IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Maybe in the short term.
But how about if bride AND groom each buy a house, a washer, a dryer, a telephone service, a cable tv and Internet service, etc.? Wouldn't that stimulate the economy further? Of course it would. There is a lot of truth in the old saying that "Two can live as cheaply as one."
New The number you want is "new household formation".
According to Bill McBride at CalculatedRisk, the reason why housing tends to lead economic recoveries is due to new household formation. When people get a job and move out of their parent's basement and into a place of their own, they stimulate the economy by needing to buy furniture, dishes, get cable service, etc., etc., etc. And drive investment in housing, renovation of existing housing stocks, etc., etc.

10s of millions of single gays aren't suddenly going to buy houses or move into new apartments as a result of the end of DOMA and Prop 8. They might, though, team up and get married and form new households. New monogrammed towels, more consumption on things like movies together, joint investments and bank accounts, adoptions and surrogates for children, etc., etc. And eventually that drives investment in new housing, etc., etc.

Anything that encourages new household formation at this time will help the economy get moving again.

Cheers,
Scott.
     Survey on DOMA. - (Another Scott) - (114)
         Done. -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Done. -NT - (hnick)
         Also done. -NT - (Andrew Grygus)
         Done also. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         Seriously done! -NT - (folkert)
         Check - (drook) - (106)
             Affects the tax base. - (mmoffitt) - (11)
                 Bzzzzt, thank you for playing - (drook) - (9)
                     I think he means the actual case at hand. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                         That's *her* standing - (drook) - (6)
                             I think the argument is... - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                 Even if true ... - (drook)
                                 That's as may be... - (malraux) - (3)
                                     Now you're getting there. But, ... - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                         why pay a penalty for not being single? -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                             There's a negative economic impact in cohabitation. - (mmoffitt)
                     I was unclear. - (mmoffitt)
                 costly to the taxpayer? It's not your money - (boxley)
             But it *will* affect you! - (pwhysall) - (6)
                 Are you SURE you don't live here? - (hnick) - (5)
                     Even up in the north... - (folkert) - (4)
                         Huh, wha? I've never been to the Netherlands! -NT - (CRConrad) - (3)
                             Ummm... - (folkert) - (2)
                                 I've never Reformed any Churchies either! -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                     Jussa so's yews noes... - (folkert)
             WOW. - (mmoffitt) - (86)
                 Um... Justice? - (hnick) - (85)
                     Nonsense. Did they have kids? - (mmoffitt) - (84)
                         Really? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                             Maybe in the short term. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                 The number you want is "new household formation". - (Another Scott)
                         so you are one of them - (boxley)
                         Re: Nonsense. Did they have kids? - (hnick) - (58)
                             Sans kids, what are the societal benefits of marriage? - (mmoffitt) - (57)
                                 I remember arguing with Ben why atheists want to marry - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Man, I am *NOT* making my point about marriage. - (mmoffitt)
                                 Re: Sans kids, what are the societal benefits of marriage? - (Another Scott) - (54)
                                     So what? - (mmoffitt) - (53)
                                         Re: So what? - (Another Scott) - (52)
                                             :0) - (mmoffitt) - (51)
                                                 That's rough. - (Another Scott) - (50)
                                                     I don't think your marriage is a sham marriage. - (mmoffitt) - (49)
                                                         How about mine? - (crazy) - (1)
                                                             No societal benefit != no benefit. - (mmoffitt)
                                                         I wasn't pointing at you specifically. - (Another Scott) - (46)
                                                             No. Come on, Scott, have I really been that unclear? - (mmoffitt) - (45)
                                                                 There's a difference between "expected" and "the purpose" - (drook) - (3)
                                                                     Thank you. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                         I think it went off the rails here. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                             Yep, that was subjective. - (mmoffitt)
                                                                 We're talking past each other. - (Another Scott) - (40)
                                                                     I think that's slightly disingenuous. - (mmoffitt) - (39)
                                                                         See above. I don't know how to say more... -NT - (Another Scott) - (27)
                                                                             Dude, Seriously? - (mmoffitt) - (26)
                                                                                 Expectations change. - (Another Scott) - (25)
                                                                                     An equal protection claim assumes the result. - (mmoffitt) - (24)
                                                                                         you are confused - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                             Yeah, I didn't get a call. Stupid b*stards. :0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                                         BZZT - sorry, elementary logic lacking. - (CRConrad) - (21)
                                                                                             on A3) dont forget to steal all their stuff as well. -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                             First, I never said "reproduction was a requirement". - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                                                                                                 On your addendum. - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                 Yes you did. But never mind that; let's talk people in stead - (CRConrad) - (17)
                                                                                                     My last bit. A little clarification. - (mmoffitt) - (16)
                                                                                                         Wake up. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                                                             Racial discrimination is a different issue entirely. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                                                                                                 Equal protection is Equal protection. QED. -NT - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                                                                                                     Can we discriminate against polygamists? - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                                                                                                         Is polygamist marriage legal in the US? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                                                             How about Amendment 10? - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                                                                                 was legal in utah before statehood - (boxley)
                                                                                                                         uh, no. Just wont allow them to get stamped by the gummint -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                             Concur. The state no longer has an interest in marriage. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                                                             Re: Wake up. ... Interesting that they cited Korematsu - (Ashton)
                                                                                                         A distinction without a difference. - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                                                                                             And there it is. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                                                                 Not assume, *declare* - (drook) - (2)
                                                                                                                     Oh, he won't answer this one - (crazy)
                                                                                                                     Where and when was this declaration made? - (mmoffitt)
                                                                                                         Sorry, you still lost about six levels ago. - (CRConrad)
                                                                         state involvement in marriage was about division of property - (boxley) - (10)
                                                                             Among DESCENDANTS, right? - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                                 absolutely, now with dna you dont need contracts to - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                     I'm with you. - (mmoffitt)
                                                                             <sigh> - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                                                                 why, I was right that time as well :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                     Heh. No. :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                                 How'd I miss that thread? ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                                     Just lucky I guess. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                         The best part is... - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                                             Indeed! -NT - (Another Scott)
                         Things we have: "adoption", "artificial insemination"... - (malraux) - (20)
                             Adoption and Artificial insemination rely on others. - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                                 "Zero chance" is BS - (malraux) - (18)
                                     Drop it, it's not about sex - (drook) - (9)
                                         He's only talking about the sex. -NT - (CRConrad) - (8)
                                             No, I'm not. Everyone else is. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                                 now I'm confused - (boxley) - (1)
                                                     No. - (mmoffitt)
                                                 Yes you are, of course. Straight hetero making-babies sex. - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                                     Um, No. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                         thats one convert :-) -NT - (boxley)
                                                         Succinct, sure -- but above all, WRONG. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                             I'm aware of the shady company I'm keeping. - (mmoffitt)
                                     I'll answer. Again. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                         what savings - (boxley) - (1)
                                             I'm on your side. - (mmoffitt)
                                         That sounds convoluted and far-fetched. - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                             no, he is pissed because he cant steal dead peoples money -NT - (boxley)
                                             I'm a homophobe because I want ... - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                 Back-pedaling much? - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                     If you change premises, you have to change conclusions. -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Done ... to a crisp. - (Ashton) - (1)
             Methinks this thread (also) is done to a crisp. - (Ashton)

This is only a test.
104 ms