Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wasn’t he on Hillary Clinton’s short list for VP? After vetting she went with the most uncharismatic person ever with Tim Kaine. I was under the impression that she would have preferred an actual Hispanic, but there were some issues that came up in vetting.
One article claimed she went with Tim Kaine because Trump was so unpopular with Hispanics she wouldn’t need him as VP to win their votes. How cynical is that? I know these choices come into play like that (if Rubio is the Republican nominee I’m going to need a Hispanic running mate,etc.), but there was nothing in the world that would have me choosing Tim Kaine unless she was too afraid to be outshined by her VP. Man the democrats were so wrong at every level in 2016. They thought she was going to mop the floor with Donald Trump.
Apparently Castro wasn’t too popular with the Sanders and Warren style progressives in the last election.
It's still very early. Most people probably know little to nothing about him. Once the debates hit, he maybe able to break out a little.
So far he has somewhat distinguished himself on immigration by going the furthest to the left. But I think his plan to decriminalize illegal entry and a variety of other measure to downgrade immigration enforcement, although popular with immigration activists, will probably make a lot of more moderate democrats nervous. Especially given the focus by a lot of rank and file on electability.
I dont see him winning the nomination, but I could see him having a good debate or two and having a mini surge before it is over.
It is unclear from the article whether non-profits were given a chance to bid on the bulk of the distressed loans or choose to do so.That is important detail. If you wanted to loans to be only available for bid to non-profits they probably aren't going to pay much, if they even had the capacity to buy all of them. The government keeping all the non-performing loans would be best for the folks who aren't paying or can't pay; but if you think at some point they should be paying or face consequences, then you'd want to receive payment or maybe move on to using limited money to helping ever more others coming new into the situation. I'd be for some kind of a program where you get more time & help with unfortunate circumstances (layoffs, medical crisis induced bankruptcy, etc.) but I probably won't support that support continuing indefinitely beyond specific limits and without required payments.
So I'd want to know more before using this as a criteria to criticize or block Castro. But I am not the kind to support endless free support in contradiction to the terms the person getting the extra hep agreed to or conclude before getting all of the facts because someone told you to jump to oppose for partisan reasons.
That makes me a moderate Democrat. Or a progressive Democrat who still believes that money is limited and operating within agreed upon terms is both fair and necessary. They do exist. But everyone can support and not support what and who they want.
Now if the non-profits had enough money and wanted to buy all the loans at a fair price and proved it and wanted to be more lenient about non-payment, I'd support that too. I was involved with a credit union long ago that eventually got big enough to do some of that but it is not easy. You still need to limit how generous you are and get enough payments to revolve the loans.
"HUD also said that it now sets aside exclusive pools of loans for sale to non-profits, as well as decreasing the size of the normal pools and selling them more often, which HUD states makes them more attractive to non-profits that may not be as well-capitalized as private investors." Castro didn't do everything the left wanted. It would be more expensive to do so. But he did make these changes and other accommodations that went part of the way. Part of the way may or may not be enough but it is something and should be considered. If you have to 100% pure or you are the enemy to some progressives, then they will make a lot of enemies and not as much policy and not as much difference.
If you are 2.5 years behind on your mortgage and in this program (that is the average), you've been given a lot of assistance and a lot of time to get making to the norm of making payments. If you got laid off that is a pretty good amount of time to get / take something. Or go to 2nd or 3rd job in household. If you bought too much house or in the wrong area, that's tough but not every decision works out great. If lifestyle changes can save the house (sell the car, give up cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, vacations, nonessentials) do it. If they can't, then it may just be that nothing will work enough to get back to meeting the homeowner's responsibility. The program was not intended to pay people's mortgages indefinitely.
Last edited by NW Crow; 05-01-2019 at 11:24 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
