kapkomet

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 01:52 PM) It depends on the supply you look at and the marketplace. But in my area I'd consider supply extremely low. Buyers are more extensive than sellers but even than we are talking about low numbers, scaringly low, it just happens to be that supply is at all time lows and the volume of transactions is as well. Well, supply of existing homes is small maybe because if anyone sells, they lose their rears on the price, so they'll stay put until they see an appreciation of the value of their house.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 01:23 PM) I'l have to find the articles, but as I recall, the generalized overall market capacity in completed homes was like 15 months at one point. It has dropped to something like 7 to 9 months, and once its below 6 or 7, you start to see significant price increases. So its not yet in the territory where it is going to be a major kick up, but its made a lot of ground. Caveat: there will be major regional differences in these numbers of course. Also: credit is getting easier slowly, but you are right on about unemployment. And here is an odd little thing to consider... think about this for a moment. In previous recessions over the past 70 years, unemployment in a household was a 100% axe in almost all cases. Dad lost job, now no income. Today, as most homes have two working parents, its a much less massive event. Still awful of course, but, less so, less often, than it was. That will ultimately help cushion the fall from unemployment. It will? () Yes and no, but I guess I'm looking at it from my personal situation. Starts have dropped dramatically, but I thought inventories were still obnoxiously high. I can say that the builders must be seeing some light because they are consolidating (Pulte buying Centex, etc.) and that would not have happened unless they thought they were seeing some "green sprouts". Plus, that does show some of the lending is easing from a big standpoint, but from a personal standpoint, I would say not.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 01:18 PM) What you are referring to, the people already in homes that they bought relatively recently and can't sell now (not enough equity, etc.), is a downslope, definitely. But there is a crossing curve you need to address (well, a few, actually). The big one is new capacity slowing down DRAMATICALLY. The new housing starts fell like a rock during the past six months, as developers focused on selling what they had and not building new. This had a deliterious effect on the economy, but it stopped the out of control home building machine that was still plowing along late last year. By taking new stuff out of the market, you focus buyers onto those existing homes, which will inevitably prop up their value. Further, you also have a lot of new buyer types out there who are seeing tax breaks and cheap prices, and jumping in. Now, some of that is a spike, this year. But some will continue, as lenders have been easing lending a bit lately, so more new buyers can leap into it. That is a self-sustaining growth right there, that will also help the market. I am not hearing of lenders easing up - in fact, I'm hearing it's tougher and they don't really want to work with people. You either have that 750 score, or you don't.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) Except I really don't believe that supply is nearly as low as it seems. There are a ton of people who want to see but can't, because of either job, credit, credit market, or upside down issues right now. The resistance for a recovery in the housing market is huge right now. I can think of no better example than the auto market fundamentals we just saw, except this is much bigger because of the huge price losses in many markets. Supply is low? No way. Demand is trickling back up because of some of the incentives out there, but in no way is there a large demand - as you said, jobs, credit, etc. are still damn hard to come by. Inventories are pretty large at this point as well.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 12:27 PM) Meh that was PR bulls*** to get the bill passed and should be seen for what it is. That's a pretty minor thing and the least of complaints I had with the stimulus. But lost, and some others, seriously, that PR bulls*** is part of the huge problem. So what PR bulls*** is Obama spinning now to get health care passed? Cap and Trade? Where does it stop? So it's ok to "PR bulls***" to get stuff rammed down our throats? Wait, we "needed stimulus" but it is all the wrong kind, and no jobs are resulting - which is the most important part, because you can't have a solid and stable recovery without them. You just made my point about Barack Obama to a "T" almost without meaning to.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 12:24 PM) Do you even know what the definition of lie is? Yea, Clinton told us that it is whatever the definition of is is.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 12:06 PM) Who in this thread is saying the stimulus was designed to add jobs? But meh, people were already complaining in May when the stimulus wasn't "working" yet. That's just part of the game. Well, our very own Messiah President was screaming that we had to pass this NOW because they were going to "save or create" whatever the hell number they had out there # of jobs. It was a lie, and continues to be a lie, and as such, the "stimulus" is not working, well, yea, it's "working" but not like they said and told us it would. Just more lies from our Savior.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 11:45 AM) Kudos to Steve. Brilliant execution on my idea. Ok, that's hysterical. Someone needs to send that to KW's white board.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 11:24 AM) Let’s play a game it’s called imagine if Bush tried this: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet“The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license” http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html Bush is facist, Hitler, MF'er.

This "stimulus" was and is not designed for a job recovery. It's simply to boost GDP to make it look artificially like they are doing something. See 3rd Qtr GDP (most bounce will occur from cash for clunkers). Media: Yea, STIMULUS IS WORKING!. What a lot of you people don't understand: these companies are not going to hire people back. Not nearly as much as they have cut. The management realizes that they can do the same with less, drive people like slave labor (read: middle management works 60-70 hours a week to take up the slack of "cuts" but at least you people have a job!!). This will not change for a long time. Aka, jobless recovery - which then means you don't have a long term recovery - you can't without private sector jobs. And again, that was never the intent of the "stimulus".

Brutha's come a long way around here... Happy Birthday! I hope you remember it... Heh.

QUOTE (G&T @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 07:50 AM) Somethings up because they aren't showing up all the time. It's so beautiful there, even with the danger that was to come. I

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 05:20 PM) So he did run deficits his first few years, but reigned in spending and cut them down year after year, and then ran surplus...thanks for posting that, I didn't have time to check earlier. Too bad Bush didn't follow up on that...and too bad Obama followed up on Bush (so far). Yea, Obama's followed up on Bush alright. Times a hell of a lot.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 04:59 PM) That's just it. You can't separate out one thing or another. Economics is a total package. Picking out just the good isn't really an equal sounding board, its just being a fanboy. And those who pick (bottoms) have s*** on their fingers.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 03:54 PM) welcome to the world of being in the minority. your voices/ideas dont count. Just ask the dems who dealt with it (unhappily) from 1994-2006. Now the tables have turned. And a complete government takeover (yes that's somewhat Kaperbolistic ™ but then again) is not what the majority should be doing. America is not a social weenie European country - which is why people are pissed off - but that's what Obama and the Democrats want - to say otherwise is SO shortsighted. But again, they're (people opposed to the United States of Europe) "nutjob wacko nazi skinhead right-wingers" and yes, that's quoted, all things coming from Democrat Congressional leadership in some sort or fashion. There was some of the crap coming from talk radio, but Republicans themselves were mostly better about it then what I'm hearing from the majority now. ETA: There's a hell of a lot of stuff that the Dems went with on the GOP controlled Congress. And now the Dems are pissed about how the GOP isn't going along? It's because what they are ramming down our throat is unprecedented.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) Then we need to be certain that does not make the final bill. That's what this whole thing is about. Wow.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) I skimmed over it and the conclusion I drew was "this is not enough." No, it's not, honestly. But it does start to address some of the complaints, as long as they get pre-existing coverages in there. I know that people want to think that "EVERYONE" should be in and "NO ONE" can opt out because that's "FAIR". That's just the wrong answer on a lot of levels.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) Is it that hard to just take a new picture with 3 white people in it? They're just pissed that someone has some poor ADOBE photoshop skillz.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) The House GOP did put out a bill. I didn't get to read the whole thing but I saw a lot of tax cuts/credits etc. And of course, that's just outright dismissed by people other then "nutcase right wing wackjobs".

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:55 AM) But there's no impetus on the side of the Republicans to bring about any reform whatsoever. You hear about tort reform. You hear about co-ops from the same Senators who say they'd vote against a bill with co-ops in it anyway. If the Republicans cared about real reform, where's their competing proposal? Oh wait, they don't have one. BTW: Where in the bill you've referenced does it state that people can't option back into private coverage? Could you provide a section number? Yes, they do, it's just you're never, ever going to hear about it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:37 AM) Go ahead and criticize the methodology of the studies, then. Simply put, when doctors are trained to run every test up the yingyang to CYA, how can you know that is 2% of total cost? Of course, the flip side of this argument is that they need to run every test up the yingyang to figure out what's wrong. Honestly, though, "defensive medicine" is a pretty loose term - which is my point. It's pretty hard to "cap" that number or percentage. IMO, it would have to be quite a bit more.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:05 AM) You forgot to mention that they basically do said event in their undies. With crisco.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:33 AM) Or just look at McAllen, Texas where they have tort reform in place and the highest health costs in the country. And read the reasons why that is.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:31 AM) There are bills, I'm asking which one you're talking about? LOL. I just said which one.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:19 AM) No, it won't, because all tort costs, including defensive medicine, only amount to a couple of percent. Also, where in the bill(s) is this? There's absolutely no way to know that. Think about it.