motocat12 Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 The Obama administration proposes the HomeReady program, a new mortgage program largely targeting high-risk immigrants, which, writes Investors.com, “for the first time lets lenders qualify borrowers by counting income from nonborrowers living in the household Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zx3vfr Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 And of course the lenders will be threatened with discriminatin lawsuits if they don't approve everyone without a social security number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 So essentially lenders are calling in one last favor before he leaves office. Thank you money in politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motocat12 Posted January 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 And I suspect the supreme court ruling" They can't be deported: They're landowners." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMMW Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Low income persons can now more easily purchase in low income neighborhoods? I'm not sure what the issue would be. "Haji" already owns a home and a Convenient store. He's not going to be participating. He's figured out how to sell milk for $5.00 a gallon. I don't believe this program is crafted for immigrants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motocat12 Posted January 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 They're calculating non-cosigning "resident" income as.. borower income. So they're over-extending credit again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 This is a bad idea. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 They're calculating non-cosigning "resident" income as.. borower income. So they're over-extending credit againExactly. It is a problem of too much money still looking for returns so why not go after the same people they did 10-15 years ago. Last time it just didn't matter what you put down for income if you even had any, now they just let you add everyone and their grandmas income until you get to the magic number. Who needs logical, conservative, enforced regulation of the banking and lending industry? I mean what could go wrong self policing? So frustrating that we the people keep doing this to ourselves. Ultimately WE elect these politicians that are owned by their financiers. In this case it is the president but you could rattle off a list of things congress has done in this same vein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Two more years.. I only have two more years of this shit and then it's all over. This? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Good thing Washington did something about this last time with Cash for Clunkers, bailing out banks, bailing out UAW and Detroit, bailing out everyone but the middle-class... again. Two more years.. I only have two more years of this shit and then it's all over. Well the middle class doesn't bank roll those politicians so why in the heck should their interests be represented by their representative they elect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Well the middle class doesn't bank roll those politicians so why in the heck should their interests be represented by their representative they elect? Mechanically, that's what special interest groups are for - to collectively organize coherent representation of particular interests. They're like unions in that they collectively "bargain" for those setting the agenda and writing the checks. And they're evil if they lobby for things each of us is individually against. Do you like guns? TThen the NRA is an awesome flexion of gun owner's interests. Hate guns? NRA is an evil stranglehold on the political process. Like credit liquidity? Then financial lobbies are wonderful because they stabilize operating room. Hate the abuse of financial markets? Then they're and insidious influence that colludes government with capitalism. It's how it all works. It's all situational bias. It's messy and expensive. It's en-vogue to spit "community organizer" as one of the worst pejoratives a conservative can say, but community organization works just like any other special interest group - by identifying, tapping and mobilizing shared perceptions of interest. Sometimes I think conservatives spit the term because they know deep down that conservatives haven't been that great at it as of late, yet the Tea Party was starting to catch onto the mechanics a couple presidential elections ago, then somehow lost steam, or leadership, or just corroded to rust like every collective does if not continually fed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Mechanically, that's what special interest groups are for - to collectively organize coherent representation of particular interests. They're like unions in that they collectively "bargain" for those setting the agenda and writing the checks. And they're evil if they lobby for things each of us is individually against. Do you like guns? TThen the NRA is an awesome flexion of gun owner's interests. Hate guns? NRA is an evil stranglehold on the political process. Like credit liquidity? Then financial lobbies are wonderful because they stabilize operating room. Hate the abuse of financial markets? Then they're and insidious influence that colludes government with capitalism. It's how it all works. It's all situational bias. It's messy and expensive. It's en-vogue to spit "community organizer" as one of the worst pejoratives a conservative can say, but community organization works just like any other special interest group - by identifying, tapping and mobilizing shared perceptions of interest. Sometimes I think conservatives spit the term because they know deep down that conservatives haven't been that great at it as of late, yet the Tea Party was starting to catch onto the mechanics a couple presidential elections ago, then somehow lost steam, or leadership, or just corroded to rust like every collective does if not continually fed.Those orgs still buy votes. My point is unless you buy a politician they are not representing you. Votes should count more than money but that isn't our system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Those orgs still buy votes. My point is unless you buy a politician they are not representing you. Votes should count more than money but that isn't our system. Agreed, and maybe back in the early days of our republic, coarsely-grained representation worked well enough on its own. You could sort of trust a representative to act in your interests without consulting you for every detail. But today, I think that's an unrealistically simplistic expectation because there are SO many details to weigh in on. We went from less than a million citizens to 323 million and added a whole industrial age, an information age and globalization that couldn't have been envisioned at the time (or if it was, it just wouldn't have been time to pre-scale). Today, we elect people with pre-disposed biased representing, in VERY coarsely-grained ways, what probably are our interests. Then we are responsible for investing in special interest groups to apply specific pressure on specific political opportunities. Yes, it biases the game towards those who have money, but at the same time, it can be argues that those with money are the ones with the greatest engagement in national interests and thus an interest in lawmaking. These days, if you like to knit, you'd better join a knitting lobby, because someone somewhere is thinking about regulating knitting needles. Because of this logic, I'm seriously thinking about re-upping my American Motorcycle Association membership. An eponomous Aeronautic Modelling Association fought hard against the FAA's requirements to register flying things over 1/2 pound, and although they lost on many points, they did win on a few. Similarly, I anticipate potential blowback from the Oregon ranger's actions which may further remove trails available for ADV/enduro motorcycle rides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 Agreed, and maybe back in the early days of our republic, coarsely-grained representation worked well enough on its own. You could sort of trust a representative to act in your interests without consulting you for every detail. But today, I think that's an unrealistically simplistic expectation because there are SO many details to weigh in on. We went from less than a million citizens to 323 million and added a whole industrial age, an information age and globalization that couldn't have been envisioned at the time (or if it was, it just wouldn't have been time to pre-scale). Today, we elect people with pre-disposed biased representing, in VERY coarsely-grained ways, what probably are our interests. Then we are responsible for investing in special interest groups to apply specific pressure on specific political opportunities. Yes, it biases the game towards those who have money, but at the same time, it can be argues that those with money are the ones with the greatest engagement in national interests and thus an interest in lawmaking. These days, if you like to knit, you'd better join a knitting lobby, because someone somewhere is thinking about regulating knitting needles. Because of this logic, I'm seriously thinking about re-upping my American Motorcycle Association membership. An eponomous Aeronautic Modelling Association fought hard against the FAA's requirements to register flying things over 1/2 pound, and although they lost on many points, they did win on a few. Similarly, I anticipate potential blowback from the Oregon ranger's actions which may further remove trails available for ADV/enduro motorcycle rides.I hear what you are saying but I would argue that those without money have a significant interest in lawmaking as well. If these same people could influence their lawmakers in the same way as those with money we might not have an African dictatorship level of wealth inequality. Money has moved this country for a long time. Why do you think marijuana is illegal? Why do you think automobiles have more rights to the road than pedestrians or bicycles? Do the research and you'll come to the unfortunate conclusion that our precious republic has been bought and sold damn near since its founding. I'm not so naive as to think this hasn't been going on for a long long time. I am just an idealist I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie14 Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 I need to re-read the constitution. I must have glossed over the section about government responsibility for wealth redistribution and guaranteeing everyone owning their own home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 I need to re-read the constitution. I must have glossed over the section about government responsibility for wealth redistribution and guaranteeing everyone owning their own home. It's right beside the word "musket." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 I need to re-read the constitution. I must have glossed over the section about government responsibility for wealth redistribution and guaranteeing everyone owning their own home.The Declaration includes the words "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That could be construed for the first part of those maybe not so much the second. The current situation in the US could be argued very well to be inhibitive to the first and the last of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 Completely expected turn of events. Housing bubble would have to come back. Too many people up and down the chain from agent to lender to DC, made too much money to not try doing it again. Certain buyers will become victims again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 Completely expected turn of events. Housing bubble would have to come back. Too many people up and down the chain from agent to lender to DC, made too much money to not try doing it again. Certain buyers will become victims again. This time, home valuations will likely be much less frothy as banks want to hedge their repossession risks and investors know to look out for this kind of exposure now. That wasn't the case in 2007 leading up to the 2008 crash. There are also higher loan loss reserve requirements in place for every lender, so there should be less systemic risk if this happens again. I'm not saying there's isn't significant risk, but more that I'm agreeing that certain buyers (and their direct lenders) will be held more accountable than the last round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 This time, home valuations will likely be much less frothy as banks want to hedge their repossession risks and investors know to look out for this kind of exposure now. That wasn't the case in 2007 leading up to the 2008 crash. There are also higher loan loss reserve requirements in place for every lender, so there should be less systemic risk if this happens again. I'm not saying there's isn't significant risk, but more that I'm agreeing that certain buyers (and their direct lenders) will be held more accountable than the last round.We can hope. Although I would be all for a crash in CO in about 2 years so I could afford to go back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie14 Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 The Declaration includes the words "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That could be construed for the first part of those maybe not so much the second. The current situation in the US could be argued very well to be inhibitive to the first and the last of those.Isn't wealth redistribution the opposite of liberty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 We can hope. Although I would be all for a crash in CO in about 2 years so I could afford to go back. I like your thinking, provided you don't have a home to sell if/when the crash occurs and your cash and credit sources aren't tied to market indexes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 Isn't wealth redistribution the opposite of liberty? It is, unless it's my freedom to happily take liberties with your wealth! {Drum roll} Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 Isn't wealth redistribution the opposite of liberty?Depends on your definition. However wealth redistribution would not be an issue if the rules of the game hadn't been changed and the social contract broken. I would argue large wealth redistribution is a penalty for breaking that contract. One I would say is deserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie14 Posted January 22, 2016 Report Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) Depends on your definition. However wealth redistribution would not be an issue if the rules of the game hadn't been changed and the social contract broken. I would argue large wealth redistribution is a penalty for breaking that contract. One I would say is deserved.I think there is a word for the government redistributing wealth and economic resources as it sees fit, and it certainly is not in the constitution. Edited January 22, 2016 by Connie14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.