|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
Well this is certainly depressing news. I know that my home has lost some of its value ..... but I don't plan on selling it at any time soon, so that doesn't concern me a great deal. However the fact that people have less actual net worth today than even the early 1990s is really depressing. The American Dream Shrinks: Avg. Net Worth Falls 40% From 2007-2010 | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-tic...-160150749.htmlThe slow death of the American dream for middle class families has continued in the last couple years in the wake of the financial crisis. A new survey by the Federal Reserve shows a shocking decline in the average net worth of U.S. households from 2007 to 2010. According to the report, which adjusted figures for inflation, the average American family saw their net worth drop 40% in that three-year time period from $126,400 to $77,300. Three-quarters of the loss, not surprisingly, is due in large part to falling home prices, which have seen no reprieve since the housing bubble began to burst in 2007. The average homeowner saw their net worth fall more than $70,000 from roughly $250,000 in 2007 to $175,000 in 2010. But what is surprising is the fact that overall net worth has fallen to levels not seen since the early 1990's, long before the housing bubble even began. In three years, 18 years of savings have been wiped away for the majority of the country and at the same time wages have fallen. The average income fell from about $50,00 in 2010 to $46,000 in 2007. But this negative trend does not stop there. As average families become poorer, rich Americans are growing richer. The Fed survey showed the wealthiest 10% of families actually saw their net worth rise from 2007 to 2010. Over that time period, their net worth increased from $1.17 million to $1.19 million. As Aaron and Henry discuss in the accompanying clip, the continued decline of the American middle class and the ascent of the rich has resulted in income inequality at levels not seen since the Great Depression. Many economists agree, including Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz who recently joined The Daily Ticker to discuss why growing wage and income disparity endangers the future of our country. (SEE: The 'American Dream' Is a Myth: Joseph Stiglitz on 'The Price of Inequality') While the bulk of consumer spending has historically come from the middle class, if the majority of Americans continue to suffer from falling wages and income, eventually something has got to give. There is no possible way for the super-rich to buy enough stuff to float the entire U.S. economy. It's growing increasingly clear that we live in drastic times and drastic measures must be taken to save the country's middle class. One drastic measure is that more Americans are putting off retirement because they simply can't afford it. But with Americans living longer and putting increased strain on programs like Social Security and Medicare, the retirement age is going to have be raised for one reason or another.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159 |
When reading stuff like this, it kinda makes sense that there is such a negative feeling towards the wealthy. For me, I don't have a problem with millionaires per se.
I do have a problem with those that made those millions at the expense of the middle class.. I think we all know who they are..
The classic leveraged buy out firms that buy a company, slim it down to make it appear more profitable, sell it off or close it and sell off the assets putting people out of work.. that kinda thing bugs me. it's not illegal of course, but it's kind of un american in a sense. immoral at least., but legal..
Banks that ripped people off with this Robo signing issue. Stuff like that. those kind of wealthy people bug me. again, not that they are wealthy, but the way the got wealthy.
The problem is, you take a look at the democratic party, and they paint all wealthy people with the same brush. Not fair or accurate.
can you imagine how much worse this would be had we not bailed out so damn many companies?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,541 Likes: 986
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,541 Likes: 986 |
And the biggest loss is with those with a million or so in assets, but hey, who cares about them? They are the enemy in today's culture.
It's pretty sickening the way many people think. I might even be able to say most.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,372 Likes: 880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,372 Likes: 880 |
Quote:
When reading stuff like this, it kinda makes sense that there is such a negative feeling towards the wealthy. For me, I don't have a problem with millionaires per se.
I do have a problem with those that made those millions at the expense of the middle class.. I think we all know who they are..
The classic leveraged buy out firms that buy a company, slim it down to make it appear more profitable, sell it off or close it and sell off the assets putting people out of work.. that kinda thing bugs me. it's not illegal of course, but it's kind of un american in a sense. immoral at least., but legal..
Banks that ripped people off with this Robo signing issue. Stuff like that. those kind of wealthy people bug me. again, not that they are wealthy, but the way the got wealthy.
The problem is, you take a look at the democratic party, and they paint all wealthy people with the same brush. Not fair or accurate.
can you imagine how much worse this would be had we not bailed out so damn many companies?
The thing, though, is that the middle class always ultimately ends up winning. Unfortunately, history shows they (we) don't "win" in a pretty way...
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
If you look at that though, the wealthy really pretty much stayed steady. Going from 1.17 million to 1.19 in assets isn't some huge jump. It's likely the result of being able to get better rates on investments than smaller investors can. (Like a jumbo CD at the bank opposed to a standard "we pay nothing" CD) I just rolled over some CDs, and they will pay about 2% over 5 years. Yippee. I don't see rates exploding though, not with the mess the economy is in. If I could put together $100,000, I could earn over 5%. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of money.
That's one huge advantage having money gives you.
As far as firms buying out other companies ..... if the company being bought was healthy to start with, it wouldn't be for sale. I look at some of the companies being used as examples of the horrors of investment firms buying them out and then having the company be dismantled .... well, in the case of a steel company, it had a lot to do with China dumping steel. That had nothing to do with the owners of the company. If you can't compete, then you can't continue to stay in business. Many times investors of this type help save companies. Other times they dismantle them. The one thing that the companies being bought have in common though is that they are generally companies that are in financial trouble, who are on the verge of going under anyway. I don't have any expectation that people should invest their money (and other people's money) into a losing venture. If they can turn a losing company around, great. If not, and they have to liquidate, well, that was probably on the horizon anyway. If they save a few companies, then they save some jobs. Just like in life though, you just can't save everyone.
The banking mess had its origins in the hands of both Parties. Both did a poor job of oversight. Both did a poor job of setting up the rules in a reasonable fashion. Both let the mess deteriorate to the point it became a royal disaster. Both Parties are to blame, and both should be working to clean it up.
I have read that this could cost taxpayer trillion upon trillion of dollars to clean up this mess. No one seems inclined to do much oversight though.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11 |
I blame outsourcing and blood drunk capitalism for the shrinking of the American dream and the American middle class. People would rather blame labor unions, policies which help the down trodden, and teachers for the problems of this country. To each their own, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
If you look at that though, the wealthy really pretty much stayed steady. Going from 1.17 million to 1.19 in assets isn't some huge jump.
Those aren't the kinda people I take exception to Ytown.. I have friends,, good honest hard working, frugal friends that never had a combined income of over 100k a year and after 40 years of work, retired with a net worth of more than a couple of million. Of course, I should point out, one couple, the hubby worked for the post office for 35 years, the wife still works for the Social Security Admin. The other couple, hubby was a school teacher for 35 years and the wife was a Lawyer for some government agency (not sure which) so they ended up with sweet benefits and retirement plans and they were very tight with a buck as well.
Those kinda folks I got no issue with. none.
It's the ones that made thier money at the expense of the middle class.. Them, I got issues with.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
I blame a lot of things.
We never really managed to compete in the global economy as well as we should have. We should have demanded equal playing fields in return for access to our enormous market. Instead we got NAFTA, and a host of other trade agreements that put the US in the underdog position from the start.
We refuse to stand up to China, despite the fact that thye need us as much as we need them. This is the perfect time to put the hammer down, as their economy is also slowing down ..... and we could force them into a more level playing field, or else stall them pretty badly by closing our doors to China's goods. While we aren't playing from a pure position of strength, we are relatively strong given their declining market.
As far as American business, there has to be a balance between keeping American jobs here producing American goods, and also allowing American companies to compete in global markets. I think that the entire tax structure needs to be redone with an emphasis on companies expanding their business in the US, using US products and labor, and their hiring of US employees. I would eliminate the other tax breaks for all of the other crap from the books.
I would also allow for the repatriation of overseas monies, with a reduced tax rate for repatriated funds for a limited time, and zero tax for funds used for the purchase of US goods, expansion of US facilities, and hiring of US employees. I think that this would give business a reason to invest back in the US.
I have heard a lot of good ideas about how to work to persuade business to expand and invest in the US, but we are in this class warfare stall that refuses to allow for any "tax breaks for the rich", which precludes the possibility of tax breaks targeted towards hiring and expansion because those business owners are "rich".
I would also do away with the current tax code, and the billion pages of deductions, exemptions, and so on, and simplify the tax code a great deal. I don't think that we will ever get away from a tiered approach, so let's make it really simple. Everyone gets a modest personal exemption. (say, maybe $10,000) a married couple doubles that. Each child is a $5000 exemption. Get rid of all of the deductions, except for charitable giving. No more mortgage deduction .... no child tax credits .... no refundable tax credits of any kind ..... and we institute a minimum tax for all US citizens of $50. This could be applied to married couples as well. Welfare recipients could have it deducted from their check, and they could file a refund. Make the brackets something like 7.5%, 15%, and 22%. Include all income as income. If you earn money from a job, it's income. If you get capital gains, it's income. Any money you make is income, period, an dis taxed at the rate your income level requires.
Imagine Warren Buffett's delight when he makes $46 million and he pays about $10,000,000 in federal taxes, while his secretary, who makes maybe $70,000 pays only about $7500. (assuming a married couple) He should be quite pleased with that. Her rate would only be about half of his rate.
Anyway, there are so many great ideas out there for helping stimulate investment in the US, but none of them have gotten close to getting off the ground. Businesses still have no idea what their tax rates will be next year .... they have no clue at all whether they will be forced to pay the Obamacare tax ......
How do we expect anyone to hire in an environment of uncertainty? I wouldn't do it. I don't think that any reasonably intelligent business owner would.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,372 Likes: 880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,372 Likes: 880 |
Definitely some good ideas. In order to do that, however, our brilliant Congressmen would need to learn how to pull their heads out of theirs arses.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Why do you continue to point to the tax rate, when it's been shown to you time and time again that the tax rate is close to that of competitors?
The tax rate isn't even amongst the top 5 reasons as to why we have an employment problem. One could argue that it makes the top ten
... bit one could coherently argue it doesn't, as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
I know that you don't feel that it would make a difference, but I do.
If we remove all of the tax deductions except for the personal deductions, and lower tax rates, we'll collect more revenue off of lower rates, and it would be a far flatter, and fairer tax.
I also know that you don't think that anything anyone does will work ... and that there is no difference between anyone on either extreme in American politics because they never reach the farthest extremes. I get that. I think that you're wrong, but I understand the way you feel.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Most people net worth is tied heavily to their home. Thier home drops invalue so does their net worth.
Now you have the people with 1.2 mil net worth, they most likely live in a nice home, have investments, etc. When the real estate bubble burst and most middle income homes dropped in value immensely. Those millionaires homes probably maintained their value better, as thier neighborhoods weren't hit as hard with foreclosures.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
That's true, but according to this report, the average person's net worth has dropped back to early 1990's levels ...... which would be far below the loss sustained by a drop in a home's value to that of 5 or 10 years ago.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I know that you don't feel that it would make a difference, but I do.
I'm saying this as nicely as I possibly can ...
...but this is a cop out.
You like to boldly state your opinions, and then when backed into a corner with facts, you resort to 'well, this is how I feel' ... and even then, you have trouble backing that up with anything sufficient.
I don't say that to be mean ... but simply saying 'well, I believe this, even though you don't' doesn't take away from the fact that every single logical point proves how you 'feel' is wrong and misguided.
Quote:
I also know that you don't think that anything anyone does will work ... and that there is no difference between anyone on either extreme in American politics because they never reach the farthest extremes. I get that. I think that you're wrong, but I understand the way you feel.
Again, I don't mean to be cruel ... but 
I don't know if you're trying to be be snarky or are earnestly confused...but...
It has nothing to do with extremes. Extremes would be a welcome change. It would still be problematic, but it would be a step up. Extremes in American government are quickly marginalized.
But Bush and Obama don't represent extremes. They're pretty much beholden to the same interests, and they govern as such.
I don't have a problem with the Obama criticism, as he's an awful president, but I don't understand how one - such as yourself - could defend one and villify the other, when they essentially govern the same.
I mean, for *YEARS* I complained about Bush, and you and others defended him ... and then Obama comes along, and he's pretty much the same, and suddenly you hate him.
Simply saying 'I know you think they're the same' with a proverbial eye rolll doesn't make any points ... it's merely a deflection.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
My points are:
#1. We have never tried the restructuring of the tax system that I propose. Instead we exchange rates for loopholes, and loopholes for rates. It never changes all that much. One of the biggest changes was when the Bush tax cuts actually lowered the bottom tax rate. That wasn't a massive restructuring of the tax code, making it simpler and flatter. It wasn't as bad as some tax proposals, and they did close a few loopholes along with the tax rate reductions, so in some ways it was one of the more honest tax cuts, as opposed to playing shell games.
#2. My point is that we never get far, far left pure socialists, not do we get far right fascists, or pure libertarians. Our political spectrum exists within a slice of the overall spectrum. However, within that slice exists relatively right and left politicians. Obama is a relatively left politician. He wants people dependent upon government programs. He sees government employment in many ways as preferable to private sector employment. He wants to raise tax rates, but inevitably there will be loopholes opened up to compensate. I do agree, to an extent, that politicians do get similar results no matter what their political leaning, because they compromise and wind up with middle "solutions" that solve nothing.
I will say that the tax system is part of the problem. Another major problem is Obamacare. Both contribute to uncertainty for employers. Regulations are another. If I had my way, we would only have regulatory changes once per year except in emergency situations. I would also cut 2/3 of the regulations. I believe that many are completely unnecessary.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,675 Likes: 1671
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,675 Likes: 1671 |
Yes the housing crisis and overevaluation of homes was one of the worst things to happen to the average american family under the Bush administration.
Do you think there is some magic pill to fix all of that that's being ignored?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Yes the housing crisis and overevaluation of homes was one of the worst things to happen to the average american family under the Bush administration.
from policies started under the Clinton administration, allowed to continue under the Bush administration, and started to fix under the Bush administration (after the fallout) and have continued to try to fix under the Obama administration (all to limited effect - both admin's fixes).
the housing fallout was pretty bipartisan in enveloping failures.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
And again, the value of houses definitely effected the net worth of people, but not enough to drop us back to 1990s levels in most cases.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
And again, the value of houses definitely effected the net worth of people, but not enough to drop us back to 1990s levels in most cases.
OH I don't know about that.. one of my neighbors lived in Texas. I think it was McKinney Texas to be exact.
They lived there for 9 years. He worked for a division of Allstate insurance. They shut that division down and offered him a similar job in Hudson, Ohio.
This was a year and a half ago. He had a helluva time selling his home and when he did,, it sold for less than he paid for it 9 years prior.. He got out of it clean because he had enough equity from his original Down Payment and from the payments he made.. And i belive Allstate picked up realty fees. But he estimates that at one point, his home was worth about 100 grand more than what it ended up selling for. He used sales from that period of time of similar homes to determine his loss.
Does that take it all the way back to 1990... no.
But another example was a condo I owned back in 1990. I bought it in 1990 for 98k. Sold it in 1995 for 130k, it's on the market right now for 101900.
Listed at 3900 more than I paid in 1990.. They started the listing at about 160000 but have continued to drop the price over the last 6 months or so. It's company owned now because the guy that bought it from me was transfered out of state.
That's an example of being pretty close to 1990 pricing..
Of course, I haven't been in it. For all I know it's been trashed.. and that could very well be the issue.. Dunno
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844 |
Quote:
American Dream Shrinks
So, this isn't a new show about America's hottest female psychiatrists??
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 647 |
I saw a PD article or a news article about the $1m math teacher...well it turns out, it was $1m in assets and not liquid cash...most of the assets were retirement plans.
Those people you mentioned benefited from working for the state, which is now broke. They got lucky, because they got theirs before the state ran out of money....
damanshot wrote:
one couple, the hubby worked for the post office for 35 years, the wife still works for the Social Security Admin. The other couple, hubby was a school teacher for 35 years and the wife was a Lawyer for some government agency (not sure which) so they ended up with sweet benefits and retirement plans and they were very tight with a buck as well.
Go Browns!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
I saw a PD article or a news article about the $1m math teacher...well it turns out, it was $1m in assets and not liquid cash...most of the assets were retirement plans.
Those people you mentioned benefited from working for the state, which is now broke. They got lucky, because they got theirs before the state ran out of money....
damanshot wrote:
one couple, the hubby worked for the post office for 35 years, the wife still works for the Social Security Admin. The other couple, hubby was a school teacher for 35 years and the wife was a Lawyer for some government agency (not sure which) so they ended up with sweet benefits and retirement plans and they were very tight with a buck as well.
True enough.. One of the reasons my Post office buddy retire is because he saw the writing on the wall that retirement plans were going to end up getting cut at some point,, he got out while the getting was good I guess.
Can't tell you what's up with my school teach buddy..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
Yes the housing crisis and overevaluation of homes was one of the worst things to happen to the average american family under the Bush administration.
Do you think there is some magic pill to fix all of that that's being ignored?
The worst of it may have happened DURING the Bush administration, but it didn't happen UNDER the Bush administration.. it happened under multiple administrations, it just came to ahead while Bush was in office... and none of the Presidents actually overvalued homes, they just worked with banks to make loans that people with lower incomes could get so they could enjoy the prospertity of homeownership... and what happened, as happens with almost everything the government does, it didn't turn out the way they had planned and houses were built at an alarming rate, initial buyers, instead of enjoying the $120K house they bought, realized they could sell it for $250K and use the equity to buy a much bigger house.. then the economy collapsed and they were left with a house they couldn't afford. Poor decisions by the government? Without a doubt... Greed from the bankers and lenders? Absolutely... Greed on the part of the homeowners? Certainly...
What is being left out of this conversation is the impact of the expanding global market. Some people post as if the US can just fix itself without significant improvements in the rest of the world and the fact is that is not the case any more. Like it or not, we are linked to the rest of the world through imports/exports, currency exchanges, information sharing, energy production/consumption, etc.. We can't run this country like we exist in a vacuum any more.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159 |
The houseing crisis or should I say the cause of the housing crisis started during the transition from Bush 1 to Clinton.
The intent was worthy of course. Find a way to get more people to own thier own home.. Sounds like a fine idea in theory.
But what took place was financial wizards found ways to skirt the rules, which were relaxed, for qualifying for a home mortgage.
My wife saw it back in the mid 90's. People with no business buying a home were getting loans with virtually no documentation proving they could afford the mortgage.
The thing is, things were going so well in the housing market that prices kept rising and values kept increasing.
I was one of the lucky ones.. I bought my house low and dumbed out in 05 just before things went south. But many folks didn't.
Clinton I don't think saw it coming. Apparently neither did the republicans because when Bush got into office, he didn't exactly try to toughen up rules banks used to determine credit worthyness.
Then 9/11 and honestly, I don't see how Bush had time for much else at that point. There are three times in history for sure that I wouldn't have wanted the job of president..
December 7th 1941, 9/11 and right now.
Whoever got in in 2008 was going to take a beating... McCain or Obama,, didn't matter.
And now we have dumb and dumber to look forward too..... What a freakin mess...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
The intent was worthy of course. Find a way to get more people to own thier own home.. Sounds like a fine idea in theory.
But what took place was financial wizards found ways to skirt the rules, which were relaxed, for qualifying for a home mortgage.
My wife saw it back in the mid 90's. People with no business buying a home were getting loans with virtually no documentation proving they could afford the mortgage.
As I understand it, one of the leading underlying causes was that the government made it possible for banks and lenders to sell, almost immediately, these questionable loans to Freddy and Fannie... F&F are backed by the federal government... so the banks would make the loan, collect their payday up front, collect a couple months worth of payments, then ship the loan off the F&F... So the banks were making their cash by making loans they knew they wouldn't get stuck holding onto, F&F were taking on bad loans but didn't care because the government was backing all of it.. so ultimately, you and I were underwriting all of these loans and assuming all of the risk... great system. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11 |
I think people are too willing to give the bankers a pass for sharking these individuals in to take these loans. It seems many of the individuals involved were told their rates would never go up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
I think people are too willing to give the bankers a pass for sharking these individuals in to take these loans. It seems many of the individuals involved were told their rates would never go up.
Possibly.........but you also have to consider that the requirements for home loans went way down, as per the fed. gov't. No longer did you have to show proof of income or ability to repay a loan. The gov't. was buying loans left and right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,845 Likes: 159 |
When I said the rules were relaxed, beleive it or not, I was referring to the loans being backed by F&F. Banks weren't worried about collecting as much because they had a "co signer" if you will!
And the banks relaxed thier criteria.
But here is the thing,, No gun was pointed at any banks head to lower thier standards. Many banks didn't.. Third Federal and First Merit here in Ohio didn't budge. for them to grant you a loan, you needed reasonable credit, steady/verifiable employment and a downpayment of 10 to 20%. Oh, and the property had to appraise for the right number as well.
And they used reputable appraisers.. Not those that would fly by and say,, yeah,, its all good.
Anyway,, there were lots of contributing factors.
But like I said, in theory, the idea was sound.. but the execution and monitoring was simply awful.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
At the same time, isn't it a bit unreasonable to act as if it was solely the gov't trying to undertake a random goodwill mission of "Home-ownership for all"? Anytime legislation gets passed, there's a direct benefit to some sect of industry. Obama care? That's the insurance industry who needs a towel. There isn't a textile manufacturer in the region able to supply enough towels for Halliburton, Blackwater (you don't change your name if you're not shady), Lockheed Martin, and the other Iraq war profiteers. Do you guys really think banks were irate and absolutely up in arms about being able to toss around more loans?
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
Do you guys really think banks were irate and absolutely up in arms about being able to toss around more loans?
Ummm...............no. And if that's what you took from my post.........one of us screwed up.
What I was trying to say was many banks LOVED the less stringent requirements with the ability to toss the risk right over to the fed gov't. The fed. gov't. loved it because they saw home ownership going up and up.
But, as is typical of gov't. action - they had no clue what the downside was.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,372 Likes: 880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,372 Likes: 880 |
Quote:
When I said the rules were relaxed, beleive it or not, I was referring to the loans being backed by F&F. Banks weren't worried about collecting as much because they had a "co signer" if you will!
And the banks relaxed thier criteria.
But here is the thing,, No gun was pointed at any banks head to lower thier standards. Many banks didn't.. Third Federal and First Merit here in Ohio didn't budge. for them to grant you a loan, you needed reasonable credit, steady/verifiable employment and a downpayment of 10 to 20%. Oh, and the property had to appraise for the right number as well.
Sadly, the pendulum swung the other way totally after the crisis. My wife and I had/have great credit and when we bought our house 2 1/2 years ago, the mortgagee bank went so far as to make us itemize our wedding gift money before they decided to give us a loan.
I acknowledge it's a lot better than the relaxed rules, but wow, what a swing in the other direction!
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
They made you itemize your wedding gift money? Seriously????
First, did you include wedding gift money in your loan application?
Secondly, if you didn't include wedding gift money, I would've told the bank to kiss my ass. I would've told them straight up "screw you and the horse you rode in on - someone else will give me a loan based on my income and ability to pay. You will never, NEVER, see me set foot in this bank again, and I have a big mouth and others will hear about this."
Now, in a small town - that works. With big banks - they probably don't give a rip. That's why I do banking with a hometown bank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
Secondly, if you didn't include wedding gift money, I would've told the bank to kiss my ass. I would've told them straight up "screw you and the horse you rode in on - someone else will give me a loan based on my income and ability to pay. You will never, NEVER, see me set foot in this bank again, and I have a big mouth and others will hear about this."
Quote:
and if you lived in Mass, that would have cost your $40. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
That's true, but according to this report, the average person's net worth has dropped back to early 1990's levels ...... which would be far below the loss sustained by a drop in a home's value to that of 5 or 10 years ago.
But what about the millions that flat out lost their homes? Their net worth would be impacted immensely. And sadly, for many if not most Americans, their house is the only thing they have of value, many do not have retirement accounts.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
I think that the market crashes and the plummeting of interest rates have hurt the ordinary person as much as anything else.
People saw their 401Ks wiped out, and any savings they have in "safe" vehicles earn nothing.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83 |
IN Other news Barrack Obama began to lock up the nomination for president in 2007. In 2006 the democrats were given a bigger chunck of the two national houses of congress. Democrats have been able to do, pretty much whatever they would have wanted with the Republicans only scrambling to muster a filabuster to stop democrats from ramming anything down americans throats. And they weren't even able to do that for 6 months between elections. As far as the super rich gaining net worth. Just like I say! They want to turn this into a worldwide Mexico. Meaning, a place where the mighty few control everything for everyone else. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83 |
You would not have wanted to have the job of US president on 9/11.
I hate to say, the megalamaniac part of me relish's the 3 days after 9/11 and the job of Pres of the Usa.
I could have put any amount of nuclear explosions anywhere on the freaking planet, and what would anybody have done.
I could say, they did it, they did it and that's what they get in retaliation.
( I don't like this part of me)
Well it didn't happen that way, the time has passed, and super super wwIII didn't happen all at once. The US can't go off and not look like the agressor now.
anywhere on the freak ing planet. anywhere.
The fact that the they didn't do something like that, tends to prove that there is no national soverignities, it is all global controlled. It has already happened.
international, or global, take your pick.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
Might as well put this in here, since so much of the American Dream is having a job ..... For us to have only recovered 43% of the jobs lost to the recession is appalling. One other thing ..... why is it that the unemployment numbers are always on the light side when they are first reported. This has to be the 6th week in a row that the previous week's numbers were revised up. This underreporting of the actual numbers really seems to be a trend. U.S. unemployment aid applications rise to 386,000 | cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/06/us_unemployment_aid_applicatio_1.htmlWASHINGTON -- More Americans sought unemployment aid last week, suggesting hiring remains sluggish. The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly unemployment benefit applications rose 6,000 to a seasonally adjusted 386,000. The increase came after the government revised the previous week up to 380,000. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, rose for the third straight week to 382,000. That's the highest in six weeks. Weekly applications are a measure of the pace of layoffs. When they drop below 375,000, it typically suggests hiring is strong enough to reduce the unemployment rate. "The trend in jobless claims suggests ... that the underlying pace of employment growth has softened," said Bricklin Dwyer, an economist at BNP Paribas. Applications fell steadily during the fall and winter but have since leveled off. At the same time, hiring has slowed, raising concerns about the pace of the recovery. Employers added an average of only 96,000 jobs per month in the past three months. That's down from an average of 252,000 in the previous three months. Weaker hiring also pushed up the unemployment rate in May to 8.2 percent, its first rise in nearly a year. Joseph LaVorgna, an economist at Deutsche Bank, said the increase in applications was "slightly disconcerting" but added that more data would be needed to establish a trend. Still, he forecasts that the economy will gain only 75,000 jobs this month. Faster job creation is crucial in order to accelerate growth. More jobs mean more income for consumers, which may lead to higher spending. Consumer spending fuels about 70 percent of the economy. The number of people continuing to receive benefits fell sharply, partly because extended benefit programs are ending in many states. The total benefit rolls fell to 5.8 million in the week ending May 26, the latest data available. That's a drop of 146,000 from the previous week. Many economists blame the slowdown in hiring partly on the unusually warm winter. Companies moved up some hiring in January and February that normally would have occurred in spring. As that trend fades, job gains might recover in the coming months. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said last week that the warm winter might be a reason for the slowdown in hiring. He also suggested that the burst of job gains earlier this year could have represented a "catch-up in hiring' by employers who cut too deeply in the recession. In that case, stronger economic growth would be needed to boost hiring further, Bernanke said. For now, the economy appears to be sputtering. It expanded 1.9 percent in the first quarter, down from 3 percent in the October-December quarter. Growth isn't expected to improve much in the current April-June quarter. Consumers remain cautious. Retail sales fell 0.2 percent in May, the Commerce Department said Wednesday, matching April's decline. It was the first back-to-back drop in two years. A big reason for the decline was falling prices at the gas pump, which reduced gas station sales. The average price for a gallon of gas was $3.54 Wednesday, according to AAA. That's 40 cents cheaper than the peak in early April. That drop should free up more cash for consumers to spend in the coming months, which could accelerate spending this summer, economists said. The economy is still struggling three years after the recession officially ended in June 2009. Wages haven't kept up with inflation. State and local governments have continued to shed jobs. The United States has regained less than 3.8 million, or 43 percent, of the 8.8 million jobs lost during and immediately after the recession.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
But what about the millions that flat out lost their homes? Their net worth would be impacted immensely.
If you owe $250K on a house and the house is only worth $200K and the bank takes it from you, your net worth just went up by $50K....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83 |
Howso, because you no longer have the house, the bank does. I see it as, Your net worth goes from x, whatever the value of the house is now that it's been adjusted post bubble, to minus that x because you no longer have the house. ( I now realize this doesn't make sense because I'm remembering the definition of net worth is the value of what you own vs the what you owe on it.) So it's a patial point Sure you gave up the 200 k in debt. But you also lost the house. Even if the house was upside down 50 k and it appears you went up 50 k , look at it this way If you own nothing else except the house, that's upside down, and you lose the house, in the end you have no house and Zero net worth. If you own nothing else you can't go above Zero, even if it's no longer negative 50K. It was never actually negative 50 k because you weren't going to ever pay it off to begin with, until many years from now, and by bankruptcy or whatever the loan is voided and you don't pay it off, the bank just takes back the house. Which wouldn't have been built if there had not been someone to live in it. So. What do you really have ?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... American Dream Shrinks
|
|
