- This topic has 60 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
pencilneck.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM #750752August 27, 2012 at 11:46 AM #750756
Anonymous
GuestAre you really a professor?
[quote=EconProf]ctr70, the original poster of this thread says he leaned left most of his life, then steadily turned to the right politically.
Winston Churchill once said, paraphrasing, if one is young and not liberal, they have no heart. If one is older and not conservative, they have no head.[/quote]I ask because you just “paraphrased” Churchill as saying something that anyone with an ounce of research skills would know has been mis-attributed to Churchill (by a conservative, no doubt).
Here’s an Abraham Lincoln quote for you: “Anyone who votes for a billionaire running a campaign paid for by billionaires is either a billionaire or a sheep.”
August 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM #750758jstoesz
Participant[quote=LaPasta]Are you really a professor?
[quote=EconProf]ctr70, the original poster of this thread says he leaned left most of his life, then steadily turned to the right politically.
Winston Churchill once said, paraphrasing, if one is young and not liberal, they have no heart. If one is older and not conservative, they have no head.[/quote]I ask because you just “paraphrased” Churchill as saying something that anyone with an ounce of research skills would know has been mis-attributed to Churchill (by a conservative, no doubt).
Here’s an Abraham Lincoln quote for you: “Anyone who votes for a billionaire running a campaign paid for by billionaires is either a billionaire or a sheep.”[/quote]
The author was Francois Guizot
August 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM #750766Guest“The way this week is turning out, it could be a good TV Guide description for a sitcom episode:
The Republican family embarks on a week-long campaign to convince everyone they should lead the nation, only to have their plans foiled with news dominated that week by a hurricane that hits a city where their leadership failed in the past.”It was the DEMOCRAT Governor and the Mayor of New Orleans that FAILED, not Bush.
Get the facts straight.August 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM #750768Guest[quote=jstoesz][quote=LaPasta]Are you really a professor?
[quote=EconProf]ctr70, the original poster of this thread says he leaned left most of his life, then steadily turned to the right politically.
Winston Churchill once said, paraphrasing, if one is young and not liberal, they have no heart. If one is older and not conservative, they have no head.[/quote]I ask because you just “paraphrased” Churchill as saying something that anyone with an ounce of research skills would know has been mis-attributed to Churchill (by a conservative, no doubt).
Here’s an Abraham Lincoln quote for you: “Anyone who votes for a billionaire running a campaign paid for by billionaires is either a billionaire or a sheep.”[/quote]
The author was Francois Guizot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Guizot%5B/quote%5D
Could find no such quote attributed to Abe, but there was this gem, attributed to Guizot: “The spirit of revolution, the spirit of insurrection, is a spirit radically opposed to liberty”
Tell the OWS folks! They think they stand for LIBERTY!!!! HA!
August 27, 2012 at 6:13 PM #750772CA renter
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]CAR that is a difference in perception.
You hear Romney say investors and IMMEDIATELY you equate that statement to rich wealthy people.
I am not a rich wealthy person yet I AM one of those investors who purchases property for rent and have done so for flips. Many MANY people I know including several who are on this website do the same thing. They are not the same rich wealthy who you love to vilify, they are middle class scrubs just like me.
Your perception of Romneys statement is
” he’s wants the wealthy to benefit at the expense of regular people. Let him burn.”
My perception of Romneys statement is
“tax money should not be used to backstop wealthy banks and wealthy investors who hold the paper on the original loan”
So who is correct?
Also I think it is safer to say that important part of the statement is to let them foreclose. What happens after that, whether they are purchased for cash at trustee sales or put on the market for ANYONE to buy is not consequential. The important part is that it is not the taxpayer who is on the hook, and the overall market is not manipulated.
Seemingly all of this is lost most likely because of your perception of Romney.[/quote]
SDR,
The “investors” who have been getting the deals that have not been available to the general public do tend to be wealthy enough to join investor groups who are buying up multiple liens or properties behind closed doors — sometimes, at 20 cents on the dollar, or less.
With all due respect, though you might not consider yourself “wealthy,” you are better off than most working people who are just trying to buy an affordable house in a working-class neighborhood. It’s why you’re able to “invest.” Mind you, I also belong to this group and have seriously considered flipping or investing in rental properties, but have tried to refrain from doing so because I don’t believe it’s the right thing to do. It’s difficult because that IS the game that’s been shoved down our throats (asset price speculation as the most “favored” way to earn income), and in order to keep from going under, we are all forced to play the game. I’d prefer to see a system where work is rewarded over speculation, but that’s just me.
August 27, 2012 at 6:50 PM #750773Participant[quote=deadzone]I find I am getting more liberal as I get older. Probably due to my disgust at the big money wall st. types that Romney represents.
I mean their insistence on lowering taxes for wealthy? How can the everyday man (with a brain) get behind that? But frankly I dislike both candidates and both parties, I just dislike the Republican party a lot more.[/quote]
Ditto. As a young person toiling away at menial jobs, I was very conservative and hated “welfare” for people who didn’t work, etc. One day, when I was working my a$$ off at a fast food joint, a girl I knew from high school (who had a kid out of wedlock and was a crack addict) came in an laughed at me and said: “Isn’t it funny that I make more from welfare than you do working here?” That comment was never forgotten, and I largely based my opinions on that one interaction.
I was such a fool…no different from all the workers today who believe nothing bad will ever happen to them, and who consistently vote against their own interests because they erroneously think they are, or will be, somehow, a part of the “1%.”
As I’ve seen more of life, it’s become far too apparent that our economy and society are run by a relative handful of people/entities whose sole goal is to funnel all of the “excess value” created by workers into their own accounts so that they can control a greater and greater share of the world’s resources. The entire capitalist system (as it’s set up) is nothing more than a corrupt Ponzi scheme.
August 27, 2012 at 7:30 PM #750776SD Realtor
ParticipantCAR once again it is your entire point of view comes from your own perception. You fail to consider any other point of view. As I said many a poster on this site owns rental property or multiple rentals.
You make is sound as if passive income from rentals is some crime against humanity. You therefore slot any other people who earn income from rentals as doing something that is in your own words, “not the right thing to do”.
I had my first rental when I was making less then 40k. I know many many families who are doing much better with rentals and make middle class money and are quite happy as opposed to putting that money at risk in the stock market.
Let’s make darn well sure that over the past four years the current administration has bailed out Wall Street, and furthermore been at the helm of all these institutional deals that you want to whine about. The current administration has also been 100% on board with all of the measures that keep people who are slaves to underwater properties in that position. Let’s not forget that with all of the inventory there would be plenty of properties available for everyone, investors and owner occupants alike. Furthermore if policies were enacted that wouldn’t give ANY IDIOT a loan then that would serve to provide a stronger foundation for homeowners. Mandatory large downpayments would go a long way as well. Contrary to your point of view home ownership is NOT A RIGHT. Most of the problem is an entitlement attitude that we “had” to get people in homes. It was shared by republicans and democrats and was plain wrong.
Once again, Romney said nothing about these sorts of institutional deals and programs that were given birth UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. In fact letting the foreclosures happen TAKES MONEY AWAY FROM the super rich. However rather then addressing that issue of the fact about letting foreclosures happen, you jumpt to a conclusion about what happens to the inventory based on programs that exist today under the current administration. You have nothing with regards to facts what Romney would do. You have speculation.
I on the other hand have seen four years of TRILLIONS of taxpayer money move from the public to the very very rich… It is amazingly hypocritical but it is nothing that I don’t expect.
You take a very fair and level statement and jump to a conclusion that is speculative. Whereas you conveniently don’t comment on what has gone on.
Talk about favoring the rich…
Honestly it is not even worth debating. I am out.
August 27, 2012 at 7:37 PM #750778
CoronitaParticipant[quote=SD Realtor]CAR once again it is your entire point of view comes from your own perception. You fail to consider any other point of view. As I said many a poster on this site owns rental property or multiple rentals.
You make is sound as if passive income from rentals is some crime against humanity. You therefore slot any other people who earn income from rentals as doing something that is in your own words, “not the right thing to do”.
I had my first rental when I was making less then 40k. I know many many families who are doing much better with rentals and make middle class money and are quite happy as opposed to putting that money at risk in the stock market.
Let’s make darn well sure that over the past four years the current administration has bailed out Wall Street, and furthermore been at the helm of all these institutional deals that you want to whine about. The current administration has also been 100% on board with all of the measures that keep people who are slaves to underwater properties in that position. Let’s not forget that with all of the inventory there would be plenty of properties available for everyone, investors and owner occupants alike. Furthermore if policies were enacted that wouldn’t give ANY IDIOT a loan then that would serve to provide a stronger foundation for homeowners. Mandatory large downpayments would go a long way as well. Contrary to your point of view home ownership is NOT A RIGHT. Most of the problem is an entitlement attitude that we “had” to get people in homes. It was shared by republicans and democrats and was plain wrong.
Once again, Romney said nothing about these sorts of institutional deals and programs that were given birth UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. In fact letting the foreclosures happen TAKES MONEY AWAY FROM the super rich. However rather then addressing that issue of the fact about letting foreclosures happen, you jumpt to a conclusion about what happens to the inventory based on programs that exist today under the current administration. You have nothing with regards to facts what Romney would do. You have speculation.
I on the other hand have seen four years of TRILLIONS of taxpayer money move from the public to the very very rich… It is amazingly hypocritical but it is nothing that I don’t expect.
You take a very fair and level statement and jump to a conclusion that is speculative. Whereas you conveniently don’t comment on what has gone on.
Talk about favoring the rich…
Honestly it is not even worth debating. I am out.[/quote]Check you’re PM.
August 27, 2012 at 7:59 PM #750782EconProf
ParticipantOnce again, SDR has proved to be an asset to this site.
August 27, 2012 at 9:08 PM #750784CoronitaParticipantThis is my last post on anything related to politics, pensions, “fair share” topics…
I take the FLU pledge from this moment on never ever to post on these three topics ever again on this blog…
If anyone sees me do otherwise, please send me a PM and tell me to STFU in however you seem fit….
Like this.STFU FLU.
STFU FLU.
STFU FLU.
STFU FLU.
STFU FLU.
STFU FLU.
STFU FLU.
STFU FLU.Or quote, print this comment, frame it, copy it, and say… Hey there FLU fvcker, remember what you said?
So please. STFU FLU.
Signed,
Fed up FLU
August 27, 2012 at 10:20 PM #750786patb
ParticipantState Colleges used to get lots of state aid, now it’s all tuition dollars
August 27, 2012 at 10:56 PM #750787Participant[quote=SD Realtor]CAR once again it is your entire point of view comes from your own perception. You fail to consider any other point of view. As I said many a poster on this site owns rental property or multiple rentals.
You make is sound as if passive income from rentals is some crime against humanity. You therefore slot any other people who earn income from rentals as doing something that is in your own words, “not the right thing to do”.
I had my first rental when I was making less then 40k. I know many many families who are doing much better with rentals and make middle class money and are quite happy as opposed to putting that money at risk in the stock market.
Let’s make darn well sure that over the past four years the current administration has bailed out Wall Street, and furthermore been at the helm of all these institutional deals that you want to whine about. The current administration has also been 100% on board with all of the measures that keep people who are slaves to underwater properties in that position. Let’s not forget that with all of the inventory there would be plenty of properties available for everyone, investors and owner occupants alike. Furthermore if policies were enacted that wouldn’t give ANY IDIOT a loan then that would serve to provide a stronger foundation for homeowners. Mandatory large downpayments would go a long way as well. Contrary to your point of view home ownership is NOT A RIGHT. Most of the problem is an entitlement attitude that we “had” to get people in homes. It was shared by republicans and democrats and was plain wrong.
Once again, Romney said nothing about these sorts of institutional deals and programs that were given birth UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. In fact letting the foreclosures happen TAKES MONEY AWAY FROM the super rich. However rather then addressing that issue of the fact about letting foreclosures happen, you jumpt to a conclusion about what happens to the inventory based on programs that exist today under the current administration. You have nothing with regards to facts what Romney would do. You have speculation.
I on the other hand have seen four years of TRILLIONS of taxpayer money move from the public to the very very rich… It is amazingly hypocritical but it is nothing that I don’t expect.
You take a very fair and level statement and jump to a conclusion that is speculative. Whereas you conveniently don’t comment on what has gone on.
Talk about favoring the rich…
Honestly it is not even worth debating. I am out.[/quote]
SDR, you know full well that I have been 100% opposed to all of the bailouts, even before they ever began. I have commented, **repeatedly** on this very blog about my opposition to any and all bailouts that focus on irresponsible borrowers and/or lenders. If you doubt this, find a SINGLE post where I supported any bailouts of these idiots. I took two weeks out of my life (full time++, about 14 hours/day) calling, faxing, e-mailing, and writing legislators, regulators, the media — anyone who would listen or who could be the voice of reason — in opposition to the bailouts, and this was in 2008…before the current administration, which I do not support, either. The bailout efforts and the system which favors large-scale investors over “Investor” Sixpack were put into place well before Obama ever came into office. Of course, he (the puppet on the left hand of our masters) was chosen because they knew he’d be friendly to the financial parasites.
As for the “rights” of people to own their own homes vs. the “rights” of investors to profit from flips or rentals, I look at it from the perspective of what would benefit society most.
Let’s shrink it down: Do you think your family would be better off owning your own home — one that is affordable enough that it could be paid off by the time you are retired or too sick to work (or sooner), giving you equity and/or a low-cost place to live; OR do you think you’d be better off paying rent (usually rising over time) to a landlord for the rest of your life, even after retirement or when you’re too sick to work? Do you think the neighborhood and neighbors would be better off if their neighbors owned their own (affordable!) homes, or do you think they’d benefit more by having a slew of rentals in their neighborhood?
The “rights” of investors/speculators to make a profit from buying up existing assets vs. the “rights” of families to own their own primary residence…it’s subjective, but I am 100% of the belief that society is best served when “investors” work on expanding and improving productive capacity instead of exaggerating price movements during times of scarce or abundant supply — which is what they do when they focus on existing assets, especially those that are basic necessities, like housing.
Also, realize that the housing/credit bubble could never have gotten as big as it did if not for all of the speculation. At the peak, over 40% of the purchases were made by people who already owned a home, and I’m willing to bet that a very large percentage of the other ~60% were buying because they thought that “real estate always goes up,” and hoped to sell to the next greatest fool. Theoretically, if the only people who could buy a home were the people who intended to live in them as primary residences, prices would be far, far lower, and people would not be so deep in debt, both because they would never have leveraged as much, and because they wouldn’t have used so much consumer debt with the assumption that their houses would pay the bills for them.
Again, I have always said that I am a beneficiary of these bubbles — both on the way up, and on the way down — because that is the game we are forced to play. My family made most of their money from real estate (both parents had their broker’s licenses and were heavily invested in real estate). Though I would prefer to make my money in more productive ways, “real work” doesn’t provide nearly the kind of opportunities that “investing” does, so we play the hand that we are dealt.
Look at your own situation, for instance. You have an engineering degree, and presumably could be involved in creating and improving the way goods are designed or manufactured (not sure which type of degree you have, but you get the picture). Why is it that you are spending so much time on RE “investments” when you could be spending that time doing productive work? Is it because our system is set up to benefit speculators over producers/investors? Do you not see how that causes a gross misallocation of (human) resources? I’ve known many people like yourself (and myself) who have forgone productive work in order to pursue speculative opportunities that do not benefit society in any way. Do you not see a problem with that?
August 28, 2012 at 6:30 AM #750790ParticipantI am done with you.
Here is a cut and paste from my original post.
“Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” Romney said. “Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up, and let it turn around and come back up.”
Look at what you turned it into.
A more generalized comment is that this website was created to discuss real estate. Real estate is not limited to primary occupancy. Yet it has degenerated into not much more then a political sounding board. Against my better judgement I participated in those discussions.
Not any more. If it is not real estate related I will not bite.
August 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM #750813ParticipantEconomics (including real estate) and politics/social sciences cannot be looked at in isolation from each other. Too many people want to focus only on one small part of the larger picture, without understanding or concerning themselves with the ramifications seemingly small decisions can have in a multitude of areas. That is why history is rife with wars, revolutions, and the destruction of whole civilizations.
It’s a shame so many people do not understand the interrelated nature of history, sociology, geography, biology, psychology, politics, and economics. Instead, we are told to believe that “capitalism” and self-interest are paramount to everything else and will result in the most successful societies and economies. Nothing could be further from the truth.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.