patrick.net

He deserved the sentence and will most likely die in prison. However, some of the comments here are juvenile and downright stupid. To paint an entire industry as a bunch of crooks is ridiculous. And,
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch leads the pack as an uneducated, redneck spouting bad taste. 7800 + comments kind of tells you something...doesn't it !!

hrhjuliet says

I believe at least one parent should be home. That's ideal, and deep down we all
know that's what is best.

It is more expensive to give up a job to save money on childcare. Much better for both people to work and outsource childrearing in the daytime to a daycare center. Besides, the previous setup of man the provider and woman the homemaker negatively affected both parties with undue expectations and responsibilities.

But, if you insist on the 1950s lifestyle, perhaps it would be advisable to move to a part of the country where people are more likely to live that way. That way, you won't have to compete against 2 income DINKS or as many 2 income households in general. You will not find this in SFBA where even single income households may disproportionately cross the 6 figure threshold.

Reality says

Now back to one-income vs. two-income issue. Having new lower earning workers
(the women earned much less when they entered the work force) bid down wage
levels, just like the availability of Mexican and then Chinese workers a decade
and two later. That is not inflationary, but put downward pressure on prices.
What caused the inflation of the 1970's was simply accommodative central bank
policy printing up money.

Women entering the workforce was largely due to the awareness in the 60s movement that woman the homemaker was subservient to a man from financial power standpoint and they didn't want to live that way anymore. Additionally, I believe that men were getting tired of having all the responsibility to provide for everything. With women entering the workforce, the household income went up and predictably, the prices ahem "adjusted." Again, that's evidence for how people are basically competitors vs others in capitalism and why I am sceptical that policies such as minumum wage increases will increase standard of living. Prices will simply "adjust" again.

I think this comment on the article pretty well summarizes the problems:

David Pereira

"Unfortunately, when fundamentals are abandoned all artificial stimulus will vaporize as the fundamentals return. Foreclosures are down because consumers have learned how to delay foreclosure and financial institutions have throttled back taking action. I have way too many clients who have not made payments on their homes for over 4 years. Next wave of issues will be the payment shock associated with HELOCs and resetting loan mods... incomes have not kept up to be able to handle the payment shock. Securitizing rentals always was a bad idea as finding good tenants is difficult in a "normal market" and this new addition to the inventory will put even more pressure on. Apartment owners and long time investors have been doing this for years and they will be willing to lower rents to attract the creme of renters leaving the less desirable/risky renters to this new breed of investor who does not have the experience with these problems. To me, this is just another bubble working its artificial inflation only to burst sometime down the road. Advice for those first time home-buyers.... don't buy, wait, your time is coming and just be a little patient. My informal study of real estate agents is a dramatic upsurge in bankruptcy filings by agents even though they are coming off an alleged "great year.""

donjumpsuit says

hay day

heyday

prodigy says

This entire thread appears out of character for the original poster.

I seriously think he is being sarcastic but you never know, he may have a change of heart. :)

What I see a lot of is old folks getting themselves into "Reverse Mortgages" because they have no money to retire on.

Young who simply have no jobs, because any labor job these days means competing with illegals and offshore, so pay is below minimum wage.

It's hard for everyone except for the wealthy who have money and cheap labor. And until we change this system, it's only going to exacerbate itself.

dublin hillz says

But, if you insist on the 1950s lifestyle, perhaps it would be advisable to move to a part of the country where people are more likely to live that way. That way, you won't have to compete against 2 income DINKS or as many 2 income households in general. You will not find this in SFBA where even single income households may disproportionately cross the 6 figure threshold.

Well given the lousy workforce participation rate I think we are heading for a larger share of single family earner households again.

bgamall4 says

The police charged the wrong school. Sandy Hook does not have this rounded curb.
Turns out the school filmed was in the neighborhood but not Sandy Hook.

If it was staged, wouldn't the police have known where to go?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby, I have already told you that I am not convinced that Roig and Fernandez are two different people. The cleft chin and the teeth can be changed cosmetically. Clearly Robbie Parker was acting. Your skills for not seeing that are quite limited. It is a 100 percent certainty that he was acting. It is a 100 percent certainty that Kaitlin Roig was acting.

Here is a little something for you Einstein, er, I mean, Bigsby. The police charged the wrong school. Sandy Hook does not have this rounded curb. Turns out the school filmed was in the neighborhood but not Sandy Hook.

So, you are a piece of work, Bigsby, more like a piece of crap:

Same old bullshit from you Gary.

New Renter says

dublin hillz says

But, if you insist on the 1950s lifestyle, perhaps it would be advisable to move to a part of the country where people are more likely to live that way. That way, you won't have to compete against 2 income DINKS or as many 2 income households in general. You will not find this in SFBA where even single income households may disproportionately cross the 6 figure threshold.

Well given the lousy workforce participation rate I think we are heading for a larger share of single family earner households again.

Well, then those who manage to maintain a 2 income household shall inherit the earth....

bgamall4 says

And Anderson Cooper, ex CIA intern, knew all about this crap and is a criminal liar. He is also one of the last Vanderbilts. From Google:

Anderson Cooper

Journalist

Anderson Hays Cooper is an American journalist, author, and television personality. He is the primary anchor of the CNN news show Anderson Cooper 360°. Wikipedia

Born: June 3, 1967 (age 46), New York City, NY

Full name: Anderson Hays Cooper

Parents: Gloria Vanderbilt, Wyatt Emory Cooper

Siblings: Leopold Stanislaus Stokowski, Christopher Stokowski, Carter Vanderbilt Cooper

Education: Yale University (1989), Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Trumbull College, Dalton School

TV shows: Anderson Cooper 360°, Anderson Live, 60 Minutes, More

And now apparently Anderson Cooper has become your new pet project ever since you found out about his family. You sad, sad man.

bgamall4 says

So, you are saying they went to the wrong school because it wasn't staged?

Yes, I'm saying that if they went to the wrong school--it is evidenced that it wasn't staged, not evidence that it was.

bgamall4 says

They went to the wrong school because it is possible they were going to use
the other school and then changed their minds after the filming had taken
place.

Changed their minds? Was this a spur of the moment decision?

You're even more delusional than normal today...

Well actually they are intentionally not buying because they would rather pay about 1/3 more to landlords. For the same reason they are walking and riding bikes. It's all by choice, economics and lack of a grown up sized employment opportunity, has nothing to do with.

Just ask CNN, and Huffington Post, if you don't believe me.

bgamall4 says

You did notice Tatupu, that the shadows of Sandy Hook were on the opposite side of the shadows of the police raid that followed the shot of the Sandy Hook school. You were paying attention weren't you Tatupu?

?

And why is it you don't want to visit Sandy Hook seeing as you are so disturbingly fixated on it?

I don't get why are you celebrating the fact that he'll die in prison: doesn't this mean that you won't be able to eat his face?

bgamall4 says

They won't let you see anything. Hey, Bigsby, do you work for the department of Fuckedland Security? If you do we are indeed Fucked.

How do you know if you haven't been? Go and visit the families involved. After all, all you do on here is spend the entire time accusing them of some of the most shocking things imaginable for a parent. Why are you so scared to confront them if that's what you believe?

You are a true keyboard warrior Gary. Well done.

The last documented honest Realtor died in 1908.

FortWayne says

What I see a lot of is old folks getting themselves into "Reverse Mortgages"
because they have no money to retire on.

Some people now "need" to rely on reverse mortgage because they cashed out their 401Ks etc for speculative purposes and their bets went bust....but in general the need to rely on reverse mortgage is a sign that someone either bought above their means or lived above their means.

bgamall4 says

So, Bigsby, I don't feel bad accusing Robbie Parker of being a liar in the least. I have no bad conscience for doing that at all.

You should have a bad conscience, but you know what Busky? You have no conscience. You are void of conscience. It was seared off a long time ago.

You are swine.

You don't feel bad because you are doing it over the internet. Try doing it face-to-face and let us all know how that works out for you.
And last I checked, you are the one accusing 26 families of faking the deaths of their loved ones along with all those directly involved from the town (which was an awful lot of people), so exactly who is it that doesn't have a conscience? Perhaps you can pray to your imaginary God and find out what 'he' thinks about your behaviour.

If this was a hoax (it wasn't).... What did those pulling off the hoax accomplish?! More guns were sold after Newton than EVER and they are still selling like hotcakes. No real gun laws were passed.

If the goal was to make more people stock up on guns... then mission accomplished. If the goal was to disarm America.. then it failed miserably.

dublin hillz says

Well, then those who manage to maintain a 2 income household shall inherit the earth....

They'll have to pry it out of the cold, dead hands of the idle uberwealthy first.

Good luck with that.

tts says

Just because you were able to get out of the hole that'd been dug for you by
economic circumstances that were out of your hands doesn't mean everyone else
will be able to either you know.

Wow, I could NOT disagree with you more. The are consequences for every decision and not chosing is a decision within and of itself. Look, you WANT to live in SFBA, okay fine, I truly hope that you've got a job that pays well into the six figures, because that's what it will take to live there comfortably. If you're not making that kind of scratch, then I would humbly suggest you go somewhere that $30K or $50K or $80K a year will be a liveable salary. Someplace in Texas, Utah, Iowa, a dozen other places. However, if you CHOOSE to live somewhere, then don't bitch when your barista job and wages don't cut it.

tts says

There are plenty of people who work there ass off in this economy/country and
go nowhere their whole lives.

And again, why? Is it that they got involved in drugs or alcohol? Those are choices. Is it because they never learned a trade, so they are stuck on the lower rungs of labor? That's a choice. Did they not go to school or when they went found out/decided that they were more interested in/wanted to get a degree in women's studies, only to find that there are extremely few career paths for people with that degree? Again, a choice. Did they sit at home watching TV at night instead of going to night school, or taking an online course? Fine, but it's a choice.

As long as people make the 'wrong' choices, then the consequences won't be happy. I'm fine with anyone making whatever choice they want. What I'm not so fine with is bitching about where your choices land you. Want different results, then do something different.

Unless you are handicap in some way. As hrhjuliet pointed out, one is blind, one is elderly and has dementia. Those are circumstances that they can't do anything about. If you're a normal, able bodied human being, you CAN do something about whatever situation you find yourself in. And not doing anything but bitching about it IS doing something, but it won't change your situation.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Ceffer says

The last documented honest Realtor died in 1908.

He died in prison for child rape and cannibalism. The jury and judge were too exhausted by these hôrrors to go for the trifecta.

Sorry, my bad, have to go back and scour the historical records, there must be at least one honest one in there someplace.

dublin hillz says

Women entering the workforce was largely due to the awareness in the 60s movement that woman the homemaker was subservient to a man from financial power standpoint and they didn't want to live that way anymore. Additionally, I believe that men were getting tired of having all the responsibility to provide for everything. With women entering the workforce, the household income went up and predictably, the prices ahem "adjusted." Again, that's evidence for how people are basically competitors vs others in capitalism and why I am sceptical that policies such as minumum wage increases will increase standard of living. Prices will simply "adjust" again.

Without money supply increase, women entering workforce would just reduce the wages of men . . . just like Mexicans and then Chinese entering the "workforce" reduced the wages of American manufacturing labor.

Without technological improvement or changes in tax policies, women entering workforce would actually reduce household income (in terms of purchasing power) for the society as a whole: whatever women used to do in the household had previously been untaxed, whereas the women entering workforce being employed outside the household is making her also liable to taxation.

The truth is that a lot of people who earned degrees in science, education, medicine and business are out of work. A lot of people in the trades wait at the hall or by the phone. The truth is that it's not all about choice. The more feudalistic we become the more it becomes about how much your parents/relatives have or had. Did your parents help you buy a car? Then a leg up. Did your parents or relative help pay for college? Leg up. Did your parents help with your down payment on your new home? Leg up. Did they co-sign? Leg up. Do your parents watch your kids? Leg up. Do you not need to save for retirement because you know you will inherit? Leg up. The people living in poverty are not women's studies majors addicts and welfare moms - most of them live on the streets. We are talking about the disappearing middle-class and the rise of families living under the poverty line. It's a fantasy that the 1% come from a majority of self-made men. We hear the stories of those men, but the majority inherited their wealth. Even some of the self-made stories involve individuals who had their parents pay for their ivy league college, dorm and car before they started their companies. Most of those success stories also claim that the first investor in their start-up companies happen to be mom and dad. My mom's side is from a long line of people that belong to the 1%. Believe me, it's all more about luck, and who you were born to, than you think. Yes, good choices are always ideal, but they don't guarantee you anything. I like the fairytale that it is all based on your will, mind and good choices as much as anyone. I'm just in reality that that fantasy becomes less and less reality the farther we move from the ideals of our original Republic and the closer we move towards feudalism.

It's ironic that you overlook the blatant actual subterfuge related to the Sandy Hook story. If you must insist on seeing a conspiracy, at least consider who stands to benefit from the advocacy that followed. The parents are not lobbying for gun control, in fact many of them are gun owners; they are instead lobbying for more medical spending, particularly in the area of mental health, where more spending on daily pills causes more problems than it solves. The baseline risk of death from a school shooting, let alone one caused by a mentally ill person, is vanishingly rare - a fraction of the risk of being killed by lightning. For every child who dies that way, literally hundreds are killed by car accidents. Yet, the myth goes, if you care about children, you must support more spending to put more kids on pills.

I don't know what it is about conspiracy theorists that causes them to project elaborate detailed hoaxes, with actors and props. Real tragedies happen often enough that there is no need to stage fake ones. The "conspiracy" occurs in plain sight, as TPTB take advantage of tragedies, seeing every crisis as an opportunity. GW Bush took office wanting to "take out" Saddam Hussein. All he had to do was create a context, then wait for opportunity to knock. 9/11 created the opportunity - no need to stage the terror attack, simply misdirect people's outrage. Hussein had nothing to do with it, but Americans were easily misled to believe he did. It's bizarre to watch people project imaginary conspiracy theories that distract them from the actual deceptions happening in plain sight.

Call it Crazy says

dublin hillz says

but in general the need to rely on reverse mortgage is a sign that someone either bought above their means or lived above their means.

Isn't that the American way??? Just put it on credit??

Some people got overconfident and assumed that it's enough to have their entire net worth be in a form of home equity. While mortgage payments are designed to be a form of forced savings, it was never supposed to imply that one did not need to "save" in form of savings/liquid investments.

dublin hillz says

hrhjuliet says

I believe at least one parent should be home. That's ideal, and deep down we all

know that's what is best.

It is more expensive to give up a job to save money on childcare. Much better for both people to work and outsource childrearing in the daytime to a daycare center. Besides, the previous setup of man the provider and woman the homemaker negatively affected both parties with undue expectations and responsibilities.

But, if you insist on the 1950s lifestyle, perhaps it would be advisable to move to a part of the country where people are more likely to live that way. That way, you won't have to compete against 2 income DINKS or as many 2 income households in general. You will not find this in SFBA where even single income households may disproportionately cross the 6 figure threshold.

I own my business and I never said it should be the woman to stay home. My point was that it changed the numbers and now it is practically impossible to make enough to have a parent stay home. For the majority of the middle-class before the 80s it was still an easy choice that any family could make. What I think is troubling is that it is no longer a real choice. You may think it's better for a daycare to raise your children, but I don't, and I should be able to choose to raise my own children or have my husband home. Time with our children is what brings joy to our lives, and studies show that children thrive under their own parent's care. I know it's not PC to say it, but I do believe children are better off and safer with their own parent. Also, if one income earner from every household left the work force, just think of all the jobs that would open up. I know it's not PC or trendy, but I believe that one parent staying home could really change things in a positive way. I know that when my husband was home my children were happier and more secure.

hrhjuliet says

The truth is that it's not all about choice. The more feudalistic we become the
more it becomes about how much your parents/relatives have or had

These advantages have always been around, it is not something that became unique recently. And it could be a lot worse - some socieities practice blatant nepotism or it's all about who you know who can do favors for you - and in those societies it is absolutely impossible to advance past one's stations in life unless you were born into wealth or know the right people.

dublin hillz says

hrhjuliet says

The truth is that it's not all about choice. The more feudalistic we become the

more it becomes about how much your parents/relatives have or had

These advantages have always been around, it is not something that became unique recently. And it could be a lot worse - some socieities practice blatant nepotism or it's all about who you know who can do favors for you - and in those societies it is absolutely impossible to advance past one's stations in life unless you were born into wealth or know the right people.

. Didn't say it was unique to our time. I was only pointing out the American myth that it is all based on your choices. Ideally it is. I don't agree with the system, or advocate for it, I am simply pointing out the current reality.

bgamall4 says

Just shows a lack of oxygen to your feeble brain, Bob. Yawning is proof you need more oxygen.

You've spent too much time reading on the internet. Go interview some parents there and get back to us.

What you're failing to recognize is that the kind of "proof" you're coming up with can be gotten for any event. Slippery slope. Can become, "Nothing is real." That's a hard thought with which to live.

You're also failing to recognize the limits of your ability to think through this situation. Keep trying though and you'll realize the world isn't as bad a place as you now make it. It's complex and often beyond human understanding, but not so bad.

bgamall4 says

I know fake acting when I see it. You don't.

My, thankfully, limited experience around people having just tragically lost a close loved one(father, sister) is that they react in varied and unpredictable ways. What you're suggesting doesn't connect with my experience at all, so I hope you're some kind of expert to suggest something so awful. The way you've written your blog suggests you haven't an inkling of the severity of what you're suggesting or saying. Keep trying but it seems like you're working with a very limited amount of information. Get more. You've not organized even the little information you have in a way that is compelling at all. There is not a logical thread in what you've written, in other words when I read one sentence after the other they are often not connected in a way that makes sense.

I want to understand your line of reasoning better.

1) If it were a hoax, that means it was planned. Furthermore, the planners would have had the benefit of selecting the "actors," the "set," the date, the time, etc.... So, why Sandy Hook and why 12/14? Is there some significance to that particular date or location?

2) Do you believe that the deaths were real or faked?

3) Do you believe that Sandy Hook was a real, working elementary school or an abandoned building?

4) I supposed under the perfect circumstances, one could find an abandoned building, assemble some actors, run a drill as if it were real, and create fake victims. But how did "they" get the entire town to go along with it? Every person living there would have to know whether it was a real school... Every kid going to that school would know if the kid from their class who supposedly died never actually existed... That means, that you'd have to get around 30,000 people to support the story. Not one kid could accidentally say, "that girl didn't go to my school." How on earth could they manage to get almost 30,000 Newtown residents to go along with the ruse?

5) Who benefitted from the hoax? Well, the families got some money, the demolition/construction companies got some money, the town got some money, and the police/security got some money.... Emphasis on some. Hundreds of thousands of dollars is hardly enough money to set someone up for life. What was the remuneration to the rest of the Newtown residents for supporting the story?

Oh and 6) Who are "they?"

hrhjuliet says

The truth is that a lot of people who earned degrees in science,

Leg up...
Leg up...
Leg up...
Leg up...

And what self defeatist excuse do you have for those who did all of those things on their own.

People who work hard and get a head, are no less of an excuse for you to give up, as those who got a... "Leg Up".

hrhjuliet says

My mom's side is from a long line of people that belong to the 1%. Believe me, it's all more about luck, and who you were born to, than you think.

Are you complaining because you are not in the 1%? Apparently social mobility worked in your case: someone else took the spot among the 1% that you could have expected to keep if the society were entirely run by nepotists (bureaucrats usually are).

In any case, it's not necessarily membership among the top 1%, but membership among the top 10%, top 25% or top 50% that a person's effort can make a big difference. To get into the 1%, obviously one has to out-compete 99 other people; that may be a multi-generational effort. Getting into the top 10% is not that hard: only takes about $82K a year or so income as an individual right now; get yourself there and stay there for a while, then you might be able to provide the base for your kid to get into the 1%.

Reality says

To get into the 1%, obviously one has to out-compete 99 other people; that may be a multi-generational effort. Getting into the top 10% is not that hard: only takes about $82K a year or so income as an individual right now; get yourself there and stay there for a while, then you might be able to provide the base for your kid to get into the 1%.

Cite your source. I think you're way off. U.S. census numbers put mean incomes(I think that's the measure for the discussion here which is a consideration of how hard it is to become part of the top percentile incomes) at about $60k. I don't see any data suggesting $20k jumps you that far. Although, the dynamic is so extreme that you start to need millions or hundreds of thousands for each percentile in the top ten percent.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/poverty-income/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

bgamall4 says

I am quite sure it is worse than I understand it. You are stupid.

Okay. I just don't see it. Good luck. I wish I could believe some of the worst recent events were hoaxes. I'd actually find that comforting. The government doesn't appear nearly that sophisticated.