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.
Use tax payer money to insure risky borrowers. Do we really want to go back down this road again. What the h**, is Obama doing? Obviously Obama wants to pump up the housing market to make him look good. He is obviously desperate.
Actually, I didn't even vote for him. The real problem here is that people like you who jump into critisizing everyting the WH does, even if they happen to do something conservatives support. With that position you end up looking like a raving leftist, which you think you are here to oppose. It happens to people who stand for nothing, except for blindly opposing everything certain people do and say even before you understand what is being said and done. It is a horribly weak position, and I have seen it has embarrass more than a few times.
Three is no blindness involved in opposing Obama's policies. We know who he is, we know his agenda and what he believes, and we know he does nothing that doesn't have a ulterior motive. But we know what those motives are. When you learn who he is, he reads like a book. He has certain history that he has not been able to keep hidden. It's out there (for example his Occidental College membership in the Marxist club).
Obama does not believe in the Constitution, or what the founders believed about liberty and freedom, and he sees America as an exploiter of people, not a liberator. But the truth is, never in the history of man have men been more free than in America. Nonetheless, Obama seeks to "fundamentally transform" America into a different kind of country, based on the European model we see today, which is a failure.
Yeah we differ in our motivations, I believe in giving all income earners a break rather than taking them away from everyone thus empowering the state with money.
Me too, but if you support programs like 'mortgage interest deduction' which doesn't even kick in until after the 11K limit, you are NOT giving ALL income earners a break. You are giving a break only to those with a huge mortgages.
If what you say about your view is true, then you WOULD NOT support a subsidy which benefits so few people.
Lol they have the lessen regulation that they created. So banks make loans to folks with bad credit, the loans go bad and then the government comes after than banks for being reckless. You can't win with you liberals.
And then the tax payers bail out Obama's favorite banks..... yes, we know how this story ends.
Three is no blindness involved in opposing Obama's policies. We know who he is, we know his agenda and what he believes, and we know he does nothing that doesn't have a ulterior motive. But we know what those motives are. When you learn who he is, he reads like a book. He has certain history that he has not been able to keep hidden. It's out there (for example his Occidental College membership in the Marxist club).
Obama does not believe in the Constitution, or what the founders believed about liberty and freedom, and he sees America as an exploiter of people, not a liberator. But the truth is, never in the history of man have men been more free than in America. Nonetheless, Obama seeks to "fundamentally transform" America into a different kind of country, based on the European model we see today, which is a failure.
Clarify your position on THIS issue: Are you opposed to this deregulation measure?
Actually, I didn't even vote for him. The real problem here is that people like you who jump into critisizing everyting the WH does, even if they happen to do something conservatives support. With that position you end up looking like a raving leftist, which you think you are here to oppose. It happens to people who stand for nothing, except for blindly opposing everything certain people do and say even before you understand what is being said and done. It is a horribly weak position, and I have seen it has embarrass more than a few times.
I don't follow a "conservative" script.
I don't care what Paul Ryan proposed.
I don't care what Romney proposed.
I don't support government bailouts for any reason whatsoever.
I don't support government price controls for any reason whatsoever.
Me too, but if you support programs like 'mortgage interest deduction' which doesn't even kick in until after the 11K limit, you are NOT giving ALL income earners a break. You are giving a break only to those with a huge mortgages.
If what you say about your view is true, then you WOULD NOT support a subsidy which benefits so few people.
I dont view tax breaks as subsidies, since the money belongs to the earner/worker,not the government.
The conversation should be how to give more people breaks rather than take them away.
And in keeping with the topic, the fedguv has no business inserting itself into the loan process, that should be strictly between the lender and borrower.
From 2007 through 2012, new-home purchases fell 30 percent for people with credit scores above 780 (out of 800), according to Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke. But they declined 90 percent for people with scores between 680 and 620 — historically a respectable range for a credit score.
The following sites contains descriptions of various credit scores.
Charles A. Capone, Jr., Ph.D Senior Analyst, Microeconomic and Financial Studies Division U.S. Congressional Budget Office Washington, DC, writing in "Research Into Mortgage Default and Affordable Housing: A Primer": For most of the 1990s, the mortgage market viewed a FICO score of 620 as the bottom cut off for prime loans, meaning loans that could be sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Scores in the 580-620 range were considered 'near' prime, with labels such as A-minus, and those above 720 were considered low risk borrowers." (2001)(alt)
How is trying to encourage banks to lend to borrowers in the prime category equivalent to encouraging banks to make sub-prime loans?
Clearly the pendulum has swung from very loose credit to very tight credit. The extremes on either end of the credit market is not good for the economy.
Continuing to exclude capable borrowers is utter nonsense that the Admin is trying to rectify.
My wife worked in the industry of high risk loans. These people are not "capable", they are more often than not "irresponsible". They do not know how to manage their money and are easily motivated to spend outside of their budget. Paying late (if they pay at all) is common for these types which is why they are a massive profit area for the high risk loan market. They play games with the institutions they loan to requiring diligent collection efforts in order to avoid a loss on the loans.
All this will do is put irresponsible people into homes. Then, when the market crashes as interest rates have to go up, the prices of homes will plummet. these people will not accept paying 300k+ for a home that is now only selling for 90K. They will walk away, dumping it on the banks and we will be back in the same boat we were when the first crash happened, but actually worse.
This admin is a bunch of children who have no idea what they are doing and their bashing around with toy tools is going to sink the economy into certain ruin.
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.
