Senator Boxer’s Response

[meadandale]

As if I needed any more excuses as to why I never have voted for Babs and never will…

[Ren]

I’ll add one. The requirements state:

“Certify that he or she … did not obtain the existing loan fraudulently.”

The whole reason these people are in mortgages they can’t afford is because they lied on the mortgage application. Does “certify” mean they now have to PROVE they didn’t? That would be awesome. I doubt it, though. They probably just have to sign a statement or something.

They should require you to submit a copy of a tax return showing the income as stated on the application. They won’t, because then the program would help almost no one.

[Ren]

I’ll add one. The requirements state:

“Certify that he or she … did not obtain the existing loan fraudulently.”

The whole reason these people are in mortgages they can’t afford is because they lied on the mortgage application. Does “certify” mean they now have to PROVE they didn’t? That would be awesome. I doubt it, though. They probably just have to sign a statement or something.

They should require you to submit a copy of a tax return showing the income as stated on the application. They won’t, because then the program would help almost no one.

[Ren]

I’ll add one. The requirements state:

“Certify that he or she … did not obtain the existing loan fraudulently.”

The whole reason these people are in mortgages they can’t afford is because they lied on the mortgage application. Does “certify” mean they now have to PROVE they didn’t? That would be awesome. I doubt it, though. They probably just have to sign a statement or something.

They should require you to submit a copy of a tax return showing the income as stated on the application. They won’t, because then the program would help almost no one.

[Ren]

I’ll add one. The requirements state:

“Certify that he or she … did not obtain the existing loan fraudulently.”

The whole reason these people are in mortgages they can’t afford is because they lied on the mortgage application. Does “certify” mean they now have to PROVE they didn’t? That would be awesome. I doubt it, though. They probably just have to sign a statement or something.

They should require you to submit a copy of a tax return showing the income as stated on the application. They won’t, because then the program would help almost no one.

[Ren]

I’ll add one. The requirements state:

“Certify that he or she … did not obtain the existing loan fraudulently.”

The whole reason these people are in mortgages they can’t afford is because they lied on the mortgage application. Does “certify” mean they now have to PROVE they didn’t? That would be awesome. I doubt it, though. They probably just have to sign a statement or something.

They should require you to submit a copy of a tax return showing the income as stated on the application. They won’t, because then the program would help almost no one.

[Navydoc]

I also have a bit of a problem with the use of the word “fraudulently” in that particular provision. Is buying a home with an income you lied about with the lenders blessing because you could refinance later fraudulent?

I personally think it is, and it widens the realistic definition of “speculator” as well. I think almost anyone who bought a home between 2003-2006 was “speculating” on future home appreciation, whether they want to admit it or not.

After looking this thing over, I doubt very many people are going to qualify for the program. That’s probably what was intended all along; the pols just want it to seem that they’re doing something useful to save the housing market.

[Navydoc]

I also have a bit of a problem with the use of the word “fraudulently” in that particular provision. Is buying a home with an income you lied about with the lenders blessing because you could refinance later fraudulent?

I personally think it is, and it widens the realistic definition of “speculator” as well. I think almost anyone who bought a home between 2003-2006 was “speculating” on future home appreciation, whether they want to admit it or not.

After looking this thing over, I doubt very many people are going to qualify for the program. That’s probably what was intended all along; the pols just want it to seem that they’re doing something useful to save the housing market.

[Navydoc]

I also have a bit of a problem with the use of the word “fraudulently” in that particular provision. Is buying a home with an income you lied about with the lenders blessing because you could refinance later fraudulent?

I personally think it is, and it widens the realistic definition of “speculator” as well. I think almost anyone who bought a home between 2003-2006 was “speculating” on future home appreciation, whether they want to admit it or not.

After looking this thing over, I doubt very many people are going to qualify for the program. That’s probably what was intended all along; the pols just want it to seem that they’re doing something useful to save the housing market.

[Navydoc]

I also have a bit of a problem with the use of the word “fraudulently” in that particular provision. Is buying a home with an income you lied about with the lenders blessing because you could refinance later fraudulent?

I personally think it is, and it widens the realistic definition of “speculator” as well. I think almost anyone who bought a home between 2003-2006 was “speculating” on future home appreciation, whether they want to admit it or not.

After looking this thing over, I doubt very many people are going to qualify for the program. That’s probably what was intended all along; the pols just want it to seem that they’re doing something useful to save the housing market.

[Navydoc]

I also have a bit of a problem with the use of the word “fraudulently” in that particular provision. Is buying a home with an income you lied about with the lenders blessing because you could refinance later fraudulent?

I personally think it is, and it widens the realistic definition of “speculator” as well. I think almost anyone who bought a home between 2003-2006 was “speculating” on future home appreciation, whether they want to admit it or not.

After looking this thing over, I doubt very many people are going to qualify for the program. That’s probably what was intended all along; the pols just want it to seem that they’re doing something useful to save the housing market.

[bsrsharma]

I am quite pleased with her response and defense of her vote.

I hope everyone realizes that explanation covers only the crumbs. The meat is in the $800 Billion treasury guarantee. The rationale for that is:

Bailing Out the Bank of China

Now that Congress has approved the bailout of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those who voted “yes” are soon going to be asked an uncomfortable question: Why are you taking money from U.S. taxpayers to bail out the Bank of China and other nations’ central banks?…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121734906485393697.html?

[bsrsharma]

I am quite pleased with her response and defense of her vote.

I hope everyone realizes that explanation covers only the crumbs. The meat is in the $800 Billion treasury guarantee. The rationale for that is:

Bailing Out the Bank of China

Now that Congress has approved the bailout of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those who voted “yes” are soon going to be asked an uncomfortable question: Why are you taking money from U.S. taxpayers to bail out the Bank of China and other nations’ central banks?…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121734906485393697.html?

[bsrsharma]

I am quite pleased with her response and defense of her vote.

I hope everyone realizes that explanation covers only the crumbs. The meat is in the $800 Billion treasury guarantee. The rationale for that is:

Bailing Out the Bank of China

Now that Congress has approved the bailout of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those who voted “yes” are soon going to be asked an uncomfortable question: Why are you taking money from U.S. taxpayers to bail out the Bank of China and other nations’ central banks?…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121734906485393697.html?

[bsrsharma]

I am quite pleased with her response and defense of her vote.

I hope everyone realizes that explanation covers only the crumbs. The meat is in the $800 Billion treasury guarantee. The rationale for that is:

Bailing Out the Bank of China

Now that Congress has approved the bailout of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those who voted “yes” are soon going to be asked an uncomfortable question: Why are you taking money from U.S. taxpayers to bail out the Bank of China and other nations’ central banks?…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121734906485393697.html?

[Author]

Posts