A World of Hurt

"...based on the IMF's review of housing cycles going back several decades, the average country sees home prices escalate by 45 percent during booms (which last, on average, about 6 years), and then sees prices decline about 25 percent during busts..."

So....since our house price rise was *more* than 45%.....

Our bust will be more than -25%.

In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" Obama unintentionally revealed that he really is as radical as his early political mentors and acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi etc., (gee, there sure seem to be a lot of them) and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Now there is absolute proof. In 2001, Obama, the "community organizer" turned legislator, said in an interview:

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview.

Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

Indeed, some democrats are publically saying as much. See Barney Franks comments on the news, including face the nation last week, stating essentially that Democrats in Congress intend to greatly raise taxes and go on a spending spree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJGnSAlqjoU

See http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

Obama's ill-conceived programs will require him to tax, and his health care plan alone is a substantial hidden tax on all business, large an small. In reality, it does not really matter who he taxes, those taxes are going to be passed through the economy. He has to tax, because it is they only way he can pay for his massive social engineering experiments. Any first year economics student knows that taxation is a tool used to contract an economy experiencing inflation, because it reduces demand by reducing the amount of money individuals and businesses have to spend. It is contractionary, which is exactly what you do not want to do when the problem is that the economy is contracting already into recession. Like Hoover and FDR, Obama's plans will only make it worse for longer.

See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/opinion/main4499465.shtml
And
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx


The democrats failed social engineering policies in the housing market are what brought us to ruin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related
Even Bill Clinton says so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE
Obama and a supermajority of Democrats simply is not the change we need, nor is it change we can afford.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

2001 Chicago Public Citizen Radio Interview criticizing the Warren Court as not radical enough for not pursuing redistribution of wealth.

Says that community organizing is for the purpose of assembling the political power to force redistribution of wealth.

The Kennedy tax cut.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

About half way through the article.

"President Kennedy proposed massive tax-rate reductions, which were passed by Congress and became law after he was assassinated. The 1964 tax cut reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. The cut reduced lower-bracket rates as well. In the four years prior to the 1965 tax-rate cuts, federal government income tax revenue--adjusted for inflation--increased at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, while total government income tax revenue (federal plus state and local) increased by 2.6 percent per year . In the four years following the tax cut, federal government income tax revenue increased by 8.6 percent annually and total government income tax revenue increased by 9.0 percent annually. Government income tax revenue not only increased in the years following the tax cut, it increased at a much faster rate.
The Kennedy tax cut set the example that President Ronald Reagan would follow some 17 years later. By increasing incentives to work, produce, and invest, real GDP growth increased in the years following the tax cuts: More people worked, and the tax base expanded. Additionally, the expenditure side of the budget benefited as well because the unemployment rate was significantly reduced.
Using the Congressional Budget Office's revenue forecasts (made with the full knowledge of the future tax cuts), revenues came in much higher than had been anticipated, even after the "cost""of the tax cut had been taken into account. Additionally, in 1965--one year following the tax cut--personal income tax revenue data exceeded expectations by the greatest amounts in the highest income classes.
Testifying before Congress in 1977, Walter Heller, President Kenned''s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, summarized:
What happened to the tax cut in 1965 is difficult to pin down, but insofar as we are able to isolate it, it did seem to have a tremendously stimulative effect, a multiplied effect on the economy. It was the major factor that led to our running a $3 billion surplus by the middle of 1965 before escalation in Vietnam struck us. It was a $12 billion tax cut, which would be about $33 or $34 billion in today's terms, and within one year the revenues into the Federal Treasury were already above what they had been before the tax cut.
Did the tax cut pay for itself in increased revenues? I think the evidence is very strong that it did."

See also
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732 from this web site. (oops!) stating that Freddie Mac was spending tax payer money to target Republicans in 2005 who were trying to regulate Fannie and Freddies fraud. Democrats were not targeted, as the were all in the tank with Fannie and Freddie to kill the regulations. Hear that, the article admits that Republicans were trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie, and Democrats were trying to stop it from happening as a means to facilitate the Community Reinvestment Act.

See also: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972
Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."

In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" we find out that Obama really is as radical as his early political acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, etc., and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

Their failed policies are what brought us to ruin. Even Bill Clinton says so. Obama and a supermajority of Democrats simply is not the change we need, nor is it change we can afford.

Obama in this video, addressing his work with ACORN litigation relating to the community reinvestment act and the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as they relate to the current real estate and financial crisis, states that, and I quote:

"Subprime lending started out as a good idea, helping Americans buy homes who previously could not afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories, and spread them out among investors and around the country, as well as around the world. In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky, and more diversified."

He further states:

"The original idea was a good one, which was, lets see if we can distribute risk more broadly, and make it easier to provide loans to people who otherwise might not be able to get one."

Listen for yourself. You cannot dispute the mans on words recorded live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

Obama in this second video is campaigning at a convention of Acorn and I believe two other "Community Activist" organizations. Ask if he will be their ally if he becomes President, Obama says, quote:

"Yes, but let me say that before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we are going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."

See and hear it for yourself. Obama promised that Acorn and other groups like it will setting his agenda if elected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU
See also: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972
Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."
See also:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=808692&boardsparam=Page%3d2

Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
See also
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732 from this web site. (oops!) stating that Freddie Mac was spending tax payer money to target Republicans in 2005 who were trying to regulate Fannie and Freddies fraud. Democrats were not targeted, as the were all in the tank with Fannie and Freddie to kill the regulations. Hear that, the article admits that Republicans were trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie, and Democrats were trying to stop it from happening as a means to facilitate the Community Reinvestment Act.

Housing will go from bad to worse. McGinn is good here. Homeowners are taking it as if it were fate. Why! You knew this was coming and the lenders are bullies that will not budge. But there acts were unlawful? Lose your home and start again? Why? msoliman blog/ www.foreclosureinfoshare.com / no solicitation just info.

Great article

just look how much China's house price has raise in the past decade,no in the past 5 years (that would be at least 100%),you would be content about your situation.

just look how much China's house price has raised in the past decade(that would be at least 100%),you would be content with your situation

It turns out that RNC has spent $150,000 on clothes for Sarah Palin. They also spent $100 for a romper and hat for little Trig, which he wore on stage at the GOP convention.

A hundred dollar onesie? (And these people are saying that Obama would be a profligate spender.)

Did you know that the outfit Cindy McCain wore when she appeared at the convention cost $330,000?

The RNC says that later Sarah's clothes will be donated to charity. OK, so some homeless person will get to wear this stuff on the streets of New Orleans. (Maybe this is the RNC's version of "trickle down spending.") But wouldn't the homeless be better served by $150,000 donation to a shelter or a food bank than by designer clothing?

Fifteen years ago, McCain wrote an amendment to tighten the law on using campaign funds for personal items like clothing and stylists. In May of 1993, McCain said this on the Senate floor "The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly."

I guess he forgot what his prior position was. Again.

Just like he forgot that he used to be pro-Choice and pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration reform. He also forgot that he used to be afiliated with ACORN, and with G. Gordon Liddy. If he is lying to cover up what his prior positions have been, shame on him. If he really can't remember, maybe the detractors who claim his mind is aging are correct.

One last thought: is the GOP paying for Bristol Palin's maternity wear?

Americans,prepare yourselves for an economic revolution.Prepare to produce all of your needs.The monitary system will fail it is only a matter of time.We have let our government runamuck,we let our politicians get in bed with all of the corporate monopolies.All the working class has to do is produce their own goods and do away with the current monitary system that is too currupt to get ahead in.Work for yourself and knowone else. Lets take this country back now all of us blue collar workers can and will make it happen.

Now that the dollar is making a startling comeback U.S. real estate will become less attractive to foreign investors. Similarly we now can look for "good" buys overseas.

I just read your online story on housing declines by Mr. cMcGinn.

Are we so stupid in this country and other countries to realize
that not everyone can afford a house on this planet? It is not a God given right--it is only a right if you can pay your mortgage.

Lenders have to 1. not be so greedy 2. realize the sub-prime market will never work and 3. builders need to quit building over the top homes that make people's mouth water.

This housing market crisis is the fault of everyone...the deregulators (the governments), financial markets (lending and lowering of sound credit regulations, real estate agents overkill and consumerr ndifference to their financial responsibility and living g within their means.

Everyone knows this but must you all be slapped in the face to say it ,, live it and work within these confines so the economic system works relatively well?

I live in San Diego, CA...one of the most expensive cities in US to live..

We seem to be bouncing back from our recessionary decline in the housing market. But we certainly aren't back to the overly inflated market we had about 1-2 years ago...but new housing sale prices are going up, with buyers and re-sales are slowly making a comeback.The regulatory aspects of mortgage loans are back to where they were as are the consumer credit scores needed to purchase homes.

If San Diego can come back, tmaybe the rest of the country can too in time.
It isn'tt hopeless as long as greed, living within ones means, our government , and financial companies act responsibly. Must we have to say to ALL of our citizens (from the top to the bottom) to think before they act? There is enough blame to go around-it is time to move on.