Weekly Open Thread (2013-09-16)

NOTE: If you are subscribed to Seattle Bubble’s RSS feed and are seeing these open threads in the feed, please switch to our official feed at http://feeds.feedburner.com/SeattleBubble  Thanks!

Here is your open thread for the week of September 16th, 2013. You may post random links and off-topic discussions here. Also, if you have an idea or a topic you’d like to see covered in an article, please make it known.

Note: I’ve upped the comment limit in open threads to 25 comments.

Be sure to also check out the forums, and get your word in the user-driven discussions there!

NOTICE: If you have comments to make about politics or economics that do not somehow directly relate to Seattle-area real estate, they may be posted in the current Politics & Economics Open Thread.  If you post such comments here, they will be moved there.

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market. Tim also hosts the weekly improv comedy sci-fi podcast Dispatches from the Multiverse.

53 comments:

  1. 1

    I’ve Come to the Conclusion All of Us Would Make Lousy Politicians

    If we simply stuck to the truth. BTW, honesty isn’t an option in life, its a requirement in my book.

  2. 2

    By softwarengineer @ 1:

    I’ve Come to the Conclusion All of Us Would Make Lousy Politicians

    If we simply stuck to the truth. BTW, honesty isn’t an option in life, its a requirement in my book.

    Isn’t “honest politician” a contradiction in terms? Like jumbo shrimp, or military intelligence?

  3. 3
  4. 4
    Macro Investor says:

    By pfft @ 3:

    Social Safety Net Programs Kept Tens Of Millions Out Of Poverty/

    Thanks for trolling your usual Obama-love socialist agenda:

    From the wiki —

    The Center for American Progress is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization….

    Its President and chief executive officer is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.[5] Its first President and chief executive officer was John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton.

  5. 5
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Macro Investor @ 4 – Left out, of course, is the huge social safety net for criminal bankers. An unlimited backstop, said Obama’s man Tim Geithner.

  6. 6
    Blurtman says:

    Yet another achievement of the Obama administration. Perhaps the unemployed should get jobs laundering drug money? Only upside there.

    —–

    A record 23,116,928 American households were enrolled in the federal government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—AKA food stamps—during the month of June, according to data released this month by the Department of Agriculture.

    That outnumbers the 20,618,000 households that the Census Bureau estimated were in the entire Northeastern United States as of the second quarter of 2013.

    In fiscal 2009, the year President Barack Obama was inaugurated, there was a monthly average of 15,161,469 American households on food stamps, according to the Department of Agriculture. The 23,116,928 households on food stamps in June exceeded that 2009 monthly average by 7,955,459 households—or 52 percent.

    The 23,116,928 household on food stamps in June was an increase of 45,908 from the 23,071,020 household on food stamps in May.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/23116928-20618000-households-food-stamps-now-outnumber-all-households

  7. 7

    RE: Blurtman @ 6

    The Tea Party Bull in the China Cabinet?

    From an AFL/CIO source:

    “….Unthinkable but entirely possible.

    Over a dozen Senators and eighty Representatives are pushing for a scenario that should be unthinkable: they want to use a government shutdown as leverage to enact an extreme, right-wing agenda that includes continuing the Sequester for the next nine years. And these folks are picking up more support every day.

    A government shutdown – which could happen as soon as Tuesday, October 1 – would be disastrous….”

  8. 8
  9. 9
    pfft says:

    By Macro Investor @ 4:

    By pfft @ 3:

    Social Safety Net Programs Kept Tens Of Millions Out Of Poverty/

    Thanks for trolling your usual Obama-love socialist agenda:

    From the wiki —

    The Center for American Progress is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization….

    Its President and chief executive officer is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton�s campaigns.[5] Its first President and chief executive officer was John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton.

    “Thanks for trolling your usual Obama-love socialist agenda”

    no the social safety net existed long before Obama became president and throughout most of it’s history has been bipartisan. The social safety net disproportionately helps deep red states. indeed most of what the federal government does is a transfer of wealth of sorts from blue states to red states.

    do you deny that the safety net keeps people out of poverty?

    carry on.

  10. 10
  11. 11
    Blurtman says:

    RE: softwarengineer @ 8 – Pay my mortgage, please.

  12. 12

    RE: Blurtman @ 11

    Probably One of the Lion’s Share of Underwater Homes in Seattle Potential Sales Stock

    The owners can afford to sell, now its a rent gouge unit.

  13. 13
    David Losh says:

    Assad was on Fox News claiming the rebels built rockets, cooked sarin and launched an attack. Well, maybe, but it makes no difference; he’s the one who set the whole thing in motion.

    Now, if the chemical weapons are secured, we can ride out his next reelection attempt.

    It seems to me that Russia is talking with the United States, Assad is on the defensive, and things may well settle down.

  14. 14

    Layoffs at Wells Fargo Bank’s Mortgage Personnel

    Due to drop in business due to higher interest rates.

    http://news.yahoo.com/wells-fargo-cutting-1-800-jobs-mortgage-business-151615209–sector.html

  15. 15
    Blurtman says:

    RE: David Losh @ 13 – I think it does indeed matter who did it if you are going to bleat about the horror of dead children and why a military strike is necessary. If you then don’t take action against the rebels, you are a tragic scoombag president, using the horror of dead children to score political points, meaning you really did’t give a rat’s arse about it. Is that what Obama has degenerated to?

  16. 16
    Macro Investor says:

    By softwarengineer @ 7:

    RE: Blurtman @ 6

    A government shutdown which could happen as soon as Tuesday, October 1 – would be disastrous….”

    Not a disaster at all. A shutdown is a good thing. Tell me why the federal gov IS EVEN NEEDED?

    The state/county/local/port/etc gov provides the same DUPLICATE SERVICES. All the feds do is take our tax money and waste it on banksters, MIC, big-agg, big-education, big-medical, etc, etc.

    We don’t need the federal gov at all. Just disband it. The day after… nobody would notice.

  17. 17
    David Losh says:

    RE: Blurtman @ 15

    It makes no difference at all.

    The goal was dialog, which we have. Now if we, the world, gets a government to destroy chemical weapons, that is a win for everyone.

  18. 18
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Macro Investor @ 16 – When Hafez Assad and his armies land in Seattle and launch an attack on White Center, you’ll be praying for an American hero like Lindsey Graham, decked out in Dr. Farnk-n-Furter drag (not that there is anything wrong with it) and armed with Hellfire missiles, to come to our rescue.

  19. 19
    Blurtman says:

    RE: David Losh @ 17 – Remind me again why that is our business. Are you arguing that if a country believes another country’s leader is a bad dude, that it is entirely OK to launch a military attack on the country? Can any country do this, or just one or two exceptional ones?

  20. 20

    By Blurtman @ 18:

    RE: Macro Investor @ 16 – When Hafez Assad and his armies land in Seattle and launch an attack on White Center, you’ll be praying for an American hero like Lindsey Graham, decked out in Dr. Farnk-n-Furter drag (not that there is anything wrong with it) and armed with Hellfire missiles, to come to our rescue.

    When Hafez Assad and his armies land in Seattle and launch an attack on White Center, very few Seattleites would care. “They don’t even have a PCC there, Assad can have White Center.”
    On the other hand, if they aim missiles at Top Pot Donuts or Dick’s Drive In, watch out. They can’t take our freedom.

  21. 21
    One Eyed Man says:

    RE: Macro Investor @ 16

    No Federal government Macro? Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

    I’m not that afraid of a continuing sequester. But it may well have some negative consequences (economic and otherwise) at least in the short to mid term. And I think it’s unintended negative consequence would likely be unnecessarily exaggerated because it would be mismanaged by cutting the wrong government expenditures. We might not need 10 super carriers when the rest of the world has zero, but we still need infrastructure replacement, inexpensive higher college education in science and technology, and incentives for R & D spending, etc. if we want to remain a relatively rich and high tech based economy with a strong middle class.

    By some measures, the current amount of “sequester cuts” might not need to be increased. Don’t forget that the deficit is being cut to less than half its peak this year and may continue to decrease even without increased sequester cuts. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is getting close to being back in line with the historic norms of the last 50 year, and I think tax revenues are still below the norm for that period. IMO if we have additional spending cuts they should be phased in and the military and probably Medicare should bear the brunt of it. Most cuts to Medicare and other entitlement should be by means testing and other benefit limits.

    I have no great allegiance to the federal government. The sons of bitches wanted to conscript me and send me to kill rice farmers (who now seem to be just decent free spirited human beings who are good at making Nike’s, cloths and similar items that we buy) during my formative years and I’ve never forgiven them for it. And I don’t have much allegiance to the state and local governments either.

    But without a strong federal government North America would be the same F-ing rat hole as South America, except the southern states would probably still have slaves and English would be a second language in the Southwest, Louisiana and maybe some of the areas bordering Quebec.

    Our west coast, China and SE Asia might even be run by the Japanese and the Brits and most of the rest of Europe would probably have their central government in Berlin unless Stalin’s T34 tanks managed to push the Germans entirely out of Europe before Heisenberg built a Nuke for Adolf. There wouldn’t be anywhere near the same level of interstate commerce in America (or economic activity for that matter) and there wouldn’t be anywhere near the consistency of civil rights or social welfare safety net for the incredibly poor American middle class (like it or not). There probably wouldn’t be an interstate highway system or a space program or land grant colleges, or a huge health sciences division at the UW, or a recognizable Boeing Company, or maybe even a 19th century transcontinental railroad, either, – etc, etc, etc. As much as I may hate ’em, they’re the devil you know and even with all their faults probably a better alternative than the devil you don’t know.

  22. 22
    One Eyed Man says:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 20

    I may be cheap, but I’ll spring for a big night out at “Richard’s” when I want to celebrate with the lovely and talented Ms. One Eye. In Seattle, Freedom doesn’t mean nothing left to lose. It means the right to order two Deluxe’s, two shakes, and one large fries to split.

  23. 23
    David Losh says:

    RE: Blurtman @ 19

    Oil and WWII, that’s why it’s our business.

    We created the problem of a puppet like Assad, Mubarak, Gadhafi, and a dozen other tyrants in the region so we could keep the oil flowing.

    Second we have Israel, where it was decided to invent a Jewish State. Let’s forget about Christianity, or Temple Rock, let’s just have Israel for Jews.

    Our problem is that the people of Northern Africa resent the trouble we, and the Europeans, and our Allies the Russians have caused, and they are now attacking us.

    Take a look around, I mean really. We have a National Security Crisis, and we hadn’t done a darn thing to fix that until Obama made his apology tour to the Middle East.

    At least he got the dialog on the table.

  24. 24
    One Eyed Man says:

    RE: Blurtman @ 19

    Did you ever notice that on Star Trek, the “prime directive” really boiled down to “don’t interfere” . . . , unless he’s green and pisses you off, then you can shoot’em.

  25. 25
    pfft says:

    By Macro Investor @ 16:

    By softwarengineer @ 7:

    RE: Blurtman @ 6

    A government shutdown which could happen as soon as Tuesday, October 1 – would be disastrous….”

    Not a disaster at all. A shutdown is a good thing. Tell me why the federal gov IS EVEN NEEDED?

    The state/county/local/port/etc gov provides the same DUPLICATE SERVICES. All the feds do is take our tax money and waste it on banksters, MIC, big-agg, big-education, big-medical, etc, etc.

    We don’t need the federal gov at all. Just disband it. The day after… nobody would notice.

    please your heart son.

  26. 26
    Macro Investor says:

    @One Eye, 21

    “Me thinks thou dost protest too much.”

    I’ll forgive you for mangling Shakespeare. An example of protesting too much would be redneck congressmen spewing gay hatred, then getting arrested for lewd behavior in an airport men’s room. I can assure you my dislike for the federal gov does not mean I’m covering up my love for it :)

    All those services you listed are already provided at the state level. The federal gov just takes our money, and gives it back to us for these things. For interstate commerce, defense, etc — all that is really needed is cooperation agreements.

    And guess what — European cities are connected by roads/trains a lot better than ours, even though no central gov exists. Think outside the box.

  27. 27
    pfft says:

    Why is the GOP so against 25 million people getting healthcare? Is that really such a bad thing? Everyone else would have better health insurance too. The republicans want to replace Obama with a plan that would insure less than 10 million people.

    Obamacare is just an amalgamation of Romneycare, a Heritage plan and the Republican’s alternative to Hillarycare.

  28. 28
    pfft says:

    By Macro Investor @ 26:

    @One Eye, 21

    “Me thinks thou dost protest too much.”

    I’ll forgive you for mangling Shakespeare. An example of protesting too much would be redneck congressmen spewing gay hatred, then getting arrested for lewd behavior in an airport men’s room. I can assure you my dislike for the federal gov does not mean I’m covering up my love for it :)

    All those services you listed are already provided at the state level. The federal gov just takes our money, and gives it back to us for these things. For interstate commerce, defense, etc — all that is really needed is cooperation agreements.

    don’t forget SS and medicare. Krugman jokes that the US is just an insurance company with an Army.

  29. 29
    whatsmyname says:

    Perhaps the answer is to finally let the South secede.
    Or insist on it.
    Then it would be much easier to set up a proper no-fly zone.

  30. 30
    Blurtman says:

    RE: pfft @ 27 – I do not think the GOP is against 25 million folks buying medical insurance, or obtaining it through their employers. I think they are against having taxpayers pay for other folks’ medical insurance.

  31. 31
    Blurtman says:

    Oh, oh, Alabama.

    U of Alabama ends ‘whites only’ sororities
    Four black women were admitted to traditionally all-white sororities at the University of Alabama Friday. Earlier this month, two black women were passed over by all-white sororities because of pressure from alumnae.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0921/U-of-Alabama-ends-whites-only-sororities

  32. 32
    David Losh says:

    RE: Blurtman @ 30

    Tax payers already pay for the at risk population. The way I read ObamaCare is that all insurance companies are going to be losing free access to unlimited medical billing.

    I can do the math on most things in the hospital from the beds, to medication, and it just doesn’t add up. We pay a lot in health care premiums, but the more we pay the more that get’s paid out.

    It’s all non profit.

    What ObamaCare will do is level the playing field. Costs will be regulated across the board, with inter state coverage, more checks, and balances, and more payers into the system.

    Health Care needs sever over sight.

    In banking fraud you lose money, in health care fraud you die a horrible death. Pick your battles.

  33. 33
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 30:

    RE: pfft @ 27 – I do not think the GOP is against 25 million folks buying medical insurance, or obtaining it through their employers. I think they are against having taxpayers pay for other folks’ medical insurance.

    Did you read what I wrote? Obamacare is a plan dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation in the early 90s. It’s similar to the Heart Act, which was the Republican alternative to Hillarycare, and was written by the folks who did Romneycare.

  34. 34
    Blurtman says:

    RE: pfft @ 33 – Hey, Democrats used to be pro Glass-Steagal. What’s your point? Things change.

  35. 35
    Blurtman says:

    RE: David Losh @ 32 – I am merely seeking to correct pffft’s strawman argument that the Repubs are against 25 million folks receiving healthcare. They are not against it if these folks pay for it.

    Personally, I am for single payer, and having the USG act as a massive GPO to lower costs across the board. And yes, the Repubs are against that, as are a good number of Dems.

  36. 36
    whatsmyname says:

    By Blurtman @ 35:

    RE: David Losh @ 32 – I am merely seeking to correct pffft’s strawman argument that the Repubs are against 25 million folks receiving healthcare. They are not against it if these folks pay for it.

    But these folks will pay for it. And they will pay for their insurance too. So it must be something else that the Repubs are against.

  37. 37
    Blurtman says:

    RE: whatsmyname @ 36 – Not exactly. Many receive subsidies ( i.e., someone else pays) , and Medicaid eligibility is expanded.

  38. 38
    David Losh says:

    RE: whatsmyname @ 36RE: whatsmyname @ 36

    That’s not correct. The government budget is loaded with crap that we get nothing out of. Health Care is already in the budget. The United States government already takes on the high risk patients of the poor, the elderly, and soldiers.

    The money is already in the system, has been for a hundred years, and yet you don’t get access to the Health Care that is already being provided. You don’t have access to Medicaid, or Medicare, or the VA unless you are a veteran.

    The sad reality is that most people do pay into an grossly inefficient delivery of Health Care through Private Health Insurance plans that give them very little for the premiums paid.

  39. 39
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 35:

    RE: David Losh @ 32 – I am merely seeking to correct pffft’s strawman argument that the Repubs are against 25 million folks receiving healthcare. They are not against it if these folks pay for it

    1. they do pay for it. some may get subsidies.
    2. it’s a republican plan.
    3. who is paying for the the Republican alternative?
    4. it’s a republican plan.
    5. it’s a republican plan.

  40. 40
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 34:

    RE: pfft @ 33 – Hey, Democrats used to be pro Glass-Steagal. What’s your point? Things change.

    Romneycare was only recently enacted. Heritage fawned all over it.

    Heritage On Romney’s Individual Mandate: “Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.”

    FLASHBACK: Heritage Touted RomneyCare, Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/10/90621/heritage-romneycare/

    “Hey, Democrats used to be pro Glass-Steagal.”

    A lot of Dems still are.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/12/elizabeth-warren-and-john-mccain-want-glass-steagall-back-should-you/

  41. 41
    Blurtman says:

    RE: pfft @ 39 – It is not a Republican plan. They are not proposing it. With regards to who gets subsidies, it is more than “some.”

    Millions of Americans won’t have to pay full price for their Obamacare health insurance next year. But just how much they’ll have to fork over depends on a couple different things.
    Thanks to subsidies from the federal government, which will help pay for health insurance on state-based exchanges starting in 2014, many low- to moderate-income Americans will get a break on their premiums.

    The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 48% of Americans who buy individual insurance today would be eligible for subsidies. They would receive an average of $5,548, which would cover 66% of the price.

    “The subsidies are pretty large for the people who get them,” said Gary Claxton, vice president at the foundation, noting that a larger share of new enrollees in the individual market will be eligible for subsidies since they are likely to be lower income Americans who cannot not afford coverage now.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-subsidies-much-100400152.html

  42. 42
    David Losh says:

    RE: Blurtman @ 40

    As opposed to the government paying 100% of the Health Care through Medicaid, and getting nothing.

    Health Care is a cash cow, and that is why Republicans proposed this legislation rather than the single payer government run program Obama wanted.

    It is a Republican plan that doesn’t have all of the outs that Republicans would like. Pre Existing conditions coverage is for sure at the heart of the reluctance Republicans have.

    It makes no difference, the government will make money on Health Care.

  43. 43
    whatsmyname says:

    By Blurtman @ 37:

    RE: whatsmyname @ 36 – Not exactly. Many receive subsidies ( i.e., someone else pays) , and Medicaid eligibility is expanded.

    Ah, then it’s not enough to be paying; you need to pay all. The problem is subsidies. Of course, I’ve not witnessed the great Republican groundswell against farm or business subsidies. Or subsidized police protection, military and air traffic control. There must be something more.

  44. 44
    Blurtman says:

    RE: whatsmyname @ 42 – I am not defending the Republican stance. I am merely trying to correct inaccurate statements, for example, that “some” receive subsidies, when it is about half, or that folks are paying for Obamacare, when half are paying for about 1/3 of the cost of insurance. You cannot have an honest debate when the facts are continually misrepresented.

  45. 45
    whatsmyname says:

    By Blurtman @ 44:

    RE: whatsmyname @ 42 – I am not defending the Republican stance. I am merely trying to correct inaccurate statements, for example, that “some” receive subsidies, when it is about half, or that folks are paying for Obamacare, when half are paying for about 1/3 of the cost of insurance. You cannot have an honest debate when the facts are continually misrepresented.

    Exactly so. That is why we cannot accept this claim of simple Republican subsidy rejectionism when there are many subsidies that the Republicans don’t reject. So we need to dig a little deeper. What is the real objection?

  46. 46
    Macro Investor says:

    By whatsmyname @ 45:

    By Blurtman @ 44

    Exactly so. That is why we cannot accept this claim of simple Republican subsidy rejectionism when there are many subsidies that the Republicans don’t reject. So we need to dig a little deeper. What is the real objection?

    It’s not really that hard to understand. They all want to be re-elected. That’s all. So their job is nothing more than self promotion, or bashing the opposition. 365 days a year, 24 hours a day — that is all they think about.

    That explains why they oppose an idea that they originally came up with. If the other party might somehow look good, then it’s a bad idea.

    Red, blue — they are all the same. Sociopaths out for themselves.

  47. 47
    Blurtman says:

    RE: whatsmyname @ 45 – Republicans have historically been opposed to Medicare and Medicaid. They are opposed to the redistribution of wealth downwards. And yes, they are pro subsidies for business, and anti subsidies for the little guy.

  48. 48
    Blurtman says:

    Is it the tea party extremist who is holding the average Republican candidate hostage?

    Here is a summary of who pays the for Obamacare.

    PPACA is a health care reform law that requires individuals to buy and maintain insurance or pay a penalty/tax. The law is funded in part by this penatly/tax and also by increased taxes on other health and non-health related items and services.

    Story: Where Does the Money Come From? Besides the Individual Mandate penalty/tax, there are numerous NEW or INCREASED taxes and fees to fund all that is required by this law.
    +.9% Increase in Medicare Tax Rate (plus next item…)
    3.8% New Tax on unearned income for high-income taxpayers= $210.2 billion ($200,000 for individual and $250,000 for joint filers)
    New Annual Fee on health insurance providers = $60 billion (For calculation – Sec 9010 (b) of the PPACA.)[1]
    40% New Tax on health insurance policies which cost more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family, per year = $32 billion (inland tax as opposed to an importation tax)
    New Annual Fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs = $27 billion (For calculation – Sec 9008 (b) of the PPACA)[2]
    2.3% New Tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices = $20 billion
    +2.5% Increase (7.5% to 10%) in the Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction = $15.2 billion
    Limit annual contributions to $2,500 on flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans (plans that allow employees to choose between different types of benefits) = $13 billion
    All other revenue sources = $14.9 billion
    10% New Tax imposed on each individual for whom “indoor tanning services” are performed.
    3.8% New Tax on investment income. Includes: gross income from interest, dividends, royalties, rents, and net capital gains. Investment income does not include interest on tax-exempt bonds, veterans’ benefits, excluded gain from the sale of a principle residence, distributions from retirement plans, or amounts subject to self-employment taxes. (The lesser of net investment income or the excess of modified Adjusted Gross Income over a the dollar amount at which the highest income tax bracket, typically $250,000 for married filing jointly and $200,000 filing as an individual).

    http://www.alignamerica.com/node/62

  49. 49
    David Losh says:

    RE: Blurtman @ 48

    Ask Yourself:
    -Should the Federal Government’s be involved in the private run health insurance sector?
    -Will you choose to be insured or choose to pay the tax/penalty instead?
    -Do you think that this will affect our National deficit negatively, positively, or have no effect?
    -Take action by contacting your congressman and give them your opinion, and by voting for candidates who support your point of view.

    Yes! the Federal Government should be involved with our out of control Private Health Insurance sector.

    This should have happened decades ago.

    This will lower our governments pay outs for high risk patients.

  50. 50
    David Losh says:

    RE: whatsmyname @ 43

    The Republicans are against farm subsidies, they are against all kinds of subsidies.

    I haven’t talked about this for years, but all governments are going to have to come to grips for the need of a larger social safety net.

    Not all people do well in school, get degrees, and good paying jobs. We still need car mechanics, day labor, gardeners, and house cleaners.

    If manufacturing is taken over by robots what will those workers do for housing?

  51. 51
    whatsmyname says:

    By David Losh @ 50:

    RE: whatsmyname @ 43

    The Republicans are against farm subsidies, they are against all kinds of subsidies.

    No, Republicans are against that part of the farm subsidies that is the food stamp program. They are actually jacking up the subsidies that go to wealthy farmers and agribusiness.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/12/the-u-s-has-few-farmers-so-why-does-congress-love-farm-subsidies/

  52. 52
    whatsmyname says:

    RE: Blurtman @ 48
    Thanks for the facts and projections. They are worthwhile. They would be more worthwhile with some additional facts and projections.
    How much is the total annual Obamacare tab?
    How much will the Obamacare customers be paying for their insurance and actual treatment?
    How much do we save on the change from the current “emergency room” healthcare plan?
    How does that total tab compare with our annual subsidy to military contractors, and other business subsidies?

    Please also note the ratchet effect of having new programs identify specific revenue sources (to help create an aggrieved taxpayer base) while longstanding programs to fund the historically privileged business subsidies come from the general fund (general background noise). This is conscious framing by the GOP, and also important to recognize for honest debate.

    Context matters – which I realize that you know. I’ve certainly never thought of you as remotely republican, but I think they’ve got you playing their game today.

    PS I think you got it right in post 47. Key word is “downwards”.

  53. 53
    David Losh says:

    RE: whatsmyname @ 51

    As the article said the Republicans stripped out the Food Stamp program which is actually a way of increasing demand for food products.

    It’s a feel good legislation the same as the opposition to ObamaCare, which is the same as RomneyCare.

    It’s simply the Republicans making a fuss about nothing.

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.