In reporting "surprising good news on sales of existing homes," ABC ignored 24 percent decline in sales from Feb. 2007
SUMMARY: Introducing a report on "surprising good news on sales of existing homes," ABC* News' Charles Gibson stated that "[a]fter falling for six straight months, sales rose almost 3 percent in February." But neither Gibson, nor correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi in the subsequent report, noted that home sales were still down nearly 24 percent from February 2007.
On the March 24 broadcast of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson introduced a report on "surprising good news on sales of existing homes," stating: "After falling for six straight months, sales rose almost 3 percent in February." Gibson added: "But the better-than-expected number comes at a cost, as prices of those homes that did sell were down 8 percent from a year ago." However, neither Gibson nor ABC News correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi, who did a subsequent report on the topic, noted that despite the almost 3 percent increase in existing home sales from January to February, home sales are still down nearly 24 percent from February 2007.
By contrast, on the same night's broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams reported: "Sales of existing homes jumped just under 3 percent the month of February, but behind the headline number, the news wasn't so great, sadly. Sales were down 24 percent from the same time last year. Prices fell 8 percent, the biggest drop on record in the U.S." Similarly, on the March 24 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, correspondent Anthony Mason noted that, "nationally, home sales are still down nearly 24 percent from a year ago."
On March 24, the National Association of Realtors released a statement on existing home sales from February, in which, among other things, the organization noted: "Existing-home sales -- including single-family, townhomes, condominiums and co-ops -- rose 2.9 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.03 million units in February from a pace of 4.89 million in January, but remain 23.8 percent below the 6.60 million-unit level in February 2007. The sales pace has been in a fairly narrow range since last September." The Associated Press reported on March 25 that the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller index, "a widely-watched index of U.S. home prices," found that home prices "fell 11.4 percent in January, its steepest drop since data for the indicator was first collected in 1987." According to the AP, "The index tracks the prices of single-family homes in 10 major metropolitan areas in the U.S."
From the March 24 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: Next, we turn to the economy and today's surprising good news on sales of existing homes. After falling for six straight months, sales rose almost 3 percent in February. But the better-than-expected number comes at a cost, as prices of those homes that did sell were down 8 percent from a year ago. ABC's Sharyn Alfonsi is here to report -- Sharyn.
ALFONSI: Well, Charlie, this report was a real surprise to everyone. After a steady drumbeat of bad news from the housing market, a sliver of hope -- analysts say after a long winter frozen in place, the market is finally starting to warm up.
[...]
ALFONSI: From January to February, existing home sales were up more than 11 percent in the Northeast. Sales also started to improve in the Midwest and in the South.
PAT LASHINSKY (Zip Realty CEO): We're seeing lots of consumer demand. Buyers are out; they're interested. They're trying to find good deals.
ALFONSI: There are plenty of them.
[...]
ALFONSI: And the big question is: Have we hit rock bottom? Analysts say to keep your eye on how long it takes to sell a home. Two years ago, homes would sell in about 45 days; today, it's averaging six to nine months. So, Charlie, there's still a long way to go.
From the March 24 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
MASON: The Northeast saw the biggest sales jump in February, up more than 11 percent. Sales were also up more than 2 percent in the Midwest and in the South, while sales fell slightly in the West.
But nationally, home sales are still down nearly 24 percent from a year ago.
NIGEL GAULT (Global Insight Inc. economist): I think it's too soon to say that we've hit bottom, but we are starting to see some signs that maybe the bottom isn't too far away.
From the March 24 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: Unexpected uptick in home sales helped spur today's rally. Sales of existing homes jumped just under 3 percent the month of February, but behind the headline number, the news wasn't so great, sadly. Sales were down 24 percent from the same time last year. Prices fell 8 percent, the biggest drop on record in the U.S.
* Previously misidentified as NBC. Media Matters for America regrets the error.
It DOES seem like a loser argument as if people arent going to KNOW how THEY are doing and take the medias word for it.
Evidently anything good about the country is bad for liberals and Media Matters (very little).
We, ie. the nation, citizenry, Americans and voters (in addition to myself), are not surprised!
I think you need to get over yourself.
The economy will not bounce back or bounce further down because ABC said there was some good news that housing sales grew 3 % from January to February.
Dont worry we will still beat McCain.
The World has not ended.
You want to take it personal then fine. Go back and read the exchange between you and Sueeld. I guarantee you could go to any primary school across the nation and find two kids arguing on the play ground, tape it, write it down, and compare it to your exchange and the similarities would be striking. So go ahead and respond with your same "idiot, stupid, moron, no brain functioning" crap intermingled with qualifiers in all caps. It won't change the fact that your exchange with SUEELD was childish. I was waiting on one of you to write "my daddy can beat up your daddy." I guess you'll save that one for another time.
My first post was lighthearted observation, that's all. You've got issues son, grow up.
Why don't you take an honest look at the conversation? You're trying to create some sort of equivalence between the two of them, and it's utterly absurd.
First off, what is wrong with Solon's initial response? Is there any name-calling there? Why no, there isn't. He explains his disagreement with her position without any behavioral concerns and in very clear terms.
So this is what he gets back:"Dont preach to me, the good news is that people are still hoping to get the American dream and buy homes. If the number increased by 3% from January to February that is a good thing. All Americans should want this economy to get better , not hope it goes further in the tank for partisan hate reasons."
This has been a trend with Sue, if you disagree with her then you're somehow out of line ("Dont preach to me"). The last sentence is particularly atrocious. Who the hell is she talking about, exactly, that is upset with Gibson's comment because they want people to suffer economically for their own selfish and hateful partisan purposes? It would certainly appear that she's talking about Solon, since that's who she's talking to.
Now you tell me that if someone made that sort of accusation against you that you wouldn't snap back at them.
Excuse me, aren't you the one who's always talking about how MMfA doesn't "smear" people because they just post what people say? But when I post your own words, then it's a "smear".
If there's some alternative explanation for what you said that makes my analysis unfair, let's hear it. Was it just some random thought that didn't apply to anyone in particular? If so, how did you think it was relevant, and why did you say it? Otherwise it's hard to blame Solon since you are the one that smeared him, and at the very least you created that impression.
I expect you'll get up on your throne and pronounce that you don't have to answer my questions, but then you won't have any grounds to say you were "smeared". Own your words, or shut the hell up.
If you don't have anything against him, then explain your "partisan hate" comment, please.
My purpose was to point out that you were out of line, if that "disrupts" the board then you shouldn't have said it. I'm never going to apologize for calling someone out on ridiculous comments because I've supposedly offended their delicate sensibilities.
If you don't have anything against him, then explain your "partisan hate" comment, please
To you no, if Solon wants clairifcation I will gladly answer him.
I highly doubt it, because he already said "I HOPE we see a rebound and if there are three more months in a row of such growth even this small it WILL be good economic news..." Besides that, he said it was a legitimate complaint. That clearly suggests that he took the comment as directed at him, because your suggestion seemed to be that he didn't want there to be a recovery, and the complaint was based on that instead of legitimate reasons.
But you didn't explain yourself when he said that. Of course since it's been pointed out to you surely you'll waste no time to address that post. Right?
Oh, and "don't preach to me" really sounds like you don't have a problem with his conflicting opinion.
And I'll ask again, how exactly did I "smear" you? Explain or retract.
This is a smear
This has been a trend with Sue, if you disagree with her then you're somehow out of line
You follow every single post I write, to know that this is how i feel? Anyway Ive moved to todays posts , they are more important.
I've seen you do this many, many times. I don't have to see every post you write to make that comment, to suggest I do is moronic. What you quoted is absolutely not a smear.
"Dont preach to me" says that he was out of line to offer another viewpoint. You can pretend this is the first time you've behaved this way, but I know better.
Did you have trouble comprehending my post? Sue clearly suggested that Solon wants the economy to tank for partisan "hate" reasons. Somehow you managed to ignore that very important part. Tell me you find that acceptable, and you wouldn't mind if someone said it about you.
I get that you meant it lighthearted. That doesn't change that you are trying to equate the two of them, and it's not going to fly. Either you didn't read what Sue wrote, you didn't understand it, or you decided to overlook it because of some sense of favoritism. Which one of those options do you prefer?
Brab,
I ignored nothing. As I indicated before the content of the arguments were of no consequence to me. I merely observed that each response began with a childish admonishment therefore it resembled two children arguing. Did Sue's suggestion warrant SOLON's childish admonishment? Who cares. Again, the fact remains that that exchange reminded me of two children argung with each other. You want me to admit to the contrary because SUEELD was the first to lob an insult? Acknowledging that would not change my perception that the exchange was childish. It is what it is, or at least that is the way I perceived it. You can try to set the terms of this discussion by giving me three options all you want. The manner in which the two communicated with each other was childish IMO and based upon that opinion I will equate the two all I want, regardless of your attempt to force me to see it otherwise. Thanks anyway :-)
"I ignored nothing. As I indicated before the content of the arguments were of no consequence to me."
So you didn't actually make an effort to comprehend the conversation before you commented. That says a lot.
"I merely observed that each response began with a childish admonishment therefore it resembled two children arguing. Did Sue's suggestion warrant SOLON's childish admonishment? Who cares."
You really can't be serious. What if she was talking to Preston and made some racial slur? You could say the same thing, you weren't concerned with the content of the discussion you were just amused by the conflict. Obviously if she deserves the criticism it makes your observation stupid. Can you really disagree with that?
"Again, the fact remains that that exchange reminded me of two children argung with each other. You want me to admit to the contrary because SUEELD was the first to lob an insult?"
You act like she called him a "doodyhead" or something. Again, if someone said you wanted the economy to tank for "partisan hate" reasons, tell me you wouldn't "admonish" them. I'd like to see that.
"Acknowledging that would not change my perception that the exchange was childish. It is what it is, or at least that is the way I perceived it. You can try to set the terms of this discussion by giving me three options all you want. The manner in which the two communicated with each other was childish IMO and based upon that opinion I will equate the two all I want, regardless of your attempt to force me to see it otherwise. Thanks anyway :-)"
I'm just giving you an opportunity to make yourself look like less of a biased jackass. As I pointed out below, Solon has the capacity to be fair to everyone, to apologize and acknowledge valid arguments. While you continue your obsessiveness with "childishness", you fail to demonstrate that level of maturity. Is that ironic?
What is amusing yet sad at the same time is your fixation on proving yourself right by trying to insinuate that I am stupid. I always thought you were better than that. Oh well we learn something everyday right? I would like to respond to your unbelievable attempts to drag this out just to fuel you ego. Here it goes :-)
"So you didn't actually make an effort to comprehend the conversation before you commented. That says a lot"
I never said I didn't comprehend the arguments I indicated that the contents of the respective arguments were of no consequence to me. I will have to admit that your attempt to portray it that way is quite lawyer like. Good show!
"You really can't be serious. What if she was talking to Preston and made some racial slur? You could say the same thing, you weren't concerned with the content of the discussion you were just amused by the conflict. Obviously if she deserves the criticism it makes your observation stupid. Can you really disagree with that?"
What if, what if, what if, blah, blah, blah. the fact is that she wasn't talking to Preston and did not make a racial slur. Whether she deserves the criticism or not does in no way justify the childish manner in which he responded and consquently how the exchange progressed. What is stupid is your veiled attempt to justify childish admonishments based on anothers childish admonishments. Justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.
You act like she called him a "doodyhead" or something. Again, if someone said you wanted the economy to tank for "partisan hate" reasons, tell me you wouldn't "admonish" them. I'd like to see that."
I guess the perception of what constitutes childish is in the eye of the beholder in this instance. Perhaps you perceive "Get over yourself" from Solon and "I dont care WHAT you think and have yet to see any evidence you have EVER performed that specific function in your life. Bark at me and remember THIS dog bites." as mature argumentation. What I would do is of no consequence here Brab. Stop projecting your justifications as based on what I would do. Just because you think SUEELDS arguments were out of line does in no way justify childish admonishments. The fundamental issue here is that the whole exchange lacked any maturity whatsoever. If you don't agree then fine, that says alot.
"I'm just giving you an opportunity to make yourself look like less of a biased jackass. As I pointed out below, Solon has the capacity to be fair to everyone, to apologize and acknowledge valid arguments. While you continue your obsessiveness with "childishness", you fail to demonstrate that level of maturity. Is that ironic?"
Perhaps you believe that I have some type of need make you happy or that YOU are the arbitrator who is self appointed to allow redemption based on what you think is right. Go for it is all I can tell you. I refuse to allow you to dictate to me the terms in which I can make observations. I do so at my own leisure as well at my own peril. I made an observation that the exchange was childish. So I am somewhat puzzled by your indication that "I fail to demonstrate THAT level of maturity" What pray tell exactly is "That level?" Thanks for thinking of me though. Anyway I'm quite sure SOLON has the CAPACITY to be fair. His intelligence is not in question but rather his presentation. The reality is that his posts include, a majority of the time, the incessant use of 3rd grade level insults. If you can't see that then perhaps you should drop the water you are carrying for him and think for yourself because defending the idefensible is making you look like a biased jackass. Good day.
"I never said I didn't comprehend the arguments I indicated that the contents of the respective arguments were of no consequence to me. I will have to admit that your attempt to portray it that way is quite lawyer like. Good show!"
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It is difficult to believe that anyone can find the content of a discussion irrelevant.
"What if, what if, what if, blah, blah, blah. the fact is that she wasn't talking to Preston and did not make a racial slur. Whether she deserves the criticism or not does in no way justify the childish manner in which he responded and consquently how the exchange progressed. What is stupid is your veiled attempt to justify childish admonishments based on anothers childish admonishments. Justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk."
Again, what she said wasn't a childish admonishment, and you keep trying to act like it was. There was nothing to admonish him over, remember? This is the point you will not address, his first response was clean, then she said he wants to see people suffer economically out of partisan hate. That goes well beyond "childish". If she had made a racial slur against Preston, that would be uncalled for and offensive. So is what she said to Solon. The principle stands that if you willingly ignore the content, you could make the same comment about any heated conversation no matter how outrageous one person's statements are.
"I guess the perception of what constitutes childish is in the eye of the beholder in this instance. Perhaps you perceive "Get over yourself" from Solon and "I dont care WHAT you think and have yet to see any evidence you have EVER performed that specific function in your life. Bark at me and remember THIS dog bites." as mature argumentation. What I would do is of no consequence here Brab. Stop projecting your justifications as based on what I would do. Just because you think SUEELDS arguments were out of line does in no way justify childish admonishments. The fundamental issue here is that the whole exchange lacked any maturity whatsoever. If you don't agree then fine, that says alot."
I'm not saying it's mature argumentation. What I'm saying is that when you have a right to be angry, you get some leeway in how you react. Tell me that if someone made a crass comment to your wife and she went ballistic on them that you would tell her "THAT was real mature" right afterwards (or ever, really). No, I don't think you would.
"Perhaps you believe that I have some type of need make you happy or that YOU are the arbitrator who is self appointed to allow redemption based on what you think is right. Go for it is all I can tell you. I refuse to allow you to dictate to me the terms in which I can make observations. I do so at my own leisure as well at my own peril. I made an observation that the exchange was childish. So I am somewhat puzzled by your indication that "I fail to demonstrate THAT level of maturity" What pray tell exactly is "That level?" Thanks for thinking of me though. Anyway I'm quite sure SOLON has the CAPACITY to be fair. His intelligence is not in question but rather his presentation. The reality is that his posts include, a majority of the time, the incessant use of 3rd grade level insults. If you can't see that then perhaps you should drop the water you are carrying for him and think for yourself because defending the idefensible is making you look like a biased jackass. Good day."
That level of maturity would be the ability to reevaluate your comments, recognize the problem, and correct it. Sue slandered him, then you call him childish for reacting to it, and pretend as if he doesn't have the right to be angry. You are the one carrying water for Sue by downplaying and denying what she said. I have a valid point. If you want to make the "biased" charge, you should make some effort to show how what I'm saying isn't legitimate in some way.
That seems well beyond your capacity.
"I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It is difficult to believe that anyone can find the content of a discussion irrelevant."
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Again, what she said wasn't a childish admonishment, and you keep trying to act like it was. There was nothing to admonish him over, remember? This is the point you will not address, his first response was clean, then she said he wants to see people suffer economically out of partisan hate. That goes well beyond "childish". If she had made a racial slur against Preston, that would be uncalled for and offensive. So is what she said to Solon. The principle stands that if you willingly ignore the content, you could make the same comment about any heated conversation no matter how outrageous one person's statements are.
Why are you over analyzing this? Again you are attemting to dictate to me The terms of this discussion. Perhaps I won't address he point you want me to because there is no reason to. You seem to be stuck on this trivial matter of who started this. My belief is that it doesn't matter. On a whole the entire exchange appeared to me to be nothing more than a childish fight as evidenced by the statements of both. As for your contention that the same comment could be made about any heated conversation well, that would depend on the dialogue wouldn't it?
I'm not saying it's mature argumentation. What I'm saying is that when you have a right to be angry, you get some leeway in how you react. Tell me that if someone made a crass comment to your wife and she went ballistic on them that you would tell her "THAT was real mature" right afterwards (or ever, really). No, I don't think you would
Again, it matters to me not who started it. It makes no difference what I personally would do. Your attempt to corner by having me admit I would act the same is rather transparent. Are you really trying to tellme that the level of the discourse could not have been elevated by SOLON responding in a different manner?
That level of maturity would be the ability to reevaluate your comments, recognize the problem, and correct it. Sue slandered him, then you call him childish for reacting to it, and pretend as if he doesn't have the right to be angry. You are the one carrying water for Sue by downplaying and denying what she said. I have a valid point. If you want to make the "biased" charge, you should make some effort to show how what I'm saying isn't legitimate in some way.
One more time, it doesn't matter who started it. You wish to make this about me well, fine. I have obliged to a degree. I will correct nothing especially something tht you find incorrect. Just because find it incorrect does not make it automatically incorrect. I have not denied anything SUE said. The bias is certainly yours to defend as you apparently see fit to defend SOLON at every turn. For you to incessantly lay down "rules" as to how I should respond to you is laughable. It is as if you want to debate but would like to tell me how to respond. I can't quite undeerstand that.
That seems well beyond your capacity.
Thanks for lowering the discourse just like your hero. I guess Obi Wan has taught you well.
"Why are you over analyzing this? Again you are attemting to dictate to me The terms of this discussion. Perhaps I won't address he point you want me to because there is no reason to. You seem to be stuck on this trivial matter of who started this. My belief is that it doesn't matter. On a whole the entire exchange appeared to me to be nothing more than a childish fight as evidenced by the statements of both."
Again, the "who started this" as if both are equally responsible. It's not a question of some meaningless insult to which Solon flew off the handle. If you want to establish this framing, try to demonstrate how her comment was less than atrocious.
"As for your contention that the same comment could be made about any heated conversation well, that would depend on the dialogue wouldn't it?"
No, because the dialogue is irrelevant by your admission. If you ignore the content, then obviously nothing in your evaluation could possibly depend on it. Are you picking and choosing which type of offensive and uncalled-for comments you condemn, or are you discriminating by the person making them?
"Again, it matters to me not who started it. It makes no difference what I personally would do. Your attempt to corner by having me admit I would act the same is rather transparent. Are you really trying to tellme that the level of the discourse could not have been elevated by SOLON responding in a different manner?"
It's a perfectly valid question, and I have to wonder why you're so frightened of answering it. What trickery are you claiming I'm attempting, exactly? Of course what you would do matters. Obviously you would look like a complete idiot if you said that to your wife, so what makes the difference here? Sure the discourse could have been elevated, but you admit that you yourself get angry sometimes, so you can't really expect him to work on a higher standard than you do.
"The bias is certainly yours to defend as you apparently see fit to defend SOLON at every turn. For you to incessantly lay down "rules" as to how I should respond to you is laughable. It is as if you want to debate but would like to tell me how to respond. I can't quite undeerstand that."
If you don't like whatever "rules" you're talking about, then you have every opportunity to explain why they're unfair. Otherwise when you fail to address points you look ridiculous clinging to your position. You still need to demonstrate how my points are not valid. See, you're pulling the same weak maneuver that Sue did. You don't want to address the points, so you pretend that the only reason I'm talking to you is because I'm biased in Solon's favor. I'll tell you the same thing Solon told Sue, this is a legitimate complaint.
"Thanks for lowering the discourse just like your hero. I guess Obi Wan has taught you well."
Well, you don't make any attempt to address the argument. If you have the capacity to do so, let's see it. I don't buy the idea that you have some brilliant argument you're just keeping to yourself for some reason.
Wow! What a wonderful adult admonishment from you. I expected no less. I guess it makes you feel better about yourself to incessanly lob insults in your posts. I'm sure it helps you hide your inadequacies. Do you teach your children to respond to others the way you respond to people on this site? If so, I am positive they consider you a beacon of integrity.
Your posts in general speak volumes about your character. Have you ever posted a response to someone in which you disagree without using the word idiot, moron, stupid, or some other 3rd grade level insult? Here....if it makes you feel better.....ready for this?????? You're right and I am wrong. Face it, that is what you really want to hear from any person who ever disagrees with you or writes something you find personally offensive. You want others to constantly appeal to your ego. I guess that is fine, but you would probably do better if you changed your style and stopped using 3rd grade insults. Good luck with that, we're all counting on ya' :-)
I make my observations based on YOUR postings here. The reality is that a majority of the time you use 3rd grade insults to make a point. Many times you will interject yourself into a dialogue with nothing but a claim that the person who isn't towing the liberal line is "stupid". Like it or not that is how you start most of your dialogue. You may think you communicate wth others on this site in an adult manner and I suppose you have at times, but on a whole you add nothing but calling people "sutpid, moron, idiot, etc." If you want to rationalize why you do this through some kind of ideology that YOU are making a stand for all liberals and will fight fire with fire go right ahead. It still doesn't make your 3rd grade insults any more productive.
We all remember the loud mouth kid in school who got some kind of stange fulfillment out of insultng people while eagerly trying to control every conversation. My kids were taught to identify these kinds of people as punks and bullies. I taught them that as long as they don't touch you should let them drown in their own inadequacies. Incessant insults may be cute but they say much about ones character. I taught them that trading insults is a waste of time so take the high road and WALK away don't RUN and if they follow you DEAL WITH IT.
From now on it doesn't matter to me one way or the other how we communicate at this site SOLON. We will never meet, never be friends, and never have the chance to help one another if needed. I made a lighthearted observation, you of course, took that as a attack on your ego and responded as you always do. I have pointed out that you should be able to better communicate your points without 3rd grade insults which you use constantly. I'm just as guilty at times of letting my emotions get the best of me and I have insulted others here numerous times. The difference is that crude insults to make a point isn't my style. So, you keep dong it your way and I'll keep doing it my way and perhaps we can continue to have fun arguing with each other. You choose.
Since when does Solon respond to reasonable posters in this manner? It's almost always with trolls or people who are clinging to idiotic arguments, or people who start taking shots first. That is exactly what happened here.
And you know what happens when he does attack someone unfairly? He apologizes. There's a contrast for you - where is Sue's apology? She doesn't do that. She couldn't handle the rebuttal of her shaky argument so she took a completely baseless and rather vicious personal shot at him. Solon also acknowledges when opponents make valid arguments, no matter who they are. Does Sue?
So trying to make this about his general character is a rather lame way of glossing over your bizarre equivalence effort. He is easily one of the best-informed and honest posters here, whether he's temperamental or not. For the record this is not some sort of alliance. If he had attacked Sue unfairly, I would defend her just as I've defended Tommy, Jeter, Bruce and you. The fact is she is clearly in the wrong here, and you shouldn't have a problem saying so.
The point ultimately remains that whether you like his style or not, bringing it up because of this conversation is like criticizing someone for getting in fights when someone hit them from behind with a baseball bat. One would look the other way in that particular instance, and try to find a more appropriate time to voice these concerns. Of course, they would have to be honest about what happened and interested in fairness to both parties. Are you?
"Your apparent love affair with SOLON is cute but I have no interest in beating this dead horse any longer with you BRAB. You continually justify his stylistic manner in which he uses childish insults. Why does it matter who it is directed at? If that is acceptable and he is such a wonderful example then why don't you use his style of posting?"
It matters because there's a huge difference between attacking and responding. Are you really arguing that insulting someone out of the blue and insulting someone who is being a jackass are the same thing? As for your love affair nonsense, you can shove it deep. I've gone twelve rounds for Bruce and Jeter before, it has nothing to do with alliances and everything to do with principles.
"I shouldn't have to go back through he countless threads and show you example after example of his childish tone he uses. Do that for yourself. Justify it all you want. I don't care. I see what I see and no amount of your petty rationalization will change my mind. You keep justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. If that is what sails your ship then so be it. As far as I am concerned I have made my point, stand by my statements, and we need to just move on."
You have no point. Showing that he was smeared out of the blue is not a petty rationalization, as evidenced by your repeated refusal to say that you wouldn't care if the same thing was said about you. You can't even bring yourself to pretend you would take that in stride.
What I find remarkable is that you refuse to address what she said at all. It would be one thing if you said "she was out of line, but in other threads Solon does this and that..." Fine, still makes my point. But you can't even do that, it's all "if she was out of line..." and acting as if it doesn't make a difference either way. It's amazing the lengths you go to in defense of your ill-conceived comment.
What I expect is an understanding that smears are unacceptable and you can't really blame someone for reacting to them. If you have a problem with Solon's other conversations, that is a different matter. I think if you take a good look at his posts you'll see what I said above. In any event, if you think he's treating someone unfairly, by all means bring it up to him. In this instance you can hardly claim that Sue didn't deserve what she got. There really shouldn't be any question about that at all, if you make an effort to be objective about it.
Don't preach to me
Then don't post as if you need preaching.
No, it's just a silly WITH apologist.
It would be like cheerleading the DJIA going up 50 points today, even though the last 6 session were losers, dropping a total of 1500 points.
Bill Maher got it right ... "Republicans believe in the free market for profit, but they're Socialists when it comes to losses."
This type of reporting is, unfortunately, not uncommon. I've seen these month-to-month and year-to-year and even day-to-day comparisons skew the conclusions both in good times and bad. This is just another example. After all, the DJA and NASDAQ reports daily the difference from the day before. It is interesting to see the fluctuations, but the important economic statistics are the trends.
and, in my opinion, this is exactly the reason the percentage went up 3% in the first place...
Har, probably republicans buying property so they can then rent at an inflated rate to Dems, lol.
It depends on whether you are buying or selling.
The housing market devaluation is great news for home buyers.
And who would those home buyers be?
The problems we face today in the financial markets and the housing markets are a direct result of the "ownership society" pushed by the administration.
They patted themselves on the back because they said more people owned homes than at any time in our nations history.
The deregulated mortgage market sold sub-prime loans to people who could have afforded traditional mortgages. They sold these mortgages to people who they knew would not be able to keep up with the payments once the rates were adjusted as well.
The initial profits were higher for the lending institutions if they could persuade more people to take the adjustable rate sub-prime loans.
The collapse of the sub-prime industry has created a ripple effect throughout the housing market, the job market and will probably effect every segment of our society.
This recent report is just an aberration. We've yet to plumb the depths of the crisis due to the unregulated mortgage industry.
Many people lost their homes. Many more owe more for their homers than the homes are worth. Still more people had used their homes as their cushion for retirement. The cushion is losing air each day. And those people who weren't able to buy a house yet will have a harder time getting any kind of mortgage.
I'm in the real estate industry, and the problem is that after all the big lenders got burned by handing out credit like lollipops, they swung the pendulum all the way over to the other side - now no one qualifies.
Back in the "good ole days", people could get loans with stated incomes and no appraisal review. It was a system that tempted people to commit fraud. No wonder the house of cards has collapsed.
I learned this years and years ago at a first-time home buyer class. The instructor drummed it into us several times a day for the whole week.
"Your house is not an investment"
"Your house is not an investment"
"Your house is not an investment"
Now, I'm certainly not happy with the housing market right now because it reverberates throughout the economy, but the fact of the matter is, your house is not an investment. If you bought it with the intent of making money on it, that was a very shaky idea despite what the market did in the 90's. Buy a house you can afford, enjoy it and live in it. That's what it's for, shelter. Too many people out there with pie-in-the-sky ideas about what they can afford.
You don't have a clue (as usual). The subprime crisis was not about "living within your means". Most of the time it was about SURVIVAL. You know, those pesky expenses such as food, gas, health care, a reliable car, education for your children.
Your portrayal of over-extended borrowers as living the lush life is disgusting and out of whack with the real world. I don't know how you sleep at night with such a misguided view of your fellow Americans.
your pitiful attempt to portray this for something it isn't by insulting me just shows your inability to have a frank discussion in which your partisan blinders don't get in the way.
Now then, subprime "refers to the credit status of the borrower (being less than ideal), not the interest rate on the loan itself. Subprime loans are often defined or defended as lending to borrowers with compromised credit histories." Here is the reality Einstein, if you don't have the money don't buy it. People with compromised credit taking out a subprime loan to buy a house are not the smartest of people. It absolutely comes down to living within your means, "pesky expenses such as food, gas, health care, a reliable car, education for your children" well, that is a pitiful argument. I fear you are the one who, as usual, doesn't have a clue. There is a subprime lending crisis because people have taken out these high risk loans with bad credit. They have bought things they want, not things they necessarily must have. So yeah, taking out a subprime loan to build a home or buy one which you can barely pay for is ludicrous. When buying a home the terms of your loan shoud be such that if you have a decrease in income you can still somehow pay the loan payment. You plan ahead, save for a sizable downpayment, insure yourself with income protection. That is financial personal responsibility 101 Einstein. When a person buys a home, car, or whatever with bad credit it means they didn't live within their means in the first place. It only takes a small decrease in income to cause a high possibility of default. Rising prices for food, gas, etc is secondary since to have a subprime loan you have bad credit in the first place. You don't go house shopping with bad credit. You really are dense aren't you?
They have bought things they want, not things they necessarily must have.
Are you in the industry? I am. I deal with it every day. How do you know people are getting subprime loans to buy things they want and don't need? The answer is you don't. You're pulling theories out of your butt.
So yeah, taking out a subprime loan to build a home or buy one which you can barely pay for is ludicrous.
Read this carefully - most people take out subprime loans to keep up with their bills, not to build or buy a bigger, more expensive loan.
When buying a home the terms of your loan shoud be such that if you have a decrease in income you can still somehow pay the loan payment.
In the perfect world, that would be great. Maybe you are in a good situation, but many people cannot afford a drop in income.
You plan ahead, save for a sizable downpayment, insure yourself with income protection. That is financial personal responsibility 101
Again, you're living in fantasy land. You must really hate low-income people. Let them live in high-rent apartments and lets not give them a chance to build some equity says you.
Einstein. When a person buys a home, car, or whatever with bad credit it means they didn't live within their means in the first place.
So people with bad credit don't deserve a car or a home?
You don't go house shopping with bad credit. You really are dense aren't you?
Obviously not as dense as you. At least I don't hate my fellow Americans for having low-paying jobs and/or bad credit. You seem to be one of these people who believe, "well, I've got my good job and my nice house so why worry about anyone else." That, my friend, is why I called you a disgusting person.
In the perfect world, that would be great. Maybe you are in a good situation, but many people cannot afford a drop in income.
Very true. In addition, many people have already experienced that drop in income. Even those who haven't seen an actual cut in pay have seen costs rise faster than income in the lower and middle economic classes. This is a very real de facto drop in income. Therefore, many who might have made that allowance several years ago are now facing the reality of being hard-pressed to meet their current costs of home ownership.
I see your point about subprime lending, but my point concerned subprime housing loans, since that was sort of the topic anyway i.e housing. Since you are in the industry why don't you tell us what the national average for a housing loan is right now. People don't seek loans for housing to live in a hovel. It's not as if folks are running around homeless and see a "fixer upper", take out a high risk loan because they have horrible credit and move in. The reality here pal is that folks who are financially irresponsible seek out subprime loans for a house they can ill afford in the first place and guys like you have no problem selling it to them. Feel better about yourself?
I am going to respond to each of your silly arguments:
When buying a home the terms of your loan shoud be such that if you have a decrease in income you can still somehow pay the loan payment.
"In the perfect world, that would be great. Maybe you are in a good situation, but many people cannot afford a drop in income."
That is exactly right. Why then would someone take a chance on their entire financial future with a subprime loan for a home they can ill afford in the first place?
You plan ahead, save for a sizable downpayment, insure yourself with income protection. That is financial personal responsibility 101
"Again, you're living in fantasy land. You must really hate low-income people. Let them live in high-rent apartments and lets not give them a chance to build some equity says you."
I don't hate anyone pardner. Give, give, give. That is your answer to everything. How about this, buy what you can afford. Save money, fix your credit, and then you don't need anyone give you $h!t.
Einstein. When a person buys a home, car, or whatever with bad credit it means they didn't live within their means in the first place.
"So people with bad credit don't deserve a car or a home?"
No, people with bad credit deserve what they can feasibly afford. If you don't have the money you don't need a new car buy a used one. If you don't have the money you don't need your dream home, rent until you fix our credit and can save a downpayment. You live within your means so debt doesn't destroy you.
You don't go house shopping with bad credit. You really are dense aren't you?
"Obviously not as dense as you. At least I don't hate my fellow Americans for having low-paying jobs and/or bad credit. You seem to be one of these people who believe, "well, I've got my good job and my nice house so why worry about anyone else." That, my friend, is why I called you a disgusting person."
Your whole argument that I hate "my fellow Americans for having low-paying jobs and/or bad credit" is beyond the pale. I have a a high degree of respect for people in those situations. I know how it is. I also know that having bad credit is the fault of the person who has the bad credit. People in these situations should fix their credit before going in to more debt for that house they love or that new car that everyone else has. It makes no sense to tell people that it is o.k. to not pay your bills because you don't make enough money. The bottom line is that folks who jeopardize their financial future by taking out these kind of loans are nothing but irresponsible. If you can't afford it don't buy it. How do you rationalize that such behavior is o.k.? As for your insinuaiton that I am a disgusting person, I would wager that you have never turned down a commission on a home sale in which the people had to get a subprime loan to buy the house. YOU sold it to them knowing they may not be able to pay for it, knowing they have bad credit and buying a house at this time is not a good choice, or at least they would have to submit to USERY to buy the home YOU are selling. But, I imagine you have no qualms about that. Disgusting? You be the judge.