Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

Obamacare supporters: Much to my surprise, there still might be one or two "moderates" with a D behind their name, Joe Manchin. Chew on this piece of bacon.

"Nobody should be forced to buy a policy that costs more than what they had and is inferior to what they had." ---- interview on TV this weekend with ABC

Sounds a little more logical and less coercive than, "We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it", don't you???

 

[T Town Tommy]

I don't think you could elaborate on this if you tried. That's a real challenge by the way; I'm not joking.





You're also kidding yourself if you don't think Europe is a capitalist place. Capitalism certainly isn't the opposite of socialism. Where do you get this notion that the economies of places like Germany aren't supremely robust?

Things haven't worked out too well here if you haven't noticed. The good jobs are harder and harder to find as our tremendous capitalism automatizes more and more people out of the workplace ("blame Obama!").

But no, let's just continue to ignorantly assume that having to live our lives within the confines of what the corporate interests allow is way better than realizing we live in a society and should make policies accordingly.

Do you know how much German's pay in taxes each year to enjoy their robust life? A life where the traditional values such as home ownership is virtually nonexistent. And Germany owns the phone companies, banks, etc. Stop me when I cross the line of capitalism vs psuedo-socialism.

For anyone to state that Obama doesn't want to move our country in the same direction is - as you said in your post - ignorant.

We must have a fundamental difference in how our country should be ran. I could care less about Democrat and Republican. Income redistribution does not work. Never has... never will. The government doesn't create private sector jobs but can hinder the growth of job creation with the very policies Obama has pushed forth.

I don't really care to argue politics as it is typically lose-lose proposition. But for someone to state that this administration hasn't moved us further towards a pseudo-socialist society is simply not true. Income redistribution, governmental ownership in health care, creating public sector jobs that will never be able to be cut, foreign policy that is incoherent, and on and on. And Obama can't blame that on anyone but himself.

 

[connor_in]

Lies the Dems Tell Themselves | RealClearPolitics

 

[ACamp1900]

Lies the Dems Tell Themselves | RealClearPolitics

Now, I won't deny that two decades ago, some conservative think tank swell came up with the term "individual mandate" -- which allowed other wonks to try to pin the tail on the elephant. But if liberals have to fish for a 1989 Heritage Foundation policy paper that had no Republican support in 2008, 2009 or 2012 to establish Republican paternity for the Affordable Care Act, that tells you one thing: They think Obamacare won't work.

^^^

 

[Buster Bluth]

1) Socialism isn't ruining them? Hahahahahaha. What is, the robust growing economy? Are you friggin nuts? Outside of Germany, the EU is a joke.

Your definition of a joke might be off. The EU is the world's largest economy, despite the awful recovery.

The socialist nanny state is going belly up, and fast. They have college students in their 30's, they retire at 50, and can't figure out why everyone in between can't pay for everything.

We have a few college students in their 30s too, and people who retire at 50. Everyone can't pay for everything? Talk about generalizations..

Greece, Spain, Italy, France, sadly Ireland...all going downhill really fast.

That's like saying Michigan, Pennsylvania, California, etc are going "downhill fast." You haven't at all proven that socialism per se is responsible. Banking failures and debt are the biggest issues, just like everywhere else in the world.

And I reject the notion of "downhill fall," like they're in ****ing freefall.

Not to mention, look at their demographics. The Europeans are really giving up on this having a family and kids model. Birth rates going down like crazy.

It's arguable that it's inherent in advanced societies at a certain point. The problem shows up in Europe, Japan, New England, etc. regardless of economic policies.

2) Things have declined here for a number of reasons, Buster, but painting the picture of our society already being like "I Robot" isn't 100% it. Our education system is garbage, we're not preparing young people for jobs in demand, we've got bigger cultural issues, we're apathetic, and we're electing self-serving Dbags who consistently spend more than they can bring in. SS, medicare, medicaid all broke by 2030. Throw in obamacare on top of those 3 and you've got the perfect storm for bad news ahead.

Just a ton of really silly simplifications in here. Not all wrong though. Social Security, for example, has lifted tens of millions of elderly out of poverty and improved the lives of every American regardless, and would be totally fine but we let our government steal the program's taxes. It's not the program's fault as much as it is Washington's.

3) I don't know what kind of "corporate interests" influence your life and how you live it, but I'd say the only corporate entity that influences my life to a noticeable degree is ND Football haha.

Then you're not paying any attention.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Do you know how much German's pay in taxes each year to enjoy their robust life?

That doesn't at all mean it's worse. Just different. There's a huge difference.

A life where the traditional values such as home ownership is virtually nonexistent.

If I could point to one single issue that's done more to harm this country and the (developed) world, it's the idea of the "traditional value of home ownership." There isn't a bigger ponzi scheme in the history of the world.

And Germany owns the phone companies, banks, etc. Stop me when I cross the line of capitalism vs psuedo-socialism.

You haven't yet, keep going.

For anyone to state that Obama doesn't want to move our country in the same direction is - as you said in your post - ignorant.

Then why doesn't he take over the banks, phone companies, etc? I'll wait.

Income redistribution does not work. Never has... never will.

Then why aren't we complaining that the wealth has been drastically redistributed to the 1%?

The government doesn't create private sector jobs but can hinder the growth of job creation

Can and has, actually. Don't be so silly.

with the very policies Obama has pushed forth.

Be specific.

I don't really care to argue politics as it is typically lose-lose proposition. But for someone to state that this administration hasn't moved us further towards a pseudo-socialist society is simply not true.

"Pseudo-socialist" is such a bullshit term. Anything shy of 100% laissez-faire is pseudo-socialist. It's all shades of gray.

Income redistribution, governmental ownership in health care,

The government doesn't own **** in that race, it's a bill written by corporations for corporations. Which only aids in the redistribution of wealth to the 1%...

creating public sector jobs that will never be able to be cut

An awfully bold and broad statement. Elaborate.

foreign policy that is incoherent, and on and on.

Like? His foreign policy is 99% George Bush's.

And Obama can't blame that on anyone but himself.

It's like inviting yourself to stop looking for answers. I don't get it.

 

[Wild Bill]

If I could point to one single issue that's done more to harm this country and the world, it's the idea of the "traditional value of home ownership." There isn't a bigger ponzi scheme in the history of the world.

Is this serious?

 

[DSully1995]

Is this serious?

a crazed housing market caused the 2008 crash

 

[Wild Bill]

a crazed housing market caused the 2008 crash

I know what happened. That had to do with mortgaging more house than one could afford, not home ownership in general.

The crash cut both ways. Homes were lost to foreclose, sure. And soon afterwards people started taking advantage of low prices and favorable interest rates.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Is this serious?

100%. But I should clarify that that I'm referring solely to single-family, suburban development, which is the vast majority of home ownership in this country. The idea of owning where you live is not inherently wrong, the way Americans do it robs us and future generations of so much money it's just downright sad.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I know what happened. That had to do with mortgaging more house than one could afford, not home ownership in general.

The crash cut both ways. Homes were lost to foreclose, sure. And soon afterwards people started taking advantage of low prices and favorable interest rates.

I'm not even referring to the crash, which did in fact ruin millions of American anyway. The sheer cost needed to support the inefficiencies of the system outweight any gain, and that's just fiscally. Socially, the damage it's pretty tough to calculate outside of concentrating poverty (which makes it worse), but it's much deeper than that.

Demographic changes back up what I've said. Younger people are rejecting the "American Dream" as they see it as a ball and chain (mortgage) that they don't want. Cities around the country are finally waking up (after the third cycle of mortgages started this last decade) to just how fruitless the developments are to their coffers. States are realizing just how impossible it is to independently fund the third cycle of interstate development. So on and so forth.

 

[phgreek]

I'm not even referring to the crash, which did in fact ruin millions of American anyway. The sheer cost needed to support the inefficiencies of the system outweight any gain, and that's just fiscally. Socially, the damage it's pretty tough to calculate outside of concentrating poverty (which makes it worse), but it's much deeper than that.

Demographic changes back up what I've said. Younger people are rejecting the "American Dream" as they see it as a ball and chain (mortgage) that they don't want. Cities around the country are finally waking up (after the third cycle of mortgages started this last decade) to just hope fruitless the developments are to their tax coffers. States are realizing just how impossible it is to independently fund the third cycle of interstate development. So on and so forth.

I agree that the home owner concept was perverted from a symbol, to a near right...and pandering politicians took advantage most recently of Federal Reserve actions taken in response to the .com bubble turning the real estate market into another bubble. But this was largely a political creation...Thanks Barney Frank, and those before...awesome...*******s.

However...you are alluding to another concept in here me thinks...something related to your planning background? Cluster housing? No new suburbias?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I agree that the home owner concept was perverted from a symbol, to a near right...and pandering politicians took advantage most recently of Federal Reserve actions taken in response to the .com bubble turning the real estate market into another bubble. But this was largely a political creation...Thanks Barney Frank, and those before...awesome...*******s.

However...you are alluding to another concept in here me thinks...something related to your planning background? Cluster housing? No new suburbias?

While that's true, that's not what I'm getting right right now.

To put it most simply, the housing density isn't anywhere near what the majority of communities need to generate the tax income needed to fund the infrastructure. It's a ponzi scheme, in that the initial income from new developments is used to fund the next development, when the majority of it is actually financially unsustainable.

(Then of course there is the fact that the government tore down roughly a trillion dollars worth of buildings to put up trillions of dollars worth of interstates, burning the candle at both ends. Then of course the result was the destruction of nearly every city's--large or small--downtown. Downtowns morphed into either malls or commercial strips on the interstate exit. The wealth quite literally evaporated into thin air (and into the pockets of corporate developers and Fortune 500 companies). The government loses and the people lose. Then there's the other impact of all of the money moving out of the city and creating a muuuuuch worse poverty situation in major cities. And then of course folks bought their house as an investment, but then the neighborhood went to **** as the development pattern was unsustainable so their retirement took a hit--but the bank/developer still won.)

^^But I'm not even touching on those things right now. Cities just cannot afford to act as they do without immense state and federal subsidy. Plenty of people bitch about those European frogs living in a socialist wonderland, and ignore the myriad subsidies they're enjoying on a daily basis just so that they can, in turn, pay their mortgage. Corporations win. (and again, not even going into the wealth sucked out of you monthly on owning all of the little things in a suburban home, from a lawn mower to painting the deck....paychecks sucked right out of people)

A really good lecture on the simple fact that the local government gets ****ed and it's reaching the end of the line pretty quickly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=52NhFMFgLEY#t=482

The graphs of the ponzi scheme start at ~20:50.

The aspect he doesn't touch on that I'm personally getting into is the costs attributed in schools to get all of those kids bused to school. Buses are expensive, diesel is expensive, and drivers are expensive. Our American Development Experiment adds costs to everything, including the costs of schools. My hometown school, Genoa, moved the entire system three miles out of town into the middle of the district, but they should have kept the schools in the village and said "Well, don't live so far away..." to the folks who choose to live in the country. Instead, rising costs for everyone and like <1% of kids could walk or bike to school. In 1980, 50% of kids walked to school. Today it's like 9%. The busing adds up nationally. The wealth evaporates.

All because we want home ownership, a "dream" that was created to build Levittown and such after World War II, not something Washington, Jefferson and Co thought was the best thing ever...

 

[phgreek]

While that's true, that's not what I'm getting right right now.

To put it most simply, the housing density isn't anywhere near what the majority of communities need to generate the tax income needed to fund the infrastructure. It's a ponzi scheme, in that the initial income from new developments is used to fund the next development, when the majority of it is actually financially unsustainable.

(Then of course there is the fact that the government tore down roughly a trillion dollars worth of buildings to put up trillions of dollars worth of interstates, burning the candle at both ends. Then of course the result was the destruction of nearly every city's--large or small--downtown. Downtowns morphed into either malls or commercial strips on the interstate exit. The wealth quite literally evaporated into thin air (and into the pockets of corporate developers and Fortune 500 companies). The government loses and the people lose. Then there's the other impact of all of the money moving out of the city and creating a muuuuuch worse poverty situation in major cities. And then of course folks bought their house as an investment, but then the neighborhood went to **** as the development pattern was unsustainable so their retirement took a hit--but the bank/developer still won.)

^^But I'm not even touching on those things right now. Cities just cannot afford to act as they do without immense state and federal subsidy. Plenty of people bitch about those European frogs living in a socialist wonderland, and ignore the myriad subsidies they're enjoying on a daily basis just so that they can, in turn, pay their mortgage. Corporations win. (and again, not even going into the wealth sucked out of you monthly on owning all of the little things in a suburban home, from a lawn mower to painting the deck....paychecks sucked right out of people)

A really good lecture on the simple fact that the local government gets ****ed and it's reaching the end of the line pretty quickly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=52NhFMFgLEY#t=482

The graphs of the ponzi scheme start at ~20:50.

The aspect he doesn't touch on that I'm personally getting into is the costs attributed in schools to get all of those kids bused to school. Buses are expensive, diesel is expensive, and drivers are expensive. Our American Development Experiment adds costs to everything, including the costs of schools. My hometown school, Genoa, moved the entire system three miles out of town into the middle of the district, but they should have kept the schools in the village and said "Well, don't live so far away..." to the folks who choose to live in the country. Instead, rising costs for everyone and like <1% of kids could walk or bike to school. In 1980, 50% of kids walked to school. Today it's like 9%. The busing adds up nationally. The wealth evaporates.

All because we want home ownership, a "dream" that was created to build Levittown and such after World War II, not something Washington, Jefferson and Co thought was the best thing ever...

I watched the video...I understand the sustainability (really maintainability) concepts...makes great sense.

For me...I hate having neighbors right on top of me, and would endure hauling my kids any distance to school in order to avoid having someone within 5 acres of my living space. I agree, that everyone with my view who is included in an incorporated town/city/county where services are delivered, that's all cost. I grew up in PA, in similar circumstances...away from other folks...We had a well and a septic tank, and power was of course a commercial service...our services footprint was small until you consider the roads maint. and busses that were run out to get us...

I guess the time to start changing the culture of "sprawl" is now...fastest way to do that is ramp up to real sustainment costs in the tax code...but yikes...that would get some people on edge...I guess anything new pack 'em in until its at least revenue neutral w/ green space minimums per development?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I watched the video...I understand the sustainability (really maintainability) concepts...makes great sense.

For me...I hate having neighbors right on top of me, and would endure hauling my kids any distance to school in order to avoid having someone within 5 acres of my living space. I agree, that everyone with my view who is included in an incorporated town/city/county where services are delivered, that's all cost. I grew up in PA, in similar circumstances...away from other folks...We had a well and a septic tank, and power was of course a commercial service...our services footprint was small until you consider the roads maint. and busses that were run out to get us...

Five acres? Yikes. Even the 3/4-acre parcel is too big to generate the taxes needed.

I guess the time to start changing the culture of "sprawl" is now...fastest way to do that is ramp up to real sustainment costs in the tax code...but yikes...that would get some people on edge...I guess anything new pack 'em in until its at least revenue neutral w/ green space minimums per development?

It's been changing over the last fifteen years. Ironically the ones telling people that can't have their cake and eat it to are called socialists...

 

[Buster Bluth]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Q1ZeXnmDZMQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's more of an architectural/social take on the matter, much much more entertaining.

 

[phgreek]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Q1ZeXnmDZMQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's more of an architectural/social take on the matter, much much more entertaining.

The guy is funny...

I really think the sustainable approach to planning gets you there...this guy...while funny, would not necessarily resonate with most of the people I know...the first guy absolutely would though...you got me thinking since we just put in a sewer system 5 years ago...which allowed us to move to more density in developments. Went from a min of 1 acre lots to 1/6 overnight...little better I guess, but its still built like suburbia...I need to crunch some numbers...but I bet we are still perpetuating the Ponzi to a certain degree.

...educational...Thanks

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Your definition of a joke might be off. The EU is the world's largest economy, despite the awful recovery.



We have a few college students in their 30s too, and people who retire at 50. Everyone can't pay for everything? Talk about generalizations..



That's like saying Michigan, Pennsylvania, California, etc are going "downhill fast." You haven't at all proven that socialism per se is responsible. Banking failures and debt are the biggest issues, just like everywhere else in the world.

And I reject the notion of "downhill fall," like they're in ****ing freefall.



It's arguable that it's inherent in advanced societies at a certain point. The problem shows up in Europe, Japan, New England, etc. regardless of economic policies.



Just a ton of really silly simplifications in here. Not all wrong though. Social Security, for example, has lifted tens of millions of elderly out of poverty and improved the lives of every American regardless, and would be totally fine but we let our government steal the program's taxes. It's not the program's fault as much as it is Washington's.



Then you're not paying any attention.

I'm not going to the play the game where I'm the dopey 19 year old college freshman and you're the old professor who knows all. Couldn't be further from the truth.

The EU is a laughable excuse for an economy, and had it not been for the pro-capitalist Germans and Merkel, the EU wouldn't collapsed entirely last year or two years ago. They held all the cards in that deal and dictated how the game was going to be played. The EU complied.

Talk about generalizations...people retire here at 50 because they CAN and have saved up enough money to do so comfortably. The difference is over there in the cushy EU, that's when you're eligible to retire and start living off the state for your last 20-30 years. Of course, this is all after the grueling 28 hour work weeks and MANDATED 6 weeks off for vacations.

"Banking failures" and "debt" are problems but you're ignoring the fact that the entitlement state is the cause for the rapid decline.

Yeah, you're right. I pay no attention to anything. I just float through life preaching "peace, love, happiness" without a care in the world and a "tolerance" bumper stick on my Ford SUV...lol

 

[irishpat183]

If I could point to one single issue that's done more to harm this country and the (developed) world, it's the idea of the "traditional value of home ownership." There isn't a bigger ponzi scheme in the history of the world.

Hmmmm... I somewhat agree. The "everyone deserves a home" attitude

 

[irishpat183]

Awesome:

Hitler Finds Out About The Obamacare Exchange Problems | Zero Hedge

 

[connor_in]

60 Minutes: Benghazi Was Planned, Sophisticated Attack | RealClearPolitics

don't even know what to say...

 

[irishpat183]

60 Minutes: Benghazi Was Planned, Sophisticated Attack | RealClearPolitics

don't even know what to say...

"what difference does it make"??


The left will drone on and on about this. They don't care. Anything to protect Obama and Hilary's 2016 run

 

[connor_in]

"what difference does it make"??


The left will drone on and on about this. They don't care. Anything to protect Obama and Hilary's 2016 run

Now, now pat...HRC told that heckler not to yell so I don't think you should quote one of the many things she has yelled over the years

besides how can this gain traction if hardly anyone brings this up

and if you ask, I am sure it can easily be pointed out how this is all Bush's fault

 

[Bluto]

Five acres? Yikes. Even the 3/4-acre parcel is too big to generate the taxes needed.



It's been changing over the last fifteen years. Ironically the ones telling people that can't have their cake and eat it to are called socialists...

Interesting discussion and series of posts.

 

[irishpat183]

LOL


BREAKING: Obamacare's Data Center Crashed. Now offline until further notice. | The Libertarian Republic

 

[Black Irish]

The problem with Social Security is that, IMO, it doesn't sufficiently accomplish what it was created for. FDR sold Social Security as a way to keep old people from living in penury in their declining years. That's a noble enough goal, and SS would be much more sustainable if it was limited to doing just that. But since everyone pays in, everyone feels entitled to a piece of the pie. So people are collecting benefits who absolutely don't need them. And that entitlement mindset is fueled by both politicians and private groups like AARP.

SS should be overhauled. Upping the eligibility age is a solution that gets mentioned, but it doesn't get at the real problem, which is means-testing. Warren Buffet could collect SS as long as he retired from active employment. That's ridiculous. SS is basically an elderly welfare program that has turned into a national pension system. But since almost everyone gets a piece of the pie come 65, the piece is small. That hurts those who need the benefit the most. For those who can retire comfortably, the SS check is basically fun money. But for those who truly need it, the benefit is pitifully small. You can't live on SS any more than you can live on minimum wage. And SS is structured so that holding a job penalizes your benefits, which causes the elderly poor to make tough choices which they shouldn't have to. But many senior organizations, like AARP, aren't geared towards helping the needy. They are speaking for their middle class dues payers, and those people want their check, whether they need the money or not.

I say turn SS into a true welfare program. Up the benefit pay out, but limit it to those who are truly in need. I would be on board with that, rather than the current system of wealth transfer from young to old that we currently have. A system that is not sustainable in its present form.

 

[Corry]

The problem with Social Security is that, IMO, it doesn't sufficiently accomplish what it was created for. FDR sold Social Security as a way to keep old people from living in penury in their declining years. That's a noble enough goal, and SS would be much more sustainable if it was limited to doing just that. But since everyone pays in, everyone feels entitled to a piece of the pie. So people are collecting benefits who absolutely don't need them. And that entitlement mindset is fueled by both politicians and private groups like AARP.

SS should be overhauled. Upping the eligibility age is a solution that gets mentioned, but it doesn't get at the real problem, which is means-testing. Warren Buffet could collect SS as long as he retired from active employment. That's ridiculous. SS is basically an elderly welfare program that has turned into a national pension system. But since almost everyone gets a piece of the pie come 65, the piece is small. That hurts those who need the benefit the most. For those who can retire comfortably, the SS check is basically fun money. But for those who truly need it, the benefit is pitifully small. You can't live on SS any more than you can live on minimum wage. And SS is structured so that holding a job penalizes your benefits, which causes the elderly poor to make tough choices which they shouldn't have to. But many senior organizations, like AARP, aren't geared towards helping the needy. They are speaking for their middle class dues payers, and those people want their check, whether they need the money or not.

I say turn SS into a true welfare program. Up the benefit pay out, but limit it to those who are truly in need. I would be on board with that, rather than the current system of wealth transfer from young to old that we currently have. A system that is not sustainable in its present form.

I'm all for means testing but I'm poor. When I hit the lotto, my views may change.

 

[ND NYC]

fyi

U.S. surges past Saudis to become world's top oil supplier -PIRA | Reuters

 

[Black Irish]

I'm all for means testing but I'm poor. When I hit the lotto, my views may change.

Ha ha. I'm not poor, but I'm for means testing. Too much of our welfare system has been stretched to the point where the truly needy aren't being properly taken care of because we are throwing money at people who don't really need it. And don't get me started on corporate welfare. That no risk, all reward stuff is giving us real capitalists a bad name.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The EU is a laughable excuse for an economy,

The largest economy in the world, too.

and had it not been for the pro-capitalist Germans and Merkel, the EU wouldn't collapsed entirely last year or two years ago. They held all the cards in that deal and dictated how the game was going to be played. The EU complied.

And yet Germany is one of the most socialist of the bunch at a local level, which is where I operate.

Talk about generalizations...people retire here at 50 because they CAN and have saved up enough money to do so comfortably. The difference is over there in the cushy EU, that's when you're eligible to retire and start living off the state for your last 20-30 years. Of course, this is all after the grueling 28 hour work weeks and MANDATED 6 weeks off for vacations.

United States: 35 hrs/wk
Greece: 41 hrs/wk
Portugal: 34 hrs/wk
Italy: 35 hrs/wk
Ireland: 31 hrs/wk

Germany, "pro-capitalist" saver of Europe: 27 hrs/wk

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2627/3797144896_e5abba1cd0_o.png

"Banking failures" and "debt" are problems but you're ignoring the fact that the entitlement state is the cause for the rapid decline.

Not at all true across the board.

Yeah, you're right. I pay no attention to anything. I just float through life preaching "peace, love, happiness" without a care in the world and a "tolerance" bumper stick on my Ford SUV...lol

Strawman argument.