68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 12:47 pm
@parados,
If I remember correctly, those 6% of homeowners considered "underwater" are two months behind on their mortgage. If we consider those still losing government jobs, those numbers are going to increase. Those who are now finding jobs are in no condition to be buying homes.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 12:59 pm
@parados,
How about this graph?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j12VQUFgH68/TsGe7fvcfFI/AAAAAAAALTA/19Ar4h0Y_Fw/s1600/MBANDSQ22011.jpg
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 03:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That graph has nothing to do with being "underwater".

"Underwater" refers to a mortgage higher than the value of the house. Being behind on mortgage payments is not being underwater as typically used.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 03:17 pm
@parados,
It still amounts to the same thing; the value of homes are worth less than their mortgage; ergo, they can't pay it. If the value of homes were much higher - like five years ago, they would be able to take money out on their equity.

Show me the difference?
JPB
 
  4  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 03:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Many folks pay their underwater mortgages each month. Selling the house is a problem, however. Lots of folks are stuck paying for houses that they can't sell because they'd have to come up with $$$ at closing instead of getting any proceeds.

I have no idea what this discussion has to do with the Republican primaries.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 03:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The difference..

A person has a $1000 a month mortgage payment.
That person makes $7000 a month
The house is valued for less than the mortgage.
The person has no problem paying the mortgage..


A person has a $1000 a month payment.
That person is unemployed and gets $700 a month
The house is valued MORE than the mortgage
That person can't make his house payments.
The person also can't get a loan to refinance because he only has 10% equity in the house and no job.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 03:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I'm still waiting for your apology for telling me I"m "out of my league" when what I posted was accurate and current, whereas you relied on home valuation figures that appeared to be several years old, and you then viewed the modest current increase in home valuation as a negative for the housing market when, in fact, the contrary is true--it signals a positive sign for the housing market and a sign of recovery from the price plunge in home valuations due to the recession and the collapse of the housing market.
Quote:
How is the housing market supposed to start showing improvements when a good % of them will be losing their homes?

You still seem fixated on the number of homeowners behind on their mortgages as a barometer of the overall housing market.
But people who are behind in their mortgages are not affecting the more generally accepted indications of health in the housing market--new housing construction starts, how long new and existing homes remain on the market before being sold, home valuation changes, the number of completed housing sales, the number of actual foreclosures which leave banks with unoccupied and unsold homes, etc.

Some people are behind in their mortgage payments because they purchased homes they could not afford to begin with, or because of sudden unexpected other debts--medical costs, for instance, are a primary cause of home foreclosures--or even because they purchased a second home before selling their first home or because the sale of that home fell through. And some might be behind because they have lost jobs and are searching for new ones. A certain percentage of homeowners may always be behind on their mortgage payments, regardless of how strong the overall economy might be simply because of their individual financial situation. But banks have become more amenable to trying to work with those behind in their payments because the banks now want to try to avoid unnecessary foreclosures if they can--they really don't want to go into the real estate business and be stuck trying to unload homes that aren't selling quickly.

Foreclosures affect the housing market when they start flooding the market with homes that languish unsold, because that affects overall housing values in an area. And that is not currently the case across the board in the U.S. as it was a few years ago when foreclosure rates were higher and home values were plunging. Even if half of the 6% you cite as being behind in their payments were to default, that's not going to blight the overall housing market--other people will still be able to buy and sell homes. While homes continue to remain on the market unsold, that's also a buyer's market, and, combined with very low mortgage rates, those with the capital and risk qualifications can continue to buy homes, homes which might be currently undervalued, and they might well see their investments pay off handsomely in the future.

Home buyers are consumers, and consumer spending depends on consumer confidence in the economy. Even those with relatively stable jobs and incomes can feel unsettled and reluctant to buy when the overall economic news indicates a still stagnant economy, or high unemployment numbers, or increasing inflation in the cost of food, home heating oil and other necessities, and they are faced with significant costs in other areas, like health care and their childrens' college tuition, and concerns about their own ability to retire some day. Homeowners who might have thought about buying up to a more expensive home might be more inclined to stay put, still fearful that that better home would suddenly decrease in value after its purchase, or that they would have to sell their existing home at too much of a loss to affect a sale. People who might have easily qualified for a mortgage a few years ago, when the banks were less risk aversive, now have a harder time qualifying because the banks want more proof of credit worthiness. So demand for housing, as measured by home buying, is still being held in check by a variety of factors, and that's what's really affecting the housing market.

So it's not just a matter of people being unemployed and unable to buy homes, as you've been suggesting. Factors affecting the housing market, and the economic health of that sector, are considerably more complex than you've even begun to contemplate. Dare I say you are out of your league here?

People who are struggling financially can't buy a lot of things, including homes, and they are more likely to try to hold onto what money they have. More people are trying to save rather than spend now, because the recession gave them a wake-up call and they realize they have to be better prepared and protected. Seniors and those on fixed incomes are contending with very low interest rates, and poor return and lower income on safer investments, and a still volatile and shaky stock market that makes more risk taking too uncertain and unappealing. And murmurings of a double dip recession can still be heard in the land, so anxiety about a fragile economy is still high.

So, I feel the overall arrest in plunging home valuations in the last two years is a healthy sign in the housing market, and homeowners have re-gained some of the equity in their homes, which can help to encourage sales. As the overall economy continues to improve, consumer confidence will continue to improve, and people will begin to do more spending, and more buying, in all sectors. Since buying a home is the largest purchase most people ever make, and where they might exercise the most caution, particularly in the wake of a steep recession, the home housing market will likely be the last sector to show a substantial rebound. But rebound it will.

When you are able to discuss this topic with the complexity it deserves, there might be some point in my continuing to discuss it with you. You clearly are nowhere near that point yet. Particularly when you make statements like this...
Quote:
It still amounts to the same thing; the value of homes are worth less than their mortgage; ergo, they can't pay it. If the value of homes were much higher - like five years ago, they would be able to take money out on their equity.

Someone who is already struggling to pay their mortgage, and is behind on payments, is a bad credit risk for an equity loan or second mortgage of any type--and that factor is unrelated to the current valuation of the home.
If current value of the home is below the value of the mortgage, it simply means that when, and if, they sell the home, the amount they receive for the sale may not pay off the mortgage and they'll owe the bank or lender additional money. You're not thinking straight about this issue.

For now, I am happy that this week's economic news was a little brighter--in the stock market, in the jobs situation, and in the housing sector. If that trend continues, even at a slow pace, it will bode well for Obama's re-election, particularly since the Republicans currently lack a candidate with really broad appeal even within their own party.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 04:40 pm
@firefly,
What has happened to home prices since 2007 are factual to the extent I have posted them. How and why they have affected current prices and delinquencies is a whole different matter from past years that supports what I've been saying. The fact that home prices are now depressed affects those who now own homes - and those who qualify to buy homes are few in comparison.

There's nothing for me to apologize for; your perception of what has happened and what is happening to the housing market is still wrong.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 05:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
What has happened to home prices since 2007 are factual to the extent I have posted them

Except the data you posted was current in 2008, and the data I posted was current as of this week.
Quote:
The fact that home prices are now depressed affects those who now own homes - and those who qualify to buy homes are few in comparison.

There may be loads of people who could qualify to buy homes right now, but, for numerous reasons, including those I enumerated in my last post, they hesitate to make such a very major purchase in a still fragile economy.

You seem to think that the majority of people in this country are in dire financial straits. Certainly, we have far too many people unemployed, or currently under-employed, or fearful of losing jobs, but lots of other people are managing quite well, although they might still be reluctant to make really major purchases, like buying a home, or another home, until the economy shows more signs of growth and stable strength. They are just not yet creating the demand in the housing market to propel sales and new construction. As consumer confidence in the strength and growth of the overall economy improves, that situation will change.
Quote:
There's nothing for me to apologize for; your perception of what has happened and what is happening to the housing market is still wrong.

As you wish.

But your failure to appreciate the broader picture, beyond your extremely limited focus, is causing you to come to erroneous, and somewhat illogical conclusions, and it's helping to keep you clueless on what comprises and propels the housing sector.

If you want to remain uninformed, that's fine with me.




realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 05:12 pm
@JPB,
The appropriate thread, Jaye, is probably "Where Is The Economy Headed?"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 05:20 pm
@firefly,
It doesn't matter what you believe as to why people aren't buying homes; they aren't.

I did not say "people are in dire financial straights." You did. And, if you have been reading my posts, I have said often that there are many contradictions to our economy - giving an example on Santana Row in San Jose, CA, and elsewhere in the world where I have traveled.

My focus is not limited; I've detailed all the information about our economy as I have observed it, read about it, and experienced it.

If you wish to challenge anything I say, provide the statement I made against any other reliable source that refutes it. Otherwise, you're only singing dixie.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 05:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
If you wish to challenge anything I say, provide the statement I made against any other reliable source that refutes it.

I already did that--several times. You are so certain you are right, you failed to notice.

I'm not interested in belaboring this issue with you.

You want to believe you are right, feel free. I follow economic news and economic commentary, carefully, and on a daily basis. Which is why I don't post economic "news" from 2008, as you do. That speaks for itself.

Let's return to the topic of this thread.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 05:51 pm
@firefly,
You wrote,
Quote:
You still seem fixated on the number of homeowners behind on their mortgages as a barometer of the overall housing market.


Yes I am, and have supported that with a graph showing delinquencies and my explanations as to why. You haven't refuted my claims by provided any reliable source.

Please cut and paste from any of my posts where you have provided refuting evidence?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 06:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I heard that Herman did drop out. Did waterboy commit suicide??
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 06:44 pm
@farmerman,
Ha.
Cain "suspended his campaign," FMan. Mark my words: as I have said before, the Republican primary/caucus is set up this cycle such that the convention may well have no candidate with a majority of committed delegates. Everyone on the list could be nominated along with a few others with the chance to speak.
And then, after that there well could be one or more of them taking the 3rd party route.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 06:50 pm
@farmerman,
Could have "drowned" himself out of his misery.

Herman is still asking for donations, and he has several million dollars in his war chest - still promoting his book and making money to spend $$$$ in the future to campaign in another elected office or to promote others in his party.

As we all know, $$$ speaks loud and clear.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2011 12:12 pm
This Republican race gets curiouser and curiouser...And Donald Trump now seems to be putting the icing on the cake.
Quote:
The New York Times
December 2, 2011
Trump to Moderate Republican Debate
By JEREMY W. PETERS

It’s officially a reality television Republican primary now.

Donald Trump is pairing up with Newsmax, the conservative magazine and news Web site, to moderate a presidential debate in Des Moines on Dec. 27.

“Our readers and the grass roots really love Trump,” said Christopher Ruddy, chief executive of Newsmax Media. “They may not agree with
him on everything, but they don’t see him as owned by the Washington establishment, the media establishment.”

Mr. Trump’s role in the debate, which will be broadcast on the cable network Ion Television, is sure to be one of the more memorable moments in a primary season that has already delivered its fair share of circus-like spectacle.

Mr. Trump’s own flirtation with running for president this year seems almost quaint (whose birth certificate was he all worked up about?) compared with more recent distractions – like allegations of adultery and sexual harassment, gaffes that seemed scripted from a late-night comedy show, and a six-figure line of credit at Tiffany & Co.

But despite being derided by liberals – President Obama likened Mr. Trump to a “carnival barker” for his repeated assertions that the president was actually foreign-born – the real estate mogul carries weight with a certain element of the conservative base. And that sway seems particularly strong with the Tea Party wing of the base, which will be a decisive factor in the early primaries that are likely to determine the nominee. The debate, which unlike many recent ones will not be limited to a specific topic like national security or the economy, is set to happen just a week before the Iowa caucuses.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/trump-to-moderate-republican-debate/


Quote:
Huntsman: Trump Debate 'a Joke'
And he's not the only one who thinks so
By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff
Posted Dec 6, 2011

(Newser) – The saga continues: Donald Trump thinks Jon Huntsman is a "joke candidate." Huntsman thinks Trump's debate "is a joke." More from the candidate's comments, made today, plus other reactions to the controversial Dec. 27 debate:

•Huntsman: "This is not about ratings for Donald Trump, this is about jobs for the American people. This is a serious debate that we ought to be having here in the United States," he said on NBC's Today. "I believe that the presidency of the United States of America is beyond reality shows. This is a joke."

•Robert Gibbs: “Cancel Christmas. Just get ready for the Donald Trump debate," said the former White House spokesperson on Morning Joe, according to Politico. "Pay-per-view. Pay-per-view. We ought to have this, the new rule, I think you’ve heard, you have to have your birth certificate to participate in the debate. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel."

•Michele Bachmann: Yes, even Bachmann admits that there is some "concern" over Trump's debate, specifically because he plans to endorse a candidate and is already "leaning toward" one. Will she attend? Her campaign is "still in the process" of deciding, she said on the Early Show, adding that she has "great respect for Donald Trump."

•John McCain: "I do think that on Dec. 27, on an obscure network, I wonder if that is the best use of the candidates’ time," the senator told Fox News today, according to Politico. "I think they should be resting up over Christmas and the next few days and be ready to go right after the first of January."

•Karl Rove: Also on Fox News, he wondered last night, "How can we have any confidence [Trump is] going to be impartial in his questions? We’ve got a guy who’s not only saying, I am going to make a decision about who I am going to endorse shortly after this debate and I am already leaning some way and I may run myself. And we expect him to be the impartial moderator at this debate?"

But Trump hit back at Rove and also conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who called the debate a "reality TV show" and a "joke," insisting that they and others who have criticized him are "hacks," Politico reports.
http://www.newser.com/story/134832/huntsman-trump-debate-a-joke.html
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2011 12:57 pm
@firefly,
The Donald is a promoter and not so successful tv showman; that the conservative leaders for president has to use him to promote themselves just proves how low our country has gone to elect our president.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2011 02:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Do you think that if it goes much lower it will end up in a raffle?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2011 02:43 pm
@spendius,
It's called the raffle of votes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 02:47:44