Here is a fresh bone for Bloodhounds to chew on. This 4-point stimulus plan was approved by the NAR Board of Directors this past Monday and is being pushed heavily in Washington DC.
The National Association of Realtors® will offer a four-point legislative plan to reinvigorate the housing market, calling on Congress to act during a lame-duck session. NAR believes the plan will give a boost to the economy and help to calm jittery potential homebuyers.
The plan features such consumer-driven provisions as eliminating the repayment of the first-time homebuyer tax credit and expanding it to all homebuyers, making higher mortgage loan limits permanent, pushing banks to extend credit to Main Street, and prohibiting banks from entering into real estate.
“Housing has always lifted the economy out of downturns, and it is imperative to get the housing market moving forward as quickly as possible,” said NAR President Richard F. Gaylord. “It is vital to the economy that Congress take specific actions to boost the confidence of potential homebuyers in the housing market and make it easier for qualified buyers to get safe and affordable mortgage loans. We are asking Congress to act right away.”
Gaylord, a broker with RE/MAX Real Estate Specialists in Long Beach, Calif., said NAR, as the leading advocate for homeownership and private property rights, believes it is important for Congress to address the concerns and fears of America’s families, much in the way it has addressed Wall Street turbulence. “Housing is and has always been a good, long-term investment and a family’s primary step towards accumulating wealth,” Gaylord said.
NAR recommends Congress pass new housing stimulus legislation that includes the following priorities:
1. Remove the requirement in the current law that first-time homebuyers repay the $7,500 tax credit, and expand the tax credit to apply not only to first-time buyers but also to all buyers of a primary residence.
2. Revise the FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 2008 stimulus loan limit increases to make them permanent. The Economic Stabilization Act, enacted in February, made loan limit increases temporary, and subsequent legislation reduced the loan limits and made them permanent. This has broad implication for homebuyers in high cost areas.
3. Urge the government to use a portion of the allotted $700 billion that was provided to purchase mortgage-backed securities from banks to provide price stabilization for housing. The Treasury department should be required to use the newly enacted Troubled Assets Relief Program to push banks to:
• Extend credit down to Main Street, making credit more available to consumers and small businesses;
• Expedite the process for short sales;
• Expedite the resolution of banks’ real estate owned (REOs) properties.
4. Make permanent the prohibition against banks entering real estate brokerage and management, further protecting consumers and the economy.
Gaylord said that NAR will strongly pursue those proposals and is calling on Congress to return to enact housing stimulus legislation in a lame-duck session after the national elections in November.
Greg Swann says:
Brian kept me from looking at this all weekend in Orlando. This is just more Rotarian Socialism from the NAR, only now the vampire nature of the thing — the dead feeding upon the living — becomes more obvious. It’s lawful — for now — for anyone in the United States to sell their own real property — except banks.
Here’s my idea: Let’s make it legal for Realtors to siphon their neighbor’s gas tanks. Then at least we’ll all understand that we’re rationalizing and legalizing theft.
My favorite proposal of all from this idiot’s convention: Mandating “pro bono” work for Realtors. Why should poor people get to escape being swindled by the National Association of Realtors?
November 12, 2008 — 4:28 pm
Greg Swann says:
PS: If Gaylord talks to you, you might invite him over here. I can’t believe I’m the only member of the NAR who can see through this inane kleptomania, but I would love to see the man try to defend it with a straight face. The twitwits might kiss his ass, but I’ll give him a lesson in rhetoric he’ll never forget.
November 12, 2008 — 4:38 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Brian kept me from looking at this all weekend in Orlando.”
I did. That’s true. Sean, Greg and I were in the exposition hall on Saturday and they had it prominently displayed to everyone who came down the escalator. They encouraged attendees to “sign the house” which was a 3-D petition.
What Greg didn’t tell you is WHY I kept him from looking at it. Dave, I was SO impressed by the PEOPLE who attended the NAR convention. While I disagree with the association, its members are nothing short of top-notch.
Sure, they buy into the Rotarian Socialism Greg points out. Sure, it’s theft by fiat. Most of the folks there, though, just want to get better at what they do and serve the homeowners of America…
…and that sounds polly-annish; so be it. We were in their house and they are good and decent people. I didn’t want ANYTHING, including this stupid plan, to ruin the admiration for the membership I felt that day.
November 12, 2008 — 5:36 pm
Ryan Ward says:
It’s no different than other lobby interests and nothing that we shouldn’t expect from them. That is not to say that I agree with it.
November 12, 2008 — 5:36 pm
Chris says:
People make real estate harder than it has to be. The NAR included. When the foreclosures work their way out of the market and it finds a bottom it will come back. Simple no?
Until than waiting and trying to pay your bills is a good course of action and about the only one.
November 12, 2008 — 6:31 pm
Chris says:
People make real estate harder than it has to be. The NAR included. When the foreclosures work their way out of the market and it finds a bottom it will come back. Simple no?
Until than waiting and trying to pay your bills is a good course of action and about the only one.
No government program can fix this.
November 12, 2008 — 6:31 pm
Cheryl Johnson says:
One of the benefits of advancing age is that one can admit to being clueless without embarrassment.
OK. I’m clueless. I have read and reread the four points in Dave’s post and I am unable to discern their vampiric nature.
(What I read: Point 1= Make tax credit permanents, Point 2= Make increased loan limits permanent, Point 3= Use bailout money towards increasing credit availability and expediting short sale process, Point 4= Keep banks out of real estate)
Brian, Greg, please explain for me; I know Greg hates to dumb things down, but I think I might need the 5th grade level explanation on this one.
November 12, 2008 — 7:49 pm
Brian Brady says:
I’ll take a stab at this, CJ:
1- tax credits: Why should the taxpayers finance new homebuyers’ downpayments?
2- Higher loan limits transfer market risk from the banks to the FHFA and ultimately taxpayers.
3- If credit is tight because of defaulting homeowners, why should taxpayers assume new credit risk?
4- Why can’t banks be in real estate brokerage?
November 12, 2008 — 8:13 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I know Greg hates to dumb things down, but I think I might need the 5th grade level explanation on this one.
Hi, Cheryl. Like this:
1. Steal money from some people to give it to others who have not earned it. All taxes are theft, but a tax credit shifts the credited party’s tax burden to all the other non-credited taxpayers.
2. Force lenders to act in contradiction to the behavior dictated by the free market. Force taxpayers to absorb the costs of this deliberately erroneous policy.
3. Steal money from taxpayers and confer it upon lenders who not only have not earned that money but who were actively complicit in earlier deliberately erroneous lending policies like item #2 above.
4. By force of arms, forbid otherwise innocent traders from engaging as they choose in free, mutually-voluntary trade. This is a particularly galling example of the evil that is real estate licensing law: Even if Floyd the Barber is forbidden from selling your home for compensation, at least you are still permitted to sell it yourself — unless you are a bank.
Everything the NAR does is anti-consumer. I am so glad you asked me to elaborate, because every bit of this is completely obvious to me. If others don’t see it as clearly, then spelling it out is of benefit to everyone.
Memo to Dick Gaylord: I dare you to come here and defend this blatant larceny. I am a dues paying member, per force, and I hate it that you are making me complicit in this self-serving thievery.
November 12, 2008 — 8:26 pm
Greg Swann says:
Just as a PS to my remarks to Cheryl:
The word force means to deploy the armed functionaries of the state to compel certain behavior by force of arms — to threaten to fine or jail or kill an innocent person for defying the edicts of the state.
We have grown so used to this insane pressure-group warfare that we say “force this” and “force that” without bothering to consider that force, ultimately, means murder.
The NAR wants to force consumers, lenders and banks to do things they otherwise would not do — in order to induce economically unwarranted real estate transactions, thus to produce unearned commission income for its members — and the naked essence of that force is a gun barrel pointed right at your head.
Now you understand the National Association of Realtors.
November 12, 2008 — 8:39 pm
Dave Phillips says:
Some good bone chewing hounds. Here are a few comments and retorts:
Greg, I will invite President Gaylord to read and possibly respond if you promise to be a good doggy and engage in polite discussion (i.e., avoid inflamed retoric like “Rotarian Socialism” and “inane kleptomania”). It would serve no useful purpose to just piss him off. He is a reasonable man and would appreciate your sound reasoning.
Lenda, call your congressman or Senator if you want to voice your opinion. NAR has sent out a call to action that encourages you to do so. Here is the Call to Action Sign-up http://tinyurl.com/6hna8j
Brian, you are correct. There are many fine people who attend the NAR convention and there is a ton of info and exhibits to benefit from. Unfortunately, I rarely get out of the committee meetings.
Ryan – Correct. NAR is doing what we should expect from them. They are there to make sure we get our fair share in the grand bail-out. Self-serving, yes. I do not agree with the 4-points, but I defend NAR’s actions as being good for the members and good for the public (except for those of us who are tax payers).
Greg – “Everything the NAR does is anti-consumer.” I respectfully disagree. Defending mortgage interest deductibilty (based on the current tax establishment) is very much in my favor as a consumer. Is it also self-serving? yes. NAR has to play the game by the rules of Washington DC. If we could implement a different/fair tax structure that actually made sense, then we could get all puffy chested about policies like this. Until then, NAR should be comended for playing this nasty game as well as anyone.
November 13, 2008 — 7:47 am
Teri L says:
Brian-
>Sure, they buy into the Rotarian Socialism Greg points out. Sure, it’s theft by fiat. Most of the folks there, though, just want to get better at what they do and serve the homeowners of America…
I’m sputtering… Is this serious, or sarcastic? I can’t tell.
November 13, 2008 — 5:32 pm
Brian Brady says:
Serious, T. I’m talking about the folks at the convention, just trying to better themselves. The membership is just trying to find out how to find more clients….
…and I respect the hell out of them for that.
November 13, 2008 — 8:28 pm
Sean Purcell says:
I am always surprised by the level of discussion that accompanies this topic. Many of us see the inherent truth in Greg’s argument, but (and I speak for myself here) I am turned away by the vitriol that accompanies it.
The NAR is no different and no better than any other union. All livings organisms (and that includes systems) have a self-preservation instinct. It should come as no surprise when that instinct is acted upon. Unions act in their own self interest with little regard for the rank and file. NAR is no different. Should the organization come to an end? With dispatch. But a question worth asking is: who shall we be when that end arrives?
I believe the essence of the “Bloodhound Way” – with regard to real estate – is to raise the bar so high and with such alacrity that competing agents are faced with only two options: work like hell to keep up (the public as well as the industry improves) or go back to whatever hourly job from whence they came (in which case the public as well as the industry improves). It is not becoming, nor frankly, do I have the time, to point out other agents failures. Nor is it in my best interest personally or professionally to roll in the mud with them. My time is best spent improving my skills and forcing others to do the same.
Why would we treat the NAR any differently? Is it because they forcibly take our money? There are far too many hands in my pocket for me to challenge each one to “step outside.” Their hands will wither and die just as soon as I can raise the bar beyond their reach.
November 13, 2008 — 11:08 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Many of us see the inherent truth in Greg’s argument, but (and I speak for myself here) I am turned away by the vitriol that accompanies it.
I would be grateful if you would point out what you see as vitriol. To my eyes there is none, ever. I am a colorful writer, and I whitewash nothing. But there is nothing in my writing that is not completely defensible in rhetoric. I do not argue by underhanded means, and I point it out when others try to deploy logical fallacies in their rejoinders.
My take is this: On occupational licensing, on the co-broke and on the persistent larceny of the NAR, there is no one who can offer any sort of rational counter-argument against the positions I have staked out here. There is nothing vitriolic about calling evil by its true name. To the contrary, to fail to do so is to endorse, license and sanction that evil. On matters of principle, to refrain from standing on one side of the bright line is to stand on the other by default. You will no rid the world of evil simply by renouncing it, but you cannot rid the world of evil without having renounced it.
> I believe the essence of the “Bloodhound Way” – with regard to real estate – is to raise the bar so high and with such alacrity that competing agents are faced with only two options: work like hell to keep up (the public as well as the industry improves) or go back to whatever hourly job from whence they came (in which case the public as well as the industry improves).
This is my argument, also. Why do you like it so much better?
This is interesting to me, Sean. The Bloodhound Way with respect to the NAR is to supplant it, also, which is why we have a category devoted to that idea. Fighting a systemic evil directly is pointless, except to put people on their guard. The solution, always, is to make evil uncompetitive. Not to make war on it but simply to leave it in the mud, writhing helplessly in its uncontrolled spasms of uncontained idiocy.
I’m at a loss to understand the complaint. Do you think the people who cringe at the thought of making a scene will work to supplant either bad Realtors or the NAR? Do you think people who have not yet discovered the nature of each of those types of evil will come to see the light by white-washing or sugar-coating those evils? Do you think we are doing anyone any favors by not naming the evils we hope to supplant?
I don’t see the objection, Sean. There is no vitriol in what I do, but, more is the pity, there is no one else doing what I do.
November 13, 2008 — 11:51 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Greg,
Your most recent comment is exactly why I made the objection I did. It is a summation of much that is wrong with the NAR (as was your subsequent post) without the digressive level of discourse I lament; and that is my point. Your conclusions are dead-on. Your logic is valid and your example is laudable. Why do we need this:
idiot’s convention – Does this refer to the idiots that put on the convention, the idiots that attended the convention or the idiots who head the organization responsible for the convention? I suggest that only the latter is your target but the previous two get hit (and they are the 90 and 9 you are talking to).
I’ll give him a lesson in rhetoric he’ll never forget – After which, me and the boys will take him out back and “tune ’em up.” This is inflammatory.
Memo to Dick Gaylord: I dare you to come here and defend this blatant larceny. I am a dues paying member, per force, and I hate it that you are making me complicit in this self-serving thievery – Have you invited him to a discussion commensurate with the class, ethics and professionalism I personally know you to posses and value or are you agreeing to sling mud in the street at high noon?
and the naked essence of that force is a gun barrel pointed right at your head – Logically defensible, but hyperbole just the same.
Greg, I find it quite difficult to even have this discussion with you because I agree with your point in toto. You are pointing at the moon and I am griping over your use of the middle finger to do so. But as you said: “no else is doing (it)” and more is the pity should your message or your personal example be devalued.
Please have the last word as to my objection. I feel myself dancing on a hypocritical line…
November 14, 2008 — 12:32 am
Teri Lussier says:
Here goes nothing…
Sean-
>Many of us see the inherent truth in Greg’s argument, but (and I speak for myself here) I am turned away by the vitriol that accompanies it.
It pains me, physically, to read Dave’s post. Dave has always written here from his heart and his head, and I have admiration for him for doing that. This has nothing to do with Dave, but everything to do with force, which is what Dave is talking about, whether or not it’s understood that way. You understand it…
And I find force repellent and evil, this type of force in particular because it’s masked and masquerades as benevolence… and I don’t have the vocabulary or experience or presence of mind to respond to posts like this from any place other than viscerally, which leaves me tongue-tied and mentally spewing obscenities at an organization, which ultimately leaves me frustrated and physically ill… Not productive. Not healthy either, I might add.
My point being that I find Greg’s responses always always always more calm and reasonable than the vitriol and contempt that I would leave here, and, speaking for myself, I’m very grateful that someone has the wherewithal to express a very tiny bit of the anger I feel, and the truth as I know it.
And Dave- it’s a real shame you couldn’t have joined us in Orlando.
November 14, 2008 — 6:51 am
Bob says:
Let’s see if we can bring this back on point.
The problem with these proposals is the lack of details. Any plan without a specific strategy that goes to the execution of said plan should be sent back to the drawing board.
I’ll start with this:
This sounds all well and good, but it doesn’t have any value. It lacks an executable plan that covers the enormous span of factors that encompass the “short sale”.
For example, Countrywide deals primarily with investors and MI companies. While CW’s policy is that all short sales close withing 90 days, they have no control over the response time of those who ultimately make the decision. So you know what happens? If a file ages to the point where it appears there is little chance of it closing within the 90 day time frame, the file is closed, even if an legit offer is on the table.
A file can be re-opened, but it resets the clock to zero.
The end result? Countrywide can take their stats and show NAR that they are already expediting the process and they have the stats to prove it.
We also have 50 states, each with their own set of laws, that lenders, investors and MI companies do not fully understand. As a result, we have short sale approvals that force the seller to opt for foreclosure or bk to avoid a deficiency.
In California, any short sale that closes after Dec 31, 2008 will subject the seller to state income tax on the debt forgiveness. If its purchase money, the seller avoids the tax by letting them foreclose. We see debt forgiveness in the hundreds of thousands, so short sale sellers are faced with tax bills of up to 11%.
I have been a vocal detractor of NAR, and for very good reason. The problem is that my bitching isnt doing any good because I’m not being heard by the right people.
What I want is the folks at NAR to actually think before they act. Before you put a general plan on the table, only to let politicians then mold into something that sounds good but has severe unintended consequences, we need to craft an intelligent blueprint that maps out solutions based on the various options, while also addressing the foreseeable cause and effect consequences.
So instead of inviting Gaylord to a duel at high noon which will accomplish absolutely nothing, I invite Gaylord to tap into the resources that exists within the membership to come up with a comprehensive plan that works. Set aside the “time is of the essence” mindset. The crisis we face isn’t going away anytime soon, so we need to take the time to do this right.
If anyone at NAR cares, I volunteer to serve on a committee that looks at the short sale aspect of any proposal NAR puts forth. I have already started to set up meetings with members of Congress, and I know others are doing the same. One way or another we’ll educate the lawmakers.
November 14, 2008 — 9:57 am
Greg Swann says:
> Please have the last word as to my objection. I feel myself dancing on a hypocritical line…
I thought about this all day, and I just don’t see this, Sean. This is an entertainment medium. My job is to attract and engage hugely distracted minds. If I can also manage to teach and persuade, that’s a big victory. But if I do not write interesting prose, memorable prose, nothing changes. I grew up reading Mike Royko every day. I learned to love Mencken as a child, and he led me straight to Shakespeare. I didn’t get to Richard Mitchell until my late teens, but he had a profound influence on the way I write. Since then, I’ve sat at the feet of Demosthenes, Quintillianus and a vast host of classic rhetors. I am not comparing myself to any of those great minds, but I am surely working well within the boundaries of logically-defensible persuasive discourse.
It’s interesting to me that, when people are angry about someone or something that I take to task, they tell me that I don’t go far enough in my excoriations. I don’t agree with them — I do just what I intend and no more — but I do understand that complaints or praise about my style of rhetoric probably have more to do with whose ox is gored than with the rhetoric itself.
In the end, I simply think you are mistaken. Colorful speech in rhetoric is not only not an innovation, it is a time-tested method of effecting persuasion. I cannot get anywhere with a reader if I cannot get that reader’s attention. I do this in a lot of different ways, and I’ve been practicing this art form for a long, long time. I know it works. I know it’s pleasing to me and to a large number of other people. I know that a whole lot of people have learned new ways of thinking about things from me — not just about real estate, but about the world at large — and I know that much of my success in influencing other people comes from saying things memorably.
I could teach this and just this at an Unchained-like lab. It’s not about taking a stand, it’s about taking a stand in a way that stands out. Here’s the best part for me: Dick Gaylord would be a fool to come here to debate me. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Baiting him is fun for me because I get to set up a game that I win either way: If you don’t come, you’re a coward, but if you do, I get to count coup on you until you run away. But whether or not Gaylord comes here, the words that I say here ring on in his head hour after hour, day after day, month after month. This is why I write the way that I do, to get inside your head and stay there — forever. The NAR will not come here to argue for its criminality. But it cannot argue openly for criminality in any case. And because of the work that I am doing here — now and then, as a matter of sweeping up — the scions and elders of the NAR cannot possibly doubt that what they are doing is criminal. Acting entirely by myself, I am working to destroy the NAR from the inside out. Every minute those besuited thugs have to spend shouting me down in their minds is a minute they are actively undermining their own most basic premises. And that is what rhetoric — the art of persuasively valid speech — is for.
November 15, 2008 — 12:27 am
Sean Purcell says:
Please have the last word as to my objection… and they do not disappoint. Gregg Swann, your writing is an intellectual feast – no matter whose ox is being gored. Here’s to another 49 (or 50) years.
November 15, 2008 — 2:15 am
Greg Swann says:
> your writing is an intellectual feast
That, or you are a very good sport. Thank you, either way.
November 15, 2008 — 9:38 am