patrick.net

"Yeah, I agree with you here. Don’t get me wrong, I am a liberal but not a socialist."

I wet my pants when I read this.

I remember a raging liberal woman who looked at me once and, with a straight face, said, "I'm very very liberal. I'm a libertarian."

I wet my pants then too. I have wetting problem I guess.

The thing that makes your statement so hilarious, to me, is it is the same thing as saying, "I start fires in houses, but I'm not an arsonist." Or "I like to jump off buildings, but I'm not a faller."

Really, it's not that tough. If you vote the "liberal" line, as most people understand "liberal," then you are voting to move the country/state/county whatever, further toward socialism on the continuum. You're voting for bigger government. You've voting for more judicially active courts. You're voting for increased wealth redistribution. You're voting for greater state control of our children. You're voting for more laws on more things.

In short, you're voting for a progression towards the very things that constitute a socialist state - bigger government, higher taxes, reduction of personal freedoms, and greater wealth distribution. A case in point - you'll likely vote for Hillary over the republican dimwit who runs against her - she wants to create a social medicine program ! Doink. Liberalism, you see, begets socialism. Can you imagine the government in charge of a national health care system? Have you been to the DMV? You like that new system they got? A74, B234, C32. I like to call it "fuck me bingo." You ever watch the mail being delivered? You ever work with a government agency? You see how FEMA did? You want these people running your surgeon? Or that pissed off Indian doc who posted above?

If you're a liberal, and you didn't vote for these things, then you're not a liberal! You're a libertarian. Welcome aboard.

Here's a quick rundown of the three hot spots on the political continuum . . .

The conservative insists that you shouldn't be able to go to your neighbor's house and make rapturous gay love to him.

The liberal insists that you should be able to go to your neighbor's house and make rapturous gay love to him, and when you contract HIV because you were too horny and stupid to use a condom, the liberal insists that everyone should bear the cost of your enormous, self-induced medical bills.

The libertarian insists that you should be able to go to your neighbor's house and make rapturous gay love to him because the libertarian wants the same right in return, but when you contract HIV because you were too horny and stupid to use a condom, well, that was a bad call on your part, wasn't it - no money from him by force of government.

Somebody asked . . .
How do we . . .
1) protect our asset/money/portfolio
Well, you can only protect it so far, eh? If it's only a great depression, then you're ok, because you'll outcompete the poor slobs who don't know how to type. What was unemployment at the peak of the great depression? 1 in 4 at the worst? The black folk in New Orleans think racism played a role there? Wait till the food supply gets tight. Then they'll know that being poor gets you much worse treatment than being black. If it gets much worse than the 30s, well there's nothing you can do at all, is there? Because the government will surely take what you've got when it wants to.

2) minimize our contribution in whichever legal way in the bail-out effort following the burst.
Hah! How noble of you to abide by the law! When they take the food from your hand, will you look for the legal respose then?

3) and best of all, take advantage of the bubble burst.

This, to me, is kind of like standing on the deck of the Titanic, with a scrawny Leonardo next to you, and asking, "hey, how do you think we can leverage our position here?"

The best you can do is to follow the smart money. lOOk for it. It'll be easy to see. The money is fleeing housing now. It's fleeing equities. Some will end up in bonds, but inflation is looking strong, so not much. Watch where the money runs next, and follow . . . at least for a while.

But don't worry. Hillary will be in the White House when this all is really going good, and I'm sure she'll take care of all of us.

:)

Jimbo

Thanks for the clarification, sounds like your parents and mine could talk. :) Do you have kids already, or simply planning for the future? Just curious. I have a friend who's husband is 55 now and they have a 5 year old. They're having the time of their life.

It's probably time to start a new thread, seems folks are getting tired of the complaining, but hey, everyone needs to vent once in awhile. I think I'll take owneroccupier's idea and get a move on....

"I have a friend who’s husband is 55 now and they have a 5 year old."

That sucks for the kid. "dad you wanna play catch?" "Sure son, here, catch my IV bag."

Hi! My name is SactoQT...

And my name is Elvis Presley. I am alive and I am walking on the moon.

The best you can do is to follow the smart money. lOOk for it. It’ll be easy to see. The money is fleeing housing now. It’s fleeing equities. Some will end up in bonds, but inflation is looking strong, so not much. Watch where the money runs next, and follow . . . at least for a while.

Will the next big thing be intellectual properties? Perhaps those crazy people on Wall Street can securitize patents too. ;)

P! Hah!

At least then I'll know what to buy.

"Looks like everybody is trying to time the market and more people are thinking that the time is now."

"Trying" being the operative word here...ooops! ;)

Superq

I'm guessing you're a union member? ;)

I used to teach, and some teachers liked the union, but most I worked with didn't. Didn't like the union dues without much visible benefit and being forced to strike when we didn't want to. It always seemed like the union reps were more interested in keeping their power base and didn't give a damn about who they were supposed to be representing. Just one POV.

Superq

You have a point. At the time teachers were in demand so union demands seemed unnecessary to many. I haven't taught in a few years so the sentiment may be very different now. I'll have to ask around.

I have stated before that my views are very colored by my personal experiences and decisions. We actually shorted the stock market and could've made a lot more money. Does that make me bitter? Not really, we could've lost everything, instead we just didn't make as much-- better outcome even if not the best outcome.

I too have become an insatiable reader of housing related media. Although I am getting better and my "habit" is taking less of my time. I only regret that I was unable to buy a house about 5 years ago when prices would've still been rational. I am glad that I didn't buy last year or the year before because I would've paid too much.

I don't agree with raising the minimum wage. Too many small businesses go under when we do this and rather than more people making more, more people find themselves out of work. Larger businesses end up laying off workers too. Even if the business manages to pass the cost on to the customer, they still end up laying off workers to keep costs down. This happens whenever the minimum wage is raised. Government intervention in business always screws it up and is bad for the economy.

So if one is going to accuse that we're not "walking the walk" please tell us how to do so at this time? Not the government intervention sort of solutions that really don't work, but rather the personal actions that can be taken by the "gripers" on the blog. Please-- enlighten us.

So what about my other two suggestions? I am a boomer and I ‘m gonna work until I’m 70,(If I am able), at least because stealing from my daughter’s generation is not a moral option. that topic as well. Believe me, more than a few of us could relate. Education is grand, but they can't teach common sense; and if more people had some sense our economy wouldn't be in the quandry it's in right now.