More Infants Die Early in US than in 40 Countries, Including

[Atheist-Lite]

Surely the US can convert some of the looming wave of empty retail estate into housing for it's citizens?

[JimC]

Surely the US can convert some of the looming wave of empty retail estate into housing for it's citizens?

That would involve violating the sacred precepts of capitalism, and would cause the end times to begin...

[Geoff]

Surely the US can convert some of the looming wave of empty retail estate into housing for it's citizens?

Gitmo?

[nellikin]

Actually, Newcaslte (Oz) has a program to convert the desolate buildings in our city into cultural spaces/spaces for smalltime businesses and arts. The owners don't have to pay rates on the buildings to council (until they are sold/refurbished) and they rent them out for next to nothing (usually $20 a week, to cover electricity) to lots of arty farts/dressmakers/community groups etc. It works really well and is getting life back into the ghosttown. [url]http://renewnewcastle.org/about[\url]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

More Infants Die Early in US than in 40 Countries, Including Cuba: WHO Study


Good thing we don't need universal healthcare.

I'm all for universal health care...so long as YOU are paying for it for ME and I don't have to pay anything ever, including taxes.

How's that suit you, Sparky?

Unsurprisingly, of course. Your overt greed and selfishness has been noted repeatedly. Perhaps you should post in the Shame thread, give us some pointers?

[Seth]

More Infants Die Early in US than in 40 Countries, Including Cuba: WHO Study


Good thing we don't need universal healthcare.

I'm all for universal health care...so long as YOU are paying for it for ME and I don't have to pay anything ever, including taxes.

How's that suit you, Sparky?

Unsurprisingly, of course. Your overt greed and selfishness has been noted repeatedly. Perhaps you should post in the Shame thread, give us some pointers?

Heh. Fell right into my trap, didn't you? My post was sarcasm written from the point of view of the 50 percent of the public who pay no income taxes, get money and other subsidies from the government, and also expect other people to pay for their medical care using the Obamacare mandate as a vehicle for taking other people's money to serve their selfishness and greed.



Oh, and I've also reported your personal attack, not that it matters much.

[Robert_S]

More Infants Die Early in US than in 40 Countries, Including Cuba: WHO Study


Good thing we don't need universal healthcare.

I'm all for universal health care...so long as YOU are paying for it for ME and I don't have to pay anything ever, including taxes.

How's that suit you, Sparky?

Unsurprisingly, of course. Your overt greed and selfishness has been noted repeatedly. Perhaps you should post in the Shame thread, give us some pointers?

Heh. Fell right into my trap, didn't you? My post was sarcasm written from the point of view of the 50 percent of the public who pay no income taxes, get money and other subsidies from the government, and also expect other people to pay for their medical care using the Obamacare mandate as a vehicle for taking other people's money to serve their selfishness and greed.



Oh, and I've also reported your personal attack, not that it matters much.

State income tax, property tax, sales tax, parking meters and so on.

I'd be happy with single payer or government option, but that conversation was shut down by the looney tuney teabaggers.

[Seth]

Surely the US can convert some of the looming wave of empty retail estate into housing for it's citizens?

You would think, given the fact that the government pretty much owns them, since it has decided to purchase something like 90 percent of mortgages in the US through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both government-supported "insurance" agencies for banks.

I happen to agree that the government should simply foreclose on the homes, take possession of them, and give them away to homeless people and let the banks try to collect from the bankrupt former owners, if they can.

If taxpayers are going to cover the bank's asses in this debacle, then taxpayers ought to enjoy the benefits of having adequate housing for homeless people.

Of course, I don't advocate taxpayers bailing out or insuring the mortgage industry in the first place. The banks who wrote the toxic loans should NOT have been bailed out and should have been allowed to fail, and people who committed mortgage fraud by filing false financial statements in order to get a mortgage should be prosecuted for the felony that doing so is. On the other hand, Congress should make it illegal for a bank to foreclose on a property ON WHICH THE PAYMENTS ARE BEING MADE merely because the "value" of the property given the local housing market had dropped below the loan amount.

When banks do that, turning out responsible homeowners who are making their payments and are therefore fulfilling their part of the contract and are NOT in default, merely because housing values have dropped, it should be a crime and banks should be punished for doing so.

As for those who bought more home than they could afford, most of them are back to being what they always should have been: renters.

[Seth]

More Infants Die Early in US than in 40 Countries, Including Cuba: WHO Study


Good thing we don't need universal healthcare.

I'm all for universal health care...so long as YOU are paying for it for ME and I don't have to pay anything ever, including taxes.

How's that suit you, Sparky?

Unsurprisingly, of course. Your overt greed and selfishness has been noted repeatedly. Perhaps you should post in the Shame thread, give us some pointers?

Heh. Fell right into my trap, didn't you? My post was sarcasm written from the point of view of the 50 percent of the public who pay no income taxes, get money and other subsidies from the government, and also expect other people to pay for their medical care using the Obamacare mandate as a vehicle for taking other people's money to serve their selfishness and greed.



Oh, and I've also reported your personal attack, not that it matters much.

State income tax, property tax, sales tax, parking meters and so on.

If you don't pay federal income tax, you don't pay state income tax in almost all cases. I can't think of an exception. People who don't pay income tax generally don't own property, so they don't pay property tax. If they do, so what? Property taxes are not federal taxes, they are local taxes. Obamacare is a federal program.
Parking meters? Really? You don't want to pay a parking meter, don't park. That's not a tax, it's a user fee.

And I did specify income tax.

I'd be happy with single payer or government option, but that conversation was shut down by the looney tuney teabaggers.

What do you think Obamacare is? It's the first step in a carefully crafted plan to destroy the private health care industry so that government can justify imposing socialized medicine by force.

It's already driving private insurance out of the markets, as was planned. Estimates are that in 2014, when it really kicks in, more than 60 percent of companies will simply drop their medical plans entirely, dumping their employees onto the "health care exchanges" in order to shed the increasingly unaffordable costs.

I'd be happy if you'd pay for your own medical care out of your own savings, just like I do. Don't have any savings? Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

[Atheist-Lite]

Surely the US can convert some of the looming wave of empty retail estate into housing for it's citizens?

You would think, given the fact that the government pretty much owns them, since it has decided to purchase something like 90 percent of mortgages in the US through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both government-supported "insurance" agencies for banks.

I happen to agree that the government should simply foreclose on the homes, take possession of them, and give them away to homeless people and let the banks try to collect from the bankrupt former owners, if they can.

If taxpayers are going to cover the bank's asses in this debacle, then taxpayers ought to enjoy the benefits of having adequate housing for homeless people.

Of course, I don't advocate taxpayers bailing out or insuring the mortgage industry in the first place. The banks who wrote the toxic loans should NOT have been bailed out and should have been allowed to fail, and people who committed mortgage fraud by filing false financial statements in order to get a mortgage should be prosecuted for the felony that doing so is. On the other hand, Congress should make it illegal for a bank to foreclose on a property ON WHICH THE PAYMENTS ARE BEING MADE merely because the "value" of the property given the local housing market had dropped below the loan amount.

When banks do that, turning out responsible homeowners who are making their payments and are therefore fulfilling their part of the contract and are NOT in default, merely because housing values have dropped, it should be a crime and banks should be punished for doing so.

As for those who bought more home than they could afford, most of them are back to being what they always should have been: renters.

It is ironic that the US government is now more powerful than Stalin at his peak in terms of controlable state assetts. How long before bickering politicans over there realise just how much power they now have over domestic affairs? and start to tamper for good and bad?

[Seth]

Surely the US can convert some of the looming wave of empty retail estate into housing for it's citizens?

You would think, given the fact that the government pretty much owns them, since it has decided to purchase something like 90 percent of mortgages in the US through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both government-supported "insurance" agencies for banks.

I happen to agree that the government should simply foreclose on the homes, take possession of them, and give them away to homeless people and let the banks try to collect from the bankrupt former owners, if they can.

If taxpayers are going to cover the bank's asses in this debacle, then taxpayers ought to enjoy the benefits of having adequate housing for homeless people.

Of course, I don't advocate taxpayers bailing out or insuring the mortgage industry in the first place. The banks who wrote the toxic loans should NOT have been bailed out and should have been allowed to fail, and people who committed mortgage fraud by filing false financial statements in order to get a mortgage should be prosecuted for the felony that doing so is. On the other hand, Congress should make it illegal for a bank to foreclose on a property ON WHICH THE PAYMENTS ARE BEING MADE merely because the "value" of the property given the local housing market had dropped below the loan amount.

When banks do that, turning out responsible homeowners who are making their payments and are therefore fulfilling their part of the contract and are NOT in default, merely because housing values have dropped, it should be a crime and banks should be punished for doing so.

As for those who bought more home than they could afford, most of them are back to being what they always should have been: renters.

It is ironic that the US government is now more powerful than Stalin at his peak in terms of controlable state assetts. How long before bickering politicans over there realise just how much power they now have over domestic affairs? and start to tamper for good and bad?

What the fuck do you think they've been doing since 1912, when Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives came to power?

They have been tampering, mostly for bad, ever since, and their policies are the direct cause of the trouble we're in today.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, that's right. Big Business has nothing to do with our current situation. So, Seth, will you be outsourcing your blag?

[JimC]

Zilla, this is a reminder to please play nice.

(in relation to this post: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 71#p964171 )

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Zilla, this is a reminder to please play nice.

(in relation to this post: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 71#p964171 )

DP said it's not an attack if it's true.

[Seth]

Zilla, this is a reminder to please play nice.

(in relation to this post: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 71#p964171 )

DP said it's not an attack if it's true.

Which means it's a personal attack.