The Housing Bubble

Talking to yourself again, I see…

The concept of:

Money needs to be made easily available because there is a lot of growth …

… does not necessarily work in reverse, such as …

Because money is so easily available there will be a lot of growth.

Yes, but it is tremendously lucrative for Wall Street.

The Fed has seven years of data. One would think they would have some idea of the impacts of their policies. All of Wall Street does.

It’s setting up over there like the Roaring Twenties did in the US,

+1. Now, why did the 20’s stock bubble and the Florida land bubble turn into a global depression? What was the mechanism of transmission?

“What was the mechanism of transmission?”

The Florida land boom of the 1920s was Florida’s first real estate bubble, which burst in 1925, leaving behind entire new cities and the remains of failed development projects such as Aladdin City in south Miami-Dade County and Miami’s Isola di Lolando in north Biscayne Bay.
…
The story includes many parallels to the modern real estate boom, including the forces of outside speculators, easy credit access for buyers, and rapidly appreciating property values.

It sounds like a easy money policies led to a massive bubble that featured outside speculators, easy credit access for buyers, and rapidly appreciating property values, culminating with overbuilding of entire cities which remained empty after the bubble burst.

I doubt this could ever be repeated.

DEBT

Housing Analyst, you can now hire an escort to watch you play video games in your granma’s basement lol

Female escorts for online gamers in vogue in China

Chinese online gamers tired of playing games online by themselves can now pay between 20-100 yuan (US$3.20-$16) an hour for a female online “escort” to play with them.

More advanced services offer a female gamecaster who will explain and demonstrate games to the players via face-to-face online chat.

“If a woman has a sweet voice, this will be even more popular than any gaming skills she might have,” one escort brokerage firm said. He said that those seeking female “escorts” are usually white-collar workers living in coastal areas who are willing to spend money on online games.

A lot of female college students and office ladies moonlight as these female “escorts” for online gamers as a source of income. Supply and demand are equally hot, the firm said.

“It is common for an experienced female escort to make 3,000 yuan (US$485) a month,” one firm said. Top female “escorts” can make up to 8,000 yuan (US$1,300) per month, and the commissions paid to the firm are usually between 5% and 10%.

In addition to honing the skills of online players, the women who serve as gamecasters see it as a money-making venture.

One Hong Kong media outlet stated that the trade in “gamecasters” has been going on for some time, with some women who have won online game competitions able to command annual salaries that could start at 10 million yuan (US$1.6 million).

The brokerage firms say the market potential for female “escorts” and gamecasters is big, but added that a lack of effective regulation often leads to disputes or even fraud.

Some players are quite blunt in saying that they want to see their female “escorts” offline for sex, which leads to the question of whether this line of work is merely another front for prostitution.

pics
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150421000006&cid=1103

A fugg’n maid’s uniform? How cliché.

Crushing. Housing. Losses.

China Says Please Stop Hiring Funeral Strippers

In China, friends and family of the deceased may have to do without a special form of funereal entertainment: strippers.

According to a statement from the Ministry of Culture on Thursday, the government plans to work closely with the police to eliminate such performances, which are held with the goal of drawing more mourners…

The point of inviting strippers, some of whom performed with snakes, was to attract large crowds to the deceased’s funeral – seen as a harbinger of good fortune in the afterlife. “It’s to give them face,” one villager explained. “Otherwise no one would come.

“…some of whom performed with snakes…”

You had me at ’strippers.’

We’ll send our poor to Mississippi, so they can raise the standard of living in both states!

Frrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaud

Well, no doubt. It’s just that a buddy of mine first saw the headline on google about how GL was going to bring affordable housing to the area and was lauding him all over the place for being a “humanitarian”. Until I popped his bubble by referring him to story.

I have no dog in this fight, I just think it is an amusing story. If I lived in CA I’d choose the Ukiah area.

FWIW I lived in Ukiah myself for 10 years, 1997 to 2007….a little too slow for me but a very nice town. I’d driven through on the freeway many times and from 101 it used to look like a cruddy fading mill town but the old part a mile west has a lot of charm and was quite affordable when I bought in 1997. Sold my place in early 2007 (thanks in part to the HBB) and moved south to Santa Rosa, a better place for me but do miss the slower pace of Ukiah at times.

Good friend has had a ranch in Willits, CA for many years. Cold foggy winters with occasional dusting of snow, and hot summers. Indeed, a very quiet place, too quiet for me, but it’s a great two-week vacation from life’s hustle.

21,000 agents with their hands tied beyond their backs, they are not allowed to operate at the border in many cases and they are not raiding companies illegally employing aliens.

Yes, a bit of a difference here between the US and Australia. Illegals have to get there by boat and the message is that they should not believe the lies of the human traffickers.

In the US, they do it by foot, boat, plane, birth canal. I dunno what’s going to happen when the kidz are old enough to realize there’s nothing here for them in terms of jobs or even benefits.

However, I like the use of the word “visa”. If you don’t have a visa, there is NO WAY you will make the US your home.

Should be applied to the refugee resettlement racketeers. And they ARE racketeers, every last one of them.

That’s why the big banks are terrified of her

Ha! She showed her true colors when she defended the Federal Reserve against the threat of an audit. She is clearly in bankers’ pocket.

No, that’s a Fox talking point. Congress already has authority to do a financial audit. The “audit the Fed” bill was really about Congress using the pretense of an audit to harass and meddle with the Fed in public hearings, to try to interfere with monetary policy. She smelled politcal BS and called them on it.

Show me any numbers that support that Social Security is taking

Why? You don’t understand complicated concepts and a lot of math.

Social Security Cannot Go Bankrupt

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/08/14/social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/

It is a logical impossibility for Social Security to go bankrupt. We can voluntarily choose to suspend or eliminate the program, but it could never fail because it “ran out of money.” This belief is the result of a common error: conceptualizing Social Security from the micro (individual) rather than the macro (economy-wide) perspective. It’s not a pension fund into which you put your money when you are young and from which you draw when you are old. It’s an immediate transfer from workers today to retirees today. That’s what it has always been and that’s what it has to be–there is no other possible way for it to work.

SS is already bankrupt Lola. Just like you.

Show me any numbers that support that Social Security is taking in sufficient amounts to pay beneficiaries going forward.

Why does SS suddenly need to independently balance its own budget? We’ll simply borrow to make up the shortfall in SS payments, just the like the F-35 and food stamps for Wal*Mart employees. And every other private sector company who benefits from government cheese.

Show me any numbers that support that Social Security is taking in sufficient amounts to pay beneficiaries going forward.”

But what about the surplus it ran for 40 plus years ??

Don’t tell me they spent it all

Why does SS suddenly need to independently balance its own budget? We’ll simply borrow to make up the shortfall in SS payments, just the like the F-35 and food stamps for Wal*Mart employees. And every other private sector company who benefits from government cheese.

I think that there’s a law somewhere that prevents Social Security from borrowing.

I think that there’s a law somewhere that prevents Social Security from borrowing.

I seem to recall that when the payroll tax was temporarily reduced that congress voted to cover the difference.

But even if it was “forbidden” to subsidize SS with non payroll tax income that could easily be changed. It’s not a constitutional amendment after all.

So why do they call it insurance?

Because they have deductibles?

(ba dum dum ching)

Why does SS suddenly need to independently balance its own budget?

Suddenly? It has always been set up to be self-sufficient. The taxes collected were always suppose to be sufficient to pay the benefits. Ronald Reagan did his job and made sure it was self-sufficient in the 1980s when it as about to run out of money. Just because Obama has failed to perform his job and assure the continued viability of SS, does not mean we should go further down the road to insolvency and end up like Greece where government pensions had to be slashed due to a lack of funds.

From Wikipedia:

The Social Security system is primarily a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system.

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter and the 95th Congress increased the FICA tax to fund Social Security, phased in gradually into the 1980s.[7] In the early 1980s, financial projections of the Social Security Administration indicated near-term revenue from payroll taxes would not be sufficient to fully fund near-term benefits (thus raising the possibility of benefit cuts). The federal government appointed the National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan (who had not yet been named Chairman of the Federal Reserve), to investigate what additional changes to federal law were necessary to shore up the fiscal health of the Social Security program.[8] The Greenspan Commission projected that the system would be solvent for the entirety of its 75-year forecast period with certain recommendations.[8] The changes to federal law enacted in 1983 and signed by President Reagan [2] and pursuant to the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission advanced the time frame for previously scheduled payroll tax increases (though it raised slightly the payroll tax for the self-employed to equal the employer-employee rate), changed certain benefit calculations, and raised the retirement age to 67 by the year 2027.[9] As of the end of calendar year 2010, the accumulated surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund stood at just over $2.6 trillion.[10]

Social Security benefits are paid from a combination of social security payroll taxes paid by current workers and interest income earned by the Social Security Trust Fund. According to the projections of the Social Security Administration, the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2022[11] because the interest generated by its bonds and the revenue from payroll taxes exceeds the amount needed to pay benefits. After 2022, without increases in Social Security taxes or cuts in benefits, the Fund is projected to decrease each year until being fully exhausted in 2033. At this point, if legislative action is not taken, the benefits would be reduced.[12]

After 2022, without increases in Social Security taxes or cuts in benefits, the Fund is projected to decrease each year until being fully exhausted in 2033. At this point, if legislative action is not taken, the benefits would be reduced.[12]

So what part of this is so hard for Lola and Oxide to understand? Once the program exhausts the trust fund the benefits will be cut to match the taxes paid or about 70 cents on the dollar of your expected benefits. So do we wait like Greece or create a fix to the program, Hillary, where is your plan? Earth to Warren, there is no money but just keeping following the Greek program of lying and promising until the day the benefits get slashed and it is too late for the retired to create other assets.

Just another example of a left wing government waiting for insolvency before facing the truth:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/puerto-rico-officials-warn-government-shutdown-imminent-072028570–business.html

I think that my vote for black swan is a wave of local bankruptcies across this nation, in mainly liberal jurisdictions, that causes a national recession. Puerto Rico followed by Illinois and/or Chicago with a resulting surge in borrowing costs due to perceived higher risk that takes out numerous other entities.

Just another example of a left wing government waiting for insolvency before bringing back taxes on the rich to historical levels.

And you on the left just don’t get it, in a world filled with countries particularly in Asia with low taxes, you cannot restore taxes to “historical levels”. You only speed up your decline if you try it. But go over to Greece and advise them to raise taxes on the rich, like a leftwing government has not figured that out.BTW, when Ireland’s banks imploded the EU tried to get Ireland to raise taxes and they were bright enough not to raise them.

Ireland is booming with its low taxes:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/irelands-gdp-growth-fastest-in-eu-318137.html

Excerpt:

After two years of near stagnation, higher exports and consumer spending lifted 2014 gross domestic product growth to almost four times the average 1.3% rate posted across the EU after most countries had published data.

It is the country’s highest growth rate since 2007, the final year of the Celtic Tiger boom, when the economy grew by 4.9%.

The economic recovery is good news for the Government, ahead of the general election early next year, though a recent surge in anti-austerity protests indicated that the recovery was slow to filter through to ordinary workers.

It also reinforces claims by the EU and IMF that austerity policies implemented by the Government were ultimately good for the country.

After exiting an international bailout at the end of 2013, the economy surged in the first six months of 2014. Growth in the second half was slower, with the economy expanding just 0.2% in the fourth quarter.

But there were positive signs, with personal consumption growing 1.3% quarter-on-quarter in the final three months of the year, while exports were up 1.2%.

“It shows the recovery is broadening and strengthening and there seems to be decent momentum coming into 2015 so you’d expect it to be sustained,” said Austin Hughes, chief economist at KBC Bank Ireland.

“The pick up in domestic demand is the most encouraging aspect.”

The 2015 budget is based on economic growth cutting the budget deficit below the EU limit of 3% of GDP by the end of the year.

Finance Minister Michael Noonan said the data confirmed Ireland was the fastest growing economy in the EU this year and that the data was consistent with projections for growth of 3.9% this year.

Unemployment in Ireland is 10%

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate

What is the rate in Greece? Direction is important and the economy in Ireland is on the mend after one of the worse house bubbles in the world burst.

It’s an odd thing to say that a country with 10% unemployment has a booming economy. Whether unemployment is higher in some other country is irrelevant.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator, the gdp growth rate is booming. Ten percent unemployment in the EU is not high.

And you on the left just don’t get it, in a world filled with countries particularly in Asia with low taxes, you cannot restore taxes to “historical levels”

No. You on the fake right “get it” but won’t admit it. Most successful countries nowadays have a higher tax/gdp ratio than does the USA. And you know it.

Ireland is booming with its low taxes:

Ireland? Really? The country that owes it’s soul and it’s future GDP to Bankers? Right.

What is the rate in Greece?

That’s a dumb argument. As dumb as the relevance of “what’s the rate in Somalia”.

You think the HBB is dumb.

“Unemployment in Ireland is 10%”

And that’s among the non-alcoholics.

Why does every position on most any subject end up being labeled?

Why does every position have to be somehow attached to some sort of ideology?

Why can’t a position simply stand on its own, and be backed by its own merits?

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.[2]

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

I’m right wing in many ways too.

Combo, does that help?

No. Nothing helps.

So, regarding this “nothing helps” position, is this a left wing position or a right ring position or (gasp) no position at all?

Is one allowed to have no position at all? Is there such a position?

It gets stronger every day as the earth refuses to warm according to the models.

The “argument” that the earth is not warming because “the earth is not warming according to the models” is just about one of the dumbest arguments one can offer on the subject.

I mean really.

The models are doing well over the long run (since 1900). They do struggle with short-term random variations. But a Max Planck Univ. study found, over the long haul, that climate models correlate well with actual temperatures.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/m-gws020215.php

So the models are good at predicting what already happened but shi**y at predicting what will happen, very useful models.

The models are doing fine, they don’t handle short term random variations very well — such as the 15-year “pause” that recently concluded. And when temps take a sudden jump up, they won’t handle or predict that very well either.

When you only have 135 years of data, almost 20 years of a pause is a significant amount of your whole data set, now if we are talking about 400,000 years of data which shows nothing abnormal about this warming except it is 2 Celsius less than normal 15 years would mean nothing. The CAGW cannot have it both ways, 20 years cannot be insignificant if we are going to consider 135 years significant. BTW, why do you think that the AGW crowd are always saying we need to keep warming to 2 Celsius? It is because that is where it will stop whether we spend five trillion dollars or nothing and they know it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/23/climate-modeler-matthew-england-still-ignoring-reality-claims-ipcc-models-will-eventually-win/

almost 20 years of a pause

We’re broiling in slo-mo. There is no pause in the trend. It’s math and graphs.

Nice “pause” you have there.

http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

From your link:

“In a second step, the two scientists are now analysing why the simulations arrived at disparate results. This analysis can also explain why the various predictions for the past 15 years deviate from the actual observed trend.”

Chalk one up for the “deniers”

“Random fluctuations and three physical reasons come into question to explain this: The model calculations are based on different amounts of radiant energy from the sun …

“… different amount of radiant energy from the sun …”

Well, now there’s an interesting statement.

“… that impinge on the Earth’s surface and are stored as a result of the greenhouse effect, e.g. due to atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

“However, their predictions also respond with different degrees of sensitivity to changes in this radiant energy …”

“… changes in this radiant energy …”

And there it is again.

“… for example if the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere doubles. In other words, the models assume
different proportions of energy that warm the Earth’s surface …”

“… different proportions of energy that warm the Earth’s surface …”

And again.

“… and the proportion that is sooner or later radiated back into space. Finally, all the climate models assume different amounts of energy stored on the Earth that is transferred to the ocean depths, which act as an enormous heat sink.”

The next line:

“The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average.”

Wow, 0.04 degrees! I wonder why they don’t give the +/- on that.

Digging a little deeper:

“According to NASA, all of the following statements are true:
◾2014 was the warmest year on record, dating all the way back to 1880.
◾2014 is far more likely than any other year since 1880 to have been the warmest.
◾There’s a 62 percent chance that 2014 was NOT actually the warmest year since 1880.”

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/02/was-2014-really-warmest-year-nasa-noaa

The century long graph of global surface temperature in the above link is interesting. It shows why these scientists were screaming ice age 40 years ago.

Wiki-up “global diming: and you will (in part) get this:

“Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth’s surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.

“Global dimming is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action.”

Okay, that’s what it is, now let’s see what it does:

“It has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially counteracted the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.

“In basic terms, less sunlight is reaching the Earth because of visible air pollution, which is reflecting the light back into space.”

So here’s another variable to contend with.

We called that “acid rain”. Nasty stuff.

It’s human nature Combo. A belief circle can only be kept intact by dismissing dissent.

Scientists are constantly questioning climate change, by measuring and observing various natural phenomena around the world.

It’s people who refuse to believe their findings, by dismissing them as the work of people with nefarious political interests, and who repeat the same few bullet points that are distributed by sources with ties to the fossil fuels industries, that are rightly deemed ‘deniers’.

“Scientists are constantly questioning climate change, by measuring and observing various natural phenomena around the world.”

It is one thing to measure and observe various phenomena around the world and it is quite another thing to remain smug in that one fully understands the various forces and interactions (please note the plurality) that drive these various phenomena.

To be trusted they need to be tested and found sincere. That’s the scientific method. To simply believe what one does not have energy or knowledge to scrutinize is blind faith. We hardly ever really know what is true, but what is not can often be found out quite easily.

“… questioning climate change …”

The issue was once called “global warming”. The term that now describes the issue has morphed into “climate change”.

Global warming is easy to dispute, but climate change?

How can one dispute, can deny, can question, that the climate changes?

So the argument is now couched in terms that obscure the real issue, which is not that the climate changes but what are the driving forces that cause this change.

It’s human nature Combo. Because people trust math, science and reality over Koch/Oil paid self-serving propaganda.

To simply believe what one does not have energy or knowledge to scrutinize is paid for propagandized politics.

The issue was once called “global warming”. The term that now describes the issue has morphed into “climate change”.

You guys should get your history right. Repubs changed the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” to make it sound more benign. (When Repubs were not paid enough to deny it all, as they do now.)

Spinning the Spin: How Global Warming became Climate Change

http://friendsofginandtonic.org/page4/page11/page11.html

…The new label “climate change” was coined by Frank Luntz, an advisor to the Republican Party. Below are excerpts from this 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled “The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America”. Frank Luntz was employed by the public relations company APCO International, which also worked for the tobacco industry, and helped launching the Friends of Science. Frank Luntz has since changed his position on global warming.

“Oil paid self-serving propaganda”

Indeed. Still waiting for that first check.

Being a Brazilian probably helps one to see everybody as a paid hack.

Being a Brazilian probably helps

I’m not Brazilian. I wouldn’t know, and especially neither would you.

You’ve made it your home. Nothing to be embarrassed about.

You’ve made it your home.

But think……There is a big difference between living in a country and giving up your real country for the country you’re living in.

I’ve lived in 6 USA states, all 3 coasts and have been to 49 USA states. Nothing to be embarrassed about to be sure.

You are a Brazilian. You’ve made your bed. It doesn’t matter where you’ve traveled supposedly. So, how is your Bubble working out? You going to pull off that Olympics venue?

” it is quite another thing to remain smug in that one fully understands the various forces”

And who is more smug? The vast majority of scientist out there studying this stuff their whole lives? Or people like you who read a couple of articles which support your own beliefs and then serenely say that the entire world of scientists are lying to us and are up to something nefarious?

Your position, couched in supposed logic and reasonableness, is absurd. It requires either a worldwide conspiracy of scientists, or for the vast majority of the world’s scientists to be either stupid, easily led sheep, or amoral mercenaries.

Or there is the option that what science tells us is correct (as possible), and the rest is noise from the fossil fuel companies.

Let’s apply Occam’s razor.

From your link:

“The phrase is vague, and people who use it may not elaborate what exactly is settled. Certain aspects of climate change are widely accepted: that human actions have increased the amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, for example. Other aspects—the exact degree of climate change to be expected within the next century, if any—are not settled. In between are issues such as how much the earth has warmed recently and how much of this is due to human activity.”

My point is that it’s nearly impossible to find a person who uses the word settled to claim that the science is settled. The word is mostly used by people who disagree that climate change is happening and caused by human activity to claim that there are people running around saying that science is settled.

“The word is mostly used by people who disagree that climate change is happening and caused by human activity to claim that there are people running around saying that science is settled.”

“People who disagree that climate change is happening…”

This describes one issue, an issue that most people, if asked, would probably totally agree with.

“… and caused by human activity …”

And this describes a separate issue, one that is open to question - not the part about human generated greenhouse gasses adding to climate change but at what degree does human generated greenhouse gasses add to climate change.

There was an article posted somewhere above this post that mentioned (somewhat in passing) the possible effects of “different amounts of radiant energy from the sun”.

IMO this observation should offer a bit of importance to any discussion concerning climate change but if one dares bring this up in certain circles he will be immediately labeled and dismissed as a “denier”.

And once one is labeled a denier then he will suddenly discover himself to be on the outside of the circle and looking in, and labeled as a tool of the Koch Brothers or the coal industry or whatever.

Try this for an exercise:

Travel up to the San Francisco Bay Area and inject into a conversation with most anyone you happen across the term “global warming” and discover for yourself just how quickly you will be informed that the correct term to use is “climate change”.

Reminds me of something that George Carlin would say:

“It’s a private club and you aren’t a member.”

And you won’t be admitted as a member if you don’t buy into the prevailing groupthink.

Because a lot of rich people live in cold climates, and wouldn’t mind things warming up a few degrees. Think New York blizzards being not so cold vs arid equatorial countries experiencing heat waves. You go for where the money is. Telling rich new yorkers their city is going to warm up might actually make them fund it happening faster. Dirt farmers in ethiopia can’t do squat anyway, so marketing to them is pointless.

The author of the Greenhouse Effect said it would be significantly beneficial to agriculture.

http://www.hightimes.com/read/cultivation-clinic-co2-can-increase-yields-40

more weed for sure

Hot off the press:

“How to Misinterpret Climate Change Research”

“Research into the cooling impact of aerosols sends climate contrarians into a tailspin.”

Read this carefully, and be sure to read between the lines.

Pay close attention to the defensive status the author of the aerosol study was forced into.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-misinterpret-climate-change-research/

I guess we should just ignore what people like Harry Reid said:

http://news.yahoo.com/-harry-reid-says-obamacare-will-lead-to-single-payer-system–174601028.html;_ylt=AwrBT4ftTzlVtEIAgzJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzcXVhZHFmBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDVklQNTA0XzEEc2VjA3Ny

Now it is true some conservatives said it would because they thought Obamacare would become popular like Medicare, however I was never one of them, I stated, always, that because it was not set up like an intergenerational Ponzi scheme it would not become widely popular.

You should not the use of the word “eventually”. Mr. Reid never claimed that single payer would be signed into law by Obama.

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said:

The left hopes that ACA will lead to a UK like National Health system, the right fears that it will.

FWIW, I recall the right saying all kinds of “bad things” about the ACA when it was being discussed and the “slippery slope” argument was one of them.

Of course, this makes me ask the question that no one seems to want to answer: Why can other countries successfully implement national health systems, but we “Exceptional Americans” cannot?

The left hopes that ACA will lead to a UK like National Health system, the right fears that it will.

No disagreement there, however over the last few years fewer liberals believe it will and fewer conservatives believe it will. More conservatives are seeing that the failure of Obamacare is actually blocking single payer. The brightest ones actually understand that repealing it is more likely to result in single payer than just turning it into Romneycare at a national level.

More signs that Obamacare is a “success”:

http://calwatchdog.com/2015/04/23/covered-ca-hit-with-mismanagement-charges/

How’s that Olympic Park comin along by the way?

That question has as much pertinence to the subject of the ACA as me asking how big are your momma’s combat boots.

Weak-sauce.