Thank you to our friends at First Centennial Title for providing March’s Market Condition Report below. Click on the report below to enlarge.
From March’s report:
- OVERVIEW: Closings increased significantly in March causing all performance measures to move but not significantly. Current Market Speed, which measures conversion of listings to closings, moved up 2 points but was depressed due to a 500 unit increase in supply (new listings). Prices have firmed for SFR and are beginning to rise while Condo prices remain weak with a continuing negative propensity.
- SUPPLY (ON MARKET): Meaningful and significant gain over last month.
- DEMAND (SOLD PER MONTH): Demand decreased slightly for SFR. Condo up slightly.
- FAILURES (EXPIRE-WITHDRAW): SFR and Condo steady with a positive propensity in the short run.
- IN ESCROW (FUTURE CLOSINGS): SFR and Condo inventory in escrow maintaining current levels. This suggests that the recent surge of closings is being replaced by new escrow entry.
- PERCENT SELLING: SFR jumped to 64% from 58%; Condo rather steady.
- MONTHS SUPPLY: This key measure is tightening by about a month for SFR, while Condo is unchanged.
- MARKET SPEED: The pace of the Reno market is beginning to rise ever so slightly. The best performing Reno sub-market remains the perennial favorite, Fernley SFR, returning a Market Speed of 41 (up 6 points from last month). The slowest is Yerington SFR at 14.
- PRICES: SFR prices moving up and showing some vigor, while Condo continues to exhibit weakness.
Past MCR reports:
DownButNotOut
Perfect. ‘never drawn any public benefits’? Stewart, I think most of us know what Tom means – he hasn’t taken welfare, unemployment insurance, etc. But should that have to really be spelled out?
As for AL’s statement ‘He just represents the self absorbed, narcissistic segment’ – You know what’s wrong with this country? Entitlement. I bet you’ve collected everyone of those things Tom hasn’t.
And thanks Candace for your enlightening contribution. I hope you and the other liberals like where the country is headed. Unfortunately it usually means someone else is paying your way.I see now why there needs to be a Tea party – it stands for Taxed Enough Already. But then you might just have your welfare reduced and that wouldn’t be good, would it?
GrandWazoo
Sad, DBNO, just sad. Anger is not your best inspiration for writing.
We paid $35K income tax this year on two good salaries this year, and we are more than willing to pay more. In fact, we are seriously planning to move from the “no tax state” that is Nevada to somewhere we can pay even more taxes in the form of a very egrigious state income tax. Why?
Because, it is actually possible to get what you pay for, if you locate sensibly. This (Nevada) is not that place.
Good luck DBNO, while the intellectual property of this state moves along. Don’t know what you do for a living, or if you even live here (as I do), but the idea that all taxes and government spending are some kind of evil empire is just crazy. Clinton handed the government a budget surplus after eight years – how did W do? Maybe not so good.
I don’t really give a sh!t at this stage – we’re leaving, and your crew can deal with the chronic uneducated, the chronic homeless,and the dumps that are downtown Reno and Las Vegas, and call this a “victory”.
Good for you.
money for nothing, but no chicks
All government services are wasteful and need to be cut. All taxes are govt invasions of my liberty and need to be cut. Unless you consider:
– the cheapest letter mail service in the developed world
– schools for the next generation of our citizens
– police to guard my property and self from criminals
– highways to get from A to B
– security to prevent the next airplane I ride from getting hijacked
– defense attorneys for those accused who otherwise would be without counsel
– national defense
– regulations against the Wall St. banksters (uh, er, scratch that one and let ’em run amuck)
– national parks
– streetlights
– prisons for lawbreakers
– border patrol to try to safeguard against illegal immigration (scratch that one, too, just let ’em in and then complain about it)
and I could go on. I love all these folks who have the lowest taxes in 10 years and in the industrial world and still find a way to complain about taxes while demanding their own entitlements. “Keep your govt hands off my Medicare!” they shout. Then they call themselves patriots. Yeah, right….
Wish you weren’t leaving us, Wazoo. But I understand your thinking.
DownButNotOut
Grand Wazoo – My company paid over $650K in taxes last year. Yes, that’s sad. You (and others) seem to think people like me don’t want to pay taxes. Not true. I just don’t want the government dictating my future by controlling more and more of my money. After WWII 12-15% of the people didn’t pay taxes. I read last year 47% didn’t pay taxes. Don’t you see a problem with this?
Ironically, you paid $35K in taxes yet you’re moving – so why do you think paying this amount was so good???? And your moving to pay more taxes expecting better.. what? Government control over your money?More services for your tax money? Are you so foolish to believe we need to be ‘taken care of’ by the government?
Give me a break.Write again from where you move to, assuming it’s in the US, and tell us all about how great the higher taxes are treating you. Do you really think the State Tax or lack thereof is the only problem? It starts at a federal level.
BTW what you call anger, I call disgust.I’m not mad at anybody.
money for nothing, but no chicks
$650k in taxes?
Meaningless unless you provide net income. Unfortunately, there were some Wall St. banks that probably paid less than $650k, after their multi-billion dollar bailouts.
So, I’m not impressed by your “high” taxes, DBNO.
DownButNotOut
Wasn’t meant to impress you. Do you have a point? Didn’t think so.Stick to arguing with Derrick.
Martin
Candace, I just have to say that is the most devastatingly accurate description of the tea party participants that I have read anywhere.
Norton
I have a very hard time taking seriously anybody who dresses up in a Halloween costume.
I am not saying that articulate and informed debate on the appropraite level of government and taxation is not called for. It is. But these tea party folks present a level of discourse equivalent to that of a carnival barker.
MikeZ
[DBNO] “After WWII 12-15% of the people didn’t pay taxes. I read last year 47% didn’t pay taxes.”
And do you know why 47% of filers (38% of all households) don’t owe any federal income tax?
DownButNotOut
MikeZ – Of course I do. That number has been going steadily up from the 1950’s to now, through boom and bust. Through Democrats and Republicans in charge. It is to the governments advantage to create a welfare state for obvious reasons. It just may be impossible to sustain this trend without continually printing money, or arguably worse, adding to our national debt.
Ralston
Gee, Down, I thought not having to pay taxes was your wetdream. And now you criticize those who have accomplished it. Are you just jealous because they have figured out how to accomplish what you have not?
🙂
Tom
Thank you, Candace and Lurker, for emotional responses, name-calling, and attempts to be funny, all totally devoid of logic or substantive response. Is that all you can do, Candace, make jokes, accuse people of needing Viagra, and of `wanting to make it with Sarah?’ If so, that is a pathetic excuse for a comment; emotional name-calling adds nothing to any discourse. I remember people like that when I was speaking at universities in the seventies; the students at some of those institutions claimed they were for free expression, but they weren’t really. They were only supportive of free speech for those who agreed with them–all others got shouted down with emotional name-calling and jeering.
At least Stewart tries to add something logical to a discussion. I just happen to think those items Stewart lists are already sufficiently funded, and the fact that they exist doesn’t justify further expansion of government spending programs, and creating new taxes and new wealth distribution programs.
No, Candace, I don’t have any costumes and I haven’t been to any Tea Parties. But I don’t think it helps a civil discussion to castigate those people who do go to them, any more than those who go to rallies on the other side of the spectrum. They are all Americans entitled to make their views known. And yes, anyone can respond. But calling them silly names, on either side, or making viagra jokes or pithy comments about them trying to make it with Sarah, frankly does nothing but illustrate the ignorance of the name-caller.
MikeZ
It’s not the welfare state, DBNO, it’s TAX CUTS.
And don’t go back to WWII, that hides the reason. Go back to 1999 and compare the %age of filers who owe no income tax then, with now.
There’s your reason, plain as day. So, still want more tax cuts?
DownButNot Out
MikeZ – it sounds like your trying to bait me into a Bush vs Clinton comparison. I’m not going there. It plays right into the two party system’s hands. Suffice to say I believe 95% of all politicians are crooks. Both sides. They will tell you one thing to get elected then do another once in office. How they continue to get elected relies on people’s vote that have to gain by what they are doing, which is not necessarily consistent with what is best for the country.Tax cuts aren’t the problem any more than spending is the problem any more than the way taxes are allocated is the problem any more than evading taxes via offshore accounts is the problem.
They are all integrated and along with a host of other issues that we elect are government to take care of for us. They aren’t doing it. Why? because it’s unpopular and there is no money in it for them. So when I say a statement like 47% of the people didn’t pay taxes in 2008, it’s no wonder almost 1/2 the people think the taxation system works, and consider me a whiner for paying all the tax I do. I would too if I thought is was sustainable. But one only has to look at our national debt to see how unsustainable it is. One also only has to look at the governmental burden being put on businesses to realize job creation is way off. I could go on and on but I’ve found there’s no convincing people that feel differently, so since this is a RE blog, I won’t try.
This thread started with the fact that the Government put a 3.8% tax in the health reform bill that will affect many of us down the road when we go to sell or houses. At that point I guess many in that 47% category will be paying taxes and I should be happy with that, right?
geopower
This thread started with your misunderstanding of what the 3.8% tax is, and apparently we haven’t gotten any further than that. It’s only on income over 200k or 250k for a married couple. So to say that it will affect “many of us” isn’t quite right, because most people don’t make anywhere near that. And most people selling houses right now aren’t making any income from the sale. And most people who sell a house they live in do it to buy another house, so any increase in value is rolled right back into real estate and isn’t taxed. So, if by “many of us” you mean wealthy people selling investment property, then you’re right. But many of the rest of us resent mischaracterization of the actual impact of our government’s actions.
DownButNotOut
GP – Narrowly defining any side of this discussion serves no purpose. Many of the people I know are baby boomers – by far the largest demographic in the US – will be selling our house at some near time in the future to downsize/ retire/etc. and will see profits over $200K.
Why? because we’ve lived in our homes for over 30 years and they’ve appreciated considerably over that time. You want to argue the term ‘many of us’ because from your standpoint it doesn’t apply. And now you resent the mischaracterization of the government actions? That’s your prerogative. But the bottom line is when you add this tax onto my house when I sell, it’s going to be more expensive when someone like you wants to buy it as a move up residence, because there will be another tax on it.
MikeZ
[DBNO] MikeZ – it sounds like your trying to bait me into a Bush vs Clinton comparison. I’m not going there.
I’m trying to show you how the problem that you singled out came to be a problem. One party had full control of the Executive and both houses of Congress when thiese changes occurred. One party owns the fact that: “47% owed no taxes.”
[DBNO] Tax cuts aren’t the problem any more than spending is the problem any more than the way taxes are allocated is the problem any more than evading taxes via offshore accounts is the problem.
Down, denying the facts is is not a sustainable defense. Tax cuts ARE the reason why 47% – these are overwhelmingly low earners so please spare me the offshore acct theory! – owe no federal income tax.
FWIW, I agree that the current level of deficit spending is unsustainable.
DownButNotOut
MZ – I don’t mind entering into a political discussion over facts. But your rebuttal leaves so many openings and so many holes that I can’t even begin to respond. You have an agenda. Your a liberal that thinks Bush/Republicans/ conservatives are the problem. They are. And equally are the Democrats.
We’ll never agree because you don’t even respond to what I wrote. You pick and choose. When I said people that hadn’t paid taxes has gone from 12% to 47% of the population since WWII you changed it to ‘since 1999’. The percentage has been going incrementally up SINCE WWII.
But because your agenda is to blame Bush, go for it, and I agree. Let’s not forget it was Clinton that opened up financing for housing for everyone lowering the threshold to qualify for new buyers that started this whole bubble. Let’s bypass that Obamma ran his election off curtailing the war but has since quadrupled our forces in Afghanistan. And of course Bush spending Billions on a war that no WMD’s were ever even substantiated, what a mess.
Do you really believe our politicians want what is best for our country? Do you know what a lobbyist does? Do you understand why tort reform won’t ever happen? How special interest’s money buys votes? How about the pension debacle that is soon to overwhelm California? Why campaign finance reform can’t get legs? Does the unions influence scare you? The fact that the Chinese are our biggest lenders? The trillions more we have gone in debt? Is this what you think is a functional sustainable government?
MZ, we could (and probably will) disagree forever, I accept that. Diversification makes this country great. But as a Country we’re in the kind of trouble that has not been seen in any of our lifetimes. For those of you that think housing will be anything other other than where you live, such as an investment that appreciates, your wrong in a big way. We have years of work ahead of us to figure how to get out of the mess our politicians have put us in, and that we’ve allowed to happen. Our children will never be able to pay off the debt the criminals we’ve elected have burdened them with. And unfortunately, as a capitalistic society where we need to produce to prosper, until housing comes back in line we’ll never be close to flush.
Scary? Many of you younger readers probably look at this rant as an angry diatribe. It’s more a realistic reflection of 50 years of observation.
skeptical
DBNO,
I normally tune out when the discussion gets too off track, or devolves into a pissing contest between two unarmed foes (think about that one for a minute….).
But, having read your above in its entirety, I cannot say I disagree with any of it. Well put.
Solution: Term limits (meaning vote them all out every time (blue and red alike), and campaign/lobbyist reform.
Paul
DBNO, I completely agree. Where are you thinking about moving to? Reno looks more depressing and third-world like every time I go down there. I was watching the nimrod Nevada Republican State Senate candidates on tv the other day. Each responded that tax cuts were the way to address a state budget shortfall of 40 – 50%. Tax cuts would lure businesses from California, they claim. Cut the University system in half. I have never seen people more out of touch with reality. Senior executives in CA based companies WILL NOT relocate their businesses to a state with some of the highest suicide and drug abuse rates in the nation, forego putting their kids into the UC system, and make their companies less competitve by moving away from a highly educated labor force – just to save paying a state income tax. Not gonna happen!
smarten
Paul –
It’s already happening. And it’s not just state income taxes. It’s the lack of an inventory tax in NV. It’s the lack of an estate tax in NV. It’s lower property taxes in NV. And the taxes in CA. are getting even higher. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
Let’s get back to real estate for a moment. I just learned there’s a CA. state income tax homebuyers’ credit of $10K [potentially] IN ADDITION to the $8K federal income tax credit. And in CA., you don’t necessarily need to be a “first time homebuyer,” nor are there income limitations. The purchase has to take place between May 1 of 2010-January 1, 11; it will be payable in three $3.333K installments over three years; and, it is limited to only the first 10K applicants [ http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/New_Home_Credit.shtml ].
Now if I were a CA. resident and could realize $18K for purchasing a new home, I’d be acting sooner rather than later [if you want to double dip, you only have until April 30 to enter into a contract to purchase a new home].
I received no confirmation that my previous post on this subject was effective. In case it was, I apologize for the previous post which spoke of a similar 2009-10 CA. state income tax credit.
inclinejj
2010 Tax Credit for New Home / First-Time Buyer
(If you are looking for more information regarding the 2009 New Home Credit, see FTB Publication 3528, New Home Credit, or search using the “Forms & Publications” tab above.)
Important Update (04/07/10): The 2010 New Home Credit and First-Time Buyer Credit begins May 1, 2010.
The New Home / First-Time Buyer Credits are available only for purchases that close escrow on or after May 1, 2010.
Applying for the 2010 New Home/First-Time Buyer tax credits: Applications must be faxed after escrow closes. The new application will be available by May 1, 2010. We will deny the application if the 2009 form is used or if we receive the 2010 application before May 1, 2010.
Check this page often. We will add updates as they become available.
General Information: These tax credits are available for taxpayers who purchase a qualified principal residence on or after May 1, 2010, and before January 1, 2011. Additionally, these tax credits are available for taxpayers who purchase a qualified principal residence on or after December 31, 2010, and before August 1, 2011, pursuant to an enforceable contract executed on or before December 31, 2010. The purchase date is defined as the date escrow closes. Taxpayers may apply for the tax credits if they have entered into a contract before May 1, 2010, as long as escrow closes on or after May 1, 2010.
These tax credits are limited to the lesser of 5 percent of the purchase price or $10,000 for a qualified principal residence. Taxpayers must apply the total tax credit in equal amounts over 3 successive tax years (maximum of $3,333 per year) beginning with the tax year in which the home is purchased. The tax credits cannot reduce regular tax below tentative minimum tax (TMT). The tax credits are nonrefundable and unused credits cannot be carried over.
The total amount of allocated tax credit for all taxpayers may not exceed $100 million for the New Home Credit and $100 million for the First-Time Buyer Credit. However, since many taxpayers will not be able to utilize the entire tax credit, the legislation specifies that the $100 million cap for the New Home Credit will be reduced by 70 percent of the tax credit allocated to each buyer and the $100 million cap for the First-Time Buyer Credit will be reduced by 57 percent of the tax credit allocated to each buyer. For example, if a taxpayer is allocated $10,000 for the New Home Credit, the $100 million cap for the New Home Credit will only be reduced by $7,000. If a taxpayer is allocated $10,000 for the First-Time Buyer Credit, the $100 million cap for the First-Time Buyer Credit will only be reduced by $5,700. The 70 and 57 percent reductions do not impact the amount that can be claimed by the taxpayer.
We will allocate the tax credits on a first-come, first-served basis.
Only one tax credit is allowed per taxpayer. If a taxpayer qualifies for both tax credits, the law specifies that we will allocate the amount under the New Home Credit.
Taxpayers will not be eligible for either tax credit if any of the following apply:
The taxpayer was allowed a 2009 New Home Credit.
The taxpayer is under 18 years old. (A taxpayer who is married as of the date of purchase will be considered to be 18 if the spouse/registered domestic partner (RDP) of the taxpayer is 18 or older on the date of purchase.)
The taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse/RDP is related to the seller.
The taxpayer qualifies as a dependent of any other taxpayer for the tax year of the purchase.
New Home Credit: A qualified principal residence, for purposes of the New Home Credit, must:
Be a single family residence, either detached or attached. This can be a single family residence, a condominium, a unit in a cooperative project, a house boat, a manufactured home, or a mobile home. A home constructed by the taxpayer is not eligible since the home has not been “purchased.”
Have never been occupied. Sellers must certify that the home has never been occupied in order for a taxpayer to receive an allocation of the credit.
Be eligible for the California property tax homeowner’s exemption.
Be occupied by the taxpayer as their principal residence for a minimum of 2 years immediately following the purchase.
Tax credit allocation:
A Certificate of Allocation will not be issued if:
The seller does not certify the home has never been occupied.
We do not receive the application and a copy of the properly executed settlement statement within 2 weeks (14 calendar days) after the close of escrow.
We receive the application or reservation request after the total tax credits available have been allocated.
FTB’s determination may not be protested or appealed.
First-Time Buyer Credit: A qualified principal residence, for purposes of the First-Time Buyer Credit, must:
Be a single family residence, either detached or attached. This can be a single family residence, a condominium, a unit in a cooperative project, a house boat, a manufactured home, or a mobile home. A home constructed by the taxpayer is not eligible since the home has not been “purchased.”
Be eligible for the California property tax homeowner’s exemption.
Be occupied by the taxpayer as their principal residence for a minimum of 2 years immediately following the purchase.
A first-time buyer is any individual (and the individual’s spouse/RDP, if married on the date of purchase) who did not have an ownership interest in a principal residence, either in or out of California, during the preceding 3 year period ending on the date of the purchase of the qualified principal residence. If the buyer is married on the date of purchase and either the buyer or the buyer’s spouse/RDP had an ownership interest in a principal residence during the preceding 3 year period, the buyer does not qualify for the First-Time Buyer Credit even if the spouse/RDP is not going to be on title.
Tax credit allocation:
A Certificate of Allocation will not be issued if:
We do not receive the application and a copy of the properly executed settlement statement within 2 weeks (14 calendar days) after the close of escrow.
We receive the application after the total tax credits available have been allocated.
FTB’s determination may not be protested or appealed.
Applications: We will accept applications by fax only beginning May 1, 2010. Do not use the 2009 application. We will post more information by May 1, 2010.
Reservations: Taxpayers who qualify for the New Home Credit may, but are not required to, reserve a tax credit prior to the close of escrow. Reservations will become important as we near the $100 million cap for homes that may not close escrow before the cap is reached, as a reservation will “hold the taxpayer’s place in line” until 2 weeks after escrow closes. To reserve a tax credit, the taxpayer and seller need to complete, sign, and fax to us a reservation request to certify that they have entered into an enforceable contract on or after May 1, 2010, and on or before December 31, 2010. A copy of the signed contract must be included with the reservation request. Taxpayers who reserve a tax credit still need to fax an application and a copy of the settlement statement within 2 weeks after the close of escrow. Taxpayers may not reserve a tax credit if the contract was entered into before May 1, 2010. We will post the reservation form and details about the process by May 1, 2010.
If you are only applying for the First-Time Buyer Credit, you will not be able to reserve the tax credit before escrow closes.
Claiming the tax credit:
The taxpayer must receive a Certificate of Allocation from us to claim the tax credit on their California personal income tax return. The Certificate of Allocation will state the maximum amount the taxpayer can claim listed by tax year.
The taxpayer should refer to the 2010 New Home / First-Time Buyer Credit Publication for instructions on claiming the tax credit (the publication will be available by December, 2010).
Special rules apply to married/RDP taxpayers filing separately, in which case each spouse/RDP is entitled to one-half of the tax credit, even if their ownership percentages are not equal. For 2 or more taxpayers who are not married/RDP, the tax credit amount will have already been allocated to each taxpayer occupying the residence on their respective tax credit allocation letter.
If the available tax credit exceeds the current year net tax, the unused tax credit may not be carried over to the following tax year.
The tax credit may not reduce regular tax below TMT.
The tax credit is not refundable.
Any disallowance of the tax credit may not be protested or appealed.
Paul
Smarten – Even the founder of this blog moved back to the Bay Area. There are many things to love about N Nevada, but the underlying economy here is a real problem. Nevada has a 53% high school drop out rate. How are these people going to be employed? The estate tax isn’t due until your dead. Property taxes are lower in CA.
smarten
Paul –
I know many people who have moved/are planning on soon moving out of CA. Many of these people have moved, in large part, because of taxes. And when these choose to move for taxes, there are just a handful of options [7 states if I’m not mistaken], and NV. is one of them. You’re right about estate taxes only coming due after death, if the person who dies is your parent, who do you think gets to pay the tax?
Now only if you play the system [reaching age 55 and transferring your property’s assessed valuation (“A/V”) to a new principal residence (in one of only a handful of reciprocating counties) that costs less than your previous principal residence’s sales amount], property taxes are lower in NV. Example. I pay $100K for a home in CA., and my base taxes [and there WILL be add ons to these taxes] will be approximately $1,200 [close to 120% of the 1% tax rate]. Then come the add ons – special taxes and ad valorem tax add ons for servicing general obligation bonds [“GOBs”] – for the 13 or more special “districts” [depending upon your county] within which your property is located. And more and more, special districts are imposing multiple sets of simultaneous special taxes. So this $1,200/year could very, very easily total $2,200/year.
I pay $100K for a home in Washoe County, NV, and my taxes are based upon 35% [I think this is the number] of the property’s lot value plus depreciated improvement replacement cost. Since rarely does this combined value total a purchaser’s acquisition cost [i.e., in my example A/V (after applying the 35% multiplier) would typically total in the neighborhood of $25K. Washoe County then applies a tax rate on A/V [NTE 3%+ I think], and voila you have your taxes. Let’s use a 3% tax rate and in my example, you’re talking about $750/year in base taxes. Now there may be some minor adds on here or there for a special fire protection district tax; or an Incline Village recreational amenities tax [which gets collected along with property taxes]; but by-and-large, that’s it. $2,200/year or $750/year?
Now what I think you’re getting at is that in CA., base value A/V upon which property taxes are based, cannot increase by more than 2% annually. But additional special taxes and ad valorem taxes for GOB servicing can and very often times DO..
NV. has basically the same yearly cap [NTE 3% annually (at least for principal residences)], but it’s not written into NV’s constitution and in principle can be withdrawn by the Legislature.
So in CA., that $2,200/year in taxes can actually increase by hundreds of dollars. In NV., my $100K purchase couldn’t increase by more than $22.50/year. Understand?
Remember, all of this is based upon the restrictions of CA’s Proposition 13. If Proposition 13 is repealed [and there is ALWAYS a big push to do so], CA. property taxes will go through the roof.
People choose to live based upon what’s of importance to them. Maybe it’s family? Maybe it’s isolation? Maybe it’s recreational amenities? Maybe it’s welfare? Maybe it’s taxes? Or maybe in Diane’s case, it was employment? So not everything to everyone is dictated by the economy.
John Newell
The problem with the 53% dropout figure (or more accurately, the 47% graduation rate figure) is that it includes students who leave the school district and/or state before graduation. Nevada’s own numbers (for 2008) indicate a graduation rate of 68.7% with a dropout rate of 4.7% (http://nevadareportcard.com/). A caveat here is that the 4.7% number seems to include just those students who are known to have dropped out, as opposed to others who simply disappear from the schools. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle, which while not a productive situation, is not nearly the catastrophe that a 47% graduation rate would imply.
inclinejj
Don C
DonC said, in April 20th, 2010 at 9:32 am inclinejj — You’ve got two diametrically opposed viewpoints in your head. One is that the government programs have been a bust. The other is that these programs have significantly delayed foreclosures. You need to pick one or the other. It really can’t be both.
Don,
Not being a smart ass but, but why can’t it be both??
The gov’t’s propping up of the Real Estate market thru FHA, buying the MBS, Tax Credits have kept the markets going. The Gov’t was very slow to step in to try to contain this problem, the banks where very slow also.
The Gov’t modification program is a complete failure with 65% of the mortgage going right back into default.
This is the 4th major boom bust cycle I have been thru. The first one was the Savings and Loan Fiasco of the mid 1980’s to early 1990’s. Who was being letter all the Savings and Loans open in the first place. Our Gov’t. Who gave all the tax breaks on REIT commerical properties? Our Gov’t. Who took away the tax breaks? Our Gov’t. Who was in charge of closing the Savings & Loans and disposing the properties and bad loans? Our Gov’t.
MikeZ
[DBNO] “You have an agenda. Your a liberal that thinks Bush/Republicans/ conservatives are the problem.”
LOL.
I’m a conservative, Down.
Yes, a fiscal conservative. 100%.
But unlike too many here, I actually have an education in Economics and don’t just repeat slogans from blogs and Tea Party signs.
Do I blame Bush? Absolutely. And rightly so. Being a real fiscal conservative is much more than just blindly supporting the Republicans who drove this economy off the cliff.
Dulcie Banta
wow..I was on the lookout for this and finally got it from this post. Thank you for making it easier.