Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 549)

existing homes sales reuters

(Photo: REUTERS)

The National Association of Realtors said Wednesday existing home sales in the U.S. grew by 1.8%, the highest pace in nearly a decade. All major regions except for the Midwest saw strong sales increases last month.

“This spring’s sustained period of ultra-low mortgage rates has certainly been a worthy incentive to buy a home, but the primary driver in the increase in sales is more homeowners realizing the equity they’ve accumulated in recent years and finally deciding to trade-up or downsize,” said Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist. “With first-time buyers still struggling to enter the market, repeat buyers using the proceeds from the sale of their previous home as their down payment are making up the bulk of home purchases right now.”

Existing-home sales, which include single-family, townhomes, condominiums and co-ops, grew 1.8 to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.53 million in May from a downwardly revised 5.43 million in April. Including last month’s gain, existing home sales are now up 4.5% from May 2015 (5.29 million) and are at their highest annual pace since February 2007 (5.79 million).

“Barring further deceleration in job growth that could ultimately temper demand from these repeat buyers, sales have the potential to mostly maintain their current pace through the summer.”

Existing home sales in the Northeast increased 4.1% to an annual rate of 770,000, bring them to 11.6% on a year-over-year basis. The median price in the Northeast was $268,600, which is 0.1 percent below May 2015.

In the Midwest, existing home sales dropped 6.5% to an annual rate of 1.30 million in May, but are still 3.2% above May 2015. The median price in the Midwest was $190,000, up 4.8% from a year ago.

Existing home sales in the South grew 4.6% to an annual rate of 2.28 million in May, and are now 6.5% above May 2015. The median price in the South was $211,500, up 5.9% from a year ago.

Existing home sales in the West jumped 5.4% to an annual rate of 1.18 million in May, but are still 1.7% lower than a year ago. The median price in the West was $346,900, which is 7.7% above May 2015.

The National Association of Realtors said Wednesday

North-Korean-Leader-Kim-Jong-Un

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un attends an emergency meeting on Thursday. (Photo: AFP – Getty Images)

North Korea launched two intermediate ballistic missiles within an hour of one another on Wednesday after five failed previous attempts. The last missile traveled 250 miles and reached an altitude of around 620 miles, before crashing in the sea between Japan and North Korea. Tokyo and Seoul have not yet labeled it a failure, although the missile’s range is large enough it could potentially reach South Korea.

The five previous launches, one of which also took place Wednesday, were all unsuccessful. However, Kim Dong-yup, an analyst at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies at Kyungnam University in Seoul, said calling the test a failure isn’t exactly accurate. He said that North Korea was launching the Musudan to test a nuclear warhead that could take the extreme heat and friction that occurs when crashing through the earth’s atmosphere from a high altitude.

“I don’t believe North Korea failed again and again in testing the Musudan itself, which it had deployed 10 years ago,” Mr. Kim said. “What it has been trying to do with such difficulty was to use the Musudan as a vehicle to test the re-entry and detonation system for an I.C.B.M.,” he added, referring to an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said the missiles are a “serious threat” to his country, and South Korean President Park Geun-hye called the tests “reckless provocations.”

north-korean-missile-launch

North Korean Missile Capabilities

“This missile launch, like previous ones, is a clear violation of United Nations resolutions,” Prime Minister Abe said. “We cannot tolerate it and have protested firmly.”

North Korea launched two intermediate ballistic missiles

Marco-Rubio-Miami-March-15

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., speaks during a Republican primary night celebration rally at Florida International University in Miami, Fla., Tuesday, March 15, 2016. (Photo: AP)

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who unsuccessfully ran for the Republican nomination, will instead seek reelection to the U.S. Senate. He had previously said he would not seek reelection and the nomination at the same time, but was being urged by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kty., and others to reconsider.

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, had also urged Sen. Rubio to run, tweeting out “run Marco run” and noting polling data indicates he is the strongest candidate to hold his swing seat.

However, Sen. Rubio isn’t the only Republican running for his seat. Florida Reps. David Jolly and Rob DeSantis are declared and have effectively been running for months. PPD has reached out to the two campaigns for a response, but has not yet received a definite response from either.

Brad Herold, the campaign manager for Rep. DeSantis, said they would “make an announcement shortly.”

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who unsuccessfully ran

Warning Label: Caution Hot!

Warning Label: Caution Hot!

When you use a coffeepot, do you need a warning label to tell you: “Do not hold over people”?

Must a bicycle bell be sold with the warning: “Should be installed and serviced by a professional mechanic”? Of course not. Yet that bell also carries the warning: “Failure to heed any of these warnings may result in serious injury or death.”

This is nuts. It’s a bell.

The blizzard of warning labels means we often won’t read ones we should, like the Clorox label that warns, do not use bleach “with other product … hazardous gasses may result.” No kidding. Mixing bleach and ammonia creates gasses that can kill people.

But I rarely bother to read warning labels anymore, because manufacturers put them on everything.

A utility knife bears the warning: “Blades are sharp.”

I know about such dumb labels because Bob Dorigo Jones, author of “Remove Child Before Folding,” asks his readers and radio listeners to send in ridiculous labels for his “Wacky Warning Label” contest.

“We do this to point out how the rules that legislatures and Congress make favor litigation,” says Dorigo Jones. “We are the most litigious society on Earth. If the level of litigation in the United States was simply at the level of countries that we compete with for jobs in Asia and in Europe, we could save $589 billion a year.”

America has more silly warnings mainly because, unlike the rest of the world, we don’t have the “loser pays” rule in courts. That rule means that whoever wins a court battle is compensated by the loser. It creates an incentive not to bring frivolous cases.

In the U.S., the incentive is to try even dubious legal arguments and hope you’ll hit the jackpot. Or maybe your enemy will pay you to avoid the bigger cost of hiring lawyers to continue the fight.

More lawsuits mean more frightened corporate lawyers smearing labels on everything, just in case “lack of warning” is an issue in a lawsuit.

That’s probably why a toy Star Wars lightsaber comes with the label, “Not to Be Used as a Battle Device.” Why would they bother to say that? Did someone sue, claiming they thought a lightsaber would do what it does in Star Wars movies? I don’t know. The company never responded to our questions.

Some dumb labels are brought to us by dumb politicians. California requires warnings that something may be “toxic” or cause cancer on everything from foods to theme parks: “Disneyland Resort contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.” Gee thanks, California, but it would probably be better to warn kids about alligators over in Florida.

Dorigo Jones offers a prize to whomever submits the wackiest label. The lightsaber label won this year, earning Susannah Peat of Carmel, Indiana, a thousand dollars. You can submit your choices to try to win next year’s prize.

Please do. It’s important to make fun of lawyer-driven stupidity that distracts us from more important risks.

I suppose I shouldn’t really blame companies. They’ve been sued successfully so many times for not having labels that they feel they must try to protect themselves. Injuries aren’t the real danger here. Lawyers and politicians are.

When companies get sued, they end up charging higher prices to cover the cost of the lawyers. So those warning labels not only distract us but also are part of a process that makes us all poorer.

I worry that they also make us stupider.

Economists say that when people assume that government protects us from all possible harm, we acquire a false sense of security. We stop looking out for ourselves.

Those warning labels give us the impression that the law has assessed every possible risk — if something were seriously dangerous, government wouldn’t allow it.

Lawyers and legislators’ insistence that most every action be bound by written rules makes many of us forget to use own own brains.

[mybooktable book=”no-cant-government-fails-individuals-succeed” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

The U.S. has more silly warning labels

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton gives an economic speech in Columbus, Ohio on June 21, 2016.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton gives an economic speech in Columbus, Ohio on June 21, 2016.

Hillary Clinton used an economic speech in Columbus, Ohio to attack Donald Trump on an issue American voters overwhelmingly favor him over her to handle. The former secretary of state and presumptive Democratic nominee touted the 14 million private sector jobs that have been created under President Barack Obama while conceding there is much work to do.

“America’s economy isn’t yet where we want it to be,” she said. “Inequality is too great and wages are too low.”

She also argued that she is better prepared to handle economic issues, though polls show voters believe otherwise.

“I actually offer specifics because they matter,” she said. I “helped break down barriers” for the poor as a lawyer and “fought for health insurance for all” as First Lady.

Then, she contrasted her supposedly successful efforts to Donald Trump’s “reckless” economic record.

“He’s dangerous on the economy too,” she said. “Just like he shouldn’t have a finger on the button, he shouldn’t have his hands on the economy. Debt will explode and stock prices will plummet.”

“We can’t let Trump bankrupt us like we are one of his casinos,” Clinton said during her Tuesday speech.

However, Democrats privately acknowledge the speech was met with a rather unenthusiastic and tepid response by the audience. Clinton camp operatives admitted to PPD Monday the speech served to validate concerns that their candidate isn’t either President Obama or her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Rather than inspire or seek to convince undecided or persuadable voters to come over to Mrs. Clinton, they instead note the plan is to make Mr. Trump so unpalatable to voters they either stay home or vote against him.

While Mrs. Clinton leads nationally, her lead in swing states is either slight or non-existent while polling in the low to mid 40s. As the de facto incumbent candidate, who has been a known quantity in U.S. politics for decades, they acknowledge her weakness and stress her opponent is a target rich environment.

The Clinton campaign recently reserved more than $40 million in swing-state ad buys for the next six weeks.

“This campaign will be won in June,” one operation told PPD. “The plan is to do what President Obama did to Mitt Romney; define him before the voters have a chance to get to know him.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump said he is planning a “big speech tomorrow to discuss the failed policies and bad judgment of Crooked Hillary Clinton.”

“How can Hillary run the economy when she can’t even send emails without putting entire nation at risk?” Trump tweeted, referring to an FBI investigation into whether Clinton exposed classified information on a private email server while secretary of state.

[brid video=”42765″ player=”2077″ title=”Full Speech Hillary Clinton Rally in Columbus Ohio (June 21 2016) Economic Speech”]

Hillary Clinton used an economic speech in

[brid video=”42691″ player=”2077″ title=”Corey Lewandowski Loyal After Trump Campaign Shakeup”]

Since it was reported that Corey Lewandowski was dismissed as campaign manager for Donald Trump, the media have been trying to get him to throw mud at his former boss. That’s not happening. In an interview just one day after his firing, he discusses his former boss Donald Trump just one day after being dismissed as campaign manager.

Mr. Lewandowski said he was happy to be a part of the movement and still fully supports Mr. Trump.

Since Corey Lewandowski was fired as campaign

Statue-of-Liberty-New-York-background

Statue of Liberty in front of the New York City skyline.

DEVELOPING: Two armed men and a woman carrying multiple loaded weapons reportedly have been arrested at the New Jersey entrance to the Holland Tunnel, which exits in lower Manhattan. Authorities arrested two men in their 50s and a woman in her 30s after finding multiple loaded long-range weapons, handguns, ballistic vests and a camouflage helmet in the vehicle.

A source told NBC4 the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTF) is assisting the investigation.

Two armed men and a woman carrying

Russian-warplane

Russian warplane. (Photo: AP)

American and Russian forces in Syria have been tip toeing around each other for a year now.

A few days ago, it almost got really serious. Last week, American F-18s, launched from a carrier in the Mediterranean, tried and failed to stop Russian jets from bombing U.S.-backed forces fighting the Islamic State in Syria.

The Russian SU-34 Fullback bombers, an advanced, large, dual seat aircraft, struck American-backed forces garrisoned on the Syrian side of the Jordanian border.

The U.S. Navy immediately launched F-18 Hornet air-to-air fighter aircraft and the Russian bombers left the area. The American pilots communicated directly with the Russian aircraft during the shotless engagement.

However, as soon as the American planes departed to refuel, the Russian jets returned and bombed the facility again, killing more first responders on the ground in addition to those killed or wounded in the first strike.

The Obama administration expressed “great concern” over the incident.

“Department officials expressed strong concerns about the attack on the coalition-supported counter-ISIL forces at the At Tanf garrison, which included forces that are participants in the cessation of hostilities in Syria, and emphasized that those concerns would be addressed through ongoing diplomatic discussions on the cessation of hostilities,” Defense Department spokesman Peter Cook explained in a statement, reported The Daily Beast.

“Regarding safety, department officials conveyed that Russia’s continued strikes at At Tanf, even after U.S. attempts to inform Russian forces through proper channels of on-going coalition air support to the counter-ISIL forces, created safety concerns for U.S. and coalition forces,” Cook continued. “Department officials requested Russian responses to address those concerns.”
Frankly, there are several very troubling issues with this incident.

The first is that American aircraft in the region could not hold air superiority over the target for very long. President Obama sent two aircraft carriers to the Med to make a point and beat his chest in front of Russian President Vladimir Putin. It looks like Putin beat back by killing American backed forces, an in-your-face rejection of American military superiority. This makes Putin look really good and strong to his own population and that of the world.

How is it that two aircraft carriers could not deal with this situation? Was it rules of engagement? Was it interference from the National Security staff? Was it that the U.S. military is just worn out? Was it just bad luck? Something smells in Denmark, or Syria.

The fact that Russia just showed this administration who is boss in the Middle East is extremely disturbing and not being talked about in the media. It’s good there is only a few months left of the Obama presidency.

This article first appeared on L. Todd Wood’s Threat Assessment via The Washington Times.

[mybooktable book=”motherland” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Last week, U.S. F-18 Hornets tried and

Noor-Salman-Omar-Mateen

Omar Mateen, right, with his wife Noor Salman, left. Mateen, 29, a radical Muslim born to Afghan parents, opened fire in a gay nightclub in Orlando, killing at least 50 people.

If some maniac blurted out his allegiance to Jesus Christ while mowing down 49 innocent people, do you think there’s any chance President Obama would not showcase those remarks?

Well, in the case of radical Islamist Omar Mateen, the Obama administration not only refuses to emphasize his Islamic battle cry but also is actively suppressing it and trying to prevent the public from hearing or reading about it.

During an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Attorney General Loretta Lynch casually announced that the administration would only be releasing a partial transcript of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter during his massacre. It’s as if Obama is treating the entire nation like children whom he must shield from information he deems unworthy of public consumption.

“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this individual’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda,” said Lynch. “We’re not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance (to the Islamic State).”

Lynch said the FBI would release “a printed transcript (that) will begin to capture the back-and-forth between (Mateen) and the negotiators.”

If the administration is going to release the transcript, wouldn’t it make more sense to publish it in its entirety instead of a redacted version, which could be misleading? We’re not talking about withholding confidential information here or any other sensitive information from which authorities might reasonably want to shield the public.

When the administration has the complete transcript available, why would it want to release only part of it and just “begin to capture the back-and-forth”? Why not provide Americans, who are increasingly at risk, with the entire conversation?

Lynch insisted it’s because Obama and company don’t want to further Mateen’s propaganda, but it is obviously about protecting the administration’s narrative — that there is no connection between these types of shootings and the religion of Islam and that Obama has the Islamic State threat contained. Besides, given its track record, how can we trust this administration to be honest about what it is in fact deleting.

In his observations about the mass murder, Obama said: “We see no clear evidence that he was directed externally. It does appear that at the last minute, he announced allegiance to ISIL, but there is no evidence so far that he was in fact directed by ISIL. And there also at this stage is no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot.”

Every time we have such an incident, Obama is obsessed with denying the killer’s association with the Islamic religion, and he is particularly determined to deny any larger conspiracy because he knows that such a connection would undermine his propaganda that the Islamic State is on the run and constitutes no threat to Americans on our own soil. But Obama’s comments also reveal that he is willfully ignorant or deceitful about the horrific truth that an increasing number of killers are finding comfort in radical Islam, even when not directly backed by ISIS or al-Qaida. The absence of a conspiracy is in some ways more disturbing than its presence would be because it shows just how contagious this problem is and how endemic it is to a certain interpretation of the religion.

It is not the shooter’s propaganda that the administration wants to censor. It is his multiple passionate pledges of fidelity to Islam. We can be doubly sure of this because the administration is not only cutting some of Mateen’s words but also trying to soften their impact — to the extent that is possible — by releasing only a printed transcript and not the audio, which would obviously capture the impact more dramatically and accurately.

The administration’s dishonesty was further demonstrated in Lynch’s interview with CNN’s Dana Bash. Lynch told her, “It’s been our goal to get as much information into the public domain as possible so people can understand, as we do, possibly what motivated this killer, what led him to this place and also provide us with information.”

So what is the administration doing to help the public understand what possibly “motivated this killer”? Omitting Mateen’s most relevant comments on the subject.

There is no justification for Obama’s Big Brother to suppress this information from the public. If the administration’s purpose were to help us understand his motivation, it would include the entire transcript — and the audiotape. But in no event would it release part of his words and omit others directly on the question, resulting in a distorted account of what occurred.

No, the administration’s purpose is not to help the public understand but to keep the public from understanding that the killer’s motivations were precisely what he said they were and what the administration is denying they were. Obama is not trying to obstruct potential Islamic terrorist recruits from hearing Mateen’s religious screams but attempting to prevent Americans from hearing the truth.

Editor’s note: Since this column was written, the Obama administration bucked and released at least a partially complete non-redacted transcript.

[mybooktable book=”the-emmaus-code-finding-jesus-in-the-old-testament” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

If some maniac blurted out his allegiance

British Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Michael Gove, Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and Employment Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions Priti Patel attend the launch of the eurosceptic Vote Leave campaign at the group's headquarters in central London on February 20, 2016. (Photo: AFP)

British Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Michael Gove, Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and Employment Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions Priti Patel attend the launch of the eurosceptic Vote Leave campaign at the group’s headquarters in central London on February 20, 2016. (Photo: AFP)

It’s not all about money. The economic arguments for Britain to stay in the European Union may be compelling, but the noneconomic ones demand respect. Preserving a way of life is a valid desire — and one widely shared.

Throw all the innuendo you want at those vowing to vote in Thursday’s referendum to leave the EU. Say their talk of “Englishness” verges on racism, that it’s anti-immigrant. That they pine for a past long gone. Be utterly unfair and tie the “leave” advocates to the neo-Nazi head case who is charged with the murder of a Labour member of Parliament.

Some supporting Brexit — Britain’s exit from the EU — may harbor prejudices that good people abhor. But wanting control over how many and which foreigners enter one’s country is not unreasonable. Mass migration is part of the globalization process remaking the world many grew up in. Change is inevitable, but those wanting to slow its pace are not without reason.

Today any citizen of the 28 EU countries may move to and work in a member country. A strong economy has made Britain a magnet for huge numbers of EU immigrants, in addition to immigrants from elsewhere. Note that about half the entrants come from countries outside the EU, something under the government’s control.

“It’s fine to be concerned about immigration. … This doesn’t mean to say (such people) are racist or xenophobic.” Interestingly, those were the words of Jo Cox, the assassinated MP, who was urging her constituents to reject Brexit.

Cox listed as “legitimate” worries over how large-scale migration has stressed the National Health Service, how it has heightened competition for jobs and, notably, “how once familiar town centers are changing.” That last item was a roundabout way of saying that traditional English downtowns have been filling with brown people, many from Muslim countries.

It is instructive that Scotland and Northern Ireland, the two parts of Britain most supportive of staying in the EU, are the places with the fewest immigrants.

Realists in the Brexit camp understand that Britain needs immigrants to fill out its workforce. The numbers are what most startle them.

Last year, net migration into Britain (foreigners coming in minus Brits leaving) totaled 336,000. Before an election in 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron promised to lower the net migration number to 100,000.

Sociologist Frank Furedi is a rare British academic making the cultural case for Brexit. Furedi accuses the “remain” establishment of “trying to displace wider political and cultural concerns with a focus on economics.” In doing so, he writes, it evades “fundamental questions relating to values, cultural differences, insecurities and, above all, the issue of national sovereignty.”

Advocates for staying in the EU say there’s no point retelling the tales of comical waste and tragic dysfunction created by Brussels’ famously bloated bureaucracy. Everyone agrees on that.
They argue that the Brexit cure would be worse than the disease. A vote to break away would unleash economic chaos and embolden far-right nationalists across Europe to pursue their xenophobic campaigns.

They give short shrift to the serious economists and businesspeople who predict a departure would probably hurt Britain’s economy short term but hardly sink it. And they ignore the possibility that establishing better control over migration into the country could defuse the issue.

New polls suggest that public sentiment is moving toward a rejection of Brexit. The blizzard of economic warnings is undoubtedly playing a part.

Many supporters of leaving the EU concede that a slowdown could follow, but for most of them, that’s not the point. It’s not all about money. Whatever happens Thursday, their cultural concerns need a more thorough addressing.

The economic arguments against Brexit, or for

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial