PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Homeownership Hits Decade Low



Sev
05-01-2012, 08:30 AM
Dont worry though.

The recovery is coming this summer.

Obama says it so.

Hope & Change!!!!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154124/U.S.-Homeownership-Hits-Decade-Low.aspx


PRINCETON, NJ - The 62% of Americans who say they own their own home marks a new low since Gallup began tracking self-reported homeownership in 2001.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/7jpopr2ip0sx_cvhbsxd6a.gif

The current level of homeownership marks a decline from 68% in 2011. For most of the prior decade, roughly seven in 10 Americans reported owning their own home. While the recession and financial crisis took place in 2008-2009, homeownership rates didn't begin to reflect the bursting of the housing bubble until 2010, when 65% of Americans reported owning their own home -- the lowest level recorded before this year.

Record-Low 53% of Americans Say Their Home's Value Has Increased

Fifty-three percent of Americans believe their house is worth more today than when they bought it, down significantly from 80% in 2008 and 92% in 2006. It confirms that many Americans are underwater in terms of the value of the home they currently own.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/gfoez0gbhecbpfbeisuiuq.gif

Houses that were purchased many years ago, well before the collapse of the real estate market, are more likely to be worth more today than when they were bought. Accordingly, older Americans are less likely to say their home's value has not appreciated since they bought it -- 31% of Americans aged 50 and older say this. In contrast, 62% of Americans aged 30 to 49, many of whom likely bought homes closer to the collapse, say their home is not worth more.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 10:20 AM
<span style="color: #CC0000">Yep, Bush really put us into a ditch with his Laissez Faire, spending and borrowing, warring and cutting taxes, Trickle Down, that never did, and no oversight of any of his responsibilities.

Gee, wonder why the man never took a single warning serious enough to do anything at all to prevent it? NEVER!

We knew this was coming for years....and, IIRC, I wrote here long ago, and well before Bush's second election fraud, that it would take this country likely a decade, to overturn and recover from the extraordinary FUBAR that Bush would leave in his wake.

Took eight years for him to bury us. Did you think such unprecedented, wide spread economic damage, would be overturned overnight, while we were trying to dig our way out of his TWO unfinished, inpaid for wars, and collapsed economy?

How VERY unrealistic of you.


G.</span>

Sev
05-01-2012, 10:35 AM
As I recall Bush was ignored by the likes of Frank and Co on the matter of the housing bubble.

Keep blaming Bush.

However Obama is closing in on year 4 and all we are is another day older and deeper in debt.

The man is going to be seen as an epic failure.

Jimmy Carter is going to go to his grave a happy man.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 12:17 PM
Bush ignored by Frank? Where do you get this BS from?

Bush was out there telling us that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, right up to the crash.

Additionally, Greenspan, a Republican, was responsible for blocking the early warnings from a Democratic woman, and removing her power. She was right about everything, Brooksley Born, and she was destroyed by a Laissez Faire Republican fascist, Alan Greenspan, a Friedman and Ayn Rand Devotee.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

LOL, keep dreaming friend. It's all you righties have left.

G.

Sev
05-01-2012, 12:20 PM
We covered this on the site a while back. You just choose to ignore it.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 12:32 PM
LOL, you mean tried to cover it up, don't you?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

sack316
05-01-2012, 12:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush ignored by Frank? Where do you get this BS from?

Bush was out there telling us that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, right up to the crash.

Additionally, Greenspan, a Republican, was responsible for blocking the early warnings from a Democratic woman, and removing her power. She was right about everything, Brooksley Born, and she was destroyed by a Laissez Faire Republican fascist, Alan Greenspan, a Friedman and Ayn Rand Devotee.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

LOL, keep dreaming friend. It's all you righties have left.

G. </div></div>

That's a very good point Gayle. And Mrs. Born is a very intuitive and smart woman whom I have a lot of respect for.

And in one portion of the frontline interview she also says (when speaking of 2008):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, that's true. We had had <u>15 years of deregulation</u> up until then, really, and there was a great belief in the ability of the market to police itself without government intervention. Certainly that had shown itself in a lot of deregulatory actions that had been taken previously.
</div></div>

15 years prior to 2008. 1993? But wait a minute... Bush wasn't running things then.

As part of what I have maintained the last few years... yes Bush screwed up A LOT and big time. No doubt about it!

But even Mrs. Born points to the Clinton Era timeframe deregulations being causal as well.

Clinton got the boom part of it and looked great. Even Bush got some fallover boom during his term. But then the bubble burst and we ONLY look at the Bush admin as being the cause of the problem. And certainly his admin was a big part of it. But as I have always said, not the ONLY part of it.

In terms of your post, though... fully agree. Mrs Born got a raw deal for being one of the very few people with enough vision to see where trouble could be brewing. Unfortunately nobody else thought the gravy train would be stopped, and she got shafted for rocking the boat. Very unfortunate.

Sack

Soflasnapper
05-01-2012, 12:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I recall Bush was ignored by the likes of Frank and Co on the matter of the housing bubble.

Keep blaming Bush.

However Obama is closing in on year 4 and all we are is another day older and deeper in debt.

The man is going to be seen as an epic failure.

Jimmy Carter is going to go to his grave a happy man. </div></div>

Now you're just clowning.

Barney Frank was in the minority of the House for the 6 years of Bush in which the housing bubble was blown up. He had also been in the minority for the last 6 years of the Clinton administration.

It doesn't matter what Barney Frank did or said. A minority member of the House has no power, and no persuasion ability over a House majority and a president and a Senate of a different party.

Where do you people get your so-called reasoning abilities from? Nether regions where you sit, apparently. This makes no sense, and has never made any sense, and you all just simply regurgitate it like it's wonderful vanilla ice cream burps or something.

As for Bush, his role in this was to call for and get his majority of Congress to pass into law a zero down payment law, even though everyone warned at the time it would create significant losses to the system. That, and having his Comptroller of the Currency stop 50 states from prosecuting predatory lending practicing banks and mortgage companies.

So you've gotten this all backwards. Surprising! I blame the propaganda, as clearly, some of you are smarter than you are showing with repeating such howlers of error.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 12:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush ignored by Frank? Where do you get this BS from?

Bush was out there telling us that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, right up to the crash.

Additionally, Greenspan, a Republican, was responsible for blocking the early warnings from a Democratic woman, and removing her power. She was right about everything, Brooksley Born, and she was destroyed by a Laissez Faire Republican fascist, Alan Greenspan, a Friedman and Ayn Rand Devotee.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

LOL, keep dreaming friend. It's all you righties have left.

G. </div></div>

That's a very good point Gayle. And Mrs. Born is a very intuitive and smart woman whom I have a lot of respect for.

And in one portion of the frontline interview she also says (when speaking of 2008):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, that's true. We had had <u>15 years of deregulation</u> up until then, really, and there was a great belief in the ability of the market to police itself without government intervention. Certainly that had shown itself in a lot of deregulatory actions that had been taken previously.
</div></div>

15 years prior to 2008. 1993? But wait a minute... Bush wasn't running things then.

As part of what I have maintained the last few years... yes Bush screwed up A LOT and big time. No doubt about it!

But even Mrs. Born points to the Clinton Era timeframe deregulations being causal as well.

Clinton got the boom part of it and looked great. Even Bush got some fallover boom during his term. But then the bubble burst and we ONLY look at the Bush admin as being the cause of the problem. And certainly his admin was a big part of it. But as I have always said, not the ONLY part of it.

In terms of your post, though... fully agree. Mrs Born got a raw deal for being one of the very few people with enough vision to see where trouble could be brewing. Unfortunately nobody else thought the gravy train would be stopped, and she got shafted for rocking the boat. Very unfortunate.

Sack </div></div>

No disagreement there. Clinton allowed Greenspan to lead him around by the nose, far too much! That's one of the reasons we ended up with NAFTA, another Clinton mistake, as far as I'm concerned.

AND if Clinton had listened to Hillary, who wanted him to put Brooksley Born in as his Attorney General, things would have been completely different.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to the NY Times article &lt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3DE163DF932A25751C0A9659582 60&gt; (1993), his first choice was Zoe Baird but, of course, Janet Reno got the job. There are three other women mentioned in that article who were also in the running.



The expected choice was Brooksley Born. At the time there was a hidden, unregulated financial tool called "Over the Counter Derivatives" that the investment houses were using as a form of margin on the subprime market. This was being used in much the same way as stock speculators were prior to the Great Depression. Ms. Born took on Allan Greenspan, chairman of the Fed, and his team of analysts who worked to disgrace her and squash her efforts to regulate these dangerous financial products. Oddly enough, Greenspan's team was bipartisan, with Greenspan being from the far right and his minion, Tim Geithner being from the extreme left. In 1999 Ms. Born resigned the minor post that Bill Clinton gave her as a consolation prize after congressional hearings where her statements fell on deaf ears. In the 2000's these derivatives did eventually destroy the real estate market, and in 2008 Allan Greenspan came out of retirement to appear before Congress where he apologized and admitted that Ms. Born was right and he was completely wrong. As a sidenote, these derivatives remain unregulated, even in the wake of the Wall Street bailout which would have been an opportune time to impose these regulations.
</div></div>

Now here's one for you, which party has consistantly worked hard as a block, to block those regulations on Unregulated Derivatives?

Clinton compromised far too much with the Republican Majority, as well, IMO.

BTW, did you ever watch The Shock Doctrine: ?

I'd love too hear your take on it.

G.

Soflasnapper
05-01-2012, 12:52 PM
And in one portion of the frontline interview she also says (when speaking of 2008):

Quote:
Well, that's true. We had had 15 years of deregulation up until then, really, and there was a great belief in the ability of the market to police itself without government intervention. Certainly that had shown itself in a lot of deregulatory actions that had been taken previously.


15 years prior to 2008. 1993? But wait a minute... Bush wasn't running things then.

As part of what I have maintained the last few years... yes Bush screwed up A LOT and big time. No doubt about it!

But even Mrs. Born points to the Clinton Era timeframe deregulations being causal as well.

-----------------

Carter started the deregulation movement for real, with transportation and energy deregulations.

Clinton's deregulation was more minor, as to economic effects, and included mass communications' rules against too much concentration of ownership being voided, and very close to the end of his terms, the repeal of Glass-Steagall in his financial modernization law.

Clinton did not benefit from a housing boom, but a stock market bubble, particularly in the high tech NASDAQ and the lacking-in-business-model internet startup companies. About the only thing he did that related to that was to drop the capital gains tax rate, creating the opportunity for so much speculation, but that was the doing of the GOP Congress, not his own initiative.

I'd say this woman was speaking loosely, and should not be held to any spoken time frame she may have mentioned.

She may have meant the time when the newly created and strongly growing derivatives markets came under review for possible regulation, and were not, under the influence of Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan. That was a mistake, and those should have been regulated at that time, I agree. However, that was not DEregulation, because they had never BEEN REGULATED before.

Sev
05-01-2012, 01:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, you mean tried to cover it up, don't you?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Well look who's grown a sense of humor.

Wonders never cease.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 01:21 PM
LOL, I don't think so Sev.

He has succeeded in too many things which a long list of presidents, from both parties, aimed to do, and couldn't achieve.

Additionally, President Obama didn't come up with a Da Da handing him the world on a string, and like Bill Clinton, people do admire self-made men, who pulled themselves up by doing the right things, and working hard, far moreso than when appraising the achievements of the sons of millionaires and billionaires.

Additionally, President Obama has kept his overall policies and beliefs in place, IMO. It isn't as though he campaigned projecting one view, and then dropped it, and threw one curve ball after another. He said he was against the war in Iraq, believed the real war was in AFghanistan, made numerous statements about getting bin laden, addressing our growing health care costs, and unsustaiinable inusurance costs, and very impropper Health Insurance policies of dropping sick people right when they need coverage the most, etc., etc.,....all of these things have remained as his top priorities, which is precisely why he was the president who got bin Laden.

Think about Bush's Compassionate Conservatism, and, No Nation Building....far from where he took us.

Just my opinion.

G.

Gayle in MD
05-01-2012, 02:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And in one portion of the frontline interview she also says (when speaking of 2008):

Quote:
Well, that's true. We had had 15 years of deregulation up until then, really, and there was a great belief in the ability of the market to police itself without government intervention. Certainly that had shown itself in a lot of deregulatory actions that had been taken previously.


15 years prior to 2008. 1993? But wait a minute... Bush wasn't running things then.

As part of what I have maintained the last few years... yes Bush screwed up A LOT and big time. No doubt about it!

But even Mrs. Born points to the Clinton Era timeframe deregulations being causal as well.

-----------------

Carter started the deregulation movement for real, with transportation and energy deregulations.

Clinton's deregulation was more minor, as to economic effects, and included mass communications' rules against too much concentration of ownership being voided, and very close to the end of his terms, the repeal of Glass-Steagall in his financial modernization law.

Clinton did not benefit from a housing boom, but a stock market bubble, particularly in the high tech NASDAQ and the lacking-in-business-model internet startup companies. About the only thing he did that related to that was to drop the capital gains tax rate, creating the opportunity for so much speculation, but that was the doing of the GOP Congress, not his own initiative.

I'd say this woman was speaking loosely, and should not be held to any spoken time frame she may have mentioned.

She may have meant the time when the newly created and strongly growing derivatives markets came under review for possible regulation, and were not, under the influence of Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan. That was a mistake, and those should have been regulated at that time, I agree. However, that was not DEregulation, because they had never BEEN REGULATED before. </div></div>

You know, everything that I have studied about the housing crash, most of the experts agreed that the run up was during the years from 2003, through 2006, and that after 2006, it was a done deal.

Additionally, from my reading, I continued to run up on statistics which pointed to high health costs, and very high health insurance costs, and HC insurance companies, dropping the sick from their policies, as having played a huge rold in the initial forclosures.

Also, the private predatory lending went through the roof, after Fannie May got out of sub-prime, after an accounting scandal, in 2003.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that neither Fannie, nor Freddie, actually lend money. They only insure mortgages.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I do think I have read this interpretation from respected economists, from both sides of the isle.

Fannie May, and Freddie Mac, had nothing to do with the REal Estate Crash, as far as I know.



G.

cushioncrawler
05-01-2012, 04:58 PM
Iz it good to own a home.
Whats wrong with not owning a home.
mac.

Soflasnapper
05-01-2012, 06:21 PM
A lot of people don't seem to understand that neither Fannie, nor Freddie, actually lend money. They only insure mortgages.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I do think I have read this interpretation from respected economists, from both sides of the isle.

Fannie May, and Freddie Mac, had nothing to do with the REal Estate Crash, as far as I know.

They buy qualifying (known as conforming) mortgages from the originators, if they meet set criteria. By performing that function, they create the ability to securitize mortgage instruments, as well as freeing up the originator's ability to lend out that same money again (having sold off their interest in the first loan, to those third parties).

It's not entirely true that they had nothing to do with the sub-prime blow up. They had a little something to do with it, at least. Their exculpatory facts are that they didn't start this, they didn't make it popular, they were never the largest or plurality part of that market, and actually, their involvement in that market was urged upon them, to further their own rates of return or performance. Still, to the (minority) degree they participated in buying of those sub-prime mortgages, they helped enable that part of the market, going along for (the smaller part of) the ride.

Qtec
05-02-2012, 01:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, the private predatory lending went through the roof, after Fannie May got out of sub-prime, after an accounting scandal, in 2003. </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that <u>it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.</u></span>

The writer is governor of New York. </div></div>

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html)


This why Spitzer had to go.
He was showing that the Bush admin were active participants in the scam and therefore could not later claim ignorance or incompetence when it all blew up. Which of course they did.

Q

Gayle in MD
05-02-2012, 03:19 AM
Thank you Q. I do remember that now that you have refreshed my memory.

As usual, Bush using Government against the best interests of the masses, in order to aid the crooked, wealthy, greedy exploiters among us.

G.

Gayle in MD
05-02-2012, 03:21 AM
Another excellent explanation. Thank you.

G.

sack316
05-02-2012, 07:40 AM
Sofla, some very good points there.

But I do also seem some double standards (not necessarily you) when it came to the Clinton era.

In one of Clinton/Gore's own documents "Record of Progress" they tout "Modernizing for the New Economy through Technology and Consensus <u>Deregulation</u>".

The double standard I find in many discussions is that when it comes to the prosperity that resulted from some of those initiatives during the era, it was because Clinton did such a good job. When the discussion turns to bubbles bursting and/or later fallout from some of the same initiatives, it then becomes the Republican's fault and Clinton merely signed a paper without vetoing it.

Sack

Gayle in MD
05-02-2012, 08:13 AM
Maybe friend, that is because it didn't happen on Bill Clinton's watch, it happened on Bush's watch, and if you read Q.'s excellent post, there is plenty of explanation, IMO, as to why, IMO, Bush will be the president who gets the lion's share of blame, for the his policies which fed the Real Estate Bubble, even after he had been warned about the existing threat.

Bill Clinton, OTOH, had been out of office for years, so we don't know what his decisions may have been, as far as heeding the warnings, and how quickly he would have changed things to prevent the bubble and the eventual crash.

There are many books, written by people involved who spoke out about how hard they tried to warn Bush about the growing economic threat, interviews and books, etc., but he refused to end his own policies, which were in place and which ushered in the crash.

But, to be fair, both presidents were, IMO, very respectful of Greenspans input, which, as we all know now, was completely wrong, he was a devote of "Ayn Rand" and very stuck on deregulatory, Laissez Faire beliefs, and his presumption that these Wall St. Giants wouldn't be dumb enough or greedy enough to cut their own throats, as he himself has admitted, was way off base.

Obviously, he was wrong about that, too.

G.

LWW
05-02-2012, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They buy qualifying (known as conforming) mortgages from the originators, if they meet set criteria. By performing that function, they create the ability to securitize mortgage instruments, as well as freeing up the originator's ability to lend out that same money again (having sold off their interest in the first loan, to those third parties).

It's not entirely true that they had nothing to do with the sub-prime blow up. They had a little something to do with it, at least. Their exculpatory facts are that they didn't start this, they didn't make it popular, they were never the largest or plurality part of that market, and actually, their involvement in that market was urged upon them, to further their own rates of return or performance. Still, to the (minority) degree they participated in buying of those sub-prime mortgages, they helped enable that part of the market, going along for (the smaller part of) the ride.

</div></div>

You are correct, other than they had everything to do with the meltdown.

By setting under which they will buy loans which conform with those rules, they are the de facto lender.

Prior to the Raines/Gorelich/Johnson regimes the standards were roughly that a borrower have:

- A mortgage payment of no more than 28% of monthly gross income.

- Total revolving and installment debt of no more than 36% of monthly gross income.

- No late mortgage or rent payments for the prior 2 years.

- No late payments of any type for the past year.

- Acceptable letters of explanation for any past delinquency.

- A credit score of 640 or higher.

- A minimum of 5% equity, and PMI if equity was less than 20%.

- Liquid assets after closing equal to 2 mths pmts.

- Verification that the down payment was neither borrowed nor gifted within the last 90 days.

- Two years income verification.

That business model performed brilliantly for decades.

Lowered standards led to loans made at 100% of appraised value ... often with a 25% second, stated income, stated assets, and credit scores below 500.

Sev
05-02-2012, 06:42 PM
So once again the government is the problem. Not the solution.

Soflasnapper
05-07-2012, 05:51 PM
Those GSEs did not take loans of the sort you mention.

They refused those types of loans. Look it up.

Gayle in MD
05-10-2012, 09:37 AM
Also, forgot to mention, it was Bush who pushed for the Ownership Society, Greenspan obliging him with irrationally low interest rates, which flamed the housing boom early on, annd also, the Bush Administration, and his advisors surely knew what was coming whenn Greenspan retired, as that was in 05, I believe, and he aired his concerns way back then, after which, Bush blocked State efforts to tighten up on regulations which would have at the least, limited predatory lending, and low doc and no doc mortgages.

No Down payment, was a direct result of Bush's Ownership Society.

G.

LWW
05-12-2012, 05:58 AM
Komrades, this is glorious news!

Dear leader has again advanced our forces in the war on prosperity!