The Housing Bubble

I do not disagree with that. However, in what I consider a related issue, we should address what Roe v Wade did to this nation and the impact of the Catholic Church on social justice. Prior to Roe. Catholics were a powerful part of the Democratic coalition and they promoted social justice in this country. Roe created a powerful wedge issue that divided catholics between the parties. The country became a country where people loved to say they were fiscal conservatives but social liberals. (i.e. pro-abortion). Bill Clinton was an example.

Workers have lost ground every since. I could make a religious argument but see no need since the practical argument works. Thus, this belief on the left that religion is the present problem in this country does not persuade me, I think it is a population particularly at the top that lacks any moral compass that is the problem.

So, you are saying that the country has gone to heck because some conservative Catholics split off the main group of liberal Catholics because they decided that imposing their religious beliefs about the rights of a fertilized egg on the rest of the country was more important than creating a country in which the Catholic values of taking care of the poor and hungry were maintained? Really?

Lets have some real data points - moments when you think the country took specific turns for the worse compared with the numbers of Catholics voting on each side of the issue and how that impacted the outcome of the election in question (for people or for referenda) before we even pretend to accept that as a reasonable topic of discussion.

Just saying something doesn’t make it true.

Thus, this belief on the left that religion is the present problem

I did not watch that vid yet but I don’t think most on the left think religion is a big problem. Many on the left are Christian, many don’t care and a few don’t like religion.

The only problem I see with religion is the intolerance at the extremes, like the far right evangelicals pushing the Repubs far out of the mainstream. I also think the “prosperity gospel” type mega churches are a joke on Christianity. I’m a main-stream and tolerant Protestant. The left should not be against religion but the wack-job far right Christians do not do the Christian religion any favors.

So, you are saying that the country has gone to heck because some conservative Catholics split off the main group of liberal Catholics because they decided that imposing their religious beliefs about the rights of a fertilized egg on the rest of the country was more important than creating a country in which the Catholic values of taking care of the poor and hungry were maintained?

Well, a lot (and I mean a lot) of Catholics did become Republicans. Whether they did that because of abortion issues or because they wanted to pay less taxes is an interesting question. From what I have observed first hand for some it was the former and for others the latter.

I’m pretty sure that a lot of Catholics became more conservative because the older generations who were first generation immigrants died and they became much more integrated into US society than they used to be and became multi-issue voters scattered across the country rather than labor rights/poverty issue voters concentrated in east coast urban areas.

He still hasn’t proved that it was that particular change in Catholic voting patterns that caused the country to degrade nor has he even defined what he thinks that degradation was.

What part of the term “wedge issue” do you not understand. The proof that many Catholics left the Democratic party because of the issue is apparent to any one that has studied the issue.

one example: http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Catholic.html

Joe Stalin or Mao killed more people than all religious wars combined

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.4

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.5

#ilovestatistics

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
~Barry Goldwater - Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)

“The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”

- Senator Barry Goldwater, September 15, 1981, speech to the U.S. Senate.

“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”
-Barry Goldwater - speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)

“When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”
-Barry Goldwater - Washington Post interview (1994)

Perhaps you should watch it before you spout,

Why? If you are addressing me, I was addressing Dan’s view that the left views religion as a major problem. I disagree with that point and I explained why.

I don’t see how a leaked North Korea propaganda piece could ever change a thing in what I just wrote.

But I’ll watch it and let you know.

If you are addressing me,

Never mind. Sorry. I saw the comma and period now. It’s hard on a phone. (And that reads funny)

I could say something Rio but I won’t I think we should go back to policy disputes and not personal disputes.

I think we should go back to policy disputes and not personal disputes.

You misunderstand. I was addressing ahansen for misreading her post, not yours. And what I said “read funny” was what I had just written.

And I meant I could have made a comment about you misreading the post.

But they will never ever ask how many of those are functionally illiterate.

my guess is a very big percentage

Bah, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Just wait until they “get a handle on the out-of-control spending” by “reforming entitlements.”

Look I have no doubt there are some people in the U.S that truly need help. But the way they gather statistics leaves much to be desired from an objective basis. They will ask a question like have you run out of food during the last month. If the person says yes he or she is considered food insecure. However, that person can weigh 600 hundred pounds and eat more food in a day than most people eat in week. One of the reasons that our poor tend to be some of the most obese people on earth. It is a far cry from the pictures you see in the 1930’s of poor people or the objective records which showed that many of the soldiers drafted at the beginning of world war II were seriously underweight.

Low-Income and Food Insecure People are Vulnerable to Overweight and Obesity

Key Factors

Limited resources
Lack of access to healthy, affordable foods
Fewer opportunities for physical activity
Cycles of food deprivation and overeating
High levels of stress
Greater exposure to marketing of obesity-promoting products
Limited access to health care

Due to the additional risk factors associated with poverty, food insecure and low-income people are especially vulnerable to obesity. More specifically, obesity among food insecure people – as well as among low-income people – occurs in part because they are subject to the same influences as other Americans (e.g., more sedentary lifestyles, increased portion sizes), but also because they face unique challenges in adopting healthful behaviors, as described below.

Low-income neighborhoods frequently lack full-service grocery stores and farmers’ markets where residents can buy a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products Instead, residents – especially those without reliable transportation – may be limited to shopping at small neighborhood convenience and corner stores, where fresh produce and low-fat items are limited, if available at all. One of the most comprehensive reviews of U.S. studies examining neighborhood disparities in food access found that neighborhood residents with better access to supermarkets and limited access to convenience stores tend to have healthier diets and reduced risk for obesity
When available, healthy food is often more expensive, whereas refined grains, added sugars, and fats are generally inexpensive and readily available in low-income communities. Households with limited resources to buy enough food often try to stretch their food budgets by purchasing cheap, energy-dense foods that are filling – that is, they try to maximize their calories per dollar in order to stave off hunger. While less expensive, energy-dense foods typically have lower nutritional quality and, because of overconsumption of calories, have been linked to obesity

When available, healthy food – especially fresh produce – is often of poorer quality in lower income neighborhoods, which diminishes the appeal of these items to buyers.

Low-income communities have greater availability of fast food restaurants, especially near schools. These restaurants serve many energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods at relatively low prices. Fast food consumption is associated with a diet high in calories and low in nutrients, and frequent consumption may lead to weight gain.

Source: http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/why-are-low-income-and-food-insecure-people-vulnerable-to-obesity/

It does not seem to be a problem in North Korea or was it a problem in the U.S. in the thirties. I am sorry but fast food is not cheap compared to healthy food. I think you are ignoring the fact that people make choices and some love the fatty food, as Michelle Obama is finding out, the healthy food ends up in the waste basket and the junk food is loved. You do not end up 600 pounds without chosing to eat a lot of food.

How many people in the US died of starvation last year?
Please don’t answer by using the term “food insecurity”.

. I am sorry but fast food is not cheap compared to healthy food.

Albuquerquedan,
On a caloric basis, cheap food is very cheap in USA compared to healthy food. Your politics blind your math. You are as predictable as Rush Limbaugh.

How many people in the US died of starvation last year?

A better question is how many Americans died because of a cheap, poor-man’s diet. Look around you.

Isn’t it racist to always use racial yardsticks to determine relevance of journalistic effort?

Or is that the point?

Isn’t it racist to always use racial yardsticks to determine relevance of journalistic effort?

Or is that the point?
—————————————–

When it comes to the motivating force among the people of the known universe, race and sex (they are connected) are located in that “hind brain/reptile part” of the mind.

Everything else commonly refered to as “propaganda” is a derivative of those two forces.

Think about it?

We all see and admit that sex is used to motivate and control human behavior; but we are not supposed to admit race is used the same way?

They are two sides of the same coin.

Every person in the known universe is engaged in one of two behaviors:

1. Practicing race and sex.

OR

2. Reacting to people who are practicing race and sex.

The bomb thrower may not be a racist, but like me, he has no choice in reacting to the people who are.

But he implies that I might be one for pointing this out.

See how smart white people are?

(((shakin my head)))

Spook notice how Ohbewanna only wants gun control for white people?

Now a word about the 500 murders in Chicago and getting those guns off the street or giving 15 year mandatory minimum sentences to anyone using a gun…..hmmmmmmmmm

Spook notice how Ohbewanna only wants gun control for white people?

Now that’s just dumb. So how would Obama exempt only Black folk from any new Federal gun laws?

What will be the name of this legislation?

H.R. 4328
“The 2014 Modified Assault Weapons Ban (But for just Whitey)”

rio most all of the murders in Chicago are by black people, so they would be exempted from any penalties associated with NOT registering their illegal guns.

No different then the RIAA suing only white people for downloading and stealing music….

We all have to toe the PC line…..right?

“No different then the RIAA suing only white people for downloading and stealing music….”

Even if that were true (which I doubt), you seriously don’t know the difference between a private entity deciding who they want to sue for damages when the number of people they could have sued is so enormous they couldn’t possibly sue all of them (private entity deciding where to use its own resources to protect itself from economic damage) and the government writing a criminal law that states that it only applies only to one race? Do you have any idea what “equal protection” means? Do you have any brain cells left at all?

Polly this is where i know more then you….The RIAA is a racist organization, how come the Jammie Thomas case her home town Brainerd MN is 96% white…..and yet no one in Gary Camden South central Liberty city Far rockaway has ever made the news.

No college has been sued that got money from the united negro college fund but Washington state U with 2% black enrollment did….and what about the Naval academy….

Sorry polly…Race has become very important thanks to obewanna

so when will obewanna install metal detectors in housing projects and stop gun violence there???

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/bank-america-freezes-gun-manufacturers-account-company-owner-claims

“The bomb thrower may not be a racist, but like me, he has no choice in reacting to the people who are.”

Sounds to me like we are all unwittingly practicing Keynesian racism.

Private entities deciding who they want to sue to protect themselves from music piracy isn’t racist. It is a business decision. And it is not even remotely similar to a government creating a law that only applies to one race. There is NO similarity at all.

Glad to know you’re watching, I knew you wouldn’t pass up the educational opportunity.

And I knew you were such a simpleton you wouldn’t get the reference; your grammar being the very least of it.

Now go away.

Pfffft!

Right. People think the big corporations have all this power. If they are so powerful, how come those who work at the top there are able to pillage them without limits or sanctions?

Our private institutions are going down, like our public ones. The non-profit sector doesn’t look great either.

Our private institutions are going down, like our public ones. The non-profit sector doesn’t look great either.

A Tucson friend and I have had quite the discussion going on this very topic. It’s been going on for three months and shows no signs of abating.

Public institutions, private institutions, non-profit institutions - all are vast pools of OPM.

Whomever it is that gets control of these vast pools of OPM ends up with a free ride.

” People think the big corporations have all this power. If they are so powerful, how come those who work at the top there are able to pillage them without limits or sanctions?”

The short answer: because they can.

Common shareholders lost their power back in the 1980s and the SEC was de-fanged in the same decade.

Most corporations are run STRICTLY to enrich the board of directors. Customers and common shareholders are just a nuisance.

Public institutions, private institutions, non-profit institutions - all are vast pools of OPM.

Whomever it is that gets control of these vast pools of OPM ends up with a free ride.

Starting to sound a bit like the Soviet Union. But that could never happen here.

Isn’t that how any system works? Someone has to be in charge, and that means they get to control OPM.

Yeah, but we were always the special system that had checks and balances to keep that from getting out of hand.

Yeah, but we were always the special system that had checks and balances to keep that from getting out of hand.

I dunno, Eisenhower was pretty worried about that 50-60 years ago.

It’s absolutely true they were not paying the loan. However, I note that (apparently) millions of others not paying their loans have been allowed to live rent-free for years in homes they should rightfully have been evicted when they stopped making payments — the same as a renter would be evicted.

UNFAIR!!!

Maybe the bank thought it could sell their house but not others. Why do you think they chose your friends and why was the criteria used unfair?

“Why do you think they chose your friends and why was the criteria used unfair?”

They are foreign immigrants with little understanding of the U.S. financial system, hence easy targets for discriminatory treatment.

P.S. If everyone who stopped paying their mortgages was cleared out within some reasonable timeframe (e.g. within a year of when they stopped making payments), then foreclosure actions taken back in the 2008-09 period would look far less unfair through the lens of the rear view mirror.

Of Course, the only problem with 20 million foreclosures all piling onto the market in a year would make pricing fall through the floor. The Banksters have been working in collusion with the FED, the creator of easy-money lending, to “slow feed” the millions of houses onto the market , while the CONgress and the President have come up with about 17 programs to “keep people in their houses”.

This whole scam should have been stopped before is started, but for all those people crying about “discrimination”, which is largely a convenient lie, they forget the real reason for all the sub-prime lending.
Let me give you a refresher.
For Decades there have been government-sponsored programs to help get “poor people” and “minorities” into housing.
The typical leftist view always puts the cart before the horse.
They saw middle-class suburbia white folks living in their comfy little houses and watched as the “value” of the house rose for 30 years as those owners paid down the mortgage and maintained and improved their houses. At the end of that time, they had a paid-off asset to help them in retirement.
Those who rented didn’t have this ‘advantage’, a source of white “privilege”, according to the stories. The reality is something quite different. Credit-worthiness is the best indicator of whether you will be a home-owner. People who worked hard, paid their bills on time and didn’t go over their heads in debt. Discrimination was NEVER the basis for loan refusal except based on POOR CREDIT (don’t pay bills).
The fact that Poor Credit doesn’t fit racial goals is an issue of racial disparity, not discrimination.
Didn’t matter. The “do-gooders” wanted poor people to OWN houses and the CONgress and the Feds did everything they could to accommodate. The results speak for themselves.

A chicken in every pot and a house for every derelict is a BAD government policy, except for people who believe the purpose of government is to provide stuff for other people, like so many posters here.

Hogwash. If these programs existed for “decades” then there would have surely been a housing bubble prior to 2003-2006.

This lame conservative talking point has been spread around to divert attention from those who share culpability (megabanks and the Fed) and conveniently assign it to Barney Frank, Fannie, and “liberals” in general. Everyone thought that homeownership for everyone was a great idea and would provide a better ROI for capital than any other investment. It wasn’t some “bleeding heart liberal” conspiracy to get poor black folks in housing. Give me a break.

Plagiarized from the interwebs:
“A recent study from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that the affordable housing goals had no observable impact on the volume, price, or default rates of subprime loans during the crisis, even after controlling for the loan size, loan type, borrower characteristics, and other factors. Federal Reserve Economist Neil Bhutta reached a similar conclusion in 2009, finding that the affordable housing goals had a negligible effect on Fannie and Freddie lending during the housing bubble.”

‘there would have surely been a housing bubble prior to 2003-2006′

There was certainly a bubble in Austin TX in 1998. I’ve had posters from Massachusetts say here that they were experiencing a housing bubble in the mid-90’s. Of course the Fed economists as going to say that. They are all about intervening in all parts of the economy.

I don’t know why people get so worked up about it. Just about every housing policy the government runs to this day plays a role in the bubble. Here’s something I came across recently:

‘…the release of a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Its authors get straight to the point. “Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?” they ask. “Yes, it did. … We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks.”

“The act required banks to serve depositors from all neighborhoods in their operating areas, including those of low and moderate income. The report’s economists found that lending to borrowers in census tracts of modest means increased around the time of a bank’s regulatory exam — and more of those loans went bad.”

“Quoting from the study: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts.”

“Boiled down, the process was as follows. Banks were required to make affordable-housing loans under the act. Congress then forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up an increasing proportion of those loans, effectively imposing quotas on the two government-sponsored mortgage giants.”

“Many of the loans were subprime or otherwise dubious. Fan and Fred were required to “affirmatively” support bank CRA lending and to do this, they had to lower their credit standards.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/04/178696/commentary-what-fed-the-housing.html#storylink=cpy

Just about every housing policy the government runs to this day plays a role in the bubble.

Very true, however I submit that the government’s massive misguided policies of today are the foolish attempt at a government rescue of housing that was sabotaged in the name of greed by the unregulated private sector. Roughly speaking:
I’d say the private sector caused 70% of the bubble and now the government is 80% responsible for trying to keep it afloat.

“Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?” they ask. “Yes, it did.

Of course CRA led to “risky” lending compared to redlining. Redlining means almost no loans to people of color not much considering income or credit so mathematically loaning to more poorer people is going to be more “risky”.

BUT was the CRA lending a major contributor to the formation of the housing bubble compared to private lending not subject to CRA regulations? The evidence I’ve found, clearly points to no. Most of those subprime loans at the height of the bubble were private and were not under the CRA umbrella.

……Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

A 2008 analysis found that the nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

……A study by the Federal Reserve shows that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. The study found that the government-sponsored enterprises were concerned with the loss of market share to these private lenders — Fannie and Freddie were chasing profits, not trying to meet low-income lending goals.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11/examining-the-big-lie-how-the-facts-of-the-economic-crisis-stack-up/

‘A study by the Federal Reserve shows…’

I got over the bubble blame game years ago. It’s obvious no one is going to be punished except a few low level crooks. What’s more relevant today; why are people being told there’s a shortage, given what are basically zero down, subprime loans backed by the government and making multiple offers on shacks at insane prices?

If you read my other post about ERIC HOLDER, you will see he is suing banks for failure to provide loans based on “race”.
The banks say they denied them based on credit, which is true.
No banks “discriminate” because it has been illegal for decades, and they go out of their way to accommodate.
Nonetheless, if a loan is denied, it’s a cause for a lawsuit.

Just like the settlements with the so-called Black farmers being denied Agricultural loans, no basis of fact was required to be established for the Federal Government to give away BILLIONS of dollars to “poor black farmers”, most of whom did no farming.

The intrusion of government is endemic and those of you who deny it are REALLY delusional, not me. Go get the book “Paved with good intentions” from 20 years ago. It is an entire book, about 500 pages, of all the things government has done to impose rules on individuals and businesses to create “equality”. So you can be a bum and not pay your bills, but if you are a “minority”, you should be given a loan on which to default, anyways, and you will then be a victim.

If you read my other post about ERIC HOLDER, you will see he is suing banks for failure to provide loans based on “race”.

That does nothing to bolster your false belief that CRA type “race-based” lending caused the housing bubble.

From my post above:
Consider a study by McClatchy: It found that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. And McClatchy found that out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

What’s your point? That “private” lenders made subprime loans to prevent Justice Department threats for engaging in “discrimination”, whilst being promoted by Non-governmental (oh,that’s wrong they really are the stooges of government) Fannie and Freddie.’

And it does bolster my TRUE statements that most of these loans were given to “minorities” at the behest of CONgress, the Justice Dept., the EEOC commissions, the FAIR HOUSING Acts, the FAIR LENDING Standards, etc, etc,etc, etc,…..all to promote “minorities” getting into housing.

There are reams of documents to support this, and as you can see, the SUITS are for minority borrowers being “victims” of Unfair Lending practices. There is nothing unfair. The LOWER your credit, the HIGHER your rate. Risk assessment.
Always been that way, until government steps in to “help”.

What’s your point?

The point is most subprime loans were issued by private lenders, not CRA regulated lenders. That some are getting sued now for “unfair lending practices” does not negate the fact that loans to poor people and minorities did not cause the housing bubble as the housing bubble was blown up across all income levels.

Saying the housing bubble was caused by government pushed minority and lower income lending is an insult to reality and mathematics.

You have to be more explicit, Rio. Dio is a low information voter. He isn’t even aware that loan originators weren’t subject to the CRA. Only banks that took deposits (even regulated investment banks didn’t do this) were subject to CRA. They were required not to redline (refuse to lend) in areas where they already accepted deposits (meaning they were doing regular savings and checking account business in the area). And he certainly isn’t aware that the CRA rules didn’t require them to lend to anyone who wanted a loan. Just that they had to use the same criteria in those previously redlined neighborhoods that they used in other neighborhoods.

And he keeps saying that Holder is talking about suing them for not making loans. I believe if he actually read the source material, he would find that they are being prosecuted for offering applicants with nearly identical loan qualifications and different skin colors different kinds of loans. Like the one with paler skin was offered a fully amortizing conventional loan and the other was offered one with a teaser rate followed by a much, much higher rate(s) and a huge pre-payment penalty.

(Dio) isn’t even aware that loan originators weren’t subject to the CRA.

I think he’d rather just hate minorities than acknowledge the facts.

Fact:
CRA-originated loans had a 27% HIGHER repayment rate than private lenders (CRA actually required underwriting as opposed to simply fogging a mirror during the bubble.)

Fact:
Redlining was indeed “the basis for denying a loan”; which is why we passed federal laws forbidding it.

Fact:
Federal agricultural loans were routinely denied to farmers solely because of their race and gender.

Fact:
No matter how many times we post this easily-verifiable information, Dio will ignore it in favor of his willful ignorance.

The Obama Administration

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/03/Obama-administration-paves-the-way-for-sharia-law

Goon squad after sharia law is declared how many wives will Obama have?

BTW from yahoo, for those that thought Jewish and Chinese mothers were tough on their children that do not study:

LONDON - A British judge on Monday sentenced a woman he called a “devoted and loving mother” to at least 17 years in prison for beating her son to death after he failed to memorize passages from the Qur’an.

What’s so confounding about the Drudge Report talking points is that Obama wants to implement sharia law AND destroy traditional marriage by letting gays get married.

One would think that the two positions are counter to each other, but when one can’t think, and instead lets the Drudge Report talking points do their “thinking” for them, it all just sort of blurs together.

See also the “Two Minutes Hate” in Orwell’s 1984.

judge on Monday sentenced a woman he called a “devoted and loving mother” to at least 17 years in prison for beating her son to death after he failed to memorize passages from the Qur’an.

I forgot how it works.

Will the 72 virgins she gets in Paradise be male or female?

Honestly, I am unaware of anything in Islam that addresses a woman’s reward for dying for Islam. It just addresses males. I hope they both get one 72 year old virgin but I cannot answer your question.

+1

“Go away! I’m baitin!”

Ow! my ballz.

Employees at the big banks are stealing by breaking the law and all they get is a speeding ticket

Employees? Geez, your defense of the 1% is neverending.

it is important to accurately define your target if you want a solution. Is it everyone who has a declared income over $X,000,000 that is sinking our country?

It is not the people making $X,000,000 that are sinking America. The people that say the left “hates the evil rich” are not thinking the problem out to the next step.

It is the system that has promoted extreme wealth and income inequality that is sinking America. So the target is the system, not the people.

So if the system is the target and not rich people, then why raise taxes on the rich? Because raising taxes on the rich to past historical levels is about addressing the system and not “punishing” the rich.

What could we do with that extra tax revenue to address the failing system? We could invest it in tax breaks and outright grants for small business start-ups. We could invest it into a national energy program. Revive trade and skill apprenticeships, education etc. These additional tax revenues from the rich could be used to create jobs that cutting those taxes for the rich did NOT create.

A system that creates a hundred billionaires but millions and millions of $12 an hour jobs for educated people is the culprit.

And yes, it is the system’s fault that the rich became so powerful that they are not prosecuted for breaking the laws. If the super rich weren’t so much more grotesquely rich than the common man, then the super-rich would not be so much more grotesquely immune to their crimes.

“Geez, your defense of the 1% is neverending”

That’s not the twist that I was trying to express. It is still legal in this country to have more money than you and I have. You may not like it, but it’s not wrong in and of itself. Many wrong things were tolerated during the boom and still are being tolerated, laws being broken. No one is being punished for doing wrong, it isn’t even being covered up. That seems to me to be a problem.

Raising income taxes in this case is like not prosecuting a theft but handing the thief (and others just walking by) a sales tax bill for what was stolen.

It is still legal in this country to have more money than you and I have. You may not like it

I’m fine with it, other than being tired of its use as a straw man. I have never called for expropriating the rich, I want them to pay tax rates closer to what they have paid during most of modern American history. They still get to be rich.

No one is being punished for doing wrong, it isn’t even being covered up. That seems to me to be a problem.

I agree. The problem is as Rio describes: the super-rich are so rich, they exist in a separate realm of justice. Their extreme wealth undermines democracy and our judicial system, because it gives them more power than the system can contain.

Raising income taxes in this case is like not prosecuting a theft but handing the thief (and others just walking by) a sales tax bill for what was stolen.

Or is it like starting to get serious about reducing our deficit? Something supposedly extremely important to most conservatives like yourself. Why do you once again call for the rich to be excluded from the sacrifices we all have to make to pay down our debt?

“Why do you once again call for the rich to be excluded from the sacrifices..”

I don’t.

I suggest that keeping the law central is key.

I suggest that keeping the law central is key.

I agree. But surely the rich can also pay a few more points in income taxes, because that helps reduce the deficit too, no?

alpha…. We take in over 2.5 trillion dollars per year… I’m fine with the rich paying higher taxes. In fact they will be as of the latest fiscal cliff deal. But now that they are paying higher taxes, is our budget deficit being reduced? NO. So the supposed answer to the problem did not work. The ONLY answer to a balanced budget is spending less than you take in FIRST. Since we are already in deficit, it would be fine to delay repayment of the debt until after the recession ends… (BTW, isn’t the current claim that we are out of recession and have been for 2 years now?). After that, the budget must be balanced and run a surplus.. 1% would be sufficient for me…

How can anyone not agree with this statement?

The problem with that Mathguy is that the gravy train will stop abruptly. We’d all see some real pain. Poeple will scream like stuck pigs, then worse.

The last people to see hard times are mostly gone from the landscape.

After that, the budget must be balanced and run a surplus.. 1% would be sufficient for me…

How can anyone not agree with this statement?

Since it absolutely must be balanced, then I guess we’ll have to look at cap gains taxes, and take care of social security by removing the income cap, then take care of health care/medicare costs by instituting a single-payer system (which saves every other country that uses it a lot of money). And of course greatly reducing defense spending, since we are no longer in two ‘hot’ wars in the ME.

Yep, it’s time to get serious about the deficit.

Yep, it’s time to get serious about the deficit.

That would do it. Fast.

Exactly OX and it puts millions at a disadvantage because that air head chicky poo that looks at the resume doesn’t see a 4 yr degree…and throws it away….even though you have specific skills that directly relate to the job.

PS my take is that air head is doing the boss behind the wife’s back…or else why is it so hard to talk to an adult about a job today?

Actually, the resumes are screened by a computer. No chickie poos were involved when your resume went into the digital dust bin. If the job req says “Bachelors Degree required” then the computer will toss all the resumes without a degree, end of story. And they do check to see if you really have those degrees listed on your resume, should you get as far as receiving an offer.

why is it so hard to talk to an adult about a job today?

Because if you post a non menial job opening on a website, thousands of people may apply for it. It’s far more cost effective to have a computer screen them, than an army of eyeballs.

Maybe you should try getting a degree.

Except that there really aren’t that many gays.

“Except that there really aren’t that many gays.”

The relevant question is how many gays are there who aren’t yet married, but would like to be. My guess is that it is a sizable number and could create a fair amount of wedding business during the adjustment process.

I played for a gay marriage or two back when we lived in the Bay Area, long before the recent push to change state laws to legitimize the practice.

Haven’t spent a penny yet on getting marriage. Together for 14 years with 2 kids.

Those anti-gay marriage laws will help my kids get financial aid for college, I guess.

How dare you! Tell them to get rid of those Nikes, and get something with some real boot-straps, just to show all of us other losers how its done.

Rio-heh heh heh I feel lucky, because my marriage is what qualifies me to file jointly and thus get a lot of financial aid. Without it, my parents income still counts (even though I’ve lived on my own since I was 18).

sfhomowner- I’m sorry. It angers me to no end that many people still can’t accept gay marriage.

Many view the current brand of the Republicans as flat out scary, intolerant, greedy and a bit whacked…….
No.
Just far-left democrats, news people and idiots like you.

Many view the current brand of the Republicans as flat out scary, intolerant, greedy and a bit whacked…….
No.
Just far-left democrats, news people and idiots like you.

No…….no…..AND that’s mostly why Obama was re-elected even in the weakest recession recovery in modern times. That had never happened before in America in the past 100 years. And he’s also Black which a lot of white people don’t like. But Obama was re-elected. He was. I can google it.

Why was he re-elected in such weak economic times? Due in great part that many Americans view the current Republicans as flat out scary, intolerant, greedy and a bit whacked…….
No??? But yes!

It’s way past time to convert to 401k style investments and let them pay for THEIR OWN retirement

Where do you ever get the idea that teachers don’t pay for their retirement? Last I checked (the other day) there was almost $700 month deducted from my paycheck into my pension.

I personally can’t wait to play the Wall Street casino with my retirement funds. It’s not fair that some of us don’t have the fun of handing over our savings to a rigged system.

Your sounds very high by comparison to most, so you must be a highly paid government employee.
However, let’s use your amount.
$700/month x 12 x 30 years = $252,000. That is your contribution.
Do you expect to take home $30,000 a year for the remainder of your life? More? or less? Let’s go with that figure.
Your retirement will last just over 8 years.
Less if you need more.
But, typically, people expect to get $50,000 a year, or at least 80% of their salaries, if they worked in “government”.
Let’s use $40,000 then.
So, you have 6.3 years of savings to retire.
Where is the difference for 20 to 30 years of payments coming from???? Humm???
Oh. The State (i.e. taxpayers) need to provide the rest.
Or. The State should have “invested” it. You don’t care what they did with it, as long as you get what was promised.
That’s the typical attitude amongst government people.
Or, it’s part of your “benefits”, while claiming you are underpaid, compared to private sector workers.
The reality, is it must be “invested” to pay even a portion of it. And the markets have gone nowhere for better than 10 years. UP and Down. In the real world, we bare the costs.
In government, you are exempt.
why? because you are entitled and are special. the rest of us should pay, just like the kids think about everything government: get it from the “rich”.

you are NOT special because you work for the “government”.
You just think you are.

The only reason government workers are “special” is because their wages and benefits kept up with inflation. 30 years ago, they were compensated a bit lower than private industry.

Today, however, private sector compensation did not keep up with even inflation because America’s productivity gains the past 30 years were only funneled to the very rich.

Now we look at government workers and get jealous because our private pay and benefits did not match our productivity or even keep up with inflation.

Here it is in graphic form and it is not pretty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/compensation_productivity.jpg

The law of unintended consequences does bite people in the butt from time to time. However, I do think that it is ordinarily in the interest of a bright child to be encouraged to attend college. The problem I see is schools do not encourage students to weigh the cost of the choice of college against what their majors will pay creating debt slaves. A working class child that goes to an expensive school to study art history or the “ethnic” majors has become a debt slave.

“The problem I see is schools do not encourage students to weigh the cost of the choice of college against what their majors will pay creating debt slaves.”

Doesn’t Megabank, Inc rely on a steady stream of new debt slaves out of America’s colleges and universities for its future survival?

However, I do think that it is ordinarily in the interest of a bright child to be encouraged to attend college.

I think that’s true IF the kid actually has an idea of what they want to do. I don’t agree with just convincing them to go in hopes that they’ll figure something out.

I started college right after high school because I didn’t know what else to do. I thought maybe I wanted to go into electrical engineering but I wasn’t sure. I was smart enough to do it, but I wasn’t motivated enough to get through the tough stuff like Calc II. An enlistment in the Army solved my motivation problem. I never wanted to work in an environment where “YOU”RE NOT PAID TO THINK!” again.

A Gap year is popular in Europe.

I didn’t go to college, but have always been a hard worker and tried to get some “learnin” along the way. I couldn’t agree with you more about attitude and drive. Regardless of ones formal education, can’t get much of anywhere without the qualities you point out. And someday, I would love to meet you Slim, maybe I’ll catch some of that energy you’ve got!

A diploma = priceless education.

FWIW, you’ll have a devil of a time getting a job in corporate America without a degree. I remember back when experience was enough, and when most “software engineers” didn’t have a CS degree (or in many cases a degree at all). That is a lot less common today, and having degrees (plus experience) is what had helped me remain employed in my field. A lot of those non degreed guys I worked with 20 years ago are working in different field today.

“FWIW, you’ll have a devil of a time getting a job in corporate America without a degree.”

This may be true for full time employee jobs, but it is not that hard to get a job with a consulting company without a degree if you have the right skill set and can interview reasonably well.

When a company is looking for an employee, the degree tells them that you can persevere, finish what you start, and have a minimum of intelligence. If you don’t work out, they have to have cause to fire you.

When they are looking for a consultant, they are more interested in whether you can do the specific tasks they want to get done. If you don’t work out, it is easy to end the contract. They don’t even need a reason.

Back in the 70s we started a national program to enroll and graduate lots of people who couldn’t do the coursework. Now we complain that their degrees aren’t worth what they used to be.

Everyone in my department has a master’s degree.

Skye, how much of the college push was due to keeping the kids out of Vietnam?

Maybe in 70 and 71. IIRC the draft lottery ended after that.

Worked for Dick Cheney.

If people endlessly complain about the cost of something but nevertheless pay the price no matter what the cost then there is no real incentive of the provider to reduce the cost. The incentive for the provider is to somehow ENABLE the cost to somehow be borne by the receipiant.

And we can thank Griggs v Duke Power for that. Previously, an employer could test for aptitude and then provide training. But for some crazy reason this had a disparate impact.

Employers are not allowed to give IQ tests to candidates. A sheepskin is a proxy for the IQ test, as it takes higher SAT scores to get into more exclusive schools. Hence why they often don’t care about the major (except in technical fields).

My former employer decided it was a good idea to replace all of their “No-Degree, but 30 years of experience” Field Service engineers with new college grads with AE or EE degrees.

Told these 40-50 something guys that if they didn’t go back to school and get their degrees, they were out of a job, since the determination had been made that their position “required” it. Never mind that some had been doing it for 10-15 years.

Most of them retired, or transferred to other positions in the company

The newbies, whose only skill seemed to be running the computerized “Expert System”, were continuously coming down on the shop floor, getting answers to customer questions……at least those customers who didn’t figure out quickly that they would save a lot of time by calling Crew Chiefs and Supervisors on the floor direct.

I soon found myself wearing two hats, trying to supervise a crew and deal with customers, and spending most nights answering tech support type questions.

Of course, it became apparant that my career track at my employer was ending, because I “wasn’t qualified” (using the new criteria) to answer the questions that I was answering on a regular basis.

The (Short Version)Moral of the Story: Management in the USA is FUBAR. Forget about what they say (they all have HR departments telling them what they need to say)…….just see what they do. All their decisions are based on reducing headcount, and/or screwing their existing employees, customers, and suppliers way or the other.

They have realized that there is no such thing as “growth” in the USA anymore…….not when the perceived ROI is higher by exporting jobs/costs. Any “growth” generated is accomplished by screwing someone else out of something.

The law of unintended consequences biting people in the butt again.

They have realized that there is no such thing as “growth” in the USA anymore…….not when the perceived ROI is higher by exporting jobs/costs. Any “growth” generated is accomplished by screwing someone else out of something.

This is America’s brand of Capitalism eating itself alive. When people try to point this out in the hope of fixing American Capitalism and in order to insure its survival, they are called names like “socialists” and accused of being against Capitalism.

Why are fellow struggling Americans calling other Americans these names? Because it is being put into their heads by the right-wing media to do this. Why would the right wing media do this? Because the super-rich who direct the right-wing propaganda machine is the only sector that is benefiting greatly from America’s brand of capitalism that is eating itself alive.

And they want more…..

Comment by RioCommieInBrasil

Why do you hate our freedoms?
Why do you hate “free” markets?
All you have is “class warfare” politics of envy.

The bootstrappers didn’t get to be 1% by taking food stamps. Every single one of the JOB CREATORS was born in the gutter and through Benjamin Franklin, Horatio Alger, hard work, chaste living, and pure thoughts, were rewarded by Providence with riches. Riches with which they only work to glorify God (doing God’s work).

Marxist trash like you don’t belong in USA. USA Number One!

“Sure, some HELOC’d the crap out of their houses.”

June 7, 2011
Second-Mortgage Misery

“According to Federal Reserve Board data, homeowners took out a total of $2.69 trillion from their homes at the height of the housing boom between 2004 and 2006. That tally includes cash-out refinancings.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304906004576369844062260756.html - 182k

some HELOC’d the crap out of their houses

Which we enthusiastically promoted during our year as an equity-extraction pimp whilst at TARP bank. We actually had a sales campaign called “activation” where we called bank customers with existing HELOCs with $0 or low balances to encourage them to borrow on them at teaser intro rates.

“Sure, some HELOC’d the crap out of their houses.”

According to Bethany McLean’s research the crisis was indeed HELOC borrowing due to flat income growth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C8tC_0dsDI (goto 37-min)

“We actually had a sales campaign called “activation” where we called bank customers with existing HELOCs with $0 or low balances to encourage them to borrow on them at teaser intro rates.”

I remember getting calls and letters in 2003 through the end of 2005 when I sold wanting me to borrow money on the place that I had bought in 1984 and was nearly paid off. Luckily I had learned this magical word when I was young. That word was No.

According to Bethany McLean’s research the crisis was indeed HELOC borrowing due to flat income growth.

Hardly surprising. I’ll bet that some of that borrowed money was used to pay medical bills and tuition.

‘The Hollister Free Lance reports from California. “Despite making only $14,000 a year, strawberry picker Alberto Ramirez managed to buy his own slice of the American Dream. But his Hollister home came with a hefty price tag, $720,000. A year and a half later, Ramirez has defaulted on his loan, and he’s hoping to sell the house before it’s repossessed.”

“So how did Ramirez, with an annual income of just $14,000, purchase a $720,000 home without any money down? He had help, for one thing. Although Alberto Ramirez was the only one to sign the purchase agreement and the only one named on the loan documents, he actually bought the house with his wife Rosa Ramirez, as well as their friends Jesus Martinez and his wife.”

“However, even in a good month, the Ramirezes and Martinezes together don’t earn much more than a combined $6,500, and their official monthly payments were around $5,200.”

“The Ramirezes said Rancho Grande real estate agent Maria Avila promised they could refinance their home in three to six months to an affordable rate; until then, Rosa Ramirez said, Avila said she would pay for whatever they couldn’t afford.”

“Ramirez did supplement the mortgage payments on the Hollister home, paying about $2,200 per month for nine months. But the refinance never happened, and Martinez said Avila stopped helping with the payments at the end of 2006.”

“Rafael Cebrero, whose company Rancho Grande Real Estate sold Ramirez his home and arranged his mortgage, said subprime loans are getting a bad rap. Those loans, he said, have made it easier for many people to purchase a home.”

“Cebrero said the Ramirezes’ and Martinezes’ situation is an unfortunate one, but he said Rancho Grande was only trying to help the two families buy the home they wanted. ‘We feel we have done as much or more than we can do for these clients,’ he said.”

“Pamela Simmons, whose Soquel law firm is representing the Ramirezes, said the loan should never have been made. Simmons and Purdy attorney Alison Lawton said the firm sent a letter of demand to Rancho Grande in February alleging that Avila knew Alberto Ramirez could never afford the house and that she made the deal only for personal profit.”

“‘The real estate boom covered a multitude of sins,’ Simmons said. ‘Once the market started depreciating, the rug was pulled back to show the rot underneath.’”

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=2739

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/housedebt/

This is an interesting look across years with respect to debt burden relative to incomes.

The numbers are percentages…so, a 10=10% of disposable personal income.

No, not purchase, have somebody donate it to the Treasury then this somebody can take a huge tax deduction (and can be deemed a national hero), and the Treasury will get endless backing for an endless supply of currency.

Sounds easier (and cheaper) to do it by minting a single platinum coin. By the way, this is the chose legal work around because the Treasury is actually authorized to mint platinum coins and there is no limit on face value (like there is on gold coins).

It is basically a legal end run on the debt ceiling. Given that that everyone knows the platinum coin thing was written in for commemoratives, there is the slightest chance that a court would say that doing it is illegal as there was no intent by Congress to do an end run around the debt ceiling. But I can’t figure out who would have standing to sue. Maybe the leadership of the house of Congress that had voted against raising the debt ceiling? Maybe. But that means they would have to actually have a vote. I don’t think you would get standing just by refusing to bring the vote to the floor.

This is why you can’t compare government budgets with household and business budgets.

The government is already sitting on a bunch of “Trillion dollar coins”

What do you think we could get for Alaska, Hawaii, or (my dream) Manhattan?

Don’t even sell the property……just sell the right to levy taxes on the businesses/residents. Same as selling toll roads in Texas, or parking meters in Chicago. Preferably, sell them to people who will be a little more difficult to bribe/co-opt than our government. I recommend the Russians/KGB.

Polly I think that was a legit question, not snark.

And wouldn’t we wind up minting an additional coin every time the ceiling needs to be raised another trillion anyway?

Instead of having to go through the farce of having Congress raise the debt ceiling. Yes, that would be the idea unless Congress passed a law putting a limit on the face value of platinum coins similar to the one that already exists for gold ones.

But raising the debt ceiling does NOT authorize new spending. It only authorizes the executive branch to actually pay for the spending required by the current budget.

“But you knew that already, didn’t you? It isn’t fair to confuse the people who don’t know that.”

The proposal sounds so bizarre that I can hardly believe it is under discussion.

Someone found a loophole. Discussing using loopholes when Boehner is saying we will demand X or let the US government default on its debt/contracts/whatever and the President is saying he will refuse to negotiate on something as stupid as a threat to force the US government to default on its debt/contracts/whatever is not surprising. What is surprising is that the loophole is still there. It is the kind of thing that usually gets fixed in a technical corrections bill once anyone realizes it is there.

No Polly, because once you start down that path there is no limit to the amount of money that can be created and the world would know it. The world is plenty worried about the monetizing of the debt that is going on and it is only the fight over the debt limits that gives them any hope that this country will not totally debase the currency.

In a way, I think you’re both right.

In the short term, it solves a problem.

But it takes us down the path to Zimbabwe.

It only takes us down the path to Zimbabwe if Congress passes spending bills that take us down the path to Zimbabwe. When Congress decides not to raise the debt ceiling it is telling all the people whose stuff it has ALREADY bought, that they aren’t going to get paid.

The place to stop the spending is when you decide to buy it, not when you have to have the money to pay for it.

If we were the only ones doing it, monetizing debt would be a problem.

Republicans are worried about monetizing debt, until it comes time for their friends to help pay for it. Then, it gets shoved off onto the wretched refuse.

Apparently it is not just Republicans worrying about monetizing the debt from yahoo:

A recent CBS News poll, which summarized the arguments for and against raising the debt limit, found 25 percent of Americans in favor of lifting the ceiling. Sixty-eight percent opposed.

White House officials say public opinion will shift as people learn more about the issue.

“as people learn more about the issue.”

Translation: when people find out that the debt ceiling pays for their particular cheese.

A recent CBS News poll, which summarized the arguments for and against raising the debt limit, found 25 percent of Americans in favor of lifting the ceiling. Sixty-eight percent opposed.

That’s fine and dandy, but those same people don’t want to pay more taxes nor have their government cheese taken away.

They want “someone else” to pay for balancing the budget.

‘those same people don’t want to pay more taxes nor have their government cheese taken away’

I’m against more money for DC because of stuff like this:

“We spend about $10 million per hour in the Afghanistan war and right now we are losing a soldier every day to suicide. Shifting an hour’s worth of war funding to the fight of preventing soldier suicides is the least we can do.” – Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., on the passage of an amendment he co-sponsored boosting Pentagon suicide-prevention funding by $10 million in next year’s military budget.

http://nation.time.com/2012/07/20/defending-the-defenders/#ixzz2HJePft1Y

‘An opinion poll released Monday shows nearly seven out of 10 Americans opposing the war in Afghanistan, a record level of antiwar sentiment since the US invaded the country over a decade ago. Conducted by the New York Times and CBS News, the poll reflected the growth in popular revulsion toward the war in the wake of the horrific March 11 massacre of 17 Afghan civilians, most of them women and children’

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/03/afgh-m28.html

How dare anybody critique the NEWOT…….

$10 million a day? Chicken feed.

Just think how much we’d be spending if we were using B-1s, B-52s, and F-16s instead of drones.

I assume you’re against the $10 million for war and not the $10 million for suicide prevention.

By the way, this morning Obama nominated John Brennan to replace D Petraeus at CIA. Brennen is a big fan of drones.

‘Just think how much we’d be spending if we were using B-1s, B-52s, and F-16s’

You really have no idea what’s going on over there, do you?

‘the tight integration and expense of air missions, which in Navy crews’ case can cost up to $20,000 an hour, also raise questions about the prospects for the continuing fight against the Taliban. F/A-18 strike fighters are among the world’s most advanced military aircraft, with a price of roughly $100 million each and operating costs estimated at $18,000 to $20,000 per flight hour. Their sorties from the Stennis, each often lasting eight hours round-trip, almost always passed without violence.’

‘In 2011 the data shows that NATO fixed-wing aircraft dropped ordnance or strafed on 5.8 percent of 34,286 combat sorties flown.’

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/world/asia/in-dwindling-afghan-war-air-power-has-become-a-way-of-life.html?pagewanted=all

Oh, and BTW, the Taliban won. We’re negotiating their return right now. Not that we were supposed to be fighting them anyway. But they’re just brown people, so what the hell.

By the way, this morning Obama nominated John Brennan to replace D Petraeus at CIA. Brennen is a big fan of drones.

And enhanced interrogation techniques.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/01/07/media-downplay-former-cia-official-brennans-sup/146719

Liam from “Taken” was Obama’s first choice but he did not want to get up his movie career.

get=give

“…operating costs estimated at $18,000 to $20,000 per flight hour…”

Six hours of operation exceeds the typical federal full-time worker’s annual pay. No wonder the federal workforce has to be cut!

“…operating costs estimated at $18,000 to $20,000 per flight hour…”

A friend was involved in core sampling on a small island in the Columbia river. The drill rig was moved with a CH-47 Chinook helicopter that cost $18k/hr on the hobbs meter, and this was back around 1999. The was only a lifting workhorse, no fancy encrypting satellite radios, no terrain following navigation equipment, no night vision FLIR system, no long range inflight refueling equipment and no weapon systems.

FWIW, the above quote of $18,000 to $20,000 per flight hour sounds really low-ball to me.

“It only takes us down the path to Zimbabwe if Congress passes spending bills that take us down the path to Zimbabwe. When Congress decides not to raise the debt ceiling it is telling all the people whose stuff it has ALREADY bought, that they aren’t going to get paid.

The place to stop the spending is when you decide to buy it, not when you have to have the money to pay for it.”

This. Refusing to raise the debt limit is the absolute worst way to solve a budget problem.

The last fight, not the outcome but the fight itself, caused the US credit rating to be downgraded and has been estimated to cost the US $19B. And we did not even reach the debt limit.

This fight belongs in the budget process.

The real problem is that the House Republicans do not have the guts to state what they want to cut. They want the President to propose the cuts they want to make. So then he and the Democrats will suffer the political fallout.

I’m surprised no one has mentioned that the “Simpsons did it.”

(Sound is no good).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2KXzoXhhZE

I love how Fidel swiped the trillion dollar bill.

So why not make it worth 50 or 100 trillion?

That’s going to be the temptation. Why mint just 1 coin?

There is no political will on either side of the aisle to close the budget deficit (or the trade deficit for that matter). So we’re on the road to monetizing the debt. I expect that other nations with sovereign debt will follow our example.

It’s an Inflationary World After All! (substitute the annoying singing dolls with bankster animatronics.)

Contract “the Franklin Mint” to make a “limited-run” of only 1000 of the one $Trillion coins. They could have detachable features like WTC towers that “actually rise from the ashes…” where Tim Geithner’s nose “actually rises from his face”. This is going to be great. I love the USA.

The coins could be chocolate-filled foil wrappers.

“let them eat trillion-dollar coins”

Mmmmm … chocolate!

Has to be dark chocolate my favorite. Love Trader Joe’s for their dark chocolate.

Has to be dark chocolate my favorite. Love Trader Joe’s for their dark chocolate.

Crazy, crazy coincidence.

I’m reading the HBB eating peanuts and was already reaching for my last bar of Trader Joe’s Pound Plus, 72% Dark Chocolate when I read that. And I had misplaced that same bar for about 3 months.

And when asked to step up and help those most in need, their answer?

“I’ll say a prayer for you. You’re poor because you must have don’t something wrong.”

In our little burg, when someone approaches one of those superchurches to ask for help, they are told to “go to St. John’s, they’ll help you with your prescription/heating bill/etc.”

Apparently the superchurches consider their main (only?) mission is to send missionaries overseas. My fundy acquaintances talk about that A LOT: “we just sent 5 missionaries to Nigeria”, etc.

My gawd - the horror!

Almost as bad as the Taliban.

My experience with Protestant Fundies in the US is that they tell you (in an informal setting, say at the kid’s soccer games) about how wonderful their fundy superchurch is, and that you should come check it out.

“The First Family Church (of suburban prosperity)”

http://tinyurl.com/b4ydsyp

My ex-MIL was an active member. This guy (like Fox News) perfected the art of telling Republican suburbanites what they wanted to hear.

Before this, she was a member of another fundie church, who bought a bunch of acreage of (what turned into) prime commercial real estate, at the intersection of two major highways in Johnson County, Kansas.

The property was sold, then the church “disappeared”, along with the pastor and his family. Nobody seems to know where the millions off the sale of the church property went.

Imagine that!

Do you really think anyone is going to prohibit the burning of oil in the near future?

Prohibit it? Probably not. But there might be incentives to use renewables as a substitute. We generate 20% of our electricity from wind here in the Centennial State and with time that percentage will continue to grow.

At night, during low demand, wind provides 50% in our fair state. If that becomes larger, then people could recharge their electric cars at night without generating emissions.

Imagine a city without a brown cloud.

Of course, a pair of truck nutz just doesn’t go with an electric car.

There is, but on income above $200k, a level he flatly stated he made below. (I mentioned it as Investment Surtax above)

And step back as he froths at the mouth

Others responded basically with, “Yeah! Rabble Rabble Rabble!” I responded with the question about payroll taxes.

No one’s responded since. I think I have my answer.

don’t you think all the extra costs at the corporate level will (to the greatest extent possible by companies) be pushed down to the level of consumers?

Big fk!n deal. Repubs have this on t’shirts. “Freedom is not free” Why not this???

Freedom (from an American citizen DYING for lack of insurance) is not free.

You think freedom is free?

don’t you think all the extra costs at the corporate level will (to the greatest extent possible by companies) be pushed down to the level of consumers?

Yes, (an obvious one will be the medical device mfgs) but I don’t have a way to know that it’s going to cost me a specific dollar amount. That’s why I’m perplexed about this one.

“And that was a reaction to…what?”

Statism gone wild, just like now.

And that was a reaction to…what? I

Not getting their way. Just like now. And it’s why Repubs have won only 1 popular Pres. election out of the past 6.

The majority of Americans (on a national level) do not like the current brand of nutjob Repubs.

If you’re right about gun control the Dems should do nothing. Eliminating the current brand of nutjob Repubs is the first priority for a free America.

I don’t know how many times I have to tell you that I am not a Republican, I am an independent anti-progressive/anti-statist. It’s too late for partisanship in this country, good people should band together to fight tyranny and the global progressive movement.

If you’re right about gun control the Dems should do nothing. Eliminating the current brand of nutjob Repubs is the first priority for a free America.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. If Dems actually want to ever control anything long enough to make any real change, they need to leave guns alone. But they just can’t resist going down that rabbit hole…

‘Eliminating the current brand of nutjob Repubs’

So how? Shoot them with a gun? That’s real progressive talk there. I wonder why they might not trust you or want to work with you politically.

LOLZ

Dark Side of the Moonies?

3:25

Let no dollar escape the greedy statists.

Let no dollar escape the greedy statists. corporate overlords that the working poor are am radio programmed to support.

Nice try. You statist thugs are upset that you’ve been outed. Keep crying.

‘Krugman rocks’

‘Krugman Calls for Spending to Defend Against Space Aliens

So be it. That is the price of Freedom. That is the price of liberty of thinking.

I can differentiate beyond my politics. For example: My daddy rocked.

My Dad said a few things that were off the wall. But the totality of his work rocked. I will not discount the 95% of my Dad’s good teachings because 5% of the time he dared to dream no matter the ridicule it might bring.

Krugman has a Nobel prize and is respected throughout the world for his writings and economics.
I will not judge the totality of someone’s work against some flights of their genius imagination.

If we hold someone to the fire 100% of the time as a litmus test of their validity, we are hindering their freedom and liberty to think freely. And that will hurt us all.

‘Krugman has a Nobel prize’

Well you know what that’s worth after the Obama debacle.

’some flights of their genius imagination’

I don’t think you’re paying attention much. This space alien thing is just an update on the ‘digging ditches and filling them in’ idea of Keynes. It’s a really old and discredited idea, not a ‘flight of genius imagination.’

‘I can differentiate beyond my politics’

Apparently not. Krugman is regurgitating a theory that has failed in every way possible. And he deserves a Nobel prize as much as the war criminal, 1% tool Obama. Then again, maybe being a complete idiot/bastard is what the Nobel prize is for. Heck, Kissinger (another war criminal) got one.

Ok, let’s just call them authoritarians. It still makes no sense that communist antagonists wear those masks, communism is the ultimate authoritarian government system.

“anarchist and not a freedom fighter”

What exactly is an anarchist? Serious question.