patrick.net

FortWayne says

While poor blacks are watching BET and listening to gangster rappers which celebrate robbing, killing, and selling drugs.

And that's a cultural difference, and until black people evolve on a mass scale and learn to live within the laws of the land, they are going to be more of them in jail.

Are you for real ? You make yourself out to be a basically a parody of a stupid white racist.

I'm no fan of "gansta rap" which I don't think you would find is all that big anymore. But it doesn't deal with robbing and killing as you say. It's about posturing and fantasies of being don carleon.

Sure there probably is some rap that is about all that. But I wonder how many people think the "The Godfather" is one of the best movies of all time, while having no interest in being a mobster ?

Again, I don't care about rap, that is I don't appreciate it. I'm probably close to your age and prefer music (you know with complex instrumental music and all). But I don't have as warped and retarded a view as you do of rap. Much of it sounds stupid to me, or based on values and an ego that I can't relate to. Much like your ramplings.

Here are lyrics to some of the top current rap songs.

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jasonderulo/talkdirty.html

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/chrisbrown/loyal.html

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/lilwayne/believeme.html

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/treysongz/nana.html

This is the stuff thats popular. Yes, not my thing AT ALL. But not about robbing and killing.

tatupu70 says

Nope--maybe a few posts on the thread (yours included, of course), but definitely not the whole thread. Even this post implying that people think African Americans that commit crimes are blameless victims--you can't resist the strawman allure, can you?

I didn't make it up. I read this kind of stuff all the time including Robert Sproul's comment 62: "After 250 years of slavery, 89 years of Jim Crow, decades of being redlined into declining neighborhoods with substandard schools, them crowding into our prisons (40% of the prison population) is the thanks we get."

So it's a valid question/observation: Why does the left mock and dehumanize poor and lower middle class white guys while simultaneously pitying and excusing African Americans in similar socioeconomic situations? This is despite the left having been originally about praising the working and middle class European whites (consider the hammer and sickle flag of the former USSR). The answer is obvious: It's about the votes. The more leftists bash white males, the faster the whites flee the party. It's a feedback loop. Lather-rinse-repeat. I'm reminded of the psychological paradigm of the wife who nags the husband because he drinks and the husband who drinks because his wife nags him. I actually read of a scenario where a mother hits her son for swearing and the son whose swearing is doing so because his mother hits him. This happens all the time.

If the typical Republican voter is a poor white guy, then the typical Democratic voter will be an Oakland welfare recipient who blames all their problems on someone else. You know, the guy with the mullet isn't all that bad by comparison.

zzyzzx says

cost-sharing requirements–beneficiaries have to pay 20% of most of their doctor bills, along with co-payments and deductibles.

So it's really just for 2 people's premiums, without the copayments???

It says right there in the sentence above along with co-payments and deductables.

marcus says

But I wonder how many people who think the "The Godfather" is one of the best movies of all time, while having no interest in being a mobster ?

I remember a similar remark made by someone who observed that many who criticize rap music like songs such as "I shot the sheriff." I like that song. It has a wonderful melody, rhythm, and background vocals and was performed by an African American. So why is that song so different than a gangsta rap tune?

I suppose because partly the words don't matter that much. If the song was "I popped the berry!" and had silly lyrics, it would still probably be a hit. It was a well crafted tune. Also, "I shot the sheriff" by itself doesn't sound terribly graphic as, say, I slashed the sheriff through the throat. The more visual the lyrics, the more violent they appear to be because they prompt the mind to wonder how serious it is. This is the difference between, say, a show such as forensic files or a murder mystery and, say, a slasher film. I love Forensic files and my wife watches them all the time. (I think they help to discourage violence because viewers learn that it's hard to fool the detectives :-) but my wife can't even watch a slasher film for 5 minutes even as both programs describe murders under the same scenarios.

What if economy recovers just nice, goldilocks?

PolishKnight says

Why does the left mock and dehumanize poor and lower middle class white guys
while simultaneously pitying and excusing African Americans in similar
socioeconomic situations? This is despite the left having been originally about
praising the working and middle class European whites (consider the hammer and
sickle flag of the former USSR). The answer is obvious: It's about the votes.
The more leftists bash white males, the faster the whites flee the party.

I don't this the "left" made a strategic decision to "bash" white males - there's plenty of people in that demographic that remain to basically tank that vote. As far "mocking and dehumanizing poor/lower middle class" whites, I would say that americans in general are infatuated with success whether they are liberal or conservative. When a liberal person sees a minority who is not successful, they are more likely to believe that they are where they are because of systemic issues that serve as a roadblock. However, when they see a white person who is not successful, they may attribute the "failure" to innate factors since they are are likely to believe that whites don't have major impediments from society in this system, thus if they failed it's their own fault. Additionally, there is perception which has some truth to it that poor whites are the group that's likely to vote against their economic self interest the most and can be picked off via wedge issues to do that. That trait elicits impatience at best and comtempt at worst from the observers.

Call Nancy's Pest control.

This country is long overdue for a real grass roots anti big government movement. About time!

I really hate seeing articles based on articles based on who knows what since the original source isn't available on line. Fidelity doesn't have the study anywhere on their website so no one knows what it is based on. Fidelity is in the business of convincing people to save more money, which may influence the study (you think?) but apparently we will never know.

I don't know if 220k is a reasonable number or not. Average person lives 19 years in retirement so that would be 11,500 a year per couple. Medicare B is something like 105 a month. So call it roughly 10k after B premiums since I'm to lazy to go find a calculator. That means the average couple would be looking at an average of 50k a year in medical expenses to owe 10k at a 20% copay? Yet the average medicare spending per enrollee per year is 10k or 20k per couple for A,B, and D. Where is the other 30k? That's a hell of a big discrepancy.

But hey, someone posted it on a blog, so it has to be true.

bgamall4 says

jkaldi1 says

There is DEMAND. how else do you think, corporations are making money.

There is not the demand there should be. People who need to spend are broke.

there is not much demand in "USA" !

PolishKnight says

I didn't make it up. I read this kind of stuff all the time including Robert Sproul's comment 62: "After 250 years of slavery, 89 years of Jim Crow, decades of being redlined into declining neighborhoods with substandard schools, them crowding into our prisons (40% of the prison population) is the thanks we get."

And I didn't say you made it up. I said you took one post out of 60-some and pretended that it was the subject of the entire thread. Which you did. And you continue to do.

PolishKnight says

So it's a valid question/observation: Why does the left mock and dehumanize poor and lower middle class white guys while simultaneously pitying and excusing African Americans in similar socioeconomic situations?

"The left" doesn't. Given that, the rest of your post is meaningless.

Call it Crazy says

bob2356 says

I really hate seeing articles based on articles based on who knows what since the original source isn't available on line. Fidelity doesn't have the study anywhere on their website so no one knows what it is based on.

Wasn't difficult for me to find... One quick Goggle search..

Try reading the article at the OP, it might help....

https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/retirees-medical-expenses

I read it, did you? Please feel free to post the relevant sections showing the methodology (that's the part where they explain things like how (z+y+x) *w=220,000 and the definitions of what z,y,x,w mean) by which they calculated their number.

I may be an idiot, but at least I'm smart enough to know what the word viewpoint (as in fidelity.com/viewpoints) means. Apparently you aren't. The original number of 220k is from Fidelity Consulting. You did read the article didn't you? Apparently not. Since you are so good with google, post the link to the Fidelity Consulting report that has the details.

But hey someone posted it on a blog, so it has to be true.

In classic economics was easier to cut your losses and move on.
I don't think housing will drastically fall not in America not in China or any country where bubbles have crashed their economy, or countries that have prevented, or delayed a collapse.

In the past, one could just cut their loss, and take up a new business venture. The options are dwindling and other opportunities are more riskier than ever. Like here in the States for example there have got to be hundreds less options that one could have done ten years ago that are no longer an option. Such as manufacturing where more regulations than every have stifled out the small business participants, and more and more large corporations are the only ones that can afford the prohibitive costs of doing business. And also for them it helps that they get billion dollar incentives from the Government to become the monopolies they become in industries that are free of small business competition.

Investments are risky, no way to get money from interest from saving you money.

So the only option people will have is to hold tight and sit on their house even the value of their houses came all the way down to 10% of what they paid. They've got no where else to go. So it is very possible to envision a future where we have millions of houses on the Market yet the prices hold steady. If the other existing homeowners aren't blitzing out their houses in fire sales. Don't expect the banks to.

That pattern has successfully ill-served the country going on 8 years now.

I don't see it letting up.

The only way things will change is if some progressive comes along and busts up the Monopoly mess the last two or three presidents have made of America.

Thanks Obamacare!

Call it Crazy says

Those monthly premiums can be 3 times the Medicare premium.

Call it Crazy says

See how easy that was..... That's what you originally asked for..

If you want the Fidelity Consulting web site, go find it yourself...

I'm sure Fidelity Viewpoints was lying about that report from Fidelity Consulting and just made it up...

Reading comprehension problems or just ducking and shucking? I origanilly asked for the report the 220k number was based on. Not the viewpoint article that regurgitates 220k and nothing else. Simple as that. If you can't understand that then I just can't explain it to you.

Fidelity viewpoints published 220k from a report by Fidelity Consulting. I'm sure the report exists. What they didn't publish is how the number was calculated. If you don't understand the difference then I can't explain it to you.

You don't have any questions about the numbers not adding. I feel it must be true, therefore it must be true. Perfect. Nothing like a little critical thinking.

Call it Crazy says

Uh, folks..... there are two possible paths here -- pick one.

1) The economy recovers strongly -- faster than anyone really expects. Then The Fed will raise interest rates faster than anyone expects. This will force up the cost of money. How much does this matter? Here's the math: A $200,000 house financed at 4.04% (today's quoted rate) for 30 years, assuming nothing on the table (that is you're financing $200,000) has a P&I of $956.23. If rates go to 6% (up 2%) then the same payment finances $160,288.46, a reduction of nearly $40,000 in the amount financed. Unless salaries rise by 20% the value of the house is going to fall by that same 20% -- period.

If the economy recovers, confidence will go sky high, unemployment will drop, and there will be a rush to buy homes. Rates going to 6% won't matter as they did not matter when rates were 10%.

Call it Crazy says

2) The economy does not recover. Ok, then who's going to buy the house?

In that scenario interest rates will fall, making it a lot cheaper to buy then to rent. So everyone will rush to buy, especially investors.

Any way you look at it the economy will eventually recover simply because it ALWAYS HAS recovered. This time won't be any different.

CaptainShuddup says

take up a new business venture.

I knew an old guy in Oakland that used to tell me stories about starting his printing business in the 1930's. They had nothing, and built some of the equipment they needed out of scrap. Through hard work and ingenuity, he was very successful and, though he is gone, he ended up in Piedmont and created family wealth that exists to this day. He started in the Depression but grew his business in an era and an environment of general growth and prosperity among his entrepreneurial cohort.
Nothing similar could happen today. Especially in the Bay Area.

The next many years are going to be a long screaming argument over who gets what out of the shrinking pie.

Robert Sproul says

I knew an old guy in Oakland that used to tell me stories about starting his printing business in the 1930's. [removed random platitudes about he worked hard and grew his business]
Nothing similar could happen today. Especially in the Bay Area.

Yeah really, no one has ever founded a new business in the Bay Area since the 1930s.

corntrollio says

Yeah really, no one has ever founded a new business in the Bay Area since the 1930s.

Yeah, well, you haven't.
Or you would at least get my point.

PolishKnight says

Why does the left mock and dehumanize poor and lower middle class white guys while simultaneously pitying and excusing African Americans in similar socioeconomic situations?

Do we complain about income inequality for blacks or for the whole underclass? Do we complain about the prison industrial complex as pertains to blacks only or for everyone?

Now, in both cases, institutional racism and classism play a role, thus disproportionately affecting minorities, particularly blacks. But that's a symptom of the cause of inequality and racism.

Whereas I'm quite certain that if the mostly white GOP were the permanent underclass they'd change their positions in a flash, we liberals would still believe that inequality was an evil to be righted, even if the only victims were white Appalachians.

Robert Sproul says

corntrollio says

Yeah really, no one has ever founded a new business in the Bay Area since the 1930s.

Yeah, well, you haven't

You are wrong there, but your point was specious to begin with. There are tons of entrepreneurial people doing just fine in the Bay Area.

Robert Sproul says

He started in the Depression but grew his business in an era and an environment of general growth and prosperity among his entrepreneurial cohort.

This exists right now -- there is an environment of general growth and prosperity among Bay Area entrepreneurs. If you don't think so, you need to rethink your point.

Robert Sproul says

CaptainShuddup says

take up a new business venture.

I knew an old guy in Oakland that used to tell me stories about starting his printing business in the 1930's. They had nothing, and built some of the equipment they needed out of scrap. Through hard work and ingenuity, he was very successful and, though he is gone, he ended up in Piedmont and created family wealth that exists to this day. He started in the Depression but grew his business in an era and an environment of general growth and prosperity among his entrepreneurial cohort.

Nothing similar could happen today. Especially in the Bay Area.

You are probably saying the good old days are gone forever.
Ingenuity never dies, especially in a country where it is allowed to flourish.
The future is full of gadgets and inventions that are unimaginable to the human mind at this point. 90% of all inventions happened in the last 50 years or whatever that figure is. The next 50 years might even be better because we have more scientists then ever before, and more people are living in a free democracy then ever before.
The future will be a wonderful place to live in.

corntrollio says

This exists right now -- there is an environment of general growth and prosperity among Bay Area entrepreneurs. If you don't think so, you need to rethink your point.

Silicon Valley is a hot bed for venture capitalists. People from all over the world go there to seek their fortune. Just look at Apple. Started in a garage and today it practically rules the world of gadgets with its innovations.

bgamall4 says

2. They want to surround Russia and risk nuclear war.

Why?

looks like the demand side economists need the crutches of tariffs and protectionism now. there is no end to it.

bgamall4 says

I wonder if he is paid by the New World Order

I highly doubt it considering nobody has given him much credence here. Either that, or the "NWO" is sure namby-pamby at executing their strategy.

corntrollio says

but your point was specious to begin with. There are tons of entrepreneurial people doing just fine in the Bay Area.

Well, maybe less "tons" than there used to be.

I am sure you are right about your tech cohort.
In the larger world, not so much.

I never heard of demand side economics. I see the term exists though.

How about "both sides economics."

Strategist says

it practically rules the world of gadgets with its innovations.

Innovation in the World of Gadgets!
The World is Saved!

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

How does one get on the payroll of this New World Order? They should pay me too.

You're not eligible, you're an economist, remember??

You know economists are probably the most discriminated of occupations. They get paid nothing, they are always wrong, and always full of 20/20 hindsight. And everyone thinks they are nuts.

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

How does one get on the payroll of this New World Order? They should pay me too.

You're not eligible, you're an economist, remember??

You know economists are probably the most discriminated of occupations. They get paid nothing, they are always wrong, and always full of 20/20 hindsight. And everyone thinks they are nuts.

bgamall4 says

They should pay you. You just have to sell your soul to the devil to qualify.

When has that ever been a problem? My soul has been sold more often then the Brooklyn Bridge.

Robert Sproul says

Strategist says

it practically rules the world of gadgets with its innovations.

Innovation in the World of Gadgets!

The World is Saved!

It's like the better health through chemistry idiots of the 60's, they are all dead of Leukemia and other Cancerous horrible deaths now.

bgamall4 says

Strategist says

You know economists are probably the most discriminated of occupations. They get paid nothing, they are always wrong, and always full of 20/20 hindsight. And everyone thinks they are nuts.

They rely on models instead of reality. That means they are like lawyers, serial liars.

No, lawyers know they are serial liars. Economists don't.

bgamall4 says

They rely on models instead of reality. That means they are like lawyers, serial liars.

Not Austrians. Most use empirical data, the Austrians use a priori methods.

CaptainShuddup says

Robert Sproul says

Strategist says

it practically rules the world of gadgets with its innovations.

Innovation in the World of Gadgets!

The World is Saved!

It's like the better health through chemistry idiots of the 60's, they are all dead of Leukemia and other Cancerous horrible deaths now.

The iwatch is supposed to come out in October with a feature that will monitor your health. Please buy it.

corntrollio says

Except that that isn't true. The countries that embraced EU migrants saw booming economies, and those that didn't (excluding Germany) didn't. It was only the burst of the credit bubble that changed this, but likely only on a temporary basis. The reality is that migrants in Europe are far less likely to be on benefits than natives and are likely net contributors to pension systems.

This was true after WW2 when immigrants mostly from within (todays) EU and close neighbor countries immigrated and helped rebuild Europe. Ironically a lot of those have been absorbed into the culture and are often more "conservative" and tougher on today's immigrants than the indigenous/autochthons because they mostly bring crime and welfare bills to Europe due to complete cultural mismatch and the unwillingness to at least partially assimilate. Today's immigrants in most European countries are far more likely to be on benefits and huge net losses for the pension systems. And they do cheat the system quite often. Most 1st and 2nd generation immigrant families have nothing to do with them and don't want to.

marcus says

I never heard of demand side economics. I see the term exists though.

How about "both sides economics."

the only fix is to increase the skill level of american labor force.
thats the only way american workers can get decent money for less number of hours.

everything else is just politics...either right wing or left wing.

jkaldi1 says

the only fix is to increase the skill level of american labor force.

thats the only way american workers can get decent money for less number of hours

The fix is re balancing the trade.

bgamall4 says

Strategist says

They should pay you. You just have to sell your soul to the devil to qualify.

When has that ever been a problem? My soul has been sold more often then the Brooklyn Bridge.

I am sorry for you.

Thanks, but I don't deserve it.