[cr]

In case it wasn’t mentioned peak in SD was November 2005 according to the CSI, and per latest numbers out today SD is down 39% from peak. 2008 saw a 23% drop, vs 15% in 2007.

That is already more than some of the more bullish contriubtors here expected I think.

Conforming limit schlimit. Ask yourself what fundamentals in our economy are better today than 2008 that will lead to a turn around this year, and don’t hold your breath for an answer.

Anything seemingly good, (loan limits, interest rates, lower prices) is offset by lending standards, lower incomes, or plain and simple fear.

Raising limits won’t stop people from losing their homes and foreclosure will continue to drive prices beyond 50% of peak.

If you don’t believe that, I’ve got hedge fund that specializes in swamp bridges to sell you.

[cr]

In case it wasn’t mentioned peak in SD was November 2005 according to the CSI, and per latest numbers out today SD is down 39% from peak. 2008 saw a 23% drop, vs 15% in 2007.

That is already more than some of the more bullish contriubtors here expected I think.

Conforming limit schlimit. Ask yourself what fundamentals in our economy are better today than 2008 that will lead to a turn around this year, and don’t hold your breath for an answer.

Anything seemingly good, (loan limits, interest rates, lower prices) is offset by lending standards, lower incomes, or plain and simple fear.

Raising limits won’t stop people from losing their homes and foreclosure will continue to drive prices beyond 50% of peak.

If you don’t believe that, I’ve got hedge fund that specializes in swamp bridges to sell you.

[cr]

In case it wasn’t mentioned peak in SD was November 2005 according to the CSI, and per latest numbers out today SD is down 39% from peak. 2008 saw a 23% drop, vs 15% in 2007.

That is already more than some of the more bullish contriubtors here expected I think.

Conforming limit schlimit. Ask yourself what fundamentals in our economy are better today than 2008 that will lead to a turn around this year, and don’t hold your breath for an answer.

Anything seemingly good, (loan limits, interest rates, lower prices) is offset by lending standards, lower incomes, or plain and simple fear.

Raising limits won’t stop people from losing their homes and foreclosure will continue to drive prices beyond 50% of peak.

If you don’t believe that, I’ve got hedge fund that specializes in swamp bridges to sell you.

[cr]

In case it wasn’t mentioned peak in SD was November 2005 according to the CSI, and per latest numbers out today SD is down 39% from peak. 2008 saw a 23% drop, vs 15% in 2007.

That is already more than some of the more bullish contriubtors here expected I think.

Conforming limit schlimit. Ask yourself what fundamentals in our economy are better today than 2008 that will lead to a turn around this year, and don’t hold your breath for an answer.

Anything seemingly good, (loan limits, interest rates, lower prices) is offset by lending standards, lower incomes, or plain and simple fear.

Raising limits won’t stop people from losing their homes and foreclosure will continue to drive prices beyond 50% of peak.

If you don’t believe that, I’ve got hedge fund that specializes in swamp bridges to sell you.

[cr]

In case it wasn’t mentioned peak in SD was November 2005 according to the CSI, and per latest numbers out today SD is down 39% from peak. 2008 saw a 23% drop, vs 15% in 2007.

That is already more than some of the more bullish contriubtors here expected I think.

Conforming limit schlimit. Ask yourself what fundamentals in our economy are better today than 2008 that will lead to a turn around this year, and don’t hold your breath for an answer.

Anything seemingly good, (loan limits, interest rates, lower prices) is offset by lending standards, lower incomes, or plain and simple fear.

Raising limits won’t stop people from losing their homes and foreclosure will continue to drive prices beyond 50% of peak.

If you don’t believe that, I’ve got hedge fund that specializes in swamp bridges to sell you.

[cr]

Well, if that’s true that’s unfortunate. It also means your party affiliation determines your outlook regardless of its validity within current economic conditions. We can’t disassociate lower taxes w/ Republicans. So raise taxes, right?

Why? Because that’s what Democrats do? Or because they claim it will balance the budget? Of course the answer is the latter, but you can’t support that unless you can answer “yes” to the question in my last post.

There is a time to raise taxes. The worst economic crisis in state history is not it.

[cr]

Well, if that’s true that’s unfortunate. It also means your party affiliation determines your outlook regardless of its validity within current economic conditions. We can’t disassociate lower taxes w/ Republicans. So raise taxes, right?

Why? Because that’s what Democrats do? Or because they claim it will balance the budget? Of course the answer is the latter, but you can’t support that unless you can answer “yes” to the question in my last post.

There is a time to raise taxes. The worst economic crisis in state history is not it.

[cr]

Well, if that’s true that’s unfortunate. It also means your party affiliation determines your outlook regardless of its validity within current economic conditions. We can’t disassociate lower taxes w/ Republicans. So raise taxes, right?

Why? Because that’s what Democrats do? Or because they claim it will balance the budget? Of course the answer is the latter, but you can’t support that unless you can answer “yes” to the question in my last post.

There is a time to raise taxes. The worst economic crisis in state history is not it.

[cr]

Well, if that’s true that’s unfortunate. It also means your party affiliation determines your outlook regardless of its validity within current economic conditions. We can’t disassociate lower taxes w/ Republicans. So raise taxes, right?

Why? Because that’s what Democrats do? Or because they claim it will balance the budget? Of course the answer is the latter, but you can’t support that unless you can answer “yes” to the question in my last post.

There is a time to raise taxes. The worst economic crisis in state history is not it.

[cr]

Well, if that’s true that’s unfortunate. It also means your party affiliation determines your outlook regardless of its validity within current economic conditions. We can’t disassociate lower taxes w/ Republicans. So raise taxes, right?

Why? Because that’s what Democrats do? Or because they claim it will balance the budget? Of course the answer is the latter, but you can’t support that unless you can answer “yes” to the question in my last post.

There is a time to raise taxes. The worst economic crisis in state history is not it.

[cr]

More worthless comments kewp, thanks for proving my point. Let me know when you grow up and want to have an adult discussion.

afx114,
Okay, so Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget, but it was hardly economic success for all – dotcom? And what was unemployment when he did that, how were things when he left office? 1992 was hardly the economic environment facing CA today. You can’t balance a budget with borrowed money.

Aside from the differences in our state’s economy from the Federal gov’t, there are so many more pork spending programs in CA now that they are supporting a budget that was set during what should have been a massive surplus year in CA.

Instead of cutting back they keep spending and kick the debt can down the road.

That’s no solution. That’s like taking out a HELOC to pay off your previous mortgage, then claiming you paid your house off.

I wish you guys would look past the partisan lines.

This “balancing act” is dependent on the following:
– People continuing to spend and pay (higher) taxes at prerecession levels
– No companies going out of business or selling any fewer goods/services
– CA residents spending a NET $11 Billion on the lotto
– The taxable population maintaining it’s current level of employment, and in fact I’ll bet there’s wage growth calculated into their projected tax revenues

You really think that’s gonna happen?

[cr]

More worthless comments kewp, thanks for proving my point. Let me know when you grow up and want to have an adult discussion.

afx114,
Okay, so Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget, but it was hardly economic success for all – dotcom? And what was unemployment when he did that, how were things when he left office? 1992 was hardly the economic environment facing CA today. You can’t balance a budget with borrowed money.

Aside from the differences in our state’s economy from the Federal gov’t, there are so many more pork spending programs in CA now that they are supporting a budget that was set during what should have been a massive surplus year in CA.

Instead of cutting back they keep spending and kick the debt can down the road.

That’s no solution. That’s like taking out a HELOC to pay off your previous mortgage, then claiming you paid your house off.

I wish you guys would look past the partisan lines.

This “balancing act” is dependent on the following:
– People continuing to spend and pay (higher) taxes at prerecession levels
– No companies going out of business or selling any fewer goods/services
– CA residents spending a NET $11 Billion on the lotto
– The taxable population maintaining it’s current level of employment, and in fact I’ll bet there’s wage growth calculated into their projected tax revenues

You really think that’s gonna happen?

[cr]

More worthless comments kewp, thanks for proving my point. Let me know when you grow up and want to have an adult discussion.

afx114,
Okay, so Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget, but it was hardly economic success for all – dotcom? And what was unemployment when he did that, how were things when he left office? 1992 was hardly the economic environment facing CA today. You can’t balance a budget with borrowed money.

Aside from the differences in our state’s economy from the Federal gov’t, there are so many more pork spending programs in CA now that they are supporting a budget that was set during what should have been a massive surplus year in CA.

Instead of cutting back they keep spending and kick the debt can down the road.

That’s no solution. That’s like taking out a HELOC to pay off your previous mortgage, then claiming you paid your house off.

I wish you guys would look past the partisan lines.

This “balancing act” is dependent on the following:
– People continuing to spend and pay (higher) taxes at prerecession levels
– No companies going out of business or selling any fewer goods/services
– CA residents spending a NET $11 Billion on the lotto
– The taxable population maintaining it’s current level of employment, and in fact I’ll bet there’s wage growth calculated into their projected tax revenues

You really think that’s gonna happen?

[cr]

More worthless comments kewp, thanks for proving my point. Let me know when you grow up and want to have an adult discussion.

afx114,
Okay, so Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget, but it was hardly economic success for all – dotcom? And what was unemployment when he did that, how were things when he left office? 1992 was hardly the economic environment facing CA today. You can’t balance a budget with borrowed money.

Aside from the differences in our state’s economy from the Federal gov’t, there are so many more pork spending programs in CA now that they are supporting a budget that was set during what should have been a massive surplus year in CA.

Instead of cutting back they keep spending and kick the debt can down the road.

That’s no solution. That’s like taking out a HELOC to pay off your previous mortgage, then claiming you paid your house off.

I wish you guys would look past the partisan lines.

This “balancing act” is dependent on the following:
– People continuing to spend and pay (higher) taxes at prerecession levels
– No companies going out of business or selling any fewer goods/services
– CA residents spending a NET $11 Billion on the lotto
– The taxable population maintaining it’s current level of employment, and in fact I’ll bet there’s wage growth calculated into their projected tax revenues

You really think that’s gonna happen?

[cr]

More worthless comments kewp, thanks for proving my point. Let me know when you grow up and want to have an adult discussion.

afx114,
Okay, so Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget, but it was hardly economic success for all – dotcom? And what was unemployment when he did that, how were things when he left office? 1992 was hardly the economic environment facing CA today. You can’t balance a budget with borrowed money.

Aside from the differences in our state’s economy from the Federal gov’t, there are so many more pork spending programs in CA now that they are supporting a budget that was set during what should have been a massive surplus year in CA.

Instead of cutting back they keep spending and kick the debt can down the road.

That’s no solution. That’s like taking out a HELOC to pay off your previous mortgage, then claiming you paid your house off.

I wish you guys would look past the partisan lines.

This “balancing act” is dependent on the following:
– People continuing to spend and pay (higher) taxes at prerecession levels
– No companies going out of business or selling any fewer goods/services
– CA residents spending a NET $11 Billion on the lotto
– The taxable population maintaining it’s current level of employment, and in fact I’ll bet there’s wage growth calculated into their projected tax revenues

You really think that’s gonna happen?

[Author]

Posts