Originally Posted by Neeek

 

Originally Posted by cmval

Its not a small fraction. The size of the mortgage bailout is over half the size of the bailout they just passed.

Obama is asking for 75B for the "mortgage bailout". the total stimuli/bailouts is in the trillions. am I missing something?

did you watch the video? another 400 billion to freddie and fannie for a total of 475b and that is over half the amount of the bill just passed...not the total bailout..just this last stimulus...whats not to get?

 

Originally Posted by emcee21

 

Originally Posted by Passiveplay

Does blaming people help anything?

Only if it translates into people stopping asking their government to intervene in the economy on their behalf, and not accepting it when it's done on other's behalf. If we want to improve our situation, we should do the same things we should have done before the shit hit the fan. Cut spending, cut taxes, return to sound money, etc. etc. But I can't promise any of that would shield us from the current reality (at least not right away).

It is not at all about blame. It is all about understanding what happened so that it can be fixed and not repeated. Unfortunately, the powers that be fail to recognize the root cause as government regulation and therefore see the only resolution as more government regulation.

assistance for what? I mean, what kind of assistance? you have a mortgage and you are paying it. what's to assist?

ps. I wasn't trying to be a doosh to you and ciztaro ftr. I'd be pissed too. In fact, I am pissed. And I'm even more pissed that the same people that started this trainreck think they are the ones to fix it.

I thought this was coming out of the oil money we won in the war.

Here's my only question: why isn't the housing market something we'd want to self-regulate? I mean, I'm in a very favorable economic situation in relation to most of my peers (who are the target first-time home buyer demographic), as is my girlfriend. If we were a couple years older, and already had a down payment saved, even with credit available, it would be almost impossible to buy a housewithout getting in WAAAAAAY over our heads.

If the previous standard for mortgages were 30 year fixed, 20% down, and most people can't afford that, isn't that a problem? Maybe it's a problem with the standard, mabye the problem is that the prices are artificially high. What I know is that home ownership was always presented to me as the bulwark of the middle class. Owning property is what separates the middle class and successful from the lower classes and unsuccessful. When my generation is ready, en masse, to enter the middle class ranks of home ownership, but the prices are such that only the richest can afford it, how will we react?

I'm upset over how the situation affects me personally, but I am more upset about how it will affect all of us.

 

Originally Posted by emcee21

 

Originally Posted by Lenny

Unfortunately our economy is so fuxored right now that no one can get a mortgage even if they are eminently credit worthy. People with cash don't want to buy distressed properties because they can't flip them (see above).

This is empirically untrue. I'm pre-approved for two mortgages at the moment, and my credit is good but nothing stellar.

QFT.

The 65 hours or so a week I'm putting in at the office is showing me something completely different than whatever world Lenny is living in.

 

Originally Posted by BigJohn804

 

Originally Posted by Magnet Steve

If the previous standard for mortgages were 30 year fixed, 20% down, and most people can't afford that, isn't that a problem?

where are you drawing that information from? because the principle of your post is largely correct otherwise. But if you have the financial wherewithal to save up the 20%, then affording the payment shouldn't be that much of an obstacle.

Anecdotes, to be honest. Seems like everyone I know who is older (50+) tells me the same thing for the old standard. Maybe I'm just practicing bias in what I hear. I screwed up my point. What I was trying to say was that, at what point does saving 20% become unfeasible, because the prices are so high? 20% of 800,000 is out of almost anyone's reach when they are starting a family.

 

Originally Posted by Magnet Steve

 

Originally Posted by BigJohn804

 

Originally Posted by Magnet Steve

If the previous standard for mortgages were 30 year fixed, 20% down, and most people can't afford that, isn't that a problem?

where are you drawing that information from? because the principle of your post is largely correct otherwise. But if you have the financial wherewithal to save up the 20%, then affording the payment shouldn't be that much of an obstacle.

Anecdotes, to be honest. Seems like everyone I know who is older (50+) tells me the same thing for the old standard. Maybe I'm just practicing bias in what I hear. I screwed up my point. What I was trying to say was that, at what point does saving 20% become unfeasible, because the prices are so high? 20% of 800,000 is out of almost anyone's reach when they are starting a family.

There's half hte problem right there. Everyone thinks they have to start out with the biggest and the best, instead of working their way up.

YOu don't go buy a half million + house for your first home. And before you say "but where I live...." forget it. There are plenty of homes for less than that.

Our parents didn't start out living in mansions. Our grandparents didn't. If you ask anyone you know, they started small, fixed it up, made a bit of profit, and moved up.

Get over the "I have to have everything my parents have" mentality. YOu DO NOT need to keep up with the Jones. What you do need is to take care of your own family and your own finances. And if you are living such that you can't save up you're living above your means and need to scale back. Sell the Beemer, but a Chevrolet. Don't buy the 52" flat panel tv, buy a 32" console.

Get the point??

I dont want to pay a CEO bonuses!

I dont want to pay for schools, roads, infrastructure in a foriegn country (Iraq)!

I dont want to pay for funerals, medical, and disability for our soldiers to rule Iraq.
(I'm all for going in for a week and taking out leadership with air superiority)

But i will help pay for my fellow american's mortgage!

 

Originally Posted by traction

 

Originally Posted by amymarie1967

 

Originally Posted by Magnet Steve

 

Originally Posted by BigJohn804

 

Originally Posted by Magnet Steve

If the previous standard for mortgages were 30 year fixed, 20% down, and most people can't afford that, isn't that a problem?

where are you drawing that information from? because the principle of your post is largely correct otherwise. But if you have the financial wherewithal to save up the 20%, then affording the payment shouldn't be that much of an obstacle.

Anecdotes, to be honest. Seems like everyone I know who is older (50+) tells me the same thing for the old standard. Maybe I'm just practicing bias in what I hear. I screwed up my point. What I was trying to say was that, at what point does saving 20% become unfeasible, because the prices are so high? 20% of 800,000 is out of almost anyone's reach when they are starting a family.

There's half hte problem right there. Everyone thinks they have to start out with the biggest and the best, instead of working their way up.

YOu don't go buy a half million + house for your first home. And before you say "but where I live...." forget it. There are plenty of homes for less than that.

Our parents didn't start out living in mansions. Our grandparents didn't. If you ask anyone you know, they started small, fixed it up, made a bit of profit, and moved up.

Get over the "I have to have everything my parents have" mentality. YOu DO NOT need to keep up with the Jones. What you do need is to take care of your own family and your own finances. And if you are living such that you can't save up you're living above your means and need to scale back. Sell the Beemer, but a Chevrolet. Don't buy the 52" flat panel tv, buy a 32" console.

Get the point??

^^^^^^ She's right about this. Since when does someone who wants buy their first home mean they have the entitled right to come in at a level that normally took 20 years of working to obtain? I'm sick of seeing 20 somethings say they need a nice big house with granite counters, hardwood floors, a big yard, in a great location. Do they not realize their parents probably saved for a generation to get to this level? It does not and should not mean that if after graduating college you deserve the same luxury. If you can afford it great. Otherwise you start out renting and save your 20% for a more modest home or townhouse and if you're lucky when your 40 you can upgrade.
We've raised a generation of selfish individuals who need to break their sense of entitlement thoughts. I'm hoping this recession will be an eye opening experience.

It's not so much the 800k house, the 50k car, and the $5000 tv, its that people want all of them at once. Forget buying the bmw while you live at home, pay it off while living rent free, they buy the house, I can't live in this neighbourhhood and drive a 1992 honda civic, I need the same car as everyone else on my block, and be watching the game sitting on the same couch, same tv, eating the same food others have worked 20 years to be able to afford.

if saving 20% isn't feasible, hou could you afford the house in the first place? I'm in the same boat in the san francisco area btw. If you are saying you upset that the gov mandated that freddie and fannie give out loans to people who by definition couldn't afford them and were far more likely to not be able to pay them, which helped fuel the housing price bubble, then I agree 100%. I just don't see how more government intervention can help. they need to do less imo