FHA Mortgage Insurance Premiums may triple

[scaredyclassic]

So going forward are price declines a reasonably sure thing?

Best guess?

[blahblahblah]

The government will get out of the housing business when it gets out of the medical business, the war business, the energy business, the education business, the food business, the air travel business, and too many more for me to remember.

It will eventually get out of all of these, but not by choice. It could be next week, it could be 80 years from now. Rome had a 400-year slow-motion collapse.

Ya gotta live somewhere. Might as well get an FHA loan, I say.

[blahblahblah]

The government will get out of the housing business when it gets out of the medical business, the war business, the energy business, the education business, the food business, the air travel business, and too many more for me to remember.

It will eventually get out of all of these, but not by choice. It could be next week, it could be 80 years from now. Rome had a 400-year slow-motion collapse.

Ya gotta live somewhere. Might as well get an FHA loan, I say.

[blahblahblah]

The government will get out of the housing business when it gets out of the medical business, the war business, the energy business, the education business, the food business, the air travel business, and too many more for me to remember.

It will eventually get out of all of these, but not by choice. It could be next week, it could be 80 years from now. Rome had a 400-year slow-motion collapse.

Ya gotta live somewhere. Might as well get an FHA loan, I say.

[blahblahblah]

The government will get out of the housing business when it gets out of the medical business, the war business, the energy business, the education business, the food business, the air travel business, and too many more for me to remember.

It will eventually get out of all of these, but not by choice. It could be next week, it could be 80 years from now. Rome had a 400-year slow-motion collapse.

Ya gotta live somewhere. Might as well get an FHA loan, I say.

[blahblahblah]

The government will get out of the housing business when it gets out of the medical business, the war business, the energy business, the education business, the food business, the air travel business, and too many more for me to remember.

It will eventually get out of all of these, but not by choice. It could be next week, it could be 80 years from now. Rome had a 400-year slow-motion collapse.

Ya gotta live somewhere. Might as well get an FHA loan, I say.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=CONCHO]The government will get out of the housing business when it gets out of the medical business, the war business, the energy business, the education business, the food business, the air travel business, and too many more for me to remember.[/quote]

It doesn’t bother me so much that they’re in these things (some things are just facts of life), but it gets my knickers in a twist when opportunistic politicians allow for unlimited expansion of expensive programs. For example, there are far more people applying for disability benefits under Social Security/Medicare, than there are retirement benefits. And quite a few of those are pre-school kids!

The fallout from this limitless growth is that we’ve become a society in which motivation to take care of ourselves and our own is becoming a scarce commodity. There are quite a few large studies that have been following cohorts of seniors and pre-seniors for several years. They show that the younger (“boomer”) generation cohort (in their 50s) in the study is reporting much higher rates of disability than did the older cohort (in their 80s) for the same conditions.

What really twists my knickers to the seam-busting point is when I meet up with, or read about, “conservative” citizens complaining bitterly about government intervention in their lives, but who are receiving SSI, food stamps, Medicaid/Medicare (and usually bitching because the payments are too low). I’ve been seriously ill in my life, but continued to work and was fortunate enough to have employer-assisted health care coverage. But if I should become disabled in the future, why is it the government’s job to take care of me? I may have to sit on the street in my wheelchair pan-handling, or I may die from lack of health care, but that’s what life was until the mid-20th century.

That being said, I believe that we are morally compelled to take care of our truly needy fellow citizens, and am willing to pay extra taxes to do so. But I stress “truly needy”, and I will do my utmost to stay out of that category for as long as I can. And as a fortunate citizen of this great nation, I will comply with whatever policy is adopted by the citizenry via their votes for government officials, whether or not it agrees with my personal mores and ethics.

I really wish the hypocrisy and the double-standards would stop, and that those screaming about excessive government intervention would revise their personal expectations of that intervention, and start taking care of themselves and their families.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=CONCHO]The government will get out of the housing business when it gets out of the medical business, the war business, the energy business, the education business, the food business, the air travel business, and too many more for me to remember.[/quote]

It doesn’t bother me so much that they’re in these things (some things are just facts of life), but it gets my knickers in a twist when opportunistic politicians allow for unlimited expansion of expensive programs. For example, there are far more people applying for disability benefits under Social Security/Medicare, than there are retirement benefits. And quite a few of those are pre-school kids!

The fallout from this limitless growth is that we’ve become a society in which motivation to take care of ourselves and our own is becoming a scarce commodity. There are quite a few large studies that have been following cohorts of seniors and pre-seniors for several years. They show that the younger (“boomer”) generation cohort (in their 50s) in the study is reporting much higher rates of disability than did the older cohort (in their 80s) for the same conditions.

What really twists my knickers to the seam-busting point is when I meet up with, or read about, “conservative” citizens complaining bitterly about government intervention in their lives, but who are receiving SSI, food stamps, Medicaid/Medicare (and usually bitching because the payments are too low). I’ve been seriously ill in my life, but continued to work and was fortunate enough to have employer-assisted health care coverage. But if I should become disabled in the future, why is it the government’s job to take care of me? I may have to sit on the street in my wheelchair pan-handling, or I may die from lack of health care, but that’s what life was until the mid-20th century.

That being said, I believe that we are morally compelled to take care of our truly needy fellow citizens, and am willing to pay extra taxes to do so. But I stress “truly needy”, and I will do my utmost to stay out of that category for as long as I can. And as a fortunate citizen of this great nation, I will comply with whatever policy is adopted by the citizenry via their votes for government officials, whether or not it agrees with my personal mores and ethics.

I really wish the hypocrisy and the double-standards would stop, and that those screaming about excessive government intervention would revise their personal expectations of that intervention, and start taking care of themselves and their families.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=CONCHO]The government will get out of the housing business when it gets out of the medical business, the war business, the energy business, the education business, the food business, the air travel business, and too many more for me to remember.[/quote]

It doesn’t bother me so much that they’re in these things (some things are just facts of life), but it gets my knickers in a twist when opportunistic politicians allow for unlimited expansion of expensive programs. For example, there are far more people applying for disability benefits under Social Security/Medicare, than there are retirement benefits. And quite a few of those are pre-school kids!

The fallout from this limitless growth is that we’ve become a society in which motivation to take care of ourselves and our own is becoming a scarce commodity. There are quite a few large studies that have been following cohorts of seniors and pre-seniors for several years. They show that the younger (“boomer”) generation cohort (in their 50s) in the study is reporting much higher rates of disability than did the older cohort (in their 80s) for the same conditions.

What really twists my knickers to the seam-busting point is when I meet up with, or read about, “conservative” citizens complaining bitterly about government intervention in their lives, but who are receiving SSI, food stamps, Medicaid/Medicare (and usually bitching because the payments are too low). I’ve been seriously ill in my life, but continued to work and was fortunate enough to have employer-assisted health care coverage. But if I should become disabled in the future, why is it the government’s job to take care of me? I may have to sit on the street in my wheelchair pan-handling, or I may die from lack of health care, but that’s what life was until the mid-20th century.

That being said, I believe that we are morally compelled to take care of our truly needy fellow citizens, and am willing to pay extra taxes to do so. But I stress “truly needy”, and I will do my utmost to stay out of that category for as long as I can. And as a fortunate citizen of this great nation, I will comply with whatever policy is adopted by the citizenry via their votes for government officials, whether or not it agrees with my personal mores and ethics.

I really wish the hypocrisy and the double-standards would stop, and that those screaming about excessive government intervention would revise their personal expectations of that intervention, and start taking care of themselves and their families.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=CONCHO]The government will get out of the housing business when it gets out of the medical business, the war business, the energy business, the education business, the food business, the air travel business, and too many more for me to remember.[/quote]

It doesn’t bother me so much that they’re in these things (some things are just facts of life), but it gets my knickers in a twist when opportunistic politicians allow for unlimited expansion of expensive programs. For example, there are far more people applying for disability benefits under Social Security/Medicare, than there are retirement benefits. And quite a few of those are pre-school kids!

The fallout from this limitless growth is that we’ve become a society in which motivation to take care of ourselves and our own is becoming a scarce commodity. There are quite a few large studies that have been following cohorts of seniors and pre-seniors for several years. They show that the younger (“boomer”) generation cohort (in their 50s) in the study is reporting much higher rates of disability than did the older cohort (in their 80s) for the same conditions.

What really twists my knickers to the seam-busting point is when I meet up with, or read about, “conservative” citizens complaining bitterly about government intervention in their lives, but who are receiving SSI, food stamps, Medicaid/Medicare (and usually bitching because the payments are too low). I’ve been seriously ill in my life, but continued to work and was fortunate enough to have employer-assisted health care coverage. But if I should become disabled in the future, why is it the government’s job to take care of me? I may have to sit on the street in my wheelchair pan-handling, or I may die from lack of health care, but that’s what life was until the mid-20th century.

That being said, I believe that we are morally compelled to take care of our truly needy fellow citizens, and am willing to pay extra taxes to do so. But I stress “truly needy”, and I will do my utmost to stay out of that category for as long as I can. And as a fortunate citizen of this great nation, I will comply with whatever policy is adopted by the citizenry via their votes for government officials, whether or not it agrees with my personal mores and ethics.

I really wish the hypocrisy and the double-standards would stop, and that those screaming about excessive government intervention would revise their personal expectations of that intervention, and start taking care of themselves and their families.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=CONCHO]The government will get out of the housing business when it gets out of the medical business, the war business, the energy business, the education business, the food business, the air travel business, and too many more for me to remember.[/quote]

It doesn’t bother me so much that they’re in these things (some things are just facts of life), but it gets my knickers in a twist when opportunistic politicians allow for unlimited expansion of expensive programs. For example, there are far more people applying for disability benefits under Social Security/Medicare, than there are retirement benefits. And quite a few of those are pre-school kids!

The fallout from this limitless growth is that we’ve become a society in which motivation to take care of ourselves and our own is becoming a scarce commodity. There are quite a few large studies that have been following cohorts of seniors and pre-seniors for several years. They show that the younger (“boomer”) generation cohort (in their 50s) in the study is reporting much higher rates of disability than did the older cohort (in their 80s) for the same conditions.

What really twists my knickers to the seam-busting point is when I meet up with, or read about, “conservative” citizens complaining bitterly about government intervention in their lives, but who are receiving SSI, food stamps, Medicaid/Medicare (and usually bitching because the payments are too low). I’ve been seriously ill in my life, but continued to work and was fortunate enough to have employer-assisted health care coverage. But if I should become disabled in the future, why is it the government’s job to take care of me? I may have to sit on the street in my wheelchair pan-handling, or I may die from lack of health care, but that’s what life was until the mid-20th century.

That being said, I believe that we are morally compelled to take care of our truly needy fellow citizens, and am willing to pay extra taxes to do so. But I stress “truly needy”, and I will do my utmost to stay out of that category for as long as I can. And as a fortunate citizen of this great nation, I will comply with whatever policy is adopted by the citizenry via their votes for government officials, whether or not it agrees with my personal mores and ethics.

I really wish the hypocrisy and the double-standards would stop, and that those screaming about excessive government intervention would revise their personal expectations of that intervention, and start taking care of themselves and their families.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]So going forward are price declines a reasonably sure thing?

Best guess?[/quote]

Housing prices? I believe that they will be a fact of life for at least 2 or 3 more years in the DC area where I live. Unfortunately, supplies of bank-owned properties in many of our areas have swollen to a really uncomfortable point, and what I feared most has come to pass: the banks are listing them at prices 25% or more below comps. This is following market-driven drops of 20 – 30% or more per year since early 2008. We’re starting to see more people of all income levels simply ceasing to pay their mortgages, and waiting for the banks to come after them. So supplies of bank-owned properties will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

We downsized in 2008 in an effort to avoid being stuck with the large family abode in our 60s, and trying to sell it at the same time as the rest of the boomers who bought the majority of them. We were dealing with sellers who hadn’t gotten the memo about the real estate bust, and had to really fight to get a realistic price on what we bought (we couldn’t afford to rent, tax-wise). We knew we’d experience a drop, but it’s alarming how much and how fast – and it’s due primarily to increases in supplies of bank-owned properties. For now, we’re okay: no plans to sell for at least another 10 years. But our neighbors who need to move for work, or unavoidable personal issues, are really screwed.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]So going forward are price declines a reasonably sure thing?

Best guess?[/quote]

Housing prices? I believe that they will be a fact of life for at least 2 or 3 more years in the DC area where I live. Unfortunately, supplies of bank-owned properties in many of our areas have swollen to a really uncomfortable point, and what I feared most has come to pass: the banks are listing them at prices 25% or more below comps. This is following market-driven drops of 20 – 30% or more per year since early 2008. We’re starting to see more people of all income levels simply ceasing to pay their mortgages, and waiting for the banks to come after them. So supplies of bank-owned properties will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

We downsized in 2008 in an effort to avoid being stuck with the large family abode in our 60s, and trying to sell it at the same time as the rest of the boomers who bought the majority of them. We were dealing with sellers who hadn’t gotten the memo about the real estate bust, and had to really fight to get a realistic price on what we bought (we couldn’t afford to rent, tax-wise). We knew we’d experience a drop, but it’s alarming how much and how fast – and it’s due primarily to increases in supplies of bank-owned properties. For now, we’re okay: no plans to sell for at least another 10 years. But our neighbors who need to move for work, or unavoidable personal issues, are really screwed.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]So going forward are price declines a reasonably sure thing?

Best guess?[/quote]

Housing prices? I believe that they will be a fact of life for at least 2 or 3 more years in the DC area where I live. Unfortunately, supplies of bank-owned properties in many of our areas have swollen to a really uncomfortable point, and what I feared most has come to pass: the banks are listing them at prices 25% or more below comps. This is following market-driven drops of 20 – 30% or more per year since early 2008. We’re starting to see more people of all income levels simply ceasing to pay their mortgages, and waiting for the banks to come after them. So supplies of bank-owned properties will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

We downsized in 2008 in an effort to avoid being stuck with the large family abode in our 60s, and trying to sell it at the same time as the rest of the boomers who bought the majority of them. We were dealing with sellers who hadn’t gotten the memo about the real estate bust, and had to really fight to get a realistic price on what we bought (we couldn’t afford to rent, tax-wise). We knew we’d experience a drop, but it’s alarming how much and how fast – and it’s due primarily to increases in supplies of bank-owned properties. For now, we’re okay: no plans to sell for at least another 10 years. But our neighbors who need to move for work, or unavoidable personal issues, are really screwed.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]So going forward are price declines a reasonably sure thing?

Best guess?[/quote]

Housing prices? I believe that they will be a fact of life for at least 2 or 3 more years in the DC area where I live. Unfortunately, supplies of bank-owned properties in many of our areas have swollen to a really uncomfortable point, and what I feared most has come to pass: the banks are listing them at prices 25% or more below comps. This is following market-driven drops of 20 – 30% or more per year since early 2008. We’re starting to see more people of all income levels simply ceasing to pay their mortgages, and waiting for the banks to come after them. So supplies of bank-owned properties will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

We downsized in 2008 in an effort to avoid being stuck with the large family abode in our 60s, and trying to sell it at the same time as the rest of the boomers who bought the majority of them. We were dealing with sellers who hadn’t gotten the memo about the real estate bust, and had to really fight to get a realistic price on what we bought (we couldn’t afford to rent, tax-wise). We knew we’d experience a drop, but it’s alarming how much and how fast – and it’s due primarily to increases in supplies of bank-owned properties. For now, we’re okay: no plans to sell for at least another 10 years. But our neighbors who need to move for work, or unavoidable personal issues, are really screwed.

[Author]

Posts