@averagejoe1 saidNo one was ever made to buy a house.
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 inv ...[text shortened]... p at his door and says, sign here, and OWN A HOUSE. So Jack says, sure, then he bankrupts. Jesus.
Like I said, IF right wingers want to campaign on a platform that the FHA and GI bill should be abolished, let them do so and see what the People think.
@no1marauder saidYou have hit on it! What the people think! You thus acknowledge that they need to think for themselves, Marauder. That opens up a wondrous atmosphere for people to be self reliant and, and, of course, decide on a house, By Themselves, no reliance on government, or God forbid, on the assets of other people.
No one was ever made to buy a house.
Like I said, IF right wingers want to campaign on a platform that the FHA and GI bill should be abolished, let them do so and see what the People think.
I see that you may be scratching your head, as what I just wrote is 180° from your liberal tenets (which you say are not Marx).
@averagejoe1 saidBefore the FHA, buyers couldn't "decide" to buy a home unless:
You have hit on it! What the people think! You thus acknowledge that they need to think for themselves, Marauder. That opens up a wondrous atmosphere for people to be self reliant and, and, of course, decide on a house, By Themselves, no reliance on government, or God forbid, on the assets of other people.
I see that you may be scratching your head, as what I just wrote is 180° from your liberal tenets (which you say are not Marx).
" Prior to the FHA, balloon mortgages (home loans with large payments due at the end of the loan period) were the norm, and prospective home buyers were required to put down 30 to 50 percent of the cost of a house in order to secure a loan. "
What you call "government interference" made it possible for tens of millions of Americans to afford homes who otherwise could not have.
IF you think that is a "bad" thing, you and other right wingers should explicitly campaign to abolish the FHA and the GI Bill and see what the People decide. I suspect that they strongly approve of such programs and recognize the economic and other benefits they provide (including an increase in liberty although our so-called "libertarians" here refuse to acknowledge that a family that owns its own home has considerably more liberty than one paying rent every month).
@no1marauder saidOn Page 2 #9, you say words of a Marxist , which to you is the only way to clear up Biden’s mess.
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.
This and other comments lead me to reach no other conclusion. Don’t worry, you have a friend-of-the-cloth in Rajk. That one says to do away with borders! It will be a success, as long as everyone is to nice to each other!
Would i lie?
@no1marauder saidI'm not arguing that regulation has an effect, that's what regulation does. Nor is there any argument a goobermint buratcracy will brag it up about the positive effects of those regs, even if the negative surpasses the positive.
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.
I'd like to address this comment, which you have repeated in a number of places:
"lower income and credit score FHA mortgagors have been subsidizing higher income and credit score mortgagors for a long time"
Banks want to lend money, they like to lend money, they need to lend money, it's most of why they exist, forget stashing your meagre dollars in there, they get to lend out based on those meagre dollars with majic money many times greater than what they hold. They have high paid analysts and teams of analysts and software engineers employed full time assessing where it comes in, where it goes out, trends, upticks, downturns and more, that's their career.
In their years of experience they've defined a group of borrowers who are high risk. High risk means that the bank might lend them money that the bank does not get back. But, get this, they still want to lend these people money. So the bank uses some tools so that when the inevitable defaulters come along other members of this high risk group subsidise those loses. Those tools may include, but are not limited to: compulsory insurance, higher interest rates and higher minimum deposits (so the bank has some hope of recuperating their lose).
Everything is going along smoothly, low risk borrowers are enjoying the benefits of being in a low risk group. Uh oh, look out Bank, here comes Gomer at the FHA and he wants to twiddle some dials using other peoples money and the force of the state. The bank is operating to a line and Gomer has moved the line with his regulation, so what happens now is that low risk borrowers will now have to subsidise high risk borrowers who have a record of likely default, someone has to pay, and it's not the bank.
In a free market high risk borrowers subsidise other members of the group they belong to, they do not subsidise low risk borrowers. Goobermint distorts the free market and the losers are the low risk borrowers.
@wajoma saidA perfect explanation indeed. Libs fail to reaize the danger of the govt manipulating, affecting the natural order of things, in their quest to establish equity. It can’t possibly work. Everything govt does everyday now is power grab in the form of overwhelming control of our lives.
I'm not arguing that regulation has an effect, that's what regulation does. Nor is there any argument a goobermint buratcracy will brag it up about the positive effects of those regs, even if the negative surpasses the positive.
I'd like to address this comment, which you have repeated in a number of places:
[i]"lower income and credit score FHA mortgagors have been su ...[text shortened]... e low risk borrowers. Goobermint distorts the free market and the losers are the low risk borrowers.
My daddy bought a house, let’s just say, the right way. The universal way. Why do libs want to change the way people buy houses? A simple question, but I can be smart-ass if you’d rather. Boy that Shallow is in a mood this morning. Maybe it has just hit him that the proliferation of aliens will make it harder for him to find a high paying job. $17/hr will be about it.