Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS[W:27]

[Kushinator]

Re: Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

And how long did it take to get out of the 1920/21 Depression...which was far worse then the recent Great Recession?

Within 3 1/2 years the DOW and the unemployment rate were back to near pre-crash highs...all while lowering (yes, lowering) the national debt by over 10% during the depression.

It was a post-war/Fed induced downturn; comparing it to a financial crisis is silly and only exemplifies naivety. Given that you've been corrected on this topic multiple times, it displays willful ignorance.

 

[Winchester]

Re: Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

Home ownership has also fallen because wages have stagnated, while the cost of living has not.

Every year people work and only recieves about a 2-3.5% increase in pay...they are WORSE off than the previous year. Hard to buy a home if all you do every year is become a little poorer.

Houses have also gotten considerably larger (and hence more expensive) over the years. A family of 4 would not want to live in the house my dad grew up in and they had 10 people living there.

 

[DA60]

Kushinator?

Another poster who responds to my posts even though he knows I almost never bother reading his replies to mine (because I have so little respect for his macroeconomic ideas - not to mention his maturity level).

Watch...I bet you he will reply to this one as well even though he knows I won't read it.

Weird.


Anyway, back to the topic....

 

[polgara]

Re: Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

You are either lying, or are far too ill-informed on the subject to be pushing this topic. CRA doesn't force anyone to do anything other than review the loan applications in zip coded areas where banks take deposits. That's it. Nothing more. There are instances of violations, where banks were taking the money as deposits and redlining.



Again, you are either lying or simply not informed enough to be a part of these discussions:

Do you know what this chart means?

Greetings, Kushinator. :2wave:

I don't understand your thinking. I will admit that I am not among those who know everything about everything, but saying I must be lying or ill-informed is unfair. The information I posted is readily available on the internet for anyone to verify, if they care to take the time to do so.

 

[Kushinator]

Re: Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

but saying I must be lying or ill-informed is unfair.

How is it unfair to point out what was happening?

From the CRA website:

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) provides a framework for financial institutions, state and local governments, and community organizations to jointly promote banking services to all members of a community. In a nutshell, the CRA

• Prohibits redlining (denying or increasing the cost of banking to residents of racially defined neighborhoods), and
• Encourages efforts to meet the credit needs of all community members, including residents of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

The information I posted is readily available on the internet for anyone to verify, if they care to take the time to do so.

That's not much of a response. You claimed:

When banks realized that F & F would buy up almost any subprime mortgage, things started to go downhill. As a result, F & F collapsed in 2008, forcing the Federal government to spend over a trillion dollars on mortgage backed securities.

Which is simply not true. I was kind enough to post a chart that shows who was underwriting the overwhelming majority of sub-prime and alt-a mortgages, and you chose to ignore it. I will go a step further:

There should be no excuse for spreading misinformation going forward.

 

[Kushinator]

Kushinator?

Another poster who responds to my posts even though he knows I almost never bother reading his replies to mine (because I have so little respect for his macroeconomic ideas - not to mention his maturity level).

Watch...I bet you he will reply to this one as well even though he knows I won't read it.

Weird.


Anyway, back to the topic....

I will not sit by and let you continue to spread misinformation. If you don't like it, that's just too bad.

 

[DA60]

Lol...told you.

 

[Kushinator]

Lol...told you.

You must be... a wizard! :shock:

 

[ludin]

Re: Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

Saying the problem is "a credit crunch" is a lot like saying the sky is blue. As for as blaming the GOP (yet again) that, Pete, is a subject for a separate thread.

Why is there a credit crunch? There's a credit crunch because of unprecedented student loan debt, revolving credit also unprecedented, poor credit ratings, uneducated consumers getting in over their heads and a banking industry that finally decided they'd make sure borrowers could likely pay them back before they lend money.

In the opinion of THIS realtor, the numbers here are a GOOD sign.

yea what happened mid 2000's was stupid. had the banks just stopped lending money to people and doing 2nd and 3rd mortgages on people's homes
it would have turned out a bit different. the prices on homes would have come down and the value of those homes would have gone down as well.

instead appraisers and banks made a huge assumption that home values would never go down (the stupidity of that one).
they also kept making millions in risky loans to people that couldn't afford them.

it didn't help that people were paying for homes that were 200% above their real value.
I saw what happened around here and a home that was selling for 100k turned around 2 years later and was selling for 350-400k.
it was stupid.

 

[Lafayette]

Re: Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

And while Obamabots are at it trying to either deflect, blame others or spin the above... Let the spinning begin

You want it, ya got it!

Your remark above is the sort of warped and disingenuous rhetoric that the Rabid Right LOVES to spin. That is, blame an economic circumstance on a Democrat PotUS who was gifted a full-fledged Great Recession from an incompetent Replicant PotUS.

Here's some factual history:
*There was a Sub-prime Mess brought on by a real-estate feeding-frenzy under a Replicant PotUS from 2004 to 2008.
*It was sparked by fraudulent sub-prime loans that escaped detection and correction under that Replicant PotUS, thus creating Toxic Waste Debt underpinning the national economy - and threw it into disarray.
*To stop the skyrocketing unemployment rate caused by a declared "Great Recession", Obama (and a Dem-Congress) spent $871B (from the ARRA-bill in 2009) to spike unemployment at an historical high of 10% - from which the Unemployment Rate started to descend.
*To thank him for a "job well done", the American electorate (of which only 37.8% bothered to show up at the polls) gave the HofR over to the Replicants.
*At that moment (2010) the Employment-to-population Ratio had dropped from 63 to 58.5%, a loss of more than 2.5% of the total population, as shown here.
*The "right thing to do" in such an economic calamity would have been "Stimulus Spending". Three American Noble Prize Winning economists had suggested Stimulus Spending at the time.
*But "NO!" - the new Replicant HofR refused all such spending and proposed "Austerity Budgeting" because of (supposedly) the debt-overhang. Why such "lying"? Because, in a pinch, that's what Replicants do. See here.
*The consequence of this lie was to extend the Unemployment-to-population Ratio at 58.5% for another Four Long Years from 2010 to 2014. (See the same historical BLS chart shown above.)
*Finally, in 2014, all on its own, the economy started mending by creating jobs, a progression that is continuing to this day.

The above is the factual historical story of what happened as a result of the Great Recession.

Now DA60 can try to refute it with his own brand of "invented history" ...

PS: Your ranting does not serve the purpose of cogent debate in this forum.
__________________________

 

[Ahlevah]

Re: Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

Home ownership is not necessarily a good thing. I own my home free and clear but I wouldn't mind renting. Home ownership is an out of date metric of economic health..

I disagree with that statement. Home ownership has been the main mode of wealth-building for the middle class for more than half a century. The homeowner is forced to save each month when he makes that mortgage payment, so he builds up equity over time even if the value of the house just keeps up with inflation. He'll have a ready source of cash if he needs it. When you rent, you don't own squat, and can count on indefinite rent increases, which in recent years have more than outpaced the inflation rate. Also, homeowners tend to take better care of their properties. It's usually pretty easy to spot a neighborhood filled with rentals. All other things being equal, the quality and value of the housing stock in a neighborhood of owner-occupied homes will be better and more, respectively, than one filled with rentals. Finally, homeowners tend to spend money improving their properties--adding landscaping, furniture, fancy appliances, lighting, pools, etc.

 

[Lafayette]

Re: Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

Do you know what this chart means?

The question is "how did they inflated the bubble.

From WikiPedia:

The mortgage crisis from late 2007

Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSEs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) had striven to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." Then in 2003–2004, the subprime mortgage crisis began. The market shifted away from regulated GSE's and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks.

As mortgage originators began to distribute more and more of their loans through private label MBS's, GSE's lost the ability to monitor and control mortgage originators. Competition between the GSEs and private securitizers for loans further undermined GSEs power and strengthened mortgage originators. This contributed to a decline in underwriting standards and was a major cause of the financial crisis.

In fact, a majority - if not almost all - of these mortgages were "unsubstantiated". That is, the ability to repay by means of investigating income and requesting pay-slip corroboration were not employed. Moreover, many lied on existing outstanding debt, such as car loans, or even existing mortgages*.

The "debt business" is as good as the substantiation of the debtors and their ability to repay a debt. These criteria were almost wholly unsubstantiated in mortgage-loaning. Debtor applications for a loan were almost never questioned or a request for substantiation requested.

The failure was almost predictable, and of course when it did happen, the mortgage banks went under. And were then bought by larger banks who went to the government to ask for "special consideration" of the debt-plight.

Which was accorded by means of financing - when it would have been far better (in terms of "lessons learned") simply to shut them down and let them be replaced by other banks operating with "more professional criteria".

But no, our Attorney General at the time convinced Obama that the under-water banks should simply be "turned over" (bought out) and the dud-mortgages "recycled". Nobody was punished. No lessons were learned. Business as usual goes on.

Meaning the same will likely happen again in a future when the SubPrime Mess will have been conveniently forgot ...

*And why/how did this happen? Because America has no central (national) "identity file", where debt can be associated by identification to an individual whose name and date-of-birth have been substantiated by means of a state-originated "birth-certificate". Btw, that's why Toxic Waste is not and cannot be created in Europe!
_________________________________

 

[Lafayette]

Re: Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

I disagree with that statement. Home ownership has been the main mode of wealth-building for the middle class for more than half a century.

Then I suggest that you go to this site at the Economist: American house prices: realty check. Click on "Price to income" ratio. Here is what you get:

(Note in the above infographic that for the US entirely, the green line pertains.)

Your "main mode of wealth building" is, in fact, erratic and not a linear function of your income. It has become highly variable, as is any investment.

Unlike most investments, however, a house-mortgage has more direct utility to the family than others - which is why, yes, it's a damn good idea to pursue. And, perhaps financial investments may crumble, but the roof over your family's heads remains. (Unless of course you live in New Orleans ...)
__________________

 

[James972]

How is this POSSIBLY not a bad thing?

its not good or bad since we don't know what the ideal ownership rate is. Do you know?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Re: Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

Home ownership is not necessarily a good thing. I own my home free and clear but I wouldn't mind renting. Home ownership is an out of date metric of economic health..

No it's really not. Owning your residence is a better financial deal almost all the time over renting, at least after one settles in a career

 

[Rico Suave]

Re: Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

I own a home free and clear - it's not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Lafayette]

Home ownership rate has fallen FAR more under Obama then any other POTUS

You should add the fact that his administration was "gifted" the Great Recession in 2009/10 from the Replicants and therefore your premise above is not the least bit surprising.

It is amazing how you keep making claims omitting factual evidence - which is tantamount to "telling lies".

In fact, finally, after four lonnnnnggg years of Replicant "Austerity Budgeting", all by itself the economy is producing "income gains" for American households, as shown here:

Good news is worth telling - the only sad-part being that for the upper-class 95Percenters "their cup floweth over" ... !
______________________

 

[DA60]

You should add the fact that his administration was "gifted" the Great Recession in 2009/10 from the Replicants and therefore your premise above is not the least bit surprising.

It is amazing how you keep making claims omitting factual evidence - which is tantamount to "telling lies".

In fact, finally, after four lonnnnnggg years of Replicant "Austerity Budgeting", all by itself the economy is producing "income gains" for American households, as shown here:

Good news is worth telling - the only sad-part being that for the upper-class 95Percenters "their cup floweth over" ... !
______________________

Utter nonsense...you need to read dictionaries more.

'lie
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.'

Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com


Just because I present facts that you do not like and do not state facts that you do...does not make me a liar.

:roll:

Besides, the reverse is true. If I do not present all the facts - neither do you...so that makes you - by your own definition - a liar.

Bu bye now.


And - once again - I am neither dem nor rep.

 

[James972]

Good news is worth telling - the only sad-part being that for the upper-class 95Percenters "their cup floweth over" ... !
______________________

to a brain dead liberal that's sad because liberals lack the IQ to know that getting rich does not make other people poor.