Americans Already Spent A Shocking Amount On Rent, But It Just Got Worse

[Andylusion]

If the left hadn't screwed the economy to begin with, we wouldn't be here.

The left?
Who exactly was the President of the United States of America from jan-2001 to jan-2009 ?
Who was holding office when the mortgage bubble busted?
A leftist you say ?
Have the balls to call the man by his name : if George W Bush hadn't screwed the economy to begin with, we wouldn't be here.

This is another example of why the politicians can do whatever they want, knowing their brainless lemming followers will mindlessly find someone else to blame.

You people....... gah....

It doesn't matter who was in office when the mortgage bubble burst. Anyone who understand the least amount of economics knows that.

Once a bubble is started.... it's going to pop. When it pops, doesn't matter. Once it starts, there is only one possible outcome... it's going to pop.

So the real question is.... when did the bubble start.

Now if you can read that, the housing bubble started in 1997.

Now what happened in 1997?

The government at all levels, had been pushing for more home ownership since the 1970s.

What happened in the 1970s? The cultural, sexual revolution happened, and suddenly divorce went through the roof.

Now tell me, what happens when you take one family which owns a home, and divorce them into poorer families, neither of which can own a home?

Answer... home ownership drops like a rock. As a result.... government thinking that they needed to fix falling home ownership, passed the CRA and other legislation to increase home ownership.

However, in the 70s and 80s, the CRA while on paper was supposed to push banks to invest in risky communities, in truth the act really didn't have any teeth.

That changed in the 90s, with groups using violations of the Community Reinvestment Act to sue banks.

Documents: Plaintiffs in 1995 Obama-led Citibank lawsuit submitted class action claims

In 1995, a lawsuit filed by Obama against Citibank, to make sub-prime loans.

In 1998, the Clinton Administration sued a bank in Texas, and required them to make sub-prime loans.



Andrew Cuomo proudly proclaiming the success of the lawsuit. And if you keep listening, he even admits... yes the default rates on these mortgages will be higher.

But that's only one side of the problem. The other side was incentives to make bad loans.

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering Backed By Affordable Mortgages

This press release came out in 1997.

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.​

Never before, had sub-prime loans been securitizied.

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation
​

Never before could you have Freddie Mac, arm of the government, guarantee a non-conforming loan, let alone give it a AAA rating.

So in 1997, sub-prime loans were forced by government lawsuits, and by action groups, and at the same time sub-prime loans were given AAA ratings and guaranteed by Freddie Mac.

This is what caused the crashed. This is where the bubble started. Government regulations and controls over the market, caused the whole deal.

 

[Andylusion]

If the left hadn't screwed the economy to begin with, we wouldn't be here.

The left?
Who exactly was the President of the United States of America from jan-2001 to jan-2009 ?
Who was holding office when the mortgage bubble busted?
A leftist you say ?
Have the balls to call the man by his name : if George W Bush hadn't screwed the economy to begin with, we wouldn't be here.

It only crashed while Bush was in office. The bubble was caused by the CRA, started by Carter and expanded by clinton.
Many Conservatives foretold the collapse, but Barney Frank assured the terminally stupid Progressives that everything was just hunky dory.

Just to be clear : during Dubya's period the subprime mortgages skyrocketed from 173 b to 640 b.
While Bill Clinton took them from 34 to 173 billion.
To be fair Dubya is only responsible for 73% of the crisis.

Real Estate Bubbles

But see, for 50 years prior to the 1990s, Sub-prime mortgages were a niche isolated market, that everyone considered risky.

It was Clinton that brought sub-prime into the mainstream. Yes, they increased more under bush.... and any one who can think.... would understand that is natural. Again, do you not know how an economic bubble works? The more it grows, the faster it grows.

Bubbles generally grow faster and faster until they pop. Because the faster the prices rise, the quicker people jump into the market, which causes it to rise even faster, which cause more people to jump into the market quicker.

That's why pointing out who was in charge at the end of the bubble is irrelevant. Bush could not have stopped that bubble, no matter what he did, once the bubble was created.

Once it starts, the only possible result is a crash.

The question is... who started it? Clinton did.

And by the way... let's even pretend for a second that Bush was president in the 1990s.... the problem is still the socialist "everyone deserves a house" intervention into the market that caused the crash. I don't care who specifically caused the crash, as much as I care about what policy caused the crash.

It wasn't deregulation. It wasn't free-market capitalism. It was socialism, and government control, that caused the crash.

 

[CultureCitizen]

It was Clinton that brought sub-prime into the mainstream. Yes, they increased more under bush.... and any one who can think.... would understand that is natural. Again, do you not know how an economic bubble works? The more it grows, the faster it grows.

Bubbles generally grow faster and faster until they pop. Because the faster the prices rise, the quicker people jump into the market, which causes it to rise even faster, which cause more people to jump into the market quicker.

That's why pointing out who was in charge at the end of the bubble is irrelevant. Bush could not have stopped that bubble, no matter what he did, once the bubble was created.

Once it starts, the only possible result is a crash.

The question is... who started it? Clinton did.

Don't give me that crap.
I am not taking it.
Bubbles can be busted at any time.
Right now there is a stock bubble ?
You think Janet Yellen can't bust it ? Ha ha . Let me laugh a while ...

Nor Obama , nor Yellen wan't to bust the stock bubble. Yes , they can , but they won't. They will probably let it be as is and hope the next president is capable of handling it.
The ony difference with Dubya's bubble is that he was too busy playing Alexander the great, and he was probably unaware of the impending danger that cost the election to the Republican party.

 

[Andylusion]

It was Clinton that brought sub-prime into the mainstream. Yes, they increased more under bush.... and any one who can think.... would understand that is natural. Again, do you not know how an economic bubble works? The more it grows, the faster it grows.

Bubbles generally grow faster and faster until they pop. Because the faster the prices rise, the quicker people jump into the market, which causes it to rise even faster, which cause more people to jump into the market quicker.

That's why pointing out who was in charge at the end of the bubble is irrelevant. Bush could not have stopped that bubble, no matter what he did, once the bubble was created.

Once it starts, the only possible result is a crash.

The question is... who started it? Clinton did.

Don't give me that crap.
I am not taking it.
Bubbles can be busted at any time.
Right now there is a stock bubble ?
You think Janet Yellen can't bust it ? Ha ha . Let me laugh a while ...

Nor Obama , nor Yellen wan't to bust the stock bubble. Yes , they can , but they won't. They will probably let it be as is and hope the next president is capable of handling it.
The ony difference with Dubya's bubble is that he was too busy playing Alexander the great, and he was probably unaware of the impending danger that cost the election to the Republican party.

lol..... Seriously?? I didn't say Bush could not have burst the bubble. I only said there was no alternative to a burst.

But seriously? You think *ANY* sitting president would intentionally set off an economic crash, knowing he'd be blamed for it?

That's assuming Bush knew. Most people in the government didn't believe there was a bubble.



Barnie Frank, and numerous other republicans and democrats didn't believe there was a bubble at all.

Bush himself thought higher home ownership was good.

If Bush had popped that bubble intentionally.... all those people in Congress would have been screaming.

*YOU* here on this forum, would be telling us right now, how there was no bubble, and Bush tanked the economy on purpose.

And you know you would. We all know you would. Don't even try to tell me you would not be screaming right now about how Bush ruined a perfectly good economy, where home ownership was going up, and he blew it all.

You deny that, you are a liar. Flat out... don't even try and claim otherwise.

So what motivation would Bush have had to burst the housing bubble, even if he knew about it? There would be no kudos or merit given him for popping it. And if he slipped out of office before it burst, the blame would be shifted to the next guy.

Tons of reasons to try and sneak by, zero to pop the bubble.

Now he would have good reason to not create the bubble... but the bubble had already been created. Too late for that.

 

[CultureCitizen]

*YOU* here on this forum, would be telling us right now, how there was no bubble, and Bush tanked the economy on purpose.

And you know you would. We all know you would. Don't even try to tell me you would not be screaming right now about how Bush ruined a perfectly good economy, where home ownership was going up, and he blew it all.

You deny that, you are a liar. Flat out... don't even try and claim otherwise.

So what motivation would Bush have had to burst the housing bubble, even if he knew about it? There would be no kudos or merit given him for popping it. And if he slipped out of office before it burst, the blame would be shifted to the next guy.

Tons of reasons to try and sneak by, zero to pop the bubble.

Now he would have good reason to not create the bubble... but the bubble had already been created. Too late for that.

YOU* here on this forum, would be telling us right now, how there was no bubble, and Bush tanked the economy on purpose

No . Period.

That's why I am telling you right now there is as stock bubble. Housing prices are also on the rise , so there is also a housing bubble right now too.
I haven't seen the mortgages default lately, so I can't comment on that right now. They are probably controlled , but only because of ZIRP.

So if the Fed rises the rates too much ( and too much might be as low as 1%) two bubbles will burst, and it probably won't be nice.

Elections are comming and Obama is probably hoping to keep both bubbles inflated up until the election.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The op won't rest until we're all waiting in line for our weekly government issued bread ration

 

[CultureCitizen]

Now he would have good reason to not create the bubble... but the bubble had already been created. Too late for that.

The bubble was small enough to burst : not bigger than 150 billion, compare that to 650 billion. So again , too busy playing Alexander the Great... and probably noticed the young general was much brighter than him too late.

 

[Ernie S.]

Dumber than a post...... What culture? Where are you a citizen?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Dumber than a post...... What culture? Where are you a citizen?

Culture & Citizen of the world.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Dumber than a post...... What culture? Where are you a citizen?

So, no arguments , no links ... just a futile attempt to insult a forum member... just another slave age redneck.

 

[Moonglow]

Renters don't pay property taxes or homeowner's insurance. They often are not taxed with even mowing the yard.

They don't have to worry about leaking roofs, busted gutters, cracked foundations, stopped-up plumbing, trees ready to fall on their home.... blah blah blah.

I have $90K left on my 2.65% mortgage and believe me I wish I was renting.

hustle that azz up to the roof and clean dem gutters tomorrow..

 

[Moonglow]

Dumber than a post...... What culture? Where are you a citizen?

So, no arguments , no links ... just a futile attempt to insult a forum member... just another slave age redneck.

By now he's wasted...He get's high,,,on his own supply....

 

[Moonglow]

Rents reflect costs associated with owning property Take my son's 2 family house in Connecticut. He has a $900/month mortgage $250/month insurance payment and $450/month property taxes.
That's $1600/month, not including maintenance; figure another $200/month.
So it costs him $1,800/ month and he occupies the 2nd floor apartment. What should he charge for the first floor 2 bedroom 1 bath 1,600 square foot flat?
Going rate is $900- $1,000/month, which is about half of the cost of ownership and seems fair to me.
If 30% is all a tenant should pay for rent, he would have to make about $3,335/month to rent there.

$450 a month property tax??? I pay less than that for a years worth of property tax.

Mine is $433.00

 

[Ernie S.]

Dumber than a post...... What culture? Where are you a citizen?

So, no arguments , no links ... just a futile attempt to insult a forum member... just another slave age redneck.

Plenty of information on the housing bubble has been provided by others, yet you insist the crash was the fault of the administration that tried to prevent it.
If you want to blame one person, blame Barney Frank. If 2 or 3, you could add Chuck Schumer, bill clinton or Jimmy Carter. Your choice.
I'm going to put this aside and try to get some sleep now.

 

[Ernie S.]

Dumber than a post...... What culture? Where are you a citizen?

So, no arguments , no links ... just a futile attempt to insult a forum member... just another slave age redneck.

By now he's wasted...He get's high,,,on his own supply....

I haven't had a drink in 27 years, Bart.

 

[Ernie S.]

Rents reflect costs associated with owning property Take my son's 2 family house in Connecticut. He has a $900/month mortgage $250/month insurance payment and $450/month property taxes.
That's $1600/month, not including maintenance; figure another $200/month.
So it costs him $1,800/ month and he occupies the 2nd floor apartment. What should he charge for the first floor 2 bedroom 1 bath 1,600 square foot flat?
Going rate is $900- $1,000/month, which is about half of the cost of ownership and seems fair to me.
If 30% is all a tenant should pay for rent, he would have to make about $3,335/month to rent there.

$450 a month property tax??? I pay less than that for a years worth of property tax.

Mine is $433.00

Mine is $297/year.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is a problem we need to address...
Americans Already Spent A Shocking Amount On Rent, But It Just Got Worse

It’s the worst time in 36 years to be a renter in America. The median rent nationwide now takes up 30.2 percent of the median American’s income, the highest cost burden recorded by Zillow since the real estate firm began tracking the figure in 1979.

In the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the median American looking to lease a home could expect to spend a little less than a quarter of what she earned on rent. Last year at this time, the median cost burden for renters was 29.5 percent of income. The new figure cracks the formal 30 percent threshold economists and housing experts use to define rent affordability. Because it’s calculated based on median income and median rent rather than using data about what actual renters earn and pay, the figure inevitably smooths out some of the lived experience of the rental crisis in America. But if rent is now unaffordable even for that hypothetical median renter, that suggests a problem that was once acute to certain low-income communities has now become a mainstream tenant experience.

Zillow’s newest number attempts to give a snapshot of the situation renters face nationwide. In particular pockets of America, the situation is even more dire according to separate Zillow figures from 2014. New Orleans tenants can expect to spend 35 percent of what they earn on rent, two-and-a-half times the historical average for the city. The median New York City rent gobbles up almost 40 cents of every dollar the median New Yorker earns. Los Angeles residents face a rental market where the median home will cost nearly half the median income. Even smaller communities like Ithaca, NY, and Flagstaff, AZ, were well above the 30.2 percent national median rent burden figure the firm now reports as an all-time high.

Looking at individual tenants instead of abstract estimates produces an even more startling sense of how actual Americans are faring in those markets. Census data suggest that half of all tenants nationwide are paying more than 30 percent of their actual income in rent, according to a 2013 analysis from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. One in every four renting households spends at least 50 cents of every dollar they earn on rent, the report said. Even among renter families with household income as high as $75,000, nearly one in five are paying rents higher than the 30 percent of income that housing experts define as affordable.

In theory, it shouldn’t be possible for rents to accelerate this far while incomes stagnate. As Zillow’s newest report indicates, the monthly costs of homeownership are now roughly half the monthly cost of rent. Normally that would help cool the rental market. But while it’s been almost seven years since the financial crisis, these are still far from normal times.

yes not normal!! we just had a liberal housing crash in which millons lost their life saving that had been invested in their homes. Rather than again put themselves in a position where stupid soviet liberal bureaucrats can cause a depression wherein they lose their life savings they are playing it safe by renting!!

 

[Andylusion]

Now he would have good reason to not create the bubble... but the bubble had already been created. Too late for that.

The bubble was small enough to burst : not bigger than 150 billion, compare that to 650 billion. So again , too busy playing Alexander the Great... and probably noticed the young general was much brighter than him too late.

Another childish post. "everyone else is dumb".

Fail.

Again, no sitting president would intentionally pop a bubble. I don't care who it was, or how brilliant they might be... there is every reason to ignore it and hope they move on before it pops, and zero reason to pop it.

All the Democrats, and all those in the Media, and you, and those like you, would all be right now talking about how Bush ruined the economy for no reason.

Heck, you blame him for the bubble now, and he didn't create it, or pop it. This very thread is proof that you would be blaming him, if he had popped it intentionally.

And there would be economic ramifications. No doubt. The size of the sub-prime loan market was a small thing. The big thing was the inflated prices. Prices would still fall. That's what caused the majority of the damage.