The Housing Bubble

July 22, 2014, 6:01 a.m. EDT
For stocks, Dow 20,000—then a crash?
A forecaster sees short-term gain and long-term pain
By Brett Arends, MarketWatch

Jeremy Grantham says markets could rise another 10% to 15% from here—followed by a sharp tumble.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average soars to 20,000. The cheers echo around Wall Street. As the economy recovers, unemployment tumbles. A wave of mergers sweeps Wall Street as big companies bet on a continuing economic boom. The bears and naysayers are routed, humiliated and consigned to oblivion. Mom-and-Pop investors, terrified of getting left behind, pour money into stocks.

And then, horrifyingly, it all starts to go sour, yet again. As the economy recovers, costs begin to rise. As unemployment tumbles, wages follow suit. The Fed begins hiking interest rates to stop inflation. Meanwhile companies have to slash prices to gain or keep market share against brutal competition. Earnings plunge. Stocks begin to slide. and then tumble into a terrifying smash, the third in a generation.

Far-fetched? Not necessarily.
…

Do u think there are enough sheep still left to get that kind of gain?

I’m not buying into this scheme.

I wonder how many of those 50k trucks chevy is selling?

10 yr loans coming?

Talked to a friend the other day. His financial advisor expects a DOW “correction” to about 14,000. How do people feel about this? I have some cash just sitting, and I’m wondering if I should go ahead with consumer staples or something.

Pay off some of that crushing debt of yours donk.

I’m referring to tax-advantaged 59.5 funds, HA. And, yes, I’ve been paying off debt.

Regarding 10 year car loans, we’re getting there: “Terms of 73 to 84 months accounted for 24.9 percent of all sales in the first quarter…” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-21/leases-entice-drivers-to-upgrade-cars-as-often-as-iphones.html

“Talked to a friend the other day. His financial advisor expects a DOW “correction” to about 14,000. How do people feel about this? I have some cash just sitting, and I’m wondering if I should go ahead with consumer staples or something.”

Define “go ahead with consumer staples”.

The market will correct, eventually, hard to predict when. I would just pay off anything you owe money on (that includes house), have a nice safety net fund, and see where you could spend some money to day to create efficiencies or future cost savings.

Other than that, I would just continue to fund retirement accounts to take advantages of tax savings which do not depend on market returns. If you’re savin

Dump that debt Donkey.

I mean convert some 59.9 from cash fund to a consumer staples fund.

I’m not in a position to pay off the house in 3-5 years, but I’m doing okay in that I’m solvent.

Youre not solvent Donk.

During the worst of the crash, a lot of REITs were battered and bruised because of BK fear, but were still generating lots of cash flow (plenty to service the debt).

Some REITs that I own were paying off their debt…at a discount. A brilliant strategy.

Those same REITs are now targeting debt levels that are quite low (30-40% LTV).

They won’t provide the same “juice” on an upswing again, but the probability of a similar crash in values with a market crash is much lower.

P O N Z I

Phoenix, AZ Housing Demand Plummets 24% YoY; Sellers Begin Slashing Prices As Inventory Balloons

http://www.zillow.com/local-info/AZ-Phoenix-home-value/r_40326/#metric=mt%3D30%26dt%3D1%26tp%3D5%26rt%3D8%26r%3D40326%26el%3D0

seen it a 1000 times before, same old bs. prices still have went up.

Encinitas, CA Housing Prices Crumble 8% YoY; Price Slashing Accelerates As Demand Evaporates

http://www.movoto.com/encinitas-ca/market-trends/

Those bubble bashers are a mean crowd. They ought to go get their own blog. All China has to do to get to $10 million GDP is borrow another $2 Billion a year.

GO CHINA! To the moon!

China PIMP.

Wow. He’s really in your head, isn’t he?

You voted for work for me you a$$hat. I voted libertarian.

Bill delivers another KO punch.

It’s not a KO punch at all. It’s also not an answer to the question. Bill has no idea how I voted. People may have voted for parties that gave him work, but he accepted that work. According to him, that made him a minor actor in a giant criminal conspiracy.

No unmighty midget. You always favor collectivism from your posts. I know how you voted. For the same Demopublican Presidents and congress critters that vote for larger government spending programs.

Stop being a bull $hitter.

The same retards posting against tax cuts and against capitalism are the ones who complain I got paid by the taxpayers.

WTF. YOU MM are a retard.

First of all, you need to give an example of something that I’ve written that show what I favor. There aren’t many of those. I rarely simply state my preferences because that make for interesting discussions.

Also, read what I wrote. I did not complain about your work for the government. I simply asked you if it made you a thug or a criminal, a question that you did not answer.

meant to write:

First of all, you need to give an example of something that I’ve written that shows what I favor. There aren’t many of those. I rarely simply state my preferences because that doesn’t make for interesting discussions.

“I simply asked you if it made you a thug or a criminal,”

By asking a libertarian that question, it is obvious you are no libertarian, hence you are a statist. Murray Rothbard worked as a professor for SUNY. Paid by taxpayers. That did not make him a thug. I knew a bunch of libertarian government employees while I was a government employee.

Last time I checked, defense is a monopoly - run by government. Libertarians want defense to be privatized. In any case people in that industry do not work for free. They get paid. Only a retard would expect people to work for no pay.

You are an idiot.

Thanks for some more nonsense. You call me an idiot, yet you can’t answer the question without using phrases like “you are no libertarian” and “Libertarians want”.

Then you say the following, “Murray Rothbard worked as a professor for SUNY. Paid by taxpayers. That did not make him a thug.” Why do you need to mention this guy’s name to answer the question?

This is why I say that it’s interesting that so you’re hostile to religion. You talk about these people as if they’re prophets.

You’ve stated previously that taxes are theft, yet you apparently also think that there’s nothing ethically objectionable in working for government and getting paid with that stolen money. That’s inconsistent.

If that’s inconsistent, you should be quick to point out to those in favor of raising taxes that they aren’t personally contributing extra to social security funds or medical relief funds in the amount that their taxes would be under their proposed laws…

It’s not the same, mathguy. To say that taxes are theft is to say that every government is a criminal gang.

Every government is a criminal gang.

Your point?

I guess that I need to state my point more explicitly. If every government is a criminal gang, working for a government and accepting stolen funds as pay should be considered to be unethical.

Did he work the hours? Did he break the law during those hours?

Discussion of Libertarians Working for the government (And why Mighty Mike is an a$$hole:)
By the late Murray Rothbard

“Working for Government

The criterion we should use in the Nozick case is, I believe, an easy one. There are far more difficult questions. What about working as a government employee? It is true that, other things being equal, it is far better, on libertarian as well as pragmatic grounds, to work for a private employer rather than government. But suppose that the government has monopolized, or virtually monopolized, your occupation, so that there is no practical alternative to working for the government?

Take, for example, the Soviet Union, where the government has, in effect, nationalized all occupations, and where there are no, or virtually no, private employers. Are we to condemn all Russians whatsoever as “criminals” because they are government employees? Is it the only moral act of every Russian to commit suicide? But that would be idiotic. Surely there are no moral systems that require people to be martyrs.

But the United States, while scarcely as far gone as Russia, has had many occupations virtually monopolized by the government. It is impossible to practice medicine without becoming part of a highly regulated and cartelized profession. If one’s vocation is university teaching, it is almost impossible to find a university that is not owned, economically if not legally, by the government. If one’s criterion of government ownership is the receipt of over 50% of one’s income from the government, then there are virtually no universities, and only one or two small colleges, that can be called “private.” During the riots of the late 1960’s, students at Columbia discovered that far more than 50% of the income of that allegedly “private” university came from the government. In such a situation, it is foolish and sectarian to condemn teachers for being located in a government university.

There is nothing wrong, and everything rational, then, about accepting the matrix in one’s daily life. What’s wrong is working to aggravate, to add to, the statist matrix. To give an example from my own career. For many years I taught at a “private” university (although I would not be surprised to find that more than half its income came from the government). The university has long teetered on the edge of bankruptcy, and years ago it tried to correct that condition by getting itself “statized” through merging with the State University of New York system, in those halcyon days rolling in dough. For a while, it looked as if this merger would occur, and there was a great deal of pressure on every member of the faculty to show up in Albany and lobby for merger into the State system. This I refused to do, since I believed it to be immoral to agitate to add to the statism around me.

Does that mean that all libertarians can cheerfully work for the government, apart from not lobbying for statism, and forget about conscience in this area? Certainly not. For here it is vital to distinguish between two kinds of State activities: (a) those actions that would be perfectly legitimate if performed by private firms on the market; and (b) those actions that are per se immoral and criminal, and that would be illicit in a libertarian society. The latter must not be performed by libertarians in any circumstances. Thus, a libertarian must not be: a concentration camp director or guard; an official of the IRS; an official of the Selective Service System; or a controller or regulator of society or the economy.

Let us take a concrete case, and see how our proffered criterion works. An old friend of mine, an anarcho­libertarian and Austrian economist, accepted an important post as an economist in the Federal Reserve System. Licit or illicit? Moral or immoral? Well, what are the functions of the Fed? It is the monopoly counterfeiter, the creator of State money; it cartelizes, privileges and bails out banks; it regulates – or attempts to regulate – money and credit, price levels, and the economy itself. It should be abolished not simply because it is governmental, but also because its functions are per se immoral. It is not surprising, of course, that this fellow did not see the moral problem the same way.

It seems to me, then, that the criterion, the ground on which we must stand, to be moral and rational in a state-run world, is to: (1) work and agitate as best we can, in behalf of liberty; (2) while working in the matrix of our given world, to refuse to add to its statism; and (3) to refuse absolutely to participate in State activities that are immoral and criminal per se.”

“It seems to me, then, that the criterion, the ground on which we must stand, to be moral and rational in a state-run world, is to: (1) work and agitate as best we can, in behalf of liberty; (2) while working in the matrix of our given world, to refuse to add to its statism; and (3) to refuse absolutely to participate in State activities that are immoral and criminal per se.”

- Murray Rothbard, anarchist libertarian, who was a pubic employee at SUNY, and other public colleges.

Living in the MATRIX OF OUR GIVEN WORLD - Agitate for liberty

Did he work the hours? Did he break the law during those hours?

That’s irrelevant to my point. Bill would probably also say that it’s irrelevant. If taxation is theft, than the money that Bill was paid doesn’t properly belong to him. If you work in the private sector, Housing Analyst, money is regularly stolen from people like you and transferred to people like Bill.

Also, the long quote from Rothbard supports what I wrote above about your attitude being religious. It a lot like stuff written by theologians regarding what how Christians should live.

I think that I read somewhere that you can find racist claptrap in some of this Rothbard guy’s writings, which is typical of many of these “anti-government” types. I still remember your declaration, Bill, that racism is statism. It was around 2½ years ago, but it’s a great tidbit to use on this blog.

Housing Analyst asked “Did he break the law during those hours?”

Nope. I did not. I worked with the assurance that what I was doing was protecting American lives. While the retarded MightyMike will postulate that I must have been some executioner of some sort, well the disappointment is that I was not an executioner.

It is a legitimate function in any society, whether anarcho capitalist, minarchist, or very statist, to have a defense against armies that would want to crush in our communities. “The Market For Liberty” had in depth analysis of what competing defense firms would be like and refute some of the misconceptions statists have for private defense. But we are in a statist society. Defense has to be provided one way or another.

I was skilled in defense work. I work in the matrix of a statist society. The only game in town for my skills was to be paid by government. In fact, the U.S. constitution itself cites “provide for the common defense” as justification.

Only a fricking retard would assume defense is for free. Nothing is free. And it is true your freedom is not free.

If retarded MightyMike does not like defense, my recommendation is for him to move to Syria and have a sign around him saying “I am an American”.

I execute construction contracts with fraudsters all the time. I perform the work and I’m paid for it.

I didn’t earn it? Really?

You’ve got a thinking problem.

Only a fricking retard would assume defense is for free. Nothing is free. And it is true your freedom is not free.

That’s really clever using terms like fricking retard. You keep avoiding the issue. If taxation is theft, the money that you were paid didn’t belong to the people who paid you. It was stolen. None of your references to Murray Rothbard and wacky “anti-government” books address that issue.

And I can’t believe that you’re referencing the law. The law says that taxes are legal, so they can’t be theft. All the “thuggerment” programs that you hate, like food stamps, were created through the enactment of laws.

I don’t like defense either but that’s not the point. The point is you received money for dollars earned and you weren’t asked to violate the law. MikeyTard has a thinking proble!m.

I execute construction contracts with fraudsters all the time. I perform the work and I’m paid for it.

You’ve got a thinking problem.

You can’t understand what I’m saying, HA? If someone steals money, it doesn’t belong to him. Do you understand that? It that person then hires you and pays you with that stolen money, it doesn’t belong to you. How could it?

Look at this way. Imagine that it wasn’t money. Imagine if someone stole a car and then hired you to do some work and gave you the car as payment. If the person from whom the car was stolen was able to track you down, show you the title and registration documenting his ownership of the car, and then demand that you give it back, would it be reasonable for you to say that the car actually belongs to you?

Such anger. Is the hoarding not working for you? You should be happy as a clam, I would think.

I don’t like defense either but that’s not the point. The point is you received money for dollars earned and you weren’t asked to violate the law. MikeyTard has a thinking proble!m.

Now you’re descending to Bill’s level with these silly nicknames. I told you that the law is irrelevant to this discussion. Laws are things made by politicians. There are a couple of who participate on this blog who love to state “morality trumps law”. Don’t you agree with them?

Answer the question Knucklehead.

I sign a contract to perform work for a fraudster and I perform the work according to the terms of the construction contract.

The money I earned I really didn’t earn according to you. Right?

You need mental help.

You’ve got a thinking problem.

If you look at that Rothbard quote above, it’s rather odd. Consider this:

But the United States, while scarcely as far gone as Russia, has had many occupations virtually monopolized by the government. It is impossible to practice medicine without becoming part of a highly regulated and cartelized profession. If one’s vocation is university teaching, it is almost impossible to find a university that is not owned, economically if not legally, by the government.

If it’s somewhat immoral to work in a sector of the economy that’s partially controlled by the government, why not change jobs. Wouldn’t it conscience be clearer working in whatever sector of the economy is least influenced by government.

Then he goes on to say this:

Thus, a libertarian must not be: a concentration camp director or guard; an official of the IRS; an official of the Selective Service System; or a controller or regulator of society or the economy.

First, this is another example of theological writing, specifying what must not be. He should have used the words “thou shalt not”.

More importantly, he states that it would be immoral to work for the IRS, but apparently there are other parts of the federal government that it would be OK to work for. That doesn’t make sense. It would be hypocrisy to work in defense, claim that that was perfectly moral and say that the people at the IRS do a job that is immoral.

You need mental help.

Just keep repeating that. It’s such a persuasive argument.

I’ll answer your question. If worked, then you deserve to be paid. You just don’t deserve money that doesn’t belong to the payer. Do you disagree with that?

Lolz. Such twisted illogic. I’m owned the money legally and ethically. And so is Bill. Case closed.

Get your act together.

Now you refuse to answer my question.

Hard of hearing still? I’m owed the money. And so is Bill.

‘There are a couple of who participate on this blog who love to state “morality trumps law”

This is an odd argument. We have someone who thinks the government is wonderful saying those who disagree with him are wrong to do work for the government. Why is one income source OK and the other not?

As for the morality issue; I used to do tax returns. It was hard work and one of the reasons I stopped was I found myself carrying water for the IRS. Warning the clients, “oh don’t that you’ll get fined.” I got sick of it so I left the business, not just for that reason. Do I think that people who prepare taxes are immoral? Of course not. It’s just not for me. Edward Snowden decided the tell the world about what the NSA was doing. Has Snowden come out and said he thinks all NSA workers are immoral? I haven’t heard that. We’re all individuals. If I drive on a government road to work, am I violating some sacred libertarian oath? Or do I have a choice? basically, this is all just silly.

First of all, I’ve never stated that I think that the government is wonderful. Second, I also never wrote that it’s wrong for people to work for the government. What I wrote is that any person who believes that taxation is theft should also believe that it’s wrong to work for the government. That’s all that this little debate is about. If you believe a then you should believe b. Since I don’t go around saying that taxation is theft, that doesn’t apply to me.

I work hourly for known fraudsters. They don’t ask me to break the law. I don’t break the law. They’re still fraudsters and they owe me money for every hour I work.

Get over it and get on with your life.

With the increased premiums people will be happy that the law is being struck down.

which is when it’s estimated another 10 million will sign up for ACA….would then throw maybe 10 million people off health insurance.

These are all rough-as-a-cob numbers and a lot of those would be Medicaid based numbers. I’m not sure how today’s ruling if upheld would affect the Medicaid factors in the states that expanded Medicaid but did not set up a state exchange. Are there any? That would be interesting.

My biggest question is, could the SCOTUS strike down the ACA mandates in states relying on the federal exchanges before the 2015 signup period ends. Anyone?

With the increased premiums people will be happy that the law is being struck down.

More accurately they will be happy when as a result of the subsidies being struck down the whole law needs to be repealed since it is no longer viable.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/federal-appeals-court-just-invalidated-150514985.html

With the lost of the subsidies and the double digit increase due to the low sign-ups of healthy people we are talking about a doubling of premiums throughout the country. Unless the Democrats vote for repeal they will be able to caucus in a phone booth. Check mate.

With the increased premiums people will be happy that the law is being struck down.

Let’s look at the math and not erroneous talking points.

https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_health_care_inflation_rate

There have been no historically-higher increasing premiums for apples to apples comparison. That is a right-wing myth. Sure a new good policy costs more than a crap policy but if you can’t afford it, there subsidies so you can afford it.

The fact is, the curve has been bent downward on health care inflation for the first time in many many years. All this since 2012 Partly because of the lingering Recession and partly because the ACA has injected much more competition amongst private insurers. Look at the chart above.

“US Health Care Inflation Rate is at 2.61%, compared to 2.85% last month and 2.15% last year. This is lower than the long term average of 5.49%.”

Isn’t the problem that the law is clearly worded in a way that is inconsistent with the implementation?

From the NY Times article on the matter:

‘”Under the Affordable Care Act, the appeals court here said, subsidies are available only to people who obtained insurance through exchanges established by states.

The law “does not authorize the Internal Revenue Service to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal exchanges,” said the ruling, by a three-judge panel in Washington. The law, it said, “plainly makes subsidies available only on exchanges established by states.”’

And I understand the “spirit of the law” argument that will be made by the ACA supporters. However, when the words of the law are so clearly different than the argued “spirit” of the law, it seems to be a tough argument.

This is a big problem with shoving a massive law through without reading it or having any buy-in from the minority party. There will be resistance for poorly worded provisions to be fixed.

And your SCOTUS line of questioning is clearly a hope that the administration can provide more illegal subsidies before SCOTUS stops them–so that there is more political pressure brought to bear on Republicans to go along with a change to the law.

These kinds of actions are how a democracy dies.

And now you want to blame this on Republicans? I blame this on a President who has no ability to bring two sides together…from WEEK ONE on the job (read the account of the first stimulus bill from early in Obama’s Presidency).

This mess is entirely made from Democrat sh*t.

More accurately they will be happy when as a result of the subsidies being struck down the whole law needs to be repealed since it is no longer viable.

I don’t think so. By the time I think ACA subsidies could be struck down, it would throw a rough estimate 10 million people off any kind of insurance.

Can you imagine the soundbites, the PR the commercials? Before the 2016 elections where currently the Dems are not motivated? This is 10 million people thrown out of their insurance at the same time - mostly women and children. These 10 million have maybe 30-40 million related family members. Do the math. It’s horrendous.

Remember the affect of the bogus 10 or 12 cherry picked people who “lost their insurance” because of Obamacare that the KochBrothers put out? The ones that proved bogus?

Well here we would actually have 10 million people really and truly actually losing health insurance at the same time….after they had it!

“Isn’t it funny that you don’t know what you got until it’s gone?”

IMO, this could be the greatest public health crisis and public relations nightmare for the Republicans for the past 50 years.

Repubs, be careful what you wish for.

With the lost of the subsidies and the double digit increase due to the low sign-ups of healthy people we are talking about a doubling of premiums throughout the country.

Written like a conniving lawyer to sell a lie with half truths. (Or someone just ignorant of the math and reality) I have a feeling which is the case. You do such a poor job with your Propaganda.

The “doubling of premiums throughout the country” only applies to the people losing their subsidy - not the roughly 90% of Americans NOT receiving an ACA subsidy.

Obamacare = FAIL

So 10 million people who have preexisting conditions or are poors get insurance under Obamacare. And 80 million with employer provided health insurance get hit with double digit premium increases year after year.

This isn’t NPR, this isn’t the New York Times, this is reality.

These kinds of actions are how a democracy dies.

Totally wrong in the big picture of democracy. Here’s how democracy dies.

Fact: Americans have polled for years with vast majority wanting some kind of universal coverage - maybe decades.

In about 2009 polls were showing up to 70% of Americans wanting all Americans to have access to universal coverage.

Repubs have voted against the majority views for decades on health-care. Why? For money. For donations. For people like the Koch Brothers. Now they are trying to kill a bill on a technicality.

And you have a Supreme Court stacked by the KochBrothers wing who voted that unlimited cash is free speech. That is how democracy dies.

And 80 million with employer provided health insurance get hit with double digit premium increases year after year.

Hint: Your subsidized by “socialized” employer health insurance too. What makes you so special?
There 10’s of millions with employer based insurance that have pre-existing conditions too. Run the math. What makes you more special than a guy running his own business? What?

“The HHS analysis found that “anywhere from 50 to 129 million (19 to 50 percent) of Americans under age 65 have some type of pre-existing condition. “Examples of what may be considered a pre-existing condition” (emphasis added) include heart disease, cancer, asthma, high blood pressure, and arthritis, HHS said.

According to HHS, older Americans ages 55-64 are at particular risk because 48 to 86 percent of them live with a pre-existing condition.”

BTW, people are already trying to pin this on Republican appointed judges vs. Democrat appointed judges.

Let’s call it what it is:

Judges who deem the words of legal documents as more important than the spirit of the documents vs. the opposite.

There is a reason that LLCs in CA are often formed in Delaware–Delaware courts have a history of following the letter of contracts…CA courts are worse in this regard.

I prefer to live in a world where words of a contract/law mean stand alone and are not subject to continual reinterpretation.

If words meant more, we would not have legislators passing massive laws only to read them later. They would be passing shorter laws with better thought-out language.

With the increased premiums people will be happy that the law is being struck down.

A-dan, nobody is being forced to pay for the high premiums. All they are required to pay is the John Roberts Emergency Room Tax, but that’s comparatively very low.

And Rio, this ruling would fall even harder on Republicans than it seems. The states that will lose the Obamacare subsidies will be red states whose Republican governors refused to set up state exchanges, while blue states will not be affected. In other words, in general it will be Republican voters who lose their health insurance.

people are already trying to pin this on Republican appointed judges vs. Democrat appointed judges.

Let’s call it what it is:

In this case, as in the case of Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)…………I think you just did.

For Obamacare to work two things had to occur, enough young people had to sign up to subsidize the older sicker people and emergency room visits to drop saving money in the system for other care. Neither one of these occurred. Any loss of subsidies whether in Red states or Blue states will result in even fewer young healthy people signing up. The death spiral will certainly occur when young people have their rates increase by 60% due to a lack of subsidies. Add in the rate increases due to the poor sign-up of young and there is no way this is sustainable. Finally, there is really blue counties and red counties not blue or red states. The Democratic representatives in red states will not survive if their constituents lose their subsidies and they don’t vote for repeal.

I’d like to hear this blog owner’s opinion about Obamacare again.

Care to chime in, Mr. Jones?

For Obamacare to work two things had to occur……

So you say wrong again.

In reality, everything that actually needed to have occurred must have happened because ObamaCare is working better than anyone thought.

None of your predictions on OCare have come to pass Adan. None. The “not getting enough sign-ups”, The “death-spiral”, “Dem’s wanting to repeal it by the next election” etc etc. Your predictions were all bunk. All.

BTW. I just read it might be a couple years for a final SCOTUS decision. Good luck with kicking maybe 12-15 million people off their insurance in mostly all Red States.

Good to see the Repubs thought this one out.

ObamaCare is working better than anyone thought

As the judge asked in My Cousin Vinny, “Are you on drugs”.

Monday, July 21, 2014

Voters still expect Republicans to repeal Obamacare if they take control of Congress in November, but they’re slightly more sympathetic now to a piece-by-piece approach to changing the law rather than a total overhaul.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 20% of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the new national health care law as a success, while 42% view it as a failure. Thirty-four percent (34%) see it as somewhere in between the two. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

CorruptObamaFraudCare-DOA

http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2014/05/21/emergency-room-visits-up-after-aca-physician-group.html

So much for cost savings.

Any loss of subsidies whether in Red states or Blue states will result in even fewer young healthy people signing up.

Since it was the sick expensive people disproprotionately signing up, then it will be the sick expensive people who disproportionally lose subsidies and be thrown off. By that reasoning, the non-subsidy Obamacare would need even FEWER young people signing up, not more.

The Democratic representatives in red states will not survive if their constituents lose their subsidies and they don’t vote for repeal.

This is more wishful thinking on your part. The Dems who lose coverage in a red state will blame it on the R governor who refused the state exchange, not the D representitive who vote FOR their Obamacare in the first place. And why would a Dem vote for repeal? Repealing the law is not going to get people their health insurance back. Repealing the law entirely will bring back pre-existing conditions, remember?

No Oxide if you are really sick you will pay the higher rates. It is the healthy young where the purchase of insurance is more discretionary with the major consideration the amount of the fine. This decision if upheld makes it much more likely they will take the fine but be upset and vote against the Democrats.

The Dems who lose coverage in a red state will blame it on the R governor who refused the state exchange, not the D representitive who vote FOR their Obamacare in the first place.

They will blame it on the Rube Goldberg design of the law which has not delivered affordable health care even with the subsidies. And the more young people that drop out the higher that premiums will be even for the people that must buy the insurance since they have medical problems.

The “doubling of premiums throughout the country” only applies to the people losing their subsidy - not the roughly 90% of Americans NOT receiving an ACA subsidy

With the high cost of the ACA insurance receiving some subsidy was the norm not the exception. Once again it is you that show that you do not understand math, law or politics. Young people will be dropping out in droves since without the subsidy they can claim that know affordable insurance is available freeing them from the mandate.

Now if you are talking about people receiving insurance through their employer then we have the separate issue of Obama illegally extending when employers must provide insurance.

No affordable insurance is available is a defense to the fine.

When poverty in this country is the same as in their countries. Without a dike water will seek its own level. An enforced border is the only way to keep our standard of living different from the poor countries south of the U.S.

Your landlord is he experimenting or is he part of Oxide’s five percent?

Car prices are higher than ever but that didn’t stop you from committing financial suicide on that shack of yours.

Lower the price or lose.

they cant lower the price cause they say the unions r hosing them.

We need some cheap affordable cars in america. I’m talking 5-6000 bucks.

Give it time. They’ll be 5-6k before you know it.