How the $8,000 Tax Credit Cost Home Buyers $15,000

[MaggieMae]

Every president inherits things from his predecessor. Obama is different only in that he blames his predecessor for every failure of his own policy instead of tkaing responsibility.

If true, that would make him exactly the same as George W Bush, actually. Sorry. Bush never took responsibility for a single thing. Never in his entire life. That's why he thinks his worst moment was when some egotistical douchebag of a rapper was mean to him.

Dude. You need to stop listening to left wing hacks.
Bush never blamed his predecessor (or anyone else) for his own policy failures. Get with the picture.

Oh please...there was a LOT of blame about who was responsible for allowing the attacks of 911. As for Bush's economic policies, in his first policy speech to Congress, he stated that he thought taxpayer money that helped balance the budget should be returned to the taxpayers, so in effect, he reversed Clinton's economic policy. And the rest is history, but of course that blame game still going on. Maybe not by Bush himself, but most certainly by his partners in crime.

 

[boedicca]

The Recession officially ended in June 2009. After that, we entered the Worst Recovery Ever.

And that is what Obamanomics is all about.

Wrong. The slow recovery also has ZERO to do with Obama's economics.

IBISWorld

The 2008/2009 recession is seeing private consumption fall for the first time in nearly 20 years. This indicates the depth and severity of the current recession. With consumer confidence so low, recovery will take a long time. Consumers in the U.S. have been hard hit by the current recession, with the value of their houses dropping and their pension savings decimated on the stock market.

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Then what was all that Stimulus Spending For?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Recession officially ended in June 2009. After that, we entered the Worst Recovery Ever.

And that is what Obamanomics is all about.

Wrong. The slow recovery also has ZERO to do with Obama's economics.

IBISWorld

The 2008/2009 recession is seeing private consumption fall for the first time in nearly 20 years. This indicates the depth and severity of the current recession. With consumer confidence so low, recovery will take a long time. Consumers in the U.S. have been hard hit by the current recession, with the value of their houses dropping and their pension savings decimated on the stock market.

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Then what was all that Stimulus Spending For?

It was to get more Democrats elected in 2010. That also failed.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's incumbent upon the buyer to research lenders in their area and go on reputation of those in the know.

People that walk in blind are asking for trouble. Our financial lender does as much, if not more, than our real estate agent.

Except the mortgage hawks acting as financial advisors drew in unsuspecting people (just like real financial advisors sometimes do with millionnaires who aren't experts) by promising that even if a person would struggle making the initial mortgage payment, with housing at an all-time high, they could easily refinance in a few months. A lot of people fell for their shtick. Was that stupidity? Yes, and the hawks knew that. They preyed on those very people who wouldn't understand.

You have got to be joking. There are no ‘mortgage hawks’ out there scooping up unsuspecting victims. You were not simply walking down the damn street one day and BAM, a corner mortgage guy catches you with his sales pitch. In order to get to that point you had to go LOOKING for a house. When I purchased my house I calculated what I could spend and looked at houses on that category. What people were doing was playing a dangerous gambling game where they wanted to refinance over and over again without ever making a principle payment. They knew exactly what they were doing and if they did not then they deserved whatever hardships came their way as a result. Unfortunately, now everyone that did the right thing is now suffering because the fallout causes a domino effect throughout the entire economy. What the lenders were doing was following the governments plan and offloading their bad mortgages to Fanny and Freddy. Had those entities NOT purchased every dam crap loan that was thrown at them in behest of the government there would not have been a housing crisis. The home loan market does not need to be ‘set up’ like anything. What it needs is to take the risk that they are getting into rather than selling it off to a third party, particularly to a party as closely connected with the government as the 2 big ones were or to an entity that large in the first place.
that cash not causing any real impact other than screwing with the economy even more.

I suggest you download the documentary "House of Cards" to hear it directly from some of the store-front mortgagors themselves telling how they roped people in. Fannie & Freddie didn't even get into the subprime mortgage business until after 2005. Prior to then, nearly all sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street. In fact, F&F were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages until they changed their own rules to start buying these non-conforming subprimes, in order to maintain market share and compete with Wall Street for profits.

 

[boedicca]

Once FM/FM entered the subprime market, volume exploded.

And taxpayers are continuing to bail them out to the tune of $Bs every quarter.

That worked out real well.

 

[MaggieMae]

What you read is irrelevant to the argument.
Official Recession Began In 2007 - News Markets - Portfolio.com



So back in 2007 many were predicting the recession would end in 2009, making it among the longest. Yet here we are 2 years later still in the early stages of recovery. And why? Obamanomics is the only answer.

After Japan's U-shaped (long slump) recession in the 1990s, it took five years for unemployment to fall back to its original levels. Also, I'm beginning to see economists claim that 8% unemployment might be considered the norm, since so many of the manufacturing jobs will never return and thousands of people who became unemployed during this recession will either remain unemployed (and on welfare) or will need retraining, that is IF there is any NEW industry coming along to even start employing in great numbers again.

If you wish to model U.S. economic policy on JAPAN's, you should reconsider your assumptions.

Japan has a declining and aging population. Their debt as a ratio of GDP is over 200%. Their economic growth is virtually nonexistent.

And 8% unemployment would be a norm only if one accepted Euro-Socialist Style structurally high unemployment.

No thank you.

We also have an aging population, dear. That has nothing to do with it, however. The fact is where are the younger generation supposed to FIND jobs?

I do wish you'd stick to one point and address that before going off in another direction. I was speaking strictly of the length of time it takes for a recovery after a long recession. If you don't like Japan as an example, then use Great Britain, or even our own. Reagan's was 14 months following a much briefer recession. This has been THE WORST since the Great Depression according to anyone with brains in the field of economics who have studied these situations.

 

[MaggieMae]

Other than every fact you cite being wrong, your post still sucked.

Translation: I got nuthin'.

 

[MaggieMae]

Personal responsibility. No one forced them to sign the paperwork.

Yeah, well, that's how the blame game goes for you people. I get it that you don't get it that underprivileged people have dreams too. But it still doesn't explain why middle-class people in existing homes could no longer afford their mortgages. One reason is they too found themselves laid off after having taken two or three refinances offered by a store-front carnival barker and suddenly those homes weren't worth squat, but they still had the mortgage to pay. Even if they tried to rectify the situation, they couldn't even find out who currently OWNED the mortgage because it had been bundled into mountains of others and sold off as a "security" to greedy Wall Street investors. No one even ASKED THEM to sign paperwork signing off on those shenanigans!!

People bought homes they couldn't afford. That entities were willing to lend them money to do so is still ultimately on the backs of the people borrowing.

People are not entitled to own a home. It is a luxury. If you can't afford one, rent.

I thought I acknowledged that.

A lot of people fell for their shtick. Was that stupidity? Yes, and the hawks knew that. They preyed on those very people who wouldn't understand.

But that hardly lets the greedy bastards who took advantage of the situation off the hook. And there are more of them.

 

[8537]

Must such to be functionally illiterate.

Yes, it must such!

Speaking of being illiterate, can you translate that for us?

 

[8537]

Once FM/FM entered the subprime market, volume exploded.

...and the share purchased by the GSE's shrank and shrank as they were unable to purchase the shit being produced.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Recession officially ended in June 2009. After that, we entered the Worst Recovery Ever.

And that is what Obamanomics is all about.

Wrong. The slow recovery also has ZERO to do with Obama's economics.

IBISWorld

The 2008/2009 recession is seeing private consumption fall for the first time in nearly 20 years. This indicates the depth and severity of the current recession. With consumer confidence so low, recovery will take a long time. Consumers in the U.S. have been hard hit by the current recession, with the value of their houses dropping and their pension savings decimated on the stock market.

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Then what was all that Stimulus Spending For?

Because all 305 million of us weren't able to take advantage of it. That's why a lot of people said the stimulus wasn't enough. These are toughies...

 

[MaggieMae]

Once FM/FM entered the subprime market, volume exploded.

And taxpayers are continuing to bail them out to the tune of $Bs every quarter.

That worked out real well.

I don't defend Fanny & Freddie, but I've always thought it was intriguing that they have taken the brunt of the POLITICAL fallout, when ever other government agency and policy maker (including Greenspan) didn't see the housing market coming to a screeching halt either. They ALL just went merrily along thinking "housing" was the vehicle that could pull the country out of any economic slump because it would always be a worthwhile investment. There are only a few economists who predicted its crash, and no one listened.

 

[The Rabbi]

Must such to be functionally illiterate.

Yes, it must such!

Speaking of being illiterate, can you translate that for us?

"Must suck to be functionally illiterate."
H and K are one key apart on the keyboard.
It must be suck to be both functionally illiterate AND stupid.

 

[Provocateur]

Except the mortgage hawks acting as financial advisors drew in unsuspecting people (just like real financial advisors sometimes do with millionnaires who aren't experts) by promising that even if a person would struggle making the initial mortgage payment, with housing at an all-time high, they could easily refinance in a few months. A lot of people fell for their shtick. Was that stupidity? Yes, and the hawks knew that. They preyed on those very people who wouldn't understand.

You have got to be joking. There are no ‘mortgage hawks’ out there scooping up unsuspecting victims. You were not simply walking down the damn street one day and BAM, a corner mortgage guy catches you with his sales pitch. In order to get to that point you had to go LOOKING for a house. When I purchased my house I calculated what I could spend and looked at houses on that category. What people were doing was playing a dangerous gambling game where they wanted to refinance over and over again without ever making a principle payment. They knew exactly what they were doing and if they did not then they deserved whatever hardships came their way as a result. Unfortunately, now everyone that did the right thing is now suffering because the fallout causes a domino effect throughout the entire economy. What the lenders were doing was following the governments plan and offloading their bad mortgages to Fanny and Freddy. Had those entities NOT purchased every dam crap loan that was thrown at them in behest of the government there would not have been a housing crisis. The home loan market does not need to be ‘set up’ like anything. What it needs is to take the risk that they are getting into rather than selling it off to a third party, particularly to a party as closely connected with the government as the 2 big ones were or to an entity that large in the first place.
that cash not causing any real impact other than screwing with the economy even more.

I suggest you download the documentary "House of Cards" to hear it directly from some of the store-front mortgagors themselves telling how they roped people in. Fannie & Freddie didn't even get into the subprime mortgage business until after 2005. Prior to then, nearly all sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street. In fact, F&F were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages until they changed their own rules to start buying these non-conforming subprimes, in order to maintain market share and compete with Wall Street for profits.

I agree that there was greed by everyone.

I feel quite confident in blaming the crew in Congress in the late '90s for getting the ball rolling.

Doesn't change the fact that no one forced anyone to buy a home they couldn't afford.

 

[Provocateur]

Once FM/FM entered the subprime market, volume exploded.

And taxpayers are continuing to bail them out to the tune of $Bs every quarter.

That worked out real well.

I don't defend Fanny & Freddie, but I've always thought it was intriguing that they have taken the brunt of the POLITICAL fallout, when ever other government agency and policy maker (including Greenspan) didn't see the housing market coming to a screeching halt either. They ALL just went merrily along thinking "housing" was the vehicle that could pull the country out of any economic slump because it would always be a worthwhile investment. There are only a few economists who predicted its crash, and no one listened.

Peter Schiff begged people to listen. He knew. He talked about it at length.

This is an amazing video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw]YouTube - Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007 (2nd Edition)[/ame]

 

[boedicca]

After Japan's U-shaped (long slump) recession in the 1990s, it took five years for unemployment to fall back to its original levels. Also, I'm beginning to see economists claim that 8% unemployment might be considered the norm, since so many of the manufacturing jobs will never return and thousands of people who became unemployed during this recession will either remain unemployed (and on welfare) or will need retraining, that is IF there is any NEW industry coming along to even start employing in great numbers again.

If you wish to model U.S. economic policy on JAPAN's, you should reconsider your assumptions.

Japan has a declining and aging population. Their debt as a ratio of GDP is over 200%. Their economic growth is virtually nonexistent.

And 8% unemployment would be a norm only if one accepted Euro-Socialist Style structurally high unemployment.

No thank you.

We also have an aging population, dear. That has nothing to do with it, however. The fact is where are the younger generation supposed to FIND jobs?

I do wish you'd stick to one point and address that before going off in another direction. I was speaking strictly of the length of time it takes for a recovery after a long recession. If you don't like Japan as an example, then use Great Britain, or even our own. Reagan's was 14 months following a much briefer recession. This has been THE WORST since the Great Depression according to anyone with brains in the field of economics who have studied these situations.

The younger generation would have a greater opportunity to find jobs if the private sector was able to create more of them. Instead, we have Obamanomics sucking all of the oxygen out of the economy.

 

[Wicked Jester]

If you wish to model U.S. economic policy on JAPAN's, you should reconsider your assumptions.

Japan has a declining and aging population. Their debt as a ratio of GDP is over 200%. Their economic growth is virtually nonexistent.

And 8% unemployment would be a norm only if one accepted Euro-Socialist Style structurally high unemployment.

No thank you.

We also have an aging population, dear. That has nothing to do with it, however. The fact is where are the younger generation supposed to FIND jobs?

I do wish you'd stick to one point and address that before going off in another direction. I was speaking strictly of the length of time it takes for a recovery after a long recession. If you don't like Japan as an example, then use Great Britain, or even our own. Reagan's was 14 months following a much briefer recession. This has been THE WORST since the Great Depression according to anyone with brains in the field of economics who have studied these situations.

The younger generation would have a greater opportunity to find jobs if the private sector was able to create more of them. Instead, we have Obamanomics sucking all of the oxygen out of the economy.

Yep......And Obama is about to watch his THIRD class of high school and college students graduate with little hope of decent jobs....By this time next year he will be watching his FOURTH class of high school and college students graduate with little hope of decent jobs....All combined, that is a huge voting bloc that will undoubtedly, and rightfully hold him responsible.

Bin Laden's death does not erase the enormity of his abject failures. And that is a fact!

 

[boedicca]

Well, in ObamaLand the most important jobs are Government ones, and being on unemployment stimulates the economy.