patrick.net

Simcha, much more diplomatic than me, aren't you. I just dont have much patience with Ray-Ray.

Definately not living up to the "change we can believe in" slogan. Steady but unimpressive. Certainly has not embarrassed black people. If that is not PC then I appologize in advance and take it back, but thats my opinion lol.

Unfortunately, the political machine that is our government makes it hard for anyone to change anything. But I admire his efforts and only wish that he'd ushered in socialized medicine rather than the shitstorm we got.

I like him.

Troy says

I spotted him coming in that he would be a “conservative” Democrat, meaning cautious, in the Clinton mold of triangulating towards the middle on things.

Contrary to the Right’s propaganda about him, he’s not the second coming of Marx or Che. He’s basically Clinton, or a little more to the right of him perhaps.

Except Clinton is an experienced Statesman, and he's nothing like Clinton. Clinton did more than razzle dazzle lip service.

Obama! is the most defeatist man I've seen in a public office of any degree.
He's great at telling us what we want to hear, but sucks at telling us what we need to hear.

On is terms leading a Pep rally blaming past administrations for his short comings and he's on fire like a daytime talk show host.

Comes time in a National crisis like the wet land gate way for 40% of Americas waterway system, is under threat from the crud being the crude in the Gulf. Millions of barrels a day being pumped into the Gulf, and he
has little to say. Much talk little action the one time in his administration where he could have acted on something; rather than promising to delegate, in some transparent transaction nobody knows about. He grew gray hairs the last two or three months.

Clinton loved low hanging fruit, Obama can't be bothered, he takes action through monologue.

Tenouncetrout says

Comes time in a National crisis like the wet land gate way for 40% of Americas waterway system, is under threat from the crud being the crude in the Gulf.

What are you talking about?

elliemae says

Tenouncetrout says

Comes time in a National crisis like the wet land gate way for 40% of Americas waterway system, is under threat from the crud being the crude in the Gulf.

What are you talking about?

Tenouncetrout says

Millions of barrels a day being pumped into the Gulf, and he
has little to say. Much talk little action the one time in his administration where he could have acted on something;

Using your logic, I suppose you also blame Clinton for the WTC bombing and FDR for Pearl Harbor.

Re Clinton, wIth less than a month in position for the WTC thing, no. His people weren't even fully threw the Senate confirmation process yet.

The second WTC attack came a little later (seven months later) into Bush's new admin, and the security apparatus under Bush was moving pretty slow about the growing intelligence they were getting. The week of 9/11 was when they were going to have their first pow-wow about the AQ threat. Bush's neocon team was a bit too hidebound about its core areas of expertise -- Soviet containment, China, that sort of thing. Counter-terrorism wasn't on the menu, even though we'd been attacked over and over again by AQ.

As for Pearl Harbor, while the civilian commander-in-chief thing can be a little overdone (the military prefers to run its own ship, TYVM), it is a fact that neither the Army nor the Navy *in DC* did a very good job defending the nation, and of course Roosevelt was into his THIRD TERM by then, so whatever blame the executive gets in these situations FDR would own all of it.

Much talk little action the one time in his administration where he could have acted on something

it's f---ing 8,000 feet below the surface. While the admin can be criticized for allowing use of Corexit, interfering with local protection desires, and inability to get more sweepers into the disaster area, talking down on the man personally just makes you look psychotic about the dude.

Dude's got to deal with a massive bureaucracy, and people like you would ride him even harder if he started getting too big for his britches.

RayAmerica says

But I have to ask the question: what exactly has Obama done regarding the “illegal” war in Iraq?

Deaths are going down, from 300 in 2008 to 40 this year.

And all this time you fell for all that “CHANGE” nonsense.

You guys have so many mixed messages I can't even deal with it any more. First Obama is Che Guevara. Then he's Bush's lost brother. Whatever. The fact of the matter is that this nation is on a knife-edge of partisanship and there's a lot of heat but very little light.

I'm hoping the Obama team is playing a deep game, but I don't think it's going to be enough. The forces of darkness are too strong, and too many Americans believe our own bullshit for any "CHANGE" to find purchase in the national will.

Troy says

Read it and weep, you trolling hyperpartisan crackpate. Was that impolite? My bad.

It wasn't impolite, in that you were grammatically correct. Had you gone on to state that he is reactionary and lacks the propensity for independent thought, that too would have been grammatically and substantively correct. Furthermore, if you were to discuss his and abeabe's continuous attempts to reference Adoph Hitler in a pertinent manner, that would be correct as well. Certainly not impolite.

Perhaps someday they'll learn the difference between discussion and regurgitating other's thoughts in an attempt to spew forth hateful messages.

I do think it's cute the way rayray writes my name, adding a little here & there and how he can't resist mentioning me every time as he immerses himself into conversations and attempts to hijack them with his same, tired message, claiming to be the victim of a man who is much smarter than he and who doesn't know or care who he is.

But, as I mentioned before, you weren't impolite.

During the bubble (and I would argue even still where I live) people are “monthly payment buyers”. In that they figure out what monthly payment they can make and that determines what they can pay for a house.

Makes some sense - add to that the fact that with loose lending standards many stretched themselves so thin that they are one unforeseen event from disaster.

Looking at the numbers for my area in 1999 roughly 20% paid over 35% of their income to hosing costs. By 2008, that number had jumped to over 40%.

I want to believe that prices will come down more, but wanting it and having the data to support the argument are two different things.

For the record I do not think that we will see rampant inflation. My theory (and its is only a theory goes like this). All of the big banks had bad loans on their books, to the point that some of the major players were insolvent. We all know more or less what happened.

The money was given to the banks under the guise of "priming the pump" but in truth it was a back-door way to keep all afloat, without divulging which banks were truly on the brink of collapse.

Fast forward to today - much of the so called "printed money" has not found its way into the real economy. Why? Because it was never intended to.

With the money not finding its way into people such as you and I, I do not see inflation as being a concern.

Troy says

Not necessarily. SOME sectors have pricing power — energy, government, medicine, insurance — some don’t. Overall the system has J6P over a barrel and his pants pulled down.
10% unemployment does wonders to keep wage inflation away.

That's the point though. You can't have monetary inflation with 10% unemployment.

RobertShiller says

If Paul Krugman is correct and we are heading into a third depression then the “wage increase” won’t be as effective when unemployment is 20%+

Yes, and there won't be inflation. It will be deflation.

Tenouncetrout says

Millions of barrels a day being pumped into the Gulf, and he
has little to say. Much talk little action the one time in his administration where he could have acted on something;

This made me laugh. First you say "he has little to say". Then in the next sentence you say "Much talk..."

So which is it?

in my most humble opinion:
Whoever the Prez was after this last election was going to have the economic train wreck meet them on their first day here. It is my gut feeling that the R's didn't want to lose anyone good to a gaurenteed bad term, so they put up Grandpa - knowing that he would not win the election. It is the same thought that put Barry in the race and not Hillary. The D's did not want to lose Hillary to this round of crap that was already in place.

Just as 9/11 awaited whomever was in place.

Now, as for what started this round of economic crap that was handed off to Lord Barry -- it goes back decades, and 9/11 was just the starting bell for the final round. The effects of liberal/progressive/socialist - isms took their toll on America, put us in a horrible place globally and locally and so here we are.

As for R's or D's .... they are all snakes, and will be viewed as snakes by all clear thinking people, until such time as they can be proven to be non-snakes. And on this point we may have some disagreement, because I am of the mind that a conservo does not accept part-snake just because the snake tends to vote pro-coservo. OTOH, a progressive/liberal/socialist does accept part-sanke as long as the sanke helps the push through incrementalism. For some reason, conservo's like me do not play the long-game as well as the other team. One thing that is obvious, the progressive/socialist/liberal team has lots of patients.

tatupu70 says

RobertShiller says

If Paul Krugman is correct and we are heading into a third depression then the “wage increase” won’t be as effective when unemployment is 20%+

Yes, and there won’t be inflation. It will be deflation.

They don't call Bernanke "Helicopter Ben" for nothing. The FED will fight deflation at all costs. When you fight massive deflation by printing money out of thin air, you will probably get hyperinflation instead of inflation. Deflation is possible if the FED fails to create enough money. Some people argue that the printed money is not circulating. This money is going to the banks and the banks are buying US treasuries. They are loaning the money back to the US gov't.

So the UN is saying to scrap the US dollar because it has been "unable to safeguard value". Isn't deflation suppose to make the US dollar strong? Isn't the UN trying to tell us that the US dollar will be weak therefore we'll be in an inflationary depression instead of a deflationary?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65S40620100629

Do you know something that the UN doesn't know?

justme says

Simcha, much more diplomatic than me, aren’t you. I just dont have much patience with Ray-Ray.

Translation = justme has nothing to say. LOL

Robert--

No--I didn't mean to imply that deflation would happen. Just that if Krugman's scenario comes to pass, then we'll have deflation.

I don't presume to know where the economy is headed in the next 5-10 years. I can only look at the latest reports just like everyone else.

RobertShiller says

Isn’t deflation suppose to make the US dollar strong?

No--where did you get that idea? Deflation means prices will decline--but it doesn't mean the dollar will be any stronger against foreign currencies.

No, Ray-Ray, translation is:

Many other posters already have pointed out the multitude of flaws in Ray-Ray's "thinking", so there is no need for me to elaborate at this point, but I would like to extend a hearty "thank you" to those who took the time and made the effort.

justme .... keep drinking that Obama Kool-Aid and everything will be just fine. Funny how people like you opposed the "illegal" wars under Bush, but are quiet as a church mouse under Obama.

lower prices is just the result of a stronger dollar.

I liked him until he was questioned by someone about where the money for the stimulus would come from and he said “umm it’s just paper money and chuckled”. After McCain picked Palin for VP I didn’t think he was fit to be President and voted 3rd party. At this point I just want him gone, and would like to see someone as president that I actually like which has never happened.

> Funny how people like you opposed the “illegal” wars under Bush,
> but are quiet as a church mouse under Obama.

Yeah well actually, not so much. The thing that gets me the most bummed about chatting with you folks about these left/right issues is how you guys just pull statements that have no basis in fact out of your asses and present them as the absolute truth.

For example if you go to DailyKos, which I'll count as a representative 'left' leaning site, and do a search simply for "Iraq" and limit the parameters to within one year you get almost 600 front line articles, many of which have titles such as "The Afghan Speech Obama Should Give (But Won't)" and "We Must Stop Not Talking About Afghanistan". But I don't want to cherry pick, go and make the search for yourself and do a bit of research before yammering some silly platitude.

One thing I've noticed about the 'left' and the 'right' in the US, and arguably this is a generalization but I think it'll hold, is that the left is willing to self-criticize while the right just attacks the left & pretty much blindly accepts the rationalizations and actions of its leaders. And I find its interesting how there's now this attempt to turn that failing back onto the left by presenting them as cult followers...

And here's a fun quote I'm fond of when talking about stuff like this:

"You can have your own opinions but not your own facts."

One of the biggest weaknesses of the left is that they are are actually willing to correct the course and change if they make a mistake.

But this is the U-S-of-A. You must always be right, all the time, no matter how wrong you are. Or else you are a wimp. No matter how right you are.

The Seattle bubble has what you're looking for:

http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2010/02/09/do-rising-interest-rates-lead-to-falling-home-prices/

Tim identified two periods of falling REAL home prices and found they indeed corresponded to periods of rising interest rates. However, if you scroll down you'll see that there were no nominal price declines in that time. Thus price-stickiness kept your 6% rates, 10% less expensive scenario from happening.

Of course I think we'll continue to see stagnant to falling interest rates and stagnant to falling home prices for at least another year or two.

When interest rates rise it will be because the economy is doing better, and thus that those with jobs are more secure in them and buying again, so by the time rates rise home prices are likely to already be flat or rising. Just my opinion.

(all previous correlation research on prices and interest rates had shown NO correlation or one in the opposite sense of the common wisdom. WHY? Because high interest rates also correspond to an inflationary environment in which it makes sense to fix costs now and you expect to be paid more in the future.)

What your friend hypothesized is the bump in demand that happens when buyers get spooked that interest rates are starting to rise on them significantly. It's transitory because it only applies to people who are already thinking about buying.

The wide availability of assumable loans in the 80s also changes the ball game a lot. Sellers with assumable loans can offer their buyers the same low loan payment that they themselves had. That's no longer the case for anything other than FHA.

kentm says

I don’t want to cherry pick, go and make the search for yourself and do a bit of research before yammering some silly platitude.

Here some "yammering" for you to check out: (Obama says that his first action as president would be to bring troops home from Iraq; Jan. 5, 2008).

http://blog.buzzflash.com/alerts/322

RayAmerica says

kentm says

I don’t want to cherry pick, go and make the search for yourself and do a bit of research before yammering some silly platitude.

Here some “yammering” for you to check out: (Obama says that his first action as president would be to bring troops home from Iraq; Jan. 5, 2008).
http://blog.buzzflash.com/alerts/322

But he has been bringing troops home. I'm not sure what your point is.

RobertShiller says

lower prices is just the result of a stronger dollar.

No it's not. That's assuming everything is imported, which is obviously not the case.

For a YouTube on Obama PROMISING to "withdraw the troops from Iraq by 2009" ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYTKj8pU5M

More YouTube proof that Obama is a liar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZvWilRn0L8&feature=related

Ray--

Again. Obama HAS withdrawn troops from Iraq. Here is an old article to refresh your memory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/world/middleeast/17briefs-Troops.html

What is your point again?

For a compilation of Obama's promises re: Iraq U.S. troop withdrawal:

http://www.truveo.com/search?query=obama campaign promises iraq war&flv=1#obama%20campaign%20promises%20iraq%20war%20

To me, he did lie. He gave alot of principled democrats alot of false hope, and sent many neo cons to def con 4 for no reason. What changed? The tone maybe, there is a hint of humility especially on the foreign relations front, but really. Health care reform? Bank reform? uh snooze button. pretty much more of the same. Why do you think people are so apathetic about politics. Theres people pulling in all different directions to achieve no overall movement. Technology has changed so much more than polititians, and the media has moved the overall culture some but its kind of glacial to me.

simchaland says

Let’s see:
Obama’s 1st 18-months:

Health Care Legislation

Wall Street Regulation Legislation (Financial Reform)

Credit Card Protection Legislation

Economic stimulus

Tobacco regulation

Student loan reform

Responds To Gulf Disaster In Timely Manner
And coming soon: A Real Energy Policy
G.W. “The Shrub” Bush’s 1st 18 Months (First term)

Fail to recognize warnings of an extremely deadly terror attack

Preside over the extremely deadly terror attack

Start an illegal war against Iraq

Start a misguided war against Afghanistan

Reverse budget surplus and start running deficits
And coming next term: Katrina - The Complete and Total Failure To Respond

And for the finale: Economic Disaster of Epic Proportions

I pretty much agree with this assessment. Overall I think Obama is doing a pretty decent job. the debt level isn't very reassuring, but none of the former presidents seriously dealt this this issue in the past either. I think the main difference here is when Bush was in office the economy was roaring along (even if was all financed on debt), credit was easy and people were making money hand over fist in the stock market and in real estate. Everyone felt rich, even if we were not. With Obama in office, people are unemployed, losing there houses, credit it tight, 401k's took a major hit. People feel poor. Obama could walk on water, people will still remember the good old days when Bush was in office.

Obama is at least trying to deal with the issues at hand, instead of politics as usual. He will probably fail, but at least he tried. He will most likely lose re-election, the guy in office at the time gets the credit or the blame depending on how the economy is doing.

RayAmerica says

For a compilation of Obama’s promises re: Iraq U.S. troop withdrawal:
http://www.truveo.com/search?query=obama campaign promises iraq war&flv=1#obama%20campaign%20promises%20iraq%20war%20

Again--are you arguing that Obama hasn't reduced troops in Iraq? How about you just write your point instead of making me sit through a video.

Can you even get an investor loan on property now days or is it cash buyers only? If you can get financing what is the % of down payment required?

Well yeah Ray & Co, ie "the giggle gang", so what is your point? That he hasn't been able to accomplish all that he set out? Okay. Is he the perfect liberal, all things to all people not-right? No, but hey, we go to war with the president we have not the president we want, ha ha ha.

And by "Obama" do you actually mean the Democratic majority? If so, then no, its all horrendous, the US system of government is pretty broken. But at least the current party in the majority has been trying to get some positive things done, are actually trying to govern instead of simply stripping the nation dry, and considering that they have a party in opposition that has unanimously abdicated all sense of responsibility in the pursuit of simply trying to break the current ruling party and get back into power, so they can continue stripping the nation dry I assume, I'm actually pretty amazed they've been able to get anything done at all.

But if you want something to giggle about I'll tell you a couple thing that I'm completely broken on Obama about and thats the failure to Prosecute Bush & Co and his continuation of the weakening of the Habeus Corpus laws. There you go. But its important to recall that these were issues that were set in place by the previous gang.

And anyway, stop trying to make this war into Obama's issue only. I can see what you're doing and its pretty dishonest. Though sure you're correct in putting forth that he now bears some responsibility for the issue this was a war (amazing how easily we throw that term around, isn't it?) (and anyway its not even a war under international guidelines, its an invasion and occupation - and a pretty brutal one too - anyone remember Falujah?) that was inherited from the previous bunch of goonies.

Anyway, at least the folks on the 'left' aren't talking about how great Obama smells or how manly he is...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/02/opinion/main640485.shtml
http://mediamatters.org/research/200604270005
Now thats cult-ish and creepy.

So what would you have in his place? Keating McCain? Idiot Palin?

Damn, every time I write one of these things I tell myself its a complete waste of time and I won't do it again...

If interest rates jump up, why buy real estate? Why not bank it?

I think more houses aren't moving because the market it is being presented by the daily "Terds" up for offering, from the Bank, RE community. People aren't stupid, they see the better goods behind the auction curtain.

There's even houses that are available but aren't available, these are unattainable houses, not because any moron can't go to Home Depot and put in a $1200 kitchen, it wont be pretty, who says it needs 50K in escrow for a new kitchen. It's just on the market to fall in price for reach of the cash investors. While prolonging the price drop of RE overall.

Much like there is redistribution of Wealth, there is a bigger redistribution of homeowner class.
It's turning into relationships between a well funded companies and the City, rather than a community of citizens and accountable officials.

Interest rates may as well be 2% even when you are credit worthy. You can't always find a house. In many Cities the least desirable offerings are the ones with kitchens and fixtures to be eligible for these loan programs.

All of the Good ones that foreclose are given "The Treatment" and most buyers trying to buy find 90% of the decent stock for prices they can afford are told, they need cash only to buy these houses. Because these houses need out outrageous amounts for expensive kitchens and simple roof work. Who says you need to go all Bob Villa on it? Besides these houses are worth 2 1/2 times that historically before bubble prices. It's not like there isn't value in these houses, with no kitchens. They word "Distressed" like it's some Shot gun shack by railroad track not worth one penny more than the offering price.
But just by disabling the kitchen and bathroom these banks are able to project an illusion of Worthless shacks to the shareholders so Straw men get them for cash pennies on the dollar.