- This topic has 615 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
saiine.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM #674666March 5, 2011 at 3:29 PM #673523
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=paramount]Fortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.[/quote]
Totally agreed, paramount. But those making “low down payments” in the past and then defaulting (either due to hardship or for “strategic” reasons) have made a very tough on those with more honorable intentions who are seeking a low-down payment program today.
I think we would all be better off if 10% of the mortgage market was funded by the gov’t (for the properties “mainstream” lenders don’t want to lend on) and 90% of it was funded directly by local banks, credit unions and private lenders.
March 5, 2011 at 3:29 PM #673581Participant[quote=paramount]Fortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.[/quote]
Totally agreed, paramount. But those making “low down payments” in the past and then defaulting (either due to hardship or for “strategic” reasons) have made a very tough on those with more honorable intentions who are seeking a low-down payment program today.
I think we would all be better off if 10% of the mortgage market was funded by the gov’t (for the properties “mainstream” lenders don’t want to lend on) and 90% of it was funded directly by local banks, credit unions and private lenders.
March 5, 2011 at 3:29 PM #674192Participant[quote=paramount]Fortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.[/quote]
Totally agreed, paramount. But those making “low down payments” in the past and then defaulting (either due to hardship or for “strategic” reasons) have made a very tough on those with more honorable intentions who are seeking a low-down payment program today.
I think we would all be better off if 10% of the mortgage market was funded by the gov’t (for the properties “mainstream” lenders don’t want to lend on) and 90% of it was funded directly by local banks, credit unions and private lenders.
March 5, 2011 at 3:29 PM #674329Participant[quote=paramount]Fortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.[/quote]
Totally agreed, paramount. But those making “low down payments” in the past and then defaulting (either due to hardship or for “strategic” reasons) have made a very tough on those with more honorable intentions who are seeking a low-down payment program today.
I think we would all be better off if 10% of the mortgage market was funded by the gov’t (for the properties “mainstream” lenders don’t want to lend on) and 90% of it was funded directly by local banks, credit unions and private lenders.
March 5, 2011 at 3:29 PM #674676Participant[quote=paramount]Fortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.[/quote]
Totally agreed, paramount. But those making “low down payments” in the past and then defaulting (either due to hardship or for “strategic” reasons) have made a very tough on those with more honorable intentions who are seeking a low-down payment program today.
I think we would all be better off if 10% of the mortgage market was funded by the gov’t (for the properties “mainstream” lenders don’t want to lend on) and 90% of it was funded directly by local banks, credit unions and private lenders.
March 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM #673518sdrealtor
ParticipantI’ll admit to my share of arrogance but IMO the ultimate arrogance is someone trying to dictate how others should live their lives. I am not advocating based upon occupation but rather income plain and simple. Current income, expected stability of income and realistic potential of future income growth.
You gave a laundry list of what-if-s and the answer could and more likely is not relevant to each and every one of them in most cases. Many of these people I know were not born with silver spoons in their mouths. One of my friend’s father was a barber. Under your opinions you would have sent him to trade school. He went to community college, transferred to a state school, got into an Ivy League medical school, then residencies/fellowships at the top instuations in the country and to this day lives relatively modestly. He has had to buy into a partnership, pay off several hundred K in debt on his education and raise a young family. He’s about 40 now and under your model still would be unable to buy a home despite earning about $500K per year. He has none of the issues you listed and has busted his butt to get where he is which is at the top of his highly specialized medical specialty. He deserves a good quality of life, no make that a great quality of life and no one will convince me otherwise. Just to be clear, I know plenty of folks on the other end of the scale also and they deserve to live their lives on their own terms also. I just dont beleive someone like you should be dictating the terms for them.
As for the comment that ..I cant help it if my week beats your year (BTW, its one of my favorite Lou Reed quotes)… well I wasnt talking about income.
March 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM #673576ParticipantI’ll admit to my share of arrogance but IMO the ultimate arrogance is someone trying to dictate how others should live their lives. I am not advocating based upon occupation but rather income plain and simple. Current income, expected stability of income and realistic potential of future income growth.
You gave a laundry list of what-if-s and the answer could and more likely is not relevant to each and every one of them in most cases. Many of these people I know were not born with silver spoons in their mouths. One of my friend’s father was a barber. Under your opinions you would have sent him to trade school. He went to community college, transferred to a state school, got into an Ivy League medical school, then residencies/fellowships at the top instuations in the country and to this day lives relatively modestly. He has had to buy into a partnership, pay off several hundred K in debt on his education and raise a young family. He’s about 40 now and under your model still would be unable to buy a home despite earning about $500K per year. He has none of the issues you listed and has busted his butt to get where he is which is at the top of his highly specialized medical specialty. He deserves a good quality of life, no make that a great quality of life and no one will convince me otherwise. Just to be clear, I know plenty of folks on the other end of the scale also and they deserve to live their lives on their own terms also. I just dont beleive someone like you should be dictating the terms for them.
As for the comment that ..I cant help it if my week beats your year (BTW, its one of my favorite Lou Reed quotes)… well I wasnt talking about income.
March 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM #674187ParticipantI’ll admit to my share of arrogance but IMO the ultimate arrogance is someone trying to dictate how others should live their lives. I am not advocating based upon occupation but rather income plain and simple. Current income, expected stability of income and realistic potential of future income growth.
You gave a laundry list of what-if-s and the answer could and more likely is not relevant to each and every one of them in most cases. Many of these people I know were not born with silver spoons in their mouths. One of my friend’s father was a barber. Under your opinions you would have sent him to trade school. He went to community college, transferred to a state school, got into an Ivy League medical school, then residencies/fellowships at the top instuations in the country and to this day lives relatively modestly. He has had to buy into a partnership, pay off several hundred K in debt on his education and raise a young family. He’s about 40 now and under your model still would be unable to buy a home despite earning about $500K per year. He has none of the issues you listed and has busted his butt to get where he is which is at the top of his highly specialized medical specialty. He deserves a good quality of life, no make that a great quality of life and no one will convince me otherwise. Just to be clear, I know plenty of folks on the other end of the scale also and they deserve to live their lives on their own terms also. I just dont beleive someone like you should be dictating the terms for them.
As for the comment that ..I cant help it if my week beats your year (BTW, its one of my favorite Lou Reed quotes)… well I wasnt talking about income.
March 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM #674324ParticipantI’ll admit to my share of arrogance but IMO the ultimate arrogance is someone trying to dictate how others should live their lives. I am not advocating based upon occupation but rather income plain and simple. Current income, expected stability of income and realistic potential of future income growth.
You gave a laundry list of what-if-s and the answer could and more likely is not relevant to each and every one of them in most cases. Many of these people I know were not born with silver spoons in their mouths. One of my friend’s father was a barber. Under your opinions you would have sent him to trade school. He went to community college, transferred to a state school, got into an Ivy League medical school, then residencies/fellowships at the top instuations in the country and to this day lives relatively modestly. He has had to buy into a partnership, pay off several hundred K in debt on his education and raise a young family. He’s about 40 now and under your model still would be unable to buy a home despite earning about $500K per year. He has none of the issues you listed and has busted his butt to get where he is which is at the top of his highly specialized medical specialty. He deserves a good quality of life, no make that a great quality of life and no one will convince me otherwise. Just to be clear, I know plenty of folks on the other end of the scale also and they deserve to live their lives on their own terms also. I just dont beleive someone like you should be dictating the terms for them.
As for the comment that ..I cant help it if my week beats your year (BTW, its one of my favorite Lou Reed quotes)… well I wasnt talking about income.
March 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM #674671ParticipantI’ll admit to my share of arrogance but IMO the ultimate arrogance is someone trying to dictate how others should live their lives. I am not advocating based upon occupation but rather income plain and simple. Current income, expected stability of income and realistic potential of future income growth.
You gave a laundry list of what-if-s and the answer could and more likely is not relevant to each and every one of them in most cases. Many of these people I know were not born with silver spoons in their mouths. One of my friend’s father was a barber. Under your opinions you would have sent him to trade school. He went to community college, transferred to a state school, got into an Ivy League medical school, then residencies/fellowships at the top instuations in the country and to this day lives relatively modestly. He has had to buy into a partnership, pay off several hundred K in debt on his education and raise a young family. He’s about 40 now and under your model still would be unable to buy a home despite earning about $500K per year. He has none of the issues you listed and has busted his butt to get where he is which is at the top of his highly specialized medical specialty. He deserves a good quality of life, no make that a great quality of life and no one will convince me otherwise. Just to be clear, I know plenty of folks on the other end of the scale also and they deserve to live their lives on their own terms also. I just dont beleive someone like you should be dictating the terms for them.
As for the comment that ..I cant help it if my week beats your year (BTW, its one of my favorite Lou Reed quotes)… well I wasnt talking about income.
March 5, 2011 at 3:47 PM #673528davelj
Participant[quote=paramount]Fortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.[/quote]
It’s rare that I see a veiled ad hominem attack and a straw man argument all rolled up into one sentence. So, congratulations. Sound underwriting has nothing to do with gentrification.
I will assume that since you avoided addressing my charge of hypocrisy in my previous post that you’ll concede the point.
[quote=paramount]
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.[/quote]Another straw man argument. No one said it did. And, for the record, “sub prime” loans can be soundly underwritten. In recent years folks simply chose not to do that.
March 5, 2011 at 3:47 PM #673586Participant[quote=paramount]Fortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.[/quote]
It’s rare that I see a veiled ad hominem attack and a straw man argument all rolled up into one sentence. So, congratulations. Sound underwriting has nothing to do with gentrification.
I will assume that since you avoided addressing my charge of hypocrisy in my previous post that you’ll concede the point.
[quote=paramount]
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.[/quote]Another straw man argument. No one said it did. And, for the record, “sub prime” loans can be soundly underwritten. In recent years folks simply chose not to do that.
March 5, 2011 at 3:47 PM #674197Participant[quote=paramount]Fortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.[/quote]
It’s rare that I see a veiled ad hominem attack and a straw man argument all rolled up into one sentence. So, congratulations. Sound underwriting has nothing to do with gentrification.
I will assume that since you avoided addressing my charge of hypocrisy in my previous post that you’ll concede the point.
[quote=paramount]
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.[/quote]Another straw man argument. No one said it did. And, for the record, “sub prime” loans can be soundly underwritten. In recent years folks simply chose not to do that.
March 5, 2011 at 3:47 PM #674334Participant[quote=paramount]Fortunately the mortgage market – 90% or more of which are funded by the gov’t doesn’t work the way hard liners interested in gentrification would like it to.[/quote]
It’s rare that I see a veiled ad hominem attack and a straw man argument all rolled up into one sentence. So, congratulations. Sound underwriting has nothing to do with gentrification.
I will assume that since you avoided addressing my charge of hypocrisy in my previous post that you’ll concede the point.
[quote=paramount]
Low down payment does not equal sub prime.[/quote]Another straw man argument. No one said it did. And, for the record, “sub prime” loans can be soundly underwritten. In recent years folks simply chose not to do that.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.