[davelj]

I’ve been spending 2-3 days a month in New Orleans for almost five years. I eat copious amounts of seafood of every variety every time I’m there. I have detected no difference (post spill) in the taste of the food nor in how it impacts my body’s inner workings. Nor am I aware of anyone in New Orleans who feels otherwise. Nor do I see any effect on tourists – the restaurants are generally packed. And oddly folks aren’t stumbling out onto the streets clutching their stomachs… unless they’re about to hurl as a result of excessive alcohol intake, that is.

Just my first-hand anecdotal observations.

[davelj]

I’ve been spending 2-3 days a month in New Orleans for almost five years. I eat copious amounts of seafood of every variety every time I’m there. I have detected no difference (post spill) in the taste of the food nor in how it impacts my body’s inner workings. Nor am I aware of anyone in New Orleans who feels otherwise. Nor do I see any effect on tourists – the restaurants are generally packed. And oddly folks aren’t stumbling out onto the streets clutching their stomachs… unless they’re about to hurl as a result of excessive alcohol intake, that is.

Just my first-hand anecdotal observations.

[davelj]

I’ve been spending 2-3 days a month in New Orleans for almost five years. I eat copious amounts of seafood of every variety every time I’m there. I have detected no difference (post spill) in the taste of the food nor in how it impacts my body’s inner workings. Nor am I aware of anyone in New Orleans who feels otherwise. Nor do I see any effect on tourists – the restaurants are generally packed. And oddly folks aren’t stumbling out onto the streets clutching their stomachs… unless they’re about to hurl as a result of excessive alcohol intake, that is.

Just my first-hand anecdotal observations.

[davelj]

I’ve been spending 2-3 days a month in New Orleans for almost five years. I eat copious amounts of seafood of every variety every time I’m there. I have detected no difference (post spill) in the taste of the food nor in how it impacts my body’s inner workings. Nor am I aware of anyone in New Orleans who feels otherwise. Nor do I see any effect on tourists – the restaurants are generally packed. And oddly folks aren’t stumbling out onto the streets clutching their stomachs… unless they’re about to hurl as a result of excessive alcohol intake, that is.

Just my first-hand anecdotal observations.

[davelj]

[quote=SD Transplant]I’ve heard the child deduction is in the package as well….[/quote]

Phasing it out altogether, probably not gonna happen. But limiting the deduction to only those couples earning less than $150K (just to throw out a number), that could get traction.

[davelj]

[quote=SD Transplant]I’ve heard the child deduction is in the package as well….[/quote]

Phasing it out altogether, probably not gonna happen. But limiting the deduction to only those couples earning less than $150K (just to throw out a number), that could get traction.

[davelj]

[quote=SD Transplant]I’ve heard the child deduction is in the package as well….[/quote]

Phasing it out altogether, probably not gonna happen. But limiting the deduction to only those couples earning less than $150K (just to throw out a number), that could get traction.

[davelj]

[quote=SD Transplant]I’ve heard the child deduction is in the package as well….[/quote]

Phasing it out altogether, probably not gonna happen. But limiting the deduction to only those couples earning less than $150K (just to throw out a number), that could get traction.

[davelj]

[quote=SD Transplant]I’ve heard the child deduction is in the package as well….[/quote]

Phasing it out altogether, probably not gonna happen. But limiting the deduction to only those couples earning less than $150K (just to throw out a number), that could get traction.

[davelj]

Not gonna happen anytime soon, at least. But even if they try to start phasing it out in, say, five years or so (presumably after housing has stabilized) you still have the issue of how many folks benefit from it (homeowners with mortgages) versus how many folks don’t (renters and homeowners with no mortgage). I think it’s possible several years down the road, but it’s a tough sell when over half of all households benefit from it on net basis. I don’t see a lot of politicians jumping on this bandwagon, but… what is more likely is a lower cap on the deduction, such that only the folks with the largest mortgages are getting penalized. Democracy being what it is, that could pass.

[davelj]

Not gonna happen anytime soon, at least. But even if they try to start phasing it out in, say, five years or so (presumably after housing has stabilized) you still have the issue of how many folks benefit from it (homeowners with mortgages) versus how many folks don’t (renters and homeowners with no mortgage). I think it’s possible several years down the road, but it’s a tough sell when over half of all households benefit from it on net basis. I don’t see a lot of politicians jumping on this bandwagon, but… what is more likely is a lower cap on the deduction, such that only the folks with the largest mortgages are getting penalized. Democracy being what it is, that could pass.

[davelj]

Not gonna happen anytime soon, at least. But even if they try to start phasing it out in, say, five years or so (presumably after housing has stabilized) you still have the issue of how many folks benefit from it (homeowners with mortgages) versus how many folks don’t (renters and homeowners with no mortgage). I think it’s possible several years down the road, but it’s a tough sell when over half of all households benefit from it on net basis. I don’t see a lot of politicians jumping on this bandwagon, but… what is more likely is a lower cap on the deduction, such that only the folks with the largest mortgages are getting penalized. Democracy being what it is, that could pass.

[davelj]

Not gonna happen anytime soon, at least. But even if they try to start phasing it out in, say, five years or so (presumably after housing has stabilized) you still have the issue of how many folks benefit from it (homeowners with mortgages) versus how many folks don’t (renters and homeowners with no mortgage). I think it’s possible several years down the road, but it’s a tough sell when over half of all households benefit from it on net basis. I don’t see a lot of politicians jumping on this bandwagon, but… what is more likely is a lower cap on the deduction, such that only the folks with the largest mortgages are getting penalized. Democracy being what it is, that could pass.

[davelj]

Not gonna happen anytime soon, at least. But even if they try to start phasing it out in, say, five years or so (presumably after housing has stabilized) you still have the issue of how many folks benefit from it (homeowners with mortgages) versus how many folks don’t (renters and homeowners with no mortgage). I think it’s possible several years down the road, but it’s a tough sell when over half of all households benefit from it on net basis. I don’t see a lot of politicians jumping on this bandwagon, but… what is more likely is a lower cap on the deduction, such that only the folks with the largest mortgages are getting penalized. Democracy being what it is, that could pass.

[davelj]

[quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
So, to get back to your original post, MOST people get utility out of being financially responsible, even if it negatively affects their overall wealth. This does not mean that they are acting against their own economic interests. You’ve merely defined “economic interests” incorrectly.[/quote]

Of course you are correct about utility. The only problem is that it can’t easily be objectively measured.[/quote]

Very few things of real importance in a person’s life can be “objectively measured,” the single most important of them (in my view, anyway) being “contentment.”

[Author]

Posts