[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1]My point remains that government spending and borrowing have not dried up credit for the private sector, far from it.[/quote]

No, but it has certainly dried up demand.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter]Then you would agree that we need to get ALL money out of politics, and make ALL kinds of bribery (including the promise of lucrative jobs, connections to the “right” people, etc.) a crime? Personally, I’d like to see it become a capital offense, but that’s just me.[/quote]

If you really mean all money, yes.

Probably need some money for cops and courts, but yeah – I’d be up for all money out of politics. Vote with your wallet. Let individuals choose where their tax money goes on their tax form. Voucher systems to support private services that sell direct to the tax-payers. No bailouts for weak companies of any size. Make the funding of government-based charity and entitlement programs voluntary. No back-stopping of loans. No borrow-and-spend. All that makes sense to me.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1]So?

The refrain that’s sung over and over by the right-wing is that … [/quote]

briansd1 – ever the king of the strawman argument.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=jstoesz]people who buy real estate for investment purposes do not receive a mortgage tax deduction.[/quote]

Sure they do. It is deductible as a business expense, like any other expense.

Home mortgage interest is given special consideration to be treated like a business expense when it is, in-fact, a personal expense.

Mortgage interest on investment property starts out as a business expense and is therefore deductible without any special rules.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=brightyan]All these 4K-4.5K talk are in fantasy land. A 2800 square feet single familiy house rents for $3500-3800/month in Carmel Valley.[/quote]

This sounds closest to reality, to me. I have been watching rentals open up and rent out in this range, though I haven’t actually rented or engaged a landlord in a negotiation.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]Not true. A public union’s #1 adversary would be the private corporations/entities who want to take over all public assets and services. [/quote]

Again – you ignore the fact that a union is a private entity. Corporation. Union. Same thing. Both highly profit-oriented and, most certainly, capitalists.[/quote]

You missed the entire point of the post, SDD, which was that the unions are one of many parties lined up at the trough. If you take one away, the void will be filled by another. The attacks on unions are not coming from “taxpayer advocates,” but from those other parties whose slice of the pie would become larger if one of their competitors were taken out.

Again, the privatization of public assets and services has been going on for decades…have your taxes gone down as a result?

In most small departments, there are no paid union/association employees. They are all volunteers, so not profit oriented, and they are certainly not capitalists. Are you talking about the heads of the large national unions? If so, how are they capitalists?[/quote]

Unions sell their services for cash. That’s pretty capitalistic. (Can’t say the same about volunteers, of course.)

They are also pyramid structures. The top brass makes alot of money and they protect the higher-level members first. Those last to join are thrown to the wolves when it benefits the rest of the union because they demand higher wages, which reduces the number of available jobs.

I agree with you that the term “privatization” – as it is used to describe a practice where the government hires private companies using taxpayer money – is not necessarily a way to reduce government spending, as usually touted by the right wing. I think the same incestuous relationship that exists between the unions and the politicians also exists between the private corporations and the politicians.

So, I’m not a big “privitization” guy, but a big “spend less money” guy, which would definitely not be something the unions would like. They have a vested interest in increased government spending. While the corporations are their biggest competitor for the money, the money has to be there to compete. So, their biggest enemy is lower taxes.

The practice of disallowing non-unionized workers from working for the government in certain fields is a heinous crime.

I completely agree that we need to funnel less money through the government, which would solve both problems, as well as all the special-interest lobbying.

[sdduuuude]

Just because both the direct employees and the outsourced employees both make too much money doesn’t mean they are both OK.

[sdduuuude]

Here’s some real hero-types !

Viva la union.

http://briancalle.ocregister.com/2012/08/10/hermosa-beach-meter-maids-making-nearly-100k/

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter]Not true. A public union’s #1 adversary would be the private corporations/entities who want to take over all public assets and services. [/quote]

Again – you ignore the fact that a union is a private entity. Corporation. Union. Same thing. Both highly profit-oriented and, most certainly, capitalists.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter].. where public money and private corporations intersect.[/quote]

Of course, you include unions in this, which are just private corporations in disguise.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]I believe that outrage should be proportional to turd size.[/quote]

Move that one to the “classic post” list.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]Second, there should be a more than a few bankers in jail right now, and they should each have “injured” retired firefighters as cellmates.[/quote]

Nice.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]Relax dude, I’m basically in agreement with the idea that this bond isn’t prudent, I just think the reaction here is overdone.[/quote]

Yeah. There’s a turd in the punchbowl and you are saying it’s just a small turd …

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]Has anyone actually done the math?

What’s the effective interest rate on these bonds?

A comment in the other thread cited 8% and that seems to be consistent with my back-of-the-envelope calculations (don’t have the precise numbers, but we can make a reasonable estimate.)

It’s a 40 year bond, folks. 8% may be above current market rate for a bond with these characteristics, but it’s really not that outrageous, and not outside historical norms at all. It is by no means a recipe for fiscal disaster.

Perhaps the outrage should be that Piggs don’t seem to understand how long-term compounded interest adds up….[/quote]

While 8% isn’t a terrible rate, it is double what you can get a mortgage for. Not that I would expect it to be the same, but still – me thinks they they could get a better rate with a more conventional type of bond. They are paying more for the loan than the should.

Also, I think the concern is – what is the plan for paying it back ?

Lets say I borrow money at 8% and I don’t make any payments for 20 years. Between now and then, I either need to invest the money to get a return better than 8% so that I come out ahead, or – if it isn’t an investment – I should be putting away some of my income from other sources so I am prepared to pay that thing back. Or, I should secure the loan with some capital that the lender can take if I am unable to pay.

Not sure any of that is going to happen.

More importantly, if you aren’t paying off today’s debts today and your debts are piling up interest and you continue to spend more than you take in, it becomes completely unsustainable. Come the day they need to start paying the loan back, it seems entirely possible that they will be in a position to have to borrow more in order to finance the next round of refurbishments, doesn’t it ? So, faced with a payment higher that is 3x their income now, I don’t think that loan app is going to look very strong. What they gonna do – take out another loan and pay that one off 20 years later before they even make a single payment on the current (i.e. 20-year-old) loan. It’s nuts.

To me, it is simply a plan to allow the city to spend more than it makes (i.e. I expect they will spend the borrowed money and all their income every year) without feeling any consequences of their spending until they are long gone.

[sdduuuude]

It’s nice, but length is more impressive than height 😉

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_suspension_bridge_spans

[Author]

Posts