As usual, we’re supposed to be more angry about what Romney has done with his own money, than about what Obama has done with ours.
Via Instapundit
As usual, we’re supposed to be more angry about what Romney has done with his own money, than about what Obama has done with ours.
Via Instapundit
I hope he is as wise with my money as he is with his own. Certainly 0-bama could care less about my money. From day one he has wasted it without any results. That is unless you count failure as a result.
What has Mitt Romney ever produced to earn his $250 million?
@Jason:
The same thing Warren Buffett produced………return on investments.
Six million Solyndras….. that must come to $1.98. 😉
@Jim S: Bingo Jim!! How much value does a bankrupt company that owes hundreds of millions to the American Taxpayer via 0-bama really worth?? If you let DWSlut and the Democrats do the math you could be shocked at the answer. Wrong of course but still shocked!!
@Jason: Have you forgotten the Joe Kennedy clan with their bootleg alcohol, insurance scams, and DOD contracts?
Obama came out this week ”betting with America’s dime.”
His bus tour proved a bust because another failed BET with OUR money on his crony’s so-called green gamble failed.
And the jobs’ report was horrid.
But Romney doesn’t bet with his own or other peoples’ money.
He wisely VETTED his investments, rather than rewarding his buddies.
No wonder he’s done so well.
Obama has weighed in and BOY! did he stick his foot in his mouth!
At about the one-minute mark in the video found in the link above, in response to a question about whether it’s “unpatriotic for someone to have a Swiss bank account,” President Barack Obama said that, “what’s important if you are running for president is that the American people know who you are, what you’ve done and that you’re an open book.”
LOL!!!!
Obama has been outed as having misrepresented himself in his ”auto” biography over 36 times by sympathetic writer David Maraniss!
“Open book!”
LOL
And I’m not even going to go there on the issue of whether a government should even be in the business of defining what ”patriotic” is for its citizens or subjects….that just reeks!
Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
OOPS!!!!!
Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India.
http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00026106_2004.pdf
Just as with Romney, there is nothing in Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s disclosure forms to suggest that she invested in anything illegal.
But it is clear that some of her holdings had investments overseas, in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, the state bank of India, and many other overseas holdings.
The hypocrisy, though, is clear:
The Democrats, as well as President Obama, hope to paint Romney as an out of touch man for holding money in overseas bank accounts, when in reality their own chairman, Wasserman Schultz, had overseas investments.
All this comes in addition to Wasserman Schultz’s refusal to disclose her own tax returns, despite continuously calling on Romney to do so.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-chair-invested-swiss-banks-foreign-drug-companies-and-state-bank-india_648350.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Wasn’t under the impression that Wasserman-Schultz was running for POTUS… ??? A “so what” leaps to mind here. Whether for her, Romney, or anyone else for that matter. Is there a new criteria for POTUS as to where they bank, and how they handle their cash? If his investors are bidding against the dollar to his financial advantage, is that also in question?
Why is anyone having this discussion at all? To even dignify this crap with an answer, Romney is being sucked into the trap, attempting to defend his accounts with the Schultzie argument… I know nutzing!
He’s been set up from day one as the perfect foil to Obama’s campaign based on class warfare. The rich guy who he could portray as the heartless capitalist, dismantling companies for profit, hoarding his cash away from the nation’s Treasury. Whether it’s true or not, it won’t matter. He will be painted that way from now until November, and apparently he thinks he has to answer it. If he insists on being led down the path of fools, he’s going to have to do better than “I don’t manage them – don’t even know where they are….”
They need to talk about everything except Obama’s record.
@MataHarley:
Spot on, Mata. And too many people voting in the Republican primaries swallowed the kool-aid being passed out by the MSM, that either Romney was the most electable GOP candidate, or that he is the only one who could beat Obama.
So, what now? It’s either support Romney and hope he wins in order to prevent any further destruction by Obama, or, if Romney loses, hope that the destruction Obama causes isn’t irreversible.
Bill Clinton isn’t exactly living a poor man’s life, neither is Pelosi or even Obama once he leaves the White House one way or another… The Wealthy attacking The Wealthy… Kettle, Pot…
@johngalt:
I remember saying that if Romney were elected, it would prove the GOP establishment has a hierarchy for the presidential race. I didn’t want to believe it, but it sure seems to be the case. At the same time, I said I would rather vote for a yard gnome named Larry than for Obama. A yard gnome named Mitt is just as good I guess.
Mata You are absolutely correct.” I don’t manage them. I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHERE THEY ARE” Are you serious Mitt? How is the average working stiff gonna react to that?
rich, the average working stiff is likely to identify with that statement… if they think about it… because a lot of them are in the same position. Go ask your local Walmart worker if they know where their money in their 401K is. I doubt the majority can tell you. The big difference is the amount that Mitt doesn’t keep track of, compared to theirs. And that won’t be lost on them.
Point still remains, the accusations and questions do not even dignify an explanation, let alone the one he gave. You again proved my point that Romney cannot win for losing when he plays the role of the successful apologist on the defense. Most investors who use financial brokers or managers don’t know where all their cash is, and you… according to your disclosed past background… know this better than others. Despite this working knowledge, even you launched the faux outrage.
so what, it tell me that, as oppose to OBAMA,
HE MITT ROMNEY DON’T SEEK THE JOB FOR THE MONEY, AND BENEFITS, HE SEEK THE JOB
AS A RICH MAN WHO SEE WHAT HE CAN DO TO HELP AMERICA, DID ANYONE REMEMBER THE
SONGS OF PATRIOTIC SANG BY MANY HUNDREDS OF MORMONS, THERE AIN’T NO DOUBT
ABOUT THEIR CARING FOR THE GREAT AMERICA THEY HAVE SEEN AT HER BEST PRODUCTIVITY.
MITT ROMNEY REFLEX THIS DESIRE, AND MAY GOD HELP HIM TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY,
REGARDLESS OF
THE OBAMA MEDIA IN THE SAME POCKET OF DEMOLISHING GROUPS, BASHING MITT ROMNEY
AND WHO IS NOT ON THEIR SIDES,
IS THAT JOURNALIST FAIRNESS? NO WAY, IT MORE THE GUTTER STYLE ONLY FOR BENEFIT,
THEY GET FROM OBAMA,
GET DEMS OUT WITH THE REST,
FOX NEWS IS BEST, FAIR, BALANCED AND UNAFRAID, THEY ALLOW THOSE DEMS IN TALK DEBATES, AND WE CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE OF SALES PITCH. FROM THE DEMS, TRYING TO DISMISS ALL THE TIME THE SMART CONSERVATIVES.
THE PEOPLE WANT A PRESIDENT FOCUSSING ON THEIR NEEDS AND JOBS ARE A BIGGEST PART OF IT, THE PEOPLE DON’T WANT A BIG MOUTH FULL OF PROMISES TURNING TO LIES,
WHILE THEY WAIT, AND THEY DON’T HAVE A JOB, BUT THE GOVERNMENT HIRED THOUSAND OF WORKER INSIDE THEIR AGENCIES TO TORMENT THE CITIZENS WITH THEIR REGULATIONS, AND ALL THEM THOUSANDS ARE PAID FROM THE PEOPLE’S POCKETS,
IS THAT FAIR? NO SIRE, GET DEMS OUT,
Mata You’re point is well taken. It is faux outrage I’ve raised. But as you pointed out it will be used successfully by the Dems. Mitt’s answer,though true,is not what the average American voter wants to hear from one whose campaign will be centered around reviving the American economy.
Bees Like you, I’m personally a fan of Mike Huckabee. A solid,caring guy.
When running against Romney in o8 he said —“I remind workers of the guy next to them on the assembly line. Romney reminds them of the guy that fired them.”
Well, rich… thanks for copping to the faux outrage, and demonstrating (multiple times, if you include the other thread) how effective it can be. LOL
Mitt’s answer needs to be confined to telling the nation he wants *every one* to be able to have a Swiss bank account, and reap the rewards of the nation’s opportunities – unencumbered by a big spending, irresponsible Congress and their nanny regulations and oppressive taxation plans. With the current trend, catering to the entitlement mentality voter, there will be no incentive, nor will, to work for financial success. To achieve it only results in being publicly demeaned, then robbed of a higher percentage of your earnings merely to spread the wealth around as a central government sees fit. Congress has already proven themselves to be losers as brokerage investors for the nation. And yet they demand to be the autonomous and unchallenged financial broker of all individuals with zip as a ROI.
BTW, rich… remember that I said the markets tank when the central bank and government money infusion dry up? CNN Money has both Fed Reserve officials and stock market types alike, celebrating the stealth Operation Twist extension and begging for QE3 to “sustain the market rally”. Save for a handful, it seems they want more free money from taxpayers to keep the false market bubble a’float.
Mata Remember when I suggested only difference between the stock market and Las Vegas was the complimentary drinks and the beflowered showgirls? When will the free money stop so we can all take profits from this prolonged bull market?
I enjoyed your take on R.E. market and relationship of interest rates to affordability. We are in historically unchartered waters with 30 yr. loans under 4%. You suggest they will return to an historical average of 7-8% in the fairly near future? Maybe not this time. Will unemployment be reduced to an historical average of 4.5-5% near term. ” ” ” ” ” ” ” . New Paridigm? Rates could stay down long term with unemployment 6-7% long term. Rents are rising. Believe res. markets will rise steadily from these levels as banks loosen the reigns and home ownership costs + mortgage deduction benefits trump rising rentals. Pride of ownership and sense of community are always positve factors.
Don’t know that there is a “historical average” for loan rates, rich. 1983 to 1986, they were from 12 to 14% until dropping to the 10% in 1987. They stayed in the 9-10% ranges until coming down to the high 8% in 1991.Between 1992 and 1997 they were between 7-8%. From 1998-99, they went to 6-7%, and then back up to 7-8 in 2000 until 2002. Then they were in the 5%s until 2006 when they went back into the 6% variations until the housing/banking bubble crash, when they dipped into the 4-5%.. mostly 4s. By 2010, when it was evident that “recovery summer” was no more than a slogan for the gullible, we started the 3-4% that we have now.
Notice a trend? Most notably higher in recessions, and lower in booms? There is a reason for that. Yes, mortgage rates do trigger off of long term bond/Fed rates. But during the Carter recession and the Reagan recovery, they remained up there. By the time the Clinton dot com bubble started rolling around with fake prosperity, then the quest to seriously start the housing bubble in 1998, the rates came down.
Now we’re in a perpetual recession, and rates are rock bottom low to keep real estate artificially inflated and feed the financial institution off the taxpayers, combined with tougher regs on assets. But we’re spinning our wheels creating yet another bubble based on central bank/government infused cash.
Until Greenspan/Bernanke’s perpetually zero plus rates, the prime rate has always been used to control inflation. It’s a delicate dance they are attempting at this moment because they know they will further tank the housing market and stocks by going up too soon, too fast. But up they have to go. A slower steady pace will be easier than a leap in multiple points over a year, but it will still leave everyone who has purchased homes at these low rates/higher prices drowning in LTV losses. If they stay low, inflation and stagflation will kill us. Pick your poison.
Of course rents are rising. Because investors, who think they bought in low, are really buying in high and with less home ownership happening, they are attempting to get the full enchilada covered by renters. Rental housing has never been an inviting cap rate. To make it such now is a pipe dream, and again playing off unrealistic values. Nor can homes be priced so far outside of the average buyers’ capabilities unless you want to be a renter-nation, with investors holding the bulk of the real estate.
There is still a demand to buy and own. Housing isn’t a luxury like a boat or big screen TV. A roof over your head never goes out of vogue. So there will always be a demand for home ownership. People will continue to buy, sell, upsize and downsize. But not without a lot more short sales and foreclosures in our future. The low rates created false high values, and that piper will be paid down line. There is no way that these low rates can become the new norm without other fiscal repercussions, or that real estate will start gaining equity any time soon. We won’t see modest equity in the bulk of homes purchased over the past decade, IMHO, until 2025 or later at best.
Mata 2025 OUCH Home purchased in o2-o7 between 300-400- is currently selling for about 200-225, already a big hit for the 2002 buyer and a huge hit,upwards of 40-50% for the 05-07 buyer.Are you suggesting further drops of greater than single digits from here. I don’t think that will happen in vast majority of markets. I believe you were quoting P AND I at around 7-8%?? which would hurt the buyers although it would indicate an economic recovery and improved employment numbers.
I see slower recovery and buyers stepping in with these historically low rates and rising rents. Expect R.E. values to rise an average of 5-6% per annum between now and 2022.
Stock market? Get a smart monkey.It will be a market of stocks with different sectors fluctuating wildly up and down. Overall 3 major indiciis, as you’ve suggested,will struggle against ANY rise in rates.
Believe R.E will substantially outperform stocks over next 10 years.
PLS CLARIFY When referencing high vs. low rate trends in “recession or boom’ are you talking about the economy or R.E. prices. Obviously they are not in lock step and I believe. R.E to be a lagging indicator moving up behind a recovering economy as is the current scenario.Stock market,a leading indicator, bouyed by low interest rates has moved up portending a recovery that is underway(ALBEIT SLOWLY) As the recovery takes hold and rates rise (I hope VERY slowly)the stock market will struggle.
rich, what I was talking about in high vs low rates was the Fed’s prime rate… the factor used in determining the movement of loan rates for real estate. Robert Murphy at Mises had written an article about prime rates, recessions and misjudgements back in 2009. I think he’s right on, and I’m certainly not the only one. Kansasa City’s Fed President, Tom Hoenig, was saying this long term low interest was a dangerous gamble back in 2010, after Bernanke announced a low rate for quite some time. Continued low rates fuel bubbles.
We also have the problem with the flood of foreclosures heading our way this year, after being postponed by lawsuit last year. Right now the banks are dribbling inventory out slow, keeping the prices higher than if they hit the market in more volume. This is the “recovery” you see today. It’s a mask.
Last year, Gary Shilling was predicting the housing recession with another 20% decline coming our way.
Those estimates were not including the delayed foreclosures from last year. Even RealtyTrac was firing the warning shot about the flood enroute. You can see the rise on this graph at Lane Guide.
It’s not happening as fast as Shillings’ thought, but then he didn’t take into account the lawsuit putting an effective moratorium on the foreclosures last year. And here so many thought it was under control…. In fact, most places were predicting the peak of foreclosures in 2010. uh… nope
So they caught up to Gary for more clarification back then. He wasn’t predicting hitting a bottom until 2013, and I don’t see that he’s shifted his decline and problems by a year, accommodating for the delays of increased REO inventory. Interesting read, this guy… plus good creds. I can’t disagree with anything he’s saying since I’ve been saying it myself. For Gary, INRE the housing part of the 4-cyl economic engine, it’s still about housing inventory. Under the best of circumstances, we’ve got over four years of inventory to get rid of. Foreclosures not only aren’t done, they are going to continue for some time – especially with unemployment remaining high, and bad profit news every quarter. And you know what foreclosures do to housing prices, right?
Heaven help you if you think that the stock is a leading indicator of anything but being the beneficiary of essentially free money. They’ll keep begging, and as long as the central banks continue QE policies, they may float along before the house of cards crash. But there’s no recovery here, rich. Just smoke and mirrors.
ADDED: April 2012 articles about Shilling…. from NewsMax, still predicting the 20% decline. Oddly enough, that would put housing prices right where they ought to be, had the explosion in home values never happened. 5-6% equity growth annually? Mercy, rich… so very California of you. LOL Of course CA is experiencing foreclosure rates of about 1 in every 324 homes. National average for May alone is 1 in every 639 homes received a foreclosure filing.
Also his brief overview of weak economic indicators. If you’re interested in hearing what he says, he’s got a four panel webinar coming up August 8th.
rich, the historic rates I quoted from 1992 to currrent are Freddie Mac’s 30 yr FRM statistics. From 1983 to 1991, they are the statistics from HSH for a 30 yr FRM.