• 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

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Home price drops exceed Great Depression: Zillow | Reuters

By Al Yoon

NEW YORK | Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:40am EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Home prices fell for the 53rd consecutive month in November, taking the decline past that of the Great Depression for the first time in the prolonged housing slump, according to Zillow.

Home prices have fallen 26 percent since their peak in 2006, exceeding the 25.9 percent drop registered in the five years between 1928 and 1933, the housing data company said in a report on Monday. Prices fell 0.8 percent over the month.

Oh wait a second, I thought the recession was over in 2009...
CBC News - Money - Recession declared officially over

Yet home prices have fallen for 53 consecutive months... that's more then 4 years of straight decline.

So, how long before these prices bottom out and start to stabilize again?? How much more is your mortgage then the value of your house?? How low will the bottom be??

How long before people stop trusting the experts that keep saying 'don't worry, the worst is over'???

What's been the solution? THey are on 'QE2', and there are already rumors of a QE3... which is essentially printing money to cover the day to day expenses. That's about as effective as maxing out both your credit cards, so you get a third card so you can balance the debt with a higher limit... and then having rumors circulating of your plans to get a fourth credit card in the near future.... except worse because it's going out as 'taxpayer covered'...

Does this concern anyone else as it does me?
 
Home price drops exceed Great Depression: Zillow | Reuters



Oh wait a second, I thought the recession was over in 2009...
CBC News - Money - Recession declared officially over

Yet home prices have fallen for 53 consecutive months... that's more then 4 years of straight decline.

So, how long before these prices bottom out and start to stabilize again?? How much more is your mortgage then the value of your house?? How low will the bottom be??

How long before people stop trusting the experts that keep saying 'don't worry, the worst is over'???

What's been the solution? THey are on 'QE2', and there are already rumors of a QE3... which is essentially printing money to cover the day to day expenses. That's about as effective as maxing out both your credit cards, so you get a third card so you can balance the debt with a higher limit... and then having rumors circulating of your plans to get a fourth credit card in the near future.... except worse because it's going out as 'taxpayer covered'...

Does this concern anyone else as it does me?

Not really a concern. The recession did end in 2009, but recession and house prices dont have much to do with each other.

Like it or not the housing market in the US went nuts for 10 years with massive price rises and that takes time to get back to what it should be. Some places will go faster, others slower, but with the exception of the uber rich areas most likely, then house prices are still going decline for a while yet.

And it of course does not help that US banks are so screwed up that they dont loan people money any more, and of course the fact that the average US consumer debt is huge.. people cant get money to buy houses, and that will push prices down too.
 
I'm going to be trying to sell a house soon. Not looking forward to it at all.
 
Until Obama starts to show same basic understanding of the facts about what is needed the economy will continue to suck.

So far nothing he or any of his disciples have come up with has really worked and until he learns that his amateurs need to be replaced by people with some real business management talent and experience a mind set that contributes so much to the problem with despair will continue.

Until people feel better about the direction we are going in economically they are not going to be spending and job numbers will continue to suffer for it.
 
Until Obama starts to show same basic understanding of the facts about what is needed the economy will continue to suck.

So far nothing he or any of his disciples have come up with has really worked and until he learns that his amateurs need to be replaced by people with some real business management talent and experience a mind set that contributes so much to the problem with despair will continue.

Until people feel better about the direction we are going in economically they are not going to be spending and job numbers will continue to suffer for it.

It too damn late for him to change things now, he should have done it from the start.
 
Obama's mortgage modification schemes have only prolonged the agony of delinquent borrowers and the real estate market.

not for the 700,000 families who are able to stay in - and pay off - their homes but for the availability of HAMP
 
Until Obama starts to show same basic understanding of the facts about what is needed the economy will continue to suck.

So far nothing he or any of his disciples have come up with has really worked and until he learns that his amateurs need to be replaced by people with some real business management talent and experience a mind set that contributes so much to the problem with despair will continue.

Until people feel better about the direction we are going in economically they are not going to be spending and job numbers will continue to suffer for it.

let me guess, you want to break out that trite republican solution to any American problem: lower taxes
 
let me guess, you want to break out that trite republican solution to any American problem: lower taxes

Let me guess, you want to break out that trite democrat solution to any American problem: steal income.
 
Let me guess, you want to break out that trite democrat solution to any American problem: steal income.

and as always, you would be wrong
 
and as always, you would be wrong

There is never anything wrong with less taxes. The govt should always have to justify taking money from citizens, not the other way around.
 
I'm going to be trying to sell a house soon. Not looking forward to it at all.

Good luck.

I've heard that one thing that's making this recession so much worse is that jobs are opening up for certain sectors in other places, but those people who can apply for those jobs can't sell their current house to move but can't afford a new house until it gets sold.

Because people are having such a difficult time being able to re-locate to job offers, it's making it more difficult for the economic rebound to happen.
 
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.
 
There is never anything wrong with less taxes. The govt should always have to justify taking money from citizens, not the other way around.

Then explain to me why the 2000s were the slowest decade (even if you stop counting it before the Great Recession) for economic growth since the Great Depression?

Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth? - NYTimes.com

Even if you discount the Great Recession, average economic growth in the 2000s was a mere 2.39% (if you include it, it was 1.66%). The 1970s - a decade we all know was pretty crappy - average growth was 3.29% - nearly TWICE as good as the 2000s.

So if there's "never anything wrong" with tax cuts - why did the 2000s suck so much for the overall economy. And especially, why did it suck for nearly everyone except the top 1% of earners? I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be "good for the economy". I see no evidence that they did anyone except the wealthiest Americans any good. And if those wealthiest Americans were supposed to create jobs with the money they get back from the government, why didn't that happen? Unemployment rates went from 4.2% to a peak high of 10.6% - ALL with the Bush tax cuts in force. So, why didn't those tax cuts create jobs? They didn't.

Additionally, those oh-so-wonderful tax cuts, along with the Afghan and Iraq Wars are largely responsible for our annual budget deficits and amount to at least 10% more than stimulus and TARP combined. So, unless you're going to justify the tax cuts by cutting the spending FIRST, then you shouldn't simply celebrate tax cuts as being automatically good - especially when they are paired with two unfunded wars and are the single largest factor contributing to our deficit.

Critics Still Wrong on What

The myth that the pay for themselves is utterly false.

Economist's View: The Myth That Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves

This is just one of many studies who show that to be utterly false. Indeed, under the BEST economic circumstances, only 28% of lost revenues can be recouped by simple growth.

Left to their own devices, indeed the Bush Tax Cuts would expand the deficit by 100% of GDP by 2050.

Ezra Klein - The Bush tax cuts' effect on the deficit in one graph

So, how again is there "never anything wrong" with less taxes? There is little evidence that there was anything right with the Bush tax cuts. Indeed, they are the largest single cause of the deficit, they left two wars unfunded (or paid for by our grandchildren, if not our great grandchildren), and did nothing to spark economic growth.

If you argue that the stimulus hasn't done much for economic growth (and you could), then your argument would be based on the fact that post-recession, the average GDP growth is 2.918%, whereas Bush's decade overall was either 2.39% or 1.66%. So Obama's average GDP growth is already better than Bush's was. So the stimulus has produced a GDP that is higher than Bush's tax cuts could do and while they added to the deficit, they didn't add as much as the tax cuts and wars did.
 
fully half those who received loan modifications thru obama's hamp (home affordable modification program) have redefaulted

Half of U.S. Home Loan Modifications Default Again (Update1) - Bloomberg

good money after bad, subprime methodologies on top of subprime failures, like heroin to an addict

house oversight in pelosi's congress and tarp inspector general neil barofsky declare hamp a "miserable failure" which "actually harms the people it was intended to help"

Obama Loan-Modification Effort

how many of these people the us taxpayer is subsidizing are living in newer, larger and more upgraded homes than you?

and where are the results?

the collapse of housing is what brought us here

and there's still no basement in sight

that's a catastrophic concern to the masses of folks with killer mortgages on homes now worth so much less than what they paid, to all the industries dependent on real estate and construction...
 
Last edited:
fully half those who received loan modifications thru obama's hamp (home affordable modification program) have redefaulted

Half of U.S. Home Loan Modifications Default Again (Update1) - Bloomberg

good money after bad, subprime methodologies on top of subprime failures, like heroin to an addict

house oversight in pelosi's congress and tarp inspector general neil barofsky declare hamp a "miserable failure" which "actually harms the people it was intended to help"

Obama Loan-Modification Effort

how many of these people the us taxpayer is subsidizing are living in newer, larger and more upgraded homes than you?

and where are the results?

the collapse of housing is what brought us here

and there's still no basement in sight

that's a catastrophic concern to the masses folks with killer mortgages on homes now worth so much less than what they paid

to all the industries dependent on real estate and construction

Of course the people that caused this bubble got bailed out, they lost nothing. This is the second time in my life I got ****ed by the housing market. The first time after the S&L crisis. I almost wonder if I should buy another house.
 
Then explain to me why the 2000s were the slowest decade (even if you stop counting it before the Great Recession) for economic growth since the Great Depression?

Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth? - NYTimes.com

Even if you discount the Great Recession, average economic growth in the 2000s was a mere 2.39% (if you include it, it was 1.66%). The 1970s - a decade we all know was pretty crappy - average growth was 3.29% - nearly TWICE as good as the 2000s.

So if there's "never anything wrong" with tax cuts - why did the 2000s suck so much for the overall economy. And especially, why did it suck for nearly everyone except the top 1% of earners? I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be "good for the economy". I see no evidence that they did anyone except the wealthiest Americans any good. And if those wealthiest Americans were supposed to create jobs with the money they get back from the government, why didn't that happen? Unemployment rates went from 4.2% to a peak high of 10.6% - ALL with the Bush tax cuts in force. So, why didn't those tax cuts create jobs? They didn't.

Additionally, those oh-so-wonderful tax cuts, along with the Afghan and Iraq Wars are largely responsible for our annual budget deficits and amount to at least 10% more than stimulus and TARP combined. So, unless you're going to justify the tax cuts by cutting the spending FIRST, then you shouldn't simply celebrate tax cuts as being automatically good - especially when they are paired with two unfunded wars and are the single largest factor contributing to our deficit.

Critics Still Wrong on What

The myth that the pay for themselves is utterly false.

Economist's View: The Myth That Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves

This is just one of many studies who show that to be utterly false. Indeed, under the BEST economic circumstances, only 28% of lost revenues can be recouped by simple growth.

Left to their own devices, indeed the Bush Tax Cuts would expand the deficit by 100% of GDP by 2050.

Ezra Klein - The Bush tax cuts' effect on the deficit in one graph

So, how again is there "never anything wrong" with less taxes? There is little evidence that there was anything right with the Bush tax cuts. Indeed, they are the largest single cause of the deficit, they left two wars unfunded (or paid for by our grandchildren, if not our great grandchildren), and did nothing to spark economic growth.

If you argue that the stimulus hasn't done much for economic growth (and you could), then your argument would be based on the fact that post-recession, the average GDP growth is 2.918%, whereas Bush's decade overall was either 2.39% or 1.66%. So Obama's average GDP growth is already better than Bush's was. So the stimulus has produced a GDP that is higher than Bush's tax cuts could do and while they added to the deficit, they didn't add as much as the tax cuts and wars did.

So based on your analysis, the higher we raise taxes, the more growth we get. Got it! :thumbs:
 
So based on your analysis, the higher we raise taxes, the more growth we get. Got it! :thumbs:

i missed it. please point out where in that post such conclusion was posited
 
i missed it. please point out where in that post such conclusion was posited

If tax cuts hurt the economy, then tax hikes should be great for it. Seems pretty simple to me.
 
If tax cuts hurt the economy, then tax hikes should be great for it. Seems pretty simple to me.

good. then we all acknowledge that you made that **** up
 
good. then we all acknowledge that you made that **** up

Nope, it's a logical conclusion based on how left perceives taxes. Thing is, at least I place my bias out for all to see, but like a weasel you hide yours behind phoney leaning labels. You can't admit to you bias openly, but it's plain to see by the way you post.
 
Then explain to me why the 2000s were the slowest decade (even if you stop counting it before the Great Recession) for economic growth since the Great Depression?

Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth? - NYTimes.com

Even if you discount the Great Recession, average economic growth in the 2000s was a mere 2.39% (if you include it, it was 1.66%). The 1970s - a decade we all know was pretty crappy - average growth was 3.29% - nearly TWICE as good as the 2000s.

So if there's "never anything wrong" with tax cuts - why did the 2000s suck so much for the overall economy. And especially, why did it suck for nearly everyone except the top 1% of earners? I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be "good for the economy". I see no evidence that they did anyone except the wealthiest Americans any good. And if those wealthiest Americans were supposed to create jobs with the money they get back from the government, why didn't that happen? Unemployment rates went from 4.2% to a peak high of 10.6% - ALL with the Bush tax cuts in force. So, why didn't those tax cuts create jobs? They didn't.

Additionally, those oh-so-wonderful tax cuts, along with the Afghan and Iraq Wars are largely responsible for our annual budget deficits and amount to at least 10% more than stimulus and TARP combined. So, unless you're going to justify the tax cuts by cutting the spending FIRST, then you shouldn't simply celebrate tax cuts as being automatically good - especially when they are paired with two unfunded wars and are the single largest factor contributing to our deficit.

Critics Still Wrong on What

The myth that the pay for themselves is utterly false.

Economist's View: The Myth That Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves

This is just one of many studies who show that to be utterly false. Indeed, under the BEST economic circumstances, only 28% of lost revenues can be recouped by simple growth.

Left to their own devices, indeed the Bush Tax Cuts would expand the deficit by 100% of GDP by 2050.

Ezra Klein - The Bush tax cuts' effect on the deficit in one graph

The 2000's were bad as a result of downsizing, offshoring, outsourcing, and all those other 'business concepts' that were put in place that had the combined effect that could be described as taking the foundation out of a house... enforcement of white collar laws was VERY weak, and so the 'good' foundation was replaced with a foundation of fraud...like replacing concrete with paper mache.

The wars with Iraq and Afghanistan was the catalyst for a near doubling in the price of oil, and this caused a wave of self-preservation that exposed alot of these frauds, and so there's been schemes ever since to try and keep the house from falling apart... but everytime is like adding a new layer of pain to hide the cracks in the structure.

Meanwhile to the wealthiest it was a big long party and everyone in the top 1% was invited.

So, how again is there "never anything wrong" with less taxes? There is little evidence that there was anything right with the Bush tax cuts. Indeed, they are the largest single cause of the deficit, they left two wars unfunded (or paid for by our grandchildren, if not our great grandchildren), and did nothing to spark economic growth.

If you argue that the stimulus hasn't done much for economic growth (and you could), then your argument would be based on the fact that post-recession, the average GDP growth is 2.918%, whereas Bush's decade overall was either 2.39% or 1.66%. So Obama's average GDP growth is already better than Bush's was. So the stimulus has produced a GDP that is higher than Bush's tax cuts could do and while they added to the deficit, they didn't add as much as the tax cuts and wars did.

Well, it's not just as simple as cutting taxes, if you cut taxes and increase spending you are just adding to your debt load... as for Obama's 'improvement' to GDP... I've heard the analysis which was saying that if for every 1$ in GDP growth required 2-3$ of added debt, are you really any better off??

Not really a concern. The recession did end in 2009, but recession and house prices dont have much to do with each other.

Let me guess, you're going to tell me that unemployment is 9.2% still??

Like it or not the housing market in the US went nuts for 10 years with massive price rises and that takes time to get back to what it should be. Some places will go faster, others slower, but with the exception of the uber rich areas most likely, then house prices are still going decline for a while yet.

And it of course does not help that US banks are so screwed up that they dont loan people money any more, and of course the fact that the average US consumer debt is huge.. people cant get money to buy houses, and that will push prices down too.

Yes you are right here... the market went insane on what turns out to be at the least a trifecta of fraud.
1 - You got fraud of home buyers and lenders putting fraudulant information on forms in order to get a house that the buyer could not really afford.
2 - Bundling those mortgages and selling them as 'asset backed securities'... meanwhile they would sift through these bundles and then split the good loans from the bad loans, the good ones were investments for friends, the bad ones were investments for everyone else.
3 - These bad loan packages were rated as AAA investments when the actual values were closer to 'junk' or 'toxic'...

Actually, it's probably more then a trifecta...
Well, looks like your home was not the investment you first thought it was.

Also, how can you claim that there's a healthy economy when people can't or won't buy a home??

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.

Better then re-writing regulations, how about actually ENFORCING regulations... you know, not allow the types of fraud to take root in the first place.

fully half those who received loan modifications thru obama's hamp (home affordable modification program) have redefaulted

Half of U.S. Home Loan Modifications Default Again (Update1) - Bloomberg

good money after bad, subprime methodologies on top of subprime failures, like heroin to an addict

house oversight in pelosi's congress and tarp inspector general neil barofsky declare hamp a "miserable failure" which "actually harms the people it was intended to help"

Ya... because those loan modification deals are designed to cause people to default. Miss 1 payment and you've defaulted.

Go back to those stories of 150 years ago, where the bank would collect on the mortgage for 20 years and then refuse the final payment and take the ranch... the banks don't want you to own your home, they want you to pay them for life.

Obama Loan-Modification Effort

how many of these people the us taxpayer is subsidizing are living in newer, larger and more upgraded homes than you?

and where are the results?

the collapse of housing is what brought us here

and there's still no basement in sight

that's a catastrophic concern to the masses of folks with killer mortgages on homes now worth so much less than what they paid, to all the industries dependent on real estate and construction...

Agreed.
 
Ya... because those loan modification deals are designed to cause people to default. Miss 1 payment and you've defaulted.

Shoot, you don't even have to miss a payment. They just say you did. Dave Ramsay said this is happening to a LOT of people.

This is a huge story that isn't going reported.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom