The new law goes into effect today, and many of you said that the payment of higher fees by good credit borrowers does not help the low credit homebuyers. Recall that it is designed to help low credit buyers get loans, and it MOST certainly does help them.
It will of course bring the low end borrowers into the home buying universe, but Average Joe is here to tell you ......This will actually hurt lower income buyers, because the result will be that it will drive up prices of homes, because there will be more buyers at that level. If you add more demand, but not more houses in their neighborhoods, the prices have to go up. The law of supply and demand.
This is an example of Biden miscues, a man who never had a real job and does not understand business, he does not understand the landscape.
So, once again, the little guys will suffer, and YOU will blame it all on Trump.
I could just scream!@
@averagejoe1 saidAJoe, good job on showing that discrepancy. It may also urge people to sink their own good credit score
The new law goes into effect today, and many of you said that the payment of higher fees by good credit borrowers does not help the low credit homebuyers. Recall that it is designed to help low credit buyers get loans, and it MOST certainly does help them.
It will of course bring the low end borrowers into the home buying universe, but Average Joe is here to tell you ...[text shortened]... e again, the little guys will suffer, and YOU will blame it all on Trump.
I could just scream!@
The old saying goes, "If it's right it's wrong, and if it's wrong it's right"
Democrats are truly trying to ruin this America
Biden rule will redistribute high-risk loan costs to homeowners with good credit
A Biden administration rule is set to take effect that will force good-credit home buyers to pay more for their mortgages to subsidize loans to higher-risk borrowers.
Experts believe that borrowers with a credit score of about 680 would pay around $40 more per month on a $400,000 mortgage under rules from the Federal Housing Finance Agency that go into effect May 1, costs that will help subsidize people with lower credit ratings also looking for a mortgage, according to a Washington Times report Tuesday.
---------------------------
$40 a month. that bass hole/
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-rule-redistribute-high-risk-211102885.html
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidState Financial Officers Slam Biden’s ‘Unconscionable’ Mortgage Redistribution Rule
The new law goes into effect today, and many of you said that the payment of higher fees by good credit borrowers does not help the low credit homebuyers. Recall that it is designed to help low credit buyers get loans, and it MOST certainly does help them.
It will of course bring the low end borrowers into the home buying universe, but Average Joe is here to tell you ...[text shortened]... e again, the little guys will suffer, and YOU will blame it all on Trump.
I could just scream!@
Thirty-seven state financial officers sent President Joe Biden and his Federal Housing Finance Agency director a letter on Monday, slamming the administration’s new policy to force homebuyers with good credit to pay higher mortgages to subsidize risky loans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AJoe, how is it that in this once fabulous democracy can a singular person (president) take on the role
of great dictator and enact such a powerful, harmful law/bill. Like HOW???? I thought laws had to be
passed by the legislature? And does anyone think this :law: is constitutional???? Cripes
AJoe, that extra $40 per month added to your mortgage may be enough to nix some home purchase deals, too.
Do you all see what happens when you abandon a check-and-balance system and let a dictator make the laws???
ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY - and we have that now. Do y'all see why EoT is a Libertarian???
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2023/05/01/state-financial-officers-slam-bidens-unconscionable-mortgage-redistribution-rule/
@earl-of-trumps saidThis is Power Move #58, run this by Sonhouse. He hates Power grabbers.
State Financial Officers Slam Biden’s ‘Unconscionable’ Mortgage Redistribution Rule
Thirty-seven state financial officers sent President Joe Biden and his Federal Housing Finance Agency director a letter on Monday, slamming the administration’s new policy to force homebuyers with good credit to pay higher mortgages to subsidize risky loans.
--- ...[text shortened]... economy/2023/05/01/state-financial-officers-slam-bidens-unconscionable-mortgage-redistribution-rule/
Are libs oblivious to the demands of the liberals? Truly oblivious? Maybe they dont care because it is OK to go after rich people.
Anyway they never look ahead to the collateral damage. When all these people, who really can't afford houses and will go into foreclosure in 18 months, flood the market, there will be high demand for houses. Do libs not understand supply and demand, that this will lead to a rise in home prices?
Jesus.
Do the libs take note of the very smart respected legislators who deride such action by Biden? You want to ask Zahlanzi what he thinks?
@earl-of-trumps saidThis was fully debunked here: https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/biden-wants-us-to-pay-for-other-peoples-homes.196807/page-3
State Financial Officers Slam Biden’s ‘Unconscionable’ Mortgage Redistribution Rule
Thirty-seven state financial officers sent President Joe Biden and his Federal Housing Finance Agency director a letter on Monday, slamming the administration’s new policy to force homebuyers with good credit to pay higher mortgages to subsidize risky loans.
--- ...[text shortened]... economy/2023/05/01/state-financial-officers-slam-bidens-unconscionable-mortgage-redistribution-rule/
The changes still leave lower credit score and income buyers subsidizing others by being charged higher rates. True, the new rule lessens the differences, but this is just a case of the well off still getting a better deal than those below.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidJoe,
This is Power Move #58, run this by Sonhouse. He hates Power grabbers.
Are libs oblivious to the demands of the liberals? Truly oblivious? Maybe they dont care because it is OK to go after rich people.
Anyway they never look ahead to the collateral damage. When all these people, who really can't afford houses and will go into foreclosure in 18 months, flood the mar ...[text shortened]... art respected legislators who deride such action by Biden? You want to ask Zahlanzi what he thinks?
they are clearly about to change the behavior of people. The good will get punished into being bad,
and obviously the whole society will now place a calculated premium on increasingly bad behavior.
Of course, the technical aspects of ruining the markets is just a tiny part of the bad this law will do,
The main evil to it is that it urges people to behave badly, in a lot of respects.
WHY must one person have such evil power. WHY. I still see nothing of value coming out of this law.
EDIT to add: - It will cost the *good* homebuyer about $14,400 throughout the course of the loan.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidGet Marauder's last sentence, which he just hangs out there. "The well-off are getting a better deal than those below". A well off person, on a k$350k loan, paid about $1750 in fees last month. That same person now will have to pay about $3200.00. you lie!!!
This was fully debunked here: https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/biden-wants-us-to-pay-for-other-peoples-homes.196807/page-3
The changes still leave lower credit score and income buyers subsidizing others by being charged higher rates. True, the new rule lessens the differences, but this is just a case of the well off still getting a better deal than those below.
I didn't check Marauders usual links, because it has not been 'debunked' at all. Even the govt FNMA, etc, say it is designed to give the lesser-credit people a leg up on getting a loan. You can't kid a kidder, Marauder.
@averagejoe1 saidYou're a brainwashed idiot and this thread is a perfect example of why it is useless to "debate" right wingers. You're either out and out liars like Earl or simpletons like yourself.
Get Marauder's last sentence, which he just hangs out there. "The well-off are getting a better deal than those below". A well off person, on a k$350k loan, paid about $1750 in fees last month. That same person now will have to pay about $3200.00. you lie!!!
I didn't check Marauders usual links, because it has not been 'debunked' at all. Even the govt FNMA, et ...[text shortened]... gned to give the lesser-credit people a leg up on getting a loan. You can't kid a kidder, Marauder.
In the prior thread, I cited the article YOU used as follows:
"Here's what the Reason article you cited to states:
"The effective penalty for having a credit score under 680 is now smaller than it was. It still costs more to have a lower score. For instance, if you have a score of 659
and are borrowing 75% of the home's value, you'll pay a fee of 1.5% of the loan balance whereas you'd pay no fee if you had a 780+ credit score."
So what I said is 100% true; lower income and credit score FHA mortgagors have been subsidizing higher income and credit score mortgagors for a long time and will continue to do so albeit at a lower rate. That misleading propaganda articles have somehow tried to flip this into some generous subsidy for the former is laughable BS.
"The FHA’s primary function was to insure home mortgage loans made by banks and other private lenders, thereby encouraging them to make more loans to prospective home buyers. "
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Federal-Housing-Administration
Even the propaganda articles admit there is a present problem and that not enough loans are being made. Cutting rates for lower credit score individuals should be a no brainer to get more loans for those who qualify for them and if that has to be partially funded by lessening the advantage higher income and credit score individuals already get from the program, so be it. That you morons have been told this is "Marxism" or some such and are sooooooooooooooo stupid you believe it is of no consequence.
@no1marauder saidNo1, those with lower credit scores are not subsidising those with higher credit scores, they're paying for themselves being a higher risk, they're paying for the defaulters who tend to have a lower score.
You're a brainwashed idiot and this thread is a perfect example of why it is useless to "debate" right wingers. You're either out and out liars like Earl or simpletons like yourself.
In the prior thread, I cited the article YOU used as follows:
"Here's what the Reason article you cited to states:
"The effective penalty for having a credit score under 680 is now s ...[text shortened]... this is "Marxism" or some such and are sooooooooooooooo stupid you believe it is of no consequence.
Needless to say the solution is the free market and for goobermint to get right out of it.
When you've finished your current games, we've known you for long enough to expect there'll be no pretentious I, I, me, me goodbyes, one day you'll be here, the next gone, wherever, all that remains will be your posts, slowly getting buried deeper, less than a ghost, appreciate it.
@wajoma saidNeedless to say, the FHA rejects the laissez faire principles you believe in. Therefore, its provisions should not be expected to adhere to such ideas. At present, there are not enough FHA mortgages being made so lowering rates for those who it would most be likely to benefit from it by now being able to afford a mortgage is consistent with FHA goals.
No1, those with lower credit scores are not subsidising those with higher credit scores, they're paying for themselves being a higher risk, they're paying for the defaulters who tend to have a lower score.
Needless to say the solution is the free market and for goobermint to get right out of it.
When you've finished your current games, we've known you for long enough to ...[text shortened]... all that remains will be your posts, slowly getting buried deeper, less than a ghost, appreciate it.
There won't be any "goodbye" thread. I'll do what I say in my Profile.
@no1marauder saidA goobermint department says there needs to be a goobermint department, namely themselves.
Needless to say, the FHA rejects the laissez faire principles you believe in. Therefore, its provisions should not be expected to adhere to such ideas. At present, there are not enough FHA mortgages being made so lowering rates for those who it would most be likely to benefit from it by now being able to afford a mortgage is consistent with FHA goals.
There won't be any "goodbye" thread. I'll do what I say in my Profile.
What would be news is a goobermint department saying our services are no longer required, we're disbanding and hope the money is no longer taken by threat of force from those who do not believe our buratcracy represents value.
@wajoma said😴
A goobermint department says there needs to be a goobermint department, namely themselves.
What would be news is a goobermint department saying our services are no longer required, we're disbanding and hope the money is no longer taken by threat of force from those who do not believe our buratcracy represents value.
@no1marauder saidThe point remains, those with low credit scores do not subsidise those with high credit scores, they are subsidising the loses that come from loaning to low credit score borrowers. When the goobermint steps in and puts artificial (as opposed to the natural tendencies of the free market) controls in place you may find the opposite to be true, that the needle swings the other way, that the safe borrowers with high credit score are subsidising the losers who can't maintain their mortgages.
😴
@wajoma saidIf right wingers want to openly support the abolition of the FHA, which has made possible 40 million extra American homeowners, they should explicitly say so. Maintaining the present rate structure, however, which is punitive towards those the program is most meant to assist is counter to its basic goals.
A goobermint department says there needs to be a goobermint department, namely themselves.
What would be news is a goobermint department saying our services are no longer required, we're disbanding and hope the money is no longer taken by threat of force from those who do not believe our buratcracy represents value.