Waiting for Fitzgerald

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Captain
If we have developed a bloated housing market fed by government tax breaks, and now decide to take the housing market off the tax breaks cold-turkey, we are making a decision to dramatically undercut the value of real estate around the country.

More accurately, we have removed an artificial and illogical influence on "value" from the equation. Governmental drag isn't a natural factor that we simply accept like location, and its removal isn't an activist event. I don't get credit for healing your wounds simply by not smacking you anymore.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, as things develop, can we get a poll on who if anyone will be indicted (for anything, not just the secret identity charge)?

1) Nobody
2) Libby only
3) Rove only
4) Libby and Rove
5) Someone else (the field)
6) Someone else and Libby and/or Rove

I'll take 6.

Nobody. I don't see Fitzgerald charging anybody with just perjury, and perjury is the only charge I think they can gin up at this point.

This is all just a sideshow anyway. The real story is Bush at 39% and sinking, and the GOP running from him like SARS.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
the GOP running from him like SARS.

Old and busted: SARS

New hot freshness: Avian Flu, coming to a port of entry near you

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
More accurately, we have removed an artificial and illogical influence on "value" from the equation. Governmental drag isn't a natural factor that we simply accept like location, and its removal isn't an activist event. I don't get credit for healing your wounds simply by not smacking you anymore.

Uh, you'll see them limit mortgage interest deductions around the same time you'll see George Bush nominate Alan Dershowitz for the SCOTUS.

Just cause some panel recommended the practically and politically absurd doesn't mean its suddenly gone from fantastic to possible.

Removing that tax break would create upheaval we'd from which we'd never recover. You think any politician in his right mind is going to get behind something like that?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Uh, you'll see them limit mortgage interest deductions around the same time you'll see George Bush nominate Alan Dershowitz for the SCOTUS.

Just cause some panel recommended the practically and politically absurd doesn't mean its suddenly gone from fantastic to possible.

Removing that tax break would create upheaval we'd from which we'd never recover. You think any politician in his right mind is going to get behind something like that?

I think bilmore is heavy into paying off principal now so its not helping him. I'd betting about year 26 of a 30 year.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think bilmore is heavy into paying off principal now so its not helping him. I'd betting about year 26 of a 30 year.

I suspect the invisible hand of the interest deduction is still helping him out.

Assume he plans to downsize and buy a Florida condo, and so intends to sell his Mansion, buy the condo, and put the rest toward his retirement.

A prospective buyer is going to say, hmmm, what can I afford. In answering this question, they will factor in the mortgage interest deduction.

The day the deduction is eliminated, his dreams of quitting work and moving to Clearwater will be deferred by a year or two because of the drop in value of his home.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
This is all just a sideshow anyway. The real story is Bush at 39% and sinking, and the GOP running from him like SARS.

Hey now.

Not running. Me and Penske are just walking rather briskly.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Captain
I don't believe there is ever a state of purity. Are you suggesting adopting the 1913 tax code simply because it was the first? Or do you prefer the 1861 or 1892 versions? If we adopt those codes, sould we also reinstate the excise taxes from which government derived most of its revenues at the time?

I'm suggesting that the tax code be structured to do that one thing for which it truly exists - to raise revenue in an efficient and fair manner. Considerations such as "we need to encourage home ownership", or "let's get folks to buy ethanol cars" don't belong in that arena. So, no, there's no absolute purity, but we can get a lot closer to that end of the scale.

Under the 1913 Code, approximately 1% of the population paid income taxes. Let's just use that code, and raise the rate sufficiently to create the income we need.

Gooooo, Flat Tax!

With respect to reading the plain language in the constitution, all I want to know is what it means to say that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." That says that absolutely no law can be made by Congress, period, limiting what I say?

Yep.

Now, if we have problems with that, and decide that we want to limit it a bit - amend. But to simply say that we're going to "read" these exceptions into the C that aren't there - well, might as well not have a C.

[Captain]

Originally posted by bilmore
Now, if we have problems with that, and decide that we want to limit it a bit - amend. But to simply say that we're going to "read" these exceptions into the C that aren't there - well, might as well not have a C.

Perhaps you could help out this historian-wanna-be then, and explain why the federalists, the very people who drafted the constitution, enacted the Alien & Sedition Acts. Because I read it the same way as you. What did those damn drafters know that we can't see?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't see insurers leaving certain markets entirely at all. They just stop offering good coverage and begin offering substandard coverage through their lesser quality-line offering subsidiaries. Or they form new coverage programs with each other and reinsurers. They don't walk away from easy money; they just make it more lucrative, by offering less under other brand names. This gives them the ability to say "We had to leave because of the lawsuit crisis" while at the same time making even more money in the market they profess to have left.

Not in the cases I'm speaking of. A pure walk-away from med mal in certain states, with no other subsids taking the slack.

Its all the same players in the industry. There aren't any "brand new" insurers coming on scene. They're just playing one massive shell game.

The big car dealers don't compete with each other? They don't cancel models, change prices, switch directions?

Problem with your analysis is, there sometimes aren't any doc-nsurers left to go to in certain areas. Ask the docs- it's getting grim for them, and for the patients who can't find a surgeon or ob/gyn when they need one without going out of state.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Captain
Perhaps you could help out this historian-wanna-be then, and explain why the federalists, the very people who drafted the constitution, enacted the Alien & Sedition Acts. Because I read it the same way as you. What did those damn drafters know that we can't see?

Because, you know, you never want, like, TOO MUCh free speech, right?

Thank goodness for Jefferson and Madison. The first of the textualists.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, as things develop, can we get a poll on who if anyone will be indicted (for anything, not just the secret identity charge)?

1) Nobody
2) Libby only
3) Rove only
4) Libby and Rove
5) Someone else (the field)
6) Someone else and Libby and/or Rove

I'll take 6.

Probably right - Fitzgerald announced that there would be no final report, suggesting indictments are likely.

[Captain]

Originally posted by bilmore
Because, you know, you never want, like, TOO MUCh free speech, right?

Thank goodness for Jefferson and Madison. The first of the textualists.

Ah, yes, them. Why didn't they try to get the Alien & Sedition Acts declared unconstitutional?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Actually, equally to the mortgage industry. What public policy argument justifies my newly increased mortgage deduction as a result of my new car purchase?

Wow. You and Burger are sounding almost like me.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Technically, are you allowed to deduct home equity interest used for something other than home improvements? Isn't there a significant limit at least on how much of that you do?

But, yeah, it shouldn't be deductible.

Interest on HELOCs is deductible up to $100K.