Patrick Killelea: What Every Homebuyer (And Homeowner) Should Know Now

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity

Patrick Killelea: What Every Homebuyer (And Homeowner) Should Know Now

For many, the collapse of the housing bubble was the trigger that began the era of economic slowdown Americans find themselves mired in.

But recently there have been growing reports in the media of a housing "recovery." So we've invited Patrick Killelea, founder of the popular housing site and author of The Housing Trap: How Buyers Are Captured and Abused and How to Defend Yourself, to clarify the situation.

The short answer is this: While there are some markets where home prices are back in line with both fundamental and historic norms, buyers still need to exert caution when making a purchase.

First, to the reports of "recovery":

Prices at the low end are definitely rising. All measures are showing that. But I don’t like to use the word “recovery,” because it implies there’s something good about rising prices. Rising prices are a kind of inflation. I’d be delighted if reporters would use the correct term and say "housing inflation return." But back to the point, prices are rising at the low end. But it’s not really an organic growth.


What’s happening is that a lot of investors realize two important things. One is that the price of a house in the biggest bubble areas like Phoenix fell well below the price implied by the rental evaluation. So these guys want to make a profit and they realize, if we buy up these houses and rent them out, we’re going to get a better return on our money than we can get anywhere else, especially with interest rates being as low as they are. The return on a rental property, often referred to, as “capitalization rate” can easily be 10% in these areas. And that’s huge. So that drew the attention of not only little investors, but also actually even big hedge funds. Although recently a lot of those have announced that they’re getting out of the game. They seem to have picked over a lot of these places, and there aren’t the deals that there were even a year or two ago.


At the other end of the spectrum are really expensive places like New York City. The crash was very muted, and it was hardly a crash at all. It was a downward trend in pricing. But what that means is, it’s still difficult, or maybe even impossible, to buy property in New York City and rent it out for a profit. You can’t do it. You’ll lose money. So if you were buying there, you’d be betting truly on appreciation that’s not justified by the underlying fundamentals.


I said that investors realized two things. The other thing investors realized is that they have cash. Ordinary buyers, families, don’t generally have enough cash to buy outright. So that gives the investors a huge advantage, especially since lending is still pretty tight. Even with the low interest rates, it’s still considerably harder to get a mortgage now than it was in the big bubble years, 2004 and 2005.


So I’d say it’s an investor-driven recovery. And that recovery is really only in the places where they had a huge bubble and a huge crash. I’d say that it’s safe to buy in those areas, especially in places where the house is lower than the rental equivalent cost.

Patrick goes on to share the key elements to keep in mind when buying a house, including price-to-rent ratios, leverage limits, construction quality, and diversity of the local economy.

Beyond that, he shares his concerns about how the playing field when buying a home is slanted against the buyer's interests. He warns of numerous tactics the industry employs, most notably information asymmetry, that consumers need to be aware of, including:

There are all kinds of tricks that agents play. I list a lot of them in my book, but it would probably take several more books to cover it all. There is a lot of psychological manipulation of buyers. Agents are used-house salesmen. That sounds harsh, but it’s true. They are kind of like used-car salesmen: they’re not there to provide value; they’re there to get a commission. That’s their goal. And if you don’t buy, they don’t get paid.


A typical trick of theirs would be first taking you around and showing you extremely ugly and overpriced houses. And then they show you the one that they think you’ll buy. Maybe it’s overpriced as well, but not as bad. So you’ve got an anchoring effect, and it makes you a little more susceptible.


There are all kinds of other and evil games that are played. And because the whole housing market is very non-transparent, it’s very hard to pin them down. You don’t have any way of knowing if there are any other offers at all, because you’re not allowed to look at the other offers. You don’t know that they exist. So agents can lie with impunity and say, oh, there are twenty offers, and people just believe it. They think why would the agent lie?


Clearly, they’re not thinking hard enough. The agent has a motive to lie. And if you can’t prove that they’re not lying, the agent has the means, motive, and the opportunity to deceive you for profit. That would be enough to convict them if they were in court. But it’s normal business practice in real estate, so nobody seems to think twice about it.


And agents and house inspectors often have a cozy relationship. Maybe a little too cozy, where the agent recommends an inspector, and the inspector sort of passively agrees he’s not going to find anything. He gets business from the realtor, and the realtor gets the recommendation that you should buy it. You should really separate those things. Don’t take the realtor's recommendation for an inspector. Find your own inspector, preferably one who has nothing to do with that realtor. 

Patrick also shares insights from his analysis of years of national home purchases. These include: don't sell too often (the transaction costs will kill your returns), don't upgrade too frequently (it's more costly than you think), and it's worth it to transact without an agent if you're able to do so.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Patrick Killelea (39m:55s):

Click here to read the full transcript

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture


  The things you own, they end up owning you.

redpill's picture

Real estate agent scams are nothing new, and don't really have anything to do with current market conditions.

And FYI if you're buying a house and don't use an agent, you don't save any money because they won't pay you the commission unless you are an agent.  It just means the seller's agent pockets both sides of it.  If you're selling a house and don't use an agent, you'll probably need to offer higher commission to a buyer's agent anyway to get enough traffic to have a chance at selling the place in a reasonable span of time.

As for cash buying, it peaked nationwide in 2011, and has relaxed slightly since.  The loans are starting to flow again, and the author is correct that it is a form of inflation.  The Fed is spending billions every month in an attempt to inflate housing prices and they won't stop until they are "successful."  Unfortunately that will eventually go away (by choice or by force) and housing will once again have to deal with the rug getting pulled out as happened in 2010 with the ridiculous home buyer tax credit scheme.

Investment purchases are flat since 2011, still a significant portion, but the market has started to broaden again.  But recovery in housing has substantial obstacles obviously, anyone thinking that they'll be able to make it big off price appreciation alone is fooling themselves.  There are good investment opportunities for rentals that would easily be cash flow positive on day one.  However when peoples' credit starts to heal in a few years, the rental market won't be nearly as lucrative as it is today.  ZIRP will eventually lure people back into buying homes.


flacon's picture

How much money will you earn in your lifetime? Suppose you earn $70K ($50 after taxes) and suppose you work 40 years. You will earn $2,000K ($2 million). 

How much was that mega-mansion selling for down the road?


Perhaps the key lesson here is that 'working' isn't 'working' any more.

economics9698's picture

“And agents and house inspectors often have a cozy relationship. Maybe a little too cozy, where the agent recommends an inspector and the inspector sort of passively agrees he’s not going to find anything.

Lol this is most defiantly true.  I have worked in civil engineering, (hey I got to pay bills too) for 25 years and with the 47% decline in construction spending in Florida since 2007 we have been begging for one government job after another.

So with the down market we (my civil engineering group) decided to go after housing jobs, wind mitigation and home inspections. 

It was the proverbial clash of two completely different worlds.  In commercial construction the standards are very tight, people have died because of building failures, and residential is, at best, the “B” team, some might say the “C” team.

So this realtor gives us a 1957 house knowing we have never done this before hoping for the good report.  Bad decision.

We come up with a 36 page punch list, pictures, detailed report that would meet commercial standards, and the lady is pissed off, flabbergasted, and threatening to sue us.  Pretty funny stuff for us but not the real estate lady.

Another house had a flat roof that was holding water 3” deep in the middle.  Like I am not suppose to notice this?  WTF?

Needless to say we never get call backs from the real estate professionals.

In good economics times its chump change. 

So do beware and do your own inspection.  Get a punch list on line and check everything yourself.  


CPL's picture

That won't happen with minimum wage being standard wage.  Face it, it's not coming back.  Everyone is switching places, that's the plan until oil runs it's self past a mortgage payment for regular suburban commuting.

MachoMan's picture

Exactly.  He dropped the ball with the last few sentences:

There are good investment opportunities for rentals that would easily be cash flow positive on day one.  However when peoples' credit starts to heal in a few years, the rental market won't be nearly as lucrative as it is today.  ZIRP will eventually lure people back into buying homes.

So....  if credit heals and people start piling back into homes, wouldn't the cash investors have appreciation in value?

I'll posit a different approach...  that credit doesn't heal...  that prospective renters will become more and more broke with stagnant wages...  and that rents will decline along with them.  We've hit a peak in distributed ownership of housing... 

disabledvet's picture

I think Long Island is about to collapse...and possibly take the Greater New York Metro area with it. The fact of the matter is Bernanke has NOT given speculators the ammo with which to go "hog wild with house flipping." In fact he's created the same bubble that was created the last time "only with a more permanent ending." Free fares, free gas....these are your cues that something horribly wrong is at play "and no matter the outcome of the election a sudden downturn is in order." The only question for me...indeed only question I've had since I came to this site years ago..."will the tanks be over here...or over there." Right now we've got a little bit of both I think...

southerncomfort's picture

"...the seller's agent pockets both sides of it."  

False.  If you're not using an agent, knock the commish down 1/2 - you're not required to pay any agent you didn't hire.  Get outta here w/ that junk.  You can't ask for 1/2 a full commish paid back after close (unless you're an agent) but you CAN drop your offer price 10% prior to contract to nix paying all the commissions and toss paying that shiz back into the seller's court for hiring a freakin' RE agent to start with.  In many states you can print standard RE contracts off www (look for your state's real estate licensing board and find their contracts) and fill 'em out yourself - they're boilerplate.  Have in fact done "zero agent" (no agents at all) buyer to seller deals this way - seller/buyer just go to reputable title company- let seller choose, they're state regulated anyhow - THEY walk you thru it - everyone saves big $$$s doing this.

"If you're selling a house and don't use an agent, you'll probably need to offer higher commission to a buyer's agent anyway to get enough traffic to have a chance at selling the place in a reasonable span of time."  

Poppycock.  Have used on last 3 deals -- 2 houses, 1- 250+ acre tract of land.  Got asking prices on the houses (one closed in 4 days, other in 10 days), paid 1/2 commish to agents who brought the buyers (3%).  On the land - which did take a little longer to sell since there aren't tons of folk walkin' around looking for 250+ acres - offered 2% to buyer's agent since price ($) was large and any agent who did the deal would walk away w/ nice chunk of dough anyhow.  Used boilerplate "farm & ranch" contract from state RE license site and deal went fine.  

IF you sell yourself, make sure whatever www source you use  lists your property on MLS in your area.  That way, buyers looking and agents see it - so if buyers want to see your property their agent willl be compelled to come to avoid having you do a deal with their buyers direct (with agent losing commission for not being there).  Also, of course, price your ask 10% higher to cover cost of any buyer bringing an agent--they're the one bringing this baggage, not you.  If buyer comes w/out agent, you've got plenty of $ flex on your ask to offer buyer some $ reduction.  Print the contracts, sit at the table, and fill 'em out together and drive over to title company to get deal going.  It's not rocket science....

If you're selling your own deal, 1) be as honest as you know up front.  Easier to warn about things that might be iffy than pay later w/ lawyers.  I always let buyers ask questions, then sege into "I am going to tell you everything wrong about this house that bugs me"...and tell them.  With a 4 day and 10 day contracts under my belt, this blatant honesty appears to work wonders and amazes even me, the seller.  Next thing is give the buyers my number - with instructions to call me within a month or two to let me know everything's okay (they never do).

Then I call THEM a week later saying I want to buy the house back--I miss it, etc.  lol, man, they always scream NO WAY!  (I do this with cars I've sold too...).   Everyone knows - in his gut - a "fair" deal.  If you give people a fair deal everyone wins.  With no disrespect to RE agents, man, in my experience, they "add" a lotta expense and nonsense to deals sometimes -- so at least with my own, most times I just pass on the agents or push their expense to the other party's side of the table since it's their expense, not mine.

mmanvil74's picture

The italicized paragraphs by Patrick are bang on in my view. Finally an 'expert' on ZH who agrees with my assessment of the opportunities in key US real estate markets. Yes it is an investor driven recovery. Nothing wrong with that. I would rather get in on a cash heavy investor driven 'recovery' than a debt laden consumer driven boom. Sure there are risks. Sure your realtor will try to screw you over, that's not news, that's real estate 101. However, the risk/reward factor is compelling as the author suggests 10% net return (30% on cash if the property is mortgaged) is hard to beat in a ZIRP environment. And yes NYC would not be a good market to target, just look at the numbers it's easy to figure out which cities offer the best rent to price ratios in the US right now. Rent to price ratio, it's that simple, but it always amazes me how many people overlook the math when 'investing' in real estate.

Piranhanoia's picture

Renting a dwelling that isn't properly maintained because of the investor/owners is a form of enslavement.  It is very popular for psychopaths.

TruthInSunshine's picture



You'd better pay for your to-lease/rent inventory with cash, carry a lot of surplus cash for carrying costs (property taxes, maintenance, rehabilitation, etc.) and be brilliant at deducing supply/demand trends, to be a rockstar in what has already become a distorted, investor-driven, buy-to-rent residential housing market.

I'm not saying it's not possible to make consistent, long term profits in this industry. I am saying that anyone jumping in right now had better be self-financed (assuming you can borrow to finance what is an investor portfolio of rental properties, the lender is going to shave what could've/would've/should've been profits by a large factor), and you'd damn well be fully aware of how distorted this market is due to...yet another Broken-By-Bernanke market (where ZIRP/NIRP is pushing investing sheep where they dared not graze before).

On top of the inability to obtain accurate valuation and price discovery, due to The Bernank's monetary madness, you have an unknown-in-size pipeline of residential unit shadow inventory sitting on the books yet still of banks and large GSEs (Fannie & Freddie) that has been made possible by The Fed & Treasury propping these institutions up, and allowing them to effectively sit on these assets, or market them at their pure discretion, removed from all market based incentives, whereas in "normal" markets, there would be fire sales raging left and right at this moment, weighing heavily on prices and bids.

You'd better get that model correct as far as future inventory levels, prices, and supply/demand ratios, because if you hope to actually make money you're necessarily paying cash for inventory (or using partner money to do so), and you'd certainly not want to underestimate just how many family members and friends can move into residential dwelling units together, nor how much additional supply will trickle, leak or flood onto the market in years future.

By the way, vacant units you're carrying as inventory have oddly similar "fixed costs" to occupied/rented ones, as your amortized payment obligations for units acquired (you still model it this way, even if you paid cash up front for the property/properties, as opportunity cost on money comes into play) that you've used in your initial model don't actually stop accruing until the total net income you've received for those units exceeds income expended to acquire them, and those pesky and forever property tax obligations are really a bitch.

p.s. - It's good to be connected to Timmy @ Treasury and Benevolent Ben @ the Fed as a proper TBTF, such as the Blackrock's of the world, because if you're playing with your own money, and not backstopped by the taxpayers, take a cue from Och-Ziff, and at least look around for signs of too much hot money chasing artificially supressed inventory, which makes for a bad case of the "damn, I paid too much."

honestann's picture

Anyone stupid enough to play a game with their hard-earned savings with predators who constantly change the rules, and ignore the rules whenever convenient for them... is just downright stupid.  Of course that's just a tautology, but is also true.

disabledvet's picture

Cash heavy investor? Bwahahahahaha. These clowns are up to their eyeballs in debt with "just one hurricane" separating them from the totality of their authority. This is not just unsustainable...we could be heading off a cliff here.

boogerbently's picture

What (relatively peaceful) country allows Americans to own home/property, that DOESN'T have annual property taxes?

In other words, "one and done."

Italy, Greece, Spain, Asia/pacific??

CPL's picture

First Nations if you are native.

Manthong's picture

Fly in the ointment ..

Property Tax

SoCalBusted's picture

...and it is a very big, continuously growing, fly!

boogerbently's picture

And now, included in the HEALTHCARE BILL, a 3.8% "sales tax" when you sell your house.

Do Obama fans know how much CRAP is hidden inside that Obamacare package?

MachoMan's picture

just some quick googlefu would appear to refute your assertion or, at the very least, clarify it significantly...

MachoMan's picture

Beware of what exactly?  Can you please articulate a widespread and recurring issue whereby home purchasers have to pay twice for a house?  In the event you buy a house and a creditor asserts a pre-existing lien on the house, can you please articulate the respective cause of action to collect and the likelihood of success in the purchaser's home town?  Are there any other parties who may have to pony up the cheese for your defense?  (e.g. title companies).

I'm not saying that there is no risk...  There clearly is...  but we cannot simply leave it at "there is a risk"...  we need to quantify that risk...  determine the severity of that risk.  People have to make rent or buy decisions daily...  without doing so, you might be leaving a good investment off the table.

TruthInSunshine's picture

There's clearly less risk in whatever inventory is currently listed, as title insurance has (ostensibly) been or can be procured to insure title.

I'd suggest that much of the risk that relates to title hazards (known, unknown and maybe even unknowable-- at least until there's some sort of final court order/judgment) centers around the shadow inventory of housing, occupied, vacant, current, delinquent, foreclosed or otherwise, that's sitting on the books of banks and GSEs (Fannie & Freddie) that's only able to be piled there in silence, because of the continuous IV of fiatskis being funneled to these entitites via the Fed & Timmmmay!!!

MachoMan's picture

I'm not sure why any shadow inventory would have any less of a sketchy lien history than any other home... presently listed or otherwise encumbered in the last decade or longer.  It's all the same.  Needless to say, I highly doubt any court of general jurisdiction in BFE is going to give two shits about a con artist trying to collect the second time on a local homeowner...  if they can't even get standing to foreclose, I doubt they'll have more luck with other creditors asserting the same claim.

chunga's picture

I think this discussion died out but...

Two lien holders at once coming to light? What a disaster that would be. That shit happens but gets settled out real quiet with huge non-disclosures.

Here is one that didn't.

Bevilaqua v. Rodriguez

Rodriguez walked away from the mortgage and property...and Bevilaqua bought it at auction. Before Mr. Bevilaqua learned his title to the property was "clouded" he spent a couple hundred thousand renovating the property.

He went to the MA SJC to clear his title and lost. What's ironic is the judge who made the ruling was Judge Long...same guy who ruled on Ibanez. A good judge in my book.

The court ruled that Bevilacqua did not have standing to bring the try title case because he didn't have a cloud on his title, he had NO title to the property-- the flawed foreclosure sale had conveyed no interest in the property to him at all.

As far as I know the situation is in top secret lock-down. It will get worked out (or already has) in the shadows of the boiler room.

MachoMan's picture

That doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about...  I've litigated a similar case to our state appellate court and won for the purchaser at foreclosure...  it's all based upon the facts of each case and, typically, very technically procedurally based.  Given the entire process is typically in derogation of the common law, even the slightest screw up (e.g. service) can void a judgment (although, fraud upon the court is a bit more difficult).  [and, even if the purchaser lost, he would still be entitled to his good faith improvement of the property ("betterment statute") and his title company picked up the tab on his defense].  But, in your scenario, the party receiving the foreclosure proceeds would have to promptly cough them up in the suit to set aside the foreclosure decree.

What would happen in order for there to be a "risk" of a clouded title like what I was talking about would be some scenario where the homeowner pays off his home note to company A (BoA or a GSE, etc.), but then company B (fly by night) comes in an asserts that the note was actually assigned to them and the homeowner paid off the wrong company (or, alternatively, the company receiving the foreclosure proceeds goes tits up immediately thereafter).  Simply put, this doesn't happen (and the closing agent would have some splainin to do)...  the only risk would be that company B is correct AND company A was insolvent by the time company B won its lawsuit.  I'm just spitballing here, but I'm not sure it would be a bad thing to be in this situation, as you'd have plenty of top shelf attorneys clamoring to get a piece of your case when the thought of punies against a large financial institution (in a home court no less) come to light.  As a result, company A would pony up the cheese, in a hurry, to avoid the issue...  and hopefully a little extra to boot.

chunga's picture

One thing everyone should know when buying a house...

You might be buying a bag of tricks with bad title from a party who doesn't own it.

MERS Assignment of Mortgage Signed in MA Notarized From Texas

Can someone please explain how an Assignment of Mortgage can be signed in Massachusetts and witnessed/notarized from Texas? The notorious screwballs from Harmon Law cancelled the 11/1/2012 auction on this property. I wonder why. We are watching you!

MachoMan's picture

The wording on acknowledgements can be fairly tricky.  Generally speaking, there isn't a problem notarizing a document from a different state if the signer actually converses with the notary and acknowledges that it is in fact his or her signature and he or she signed it for the purposes stated therein.  Of course, we all know this conversation didn't happen and the documents are probably simply made up...

chunga's picture

An important distinction to make...this particular property is recorded as "Registered" land.

The law in MA is very unique. They are not even bothering to pretend they're following the law.

MachoMan's picture

Are you of the impression that the entire gambit [the actual mechanisms, not individual mortgages or assignments] is one big clusterfuck or designed?  You have a lot of on the ground experience on the issue...  either answer is scary, but just curious about your perspective.  I have a hard time believing that there can be this comedy of errors, but then again...  people are stupid.

chunga's picture

If I am understanding your question correctly, the sheer size of the housing/securitization/ponzi tells me it was designed.

Nothing this big and so lopsided can happen as a result of a series of unintended consequences. It's my opinion that this really got ramped up when $lick Willie was in office. Under the guise of helping the "little guy" and the "disenfranchised", he loosened up the Community Reinvestment Act.

I don't believe ANY politicians truly give a shit about "little guys". He was also in office when both the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 came along. That let derivatives and Credit Default Swaps out of their cages. So now, not only can money be lent and multiplied, it can be "insured" against default. I over-use this little phrase "How do you steal money from people who don't have any? Just give it to them." That's the deal right there.

Even though the Clinton's ran their own miniature housing ponzi with the Whitewater Development Corporation, I don't exclusively blame them. The CFMA fit nicely with Reagan's deregulation mantra and Greenspan's "invisible hand". In the early to mid 90's along comes the MERS...helped nicely by the Covington & Burling law firm (hello Eric Holder and Lannie Breuer) with the tech piece being awarded to Perot's EDS.

At the end of the day, when the pieces are being lined up to kick somebody out of their house, we wind up finding AOM's being signed in one state in the presence of someone in another state. Could I call the notary at the local library and ask to have something notarized without coming in? I doubt it.

This was very carefully planned and represents the biggest swindle ever conceived. And nobody of significance is in prison. Who planned this? That I cannot answer...Woodrow Wilson's quote comes to mind.

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

Dr. Engali's picture

In this day and age where there is no clear title and the government is abusing eminent domain I wouldn't want to buy a house.

Drachma's picture

Most people believe they own their property. Keyword being believe.

goldfish1's picture

Try not paying the property taxes and see who owns it.

honestann's picture

Correct.  Only if you have an allodial title do you "own it" (and you pay no property tax).  Even then, nothing stops predators-that-be from stealing your land and home, just as they steal anything else they want.

Until the predators are eliminated, no individual and no property is secure.

MachoMan's picture

Actually, they do own it...  this is how they get to stay in it when they refuse to pay the note...  if someone else actually owned it, then this would be impossible.

Further, I would much rather take my chances with local governments (in non massively urban areas) than uncle sam.

Simplifiedfrisbee's picture

Get off your vibrating saddle Doc. Families need sustainable and generative homes to occupy before decay sets in the flesh.

disabledvet's picture

I agree. You should SQUAT in the house. Don't pay taxes...nothing. "Make them evict you." And this is exactly what is happening in Long Island right now. That tax base is now KAPUT.

Simplifiedfrisbee's picture

Spare me the callowness of such an incredulous housing blog such as Pat. All zerohedge needs is more users as those incredibly unfallicable subscribers that post comments on Pat.

Bay of Pigs's picture

Agreed. Here is something more on point and goes to the heart of the matter.

QE3 – Pay Attention If You Are in the Real Estate Market
By Catherine Austin Fitts

"So, it looks like the Fed decision last week to buy $40 billion a month in mortgage paper is the ultimate plan to clear the market once and for all of fraudulent mortgages, mortgage backed securities and related derivatives. This means Fannie and Freddie will be bailed out and winding down through the back door."

disabledvet's picture

The Government cannot compel me to own or run a bank. They can take it they have I might add...but I need not lend money. And indeed from what I've been reading banks are doing just that: recoiling from lending in the Government rigged real estate market.

TruthInSunshine's picture

They will lend & have been (although at depressed levels) with 84% of all mortgages being backstopped by taxpayers (i.e. the lender has no risk) via your friendly FHA.

TeamDepends's picture

Obama to carpenter putting the finishing touches on lovely new house:  "'You didn't build that".

donsluck's picture

And he would be correct. That finish Contractor built the house as part of a team, and it would be more accurate to say he was part of the team that built that house, which I think was Obama's point, not that I'm voting for him. BTW, the "you didn't build that" qoute is getting stale.

MachoMan's picture

To be fair, his premise was vastly broader than the team actually working on the house.  In effect, it spread to society at large.  This is why he is a socialist (crony capitalist, whatever ist you want to call him) and you are an idiot.

Bananamerican's picture

"the "you didn't build that" qoute is getting stale"

You enjoy wit, novelty and nuance, Donsluck....

You're obviously not a foxtard.

Foxtards NEVER get tired of their dumb-shit, Left-wing toys and shiboleths....


"Obama is a commie" etc...."Obama is from kenya", "Obama gonna pay my mortgage", and now, courtesy of Fox™, "You didn't build that"....over and over and over and over.....

bless their simple, pointy, fascist-loving, Romney-fellating heads......

TeamDepends's picture

Unbelievable.  So you believe that Obama is NOT a communist/marxist/socialist/leftist?  Oh man, people like you will be the first to go because you have no clues whatsoever.  See you on Wednesday!

mvsjcl's picture

Bullshit is born stale, and deteriorates swiftly.

TeamDepends's picture

Face it, Don, you ARE voting for him.

TeamDepends's picture

"And he would be correct".  You are reacting to a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, Don.  Bow down to Don, the all-seeing prophet.