by Patrick ➕follow (60) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 37,953 - 37,992 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
That's because you actually have to pay it back, politicians are spending our money so they don't have to care... they don't get to pay it back. They just get to enjoy spending it.
So, according to your analogy, the solution is not to put restrictions on credit card use. Your solution is to piss on the bill when it comes.
If you pay cash for a house, maybe all you care about is monthly positive cash flow with an asset you can sell years later for more than you paid.
It's like stocks, but with much higher dividends and an almost guarantee to be able to sell at a profit.
Whereas a goofball CEO and clowny board of directors can kill a company, it's very hard to kill a house. Even if the tenants burn it down you can rebuild with insurance money and make it even more valuable.
It's different this time.
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says
Wow, what assholes. Housing valuations have never ever fallen. Everyone knows that.
Can we turn our focus back to Benghazi?
put forth a budget with less spending.
Ha ha ha! Good one!
Neither party will do that.
exfatguy says:"... burn it down you can rebuild with insurance money and make it even more valuable."
Don't give this crew any ideas. Wait! there's smoke coming out of my screen.
That's because you actually have to pay it back, politicians are spending our money so they don't have to care... they don't get to pay it back. They just get to enjoy spending it.
So, according to your analogy, the solution is not to put restrictions on credit card use. Your solution is to piss on the bill when it comes.
My solution is to cut the government credit card.
My solution is to cut the government credit card.
Which political party will advance your solution?
My solution is to cut the government credit card.
Then you agree that we have to raise the debt ceiling, right?
My solution is to cut the government credit card.
Then you agree that we have to raise the debt ceiling, right?
No, cut the spending and reduce the debt ceiling.
No, cut the spending and reduce the debt ceiling.
So, you are in favor of US defaulting? Not honoring our debts?
You know you might be crazy if ...
the president of the US will negotiate with Assad, but he will not negotiate with you.
then the dems should also refuse to raise the debt ceiling until:
The Democrats should simply pass a bill stating that when the debt ceiling is reached, funding will be cut from the military first until military spending is reduced by 90%, and then funding will be cut from farm subsidies until such subsidies are reduced to 0%, and then funding will be cut from all remaining discretionary spending uniformly as necessary.
And before the Republicans get to try to filibuster it, Obama should issue an executive order preventing the use of a filibuster on this issue and mandating an up or down vote citing national security as justification. Any senator that objects gets a one-way ticket to Gitmo under the USA Patriot Act and the NSDA.
Unfortunately, Obama is such an evil fuck, he'd never do this. A real reformer would.
The Democrats should simply pass a bill stating that when the debt ceiling is reached, funding will be cut from the military first until military spending is reduced by 90%, and then funding will be cut from farm subsidies until such subsidies are reduced to 0%
Our whole economy is based on perpetual war and cheap HFCS. Be careful what you wish for.
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.
Freudian slip. The Daily Show did a good segment on this regarding New York City's stop and frisk policy. Basically, stop and frisk should be applied to white collar, financial crimes. If you fit a certain profile (male, white, balding, in a suit, in the financial district), then you should be stopped and frisked by cops. That's not prejudice, it's just good police profiling.
It will be very hard for the renter to come out ahead of the owner....
Yeah, if I ever saw numbers like that I'd buy in a second. In San Francisco, they've almost been the other way around.
Shutdown Government is the Conservatives version of Occupy Wall Street.
Ow! Best analogy ever.
Unfortunately, Obama is such an evil fuck, he'd never do this. A real reformer would.
Yes, removing the power of the Majority from the House would be "real reform", LOL
Just as Americans in general do not have the habits of deference, so the conservative in America does not have them either. Ultimately he does not defer even to the country’s institutions. If one of these institutions, such as the Supreme Court, makes decisions he detests, he will defame that institution. He is as ready as is the common man to bypass the institutions he ought to defend … The America which Europe fears is the America of the Reaganites. The America once of the Scopes trial; the America of prohibition; the America of ignorant isolationism. The America then of ‘‘"better dead than red’’; the America of McCarthyism; the America of the last fundamentalists of the 1950s. The America now of the new evangelicals; the America of the Moral Majority; the America of a now ignorant interventionism; the America which can see homosexuals as a conspiracy; feminists as a conspiracy; perhaps even women as a conspiracy.
The America of fear. For it is in fear that the ungoverned and the unfree are doomed to live. And there was this America in control at Detroit. It is time that we reminded ourselves, and said aloud and more often, that it is from these people that nastiness comes. It is time that we pointed out to the neo-conservatives that democracy has never been subverted from the left but always from the right.
– Henry Fairlie, 1980.
Everything is negotiable.
And that's not new, our rights have been negotiable for quite some time... especially where NSA is concerned. So if rights are negotiable, laws are negotiable too.
Okay, then in a few years, let's get a group of radical democrats in congress who threaten to defund the government and not raise the debt dealing, unless tax rates on high incomes (250K and up) go back to Eisenhower levels.
No, cut the spending and reduce the debt ceiling.
So, you are in favor of US defaulting? Not honoring our debts?
They can pay the debt off while spending less on everything else at the same time. But if we let them raise the debt, eventually the only thing we'll be paying will be debt and won't be able to afford any services.
cut the spending
that's easier said than done. What $1T+ would you cut?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2014_US.html
Remember, each $100B you cut is going to fuck over ~5 million people, since without Uncle Sugar so much of our so-called economy would just dry up and blow away.
Yes, removing the power of the Majority from the House would be "real reform", LOL
I think you mean "minority" as the filibuster is always used by the party not in control.
Although some people make the case that the filibuster is necessary to prevent tyranny of a majority, there are two reasons I don't buy that. One, a super-majority can already end a filibuster and a super-majority is the real threat of a "majority tyranny".
Two, I have never seen the filibuster used to do anything other than evil, save for one case when Rand Paul used it to bring attention to the evilness of drone attacks and that case was ineffective. Filibusters have been used primarily for vileness like blocking the Civil Rights Act. The filibuster does not have a good track record for ethical use.
that's easier said than done. What $1T+ would you cut?
Your chart shows 529 Billion in Welfare alone. Then another 509 Billion under Vendor Payments (Welfare).
That's more then 1T and it took me less than a minute to find it, using the webpage you provided. That was easy! I could get to a total of 2T in spending by cutting education as well. With more time I could trim more of the fat and pay off the deficit in less than a decade.
cut the spending
that's easier said than done. What $1T+ would you cut?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2014_US.html
Remember, each $100B you cut is going to fuck over ~5 million people, since without Uncle Sugar so much of our so-called economy would just dry up and blow away.
But it has to be done, the later we do it the worse it will get. So might as well start now. I'd cut Welfare and Defense right off the bat and debt would be paid off pretty darn quick.
Your chart shows 529 Billion in Welfare alone. Then another 509 Billion under Vendor Payments (Welfare).
Congratulations, every city in the US blows up.
These welfare checks don't disappear into black holes, they result in demand all across the nation.
As for subsidized education, yeah, we could certainly cut that too.
Fuck people, this is a nation of the taxpayers, by the taxpayers, for the taxpayers. Everyone gets the education they can afford, and not one drop more.
Glibertarians simply discredit themselves by opening their stupid mouths.
These welfare checks don't disappear into black holes, they result in demand all across the nation.
They also create a nation of welfare queens who instead of rising to the occasion just sink to the bottom, because that is the easiest option.
Then another 509 Billion under Vendor Payments (Welfare).
That was medicaid you just eliminated, btw. People now get the health care they can afford, and not one drop more.
They also create a nation of welfare queens who instead of rising to the occasion just sink to the bottom, because that is the easiest option.
How about you try living off of welfare for a couple of months, then come back here and tell us how "easy" it was.
They also create a nation of welfare queens who instead of rising to the occasion just sink to the bottom, because that is the easiest option.
How about you try living off of welfare for a couple of months, then come back here and tell us how "easy" it was.
I've had neighbors who were on welfare. While I was out working all day long busting my back, they were partying all day. Government paid their apartment rent, their electricity, their food and healthcare. All they did is occasionally sell some of those stamps to get cash, or work part time for cash somewhere.
It might not be the easiest life from a perspective of a person who has a lot. But for them that's a lot eaiser than actually getting a job and working their way into something.
welfare is a patch on a broken system.
problem is the glibertarians don't have anything less dysfunctional in trade.
Their "more freedom" solve-all is fatally flawed by how the Monopoly board is divvied up and the fact that money is power, and lack of money is lack of power, and return to capital ("interest") will always win out over return to labor ("wages"), since interest never sleeps.
you want the fat-ass welfare queens to get a job, give them the real opportunity by making more societal and human capital available to them.
This would be a multi-generational project.
The conservative "got mine fuck you" mindset isn't going to solve things. Quite the opposite.
While I was out working all day long busting my back, they were partying all day.
While you were out working all day, I got myself an education. Now I don't have to do manual labor outside all day.
yeah, not that I'd want to be a poor minority, but when you're in the middle you feel squeezed on both ends.
And it's true! PPACA's premium subsidies cut-off at $45,000, so if you make more than that, no partially-free ride for you!
and when you get into the high five-figures, the more the 25% marginal rate + 10% FICA + 9.3% state rate bites.
Meanwhile Romney is paying 15% (if that) on his multi-millions.
Meanwhile Romney is paying 15% (if that) on his multi-millions.
But he's creating slave-labor jobs in China. So it's ok.
The conservative "got mine fuck you" mindset isn't going to solve things. Quite the opposite.
It's not "got mine f.. you" mindset. Poor just get to support their kids, I get to support my family plus pay enough taxes to support a room load of other peoples children... it sure gets difficult to do that in life... and feels like being robbed on both ends, especially when people on the receiving end don't care to make their life better and enjoy being the takers, while wealthy just enjoy not paying any taxes with all their loopholes pushing that welfare/warfare burden onto me.
yeah, not that I'd want to be a poor minority, but when you're in the middle you feel squeezed on both ends.
That sure is true for me.
As if the mortgage were the only cost.
You forget property tax (1.7%), maintenance (1%), insurance... And those are costs that never go away, and that renters never have to pay.
Try http://patrick.net/calculator.php
But perhaps the biggest "secret" is that putting your money in the stock market has almost always been a better deal than putting your money into a house.
Come on Patrick. That's at best misleading and at worst an outright lie.
What? It's not even close to misleading. Stocks have been WAY better than housing nearly all the time:
What? It's not even close to misleading. Stocks have been WAY better than housing nearly all the time:
Don't waste your time Patrick, I've been saying the same thing for years and for some reason the response is that its better to invest in houses, dirt, and rocks than stocks, which have clearly shown to outperform RE for the past 100+ years. PS: I own a house too.
What? It's not even close to misleading. Stocks have been WAY better than housing nearly all the time:
Are you comparing appreciation only in housing to appreciation in stocks? That's not the correct comparison, IMO. You HAVE to add the rental cost that you paid to get closer to apples to apples. Once those costs are added, I think housing as an investment looks favorable assuming a relatively long time horizon (to make up for the transaction costs)
You invest in a house to avoid paying rent. (Or to collect rent) Nobody buys a house and then lets it sit hoping for capital appreciation.
WOW, divide and conquer has sure worked like a charm for most of you. PLEASE wake up and see what is really going on here. Stop the partisan BS. The MF'ers from both "sides" of congress did not read the entire bill before signing it into law. That in itself should invalidate the law AND cause for those who Voted for it to be removed from their positions.
« First « Previous Comments 37,953 - 37,992 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,236,352 comments by 14,783 users - REpro online now