home

Friday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 11:05:15 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Still busy but just noticed that CP3 was traded to the Lakers. Wow!

Wait, what? (h/t Bill Simmons.) Stern did what?

Open Thread.

< Lawyer Jailed for Advising Client to Assert 5th Amendment Right | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Morning Open Thread | 182 comments (182 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    IPad no longer called "IPad" in China (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    The Patent Troll aka Apple has lost a trademark dispute with a Chinese company on who gets the right to the word "IPad".

    "But now, Apple has been denied the rights to the trademark for the term "iPad" in China, in a legal battle with Hong Kong-based Proview Technology."
    "Apple originally sued Proview Technology, a Hong Kong-based tech company, for trademark infringement."
    "In the meantime, Proview has sued Apple resellers in China, in an attempt to block the sale of the Apple iPad. In October, it also sued Apple for 10 billion yuan, or around 1.5 billion U.S. dollars, over the alleged trademark infringement."

    I really have no idea why Apple was dumb enough to sue a Chinese company in a Chinese court.  As everyone who knows anything about China knows, Chinese courts are made up of judges who make political decisions, not legal decisions.  Even if Apple was in the "right" on the law (a big IF), there's no chance the judge would choose the American company over the Chinese company.

    Stern loves the Knicks... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    rigging the lottery in 1985, and now keeping the Knickerbockers in the hunt for Paul in 2012.

    And we might be on the verge of signing a real center, Tyson Chandler.  That would be some frontcourt.    

    Stern (none / 0) (#2)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 11:18:32 AM EST
    in one move, tarnished his relatively good legacy forever.

    I pull for the Heat and the Hawks and fear a super team in LA or NY as much as anyone, but that was a really, really stupid trade veto.

    The league is in chaos today with egg all over its face.

    Parent

    I think the... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    ridiculous dress-code thing and everything is a technical foul already blew Stern's legacy.

    Sh*t it was Magic, Bird, and Jordan that gave him a legacy in the first place...he reminds me of Bill Clinton milking the internet and cheap gas as an economic legacy.

    Parent

    Sadness reigns in Blazer Town. (none / 0) (#143)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:38:12 PM EST
    The entire city of Portland, if one is to believe the frantic news breaks on local TV, is awash in tears of anguish over today's announcement that Brandon Roy is retiring.

    Roy has had several knee surgeries. The word is his doctor told him that if he (Roy) kept playing he would one day find himself unable to walk.

    Given that, I think Brandon made the right decision.

    Parent

    By dress code ... (none / 0) (#179)
    by cymro on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 10:53:08 PM EST
    ... I hope you're including those ridiculous long baggy shorts? Who's to blame for those? Shorts are supposed to be short, hence the name. That's another thing Magic and Bird got right--uniforms appropriate to the activity of playing basketball.

    Parent
    First day of Laker practice today (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 11:49:37 AM EST
    Gonna be a fun time for Mike Brown.  Odom was in tears yesterday.  Gasol, he's probably already looking for places in Houston.  The deal will go through, give it a week.

    Parent
    C'mon man... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 11:56:01 AM EST
    this is no way to treat Derek Fischer! :)

    Hows your SDSU doin' holmes?  The frosh-laden Johnnies are struggling, ugly loss to Detroit Freakin' Mercy this week...brutal.  

    Parent

    Funny you should axe (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    SDSU beat USD the other night, I saw, in the SD City Championship.  Not much of one these days, with SDSU on the rise and USD on the fall.  I had season tix to USD for four season before we moved north, so I got attached to the team.  Can't really stand the coach, Bill Grier (former longtime Gonzaga asst.), he had yet another player transfer out of the program last week (after kicking off two more a few weeks earlier), and even though I felt for the guy after the point-shaving scandal that hit last year, I just think he has to go.  Watched him coach year after year, and he's just not a guy who inspires his players.  He's a joy siphon on the sidelines.  

    Now, compare that to SDSU's coach, Steve Fisher, whose teams LOVE to play for him, you can tell.  He may not be the greates X's and O's guy, but he's a guy I'd want my kid to play for.  You won't get cussed out, you won't get thrown under the bus, hell, last week, he talked about two underperforming players, and how's he's told them they need to produce more in games, but emphasized his own role in building the confidence of those players as much as he can.  Aztecs are young this year, a little thin, but they could make a run, you never know.  

    Up here in the Bay Area, I got my USF season tix, so far a pretty unimpressive sked, but the conference is about here, which should get a lot better, Gonzaga, St. Mary's, and new member BYU, which is a complete joke.  Every gym in the league is 7,000 and under, but BYU is sandbagging for a year with their 22,000 seat arena.  Joke.  Hopefully my Dons step up and make some noise.  Coach is Rex Walters, former Kansas star and NBA veteran, so they have a guy who knows the game.  Gotta get the players.  Tough when you get NO mention from the local media and play in a 4,000 seat bandbox.  Seriously, only D-1 ball in The City and they get no play in the press here.

    As for Derek Fisher, I agree.  Great player, great guy, and I think he'll still play a key role off the bench once Paul is in purple and gold.

    Good luck with your Johnnies.  Lost a player to transfer the other day, I saw.  And Lavin is still healing up.  Again, he ain't the greatest X's and O's guy, but seems like someone I could respect if I played for.

    Parent

    The trade is fair (none / 0) (#92)
    by magster on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:22:00 PM EST
    It's rigged to the Lakers though if Superman also gets traded to Orlando.

    But the Hornets with Odom, Skola and Kevin Martin and a first round pick is plenty fair with CP3 able to leave NO with nothing after the season's over. If this is Stern trying to get CP3 to the Knicks, WOW!

    Parent

    I think this is more of (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:06:30 PM EST
    no one consulted us.

    There is no individual owner of the Hornets. New Orleans is owned by all the team owners, who weren't consulted and they balked at the trade.

    Parent

    I was going to chide BTD for doing a hit (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    and run on this vital issue of the day.  But, no need.  TalkNBA to the rescue.  

    Parent
    Inside the NBA page 6 (none / 0) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    the trade was nixed by Khloe who said Lamar can only play in New York, Miami, or LA or she'd take her ball and go home.

    Parent
    Now I must find out who the heck is Khloe. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:43:03 PM EST
    This story is overshadowing Ms. Kardashian's divorce.  

    Parent
    Khloe is yet another of the (none / 0) (#94)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    seemingly endless supply of Kardashians. In other words, she's the future ex-SIL of Kris Humphries.

    Parent
    OMG. I thought Khloe was prob. the (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    owner of a non-winning NBA team.  Who knew?  

    Parent
    I saw Lamar Odom (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CST on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    at the movie theater a few years ago when he was in town playing the celtics.  Brave man going to a public movie theater in downtown Boston - during the playoffs no less  (My friend told me to "trip him", until I pointed out that the way he was playing we wanted him in the game).

    A bunch of 11 year old girls came running up to my friend and I asking "Is that Mr. Kardashian?!?!?!?!"

    Parent

    I fear for that generation! (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:01:44 PM EST


    Parent
    When Dadler said... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    Lamar was in tears, I assumed Khloe was beating him:)

    Parent
    Job creation... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 11:25:55 AM EST
    in NYC...good news right?

    Nope, the city wants to put the kibosh on it:(

    Can you buy a rolling machine for (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:10:45 PM EST
    home use?

    Parent
    Sure... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    but the creator gave me the only rolling machine I'll ever need...two hands.  I'll go up against the machine John Henry stylee any day of the week!

    Tobacco is easier to roll, I can do a tobacco cig with one hand, but quality suffers:)

    Parent

    My Dad could (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    roll a cigarette with one hand while plowing with a team of horses. And never drop a flake of The Filthy Weed.

    "Country Gentleman" when he could afford it. "Bull Durham" otherwise.

    1940's snark. Kid calls store:

    "You got any "Prince Albert" in a can?

    Clerk: "Yes."

    Kid: "Let him out!"

    Parent

    is your refrigerator running? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:41:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Who was it that (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:44:54 PM EST
    burned heretics at the stake, drew-and-quartered people, and chopped off the feet of slaves if they objected to being worked to death in the mines?

    Oh yeah, I remember: it was the Carib Indians.

    Parent

    Oh, I thought that was the (none / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:49:03 PM EST
    Spanish inquisition.  Kinda confused me with the mines, though.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:54:20 PM EST
    The Carib word karibna meant "person". It became the origin of the English "cannibal". Although among the Carib, it was apparently associated with rituals related to the eating of war enemies, some Europeans believed the Carib practised general cannibalism.

    Instances of cannibalism were noted as a feature of war rituals: the limbs of victims may have been taken home as trophies. The Kalinago would chew and spit out one mouthful of flesh of a very brave warrior, so that he could take on his bravery; but there was no evidence that they ate humans to satisfy hunger.

    link

    Do you think it made any difference to the eatee if he was just lunch or a trophy for the eater???


    Parent

    I'm impressed... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:47:04 PM EST
    your old man had skills Jim.  More impressive is running a horse plow with one hand.

    Parent
    It was a two row riding cultivator (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:46:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Has there been a lawsuit challenging (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:06:58 PM EST
    the NY state tax on cigarettes?  Burden of proof on equal protection challenge would be rational relationship.  

    Parent
    If you're not too busy counselor... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:13:31 PM EST
    get on that for me:)

    Parent
    Ha. I am "inactive" member of CA (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:16:42 PM EST
    State bar.  

    Parent
    Can't you plead my people's case... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    in court under constitutional right to seek redress for grievances?

    I know you've got the skills...I couldn't care less what the Bar say.

    Parent

    No can do. The only case I could (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:26:42 PM EST
    find was court rulings against Seneca Indians, who challenged power of NY State to impose taxes on cigarettes made off the reservation but sold on the reservation.  

    Parent
    Lemme guess... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:41:13 PM EST
    still no justice for the red man in the white man's courts:)

    Parent
    Seneca can sell w/o tax cigs. (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    made on the reservation.  Can't sell w/o tax the cigs. they obtain from outside sources.  Case says the tax will be collected from the outside sources and Seneca will have to raise prices.  

    Parent
    Technically... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:13:38 PM EST
    they're only supposed to sell to the tribe tax-free...so if anyone asks my Poopsatuck name is "Dog Escapes Tyranny".  

    Parent
    Irish/Lebanese/Native American, (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:15:11 PM EST
    wearing Chivas shirt!

    Parent
    how much are they there? (none / 0) (#112)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:20:35 PM EST


    Parent
    The closest rez... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:34:30 PM EST
    to me is the Poopsatuck Nation...they charge 40 a carton for Seneca brand.  Down from a high of 45....they jacked their price up in anticipation of a NY State crackdown, and they're starting to come down.

    When I'm looking to stock up I go see the Shinnecocks out in Southampton...they're charging 32 a carton for Senecas.  Even factoring in fuel costs its a savings bonanza, and the Senecas make a fine smoke.  There are cheaper N.A. brands, but the Seneca Reds are the closest to my beloved Marlboro Reds.  Neither rez seems to be bothering with the name brands anymore, because of the court decision Oculus referenced.

    My younger bro's girlfriend was just down in N. Carolina and brought me back some Cowboy Killers for 40 bucks a carton...what a treat!


    Parent

    The NAs get cheap cigs. (none / 0) (#113)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:34:16 PM EST
    There is something really wrong with that. What's next, taking the health warning off their cig boxes? Cheap moonshine and meth?

    Parent
    Given the choice (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:39:43 PM EST
    between actually honoring any number of broken treaties, and throwing the Indiaians those kind of bones, the latter is considered by many of the powers-that-be to be the lesser of two evils.

    Parent
    There is something really wrong with (none / 0) (#140)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    thinking that making it easier to obtain cigs is throwing a bone.

    Parent
    Ha!... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:41:21 PM EST
    Actually the Seneca's rock a Surgeon General's warning...but just the old-style one about pregnant women.  Nothing about cancer, heart disease, emphysema etc...and none of the new shock pics of black lung or amputees.

    Moonshine and meth ain't my bag, but I always wondered if they are sovereign why they can't grown and sell ganja....ya know, to fellow tribespeople only of course:)

    Parent

    I haven't personally seen a box of cigs in years, (none / 0) (#141)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    are there really stuff like "cancer, heart disease, emphysema etc...and [...] shock pics of black lung or amputees" on them these days?

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#122)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:47:47 PM EST
    First we'll take away the land, the language, the children, and stick them on some infertile land.  So that takes care of necessities and culture.  

    I guess that's the cue to go in and start demonizing what little pleasures are left.

    Parent

    Good point. In that vein, probably should stop any (none / 0) (#142)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:37:31 PM EST
    work done there concerning alcoholism, education, contraception, as well.

    Parent
    Oh, I hadn't thought about that (none / 0) (#146)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:44:42 PM EST
    We'll take away small pleasures and what few resources we've offered in return for all of their resources... That'll teach 'em to be here before "us".

    Truthfully, I used to be uncomfortable with the rise of casinos as tribal assets.  But taking a step back and looking at it, I have to admire the human spirit.  They looked at their restrictions, and their few assets and found the "sweet spot".  I can't really fault the typical reservation casino for not yet using those resources to build a more sustainable tribal society when we haven't done such a great job off the res with far greater resources.

    Parent

    Well there you go, you convinced me. (none / 0) (#150)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:03:23 PM EST
    Gvt-mandated easier access to cigs is good for NAs.

    With friends like you...

    Parent

    I wonder who I mixed you up with (none / 0) (#159)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:20:03 PM EST
    because I wasn't expecting you to be one of those who puts his lies into the mouths of others.

    It must be someone else that uses multiple words in his/her name, but I can't think who it might be...

    Parent

    Ya. When the ridiculousness of your position has (none / 0) (#163)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:31:08 PM EST
    been shown, that is the time to switch topics and portray yourself as a victim.

    Good luck with that.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#165)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:47:04 PM EST
    I definitely gave you more credit than you deserve.  When I figure out who I mixed you up with I'll make a point of remembering that person's handle.  I've now got your number down pat.

    And see what I mean about putting your lies into my mouth?  I claimed no victimhood.  A bad taste, maybe but a little honest toothpaste and that goes away.  Very much like morning mouth.  Very easily dealt with and forgotten.

    Ta.

    Parent

    Excellent use (none / 0) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:26:19 PM EST
    of Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day.

    Parent
    Silly Ms. Halfmoon.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    Walmart is intolerant of anything manufactured in the USA, especially when you're manufacturing in Aisle 6!

    Woman of your dreams? (none / 0) (#13)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:20:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Nah... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:34:06 PM EST
    I've seen "faces of meth"...not pretty!

    But I give her an A for effort and ingenuity.

    Parent

    Who knew one could fit out a backpack (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    as a meth lab.  The guys in East County didn't think that small.  

    Parent
    New method of making called (none / 0) (#59)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    "shake and bake." apparently one mixes all of the ingredients in a 2 liter bottle or a gallon bottle and it makes the meth in an hour or two.

    I'm sure there's more to it, but I have no clue.

    Parent

    Highly volatile. Wouldn't want it on my back. (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    In one case I handled, the scene was a garage, with a large cooker.  Defendants claimed they just tossed the stuff in there, had absolutely no idea meth would result.  

    Parent
    People drive around with these (none / 0) (#69)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:58:31 PM EST
    potential bombs in their cars... Meth is not a nice drug, to make people do such things.

    Parent
    I will never forget the young females (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:01:37 PM EST
    who were the "girlfriend" of meth manufacturers.  Pallid, very thin, very depressed looking in court, very emotional.  Very sad.  

    Parent
    Not nice at all... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:16:23 PM EST
    and we've got cocaine prohibition to thank for its emergence.

    Parent
    Your next case: "Honestly, officer (none / 0) (#75)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    I had no idea if I threw money at the prostitute that she would have sex with me."

    I take it, that it ended well, right?????

    Parent

    Case was bound over for felony trial. (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:02:38 PM EST
    Don't know the outcome.  

    Parent
    wow. Walmart as one big giant meth lab (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:23:31 PM EST
    I was expecting some baby-making going on before I clicked.

    Parent
    Trump debate (none / 0) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:02:10 PM EST
    looks to be squashed soon.

    Hooray for small favors. (none / 0) (#11)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:16:26 PM EST
    a bad idea whose time has not come.


    Parent
    I guess that refutes the earlier prediction ... (none / 0) (#180)
    by cymro on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 11:07:02 PM EST
    ... by commenter loveed that the media would treat this debate like the Ali-Frazier fight!

    Parent
    Household weath drops again, (none / 0) (#12)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:17:05 PM EST
    but hey, Wall Street is up 100 points in early trading.

    Up 178 now (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    and no complaints from me as that makes me one of the lucky poor today (although not necessarily Monday). My entire retirement someday is tied to the stock market as I have no pension. Anything I'll have has been done myself by going all in religiously with an IRA and a more recent 401k over the years.

    Parent
    Wall Street going up (none / 0) (#14)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:20:59 PM EST
    helps household wealth directly. 401K, Pensions, etc.

    Parent
    Speak for your own household... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    the stock market has no effect on my household's monetary wealth, or lack of it.

    True wealth we've got in spades:)

    Parent

    Right, but (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:56:43 PM EST
    People who don't already know that will never believe it. You know? ;-)

    Parent
    "Help" (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Addison on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:22:56 PM EST
    It helps the topline, aggregated statistic because generally speaking the households with the most money have the most invested and so the trendlines follow each other

    But ~45% of American households don't have any investments with the stock market directly or indirectly. The stock market has no effect on their household wealth -- and that's a LOT of households.

    In the vast wooly underbrush of the economy, where real estate is still mostly stagnant and debt loads still staggeringly high, household net wealth is hardly flourishing. Of course, for those who are renting and without an extensive investment portfolio, the situation vis-a-vis net household wealth is also not good.

    But, hey, as an American I'm proud that the gains of the 1%'s investments can make our national topline statistics look better. Feels real good.

    Parent

    Addison (none / 0) (#133)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    I do not think it is accurate to view the stock market as the domain of the 1%.  

    I do not have the numbers but I think you are underestimating the number of households who are tied to market performance through direct investments or pensions or 401Ks.

    I think that a hit to the market is most likely a dramatic hit to the middle class as well.

    Can you provide the link to your 45% number?

    Parent

    My statement was accurate and well-estimated. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Addison on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:51:15 PM EST
    The 1%'s domination of the stock market on an absolute level (they own 42% of all financial wealth, the top 10% own 81%) means that "net household wealth" and the stock market are going to seem more linked in statistics than they really are most Americans. The vastness of the money that the upper class has invested means that the overall numbers are skewed when it comes to the relationship between the two numbers. Skewed into near-meaningless on a human level.

    So yeah, some middle class folks' household wealth would get hurt by a stock market fall. Undoubtedly. But they're more likely to be financially hurt by the housing bubble, and by the cost of higher education, and by unemployment than a movement in the stock market. And for 45% of households (which is more like 50% of American given higher birth rates among the poor), the stock market's gyrations have bupkis to do with net household wealth. That's 150,000,000 people right here in America.

    Source: How Many Americans Have Money on the Line Amid All the Market Volatility? (PBS)

    Nationally, stock ownership stands at only about 54 percent and in many of our 12 Patchwork Nation county types it stands at or below 50 percent. That's not to say the health of the Dow or the stock market in general is not important, but in many counties there are much bigger factors driving the economic unease.

    Further drilling down:

    In five of our 12 Patchwork Nation county types, 50 percent or fewer of the households have stock portfolios of any kind, including retirement accounts. Those county types are the socially conservative Evangelical Epicenters (14.6 million people), heavily Latino Immigration Nation (18.8 million), heavily black Minority Central (13.3 million), small town Service Worker Centers (30.6 million) and LDS adherent-filled Mormon Outposts (1.8 million).

    Perhaps most people you know are playing the stocks, but about half of America isn't.

    Parent

    Oh, Addison (none / 0) (#168)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 06:12:39 PM EST
    I don't always agree with your conclusions, but I have learned long since that you always have a basis for you are saying.  

    It is usually a pleasure to read your comments.  And when it isn't it is still enlightening.  

    Thank you.

    Parent

    I wonder if this data (none / 0) (#169)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 06:13:16 PM EST
    includes people who aren't "playing the stocks" or don't "have a stock portfolio" per se, but do have, for example, a 401k that's invested in stocks.

    Parent
    From the blockquote: (none / 0) (#170)
    by Addison on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 06:16:31 PM EST
    In five of our 12 Patchwork Nation county types, 50 percent or fewer of the households have stock portfolios of any kind, including retirement accounts.

    This wording certainly makes it appear that retirement accounts were factored in to the numbers. "Stock portfolios of any kind" seems pretty broad to me.

    Parent

    Also. (none / 0) (#171)
    by Addison on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 06:19:40 PM EST
    And the national numbers come from a huge, broad-based, professionally-gathered sample:

    These stock ownership numbers are significant in part because they come from a very large sample. Patchwork Nation analyzed data from the massive Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a survey of more than 30,000 people in 2008 that we received from our partnership with American University.


    Parent
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#172)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    I confess to not reading the blockquotes carefully enough.

    Parent
    uh, thanks, the question was already answered (none / 0) (#183)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:37:33 AM EST
    by the person I asked the question of...

    Parent
    ...and I should point out his answer was correct, (none / 0) (#184)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 02:43:31 AM EST
    in contrast with yours...

    Parent
    uhhh... (none / 0) (#16)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    apparently not, given the reports.


    Parent
    What reports (none / 0) (#18)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:26:17 PM EST
    The value of Americans' stock portfolios fell 5.2 percent last quarter. Home values dropped 0.6 percent.

    snip

    Roughly half of U.S. households own stocks or stock mutual funds. Stock portfolios make up about 15 percent of Americans' wealth. That's less than housing but ahead of bank deposits, according to the Fed's report.


    Parent
    If Wall Street was going to help sink (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:32:30 PM EST
    my home value, the least they could have done was keep my 401k healthy to make up for it.

    Parent
    Unequal distribution... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:45:01 PM EST
    that's the issue here. the figure you use of '15 percent of wealth' is an average, a mean score. If one used a median, that score would be 3.8 percent. This mean score is skewed incredibly  by the top categories of earners. They are the ones directly invested in the market, and often the only ones even indirectly invested. The bottom 60 percent are invested in Social Security.

    Here's a graph from 1994...wealth distribution is one of those hidden items, because it is so skewed to the wealthy. Most folks have almost no wealth. Before the housing crisis, most Americans had their wealth tied to their house. Now that's gone.wealth distribution graph, 2004.

    If you notice, the bottom 60 percent control only 4 percent of the wealth. the bottom 80 percent own only 15 percent of the wealth.

    Parent

    No, it isn't (none / 0) (#24)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    household wealth is down, precisely because the market it down.  That 3.8% of whatever owns whatever of whatever is missing the point. The household wealth is a TOTAL for the country.  So when the market goes down like it did, the wealthy lose a lot of wealth.  The poor don't lose wealth in that scenario because the poor don't have household wealth to begin with.  You know, cause if they did, they wouldn't be poor.

    No one "invests" in SS.  You own an investment.  You will it to whomever.  You die the day before you collect SS, you get nothing.  It is an entitlement, nothing more.

    Parent

    It is (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:07:00 PM EST
    not an entitlement.  It is insurance.  And we have paid the premiums all our lives.

    Parent
    Why does this even matter (2.00 / 1) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:18:54 PM EST
    Defining it one way as opposed to another is all good for intellectual discussion, but the bottom line is that congress has the power to alter the terms of you receiving money from the government through SS.

    Period.  Full stop.  If it was insurance, they would not be able to do that, but payment into SS is not a contractual relationship.  You cannot sue the government in the event that they decide to change the rules or pay you nothing at all.

    That's why it is not insurance.  But again, this is an argument that is irrelevant to anything.

    The question is whether the feds include 401Ks in their calculations.  I believe the answer is yes, but I need to find where I saw that.

    Parent

    is that true? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:27:19 PM EST
    payment into SS is not a contractual relationship

    not even on the basis of the (implied) social contract? if not, how is it legal for SS contributions to be collected?

    as for my other insurance, premiums go up all the time (health insurance, car insurance, renter's insurance) & my coverage changes, too - those policies do come with an explicit contract to which i can stop being a party

    so again, does the so-called social contract, understood to be in force for me as long as i am a U.S. citizen, stand in for my individual consent to make contributions to SS (& for my individual inability to opt out)?

    Parent

    Insurance vs. SS (none / 0) (#49)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:38:50 PM EST
     Social Security is an investment because it pays back more than one pays in. If I die, then my survivors get the benefits.

    Insurance companies can and do change payouts. Or they can go bankrupt and not pay anything.

    Parent

    Your survivors cannot collect (none / 0) (#57)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    your social security.  If you are married, then at death, your spouse might be able to sub your social security for their social security.

    If you are single and die (unless you have children under the age of 18) the benefits simply disappear.  Your survivors are owed nothing.

    Also, like an insurance company, the rules can change at any point.  You have no recourse.  The USSC has already ruled that you cannot sue if the benefits change.

    Parent

    o/t (if it's possible to be (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    off topic in an open thread), but this

    If you are single and die (unless you have children under the age of 18) the benefits simply disappear.

    is another reason why "states' rights" (i.e., civil unions) are no substitute for marriage equality

    if your spouse is of the same gender, then under federal law you are considered single even if you have been married for 75 years

    & if your spouse is of the opposite gender, then under federal law you are considered married even if you have been married for 1 minute

    </public service announcement>

    Parent

    You are forgetting the (none / 0) (#61)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    widows and childrens' part. SS also pays for disability as well. If you're single, then who would you have left the money to anyway?

    Parent
    Not to make this personal, (none / 0) (#68)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:57:54 PM EST
    but aren't you single with grown children?

    Hint, they get nothing after you die unless they are under 18.

    Again, not to be personal, but due to divorce there are plenty of single (divorced) people with children.

    Parent

    not grown children, (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    so there are benefits. Also, my ex and i were married long enough for her to get my SS upon her retirement. No, not excited about that, but it's the system. I'll be dead, so it makes little difference to me, in one sense.

    I'll be leaving my wealth (Bwahaha! A stamp collection and some nice 101st Airborne Division coffee cups) to my son, and he'll be covered for some years-- until he leaves either high school or college or hits 22 (i think it's 22).

    Parent

    A child under age 18 (19 if still in elementary or (none / 0) (#83)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    secondary school) or disabled -- 75 percent.

    So, probably 18.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:01:39 PM EST
    His son is not grown.

    Parent
    Unless the laws have changed (none / 0) (#174)
    by observed on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 06:39:46 PM EST
    children can get SS benefits up til age 21 if they attend college.


    Parent
    "Benefits for Children" (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 07:35:33 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    Interesting. After my father died, (none / 0) (#176)
    by observed on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 09:02:08 PM EST
    I got benefits when I was attending college(which wasn't continuously).
    I thought 21 was the cut-off, but possibly 19.

    Parent
    GOP must have damned that (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 01:02:24 AM EST
    leak!

    Parent
    Also a spouse or former spouse (if marriage (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    lasts long enough) may elect to take counterpart's ss payment amount instead of own.  Doesn't effect payout to counterpart or any of counterpart's former or current spouses.  

    Parent
    It's complicated, but (none / 0) (#80)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:05:46 PM EST
    can receive a benefit equal to one-half of your full retirement amount if they start receiving benefits at their full retirement age.

    Once you die, they can get your full benefit.

    Parent

    I was referring to : (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    divorced spouse

    I think I screwed up.  Should have taken divorced spouse benefits and later elected delayed benefits on my own account.  Oh well.  Too late now.  

    Parent

    If you want to pose (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:42:50 PM EST
    your own question go do that.  Do not presume to create the "correct" question for me.
    this is an argument that is irrelevant to anything.

    The question is whether...



    Parent
    actually (none / 0) (#35)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    social security is an entitlement

    as you said, it's insurance, & we've paid the premiums all our lives

    so we are entitled to collect it when the time comes

    let's say so, proudly

    let's not allow right-wing demonologists to chase another perfectly good, accurate word our of our liber . . . uh, "progressive" lexicon


    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#38)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    I stand corrected on the definition of entitlement.

    My thought processes have been corrupted by those who use the word "entitlement" to imply something-for-nothing-and-therefore-undeserved-and-negotiable.

    Parent

    IT IS AN ENTITLEMENT (none / 0) (#60)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:48:53 PM EST
    It was created as an entitlement.  It is listed by the government as an entitlement.

    An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation.

    How can Social Security not be an entitlement?

    Parent

    IT WAS CALLED OLD-AGE INSURANCE (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    by its creators for a reason.

    Please, read up on the history of SS before relying on ahistorical fools in the gummint.

    Parent

    that's right (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:10:13 PM EST
    The old-age insurance system introduced in the Social Security Act was designed, at a public policy level, to be a contributory social insurance program in which contributions were made by workers to what was called the "old age reserve account," with the clear idea that this account would then be the source of monies to fund the workers' retirement. . . . President Roosevelt strenuously objected to any attempt to introduce general revenue funding into the program. His famous quote on the importance of the payroll taxes was: "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there,* no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program."

    * #PayrollTaxHoliday

    The 1937 Supreme Court Rulings on the Social Security Act

    Parent

    Right, and therefore you (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:16:34 PM EST
    believe the Patriot Act was passed to make us all Patriots.

    Come back with a serious argument.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#138)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:32:18 PM EST
    The name doesn't matter.

    No matter what we call it or whether there is a social contract, the question legally is clear.

    Can congress and the president decide tomorrow to pay $0 in SS going forward?

    Answer: yes.

    There is no way to sue to change that outcome I believe. That's the way the law works.

    Fundamentally, that is not an entitlement or insurance in the broadest sense.  It is a promise to pay like any other promise by the government that can be changed.

    The only way to make that otherwise would be a constitutional amendment.

    This is completely separate from the "social contract" issue and every other liberal argument on SS, which are completely valid.

    Parent

    personally, i don't think (none / 0) (#173)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 06:30:41 PM EST
    that congress and the president will decide tomorrow to pay $0 in SS going forward

    they know how many guns are out there ;)

    Parent

    That's a serious reply? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 10:24:25 PM EST
    If so, then I have no time to waste on you.

    You could look up the history for yourself.

    Parent

    towanda, you know history (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 10:30:52 PM EST
    doesn't matter, just like logic and science don't matter. Geez, one would think you were in higher education or something. Oh, wait...

    Parent
    See my response (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    to TAF above who corrected me on my corrupted use of the term "entitlement".

    Parent
    What about the middle class? (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:58:54 PM EST


    Parent
    What about the middle class? (none / 0) (#96)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:25:58 PM EST
    I am sure what you are asking.  The report is on total household worth, which includes all wealth in all quintiles.  Since 85% of the wealth is owned by the top 20% the middle class is only 3-4% of the total wealth in this country.

    Parent
    Fun with numbers (none / 0) (#103)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    If that's true, then 95% of that particular 85% of the wealth is owned by the upper 19% of the 99ers.

    Parent
    Very informative, jeff. Thanks. (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:14:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Wall Street is sinking (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    in part BECAUSE your home value is going down.  Although we rail against Wall Street and big business, we are all interconnected in more ways than you'd think.

    Parent
    me too (none / 0) (#19)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    beat me to it. Most of the lost value was specifically because the market took a hit.

    Parent
    A quick search didn't turn up (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:53:39 PM EST
    a definition of "household wealth" but my gut reaction is that I don't consider my 401K as household wealth until I have access to it.  But again, I found references to, but no definition of "household wealth".

    But as for pensions (which I do not have) my understanding is that it affects the health of the pension assets.  Not the payout to pensioners.  

    So I think you're mistaken.

    Parent

    SJ, it would have to be a guaranteed (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    benefit pension. Pension managers can reduce the payouts if necessary and in some circumstances, or in other circumstances, raise the contribution amount, etc.

    guaranteed portability, such as an ira or 401k, however, does not guarantee an amount, only that one can keep contributing, whether a 401k, a 403b or a Roth ira or traditional ira.

    Also, a pension plan can be borrowed from or raided, leaving pensioners with nothing from which to draw. Not in all circumstances, but in many.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    Thanks Jeff.

    Parent
    The numbers went down (none / 0) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    because WS went down and the numbers will go up because WS will go up:

    "Analysts are hoping for a better fourth quarter for the household net worth as the U.S. stocks have performed well at the end of the third quarter.

    "IHS expects a strong fourth-quarter rebound in household net worth resulting mostly from a rally in stock prices," Gregory Daco, principal U.S. economist for IHS Global Insight, wrote in a note Thursday.

    Link

    Parent

    This is related to (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:12:30 PM EST
    my question only in the most peripheral way.  Your quote uses the term "household net worth".  But another quick search indicates that "net worth" and "wealth" aren't the same thing either.

    But I said "household" and your quote says "household".  So there's the relationship between you I said and your response to me.

    Parent

    I am a little confused (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    All I am saying is that when Jeff referenced "household wealth" dropping and suggested that Wall Street was rising, he was ignoring the fact that a big driver of household wealth is the market.

    When the market goes up, household wealth goes up, when it falls, household wealth goes down.

    Discussions of the fed report on which this is based use net worth and wealth interchangably.

    Example

    If you were thinking of another metric, that's fine but reports of that other metric aren't the source of Jeff's initial statement.

    Parent

    ABG, which came first, (none / 0) (#46)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    the stock market tanking, or the housing market tanking? Most Americans have their wealth in their house/home, not the stock market. The market has already recovered, and wealth still decreases. An average, or arithmetic mean, ignores much of what is happening with the data. What is the mean of the following? 3,2,4,1,5,8,15,17, 200,400?

    Answer? 65.5.

    The median, however, is 6.5.

    When the upper income percentage groups have huge amounts invested, and the lower groups don't, what you have is a huge difference in what the data reveal. If we said, for instance, based on these numbers, that the average income of country x was 65.5, would that be incorrect? no. If we said that this country had only 20 percent making above the average, however, we could easily visualize the skew.

    Median measures the point at which half rank higher and half lower.

    What is the median amount in stocks? Not pension plans, but stocks, that families own?  I would say that it is far from 15 percent.

    Parent

    How can I use (none / 0) (#48)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:37:33 PM EST
    anything as a metric when I can't even find a formal definition of it?

    Have you even read my comments? because

    If you were thinking of another metric,
    indicates that you have failed to understand that I have no metric.  If you want to continue the conversation, provide definitions.  Otherwise I'm not talking to you anymore because your responses to me are just chatter.

    Parent
    Let's try this: (none / 0) (#52)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    income: what one earns over the course of a year.
    Wealth: what one accumulates over the course of time.

    Income-payouts=wealth.

    Wealth can be property, stocks, an oil well, paintings, a car, anything. It doesn't have to be cash. But it is the value of those objects.

    Parent

    this is the sociology 101 (none / 0) (#53)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    definition of wealth. Crude, but accurate enough to use. just like demography uses crude birth rates and crude death rates.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    income: what one earns over the course of a year.
    Wealth: what one accumulates over the course of time.
    That was my "gut level" interpretation when you first posted and then the issue got less clear in my mind.  And also got muddied by my attitudes to my own 401K.  I can't touch that without being penalized so to me, in my own mind, I consider that kind of "potential future wealth"

    Parent
    Makes sense, sj. (none / 0) (#64)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    There's no universally agreed-upon metric, but almost all include what i mentioned.

    Parent
    Your 401k is a Asset (none / 0) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:50:44 PM EST
    Like any asset, it can be used as collateral, certainly will be chopped an diced in a divorce, and can be accessed in certain situations.

    A lot of people are cashing in their 401k's to pay the billz, which seems ludicrous to me, but it's happening at record rates. HERE

    Here the kicker, since you don't pay tax on those funds, you have to pay it when you cash it out, plus a %10 early withdrawal penalty.  So if you are in a 20% tax bracket, they will take $.30 on the dollar before you ever see a dime.

    Like a balance sheet, wealth (net assets) = Assets - Liabilities, everything you own, minus what you owe.  If your house is worth $100k, but you owe $60k, you have a ~$40k asset.

    sj I think you are getting mixed up with the liquidity of your assets, like a house isn't very liquid, but something like gold is, and of course cash is always king.

    For the record Kdog, nearly everyone's wealth has declined substantially because of Wall Street, even if you don't own the home, the demand because of all the folks getting kicked out of their homes is raising rents, which lowers your net worth.  No one is free and clear of Wall Street, not even folks in other countries.

    Parent

    Look at it this way (none / 0) (#126)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:03:16 PM EST
    In your link,

    Trent Charlton knew the risks when he borrowed $10,000 from his 401(k) and cut his retirement savings in half.

    Not sure why you think it's crazy.  How far was $20K going to carry him in retirement?  I don't know about using to pay credit cards, but that's just me being judgemental, because if I have to use mine to make a house payment you know I'm going to do it.  Penalty and all.

    You are likely right about the liquidity aspect.  Thanks for making the distinction.

    Parent

    It's Crazy Because... (none / 0) (#185)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 10:51:16 AM EST
    ... not knowing his age, $10k today, which he will get around $7k.  Say future value @ a very conservative 7.5% for 40 years, that $10k is around $200k, at 65, and since you take it out slowly, that number realistically is closer to $250k, sans tax.

    To make his house payment he cut in half his retirement, that's cutting your future income in half to make a house payment or several, whatever $7 gets him.  To me, that money is gone, it should never be accessed but in the most desperate situations, maybe life threatening surgery, never ever to pay a bill of any kind.

    Credit card debt, and this isn't being judgmental, should be on the very last of billz to pay.  In either case, your credit will be restored in 7 years, his retirement will never be restored because he can never recapture compounding interest or the cheap prices of investing over the past 5 years.

    This part is opinion, I myself would rather go hungry today at age 40, then go hungry at age 70.  And that is what all these people are setting themselves up for, maybe not literally, but they are going to be able to afford the comforts that are, to me at least, necessary in old age.  There are far too many people counting on today's SS rates for retirement using today's prices when it's fairly clear that it will be a miracle if we get the numbers on our year SS forms, and certainly prices of everything will inflate.  Add in the insane rates at which medical costs are increasing and these people are setting themselves up for extremely hard lives.  And for what, to ensure they remain in a house they cannot afford or pay CC debt.  Gambling against your future only makes sense if you don't plan on living long.

    Parent

    Here (none / 0) (#63)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    Household wealth, or net worth, is the value of assets like homes, bank accounts and stocks, minus debts like mortgages and credit cards.

    Your 401(K), Roth, IRA, Trust Fund, bellybutton ring and your toejam all count.

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    my toejam would not count.  I can find no way to estimate value.  And my bellybutton ring has no resale value whatsoever at this point.

    Parent
    negative value? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    Buying absorbine jr?

    Parent
    I calling it, (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    you are not Obama in disguise.  If you were, you could auction your toejam and therefore it would have value.

    Parent
    i shorted Obama's toejam (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    before the 2010 midterms . . .

    but didn't you know that sj is one of Obama's many sock puppets? ;)

    Parent

    Until the above comment (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by me only on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    I thought sj was, but the relative non value of sj's toejam throws that into serious doubt, right?

    Love the connotation of sockpuppet and toejam.  Nice play.

    Parent

    Saw that (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:21:36 PM EST
    things are bad in Calif

    Parent
    any antiques experts? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:21:09 PM EST
    I have this thing I have been sending images of around to try to find out a.) what it is b.) how old it is and c.) if it might be worth something.

    pic one front

    pic two back

    pic three blow up of the embedded coin

    it is about 9 x 17 inches including the frame.  which seems to have been made for it.
    the front is some kind of metal.  possibly silver or pewter.   but heres the odd thing.  as you will see from the back pic it is somehow "plated" on marble.
    it is a marble slab.  if you take it out of the frame it sort of looks like some kind of tile which has been glazed with some kind of metal.
    never seen anything like it and have not found anyone else who has.
     I got it at an antique store that was going out of business in Champaign.  they knew nothing about it and I know from buying other things there that they priced things based on how much they paid for it.  it was priced at 500 bucks but I got it for 200 because it was a 60% off going out of business sale.
    I bought it because I just love it but the more I looked at it the more I came to the conclusion that it looked really old.  the theme obviously has something to do with night.  note the stars, the bat (top) and the owl (bottom). and when have you ever seen a cherub with bat wings?

    ok heres the front image (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    for sure this time

    Parent
    The square nails (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    on the back usually date it to hundred years plus..

    That's a very unusual motif. At first I thought it was a more-or-less standard Queen-of-Heavan-with-cherubim image, but then I noticed the bat wings..

    It almost looks like it could be an icon from some sort of occult, secret society, if that isn't too much of a stretch..

    Though, in some parts of the world (China for one), bats are considered beneficial and a lucky omen..

    Parent

    thats what I thought actually (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:05:26 PM EST
    it seemed like it might be part of a set, that being the "night" one.  its not a great photo but the workmanship is amazing.  and the coin on the back looks very old.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:07:21 PM EST
    are those poppies she is holding? as in Opium?

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:11:06 PM EST
    now that you mention it, those definately look like poppies.

    Where do you come across it? Something that'd been in the family for a long time?

    Parent

    nope (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:29:35 PM EST
    stumbled upon it in a going out of business sale in an antique store in Champaign

    Parent
    and also (none / 0) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:30:06 PM EST
    I think the cherub might be holding Nightshade

    Parent
    ps (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:23:18 PM EST
    if you click on the images they get larger

    Parent
    Just looked at the front (none / 0) (#130)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:07:23 PM EST
    for the first time.

    I would have bought that in a heartbeat.  Awesome find. Let us know what you find out about it.

    Parent

    Maybe look to Greek mythology (none / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:30:32 PM EST
    According to this, the Furies sometimes were depicted with bat wings.  However, they are usually depicted in threes. Also however, you think it looks as though your piece might once have been part of a set.

    Your image looks too serene, for a typical rendition of a Fury but some things I've read say Furies did have a benign aspect - the Eumenides.

    Parent

    I have googled a lot (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:32:24 PM EST
    nothing really fits.  but I did get directed to someone who may be able to tell me about it when I hear back.  I will update.

    Parent
    Check Around Ebay (none / 0) (#125)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:59:38 PM EST
    I would imagine you can find something similar to at least see what they it's called and maybe some facts from the descriptions.

    Then check real auction sites to see what it's worth.

    Parent

    really (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:03:50 PM EST
    I have googled and googled.  nothing.  try looking for "cherubs with batwings"

    nada

    and the most unusual part is the material.  marble coated with some sort of metal.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#132)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:17:50 PM EST
    I pulled the image of the coin into photoshop and enlarged it trying to read the words on it - it looks like latin maybe, but I can't get high enough resolution to make them out.

    Can you read the letters? Or Have you tried laying a piece of paper on it and rubbing it with pencil lead?

    Parent

    it does look like latin to me (none / 0) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:30:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Can you make out each letter? (none / 0) (#144)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:42:01 PM EST
    And the type the word and google it?

    Parent
    you are a genius (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:01:49 PM EST
    is says PERFUGIUM REGIBUS (Refuge of Kings)
    when I goodled I found a plaque that is similar but not (in my opinion) nearly as nice.

    this is  a great lead.  thanks for slapping be upside the head.

    there is more latin below that I cant read but the Medal is apparently called a Perfugium Regibus Medal

    Parent

    it is (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:03:06 PM EST
     One of the historical series of medals of Louis XIV

    Parent
    You owe me a coffee for that (none / 0) (#151)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:03:59 PM EST
    and you better have it in your hand next time you run into me on the street ;-)

    Parent
    done! (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:07:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Look at this (none / 0) (#153)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:10:22 PM EST
    Marble Cherub Plaque & Perfugium Regibus Medal 1872 Glasgow Westend Picture

    Parent
    yep just found it (none / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:15:23 PM EST
    no bats though.  yawn

    Parent
    Another (none / 0) (#157)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:16:10 PM EST
    On Ebay

    and more here


    Parent

    the (none / 0) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    plaque I found

    very normal cherubs.  no bats.

    Parent

    bats (none / 0) (#158)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    are "value added" ;-)

    Parent
    Value added (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:24:07 PM EST
    And for sure the poppies are...

    Parent
    add 100 bucks for each poppy (none / 0) (#162)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 05:25:12 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    good idea (none / 0) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:44:26 PM EST
    I will try that

    Parent
    Interesting post by Adam B re (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    civil case against a "blogger."  DK link

    "Angels in America," by Tony Kushner: (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:33:35 PM EST
    saw Part I of an excellent production last night.  Play is about the AIDS crisis, set in 1985.  Lots of political stuff, including one characted spouting how America is again top dog, under Reagan and will remain so.  Wife disagrees.  So much of the dialogue reminded me of people's reaction to Obama, the candidate, stating how much he admired Reagan's policies.  

    The AIDS issue under Reagan (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    made the title of a book published in 1987 so perfect..."And the Band Played On"

    Parent
    Very powerful play. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:51:03 PM EST
    Will you be seeing Part II? The Mormon storyline is quite interesting.  

    I saw this play in its early days. We were still suffering the effects of the "Plague Years." I was completely bowled over by this work. Kushner is an amazing playwright.

    Parent

    I am seeing Part II Sat. night. (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:00:40 PM EST
    Saw both parts in the '90s, but the only seats avail. for Part II were in balcony--too far away for max. impact.  

    Parent
    Bonds recommendations (none / 0) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 03:40:54 PM EST
    15 months or Probation?

    SAN FRANCISO (AP) - Federal prosecutors are urging a judge to send former baseball slugger Barry Bonds to prison.

    In court documents filed late Thursday, prosecutors objected to a recommendation by a federal probation officer that Bonds get only probation when he's sentenced for obstruction of justice on Dec. 16.

    In the documents, prosecutors are asking that Bonds be sentenced to 15 months in prison.
    Ridiculous recommendation. Will (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 04:54:07 PM EST
    Pres. Obama pardon him?

    Parent
    Friday Morning Open Thread | 182 comments (182 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment