[drboom]

My wife and I thought about using Redfin but ended up using the listing agent from a failed short sale. We didn’t have a buyer’s agent on that deal, so he acted in a limited dual agency role. After that deal fell through due to BofA’s idiocy, he offered to split his commission with us as a buyer’s agent. Why? He saw how we operated: we wanted to do our own research, didn’t make a hobby of tramping through houses we didn’t really want to buy, etc.

As it turned out, he showed us exactly one house (another short sale, natch). We put in an offer, then a counter-offer which was accepted by the seller in late April and approved by their bank last Thursday. We didn’t waste his time or ours pursuing houses we weren’t really interested in. Easier money for him, a nice chunk of money back for us–everybody wins.

Some of you sound like chronic lookie loos. Are you really trying to find a house to buy, or is it just a fun pastime?

[drboom]

My wife and I thought about using Redfin but ended up using the listing agent from a failed short sale. We didn’t have a buyer’s agent on that deal, so he acted in a limited dual agency role. After that deal fell through due to BofA’s idiocy, he offered to split his commission with us as a buyer’s agent. Why? He saw how we operated: we wanted to do our own research, didn’t make a hobby of tramping through houses we didn’t really want to buy, etc.

As it turned out, he showed us exactly one house (another short sale, natch). We put in an offer, then a counter-offer which was accepted by the seller in late April and approved by their bank last Thursday. We didn’t waste his time or ours pursuing houses we weren’t really interested in. Easier money for him, a nice chunk of money back for us–everybody wins.

Some of you sound like chronic lookie loos. Are you really trying to find a house to buy, or is it just a fun pastime?

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]Drboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.[/quote]

I do not have a party affiliation. See the California Secretary of State’s explanation. Thee Republican Party of California does not allow any but registered Republicans to vote in their primaries.

[quote]Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.[/quote]

I’ve explained it repeatedly. Read and understand this. It covers more than just the Social Security deficit manipulation scam. The conservatives over at the Heritage Foundation were freaking out when Clinton was doing the deficit numbers game, but I wonder if they were still screaming when Bush kept doing it?

You could look this stuff up, you know.

[quote]Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.

More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates.[/quote]

Erm, there is the small matter of an unnecessary war in Iraq that was going to “pay for itself”.

[quote]His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.[/quote]

The Medicare deal would have been great if he’d thunk of some way to pay for it. It was just a naked vote grab, and someone else will be left holding the bag.

As for making the poor into homeowners, the very existence of this web site has a lot to do with that “compassionate” goal. Actually, Bush fought on the right side of this issue against Barney Frank and his crew on the House Banking Comittee when he wanted stricter control of Fannie and Freddie. Now, “stricter control” would have gone against poorer aspiring homeowners, but it would have been good for the country.

[quote]Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years. [/quote]

“Relatively low”. Wow.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]Drboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.[/quote]

I do not have a party affiliation. See the California Secretary of State’s explanation. Thee Republican Party of California does not allow any but registered Republicans to vote in their primaries.

[quote]Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.[/quote]

I’ve explained it repeatedly. Read and understand this. It covers more than just the Social Security deficit manipulation scam. The conservatives over at the Heritage Foundation were freaking out when Clinton was doing the deficit numbers game, but I wonder if they were still screaming when Bush kept doing it?

You could look this stuff up, you know.

[quote]Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.

More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates.[/quote]

Erm, there is the small matter of an unnecessary war in Iraq that was going to “pay for itself”.

[quote]His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.[/quote]

The Medicare deal would have been great if he’d thunk of some way to pay for it. It was just a naked vote grab, and someone else will be left holding the bag.

As for making the poor into homeowners, the very existence of this web site has a lot to do with that “compassionate” goal. Actually, Bush fought on the right side of this issue against Barney Frank and his crew on the House Banking Comittee when he wanted stricter control of Fannie and Freddie. Now, “stricter control” would have gone against poorer aspiring homeowners, but it would have been good for the country.

[quote]Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years. [/quote]

“Relatively low”. Wow.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]Drboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.[/quote]

I do not have a party affiliation. See the California Secretary of State’s explanation. Thee Republican Party of California does not allow any but registered Republicans to vote in their primaries.

[quote]Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.[/quote]

I’ve explained it repeatedly. Read and understand this. It covers more than just the Social Security deficit manipulation scam. The conservatives over at the Heritage Foundation were freaking out when Clinton was doing the deficit numbers game, but I wonder if they were still screaming when Bush kept doing it?

You could look this stuff up, you know.

[quote]Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.

More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates.[/quote]

Erm, there is the small matter of an unnecessary war in Iraq that was going to “pay for itself”.

[quote]His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.[/quote]

The Medicare deal would have been great if he’d thunk of some way to pay for it. It was just a naked vote grab, and someone else will be left holding the bag.

As for making the poor into homeowners, the very existence of this web site has a lot to do with that “compassionate” goal. Actually, Bush fought on the right side of this issue against Barney Frank and his crew on the House Banking Comittee when he wanted stricter control of Fannie and Freddie. Now, “stricter control” would have gone against poorer aspiring homeowners, but it would have been good for the country.

[quote]Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years. [/quote]

“Relatively low”. Wow.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]Drboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.[/quote]

I do not have a party affiliation. See the California Secretary of State’s explanation. Thee Republican Party of California does not allow any but registered Republicans to vote in their primaries.

[quote]Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.[/quote]

I’ve explained it repeatedly. Read and understand this. It covers more than just the Social Security deficit manipulation scam. The conservatives over at the Heritage Foundation were freaking out when Clinton was doing the deficit numbers game, but I wonder if they were still screaming when Bush kept doing it?

You could look this stuff up, you know.

[quote]Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.

More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates.[/quote]

Erm, there is the small matter of an unnecessary war in Iraq that was going to “pay for itself”.

[quote]His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.[/quote]

The Medicare deal would have been great if he’d thunk of some way to pay for it. It was just a naked vote grab, and someone else will be left holding the bag.

As for making the poor into homeowners, the very existence of this web site has a lot to do with that “compassionate” goal. Actually, Bush fought on the right side of this issue against Barney Frank and his crew on the House Banking Comittee when he wanted stricter control of Fannie and Freddie. Now, “stricter control” would have gone against poorer aspiring homeowners, but it would have been good for the country.

[quote]Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years. [/quote]

“Relatively low”. Wow.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]Drboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.[/quote]

I do not have a party affiliation. See the California Secretary of State’s explanation. Thee Republican Party of California does not allow any but registered Republicans to vote in their primaries.

[quote]Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.[/quote]

I’ve explained it repeatedly. Read and understand this. It covers more than just the Social Security deficit manipulation scam. The conservatives over at the Heritage Foundation were freaking out when Clinton was doing the deficit numbers game, but I wonder if they were still screaming when Bush kept doing it?

You could look this stuff up, you know.

[quote]Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.

More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates.[/quote]

Erm, there is the small matter of an unnecessary war in Iraq that was going to “pay for itself”.

[quote]His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.[/quote]

The Medicare deal would have been great if he’d thunk of some way to pay for it. It was just a naked vote grab, and someone else will be left holding the bag.

As for making the poor into homeowners, the very existence of this web site has a lot to do with that “compassionate” goal. Actually, Bush fought on the right side of this issue against Barney Frank and his crew on the House Banking Comittee when he wanted stricter control of Fannie and Freddie. Now, “stricter control” would have gone against poorer aspiring homeowners, but it would have been good for the country.

[quote]Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years. [/quote]

“Relatively low”. Wow.

[drboom]

[quote=Casca]Or as that fellow Burke said some time ago, “For evil to triumph only requires that good men do nothing.”

Our wealth as a nation, coupled with a relativist zeitgeist has allowed the elevation of muddle-headed emoting to pass for actual thought. Add to this an ersatz edutocracy, and we have far too many citizens incapable of discerning the difference.[/quote]

Congratulations on the new thesaurus.

I think you’re trying to say anyone who doesn’t see things your way isn’t very bright.

Am I close?

[drboom]

[quote=Casca]Or as that fellow Burke said some time ago, “For evil to triumph only requires that good men do nothing.”

Our wealth as a nation, coupled with a relativist zeitgeist has allowed the elevation of muddle-headed emoting to pass for actual thought. Add to this an ersatz edutocracy, and we have far too many citizens incapable of discerning the difference.[/quote]

Congratulations on the new thesaurus.

I think you’re trying to say anyone who doesn’t see things your way isn’t very bright.

Am I close?

[drboom]

[quote=Casca]Or as that fellow Burke said some time ago, “For evil to triumph only requires that good men do nothing.”

Our wealth as a nation, coupled with a relativist zeitgeist has allowed the elevation of muddle-headed emoting to pass for actual thought. Add to this an ersatz edutocracy, and we have far too many citizens incapable of discerning the difference.[/quote]

Congratulations on the new thesaurus.

I think you’re trying to say anyone who doesn’t see things your way isn’t very bright.

Am I close?

[drboom]

[quote=Casca]Or as that fellow Burke said some time ago, “For evil to triumph only requires that good men do nothing.”

Our wealth as a nation, coupled with a relativist zeitgeist has allowed the elevation of muddle-headed emoting to pass for actual thought. Add to this an ersatz edutocracy, and we have far too many citizens incapable of discerning the difference.[/quote]

Congratulations on the new thesaurus.

I think you’re trying to say anyone who doesn’t see things your way isn’t very bright.

Am I close?

[drboom]

[quote=Casca]Or as that fellow Burke said some time ago, “For evil to triumph only requires that good men do nothing.”

Our wealth as a nation, coupled with a relativist zeitgeist has allowed the elevation of muddle-headed emoting to pass for actual thought. Add to this an ersatz edutocracy, and we have far too many citizens incapable of discerning the difference.[/quote]

Congratulations on the new thesaurus.

I think you’re trying to say anyone who doesn’t see things your way isn’t very bright.

Am I close?

[drboom]

[quote=luchabee]Liberal policies are predicated on the idea that American businesses are what they once were, but with globalism, we really don’t have much anymore. So, like GM and California, liberals have killed our competitiveness and the nation as a whole is next. In sum, globalism would have turn us into England inevitably (no significant manufacturing base, etc.), but liberalism helped to get us there a whole lot quicker.[/quote]

Laff.

Clinton left his knee pads in the White House along with specific instructions on how the Chinese like it best. Bush strapped ’em on and went to work. U.S. Corporate interests provided the music and breath mints, as always. Obama has already sent half (seemingly) of his cabinet to China, and I don’t think they were there to see the Great Wall. If you need help connecting the dots, look at the historical trade deficit numbers and which U.S. corporations profit from a cheap labor pool.

There is no discernable difference between the world trade policies of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations–“conservative” vs. “liberal” just doesn’t enter into it. Follow the money.

[drboom]

[quote=luchabee]Liberal policies are predicated on the idea that American businesses are what they once were, but with globalism, we really don’t have much anymore. So, like GM and California, liberals have killed our competitiveness and the nation as a whole is next. In sum, globalism would have turn us into England inevitably (no significant manufacturing base, etc.), but liberalism helped to get us there a whole lot quicker.[/quote]

Laff.

Clinton left his knee pads in the White House along with specific instructions on how the Chinese like it best. Bush strapped ’em on and went to work. U.S. Corporate interests provided the music and breath mints, as always. Obama has already sent half (seemingly) of his cabinet to China, and I don’t think they were there to see the Great Wall. If you need help connecting the dots, look at the historical trade deficit numbers and which U.S. corporations profit from a cheap labor pool.

There is no discernable difference between the world trade policies of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations–“conservative” vs. “liberal” just doesn’t enter into it. Follow the money.

[drboom]

[quote=luchabee]Liberal policies are predicated on the idea that American businesses are what they once were, but with globalism, we really don’t have much anymore. So, like GM and California, liberals have killed our competitiveness and the nation as a whole is next. In sum, globalism would have turn us into England inevitably (no significant manufacturing base, etc.), but liberalism helped to get us there a whole lot quicker.[/quote]

Laff.

Clinton left his knee pads in the White House along with specific instructions on how the Chinese like it best. Bush strapped ’em on and went to work. U.S. Corporate interests provided the music and breath mints, as always. Obama has already sent half (seemingly) of his cabinet to China, and I don’t think they were there to see the Great Wall. If you need help connecting the dots, look at the historical trade deficit numbers and which U.S. corporations profit from a cheap labor pool.

There is no discernable difference between the world trade policies of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations–“conservative” vs. “liberal” just doesn’t enter into it. Follow the money.

[Author]

Posts