From HousingWire:
Sellers no longer sitting pretty
As more inventory hits the housing market and buyers rebel against rising home prices, the real estate market is likely to shift from seller dominance to one that is more counterbalanced by buyer reluctance to acquire homes deemed too expensive.
The tighter inventory conditions of this recent spring and summer are going away as the spring months of next year start to approach, analysts say. Right now, builders are trying to make up for a lack of inventory with new homes, Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the National Association of Realtors, claimed.
According to the latest Home Price Index report from CoreLogic, home prices, including distressed sales, increased by only 0.2% in October when compared to September.
“In October, the year-over-year appreciation rate remained strong, but the month-over-month appreciation rate was barely positive, indicating that house price appreciation has slowed as expected for the winter,” said Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic.
“Based on our pending HPI, the monthly growth rate is expected to moderate even further in November and December. The slowdown in price appreciation is positive for the housing market as almost half the states are now within 10% of their respective historical price peaks,” Fleming said.
The report comes with both good and bad news. It is good news certainly for the owners and home sellers who are getting the appreciation and housing equity increases, in addition to helping the economy in terms of consumer spending, Yun explained.
However, the report is not as positive for homebuyers. “There are still in my view a lot of potential homebuyers getting blocked out from buying due to rising home prices,” Yun said.
He added, “It is a clear signal that sellers cannot keep jacking up the prices since there is a lack of buyers. More housing inventory is coming into the market from new home construction, but it is still a sluggish pace.”
If prices increase, homebuyers may choose to step out of the market if sellers do not adjust their list prices.
For the Art and Real Estate buffs here, it doesn’t get better than this:
http://www.pafa.org/SiteData/images/collectionimages/large/Hopper_1952.12_l.jpg
Edward Hopper’s East Wind over Weehawken up for auction, estimates put the price at somewhere around $22-$28 … million.
Best part is the picture will yield a higher return than 99% of properties ever sold in NJ.
Way to go Hopper for making more money in NJ real estate than most everyone else, and doing it with a painting of a for sale sign during the depression.
Fitting, Mr Hopper. Well done. Still relevant 80 years later. Kudos to Peter Schmidt for the perspective below:
Edward Hopper’s East Wind Over Weekhawken (1934), a Depression-era masterpiece, to be sold
by the Philadelphia Academy of Fine Arts
The houses at first glance appear solid as bulwarks, strong and permanent, fixed forever. Each piece of property has a house or apartment complex planted on it, and all are raised high above the sidewalks by heavy retaining walls and stone stairs. Even the lawns of many of the properties are at the eye-level of a pedestrian, not at their feet. The overall effect is to make these buildings seem formidable and unmovable presences.
Then the viewer, surprised, notices absence: the view is almost entirely devoid of people. (A few figures may be on the sidewalk at the far left.) No one on the sidewalks in the painting’s middle, no traffic on its streets, no sign of life either on the porches or in the many windows of the buildings—all of which have their shades drawn down precisely halfway, as if done mechanically and systematically to make a uniform opaqueness.
The colors of the buildings are rather dull, under a cloudy sky with very diffuse or wan sunlight. Dark browns, dusty beige, charcoal greys, dirty rather than bright reds. No plants in the heavy decorative plant pots placed by stairs or on corners.
Even the lawns themselves partake of dullness, not green but a kind of tired sand color—and they are long and overgrown, as if untended. Could some of these buildings be abandoned?
The only primary human presence in this painting is implied—the painting’s point of view is loosely that of someone standing on the edge of one of the sidewalks by the street, gazing at the scene before us.
To the right, a For Sale sign looms, its feet planted in a sea of overgrown and possibly dead grass. The sign’s lettering touts property we can’t see and is itself basically illegible. Yet the red letters advertising this unknown property are in fact the brightest, strongest colors in the entire painting, the one color-note that is not drab and tired.
There are a few other touches in East Wind Over Weehawken that make everything seem to be decaying slowly, not stable. The painting has no regular horizontal or vertical lines anchoring what’s seen to a fixed visual grid (even though these streets and blocks are laid out as a grid if seen from a bird’s eye view). Instead, everything’s akimbo, angled at various crazy diagonals, just like the For Sale sign.
…
Remember the year East Wind Over Weehawken was painted: 1934. It was a year in which for the majority of Americans the Depression became much worse. Jobless people losing property they owned, or unable any longer to afford their rent. Cities like Weehawken suddenly under stress. What seemed solid melting into air. All these instabilities Hopper suggests with the subtlest of means. Yet in many ways the painting’s subtlety makes the forces causing change to feel all the more emphatic and irresistible. They’re hard to see at first but then, once seen, loom before us as intimidating and unstoppable as melancholy itself, or impending ruin.
Fun juxtaposition, the location today:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/22534583
It gets better, that lot is still empty!
View from space:
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=qsws1p8tz0kk&lvl=19.27&dir=270.39&sty=b&q=weekawken%20nj&form=LMLTCC
#1 grim
If he had turned 90 degrees it would have made a better picture
@MMFlint: Detroit — coming soon to your town.
NOT the unions.
@MMFlint: What happened? The car factories closed. Why did they close? Because the Big 3 made cars people didn’t want. Who decided 2 build those cars?
NJ Pinhead Report
7 – NJ Idiot Report – You are kidding, right?
At the height of the incompetence of the union Chrysler had union employees who were “car pushers”
Cars would get to end of assembly line and not run and car pushers would push the none running cars to the side and let them pile up.
Also Chrysler line workers would actually mark the cars they were going to buy that they were buying them so they would actually build that one correctly.
Lee Iccocca when he took over stopped both practices.
non (the good one) says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:04 am
NOT the unions.
@MMFlint: What happened? The car factories closed. Why did they close? Because the Big 3 made cars people didn’t want. Who decided 2 build those cars?
LIPA Securitization Authority to Sell $2.1 Billion
The Long Island Power Authority has set up a securitization authority that will sell $2.1 billion in the week of Dec. 9
Chifi what do you think of this scheme?
All totalitarian schemes need their “useful idiots” to repeat their propaganda, and anon is a loyal bootlicker.
LIPA new bonds just got a Triple AAA rating. So that means somehow by financial trickery LIPA bonds are higher rated than US Treasury bonds.
Interesting piece from CR:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/12/mba-mortgage-applications-decrease-in.html
As of the third quarter, smaller mortgage players held a 60% market share of the U.S. origination market, up from 39% in 2009, according to industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance.
…
The midsize and smaller players have grown despite tightening their underwriting standards, much like larger banks have since the financial crisis. But the smaller banks’ capital rules aren’t as stringent as those that make mortgages a costly enterprise for the biggest firms.
This shift in market share has possible implications for the MBA purchase index. Back in 2007, the MBA index started to increase – and some observers like Alan Greenspan thought this meant the housing bust was over. I pointed out back then that the index was being distorted by a shift from smaller lenders to larger lenders (the smaller lenders were going out of business). The MBA index includes many lenders, but is skewed towards the larger lenders.
Now the index is probably understating the activity in the market – because there is a market shift from large lenders to smaller lenders.
un mod
15 – don’t see it
http://www.abandonedplaygrounds.com/the-abandoned-penn-hills-resort-in-the-pocono-mountains/
Remember this place. Back in the 1970s/1980s hot stuff.
Sounds just like the Playboy Club in Sussex (which is now a slum):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PomA7lvX3o
This must really chafe the imbecile anon, watching the state of TX eat NJ’s lunch.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000223400
nwj (19):
College Station is kinda in the middle of nowhere so for them to beat NJ says a lot on the state of business in our beloved state.
[99] [previous thread] Fabian
“Fabius Maximus says:
December 3, 2013 at 7:30 pm
#80 Eddie Ray (previous thread)
“So Warrens economic analysis of 2 vs 1 income is the same as Santorum coming out with
“The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness”
M’kay”
Uh, No. Try to keep up.
This is you, dissembling in typical Salon/MSNBC style. You profess that you are smarter than me by virtue of your “evolved” political persuasion; now I expect you to prove it by actually reading in depth, not drawing your conclusions from some spin site.
Santorum and Warren both relied on the data (factual and undisputed but you and your ilk would dispute a sunrise if Santorum said he saw it) that point out the externalities, or negative consequences, that attended the rise of the dual earner household. We’ve discussed it here many times and I thought it not controversial.
While I concede that Santorum and Warren hew in drastically different directions as to what these externalities mean, and Santorum puts forth an opinion as to how they came about (and I don’t dabble in the opinions of others, you should remember that), it doesn’t change the fact that two-earner households are both the cause of, and the victim of, negative consequences attending to their growth. This was what I was referring to.
Now, we can go on as to whether those consequences are offset in other ways by benefits but that isn’t the discussion we’re having. Nor are we discussing the quite ironic fact that one of those externalities, the marriage penalty, is a progressive, left wing construct which purpose is redistribution of wealth (see, e.g., Diamond) and is not only vigorously supported by the left, but the left wants to make it more punitive (the net effect of that would be to make women’s jobs (for the most part) economically unviable and would disproportionately drive women out of the workplace. But, insofar as I suggest it, and since in your world credibility depends on the color of your vote, you probably deny that as well so I guess when we do debate it, I will have to find a left wing economist citation so you will accept it as a viable probability).
Seriously, for someone so much smarter than the rest of us (for which I expect no disagreement from you or anon), you are remarkably shallow when it comes to the reading you cite and quote. Now, I suppose I could do a better, more precise job explaining things to you so that there is no possibility of diversion, dissembling or twisting, but after talking to my girls all day, I get tired of that level of discourse.
[21] redux
To wit:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap
“MJ.com: Some conservative commentators might see this as evidence that the mother should return home.
AT: [Laughs] Right. Of course, the notion that mothers are all going to run pell-mell back to the hearth and turn back the clock to 1950 is absurd. But that aside, a big part of the two-income trap is that families have basically bid up the cost of living. ”
This was precisely what Santorum said, and which was a predicate to his unpopular position, that the dual earners bid up the cost of living. Now you hear it in Mother Jones from Warren’s co-author. So is it true because Warren said it or false because Santorum said it? You tell me.
[19] nwnj
What do you mean? All is well in NJ and will be better when the democrats are in control.
There are benefits to two income households. For example, a woman can create a productive, rewarding career for herself. She then also has the financial freedom to leave her slacker husband who cites progressive magazines and blames the rich and “the right” for his total mediocrity in life accomplishments, and failure to provide her with wealth, a fulfilling emotional life, or even an adequately fulfilling shlong. Thus her career means she no longer has to listen to the whiny lefty crap that readers of the njrereport are obliged to skip over.
Only a libtard could look at “Now your family needs to slave away twice as hard to achieve the same middle class lifestyle your parents had!” as progress to celebrate.
On the topic of trying to explain things to Fab and little girls, it brought to mind this amusing cartoon that anyone with young kids will find amusing:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/11/05/louis_c_k_why_bit_animated_comic_book_artist_jaeil_cho_illustrates_the_stand.html
[24, 25]
Ironic part is that there are platforms Warren lays out in the book that she would run and hide from should she ever run for POTUS. Also some not in the book. A President Warren would break up the banks about as fast as Chairman O closed Guantanamo.
[26] renter,
disturbingly familiar on so many levels. Too bad anon and Fabian won’t get it. Their childhoods were perfect and so are their kids. Ask them, they’ll tell you.
24 – Post of the day
Actually Exact Opposite. My buddy had a wife who made the exact same as her. When she left him she got ZERO alimony. Courts said she never left work when she had kids, had childcare and kids just entered first grade. Then since she worked full time she ended up barely getting custody. She got 51% and he got 49%. So she only gets child support 51% of time.
She is pissed. She has to work rest of life and her expenses went up and her income went in half.
Even more maddening to her is she has other divorcee friends who married rich, quit work when first kid came, became a stay at home mom and took care of kids 100%. When hubbie left they got full alimony and full child support and play tennis add golf and have mad affairs with younger men.
Ragnar says:
December 4, 2013 at 11:59 am
There are benefits to two income households. For example, a woman can create a productive, rewarding career for herself. She then also has the financial freedom to leave her slacker husband who cites progressive magazines and blames the rich and “the right” for his total mediocrity in life accomplishments, and failure to provide her with wealth, a fulfilling emotional life, or even an adequately fulfilling shlong. Thus her career means she no longer has to listen to the whiny lefty crap that readers of the njrereport are obliged to skip over.
for clot:
http://www.thecomicstrips.com/store/add.php?iid=85416
I miss the Gephardtization Machine from the late 80’s Bloom County.
I think this strip was the genesis…..
http://www.thecomicstrips.com/store/add.php?iid=85712
Working mothers fall into three categories:
1. Single or divorced, busting their rears bc Daddy ain’t around.
2. Married women who are competent but need flexible schedule for kids. Their work gets dumped on you as they are out every Tues. and Thurs.
3. Management, hard nut, beetches who boss men around at work like they boss around their husbands and sons. Usually flighty and moody.
this is just priceless!
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/reid-obamacare-staff/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
nom that should come as no surprise as some animals are more equal than others.
So just got back from a long weekend of childcare and escaping to kill bambi. Did I miss anything other than the usual liberal clap trap which is spewed with near facist efficiency?
@BarackObama: “If you work hard you should be able to earn a living … You should be able to support your family.” —President Obama #ABetterBargain
“If you work hard you should be able to earn a living …”
Did his voting bloc get that memo?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O0azojPPRhw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DO0azojPPRhw
Obama Supporters Petition to Repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT. Seriously! Watch!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SpHOaW99ST4&feature=m-ch-fea
#34 – Worst Post of the day
I like to work with single women, spinsters or women over 55 with grown kids who are like bringing cookies and milk.
The worst working Mom I ever had was an Indian Women. Her husband who actually had a worse job them her had her take off when kids was sick, come in late if kid was sick, stay home if furnace was broken. I had to actually sit her down and tell her she can only take off 50% of the time when things go wrong. Her husband has to sometimes pitch in. I am subsiding your husbands firm at the expense of mine. Then she tells me in Indian Culture hard to get men to do women stuff. Funny, part she was pretty good till that kid came. Not generalizing, but a working mom with a non supportive working husband is super frustrating. Sure single Mom, Divorces, Widow I get it. But some lazy guy not pullng weight giving me extra work and then knowing he is taking half the paycheck I am giving my staff member pisses me off.
Right no one in my group has a working spouse. All single or spouse stays home. The drama is at an all time low for now. Also no one is pregnant, planing on getting pregnant or planning on getting engaged. I went through several women having babies. It is no big deal now at all. But when my wife was pregant with a second or third one forget which and I had to deal with two pregant women and juggling their work it ment I could not take off for my own wife’s doctors visits and work late.
I was kinda pissed that just because their husbands could not work a real job I had to deal with this.
Bystander says:
December 4, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Working mothers fall into three categories:
1. Single or divorced, busting their rears bc Daddy ain’t around.
2. Married women who are competent but need flexible schedule for kids. Their work gets dumped on you as they are out every Tues. and Thurs.
3. Management, hard nut, beetches who boss men around at work like they boss around their husbands and sons. Usually flighty and moody.
Are you quoting John Holmes or Ron Jeramey?
Fast Eddie says:
December 4, 2013 at 1:44 pm
“If you work hard you should be able to earn a living …”
Did his voting bloc get that memo?
The median grade in Harvard College is indeed an A-,” the school’s dean of education said today, according to the student newspaper. Even more stunning: “The most frequently awarded grade in Harvard College is actually a straight A.”
+
That ought to dispel any notion that Harvard is tough on its students. Grade inflation may be a victimless crime, but what is the point of having a range of grades if half of them are A- or higher?
+
Accusations of grade inflation flare up frequently at Harvard and other college campuses. Harvard, in particular, has been accused of grading more softly than some of its rivals in the Ivy League.
+
Larry Summers, the former US Treasury secretary, was highly critical of the practice while he was president of the university. After he stepped down, he told an interviewer: “Ninety percent of Harvard graduates graduated with honors when I started. The most unique honor you could graduate with was none.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20131127-chief-david-brown-quietly-changes-a-police-shooting-investigations-policy.ece
Any Dallas officer involved in a police shooting — whether the officer fired a weapon or witnessed the gunfire — will now have the right to remain silent for 72 hours under a new department policy.
And even before they give a statement about the shooting, the officers can watch any available video before they give a statement.
Previously an officer who witnessed a shooting typically would have been required to give a statement to police investigators within hours of the event. And the officer who fired, while not required to speak right away, typically did so. The new policy now requires the firing officer to wait at least three days before giving a complete statement to investigators.
Chief David Brown quietly made major policy change less than a month after surveillance video went public in October that showed an officer shooting a mentally ill man for no apparent reason — contrary to a witnessing officer’s account that led to a felony charge against the victim.
“It is my belief that this decision will improve the investigation of our most critical incidents,” Brown said in an emailed statement.
An attorney for the shooting victim, who survived, said the policy will give officers involved in unjustified shootings time to make excuses.
But memory experts side with the chief.
Alexis Artwohl, a nationally known behavior consultant for law enforcement agencies, said studies show officers need rest before they can accurately recount traumatic events.
“They are not passive observers watching something from an easy chair,” she said. “They are at the scene where life-and-death decisions are being made, and they’re an integral part of it. So of course they are going to be impacted.”
Brown said in his email that the science was “fairly conclusive.” He also said at an October news conference that he experienced memory problems when he was shot at once.
“It wasn’t until two or three days later to where I remembered it accurately,” he said.
At the same news conference, Brown said he would look at the policy, which previously allowed only the officers who discharged their weapon to see any available video before making a statement.
The Dallas Police Association had long pushed for the change, but the aftermath of Officer Cardan Spencer’s Oct. 14 shooting of Bobby Bennett in Rylie sparked Brown’s decision to change the policy.
The day of the shooting, Officer Christopher Watson, Spencer’s partner, gave investigators his account. Brown said that Watson told police that Bennett took steps toward him and Spencer with a knife raised in an aggressive manner.
Officers charged Bennett with aggravated assault of a public servant, leaving him in Dallas County sheriff’s custody in the hospital.
The charges were later dropped when a neighbor’s surveillance video showed that Bennett, who had a knife, initially rolled away from officers in a swivel chair. When he stood up, he kept his hands at his side and never moved his feet.
The chief said Spencer and his attorney declined to give any statements at the scene until he saw the video. Spencer gave the statement the next day, and apparently never claimed Bennett took steps toward him or raised his knife.
Spencer was fired, and Watson was recently suspended for 15 days in part for making false statements.
Don Tittle, one of Bennett’s attorneys, called the policy change “maddening.” Give police officers enough time, evidence and lawyers, and all their statements will sound alike and justify a shooting, he said.
Plus, he said, any other witness to a crime is asked to talk to officers at the scene, he said.
“If the goal is to seek the truth in an incident, then why would a witness to a police shooting be treated differently than a witness to any other incident?” he said. “No other witness is told, here, you have three days to get back to us. And, by the way, here is a copy of all the video of the incident so you can get your story straight.”
Artwohl, the memory expert, said officers treat civilian witnesses differently because officers won’t always be able to find the person again. That usually isn’t true of officers, she said.
“I don’t know of a single case of an officer disappearing after an officer-involved shooting,” she said.
Dallas Police Association attorneys lauded the policy shift, citing the memory studies.
But Tittle, Bennett’s attorney, said inaccurate statements are too one-sided to blame memory lapses.
“This whole memory claim, that somehow because of the stressful situation, their memories are faulty — that may be true,” Tittle said. “But why is it that their memories are always faulty in a way that covers for another police officer?”
#41
Yup, somebody’s got some issues with “beetches”…
10 states won’t allow insurers to extend plans that would have been canceled under Obamacare.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101244241
All 10 states are democratic ones.
JJ [44];
Know that for years. Hardest part about the ivies is getting in. Last in the class at Harvard has far better prospects right out of school than middle of the pack at even a well-regarded, if lesser-ranked, school.
The thing is the forces that brought Reginald, IV, down to the bottom of the pack in Cambridge eventually assert themselves.
Con’t [48];
Hardest part about the ivies is getting in.
Although, it might actually be harder to fail out…
Not for some people…..and some of those people I know personally….
Anon E. Moose says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Hardest part about the ivies is getting in.
I highly doubt you personally know people.
chicagofinance says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:59 pm
Not for some people…..and some of those people I know personally….
Anon E. Moose says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Hardest part about the ivies is getting in.
I had two friends from high school who went to Ivies. Both flamed out, one from drugs and one suffered a traumatic brain injury.
My two oldest boys went Ivy. Incredibly hard. They were not at Harvard, Princeton, Yale. They did make it through, though.
I went to school with a bunch of landscapers that trimmed ivy, does that count for anything?
Only if you’re Polish, pan Bodziu
You were asking for it with that one. Just called me Pan Ximno
Slavic curse words span from the Balkans to Siberia
I always wanted to have one of the names on my NJ license plate. I wonder if they are on Bozo’s no-no list:
Zapaza
Xam
Ximho
Huuyyou
CykehCuh
PizdaPi
well, cornell and penn certainly ain’t impressive. congrats if that is brown or columbia. then again having gotten married at 21 doesn’t signal much maturity
xolepa says:
December 4, 2013 at 6:00 pm
My two oldest boys went Ivy. Incredibly hard. They were not at Harvard, Princeton, Yale. They did make it through, though.
Arm citizens
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=20RoAfflGCM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D20RoAfflGCM
(61) Married at 21?? Columbia/Brown – most leftwing radical colleges of the Ivy. No wonder this forum pisses on that guy. BTW, to impress you even further, one nephew is finishing up at Princeton. That makes it 3 out of the 5 grand parents’ grandchildren went to Ivies. The other two – one NESCAC and one State College. Not bad from those that made it to this country after escaping both Stalin and Hitler and not speaking a single word in English until they hit these shores.
You have kids, cpaka?
#27 Eddie Ray
Ok Eddie, let me take this slowly so you can keep up. When you say “Santorum and Warren both relied on the data” that is wrong.
Warren relied on the data and wrote an economic analysis of the two income issue. The main arguments she made have been discussed in here and most are in agreement with them. The moment you spend one dollar of the second income on the buy up you are in the trap. There are a lot of positions Warren holds that “Shock Horror, I disagree with!” she is in support of school vouchers because if they are in place the parents don’t have to move to the better district to get their children a better education. I understand and accept her point but I have two big issues with it. The first is that I disagree with school vouchers as a whole. I won’t get into it here as it is a bigger discussion, if someone wants to have the discussion we can break it out. The second is that the district is not the only factor for the move and a lot has to do with social perceptions and networking for their kids. If you give her the benefit of the doubt and say that vouchers mean they don’t have to buy into the top tier, it allows them to buy into the tier below which may be still out of their range.
Santorum “wrote” a political puff piece to go up against Hillary’s “It takes a village”. I put “wrote”, in quotes because when TSHTF he blamed the feminist comments on his wife. You quote a Mother Jones article where you allude that it refers to Santorum. The article was written a year before Santorum came out with his book. Why don’t you go off and try and find an actual quote from Santorum on Dual incomes, because, all I can find are his positions on a mother’s role at home with her kids and how she should be supported and applauded for it. By the way, it’s not a position I have a problem with. If he wife made the choice to stay home she should not be criticized for that decision. “Shock Horror, I agree with him!”
So yes comparing an economic assessment against a social commentary gets you a big M’Kay!
You throw up the marriage penalty as a big progressive tax, well what about the payroll tax. Is that not a regressive tax and isn’t Social Security the same!
In the past I have posted up this as a starting point for a regressive vs. progressive discussion. http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/03-10-Tax_Incidence.pdf . You have cried off in the past citing Tax Season, the need for a retainer before you can refute, your dog ate your homework (yes that last one was made up but you get the point). I have always said that if you want to have this debate, then step to the plate and let’s go!
It’s funny when you mention “your ilk!” I won a motion a few weeks ago against a Lionel Hutz. He bypassed any attempt settling and seems to have taken a position that unless a Judge rules it, he will not move on anything. He just put his client on the hook for $20K and now wants to fight fees. I saw his hourly rate, and it is LOW, so me thinks he is churning. He lists on his bio “post-graduate study in taxation at New York University School of Law”. Must be something in the coffee over there.
Why waste bandwidth on Santorum or Warren? They’re both bought-and-paid-for tools. Santorum has always been a world-class idiot, and Warren had her brain shut off by the people who told her she could be a senator and ran her campaign.
I’d point at Liz Warren as a good example that anyone who runs for public office suffers from deep-seated personal problems.
Once you aspire to public office, you become part of the problem.
Clot
Surprised to see you in here, after Swansea today and Utd this weekend I thought you would be lying low.
SELECT * FROM comments ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 0, 100
ultimately difficult to prevent in case Zhang Fu every one, Rong good nod to the last face exposed extremely convincing expression At this moment,UGG Slippers 1002807 Grey, he gestures to a sign, smiled and said: At that time you only so high In short,Ugg Classic Cardy 5879 Boots, the more a child of the marriage you do not rigidly stick to what the first door,Ugg 9501 Insole, door first too noble people, this daughter-door in the future is also not good to get along with both the wife of the Br
Because they superior boot styles appear in new clothing and sizing’s of the usb ports, they can be cool to get bored to death by every single participant of your home. It will be important to determine the size in the start that promises becoming a real Ugg solution from the levels utilized by the Ugg Shoes and boots Modern australia Enterprise. On the list of styles at the moment on sale and settlement at Dillard’s are Giani Bini InchRemmaHalf inch knit leading and In .Anna” leggings, Betsy Ad