patrick.net

Bellingham Bob says

"The Democrats were the party of segregation. The official racist party."

LOL.

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

The More You Know

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2011)"

So are you really going to dispute what even your biased article claims

"Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter,"

Sorry Bellingham Bob its simply an undisputed fact that the Democratic Party was known as the party of slavery. By and large African Americans sympathies were with the Republicans until the New Deal, which by the way ended up enslaving many new generations of African Americans once again by making them dependent upon govt largess.

so many ignorant, broad stroking statements here...including your's patrick.

I come here for real estate talk, not to start political debates that end up no where and point the fingers at either party....

>>>“The Social Security Trust Fund currently holds approximately $2.6 trillion and can pay full benefits through 2037,” says Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), ranking member on the House Subcommittee on Social Security.

Also, we can actually increase Social Security benefits by taxing ALL income, not just wage income. This means taxing income above $106,800 and taxing dividends and interest. We might also consider raising the retirement age by, say, six months.

See: How To RAISE Social Security Benefits Now

http://www.ourbroker.com/news/how-to-raise-social-security-benefits-now-040511/#ixzz1Y6lzYyy5

? Like Social Security as we know it has been run well and fair? GIve me a break. So a worker pays into it for 40 plus years with no interest and collects $1000-$1300 per month and that is a good thing? You could take that same amount of money ( it is yours ) and have it put in your name drawing a nominal amount of interest and over the same time period have $400k in your account when you are 60 years old and have twicw the amount per month for the rest of your life. The point isn't Social Security which is just a savings account for people. The point is how are they handling your money and are they ripping you off with it nd the answer is they have done a horrible job abd they are ripping you off.

Mike -- Have you looked at the interest levels paid out on retirement accounts these days?

Let's say you took your $400,000 savings and got a 5-year CD. The interest rate would be 1.8 percent today according to BankRate.com. That's less than the rate of inflation and amounts to $7,200 a year -- or $600 a month.

>>>The elderly "also tend to be racist."

The people we see today as "elderly" are the people who ended segregation, populated the civil rights movement, ended gentlemen's agreements and tried imperfectly to improve a society where discrimination was rampant and lawful. We no longer deny college admissions on the basis of race or religion and today you can get a bank loan if your name ends with a vowel.

Probably the best thing the "elderly" did was to raise kids who largely don't see other people through the lens of race or religion.

I don't think any age group has a monopoly on racism and it surely still exists. But I also think that compared with what we used to have we've come a long way.

Marcus --

Where did you get the graphic?

Thanks.

The country is broke. If government admitted this politicians and bankers would go to jail. So they will print funny money, and you will get your social security checks, but they will only buy cat food. Bon appétit.

OurBroker says

“The Social Security Trust Fund currently holds approximately $2.6 trillion and can pay full benefits through 2037,” says Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), ranking member on the House Subcommittee on Social Security.

It's a disgrace to repeat accounting fraud like that. The $2.6T is in the form of "special" non-marketable Treasury obligations. . . in other words, money already spent and replaced by IOU's that are not worth anything. It's as if Madoff had squandered money on rennovating his own office, home and yacht then left IOU's as evidence of such "investment" in the fund.

Let's say you took your $400,000 savings and got a 5-year CD. The interest rate would be 1.8 percent today according to BankRate.com. That's less than the rate of inflation and amounts to $7,200 a year -- or $600 a month.

And guess what's making the interest rate on CD's so low? The same government-central-banking complex that is looting the people trying to save for their own retirement. It's literally like breaking someone's legs then hand him a crutch, and expect him to be grateful for the crutch . . . a temporarily workable political solution when the victims are too dumb to see who caused his broken legs to begin with.

Also, we can actually increase Social Security benefits by taxing ALL income, not just wage income. This means taxing income above $106,800 and taxing dividends and interest.

So even more of the people's resources saved for their own retirement will be looted to pay for the monopolist's office renovations, yachts and corporate jets (the biggest one being Air Force One).

We might also consider raising the retirement age by, say, six months.

Raise it by 6 months every year, and reduce payroll+SS tax by half a per centage every year. In three decades, the whole sorry excuse for looting the public will be gone without disrupting the life plans for those already dependent on it.

So you agree that saving $400,000 would only produce $600 a month. That's a start.

I gather you don't spend much time in government buildings. Most of them seem deadly dull with lots of desks and computers. The government sold off the presidential yacht in 1977 -- that would be under President Carter.

Bellingham Bob says

He's pulled us out of Iraq, he never promised to leave Afghanistan so that is neither here nor there, he never promised to end the war on drugs.
Not closing Guantanamo is a fair cop, but he needed support from Congress to do that (to bring the imprisoned stateside).
Plus the mistake of taking hundreds of people is hard to back out. Releasing just one who turns out to do more terrorist stuff would give clowns like Shrek juicy political ammunition. And there are a lot of clowns like Shrek in this country.
The detainees don't vote so they're fucked. People unhappy about this are more than welcome to pout about it or even not vote if they are so moved.

But the problem is many people assumed he would do these other things. You should see boondocks episode 1 season 3. It does this fake german documentary that asks people why they voted for obama.

The last time we had a democrat in the whitehouse the economy was different so some automatically assumed it would return to the way it was. It might not make logical sense but that's what many assumed. Some believe that the president can do anything or that obama won some huge landslide (10 million more might sound like quite an amount but when it was only 5%...we've never had a popular vote landslide..only electoral vote)

The problem with social security is that our options are not going to be that popular. If you raise the age that can be considered racist since minorities usually have a lower than median life span. African Americans have a life span of about 69 years..so if someone worked from age 18 that's 49 years just to get four years of benefits.

Raising the age would be political suicide for anyone in office. Cutting benefits would (at least on those in their 60's and 70s) be the same.

If we increased immigration to increase the amount of people paying into the system that could backfire given the amount of people unemployed.

We could probably eliminate the cap that prevents increases on higher incomes..but I doubt that's enough in the long run.

Of or course we could try to print up more and more but other countries would not want to see that.

As for the republicans vs democrats we have to understand that civil rights and vietnam caused things to flip flop. After the civil war it was largely republicans that were liberal and democrats that were conservative (at least down south). I could argue that the last liberal president was nixon (clean air and water act, epa, doe..tried healthcare but ted kennedy of all people blocked it). Carter deregulated the airlines, trucking industry, rail industry and legalized home brewing of alcohol. Clinton signed nafta, defense of marriage act and welfare reform..none of these acts was really liberal.

as social security and medicare become more as a percentage of the budget eventually it will be left vs right but baby boomer vs everyone else.
These programs are considered locked in. We do not have a clean slate of the budget each year. So this means we have less and less money to spend on any other program.Add in a few wars and you might have growing programs that are locked in where frankly there's little wiggle room.

There's already some conflict with housing. When elderly housing mixes with disabled (drug addictions are now considered a disability!) and low income the results are not that good. Here's an article in my local paper.
www.patriotledger.com/lifestyle/50_plus/x1664571560/WEB-EXTRAS-Who-is-eligible-for-elderly-disabled-housing

The republican party is the only sanity holding us together right now. The housing market will never recover until the gov't stops meddling and allows it to fail. It would not have been in this shape it were not for Fannie and Freddie and bleeding heart democrats insisted on giving loans to many undeserving people. Sorry Dems. but you screwed yourself.

The fact is Obama has more than doubled the money supply weakening the dollar. Is that doing justice to Social Security recipients? No. Christianity is being be removed from our schools and society and Islam will be ushered in which is the Islamist stated goal. If Islam is allowed to prevail there will not be any schools as they burned all schools and libraries and brought on the Dark Ages and slayed all non believers as their qua ran commands. Check the history yourself, it doesn't lie. Christianity is the religion on life. Islam is the religion of death. Obama himself stated that he will side with his Muslim friends if politics turn against him. He was raised in an Indonesian madrassa. His father was a muslim and him mother was atheist and the where both communists ideologues. Check the facts yourself. People should understand that it is within Islamic culture it is acceptable to lie to get power, so do not be naive. Obama is setting up a Muslim brotherhood power base now in the middle east. Look how helps the Muslim brother hood come to power in each of these countries who united against Israel.

Even here in the US we have an insane immigration policy. Does anyone believe this can really be sustained? No, this is how countries are destroyed. We are importing jobless people and paying for their medical and education at a time when no jobs are being created thanks in part to an over regulated gov't.

Most republicans I know are responsible, ethical people and do not want to see anybody loose social security and speak the truth as there must be some pain with recovery. But with Obama there may be the promise of big gov't help. But the dollars you will be given will not buy a hill of beans while your freedoms and sovereignty are eroded.

OurBroker says

So you agree that saving $400,000 would only produce $600 a month. That's a start.

Only if one is dumb enough to trust the government-central-banking complex to keep the money and generate income. People are waking up to the fraud that has been perpetrated by the government-central-banking complex, which is why the historical money, Gold, has been going up at at better than 20% a year! That would be something like over $6,000 a month on a $400,000 investment.

I gather you don't spend much time in government buildings. Most of them seem deadly dull with lots of desks and computers. The government sold off the presidential yacht in 1977 -- that would be under President Carter.

That's why after doling out favors to friends for a few years, numerous government officials have been given multi-million dollar consulting contracts and book contracts by the real beneficiaries of such "regulations." Haven't you noticed the regulatory arbitrage? "Office renovation" in the government sector takes the form of expanding bureaucracy and increasing pay and power to the bureaucrats. The office themselves are predicatably shabby just like all soviet offices. Only bureaucrats can blow gazillions of money to buy nothing except for power for themselves.

BTW, the biggest government yachts have flat tops, and have several dozen aircrafts taking off and landing on them. They are built to benefit the munitions industry and banks doing the financing.

There was no foreclosure crisis until the introduction of toxic loans in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Even in past recessions there was not foreclosure crisis. These loans were made possible by the fact that the Federal Reserve refused to prohibit their use, an ability it has under the "UDAP" provision of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act.

So, if the loans were good, the mortgage-backed securities would be good, which means there would be few claims against the "credit enhancements" (insurance) sold to protect mortgage investors. Banks would not not be holding huge numbers of foreclosed properties or overvalued mortgages.

What we have today was made possible by the failure to regulate.

OurBroker says

What we have today was made possible by the failure to regulate.

The regulators were encouraging people to take out variable interest loans, non-amortizing loans, lending money to unworthy borrowers, etc. etc.. It's a farce to argue now that they did not have enough regulatory power or did not use their regulatory power: they used what they had to carry out mission in the exactly wrong direction!

That's the nature of bureaucratic management of the economy: while entreprenuers playing with their own money have the incentives to play contrarian to the market sentiment thanks to the rich rewards if they are later proven right, the bureaucrats' incentives are exactly the opposite: they lose nothing for being trend followers in a mania, and would have eggs on their faces if they take a contrarian position regardless whether their prediction is right or wrong. Greenspan's "irrational exhuberence" comment in late 1996 just before the dot-com bubble and immediate excoriation by the Congressional hearing proved the point in spades.

Regulations do not mitigate bubbles and manias; they exacerbate the bubbles and manias.

gromitmpl says

"Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter,"

The point is, and believe me, Bob knows, there were a lot of racists in the democratic south. These people who used to be conservative southern democrats have all been absorbed by the republican party.

This is not disputed by anyone.

I'm not trying to say that there isn't a single racist democrat. But the racist segregationist southern democrats are all now republicans. Fact.

The interesting thing is that you seem to look back fondly and with pride to a time when the republican party was progressive (or more liberal ?). Wouldn't that mean that maybe you should consider switching your allegiance.

The reason for toxic loans -- interest-only financing, option ARMs, no-doc loan applications -- was to create the feedstock necessary to build mortgage-backed securities which yielded huge profits on Wall Street.

The reality is that toxic loans were not made by community banks, credit unions or most S&Ls. Some larger banks also refused to make them -- BB&T, Hudson City Bancorp, etc.

The public has no direct contact with the Federal Reserve, the OCC, etc. The public -- in the form of borrowers -- has no voice in Washington. Don't believe it? Name the largest borrower association in Washington? Name the largest borrower PAC?

OurBroker says

Marcus --

Where did you get the graphic?

Thanks.

I made it, a while back, right after the whole debt ceiling fiasco, although I didn't invent the meme (the most whatever man in the world). It's been widely used for other humor (I don't always ..............., but when I do.................)

I tried to put it on Reddit, but it just faded rather than becoming popular. I thought it would be my 10 seconds of fame on reddit, but maybe later.

http://imgur.com/SqGqC

Marcus --

The graphic is great. May I use it? Is it in the public domain?

Thanks

Government spending can largely be seen as a form of a bribe or a way to pacify people for a given period of time.

Bismark created programs because he was afraid of communist revolution. The USA had a red scare in the 20's and 50's but they had them constantly

The Russian revolution of 1905 replaced the absolute monarchy with a constitutional one and created the Duma. For the hard left it wasn't enough so they banded with others in 1917 and overthrew the czar putting in a weak provisional government. A massive battle in ww 1 caused around 90k deaths which lenin then overthrew the provisional govenrment. lenin overthrowing the czar alone is one of the greatests myths of human history.

In the 70's Iranian shah Reza Pavlavi tried the "white revolution" which tried to assist the poor. It failed. He was removed and after two years of anarchy the islamic government was put into place..which ironically funds even more government spending to the point where few people can start up their own businesses.

Few people that advocate for more spending have ever said specifically how much is enough. The ills of society are not totally removed with more spending. Europe still has unemployment, significant crime, protests and even riots. What can be advocated as a safety net can create a system of dependency.

srschrs says

Even here in the US we have an insane immigration policy. Does anyone believe this can really be sustained? No, this is how countries are destroyed. We are importing jobless people and paying for their medical and education at a time when no jobs are being created thanks in part to an over regulated gov't.

Even more government regulation and enforcement on people's voluntary movement and exchange wouldn't help either. Jobs are not manana falling from sky or a finite resource doled out by governments. A space alien willing to do yard work for $1/hr in a society where nobody is willing to do manual labor for less than $20/hr while homeowners can not afford to pay more than $10/hr does not take job from anyone, but actually add jobs to the society: more garden tools would be bought, the homeowner is not only happier for having a better yard/garden but also have more money to spend now that he spends less on the yard.

Contrary to that natural market exchange that makes everyone happier, additional government bureaucrats hired at $50/hr at the homeowner's expense to keep out space aliens from Mars would only leave the homeowner with even less money to spend at the garden store. The cost of the bureaucrat is even worse than hiring people to dig ditches and fill them back up: it's like hiring people to break people's windows to "stimulate" economy through window replacement: people would have even less money to spend other things after they spend on replacing the broken window. Likewise, consumers and employers would have less money to spend on other things after wages are artificially jacked up, regardless via minimum wage law or immigration law. The result is higher unemployment.

Yes please feel free. Of course I didn't ask for permission to use the 2 xs
guy, but I don't think you can get in trouble for that.

http://imgur.com/SqGqC

I put it on igmur back when I posted it on reddit.

OurBroker says

The reason for toxic loans -- interest-only financing, option ARMs, no-doc loan applications -- was to create the feedstock necessary to build mortgage-backed securities which yielded huge profits on Wall Street.

The reality is that toxic loans were not made by community banks, credit unions or most S&Ls. Some larger banks also refused to make them -- BB&T, Hudson City Bancorp, etc.

Now you see why legal tender laws and the federal reserve act were put in place: so that whatever paper the Wall Street monopoly conjures up the rest of the society has to take it at face value.

In the absence of legal tender law regarding "federal reserve note," the paper generated by the malfeasant banks would be quickly discounted in the market place. e.g. a "dollar" proffered by CountryWide would be worth less than a "dollar" from a sound bank; that would put a quick stop to the bubble.

The public has no direct contact with the Federal Reserve, the OCC, etc. The public -- in the form of borrowers -- has no voice in Washington. Don't believe it? Name the largest borrower association in Washington? Name the largest borrower PAC?

The whole point of centralizing everything to DC is so that the local people are deprived of voice. Even PAC's are far easier to manipulate than millions of people in their own hometowns free to do their own things.

Marcus --

Thanks. Your art is very clever.

OurBroker says

What we have today was made possible by the failure to regulate.

We should have bought more White Collar FBI agents. What we did instead is shift all the white collar FBI agents from tracking fraud in the US to tracking down Terrorist money and bank accounts.

The Republicans biggest strength is Obama, and nobody paying attention to this thread, should best not forget that.
Obama is going to elect the biggest republican douche-bag, it's already in the cards, the name and moniker wont matter, not even the running mate will matter.

Romney, Paul, Perry, Palin, take your pick.

But understand, they aren't going to win, because of their political prowess.

We need to start over again with our government and financial system. Both architectures have become a giant kludge. I'd like to think that all Americans, nay all people, want the same basic things: food, shelter, healthcare, education and infrastructure. Develop a sliding tax system that taxes all people fairly, present a budget and make these things happen using that budget. Get out of all things financial.

Tenouncetrout says

Romney, Paul, Perry, Palin, take your pick.

Wow, what a list. I will be doing some serious research on these candidates before I vote. I would hate voting for Obama, but I will if Palin, Bachman, or Perry are standing on the stage after the primary. Matter of fact, anyone endorsed by the Koch Tea Party will not get my vote.

Bellingham Bob says

People making $300,000+ are making a good living but 39.6% income taxes are pretty tough, that's 6% more than currently, so for a $350,000 income that's a $9000 hit.

No, it would only be a $3000 hit. Marginal tax rates means you only pay the higher amount on income above that level. So in your example, the extra 6% is only applied to the $50,000 above $300,000, not the entire amount.

This is another way the right-wing noise machine tries to distort the tax debate, by not acknowledging how marginal tax rates actually work.

Patrick - I really wish you would stay off politics because you are terrible at it and it drags the reputation of this fine blog down. Your comments come off as partisan and shallow as watching the screamers on MSNBC or even Fox.

Republican's "fatal weakness" is racism? We "want" old people eating cat food? Really? This is so dumb, my head hurts just reading it.

Sadly, I expect more of this type of 3rd grade nonsense from all corners as we come closer to the 2012 election. Libs will stamp their feet, scream and throw shit at Republicans hoping that some of it will stick.

mike2 says

Like Social Security as we know it has been run well and fair? GIve me a break. So a worker pays into it for 40 plus years with no interest and collects $1000-$1300 per month and that is a good thing? You could take that same amount of money ( it is yours ) and have it put in your name drawing a nominal amount of interest and over the same time period have $400k in your account when you are 60 years old and have twicw the amount per month for the rest of your life. The point isn't Social Security which is just a savings account for people. The point is how are they handling your money and are they ripping you off with it nd the answer is they have done a horrible job abd they are ripping you off

Amen to that. Imagine if I'd have invested all of those social security tax payments into a personal retirement account. Social Security is a Welfare program, plain and simple. Why do you think the Democrat base hates the idea of privatizing part of SS, i.e. personal accounts?

Yep, I would rather manage my retirement myself. What I am paying for in SS is the inability of others to manage their retirements. I am paying a human tax of sorts because to er is to be human.

srschrs says

The housing market will never recover until the gov't stops meddling and allows it to fail. It would not have been in this shape it were not for Fannie and Freddie and bleeding heart democrats insisted on giving loans to many undeserving people.

I agree with you there.

srschrs says

Obama has more than doubled the money supply weakening the dollar.

No, money supply is up to the Fed, not up to Obama.

srschrs says

Obama himself stated that he will side with his Muslim friends if politics turn against him.

No he didn't. Please show some proof. "Rush Limbaugh says so" doesn't count.

srschrs says

Even here in the US we have an insane immigration policy.

Right. We have complete lack of accountability by EMPLOYERS, who know full well they are employing illegal immigrants. Send a few employers to prison for that, and the whole problem will stop very quickly.

socal2 says

We "want" old people eating cat food? Really?

I said dog food. But what do you think they're going to eat when you've eliminated Social Security?

The constant harping that that Republicans and the Tea Party are racist is intellectual laziness at its finest.

Patrick can we stick with your area of competence and talk about housing prices? We get that you live in the SF/Bay Area and that every dinner party is an "OMG, Repubs suck!" event but come on. I am not a Republican but the constant bashing makes me wonder if they have something.

I said dog food. But what do you think they're going to eat when you've eliminated Social Security?

It will really depend on the supply side of econmics on your choice for dog food or cat food. I mean, if cat food tastes better it might get more expensive so the elderly may have to dine on dog food and occasionally have some cat food. Or, AF might say cannibalism could really break out at that point. You might be better off attracting rats with Dog food, and rats taste better than both, so Dog food could go up. Another thought is the ability to eat your neighbors pet, so we could see a total drop in dog and cat food since the easier choice is to consume the dog and cat which frees up Dog and Cat food completely. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about putting down all those animals at the shelter. and so on, and so on....

Where does my mind go today?

Also "hatred for blacks"?!!! What century/country do you live in? I have met exactly one white person in my very unsheltered life who hates black people (and Jews, Asians etc) and the guy was Eastern European. If the old people in your family sit around talking trash about black people I can assure you they are weird.

If the content of this thread is too "political" then rather than fall to the lowest possible denominator of exchange and eliminate it, those who are discomforted by the conversation need not read it.

Patrick makes the forum available without a required cost to participate. There are a wide variety of views. What's not to like?

I don't see why we can't talk politics in the Misc forum. It gives me a break from the horrible housing market news so I can get wrapped around horrible political conversation.

I guess we could start another thread. What party is better for housing; Republican or Democrat?

Wouldn't privatized social security be just like Obamacare?

In Chile, you're forced to give 10% of your income to a handful of government approved Funds. And, there are administration fees, just like any mutual fund.

Among the complaints most often heard here is that contributors are forced to pay exorbitant commissions to the pension funds. Exactly how much goes to such fees is a subject of debate, but a recent World Bank study calculated that a quarter to a third of all contributions paid by a person retiring in 2000 would have gone to pay such charges.

Wow, financial institutions sucking up 25-33% of all your privatized SS contributions. Who woulda thunk it! Does the US Social Security Administration costs eat up 25-33% of contributions over time? Nope.

Even many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts - burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment - are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system.

Dagoberto Sáez, for example, is a 66-year-old laboratory technician here who plans, because of a recent heart attack, to retire in March. He earns just under $950 a month; his pension fund has told him that his nearly 24 years of contributions will finance a 20-year annuity paying only $315 a month.

"Colleagues and friends with the same pay grade who stayed in the old system, people who work right alongside me," he said, "are retiring with pensions of almost $700 a month - good until they die. I have a salary that allows me to live with dignity, and all of a sudden I am going to be plunged into poverty, all because I made the mistake of believing the promises they made to us back in 1981."

But, but but... given the tremendous growth of Chile over the past few decades, surely Mr. Saez invested in crap, right? Not really. Only government-approved companies can take privatized Chilean Social Security money, and they are limited to low-risk investments. Saez didn't pick Cold Fusion High Risk startups to invest in, he wasn't allowed to.

Some have estimated that after factoring fees and the average performance of the approved pension administration companies, the average yearly ROI was Note also that Pinochet left the military and intelligence employees in the public social security system. Free Markets for thee, Guaranteed Income for me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html?ex=1264482000&en=42c98585c86afe88&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

m1ckey6 says

Patrick can we stick with your area of competence and talk about housing prices?

Nah, this is too much fun.

Anyway, Democrats have been too prissy about standing up for the rights of working people, and about our obligations to each other as a society. Someone's got to do it.