Don’t read New Republic but this popped up on my feed this morning and I thought it was especially interesting in the wake of Cruz getting booted from NYC. From New Republic:
New York Campaign Ads Are a Tale of Two Cities
Muslim women in American flag headscarves. A shopkeeper speaking Spanish to his customers. Orthodox Jewish men walking down a city street. This is the New York depicted in a recent Hillary Clinton ad: a cultural melting pot that showcases America’s openness and tolerance.
Both Clinton and Bernie Sanders have released uplifting ads about the Empire State in recent days. But these are not indicative of how New York is generally portrayed on the campaign trail. Not since the early 2000s, when politicians were tripping over themselves to praise New Yorkers after September 11, have campaign ads shown the state in such a positive light.
More often, New York is used as a symbol of greed, excess, and general depravity. It represents the source of the country’s problems, not its best aspects. It shows the fundamental clash between wealthy, powerful elites and down-to-earth people in real America.
In his 2014 memoir God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy, Mike Huckabee described a great culture war gripping America that pitted New York against rest of the country. Fancy Manhattan restaurants, he wrote, never served grits. Guns were all but outlawed, and people stared at his cowboy boots on the subway. This is the New York most commonly depicted in campaign commercials, a city cordoned off from the American heartland and its wholesome values.
…
Political ads are often about identifying a villain: someone or something that makes voters either angry or afraid. Commercials about Wall Street, featuring sleek office buildings with tinted windows, do both. Look at these bankers who threw the country into a recession! You should be angry! What’s going on behind those ominous dark windows? You should be afraid! That is what makes these ads so effective—and Wall Street such an obvious target.Less effective are the ads that attack the city as a whole. In January, Ted Cruz released a commercial in Iowa that featured an old newsreel of Trump saying, “I mean, hey, I lived in New York City or Manhattan all my life, so you know my views are little bit different than if I lived in Iowa.” The announcer concludes: “Donald Trump, New York values, not ours.” The idea was that there was something rotten about New York itself—and the people it produces.
This is a difficult idea to sell because it requires viewers accept the premise that all of New York’s eight million people are fundamentally corrupt. “It’s harder for citizens to draw the link,” Fowler said. “It’s easier to vilify the big banks than the city itself.” It’s particularly tricky territory for Republicans, who like to assail coastal elites for their moral apathy but often invoke the heroism of New Yorkers on 9/11 when discussing their counter-terrorism policies. When Cruz released the “New York Values” ad, “it didn’t end up playing very well,” Fowler said. Trump could simply write off the critique with a testament to the bravery he witnessed in New York immediately after the Twin Towers fell.
Good Morning New Jersey
$14 billion in Tesla pre-sales – Musk saying it is the most successful/largest product launch … ever.
Now all they need to do is make them.
I’m now accepting orders for my intergalactic cruising vehicle.
Give me depravity or give me death.
I guess it’s the least dorky looking electric car I’ve ever seen, but it’s still a rich guy’s car.
Are previous sales of the model x and S counted on the 200,000 to get $7,500 Fed tax credit?
Seems to me, there is a huge difference between a Republican from the south or flyover country….and a Republican from the Northeast.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml
The credit begins to phase out for vehicles at the beginning of the second calendar quarter after the manufacturer has sold 200,000 eligible plug-in electric vehicles (i.e., plug-in hybrids and EVs) in the United States as counted from January 1, 2010. IRS will announce when a manufacturer exceeds this production figure and will announce the subsequent phase out schedule (Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Credit Quarterly Sales).
I guess it’s more of a bargain if you can get $7500 off the (starting) sticker price of $35,000.
I wonder if that’s one of the reasons why so many people lined up to reserve one.
Seems like you still get somewhat of a credit after the 200,000 cars are sold…if I’m reading this right.
The real test will be how many sell after there are no more government subsidies.
Guess they don’t plan on replacing these boomer jobs. Don’t know if I buy it, but if this is true, this puts a lot of pressure on my wage inflation prediction. I wan banking on the boomer’s retiring and opening up positions for millennials. Was expecting the combination of boomers leaving in droves and millennials replacing them in droves to put a lot of pressure on wages.
I really hope they don’t look to increase profit by using cost cutting measures where they don’t replace the retiring boomers positions. This will be a major blow to getting the economy back to some real growth.
“The bottom line: The record expansion of the labor force is good news, but don’t expect it to last. Baby boomers are still retiring in droves.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-07/unemployment-finally-some-force-in-the-labor-force
about 50-75 IQ points
D-FENS says:
April 8, 2016 at 8:40 am
Seems to me, there is a huge difference between a Republican from the south or flyover country….and a Republican from the Northeast.
Edward Snowden better keep an eye out for 007.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/edward-snowdens-david-cameron-tweet-tells-public-to-rise-up-if-they-want-him-to-resign_uk_57074b52e4b00c769e2d91a9?s481714i
re# 9- Starting price does not include batteries.
The younger baby boomers (in their 50’s, maybe early 60’s) are not going to retire in droves anytime soon, unless they have pensions. And not many of them do have pensions. But yes, I would say that by the time they are Medicare age 65, the wealthier ones will retire. Without a pension, even the older ones are going to hang on to their jobs as long as they can. Who wants to give up a steady income these days?
Why is it so difficult to recognize the govt polices (let’s say taxation) redistribute money to itself and friends? The middle and lower income classes would be infinitely better off without the govt [not] “redistributing” money to them.
Fabius Maximus says:
April 8, 2016 at 12:29 am
No Energy to debate this tax issue, but a few points some of which have been made.
“What is fair?” is subjective. The question is more how should the government raise revenue. Go look at where the government gets its money and then have the discussion.
People use BS arguments. For instance “the 47% don’t pay tax”. They actually do. Everyone’s first dollar is taxed the same, as is their second dollar. The poor mans last dollar say ($29,999) is taxed the same as the rich mans same dollar ($29,999). The difference is the poor man runs out of dollars to tax long before the higher bands kick in. Also EITC will have a bigger impact on the poor man, possibly taking them to a refund, Not so much with the rich man. Their multiple credits may dwarf the poor mans EITC, but still not take them to a refund.
Having more income to tax is not redistribution.
Flat tax will kill this country.
Raymond Reddington formerly Phoenix says: says:
April 8, 2016 at 1:39 am
49 “To summarize, you are saying that redistribution is right because it is moral, or to put it more technically, it is the device by which we enforce and implement morality.”
I did not say I believe redistribution is right because it is moral. Really it should not be necessary at all. I do believe that it is a device used to enforce and implement morality.
Redistribution is a means to an end. The end is what the majority says it is. The means are what the majority says will further it.
This is the “quagmire.” Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Do the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few. That can be argued back and forth all day. I can find examples of each that both work.
It’s always the extremes of things that cause the most issues. Many of the so called “needs” of the many are either self-induced or caused by perpetrators that prey on them. Fools and crooks.
CMD, Your argument is clearly written and well thought out. It would be an interesting experiment to eliminate progressive taxation.
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease…
If the majority of the boomers jobs will not be replaced, I hope they continue to work for as long as they can. Need as many people as employed as possible.
HouseWhineWine says:
April 8, 2016 at 9:52 am
The younger baby boomers (in their 50′s, maybe early 60′s) are not going to retire in droves anytime soon, unless they have pensions. And not many of them do have pensions. But yes, I would say that by the time they are Medicare age 65, the wealthier ones will retire. Without a pension, even the older ones are going to hang on to their jobs as long as they can. Who wants to give up a steady income these days?
Boomers getting cut loose left and right from what I see.
Not that I don’t totally agree with what you say, but let’s blame human nature, not the govt institution. Even if you eliminated the govt, money would be redistributed (through wages and contracts) through the economy by the means of nepotism. The best jobs and most lucrative contracts would be given to family members and friends. You would still face the problem of money concentrating at the top due to this behavior. So would the middle and lower classes be better off, or would they be in the same exact situation? I’m basing this on the idea that govt doesn’t control private sector, but private sector controls govt. What big business wants from the govt, big business usually gets.
joyce says:
April 8, 2016 at 9:54 am
Why is it so difficult to recognize the govt polices (let’s say taxation) redistribute money to itself and friends? The middle and lower income classes would be infinitely better off without the govt [not] “redistributing” money to them.
Now that you understand human nature, don’t create a government institution, run by fallible human beings, that has too much power over people.
The Great Pumpkin says:
April 8, 2016 at 10:32 am
Not that I don’t totally agree with what you say, but let’s blame human nature, not the govt institution.
It’s really cute how he trusts the government to represent his best interests.
Awww … little pumpkin!! <3 <3 <3 <3 ;)
Speaking of a government filled with fallible human beings…
Poll: Should Donald Trump supporter be ticketed for flying candidate’s flags?
http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2016/04/poll_should_man_be_prohibited_from_flying_trump_fl.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
There were Obama signs everywhere for A YEAR before the election.
Nobody had an issue with that.
Slippery slope to go down…
absolutely absurd
joyce says:
April 8, 2016 at 9:54 am
Why is it so difficult to recognize the govt polices (let’s say taxation) redistribute money to itself and friends? The middle and lower income classes would be infinitely better off without the govt [not] “redistributing” money to them.
Dead on and I agree.
I know a solution to this, but it would never pass based on politicians going into self preservation mode; death penalty for corruption. That would put an end to most corruption, some will still risk it, but they can be used as an example to remind people what happens if you are a corrupt politician. You can hire clot to perform the execution by whatever means he deems fit.
D-FENS says:
April 8, 2016 at 11:44 am
Now that you understand human nature, don’t create a government institution, run by fallible human beings, that has too much power over people.
@SenSanders
I don’t think you can be an American company only when you want a bailout from the American people.
You have also got to pay American taxes.
I see what you guys are saying and I agree. I was going to deep into theory and not focusing on human nature (which is basically the most important factor). Thanks for pointing it out, guys.
grim says:
April 8, 2016 at 12:06 pm
It’s really cute how he trusts the government to represent his best interests.
Awww … little pumpkin!! <3 <3 <3 <3 ;)
It is my human nature to want to put a bounty on Punkin’s head.
This from the retarded troll that has repeated used the phrase ‘upward redistribution of wealth.’
GOP’s broken (the good one) says:
April 8, 2016 at 12:54 pm
absolutely absurd
joyce says:
April 8, 2016 at 9:54 am
Why is it so difficult to recognize the govt polices (let’s say taxation) redistribute money to itself and friends? The middle and lower income classes would be infinitely better off without the govt [not] “redistributing” money to them.
@SenSanders
The largest U.S. companies would owe $620 billion in U.S. taxes on the cash they store in tax havens,
the equivalent of our defense budget.
Maybe just term limits for state and federal legislatures.
The Great Pumpkin says:
April 8, 2016 at 12:54 pm
Dead on and I agree.
I know a solution to this, but it would never pass based on politicians going into self preservation mode; death penalty for corruption. That would put an end to most corruption, some will still risk it, but they can be used as an example to remind people what happens if you are a corrupt politician. You can hire clot to perform the execution by whatever means he deems fit.
27 – How much are we talking about? (asking for a friend)
We get it Anon. Big business bad. Big government good. But no big business means no big government. I’m waiting for the solution. I guess we’ll wait for Twitter to answer.
30
Let people associate freely with each other personally and commercially.
End all direct and indirect subsidies.
Stop giving free money to banks and government
Stop bailing out people / entities.
Prosecute fraud.
Term limits.
Bend over Tim Cook, no Vaseline either.
https://lawfareblog.com/draft-feinstein-burr-encryption-bill-here
“But no big business means no big government.”
and vice versa
Idiocy.
If someone is going to commit a crime, and they are going to use encrypted communication – I’m pretty sure a law isn’t going to stop them.
Lib – how are things going?
Powerful. I never thought of it from this angle. Relationship goes hand in hand.
“But no big business means no big government.”
CNBC.com:
First-quarter economy looks bleeker by the day.
38. that symbiosis permeates every aspect of modern existence…..it is the epitome of the greater good.
re # 36 – even more than you think.
http://www.wired.com/2016/04/senates-draft-encryption-bill-privacy-nightmare/
33. Joyce
End all direct and indirect subsidies.
Medicare and Social Security are subsidies. Money taken from 18 y/o workers and given to 80 y/o retirees.
You wanna be the one telling them they aren’t getting a check anymore?
You wanna be the one telling them they aren’t getting free healthcare anymore?
“The U.S. ought to be spending more on infrastructure. This is the view of all right-thinking people, and as a right-thinking person I of course endorse it. With interest rates near record lows and the working-age population still, by historical and international standards, underemployed, governments (or in some cases entrepreneurs) should be borrowing much more to repave roads, shore up bridges, expand mass-transit systems, build new sewage-treatment plants, replace water mains, you name it. Such borrowing and spending would make the nation richer by stimulating economic activity now and paving the way for stronger economic growth in the future.
That said, the U.S. probably also ought to be spending less on infrastructure. Not overall, but on something like a per-mile basis. Broad international cost comparisons across all kinds of infrastructure don’t seem to be available, but there is a growing body of evidence on one particular infrastructure area that matters a lot to me as a New York City commuter: subways and other rail systems. And it shows that U.S. construction costs are among the world’s highest.
Transportation blogger Alon Levy has probably done the most to raise awareness of this, with five years of posts documenting the cost differences. And last year, Tracy Gordon of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and David Schleicher of Yale Law School examined 144 planned and finished rail projects in 44 countries and found that the four most expensive on a per-kilometer basis (and six of the top 12) were in the U.S.”
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-infrastructure-costs-so-much
America has soccer moms…….New Jersey has this…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eac91tZsZMw&nohtml5=False
Raymond,
Every time something remotely related comes up, you mention the entitlements. Yes and yes to answer your questions; I’ll gladly say that. The programs should end; they never should have be created actually. When people such as yourself negatively react to a transition plan (even if it’s only a handful of years), nothing will ever change.
The fact that a couple of generations got so much more out of the system than they put in is immaterial at this point. It’s sunk. We can (and I do) complain, but that’s about it. We can’t demand the retirement that our grandparents had… the math won’t allow it. Granted we could make structural changes elsewhere in the economy which would help… but the only sustainable path for a government entity is to avoid long-term liabilities.
Grim,
So far, smooth sailing. Back in New Brunswick to continue rehab. First round of chemo down and D didn’t show any symptoms whatsoever to the poison. They’ll steal some baby stem cells next week for rounds 4, 5 and 6. Every 21 days, they’ll be taking D to the edge of the cliff. Might need radiation at end. Can’t tell yet. Pathology is pretty crazy on MedullaB. Oh…my nasty terrible big business employer has been incredible. They won’t let me take medical leave. And they are totally cool with me working remotely nearly permanently. They have only made me focus on the big client-touching stuff too. Everyone’s chipping in to handle my workload. Just like they wouldn’t in the public sector.
Lib: you fcuking hang in there….my best to your little guy….
Chemo weakens the immune system. Reverse Isolation is a must. Wishing D a quick recovery
grim: here is your lead for tomorrow….I expect Hat Tip you klepto-attribution-prick….
WSJ
U.S.
Housing Bust Lingers for Generation X
By CHRIS KIRKHAM
The group of Americans known as Generation X has suffered more than any other age cohort from the housing bust, according to an analysis of federal data, suggesting homeownership rates for that group could remain depressed for years to come.
The data show an enormous swing in the fortunes of people born between 1965 and 1984, the group defined by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies as Generation X.
Compared with previous generations, Generation X went from the most successful in terms of homeownership rates in 2004 to the least successful by 2015, according to the data, which date to the early 1980s.
The culprit: a historic bull market for housing, fueled in part by easy-to-get mortgages, that encouraged record levels of home buying until the financial system cracked and the housing market collapsed. Earlier generations such as baby boomers, who entered the market before the frenzy of the early 2000s, have fared better.
Generation X “came into the market at precisely the wrong time,” said Rick Sharga, executive vice president at Ten-X.com, an online real-estate brokerage. “We’ve effectively wiped out a group of homeowners who historically would have been on their second or third properties by now.”
In 2004, people then-aged 25 to 34, the core of Generation X, had a homeownership rate of 49.5%, the highest for that age group since the U.S. Census Bureau started regularly collecting such data in the early 1980s.
Last year, by contrast, the homeownership rate for 35-to-44-year-olds was at a more than three-decade low of 58.5%, down from an average of 65.8% for that age group. The upshot: Generation X experienced a much smaller increase in homeownership rates than previous generations as they hit middle age.
Much of the discussion of the future of the housing market centers on millennials, the group born between 1985 and 2004, according to the Harvard Center. Their tendency to live at home with parents and delay getting married has raised concerns about long-term homeownership trends.
But Generation X’s travails promise to disrupt traditional real-estate patterns as well. The housing market can be viewed as a progression through time: younger people start out renting, save enough to buy houses, build equity and then trade up to more desirable homes.
Now that trajectory has been interrupted, with fewer middle-aged buyers trading up, which would open up the inventory of smaller homes for younger buyers.
The challenge is compounded because the population of Generation X, roughly 83 million, is smaller than the roughly 87 million millennials. By 2025, millennials are expected to grow to 93 million, mainly due to immigration, while the size of Generation X will remain steady.
The Mustard children play in their Irvine backyard. Mr. and Mrs. Mustard took a loss when selling a home they bought in 2003. ENLARGE
The Mustard children play in their Irvine backyard. Mr. and Mrs. Mustard took a loss when selling a home they bought in 2003.
There are now three million more renters in their 30s and 40s today than 10 years ago, even though the number of households in that age bracket declined, according to data from the Harvard Joint Center.
“We need them to be buying houses and pushing the market,” said Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at the University of Southern California. “But they’re not. They’re not moving. The whole system is gridlocked.”
Xavier Texidor, 33 years old, and his wife have bought and lost two homes outside Jacksonville, Fla., since he was in his early 20s.
The first was a condominium they bought in 2003, a property that left them underwater in 2008 after the value plummeted. After turning the condo over to the bank, they bought again in 2012, but the needed repairs on the home drove them deeper into debt, and eventually into bankruptcy in 2014.
The couple, who have two boys, are now renters, a lifestyle Mr. Texidor, a data-entry clerk, is beginning to enjoy after the wild ups and downs of homeownership.
“Growing up, I heard a lot of people say how renting was a waste of money. I don’t see it that way anymore,” he said. “I’m looking forward to buying a house again, but I plan on definitely taking my time.”
Many people who lost homes to foreclosures or short sales face long waits before lenders will consider them again—up to seven years for foreclosures and up to three years for a short sale. A study last year by the National Association of Realtors estimated that about a third of the 9 million buyers who went through distressed sales or foreclosures between 2006 and 2014 will never return to homeownership.
But while many Generation X rental dwellers were forced to the sidelines, some have simply opted out.
Tim Mustard, 49, is among those who believe renting is the best choice. He and his wife bought a home in Irvine, Calif., in 2003. As home values escalated through the mid-2000s, the couple refinanced their mortgage twice and took out a home-equity loan.
As they considered a third refinance in 2008 they consulted with two friends—a mortgage broker and an accountant—who advised them to sell instead and get out before the market hit bottom. They did so, taking a small loss.
Now Mr. Mustard, an architect, is on track financially, but he prefers to rent. They live in a good school district for their two children, and he is only 8 miles away from his job. The thought of buying lacks appeal.
“The last recession was so devastating,” he said. “There’s still a little bit of fear in me.”
Daniel Danyus, 34, is making the transition back. He and his wife lost three properties to short sales after getting in over their heads during the boom. He has since become a real-estate broker, in part to become more educated about the market that bruised him.
After repairing his credit, he and his wife have a contract on a home in Jacksonville, Fla., expected to close this month.
“I’ve definitely learned some things through this process,” Mr. Danyus said. “This wasn’t something that just happened to me. It was something we experienced as a culture.”
Yome…I heard the opposite. Best thing to do is to avoid all contact and everyone must wash hands like crazy who will make contact. Masks, robes and gloves not necessary accept to scare the sh1t out of everyone. Of course, sick people shouldn’t be around the patient.
Joyce 45
Then please write me a check for the $245000 that I,ve paid into social security over the last 28 years , and then just get over it, I don,t know where you stand on the social ladder but as for me, I have an education, work for a 59 billion a year company, NEVER, collected unemployment, always lived below my means saved and planned for a retirement based on the “Entitlements” that they said were part of my package. I worked a side trade job to send my kid to college. I had the powers that be gut my pension after 22 years of service, inform me that I would not have retirement medical at 24 years of service. The same CEO’s that are complaint about moving the goal post on inversions and having the government change the rules have pulled off the biggest redistribution of wealth in American history. Am I correct to guess that maybe your husband is one of those elitist executives but as long as you get yours to hell with everybody else right?
Love it
My brother in law was getting chemo when his wife did not realize she was coming down with something at home. He caught it. I will suggest minimizing contacts and wearing the mask will not hurt. Prevent him catching anything from anybody.
Yes. That, I agree with Yome.
Chi #49,
Allow me to be the first:
Mean Mister Mustard sleeps in the park
Shaves in the dark trying to save paper
Sleeps in a hole in the road
Saving up to buy some clothes
Keeps a ten-bob note up his nose
Such a mean old man
Such a mean old man
As prime time Gen Xer, this article was long overdue. Everything is about boomers and millenials. It was Gen X who got f-ed. I bought a shit pile at 31 back in ’04 but dummy ex was told by lawyer, back in 2008, that Brigadoon never goes down. Paid me 30k in equity during divorce. She lost 70k overall at least after selling it in 2011. I have friends that took 80k loss after buying in 2005, selling in 2014. They moved to NC for cheaper housing. I met neighbors recently who can’t sell or move because they bought in 2005. Stuck in small cape, no garage with 8 and 10 YO girls. What a legacy this bust will leave for Gen X.
Bystander #55
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
And you’re working for no one but me
Lib / Joyce,
You are both wrong. Big business is 12% of government revenue. While that is still a big number, if it disappears (unlikely, they can only squeeze that lemon so hard) there revenue drop will not shrink government that much
Hey, I lost $50k on my $140k buy in 1987…just to add my whine..
Lib,
Still pushing good vibes your way. On a side note. I’m down your way tomorrow. My kid has her first game. it’s a cold early start in Floyd Hall.
Fab..get used to it.
I would argue what your definition of big business is, but I simply don’t have the time.
55. beautiful
This makes me sick. I don’t care what any excuse people make, the worker has been robbed beyond belief. Blame globalization or automation, or whatever lame excuse they make, but there has been an immense redistribution (robbery) of the working class in the past decades. It’s sick that they would throw the worker under the bus like this. Straight up used and abused the worker in any way they could. Do they not realize that workers are human beings? Good people, just trying to do the right thing and raise their family. How do you rape honest individuals looking to raise their family?
This is why I will never advocate for the elimination of any WORKER’S pension. I don’t care if they are govt employees, advocating for the elimination of pensions for working class citizens is the definition of wrong. After a life of working, you should be able to retire and live. If you can’t, something is broken with the system and you need to create a better system. Every worker should HAVE A PENSION. Give me one got damn good reason why we have went away from this system? Don’t tell me it costs too much, that’s not a viable answer when we are sitting on record profits.
It’s total bull sh!t to be living in the richest human civilization in the history of mankind and cutting sh!t for the workers left and right. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Why are the majority of the people struggling so much under a civilization bestowed with so much wealth? It makes no sense.
My heart goes out to the people like you; the ones that have always done the right thing, lived modestly, and still get screwed by the man. Nothing like hanging that carrot in your face for the majority of your hard working career, only to have it taken away at the finish line. I’m a non-violent individual, but I have no problem taking a bat to the head to these individuals who did this to you.
Funnelcloud says:
April 8, 2016 at 4:59 pm
Joyce 45
Then please write me a check for the $245000 that I,ve paid into social security over the last 28 years , and then just get over it, I don,t know where you stand on the social ladder but as for me, I have an education, work for a 59 billion a year company, NEVER, collected unemployment, always lived below my means saved and planned for a retirement based on the “Entitlements” that they said were part of my package. I worked a side trade job to send my kid to college. I had the powers that be gut my pension after 22 years of service, inform me that I would not have retirement medical at 24 years of service. The same CEO’s that are complaint about moving the goal post on inversions and having the government change the rules have pulled off the biggest redistribution of wealth in American history. Am I correct to guess that maybe your husband is one of those elitist executives but as long as you get yours to hell with everybody else right?
Had a talk with my mother-in-law. She said that when she was young, everyone had money and a decent living. People could come from another country, work hard, and in a few years, be able to purchase their own home. People in their early twenties would be able to buy houses. Now, the whole system is built “to take” as opposed “to give”. The system just takes and takes from you, giving nothing back for your hard work. There was a time when hard work would be rewarded, now your reward is getting to keep your job…..A job that is used to rob you blind based on the level of profit you produce and how much is given back for producing this profit. Sad.
Plain and simple, you got robbed. Capitalism: someone’s loss is someone’s gain. If it makes you feel any better, your generation got them back by defaulting on your loans. Some people lived in their house for years without paying a mortgage, and because they put close to nothing down, they made out. Once again, the people that got screwed are the people who do the right thing; the people that put 20% down are the ones who ate it. Had nothing to do with the run-up in real estate prices and paid the biggest price. Sh!t makes me sick.
Bystander says:
April 8, 2016 at 5:41 pm
As prime time Gen Xer, this article was long overdue. Everything is about boomers and millenials. It was Gen X who got f-ed. I bought a shit pile at 31 back in ’04 but dummy ex was told by lawyer, back in 2008, that Brigadoon never goes down. Paid me 30k in equity during divorce. She lost 70k overall at least after selling it in 2011. I have friends that took 80k loss after buying in 2005, selling in 2014. They moved to NC for cheaper housing. I met neighbors recently who can’t sell or move because they bought in 2005. Stuck in small cape, no garage with 8 and 10 YO girls. What a legacy this bust will leave for Gen X.
Wow, an employer actually looking out for their employee in a time of need. I’m glad that they didn’t throw you under the bus. God bless.
Prayers with your child during this tough battle. Breaks my heart to hear of a kid going through this.
Libturd questioning the gender of Hillary’s Cankle fluid. says:
April 8, 2016 at 2:35 pm
Grim,
So far, smooth sailing. Back in New Brunswick to continue rehab. First round of chemo down and D didn’t show any symptoms whatsoever to the poison. They’ll steal some baby stem cells next week for rounds 4, 5 and 6. Every 21 days, they’ll be taking D to the edge of the cliff. Might need radiation at end. Can’t tell yet. Pathology is pretty crazy on MedullaB. Oh…my nasty terrible big business employer has been incredible. They won’t let me take medical leave. And they are totally cool with me working remotely nearly permanently. They have only made me focus on the big client-touching stuff too. Everyone’s chipping in to handle my workload. Just like they wouldn’t in the public sector.
Not surprisingly, you disagree. Even less surprising, you don’t have a clue. Just one example for now: Govt policies via regulations funnel ungodly amounts of money towards its favored sons.
Fabius Maximus says:
April 8, 2016 at 5:47 pm
Lib / Joyce,
You are both wrong. Big business is 12% of government revenue. While that is still a big number, if it disappears (unlikely, they can only squeeze that lemon so hard) there revenue drop will not shrink government that much
Thoughts and prayers with you lib.
Thank god those trillion dollar bailouts were just a bad dream.
The Great Pumpkin says:
April 8, 2016 at 6:55 pm
Plain and simple, you got robbed. Capitalism: someone’s loss is someone’s gain. If it makes you feel any better, your generation got them back by defaulting on your loans.
You’re incorrect on my background but to get to your points… First, I did mention a transition. It’s useless to go into much detail because there’s a better chance of bergen county literally having unicorns than ending SS or Medicare. Unicorns aside, if the concept of a transition can’t be discussed, then it it actually impossible to end these programs and the long term liabilities they carry with them which hamstring the govt and are easily subject to political abuse. Second, did I not also mention the continuous redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the govt and special interests? We are in lock step there. If the US could restructure it’s economy, entitlements would be better off… no way to be certain that they’d be always be sustainable though. Plus, the govt shouldn’t be in the retirement or health care business to begin with. But that ship has obviously sailed almost a century ago.
Funnelcloud says:
April 8, 2016 at 4:59 pm
Joyce 45
Then please write me a check for the $245000 that I,ve paid into social security over the last 28 years , and then just get over it, I don,t know where you stand on the social ladder but as for me, I have an education, work for a 59 billion a year company, NEVER, collected unemployment, always lived below my means saved and planned for a retirement based on the “Entitlements” that they said were part of my package. I worked a side trade job to send my kid to college. I had the powers that be gut my pension after 22 years of service, inform me that I would not have retirement medical at 24 years of service. The same CEO’s that are complaint about moving the goal post on inversions and having the government change the rules have pulled off the biggest redistribution of wealth in American history. Am I correct to guess that maybe your husband is one of those elitist executives but as long as you get yours to hell with everybody else right?
Should have taken a $300k personal loan and invested it in firearms and gold bars in 2006. I’d be much better off today.
70. I like the system of working, contributing, and then hopefully sustaining yourself after retirement. Of course, the quality of that retirement and the nature of it depends on where you decide to retire and how successful you were while you were working.
Therein lies the rub. In theory the ability to collect social security is a differentiator of how we treat the elderly. It’s a pretty important compact for those who worked during their productive years and now should be ‘entitled’ to some security….
Essex,
Your second to last sentence is an outlier. Those who worked and saved during their productive years will have some security. The elderly will by definition include some who worked and saved and some who didn’t.
51 Funnelclouud,
I feel your pain.
People such as yourself and me, aka “you people” as Joyce calls us, should just sit back and relax like when you bring a frog to a slow boil and ignore the fact that what she is in favor of is redistributing our earnings and those earnings of all younger workers to an older generation. Transition is just another word for lubrication.
There is no reason for transition other than to redistribute funds from one group to another.
Typical I got here first mentality..
Raymond,
Hypothetically, if you’re collecting SS and it goes bankrupt when you’re 87 yo… then what? Or what if it’s the next generation. You’re saying what Funnelcloud accused me of implying… which is you don’t care as long as you get yours (or as much as you can).
If memory serves, you said previously that SS (and maybe Medicare too) should be 100% pay as you go and adjusted as needed continually. Or am I mistaken? How does your plan stop redistrisbuting from one generation to another?
The adjustment being taxes and benefits.
You are right. In the end, they just socialized the loss like they always do. At least the defaults made them sweat and squirm for a second.
joyce says:
April 8, 2016 at 8:09 pm
Thank god those trillion dollar bailouts were just a bad dream.
The Great Pumpkin says:
April 8, 2016 at 6:55 pm
Plain and simple, you got robbed. Capitalism: someone’s loss is someone’s gain. If it makes you feel any better, your generation got them back by defaulting on your loans.
What a week for Elon Musk – sticks the landing.
#67 Joyce
And again, you don’t seem to understand the point I’m making. Instead of saying “you don’t have a clue”, why not ask me to explain “why I think that!”. Maybe you don’t understand the problem.
Let me try and clarify. You seem to be saying, starve big business and you will starve big government and “vice versa”. That is not the case. To understand the argument, you have to understand that there are two aspects in play Revenue and Expense.
First lets look at Revenue. https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/revenue_pie,__2015_enacted.png
You see that yellow slice of pie, that’s your big business. If your big business disappears, that is what shrinks. Will orange and blue shrink as well? Yes but not to the same extent, as manufacturing has been off shored, along with a lot of other jobs. Orange and Blue for the most part is made up of the Service Sector economy jobs, that Sir Ronnie bestowed on us. So if you Starve the corporate beast, you won’t really move the needle. Big government can survive on the backs of the working people alone.
Now on the other hand, if you closed the loopholes on the likes of Deferred Income, you would spike the yellow piece of the pie by a large chunk.
Ideal situation is that the corporate piece of the pie should pick up a large party of the expense to make the living standards of the country a lot better.
Now to expense. This is two posts to get around grim’s multi-link rules.
This image is priceless.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/0415web-leonhardt2-popup.png
I will always question sources and data. While I will not rely on the exact numbers, I will point out the trends.
Exclusions, Next 19% earning over 106K. That is not middle class, that is most of this board. That is one of the many problems.
The narrative given to us and what you seem to be saying is focused on the Refundable Credits, because that is low hanging fruit and an easy scapegoat.
The difference between you and me is that I don’t think you are wrong, I think you (and many many others in here) miss the real issues.
Fabius,
You continue to outdo yourself; your ignorance knows no bounds. It’s like you had a response queued up regardless of what I actually said which was “Govt policies via regulations funnel ungodly amounts of money towards its favored sons.”
“”” You seem to be saying, starve big business and you will starve big government and “vice versa”.”””
Wrong, not surprisingly. I am saying that special interests use govt power to enrich themselves and their friends (via MANY ways other than tax policy) . This concept is so basic it’s pathetic I’ve had to say it three times. Do I really need to provide examples?
Another popular misconception is that most corporations lobby for less government regulation. That’s far from the truth. In fact, big corporations generally lobby for more government regulation in their industry. The Big Tobacco company Phillip Morris aggressively lobbies for heightened federal regulation of tobacco products and advertising. Companies such as McDonalds, Starbucks and Kraft have spent millions of dollars lobbying for food “safety” regulation bills. And energy companies like Duke Power have lobbied for cap and trade programs that would benefit their bottom line at the expense of consumers, who would face soaring electricity prices.
Why do big corporations lobby for more regulation? As Matt Ridley notes, “they are addicted to corporate welfare, they love regulations that erect barriers to entry to their small competitors.” Government regulation championed by major corporations is far more likely to significantly hurt their smaller rivals. Politically connected big corporations are fully aware that these harmful regulations will help to wipe out their competition. And that’s the plan.
Big corporations are often hostile to free enterprise. The late Noble Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once wrote, “business corporations in general are not defenders of free enterprise. On the contrary, they are one of the chief sources of danger.” In this big government era, it’s become easier for businesses to profit through the halls of Congress rather than the marketplace. We reject crony capitalism in which the success of a business is determined by their closeness to government officials. What’s good for businesses isn’t always good for taxpayers and the cause of freedom.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/big-corporations-and-big-government-go-hand-hand
One of the best posts I’ve ever read on here.
I never realized we were on the same page. You summed up my position on this whole income inequality/concentration of wealth issue I obsess over. The harm it brings to the economy from a lack of competition to a lack of demand. It might not be a “true monopoly”, but it is close enough. These corps get so big that they buy out all their competition. Joe public thinks it’s a bunch of different companies competinting when they are all owned by a cartel of 2-4 big boys in that said industry. When I can’t think of a small business worth risking my capital in, that there is a sign of a problem. If you accrue the capital you should be able to enter a market, but that’s not how it works today. Let’s say I want to start a toy store; the dream was over before it began. How about drink distributor? No chance in hell, my only hope is to come up with an original drink that can threaten coke or pepsi’s market share, and hope they buy me out. Business should not be conducted in this fashion.
joyce says:
April 9, 2016 at 12:16 am
Another popular misconception is that most corporations lobby for less government regulation. That’s far from the truth. In fact, big corporations generally lobby for more government regulation in their industry. The Big Tobacco company Phillip Morris aggressively lobbies for heightened federal regulation of tobacco products and advertising. Companies such as McDonalds, Starbucks and Kraft have spent millions of dollars lobbying for food “safety” regulation bills. And energy companies like Duke Power have lobbied for cap and trade programs that would benefit their bottom line at the expense of consumers, who would face soaring electricity prices.
Why do big corporations lobby for more regulation? As Matt Ridley notes, “they are addicted to corporate welfare, they love regulations that erect barriers to entry to their small competitors.” Government regulation championed by major corporations is far more likely to significantly hurt their smaller rivals. Politically connected big corporations are fully aware that these harmful regulations will help to wipe out their competition. And that’s the plan.
Big corporations are often hostile to free enterprise. The late Noble Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once wrote, “business corporations in general are not defenders of free enterprise. On the contrary, they are one of the chief sources of danger.” In this big government era, it’s become easier for businesses to profit through the halls of Congress rather than the marketplace. We reject crony capitalism in which the success of a business is determined by their closeness to government officials. What’s good for businesses isn’t always good for taxpayers and the cause of freedom.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/big-corporations-and-big-government-go-hand-hand
Tool [29];
@SenSanders
The largest U.S. companies would owe $620 billion in U.S. taxes on the cash they store in tax havens,
the equivalent of our defense budget.
You say that as if you think it’s YOUR money they’re sheltering.
Joyce more that my patience knows no bounds. I know my position and am willing and able to explain it.
“Govt policies via regulations funnel ungodly amounts of money towards its favored sons” Yes. Now with that said, that’s not really relevant to the discussion. You seem to be focused on the expense side of government. We are talking taxes which is the revenue side of government. There is a little cross pollination, but not much. On the revenue side, it will increase the size of the yellow wedge slightly. On the expense side, not paying out the subsidies will decrease the overall total.
Here is where your point fits in the discussion.
If we spend 25% of our budget on defense, is your issue more with the amount of the overall spend or where its getting spent? There is a difference. Your point falls in the latter. If we buy a fighter jet, we shouldn’t overpay for it with tax breaks and subsidies.
That is an discussion on the expense side of government. We are talking taxes which is the revenue side of government. There is a little cross pollination, but not much.
Revenue = How much money is raised and by what method.
Expense = How we spend the money.
Fabius,
“””Yes. Now with that said, that’s not really relevant to the discussion.”””
What the fcuk are you talking about? Libturd and I both said that ‘without big government we wouldn’t have big business, and vice versa’. Please locate the word tax and work expense in that statement. Once you find them, let me know.
“””You seem to be focused on the expense side of government.”””
No.
“””We are talking taxes which is the revenue side of government. “””
No.
I see you don’t monetize your site, i’v got idea how to earn some extra cash using one
simple method, just search in google for- ruthiezx’s method