Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2010 20:37:11 GMT -8
Liberals are stupid. washingtonindependent.com/93795/the-return-of-the-1000-down-mortgage“Buy new with $1,000 down,” the advertisement says, the words resting atop a trim green clapboard house offset by a bright blue sky. “The time has come. Stop wasting rent check after rent check and start building equity in your own home. And with only $1,000 down, affordable monthly payments and no private mortgage insurance required, the dream is closer than you think.”Really? We're going to do this again? ARE THEY FU%^KING INSANE? I say again: Liberals are stupid |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 8, 2010 20:57:16 GMT -8
Liberals are stupid. washingtonindependent.com/93795/the-return-of-the-1000-down-mortgage“Buy new with $1,000 down,” the advertisement says, the words resting atop a trim green clapboard house offset by a bright blue sky. “The time has come. Stop wasting rent check after rent check and start building equity in your own home. And with only $1,000 down, affordable monthly payments and no private mortgage insurance required, the dream is closer than you think.”Really? We're going to do this again? ARE THEY FU%^KING INSANE? I say again: Liberals are stupid Why are you applying "liberal" to this program? Surely you aren't so "stupid" yourself that you think that this is a partisan housing program. Are you? I'd point out two other rather obvious things. First off, $1000 down on a house priced at $800,000 is way riskier than is $1000 down on that same house when it is priced at a "post bubble" $400,000. Or whatever. It's like night and day. Second, if we are going to rebuild the housing industry, we have to start by selling off much of our existing housing inventory. If I'm Fannie Mae (or whomever), I'd much rather take $1000 down and reduce my inventory than I would require $30,000 down and leave the house vacant and exposed to all sorts of potential damage such as vandalism -- to say nothing of the cost of maintaining vacant homes. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 8, 2010 21:03:07 GMT -8
Liberals are stupid. washingtonindependent.com/93795/the-return-of-the-1000-down-mortgage“Buy new with $1,000 down,” the advertisement says, the words resting atop a trim green clapboard house offset by a bright blue sky. “The time has come. Stop wasting rent check after rent check and start building equity in your own home. And with only $1,000 down, affordable monthly payments and no private mortgage insurance required, the dream is closer than you think.”Really? We're going to do this again? ARE THEY FU%^KING INSANE? I say again: Liberals are stupid Hey, so glad you are back. Still waiting for an explanation for your "crap" in the Lula thread. By the way, I think anyone would be smart to buy a house for a thousand down, be they liberal or conservative. It is really just an option, you know. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2010 21:33:25 GMT -8
Liberals are stupid. washingtonindependent.com/93795/the-return-of-the-1000-down-mortgage“Buy new with $1,000 down,” the advertisement says, the words resting atop a trim green clapboard house offset by a bright blue sky. “The time has come. Stop wasting rent check after rent check and start building equity in your own home. And with only $1,000 down, affordable monthly payments and no private mortgage insurance required, the dream is closer than you think.”Really? We're going to do this again? ARE THEY FU%^KING INSANE? I say again: Liberals are stupid Why are you applying "liberal" to this program? Surely you aren't so "stupid" yourself that you think that this is a partisan housing program. Are you? I'd point out two other rather obvious things. First off, $1000 down on a house priced at $800,000 is way riskier than is $1000 down on that same house when it is priced at a "post bubble" $400,000. Or whatever. It's like night and day. Second, if we are going to rebuild the housing industry, we have to start by sell much of our housing inventory. If I'm Fannie Mae (or whomever), I'd much rather take $1000 down and reduce my inventory than I would require $30,000 down and leave the house vacant and exposed to all sorts of "predators". Yoda out... I rest my case. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 9, 2010 6:07:33 GMT -8
As in RIP... So a moderate points out your glaring errors in fundamental logic and you think that proves your case that liberals are stupid? Well if liberal equal stupid, then you are one of the most liberal people on these boards. Yoda out... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2010 10:01:23 GMT -8
As in RIP... So a moderate points out your glaring errors in fundamental logic and you think that proves your case that liberals are stupid? Well if liberal equal stupid, then you are one of the most liberal people on these boards. Yoda out... I rarely bother with pointing out logical flaws and the self-evident to liberals because it's usually a waste of time. 1. how many "sub-prime" mortgages were issued on $800,000 or even $400,000 homes? Most sub-primes were issued on homes of far less value. 2. What FU@#KING difference does the rational make for repeating the SAME G@D D%^M mistake? This time, the libs are trying to "save the economy" (as if they give a rats ass). Last time it was all about fairness and letting people who could not afford them buy homes. Here's a clue: If all you have is $1000.00, YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE!!!!!!! Does it get any clearer than that? |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 9, 2010 11:28:39 GMT -8
I rarely bother with pointing out logical flaws and the self-evident to liberals because it's usually a waste of time. 1. how many "sub-prime" mortgages were issued on $800,000 or even $400,000 homes? Most sub-primes were issued on homes of far less value. 2. What FU@#KING difference does the rational make for repeating the SAME G@D D%^M mistake? This time, the libs are trying to "save the economy" (as if they give a rats ass). Last time it was all about fairness and letting people who could not afford them buy homes. Here's a clue: If all you have is $1000.00, YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE!!!!!!! Does it get any clearer than that? Who says that all they have is $1000? That's just the down payment; they may well have more (and I agree, probably should have more as everybody needs a cash reserve). But better to be able to keep your cash reserve than force you to put it all down and then not have one available should you need it for an emergency. Did you read the whole article? I ask because you seem to have omitted some pretty salient facts... ~ Fannie Mae's agreement to purchase mortgages was conditioned on homebuyers having excellent employment histories and credit. They are checking that now instead of taking your word for it. ~ The HFAs agreed to buy back loans if they became delinquent. So there is no vested interest in peddling loans irrespective of whether or not the borrower can repay. In fact, the vested interest runs the other direction -- in only making good loans. ~ Quoting, “HFAs are nationally regarded leaders in affordable housing finance and their business is prudent, sustainable business. HFAs work closely with their borrowers to ensure they’re well prepared for homeownership. As a result, the loans delivered by HFAs have very low delinquency rates. ~ These are fixed rate mortgages -- so nobody will be trapped in an ARM with rising interest rates that they can't meet. ~ The deal includes a program to help homebuyers if they become unemployed. You say, "What FU@#KING difference does the rational make for repeating the SAME G@D D%^M mistake?" The crash wasn't caused by low down payments -- it was caused by low down payments and a dozen other things acting in concert. One similarity with the old system -- a low down payment -- does not mean that we are repeating the same mistake.
And critical thinking skills, which you seem to lack, include the ability to compare and contrast similar but not identical situations. Everything about this program suggests that the administrators have learned the lessons from the bubble crash. There are far more controls in this new program -- and far less risks in the first place (beginning with the obvious fact -- which you still ignore -- that the properties are priced post-bubble, not pre-bubble.) And I'm still trying to figure out why you think that this is a liberal vs. conservative issue. People throughout the political spectrum support responsible home ownership and with the controls that are in place, that seems to be what this is. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Aug 9, 2010 11:51:46 GMT -8
I rarely bother with pointing out logical flaws and the self-evident to liberals because it's usually a waste of time. 1. how many "sub-prime" mortgages were issued on $800,000 or even $400,000 homes? Most sub-primes were issued on homes of far less value. 2. What FU@#KING difference does the rational make for repeating the SAME G@D D%^M mistake? This time, the libs are trying to "save the economy" (as if they give a rats ass). Last time it was all about fairness and letting people who could not afford them buy homes. Here's a clue: If all you have is $1000.00, YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE!!!!!!! Does it get any clearer than that? Who says that all they have is $1000? That's just the down payment; they may well have more (and I agree, probably should have more as everybody needs a cash reserve). But better to be able to keep your cash reserve than force you to put it all down and then not have one available should you need it for an emergency. Did you read the whole article? I ask because you seem to have omitted some pretty salient facts... ~ Fannie Mae's agreement to purchase mortgages was conditioned on homebuyers having excellent employment histories and credit. They are checking that now instead of taking your word for it. ~ The HFAs agreed to buy back loans if they became delinquent. So there is no vested interest in peddling loans irrespective of whether or not the borrower can repay. In fact, the vested interest runs the other direction -- in only making good loans. ~ Quoting, “HFAs are nationally regarded leaders in affordable housing finance and their business is prudent, sustainable business. HFAs work closely with their borrowers to ensure they’re well prepared for homeownership. As a result, the loans delivered by HFAs have very low delinquency rates. ~ These are fixed rate mortgages -- so nobody will be trapped in an ARM with rising interest rates that they can't meet. ~ The deal includes a program to help homebuyers if they become unemployed. You say, "What FU@#KING difference does the rational make for repeating the SAME G@D D%^M mistake?" The crash wasn't caused by low down payments -- it was caused by low down payments and a dozen other things acting in concert. One similarity with the old system -- a low down payment -- does not mean that we are repeating the same mistake.
And critical thinking skills, which you seem to lack, include the ability to compare and contrast similar but not identical situations. Everything about this program suggests that the administrators have learned the lessons from the bubble crash. There are far more controls in this this new system -- and far less risks in the first place (beginning with the obvious fact -- which you still ignore -- that the properties are priced post-bubble, not pre-bubble.) And I'm still trying to figure out why you think that this is a liberal vs. conservative issue. People throughout the political spectrum support responsible home ownership and with the controls that are in place, that seems to be what this is. Yoda out... Yoda...don't expect a logical, unemotional discussion of the issues with this guy. All he knows is personal attacks and angry rhetoric. He's been doing it for years.... which is too bad because AFAN thinks on his feet pretty well... but he kills it with his delivery style. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2010 12:30:34 GMT -8
I rarely bother with pointing out logical flaws and the self-evident to liberals because it's usually a waste of time. 1. how many "sub-prime" mortgages were issued on $800,000 or even $400,000 homes? Most sub-primes were issued on homes of far less value. 2. What FU@#KING difference does the rational make for repeating the SAME G@D D%^M mistake? This time, the libs are trying to "save the economy" (as if they give a rats ass). Last time it was all about fairness and letting people who could not afford them buy homes. Here's a clue: If all you have is $1000.00, YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE!!!!!!! Does it get any clearer than that? Who says that all they have is $1000? That's just the down payment; they may well have more (and I agree, probably should have more as everybody needs a cash reserve). But better to be able to keep your cash reserve than force you to put it all down and then not have one available should you need it for an emergency. Did you read the whole article? I ask because you seem to have omitted some pretty salient facts... ~ Fannie Mae's agreement to purchase mortgages was conditioned on homebuyers having excellent employment histories and credit. They are checking that now instead of taking your word for it. ~ The HFAs agreed to buy back loans if they became delinquent. So there is no vested interest in peddling loans irrespective of whether or not the borrower can repay. In fact, the vested interest runs the other direction -- in only making good loans. ~ Quoting, “HFAs are nationally regarded leaders in affordable housing finance and their business is prudent, sustainable business. HFAs work closely with their borrowers to ensure they’re well prepared for homeownership. As a result, the loans delivered by HFAs have very low delinquency rates. ~ These are fixed rate mortgages -- so nobody will be trapped in an ARM with rising interest rates that they can't meet. ~ The deal includes a program to help homebuyers if they become unemployed. You say, "What FU@#KING difference does the rational make for repeating the SAME G@D D%^M mistake?" The crash wasn't caused by low down payments -- it was caused by low down payments and a dozen other things acting in concert. One similarity with the old system -- a low down payment -- does not mean that we are repeating the same mistake.
And critical thinking skills, which you seem to lack, include the ability to compare and contrast similar but not identical situations. Everything about this program suggests that the administrators have learned the lessons from the bubble crash. There are far more controls in this new program -- and far less risks in the first place (beginning with the obvious fact -- which you still ignore -- that the properties are priced post-bubble, not pre-bubble.) And I'm still trying to figure out why you think that this is a liberal vs. conservative issue. People throughout the political spectrum support responsible home ownership and with the controls that are in place, that seems to be what this is. Yoda out... The underlying truth is the same; The government is encouraging (later to be insisting when the the Libtard social engineers get hold of the issue) that lenders lend money to people that would otherwise be UNQUALIFIED to purchase. The only difference between this scheme and others in the past is that the TAXPAYER is guaranteed to get the $#!+ end of the stick when these loans default whereas before the secondary mortgage market assumed some of the risk. Anybody that doesn't have the cash reserve to come up with more than $1000.00 for a down payment is by definition a risk. It's that simple. Look at it this way; If the banks were left to their own devices to determine who and who does not get a loan and they were assuming ALL of the risk, these people wouldn't get loans. With Joe Taxpayer essentially guaranteeing that these institutions are exposed to no moral hazard whatever, it's an easier call for them. This is a CLASSIC example of government policy distorting the market.......again. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 9, 2010 12:33:59 GMT -8
The underlying truth is the same; The government is encouraging (later to be insisting when the the Libtard social engineers get hold of the issue) that lenders lend money to people that would otherwise be UNQUALIFIED to purchase. The only difference between this scheme and others in the past is that the TAXPAYER is guaranteed to get the $#!+ end of the stick when these loans default whereas before the secondary mortgage market assumed some of the risk. Anybody that doesn't have the cash reserve to come up with more than $1000.00 for a down payment is by definition a risk. It's that simple. Look at it this way; If the banks were left to their own devices to determine who and who does not get a loan and they were assuming ALL of the risk, these people wouldn't get loans. With Joe Taxpayer essentially guaranteeing that these institutions are exposed to no moral hazard whatever, it's an easier call for them. This is a CLASSIC example of government policy distorting the market.......again. Okay fine then. When you learn to read, we'll be getting back to you. Until then, ciao dude. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 9, 2010 12:59:29 GMT -8
Liberals are stupid. washingtonindependent.com/93795/the-return-of-the-1000-down-mortgage“Buy new with $1,000 down,” the advertisement says, the words resting atop a trim green clapboard house offset by a bright blue sky. “The time has come. Stop wasting rent check after rent check and start building equity in your own home. And with only $1,000 down, affordable monthly payments and no private mortgage insurance required, the dream is closer than you think.”Really? We're going to do this again? ARE THEY FU%^KING INSANE? I say again: Liberals are stupid Why are you applying "liberal" to this program? Surely you aren't so "stupid" yourself that you think that this is a partisan housing program. Are you? I'd point out two other rather obvious things. First off, $1000 down on a house priced at $800,000 is way riskier than is $1000 down on that same house when it is priced at a "post bubble" $400,000. Or whatever. It's like night and day. Second, if we are going to rebuild the housing industry, we have to start by selling off much of our existing housing inventory. If I'm Fannie Mae (or whomever), I'd much rather take $1000 down and reduce my inventory than I would require $30,000 down and leave the house vacant and exposed to all sorts of potential damage such as vandalism -- to say nothing of the cost of maintaining vacant homes. Yoda out... Fannie Mae, the darling of Dodd and Frank, and their involvement should offer you a clue about the nature and source of this kind of program. I understand the motive of Fannie Mae, it is just that they are setting us up for the same kind of problem that we are trying to work through now. What your argument forgets is that when you have only a grand invested, less than a security deposit, just what do you think the mind set for a lot of these folks will be? It is not sound and it seems like a liberal idea. Yes, liberals are stupid. It is part of the "job description".  |
|
