Phoenix's image problem??? (sale, mortgage broker, refinance)

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by JDish2000

The image of Phoenix to a lot of Americans:

A hot, sprawling metropolis in the middle of the desert, full of international flavor (spanish), which walks quietly, but carries a big "Wild, Wild, West" stick!

Translation:

They think we are "freebirds" devoid of the law (see Sheriff Joe) and that we somewhat stay under the radar, in regards to what Phoenix really has to offer, along with catering to the spanish-speaking community.

Just my opinion...

Big Wild, Wild West Stick? Phoenix was a village until Air Conditioning.
Sherrif Joe is a Facist kept in office by a geriatric electorate afraid of Mexicans

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

I know I can't believe he said that. It was the "non-rich" who got this country into trouble in the first place by ceating this mortgage crisis. They were buying homes they couldn't afford and not living within their means. It was fashionable to blame the predatory lenders and not ourselves but the reality is a lot of Americans were being irresponsible. People keep blaming the lenders but the lenders didn't put a gun to their head. People were not that stupid to understand they couldn't afford homes that were more than 3 times their salary regardless of what the lending terms were. They were gambling assuming the price of their homes were going to rise annually with the hope they could sell it before the interest rates kicked in. I know so many in Phoenix who earn less than 70K per year and were buying 400-500K homes. This is such a Phoenix-theme. People making 50k per year were driving Escalades and Hummers because they have to compete with the Jones. The rich are bailing out this country by buying many of those homes now. Less than 1% of the wealthiest pay over 95% of the tax burden in this country.

Very sensible & truthful logic as usual. You're absolutely right. I posted recently in another CityData forum that this most recent economic downturn was spurred by the many people who rushed to buy homes with ARMs and sub prime loans. I even recall there being a very whiney young woman in the Politics forum who financed with an ARM, then defaulted on payments & had to sell short. All too typical of the "I want it, and I want it now" mentality ... and if they screw up, they fall back on Uncle Sam to rush to their rescue for making stupid decisions. Of course, the lenders certainly weren't free of faults either ... but as you said, they didn't force the lendees to make these decisions.

It doesn't make sense to "soak the rich" because the top 1 to 2% are generally the business owners: those who provide jobs, products, and services to everybody. They also contribute to many causes. Looking at them from the outside, they SEEM like they're greedy fat cats (and they might be), but they pay the brunt of the taxes as it is. Burdening the wealthiest Americans with more taxation would result in the trickle down effect ... meaning that they would pass a lot of that burden onto the rest of us. The key to economic recovery is to cut all the wasteful government spending, give tax relief to everybody, and let the free market grow the economy by providing its own stimulus. The last thing we need is for the feds to start taking over private sector industry (such as health care).

[Ponderosa]

Yippie-yi-oh-ki-ay! We shoulda done a wagon train instead of light rail.

[artvandelay]

AZ has its good points, but there are SO many people living the AZ dream- getting by and surviving till tomorrow. Just getting by is not the bare minimum for so many here, but something to strive for. I see it as a "you're on your own" state and city. That may be perfection to some, but to me it's sad. I prefer communities, looking out for each other, and motivating each other.

Guns don't bother me, but going armed to a meeting about healthcare, and not the 2nd amendment, makes no point to me other than some people love their guns and want everyone to know it.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

You really do not understand the (under)world of finance if you believe it was the borrowers who built and then brought down the house of cards.

I'm not denying the lenders were shady. However, who came to the lenders in the first place to buy a home they couldn't afford? What happened to personal responsibility? I mean seriously, apply some common sense. I don't care what the lending terms are, if you are someone making 50K a year, you shouldn't try to a buy a home that is 400K. It's your responsibility to read the paperwork and ask questions. Yeah, let's blame everyone else for our problems. I understand the situation, I'm just not afraid to hold ourselves accountable instead of pointing the finger at someone else.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

I'm not denying the lenders were shady. However, who came to the lenders in the first place to buy a home they couldn't afford? What happened to personal responsibility? I mean seriously, apply some common sense. I don't care what the lending terms are, if you are someone making 50K a year, you shouldn't try to a buy a home that is 400K. It's your responsibility to read the paperwork and ask questions. Yeah, let's blame everyone else for our problems. I understand the situation, I'm just not afraid to hold ourselves accountable instead of pointing the finger at someone else.

But it was the sale and resale of complex (and worthless) security instruments backing those flaky loans that crashed (almost) the banking system. The lenders would never have offered, -and actively pursued subpar customers with ads, mailings, and cold calls -those loans had they not been able to peddle them to investors who were either unwilling or unable to see the risks involved. We can argue chicken or egg forever I guess.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

It doesn't make sense to "soak the rich" because the top 1 to 2% are generally the business owners: those who provide jobs, products, and services to everybody. They also contribute to many causes. Looking at them from the outside, they SEEM like they're greedy fat cats (and they might be), but they pay the brunt of the taxes as it is. Burdening the wealthiest Americans with more taxation would result in the trickle down effect ... meaning that they would pass a lot of that burden onto the rest of us. The key to economic recovery is to cut all the wasteful government spending, give tax relief to everybody, and let the free market grow the economy by providing its own stimulus. The last thing we need is for the feds to start taking over private sector industry (such as health care).

I agree with your point above. The Democrats claim 96% of small business owners earn less than 250K. But I wonder what that 250K refers to? It's pretty unclear because income can be defined in so many ways with regard to owning a business and depending on how you define it, many more than 4% of all small business can exceed that 250K figure. If those people are forced to paying higher taxes, they will employ less people either by firing existing employees or refusing to hire additional staff.

[The_Cadillac_Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Not at all. Every city that one thinks of as world class is liberal.

This is an excellent point, although I think it would have had more impact without the name calling and negative connotations

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Nevada did just that - eliminated the State Income tax. It has been a dismal failure - and Nevada is in dismal financial condition.

There is a move on to RE-INSTATE the State Income tax in Nevada.

You can't attribute Nevada's economic problems to elimination of the state income tax. Nevada's failures are due to a lot of other problems. Besides the fact that their housing issue is awful, their economy is less diverse than even ours and so much of their economy is dependent on tourism to which it took a major hit since people don't have disposable income to spend on hotels and gambling. Just the other day, the Monte Carlo, MGM Grand and NYNY hotel is offering $25 a night deals until September 13th which shows how desperate they are for business.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

I agree with your point above. The Democrats claim 96% of small business owners earn less than 250K. But I wonder what that 250K refers to? It's pretty unclear because income can be defined in so many ways with regard to owning a business and depending on how you define it, many more than 4% of all small business can exceed that 250K figure. If those people are forced to paying higher taxes, they will employ less people either by firing existing employees or refusing to hire additional staff.

I disagree. Employees are costs, but as long as they produce more than they cost, they stay. It is only tangentially related to the taxes on the employer. Theoretically, the higher taxes could reduce costs of production - lowering health premiums or reducing tuition expenses for the owner's kids, more sales due to economic improvement for example. And in small business, employees are sort of quantums of production. A firm employing say 10, would cut its workforce - and its productivity and unit profit by perhaps ten percent if an employee were cut. That's not going to happen over a tiny increase in marginal tax rate. Anyhow, its a very complex issue and declaring that employers would let people go if faced with being held to a 28% deduction for the beach house is unsupportable by fact or history.