Our Changing Globe

Archive for the ‘real estate’ Category

Europe a dagger pointed at Obama's reelection « The Enterprise Blog

blog.american.com11/16/11

While Europe's problems aren't Obama's fault, voters would hold him accountable for an economy too weak to withstand overseas shocks. Perhaps, they … 24 Responses to “Europe a dagger pointed at Obama's reelection” …

Virginia – A Microcasm of Obama's Re-election Problems

michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com10/21/11

Virginia – A Microcasm of Obama's Re-election Problems. The GOP presidential candidate line up continues to be a circus where the only sane candidates – Romney and Huntsman in my view – do not score well with the …

If Obama’s to get reelected, then he’ll need to overcome five major issues, and if he doesn’t, then he’ll lose, almost regardless of who is GOP opponent is!

His first and major problem is:

Jobs!

The single most important statistic affecting Obama’s reelection chances is the unemployment rate.

In April it stood at 9% which is up from 8.8% in March and that’s well above the historical norm for modern presidents who were reelected.

In March, a Wall Street Journal survey of economists predicted unemployment would be down to 7.7% by Election Day, but even that’s only just one-tenth of a percent lower than it was in November 1976, when President Ford lost to Jimmy Carter.

And, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis, that’s still higher than on two additional occasions when an incumbent president went down to defeat, in part because of high unemployment.

In 1980, President Carter lost to Ronald Reagan when unemployment was at 7.5%, and in 1992, a 7.4% unemployment rate helped Bill Clinton defeat George H. W. Bush.

In the post-World War II era, unemployment has only topped 7% four times on Election Day, and the incumbent has won only once and that was: President Reagan in 1984, when unemployment was at 7.2%.

The second problem is:

Obamacare!

A Rasmussen report issued on May 9 2011 found that support for repeal of the national health care law had rebounded after falling below 50% for the first time since it was passed by Congress in March of last year, and it now indicates that 57% of likely U.S. voters now favor at least a partial repeal of the law.

Just 36% oppose repeal, and those new findings include 44% who strongly favor repeal of the measure as against 26% who are strongly opposed.

If Romney is not the nominee, then the individual mandate is going to be an even bigger liability for Obama, and especially as the issue of its constitutionality works its way through the courts.

And in a bad piece of timing for the president, the case, or cases could reach the Supreme Court right in the thick of the 2012 campaign.

If the high court strikes down the individual mandate, or even the whole law, before the election, then that would be a huge embarrassment for Obama.

The third problem is:

Gas Prices

And I really wasn’t sure if I should make high gas prices the #1 issue because Americans hate them!

The fall in global oil prices at the end of the first week of May might well signal relief for consumers at the pump, but the spike in US gas prices to $4 a gallon, after a steady escalation in the cost of crude oil, remains a source of concern for the White House, both in its impact on consumers and the overall economy, as well as on Obama’s political fortunes.

Obama did say that, “that there’s no silver bullet to bring prices down”, and he did take very minimal action.

On April 21, he announced, “a Justice Department task force to monitor oil and gas markets for evidence of fraud or manipulation”, but it should perhaps be remembered that Obama has said that, “Gas prices at $4 would be OK”.

And the higher the gas price, the easier it will be for Obama to push his clean engergy agenda, but he’ll likely run out of time on that one.

The fourth problem is:

The Budget Deficit And National Debt

Obama ranks way down there when it comes to his handling of soaring deficits, and a dangerously high federal debt.

First, he kicked the can down the road by setting up a bipartisan fiscal commission, and after the commission came out with its recommendations, he ignored them!

And his proposed fiscal year 2012 budget, which was released in February, was widely panned for failing to address medical entitlements which are the biggest drivers of the looming crisis.

Then when Rep. Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Budget Committee, put out a budget plan with dramatic cuts, Obama simply responded with a “framework” for deficit reduction that was notably vague on how it would achieve promised major savings in Medicare and Medicaid.

And the latest Gallup poll shows 61% disapproval and only 33% approval!

Finally And Fifthly

Home Foreclosures

The Obama administration’s efforts to alleviate the home mortgage crisis have fallen way short of expectations.

In data released May 6, the departments of Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury reported that only 670,000 homeowners have been granted permanent mortgage modifications since the inception of the Home Affordable Modification Program in 2009, and of those, 83,000 subsequently have been disqualified.

The plans goal was to help 3 to 4 million homeowners.

Persistent high unemployment continues to put homeowners at risk of foreclosure and home values continue to decline.

Nationally, home prices are down 20% from their 2007 peak, and they’re only expected to hit rock bottom in 2012.

And according to the real estate data firm Zillow Inc., “In the first quarter of 2011, house prices fell 3% compared with the previous quarter, and more than 28% of single-family home owners owe more than their house is worth”.

All of the above is very bad news for Obama, in spite of what you see and hear in the left wing dominated media, and the question begs to be asked, “Can he overcome the five problems?”.

And the honest answer is, “Probably not”.

If he’s lucky he may overcome one or two of the problems, but that most likely won’t be enough.

The Obama Plan to Redistribute Housing | Libertarian Party

www.lp.org10/29/11

First Obama tried to redistribute wealth before he was President, by leading the charge to force banks to make loans to lower income Americans who could not afford to own homes (through the Community Reinvestment Act). …

Applying Obama's “redistribution of wealth” to school grades …

usamericanfreedom.com11/19/11

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan”. …

Obama and the liberals could perhaps have achieved both growth and redistribution, but they chose only the latter, and they will pay heavily for their error on Tuesday!

Will Obama change direction after the elections?

No He won’t!

During his election campaign Obama said:

“What people really want is fairness”.

“They want people paying their fair share of taxes”.

“They want that money allocated fairly”.

Redistribution Of Wealth

People thought it sounded good and they voted for him, but they didn’t know that he would immediately attempt redistribution of wealth, and he went for it full throttle in spite of the recession.

What the vast majority of Americans believe in however is economic growth, and they understand full well that the threat of having more and more money taken away as you get richer and richer is simply a demotivator.

The result, motivation went down, small businesses stopped hiring and unemployment went up and stayed up; and in some states it’s still getting worse.

Then Came ObamaCare

With motivation down, the Obama administration then committed another horrendous error of judgment – they rammed ObamaCare down a mostly unwilling nation’s throat.

Obamcare essentially subsidizes health insurance for low and middle-income groups and attempts to recover the cost by taxing high-earners even more, which in turn lowers motivation and causes people to hunker down instead of trying to grow their businesses.

And what makes it even worse is that low and moderate-income workers now feel no need to earn money because they can now maintain the same standard of living with even less effort.

Obama’s Response?

Seeing popularity wane both for him personally and for his policies Obama set out a stand and tried to sell the public his unwanted wares.

Expanding health care coverage was somehow going to somehow drive down costs.

Handouts to state and local governments became a stimulus package.

Climate change legislation became a “green jobs” bill, and so on.

When the voters didn’t buy his arguments his response was to tell them that, “They are confused and not thinking clearly” and that one statement will cost him dearly.

You don’t tell people that you want to vote for you that they are basically stupid if they don’t understand you, do you?

Harry Reid just said something equally stupid and it might cost him re-election in Nevada, “He saved the world economy!”.

Doesn’t he know that Oblamer is the One?!

Could Obama Have Played It Differently And Maybe Won?

Yes, he could have!

Obama could have embraced at least two policies that would have enhanced both equity and economic performance simultaneously, and some of them might well have bridged the ideological divide.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Loan guarantees should not have been provided for Fannie and Freddie because they shifted risk from participants in real estate transactions to taxpayers, and the caused capital to flow into the industry under very favorable terms.

Creating the guarantees allowed mortgage lenders, realtors, homebuilders, developers, securities traders and others to reap enormous gains during the boom, only to later dump their losses on taxpayers during the ensuing bust.

Cutting off all federal support for Fannie and Freddie would have sent a completely different message.

It would not only have greatly enhanced equity, but would also have helped steer investment away from ever more conspicuous McMansions and into productive endeavors like building newer, more-efficient factories, all of which would have stimulated economic growth.

* “McMansion” is an originally pejorative term used to describe a large house, particularly in the United States, that is constructed using modern labor-saving techniques and materials

The Tax Code

Another area that was ripe for reform would have been the loophole-ridden tax code.

Today, the proliferation of carve-outs means that only around 40% of personal income is taxed!

The loopholes should have been removed as much as was possible and the tax base broadened, after which the Obama administration could have slashed rates, enhanced equity, and provided a huge stimulus to the economy.

Instead, the administration did exactly the opposite; it added even more loopholes and promised to raise rates!

Right now we have a situation where similarly situated families often face vastly different tax burdens depending on their ability to game the system, and it also means that investment is steered away from companies that are adept at building better products, to those with the knack for lobbying.

Will Obama Move The Goal Posts?

Obama was a member of the New Party (communist) just 13 years ago, and he was no teen.

Michelle is a Black separatist of the worst kind as her Princeton thesis shows.

Obama is on record as saying that he’d rather be a great one term President than an ineffectual two termer, so we can sadly expect him and Michelle to continue to try and force their socialist/communist on America!