Obama Admin Serious About Housing Finance Reform?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

I kind of like it though — I’m a lawyer specializing in off-shore business formations.

Capital is fleeing Obamastan and its socialist tax structure by the trillions.

Only an idiot would invest in the USA or hire new people here. Scale down and MOVE. There is no future for Obamastan. [/quote]

As my new Lawyer, of which I have paid nothing to keep you on retainer, which country would you recommend me to move to? I am thinking Australia, or maybe New Zeland but Mak makes moving to New Zeland difficult.[/quote]

The up-and-coming countries are really better. Peru, for example.[/quote]

I would like some choices. I guess the amount of money I am paying you for this advice only allows one option. Are there any places that have pockets of English speakers? I have taken 4 years of spanish, and I really suck at learning other languages. My wife speaks spainish so that might be a plus.

22

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Wait, Obama wants to cut a subsidy, and you CONS are screaming socialism??? WHAT THE F***

Some of you are confused (end quote)

He also wants to tell the bank who to lend to, and force them to charge high interest and high down payments. That is what I was talking about the socialism. If you want we can just say dictator.[/quote]

No, if Obama ends this government subsidy, it could cause a MARKET increase in rates and down payments. This is a good idea, let’s see if he nuts up and follows through with it.[/quote]

I agree with Lanky.

V

23

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

I kind of like it though — I’m a lawyer specializing in off-shore business formations.

Capital is fleeing Obamastan and its socialist tax structure by the trillions.

Only an idiot would invest in the USA or hire new people here. Scale down and MOVE. There is no future for Obamastan. [/quote]

As my new Lawyer, of which I have paid nothing to keep you on retainer, which country would you recommend me to move to? I am thinking Australia, or maybe New Zeland but Mak makes moving to New Zeland difficult.[/quote]

The up-and-coming countries are really better. Peru, for example.[/quote]

I would like some choices. I guess the amount of money I am paying you for this advice only allows one option. Are there any places that have pockets of English speakers? I have taken 4 years of spanish, and I really suck at learning other languages. My wife speaks spainish so that might be a plus.[/quote]

Poland would be my other choice, followed by Georgia. Brazil a distant third.

Any of the former Soviet countries are worth a look.

Look for flat taxes, the “buy-in” for citizenship (lots of times you can just pay and you are a citizen, Peru I think it’s $100K), etc.

Learning a language is easy if you HAVE to.

24

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Wait, Obama wants to cut a subsidy, and you CONS are screaming socialism??? WHAT THE F***

Some of you are confused (end quote)

He also wants to tell the bank who to lend to, and force them to charge high interest and high down payments. That is what I was talking about the socialism. If you want we can just say dictator.[/quote]

No, if Obama ends this government subsidy, it could cause a MARKET increase in rates and down payments. This is a good idea, let’s see if he nuts up and follows through with it.[/quote]

So you favor higher interst. In that case can I interest you in a loan. They are not ending subsidies, they are just switching from owning to renting. Why would they want to do that. In stead of buying a house and paying it off in 15 or 30 yrs, they want you 5to rent for your whole life.

25

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Wait, Obama wants to cut a subsidy, and you CONS are screaming socialism??? WHAT THE F***

Some of you are confused (end quote)

He also wants to tell the bank who to lend to, and force them to charge high interest and high down payments. That is what I was talking about the socialism. If you want we can just say dictator.[/quote]

Where does it say anything about that? The article does not talk about dictating the terms of home loans to private banks. It talks about GOVERNMENT support of home loans. Unless you know something that is not discussed. In which case, I would be interested in seeing it linked here. [/quote]

The administration’s narrower view of who should own a home. this is straight from the article. Who are they to determin who should own a house. As far as telling banks what to do, that was something else I believe the finance bill. I will try to find the article about that and post.

26

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Wait, Obama wants to cut a subsidy, and you CONS are screaming socialism??? WHAT THE F***

Some of you are confused (end quote)

He also wants to tell the bank who to lend to, and force them to charge high interest and high down payments. That is what I was talking about the socialism. If you want we can just say dictator.[/quote]

No, if Obama ends this government subsidy, it could cause a MARKET increase in rates and down payments. This is a good idea, let’s see if he nuts up and follows through with it.[/quote]

So you favor higher interst. In that case can I interest you in a loan. They are not ending subsidies, they are just switching from owning to renting. Why would they want to do that. In stead of buying a house and paying it off in 15 or 30 yrs, they want you 5to rent for your whole life.
[/quote]

sigh

You’re an idiot.

27

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Wait, Obama wants to cut a subsidy, and you CONS are screaming socialism??? WHAT THE F***

Some of you are confused (end quote)

He also wants to tell the bank who to lend to, and force them to charge high interest and high down payments. That is what I was talking about the socialism. If you want we can just say dictator.[/quote]

No, if Obama ends this government subsidy, it could cause a MARKET increase in rates and down payments. This is a good idea, let’s see if he nuts up and follows through with it.[/quote]

So you favor higher interst. In that case can I interest you in a loan. They are not ending subsidies, they are just switching from owning to renting. Why would they want to do that. In stead of buying a house and paying it off in 15 or 30 yrs, they want you 5to rent for your whole life.
[/quote]

sigh

You’re an idiot.
[/quote]

And just to expand, the Clinton and Bush administrations were making it easier for lower income families (read: those who can’t afford to buy a house) to buy houses through subsidies. Lower interest rates, lower down payments, etc. through government programs. Now that the housing market collapsed, the Obama administration is thinking it may not be a good idea to lure lower income families into buying houses when they really can’t afford them. I’m not for higher interest rates or lower interest rates, I’m for letting the MARKET decide what interest rates should be. Setting interest rates which don’t reflect the actual risk of giving the loans doesn’t make any sense and is a good way to get bitten directly on the nutsack.

28

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Wait, Obama wants to cut a subsidy, and you CONS are screaming socialism??? WHAT THE F***

Some of you are confused (end quote)

He also wants to tell the bank who to lend to, and force them to charge high interest and high down payments. That is what I was talking about the socialism. If you want we can just say dictator.[/quote]

Where does it say anything about that? The article does not talk about dictating the terms of home loans to private banks. It talks about GOVERNMENT support of home loans. Unless you know something that is not discussed. In which case, I would be interested in seeing it linked here. [/quote]

The administration’s narrower view of who should own a home. this is straight from the article. Who are they to determin who should own a house. As far as telling banks what to do, that was something else I believe the finance bill. I will try to find the article about that and post.

[/quote]
The problem with the mortgage markets was the left’s fervent belief that everyone had the RIGHT to own a home, and the dem-controlled congress and regulatory agencies required and incentivized banks to lend to unqualified borrowers. Thus the subprime meltdown (at the most basic of levels). If this policy moves away from that, it could be OK.

29

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Wait, Obama wants to cut a subsidy, and you CONS are screaming socialism??? WHAT THE F***

Some of you are confused (end quote)

He also wants to tell the bank who to lend to, and force them to charge high interest and high down payments. That is what I was talking about the socialism. If you want we can just say dictator.[/quote]

No, if Obama ends this government subsidy, it could cause a MARKET increase in rates and down payments. This is a good idea, let’s see if he nuts up and follows through with it.[/quote]

So you favor higher interst. In that case can I interest you in a loan. They are not ending subsidies, they are just switching from owning to renting. Why would they want to do that. In stead of buying a house and paying it off in 15 or 30 yrs, they want you 5to rent for your whole life.
[/quote]

sigh

You’re an idiot.
[/quote]

WOW that is going to be your argument. Some one disagrees with you, gives thier point, and all you can come up with is I am an idiot. Just like may lib, they cant think of any thing else so they attack with remarks like that. Look up idiot, the definition is someone who acts in a self defeating way or a significantly counter productive way. I would say being closed minded and not being able to disagree in a respectful way is counter productive. Dont you think? So who is the idiot, besides you have Danny Tanner as you avatar.

30

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
besides you have Danny Tanner as you avatar.[/quote]

Why doesn’t this sound as insulting as I want it to?

31

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Wait, Obama wants to cut a subsidy, and you CONS are screaming socialism??? WHAT THE F***

Some of you are confused (end quote)

He also wants to tell the bank who to lend to, and force them to charge high interest and high down payments. That is what I was talking about the socialism. If you want we can just say dictator.[/quote]

No, if Obama ends this government subsidy, it could cause a MARKET increase in rates and down payments. This is a good idea, let’s see if he nuts up and follows through with it.[/quote]

So you favor higher interst. In that case can I interest you in a loan. They are not ending subsidies, they are just switching from owning to renting. Why would they want to do that. In stead of buying a house and paying it off in 15 or 30 yrs, they want you 5to rent for your whole life.
[/quote]

sigh

You’re an idiot.
[/quote]

WOW that is going to be your argument. Some one disagrees with you, gives thier point, and all you can come up with is I am an idiot. Just like may lib, they cant think of any thing else so they attack with remarks like that. Look up idiot, the definition is someone who acts in a self defeating way or a significantly counter productive way. I would say being closed minded and not being able to disagree in a respectful way is counter productive. Dont you think? So who is the idiot, besides you have Danny Tanner as you avatar.[/quote]

You know, I also had a post directly beneath the post you quoted elaborating on why I thought you were an idiot. You could respond to that one…you know…if you want.

And 1 more thing. I have no problem with you insulting me, questioning my intelligence or calling me counter productive. But I’ll be damned if I will sit here and let you write negatively about my avatar.

32

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Wait, Obama wants to cut a subsidy, and you CONS are screaming socialism??? WHAT THE F***

Some of you are confused (end quote)

He also wants to tell the bank who to lend to, and force them to charge high interest and high down payments. That is what I was talking about the socialism. If you want we can just say dictator.[/quote]

No, if Obama ends this government subsidy, it could cause a MARKET increase in rates and down payments. This is a good idea, let’s see if he nuts up and follows through with it.[/quote]

So you favor higher interst. In that case can I interest you in a loan. They are not ending subsidies, they are just switching from owning to renting. Why would they want to do that. In stead of buying a house and paying it off in 15 or 30 yrs, they want you 5to rent for your whole life.
[/quote]

sigh

You’re an idiot.
[/quote]

And just to expand, the Clinton and Bush administrations were making it easier for lower income families (read: those who can’t afford to buy a house) to buy houses through subsidies. Lower interest rates, lower down payments, etc. through government programs. Now that the housing market collapsed, the Obama administration is thinking it may not be a good idea to lure lower income families into buying houses when they really can’t afford them. I’m not for higher interest rates or lower interest rates, I’m for letting the MARKET decide what interest rates should be. Setting interest rates which don’t reflect the actual risk of giving the loans doesn’t make any sense and is a good way to get bitten directly on the nutsack.[/quote]

They were not lured to buy a house. Yes the gov made it to where the down payment was lower. and loosened some requirements. The gov, however, did not force the people to buy a house out of thier price range. Like I said before, just because you get approved for $300,000 does not mean you have to buy a house that expensive. That is why I think it is the borrowers fault, they should have used common sense. No one held a gun to thier head and made them buy what they knew deep down they could not afford, so forgive me if I dont cry with you that some moron lost his house because of an evil lender.

As far as your avatar, Im more of a joey gladstone fan myself

33

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Wait, Obama wants to cut a subsidy, and you CONS are screaming socialism??? WHAT THE F***

Some of you are confused (end quote)

He also wants to tell the bank who to lend to, and force them to charge high interest and high down payments. That is what I was talking about the socialism. If you want we can just say dictator.[/quote]

No, if Obama ends this government subsidy, it could cause a MARKET increase in rates and down payments. This is a good idea, let’s see if he nuts up and follows through with it.[/quote]

So you favor higher interst. In that case can I interest you in a loan. They are not ending subsidies, they are just switching from owning to renting. Why would they want to do that. In stead of buying a house and paying it off in 15 or 30 yrs, they want you 5to rent for your whole life.
[/quote]

sigh

You’re an idiot.
[/quote]

And just to expand, the Clinton and Bush administrations were making it easier for lower income families (read: those who can’t afford to buy a house) to buy houses through subsidies. Lower interest rates, lower down payments, etc. through government programs. Now that the housing market collapsed, the Obama administration is thinking it may not be a good idea to lure lower income families into buying houses when they really can’t afford them. I’m not for higher interest rates or lower interest rates, I’m for letting the MARKET decide what interest rates should be. Setting interest rates which don’t reflect the actual risk of giving the loans doesn’t make any sense and is a good way to get bitten directly on the nutsack.[/quote]

They were not lured to buy a house. Yes the gov made it to where the down payment was lower. and loosened some requirements. The gov, however, did not force the people to buy a house out of thier price range. Like I said before, just because you get approved for $300,000 does not mean you have to buy a house that expensive. That is why I think it is the borrowers fault, they should have used common sense. No one held a gun to thier head and made them buy what they knew deep down they could not afford, so forgive me if I dont cry with you that some moron lost his house because of an evil lender.

As far as your avatar, Im more of a joey gladstone fan myself[/quote]

My entire point is let the market decide what interest rates and down payments should be without any interference from the government. The Obama administration is not saying “Hey, we want home ownership to be lower so more people can rent”, they are saying “Hey, maybe the government shouldn’t force higher home ownership %s among people who can’t actually afford them.”

At least that’s what I took from the article. I’m a free market guy, so I’ll favor most anything that more closely resembles a free market and this appears that way.

34

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Wait, Obama wants to cut a subsidy, and you CONS are screaming socialism??? WHAT THE F***

Some of you are confused (end quote)

He also wants to tell the bank who to lend to, and force them to charge high interest and high down payments. That is what I was talking about the socialism. If you want we can just say dictator.[/quote]

No, if Obama ends this government subsidy, it could cause a MARKET increase in rates and down payments. This is a good idea, let’s see if he nuts up and follows through with it.[/quote]

So you favor higher interst. In that case can I interest you in a loan. They are not ending subsidies, they are just switching from owning to renting. Why would they want to do that. In stead of buying a house and paying it off in 15 or 30 yrs, they want you 5to rent for your whole life.
[/quote]

sigh

You’re an idiot.
[/quote]

And just to expand, the Clinton and Bush administrations were making it easier for lower income families (read: those who can’t afford to buy a house) to buy houses through subsidies. Lower interest rates, lower down payments, etc. through government programs. Now that the housing market collapsed, the Obama administration is thinking it may not be a good idea to lure lower income families into buying houses when they really can’t afford them. I’m not for higher interest rates or lower interest rates, I’m for letting the MARKET decide what interest rates should be. Setting interest rates which don’t reflect the actual risk of giving the loans doesn’t make any sense and is a good way to get bitten directly on the nutsack.[/quote]

They were not lured to buy a house. Yes the gov made it to where the down payment was lower. and loosened some requirements. The gov, however, did not force the people to buy a house out of thier price range. Like I said before, just because you get approved for $300,000 does not mean you have to buy a house that expensive. That is why I think it is the borrowers fault, they should have used common sense. No one held a gun to thier head and made them buy what they knew deep down they could not afford, so forgive me if I dont cry with you that some moron lost his house because of an evil lender.

As far as your avatar, Im more of a joey gladstone fan myself[/quote]

Predatory and misleading lending practicfes aside (a whole nother can of worms), who cares that people ALSO bear personal responsibility for their actions. That does not mean that the government should be using taxpayer money to promote irresponsible lending practices that increase the chances of foreclosure, helping to push the economy into a tailspin. There’s no way to spin a change in this policy as a bad thing whatever your politics.

A true libertarian, in fact, would want the government to get the fuck out of the way and let the banks do what they will. With no positive OR negative reinforcement from the government.

35

I am also a free market person, and want the gov to stay out. My point is they are still in the way, just instead of ownership it is renting. They are still going to use tax payers money to subsidise rent. If that is the case I would rather my tax money be used to help some one get a house instead of helping them pay rent for the rest of thier life. I may be wrong, but to me the article sounds like the gov is going to rent houses or apt, and we all know what gov housing looks like