The Housing Bubble

That’s nice but;

Rental rates are half the cost of buying at current grossly inflated asking prices of resale housing.

BTW….. You forgot to change usernames J_fraud blackhawk

Really?

My mortgage is less than $900 per month. Even with maintenance costs I’m ahead because someday my mortgage will be “paid in full”.

The point is that we all have different opportunities and different needs.

That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee around here Amy.

HA,

Your imagination would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.

BH

BS,

You can ditch your tainted usernames now. Along with that rapidly depreciating shack of yours.

You forgot that’s unpossible in D.C.

Because “it’s different there”

Then don’t. And when you’ve got nothing and you need something, don’t come knocking at Bill’s door.

No, the plan for debt donkeys is to get government to come knocking at Bill’s door. The modern day parable about the grasshopper and the ant is to have government tax the ant to provide for the grasshopper in the winter.

Btw…… OurGang pimps are busy today.

Who needs excess money (from the government or otherwise) to hike and drive a Civic? Consumerism is a choice that Bill has spent many years rejecting.

It’s telling that the usual cadre of idiots have no answer that doesn’t basically involve them becoming kings of the world whenever the crash occurs. They are just the other side of the asshole coin.

VRBO

Cost of Porsche minus cost of Honda = more savings and more skiing.

Specifically, inbounds: Loveland, Arapaho Basin, Winter Park, Monarch, Crested Butte; and backcountry: Rocky Mountain National Forest, Lost Creek Wilderness, San Isabel National Forest…

Rocky Mountain National Forest = Rocky Mountain National Park.

That’s my rented backyard to play in. I pay $40 of annual rent to Uncle Sugar and I get thousands of acres of backyard and hundreds of miles of trails (which are mostly empty, most tourists never hike in more than a mile from the road).

Meanwhile, the Debt Donkeys are drowning with the payments on their $500,000 starter homes in Broomfield or Highlands Ranch, and can’t afford the gas to drive up to RMNP. But at least they can paint the walls any color they want!

Hey Bill. You might remember in 2009 I bought a 911 Turbo. Still have it. Love it! Had one bad bit of engine work made worse by a bad mechanic, but she’s running great now. Lots o’ bucks but still a great amount of road trip fun with the missus.

Actually at my age I would be better off in a CLS 63 AMG. But I look younger than my age. My vision is just not sharp and I hope to get a good update on my prescription for better driving.

I drive my little Toyota very deftly through the I-5 and 405 traffic the 4 mile freeway stretch to work as it is. People think by appearance my car is slow. But I know how to use that overdrive.

A realtor in a Porsche. Typical.

CCR yes I do remember you mentioning a few years back you were getting a Porsche.

Funny I remember in 1990 I was a $30k millionaire looking at new 911s that were selling off the lot for $50,000 minimum. Now 24 years later they are perhaps $90,000, however my net worth these days is many multiples of $30k. So it does go to show that buying a Porsche is out of love of the car, not for an investment.

“privately” ???

Oxide, are you saying that the NSA knows who we are?

Bill keeps his precious metals in the pantry behind the oatmeal.

O’ Bubba I did not know you work for the NSA. Are you in Utah?

Nah. Everyone knows Bill hides his PM stash behind the oatmeal.

It’s good to hear you’re locked behind a gate at night Lola.

How long you in the half-way house?

Thanks to illegals that black tar heroin is very affordable.

You think? HA +3!

Well “general contractor”?

BTW, what I like about Santa Monica is its history and its natural beauty. The Rte 66 era was very interesting. Of course, I like the natural beauty of the coast which was the reason the City first developed. However, I do not like changes caused by the politics of the area.

Fine we have a deal.

Yep, right along side of Bush & Cheney….

We have a deal if you add Obamao

I would be willing to throw in Bush I to make that deal.

I say we just throw all Democrat and Republican progressives in prison.

licking-the-gore

no thanks

Cars get repossessed when you stop paying, but since the car is going to be worth less than the balance for all but the last few months of the loan, car loans have always been recourse. Seriously, oxide, you should know that if you have ever bought a car with a loan.

Car loans get packaged as bonds and sold all the time. The credit branches of the car companies made more money than the manufacturing end for a long time. They might still make more money than the sales end, but there are more players in the game (people don’t just automatically take the finance offer from the car company) so the profit margins might be a little lower than they used to be.

Cars get repossessed when you stop paying, but since the car is going to be worth less than the balance for all but the last few months of the loan

I don’t know about that. Used car prices have softened a bit, but the only cars that I’ve seen that are worth less than a few payments are 20 year old beaters with 200K+ on the odometer.

Interesting point about cars & their loans. If they aren’t paid, they are no longer really retaken by sleuthing by private eyes and skiptracers, but rather tracked with independent license plate scanning companies who roll through public parking lots and apartments capturing every single plate with basically no government oversight. They can build dbs of where you go based on the locations they track your plates too if they want to, the possibilities are limitless.

https://www.aclu.org/alpr

Reason #100 why Joe is basically right about commuting and car dependence and why the NSA is just the tip of the iceberg.

“Who is backstopping these loans?”

The same folks who are backstopping the mortgage paper.

Polly, you are missing the critical point. A depreciating asset such as a vehicle should not be financed with a seven year loan let alone a ten year loan. Efforts to keep the economy going with such devices are leading to more debt slaves and will cause future problems when the FB has to try to repair a vehicle while still paying for the vehicle. It is not a question of whether GS can create instruments to finance such loans it is a question of whether a society based on such loans can be economically stable. It cannot be stable.

A depreciating asset like a house shouldn’t be financed with a 15 or 30 year loan. Remember;

“If you have to borrow 15 or 30 years, it’s not affordable nor can you afford it.”

“It cannot be stable”

Commie talk!

“a society based on such loans”

What else would you base a society on? Something old and boring like building stuff?

This is 2014. We can all just tweet our way to prosperity!

Back when you were at the law firm they had underwriting standards, FASB 157 and actual losses, now your current employer just guarantees no losses.

” A depreciating asset such as a vehicle should not be financed with a seven year loan let alone a ten year loan.”

I’m not missing the point at all. I have had one car loan. It was for three years and I paid it off in about one year. I bought my current car for cash. I will buy my next car for cash. I would never finance a car for 10 years, or 7 years or probably even 5 years.

The point I am making is that there is nothing new about people being granted what is essentially unsecured credit or investment banks securitizing loans that have nothing to back them. If your credit card balance is high enough and you only make the minimum payments, you can get a 10 year loan for groceries that will be eaten by next week, never mind a car that should work for a most if not all of those 10 years.

We’re not talking about you and your personal experience.

The longer and longer payment times are new and a reflection of how a debt centered economy is inherently unstable.

Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.
Don’t hate the statist, hate the state?

Haters gonna hate, y’all.
Statists gonna state, y’all.

Albuquerquedan: The longer and longer payment times are new and a reflection of how a debt centered economy is inherently unstable.

Welcome to the trickle-up economy.

Welcome to the trickle-up economy.

I prefer to think of it as the statist tinkle down economy.

Polly, you are missing the critical point. A depreciating asset such as a vehicle should not be financed with a seven year loan let alone a ten year loan.

If it’s a zero percent factory loan, why not? The car will last that long and more. Now if you’re paying interest, then yeah, long term loan == very bad.

And who is paying for the subsidized rate to DebtDonkeys?

And what kind of discount will cash buyers receive?

If it’s a zero percent factory loan, why not? The car will last that long and more. Now if you’re paying interest, then yeah, long term loan == very bad.

If there were for 0% with no strings, I would agree. Even I would consider that type of financing if I could not agree to get the seller to reduce the price. However, I do not believe you will ever see that unless it is connected to an offer to reduce the cost of the vehicle as an alternative in which case you can be pretty sure that you will pay more if you chose the 0% option.

A depreciating asset such as a vehicle should not be financed with a seven year loan let alone a ten year loan.

We are looking to buy a flat panel TV. As part of the negotiation on a price discount, they offered that “well, you don’t have to pay a thing for 18 months.” Apparently we aren’t their typical, or target, customer.

The longer and longer payment times are new and a reflection of how a debt centered economy is inherently unstable.”

yea it’s sad

Here in the Centennial state Subarus hold their value so much that you might as well get a new one. It makes no sense.

They are the unofficial state car of Vermont.

When I visited the local Subaru dealer a few years back, they couldn’t have been less interested in my cash. With them I don’t think financing would have brought much of a discount either.

Here in the Centennial state Subarus hold their value so much that you might as well get a new one. It makes no sense.

Jeep Wranglers are the same way here in MA. I looked at the pricing for 2-3 year old Wrangler Unlimited models and I almost choked. The Grand Cherokee was a much better value used then the Wrangler.

Since people do not have equity in their homes to buy vehicles they are extending auto loans.

Those giant SUVs and BMW’s aren’t cheap. And don’t tell them to buy a vanilla minivan or domestic sedan, what will the neighbors think?

A place in town does income taxes. Owe too much? No problem, we have several financing options.

Finance my tax bill? Really??

***

Years ago my liability insurance in California leaped 400% when the deep pockets awards and flaky litigation took hold. The agent said, I have several financing options.

Finance their 400% increase? Really??

OK with a little research I see that it is not owed until you file the 2014 taxes so they will not intercept any returns. Clearly, they wanted to avoid any blowback in the 2014 elections.

Obama care seems to be working about as well as the Metric Conversion tried so many years ago.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-third-uninsured-won-t-101500681.html

Story states that 1/2 of the uninsured are unaware of the March 31st deadline which proves my point about people going to be angry when they find out about Obamacare. The underlying problem is the Idiocracy problem. I am sure that everyone that posts regularly on this board if they did not have insurance would have researched how and when to obtain insurance. O.K. maybe not Rio but he is the exception that proves the rule. These members of FSA are going to be plenty mad when they find out they are facing penalties for not getting insurance.

The underlying problem is the Idiocracy problem.

Is that why your math and understanding big picture trends are sup-par?

which proves my point about people going to be angry when they find out about Obamacare

So what? Do the math. A little less than half are already republicans and are always angry anyway, some of the remaining will be happy to learn they can now get insurance and Medicaid and most don’t even vote.

But they are “going to be angry”. mehh

So what? Do the math. A little less than half are already republicans and are always angry anyway, some of the remaining will be happy to learn they can now get insurance and Medicaid and most don’t even vote.

Prove that a little less than half of the people that are not signed up are Republicans. You just love pulling numbers out of your azz and putting other things in your azz.

Prove that a little less than half of the people that are not signed up are Republicans.

It’s math applied to common sense, demographics, political leanings and knowing one’s country.

“In all, census data show that 15.6 percent of residents in the average Democratic district are uninsured, compared with 14.1 percent in the average GOP district. Likewise, the share of working-age people who lack insurance is nearly as high in GOP districts (19.9 percent) as in Democratic ones (21.7 percent).”

The Uninsured Are Spread Throughout Red States, Too
The people who stand to gain the most from the health care law don’t live in just Democratic House districts.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/innovations-in-health/the-uninsured-are-spread-throughout-red-states-too-20131003

The big irony behind the scorched-earth Republican offensive against President Obama’s health care law is that its expansion of coverage to the uninsured would benefit House districts represented by Republicans nearly as much as those represented by Democrats.

In the confrontation that precipitated this week’s government shutdown, the near-universal refrain of Republican House members has been that they will “do whatever we can, as much as we can, to protect the people of our districts from the harmful effects of this law,” as Rep. James Lankford of Oklahoma put it. Regardless of what other provisions they consider harmful, that posture unavoidably means House Republicans are seeking to “protect” a surprisingly large number of their constituents from the right to obtain health insurance with federal assistance.

Recently released census data show that, on average, the share of residents without insurance is almost as high in districts represented by House Republicans as in those represented by Democrats. Slightly more Republicans (107) than Democrats (99) represent districts where the uninsured percentage is above the national average. Even about half of the 80 conservative members whose letter hatched the strategy of funding government only if Obama agreed to defund the 2010 Affordable Care Act represent districts where the uninsured share exceeds the national average.

This dynamic underscores how thoroughly ideology is trumping interest as Republicans convert the budget and debt showdowns into their Thermopylae for blocking Obamacare. Because so many House Republicans represent districts with low coverage levels, these members are effectively seeking to prevent a substantial flow of federal dollars not only to uninsured individuals in their communities but also to hospitals, doctors, and other providers who now are delivering significant levels of uncompensated care. “This is really an ideological stand—and in American politics, it [eventually] tends to be more about economic self-interest,” says Robert Blendon, a Harvard School of Public Health professor who studies public opinion and health care.

The near-convergence of insurance availability in Democratic and Republican districts reflects American politics’ ongoing class realignment. In Congress, Democrats represent an upstairs-downstairs coalition of well-educated, largely white suburban districts and heavily minority, mostly urbanized lower-income districts. Republicans represent many affluent places but rely increasingly on exurban and rural districts crowded with older and noncollege whites, many of whom lack insurance.

Using data from the Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey, released last month, my colleague Michael Mellody ranked all 435 districts by their share of uninsured residents. Heavily minority Democratic seats dominated the list’s top rung, but many Republican districts in blue-collar and rural areas placed in the upper half, too. For instance, in the Appalachian-tinged North Carolina district of Republican Rep. Mark Meadows, who spearheaded the anti-Obamacare letter, nearly 27 percent of the working-age population (ages 18-64), and about 18 percent of the total, lack health insurance. In Lankford’s Oklahoma City-based district, 28 percent of working-age people and 20 percent of all residents lack insurance. “We have organizers in Waco, Jacksonville, and the Cincinnati suburbs, and in those places they are doing the same things we are doing in more-urban areas,” says Anne Filipic, president of Enroll America, a nonprofit group backing the law.
The Uninsured by Congressional District

Congressional districts with the highest percentage of uninsured are in the Southwest and tend to be in areas with a large Hispanic population. Massachusetts has the lowest percentage of uninsured due to its state-run health insurance, which has been in place since 2006.

In all, census data show that 15.6 percent of residents in the average Democratic district are uninsured, compared with 14.1 percent in the average GOP district. Likewise, the share of working-age people who lack insurance is nearly as high in GOP districts (19.9 percent) as in Democratic ones (21.7 percent). On both measures, virtually identical numbers of Democrats and Republicans represent districts where the uninsured share of the population exceeds the national average by at least 10 percent.

The big irony behind the scorched-earth Republican offensive against President Obama’s health care law is that its expansion of coverage to the uninsured would benefit House districts represented by Republicans nearly as much as those represented by Democrats.

…..Recently released census data show that, on average, the share of residents without insurance is almost as high in districts represented by House Republicans as in those represented by Democrats. Slightly more Republicans (107) than Democrats (99) represent districts where the uninsured percentage is above the national average. Even about half of the 80 conservative members whose letter hatched the strategy of funding government only if Obama agreed to defund the 2010 Affordable Care Act represent districts where the uninsured share exceeds the national average.

This dynamic underscores how thoroughly ideology is trumping interest as Republicans convert the budget and debt showdowns into their Thermopylae for blocking Obamacare. Because so many House Republicans represent districts with low coverage levels, these members are effectively seeking to prevent a substantial flow of federal dollars not only to uninsured individuals in their communities but also to hospitals, doctors, and other providers who now are delivering significant levels of uncompensated care. “This is really an ideological stand—and in American politics, it [eventually] tends to be more about economic self-interest,” says Robert Blendon, a Harvard School of Public Health professor who studies public opinion and health care.

The near-convergence of insurance availability in Democratic and Republican districts reflects American politics’ ongoing class realignment. In Congress, Democrats represent an upstairs-downstairs coalition of well-educated, largely white suburban districts and heavily minority, mostly urbanized lower-income districts. Republicans represent many affluent places but rely increasingly on exurban and rural districts crowded with older and noncollege whites, many of whom lack insurance.

It appears since he is not posting he is confusing the part of the poll that states that 42% of the uninsured that are Republicans do not think there are subsidies with some kind of assertion that 42% of the uninsured that have not signed up are Republicans. His typical 2 plus 2 = 5 math. From a December 18, 2013 NYT article:

The uninsured respondents were generally younger, poorer and less educated than the respondents in the general population. Three-quarters of the uninsured were between 18 and 44, and about one in eight had college degrees. Slightly more than half said they earned less than $30,000 a year.

As you can see the uninsured hardly fit the typical Republican demographics. They do fit very well Obama’s supporters. It is interesting how far the MSM will go to avoid telling us what percentage of the uninsured are indeed Republicans. However, the assertion that 42% of the uninsured are Republicans has no basis in the link I provided above and it just shows how Lola has no understanding of numbers or polls despite trying to project that upon me.

Three-quarters of the uninsured were between 18 and 44, and about one in eight had college degrees. Slightly more than half said they earned less than $30,000 a year.

As you can see the uninsured hardly fit the typical Republican demographics.

In what states on what planet? “Po’ white trash” make up a substantial percentage of the Republican base.

Republicans Vote Against Their Own Survival as the Top 14 Child Poverty States Are Red

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/04/republicans-vote-survival-top-14-child-poverty-states-red.html

The top fourteen states with the highest percentage of children living in dire poverty are deeply-held red states and far exceed the humiliating national child poverty rate of nearly 24%. One might understand the racial motivation of self-destructive Republicans willing to go hungry to oppose the African American man in the White House, but their support is creating hunger for their own children,

In all, census data show that 15.6 percent of residents in the average Democratic district are uninsured, compared with 14.1 percent in the average GOP district. Likewise, the share of working-age people who lack insurance is nearly as high in GOP districts (19.9 percent) as in Democratic ones (21.7 percent).

Once again it shows that you do not understand statistics. I think the person that did write this article might but chooses to deceive. Notice the article does not say that Republican voters are as likely to be uninsured as Democratic voters. It says that Republican districts are almost as likely as Democratic districts to have the same percentage of uninsured. Really so how many 100% districts are there in the country? Is it really a surprise in a typical 55 to 45% district there are almost the same amount of uninsured? Willing to bet in those 55% Republican districts the uninsured are falling heavily among the 45% voting democratic.

Posts do not seem to be posting. To avoid redundancy, once again an article that does not breakdown uninsured Republicans vs. uninsured Democrats. In Texas, a Republican congressman probably has a lot of uninsured illegals in his district and uninsured Hispanic voters but that does not mean they are voting Republican.

I hope my slightly longer and more detailed post pop appears but I expect Lola will post the novel War and Peace to my Ten Commandments’ type post.

The top fourteen states with the highest percentage of children living in dire poverty are deeply-held red states and far exceed the humiliating national child poverty rate of nearly 24%.

Lola, are you really this stupid? If you look at the top fourteen states, most of them are states with large black populations and the poverty is concentrated among blacks. Blacks are not voting for Republicans. The states are red because the white populations are voting Republican except for most of poorest whites. There are not really Red states and blue states, there are red counties and blue counties and some of these states the populations in the red counties exceeds the blue counties.

Leave to Lola to quote from an article that states this:

“Americans understand the GOP base is angry and hates President Obama because he is Black, but they cannot fathom the self-destructive nature driving them to create pain and suffering for themselves, their children, and their family members; or tens-of-millions of Americans they do not know.”

No, we do not hate Obama because he is black but many of us do understand that Obama thinks exactly like this and cannot and will not concede that people opposed Obamacare because they knew it would not work. To him all opposition is racism. It is this belief that makes Obama incapable of making needed compromises because he treats anyone that opposes his policies as a racist. The people of Utah county will probably vote almost 70% for a black woman this congressional election and the people of the democratic Salt Lake City will cast their votes for the white candidate, but people like you will not call that racism.

Once again it shows that you do not understand statistics.

Of course I do. But it’s also math applied to common sense and knowing one’s country and shifts in voting demographic patterns. In the past 6 Presidential elections averaged, people voting Republican got a little less than half the vote which can be extrapolated to fairly well mirror our population, and your poll polled over 3,000 people which is a large enough sample to fairly reflect political leanings in spite of the argument that many are probably “poor” or working poor and lean Democrat because that could be balanced out because many of those choosing not to get insurance and who actually vote, might be doing it as Republican leaning anti-obamacare political stance too. (Polls don’t always lay bare actual motives)

If someone hates Obama, he might not want to know anything about the law and thus be ignorant of it. Add the fact that working class white people vote more than poor minorities and then add that poor white’s often vote Repub against their economic interest and the fact that Obama only got 36% of the working class white vote, it is no stretch to surmise that a little less than half of the people that are not signing up and who actually will vote would vote Republican and thus be “angry” anyway.

But I will concede that if “The underlying problem is the Idiocracy problem” as you say, It could very well be that voting Republicans slightly outnumber the voting Democrats in those being ignorant of the law.

No, we do not hate Obama because he is black but many of us do understand that Obama thinks exactly like this and cannot and will not concede that people opposed Obamacare because they knew it would not work.

A substantial number of Americans don’t like having a black president.

Deal with reality. BTW, Obamacare is working for those who could not get coverage before. Deal with reality.

But it’s also math applied to common sense and knowing one’s country and shifts in voting demographic patterns

Since you lack both common sense and math ability it is quite understandable that you came up with that answer. However, the bottom line is that you have not shown one poll that showed that Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be uninsured. This was surely asked in all the polls and that fact that the MSM does not report it is evidence that they Republicans do not equally lack insurance. Common sense clearly points to the fact that the MSM which is 90%+ liberal by all studies would hammer the Republicans with that fact if it were true. Like the FSU it is more instructive to look for what is not in the official news stories than what is said.

you have not shown one poll that showed that Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be uninsured.

My post was much more complicated than that as you know, and beyond you. But it really wasn’t directed at you. It was directed at the thinking unbiased because it involved math applied to common sense and knowing one’s country, class and race differences and shifts in voting demographic patterns - A Tour de Force well beyond your biased comprehension and political “math”.

Read it again sometime and marvel at the complexity and logic. (But you don’t ever have to admit it here)

Contrary to the liberal myth, you do not see very many people voting against their economic interests the poverty rate among whites is lower in Texas than in California. In most of the Southern states it is just slightly above the California numbers. California was once a very white state and a very prosperous state. That is changing in both categories and they impact each other.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/

Deal with reality. BTW, Obamacare is working for those who could not get coverage before. Deal with reality.

You need to get back on your meds and deal with reality. Obamacare is very unpopular because it is making life much more difficult for the majority of Americans and is only helping a very small percentage of Americans. That is political suicide. But I am glad there are people like you will take the Democratic party over the cliff. The Democrats were intelligent enough in the late 80’s to repeal catastrophic care and save their political hides. Had they not done that, Bill Clinton would not have been elected in 1992. I am very happy that thanks to people like you the collective IQ of the party has dropped.

Have to go but pleasant dreams about Joe and Obama, Lola.

Contrary to the liberal myth, you do not see very many people voting against their economic interests

Not “very many”? Your math is off again. Obama only got 36-44% of the working class white vote. exit polls/Census data

Repub polices shaft the working-class to favor the rich. They have for 34 years. We lived it. It is fact. Where have you been and what is this “liberal myth” of which you willfully ignorantly spout?

Obamacare is very unpopular because it is making life much more difficult for the majority of Americans

Your math is off again Albuquerquedan. And you constantly spout drivel and lies.

Look up the words “majority”, “much”, and “difficult”.

Then try using them accurately in an accurate sentence.

Sounds like a great movie title….”Lola And Da’ Pimp”

Speaking of movies, I think in the director’s cut of Idiocracy they discussed financing options at Starbucks. (sarcasm off).

Google AMO.

Google: “AlGore has a 20 ton air conditioner and leaves his porch light on all night” and you’ll see why there is no climate change.

Google: “AlGore has a 20 ton air conditioner and leaves his porch light on all night” and you’ll see why there is no climate change.

Your most intelligent post ever!! Of course, you do set the bar low.

But for those really interested in the science:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/17/claim-sustained-mass-loss-of-the-northeast-greenland-ice-sheet-triggered-by-regional-warming-but-not-so-fast/#more-105402

Of course, you do set the bar low.

I try to dumb it down with you. Especially anything to do with math and/or science when the math and science conflict with your politics.

Google: “Republicans Science”

It’s a hoot.

BTW, the only place this Greenland story is going headlines is in USA Today, hardly a Brazilian paper, but just the paper you might read if standing on the corner in D.C. or as paid political hack in a Congressional office.

BTW, the only place this Greenland story is going headlines is in USA Today,

The “only place this Greenland story is going headlines “? What planet that is not warming up do you live on? (Brazil has this thing called the internet now)

Greenland Glaciers Melting in the Northeast
Guardian Liberty Voice-13 hours ago

Greenland ice sheet loses its last grip
CBS News-42 minutes ago

Greenland Glaciers Melting Faster Than Thought, Raising Sea Level Rise Fears
The Weather Channel - ‎1 hour ago‎

Greenland ice loss: rising sea levels?
The Hindu - ‎3 hours ago‎

Greenland Ice Sheet Rapidly Shrinking, Greatest Ice Loss in History
Headlines & Global News - ‎2 hours ago‎

Greenland ice melt expanding, Ohio State researcher finds
Columbus Dispatch-22 hours ago
…

Fears of faster rising global sea levels as ’stable’ Greenland ice …The Independent-22 hours ago

Greenland glaciers melting more than previously thought
French Tribune-7 hours ago

No Brazilian papers? Of course you can find it elsewhere if you look hard enough but it did not appear as a headline on Google, Yahoo or MSN so it is obscure on the Internet but prominent in USA Today, just post a picture of yourself with today’s Brazilian newspaper.

just post a picture of yourself with today’s Brazilian newspaper.

Just dance an Irish jig with a pint of Guinness balanced on your head.

… and not the US edition either Lola.

The “only place this Greenland story is going headlines “? What planet that is not warming up do you live on? (Brazil has this thing called the internet now)

Greenland ice sheet loses its last grip
CBS News-42 minutes ago
…
and etc.

Exactly the point. Why don’t you address the fact that these very same headlines could have been written more than 1000 years ago and been correct? What man-made greenhouse gases caused that warmth? How come the earth wasn’t ruined back then? Mankind and polar bears made it through just fine.

The Earth heats up and cools down in the blink of mankind’s eye; always has, always will.

How come the earth wasn’t ruined back then? Mankind and polar bears made it through just fine.

Maybe so, but man’s over-hunting of the dinosaurs killed them off about 4,000 years ago.

Maybe so, but man’s over-hunting of the dinosaurs killed them off about 4,000 years ago.

Nice misdirection and avoidance of the topic. I can’t believe it took me so long to realize you’re just a troll. Shame on me.

Nice misdirection and avoidance of the topic.

Tell that to NASA and 95% of the world’s highly educated and trained Scientific community.

Shame on me.

Exactly. And those like you, with their head in the political sand on the subjects of Math and Science.

you’re just a troll

A stock line babbled often, that in this case means nothing.

Just like your “facts” and “math” huh Lola.

Yes, I bet those middle class people making just over $600 a month are producing lots of jobs, even the top of the range is lucky ducky in the U.S.:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2011/0819/The-evolving-identity-of-Brazil-s-middle-class

“Twenty years ago Brazil’s GDP was at $358 billion and ranked 11th in the world; today, at $2.5 trillion, it’s between sixth and eighth, depending on who’s counting

Isn’t a resource boom wonderful. Too bad China doesn’t need iron ore as badly anymore.

I bet those middle class people making just over $600 a month are producing lots of jobs,

I guess they are. And my paid off house has tripled, dang almost quadrupled. Think about that math. Dang. But who’s counting?

“No other BRIC balances democracy and widespread wealth nearly as well……..Twenty years ago Brazil’s GDP was at $358 billion and ranked 11th in the world; today, at $2.5 trillion, it’s between sixth and eighth, depending on who’s counting” Forbes

I guess they are. And my paid off house has tripled, dang almost quadrupled. Think about that math. Dang. But who’s counting?

I am glad your cardboard box has gone from being worth $2.50 to $10, congratulations. Sorry Rio, I know your MO is to try to make people envy you but we don’t. We do not even believe your BS. Isn’t there a Brazilian blog for you? O wait they would call you out in ten minutes.

Everything you say about Brazil is as equally as easy to find on the Internet as the Greenland article. Unlike most people on this blog, you have made your alleged location the central focus of your posts. For years you made Brazil a justification for Obama’s policies since similar policies were working so well in Brazil and you knew because you were living there. But guess what, they did not work in Brazil and they are not working in the U.S. When the resource boom was going on Brazil advanced despite policies that impeded growth, without the resource boom the socialistic policies are killing growth which is true in many South American countries right now. Every left of center government done there is now in trouble.

I know your MO is to try to make people envy you but we don’t.

I don’t want people to envy me at all. Only you. Because it bothers you and you can’t let it go. And you doubting where I live is funny. It’s like playing with a cat with a string.

But If I were living in America, I wouldn’t generally envy an American living in Brazil.

But guess what, they did not work in Brazil and they are not working in the U.S.

What’s not working?

“No other BRIC balances democracy and widespread wealth nearly as well……..Twenty years ago Brazil’s GDP was at $358 billion and ranked 11th in the world; today, at $2.5 trillion, it’s between sixth and eighth, depending on who’s counting” Forbes

I don’t want people to envy me at all. Only you. Because it bothers you and you can’t let it go. And you doubting where I live is funny. It’s like playing with a cat with a string.

You need to get back on your meds if you are delusional enough to think I envy you. I love tormenting you. However, I will admit sometimes I feel guilty about having a battle of wits with an unarmed “man”.

I love tormenting you.

But how can you “torment” a guy who understands the math?

Most times I respond to you I am smiling as I am now. I enjoy pointing out your “snapshot-in-time-short-term-oddball-political math.”

And the really funny part is that you are so consistent about it.

Every time I come online and read your posts here, it’s like the movie “Groundhog day” with you. And watching that movie is no torment at all.

In fact, I love that movie! So please entertain us again with some of your classic slip-shod political math and science.

For years you made Brazil a justification for Obama’s policies since similar policies were working so well in Brazil and you knew because you were living there

What Brazilian policies are that similar to Obama’s? What are you talking about?

Obamacare is similar to Brazil’s health-care system?

I think you must be talking a about Brazil Indiana.

Every left of center government done there is now in trouble.

You’re just mad that:
“No other BRIC balances democracy and widespread wealth nearly as well (as Brazil)”.. Forbes

Sour grapes. You’re just not a fan of balancing democracy and widespread wealth. It pi$$es you off. grrrrrrr It just rattles your little cage -gnaws at your beliefs. But hey, if you don’t like the math just make some of your math up again.

But how can you “torment” a guy who understands the math?

I could not torment someone that understands the math but that certainly does not include you. The only wits you have is Obama (dim wit) and Biden (half wit).

BTW, I notice you do not put a date on that Forbes story probably because the future of Brazil is not bright even if this story calls the current president a “pragmatic leftist” which is clear oxymoron:

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2014/news/regional/03/13/brazils-economy-faces-trouble-world-cup-election/

“Sour grapes. You’re just not a fan of balancing democracy and widespread wealth. It pi$$es you off. grrrrrrr It just rattles your little cage -gnaws at your beliefs.”

How does a person become one of those who revels in the destruction of liberty and the resulting ire and pain of his fellow citizens?

How does a person become one of those who revels in the destruction of liberty

Let’s talk about real liberty and Obamacare. “Libertarians” should laud Obamacare because it raises the level of liberty of the individual up to the existing level of the collective.

How? In the past, preexisting conditions could not be denied coverage in the collectives. (Governments or Corporations providing insurance to their employees would cover preexisting conditions.)

However the individual could have his liberty, justice and general welfare impinged at will, by the denial of health insurance due to preexisting conditions. This resulted in great ire and pain of our fellow citizens

This was in direct violation of the Constitution’s goals of establishing justice, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Liberty and life are a lot more complicated than right-wing soundbites.

future of Brazil is not bright

Bottom line, think big - the big picture.

In the overall trend for the past 25 years, Brazil is getting better for the average citizen and USA is getting worse.

Your slowing “growth” has not affected the general trend.

I know that these are “big-thought”, “Big-picture” ideas that you always have trouble with Albuquerquedan.

However the individual could have his liberty, justice and general welfare impinged at will, by the denial of health insurance due to preexisting conditions. This resulted in great ire and pain of our fellow citizens

This was in direct violation of the Constitution’s goals of establishing justice, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Speaking of the big picture, you just do not get that the constitution was about putting limitations on government. Your post is right out of the novel 1984, our liberties are best protected by infringing upon our liberties and dictating what we buy or do not buy.

Speaking of the big picture, you just do not get that the constitution was about putting limitations on government

Oh foolish and/or “tricky” one. You are ignorant of your country’s history. Or are you? But yours is a common, deceptive talking point that flies in the face of American history.

Today’s American History Lesson:
The Constitution was mainly about, in that point in time, establishing a much stronger federal government than the Articles of Confederation which were the definition of a limited federal government.

“the Articles (of Confederation) were purposely written to keep the national government as weak as possible. However, there were many problems that soon became apparent as the Articles took effect. ….As the economic and military weaknesses became apparent, individuals began asking for changes to the Articles that would create a stronger national government.” americanhistory dot about dot com

As if the founding fathers were sitting around and said, “These Articles of Confederation are too limiting, we need to write a new Constitution that weakens the federal government.” NOT

Comparison of Constitution and Articles of Confederation usu dot edu

Articles of Confederation:
States are sovereign
No independent executive
No federal courts-all laws enforced by state courts.
No taxing power given to Congress.
Congress has no power over interstate or
foreign commerce.
Congress consists of one body and each state
has one vote.
Amended only by approval of ALL the states.
Congress has only specific, delegated powers.
Only state governments act directly on the people.

US Constitution:
People of the whole nation are sovereign–exercise
of sovereignty is divided between states and the
central government.
Independent executive chosen by electoral college.
Separate federal court system, with power to
resolved disputes between the states.
Congress has power to “lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts, and excises.”
Congress has power to regulate commerce with other
nations and among the states.
Congress consists of two bodies. Number in House is
based on population and each state has two Senators.
Amended with approval of 3/4 of states.
Congress has implied as well as specific powers.
Both central government and state governments acts
directly on the people.

Rank Country Median income (US$, PPP)[4] Median income (US$, nominal) Year[5]
1 Luxembourg 36,415 47,936 2010
2 Norway 32,502 52,575 2010
3 Switzerland 30,897 47,237 2009
4 United States* 29,056 29,056 2010
5 Canada 27,752 34,929 2010
6 Austria 27,745 31,357 2010
7 Australia 27,092 38,570 2010
8 Denmark 26,318 39,742 2010
9 Netherlands 25,121 29,155 2010
10 Sweden 24,787 31,878 2010

The list ends at 35 with:
35 Mexico 4,384 3,086 2010

So the US should emulate brazil how?

So the US should emulate brazil how?

How about looking at the growth of median income and the number of people who’ve climbed out of poverty the past 20 years. (35-40 million in Brazil)

How about coming up with some policies that promote the general welfare of the common people instead of the rich for a change?

Brazil suks in many ways but it’s anti-poverty figures the past 20 years are impressive. I first came to Brazil in 88 and the changes for the poor and lower middle-class are impressive. USA? Not so much.

BTW, if it wasn’t clear, Brazil doesn’t even make that list.

I first came to Brazil in 88 and the changes for the poor and lower middle-class are impressive. USA? Not so much.

So lets see. In the US, over 50% of people are making 29k

In Brazil, not even 50% of people are making $3086.. yet somehow brazil is doing better for the poor and lower middle class? I’m pretty sure even the crappiest crap social security pays better than $3086 per year.

BTW, looking at a detailed breakdown of US income:
Under $5,000 4,261 3.52% 0.23 2.02

so 96.48% of households in the united states make over $5000/yr… , and Brazil can’t even hit that as a MEDIAN?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Dude, just stfu and admit that Brazil is an economic failure with their policy compared to the US. These are very simple numbers. How can you possibly argue that it the US has a better economic framework, even with its flaws? How can you possibly argue we should emulate Brazil?

So having a median income lower than 96% of the US household incomes is a success how? That’s like saying eating dog shit is better than eating cat shit because the portions are bigger.

How can you possibly argue we should emulate Brazil?

We should emulate Brazil only in the way that at least part of our public policies promote the poor and middle-class over the rich. Of course we should do it our way and not the Brazilian way because USA is a developed country whereas a big part of Brazil is still not. Is this to complicated of a concept for you? There’s a lot going on here.

So lets see. In the US, over 50% of people are making 29k

Those numbers don’t mean as much as you think. It’s Brazil dude, not Sweden. The TREND in Brazil is that the poor and working poor are doing better over the long term while in the USA, the poor and the working poor AND the middle-class are doing worse over the long term trend. Got it now?

Dude, just stfu and admit that Brazil is an economic failure with their policy compared to the US

This is just not true when one looks at the TRENDS for the past 20-25 years. Of course USA is much better in total but the USA has reversed trends just lately of each generation doing better than the past generation whereas Brazil’s new generations, on the whole, are doing better than the past ones. Dude, just “stfu” and admit you know nothing about Brazil and most the big world out here.

Just the fact that you would compare nominal incomes only, without acknowledging long term trends along with cultural, historical and cost of living differences, make you just sound like an insular, untraveled and (on this subject) a typically ignorant American. (But I’ll bet you’ve been to Hawaii)

The “trend” of the past 25 years in Brazil can’t even get the median income to $4000 ? If I make a penny and i change my income to $1 that is 100x growth. I still only make a dollar. Do you not get that? Should the Nazi’s have been commended if they fed the Jews before gassing them?

The “trend” of the past 25 years in Brazil can’t even get the median income to $4000

It’s Brazil Dude, not Del Mar. Look up “median” and “3rd world country”. Contemplate it and the bifurcation of Brazil’s population 25 years ago. That’s a huge leap forward considering more than half the country were dirt poor poverty stricken peon’s 25 years ago and many were malnourished and starving. Get out much?

If I make a penny and i change my income to $1 that is 100x growth.

Invest that in a Passport, go somewhere and learn something about the big world outside of your little sheltered one.

The transponders are “strapped” for a specific registration number. The would have to send them to a Honeywell or RockwellCollins shop to restrap them.

Assuming they were smart, (a big assumption, I know), they would have every p/n and s/n of every component on that aircraft put on the “watch lists”

Hmm. Interesting, thanks.

I realized that rational debate with the Tea Party types was a waste of my time.

That, and I got busy with other stuff, like a new airplane acquisition for one of the guys I do some on-the-side work for, and doing a report to the CFO on whether the company should spend a million bucks plus on the current airplane, or get something newer.

It’s complicated………tax and depreciation issues come into play. Or you can make the choice to quit flying overseas, and figure on getting a new airplane on/before 1/1/2020.

Well, it’s just my opinion, but I’d love it if you’d host a weekend thread on this issue. I know it is OT for a housing blog, but definitely an important issue this day and age.

This is really not good for the commercial aviation industry in a global, politically correct society. Frankly, I’d be a bit queasy flying if I knew the pilot was from a certain region of the world these days. It’d be like playing Russian Roulette.

rational debate with the Tea Party types was a waste of my time.

You can’t have a rational debate with many of them. But sometimes it’s amusing to point out their irrationality in a rational manner. Especially when it involves math or science.

But now the important stuff:

What do you think of the South bracket and our 2nd seed? What’s the vibe around there?

Hope Embiid can play Sunday (if ‘n’ when) but it’s doubtful I’m reading. NM would be tough without him.

The Shockers got hosed imo. What a “number 1 seed”. Larry Brown got ripped-off too imo.

“You can’t have a rational debate with many of them.”

How about a rational debate with a nanny state progressive and a sane person? Yeah, impossible.

How about a rational debate with a nanny state progressive and a sane person? Yeah, impossible.

Or someone paid to post Soros talking points? Yea, impossible.

Liberace… err… lola…. At least come up with your own material.

Is every facet of you a photocopy? Artificial?