• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Home price drops exceed Great Depression: Zillow

justabubba said:
your conclusion is quite flawed
there is reason to anticipate that 700,000 houses will NOT appear on the foreclosure market due to the limited success of the HAMP loan modifications
so, HAMP did not impact the value of the marketplace
absent HAMP, the likely added foreclosures would have added to the downward spiral of market valuation
HAMP did not delay any slide
but glad you are paying attention and taking notes!
Click to expand...

There are several problems with your analysis. Let me draw your attention to a glaring error.

Your analysis is not comprehensive. You ignore time in your examination. The HAMP program has prolonged the housing collapse by preventing the administration of the tough medicine the housing market needs to recover within a reasonable time frame. By prolonging the agony no one benefits in the long run. By prolonging the downturn in residential real estate the entire economy is being held back from a real recovery. Thus, the impact of HAMP makes the cure worse than the affliction.
 
justabubba said:
your conclusion is quite flawed
there is reason to anticipate that 700,000 houses will NOT appear on the foreclosure market due to the limited success of the HAMP loan modifications
so, HAMP did not impact the value of the marketplace
absent HAMP, the likely added foreclosures would have added to the downward spiral of market valuation
HAMP did not delay any slide
but glad you are paying attention and taking notes!
Click to expand...

this guy's about as coherent as the gibbons assassin. make sure he doesn't have a devil shrine in the back yard.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
It is against his point. American said "There is never anything wrong with less taxes. The govt should always have to justify taking money from citizens, not the other way around."

In response to the bolded part I say that the government does justify taking $$$ from citizens and that unfortunately, the majority of it goes to defense.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I didn't know exactly what you were implying (if you were implying anything - often I just toss out semi-related tidbits without having any point at all)
 
scourge99 said:
I'm glad. Homes were way overpriced. They are actually worth their value now.

More Americans can actually afford to buy decent homes now.
Click to expand...

If they were working or were secure in their jobs.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The sounds like it is a good idea, but it would bankrupt the banks

With such a program you would see a large number of strategic defaults on mortgages in order for people to get 25% cut from their debts (I know I would like to be able to do that), so the overall number of people defaulting would increase. The banks of course could not afford to take a 25% cut in the principle on mortgages. That would wipe out their reserves, and cause most to go belly up
Click to expand...

When the banks foreclose, they're going to take a 25% cut in the principle no matter what they do...that's my point. As to strategic defaults, we already have plenty of those. No reason to think that people would do it any more frequently....in FACT, they'd do it less because without foreclosure proceedings, they wouldn't be living rent-free for 12-18 months while in process.
 
bottom line:

President Barack Obama’s main foreclosure-prevention program is a failed effort that may be doing more harm than good by spreading the housing crisis over several years, lawmakers and a U.S. watchdog said today.

“It has failed and it has failed miserably,” said Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, said at a House Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing on the Home Affordable Modification Program. “Unfortunately we are incapable of saying that it was a failure, it was an experiment, it didn’t work, let’s try something else.”

“This goal [4 million hamp enrollees] is essentially meaningless,” Barofsky said at the hearing. “This program will be defined and must be defined as it was to the American people, how many people receive permanent modifications and stay in their home. They’ve actually harmed the people this program was intended to help, borrowers who’ve been put in pointless trial modifications.”
Click to expand...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHKGXNCBX4AQ

sorry

ms speier is the congresswoman from CA12, south san francisco, she was the aide to leo ryan who was with her boss when he was gunned down at jonestown

neil barofsky is tarp's inspector general

fyi
 
BmanMcfly said:
I've seen interviews with economists saying that by the numbers, oil could hit 150$ / barrel, gold 1700-2000$ / ounce , silver 50-150$/ounce by the end of the year. This WILL affect your food prices as well... the writing is on the wall, this system CANNOT continue as it is going... and it's going to be a harsh reality when it hits for MANY people.
Click to expand...

yes, it's truly terrifying

Last November, as the economic recovery appeared to falter, the Fed said it would buy a new round of $600 billion in Treasury securities through June of this year. That's on top of the $1.7 trillion in Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities it had purchased in response to the financial crisis.

Still, the pitfalls of the Fed's approach are almost as numerous as the lending facilities it undertook to stem the crisis. Perhaps most daunting, the Fed's purchases of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities have effectively turned it into a mammoth investor -- a thoroughly undiversified one.

"The biggest risk is losses on its portfolio on long-term debt if inflation rises," said Alan Meltzer, a Fed historian and economics professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
Click to expand...

Could the U.S. central bank go broke? | Reuters
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
The exemption of Freddie and Fannie is evidence of Leftist political corruption.
Click to expand...

really, political corruption

the federal government seized control of fannie and freddie during the meltdown - a federal receivership
that means that the incompetents who were managing it as a quasi private concern (where the profits were privatized and the losses socialized) were no longer in charge. the federal government was operating it. unfortunately, nixon privatized it while still guaranteeing its activities with U.S. taxpayer dollars ... a classic welfare for the rich example
so not only are fannie and freddie now subject to federal scrutiny but they are subject to direct federal management and federal regulations
that does not appear to be any exemption from change
 
justabubba said:
really, political corruption

the federal government seized control of fannie and freddie during the meltdown - a federal receivership
that means that the incompetents who were managing it as a quasi private concern (where the profits were privatized and the losses socialized) were no longer in charge. the federal government was operating it. unfortunately, nixon privatized it while still guaranteeing its activities with U.S. taxpayer dollars ... a classic welfare for the rich example
so not only are fannie and freddie now subject to federal scrutiny but they are subject to direct federal management and federal regulations
that does not appear to be any exemption from change
Click to expand...

The Executive Branch and the Congressional Democrats do not want any scrutiny of Franklin Raines and the regime he oversaw. That is why Freddie and Fannie weren't made part of the FinRegAct.
 
cpwill said:
the question was rarely one of punishment as it was one of being constrained. want permission to put out an ATM machine or set up a branch office? well let's see what your local community organization says about your attitude towards hispanic home-buyers, etc. banks of all stripes definitely faced political pressure to lend to those whom they knew could not pay them back. but hey, as long as we can securitize the things and/or sell them off to Fannie and Freddie, who cares, eh?
Click to expand...

Yes that is what the CRA could influence

However, as the CRA also is in effect in Texas, but Texas did not have a housing boom, something else must have been the reason otherwise Texas would have had it as well. Texas had a far higher level of regulation of the mortgage industry (what type of loan, cashing out equity etc) then other states. If the CRA was the cause, Texas would have had a housing bubble just like Florida or Arizona

The bolded sentance is accurate up to a point, not all loans were sent to the GSE, many were packaged and sold to investors as AAA investments
 
The Prof said:
fannie and fred EXEMPT from obama's regulatory reform, his #2 domestic "accomplishment"

Sweeping reform, but not for Freddie, Fannie - Business - Eye on the Economy - msnbc.com

who's spinning?
Click to expand...

Right now people with good credit can do the most amazing think through FHA financing. Amazing. And scarey.

Example: Foreclosed home for sale for $160K. Enter a person with good credit who wants to buy it and renovate it. Offer of $150 accepted along WITH a $50,000 immediate advance from the lender to handle remodeling...under supervision of the lender's general contractor. The loans are very difficult to get because banks don't like the idea at all. (Bank says, "If the house is worth $150K, why am I going to give YOU $200K??) So much for lender reform when it's the FHA.
 
MaggieD said:
Right now people with good credit can do the most amazing think through FHA financing. Amazing. And scarey.

Example: Foreclosed home for sale for $160K. Enter a person with good credit who wants to buy it and renovate it. Offer of $150 accepted along WITH a $50,000 immediate advance from the lender to handle remodeling...under supervision of the lender's general contractor. The loans are very difficult to get because banks don't like the idea at all. (Bank says, "If the house is worth $150K, why am I going to give YOU $200K??) So much for lender reform when it's the FHA.
Click to expand...

It's called a 'suckers rally'... Unless you got the cash on hand to fully cover the loss it's probably too big of a risk.
 
samsmart said:
Lowering or raising taxes is going to have absolutely nothing to do with the prices of homes or mortgages or the stabilization of the housing market.

Rather, there should be a re-writing of regulations with regards to the housing and mortgage markets. I'm not saying more or less regulations - just a re-writing of them to prevent the kind of fraud that made such a housing and mortgage bubble that was so damaging to our economy.
Click to expand...
Ill give you it a start, stop this whole BS about how lending for houses should be spread out equally among income and races. I swear, if one race lead by 1% someone would be throwing a temper tantrum. You can see how this worked out for the public lending of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. A few facts.....

20 Shocking New Economic Records That Were Set In 2010
#1 An all-time record of 2.87 million U.S. households received a foreclosure filing in 2010.

#2 The number of homes that were actually repossessed reached the 1 million mark for the first time ever during 2010.
Click to expand...
I couldn't find the quote I wanted to on the site, but it was talking about the statistical number of government lending and debt. In 2006 or 2008 I believe, the public lending debt for houses was just under 600 Billion, and it 5.2 trillion?!
 
dontdoit said:
Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
Lowering or raising taxes is going to have absolutely nothing to do with the prices of homes or mortgages or the stabilization of the housing market.

Rather, there should be a re-writing of regulations with regards to the housing and mortgage markets. I'm not saying more or less regulations - just a re-writing of them to prevent the kind of fraud that made such a housing and mortgage bubble that was so damaging to our economy.
Click to expand...
Ill give you it a start, stop this whole BS about how lending for houses should be spread out equally among income and races. I swear, if one race lead by 1% someone would be throwing a temper tantrum. You can see how this worked out for the public lending of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. A few facts.....

20 Shocking New Economic Records That Were Set In 2010
#1 An all-time record of 2.87 million U.S. households received a foreclosure filing in 2010.

#2 The number of homes that were actually repossessed reached the 1 million mark for the first time ever during 2010.
Click to expand...
I couldn't find the quote I wanted to on the site, but it was talking about the statistical number of government lending and debt. In 2006 or 2008 I believe, the public lending debt for houses was just under 600 Billion, and it 5.2 trillion?!
Click to expand...

Well, that was the scam...
In 1991, the Glass–Steagall Act was repealed, originally, the crimes that the Glass-Stiegall act prevented were acts that the founding fathers would have considered an act of the same magnitude as treason... but the most important part is that this allows for 'derivatives investments'... where the 'value' derives from the value of something else.

Since then big banks have formed, and they make mortgages they KNOW people can't pay back so that they get MASSIVE volume of loans, and creates an artificial bubble because most of these people should at best be renting. That's the setup... and this is the only area where there's individual fraud on top of corporate fraud.

Here's where it gets fun... because each bank might be holding hundreds of thousands or millions of these mortgages, they create a 'pool' on which people can invest in these 'mortgage backed securities'. They convince the regulators that these are all AAA investments when the reality is that they are only as good, but they are a mix of good and bad. Overtime, the banks learn the good from the bad, and sell the good to their friends and the bad to anyone else... and split them off and since more people are invested the regulators effectively get bought off to continue rating these at AAA.

So, when a person defaults on the mortgage, well, they are not defaulting on a 100 000 $ house... they are killing that investment holding that mortgage... and since these are leveraged at 100:1 (I'm told, correct me if wrong) that 1 house kills off a 10 million dollar share of the overall stock.

So, your '5.2 trillion' COULD actually be the base on which exist this leveraged investments... MEANING... that 5.2 trillion is 0.5 QUADRILLION. This is all bank debts for creating this ponzi scheme...

Here's the final nail :
Bailout of these derivatives. Put that on tax payer heads, and it doesn't matter what the interest is, there's not that much that can be produced on earth through which you can pay that debt...
 
DontDoIt said:
Ill give you it a start, stop this whole BS about how lending for houses should be spread out equally among income and races. I swear, if one race lead by 1% someone would be throwing a temper tantrum. You can see how this worked out for the public lending of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. A few facts.....


I couldn't find the quote I wanted to on the site, but it was talking about the statistical number of government lending and debt. In 2006 or 2008 I believe, the public lending debt for houses was just under 600 Billion, and it 5.2 trillion?!
Click to expand...
i missed the proclamation that mortgage lending is to be spread out equally among races and incomes. if you have a cite, please post it
and if your cite is CRA, then you have misrepresented it
 
MaggieD said:
Right now people with good credit can do the most amazing think through FHA financing. Amazing. And scarey.

Example: Foreclosed home for sale for $160K. Enter a person with good credit who wants to buy it and renovate it. Offer of $150 accepted along WITH a $50,000 immediate advance from the lender to handle remodeling...under supervision of the lender's general contractor. The loans are very difficult to get because banks don't like the idea at all. (Bank says, "If the house is worth $150K, why am I going to give YOU $200K??) So much for lender reform when it's the FHA.
Click to expand...

FHA is only for new homebuyers.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yes that is what the CRA could influence

However, as the CRA also is in effect in Texas, but Texas did not have a housing boom, something else must have been the reason otherwise Texas would have had it as well.
Click to expand...

not necessarily; the housing bubble was the result of many factors. one of the critical ones for texas was the relative lack land restrictions. Thomas Sowell in particular has done some excellent work highlighting how the worst effects of the bubble (in both directions) are concentrated in areas where local (state or municipal) government has restricted further housing construction for one reason or another.

The bolded sentance is accurate up to a point, not all loans were sent to the GSE, many were packaged and sold to investors as AAA investments
Click to expand...

yup. good thing the regulators were on top of that one, too, eh?

oh, wait, regulators are subject to political pressure?

To those who warned of the risks in the new policies, Congressman Frank replied in 2003 that critics “exaggerate a threat of safety” and “conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see.” Far from being reluctant to promote risky practices, Barney Frank said, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation.”

With the federal regulators leaning on banks to make more loans to people who did not meet traditional qualifications — the “underserved population,” in political Newspeak — and quotas being given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more of these riskier mortgages from the original lenders, critics pointed out the dangers in these pressures to meet arbitrary home ownership goals. But Barney Frank attacked these critics.

In 2004 he said: “I believe that we, as the federal government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing.” He went farther: “I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing.”..


In 2004 Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight had issued a 211 page report that pointed out the irregularities in Fannie and Freddie's books. In response, Barney Frank (D) and Kit Bond (R) proposed that the Office be replaced...
Click to expand...



dang.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
not necessarily; the housing bubble was the result of many factors. one of the critical ones for texas was the relative lack land restrictions. Thomas Sowell in particular has done some excellent work highlighting how the worst effects of the bubble (in both directions) are concentrated in areas where local (state or municipal) government has restricted further housing construction for one reason or another.
Click to expand...
show us your cite for this analysis ...
yup. good thing the regulators were on top of that one, too, eh?
Click to expand...
the exposure for fannie mae and freddie mac was due to their purchase of bundled mortgage securities ... often the liar loans ... which the fannie mae/freddie mac regulations would NOT allow them to underwrite
with privatization of those GSEs - which occurred during the nixon regime - profits of the GSEs were distributed to the shareholders while we can today see that the losses were distributed to the taxpayers. the fannie mae/freddie mac principals were trying to maximize profits by buying the high risk/high return packaged mortgages. again, the kind they were prohibited - by regulation - from underwriting. those weak loans they "invested" in were non-conforming loans. those loans were the ones hardest hit by the meltdown - NOT the fannie mae/freddie mac "conforming" loans. the definition of a 'conforming" loan is one which could be purchased by fannie mae/freddie mac on the secondary market

oh, wait, regulators are subject to political pressure?
Click to expand...
yep, dicknbush deregulated. regulation was seized upon as something bad, leading to the imprudent efforts to deregulate
a very stupid, very republican action

dang.
Click to expand...
i agree. very stupid
glad you agree

now to the article by sowell in a reich wing rag. how "honest" of him to place frank's responses in quotes, but to fail to offer up the questions posed, in order to place frank's remarks in context
goebbels would be proud that his techniques were adopted by an apologist of the republican party
i see that you parroted the misinformation presented here:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were crucial to these schemes to force lenders to lend to those whom politicians wanted them to lend to, rather than to those who were most likely to pay them back.
Click to expand...
there was nothing which required lenders to make loans to those without the means to pay
demand for high return packaged mortgages fueled the risk taking by mortgage lenders. they could - and did - write weak loans and earn a profit on each one. because those mortgages were snapped up to be packaged by a hungry investor market seeking rates above those low yields on safe government securities, those mortgage underwriters sustained no risk. they passed it forward to the investors - while retaining their share of the profits
that activity was NOT facilitated by CRA
it was aided by the absence of regulators in a deregulated economy, courtesy of the republican regime
your boys
 
cpwill said:
not necessarily; the housing bubble was the result of many factors. one of the critical ones for texas was the relative lack land restrictions. Thomas Sowell in particular has done some excellent work highlighting how the worst effects of the bubble (in both directions) are concentrated in areas where local (state or municipal) government has restricted further housing construction for one reason or another.
Click to expand...
And if I recall correctly Arizona and Florida do not have restrictive land regulations yet had housing bubbles (especially Florida given the vast number of empty development projects) The main point is that without the easy loans and securitization of them the housing bubble would not have occured. Had more states had the same restrictive mortgage requirements that Texas had, the price run up would have been less (as fewer people would have qualified for mortgages)
yup. good thing the regulators were on top of that one, too, eh?
Click to expand...
Lack of effective regulation
oh, wait, regulators are subject to political pressure?


dang.
Click to expand...

And who is Barney Frank?

Master of the universe, more powerfull then Banking CEOs, the President of the US, 100 senators and all the other congressmen combined?

The fact that Texas did not have a housing bubble, or a massive increase in subprime loans tends to indicate that the CRA was not the all powerfulll bill forcing banks to make loans they did not want to make. Banks made money by originating the loans and securitizing them. They had little incentive to ensure they would be paid back. The lowering of government standards just allowed the banks to make the loans, while Texas standards prevented that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom