Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The govt costs $3.6 trillion to run.

Estimates of tax revenue gained from allowing cuts to expire for $250k and up brackets are between $60 and 100 billion.

So this tax fix everyone will be arguing about in DC involves enough money to run the govt for between 1/5 to 1/3 of a month?

If we couple it with removal of the payroll tax cut ($120 billion) in some manner that does not cause an offsetting decrease in consumption leading to greater unemployment, the cost of which would likely wash out the value of any gain from allowing that cut to expire, we could pay for somewhere near a whole month of govt. Given the projected 2013 deficit of $900 billion, after we get that month paid for (assuming some other revenue increases get us to the $300 bil needed, or cuts shrink the monthly operating cost), we only need to find another $600 billion in cuts and revenue enhancements and we can pay for a whole quarter of the budget.

Vat tax.
Gas tax. Say 5 bucks a gallon. It's amazing that when you are forced to curtail your driving (by let's say lack of supply of gas versus demand) that you can. I live in the burbs and found myself walking to the store, combing trips and not driving for the purpose of driving.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Vat tax.
Gas tax. Say 5 bucks a gallon. It's amazing that when you are forced to curtail your driving (by let's say lack of supply of gas versus demand) that you can. I live in the burbs and found myself walking to the store, combing trips and not driving for the purpose of driving.

Vat's hard to implement and super complex, however, isn't it?

The gas tax is politically and practically impossible. We'll overuse oil until either the environment is so fucked up it will become a national security emergency, or supply runs out.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Thinking more about the rape issues, I'm just confused- it seems clear all the numbskulls making the idiotic statements hurt, but I have no idea how they got to talking about that.

Pro choice people support no real restriction in the way of abortion choice, right, but some republican or religious D legislatures pass laws that restrict the choice options- those restrictive laws are where the "rape/incest" exceptions come in, right? Like the Rs created the exceptions- so why are these people 1 talking about it and 2 denigrating them?

Honest question, how did any of these conversations come up?

"What's your stance on abortion, Candidate?"

"Well, it should be illegal."

"Except in the case of rape or health of the mother, like the GOP general platform, right?"

"I differ from the party a bit there."

"Really? Do tell... In regard to which exception?"

"I think in terms of rape, that's not - well, not an exception I fully support."

"So you'd compel a raped woman to carry the child."

"Well, when you say it that way--"

"Is there another way to say it?"

"Well, yes. I'd say a child of rape is a child as any other and--"

"So you'd force a woman to carry the child to term."

"I think it's God's will that--"

"God's will?"

"Well, you know -- there's legitimate rape and then there's..."

"Please, go on."

"I think I've stated my position."

"No, no. I interrupted you. Please, please go on." For the love of God, please keep digging this hole. The ratings on this are going to get me out of this podunk market and onto a national network. Keep talking, you fucking rube. Please, keep talking!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Did all you big brains know it was going to be saved because there was a tax on poor/middle class in the vouchers?

I saw next to no commercials since I was in Mi or NY the entire post-convention months. I was shocked though there were no commercials that had Obama saying hcr will only tax people making over $250K followed by some way of summarizing the Supreme's decision.

Pro-tip, when responding to the post making a snarky comment on your intelligence, read carefully enough so you don't prove the point.

My point was more on the focus of health care entities in the south and north, and the perceptions each had of the law. Here, there was little credence given to the constitutionality argument out in the healthcare community, among non-lawyers.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"What's your stance on abortion, Candidate?"

"Well, it should be illegal."

"Except in the case of rape or health of the mother, like the GOP general platform, right?"

"I differ from the party a bit there."

"Really? Do tell... In regard to which exception?"

"I think in terms of rape, that's not - well, not an exception I fully support."

"So you'd compel a raped woman to carry the child."

"Well, when you say it that way--"

"Is there another way to say it?"

"Well, yes. I'd say a child of rape is a child as any other and--"

"So you'd force a woman to carry the child to term."

"I think it's God's will that--"

"God's will?"

"Well, you know -- there's legitimate rape and then there's..."

"Please, go on."

"I think I've stated my position."

"No, no. I interrupted you. Please, please go on." For the love of God, please keep digging this hole. The ratings on this are going to get me out of this podunk market and onto a national network. Keep talking, you fucking rube. Please, keep talking!

I truly enjoyed this tweet from God election night: "You're welcome."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You program has nothing that speaks to the needs of the batshit crazy loons.
Maybe we can graft on it some notion of Joe Biden mudwrestling with Sarah Pallin on Fox News?

Intelligent compromise? Do you really want to disenfranchise the 48% of Americans who voted for half-assed lunacy this election?

No, I want to see if Obama can shake the brick wall of the GOP and see if any come loose. Alternately, he can let the party further marginalize itself.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Just speaking as a healthcare lawyer, we're now a shit ton busier today thanks to the dithering of people in our industry who were CERTAIN that the ACA wasn't going to happen. There are a lot of people in healthcare who really were unprepared for this.

Serious question -- was that just Texas or regional wishful thinking? Or is the nature of your work such that you are seeing this more nationally?

The Atlantic article that someone posted (here or on Facebook -- I get confused) really nailed it. The Rs have built up such a bubble (which stared with Rush, Rove, and W) that they no longer see reality.

(Note to Sebby, who may point out that I said yesterday that I wasn't certain of the outcome, was nervous, etc. That's true. But if I had been cheering for Mitt I would have been a lot more than nervous. There were days when I went from anxious to cautiously optimistic as an Obama supporter. As a Romney supporter, I'd have hovered between depressed, seeing the faintest glimmer of hope, and the occasional bout of "well, it COULD happen")

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Lenders have noone but themselves to blame for this. It's not about "contracts are incomprehensible" that leads to consumer protection laws and regulations. It's about the lenders' imposition of a take-it-or-leave-it bargaining posture.

The majority of borrowers would feel less antagonized by lenders if they could actually get an answer other than "fuck you" if they aske to have their mortgage payment due on the 16th, since they get paid on the 15th.

The answer shouldn't be "fuck you". But it probably should be "if you are living paycheck-to-paycheck such that even a two-week disruption in your income would leave you unable to pay this mortgage, you should either rent or look for a cheaper place."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We've taught millions of people to think before having sex - to avoid disease, pregnancy, or worse. And I have to assume it's worked and saved many otherwise ruined lives. Maybe it's time we put out a similar PSA about borrowing. A campaign to scare people into reading the details of what they're signing. To advise them that a lender, like any party to a transaction, is seeking to make a profit from the other side, and that in many instances, the bank is trying to enhance that profit by creating an advantage for itself that can and often does hurt the borrower. Arm consumers with information so we don't have to keep larding on so many new regulations in a futile game of cat and mouse with "smart people" crafting intentionally confusing instruments.

I agree with this but it's a very long process. Despite all the effort we've put into teaching people to think before they have sex, teen pregnancy and STDs remain a huge problem.

Part of that is because of pushback -- the biggest problems seem to be in regions where the notion of teaching sexual responsibility is anathema, because The Baby Jesus says you should teach abstinence.

But if you think Christ-o-crats can push back hard, wait until you see how the banks and credit card issuers and so forth can push misinformation.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

People relied on bankers to not lend them more than they can afford. Which isn't entirely irrational. Why would be bank make a loan that the borrower can't repay?

Oh, wait.

Yeah. Both you and Sebby are correct. In a bubble atmosphere, when everyone from the Borrower to the mortgage broker to the local bank to the investment bank to the ultimate cdo investor believes that real estate values will never decrease, it is understandable for Borrowers to take on more than they would normally. And, even though Sebby views this with the benefit of hindsight, people should have understood that you shouldn't borrow huge amounts of money just because you can. I just think that if you look at both sides, it makes more sense to regulate the assholes paying themselves huge bonuses to pass risk along to the next guy than to think ordinary people will educate themselves into not taking easy money being offered to them.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

(Note to Sebby, who may point out that I said yesterday that I wasn't certain of the outcome, was nervous, etc. That's true. But if I had been cheering for Mitt I would have been a lot more than nervous. There were days when I went from anxious to cautiously optimistic as an Obama supporter. As a Romney supporter, I'd have hovered between depressed, seeing the faintest glimmer of hope, and the occasional bout of "well, it COULD happen")

Note to Sidd: I'd never stoop to trying to gotcha you like that. Those sorts of exchanges are dull. And I'd hope you think enough of me to realize I understand that how people recall things, or describe past views/perceptions, change from day to day, memory being anything but perfect.

I see no inconsistency with anything you said today and anything you said in the past, have never thought there was any lack of clarity in your general views on the topic at hand, and even if there were, it would be so minor, or so attributable to human nature, there'd be no point in noting it. Unless, of course, I wanted to bore people, or gift myself a pointless, self-congratulatory "gotcha."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yeah. Both you and Sebby are correct. In a bubble atmosphere, when everyone from the Borrower to the mortgage broker to the local bank to the investment bank to the ultimate cdo investor believes that real estate values will never decrease, it is understandable for Borrowers to take on more than they would normally. And, even though Sebby views this with the benefit of hindsight, people should have understood that you shouldn't borrow huge amounts of money just because you can. I just think that if you look at both sides, it makes more sense to regulate the assholes paying themselves huge bonuses to pass risk along to the next guy than to think ordinary people will educate themselves into not taking easy money being offered to them.

TM

We absolutely need to regulate the banks. My thinking was, why not at the same time make an effort to educate consumers?

I think we need a new form of "home economics" in schools. Kids need to be taught about finance and economics early in their educational careers. This will go a long way toward helping them make better decisions on things like borrowing more than they ought to in student loans and for housing, both of which are a big part of the debt overhang vexing demand.

That and Adder's suggestion: Make the borrowing contracts idiot simple. Warren's suggestions in that regard are well made. That's one area where I think she has been valuable.

ETA: Where we disagreed was my view that banks should be lightly regulated in regard to transactions between each other. I see your point about how allowing a carve out for sophisticated parties invites disasters involving pension funds, etc. I think ours is a difference in terms of degree. I don't know where the line should be exactly, but I favor light regs, increasing if/as events dictate necessity. My guess is, you favor strong regs now to avoid having the problems that would lead to a need for enhanced regs.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I would have let them fail and opened up the deposits and good loans for bidding.

What does this mean? Letting them fail would have flushed the entire banking down the toilet (big banks and small). And there were plenty of good loans. But once the disaster struck (and we talked about this ad nauseum in 2007/2008), loans that were packaged could not be sold no matter how strong they were. There was no market and therefore those loans had no value (which, if you remember was another problem for the bank's reserve requirements since they couldn't value assets that clearly had value but-for the inability to sell them right then and there). I'm kind of getting sick of people talking about 2007/2008 like we had a bunch of alternatives. I hate the fact that we had to step in to save these banks, but the alternative was to move to a system of bartering.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Obama would have four years to put a new government in place and if he lets it happen on Jan. 1 2013, he has two years before the midterms. I think the Republicans would be motivated to reach compromises. Besides, I find it hard principally to be strongly in favor of letting the tax breaks expire and extend the life of an unwieldy, unhealthy, and misbalanced bureaucracy.

I do not understand, with all of our knowledge of recent political history, why you think this would work. I truly don't.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Thinking more about the rape issues, I'm just confused- it seems clear all the numbskulls making the idiotic statements hurt, but I have no idea how they got to talking about that.

Pro choice people support no real restriction in the way of abortion choice, right, but some republican or religious D legislatures pass laws that restrict the choice options- those restrictive laws are where the "rape/incest" exceptions come in, right? Like the Rs created the exceptions- so why are these people 1 talking about it and 2 denigrating them?

Honest question, how did any of these conversations come up?

This can't be an honest question. They came up because lunatic republicans have been pushing to end Roe for decades. Each year they take another step in curtailing that right. And they've been so successful at the local levels, and feel so fucking emboldened by their idiot Tea Party candidates, that they have pushed too fucking far again and again. That, plus their idiotic religious views, which necessarily put them in a position of saying that everything God does is justifiable, means they are going to say and propose stupid, insane shit all the time.

TM