The Housing Bubble

Exactly, his solution might have worked 50 years ago when the Pan-Arabists were running the Middle East and this dispute really was about Arab land being colonized. BTW, the original PLO had many Christians in its top ranks. The Palestinians had legitimate grievances and were making reasonable demands. Since the Islamic fanatics have taken over their struggle, the only thing that will satisfy them is the complete destruction of Israel and the subjugation or extermination of all non-Muslims throughout the world not just in the Middle east.

Short of going to war with them, how do we prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons?

You put on severe sanctions that impedes Iran’s ability to get technology to weaponise their nuclear program and their economy to collapse causing them either to change or be overthrown by their people. In short, we only had to continue what we were doing up until November 2013 before Obama ran out of patience since he was not having an immediate political success. If Israel feels the need to bomb their program prior to that working, that is its decision as long as we are not involved militarily, I am fine with that. However, Israel will have to get permission from an Arab state to fly over their country which will not be that hard. The irony both Israel and our Arab allies (will not say friends) agree that Obama’s deal is reckless and will cause severe problems in the region.

We don’t need to “go to war” with them so much as just destroy any potential nuclear sites whenever and wherever they crop up.

Oil out the wazoo and lots of land for solar panels, they don’t need nuclear power.

I do not have a problem with Iran having nuclear power. However, they do not have to have an enrichment capability. You only need uranium enriched to about 3.5% percent U235 to fuel a reactor. Iran is enriching presently to over 20%, there is no need for that and reactor fuel is easily bought on the world market. No enrichment capacity period should be and was our position and it should not have changed.

“just destroy any potential nuclear sites whenever and wherever they crop up.”

Like the main one that’s built under a mountain that no bomb can penetrate? That should be easy. Will any civilians die during this?

I don’t see how sanctions will destroy Iran, unless we can get China and Russia to go along. What are the odds of that? Russia recently signed a deal to build eight new nuclear reactors in Iran, IIRC.

Like the main one that’s built under a mountain that no bomb can penetrate?

You cannot destroy it but you can seal the entrance points which does make it rather useless. However, as stated above that is Israel’s call not ours and we should not be involved in the military option just the economic sanctions option.

Nuclear technology is 70 years old. It will be no big deal for Iran to get that technology. Please remember they are educating their scientist in India, China and Korea. Some of those countries have top rated schools just like MIT.

So, regular bombing of Iran, but of course someone else will do that. Like Israel. That won’t cause any problems in the region, will it?

And tighten those sanctions, despite the fact that Russia and China will not go along with them.

Sounds like quite a plan!

I got no problem with us doing the bombing. Lob a couple of those expensive missiles at that mountain and problem solved. If the missiles need to be bunker busters or nuke tipped, oh well. But under no circumstance allow Iran the ability to make nukes.

Having Israel do it is dumb.

OK, lob a few ICBMs against the mountain, problem solved. Except for the sixteen other nuclear sites in Iran. I guess we lob ICBMs at them too? And how about all those new plants Russia is helping them build? Nuke them too? That’s a lot of nuking. Any possible civilian casualties, political fallout, or similar blowback from our nuclear campaign?

This Wikipedia shows that the first war after independence was a war with American Indians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

That wasn’t war. It was genocide.

All the jews lived in Colorado in a relocation center at a abandoned six flags theme park

They can buy up the neighborhoods around Goon and double hits rent.

his rent. (autocorrect)

There is no Orwellian double-speak Dan. Binding agreement is a treaty, non-binding agreement is not. The Iranians understood that from the get go, which makes the #47Traitors letter redundant, superfluous, and an obvious political stunt.

+1.

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!……. You there Toby, go fetch young Sally Hemmings to my sleeping quarters directly with a bottle of mulberry wine.”
Thomas Jefferson

duped????

You are really drinking from the kool-aid today.

Who would have believed at the time that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were such lying pieces of schitt.

Sounds like there will be more white flight to come, with the break down of law and order underway. I know plenty of white folks who aren’t racist, but nonetheless will move their households to avoid high crime areas. Right off the top of my head, I can think of some close personal friends and relatives who fit this description!

I know plenty of white folks who aren’t racist, but nonetheless will move their households to avoid high crime areas.”

Black people will move too, if they can. look at Compton in LA.

The .1% provide for the masses better than ever. The standard of living is better than ever. Most all of the pets are well fed and happy. The Internet makes it seem otherwise. The .1% are not worried in the least about the masses rising up from their iPhones and Facebook. They only rise up to get another delicious donut.

The .1% provide for the masses better than ever.

Not true.

In the past the .1% “provided” a system where each generation would do better than the last.

In the past the .1% “provided” a system where the gains in productivity were shared proportionally more just.

In the past the .1% “provided” a system where the government ruled much more for the good of the majority.

In the past the .1% “provided” a system where we were not a prison nation. etc etc.

You don’t judge a state of a nation’s people as “doing better” because we now have more A/Cs and bigger flat-screen tv’s.

From the perspective of people rising up Lola you do judge by whether the bread and circuses are working. Get out of your partisan prison and throw off your chains.

That language seems to assume that “the people” feel the same throughout the country. In this case it would seem that some people think the social contract is broken and others don’t. So what does that mean if part of the country wants the opposite of what another part of the country wants?

So what does that mean if part of the country wants the opposite of what another part of the country wants?

The ones funding the government (ie net taxpayers) win. Otherwise, we’re in for a bumpy ride…

More people are happier than ever.

Did you write that with a snarl?

Poll: Americans Are Less Happy Now Than They Were in 2011 Time dot com

Two-Thirds of Americans Not ‘Very Happy,’ Poll Shows

http://www.livescience.com/36977-one-third-americans-are-happy.html

Americans are not a very happy bunch these days, with only a third qualifying as “very happy,” a new poll reveals.

In particular, recent college graduates, minorities and people with disabilities have experienced a downward trend in happiness in recent years. The findings come from a sample of 2,345 U.S. adults surveyed between April 10 and 15 using the Harris Poll Happiness Index, a series of questions used to calculate Americans’ overall happiness.

Among minorities, African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans have become unhappier since the happiness survey was last conducted two years ago. In 2013, just 28 percent of Hispanic-Americans qualify as “very happy,” compared with 35 percent in 2011. The drop in happiness among Hispanics may coincide in part with sometimes-bitter discussions of immigration policy, though a causal link can’t be drawn from the study, the researchers noted.

You are free to post as many pro-neocon and pro-war posts as this blog’s host will allow

“Post off topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.”

It’s the buckets sure, so you can do it all you want. Rage just isn’t my cup of tea this morning.

How about posting drivel from left wing sites like Mushington Post, MSNBC, etc. three days a week?

William Kristol wins with partisanship.

Crack will get your heart rate going too. Not so good. You gotta sweat.

The only information we need is that Iran wants nuclear bombs. Why let that happen? And we don’t need a trillion dollar war to stop it.

I suppose you can make the argument that reading “news” on clearly politically slanted sites is a form of gathering information. It’s when that’s your only form of news that it becomes a problem.

What percentage of drudge site clickers do you think actively seek out web sites with very different political slants?

I would bet a large percentage read the newspaper also. So there is balance because most papers by far are the typical leftist journalism taught in journalism schools.

1.5 trillion compared to ten trillion, not even in the same ballpark. All hail King Obama, King of the deficits.

1.5 trillion compared to ten trillion, not even in the same ballpark.

The national debt/gdp had been trending down for decades until Reagan. Then Reagan tripled our national debt.

Ronald Reagan began USA’s current national debt binge. The national debt/gdp had been trending down for decades until Reagan.

Obama is just carrying on Reagan’s “proud” tradition.

http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Debt_GDP.png

The national debt/gdp had been trending down for decades until Reagan.

The deficits may have been trending down but that is because tax rates that meant for the rich were being applied to the middle class. Reagan indexed rates to inflation to avoid the problem and slashed taxes on the middle class. Additionally while the deficit was trending down inflation was soaring which aggravated the above problem. Reagan fixed that problem with Reaganomics which reduced inflation by creating more efficient production. The stagnation under Carter was due to the high inflation and soaring taxes particularly on the middle class, the fact that it gave government more revenue in the short term which reduced deficits was not a good thing.

The deficits may have been trending down but that is because tax rates that meant for the rich were being applied to the middle class.

No. The top tax bracket in 1980 was 70% - more than double the middle bracket.

inflation was soaring which aggravated the above problem. Reagan fixed that problem with Reaganomics

Reaganomics did not “fix inflation” unless Jimmy Carter nominating Paul Volker as Fed Chairman is Reaganomics.

The stagnation under Carter was due to the high inflation and soaring taxes

Carter’s “soaring taxes”? Under Carter Federal taxes on 30K income fell from 36% to 32%. And: President Carter reduced the top tax rate on capital gains to 28% from as high as 98% wiki

“Reagan took some economics in college, and he really did want to reduce the debt. But he got snookered by some Wall Street “economists” (mostly political journalists) who told him he could have his cake and eat it too. They came up with the brand-new theory, mentioned above, that said the government can collect more money by reducing taxes. Wouldn’t that be nice! That’s the supply-side economics that George H. W. Bush called Voodoo.” Zfacts dot com

The deficits may have been trending down but that is because tax rates that meant for the rich were being applied to the middle class.

No. The top tax bracket in 1980 was 70% - more than double the middle bracket.

That is the whole point of post, many middle class were in brackets that they did not belong to, there were multiple brackets before you reached the 70%, all of them paying too much. Reagan supported the federal reserve actions but alone they would not have tamed inflation and would have been rejected by the population if they continue for very long. mortgage rates in the teens were not popular. Encouraging production which is the heart of supply side economics reduces inflation,, there is no longer too much money pursuing too few goods.

Provide the links, you do ignore the indexing issue all together. What was considered rich for income in the 1950s was certainly not rich in 1980, our tax code did not reflect it. The 70% was for the super rich and the fact that the well off were beginning to pay it was inappropriate. It is funny, Carter’s massive cut in the capital gains rate with a small cut for people making upper middle class wages sounds very close to W did and you have been railing against for years, I guess except when a Democrat does it, but we know you are independent since you tell us so every chance you get.

Finally, your data, if accurate, supports my belief that the Democrats are the party of the super rich and the welfare state, the Republicans are the party of the merely rich and only when Reagan was in office did anyone care about the middle class. Warren Buffet is an example of this, when he says to raise tax rates he means only on his earned income of which he has very little, however, he does not want anyone to make him pay more on his capital gains.

“President Carter reduced the top tax rate on capital gains to 28% from as high as 98% wiki”

As I suspected the 98% is not supported and the fact that the 70% number was kicking in a $200,000 shows just how much bracket creep had occurred.

http://forbestadvice.com/Money/Taxes/Federal-Tax-Rates/Historical_Federal_Capital_Gains_Tax_Rates_History.html

The data of the link which is about to post shows that the $200,000 top rate was set in the 1940s, you had people working for a few dollars a day when it was made, it shows how government had used inflation to fatten its coffers without having to take a public stand on raising taxes, that is what the left hates about Reagan, he made them have to vote to raise taxes and not allow inflation to do their dirty work.

The 70% was for the super rich

70% was for $215,400 in 1980 married filing jointly and $108,300 single

Provide the links,

You’re arguing historical tax rates without historical stats?

That is the whole point of post,

That Reagan said tax cuts would cut the deficit? But it didn’t?
Or that Reagan reversed a 35 year trend of declining debt/GDP? Or that Reagan tripled the debt?

Correction slightly above $200,000 I guess that was Carter’s tax cut.

That Reagan said tax cuts would cut the deficit? But it didn’t

No, Reagan said it would increase revenue by increasing growth and it did on both counts. The deficit did not fall for three reasons:

1. Higher interest rates on the debt due to the need to fight inflation and the tight money policies of Volcker.

2. Higher defense spending to win the cold war which he did, allowing Clinton to cut defense spending.

3. Higher entitlement spending since he had to deal with a Congress controlled by the Democrats during most of his terms, never had the House. Thus, he could only cut the growth rate in domestic spending never the actual spending.

As I suspected the 98% is not supported and the fact

Could be but I would think there could be some cases where it was true. Wiki lists the WSJ as the source. The fact is, Carter reduced capital gains and did not raise taxes therefore your “soaring taxes under Carter” is misleading.

Carter was not for higher taxes on the masses. Why do you imply otherwise?

Jimmy Carter
Tax Reduction and Reform Message to the Congress.
January 20, 1978

……THE NEED FOR TAX REDUCTION

I propose net tax reductions consisting of:
—$17 billion in net income tax cuts for individuals, through across-the-board rate reductions and a new personal credit, focused primarily on low and middle-income taxpayers.
—$6 billion in net income tax cuts for small and large corporations, through reductions in the corporate tax rates and extensions of the investment tax credit.
—$2 billion for elimination of the excise tax on telephone calls and a reduction in the payroll tax for unemployment insurance.

These tax reductions are a central part of the Administration’s overall economic strategy, which will rely principally upon growth in the private sector to create the new jobs we need to achieve our high-employment objective. The tax reductions will more than offset the recent increase in social security taxes and will provide the consumer purchasing power and business investment strength we need to keep our economy growing strongly and unemployment moving down.

This tax program will mean up to one million additional jobs for American workers. It should lead to a pattern of economic growth which is steady, sustainable, and noninflationary.

In addition, I believe that our taxpayers, particularly those in the low and middle-income brackets, deserve significant tax relief—I am determined to reduce Federal taxes and expenditures as a share of our Gross National Product.

So where does the 98% capital gains rate come from?

So where does the 98% capital gains rate come from?

I quoted wiki. Wiki sources it to here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703338004575230033556918048

The fact is, Carter reduced capital gains and did not raise taxes therefore your “soaring taxes under Carter” is misleading.

Carter was not for higher taxes on the masses. So why do you imply otherwise?

Higher entitlement spending since (Reagan) had to deal with a Congress controlled by the Democrats during most of his terms, never had the House.

https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/88-301/classical_model/deficit_data.html

Budgets and Deficits
by Steve Kangas

“When conservatives then blame House Democrats for declaring each of Reagan’s budgets “Dead On Arrival” before going on their own spending spree, liberals have several strong refutations:

If Congress had passed Reagan’s budgets exactly as proposed, the national debt would have been $29.4 billion worse.8 (More)

Many Republicans forget that they controlled the Senate from January 1981 to January 1987. Both the Senate and the House vote twice on each budget, once on the original budget bill, and again after the conference committee has hammered out a compromise. Therefore, the Senate is an equal player in the budget process.

Reagan could have vetoed any budget unacceptable to him. He did not.

Not all of Reagan’s budgets were declared DOA; Congress actually passed his first one. The first one was critical because it contained his famous, three-year supply-side tax cuts, and established a new direction for tax policy.

Along with the national debt grew our trade deficit. MIT professor Lester Thurow made the famous quote that “the epitaph of the Reagan presidency will be: ‘When Ronald Reagan became President, the United States was the largest creditor nation. When he left the presidency, we were the world’s largest debtor nation.’”9

Warren Buffet is an example of this, when he says to raise tax rates he means only on his earned income of which he has very little

Another example of a falsehood or simple mistake Adan?

“This week, (Warren) Buffett was at it again — this time in the New York Times Op-Ed section — calling for, among other things, a higher capital-gains tax rate.

For years, capital gains have generally been taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income, partly in order to spur investment. The idea is that if taxpayers spend their money by investing in wealth-creating enterprises, then we’ll all be better off than we’d be if they simply spent their money consuming luxury goods or expensive vacations.”

Taxes
The Other Side of Warren Buffett’s Common Sense Tax Argument

http://business.time.com/2012/11/29/the-other-side-of-warren-buffetts-common-sense-tax-argument/

Warren Buffet ….does not want anyone to make him pay more on his capital gains.

“Warren Buffett, in a New York Times op-ed, renewed his call for a minimum income tax of 30% on the wealthy to block them from taking advantage of concessional tax rates for dividends and capital gains”
Forbes 12/02/2012

Hey Albuquerquedan,

Did you see how Rio moved your conversation off of Obama and on to RR? Typical Marxist tactics, right out of rules for radicals. The same tactic used by revolutionary marxist television news “contributors” in debate style segments.

Obama added 10 trillion to the national debt…period.

#FundamentalTransformationOfAmerica.
#ObamaDefenderBot

Did you see how Rio moved your conversation off of Obama and on to RR?

Because it’s totally related Einstein. The conversation was debt and deficits. Obama’s deficit is an extension of the trend of deficits began under Reagan’s Supply Side economics. How can you complain about something if you don’t know a major root cause of what you’re complaining about?

The USA’s debt/gdp had been trending down for decades before Reagan then it changed because of a fundamental changing of the American economic structure. Therefore any right-winger who complains about Obama’s deficit needs to at least acknowledge where the great turning point in USA’s debt and deficit began and why it began. No?

Obama added 10 trillion to the national debt…period.

Right. “Period” What a learned and intellectual way to explain how and why USA’s finances are messed up. “Period”.

Typical Marxist tactics

So pointing out facts truth and history are “Marxist tactics” now? Good grief.

comparing what the average person has now to what was had in the 60s, the average ant is much much better off.

No.

Here’s a partial list of what the average person had in the 60’s that they don’t have now.

1. Secure job
2. Pension plan
3. Affordable kids
4. Affordable college
5. Stay at home wife
6. Doing better than their parents generation
7. vacations
8. Low debt
9. Affordable homes, cars
10. Time off
11. A fairer share of their productivity
12. Stronger unions
13. Probability their kids would do better than them etc etc.

No supercomputer strapped to the wrist? No 40 inch flat screen and 200 plus channels? No youtube, Twitter, facebook? No prescription happy pills? No Taco Bell? Not even Mexican food most places.

No disability or welfare? They used to have to work, how terrible.

No 40 inch flat screen and 200 plus channels? No youtube, Twitter, facebook?

You pick an odd but typical right-wing method to gauge relative quality of life. It’s a method designed to distract what is really happening.

Glen Beck does that in one of his books. It’s like “Don’t worry that the middle-class is under attack and the rich are taking all of your productivity because you have a laptop and a 40 inch flat screen and 200 plus channels!”

He’s disgusting.

Living in your head rent free. I told you HA. I’m there.

You’re in an alley Lola. Right where you’ll always be.

Not if you that’s your only saving.

And falling prices increases your savings dramatically.

#WhiteyGonnaPay

Those must be some good orbital variations to stop global warming on a dime starting in 1998.

No orbital variations alone do not explain the blips

Did you not understand this? Years before anyone that is a proponent of AGW mentioned the PDO, I talked about the PDO and how it contributed to the warming between 1977 and 1998. You even fought me on this point. It is sun spots and ocean cycles that cause blips, man is insignificant in this warming.

My original post to you does not seem to want to appear. Therefore, I will revise, I said right in the original post that blips were not caused by orbital changes. Blips tend to be caused by things like the PDO, AMO and sunspots all of which I have talked about more times than I can count.

Blue, respectfully - when do you envision the first Treasury auction will fail? IMHO, that day marks the inflection point for the Greater Great Recession (this one with out of control inflation). Led by crashes in equities, and the other bubblicious asset classes.

Nobody - but nobody - will get out alive, IMHO.

I really have no idea Jane, and I have worked to distance myself from things like “equities”. I don’t expect the lakes and rivers I cruise to dry up, and I am not owing anyone much of anything, so I not much of a player, rather a watcher.

Quite so - enviable freedom. You earned it.

Your thinking is valuable for the reasons you cite. You have a factual outlook. You don’t have an axe to grind. When you observe something, you see it with the underlying structure.

I get your preference to not speculate about matters in which you have little interest, and I apologize for my blunt question.