be at hand? While the article talks of sluggishness, it also says they “would be able to” stop purchases before Dec. 2013 which suggests growth would allow them to. Otherwise they’d say “would have to.”
Or they realise that inflation is gaining speed and they have no exit strategy. They are creating almost one trillion dollars every year which is about the total money supply when they began. They stop buying and interest rates go up and that does not mean the inflation stops because they are behind the curve, I saw this movie in the late seventies, early eighties and stagflation is more difficult to fix than what Obama inherited despite all the attempts by the MSM to convince the public otherwise.
Out of sight, out of mind.
What does saying they are “out of bullets” really mean in the case of the Fed? Is their virtual printing press no longer capable of further quantitative easing, or are they setting up the markets for a giant sucker punch when they later change their minds and quantitatively ease some more?
I will mention that a knowledgeable associate commented to me that the Fed was “out of bullets” about four years ago, yet they nonetheless have managed to keep on shooting.
Actions have consequences, both intended and unintended. Both need to be considered. They’re just like drugs with their intended result and side effects:
Fed Minutes Show Some Concerns on Bond Purchases
Associated Press via Motley Fool
Jan 1, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal Reserve policymakers expressed broad support last month for the Fed’s plan to buy bonds to support the U.S. economy. But they differed over how long to keep buying bonds to drive down long-term interest rates.
The statement was approved 11-1. Jeffrey Lacker, president of Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, objected for the eighth straight time this year. Lacker has said he thinks the job market is being slowed by factors beyond the Fed’s control. And he says further bond purchases risk worsening future inflation.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/01/03/news-federal-reserve-releases-minutes-from-decembe.aspx
Don’t just sit there. Act like you’re doing something.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the differance”
― Mark Twain
Who will be paying TT Geithner’s next?
Geithner Said to Plan Departure Before Debt Ceiling Deal
By Hans Nichols - Jan 3, 2013 2:27 PM ET
Bloomberg
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner plans to leave the administration at the end of January, even if President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans haven’t reached an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, according to two people familiar with the matter.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-03/geithner-said-to-plan-departure-before-debt-ceiling-deal.html
Has to leave before the house of cards falls down, just like some CEOs at the too big to fail banks and AIG.
The massive housing inventory is still there… still growing… still sitting…. Still weighing on the economy. Tens of millions of houses.
Here’s some very unusual news:
(Reuters) -
I’m so glad the dumbocrat and retardican communists tax us peons and give $20 billion of it to big agriculture hiding behind the moniker “farmers”.
How cute.
Great scam to reward the part of the 1% who work in the agribusiness sector.