Housing: 2006 thread, use the 2007 thread instead.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,913
4,502
126
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I certainly hope their won't be a housing burst, because I would love to buy a home in the near future. But, right now, I can't pull the trigger because of rising interest rates and the cost of the houses themselves are truly a bit inflated.

I guess I, along with millions others, are in a holding pattern to see where it all falls into place.
Wouldn't you want it to burst bigtime then? Let prices plummet so you can get in while it is cheap? Of course, I personally wouldn't take that bet. I predict a soft landing, with price falling a small percentage in some areas, and rising a small percentage in other areas.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I certainly hope their won't be a housing burst, because I would love to buy a home in the near future. But, right now, I can't pull the trigger because of rising interest rates and the cost of the houses themselves are truly a bit inflated.

I guess I, along with millions others, are in a holding pattern to see where it all falls into place.
Wouldn't you want it to burst bigtime then? Let prices plummet so you can get in while it is cheap? Of course, I personally wouldn't take that bet. I predict a soft landing, with price falling a small percentage in some areas, and rising a small percentage in other areas.

I don't want it to burst, because there'd be a lot of people hurt by it. I can RENT for now, but a soft landing would be nice.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,913
4,502
126
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I don't want it to burst, because there'd be a lot of people hurt by it. I can RENT for now, but a soft landing would be nice.
Few people are really hurt by a burst bubble. The people who are hurt are (a) house flippers, (b) those who just decide that home ownership isn't for them, (c) those moving from the coasts to the midwest (which is a small number of people, usually you move the other way).

Otherwise, you sell your house at a lowered price and replace it with another house at a lowered price. You aren't harmed at all in most cases.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I don't want it to burst, because there'd be a lot of people hurt by it. I can RENT for now, but a soft landing would be nice.
Few people are really hurt by a burst bubble. The people who are hurt are (a) house flippers, (b) those who just decide that home ownership isn't for them, (c) those moving from the coasts to the midwest (which is a small number of people, usually you move the other way).

Otherwise, you sell your house at a lowered price and replace it with another house at a lowered price. You aren't harmed at all in most cases.

I hope you're right, but regardless, I'm in a holding pattern.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
Wow, 12 houses in my area went up for foreclosure this month (Sacramento, 95834). Makes me wish I had some spare change to pick them up cheap :)

Most of these are in new construction 1-3 years old, looks like people bit off more 40 year I/O, neg amort, option ARM loans than they could chew.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
With rising prices and struggling to make payments, 50 year mortgage debuts in California! :shocked:

Uh, wow.

50-year mortgage debuts in California
Thursday April 27, 6:00 am ET
Holden Lewis


The Methuselah of mortgages has arrived: the 50-year home loan.
Think of it as a mortgage that has been supersized. Like that other supersizer, McDonald's, the massive mortgage was born in Southern California's San Bernardino County. Statewide Bancorp of Rancho Cucamonga began offering the loan in late March, to California residents. Advertisements have yielded a lot of phone calls and "quite a few applications," says Alex Diaz Jr., vice president of Statewide.

ADVERTISEMENT


Half of first-time home buyers are 32 or older, according to the National Association of Realtors. If those buyers get 50-year mortgages and never refinance or make extra payments, they won't pay off their loans until they're well into their 80s. Would they be crazy to get loans that amortize or pay off the balance over 50 years instead of the standard 30 years? Not at all, Diaz says.

Getting a 50-year loan is a perfectly rational way to avoid an interest-only or payment-option adjustable-rate mortgage, he says.

With an interest-only mortgage, the minimum monthly payment doesn't put any money toward principal. A payment-option ARM goes a step beyond that: In some circumstances, the minimum monthly payment doesn't even cover the interest accrued that month. You make a minimum payment at the beginning of the month, and four weeks later, you owe more than you owed before the payment. This condition is called negative amortization, or "going negative."

Forgive borrowers for thinking that it makes better sense to amortize a loan over 50 years than to get an option ARM or interest-only mortgage.

"Payment-option ARMs and interest-onlies have been so popular, we wanted to come out with a longer-term, fully amortizing loan for people who don't want to go negative," Diaz says.

Regulators and consumers worry that foreclosures will surge in coming years, especially among homeowners who got interest-only and payment-option ARMs. The 50-year loan is a lifeline for them, Diaz says.

"There are two markets for this, " he says. "One is if they're looking to purchase a home, because of how expensive housing is, they'll consider this loan. And the other is payment-option ARMs -- borrowers are making minimum payments and they're starting to panic a little bit and look for vehicles to get out of these loans."

About a quarter of new mortgages in California are 40-year loans. This is the next logical step, Diaz believes.

Statewide's 50-year loan is a 5/1 hybrid, meaning that the introductory interest rate lasts five years and then the rate is adjusted annually, moving up and down with the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR.

Bystanders are dubious of the half-century loan's benefits.

"If you run the amortization out, it basically is an interest-only loan, in all practical terms," says Jason Flurry, a certified financial planner and president of Legacy Partners Financial Group in Woodstock, Ga. "If a person is considering something like that, they're probably trying to squeeze into too much house to begin with."

But just about everyone in California is trying to buy too much house. Of the houses sold in the state in February, half cost more than $535,470.

Is a 50-year mortgage really an alternative to an interest-only loan? Yes, but it's not necessarily the best option.

"You're not talking about a significant savings in any event," says Jim Sahnger, mortgage consultant for Palm Beach Financial Network in Sewall's Point, Fla.

A 50-year loan has lower monthly payments, but the total cost is astronomically higher than that of a 30-year mortgage because you're stretching out the payments for two decades longer. It's impossible to guess how much higher because the rate moves up and down annually for the last 45 years of the loan.

But just for grins, let's compare a 30-year fixed-rate loan with a mythical 50-year fixed. For a 30-year loan of $300,000 at 6.5 percent, principal and interest cost $1,896.20 per month. A 50-year loan for the same amount and at the same rate costs $1,691.15 per month in principal and interest.

The 50-year loan costs $205 less per month, but the payments stretch out for 20 years longer and will cost a total of $332,058 more.

An interest-only loan at 6.5 percent would cost $1,625 per month for the first 10 or 15 years, and then the payment would jump.

Sahnger points out that few people live in one house for 30 years and hardly anyone for 50 years. A lot of home buyers move into a house knowing that they will move out within five years. Most of those people are well-suited for lower-rate hybrid adjustable mortgages, Sahnger says.

As for the 50-year mortgage, it's a good attention-getter, Sahnger says: "People are trying to differentiate themselves in the marketplace."
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
With rising prices and struggling to make payments, 50 year mortgage debuts in California! :shocked:

Uh, wow.

50-year mortgage debuts in California
Thursday April 27, 6:00 am ET
Holden Lewis


The Methuselah of mortgages has arrived: the 50-year home loan.
Think of it as a mortgage that has been supersized. Like that other supersizer, McDonald's, the massive mortgage was born in Southern California's San Bernardino County. Statewide Bancorp of Rancho Cucamonga began offering the loan in late March, to California residents. Advertisements have yielded a lot of phone calls and "quite a few applications," says Alex Diaz Jr., vice president of Statewide.

ADVERTISEMENT


Half of first-time home buyers are 32 or older, according to the National Association of Realtors. If those buyers get 50-year mortgages and never refinance or make extra payments, they won't pay off their loans until they're well into their 80s. Would they be crazy to get loans that amortize or pay off the balance over 50 years instead of the standard 30 years? Not at all, Diaz says.

Getting a 50-year loan is a perfectly rational way to avoid an interest-only or payment-option adjustable-rate mortgage, he says.

With an interest-only mortgage, the minimum monthly payment doesn't put any money toward principal. A payment-option ARM goes a step beyond that: In some circumstances, the minimum monthly payment doesn't even cover the interest accrued that month. You make a minimum payment at the beginning of the month, and four weeks later, you owe more than you owed before the payment. This condition is called negative amortization, or "going negative."

Forgive borrowers for thinking that it makes better sense to amortize a loan over 50 years than to get an option ARM or interest-only mortgage.

"Payment-option ARMs and interest-onlies have been so popular, we wanted to come out with a longer-term, fully amortizing loan for people who don't want to go negative," Diaz says.

Regulators and consumers worry that foreclosures will surge in coming years, especially among homeowners who got interest-only and payment-option ARMs. The 50-year loan is a lifeline for them, Diaz says.

"There are two markets for this, " he says. "One is if they're looking to purchase a home, because of how expensive housing is, they'll consider this loan. And the other is payment-option ARMs -- borrowers are making minimum payments and they're starting to panic a little bit and look for vehicles to get out of these loans."

About a quarter of new mortgages in California are 40-year loans. This is the next logical step, Diaz believes.

Statewide's 50-year loan is a 5/1 hybrid, meaning that the introductory interest rate lasts five years and then the rate is adjusted annually, moving up and down with the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR.

Bystanders are dubious of the half-century loan's benefits.

"If you run the amortization out, it basically is an interest-only loan, in all practical terms," says Jason Flurry, a certified financial planner and president of Legacy Partners Financial Group in Woodstock, Ga. "If a person is considering something like that, they're probably trying to squeeze into too much house to begin with."

But just about everyone in California is trying to buy too much house. Of the houses sold in the state in February, half cost more than $535,470.

Is a 50-year mortgage really an alternative to an interest-only loan? Yes, but it's not necessarily the best option.

"You're not talking about a significant savings in any event," says Jim Sahnger, mortgage consultant for Palm Beach Financial Network in Sewall's Point, Fla.

A 50-year loan has lower monthly payments, but the total cost is astronomically higher than that of a 30-year mortgage because you're stretching out the payments for two decades longer. It's impossible to guess how much higher because the rate moves up and down annually for the last 45 years of the loan.

But just for grins, let's compare a 30-year fixed-rate loan with a mythical 50-year fixed. For a 30-year loan of $300,000 at 6.5 percent, principal and interest cost $1,896.20 per month. A 50-year loan for the same amount and at the same rate costs $1,691.15 per month in principal and interest.

The 50-year loan costs $205 less per month, but the payments stretch out for 20 years longer and will cost a total of $332,058 more.

An interest-only loan at 6.5 percent would cost $1,625 per month for the first 10 or 15 years, and then the payment would jump.

Sahnger points out that few people live in one house for 30 years and hardly anyone for 50 years. A lot of home buyers move into a house knowing that they will move out within five years. Most of those people are well-suited for lower-rate hybrid adjustable mortgages, Sahnger says.

As for the 50-year mortgage, it's a good attention-getter, Sahnger says: "People are trying to differentiate themselves in the marketplace."

If you need to spread your payments out over 50 years, you shouldn't buy a house at all.

They need to contact Oakwood Homes or something.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
[/quote]

If you need to spread your payments out over 50 years, you shouldn't buy a house at all.

They need to contact Oakwood Homes or something.[/quote]

You have to remember that people think that the good times will always continue. Japan saw it and they had 100 year mortgages. UK saw it and now they are in a credit crisis.

Everybody always ignores the inevitable. When something blows away the mean by 200x appreciation over 10 years, you have to have a reversion to the mean. This can be accomplished two ways. One, by no appreciation. In this case that will last for 200 years.

The second way is through depreciation.

If housing has a traditional long-run inflation adjusted appreciation of .3% and we have blown through that over 200x, then we need to come back.

To think otherwise is to ignore statistics and logic. There will be a downturn, it will hurt. Many will lose houses.

Irrational exuberance can never continue forever and always has to result in a mean reversion.

 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,913
4,502
126
Wow is right. The math just doesn't support any reason to go to a 50 year mortgage. Minimal monthly savings match with another 100% increase to the total cost of the house. Plus, you'll have to do something to refinance/sell the house eventually unless you want to work until you are 80. 30 years was standard for many good reasons - it is the point where diminishing returns really kicks in and it means you'll pay off the house right around the time you retire. Wow is right.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Wow is right. The math just doesn't support any reason to go to a 50 year mortgage. Minimal monthly savings match with another 100% increase to the total cost of the house. Plus, you'll have to do something to refinance/sell the house eventually unless you want to work until you are 80. 30 years was standard for many good reasons - it is the point where diminishing returns really kicks in and it means you'll pay off the house right around the time you retire. Wow is right.

Exactly. What would you "save" per month? $20?
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,913
4,502
126
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Exactly. What would you "save" per month? $20?
The article gave an example, but I can elaborate. Median house price is ~$230,000. Lets use a fixed 6.5% interest rate for a loan today.

Length, Monthly payment, Total cost
10 yr: $2,612, $313,392
20 yr: $1,715, $411,556
30 yr: $1,454, $523,352
40 yr: $1,346, $646,344
50 yr: $1,297, $777,929

Going from 10 yr to 20 yr cuts the monthly payment by $897. Going from 20 yr to 30 yr cuts the monthly payment by $261. Both of these are significant monthly savings.

Going from 30 yr to 40 yr cuts the monthly payment by a measly $107. Going from 40 yr to 50 yr cuts the monthly payment by a scant $50. Who is willing to spend $131,585 more for a $50 a month savings? If you can't afford $50 a month, why are you buying a $230,000 house?
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Exactly. What would you "save" per month? $20?
The article gave an example, but I can elaborate. Median house price is ~$230,000. Lets use a fixed 6.5% interest rate for a loan today.

Length, Monthly payment, Total cost
10 yr: $2,612, $313,392
20 yr: $1,715, $411,556
30 yr: $1,454, $523,352
40 yr: $1,346, $646,344
50 yr: $1,297, $777,929

Going from 10 yr to 20 yr cuts the monthly payment by $897. Going from 20 yr to 30 yr cuts the monthly payment by $261. Both of these are significant monthly savings.

Going from 30 yr to 40 yr cuts the monthly payment by a measly $107. Going from 40 yr to 50 yr cuts the monthly payment by a scant $50. Who is willing to spend $131,585 more for a $50 a month savings? If you can't afford $50 a month, why are you buying a $230,000 house?

Exactly. $20/month would be more likely to be the truth in the area in which I live. Lower housing prices than the national average.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Exactly. What would you "save" per month? $20?
The article gave an example, but I can elaborate. Median house price is ~$230,000. Lets use a fixed 6.5% interest rate for a loan today.

Length, Monthly payment, Total cost
10 yr: $2,612, $313,392
20 yr: $1,715, $411,556
30 yr: $1,454, $523,352
40 yr: $1,346, $646,344
50 yr: $1,297, $777,929

Going from 10 yr to 20 yr cuts the monthly payment by $897. Going from 20 yr to 30 yr cuts the monthly payment by $261. Both of these are significant monthly savings.

Going from 30 yr to 40 yr cuts the monthly payment by a measly $107. Going from 40 yr to 50 yr cuts the monthly payment by a scant $50. Who is willing to spend $131,585 more for a $50 a month savings? If you can't afford $50 a month, why are you buying a $230,000 house?


Does this cover the fact that loans of longer tems usually command a higher interest rate?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Exactly. What would you "save" per month? $20?
The article gave an example, but I can elaborate. Median house price is ~$230,000. Lets use a fixed 6.5% interest rate for a loan today.

Length, Monthly payment, Total cost
10 yr: $2,612, $313,392
20 yr: $1,715, $411,556
30 yr: $1,454, $523,352
40 yr: $1,346, $646,344
50 yr: $1,297, $777,929

Going from 10 yr to 20 yr cuts the monthly payment by $897. Going from 20 yr to 30 yr cuts the monthly payment by $261. Both of these are significant monthly savings.

Going from 30 yr to 40 yr cuts the monthly payment by a measly $107. Going from 40 yr to 50 yr cuts the monthly payment by a scant $50. Who is willing to spend $131,585 more for a $50 a month savings? If you can't afford $50 a month, why are you buying a $230,000 house?

That's your American Sheeple bowing to the Corporate Whores they love.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,913
4,502
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Does this cover the fact that loans of longer tems usually command a higher interest rate?
Nope. And it doesn't cover the fact that the loans in the article were variable 50 year loans instead of fixed. What is the chance that interest rates over the next 50 years will be higher than the very low rates we have now? Probably pretty good. So what I posted is the best possible case where you save a measly $50 a month. It may very well be costlier per month to go 50 years.

I just did it for 100 years fixed at 6.5%. Monthly payment: $1248, a savings of $48/month over the 50 year mortgage. Total payments: $1.497 million. But I guess in Japan, their interest rates were near zero, so extending it wasn't really a bad idea in that strange case.
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I don't want it to burst, because there'd be a lot of people hurt by it. I can RENT for now, but a soft landing would be nice.
Few people are really hurt by a burst bubble. The people who are hurt are (a) house flippers, (b) those who just decide that home ownership isn't for them, (c) those moving from the coasts to the midwest (which is a small number of people, usually you move the other way).

Otherwise, you sell your house at a lowered price and replace it with another house at a lowered price. You aren't harmed at all in most cases.



over the next 3 years $3 TRILLION in ARM, IO and other fancy mortgages will go fixed rate and many of those people won't be able to afford them. And with rising inventories there is no one to sell to.

Florida, NOVA, LV, Phoenix and a few other markets are popping. Sales are slowing, inventories are through the roof and it turns out that investors bought up 25% or more of the inventory in some new developments. Now they can't sell and will foreclose. And next year when the couple that bought their dream home on an ARM and planned to sell it before it expires won't be able to sell either because the investor inventory will still be in the system. And then everyone that took out HELOCs or refi's on their primary home to invest into Miami or LV will be in trouble when they foreclose, the bank send them a 1099 and the IRS sends them a bill for $50,000 or so.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: dmcowen674


That's your American Sheeple bowing to the Corporate Whores they love.

That's our Dave, a guy who thinks it's all about Corporate Whores and never about Stupid and Greedy Consumers.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
"Working on the housing boom"

The sector is cooling, finally. Now, a debate is raging over whether the employment market will prevent a implosion.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
May 2, 2006: 6:01 PM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Those looking to glimpse the future of the housing market may want to start watching help-wanted ads rather than the real estate section.

Experts who say the housing market is cooling, but won't implode, argue that solid job growth should be enough to prevent a collapse in home prices. But others who see a housing "bubble" ready to pop say a developing slowdown in home building itself could hurt job growth enough to put a big dent in housing.


"The economy was healthy when the stock market plunged in 2000," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington and an outspoken advocate of the housing bubble theory, but stock prices "had gotten out of line with reality."

"We've been building too many homes in a market maintained by speculation. And job growth is not going sustain that."

Recent government figures show that about 1.5 million homes were vacant in the first quarter, most of those presumably up for sale, a 17 percent increase from a year earlier. The 2.1 percent vacancy rate was the highest on record since the government began tracking it in 1994. It was also the fourth straight quarterly increase.

"When you see it increasing quarter after quarter, there seems to be something going on here," Baker said. "We're building more homes than are being filled."

Among those most worried about the real estate market are home builders themselves. The National Association of Home Builders saw its index of builder confidence sink last month to the lowest level since 1995, save for two months right after Sept. 11.

Nearly three out of four builders reported more homes on the market in their areas and about one in five reported a jump in new home orders being cancelled. About three-quarters also reported a drop in purchases by people buying homes as investments.

There's more. Late Monday, Hovnanian Enterprises (Research), a builder with big operations in California and Florida, cut its guidance and St. Joe's (Research), a smaller builder, reported surprisingly weak results Tuesday as the firms struggle with a faster-than-expected drop in the housing market. The stocks of both companies tumbled Tuesday.

But some economists say that while housing will cool as mortgages continue to rise, home sales and prices won't collapse, due mostly to strength in the job market. In fact, sales of both new homes and existing homes picked up in March, even as mortgage rates rose.

"What we had in the past couple of years was an unprecedented frenzy of activity," said Lawrence Yun, senior economist for the National Association of Realtors. "That's what we're seeing: A decline from a frenzied, unsustainable rate."

"Our experience says prices do not go down when there's job creation in the local economy," said Yun. "In local markets where they are flat on jobs, they could see prices decline. But we're projecting 2.3 million new jobs this year. The job market is providing a buffer. It's a counter force to rising rates."

So far job growth is cooperating. The economy created 590,000 new jobs in the first quarter, according to the Labor Department's payroll survey - an annual rate just under 2.4 million. And economists believe that job growth stayed on track in April, with an average forecast for payroll growth of 200,000, according to a survey by Briefing.com. The unemployment rate is seen holding steady at 4.7 percent.

Yun's group is calling for prices of existing homes - which account for about three-quarters of all homes sold - to rise 6.4 percent this year while new home prices gain 2.3 percent - even as sales decline.

While that's far less than the 12 percent and 9 percent gains in median prices last year, it's still solid growth. And the Realtors forecast includes 30-year fixed rate mortgages hitting 7 percent by year-end, up about half a point from current levels.

But the experts who see a possible meltdown say strong employment isn't enough to support an overinflated housing market.

"You have to look at how much more inventory has been put on the market and what impact that could have on pricing," said John Tomlinson, analyst with Majestic Research, an independent research firm. "To get sales going, people are going to have start pulling in their expectations."

Tomlinson sees new home prices flat or edging lower this year with existing home prices flat to slightly higher "at best." He points to reports showing big increases in the number of homes on the market.

Past housing downturns have seen builders slash their work forces by up to 40 percent, said Baker, the housing market bear, and with an estimated 3.5 million people working in residential construction, the loss of more than 1 million jobs would obviously cause problems for the labor market.

Add job losses at mortgage firms, building supply retailers and real estate agencies and the downturn in home building could itself further weaken one of the key supports for real estate.

One of those worried about just that is James McShirley, owner of Sulphur Lumber near Indianapolis. He's already laying off staff and not filling open positions due to a slowdown in orders from his builder clients.

"We're holding off as much as we can because qualified people are hard to find," he said. "But there will come a point where we have to face that (more layoffs) and it could be soon."

McShirley said when he sees his clients cutting staff, and a local mortgage broker with 100 employees go out of business, he grows more worried.

"Those people losing their jobs are the classic home owners. This could be a vicious circle," he said


Bolded to point out the following....

Ameriquest to lay off 3,800 and close 229 offices.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
POP.

Im not sure what Ive made more money on this year, shorting the home builders or on energy and metal stocks.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Engineer
Prices in parts of Boston 40% lower than 05!

The average price of a harborside condo perch plunged nearly 40 percent during the first quarter compared to the same period last year, falling to an average of $564,944, according to the Listing Information Network, or LINK.

Ouch.

1 in 4 losing their houses in Boston. Wow

This is starting to happen in other areas around the Country too.

We could have 25% of America homeless within the next two years.

Awesome job you've done Bush and Republicans, awesome. :thumbsup:
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

1 in 4 losing their houses in Boston. Wow

This is starting to happen in other areas around the Country too.

We could have 25% of America homeless within the next two years.

Awesome job you've done Bush and Republicans, awesome. :thumbsup:

Yup, of course, dave has to chime in with his fearmongering and hate. Wow, whoda thunk that was going to happen?

Seriously Dave, think for a second. Do you think that they are going to be homeless? Or will they have to get smaller houses or apartments? Should they have bought in the first place?

Were they really that bright in buying houses that were worth half as much as they paid for them?

Of course, your fearmongering and hating is going to externalize all blame, because people like you look elsewhere for your boogeymen.

If it is Bush's fault for the boom/bust of housing, then it was Clinton's fault for Boom/Bust of the .bombs. It was Bush Sr.'s fault for the Boom/Bust of 91. It was Reagan's fault for the boom/bust of 89. It was Hoover's fault in 29.

Think again sparky. No president or party can control what the market does. That is plain psychology. However, you are more than free to go around spreading your FUDD.

However, who is more at fault then? Are you doing anybody any good by being irrational? Are you really any different from the people you despise? Aren't you just the same coin, but a different side?