Part 2,, Biden punishes good-credit homebuyers

@averagejoe1 said
I would believe it if it were fact.
I believe today what is fact.
So I don’t get your analogy. The GI Bill did not punish good-credit homebuyers. So, I wouldNOT have believed it.

Wachoo talkin ‘bout?

""With the help of the GI Bill, veterans were able to purchase homes at much lower interest rates than the average person. "

From your OP:

"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."

@no1marauder said
""With the help of the GI Bill, veterans were able to purchase homes at much lower interest rates than the average person. "

From your OP:

"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 MO ...[text shortened]... but not more houses in their neighborhoods, the prices have to go up. The law of supply and demand."

A salient point made, that more demand equals less supply and then the inevitable price rise. The GI bill was minute in comparable scale and therefore did not do the same harm.

Both good points and not incompatible.

He shoots, he scores, Averagejoe1.

@wajoma said
A salient point made, that more demand equals less supply and then the inevitable price rise. The GI bill was minute in comparable scale and therefore did not do the same harm.

Both good points and not incompatible.

He shoots, he scores, Averagejoe1.

Hardly.

First:

"By 1955, 4.3 million home loans worth $33 billion had been granted to veterans, who were responsible for buying 20 percent of all new homes built after the war."

https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/Article/1727086/75-years-of-the-gi-bill-how-transformative-its-been/

By contrast, the share of homes financed with FHA loans has varied but: "NAHB analysis of the most recent Quarterly Sales by Price and Financing report published by the U.S. Census Bureau reveals that the share of new home sales backed by FHA loans jumped from 8.4% to 11.7% in the first quarter of 2023." https://eyeonhousing.org/2023/04/share-of-fha-backed-new-home-sales-climbs-in-q1-2023/

Secondly, both you and Joe are supposing a completely static market. But the effect of increased demand over time is to encourage home builders to build more homes. That is exactly what happened when the FHA and GI Bill were operating after WWII contrary to your and AJ's musings which would have supposed no increase in housing stock with all the increased demand merely resulting in higher prices for existing homes.

Thirdly, US home prices have fallen almost 5% since last June, so there is plenty of existing downward pressure on home prices. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/us-home-prices-rose-slightly-in-february-snapping-seven-months-of-declines/ar-AA1ak2y1 A small rise in FHA approved loans is hardly likely to have much effect given these pressures.

@no1marauder said
Hardly.

First:

"By 1955, 4.3 million home loans worth $33 billion had been granted to veterans, who were responsible for buying 20 percent of all new homes built after the war."

https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/Article/1727086/75-years-of-the-gi-bill-how-transformative-its-been/

By contrast, the share of homes financed with FHA loans ...[text shortened]... ak2y1 A small rise in FHA approved loans is hardly likely to have much effect given these pressures.

A common tactic, not sure you even realise you're doing it. there's some stat that at first appears to be a favorable outcome of your latest buratcracy and the regulation they've pooped out, or it could be straight out issuing bribes in the form of handing out other peoples money, a sure way to win favor with the money receivers.

Then the fallacy: You claim all of 'x' is a result of 'y' only, while ignoring 'z'.

How many of those veterans would have bought a home anyway?
Where did the money come from, i.e. how many homes were not bought or home ownership deferred by those whose pay packets had been lightened by the control freaks and tyrants?

You see No1, I've read and understood "How to Lie with Statistics" by Daryl Huff, and I recommend everyone does in order to decipher the crap propaganda coming out of the state.

@wajoma said
A common tactic, not sure you even realise you're doing it. there's some stat that at first appears to be a favorable outcome of your latest buratcracy and the regulation they've pooped out, or it could be straight out issuing bribes in the form of handing out other peoples money, a sure way to win favor with the money receivers.

Then the fallacy: You claim all of 'x' is a ...[text shortened]... uff, and I recommend everyone does in order to decipher the crap propaganda coming out of the state.

Perhaps those who believe in a Randian, anarcho-capitalist DreamWorld can deny with a straight face that the FHA and GI bill caused a housing boom after WWII but few economists or historians would deny the obvious.

As far as the taxpayers who funded it, their elected representatives voted unanimously for the GI Bill and overwhelmingly for the FHA.

@no1marauder said
Perhaps those who believe in a Randian, anarcho-capitalist DreamWorld can deny with a straight face that the FHA and GI bill caused a housing boom after WWII but few economists or historians would deny the obvious.

As far as the taxpayers who funded it, their elected representatives voted unanimously for the GI Bill and overwhelmingly for the FHA.

I am not so sure abut comparing the 'need for housing for the men who fought for our freedom' , for lack of a better phrase', with today's climate.
Like, what traumatic experience, like WWII, has all of a sudden made all this free stuff free and easy? There has been none to my knowledge, only liberal laziness and dependence. Who needs all this help as did the soldiers who came home a bit bloodied up?
A fair question, Marauder. No one gave me any breaks when I bought my first house. You seem to making some distinctions that you are not putting in your posts?.

@no1marauder said
Perhaps those who believe in a Randian, anarcho-capitalist DreamWorld can deny with a straight face that the FHA and GI bill caused a housing boom after WWII but few economists or historians would deny the obvious.

As far as the taxpayers who funded it, their elected representatives voted unanimously for the GI Bill and overwhelmingly for the FHA.

Failed to address the two points:

How many would have bought houses anyway?
How many other home purchases were deferred because people had their wages garnished to pay for other peoples houses (and how much of the money actually made it through the various goobermint buratcracy filters with each taking a cut)?

I didn't expect you to address them but you should at least acknowledge them.

Of course the taxpayer did not vote for either of those policies, for that to happen there would have to be two specific referenda for each of the two separate policies. The tax payer just get's lumped with it whether they like it or not, and they get lumped with a lot of other stuff because in the US as in many other countries it's basically a two party system, not far removed from a one party system. The number of people that voted based solely on their dreams of the creation of yet another buratcracy or for the GI bill is statistically irrelevant, as you are every time you wheel out the same tired old 'elected officials' line.

It's all part of the scam, the illusion, the grift.

@no1marauder said
You don't understand the program and I'm too bored with right wing ignorance to explain it to you in detail. The short version is that FHA mortgages are for those who can't get mortgages under the usual guidelines of banks and lending institutions. Charging those who are most in need of the program higher fees and those least in need lesser ones is counterproductive to th ...[text shortened]... ature, amount to having the higher fee payers "subsidize" the lower fee payers is manifestly absurd.

Hahaha. FNMA rep says it was designed just that. The ‘cost of money’ at ‘X’ bank is an established amount., and the high credit borrowers are paying a larger chunk of that money than the low credit buyers

Marauder……….you are BS. Please stop it. You should open each post with a disclosure. “I am Marxist”.

@averagejoe1 said
Hahaha. FNMA rep says it was designed just that. The ‘cost of money’ at ‘X’ bank is an established amount., and the high credit borrowers are paying a larger chunk of that money than the low credit buyers

Marauder……….you are BS. Please stop it. You should open each post with a disclosure. “I am Marxist”.

As pointed our even by the links you relied the low credit score buyers are still paying a higher percentage fee than the higher credit score buyers.

Why you keep lying about this and my non-existent Marxism is a mystery.

@wajoma said
Failed to address the two points:

How many would have bought houses anyway?
How many other home purchases were deferred because people had their wages garnished to pay for other peoples houses (and how much of the money actually made it through the various goobermint buratcracy filters with each taking a cut)?

I didn't expect you to address them but you should at least ...[text shortened]... the same tired old 'elected officials' line.

It's all part of the scam, the illusion, the grift.

We don't have access to your Randian, anarcho-capitalist Dreamworld, so the specific answers to such dishonest questions is unavailable. We can compare the number of home sales before the programs were implemented and after though. The results of that comparison is pretty embarrassing to your apparent claim that the programs made no difference in the number of home sales and only an economic crank wouldn't hold their breath until they turn blue and insist otherwise.

@no1marauder said
We don't have access to your Randian, anar ho-capitalist Dreamworld, so the specific answers to such dishonest questions is unavailable. We can compare the number of home sales before the programs were implemented and after though. The results of that comparison is pretty embarrassing to your apparent claim that the programs made no difference in the number of home sales and only an economic crank wouldn't hold their breath until they turn blue and insist otherwise.

I never claimed they made no difference, hold a gun to a mans head and you will make a difference. The point is that there is a difference, that the GI bill or the buratcracy known as the FHA cannot claim that they alone are responsible for the differences. The numbers are difficult to source, and many have great motivation to manipulate, exaggerate, downplay and otherwise distort the numbers.

Very convenient.

This is the broken window fallacy writ large. The citizens stand around hemming and hawing over the broken shop window, they can see it, eventually they come to the conclusion 'At least it provides work for the glazier" work that he would otherwise not have had. But it takes will to not look at where the shop owner who is now out of pocket would have spent that money.

The conclusion: the FHA, the GI bill and smashing windows is good.

For an explanation of this so clear it hurts your eyes refer Henry Hazlitts 'Economics in One Lesson' A title he intentionally chose for the very reason the pseuds will guffaw at it.

@wajoma said
I never claimed they made no difference, hold a gun to a mans head and you will make a difference. The point is that there is a difference, that the GI bill or the buratcracy known as the FHA cannot claim that they alone are responsible for the differences. The numbers are difficult to source, and many have great motivation to manipulate, exaggerate, downplay and otherwise d ...[text shortened]... would have spent that money.

The conclusion: the FHA, the GI bill and smashing windows is good.

If the economic history of the 20th Century made anything clear, it is that laissez faire capitalism is an abject failure and that without interventions in the market to correct its failures, the People will be made more impoverished than they should be and that society as a whole will suffer from negative externalities they need not bear and be deprived of positive externalities they need not miss.

You really should stop relying on cranks who didn't even graduate from college like Hazlitt.

@no1marauder said
If the economic history of the 20th Century made anything clear, it is that laissez faire capitalism is an abject failure and that without interventions in the market to correct its failures, the People will be made more impoverished than they should be and that society as a whole will suffer from negative externalities they need not bear and be deprived of positiv ...[text shortened]... iss.

You really should stop relying on cranks who didn't even graduate from college like Hazlitt.

You post links to defunct, uncredentialled, unheard of, obsolete, someone wrote something on the internet once 'spoodge.com' but you question the credentials of Hazlitt?

Wiki is biased crap, but go check his page there.

Capitalism made possible the army of parasitical, produce nothing but hurdles and stumbling blocks buratcracies that now feed on the productive effort of millions.

Not the other way around.

@wajoma said
A salient point made, that more demand equals less supply and then the inevitable price rise. The GI bill was minute in comparable scale and therefore did not do the same harm.

Both good points and not incompatible.

He shoots, he scores, Averagejoe1.

Do you recall Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae blowing up? Classic government buffoonery. I think Barney Frank D Mass
was in charge at the time, and gave everything a great review about one week before the collapse. Priceless.

Anyway, what it showed is why banks won't finance high risk people.
The banks can't recover from such a loss, but the government keeps right on rolling like nothing happened.

That's because the banks are backed by the people **at the point of a gun**. How can they ever lose?

@no1marauder said
As pointed our even by the links you relied the low credit score buyers are still paying a higher percentage fee than the higher credit score buyers.

Why you keep lying about this and my non-existent Marxism is a mystery.

Taking your higher-interest comment as fact, it is all the more likely that these people , with low credit and bad loan history, etc., will bankrupt a little bit faster. You say that the rate is higher as if it is necessary to pull a deal together.
Marauder, here is the most important question for all posts on the Forum. Why does the govt think it has to get so involved in people's lives? Can they not leave well-enough alone? We have been fine for over 200 years.
Have you ever heard 'water seeks its own level'. Would your government fiddle with the level of water? Jesus Christ. Why wont you leave everyone alone? Let nature take its course. Jack Citizen decides at 21 yrs old to never own a house. A few years later a govt thug shows up at his door and says, sign here, and OWN A HOUSE. So Jack says, sure, then he bankrupts. Jesus.