The number of buyers who signed contracts to purchase homes tumbled in May, a sign the housing recovery can't survive without government incentives.Yeah, you read that right: pending home sales are now down 16% under last May's numbers. The only reason we had an inkling of a recovery was due to the stimulus and the housing tax credit. Both of those programs are running out (because they were far too small in the first place) and now the deficit hawks are assuring we burn as a result.
The National Association of Realtors said Thursday its seasonally adjusted index of sales agreements for previously occupied homes dropped 30 percent in May from April. The index fell to 77.6 from 110.9. May's reading was the lowest dating back to 2001.
The index also was down 15.9 percent from the same month a year earlier.
The reading provides an early measurement of sales activity because there is usually a one- to two-month lag between a sales contract and a completed deal.
The sharp declines were widespread. Pending sales dropped by 33.3 percent in the South, by 32.1 percent in the Midwest, by 31.6 percent in the Northeast, and by 20.9 percent in the West.
The housing market is going to crash again here before the end of the year, and it's going to take our economy with it. And this time there's no interest rates to cut.
Tick. Tick. Boom. it's okay, because Uncle Alan says so.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the recent stock market decline is "typical" of a recovery, and that international instability has more to do with the recent decline than problems in the United States.Sure, everything's fine. We're all fine here. How are you?
Spend moar, that'll fix it, don't you worry about being that over 60% GDP number...
ReplyDeleteToo bad home budgets can't work like that..."The economy sucks, lets spend more than we have!"
It worked for your buddy.
ReplyDelete"He signed a bill that gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants. He grew the size of the federal government and the budget, added a whole new cabinet level agency and added tens of thousands of government workers to the federal payroll.
He tripled the deficit. He bailed out and expanded social security with a big fat tax increase. He raised corporate taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. He raised taxes on gasoline.
He, in fact, signed into law the largest tax increase in history. He supported federal handgun controls. He called for a world without nuclear weapons.
He was Ronald Reagan."
Reagan would be purged from the Republican Party today. He raised taxes AND increased the size of the government...and he signed an amnesty measure. The Tea Party would run his ass out of town on a rail.
When Obama triples our deficit like Reagan did, call me.
So you're citing the Rachel Maddow show as a credible source?
ReplyDeleteOk, well let's move on to Wikipedia shall we?
When Obama creates 18 million new jobs, then we can talk. Until then he's spent trillions and has what to show for it? Temporary public jobs..
Interesting read into why Obamanomics has failed.
You really can't be that dense. Reagan did all of that, and you're bringing up Rachel Maddow as a straw man because you can't dispute the facts about ol' Ronnie there: he did all of that and would be laughed out of the party today.
ReplyDeleteBut if you want to talk about jobs created under Presidents, okay.
Clinton wins on raw numbers with 23 million, FDR wins on percentages.
Both Dems.
Now if you want to change the subject, get your own blog. :)
So we went from spending, to you changing the subject to a president whos been gone for how long?
ReplyDelete2 decades
Also where have I said anything negative about Clinton or FDR? On their worst days they were still better than Obama has been.
For that matter where have I stated all Democrats are bad? The current bunch (not all) are garbage.
Anyway back to the matter at hand, you saw something you liked on the Rachel Maddow show (imagine that). But I'm the one changing the subject...
You're showing your desperation the closer and closer we get to election day. From being proven wrong over Ireland to Obama's handling of the Oil spill.
Speaking of Clinton 2 things.
Who had control of Congress 2 years into his first term? Nevermind those pesky details. And he's backing a different candidate than Obama. Interesting all things considered since Obama has an amazing track record with candidates hes campaigned for. But those losses have nothing to do with his policies...
Aaaaand you change the subject AGAIN.
ReplyDeleteI post something, you change the subject to "sure but did you know Obama sucks?"
It's getting old, Waffles.
Rachel Maddow told me so, it's a credible source
ReplyDeleteLets recap shall we?
Me: Let's spend way more than we have, debt means nothing
You: Ronald Reagon wouldn't be a Tea Party member, Rachel Maddow told me so. (This wasnt changing the subject at all)
Me: Actually in looking at Wikipedia he wasn't all that bad, and here's a look into why Obamanomics is failing.
You: Dont change subject! (Wait, we already identified you changed it to past presidents and I brought it back to the current...)
Me: Past is past and we live in the present, Obama sucks. (Bringing it back on subject, because spending more, refers to the current group, not FDR, Clinton, Reagan)
You: You changed the subject again!
You fail at arguing, you want to discuss economy lets discuss, you want to discuss past presidents lets discuss but don't bring up both and then get butthurt when I reply to both.
Surprised my comments just haven't mysteriously been deleted instead.
No, you completely fail to address any of the arguments in the post, create your own reality, declare yourself the winner, and say "I fail."
ReplyDeleteProve to me that Rachel Maddow is wrong, and that Ronald Reagan didn't do any of that.
Otherwise, you've got nothing. You fail.
See how this works?
No, you completely fail to address any of the arguments in the post, create your own reality
ReplyDeletebecause they were far too small in the first place) and now the deficit hawks are assuring we burn as a result.
Spend moar, that'll fix it
Really? You took that, to Ronald Reagan, and I'm the one creating my own reality and changing subjects?
Did I deny anything about Reagan? No, I stated Rachel Maddow is not a credible source, and I'm right about that. Also you have to look at the whole picture (hard to believe there's more to a picture than the left half). Let's face it we've never had a perfect President or congress, you can find gaps and glaring issues with all of them. Or is that just being too realistic for you?