Don't think this is what WE had in mind...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I'm not sure it's the govt who rammed this dream down anyone's throats. Any basic financial book you read, any article directed at 20 somethings out of college just starting out...home ownership is at the core of basically every financial planner's outline for developing a solid financial base. What would have happened if the Govt tried to step in and regulate and restrict mortgages 5 years ago? The screams from the right about Socialism and limited Govt would be as loud as they are today. Everyone wants regulation until it is them being told they can't get a mortgage.

Now if you want to include the IRS allowing interest deductions on mortgages vs limited financial allowances for renters..then yes, that could be construed as the Govt favoring Home Owners.

but not everyone has the wherewithal to buy a home-and i think the govt really put their weight behind making home ownership available to those who just can't afford it. and may never be able to afford it. when all the defaults began because of ARM's going up (and everyone who had one had to expect that to happen!) it flooded the market, driving down housing values because of too much supply, not enough demand. so then you had folks who had gotten equity lines and second mortgages who suddenly realized their investment wasn't much of one-so they defaulted as well...so everything spirals down, and here we are.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

The type of cars they were pushing (while
using governement incentives "cash" to make cheaper
fuel efficient cars) was a huge error. They gambled
on a big car market that was small and lost.
And the CEO's did not fall on
their swords. They went away with bonuses
that would offset all the crap the unions pushed.

I wonder if the CEO's can get health insurance
having avoided falling on their swords...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123500874299418721.html

CEO's get a lot of heat deservedly so but your statement is so out of touch with reality that it is scary.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but not everyone has the wherewithal to buy a home-and i think the govt really put their weight behind making home ownership available to those who just can't afford it. and may never be able to afford it. when all the defaults began because of ARM's going up (and everyone who had one had to expect that to happen!) it flooded the market, driving down housing values because of too much supply, not enough demand. so then you had folks who had gotten equity lines and second mortgages who suddenly realized their investment wasn't much of one-so they defaulted as well...so everything spirals down, and here we are.

The Govt didn't approve the loans and the Govt didn't turn people into idiots applying for a loan without sufficient income. In my mind there are three groups at fault...and that's pretty much a consensus from reading above posts..

1) Citizens/selfish suck holes/idiots who have no self responsibility and applied for credit they had no right to get.

2) The selfish suck hole banks and instistutions that marketed these loans and then sold them deceptivally to selfish/suck hole banks who didn't do their research.

3) Regulators..aka, yes...the "Government" who didn't nip this in the bud.

It was a perfect storm..where we are today doesn't happen if any one of the three doesn't exist.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I think the rush was necessary, the ultimate plan though was terrible. And this coming from someone that is a huge Obama supporter. Who knows, maybe ultimately I need to suck up my pride and realize that for the greater good of our economy we have to bail these douchebags out just like we did on Wall Street cause we as Americans are better off preventing these foreclosures. It doesn't mean I'm not going to be pissed about it for a while. And it's not like it sends a terrible message, that you can fuc< up as much as you want and put the country in a recession but don't worry, those of us that didn't fuc< up will be there to bail you out. That is so different than what liberalism should stand for.

However that IS what Liberalism HAS stood for in this country for a long time. I respect your decision to be a liberal but I cant help but think that so many of you are not seeing the reality of what Liberal "leaders" are doing.

The idea that there is a class of downtrodden people in this country that simply dont get opportunites is misguided. Naturally some people have longer and tougher roads but that is the randomness of life as opposed to some conspiracy to keep them down. The problem that I and most conservatives have with the social programs is not that they exist but the vast majority of them do not work properly and the message that you so strongly denounce above is the message that resonates within them. Anyone who wants to scrap or change a social program is automatically called racist or elitest because Democrats use these programs as giant voting recruitment opportunities. You know so they can further their reputation as the party of the poor and downtrodden who are by far the easiest voting bloc to influence.

[Danzig]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6917758

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I think the rush was necessary, the ultimate plan though was terrible. And this coming from someone that is a huge Obama supporter. Who knows, maybe ultimately I need to suck up my pride and realize that for the greater good of our economy we have to bail these douchebags out just like we did on Wall Street cause we as Americans are better off preventing these foreclosures. It doesn't mean I'm not going to be pissed about it for a while. And it's not like it sends a terrible message, that you can fuc< up as much as you want and put the country in a recession but don't worry, those of us that didn't fuc< up will be there to bail you out. That is so different than what liberalism should stand for.

you're going to get a terrible plan if you rush it thru. which is exactly what has happened here.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I don't buy that, if we are going to pump money into the economy we need to do it fast. Waiting helps nothing (except the Republicans who want the recession to last until 2012). But getting it done fast doesn't mean it needs to be done wrong. I think the stimulus package got it right for 98% of it. I think this got it completely wrong.

We are talking about spending $275 billion on this housing program. There is probably very little chance it will work. I think you need to adjust your 98% downward. The funny thing is that the "stimlus" actually doesn't pump much money into the economy short term.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what i keep wondering, is what interest does the govt have in ramming home ownership down peoples' throats? they turned it from being a dream to being a necessity. if everyone thinks back to what got our current financial mess started, it was housing and the huge loan mess.

One of Bush's biggest mistakes was continuing the policy started by Clinton

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

We are talking about spending $275 billion on this housing program. There is probably very little chance it will work. I think you need to adjust your 98% downward. The funny thing is that the "stimlus" actually doesn't pump much money into the economy short term.

wasn't about 65% of the 'stimulus' actually just more spending? that's another side effect from rushing, everyone throws in stuff they want, hoping it sails thru with what is supposedly needed.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

However that IS what Liberalism HAS stood for in this country for a long time. I respect your decision to be a liberal but I cant help but think that so many of you are not seeing the reality of what Liberal "leaders" are doing.

The idea that there is a class of downtrodden people in this country that simply dont get opportunites is misguided. Naturally some people have longer and tougher roads but that is the randomness of life as opposed to some conspiracy to keep them down. The problem that I and most conservatives have with the social programs is not that they exist but the vast majority of them do not work properly and the message that you so strongly denounce above is the message that resonates within them. Anyone who wants to scrap or change a social program is automatically called racist or elitest because Democrats use these programs as giant voting recruitment opportunities. You know so they can further their reputation as the party of the poor and downtrodden who are by far the easiest voting bloc to influence.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

wasn't about 65% of the 'stimulus' actually just more spending? that's another side effect from rushing, everyone throws in stuff they want, hoping it sails thru with what is supposedly needed.

85% depending on the source. It is a side effect of Washington more than anything. Funny how the "crisis" has gotten so much worse when trying to pass the giant spending bill yet there is very little evidence to suggest that things are worse than they were and even less evidence that this 'package' will do anything but deepen our debt at a time when the countries that usually buy that debt via treasuries wont or cant.

I think what is scary is that now we see the word 'billions' tossed about so loosely.

[gales0678]

why not a "tax holiday" for every american

why do the people who bought houses that they could afford or the people who continued to rent because they knew thay couldn't afford a house bailout people who bought more house than they could afford?

we need housing prices to drop more now in all parts of the country, the quicker we get to the bottom the quicker the recovery will be, we can't put a band aid solution on all the foreclsoures , let the mkt for house prices fall to their natural levels

[gales0678]

why not a "tax holiday" for every american

why do the people who bought houses that they could afford or the people who continued to rent because they knew thay couldn't afford a house bailout people who bought more house than they could afford?

we need housing prices to drop more now in all parts of the country, the quicker we get to the bottom the quicker the recovery will be, we can't put a band aid solution on all the foreclsoures , let the mkt for house prices fall to their natural levels

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...in_both-2.html

A interesting take on things

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by gales0678

why not a "tax holiday" for every american

why do the people who bought houses that they could afford or the people who continued to rent because they knew thay couldn't afford a house bailout people who bought more house than they could afford?

we need housing prices to drop more now in all parts of the country, the quicker we get to the bottom the quicker the recovery will be, we can't put a band aid solution on all the foreclsoures , let the mkt for house prices fall to their natural levels

You don't think they already have fallen enough? If people keep losing equity and home values keep plummeting, how can that be good? So many people are backwards on their mortgages, not because of anything they did wrong, but rather their homes have depreciated 30% in 2-3 years.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

85% depending on the source. It is a side effect of Washington more than anything. Funny how the "crisis" has gotten so much worse when trying to pass the giant spending bill yet there is very little evidence to suggest that things are worse than they were and even less evidence that this 'package' will do anything but deepen our debt at a time when the countries that usually buy that debt via treasuries wont or cant.

I think what is scary is that now we see the word 'billions' tossed about so loosely.

like i said the other day, come out to the media and scream the sky is falling early and often...get everyone hysterical, and pass your bill without a whimper of protest. it's very effective.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

You don't think they already have fallen enough? If people keep losing equity and home values keep plummeting, how can that be good? So many people are backwards on their mortgages, not because of anything they did wrong, but rather their homes have depreciated 30% in 2-3 years.

people also living off equity lines of credit, and now that's gone out the window as well. so, multiple payments due each month on a house not worth what they owe...so how many folks defaulted just because they no longer wanted to throw money into something that wasn't worth it? how much of our current problems are due to people who can afford their debt, but just don't want to? they look at it as an investment, not as just having a roof over their head, and buy low, sell high is no longer what they're able to do.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GBBob

You don't think they already have fallen enough? If people keep losing equity and home values keep plummeting, how can that be good? So many people are backwards on their mortgages, not because of anything they did wrong, but rather their homes have depreciated 30% in 2-3 years.

i am not saying that it is good but the reality is this

if you have to remeber we had gains from 2000 to 2006 of 100% to 200% in some areas - clearly now bubble like and unsustaniable

so yes we are still way overvalued in many cities across the country no matter what the politicans say or do

look at historical increases in houses over decades at a time to get an accurate picture

get the median income of an area and times that by 2-3 and that is where housing prices for that area should go to be affordable again by historical standards

[gales0678]

here are some good charts

http://tradesystemguru.com/content/view/208/61/

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by gales0678

i am not saying that it is good but the reality is this

if you have to remeber we had gains from 2000 to 2006 of 100% to 200% in some areas - clearly now bubble like and unsustaniable

so yes we are still way overvalued in many cities across the country no matter what the politicans say or do

look at historical increases in houses over decades at a time to get an accurate picture

get the median income of an area and times that by 2-3 and that is where housing prices for that area should go to be affordable again by historical standards

I agree there was an artificial ceiling that was too high. My point was that it seems that has been adjusted downward...admittedly..I don't know from an economic standpoint where exactly the right level is, but just was surprised at your perception/belief that they are still overvalued in some markets and could use further devaluation. When someone who bought a house 5-7 years ago and can't find a comp that allows them to sell their house without owing money on an 80% LTV ratio, then that seems wrong to me. And that is happening around here to people who are not reckless or were irresponsible when they got their mortgage.