November 15, 2014

Bits Bucket for November 15, 2014

Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.

RSS feed


Comment by aNYCdj
Comment by Shillow
2014-11-15 07:47:08

Money is being helicoptered to some enterprising young paralegal with knowledge of immigration procedures. There’s gonna be 5 million plus packets of paperwork need filing. Someone who can set up a few computers and an application mill can make a fortune.

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-15 05:50:59

If at first you don’t succeed, lie, lie again.

Sean Sullivan ✔ @WaPoSean

Pelosi on Gruber: “I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill.”
11:01 AM - 13 Nov 2014

By Aaron Blake November 13

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that, not only did Jonathan Gruber not play a significant role in drafting Obamacare, but that she doesn’t even “know who he is.”

But then there’s this: Pelosi herself has also mentioned Gruber and his work — back in November 2009, at the height of the Obamacare debate.

Here’s the transcript, via Nexis:

And secondly, the Republican plan ensures about 3 million more people than now, and ours does 36 million people. So that’s a very big difference in that.

We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.

So again, we’re confident about what we set out to do in the bill: middle class affordability, security for our seniors, and accountability to our children.

Nancy Pelosi 2009: Americans Should Read Jonathan Gruber’s … - 159k - Cached - Similar pages
1 day ago …

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-15 07:11:48

Like I said the other day. It is becoming easier and easier to find the lies and disperse the proof. The flipside of the NSA problem.

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-15 18:23:15

It doesn’t matter how many times you catch Pelosi and her ilk in a lie. The American electorate is so dumbed down, and morally bankrupt, that they simply don’t care about things like politicians who lie.

Comment by MacBeth
2014-11-15 08:31:16

“And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.”

No, it doesn’t. Further, you knew it wouldn’t.

So did I.

Yet you don’t have to suffer the consequences. I do.

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-15 05:55:40

Sacramento foothills rental market report: Resident gave 30-days notice to vacate (after 4 years). Last say of occupancy day is November 20th. Signing a new 3-year lease tomorrow starting on December 1!

1) solid demand (even in winter)
2) rental rates are flat (and have been for about 2 years)
3) many renters are seeking multi-year lease terms (want stabilty after eviction due to sale or foreclosure.)

It is interesting times. I am happy to provide as long a lease term as the client desires. My occupancy rate the last 5 years exceeds 99.5%. It’s hard to improve on that rate.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 06:00:37

Your “rental market report” is as sketchy as your sales market report. No data, no truth, no substance.

Comment by Guillotine Renovator
2014-11-16 00:12:57


The lies just keep coming from fraud boy.

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-15 06:01:31

“…last day of occupancy is November 20″.

Droid pad is small. Hard to type & read.

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-15 07:15:35

Agreeing to no rent increase for a 3 year period isn’t very smart if there is “solid demand”. Your fraud is showing.

Comment by Selfish Hoarder
2014-11-15 08:08:54


Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 08:41:06

Agreeing to no rent increase for a 3 year period isn’t very smart if there is “solid demand”. Your fraud is showing ??

Its very common for flat rents over longer periods of time…Any CVC lease has flat rent for 5 year periods…I have seen 10…

Your fraud is showing ??

No….Your ignorance is showing…..

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 08:45:01

But I thought rental rates were skyrocketing?

You can’t keep your stories straight Dave.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Oddfellow
2014-11-15 12:36:00

What’s a CVC lease?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 12:38:22


Comment by Rental Watch
2014-11-15 13:43:36

The CVS deals you mention are typically flat for 5, but then you get a 10% bump from year 5 to 6…perhaps that’s OK if you have a really long-term horizon, but I prefer the annual increases.

I’ve never understood the investor appetite for CVS or Walgreens deals (where leases are flat for decades sometimes). Perhaps a byproduct of people who have forgotten about the inflation of the 70’s.

We always try to incorporate annual increases (perhaps every 2.5 years if there is resistance to annual bumps), and if possible, tie the increases to CPI, or even a market rent adjustment every 5 years or so–you never know what the future holds.

Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 13:54:25

I’ve never understood the investor appetite for CVS or Walgreens deals (where leases are flat for decades sometimes) ?

Its about quality of the income stream vs. quantity…Its Called a “coupon-clipper”…Besides…If inflation rears its head, you have the hard asset that protects you on the back-side…

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-15 14:23:20

Another shill, like clockwork

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-15 09:05:35

“….isn’t very smart…..” ?

Why push rents when I can have 99% occupancy. Having a vacancy for one month is equal to an 8% rent reduction. I would rather have an occupied property with a quality resident and keep the cash flow coming.

You must remember, Cash Flow is King.

Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 09:28:31

Don’t confuse them with basic business sense JM…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 11:15:00

So rents aren’t skyrocketing.

Gotcha fraudsters.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Rental Watch
2014-11-15 13:38:28

Jingle, just curious, why don’t you incorporate rent bumps in your leases? It’s very common for commercial property (like 99% of the time).

If they want to make sure they won’t be evicted–meaning they ascribe value to a longer lease–you can probably incorporate pretty modest increases into the lease.

If you want to make it more palatable, simply make the increase tied to CPI (with a minimum bump of 2%, if possible).

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Shillow
2014-11-15 14:25:14

Cause he’s a broke fraudster with “business sense”

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-16 06:58:55

RW, the rental market is flat right now (been that way for over 18 months). The properties i have all cash flow nicely and the average resident term is over 4 years. I don’t raise rents on existing residents.

My average rent is $2200. Let’s assume i started bumping rents 2% a year, or $44/mon. So i get $500 more over one year. But the resident feels abused and leaves a year or two later. Any gain in rent is offset by turnover cost and vacancy risk (which is low today, but not forever).

I do understand you point RW, but it’s a business decision. Great tenant relations, lower maintenance, less time managing, w/99% occupancy.

Flippers will push rents to push values. I am an investor looking to hold long term and obtain reasonable cash flow.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-16 07:11:11

And negative cash flow. Good job Jingle_Fraud.

Comment by Lemming with an inntertube
2014-11-15 20:22:49

There are worse things than having an empty rental. Like a tenant who becomes a problem, but has a 5 year lease. Just sayin.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-16 07:01:09

Yes. That is why they have a 1 or 2 year lease w options based on performance. Three late pays and optuon terminates. It has worked well so far.

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-15 06:15:57

Despite Dem claims, trash-talking Gruber was well-paid adviser for ObamaCare and more

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
Published November 14, 2014

During the heyday of the ObamaCare push, Jonathan Gruber was whiz-kid-in-chief. His number-crunching on the benefits of the plan was frequently cited by Democrats trying to sell the proposal to the public.

Now, Washington Democrats have a new message: He’s not with us.

But while Jonathan Gruber might not have been a familiar name until this week for many, Pelosi and the rest of the lawmakers who pushed the law certainly knew who he was in 2009 and 2010.

A look at the record shows he was in fact paid to advise the Department of Health and Human Services. And he continues to play a role in health policy elsewhere, even as his unearthed videos cause headaches for the administration, just ahead of this weekend’s Round 2 enrollment launch.

Gruber, an MIT professor and economist, has lived amid the health care debate in Washington for at least 20 years.

Gruber was retained by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2009 on a $297,600 contract to provide “technical assistance in evaluating options for national healthcare reform.” Gruber also confirmed to The Washington Post that he was paid another $95,000 before that, for a total of nearly $400,000.

Around this time, his analysis was not only featured on Pelosi’s House speaker website in 2009, but cited by the White House several times. Though he often was billed as an analyst in media interviews where he touted the merits of the plan, critics complained his financial ties to the administration weren’t disclosed.

Gruber also spent a good deal of time testifying on the Hill and in meetings at the White House – 19 visits from 2009 to June of this year, according to publicly available logs

Aside from his work in Washington, he went on to bag similar contracts for health care work at the state level after that, working six-figure deals with multiple states.

Gruber is still in demand to help other states overhaul their health care systems. According to reports in July, he was hired by Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin for $400,000 to study how to create a revenue stream for a single-payer health care system. Records show Minnesota paid him nearly $330,000 for health care work in 2011 and 2012. And around the same time, a 2012 contract from Michigan offered $481 million for health care analysis to a team of three firms, including Gruber and his “Gruber Microsimulation Model.”

Comment by Lemming with an inntertube
2014-11-15 07:38:03

and the man that was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for his ability to assess things so brilliantly, proclaimed that pelosi’s followers are “stupid”. so does it really matter what she professes? she knows how gullible her followers are, she’s counting on it.

Comment by MacBeth
2014-11-15 08:45:07

ObamaCare is as amoral and unethical as any military invasion.

ObamaCare is highly imperialistic.

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-15 18:24:37

He didn’t say Pelosi’s followers are stupid, he said American voters are stupid. And he’s 100% correct.

Comment by Lemming with an inntertube
2014-11-15 20:27:58

I guess that came out wrong. Meant that American voters and anyone Pelosi is trying to convince are one and the same. Not to signal out any particular party. I’m pretty sure stupid crosses party lines.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 06:27:47

Article on Foreclosures in California;

Foreclosures Across California Reach Eight Year Low
Posted by RE-Insider on 11/14/14 • Categorized as Feature Stories,Industry News

While California’s real estate market has remained flat throughout the year, recent changes have revealed that things may be making a turn for the best. In addition to September’s jump in sales, a new study has found that foreclosures across California have hit their lowest mark in over eight years – the latest sign that our economy is finally catching up with the housing market.
Foreclosure home
According to San Diego-based research firm DataQuick, fewer foreclosures were initiated across California in the third quarter of 2014 than any in the past eight years. This is largely an outcome of a recovering market and a declining number of toxic loans made between 2006 and 2007.

The study found that during the July-through-September period, there were a total of 16,833 Notices of Default (NoDs) recorded – 691 fewer than the second quarter of 2014 and a 17.1% drop from the same time last year.

One should also note that the recent drop in foreclosure starts is actually part of a larger trend. Prior Q3, DataQuick found that Notices of Default were declining during the second quarter of 2014 – the lowest since the fourth quarter of 2005 when only 15,337 NoDs were reported. Similarly, NoDs have dropped significantly since their peak in 2009, when a total of 135,431 NoDs were recorded.

“This home repo pipeline isn’t exactly drying up, but it sure is diminishing. Its negative effect on the overall market is only a fraction of what it was several years ago, and is really only still noticeable in some pockets of the hardest-hit markets of the Inland Empire and Central Valley,” said John Karevoll, a CoreLogic DataQuick analyst.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 07:31:41

Of course it’s at 8 year low. Delinquencies and defaults aren’t counted due to the foreclosure moratorium in effect in CA.

Comment by Ben Jones
2014-11-15 07:58:32

‘Most of the troubled loans are not new; instead, the backlog of homes in the foreclosure process is finally starting to move more quickly. There was, however, a slight uptick in foreclosures on loans made in 2013 and 2014, a troubling turn.’

I saw a few versions of this article yesterday. It’s interesting that only the original made reference to this 2013 and 2014 uptick. And why is there a backlog at all? Isn’t it multiple offers, no inventory, shortage, shortage! It’s almost like someone out there is manufacturing the idea that you better buy now or you’ll be priced out forever. Of course, that’s never happened before.

Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 08:44:37

here was, however, a slight uptick in foreclosures on loans made in 2013 and 2014, a troubling turn ??

That should be more of a indicator than shadow inventory…It would smell of a roll-over…

Comment by Rental Watch
2014-11-15 13:50:53

Isn’t there always going to be either a “slight uptick” or “slight downtick”?

How is a “slight” move in either direction anything other than completely expected?

Show me several “slight upticks” in a row, or something more than “slight”, and perhaps it will be worthy of more than a one-line mention in one article.

Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 14:00:19

How is a “slight” move in either direction anything other than completely expected ??

Because, with the underwriting standards in 2014, I think its shocking that anyone would be in foreclosure that fast…IMO, can only be a significant drop in valuation that made the owner default…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 06:48:25

Mukilteo, WA(Coastal WA) Sale Prices Plummet 14% YoY

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 06:50:29

Walla Walla, WA County Sale Prices Crater 7% YoY

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-15 06:52:44

Oil Prices Expected to Keep Falling in 2015
By John Kapetaneas
Nov 14, 2014 9:19am

Morning Money Memo….

Oil prices are expected to drop into 2015, the International Energy Agency said in its Oil Market Report this morning. Downward price pressure is expected to continue into the first half of next year, with oil demand falling to five-year lows while oil production shows no sign of decreasing. Crude oil prices have dropped about 30 percent since June to a four-year low, with a strong U.S. dollar and rising U.S. light oil output outweighing any disruptions in the global oil distribution. Brent and WTI crude were both below $80 per barrel this morning. All of this has meant good news for U.S. drivers, who have seen prices plummeting at the gas pumps nationwide. The average gas price in the U.S. is currently $2.91 per gallon.

Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-11-15 08:29:29

Just like long term interest rates were supposed to rise in 2014?

Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 08:48:15

Oil prices are expected to drop into 2015 ??

And what does that suggest;

Deflation ?? Mercantile War ?? Monetary debasement ?? All the above ??

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-15 09:12:43

It suggests you will save money on gas!

Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 09:32:13

I think the meaning is much deeper than saving on gas…Did you ever read this that was posted by someone here;

There are massive problems on any number of fronts…How they all shake out s anyones guess but in the end it could be everyone for themselves…Including the USA…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 06:54:12

Seattle, WA Sale Prices Plunge 6% YoY

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 06:58:37

Beaverton, OR Sale Prices Turn Negative YoY; Down 12% QoQ, 2% MoM

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-15 06:58:59

It’s all gonna crash when interest rates go back into significantly positive territory.

Comment by jt
2014-11-15 07:04:48

Nope. Rates only increase under inflation. So if rates go up, there is inflation, and your home value is rising.

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-15 07:18:07

But if rates go up, people cant afford to pay as much for a house,Mao the comps go down. Way down.

Repeat after me:


Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 07:40:16



(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-15 09:14:02

Wow, monkey see, monkey do! HA, Ha, ha, ha, ha…..

Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 09:33:44

Ever notice that their post consistently follow each other ?? One-in-the same ??

Comment by Ol'Bubba
2014-11-15 10:44:17

I noticed that too.

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-15 14:28:52

Hahaha. Confirmation bias at work. We often post the same things because we obviously share some of the same ideas. No different than how JFraud Rfraud and SCdeluded all cluster.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 16:27:28

SCDeluded!!! I’m sorry but that is hilarious!

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-15 07:04:58

You all may recall how I predicted some time ago a proliferation of cryptocoinages would arise as competitors to bitcoin. So I guess there are now over fifty of them?

Bitcoin Price Explosion Leads to Altcoin Price Drop
Josiah Wilmoth
Altcoin Analysis, Altcoin Prices, Altcoins, Bitcoin News, Bitcoin Price
Updated: November 12, 2014 at 9:43 pm CET.

Litecoin is one of the many altcoins whose prices have fallen over the past 24 hours.

On Tuesday, the bitcoin price rallied, passing the $400 threshold and reaching $426.08 at press time. The bitcoin price increase has had a negative effect on altcoin prices. Most of the top altcoins have experienced price decreases in the past 24 hours.

Bitcoin Price Explosion Leads to Altcoin Price Drop

The bitcoin price rose more than 16% on Tuesday, increasing bitcoin’s market cap to ~$5.75 billion. Most altcoin prices are tied to the bitcoin price because bitcoin is the primary trading pair for nearly every altcoin on major exchanges. Consequently, most altcoin market caps soared along with bitcoin’s.

However, the altcoin market cap increase has masked a huge price drop for many coins. Litecoin’s market cap increased by 12% on Tuesday, but the litecoin price relative to bitcoin fell by 4% to 966,429 satoshis. Likewise, Dogecoin’s market cap rose by 9%, but the Dogecoin price fell by more than 6%. This trend continues throughout the top 50 cryptocurrencies by market cap.

Counterparty price November 12

Counterparty was one of the few major altcoin prices to increase on Tuesday.

In fact, Counterparty (XCP) and Fuelcoin are the only top-20 altcoins to see positive price movement during the past day. Fuelcoin–a probable pump and dump–has been in an uptrend for a while, and the Counterparty price increase is likely due to the announcement that developers have successfully ported Ethereum’s programming language into the Counterparty platform.

Comment by Combotechie
2014-11-15 08:37:31

“So I guess there are now over fifty of them?”

Because the economic concept that drives the value of these cryptocoins is so logical and so understandable the smartest thing an investor could do is to go all in and buy large chunks of all fifty of them.


Comment by Combotechie
2014-11-15 08:59:51

It seems to me that if the merit - the selling point - of a cryptocoin is its restriction on production because of the necessity of “mining” them then this restriction on production becomes nullified if there are a lot of DIFFERENT TYPES of cryptcoins springing up all over the landscape and if ALL of them are accepted as currency.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by tresho
2014-11-15 18:06:39

if ALL of them are accepted as currency
There once was a time in this country when a large variety of items were accepted as currency. Newspapers and periodicals included the discount rates for various types of “money” - bank notes, etc., and shopkeepers & businessmen kept close tabs on the variations.
Greenbacks not welcomed in California

In July 1861 Congress authorized printing $50 million in Demand Notes, which bore no interest, but could be redeemed for hard money. These notes were called “greenbacks” because the backs were printed with green ink.

Pretty soon it became clear that the government didn’t have enough gold to back the notes. So the next year Congress passed a bill calling for the printing of $100 million in unbacked currency, which it declared was the legal tender of the United States. And to make sure these new bills were successful the Union soldiers were paid with this money.

Before the 1860s it was the 8,000 privately held banks that issued paper money in various shapes and sizes in denominations from a half-cent to $20,000. But the California constitution banned banks from issuing paper currency.

Californians as a rule did not trust paper money. Their economy was built on gold. While the rest of the Union accepted greenbacks, most Californians did not.

Comment by jt
2014-11-15 07:02:23

The reason home sales are running slow is because many people are scared to buy. These people are making a mistake. The FED, ECB, and BOJ have printed so much money, I expect SoCal beach close homes to double to triple over the next 15 years. It is a matter of time.

Comment by jt
2014-11-15 07:03:42

Also note, the only reason I expect prices to increase is because of the money printing. If the central banks were not printing, I would expect prices to drift down over an extended period.

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-15 07:24:23

Much as I think you are a shillpimptroll, there is a part of me that thinks you could be right.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 07:04:08

With prices cratering in more and more areas, why would anyone pay a grossly inflated price for what is always a depreciating asset?

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-15 09:17:17

Because…..they are using ever depreciating money to pay for it?

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 11:35:02

No Jingle_Fraud. US currency is becoming more valuable by the day.

Falling prices is your wallets best friend.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-11-15 07:07:50

” double to triple over the next 15 years”

Along with your salary and the Chinese economy!

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-15 07:27:47

Scared to buy because the prices are dropping. Which is driving more hucksters to offload and get out while the getting is good. Which is causing prices to drop further.

Comment by Bring Back the WPA
2014-11-15 09:45:26

Why? Do you think the central banks are going to be buying houses? Having excess cash and credit on the bank balance sheets doesn’t stimulate home buying. The cash needs to be translated into good jobs at good wages to get Joe Average back into the game. The Fed can do supply side but not demand side.

Comment by jt
2014-11-15 10:06:23

There is a basic economic theory .. if the money supply doubles without economic growth, prices and wages will double. That is how economics works. Watch what happens as the central banks keep increasing the money supply.

Your theory is wrong.

Comment by Bring Back the WPA
2014-11-15 10:52:44

Whether or not I’m wrong depends on what economic school you subscribe to. If you are in the neoclassical camp, then supply side and free capital flow drives everything. If you are in the post-Keynesian camp, then you believe that the economy cannot change state from non-growth to growth by itself due to institutional inertia. Per the post-Keynesians and Keynesians, government stimulus is needed to jump start demand, employment and wages.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 12:39:25

The money supply already quadrupled and wages fell.

You have a reckoning coming my underwater friend.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-11-15 13:18:54

jt, how does that square with our past? The money supply has expanded and prices did double, but wages did not.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Shillow
2014-11-15 07:04:10


Just seen in my area. Yuck, yuck.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 07:07:29

Denver, CO Sale Prices Fall Flat YoY; Down 6% QoQ, 2% MoM

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-15 08:18:51

$250+ per square foot is the new normal here

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 08:37:07

…… and last year it was $350.

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-15 10:50:13
(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 11:33:18

Sounds like there is a very nice housing recovery underway in Denver.

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-15 09:10:35

Denver Business Journal - 60% of Denver parents haven’t started saving for child’s college education

“More than two-thirds of Denver parents (70 percent) say the costs associated with having a child make it difficult to work full-time to maintain financial stability and also remain a consistent presence in their child’s life — 5 percent higher than Americans overall.

Over half (52 percent) of Denver residents say it’s not possible for the next generation to be better off financially than their parents, also 5 percent higher than Americans nationwide.”

Comment by tresho
2014-11-15 18:16:01

it’s not possible for the next generation to be better off financially than their parents
Smells like a falling standard of living, for sure.

Comment by Blue Skye
2014-11-15 07:18:38

Here is were the Halfamillionmore model stands. We’re guessing he bought for $300,000. He says he still owes $200K. Here’s what he’ll pay over 30 years. Anybody else hear of a 30 yr mortgage at 3.2%? That’s what ibbots says he’s got.

Price $300,000
interest $113,000
tax $270,000
insurance $90,000
maintenance $180,000

total $953,000

Wow, that’s a lot more than I’ll pay over 30 years for shelter!

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-15 09:21:56

My mortgage is 3.25%.

At the end of 30 years, halfamill will have a free and clear house. You will have a box of rental receipts.

BTW, taxes are closer to $90,000 and insurance is closer to $18,000. You probably inflated the other numbers too.

Comment by Blue Skye
2014-11-15 09:58:14

Jingle, thanks for the confirmation on the interest rate. I haven’t been paying attention to mortgage rates much. I showed the assumptions, the resulting numbers are not inflated, they might be wrong though. So, you have experience about average RE taxes in Texas? I assumed 3%. $600 per year on a $300,000 house? Really? Anyone else care to comment on that?

I do not have a box of rental receipts. Try to keep up, I own a house and I will pay less than Mr. Halfamil. Over half a million less over 30 years. He is shocked and amused. That’s the conversation.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 11:44:35


At the end of 30 years, you’ll have a 50 year old shack worth $100k at best.

Comment by Ibbots
2014-11-15 12:37:37

Wow blue, I must’ve really made an impression on you. I’m a little surprised to see you continuing to pursue this topic.

I recall this one time When I lived in San Diego, I was driving down by the bay and came across a sea gull flopping about in an intersection. It must’ve been hit by a car and had its wing broken.

Seeing you try to make a point using made up numbers, playing definitional word games, flailing all about not making much progress, kinda reminds me of that gull.

For the record, me and some lady corralled the bird and caught with a blanket. She was gonna take it to a rescue.

Hopefully somebody will come along and rescue you by disabusing you of the preconceived notions you seem so married to.

I am off with the wife and our trusted k9 companion to forage for pecans in the front yard. Our tree has blessed us with a bountiful crop of meaty paper shell pecans. We gotta getem before the squirrels do!

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 12:40:35

Then spit it out. What are you so afraid of?

Comment by Blue Skye
2014-11-15 13:09:42

I don’t mind if a conversation takes a while, but if you just want to hide from the questions then there is no conversation.

It’s not you, it’s the general ignorance of just how expensive it is to over pay for a house with low interest rate borrowing, literally financially disasterous. It is an appropriate thing to discuss.

Just an observation though, those who answer honest questions with dismissive ridicule probably don’t have it in them to be truthful.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 07:33:44

Real estate hucksters and their lies. LOL.

Comment by Mr. Banker
2014-11-15 08:27:00

My bread and butter.

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-15 09:59:38

“My bread and butter.”

I loved you sang it. - 425k -

Comment by Sean
2014-11-15 08:35:49

People always talk about millennials and how they are dragging down the housing market for various reasons:Student loan debt, family formation, mobility…..

One thing that is rarely discussed is how the millennials are the generation who saw their parents buy, overextend and now have severe financial problems due to a large housing purchase and the subsequent fallout.These “kids”, who are in their mid-20s now were teenagers living with their parents and going to high school during the bubble days. People will say that millennial are dumb and self centered, but I think a great portion saw what their parents went through (or are currently going through) and have zero desire to take part in the housing process. I think we should give some credit to millennials for not repeating the mistakes of the past.

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-15 08:44:52

Tell that to the newly married 23 year old intern in my office who is looking at starter homes in the $400K range

Comment by Mr. Banker
2014-11-15 09:03:46

Bring her to me.

Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 09:01:30

saw what their parents went through (or are currently going through) and have zero desire to take part in the housing process ??

That may have some merit…And the generation in front of them many went through the “divorce process” or likely had many friends that did…Guess what…We have a group between the age of 25-40 that aren’t getting married or buying houses…A double Whammy…

Comment by Ben Jones
2014-11-15 09:10:24

There used to be talk on this blog about how house owners expected house buyers to fund their retirement. “So you paid $80k years ago and now you expect me to work for 30 years so you can walk off with $300k.” It looks like most said “go to hell, you greedy so and so”.

Let me ask the older posters here; did you face these jobs markets? Did you have to borrow a ton of money to go to college, only then to pay fantastic amounts of money to put a roof over your head? Or were there plenty of options? Even now, on this blog, we see people sticking out their chest, “I own houses”. So what? It’s just an asset, another part of the economy. Somehow it’s the timing, isn’t it? “I was lucky, I was smart. Now get a loan for 30 years and let me cash in.” No matter how limited the opportunity, no matter how concentrated the wealth, the haves want more. I think the well is dry.

Comment by Combotechie
2014-11-15 09:18:20

“Let me ask the older posters here; did you face these jobs markets?”

No. Jobs were easy to get because the term “Globalization” hadn’t yet been invented.

“Did you have to borrow a ton of money to go to college, only then to pay fantastic amounts of money to put a roof over your head?”

No. Then most good jobs (but not great jobs) did not require a college degree.

“Or were there plenty of options?”

Yes, there were, but these options have since been shipped overseas.

Comment by Combotechie
2014-11-15 09:29:45

IMHO, the root of our problems is globalization - the shipping of our jobs overseas.

The gap - the hole - that is left in our economy due to globalization has been/is now being filled (or trying to be filled) by all the wonders associated with finance.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Anonymous
2014-11-15 23:09:11


(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Lemming with an inntertube
2014-11-15 09:37:03

Ben, I’m not sure if it was easier for us and not really sure if it matters. My observation is that when we’re young we make some immature decisions that teach hard lessons. I look at my own kids, who don’t always heed my great advice, and think, well why should they be deprived of the lessons they will learn from their questionable decisions. My point, yes I have one, is that no matter how great the economy is, young people will find a way to put themselves up against the wall. It’s just human nature, until one learn from the pain that was self-imposed.

Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 09:45:09

did you face these jobs markets ??

No…Not even close….Doing business, getting into business, getting a good job although not “easy” were much easier than today…

Did you have to borrow a ton of money to go to college ??

No…College education was inexpensive…

Only then to pay fantastic amounts of money to put a roof over your head ??

No again…I bought my first property when I was 21 years old…Purchased with my parents…A duplex…I lived in one side and we rented the other…All my friends had purchased homes by the time they were 25…

Somehow it’s the timing, isn’t it? “I was lucky, I was smart ??

Timing, lucky, smart ? Being lucky is a misnomer…Being smart and having good timing are tangible…Good timing have made some really dumb people look (and act I might add) real smart…Conversely, I have seen some real smart, conservative people get their butts handed to them by bad timing…Particularly when you could not see it coming…1981 Volker comes to mind….

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-15 10:59:06

“I’d rather be lucky than good.” — Lefty Gomez

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 11:32:04

“I think the well is dry.”

In a way that nobody has the intestinal fortitude to bring themselves to admit. It’s all in rewind mode now. A full generation, 30 years of credit expansion is unwinding as we discuss this and the outcome is going to be an inversion of historical proportions. For those who wagered on a house somehow being an investment, the magnitude of their disappoint will like crush them.

Keep these fundamentals at the forefront;

-Current asking prices of resale housing are 2x construction costs(lot, labor, materials, profit)

-Current asking prices of resale housing are 300% higher than long term trend.

-Current housing demand is at 20 year lows(the well is dry)

-Population growth is the lowest in US history, and falling

-Current excess, empty housing inventory is in the 20+ million unit range

-An additional 35 million houses are just beginning to empty as the boomer generation passes on

-Rental rates are falling

-Resale housing prices resumed falling nationally

There’s an awful reckoning developing and it’s not going away…. this is just the beginning.

Comment by Bluto
2014-11-15 12:06:23

This discussion reminds me of some of the dialog from “The Grifters”, an excellent movie based on a book by the best noir writer, Jim Thompson…

“All over the southwest you’ve got these businessmen. They were making money when everybody was making money. They think that means they’re smart.”

I did buy a place in 1997 for $115K and sold it for 2007 for $315K…but it was a matter of being in the right place at the right time (moved to a small town that was affordable, had a steady well paying job) AND following this blog (along with a few others) and pricing it to sell quickly in Spring 2007. I bought the house to live in, not as an investment….but if I was younger and facing today’s high prices, job market and especially the general lack of job security I wouldn’t buy. The price I paid was roughly equivalent to 10 years rent, will not be attempting to buy again unless prices drop back to that level…they were there in 2011 but buying was virtually impossible thanks to 100% cash flippers and speculators.
No college debt, paid for it by G.I. Bill and employer tuition reimbursement….also bought the house w/ a G.I. Bill loan guarantee that was valuable in 1997 but would be worthless now considering that a preapproved loan and plenty of cash for a down was ignored in 2011/2012.
Anyway, home ownership did work well for me, but that was in a VERY different economy, made some decisions that worked then but would not now…

Comment by Blue Skye
2014-11-15 12:28:51

“Did you have to borrow a ton of money to go to college, only then to pay fantastic amounts of money to put a roof over your head?”

No, but it wasn’t like a walk in the park. I went to college a couple of years after marriage. I worked on a farm 40 hours a week, splitting firewood, and took all my classes MWF. I commuted to school by train and lived with my in-laws. I only borrowed for tuition and books. On graduation I had a debt of about $7,000 which I had ten years to pay off. $70 a month seemed like a lot, but it wasn’t crushing. Bought a house then for $25K which was 1.5x my starting pay. Volker interest rates.

Would have been fine if I hadn’t changed jobs every 3-5 years and loaded the debt donkey wagon to chase the house market up.

Comment by jane
2014-11-15 16:10:52

Ben - Long post alert - you are right. In my opinion, good jobz WERE easier to get because 1) the productive sector had not yet shed manufacturing; 2) Export goods therefore still existed and provided for economic surplus; thereby 3) Allowing a long term outlook on the part of F100 corps, with Ninja Turtles all the way down. Filling the well with youngsters, encouraging them to be thinking members of the enterprise - it was thought - led to long term prosperity.

For example - “Career ladders” in firms were common. “Management training” positions - in companies outside of commissioned sales - were common. The “General Management” concept rotated the next generation through line and staff positions throughout the company (with the attendant geographic dislocations, about which people whined). The purpose? To have a deep “bench”. Quaint notions, in this era.

You had to be sharp to get invited to the party. That has not changed. What has changed is that the parties have decreased in number and frequency, in synch with a hollowed-out economy. Hollowed out by the plunge in finished goods exports, which provided margins with which to educate (really educate - not this joke we have today), employ and sustain a middle class.

…Backfilled by a “services economy”, with its attendant 10% margins. And by the couple of trillion in filthy proceeds that wash through it every year, while being laundered. A segment of the GDP that only benefits the oligarchs, graftees and drug lords. Cf the Chinese corrupt bureaucrats’ monopoly on land and buildings, in what they consider prime bug-out areas.

…Backfilled by “financialization”, which serves to concentrate capital in the hands of the .01% who are our global masters.

Without filthy money sloshing through, the GDP numbers would reflect where we actually are. In a catabolic collapse, sort of like frogs in the pot, getting used to reduced opportunities and reduced circumstances. Good thing about a catabolic collapse: it takes a couple of generations to get to the end state. By that time, Americans will understand “prosperity” as a steady job at McD’s. Shacks will still be 9x income, because the criminals of the world will have landed on our shores to run the joint. By this time, the NAR-sponsored lying real estate salesmen will have taken their rightful place amongst the .01%.

It’s all good, because we’re all getting to the desired end, right? Equality of outcome for the 99.99%.

The following item is maybe not the best example, because it’s services: remember real journalism? It has been replaced by crowdsourcing. The pap that you read online - written for free, for a chance draw ad revenue - used to be written by people more or less trained in critical thinking, digging to the root of the matter. And paid real salaries. The only people who benefit from crowdsourcing what used to be real intellectual capital (think Matt Taibis at most national papers) are the billionaire founders of the information aggregators who sell your information as soon as you click. And the $12/hour contract personnel who staff the back rooms. And whoever has a diseased finger in the IPO. Financial arbitrage at its best.

Another example: Pharmaceutical research rests on basic science. The big pharmas have replaced the need for fundamental research with acquisitions, thereby eliminating the demand for scientists. There was an article recently in ?WSJ? wondering why there are so few blockbuster drugs anymore. To use Blue Skye’s metaphor, a snake getting fat from eating its tail is not the same as growth.

The Free Sh*t Army does not contribute to the solution. It’s a zero sum game. Allocating (what we should understand are finite) resources to the FSA encourages it to breed more, thereby depriving resources from those who could embark on inventing, designing and making export goods. The well is being filled with dead bodies, so to speak.

Just my opinion, of course, based upon my read of the data points.

Comment by jane
2014-11-15 16:56:57

Ben, re: cost of higher education - in my opinion, you are quite right that it was much, much less expensive to go to school up until the 80s. Even through the 90s, private school tuition could be handled by parents forking over 1/2 their annual (median) income, per year, per kid, for four years. Or, could afford two kids at a state school at the same ratio. Some rigorous belt tightening, but you could do it.

Kids can reasonably be expected to pick up some money during the summer for miscellaneous expenses. Not all. Books these days are horrific! With the higher education mafia, a standard textbook is $150-$200 a pop. While the kids were growing up, I was biting my nails and running the numbers monthly.

An overlooked fact: every school with a huge endowment will give you full freight - FULL FREIGHT - if you are a National Merit Semi-Finalist. Those tests are given right before the PSATs, so a lot of parents give them short shrift. So the trick is to huddle down over the books and understand how to think though the things you learn - ESPECIALLY if you are badly taught - from grade school on. There are no short cuts. Good news is, if you are relentless from an early age, you can count on a free ride, no debt, and no parental financial stress. Even today. (My kids did not have that fire in the belly. I had some financial stress).

“Sports scholarships” are a long shot, since everybody goes after them. If you get injured and can’t perform, you get cut and lose the scholarship - tough noogies. You are treated as a commodity, and you do not come out with anything approaching the capability to think unless your career objective is commissioned sales.

Comment by tresho
2014-11-15 18:45:05

Good news is, if you are relentless from an early age, you can count on a free ride, no debt, and no parental financial stress.
That fits one of my nieces to a T. She started in 10th grade prepping for a scholarship & won a free ride from AT&T when that was still possible. She came down with gallstones during Xmas vacation of her freshman college year and I had to light a fire under her parents & doctors to get her surgery done before her school term resumed - had she missed a term, she would have lost her scholarship. But that didn’t happen. She graduated debt free and even had an impressive work record by then, since she worked at various AT&T research facilities during her summers off.
However, her mother is still causing her financial stress. Mother never had a dollar she couldn’t spend ASAP.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Selfish Hoarder
2014-11-15 09:33:33

Well most boomers did not learn thrift from their parents. I and my sisters learned thrift. Our parents grew up in the GD. they never cared about wealth. They were notinto stocks at all. They just wanted to raise four kids and enjoyed road trips and simple things in life. They knew they had to work to get ahead of inflation to some degree. My dad was a business consultant and was into commodities.

My ambition has been to become independently middle class myself. This does not mean buying a McMasion, but having time to just enjoy the outdoors and talking with friends over coffee after a long swim workout. But becoming independently middle class means I have to have assets to protect against inflation. Houses are not the way. Your neighborhood can easily go ghetto and that is what happened to my parents’ neighborhood.

It nags me that most boomers did not learn to live below their means.

Comment by Mr. Banker
2014-11-15 09:46:30

“It nags me that most boomers did not learn to live below their means.”

They were told that “People are smart” and, amazingly, they believed it.

Comment by Sean
2014-11-15 12:42:15

It nags me when I see a Boomer, with a McMansion, a time share, a Harley, a 1960s muscle car, a second wife, no retirement or savings to speak of - THEY will be the first to say “These damn kids today!!”

By the way, now is a fantastic time to buy a 1960s muscle car. Boomers are selling them like hot cakes!

Comment by Ella58
2014-11-15 14:40:40

There seems to be a divide between younger/older boomers. Most of the older boomers I know generally lived within their means, made good decisions, saved for retirement, and agree that house prices are insane (”I couldn’t afford to buy my house today” is a common refrain).

The irresponsible ones, I find, are younger boomers and, even more so, Gen X - those are the people with the $2mil house that’s half empty because they can’t afford furniture, the people who have a mcmansion with an Audi and a BMW but send their kids to public school and load them up with student debt for college, the people living paycheck to paycheck who expect the next generation to fund their retirement by buying their overpriced house. Good luck with that…

Comment by Selfish Hoarder
2014-11-15 21:09:37

I am a younger boomer. My dad was 38 when I was born. He had his shoes repaired. We were a one car and one television family. Only one vacation was by air travel. And one long family road trip from California to Ohio. The rest were mostly weekend trips in California. So I am not sure about your younger boomer idea.

The peak of the boomers were born in the years 1957 through 1959. I was 1959. Unemployment was 10% when I was finishing college because I was competing with my contemporaries. Older boomers already got the jobs, the best starter houses, etc.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by dwkunkel
2014-11-15 15:44:13

Living below your means is the key and is something that most people are unwilling to do.

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-15 08:42:24

Because it’s good to be the king

“The wealthy now have a wealth gap of their own, as economic gains become more highly concentrated at the very top. As the top one-hundredth of the 1 percent pulls away from the rest of that group, the superrich are leaving the merely very rich behind. That has created two markets in the upper reaches of the economy: one for the haves and one for the have-mores.

According to a recent paper by the economists Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics, almost all of the increase in American inequality over the last 30 years is attributable to the “rise of the share of wealth owned by the 0.1 percent richest families.” And much of that rise is driven by the top 0.01 percent.

The wealth of the top 1 percent grew an average of 3.9 percent a year from 1986 to 2012, though the top one-hundredth of that 1 percent saw its wealth grow about twice as fast. The 16,000 families in that tiptop category — those with fortunes of at least $111 million — have seen their share of national wealth nearly double since 2002, to 11.2 percent.”

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-15 09:03:56

Meanwhile, back in Lucky Ducky land

“According to data compiled by Goldman Sachs, most American workers earn below $20 per hour. Goldman Sachs economists David Mericle and Chris Mischaikow crunched Labor Department data that is used to generate the monthly jobs report that the market closely watches, in particular from the survey of employers.

The chart, shown above, shows that 19% of workers make less than $12.50 per hour, 32% of workers make between $12.50 and $20 per hour, 30% make between $20 and $30 an hour, 14% make between $30 and $45 per hour, and 5% make over $45 an hour.”

Comment by Ol'Bubba
2014-11-15 11:00:51

So in other words, a worker who makes $62,400 a year ($30 x 40hrs x 52 weeks) is at the the 81st percentile of wage earners.

$93,600/yr puts you at the 95th percentile. That sounds low.

Comment by MightyMike
2014-11-15 13:17:25

What sounds low - the percentile or the salary?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Ol'Bubba
2014-11-15 15:17:55

the salary sounds low. I expected the 95th percentile to have a higher salary.

Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 09:11:56

Yep…Like on the Lake Tahoe shore line…The Billionaires are displacing the millionaires…

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-15 09:42:18

More Lucky Ducky news

Cash-Strapped Americans Are Abandoning Restaurants

“The average American goes out to dinner 74 times a year, The Washington Post’s Wonkblog reports, citing the consumer research firm NPD Group. That’s the lowest reading in three decades.

The popularity of takeout and prepared foods, like frozen pizzas, has partially contributed to the decline, reports Roberto Ferdman at Wonkblog.

But Americans are also worried about cash and are looking to cut back.

“Consumers spent roughly 7 percent less on eating out in 2010, compared to the year before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,” Ferdman writes. “Meanwhile, people are buying more groceries, because it’s cheaper.”

The trend is hurting business at casual dining establishments like Olive Garden, Applebee’s, and Red Lobster.”

Comment by scdave
2014-11-15 10:06:34

That’s the lowest reading in three decades ??

Yeah…I just heard that this morning….People not spending or don’t have the money to spend ??

I have spoken to this before…After the crushing interest rates in 1981, many lost everything they had and never recovered in their lifetimes…It was just to hard to start out with nothing when you are 40…

I wonder if we are seeing a similar pattern due to the 2008 crash…Many, even more so than 1981 have lost everything…This has a tendency to change spending behavior…Like, eating out, buying houses, getting married and so on…

Comment by Combotechie
2014-11-15 10:27:28

“The trend is hurting business at casual dining establishments like Olive Garden, Applebee’s, and Red Lobster.”

Which means the pressure to lure in customers will intensify hence those who like to dine out will benefit because all sorts of financial incentives are sure to be offered to customers in an effort to garner market share in this shrinking market.

For now, at least. Eventually those restaurants on the margin will fold and the playing field will be reduced and then a balance will once again be reached and this is when the financial incentives will come to a halt.

In the meantime … enjoy.

Comment by Combotechie
2014-11-15 10:37:37

Example: Last November 11 - Veterans Day - Olive Garden (as with other restaurants) offered free meals to veterans.

It’s rare that people dine out alone and it is rare that everyone who dines out is a veteran so Olive Garden probably made out alright in that probably most of its customers were not vets; They may have accompanied vets but were probably not vets themselves.

So the vet eats for free and the others in the vet’s party have to pay up. Olive Garden sucks up the loss due to the vet but more than makes up the loss via the other full-price-paying non-vets.

(Except in the case of Comboteche whereby both Combotechie AND his wife are both vets, which means they both ate for free.)

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-15 09:44:18

Everyone Must Check In

At a…

FEMA Capstone National Level Exercise

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-15 09:53:30

No “pent-up demand” for $500,000 starter homes here

CounterPunch - Inequality, Student Debt and the Millennials

“Millennials are the most highly-educated generation of young adults in our nation’s history, attaining college degrees at record-high rates. Yet despite their greater educational attainment, they appear to have less wealth at this point in the lives than prior generations.

If not for a sharp increase in student debt since 1989, young working- and middle-class Americans would have actually slightly higher net worths than their counterparts had a quarter century ago. This is a surprising finding in an analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances by my colleagues at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

Let’s be clear: most young working Americans have never had much wealth. In 1989, the net worth of the bottom three-fifths of 18- to 34-year-olds averaged only $3,300. But by 2013, their net worth dropped by $11,000, to an average of $7,700 in net debt. A chief factor in this flip in fortunes is that the average educational debt among this group shot up more than eightfold, from $1,900 in 1989 to $16,300 in 2013.

Much of this debt seems to be burdening those who have the fewest resources to pay it off. For the middle quintile of 18- to 34-year-olds, student debt averaged $3,300 in 2013, while their net worth averaged $11,000 (a drop from $14,400 in 1989). Meanwhile, the student debt of the bottom fifth was almost 13 times larger, averaging $42,700, while their average net worth was a negative $35,400.”

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-15 09:56:49

Do you want me to read the card?

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

― Mark Twain

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-15 10:16:43

A Permanent Infrastructure for Permanent War

“In the Persian Gulf alone, the U.S. has major bases in every country save Iran. There is an increasingly important, increasingly large base in Djibouti, just miles across the Red Sea from the Arabian Peninsula. There are bases in Pakistan on one end of the region and in the Balkans on the other, as well as on the strategically located Indian Ocean islands of Diego Garcia and the Seychelles. In Afghanistan and Iraq, there were once as many as 800 and 505 bases, respectively. Recently, the Obama administration inked an agreement with new Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to maintain around 10,000 troops and at least nine major bases in his country beyond the official end of combat operations later this year. U.S. forces, which never fully departed Iraq after 2011, are now returning to a growing number of bases there in ever larger numbers.

In short, there is almost no way to overemphasize how thoroughly the U.S. military now covers the region with bases and troops. This infrastructure of war has been in place for so long and is so taken for granted that Americans rarely think about it and journalists almost never report on the subject. Members of Congress spend billions of dollars on base construction and maintenance every year in the region, but ask few questions about where the money is going, why there are so many bases, and what role they really serve. By one estimate, the United States has spent $10 trillion protecting Persian Gulf oil supplies over the past four decades.

Approaching its 35th anniversary, the strategy of maintaining such a structure of garrisons, troops, planes, and ships in the Middle East has been one of the great disasters in the history of American foreign policy.

Comment by tresho
2014-11-15 19:55:20

From newspaper archives: “Johnson Denied Action on U.S.-Russ Resolution
Washington, Feb. 8 [1919]– Another effort by Senator Johnson,
of California, to secure senate consideration of his resolution
favoring immediate withdrawal of American troops from Russia ended
in failure.”

Comment by Anonymous
2014-11-15 23:27:35

800 bases in Afghanistan? How did they come up with that number?

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-15 10:28:10

Real journalists will construct your narrative

“During her Friday program on the Fox Business Network, Melissa Francis made a truly scandalous revelation: “When I was at CNBC, I pointed out to my viewers that the math of Obamacare simply didn’t work. Not the politics by the way; just the basic math. And when I did that, I was silenced.”

Straight from the horse’s mouth, Jonathan Gruber telling you that the architects of Obamacare think that you’re stupid and most importantly, they are absolutely counting on your lack of economic understanding. They aren’t the only villains in this story, though. They are also depending on the liberal media to help them cover up the truth. So far, NBC, ABC, the L.A. Times and the Associated Press and others have been only too happy to comply. Those outlets have not even mentioned the video evidence from Jonathan Gruber. It is shocking. But it actually doesn’t surprise me. Because when I was at CNBC, I pointed out to my viewers that the math of Obamacare simply didn’t work. Not the politics by the way; just the basic math. And when I did that, I was silenced.

I said on the air that you couldn’t add millions of people to the system and force insurance companies to cover their preexisting conditions without raising the price on everyone else. I pointed out that it couldn’t possibly be true that if you like your plan you can keep it. That was a lie. And, in fact, millions of people had their insurance canceled. As a result of what I said at CNBC, I was called into management, where I was told that I was, quote, “disrespecting the office of the president” by telling what turned out to be the absolute truth.

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-15 10:30:47

Hope and Change

“In 2014, Obamacare’s first year, individuals are facing a penalty of $95 per person, or 1 percent of their income, depending on which is higher. If an American failed to get coverage this year, that penalty will be taken out of their tax refund in early 2015, Adams noted.

While that might be painful to some uninsured Americans who are counting on their tax refunds in early 2015, the penalty for going uninsured next year is even harsher. The financial penalty for skipping out on health coverage will more than triple to $325 per person in 2015, or 2 percent of income, depending on whichever is higher.

Children will be fined at half the adult rate, or $162.50 for those under 18 years old.

So, that’s your incentive. Either sign up for Obamacare at a rate of roughly $750 a month or more for a middle-class family of four, or pay a $325 penalty or two percent of your income, whichever is higher. Plus, if you have kids, they’ve been incentivized too!

Moreover, if you fail to sign up for Obamacare and subsequently refuse to pay your penalty your house will be raided by armed IRS agents, seized by the government, and you’ll be imprisoned for tax evation.

Welcome to the new America, where the government now has the power to compel you to purchase products from private companies under the threat of imprisonment or death. Yes, death. Because if you run from those armed IRS agents they’re going to use their brand new militarized AR-15′s to ensure your compliance.

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-15 10:39:08

And so it was that later
As Jon Gruber told his tale
Pelosi’s face just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-15 11:55:19

Grubered again! ‘Stupid’ Americans ‘falling off a building’

Obamacare architect knew U.S. workers would lose job-based insurance

Chelsea Schilling
Published: 18 hours ago

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber – who has been making headlines this week after a video surfaced of him admitting the law was meant to take advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter” – acknowledged that the administration knew U.S. workers would lose their job-based health insurance when President Obama’s signature legislation took effect.

“If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it,” Obama said numerous times when pitching the new law.

But by fall 2013, more than 4 million Americans were getting cancellation letters in their mailboxes.

As it turns out, Gruber, also an MIT economics professor, apparently knew it would happen – reportedly comparing U.S. workers losing their insurance to people “falling off a building.”

In a Nov. 13 piece for Time magazine, reporter Kate Pickert wrote, “I’ve talked to Gruber many times over the past six years. He’s a good source because he’s smart, candid and was privy to the Democratic behind-the-scenes thinking and maneuvering that preceded passage of the Affordable Care Act.”

Pickert recalled a particular conversation she had with Gruber: “In 2013, for instance, I asked Gruber if Democrats understood that the ACA would slowly and methodically erode the system under which millions of Americans get health insurance through their jobs. In pitching the ACA, Democrats had been adamant that the law would support and sustain the employer-based system, not erode it. But Gruber knew better and he told me so, likening workers being kicked off job-based health plans to people ‘falling off a building,’ an outcome that architects of the ACA knew was likely and had planned for“ (italics added).

In February this year, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, projecting, as a result of Obamacare,”between 6 million and 7 million fewer people will have employment-based insurance coverage each year from 2016 through 2024 than would be the case in the absence of the ACA.”


Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 12:51:02

“The very definition of a ‘housing recovery’ is falling prices to dramatically lower and more affordable levels”.


Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-15 13:28:33

“Get some risk put back into the market and get these interest rates up to 10-12% where they belong. Then watch the economy accelerate like you’ve never seen.”


Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-16 07:35:36

phony scandals

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post