| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2008/3/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49576 Activity:high |
3/26 As foreclosures go up, wouldn't it contradict Bush's idea of the
great New Ownership Society? Would foreclosure have a lasting
effect on this cool idea?
\_ ...if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of
our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more
vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital
stake in the future of this country.
- President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004
\_ We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation
to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow
the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the
generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew,
with the past cut off and the future ignored.
- John Major conference speech 1991.
\_ It already has. We are back to the ownership levels we had
pre-Bush.
\_ People made stupid financial decisions. This is clearly the
fault of the Bush administration. It is part of Yet Another
Karl Rove plot to destroy the country! Grow up. I mean that
literally. If you screw yourself spending money you didn't
have you are stupid and it is only your fault. Are you a
believer in "predatory lending"? Sheesh.
\_ Yes, I believe in predatory lending. Deregulation and the
selfish and immature philosphy behind it has been a
disaster. Grow up, indeed. The one last thing that the
Republicans had to be proud of has turned to dust. When
will you admit that you need to learn from your mistakes?
\_ 1) I'm not what you think I am. 2) Please explain how
you can "predate" on an adult. Legal adults of age and
means to sign a contract for hundreds of thousands of
dollars were somehow "forced" into doing so? Ridiculous.
Fortunately, most people are smart enough to have a loan
they can afford, are doing just fine paying them, do not
need or want Big Government Mommy help and thus the
Republic is safe for a few more years until the next fake
crisis that "requires" Mommy's intervention to screw things
up even worse.
\_ How about fraud? Isn't that predatory? How about having
someone sign a contract in a language they don't read
and the translater lies to them about the contents.
Is that okay in your sophomoric "Atlas Shrugged" view
of the world?
\_ I think you're missing the point. The op is
conveying that he/she does not care about stupid
people who make stupid decisions. Survival of
the fittest should be how things go, or something
like that.
\_ I think the op is foolish and immature and
is the last person who should be telling others
to grow up. Society is based on mutual
interdependency and all of our survival depends
of the general willingness to co-operate. Things
like fraud undermine that.
\_ Url to prove this?
\_ http://www.progress.org/2008/baker01.htm
Okay, not quite all the way back yet, but very close.
\_ Not exactly a reputable source. This site is left
leaning and pro-socialism. Case in point, "American
dream is a myth! Life is not fair in America!" URL
http://www.progress.org/2004/noury05.htm
\_ Facts often are "left leaning"
http://www.csua.org/u/l4u (census bureau)
\_ That's true. Almost as often as they are "right
leaning."
\_ Faith-based vs. reality-based
\_ Ownership Society has more to do with the ever expanding
choice and your participation in making those choices.
"On the other hand, having an ever-expanding number of choices
doesn't necessarily make us happier, just as bigger and bigger
food portions don't make us healthier."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0512.glastris.html
\_ http://blognonymous.com/2006/02/ownership-society-means-foreclosure.html
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/2nft5l [blognonymous] |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.progress.org/2008/baker01.htm housing market shiller homeownership vacancy The homeownership rate is likely to fall below its 2001 level this year. foreclosure starts sales bottom Price Tumble Accelerates, Homeownership Plunges From the Housing Market Monitor, January 30, 2008. CEPR's Housing Market Monitor, published weekly, breaks down of the latest indicators and developments in the housing sector but leaves out the 18-year land-price cycle. by Dean Baker The news on the housing market keeps getting worse. The latest data from Case-Shiller index shows prices dropping even more rapidly; the homeownership rate had a record year over year plunge; and the vacancy rate for ownership units crept back up to its record high. In addition, foreclosure rates soared to yet another record, while housing starts and new homes sales showed record annual slumps for 2007. The housing market is still far from anything resembling a bottom. The Case-Shiller numbers were by far the most important news for the week. This index is the most carefully constructed measure of house prices available, since it measures the change in prices of homes that have been resold, controlling for changes in the mix of homes. The November data showed house prices in the 20-city index dropping 77 percent from last November. However, over the last quarter, prices have been in a virtual free fall. The rate of price decline in many of the former hot markets is truly striking. The housing vacancy data gives no reason to believe that even with these price declines the market is about to level off. The vacancy rate for ownership units edged back up from 27 percent to its previous peak of 28 percent. Prior to 2004, this measure had never risen above 19 percent in any prior housing slump. The rental vacancy rate edged down by 02 pp to 96 percent. There are more than twice as many ownership units as rental units. The homeownership data showed a 04 pp decline from the third quarter and a 11 pp decline from the fourth quarter of 2006. With the foreclosure rate hitting a new record in the fourth quarter, up 75 percent from the fourth quarter of 2006 and 35 percent from the third quarter, it is virtually certain that the homeownership rate will continue to fall. The latest data raise the possibility of a sharp quick correction. Plunging house prices and soaring foreclosure rates may cut off the flow of credit to the market, further depressing prices. This would create the basis for a recovery, but the quick loss of $8 trillion in housing wealth will be painful. It was not wealth, not actual goods or services, but price and not even an actual transaction price but an appraised price, a hoped for price. It was not lost but it fell as prices always do, always rising and falling. That said, people who bet the appraised price of their house would rise, they wont be able to refinance their mortgage at a lower rate; if theyd counted on that, theyll lose their homes -- a real loss of real wealth for them but a gain for whoever gets it at a bargain price. Sign up for free Progress Report updates via email What are your views? Share your opinions with The Progress Report: Your name Your email address Your nation (or your state, if you're in the USA) Check this box if you'd like to receive occasional Economic Justice announcements via email. |
| www.progress.org/2004/noury05.htm click here for Part Two) Is the US economy a "level playing field", full of fairness? Yet people continue to run into the brick wall of economic injustice without challenging it, and without questioning the mythos that brings them so little happiness. In this first installment of a two-part article, Natalie Smith and Alex J Noury introduce us to the dirty realities that co-exist with the brightly polished American Dream. by Natalie Smith and Alex J Noury Ya gotta believe in what you're doing. You gotta think of yourself as a winner, and you will be. These are the sermons of one of the most popular men in contemporary pop culture, Donald Trump. His reality TV show, The Apprentice, became an entertainment phenomenon, repackaging and reselling the increasingly elusive American Dream. It is perhaps no coincidence that The Apprentice is wildly popular at this point in American history. Never before has the divide between the richest and the poorest been so large. Therefore, we watched with rapt attention and desperation the unfolding of the American Dream on so-called reality TV, distracting ourselves from the fact that the Dream's rewards are nowadays more fiction than fact. The American Dream is possibly the strongest cultural force driving the US worker. It inspires us to work long hours and borrow large sums of money. This dream translates into economic self-sufficiency, manifested through successful entrepreneurship and homeownership. Are all Americans in an equal position to attain this dream, provided that one has enough ambition and work ethic? According to the American Dream, increased productivity will lead to higher wages, enhanced wealth, and ultimately, to economic self-sufficiency. As the American working class experience proves however, this is not the reality. Not only does hard work not necessarily translate into economic success, but opportunity is not equally shared. This stark reality taints the promise of freedom and justice that American citizens claim as cornerstones of their nation. For the vast majority of the US population, the American Dream is not readily available to them. In most states, this amount of money barely affords rent and food for a family, let alone car payments, health insurance, education costs or worse, treatment for medical problems. The US is one of the world's richest industrialized nations, but the average per capita income is only $21,857. Where is all the wealth to which the American people supposedly have fair and equitable access? We live in a society in which 1% of the American population owns 60% of stock and 40% of total wealth. The top 10% of Americans owns over 80% of all real estate. Between 1977 and 1999, the top one-fifth of American households enjoyed an increase in income of 43%. The bottom fifth of American households lost income at a rate of 9 %. htm) that highlights the gross inequities between executive and worker pay: Executive Excess 2001: Layoffs, Tax Rebates and the Gender Gap. As revealed in the report, executive pay rose by 571% between 1990 and 2000. Why such a disparity between the working and upper classes? The Washington Post notes in an article on December 17, 2003 (More Reports Signal Expanding Economy; Prices Drop) that US business productivity grew by 94% in the third quarter of that year, the highest increase since 1983. Workers are working harder, but this has not translated to higher wages. Henry George asks, Why, in spite of increase in productive power, do wages tend to a minimum that will give but a bare living? Perhaps we should ask corporate executives, whose astronomically high salaries are made possible by the workers' increasing productivity. Unfortunately, corporate executives are unlikely to be challenged by that question. In fact, the average American citizen more commonly poses the question to himself. The American Dream, rooted in a Protestant work ethic and assumptions of a level playing field, perpetuates a cultural version of blame the victim. If success is portrayed as an individual enterprise, then it follows logically that failure is an individual responsibility. There is an under-explored idea in cultural anthropology that argues that psychological trauma results from the gap between cultural expectations (as set forth in myth and ideology) and material reality. As the economic structure increasingly polarizes the classes, a surprising number of Americans turn inward, placing blame on their perceived deficiencies in spirituality and character. Such internal blame is manifested in movements such as the Promise Keepers and the Million Man March. It is interesting to note that famous men's movements tend to focus on accepting internal responsibility for perceived failures. Women's movements, such as the recent March to Save Women's Lives, rightfully lash out at the socio-economic structure that denies universal health care, fair education and decent living wages. He is currently a research assistant at the National Institute of Health. Natalie Smith received her BA in History at Rollins College, where she completed historical and anthropological research on Florida farmers, and she obtained her MA in Anthropology at the University of Florida. She has also studied at the University of Seville in Spain, taught for a year in Japan, served a year in Americorps and is active in feminist causes. Currently, she is a writer and editor in Gainesville, Florida. No part of this material may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, which includes but is not limited to facsimile transmission, photocopying, recording, rekeying, or using any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission of Alex Noury. Sign up for free Progress Report updates via email What do you think? Tell your views to The Progress Report: Your name Your email address Your nation (or your state, if you're in the USA) Check this box if you'd like to receive occasional Economic Justice announcements via email. |
| www.csua.org/u/l4u -> www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr407/q407tab5.html FAQ Fourth Quarter 2007 Table 5 Homeownership Rates for the United States: 1965 to 2007 (in percent) Year First Second Third Fourth Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter 2007.... |
| www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0512.glastris.html html&j=n Conservatives have a knack for taking good ideas--say, patriotism or faith--to the sort of ideologized extreme that brands the ideas as theirs and leads liberals to abandon them. We're seeing that now with the issue of choice and individual empowerment. Those very concepts used to be associated with liberal causes like abortion and voting rights. But over the last couple of decades, conservative intellectuals have roped them to a larger agenda to revolutionize government. Talk to scholars at the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation or to movement organizers like Grover Norquist, and they'll walk you through the strategy. Big government and individual freedom, they'll explain, are opposed to each other; The three big areas of non-defense-related government spending are retirement (mainly Social Security), health care (mainly Medicare and Medicaid), and education (mainly K-12 public schools). For political reasons, it is practically impossible to cut spending in these areas. But it is possible to dismantle the government bureaucracies that administer them in a way that enhances personal freedom and makes possible big cuts down the road: privatize the benefits. In the 1950s and 1960s, the conservative economist dreamed up the notions of education vouchers and private accounts for Social Security. Republican operatives and think tankers seized on Friedman's ideas in the 1970s, expanded them into areas like health care, and fleshed out their philosophic and political logic. Vesting individuals with more choice, control, and ownership of their government benefits, they argued, would not only enhance virtues like personal responsibility, but over time, it would also result in the shift of hundreds of billions of tax dollars from the custodial care of government to the corporations that would help manage people's private accounts. Best of all, from the conservative point of view, it would transform the electorate's political identity. Instead of government-dependent supporters of the Democratic Party, voters would become self-reliant followers of the GOP. These ideas are the intellectual fuel of the conservative movement that has swept across the country in recent decades. They were well understood in the Reagan administration, and the Gipper's speeches are suffused with them. But it has only been in the last few years, with both Congress and the White House in conservative Republican hands, that the ideas have truly debuted. Consider President Bush's effort to sell the public on private Social-Security accounts. Last September, when he first began talking about the idea on the campaign trail, it looked like a winner, with 58 percent support in the polls. By February, following his detailed explanation of private accounts in his State of the Union address, support fell to 46 percent. And by June, when informed that private accounts would be paired with cuts in benefits for future retirees--as the president himself admitted they would have to be to have any impact on Social Security's long-run finances--27 percent of voters gave their approval, a level of support below that for legalizing marijuana and gay marriage. Or consider another high-profile element of what Bush calls the "ownership society": giving individuals more control over their government health-care benefits. In 2003, the president signed a landmark measure providing prescription drug coverage to Medicare recipients, with massive subsidies to lure beneficiaries into private plans. Prior to the law's passage, 90 percent of the public supported the idea of government helping seniors with drug costs. Today, a scant 31 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the new program. It's possible that, once the benefit actually goes into effect beginning next year, seniors will flock to it gratefully. But an interim effort offering seniors a choice of drug discount cards doesn't inspire confidence. Only 64 million seniors wound up getting the drug discount cards, a million fewer than the government predicted. Low-income seniors who signed up for the card were given an extra $600 subsidy to help defray the cost of co-pays--a benefit the government estimated would lure 47 million low-income seniors into the program. Only 19 million lower-income seniors actually did sign up. Finally, consider the president's efforts to give parents more choice over the schools their children attend. Under Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, millions of students in failing schools can now transfer to other schools in their district. It is the grandest experiment in public-school choice ever attempted, and polls show overwhelming support for it. In practice, however, only about 1 percent of students in failing schools annually have taken advantage of the opportunity. That could mean that districts aren't eagerly publicizing the choice provisions, or that parents aren't impressed with the array of often-dysfunctional public schools they have to choose from. That's why conservatives say the federal government should go the next step and provide students with vouchers for private schools. Yet a two-year-old federal voucher experiment in DC that provides low-income students a hefty $7,500 to attend private schools has garnered only modestly more interest. Only 7 percent of families with children eligible for the vouchers have applied for them. But when faced with the actual choices conservatives present, they aren't buying. The reason is that conservatives have constructed choices that fail to take human nature into account. People like to have choices but feel quickly overwhelmed when they lack the information or expertise to decide confidently, and they turn downright negative when the choices themselves seem to put what they already have at risk. Conservatives were bound to make these mistakes because their very aim has been to transfer more risks from government to individuals so that government's size and expenditures can be cut. They like choice just fine, but they won't trade security to get it. That's not to say individual choice and control can't be applied intelligently to government. In fact, doing so may be key to achieving important progressive aims like universal health care. But designing policies that use choice and that Americans would actually embrace won't make government weaker. Dozen card monte It's understandable that conservatives would think that giving individuals more choice and control over government services would be an easy sell. After all, consumers increasingly enjoy these things in the marketplace. Everything, from cars to computers to pastas, now comes in an astonishing array of styles, colors, and configurations. Consumers today have access to new tools that shift control to them, and the younger they are, the more comfortable they are with that control. But as choices and individual control have expanded, economists and behavioral psychologists have begun to document some unexpected ways people actually react to these new marketplace choices. Swarthmore social theorist Barry Schwartz explored their findings in his book The Paradox of Choice. On the one hand, notes Schwartz, having control and choice clearly benefits us. People who peruse a variety of options before choosing tend to make objectively better decisions. The ability to express one's identity via the choices one makes--in everything from the clothes we wear to the charities we contribute to--greatly increases human happiness. On the other hand, having an ever-expanding number of choices doesn't necessarily make us happier, just as bigger and bigger food portions don't make us healthier. Even trivial choices often require expenditures of time and energy to make informed decisions. When the variables are too numerous, people often decide that the effort isn't worth it. In one study, individuals were offered tastes of six different exotic jams and given a coupon worth a dollar off any of the jams. Another group was offered a choice of 24 jams and a coupon. Those in the first group were more likely to buy jam than those in the second. As choices have proliferated, we feel overwhelmed, as if we're los... |
| blognonymous.com/2006/02/ownership-society-means-foreclosure.html The "Ownership Society" Means Foreclosure For Many President Bush has pointed to the sharp rise in minority home ownership--above 50% in 2004--as a milestone achievement of the "Ownership Society". But remember, every time the administration uses the that term, substitute the words "wealth redistribution to corporations" and you'll have a better idea of what's really going on, and so it is with home ownership. The NY Times reports on the alarming rate of foreclosure among the nation's poor. Some areas, such as Cuyahoga County, Ohio are seeing 17 percent foreclosure rates largely due to the prevalence of subprime and balloon mortgages where interest rates jump steeply after only a few years. And crippling lending practices aren't limited to the poor and minorities. The mortgage industry is an equal opportunity predator making available all kinds of risky options. Take the interest-only loan for example, or as we refer to it here at Blognonymous rent with property taxes. Like subprime mortgages, interest-only loans have rates that climb alarmingly after only a few years, putting enormous financial stress on the buyer especially if they've contributed nothing to their principal. But now the chicken's is comin' home to roost--As the real estate market cools we see the beginnings of another enormous redistribution of wealth in the Bu$hCo era. Banks and lending companies foreclose, taking down-payments, principals, and homes from unlucky minority and urban buyers, and wealth moves once again from the poor and middle-class to the corporations. Of course, no one forces a buyer to buy or to choose a predatory lending instrument, but likewise Bu$hCo has done nothing to regulate these practices because 1) The hot real estate market has propped up the economy for 4 years, and 2) The administration knows who fills it's campaign coffers. I'll give you a hint, it isn't the poor, minorities, or middle-class voters. Posted by Kvatch @ 6:37 PM 14 Comments: For the most part, I agree with you. But one tiny thing nags at me, and that is the 'beyond means' part. Yes, subprime lending can be predatory, deceptive, exploitive, and frought with the criticism you speak of. Society has this element of 'living beyond our means' that pervades government spending AND consumer spending. People subsidize their earnings with credit, equity, etc. Because once a person goes down a consumption slope, it is very hard to go back. People want to live and LOOK like they make far more than they do, credit makes this possible. Look at people that make twenty thousand a year, but HAVE to drive a vehicle that costs more than their annual salary! Now, Jane Doe can have a huge sprawling home without the sacrifices of saving and credit building key to other generations. Now I am not saying you are wrong, I am suggesting that a cultural trend toward credit-income subsidies is also to blame. Also, the transient nature of home ownership- face it, people move alla round now for jobs, etc. So this moving around factors in, also the desire to get the tax deduction but knowing that ownership will not be long term, this entices people to go for balloons, ARMS, interest only, etc. You are seeing consumer patterns of people that get into mortgages because they fully intend to move. People are inclined to think they will make much more in the future, and will 'deal' with it all then. I tried to make that point at the end of the post albeit weakly, but you really hammer it home. The two places where this cycle could be broken: By the consumers (the buyers) by refusing to use a risky mortgage instruments or by really assessing the need for home-ownership, or by the lenders. On the latter, it's interesting to note that 30 years ago there was not such thing as an interest only loan. We consumers bear some responsible for our own irresponsible spending. Yet at the same time our government has made it easier for lending predators to separate the financially unschooled from their money. On top of that, we have an economy who's "success" is dependent on the notion that Americans will spend more than they earn. Ironically, America is the worlds richest country, but American's are the worlds most fiscally retarded. So what're the chances we'll see a government sponsored "Just say no to personal debt" program to help people get out of debt and live within their means? Maybe if we can tie irresponsible consumer borrowing to gay sex... We'd have a presidential commission on consumer debt in 8 min. This was an ugly trap and sadly lots of young families fell into it all the way. There is going to be a glut of used homes on the market in the not so distant future. And for all the talk of expanding opportunities to the less well-off, experts note that the gap between minority and white home ownership remains unchanged from a decade ago at about 25 percentage points. One point, I agree that consumers must make intelligent choices when they shop for a mortgage, but the industry needs to change the formula they use to qualify people for a mortgage. They take your information and tell you how much house you can afford and how large your payment can be. Just because one person can handle 38% of their income going toward their mortgage, that doesn't mean the next person can. All the industry sees are the higher commissions from the larger sales. I advised all of my children to buy less than their banks and realtors told them they qualified for, and they all thanked me for that advice later. Interestingly, I think the US is in a profoundly disturbing Catch-22. Not that I'm advocating better education and habits, but there are going to be short-term consequences that will affect everyone, even the prudent. The question is when will the average american wake up to tis? It's no wonder BushCo want to spend every last minute trying to scare the bejesus out of people with their doom and gloom "we are not safe, give me more power" rhetoric- it distracts people's attention away from how they are being robbed blind by these robber barrons. |
| preview.tinyurl.com/2nft5l -> blognonymous.com/2006/02/ownership-society-means-foreclosure.html The "Ownership Society" Means Foreclosure For Many President Bush has pointed to the sharp rise in minority home ownership--above 50% in 2004--as a milestone achievement of the "Ownership Society". But remember, every time the administration uses the that term, substitute the words "wealth redistribution to corporations" and you'll have a better idea of what's really going on, and so it is with home ownership. The NY Times reports on the alarming rate of foreclosure among the nation's poor. Some areas, such as Cuyahoga County, Ohio are seeing 17 percent foreclosure rates largely due to the prevalence of subprime and balloon mortgages where interest rates jump steeply after only a few years. And crippling lending practices aren't limited to the poor and minorities. The mortgage industry is an equal opportunity predator making available all kinds of risky options. Take the interest-only loan for example, or as we refer to it here at Blognonymous rent with property taxes. Like subprime mortgages, interest-only loans have rates that climb alarmingly after only a few years, putting enormous financial stress on the buyer especially if they've contributed nothing to their principal. But now the chicken's is comin' home to roost--As the real estate market cools we see the beginnings of another enormous redistribution of wealth in the Bu$hCo era. Banks and lending companies foreclose, taking down-payments, principals, and homes from unlucky minority and urban buyers, and wealth moves once again from the poor and middle-class to the corporations. Of course, no one forces a buyer to buy or to choose a predatory lending instrument, but likewise Bu$hCo has done nothing to regulate these practices because 1) The hot real estate market has propped up the economy for 4 years, and 2) The administration knows who fills it's campaign coffers. I'll give you a hint, it isn't the poor, minorities, or middle-class voters. Posted by Kvatch @ 6:37 PM 14 Comments: For the most part, I agree with you. But one tiny thing nags at me, and that is the 'beyond means' part. Yes, subprime lending can be predatory, deceptive, exploitive, and frought with the criticism you speak of. Society has this element of 'living beyond our means' that pervades government spending AND consumer spending. People subsidize their earnings with credit, equity, etc. Because once a person goes down a consumption slope, it is very hard to go back. People want to live and LOOK like they make far more than they do, credit makes this possible. Look at people that make twenty thousand a year, but HAVE to drive a vehicle that costs more than their annual salary! Now, Jane Doe can have a huge sprawling home without the sacrifices of saving and credit building key to other generations. Now I am not saying you are wrong, I am suggesting that a cultural trend toward credit-income subsidies is also to blame. Also, the transient nature of home ownership- face it, people move alla round now for jobs, etc. So this moving around factors in, also the desire to get the tax deduction but knowing that ownership will not be long term, this entices people to go for balloons, ARMS, interest only, etc. You are seeing consumer patterns of people that get into mortgages because they fully intend to move. People are inclined to think they will make much more in the future, and will 'deal' with it all then. I tried to make that point at the end of the post albeit weakly, but you really hammer it home. The two places where this cycle could be broken: By the consumers (the buyers) by refusing to use a risky mortgage instruments or by really assessing the need for home-ownership, or by the lenders. On the latter, it's interesting to note that 30 years ago there was not such thing as an interest only loan. We consumers bear some responsible for our own irresponsible spending. Yet at the same time our government has made it easier for lending predators to separate the financially unschooled from their money. On top of that, we have an economy who's "success" is dependent on the notion that Americans will spend more than they earn. Ironically, America is the worlds richest country, but American's are the worlds most fiscally retarded. So what're the chances we'll see a government sponsored "Just say no to personal debt" program to help people get out of debt and live within their means? Maybe if we can tie irresponsible consumer borrowing to gay sex... We'd have a presidential commission on consumer debt in 8 min. This was an ugly trap and sadly lots of young families fell into it all the way. There is going to be a glut of used homes on the market in the not so distant future. And for all the talk of expanding opportunities to the less well-off, experts note that the gap between minority and white home ownership remains unchanged from a decade ago at about 25 percentage points. One point, I agree that consumers must make intelligent choices when they shop for a mortgage, but the industry needs to change the formula they use to qualify people for a mortgage. They take your information and tell you how much house you can afford and how large your payment can be. Just because one person can handle 38% of their income going toward their mortgage, that doesn't mean the next person can. All the industry sees are the higher commissions from the larger sales. I advised all of my children to buy less than their banks and realtors told them they qualified for, and they all thanked me for that advice later. Interestingly, I think the US is in a profoundly disturbing Catch-22. Not that I'm advocating better education and habits, but there are going to be short-term consequences that will affect everyone, even the prudent. The question is when will the average american wake up to tis? It's no wonder BushCo want to spend every last minute trying to scare the bejesus out of people with their doom and gloom "we are not safe, give me more power" rhetoric- it distracts people's attention away from how they are being robbed blind by these robber barrons. |