You may see a land decrease if investors can find something else to invest in. That is the big driver in land at this time. It will continue since it is believed the present administration is going to make thing worse to the point of collapse of the dollar.
My brother and I started investing into flat and black starting in 2007 when the mortgage crisis was ruining paper. Even if it does drop we intend to keep it. Its better than gold.
If livestock feed use drops you can bet they will still grow the crops for other uses such as bio-fuels. I see no unused land during my lifetime unless it is sand blows which are not very productive even if they are well kept.
.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 6:29 PM
Regrets,
Out of curiosity, how much do you find land prices have increased over the last 2 to 3 years in SEMO, from Flat and Black to wooded hillsides? My gut tells me they have gone up from 25% to 35% during this period. But I really don't have anything to base that on other than rumor and speculation on my own part.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 7:19 PM
The wooded Bollinger County land has always fuddled me. I think it is the city folks and hunters that buy it. It has finally evened up. I never could understand how land that only produces rocks and cedar trees could be worth more than fertile row crop.
The flat and black went from about $4000 to $5500 in 07-08 to as high as $12,000 in January for one 120 ac. farm in Scott County. I'm sure there has been more than that given in private transactions.
Much of this land is sold by private auction so the only way to find out is to go to the courthouse. In the last two years I would say 35% is about right but if you go back 4 years 75%-100% is not out of line. $10K per ac. is about rule of thumb now depending if a neighbor wants it, wells, rice ground, pivots, etc.
A big deal seems to be neighboring land owners wanting to square up their property.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 9:23 PM
Thanks Regrets. So basically farm ground did not really suffer any of the consequences of the bust we went through as did residential and commercial properties. Rather than suffer it went up.
At those prices, some folks better hope that farm subsidies hold up or they might have problems getting crops to keep up the payments it would seem to me.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 9:52 PM
They better hope so. They say a farmer makes about $500 per acre after all is said and done but it is more like $200-$300. The suppliers have raised their seed, fertilizer, equipment, and chemical costs up with price of the crops. You can easily spend half of your profits in chemicals and crop dusters.
There is no way to buy land and go farming nowadays. You cant even pay the interest. The land rents for about $150-$300 so you're better off cash renting. Farming is a big bucks venture and farmers have to be smart to make it.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 10:25 PM
Some of the bigger farmers will pay more to rent farm land than the profits expected in a good year. That has always puzzeled me except when they use it to expand their base or use it for some program that rewards them for non production.
My CPA told us that the average price of flat black is at minimum $7,500. That same land in the early '70s could be had for $750. I'm thinking in the 80's it was around $3,500 when the banks started calling in the notes.
I know of a guy willed 600 acres and a modest farm house with a couple of bins and shop. The bankers encouraged him and he added bigger bins, machine sheds, new equipment and a $200,000 house only to loose it all but the house and 4 acres.
Folks with paid for land, I think, will not be hurt if the bubble bursts, but woe unto those who maxed out the land as collateral.
Of course there are other bubbles in the mix. Some have mentioned the education bubble regarding financing of higher education. There are some that will be up to their necks in debt by the time the field they are educated for is waning. This could be cause for another bailout of big dollars.
It may be a while but I expect to see a nose dive in information technology of public consumption. Not sure what effect that would bring concerning individual financial status of the working class.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 11:25 PM
Old John,
I have been a little uneasy about how farm land prices are edging up, when other types of real estate are doing poor at best on an average. Thought about purchasing a little more, but I am about out of a notion on that too. My total debt is equal to the current months credit card bill plus a few other minor monthly payables, and at my age I will keep it that way if it is within my power to do so.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 11:51 PM
I'm going to propose something a little radical. I think that a great big bubble exists in government. It is far more costly than it should be, and its price is buoyed up by "easy" credit--of course, not really so "easy", since the consequences of taking advantage of this credit are total financial collapse.
I'm waiting with great anticipation for the government bubble to burst...there will be a correction, and government of all varieties will suddenly become much cheaper. City administrators will be paid minimum wage. No one will be interested in shelling out anything for government, so there will be a lot less of it.
Won't that be great?
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 11:53 PM
Wheels, I agree, buying now would be against the simplest rule in investing: "buy low sell high". Of course it has been my history to recongize low after it becomes high. That old hind sight thing you know. :)
Givemeliberty makes a good point. A major economic adjustment could very well be fueled by the fed up factor.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 12:16 AM
Higher education could be the next bubble to burst.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 5:48 AM
I see two bubbles of over-inflated prices ready to burst: The health care bubble and the higher education bubble. I think it's a race between these two.
Like the housing bubble, both are currently propped up by inflated government spending.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 6:25 AM
"What will be the next bubble to burst?"
Hopefully, Speak Out's unsound, irrational and unscientific pessimism on the future of the United States.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 9:12 AM
Hopefully, Speak Out's unsound, irrational and unscientific pessimism on the future of the United States. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 9:12 AM
Yep. With record unemployment/gas prices/debt/deficits and a community organizer running things - it's all "unfounded". Nothing to see here. Keep moving folks.
And before you post some more spin - the unemployment rate was the highest ever for the longest term under Obama. Not a single data point, but for a term.
Gas prices the same. Not the highest ever, but the highest ever over the longest period - much worse.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 9:32 AM
"Have you ever wondered why you are one of the three or four who dis-agree with the majority of posts?"
Not in the least.
Perhaps you have noticed that the majority of posts are consistently pessimistic on the future of America. The situation is simply that these participants are not representative of the majority of Americans.
The existence of a "majority of posts" taking an anti-government position does not by any means make them correct or accurate or right. What it may mean is that the majority of "posters" fall into the group that the chairman of the RNC described as "stuffy old men."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 10:22 AM
"...unsound, irrational and unscientific pessimism..."
I think we heard the same kind of comments regarding the warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were headed for financial trouble back in 2005 and 2006. Barney Frank and Barack Obama both assured us that any pessimism was unfounded and that the insitituions were fundamentally sound.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 10:30 AM
"Perhaps you have noticed that the majority of posts are consistently pessimistic on the future of America."
When Mr. Bush was in office, today's pessismists were the optimists, and today's optimists were the pessimsits, with the probable exception of the 'doom and gloom' crowd who see a conspiracy around every corner.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 10:32 AM
Per fanniemae.com
"March 28, 2013
Economic Growth Poised to Strengthen
Businesses and Consumers Apathetic Toward Fiscal Drag
Housing Upturn Intact, Provides Tailwind to Economy
Pete Bakel
202-752-2034
WASHINGTON, DC -- The strong jobs report and the rebound in consumer confidence in February suggested that businesses and consumers set aside their worries about fiscal drag ahead of the looming sequestration deadline, according to Fannie Mae's (FNMA/OTC) Economic & Strategic Research Group. Activity in both the stock and housing markets also picked up recently and continues to act as a tailwind for the economy. Furthermore, the pace of manufacturing and service activity has expanded at a healthy pace and should contribute to growth this quarter. Although income and consumer spending took a hit at the start of the year and may slow again due primarily to tax increases, overall economic growth is expected to pick up in the second half of the year, coming in at 2.1 percent in 2013."
... maybe things are not as bad as they had seemed...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 10:36 AM
"... maybe things are not as bad as they had seemed..."
Yes, they have revised the cost of bailing them out to a mere $124 billion through 2014. Just wonderful...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 11:57 AM
Per fanniemae.com - -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 10:36 AM
Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Daniel Mudd to Congress in April 2007 on his company's health. "The firm's exposure to subprime loans remains minimal, less than 2.5 percent of our book."
Richard F. Syron - Chairman and CEO, Freddie Mac - Testimony to the UNITED STATES SENATE February 7, 2008 - "Today, the conforming market supported by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is the only well-functioning segment of the mortgage market.".
A few months later - complete collapse of the company.
Big liberal democrat Henry Waxman to the Freddie-Mac and Fannie-Mae executives in 2008 " - ""The documents make clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew what they were doing," Their own risk managers raised warning after warning about the dangers of investing heavily in the subprime and alternative mortgage market. But these warnings were ignored."
And fanniemae.com is your source for a forecast of a stronger economy? Really?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 1:14 PM
Have you ever wondered why you are one of the three or four who dis-agree with the majority of posts ? -- Posted by Rick..... on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 9:37 AM
Quantity of post by four or five posters, does not make them right. It does make for a lot of obnoxious noise and internet trash.
-- Posted by survivalist on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 1:27 PM
Quantity of post by four or five posters, does not make them right. -- Posted by eight ball on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 1:27 PM
A single post from you does not make it right. In fact you're wrong in the post above.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 1:32 PM
"In fact you're wrong in the post above."
And that from the Speak Out expert in being wrong...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 2:42 PM
And that from the Speak Out expert in being wrong...-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 2:42 PM
Thanks for the complement. I would be an expert on calling out your mistakes. You are the king of spin - no denying that.
Like those falling temperatures. You spun that into a midwest snow storm to insinuate people are stupid.
This is what you've diminished to. No facts and names.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 3:11 PM
"...and maybe a little more generous then the Conservatives who are hard working and love their families."
Most of the studies I've seen indicate that self-described conservatives tend to be more generous in terms of charitable giving and in terms of tipping wait staff than self-described liberals.
Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule.
I've pointed out in the past that one of the things that, to me, distinguishes the conservative from the liberals is that conservatives tend to be generous with their own money, while liberals tend to be generous with everyone elses'...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 4:48 PM
"Perhaps you have noticed that the majority of posts are consistently pessimistic on the future of America. The situation is simply that these participants are not representative of the majority of Americans."
The majority of Americans have no idea whats happening. They believe the report you gave make everything OK.
Evidently they are not teaching you the reason at SEMO. Shap just told you....
"Like the housing bubble, both are currently propped up by inflated government spending."
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 7:15 PM
"The situation is simply that these participants are not representative of the majority of Americans."
59% of Americans polled say America is on the wrong track. I would suggest it is you who are not in tune with the majority of America.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 8:26 PM
Constitutionally speaking, there are certain duties the government is supposed to fulfil, and certain duties they are not.
Libertarians believe the government should not be doing anything the Constitution does not specifically allow, and non-constitutional spending should be ended.
Conservatives believe the government should not be doing anything the Constitution does not specifically allow, but non-constitutional spending should be shifted either to the states or to private enterprise in a manner that does not cause immediate disruption to the lives and livelihoods of those who depend upon it.
Liberals apparently believe the Constitution does not prohibit the government from spending on anything the government can convince the people is a need.
The government is not a charity. One is not charitable if he steals from one man to give to another. The mythical Robin Hood tale has perpetuated the idea that people can assuage their obligation to assist their fellow man using monies they steal from those they deem to have too much. The Hollywood version of Robin Hood has him stealing from the rich to give to the poor. The original Robin Hood tales had him stealing from an oppressive government to return to the poor the wealth the government took from them.
We instituted the 'safety net' concept in the 1960s to help the elderly, the indigent, and the infirm. Yet, with the poverty level somewhere around 15%, the percentage of the elderly roughly the same (which includes a large overlap with the indigent), and the percentage of infirm at about 21%, which would also include some overlap with both the elderly and indigent, we find that some 49% of households include at least one member who receives some form of federal assistance. (Mr. Romney's figure of 47% was a bit dated.)
60% of Americans received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 8:47 PM
We met with our guy today to discuss some changes and I asked: If I bury a dollar in the back yard today, what will it be worth when I dig it up 10 years from now? He didn't hesitate to reply 60 cents.
The bubble to burst may be the Fed's manipulative policies of low interest rates. Without sound predicable policies regarding what affects private enterprise, the power of capitalism may be rendered useless toward recovery.
This pessimistic post is for the pleasure of my minority optimistic friends contributing to Speak Out. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 10:27 PM
Why do you assume that his being Republican makes him conservative?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 7:00 AM
"...60% of Americans received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010."
This is very likely one of these skewed statistics intended only to mislead. I am guessing that the "numbers" conveniently disregard all payroll taxes, sales taxes, state taxes, property taxes, etc., but does not say so.
Furthermore, in my case, I received more from the government than I paid in taxes in 2010, however, for about 50 years before that, I always paid more in taxes than I received from the government.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 8:28 AM
"...60% of Americans received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010."
This is very likely one of these skewed statistics intended only to mislead. I am guessing that the "numbers" conveniently disregard all payroll taxes, sales taxes, state taxes, property taxes, etc., but does not say so.
Furthermore, in my case, I received more from the government than I paid in taxes in 2010, however, for about 50 years before that, I always paid more in taxes than I received from the government.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 8:28 AM
"This is very likely one of these skewed statistics intended only to mislead. I am guessing that the "numbers" conveniently disregard all payroll taxes, sales taxes, state taxes, property taxes, etc., but does not say so."
The chart compares federal benefits to federal taxes.
From the link:
"Taxes by Income Class
"Government relies on a variety of taxes to fund federal spending programs. The principal ones are taxes on personal and corporate income to fund general operations, payroll taxes to fund health and retirement programs, and excise taxes to fund dedicated programs such as highways and public transportation. Each of these taxes impacts families differently depending upon such things as their incomes, spending habits, investments, employment and geography.
"As Table 1 shows, families in every income group pay some amount of federal taxes. Even families in the lowest income group, who often pay no income taxes or even get a check at tax time, still pay other types of taxes such as excise taxes on tobacco and gasoline or corporate income taxes passed through to consumers, workers, or shareholders.2
"Under Obama's tax policies, some already enacted and some proposed, families below the 20th percentile (roughly $23,700 in market income) and those above the 95th percentile (about $280,000) will see their tax payments go up in real dollars, but for very different reasons. Low-income families will be disproportionately affected by regressive cap-and-trade policies and higher tobacco taxes. Here on the tax side of the equation, these new, higher taxes hit low-income families hard. One might expect that Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit would balance these new burdens out, but much of that refundable credit's benefit counts as spending rather than as tax relief."
_________
It is absurd to think that those whose primary source of income is federal largess could pay more in taxes than they receive. Nor is it reasonable to assume that someone who receives the majority of their income from social insurance programmes (welfare, unemployment, Social Security) would pay more than a fraction of that in taxes, since there would be no reason to pay them if they were repaying it all as taxes. That is what is commonly referred to as common sense.
We know from years of data that those in the upper 10% pay the vast majority of taxes, while those in the lower 50% pay the least. The programmes are designed to help primarly those in the lower income ranges. Why, then, would you find that statistic questionable?
"Furthermore, in my case, I received more from the government than I paid in taxes in 2010, however, for about 50 years before that, I always paid more in taxes than I received from the government."
True, but during those fifty years, the majority of people were paying more into the government than they were receiving in benefits, which is why the system was sustainable. Now, the majority are not, which is why those you call 'pessimists' no longer believe the system to be sustainable. Until we again have a system in which the majority are paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits, the system cannot be expected to balance and remain operational.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 8:52 AM
"Why do you assume it does not ?"
Because the 'Republican Party' is not synonymous with the 'Conservative Party', and there are liberal Republicans and 'moderate' Republicans as well as conservative Republicans.
There are also conservative Democrats and 'moderate' Democrats, as well as liberal Democrats.
That the conservatives tend to favour the Republican party and the liberals tend to favour the Democrat party does not automatically make members of those parties fall into one category or the other.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 8:56 AM
"Republicans are auto-matically Conservatives and Democrats are auto-matically Liberals."
That is the belief of many, and even I have been guilty of using the labels interchangeably. But, they are not interchangeable.
To be sure, conservatives, or those that identify themselves as conservatives, have not been altogehter happy with the Republican Party, which has spurred such things as the 'T.E.A. Party' movement. Many conservatives believe that, while the majority of Republican voters are generally conservative, the party leadership remains entrenched in a liberal-leaning mindset (often classified as 'neo-conservative') that encompasses an expansion of entitlements but appeals to conservatives primarily through other issues such as national defense and abortion.
To be sure, conservatives disagree among themselves on how, exactly, entitlements are to be dealt with. Pragmatic conservatives accept that they are here to stay and should simply be structured to be as cost-effective as possible, while idealistic conservatives want them eliminated, privatized, or shifted to the states. Then, of course, there are the libertarian conservatives who simply want them eliminated.
These disagreements are normal in any broad-spectrum group, and the liberals are no less divided on policy issues.
The Republican Party, however, is currently suffering from a desire to put up 'moderate' candidates and run them as conservatives. The conservatives, however, are not willing to overlook these moderates' liberal-leaning track record, resulting in many of them abandoning the party or at least staying home on election day.
Mr. McCain was hardly the person to carry the torch for fiscal restraint and personnal liberty. His name, forever attached to the disastrous McCain-Feingold reform, labeled him as an opponent of free speech and lost him his conservative credentials to many.
Mr. Romney, likewise, could hardly be considered the champion to lead the troops against Obamacare when he was the author if his own version thereof. That he enacted it at the state level, which was not entirely inconsistent with conservatism, might have been explained, but he seemed incapable of explaining it that way. Ultimately, conservative support for Mr. Romney was tepid, at best.
Thus, the idea that the Republican Party is the conservative party is hardly evident by looking at the candidates it puts up as its figureheads. That is why I question the idea that a person can be called 'conservative' merely because he is a Republican.
The sad fact is, the conservatives have no home outside the Republican Party, and the Republican Party has long treated them as a sort of b*****d child...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 10:02 AM
"...the conservatives have no home outside the Republican Party..."
That is probably why conservatives and republicans will continue as the minority party.
It would seem that they are only good at opposing things. Anti-immigration, anti-civil rights, anti-budget reform, anti-government, anti-welfare, anti-sane gun laws, anti-tax, anti-health care, anti-etc. etc.
The majority of Americans are confident that balanced approaches are the most desirable and promising means of moving the country forward.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 10:42 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 10:42 AM
Exactly how much does the DNC pay you to post all-things-obama here?
I hope not too much. You're not very effective cutting and pasting WH talking points. Have you ever had an independent thought?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 10:51 AM
I take that last statement back. I actually hope the DNC is paying you a lot. It's a waste of their money.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 10:52 AM
"That is probably why conservatives and republicans will continue as the minority party."
The hold the majority of state houses and governorships, and hold the majority of the house of Representatives. Curious, then, that you think they are the minority party.
"It would seem that they are only good at opposing things. Anti-immigration, anti-civil rights, anti-budget reform, anti-government, anti-welfare, anti-sane gun laws, anti-tax, anti-health care, anti-etc. etc."
No, they are pro-immigration law enforcement, pro-national defense, pro-gender, race, and sexual-prefence-neutral laws, pro-constitution, pro-subsidiarity, pro-freedom, pro-responsible taxation, pro-responsible spending, etc., etc.,
That you can only see the negative is telling...
"The majority of Americans are confident that balanced approaches are the most desirable and promising means of moving the country forward."
Which is why the majority of Americans are supportive of the things Republicans stand for, and sour on the Republicans when they cave to the Democrat demands.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 11:15 AM
"No, they are pro-immigration law enforcement, pro-national defense, pro-gender, race, and sexual-prefence-neutral laws, pro-constitution, pro-subsidiarity, pro-freedom, pro-responsible taxation, pro-responsible spending, etc., etc.,"
I am in favor of all of those things also. As you know, for each of your "pro" issues, there is a range (sometimes a wide range) of actions that can be taken to resolve them. I have neither concerns nor objections with respect to arriving at rational solutions that include compromising for the benefit of all American regardless of political persuasion.
A good example is being "pro-responsible taxation, pro-responsible spending" which means that a balanced approach is optimum course toward deficit reduction and budget equilibrium. Right now tax reform to reduce rates, close loopholes and increase revenue is the required action that can restore sanity.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 8:50 PM
I was at Dewitt's yesterday and they were talking about 240 acres in Scott County that did $13.2K last week.
There was a old boy wearing his ripped and greasy Carharts that had sold some of his land. A friend asked him what it was like to be a multimillionaire and he said he felt poorer without the land.
If you want to talk to some people that have a pretty clear idea of what is going on with this country talk to farmers. They have to be in the know to make their decisions on what to plant, sell, finance, insure, etc.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 8:50 PM
Furthermore, in my case, I received more from the government than I paid in taxes in 2010, however, for about 50 years before that, I always paid more in taxes than I received from the government.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 8:28 AM
I find that curious indeed, in as much as I am positive you once mentioned being employed by the governemnt.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 9:48 PM
"Right now tax reform to reduce rates, close loopholes and increase revenue is the required action that can restore sanity."
Right now there are two budget proposals in the Congress, and none from the executive branch. The House approach relies on spending cuts to achieve long-term savings and has been shown to produce greater long-term deficit reduction than the Senate measure, which relies on fewer spending cuts and about a trillion dollars in spending increases. Despite the greater long-term savings of the House plan, the near-term spending differences between the two are not that significant.
Yet the Senate refuses to consider the House approach, insisting on tax increases in lieu of spending cuts. No compromise there.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 6:27 AM
"Right now tax reform to reduce rates, close loopholes and increase revenue is the required action that can restore sanity."
That is the Republican approach, and one the Democrats refuse to consider. Reducing rates is anathema to them, and a flatter, fairer tax is completely off the table. They insist on rate increases, at least at the upper income levels.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 6:30 AM
"Yet the Senate refuses to consider the House approach, insisting on tax increases in lieu of spending cuts. No compromise there."
As the House refuses to consider the Senate approach...
That's exactly why a compromise is essential. The combination of spending cuts to decrease deficits and revenue increases to decrease deficits is exactly what should be done.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 8:51 AM
Common,
The Republicans gave you a tax increase as of Jan 1 I believe. Now it is time for the Democrats to come up with some spending cuts. This old BS of compromise and do it my way should be over with.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 9:03 AM
"That's exactly why a compromise is essential. The combination of spending cuts to decrease deficits and revenue increases to decrease deficits is exactly what should be done."
But the Senate measure spends all of the tax increases on yet another round of 'stimulus spending', offsetting the spending cuts by simply moving them. The net result is that it is just tax increases, no real spending cuts.
The theory is that 'stimulus spending' is temporary in nature. Yet, the federal budget has not decreased after all the prior rounds of 'stimulus spending' by more than a fraction of the 'emergeny spending' measures enacted. The lack of a budget has apparently aided this, hiding the fact that the continuing resolutions continued even the temporary spending that should have gone away had there been an actual budget.
The cuts are all smoke and mirrors, and the Democrats in the Senate know this. They just hope you don't.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 9:17 AM
"The net result is that it is just tax increases, no real spending cuts."
That is where the joint committees on budgeting need to compromise to work out differences. Democrats will not get everything they want and neither will the Republicans.
I can easily accept this very obvious and basic approach. If the House doesn't get away from the "do nothing" attitude, the continuing resolution process will keep things as they are.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 10:10 AM
"I can easily accept this very obvious and basic approach. If the House doesn't get away from the "do nothing" attitude, the continuing resolution process will keep things as they are."
The House has passed a budget every year since the Republicans resumed control. The Senate just passed the first one in four years.
Mr. Obama has yet to submit one for this year.
Perhaps you should reassess just who has the 'do nothing' attitude.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 10:24 AM
"The House has passed a budget every year since the Republicans resumed control. The Senate just passed the first one in four years."
The House passing a partisan document is somewhat meaningless. The absense of compromise is what is the problem.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 10:38 AM
"The House passing a partisan document is somewhat meaningless."
The Senate apparently couldn't even do that much until this year...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 10:41 AM
And Mr. Obama, whose budget request does not require any partisan compromise to submit, has not been able to do that much.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM
Common, you included this in an ealier post: " I have neither concerns nor objections with respect to arriving at rational solutions that include compromising for the benefit of all American regardless of political persuasion."
Would you go as far as saying "I have neither concerns or objections with respect to arriving at rational solutions that include compomising individual American freedoms as well?
When it comes to a progressive tax system, equal benefit to all Americans would be a neat trick.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 11:15 AM
"...include compomising individual American freedoms..."
What individual freedoms would you care to compromise?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 12:45 PM
Another distinction between Republicans and Democrats:
"Poll: Republicans more sympathetic to Israel than Democrats
"Pew Research Center poll finds 49% of Americans overall feel more sympathetic toward Israel than toward Palestinians, while just 12% feel more sympathetic toward the Palestinians * Sympathy toward Israel higher among Republicans * 64% of Americans support preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if this entails military action.
"Republicans feel more sympathetic toward Israel than Democrats and independents do, a poll conducted last month by the Pew Research Center has found.
"The poll asked with whom respondents sympathized more in "the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians." Overall, 49 percent of respondents said they sympathized more with Israel, while just 12% said they sympathized more with the Palestinians. In addition, 12% said they sympathized with neither side.
"Broken down by party affiliation, 66% of Republicans, 49% of independents and 39% of Democrats say they sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 2:07 PM
"The poll asked with whom respondents sympathized more in "the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians."
It seems that they left out an option which requires both side to get their extremeists reined in. The Palestinians need to get Gaza under control and the Israelis need to get out of settlements in Palestine.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 2:35 PM
"It seems that they left out an option which requires both side to get their extremeists reined in."
And what makes you think that is an option?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 2:44 PM
Want Ads: Cashier's Job At McDonald's advertises for two years experience and a Bachelor's Degree.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 3:01 PM
"It seems that they left out an option which requires both side to get their extremeists reined in."
"And what makes you think that is an option?"
Because that is the only sane way the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis will be resolved.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 4:17 PM
"Because that is the only sane way the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis will be resolved."
By telling the Palestinians to give up on the methods that have gotten them this far, and telling the Israelis to simply give up on land they won through lawful combat?
Just because you agree with an idea does not necessarily make it either 'the only way' nor 'sane'. That you would dismiss any other alternative as 'insane' is a bit egotistical, don't you think? Do you never consider the possibility that there may be a way, perhaps one you've never heard nor considered, that might not only be 'sane' but be a better solution than the one you currently support?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 4:22 PM
"Bachelor's Degree" , what-ever happened to a "Single Woman Degree" ?"
I think it's called a "Spinster's Degree"...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 4:24 PM
"... the only sane way..."
For a man who talks so much about 'compromise', you're pretty quick to dismiss any alternatives to the course you prefer.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 4:25 PM
"Do you never consider the possibility that there may be a way..."
What do you suggest?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 5:17 PM
"What individual freedoms would you care to compromise?"
The freedom of government to supress the natural rights recognized by the founders of our republic that were aware of the dangers of democratic rule.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 7:43 PM
"...the natural rights..."
What natural rights?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 9:01 PM
I think that Republicans and Democrats are too gullible to be involved in the Mideast.
-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 2:36 PM
I think they did fine on their own for 1900+ years before we started sticking our nose in it. Its really none of our business.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 9:09 PM
What natural rights?
-- Posted by commonsensematters
Does your question indicate your ignorance or your contempt?
Or maybe there is some humor projected that I am too stupid to comprehend.
Please continue so we can further understand your common sense.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM
I thought this was about natural rights.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The Declaration declares that the people have a right to alter or abolish any government once it becomes destructive of their natural rights. It seems that is happening.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 9:45 PM
"...compomising individual American freedoms..."
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 11:15 AM
All I asked is what "freedoms" you were referring to.
- - - - - - - -
"...too stupid to comprehend."
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM
That's something that only you can answer.
Some have complained persistently about the "rights" and "freedoms" that they have "lost." I just inquired which ones they were talking about. And if they really think they lost them, it would seem that if they looked in the last place they saw them, they might come across the missing "rights" and "freedoms."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 8:32 AM
"What do you suggest?"
That's not my realm of expertise. But what does it matter, since you've already branded as insane any alternative to the one you prefer?
Personally, I think giving up land lawfully won to a group who routinely target civilians in order to win control of that land does not fall under the definition of 'sane'. But, as I said, it's not my realm of expertise.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 8:54 AM
What have we lost?
Health privacy rights
Taxpayer rights
Certain gun rights
Obama claims power to assassinate American citizens
Violation of email privacy without warrant
And the list goes on
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 9:32 AM
"...giving up land lawfully won..."
The Israelis have long agreed that the two state solution involves the Palestinians retaining the West Bank and Gaza with the pre-1967 borders and, repeat and, mutually agreed land swaps that would allow Israel to keep some of the settlements that are contiguous with their country.
I seriously doubt that Israel wants to continue the occupation of the West bank indefinitely, nor do they see it as practical for them to form one state and annex the West bank as part of Israel. Then it would be just a matter of time before the new Arab Israelis could vote themselves into power.
So for a valid two state solution, which has long been the acceptable and agreed upon long range answer, Israel has to give up something and the Palestinians need to leave Israel alone. Turning over settlement "islands" in the West Bank could also be a mechanism to compel Palestine to give up the "right of return" for former Arab inhabitants of Israel.
The alternative I prefer is one where the two sides resolve their differences peacefully. I see nothing wrong with that.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 10:33 AM
"And the list goes on..."
The claim that these are fundamental "rights" that have been lost forever is just plain silly, and not worth any further response.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 10:35 AM
"...which has long been the acceptable and agreed upon long range answer,..."
Accepted and agreed upon by whom?
Israel opposed, and continues to oppose, the creation of a Palestinian State. It has been 'agreed upon' by others, but not by Israel, who currently occupies the land. If they were in agreement to the idea, then they would not be building the settlements you oppose.
In other words, the agreed upon solution of giving the land to create a Palestinian State has been agreed upon only by the people who do not currently occupy the land.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 11:02 AM
"Israel has to give up something and the Palestinians need to leave Israel alone."
And this is your idea of a compromise: Israel has to give up something in exchange for the Palestinians not killing them?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 11:05 AM
"Israel opposed, and continues to oppose, the creation of a Palestinian State."
You seem to be implying that Israel will be satisfied with the status quo indefinitly. You claim Israel opposes a Palestinian state, what is their alternative? If you know they oppose a two state solution, they must have an alternative solution, unless you think they plan on doing nothing.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 11:19 AM
"...exchange for the Palestinians not killing them?"
Not at all. It is definitely not just that. The Palestinians give up a right of return, they settle the Jerusalem question, they place their extremeists under control, and eventually they will provide Israel a needed source of labor
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 11:22 AM
The so called Palestinians don't want a state, they want destruction of Israel.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 11:29 AM
"If you know they oppose a two state solution, they must have an alternative solution, unless you think they plan on doing nothing."
No, I suspect they have a variety of long-term plans, most of which probably run counter to the 'agreed-upon' creation of a Palestinian State.
The settlements they are building are designed to permanent settlements, so I am inclined to believe they do not hold the occupation of the land to be termporary in nature.
"...they settle the Jerusalem question,"
They insist upon Jerusalem being the capital of the Palestinian State, so their 'agreed upon' solution puts them at clear odds with the Isreali solution, which holds that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel. How do you propose they 'settle' that little problem?
"You claim Israel opposes a Palestinian state, what is their alternative?"
I suppose there are several: Annexing those lands into Israel once the Isrealis have established enough settlements there to hold sufficient status. Retain those lands as 'territories', subject to Israeli control but not given full participation in the political process (think Guam, The U.S. Virgin Island, and Puerto Rico if you need an example of such an arrangement). I'm sure there may be others.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 11:41 AM
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday reaffirmed his commitment to the two-state solution ahead of US President Barack Obama's visit in Israel.
Addressing the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem's Inbal Hotel, Netanyahu said he still stands by his 2009 Bar-Ilan speech where he backed the concept of two states for two peoples.
"I believe that a framework to peace (with the Palestinians) is what I outlined in my speech in Bar-Ilan University -- two states for two peoples: A demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state."
Surprised you did not find this in your internet travels. Maybe someone should inform the Prime Minister.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 12:58 PM
A demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.
He knows that will never happen and had other motives in saying so.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 1:36 PM
What I have challenged is your assertion that statehood is the only 'sane' solution. Again, what makes all other solutions insane? How can you be so sure that granting statehood is 'sane'?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 2:07 PM
"It seems that they left out an option which requires both side to get their extremeists reined in."
"And what makes you think that is an option?"
"Because that is the only sane way the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis will be resolved."
"...all other solutions insane?"
My point was fairly clear, that, not "reining in extremeists" would truely be "insane."
I would hope that you might agree that allowing extremeists on both sides to run free, is not "sane."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 3:15 PM
"I would hope that you might agree that allowing extremeists on both sides to run free, is not "sane"."
We allow extremists to run free in America. Are you saying we are insane for doing so? Extremism is not a vice, in and of itself. If it weren't for extremists, I think progress in this world would be very slow, if not nonexistent.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 3:20 PM
"We allow extremists to run free in America."
Fortunately they don't control anything of significance.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 5:46 PM
"Fortunately they don't control anything of significance."
So Common.... you don't believe the Presidency is anything of significance?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 6:01 PM
"Fortunately they don't control anything of significance."
Other than the presidency and the Senate. Beyond that, nothing much...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 8:49 PM
"Fortunately they don't control anything of significance."
Other than the presidency and the Senate. Beyond that, nothing much...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 8:49 PM
But the question become, how do you define 'extremist'. I take it from your statements that an extremist is someone who has a different (i.e, insane) view of how the Middle East situation should be resolved. That seems a bit, well, extremist to me.
Your Palestinian example is fairly straightforward - lobbing missiles into Israel is pretty extreme by most standards. But the Israel example, those who build homes in lands they occupy, seems a bit tame as extremists go.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 8:53 PM
But the question become, how do you define 'extremist'. I take it from your statements that an extremist is someone who has a different (i.e, insane) view of how the Middle East situation should be resolved. That seems a bit, well, extremist to me.
Your Palestinian example is fairly straightforward - lobbing missiles into Israel is pretty extreme by most standards. But the Israel example, those who build homes in lands they occupy, seems a bit tame as extremists go.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 8:53 PM
"...who build homes in lands they occupy..."
The extremists are those who continue to build un-authorized settlements in the West Bank, in order to aggravate the political situation and prevent a long term agreement for the 2 state solution.
Per the BBC...
"Israel has pursued a policy of building settlements on the West Bank for security and religious reasons. Settlements and their adjoining territory cover large parts of the West Bank.
Currently 59% of the West bank is officially under Israeli civil and security control. Another 23% of it is under Palestinian civil control, but Israeli security control. The remainder of the territory is governed by the Palestinian National Authority."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 9:11 AM
Unauthorized by what authority?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 9:19 AM
"The extremists are those who continue to build un-authorized settlements in the West Bank, in order to aggravate the political situation and prevent a long term agreement for the 2 state solution."
By your definition. Building houses is hardly 'extreme' in most of the world, even when they are built in hostile regions. The majority of the world would never have been settled without it.
Perhaps the extremists are those who seek to use international agreement and outside leverage to settle local land disputes...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 9:24 AM
These are the extremists, operating against Israeli government authority...
"In the latest of a recent trend of attacks in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank, dozens of right-wing Israeli settlers stormed an army base in order to punish the state. The settlers reportedly accosted soldiers, threw rocks at a commander from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), set fires and vandalized army property. Rock throwing led to a minor injury, and the number of arrests differed between media accounts, with the AP reporting that two were in custody and the Israeli paper Haaretz reporting no arrests were made.
"The attack is the latest in a string of recent provocations by settlers, and on the heels of an action by settlers on the border with Jordan. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the assailants "criminal groups of extremists," and added that their "homegrown terror" should be met forcefully. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered security forces to "act aggressively against those harming Israeli soldiers and their commanders."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 10:09 AM
Rock throwing led to a minor injury, and the number of arrests differed between media accounts, with the AP reporting that two were in custody and the Israeli paper Haaretz reporting no arrests were made. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 10:09 AM
Of course this major (LOL) attack by settlers throwing rocks compares to random, continuous rocket launches on civilians living in their homes. Yes, this is equal to rocket launches.
You're judgment is, as usual, very poor. You're buying the anti-Semitic bias hook-line-sinker.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 10:13 AM
"The settlers were galvanized into action by rumors that the eviction of several West Bank settlements was imminent. The Supreme Court ruled in September that the state must destroy Migron, the largest outpost in the West Bank. Forty-five families live in Migron, which has a total population of 280 people.
"The Supreme Court ruling, which called for evacuation of the settlement by March 2012, hinted at a political crisis for the rightist Netanyahu. Settlers from Migron visited ministers from Netanyahu's party, Likud, to plead their cases, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (himself a West Bank settler) said evacuating Migron "would be grounds for dismantling the government" by withdrawing his nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party from the coalition.
"Evacuations of settlements have even fostered divisions within the ranks of the latest "price tag" victims themselves: the Israeli army. In 2010, Eyal Press reported in the New York Review of Books that some entire battalions of soldiers with ideological sympathies for the settlers -- or settlers themselves -- refused to participate in evacuations of even settlements deemed illegal by the Israeli government."
From your link. The extremists may be in the government, ordering people out of their homes.
As I've said, however, you've already rejected as insane any idea that runs counter to the one you support.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 10:19 AM
"The extremists may be in the government..."
Wow, it's clearly the government's fault. What a shock.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 10:49 AM
"Wow, it's clearly the government's fault. What a shock."
Wow, you've run out of statements to support your position. What a shock.
That's not what I said, at all. I merely challenged, as I have for the past several posts, your position that any view other than yours is insane. That the current view of government is not consistent with prior views of government is well known. Which view is correct.
But, with regards to your understanding of the post, are you suggesting it is never the government's fault?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 11:05 AM
"...your position that any view other than yours is insane."
That is not actually what was said.
I maintained that "the only sane way the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis will be resolved is if both sides get their extremists under control.
If you really believe that Israeli extremists and Palestinian extremists should drive the political discussion and negotiations, then things could remain unsettled for a long time.
Stopping the insanity is a good step in any case. And of course the opposite of that is to continue the insanity, which presumably you would not support.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM
"....buying the anti-Semitic bias..."
It is a bit difficult to see how arguing against illegal Jewish settlements in Palestine is somehow "anti-Semitic." After all, the Palestinians are just as Semitic as the bulk of Israelis are, but then again, some may not realize that.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 12:14 PM
"I maintained that "the only sane way the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis will be resolved is if both sides get their extremists under control.
"If you really believe that Israeli extremists and Palestinian extremists should drive the political discussion and negotiations, then things could remain unsettled for a long time."
Again, you assume that those two are mutually exclusive, and that "getting their extremists under control" (whatever that means) automatically means the extremists will not drive the discussion and negotiation, or that, if they are not "under control", they are driving them. I don't see those two as automatically connected. Every cause has its extremists, controlled or not. They do not always drive the discussion when they are not. The non-extremists do not have to be driven where they do not want to go.
"Stopping the insanity is a good step in any case. And of course the opposite of that is to continue the insanity, which presumably you would not support."
I'm simply not in agreement on what constitutes 'insanity'. There is certainly a sanity to the building of settlements in the lands occupied by Israel, as it weakens the argument that those lands, being the sole propriety of the Palestinians, ought then to be handed over to them. Withdrawing the settlements, therefore, weakens that claim, and bolsters the claim that the land ought to be handed over to the Palestinians by virtue of their being no Israeli settlements therein...
Evicting squatters is the first step in denying squatters' their rights, is it not?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 2:09 PM
"...it weakens the argument that those lands, being the sole propriety of the Palestinians..."
As it should because Israel already agreed to hand over the West bank.
"The first agreement had three parts. The first part or preamble was a framework for negotiations to establish an autonomous self-governing authority in the West Bank and the Gaza strip and to fully implement SC 242. The Accords recognized the "legitimate rights of the Palestinian people", a process was to be implemented guaranteeing the full autonomy of the people within a period of five years. Begin insisted on the adjective "full" to confirm that it was the maximum political right attainable. This full autonomy was to be discussed with the participation of Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians. The withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank and Gaza was agreed to occur after an election of a self-governing authority to replace Israel's military government.[
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 2:57 PM
Begin died in 1992. The Camp David accords died with him, if not before.
"The Palestinian Authority was formed in 1994, pursuant to the Oslo Accords between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the government of Israel, as a five-year interim body. Further negotiations were then meant to take place between the two parties regarding its final status. As of 2012[update], more than seventeen years following the formulation of the Authority, this status has yet to be reached."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 3:08 PM
It is a bit difficult to see how arguing against illegal Jewish settlements in Palestine is somehow "anti-Semitic." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 12:14 PM
Not what I said. You, and other anti-semites, equate "rock throwing" to missile launches and say "see, those Israelis are just as bad as the Palestinians". Or worse claim the Israelis are worse.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 3:47 PM
It seems to me there was a time when extremist Americans refused to vacate seats in the front of the bus, even though it had been agreed upon that the seats in the front of the bus were to be handed over to those who had a lawful claim thereupon. These extremists did not see the handover of the front seats as valid or preferential, so htey stood, or rather sat, their ground.
I suppose the only sane solution would have been for those occupying the front seat illegally to vacate them and rein in their extermism.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 3:58 PM
"These extremists did not see the handover..."
Grasping at straws methinks...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 6:56 PM
While true that Arabs are Semites, the term anti-semitism applies to Jews. From Merriam Webster dictionary:
"Definition of ANTI-SEMITISM : hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group"
or
"Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious group or "race." Although the term anti-Semitism has wide currency, it is regarded by some as a misnomer, implying discrimination against all Semites, including Arabs and other peoples who are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 10:33 PM
We can argue all day about the details but history shows us that if Israel gives up any land the so called Palistinians will continue to lob rockets and bombs, just from a shorter distance.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 11:13 PM
Would that be correct? Because you at one time supported the Iraq war during the Bush Administration, that would mean that you are antisemitic. -- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 11:28 PM
I guess that Merriam Webster, Wikipedia and all the other dictionaries are "leftists neoconservatives" who hate liberty as well? Many people, like Common, dislike Israel simply because it is run by Jews.
From Wikipedia:
"Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. A person who holds such views is called an "antisemite".
While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[1] and that has been its normal use since then.[2] For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism was considered "hatred toward Jews--individually and as a group--that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."[3]"
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 2:04 AM
"Many people, like Common, dislike Israel simply because it is run by Jews."
How does pointing out that illegal settlements by extremists in the West Bank is counterproductive to the 2 state solution, equate to my supposed "dislike [of} Israel?"
It could happen, but only in "Dug-world."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 6:21 AM
It could happen, but only in "Dug-world." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 6:21 AM
When you equate "rock throwing" to "missile launching" you show your bias against them. Like most liberals you take the smallest incident by Israeli's and equate it with missile launches and suicide vests.
It happens all the time with the liberal media. It is a bias. And you project it.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 8:11 AM
"When you equate "rock throwing" to "missile launching..."
I am quite sure that I have not written anything of the sort. What's your point?
I fully support a secure and guaranteed future for Israel in a 2 state solution. Unlawful settlements compromise that prospect.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 9:05 AM
The issue of Palestinian extremists was discussed above - rocket launches on Israeli cities, suicide terrorists on buses, etc. are Palestinian extremists documented actions. Your response to them was this cut and paste post:
"These are the extremists, operating against Israeli government authority... In the latest of a recent trend of attacks in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank, dozens of right-wing Israeli settlers stormed an army base in order to punish the state. The settlers reportedly accosted soldiers, threw rocks"-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 10:09 AM
Your intent was a counter argument to Palestinian terrorists with "See, there are extremists on both sides". Rock throwing? Really?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 10:31 AM
"Your intent..."
You really do not have any idea what my intent was.
The "rock throwing" was obviously by the Israeli settlers, and there are obviously extremists on both sides. If you are unaware of that, or choose to ignore it, you are wearing blinders.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 10:53 AM
Maybe the settlers should move to Bollinger County. We have fine throwing rocks out here, but it is not my weapon of choice.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 11:54 AM
.they all insist they are individual people and resist heavily when folks claim they are all the same way or all the same thing .
-- Posted by Dissident. on Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 10:43 AM
Of course they're individuals. 1/2 of the liberals voted for Obama and the other half voted for Romney. I wonder which person liberal common voted for?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 12:21 PM
Back to the next bubble, I had someone tell me today about getting an education and degree through an internet college. The cost is about $50,000 partly grants and te rest student loans. The college arranges all the loans and disperses a check less the college charges back to the student. The major is for a business degree to start a plus size high fashion store.
I think someone may be pulling my leg here but then again, I don't dismiss anything with today's government programs.
As I replied, this person is going to be paying back loans until 50 and won't have any start up money to lose in such an idea even if it's feasable.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 11:15 PM
Old John,
The $50,000 amount is compariable to my son's current tuition. The only part of your student's story I question, the type of business is not declared in a business degree. Some parents can not afford to pay cash, so grants and student loans are the next line of resources.
If that is the next bubble, a reduction in cost is welcome. I have two more who I would like to see gain an education to afford them a more comfortable lifestyle.
-- Posted by good.for.the.gander.good.for.the.goose on Sun, Apr 7, 2013, at 1:29 PM
skittles1, I guess I'm a bit out of touch with the cost of getting an education.
I can't help but think that government grants and programs drive up the cost of schooling and most everything else they subsidise.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Apr 8, 2013, at 12:15 AM
"Grasping at straws methinks..."
Hardly. The point is simply this: the conventional wisdom of the day says a two-state system is best. You are so invested in the conventional wisdom that you regard any opposition to that wisdom as 'insane'. You are unwilling to accept the possibility that there may be other solutions, or that the solution proposed by the conventional wisdom may, in fact, be insane.
The settlers in the disputed territories do not accept the conventional wisdom, so they 'squat' on the land and oppose efforts to remove them. This is hardly 'extreme'. When efforts are made to evict them, they oppose the eviction by throwing stones at the eviction enforcers. Hardly the stuff of 'extermism'. It's not as if they are lobbing rockets into their midst.
I should point out that much of the change in the 1960s was brought about by rock-throwing radicals who opposed the conventional wisdom, just as it was brought about by more peaceful protests such as refusing to vacate a seat. Both instances had largely the same outcome: arrest or eviction.
There logic is quite simple: If the argument for the handover of 'Palestinian' lands is based on the minority presence of Isrealis thereupon, the settlers can alter that equation by increasing the Israeli presence. I might suggest you look at History, including the History of the Unites States, to see how that works. There is nothing 'insane' nor 'extreme' about it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 8, 2013, at 8:11 AM
It cost me about $4k a semester for each child. So for about the price of a new truck I got each child an education. Once they started school we had 12 years to save that money. Most people will buy the trucks instead. We have started a savings for our grandchildren now.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Apr 8, 2013, at 8:27 AM
"...possibility that there may be other solutions..."
Such as? I rather doubt that the Palestinians would vote to continue be occupied as a "colony" of Israel, just as the US did not want to continue as a colony of England (even if there were Tories that disagreed.)
-----------------------
"...they oppose the eviction by throwing stones at the eviction enforcers."
So they throw rocks at the Israeli Army. Just who do you think those same "non-extremist" settlers would turn to if the Palestinians were to enforce their eviction?
--------------------------------
"...the handover of 'Palestinian' lands is based on the minority presence of Isrealis..."
The "handover" of the West Bank has already been agreed to by the Government of Israel. Extremist settlers are trying their best to force their own government to renege on the basic accords.
Should those settlers decide they want to remain, then they should be willing to live under a Palestinian administration
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 8, 2013, at 9:02 AM
"Such as?"
As I've said, that's not my arena. However, I would not be so egotistical as to assume the avenue I favoured is the only 'sane' avenue.
"So they throw rocks at the Israeli Army. Just who do you think those same "non-extremist" settlers would turn to if the Palestinians were to enforce their eviction?"
And who would the 1960s radicals have turned to had rocks been thrown at them? Why, the same 'pigs' that they were pelting. I fail to see your point.
"The "handover" of the West Bank has already been agreed to by the Government of Israel. Extremist settlers are trying their best to force their own government to renege on the basic accords."
The accords fell apart ages ago, and not by virtue of the settlers. The five year timetable was set in Oslo in the 1990s, following a five-year timetable set in the 1970s. If it's a bad accord, it out to be renegged upon. The settlers feel it is a bad accord.
Just because the government agrees to something, that does not make it right or just.
"Should those settlers decide they want to remain, then they should be willing to live under a Palestinian administration."
Again, in your view. That does not make it 'sane' or just. That your mind is closed to any other alternatives does not mean there are none.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 8, 2013, at 9:31 AM
If we're lucky, maybe the 'Green' bubble will be the next to burst. It appears to be little more than a racket to put money in the pockets of politicians and their cronies, at the expense of us all:
"Virginia Fears A Visa-For-Sale Scheme in McAuliff's GreenTech Automotive"
"The company, founded by Terry McAuliffe, is now a top issue in this year's Virginia race for governor. Until recently, the controversy over the company centered on the firm's October 2009 decision to build a plant in Mississippi instead of Virginia. McAuliffe contended that he wanted to build a plant in Virginia, but the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) -- the state's business-recruitment agency -- wouldn't play ball.
"We had sites, we had meetings, and they chose that they weren't going to bid on it," McAuliffe declared. PolitiFact looked at the paperwork and rated that assertion false, concluding that "VEDP asked GreenTech to address its concerns and waited in vain for replies."
"But internal communications from VEDP now reveal that the state agency didn't merely think that McAuliffe's company had a risky business model. At least two high-ranking officials actually suspected that the company's real aim was to make money by selling U.S. residency visas to wealthy foreigners.
"In an e-mail dated November 17, 2009, Liz Povar, then the director of business development at VEDP, wrote to her colleagues:
" -- Sandi et al. Even if the company has investors "lined up", I maintain serious concerns about the establishment of an EB-5 center in general, and most specifically based on this company. Not only based on (lack of) management expertise, (lack of) market preparation, etc. but also still can't get my head around this being anything other than a visa-for-sale scheme with potential national security implications that we have no way to confirm or discount. . . .
" -- This "feels" like a national political play instead of a Virginia economic development opportunity. I am not willing to stake Virginia's reputation on this at this juncture. --"
"The e-mails were revealed pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PolitiFact; 79 pages of documents were posted online in January.
"Before the Mississippi Development Authority, a state agency, loaned GreenTech $5 million to help get started and buy the land for its production facility in that state, the company sought assistance and incentives from Virginia. High on its list of priorities was the establishment of a "Regional Center" to help attract foreign investors who would also be interested in obtaining an EB-5 U.S. residency visa.
"Congress created the federal EB-5 program in 1990 to stimulate the U.S. economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors. To qualify, a foreigner must invest at least $1 million, or $500,000 in either a rural area or an area with high unemployment. The investment must "create or preserve at least 10 full-time jobs for qualifying U.S. workers within two years." The government makes 10,000 EB-5 visas available each year, with 3,000 administered through Regional Centers, government-approved organizations that aim to help economic growth in a particular area. According to one advocate for the program quoted in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, three out of every four visa recipients come from China."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 11, 2013, at 10:38 AM
Then, of course, there is the 'Social Security Bubble', which is part of the larger 'Retirmement Bubble', which is liable to pop any day now...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 11, 2013, at 11:15 AM
Menu
In this article the writer talks about farmland.
http://www.american.com/archive/2013/march/the-next-real-estate-bubble-farmland
Anyone care to speculate?
Replies (124)