Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-07-2008, 12:07 PM
 
4,104 posts, read 5,321,082 times
Reputation: 1256

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
Some apologists believe that if we don't prop them up, lenders will go bankupt, credit will dry up and our citizens will resort to cannibalism.
BS. It is because liberals believe if we don't have govt. subsidized mortgage money available that only rich, white males will be able to afford property. I have seen dozens of programs designed to make homeowership affordable to low-income buyers, regardless of their income or credit scores. The programs have good intentions, but end up hurting these borrowers in the long run. The house payment is just a small part of the homeownership cost. Taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, roofs, water heaters, and carpet etc. will cost you more than the house over a course of 20 years.

The most telling story I read was about a Hispanic family in San Francisco facing foreclosure. She and her husband made $95k between the two. In many areas, this would be a respectable living. They purchased a home costing $750K with almost nothing down. The interest rate was subsidized to 2.5% for the first two years, but was pegged to Prime. Six months after they moved in they realized they could not afford the house. Two years later their interest rate reset and gas prices exploded, and they realized they could not afford to eat or drive. They were paying over 70% of their take-home pay on housing. They also realized that nobody else could afford to buy it either, and it was now only worth $600K.

When asked why they purchased so much house, they stated they were told if things got bad they could always sell it for a profit. They admitted they knew nothing about finance, and had no idea their payment could rise as much as it did. At the end of the article, they mentioned they had purchased the home after reading an ADVERTISEMENT encouraging families just like them to apply. During the paperwork/closing process, which she said took all of 1 hours, the agent told them "houses aren't just for white people".

I have no doubt the program was contrived by the California liberal left, who are apparently as bad at math as they are logic.

Sidebar: They quoted the father very little, but he did state he wished he had not listened to his wife because it "sounded too good to be true". He wished they had continued to rent, because they had a nice place they only paid $2200 a month for before.

$95K is nothing to sneeze at. Two solid paychecks. They had a good life before. Vacations, kids sports, etc. All gone because they fell victim to a program that was trying to help them.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but by and large, anytime one starts mucking around in the free market and things are going to go the HE**!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-07-2008, 12:41 PM
 
31,691 posts, read 41,130,025 times
Reputation: 14440
They both agree to fund a bailout if needed and it is hard to argue with considering the size and impact of their holdings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 12:52 PM
 
31,691 posts, read 41,130,025 times
Reputation: 14440
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailout: The biggest losers - Sep. 7, 2008

Foreclosures involve more then just recent homebuyers and can impact any community.
Explore Howard: County not immune to rising foreclosures
The Smiths bought their Oakland Mills house in 1969, attracted by the county's low tax rate and the region's rapid growth.

Neither of the candidates is able to handle what is becoming a tidal wave of major issues that may doom the eventual winner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Limestone,TN/Bucerias, Mexico
1,452 posts, read 3,199,917 times
Reputation: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
BS. It is because liberals believe if we don't have govt. subsidized mortgage money available that only rich, white males will be able to afford property. I have seen dozens of programs designed to make homeowership affordable to low-income buyers, regardless of their income or credit scores. The programs have good intentions, but end up hurting these borrowers in the long run. The house payment is just a small part of the homeownership cost. Taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, roofs, water heaters, and carpet etc. will cost you more than the house over a course of 20 years.

The most telling story I read was about a Hispanic family in San Francisco facing foreclosure. She and her husband made $95k between the two. In many areas, this would be a respectable living. They purchased a home costing $750K with almost nothing down. The interest rate was subsidized to 2.5% for the first two years, but was pegged to Prime. Six months after they moved in they realized they could not afford the house. Two years later their interest rate reset and gas prices exploded, and they realized they could not afford to eat or drive. They were paying over 70% of their take-home pay on housing. They also realized that nobody else could afford to buy it either, and it was now only worth $600K.

When asked why they purchased so much house, they stated they were told if things got bad they could always sell it for a profit. They admitted they knew nothing about finance, and had no idea their payment could rise as much as it did. At the end of the article, they mentioned they had purchased the home after reading an ADVERTISEMENT encouraging families just like them to apply. During the paperwork/closing process, which she said took all of 1 hours, the agent told them "houses aren't just for white people".

I have no doubt the program was contrived by the California liberal left, who are apparently as bad at math as they are logic.

Sidebar: They quoted the father very little, but he did state he wished he had not listened to his wife because it "sounded too good to be true". He wished they had continued to rent, because they had a nice place they only paid $2200 a month for before.

$95K is nothing to sneeze at. Two solid paychecks. They had a good life before. Vacations, kids sports, etc. All gone because they fell victim to a program that was trying to help them.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but by and large, anytime one starts mucking around in the free market and things are going to go the HE**!
It's hard to find an argument with most of your statements.. When you talk about "vetting", clearly not enough of it was done when approving these folks for mortgages. These financial disasters happen when people get something for *nothing* - consequently they don't put the value on it that they would have if they had maybe *earned* the down payment (easy come - easy go). But many new first-time homeowners *were* unfairly duped by unscrupulous lenders who earned easy commissions upon making these obviously questionable loans.

I think there's plenty of blame to go around but one place to start might be the de-regulation of the banking industry when so many new lenders poured into the mortgage market.

We'll probably need to return to the simple, by-gone days of - 'If you want to buy a house, you first must have a down payment of at *least* 5% and prove you can afford the payments'! That would be a start to getting the mortgage industry back on track. I do, however, believe pride of home ownership is an integral and important part of the American dream. But it shouldn't be quite as easy as apparently it has been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
12,642 posts, read 15,634,898 times
Reputation: 1680
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
BS. It is because liberals believe if we don't have govt. subsidized mortgage money available that only rich, white males will be able to afford property. I have seen dozens of programs designed to make homeowership affordable to low-income buyers, regardless of their income or credit scores.
Interesting. Please, provide us with the number of low income folks who could afford homes prior to FHA.

Dozens of programs. Should be a long list. Perhaps you can post a few dozen (a shorter list) of these programs designed to help low income borrowers and please, none that are backed by FHA or sold on the secondary market to Freddie. We wouldn't want to look at anything that is insured, purchased or guaranteed by either one of these agencies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Grand Rapids Metro
8,882 posts, read 19,905,937 times
Reputation: 3920
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
BS. It is because liberals believe if we don't have govt. subsidized mortgage money available that only rich, white males will be able to afford property. I have seen dozens of programs designed to make homeowership affordable to low-income buyers, regardless of their income or credit scores. The programs have good intentions, but end up hurting these borrowers in the long run. The house payment is just a small part of the homeownership cost. Taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, roofs, water heaters, and carpet etc. will cost you more than the house over a course of 20 years.

The most telling story I read was about a Hispanic family in San Francisco facing foreclosure. She and her husband made $95k between the two. In many areas, this would be a respectable living. They purchased a home costing $750K with almost nothing down. The interest rate was subsidized to 2.5% for the first two years, but was pegged to Prime. Six months after they moved in they realized they could not afford the house. Two years later their interest rate reset and gas prices exploded, and they realized they could not afford to eat or drive. They were paying over 70% of their take-home pay on housing. They also realized that nobody else could afford to buy it either, and it was now only worth $600K.

When asked why they purchased so much house, they stated they were told if things got bad they could always sell it for a profit. They admitted they knew nothing about finance, and had no idea their payment could rise as much as it did. At the end of the article, they mentioned they had purchased the home after reading an ADVERTISEMENT encouraging families just like them to apply. During the paperwork/closing process, which she said took all of 1 hours, the agent told them "houses aren't just for white people".

I have no doubt the program was contrived by the California liberal left, who are apparently as bad at math as they are logic.

Sidebar: They quoted the father very little, but he did state he wished he had not listened to his wife because it "sounded too good to be true". He wished they had continued to rent, because they had a nice place they only paid $2200 a month for before.

$95K is nothing to sneeze at. Two solid paychecks. They had a good life before. Vacations, kids sports, etc. All gone because they fell victim to a program that was trying to help them.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but by and large, anytime one starts mucking around in the free market and things are going to go the HE**!
Uhh, quite the contradiction. It was because of extremely loose regulations on the mortgage industry that is why we ALL are in the mess we're in. Even those of us who bought what we could afford and make our payments on time are going to be hurt by a reckless, aggressive, unethical mortgage industry. Markets, left completely to their own devices, will destroy themselves.

Ayn Rand is just plain wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 01:13 PM
 
454 posts, read 750,450 times
Reputation: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
"Make government agencies smaller" is a nice sound bite for Republicans, I can't necessarily disagree with it, but Fannie/Freddie until today were not government agencies.

They are sidestepping the issue of nationalizing the mortgage industry. They don't want to say they support it, they just want to say what they'd like to do in the event they are government backed.
They are government backed agencies, the government guarantees that the loans would be paid back. They should return to the basics, and not be a cash cow for rich investment bankers. The two banks keep most of the profits, but they share their losses with the tax payers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 01:16 PM
 
1,881 posts, read 2,690,842 times
Reputation: 361
Let just do the liberal thing and bail out all people and businesses that have failed to do things correctly.
We cannot bail a failed business out. Once you start you will be bailing out everyone who screws up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Grand Rapids Metro
8,882 posts, read 19,905,937 times
Reputation: 3920
Quote:
Originally Posted by smd1998 View Post
Let just do the liberal thing and bail out all people and businesses that have failed to do things correctly.
We cannot bail a failed business out. Once you start you will be bailing out everyone who screws up.
It's not a "liberal" thing. The government, including both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congress, have been bailing out entire industries for as long as I can remember. Airline industry, Savings and Loan Industry, auto industry, farmers, you name it. When hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, the bailing pumps come out.

People who think that America is a free market society need to brush up on their economics studies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
9,059 posts, read 12,996,499 times
Reputation: 1401
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
It's not a "liberal" thing. The government, including both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congress, have been bailing out entire industries for as long as I can remember. Airline industry, Savings and Loan Industry, auto industry, farmers, you name it. When hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, the bailing pumps come out.

People who think that America is a free market society need to brush up on their economics studies.
It's more convenient to label a particular party as the bailout party.

McCain likes the bailouts because it's socialism for the boyz on Wall St.
Obama likes the bailouts because it's socialism for the "victim" homeowners and would-be homeowners
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top