But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    Real Estate is on fire. Someones making money.

     



    Is this when we should all act impressed?

     

     



    Is this where I get to say WHOOOOSH?

     

     



    Well, it is going over your head, so yah, maybe.

     

     




     

    He doesn`t get it and never will. You think he knows what it`s like to buy a house and 7 years later have it be worth 50% LESS than you paid?  He only knows what MSNBC told him or his mama read to him from the NY Times.

     



    Sorry sucker, maybe if you had talked to someone other than one of your own echo chamber dimwits, you would've seen it coming. But you were all listening to Bush talking about the "red hot" economy. I mean, why would he out right lie to his own constituants? It's like him saying Hussain has WMDs when he didn't.

    I got out. But then apparently I only know what MSNBC tells me. BTW, what channel is that?

    FYI, mommy is long gone, thanks so much. 

     




     

    Um.....billy.......the housing market was "red hot" from, well.....about 1986 through 2007 or so.  Everyone on earth wanted in asap for fear that they would be priced out as house prices were constantly going up.  Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, W, all saw Americans striving for home ownership, not only for their families, but for sound investments and a place to invest money for retirement.  To see that nest egg, that investment, crash and burn is quite disturbing.

    If you were unfortunate enough to buy in 2006,2007, or 2008, you paid peak dollars and now you simply cannot take a loss to get out.  Yes, there is a shortage of houses for sale because people cannot lose that kind of money so they stay put and try to fight their way through this mess.

    Unfortunately those people are stuck until this incompetent at 1600 Pennsylvania av is gone.  You keep screaming about "Bush" though........it`s really working for you.

     

     



    If you bought your house seven years ago, it's worth more now than when Obama took office.

     

    Again, every complaint seems to be that he's not fixing things as quickly as Bush broke them, so we need another Republican to step in and take the reins.

     




    No it isn`t.  That`s the problem.  You purchased in in 2006 at $660k (true story from my town).  House for sale now at $459k with many looks, but no bites.  This family is already taking a $200k hit.  I haven`t seen any that are worth more now than they were in 2006.

    And......I`m being unfair by blaming Obama. It`s Dems in general.  The Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.  Up until then, we had 44 consecutive months of growth and housing really was "red hot".

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    Real Estate is on fire. Someones making money.

     



    Is this when we should all act impressed?

     

     



    Is this where I get to say WHOOOOSH?

     

     



    Well, it is going over your head, so yah, maybe.

     

     




     

    He doesn`t get it and never will. You think he knows what it`s like to buy a house and 7 years later have it be worth 50% LESS than you paid?  He only knows what MSNBC told him or his mama read to him from the NY Times.

     



    Sorry sucker, maybe if you had talked to someone other than one of your own echo chamber dimwits, you would've seen it coming. But you were all listening to Bush talking about the "red hot" economy. I mean, why would he out right lie to his own constituants? It's like him saying Hussain has WMDs when he didn't.

    I got out. But then apparently I only know what MSNBC tells me. BTW, what channel is that?

    FYI, mommy is long gone, thanks so much. 

     




     

    Um.....billy.......the housing market was "red hot" from, well.....about 1986 through 2007 or so.  Everyone on earth wanted in asap for fear that they would be priced out as house prices were constantly going up.  Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, W, all saw Americans striving for home ownership, not only for their families, but for sound investments and a place to invest money for retirement.  To see that nest egg, that investment, crash and burn is quite disturbing.

    If you were unfortunate enough to buy in 2006,2007, or 2008, you paid peak dollars and now you simply cannot take a loss to get out.  Yes, there is a shortage of houses for sale because people cannot lose that kind of money so they stay put and try to fight their way through this mess.

    Unfortunately those people are stuck until this incompetent at 1600 Pennsylvania av is gone.  You keep screaming about "Bush" though........it`s really working for you.

     

     Ya okay. You dont know what you're talking about.

    But that's expected.

    Ya, so you bought at the wrong time because youre a low information buyer.  You want a tissue?

    Dont know how Obama is gonna save you. You want a bail out? R U Angry Obama left you behind?

     

    There is a housing glut, bidding wars are happening. It sparks the economy. Its a good thing.

    Republicans need to shore up their sh!t and stop waiting for a handout.

     

    Im sorry you are sucking it.

     




     

    Wow!  You really don`t read or try and learn anything, do you?  In the past I`ve been kidding around when I accused you of having a limited skill set and all this time I was correct........hmmmmmmmm.

    Sorry to inform you billyboy, but I bought 2 houses in the late 1980`s.  Since then I`ve actually flipped a couple more.  I still have two and one has been for sale so long I`ve taken it off the market and will wait until the food stamp president is gone and try again.

    You didn`t listen and it seems you really don`t understand.  I will write slowly for you.....OK?

    There is a serious lack of inventory.  This is because people that purchased in the last 5-6-7 years CANNOT get close to what they paid 5-6-7 years ago and will LOSE tons of money if they sell now.  They are holding on and toughing things out until Democrats stop destroying the economy. If someone paid $500k in 2006, YES they could have a bidding war today.  Unfortunately, that "bidding war" would be in the $350k range. 

    Do the math billy...........that`s a LOSS of $150k.

     




     

    As someone who recently bought a house, I can attest to this. It took a couple years of searching because what inventory was either (a) was trash, or (b) had ten bidders after an open house. We were only second choice bid in a (b) situation and lost that house. We lost another house as we were standing in it discussing what to bid.


    We just happened upon a great house immediately after it went on the market, mulled it over, and pulled the trigger a few hours later.

    The extreme scarcity had obvious reasons: Nobody who didn't have to sell wanted to sell. Anyone who could wait, waited.




    Excellent news!  Hope you got a kick-a$$ deal.  If you bought at the bottom (or close) let`s hope 5-7 years from now you`re making some dough off that baby.  That`s sure how it used to be.

    Good luck.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    I`m being unfair by blaming Obama. It`s Dems in general.  The Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.  Up until then, we had 44 consecutive months of growth and housing really was "red hot".



    Oh please. The housing bubble was growing for two decades.

     

    The only reason it was "red hot" is that it was riding on a simultaneously burgeoning subprime mortgage crisis.

    Prices would never have reached those levels had there not been so many garbage loans granted, and worse, hidden in derivatives, etc.




    How do you call it a "bubble" when it started around 1986-87 and went all the way until 2006-07?  A 20-year "bubble"?   I don`t know man.  All I know is that for 20-25 years, real estate (houses, land, commercial) was EXACTLY where you wanted your money.  I`m older than you but, there`s a generation that knew property was the best place to spend, forever.  It all crashed down around 2008.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    It was the textbook definition of a bubble because it was a rapid inflation of home prices, 2001-2006 to unsustainable levels followed by the inevitable bursting of said bubble.

    The prior years of rising home values are not considered part of the bubble because they were gradual, sustainable and demand equaled supply.

     




     

    Well my understanding is that a bubble refers more generally to inflated prices due to a market distorting effect: Value that isn't really there.

    2001-2006 saw the fastest price inflation, which was possible because of the explosion of derivatives that hid the dangers in all these subprime mortgages. But really, the market distorting effects - government programs pushing banks to give unsound loans - existed before then, and did contribute to price increases by creating demand that wasn't otherwise there.




    Existed before then is right for sure.  Like I said, this started in the 1980`s when my older brother bought his first house for $58k and sold it 5 years later for $175k.  I understand the "bubble" concept......I get it.  I disagree with the 2001-2006 data and Alan Greenspan is the last guy on earth I would accept advice or comment from.  Like I mentioned earlier, a house bought in 2007 for $660k, now selling (or can`t sell) for $459k is a big problem and that`s why there`s limited inventory available.  People that historically used their homes as their savings, for a good 25 years, can no longer do that.  A "bubble" indeed........a darn long bubble.  You seemed to have taken advantage of a busted bubble to buy at a good time.  Like I mentioned, 5-7 years from now you should have a home worth more than you paid

    The progams set up to help others get into home ownership are/were fine.  Some went too far.  Zero down loans to people making 40 grand for a $400k house should never have happened.  I never purchased a property that I didn`t have a substantial down payment for and an income that could support the mortgage. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    I`m being unfair by blaming Obama. It`s Dems in general.  The Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.  Up until then, we had 44 consecutive months of growth and housing really was "red hot".



    Oh please. The housing bubble was growing for two decades.

     

    The only reason it was "red hot" is that it was riding on a simultaneously burgeoning subprime mortgage crisis.

    Prices would never have reached those levels had there not been so many garbage loans granted, and worse, hidden in derivatives, etc.




    BTW................typical home ownership is 5-7 years and has been since the dawn of time.  Me, my parents, my grandparents, all homeowners, and all made significant profit off their homes.  If it was a bubble from 1980`s to 2008, 25 years...............what was it back in the 1960`s and 1970`s when my grandparents used their home as an investment?

    Not trying to be a pain but, I can`t remember housing taking a hit like this.....well......ever.

    Bubble?

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    If you account for the money plowed into the economy by the Fed and and the various stimulus programs, the private sector is still shrinking. 

    If you look back 20 years or so and take out the growth in debt (especially from people pulling money out of the equity in their home), the real growth of the economy has been negative for a long time.

     

     



    Yes, but many here, and just about everyone you are likely to run into today, haven't a clue about this basic economic analysis.

     

     

     



    THat is true and the government does its best to hide the truth by manipulating economic statistics and teaching kids Heather has Two Mommies in school instead of personal finance.

     

    They want us dumb. Otherwise some people might figure out how we are getting ripped off with Ponzi Scheme social programs and how they lie about government finance.

     



    I particularly take note at how the common wisdom amoung liberals, who, by definition are big government supporters, how they sully the term "profit".  As if that is a bad thing.

     

     



    Profit is ok with liberals....it's when it's "too much" profit that they seem to have issue with. How they can determine what is ok profit and not ok profit is beyond me. 

     

     

     

    Here are some examples of liberal-think:

    Profit made by liberals like Buffet and Bill Gates, that's OK.

    Profit made by doctors and nurses, that's not OK.

     



     

    Health isn't a commodity - if you love the free market solution to everything, why not let your surgeon re-open negotiations when you're on the operating table?

    Buffet and Gates are doing good things with their profits.  HSBC not so much.

    Health is not a commodity, you are right.  It is an indicator.  If I say "you look healthy", it is an opinion.

    Healthcare, however, IS a commodity.  You pay the doctor, you get tour arm set.  Even   Obamacare views it that way.  

    You need to get this distinction straight in your head before you say the wrong thing again

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    If you account for the money plowed into the economy by the Fed and and the various stimulus programs, the private sector is still shrinking. 

    If you look back 20 years or so and take out the growth in debt (especially from people pulling money out of the equity in their home), the real growth of the economy has been negative for a long time.

     

     



    Yes, but many here, and just about everyone you are likely to run into today, haven't a clue about this basic economic analysis.

     

     

     



    THat is true and the government does its best to hide the truth by manipulating economic statistics and teaching kids Heather has Two Mommies in school instead of personal finance.

     

    They want us dumb. Otherwise some people might figure out how we are getting ripped off with Ponzi Scheme social programs and how they lie about government finance.

     



    I particularly take note at how the common wisdom amoung liberals, who, by definition are big government supporters, how they sully the term "profit".  As if that is a bad thing.

     

     



    Profit is ok with liberals....it's when it's "too much" profit that they seem to have issue with. How they can determine what is ok profit and not ok profit is beyond me. 

     

     

     

    Here are some examples of liberal-think:

    Profit made by liberals like Buffet and Bill Gates, that's OK.

    Profit made by doctors and nurses, that's not OK.

     



     

    Health isn't a commodity - if you love the free market solution to everything, why not let your surgeon re-open negotiations when you're on the operating table?

    Buffet and Gates are doing good things with their profits.  HSBC not so much.

     

     

    Health is not a commodity, you are right.  It is an indicator.  If I say "you look healthy", it is an opinion.

    Healthcare, however, IS a commodity.  You pay the doctor, you get tour arm set.  Even   Obamacare views it that way.  

    You need to get this distinction straight in your head before you say the wrong thing again




    But it doesn't work that way, does it?  You don't pay your doctor to set your arm.  You pay your insurance company a varying fee every month in hopes that it will pay some or all of whatever future malady befalls you.

    So why don't you just save that money and pay for your own expenses as they occur?  Shouldn't that be the battle cry of the free market capitalist?  Isn't insurance just driving up the cost of health care?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    Real Estate is on fire. Someones making money.

     



    Is this when we should all act impressed?

     

     



    Is this where I get to say WHOOOOSH?

     

     



    Well, it is going over your head, so yah, maybe.

     

     




     

    He doesn`t get it and never will. You think he knows what it`s like to buy a house and 7 years later have it be worth 50% LESS than you paid?  He only knows what MSNBC told him or his mama read to him from the NY Times.

     



    Sorry sucker, maybe if you had talked to someone other than one of your own echo chamber dimwits, you would've seen it coming. But you were all listening to Bush talking about the "red hot" economy. I mean, why would he out right lie to his own constituants? It's like him saying Hussain has WMDs when he didn't.

    I got out. But then apparently I only know what MSNBC tells me. BTW, what channel is that?

    FYI, mommy is long gone, thanks so much. 

     




     

    Um.....billy.......the housing market was "red hot" from, well.....about 1986 through 2007 or so.  Everyone on earth wanted in asap for fear that they would be priced out as house prices were constantly going up.  Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, W, all saw Americans striving for home ownership, not only for their families, but for sound investments and a place to invest money for retirement.  To see that nest egg, that investment, crash and burn is quite disturbing.

    If you were unfortunate enough to buy in 2006,2007, or 2008, you paid peak dollars and now you simply cannot take a loss to get out.  Yes, there is a shortage of houses for sale because people cannot lose that kind of money so they stay put and try to fight their way through this mess.

    Unfortunately those people are stuck until this incompetent at 1600 Pennsylvania av is gone.  You keep screaming about "Bush" though........it`s really working for you.

     

     



    If you bought your house seven years ago, it's worth more now than when Obama took office.

     

    Again, every complaint seems to be that he's not fixing things as quickly as Bush broke them, so we need another Republican to step in and take the reins.

     

     




     

    No it isn`t.  That`s the problem.  You purchased in in 2006 at $660k (true story from my town).  House for sale now at $459k with many looks, but no bites.  This family is already taking a $200k hit.  I haven`t seen any that are worth more now than they were in 2006.

    And......I`m being unfair by blaming Obama. It`s Dems in general.  The Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.  Up until then, we had 44 consecutive months of growth and housing really was "red hot".



    Yes, it is.  It's not worth what you paid in 2006, but it's worth more than it was worth on January 19, 2009.

    If you're going to blame Dems in Congress for the bubble popping, you need to present some sort of argument.  Just the fact they they were sitting in chairs once occupied by Republicans is not enough.  What legislation did they pass that worsened the already plummeting home values?  Or what legislation did they block that could have turned things around?

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

      People that historically used their homes as their savings



    Thatis the historically correct view of an existing house if you go all the way back. And you have to put money in to maintain it.

     

    If you simply average all real estate, there's no reason to think it should grow any faster than inflation in value.

    It's only when you factor in things like supply and demand in a specific area, the growing or decreasing popularity of the area, the available land for new homes in the area, planned infrastructure projects in the area, and so on, that you can reasonably choose to buy as an investment.

     

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Not trying to be a pain but, I can`t remember housing taking a hit like this.....well......ever.

     

    It didn't. But there also wasn't a combination of government programs pushing unrealistic loans at very low down payments, inflation held so artificially low, and an explosion of chaotically complex derivatives that hid their non-value from investors (who should have known better. Who did know better).

     

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    You seemed to have taken advantage of a busted bubble to buy at a good time.

     

    Precisely. I mean we would have done it anyway - every month's rent is equity thrown away - but it definitely was a good time to do it.




    I think your timing was/is perfect.  If you grow (need more room) I bet you a buck you`ll have made some money (on paper) to upgrade in a few (again, I`m back to that 5-7 year thing) years.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    It was the textbook definition of a bubble because it was a rapid inflation of home prices, 2001-2006 to unsustainable levels followed by the inevitable bursting of said bubble.

    The prior years of rising home values are not considered part of the bubble because they were gradual, sustainable and demand equaled supply.

     




     

    Well my understanding is that a bubble refers more generally to inflated prices due to a market distorting effect: Value that isn't really there.

    2001-2006 saw the fastest price inflation, which was possible because of the explosion of derivatives that hid the dangers in all these subprime mortgages. But really, the market distorting effects - government programs pushing banks to give unsound loans - existed before then, and did contribute to price increases by creating demand that wasn't otherwise there.

     




     

    Existed before then is right for sure.  Like I said, this started in the 1980`s when my older brother bought his first house for $58k and sold it 5 years later for $175k.  I understand the "bubble" concept......I get it.  I disagree with the 2001-2006 data and Alan Greenspan is the last guy on earth I would accept advice or comment from.  Like I mentioned earlier, a house bought in 2007 for $660k, now selling (or can`t sell) for $459k is a big problem and that`s why there`s limited inventory available.  People that historically used their homes as their savings, for a good 25 years, can no longer do that.  A "bubble" indeed........a darn long bubble.  You seemed to have taken advantage of a busted bubble to buy at a good time.  Like I mentioned, 5-7 years from now you should have a home worth more than you paid

    The progams set up to help others get into home ownership are/were fine.  Some went too far.  Zero down loans to people making 40 grand for a $400k house should never have happened.  I never purchased a property that I didn`t have a substantial down payment for and an income that could support the mortgage. 

     

     



    If you look at the housing price index it has been fairly constant for a hundred years.

     

     

    It was the period from 2001 - 2006 where it rose dramatically and unsustainably.

    People got caught up in the irrational exuberance of the housing bubble. If you bought during that time, when housing prices were already beginning to crack then you didn't due your due diligence. It was a classic case of buy high sell low.

     

    File:Shiller IE2 Fig 2-1.png




    Good data.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    Real Estate is on fire. Someones making money.

     



    Is this when we should all act impressed?

     

     



    Is this where I get to say WHOOOOSH?

     

     



    Well, it is going over your head, so yah, maybe.

     

     




     

    He doesn`t get it and never will. You think he knows what it`s like to buy a house and 7 years later have it be worth 50% LESS than you paid?  He only knows what MSNBC told him or his mama read to him from the NY Times.

     



    Sorry sucker, maybe if you had talked to someone other than one of your own echo chamber dimwits, you would've seen it coming. But you were all listening to Bush talking about the "red hot" economy. I mean, why would he out right lie to his own constituants? It's like him saying Hussain has WMDs when he didn't.

    I got out. But then apparently I only know what MSNBC tells me. BTW, what channel is that?

    FYI, mommy is long gone, thanks so much. 

     




     

    Um.....billy.......the housing market was "red hot" from, well.....about 1986 through 2007 or so.  Everyone on earth wanted in asap for fear that they would be priced out as house prices were constantly going up.  Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, W, all saw Americans striving for home ownership, not only for their families, but for sound investments and a place to invest money for retirement.  To see that nest egg, that investment, crash and burn is quite disturbing.

    If you were unfortunate enough to buy in 2006,2007, or 2008, you paid peak dollars and now you simply cannot take a loss to get out.  Yes, there is a shortage of houses for sale because people cannot lose that kind of money so they stay put and try to fight their way through this mess.

    Unfortunately those people are stuck until this incompetent at 1600 Pennsylvania av is gone.  You keep screaming about "Bush" though........it`s really working for you.

     

     



    If you bought your house seven years ago, it's worth more now than when Obama took office.

     

    Again, every complaint seems to be that he's not fixing things as quickly as Bush broke them, so we need another Republican to step in and take the reins.

     

     




     

    No it isn`t.  That`s the problem.  You purchased in in 2006 at $660k (true story from my town).  House for sale now at $459k with many looks, but no bites.  This family is already taking a $200k hit.  I haven`t seen any that are worth more now than they were in 2006.

    And......I`m being unfair by blaming Obama. It`s Dems in general.  The Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.  Up until then, we had 44 consecutive months of growth and housing really was "red hot".

     



    Yes, it is.  It's not worth what you paid in 2006, but it's worth more than it was worth on January 19, 2009.

     

    If you're going to blame Dems in Congress for the bubble popping, you need to present some sort of argument.  Just the fact they they were sitting in chairs once occupied by Republicans is not enough.  What legislation did they pass that worsened the already plummeting home values?  Or what legislation did they block that could have turned things around?

     


    (QUOTE)

     

    Thank you.  I`m sure they`ll take comfort in knowing that the $200k loss they`re facing could have been $300k.

    Here`s an argument, 54 months of consecutive growth from 2002 until 2006.  Every quarter had positive GDP growth with an average of 2.8%.  (As an example, we just had GDP at .005 in Q4/2012 and CNN, MSNBC, and the NY Times were raving that we`re doing so well)  Then Jan 2007 came and........well, you know the rest of the story.

    Barney says "Fannie and Freddie are fine" and...........well you know the rest of the story.

    You are correct though.  As WDYWN states, these programs that caused the burst/collapse go way back as far as Reagan.  We have to blame both parties, they are both responsible.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    Real Estate is on fire. Someones making money.

     



    Is this when we should all act impressed?

     

     



    Is this where I get to say WHOOOOSH?

     

     



    Well, it is going over your head, so yah, maybe.

     

     




     

    He doesn`t get it and never will. You think he knows what it`s like to buy a house and 7 years later have it be worth 50% LESS than you paid?  He only knows what MSNBC told him or his mama read to him from the NY Times.

     



    Sorry sucker, maybe if you had talked to someone other than one of your own echo chamber dimwits, you would've seen it coming. But you were all listening to Bush talking about the "red hot" economy. I mean, why would he out right lie to his own constituants? It's like him saying Hussain has WMDs when he didn't.

    I got out. But then apparently I only know what MSNBC tells me. BTW, what channel is that?

    FYI, mommy is long gone, thanks so much. 

     




     

    Um.....billy.......the housing market was "red hot" from, well.....about 1986 through 2007 or so.  Everyone on earth wanted in asap for fear that they would be priced out as house prices were constantly going up.  Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, W, all saw Americans striving for home ownership, not only for their families, but for sound investments and a place to invest money for retirement.  To see that nest egg, that investment, crash and burn is quite disturbing.

    If you were unfortunate enough to buy in 2006,2007, or 2008, you paid peak dollars and now you simply cannot take a loss to get out.  Yes, there is a shortage of houses for sale because people cannot lose that kind of money so they stay put and try to fight their way through this mess.

    Unfortunately those people are stuck until this incompetent at 1600 Pennsylvania av is gone.  You keep screaming about "Bush" though........it`s really working for you.

     

     



    If you bought your house seven years ago, it's worth more now than when Obama took office.

     

    Again, every complaint seems to be that he's not fixing things as quickly as Bush broke them, so we need another Republican to step in and take the reins.

     

     




     

    No it isn`t.  That`s the problem.  You purchased in in 2006 at $660k (true story from my town).  House for sale now at $459k with many looks, but no bites.  This family is already taking a $200k hit.  I haven`t seen any that are worth more now than they were in 2006.

    And......I`m being unfair by blaming Obama. It`s Dems in general.  The Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.  Up until then, we had 44 consecutive months of growth and housing really was "red hot".

     



    Yes, it is.  It's not worth what you paid in 2006, but it's worth more than it was worth on January 19, 2009.

     

    If you're going to blame Dems in Congress for the bubble popping, you need to present some sort of argument.  Just the fact they they were sitting in chairs once occupied by Republicans is not enough.  What legislation did they pass that worsened the already plummeting home values?  Or what legislation did they block that could have turned things around?

     


    (QUOTE)

     

    Thank you.  I`m sure they`ll take comfort in knowing that the $200k loss they`re facing could have been $300k.

    Here`s an argument, 54 months of consecutive growth from 2002 until 2006.  Every quarter had positive GDP growth with an average of 2.8%.  (As an example, we just had GDP at .005 in Q4/2012 and CNN, MSNBC, and the NY Times were raving that we`re doing so well)  Then Jan 2007 came and........well, you know the rest of the story.

    Barney says "Fannie and Freddie are fine" and...........well you know the rest of the story.

    You are correct though.  As WDYWN states, these programs that caused the burst/collapse go way back as far as Reagan.  We have to blame both parties, they are both responsible.

     



    Not could have been $300K - was, in 2008.  If your baseline is 2006, you're going to be disappointed for a long time.  If your baseline is January, 2009, things are looking up.

    That's not an argument - an a55 in a chair has no effect on GDP.  Fannie & Freddie are scapegoats that had nothing to do with the bubble bursting, but even if they had, Barney Frank was one representative of a minority party.  Besides, as the graph above shows, the trouble began before the Dems even took control of Congress.

    You're not drawing the connection between the bubble and the pop - yeah the economy was great from 2002 - 2006, but it shouldn't have been.  That's the whole point - we should have had a little bit of suffering after the previous bubble popped (dot-com), and then a modest but steady correction.  Instead we set interest rates to zero, de-regulated the real estate and loan industry, let people turn a profit on defaults, set ARMs in action, made stated income the new norm, and sat back and watched the fireworks.  

    The 2002 - 2006 wonderful, good-old-day economy is the reason your friend is $200K upside down on his mortgage.  Not Barney, and not Barry.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    Real Estate is on fire. Someones making money.

     



    Is this when we should all act impressed?

     

     



    Is this where I get to say WHOOOOSH?

     

     



    Well, it is going over your head, so yah, maybe.

     

     




     

    He doesn`t get it and never will. You think he knows what it`s like to buy a house and 7 years later have it be worth 50% LESS than you paid?  He only knows what MSNBC told him or his mama read to him from the NY Times.

     



    Sorry sucker, maybe if you had talked to someone other than one of your own echo chamber dimwits, you would've seen it coming. But you were all listening to Bush talking about the "red hot" economy. I mean, why would he out right lie to his own constituants? It's like him saying Hussain has WMDs when he didn't.

    I got out. But then apparently I only know what MSNBC tells me. BTW, what channel is that?

    FYI, mommy is long gone, thanks so much. 

     




     

    Um.....billy.......the housing market was "red hot" from, well.....about 1986 through 2007 or so.  Everyone on earth wanted in asap for fear that they would be priced out as house prices were constantly going up.  Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, W, all saw Americans striving for home ownership, not only for their families, but for sound investments and a place to invest money for retirement.  To see that nest egg, that investment, crash and burn is quite disturbing.

    If you were unfortunate enough to buy in 2006,2007, or 2008, you paid peak dollars and now you simply cannot take a loss to get out.  Yes, there is a shortage of houses for sale because people cannot lose that kind of money so they stay put and try to fight their way through this mess.

    Unfortunately those people are stuck until this incompetent at 1600 Pennsylvania av is gone.  You keep screaming about "Bush" though........it`s really working for you.

     

     



    If you bought your house seven years ago, it's worth more now than when Obama took office.

     

    Again, every complaint seems to be that he's not fixing things as quickly as Bush broke them, so we need another Republican to step in and take the reins.

     

     




     

    No it isn`t.  That`s the problem.  You purchased in in 2006 at $660k (true story from my town).  House for sale now at $459k with many looks, but no bites.  This family is already taking a $200k hit.  I haven`t seen any that are worth more now than they were in 2006.

    And......I`m being unfair by blaming Obama. It`s Dems in general.  The Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.  Up until then, we had 44 consecutive months of growth and housing really was "red hot".

     



    Yes, it is.  It's not worth what you paid in 2006, but it's worth more than it was worth on January 19, 2009.

     

    If you're going to blame Dems in Congress for the bubble popping, you need to present some sort of argument.  Just the fact they they were sitting in chairs once occupied by Republicans is not enough.  What legislation did they pass that worsened the already plummeting home values?  Or what legislation did they block that could have turned things around?

     


    (QUOTE)

     

    Thank you.  I`m sure they`ll take comfort in knowing that the $200k loss they`re facing could have been $300k.

    Here`s an argument, 54 months of consecutive growth from 2002 until 2006.  Every quarter had positive GDP growth with an average of 2.8%.  (As an example, we just had GDP at .005 in Q4/2012 and CNN, MSNBC, and the NY Times were raving that we`re doing so well)  Then Jan 2007 came and........well, you know the rest of the story.

    Barney says "Fannie and Freddie are fine" and...........well you know the rest of the story.

    You are correct though.  As WDYWN states, these programs that caused the burst/collapse go way back as far as Reagan.  We have to blame both parties, they are both responsible.

     

     



    Not could have been $300K - was, in 2008.  If your baseline is 2006, you're going to be disappointed for a long time.  If your baseline is January, 2009, things are looking up.

     

    That's not an argument - an a55 in a chair has no effect on GDP.  Fannie & Freddie are scapegoats that had nothing to do with the bubble bursting, but even if they had, Barney Frank was one representative of a minority party.  Besides, as the graph above shows, the trouble began before the Dems even took control of Congress.

    You're not drawing the connection between the bubble and the pop - yeah the economy was great from 2002 - 2006, but it shouldn't have been.  That's the whole point - we should have had a little bit of suffering after the previous bubble popped (dot-com), and then a modest but steady correction.  Instead we set interest rates to zero, de-regulated the real estate and loan industry, let people turn a profit on defaults, set ARMs in action, made stated income the new norm, and sat back and watched the fireworks.  

    The 2002 - 2006 wonderful, good-old-day economy is the reason your friend is $200K upside down on his mortgage.  Not Barney, and not Barry.




    If I recollect, Bush said the housingmarket was formsing a bubble due to shoddy lendingpractices at fannie and freddie.  Barney said no, and everyone went with Barnyeys explanation.

    The president can't do it if the chairman of the committee won't act.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    Real Estate is on fire. Someones making money.

     



    Is this when we should all act impressed?

     

     



    Is this where I get to say WHOOOOSH?

     

     



    Well, it is going over your head, so yah, maybe.

     

     




     

    He doesn`t get it and never will. You think he knows what it`s like to buy a house and 7 years later have it be worth 50% LESS than you paid?  He only knows what MSNBC told him or his mama read to him from the NY Times.

     



    Sorry sucker, maybe if you had talked to someone other than one of your own echo chamber dimwits, you would've seen it coming. But you were all listening to Bush talking about the "red hot" economy. I mean, why would he out right lie to his own constituants? It's like him saying Hussain has WMDs when he didn't.

    I got out. But then apparently I only know what MSNBC tells me. BTW, what channel is that?

    FYI, mommy is long gone, thanks so much. 

     




     

    Um.....billy.......the housing market was "red hot" from, well.....about 1986 through 2007 or so.  Everyone on earth wanted in asap for fear that they would be priced out as house prices were constantly going up.  Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, W, all saw Americans striving for home ownership, not only for their families, but for sound investments and a place to invest money for retirement.  To see that nest egg, that investment, crash and burn is quite disturbing.

    If you were unfortunate enough to buy in 2006,2007, or 2008, you paid peak dollars and now you simply cannot take a loss to get out.  Yes, there is a shortage of houses for sale because people cannot lose that kind of money so they stay put and try to fight their way through this mess.

    Unfortunately those people are stuck until this incompetent at 1600 Pennsylvania av is gone.  You keep screaming about "Bush" though........it`s really working for you.

     

     



    If you bought your house seven years ago, it's worth more now than when Obama took office.

     

    Again, every complaint seems to be that he's not fixing things as quickly as Bush broke them, so we need another Republican to step in and take the reins.

     

     




     

    No it isn`t.  That`s the problem.  You purchased in in 2006 at $660k (true story from my town).  House for sale now at $459k with many looks, but no bites.  This family is already taking a $200k hit.  I haven`t seen any that are worth more now than they were in 2006.

    And......I`m being unfair by blaming Obama. It`s Dems in general.  The Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.  Up until then, we had 44 consecutive months of growth and housing really was "red hot".

     



    Yes, it is.  It's not worth what you paid in 2006, but it's worth more than it was worth on January 19, 2009.

     

    If you're going to blame Dems in Congress for the bubble popping, you need to present some sort of argument.  Just the fact they they were sitting in chairs once occupied by Republicans is not enough.  What legislation did they pass that worsened the already plummeting home values?  Or what legislation did they block that could have turned things around?

     


    (QUOTE)

     

    Thank you.  I`m sure they`ll take comfort in knowing that the $200k loss they`re facing could have been $300k.

    Here`s an argument, 54 months of consecutive growth from 2002 until 2006.  Every quarter had positive GDP growth with an average of 2.8%.  (As an example, we just had GDP at .005 in Q4/2012 and CNN, MSNBC, and the NY Times were raving that we`re doing so well)  Then Jan 2007 came and........well, you know the rest of the story.

    Barney says "Fannie and Freddie are fine" and...........well you know the rest of the story.

    You are correct though.  As WDYWN states, these programs that caused the burst/collapse go way back as far as Reagan.  We have to blame both parties, they are both responsible.

     

     



    Not could have been $300K - was, in 2008.  If your baseline is 2006, you're going to be disappointed for a long time.  If your baseline is January, 2009, things are looking up.

     

    That's not an argument - an a55 in a chair has no effect on GDP.  Fannie & Freddie are scapegoats that had nothing to do with the bubble bursting, but even if they had, Barney Frank was one representative of a minority party.  Besides, as the graph above shows, the trouble began before the Dems even took control of Congress.

    You're not drawing the connection between the bubble and the pop - yeah the economy was great from 2002 - 2006, but it shouldn't have been.  That's the whole point - we should have had a little bit of suffering after the previous bubble popped (dot-com), and then a modest but steady correction.  Instead we set interest rates to zero, de-regulated the real estate and loan industry, let people turn a profit on defaults, set ARMs in action, made stated income the new norm, and sat back and watched the fireworks.  

    The 2002 - 2006 wonderful, good-old-day economy is the reason your friend is $200K upside down on his mortgage.  Not Barney, and not Barry.

     




    If I recollect, Bush said the housingmarket was formsing a bubble due to shoddy lendingpractices at fannie and freddie.  Barney said no, and everyone went with Barnyeys explanation.

     

    The president can't do it if the chairman of the committee won't act.



    Bush's push in 2003 was to move oversight of Fannie and Freddie from Congress to the Treasury.  Would that have helped?  I doubt it - for one thing Fannie and Freddie have always been scapegoats, as GSEs have held their values throughout the financial crisis.  For another, there's no reason to believe any Bush appointee would have been any more capable than Congress, given their track records (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Paulson, Rumsfeld, Brownie, et al).  

    FYI, the chairman of the Financial Services committee in 2003 was Republican Mike Oxley.  

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    50+ houses being bought/sold in my little 4 town area last two weeks. I cant wait till it we get over this drought and really get moving....

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    Real Estate is on fire. Someones making money.

     



    Is this when we should all act impressed?

     

     



    Is this where I get to say WHOOOOSH?

     

     



    Well, it is going over your head, so yah, maybe.

     

     




     

    He doesn`t get it and never will. You think he knows what it`s like to buy a house and 7 years later have it be worth 50% LESS than you paid?  He only knows what MSNBC told him or his mama read to him from the NY Times.

     



    Sorry sucker, maybe if you had talked to someone other than one of your own echo chamber dimwits, you would've seen it coming. But you were all listening to Bush talking about the "red hot" economy. I mean, why would he out right lie to his own constituants? It's like him saying Hussain has WMDs when he didn't.

    I got out. But then apparently I only know what MSNBC tells me. BTW, what channel is that?

    FYI, mommy is long gone, thanks so much. 

     




     

    Um.....billy.......the housing market was "red hot" from, well.....about 1986 through 2007 or so.  Everyone on earth wanted in asap for fear that they would be priced out as house prices were constantly going up.  Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, W, all saw Americans striving for home ownership, not only for their families, but for sound investments and a place to invest money for retirement.  To see that nest egg, that investment, crash and burn is quite disturbing.

    If you were unfortunate enough to buy in 2006,2007, or 2008, you paid peak dollars and now you simply cannot take a loss to get out.  Yes, there is a shortage of houses for sale because people cannot lose that kind of money so they stay put and try to fight their way through this mess.

    Unfortunately those people are stuck until this incompetent at 1600 Pennsylvania av is gone.  You keep screaming about "Bush" though........it`s really working for you.

     

     



    If you bought your house seven years ago, it's worth more now than when Obama took office.

     

    Again, every complaint seems to be that he's not fixing things as quickly as Bush broke them, so we need another Republican to step in and take the reins.

     

     




     

    No it isn`t.  That`s the problem.  You purchased in in 2006 at $660k (true story from my town).  House for sale now at $459k with many looks, but no bites.  This family is already taking a $200k hit.  I haven`t seen any that are worth more now than they were in 2006.

    And......I`m being unfair by blaming Obama. It`s Dems in general.  The Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.  Up until then, we had 44 consecutive months of growth and housing really was "red hot".

     



    Yes, it is.  It's not worth what you paid in 2006, but it's worth more than it was worth on January 19, 2009.

     

    If you're going to blame Dems in Congress for the bubble popping, you need to present some sort of argument.  Just the fact they they were sitting in chairs once occupied by Republicans is not enough.  What legislation did they pass that worsened the already plummeting home values?  Or what legislation did they block that could have turned things around?

     


    (QUOTE)

     

    Thank you.  I`m sure they`ll take comfort in knowing that the $200k loss they`re facing could have been $300k.

    Here`s an argument, 54 months of consecutive growth from 2002 until 2006.  Every quarter had positive GDP growth with an average of 2.8%.  (As an example, we just had GDP at .005 in Q4/2012 and CNN, MSNBC, and the NY Times were raving that we`re doing so well)  Then Jan 2007 came and........well, you know the rest of the story.

    Barney says "Fannie and Freddie are fine" and...........well you know the rest of the story.

    You are correct though.  As WDYWN states, these programs that caused the burst/collapse go way back as far as Reagan.  We have to blame both parties, they are both responsible.

     

     



    Not could have been $300K - was, in 2008.  If your baseline is 2006, you're going to be disappointed for a long time.  If your baseline is January, 2009, things are looking up.

     

    That's not an argument - an a55 in a chair has no effect on GDP.  Fannie & Freddie are scapegoats that had nothing to do with the bubble bursting, but even if they had, Barney Frank was one representative of a minority party.  Besides, as the graph above shows, the trouble began before the Dems even took control of Congress.

    You're not drawing the connection between the bubble and the pop - yeah the economy was great from 2002 - 2006, but it shouldn't have been.  That's the whole point - we should have had a little bit of suffering after the previous bubble popped (dot-com), and then a modest but steady correction.  Instead we set interest rates to zero, de-regulated the real estate and loan industry, let people turn a profit on defaults, set ARMs in action, made stated income the new norm, and sat back and watched the fireworks.  

    The 2002 - 2006 wonderful, good-old-day economy is the reason your friend is $200K upside down on his mortgage.  Not Barney, and not Barry.

     




    If I recollect, Bush said the housingmarket was formsing a bubble due to shoddy lendingpractices at fannie and freddie.  Barney said no, and everyone went with Barnyeys explanation.

     

    The president can't do it if the chairman of the committee won't act.

     



    Bush's push in 2003 was to move oversight of Fannie and Freddie from Congress to the Treasury.  Would that have helped?  I doubt it - for one thing Fannie and Freddie have always been scapegoats, as GSEs have held their values throughout the financial crisis.  For another, there's no reason to believe any Bush appointee would have been any more capable than Congress, given their track records (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Paulson, Rumsfeld, Brownie, et al).  

     

    FYI, the chairman of the Financial Services committee in 2003 was Republican Mike Oxley.  

     




    So, you admit Bush saw the problem, and Barney said there wasn't a problem?

     

    You can try all you want to change the subject, but I think you just outed yourself as being selective on the facts.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    Here are the Bush warnings/attempted actions:

    2001

     

    April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

     

    2002

     

    May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

     

    2003

     

    January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

     

    February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

     

    September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

     

    September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

     

    October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

     

    November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

     

    2004

     

    February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

     

    February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

     

    June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying, "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

     

    2005

     

    April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America…Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

     

    2007

     

    July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

     

    August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

     

    September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

     

    September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

     

    December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying, "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

     

    2008

     

    January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

     

    January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

     

    February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says, "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

     

    March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

     

    March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

     

    April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

     

    May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

     

    • "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

     

    • "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

     

    • "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

     

    June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

     

    July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    50+ houses being bought/sold in my little 4 town area last two weeks. I cant wait till it we get over this drought and really get moving....



    Link please

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: But, but.....the economy is doing so well I thought?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    Real Estate is on fire. Someones making money.

     



    Is this when we should all act impressed?

     

     



    Is this where I get to say WHOOOOSH?

     

     



    Well, it is going over your head, so yah, maybe.

     

     




     

    He doesn`t get it and never will. You think he knows what it`s like to buy a house and 7 years later have it be worth 50% LESS than you paid?  He only knows what MSNBC told him or his mama read to him from the NY Times.

     



    Sorry sucker, maybe if you had talked to someone other than one of your own echo chamber dimwits, you would've seen it coming. But you were all listening to Bush talking about the "red hot" economy. I mean, why would he out right lie to his own constituants? It's like him saying Hussain has WMDs when he didn't.

    I got out. But then apparently I only know what MSNBC tells me. BTW, what channel is that?

    FYI, mommy is long gone, thanks so much. 

     




     

    Um.....billy.......the housing market was "red hot" from, well.....about 1986 through 2007 or so.  Everyone on earth wanted in asap for fear that they would be priced out as house prices were constantly going up.  Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, W, all saw Americans striving for home ownership, not only for their families, but for sound investments and a place to invest money for retirement.  To see that nest egg, that investment, crash and burn is quite disturbing.

    If you were unfortunate enough to buy in 2006,2007, or 2008, you paid peak dollars and now you simply cannot take a loss to get out.  Yes, there is a shortage of houses for sale because people cannot lose that kind of money so they stay put and try to fight their way through this mess.

    Unfortunately those people are stuck until this incompetent at 1600 Pennsylvania av is gone.  You keep screaming about "Bush" though........it`s really working for you.

     

     



    If you bought your house seven years ago, it's worth more now than when Obama took office.

     

    Again, every complaint seems to be that he's not fixing things as quickly as Bush broke them, so we need another Republican to step in and take the reins.

     

     




     

    No it isn`t.  That`s the problem.  You purchased in in 2006 at $660k (true story from my town).  House for sale now at $459k with many looks, but no bites.  This family is already taking a $200k hit.  I haven`t seen any that are worth more now than they were in 2006.

    And......I`m being unfair by blaming Obama. It`s Dems in general.  The Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.  Up until then, we had 44 consecutive months of growth and housing really was "red hot".

     



    Yes, it is.  It's not worth what you paid in 2006, but it's worth more than it was worth on January 19, 2009.

     

    If you're going to blame Dems in Congress for the bubble popping, you need to present some sort of argument.  Just the fact they they were sitting in chairs once occupied by Republicans is not enough.  What legislation did they pass that worsened the already plummeting home values?  Or what legislation did they block that could have turned things around?

     


    (QUOTE)

     

    Thank you.  I`m sure they`ll take comfort in knowing that the $200k loss they`re facing could have been $300k.

    Here`s an argument, 54 months of consecutive growth from 2002 until 2006.  Every quarter had positive GDP growth with an average of 2.8%.  (As an example, we just had GDP at .005 in Q4/2012 and CNN, MSNBC, and the NY Times were raving that we`re doing so well)  Then Jan 2007 came and........well, you know the rest of the story.

    Barney says "Fannie and Freddie are fine" and...........well you know the rest of the story.

    You are correct though.  As WDYWN states, these programs that caused the burst/collapse go way back as far as Reagan.  We have to blame both parties, they are both responsible.

     

     



    Not could have been $300K - was, in 2008.  If your baseline is 2006, you're going to be disappointed for a long time.  If your baseline is January, 2009, things are looking up.

     

    That's not an argument - an a55 in a chair has no effect on GDP.  Fannie & Freddie are scapegoats that had nothing to do with the bubble bursting, but even if they had, Barney Frank was one representative of a minority party.  Besides, as the graph above shows, the trouble began before the Dems even took control of Congress.

    You're not drawing the connection between the bubble and the pop - yeah the economy was great from 2002 - 2006, but it shouldn't have been.  That's the whole point - we should have had a little bit of suffering after the previous bubble popped (dot-com), and then a modest but steady correction.  Instead we set interest rates to zero, de-regulated the real estate and loan industry, let people turn a profit on defaults, set ARMs in action, made stated income the new norm, and sat back and watched the fireworks.  

    The 2002 - 2006 wonderful, good-old-day economy is the reason your friend is $200K upside down on his mortgage.  Not Barney, and not Barry.



    !00% assumption.  Gotta love you lefties............

    "Obama stoped the job loss and we`re ina recovery".......Why?  Because we said so.

    "The bubble popped before the Dems took control".......Why? Because we said so.

    ""2002-2006" is the reason"  Why? Because we said so.

    Yah, let`s just forget about 25-30 years of investing in real estate, making modest (and some dramatic) profit off of property, and of course, Barney (the single largest culprit in the financial disaster) is comepletely innocent.  Why? Because we said so.

    Gawd slomag................take a sniff of the coffee man!

     

     

Share