Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

all they need is 1. it's like being pregnant. no such thing as a slightly unconstitutional.

Actually, 5, but whatever.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

It's crazy how much money you all wasted to pass something unconstituitional on it's face.

Yes, obviously. I mean, even the wife of a I'm-sure-he-will-recuse-himself-to-avoid-the-appearance-of-bias Supreme Court Justice can see it. And the court hasn't even ruled on the issue yet!

Also last month, Liberty Central blamed a staff error for a memo with Virginia Thomas's name on it declaring health-care legislation unconstitutional - perhaps reflecting a new sensitivity to the relationship between her activism and her husband's job.

Staff! How careless they are...

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

is the bill one sentence? or is it possible it might be more complicated, cause like I remember the R's were bad for opposing extending unemployment, but now the Dems are and they're good.

I'm a simple man. Can someone help me understand?

I'm so sorry your googling skills are so poor.

Here.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Yes, obviously. I mean, even the wife of a I'm-sure-he-will-recuse-himself-to-avoid-the-appearance-of-bias Supreme Court Justice can see it. And the court hasn't even ruled on the issue yet!



Staff! How careless they are...

Uninformed musings that don't have the benefit of the briefing in any of the cases:

1. The feds can tell you not to grow wheat on your own land for your own consumption, because doing so undermines demand for wheat and errodes prices on the market, which are in interstate commerce.

2. The feds can tell you not to grow marijuana on your own land for your own consumption, because there is market for marijuana in interstate commerce.

3. The feds can't tell you that you can't rely on the social safety net for your health care, where doing so makes it impossible to implement admittedly constitutional regulation of interstate health care commerce because doing so is "inactivity" instead of "activity."

Those three premises seem hard to square, in that "active" versus "inactive" is a dinstinction that will often, as here, not mean much (i.e., "not buying insurance" is the same as "paying for health care out of pocket" or "relying on charity for health care"). Does judge Hudson's analysis change if I state it as "a tax penalty for choosing to pay health care costs out of pocket or rely on public or private largesse?"

Which probably means Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy will love it.

Of course, I would say the unifying theme is "stuff judges don't like is in interestate commerce and stuff they do isn't."

ETA: For the record, I'm not necessarily all that keen in the reasoning on the first two premises either, but those are the precedents.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can't see this Congress allowing that sort of unfunded spending. To allow it to remain would turn us into a banana republic.

Too late.

CDF

[Adder]

Whether a commander of the Marine Corps in and R administration who made similar comments on any other issue wouldn't drive the Rs in Congress into an uproar about insubordination.

[Adder]

*The age of the residential stock is at its highest level in 40 years, despite the mammoth building boom of the 2000s.
*The age of the government capital has steadily risen over the past 40 years, suggesting great underinvestment in public infrastructure.
*The age of the private nonresidential capital stock has risen more or less steadily since the early 1980s, with a slight dip in the New Economy boom of the 1990s.

The second one isn't surprising, but the first certainly is.

link including chart

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

The second one isn't surprising, but the first certainly is.

link including chart

Maybe we're making things better and they last longer.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe we're making things better and they last longer.

Maybe. That doesn't feel like it explains the whole government capital quesetion, but then I can see the new 35W bridge over the Mississippi.

It's still hard to believe that residential housing stock hasn't gotten younger, but I guess the sprawl has sufficiently counteracted effect of the construction boom so we could keep building without tearing much down. Yay, exurbs!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Maybe. That doesn't feel like it explains the whole government capital quesetion, but then I can see the new 35W bridge over the Mississippi.

It's still hard to believe that residential housing stock hasn't gotten younger, but I guess the sprawl has sufficiently counteracted effect of the construction boom so we could keep building without tearing much down. Yay, exurbs!

Lots of old structures out there built to last for centuries skewing the statistics.

I think this trend will flatten over time as the garbage we build now gets torn down and replaced more frequently. The really old outliers will remain, but there'll be fewer and fewer 40-50 year old structures and more and more 10-20 year old ones.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by cheval de frise

Too late.

CDF

But we have such wonderful innovations on the horizon. Just yesterday I was listening to an encouraging story on NPR about funds backed by TARP banks buying real estate liens in huge blocks, marking them up with fees and threatening to evict homeowners to compel payment of the delinquent r/e taxes. I think we're on the cusp of a glorious renaissance. Horatio Alger'd soil his slacks white were alive to hear about all the wonderful new businesses we're coming up with every day. Let no one tell you this is the end of the American Century. It's only the end of the middle class as we knew it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Lots of old structures out there built to last for centuries skewing the statistics.

I think this trend will flatten over time as the garbage we build now gets torn down and replaced more frequently. The really old outliers will remain, but there'll be fewer and fewer 40-50 year old structures and more and more 10-20 year old ones.

My house was built in 1929. With the exception of the dorm room I lived in freshman year and the apartment I lived in in law school, I've never lived in a building built after 1940.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Lots of old structures out there built to last for centuries skewing the statistics.

I think this trend will flatten over time as the garbage we build now gets torn down and replaced more frequently. The really old outliers will remain, but there'll be fewer and fewer 40-50 year old structures and more and more 10-20 year old ones.

Remind me not to drive on any bridges in your town.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

My house was built in 1929. With the exception of the dorm room I lived in freshman year and the apartment I lived in in law school, I've never lived in a building built after 1940.

They're tough to maintain with the electrical, plumbing and slate roof issues, but as far as the bones of homes go, nothing beats the old stuff. My current twenty year old home feels like balsa wood compared to my previous 50 year old home. It's kind of like the difference between really old German cars and the new junk. Get in that 70s/80s Benz diesel wagon your old miser uncle still drives, then feel what a 2010 is like. New stuff's hollowed out and cheap. Houses feel the same to me. I feel like I could rip the drywall from the moldings in mine with nothing but bare hands. In my previous place, I had a tree fall against the house while I was in it and there was minimal damage to the home. If one fell on my present place, I fear it'd cave the place in half.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

TheyGet in that 70s/80s Benz diesel wagon your old miser uncle still drives, then feel what a 2010 is like. New stuff's hollowed out and cheap.

The new stuff is so full of added, heavy technology, that it has to be hollowed out.

Houses feel the same to me. I feel like I could rip the drywall from the moldings in mine with nothing but bare hands.

This was a big factor in my decision to move in with the old people. The "luxury" loft-style condos built in the last decade felt that crap.