Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Perhaps he saw that very bad things last time housing prices fell off a ledge (granted, they have continued to anyway in most places).

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

Sorry. I get it now. Total tax receipts are lower in this country because many fewer Europeans earn $19k a year and many more of them pay federal income taxes. It's all clear now. :rolleyes:

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

no. find where I said something that supports this: "Speaking of explaining it again, you are still wrong. Total taxes receipts, including state and federal and fees and concessions ans stuff, are a much smaller percentage of GDP in this country than the rest of the developed world." you sad sad man.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Boston won't get cheap if the mortgage deduction is eliminated. I doubt it will even get cheaper, relative to other parts of the country.

That said, fuck it. It's bad policy, and I would eliminate the deduction in exchange for lowering of rates in a heartbeat.

And, yes, I did refi recently. Just in case.

Re: Can you say "Earmark"
 

Seems to me that once your average Republican Congressman thinks Boehner is going to lose this vote, they have an added incentive to jump ship (and protect themselves from the right).

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

Huh? Clearly one of us can't read. You reacted to numbers showing that taxes as a percentage of GDP are much lower in this country than in Europe (really, the rest of the developed world) by saying (as the most recent example):

The only way to make sense of this is that you were thinking of income taxes (an error you made previously). That is, if you were thinking of all of the taxes included in the OECD numbers I posted before (which "includ[ed] state and federal and fees and concessions an[d] stuff"), you would have to realize that no one pays no taxes here.

Once you realize that, it's pretty hard to see how you could decide that Europe has a higher percentage of people paying taxes (how do you get higher than 100%?) and therefore it's pretty hard to see how you could conclude that the difference in total tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has anything to do with the percentage of people paying taxes.

Thus, assuming you not to be an idiot, I assumed you were again thinking only of federal income taxes and, quite naturally, pointed out that the numbers we are talking about are not limited to federal income taxes.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

Just keep saying it over and over and over and over and maybe it'll come true.

Re: Can you say "Earmark"
 

Judging from the news out of DC, the price of a Republican vote is skyrocketing as we speak.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

you said I was arguing Ty's chart was wrong and we don't pay a lower percentage. I just quoted it. What did you mean? Don't try to muddy the water. Answer me Goddamn it.

Re: And Vietnam!
 

Damn. That's how we won the war in Afghanistan, isn't it?

Re: And Vietnam!
 

To be truly an analog we'd have to ignore the HCR act for 8 years before we decided to blow it up. It ain't lasting 8 years.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

I'm sorry if you read it that way. I did not mean that you were arguing that the chart was wrong. As I said, I assumed you were comparing apples to oranges and wanted to point that out before explaining elsewhere in that post where you were wrong.

That may have gotten a little muddled, however, because I stopped to partially agree with you about how health care is paid for here and there.

It's not Ty's chart though, it's the Center on Budget and Policy Planning, based on OECD data, and it was me that posted it.

Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

eom.

Re: And Vietnam!
 

Good luck with that. After attacking Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, I'm expecting to see a lot more blue in Florida, Arizona, and some other interesting places next election. I think Boehner has put all his chips on the table right now, and his only hope is that he manages to win major cuts against Obama's opposition and then pushes through something on the ACA before the next election.

Of course, what he could choose to do is work with Obama on reasoned and surgical cuts to preserve M & M in particular while addressing the deficit, but I don't think he has any interest in that. He only wants to be Speaker of his Caucus, not the whole House, and he's failing even at that.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

Cue the funny charts.

please.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

I'm not sure that it is funny, but it is new for here:

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-c...presidency.jpg

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

That's a fucked up chart.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

it shows that Bush I's "peace savings" didn't happen, but clearly shows how ignoring al queda can give you a few years of low budget growth. course, the bill does come due.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

No, it's a fucked up chart because it shows the Dems in control of the House from 95 to 06, and currently. Among other things.

The part you commented on shows that you are fucked up, not the chart.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

Incidentally, you've re-worn this one out again, and it's probably time to bring one of your three other very tired old jokes back into rotation.


Sorry for responding to the same stupid shit twice, but if I maintained a strict rule against that I would've stopped talking to Hank years ago.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

Edit: never mind. You are right.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

It's by presidency.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

Look at the bottom of the chart. You'll see that the Dems now control the house.

A reality neither Boehner nor Obama seem to have yet focused on.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

the last box seems to be 2012 though. wishful thinking?

did you know there is a R congressman named Jeff Flake?

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

I appears to have colors backwards as to the House and Senate.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

I know red state/ blue state has become a convention, but when you get to congress I believe Soviet Red should represent the D's, no?

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

And the "I got the Depression Blues" the Rs.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

Is that what the "House" and "Senate" bars at the bottom indicate to you?

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

On a chart about the debt, "in the red" should be the Rs' color.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

g.o.

Re: Next Board Motto: Let's Argue Over Charts!
 

t.y.

NASA Fast
 

Hank, peer review this for us - http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

Re: NASA Fast
 

I can't comment on the science, except to say it's good news if it's right. But as a matter of journalism and at least giving the appearance of being unbiased, I would definitely suggest using the word "alarmist" a bit less often.

Like, maybe just every other sentence. Or even better, once per paragraph. Or best yet see what happens if you just take it out all together.

See, now, doesn't that say the same thing without making you look like you've prejudged the question?

ETA: Also, why is there a picture of the fed chair?

Re: NASA Fast
 

Article is written by someone with a JD, so it's immediately suspect.

Re: NASA Fast
 

Then we can peer review it without Hank. That's a relief.

Re: NASA Fast
 

Global warming has this problem- every scientist involved is biased. some are paid to say it ain't happening, and others devoted their life to studying it so it would make their lives meaningless to say it isn't.

The thing is almost everything proposed* to reduce it is a good idea for lots of other reasons. It is a good idea to move to renewable clean energy because of jobs from the new technology and not worrying about oil or resulting pollution.

*except when EPA gets on US industry to meet goals that place undue burden on it. China ain't doing that to it's stuff meaning fucking our industry up is not "saving the world" it's just killing our companies, and really since our companies are so much cleaner than China, moving more to China but "cracking down" on our industry is a net loss.

Next Question?

Re: NASA Fast
 

2.

I think I mostly agree with this too, although I have heard vague rumors from clients, which may not be very credible, that the environmental regulatory climate in China is stiffening. Of course, stiffening from "do whatever you want" ain't saying much.

Also, kumbaya.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Ezra Klein on Boehner, with an interesting analogy.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

My guess is that Boehner told Reid, "look dude, I need to pass this to show my stripes. I know it's got no legs in the Senate, but we have 96 hours and each hour makes a compromise more likely. So cut me some slack and let me cover my flank and then we'll cut a deal."

God I hope so.

Why haven't the Ds passed anything? I don't understand that strategy. If this really does blow up, the House is the only body that has actually passed legislation.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Boehner is at the top but he doesn't have any control.

Reid has 53 votes but he doesn't have 60. If he tries to pass something the GOP isn't agreeing to, it can get filibustered, which would be a step back. Better not to hold a vote, so no one gets locked into voting against it.

eta:

TPM