US Politics Mega-thread - Page 753

On December 29 2013 22:13 KwarK wrote:

Or start a business or do any number of other things that the market has placed a higher rate of return on because it is unwilling to do them. The house is still the same house, what has happened is that raising a house sized chunk of capital has gotten harder and fewer people are willing to do it which means a house sized chunk of capital is more valuable than it would otherwise have been. He could loan it to someone wanting to buy a house for example and, due to the lack of available credit in the market, gain a higher interest rate than would normally be available.

On December 29 2013 22:47 KwarK wrote:

You are looking at the loss of house value as if it is an event in a vacuum with no wider economic implications. It is not, it is an impact of an economic change which changes the value of liquid capital.

The White House released new figures on Sunday that show a surge in the number of Americans who have signed up for health insurance through the federal marketplace.

According to a blog post by Marilynn Tavenner, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator, 1.1 million Americans have signed up for coverage since the marketplace opened in October.

Most of those — 975,000 — signed up in the month of December. The deadline for signing up and receiving coverage by Jan. 1, was Dec. 24.

On December 30 2013 03:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Any idea if the site still has a high error rate?

"Our enrollment nearly doubled in the days before the January 1 coverage deadline compared to the first few weeks of the month. December enrollment so far is over 7 times that of October and November. In part, this was because we met our marks on improving : the site supported 83,000 concurrent users on December 23rd alone."

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans count enough competitive races to challenge Democrats for control of the Senate in the 2014 elections, if only they can figure out what to do with the tea party.

Crowded primaries in states such as Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina, where tea partyers and social conservatives are fighting for the nomination and pushing candidates farther right, worry many Republicans, especially after they saw their legitimate shots at a Senate majority slip away in 2010 and 2012.

Republicans need a net gain of six seats to capture control from Democrats, who effectively hold a 55-45 advantage now. But Democrats will be defending 21 of 35 seats to be decided in November, and President Barack Obama is looking like a major drag for them. Midterm elections are often tough for a president's party in any event.

"History is with us, geography is with us and the president's signature legislative achievement is the most unpopular" law of his tenure, Rob Collins, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said of Obama and his health care overhaul.

Republicans inside and outside the Senate speak confidently about snatching open seats in West Virginia and South Dakota. They like their chances against Democratic incumbents in Republican-leaning Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska and remain upbeat about Montana even if Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock names Lt. Gov. John Walsh to succeed Sen. Max Baucus, Obama's choice for U.S. ambassador to China.

The looming question is whether Republicans undercut their solid shot with tea party-style candidates who fizzled out in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada in 2010 and Indiana and Missouri in 2012.

It was the Year of the Zombies. Not in the sense of most of humanity dying from a horrible plague and then reanimating as mindless flesh-eating ghouls. No, it was much worse than that. Because as bad as a zombie apocalypse would be, at least it wouldn’t involve the resurrection of Anthony Weiner’s most private part.

We thought that thing was out of our lives forever, but suddenly there it was again, all over the Internet, as Weiner came back from the political grave like the phoenix, the mythical bird that arose from the ashes to run for mayor of New York and use the name “Carlos Danger” to text obscene photos of its privates to somebody named “Sydney Leathers.”

Speaking of pathologically narcissistic sex weasels: Also coming back from the dead in 2013 to seek elective office in New York (What IS it with New York?) was Eliot “Client 9” Spitzer, who ran for city comptroller under the slogan: “If you can’t trust a proven sleazebag with your municipal finances, who CAN you trust?”

And then — not to leave out the ladies — there was Miley Cyrus. We thought her career was over; we remembered her fondly as a cute and perky child star who played Hannah Montana, wholesome idol of millions of preteens. And then one night we turned on MTV’s Video Music Awards and YIKES there was this horrifying, mutant, vaguely reptilian creature in Slut Barbie underwear twerking all over the stage while committing unhygienic acts with both Robin Thicke and a foam finger, both of which we hope were confiscated by a hazmat team.[...]

But getting back to the zombies: It wasn’t just people who came back alarmingly in 2013. The Cold War with Russia came back. Al-Qaeda came back. Turmoil in the Middle East came back. The debt ceiling came back. The major league baseball drug scandal came back. Dennis Rodman came back and went on humanitarian missions to North Korea (or maybe we just hallucinated that). The Endlessly Looming Government Shutdown came back. People lining up to buy iPhones to replace iPhones that they bought only minutes earlier came back. And for approximately the 250th time, the Obama administration pivoted back to the economy, which has somehow been recovering for years now without actually getting any better. Unfortunately, before they could get the darned thing fixed, the administration had to pivot back to yet another zombie issue, health care, because it turned out that Obamacare, despite all the massive brainpower behind it, had some “glitches,” in the same sense that the universe has some “atoms.”

On December 30 2013 10:58 Housemd wrote:
Wow, I didn't mean for my question causing such a debate.

So, when I stated that the value of the dollar remains constant, I confused the whole notion of the phrase. Sorry for that.

Essentially, I'm talking about the recent housing bubble. If someone buys a house during the boom for X dollars and then sells it for Y dollars when the price of houses have gone down, is it really a loss? (Again assuming X > Y)

People have brought out that it is indeed a loss in money value because you have less $ than before. However, you cannot measure the significance of that loss since Y might be able to buy more money than X due to deflation which I completely understand.

If I had saved my money (not bought X) and then used its purchasing power during the deflation, would that have not been the best possible situation? Therefore, no matter which way you look at it, I have incurred a loss.

On December 30 2013 09:52 Danglars wrote:

They could always invite them in and start taking the debt seriously! Own the next shutdown too. But, to borrow from columnist Eugene Robinson ... the GOP has wind at its back, but will still blow it.

On December 30 2013 11:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:


The problem is that the Tea party doesn't take things seriously in an adult fashion. They act like spoiled children with any issue that they label as important.

On December 30 2013 11:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:


The problem is that the Tea party doesn't take things seriously in an adult fashion. They act like spoiled children with any issue that they label as important.

On December 30 2013 14:37 jellyjello wrote:


I'm all for the principles of what Tea Party stands for, but some of them really need to learn Politics 101. Ted Cruz, especially, needs to read a copy of Dummys for Politics. The guy is completely clueless.

On December 30 2013 14:47 Danglars wrote:

It's been covered in that way in major TV media since the outset. Still present is a small decrease in likely voters identifying with Tea Party views. Still, 42% support the views of the average Tea Party members, so a little under half the voting public is either okay with their tactics or does not think 'spoiled children' is even close to a correct characterization of their actions.


It's all well and good being for the principles of the Tea Party as long as you're never called on to fight for them. Congress has exhibited this for the last year even more starkly than in previous years.

On December 30 2013 16:04 jellyjello wrote:


You misunderstand me. I'm all for fighting for the principles when there is a possibility of success. However, GOP controls only half of the congress while Democrats have the congress + executive power. The antics such as Ted Cruz has demonstrated will not only roadblock us from what we want, but instead set us back politically. You have to pick your fight where and when. Otherwise, you'd be better off playing politics until you gain that leverage.

On December 30 2013 17:19 Danglars wrote:

The houses of Congress are different in their powers, size, and terms for very good reasons. The House of Reps, being naturally closer to the people than the senate, were chosen to hold the purse strings. If you want to spend everybody else's money, win the House. If you're serious about opposing Obamacare, you defund it, period.

You can't sell your brand as people that talk tough but put no bite into it. The Republicans in the House don't deserve re-election if they talk a pretty speech on Obamacare but will only vote against it when it doesn't matter. The talk of taking the Senate and "Then we'll REALLY stick it to them" falls on deaf ears; the Bush congress were profligate spenders. The half-hearted fight Boehner waged on the government shutdown is typical. You can't pretend to pick your fights when you have no credibility with the American people that you will ever pick a fight at all. You fight.

The half-hearted fight Boehner waged on the government shutdown is typical.

Truth about Obamacare? Mandate wasn't needed: Dean

The unpopular individual mandate that's part of Obamacare was unnecessary to the program's overall success, and it's going to hurt Democrats in next year's midterm elections, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told CNBC on Monday.

"Insurance companies like it because it does bring young, healthy people who aren't likely to get sick into the system," the former Vermont governor said in a "Squawk Box" interview. "But our experience here—although it's with young people under 18, not with everybody—is that the individual mandate was not that necessary."

He added, "The actuarial data does not lead to the conclusion that you're going to have huge cost overruns" without it.

Dean did acknowledge that Obamacare will hurt Democrats at the polls in November, because "people don't like to be told what to do by the government no matter what party they're in." ...