The Housing Bubble

If you’re paying more than reproduction costs($55/square foot) for a house, you’re getting ripped off.

I ain’t buying no used house for $250 a square foot.

not in 22151 you ain’t

obama funded area

And now for some real journalists

“It’s an increasingly well-traveled path: Over the course of the past two decades, a handful of journalists have left mainstream media jobs while decrying what they saw as an inherent bias in their own industry.

Earlier this month, Attkisson reached an agreement to resign from CBS News ahead of contract. The reason for the Emmy-Award winning reporter’s departure: a deep-seated frustration with the way the media — including CBS News — was being manipulated by political and corporate interests. Her reporting, which frequently cast a critical light on the Obama administration, was increasingly marginalized by the network.

There is “increasing obfuscation, obstructionism and intimidation,” Attkisson told POLITICO. “The images that the public sees every day, in many forms, are influenced and manipulated by political, corporate and other special interests through orchestrated and well-financed campaigns.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/sharyl-attkisson-media-bias-105153.html?hp=t1

We will be paying for our intervention at the pumps, we have already paid with American lives:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2014/03/28/Unrest-hurting-Libyas-oil-economy-Europe-says/1841396013131/

So I felt the moderate quake last night and it lasted ten seconds. Last time I felt quakes was probably four years ago in L.A.

I am not prepared. California hates guns so I cannot defend myself. I do have a pile of cash very close. And metals. Normally I keep several jugs of water around. And I think i am going to shop around for a small propane grill and stock my cupboards with canned goods. My climate here is bearable if the AC does not work. It never gets terribly cold either.

The fun of living in democrat controlled cities.

More gun control would solve this.

No, not that kind.

——————–

Mob Attack On Family Caught On Camera
http://www.ktvl.com | march 28, 2014

Kentucky police are investigating a string of alleged assaults by a group of teens. One of the teens was caught on camera.

A woman says they attacked her and her family as her kids watched in horror.

It was around 8 p.m. Saturday when she and her family were attacked at a Louisville intersection.

“Right before we got to the stoplight, we noticed about 50 to 100 teens coming to the middle of the street. It was a one-way street so we couldn’t go any further. All of a sudden, one of them throws a garbage can on our car,” she explained.

Loeffle says after that, the situation quickly escalated. Her boyfriend, Ron Carter, was in the driver’s seat and stopped the car to see what was going on.

They say when he got out, the teens moved in on him.

“Then all of a sudden, I’m getting attacked,” Carter said. “At that point, I jump in the driver’s seat and heard them throwing rocks at my car. The rocks were hitting the kids inside the car.”

Meanwhile, Loeffler and her five children were still inside the car.

…

The approximately 200 teens were involved in at least 17 incidents, according to police. There has been at least one arrest and police are looking for more suspects.

Watching the hiding housing harpies blow their cover is hilarious.

Hope and Change

“Barack Obama ran for office promising change; he delivered continuity. But then, continuity brought change – for the worse.

In 2008, “change” meant whatever voters wanted it to mean. Like the candidate, the word was a Rorschach inkblot.

Many, probably most, Obama voters had no clear idea what kind of change they expected. All they knew was that, under George W. Bush, the country had veered dramatically off course. They thought Obama would fix that.

Some voters did have more specific expectations. Some thought that Obama would wean the country off neoliberalism. With a financial and economic meltdown raging, the time was ripe.

Some expected him to restore the rule of law at least to pre-9/11 levels; many hoped and expected that Bush era war criminals would be brought to justice.

Others thought that the Democratic Party would become more like what it had been before the Clintons had had their way with it.

The list goes on.

Of course, nobody knew what “change” meant to Obama. Perhaps Obama didn’t know either. He could hardly have been more vague.

On one point, though, everybody, except perhaps the candidate himself and his close advisors, agreed: Obama would transform the post-9/11 Bush-Cheney regime beyond recognition.

They could not have been more wrong.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/28/the-obama-paradox/

Could someone speculate as to what games the realtors are playing with price history on this property? Btw the current taxes are 25K plus

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4602-Widgeon-Path-Manlius-NY-13104/31755144_zpid/

A poll on the concept of rental parity.

I’ve often heard that buying should be less expensive than renting in terms of normal monthly costs, as the owner is taking on the risk of ownership. However, I never hear anyone ask “at what cost?” Clearly if one pays all cash, their monthly outlay is less than renting.

At what percentage of a down payment should this maxim be taken seriously?

Starts at 3:35

“Your gonna sell off all your valuable public assets to our buddies, we’re gonna bring in the multi national banks and the multi national corporations and we’re gonna rob everything that you have. And those pensions you have, forget about it. We’re gonna get those taken away from you too, and we’re also going to raise your taxes and it’s gonna cost you more to live. So now just be a good girl and boy and behave. Because the International Mafia Association has just taken over another chunk of the world.”

“They got this little clown in there, Yats.”

IMF:Everything You Have Will Be Taken - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_iNIf1nU8U&feature=youtube_gdata - 139k - Cached - Similar pages
14 hours ago …

Whose Side are you On? If you don’t care whether Republicans win, care that Democrats lose.
National Review ^ | 3/29/2014 | Kevin Williamson

For conservatives, the story of the Obama years has been the depressing spectacle of Republicans fighting a rearguard action covering their retreat from a Democratic agenda backed by superior numbers. Republicans began the Obama administration with effectively no leverage: Barack Obama in the White House, Nancy Pelosi in the speaker’s chair, and Harry Reid running the Senate. The outcome of that was the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the worst domestic defeat for the cause of limited government in a generation. The 2010 congressional elections gave Republicans some relief in the form of a House majority empowered to contain the worst fiscal and policy inclinations of the Obama administration and its congressional allies, and the blessed Republican obstructionists in the Senate have kept a few very bad apples out of high office, but a House majority alone is a poor foundation for advancing conservative policies or reversing the Left’s advances.

Republicans now have the opportunity to effectively bring the Obama administration’s legislative program to an early end this November by eliminating the Democrats’ majority in the Senate, which would also give them a much stronger hand in keeping the worst of his appointees out of office, safely quarantined in whatever dank recesses of academia currently housing them. And while one should never underestimate the Republicans’ ability to blunder their way into missing a political opportunity or the fickleness of our bread-and-circuses electorate, there is a very good chance that that will happen. (Knock wood, salt over the shoulder — pick your own prophylactic.) But conservatives all too often seem to have failed to learn the lesson of the heavy losses we have suffered during the Obama years: The differences among us are minor compared with the differences between us and them, which are fundamental.

Conservatives had an opportunity to put the Obama administration not to an effective end but a literal one in 2012, but we blew it. Mitt Romney improved on John McCain’s vote total (barely), fared better in every battleground state save Ohio, and even won independents. The election in the end was decided by 334,000 votes in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and New Hampshire. Even with Barack Obama’s edge among newly registered minority voters and an unusually high turnout among overwhelmingly Democratic black voters, only 57.5 percent of eligible voters actually showed up. That left a lot of room for conservatives to make a difference. But we did not take the opportunity.

Maybe you were not that excited that 2012 gave you a choice between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I sympathize — I liked Rick Perry. But how is President Romney vs. President Obama a hard choice? How is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vs. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a hard choice? How is Speaker of the House John Boehner vs. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a hard choice?

It isn’t.

Even if you think that Romney is a squishy RINO Massachusetts technocrat with a secret crush on Obamacare, you have to be on the wrong side of the border between ideologically hardcore and ideologically blinded to conclude that spending four years fighting against the very worst imaginable tendencies of a Romney administration would have been anything other than wine and roses compared with spending four years fighting against the very worst tendencies of an Obama administration, especially when the president is in the position of never having to face another election.

The Obama administration has handed conservatives — and, more important, the country — disaster after disaster after disaster. Rather than scaling back the most worrisome aspects of the surveillance state and the so-called War on Terror, President Obama has expanded on them. Taxes are up, spending is up (2013 spending was $250 billion more than 2009, itself not exactly a banner year for fiscal restraint), health insurance is a chaotic mess subject to ad hoc revision every time Democratic political necessities demand it, our allies are dispirited, our enemies emboldened, our religious liberties under attack by the very government entrusted with defending them, our economy anemic, with too many of our people unemployed and those who are employed earning too little.

If this seems inconsistent with more than a little of what I have written before, I suppose a personal note is in order. I left the Republican party because I didn’t want to be part of any organization that would have Arlen Specter as a member, and because I was appalled at the fiscal incontinence of the Bush years. And I’ve very much enjoyed being able to tell people that I’m not a Republican. (Some days more than others, as you might imagine.) That being said, I am coming around to the view that I’d rather be disappointed by Republicans who periodically fail live up to their principles than have my country pillaged and hobbled by Democrats who consistently live up to theirs.

Who was it on this blog who said all wars are bankers’ wars? I like Bacevich.

“And speaking of those Americans who twice came over to win the wars for their British cousins, I read a wonderful book reviewed by Andrew Bacevich, an American colonel and intellectual whose son was killed in Iraq in that totally useless war. The book is about Robert La Follette, probably the best US senator ever, a patriot who opposed Woodrow Wilson’s sending American farm boys to die in the Somme because he knew why Wilson wanted entry: Wall Street had loaned billions to the Allies and was worried they wouldn’t see their money back if Germany won. Money power was yet again at work. The young died for it while the bankers made their fortune. It was a war for trade routes and commercial advantages and for Big Business becoming Bigger Business. The biggest lie of all was Wilson’s “fight for democracy.” Democracy is not carried upon the point of a bayonet, said La Follette, but by furnishing the most perfect example of a government of liberty and equal opportunity.”

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/all_phonies_great_and_small_taki/print#ixzz2xN4tJCu7

And speaking of neo-CONs, the wanna-bes head to Vegas to court Sheldon Adelson.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-possible-gop-contenders-head-to-vegas-to-woo-sheldon-adelson-20140323,0,4125166.story#axzz2xN682lnt

LOL, is there any doubt that it’s going to be JEB! 2016?

Not gonna vote for ya, not even if it would help the space program, jebbie.

Restore Our Future!

Shout out to Moochelle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMnjF1O4eH0 - 137k

Whoa! It’s not so much the story that is the shocker, the real shocker is that goog is carrying it on its news aggregator page (I don’t personalize mine, so I just get whatever comes up. In any event, interesting stuff here, even if it is tin foil hat.)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/03/25/355959/the-cia-hoax-flight-370-revealed/

Would you know what year this car was made if you did not the model year stated?

http://maine.craigslist.org/cto/4398038972.html

Depreciated in price I am sure, but by a boatload?

I guess if you wanted to impress others, finding a beater like this could suffice.

How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin. — RR

————————-

Millennials discover the reality of liberal government
Daily Caller | 6:13 PM 03/28/2014 | Salvator La Mastra

Millennials were promised reform and intense regulation of the financial institutions as well, so that another catastrophic ‘Republican-fueled’ recession would never happen again. Obama implored, “we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.” They were promised a trillion dollar stimulus to get them back to work, not to mention millions of “shovel ready” jobs. Younger Millennials, in or on their way to college, were promised affordable education that would not send them into decades of mountainous student loan debt.

President Obama ended his 2008 victory speech by saying, “This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.”

Millennials are now seeing an America they cannot thrive in. The trillion-dollar stimulus and out of control government spending ushered in by liberal politicians produced few shovel ready jobs, while leaving per capita debt at $52,948. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2013 labor force participation rate of those in their twenties has hit the lowest level on record since 1981. Furthermore, since President Obama took office the number of twentysomethings who were not in the labor force in an average month climbed from 8,756,000 to 10,511,00, an increase of 20-percent. It is now the highest ever recorded.

Youth unemployment is at a staggering 15.8 percent and 1.7 million young adults have given up looking for work, according the Department of Labor. And the average millennial graduating college is sent on his or her way with $30,000 in student loan debt, the highest in American history.

Also, the recent scandals of the IRS targeting conservatives, the NSA spying on Americans, and Healthcare.gov security issues now have only 29-percent of millennials trusting the government to do the right thing most of the time. This number is down from 44-percent just before President Obama took office in 2009.

Liberalism in America has caused the youth misery index, which figures in youth unemployment, average graduating student-loan debt, and the national per-capita debt, to reach a record high of 98.6.

How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin. — RR

Millennials, the Social Security sucker generation
Washington Times | 03/29/2013 | By Nita Ghei

Their golden years aren’t looking so golden. A mere 6 percent of the so-called millennial generation think they will receive the same level of Social Security benefits as current retirees, according to a study recently released by the Pew Research Center.

It is hard to decide the appropriate reaction to this finding. On one hand, I am relieved that the vast majority of this generation understands that there is little hope Social Security will be around for their retirement — regardless of how much they pay in taxes. On the other hand, I am incredulous that 6 percent of this group still cling to the delusion that the Social Security gravy train will continue on its current path.

This generation, which entered the job market just as the economy dropped into the Great Recession, could well be the unluckiest. The already degraded outlook for millennials is made even worse by laws that shift wealth from younger to older generations, as well as the continued failure from Washington to enact the reforms necessary to keep the largest retirement safety-net programs, such as Social Security, solvent for the long term.

The millennial generation is currently between the ages of 18 and 33. According to the Pew study, they are heavily burdened by student debt and have higher levels of unemployment and poverty than the generations that preceded them.

Their income and wealth levels are also lower than was the case for the earlier generations at comparable times. This lack of economic stability drives the lower marriage rates for millennials — 26 percent compared with 36 percent for Generation X and 48 percent for the baby boomers — at the same point in their lives.

Check it:

http://www.old-picture.com/daguerreotypes/Francisco-1850-San.htm

“Of course, his priority is to ensure that the bread of well-connected businesses gets lavishly buttered in Russia’s former breadbasket. And there is no better connected group of Ukraine-interested corporations than American agribusiness.”

Corporate Interests Behind Ukraine Putsch

March 16, 2014

Behind the U.S.-backed coup that ousted the democratically elected president of Ukraine are the economic interests of giant corporations – from Cargill to Chevron – which see the country as a potential “gold mine” of profits from agricultural and energy exploitation, reports JP Sottile.

By JP Sottile

On Jan. 12, a reported 50,000 “pro-Western” Ukrainians descended upon Kiev’s Independence Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych. Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning of the end of Yanukovych’s four year-long government.

That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for U.S. agribusiness titan Cargill.

Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine’s UkrLandFarming. According to Financial Times, UkrLandFarming is the world’s eighth-largest land cultivator and second biggest egg producer. And those aren’t the only eggs in Cargill’s increasingly-ample basket.

On Dec. 13, Cargill announced the purchase of a stake in a Black Sea port. Cargill’s port at Novorossiysk — to the east of Russia’s strategically significant and historically important Crimean naval base — gives them a major entry-point to Russian markets and adds them to the list of Big Ag companies investing in ports around the Black Sea, both in Russia and Ukraine.

Cargill has been in Ukraine for over two decades, investing in grain elevators and acquiring a major Ukrainian animal feed company in 2011. And, based on its investment in UkrLandFarming, Cargill was decidedly confident amidst the post-EU deal chaos. It’s a stark juxtaposition to the alarm bells ringing out from the U.S. media, bellicose politicians on Capitol Hill and perplexed policymakers in the White House.

It’s even starker when compared to the anxiety expressed by Morgan Williams, President and CEO of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council — which, according to its website, has been “Promoting U.S.-Ukraine business relations since 1995.” Williams was interviewed by the International Business Times on March 13 and, despite Cargill’s demonstrated willingness to spend, he said, “The instability has forced businesses to just go about their daily business and not make future plans for investment, expansion and hiring more employees.”

In fact, Williams, who does double-duty as Director of Government Affairs at the private equity firm SigmaBleyzer, claimed, “Business plans have been at a standstill.”

Apparently, he wasn’t aware of Cargill’s investment, which is odd given the fact that he could’ve simply called Van A. Yeutter, Vice President for Corporate Affairs at Cargill, and asked him about his company’s quite active business plan. There is little doubt Williams has the phone number because Mr. Yuetter serves on the Executive Committee of the selfsame U.S.-Ukraine Business Council. It’s quite a cozy investment club, too.

According to his SigmaBleyzer profile, Williams “started his work regarding Ukraine in 1992” and has since advised American agribusinesses “investing in the former Soviet Union.” As an experienced fixer for Big Ag, he must be fairly friendly with the folks on the Executive Committee.

Big Ag Luminaries

And what a committee it is — it’s a veritable who’s who of Big Ag. Among the luminaries working tirelessly and no doubt selflessly for a better, freer Ukraine are:

–Melissa Agustin, Director, International Government Affairs & Trade for Monsanto

–Brigitte Dias Ferreira, Counsel, International Affairs for John Deere

–Steven Nadherny, Director, Institutional Relations for agriculture equipment-maker CNH Industrial

–Jeff Rowe, Regional Director for DuPont Pioneer

–John F. Steele, Director, International Affairs for Eli Lilly & Company

And, of course, Cargill’s Van A. Yeutter. But Cargill isn’t alone in their warm feelings toward Ukraine. As Reuters reported in May 2013, Monsanto — the largest seed company in the world — plans to build a $140 million “non-GM (genetically modified) corn seed plant in Ukraine.”

And right after the decision on the EU trade deal, Jesus Madrazo, Monsanto’s Vice President for Corporate Engagement, reaffirmed his company’s “commitment to Ukraine” and “the importance of creating a favorable environment that encourages innovation and fosters the continued development of agriculture.”

Monsanto’s strategy includes a little “hearts and minds” public relations, too. On the heels of Mr. Madrazo’s reaffirmation, Monsanto announced “a social development program titled “Grain Basket of the Future” to help rural villagers in the country improve their quality of life.” The initiative will dole out grants of up to $25,000 to develop programs providing “educational opportunities, community empowerment, or small business development.”

The well-crafted moniker “Grain Basket of the Future” is telling because, once upon a time, Ukraine was known as “the breadbasket” of the Soviet Union. The CIA ranks Soviet-era Ukraine second only to Mother Russia as the “most economically important component of the former Soviet Union.”

Nuland’s Role

That puts Kramer and, by one degree of separation, Big Ag fixer Morgan Williams in the company of PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan who, as coincidence would have it, is married to Victoria “F*ck the EU” Nuland, the current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

Interestingly enough, Ms. Nuland spoke to the U.S.-Ukrainian Foundation last Dec. 13, extolling the virtues of the Euromaidan movement as the embodiment of “the principles and values that are the cornerstones for all free democracies.”

Nuland also told the group that the United States had invested more than $5 billion in support of Ukraine’s “European aspirations,” meaning pulling Ukraine away from Russia. She made her remarks on a dais featuring a backdrop emblazoned with a Chevron logo.

Also, her colleague and phone call buddy U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt helped Chevron cook up their 50-year shale gas deal right in Russia’s kitchen.

Although Chevron sponsored that event, it is not listed as a supporter of the Foundation. But the Foundation does list the Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil and Raytheon as major sponsors. And, to close the circle of influence, the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council is also listed as a supporter.

Which brings the story back to Big Ag’s fixer — Morgan Williams.

Although he was glum about the current state of investment in Ukraine, he’s gotta wear shades when he looks into the future. He told the International Business Times, “The potential here for agriculture/agribusiness is amazing … production here could double. The world needs the food Ukraine could produce in the future. Ukraine’s agriculture could be a real gold mine.”

Of course, his priority is to ensure that the bread of well-connected businesses gets lavishly buttered in Russia’s former breadbasket. And there is no better connected group of Ukraine-interested corporations than American agribusiness.

Given the extent of U.S. official involvement in Ukrainian politics — including the interesting fact that Ambassador Pyatt pledged U.S. assistance to the new government in investigating and rooting-out corruption — Cargill’s seemingly risky investment strategy probably wasn’t that risky, after all.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/16/corporate-interests-behind-ukraine-putsch/ - 73k -

Out of my taxable income, my federal tax is under 21% of it. Not bad at all. My taxable income was above my salary/wages/compensation because of my capital gains. 90% of my realized gains were long term and that helped me reduce my tax rate.

IIRC, Romney gets all his income from realizing capital gains. The long term 18% for him is a good deal.

Everyone should invest for the long term in Roth IRAs, Roth 401ks, and non-tax deferred stocks to get into the 15% (and less) club. Shoot, if your income was a mix of municipal bond interest, Roth distributions, and realized gains, your tax rate would be somewhere under 15%.

Diversify your tax avoidance schemes. Congress does the same.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101527901

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/03/28/lawsuit-man-arrested-searched-for-marijuana-solely-for-having-colorado-license-plate/

Idaho, cut it out. Isn’t Sandpoint enough an embarrassment for your state?

http://thebluereview.org/most-say-aryan-nations/