Is it a bubble yet?

From Real Clear Markets:

How High Are Real House Prices?

“Home prices are back to near-record highs across the U.S.” said the Wall Street Journal in a June 1 front page story. They are, indeed, when measured in nominal terms. The Case-Shiller National House Price Index for the first quarter of 2016 is as high as it was in September, 2005 in the late-phase frenzy of the bubble. That was only nine months before the 2006 bubble market top, followed, as we know too well, by collapse. In addition to reaching its 2005 level, the National House Price Index has gone back to well over its trend line. All this is shown in Graph 1.

So the Federal Reserve has gotten its wish for re-inflated house prices (although not its wish for robust economic growth).

Are high house prices good or bad? That depends on whether you are selling or buying. If you are the Fed, it depends on how much you believe that creating asset price inflation actually leads to “wealth effects” and economic growth.

Of course, besides asset price inflation, the Fed truly believes in regular old inflation. It has often reiterated its intent to create perpetual increases in consumer prices. Since the bubble top in 2006, the Consumer Price Index has increased by an aggregate of 17%.

This means that house prices measured in real, inflation-adjusted terms look different from Graph 1. Real house prices from 1987 to now are shown in Graph 2. They have gone up a lot in the last few years, but not as much as in nominal terms. They have reached their level of October, 2003, rather than September, 2005.

This entry was posted in Economics, Housing Recovery, National Real Estate. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Is it a bubble yet?

  1. Anon E. Moose says:

    Its not a bubble until I double my purchase price. Run, Market, Run!

  2. morpheus says:

    bronze

  3. Juice Box says:

    It is a bubble Zillow added 200k to my home value.

  4. Libturd supporting the Canklephate says:

    So if you gain enough weight that your butt doubles in size, then you have a bubble butt?

  5. Amerigeddon says:

    Did somebody get to Plumpty? If so, where do I deliver this bag of cash?

  6. No chance of this bubble popping this year, what with 1.6% 10 year Treasury yields? If things keep going this way I’m hoping to buy a mansion with an interest-only mortgage with a negative interest rate. I just need to wait until it works out that the money the bank sends me every month is enough to pay the property taxes.

  7. Plumpty’s getting divorced. Save your money, he’s more miserable alive.

  8. Essex says:

    Once my house gets $450k bidder……we’ll have a bubble.
    Otherwise. Nope.

  9. Essex says:

    …and folks that is a give-a-way price right there, I tell you wot….!

  10. Comrade Nom Deplume. Citizen, 2nd Class. says:

    A mass shooting overnight in Orlando.

    I never liked Florida.

    Obama and the left will really tear into
    this one. It was at a gay club. I’ve said before that the surge in these things correlated with the divisiveness in the nation but with the exception of the Muslims, the prior shooters seemed simply to be nutjobs and not motivated by politics (most all were Dems) so my thesis that there was some effect from Obama was hard to prove. This still may not be political, more likely pissed off guy with axe to grind, but one sees the spin coming.

  11. The Great Pumpkin says:

    This gem for your Sunday morning read. Will post some material from the article when I get a chance.

    ““If $15 is so great, why not $50 or $100?” critics sometimes mockingly ask. Well, because that would be stupid.”

    http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/41/a-threat-not-a-theory/

  12. No One says:

    Islamic terrorists aren’t in the rainbow coalition.

  13. grim says:

    Release the name

  14. Winston Comrade Deplume III says:

    If you think is divisive now. Wait till you see if the queen gets coronated.

    She’s going to make W’s foreign policy look like genius. Nixon’s duplicity and paranoia look like Hannibal Lekter vs Woody Allen in the mental illness scale. And whatever Bill Clinton, W and Obama did not sold to the banking gangster she’ll put the final price. Puerto Rico is already in sight, Illinois likely next, and NJ not far behind.

  15. In the example local seo marketing tips – http://www.flights-docs.com,
    search listings under, one other business, B&L Plumbing,”
    does not have a visual Google+ web page, however their Facebook page is showing up.
    All oof thhe out there social media pages should rank when a
    enterprise identify is searched locally.

  16. The Great Pumpkin says:

    12-

    “But as remarkable as this political progress has been, the political rhetoric surrounding the minimum wage remains surprisingly unchanged. Minimum wage opponents continue to deride every proposed increase as a surefire job-killer, while reporters and pundits reliably characterize the passage of every minimum wage ordinance and statute as a dangerous experiment that threatens to harm the very people it’s intended to help. “California makes itself a guinea pig in a massive and risky minimum wage experiment” tweeted the New York Times’s Noam Scheiber. “Raising minimum wage risky,” the Lexington, Kentucky Herald Leader’s headline tersely warned its readers following $15 victories in faraway California and New York. “Raising minimum wage hurts low-skill workers,” the Detroit News bluntly chimed in. “Even left-leaning economists say it’s a gamble,” Vox solemnly cautioned (without actually managing to cite a single left-leaning economist willing to pejoratively editorialize $15 as a “gamble”).

    No one captured this conventional economic orthodoxy better than Noah Smith, a very smart economist and writer for Bloomberg. Smith, in an article titled “Finally, an Answer to the Minimum Wage Question” welcomed “the fact that, finally, we’ll have some data on how the $15 minimum wage would affect jobs.” In his article, Smith said he considered it a test because “in theory a higher minimum wage should cause increased unemployment.” Smith’s implication is that we have never run a minimum wage experiment before and that the increase is unprecedented in economic history. But the core assumption of Smith’s piece is a so-called “economic theory”—asserted as if it is a law of nature—that if the minimum wage goes up, employment must come down.

    To be fair, Smith and the others above are not the first to predict economic Armageddon if the minimum wage was increased. The story of the minimum wage as a job-killing trade-off is deeply rooted in classical economics. It is the Law of Supply and Demand in action: “When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens, you get less of it,” former House Speaker John Boehner explained succinctly. James Buchanan, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, compared this theory to a force of nature when he wrote:

    “The inverse relationship between quantity demanded and price is the core proposition in economic science, which embodies the presupposition that human choice behavior is sufficiently rational to allow predictions to be made. Just as no physicist would claim that ‘water runs uphill,’ no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimal scientific content in economics.”

    But the confidence of the doomsayers and the anxiety of the pundits might make more sense to me if they hadn’t been making the same dire predictions since the minimum wage was invented 78 years ago—or, if at least some of these dire predictions had actually managed to come true. In fact, contrary to the cautionary headlines, there is nothing “experimental” about raising the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage has been raised 22 times since it was first established in 1938 (state and local minimum wages have been raised hundreds of times), sometimes by as much as 87.5 percent in a single year—far less than the annual increases $15 advocates propose. So if the minimum wage opponents were correct, it should be incredibly easy to find overwhelming empirical evidence that minimum wage hikes cause the job losses they always predict:

    “High hourly wages mean nothing to a worker if he has no job,” the Southern States Industrial Council subtly threatened in 1938.

    “[A] national minimum wage within our industry is impractical and dangerous,” the National Restaurant Association warned in 1949.

    “[I]f the minimum wage were increased to anywhere between the low of $2.50 and the high of $3.00, between 2 and 3.1 million jobs would be lost,” claimed the Chamber of Commerce in 1975.

    “The minimum wage has caused more misery and unemployment than anything since the Great Depression,” Ronald Reagan imagined while campaigning for president in 1980.

    “[The minimum wage] hurts exactly those workers it intends to help—the poor, the unskilled, and the young,” Representative Jim Saxton opined in 1996.

    “The minimum wage systematically hurts the most vulnerable,” Ted Cruz recently echoed on the 2016 presidential campaign trail.

    So the theory is simple: Minimum wage goes up, jobs come down. But what about reality?”

  17. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Show me the data!! This is where conservatives fall of the boat on the minimum wage issue. Talk a big game with no data to support it. NONE WHATSOEVER. Meanwhile they totally ignore the data that says they are wrong. Can’t make this stuff up.

    “A small army of economists has tried to test this theory over the past few decades. It is tricky, because unlike the simplified models in Econ 101 textbooks, real economies are messy and complex: technologies change, the Fed moves interest rates, oil prices fluctuate, the business cycle swings, a hurricane hits, and so on. The challenge is to isolate the impact of the minimum wage from all of these other factors that might affect growth or employment. Through various sophisticated statistical techniques, researchers have attempted to separate the minimum wage signal from the economic noise, and while economists never agree on anything, they have produced a range of consistent results: from zero to zip to nada to a very small effect. In a 2014 letter to President Obama and congressional leaders signed by more than 600 economists (including seven Nobel Prize winners), the authors concluded that “the weight of evidence now show[s] that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market.”

    Even in the minority of studies that do find a small negative effect, one has to be careful interpreting the results. Contrary to what the press and some politicians would have you believe, these studies are not saying that the minimum wage caused jobs to be lost or growth to be slowed in absolute terms. Rather, these studies are making a much narrower claim. They postulate an imaginary economy where everything but the minimum wage is held constant, and then compare relative to that. But what matters to real people is whether employment is growing or shrinking in the actual economy where lots of things, other than the minimum wage, are changing too.

    After all, what should matter most to people and policy makers is what happens in practice, not in theory. If raising the minimum wage was the “risky job killer” its opponents claim, you would expect to see that clearly reflected in overall employment data. Amazingly, while the federal minimum wage has been raised 22 times, no one had ever answered the most practical question that should inform policy: What happened to overall employment after each increase? Until now.

    In a first-of-its-kind study, economist William Lester from the University of North Carolina, in cooperation with researchers from the National Employment Law Project, pored over employment data from every federal increase since the minimum wage was first established, making “simple before-and-after comparisons of job growth trends twelve months after each minimum-wage increase.” And the paper’s title says it all: “Raise Wages, Kill Jobs? Seven Decades of Historical Data Finds No Correlation Between Minimum Wage Increases and Employment Levels.”

    The results were clear: Of the nearly two dozen federal minimum wage hikes since 1938, total year-over-year employment actually increased 68 percent of the time. In those industries most affected by the minimum wage, employment increases were even more common: Fully 73 percent of the time in the retail sector, and 82 percent in low-wage leisure and hospitality. “[T]hese basic economic indicators show no correlation between federal minimum-wage increases and lower employment levels,” the authors write. In fact, if anything, the data suggest that increases in the federal minimum appeared to encourage job growth and hiring. Perhaps even more striking, of the only eight times total or industry-specific employment declined following a minimum wage increase, the U.S. economy was either already in recession (five times), technically just emerging from recession (twice), or about to head into a recession (once). Clearly, this handful of employment downturns would be better explained by the normal business cycle than by the minimum wage. “As those results mirror the findings of decades of more sophisticated academic research,” the authors conclude, “they provide simple confirmation that opponents’ perennial predictions of job losses are rooted in ideology, not evidence.”

    A simple way to interpret this finding is that any impact of the minimum wage on employment—positive or negative—is so small as to be lost in the churning of the economy as a whole. Or to use Buchanan’s metaphor, in the real world water does sometimes run uphill—for example when a tide flows upstream into a river. Likewise, the larger tidal forces of the economy have historically overwhelmed any small effect the minimum wage might have had on employment. Despite apocalyptic predictions, the sky has not fallen and the economy has kept chugging along, creating jobs, even in the face of 22 minimum wage hikes.”

  18. Comrade Nom Deplume. Citizen, 2nd Class. says:

    [15] not even close to me

    If you’re going to be low information, can you not use my handle to do it?

  19. The Great Pumpkin says:

    So basically, they blame minimum wage for other economic issues. Such simple minded view of the economy. Only understand econ 101, can’t understand advanced economics where the laws in econ 101 are turned upside down.

    “They postulate an imaginary economy where everything but the minimum wage is held constant, and then compare relative to that. But what matters to real people is whether employment is growing or shrinking in the actual economy where lots of things, other than the minimum wage, are changing too.”

  20. Comrade Nom Deplume. Citizen, 2nd Class. says:

    CBS reporting shooter a Muslim. CNN and Fox already said Islamic terror based on FBI reports. Some analysts mentioned Bataclan which I hadn’t considered.

    I had thought this was a gift issue for Shillary. Now it’s looking like a gift for Trump.

  21. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Why can’t you anti-minimum wagers understand this? Why can’t you people who advocate for lower and lower wages understand this? IT DESTROYS THE ECONOMY. IT’S A CAPITALIST SYSTEM BUILT ON DEMAND AS THE MAIN DRIVER OF GROWTH. Why can’t you open your minds? Your economic thinking would be right if this was the beginning stages of the economic capitalist based system, but it’s not, it’s in the most advanced stages this world has ever seen. Why can’t you understand this? Conservatives refuse to open up their minds to different, they refuse to change with the times. And that’s the bottom line.

    This describes below what I have always stated on this blog about the problems with our economy and how to fix it.

    “But while there’s no evidence that raising the minimum wage is the “risky gamble” doomsayers describe, the devastating economic costs of keeping wages too low are very well documented. After decades of stagnant wages, 73 million Americans—nearly one quarter of our population—now live in households eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a benefit exclusively available to the working poor. And according to a 2014 report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, rising income inequality (and the reduced consumer demand that comes with it) knocked 6 to 9 percent off U.S. economic growth over the previous two decades. Wow. If the U.S. economy were 9 percent bigger than it is today, it would support about 11 million additional jobs. So the data would seem to indicate the opposite of the conventional wisdom. The job killer turns out to be keeping the minimum wage too low.

    How is this possible? How could self-respecting economists suggest that an increase in the minimum wage might encourage job growth and hiring? Well, first of all, there’s what economist Michael Reich calls “income effect”: People on the minimum wage tend to spend everything they earn. Increases in the minimum wage thus flow back into the economy (again, like the tide flowing upstream), generating increased demand, which in turn increases hiring and investment. It is a basic principle of capitalism that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers, and when businesses have more customers they hire more workers. This income effect may not have left a large mark on the historical data, because historically, most minimum wage increases have been relatively small. But it is real and should be taken into account. And in an era of depressed demand and consumer spending, as we are now, higher wages are exactly what our economy needs.

    I am a businessperson, not an economist. But I have had an unusually broad career as an entrepreneur and investor participating in the founding or building of 35 companies across a broad range of industries. And while the idea that higher wages for workers might create jobs, not kill them, may elude the instincts and logic of orthodox economic thinking, as a businessperson, it makes perfect intuitive sense to me. That’s because the first, second, and third most important thing to any business is customers. The more of them there are and the more money they have, the better things get. Without customers, there is no business and no jobs. Period. And while every businessperson would like to keep his or her own labor costs low, obviously, if every business paid poverty wages, whose workers would buy the stuff that sustains the economy?”

  22. The Great Pumpkin says:

    In case you skip over the post above because it’s too long, just please read this and try to understand it.

    “And while the idea that higher wages for workers might create jobs, not kill them, may elude the instincts and logic of orthodox economic thinking, as a businessperson, it makes perfect intuitive sense to me. That’s because the first, second, and third most important thing to any business is customers. The more of them there are and the more money they have, the better things get. Without customers, there is no business and no jobs. Period. And while every businessperson would like to keep his or her own labor costs low, obviously, if every business paid poverty wages, whose workers would buy the stuff that sustains the economy?””

  23. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Look at these benefits, you decrease the need for govt. You increase tax revenue and at the same time decrease govt spending. DON”T YOU ALL ADVOCATE FOR THIS ON A REGULAR BASIS?

    “Obviously, a higher minimum wage also pays dividends to taxpayers by reducing demand for costly anti-poverty programs. In the low-wage fast food industry, over half of all families—52 percent—are enrolled in at least one public assistance program, at a combined cost of $7 billion a year (McDonald’s even provided a “McResources” hotline to help its impoverished workers apply for government aid). And Wal-Mart alone, according to a 2014 report from Americans for Tax Fairness, costs U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion a year in public assistance to its 1.4 million mostly low-wage workers—coincidentally, an amount roughly equal to the $6.5 billion a year the company lavished on stock buybacks over the previous decade.

    Finally, as the real purchasing power of the minimum wage has eroded away over the past half-century, workforce participation rates have declined with it—when a minimum wage job doesn’t earn you enough to live on, why bother looking for work? Conventional economic thinking holds that high executive pay and low tax rates are necessary to incentivize the wealthy to work hard. But oddly there is very little discussion of similar incentives for the poor. A higher minimum wage incentivizes people to come back into the workforce, boosting both economic growth and workers’ self-esteem. And we shouldn’t underestimate the importance of this last point. Some economists like to say that increasing the EITC is a better way to deal with low incomes than raising the minimum wage. The EITC is the federal government’s most important and effective anti-poverty program. But it is still a government anti-poverty program, a handout that says you can’t make it on your own. It is important to remember that making a living, being able to pay your way, feeling that society values what you do, has a social impact that goes well beyond economics. If the minimum wage doesn’t hurt employment, then why wouldn’t we prefer that people get higher incomes through work rather than a government program?

    Taken together, all these factors help explain why increasing the minimum wage doesn’t necessarily result in less employment or a worse economy: The higher cost of labor is at least partially mitigated by the host of economic benefits higher wages produce. Which is not to suggest that there is no limit to how high we can reasonably raise the minimum wage. “If $15 is so great, why not $50 or $100?” critics sometimes mockingly ask. Well, because that would be stupid. The positive benefits of a $100 per hour minimum wage would almost certainly be overwhelmed by the costs. So no one is proposing $100; instead we are proposing $15, which is roughly halfway between what the minimum wage would be had it tracked either productivity gains ($21) or inflation ($10).

  24. The Great Pumpkin says:

    “The data seem to indicate that the higher it goes the better things might get. At the very least, the data show that we have never raised the minimum wage enough in our nation’s history to ever see any of the job-killing effects predicted.

    In fact, this claim is so wrong that it is reasonable to question whether it is rightly a “theory” at all. In order for something to legitimately be called a scientific theory, it must result in accurate and consistent predictions in an empirically verifiable way. For example, Newton’s theory of gravitation asserts that the attraction force between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. And in every case ever tested, when the distance goes up, the attraction force goes down. Always. But the same cannot be said for the “theory” that if wages go up, employment will go down. It is not always true. It’s not even mostly true. It isn’t even usually true. So if Buchanan’s claim that there is an “inverse relationship” between wages and employment isn’t really a legitimate scientific “theory,” and certainly not a law of nature, then what is it?”

  25. The Great Pumpkin says:

    “And this brings us to the main point. The claim that if wages go up, jobs go down isn’t a description of reality at all. Nor, in my opinion, does it reflect legitimate economics. It is a negotiating strategy. It is a scam, a con job, a threat—more precisely, it is an intimidation tactic masquerading as a legitimate economic theory. I believe this is where being a businessperson and not an economist leads to greater clarity. Very few economists have ever run a business or negotiated wages. But the first rule in the businessman’s handbook on wage negotiation and suppression is always, always, when they ask for a raise, threaten their jobs. It works like a charm, and has since the invention of capitalism. You see, the claim if wages go up, employment goes down isn’t made because it is true. It’s made because if people like me can get people like you to believe it is true, I’m going to get richer, and you are going to get poorer. The lower your wages are the higher my profits will be. It’s that simple.”

    ““[R]aising the minimum wage is a job-killer,” Domino’s Pizza CEO David Brandon declared in 2004, back when the minimum wage was just $5.15 an hour. “If the minimum wage increased there would be price inflation for consumers or we would likely employ fewer people.” Brandon’s message to his poverty-wage employees was clear: you better think twice before recklessly demanding a higher minimum wage. (For the record, according to its 10-K filings, Domino’s now employs 30 percent more people with the federal minimum wage at $7.25 an hour than it did at $5.15, and here in Seattle where the minimum wage now stands at $13, Domino’s still sells a two-topping medium pizza for just $5.99.)

    This threat—that when wages go up, employment goes down—falls neatly into what is commonly known as “trickle-down economics.” It’s not really economics in any scientific sense. It is simply a time-tested way for the powerful to assert control over the less powerful. For the real magic of trickle-down economics isn’t convincing you that if the rich get richer, that’s good for the economy. The real power comes from convincing you that if the poor get richer, that would be bad. It is a clever Catch-22: A low minimum wage may trap you and your children in a vicious circle of poverty, but it is the only thing that guarantees you any wage at all.

    The two cornerstones of trickle-down economics are:

    If wages for the poor go up, employment goes down; and
    If taxes on the rich go up, employment goes down.

    But this isn’t a scientific theory or a law of nature that describes the world in any empirically verifiable way. This is a threat—a moral claim aimed at social control. As such, it is repeated again and again and again, not because it is true, or because the powerful believe it to be true (although some might—self-deception can be a soothing psychic balm). The rich and the powerful relentlessly repeat this claim because if they can persuade the poor and the weak to believe it, it will be very advantageous to the powerful and the rich.

    Trickle-down economics is about status, power, and economic privilege, not truth; and given what’s at stake, the people who benefit most from trickle down are desperate to maintain its ever more tenuous grip on the economic debate. You can see this desperation—you can all but smell it—in the breathless rhetoric spewing from the guardians of the economic elite: For example, the tortured math of the discredited American Enterprise Institute (new motto: “Lies, Damn Lies, and AEI”) or the contorted libertarian word jumble smeared across the pages of Forbes. Or on the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal. For decades, these trickle-down apologists grew fat and lazy in the unchallenged sinecure of the dominant economic faith, leaving them totally unprepared for the speed at which the $15 heresy would take hold. And now, with each city or state that passes $15, the tighter the faithful cling to the old-time religion: “When you raise the price of employment, you get less of it,” they desperately preach. But while they have no empirical evidence to back up this claim, they sure have plenty of motive to believe it. Because if you think about it, you realize—they have to believe it.”

  26. The Great Pumpkin says:

    “That’s because trillions of dollars are at stake. Literally trillions. Thanks in part to this trickle-down scam, corporate profits’ share of the U.S. economy has grown from about 6 percent of GDP 40 years ago to about 12 percent today, while wages’ share of GDP has fallen by a comparable amount. That’s about a trillion dollars a year that used to go to wages that now go to profits. But if the 99 percent of Americans who have seen their real incomes stagnate or decline over the past couple decades came to realize that there really is no inevitable tradeoff between higher wages and jobs, then why wouldn’t they demand higher wages? Much higher wages? Much of which would come out of the windfall profits and giant bonuses of the people who fund AEI and read Forbes. Is it any surprise that these shameless propaganda mills would refuse to bend their “theory” to the facts?

    But what is most dispiriting to me is the credulity of the broader media. They probably mostly believe that they are responsibly reporting the truth when they naively warn of the “job-killing risks” of raising wages. What they are actually doing is inadvertently bullying poor people on behalf of rich people. But I guess “risk” sells ads. So there is that.”

  27. D-FENS says:

    Shooters voter record

    FL voter file: STL 114484524 / MATEEN OMAR MIR SEDDIQUE / N 2513 S 17TH ST APT 107 FORT PIERCE / 34982M6 /11/16/1986 / 07/19/2006 / DEM

  28. Grim says:

    Stop mass posting or I will delete you.

  29. Grim says:

    A link and a paragraph is sufficient

  30. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Sorry, got excited. Proves a lot of what I stated on this blog on this issue.

  31. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Minimum wage was introduced recently in Germany, and as this article says, “no indications can be found that the introduction of the statutory minimum wage has had negative effects on the German labour market.”

    https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/02/the-german-minimum-wage-experiences-and-perspectives-after-one-year/

  32. Comrade Nom Deplume. Citizen, 2nd Class. says:

    [28] DFENS

    That explains one reason there’s radio silence on the left.

  33. Comrade Nom Deplume. Citizen, 2nd Class. says:

    Pumps, enough already. Your point is already acknowledged. Min wage is but one input that distorts economic behavior. We know that. It’s not that people are opposed to others earning more; they are opposed to distortive policies. Can you not see that?

  34. Essex says:

    11. Good times, one guy with an AR-15 holds Orlando POPO down for 3 hours. Carnage ensues. I’m sure the security footage is telling. Cops wanted to make sure it was ‘safe’ to enter. Quote unquote.

    The Ar-15 is one helluva gun.

  35. Essex says:

    34. Minimum wage is for those without the skills to earn on the street.

  36. This is such a great site keep up the hard work. if your looking for free trafic to your site check us out post items with link back to your site Free Classifieds:Real estate, apartments, condo, house rental, room rental, roommates, short term rentals, commercial, office space, storage, parking, houses for sale, condos for sale, land for sale, Cars, Trucks, Vans, Rvs, Parts, Jobs Pets, Livestock, Farm, news all at http://topdollarclassifieds.ca/

  37. Grim says:

    Orlando gunman Omar Mateen called 911 before attack, pledged allegiance to Islamic State, law enforcement sources tell NPR’s @johnson_carrie

  38. Grim says:

    What a shit speech from the president – what is this delivery? It’s a stock speech delivered via teleprompter.

  39. walking bye says:

    34 Essex, more likely SWAT team was using thermal imaging to figure out a game plan. He had 30 hostages so you knew there would be a shoot out in the end.

  40. D-FENS says:

    Gays Must Die Says Speaker At Orlando Mosque – WFTV 9 Orlando Report

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=qBlwxqqAprQ

    It’s the AR-15’s fault

  41. 3b says:

    Apparently someone arrested in lots Angeles armed near gay pride parade.

  42. Amerigeddon says:

    Has the US Treasury minted that 1 trillion dollar coin yet?

  43. Essex says:

    He just wanted to make a point Grim….apparently he was on a first name basis w/ FBI.

    neat.

  44. A Home Buyer says:

    I hope we don’t find out that these people died by stray shots during the siege.

    One news source indicated the police went full breach, first using two flash bang types, then proceeded to enter with a battering ram vehicle to take down the wall. They found 50 dead, including the shooter.

    Unless they were all killed the moment this first started, that is a pretty high count to achieve in the short time frame of a breach. also considering he was shooting at police at hit one of them while this was happening.

  45. Walking bye says:

    Trump hangs himself on Twitter with this event by saying ” congrats I was right”. If he just shut up he could have moved up from last weeks fiasco. I ask is anyone handling him?

  46. Libturd supporting the Canklephate says:

    One can never handle an egoist.

  47. 3b says:

    Apparently the shooter lived in New Jersey at one point.

  48. Juice Box says:

    ugh gardening. I am about ready to pave this place over. Weeds are creeping everywhere and I am out there every weekend too.

  49. Anon E. Moose says:

    Lib, I never thought before today I’d have a kind thought or word for Baristanet. I may have to lie down to let it pass.

  50. Timmy says:

    You are a very intelligent person!

  51. D-FENS says:

    High School Classmate of Omar Mateen: He Cheered 9-11 Attacks

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VOub63XW-E

  52. Kendrick says:

    Here on MakeUseOf, we really do hzve every part it is advisable to know for selling stuff on facebook groups (Kendrick) stuff on Facebook.

  53. Helaine says:

    Excellent post. I used to be checking continuously this weblog and I’m inspired! Very helpful info specifically the final phase :) I deal with such information a lot. I used to be seeking this particular info for a very lengthy time. Thank you and good luck.

  54. Scott Kevin says:

    Hi If you want Unlimited Free Traffic toy your website click the link bellow http://topdollarclassifieds.ca/unlimited-traffic/

  55. sign cars says:

    This site is amazing. I will recommend it to my friends and anybody that could be interested in this subject. Great work guys!

Comments are closed.