Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
poorgradstudent
Participant[quote=briansd1]Housing is now living on welfare and you all know that happens when people who depend in welfare. They can’t get off the subsidies. Eventually, the government won’t be able to handle it anymore and the whole thing will come crashing down, if that continues.[/quote]
Slightly off topic, but the opposite is actually true of most recipients of welfare. The majority who use the safety net are actually short timers who utilize the resources available during tough times (job loss, health problems) and return to work in less than 2 years and get off the system. (Note: I’m not looking at things like tax breaks, since if you consider that “welfare” most of the American middle class with kids is sucking at the government teat and living off the childless). Only about 20% actually stay on welfare for more than 5 years. Not a trivial amount, although overall it’s a drop in the bucket of total federal government spending.The policies of the Clinton and GW Bush administrations helped create and prop up the housing bubble, along with a lot of stupid banks and foolish borrowers. Still, it is the role of the federal government to increase spending and cut taxes during economic downturns (i.e. run a deficit) and (here’s the tough political sell) CUT spending and RAISE taxes during economic boom times. Again, both Clinton and GW Bush screwed up by cutting taxes during their respective good economic years rather than paying down the deficit.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Housing is now living on welfare and you all know that happens when people who depend in welfare. They can’t get off the subsidies. Eventually, the government won’t be able to handle it anymore and the whole thing will come crashing down, if that continues.[/quote]
Slightly off topic, but the opposite is actually true of most recipients of welfare. The majority who use the safety net are actually short timers who utilize the resources available during tough times (job loss, health problems) and return to work in less than 2 years and get off the system. (Note: I’m not looking at things like tax breaks, since if you consider that “welfare” most of the American middle class with kids is sucking at the government teat and living off the childless). Only about 20% actually stay on welfare for more than 5 years. Not a trivial amount, although overall it’s a drop in the bucket of total federal government spending.The policies of the Clinton and GW Bush administrations helped create and prop up the housing bubble, along with a lot of stupid banks and foolish borrowers. Still, it is the role of the federal government to increase spending and cut taxes during economic downturns (i.e. run a deficit) and (here’s the tough political sell) CUT spending and RAISE taxes during economic boom times. Again, both Clinton and GW Bush screwed up by cutting taxes during their respective good economic years rather than paying down the deficit.
ParticipantI don’t actually have a lot to add except the rental market moves *really* fast. It amazes me that in a world where you normally have to give 30 days notice I regularly see apartments put up for rent signs and people moving in less than 2 weeks later. Most property management companies are looking for someone to move in *right now*, not in 2 weeks or 30 days. It’s tough to avoid at least some double-rent overlap when moving.
ParticipantI don’t actually have a lot to add except the rental market moves *really* fast. It amazes me that in a world where you normally have to give 30 days notice I regularly see apartments put up for rent signs and people moving in less than 2 weeks later. Most property management companies are looking for someone to move in *right now*, not in 2 weeks or 30 days. It’s tough to avoid at least some double-rent overlap when moving.
ParticipantI don’t actually have a lot to add except the rental market moves *really* fast. It amazes me that in a world where you normally have to give 30 days notice I regularly see apartments put up for rent signs and people moving in less than 2 weeks later. Most property management companies are looking for someone to move in *right now*, not in 2 weeks or 30 days. It’s tough to avoid at least some double-rent overlap when moving.
ParticipantI don’t actually have a lot to add except the rental market moves *really* fast. It amazes me that in a world where you normally have to give 30 days notice I regularly see apartments put up for rent signs and people moving in less than 2 weeks later. Most property management companies are looking for someone to move in *right now*, not in 2 weeks or 30 days. It’s tough to avoid at least some double-rent overlap when moving.
ParticipantI don’t actually have a lot to add except the rental market moves *really* fast. It amazes me that in a world where you normally have to give 30 days notice I regularly see apartments put up for rent signs and people moving in less than 2 weeks later. Most property management companies are looking for someone to move in *right now*, not in 2 weeks or 30 days. It’s tough to avoid at least some double-rent overlap when moving.
ParticipantFrom a strictly selfish point of view, the more people who walk away, the more downward pressure there should be on home prices, and the cheaper it will be for us when we decide to actually pull the trigger. So I’m all in favor of people walking away, although I realize this will continue to cause short term stress to the economy.
I think a huge percentage of seriously underwater homes were purchased in the last 5 years. Most of the bank-owned properties I see listed right now were in fact purchased in 2005, and we’re just about the time the 5/1 ARM is resetting. Of course, those are almost certainly people who can’t afford the payments on their underwater homes.
End of the day, it’s a lot easier to walk away from a home you’ve lived in for 3-5 years than 25. I would have loved to see my mom sell her house at the peak of the bubble, but she’s lived there 3 decades and couldn’t clean out her basement in less than a year. Us kids grew up in that house, and there are a lot of memories there. It sounds like the woman in the article retired and bought her new home in 2005, so it’s not like she had a lot of emotional stake there.
Bankruptcy sticks with you for what, 7 years? Faced with a choice of walking away and breaking even and facing 7 years of bad credit or 14 years of house payments to get back to zero, I have a hard time faulting people for taking 7 years, unless they LOVE their home. I actually know one couple that did a strategic default, and one couple that chose not to. Both could afford the payments, both are about 100K underwater. The ones that stayed love the house, the other they can easily find the same house as a rental for a lot less per month.
End of the day, it’s just business, and all legal.
ParticipantFrom a strictly selfish point of view, the more people who walk away, the more downward pressure there should be on home prices, and the cheaper it will be for us when we decide to actually pull the trigger. So I’m all in favor of people walking away, although I realize this will continue to cause short term stress to the economy.
I think a huge percentage of seriously underwater homes were purchased in the last 5 years. Most of the bank-owned properties I see listed right now were in fact purchased in 2005, and we’re just about the time the 5/1 ARM is resetting. Of course, those are almost certainly people who can’t afford the payments on their underwater homes.
End of the day, it’s a lot easier to walk away from a home you’ve lived in for 3-5 years than 25. I would have loved to see my mom sell her house at the peak of the bubble, but she’s lived there 3 decades and couldn’t clean out her basement in less than a year. Us kids grew up in that house, and there are a lot of memories there. It sounds like the woman in the article retired and bought her new home in 2005, so it’s not like she had a lot of emotional stake there.
Bankruptcy sticks with you for what, 7 years? Faced with a choice of walking away and breaking even and facing 7 years of bad credit or 14 years of house payments to get back to zero, I have a hard time faulting people for taking 7 years, unless they LOVE their home. I actually know one couple that did a strategic default, and one couple that chose not to. Both could afford the payments, both are about 100K underwater. The ones that stayed love the house, the other they can easily find the same house as a rental for a lot less per month.
End of the day, it’s just business, and all legal.
ParticipantFrom a strictly selfish point of view, the more people who walk away, the more downward pressure there should be on home prices, and the cheaper it will be for us when we decide to actually pull the trigger. So I’m all in favor of people walking away, although I realize this will continue to cause short term stress to the economy.
I think a huge percentage of seriously underwater homes were purchased in the last 5 years. Most of the bank-owned properties I see listed right now were in fact purchased in 2005, and we’re just about the time the 5/1 ARM is resetting. Of course, those are almost certainly people who can’t afford the payments on their underwater homes.
End of the day, it’s a lot easier to walk away from a home you’ve lived in for 3-5 years than 25. I would have loved to see my mom sell her house at the peak of the bubble, but she’s lived there 3 decades and couldn’t clean out her basement in less than a year. Us kids grew up in that house, and there are a lot of memories there. It sounds like the woman in the article retired and bought her new home in 2005, so it’s not like she had a lot of emotional stake there.
Bankruptcy sticks with you for what, 7 years? Faced with a choice of walking away and breaking even and facing 7 years of bad credit or 14 years of house payments to get back to zero, I have a hard time faulting people for taking 7 years, unless they LOVE their home. I actually know one couple that did a strategic default, and one couple that chose not to. Both could afford the payments, both are about 100K underwater. The ones that stayed love the house, the other they can easily find the same house as a rental for a lot less per month.
End of the day, it’s just business, and all legal.
ParticipantFrom a strictly selfish point of view, the more people who walk away, the more downward pressure there should be on home prices, and the cheaper it will be for us when we decide to actually pull the trigger. So I’m all in favor of people walking away, although I realize this will continue to cause short term stress to the economy.
I think a huge percentage of seriously underwater homes were purchased in the last 5 years. Most of the bank-owned properties I see listed right now were in fact purchased in 2005, and we’re just about the time the 5/1 ARM is resetting. Of course, those are almost certainly people who can’t afford the payments on their underwater homes.
End of the day, it’s a lot easier to walk away from a home you’ve lived in for 3-5 years than 25. I would have loved to see my mom sell her house at the peak of the bubble, but she’s lived there 3 decades and couldn’t clean out her basement in less than a year. Us kids grew up in that house, and there are a lot of memories there. It sounds like the woman in the article retired and bought her new home in 2005, so it’s not like she had a lot of emotional stake there.
Bankruptcy sticks with you for what, 7 years? Faced with a choice of walking away and breaking even and facing 7 years of bad credit or 14 years of house payments to get back to zero, I have a hard time faulting people for taking 7 years, unless they LOVE their home. I actually know one couple that did a strategic default, and one couple that chose not to. Both could afford the payments, both are about 100K underwater. The ones that stayed love the house, the other they can easily find the same house as a rental for a lot less per month.
End of the day, it’s just business, and all legal.
ParticipantFrom a strictly selfish point of view, the more people who walk away, the more downward pressure there should be on home prices, and the cheaper it will be for us when we decide to actually pull the trigger. So I’m all in favor of people walking away, although I realize this will continue to cause short term stress to the economy.
I think a huge percentage of seriously underwater homes were purchased in the last 5 years. Most of the bank-owned properties I see listed right now were in fact purchased in 2005, and we’re just about the time the 5/1 ARM is resetting. Of course, those are almost certainly people who can’t afford the payments on their underwater homes.
End of the day, it’s a lot easier to walk away from a home you’ve lived in for 3-5 years than 25. I would have loved to see my mom sell her house at the peak of the bubble, but she’s lived there 3 decades and couldn’t clean out her basement in less than a year. Us kids grew up in that house, and there are a lot of memories there. It sounds like the woman in the article retired and bought her new home in 2005, so it’s not like she had a lot of emotional stake there.
Bankruptcy sticks with you for what, 7 years? Faced with a choice of walking away and breaking even and facing 7 years of bad credit or 14 years of house payments to get back to zero, I have a hard time faulting people for taking 7 years, unless they LOVE their home. I actually know one couple that did a strategic default, and one couple that chose not to. Both could afford the payments, both are about 100K underwater. The ones that stayed love the house, the other they can easily find the same house as a rental for a lot less per month.
End of the day, it’s just business, and all legal.
Participant[quote=4plexowner]that factor would keep me out of La Mesa / San Carlos / etc if I had to commute I-8 east between 4 and 6 PM everyday
I’ve never seen I-15 north NOT be like that north of Mira Mesa Blvd regardless of the time of day so any housing north of there is of zero interest to me – likewise for I-5 north of the merge
life is too short to sit in traffic[/quote]
There are people who get to leave work before 5:30? Lucky! 🙂Definitely want to avoid I-15, hence the lack of excitement about Escondido.
Participant[quote=4plexowner]that factor would keep me out of La Mesa / San Carlos / etc if I had to commute I-8 east between 4 and 6 PM everyday
I’ve never seen I-15 north NOT be like that north of Mira Mesa Blvd regardless of the time of day so any housing north of there is of zero interest to me – likewise for I-5 north of the merge
life is too short to sit in traffic[/quote]
There are people who get to leave work before 5:30? Lucky! 🙂Definitely want to avoid I-15, hence the lack of excitement about Escondido.
-
AuthorPosts
