what does your little inside joke mean?
That's The Ticket!..
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
This shows the housing bubble we created in an easy to grasp picture. You can see we are still overvalued against historic measures but still trying to prop them up with keynesian measures.
If interest rates are allowed to be set by the market, we are looking at another housing crash. We have created a bit of a conundrum here. If rates go up, we can't afford the housing prices which will drop to meet this lack of demand. If housing bubble crashes again, the too big to fail are actually bigger than the last crash.
Don't wanna think about it.
Chart is a few years old. We did not have the correction yet predicted thanks to the effort of the federal reserve.
**schuylaar's prediction..make sure your sell orders are in.. i have this feeling for january - march 2015
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
it can never work that way, RR.
we all have to chip in..but you know?..if we re-vamp the tax code?..we can get rightie to pay his fair share which would significantly reduce your liability. see how that works?
You just dismissed forced redistribution of other peoples property as "chipping in".
Why did you do that, are you uncomfortable discussing the reality of what happens and prefer to euphemize it away?
Chipping in, is when a bunch of people all decide to have a pizza and everybody kicks in. It's not chipping in when some people decide that everybody will have anchovies on the pizza and you'll pay for it whether you eat it or not or even want any pizza at all.
Please don't abuse the English language they way you have.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It's funny how you use the word "we" as if a fair decision that affects all individuals can be made for them by the great and mystical and thieving "we".
You are an individual, you can speak for you. That is all. When a person says "we" in the context you use, they really mean, others will do as I say....like it or not.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So you really think you can justify causing a persons home to be part of a ransom interaction and then justify the behavior by saying the person somehow benefits from that? I could argue the benefit, but even if you were correct in that aspect (you are not) , your means of achieving your goal invalidates it.
You incorrectly claim the ends justifies the means. If a person breaks into your house and steals your wallet and blows it on hookers and coke, but uses some of the money to buy their kid an ice cream cone, you think that is somehow acceptable.
Examine the means before declaring the end result as a moral / just result.
look sasquatch..when the 1% pay a more proportional share (based upon income) rather than tax evading(offshore) instead of saddling the other 90% of americans that make $30k or less, then we can talk.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Not everyday, but I do use some aspects and I pay for them. I try not to fund the thuggery though.
The problem is the opt out option is rare or nonexistent, which implies freedom has left the building Elvis.
The fact that one entity holds a monopoly on many things by force doesn't mean that there are not other ways the things could and SHOULD be performed more efficiently and on a more just and equitable basis.
In the present model an indiviudal person has no way to separate the goods and services they want from the bads and disservices they do not want and do not approve of. People are forced to pay for all of it....which is not a very good thing.
For instance why do you pay to jail people for weed? In a more just system , I presume you would not fund that kind of coercive behavior. You would fund that which you use AND you would be able to chose from a variety of service providers rather than being funneled into an extortion system wherein a monopoly is held by a coercive government.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
was he not a believer in that 861 argument ??? The same thing you telling schuylaar to do.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
well that's probably all you pay for. You pay for what you use.
Thank you for paying your share.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You continue to avoid discussion of the obvious. I notice you did not refute my correction of what you had erroneously labeled as "chipping in".
Any kind of taxation is unfair in the sense that it compels people to do things and pay for things they do not want. People should pay for that which they use, they should not be compelled to pay for that which they do not want / use. They should also be free to chose from whom they will purchase the services and goods they use, rather than being forcefully restricted to what a coercive entity has chosen for them.
It's called freedom and responsibility....learn about it.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Adam Sorkin whose famously liberal wrote this little speech. I think he makes some good points.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So, why do you pay to jail people for weed?
In any kind of a reasonable setup you wouldn't be forced to forge your chains or the chains of other peaceful people would you?
It is not impossible to get rid of the bad stuff that your nanny state does while maintaining the good stuff....guess how? You have to allow for individuals to fund that which they use, but not force them to fund that which they don't. Absent that, YOU are part of the drug warrior side of things....how does that feel Harry Anslinger?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
...not quite. I VOLUNTARILY fund charity. If somebody tried to compel me to fund others, I would tell them to shit in their hat.
Why don't you?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
LOL...he reallly put that..OMG
Must be that new kinda math. Last I check 3,500 would be 35% of 10,000
35% of 30k = 10,500
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nodrama is also worth $30 million dollars, or was last week, and now he isn't worth $7 million.
it's the internet. who has to lie on the internet to boost their ego?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Must be a Illinois thing
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
"people should pay for what they use" - you
you benefit from and use a literate, educated populace every day of your pathetic life.
and you are the one who decided to be part of the ransom interaction by agreeing to live in that home where you knew property taxes were part of the equation, loser.
i have never seen a grown man cry like such a little bitch as often as you do.
grow up.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
a personal line item veto on what your taxes may go towards is not a "reasonable setup" at all you fucking stooge.
it's part of your ayn rand, lysander spooner utopian fantasy.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Well, I think I'm going to have to eat several pot brownies now to approach your level of comatosity (since you like inventing words...I'll join in)
Of course, you can show me these agreements you refer to? Is an agreement valid if there are aspects of duress attached to them Meathead? Why no, they are not.
I'm trying hard, I really am, to understand you, but I'm afraid I just don't speak Stupid. You on the other hand are impressively fluent.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Speaking of fantasy, how do you achieve peace by baking in threats to a coercive system from the onset again?
I'm almost out of Brownies and thinking I may have to chug down the Jack Daniels next....I had no idea becoming as flaccidly stupid
as you are is such hard work.
So, are you good with being forced to fund the incarceration of peaceful people, Mr. I love the Nanny State ?