It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

History of Housing Prices Chart - *SHOCKING* You Need To See This!

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I understand he is angry. In fact that is the whole point. It is FOX news. They being a Government controlled station, the (Government) want us to get angry in order for us to be controlled further. You all act like he is some sort of hero. Its all obvious information and yes its great seeing Dr. Ron, but c'mon!
Sad thing is we are angry and they have us right where they want us. What can be done about it? Talk about that!




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 




"And clouds, just dip your brush in a little white and mix it up with a little yellow to get this nice soft cream color and it will look like the sun is reflecting off the clouds, during a gorgeous sun set."



I don't know, I can understand having a healthy distrust of the MSM, but there is a point where it does go overboard.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
haha thank you for speaking of my avatar.
I'm glad you came to a conclusion in your fight to agree with each other.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


Here is a link to the fairtax.org website, they have it all broken down.

www.fairtax.org...

They have it at like 23% or something crazy, and that would have covered the federal budget before all this new spending.

I say make the government cut the budget to where it is only 10%, and then of course you have state sales tax, but it would get rid of payroll tax and FICA, SS, and all that so all the hidden taxes in our products would go away, so the prices would be about the same possible even cheaper.

I don't agree with this exact piece of legislation, but something like it.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
That chart is not accurate.
This fact notwithstanding, When I relocated and saw housing prices triple around 2004 from the previous decade, The first thought I had was how the real estate taxes were rising with the housing bubble prices.

Now, some older mortgages (at least in the area I speak of) had a ceiling of about 10% above the purchase value, yet, whether prospecting or other, many of these mortgages were either refinanced to liquidate the sudden explosion of equity, or houses were sold to benefit from the profits that would pay off existing mortgages and leave the seller with unpresidented profit margins.

Any of these senario's would cause the creation of new mortgages, now at values also unpresidented, but increasing the subsequent tax values on new, refinanced, or cashed out existing mortgages which were then turned at the higher bubble price.

This tactic, I feel was predetermined by the Bush administration and those involved with securing loans, whether mandated to get people into housing or other more sinister reasons by financial institutions.

So, now they have an increased tax base that is generating volumes of real estatet taxes of the now over-valued properties.

This in itself was a masterful plan. The housing bubble bursting was foreseen, ignored and/or dismissed as financial experts expressed undwindling strength in the market even in 2008.

The real problem lay in the packaging of high risk mortgages with other investments and sold as mutuals, etc..., and

the insurance sold to guarantee risky mortgages, which, were purchased not by just lenders or existing mortgage purchasers, but in some cases by speculators that knew a large percentages of these loans would default.

Say a default swap or insurance was purchased at 20:1 on an ARM or other suspect mortgage which eventually failed. Now, a 300K loan may require 6 million insurance payout. Multiply this by the hundreds of thousands of defaults and you have a multitude of investors wanting to collect.

Should a loan be re-evaluated and changed to skirt default, the modification would stop speculative insurance purchasers from collecting. I believe this is why such modifications have been slow and few.

In the meantime, tax dollars are guaranteed to inject monies back to the now failed banks under a guise of mortgage aid, yet once appropriated, Paulson did the old bait and switch to allow bank funding without restrictions, thus undermining the intent of TARP.

This infuriated Barney Frank and others, yet, it was a loop-hole that could not be held in oversight by Congress.

As the funds were not easing the credit constriction, more mortgages continued to default, allowing speculators in the insurance "scam" to continue to enjoy large profits at taxpayers expense.

The mortgaes that were slice and diced into funds and other instruments also spiralled down in value, causing unknown numbers of retirement funds such as 401K's etc...to lose 50% or more of values that were invested into for years, decades, lifetimes.

*note:
A personal friend, with 20 years vested into his current job, (not counting prior employment) told me last week that his retirement funds has lost OVER 50% of it's value since 2006, and that he may only afford retirement for one or two years when the time comes.

Many have lost entire life savings, nest eggs for childrens college education and other long-term investments.

Take this unbelievable truth and add in the bailout monies, the FEDs constant increase of the money supply, the falling interest rates of US bonds, etc...and the depreciation of the dollar, with the slaughter of long term investment nest eggs, and that 50% of 2005-2006 values is further deteriorated by the increased money supply, further weakening purchasing power.

Who benefits?

The institutions that are now propped up Zombie banks etc...

Some of these were also redefined to allow TARP aid or National monetary aid even though they had not contributed to the FDIC as most properly functioning banks, thus skimming additional funds that they were not vested into.

If Obama wants to reestablish trust with the people, I suggest investigations begin a more expeditious tennacity and those who have criminal responsibility start being endicted and heads continue to roll until all are tried and assets are disbursed to make whole those who are victims of these dispicable attrocities.

In the meantime, thieves prifiting uncounted billions chuckle as marijuana users are strung up like 1st degree felons.

Let us see change in this arena this year, just as we are told change in Medical access will not wait another year.

Lastly, I hear 70% of defaults are being held and not on the market. Imagine the next swapr of mortgage defaults and the Commercial properties defaults that are nearing and will soon be upon us...



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


Wild applause from this corner. Thank you so much for such a thoughtful and cohesive post that not only articulates how we got here, but sheds light on what is yet most likely to come.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
It seems this is where the facts came from some guy named Robert Shiller.


Until recently, the only long time series of house prices for the United States had been compiled by Shiller (2005). Shiller constructs this series by splining together available house price data from 1890–1934 from Grebler, Blank, and Winnick (1956), the home-purchase component of the CPI-U from 1953–1975, the OFHEO from 1975–1987, and the Case-Shiller-Weiss index from 1987–2005. To fill in the gap, Shiller constructs an index of house prices from 1934 to 1953 by compiling data on the sales price of houses from five major cities based on newspaper advertisements. These data, after adjusting for consumer price inflation, show almost no trend increase in house prices until about 1997, leading Shiller and others to conclude that the boom to house prices from 1998–2006 is historically anomalous.

How Robert Shiller measured housing prices back to 1890



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Let us look at Mr. Beck's chart and ask ourselves where the price of houses was in 2000 when GWB jr. took office, shall we? Why that would be exactly where Mr. Beck says "the market wants them to be".

Now, let us apply our logical minds and short-term memory and ponder when and why this dramatic increase in housing costs took place.

Could it have had anything to do with GWB jr.'s position that every American should own thier own home and that the banks were then completely let off the leash allowing them to make $$$ giving loans to whomever walked into their place of business? And then further deregulated oversight to allow those insititutions and Wall St. to bundle these bad loans to buyers all over the world, in turn cratering the global economy.

I guess there needed to be some strategy to giving tax rebates out to the everyman and tax deductions and evasion loopholes to the rich, so we would not see that our economy was being gutted, methinks that was it.


Honestly, do you folks not see the obvious paralells here?



[edit on 26-2-2009 by TheWayISeeIt]




That wasn't george w and wasn't in 2000 that was the dem's and I believe it was in 1999



JAden



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Tentickles
 


He threw his copy of the new budget plan at the camera twice.

He also pointed out OBAMA"S earmarks IN HIS OWN BILL.

BIden had some as well.

He beat up Michael Steele of the Republican party...all Republicans.

He beat up everyone today.


OBAMA violated the Constitution by Approving his section of the Bill made as a Senator. And, as President he has no official vote in the matter, but, as a Senator he gave himself a de facto vote on his portion made while a Senator

From Article 1 Section 5 paragraph 2 at www.law.cornell.edu...


No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.


That is Senator OBAMA shall not during the term of the Presidential Office for which he was elected, be President under the authority of the United States (Although united states, United STATES, UNITED STATES, united states of america, United States of America, or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA do not count, spelling is all important in matters of Law), the Gain of Passing a Bill made as a Senator is made possible during such time. And as President, approving his own bill he is acting as a Senator in the passage of his own legislation, knowing that if he is allowed to pass it it has the appearance that he allowed for the passage of all other Senators and representatives Bills in emolumation to so do, thereby explainig the outrageous expense and bulk of the Stimulus package. It has the appearance of Trading passage of all Bills for his to pass as well.

That is the Attorney General or a Consortium of the People need to try OBAMA under this Article and the APEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, and the Senate and Representatives should be Adjoindered, Et Al.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by PhyberDragon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I'll chime in here too David, and say point blank that this is the fault of both parties.

Unfortunately, people can't get past the (D) or (R) in front of their 'elected' officials name. Or others are to concerned about what Bush did in his last days than what is going on the past 4 weeks.

I honestly don't care whose in office.

Besides, don't you people get it? They are in agreement with each other most of the time. It's a dog and pony show. Case in Point, California. News from insiders is coming out that ALL of the legislature wanted to raise taxes but republican's couldn't (political suicide), so they all worked behind the scenes to select scape goats and sacrifices to do so -- yet those that would vote no, asked to those republicans that would vote yes to put their own pork in.

Point being, both sides have run up enormous amounts of debt. Debt that we cannot possibly repaid as you so pointed out. The amount of debt being created just the past 4 weeks is staggering.

In just 4 weeks, the debt makes me cringe. What will it be in 4 years?

Math does not lie.

We're broke as hell, yet the band plays on. Did I imagine those pictures of Obama having wine at his events? It's like stories of the Titanic. The masters of the universe drinking brandy and smoking cigars as the ship was sinking. Case in point, our Government.

It's ok though, as Mr Obama apparently has a magical money finding device to pay for your mortgage, give you health care, and even pave gold in the streets! Well, maybe not be gold, but why not, all are just as likely.

Enough of it already. I pray daily for our the comming Bond Market dislocation, just so the spending spree stops.

I'm tired of it, and both lying parties.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by PhyberDragon
 





OBAMA violated the Constitution by Approving his section of the Bill made as a Senator. And, as President he has no official vote in the matter, but, as a Senator he gave himself a de facto vote on his portion made while a Senator


So not only did he lie, but he also violated the constitution...shocker!


Did you see that his name was being pulled from the bill...but not the earmark? I'll bet that is why...watch this video:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'




[edit on 26-2-2009 by David9176]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
In two years when Bush's tax cuts for the richest end there will be a change . I don't really know if two years from now will really help the mess were in now though. Ending tax havens in Swiss bank accounts should make a difference if that doesn't take years to happen.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by PhyberDragon
 




OBAMA violated the Constitution by Approving his section of the Bill made as a Senator. And, as President he has no official vote in the matter, but, as a Senator he gave himself a de facto vote on his portion made while a Senator


So not only did he lie, but he also violated the constitution...shocker!


Did you see that his name was being pulled from the bill...but not the earmark? I'll bet that is why...watch this video:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'



6:45 into the video.

I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

I didn't know what it was for until Dragon did some fancy work on it.

Good catch PhyberDragon!




[edit on 26-2-2009 by j2000]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
It's a charade. One big fat charade. I'm wondering why they even bothered to pull his name...hell...leave it in there. Just tell another lie and people will eat it up.

Everything will be great!

What next? What ridiculous news will come from the Obama team and Congress tomorrow...I CAN'T WAIT!



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
In two years when Bush's tax cuts for the richest end there will be a change . I don't really know if two years from now will really help the mess were in now though. Ending tax havens in Swiss bank accounts should make a difference if that doesn't take years to happen.


How much do you want to tax them JBA? 50%, 75%, 100%? No seriously. I ask in earnest. What do you propose to tax them at? What is their 'fair' share? Justify it to me why they deserve more taxes than you? Just because?

Back to reality, even the richest don't HAVE enough money either to cover the costs of these bills even if you taxed the richest 100% of everything they make. You're dealing with double digit 1 year GDP spending and deficits. It's not enough, and will NEVER be enough.

There is no magical tax the rich man fairy to pay the pound of flesh for everyone. They too only have so many pounds.

The law of exponents does not lie. Math does not lie. It's just a matter of time before the ship finally goes under.

Just pray it comes out as a constitutional republic on the other end as a reboot, instead of a reformat.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Not Authorized]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Ok David think about it.
Everytime they open their mouths on TV, everyday, the stock market goes down. When was their a president that had to be in front of the Press Everyday?

I bet he and his crooked Chicago friends are buying Puts on the market and making it go up and down and cashing in big time.

You know what they say, when someone looses, someone else wins.
To bad there are no good reporters left in the world.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


I have to agree. Well said. A bit harsh and confrontational, but you make a good point. It's easy to come up with charts and arguments to push your own agenda with misinformation and/or disinformation. see?

We clearly need more pirates if we're going to beat global warming...

Also, I don't see the need for the rampant bashing of Obama on this site. For the record, I didn't vote for him.. I did my research and voted for the independent candidate. Even though he wasn't my pick, he still hasn't done enough yet to warrant my distrust. Additionally, I don't believe the president has enough power to place full blame on him anyway. He's just a puppet. If you're looking to blame someone for the global meltdown... blame Jim Henson. He's obviously behind all of this.

If you don't believe that.. look to the other "puppeteers"... his advisers, the media, the politicians, the bankers, and of course, the people. What do all of these groups have in common? Avariciousness.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 





Everytime they open their mouths on TV, everyday, the stock market goes down.


It's funny isn't it? How people cheer..yay...he's helping us...as the stock market tanks everytime he speaks and everyones 401k's takes another ravaging.

It's sad man.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


No doubt, so far two days in a row the market has seen decent rallies, for the current market at least, just to lose it all by the end of the day.

It is crazy, no wonder they want to reenact the fairness doctrine because just about everybody is listening to the conservative side of things and getting the truth.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by j2000
 





Everytime they open their mouths on TV, everyday, the stock market goes down.


It's funny isn't it? How people cheer..yay...he's helping us...as the stock market tanks everytime he speaks and everyones 401k's takes another ravaging.

It's sad man.


That's because everytime they go on tV, they lie -- everyday.

Rumors of bank nationalization -- markets tank.
Few days later - 'We're absolutely not nationalizing' -- markets rally.
Today? We're thinking of bank nationalization again -- markets tank.

We're going to have a plan -- markets rally.
We're not sure of our plan, but when we get one, you'll know -- markets tank

Well have a plan for you on Monday -- market rallies nicely
End of day, no plan given -- market tanks last hour of trading

We're going to talk about the bank system -- market rally
Turns into a state of the union declaring MORE spending including education for all and universal health care -- nothing but the same economy talk -- markets tank.

They have lied time and time again, and the markets call it, every time.

Why can't people see this? I too am frustrated David.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join