Weekend Topic Suggestions
Please post topic ideas here!
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
November 2024 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
Why does “Housing Analyst” refuse to see real estate can often be a great investment?
Why do you charge zero rent for that empty space in your skull?
How much rent do you think there should be on an “empty space”? Not zero? HA!
About half the price of owning it…. Ring ring ring..
Interesting. I receive about 105% of my ownership cost in rent….on average. ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. HA!
More unsubstantiated claims from a known debt donkey.
HEE HAW!
throwing the dice and getting (temporarily) lucky is not a great investment
we’ll be seeing you in line down at the food pantry in a few years
OGC, I have not thrown any dice, nor have I been temporarily lucky. I have worked hard for many years, made wise investment choices and had some good results. I agree I have been lucky….over a 25-year period. I never lost a nickel on any investment except shorting Treasuries in 2010.
I doubt you will ever see me in the food pantry line, except as a volunteer helping to serve others, but if it happens, I will graciously thank them for the meal.
You rolled the dice…. and lost. Pick up the pieces and get over and get on with your life.
I am still winning….and my life is going very well, thank you. Just returned from 10-days overseas. Well rested and rearing to go!
How was your trip to Fantasy Island?
Fantastical! Thanks for asking.
Fantastical…. thats you.
105% of your ownership cost seems pretty low. But maybe you are contribuiting to a healthy “repair fund”. Do you mind telling us how much you are setting aside for future repairs?
Hi LLL, the “ownership costs” includes about $450/year ($38/mon) in repair costs, so the cash flow is net of that expense/reserve. The properties generally provide about $200/mon positive cash flow after all expenses. I also pay down each mortgage by anywhere from $288 to $650/mon, but that is a separate issue.
Please remember the majority of these houses were built in 2006-2007 and were never occupied. I bought them on short sales or at foreclosure auctions from flippers and lenders. The flippers paid an average of about $650,000/house and were holding them for appreciation, so they never rented them.
I paid on average of about $285,000 for a 3,200 SF house (some bigger, some smaller), or about $90/SF. My early deals (2008) were not as good as my later deals (mid 2010). I have purchased nothing since mid 2010 and actually sold a house in mid 2013 (which I have described previously on this blog) for a sizable gain.
Interestingly, the majority of the current occupants are former homeowners who walked away from their homes or short sold. The average term of tenancy is over 3 years now and they are very responsible people. The portfolio vacancy over the last 5 years has been less than 1/10th of 1%.
You’re understating and misrepresenting your losses to depreciation.
Try it again.
“Why does “Housing Analyst” refuse to see real estate can often be a great investment?”
Well, because he builds stuff.
My neighbor shook his head when I told him what the auto body joint charged my insurance co. to rebuild my bumper. He’s a mechanic. The thing is, everybody can’t “see behind the curtain,” which is exactly why prices aren’t always attached to fundamentals.
It should be clear to all of us now that a lot (ALOT) of parties are committed to keeping this thing afloat. My theory is more geared toward municipalities and the tax base. BIG GOV isn’t helping banks just to help banks; they’re doing all of this to keep the entire scheme going: fire stations, local governments, parks & rec, pensions, banking, food trucks, craft beer, Starbucks, Dollar Tree, paving paradise, guzzling gas, fried chicken, Chinese made flip flops, Legos, etc. and so on. We’re addicted to BIG EVERYTHING.
America.
*uck yeah.
BTW, home with my sick son today.
Days like these remind me how fast the treadmill is moving. When someone is sick, and you have no choice but to step off the treadmill and take a breath — it’s astonishing how speedy and chaotic “modern” life is.
^ Go easy on me, Polly.
“…and you have no choice but to step off the treadmill and take a breath…”
And then there are those times (e.g. this week) where your own better judgment dictates that you should stay home sick, but duty calls you in to work. Not that fun, really…
Muggy, My best to your son for a speedy recovery. I raised four sons and spent many a day off taking care of a sick one.
Your point that “a lot of parties are committed to keeping this thing afloat” says volumes.
Stability in the market is very important to Main Street. You saw what happened when the bubble popped in 2007 and we all paid a huge price. I think the commitment to a supporting a stable market is in everyone’s best interest.
The thinking that the housing market will tank again so everyone can get a “free house” is foolishness. Upsets in the market take everyone down a notch or two and diminish the financial capability of people at all levels. That is why so many commit to a stable market.
Prices slashed in half is free?
Ya gotta love DebtDonkey Math
HA says “Ya gotta love DebtDonkey Math”.
That is why “free house” was in quotation marks, HA. You gotta love HA’s literary skills. They are almost on par with his analytical ability.
Backpedal faster.
“That is why so many commit to a stable market.”
Sloth used to challenge me all the time when I’d say things like, “let it collapse.” I don’t think punishing savers and pushing everyone into rolling the dice is a stable market. So… let it collapse.
I want a cheap house.
“I want a cheap house.”
Then you must save your money while houses are not cheap, so that you have the means later when they are. Easy credit won’t be part of that cheap house thing.
Blue Skye is spot on.
I got some cheap real estate in 2010. Saved my money for a few years and read the HBB to help understand the market. Then when I felt the timing was right I bought real estate. Best decision of my lifetime.
Convince yourself. There is no convincing anyone here.
“…bubble popped in 2007 and we all paid a huge price”
The price we have paid was to keep the balloon from falling for all these years. Keeping a Ponzi “stable” is done at the expense of workers for the benefit of the rentiers. In a liquidation, people with little wealth lose little but then have greater opportunity going forward. The masters of finance however are crushed. Suicides in a crash are the ones with suits and ties.
I want more suicides, like MASS banker suicides. I want it to get so bad they set up suicide hotlines inside the headquarters of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc. Oh, I know, such eeeevil talk. Spare me. What’s evil is what these people are doing to the masses every single day. Ripping them off in the name of greed.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-07/4th-financial-services-executive-found-dead-self-inflicted-nail-gun-wounds
we all paid a huge price
No we didn’t. But we will. I don’t see how it can be put off forever.
Yes, we all paid a big price. How can you deny the pain of the last few years. 2006-2012 was a mess.
Oh, SHADDUP Jingle. You’re like a fly that keeps buzzing around at dinner time.
Grizzly, I think it is important to counter HA’s outrageous claims about the housing market. He says housing can never be a wise investment. Over the last 5 years, it has been a life changer for me. Who knows where the future will go, but I feel buying properties at the bottom in 2008-2010 was the best investment of my lifetime.
There is nothing “outrageous” about housing being a depreciating asset and ALWAYS a loss. It’s the truth. You know it, we know it so why pretend it’s not?
Again… How about substantiating your claims? It will help you with your credibility which you have none here.
Years of bailing out the pigs that have created this mess isn’t creating “stability” anymore than putting a bandage over a melanoma and declaring the patient cured is considered proper medicine.
IMHO: Foolishness is thinking that this charade can last much longer.
Only when Main Street is being held hostage by it.
When is stability not important to Main Street? Individuals can be held hostage or they can break free, but as a whole, Main Street is always best served by stability.
fraudulent and grossly inflated prices is good for Main Street just because the price is static?
Where do you come up with these delusions?
¨BIG GOV isn’t helping banks just to help banks; they’re doing all of this to keep the entire scheme going: fire stations, local governments, parks & rec, pensions, banking, food trucks, craft beer…¨
Food trucks and craft beer are at stake? And only big gov can save them?
That’s correct. Would stylized food trucks exist in anything other than a cheap credit era?
Everybody needs the dope; big gov (repubs and dems) + the “private” FIRE sector are the runners.
It doesn’t matter if you use or not; there’s a pusher on every corner.
Bail, print, bail, print! FASTER!
I think food trucks and craft beer will survive the end of easy credit. Theyŕe all about small money DIY.
EFIL4SUBOCAT
¨Your search - EFIL4SUBOCAT - did not match any documents.¨
I believe it is based on the observation that we are in a historic real estate bubble, which has led to high purchase prices with low expected returns.
Not to mention that housing always depreciates and is a loss under all circumstances to begin with. This time is different, because the future losses are likely to be “larger than expected,” plus “nobody can see them coming.”
I realize it is too much to expect everyone to recognize that we are in a historic real estate bubble, which has been artificially prolonged by U.S. government intervention to prop it up.
Recognition for some comes before impact. For most is comes later.
In mid-2012, we were NOT in a historic real estate bubble. Prices were in line with the long term trend since 1983, as was shown with the WSJ YouTube posted yesterday. Now if you’re saying that the bubble has been going on since 1983, well I feel sorry for you. What is your criteria for NOT being in a bubble? That storied time when we all lived inside Thomas Kinkade paintings? You’ll be renting your own slice of heaven by then.
“What is your criteria for NOT being in a bubble?”
Prices realigning to historic levels relative to incomes and rents.
Some places (e.g. Detroit) are there and then some; others (greater DC and San Diego County to name two) not so much.
“Now if you’re saying that the bubble has been going on since 1983, well I feel sorry for you.”
No need for that; I’m as happy as a lark.
“In mid-2012, we were NOT in a historic real estate bubble.”
Correct. We were and still are in a massive credit bubble and a period of unprecedented government price support and intervention into housing. And you got yourself hopelessly entangled in it.
Me oh my the web we weave when our wallets are on the line.
“we were NOT in a historic real estate bubble”
Drawing the long term trend line from your own birth is rather egocentric. Can you explain why the first derivative of total credit vs. time inflected around 1982? Do you suppose that the causes are sustainable? Think in terms of generations, not months.
Getting back to normal will require retracing house prices farther back than 1983.
¨ farther back than 1983¨
Are you saying prices will fall to pre-1983 levels in nominal or inflation-adjusted dollars? How much further back than 1983?
I love oxide until she starts talking about houses.
Blue, a couple of days ago, HBB posted a YouTube video from WSJ about housing prices. They showed the historical house price trends going as back as 1982. That’s why I chose it. I was born long before 1982 anyway.
Was 1982 the inflection which suddenly steepened the slope in house prices? Probably. 1982 was also an inflection point which steepened the slope in credit in general. Likely due to the advent of the common use of the computer, which also started around 1982.
Who says that we will EVER revert to pre-1983 in any way, barring some prepper wet dream? Why should we? It’s not a bubble, it’s a new normal. Although, I would question whether the normal is “new” anymore. If you could buy a house and pay it off in the 30 years from 1982-2012, it’s hard for me to think that the historical trend is a bubble at all.
Instead repeatedly posting self-rationalizations, lets start with some numbers. Only you know what they are.
What was the transaction price of your shack to the nearest $5k.
Start there.
Why does “Housing Analyst” refuse to see real estate can often be a great investment?”
I know some people who had loses in the stock market and refuse to invest in it now. And they get REALLY PISSSED OFF if you are talking about stock market gains.
I sold RSU’s today. I was telling a co-worker not to put market orders in but use the limit order function. so far he’s missed selling by 1 cent. I hope he doesn’t get pissed if he misses a sale he needs the money. He put his limit too close to the trade. I’ve found Giving advice often is not a good idea when it comes to money.
If you never come to the truthful and honest conclusion that houses are depreciating assets and never an investment, why would anyone be angry at themselves for paying an inflated price?
Why would anyone be angry with themselves for making a profit? I have 100,000 reasons to be happy.
A house is never profitable unless you’re in the business of building and selling them.
You keep arguing with success. it seems sort of foolish, but you seem to be a fool, so it all squares up.
How is paying grossly inflated prices for depreciating assets a success?
I bought in 2008-2010 at below reproductions cost, but I know you won’t believe that fact.
So try this: Investing hard earned dollars into assets that generate 5-10% cash flow after expenses is one good reason. A second reason is that the underlying debt is now reducing at 2%/year, more each year.
In 25 more years, it is likely rents will have increased with inflation (though I never raise rents on exiting occupants), and I will own the assets free and clear as the debt “self-liquidates.
Why do you keep arguing that this does not work, when it is clear that it is working? You seem to be stuck in the absolute belief that investing in housing is always a failure. It is a winner for me and has been since I bought my first property in high school.
I agree, housing goes up and down, people can buy at overpriced amounts in the wrong part of the cycle, but this absolute that housing always is a loss is just dibble drabble.
You don’t know what “production costs” are so you statement is patently false. Unless you’re in the business of building houses, a house as a SFR always a loss. Housing doesn’t “go up and down”. Houses depreciate.
You’re arguing with yourself. You might find more self-credibility on a realtor run site.
Those stock “market gains” are coming from individuals who are ignoring the rule of law along with the absence of any mark to market (on pretty much any asset) valuations and the willful destruction of those pieces of paper that we pass around amongst ourselves to pay for goods and services.
Not to mention an almost total disregard of what the consequences of these short-sighted actions will be for future generations.
Perhaps getting “really pissed off” is the proper response.
Is it safe to wade back into the stock market’s water?
Stock market has best day of the year; Dow up 188
February 6, 2014, 1:35 p.m.
NEW YORK—
After a rocky start to the week, U.S. stocks roared back on Thursday, giving major stock indexes their biggest gain of the year.
The Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500 index each closed up 1.2 percent, their largest single-day increase since Dec. 18.
The rally helped the market rebound a day after a modest loss and continued a gradual comeback since a plunge of more than 2 percent on Monday.
“The market was very oversold going into the day’s trading,” said Jim Russell, senior equity strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management.
…
Have you been faithfully tweeting your losses?
Dow tumbles 326 points on weak data
By Hibah Yousuf @CNNMoneyInvest
February 3, 2014: 4:17 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
February is looking an awful lot like January for investors. Emphasis on awful.
The Dow tumbled 326 points Monday, or almost 2.1%, after a much worse-than-expected reading on manufacturing activity in the United States. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq were also down more than 2%. CNNMoney’s Tech 30 index was down sharply as well.
Investors were disappointed after the Institute for Supply Management’s monthly index showed that manufacturing activity last month expanded at its weakest pace since May.
The bad news comes as investors are still reeling from a rough January. Disappointing earnings and volatility in emerging markets sent stocks sharply lower during the first month of the year. The Dow tumbled more than 5% last month — its worst January since 2009.
Many experts think the market could fall further, following big gains in 2013 and the fact that the stocks haven’t taken a big breather in a while. Though stocks took a small step back last spring, they haven’t experienced a correction, typically defined as a decline of 10% or more, in more than two years.
With Monday’s losses, the Dow is down more than 7% from the all-time high it hit on the last day of 2013, while the S&P 500 has fallen almost 6% from the all-time high it reached last month.
Plus, stocks could continue to be volatile ahead of the monthly jobs report due Friday and the possibility of another debt ceiling debate, said Kristina Hooper, investment strategist at Allianz Global Investors. But she thinks investors should not be scared by the market sell-off. “Rather, they should embrace the opportunities it creates.”
But investors were clearly afraid. The VIX (VIX), a measure of volatility, surged 15%. And CNNMoney’s Fear & Greed Index, which looks at the VIX and six other gauges of market sentiment, shows even more levels of Extreme Fear.
The possibility of a bigger pullback was also a hot topic among traders on StockTwits.
“$SPY way over extended,” said MacDee. “Been overdue for a severe severe correction. Bearish.”
…
Will sucky jobs numbers hammer the last nail in the bull’s coffin?
Feb. 7, 2014, 8:52 a.m. EST
U.S. economy adds 113,000 jobs in January
Unemployment rate drops to 6.6% from 6.7% — lowest since Oct. 2008
By Jeffry Bartash, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The U.S. added 113,000 jobs in January and the unemployment rate fell to another post-recession low, but the pace of hiring appears to have slowed over the past few months, according to government figures released Friday.
…
Are you kidding, it’s reason for celebration! All hail rocketing crude oil!
Porcine beauticians are thrashing about in a desperation attempt to paint lipstick on the bad jobs number.
Not every tweeter is buying it.
Feb. 7, 2014, 9:36 a.m. EST
‘Isn’t good news’; Taper continues: payrolls reactions
By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Here’s a roundup of comments about Friday’s Labor Department report showing the U.S. economy added 113,000 jobs in January, and the unemployment rate fell to 6.6%.
• “Ugh. Payrolls +113k. December revised from +74k to +75k. November from +241k to +274k. Unemployment 6.6% Folks, this isn’t good news.” — Justin Wolfers, Brookings Institution senior fellow. @JustinWolfers
…
“Ugh. Payrolls +113k. December revised from +74k to +75k. November from +241k to +274k. Unemployment 6.6% Folks, this isn’t good news.” — Justin Wolfers, Brookings Institution senior fellow. @JustinWolfers”
Aww, c’mon baby, this news rocks! Stocks, commodities, TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!!!
Did your EM holdings bounce back?
Mobius Says Emerging-Market Selloff to Deepen on Outflows
By Weiyi Lim Feb 7, 2014 6:47 AM PT
The worst isn’t over for emerging markets after the benchmark stock index sank to a five-month low and the nations’ currencies tumbled, said Templeton Emerging Markets Group’s Mark Mobius.
“The negative sentiment is pretty much in place so you can expect a lot more selling,” Mobius, 77, who oversees more than $50 billion in developing-nation assets as an executive chairman at Templeton, said in an interview from Rio de Janeiro today. “We are looking but actually not buying at this stage. Prices can come down or take time to stabilize.”
…
If house prices are actually sustainable… why is there no private lending in the mortgage market? This whole scheme involves the taxpayer backing just about 100% of mortgages and assuming all repayment risk. And then on top of that, the Fed printing money to buy MBS (QE). Is this really sustainable?
“Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae, the three major Government Enterprises created to control the U.S. housing market, issued 99.3 percent of all mortgage backed securities (MBS) in 2012, according to Freddie Mac’s 2013 Investor Presentation. As recently as 2005 these government agencies backed just 45 percent of all mortgages issued in the United States, although they did purchase vast quantities of the mortgages backed by private issuers.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/federal-government-controlled-99.3-percent-of-mortgage-market-in-2012/article/2522042
An MBS (Mortgage Backed Security) is not the same as a loan. Just because you make a loan, you don’t need to package it up and resell it.
I’m not saying the Feds don’t dominate the market, they are still about 80% of the mortgage market. However, in 2010, they were 90% of the market.
People got quite burned by non-agency backed MBS during the crash (all the CDOs, etc.), and they have not yet put their toe back in the water.
Why do mortgage backed securities even exist? These “financial products” are the root of all evil.
It’s actually the perverse incentive they create, which is all backed by the taxpayer. That takes its pound of flesh from society. And feeds a small group of insiders.
Like a group of orcas attacking a whale, after enough chunks of flesh, the whale dies.
When will attempts at financial reform change from theater into effective reform?
By effective reform, I mean getting rid of the “privatize the profits, socialize the losses” business model, which has simply become more entrenched.
The Federal Reserve puts on good theater, but ultimately their actions always serve to funnel money to the financial sector. Government talks about accountability but ultimately their actions always serve to shield the financial sector from any real accountability. Paying a few millions of dollars for billions in profits - laughable that anyone would think that’s a deterrent. That’s called “the cost of doing business”, like support staff.
‘Home Sellers Return for Spring Market as Buyers Get Relief’
Let the carnage begin!
Let the used home seller’s hunger games begin. And may the odds be ever in your favor.
We are going to be selling homes this year. But to do so, we need to kick out the residents (who will need another place to live).
The most important things in these markets is the type of homes that are coming onto the market.
Are they vacant homes that have been held off the market? Or
Are they homes that were full that are coming onto the market?
Vacancy rates matter. I suspect those looking for housing carnage will be disappointed…except POTENTIALLY in markets where there are large numbers of vacant homes.
Real estate prices are governed by the laws of supply and demand.
However… they are also governed by the amount one can borrow. And bad mortgages were the core of the financial crisis in the US.
Considering there are 25 million excess, empty and defaulted houses in the US, 4.4 million of which are in CA, there certainly is a vacancy problem but not in the way were hoping.
Who you gonna call? HA or Christopher Thornberg?
California Housing Vacancy????
“In 2012, California was the sixth-fastest growing economy in the United States,” he said. “We added 226,000 jobs — second most, behind only Texas. People are coming back to California. Our population growth is greater than the national average.”
Thornberg said those results largely dispel the notions that California is overregulated and its residents too highly taxed. If there was more available housing, at more affordable prices, he added, those growth numbers would be even greater. Housing inventory — he’s fond of the latter word — has been too tight for a long time.
“We have 13 percent of the nation’s population but only 7 percent of the building permits,” he said. “Even in the worst part of the housing crisis, when we had the third-highest foreclosure rate, we had the lowest housing vacancy rate in the continental U.S.”
He blamed the lack of new construction on the California Environmental Quality Act, a 50-year-old law that was intended to prevent environmental degradation but one he said is often misused as a litigious stalling tactic to tie up unpopular construction projects.
Who ya gonna believe? Liars who have a stake in the direction of prices?
Yes, and the supply/demand balance is not best measured by the number of listings on the market, it is best measured by the vacancy rate in a market.
And I also agree, the bubble was driven by crazy-loose credit standards, including NINJA loans and Option ARMs (which have yet to return).
“We are going to be selling homes this year.”
Don’t you worry at least a little bit that investors everywhere might get the same idea at the same time, in order to sell ‘before interest rates go back up’?
‘going to be selling homes’
Well, you’re going to be listing them. Don’t give them away.
Oh, and don’t screw up the comps.
Yes, good point Ben.
It is better to give the buyers a new car than reduce the price by $30,000. That way they can get a 30-year mortgage on the extra amount….and still be paying for the car long after it has been crushed and shipped to China.
I never got why buyers fall for that kind of idiocy.
I’m not really all that concerned. When you look at the number of homes that were acquired to be rented out, a lot ended up in the hands of gigantic entities that will not be selling at all, a lot ended up in mom-and-pops that were pushed into the rental yield (and generally have longer time horizons), and the rest ended up with groups like us that will ultimately be selling. Overall though, we are not talking about very many homes relative to the size of the market in which we operate.
Given vacancy rates (low), the level of inventory currently (very low), and the fact that nearly every sale will be displacing a resident that will be finding another place to live, we are talking about a big game of musical chairs. If there was a high vacancy rate (as there is in many markets), I think you would need to tread more lightly.
You should be concerned. You have large entities holding tens of thousands of houses that are negative cash flow at best and in half the cases, are empty.
Remember…. SFR vacancy rates are still at near record highs and inventory is massive and growing in CA as a result of foreclosure moratoriums.
“We are going to be …” The royal we or the huckster’s we? I hate it when a business person uses “we” instead of I. It is usually a bad sign showing the person subconsciously does not want to accept responsibility or it is a pretense that there is someone else in the organization.
I apologize if you are talking about you and your wife/partner. If you mean we, as in you and your business partners, do you mind if I ask who the others are?
“We” is me and a small handful of business partners. We have been working together for a long time, and strive to make decisions with a consensus. So, while I have an opinion that is voiced, so do they. When we decide to do something, it is a group that is on board with the decision. We’ll often hash out a decision over a board room table over several meetings, and often heated discussions.
It’s a small enough group that I cannot hide behind a “we” comment when it comes to justifying our decisions (pointing fingers at others), but at the same time, I cannot act alone. I can bring vociferous argument to the table, but I cannot act if I cannot convince the others that I am right. Frequently, the litmus test for a decision made is that we ask ourselves who would be willing to stand in front of a room of our investors to defend the decision if it goes badly. Most frequently, since we strive to reach consensus, each of us would be willing to take that heat.
If I were throwing my money at rapidly depreciating assets when there are an excess supply of them, there’d be some heated discussions for certain.
How many people are waiting for a 50% crash in RE to buy a house?
I don’t think anyone here has any intention of buying a depreciating asset. Most here are investment minded…. not consumption junkies.
“I don’t think…”. You have that part correct. HA.
Although there are a few DebtDonkeys who are quite proud of their depreciating houses.
Hee Haw. That be me!
I am proud of my appreciating assets. Net gain since 2010: $100,000 + cash in the bank and $760,000 increase to the balance sheet. All I do is keep the residents well cared for and happy!
Your diatribe is not useful to me and I believe it is a disservice to HBB readers.
You’re not convincing anyone here. I know good advice is in short demand but you might want to start substantiating your claims before you pontificate on the merits of anyone elses posts.
You did.
How is directing money to private companies, and then receiving contributions from those same companies, not a kickback?
“That was enough to push Northrop Grumman up 17.1 percent for the year, from $17.5 million in 2012 to $20.5 million in 2013. Northrop Grumman was the ninth largest spender in 2012, but our early analysis shows it jumped to third in 2013.
Similarly, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association — the fourth biggest spender in 2013 — increased its spending on lobbying from $4.4 million in the third quarter to $6.6 million in the fourth, and jumped its annual total 5.1 percent, from $18.8 million in 2012 to $19.8 million in 2013.”
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/top-lobbiers-cut-back-in-2013.html
How is it that a logical construct (a corporation or a union or any other logical construct) is able to give money to a politician or his shell companies (super PACs).
I can understand if there were a debate over private individuals giving money to politicians and should there be any limits. But this whole concept of logical constructs giving money to politicians is, to me, bizarre.
If a key part of voting is the ability to cast your vote secretly (so no one can see who you support), why is it that personal political donations cannot also be anonymous?
I have personally NOT made political donations for this reason.