ROFFLE! I haven’t seen this since reading the alt.fan.warlord Usenet newsgroup in the early 1990s.

You got too much time on your hands, and too much useless stuff in your head.

1. His intention to lower taxes in hope of stimulating the economy, rather than initiating infrastructure projects. This kind of policy is like the Republicans’ plan. It’s equivalent to giving out welfare and getting nothing in return. Meanwhile, the government is running up huge deficits, while most of us don’t get much benefit out of getting an extra thousand bucks back.

2. Nominating Sanjay Gupta to be Surgeon General. The guy is too young to even date madhaus (that’s a compliment to madhaus, btw).

3. The whole fiasco with the Bill Richardson nomination.

As in go out and walk the doggie.

You got too much time on your hands, and too much useless stuff in your head.

Fed did not say that it will be “recovered” in 2nd half of 2009. It said “slow recovery to begin“.

Oh, such a nitpicking! Goes back to Lereah’s comment mentioned in #52. Numbers are “accurate” (according to Lereah) but he put positive spin. Same thing goes to our Chuckie’s comment – technically “slow recovery to begin” is similar (not exactly same) to “getting better”. But it’s all about giving positive/negative spins – like half-full-half-empty glass analogy.

Especially since we all know the vast majority of those newly minted immigrants are from across the border, and though I realize I’m stereotyping, its safe to say the bulk of them don’t make or have the kind of money to blow on RBA homes either.

Now on the other hand, domestic migration is interesting. Most reports show that of those migrating away from states like CA and the Northeast, the bulk are middle income to upper middle class residents. That’s the kind of growth you want to see. Not more migrant workers and burger flippers. California isn’t getting much of any domestic in-migration to speak of.

Same difference. If you’re “recovered” from something, aren’t you getting better? The only thing spinning here is your head.

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rtr/ex5.pdf

The above 1998 CDHCD report projects 15% and 20% growth in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, respectievly, from 1997-2010, and an additional 5% and 8% between 2010 and 2020. Who knows if these projections are accurate, but the clear picture here is that we are expecting positive population growth.

Now, does net positive migration alone mean property values should increase? What if construction of new housing units outpaces population growth? What if the distribution of income is not shared by all of the growing population?

Really, simple population analyses are poors predictor of housing prices. They may be a good predictor of public service consumption, transit needs, etc.