Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs - Page 321

sebastian_dangerfield · 01-07-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

When you read Douglas Holtz-Eakin, you should hear "shill for the republican party." Sadly. Didn't used to be that way.

As for the theory that the exchanges will end up being wildly more popular than anticipated, and will end up saving Hank (and other business owners) lots of money in coverage costs, well, we'll see. I'm also not sure that would be a bad thing.

I only included that because it was closely connected to the quote I wanted to use. I'm more focused on the assumptions failing to address an explosion in subsidized users with a corresponding drop in people paying into the plan.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-07-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But then, you don't live in the real world. You never have.

You know, I'm sick of this bullshit, which I usually ignore, so I'm going to say this once, to you, Hank, and Penske, and then I'll go back to ignoring you on it.

All three of you know what I do in real life, though others here don't. You can all tell that I have made a choice not to talk about what I do for a living on this board. The suggestion that I don't live in the real world, that somehow my experience in the different fields you all know about is entirely academic and practice -- you wouldn't say that to my face, because in a face-to-face conversation I wouldn't be constrained by the choice I've made about what I'll say on this board. It's a cheap debating trick, one that just takes advantage of what I'll say in response, and one that plays to other people reading the posts but that the four of us know is bullshit.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 01-07-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Good. Fuck em. Thank g@d for the Massachusetts courts.

Actually this is the board motto.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 01-07-2011, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

link:

The banks are screwed if this precedent holds.

I understand why this is a problem, but why is it anything more than temporary and costly? Can't they go back and correct the assignments? Put some monkey-fucking scribes on it and it's done within a few months, then put the ad in the paper, and proceed with the foreclosure. Costly yes, insurmountable no.

LessinSF · 01-07-2011, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The Rolling Stone article about the Tea Party -- all those people in Kentucky going to Tea Party rallies on their Medicare-bought golf carts, which they qualified for by stuffing their fat faces at Krispy Kreme and KFC in between smoking binges -- prove how the Tea Party is full of shit.

And what effect did that have in the election? Hypocrisy sells, it tastes good. The problem isn't taxation and isn't government spending. It's my taxes and the money the gummint spends on other people. Especially blacks.

Panem et circenses.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-07-2011, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This (http://is.gd/kjIO2) makes half my argument.

Thanks for posting a link, but I don't think you meant to point me to a month's worth of blog posts, none of which included what you quoted.

Quote:

And only a fucking clown (or tribal mind) wouldn't buy this simple logic:

Quote:

Those of us who oppose PPACA believe, among other things, that the subsidies will cost much more than CBO currently assumes because CBO’s baseline currently assumes a sharp reduction in the unemployment rate. Moreover, as James Capretta and Douglas Holtz-Eakin argue, it seems entirely plausible that many employees will encourage workers to take advantage of the new subsidized exchanges:

Over time, both employers and the labor market are certain to adjust to take advantage of the new subsidy structure. Employers with large numbers of low- and moderate-wage workers are likely to move them into the exchanges, even if it means giving their higher-salaried workers extra wages to compensate for the loss of the tax break for employer-paid premiums. As new businesses are formed, they could organize, in part, with a view toward taking maximum advantage of both the subsidies available in the exchanges and the tax break that remains for those with higher incomes.

The end result would be that enrollment in federally subsidized insurance in the exchanges would likely far exceed the 19 million people that the CBO has estimated. Indeed, the safe assumption is that an additional 35 million workers and their families with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty line — who would clearly be better off in the exchanges as opposed to on job-based coverage — could end up there over time, one way or another.

And when they do, costs will soar. The CBO projects that the premium-assistance program will cost about $450 billion from 2014 to 2019, but that cost would rise to $1.4 trillion if workers and their family members with incomes between 133 percent and 250 percent of the poverty line were to migrate out of their current job-based plans and into the exchanges on Day One. That’s nearly $1 trillion more than the amount advertised by the law’s supporters.

This is interesting stuff, and entirely different from the bullshit you were spouting earlier. Owing to demands placed on me by the real world, I can't devote the time to it right now that it deserves. A link would be nice, too.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 01-07-2011, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Good. Fuck em. Thank g@d for the Massachusetts courts.

Here's the winner for board motto.

Reading the case, as a corporate lawyer who is not involved in these kind of things, my reaction is that I would not want to ever deal with a bank that dealt with its paperwork in this fashion. It is the sort of sloppiness that would get any first year, any paralegal, any secretary at any law firm fired off the bat.

How do you assign a mortgage AFTER the foreclosure to the entity that foreclosed? In what world do you even attempt to defend that? smh.

sebastian_dangerfield · 01-07-2011, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You know, I'm sick of this bullshit, which I usually ignore, so I'm going to say this once, to you, Hank, and Penske, and then I'll go back to ignoring you on it.

All three of you know what I do in real life, though others here don't. You can all tell that I have made a choice not to talk about what I do for a living on this board. The suggestion that I don't live in the real world, that somehow my experience in the different fields you all know about is entirely academic and practice -- you wouldn't say that to my face, because in a face-to-face conversation I wouldn't be constrained by the choice I've made about what I'll say on this board. It's a cheap debating trick, one that just takes advantage of what I'll say in response, and one that plays to other people reading the posts but that the four of us know is bullshit.

Ty, you have a sky-high eye on this. You assume for purposes of the discussion that what the govt projects will actually come to pass. Historically, this has never happened. That demonstrates someone who, at least on this issue, is not living in the real world.

Unemployment shifts a shitload of people from those paying into the PPACA to those receiving subsidies from it. This is a loss of anticipated funding. Additionally, the 3.8% tax on unearned income is not going to deliver what's expected. The flaws in the assumptions about revenue available to fund HCR are not undone by your repeating, "It's funded by Medicare cuts!" You know that's only a fraction of the funding, and you know damn well I'm right when I say money is fungible, and the cost of this program in light of the lack of much of what was anticipated to be available is going to have to be made up for with borrowing elsewhere.

When you are argue against something that simple you're not arguing against me being cynical. You're appearing naive. And perhaps it's wrong to couch that as not "living in the real world," but I was struggling for something polite. Your thinking on this, simply, is not the sort any practical businessperson would apply. It is the sort of theoretical thinking a lawyer would. No knock there. We need people coming at this stuff from all angles to make the discussion interesting, and you may very well be right. But when the discussion gets hot, there will be insults thrown. I'd expect nothing less from you when you become incensed with my refusal to view things from your angles, which is entirely your right.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 01-07-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I understand why this is a problem, but why is it anything more than temporary and costly? Can't they go back and correct the assignments? Put some monkey-fucking scribes on it and it's done within a few months, then put the ad in the paper, and proceed with the foreclosure. Costly yes, insurmountable no.

My read is that their entire infrastructure and record keeping operation just blows completely. They need to fire all the South Dakotans and Oklahomas they have shuffling paper and hire some Indians like real businesses.

Adder · 01-07-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Thanks for posting a link, but I don't think you meant to point me to a month's worth of blog posts, none of which included what you quoted.

This is interesting stuff, and entirely different from the bullshit you were spouting earlier. Owing to demands placed on me by the real world, I can't devote the time to it right now that it deserves. A link would be nice, too.

I thought it was David Brooks from today's Times, but now that I look again I guess it's just the same talking points but a different version of the script.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 01-07-2011, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My read is that their entire infrastructure and record keeping operation just blows completely. They need to fire all the South Dakotans and Oklahomas they have shuffling paper and hire some Indians like real businesses.

Pequot or Mohegan?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 01-07-2011, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You know, I'm sick of this bullshit, which I usually ignore, so I'm going to say this once, to you, Hank, and Penske, and then I'll go back to ignoring you on it.

All three of you know what I do in real life, though others here don't. You can all tell that I have made a choice not to talk about what I do for a living on this board. The suggestion that I don't live in the real world, that somehow my experience in the different fields you all know about is entirely academic and practice -- you wouldn't say that to my face, because in a face-to-face conversation I wouldn't be constrained by the choice I've made about what I'll say on this board. It's a cheap debating trick, one that just takes advantage of what I'll say in response, and one that plays to other people reading the posts but that the four of us know is bullshit.

I never understand when they do this, since I'm the only one here who has actually run a real business.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 01-07-2011, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Pequot or Mohegan?

Either would would work.

LessinSF · 01-07-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You know, I'm sick of this bullshit, which I usually ignore, so I'm going to say this once, to you, Hank, and Penske, and then I'll go back to ignoring you on it.

All three of you know what I do in real life, though others here don't. You can all tell that I have made a choice not to talk about what I do for a living on this board. The suggestion that I don't live in the real world, that somehow my experience in the different fields you all know about is entirely academic and practice -- you wouldn't say that to my face, because in a face-to-face conversation I wouldn't be constrained by the choice I've made about what I'll say on this board. It's a cheap debating trick, one that just takes advantage of what I'll say in response, and one that plays to other people reading the posts but that the four of us know is bullshit.

Ah, shit. You don't just read blogs for a living?

Cletus Miller · 01-07-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If this ruling gets applied far and wide, you’re basically going to have a situation where most securitized mortgages in the country cannot be foreclosed upon. It depends on state law and the associated rulings, but you can see the Ibanez case being used as precedent.

No, it doesn't. Doesn't even do that in Mass. As Burger sez, it will cause a delay and be costly--and it may even be costly enough that it no longer makes economic sense for the lenders to seek foreclosure--but the ruling in NO way makes even a single mortgage unforecloseable.