[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl] She doesn’t seem to take into account that middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today (and even compared to some families currently on public assistance with a Section 8 grant)!

(snip)
There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care. There were no health or dental plans in place for children. At that time, Title IX was new which allowed girls to participate in some boy’s sports. Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. There was nothing preventing one parent from withholding child visitation from the other parent, which deprived countless children of the other parent. In CA, many dads never even realized they HAD children and (unknowingly) lost them thru adoption, because the law didn’t require the mom to name them as the father and notify them! When they found out about the adoption (thru friends/relatives and tried to take custody of them during or directly after the process, they were denied and told by the court that they “failed to offer to pay for prenatal care, failed to bond with the child, failed to support it and bring it into their homes,” etc. How could they do any of these things when they never knew the mom was pregnant or she refused to talk to them during her pregnancy? In a nutshell, the above was nearly the exact language of a whole host of statutes in CA that have since been repealed. Yes, the lives of children have been greatly improved since the early/mid seventies.

As I stated on the “shadow inventory” thread, Tyagi’s book reviews overwhelmingly showed little sympathy for parents who were attempting to live a life which was more than they could afford.

I thought Warren was intelligent but her speech often “victimized” the “poor, overworked, overspending parent” who is currently “trapped” in suburbia-ville and unable to survive on two incomes. I was left wanting to hear about her take on “personal responsibility” but that never materialized.[/quote]

I could spend a whole lotta time with a point by point rebuttal here but I will just leave it at hogwash. I was there.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl] She doesn’t seem to take into account that middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today (and even compared to some families currently on public assistance with a Section 8 grant)!

(snip)
There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care. There were no health or dental plans in place for children. At that time, Title IX was new which allowed girls to participate in some boy’s sports. Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. There was nothing preventing one parent from withholding child visitation from the other parent, which deprived countless children of the other parent. In CA, many dads never even realized they HAD children and (unknowingly) lost them thru adoption, because the law didn’t require the mom to name them as the father and notify them! When they found out about the adoption (thru friends/relatives and tried to take custody of them during or directly after the process, they were denied and told by the court that they “failed to offer to pay for prenatal care, failed to bond with the child, failed to support it and bring it into their homes,” etc. How could they do any of these things when they never knew the mom was pregnant or she refused to talk to them during her pregnancy? In a nutshell, the above was nearly the exact language of a whole host of statutes in CA that have since been repealed. Yes, the lives of children have been greatly improved since the early/mid seventies.

As I stated on the “shadow inventory” thread, Tyagi’s book reviews overwhelmingly showed little sympathy for parents who were attempting to live a life which was more than they could afford.

I thought Warren was intelligent but her speech often “victimized” the “poor, overworked, overspending parent” who is currently “trapped” in suburbia-ville and unable to survive on two incomes. I was left wanting to hear about her take on “personal responsibility” but that never materialized.[/quote]

I could spend a whole lotta time with a point by point rebuttal here but I will just leave it at hogwash. I was there.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl] She doesn’t seem to take into account that middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today (and even compared to some families currently on public assistance with a Section 8 grant)!

(snip)
There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care. There were no health or dental plans in place for children. At that time, Title IX was new which allowed girls to participate in some boy’s sports. Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. There was nothing preventing one parent from withholding child visitation from the other parent, which deprived countless children of the other parent. In CA, many dads never even realized they HAD children and (unknowingly) lost them thru adoption, because the law didn’t require the mom to name them as the father and notify them! When they found out about the adoption (thru friends/relatives and tried to take custody of them during or directly after the process, they were denied and told by the court that they “failed to offer to pay for prenatal care, failed to bond with the child, failed to support it and bring it into their homes,” etc. How could they do any of these things when they never knew the mom was pregnant or she refused to talk to them during her pregnancy? In a nutshell, the above was nearly the exact language of a whole host of statutes in CA that have since been repealed. Yes, the lives of children have been greatly improved since the early/mid seventies.

As I stated on the “shadow inventory” thread, Tyagi’s book reviews overwhelmingly showed little sympathy for parents who were attempting to live a life which was more than they could afford.

I thought Warren was intelligent but her speech often “victimized” the “poor, overworked, overspending parent” who is currently “trapped” in suburbia-ville and unable to survive on two incomes. I was left wanting to hear about her take on “personal responsibility” but that never materialized.[/quote]

I could spend a whole lotta time with a point by point rebuttal here but I will just leave it at hogwash. I was there.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl] She doesn’t seem to take into account that middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today (and even compared to some families currently on public assistance with a Section 8 grant)!

(snip)
There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care. There were no health or dental plans in place for children. At that time, Title IX was new which allowed girls to participate in some boy’s sports. Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. There was nothing preventing one parent from withholding child visitation from the other parent, which deprived countless children of the other parent. In CA, many dads never even realized they HAD children and (unknowingly) lost them thru adoption, because the law didn’t require the mom to name them as the father and notify them! When they found out about the adoption (thru friends/relatives and tried to take custody of them during or directly after the process, they were denied and told by the court that they “failed to offer to pay for prenatal care, failed to bond with the child, failed to support it and bring it into their homes,” etc. How could they do any of these things when they never knew the mom was pregnant or she refused to talk to them during her pregnancy? In a nutshell, the above was nearly the exact language of a whole host of statutes in CA that have since been repealed. Yes, the lives of children have been greatly improved since the early/mid seventies.

As I stated on the “shadow inventory” thread, Tyagi’s book reviews overwhelmingly showed little sympathy for parents who were attempting to live a life which was more than they could afford.

I thought Warren was intelligent but her speech often “victimized” the “poor, overworked, overspending parent” who is currently “trapped” in suburbia-ville and unable to survive on two incomes. I was left wanting to hear about her take on “personal responsibility” but that never materialized.[/quote]

I could spend a whole lotta time with a point by point rebuttal here but I will just leave it at hogwash. I was there.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I would bet marbles to chalk that *males* advertising online for “casual sex” in San Diego DO NOT reside in the San Diego area. They just work here 3-8 days per month and are looking for a fun “fling” to spice up their boring (married) lives elsewhere.

A good portion of these *males* trolling for a “part-time mistress” in SD are no doubt executives, outside salespeople and high-ranking active-duty military who stay here several days a month intermittently for work purposes (and hardly ever on weekends).

OTOH, *females* who are trolling for casual sex in SD County are often longtime residents who are both single and married. The single ones have minor children still at home and just want a part-time friend-with-benefits for when their kids are with dad and/or an occasional “traveling partner.” Believe it or not, the married females who place these ads usually do so with their spouse’s consent.

And in case you’re wondering, no, I do not now or have ever placed any ads in this regard :=][/quote]

BG, I take you at your word that you’ve never placed any ads like this. Since I don’t live in San Diego anymore, but I do visit every month or so for both business and pleasure, I do have a question for you. Besides “casual sex”, what are the key words you look for when responding to these ads? 😛

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I would bet marbles to chalk that *males* advertising online for “casual sex” in San Diego DO NOT reside in the San Diego area. They just work here 3-8 days per month and are looking for a fun “fling” to spice up their boring (married) lives elsewhere.

A good portion of these *males* trolling for a “part-time mistress” in SD are no doubt executives, outside salespeople and high-ranking active-duty military who stay here several days a month intermittently for work purposes (and hardly ever on weekends).

OTOH, *females* who are trolling for casual sex in SD County are often longtime residents who are both single and married. The single ones have minor children still at home and just want a part-time friend-with-benefits for when their kids are with dad and/or an occasional “traveling partner.” Believe it or not, the married females who place these ads usually do so with their spouse’s consent.

And in case you’re wondering, no, I do not now or have ever placed any ads in this regard :=][/quote]

BG, I take you at your word that you’ve never placed any ads like this. Since I don’t live in San Diego anymore, but I do visit every month or so for both business and pleasure, I do have a question for you. Besides “casual sex”, what are the key words you look for when responding to these ads? 😛

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I would bet marbles to chalk that *males* advertising online for “casual sex” in San Diego DO NOT reside in the San Diego area. They just work here 3-8 days per month and are looking for a fun “fling” to spice up their boring (married) lives elsewhere.

A good portion of these *males* trolling for a “part-time mistress” in SD are no doubt executives, outside salespeople and high-ranking active-duty military who stay here several days a month intermittently for work purposes (and hardly ever on weekends).

OTOH, *females* who are trolling for casual sex in SD County are often longtime residents who are both single and married. The single ones have minor children still at home and just want a part-time friend-with-benefits for when their kids are with dad and/or an occasional “traveling partner.” Believe it or not, the married females who place these ads usually do so with their spouse’s consent.

And in case you’re wondering, no, I do not now or have ever placed any ads in this regard :=][/quote]

BG, I take you at your word that you’ve never placed any ads like this. Since I don’t live in San Diego anymore, but I do visit every month or so for both business and pleasure, I do have a question for you. Besides “casual sex”, what are the key words you look for when responding to these ads? 😛

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I would bet marbles to chalk that *males* advertising online for “casual sex” in San Diego DO NOT reside in the San Diego area. They just work here 3-8 days per month and are looking for a fun “fling” to spice up their boring (married) lives elsewhere.

A good portion of these *males* trolling for a “part-time mistress” in SD are no doubt executives, outside salespeople and high-ranking active-duty military who stay here several days a month intermittently for work purposes (and hardly ever on weekends).

OTOH, *females* who are trolling for casual sex in SD County are often longtime residents who are both single and married. The single ones have minor children still at home and just want a part-time friend-with-benefits for when their kids are with dad and/or an occasional “traveling partner.” Believe it or not, the married females who place these ads usually do so with their spouse’s consent.

And in case you’re wondering, no, I do not now or have ever placed any ads in this regard :=][/quote]

BG, I take you at your word that you’ve never placed any ads like this. Since I don’t live in San Diego anymore, but I do visit every month or so for both business and pleasure, I do have a question for you. Besides “casual sex”, what are the key words you look for when responding to these ads? 😛

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I would bet marbles to chalk that *males* advertising online for “casual sex” in San Diego DO NOT reside in the San Diego area. They just work here 3-8 days per month and are looking for a fun “fling” to spice up their boring (married) lives elsewhere.

A good portion of these *males* trolling for a “part-time mistress” in SD are no doubt executives, outside salespeople and high-ranking active-duty military who stay here several days a month intermittently for work purposes (and hardly ever on weekends).

OTOH, *females* who are trolling for casual sex in SD County are often longtime residents who are both single and married. The single ones have minor children still at home and just want a part-time friend-with-benefits for when their kids are with dad and/or an occasional “traveling partner.” Believe it or not, the married females who place these ads usually do so with their spouse’s consent.

And in case you’re wondering, no, I do not now or have ever placed any ads in this regard :=][/quote]

BG, I take you at your word that you’ve never placed any ads like this. Since I don’t live in San Diego anymore, but I do visit every month or so for both business and pleasure, I do have a question for you. Besides “casual sex”, what are the key words you look for when responding to these ads? 😛

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
So, everybody needs to abandon the myth that the “government” due to misguided socialistic policies created the housing bubble. The government played a supportive role to the private industry in maximizing short-term profits as well as socializing gambling loses. Just like every other country that had a bubble.[/quote]

A couple notes here Arraya. And I’m not sure how much sarcasm is included in your post, but for the purpose of thise response, I’ll assume (and I suspect) none. Which makes your comment spot on.

First, there’s a big difference between saying the GSE’s weren’t responsible for the bubble and that the government was blameless. The GSE’s weren’t blameless, they were just a small part. But the government certainly wasn’t blameless. (I’d dispute the use of the socialistic tag, mostly because when government actions acts solely in support of private industry, that’s fascist policy, not socialistic.)

I find it hard to place primary blame for criminal actions on anyone other than the criminals. And the criminal enterprise was the financial industry. The loan originators and syndicators. But the government agencies (including congress) in charge of overseeing and regulating these industries were probably a close 2nd. The SEC, the Fed, Comptroller of the currency, Treasury, and more. They all f’d up beyond belief. Conspiracy to do so? I’m not real big on conspiracies. I’d go with Occam’s razor here, the much more simple explanation is gross negligence. In a different context, it would be criminal complacency.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
So, everybody needs to abandon the myth that the “government” due to misguided socialistic policies created the housing bubble. The government played a supportive role to the private industry in maximizing short-term profits as well as socializing gambling loses. Just like every other country that had a bubble.[/quote]

A couple notes here Arraya. And I’m not sure how much sarcasm is included in your post, but for the purpose of thise response, I’ll assume (and I suspect) none. Which makes your comment spot on.

First, there’s a big difference between saying the GSE’s weren’t responsible for the bubble and that the government was blameless. The GSE’s weren’t blameless, they were just a small part. But the government certainly wasn’t blameless. (I’d dispute the use of the socialistic tag, mostly because when government actions acts solely in support of private industry, that’s fascist policy, not socialistic.)

I find it hard to place primary blame for criminal actions on anyone other than the criminals. And the criminal enterprise was the financial industry. The loan originators and syndicators. But the government agencies (including congress) in charge of overseeing and regulating these industries were probably a close 2nd. The SEC, the Fed, Comptroller of the currency, Treasury, and more. They all f’d up beyond belief. Conspiracy to do so? I’m not real big on conspiracies. I’d go with Occam’s razor here, the much more simple explanation is gross negligence. In a different context, it would be criminal complacency.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
So, everybody needs to abandon the myth that the “government” due to misguided socialistic policies created the housing bubble. The government played a supportive role to the private industry in maximizing short-term profits as well as socializing gambling loses. Just like every other country that had a bubble.[/quote]

A couple notes here Arraya. And I’m not sure how much sarcasm is included in your post, but for the purpose of thise response, I’ll assume (and I suspect) none. Which makes your comment spot on.

First, there’s a big difference between saying the GSE’s weren’t responsible for the bubble and that the government was blameless. The GSE’s weren’t blameless, they were just a small part. But the government certainly wasn’t blameless. (I’d dispute the use of the socialistic tag, mostly because when government actions acts solely in support of private industry, that’s fascist policy, not socialistic.)

I find it hard to place primary blame for criminal actions on anyone other than the criminals. And the criminal enterprise was the financial industry. The loan originators and syndicators. But the government agencies (including congress) in charge of overseeing and regulating these industries were probably a close 2nd. The SEC, the Fed, Comptroller of the currency, Treasury, and more. They all f’d up beyond belief. Conspiracy to do so? I’m not real big on conspiracies. I’d go with Occam’s razor here, the much more simple explanation is gross negligence. In a different context, it would be criminal complacency.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
So, everybody needs to abandon the myth that the “government” due to misguided socialistic policies created the housing bubble. The government played a supportive role to the private industry in maximizing short-term profits as well as socializing gambling loses. Just like every other country that had a bubble.[/quote]

A couple notes here Arraya. And I’m not sure how much sarcasm is included in your post, but for the purpose of thise response, I’ll assume (and I suspect) none. Which makes your comment spot on.

First, there’s a big difference between saying the GSE’s weren’t responsible for the bubble and that the government was blameless. The GSE’s weren’t blameless, they were just a small part. But the government certainly wasn’t blameless. (I’d dispute the use of the socialistic tag, mostly because when government actions acts solely in support of private industry, that’s fascist policy, not socialistic.)

I find it hard to place primary blame for criminal actions on anyone other than the criminals. And the criminal enterprise was the financial industry. The loan originators and syndicators. But the government agencies (including congress) in charge of overseeing and regulating these industries were probably a close 2nd. The SEC, the Fed, Comptroller of the currency, Treasury, and more. They all f’d up beyond belief. Conspiracy to do so? I’m not real big on conspiracies. I’d go with Occam’s razor here, the much more simple explanation is gross negligence. In a different context, it would be criminal complacency.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
So, everybody needs to abandon the myth that the “government” due to misguided socialistic policies created the housing bubble. The government played a supportive role to the private industry in maximizing short-term profits as well as socializing gambling loses. Just like every other country that had a bubble.[/quote]

A couple notes here Arraya. And I’m not sure how much sarcasm is included in your post, but for the purpose of thise response, I’ll assume (and I suspect) none. Which makes your comment spot on.

First, there’s a big difference between saying the GSE’s weren’t responsible for the bubble and that the government was blameless. The GSE’s weren’t blameless, they were just a small part. But the government certainly wasn’t blameless. (I’d dispute the use of the socialistic tag, mostly because when government actions acts solely in support of private industry, that’s fascist policy, not socialistic.)

I find it hard to place primary blame for criminal actions on anyone other than the criminals. And the criminal enterprise was the financial industry. The loan originators and syndicators. But the government agencies (including congress) in charge of overseeing and regulating these industries were probably a close 2nd. The SEC, the Fed, Comptroller of the currency, Treasury, and more. They all f’d up beyond belief. Conspiracy to do so? I’m not real big on conspiracies. I’d go with Occam’s razor here, the much more simple explanation is gross negligence. In a different context, it would be criminal complacency.

[SK in CV]

[quote=walterwhite]what’s the case for increasing the subsidy?[/quote]

Sounds good to me. Easiest way is to increase marginal rates on top tier income. Value of the deduction (and the subsidy for the interest) goes up. 1st step done!

[Author]

Posts