patrick.net

When was the last time that a former President announced that we aren't even a real democracy anymore ?

The even more interesting thing is how little coverage this has gotten in the media.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/18486-focus-jimmy-carter-us-qhas-no-functioning-democracyq

seeitnow says

Blurtman says

I am a boomer and doing OK financially - i.e., millionaire+.

LOL. Typical Boomer. Boo hoo. I am a multimillionaire Berkley MBA. If it wasn't for the Mexicans, Jews, Blacks, and the government, I'd be a billionaire Harvard MBA.

Harvard and the Ivy's are merely brands that serve to credential the children of the wealthy and connected. The MBA is a two year degree program and is a platform to gain contacts and become credentialled, that is all. I am not complaining that I was admitted to the Haas business school at all. My grades, scores and experience all merited admission to the school. I would not want to attend Stanford or Harvard, and yes, there are many admitted there who are not very qualified, but are well connected. E.g. George W. Bush.

CaptainShuddup says

Like with EVERYTHING with Liberals they don't want Fairness, they want SPECIAL.

In other words you have no perspective on how much the media and politics have changed in the last thirty years. When people talk about how Reagan or Bob Dole would be considered RINOs in todays political environment, you just change the subject.

Article title should really be:

People with most money most likely to buy a new car.

CaptainShuddup says

Marcus, why do you even participate in Politics, discussion or voting for that matter. The only People hold accountable aren't even in office anymore.

So is it that you don't want to understand my point ? Or that you are unable ?

The point isn't that Reagan or Dole are relevant today. IT's that their ideological position would be far too liberal for todays republicans in congress. And I pose the question: Can you acknowledge this as true ?

Note: I didn't go way back to some of the truly liberal republicans such as Charles Percy that were in congress in the 1960s and early 70s. IF you go back that far, a conservative was someone who didn't want to cut taxes because of the dangers of deficits.

These days we have warped ideology based on lies, distractions and outright propaganda war between the two parties. But the more liberal of the two parties (the democratic party) is to the right of where republicans were 30 years ago.

These are just observations. It's fascinating really. Especially the way that you don't deny it, and seem to believe that somehow it's justified.

marcus says

The point isn't that Reagan or Dole are relevant today. IT's that their ideological position would be far too liberal for todays republicans in congress. And I pose the question: Can you acknowledge this as true ?

No, Dole was always considered to be a more moderate Republican, even in his day.

OK Let's discuss Bob Doyle if you think kicking him in the balls will solve anything with this administration.
Hey why not?

sbh says

The opportunity to become something different than you had planned.

You mean the opportunity to default, dumpster dive and squat unsold foreclosures?

The economy is fucked ( less than 2%), the stock market is fucked (less than peak 13yrs ago in real terms), employment is fucked (millions below peak), wages are fucked (median is down). The only thing that is not low is what millennials have to pay for: over priced housing, over priced education, and over priced healthcare. These grew nicely.

zzyzzx says

Dole was always considered to be a more moderate Republican, even in his day

Today moderation in the republican party is forbidden. If you don't sign the Norquist tax pledge, and if you don't go along with the other extreme right wing policies, and obstruction plans, they'll fund a tea party candidate to run against you.

March in step with the right wing, or be replaced.

sbh says

If any individual uses this argument to justify personal paralysis then he has no grasp of his individual problems:

Paralysis? We are not talking about me (I'm gen Y) or any specific individual, we are talking of a generation as a whole.

And as a generation they are screwed.

The question is: what happens when boomers head to oblivion and no one replaces them? How will they maintain the veil of illusory wealth then?

sbh says

For an entire generation to to put their future on "hibernate" is an act of cowardice as well as a failure to grasp the better lesson, namely, that we live as we choose.

You are right. And when they come out of hibernation they will do what they must: throw down the rotten financial system, reject past debts, defund unsustainable entitlements, vote down laws designed to inflate their costs, etc...

As a result, the remaining boomers will kiss their 401Ks and over-priced housing goodbye, and they'll be the ones singing in the subway and dumpster diving. But hey... they can always decide to "live as they choose".

That's actually what I did. Graduated with 50k debt, got a job in a hell hole in Alaska, and worked like an angry bastard for two years to pay it off. Then I worked one more year to get some FU money, quit, and moved to California debt free.

In the 90's, everyone and anyone was giving out loans, and it didn't take much if any documented income to get tens of thousands of dollars worth of credit. Seeing as how you can't purge school loans in bankruptcy court, the move was to pay off student loans with credit cards and personal loans, then pay a bk attorney with some of that borrowed money, to press the reset button for you.

Quigley says

That's actually what I did. Graduated with 50k debt, got a job in a hell hole in Alaska, and worked like an angry bastard for two years to pay it off. Then I worked one more year to get some FU money, quit, and moved to California debt free.

Congratz! Now you can go $500K in debt to buy a house from a boomer at inflated prices or you can crawl back to the "hole" in Alaska (probably less of a hole than California).
Wouldn't you say that's more or less painless?

I'm pleasantly surprised that the world is starting to make sense.

In a sane world I'd expect people aged 55-64 to be buying the most new cars (average price: $30,748) since they're at the peak of their earning potential, have paid off their home loans, and gotten their spawn through college and out of the nest.

I expect children under 30 to be buying the fewest new cars since they've yet to max out their salaries, should be building an emergency fund of 12 months cash, are buying their first homes (median price $214,200), and if they've spawned or plan to should be saving for their childrens' odyssey years.

It used to irritate me when I saw younger people making less money buying bigger homes and newer cars than I did. Now I just smile knowing that I'll probably be working a few hundred hours a year as a hobby on the most interesting consulting projects like my father does until I get too tired and continue my middle class life style while they'll be forced to work full-time until later in life after which they'll have to scrape by on a fraction (Social Security can pay just 30%) of what they're used to.

Heraclitusstudent says

Quigley says

That's actually what I did. Graduated with 50k debt, got a job in a hell hole in Alaska, and worked like an angry bastard for two years to pay it off. Then I worked one more year to get some FU money, quit, and moved to California debt free.

Congratz! Now you can go $500K in debt to buy a house from a boomer at inflated prices or you can crawl back to the "hole" in Alaska (probably less of a hole than California).
Wouldn't you say that's more or less painless?

It is always better to buy brand new from a builder than buy resale from a boomer. Always with no exceptions!