Election 2008 and the housing market

[nostradamus]

Is it too early to start discussing this? Slightly OT but housing related.

I opine that if democraps take the whitehouse, prices will plummet immediately ‘cuz of crazy policies (backfiring bailouts, superficial social reform) so buy in ’09.

If repugnantcans take the whitehouse, prices will drop slower ‘cuz they take care of their own (banks, businesses, old white people). Neither side really cares about you or me, but we can play them by knowing them well and being ready for what happens.

Any other theories?

[PadreBrian]

Nope, either way the markey will keep going down for the next 2 or 3 years. No stopping that. Democrats (Hillary) is just playing lip service. She proposed 1 billion dollars if she is elected. lol. That won’t buy jack.

No matter who wins markets will return to normal, no stopping that.

[PadreBrian]

Nope, either way the markey will keep going down for the next 2 or 3 years. No stopping that. Democrats (Hillary) is just playing lip service. She proposed 1 billion dollars if she is elected. lol. That won’t buy jack.

No matter who wins markets will return to normal, no stopping that.

[PadreBrian]

Nope, either way the markey will keep going down for the next 2 or 3 years. No stopping that. Democrats (Hillary) is just playing lip service. She proposed 1 billion dollars if she is elected. lol. That won’t buy jack.

No matter who wins markets will return to normal, no stopping that.

[PadreBrian]

Nope, either way the markey will keep going down for the next 2 or 3 years. No stopping that. Democrats (Hillary) is just playing lip service. She proposed 1 billion dollars if she is elected. lol. That won’t buy jack.

No matter who wins markets will return to normal, no stopping that.

[PadreBrian]

Nope, either way the markey will keep going down for the next 2 or 3 years. No stopping that. Democrats (Hillary) is just playing lip service. She proposed 1 billion dollars if she is elected. lol. That won’t buy jack.

No matter who wins markets will return to normal, no stopping that.

[Raybyrnes]

A lot of the baillout in housing is needed on the coasts. These are blue states.

History is funny. Regan was suppose to help the wealthy yet he eliminated the deduction on properties past primary and vacation.

The carter years on the other hand were marked with % rates at 18 and 19%.

How does politics come in here? I would anticiapate loose monetary policy right up until the election next year. That will provide leverage for Republicans to say to many americans, ” are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?” For a majority of Americans the answer is yes.

It will be the job of Democrats to show that the gains were marginal and that the war had we not entered into a war we would be basking in prosperity.

[Raybyrnes]

A lot of the baillout in housing is needed on the coasts. These are blue states.

History is funny. Regan was suppose to help the wealthy yet he eliminated the deduction on properties past primary and vacation.

The carter years on the other hand were marked with % rates at 18 and 19%.

How does politics come in here? I would anticiapate loose monetary policy right up until the election next year. That will provide leverage for Republicans to say to many americans, ” are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?” For a majority of Americans the answer is yes.

It will be the job of Democrats to show that the gains were marginal and that the war had we not entered into a war we would be basking in prosperity.

[Raybyrnes]

A lot of the baillout in housing is needed on the coasts. These are blue states.

History is funny. Regan was suppose to help the wealthy yet he eliminated the deduction on properties past primary and vacation.

The carter years on the other hand were marked with % rates at 18 and 19%.

How does politics come in here? I would anticiapate loose monetary policy right up until the election next year. That will provide leverage for Republicans to say to many americans, ” are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?” For a majority of Americans the answer is yes.

It will be the job of Democrats to show that the gains were marginal and that the war had we not entered into a war we would be basking in prosperity.

[Raybyrnes]

A lot of the baillout in housing is needed on the coasts. These are blue states.

History is funny. Regan was suppose to help the wealthy yet he eliminated the deduction on properties past primary and vacation.

The carter years on the other hand were marked with % rates at 18 and 19%.

How does politics come in here? I would anticiapate loose monetary policy right up until the election next year. That will provide leverage for Republicans to say to many americans, ” are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?” For a majority of Americans the answer is yes.

It will be the job of Democrats to show that the gains were marginal and that the war had we not entered into a war we would be basking in prosperity.

[Raybyrnes]

A lot of the baillout in housing is needed on the coasts. These are blue states.

History is funny. Regan was suppose to help the wealthy yet he eliminated the deduction on properties past primary and vacation.

The carter years on the other hand were marked with % rates at 18 and 19%.

How does politics come in here? I would anticiapate loose monetary policy right up until the election next year. That will provide leverage for Republicans to say to many americans, ” are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?” For a majority of Americans the answer is yes.

It will be the job of Democrats to show that the gains were marginal and that the war had we not entered into a war we would be basking in prosperity.

[SD Realtor]

My theory is that housing will continue to be highly politicized and alot of taxpayers money will be wasted on lame bailouts that really will do nothing but act as speedbumps to the downturn… Furthermore I believe that when Hillary becomes the leader the free world I will be paying a heck of alot more in taxes then I am paying now.

SD Realtor

[barnaby33]

Furthermore I believe that when Hillary becomes the leader the free world I will be paying a heck of alot more in taxes then I am paying now.

Thats cool, cuz otherwise your kids and grandkids will pay even more, if we elect a Repliwont.

Josh

[eyePod]

Repliwont?

[Anonymous]

Bullshit.

Those 18% and 19% mortgage rates were during 1981-1982 with Reagan (may his soul rot in hell forever) as president.

[Raybyrnes]

As far as I know Carter was president from 77-81. I would have to think that it was his economic policy that can be attributed to the high interest rates. I don’t think that I am stretching to say that there is an economic lag time of a year.

Historical Mortgage Rates
1979, 11.19
1980, 13.77
1981, 16.63
1982, 16.08
1983, 13.23
1984, 13.87
1985, 12.42
1986, 10.18
1987, 10.20
1988, 10.34
1989, 10.32
1990, 10.13

[JWM in SD]

If you truly understand what root of all the Housing Bubble issues is, then you will vote for Ron Paul.

[patientlywaiting]

Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with the economic malaise during his presidency. It was a result of economic and morale fatigue from the cost of the Vietnam war. He was unpopular because he told people the truth and made everyone depressed.

Reagan was an idiot who made people feel good. He started charging everything on the credit card.

High interest rates and economic malaise will happen again with another president because Iraq will get worse, not better. Whoever is president will be blamed.

PS: I’m a Republican and I like George H. W. Bush. He’s brilliant but was undone by a bad economy and his inability to “communicate.” I’ll be voting for Ron Paul for sure.

[patientlywaiting]

Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with the economic malaise during his presidency. It was a result of economic and morale fatigue from the cost of the Vietnam war. He was unpopular because he told people the truth and made everyone depressed.

Reagan was an idiot who made people feel good. He started charging everything on the credit card.

High interest rates and economic malaise will happen again with another president because Iraq will get worse, not better. Whoever is president will be blamed.

PS: I’m a Republican and I like George H. W. Bush. He’s brilliant but was undone by a bad economy and his inability to “communicate.” I’ll be voting for Ron Paul for sure.

[patientlywaiting]

Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with the economic malaise during his presidency. It was a result of economic and morale fatigue from the cost of the Vietnam war. He was unpopular because he told people the truth and made everyone depressed.

Reagan was an idiot who made people feel good. He started charging everything on the credit card.

High interest rates and economic malaise will happen again with another president because Iraq will get worse, not better. Whoever is president will be blamed.

PS: I’m a Republican and I like George H. W. Bush. He’s brilliant but was undone by a bad economy and his inability to “communicate.” I’ll be voting for Ron Paul for sure.

[patientlywaiting]

Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with the economic malaise during his presidency. It was a result of economic and morale fatigue from the cost of the Vietnam war. He was unpopular because he told people the truth and made everyone depressed.

Reagan was an idiot who made people feel good. He started charging everything on the credit card.

High interest rates and economic malaise will happen again with another president because Iraq will get worse, not better. Whoever is president will be blamed.

PS: I’m a Republican and I like George H. W. Bush. He’s brilliant but was undone by a bad economy and his inability to “communicate.” I’ll be voting for Ron Paul for sure.

[patientlywaiting]

Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with the economic malaise during his presidency. It was a result of economic and morale fatigue from the cost of the Vietnam war. He was unpopular because he told people the truth and made everyone depressed.

Reagan was an idiot who made people feel good. He started charging everything on the credit card.

High interest rates and economic malaise will happen again with another president because Iraq will get worse, not better. Whoever is president will be blamed.

PS: I’m a Republican and I like George H. W. Bush. He’s brilliant but was undone by a bad economy and his inability to “communicate.” I’ll be voting for Ron Paul for sure.

[JWM in SD]

If you truly understand what root of all the Housing Bubble issues is, then you will vote for Ron Paul.

[JWM in SD]

If you truly understand what root of all the Housing Bubble issues is, then you will vote for Ron Paul.

[JWM in SD]

If you truly understand what root of all the Housing Bubble issues is, then you will vote for Ron Paul.

[JWM in SD]

If you truly understand what root of all the Housing Bubble issues is, then you will vote for Ron Paul.

[Raybyrnes]

As far as I know Carter was president from 77-81. I would have to think that it was his economic policy that can be attributed to the high interest rates. I don’t think that I am stretching to say that there is an economic lag time of a year.

Historical Mortgage Rates
1979, 11.19
1980, 13.77
1981, 16.63
1982, 16.08
1983, 13.23
1984, 13.87
1985, 12.42
1986, 10.18
1987, 10.20
1988, 10.34
1989, 10.32
1990, 10.13

[Raybyrnes]

As far as I know Carter was president from 77-81. I would have to think that it was his economic policy that can be attributed to the high interest rates. I don’t think that I am stretching to say that there is an economic lag time of a year.

Historical Mortgage Rates
1979, 11.19
1980, 13.77
1981, 16.63
1982, 16.08
1983, 13.23
1984, 13.87
1985, 12.42
1986, 10.18
1987, 10.20
1988, 10.34
1989, 10.32
1990, 10.13

[Raybyrnes]

As far as I know Carter was president from 77-81. I would have to think that it was his economic policy that can be attributed to the high interest rates. I don’t think that I am stretching to say that there is an economic lag time of a year.

Historical Mortgage Rates
1979, 11.19
1980, 13.77
1981, 16.63
1982, 16.08
1983, 13.23
1984, 13.87
1985, 12.42
1986, 10.18
1987, 10.20
1988, 10.34
1989, 10.32
1990, 10.13

[Raybyrnes]

As far as I know Carter was president from 77-81. I would have to think that it was his economic policy that can be attributed to the high interest rates. I don’t think that I am stretching to say that there is an economic lag time of a year.

Historical Mortgage Rates
1979, 11.19
1980, 13.77
1981, 16.63
1982, 16.08
1983, 13.23
1984, 13.87
1985, 12.42
1986, 10.18
1987, 10.20
1988, 10.34
1989, 10.32
1990, 10.13

[Anonymous]

Bullshit.

Those 18% and 19% mortgage rates were during 1981-1982 with Reagan (may his soul rot in hell forever) as president.

[Anonymous]

Bullshit.

Those 18% and 19% mortgage rates were during 1981-1982 with Reagan (may his soul rot in hell forever) as president.

[Anonymous]

Bullshit.

Those 18% and 19% mortgage rates were during 1981-1982 with Reagan (may his soul rot in hell forever) as president.

[Anonymous]

Bullshit.

Those 18% and 19% mortgage rates were during 1981-1982 with Reagan (may his soul rot in hell forever) as president.

[eyePod]

Repliwont?

[eyePod]

Repliwont?

[eyePod]

Repliwont?

[eyePod]

Repliwont?

[SD Realtor]

Josh…I am sorry but I just cannot take the pantsuit.

I have no problem paying much higher taxes as long as they are used to pay down the problem, not spend more. I am not sure I feel I should pay for a healthcare system for the entire nation, nor should I bailout buyers who will lose their homes…

I despise the pubs as much as the dems… I don’t really care who wins to be honest. Personally I am a registered lib.

However as an engineer I always try to identify the worst case scenario and IMO she is it. When I listen very carefully to her platform and her ideas of how much government she wants to inject into our society it is staggering. If she said, hey I am not adding any new programs, I am only going to raise everyones taxes so we can balance our books I would vote for her in a HEARTBEAT!

She is clearly a worst case scenario for me, just like Bush is/was.

SD Realtor

[Eugene]

Neither party will have much direct effect on the bubble. Democrats are planning to let Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 (if not repeal them as soon as they take office). That will disproportionately hurt high-earners and drive home prices down. Democrats are also more likely to spend federal money to minimize foreclosure blight (which will probably be a huge problem in 2009 and beyond in hard-hit areas like Florida and Californian exurbs), that will be good for inventories and depress prices in the long run.

[Sandi Egan]

Ron Paul sounds like he can make a difference, both economically and politically. He wants to bring back the troops and at some point return dollar to the gold standard. Check out this very short page:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/

And the guy IS gaining momentum…

[Sandi Egan]

Ron Paul sounds like he can make a difference, both economically and politically. He wants to bring back the troops and at some point return dollar to the gold standard. Check out this very short page:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/

And the guy IS gaining momentum…

[Sandi Egan]

Ron Paul sounds like he can make a difference, both economically and politically. He wants to bring back the troops and at some point return dollar to the gold standard. Check out this very short page:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/

And the guy IS gaining momentum…

[Sandi Egan]

Ron Paul sounds like he can make a difference, both economically and politically. He wants to bring back the troops and at some point return dollar to the gold standard. Check out this very short page:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/

And the guy IS gaining momentum…

[Sandi Egan]

Ron Paul sounds like he can make a difference, both economically and politically. He wants to bring back the troops and at some point return dollar to the gold standard. Check out this very short page:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/

And the guy IS gaining momentum…

[Eugene]

I am not sure I feel I should pay for a healthcare system for the entire nation,

Here’s the choice … You could pay extra to extend healthcare coverage to all 300 million Americans rather than 250 million … Or you could pay extra so that insurance companies can spend money on screening prospective clients, denying coverage to anyone who’s likely to get sick, and then refusing to pay for procedures on a case-by-case basis in order to save money. (And also hope that you don’t develop some sort of condition that makes you virtually uninsurable until you’re 65)

The reality is that people who need expensive treatment ultimately get it anyway. If Mr. Rodriguez does not have health insurance and his appendix ruptures, he goes to the ER, they do the surgery and send him a bill for $50,000. Since he does not have the money, he declares bankruptcy and the hospital has no choice but to get the money out of its other patients (you, for example).

[SD Realtor]

Esmith I choose to reduce the size of our government, not expand it. If you really believe that our government does a good job at running things then so be it. The health care system is but one example. Does it work now? Not well. I 100% agree that the system sucks because rather then being preventative it is reactive and tons of money get spent due to the points you brought up. Your argument about how bad the system is cannot be refuted.

I pointed out that example as that is one of her more visible programs.

I am simply not in the camp that more government is better. I believe it is worst, I believe it is wasteful, and I believe that while perhaps well intentioned, it does not execute and in the long run wastes more money then it saves.

SD Realtor

[patientlywaiting]

I have to mostly agree with SD Realtor.

As far as taxes go, it’s either pay more or spend less, now. That includes getting out of Iraq.

Health care sucks for the majority of people because it’s a government sponsored racket full of barriers to entry that protect the guilty.

First, like any other businesses, doctors should quote charges before rendering the services, not after. We need to allow real competition and allow nurse practitioners to open independent businesses. Why do we need a doctor to prescribe cold remedies? Why do we need dentists to clean teeth?

People get sick because they eat junk and are fat. How about taxing junk food to pay for health care. If we tax cigarettes to make them cost prohibitive, why are potato chips only $1 a bag?

It’s harsh, but people who get sick more should pay more.

That said, I do support a national catastrophic health care system where, for example, anything more than $10,000/year in health care cost would be covered by government insurance. But, first, we need incentives for people to ration their own use of health care services. People with insurance are now profligate because they only pay a tiny part of their own health care.

[patientlywaiting]

I have to mostly agree with SD Realtor.

As far as taxes go, it’s either pay more or spend less, now. That includes getting out of Iraq.

Health care sucks for the majority of people because it’s a government sponsored racket full of barriers to entry that protect the guilty.

First, like any other businesses, doctors should quote charges before rendering the services, not after. We need to allow real competition and allow nurse practitioners to open independent businesses. Why do we need a doctor to prescribe cold remedies? Why do we need dentists to clean teeth?

People get sick because they eat junk and are fat. How about taxing junk food to pay for health care. If we tax cigarettes to make them cost prohibitive, why are potato chips only $1 a bag?

It’s harsh, but people who get sick more should pay more.

That said, I do support a national catastrophic health care system where, for example, anything more than $10,000/year in health care cost would be covered by government insurance. But, first, we need incentives for people to ration their own use of health care services. People with insurance are now profligate because they only pay a tiny part of their own health care.

[patientlywaiting]

I have to mostly agree with SD Realtor.

As far as taxes go, it’s either pay more or spend less, now. That includes getting out of Iraq.

Health care sucks for the majority of people because it’s a government sponsored racket full of barriers to entry that protect the guilty.

First, like any other businesses, doctors should quote charges before rendering the services, not after. We need to allow real competition and allow nurse practitioners to open independent businesses. Why do we need a doctor to prescribe cold remedies? Why do we need dentists to clean teeth?

People get sick because they eat junk and are fat. How about taxing junk food to pay for health care. If we tax cigarettes to make them cost prohibitive, why are potato chips only $1 a bag?

It’s harsh, but people who get sick more should pay more.

That said, I do support a national catastrophic health care system where, for example, anything more than $10,000/year in health care cost would be covered by government insurance. But, first, we need incentives for people to ration their own use of health care services. People with insurance are now profligate because they only pay a tiny part of their own health care.

[patientlywaiting]

I have to mostly agree with SD Realtor.

As far as taxes go, it’s either pay more or spend less, now. That includes getting out of Iraq.

Health care sucks for the majority of people because it’s a government sponsored racket full of barriers to entry that protect the guilty.

First, like any other businesses, doctors should quote charges before rendering the services, not after. We need to allow real competition and allow nurse practitioners to open independent businesses. Why do we need a doctor to prescribe cold remedies? Why do we need dentists to clean teeth?

People get sick because they eat junk and are fat. How about taxing junk food to pay for health care. If we tax cigarettes to make them cost prohibitive, why are potato chips only $1 a bag?

It’s harsh, but people who get sick more should pay more.

That said, I do support a national catastrophic health care system where, for example, anything more than $10,000/year in health care cost would be covered by government insurance. But, first, we need incentives for people to ration their own use of health care services. People with insurance are now profligate because they only pay a tiny part of their own health care.

[patientlywaiting]

I have to mostly agree with SD Realtor.

As far as taxes go, it’s either pay more or spend less, now. That includes getting out of Iraq.

Health care sucks for the majority of people because it’s a government sponsored racket full of barriers to entry that protect the guilty.

First, like any other businesses, doctors should quote charges before rendering the services, not after. We need to allow real competition and allow nurse practitioners to open independent businesses. Why do we need a doctor to prescribe cold remedies? Why do we need dentists to clean teeth?

People get sick because they eat junk and are fat. How about taxing junk food to pay for health care. If we tax cigarettes to make them cost prohibitive, why are potato chips only $1 a bag?

It’s harsh, but people who get sick more should pay more.

That said, I do support a national catastrophic health care system where, for example, anything more than $10,000/year in health care cost would be covered by government insurance. But, first, we need incentives for people to ration their own use of health care services. People with insurance are now profligate because they only pay a tiny part of their own health care.

[34f3f3f]

This is surely the cycle of politics, anywhere in the democratic world. A period in which the state is rolled back, until corporate and financial scandals and crises hurt the people, followed by corrective surgery by state intervention, until people resent the intrusiveness. Does one vote for one’s country or self-interest? Are voters well enough informed and educated on the issues to vote? I wasn’t convinced that anyone in the recent democratic debate was the right person to become president, but as a whole they all had something to offer. One day, issues will be quantifiable and vast computers will calculate the enormous variables to ‘what if?’ scenarios. Our great, great, great grandchildren will then look back with a smile at our quaint and antiquated muddling through. Of course that will all be wrong as well.

I think what may shape American politics over the next decade, are issues like regaining lost credibility on the world stage, coming to terms with the new major economic players, and following a root that seeks to appease the dichotomous population. Whereas, Sarkozy is encouraging the French to ‘think less, and do more’, maybe this should be a reflective period for Americans in which the reverse is true.

[drunkle]

the airlines and the power companies have pretty much gone to sod *after* privatization and deregulation. what does that say about private industry?

the housing market is imploding now because of lax regulation of lending.

and private health care itself is being shown to be criminal in some cases, lax in others and overall in poor condition… for everyone except the shareholders.

i dont think national health care will be possible, however, without changes in all other areas of american life. the opinion that people will be healthier if they led healthier lifestyles being case in point. why put a warning label on cigarettes when you can outright ban them and force people to be healthier? same with potato chips and fried burgers and on down the line.

too many industries become targets with a national healthcare system that focuses on prevention and actually improving health. not gonna happen.

[Eugene]

Big government isn’t necessarily a bad thing. United States have one of the smallest governments of all developed countries (in terms of budget vs. GDP). Countries like Germany, Sweden, etc. have higher taxes and bigger governments and you can’t really say that life is so bad there.

Our healhcare system is inefficient. Two things must be done to fix it. First, prohibit health insurance companies from profiling (make sure they charge everyone fixed premiums and they don’t deny coverage to anyone because of age or preexisting conditions). Second, give tax credits to lower-income families so that no one is priced out. That’s essentially what Hillary Clinton proposes to do.

[Eugene]

Big government isn’t necessarily a bad thing. United States have one of the smallest governments of all developed countries (in terms of budget vs. GDP). Countries like Germany, Sweden, etc. have higher taxes and bigger governments and you can’t really say that life is so bad there.

Our healhcare system is inefficient. Two things must be done to fix it. First, prohibit health insurance companies from profiling (make sure they charge everyone fixed premiums and they don’t deny coverage to anyone because of age or preexisting conditions). Second, give tax credits to lower-income families so that no one is priced out. That’s essentially what Hillary Clinton proposes to do.

[Eugene]

Big government isn’t necessarily a bad thing. United States have one of the smallest governments of all developed countries (in terms of budget vs. GDP). Countries like Germany, Sweden, etc. have higher taxes and bigger governments and you can’t really say that life is so bad there.

Our healhcare system is inefficient. Two things must be done to fix it. First, prohibit health insurance companies from profiling (make sure they charge everyone fixed premiums and they don’t deny coverage to anyone because of age or preexisting conditions). Second, give tax credits to lower-income families so that no one is priced out. That’s essentially what Hillary Clinton proposes to do.

[Eugene]

Big government isn’t necessarily a bad thing. United States have one of the smallest governments of all developed countries (in terms of budget vs. GDP). Countries like Germany, Sweden, etc. have higher taxes and bigger governments and you can’t really say that life is so bad there.

Our healhcare system is inefficient. Two things must be done to fix it. First, prohibit health insurance companies from profiling (make sure they charge everyone fixed premiums and they don’t deny coverage to anyone because of age or preexisting conditions). Second, give tax credits to lower-income families so that no one is priced out. That’s essentially what Hillary Clinton proposes to do.

[Eugene]

Big government isn’t necessarily a bad thing. United States have one of the smallest governments of all developed countries (in terms of budget vs. GDP). Countries like Germany, Sweden, etc. have higher taxes and bigger governments and you can’t really say that life is so bad there.

Our healhcare system is inefficient. Two things must be done to fix it. First, prohibit health insurance companies from profiling (make sure they charge everyone fixed premiums and they don’t deny coverage to anyone because of age or preexisting conditions). Second, give tax credits to lower-income families so that no one is priced out. That’s essentially what Hillary Clinton proposes to do.

[mmbuyer]

airline industry has done well after privatization. financially airline stocks are a losing proposition. more people are flying.

power utility is a monopoly. it has to be regulated.

health care industry needs to be deregulated.

[mmbuyer]

airline industry has done well after privatization. financially airline stocks are a losing proposition. more people are flying.

power utility is a monopoly. it has to be regulated.

health care industry needs to be deregulated.

[mmbuyer]

airline industry has done well after privatization. financially airline stocks are a losing proposition. more people are flying.

power utility is a monopoly. it has to be regulated.

health care industry needs to be deregulated.

[mmbuyer]

airline industry has done well after privatization. financially airline stocks are a losing proposition. more people are flying.

power utility is a monopoly. it has to be regulated.

health care industry needs to be deregulated.

[mmbuyer]

airline industry has done well after privatization. financially airline stocks are a losing proposition. more people are flying.

power utility is a monopoly. it has to be regulated.

health care industry needs to be deregulated.

[drunkle]

the airlines and the power companies have pretty much gone to sod *after* privatization and deregulation. what does that say about private industry?

the housing market is imploding now because of lax regulation of lending.

and private health care itself is being shown to be criminal in some cases, lax in others and overall in poor condition… for everyone except the shareholders.

i dont think national health care will be possible, however, without changes in all other areas of american life. the opinion that people will be healthier if they led healthier lifestyles being case in point. why put a warning label on cigarettes when you can outright ban them and force people to be healthier? same with potato chips and fried burgers and on down the line.

too many industries become targets with a national healthcare system that focuses on prevention and actually improving health. not gonna happen.

[drunkle]

the airlines and the power companies have pretty much gone to sod *after* privatization and deregulation. what does that say about private industry?

the housing market is imploding now because of lax regulation of lending.

and private health care itself is being shown to be criminal in some cases, lax in others and overall in poor condition… for everyone except the shareholders.

i dont think national health care will be possible, however, without changes in all other areas of american life. the opinion that people will be healthier if they led healthier lifestyles being case in point. why put a warning label on cigarettes when you can outright ban them and force people to be healthier? same with potato chips and fried burgers and on down the line.

too many industries become targets with a national healthcare system that focuses on prevention and actually improving health. not gonna happen.

[drunkle]

the airlines and the power companies have pretty much gone to sod *after* privatization and deregulation. what does that say about private industry?

the housing market is imploding now because of lax regulation of lending.

and private health care itself is being shown to be criminal in some cases, lax in others and overall in poor condition… for everyone except the shareholders.

i dont think national health care will be possible, however, without changes in all other areas of american life. the opinion that people will be healthier if they led healthier lifestyles being case in point. why put a warning label on cigarettes when you can outright ban them and force people to be healthier? same with potato chips and fried burgers and on down the line.

too many industries become targets with a national healthcare system that focuses on prevention and actually improving health. not gonna happen.

[drunkle]

the airlines and the power companies have pretty much gone to sod *after* privatization and deregulation. what does that say about private industry?

the housing market is imploding now because of lax regulation of lending.

and private health care itself is being shown to be criminal in some cases, lax in others and overall in poor condition… for everyone except the shareholders.

i dont think national health care will be possible, however, without changes in all other areas of american life. the opinion that people will be healthier if they led healthier lifestyles being case in point. why put a warning label on cigarettes when you can outright ban them and force people to be healthier? same with potato chips and fried burgers and on down the line.

too many industries become targets with a national healthcare system that focuses on prevention and actually improving health. not gonna happen.

[34f3f3f]

This is surely the cycle of politics, anywhere in the democratic world. A period in which the state is rolled back, until corporate and financial scandals and crises hurt the people, followed by corrective surgery by state intervention, until people resent the intrusiveness. Does one vote for one’s country or self-interest? Are voters well enough informed and educated on the issues to vote? I wasn’t convinced that anyone in the recent democratic debate was the right person to become president, but as a whole they all had something to offer. One day, issues will be quantifiable and vast computers will calculate the enormous variables to ‘what if?’ scenarios. Our great, great, great grandchildren will then look back with a smile at our quaint and antiquated muddling through. Of course that will all be wrong as well.

I think what may shape American politics over the next decade, are issues like regaining lost credibility on the world stage, coming to terms with the new major economic players, and following a root that seeks to appease the dichotomous population. Whereas, Sarkozy is encouraging the French to ‘think less, and do more’, maybe this should be a reflective period for Americans in which the reverse is true.

[34f3f3f]

This is surely the cycle of politics, anywhere in the democratic world. A period in which the state is rolled back, until corporate and financial scandals and crises hurt the people, followed by corrective surgery by state intervention, until people resent the intrusiveness. Does one vote for one’s country or self-interest? Are voters well enough informed and educated on the issues to vote? I wasn’t convinced that anyone in the recent democratic debate was the right person to become president, but as a whole they all had something to offer. One day, issues will be quantifiable and vast computers will calculate the enormous variables to ‘what if?’ scenarios. Our great, great, great grandchildren will then look back with a smile at our quaint and antiquated muddling through. Of course that will all be wrong as well.

I think what may shape American politics over the next decade, are issues like regaining lost credibility on the world stage, coming to terms with the new major economic players, and following a root that seeks to appease the dichotomous population. Whereas, Sarkozy is encouraging the French to ‘think less, and do more’, maybe this should be a reflective period for Americans in which the reverse is true.

[34f3f3f]

This is surely the cycle of politics, anywhere in the democratic world. A period in which the state is rolled back, until corporate and financial scandals and crises hurt the people, followed by corrective surgery by state intervention, until people resent the intrusiveness. Does one vote for one’s country or self-interest? Are voters well enough informed and educated on the issues to vote? I wasn’t convinced that anyone in the recent democratic debate was the right person to become president, but as a whole they all had something to offer. One day, issues will be quantifiable and vast computers will calculate the enormous variables to ‘what if?’ scenarios. Our great, great, great grandchildren will then look back with a smile at our quaint and antiquated muddling through. Of course that will all be wrong as well.

I think what may shape American politics over the next decade, are issues like regaining lost credibility on the world stage, coming to terms with the new major economic players, and following a root that seeks to appease the dichotomous population. Whereas, Sarkozy is encouraging the French to ‘think less, and do more’, maybe this should be a reflective period for Americans in which the reverse is true.

[34f3f3f]

This is surely the cycle of politics, anywhere in the democratic world. A period in which the state is rolled back, until corporate and financial scandals and crises hurt the people, followed by corrective surgery by state intervention, until people resent the intrusiveness. Does one vote for one’s country or self-interest? Are voters well enough informed and educated on the issues to vote? I wasn’t convinced that anyone in the recent democratic debate was the right person to become president, but as a whole they all had something to offer. One day, issues will be quantifiable and vast computers will calculate the enormous variables to ‘what if?’ scenarios. Our great, great, great grandchildren will then look back with a smile at our quaint and antiquated muddling through. Of course that will all be wrong as well.

I think what may shape American politics over the next decade, are issues like regaining lost credibility on the world stage, coming to terms with the new major economic players, and following a root that seeks to appease the dichotomous population. Whereas, Sarkozy is encouraging the French to ‘think less, and do more’, maybe this should be a reflective period for Americans in which the reverse is true.

[SD Realtor]

Esmith I choose to reduce the size of our government, not expand it. If you really believe that our government does a good job at running things then so be it. The health care system is but one example. Does it work now? Not well. I 100% agree that the system sucks because rather then being preventative it is reactive and tons of money get spent due to the points you brought up. Your argument about how bad the system is cannot be refuted.

I pointed out that example as that is one of her more visible programs.

I am simply not in the camp that more government is better. I believe it is worst, I believe it is wasteful, and I believe that while perhaps well intentioned, it does not execute and in the long run wastes more money then it saves.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Esmith I choose to reduce the size of our government, not expand it. If you really believe that our government does a good job at running things then so be it. The health care system is but one example. Does it work now? Not well. I 100% agree that the system sucks because rather then being preventative it is reactive and tons of money get spent due to the points you brought up. Your argument about how bad the system is cannot be refuted.

I pointed out that example as that is one of her more visible programs.

I am simply not in the camp that more government is better. I believe it is worst, I believe it is wasteful, and I believe that while perhaps well intentioned, it does not execute and in the long run wastes more money then it saves.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Esmith I choose to reduce the size of our government, not expand it. If you really believe that our government does a good job at running things then so be it. The health care system is but one example. Does it work now? Not well. I 100% agree that the system sucks because rather then being preventative it is reactive and tons of money get spent due to the points you brought up. Your argument about how bad the system is cannot be refuted.

I pointed out that example as that is one of her more visible programs.

I am simply not in the camp that more government is better. I believe it is worst, I believe it is wasteful, and I believe that while perhaps well intentioned, it does not execute and in the long run wastes more money then it saves.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Esmith I choose to reduce the size of our government, not expand it. If you really believe that our government does a good job at running things then so be it. The health care system is but one example. Does it work now? Not well. I 100% agree that the system sucks because rather then being preventative it is reactive and tons of money get spent due to the points you brought up. Your argument about how bad the system is cannot be refuted.

I pointed out that example as that is one of her more visible programs.

I am simply not in the camp that more government is better. I believe it is worst, I believe it is wasteful, and I believe that while perhaps well intentioned, it does not execute and in the long run wastes more money then it saves.

SD Realtor

[Eugene]

I am not sure I feel I should pay for a healthcare system for the entire nation,

Here’s the choice … You could pay extra to extend healthcare coverage to all 300 million Americans rather than 250 million … Or you could pay extra so that insurance companies can spend money on screening prospective clients, denying coverage to anyone who’s likely to get sick, and then refusing to pay for procedures on a case-by-case basis in order to save money. (And also hope that you don’t develop some sort of condition that makes you virtually uninsurable until you’re 65)

The reality is that people who need expensive treatment ultimately get it anyway. If Mr. Rodriguez does not have health insurance and his appendix ruptures, he goes to the ER, they do the surgery and send him a bill for $50,000. Since he does not have the money, he declares bankruptcy and the hospital has no choice but to get the money out of its other patients (you, for example).

[Eugene]

I am not sure I feel I should pay for a healthcare system for the entire nation,

Here’s the choice … You could pay extra to extend healthcare coverage to all 300 million Americans rather than 250 million … Or you could pay extra so that insurance companies can spend money on screening prospective clients, denying coverage to anyone who’s likely to get sick, and then refusing to pay for procedures on a case-by-case basis in order to save money. (And also hope that you don’t develop some sort of condition that makes you virtually uninsurable until you’re 65)

The reality is that people who need expensive treatment ultimately get it anyway. If Mr. Rodriguez does not have health insurance and his appendix ruptures, he goes to the ER, they do the surgery and send him a bill for $50,000. Since he does not have the money, he declares bankruptcy and the hospital has no choice but to get the money out of its other patients (you, for example).

[Eugene]

I am not sure I feel I should pay for a healthcare system for the entire nation,

Here’s the choice … You could pay extra to extend healthcare coverage to all 300 million Americans rather than 250 million … Or you could pay extra so that insurance companies can spend money on screening prospective clients, denying coverage to anyone who’s likely to get sick, and then refusing to pay for procedures on a case-by-case basis in order to save money. (And also hope that you don’t develop some sort of condition that makes you virtually uninsurable until you’re 65)

The reality is that people who need expensive treatment ultimately get it anyway. If Mr. Rodriguez does not have health insurance and his appendix ruptures, he goes to the ER, they do the surgery and send him a bill for $50,000. Since he does not have the money, he declares bankruptcy and the hospital has no choice but to get the money out of its other patients (you, for example).

[Eugene]

I am not sure I feel I should pay for a healthcare system for the entire nation,

Here’s the choice … You could pay extra to extend healthcare coverage to all 300 million Americans rather than 250 million … Or you could pay extra so that insurance companies can spend money on screening prospective clients, denying coverage to anyone who’s likely to get sick, and then refusing to pay for procedures on a case-by-case basis in order to save money. (And also hope that you don’t develop some sort of condition that makes you virtually uninsurable until you’re 65)

The reality is that people who need expensive treatment ultimately get it anyway. If Mr. Rodriguez does not have health insurance and his appendix ruptures, he goes to the ER, they do the surgery and send him a bill for $50,000. Since he does not have the money, he declares bankruptcy and the hospital has no choice but to get the money out of its other patients (you, for example).

[Eugene]

Neither party will have much direct effect on the bubble. Democrats are planning to let Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 (if not repeal them as soon as they take office). That will disproportionately hurt high-earners and drive home prices down. Democrats are also more likely to spend federal money to minimize foreclosure blight (which will probably be a huge problem in 2009 and beyond in hard-hit areas like Florida and Californian exurbs), that will be good for inventories and depress prices in the long run.

[Eugene]

Neither party will have much direct effect on the bubble. Democrats are planning to let Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 (if not repeal them as soon as they take office). That will disproportionately hurt high-earners and drive home prices down. Democrats are also more likely to spend federal money to minimize foreclosure blight (which will probably be a huge problem in 2009 and beyond in hard-hit areas like Florida and Californian exurbs), that will be good for inventories and depress prices in the long run.

[Eugene]

Neither party will have much direct effect on the bubble. Democrats are planning to let Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 (if not repeal them as soon as they take office). That will disproportionately hurt high-earners and drive home prices down. Democrats are also more likely to spend federal money to minimize foreclosure blight (which will probably be a huge problem in 2009 and beyond in hard-hit areas like Florida and Californian exurbs), that will be good for inventories and depress prices in the long run.

[Eugene]

Neither party will have much direct effect on the bubble. Democrats are planning to let Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 (if not repeal them as soon as they take office). That will disproportionately hurt high-earners and drive home prices down. Democrats are also more likely to spend federal money to minimize foreclosure blight (which will probably be a huge problem in 2009 and beyond in hard-hit areas like Florida and Californian exurbs), that will be good for inventories and depress prices in the long run.

[SD Realtor]

Josh…I am sorry but I just cannot take the pantsuit.

I have no problem paying much higher taxes as long as they are used to pay down the problem, not spend more. I am not sure I feel I should pay for a healthcare system for the entire nation, nor should I bailout buyers who will lose their homes…

I despise the pubs as much as the dems… I don’t really care who wins to be honest. Personally I am a registered lib.

However as an engineer I always try to identify the worst case scenario and IMO she is it. When I listen very carefully to her platform and her ideas of how much government she wants to inject into our society it is staggering. If she said, hey I am not adding any new programs, I am only going to raise everyones taxes so we can balance our books I would vote for her in a HEARTBEAT!

She is clearly a worst case scenario for me, just like Bush is/was.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Josh…I am sorry but I just cannot take the pantsuit.

I have no problem paying much higher taxes as long as they are used to pay down the problem, not spend more. I am not sure I feel I should pay for a healthcare system for the entire nation, nor should I bailout buyers who will lose their homes…

I despise the pubs as much as the dems… I don’t really care who wins to be honest. Personally I am a registered lib.

However as an engineer I always try to identify the worst case scenario and IMO she is it. When I listen very carefully to her platform and her ideas of how much government she wants to inject into our society it is staggering. If she said, hey I am not adding any new programs, I am only going to raise everyones taxes so we can balance our books I would vote for her in a HEARTBEAT!

She is clearly a worst case scenario for me, just like Bush is/was.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Josh…I am sorry but I just cannot take the pantsuit.

I have no problem paying much higher taxes as long as they are used to pay down the problem, not spend more. I am not sure I feel I should pay for a healthcare system for the entire nation, nor should I bailout buyers who will lose their homes…

I despise the pubs as much as the dems… I don’t really care who wins to be honest. Personally I am a registered lib.

However as an engineer I always try to identify the worst case scenario and IMO she is it. When I listen very carefully to her platform and her ideas of how much government she wants to inject into our society it is staggering. If she said, hey I am not adding any new programs, I am only going to raise everyones taxes so we can balance our books I would vote for her in a HEARTBEAT!

She is clearly a worst case scenario for me, just like Bush is/was.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Josh…I am sorry but I just cannot take the pantsuit.

I have no problem paying much higher taxes as long as they are used to pay down the problem, not spend more. I am not sure I feel I should pay for a healthcare system for the entire nation, nor should I bailout buyers who will lose their homes…

I despise the pubs as much as the dems… I don’t really care who wins to be honest. Personally I am a registered lib.

However as an engineer I always try to identify the worst case scenario and IMO she is it. When I listen very carefully to her platform and her ideas of how much government she wants to inject into our society it is staggering. If she said, hey I am not adding any new programs, I am only going to raise everyones taxes so we can balance our books I would vote for her in a HEARTBEAT!

She is clearly a worst case scenario for me, just like Bush is/was.

SD Realtor

[barnaby33]

Furthermore I believe that when Hillary becomes the leader the free world I will be paying a heck of alot more in taxes then I am paying now.

Thats cool, cuz otherwise your kids and grandkids will pay even more, if we elect a Repliwont.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Furthermore I believe that when Hillary becomes the leader the free world I will be paying a heck of alot more in taxes then I am paying now.

Thats cool, cuz otherwise your kids and grandkids will pay even more, if we elect a Repliwont.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Furthermore I believe that when Hillary becomes the leader the free world I will be paying a heck of alot more in taxes then I am paying now.

Thats cool, cuz otherwise your kids and grandkids will pay even more, if we elect a Repliwont.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Furthermore I believe that when Hillary becomes the leader the free world I will be paying a heck of alot more in taxes then I am paying now.

Thats cool, cuz otherwise your kids and grandkids will pay even more, if we elect a Repliwont.

Josh

[SD Realtor]

My theory is that housing will continue to be highly politicized and alot of taxpayers money will be wasted on lame bailouts that really will do nothing but act as speedbumps to the downturn… Furthermore I believe that when Hillary becomes the leader the free world I will be paying a heck of alot more in taxes then I am paying now.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

My theory is that housing will continue to be highly politicized and alot of taxpayers money will be wasted on lame bailouts that really will do nothing but act as speedbumps to the downturn… Furthermore I believe that when Hillary becomes the leader the free world I will be paying a heck of alot more in taxes then I am paying now.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

My theory is that housing will continue to be highly politicized and alot of taxpayers money will be wasted on lame bailouts that really will do nothing but act as speedbumps to the downturn… Furthermore I believe that when Hillary becomes the leader the free world I will be paying a heck of alot more in taxes then I am paying now.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

My theory is that housing will continue to be highly politicized and alot of taxpayers money will be wasted on lame bailouts that really will do nothing but act as speedbumps to the downturn… Furthermore I believe that when Hillary becomes the leader the free world I will be paying a heck of alot more in taxes then I am paying now.

SD Realtor

[Author]

Posts