patrick.net

sybrib says

Moneypitt,
As far as that goes, buying a home in the Bay Area in 2006 with the intention of moving out of it in five years is a speculation, too. So many people like Randy H. and Patrick himself were warning folks on this website not do such speculation in 2006.

Statistically, people move on the average of once every 5 years, this of course includes renters too, not just home owners. I don't think of planning to move in 5 years is a sign that your a speculator. The Mortgage type wasn't a wise decision, that alone would qualify you as a speculator in my book, but not 5 years. I believe we will tend to find this number increasing in the coming decade. Sure lots of people are losing there houses to foreclosure, but once this shakes out I think you'll find the people who are left, that can afford to make there payments will tend to stay longer at once place based on real estate being flat, if not underwater for years to come.

I think he is a foreign student or worker that is happened to live in US for specific period of time.

If you're in that position, you shouldn't have bought expensive house, and you were not eligible for ARM. But you bought it, and they gave you the loan. Yeah, that's not even legit though, visa holders did that for decades because RE is always a good source of money. Misfortune this time, isn't it?

Now you're thinking about walk away, and worrying about it to be another mistake at the same time... you have to choose one whether you like it or not. I don't feel for you like I feel for other people who's in trouble.

If you're greencard or citizenship holder, what I wrote above does not apply to you, but the sitiation is the same.

Anyway, people here already told you some ways for you to recoup the demage. Bap33's advise is particulary practical, IMO.

thomas.wong89 says

tatupu70 says

wong-
Do you really think that wages will decrease in a period of inflation?? If so, then you need to check out that class at DeAnza….

WOW! you forget we have a deflationary economy in the Bay Area because of tech. Do you know of any industry which cuts its prices to compete. At least the Automakers increased prices over the decades due to the sligthtest inflation. A Ford Mustand back in ‘66 went from $2500 to $20K today. Todays cars are bigger better and faster. A Tech company cuts its prices over the years. A PC went from $10,000-$15,000 20 years ago down to under $500 and 10x better regardless that commodity prices have skyrocketed.
As a result we have cut salaries on the aggragate to compete. Can you name a similar industry where there raw materials went up while the producer has consistently cut sales prices which resulted in lowering salary costs. And as a result all their component vendors (HW+SW) have equally forced to reduce costs.
So what do you think about those $300 Netbooks. Far cry from the $10,000-15,000 PCs from decades ago.
My god man? do you even understand where you living.. SV is a giant Walmart vendor.
If you actually worked in SV as a numbers guy/gal it would be no new news to you.

Although you make a valid point there the price of technology has gone down, while speed has dramatically increased, I never remember PC's costing 10 to 15k. The highest price I can recall was $4,000 for a top of the line loaded system.

TechGromit says

Although you make a valid point there the price of technology has gone down, while speed has dramatically increased, I never remember PC’s costing 10 to 15k. The highest price I can recall was $4,000 for a top of the line loaded system.

As I sit here typing away on my $8,000 computer... (16GB RAM, 3.4GHz dual 64bit processor, 1.5GB video card, etc).

Regarding the original question, if you are "fleeing the country" then it probably isn't a huge deal for you to foreclose, short sell, walk away, whatever. Keep your credit cards paid off, make sure your credit is as good as it can be and keep it there for everything but this housing issue. So many people are in the same boat, that the credit score companies will probably have to come up with an asterisk or special symbol to attach to credit scores indicating that the person had a foreclosure/short sale at the height of the crisis, but it otherwise a good credit risk. I'd consult an attorney before making any irrevocable decisions though.

The only way prices are going back up to 2006 levels any time soon is if we get Zimbabwean-level inflation. And if that happens, people are going to have more problems on their plate than buying a house, so your non-liquid "asset" really is only good as shelter. And if you aren't going to be around the country to take advantage of that shelter, then dump it. You sure don't want to become a landlord from the distance of another country.

Whether there is wage increase or not. Whether there is inflation or not. Whether there is deflation or not. One thing is for sure that standard of living will go down. The last 30 years of borrowed wealth from future is just haunting the economy right now. This has to correct itself. None of the remedies will work. Just watch the horror. Don't buy a real estate now or don't get heavily involved in stock market. Banks will eventually come begging money from common mass to increase their capital.

Buyers beware 2010 in California will be worse than 2009. Values decreased 20% in 2009 ands is expected to get worse in 2010, do you really want to buy right now?

dadab,

Ex-actly. Does it really matter?

You say tomayto, I say tomaw-to,
You say potatoe, I say potawt-to

You say deflation, I say inflation

Tomayto, tomaw-to; deflation, inflation.

Let's call the whole thing (our std of living) OFF!

(-as in, OFF a cliff).

Yawn.

I don't think you can base a politician's performanace on one year's numbers. If you did, one could say Bush was doing a good job based on Employment figures, low number of bank failures, etc. Any politician can cut taxes, create jobs and deregulate the stock market and claim success. Only to have crushing debt, massive job loses and a crashing stock market occur when the next guy takes office and blame it on him. There's a lead time with any policy change a politician makes, the market didn't collapse overnight when it was deregulated, it was even considered a stroke of genius for a time. Most likely any policy change that Obama makes will not be fully felt until he's out of office, weather it's in 3 more years or 7 years.

thomas.wong89 says

As you may know Apple nearly died off due to their high priced products compared to the other corporate vendors.

The reality was a bit more complex than that. Until Windows 95, an x86 PC was largely a pile of unusable crap as far as business automation was concerned. I was in the trenches with this so refutation is impossible.

Apple's 1MB Mac Plus and the follow-on Mac II in 1987 were machines 6-10 years ahead of the usability offered by the Wintel solution, and Apple at the time was willing to over-price this increased utility -- charging what its customer base was willing to pay for the vastly superior productivity offered by the Macintosh platform. I paid $6000 for a Mac IIcx + 13" RGB monitor and it was the best $6000 investment I've ever made (I took it on the plane with me to Japan in 1992 where it supported my english-teaching business through 1995).

Apple successfully widened its platform offerings with more consumer Macs (the LC etc) in the early 90s but Microsoft with WFWG and NT 3.1 was beginning to get its GUI act together.

Apple facilitated its fall by rather retarded management and lack of strategic control over its own operations. It could not forecast demand at all, building too few consumer machines in 1993 and too many in 1994, each occasion leaving billion dollar holes in its balance sheet as it had to dispose of excess inventory in one year and face an inability to meet overwhelming customer demand for the new Power Macs of 1994-96.

With Windows 95 OSR2, PCI PnP, the 440BX AGP platform, and the P133/Pentium Pro, Wintel had become "good enough" such that Apple's value relative proposition was limited to extreme fortress niches like photo manipulation and graphic design.

AFAICT without the web providing platform-neutral utility in the late 90s, Apple would have run out of gas entirely as it tried to bring a replacement to the increasingly decrepit classic Mac OS to market.

"I'm looking for attention
Not another question
Should you stay or should you go?
Well, if you don't have the answer
Why are you still standin' here?
Hey, hey, hey, hey
Just walk away
Just walk away
Just walk away"

Kelly Clarkson - Walk Away

.TechGromit says

one could say Bush was doing a good job based on Employment figures, low number of bank failures, etc.

Techie, you forgot to mention that GW's good job was accomplished while he was on vacation a full 35% of his presidency - his nickname is (was) "the vacation president."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/31/132827/535

"Of course, President Obama's brief escape to New York is a reminder of the breakneck pace and long days of his White House. It also serves a stark contrast to the "barely working" George W. Bush, the man Dan Froomkin aptly named "The Vacation President."

As it turns out, Bush easily eclipsed Ronald Reagan's previous record for presidential sloth. By March 2008, Bush had spent all or part of 879 days at his Crawford, Texas ranch or at Camp David, surpassing Reagan's mark of 866. By the time he left office, George W. Bush had made 149 trips to and spent 487 days at Camp David, with another 77 getaways to (and 490 days at) Crawford. Toss in 11 visits and 43 days at his folks' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine and President Bush spent 1020 days - 35% of his presidency - getting away from the White House.

And it's what President Bush missed during his down time that is all the more disturbing still. For example:

•During his month-long August 2001 Crawford vacation spent agonizing over stem cell research, the CIA briefed Bush on the its now legendary pre-9/11 PDB, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.' Bush's response? "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
•As Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, Bush nevertheless decided to continue his vacation. As New Orleans was inundated, Bush strummed a guitar with country singer Mark Wills and shared a birthday cake with John McCain on an Arizona airport tarmac. While Bush eventually cut short his trip, the damage to the nation - and his presidency - was done.
•As Israel and Hezbollah went to war in southern Lebanon in July 2006, President Bush managed to stay in Washington. But as the carnage escalated, Bush used the time in the office to welcome the finalists of American Idol to the White House."

If you go to the county records office (assuming you know the county) you should be able to search the tax rolls for his name.

a government for the people by the people... good phrase.

When talking about people, It used to mean ordinary people, then middle class, then become a kind of middle class that owns multi million mensions and pile load of money.

Yeah, US just evolved to normal country like the rest of the world.
But you know, we all knew that so far, right?

Nomograph says

You have to drill down a bit deeper to find the true legal basis of the decision.

This is kinda naive I think. The basis is driven by the decision, not vice versa. Bush v. Gore for the explicit admission of this.

Ima to the point now where this decision is a good thing. If the teapartiers can organize a bigger mouth than the progressive left as evidenced over the first year of Obama, then great. The only thing that attaches me here is my Mom's house, and I can give that to my sister if need be. If only Canada weren't so far goddamn north.

I'm not THAT pessimistic. $50 x 50 million donations is TWO POINT FIVE BILLION.

If you can't get elected to national office with $2.5B, something is wrong with you.

Tenouncetrout says

Kattie Couric publicly gunning Palin down, and that SNL bitch injecting her proposed comedy.

Are you kidding? Asking someone what newspapers they read now qualifies as gunning someone down?? What world to you live in?

Tenouncetrout says

just by controlling the majority of the media in this country.

the press, being capital, has always been owned by the wealthy. Just sayin'.

The "liberal press" is a myth that only credulous retards, lacking any ability of independent thought, swallow.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Granted NPR does have an inherent tendency to swing left, and has to consciously counteract that. Plus of course the more educated one is the more liberal (anti-creationist, pro-choice, anti-military, pro-labor, anti-capitalist, pro-homosexual) one becomes, so there is that disconnect between media professionals and the sea of miseducated dumbassery of the hoi polloi.

You do know how insanely silly the new CPSIA (or whatever the acronym is) product safety law is right? You have local DAs/Feds openly stating they WILL go after folks selling stuff at bloody garage sales for pete's sake if they don't get stuff led tested. Books older than the 80s have to be led tested? Old clothes? It just killed smalle business and used/2nd hand stores. But hey, we have to think of the children... all because some assholes in China screwed up.

tatupu70 says

Tenouncetrout says

Kattie Couric publicly gunning Palin down, and that SNL bitch injecting her proposed comedy.

Are you kidding? Asking someone what newspapers they read now qualifies as gunning someone down?? What world to you live in?

Really, tot? Katie Couric conducted an interview with a politico who, if elected, could potentially be the leader of our country. The interview was willingly given, and you can bet your sweet ass that Palin prepared for that puppy. That Katie Couric hammered her with questions - per her job - and Palin fell far short of being able to appropriately answer, simply made it fun to watch.

and is there any difference between Tina Fey portraying Sarah Palin and Chevy Chase skewering Gerald Ford? Or, for that matter, a misc member of the SNL Cast playing a political figure? Perhaps in your mind there is, but in my mind all's fair in politics and comedy. They're interchangeable.

elliemae says

Really, tot? Katie Couric conducted an interview with a politico who, if elected, could potentially be the leader of our country. The interview was willingly given, and you can bet your sweet ass that Palin prepared for that puppy. That Katie Couric hammered her with questions - per her job - and Palin fell far short of being able to appropriately answer, simply made it fun to watch.
and is there any difference between Tina Fey portraying Sarah Palin and Chevy Chase skewering Gerald Ford? Or, for that matter, a misc member of the SNL Cast playing a political figure? Perhaps in your mind there is, but in my mind all’s fair in politics and comedy. They’re interchangeable.

>

Did Katie Couric use the same approach when dealing with the Dem. party candidate?

Questions thrown at Obama were similar to throws in a batting practice. It was done for the entertainment of the audience and to make him look good. Now that the real game is on, he has been stricking out regularly.

nosf41 says

Questions thrown at Obama were similar to throws in a batting practice. It was done for the entertainment of the audience and to make him look good.

Again--what am I missing? How is "what magazines do you read" a difficult question? Not sure how the media could dumb it down any further than that. Should Katie have asked Palin her name and then stopped there? Would that have been "friendly" enough for you?

Nomograph says

nosf41 says

Now that the real game is on, he has been stricking out regularly.

He’s only striking out because they didn’t have baseball when he was a kid in Kenya, or wherever it is you insist he grew up.

Since you started the topic - this is one of the several troubling issues that the major media outlets ignored. The eligibility question never came up in his interviews. Why not? Bush was hounded by the same media for trivial issues compared to the eligibility for presidency.

To this day no proof has been presented to the public that Obama was born in the Kapiolani hospital.

Couric didn't gun down Palin. She asked simple questions and Palin was too stupid to even be able to answer those. When she tried answering the question about the bailout, same result. Btw...she was pro bailout. The woman was clueless and when John McCain selected her, he pretty much verified everyone's concerns about him. The main is old an senile. Obama is just a clueless on economics. But at least he was smart enough to get someone to prime him on Keynesianism 101 before he went out and opened his mouth.

I fondly recall Dan Rather doing his hit piece on George Bush. (For the record, I’m no fan of Bush, he was not the conservative he portrayed himself to be). Looking into the camera with deep concern and intense sincerity, Rather went on to "report" an unsubstantiated "news" item that was later easily proven to be a complete fraud. Also proven later was that Rather ran with the story without any digging on his part or his staff’s to check its validity. Was politics involved? You'd have to have an IQ in single digits to believe there wasn't. I find it hilarious that liberals think only FOX has an agenda. EVERYONE on the planet has an agenda that is formulated by their core beliefs, and the media is no exception to that rule.

The only thing I find amusing is that no one seemed to complain about Glen Beck when he was on CNN. Personally, I think the guy is just an actor pandering to an audience.

tatupu70 says

nosf41 says

Questions thrown at Obama were similar to throws in a batting practice. It was done for the entertainment of the audience and to make him look good.

Again–what am I missing? How is “what magazines do you read” a difficult question? Not sure how the media could dumb it down any further than that. Should Katie have asked Palin her name and then stopped there? Would that have been “friendly” enough for you?

The problem is in different standard applied to GOP vs Dem party candidates. When Palin made a mistake - the media attacked and ridiculed her.

When Obama mentioned his "muslim faith" in an interview, Stephanopulos corrected him immediately. Did SNL make any jokes about Obama visiting 57 states during his presidential campaign?

Most of the main stream media actively participated in electing Obama not just covering elections.

nosf41 says

The problem is in different standard applied to GOP vs Dem party candidates. When Palin made a mistake - the media attacked and ridiculed her.

I thonk it's more a difference in your perception. You're inherently biased, so you see things with that viewpoint...

That would be a great plot for a Stephen King novel.

Not for nothing...I can't stand Obama and I think he'll take the cake for worst president ever. But Sarah Palin wasn't given a tough interview by Couric. The reason she came off so bad was because she simply couldn't answer the easiest questions on the face of the planet. It was an easy interview and she failed miserably. If Republicans want to win a presidential election, they should nominate a respectable candidate who knows what he is talking about. Do you honestly think someone like Congressman Ron Paul would have difficulty in answering any of those questions? What did Fox News do? Exclude him from the debates after Fox's own viewers voted him the winner of the first debate.

theoakman says

I think he’ll take the cake for worst president ever

?

He's got a hard act to follow for that honor.

Troy says

theoakman says

I think he’ll take the cake for worst president ever

?
He’s got a hard act to follow for that honor.

I know. He's not far behind. Obama right now is George Bush with some additional spending for repaving our roads. Wall St. is more heavily subsidized right now than under Bush. The 2 wars? The Dems have been gutless there as well. You would think that they would get around to repealing the patriot act with their super majority. Nope... I could name a million other things but I'll let his record speak for itself.

Nomograph says

Generally speaking, I only accuse shadows of being AM talk radio junkies when they repeat, word for word, what they hear on AM talk radio without any attempt to analyze or comprehend the message beyond “libs are destroying America.”.

I find it interesting that liberals know so much about what is said on AM talk radio and yet, they almost never listen to it. This fact is proven over and over again by simply asking them to name specifics, i.e. who said it, what exactly was said, when it was said, etc. Whenever I ask for specifics, I'm always met with stunned silence, and then a "everything that comes out of his mouth is hate" blah blah blah

the more educated one is the more liberal (anti-creationist, pro-choice, anti-military, pro-labor, anti-capitalist, pro-homosexual) one becomes, so there is that disconnect between media professionals and the sea of miseducated dumbassery of the hoi polloi.

Educated does not equal liberal. Educated people cover the full political spectrum, from far right to far left, and everywhere in between.

*****

I read through the decision. I believe that the court could have made a ruling on this case under more narrow grounds, and did not need to overturn 2 U. S. C. §441b in its entirety.

The bigger issues is to whom does the first amendment apply?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Based on a strict interpretation of the above, one could argue that a corporation has the same right to free speech that an individual does. My personal opinion is that despite the lack of specificity in the above amendment, many other aspects of the constitution, from the preamble to the amendments that follow the first, relate specifically to the people. Thus one can infer that the freedoms granted in the first amendment were granted to individuals, rather than corporate entities.

Besides, what is a corporation but a collection of people. If the board of a large corporation wants to promote an agenda, let the individuals of said board donate from their own personal resources as they deem appropriate.

In short, although I can understand the mindset from which the ruling was made, I do not agree with it. If we are students of history, perhaps a review of the guilded age is in order.

Why can't polticians simply ignore this ruling and refuse to take contributions from any corporation such as Candidate Obama did. Wait, I might be wrong on that. LOL

Nomograph says

RayAmerica, superhero defender of the US, slaying liberals over and over with a single question!

I'm glad you at least recognize talent when you see it. Thank you.

theoakman says

Not for nothing…I can’t stand Obama and I think he’ll take the cake for worst president ever. But Sarah Palin wasn’t given a tough interview by Couric. The reason she came off so bad was because she simply couldn’t answer the easiest questions on the face of the planet. It was an easy interview and she failed miserably. If Republicans want to win a presidential election, they should nominate a respectable candidate who knows what he is talking about. Do you honestly think someone like Congressman Ron Paul would have difficulty in answering any of those questions? What did Fox News do? Exclude him from the debates after Fox’s own viewers voted him the winner of the first debate.

I find it quite odd that someone who is cleaning up the fecal matter left behind is the one to blame. There has been a 20 year build up since the deregulation of the S&L industry that has caused these issues. How many times have we seen Conservative Republicans deregulate an industry in attempt to spur business yet when the blowback occurs we the people put a Democrat in office who has to spend tax dollars to fix the issues furthering the stigma that Democrats love to spend.

If Republicans were still in the office do you really think we wouldnt have bailed out the banks or GM?

4X says

If Republicans were still in the office do you really think we wouldnt have bailed out the banks or GM?

Just as a point of fact-TARP was passed under GW Bush

Kattie asked her about the "Bush Doctrine"

There was no doctrine, it was just a spoiled daddies boy, giving the country away to corporations and Oil Companies. No political doctrine here, just in plain sight theivery here.
Kattie leading with that question would be like her asking Mel Gibson, "Why are you Jew hatting miserable son of a bitch?"

It was a baited question that impressed liberals more than anyone else.

I think the fact that every candidate was running on a "Reform" platform, said enough about what both parties thought of the Bush doctrine.

Hell Obama loves it so much, he's embraced it and is following to the letter. Maybe your supreme interviewer should have asked Obama that same question.

Gosh liberals are so easy to marginalize. Give them enough time they'll do it to them selves.

TOT--

You're still seriously spouting this ridiculousness? She was running for Vice President with the oldest candidate ever. She was one heart attack away from the Presidency. And you think she was jobbed by Katie Couric??? How do you think she would fare against Putin, or Chavez, or Kim Jong?

She was and is an intellectual lightweight with no business in serious politics.