You really are a moron. Are you aware of that? I'm not asking whether or not you agree, because clearly you're too dishonest to admit it. What I'm asking is whether or not you're aware of it. Whether or not somewhere deep, deep down in that half-consciousness the indulgent allow you to refer to as an intellect you possess a sufficient degree of self-awareness to realize that you are, in fact, a titanic, aggressive brand of stupid. I just want to know if you know it, or whether you instead simply careen through life like a dog making those around you dumber for merely having laid eyes on you.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have done such a great job... ...that even Obama wants to abolish them. I'll have to see all the details before I have an opinion, but this looks like a pretty huge reduction of government intervention in the housing market. Even if you won't accept the facts that the intervention created the bubble, you still have to acknowledge that taxpayers have been left holding the bag its bursting. So, yeah. Phase 'em out.
By this very post you demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to understand mortgage finance. Can't convince a blind man to see.
It sounded to me like political doublespeak. "We're getting out of the mortgage business, but not really." Anyway, what I want is a complete and unqualified end to taxpayer backing or facilitation of mortgages. Out of the mortgage business entirely.
If they can't exist without becoming an investment to be traded on the guarantee of a taxpayer bailout, you're fucking-A right I do.
Banks are in business to make profits by loaning money to people. Either the bank can offer a loan which meets its needs for profitability and sustains its desired level of risk to a borrower who will find the terms agreeable or it cannot. If lender and borrower can agree on terms, great. If they can't, the intervention of the government is only going to increase the cost and/or the risk involved in the loan. With large scale intervention--and does the government do any other kind?--demand is greatly stimulated, making homes even more expensive, leading to bigger, more risk-laden loans. This is how taxpayers wind up on the hook for hundreds of billions (perhaps trillions) of dollars: Fannie and Freddie make loans that would NEVER have happened under normal market conditions. And to those who would cry "But what about all those poor people who couldn't afford homes?!?" I say that now they've probably lost those homes or owe more on them than they are worth, so we've really done them no favors. Yes, I'm going to want to see the fine print in Obama's plan--Albert is rightly suspicious of political double-speak--but if it ends (or greatly reduces) taxpayers assuming the risk for private mortgages, I'm all for it. Yes, even if it means fewer people can afford homes or that home prices fall or that mortgages get more expensive.
There is a substantially large group of people who don't qualify for a loan in a 100% private equity market, but who can indeed service that loan. We want to tighten things up, certainly (although it was the private underwriters who fucked things up in the bubble), but eliminating government backed insurance will lead to a massive decrease in mortgage paper. That will be great for the economy! As in, not at all good for the economy. People who think 2008 sucked, prepare for something five times more sucky. That aside, the kinds of loans most will get will be five year interest only loans, which they can then roll over or pay in full. The 30 year mortgage (brought by Fannie Mae), FHA, and the GI Bill gave us the prosperity of the 50s and 60s. People should try for a base level of knowledge before they parrot partisan talking points.
Tough shit. Don't care. If we do what we've always done, we'll get what we've always got. As opposed to kicking it down the road for the next generation to deal with a bubble. Remove it entirely.
I'd favor eliminating the mortgage interest credit out right. It's one of many distortions to the code that we don't need. If we eliminate such things, we can finally talk some sense about actual rates.
There are better ways to lend to those w low incomes to buy homes than empowering bureaucrats w policies that can shift on political whim, winds, bribes or egos to shower crumbs three-steps-removed from their targets. Humans will never lend (and rarely spend) responsibly when it's not their money or they're not directly impacted by the consequences of their decisions. The idea of agents two or three-times removed from the consequences of wrong, or sloppy lending criteria making any kind of grown-up decision is kind of silly. Maybe idiots think agents without skin in game care what happens after they spend/lend other people's money. If they can't scratch together the DP to convince a bank, borrow from family, friends, Tuttles or one of the many foundation-funded NGOs so eager to introduce themselves into others' lives that have been so crowded out by government programs. Also: Read more at: http://www.ehow.com/how_8576191_build-homes-poor-people-charity.html#ixzz2bESQcuqX
To understand the motivation of politicians and their wealthy backers who want to end government subsidy for home ownership, you have only to look at how much rental property these people own. Downturn in private home ownership = good business for rich landlords. Apparently Alberta doesn't care if we become a society of perpetual renters. Perhaps that's what he's accustomed to in his own life so he can't really see the value in owning your own home. I can tell you that I got sick & tired of dealing with lazy, unresponsive landlords whose only interest was in trying to avoid spending any money to maintain their property or make repairs. Fuck them. As far as ending the mortgage interest tax deduction - those advocating for that can fuck off. I'm not giving that up, and I'll vote against any politician who dares to support such a proposal. As a society we've traditionally supported the notion of private home ownership - it's been one of the bedrocks of the American middle class, along with the right of workers to unionize, compulsory public education and federal loans for college. Unfortunately Alberta doesn't seem to value any of that. He's gone full tilt back into antisocial crank mode. Maybe he's just hard up, how long has he been single now? Yeah, that's Alberta, sexually frustrated antisocial crank, venting impotent rage.
Amazing. Back when Bush was president Republicans couldn't even think of toughening regulations on Fannie and Freddie without members of the congressional black caucus fighting it every step of the way.
A few hundred billion dollars in public money to bail out GSEs means less money for social engineering. Fannie, Freddie: you're going under the bus.
Of course he is, as are you, reality is entirely subjective. Sure individual perceptions have a great deal of overlap, and agreement. Yet not always. Anyway, you (like the rest of us) are not qualified to identify any one true reality.
Self-defeating nonsense. There is such a thing as simply being wrong. The causes of the banking collapse were objectively not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac making too many loans. This information is available to anyone who wants to look it up. They were responsible for a tiny proportion of subprime lending, and that which they were responsible for tended to be less likely to go tits up because they had at least some safegaurds in place.
Indeed, and you supplied a fine example with this statement - "You aren't entitled to your own version of reality." That's simply untrue, you inhabit/define your own reality and so does everybody else. Opinions about specific issues are just the tip of the iceberg.
