patrick.net

Analyzer says

300 million people in the US and these are the best and brightest we could put in office?

Republicans don't vote for the best and brightest. Intellectualism is a vice according to their dumb ass culture. That's why Bush was so popular among them. They hated Gore for having even a slight intellect.

Republicans also hate Elizabeth Warren for the same reason. Image what they would feel towards a genius like Alan Turing, Fredrick Gauss, or Nikola Tesla.

In addition to the above, we should have single terms only for everyone in congress and the president.

thunderlips11 says

Team America World Police is bankrupting America, with half the world's military spending. Military spending is utterly discretionary.

The War on Poverty is bankrupting America. Welfare spending is utterly discretionary.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

Republicans don't vote for the best and brightest.

Dan, I hate to break the news to you, but the 535 + 1 in D.C. aren't all Repubs...

True, many of the Democrats are dumb. The difference is that they and their constituents don't take pride in that.

Dan8267 says

Republicans don't vote for the best and brightest.

Basically they became the "country fried" party. Weird because if you were to have introduced today's Republicans to the Republicans of the early 1900's, those from the turn of the century would ask how in the hell they got elected.

zzyzzx says

In addition to the above, we should have single terms only for everyone in congress and the president.

Agreed, these Senators that have been in there for years and years are like zombies.

zzyzzx says

The War on Poverty is bankrupting America. Welfare spending is utterly discretionary.

As long as Peter gets Pauls money from government, he will always vote Democrat.

Call it Crazy says

Gee, I wonder if their offices are heated with natural gas???

LOL, good one.

finehoe says

They are quite aware that they're just carrying water for the 1%.

In their minds, preserving the wealth of the 1% is the same thing as protecting the country from evil socialists. Any slight reduction in wealth disparity is seen as evil socialism.

Remember, God said "Thou Shalt Not Steal." That means if 1% of the population controls 75% of the pie, that's the way God wants it.

edvard2 says

Basically they became the "country fried" party. Weird because if you were to have introduced today's Republicans to the Republicans of the early 1900's, those from the turn of the century would ask how in the hell they got elected.

The Republicans of today were called Dixiecrats in the early 1900's, and the Republican's of the early 1900's were well familiar with the stupidity of Dixiecrats.

It's not well known, but the Democratic Party before the 1960s was actually two separate parties acting as one. There was the Northern, rational, educated Democrat who was in favor of social reform and alleviating poverty. Then there was the Southern Democratic Party, or Dixiecrats, who wanted to go back to slavery or at least as close to it as they could get. These were the Jim Crow Democrats.

During the 1960s, the Republican establishment adopted the Southern Strategy, a political strategy to court the racist vote at the expense of all minorities on the belief that the minority vote would never matter because America was a primarily white nation and would stay that way forever.

So, during the adoption of this strategy, all the liberal Republicans -- and yes, there were liberal Republicans back then such as Dwight D. Eisenhower -- started moving into the Democratic Party (not all at once, mind you) while the Dixiecrats moved into the Republican Party.

Today's Republican Party is made entirely of Dixiecrats and a few elite manipulators who cater to the Dixiecrat's bigoted social agendas in order to get to commit white color crime unmolested by the police, er, that is without regulation.

Today's Democratic Party is made up of the liberal and moderate Republicans that left the Republican Party, along with the Northern Democratic Party members, and the independents that have given up on trying to win in a two-party system and have recognized that the Republicans are now a batshit crazy party.

And that is why the Republican Party of today is not Lincoln's Party by any stretch of the imagination.

leo707 says

before the party went totally bat-shit crazy.

I would say that the party went totally bat-shit crazy in 2000 when they rigged the 2000 election. The transition from rational party to batshit was from 1955 to 2000. I think there was still a bit of sanity left in the 1990s, but that's long gone.

You're really having to dig for some dirt huh? " Oh lookie! The web site was down! See? See?!

Dan8267 says

The transition from rational party to batshit was from 1955 to 2000. I think
there was still a bit of sanity left in the 1990s, but that's long
gone.

That's because the republican party's base gets smaller by the month, and are as relevant as the Haitian Bobsled Team are in the Winter Olympics. Each paranoid boomer that passes on is one less reliable vote to fear-monger for, but bigotry is across all ages of the extremist right wing.

There only, and last appeal, is to the bigotry of their base, which is everybody that is NOT a plutocrat or direct 1st line employee of one/corporations, but yet thinks tomorrow that they will be.

Isn't the transition a long-term consequence of the Southern Strategy?

Birchers to Birthers.

Inviting in the Southern Evangelicals was a big mistake. The Birchers were at least interested in governing rationally. Barry Goldwater was a far different creature than the Santorum, Bachmann, and Romney types. Religious fanatics believe that drowning the government in the bathtub is a neccessary step to building their theocracy.

upisdown says

That's because the republican party's base gets smaller by the month, and are as relevant as the Haitian Bobsled Team are in the Winter Olympics.

This shift in demographics in favor of democrats has been well-covered over the past few years. Its probably less that the demographic the GOP counted on to win is shrinking and more that the demographic that favors democrats is growing. Even if 100% of the GOP's base continues to vote for strictly Republican candidates, the GOP will lose elections. The math is fairly straightforward.Vicente says

Isn't the transition a long-term consequence of the Southern Strateg

I had mentioned this yesterday: The South is changing dramatically from the effects of domestic in-migration, and a heavy amount of that population comes from the NE. So with that comes more liberal voters, which in turns dilutes the conservative composition of those areas. Its also important to note that not all Southern states are as strictly conservative.

What you just missed was the amount of demand.

The demand was so great it shut down the servers.

Hmmm, having a high demand for a service sounds pretty good.

The other thing you are missing is that Congress is to this very day attempting to shut down Health Care in this country.

The Republican Party hates America so much they want us all dead from lack of Health Care, unless you're rich of course, and can afford a Bull Shit Cadillac Health Care Insurance system with the cash to pay for incidentals.

Why do you hate America?

sbh says

I will light a candle in the window.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean. I am actually originally from there, and have lived on both coasts. So I've had an experience most haven't, which is to say most people in either of those locations seldom migrate to other places other than ones that are the most similar to what they are accustomed to ( Hence why New Yorkers and Bostonians seem to migrate in hordes to California and vice versa).

So I have seen that change. No- I'm not saying the South is going to become the bastion of liberalism overnight. But This more recent im-migration will in time eventually at least moderate things there a bit more so than in the past.

Dan8267 says

white color crime

Wait did you mean "white collar crime" (i.e. corporate crime)? What is "white color" crime? I figure it's just a typo.

FortWayne says

Capitalism doesn't need saving, it needs less government intervention into it.

Agree. We need less regulation, especially in the financial sector. And we all know that the profit motive will clean up pollution and keep workers safe, all by itself.

FortWayne says

Capitalism doesn't need saving, it needs less government intervention into it.

That's such a bland, meaningless statement. Virtually every single Republican blankly says that same crap and then goes on and grows the gubbermint even bigger. Sorry folks, but government has been "big" since it was formed. Its called "Government"

Number one rule of political grandstanding: don't close the national parks.

Chart in this article, http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2013/10/01/not-our-first-boom-san-francisco-home-values-travel-a-familiar-loop/, implies rally to last another four years.

Funny to see bulls gloating over a year of gains.

Case-Shiller is from Shiller, the guy who says real RE prices don't change over the long term?

hanera says

implies rally to last another four years.

4 years, and then what? An other disastrous crash?
Can you even see the totally futile nature of what you are saying?

Heraclitusstudent says

Can you even see the totally futile nature of what you are saying?

can happen... that is the nature of corrections. When we saw prices fall in early 90s .. no one asking about home prices "recovering"... they did recover correctly back to the long term....

Heraclitusstudent says

the guy who says real RE prices don't change over the long term?

seems some have forgotten what prices were for decades before year 2000.

thomaswong.1986 says

seems some have forgotten what prices were for decades before year 2000.

Other than realtors and guys like you, buyers don't have the data that far back. Most buyers based their decision on realtors who show comparative study over six months only. That's how I bought my first house, data blind.

thomaswong.1986 says

can happen... that is the nature of corrections. When we saw prices fall in early 90s .. no one asking about home prices "recovering"... they did recover correctly back to the long term....

90's to now is still medium term.
It says nothing about what will happen 4 years from now.

FortWayne says

Capitalism doesn't need saving, it needs less government intervention into it.

Yeah, that worked well for the global economic melt down we had.

Hey bro,

Mish poached your post:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/10/dnc-is-broke-good-news-or-bad.html

Call it Crazy says

Blurtman
says

Hey bro,

Mish poached your post:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/10/dnc-is-broke-good-news-or-bad.html

Mish is always late to the party....

No, just a typical right wing hump that tries to capitalize on someone else's ideas or success.

Have you read what Mush posts, it's always from some other source with his bend of moronic libertopian BS added to it. For the life of me, I can't believe that anybody would entrust him with more than 5 bucks. His ideology makes him irrational, which leads to irrational decisions.

Then again, all he does is repost articles all day.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Famous last words. We are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over. Greed will never change.

yes, but it will take the events of 2000-2006 to pass out of living memory for the same mistakes to be made again.

Nobody even knows why California is a non-recourse state -- but in fact this law was prompted by the predatory lending of the 1920s and its fallout in the 1930s.

upisdown says

Then again, all he does is repost articles all day.

He strikes me as a considerable hypocrite. Always bitching about lazy union members, when he is constantly ripping off other people's material.

Blurtman says

He strikes me as a considerable hypocrite

That's a given. I always wondered why or how, that he would not be punished by the lack of business by throwing out his extremist and warped ideaology, or at the minimum limiting his potential customer base to the cranks and kooks that find his mutterings gospel. THAT'S why I wouldn't EVER let him control a dime of our money. Never. Ever.

But apparently the cranks and kooks make for a good mark for a grifter that can relate to them.

Aren't those same condos factored into your $/sqft as well? Given smaller places tend to cost more per square foot aren't those same condo's likely skewing your graph upward as they are Smaulgld's downward?

Mish is a well known crank. I tuned out his noise with the "ignore" feature a long time ago.

I guess I should donate to the DNC after all!

Bellingham Bill says

yes, but it will take the events of 2000-2006 to pass out of living memory for the same mistakes to be made again.

No it won't.

freak80 says

Of course the DNC is broke.

Billionaires know which party best represents their interests. Hint: it's not the DNC.

count the number of Billionaires at this table with Obama...i wonder how the ones in NYC and
LA/Hollywood looked like...

http://kellblog.com/2011/02/19/seating-chart-for-president-obamas-silicon-valley-tech-titans-dinner/

Blurtman says

Hey bro,

Mish poached your post:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/10/dnc-is-broke-good-news-or-bad.html

some say there is another word for it.. "Going Viral"

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

You've been shown to have been consistently wrong. Clearly your ego can't allow you to admit that.

Is that why you have 12 people ignoring YOU??

Perhaps you should ask Daryl and his many alter egos that question.