Powell is keeping rates too high and keeping SFR sales low

[ZZGAMAZZ]

The discount rate should be 3.25% based on the Fed's own metrics, yet tariffs continue to instill fear of inflation in the economists. Increasing the money supply by 25% didn't bother them, but a temporary tariff scares the chit out of them. It doesn't get weirder than that.

I receive SS and often wonder why the impact of inflation on annual SS increases isn't often published. Imagine for example, the macro impact of 1% difference in the 2026 SS rate. So hooray for inflation rates through the end of Q3...

 

[RCA]

The right loves to tout family values; however, their policies do not value families. There are no policies to help extend affordable child care or health care, and the bulk of the tax cuts benefit the corporations and wealthy, with crumbs thrown to the working folks. Trump's adding trillions more to the deficit and debt, and lack of commitment to paying down the debt, will place a huge burden on the young generation coming up.

"The right," for what is worth, tends to believe in letting the forces of "natural selection" play out. So, the criminal, the lazy and the stupid are not to get taxpayer support for raising a family, as that in all probability winds up costing the taxpayer big time over the long run - without any benefit. ... They are therefore, to be very clear, not encouraged to have children, - "because we will get another $1000/month for each child." ---->. Only those whose productivity is a benefit to current and future society (read taxpayer) shall be supported to raise a family. End of story, whether you agree or not.

Of course, one can argue that this is a gross simplification of the problem, as whether someone has a job or not often is a matter of luck, such as choosing the right profession and unpredictable changes in the economy. The far right, not always above poverty itself, or should we say the part of the far right that is wealthy and successful, will counter that a perfect solution is impossible, - but that it is the best solution.

So, you can argue about this forever. Take your choice.

 

[J Grant]

"The right," for what is worth, tends to believe in letting the forces of "natural selection" play out. So, the criminal, the lazy and the stupid are not to get taxpayer support for raising a family, as that in all probability winds up costing the taxpayer big time over the long run - without any benefit. ... They are therefore, to be very clear, not encouraged to have children, - "because we will get another $1000/month for each child." ---->. Only those whose productivity is a benefit to current and future society (read taxpayer) shall be supported to raise a family. End of story, whether you agree or not.

Of course, one can argue that this is a gross simplification of the problem, as whether someone has a job or not often is a matter of luck, such as choosing the right profession and unpredictable changes in the economy. The far right, not always above poverty itself, or should we say the part of the far right that is wealthy and successful, will counter that a perfect solution is impossible, - but that it is the best solution.

So, you can argue about this forever. Take your choice.

? How is the RW policy encouraging people not to have children?

Personally, I can see the devastating effect, overall, of the lazy, mentally ill, criminal, and addicted having children, whether or not they use the government system for support. That is why I believe in the right to have an abortion. Since the RW does not believe in the right to an aborion and often even wants to restirect birth control, its hard to argue their policies lead to less dependent kids being born and then in the system until teenage years, if that is what a parent or parents unael or to f*d up to provide and care for their kids do-
.
The sad reality is that a number of unwanted kids or kids with unstable and addicted parents will themselves end up in the prison system and cost taxpayers lifetime support - $30k a year to keep an inmate incarcerated on average. Do the math - a 10-year sentence costs taxpayers 300k in prison costs, and that does not include the court costs and any damages to the victims.

I would favor paying addicted, incarcerated, mentally ill etc a cash payout NOT to have kids - 10k to get tubes tied for a woman, 5k to get a vasectomy for a man ( sine the man can reverse it) Offer free birth control to indigent people and teenagers.

I do agree that if social services encourage subsidies for the lifetime support of an unwanted child, then that is a case to be made, but it is simplistic to think that it would solve the whole problem.

 

[Zoe]

? How is the RW policy encouraging people not to have children?

Personally, I can see the devastating effect, overall, of the lazy, mentally ill, criminal, and addicted having children, whether or not they use the government system for support. That is why I believe in the right to have an abortion. Since the RW does not believe in the right to an aborion and often even wants to restirect birth control, its hard to argue their policies lead to less dependent kids being born and then in the system until teenage years, if that is what a parent or parents unael or to f*d up to provide and care for their kids do-
.
The sad reality is that a number of unwanted kids or kids with unstable and addicted parents will themselves end up in the prison system and cost taxpayers lifetime support - $30k a year to keep an inmate incarcerated on average. Do the math - a 10-year sentence costs taxpayers 300k in prison costs, and that does not include the court costs and any damages to the victims.

I would favor paying addicted, incarcerated, mentally ill etc a cash payout NOT to have kids - 10k to get tubes tied for a woman, 5k to get a vasectomy for a man ( sine the man can reverse it) Offer free birth control to indigent people and teenagers.

I do agree that if social services encourage subsidies for the lifetime support of an unwanted child, then that is a case to be made, but it is simplistic to think that it would solve the whole problem.

It should be public/private partnership between religious facilities and government on taking care of unwanted child.

I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.

However, if religious facilities and govt chimed in to help the woman, many people would be willing to adopt the baby and if not, religious facilities and government public/private partnership could do it.

Many times a woman thinks she has no way out due to financial reasons or other reasons.

It was an accident pregnancy from both the man and woman.

 

[Zoe]

If we had government healthcare like most major nations, it would make it easier for govt/private companies to chime in and help. That would include religious facilities.

The govt and religious facilities send all kind of money to foreign nations.

 

[J Grant]

It should be public/private partnership between religious facilities and government on taking care of unwanted child.

I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.

However, if religious facilities and govt chimed in to help the woman, many people would be willing to adopt the baby and if not, religious facilities and government public/private partnership could do it.

Many times a woman thinks she has no way out due to financial reasons or other reasons.

It was an accident pregnancy from both the man and woman.

I do not see any increase from conservatives after they got Roe vs Wade struck down with their adopting babies, let alone unwanted children or teenagers. They want to impose their will on people and force women to give birth who live in states with anti abortion laws, yet they want nothing to do with the child after it is born. Seems their punitive furor at the mother far outweighs any obligation they feel to the child or the family. Bunch of hypocrites IMO, the exception being the segment of generous and compassionate Christians among them.

 

[Zoe]

I do not see any increase from conservatives after they got Roe vs Wade struck down with their adopting babies, let alone unwanted children or teenagers. They want to impose their will on people and force women to give birth who live in states with anti abortion laws, yet they want nothing to do with the child after it is born. Seems their punitive furor at the mother far outweighs any obligation they feel to the child or the family. Bunch of hypocrites IMO, the exception being the segment of generous and compassionate Christians among them.

I am not arguing with you baby on this issue. I am looking at solution. I think we are kinda out of sink on this thread topic. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[RCA]

? How is the RW policy encouraging people not to have children?

Personally, I can see the devastating effect, overall, of the lazy, mentally ill, criminal, and addicted having children, whether or not they use the government system for support. That is why I believe in the right to have an abortion. Since the RW does not believe in the right to an aborion and often even wants to restirect birth control, its hard to argue their policies lead to less dependent kids being born and then in the system until teenage years, if that is what a parent or parents unael or to f*d up to provide and care for their kids do-
.
The sad reality is that a number of unwanted kids or kids with unstable and addicted parents will themselves end up in the prison system and cost taxpayers lifetime support - $30k a year to keep an inmate incarcerated on average. Do the math - a 10-year sentence costs taxpayers 300k in prison costs, and that does not include the court costs and any damages to the victims.

I would favor paying addicted, incarcerated, mentally ill etc a cash payout NOT to have kids - 10k to get tubes tied for a woman, 5k to get a vasectomy for a man ( sine the man can reverse it) Offer free birth control to indigent people and teenagers.

I do agree that if social services encourage subsidies for the lifetime support of an unwanted child, then that is a case to be made, but it is simplistic to think that it would solve the whole problem.

"Right Wing" is an overly broad generalization. There's no single "RW Policy" that defines an entire political orientation. What we call policies emerge from complex negotiations, compromises, and evolving circumstances—not from monolithic ideological camps.

Political labels obscure more than they reveal. Within any supposed "right wing," you'll find anti-Trump conservatives, quasi-independents, disaffected Democrats, and Trump supporters who may disagree on fundamental issues. Many won't even engage with each other. The same fragmentation exists across the political spectrum.

When policies do emerge from these loosely affiliated groups, they represent specific coalition-building efforts rather than comprehensive worldviews. You might identify a left-leaning or right-leaning policy on a particular issue, but claiming there exists the definitive Left Wing Policy or Right Wing Policy assumes a consensus that simply doesn't exist.

The reality is messier: diverse opinions, tactical alliances, and pragmatic compromises that resist neat categorization. Using broad ideological labels like "RW Policy" misrepresents how politics actually works and shuts down more nuanced discussion.

 

[RCA]

Speaking of RW - Whatever happened to Tucker Carlson? I used to like his show. However, in 2022-23, he underwent some unusual changes. Then he become so pro-Russia, he just didn't make sense any more:

1. Emergency Back Surgery (circa 2022)​

In late 2022, Carlson underwent emergency back surgery in Florida after suffering from intense back pain. Despite the operation, he returned to broadcast his show the very same evening. Carlson later mentioned receiving powerful painkillers—including Dilaudid (hydromorphone) and fentanyl—and spoke about the experience as one of the most traumatic of his life, highlighting how it shaped his understanding of opioid addiction The Guardian+10Adweek+10YouTube+10.

---

2. Rotator Cuff Injury Claim​

During legal proceedings tied to Dominion Voting Systems, Carlson submitted a doctor’s note indicating he could not raise his right hand due to a rotator cuff injury allegedly sustained decades earlier. Dominion, however, presented photographic evidence of him raising that hand, challenging the claim’s credibility The New Yorker.

---

3. Alleged 'Demonic' Attack​

In an unusual incident described in late 2023, Carlson claimed he was physically attacked in bed by an unseen entity, allegedly a demon. He reported waking up in severe pain, unable to breathe, and finding claw-like wounds on his torso and shoulders, which bled. This experience, which he described as transformative, led him to a renewed engagement with the Bible and his faith Wikipedia+3The Guardian+3Vanity Fair+3.

---

Summary Table​

Year	Incident/Event	Description
~2022	Emergency Back Surgery	Acute back injury; surgery; returned to air same evening
~2021–2022	Rotator Cuff Injury (claimed)	Doctor’s note said he couldn’t raise right hand; disputed
~2023	"Demonic" Attack in Bed	Claimed physical assault by unseen being caused bleeding injuries

---

Were These Health Problems?​

• The back issue appears to have been sudden, requiring emergency intervention, but there’s no confirmed chronic or long-term condition.
• The rotator cuff claim was presented in a legal context and remains contentious and unverified.
• The "demonic" attack is not recognized as a medical diagnosis; Carlson himself described it as a spiritual and existential event rather than a documented illness.

So, while Carlson has reported intermittent medical emergencies and pain-related issues, there’s no confirmed evidence of a long-standing or degenerative health condition known to the public.

---

Final Answer​

Yes, Tucker Carlson has experienced a few notable health‑related episodes in recent years:

1. Emergency back surgery in or around 2022 following severe pain.
2. A disputed rotator cuff injury claim used in legal proceedings.
3. A self‑described “demonic attack” that led to bleeding injuries and a spiritual awakening.

However, none of these appear to constitute a chronic medical condition acknowledged by physicians or documented in mainstream medical sources.

======

Maybe all that nicotine gum he has been chewing over the years has finally rotted his brain.

 

[Zoe]

"Right Wing" is an overly broad generalization. There's no single "RW Policy" that defines an entire political orientation. What we call policies emerge from complex negotiations, compromises, and evolving circumstances—not from monolithic ideological camps.

Political labels obscure more than they reveal. Within any supposed "right wing," you'll find anti-Trump conservatives, quasi-independents, disaffected Democrats, and Trump supporters who may disagree on fundamental issues. Many won't even engage with each other. The same fragmentation exists across the political spectrum.

When policies do emerge from these loosely affiliated groups, they represent specific coalition-building efforts rather than comprehensive worldviews. You might identify a left-leaning or right-leaning policy on a particular issue, but claiming there exists the definitive Left Wing Policy or Right Wing Policy assumes a consensus that simply doesn't exist.

The reality is messier: diverse opinions, tactical alliances, and pragmatic compromises that resist neat categorization. Using broad ideological labels like "RW Policy" misrepresents how politics actually works and shuts down more nuanced discussion.

Okay, are you arguing with RW or LW or both?

Who is instigating your premise?