Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (263560)	12/7/2005 2:47:17 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573365

re:"The boom didn't start with Clinton's tax breaks' Wrong. RE:"The east and west coasts had booming housing markets well before the early 90s recession." Not even close in magnitude That's because the boom didn't include FLA. LA's median went from the mid 70s to $300K by the late '80s. All of CA, Portland, OR, DC, NYC, and most of New England including Boston were booming just like now. The current boom has grown to include FLA, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Seattle. That isn't much of an increase when you stop and realize how much of the rest of the country is pretty much unaffected. A boom makes a much greater impression if you are going through it. RE:"In fact, CA's housing markets have been booming since the late 1970s." Somewhat true due to another large tax break. Prop 13. But still not near the magnitude of the last 8 years. The numbers have gotten only larger after the interruption during the early 1990s. It was the same boom but starting on a larger base. Real estate in S. CA was a gold mine during the 1980s. RE:"Who the Clinton law has most benefited? Retirees.....people who are selling out and moving into something smaller because the kids are gone and they are getting to old to maintain a regular sized house. And I am not about to begrudge retirees their nest egg. Not entirely true. Flippers have been doing quite well. Right. Have you ever flipped a property? If so, explain to me the costs involved and the likely rate of return? Even if a flipper puts no money into it, he has to pay the carrying costs until its sold again. To make a bundle, you have to steal the property from the previous seller and really screw the new buyer. It happens but not often. Nonetheless, I would love ot hear how Clinton's tax cut caused flipping? The fact remains TEd that you're out in the cold because of Clintons tax breaks. If you somehow can buy now you run the risk of no appreciatin in housing for the next 10-20 years. Foreclosure risk is extremely high. Clintons tax cut has taken your retirement. Your nuts. You have no idea what you are saying. If Clinton's tax cut is causing this boom, why are so many parts of the country not booming? Think about it.......and then you will be thinking like a developer and not a real estate agent. Clintons tax cut has taken your retirement. Not to worry......I have it covered.