Posted on 08/27/2007 4:06:37 AM PDT by Notary Sojac
Yes, we should go back to the good old days when people had to put 20% down on a house in order to get a mortgage. Credit has been too loose for quite some time now. The fact that people could buy houses and put almost no money down has fueled the insane rise in housing prices. A person who cannot put money down on a house really cannot afford to a buy a house and, therefore, should not be given a loan to do so.
This is a much-needed correction to the real estate market and it should be allowed to continue. Eventually, the economy will be stronger for it and housing will become more affordable for the average person.
No surprise, since they've been conducting foreign policy the same way.
I pity the poor dufoos that ponied up a down payment and assumed a VRM on what I would have considered a $35,000 dollar bungalow at best.
Yep, I pity them too. I don't pity the mortgage vultures though. There is a lot of cheatin' goin' on out there...
A thousand or more dollars a square foot is a tad pricey for a 700 square foot house that old with no parking, storage space or yard, located on a dead end street several miles from the beach.
So if the house sold for the asking price, then someone is already upside down on their mortgage by as much as $250,000, in a little over a year.
I recently had a conversation with a credit manager from General Motors in Fort Worth office and he asked me what I thought about the high interest rates of credit cards.
Usury is a word not often spoken because it hurts the money lenders with laws they do not like as well as the borrowers.
Sorry, but I know a lot of first time homebuyers who have struggled to buy a house in recent years, and they weren't buying Hummers. The ones who went out and wasted their money on such purchases are a small minority.
It is not a conservative or smart principle to bail out people who bought way more house then they can afford. Let the the market shake itself out and do not bail out the bankers.
That is capitalism in its raw form. Buy low, sell dear.
I do not have granite counter tops or a 3000 sq ft house I can’t pay for. I do not have these because I knew it was idioticy to buy beyond my means. So why should we subsidize others greed and stupidity. Since when it that a conservative principle?
I am not talking about bailing anyone out, I am talking about fiscal policy. If stupid fiscal policy is followed, everyone will need bailing out. Smart fiscal policy prevents that.
Let the the market shake itself out and do not bail out the bankers.
Our markets are largely controlled by the strings of the fed. You don't tighten credit when the economy is weakening as many seems to think we should. We just came off of 17 consecutive rate hikes last year, it is time to reverse that a bit.
This is not free-market capitalism which is putting pressure on pricing, it is government policy creating this.
Do you know the columnist, or do you just assume he’s a liberal Democrat because he works for the a major metropolitan paper?
If you don’t know him, I’d not be too sure with the LA Times. They perpetually suprise FReepers with sensible editorials, and since at least the Clinton air campaign on behalf of the Muslim terrorist in the Balkans have given straight reporting on a lot of issues to the discomfort of the left (they debunked the ‘genocide’ claims used to ‘justify’ the ‘humanitarian intervention’ while the bombs were still falling).
Hey! But we need a bailout!
So all them janitors and stuff get to keep their 350,000+ dollar joint.
Meanwhile, I had macaroni and cheese for dinner, scrimped to pay my electric bill, and a full tank of gas was a luxury.
But I paid off my house.
Where the hell is my freebie?
I could use an extra couple hundred K too.
For all the people that are getting buried by adjustable rates, they should have figured that there was a risk of this.
I hear ya’.
WShat the speculative class is more concerned about is saving they hides, not the home owners. Let the market work it self out. And as for lowering rates inflation is still a key worry and said rate cut would be counter to teh goal of controling it.
The major flaw in this argument, besides the one that doesn’t care if I lose my job, (which I guess is fair, as I don’t care of the author loses his) is that a major crash in real estate trickles down through the entire economy and affects everyone.
Kinda like watching your worst enemy drive off a cliff — in your Mercedes.
Bingo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.