patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,267,356 comments by 15,159 users - Misc, WookieMan online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 64 - 103 of 197 Next » Last » Search these comments
indigenous
2014 May 23, 2:16pm
They have no right to whine about taxation to the extreme that they favor cutting services after they get their due, especially if I pay for their due and they don't vote in politicians who will responsibly manage their payins.
Too many vagaries , be specific.
Bellingham Bill
2014 May 23, 10:05pm
Shit shacks priced at $1m plus while prior to the bubble were running
well below $200K... so where is the inflation/incomes to justify so !
Prices in SF have returned to the bubble, here's the price history of a friend's old place in the Sunset:
5/25/11 $530,000
10/27/04 $627,000
04/27/00 $465,000
08/06/97 $240,000
(they had the ride from $400 to $600)
I thought it was overpriced in 2000, but boy was I wrong about that!
Well I wasn't, since the dotcom recession did hit soon after and prices took a beating for a while until the post-dotcom flimflam got going ca. 2004.
Thing is, home prices in SF are so high because rents are so high.
And why are rents so high?
Thing is, home prices in SF are so high because rents are so high.
And why are rents so high?
Rents were high in late 90s and then dropped by 30-35%. From
what I heard we have not yet reached 1999 rental prices..
The more they climb the worst it becomes to retain employees.
it's no accident that areas that create IP -- Hollywood/West LA and SCV first among them -- have tons of well-paying jobs and thus immense upward price pressures on the housing stock.
They also have pricing power. Yes your watching US made movies, certainly not from Japan, Germany or India. And costs and prices have gone up year over year, for the past several decades... that is why hollywood has greater ability to see price increases.
The opposite is true for SFBA... very little pricing power in tech industries. We learned the hard way how whole industries vanish in a few months, lost markets, lost incomes, decline in home prices.
HydroCabron
2014 May 24, 2:37am
The opposite is true for SFBA... very little pricing power in tech industries. We learned the hard way how whole industries vanish in a few months, lost markets, lost incomes, decline in home prices.
The economy is always changing. Markets and industries have been lost for thousands of years. Jobs, house prices, assset values: they come and go.
To think that man could affect this is hubris of the worst kind.
Arizona was once a dense jungle. There are whale fossils on mountain peaks. Squirrels once roamed Detroit, their genitals ablaze with unbridled lust and fury. Even on Mars we are seeing few tech employment opportunities.
The only scandal is that scammers are whipping up hysteria to sell their books and make money off of natural processes which have continued for thousand of years.
AverageBear
2014 May 24, 10:04am
Yes, retreat into sarcasm - but people really don't like losing their doctors, networks AND paying higher premiums at the same time. Go figure!
-------------------------------
In addition to losing their doctors, healthplans, and reasonable premiums, most people don't like being lied to.... We'll find out how much come November.....
The economy is always changing. Markets and industries have been lost for thousands of years. Jobs, house prices, assset values: they come and go.
Wanna explain that to the arrogant pricks from NYC and Boston who come to the SFBA and inflate home prices like its no tomorrow.
Bigsby
2014 May 24, 5:08pm
You really don't know what single payer means, do you.
Think you need to google UK's NHS and get back with me.
Maybe you should google the other 41 single payer countries and get back to me. Oh wait the NHS is poorly done, that's all that counts.
Though in fairness it still manages to rank a fair bit higher than the US system whilst also having a far lower cost.
You really don't know what single payer means, do you.
Think you need to google UK's NHS and get back with me.
Maybe you should google the other 41 single payer countries and get back to me. Oh wait the NHS is poorly done, that's all that counts.
Though in fairness it still manages to rank a fair bit higher than the US system whilst also having a far lower cost.
That was my point. The status quo defenders who don't have a clue how health care is done other places take the worst designed, poorest funded public system on the planet, which still provides better care overall than the US, as the benchmark for public health care. Why don't the idiots ever want to talk about how awful public health care is in Japan, Singapore, NZ, Oz, Norway, France, etc., etc..
The US system is terrible. The far and away the worst of the 5 countries I've lived in long term. Not the health care itself. Doctors learn and do the same things using the same equipment everywhere. The providing of health care is the worst. Expensive, confusing, and a nightmare of paperwork for even the simplest problem. Other places you just go to the doctor or hospital and get treated then leave. That's it.
The US system is terrible. The far and away the worst of the 5 countries I've lived in long term. Not the health care itself. Doctors learn and do the same things using the same equipment everywhere. The providing of health care is the worst. Expensive, confusing, and a nightmare of paperwork for even the simplest problem. Other places you just go to the doctor or hospital and get treated then leave. That's it.
Paper work ? .. rubish. You do it once and its done. For me that was over 20 yeas ago. I didnt even get a bill after my yearly visits, they mail it to my insurance company. As far as Other places like Japan to Europe.. not the case.. you make an appointment which takes months. The waiting list is longer than you can imagine.
If you truly believe in your own nonsense, you just wait and see what will happen as number of doctors shrinks and appointments get pushed out.
You will be the first to complain...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Criticisms
The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting fewer than 90 days.
The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans [56] is two weeks with 86.4% waiting fewer than 90 days.
The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting fewer than 90 days
JH
2014 May 25, 3:10am
The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting fewer than 90 days.
Give your doc a call Tuesday and see when they can get you in. My pcp got me in 3 weeks. The 2 referrals from there: 4 weeks and TBD weeks. Wow for paying 10x here in the usa I have cut my wait times by a median of half a week compared to Canada. Also keep in mind that physicians such as dermatologists schedule appointments out sometimes as long as 3 or 4 months...in America. It's the same system here. Just costs hella lot more.
Give your doc a call Tuesday and see when they can get you in. My pcp got me in 3 weeks. The 2 referrals from there: 4 weeks and TBD weeks.
Things will change... it has for Japan, Europe and Canada.
Lets face the facts, the only reason for Obama is get EVERYONE covered.
Its no more than what Ted Kennedy and Later Hilary has been pushing..
Long lines and shortages will be the norm down the road...
JH
2014 May 25, 4:13am
Give your doc a call Tuesday and see when they can get you in. My pcp got me in 3 weeks. The 2 referrals from there: 4 weeks and TBD weeks.
Things will change... it has for Japan, Europe and Canada.
Lets face the facts, the only reason for Obama is get EVERYONE covered.
Its no more than what Ted Kennedy and Later Hilary has been pushing..
Long lines and shortages will be the norm down the road...
My point is that it is already the same. If socializing it makes it worse than other developed nations...gee whiz.
As far as Other places like Japan to Europe.. not the case.. you make an appointment which takes months. The waiting list is longer than you can imagine.
I never lived in Japan, but I lived in europe and austolasia. I saw my doctor the same day I called most of the time, the next day otherwise The few times I saw a specialist it was usually more or less the same amount of time as I have waited for approval in the US.
Exactly which country did you live in that took months to for you see your doctor? I actually doubt very much you've travelled further than the state fair.
FortWayne
2014 May 25, 1:09pm
Tea party originally was in boston in response to taxation without representation etc. This movement was about whining about taxes.
No it was about "taxation without representation". Because it wasn't taxation, it was just a sophisticated ransom. We need another one today, taxes are too high and everything they get they squander away on wars. That's not right in my book.
JH
2014 May 25, 1:37pm
An anecdote unworthy of being called data
It's more data than foxnews shares in a week.
Ask most conservative Americans and they'll tell you something, anything, way different whether they know it to be a fact or not. It's terribly important to claim that Canada has loooong lines
You might first ask them 1) if they know any Canadians and 2) if they have ever been to Canada.
JH
2014 May 26, 12:45am
Anyone notice a pattern of republican vs democratic administration spending here?
There is also a pattern of recessions during Republican terms. So not just that they spend, but they spend when tax receipts are low (whether by their control or not). Remember, deficits don't matter. (Unless they are not the ruling party, of course..........)
Tenpoundbass
2014 May 26, 12:55am
Saving money from Geiko can make you happy.
How happy Stan?
Happier than a Democrat that lost to a Republican rather than the tea party.
So it's come to this has it? After just a few years of Obama, and his failed policies you guys are now cheering old school Republicans to win elections. I feel ya, can't say I blame you one bit.
Bellingham Bill
2014 May 26, 5:20am
The 92 million out of the workforce is a stupid number to throw up
Indeed.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BCD
blue is jobs, red is 75% of working-age population, the basic full employment level of the late 1990s and later Bush Boom.
zooming into 2014:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BCE
we can see we're about 8M jobs short of the long-term trend.
When pressed, the typical tea partier of a certain age would say, well of course I should get to keep MY social security. I saw that on more than one occasion.
I saw Tea Partiers holding up signs saying "Get your government hands off my Medicare." They couldn't understand why I was laughing at them.
Of course they did pay 15.4% of their salary into it...
No, they certainly didn't. If they were employed by someone else, they paid 6.2% and their employer paid 6.2%. If they were self-employed, they paid 12.4%. Except in the years that there a payroll tax holiday then it was 4.2%/6.2% and 10.4%.
Medicare is 1.45% for employee and employer, and 2.9% for self-employed.
Note that the "employer contribution" is deductible for a self-employed person -- i.e. 1/2 of the amount.
So no, no 15.4% anywhere.
Sounds like the democrats and republicans!
Actually it sounds pretty much like the tea party...
supporting millions of people that COULD work but decide the dole is easier.
Ah yes... no right-leaning commentary is complete without including broad and generalized comments about lazy good-fer-nothin's and welfare since as we all know ANYONE who uses ANY government funded program is lazy. I'll remember that when I take the trip home on the government-funded freeway system. Guess I must be lazy!
So no, no 15.4% anywhere.
It used to be, either way the point is the same.
No, you just can't do math and don't understand payroll tax.
6.2% + 6.2% + 1.45% + 1.45% = 15.3%. That's the self-employment rate for total payroll tax. You just don't understand how this works. It didn't used to be higher than 15.3% -- you just made that part up.
JH
2014 May 28, 9:31am
I saw Tea Partiers holding up signs saying "Get your government hands off my Medicare." They couldn't understand why I was laughing at them.
Hahahha, that is too painfully ironic it hurts my brain.
indigenous
2014 May 28, 9:44am
No, you just can't do math and don't understand payroll tax.
6.2% + 6.2% + 1.45% + 1.45% = 15.3%. That's the self-employment rate for total payroll tax. You just don't understand how this works. It didn't used to be higher than 15.3% -- you just made that part up.
It is not hard to understand, there is little point in separating the two they are services that few are going to realize but certainly paid for. Which is the point, not the minutiae.
Since employers have to compete for employees the 7.5% would go to the worker, if not paid to the government.
Another poll showing "Minuteman" Donnelly ahead of "TARP bagman" Kashkari in the race for second place (CA open primary for governor).
It is not hard to understand, there is little point in separating the two they are services that few are going to realize but certainly paid for. Which is the point, not the minutiae.
Since employers have to compete for employees the 7.5% would go to the worker, if not paid to the government.
There is no proof the 7.65% would go to the employees -- employers would just cut this cost if they could, like they've been doing with everything else (e.g. you can't argue Obamacare will cause employers to cut health insurance out of one side of your mouth, and then say they would pay an extra 7.65% to employees if not for payroll tax out of the other side of your mouth).
Furthermore, you misunderstood the numbers -- 2.9% is for Medicare, 12.4% is for Social Security. There was never any 15.4% going to Social Security like you stated above. You both misstated the number and where it was going because you didn't understand how payroll tax worked before I explained it to you.
Bellingham Bill
2014 May 28, 10:49am
I saw Tea Partiers holding up signs saying "Get your government hands off my Medicare." They couldn't understand why I was laughing at them.
To be fair people -- half the boomers -- have been paying that 2-3% into the program all their lives and haven't drawn a penny out yet.
Now, their benefits helped pay for their parents' Medicare, but people don't think that way.
indigenous
2014 May 28, 10:51am
There is no proof the 7.65% would go to the employees -- employers would just cut this cost if they could, like they've been doing with everything else (e.g. you can't argue Obamacare will cause employers to cut health insurance out of one side of your mouth, and then say they would pay an extra 7.65% to employees if not for payroll tax out of the other side of your mouth).
None but it would. To assume otherwise is like saying the money coerced from the economy by the government would not be spent in the free market.
Furthermore, you misunderstood the numbers -- 2.9% is for Medicare, 12.4% is for Social Security. There was never any 15.4% going to Social Security like you stated above. You both misstated the number and where it was going because you didn't understand how payroll tax worked before I explained it to you.
Yes dumbass I understand it, have been paying it for decades. The point once again is that people have been paying into a program deserve to get the benefits of that program.
FortWayne
2014 May 28, 11:19am
I saw Tea Partiers holding up signs saying "Get your government hands off my Medicare." They couldn't understand why I was laughing at them.
Problem isn't them, problem is you not understanding them.
JH
2014 May 28, 11:48am
Problem isn't them, problem is you not understanding them.
Yeah, we all misunderstood the deeper fundamental reality. Like my parents, they want the services but not the associated taxes. Anything else is not patriotic.
The point once again is that people have been paying into a program deserve to get the benefits of that program.
Yes they do. So, putting 2.9% of $50k into an investment with 5% return over 30 years yields $100k. What happens once you hit $100k? Done. How long would that take a 65 year old to burn through?
Caveat: few were making $50k 30 years ago, so the $100k is inflated.
Bottom line: after you hit $100k in medical expenditures, you might want to change the wording on your sign.
indigenous
2014 May 28, 12:16pm
What happens once you hit $100k? Done. How long would that take a 65 year old to burn through?
Don't know, consult LBJ.
Since employers have to compete for employees the 7.5% would go to the worker, if not paid to the government.
Like they are competing now with all the raises and bonuses?
indigenous
2014 May 28, 12:30pm
Like they are competing now with all the raises and bonuses?
Not so much at the moment but in the past certainly
JH
2014 May 28, 3:08pm
Absolutely, with help from others since.
Let us not forget the voters who elected them all...and now want more than $100k in free medical care
« First « Previous Comments 64 - 103 of 197 Next » Last » Search these comments
Seeing as how yesterday all of the tea party candidates got beaten soundly, when you add this to the movement's failure to stop Obamacare, I'd say that the billionaires and lobbys who started the tea party are going to see that this so-called "movement" is a waste of their money and so the plug will be pulled. Of course I'm sure they'll find some other weaselly way to get into congress, but as for now this latest experiment failed.
Never have I ever been happy "normal" Republicans won anything.
#politics