Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
Participant[quote=HLS]In a society where the govt encourages spending if it took 20% down and 30% debt ratios to qualify for a mortgage, you would see home prices much, much lower, but that just wouldn’t be good for an artificial, phony economy. Don’t expect to see it anytime soon.[/quote]
Too true. The problem is so obvious, yet the PTB refuse to stop. Your solution would remove the punch completely and get everyone to face reality sober, but they just crank up the music and add some new flavors of intoxication to keep the party going, way after it stopped making any sense or being any fun.
This slight pullback in the FHA spigot is only being considered. If it would lead to any appreciable reduction in crazy loans, it will be repealed. The goal is to keep home prices high, no matter what.
Participant[quote=HLS]In a society where the govt encourages spending if it took 20% down and 30% debt ratios to qualify for a mortgage, you would see home prices much, much lower, but that just wouldn’t be good for an artificial, phony economy. Don’t expect to see it anytime soon.[/quote]
Too true. The problem is so obvious, yet the PTB refuse to stop. Your solution would remove the punch completely and get everyone to face reality sober, but they just crank up the music and add some new flavors of intoxication to keep the party going, way after it stopped making any sense or being any fun.
This slight pullback in the FHA spigot is only being considered. If it would lead to any appreciable reduction in crazy loans, it will be repealed. The goal is to keep home prices high, no matter what.
Participant[quote=HLS]In a society where the govt encourages spending if it took 20% down and 30% debt ratios to qualify for a mortgage, you would see home prices much, much lower, but that just wouldn’t be good for an artificial, phony economy. Don’t expect to see it anytime soon.[/quote]
Too true. The problem is so obvious, yet the PTB refuse to stop. Your solution would remove the punch completely and get everyone to face reality sober, but they just crank up the music and add some new flavors of intoxication to keep the party going, way after it stopped making any sense or being any fun.
This slight pullback in the FHA spigot is only being considered. If it would lead to any appreciable reduction in crazy loans, it will be repealed. The goal is to keep home prices high, no matter what.
Participant[quote=patb]I suspect that the banks aren’t writing new mortgages
unless they are just darned sure they are
going to get paid off.[/quote]Banks are only making loans that they can re-sell to the govt (FHA, FNM, etc). The govt is buying without regard to responsible minimum downpayments etc., and is making virtually unlimited amounts available.
In other words, what banks are doing now has nothing to do with the risks – the risks are being dumped on future taxpayers.
Participant[quote=patb]I suspect that the banks aren’t writing new mortgages
unless they are just darned sure they are
going to get paid off.[/quote]Banks are only making loans that they can re-sell to the govt (FHA, FNM, etc). The govt is buying without regard to responsible minimum downpayments etc., and is making virtually unlimited amounts available.
In other words, what banks are doing now has nothing to do with the risks – the risks are being dumped on future taxpayers.
Participant[quote=patb]I suspect that the banks aren’t writing new mortgages
unless they are just darned sure they are
going to get paid off.[/quote]Banks are only making loans that they can re-sell to the govt (FHA, FNM, etc). The govt is buying without regard to responsible minimum downpayments etc., and is making virtually unlimited amounts available.
In other words, what banks are doing now has nothing to do with the risks – the risks are being dumped on future taxpayers.
Participant[quote=patb]I suspect that the banks aren’t writing new mortgages
unless they are just darned sure they are
going to get paid off.[/quote]Banks are only making loans that they can re-sell to the govt (FHA, FNM, etc). The govt is buying without regard to responsible minimum downpayments etc., and is making virtually unlimited amounts available.
In other words, what banks are doing now has nothing to do with the risks – the risks are being dumped on future taxpayers.
Participant[quote=patb]I suspect that the banks aren’t writing new mortgages
unless they are just darned sure they are
going to get paid off.[/quote]Banks are only making loans that they can re-sell to the govt (FHA, FNM, etc). The govt is buying without regard to responsible minimum downpayments etc., and is making virtually unlimited amounts available.
In other words, what banks are doing now has nothing to do with the risks – the risks are being dumped on future taxpayers.
ParticipantCA Renter, I think you and davelj are speaking at cross-purposes. He is hypothesizing that the majority of women who want kids also want to be supported financially by the father.
When you speak about how it’s justified for women to get support, because child-rearing is expensive, you’re actually arguing in support of his hypothesis.
ParticipantCA Renter, I think you and davelj are speaking at cross-purposes. He is hypothesizing that the majority of women who want kids also want to be supported financially by the father.
When you speak about how it’s justified for women to get support, because child-rearing is expensive, you’re actually arguing in support of his hypothesis.
ParticipantCA Renter, I think you and davelj are speaking at cross-purposes. He is hypothesizing that the majority of women who want kids also want to be supported financially by the father.
When you speak about how it’s justified for women to get support, because child-rearing is expensive, you’re actually arguing in support of his hypothesis.
ParticipantCA Renter, I think you and davelj are speaking at cross-purposes. He is hypothesizing that the majority of women who want kids also want to be supported financially by the father.
When you speak about how it’s justified for women to get support, because child-rearing is expensive, you’re actually arguing in support of his hypothesis.
ParticipantCA Renter, I think you and davelj are speaking at cross-purposes. He is hypothesizing that the majority of women who want kids also want to be supported financially by the father.
When you speak about how it’s justified for women to get support, because child-rearing is expensive, you’re actually arguing in support of his hypothesis.
November 30, 2009 at 5:19 PM in reply to: Reporter who challenged the Feds secrecy found dead #488468Participant[quote=Eugene]Very few people can pull off an “audit the Fed” bill.[/quote]
I don’t agree with many of his political opinions, but I share Ron Paul’s skepticism of our asset bubble/financial/govt complex. As for RP’s audit-the-Fed provision in a bill, Barney Frank has already promised he would neuter it before it became law. And he will.
-
AuthorPosts
