patrick.net

Let's blame President Obama for holding a trial for the people responsible for killing over 3,000 innocent Americans. This, too, is yet another example of how anything can be manipulated into being the president's fault. For example, the memo entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" that was given to President Bush on August 6, 2001 while he was on yet another vacation in Crawford, Texas (where he spent the majority of his presidency) was really Obama's fault, because he should have anticipated the attacks and somehow stopped them. The terrorist attacks of 911 were horrible. There needs to be a trial. People who anonymously criticize the current administration on the interweb for the way anything to do with 911 is handled are spineless. Put your money where your mouth is - get an am radio show of your own and broadcast your ignorance to the world.

I'm not bitter, just tired of you. I'm sure you're used to that - that's probably why you're here now.

elliemae says

just tired of you.

and yet here you are talking back. Must be getting under your fur?

RayAmerica says

Constitutional rights granted to terrorists. What a brilliant idea!

Doesn't US law require all people be given this, regardless of how distasteful?

Liz Pendens says

Doesn’t US law require all people be given this, regardless of how distasteful?

We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court. As enemy combatants, they have no constitutional rights or protection whatsoever. Case in point: when German spies were captured here in the USA, FDR had them tried by a military tribunal. There were found guilty and subsequently executed.

RayAmerica says

We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court. As enemy combatants, they have no constitutional rights or protection whatsoever. Case in point: when German spies were captured here in the USA, FDR had them tried by a military tribunal. There were found guilty and subsequently executed.

So we can declare war on any grouping we see fit now? I didn't know that. Let's declare a war on organized crime--then we don't have to afford gangsters any rights. And on gangs for that matter. Lock up all the bangers without a trial. Where do you draw the line?? For someone who talks about following the letter of the Constitution, you are pretty quick to dismiss it when it suits your needs...

RayAmerica says

Liz Pendens says

Doesn’t US law require all people be given this, regardless of how distasteful?

We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court. As enemy combatants, they have no constitutional rights or protection whatsoever. Case in point: when German spies were captured here in the USA, FDR had them tried by a military tribunal. There were found guilty and subsequently executed.

Should they have lawyers, and how to deal with the torture they were subject to before hand? I believe that's against US military law.

Liz Pendens says

Should they have lawyers, and how to deal with the torture they were subject to before hand? I believe that’s against US military law.

The problem with civilian trials for these people are numerous. If tried in a military court, they are provided with legal counsel. Their charge of "torture" provides them with a defense that they would not have in a military court. Civil court also provides for the legal discovery process, along with subpoenas of government documents & officials, endless calling of witnesses, and numerous appeals, etc. This could go on for years, and it will be used by the terrorists for propaganda, etc. against us. Our intelligence apparatus can potentially be exposed as well, endangering agents in the field and further diminish our national security.

RayAmerica says

Their charge of “torture” provides them with a defense that they would not have in a military court.

So if they were indeed tortured, as apparently documented by more than one source, they won't have any recourse, right? RayAmerica says

Our intelligence apparatus can potentially be exposed as well, endangering agents in the field and further diminish our national security.

Valerie Plame was outed. What to make of that situation?

RayAmerica says

We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America, in their reading of the Constitution disagrees with you. We have not had a constitutional declaration of War by congress. We are not at war without such a declaration. If you want a legitimate war, get your congressional representatives to put forth and vote on a war resolution.

staynumz says

Either way, on one side we have aggresive interogation. On the other we have miranda and the ACLU. Pick a side. I will go for VERY aggressive interogation. What about you?

It's a false choice. VERY aggressive interrogation methods work no better than traditional methods. Jack Bauer is fiction. Hard core terrorists lie when they are being tortured.... We have gained zero useful intelligence from torture despite Dick Cheney's lies.

staynumz says

Also, what type of information are we getting from the panty bomber since he was read his “rights”?

The same amount that we would have gotten if he were tortured.

SPAM

tatupu70 says

Jack Bauer is fiction.

You can always count on a Liberal to post deep .... very very deep thoughts.

tatupu70 says

Hard core terrorists lie when they are being tortured….

Do all terrorists lie when they are being torutured?

Question for Liberals: if a known terrorist knew a city in the USA was soon to be nuked, would you be in favor of .... horrors I know ... water boarding to find out the who, what & where’s? Or do we sit by and just let it happen??

RayAmerica says

Question for Liberals: if a known terrorist knew a city in the USA was soon to be nuked, would you be in favor of …. horrors I know … water boarding to find out the who, what & where’s? Or do we sit by and just let it happen??

Like I said. It's a false choice. Water boarding doesn't work.

Just for the record: I'm AGAINST water boarding terrorists, but if there's a slight chance it would help Liberals think, I'd be worth trying it on them.

According to the news today the Christmas day wanna-be airline bomber is talking again. You think it's because they got around to torturing him? Or maybe the psy ops worked, as has been decided by the military long before 9/11, Jack Bauer, and Cheney.

RayAmerica says

Question for Liberals: if a known terrorist knew a city in the USA was soon to be nuked, would you be in favor of …. horrors I know … water boarding to find out the who, what & where’s? Or do we sit by and just let it happen??

You mean like 911, when the president was briefed about the impending danger yet nothing was done? Or was that okay, because he was a "conservative?" The world isn't black & white. While ya'll waste your time affixing labels to people you don't understand and hate because they believe differently than you, people who aren't considered to be liberals or conservatives continue to commit horrible acts of aggression & terrorism. But I guess it's okay, 'cause they aren't liberals. Nuke the gay baby liberal whales for jesus. yep, that'll do it.

ErikK says

RayAmerica says Question for Liberals: if a known terrorist knew a city in the USA was soon to be nuked, would you be in favor of …. horrors I know … water boarding to find out the who, what & where’s? Or do we sit by and just let it happen?? You mean like 911, when the president was briefed about the impending danger yet nothing was done? Or was that okay, because he was a “conservative?” The world isn’t black & white. While ya’ll waste your time affixing labels to people you don’t understand and hate because they believe differently than you, people who aren’t considered to be liberals or conservatives continue to commit horrible acts of aggression & terrorism. But I guess it’s okay, ’cause they aren’t liberals. Nuke the gay baby liberal whales for jesus. yep, that’ll do it.

So what you're really saying is that you'd rather see an entire U.S. city destroyed by a terrorist nuke than you would seeing a terrorist get a little wet. As far a "gay baby liberal whales" you really should take your meds before posting.

Who needs parking anyways? We're all going to be riding Obama Trains to Nowheresville.

Well where will I park my Unicorn fart powered Egg, they made me trade in my 4X Canyonaro for?

staynumz, I had a longish post to write in here but I really can't be bothered so I'll cut to the chase: I think you're an idiot. Thats rude I know, pardon me, but I really don't see any other way to cut it. "Libs dont like “cheap” parking." "Nothing like taking some freedoms away from the citizens." What are you even talking about? What does that even mean? Do you even have any idea yourself? What do you think is happening in CA right now, budget-wise? And where do you think the money for your police and firemen is going to come from, pixie dust? And I just have to interject here with an observation that will be news to no one, and I don't mean to wear the high hat but I really am so tired of knee jerk reactions to news and ideas communicated in ways that describe absolutely nothing and have no context whatsoever to anything outside of communicating the reactor's personal preference of the moment. Politics isn't anything other than a team sport for some of you people anymore. The issues don't matter, beyond an immediate gut response based on simple selfishness ("ugh, don't like that. It bad, it evil, EVIL. Ugh."), and any action taken by one particular party or other is prejudged to be either bad or good depending on the association with one party or the other. - And: "Obama Trains to Nowheresville." And what the hell does THAT even mean? I think it means absolutely nothing, except you're trying in some awkward way to tell us you're one more person who doesn't like the current gov, for... some reason or other that I'm sure you don't even know, beyond the fact that you probably think (and I'm guessing here so forgive me) of yourself as a conservative free thinker. Pfft. Can't write more here. Too long already.

#include "comment-666630.inc" If we're going to get into the politics of it like Staynumz wants, Republicans are traditionally business owners, and business owners love externalities like government-provided free parking for their customers, efficient public roads that bring their customers to them, and public buses for their employees to come to work on. But iF you want my opinion on this, I look at the larger problem, with a Georgist analysis of where is the land value and who is pocketing it, and the belief that good government can do much good, and bad government can do much bad. The whole thing about casual traffic causing excess congestion is stupid, really. The roads are built to attempt to handle rush hour, and people soon learn to avoid peaks for casual car use. Yeay freedom. If government wants to push people to use the commons more wisely, it should first work to provide those public transit resources, not just blindly tax and destroy parking infrastructure without creating the alternative transit utopia first. Where I am buses run every 30 minutes. This is retarded. 10 minutes should be the standard. But poor people don't have any power in this system so /they/ get the 2 hour commute no matter the time of day. I guess the theory with this is if more normal people are incented to take mass transit then it will both have the ridership and the clout to get more money and investment. I lived for 8 years in Tokyo without a car (parking there IS expensive), I really can't say my freedom was impacted on the whole. Having a totally walkable city gives you a different kind of freedom. Freedom from car payments, fill up costs. Then again I was in my 20s, healthy, with a bicycle; plus, the difficulty of raising more than 1 kid at a time in Tokyo is one of the main reasons why they have so few kids. The public policy issues here are subtle. Doctrinaire libertarians might disagree, but I think we'd be a better nation if we could walk and take the bus more. For me, to get there from here is the question. The free market itself isn't going to get us there, it just seeks profit maximation, which is far, far from what was described in the general welfare clause of the Constitution.

Stopping the crackdown on legal grow ops here in California. Yeay, I think.

Dialing down the religious nut nonsense. Yeay!.

Not getting into a war, even a war of words, with Iran. Yeay!

Doing the Nixonian thing and drawing us down out of the wars he was presented with. Yeay!

Moving to allow open homos in the military . . . Yeay (if you're a homophobe just think of all the lesbians who'll be able to serve. Warms your cold little heart a little, no?)

Moving to reinstate Clintonian taxes on the top 5% or so . . . BIG YEAY!
(I thought the Bush tax cuts sorta made sense for the lower 3 brackets, but the immense top bracket cut was just offensive).

We're not out of the woods and I don't really have much trust that the American people will either be in better shape this November, November 2012, or particularly willing to fight for a centrist Dem like Obama.

~40% of the country is socially conservative. For anything to get done they have to be triangulated into the policy-making.

i dont think house price will sky rocket if there is an inflation.

yes, government is printing money now. but it does not mean every one is getting a raise.

also, the price of food, cloth and some other essential product's prices will increase.

the current housing situation is that some people were not supposed to be home owners. they borrowed above their meaning.

when inflation is happening, people, who are not supposed to be home owners, will think about how to survive first.

after all, the supply is greater than demand.

inflation =/= pay raise, at least for main street

"it seems pretty obvious that the government is hell bent on propping home prices up… "

This is a given, no? If you were in government, wouldn't you do the same?

From the Fed's point of view (humor me that the Fed is part of the government), if that $5T of net borrowing 2001-2008 went poof, things would be very very bad for a very long time.

From any politician's point of view, a) they personally own a lot of property b) 60%+ of the population owns c) renters don't vote anyway, nor are they campaign contributors.

Looking at shadowstats.com, it appears the money supply has gone through the roof recently.

Actually, if you read your own link, you'd read things like:

"the broad money supply now is in monthly decline, soon to be year-to-year decline"

It's a complicated picture. The major mistakes were committed 2002-2007, as M3 went from $8 to $14T in a very short time.

We exported the inflation to our trading partners who either recycled these dollars into GSE bonds, parked them in treasuries (debt held by foreigners has risen from $1.2T in 2003 to $3.6T now), or just have really big dollar balances in their sovereign wealth checking accounts.

LandShark says

is that some people were not supposed to be home owners

This line of thinking simply makes no sense to me given there are 20M vacant homes right now. The only reason homes are expensive is that we bid them up to the point of unaffordability, we tax improvements at the same rate as land (disincenting higher density housing), plus we encourage parasitical capital to buy-to-let single-family housing, an evil practice that should be taxed sufficiently to break its business model. But I digress.

I agree with LandShark above that without wage inflation there can be no housing inflation, unless they "turn the machines back on" by changing the rules of the buying game -- 2% FHA loans, turning the mortgage tax deduction into a straight credit (even typing that out gives me the shivers).

The general theory, and history, is that a rising cost of living will result in rising wages. But that history is from a pre-globalized national economy, where unions were still strong, the capitalist class had actual depreciating fixed capital (production lines, mills, etc) that needed to be running regardless of wage cost, demographics were favorable for economic growth, plenty of land was available to sprawl, 30 years of postwar bliss had resulted in relative economic strength, the Internet hadn't connected India to our economy, and the Maoists were busy shooting their intelligentsia and otherwise engaging in anarchy and not doing our manufacturing for us for pennies an hour.

I don't know how this is going to end. My general belief basis is that the debt overextension will result in repeating Japan's long, unpretty decline from 1990 to 2003 or so. But we've got a baby boom generation turning 55 now, 10 years they're going to be retiring (or so they hope). This is going to get ugly if we don't get our house in order first.

The chart above doesn't tell the whole story. If you put all the Panics of 18xx and recessions and stuff as overlays you'd see that history from 1800 to 1910 was completely pocked with collapse, inflationary expansion, and collapse. It really wasn't a pretty picture, and that's *with* half the continent's wealth almost free for the taking.

"Consumer Inflation" was minimal because everybody was a producer first not a consumer (ie. we had a producer-centered economy not a consumer-centered economy). If anything, that graph is a graph of land demand vs. supply.

To answer your question, I think the best bet is to develop portable wealth-creation skills. Houses CANNOT go above affordability in the long run. It is true that if we see household wage inflation like the 1970s rents & home prices might take another step up, but my game is to not become too attached to this country as a permanent abode. There are better places to live, if you can make a living there.

Well... which poop is less stinky, elepant crap or donkey crap? Now that's the hard question.

I don't know what the hell the brother has been doing so far, but I know I never liked to see a bimbo scrubing old man's back.

I would have taken Ron Paul more seriously in the Primaries.

IMO he was trying to destroy parts of America that makes America great.
In retrospect, I realize now, those very things have already been Hijacked by both parties and adulterated to do their bidding of cheating and defrauding the Americans out of trillions of dollars. What good is Government reform when they are bigger crooks, than the people you expect them to protect you from?

Stay-- I don't even know what kind of car you drive. Why do you think I hate it?

Troy says

My general belief basis is that the debt overextension will result in repeating Japan’s long, unpretty decline from 1990 to 2003 or so.

I agree. I can't prove it, but it sure feels like we're totally retracing Japan's steps. I'd like to see a chart of their money supply. They had a yet bigger bubble than ours and just had property deflation for 15 years. So believe it or not, cash may be the best thing to have for a while.

Troy says

I think the best bet is to develop portable wealth-creation skills.

And I agree there too. Develop skills that are in demand, and teach your children to do that too. That's always a good investment.

The problem with your theorem is this:

IF THE TREE FALLS IN THE WOODS AND NOBODY HEARS IT DID IT MAKE A SOUND?

All of the "printing" has gone to prop up bank balance sheets and that fake money never really existed because it wasn't spent in the "real economy" outside of finance.

We are in deflation. It may be a small number. We may even be bouncing around zero. But we are certainly not in inflation for the meaning of the average individual. Is your paycheck going up? Mine isn't, it's gone down.

If you are looking for ways to "come out ahead" well just do what everyone else does. Save your money and get by. Learn some new skills. There are no TRICKS that are going to save you Joe Schmoe and make you a millionaire while you neighbors wallow in filth and fight over table scraps. I find this sort of discussion usually devolves down to some form of "how can I do some trickery with investing/money in a NON-PRODUCTIVE MANNER to profit". Isn't that the sort of thinking that landed us in the soup?

Yes we all like the idea of buying gold now at $1K per ounce and patting ourselves on the back when it goes to $10K in future. However if that is what is going to happen, you are WAY at the back of the line compared to the rich elite who are first in that soup line. You want a simple way to get rich in future, use your funds to start a FINANCIAL FRAUD COMPANY and sit back and soak up overhead. Or just marry rich.

Well, tell me what kind of car you drive. Maybe that will help me understand the problem.

E-man says

@ Vicente,
I applaud you. I got a good laugh from reading your comments, too.

Just out of curiousity, could you tell what made you laugh?

If you strictly inflation hedge I would easily pick real estate over gold.
There's no guarantees we'll have inflation but
if youre really conservative when you buy then it wont matter if prices go up, down, inflation, deflation.

you'll be able to ride out any of those scenarios.

Except that real estate has yearly taxes and upkeep, so you're losing a significant percentage per year. Also, if you're using leverage (aka a mortgage), then real estate also has an interest cost per year. Inflation would need to be astronomical for you to hold your ground, once you incorporate all the costs.

I dont kow why they want to herd us onto buses and away from the freedom to move about at will. Can you explain it to me? On page 830 of the Liberal Cabal Guide, they say it's to force you to spend time with disadvantaged minorities you'd not otherwise interact with except in a patron-server relationship. Good for you to gain some empathy, and good for them to gain some social skills and probity. I joke, but in Japan the trains are something of a good social equalizer and mixer. Everyone's middle class on the train. It's just one part of the puzzle, really. Having walkable cities would reduce the obesity epidemic, and also reduce energy consumption, ie GDP per kwh. They'd also be more livable. But to get there from here we have to crack some eggs. As I said, the free market is path-dependent and only seeks to find the next local maxima, it can't get to the global maxima of the system without extra-market (ie governmental) help.

Here's what to look for regarding inflation:

1. The Fed gives every man woman and child in this country 100,000 dollars. (hyperinflation)--highly unlikely
2. Suspension of all taxes, or a 2 year tax holiday. (mild inflation)---unlikely
3. Like Troy says, 2% 50 year loans with tax rebates attached, and minimal or no down payments required, all backed by the government. (moderate inflation) --- a likely scenario.
4. Continuation of the Fed's current policies. (mild, persistent deflation) --- more likely scenario.
5. Government (Fed) chooses a Lassiez-Fair approach. (immediate major deflation, followed by stabilization) --very unlikely

The most important thing is that inflation starts when people have more money. When is this? I don't even see this on the horizon, let alone in the immediate future. In '02 - '05, inflation was rampant. People everywhere were living off their home equity. Credit was easily available. Everyone could buy a house. Everyone could afford a new car or two, a great vacation, people spent money on goods and services without blinking. Vegas was always crowded (on weekends, some high end casino's minimum table bets were $25). Anyways, those are a few examples. There are many more. Inflation is not happening now or soon. btw, inflation was massive in those years and gold went up about 200 bucks.