March 27, 2011
— Monty Don't crud up my book thread with your pop-culture references and fart jokes. Put them here so we can enjoy them in their natural habitat.
Posted by: Monty at
06:45 AM
| Comments (90)
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
From the previous thread.
I don't have much patience with the "don't pay your mortgage" folks. If you follow that advice you are going to a) ruin your credit; b) open yourself to civil and perhaps criminal prosecution; and c) cause yourself a lot of personal grief.
I do think that we need to reform the mortgage market. Get Fan/Fred out of it, and ditch the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. A lot of the problems in the real-estate market right now are due to the deformations caused by the government's meddling -- especially the core idea that "middle class" life requires the ownership of a home. We have too much housing stock and too few buyers -- it's a basic supply and demand problem. To sell the stock, the prices are going to have to drop. Much ill-considered real-estate development may have to be written off entirely.
Posted by: Monty at March 27, 2011 06:50 AM (FC+dS)
'J'lem to cut ties with PA if Hamas added to unity gov't'
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 27, 2011 06:52 AM (9hSKh)
...
Posted by: Ed Anger at March 27, 2011 06:53 AM (7+pP9)
And it's going to get WORSE. When people of my age (50-62 years old) soon start dumping their larger houses, now that their kids are gone and they want to cash out that equity, what do you think is going to happen?
Supply >> Demand, prices fall.
I'm forutnate in that the area I live in has not experienced a real estate "collapse", but it is happening elsewhere and could very definently happen here.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at March 27, 2011 06:54 AM (sJTmU)
I do think that we need to reform the mortgage market. Get Fan/Fred out of it, and ditch the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage
Why, because stretching it out over 30 years makes it easier to buy a home above ones means?
If we do that, what then happens to all the 300k+ homes that the upper middle class can no longer afford at the 15 year mortgage rate?
Posted by: Ben at March 27, 2011 06:57 AM (DKV43)
Posted by: rickl at March 27, 2011 06:58 AM (hZFhS)
Posted by: Barackets O'Fartknocker at March 27, 2011 06:58 AM (vP1Pd)
Posted by: rickl at March 27, 2011 07:00 AM (hZFhS)
Posted by: jwpaine at March 27, 2011 07:01 AM (FUozQ)
Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at March 27, 2011 07:02 AM (y5OTi)
Posted by: curious at March 27, 2011 07:05 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: stace at March 27, 2011 07:05 AM (8PLOi)
Posted by: Evil libertarian at March 27, 2011 07:06 AM (n3Hg2)
Karl Denninger has been saying that we should go back to the traditional 30-year mortgage with 20% down.
Gee, what a novel concept.
I think you are going to see a calculated, planned mass default on mortgages and college loans. Just like that Lerner guy was fomenting. I'm sure our betters in the Justice Dept. will be all over it. I'm sure.
Posted by: runningrn at March 27, 2011 07:06 AM (ihSHD)
Taking on a 30-year debt is simply not a good idea for many (maybe even most) people. It deforms the market because it convinces many marginal buyers that they can actually afford a house that they really can't afford. It makes them "house poor", in other words.
And houses are not really good investments, historically -- it's only in recent years that people have begun to think of their houses as assets rather than shelter. (That's why renting a house is not "wasting your money". You are exchanging money for shelter. It's no more a waste of money than your clothes or shoes is a waste of money. It's only a "waste" if you think of a domicile as an asset rather than a cost of living.)
The mortgage-interest deduction also deforms the market, and though I benefit from it (being a homeowner) I think I'd vote to have it revoked to expose the true cost/benefit ratio of owning a home.
I own a house, but if I had to do it over again, I'd rent.
Posted by: Monty at March 27, 2011 07:08 AM (FC+dS)
Posted by: Moochelle Obama at March 27, 2011 07:10 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Peaches at March 27, 2011 07:12 AM (zxpIo)
Posted by: Muckraker at March 27, 2011 07:12 AM (6K81O)
Such a request is out of the question!
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 27, 2011 07:13 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Zombie Dick Feynman at March 27, 2011 07:14 AM (FaFnu)
Posted by: Peaches at March 27, 2011 07:15 AM (zxpIo)
Just getting rid of the deduction will make a huge difference.
I have a 15 year mortgage which puts me at a huge disadvantage in the tax game. And the spread between the 15 and 30 year mortgages doesn't accurately reflect the additional risk because of the distortion of the interest credit.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 27, 2011 07:16 AM (LH6ir)
"The mortgage-interest deduction also deforms the market, and though I benefit from it (being a homeowner) I think I'd vote to have it revoked to expose the true cost/benefit ratio of owning a home." - Monty
This is coming, probably after DOOM arrives in the form of apocalyptic interest rates and inflation. We are all going to be much poorer, but probably little wiser, in the years to come.
Many people will still be seduced by the populist promises of "restoring American prosperity" after it has evaporated completely.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at March 27, 2011 07:19 AM (sJTmU)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 27, 2011 11:18 AM (eOXTH)
Uhhhhhh OK, Fartknocker!
Posted by: Butthead at March 27, 2011 07:19 AM (MNNZX)
Got into a discussion with a prog several years ago re: housing subsidies. He made the argument that the mortgage deduction was a housing subsidy for the middle class. He had a point. I think it is also a subsidy for the banking industry because it encourages people to borrow and it encourages borrowers to shrug at interest rates because, after all, its deductible. Quaery: without the mortgage interest deduction, would mortgage interest rates decline?
Posted by: Mr. Barky at March 27, 2011 07:22 AM (znvl4)
Posted by: Peaches at March 27, 2011 07:23 AM (zxpIo)
but you are lucky. You belong to a group so you can get the VA loan or the union loan through the credit union. For regular folks, having to use the system set up by the banks it can be daunting. I know people who had spectacular credit and then their kids went to school (my friends) they took on debt and the system of "credit scoring" changed. These folks are saying that they have done everything they could to raise their credit score and it just isnt' raising. The other night my friend said his parents are going to go to a credit professional. They have been unable to get a mortgage to re finance their house. This is now critical since they have an adjustable rate mortgage and they are terrified of inflation. Sadly they have an enormous amount of money on the line that they rolled over from house to house and if they lose the house, they lose their savings, it's a mess.
Posted by: curious at March 27, 2011 07:24 AM (k1rwm)
....except when you sell your house. Even if you sold it for $100. That's $100 more than you get when you move out of a rental. When you make a payment on your house, you're going to get at least some of it back. Every dime you pay in rent is gone down the shitter. Forever.
And BTW...I'm currently a renter...gonna change that in the near future..
Posted by: That Kid on Raising Arizona at March 27, 2011 07:25 AM (azgo2)
Posted by: Nutty Professor at March 27, 2011 07:26 AM (29IOh)
Posted by: Portnoy at March 27, 2011 07:26 AM (azgo2)
Posted by: Andi Sullivan at March 27, 2011 07:26 AM (VXBR1)
3 I think the 30 yr. fixed interest worked -- but only for people of modest means who were (and here's the kicker) buying modest homes.
That's what my mortgage is: 30 yr., fixed interest, 10% down. When we looked into a place to live it actually came out cheaper than renting a place -- which my place is, and it though it is very modest, it does have a nice yard and field and barn, which sadly I can no longer use for livestock, but at the time of purchase...oh well, still have a heck of a garden which would have been out of the question in an apartment. Even with taxes going through the roof (which is a pisser) it's still cheaper than any rental property, and nicer for a family with kids.
The rent around my area is through the roof -- there are tar paper, two bedroom shacks, often with no discernable foundation and questionable wiring and plumbing that typically rent for $450/mo...that's crazy, especially when you can get a similar sized home a lot better built, with a yard, for less in mortgage payment). Is it any wonder, under those circumstances, that many people bought rather than rented? Is it any wonder, under those circumstances, that people in my area are still preferring to buy rather than rent?
And I'm not exagerating: had some friends who were renting that did -- looked within their means and wound up with the proverbial tar paper shack (you could see outdoors around the shower head; when it rained heavily water seeped up through the floor); they were paying $400 a month for that deathtrap -- but it was within their means and they didn't have to bring in co-renters. The town is full of them. The newer apartments go for $700 - 900+ and are set up for college kids (something most families try to avoid for the obvious reasons, the ones that can even afford them).
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 07:30 AM (5/yRG)
The difference between "passing gas" and "breaking wind" has fascinated me for hours on end.
Maybe I should go to kalidge and studee this?
Posted by: A Freelance Dishwasher at March 27, 2011 07:32 AM (HqOUw)
Posted by: momma at March 27, 2011 07:34 AM (penCf)
If banks want to lend, and people want to borrow, at 30 years, then so be it. If you want the government out, which sounds good to me, then get them out. Let lenders and borrowers make deals at they see fit.
But the idea that home ownership is not an intrinsically good thing is mistaken. Go to a part of town that is predominantly rentals. It's crap. A land lord's motivation (even the best land lord) is to maximize profit from his housing asset. The renter's motivation is to minimize his housing cost. Neither one has a strong motivation to maximize maintenance and beauty of the home itself. Rental areas are slums or at least borderline-slum in most cases. This relates to the broken-window theory that has been applied so successfully for improving New York. When people see things being let go, which is almost inevitable in a rental neighborhood, they go with it and usually accellerate that. But when ownership pride kicks in and people start to gentrify an area, the same thing starts to happen in a positive way - people are motivated to fix their stuff.
I've seen it in my old home town. Rental property was seldom maintained at the customary level, so regular owners started to get disgusted and either let their places go, or leave and create more cheap housing to be bought up and converted to rentals. It spread, property values dropped, and so did property tax revenue. Then some other run down street (where even the slum lords had begun to give up and dump their properties) would get a new home owner, a guy who maybe had to buy on the cheap but had pride in his own home. He fixed up his place as his budget permitted, and next thing you know things up and down his street improved as the drive to improve was rekindled.
We don't need to make laws to make all Americans home owners, but policies that encourage it are not misguided so long as they don't foster bubbles. Zero down on unpayable mortgages for minorities, which was nothing more than a racial payback scheme, was never a good idea and nobody with any sense at all thought it was. It made no financial sense, few banks entered into that BS willingly, and the inevitable and natural result came to pass as it all started to unravel. The roots of the current crisis were not long term mortgages and tax deductions. It was the fact that people who had no business getting loans, or getting loans as large as they got, were having money shoveled at them for little more than applying.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 27, 2011 07:35 AM (4nbyM)
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 07:36 AM (5/yRG)
Here is a hippy video that must be seen (and made fun of) by all moron/moronettes.
Forts & inbetween
A group of hippies want you to build a fort (out of blankets).
.......
UJ: here's the link - Calif. judge: Brain-damaged (Because of Med. Mistakes During Child Birth) mom can see triplets
....
Even the 'rebels' in Libya refused to credit BO: (they credit France and British)
....
Yemeni militants seize control of weapons factory
...
Nice Deb: Audio: S.E. Cupp Interviews Jack Cashill + Cashill addresses BO's SS number problem on a Denver talk show:
Posted by: momma at March 27, 2011 07:39 AM (penCf)
Posted by: That Kid on Raising Arizona at March 27, 2011 11:25 AM (azgo2)
Well said.
When I compare rental rates to house payments (including property taxes) for a comparable residence in my town, rentals come out more expensive, or perhaps comparable if you use a 15 year mortgage calculation.
Plus - when you rent you have no freedom to make changes. If you don't like some aspect of your dwelling, well, you have to just suck it up.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 27, 2011 07:40 AM (4nbyM)
Posted by: sock puppeh at March 27, 2011 07:44 AM (VcPAo)
oooo sorry. I went immediately to the book thread and I think monty is pissed at me cause I defiled his wonderful book thread but it resulted in this thread so it's all good.
Posted by: curious at March 27, 2011 07:45 AM (k1rwm)
51 That's been my experience of it: which has led me to never want to rent.
Part of the problem has been, imho, the rise of those fancy subdivisions with the fancy houses. My mom's horse farm got surrounded by one (which prompted closing up shop and getting while the getting was good -- which meant she made some cash on that place and set herself up for retirement well). The subdivision was niiiice -- 100K minimum on the cost of the house that could be constructed there (that was 15 years ago, and in a small, hick town to give some idea of actual cost on the place). Lots of middle class, white collar families moved in -- landscaped yards, new minivans, registered yellow Lab or Golden in the front yard with the wooden play set and kids in designer duds. I thought these folks must be loaded (Mom was the hillbilly with the horses and they couldn't stand her -- have to say the feeling was mutual, because most of them made horrible neighbors with no sense of where their property ended and hers began).
Anyway, long story shorter: I found out that most of those folks were drawing some form of welfare (which they had to find every loophole to get), they were in hock up to their ears, and most of those 2500 sq ft. + houses weren't fully furnished because after the mortgage and the new car payments (and the fancy dogs and designer clothes) most of those folks couldn't afford anything else. Those frakkers were going to the food bank (and looking down their nose at legitimately poor people) -- that was bullshit imho (and is also the reason why I don't cotton to some of the screaming coming from the middle class...some of them are bigger moochers than poor people are).
And that was 15 years ago, when times were pretty decent -- feeling entitled to the "best" of everything has been a bitter lesson for a lot of Americans(and by "best", designer clothes, new cars every two years, and a huge ass home for only 3 people with a landscaped yard)
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 07:46 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Alex at March 27, 2011 07:51 AM (J2ejK)
I have to laugh when I see people label Home Ownership as a bad investment.
The only way it is a bad investment is if you can't afford it, or are too dumb to do their research.
Perhaps, as in all other areas, we just need the Federal Government to stop fucking with the market? Right now, Obama and Co. are using Housing to reduce the gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots'. By devaluing the largest of personal assets, they are redistributing wealth and wealth potential.
Even so, a smart buyer is not in trouble, even in these markets.
Posted by: garrett at March 27, 2011 07:52 AM (vP1Pd)
Posted by: Mr. Dave at March 27, 2011 07:54 AM (dYKl3)
Taxes are getting ridiculous. One of my friends who made very little money this year, under twenty grand, has to pay money to NYS. So she's getting a little back from the feds and it's going to pay state and local tax. Sadly she was terrified that she'd have to pay out of pocket at huge interest rates. So, what did the dems say about not raising taxes? She's a lib and she actually said to us "what if they had succeeded in raising taxes? would I owe money now at high interest and it would come out of next year's pay? no wonder people give up and just go on food stamps and welfare?" I answered "yeah, just go ahead and hate those evil republicans and conservatives, cause really all they wanted to do was keep taxes down and not start any new wars"....there was dead silence in the group.
Posted by: curious at March 27, 2011 07:55 AM (k1rwm)
55 I live in southeast central IL -- soybeans, corn, and meth labs as far as the eye can see!
It isn't so bad -- if you like living like a hillbilly, which I don't mind at all. There are still a lot of really good (and poor) folks around here, and the cost of living is still pretty low (probably because there are no jobs anymore and it's hardly a cultural mecca). Lots of good hunting and fishing still though, and mushrooming season is coming up...mmm, morels...
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 07:56 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 11:46 AM (5/yRG)
Darn good points UJ. I've seen it myself - couples who make themselves house poor so they can show off a prosperous facade. I have never much liked the yuppie types, and it does not surprise me a bit that they were basically a bunch of welfare frauds to boot. They tend to go Left, so that their opinions might be as fashionable as their clothing. The noxiousness of the American neauvoriche is particularly odious in those cases where they're nothing but a collection of upjumped, slackjawed lackwits. No taste, no dignity, no sense of responsibility - just money. Money that, 4 times out of 5, they stumbled into or obtained through nepotism. Artless, classless, and wasteful. I smile when their type get their just desserts.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 27, 2011 07:57 AM (4nbyM)
62 Dang -- if that place had another 10 acres and was decent ground, I'd be interested in that.
My place has gotten too crowded and "sophisticated" for me. My dream is to win the mega and become a less flush Nuge!
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 07:59 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 11:46 AM (5/yRG)
Same out here in my part of the country but it goes this way: The family ranch gets divided between the children and grandchildren and no parcel is big enough to really ranch on so they sell the land for quick gratification. Some developer sells 5-10 acre tracts to the city folks who need to get their hoodlum kids out of the suburbs. They buy a double wide, put up a joke of a fence with a T post every twenty feet or so and buy a horse that they can neglect. Then the whole of the old family ranch begins to look like a country junkyard in a few years.
Posted by: Mr. Dave at March 27, 2011 08:03 AM (dYKl3)
Posted by: sock puppeh at March 27, 2011 08:04 AM (VcPAo)
65 Heh, yeah, most of them were just assholes to my mom (which ironically, my "hillbilly" mom could buy and sell most of them, which didn't say much for their finances) -- she got the last laugh though: the water, gas, and electric lines (plus the only outlet to the highway) sat on her property. She had fun with the real estate developers when it came time to negotiate a deal on her place (and they tried every dirty trick in the book on her).
66 Morels, puff balls, fern fiddlenecks, wild berries and onion, even asparagus patches, all kinds of wildery yummies -- and yeah, deer are like pigeons around here...it's a decent trade off (you just have to know where the local growers mary jane patches are, or that they know you and know you won't snitch on them).
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 08:08 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 08:15 AM (5/yRG)
The point about ever rising property taxes is a crucial one. That's a battle that must be fought bitterly, to the death. Never ever vote for a property tax increase, for any reason. The idiots who live around me are constantly being tricked into voting for higher property tax. Or they were, before the crisis. The schools here are grossly overfunded. They always tell folks - "give us more money for the ever declining schools, or your property values will drop!!!" And often times the rubes fall for it.
Our high school (for a suburb of a small city in southern Michigan) has an olympic swimming pool with a submersible dock system. The place has a dedicated theater with stadium style seating for the drama department. It has computers up the wahzoo. Etc. You could lauch rockets out of that place. Waste upon waste upon waste.
Of course, part of the reason they get away with it is that the Liberals have destroyed the central city school system of the city. It's chock full of welfare scum - the natural and expected product of Leftist social policy and morals. Those people breed like rats, and choke the schools with their criminal spawn. People in my section of town fear would litterally be AFRAID to send their kids down town, and rightly so, for to do so would be to sentence them to be bullied and robbed and possibly raped. We pay high tax to help feel like our schools can't get like that and, more importantly, to make our section of town too expensive for those low class trash to live in. Nobody is willing or able to fix the root problem - mainly because of the hordes of Leftist do-gooders, and misguided so-called Conservatives who fall in line with them, who will do anything to prevent meaningful reform.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 27, 2011 08:16 AM (4nbyM)
Posted by: rickl at March 27, 2011 08:36 AM (hZFhS)
That stuff drives me nuts!! All the local high schools have artificial turf fields. When one school had a referendum approved they built a dedicated wrestling room complete with ceiling mounted stereo system and new 15 thousand dollar mats. They also built a glass enclosed workout center with brand new machines. Another one built an enormous gym with seating that a small college would envy.
Posted by: kidney at March 27, 2011 08:46 AM (3j6OS)
74 My situation involves a PTA and school board that dream of being the affluent section of a big city -- hahhahahah! They would love to tax the school district, which is small, enough to have an olympic pool! Fortunately the town is too damn broke to grant their champagne and caviar wishes.
And the poor folks in town don't much care for them -- seeing as how most of the nuisance crime (and the attending, ever growing number of town ordinances, which are also a pita) stem from their kids running around with college students down from Chicago. Those rich kids do like to get themselves into trouble around here -- not a year goes by that they haven't damaged something of a townie's, started a fight with a townie, or pissed off the wrong townie drug supplier (and to add to the problem, the cops won't go after those kids). I suppose my town and its environs would make an excellent cultural study.
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 08:46 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Mr. Dave at March 27, 2011 09:04 AM (dYKl3)
78 Ok...confession time: I would dearly like to have a donkey or a mule. They do work -- I have a racehorse trainer friend in NM that just got one for coyote control after her Anatolian had to be put down this spring (which was a heartbreaking loss; she was a good dog) -- they'll tear the heck out of coyotes or stray dogs. I need to get this higher paying job (again, not saying much because I'm making below minimum right now)...maybe then I can talk the hubby into letting me have one (or a hunting dog...we need a gundog -- really, it's imperative I get a hunting dog pup in the next few years; my guardian angel told me so in a dream).
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 09:51 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: unknown jane at March 27, 2011 10:01 AM (5/yRG)
From AT: Can We Save America
In order to awaken at least a part of the populace it has taken an imminent financial and societal disaster and the election of President Obama, who personifies the excesses of the past sixty years.
In part, Probly not.
Posted by: sTevo at March 27, 2011 10:53 AM (VMcEw)
Posted by: third world cow blood drinker at March 27, 2011 10:56 AM (Epj2t)
Posted by: third world jihad recruit at March 27, 2011 10:58 AM (Epj2t)
Posted by: not 5/yrg --- Epj2t not watching basketball at March 27, 2011 11:08 AM (Epj2t)
Posted by: johnny i at March 27, 2011 11:28 AM (9RRbi)
Posted by: toby928™ at March 27, 2011 12:24 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Y-not has not read any of the comments at March 27, 2011 01:35 PM (pW2o8)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.1984 seconds, 218 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Hotspur at March 27, 2011 06:46 AM (5cgIv)