Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM in reply to: Off Topic: Obama’s Aunt here illegally lol. Also latest on O’s fake Birth Cert #297440November 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM in reply to: Off Topic: Obama’s Aunt here illegally lol. Also latest on O’s fake Birth Cert #297787
SHILOH
ParticipantI was born in Honolulu in a military hospital…a few yrs before Obama’s birthday. My certificate has a raised area on it -but then again it looks absolutely nothing like the one published on the site referenced on this original post. Anyway – the paper/form on the one posted for Obama as a copy…says the form date was last revised 11/01. Very strange- overall.
November 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM in reply to: Off Topic: Obama’s Aunt here illegally lol. Also latest on O’s fake Birth Cert #297801ParticipantI was born in Honolulu in a military hospital…a few yrs before Obama’s birthday. My certificate has a raised area on it -but then again it looks absolutely nothing like the one published on the site referenced on this original post. Anyway – the paper/form on the one posted for Obama as a copy…says the form date was last revised 11/01. Very strange- overall.
November 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM in reply to: Off Topic: Obama’s Aunt here illegally lol. Also latest on O’s fake Birth Cert #297814ParticipantI was born in Honolulu in a military hospital…a few yrs before Obama’s birthday. My certificate has a raised area on it -but then again it looks absolutely nothing like the one published on the site referenced on this original post. Anyway – the paper/form on the one posted for Obama as a copy…says the form date was last revised 11/01. Very strange- overall.
November 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM in reply to: Off Topic: Obama’s Aunt here illegally lol. Also latest on O’s fake Birth Cert #297860ParticipantI was born in Honolulu in a military hospital…a few yrs before Obama’s birthday. My certificate has a raised area on it -but then again it looks absolutely nothing like the one published on the site referenced on this original post. Anyway – the paper/form on the one posted for Obama as a copy…says the form date was last revised 11/01. Very strange- overall.
ParticipantA city attorney in arrears like that….? Isn’t there any professional backlash that can hit him..
you’d think as a “public servant” he would have to keep his nose a bit cleaner.ParticipantA city attorney in arrears like that….? Isn’t there any professional backlash that can hit him..
you’d think as a “public servant” he would have to keep his nose a bit cleaner.ParticipantA city attorney in arrears like that….? Isn’t there any professional backlash that can hit him..
you’d think as a “public servant” he would have to keep his nose a bit cleaner.ParticipantA city attorney in arrears like that….? Isn’t there any professional backlash that can hit him..
you’d think as a “public servant” he would have to keep his nose a bit cleaner.ParticipantA city attorney in arrears like that….? Isn’t there any professional backlash that can hit him..
you’d think as a “public servant” he would have to keep his nose a bit cleaner.Participant“During the 1990s and early 2000s, it took 19% of average monthly income to service a conforming mortgage on the average home purchased. By 2005 and 2006, it was absorbing 25% of monthly income. For first time buyers, it went from 29% of income to 37%. That just proved to be too much.
Prices got so high that people who intended to actually live in the houses they purchased (as opposed to speculators) stopped buying. This caused the bubble to burst.
Since then, house prices have fallen 10%-15%, while incomes have kept growing….”
In San Diego…there are neighborhoods where the homes have lost 40% – or more of their previous bubble value. The comments about income absorption also seem inaccurate. People were buying homes 10X their income…also…from what I have read..incomes are not “growing” and inflation is going up. It’s really pretty useless information.
Participant“During the 1990s and early 2000s, it took 19% of average monthly income to service a conforming mortgage on the average home purchased. By 2005 and 2006, it was absorbing 25% of monthly income. For first time buyers, it went from 29% of income to 37%. That just proved to be too much.
Prices got so high that people who intended to actually live in the houses they purchased (as opposed to speculators) stopped buying. This caused the bubble to burst.
Since then, house prices have fallen 10%-15%, while incomes have kept growing….”
In San Diego…there are neighborhoods where the homes have lost 40% – or more of their previous bubble value. The comments about income absorption also seem inaccurate. People were buying homes 10X their income…also…from what I have read..incomes are not “growing” and inflation is going up. It’s really pretty useless information.
Participant“During the 1990s and early 2000s, it took 19% of average monthly income to service a conforming mortgage on the average home purchased. By 2005 and 2006, it was absorbing 25% of monthly income. For first time buyers, it went from 29% of income to 37%. That just proved to be too much.
Prices got so high that people who intended to actually live in the houses they purchased (as opposed to speculators) stopped buying. This caused the bubble to burst.
Since then, house prices have fallen 10%-15%, while incomes have kept growing….”
In San Diego…there are neighborhoods where the homes have lost 40% – or more of their previous bubble value. The comments about income absorption also seem inaccurate. People were buying homes 10X their income…also…from what I have read..incomes are not “growing” and inflation is going up. It’s really pretty useless information.
Participant“During the 1990s and early 2000s, it took 19% of average monthly income to service a conforming mortgage on the average home purchased. By 2005 and 2006, it was absorbing 25% of monthly income. For first time buyers, it went from 29% of income to 37%. That just proved to be too much.
Prices got so high that people who intended to actually live in the houses they purchased (as opposed to speculators) stopped buying. This caused the bubble to burst.
Since then, house prices have fallen 10%-15%, while incomes have kept growing….”
In San Diego…there are neighborhoods where the homes have lost 40% – or more of their previous bubble value. The comments about income absorption also seem inaccurate. People were buying homes 10X their income…also…from what I have read..incomes are not “growing” and inflation is going up. It’s really pretty useless information.
Participant“During the 1990s and early 2000s, it took 19% of average monthly income to service a conforming mortgage on the average home purchased. By 2005 and 2006, it was absorbing 25% of monthly income. For first time buyers, it went from 29% of income to 37%. That just proved to be too much.
Prices got so high that people who intended to actually live in the houses they purchased (as opposed to speculators) stopped buying. This caused the bubble to burst.
Since then, house prices have fallen 10%-15%, while incomes have kept growing….”
In San Diego…there are neighborhoods where the homes have lost 40% – or more of their previous bubble value. The comments about income absorption also seem inaccurate. People were buying homes 10X their income…also…from what I have read..incomes are not “growing” and inflation is going up. It’s really pretty useless information.
-
AuthorPosts