Herman Cain: Liberals Want to Destroy America

[Shermana]

General Electric: All Recipients | OpenSecrets

Yes, no doubt that they line the pockets of individual Repubs as well, and look who tops the list of them? RINO Romney...Hey wait a minute, why does it say Romney's office is President......?

 

[dust1n]

Yes, no doubt that they line the pockets of individual Repubs as well, and look who tops the list of them? RINO Romney...Hey wait a minute, why does it say Romney's office is President......?

Because you are looking at 2012 so far...


Look at the link again and select 2008 if you want to look at past election cycles.

And Barrack Obama is probably the highest donor, because it was pretty obvious and expected that he was going to win, and is likely to do so again.

 

[dust1n]

Really, it's been pretty much an even split over time.. so it's really a bipartisan thing. Democrats are not particularly more influenced by GE than Republicans.

General Electric: Summary | OpenSecrets

 

[Copernicus]

Really, it's been pretty much an even split over time.. so it's really a bipartisan thing. Democrats are not particularly more influenced by GE than Republicans.

General Electric: Summary | OpenSecrets

But it is Republican policies--particularly their war on election finance reforms--that has made it possible for GE to buy politicians so easily in both political parties.

 

[Kathryn]

Ah, yes, the old myths that make conservatives feel better. Housing prices today are much higher in relation to middle-class incomes than they were when my parents were starting out. Most people do buy smaller starter homes. You hear about the idiots who go big, but they're not necessarily the rule. You always hear about the crazy people in a group a lot more than the reasonable ones, because the crazy ones make a better story. For instance, out of all the people in my group of friends, the ones who own houses either own townhouses or small single-family homes. Granted, my personal experience isn't a big sample size, but this "problem" gets blown out of proportion.

The problem with the housing bubble was that even a small starter home was exorbitantly expensive.

I owned a real estate company with twenty realtors on board during the housing boom. I'm speaking from a wide range of experiences.

And the cost of housing in East Texas was and still is very affordable. So no - I never did see or sell any "exorbitantly expensive" starter homes.

 

[Copernicus]

I owned a real estate company with twenty realtors on board during the housing boom. I'm speaking from a wide range of experiences.

And the cost of housing in East Texas was and still is very affordable. So no - I never did see or sell any "exorbitantly expensive" starter homes.

With respect, I don't think that mball was talking about east Texas. Homes were priced differently in other areas of the country, but I suspect that you already knew that.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Well I suppose its merely coincidence that Fannie and Freddie and the FDIC are Liberal operations, and that the economy shattered after the 2006 Democrat takeover of the House, and I suppose its merely coincidence that the Annual Deficits are TRIPLE the average Bush year under Obama. All coincidence.

And of course, once a president takes over, all of the previous president's policies cease affecting the country once they are out of office. And because the president has absolute power over the economy, everything that happens to it is his fault.

 

[Falvlun]

And of course, once a president takes over, all of the previous president's policies cease affecting the country once they are out of office. And because the president has absolute power over the economy, everything that happens to it is his fault.

So true! :yes:

 

[Shermana]

And of course, once a president takes over, all of the previous president's policies cease affecting the country once they are out of office. And because the president has absolute power over the economy, everything that happens to it is his fault.

What does that have to do with what I said? It appears you missed the part about Congress?

 

[Copernicus]

What does that have to do with what I said? It appears you missed the part about Congress?

It isn't the part that he missed.

 

[Magic Man]

Who determined that those small starter houses would be exorbitantly expensive exactly? The market? Or artificial market fluctuations caused by Democrat policies within Fannie, Freddie, and the FDIC?

Neither. It was caused by greed and deregulation of the market, leading big banks to start giving out crappy loans they knew wouldn't be paid back because they could make a quick buck on them.

People could have just boycotted the housing industry until prices sank to correct levels, even now refuse to drop to their true value.

Yeah...it's hard to tell. Are you being serious here?

 

[Magic Man]

Now if you have an actual source that proves there wasn't an $800 billion increase in revenue as the link provided, by all means, feel free to actually back your claims with proof.

Let's start with this. You show me that there was an $800 billion increase in revenue first, and we'll go from there.

Now you said that the recession started under Bush (which happened mainly due to Democrat policies that the Repubs were fighting against the whole 8 years like Fannie and Freddie), FORCED Obama to spend a lot? That doesn't make much sense. The Stimulus (AKA pocket lining to Democrat cronies) wasn't exactly forced.

Anytime you're ready to stop with this biased drivel, we can have a real conversation.

 

[Magic Man]

I owned a real estate company with twenty realtors on board during the housing boom. I'm speaking from a wide range of experiences.

I'm sure you are. Unfortunately, I know how biased your experience can be.

And the cost of housing in East Texas was and still is very affordable. So no - I never did see or sell any "exorbitantly expensive" starter homes.

Then you should have checked out Maryland. Early in the boom, friends of mine bought a small house in a good area for $250,000. A little expensive at the time, but, as I said, it was in a good area. It's a 3 bedroom rancher, nothing special. Less than a year later, another friend of mine bought a house the next block up, a a split-level, but all-in-all roughly the same house in the same neighborhood, 3-bedrooms, small, but in a good neighborhood. The only major difference was that this house is on a corner lot. They paid $330,000.

My 3-bedroom, 1,400 sq. ft. rancher that we bought 2 years ago in not the best neighborhood was still $200,000, and that's well after the bubble burst. 8-10 years ago, our house would have been in the $150-160,000 range.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sure you are. Unfortunately, I know how biased your experience can be.

I am such a saintly & sensitive individual, that I avoided temptation to point out how biased your inexperience is.

There's no need to thank me, for I live to serve.

 

[Magic Man]

I am such a saintly & sensitive individual, that I avoided temptation to point out how biased your inexperience is.

There's no need to thank me, for I live to serve.

Thanks for that bit of nonsense.

 

[Stevicus]

Then you should have checked out Maryland. Early in the boom, friends of mine bought a small house in a good area for $250,000. A little expensive at the time, but, as I said, it was in a good area. It's a 3 bedroom rancher, nothing special. Less than a year later, another friend of mine bought a house the next block up, a a split-level, but all-in-all roughly the same house in the same neighborhood, 3-bedrooms, small, but in a good neighborhood. The only major difference was that this house is on a corner lot. They paid $330,000.

My 3-bedroom, 1,400 sq. ft. rancher that we bought 2 years ago in not the best neighborhood was still $200,000, and that's well after the bubble burst. 8-10 years ago, our house would have been in the $150-160,000 range.

The price of housing never ceases to amaze me. I keep thinking of the house my grandfather bought in Southern California in 1971 for $28,000, which would be the equivalent of $149,000 today. A 3-bedroom, 1344-square foot home on a modest-sized lot. He sold it at a profit in the late 1970s (I don't remember how much), but according to Zillow, that same house sold in 1988 for $115,000, which would be the equivalent of about $209,000 today. The same house on the same lot. Neither the house nor the lot grew in size since it was built in 1968. The only thing it's gotten is older and more expensive.

Now, that same house is worth $349,000, after coming down from a 2005 peak of $660,000. It's unreal. Nothing new is created. Nothing new is built. Yet in some circles, this might be called "economic growth." But nothing grows except the price tag.

This wasn't exactly a ritzy neighborhood either. It wasn't bad, but it was nothing spectacular.

One could conceivably find cheaper housing, but that might also mean living in a bad neighborhood. So, even if it means paying more money and going deeper into debt, I can see where some people would rather do that than live in an area with sub-standard housing, higher crime, poor schools, and other associated problems.

 

[Revoltingest]

The price of housing never ceases to amaze me. I keep thinking of the house my grandfather bought in Southern California in 1971 for $28,000, which would be the equivalent of $149,000 today. A 3-bedroom, 1344-square foot home on a modest-sized lot. He sold it at a profit in the late 1970s (I don't remember how much), but according to Zillow, that same house sold in 1988 for $115,000, which would be the equivalent of about $209,000 today. The same house on the same lot. Neither the house nor the lot grew in size since it was built in 1968. The only thing it's gotten is older and more expensive.

Now, that same house is worth $349,000, after coming down from a 2005 peak of $660,000. It's unreal. Nothing new is created. Nothing new is built. Yet in some circles, this might be called "economic growth." But nothing grows except the price tag.

This wasn't exactly a ritzy neighborhood either. It wasn't bad, but it was nothing spectacular.

One could conceivably find cheaper housing, but that might also mean living in a bad neighborhood. So, even if it means paying more money and going deeper into debt, I can see where some people would rather do that than live in an area with sub-standard housing, higher crime, poor schools, and other associated problems.

Several things happen:
1) The dollar falls in value each year, so it takes more of them to buy something of equivalent economic value.
2) Some places become more attractive to live, so competition to buy there drive up price.
3) Building codes, zoning codes, subdivision laws & other things change, usually making competing new housing more expensive.

 

[Stevicus]

Several things happen:
1) The dollar falls in value each year, so it takes more of them to buy something of equivalent economic value.

Yes, but housing still outpaces the rate of inflation by 2, 3, or even 4 times as much. There's always a big stink made about gas prices, but at least that stays within the same rate of inflation. But housing is even more inflated.

2) Some places become more attractive to live, so competition to buy there drive up price.

That doesn't explain why there are so many houses still up for sale after months or even years on the market. If market forces dictate the price of houses, then these houses should be selling like hotcakes, not sitting empty and unsold for all this time.

3) Building codes, zoning codes, subdivision laws & other things change, usually making competing new housing more expensive.

Perhaps with new housing, this may be true, but I was talking more about older housing built in the 1960s. The same house on the same lot keeps getting sold and resold at a profit, but nothing new is built. The effect on the economy is the same as if you went out and just printed more money.

 

[Alceste]

Yes, but housing still outpaces the rate of inflation by 2, 3, or even 4 times as much. There's always a big stink made about gas prices, but at least that stays within the same rate of inflation. But housing is even more inflated.

[/i]

That doesn't explain why there are so many houses still up for sale after months or even years on the market. If market forces dictate the price of houses, then these houses should be selling like hotcakes, not sitting empty and unsold for all this time.

[/i]

Perhaps with new housing, this may be true, but I was talking more about older housing built in the 1960s. The same house on the same lot keeps getting sold and resold at a profit, but nothing new is built. The effect on the economy is the same as if you went out and just printed more money.

Good observations. When I was in the UK I saw the impact of an uncontrolled housing market. People who managed to get a foot in the door 40 years ago got so drunk on selling their houses to each other at ever-inflating prices - despite stagnant or declining median wages - new buyers were being quietly shut out of the market. In the area we lived in, with the smallest, crappiest houses selling for over a quarter million pounds, people just kept living with their parents well into their 30s. Not just a few, either. Out of everyone we knew, about 3 out of 4 in our age group (early 30s) still lived with their parents. Some got married and bought a little place with two incomes, but were only able to do so with the help of their parents.

As much as it might be fun for the baby boomers to complain about the lack of character of our generation, it all boils down to simple economics in the end. When the price of housing rises to the point that not even a lifetime at an average wage would raise enough to repay a mortgage on a starter home, strange things are bound to happen. Things are not helped by bankers intentionally misinforming people about what they can realistically afford to repay.

When I was considering buying a house in Montreal, my bank had a handy little calculator that told me what price I could afford, based on a simple formula that placed mortgage repayment levels at about 30% of my income. They were all too far out of town for commuting to work and gigs, so I simply couldn't do it. There WAS no property that was available in my city in my income bracket - not even a condo. That seems pretty crazy considering I was working full time for about three times the minimum wage in my province. I moved to a new city with even less control over housing costs and discovered I couldn't even afford to rent a basement suite in the suburbs any more, despite working full time. I used to rent the entire main floor of a house down town 5 years earlier for a third of the current price of the average basement suite - and wages had not increased.

Anyway, it's crazy out there. I'm not even interested in buying any more because I expect a massive collapse in house prices soon - the bubble in Canada is still inflating but showing signs of trouble. If we're lucky, we can get a good deal on rent for a few years, wait for a collapse and snap something up for cash, still saving money overall.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, but housing still outpaces the rate of inflation by 2, 3, or even 4 times as much. There's always a big stink made about gas prices, but at least that stays within the same rate of inflation. But housing is even more inflated.

At times that is true, but at others housing rises less than inflation. (In fact, housing is currently dropping here.)
But as I said, inflation is just one of the factors affecting housing prices.

That doesn't explain why there are so many houses still up for sale after months or even years on the market. If market forces dictate the price of houses, then these houses should be selling like hotcakes, not sitting empty and unsold for all this time.

There is more to it than just demand. We also face difficulty in borrowing money right now. Plus, market forces
are in play still....in a falling market, sellers are reluctant to lower prices in lock step with falling values. It takes
time for sellers to become willing to accept less than they expected or wanted, or they might be willing to wait for
a buyer to pay their price.

Perhaps with new housing, this may be true, but I was talking more about older housing built in the 1960s. The same house on the same lot keeps getting sold and resold at a profit, but nothing new is built. The effect on the economy is the same as if you went out and just printed more money.

Old housing competes with new housing. As the latter rises in cost, so does the former in value.