patrick.net

I think that, if we gave them all marijuana, their symptoms would be greatly reduced and they wouldn't feel like fighting. Both sides of the conflict.

elliemae says

I think that, if we gave them all marijuana, their symptoms would be greatly reduced and they wouldn’t feel like fighting. Both sides of the conflict.

When can we start the fly overs?!?! Free bongs all around! I'll start baking the brownies;O)

I bet that if all men on both sides were sexually pleasured thrice daily in a male-selfish manner, there would be no war. For the same reasons ellie suggested.

Do you mean that those boys in high school who told me they were going to join the army and I should sacrifice myself for my country before they left... weren't lying?

Bap33 says

I bet that if all men on both sides were sexually pleasured thrice daily in a male-selfish manner, there would be no war. For the same reasons ellie suggested.

Great, now you are blaming women for all the world's problems....hahahahah (JK)

Bap33 says

I bet that if all men on both sides were sexually pleasured thrice daily in a male-selfish manner, there would be no war. For the same reasons ellie suggested.

Hey, don't we still have the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy;O)

Regarding European Health Care:

No one slips thru the cracks unless they want to.

The malaise that affects the USA also effects the world e.g. about 20 years or so ago even if you were not a UK citizen you could get free treatment there (e.g. had a heart attack, broke a leg) now that is not the case, now you must be a UK citizen or carry medical papers issued by the EU government (or private insurance). In emerging nations the provisions were so low that they are still improving but don't expect that to continue in future.

What I mean is that in the west the drop in health care "care" has been universal but because it was already so low in the US its deficient nature become apparent even to the covered.

People say government systems don't work but civilization is the product of government. The reason funds like social security and pensions are bust or going to be is because they have been raided repeatedly to finance other arms of government. Precisely why there is never a lack of funds to bail out industry and finance wars.

Kevin says

I happen to agree with Krugman on this issue, but by and large I don’t care for his opinions because his track record is pretty average among economists. I’m particularly annoyed at him because he refuses to admit when he’s wrong, and he acts like winning the “Nobel Prize in economics” makes everything he says the gospel.

Krugman's track record is awful.
Here he is in 2001 urging for Greenspan to cut rates as fast as possible.

However, let's give credit where credit is due: Mr. Greenspan has cut rates since then. And while some of us may have been urging him to move even faster, the Fed's four interest-rate cuts since the slowdown became apparent represent an unusually aggressive response by historical standards. It's still not clear that Mr. Greenspan has caught up with the curve -- let's have at least one more rate cut, please -- but the interest-rate cuts do, cross your fingers, seem to be having an effect.

Here he is in 2001 urging for housing to be pump primed.

I think frankly it's got to be -- business investment is not going to be the driving force in this recovery. It has to come from things like housing, things that have not been...Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time?

Again, in 2001, he wanted to stimulate housing even more.

I'm a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that's over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven't fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It's not a happy picture.

Still, wanting to stimulate housing more.

Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can't contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery....Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn't 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.

btw...that export led recovery never came. We just continued to outsource.
Still wants to promote spending on housing in late 2001

In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.

Of course, he'll never admit he said any of this. He even claims that he saw the housing bubble coming before this. I can find a bunch of quotes from him 2003 screaming his head off about the deficit and how it is going to create a giant fiscal crisis. If you ask him today, the deficit doesn't matter at all. He's a liar, plain and simple.

theoakman says

Here he is in 2001 urging for Greenspan to cut rates as fast as possible

And that was the correct thing to do. 2001 wasn't the problem. And low interest rates weren't the problem either--it was poor underwriting standards.

theoakman says

Of course, he’ll never admit he said any of this. He even claims that he saw the housing bubble coming before this. I can find a bunch of quotes from him 2003 screaming his head off about the deficit and how it is going to create a giant fiscal crisis. If you ask him today, the deficit doesn’t matter at all. He’s a liar, plain and simple.

You really don't get it at all. Different things matter at different times. Deficits, for example--during boom times like 2003, you should be running a surplus. So the fact that we were running huge deficits during a strong economy is a very bad thing. But during recessions/depressions, deficits are a necessary evil. You have to run a deficit in order to make up for the lost demand of the private sector...

So if he said the budget deficit was bad in 2003 but OK now, he's be entirely correct.

Has anyone bothered to run these numbers? At $6,191 per sq ft, 1.5 million dollars buys you a 242 sq ft apartment, that's a 10 ft x 24 ft room!!! On the low end of the sale, Tokyo at 2,334 sq ft gets you 642 sq ft apartment. My first house was 850 sq ft living space and I had a full basement to boot. I can't imagine living it such a small space. My new house is 4 times larger now, not including a stand up attic, full 9 foot ceiling basement and a 3 car garage. Also my property is larger, I had a 50x175 lot (8750 sq ft), and now I have a 108,900 sq ft lot, 12 times the size.

I concur with tatupu. There is no such thing as a permanent position in economics; it is primarily the science of analyzing, inducing or responding to changes. Krugman got carried away with his response to the 2001 tech bust, but also remember, most of those articles were written before 9/11, the ensuing wars and the surge of outsourcing to China.

Note that I am not a big Krugman fan. Paul occasionally highlights important issues, but he also enjoys the limelight too much for my tastes. He'll oversimplify complex issues just to make a splash in his own column, even though he often dismisses dissenters as oversimplifying things. His Nobel Prize gets waved around too much---I'd like to hear what other laureates of the Nobel Prize in Economics have been saying for the past few years.

tatupu70 says

theoakman says

Here he is in 2001 urging for Greenspan to cut rates as fast as possible

And that was the correct thing to do. 2001 wasn’t the problem. And low interest rates weren’t the problem either–it was poor underwriting standards.
theoakman says

Of course, he’ll never admit he said any of this. He even claims that he saw the housing bubble coming before this. I can find a bunch of quotes from him 2003 screaming his head off about the deficit and how it is going to create a giant fiscal crisis. If you ask him today, the deficit doesn’t matter at all. He’s a liar, plain and simple.

You really don’t get it at all. Different things matter at different times. Deficits, for example–during boom times like 2003, you should be running a surplus. So the fact that we were running huge deficits during a strong economy is a very bad thing. But during recessions/depressions, deficits are a necessary evil. You have to run a deficit in order to make up for the lost demand of the private sector…
So if he said the budget deficit was bad in 2003 but OK now, he’s be entirely correct.

Actually, if you look at the bubble, real estate was already at its inflation adjusted all time high. The last thing we needed is to pump prime the housing market in 2001. And FYI, poor underwriting standards occurred in the latter stages of the bubble beyond 2003, not the early stages. If you don't think low interest rates fueled the housing bubble, you are nuts. In fact, every real estate pundit told people to "buy now while rates are low".

As per deficits, spoken like a true Keynesian. If you read Krugman's writings via 2003 on the deficit, he claimed that the government possesses no ability to pay off the debt without printing lots of money and causing lots of inflation. Now, both you and Krugman seem to think that a deficit 4 times larger doesn't affect that cold hard fact simply because we are in a recession. The US still can't pay it's bills and stands no chance.

Btw...it's hilarious that you think the economy was strong in 2003.

Brand says

I concur with tatupu. There is no such thing as a permanent position in economics; it is primarily the science of analyzing, inducing or responding to changes. Krugman got carried away with his response to the 2001 tech bust, but also remember, most of those articles were written before 9/11, the ensuing wars and the surge of outsourcing to China.
Note that I am not a big Krugman fan. Paul occasionally highlights important issues, but he also enjoys the limelight too much for my tastes. He’ll oversimplify complex issues just to make a splash in his own column, even though he often dismisses dissenters as oversimplifying things. His Nobel Prize gets waved around too much—I’d like to hear what other laureates of the Nobel Prize in Economics have been saying for the past few years.

Every "Nobel" in economics in the past 20 years has had a god awful track record of economic forecasting and some of them have gone on to bankrupt giant funds multiple times. Krugman's forecasting record is god awful, yet somehow he manages to avoid criticism because he's got followers that blindly believe everything he says today while forgetting everything he said beyond 1 year ago.

The shifting of positions is a "non sequitor". If bankrupting yourself as a nation, you're bankrupting yourself. It's ludicrous to assume you aren't bankrupting yourself because you are in recession. In fact, it makes the fact that your pursuing the same policies even more ludicrous. Besides, they already tried the Keynesian remedy in 2001. We ended up with more unemployment, more inflation, and bigger deficits a mere 7 years later.

theoakman says

Btw…it’s hilarious that you think the economy was strong in 2003.

Really? How do you measure strength? GDP growth is what I use and it was pretty robust in 2003.

theoakman says

If you don’t think low interest rates fueled the housing bubble, you are nuts.

I guess I'm nuts then because I think it had a very small effect. The data doesn't support your view, btw.

theoakman says

Now, both you and Krugman seem to think that a deficit 4 times larger doesn’t affect that cold hard fact simply because we are in a recession

That's not at all what I'm saying. Please read it again. I'm saying that in 2003 we should have had a surplus that would cover the deficit spending that we have to pursue during the next recession. But even if we don't have that surplus, we still have to fix the economy.

theoakman says

Besides, they already tried the Keynesian remedy in 2001. We ended up with more unemployment, more inflation, and bigger deficits a mere 7 years later.

Nice try. You can assume cause and effect there, but it's still not true. I'd say--we tried deregulation in the financial industry in the early 2000s and ended up with more unemployment and bigger deficits a few years later.

And more inflation?? Are you kidding? Um, try more deflation.

The bubble was inflation. It was massive credit expansion that allowed the housing bubble to inflate (people borrowed money that didn't even exist, it was created out of thin air and put on a balance sheet only to be lent out again and again. It is called Fractional Reserve Banking). How many of the homes purchased in the past 10 years were bought with savings rather than credit? Just because we now have a temporary contraction of they credit supply doesn't mean we are not still going to feel the effects of both credit inflation of the housing bubble, and the inflation of the printing press over the past 18 months.

Look at energy and food prices. Look at health care. Sorry, just because you can buy a big screen tv or a house for less $ than last year or the new Ipod has more memory and features for less money doesn't mean the value of your dollar is going longer when it comes to the necessities of life. If anything we have to work more hours to buy the same amount of food, fuel and electricity as last year.

AdHominem says

The bubble was inflation.

No, the bubble was a bubble.
AdHominem says

Just because we now have a temporary contraction of they credit supply doesn’t mean we are not still going to feel the effects of both credit inflation of the housing bubble, and the inflation of the printing press over the past 18 months.

Maybe we will, maybe we won't. The jury's not in on that one yet.
AdHominem says

Look at energy and food prices. Look at health care. Sorry, just because you can buy a big screen tv or a house for less $ than last year or the new Ipod has more memory and features for less money doesn’t mean the value of your dollar is going longer when it comes to the necessities of life. If anything we have to work more hours to buy the same amount of food, fuel and electricity as last year.

Energy and food are two components of inflation, as are electronics. The total of the entire basket gives inflation. And the total has been negative for ~ 1-1.5 years.

Minus the cultural aspects, it sounds like the smaller homes (which would be similar to larger homes here) would be even more expensive than than the original post.

Smaller house, because that is what is accepted over there. This makes the average sq/f required lower, but the cost per sq/f is higher.
20% down + 15 year mortgage payback + lower pay for the people who live in those houses

It seems that this setup makes housing far more expensive over there for the type of house a person is buying, minus the bankers pay grade.

AdHominem says

(people borrowed money that didn’t even exist, it was created out of thin air and put on a balance sheet only to be lent out again and again

that's not exactly how money creation actually works but in the present case close enough not to quibble I guess.

The expansion drove the bubble and the bubble drove the expansion. Land values are a magical dimension of the economy. Land is free -- like the air! -- but unlike the air is fixed in location and thus location value attaches to it.

Location value becomes a treadmill -- the more productive a community becomes the higher its land values -- visible as purchase prices and rents -- becomes.

And not only rising productivity will push up land values -- ANYTHING that increases J6P's disposable income or otherwise increases his buying power will push up land values. This is basic economics.

Banks qualifying borrowers on total household income, not just the man's income? Higher home prices!
Mortgage interest rates generally falling over the past 20 years? Higher home prices!
More aggressive lending underwriting, pay-option, negative-am, outright suicide lending? Higher home prices!
The late 90s productivity boom, much lower oil prices, wage inflation, dotcom lotteries? Higher home prices!
Tax cuts and credits for all, especially families with multiple children? Higher home prices!
Higher home prices? Higher home prices! (the boom feeds itself)

By 2003-2004 all these factors were operative, PLUS the innovation of CDOs on the back-end to indirectly connect yield-seekers with home debtors, allowing not just savings money to fund loans but actual investment money -- there IS a difference.

Anyway, these higher home prices was a multi-TRILLION dollar stimulus to the economy 2003-2007. Ramping trade with China's magical factories filled the nation with cheap goods and the new big box retailers to move it. Home improvement and durable goods became a major engine of activity, all funded by borrowed money against rising land values. The Gov't of China wrapped some of this trade around by buying large amounts of GSE bonds. Virtuous cycle!

The real estate sector itself was chiseling off its 5% or so of the total transaction volume as its vig -- immense money flows into completely useless social parasites' pockets.

I’ve gotten double-digit increases from Kaiser every year since 1998.

Higher health insurance costs? LOWER HOME PRICES, ceteris paribus.

During the boom years, net mortgage lending was around ONE TRILLION per year (2004-2006), 2.5X what it was in the late 90s. 2009 should be coming in at NEGATIVE $300B. This is astounding.

tatupu70 says

And that was the correct thing to do. 2001 wasn’t the problem. And low interest rates weren’t the problem either–it was poor underwriting standards.

Exactamundo. Greenspan in 2001-2004 was really pushing on a string with the interest rate cuts. 30 year mortgage rates never got below 6% even when there was free money at shorter terms (everyone was guarding against inflation, even as late as 2007).

illustrates the diff clear enough.

^ that's also why he started jaw-boning for more ARMs in 2004, too:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2004-02-23-greenspan-debt_x.htm

Troy says

^ that’s also why he started jaw-boning for more ARMs in 2004, too:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2004-02-23-greenspan-debt_x.htm

Man I just love it when people dig up Greenspan gems. I particularly love this expert cheerleading:

"Joseph McKenzie, deputy chief economist at the Federal Housing Finance Board, says buyers like the stability of fixed-rate mortgages, but there is increasing flexibility in products. "There are lots of innovative programs, especially targeting low-income and first-time buyers," he says."

FIRST HIT'S FREE!

I looked up Joseph McKenzie on LinkedIn, and it shows he's been there for 21 years.

Really? How do you measure strength? GDP growth is what I use and it was pretty robust in 2003.

GDP entirely based on fictitious bubble wealth. Yes, it's still hilarious you think the economy was strong in 2003.

That’s not at all what I’m saying. Please read it again. I’m saying that in 2003 we should have had a surplus that would cover the deficit spending that we have to pursue during the next recession. But even if we don’t have that surplus, we still have to fix the economy.

I'll agree the government should have cut spending. But they should always be cutting spending. All they do is waste money.

Nice try. You can assume cause and effect there, but it’s still not true. I’d say–we tried deregulation in the financial industry in the early 2000s and ended up with more unemployment and bigger deficits a few years later.

This wasn't a laissez-fair approach. Wall St and the entire housing industry were subsidized through the roof.

And more inflation?? Are you kidding? Um, try more deflation.

Gas, food, housing, energy, insurance, rent, tuition, health care, transportation. All of these things are way above their 2001 levels despite us being in the worst downturn of our lifetimes. That's called inflation. Yeah yeah yeah I know. You bought a plasma TV for 20% of what it cost 8 years ago.

theoakman says

GDP entirely based on fictitious bubble wealth. Yes, it’s still hilarious you think the economy was strong in 2003.

OK--but I asked you a question. How do you measure strength of an economy.

theoakman says

This wasn’t a laissez-fair approach. Wall St and the entire housing industry were subsidized through the roof.

What exactly are you refering to? Please post some data showing your point.

theoakman says

Gas, food, housing, energy, insurance, rent, tuition, health care, transportation. All of these things are way above their 2001 levels despite us being in the worst downturn of our lifetimes. That’s called inflation. Yeah yeah yeah I know. You bought a plasma TV for 20% of what it cost 8 years ago.

Yes, of course. I didn't say we've had deflation for the last 9 years!! Only the last 1-1.5 years... But, I don't think most things are "way" above what you paid in 2001. Rent, transportation, housing, food--in most of the US are not "way" above 2001 levels.

tatupu70 says

food–in most of the US are not “way” above 2001 levels.

food has gone up a lot. What was the normal price in 2001 at Safeway is now the club-sale price now. Gas is up 50% but that's largely due to the weaker dollar, limited production, and increased buying from India and China, not monetary inflation per se.

theoakman says

I’ll agree the government should have cut spending. But they should always be cutting spending. All they do is waste money.

One man's waste is another man's paycheck!

If you /really/ want to see wasted money check out what Paris Hilton spends her inheritance on.

theoakman says

This wasn’t a laissez-fair approach. Wall St and the entire housing industry were subsidized through the roof.

That didn't push people to spend more on a house than they could afford. The price rises of 2003-2006 was partially a speculative bubble and the rather total abandonment of sensible lending underwriting.

Prices were set at what the Greatest Fool was willing to borrow. That wasn't the problem, though, the core problem was that the financial system was re-geared (by industry insiders embedded in government) to actually LEND the money to these fools.

Countrywide, WaMu, and several hundred more lending outfits left a vast trail of destruction in their wake.

The problem wasn't too much government, but too little.

You either already know this or are really obtuse.

Patrick's claim to 'honesty', after writing that sad and (obviously) desperate 'Glenn Beck Vicious Rumor' thread, is tenuous at best. It's support for 0bamaCare, like that, that netted the Senate a man like Scott Brown.

The "Glenn Beck Vicious Rumor" did not originate with me. It was a wonderful imitation of Beck's own method of innuendo (hey, it's just a rumor!), turned against him. Could not resist including it. I laughed for days, thinking how just and right it was.

"ObamaCare" seems to have no definition. It's just a phrase used to vaguely diss Obama even while actually agreeing with all his points on health care, such as more competition and an end to legal discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.

Those of you with sand in private places, obviously are not readers of FARK.com. The blogosphere is thick with people putting their own commentary into the headlines they are linking. A lot of people read sites like Fark precisely BECAUSE they riff on all the idiotic MSM corporate-approved dreck out there.

Is this new? No. Even in corporate-approved MSM articles frequently ridicule other sources of media and highlight quotes. I'm pretty sure about the time writing was invented someone scribbled heiroglyphs at the white space atop their work "look what this moron from the wrong side of the river thinks..."

Interesting post SF Ace.

I spent a week in Hong Kong about 10 years ago, travelling on a very tight budget. I stayed in Kowloon on something like the 15th floor of a condo complex, where many families rented out rooms for extra cash. If I remember right I was paying like $10 or $15 US a night for the tiniest place I have ever stayed in. Maybe 5x9 feet, and they still managed to pack a toilet, a shower, and a small bed into the space!

Fascinating place, Hong Kong. I've never seen such a densely populated place, except for Tokyo.

elliemae says

I think that, if we gave them all marijuana, their symptoms would be greatly reduced and they wouldn’t feel like fighting. Both sides of the conflict.

That would be a great form of chemical warfare. Maybe there could be a "Cannabis Mist" developed and battlefields and "hot zones" could be misted 3-5 times per day depending on the tolerance of the combatants.

Bap33 says

I bet that if all men on both sides were sexually pleasured thrice daily in a male-selfish manner, there would be no war. For the same reasons ellie suggested.

Well, I think that this would be very practical. Unfortunately "Don't ask / Don't tell" eliminates certain possibilities and would place an undue burden on our womenfolk. *wink*

(Both comments should be taken as "tongue in cheek".... Well... sort of... ) ;-)

Anyway, whenever you watch or read or pay attention to any news outlet whether "professional for profit or non-profit" or "non-professional for profit or non-profit" you must realize that there is always spin. Always take in information with a critical mind, in the positive sense. Use those filters in your mind that your Creator gave you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asian_Financial_Crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_property_market

Some forgot about the Asian Debt Crisis and its aftermath.

Hong Kong has one of the most developed mortgage market in Asia. Mortgage loans account for 25-30% of bank loans in Hong Kong. Land ownership and land restrictions by the government risk inefficiencies with housing supply and demand. In 1998 there was a property price collapse; from 1997 to 2003 Hong Kong residential property prices fell by 61% following the Asian economic crisis. Investigations show that there is a distinct correlation between lending and property prices and that the influence is thought to have come from the property prices to the bank credit rather than the other direction. Hong Kong is known for having one of the most expensive real estate sector in the world, in both commercial and residential space. As property value increase, the tendency with Hong Kong property owners is to leave property vacant whilst waiting for a better time to sell it on. This subsequently raises the vacancy rate. (For example in 2007, the vacancy rate for residential properties in Hong Kong was close to 2.5% with an 11 % increase in the value of residential properties)

Fantastic self-referential use of "tongue in cheek"! Now I'm going to be chuckling for no apparent reason all day...

And so history repeats itself... fast forward to 2009
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Money/Story/STIStory_339904.html

iHONG KONG - PROPERTY prices at Hong Kong's most prestigious location - Victoria Peak - plunged 41.4 per cent in the last quarter of 2008, a consultant group said on Wednesday.
The percentage drop compared to the third quarter was the largest for any luxury residential areas on Hong Kong island, CB Richard Ellis said in its report.

The plunge in prices at the scenic location, perched above the skyscrapers of Hong Kong and a favourite for the city's wealthy elite, was blamed on collapsing confidence during the economic downturn.

'Hong Kong's economy has decelerated markedly in the fourth quarter as investment sentiment and consumer confidence plummeted significantly due to the global credit crunch, striking a hard hit towards the property market,' the report said.

Property prices for all luxury properties on Hong Kong Island fell 35.4 per cent in the final quarter, the report found.

The fall was also the biggest on record in Hong Kong's luxury real estate market, even worse than during the Asian financial crisis in 1997-1998, according to the South China Morning Post.

The total number of transactions worth 10 million Hong Kong dollars (S$1.97 million) in Hong Kong amounted to only 575 in the fourth quarter last year, compared to 2,807 transactions over the same period in 2007, CBRE said.

In October, a 307sqm house on The Peak was sold to cartoonist Ma Wing-shing for HK$76 million, less than half its asking price.

The original owner bought the property in 2006 for HK$90 million. -- AFP

SF ace says

A remarkable 34% gain in less than a year.

RIIIIIGHT! Wink wink nudge nudge!

Buy than sell in a year! More like a ponzi scheme going on.
Sounds like speculation vs secular buying as a family home.

Needless to say, the ones who overpaid are still underwater!

It doesn't mean that the appreciation will continue, it was just stated that people rapidly sold off, and then rebought quickly. Not exactly a ponzi scheme, unless the same people are going to continue doing this year after year.

It sounds more like a stock crash like we had, then a rebound. People who bought at the very bottom did great! Especially if they had all their cash on the side lines.

WillyWanker says

Patrick’s claim to ‘honesty’, after writing that sad and (obviously) desperate ‘Glenn Beck Vicious Rumor’ thread, is tenuous at best. It’s support for 0bamaCare, like that, that netted the Senate a man like Scott Brown.

And yet, you're reading this forum, owned by a sad and obviously desperate man. What's that say about you?

"Tongue in" what? I need a moment...

“ObamaCare” seems to have no definition. It’s just a phrase used to vaguely diss Obama even while actually agreeing with all his points on health care, such as more competition and an end to legal discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.

While I agree you have the right to edit headlines, I don't agree with your claim that everyone that "vaguely" opposes “Obamacare” somehow agrees with "all his points on health care." For example, I know of no one that "agrees" that the federal government should be allowed to FORCE anyone to "buy" healthcare insurance. Many people do not even know that under the Democrats' plan, there are stiff penalties from the outset for those that refuse to participate. Incidentally, this is the first time in history that the federal government will force American citizens to purchase anything from a private entity. If this is initiated, you can bet your bottom dollar, in time the penalty will significantly increase.

RayAmerica says

For example, I know of no one that “agrees” that the federal government should be allowed to FORCE anyone to “buy” healthcare insurance. Many people do not even know that under the Democrats’ plan, there are stiff penalties from the outset for those that refuse to participate. Incidentally, this is the first time in history that the federal government will force American citizens to purchase anything from a private entity. If this is initiated, you can bet your bottom dollar, in time the penalty will significantly increase.

Well, now you do know someone. You HAVE to madate it. Otherwise noone would buy coverage until they were sick. After all, you can't be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, so why buy insurance until you need it?