Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (104989)	2/14/2008 2:42:02 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 306849

Bush unveiled the "ownership society" where he went around with a bunch of subprime borrowers touting home ownership "for all". So, how many Democrats did you see opposing home ownership for the majority of Americans? Do you oppose home ownership for the majority of Americans? Certainly we weren't seeing the NY Times, a noted liberal paper, opposing it. In fact, they called Bush "centrist and conservative".. query.nytimes.com A good policy (encouraging ownership and self-reliance) can not reasonably be opposed. HOWEVER, the implementation of such a policy is a wholly different thing. When private markets fail, because risk is not being properly recognized and assessed, or when politicians attempt to pander for votes by "empowering" financially unworthy constituents to assume debtloads they cannot feasibly sustain, then it's easy to criticize the original intent. So what's your strategy? Less home ownership? More dependence upon government entitlements? Should everyone live in government owned housing? Or perhaps, as John Edwards advocates.. All foreclosures should be halted for a period of 7 years (I wish I could halt all stock margin calls for that same period. ;0) johnedwards.com That sure sounds like Edwards is attempting to perpetuate the "ownership society" ideal by using the government to intervene and prevent distressed owners from losing their homes. So why not just admit that the reality is that NEARLY EVERYONE believes that personal home ownership is something to be encouraged? And at the same time, recognize that without proper standards (like 20% down payments in personal savings towards a home) are necessary requisites. And why not just face the reality that NO AMERICAN VOTER had an vested financial interest in preventing more people from owning their homes. Increasing demand for real estate was VERY beneficial to those who ALREADY owned their homes. It's the real estate version of the "greater fool" theory, as current owners hope they will be able to convince a "greater fool" to buy their home down the line. And why not just blame women, with their "nesting instinct" for encouraging their husbands to buy a home? I have any number of female friends who, either alone or with their spouse, purchased homes and condos over the past several years based upon that instinct. They were just tired of renting. And while we're discussing long-standing policy blunders, one of these days the Real Estate conundrum is going to be overshadowed by the tremendous burden of social entitlements (which are responsible for well over 1/2 of all Federal expenditures).. Who are you going to blame for that? As for the "unwinnable war" (presumably you mean Iraq), I'll let the captured diary of a noted Al Qaida leader in Iraq speak for itself (with most entries as recent at October, 2007): strategypage.com (There are 5 pages of this diary that have been unclassified) Hawk