patrick.net

No no no. The readership here does not represent average American's. I would like to know the net worth or median income of these folks. I enjoy reading this forum, however, I suspect that most of you are wealthy and not living paycheck to paycheck. I also think that we spend too much time thinking about money and less time about more meaningful things.

Far left, or far right. No one likes to get ripped off.

nrc21122112 says

I would like to know the net worth or median income of these folks.

I am Elmer J. Fudd millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.

Oilwelldoctor says

Far left, or far right. No one likes to get ripped off.

Those who don't spend much time thinking about money usually are those who have money. If you are broke, can't pay your bills and having a difficult time feeding your family, you think a lot about money.

Vicente says

nrc21122112 says

I would like to know the net worth or median income of these folks.

I am Elmer J. Fudd millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.

“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

Lol

I have been a follower of Patrick.net for several years. Like Patrick, I knew that housing was in a bubble long before the collapse. I sold my house in 2006 and rented for five years until purchasing another house in 2011. Yes, I definitely appreciate Patrick's blog on housing. However, I can't stand some of the political crap that gets dragged into this excellent site. I have a different point of view politically than Patrick and some of the stuff brought in here is very offensive to me. Can't we just stay on topic? Check the socialist agenda at the door.

I think I can clear this up for you:

Our Host: an unreconstructed lefty. Not far left, but solidly left as evidenced by his selection of political editorials that are ALWAYS from the liberal perspective. Nothing wrong with that, but it is revealing.

Most posters: lefties, as evidenced by their agreement with the host's positions and concurrence with the political references. Nothing wrong with that, as I don't come here for political insight, I stop by for the housing market info.

For DelLoco's benefit, here is how I-a conservative libertarian-would characterize our politics:

___________________________

Far left: Would love to nationalize industries, but know that they will never get away with it directly, so instead they slowly erode industry via a few direct takeovers (GM, Chrysler), and hamper others with the NLRB (Boeing, energy), and massive regulation (health care, insurance, energy). Would love to confiscate wealth (Michael Moore) and force a leveling of class, but again, know that they will never get away with it directly. Hence talk of raising taxes on the groups that already pay 80% of taxes, while giving handouts ('tax credits') to the 50% who have no skin in the game of funding the country. Have already banned religion from the public square, have coerced government education in schools. No re-education of adults, yet, although the president has begun collecting information on those who disparage his leadership (AttackWatch.com). No need for government ownership of the press, since the MSM faithfully parrots the Democrat party line--until inevitable liberal policy failure forces them to face reality. A good number of political leaders in this country are far left, albeit still using moderate language that obfuscates their policy choices. This includes the president.

Center: Democrats--a few in number--to the far right of the party's leadership and main body. Libertarians. The Tea Party. Typical Americans that only want rationality to return to government. Want government to spend only what it takes in in revenues. Want to re-balance SS and Medicare so that they will not continue on their current path to bankruptcy. Want to return to policies that were 'mainstream throughout most of American history' but which began to be broken down in the 1930's when the SCOTUS began the end run of the constitution via an absurd re-interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause to empower the federal government to do anything it wanted to do. Want government to concentrate its efforts on national defense, and the other enumerated powers covered by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Leave the rest to the states or to the people.

Far right: A few Republicans.

Extreme radical far right: A few hundred nuts living in the hinterlands who advocate the overthrow of the US Government by force.

________________________

DelLoco: liberals comprise at most 20% of the population of the country, while conservatives are 60%+. It is very revealing that you see your political perspective as "normal," with nearly everyone else to your right. It's not really your fault: you have received constant reinforcement in the press and among academia, corporatists, and the power elite in this country. You can be excused for coming to believe that your positions are 'moderate.' when the reality of poll after poll shows that America is much different than you. Your disparagement of the Tea Party is particularly revealing. To reach the conclusion you reach requires an active denial of the obvious: there are simply many, many Americans who recognize that we have pushed beyond the limits of government to manage itself reasonably...and that there is not much time now to correct course before we suffer a total collapse of the institutions you love so much. Go to a Tea Party some time and you'll see a bunch of plain-spoken, middle class Americans to are worried about the future of the country.

Why do we talk about such things? Simply because we are day to day inundated with the ridiculous. I ask myself why become part of the frustration of a people that are clearly frustrated. Have absoulutly no reason and nothing else but thought. Thinking is good. However without reason and being reasonable its not good. Thinking without having reason is a monster.

Like attacking a people (Iraq) Iraq was not about to do or going to do anything to anyone. American action against them was completly deviod of reason. See we look for reason in attacking Iraq. But there is none. Because simply we are dealing with an indginous people that have no reason and simply thought.

See a lot of us do have reason. With an indignous people that have only thought and no reason. It simply leads us to reason there was a just cause when there was none. Thought without your reason working properly is no good. So attack, attack. Was Libya being attacked by us proper - sticking our nose in other peoples business. Of course not. Thought say simply provide them with a few examples like oh a woman being raped.

Our (the people who reason it is unreasonble to stick your nose where it does not belong) They think our reason will simply do the rest of work for the thought they only have. Take the woman being raped. That little stupid thought they give the reasonable That they give us to reason with the world with sometimes it works. Iraq didn't thank goodness. The attacking idigneous have no reason. Just though like some big greco thinking mans statue. That leans on his fist. The reasoning part of his brain not functioning of course. Russia, France, Italy, a lot of people simply do not attack and attack on an ongoing basis. So something really screwed. I don't think its my reasoning. Its theirs it simply does not work properly. A frustrated nonreasoning people. Always unhappy. Many times angry and violent. Because they can't reach their reason.

So throw in a few more thoughts even on this subject. So we can get frustrated. Because you people simply can't reason like most of the world can. If you wonder why most of the world dosen't like you as a people. It's because your reason dosen't work properly.

Phaedra says

Center: Democrats--a few in number--to the far right of the party's leadership and main body. Libertarians. The Tea Party. Typical Americans that only want rationality to return to government. Want government to spend only what it takes in in revenues. Want to re-balance SS and Medicare so that they will not continue on their current path to bankruptcy.

Where were you when huge sums of money was being borrowed for off balance sheet wars, and for tax cuts for the rich, and for subsidies to many corporations ?

Now you say that center Tea Baggers want to "re-balance SS and Medicare."

This is my idea of being far right and totally gullible to propaganda that comes from the plutocrats. Maybe TeaParty types would be center, if it weren't for the lies and misinformation they so readily gobble up, because it gets packaged along with patriotism, God, and so called family values.

No, we aren't all that intelligent. Maybe as individuals many of us are. But as a group, we are retarded.

As for Pat net ? It's not that representative. It's skewed a bit toward the center, or center left. Very small number of nut jobs, but a lot of first time comments from right wingers, for whatever reason.

The most interesting politician in the world. Supposedly middle of the political spectrum.

I carry no water for the GOP in general, or Bush in particular, but you really must get a different critique than "where were you when...?"

Our debt--personal, corporate, and governmental--hit 375% of GDP in the run-up to the crash. This was a combined effort of both political parties, individuals, and enterprises over a forty year period that hit critical mass recently. I don't blame Obama or Bush: they simply ended up without chairs when the debt money music stopped playing.

I do believe that both of them responded as could be expected by politicians who are bought and paid for. They both continued policies that led to the failure--and in Obama's case--doubled down on those failed policies.

The bottom line is the bottom line: we spend more than we take in and we cannot possibly expect to raise revenues to balance the budget. The arithmetic simply does not work: we could confiscate 100% of the wealth of all the billionaires in the country (not just the income, but the $1.5 trillion in assets) and we would still only pay for one year's deficit on our current pace. I'm not talking about trickle up or trickle down...it's simply arithmetic. We spend too much because we thought the merry-go-round would never end and that we could predicate our ongoing program spending on the one-time capital gains windfalls that occurred in the 1990's. Wrong, and now we're hosed.

I'm for eliminating ALL tax deductions. 100%. For everybody. I'm for bringing our troops home from places where they are not wanted--and from places who have been freeloading off us for decades (Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.). Does that make me a right-winger?

The left is out of ideas and, ironically, has become the reactionary element in this country. "We can't touch SS!" "We can't touch Medicare!" "We can't touch public schools!" We can't touch public employee benefits!"

It's really kind of humorous, in a pathetic way.

Phaedra!

Thank you for posting - I completely agree with everything you stated.

-Misstrial

Yes, but they just do not know it, as they do not know so many other things that are going on globally and where that leave us Americans in the picture

tatupu70 says

Idea 1: Universal Health Care ala Europe. Saves $$$$
Idea 2: Return tax rates to 1950s. Raises $$$
Idea 3: Campaign finance reform. Takes $$ out of politics
Idea 4: Abandon free trade agreements. Return jobs to US

Idea 1: - Obama did it, so far my insurance costs me a lot more.

Idea 4: - Obama just signed another free trade agreement. I guess you can't call this an idea from the left, when your left is abandoning you.

Idea 3: - you can't claim either side to this. No one other then lobbyists like how this works right now. They have not found a good way to tackle this issue or take money/bribing out of politics.

FortWayne says

Idea 1: - Obama did it, so far my insurance costs me a lot more.
Idea 4: - Obama just signed another free trade agreement. I guess you can't call this an idea from the left, when your left is abandoning you.
Idea 3: - you can't claim either side to this. No one other then lobbyists like how this works right now. They have not found a good way to tackle this issue or take money/bribing out of politics.

1. You've got to be kidding me. The health care bill that passed is not universal health care ala Europe or Canada. And your insurance costs you more because of capitalism, not Obamacare.

2. The left isn't abandoning me, Obama is abandoning the left.

3. Really? Which party kills all campaign finance reform? I'll give you a hint--it's the same party that thinks corporations are people.

tatupu70 says

The health care bill that passed is not universal health care ala Europe or Canada. And your insurance costs you more because of capitalism, not Obamacare.

Per capita health expense (2007)

US: $7500
Norway: $5000
Canada: $4000
Sweden: $3500

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/OECD042111.cfm

If you ask our Reaganite friend if we should have Swedish-style health insurance, he'll say no of course.

Because he is an ideologic idiot.

PD Quig,

Excellent post.

The USA has the most expensive health care for several reasons:

1. We pay for all the non-recurring development costs of drugs and new technologies on which the rest of the world then piggybacks. They sell our drugs at a cost less than what will cover the non-recurring engineering and threaten to ignore our patents if companies try to raise prices.

2. We have befouled our system with regulations and government-imposed mandated requirements. Why should I have to pay for a policy that must include sex change operations, etc.?

3. We do not allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. Why not? What harm could possibly result from creating a national market for a smorgasbord of options?

4. We have the most predatory legal system in the world that drives doctors to prescribe unnecessary treatment in order to defend themselves against malpractice lawsuits. Cap "pain and suffering" awards, and pricks like John Edwards will have to get a productive job.

5. Enhance fraud detection algorithms to find those scamming the system. Tens of billions of Medicare payments are to illegitimate scams.

Even as you tout them as a solution for us, these systems in Europe and elsewhere are already coming apart at the seams. Interminable waiting periods for treatments that result in higher death rates for most diseases. And that's all BEFORE the USA stops subsidizing their drug and technology development--and for that matter, their national defense. When the time comes that the US no longer carries the full costs of new treatments, Europe's systems will collapse. When the time comes that the US no longer pays for most of their national defense, they will have less money to spend on their welfare state social programs.

It's going to get very ugly for Europe before it gets better. Unfortunately, due to short-term and small ball thinking in the US, it's going to get a lot worse for us too.

Phaedra says

The USA has the most expensive health care for several reasons:

First off, the first bullet you outlined should be why our medical cost should be lowest in the world. It's our tax dollars doing most of the R&D then big Pharm gets to patent it and take it to market as well as set the cost. They can invent any reason they want.
Even if the excuse defies all logic.

I'd like to see their profit sheets, I bet they make out better than Oil companies do, that in face of high Oil prices, and wavering demand, are posting record profits. They bitch about the costs of production to. Even though the outcome defies their claims.

Was the premise legitimate taxation?

I think "legitimate taxation" has been covered througly. The IRS can do nothing but send nasty letters. Of course there are the rouge IRS players. The former agents that have to pay company dues. They can really seize nothing. I have seen a couple of "thug cops" trying to get in on it. Not to mention those mysterous flyers that show up when you don't pay advertising IRS atty help. Oh the blaspheme of it. The really hysterical thing is the IRS hires attys offices to help collect. If they ever show up just laugh and close the door.

I've ignored the IRS for 25 years. They have figured I guess why not save on the cost of a stamp and paper. I'm still in the same location for the most part. Just like once again a bill collector will never take you to court because that would test usury. Same deal with the 25 or so percent the IRS charges. If you want to pay that organization in Maryland be my guest. It's mostly put together out of there and like any federal law. They have to have a cop with them. Just don't go to federal court cause well it's another state with no jurisdiction ignore it.

Phaedra says

We pay for all the non-recurring development costs of drugs and new technologies

This is just right-wing apologist bullshit. R&D is a minor cost vs. SG&A and shareholder profits.

Pfizer, MRQ:

Gross revenue: $17B
COGS: $4B
SG&A: $5B
R&D: $2B
Income Tax: $1B
Shareholder income: $2.6B

Why should I have to pay for a policy that must include sex change operations, etc.?

SRS is around 500 operations per year. Going with 1000 @ $100,000 per, that's $0.32 out of the $7500+ per capita we pay for health care.

Please try harder, your bullshit here is really weak.
SRS is not mandated, btw.

We do not allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. Why not?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_across_state.html

Cap "pain and suffering" awards

“If you were to list the top five or ten things that you could do to bring down health care costs that would not be on the list,” said Michelle Mello, a professor of Law and Public Health at Harvard.

http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

and for that matter, their national defense.

LOL. The $800B/yr+ the DOD's spending every year isn't for defense, sunshine.

What national defense investments do eg. Norway or Denmark need to make? Some commerce cutters maybe. This isn't the 19th century when nations went to war at the drop of a hat.

tatupu70 says

1. You've got to be kidding me. The health care bill that passed is not universal health care ala Europe or Canada. And your insurance costs you more because of capitalism, not Obamacare.

2. The left isn't abandoning me, Obama is abandoning the left.

3. Really? Which party kills all campaign finance reform? I'll give you a hint--it's the same party that thinks corporations are people.

1) What should it have been than?

2) He is your left, he is exactly what left voted for and got. Not much of a change he promised though, just mainly changed where hand outs are going. Quite a bit of tax dollars are paying to build up factories and companies for those who lobby with POTUS. The rest of us are paying that bill.

3) CFR was a joke and a gimmick before, it had plenty of loopholes. I don't see either side suggesting a good way to fix it either.

I think informative blogs like this one (and several others) attract a more informed, rational and reasoned readership than you would find in the public at large. Similarly, the JAMA or the "Journal of Theoretical Physics" probably attract an even more knowledgeable readership than this blog.

So, from that standpoint, no, I do not think the readership of this blog represents the "average" American.

I think all the "left" vs. "right" stuff is just a smoke screen for special interests buying politicians of both parties.

Jesse "The Body" Ventura said that politics is a lot like Pro-Wrestling (WWF, etc). It's all an act where the two parties pretend to fight each other and then laugh all the way to the bank after the "fight." We the sheeple think it's real and vote for them to protect us from the evil "other" party...when the whole time they're skrewing everyone over (except the special interests).

I think Jesse was right.

Jesse was full of shit too, actually.

The two sides are really pro-government and anti-government, left and right.

conservatives, most "Independents" like Ventura, and libertarians are in the latter category.

(I consider myself a left-libertarian, so in fact I personally am above all this BS, LOL)

To quote Richard Jeni:If you are on the far left or the far right,you've too far"

apropos to my 1:42 above:

http://trollblog.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/why-does-anyone-read-the-wall-street-journal-editorial-page/

The problem with the posters on Patrick, and Americans in general, is that all seem to suffer from the same delusional aberration in the evolution of civilization. Namely, that individuals can be elevated above their station.

Thankfully, gentlemen of stature and merit direct these underclass impulses for the betterment of ourselves. The Pharoh didn't build the great pyramids by himself. He had thousands of underclass minions toiling day and night to build these "wonders of the world" that the underclass still marvels and worships. The difference between the Pharoh and myself? I have millions toiling for me.

PD Quig says

Your disparagement of the Tea Party is particularly revealing. To reach the conclusion you reach requires an active denial of the obvious: there are simply many, many Americans who recognize that we have pushed beyond the limits of government to manage itself reasonably.

I see your loyalty to republican doctrine. Admirable I guess, or at least not surprising. Are you familiar with the concept of starve the beast?

The typical republican line is now fiscal conservatism,but for decades when borrowing and adding to the deficit was about lining the pockets of the military industrial complex, or the medical/pharmaceutical complex, or big oil, or Halliburton, and all the other companies that support military operations, or when increasing the deficit was about under taxation, relative to our wars and corporate subsidies, that was tolerable.

Quite a bit of our deficits of the past decade can be traced to a lack of regulation of banks and other financial institutions.

But now that it's gone too far, it's suddenly clear that the real problem can be traced back to social safety nets, and so called entitlements. AFAICT this was an actual plan of republicans who conveniently said that deficits don't matter while their friends were getting rich off of that deficit spending.

Starve the beast while enriching themselves, and then force a roll back of social programs. Maybe it wasn't a conspiracy, but it is what seems to be happening.

Phaedra says

Far left: Would love to nationalize industries,

I have never heard or read of any "liberal" advocating that. I know that I don't. I'm for capitalism and a market based economy. I am glad that the government saved GM, but I don't want the governemts to stay involved.

But I believe there is a lot that government can contribute to society. I'm not sure that getting private enterprise into areas such as running prisons, or supporting our troops (or actually being our troops in the case of blackwater) makes a lot of sense. Because then they become a special interest that is far different than what would exist with those functions when performed by the government.

PD Quig says

The Tea Party. Typical Americans that only want rationality to return to government. Want government to spend only what it takes in in revenues. Want to rebalance SS and Medicare so that they will not continue on their current path to bankruptcy. Want to return to policies that were 'mainstream throughout most of American history' but which began to be broken down in the 1930's when the SCOTUS began the end run of the constitution via an absurd re-interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause to empower the federal government to do anything it wanted to do.

IT is true that most of American history occurred before the 1930s, but our becoming a global super power with the biggest economy on the planet happened after that.

We get it. They want to undo the New Deal, and to go back to an era when 75% of senior citizens lived in abject poverty. But understand what it is that got us to this moment. It wasn't tax and spend liberals. It was borrow and spend policies, especially the unfunded wars and tax cuts of the last decade, and the criminal negligence on the part of the financial industry.

As for war spending, it seems to me that if we are at war, and there isn't shared sacrifice involved, then that calls in to question whether all of the death destruction and deficit spending involved is really worth it.

As for "balancing SS and medicare" I'm fine with the incredibly minuscule tweaks that it would take to have SS solvent many decades past the death of all the boomers. My favorite solutions are means testing and slowly increasing the payroll tax 1 or 2% over the next couple decades.

See this excellent article that Patrick posted a couple days back:
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?source=patrick.net&article=better_than_bernie

As for medicare, that's more tricky, especially if we don't do some more significant health care reform.

I nsignificant
W hile
O bfuscating
G arbage

marcus says

Quite a bit of our deficits of the past decade can be traced to a lack of regulation of banks and other financial institutions.

Actually they used the growth of debt to HIDE the money they were spending on big government during the Bush years:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2rS

blue line is non-government debt, red line is government debt, both scaled to GDP

clever, no?

All this got rolling during Clinton's 2nd term, really. Financial sector started leveraging up then and didn't stop until everything blew apart in 2008.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DODFS

I sold my last real estate four years ago and decided to never again invest in anything that I couldn't transact in less than one second.

Therefore, putting up with the nasty far lefties on this site really doesn't make any sense anymore. These aren't discussions. They are hate-filled screeds dripping with ad hominem attacks, arrogance, ignorance, and boundless self-regard.

Too bad you are a tiny minority who will finally be crushed when TSHTF. Gawd, what tiresome crap. Why did I ever bother engaging you all????

Goodbye to all that.

marcus says

have never heard or read of any "liberal" advocating that. I know that I don't. I'm for capitalism and a market based economy.

well, he did say the "Far left" would want to nationalize industries. He's correct, but not many people on this country are "far left", LOL

He also put the Tea Party in the center, which is why I was assuming that puts me fairly far to the left - or at least far enough to the left that I would have heard of a liberal American who advocated this.

Phaedra says

Why did I ever bother engaging you all????

Your entire 5 posts worth of engagement under that account name.

And gee, I was waiting for an honest response to my 11:57.

Going to be a long wait I guess.

Nothing new there though.

marcus says

that get spent by the government almost as if it wasn't borrowing the money from our SS trust fund.

$4,625,536,857,585.03 and counting in intragovernmental savings spent by Congress, LOL.

Well, I guess it's actually going down now.

Phaedra says

Therefore, putting up with the nasty far lefties on this site really doesn't make any sense anymore.

Too bad...

Goodbye to all that.

Oh I'm going to cry a river in deep sadness at the loss...

Has anyone else noticed that all of a sudden there is a rash of right wingnuts who have only posted 1-5 times and only in this thread?

Cortaid anyone?

simchaland says

Oh I'm going to cry a river in deep sadness at the loss...

Is it more than you can "bear?"

simchaland says

Has anyone else noticed that all of a sudden there is a rash of right wingnuts who have only posted 1-5 times and only in this thread?

I find it interesting that many people on this forum just post their opinion, but then a few are so angry that all they'll believe is that we're liberal idiots.

Any conversation that doesn't complain about liberals seems to label everyone a lib.