[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Sdr, I think Israel and SA want us to strike Syria.

[/quote]

Why would Israel want it?

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I singled out Israel because proportionately Israel gets way more support from us. Even Kerry mentions Israel all the time as if we owe it to them.

We are the enablers of Israel. Without us Israel would have to rethink its survival in the region and make peace with its neighbors.

Saudi Arabia is a big country has has plenty if money.

My opinion is that the arc of history bends towards justice and democracy. We just need to support the democratic evolvement of the Middle East and let the chips fall where they may. We need to build our image with the population as fair arbiters. In the long run that would serve us well. If Israel is diminished and the Jewish state is no longer just Jewish because of the Arab population, and if the royal Saudi family falls, then so be it.

[/quote]

Israel is not just Jewish. Roughly 20% of the citizens are Arabs. Not 20% of the population. The citizenry. Arabs hold seats in parliament. Jewish populations in the surrounding countries, which less than 100 years ago was over a million? Egypt, in the dozens. Syria, maybe a dozen. Saudi Arabia, zero. Iraq, less than 20. The number of Palestinian citizens of Israel, outnumber and have more rights than those of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon combined. So if we’re going to be fair arbiters in the middle east, we can only do that in the context of our own democratic framework. The only justice and democracy that has existed in the middle east over the last 100 years is in Israel.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=SD Realtor]
What it will do is make some of our allies like Saudi Arabia happy, and further galvanize enemies of the US in the middle east against us and against Isreal.
[/quote]

Why the fixation with Israel?

We need to worry about our own long term interest and let Israel worry about Israel. That’s how peace will be achieved in the region.[/quote]

There would be absolutely nothing beneficial to Israel if the US deploys military force in Syria right now. Though I think SDR is correct, he could have left the last few words off and it doesn’t change anything. There is little upside to US involvement and plenty of downside. There is a civil war going on in Syria. More people will die. Whether by conventional weapons or chemical weapons, in the end, they’re still dead.

(I do find it interesting that you singled out Israel as not being worthy of US concern, yet didn’t mention Saudi Arabia, even though SDR lead his comment with SA.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Blogstar]I feel stronger now about the possibility that, behind the scenes, Russia and the U.S. are attempting to negotiate a mutually tolerable power structure in Syria. Assad may go out by (clandestine) agreement between the two powers. Not sure how all that would look if it happens. It seems much preferable to the current trends, so I hope it happens.[/quote]

I agree it’s preferable, but I think it’s a pipe dream. That’s essentially what happened in Egypt, with the military taking the role of interim government. With the >100,000 strong FSA, and maybe just as many or more Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham forces standing in opposition to the current Assad military, any agreement brokered by external parties is problematic. The Syrian population just doesn’t have the strong nationalism that is present in the Egyptian population. It is, unlike Egypt, nothing more than somewhat arbitrary lines on a map drawn less than 100 years ago and encompasses dozens of tribes and cultures. Absent those lines, there is no there, there.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CDMA ENG]

Sounds like Lebanon to me… Circa 80’s. In fact AQ and Hezbollah will probably be fighting each other within 15 seconds of victory. Even if Hezbollah did make their bed with Assad you don’t think they won’t be courting however is in power?

CE[/quote]

Hezbollah have their hands full in Lebanon. I doubt they’ll be directly involved. Iran may attempt to find another proxy in Syria, but as unpopular as Assad is, it’s not likely they’ll find one that maintain any significant support. When Assad falls, and eventually he will, for a whole lot of reasons, it will make the Egyptian transition look smooth.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]So SK sounds like you advocate adding to the violence. Lots of reasons not to add to the sh-tstorm but I haven’t seen anyone post a good reason to add to it, including yourself.[/quote]

Absofuckinglutely not. When there are no good options, choose the one that doesn’t include dropping bombs.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=SD Realtor]yep…yep… and yep…as horrid as Assad is, I cringe to think what happens if he falls. Utter and complete chaos. Unless you have a plan to 100% occupy that country and cleanse it of all the weaponry I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.
[/quote]

Hezbolla and Al Quada are foaming at the mouth and trying to figure out how to set quick and deep roots.

CE[/quote]

The only thing that Hezbollah wants in Syria is weapons. They’ve staked their claim with the Assad government. It’s unlikely they’ll be integrally involved in any new power structure in Syria. And the current opposition in Syria is made up of dozens, maybe scores, maybe even hundreds of disparate groups. AQ aligned groups make up only a tiny portion. There are no good guys there. There are bad guys, badder guys, and victims.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]This is about punishment for the use of chemical weapons, nothing more. Kerry said as much.

[/quote]

Well shit, if a politician said so, it must be true.

Punishment? Seriously? Like giving a kindergartner a time out for teasing a classmate. Only with bombs. And dead people.

This is not about punishment. This is about promoting a particular policy. I have no idea what the endgame of that policy is, none whatsoever. If you listen to John McCain, it’s putting AQ in charge in Syria. (that would be the rebels who are “definitely not terrorists.) I suspect that is not what Obama has in mind, nor the intelligence community.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]Better to fold then to play out a losing hand.[/quote]

There is no winning hand here, and there never has been. Not two years ago, not a year ago, and not now. The only question is what degree of chaos will ensue.

[SK in CV]

[quote=6packscaredy]Ultimately the body is some of the most important real estate to develop and maintain.[/quote]

Yeah, but it’s pretty much a DIY job. Can’t hire anyone else to do the work. Labor trumps capital.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality]
Unlike the past in which the workers provide all the labor and were necessary, today, workers are quickly becoming unnecessary.[/quote]

I think you overstate the case here. The move towards mechanization started 250 years ago, and has steadily progressed with ebbs and flows. But it has never moved backwards. There is the implication that there are no alternatives to this progression and eventually all labor will become obsolete. Hardly true. Some labor will always be required, despite advancements in mechanization.

There are also pretty simple fiscal policy changes that can in part alleviate the effects. For most of the last 90 years in the US, capital enjoys preferential tax treatment over labor. That can easily be changed. (Easy in the mechanical sense, politically, probably not so easy.) De-emphasizing tax preferences for capital over labor, along with raising wage requirements would serve to delay the effects of mechanization. It could be even further delayed by switching the preference to labor over capital.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
In any case, buying a house just $150K less than what I sold mine for would result in a “wash” between my current tax bill and my new tax bill because my current house, even with a recent Prop 8 upward assessment for FY 13/14, is still assessed at about $150K less than its market value.[/quote]

150K less in assessed value is saving you $1500 a year. You could move down by $150K and have a house close to free and clear. It would have to save you a net of at least $4K a year. ($150K or thereabouts on your current mortgage at 4% is $6K a year in interest you could save.) You’ve suggested that my family should have moved, irrespective of non-financial issues, yet those non-financial issues (school for your kids, pets, etc.) are sufficient for you to NOT move. My point is, everyone has those non-financial issues, and moving into an inherited house never comes down to just money. There are always other considerations. Which is why it does NOT happen more often than it does.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

Okay, then your mom’s home and your sister’s home are not too dissmilar in value. Your sister must have truly loved her home not to want to have your mom’s home for $3500 yr less (for now … much more as the years go by) in taxes.

SK, per chance, did your mom’s death occur in one of the years where property values were down (2008-2011)?

Thx, and sorry for so many questions. I’m not trying to make any “identification” here and have no way of doing so. I’m just trying to understand the motivation of typical “CA heirs” who pass up an oppt’y for severely-lowered property taxes for the balance of their lifetimes and going forward … and on a property in a very decent neighborhood, at that![/quote]

The house was sold in mid-2006. Sales prices had already started to drop there, they dropped further and now they’ve recovered to just about the same place they were then. Properties there are a great bargain.

I have a question for you BG. I suspect your home is either paid for or close to paid for and you’ve got a shit load of equity. Why don’t you sell your house and buy different house for $150K less? I’m sure there must be a home for $150K less somewhere not too far from where you now live. With that downward move, you would easily save $3,500 a month. If you think my siblings or I should have jumped at the opportunity to save $3,500 a years by moving down, why haven’t you done everything in your power to do that?

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Okay, is each one on sts facing Mission Bay (whether or not the home’s orientation faces the bay) or in “Princess Del Cerro” (facing south or SE, towards SDSU).

Thx.[/quote]

In Del Cerro, not Princess Del Cerro. For people that grew up there in the 60’s, the two are not the same, though the orientation of the homes is not dissimilar. Most streets in both neighborhoods run generally from east to west, so the front of the homes face either north or south depending on which side of the street they’re on. Very few homes in Del Cerro face the bay, except for a handful up on the hill. The bay is more than 10 miles away. SDSU is due south of almost all of the west side of Del Cerro and due south of all of Princess Del Cerro.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

I’m not quite understanding you. Was your mom’s house in Allied Gardens or Del Cerro? And is your sister’s house in Allied Gardens or Del Cerro?

Thanks for any clarification :)[/quote]

Both are in Del Cerro.

[Author]

Posts