and what happens at the end of november when the first-time home buyer tax credit expires? the same crash that the auto market suffered at the end of the “cash-for-guzzlers” program. typical manipulation of our so-called “free markets”. rob from the future to consume now. no courage in obama and his lackeys (nor any politician) to call a spade a spade. the former “blessed” american way of life is well on its way to extinction. we’ve worn out our welcome being the world police and the bully for access to cheap oil and mineral resources.

*rising unemployment and underemployment
*rising health care costs
*rising property taxes
*steeply rising national debt
*wage stagnation
*less income available for housing expenses
*immigrants at bottom of housing chain fleeing bankruptcies to go home
*no more ninja loans
*no more sub-prime mortgage securitization
*insolvent banks
*banks hoarding cash while granting themselves sweet bonuses
*fdic going broke
*fha going broke
*no financial market regulation (worse bubbles coming)

by what mechanism is the housing market going to recover? me thinks the black bag of magic’s been steam-rollered by the real reality.

Roger,

Dead on.

JUST LET THE COURT(a judge)IMPOSE A BETTER AND FAIR MORGAGE TERM THAT THE HOMEOWNER CAN AFFORD! MOST PEOPLE WANT TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES.

There will be no sustainable recovery if the regular folks are not protected from those predatory lending practices. Allow the court to undo the damage and will soon be on our way to stability and later on to recovery.

The bottom line is that a government should be able to control businesses and business practices.The problem here is that businesses have become the government.Obama is no FDR nor could he ever survive in this USA, if he inspires to act like FDR.

Socialism died in Afghanistan(USSR!)So will capitalism(USA!)Buckle-up because the ride is going to be bumpy!

Wavre

You hit the nail right on the head.

Have you noticed… there has been hundreds of billions of dollars of “transfer of wealth” from the aspiring low-middle income people. Not only they were lied to with preditory lending and deceptive contracts, they lost all of their savings (and some borrowed from relatives). The laws were prepared for this under the phrase “reform act”. If “buying” a law is illegal in our Democracy, reversing those losses under our judicial system should be the duty of our Federal and District Courts. All it takes is a mendate from Eric Holder to State Attorney Generals to “reverse” the past criminal acts. But will Goldman Sachs allow this to happen? Ask Rahm Emanuel!!!

WBUR – PLEASE DO NOT DELETE MY POSTINGS!!!
Enough is Enough!!!

The concept that housing is going to sail in “save the day” for our economy is wishful thinking. Houses came about from middle-class people who “once had” meaningful employment and could prosper.

I suggest we forget about the housing fairy and start getting shows that talk about how the corporations and government destroyed the middle class and start redistributing the wealth back to the middle class. Then the housing will follow.

I love this topic. We will explore the misery of American home owners who were tricked into surrendering their savings the mortgage sharks … but we are not going to mention about names who have benefited from this Transfer of Wealth “permanently” … ie. Goldman Sachs … average bonus $8.450 million 2009 Bonus for senior partner.

ps. Please WBUR … do not delete this posting, just because it has “goldman sachs” in the text.

Lilya,
NPR is not deleting your postings because your opinions are “dangerous” or the station is trying to censor you. Your last couple of deleted comments were off topic. You tried to disguise that fact by mentioning the topic, but…On Point will often delete unrelated topic comments–although not always–and there is more of a chance of deletion if the comment is first or last. (You haven’t figured that out yet?) It is not some conspiracy by NPR against you. This isn’t a question of whether or not people believe you’ve uncovered some grand conspiracy.

Like with pretty much every other topic, though, you’ve expressed another opinion, here, that takes this topic directly to vast conspiracy theory phase. Laws were not prepared for ‘predatory lending and deceptive contracts’ or for people to lose ‘all of their savings.’ It is more that unscrupulous lenders looked for loopholes in the laws, which may seem like the same thing but is actually very different. The two main factors involved here are GREED and INCOMPETENCE. These are different than a highly sophisticated conspiratorial plan.

Roger, Wavre, Lilya and Bob -

Great points and spot on.

Off-topic but related to the larger forces at work in our society today – it’s not surprising that real stories and issues are continued to be ignored by the nation’s media, but the fake news galvinizes the media cretins; last Thursday’s “Balloon Boy” media driven event of the day. Now the Colorado Sheriff is hinting at collusion between the boy’s parents and the media!

Americans wake up – the house has been burning for a while and our fellow citizens by and large continue to ignore the flames or are blind to seeing them.

As Wavre said – “buckle-up” because the ride is going to be bumpy!”

John,
That is off topic. AND the “balloon boy incident” is another case of GREED and INCOMPETENCE rather than ‘larger forces at work in our society today.’ The ‘balloon boy incident’ WAS a “real” story, it just wasn’t an important one. It was more designed to fill up time in between a lull in any “real” updates on bigger stories. It was treated as such to garner ratings and it was a misguided attempt keep the 24-7 news cycle going…

Instead of asking if home prices are going up and down, ask if home prices are reasonable compared to the income of people buying.

During the housing bubble, home prices rose faster than people’s income. People paid a higher percentage of their earnings for housing than before. After the bubble, we can’t expect that to continue.

To see if housing prices are reasonable, compare the median price of a house to the median income. When the ratio matches what it was before the bubble, we can start to think about prices going up again.

As for the forclosure crises, the solution is to fix people’s mortgages, not inflate hosing prices again. After a year, the big banks (that go bailed out) still aren’t putting in the resources to renegotiate people’s mortgages to something they can afford.

I am not sure there are modification going on in Massachusetts. The state’s highest court ruled it is a consumer violation to lend based upon the equity in the house, rather than on the borrower’s ability to pay the loan over the life the loan. Countrywide acts as if this is not good law despite making 30 year loans to people in their sixties, and to single mothers who will lack the necessary resources to pay their mortgages once child support ends.

It is quite astonishing to me that the federal government, having “saved” many large banks from bankruptcy, has chosen to have no say in how or when those same banks choose to spend their loaned money. Would someone care to explain that phenomenon?

The housing crisis is merely a symptom of the disease, commonly known as the Federal Reserve Bank.

Sure! Let’s conjure the illusion of a housing recovery, so the Banksters can perpetrate the same economic crime all over again!

Brilliant Amerika, just brilliant.

When the financial crisis was really ramping up last year, I received an email promoting the idea of the govt. giving $500,000 to $1,000,000 to the people rather than to banks, or dribbling it out to only certain segments of the economy, like housing, automobiles, and finance.

Wouldn’t that solution have really done a better job of stimulating the free market? Even if everyone received $1 mil, wouldn’t that have cost less than current stimulus giveaways?

Why was this not a viable idea?

Dr. John P. Hussman reports in his website http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc091019.htm: the Center for Responsible Lending projects that for most states, foreclosure totals will more than triple over the coming 4 years, for a total of 8.1 million foreclosures. It’s hard to imagine housing prices rising in areas with heavy foreclosures. That being said, I would oppose a subsidy for house buyers but support a second broad stimulus program that puts money into the pockets of low to moderate income Americans. Out policies of pumping money into the hands of those who need it least and are least likely to spend it is backwards, undemocratic and unlikely to succeed.
If a house purchase subsidy were extended, I’d require the buyers to share with the government any profits on resale.

The housing credit should be phased out and replaced with a credit insurance scheme for first time buyers.

If the house devalues 3 years after you buy it the government will give you up to $8K, if it doesnt devalue by $8K you get no credit.

Housing prices were inflated to disgusting levels; that’s why the bubble had to burst. I say, let prices plummet. Prices need to come down to levels that are affordable for average people, without them having to mortgage their first-born just to have a roof over their heads.

Hi, The market is working, don’t over stimulate. Last week I sold a house I acquired through a tax sale for less than $5,000. The buyer will spend $15,000 to $20,000 to get it to a livable condition and a family will move in before Thanksgiving. It is in a tiny farm town that is why the price is low but the point is the remodeling side will recover first.

We are in trouble as long as it takes longer than a person’s career, earning an average wage, to pay off a mortgage, and complete the purchase of a house.

Wages are falling, not rising. Speculation caused the spike in real estate prices, with those who flipped houses gaining, not because they were providing the necessary commodity of shelter, but because they were allowing access for those with leverage to increase their wealth quickly by moving on to the investment.

It was a great big Ponzi, not a stable market.

One can only hope that prices fall again to the point where a normal person’s working wage will allow for the actual purchase and sustained occupation of a home in which to live, assuming there are enough jobs to go around, and assuming that the interests of individuals can prevail over those of corporations.

Who do you report to when the banks are trying to take your house by refusing to take your mortgage payment because you were two months late, and your house is about $230,000 worth and you have just about $53,000 balance on the house. The Bank was Washington mutual and those in washington allowed these banks to get away with these acts. I was forced into Bankruptsy to save my house. Where’s the outrage or justice?.
Thanks for reading.

If taxpayers are to subsidize housing as we are now doing, let’s get some real stimulus to the economy and to our security by requiring remortgaged properties to be retrofitted for energy efficiency. Does that seem off-topic? I think not; it’s time for the idea of stimulus to go beyond consumption alone, as in oversized energy-guzzling houses. I think it’s crazy to go back to the wasteful patterns of consumption we’ve been suffering from.

Wild idea — What if “adjustable mortgage” meant not the rate charge the homeowner, so that when there was more than, say a 5% drop (drop only) in value, banks were required to adjust the amount of the mortgage itself to the value. Make the mortgage realistically tied to value, so that a homeowner’s payment could match the reality of the value, and most likely allow people to stay in their homes. For banks to own (and hoard) so much capital doesn’t benefit the majority of the population.
I also wish that there were a way to guarantee that new housing would be created in a variety of prices. All I see advertised in newspapers is LUXURY housing. Where the heck are those who earn under 100k a year supposed to live? Under 50k, under 35k? To own, or even to rent. [And while I'm on my soapbox, I'd love to see building codes require really good insulation & other environmentally sound construction.
It could be required for new houses to be plumbed to use kitchen & bath waste water for toilet flushing--why do we flush with our drinking water??? And require modern heating systems--high efficiency units, solar hot water where feasible, some houses with geothermal...the higher demand for these features would sure create new jobs, and the price for these features would go down.
AND, it just occurs to me, some of the money saved by a homeowner under my "adjustable mortgage" plan could be used for retro-fitting houses to be more energy-efficient.]
In the Boston area, as one caller said, prices have been crazily inflated. (We sold a modest Cape in Lexington MA with a pleasant-sized but not huge yard, for $425,000. We bought an 1800 sq ft [2-bedroom + attic & cellar] for $392k. We paid $100 k down, and that money has now vaporized from the value of the place.]
In many suburbs (including mine) “McMansionization” has eliminated many houses (Capes, ranches, smaller colonials) that young people could afford. This means that adult children who grew up here can’t afford to live here, town employees can’t afford to live here, many retirees have to move way out of town or out of state to afford a place in a retirement community.
And the economic diversity becomes very narrow, which I personally think is not good for democracy. In a narrowly stratified situation, it’s easy to assume that “everyone” has the same values, opportunities, concerns that oneself does. It’s easy to become judgmental of those who are not like oneself — it seems to be human nature to make assumptions about others that, if one KNEW people from that different group, would be proven to be either not true or much broader, much more subtle than one’s assumptions indicate.
I don’t object to banks having capital — but is it not a bit tyrannical to withhold so much of it from the vast majority of citizens?
Thanks for listening…er, reading.

I was interested to hear there’s a lack of good data on rentals. I am of the mind that rental housing creates communities that are much more valuable in social terms than spread-out housing, and there is the bond of shared responsibility between the landlord/property manager to the renters as well. My neighborhood is threatened by a new educational complex, and the mostly very young people got very exercised about “the last of naturally occurring affordable housing,” marched, made noise, etc. The city had lost many apartments when they became condos, and had gained many units of “affordable” housing with lease restrictions leaving us out.
I am hit hard by this shrinkage, and have approached mortgage brokers to help me buy an apartment building to put a foot in the closing door of this way of life. It is important to be able to pick up and move to another apartment in another building if someone downstairs smokes for example. For me, there is instant headache (midnight or noon), my skin stays broken out till the person leaves. To my doctor, it seems like unending flu.
So to be radically inconsistent, I vote AGAINST sending people to jail for smoking marijuana. I just think smokers should have their own zoning.
But to say that foreclosed homeowners are now flooding the rental market, I don’t see it. To say the rental market got loose when so many bought homes; I saw the opposite. Rental costs spiked right along with housing prices. And meanwhile, local people argue that apartments are far less efficient energy-wise. They ignore New York City’s studies that establish New Yorkers’ highly competitive energy efficiency.
I would like to see the armies of builders now in need of work creating new communities with multiunit housing of astounding efficiency. Some of us really like to have acquaintances behind every wall, ceiling, or floor. There are plenty of atom-size “families” as boomers age; it seems the demand should be there. But a renter does have to be able to pick up and move within the same city, trusting adequate choice to remain.

Topic: On whether to extend the housing tax-credit for homebuyers.

My answer is no. I agree with some of those responding – a broader stimulus package is required. The TARP stabilized AIG, BofAM, GM, Chrysler, JPMorgan and others, but the national economy remains weak.

A stimulus package should be aimed at the states to ignite the national economy and do the most good for the most people. – Most people have NOT benefited from the federal stimulus package. State budgets have NOT adjusted to the budget shortfalls to follow (see The Rockefeller IOG report, “Coping With Effects of Recession in the States”, D Boyd 072709, The Brookings Institution.)

The states can and will lead the US out of recession, and duplicate the “economic bounce” following WW II with the proper approach. See “Bridging the State Funding Gap”, G Mandell, 040809, Gemand Consulting. Something really big and bold is required here. Extraordinary situations require extraordinary solutions.

Thank you,

george

Hi– Want to say that I hadn’t read the previous comments when I wrote mine — I always seem to get to my computer with about 5 minutes left in the radio program, and I was trying to beat that deadline. When that time passed, I kept going with my thoughts.
Now I’ve read the other comments and see that a number of you had already made my points. I want to apologize for speaking as if my thoughts were new here.
Meg

I HEARTILY agree w/ Ellen Dibble about building more multi-unit housing. In the ‘burbs, cluster housing can promote a stronger sense of community, the possibility of a “meeting house” for sharing meals, hanging out, and still preserving green space. Perhaps ride-sharing for errands, school drop-offs, would be possible.
In Bedford MA [13,000 people] where I now live, there is one [alas, only one] small development with a mixture of larger & smaller single-family homes, and town houses with some units larger & some smaller [varied affordability]. Approx. 30 units all together. There’s one broad-ish road (with atrractive curves) going in, and almost always there are 12-18 kids out playing. Together.

Thanks, Meg.
And George, what I would do with the tax advantages being advanced to first homeowners (and those with mortgage deductions), I would redirect some of that money toward energy-efficient sustainable multi-unit housing. Talk about turning the Titanic…
Meg, I had wanted a sort of joint foster grandparents house, with a shared unit for emergency foster-caring, and also a unit for dishwasher, laundromat, large table, things small units don’t need a lot. There was no liftoff on that, but a similar idea was already in place in the next town, but with “affordable” leases that excluded where my business would sometimes leave me income-wise. Older people rent units (row houses really) and act as backups for the foster families that own the larger houses. That community was established by someone with a lot of money, which to my mind was what got it off on maybe the wrong foot. Communities don’t spring up at will; they can’t be bought. Perhaps in co-housing, sudden community can be effectuated, and that is what developers here have been trying to do, and they are speechless when I say that I want “open housing.” They seem afraid there would be no takers (renters versus owners). But they try to build huge complexes, and if they are low-cost, the whole town/city rises up to compolain. If they are “affordable,” as I undernstand it there is some huge one-time payment to the city, but then property taxes are not collectible. Well, you probably have some experience with that in the eastern part of Massachusetts too. Plain-vanilla multiunit housing, no jacuzzi, no subsidies, no tax breaks, no private porches — has any board of selectmen or city councilors looked upon those as a benefit?

What are the banks going to do with all of these houses that they are repossessing? As our economy and job market weakens, fewer a fewer Americans will be able to afford to pay for or to even qualify for loans for many of these houses. I’m wondering, will the banks eventually cave in and start selling the houses and condos at fire-sale prices that better reflect the realities of Americans’ incomes today (at least those who are still employed)?

The most prominent reason a house goes into foreclosure: a person’s medical bills. The second most prominent reason: unemployment/underemployment. Tax credits for new home buyers won’t quite qualify!

When banks were given stimulus money, it was supposed to be in part used to get them to start lending again; instead, they have mostly used it to strengthen their bottom line.

I am not really keen on the $8,000 tax credit for new/first-time buyers. An $8,000 tax credit should never be the make or break point reason for someone to buy a home. As mentioned on the show, the program is costly and benefits relatively few people.

Keeping home prices artificially high as they have been since late 2002 and interest rates exceptionally low hasn’t made much sense so far. I have watched the market since the mid 1960’s and, unfortunately, prices still need to fall a little (but not in a free fall). I bought a second home in 2001 for investment purposes for $105,000; I sold it in late 2004 for $309,000! That is insane! For a house to increase in such value over such a brief period of time was crazy. I had watched the market for so many years and knew we were in the midst of a very fragile bubble. I had friends who thought I was insane for selling the property; they thought the value was going to continue at a similar rate. They now know I was correct in my caution. The person who bought it from me tried to flip it for a quick $75,000 profit; he ended up keeping it on the market for 14 months and sold it for less than he bought it for! It is on the market again now for $180,000! I believe it is really only worth about $160,000. ALso, people have gotten too used to mortgage rates being under 6%!!!

People who purchased houses way over their value, and then took out second mortgages based on those inflated values, do have to accept some responsibility by staying in them if they can until the value eventually goes back up and equity is returned.

If the government is going to “help” someone, it should be to keep people in their homes who have a good chance of recovering. I also believe that lenders should be lending to people who are a reasonable risk and fixed-rate mortgages of 30 years or less should be the only loans offered. No ARMs! No more second mortgages based on inflated home values!

I wonder if the law that the Clinton administration passed exempting people from paying capital gains taxes if they stay in their homes longer than two years should be given a long, hard evaluation. I believe it has in part encouraged people to buy and sell more homes more frequently, which has contributed to the fluctuating market. It has encouraged a seller’s market too much. I benefitted from that law greatly and made a lot of money, but many people over leveraged and began to falsely think of themselves as real estate speculators.

Oh, and lastly: JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!!!! What happened to all of that infrastructure rehab and green jobs and the WPA spirit in the air during the campaign and directly after the election??

Property prices should fall and must be allowed to fall to affordable levels. The value of a home should be determined by affordability in the marketplace. Since 2001 the lenders threw away the guideline book and the home prices and their affordability have not dropped to the correct level in line with incomes. Until they do, the consumer will have no money to spend in the economy.

The Governments meddling in the foreclsoure and loan modification arena is simply prolonging the agony and the recovery to the benefit of the lenders maybe more than the consumer. The meddling does both a dis-service to the 45% of the population that does not currently afford a home but would like to and rewards the people that made misrepresentations at any cost in order to purchase their home in the 1st place.

Obama is going to add over one trillion dollars to the deficit this year alone. At this rate we will be more than five trillion in debt by the time he leaves office in 2012. The gov’t needs to leave the private sector alone. FDR’s spending and regulatory policies prolonged the Great Depression. Let every bad loan fail and every bad business fail. Capitalism is not designed to have the gov’t support losers. Two thirds of our economy is based on consumer spending. The gov’t should give everyone a tax cut. The gov’t needs to let us spend the money that we have earned, not the other way around!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My friends and I are part of the leading edge of the baby boom. We are ready to sell the houses we raised our kids in and downsize to condos. As soon as the housing market comes back a little look for a large number of older folks dumping their large homes.

Everyone is confused why banks aren’t lending. It’s simple. While politicians rant and rave about the availabilty of credit, regulatory agencies like the OCC and the Thrift have required higher capitalization.

Pre Crash – Avg. Banks had loaned out $14 for every $1 in deposits. (Citi was closer to $100 loaned out for every $1 in deposits.)
Now regulators want no more than $4 to $7 in loans for every $1 in deposits.
Add to that the increased loss reserves for all those delinquent and defaulted loans and bottom line –
Banks can’t lend $ they don’t have.
Your average community bank is on firm footing and is still making loans. Its the big banks (that were over leveraged like Citi) that are still working on having enough capital/$ on hand.
It’s like a snake that swallowed a pig – this problem is going to take a while to work its way through the system.

“FDR’s spending and regulatory policies prolonged the Great Depression.” Not true. In fact his actions helped the country and put people back to work, such as my grandfather. The reason it was prolonged was because he cut back on stimulus.

That said, I doubt we will have the growth that happened after WW2 which helped to balance the debt. By the way WW2 raised the deficit a whole lot more than anything FDR did in the 30’s.

The deficit is a problem but so is doing nothing. Which is what Hoover did, which made things worse. It’s a mess that’s for sure. I do feel this country is in for a lot years of pain.

“When the financial crisis was really ramping up last year, I received an email promoting the idea of the govt. giving $500,000 to $1,000,000 to the people rather than to banks, or dribbling it out to only certain segments of the economy, like housing, automobiles, and finance.”

This is why we’re in the fix we’re in – people seem to be mathematically challenged in this country.

Current Outlays:

Tarp: 372.5 billion (out of 700 billion committed)
Fed Reserve: 1300 b (out of 6400 b committed)
Stimulus: 519.8 b (out of 1200 b committed)
AIG: 119.3 b (out of 182 b committed)
Housing Initiatives: 104.9 b (out of 745 b committed)
FDIC: 38.8 b
Misc: 388.5 b

Total outlays: 2843.8 b

That translates to 2843800 million. Divide that by the population of 300 million and you get $9479.33 per person; not chump change but certainly not $500 K!

None of these disbursements are grants. They’re all meant to be paid back. The Fed Reserve liquidity injections consist largely of Treasury note (and now Fannie and Freddie) purchases, and repos (repurchase agreements) with primary dealers.

In theory, the government stimulus will be paid back by us through tax revenue that pays the interest and principal on the bonds sold at auction. Unfortunately, the government never seems to collect enough taxes to pay off the previous debt and thus issues new debt to service old debt: read ponzi scheme.

The bigger question is whether the bailout loans to AIG, GM, and the other creaky organizations will ever be paid back or will these behemoths just go belly up.

The problem is that the government is essentially “all-in” with its current stimulus. If it gets more aggressive, it risks a total collapse of the dollar, which is already tanking. Currency traders know the government can’t cover these costs and will try to inflate (or print) their way out of its debt, so instead of holding dollars they’re converting those dollars to hard assets like gold, silver, and oil. The Austrian school of economics calls this “crack-up boom” inflation, which is different than the standard (money supply X velocity) inflation. It essentially occurs as a reaction to currency devaluation.

The bottom line is we cant borrow our way to prosperity, and we’re going to have to sit down and eat the chicken dinner we’ve prepared for ourselves. We can’t re-inflate the housing bubble, that scam has come and gone. We need to be about the business of creating real wealth in this country, which means innovation leading to products that radically change the way we live and do business. We have a lost decade of sub-prime loans, MBS, CDS, housing flips, Zillow parties, and granite counter tops. Imagine if all that money and energy had been put into green energy technology, which we could now be exporting to the rest of the world. That’s the problem with bubbles, they misplace precious resources.

“That said, I doubt we will have the growth that happened after WW2 which helped to balance the debt. By the way WW2 raised the deficit a whole lot more than anything FDR did in the 30’s.”

Remember that WWII did two things: It stimulated our economy and it disseminated all of the other industrial powers. Our industry was left unscathed, thereby leaving us the only game in town, which is generally pretty good for business. But this can also leave you fat dumb and happy and susceptible to disruptive technologies like economy cars.

I am just sick of Mark Zandi’s argument. Housing price is down so we have to save it and pump it up. What were we doing when housing price was rising in 03-06 because of low interest rate and lower underwritting standards. So house price is up, Uncle Sam can not interfere the free market. House price is down, let’s forget about the free market. If we keep this mentality, we are doomed because we refuse to let recession clean things up. Let the house price fall, you won’t care if you have a job and can make monthly fixed payjment. Spending the money to create jobs is the key here.
Can’t agree more about the comments on Goldman Sachs and other big banks. We are saving banks (actually saving those outragous bonus), not homeowners.

twenty-niner it’s interesting that you said that WW2 stimulated our economy. I seem to remember that most things were rationed and that all the major industries were on the government payroll in one way or another, hence the spike in the nations debt.

You forgot Canada was not effected by the war in terms of destruction either and that the Marshall plan rebuilt much of Western Europe and helped to turn Germany into the industrial giant that it still is today. We also rebuilt Japan.

What struck me about this show was how it became clear we don’t make anything anymore. It’s scary that our economy is basically run by the financial sector and the service industries. We need a Marshall plan if you ask me and we need to revamp our manufacturing sector to get back good solid paying jobs.

I agree with the post that many baby boomers are going to dump their home and downsize and move to cheaper states.

“you said that WW2 stimulated our economy. I seem to remember that most things were rationed”

1938 GDP: 800 billion
1945 GDP: 1474 billion (almost double!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#endnote_USA

Numbers are your friends…

This was a very interesting program for me as with many others in Connecticut, I am right in the middle of this mess. I am currently living alone in my first house and have been one of the thousands that have been laid off. I was able to find alternative work but I have no idea how long this job will hold out. I purchased my house to serve as both my “home” as well as an investment that I was hoping would be my launch pad into the next phase of my financial well being. I do not have any debt other than my mortgage and am not behind in that either. I have very strong credit score as well. In the last year I attempted to get a lower APR by refinancing but have been consistently rejected by several banks including Bank of America who services my loan and Quicken Loans. I have also had no luck at all in trying to get a loan modification. The banks seem to prefer that I go into forclosure should it come to that than to ensure that our working partnership stay alive. It seems crazy to me too that banks are willing to accept your higher payment at say $1900 per month if you dont have a job but if you ask to refi to get a payment of say $1600, that they (the bank) says no – because you do not have a job – but they will take the $1900 you currently own with no problems. WTF! ! !

The real solution is to forgive all the mortgages in America. After all, is the Mortgage really the French for “Death Pledge”? By eliminating all mortgages for American’s and give away mortgages up to 2 million dollars, we can liberate all our people from any death pledges; only then and when that we can call ourselves a free country.