- This topic has 90 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
kev374.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 1, 2009 at 2:17 AM #357540March 1, 2009 at 8:01 AM #358034
CAwireman
ParticipantA few points – I don’t believe any president Dem or Republican could openly say, “yeah, prices need to drop considerably more to bring things into alignment”. Would be political suicide.
On the chart – maybe I’m missing something, but does the chart Glen presents indicate that back in 1890, the typical cost of a home, or the average cost of all homes, is something like a “round $100K ?”. Seems to be on the way high side. In 1940’s my grandparents purchased a home for about $17K. My parents purchased a home in the 50’s for about $30K. Would need to know what he mean’s by the $100K line…
Would like to find out more about Glen’s numbers to better understand them.
Overall, I understand his point – homes are highly inflated in priced. They need to drop in value to reach sustainability.
And, overall, the question is – when can we rely on our elected officials to be totally honest with us? Under “normal” circumstances we may have to wait a while. But, in this environment they may need to come clean sooner than you think. But, unfortunately, not quite yet.
March 1, 2009 at 8:01 AM #358140ParticipantA few points – I don’t believe any president Dem or Republican could openly say, “yeah, prices need to drop considerably more to bring things into alignment”. Would be political suicide.
On the chart – maybe I’m missing something, but does the chart Glen presents indicate that back in 1890, the typical cost of a home, or the average cost of all homes, is something like a “round $100K ?”. Seems to be on the way high side. In 1940’s my grandparents purchased a home for about $17K. My parents purchased a home in the 50’s for about $30K. Would need to know what he mean’s by the $100K line…
Would like to find out more about Glen’s numbers to better understand them.
Overall, I understand his point – homes are highly inflated in priced. They need to drop in value to reach sustainability.
And, overall, the question is – when can we rely on our elected officials to be totally honest with us? Under “normal” circumstances we may have to wait a while. But, in this environment they may need to come clean sooner than you think. But, unfortunately, not quite yet.
March 1, 2009 at 8:01 AM #358003ParticipantA few points – I don’t believe any president Dem or Republican could openly say, “yeah, prices need to drop considerably more to bring things into alignment”. Would be political suicide.
On the chart – maybe I’m missing something, but does the chart Glen presents indicate that back in 1890, the typical cost of a home, or the average cost of all homes, is something like a “round $100K ?”. Seems to be on the way high side. In 1940’s my grandparents purchased a home for about $17K. My parents purchased a home in the 50’s for about $30K. Would need to know what he mean’s by the $100K line…
Would like to find out more about Glen’s numbers to better understand them.
Overall, I understand his point – homes are highly inflated in priced. They need to drop in value to reach sustainability.
And, overall, the question is – when can we rely on our elected officials to be totally honest with us? Under “normal” circumstances we may have to wait a while. But, in this environment they may need to come clean sooner than you think. But, unfortunately, not quite yet.
March 1, 2009 at 8:01 AM #357862ParticipantA few points – I don’t believe any president Dem or Republican could openly say, “yeah, prices need to drop considerably more to bring things into alignment”. Would be political suicide.
On the chart – maybe I’m missing something, but does the chart Glen presents indicate that back in 1890, the typical cost of a home, or the average cost of all homes, is something like a “round $100K ?”. Seems to be on the way high side. In 1940’s my grandparents purchased a home for about $17K. My parents purchased a home in the 50’s for about $30K. Would need to know what he mean’s by the $100K line…
Would like to find out more about Glen’s numbers to better understand them.
Overall, I understand his point – homes are highly inflated in priced. They need to drop in value to reach sustainability.
And, overall, the question is – when can we rely on our elected officials to be totally honest with us? Under “normal” circumstances we may have to wait a while. But, in this environment they may need to come clean sooner than you think. But, unfortunately, not quite yet.
March 1, 2009 at 8:01 AM #357560ParticipantA few points – I don’t believe any president Dem or Republican could openly say, “yeah, prices need to drop considerably more to bring things into alignment”. Would be political suicide.
On the chart – maybe I’m missing something, but does the chart Glen presents indicate that back in 1890, the typical cost of a home, or the average cost of all homes, is something like a “round $100K ?”. Seems to be on the way high side. In 1940’s my grandparents purchased a home for about $17K. My parents purchased a home in the 50’s for about $30K. Would need to know what he mean’s by the $100K line…
Would like to find out more about Glen’s numbers to better understand them.
Overall, I understand his point – homes are highly inflated in priced. They need to drop in value to reach sustainability.
And, overall, the question is – when can we rely on our elected officials to be totally honest with us? Under “normal” circumstances we may have to wait a while. But, in this environment they may need to come clean sooner than you think. But, unfortunately, not quite yet.
March 1, 2009 at 8:20 AM #358154Arraya
ParticipantWhile I agree with Beck in principle. He is only focusing on about 1/50th of the total amount of money taxpayers are on the hook for. There is another 9.8 trillion dollars going to mainly the banks to keep them alive. It’s like focusing on a hang nail when you have a sucking chest wound. Keep getting mad at those neighbors that can’t pay their bills!
March 1, 2009 at 8:20 AM #357877ParticipantWhile I agree with Beck in principle. He is only focusing on about 1/50th of the total amount of money taxpayers are on the hook for. There is another 9.8 trillion dollars going to mainly the banks to keep them alive. It’s like focusing on a hang nail when you have a sucking chest wound. Keep getting mad at those neighbors that can’t pay their bills!
March 1, 2009 at 8:20 AM #358018ParticipantWhile I agree with Beck in principle. He is only focusing on about 1/50th of the total amount of money taxpayers are on the hook for. There is another 9.8 trillion dollars going to mainly the banks to keep them alive. It’s like focusing on a hang nail when you have a sucking chest wound. Keep getting mad at those neighbors that can’t pay their bills!
March 1, 2009 at 8:20 AM #358049ParticipantWhile I agree with Beck in principle. He is only focusing on about 1/50th of the total amount of money taxpayers are on the hook for. There is another 9.8 trillion dollars going to mainly the banks to keep them alive. It’s like focusing on a hang nail when you have a sucking chest wound. Keep getting mad at those neighbors that can’t pay their bills!
March 1, 2009 at 8:20 AM #357575ParticipantWhile I agree with Beck in principle. He is only focusing on about 1/50th of the total amount of money taxpayers are on the hook for. There is another 9.8 trillion dollars going to mainly the banks to keep them alive. It’s like focusing on a hang nail when you have a sucking chest wound. Keep getting mad at those neighbors that can’t pay their bills!
March 1, 2009 at 8:29 AM #357857NotCranky
ParticipantRemoved.Dammit, I keep mixing up threads that I read yesterday and today. Note to self “don’t post until coffee kicks in”.
March 1, 2009 at 8:29 AM #357998ParticipantRemoved.Dammit, I keep mixing up threads that I read yesterday and today. Note to self “don’t post until coffee kicks in”.
March 1, 2009 at 8:29 AM #357555ParticipantRemoved.Dammit, I keep mixing up threads that I read yesterday and today. Note to self “don’t post until coffee kicks in”.
March 1, 2009 at 8:29 AM #358029ParticipantRemoved.Dammit, I keep mixing up threads that I read yesterday and today. Note to self “don’t post until coffee kicks in”.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.