Perhaps home prices are still too high ?

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Millions spend half of income on housing


Sep 23, 7:04 AM (ET)

By ADRIAN SAINZ and ALAN ZIBEL

MIAMI (AP) - Al Ray is so strapped for cash, the only time he eats out is on Wednesday or Sunday, when the local McDonald's sells hamburgers for 49 cents.

Ray lost his engineering job last November, and has been working as high school tutor, scratching out about $1,000 a month - if he's lucky. He struggled to make his $1,400 monthly mortgage payment and $330 monthly homeowners' association fee until May, when he stopped paying.

Ray, 44, is looking for work and renting out a room in his two-bedroom condo in Davie, Fla., for $500, but his monthly income doesn't match his expenses and he's facing foreclosure.

"I barely have money to survive," he said.

Ray is one of more than 7.5 million people - almost 15 percent of American homeowners with a mortgage - who are spending half of their income or more on housing costs, according to 2007 data released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau. That is up from nearly 7.1 million the year before.

Traditionally, the government and most lenders consider a homeowner spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing costs to be financially burdened. But that definition now covers almost 38 percent of American homeowners with a mortgage - 19 million of them.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080923/D93CCS680.html
 
there should be a net worth test for this site.
If you don't have the 10,000 to pony up for the bailout you should ask your Daddy.
 
This is not going to cost 10,000 per a taxpayer.

Sweden gained a hell of a lot more than they lost from the bailout. In the end it was a revenue neutral decision from a taxpayer standpoint and a heroic decision from an overall economic one.
 
they stayed in recession for 3 fucking years after gerber.
Are you ready for 3yrs of no growth when you piss your pants at 3% growth. LOFL
 
Watermark said:
This is not going to cost 10,000 per a taxpayer.

Sweden gained a hell of a lot more than they lost from the bailout. In the end it was a revenue neutral decision from a taxpayer standpoint and a heroic decision from an overall economic one.
Click to expand...

Water I understand what you are saying about the Swedish bailout, and how succesful it was. But I'm sure you know that in this plan, there was no interest gained by the taxpayer. This was, as conceived, a 700 billion dollar (I say 1 trillion, but why quibble) buying of the worst paper that every bank had. It was to be dumped on us, and then they were to go on as usual. A true, and clear, privatizing of profits, socializing of losses.

Now, the Democrats have come up with an alternate plan, and they have said, no warrants, no deal. But see, bush has this history of doing this thing, called, signing statements. So what I think you are missing is, this was conceived as a complete ripping off of the American tax payer, and as a power grab for the treasury secretary, making him immune to either judicial or congressional oversight.

And the thing about these bills is, they have a habit of going through one way, and coming out just the way bush wanted them in the first place, via signing statements.

We've got six weeks to an election. This smells. Extreme caution is warranted.
 
Darla said:
Water I understand what you are saying about the Swedish bailout, and how succesful it was. But I'm sure you know that in this plan, there was no interest gained by the taxpayer. This was, as conceived, a 700 billion dollar (I say 1 trillion, but why quibble) buying of the worst paper that every bank had. It was to be dumped on us, and then they were to go on as usual. A true, and clear, privatizing of profits, socializing of losses.

Now, the Democrats have come up with an alternate plan, and they have said, no warrants, no deal. But see, bush has this history of doing this thing, called, signing statements. So what I think you are missing is, this was conceived as a complete ripping off of the American tax payer, and as a power grab for the treasury secretary, making him immune to either judicial or congressional oversight.

And the thing about these bills is, they have a habit of going through one way, and coming out just the way bush wanted them in the first place, via signing statements.

We've got six weeks to an election. This smells. Extreme caution is warranted.
Click to expand...

We won't die if we wait until Obama takes office.

But we do need action.
 
Watermark said:
We won't die if we wait until Obama takes office.

But we do need action.
Click to expand...

We don't need to wait till then, check out this, which I think is just pure common sense, and seems to be lacking in DC!

"If congress feels like taking Paulson at his word, they can appropriate some fraction of $700 billion deemed adequate to tide Paulson over until November, add on a second stimulus and some measures to start reorganizing mortgages, and then let everybody keep studying the issue. Then if Paulson wants more money after the election, he can send a request that’s coordinated with the president-elect’s transition team to the lame-duck congress. Why should a rushed process commit us to spending months from now?"

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/take_another_little_piece_of_my_bailout.php
 
And here is Krugman, who also makes a lot of sense:


"What possible justification can there be for doing this without acquiring an equity stake?

No equity stake, no deal."
 
the reason they want to rush is Obama and a democratic cogress would sniff out the smell in this sewage river called bailout.
 
based on past examples of the esitmate by politicians is 10k at least double that figure.
Remember the pill bill and the guy that got fired for projecting closer to it's actual cost ?
 
If they gave every home owner the $10,000 there would be way less defaults and the economy would get a huge bump and it may save the butthole surfer bankers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top