patrick.net

tts says

The rent market is pretty screwed up too and will be for a long time.

A large increase of supply of rentals OR a large increase in wages would have to occur (which would spur the former) first to fix that problem.

I'm confused. Do you think there's current too much supply or too little?

tts says

The builders and property owners know there isn't much of a market for more rentals right now and a large increase in wages requires Congress to sign off on a big min. wage increase...or corps/businesses to suddenly decide to pay people lots more.

A big minimum wage increase would actually reduce the total amount of wages paid out, due to a segment of the work force being banned from working. The rental market would likely suffer disproportionately more because the renters at the lower income scale are more likely to be losing jobs as a result of the ban.

marcus says

Yeah, yeah. Where's Sean Hannity when you need him ? Perhaps Rush could help get you through this.

Perhaps if you got on some better psych meds you'd feel happier and get rid of the stupid icon you've used for so many years.

zzyzzx says

One, comparing money in nominal terms over the past two hundred years is utterly meaningless due to currency debasement.

Two, the vast majority of Obama's spending was paying the bill left by G.W. Bush. In fact, the vast majority of the expenses of Bush's illegal and worthless wars won't even occur for another 30 to 40 years.

Did you know that peak spending on WWI veterans occurred in the late 1960s / early 1970s? That's right, World War ONE not two. And the peak spending due to health benefits was about 50 years after the war ended. Same thing happens for all wars including Bush's wars. We're going to be paying for them for the rest of your life and beyond.

Don't know if it's 100 percent, 90 percent, 50 percent or 0 percent, since I read 0 percent of his posts.

They won't close the govt. again.

Call it Crazy says

Do you think it will hold together until then??

Well, I am not the one to ask.
I never imagined they could keep their crooked charade up for anything like this long. My lack of faith in their relentless racketeering and manipulations cost me money. Turns out there was a buck to make before the world ends.
So what happens next, and when, is beyond my ken.

rooemoore says

They won't close the govt. again.

They didn't close it the last time.

Dan8267 says

One, comparing money in nominal terms over the past two hundred years is utterly meaningless due to currency debasement.

Which is why the debt will continue to get worst regardless of who the next president is. The system is setup that way, we've dug ourselves so deep in the hole that the only thing we can do is dig deeper.

Unless we make some serious reforms which I doubt will happen, so the system will go on until it collapse on itself.

marcus says

18)

FACT: The budget was balanced when Clinton left office in 2001 (in fact, he left Dubbya with a $300,000,000,000 surplus).

how we soon forget...

No, Bill Clinton Didn’t Balance the Budget

By Stephen Moore
October 8, 1998

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

hrhjuliet says

Want first time buyers? Lower the cost of the house. Yes, it's that simple.

Try building more houses, a LOT more houses.

We don't need more land hungry sport stadiums, nor more commercial space. We need more quality residential housing and more efficient transportation infrastructure.

thomaswong.1986 says

the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink.

Uh-huh.

zzyzzx says

The debt was 11 trillion when Obama was inaugurated. Where is the missing 5 trillion debt accumulated by the 43 presidents combined? Debt went from 11 to 16 trillion first term. Last time I checked that's 5 not 6.5

New Renter says

hrhjuliet says

Want first time buyers? Lower the cost of the house. Yes, it's that simple.

Try building more houses, a LOT more houses.

We don't need more land hungry sport stadiums, nor more commercial space. We need more quality residential housing and more efficient transportation infrastructure.

Exactly! What do people think will happen to the million-dollar apartments in city centers when self-driving cars arrive?

thomaswong.1986 says

October 8, 1998

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink

Nice to read something from someone who knows less than nothing. Two someones if you include twrong. What 30 years of red ink was that? There has been debt since 1790. Other than WWII it has been small. It didn't really grow until 2 years after Reagan took office. Do the 10 years of Reagan and Bush I where the debt exploded count as part of the 30 years of single minded crusade? How do you subtract 1982 from 1995 and come up with 30? Great work twrong. Maybe you should visit planet earth once and a while.

I think the big advantage of a state bank, is it is limited in scope to it's home state.

However, this basically is how things WERE prior to the 1980's.

North Carolina National Bank (NCNB) expanded beyond North Carolina in 1982. This was a first, exploiting a legal loophole, to buy First National Bank of Lake City. Back in those days banks liked to have the word "National" in their name but they were no such thing as "national" megabanks. Once the genie was out of the bottle, it went wild. From this tiny seed grew Bank of America of today.

Break up big banks and forbid them to be multi-state or global conglomerates.

Yawn.

bob2356 says

thomaswong.1986 says

October 8, 1998

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink

Nice to read something from someone who knows less than nothing. Two someones if you include twrong. What 30 years of red ink was that? There has been debt since 1790. Other than WWII it has been small. It didn't really grow until 2 years after Reagan took office. Do the 10 years of Reagan and Bush I where the debt exploded count as part of the 30 years of single minded crusade? How do you subtract 1982 from 1995 and come up with 30? Great work twrong. Maybe you should visit planet earth once and a while.

LOL! and what planet have you been on for the past 30 years...

but we can play it your way... so what Clinton Policy did move the USG

to a Balanced Budget ?

This should be fun !

El HydroCabron says

thomaswong.1986 says

the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink.

Uh-huh.

you do recall who Steven Moore is ? certainly not a Johnny come lately !

bgamall4 says

Just shows a lack of oxygen to your feeble brain, Bob. Yawning is proof you need more oxygen.

What's your excuse?

bgamall4 says

Quote

You are a legend in your own mind.

bob2356 says

There has been debt since 1790.

Incorrect. In 1835 Andrew Jackson was the first and only U.S. President to pay off the national debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Federal_debt

bob2356 says

Do the 10 years of Reagan and Bush I where the debt exploded count as part of the 30 years of single minded crusade?

bgamall4 says

Having said that, we can't throw the poor and elderly under the bus just because the banksters ruined the financial system.

You can't blame it all on the bankers either. Besides who makes the laws? The Bankers or the Politicians? Besides last time I checked the elderly have a lot of government programs going for them, many of those programs are part of what's causing the government debt.

Seriously it's a two way street my friend. In fact without the government's aid to suppress competition, the bankers would of never made it this far.

bgamall4 says

I know fake acting when I see it. You don't.

What, you mean just as good as your facial recognition skills?

He also said, we will be f****d by 2020. Does that prediction will come out true as well?

Call it Crazy says

No one denies that Obama inherited a load of crap from Bush, but the Dems have held a majority of at least two and for a while 3 branches of government (House, Senate, WH) since 2006. In over 7 years, why haven't policies been written to improve conditions....

Do they still need MORE time??

False: Republicans frequently deny that large expenses from the Bush administration are a major factor in the spending in the Obama administration.

True: The Obama administration has utterly failed to improve the economy in the past 6 years despite high stock prices that are more reflective of the rich-poor gap and a lowering of the unemployment rate that is due entirely to discounting the long-term unemployed as part of the work force even though those people would gladly work if they had the opportunity.

The reasons for Obama's failures on the economic front include
1. Obama followed the same failed Keynesian economics that caused the Second Great Depression.
2. The Republicans obstructed all efforts to repair the economy, even to the point of deliberate sabotage, in order to make Obama a one-term president, which they failed at anyway.
3. The Obama administration refused to let banks take the loss on the housing bubble collapse, thus prolonging the bubble, preventing people from buying houses and then buying all the stuff people buy after they get a house. By propping up housing prices, both Democrats and Republicans have stopped the virtuous cycle of consumption and production in several of the largest industries in our economy.

As for the solution, eventually time will solve the economic problems. Neither major party has done anything to improve the condition. Republicans, however, would make the economy even worse by driving up the already too high rich-poor gap and eliminating the middle class.

Of course, there is a way to end the Second Great Depression and it doesn't involve useless work like building bridges to nowhere or destructive work like bombing brown children. The way to end this depression is to invest in converting 20th century infrastructure into 21st century infrastructure. We can start with personal maglift vehicles and eliminating the national debt. These two things alone would tremendously improve our economy. Having housing prices finally crash would also stimulate our economy more than Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball stimulates pubescent boys. And if that's not enough, we can create fiber to every household in America and a nationwide public WiFi grid. There's tons of useful work to be done. No need for Keynesian waste.

Call it Crazy says

bgamall4 says

Call it Crazy says

No one denies that Obama inherited a load of crap from Bush,

People deny it all the time.

Must be the same ones who denied 9/11, and Sandy Hook...

And the same ones who deny climate change, evolution, progressiveness, the value of social safety nets.

They are also the same people
- whose ancestors were slavers.
- who were in favor of segregation and Jim Crow laws
- who opposed interracial marriage
- who oppose same sex marriage
- who were ok with Bush being appointed president due to election fraud because the ends always justify the means
- who were ok with Bush's illegal wars because the ends always justify the means

Notice a pattern? It's the same assholes screwing up everything. Unfortunately, they breed like rats and make up 1/3rd of our nation's population. Do your country a service by spaying or neutering a redneck today.

If I had time, I'd insert a video of sad-looking rednecks with a Sarah Mclachlan song in the background.

spydah_hh says

Which is why the debt will continue to get worst regardless of who the next president is. The system is setup that way, we've dug ourselves so deep in the hole that the only thing we can do is dig deeper.

Unless we make some serious reforms which I doubt will happen, so the system will go on until it collapse on itself.

Agreed totally.

And here's how to fix it.

This entire thread appears out of character for the original poster.

He deserved the sentence and will most likely die in prison. However, some of the comments here are juvenile and downright stupid. To paint an entire industry as a bunch of crooks is ridiculous. And,
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch leads the pack as an uneducated, redneck spouting bad taste. 7800 + comments kind of tells you something...doesn't it !!

hrhjuliet says

I believe at least one parent should be home. That's ideal, and deep down we all
know that's what is best.

It is more expensive to give up a job to save money on childcare. Much better for both people to work and outsource childrearing in the daytime to a daycare center. Besides, the previous setup of man the provider and woman the homemaker negatively affected both parties with undue expectations and responsibilities.

But, if you insist on the 1950s lifestyle, perhaps it would be advisable to move to a part of the country where people are more likely to live that way. That way, you won't have to compete against 2 income DINKS or as many 2 income households in general. You will not find this in SFBA where even single income households may disproportionately cross the 6 figure threshold.

Reality says

Now back to one-income vs. two-income issue. Having new lower earning workers
(the women earned much less when they entered the work force) bid down wage
levels, just like the availability of Mexican and then Chinese workers a decade
and two later. That is not inflationary, but put downward pressure on prices.
What caused the inflation of the 1970's was simply accommodative central bank
policy printing up money.

Women entering the workforce was largely due to the awareness in the 60s movement that woman the homemaker was subservient to a man from financial power standpoint and they didn't want to live that way anymore. Additionally, I believe that men were getting tired of having all the responsibility to provide for everything. With women entering the workforce, the household income went up and predictably, the prices ahem "adjusted." Again, that's evidence for how people are basically competitors vs others in capitalism and why I am sceptical that policies such as minumum wage increases will increase standard of living. Prices will simply "adjust" again.

I think this comment on the article pretty well summarizes the problems:

David Pereira

"Unfortunately, when fundamentals are abandoned all artificial stimulus will vaporize as the fundamentals return. Foreclosures are down because consumers have learned how to delay foreclosure and financial institutions have throttled back taking action. I have way too many clients who have not made payments on their homes for over 4 years. Next wave of issues will be the payment shock associated with HELOCs and resetting loan mods... incomes have not kept up to be able to handle the payment shock. Securitizing rentals always was a bad idea as finding good tenants is difficult in a "normal market" and this new addition to the inventory will put even more pressure on. Apartment owners and long time investors have been doing this for years and they will be willing to lower rents to attract the creme of renters leaving the less desirable/risky renters to this new breed of investor who does not have the experience with these problems. To me, this is just another bubble working its artificial inflation only to burst sometime down the road. Advice for those first time home-buyers.... don't buy, wait, your time is coming and just be a little patient. My informal study of real estate agents is a dramatic upsurge in bankruptcy filings by agents even though they are coming off an alleged "great year.""

donjumpsuit says

hay day

heyday

prodigy says

This entire thread appears out of character for the original poster.

I seriously think he is being sarcastic but you never know, he may have a change of heart. :)

What I see a lot of is old folks getting themselves into "Reverse Mortgages" because they have no money to retire on.

Young who simply have no jobs, because any labor job these days means competing with illegals and offshore, so pay is below minimum wage.

It's hard for everyone except for the wealthy who have money and cheap labor. And until we change this system, it's only going to exacerbate itself.

dublin hillz says

But, if you insist on the 1950s lifestyle, perhaps it would be advisable to move to a part of the country where people are more likely to live that way. That way, you won't have to compete against 2 income DINKS or as many 2 income households in general. You will not find this in SFBA where even single income households may disproportionately cross the 6 figure threshold.

Well given the lousy workforce participation rate I think we are heading for a larger share of single family earner households again.

bgamall4 says

The police charged the wrong school. Sandy Hook does not have this rounded curb.
Turns out the school filmed was in the neighborhood but not Sandy Hook.

If it was staged, wouldn't the police have known where to go?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby, I have already told you that I am not convinced that Roig and Fernandez are two different people. The cleft chin and the teeth can be changed cosmetically. Clearly Robbie Parker was acting. Your skills for not seeing that are quite limited. It is a 100 percent certainty that he was acting. It is a 100 percent certainty that Kaitlin Roig was acting.

Here is a little something for you Einstein, er, I mean, Bigsby. The police charged the wrong school. Sandy Hook does not have this rounded curb. Turns out the school filmed was in the neighborhood but not Sandy Hook.

So, you are a piece of work, Bigsby, more like a piece of crap:

Same old bullshit from you Gary.

New Renter says

dublin hillz says

But, if you insist on the 1950s lifestyle, perhaps it would be advisable to move to a part of the country where people are more likely to live that way. That way, you won't have to compete against 2 income DINKS or as many 2 income households in general. You will not find this in SFBA where even single income households may disproportionately cross the 6 figure threshold.

Well given the lousy workforce participation rate I think we are heading for a larger share of single family earner households again.

Well, then those who manage to maintain a 2 income household shall inherit the earth....