patrick.net

shrekgrinch says

Ah yes...they pulled the old 'we didn't make the contributions, our employees did' fraud and you buy it hook, line and sinker?

You guys really have drunk the Obambi Kool-Aide, haven't you?

You're a moron.

Did you actually READ the article? I'll reiterate, since you obviously didn't: When you count directors, officers, and lobbyists, McCain got TEN TIMES AS MUCH in campaign contributions as Obama. TEN TIMES.

You're counting EVERYONE who ever got a paycheck, in any way, from Fannie or Freddie. I suppose you think it's relevant whether the fucking janitor at the Fannie Mae office gave 20 bucks to the Obama campaign. Only in your warped right-wing fantasy world would such a thing be considered as him getting money FROM Fannie and Freddie. They don't control what their low-level employees do in their spare time. Yeah, if the president and board of directors of the company are giving money to a candidate, then it's jive to hide behind the fact that they are "employees". Guess what? When you count the actual people who would guide policy at the company in some way, Obama wasn't even CLOSE to being the biggest recipient. But hey, don't let those pesky facts get in the way of your diatribe.

You really drank the Rush Limbaugh Kool-Aid, didn't you?

The Banksters are laughing their asses off at people like you who are so into your little partisan nonsense that you don't even notice they're robbing you blind, and it has nothing to do with whether the R's or the D's are in office.

I think Obama knows about renters being priced out. The problem is there is no easier way to get growth back up unless the current inventory dries up. I am a renter myself and have been frustrated by the high prices, yet sometimes i ask myself.. what is better? Lower home prices vs. More unemployed, including myself? We could have some other bubble, but the housing one beats them all in sheer size.

Java says

Lower home prices vs. More unemployed, including myself? We could have some other bubble, but the housing one beats them all in sheer size.

There's no real way to get that party started again. Interest rates are 4%. Lowering them to 2% would only induce a ~10% rise in prices.

The boom (2002-2003) was caused by rates falling from 8% to 5% and tax cuts giving families thousands of dollars more a year to bid up housing.

The bubble (2004-2006) was caused by the abandonment of lending standards (liar loans), the innovation of suicide lending (negative am), and 80/20 "affordability" products that removed any risk to the borrower.

We can't do that again.

House appreciation doesn't create sustainable jobs. Sustainability comes from exportable wealth creation. We can't export homes.

gameisrigged says

The Banksters are laughing their asses off at people like you who are so into your little partisan nonsense that you don't even notice they're robbing you blind, and it has nothing to do with whether the R's or the D's are in office.

Pwned quite nicely there, gameisrigged. This is exactly what I tell shrek sometimes, that there are many gullible people who focus on stupid things like this, but he insists on his nonsense.

>And the NAR (an actual pac) has donated mostly to Republicans (until it melted down).

Something else I learned on this site.

Java says

I think Obama knows about renters being priced out. The problem is there is no easier way to get growth back up unless the current inventory dries up. I am a renter myself and have been frustrated by the high prices, yet sometimes i ask myself.. what is better? Lower home prices vs. More unemployed, including myself? We could have some other bubble, but the housing one beats them all in sheer size.

I don't follow, Java. The "problem" is that inventory needs to "dry up"? How do you reduce inventory? By selling. How do you sell? By offering reasonable prices. High prices would have the exact OPPOSITE effect that you want them to have.

Every dollar of lost value causes, what, $10M of default losses?

That's the jam the system is in.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=240

$10T of borrowed money and not enough equity to cover it.

Bellingham Bob says

House appreciation doesn't create sustainable jobs. Sustainability comes from exportable wealth creation. We can't export homes.

You've got that straight.

And this entire issue of the Resident knowing about renters being priced out of the market? I hate to say that the one's truly ruined IN THE MARKET were the loan debtors on the properties. The renters with no mortgages turned out to be the winners (which was predicted I believe even on Patrick.net at the height of this lunacy about five years ago.)

Bellingham Bob says

House appreciation doesn't create sustainable jobs. Sustainability comes from exportable wealth creation. We can't export homes.

That is true...of course the NAR tries to say it does create jobs (thank God for HDTV as you can read actual text now) It says it takes two homes to create one job...sheeshh.

But it would be interesting if we could export homes. I'm surprised that Lennar or some other one wouldn't try to put money into exporting homes..I'm sure it could be done but it is simply a matter of scale.

If you ever want to see an odd assembly line there was this caddy from the late 80s/early 90s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Allant%C3%A9

CL says

And the NAR (an actual pac) has donated mostly to Republicans (until it melted down).

From what I've seen looking at the donation numbers, it's almost a 50/50 split. NAR owns both political parties and play favorites on a case-by-case basis.