I don't have a problem with his intentions, but why is it that the government has to guarentee the protections?
Why not just create a structured scale on the banks instead? Place the burden on the banks, ensure the loans, and give the banks the ability to set REASONABLE interest rates pursuant to credit solvency and ability to pay.
All he appears to do from this is set up more homeowners into situations they may not ultimately be able to afford and set up future bank bailouts.
I don't have a problem with his intentions, but why is it that the government has to guarentee the protections?
Why not just create a structured scale on the banks instead? Place the burden on the banks, ensure the loans, and give the banks the ability to set REASONABLE interest rates pursuant to credit solvency and ability to pay.
All he appears to do from this is set up more homeowners into situations they may not ultimately be able to afford and set up future bank bailouts.
The idea is to prevent mass foreclosures.
Why you ask?
Well, pretend that you are a homeowner instead of renting in your parent's guestroom.
Imagine what happens to the value of your home if there are mass foreclosures. No guess what you can't do with that reduced value? You got it...borrow and sell, from the largest asset that 90% of the population has...their home.
The idea is to prevent mass foreclosures.
Why you ask?
Well, pretend that you are a homeowner instead of renting in your parent's guestroom.
Imagine what happens to the value of your home if there are mass foreclosures. No guess what you can't do with that reduced value? You got it...borrow and sell, from the largest asset that 90% of the population has...their home.
I don't have a problem with his intentions, but why is it that the government has to guarentee the protections?
Why not just create a structured scale on the banks instead? Place the burden on the banks, ensure the loans, and give the banks the ability to set REASONABLE interest rates pursuant to credit solvency and ability to pay.
All he appears to do from this is set up more homeowners into situations they may not ultimately be able to afford and set up future bank bailouts.
I don't have a problem with his intentions, but why is it that the government has to guarentee the protections?
Why not just create a structured scale on the banks instead? Place the burden on the banks, ensure the loans, and give the banks the ability to set REASONABLE interest rates pursuant to credit solvency and ability to pay.
All he appears to do from this is set up more homeowners into situations they may not ultimately be able to afford and set up future bank bailouts.
The idea is to prevent mass foreclosures.
Why you ask?
Well, pretend that you are a homeowner instead of renting in your parent's guestroom.
Imagine what happens to the value of your home if there are mass foreclosures. No guess what you can't do with that reduced value? You got it...borrow and sell, from the largest asset that 90% of the population has...their home.
The idea is to prevent mass foreclosures.
Why you ask?
Well, pretend that you are a homeowner instead of renting in your parent's guestroom.
Imagine what happens to the value of your home if there are mass foreclosures. No guess what you can't do with that reduced value? You got it...borrow and sell, from the largest asset that 90% of the population has...their home.
Together, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA own or guarantee nine out 10 new U.S. home loans
doesnt that basically mean that tax payer money guarantees these?
Republicans have also rejected Obama's call to pay for the program with a bank tax that Congress has turned down twice before.
Does any one think a tax on banks would be passed on to consumers and businesses?
And I agree, the banks should hold the bag but it also starts at the individual level - ppl need to be responsible for their actions and know what they are signing when they buy a house. The economy will rebound and the housing market will correct itself. Should the goverment really step in and try to correct the pendulum?
Together, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA own or guarantee nine out 10 new U.S. home loans
doesnt that basically mean that tax payer money guarantees these?
Republicans have also rejected Obama's call to pay for the program with a bank tax that Congress has turned down twice before.
Does any one think a tax on banks would be passed on to consumers and businesses?
And I agree, the banks should hold the bag but it also starts at the individual level - ppl need to be responsible for their actions and know what they are signing when they buy a house. The economy will rebound and the housing market will correct itself. Should the goverment really step in and try to correct the pendulum?
Perhaps you should re-read my initial comments. I certainly did not advocate for major government involvement.
I am suggesting that the government can do things that will reduce foreclosures.
Notice why you didn't respond to my assertion on those? Do you know why that is?
Perhaps you should re-read my initial comments. I certainly did not advocate for major government involvement.
I am suggesting that the government can do things that will reduce foreclosures.
Notice why you didn't respond to my assertion on those? Do you know why that is?
and wait a second
this program is for people who are current on their payments but are underwater. OK, if they have a mortgage, are current on their payments, why do they need a goverment backed relief program?
They cant refi bc they owe more than the value of their house but they could afford the payments when the purchased the house so unless they have lost a job etc why does the govt (we) need to back their loan so they can refi??
what am I missing?
and wait a second
this program is for people who are current on their payments but are underwater. OK, if they have a mortgage, are current on their payments, why do they need a goverment backed relief program?
They cant refi bc they owe more than the value of their house but they could afford the payments when the purchased the house so unless they have lost a job etc why does the govt (we) need to back their loan so they can refi??
what am I missing?
and wait a second
this program is for people who are current on their payments but are underwater. OK, if they have a mortgage, are current on their payments, why do they need a goverment backed relief program?
They cant refi bc they owe more than the value of their house but they could afford the payments when the purchased the house so unless they have lost a job etc why does the govt (we) need to back their loan so they can refi??
what am I missing?
As I understand, the proposal pretty much applies to anyone, and is not limited to those who are behind or underwater. It is more about saving families money.
As I said, i agree with the intent, but not as the government providing insurance to the banks. If a family can refinance and save $1000 per year as opposed to $3000, but it creates less potential cost to the government (because the banks do not need to refinance as many to compensate for less money being paid), I think it makes more sense.
and wait a second
this program is for people who are current on their payments but are underwater. OK, if they have a mortgage, are current on their payments, why do they need a goverment backed relief program?
They cant refi bc they owe more than the value of their house but they could afford the payments when the purchased the house so unless they have lost a job etc why does the govt (we) need to back their loan so they can refi??
what am I missing?
As I understand, the proposal pretty much applies to anyone, and is not limited to those who are behind or underwater. It is more about saving families money.
As I said, i agree with the intent, but not as the government providing insurance to the banks. If a family can refinance and save $1000 per year as opposed to $3000, but it creates less potential cost to the government (because the banks do not need to refinance as many to compensate for less money being paid), I think it makes more sense.
The banks should have had incentives as a condition of the bailouts to act as banks. Lending only to those who have an 800 credit score and above is ridiculous.
The banks have a strong incentive to reduce foreclosures as well. They merely lessen the asset solvency of those who do indeed have higher credit scores.
As I said earlier, there is a middle ground between giving too much and not giving at all.
The banks should have had incentives as a condition of the bailouts to act as banks. Lending only to those who have an 800 credit score and above is ridiculous.
The banks have a strong incentive to reduce foreclosures as well. They merely lessen the asset solvency of those who do indeed have higher credit scores.
As I said earlier, there is a middle ground between giving too much and not giving at all.
i agree, 800 and is a bit high
didnt we already give the banks a shit load of cash that they are basically sitting on?
if someone has a higher credit score than they are less of a risk and the banks dont need to worry as much about their solvency whether or not their home is underwater or not.
I am just struggling with the question of what incentive there is for banks to take on this type of plan on their own "goodwill"
I am not saying its a bad thing - more money in the consumers pocket is a good thing but what would motivate a bank to refi a loan for someone who has been making payments and probably will continue to make their payments?
If the banks do not have a monetary incentive they wont do it. If the govt guarantees it then they prob would be more inclined to do it because they just dumped more loans onto the feds (you and I)
i agree, 800 and is a bit high
didnt we already give the banks a shit load of cash that they are basically sitting on?
if someone has a higher credit score than they are less of a risk and the banks dont need to worry as much about their solvency whether or not their home is underwater or not.
I am just struggling with the question of what incentive there is for banks to take on this type of plan on their own "goodwill"
I am not saying its a bad thing - more money in the consumers pocket is a good thing but what would motivate a bank to refi a loan for someone who has been making payments and probably will continue to make their payments?
If the banks do not have a monetary incentive they wont do it. If the govt guarantees it then they prob would be more inclined to do it because they just dumped more loans onto the feds (you and I)
These underwater homeowners converted equity they had in their homes into cash to spend it on other stuff... Home equity loans reduce the cushion borrowers have against price declines....
More than 40% of all underwater homeowners (4.5 million) have home equity loans............
So it's only "Fair" that taxpayers who didn't put themselves in this position should share the burden ...and pay their fair share for those who "acted foolishly"... "it's only fair ...level the playing field ...
These underwater homeowners converted equity they had in their homes into cash to spend it on other stuff... Home equity loans reduce the cushion borrowers have against price declines....
More than 40% of all underwater homeowners (4.5 million) have home equity loans............
So it's only "Fair" that taxpayers who didn't put themselves in this position should share the burden ...and pay their fair share for those who "acted foolishly"... "it's only fair ...level the playing field ...
These underwater homeowners converted equity they had in their homes into cash to spend it on other stuff... Home equity loans reduce the cushion borrowers have against price declines....
More than 40% of all underwater homeowners (4.5 million) have home equity loans............
So it's only "Fair" that taxpayers who didn't put themselves in this position should share the burden ...and pay their fair share for those who "acted foolishly"... "it's only fair ...level the playing field ...
is this factual Slim?
if it is I am feeling kinda queasy
These underwater homeowners converted equity they had in their homes into cash to spend it on other stuff... Home equity loans reduce the cushion borrowers have against price declines....
More than 40% of all underwater homeowners (4.5 million) have home equity loans............
So it's only "Fair" that taxpayers who didn't put themselves in this position should share the burden ...and pay their fair share for those who "acted foolishly"... "it's only fair ...level the playing field ...
is this factual Slim?
if it is I am feeling kinda queasy
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.