[quote=blake]
[/quote]

Folks, do you realize that this picture represents a historic moment?

It’s the first time a tea party member has a sign with all the words actually spelled correctly!

Unfortunately, grammatically it’s still incorrect. But hey, give a few more iterations, they’ll be able to achieve 5th grade grammar in about another year or two.

🙂

[quote=briansd1]Think of it this way: from a purely economic view, houses that are unused, just like factories that are idle, are a huge economic waste.

If you believe in economic efficiency, you would want all houses to be used to provide shelter for people and for the benefit of society.

I’m all for putting houses to use rather than let them sit empty, idle, wasting away simply because of a bottleneck in the financial system.[/quote]

If the banks were to foreclose in a timely fashion and then put the damn homes on the market they way they’re supposed to — and the way they always have in the past — there would be no empty homes (not for any significant amount of time). We have empty homes because the banks aren’t foreclosing and selling the homes in a timely manner.

These deadbeat losers aren’t doing us any favors. These are the idiots who were over-bidding against rational buyers during the bubble. These were the idiots who forced responsible people to rent and spend years of their lives waiting for prices to correct so they could buy homes at prices they could afford without gimmicky loans. Let these dirtbag deadbeats suffer for their irresponsible actions. They deserve no sympathy.

If we keep deadbeat borrowers in their homes, they we need to have laws that protect renters equally. Are you in favor of laws that prevent the eviction of tenants if they endure tough economic times, too? If we protect one group, we have to protect the other; otherwise, we are discriminating against renters who are more often poor and/or members of minority groups.

CA renter, in hindsight we know that banks were not prepared for the crash in home prices. However you want to look at it, the banks did not have the infrastructure needed to process all the foreclosures on a timely manner. It was a systemic problem.

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, in hindsight we know that banks were not prepared for the crash in home prices. However you want to look at it, the banks did not have the infrastructure needed to process all the foreclosures on a timely manner. It was a systemic problem.[/quote]

No, they quickly remedied that problem. The one they still struggle with it solvency. If they actually foreclosed and had to realize the real value of their properties instead of paper value, they’d be BK.

CAR is right, this keeps fools in houses they never could afford and keeps the same houses at price levels that are actually above sustainability and keeps the tax payers funding irresponsible banks and home debtors.

[quote=sdrealtor]Banks should crash due to irresponsible lending. Municipalities should be propped up forever despite fiscal élan[/quote]

I’ve always said that they should let it ALL crash — municipalities, pension funds, wealthy “investors,” etc. That’s because the purchasing power for workers would remain fairly stable if prices were allowed to go down with wages. IMHO, prices would have crashed faster and further than wages because prices were more artificially inflated than wages, and this would have helped reverse the trend in wealth/income disparities of the past 10-30 years.

As it stands, they’ve realy screwed us over by propping up asset prices without any concurrent increase in wages.

CA renter, its not about propping up banks and prices. It’s about keeping economic activity from falling off. By economic activity I mean the number of cars sold, the number of meals served at restaurants, etc…

What’s wrong with lower prices and less activity? Why should the average American family need to work two 45+ hr/week shifts just to make ends meet? Things slowing down would actually be a GOOD thing — let prices drop to the point that an average family can survive on 1 to 1.5 incomes, so parents would actually have vacation time/time with kids and be able to SAVE some money.

This is actually my goal before I get married. Have enough passive income to guarantee an annual cash flow that pays for housing, insurance, and some needs regardless of employment status, so we can basically live on a single income if we so desire. Or just travel a f**k of a lot and work the other 9 months. And have fun doing so.

I guess having low expectations of material things also helps. My car is 30 years old, my laptop is 4, and I keep my mobile devices basically till they fall apart and die. Do like good clothes, good food, and good music though.