-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
All you gotta do is point to Jesus's parables and Jesus's own reasoning for teaching with them.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
It's says why. We lock people up for things they wouldn't be locked up for before.
It just has quibbles with the specific things that are magic bullets
And gave the country its very first tax.
ridethepiggy
Banned
Yea, first we were talking about sex ed/marriage/abortion which evolved into whether this was ever a Christian nation that has strayed. Then it was divorce and marriage and whether two people who are unhappy in said marriage should stay in it waiting for God to move. Then that evolved into whether I believed Jesus was the Son of God. I stated that I don't know where I stood on that because it's a faith question that I don't think about too often.
That turned into all of the proof for Jesus having performed miracles, me responding with statements from Josephus/Philo that are used by believers to say something they really don't say. Then finally it turned into concern for my soul and that I have fallen away.
Fenderputty
Banned
Simple. The war on drugs. Legalize them or at the very least, decriminalize them. Addicts don't deserve jail time. They deserve a more humanistic approach to rehabilitation.
The article separates drug users from sellers in its attempt to disprove this "myth". Why it does that I'm not sure.
It's not a coincidence that prison populations have exploded since 1978.
Edit: actually the numbers for drug users and sellers was included in the total. Hmmm curiosity peaking
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Just trying to mobilize his army of illegitimate voters.
Aaron Strife
Banned
City council, county board, schoolboard etc. positions are still important.
It's rare in Minnesota at least for there to be nothing on the ballot in November.
Fenderputty
Banned
Read too quickly.
EDIT: They do state in the article that the war on drugs has caused indirect increases in terms being served due to past drug offenses. So it seems like the analysis isn't perfect since that isn't figured in. Though I was always under the assumption that it was more than 20%. There's way less federal prisoners, but it's up to 50% drug use in federal prisons. So that would bring the total up some from 20%. Maybe I'm just used to hearing the stat on federal prisons.
Still ... this is less than I figured. I wonder how much three strikes laws affected this. I don't see it being really touched upon in the article.
Thats why I said Reaganites, meaning people who were in their teens and 20s during the Reagan era. Sadly, its going to take a while
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-kaiser-obamcare-aca-website-repairs/3350137/
There. Problem solved. Can we move on to the next Benghazi now, please?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I just did the numbers on my condo that I own.
Going off what my neighbors are getting, it's $80,000 to sell, $850 a month to rent, $250 a month homeowners that includes all utilities but electricity, and $400 a year for taxes.
So $10,200 - $3,500 a year for utilities and taxes = $7,200
If I instead put $80,000 into indexes and made 7% annual I'd make $5,600 a year, so subtracting the opportunity cost $7,200 - $5,600 = $1,100. Maybe add the 1.5% interest you get from houses right now and make that $1,100 + $1,200 = $2,300 a year better than renting after opportunity costs.
One good thing about a condo is that most all maintenance is covered under homeowners. I only really have to worry about my air conditioner and carpets, and neither of those need $1,000 a year maintenance.
I really don't see where location comes into it because better a location would probably raise prices to rent and to buy equally. And if I include my 4% mortgage rate, I'm going to have to get rid of the opportunity cost since I don't know how I'm going to get a 4% mortgage to put all that money into the stock market.
As for mobility, it certainly is worse than renting, but it's not like you're completely shackled. You can still sell and move or rent it out through a management company.
So, maybe my situation is unique, but that's all I have to go on, and from the way I read the numbers, owning is better.
Going off what my neighbors are getting, it's $80,000 to sell, $850 a month to rent, $250 a month homeowners that includes all utilities but electricity, and $400 a year for taxes.
So $10,200 - $3,500 a year for utilities and taxes = $7,200
If I instead put $80,000 into indexes and made 7% annual I'd make $5,600 a year, so subtracting the opportunity cost $7,200 - $5,600 = $1,100. Maybe add the 1.5% interest you get from houses right now and make that $1,100 + $1,200 = $2,300 a year better than renting after opportunity costs.
One good thing about a condo is that most all maintenance is covered under homeowners. I only really have to worry about my air conditioner and carpets, and neither of those need $1,000 a year maintenance.
I really don't see where location comes into it because better a location would probably raise prices to rent and to buy equally. And if I include my 4% mortgage rate, I'm going to have to get rid of the opportunity cost since I don't know how I'm going to get a 4% mortgage to put all that money into the stock market.
As for mobility, it certainly is worse than renting, but it's not like you're completely shackled. You can still sell and move or rent it out through a management company.
So, maybe my situation is unique, but that's all I have to go on, and from the way I read the numbers, owning is better.
None of that is happening in my county. Nothing until 2014.
Joe Molotov
Member
fixed
Black Mamba
Member
Sure, at $80k. Come to LA where a condo is $300k at minimum. And homeowner association fees are quite high.
You also ignore maintenance costs (what if your AC or heater breaks?) And often renting comes with furnishings (fridge, stove, etc) that buying a home might not.
It can be good to buy or to rent. It depends on the price of both in the area.
I am slightly confused. You pay 1,100 bucks a month on rent + electricity and can sell your Condo for 80k. How does that equal 2,300 better than renting per year? Woudlnt you be better off selling your condo, and finding an apartment for about 1,100 bucks to rent? You are keeping your total monthly housing expenses the same and freeing up 80k to invest
Also, interest compounds, so your 80k investment in 30 years would be about 600k at 7% interest. Thats a profit of 520kis, which is a lot more than a yearly profit of 5,600
Black Mamba
Member
This is a bit misleading, too. First off, if he sold the condo he wouldn't net $80k. There's costs to selling the house and taxes to be paid after if it sold at a profit.
Then, he'd have to rent. At $1100 a month on rent + utilities for 30 years, that's $400k. and really, it's more, because prices will go up over that time frame (closer to $500k).
You'd clearly be at a loss in this move.
The topic should be more about buying a home, not selling one you already own. Regardless, in the scenario he provides, after a couple years it would be worth buying because $80k is pretty fucking cheap. And don't forget, if you put 20% down, the other money can still be invested.
The total home price versus yearly rental ratio is 6, which is a clear BUY BUY BUY sign. Anything over 20 is rent, anything under 15 is buy, and anything in between 15 and 20 depends.
Yeah, unfortunately. Transvaginal ultrasounds, homophobia and all that.
Aaron Strife
Banned
That he's an extremist right-winger? Yes.
Has taken votes to ban contraception, check
Supports banning oral and anal sex, check
Believes gay people are soulless? You better believe it
Antonin Scalia isn't conservative enough for him.
The GOPers in the other two races (E.W. Jackson for Lt. Gov, Mark Obenshain for Attorney General) are just as bad. Not that either of those are unbiased sources but they're good catch-all pages for their own nuttiness.
Vote straight Dem
Off it goes to die un the house.
Wow.... just wow.
Yeah it bugs me to no end that people completely ignore things like your local elections that by and large have far more day-to-day impact on your quality of life.
Voting in Virginia tomorrow. I suspect Cuccinelli doesn't have much of a chance, but I'm really hoping the Green Party candidate wins in my county elections. The Dems have screwed us royally, but this is the first year I can remember the republicans aren't actually running someone so maybe this is our chance.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's faster, still doesn't work. Horay.
The apathy here is unreal. I'm not even kidding when I tell people I could have easily been mayor of Omaha if I had known turnout was going to be so low. All I would have needed to get was 44,000 votes to get into a leadership position that directly influences almost a million people. A basic campaign would have gotten that.
If more people realized the smaller jobs are more accountable and have more direct influence, there'd be tons more turnout for them.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Personally I bought a tiny $500 fridge when I moved in 4 years ago, oven was included, and I've probably paid $800 in A/C repairs totals because it seems to want to break every other year. Still comes out ahead though. If it does depend on where you live, maybe the answer should be "do the math yourself" instead of blanket saying "renting is always better" or "owning is always better" like everyone seems to want to do.
No, I make $1,100 a year by owning over renting after opportunity costs and before any inflation on my condo is calculated. I make $2,300 a year after my small inflation is added. If I were to rent this condo to someone else I figure I'll get $850 for it since $850-$950 is what these condos are renting for.
I do have to think about compound interest though. That maybe the piece of the equation I'm missing. I'll have to do some spreadsheets later to see if maybe it is worth it to sell my place. Also maybe some research into if consistent 7% returns really are possible and safe.
EDIT:
I'm not trying to be misleading, I'm trying to actually learn. I bought my condo at the bottom of the housing crash, and was assuming I'd never have to rent for the rest of my life, but hearing that someone like Shiller say that's wrong made me wonder if I was wrong and should just take profits off it and reinvest elsewhere. The rent to price ratio is 8, not 6, but either way I guess that's unusual and a sign that I'm right to own while most aren't.
Well, lookey here. Remember when I said that one of the unintended consequences of red state governors trying to sock it to Obamacare by refusing the medicaid expansion would be causing a massive redistribution of wealth from poor states to rich ones? (don't answer that) Well, the Washington Monthly thought the same thing:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/refusing_the_medicaid_expansio047541.php
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/refusing_the_medicaid_expansio047541.php
Bel Marduk
Banned
He's much worse than what you've heard. The only nationally-known politician I could compare him with is Rick Santorum.
StopMakingSense
Member
Well, lookey here. Remember when I said that one of the unintended consequences of red state governors trying to sock it to Obamacare by refusing the medicaid expansion would be causing a massive redistribution of wealth from poor states to rich ones? (don't answer that) Well, the Washington Monthly thought the same thing:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/refusing_the_medicaid_expansio047541.php
Fucking moochers.
makingmusic476
Member
lol, they fucked up the title saying "rich to poor" instead of "poor to rich".Well, lookey here. Remember when I said that one of the unintended consequences of red state governors trying to sock it to Obamacare by refusing the medicaid expansion would be causing a massive redistribution of wealth from poor states to rich ones? (don't answer that) Well, the Washington Monthly thought the same thing:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/refusing_the_medicaid_expansio047541.php
Black Mamba
Member
I was saying piecake's analysis was misleading. I was aguing on your side.
Shiller doesn't argue against owning a home, he argues against the general idea that home ownership is what everyone should do.
Let me clarify. At $80k, owning a home is much better than renting in the same area for $850 so long as you stay there more than like 2 years.
At such low home values, it's a good if not great buy. Where the real problem comes in is where my cousin is about to put $300k down on a $2 mil home rather than rent at $2k. Or hell, not have to live in Beverly Hills which is fucking stupid. But she likes wasting her money so whatever.
Aaron Strife
Banned
At least Florida will come around after Crist wins.Well, lookey here. Remember when I said that one of the unintended consequences of red state governors trying to sock it to Obamacare by refusing the medicaid expansion would be causing a massive redistribution of wealth from poor states to rich ones? (don't answer that) Well, the Washington Monthly thought the same thing:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/refusing_the_medicaid_expansio047541.php
speculawyer
Member
And let's not forget that he used state resources in his climate-change denial campaign where he tried to harass climate scientist Michael Mann.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_of_Virginia's_climate_science_investigation
I am VERY happy to see that crazy theocrat go down in flames. Too bad McDonnell never got the same treatment.
So apparently that speech wasn't the only time Rand Paul plagiarized something. What once was a thing we could easily blame on a lazy intern is turning into something else entirely.
Sections Of Rand Paul’s Op-Ed On Drug Sentencing Plagiarized From Article Week Earlier
The article goes on to show the plagiarized portions.
It's so easy not to plagiarize. Just cite the damn source and that's it. It isn't a complicated thing to do. Students and journalists cite sources all the time, if they can there's no reason a US Senator can't.
I have a feeling this is only the beginning of this particular rabbit hole.
Sections Of Rand Paul’s Op-Ed On Drug Sentencing Plagiarized From Article Week Earlier
The article goes on to show the plagiarized portions.
It's so easy not to plagiarize. Just cite the damn source and that's it. It isn't a complicated thing to do. Students and journalists cite sources all the time, if they can there's no reason a US Senator can't.
I have a feeling this is only the beginning of this particular rabbit hole.
I honestly dont care that much that a Senator plagiarized someone in a speech or an Op-ed. If it was a book? Sure, id care then. If it was a journalist or academic or someone who makes his living on that? I would care then. Senator? Whatever, there are more important things to worry about, like his crazy ideas (though mandatory drug minimums are stupid), our economy, and how insane the republican party is.
So much for "if it were an article I'd have footnoted everything". Ouch.
It goes to credibility. Even those on the left could agree with Rand on the drone and surveillance issue, this undercuts that. It makes him seem dishonest, because he is at this point. No one can trust him on anything, and that is an important thing to hammer home.
He did that too.
Oh this just keeps getting better and better.
I disagree. I would only care if earned money by plagiarizing or was in a profession where that truly mattered, like a journalist or academic, etc where there credibility and income is based on their research and writing. Senator? I dont see it, and would only care if he plagiarized while writing a book that he then profited from.
For senators, its their ideas that matter. I doubt any of them have had an original policy idea so they got it from reading it somewhere. I don't think them plagiarizing it in a speech or an op-ed is really that big of a deal to me since I highly doubt anyone believes that came up with it or researched the topic extensively.
Credibility is just as important to an elected official. How can you believe a word out of his mouth? How can you trust any campaign promises? It's an issue of trust. Politicians need people to believe they'll do the things they say they will, when they get caught in a lie it's a big deal for a reason.
When did I say it wasnt? I just don't think plagiarizing something in a speech or Op-Ed hurts his credibility. Did he lie? Did he say something that he didnt believe in? Was his vote influenced by money? All of those things go to credibility and in this instance he didnt do either. Thats whats important to a senator's credibility.
I am really not sure why him plagiarizing something in an op-ed would make anyone believe that you couldnt trust his campaign promises. How do those relate at all?
Now, plagiarizing a book is serious, and he is definitely morally suspect because of it. I don't think the credibility of his beliefs or voting is ruined in this case, just his moral credibility since he profited by this.
It's not like he wrote the book either, of course. Someone else wrote it and he looked it over, maybe reading the whole thing and maybe making some changes, and approved it. You can't really expect someone to catch plagiarism in a book ghostwritten on their behalf.
For me this is entirely about how awfully he's responded to this. His reaction to being an accessory to plagiarism has been to dishonestly attempt to protect himself politically instead of acknowledging that wrong was done and either apologizing or fingering the responsible person or both.
And that's something which is a major problem for a politician. Covering up wrongdoing in order to protect him or herself politically reflects directly on a politician's credibility. It's even worse in this case because of how trivial the wrongdoing was and how clumsy his attempted defense was. This wasn't a rational coverup. This is a bigger story because of his coverup than it would otherwise be, and he was never going to be able to keep a lid on this given all these instances of plagiarism coming out. That his first instinct in the face of a slightly inconvenient truth is to start bullshitting is a problem for me, not that I was a fan to begin with. It's not like this is the first time either. See his comments on the Civil Rights Act - he loves posing as a courageous libertarian but, as noxious as his principles are, he's not actually willing to admit to holding them in front of a non-sympathetic audience.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, because apologizing and blaming the ghost writer worked so incredibly well for his father.
That was about the content of the writing over a very, very long period of time. It's pretty different. You do have some responsibility to look at the things ghostwritten on your behalf and make sure that they're somewhat close to what you believe.
- Status