Homeownership rate drops to 63.4%, lowest since 1967

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yep, I've been following it for over a year now. Very sad. ... FYI - There is NO recovery. As a matter of fact, we're going backwards.

The wealthy have MORE than recovered.
The top 7% earners have lavished in a 33% earnings increase since the crash.
The rest of us...have loss.
PERIOD.
You are exactly correct. There has been no recovery.

lets not forget that the top 7% would be doing a lot better if not for the Obama/FDR economy!!

 

[HenryBHough]

When you come right down to it home ownership has pretty much been eliminated in Obamerica.

Oh there are a few "unincorporated areas" in a handful of states where one can still actually own a home.

But for the overwhelming majority who think they own homes - well, they'er wrong. They merely RENT from the local property taxing authority. Skip a rent payment and the house is repossessed (taken for taxex).

Don't believe me? Try it for yourself!

 

[GHook93]

Why is it the government job? Because if the banks fail, then the gov has to bail them out to avoid a total collapse of our economy.

dear you lack the IQ to understand I'm afraid. Govt involvement caused the housing collapse. If there had been capitalism it would have been self-correcting long before you had a national crisis brought on by a national policy.

Do you understand now??

Do explain then.

I am familiar with the damage caused by the CRA and the GLB, which is primarily a privacy law. I'm also familiar with the added authority provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So explain your position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

what's to explain?? The Fed printed too much money to stimulate the economy that in reality created a housing bubble which Fan Fred encouraged to the point where they ended up with 77% of all the sub prime and Alt A mortgages.

Now do you understand?

Just as I thought. You don't understand the cause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GHook93]

When you come right down to it home ownership has pretty much been eliminated in Obamerica.

Oh there are a few "unincorporated areas" in a handful of states where one can still actually own a home.

But for the overwhelming majority who think they own homes - well, they'er wrong. They merely RENT from the local property taxing authority. Skip a rent payment and the house is repossessed (taken for taxex).

Don't believe me? Try it for yourself!

Property taxes were there and going up every year well before Obama took office. The Fed also had nothing to do with property taxes. That is on the states. We can't blame Obama for that one.

If you want to blame someone for skyrocketing property taxes blame the teacher unions, who don't give a damn about education or the students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ChrisL]

I've heard that states that don't have an income tax have much higher property taxes to make up the difference, so how much you are spending for property taxes definitely depends on your state.

 

[sjay]

I've heard that states that don't have an income tax have much higher property taxes to make up the difference, so how much you are spending for property taxes definitely depends on your state.

Your info is wrong,case in point, Florida has no state income tax,6%sales tax and my $300,000 home tax $2600.Illinois has 5% state income tax,9% sales tax and my $400,000 home tax is $6800.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I've heard that states that don't have an income tax have much higher property taxes to make up the difference, so how much you are spending for property taxes definitely depends on your state.

Your info is wrong,case in point, Florida has no state income tax,6%sales tax and my $300,000 home tax $2600.Illinois has 5% state income tax,9% sales tax and my $400,000 home tax is $6800.

I assume thats because Florida is conservative and has nice weather while Illinois is liberal and has bad weather?

 

[HenryBHough]

I assume thats because Florida is conservative and has nice weather while Illinois is liberal and has bad weather?

Remember, liberals are humanoids who buy and wear hair shirts because guilt feels good to them.

 

[AdvancingTime]

In a recent article a fellow by the name of Jim Quinn wrote about how Washington In their frantic effort to generate the appearance of economic recovery is gambling with taxpayer’s money to encourage and lure unsuspecting blue collar folks into buying houses they can’t afford. He writes about how his mother was selling her house and she asked $72,900 and received an offer of $66,000.

It is so damn good to see some real numbers in a post it almost brought tears to my eyes. Yes, the numbers Jim has used are real and the kind that exist in many places in America. These are not "Wall Street" numbers. The fact is not every house sells for $600,000. Yes, houses are available at affordable prices. Below are more numbers and reasons to question what you hear about homes prices and demand.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/05/real-facts-and-numbers-about-housing.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Below are more numbers and reasons to question what you hear about homes prices and demand.

dear, can you say what we hear and why it should be questioned??

 

[OnePercenter]

When you come right down to it home ownership has pretty much been eliminated in Obamerica.

Oh there are a few "unincorporated areas" in a handful of states where one can still actually own a home.

But for the overwhelming majority who think they own homes - well, they'er wrong. They merely RENT from the local property taxing authority. Skip a rent payment and the house is repossessed (taken for taxex).

Don't believe me? Try it for yourself!

Wrong dumbass. Home ownership isn't down, how a home is owned has changed. Again. You should NEVER live in a home your own.

 

[Dad2three]

This is what Obamabots call an economic recovery

Home ownership rates drop to 63.4 lowest since 1967

Yo, yes, a good measure of the true economy, it just goes to show, this is the way it should be, and not letting the Democrats bring another housing disaster!!!

"GTP"

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush's President's Working Group on Financial Markets March 2008

"The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007."




Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev...3_analysis.pdf

Nobody 'forced' bankers to do anything they didn't want to do. Congress reduced regulation -- something bankers wanted. In other words, Congress deregulated, ALLOWING bankers to do things they otherwise weren't allowed


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

 

[Dad2three]

Ok then, where is your data? Show the real wages to cost of living ratio. Show the number of retail stores closed. Show the number on government assistance programs. Show the data that says 50 % of our children are living at or below the poverty line. Show home ownership. Show food prices. Show utility prices. Show rent increases. Show where employers are offering less company paid benefits. Show the increases in the cost of health care. Show the number of unemployed that have given up looking. Show the number of unemployed between the ages of 50 and 65. Show the number of workers working at temporary jobs. Show the number of workers working at part-time jobs. In other words, show the entire picture when you present your data. Thanks.

Most of the data you are asking for is at the following link.

Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed

I'm beginning to think Sonny is a brick.

Typical libertarian Paul follower, IMO, perhaps the same as a brick

 

[Dad2three]

Why is it the government job? Because if the banks fail, then the gov has to bail them out to avoid a total collapse of our economy.

dear you lack the IQ to understand I'm afraid. Govt involvement caused the housing collapse. If there had been capitalism it would have been self-correcting long before you had a national crisis brought on by a national policy.

Do you understand now??

Jun 16, 2005


The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops

NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?


According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.


http://www.economist.com/node/4079027

No, government did not cause the housing crisis


(THOUGH DUBYA CHEERED IT ON, AND STOPPED THE STATES FROM STOPPING IT THEMSELVES, IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND FORCED F/F TO GET IN OVER THEIR HEADS!!!)

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom: The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market. The Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie) were not behind them. The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis:

3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world — it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world. What has other research found on this matter?

4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now

 

[Dad2three]

Why is it the government job? Because if the banks fail, then the gov has to bail them out to avoid a total collapse of our economy.

dear you lack the IQ to understand I'm afraid. Govt involvement caused the housing collapse. If there had been capitalism it would have been self-correcting long before you had a national crisis brought on by a national policy.

Do you understand now??

Do explain then.

I am familiar with the damage caused by the CRA and the GLB, which is primarily a privacy law. I'm also familiar with the added authority provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So explain your position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Damage from CRA? The types of loans around since 1977 and performing 300%+ better? PLEASE tell me more?


No, government did not cause the housing crisis


2. The Community Reinvestment Act and the GSE's affordability mission didn't cause the crisis.

Research from the Federal Reserve by Neil Bhutta and Glenn B. Canner (helpfully summarized in this Randy Kroszner speech), argues that the CRA couldn't have been behind the subprime and housing bubbles. "The very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis." Only six percent of higher-priced loans (their proxy for subprime loans) were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or CRA neighborhoods.



A recent paper found that while the CRA might have introduced slightly larger risks in lending portfolios, extra loans done to meet CRA compliance weren't more likely to have higher interest rates, lower loan-to-value, or be balloon/interest-only/jumbo/buy-down mortgages, or hold other subprime characteristics. So it is unlikely that the CRA was priming the pump for subprime, or subtly encouraging subprime mortgages to be made by private lenders.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post


Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis

Fannie Freddie and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News

 

[Dad2three]

Why is it the government job? Because if the banks fail, then the gov has to bail them out to avoid a total collapse of our economy.

dear you lack the IQ to understand I'm afraid. Govt involvement caused the housing collapse. If there had been capitalism it would have been self-correcting long before you had a national crisis brought on by a national policy.

Do you understand now??

Do explain then.

I am familiar with the damage caused by the CRA and the GLB, which is primarily a privacy law. I'm also familiar with the added authority provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So explain your position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

what's to explain?? The Fed printed too much money to stimulate the economy that in reality created a housing bubble which Fan Fred encouraged to the point where they ended up with 77% of all the sub prime and Alt A mortgages.

Now do you understand?

77%? lol


LIAR

Jason Thomas and Robert Van Order's researchargues that subprime loans were only 5 percent of the GSEs' losses. The GSEs' affordability mission led them to buy the highly rated tranches of mortgage bonds, for which there was already a ton of demand and were not essential to the completion of the deals.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.



...Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.

And yet, large numbers of people remain convinced that Fannie and Freddie's underwriting standards caused the mortgage crisis. Why is that?


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance Bank Think


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Private sector loans not Fannie or Freddie triggered crisis McClatchy DC

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dumbto3 has come to 3 conclusions in life:

1) Bush, though a liberal, was the perfect example of a conservative
Republican

2) 132 lib govt programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford had nothing to do with them not being able to afford their homes in the end

3) posts in big letters and colored letters mean you have won a debate

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

77%? lol


LIAR

BoA 10k 2009: "At December 31,2009, our CRA portfolio comprised 6% of the total residential mortgage balances but 17% of the non performing residential mortgage loans."

 

[Dad2three]

77%? lol


LIAR

BoA 10k 2009: "At December 31,2009, our CRA portfolio comprised 6% of the total residential mortgage balances but 17% of the non performing residential mortgage loans."

LINK? Didn't think so Bubba. Go play on the freeway Bubs

 

[Anathema]

I'm 41 years old, married and you couldn't GIVE me a,house of my own. Not interested under any circumstances.