GDP increases 3.5%

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3164309
Bush is the Devil - left wingers
Obama is the Messiah - Riech wingers
Perhaps they are both, correct


Oh, make no doubt about the fact the right thinks Obama is the devil. We just get sick and tired of the media making him out to be the savior.
 

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3164280
The reason capitalism worked, is that it tried to correct the problem. Fanny and freddy wouldn't exist today had it not been for outside moneys in the form of subsidies coming into rescue it. Had capitalism been allowed to run its course. Those government created corporations would be gone. And leaving a vacuum for new companies to begin underwriting loans. And hopefully they'd properly value the risk they take on when they loan money...
Capitalism isn't going to be smooth sailing. It doesn't claim to be. It will correct problems. Not everyone is business savvy. Some times you'll lose the wainwright. When Henry Ford comes to town. You will have a Forrest fire. The difference it, the corrections will be MUCH smaller, than if you artificially let government prop up business. Because eventually like in this case, their is just not enough money to keep on dumping into it..
It isn't growth, it is sustainability that is the desired goal.
So you have addressed the issue of unqualified home buyers, but that is not the whole story of the housing bubble, and why I disagree that the whole thing is the governments fault. I agree that people that shouldn't have been able to buy houses were allowed to because of what the gov't did. however, there was unreal "increases" in property valuation all over the country (mostly on the coasts, specifically but not inclusively california, florida, and nevada). These were not the home buyers you are speaking of. These are upper-middle class expensive housing. These people would have gotten financing regardless of what the government did. And every year there was major appreciation (hence a bubble), and since the people were now "wealthier" they could borrow more and more, and then pop....there goes the equity and you are buried in debt, completely insolvent. People start losing their homes, which causes the neighbors valuations to go down, and on down the line.
This is why I say the government did not create the bubble but aided it. The biggest loss in equity did not come from homes that would have been under the "equal housing laws", but large $600,000-900,000 being priced incorrectly due to an "every increasing market value". Coincidentally, a similar sized home cost a third of the price in the mid-west, which you could argue is priced more correctly....
 

fishtaco

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3164306
All we heard out of you leftists was Bush Bad, Bush Bad, Bush Bad, now you whine because the other side has the same opinion of Obama? Hopefully the few sensible Dems left will put the death hold on the socialist health care provision and maybe, just maybe we can get real solution like tort reform and buying across state lines once the Republicans take congress back in 2010.
Hey now, I can't remember too many right-wingers having too much to say when the housing boom was going and everyone was making money. I don't think it took a left-wing financial genius to fiqure out that people making the same money as me, only with a more expensive home, two new SUV's in garage, 4 credit cards maxed out and a 2nd

[hr]
was a recipe for disaster that could and did happen. Bush should have put the brakes on that crap instead of saying "look at me, the economy is doing great". It was all a lie and a normal good old fashioned slow and steady approach would have been better.
Fishtaco (Did maintenance on all 5 of my tanks this afternoon)
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3164348
Hey now, I can't remember too many right-wingers having too much to say when the housing boom was going and everyone was making money. I don't think it took a left-wing financial genius to fiqure out that people making the same money as me, only with a more expensive home, two new SUV's in garage, 4 credit cards maxed out and a 2nd

[hr]
was a recipe for disaster that could and did happen. Bush should have put the brakes on that crap instead of saying "look at me, the economy is doing great". It was all a lie and a normal good old fashioned slow and steady approach would have been better.
Fishtaco (Did maintenance on all 5 of my tanks this afternoon)

Oh but Bush did sound the warning on Freddie and Fanny back in 2005 and two of the biggest opponents of increased oversight now happen to be the chairmen of the house and senate banking committees.

I don't know about other conservatives but I've been saying these interest only home loans were crazy for years. The notion you could buy it and make enough equity in 5 years to sell it again or refinance it using the equity gain as a down was crazy. My sisters best friend of the last 40 years or so moved the Vegas back in 05 or so with the understanding she would only be there 3 or 4 years and they bought a house. I tried to talk them out of buying. I didn't come up with the opinion the market was in a bubble, there were plenty of people calling it. From the sound of it they are going to lose about 100 grand when they sell to move this spring.
 

aquaknight

Active Member
I don't wanna say the worst is over, but there seems to be at least some flickers of hope things are getting better %%
Universals Studios in Orlando set a record for attendance, 40,000 people were there last Saturday night. That's of any year, including those 'bubble' years... Some lines for the haunted houses were over 3 hours.
People willing to spend $50 a pop to get scared has to count for something
 

mantisman51

Active Member
The reason I think this is unsustainable growth is unemployment. Companies have slashed their inventories to the lowest levels in history, so there had to be a bottom to productivity at which the bare necessities would start to be produced again-which is why GDP grew. But the economists bragging that the 91 and 00 recessions had jobless recoveries and the jobs caught up later are ignoring one big factor-the jobless rate then was 5-5.5%. Also, the housing market is still over-priced relative to income. There is a mini-bubble in housing going on right now by speculators under the false impression that a recovery is imminent, so they are buying up housing at what they consider a bargain. The average household income in the US is $50k. Historically, that household cannot afford more than a $125k house. While some areas are that low or a little lower average, nationally it is around $159k. The bottom of the cliff has not stopped the fall yet-we haven't reached it. The govt bailouts have masked the horrible market fundamentals and stupid investors are desperate to make up losses. All that equals, Bubble 2.0 ahead shortly.
 

reefraff

Active Member
I think it could be sustainable, probably not at this clip but very slight growth in the short term. I just worry what is going to happen when our chickens come home to roost. As bad as Bushes spending was Obamas has been even worse. At some point cash for clunkers and the homebuyers welfare will have to be paid for, lame healthcare reform too. If you pay taxes now they are going up . I strongly suspect those increases will be delayed until after 2012 for political reasons which will make it even worse.
 
V

vinnyraptor

Guest
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3164306
All we heard out of you leftists was Bush Bad, Bush Bad, Bush Bad, now you whine because the other side has the same opinion of Obama? Hopefully the few sensible Dems left will put the death hold on the socialist health care provision and maybe, just maybe we can get real solution like tort reform and buying across state lines once the Republicans take congress back in 2010.
C'mon Reef we said Bush was bad because he was BAD! Iraq cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. and for what? no WMD's were EVER found Reef. BTW they just raised my health insurance again 32 bucks a month. a public option will force insurance companies to lower there costs and its not Socialism! lol it's an OPTION!!! and wont be forced on anyone.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3164575
C'mon Reef we said Bush was bad because he was BAD! Iraq cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. and for what? no WMD's were EVER found Reef. BTW they just raised my health insurance again 32 bucks a month. a public option will force insurance companies to lower there costs and its not Socialism! lol it's an OPTION!!! and wont be forced on anyone.
At the time we invaded we along with the rest of the world thought Iraq had the WMD's. That cow long left the barn and doesn't matter. If you cut your arm and are bleeding heavily do you cut the other arm to decrease the bleeding on the first cut? Obama has taken the worst of Bush and gone beyond it spending us into oblivion.
And there is no public option. Only a government ran program, like The USPS, Freddie, Fanny, Amtrack etc. that will end up costing us more for crappy coverage. It also isn't an option if companies are allowed to just pay a small fine and drop employee coverage.
And here is another of Obama's lies. He says no middle class tax increases yet the bill he is gushing over cuts in half the amount of "Flex Plan" spending we the people get to use. That program is heavily used by those in the middle class who don't have enough write offs to go long form. Can't wait to hear how that isn't a tax increase.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3164331
So you have addressed the issue of unqualified home buyers, but that is not the whole story of the housing bubble, and why I disagree that the whole thing is the governments fault. I agree that people that shouldn't have been able to buy houses were allowed to because of what the gov't did. however, there was unreal "increases" in property valuation all over the country (mostly on the coasts, specifically but not inclusively california, florida, and nevada). These were not the home buyers you are speaking of. These are upper-middle class expensive housing. These people would have gotten financing regardless of what the government did. And every year there was major appreciation (hence a bubble), and since the people were now "wealthier" they could borrow more and more, and then pop....there goes the equity and you are buried in debt, completely insolvent. People start losing their homes, which causes the neighbors valuations to go down, and on down the line.
This is why I say the government did not create the bubble but aided it. The biggest loss in equity did not come from homes that would have been under the "equal housing laws", but large $600,000-900,000 being priced incorrectly due to an "every increasing market value". Coincidentally, a similar sized home cost a third of the price in the mid-west, which you could argue is priced more correctly....
You're using some logic. That makes sense if you're not talking credit markets. You can make a crapload of money and still have bad credit. You could take my dad for instance. He had horrible credit, but was still able to borrow money for a 200k house. Just because you're able to get a mort-gage for a 500k dollar house, doesn't mean you weren't a high risk case.
Basically you're making a connection that should be there, but is not. When we say bad credit, you would think that we'd be talking lower priced houses. But the reality was there were sub-prime loans for a huge range in housing. For people that otherwise would have been priced out of the market.
I can't find it now, but I saw a graph that had inflation, then a second line for housing prices. And you want to know what is interesting. Housing prices were VERY closely followed inflation, until the government started underwriting mort-gages and subsidizing interest rates...
Heck, when I was looking for a house, they were trying to get me to borrow 200k for a house. And last years tax return we did for free online (so that gives you a ceiling.)
 

fishtaco

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3164567
I think it could be sustainable, probably not at this clip but very slight growth in the short term. I just worry what is going to happen when our chickens come home to roost. As bad as Bushes spending was Obamas has been even worse. At some point cash for clunkers and the homebuyers welfare will have to be paid for, lame healthcare reform too. If you pay taxes now they are going up . I strongly suspect those increases will be delayed until after 2012 for political reasons which will make it even worse.
Could you define home buyers welfare? Because from my point of view a lot of the housing bubble was caused by greedy contractors, house flippers, real estate agents, second

[hr]
and

[hr]
companies. I used a FHA program when I had my new construction done and it was actually not the easiest program to qualify for and I would have gotten a much worse deal from a traditional loan company, meaning I would be paying more a month and making the risk of forclosure much greater. I agree that we are paying for all the poor choices made by people, but I am not willing to lay the blame entirely on the poor, in fact I would only put a small part of the blame on these programs. The blame can be just as easily laid at the feet of greedy people who took advantage of the situation and operate without much morality.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3164691
Could you define home buyers welfare? Because from my point of view a lot of the housing bubble was caused by greedy contractors, house flippers, real estate agents, second

[hr]
and

[hr]
companies. I used a FHA program when I had my new construction done and it was actually not the easiest program to qualify for and I would have gotten a much worse deal from a traditional loan company, meaning I would be paying more a month and making the risk of forclosure much greater. I agree that we are paying for all the poor choices made by people, but I am not willing to lay the blame entirely on the poor, in fact I would only put a small part of the blame on these programs. The blame can be just as easily laid at the feet of greedy people who took advantage of the situation and operate without much morality.
Welfare is Government giving something to someone who did nothing to earn it. Pretty good definition of the credit and cash for clunkers too.
 
V

vinnyraptor

Guest
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3164628
At the time we invaded we along with the rest of the world thought Iraq had the WMD's. That cow long left the barn and doesn't matter. If you cut your arm and are bleeding heavily do you cut the other arm to decrease the bleeding on the first cut? Obama has taken the worst of Bush and gone beyond it spending us into oblivion.
And there is no public option. Only a government ran program, like The USPS, Freddie, Fanny, Amtrack etc. that will end up costing us more for crappy coverage. It also isn't an option if companies are allowed to just pay a small fine and drop employee coverage.
And here is another of Obama's lies. He says no middle class tax increases yet the bill he is gushing over cuts in half the amount of "Flex Plan" spending we the people get to use. That program is heavily used by those in the middle class who don't have enough write offs to go long form. Can't wait to hear how that isn't a tax increase.

when we invaded there was NO evidence that Iraq had WMD's. the UN inspectors found NOTHING! we went in on falsehood's and lies Reef. there is nothing Obama can do that would be worse then sending 160,000 troops to invade a country that did nothing to us. you saying the cow left the barn is understating that blunder by 1000%. it was the biggest mistake in the history of the country.
the insurance co.'s are out of control and a public option would put them in there place so to speak. why would companies drop you? they havent yet and there rates have increased every year. if anything there rates will go down do to competition or they can switch to the option if its cheaper. its not mandatory for co's to provide insurance so those that do will continue to do so. i dont see how a public option can raise insurance rates on co's that already provide. it doesnt make sense...
 

stdreb27

Active Member
I'd agree with you if I hated the united states, and was so inept that I thought the US government would run my life better, than I could...
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3164942
when we invaded there was NO evidence that Iraq had WMD's. the UN inspectors found NOTHING! we went in on falsehood's and lies Reef. there is nothing Obama can do that would be worse then sending 160,000 troops to invade a country that did nothing to us. you saying the cow left the barn is understating that blunder by 1000%. it was the biggest mistake in the history of the country.
the insurance co.'s are out of control and a public option would put them in there place so to speak. why would companies drop you? they havent yet and there rates have increased every year. if anything there rates will go down do to competition or they can switch to the option if its cheaper. its not mandatory for co's to provide insurance so those that do will continue to do so. i dont see how a public option can raise insurance rates on co's that already provide. it doesnt make sense...
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3164942
when we invaded there was NO evidence that Iraq had WMD's. the UN inspectors found NOTHING! we went in on falsehood's and lies Reef. there is nothing Obama can do that would be worse then sending 160,000 troops to invade a country that did nothing to us. you saying the cow left the barn is understating that blunder by 1000%. it was the biggest mistake in the history of the country.
the insurance co.'s are out of control and a public option would put them in there place so to speak. why would companies drop you? they havent yet and there rates have increased every year. if anything there rates will go down do to competition or they can switch to the option if its cheaper. its not mandatory for co's to provide insurance so those that do will continue to do so. i dont see how a public option can raise insurance rates on co's that already provide. it doesnt make sense...
Why, right up to the time of the war was the UN inspecting in Iraq if there was no evidence of WMD's? Hello, anyone home? Iraq had and used WMD's on Iran and even it's own Citizens. The REFUSED to allow the UN inspectors unrestricted access to verify they had eliminated the weapons there was no doubt in any sensible person or country's mind they had. But like I said, old argument that doesn't matter now.
How are insurance companies out of control. If you insure your car after it has been wrecked do you expect that company to repair it? If you get a ticket every week and a wreck every month or two isn't it reasonable that they would drop your coverage?
The health insurers actually can do neither of those things now, at least in the case of group policies. If you have a pre existing they can make you wait a year before covering that particular condition, that of course doesn't apply to a personal policy which is a problem AND easily corrected. The caps on the amount of coverage apply to what, less than 1% of the insured in this country? Big deal but again easily fixed.
And what your G O V E R N M E N T option will do is make it very attractive for companies to drop their health care and force their employees on to the government system. READ THE PROPOSED BILLS. They are talking a few hundred dollar fine per employee for larger companies that don't insure their employees. To not drop coverage would be insane.
So what does that do? It creates another government boondoggle that will cost way more than the private sector can do it for. Look at Amtrack and the Post Office. You really want the people running those handling your health care too?
You claim the Government getting into the insurance business will force rates down because of the competition. Instead of creating a new government bureaucracy which everyone knows is very expensive why not increase competition in the market by allowing people to buy across state lines? That would certainly help the states where one or two companys have the insurance business tied up.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
They can and do deny coverage and drop people. I have had both happen. The other trick they do is like my companies insurance plan, triple the deductible and copay for pre-existing conditions to price you out of the plan. But that is competition I guess. Since no one else will insure me, just bankrupt me out of insurance. You two are right, I should give up and go on disability.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3165030
They can and do deny coverage and drop people. I have had both happen. The other trick they do is like my companies insurance plan, triple the deductible and copay for pre-existing conditions to price you out of the plan. But that is competition I guess. Since no one else will insure me, just bankrupt me out of insurance. You two are right, I should give up and go on disability.
If they tripled your deductible and co pay I'd be talking to a lawyer but in any case those issues can be fixed without throwing out the whole dam system.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
MAntis, you have a legit problem, you aren't profitable to ensure. I wouldn't be against government "insuring" you. Similar to what they do on the gulf coast, for flood/storm surge insurance.
That would make some sense.
 

ironeagle2006

Active Member
Let us look at a few other Programs Obama wants to ram were the Sun does not Shine in America unless your the MSM and will think your getting a Breeze from him. Cap and Trade has a 3.6 TRILLION Dollar Price Tag on the Economy that is its DIRECT cost on Energy bills in this nation. That is how much energy will go up as a Nation PER YEAR. Which means your Food costs will go higher your light and heating bills will be higher. Healthcare the Dummycrats are saying 890 Billion the CBO is saying 1.7 TRILLION why they are not including the cuts in Medicare why because they know that you can not cut that.
Then today I heard what the TRUE GDP when up last Quarter .5 % 1.5% was CFC 1% was Inventory Reductions and .5% was due to the Homebuyers tax credits. So if you Obama supporters can call the Economy dropping 2000000 jobs SINCE THE STIMULUS WAS PASSED a success I want what your smoking. The True Unemployment Rate in this nation is over 17% yet your Leader still wants to drive EVERY COMPANY THAT MAKES ANY PRODUCT OR CREATES JOBS OUT OF THE UNITED STATES.
 

reefraff

Active Member
When you take from many to help a few it isn't going to have a lasting effect on the economy. The thing I find sad or funny is everyone talks about the bubble in the housing market, then we turn around and create a welfare program to increase demand for houses to prop up the prices
The only people falling prices hurt were flippers and those who took out ARM loans or interest only loans assuming they could build enough equity to qualify for a re financing deal before the loan reset. Sorry but not my problem. I read my loan documents, when I bought my first home and the loan people tried to talk me into a ARM I considered the consequences and passed on it. Now I get to pay for a lot of people's stupidity.
 
Top