Your Questions About Mortgage Rates Trends

Linda asks…

history help with study guide!!!!?

1. The stock market crash triggered the beginning of the Great Depression, the worst economic crisis in U.S. history. Which factor did not contribute to the crash?
a false belief that stock prices would continue to rise

purchasing of stock on credit by individuals and trusts

overvalued stock prices

too many ordinary people owning stock

2. Which one was a cause of the Great Depression?
failure to collect income taxes

problems with home mortgages

risky banking practices

too many people on government welfare

3. What was one impact of the stock market crash and the Depression on American society?
a return to a more rural way of life

record high rates of unemployment

a trend toward larger families

government redistribution of wealth

4. Which did not contribute to the Dust Bowl conditions in the plains states?
overplanting of wheat

stripping of natural grasses

severe drought

clear-cutting of the region’s forests

5. How did many plains farmers respond to the challenges they faced during Dust Bowl conditions?
They left for California in hopes of starting a new life.

They began using more productive farming techniques.

They marched on Washington in hopes of federal assistance.

They formed cooperatives to share equipment.

6. What was one effect of the Great Depression on the lives of ordinary Americans?
Thousands of people lived in makeshift shantytowns.

America experienced increases in marriage and birth rates, as fewer women had jobs.

Fewer people bought televisions.

More people applied for food stamps and welfare.

7. What did Herbert Hoover believe was the job of the government?
to give people direct aid during the crises

to regulate business

to interfere as little as possible

to strictly oversee the banking industry strictly

8. What effect did Herbert Hoover’s philosophy of government have on the federal response to the economic crisis?
His belief in government oversight resulted in vast new regulatory legislation.

His belief in small government led him to veto all legislative attempts to address the situation.

His belief that the federal government could not give direct aid to individuals left millions without help.

His belief in limited government kept him from seeking any action.

9. Which was not a response taken during the Hoover administration in an attempt to turn the economy around?
Reconstruction Finance Corporation to lend money directly to banks

Relief and Reconstruction Act to create jobs through public works projects

Revenue Act to increase taxes

Family Assistance Act to provide direct monetary aid to families

10. What is one reason government intervention proved necessary during the Great Depression?
European markets were booming and the United States needed to keep up.

Bank failures and credit problems meant spiraling unemployment, home losses, and business failures.

Voters demanded intervention.

Businesses wanted more government regulation.

admin answers:

1—d
2—c
3—teacher wants b, but d is also correct
4—d
5—a and c
6—a (no tv or food stamps yet. Food stamps and excessive govt welfare came after fdr suspended the constitution)
7—c
8—do not remember. Think it was d
9—do not recall
10—c (and now look where we are)

George asks…

Help me PLEASE!!!!!!?

1. The stock market crash triggered the beginning of the Great Depression, the worst economic crisis in U.S. history. Which factor did not contribute to the crash?
(Points: 1)
a false belief that stock prices would continue to rise

purchasing of stock on credit by individuals and trusts

overvalued stock prices

too many ordinary people owning stock

2. Which was a weakness in the economy and one of the causes of the Great Depression?
(Points: 1)
failure to collect income taxes

problems with home mortgages

risky banking practices

too many people on government welfare

3. Which group experienced falling incomes, a credit crisis, and a poor standard of living in the years before the Great Depression began?
(Points: 1)
auto workers

bankers

farmers

stockbrokers

4. What was one impact of the stock market crash and the Depression on American society?
(Points: 1)
a return to a more rural way of life

record high rates of unemployment

a trend toward larger families

government redistribution of wealth

5. Which of the following did not contribute to the Dust Bowl conditions in the plains states?
(Points: 1)
overplanting of wheat

stripping of natural grasses

severe drought

clear-cutting of the region’s forests

6. How did many plains farmers respond to the challenges they faced during Dust Bowl conditions?
(Points: 1)
They left for California in hopes of starting a new life.

They began using more productive farming techniques.

They marched on Washington in hopes of federal assistance.

They formed cooperatives to share equipment.

7. What was one effect of the Great Depression on the lives of ordinary Americans?
(Points: 1)
Thousands of people lived in makeshift shantytowns.

America experienced increases in marriage and birth rates, as fewer women had jobs.

Fewer people bought televisions.

More people applied for food stamps and welfare.

8. What did Herbert Hoover believe was the job of the government?
(Points: 1)
to give people direct aid during crises

to regulate business

to interfere as little as possible

to strictly oversee the banking industry strictly

9. What effect did Herbert Hoover’s philosophy of government have on the federal response to the economic crisis?
(Points: 1)
His belief in government oversight resulted in vast new regulatory legislation.

His belief in small government led him to veto all legislative attempts to address the situation.

His belief that the federal government could not give direct aid to individuals left millions without help.

His belief in laissez-faire and limited government kept him from seeking any action.

10. Which was not a response taken during the Hoover administration in an attempt to turn the economy around?
(Points: 1)
Reconstruction Finance Corporation to lend money directly to banks

Relief and Reconstruction Act to create jobs through public works project

Revenue Act to increase taxes

Family Assistance Act to provide direct monetary aid to families

11. What is one reason government intervention proved necessary during the Great Depression?
(Points: 1)
European markets were booming and the United States needed to keep up.

Bank failures and credit problems meant spiraling unemployment, home losses, and business failures.

Voters demanded intervention.

Businesses wanted more government regulation

12. Why was there resistance to federal government intervention in the early years of the Great Depression?
(Points: 1)
Hoover’s predecessors had taken a hands-off approach to business, which he agreed with.

President Hoover believed intervention would lead to communism.

The public thought the economy would recover quickly and didn’t want government involvement.

State and local government agencies were adequate in meeting the needs of their citizens.

admin answers:

This is not a site to post your entire homework or test and get someone to do it for you. Not only would that be cheating, but you would have absolutely no way of knowing whether random strangers were feeding you correct answers or deliberately answering wrong just to mess with you. That happens a lot around here. This is supposed to be a place to ask questions you may have about specific items.

Lisa asks…

Selling a condo at a sizable loss or renting it?

Hi,

I’m moving out of state in a month for a job and I purchased a condo five years ago for 235,000. Meeting with real estate agents it appears it is now worth around ~170k which is not really too much of a surprise to me.

I put down a large down payment so I’m actually not under water (I owe around ~145k on the property).

Common sense seems to be to rent it at this point as selling it would result in a sizable loss of roughly 27% of the purchase price, but I have no interest in being a landlord and just want to move on at this point.

Do you think it is crazy to sell it and take such a huge loss? Financially I can afford to do so and while ‘losing’ such a large amount of money is not ideal, I can not really pass up the job opportunity out of state.

I am a bit concerned renting it due to risks to the property, in addition to the hassle. Also I would be hard pressed to cover my mortgage + HOA dues renting it for the going market rate and who knows if the housing market will even recover from its slump in 5 years given unemployment trends?

If you were in the same position and didn’t want to deal with the hassle / risks of being a landlord and could afford to cut your losses, would you do it?

admin answers:

I am surprised when I read that you do not want to take huge loss!

When you bought that place, you were asked to pay 235k. You agreed to do so and you did it. Now if you want to sell that place, you can get 170k. That’s what market price is and that what you are going to get for it! Doesn’t matter how much you pay for it, you always get market price when you sell. And who knows, it might go to 150K after few months. There is not guarantee that it will go up.

If you decide to rent it and you wont able to make enough in rent to cover mortgage and related expenses, whats the point in keeping it? Just sell it.

Jenny asks…

So the Clinton administration got the Fanny and Freddy fiasco started…?

Why wasn’t anything done to fix it before now?

Archive for Monday, May 31, 1999
Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites’
By Ronald Brownstein
May 31, 1999 in print edition A-5

It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.

That’s a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.

This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says that research shows homeowners are more likely than renters to participate in their community. The children of homeowners even tend to perform better in school. Most significantly, increased homeownership allows minority families, who have accumulated far less wealth than whites, to amass assets and transmit them to future generations.

What explains the surge? The answer starts with the economy. Historically low rates of minority unemployment have created a larger pool of qualified buyers. And the lowest interest rates in years have made homes more affordable for white and minority buyers alike.

But the economy isn’t the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: “There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally.” Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.

All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.

But for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparities–in education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent families–that will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUD’s analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range.

The market itself will probably produce some of that progress. For many builders and lenders, serving minority buyers is now less a social obligation than a business opportunity. Because blacks and Latinos, as groups, are younger than whites, many experts believe they will continue to lead the housing market for years.

But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One

admin answers:

With fanny and Freddy? Yes With Deregulation? No.

Remember the SNLs? Wow, we are in BIG TROUBLE and both parties are completely inept.

Betty asks…

The Rich get Richer & the Poor get Poorer…Myth or Fact?

American University published a 2007 which concluded that the average family income per person has gone up by 35% in the past 20 years, and income per peson was up 153 percent [fewer little apes per household].

-There is a 60% chance – thanks to income and social mobility – that income earners in the bottom 20% will leave that ‘class’ of earners and move up the income ladder.

-Between 1979 and 2004 the number of US households earning less than $75.000 per year, fell by 10% while those earning more than $75.000 increased by the same. (translation for Marxists – ‘more people are getting wealthier’)……sorry liberals!

-In 2007 alone net income in the US went up by $500 billion – about the same as the ‘housing mortgage crisis’ which is supposed to destroy capitalism and usher in an era of benign socialist peace under King Obama and his Czars.

-The top 10% of tax payers actually saw a reduction in earned income since 2000, while still paying close to 50% of the national income tax. Just for the record, the bottom 50% of income earners pay a whopping! 3% of the total national income tax (that must truly please the inner marxist in all of us).

How about this factoid. Poverty rates – real and nominal – were about 25 % or so in 1950. Fifty odd years later they are 8-12% depending on which report you read and what your definition of poverty is. The trend however is rather clear – it is going down. This downward trend should be met with positive comments and some degree of satisfaction. After all who wants to see poor people hanging around society? Not many. So are we happy that we are winning the ‘war’ against poverty? Of course not!

(note to liberals: this is the point where you call be a capitalist pig and I’m full of lie’s…all lies…)

admin answers:

Doc that myth first espoused by by Karl Marx during some dark days of the industrial revolution. It is nothing more than a myth, still promagated by left wing radicals.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Leave a Reply