Post by: sandbox on November 05, 2008, 03:51:37 AM
It will be a great relief to those of us who can't stand the noise any longer.
I voted for cooler beer and I want them to turn down the brightness a bit, the sun is bothering my eyes.
Post by: Mrious_be on November 05, 2008, 06:15:42 AM
When I noticed the headlines on the papers this morning, mentioning the final outcome of the elections I was really really happy
Then I went for an interview and they had a widescreen television in the room showing the results, and also showing his acceptance speech (I think it was called?).
At that moment... I could already feel the world being a better place to live in.
He shows confidence, knows how to talk and and even more, talks to everyone and wants to involve everyone for the future.
I lost a tear over it, well done Obama
Together with me, I think a lot of people over the world feel joyful
Post by: Gregg on November 05, 2008, 08:05:16 AM
Post by: RNKIII on November 05, 2008, 08:32:48 AM
Bob K. rnkiii
Post by: Mrious_be on November 05, 2008, 11:58:45 AM
QUOTE(Gregg @ Nov 5 2008, 02:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's over
Or the beginning
Post by: Mayo on November 05, 2008, 12:03:10 PM
We made it to a local Democratic gathering at a pizza parlor just in time to join in the cheering when the race was called for Obama.
BTW, we are registered Green Party members...
Post by: Xairbusdriver on November 05, 2008, 05:09:01 PM
Post by: kimmer on November 05, 2008, 05:31:20 PM
Instead we can again be bombarded with ads about incontinence, irritated bowels, dye-a-re-uh, ED, female products, pills for every malady known to 'man' and some that aren't, and more. Sometimes I long for the days when all the ads were for booze and smokes.
Post by: Paddy on November 05, 2008, 09:32:12 PM
(My 13 year old thinks they're hilarious)I love my DVR...no need to watch ads when I never start watch anything in real time!
Canadians were certainly more interested in the US election than they were in our own last month. We had record LOW turnouts - we had the choice between the status quo who nobody really loved who had called an election nobody wanted, and a party leader who had absolutely no charisma, difficulty not mangling English (first language being French) and a platform nobody really understood. There were at least two other choices in every riding - but neither of the alternative parties (NDP and Greens in most of Canada and Bloc in Quebec) had a prayer of forming a government, so in many ridings outside of Quebec it was a choice between the Conservatives and Liberals. A lot of people obviously decided not to bother making that choice.
Canada, like much of the rest of the world, was clearly rooting for Obama and there was much jubilation here last night.
I certainly hope that he doesn't disappoint, and that Americans realize that he is the president, not a miracle worker.
Post by: sandbox on November 06, 2008, 02:24:53 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on November 06, 2008, 09:59:07 AM
QUOTE(Paddy)
in many ridings outside of Quebec
Now there's a word that needs to be picked up in the "BOO!" thread. I suspect its meaning, practically speaking, but will endeavor to find if I am correct...Well said, sandbox!
Post by: Xairbusdriver on November 06, 2008, 10:05:56 AM
Actually, the good old, built-in Dictionary, (ri•ding #2) has the info I wanted.
Figgered it out but shows my ignorance of Canada. 
Post by: ADSR on November 07, 2008, 08:51:49 PM
I am .....as 76 percent of the French !!!
GR
Post by: gunug on November 07, 2008, 10:53:01 PM
QUOTE
I'm amazed at some of the ads that are now turning up at 6 in the evening. I'm glad I don't have to explain ED or "male enhancement" to a 5 year old. tongue.gif (My 13 year old thinks they're hilarious)
Paddy - I assume we're talking about Bob here! They're funny the first time or two for me! As to any political aspect of this thread I have decided to decline comment as I've "really" learned my lesson about things like this.
Post by: sandbox on November 07, 2008, 11:03:34 PM
Post by: kimmer on November 07, 2008, 11:26:29 PM
QUOTE(gunug @ Nov 7 2008, 09:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As to any political aspect of this thread I have decided to decline comment as I've "really" learned my lesson about things like this.
Couldn't agree more.
Post by: Gregg on November 08, 2008, 08:46:42 AM
QUOTE(kimmer @ Nov 7 2008, 11:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(gunug @ Nov 7 2008, 09:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As to any political aspect of this thread I have decided to decline comment as I've "really" learned my lesson about things like this.
Couldn't agree more.
I, on the other hand, could not disagree less.
Post by: sandbox on November 08, 2008, 03:21:33 PM
Gunug.
Of course one can say it's politics, that doesn't make it so. This was a global movement not a partisan one.
We have just been reminded by the world, like it or not, that this experiment does effect what happens everywhere else.
Take for example this argument on economics and see how our policies effect the global markets around the world. Is that politics or mathematics?
The US election was about numbers, how much did each vote cost? If you do the math you may discover the the only difference between one side of the fence and the other was 6% a two percent shift to the left in the partisan debate and a 4% increase in independent activity. Is that a political argument or a mathematical observation? Expectation bring disappointment, not a political statement but a theoretical observation. Music by the Temptations emphasized that point in poetic harmony not in political rancor. If the discussion disturbs you, thank you for not participating. I can easily pass by some posts without comment, without making some leap that it instigates a political discourse, religious fever or sexual innuendo. The post was made, it was received and responded too by those who wanted to add to it, to claim that they or I are bending rules because of the topic rather than the exchanging is taking the rules a bit to far.
We can all take the rules too far....I choose to just ignore the post and the posters that will most likely cause conflict rather than cause the conflict by suggesting that it has the potential to cause conflict.
Post by: sandbox on November 09, 2008, 10:40:45 PM
I like Psychologist Steven Pinker's view of political language and how it works for us, for them.
Post by: krissel on November 10, 2008, 04:08:17 AM
Post by: sandbox on November 11, 2008, 03:54:16 AM
QUOTE(krissel @ Nov 10 2008, 06:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Pinker took 5 minutes to state the obvious.
True but where do you find anyone telling the broader public that they're voting for obscurity.
The act of saying nothing is the art of politics and people pay billions now for what will surely disappoint them.
The price of nothing is going up. Oh sure, you can read between the lines, you can look at past voting records, you can dream and place an agent of change in it, but you can't hold them accountable for obscurity and so there is no real remedy for what has depreciated the value of our process and nation as a whole.
Where are the facts about our financial crisis? All that is being broadcast is that we're in one, but not why we suddenly find ourselves there. Who are they protecting? You, me or the nations holding 5 trillion in Sovereign wealth funds that want to buy our strategic assets? If the general public knew that we are down to selling our national parks to pay for mismanagement wouldn't they want to examine how we got here rather than accept the fact that we are? It needs to be stopped and accountability is our only remedy, otherwise we may as well just forget about elections altogether.
I'm not addressing politics I'm addressing the process and how ineffective it is for the electorate. I'm amazed at how malnourished the species has become for honest discourse and how desperate they seem to settle for anything even obscurity.
Post by: krissel on November 11, 2008, 04:51:06 AM
The ignorance of peoples in general won't be cured by reports on the genesis of the latest crisis. I've spent a lot of time lately reading on the implications of Sarbanes/Oxley, repeal of Glass/Steagall, congressional undersight of Fannie Mac/Mae as well as the advocacy of home ownership by the 'underfunded'. These are just a few of the multitude of acts and events that brought us to our present crisis. Unfortunately much of our populace doesn't understand the basics of a home budget let alone something more encompassing. For sure the education system doesn't do a good job of teaching in this area and the average family fails to emphasize to their children the importance of knowing these things since they don't have a clue either.
As to foreign countries buying our assets, yup, that's a danger but somewhat ameliorated now by the fact that many of their funds were tied up in our Wallstreet leverages which of course are now worth little. And since their own economies are struggling they will need to focus their spending on their own turf for now. We do need to watch out for the maintenance of the prime lending rate being kept too low, too long like it was in the Greenspan era. That helped inflate the housing bubble as well as keeping the dollar at a low which encouraged foreign entities to buy our properties.
There are so many things that contributed to this mess and some additional oversight will be necessary. But we have to judge carefully that new regulations are smart ones and not those that will stifle the economy.
Say Mark, why don't you run for office?
Post by: Gregg on November 11, 2008, 06:57:56 AM
QUOTE(krissel @ Nov 11 2008, 04:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
These are just a few of the multitude of acts and events that brought us to our present crisis.
Of course the "acts" you mentioned before that sentence are pieces of legislation. The "events" are things outside of the legislative process. As I've alluded to in another thread (not using the same terminology) I think the events have a greater impact than the acts.
A case in point: Here in Milwaukee, voters approved a referendum requiring employers to give their employees paid sick time for themselves or their children. If you employ 10 or fewer (or fewer than 10?) people, they must be given 5 days, otherwise, it's 9 days. I believe there is a minimum number of hours per week that they have to be scheduled to work in order to qualify.
So, how will small business owners respond to the ordinance that makes Milwaukee an island in the local economy?
1. Employees will get fewer hours to keep them under the minimum (think restaurants and other work places where a schedule is made for each week)
2. Small businesses will stay small to avoid the threshold between 5 and 9 days.
3. Someone will test the meaning of "is". That is to say, they might try to award "personal time" which will be defined as any day off that you want, for whatever reason. They will not increase the number of such days at all, because this will encompass their vacation policy.
As I also said in that other thread, we will always need new laws to deal with the unintended consequences of the old ones. Things get dicey when money is involved!
Post by: sandbox on November 11, 2008, 07:24:32 PM
Post by: krissel on November 12, 2008, 02:38:41 AM
QUOTE
September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
QUOTE
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers.
QUOTE
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...xprod=permalink
QUOTE
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
QUOTE
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
The proposal died in Congress.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...xprod=permalink
The Clinton administration was obsessed with multiculturalism and social engineering which dictated where mortgage lenders could focus their market. Regulations forced some lenders to lower standards for loans in order to avoid government penalties. Bill wanted the Community Redevelopment Act to be the force behind loans that encouraged minority homeownership.
Yes, the meltdown was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes by Wallstreet funders but the origin was much earlier in the mid/late 90's. Indeed the Bush administration is not blameless, nor is either party in Congress. However the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers who were the political catalysts behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
Post by: krissel on November 12, 2008, 08:05:58 AM
I suppose I've crossed that invisible line and I will not make any more personal, political observations... even though I was really just trying to correct a widely misunderstood chain of events.... (slaps wrist).
Gregg, you're right of course that events have an unknown effect on how things eventually develop. Sometimes the best of intentions are skewed by external circumstances. Sometimes you can predict the results by looking at past history elsewhere and sometimes not.
In our teacher's contract at one point we had a similar dilemma. In an attempt to save money, the Board of Ed put in our contract that they would not give benefits to anyone who worked less than a 20 hour work week. On the surface it looked fair enough so we didn't object however what happened was anything but fair. Instead of hiring 3 full time teachers to cover a subject area, they would hire 6 part timers. The writing was on the wall for the future so we spent a good deal of time and eventually other 'givebacks' to alter that ruling. Eventually we added stipulations that made it more difficult for them to just chop up all the positions in order to save on benefits. It still happens to some extent but keeping continuity, especially in the elementary level, is really important to the children.
It just means we have to be all the more diligent in watching what goes on and hoping for the best.
(Gee, now there's a "duh" statement.)
Post by: Gregg on November 12, 2008, 12:11:28 PM
QUOTE(krissel @ Nov 12 2008, 08:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I suppose I've crossed that invisible line ....
Yes you have. It's called page two. Maybe nobody will notice.
Post by: Paddy on November 12, 2008, 12:49:50 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2008/200811/20081112.html
Post by: sandbox on November 12, 2008, 01:39:27 PM
Post by: krissel on November 12, 2008, 02:31:11 PM
A Quiet Windfall for US Banks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0902155_pf.html
Post by: Mayo on November 12, 2008, 02:38:43 PM
It has become fashionable among some conservative politicians and more than a few conservative pundits to place a lot, if not the majority of the blame for the mortgage meltdown on government sanctioned lending to minorities and lower-income citizens. It is just more of the same simplistic reasoning and fear-mongering that has been the bedrock of Republican pandering to its base; I hope that now that the conservative ideology has been so thoroughly discredited that we will be able to move on and intelligently address the many complex problems facing our country.
Post by: Gregg on November 12, 2008, 04:30:16 PM
QUOTE
Maybe nobody will notice.
So much for that!
I guess it's time....
Post by: sandbox on November 13, 2008, 02:38:54 AM
The purpose was to help people who worked and live on the margins. A noble cause, arguable.
The Bush Bill failed in a republican congress, no? No doubt he knew it would.
If you examine the failures and foreclosure rates of fanny and freddy before the bubble you may discover that they were lower than the market average. Although the Mac loans were going to people on the margins the qualifications were high and so was the oversight. That's why Bill pushed harder, he thought that there was more wiggle room, he thought that the banks were not taking enough risk since the risk was being leverage by the Fed. He thought he could push the envelope, he did, and still the failure rates were low. To me that's the key,... were the Mac Loans failing, and from my observation they were not. Yes they had too much paper out on loan, but it wasn't foreclosing at a high rate, it was lower than average so the risk was worth it. Along comes a need to invest with an over liquid economy. There was tons of money and no place to put it. The tech market was saturated, 9-11 shifted huge borrowed funds to the pentagon, the economy was stagnant so property was stimulated, not by demand, but by lower rates and speculation. It was a windfall until Katrina and reality set in. My property value quadrupled in 5 years, which made me laugh and scream because i knew it was a fabrication and now I was forced to pay a huge insurance bill on a fabricated price and a tax increase to boot. The states, counties and local communities loved it, they had money to burn, they weren't about to regulate anything.
I got 5 offers a week to sell, 10 to buy, and that wasn't nothing compared to friends who lived on the beach and picked their mail off the ground because the box was too full to hold it. Their property increased 700%, how's them apples? And, the people who were buying up the properties were not home owners, they were speculators. They just passed the property back and forth between them for 5 years and not with freddy/fanny money. You had to be here to appreciate it. Loan sharks walking the streets giving out second morgages like milktoast and folks driving home in their new Escalades. These were smart people being convinced that they needed to get on the band wagon, it was so stupid. the cars were being sold with 0 down and no payments for 3 months, some were 6 months....please....my sides were killing me from laughing so hard. Welcome to Disney Town.
This area, like so many developing regions, were targeted by professionals. The failure here were by speculators not folks living on the margins buying houses beyond their means.I'm sure as the economy begins to dry up, that more marginal people will fail, they are the first to loose, but they weren't the cause of our local crisis nor do I suspect they caused the failures in Nevada, California, or any other high impacted region. Property held in other states were not effected, it was only in developing or re-developing areas of the country. The first planned bailout was a joke, Paulson should be ashamed of himself for trying to bailout the speculators.
Post by: krissel on November 13, 2008, 03:14:31 AM
As to all the foreclosures these days and the desire for people to own homes..well I joked to my Dad tonight that all anyone has to do is wait a while and home prices will be affordable, everywhere. If they have no job maybe not, but anyone who managed to save prior to the present day should be able to pick up some nice bargains.
As to who is at fault for all this... the list could go on infinitum.
As far as I'm concerned the ultimate "blame" lies not in the labels or slogans attached to personal beliefs, nor in a particular political party. It lies in each individual who thought that somehow they would be getting something for little or no effort. Corporate greed is a manifestation of personal greed extrapolated. According to Gekko (aka Boesky), greed is a catalyst for good and there may be a kernel of truth to that. However the problem lies in the level of greed, its intent, extent and how it is channeled.
The profit motive has been responsible for much of the advances in our society. The real question is at what point does the desire for enlightened self-interest (as Adam Smith noted) cross the line to become greed? While some of the execs walking away with billions have more money than I will ever have, at least I have something they don't...the ability to recognize how much is enough. (apologies to Joseph Heller)
Capitalism may be put down by those who desire a more controlled environment and with the recent events that's understandable. However it is the Capitalist philosophy that provides for creativity, innovations and opportunity. Where would Apple be today if not for the economic freedom to invest in their future and that of their consumers? And largess is often the purveyor of advances that result in cheaper prices brought about by economies of scale.
Of course unbridled greed is all too often part of unfettered aggression and illegal manipulation within the business world that is destructive to markets and societies. Equipment-related capital investment can bring about inexpensive products but low wages or using cheap foreign labor does little to advance the economy as a whole. Thus the need for limitations to prevent the extremes that we have witnessed to sickening excess these past months. However too much government intervention can result in equal damage and dysfunction thereby curbing any motivational resurgence that will be necessary to pull us up out of this crevasse.
Ultimately it is the citizen who is responsible for what happens in our country and indeed conditions demand that we are highly extrospective in the days to come.
Some interesting reading on greed:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=85971 (from 2002)
http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/GreedIsGood.htm
Post by: Gregg on November 13, 2008, 06:42:06 AM
http://www.techsurvivors.net/forums/index....st&p=154035
Post by: sandbox on November 13, 2008, 03:40:46 PM
I'm all for rewarding risk, which basically is all capitalism is. Like all games there needs to be rules. Imagine a football game without referees? Or even worse, they have referees that pretend they're regulating when in fact they are not so the people think th the rules are being followed and do nothing to address the issue. The market was abused and people were exploited and now they're telling us there is no justice because the players were too big to fail. Meanwhile they took the profits offshore, away from regulation and taxes and the system is structured to allow this to continue.
Along comes Change, a new beginning, a time of co-operation for the future but with no commitment to accountability. Without a commitment to accountability we can only expect a return to this game in the future when the money is looking for higher rates of return. The higher rates devalue labor and so the bell tolls once again.
The third world is catching up, in 25 years India will be producing 6x more emissions than they do today. China will be producing 4x more. Central an south America will triple in todays investment strategy but if with finance trade with the south the emissions could be 7x todays rate. All these countries will be on a fast tract to the bottom, who can produce at the lower cost. I think it's too late to have any influence on any of these countries. I think they have the capacity to create economies between them and without us. We set the example and now we have to live and die with it.
Post by: krissel on November 14, 2008, 02:56:38 AM
I would like to think that most of TS members are intelligent and hardworking yet I'll bet (like me) they were unaware of what was going on behind the scenes. We, as the citizenry, have to be more proactive and question all the changes and laws that will be proposed to be sure there are checks and balances in place.
Which brings me to a question to anyone who has bothered to follow this thread...(probably scared away everyone
)Have you contacted your home insurance agent to ask if they are going to reduce your coverage, hence your premium?
If our homes have reduced in value then the insurance we had on them should be lowered. Yet I'll bet no insurance carrier has taken the initiative and offered to do so. That's a ton of money that those companies will bank during the downturn in values. I haven't seen any articles or reports on the subject.
Anyone had such a conversation with their agent?
Post by: sandbox on November 14, 2008, 03:45:08 AM
It's a balancing act and no one knows where the fulcrum is. For the folks established before 2003 they should be OK unless the hocked their equity. Anyone with newer acquisitions purchased in an inflated market need to have the prices stabilize now, just so they're not upside down. They purchased in the bubble and should pay for their mistake, but they shouldn't be destroyed over it. A 10% slap on the wrist for not paying attention and they will learn a lesson. But a 40% devaluation could be a lifetime of playing catch-up, and that's just not fair. All the speculators that got caught without chairs in the game of musical chairs should pay full price. And all the people and companies that exploited the system should be milked of their resources and held accountable for their actions.
I keep hearing that the task is too great, that they can't get all the bad guys. Well, I can identify everyone that was involved in this neck of the woods, and I'm sure with a key player in every market we could round them buggers up and cash them in. I can't tell you how many calls, emails or conversations I've had from seniors who were being hustled by marketeers, many, many. And I have all the contact info about each one. I've been busy, waiting for this to unravel as have others.
Post by: Gregg on November 14, 2008, 06:28:58 AM
QUOTE(krissel @ Nov 14 2008, 02:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Which brings me to a question to anyone who has bothered to follow this thread...(probably scared away everyone )
)Nah! But I bet had the sharper partisan criticisms been leveled at the other side, it would have been locked.
Post by: krissel on November 14, 2008, 06:53:35 AM
It's more important at this point to keep each other informed of events that are ongoing in our path through this economic morass. We've covered the blame part, now let's see if we can help one another survive what is to come and keep an eye on what is happening around us.
Post by: Gregg on November 14, 2008, 08:41:11 AM
QUOTE(krissel @ Nov 14 2008, 06:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Judging which criticism was 'sharper' or more 'partisan' would be a guessing game at best. Let's let that be.
I disagree with the first statement, and agree with the second. Apology accepted, however, the posts in question do violate our rules. The inaction violates policy, and does not conform to precedent. I've seen threads locked for far less. I kept being shocked when I came back to this forum and saw this thread still open.
Post by: krissel on November 14, 2008, 09:18:06 AM
Seriously, each individual has an opinion and that's what makes life interesting. You are entitled to yours...however I am equally surprised to see you attempting to re-ignite the situation.
Post by: Paddy on November 14, 2008, 10:44:35 AM
Now...back to the discussion at hand.
In MA, the towns and cities are allowed to increase the total amount collected by 2.5% over the previous year. (Based on the total assessed value of ALL property and there is a levy ceiling of 2.5% of all assessed property). I don't think any towns tax at or near the ceiling, so in most cases, taxes won't go down, even if the assessed value drops significantly, unless the assessed value drops significantly in comparison to the rest of the property in town.
In Toronto, we don't have any tax limitation law - the city looks at what it needs to raise and then sets the mill rate accordingly. The valuation is from Jan. 1, 2008 - and it's no good going to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and complaining because your assessed value is less since then - they don't reassess every few months! (I AM a little annoyed that a few of my neighbors living in houses built in the past 2 or 3 years seem to be paying taxes based on the bungalows that used to be there...but that's another story).
So - it really will depend on the tax situation in the place where you live, but overall, since values have fallen fairly uniformly within municipalities, I wouldn't expect anyone's tax bill to go down much (and in fact mill rates may increase in order to collect the needed amount). Insurance is a different thing of course - though again, it should be based on the REPLACEMENT value, rather than the actual real estate value, so I'm not sure you'd be likely to see much decrease there either, as there hasn't been any mass reduction in the cost of building materials or household goods.
Post by: jwboyd on November 14, 2008, 03:52:53 PM
I am president of the Homeowners Association in our small subdivision. We have recently had informal discussions along these same lines. I will visit with our insurance agent in a couple of days, about Association business. I will ask him about whether it is possible to adjust premiums based on current market values and/or replacement cost.
I vote for keeping this thread open so long as it does not become blatantly political.
Post by: Paddy on November 14, 2008, 04:53:24 PM
http://www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/homeowners/
Post by: Xairbusdriver on November 14, 2008, 05:07:16 PM
All in all, I don't expect to see much lowering of insurance costs around here, but we've also had much less of the price inflation than in other parts of the country. However, I do expect to see nearly the same decrease in house prices because even more people in this area took the 'you're alive, therefore qualified' loans that were encouraged for too many years. Of course, that led to greed from many companies/brokers. And as Paul says in I Timothy 6:10 (The Message), "Lust for money brings trouble and nothing but trouble." The key word there is "lust," an uncontrolled desire for more and more of something that may even be good and useful. Certainly appears to be relevant to today's mess, IMHO.
BTW, I am proud of the way this thread has progressed and by the obvious restraint and care by all posters (not counting me, of course!). To be honest, I did express my fears about the thread to a few.
They turned out to be correct!
Post by: kimmer on November 14, 2008, 07:38:40 PM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Nov 14 2008, 03:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I know from my experience, that our homeowners coverage is based on 'replacement costs.'
We just renewed our homeowners insurance and that's what they told me. Our premium only went up a few bucks, and our coverage went up around $10,000. I felt it was a pretty good deal.
QUOTE
OTOH, most 'property' taxes are based, almost solely, on the 'value' of said property.
Our tax bill arrived while we were traveling, and it has an odd increase ($11,000 in "improvements" -- but we haven't changed a thing).
There wasn't time to protest it before the cheapest due date, so I paid it in full. This next week, we'll go up and ask about our bill. We do know that here the value is based on the prices/values from last April, so that's way out of line compared to now. There haven't been any sales around us, just more homes/lots listed for sale -- but nothing is moving. The house just around the corner has been on the market for over 2 years and not even a nibble. The lots up the street are outrageously priced and won't sell for that kind of money until maybe 2058.QUOTE
BTW, I am proud of the way this thread has progressed and by the obvious restraint and care by all posters ....
Couldn't agree more. I am learning things and finding this thread informative and educational.
Post by: sandbox on November 15, 2008, 06:46:22 AM
not...Paddy, we also have a 3% ceiling on annual tax hikes but it only applies to home owners who reside in the building, not commercial property. So rental/leased houses followed the value and if the value went up 500% so did the taxes. Insurance follows replacement cost but in an inflated market the cost to replace the building is also inflated. As the prices have gone down this year my insurance followed. Last year Florida restructured their tax system under a referendum and so far it seems to have satisfied the masses though some do complain. For example, I have owned this property for 15 years, bought it cheap, bought it with cash. So, in 15 years the maximum tax increase this place could have is 45%, even though it has increased in value 1500% ???or so. The folks next door bought their place 5 years ago and paid 150,000 dollars more for the same house. So they pay a disproportional amount of tax over my tax, on a 150,000 of value that i don't have to pay for. Is it fair? No But that's life. Last year they past a law that would allow me to move to another location and take my tax structure with me. So a new house or location would only receive the taxes equal to the old house. This was a social engineering act to move property around and keep the real estate market hot and attractive.
So here we are safe from the wolves, and all around us there are properties foreclosing. Not in my neighborhood but in the general region. Most of the properties here were settled and only a few brought new SUV's, so there are no auctions just yet. If I were 20 years younger I would be buying up property right now, some of the auctions I've attended have brought 20¢ on the dollar, just amazing.
The big picture....to solve the housing crunch they need a bankruptcy bill to let the courts settle the disputes and catch any culprits that may have caused the problem. Then they need to restructure the loans, first the interest rate and then principle if necessary to keep folks in their homes. Once the housing become stable they need to create incentives to purchase existing housing stock with long term low interest loans held in local banks and guaranteed by the treasury.
Now here's the political part, they need to place a Moratorium on foreclosures as they did in Massachusetts and just as Mrs. Clinton suggested they do 4-6 months ago. This is not a political position it is a stop gap measure, and it needs to happen quickly. Mind you, it won't effect me one way or another, but I do know how to stop the bleeding. Once you stop the bleeding you then you give pain relief, find out what happened, and hand them the bill later. Right now all the treasury is doing is rewarding the people who cut us open.
Post by: kcourt on November 16, 2008, 04:02:22 PM
I personally don't trust any politicians. They are all talk and seem to be to be very self-serving, no matter what the party. Since I am in my 70's, I have seen them come and go - they are all the same, IMO.Glad it is over so we can get on with our lives!
Kathy
Post by: sandbox on November 17, 2008, 10:29:47 AM
Post by: Paddy on November 17, 2008, 02:43:49 PM
Recession Will Be Less Damaging Without Bailouts
Post by: sandbox on November 17, 2008, 08:06:01 PM
I was a Bethlehem steel worker in Buffalo when they started closed shop and outsourced to Japan in the 70's, so I have a pretty good idea what it’s like on the ground.
I think a bailout is over reaching as is bankruptcy, I do see a conditional loan and restructuring. Since I live in the retirement capital of the world I can speak from experience about the huge amount of retired autoworkers down here and the devastating effect that a collapse will create. This is a very good example of why health insurance should not be tied to employment. If they create a reasonable healthcare system and carry the autoworkers contracts forward the Big Three would have their own legs to stand on. We need real universal healthcare, similar to Canada's, and we need it now, if we expect to compete against nations like Japan. Japan has universal health and a generous pension system that is not tied to the employer.
Look into the history of why healthcare was attached to employment to begin with and you'll see why it has outlived it's usefulness. If we don't save the Big Three a slippery slope will take down one industry after another, some that are vital to security. Power shifted to the Import/Export trades after the auto companies had commited themselves to employment contracts, and it was unregulated trade policies as much as anything else that began to destroy the middle class.
When we choose to let Toyota export cars we should have created a level playing field, instead of exploiting cheap labor.
It was very expensive to live in Detroit in the 60's and 70's an autoworker had to make a real paycheck just to stay alive. again not a condition that the Big Three is responsible for but were charged with the cost of living. and it goes on....
http://gmfactsandfiction.com/
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/17/news/companies/gm_fixes/
Post by: krissel on November 18, 2008, 04:08:14 AM
QUOTE(sandbox @ Nov 17 2008, 11:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
an interesting view http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story.../the_new_trough
QUOTE
There is a better way to fix a broken financial system. Treasury's plan to buy up the toxic debts never made sense and should be immediately scrapped
This article was published on the 13th and there is a notation that it has been updated. But on the 12th the Treasury decided not to buy up the bad mortgages.
Somebody wasn't paying attention.
BTW, regarding home owners' insurance... as Mark mentioned, inflated values in some areas do have application to replacement costs but there are also AVC (Actual Cash Value) as well as MV (Market Value) policies. These are not common and usually are cheaper (the former) or more costly (the latter) but do exist. While the ACV usually applies to contents it can apply to the structure as well. Just double check your own policy to see what is covered.
Note also that 'guaranteed' replacement is not being offered in most of the country anymore. Instead a fixed amount plus a percentage for overage is the norm. If you have a much older house with amenities that are hard to duplicate with today's construction methods you most likely won't have guaranteed replacement only an amount that would replace a house of similar size and stature.
The auto-makers unfortunately 'chose' the worst time to face bankruptcy. Refinancing for restructuring would be rather hard to find in the private market in the present economy. Should they just be liquidated? That's an easy answer to someone just looking at it as any other business. But consider if they do just evaporate, the foreign makers will take all that much more of our dollars. True, they have plants here in the US which employ our people but they can't make up the difference and hire all the laid off Big 3 workers. And the trickle-down of their paychecks into the economy is equally valid to consider.
On the other hand we can't just hand them money without a big say in what is done with it. Without a clear idea of how they will use the financing and change the focus of their business we might as well burn the bucks. I'm generally not one to like the government involved in such things but these are particularly difficult times and it's hard to see the benefit of inaction.
My, what interesting times we live in.
Post by: dboh on November 18, 2008, 07:22:50 AM
QUOTE(krissel @ Nov 18 2008, 05:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But consider if they do just evaporate, the foreign makers will take all that much more of our dollars.
It's not such a good situation for foreign makers either. They will suffer if the Big Three disappear because the suppliers that supply both domestic and foreign carmakers will also disappear.
With millions of jobs potentially affected, I don't see how assistance is even being debated in Washington. Why not tie assistance to top-to-bottom restructuring?
Post by: Highmac on November 19, 2008, 01:22:42 AM
The only vehicle-builder I've heard of taking on workers is in Coventry. It builds armoured cars for the Army to use in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Post by: sandbox on November 19, 2008, 01:29:44 AM
They have already received 25 billion to set up shop for low mileage cars and are ready to compete with imports, but they're labor contracts, retirement, healthcare, and buyout contracts keep them out of the running.
Each company expect to payout up to 3 billion a quarter but they also expect to reduce their labor numbers, reduces costs, create more efficient vehicles and remove waste wood, so at the end of the next four quarters they expect that the economy will be on an up tic and they will be leaner and meaner. They also suspect that since folks aren't buying today they will eventually buy in the recovery phase, which will boost demand and raise the prices, or require no discounts temporally.
The argument for chapter 11 is to dump bad labor contracts, like the company must pay 80% + in salaries to workers even if the plants are closed. It will erase a lot of supplier debt as well. The courts have the power and skill to restructure all aspects of the business so no contract is or debt is safe. The downside to chapter 11 is that it takes a long time. Everyone associated with the companies have to be addressed, which in this business is thousands of companies around the world.
There is no option on the table to let them liquidate, Chapter 7, that's just been a descriptive fupar, they will continue no matter what the only thing on the table is how. The stigma of chapter 11 will cause a loss in confidence where they will loose market share in the short term, which is a 4-5 year cycle.
The loss to the government in taxes in the next five years alone is a justification for the bridge loan or even two. The losses to labor and subsequent housing and local economies are astronomical. Every town has a dealership (13,000) and associated businesses that will be hurt. Much of the work has already been done with the first 25 billion; it makes little sense in these economic times to create any more tension in the economy that already exists. If incentives were created to buy low fuel consuming cars as it was for SUV's, buy up and crush old cars, I suspect that the Big Three can reach profitability by 2012. Banks and the government will need to move together to create incentives for both cars and housing if they want to kick start the economy. The only thing that needs to be added is accountability. Oversight must return to the marketplace and the days of lopsided trade with China and others to exploit cheap labor needs to end. They have the capacity now to carrier themselves
Post by: krissel on November 21, 2008, 03:55:55 AM
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...Discussed_ssi_5
A few teasers:
QUOTE
Founded during the New Deal, the FHA is supposed to promote first-time home purchases. Open to all applicants, it allows small down payments—as little as 3%—and lenient standards on borrower income, as long as mortgage and related expenses don't exceed 31% of household earnings. In exchange for taxpayer-backed insurance on attractively priced fixed-rate loans, buyers pay a modest fee. Lenders and brokers can get a license to participate in FHA programs if they demonstrate industry experience and knowledge of agency rules.
However, due to lack of oversight and fraudulent lenders (sound familiar?), the FHA has become the new Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac insuring mortgages that are bound to fail.
QUOTE
During the subprime boom, the FHA atrophied as borrowers migrated to the too-good-to-be-true deals that featured terms such as extremely low introductory interest rates that later jumped skyward. But since the subprime market vaporized in 2007, FHA-backed loans have become all that's available for many borrowers. By fall 2008, FHA loans accounted for 26% of all new mortgages being issued nationwide, up from only 4% a year earlier. As of Sept. 30, the most recent date for which data are publicly available, the FHA had 4.4 million single-family mortgages under guarantee, worth a total of $475 billion.
QUOTE
Thirty-six thousand lenders now have FHA licenses, up from 16,000 in mid-2007. FHA "faces a tsunami" in the form of ex-subprime lenders who favor aggressive sales tactics and sometimes engage in outright fraud,
My favorite from the comments section:
QUOTE
Line them up. Shoot them dead.
Post by: sandbox on November 21, 2008, 07:11:50 AM
The FDIC sheilla beard ? has a system of restructuring loans back to 31%, reducing the rate and even the principle if nessesary to keep those house full. If they're held by brokers or speculator that got caught then they get no bailout.
The congress is fighting between the Right to work states and the states with unions. the strategy to restructure without unions or weakened unions is on the table.
When you add it all up, job dependent healthcare, collapsing 401k's, and no unions it's 1984 in the making.
Post by: krissel on November 22, 2008, 08:57:17 AM
Another idea and some good links:
http://stimulus4economy.wordpress.com/2008...ce-devaluation/
More on Sheila -praised by some for her mortgage plan, she has been criticized for her dealings with Citi's attempt to buy Wachovia as a roundabout way to get Citi some of the Fed money:(read the comments, too)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=95881741
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/10/ext...ir-of-fdic.html
Post by: sandbox on November 22, 2008, 09:49:03 AM
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11212008/watch.html
This was interesting as well
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/446/index.html
Post by: krissel on November 22, 2008, 10:02:23 AM
There are so many guilty parties in all this. It really makes one totally disgusted with the moral depravity of all these people, and our society that values money and things over all else.
Post by: sandbox on November 22, 2008, 03:09:55 PM
I want lame W duck in the back of a truck on the way to prison and I'll bet we can get a vote and donations for that.
Post by: sandbox on November 28, 2008, 09:39:42 AM
http://www.fool.com/investing/internationa...the-bucket.aspx
Post by: krissel on November 28, 2008, 09:43:47 PM
I think at this point many in the public have gotten used to these astronomical figures and are somewhat blasé about it now.
Oh, what's another trillion here or there?...
Post by: sandbox on November 29, 2008, 03:02:08 AM
QUOTE
Already, our nation's unfunded liabilities total $52 trillion -- about $450,000 per household. There's something very strange about issuing debt to solve a problem caused by too much debt.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122670755063129989.html
then add this
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
here's a different take on the best government money can buy.
QUOTE
As of November 19, 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was $10.6 trillion.[2], with about $37,316 per capita (that is, per U.S. resident). Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $6.3 trillion.[3] Adding unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, veterans' pensions, and similar obligations, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt