- This topic has 30 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
SD Realtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 10, 2007 at 6:32 PM #87916October 10, 2007 at 6:32 PM #87921
drunkle
Participantwhether 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.
October 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM #87919kewp
ParticipantYou forget the cynicism tax, drunkle!
October 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM #87922ParticipantYou forget the cynicism tax, drunkle!
October 10, 2007 at 6:46 PM #87920Bugs
ParticipantUmmm, I think that would be a surtax that gets added to all the other taxes.
October 10, 2007 at 6:46 PM #87925ParticipantUmmm, I think that would be a surtax that gets added to all the other taxes.
October 10, 2007 at 6:48 PM #87923bsrsharma
ParticipantWhat 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?
October 10, 2007 at 6:48 PM #87927ParticipantWhat 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?
October 10, 2007 at 6:57 PM #87926LookoutBelow
ParticipantDoesnt matter….PLUS it'll never happen
October 10, 2007 at 6:57 PM #87930ParticipantDoesnt matter….PLUS it'll never happen
October 10, 2007 at 7:05 PM #87929Participant“You forget the cynicism tax, drunkle!”
it’s included in the ‘create a department of trust thy government or else’ provision of the ‘support happiness and well being’ rider.
i’d be so broke if that happened…
October 10, 2007 at 7:05 PM #87933Participant“You forget the cynicism tax, drunkle!”
it’s included in the ‘create a department of trust thy government or else’ provision of the ‘support happiness and well being’ rider.
i’d be so broke if that happened…
October 10, 2007 at 7:06 PM #87931ParticipantAs far as I’m concerned, the interest rate cuts and ensuing inflation are the bailout.
And everyone is paying for it.
October 10, 2007 at 7:06 PM #87935ParticipantAs far as I’m concerned, the interest rate cuts and ensuing inflation are the bailout.
And everyone is paying for it.
October 10, 2007 at 11:12 PM #87985SD Realtor
ParticipantBSR 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?
Do you see what I am saying?
SD Realtor
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.