The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: billt on September 30, 2015, 07:24:47 AM
-
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/expert-another-housing-bubble-very-likely-if-we-don-t-change-our
Everything is pointing to it. Fannie and Freddie are right back to accepting 3% down, and in the process are basically over loaning money to people who can't afford to pay it back. And 3% is a totally false indicator, because the average home purchase comprised of that small of a percentage of a down payment, will accrue more than 3% in closing costs, loan origination fees, and other fees and expenses. This has the effect of a loan over 100% of the actual value of the home being purchased. Total insanity.
This is yet again causing a falsely inflated housing market that contains little, if any real cash value...... All paper. They've changed nothing. No one is complaining, so they have no reason to stop it. Neither Fannie or Freddie has paid back a cent of the $187 billion in bailout money they received from the government, after they crashed the market the first time in 2008. So what do they care?
The end result is we're right back to going full speed right off the cliff....... Again. Introduce idiots into a market where they don't belong, and cannot afford, and this is exactly what happens. It happened to the Stock Market in 1929. It happened to the housing market in 2008. And it will happen again. Keep doing the same thing, and you'll keep getting the exact same result. None of these people have learned the definition of insanity. All are either too blind, or too stupid.
-
Yes, but it won't fall apart until after the Republican takes office again so it's OK.
-
My loan is owned by Freddie Mac, I was very nervous to learn this, but it's not like I had any choice in it. It was originated, and is still serviced by a local bank, and I am actually a little ahead on it, so I doubt I will be affected. (Other than my property value going into the tank) But it still gnaws at me knowing that .gov owns my mortgage.
-
Seeing I am a few days short of 73, my house has been paid for for quite a long time and I have no intentions of getting a new one unless this one burns down. Actually blowup once it reaches the powder, primers and ammo. I have no sympathy for any of the fools who are going to get soaked again when the bubble bursts. I will just be happy it isn't me.
-
With the economy floundering with excessive debt, just what it needs is another push downhill.
Well, if the plan is to bury it at the bottom, that is.
-
So I need to be putting away cash when the crash happens. Then I can buy houses, stock and maybe even guns on the real cheap.
-
Seeing I am a few days short of 73, my house has been paid for for quite a long time and I have no intentions of getting a new one unless this one burns down. Actually blowup once it reaches the powder, primers and ammo. I have no sympathy for any of the fools who are going to get soaked again when the bubble bursts. I will just be happy it isn't me.
I'm pretty much the same way. In fact another deflating housing crash could work in my favor. We've been talking about moving back to the Colorado River area. Either Lake Havasu City or else Ft. Mohave / Bullhead City. The problem is the housing there is currently way over inflated. There is little work there to support these high prices. Especially in Lake Havasu.
So if another crash comes, it's likely they'll get hit hard, which would work for me. Even if mine tanked a bit in the process. I would be working with smaller numbers across the board. When you're working with cash, that's always better. If it doesn't happen, I'll just stay here. No big deal either way.
-
My loan is owned by Freddie Mac, I was very nervous to learn this, but it's not like I had any choice in it. It was originated, and is still serviced by a local bank, and I am actually a little ahead on it, so I doubt I will be affected. (Other than my property value going into the tank) But it still gnaws at me knowing that .gov owns my mortgage.
Well you are in good company. 99.3% of mortgages are controlled by the government:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-government-controlled-99.3-percent-of-mortgage-market-in-2012/article/2522042 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-government-controlled-99.3-percent-of-mortgage-market-in-2012/article/2522042)
That seems crazy to me but what to I know.
-
I rent and don't give a f..k anymore..
-
So I need to be putting away cash when the crash happens. Then I can buy houses, stock and maybe even guns on the real cheap.
Printed currency's only use in the near future will be for 'sanitary' purposes. Since 1999 real inflation has been 36% (+/- a few 10ths). It is about to get worse.
-
Out of a population of 310,000,000 there are over 94,000,000 out of work.
But, according to Answers.com there are almost 36,000,000 over 65 so the actual work force is about 181,000,000 which puts the actual unemployment rate above 50%.
Add to that a national debt of 20TRILLION dollars and the country is screwed.
-
I rent and don't give a f..k anymore..
What do you think will happen to rents of there is another crash? Last time they spiked.
-
What do you think will happen to rents of there is another crash? Last time they spiked.
Falls directly under the heading of, "Somebody gonna pay... Ain't gonna be me."
-
What do you think will happen to rents of there is another crash? Last time they spiked.
Sadly, it matters little here in the Commonwealth!
Rents are f....k crazy anyway!
I'm not bothering with the national election. My vote means jack shit! You guys deal with it..
-
Sadly, it matters little here in the Commonwealth!
Rents are f....k crazy anyway!
I'm not bothering with the national election. My vote means jack shit! You guys deal with it..
ahh..someone has done a good job. If the methods used to convince you not to vote work on a large scale, perhaps enough conservative votes will abstain to swing the election their way. But you are right. Individually, your vote is meaningless....
-
33 years in this shitty part of the world has beaten me down! If every independent here actually WAS an independent it might matter. Unfortunately me thinks they're not as independent as they let on..
-
A vote wasted is as good as a vote for Hillary.
-
A vote wasted is as good as a vote for Hillary.
The lefty will take Massachusetts regardless of what I do, Frank.
BTW, I was in Grand Rapids for Pulaski Weekend, attended my 40th class reunion..
Good time! Wish I could have stayed...
-
The Constitution only makes one demand on the citizen in exchange for it's rights and protections.
That is to make an informed vote.
Any one who won't do one, doesn't deserve the other.
Sadly, 50% won't get off their asses to vote at all, and of the ones who do most vote based on stupid criteria such as looks, or party affiliation with no regard to policies.
America, in short, deserves Barack Hussein Obama.
-
..... and the country is screwed.
When I worked on t-tailed aircraft, there was a phenomenon regarding the pitch trim called Coffin Corner. What would happen is that as the plane went to altitude and burned off fuel the autopilot would keep adjusting the pitch trim, until the point that the tail would stall. When that happened there was no recovery. The name came from the graph showing pitch trim vs lift.
I think this country is rapidly heading towards an social/economic/political coffin corner. Just don't know how far along the curve we are and exactly where the point of no return is.
-
I'm focusing on the local state and the US Congressional races. I'll vote, always do but Clinton or Sanders will win MA. I'll vote for my dead dog over either..
It's reprehensible what the media is doing to control the conversation and these asshats here and across the nation are falling for it... Young people are frothing at the mouth for Bernie..
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
-
...............Young people are frothing at the mouth for Bernie.
This country has never in it's history been consumed by such a large, young, stupid electorate.
-
I guess you forget the 60's. When the communists began their take over.
-
I'm going to throw this out there, just because I always get crucified for saying it, but I do not believe in universal suffrage. No, not everyone deserves, or even should be voting. When the Constitution was written only landowners could vote. This was to ensure that the people making the decisions had a stake in the outcome.
Another thing that I rail about is the 17th Amendment. The whole point of separating the houses of congress was so that the people had a voice, and so did the states. As soon as we started electing Senators instead of them being accountable to state legislatures we started going down hill.
These 2 changes to our Constitution have been a huge factor in the downfall of our nation.
-
No, not everyone deserves, or even should be voting. When the Constitution was written only landowners could vote. This was to ensure that the people making the decisions had a stake in the outcome.
This I agree with. The most dangerous thing to this country is an uninformed voter, who is allowed to vote themselves a paycheck drawn from someone else's pocket.
-
I agree with Bill. The people on benefits will always vote to get more while the people who provide all the money for those benefits have less and less say about it.
-
JC isn't going to get any flack from me about "property requirement" for voting. Most of the former colonies not only reinstated it after the revolution, but increased the limit from L50 to L100 .
How ever, that was the primary cause of Shay's rebellion in Mass, so do not consider it unless you are prepared to machine gun the lower classes to enforce it.
Along with changing the Senate from appointed to elected another thing I have thought about is the Women's vote. I haven't come to any definite opinion but I notice that before women were allowed to vote debates were focused insights, and idea's based on thought, look at the debates on slavery, or the gold/ silver standard. We also elected men who while physically unattractive were thoughtful and intelligent.
Since then we have had a series of "handsome" nonentities except for FDR, who was supposed to be an extremely charming guy. And our debates have become less focused on the reality of facts and more geared toward, emotion and what's "fair".
The Constitution was never intended to be "fair" it was intended to be workable while screwing the smallest number of people.
One thing I agree with the liberals about, we need to toss the old Constitution and rewrite it to remove all wiggle room. For 3 things, it needs to include specific penalties for violations by politicians instead of the current ethics process which is a joke, you have people like Charlie Rangel who have spent more tome in there than some of the members with no consequences, corrupt politicians should be either executed immediately, or immediately removed and forbidden from ever holding any position of trust, no professorships, no board of directorships, not even dog catcher.
Secondly, some one needs to be specified as being responsible for enforcing the Constitution and given the muscle, and independence to make it stick, I don't know how you would change the selection process to make it work, but the general idea would be that all laws and policies are reviewed by SCOTUS before being implemented, and if a President or Congress tried to defy them give them the authority to use the Army to remove the offenders.
Third, No more Bill of Rights, instead, put in place a "Bill of responsibilities", for example, you must be able to support what you say and print with verifiable facts, (that would eliminate global warming, gun control, and most other liberal BS) the obligation of the citizens to keep and bear arms, and so on.
-
....When the Constitution was written only landowners could vote. This was to ensure that the people making the decisions had a stake in the outcome.
This country has never in it's history been consumed by such a large, young, stupid electorate.
One draw back to the Fair Tax (Linder/Boortz) is that it would be collected at the manufacturing point, insulating the consumer directly from the pain. Income tax has perhaps only one positive and that is it makes you painfully aware of at least some of the cost of government.
So many voters have no concept of the cost of government. And "government" likes it that way. The more taxes collected before the POS, the more "it" can suck out of the economy without the majority of the electorate complaining.
-
A big help would be adding a Constitutional Amendment that would prevent the Federal government from borrowing any money....... Except in a time of war or natural disaster. But it would never pass because even the idiot liberals know it would eventually end their gravy train.
-
As written in the Constitution the only way taxation is legal is to take the amount the Gov't requires and divide it by the number of tax payers.
Of course there is also the insane concept of charging each tax payer a set amount and then operating with in the damned budget.
-
JC isn't going to get any flack from me about "property requirement" for voting. Most of the former colonies not only reinstated it after the revolution, but increased the limit from L50 to L100 .
How ever, that was the primary cause of Shay's rebellion in Mass, so do not consider it unless you are prepared to machine gun the lower classes to enforce it.
I wasn't thinking a property requirement, more of a tax burden requirement. Basically, if you do not pay income taxes, then no vote. Why should someone not contributing to the system be allowed a decision in it. If you don't like it, get off of welfare and pay taxes. Simple as that. Require that you bring in your tax forms to vote, not only does it solve the Voter I.D. problem, but holding your tax bill in the booth would serve as a reminder to vote smart.
-
Why should someone not contributing to the system be allowed a decision in it.
They shouldn't. Because they have we are now coddling a $20 trillion dollar debt.
-
I wasn't thinking a property requirement, more of a tax burden requirement. Basically, if you do not pay income taxes, then no vote. Why should someone not contributing to the system be allowed a decision in it. If you don't like it, get off of welfare and pay taxes. Simple as that. Require that you bring in your tax forms to vote, not only does it solve the Voter I.D. problem, but holding your tax bill in the booth would serve as a reminder to vote smart.
Understood, but "property requirement" is the technical name of the concept of restricting the vote to those actually invested in paying for it. With so many living in rental properties with little "real property" going by tax liability would be the only practical method.
-
I look at it the same way a corporation does. Money decisions are voted on by the Board Of Directors, not the rank and file workers. Many on these boards are large stockholders, and have a vested interest in the financial well being of the company. If the workers voted, all they would be concerned with is a paycheck and benefits. Things like purchasing new equipment in order to remain competitive in the long term, would not concern or interest them. Especially if it meant any type of sacrifice on their part. It's all part of the hooray for me, and screw everyone else, attitude.
I've watched too many companies go down the tubes with that type of thinking. And this country will be no different. It's a matter of when, not if.
-
With so many living in rental properties with little "real property" going by tax liability would be the only practical method.
Look at how many people today own little to nothing. They either rent, or else are paying nothing but interest on a mortgage, and don't have enough equity to break even, after paying the real estate sales commission, and come out of the deal with anything if they sold. For example, several lending institutions are right back to lending money with as little as 3% down with marginal credit scores. If they had to sell shortly after the sale they couldn't pay off the loan, because the commission is usually 6%+ after title insurance and other sales related expenses. This is what crashed the housing market in 2008. "No skin in the game".
Most lease, (rent), their cars. And lately many are "renting to own" their home furnishings because they have no money to purchase them, and their credit is damaged, or all used up. (Places like "Rent-A-Center" and "Aaron's" cater to these types). Subtract the credit card debt most have piled up, and if they were to attempt to liquidate their assets and pay off their liabilities, most couldn't do it. They would be homeless in the street owning nothing but debt.
Now put these idiots into a voting booth, and who's handle do you think they're going to pull? They'll go communist every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. This is irreversible because the most difficult thing any person can do in their lifetime, is to accumulate wealth in any amount that allows them to be financially independent. Without receiving any government assistance. Today we've got over 1/3rd of the nation in this position. (105 million+ people). Sooner or later the bubble is going to pop. The only thing idiots can do well is destroy economies because they are all take, and no one gives. And as long as the communists believe the top 1% can support the remaining 99%, none of this foolishness will change.
-
As the talk about property and taxes and voting have been going around it brings back old headaches of how to be fair to both sides. I feel that property taxes often get increased through levy by the popular vote of renters who do not understand how it affects them. Then they scream when their rent goes up, and due to many factors landlords have a hard time covering other rising costs. I face this in managing my Mother-in-law's farm land. I have been raising the rent between 2% and 4% each year for the past six years just to cover increasing taxes. We have also incurred some maintenance costs that crop yields and pricing do not support, so we have been eating it for now.
What would be fair? Maybe renters should pay the property taxes direct. Let them realize that their skin is in the game when they vote.
-
As the talk about property and taxes and voting have been going around it brings back old headaches of how to be fair to both sides. I feel that property taxes often get increased through levy by the popular vote of renters who do not understand how it affects them. Then they scream when their rent goes up, and due to many factors landlords have a hard time covering other rising costs. I face this in managing my Mother-in-law's farm land. I have been raising the rent between 2% and 4% each year for the past six years just to cover increasing taxes. We have also incurred some maintenance costs that crop yields and pricing do not support, so we have been eating it for now.
What would be fair? Maybe renters should pay the property taxes direct. Let them realize that their skin is in the game when they vote.
Your post reminds me of something I should have mentioned in the first paragraph of my post. Even though someone purchases a home with little to nothing down, and has virtually no equity, they still are paying property taxes. Therefore they are more deserving of casting a vote, than a renter who pays zero in said taxes.
-
I really don't give a damn about what is fair for those who are not contributing to the cost of government. I am talking about people who are are means tested gov't assistance, people who get more money back on their taxes than they payed in. These are the people that should not have a vote. States and municipalities may want to structure things differently, and they have every ability to do so, however you should not have a say in the FEDERAL government if you are not paying for it.
-
I really don't give a damn about what is fair for those who are not contributing to the cost of government.
Neither did the writers of the Constitution. As I've said before, the Constitution was never intended to be fair to everybody. It was intended to promote "Life, Liberty, and Property". while screwing as few as possible. But as they were writing it they knew some would still wind up screwed.
Their opinion was the greatest good, life's a bitch , deal with it.
By the way BillT, if you have not paid royalties for use of the mo0nkey selfie you better be careful.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/06/monkey_selfie_who_owns_the_copyright.html
-
I really don't give a damn about what is fair for those who are not contributing to the cost of government. I am talking about people who are are means tested gov't assistance, people who get more money back on their taxes than they payed in. These are the people that should not have a vote. States and municipalities may want to structure things differently, and they have every ability to do so, however you should not have a say in the FEDERAL government if you are not paying for it.
That would never fly, as the blacks would immediately start screaming racial inequality. Because most of them would not qualify to vote under those circumstances. It shouldn't matter because they don't. But it does in today's idiotic world. They already cry how "unfair" it is there are a higher percentage of them locked up in the prison system. And people are listening to them.
If you took away their "right to vote" based on the fact they're not worth a $h!t, they'd be screaming bloody murder..... Along with the entire Democratic Party. They complain because we want them to have voters identification cards. Now you also expect them to have 2 Nickels to rub together? We are long past applying common sense to this entire matter.
-
You hit it Bill. Of course if you were able to get past the initial shock and resulting tantrum of the whole thing, they would start to realize that personal liberty and RESPONSIBILITY based policies would see their circumstances improve. Of course they would also have to get off their dead asses and contribute. Which I understand is near impossible for a 4th generation welfare leach. But as Tocqueville said, "if you don't work, you'll die."
That is the harsh reality of a free society. You are free to do what you want, but no one owes you anything, so you better figure out away to support yourself.
-
"Getting past the shock and tantrums however would require shooting looters and rioters.
Capt. Daniel Shay and most of Western Mass staged an open, armed insurrection in the days when responsibility were assumed, the liberals nowadays would go totally apeshit.
-
"Getting past the shock and tantrums however would require shooting looters and rioters.
Capt. Daniel Shay and most of Western Mass staged an open, armed insurrection in the days when responsibility were assumed, the liberals nowadays would go totally apeshit.
Correct. It's why the cops in many cities like New York and Chicago are "backing down". They don't want to take the risk of actually doing their jobs, and be put through the same meat grinder cops like Darryl Wilson were put through as a result. Kill one black kid, and all of a sudden your career is over, and your looking at death threats. So they are starting to look the other way. Crime is going off the chart as a result. Homeless people are everywhere, pissing and $h!tting in the street.
Now imagine a white citizen shooting a black in self defense. You won't stand a chance in these liberal $h!t holes, or anywhere else for that matter. Regardless of how justified you were. Back in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic Convention, Socialist Mayor Richard J. Daly Sr. gave orders for looters to be, "shot on sight". Several were. Today he would be crucified in Grant Park for the same.
-
I keep saying, the only cure is the cartridge box. Otherwise we are watching the approach of the collapse of civilization.
-
than a renter who pays zero in said taxes.
I call bullshit on this statement..
The rent I pay and have paid over the years pays ALL OF THE TAXES on the property where I reside!
The landlord gets the credit but I'm paying my fair share! The landlord is definitely NOT renting a property at a loss or he/she is a friggin idiot!
In addition, I'm paying taxes on my vehicles here, my motorcycles, the boats, trailers, et al!
-
You are correct Timothy. However, you are one of the few that gets it. Many renters do not understand how, or that, they pay property taxes. Add to that an issue we have in our state, and several other states have this as well: Renters get a refund from the state for property taxes paid. The reason for this is that landlords pay full tax on this property (no homestead credit that owner/occupants receive), so the state gives an amount to the renter based on their income vs. rent paid. Some renters think they don't pay any tax at all, and will vote for levies and projects without considering the liability.
The following account may be a little off topic, but we are masters of the drift around here:
Our community has a policy that if you own a residence on a corner lot you will only be assessed for street and utilities on the street your home faces (location address) or the side with the shortest property frontage. This is determined once, and stays with the property so as to not avoid all costs by flip flopping.
While I was serving on our municipal utility commission we had a business that is located on a corner lot with business frontage and usage on both streets fight the policy and gained the exemption for themselves. As a part of the change our Mayor pushed, and gained, the exemption for all businesses and apartment complexes in the same situation.
What was missed by most involved with this change was the large amount of expense that was shifted from businesses and renters of apartments to other community members who were already paying their full share.
This is what happens when uneducated vote, and all vote for politicians who don't think in the big picture.
-
While it is true that rent COVERS the tax bill for the property, it is not quite the same as the property owner who can produce a bill saying he was assessed $ X in taxes for $X worth of valuation.
Looked at from Tim's point of view we also pay taxes on every store or business we have dealings with because the owner includes that expense in his business overhead.
-
Correct on Tim's point of cost of business. This is something that gives me a headache every time people talk of taxing business more. Also back to Timothy's post on his understanding that he pays property tax through his rent, I believe more and more that if ALL renters paid the property tax directly to the government rather than through their rent more would get it. Have you ever heard people scream when they look at their airline ticket, rental car, or hotel bill and the list of taxes? Of course, most just blame the business for passing it on, but at least they are seeing the taxes.
-
Here is where that view is a bit thin. The owner pays the property taxes with some of the money he receives in rent. So because of that the renters are in fact helping to pay the property taxes on said property.
Lets say it's a 6 flat. And each apartment has one kid of school age. That's 6 kids attending public school on the coat tails of one landlord, and one single piece of property. As opposed to 6 kids from 6 different houses, all paying taxes. In the inner city this imbalance can be much worse than that, because there are so few homeowners compared to kids.
-
While I had a child in the system here I felt uncomfortable to express my opinion and vote for tax issues here. We have what's called Prop 2-1/2 which says (I think) that property taxes in a given town cannot be raised more than 2-1/2% in a given election cycle.
When these types of questions arose, I abstained from voting because it didn't seem appropriate to make that vote. Today, I completely ignore these questions on town elections because I don't really have skin in the game since my little one is 30 and about to have a little one of her own.
My landlord can deduct his tax liability that I pay in full. I can't deduct jack shit... If he has to make a repair, he can deduct that as well!
Not all renters are transient asshats. I make damn near 80K a year but buying this late in life doesn't make sense and what I can afford here on my salary buys a two stall garage that needs rehab!
-
Billt, In our area multi-family units are taxed to reflect the number of residents, children, needs, services, etc.. In reality, rentals do not harm our local services, but they do hurt the state budget, due to the fact that lower income can actually receive far more back than what the Homestead Credit (the difference between a resident (homestead) and non-resident owner) would be.
Timothy, I understand that there are many people like you who rent and lease. You represent a good sized group who is responsible in your earning ability and lifestyle. However even at your level, there is a group that is disconnected from the reality of taxation.
-
Why is TINSTAAFL so hard to understand?
-
However even at your level, there is a group that is disconnected from the reality of taxation.
No argument here, M58..
I rent from individuals...complex, multi unit rental properties are problematic for a number of reasons. I pay renters insurance, clean my walkways, mow my lawn and do basic maintenance when the owner allows me to help. I may be an exception but most I know that are in my same situation are similar. I treat this house like my home.
-
Why is TANSTAAFL so hard to understand?
FIFY.
-
Why is TINSTAAFL so hard to understand?
FIFY.
"Ain't" actually is good grammar.
If it was OK for Winston Churchill to use in a speech to Parliament it's OK for use in a rant on the internet.
-
What is it? I don't do abbreviations well.
-
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.