patrick.net

John Bailo says

Shutdown Government is the Conservatives version of Occupy Wall Street.

Ow! Best analogy ever.

Dan8267 says

Unfortunately, Obama is such an evil fuck, he'd never do this. A real reformer would.

Yes, removing the power of the Majority from the House would be "real reform", LOL

Just as Americans in general do not have the habits of deference, so the conservative in America does not have them either. Ultimately he does not defer even to the country’s institutions. If one of these institutions, such as the Supreme Court, makes decisions he detests, he will defame that institution. He is as ready as is the common man to bypass the institutions he ought to defend … The America which Europe fears is the America of the Reaganites. The America once of the Scopes trial; the America of prohibition; the America of ignorant isolationism. The America then of ‘‘"better dead than red’’; the America of McCarthyism; the America of the last fundamentalists of the 1950s. The America now of the new evangelicals; the America of the Moral Majority; the America of a now ignorant interventionism; the America which can see homosexuals as a conspiracy; feminists as a conspiracy; perhaps even women as a conspiracy.

The America of fear. For it is in fear that the ungoverned and the unfree are doomed to live. And there was this America in control at Detroit. It is time that we reminded ourselves, and said aloud and more often, that it is from these people that nastiness comes. It is time that we pointed out to the neo-conservatives that democracy has never been subverted from the left but always from the right.

– Henry Fairlie, 1980.

FortWayne says

Everything is negotiable.

And that's not new, our rights have been negotiable for quite some time... especially where NSA is concerned. So if rights are negotiable, laws are negotiable too.

Okay, then in a few years, let's get a group of radical democrats in congress who threaten to defund the government and not raise the debt dealing, unless tax rates on high incomes (250K and up) go back to Eisenhower levels.

tatupu70 says

FortWayne says

No, cut the spending and reduce the debt ceiling.

So, you are in favor of US defaulting? Not honoring our debts?

They can pay the debt off while spending less on everything else at the same time. But if we let them raise the debt, eventually the only thing we'll be paying will be debt and won't be able to afford any services.

FortWayne says

cut the spending

that's easier said than done. What $1T+ would you cut?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2014_US.html

Remember, each $100B you cut is going to fuck over ~5 million people, since without Uncle Sugar so much of our so-called economy would just dry up and blow away.

Bellingham Bill says

Yes, removing the power of the Majority from the House would be "real reform", LOL

I think you mean "minority" as the filibuster is always used by the party not in control.

Although some people make the case that the filibuster is necessary to prevent tyranny of a majority, there are two reasons I don't buy that. One, a super-majority can already end a filibuster and a super-majority is the real threat of a "majority tyranny".

Two, I have never seen the filibuster used to do anything other than evil, save for one case when Rand Paul used it to bring attention to the evilness of drone attacks and that case was ineffective. Filibusters have been used primarily for vileness like blocking the Civil Rights Act. The filibuster does not have a good track record for ethical use.

Bellingham Bill says

that's easier said than done. What $1T+ would you cut?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2014_US.html

Your chart shows 529 Billion in Welfare alone. Then another 509 Billion under Vendor Payments (Welfare).

That's more then 1T and it took me less than a minute to find it, using the webpage you provided. That was easy! I could get to a total of 2T in spending by cutting education as well. With more time I could trim more of the fat and pay off the deficit in less than a decade.

Bellingham Bill says

FortWayne says

cut the spending

that's easier said than done. What $1T+ would you cut?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2014_US.html

Remember, each $100B you cut is going to fuck over ~5 million people, since without Uncle Sugar so much of our so-called economy would just dry up and blow away.

But it has to be done, the later we do it the worse it will get. So might as well start now. I'd cut Welfare and Defense right off the bat and debt would be paid off pretty darn quick.

zzyzzx says

Your chart shows 529 Billion in Welfare alone. Then another 509 Billion under Vendor Payments (Welfare).

Congratulations, every city in the US blows up.

These welfare checks don't disappear into black holes, they result in demand all across the nation.

As for subsidized education, yeah, we could certainly cut that too.

Fuck people, this is a nation of the taxpayers, by the taxpayers, for the taxpayers. Everyone gets the education they can afford, and not one drop more.

Glibertarians simply discredit themselves by opening their stupid mouths.

Bellingham Bill says

These welfare checks don't disappear into black holes, they result in demand all across the nation.

They also create a nation of welfare queens who instead of rising to the occasion just sink to the bottom, because that is the easiest option.

zzyzzx says

Then another 509 Billion under Vendor Payments (Welfare).

That was medicaid you just eliminated, btw. People now get the health care they can afford, and not one drop more.

FortWayne says

They also create a nation of welfare queens who instead of rising to the occasion just sink to the bottom, because that is the easiest option.

How about you try living off of welfare for a couple of months, then come back here and tell us how "easy" it was.

tatupu70 says

FortWayne says

They also create a nation of welfare queens who instead of rising to the occasion just sink to the bottom, because that is the easiest option.

How about you try living off of welfare for a couple of months, then come back here and tell us how "easy" it was.

I've had neighbors who were on welfare. While I was out working all day long busting my back, they were partying all day. Government paid their apartment rent, their electricity, their food and healthcare. All they did is occasionally sell some of those stamps to get cash, or work part time for cash somewhere.

It might not be the easiest life from a perspective of a person who has a lot. But for them that's a lot eaiser than actually getting a job and working their way into something.

welfare is a patch on a broken system.

problem is the glibertarians don't have anything less dysfunctional in trade.

Their "more freedom" solve-all is fatally flawed by how the Monopoly board is divvied up and the fact that money is power, and lack of money is lack of power, and return to capital ("interest") will always win out over return to labor ("wages"), since interest never sleeps.

you want the fat-ass welfare queens to get a job, give them the real opportunity by making more societal and human capital available to them.

This would be a multi-generational project.

The conservative "got mine fuck you" mindset isn't going to solve things. Quite the opposite.

FortWayne says

While I was out working all day long busting my back, they were partying all day.

While you were out working all day, I got myself an education. Now I don't have to do manual labor outside all day.

yeah, not that I'd want to be a poor minority, but when you're in the middle you feel squeezed on both ends.

And it's true! PPACA's premium subsidies cut-off at $45,000, so if you make more than that, no partially-free ride for you!

and when you get into the high five-figures, the more the 25% marginal rate + 10% FICA + 9.3% state rate bites.

Meanwhile Romney is paying 15% (if that) on his multi-millions.

Bellingham Bill says

Meanwhile Romney is paying 15% (if that) on his multi-millions.

But he's creating slave-labor jobs in China. So it's ok.

Bellingham Bill says

The conservative "got mine fuck you" mindset isn't going to solve things. Quite the opposite.

It's not "got mine f.. you" mindset. Poor just get to support their kids, I get to support my family plus pay enough taxes to support a room load of other peoples children... it sure gets difficult to do that in life... and feels like being robbed on both ends, especially when people on the receiving end don't care to make their life better and enjoy being the takers, while wealthy just enjoy not paying any taxes with all their loopholes pushing that welfare/warfare burden onto me.

Bellingham Bill says

yeah, not that I'd want to be a poor minority, but when you're in the middle you feel squeezed on both ends.

That sure is true for me.

As if the mortgage were the only cost.

You forget property tax (1.7%), maintenance (1%), insurance... And those are costs that never go away, and that renters never have to pay.

Try http://patrick.net/calculator.php

But perhaps the biggest "secret" is that putting your money in the stock market has almost always been a better deal than putting your money into a house.

But perhaps the biggest "secret" is that putting your money in the stock market has almost always been a better deal than putting your money into a house.

Come on Patrick. That's at best misleading and at worst an outright lie.

tatupu70 says

Come on Patrick. That's at best misleading and at worst an outright lie.

What? It's not even close to misleading. Stocks have been WAY better than housing nearly all the time:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_102526.html

What? It's not even close to misleading. Stocks have been WAY better than housing nearly all the time:

Don't waste your time Patrick, I've been saying the same thing for years and for some reason the response is that its better to invest in houses, dirt, and rocks than stocks, which have clearly shown to outperform RE for the past 100+ years. PS: I own a house too.

What? It's not even close to misleading. Stocks have been WAY better than housing nearly all the time:

Are you comparing appreciation only in housing to appreciation in stocks? That's not the correct comparison, IMO. You HAVE to add the rental cost that you paid to get closer to apples to apples. Once those costs are added, I think housing as an investment looks favorable assuming a relatively long time horizon (to make up for the transaction costs)

You invest in a house to avoid paying rent. (Or to collect rent) Nobody buys a house and then lets it sit hoping for capital appreciation.

WOW, divide and conquer has sure worked like a charm for most of you. PLEASE wake up and see what is really going on here. Stop the partisan BS. The MF'ers from both "sides" of congress did not read the entire bill before signing it into law. That in itself should invalidate the law AND cause for those who Voted for it to be removed from their positions.

sbh says

Of course you would. To get the youth of America to go overseas and be maimed it's best to first insure they are less able to think well.

Thought ever occur to you that we already wildly overspend in education in the US? You know, the person waiting on tables or operating a cash register doesn't need a masters degree.

ForcedTQ says

The MF'ers from both "sides" of congress did not read the entire bill before signing it into law

PPACA received effectively zero votes from the Republican caucus.

There are a couple of issues the Dems would certainly like to fix with it, but the Republican "repeal and replace" isn't a valid starting point for them.

So, yeah, you're just full of shit your enlightened "both sides" shtick.

tatupu70 says

How about you try living off of welfare for a couple of months, then come back here and tell us how "easy" it was.

It's like being retired.

zzyzzx says

You know, the person waiting on tables or operating a cash register doesn't need a masters degree.

not for that job, no, but education improves peoples lives immensely. We all want to be more than just a timecard in a slot.

thing is, education is very resource-light -- buildings, grounds care, instructional salaries -- public goods expense. We can certainly afford it, given the massive benefits we get from a well-educated, well-rounded populace.

Your utopia is a very dismal place; no sale.

Mish just banned me for pointing out that he rips off other moderator's threads on Patrick.net and then posts them on his blog with his own terribly reasoned commentary. He denied doing this - a terrible lie - and then said he was invited by Patrick to be a moderator. But anyone can be a moderator, so again, Mish concocts yet another stinker. He seems a bit mentally unbalanced. What Mish does on his blog, anyone can do on Patrick.net. Viva Patrick.net!

Straw Man says

Forget about nation of law. It's obvious that we ARE nation of assholes that second guess the laws we don't like. It happened before with, say, marriage and immigration laws, there is no reason this time should be different.

That's fine. There is a legal way to amend or change laws. Introduce a bill and get the required votes.

edvard2 says

Don't waste your time Patrick, I've been saying the same thing for years and
for some reason the response is that its better to invest in houses, dirt, and
rocks than stocks, which have clearly shown to outperform RE for the past 100+
years. PS: I own a house too.

If you can do better trading stocks, bonds, commodities, etc why would you even bother with housing?

zzyzzx says

Thought ever occur to you that we already wildly overspend in education in the US? You know, the person waiting on tables or operating a cash register doesn't need a masters degree.

But she sure needed that $100,000 government loan to be directly paid to the education industrial complex structure of her choice so she could be in debt for life...
And even if she didn't want it, government would spend a ton of money convincing her to participate.

It kind of amuses me sometimes how liberals are up in arms about inequality and yet are happy-joy to put people into debt in self-serving purposes.

CRA innovative loans, and their cousin loans at FHA disconnected the banks from risk in many ways.

The low interest rates, kept that way by the FED is like another CRA, it is keeping loan payments small per dollar mortgages, but it again has the same effect as the CRA and the related NINJA, No Doc, and other loans: It raises the price above the intrinsic value.

Loan prices should allow savers to have interest, and banks to make a fair amount by providing loans. The CRA and repeal of Glass Steagal changed this, and created a low risk loan making environment that was temporary.

Loan prices must be linked to familial salaries, and also an "intrinsic" value.

All these efforts to try to get housing to stay up, and outside of affordability and "intrinsic" value, is nothing but a ruse from the Lawyers in the US who set this Ponzi Schemes up.

We need to invest in Technology R&D, production and manufacturing. We need Scientists and manufactures to run the country, (Ford, Hughes) not Lawyers (Clinton, Obama).

FortWayne says

tatupu70 says

FortWayne says

Dems are trying very hard to raise debt ceiling, I don't think they will ever oppose an idea of more spending

Increasing the debt ceiling does causes exactly ZERO new spending to occur.

No, it allows government to spend us into debt slavery. If I give you a credit card and let you max it ... you'll max it out. And if I give you an increase in spending, you'll max that out too. It's common sense.

You do understand FortWayne that not raising the debt ceiling creates much more debt than raising it?

What a fine young cannibal!

freak80 says

FortWayne says

While I was out working all day long busting my back, they were partying all day.

While you were out working all day, I got myself an education. Now I don't have to do manual labor outside all day.

Don't be knocking manual labor bro! I do that most days, and it helps keep fit and muscular. I think if I'd ended up at a desk I'd be fat and unhealthy.

It's really sad when a get rich quick scheme results in Go To Jail Forever, instead.

Why do they hate free enterprise?

BitCoins are going to become GetFuckedCoins.

Can you do this without removing the face from the living first? Seems it would make it a much fresher cook, especially if you like rare.

I guess I keep reading posts like this and wonder: Why even bother posting them? The GOP gave the best gift ever to the Democrats, and all one who has their interests with that party has to do is sit back and enjoy the show as the GOP flails in the hole they dig for themselves.