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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

A interesting take on things

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.

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.

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.

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

here are some good charts

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

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.

if you go to zillow.com you can see how badly hit CA, AZ, and FL are compared to the rest of the country. There are plenty of areas of the country where the home values are not falling or are actually rising again.

you're right chuck and those areas that are doing well now did not have the huge run up in the boom years


the overheated mkts still need to fall back into normal historical levels

i was in ft meyers about 3 weeks ago , the worst is yet to come down there

very true but it seems as though three states in particular are going to get a disproportionate amount of help. There are 50 states in the Union that have to pay for those other three states transgressions.

fl and az is where investors from other states fueled the run-up though chuck

It was intended to be.
But the following is NOT:


But what is not out of touch is that the CEO's made
PITIFUL business decisions using government money,
and are in much better
shape after these stupid decisions compared to the avg. worker.

BTW.
I thoroughly dislike most Unions and the way they are run.
Teachers unions dont really exist in Texas. And that is fine
with me.

an excerpt from an article i just read:



National Guardsmen and National Reservists are in particular need, he said. When a Guard or Reservist gets activated, his employer is required only to keep his position open until his return — not to pay his salary while he is on active duty. As a result, most Guards and Reserve soldiers end up supporting families on their military income alone, which is usually less than half of what they earned in their civilian jobs.
"On average, they're making 50 percent or 60 percent of what they were making when they were deployed, and they leave the wife to deal with the issues, and they're on the edge because their bills remain the same," said Walsh. "So we get calls — I mean, we get calls for food, calls in the middle of winter when people's, you know, utilities were shut off."

According to RealtyTrac, a data research firm in California, that tracks foreclosure statistics, military families have filed for foreclosure at a much higher rate than civilian families since the start of the economic downturn. Their research shows that in the first four months of 2008, foreclosure filings for military families were up 217 percent; the national average was 59 percent

FINALLY....a light goes on at DT!............but it took a month!

Oh fear not ....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...s_pr_blit.html

All I gotta say Cannon ... is 'Ya down with the GOP?'

Good luck to them with all of that.

There's a two party system I'd be down with .. but it's a shame the libertarian party lacks that ever pesky 'it' known as 'credibility' ... the Republicans are finally out of power and off in the wilderness .. but based on what we saw from them the last 8 years .. they don't belong in the wilderness .. they belong extinct... dangling from lightposts in the streets.

One day I hope to be able to tell my grandkids about what happened in this country in 2004.

After four years with an intellectually bankrupt chimpanzee and his morally bankrupt crook pals running the country. They actually won re-election by running on slogans such as 'four more wars' - 'unless you're corporate elite, you'll get nothing and like it!' - and who can forget 'kill a queer for Jesus.'

But hey, please spare me any rational reply and just hook a negro up with a..

"oh no u di'nt muhfukka ... you'd BEST not be disrespectin the dub-oh-you! .. the pimp datty W in chief!"

Our service people have been royally screwed over when it comes to keeping them solvent...in any economy! And yet they are passed by when it comes to the "helping hand". A F'N TRAVESTY I tell ya....This is the group of folks who need a secure net under them. They need a 50% raise,but you won't see the lazy-ass Congress do anything about it.:mad:

.....this is supposed to be a credible post?...an intelligent stream of thought?
You're as bad as those you condemn!

not necessarily. that would assume that the vast majority were investment properties not actual homes

Y u be hatin'?

Hardly....just stating the obvious vitrol in your post!

There needs to be a balance.

Of course the top people are in better shape than the average worker. There is a reason why some become CEO's and the vast majority of us dont. No one makes worse decisions with govt money than the govt. Demonizing CEO's is just rhetoric of the left and one more attempt at the class warfare that they continually wage to the detriment of the country as a whole. While no one is saying that there werent bad decisions and in some cases probably some criminal behavior the vast majorities of CEO's in this country are hard working, smart and honest people who pay far more in taxes than their 'fair share' especially as compared to those avg workers.

Yet another reply that disregards the subject to take shots at Bush.

Oh come on..Obama and Clinton are open season but the last 8 years and their leader...are off limits?? That's crazy Chuck

I never said that Bush was off limits. I just said that more often than not he is the main or only reply to a question or inquiry about Democrats or liberals. It is pretty consistent in this and other boards that most of the posters that dont agree with something that is said about democrats, liberals or their policies slam Bush as opposed to backing their reasoning why the original post was not correct.

here is a typical Q & A

Conservative - Obama's stimlus package is not goign to work because it is way more govt spending on social issues than it is on true economic stimlus.

Liberal - Yeah Bush sucks

Conservative - The "Fairness Doctrine" is an outdated piece of trash legistalion that is not only biased against one form of media, it is bad economic policy for the struggling radio industry.

Liberal - Bush is a war criminal and Cheney is the devil

Conservative - The housing 'bailout' is going to reward the people who least deserve the help and may wind up making the issues worse while wasting hundreds of billions of dollars.

Liberal - Bush and his greedy CEO buddies are criminals

speaking of the 'fairness doctrine', i read again a couple days ago that obama is against it.

it seems tho that both 'sides' engage in that type of supposed debate. too many folks are party first. anything their party does is a-ok, the other party is the spawn of the devil.

It appears that the pressure will be brought to bear on the TV stations(by right of ownership)...The ole bait and switch.