Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe you don't realize that half of Idaho home prices are temporary. Bush doubled the national debt and forced down interest rates. It doesn't really matter what good Idaho does at this point, it will pale in comparison to the damage they've done to the state and the nation. No matter what damage is done in blue states, it wasn't the fault of those states. (Of course, there are some conservatives in the blue states, but they were ineffectual. And liberals in Idaho are not to blame.)
Idaho home values have held up better than much of the rest of the nations home values.
Blue states are perfect? Liberals are not to blame?
Why are you so concerned about Idaho? Maybe if you moved here you would be a happier person
Maybe you don't realize that half of Idaho home prices are temporary. Bush doubled the national debt and forced down interest rates. It doesn't really matter what good Idaho does at this point, it will pale in comparison to the damage they've done to the state and the nation. No matter what damage is done in blue states, it wasn't the fault of those states. (Of course, there are some conservatives in the blue states, but they were ineffectual. And liberals in Idaho are not to blame.)
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say (or which side you're on). The district that Minnick won was held by a conservative Republican. While people liked his voting record, as a person he was supposed to be very abrasive and hard to deal with. The D cantidate campaigned on what in most states would be a conservative R platform. Idaho is pretty independant, we'll vote more for the person and what they stand for than the party. The atmosphere is more Libertarian than anything else...but reality says that Ls haven't run a very viable campaign.
As to home prices, I'd like to see them continue to fall in this state. They have been driven up to artifically high and unjustifiable prices, to the point that many people that work in the area can't afford a house. It's particularly hard on first time home buyers. Much of the runup has been due to wealthy transplants moving into the state with a nice wad of cash from the sale of a CA home, as well as an artificial enhancement of the credit market, allowing unqualified borrowers to get loans they shouldn't have had. This in turn created unsustainable demand that in turn drove up prices. Both parties deserve the blame for this...and both were happy to take credit for the great increase in % of homeowners in the last decade.
Idaho home values have held up better than much of the rest of the nations home values.
So far, maybe. Watch & see what happens. I can be confident they'll plummet, because excessive house price gains have never lasted. There is nothing reasonable to suggest that Idaho will escape the crash in house prices. It will be particularly brutal in Boise, where there are plenty of subdivisions with houses selling for 8X the median income, when only 3X was historically sustainable. There are not enough $100K+ jobs in Boise.
Quote:
Blue states are perfect? Liberals are not to blame?
Liberals are fiscal conservatives who do not support increasing the national debt except in dire situations (like now). Relative to Republicans, who support the opposite, they are virtually blameless. Republicans think there are no consequences to showering the rich with borrowed money.
Last edited by Reads2MUCH; 03-05-2009 at 02:36 PM..
Reason: inappropriate
Liberals are fiscal conservatives who do not support increasing the national debt except in dire situations (like now). Relative to Republicans, who support the opposite, they are virtually blameless. Republicans think there are no consequences to showering the rich with borrowed money.
I prefer to associate liberals as being fiscally responsible but not necessarily fiscally conservative. Republicans tend to give lip service around fiscal conservatism and are generally fiscally irresponsible (except during good times).
So far, maybe. Watch & see what happens. I can be confident they'll plummet, because excessive house price gains have never lasted. There is nothing reasonable to suggest that Idaho will escape the crash in house prices. It will be particularly brutal in Boise, where there are plenty of subdivisions with houses selling for 8X the median income, when only 3X was historically sustainable. There are not enough $100K+ jobs in Boise.
Liberals are fiscal conservatives who do not support increasing the national debt except in dire situations (like now). Relative to Republicans, who support the opposite, they are virtually blameless. Republicans think there are no consequences to showering the rich with borrowed money.
I never said Idaho will escape the national crash in home prices. It is happening here but not as severly as other states.
Most republicans in Idaho are not the norm, a lot claim to be libertarian.
You are offensive and hate Republicans.
Last edited by Reads2MUCH; 03-05-2009 at 02:37 PM..
Reason: edited for references to deleted material
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say (or which side you're on). The district that Minnick won was held by a conservative Republican. ... The atmosphere is more Libertarian than anything else...but reality says that Ls haven't run a very viable campaign.
Idaho is among the reddest of the red states; see above. It doesn't really matter what they do on the state level, because national politics swamp state politics when the national voting is so bad.
Quote:
As to home prices, I'd like to see them continue to fall in this state. They have been driven up to artifically high and unjustifiable prices, to the point that many people that work in the area can't afford a house. It's particularly hard on first time home buyers. Much of the runup has been due to wealthy transplants moving into the state with a nice wad of cash from the sale of a CA home, as well as an artificial enhancement of the credit market, allowing unqualified borrowers to get loans they shouldn't have had. This in turn created unsustainable demand that in turn drove up prices. Both parties deserve the blame for this...and both were happy to take credit for the great increase in % of homeowners in the last decade.
I'm confident that the worst of the housing bubble and its devastating effects would not have happened had Gore or Kerry been in office. Only a Republican prez would ignore voluminous reports of janitors & fruit pickers buying $500K houses with option-ARMs. The President had by far the most influence on the situation. Bush not only ignored the reports, he continued to encourage homeownership for all.
Idaho is among the reddest of the red states; see above. It doesn't really matter what they do on the state level, because national politics swamp state politics when the national voting is so bad.
I'm confident that the worst of the housing bubble and its devastating effects would not have happened had Gore or Kerry been in office. Only a Republican prez would ignore voluminous reports of janitors & fruit pickers buying $500K houses with option-ARMs. The President had by far the most influence on the situation. Bush not only ignored the reports, he continued to encourage homeownership for all.
You're ignoring the obvious fact that it was Dems that passed regulations requiring loans to unqualified borrowers, and backed them with federal support for Fannie and Freddie. You're also ignoring the fact that Bush and his financial team went to congress several times, pointing out that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble, buying up loans that had little chance of being paid back. Bush encouraged action to correct the situation, Congress refused to address this. Both parties are responsible for this mess. I do blame Bush though, was too busy trying to play nice with liberal dems instead of providing a reasonable level of fiscal responsiblity.
My opinion is that taxpayer support for Fannie and Freddie need to go away. In that case it's only the individual banks that take the hit, and not the taxpayer. They then have an incentive to be reasonable with their investors money.
Bush encouraged action to correct the situation, Congress refused to address this. Both parties are responsible for this mess.
Republicans had a majority in Congress during the exact years of the housing bubble from its inception to its peak. Democrats could not have stopped the Republicans from doing anything they wanted, except with a filibuster, which didn't happen. Democrats are mostly blameless.
You're ignoring the obvious fact that it was Dems that passed regulations requiring loans to unqualified borrowers, and backed them with federal support for Fannie and Freddie. You're also ignoring the fact that Bush and his financial team went to congress several times, pointing out that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble, buying up loans that had little chance of being paid back.
Wrong on both accounts. You're simply using right wing talking points as it relates to this financial debacle, nothing logical that you can substantiate on (be my guest if you want to try).
Subprime lending came into being in the early 80s with risk based credit pricing. By 1986 (Tax Reforms), incentives were in place to attach any debt to home equity.
CRA was introduced in 1977, to outlaw redlining, a practice of not lending in certain geographic areas, NOT as a means to, as you put it, "unqualified borrowers". They still had to go thru an approval process, like every other person elsewhere. Unless you're opposed to this idea, you may now drop the rhetoric against CRA, as CRA had become a successful tool in mid-90s. In fact, almost all of the loans were eligible for at least near prime rate, with about half good for prime rate, and the loans performed better than industry average. The success led to its expansion by Clinton around 1999, with a commitment from (mostly) Fannie Mae to back them up.
However, Bush almost put an end to CRA enforcement, and the lending dropped, only backed up by Fannie Mae. 2001 recession started just couple of months after Bush took office (and was officially over in November). The tax cut stimulus had failed to work. Job growth was not keeping up with times, and feds started cutting interest rates to keep the economy afloat. This discouraged savings and encouraged credit, also luring people into buying homes to take advantage of impressive low rates.
This provided a significant boost to the housing market, raising home prices to go with it. This was also an era of adjustable rate mortgage, promising even lower rates but for a temporary period. But people were now confident that they could easily refinance, and also take advantage of home equity from booming prices.
Early in the process, Fannie Mae was at an advantage. Wall Street wanted its slice of the pie and lobbied the Bush administration to limit the powers of Fannie Mae (this is the "regulation" you speak of). And having won their way, the slicing and dicing of securities began, fully taking advantage of, now a completely deregulated market. There was no accountability, bad loans were mixed with good, and dumped onto Fannie Mae. This was the beginning of unprecedented growth in the housing market. It shot up like never before, while unemployment and wage issues continued to be, and a second shot of tax cut stimulus was being worked on (not to mention, two wars to go with it).
And then came Paulson, a mindless free marketeer, ready to experience his wet dreams of relaxing lending leverage, almost tripling it from 12:1 for the biggest financial institutions like Merryl Lynch, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sach, Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers. Not surprisingly, they are either dead or non-existent as independent entities. It only took couple of years to show the signs of a pending disaster.
Lack of oversight, transparency and accountability... it was 1929 all over again.
For over half a century, only 45% of Americans owned their own home. Then home ownership rose in the postwar period, settling at about 64% in the early 1990s. In 1994, President Clinton had the good intention of raising home ownership to 67.5% by 2000. He sponsored the revision of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations, which required banks to increase mortgage lending to low- and moderate-income families. The banks complied and increased their lending to these families by 80%, more than twice any other group. The sentiment was noble but ill advised. Community groups could now prevent banks from mergers, branch expansions or the creation of new branches simply by protesting to any of four different regulatory agencies. But these traditional activities of banks are necessary to stay responsive to the dynamics of the marketplace. To maintain this ability, banks paid millions to these community groups. In theory, they were supporting mortgage education efforts and fair lending practices. In reality, they were carrying a block of poor loans on their books simply as the price of doing business.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
