You're not part of the problem at all. Your delinquincy in payments is between you and countrywide. If the Fed/gummint allows the market to work itself out, a planner and a saver, such as myself, may move into your house next year for only $500K. On the otherhand, if the gummint attempts to bail you or countrywide out, then my dollars' value will approach zero, I won't able to buy your house at a discounted rate, countrywide will continue to proffit, and you'll get a free pass. But to blame you is ludicrous.
I understand how some people can complain about Bill Clinton's social and welfare policies, but did I just dream that while he was president the budget was balanced and the dollar INCREASED in strength. Was his fiscal policy not extremely different than Bush's?
Mostly irrelevant. Clinton happened to luckily catch the .com bubble near its peak and the concurrent tax revenues from capital gains. He also RAISED income taxes. His apparent "budget" success was mostly "higher taxes and good fortune". (Shoot, ANYBODY could balance the budget if they raised taxes enough.) I'm not defending Bush... he deserves a kick in the balls from each and every American if anyone ever did... but just because he has been a potlicker president doesn't mean that Clinton was any less crappy.
My comment was not about the RE bubble, which has popped in places where it was a bubble, other places never got so bubbly, and so have had no reason to "pop". My comment was about your general misunderstanding of economics.
True, it was fortune to be president during the .com boom, which ended abruptly in 2000 with respect to the underlying traded equities, BUT I could argue that a dramatic run-up in the stock market is inflationary, as company valuations and credit against stock increased more dramatically than the actual amount of money invested. The cash used to to raise the price of a single lot of stocks increases the valuations on ALL outstanding shares, so although the transaction seems to decrease money supply initially, it actually creates money, perpetuates inflation, and the fire feeds itself... does any of that theory make any sense? As the stock market growth outpaces actual growth in production/people/consumption, inflation occurs. That is what I'm trying to say. Does that seem to be a correct conclusion?