From National Mortgage Professional:
Homes are less affordable than ever in 99% of the nation’s counties
If you thought houses couldn’t become any more unaffordable, think again: Homes are now less affordable than ever in 99% of America’s counties.
As the country hit a new record high median house price of $375,000 in the third quarter of 2025, according to the ATTOM analytics firm, affordability woes grew ever worse. Of the 580 counties in ATTOM’s analysis, nearly half had worse affordability index ratings in the third quarter than in the second.
In all, median-priced single family houses and apartments were less affordable than historical averages in 99% of the counties with sufficient data to analyze in the quarter.
In 460 of the 580 counties (79%) in ATTOM’s analysis, home ownership expenses exceeded 28% of a typical resident’s wages, making owning a home unaffordable by standard guidelines. Those counties encompass some of the nation’s largest cities, including Los Angles, Chicago, Brooklyn, and Queens.
The national median home price of $375,000 in the third quarter of 2025 was 2.0% higher than the previous quarter and 4.8% higher than the same time last year.
But median home prices rose year-over-year in the third quarter in 438 counties, according to ATTOM’s analysis. The report includes counties with a population of at least 100,000 and at least 50 single-family home and condo sales.
Moreover, prices rose faster than the typical resident’s wages in about half (289) of the 580 counties in the report. That was up from last quarter, when home prices outstripped wage growth in only 35% of the counties.
…
Nationwide, the typical monthly cost of housing expenses was $2,123 in the third quarter. That’s essentially the same as the previous quarter but up 6% from the same time last year.
Those expenses on the median single-family home and condos would have consumed 33.3% of the typical American’s wages in the third quarter of 2025. That was up slightly from 33.2% in the previous quarter and 32.2% at the same time last year.
In slightly more than a third (199) of the counties, though, expenses on a median-priced house exceeded 43% of typical wages, a benchmark ATTOM says is “considered seriously unaffordable.”
Friskies
“ If you thought houses couldn’t become any more unaffordable, think again: Homes are now less affordable than ever in 99% of America’s counties.“
Other than getting rid of the Fed, the so called Real Estate investor in chief has no plan to address the housing crisis
In 460 of the 580 counties (79%) in ATTOM’s analysis, home ownership expenses exceeded 28% of a typical resident’s wages, making owning a home unaffordable by standard guidelines.
The 28/36 guideline went by the way of the buggy whip a long time ago. But I do see ‘ask’ prices dropping in rural enclaves in Upstate NY and Central PA. Around the NYC sphere? Not likely.
Did anyone get the headline:
White nationalist with Trump flags in his yard rams LDS church, shoots people and kids and sets it on fire because of political rhetoric from the Preident.
Thoughts and Prayers.
VSG: In all serious, what is he supposed to do about the housing crisis? What did Biden do? A large part of the reason for houses being so unaffordable is that the Fed drove rates down too low, and kept them there too long. Now the Fed is in cutting mode, but that won’t help, it’s not rates its prices. You want affordable houses, prices have to come down.
Housing crisis? No we have a lending crisis and will have an MBS crisis again.
I keep saying this over and over. Conforming loan limt anywhere in the USA are now $806,500. Extra special New Jersey it’s 1. 2 million. How is it every back woods in the entire country can qualify for these massive loans.
It was $510,400 just a few years ago. Everything is high cost they don’t distinguish between McDowell County, West Virginia and Warren County New Jersey…
https://www.fhfa.gov/data/dashboard/conforming-loan-limit-values-map
Conforming loan limt anywhere in the USA are now $806,500.
Okay, now I get it… but I don’t. I kept assuming it was 417K.
Loan Limits ANY questions?
2025: $806,500 (up to $1,209,750 in high-cost areas)
2024: $766,550 (up to $1,149,825 in high-cost areas)
2023: $726,200 (up to $1,089,300 in high-cost areas)
2022: $647,200 (up to $970,800 in high-cost areas)
2021: $548,250 (up to $822,375 in high-cost areas)
2020: $510,400 (up to $765,600 in high-cost areas)
2019: $484,350 (up to $726,525 in high-cost areas)
2018: $453,100 (up to $679,650 in high-cost areas)
That’s nuts. The limits are out…of…control!
well, for starters you guys need to get serious about governing. Hate is easy, governing is hard.
Head of Housing and Urban Development only experience is playing in the NFL
3b says:
September 29, 2025 at 8:17 am
VSG: In all serious, what is he supposed to do about the housing crisis?
US stocks are also less affordable than they’ve been for probably 95% of their history, yet very few are complaining about that.
I wonder what’s the typical micro-economics of first time home buyers these days.
Loans to pay for the down payment? 50% mortgage plus property tax payments as percent of household income? Dual earner families that can’t pay the mortgage if even one loses their job?
Or just very few first time buyers.
It is very strange to me that higher mortgage rates coincided with still-rising home values.
Government via the GSEs holds 30 million mortgages in about one million securities valued about $6.5 Trillion today. GSEs are also undercapitalized they could not survive a downturn without a government bailout.
The current administration’s plan is re-privatization. They have made little comment about how the process would exactly work, and none about how it intends to prevent the abuses that caused the bailout last time. I have not seen any legislation to this effect. They would have to lower the capitalization standards for the GSEs for one.
History does rhyme however the same historic lobbying pressure to “help homeownership” is coming around again. How can they do that without undoing to some degree the reforms that came about because of the housing crash and bailout?
The people who need help to become a homeowner are in fact the lower middle class, working but poor renters. The only way to lend them money to buy a home is to lower the lending standards and even give them a large amount of cash upfront for a deposit. We saw how that ended the last time….Who thinks this time will be any different?
Trump to pump up home ownership to lubricate the populace for his third term? Wonder if he’ll try the Putin maneuver with Vance running for President and Trump for VP. Constitution says this: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
Technically if Trump was elected to office of VP, and then Vance resigned, making Trump president, then Trump was never elected president more than twice.
Pretty likely Trump has thought of this having seen Putin get around a similar technicality some years back.
Fab – From yesterday..
Riddle me this…. Who was head of the FBI when they offered Christopher Steele One million dollars to corroborate the claims in his dossier? I will make it easy for you it was just days before the 2016 election….
Comey is a dirty cop.
nytimes.com
Opinion | Democrats Are in Crisis. Eat-the-Rich Populism Is the Only Answer.
Timothy Shenk
Guest Essay
Sept. 29, 2025, 5:00 a.m. ET
Mr. Shenk is a historian of modern American politics and has written extensively about the fight for control of the Democratic Party.
This essay is the first installment in a series on the thinkers, upstarts and ideologues battling for control of the Democratic Party.
For close to a year, Democrats have been locked in debate over their path out of the wilderness. In party retreats and private Slack channels, along with testy exchanges on social media and strategic leaks to reporters, Democratic insiders have wrestled over the mistakes of the Biden administration and the shortcomings of the Harris campaign.
The stakes of those arguments have risen even higher in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, with the White House intensifying its crackdown on dissent, and MAGA leaders declaring holy war against the left.
But an air of denial — and, more recently, panic — has pervaded the discussion about what comes next. It’s easy to say drastic reform is needed, but there’s no agreement on what this should look like. In practice, the party establishment is doing what party establishments always do — counting on the other side to self-destruct so it can squeak back into power while changing as little as possible.
The strategy would be a lot more defensible if Democrats could write off Trumpism as a fever that was bound to break with time. But the evidence of the past few years points in the opposite direction — shrinking populations in blue states, an alarming drop in Democratic voter registration, dire math for retaking the Senate and crushing majorities who say the party is “out of touch.” Worst of all is the ongoing rightward shift in the working class, a challenge that goes beyond winning elections to strike at the heart of what it means to be a Democrat.
few campaigns have bucked those trends. The problem for Democrats is that the best examples come from candidates running against the Democratic Party.
Dan Osborn, a 50-year-old industrial mechanic and Navy veteran who is making his second bid for the Senate in Nebraska as an independent. In 2024, while Donald Trump demolished Kamala Harris by 20 points, Mr. Osborn lost by just 7. According to the analytics website Split Ticket, this was the strongest performance relative to the partisan fundamentals of any Senate candidate.
What was Mr. Osborn’s secret? He’s a sometimes fumbling speaker, and he didn’t put together a world-beating ground game or dominate social media. But he was a credible spokesman for a message that resonated with voters in Nebraska — a blistering assault on economic elites, a moderate stance on cultural issues and the rejection of politics as usual.
Now, think about the biggest story of the 2025 election season, Zohran Mamdani’s come-from-nowhere victory in the New York City mayoral primary. From the start, Mr. Mamdani positioned himself as a fresh face confronting a dysfunctional system on behalf of ordinary New Yorkers struggling to pay their bills. He’s the happy class warrior blessed with Andrew Cuomo as his foil, a convenient stand-in for a corrupt and clueless establishment.
Yes, Mr. Mamdani is a 30-something democratic socialist with the kind of Twitter archive that opposition researchers dream about. But he waged a disciplined primary campaign that kept a relentless focus on the top concerns for New Yorkers — the cost of living — while backpedaling on polarizing issues like defund the police.
Mr. Mamdani and Mr. Osborn might not seem like they have much, or anything, in common — the child of an award-winning director and an Ivy League professor; the other a college dropout turned labor leader. But they both tapped into the roiling populist energies that have rocked the country since the financial crisis.
It’s a simple recipe, really: a scorching economic message delivered by political outsiders standing up to the powerful. The villains in this narrative — and it’s essential to have villains — are the elites at the top of a broken system. Neither Mr. Mamdani nor Mr. Osborn dwelled on cultural issues; instead, they concentrated on subjects like increasing wages and affording a home. Although their signature positions have strong public backing, their platforms are more than just a grab bag of whatever does best in the polls. They tell a story that reframes the debate, enlisting voters in a battle between the many and the few, with stakes that reach into everyday life.
This isn’t a progressive version of Trumpism, but it speaks to some of the frustrations that have made the president the dominant force in American life. The paradox is that stealing a page from MAGA is the best way to break its stranglehold on politics. Democrats must replace their reflexive opposition to President Trump with a positive vision for improving the lives of working people.
Right now, it would be easy to dismiss the Osborn and Mamdani campaigns as scattered revolts against the status quo, flickers of protest that will burn themselves out before long. But in the right hands, these grass-roots rebellions could become the basis for a new progressive majority.
From prairie populists to democratic socialists, a strategy for remaking the Democratic Party is coming together — a coalition of moderates and progressives leaning into economic populism while leaving room to maneuver in the culture war. They say things that make Democratic elites cringe, like “freeze the rent” or “build the wall.” Some of them can’t even imagine becoming Democrats. And that’s exactly why they could be the future of the party.
To understand Mr. Osborn’s appeal — and the challenge facing Democrats — it helps to think about a middle-aged white guy flipping the bird. He appears in one of Mr. Osborn’s 2024 ads. “This finger is voting for Trump,” he says while pointing to his index finger. Then he breaks into a wide smile as he moves one digit over to the middle. “And this one,” he says, “is for sending Washington a message with Dan Osborn.”
There’s no mistaking Mr. Osborn for a typical Democrat. He regularly appears in shirtsleeves and jeans on the campaign trail, looking like he’s taking a break from fixing Pete Buttigieg’s Subaru. He sounds like it, too. “Social Security to illegals,” he marveled in another campaign ad, “who would be for that?”
Direct outreach to Republicans is an essential piece of Mr. Osborn’s campaign. “The truth is, I agree with President Trump on many of the most important issues facing the country,” he wrote in an essay for the Fox News website, listing China and draining the swamp as examples. “If he needs someone to help him build the wall,” Mr. Osborn added, “well, I’m pretty handy.”
And yet, in the same Fox News essay, Mr. Osborn said he was in the race because, “The U.S. Senate is just a country club of millionaires who work for billionaires and have no idea what it’s like to work for a living.” Statements like this are the reason Bernie Sanders has called Mr. Osborn a model for how to run a working-class campaign. It’s easy to imagine Mr. Sanders making the same point about billionaires running the Senate, and impossible to picture Fox News publishing it.
Despite the spicy language, Mr. Osborn’s positions on most cultural flashpoints tilt more libertarian than conservative — for gun rights but against a national ban on abortion, in favor of sealing up the border but opposed to masked men snatching immigrants off the street. Most of the time, he’d rather talk about economics, a telling overlap with Mr. Mamdani. “I don’t hang my hat on social issues,” Mr. Osborn told The Bulwark. He saves his energy for another target: “the billionaire class ruling over us, thinking they could divide our country up.”
After staying publicly neutral in the 2024 election, when it declined to field a candidate, the Nebraska Democratic Party leadership is backing Mr. Osborn this time around. He’ll take the support, but he isn’t joining a party that’s a pillar of the system he wants to disrupt.
Mr. Osborn is far from the only figure with a populist message this year. Mr. Sanders has spent much of the last six months packing arenas — many in red states — on his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has picked up on the spirit, joining Mr. Sanders as he has moved deep into Trump country. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut has become an evangelist for the cause despite representing one of the wealthier states in the nation. A barrage of Democrats who share Mr. Osborn’s working-class background and pointed economic appeal are competing in battleground districts. Even Roy Cooper, the genial, moderate governor of North Carolina, has had a populist makeover for his current Senate race, which he entered with an ad telling voters, “The biggest corporations and the richest Americans have grabbed unimaginable wealth at your expense.”
That approach is in line with arguments coming from an influential group of Democratic operatives, like the data guru and “popularist” David Shor, who say that pocketbook issues are still the strongest weapon in the Democratic arsenal. Future Forward, the leading Democratic super PAC, raised close to $1 billion in the 2024 election cycle with the goal of persuading voters that Joe Biden and Ms. Harris would reduce the cost of living. It didn’t work then, and the party’s ratings on the economy and inflation continue to lag behind Mr. Trump’s.
Populists think only a shock to the system will change these perceptions. “I want to tear the Democratic Party down and build it back up from the studs,” said Nathan Sage, a self-described “child of a trailer park” running for the Senate in Iowa. Voters won’t listen to the message if they don’t trust the messenger — and, according to Mr. Sage, that means a comprehensive overhaul to make “a Democratic Party that people like me will actually want to be a part of.”
This kind of full-court press for the working class is a gamble. But there are no safe choices for a party whose approval ratings are bouncing around 35-year lows. Exhuming Liz Cheney one more time with the hope of turning out white-collar suburbanites is another risk, and in a country where the median full-time worker earns just under $63,000 a year and about 60 percent of adults don’t have a college degree, the numbers are with the populists. For every stockbroker in Greenwich that the party loses, there are two janitors in Kenosha to be won — the building blocks of a durable, coherent majority that can break through the paralysis in Washington and level the playing field for working Americans.
No One – Family members in my family Facebook group are convinced the troops will be deployed to take away voting rights.
I mean who is to blame them when politicians on the left are messaging this? Pritzker came right out and said it. Trump sending troops into American cities has nothing whatsoever to do with crime or policing but, instead, is all about stealing the 2026 election.
There are good reasons to believe Democrats can build this coalition today, starting with this one: They’ve done it before.
The dirty secret of American politics is how little the big picture really changes. For almost a century, Democrats have been at their strongest — with solid majorities in Congress and a firm grip on the White House — when they united working people around a populist message powerful enough to overcome their cultural differences.
The story goes back to the forging of the New Deal coalition. Franklin Roosevelt’s first term in the White House was consumed by the clash between labor and business. The president sided with workers, astonishing corporate leaders who had assumed they would have a friend in Washington. A defiant Roosevelt said he welcomed the hatred of “economic royalists,” and in 1936 he steered Democrats to one of the largest victories in American history.
Yes, he lost some of the wealthy Democrats who supported his first campaign. But a remarkable coalition joined his crusade: Northeastern Catholics, Midwestern factory workers, dust bowl farmers, overwhelming majorities of the white South, Black voters turning against the party of Lincoln for the first time, and millions more. Although separated by race, religion and geography, their lives had all improved in concrete terms over the last four years, and they rewarded Democrats for it.
Working people transformed American politics by consolidating in a single party for the first time. A generation later, they transformed it again when they began their long exodus from the Democrats.
“The time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party,” Ronald Reagan declared in the run-up to his 1980 campaign. He had idolized Roosevelt as a young man — he voted for him four times — and he retained enough of his New Deal instincts to identify the essential elements of this majority. “The New Republican Party I am speaking about,” he said, “is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat” — in short, the “working men and women of this country.” They had been the heart of Roosevelt’s party, and they became the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s.
Bringing those voters back into the Democratic coalition was the overriding purpose of Bill Clinton’s first presidential race. The campaign’s mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid,” was designed to keep the spotlight on voters struggling to get by.
Clintonomics would later turn into a celebration of the high-tech New Economy, but in that first campaign, it still had a populist edge. Mr. Clinton ran on raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting them for the middle class and establishing universal health care. “Bush has never used the bully pulpit to attack the wealthy for screwing the workers,” Mr. Clinton told campaign staffers, confident he wouldn’t make the same mistake. And his moves to the center on the cultural front — reforming welfare, cracking down on crime — helped him win the Democratic nomination. When he swept across the South on Super Tuesday, The Times praised him for demonstrating that “it is politically possible to bring poor Blacks and blue-collar white voters together.”
Barack Obama pulled off the same feat on an even more impressive scale. He mixed kitchen-table populism with cultural moderation in both of his campaigns, urging voters to focus on the problems that he said really mattered — crowded emergency rooms, special interests with a stranglehold on Washington, and corporations that would take a job and “ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.”
He talked like an old-fashioned Democrat, and, outside of the South, the country more or less treated him like one. Mr. Obama rolled through the Rust Belt, and Democrats in the Senate won states that now seem hopelessly out of reach, including Arkansas, Montana and West Virginia. Although he set records in the suburbs, white voters without college degrees were the largest group in the 2012 Obama coalition, well ahead of educated whites, and greater than Black, Hispanic and Asian American voters combined.
Mr. Trump shredded this coalition. But his gains are more precarious than they look — and the shrewdest Republicans know it.
Ruffini saw this coming. A longtime Republican pollster, Mr. Ruffini began arguing that conservatives were poised for major improvements with nonwhite voters before Mr. Trump clinched the nomination in 2024. But he says the blueprint for a Democratic comeback might already have been drafted. “Going back to a Bernie-2016-style campaign,” he told the Cook Political Report, “might be the ticket.”
What Mr. Ruffini means by “Bernie-2016-style campaign” will sound familiar: an authentic outsider running hard on economic populism with policies that are simple to grasp, easy to remember and designed to start fights with defenders of the status quo. This doesn’t require capitulating to the right on the cultural front — Mr. Sanders certainly didn’t — but it does mean a laser focus on fixing a rigged economy and broken political system, along with direct appeals to voters with more conservative social views.
Voters don’t need to agree with a politician on every issue. But they want candidates to share their priorities and show a backbone — to prove they can beat the establishment where it counts.
A recent study from Mr. Ruffini’s consulting firm, Echelon Insights, provides some empirical backing for this approach.
In line with conventional wisdom, the study showed that most voters fall into one of two sharply opposed camps: liberals and conservatives. Democrats still licking their wounds from 2024 might be surprised to learn that consistent liberals are the largest slice in the electorate — 43 percent, compared with 31 percent for conservatives.
But in a polarized party system, the true king makers — the voters who decide elections — don’t fall neatly into the left or the right. According to Echelon, populists with fiscally liberal and socially conservative views are by far the largest group of swing voters, at 22 percent of the electorate. Libertarians are a distant fourth, with just 5 percent. Democrats have struggled over the last decade because their biggest gains came from this smallest section of voters, while Mr. Trump cleaned up with populists.
According to a study from the left-leaning Center for Working-Class Politics and Jacobin, almost a tenth of Mr. Trump’s supporters in 2020 were “essentially ‘Bernie Bros’”: blue-collar, culturally moderate, economic progressives. Those numbers were presumably even higher in 2024, when more of these voters either shifted to Mr. Trump or sat out the election. If Democrats want to make up their losses, they need to win these voters back.
Polling can show the elements for a winning strategy, but it takes political leadership to convert the statistics into a coalition.
This begins by recognizing that inside Democratic primaries, liberals hold the cards. The trick is to fire up the Democratic base while reaching out to the middle — to replicate Mr. Mamdani’s success mobilizing liberals around pocketbook issues and use the same platform to win over populists drawn to candidates like Mr. Osborn.
Echelon’s study shed light on the kinds of policies that could unite those two groups. It showed decisive majorities for a $20-an-hour minimum wage, a right to health care and a higher tax rate for people earning over $250,000 a year. Other polls have found similar levels of support for a federal jobs guarantee. And with approval of organized labor hovering near 60-year highs, spearheading a comeback for unions is a smart short-term move that could yield major returns for Democrats over the long run.
The picture is messier on the cultural front, where working-class voters tend to be less progressive than white-collar professionals. But over the last generation, the entire electorate, including the working class, has moved left on issues as varied as abortion and L.G.B.T.Q. rights.
And on the economy, more and more people are open to a sharp populist message. The affordability crisis has forced some suburbanites with six-figure incomes to live paycheck to paycheck. The gig economy has replaced once stable careers with perpetual freelancing. Increasing numbers of professionals are struggling to find steady work, and the total could soar if predictions about A.I. are close to accurate.
Billionaires didn’t cause all these problems, but they are the winners in an economy that about 70 percent of Americans believe has been rigged in favor of the powerful. With economic anxiety reaching deep into the professional class, populism isn’t just for hard hats anymore.
The credentialed precariat is already expressing itself in politics. College-educated young people have gone wild for Mr. Mamdani, but his base in the mayoral primary consisted of voters making between $25,000 and $125,000 a year. That spectrum ranges from the barista with an M.F.A. from the New School to paralegals at white-shoe law firms wondering if they’ll ever have their own place. New York City’s challenges with the cost of living are extreme, but they’re getting more familiar every day.
All of which helps explain why the most popular elected official in the country today is none other than Mr. Sanders. “Old-school labor populism, it’s not something that I love personally,” Lakshya Jain of Split Ticket said in a recent interview. “But that is actually, probably the single most electorally potent wing of the party.”
A coalition of liberals and populists wouldn’t just be a marriage of convenience. It would be a response to the economic problems both sides feel are most important in their lives today, and to historic victories for progressives in the culture war. And it could win a lot of elections.
What could go wrong? The honest answer is: plenty.
A more populist Democratic coalition would be an uncomfortable place for the college-educated professionals who shifted left in the Trump years. It would be even less friendly to the megadonors who bankroll the party. Bringing populists and liberals together in a pincer movement will take enormous skill, and the alliance could be blown apart by cultural differences that both Republicans and establishment Democrats will be eager to exploit.
Although the gap between working-class and white-collar voters on economics has narrowed, it hasn’t disappeared. To name just two fault lines, working people tend to be more skeptical about raising taxes to pay for new government services and more concerned about keeping energy prices low than, say, tackling climate change.
Then there’s the not-so-little question of who’s supposed to lead this revolt. Mr. Osborn is almost certainly out of the running. Even if he wins next year, his social views are too out of step with the party to be able to make it through a Democratic presidential primary. Mr. Sanders would be a natural candidate, but he has aged out of the role.
His heir apparent, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, is more comfortable working within the Democratic establishment, but also more polarizing. Although MSNBC would be in her corner, a Joe Rogan endorsement probably isn’t in the cards. She remains untested in campaigns outside New York; after a strong showing in her 2018 debut, she has underperformed expectations at the ballot box. And it’s by no means obvious that she can do better with rank-and-file Democrats where Mr. Sanders came up short, starting with Black voters in South Carolina.
But charismatic politicians with shaky moderate credentials have gone far before, including the president who shaped so much of today’s forbidding economic landscape. “The time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party we know is waiting to be created,” Reagan told supporters still reeling from the implosion of Richard Nixon’s presidency. “This will mean compromise. But not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new: something open and vital and dynamic.”
Half a century later, the moment for building a great progressive majority party has arrived, a coalition asserting itself against a sclerotic political elite, our economic overlords in Big Tech and Wall Street and a radical right crusading against its own country. Turning Democrats into the vehicle for this coalition will take a struggle — a bruising, messy contest to seize the reins from a party establishment that will be scrambling for its life. But working people fight much harder battles every day. It’s about time they had somebody in their corner.
Tim Shenk is a professor of history at George Washington University and the author, most recently, of “Left Adrift: What Happened to Liberal Politics.” He is at work on an intellectual biography of the economy.
Juice ~11:01.
There will not be a Fair 2026 Mid-Term election or 2028 Presidential election. 2028 Election might not happen.
The deployment to mostly white Portland with armed troop with itchy finger orders is to create a massacre. The King wants a massacre before the mid-term to put the fear into the population. A mostly white massacre is more important for the Fear Factor than the minority one.
Is classic autocratic power dynamics. Autocrats work by fear. Make them fearful sooner than later to overcome resistance. Realize the context has changed. Looking at the national picture, all the supposes dictatorial power circuit breakers of courts and legislatures have failed.
The next step is the physical Mano A Mano, the make me do it moment. With a significant size of the population telling the King to F’off. By massacring people the amount of population likely to rebel and yell F’off drops dramatically.
As we are following the Argentina and Chile playbook, look up massacres in those countries and see what is coming. Public display of government power, cruelty and lethality is the point.
The only thing that will slow it down will be economic consequences as the masks is off and the reality of a USA dictatorship is real and internal divide created in the military as abandonment, sabotage and refusal to follow orders occurs with people that swore to Constitution and not personal loyalty to a King that will make them barely functional .
All the insurrectionist militia of the attempted Coup were pardoned for a reason.
TheAmericanTianemen IsComing says:
September 29, 2025 at 11:16 am
As we are following the Argentina and Chile playbook, look up massacres in those countries and see what is coming. Public display of government power, cruelty and lethality is the point.
MAGA terrorist who burnt a mormon church and killed 4, receives very little attention from the white house. Just imagine if he was trans or Black?
The housing market is overvalued, it needs to collapse. The only thing you can do to stop it is more subsidies, which will just grow the problem.
BRT/Juice,
If conforming levels are that high, where is the monthly household income? I mean, if I’m handing you a 750K loan, what is the ratio these lenders are using?
Ed for FHA loans 64.5% of had debt-to-income ratio above 43.0% in 2024.
Juice,
Plus the cost of everything else… I’m dumbfounded. How are people surviving? Or, is the dam about to break. I ask declaratively.
Ed – my understanding is there is a massive amount of loan modifications going on.
not the right narrative for the Culture Warriors in here
MAGAisACult says:
September 29, 2025 at 12:36 pm
MAGA terrorist who burnt a mormon church and killed 4, receives very little attention from the white house. Just imagine if he was trans or Black?
Beyond Meat went from $240 per share in 2019 to $1.78 today.
Muppets want meat not vegan fillers and stuff that resembles saw dust.
Fast: I trillion in credit card debt explains at least part of the reason they are surviving> just make the minimum payments on the cards, and juggle them all up in the air. of course they will eventually fall.
3b: Credit card debt was at $1.21 trillion at the end of Q2, 2025. It’s accelerating. I get CC solicitations in the mail constantly. Spend! Spend! Spend!
New record sale in our neighborhood, under contract for 1.25 million. People leaving notes in my mailbox that they want to make a cash offer for my palace…..
What could go wrong?
Fast: It’s rising so fast, I can’t keep up with it. I get pre approved offers all the time. Approval in 20 seconds!
The industrial/factory auctions for beyond meat would be amazing.
I need giant bioreactors and reaction vessels. Oooh oh, a deal on newer model GC/MS would be incredible.
Which debt craters first?
Autos?
Cards?
Personal Loans/BNPL?
Homes?