patrick.net

Bob Ehrlich was a Repub Governor here in Maryland from '02 to '06 but since the Democrats controlled the StateHouse in Annapolis, he got NOWHERE with any fiscal sanity agenda. Same is true for Calif under Ahnold -- the Sacramento StateHouse railroaded him and he caved to the Democrat government and their unions.
And on and on.
And as for cities -- ditto -- run by Democrats almost exclusively and they have killed themselves with too much govt, too many govt 'ees, too many taxes, etcetera, etcetera. Democrats ruin cities and states that they control -- Illinois, Mass, NJ, NY, Calif.

"Listen doofus:" deleted from previous comment.

Simchaland: It's worth repeating. Democrats in control of states and giving in to the govt 'ees unions, adding too many govt jobs, giving too much pay and bfts to govt 'ees, have ruined California, L.A., SF, Illinois, Chicago, Mass, Boston, NY, NYC, PA, Philadelphia, Wash Dc, Baltimore, MI, Detroit, and on and on. Occasional Repub governors are and have been powerless to change the screwed up systems of these entities. You're making idiotic arguments to think otherwise. Ipsofacto yourself.

Troy: Are you seriously stating that Democrat-controlled California and most of its major cities, are well-run by the Democrats, fiscally? And that the business and regulatory environment is 'friendly' to the private sector? Because if you are, I think you need a shrink.

Vicente: The GOP is far from perfect, but Democrats are outright disasters to individual economic freedom and openly hostile to the private sector. That's been fairly well proven by experience and actions by Democrats. The Democrats in charge at the federal level now -- Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, are extreme Leftists, almost socialists in their zeal to control business environment, raise taxes for folks already paying huge taxes, grow govt to extremes never before seen, flood the system with entitlements, inhibit production of our own energy, socialise the health-care system, and on and on. They are outright disasters for our country right now, and it's almost too obvious to state it. But most Democrats don't want to admit it, or worse, don't even see it for what it is.

sbourg says

Vicente: ......The Democrats in charge at the federal level now — Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, are extreme Leftists, almost socialists in their zeal to control business environment,

I'm not sure how you can be an "extreme leftist" but "almost socialist". This puzzles me.

raise taxes for folks already paying huge taxes, grow govt to extremes never before seen, flood the system with entitlements, inhibit production of our own energy, socialise the health-care system, and on and on. They are outright disasters for our country right now, and it’s almost too obvious to state it. But most Democrats don’t want to admit it, or worse, don’t even see it for what it is.

Bzztt. Wrong, taxes are at new lows not seen in our lifetimes.

But, why do I bother? I could post a chart showing this clearly, but you wouldn't look at it. You'd glide on to the next fact-free talking point.

My point to Simchaland by the way, was that arguing states are in Republican hands as much as Democrats, will only be hand-waved away. People just like youself will say "oh those Republicans were all RINO they don't count."

sbourg says

And Obama wanted to raise taxes in December ‘10 on millions of higher-paid families.

Maybe they NEED to go up.

We have a DEFICIT to close. Which seems VERY important to GOP sometimes, then not at all others.

Back when I voted for Reagan in the 1980's and throughout my decades with the GOP the argument was:

Top-quintile tax cuts will grow wealth and it MUST trickle down.

Was it a promise? It was cast as utterly inevitable, like a law of gravity.

However 3 decades of lowering the top bracket steadily down hasn't achieved anything of the sort. The lower brackets didn't even get table scraps. Instead of being showered with cash they were showered with opportunities to borrow money and enslave themselves.

Perhaps the premise was flawed is the conclusion I came to, which heralded my exit from GOP.

Maybe Richy Rich didn't elect to give his employees a raise or hire more people or build the business. Maybe instead they plowed it into passive money-making circle jerks like the Wall Street Casino, or other ways in which they could further grow their wealth. Which sound great at first, until it becomes apparent the ONLY purpose of that Big Money is to get even Bigger. It becomes a bottomless craving, a Finance Monster with no soul that is perfectly OK with letting Tiny Tim expire of rickets if it would save them a dime.

Most people never seem to examine their assumptions though.

Side note. I wouldn't waste my time bidding on anything right now. I heard it directly from a Bankster. They are bracing themselves for a major housing slump this year. Supposedly, the news came from their internal analysts who brief them weekly, monthly, or whenever. My guess is that the dollar will be collapsed and the housing market will crumble to the likes that will leave everyone twiddling their thumbs. OH, THE POOR SHEEPLE.

sbourg says

Because if you are, I think you need a shrink.

Noise noted. Goodbye, sbourg. Welcome to ignore with the rest of your pals.

Vicente says

Top-quintile tax cuts will grow wealth and it MUST trickle down.

Was it a promise? It was cast as utterly inevitable, like a law of gravity.

What the rubes don't understand is that freeing the top 5-10% just opens up more money for them to buy up shit like apartments, houses, and other investments that involve minimal capital formation.

For some reason the argument is that rich peoples' money all goes into productive enterprise. The opposite is largely the truth, it all goes into rent-seeking.

That's why the top 10% real incomes have shot up since 1980 while everyone else's have remained largely flat.

Parasitical wealth.

solver says

Side note. I wouldn’t waste my time bidding on anything right now. I heard it directly from a Bankster. They are bracing themselves for a major housing slump this year. Supposedly, the news came from their internal analysts who brief them weekly, monthly, or whenever. My guess is that the dollar will be collapsed and the housing market will crumble to the likes that will leave everyone twiddling their thumbs. OH, THE POOR SHEEPLE.

Although I am bear, I doubt there will be a major slump...unless there is sudden worsening of job market - like 14% CA UE rate or interest rate going up suddenly to 7%. Very unlikely, fed is still holding lots of cards.

omgbacon says

Increasing taxes on the rich and gutting the military is the only way out of this.
It’s not that hard.

the last time the Democrats raised taxes on the rich they got voted out of office. Granted, they raised taxes on EVERYONE back in 1990 & 1993 but the Dems were too afraid of facing this as an election issue they punted it for the previous session completely.

Gutting the military is possible, we're spending 3X what we were in 2001, so a 50% cut is theoretically possible, but $450B cut from spending would utterly destroy many, many local economies that have grown dependent on this influx of Uncle Sugar's money.

Notionally, $450B should pay for 9 million jobs or so. I find it fascinating that the DOD is spending $900B/yr and we have 9% unemployment.

Vicente says

Perhaps the premise was flawed

I was never a republican, but I don't think the premise is totally flawed. If taxes are too high, then lowering taxes should be boost for the economy. I'm sure that when Kennedy lowered taxes it was a boost because it was from 90% on high income. Thats ridiculous. Big business for the people selling tax shelters though.

Maybe even Reagan's early tax cuts would have had that effect if it weren't for such a massive increase in military spending. Some will argue they did, but that was rates coming down and the recession ending (nice combination).

But republicans take it as dogma that no matter how low taxes are, they should be even lower. And somehow years in to the worst economic crisis since the depression we are still cruising along with tax rates that we all know are too low on high income brackets.

Just how screwed are we if we can't even get that right? Are we still a democracy? I'm not saying that alone solves our problems. That's not the point at all.

This home ? Asking 200K .. down 68.25% over $ 400,000 from $630K, after over 350% appreciation in 9 years ?

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1111-Carey-Dr-Concord-CA-94520/18366890_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address}

Sold back in 1996 for $138K adjusted for inflation, worth 190K today ?
Now what was it you said about prices and inflation ?

What cost $138,500 in 1996 would cost $190463.39 in 2010.

Price History Date Description Price % Chg $/sqft Source
05/01/2011 Listed for sale * $199,950 -- $121 Alain Pinel Realtors - Walnut Creek
04/30/2011 Listed for sale * $199,950 -68.3% $121 LOANS_A_F_M
05/19/2005 Sold $630,000 355% $382 Public Record
08/16/1996 Sold $138,500 -- $84 Public Record

marcus says

Just how screwed are we if we can’t even get that right? Are we still a democracy?

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." -- Winston Churchill

This election cycle is going to be semi-pivotal, where we get to see the American people choose Door #1 or Door #2.

I say semi-pivotal because chances are say 60% Obama is returned, but even if so chances are 0% that the Republicans lose their House majority, and it's still possible they'll take over the Senate, too.

With their House majority the Republicans have all the power to shut this Administration down.

The Republican field can run in 2012 and 2016 with the message that the nation needs a Republican president -- or grannie gets it.

In light of recent posts. I'm just going to repost their game plan:

The Seven Golden Keys For Successful Debate for conservatives:

1) Make gross generalizations about any topic you wish whether you know anything about that topic or not.

2) Repeat these gross generalizations even when those pesky liberals show them to be untrue factually. Never let the facts get in your way.

3) Claim that the liberals haven’t proven anything no matter how many facts they throw at you.

4) Make claims that liberals are mentally ill, stupid, ignorant, lazy, stoned, deaf, dumb, blind, or all of the above.

5) Repeat your original gross generalizations again while complaining that the “liberal media” maligns you.

6) Even when you have “lost” the argument, claim that you have “won.”

7) Go back to Step 1

It's really not worth the effort to try to debate them when they can't even learn the difference between the words "fact" and "belief."

simchaland says

It’s really not worth the effort to try to debate them when they can’t even learn the difference between the words “fact” and “belief.”

...sigh... no they can't, but all conservatives should not be lumped into the same category.

The tea-bagging, neo-con, ditto heads are the offenders. Some "moderate" conservatives can be quite reasonable.

However, it just seems like there is a lot of tea-bagging going on these days.

Thought experiment to Liberals (aka Progressives, semi-socialists, or just Huge-Fed-Govt-lovers):

Let's say we Republicans (or Tea-Party believers like myself) just GAVE UP, GAVE IN to Democrats who always scream to not reduce federal govt spending. But the Democrats want to raise taxes to eventually balance the budget. Well then if we didn't raise FICA taxes, we'd have to tinker around with increasing federal income taxes from $1T/year, and increase it by $1.7T more, making them $2.7T -- that's nearly TRIPLING of everyone's federal income taxes who currently pays them now. Do we phase that in over a few years? Would that make the economy WORK BETTER ? According to Democrats, everything might be just terrific because the federal govt could continue to spend nearly $4T/year. Maybe if the economy was hurt by this 'plan' of the Democrats to balance the budget without reducing spending, then food stamps could go to 100million people, not just 50million like now. They sky could be the limit for the Democrats and their spending. Is this what we should do to balance the federal budget?
Now do you Leftists see how idiotic the Democrats (ESPECIALLY INCLUDING YOUR HERO PAUL KRUGMAN) are behaving now, to scream and piss and moan and call Republicans 'right-wingers', just because Republicans want to reduce spending that can't go on like this for much longer? The dollar is already getting destroyed by money-printing that's required to fund the $120B/month excess federal spending, but I guess that's just fine according to Democrats.

simchaland says

In light of recent posts. I’m just going to repost their game plan:
The Seven Golden Keys For Successful Debate for conservatives:
1) Make gross generalizations about any topic you wish whether you know anything about that topic or not.
2) Repeat these gross generalizations even when those pesky liberals show them to be untrue factually. Never let the facts get in your way.
3) Claim that the liberals haven’t proven anything no matter how many facts they throw at you.
4) Make claims that liberals are mentally ill, stupid, ignorant, lazy, stoned, deaf, dumb, blind, or all of the above.
5) Repeat your original gross generalizations again while complaining that the “liberal media” maligns you.
6) Even when you have “lost” the argument, claim that you have “won.”
7) Go back to Step 1
It’s really not worth the effort to try to debate them when they can’t even learn the difference between the words “fact” and “belief.”

I've seen plenty of projection in this forum, but this one absolutely wins the prize! Nice job!

Hey Simcha: I just told you that if we 'give up' to Democrats, then you win and we'll triple federal income taxes over a period of a few years. There aren't enough 'rich people' to make your continued $4T federal spending work, even if ALL their money is confiscated/stolen from them and the Constitution is destroyed -- remember the Constitution says that people are protected from unreasonable seizures by the govt -- and that sort of means the govt cannot just take 75% of your paycheck.

marcus says

But republicans take it as dogma that no matter how low taxes are, they should be even lower. And somehow years in to the worst economic crisis since the depression we are still cruising along with tax rates that we all know are too low on high income brackets.
Just how screwed are we if we can’t even get that right? Are we still a democracy? I’m not saying that alone solves our problems. That’s not the point at all.

Here is one conservative that a) doesn't necessarily object to a progressive tax system and b) doesn't necessarily object to raising of the top marginal brackets if that is what needs to be done. But your accusations of "dogma" work both ways. You "know" that tax rates are too low on high income brackets? How do you know this? What is the correct number? 39% 45% 55%, and at what threshold? How did you establish your percentages and brackets? The issue on the far left regarding tax brackets is as much based on ideology as they accuse it of being on the right, and not one of practicality. If rates need to rise, due to practical reasons, that is one thing. Even if they did, they are only going to put a tiny scratch into the deficit and debt that the last bunch of presidents built up and that Obama is doubling down upon. If you think rates need to rise because it is unfair that those at the higher tax brackets got their tax bills reduce by a higher dollar figure than those at lower brackets, despite the fact that they are still paying a higher percentage and total dollar figure on their taxable income than those below, then your position is based on ideology and "dogma," not on fiscal concerns.

sbourg says

remember the Constitution says that people are protected from unreasonable seizures by the govt — and that sort of means the govt cannot just take 75% of your paycheck

That's what you miss about this forum, sbourg. To many of the people here, the money is the government's to begin with - it is not yours - and the government through its good graces is simply allowing you to keep a portion of it. That is essentially what President Obama meant when he referred to "tax expenditures."

Vicente says

Back when I voted for Reagan in the 1980’s and throughout my decades with the GOP the argument was:
Top-quintile tax cuts will grow wealth and it MUST trickle down.

You continuously describe arguments of the other side in such a fashion as to indicate, once again, that your claims of having been a Republican may be less than truthful. (as a separate but related point, did you read the Patriot Act yet?).

T Paralithodes: You are RIGHT about that!!!! I'm new to this forum, but a veteran of reading the website. The Progressives ( aka liberals, semi-socialists) really are out in force and spouting their Big-Govt defenses all over the place. And you're right about their belief (and Obama, Pelosi, Reid's too) that they believe the private sector workers are their piggy-bank for federal spending, and if there are ANY tax breaks for home mortgage, health-insurance, etc, then that's really an expenditure of the federal govt -- it's the same as as a dollar amount the govt spends, because it's not getting it in taxes from us. Truly incredible, what these Leftists have arrived at. They LOVE the big-govt, without really understanding that it's terrible for the economy, and freedom-killing for our own wallets. But they do it for the VOTES. They're trying to get like England and Europe where 55 to 60% of people are getting more from the 'govt' than they're giving in taxes. Then there's a permanent problem, because tax or spending decreases, never win elections. Ergo, permanent Democrat control. Our Founding Fathers would vomit if they saw this happening.

Paralithodes says

If rates need to rise, due to practical reasons, that is one thing. Even if they did, they are only going to put a tiny scratch into the deficit and debt that the last bunch of presidents built up and that Obama is doubling down upon. If you think rates need to rise because it is unfair that those at the higher tax brackets got their tax bills reduce by a higher dollar figure than those at lower brackets, despite the fact that they are still paying a higher percentage and total dollar figure on their taxable income than those below, then your position is based on ideology and “dogma,” not on fiscal concerns.

Have you seen the change in wealth disparity over the last 20 years? That is the reason why tax rates have to become more progressive. Extreme wealth disparity is very bad--it grinds an economy to a halt...

To Paralithodes: You and I both, are being proven right right in front of our eyes, by these Leftist idealogues. Now they are admitting that raising taxes for high-income earners is not for fixing the deficit because it won't make a dent, but it's for fairness and lowering their 'wealth', basically just so low-earners will feel better. It won't raise wages for low-earners.

I said it's really about getting votes for Democrats. I continue to believe that's why the Democrat politicians push the class-warfare slogans -- and their voters eat it up and think it will 'do good'.

I also continue to believe, that taxing people in this manner is not Constitutional. It is not a right of the govt to take/confiscate/tax people for these types of insane reasons -- this is not a 'reasonable' seizure.

sbourg says

To Paralithodes: You and I both, are being proven right right in front of our eyes, by these Leftist idealogues. Now they are admitting that raising taxes for high-income earners is not for fixing the deficit because it won’t make a dent, but it’s for fairness and lowering their ‘wealth’, basically just so low-earners will feel better. It won’t raise wages for low-earners.

Sbourg--

See if you can follow along with me. Right now 50% of people don't pay income taxes, right? That's a stat that your type love to bandy about. If you decreased wealth disparity, people at the bottom and middle would have more money. And these people spend a much higher % of their income so demand for most everything would increase. Increased demand would lead to increased production which = more jobs. More jobs = more people making $$ and more taxpayers. More taxpayers = higher tax revenue.

See how that works?? It has nothing to do with fairness or socialism or ideaology. It has everything to do with practicality. I'm for doing things that work.

Chase had two properties (short sale) 4 bedroom condo's by the beach in my area. They wanted 300k a piece for them. Only 2 units in the building. Fairly new but a little distressed. My cousin offered 270k for one, I was going to put in an offer for 240k for another. They refused the offer of 270k and told me not to bother with my offer. The bank would not entertain any offers below 295k. 6 months later, I just discovered that they just sold both units to a local bank for 250k. They sold the units as a two family to the bank for 125k a piece. What on earth is going on. I see these kind of deals all day long. They won't sell to the general public but will sell to contractors and other banks. I would like to know if there is an investigation into these dealings?

I agree Klarek. I also put an offer in on a house that was listing for 279k extremely distressed home. I offered 220k. Listing agent said her seller wasn't considering offers under 269k. We had to strong arm (threaten) her to deliver the offer. She said she delivered it and her sellers refused. Just found out yesterday the house went for 210k. WTF. Like I said I see this all day long. I lost a house that was bank owned to a contractor. My offer was 260k His was 230k He won the bid. It was bank owned and he was working with the listing agent.
He fixed the property up to flip it. It went back on the market for 489k (vacant) He can't sell it. It's been on for a year now. He's had one price reduction of 20k. I hope he chokes on that house. Meanwhile I just want to get a house for my family to live in.

shrekgrinch says

What part of actual history do you have a problem with?

The part you make up to support your thesis.

Pretty much everything you post is anti-obama. If the wife is pms-ing, do you blame obama's policies? The reason we skim your posts and don't take you seriously has much to do with your obvious hatred of all things Obama.

Your Newt buddy is throwing his cute little cap in the ring, shrekgingrich. Are ya excited?

I HAVE HAD SIMILAR EXPERICES, INDICATED CLOSING AND OFFER EXCEPTED, FIRST ONE IN. THEN I GET A CALL FRM. REALTOR --OH--WENT TO AUTION. SOLD FOR 50K LESS THEN MY OFFER. OR, THE REALTOR HAVE THEIR BUYER ALREADY LINED UP, WAIT PAY THE SIGN PERSON WAIT 3 DAYS, THEY CALL THEIR BUYER , SEAL THE DEAL THEN PUT IT ON THE MLS AND SIGN GOES UP. WROTE TO REAL EST. BOARD, RESPONSE NO WRONG DOING????? GIVE ME A BREAK>

The banks are controlling prices just like the oil companies are controlling prices. When you own a lions share of the oil or real estate you can hold back supply to create demand and keep prices artificially suspended. This is what they are doing. Just like the feds were holding the interest rate steady and offering incentives to artificially prop the market up. People are stupid and they just don't get it. Our oil reserves have never been so high historically, but they are holding back supply. So now they don't have to depend on the natural fluctuations of the economy they can create it by holding back shadow inventory and there are tons of it. It's such a scam and the taxpayers are the ones paying for it more than once, 3x over when you look at where the costs are and who those costs are being charged to.

I hear you, we have a company called Tache in Mass, they are wired and deal with most of the bank owned property. I see this all day long with their brokers. Filed a complaint, fell on deaf ears. They don't care. I was told from someone on the inside that they take their orders from the bank on how to conduct business. Since The banks are the ones holding all the cards, they follow suit. The only problem is, it's unethical and their is no watch dog organization to put the screws to them. The Govt is in bed with The Banks and The Banks are running the show. Conspiracy Theorists have said for years that part of the NWO plan was to do away with private property. It's strange but it seems like that's where we are headed. When you have banks buying up property and renting them out. Hmmmmm something to think about. Maybe we will be relying on them for more than our checking accounts.

bubblesitter says

Although I am bear, I doubt there will be a major slump…unless there is sudden worsening of job market - like 14% CA UE rate or interest rate going up suddenly to 7%. Very unlikely, fed is still holding lots of cards.

Can't say how, but I am in a position to tell you that the real UE rate in the SV is 22 percent. California overall is 15 percent.

We are already there.

~Misstrial

I live on the East Coast and the homes here are still very high. We are not seeing the deflated prices of The West Coast or Fla. I know these were the hardest hit but still our home prices are not in line with assessments two years out. For example I looked at a home yesterday. The assessment for 2009 was 309k, that was two years ago. Our market has been steadily decreasing at the rate of about 15% a year. They are asking 330k. I see this and much worse all day long. There are many homes not moving and many homes without a single price reduction in a year or longer. How do you propose another bubble is going to be created if the market does not first correct itself?? That hasn't happened here. There is a lot of shadow inventory, not even on the open market.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43003679

Obama Tells Companies to 'Step Up' and Hire Workers

So that's his economic plan? What a moron. I've got news for Obama, American companies are hiring, in China, India, Brazil, etc.

tatupu70 says

Have you seen the change in wealth disparity over the last 20 years?

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/pre-tax_income_shares.pdf

1979 -- the lower 3 quintiles were making around 1/3 the income and the top 5% was bringing in 1/5.

2006 -- this had changed to 1/4 and 1/3 respectively.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/average_before-tax_income.pdf

For the middle quintile, real incomes have increased 1/6th, from $53,000 to $61,000.
For the top 1%, incomes tripled, from $500k to $1.7M.

What's the end-game here?

Have the super-rich actually earned all that extra wealth they'e been collecting -- how much of it is parasitical rent-seeking instead of actual bona-fide capital enterprise.

People who say they do not see the problem here are talking their book.

zzyzzx says

Obama Tells Companies to ‘Step Up’ and Hire Workers

You have to admit his plan is working. McDonalds listened to Dear Leader and came to the pick-up window with 62,000 high quality, economy changing, minimum wage blockbuster jobs (the fact that McDonalds is exempted from ObamaCare has absolutely nothing to do with it, I am absolutely certain of that). Also, when Obama promised creating "4 million new jobs," he never said they would be in "China, India, Brazil, etc." so you can't hold that against him. Please try to be fair. Thank you.

Paralithodes says

. . . government through its good graces is simply allowing you to keep a portion of it.That is essentially what President Obama meant when he referred to “tax expenditures.”

Sorry, wrong. A good example of a "tax expenditure" is the mortgage interest deduction. Government could just cut checks for the tax benefit they're giving to home debtors (like they did recently), but instead this policy was slipped into the tax code as a deduction.

Geddit?

Misstrial says

Can’t say how, but I am in a position to tell you that the real UE rate in the SV is 22 percent. California overall is 15 percent.
We are already there.
~Misstrial

Aha, truth of numbers being reported! Let's just keep it simple. Worsening job market and sudden spike by 1+% rate should do it .