whether or not this particular bailout bill goes through doesn’t matter; any bill that represents saving the american dream will be the perfect vehicle for slipping in bridges to nowhere, dirt recycling subsidies, patriot appreciation and recognition day, bibles for babies programs, cigarette taxes to pay for the bibles for babies, welfare for orphaned pets, surveillance cameras for surveillance cameras… and a pay increase for congressmen who vote for a pay increase.
whether or not this particular bailout bill goes through doesn’t matter; any bill that represents saving the american dream will be the perfect vehicle for slipping in bridges to nowhere, dirt recycling subsidies, patriot appreciation and recognition day, bibles for babies programs, cigarette taxes to pay for the bibles for babies, welfare for orphaned pets, surveillance cameras for surveillance cameras… and a pay increase for congressmen who vote for a pay increase.
What concerns me is how much disguised tax money will be used to now back up higher FHA limits for conforming loans. Just think how much money would be lost if all of these loans were conforming. It wouldn't me MBS investors holding the bag, it would be the taxpayers.
SDR, I am a little confused about your using "tax money/taxpayer". Whether FHA or GSE Conforming, I don't see a (large) taxpayer impact. This whole circus is all about redistribution of risk and post facto redistribution of wealth (from lenders to borrowers). One can have justifiable abhorrence at that, but why involve taxpayers in the discussion?
What concerns me is how much disguised tax money will be used to now back up higher FHA limits for conforming loans. Just think how much money would be lost if all of these loans were conforming. It wouldn't me MBS investors holding the bag, it would be the taxpayers.
SDR, I am a little confused about your using "tax money/taxpayer". Whether FHA or GSE Conforming, I don't see a (large) taxpayer impact. This whole circus is all about redistribution of risk and post facto redistribution of wealth (from lenders to borrowers). One can have justifiable abhorrence at that, but why involve taxpayers in the discussion?
BSR the taxpayer impact does not happen until people start defaulting. The FHA is backed up by taxpayer money. Why should any taxpayer money at all be involved in this redistribution of risk.
Better yet BSR… what if all these proposals that are in place now, were in place in 2004? What if the FHA insured subprime loans? My issue is that yes it is a redistribution of risk but why should my tax dollars be involved in this redistribution of risk?
