You're now on ignore. Not because I disagree with you (which I do) but because there is clearly no point discussing anything with you, and you're about as irritating as they come. If you are genuinely interested in getting your ideas across you might want to change your approach.
Don't forget these glittering jewels of libtardism: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2919899&#post2919899 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2919897#post2919897
The only thing people like you with low IQ understand is abuse. You should know since there is a very high probability you were abused as a kid. It's been proven scientifically republican brains are reptilian in nature from prolonged child abuse. After decades of incompetent and corrupt republican rule no one has to wonder why America is up shit creek without a paddle. It's because of reptilians like you.
I'll stop quoting him but I say that lickbushnuts is a huge Dick Cheney fan and secretly wishes George Bush was still in office. This rabid libtard act isn't fooling me. Deep down inside lickbushnuts is a rational, clever republican longing for the good old days.
HUD announced a new program today to assist struggling homeowners. They are going to lend up to $50,000 to families in trouble. These are bridge loans so that the owners can continue to service the existing debt and pay property taxes. The individual loans will be made at a zero interest rate. $1 billion of these loans will be made. My question is, does the FHA have a fiduciary responsibility to the borrowers, and if so is this billion-dollar loan program just a way to print more money and kick the can down the road? On #1. The lender is the US Government. One would assume the borrower has faith and trust that they are not being led down a debt hole for political purposes. On #2. Each borrower will have a different profile. However two condition to get the $50K: Be at least three months delinquent in their payments. Be at risk of foreclosure and have experienced a substantial reduction in income due to involuntary unemployment, underemployment, or a medical condition. Do these two mandatory conditions meet the lenders description as âweakness?â Yes is my answer. You have to be up against it to qualify. By definition one is in a weak position. Same for âdependenceâ. Without these loans many of the people would be foreclosed on. On #3. There are many strings attached to these loans. The restrictions include that the proceeds must be used to pay existing installment debt. No second homes. Limitations on indebtedness. Reporting requirements. There is no question but that FHA has dominion and control of the borrowers affairs. Case closed. The new FHA loans are not collectable. They would not stand up in court. The FHA is well aware of that fact. They have no intention of collecting on these âloans.â Some additional terms of the bridge loans to nowhere: ...zero percent interest, non-recourse, subordinate loan... So they get no return on the money, but they also make it non-recourse and they subordinate it to any existing first or second liens on an obviously underwater property? If it is non-recourse you can just walk away. They wonât even call you. They can take the house but the first liens come first so the FHA gets the big goose egg. This is not a loan. It is a gift. 60% of all mortgages are owed back to Uncle Sam. On paper this means that at least $6b of mortgages on the governmentâs books will be artificially kept alive for another 24 months as a result of this. After two years all of them will just go poof overnight and the taxpayers will have a bigger pill to swallow. In this case FHA will be taking back bad paper and in exchange it will keep a portion of its loan book current. The conflict of interest is obvious to me By definition a loan should have a source of repayment that is predictable and adequate collateral. These new loans by FHA do not meet those standards. This program will cover only 20,000 borrowers. A billion dollars is meaningless when the problem is measured in trillions. It is a ânothingâ policy. It is another show pony. While there may be 20k folks in the country who will end up voting for the Dems as a result of this, I am certain that another few hundred thousand will line up to vote against them just because the bailout mentality will not stop. In the worst days of mortgage lending back in 2006 some terrible loans were made. But not one of them was made that was non-recourse and subordinated. The FHA just announced it will be making the very worst loans in history. Something to celebrate for the boys over at HUD. cont on link.. http://seekingalpha.com/article/220241-lender-liability-at-the-fha?source=email
nutmeg, I'm being sincere in asking if you really believe Congress and the bureaucrats at HUD/FHA actually give a shit about all the concerns you've listed?!?!
I understand. Makes for good campfire stories though. A chance to bitch about some ideal, practice what I preach not what I do, hit the f5 to occasionaly refresh common sense. Nobody cares...{:>)
Assuming you are referring to repeal of Glass-Steagall signed into law by Clinton in, I think, Nov. 1999. This was certainly not anything that Bill Clinton would have been wildly enthusiastic about. It was a Republican initiative (Gramm and Leach). So if that's what you were referring to, you are being far to generous to Bill Clinton to give him credit for this. (I suppose Greenspan would have been in favor of Gramm-Leach-Bilely, because he was a champion of minimal regulation, but there again he's a Republican.) The truth is that repeal of Glass-Steagall, the depression era act that drew a clear line between investment and commercial banks, was slipped into a "must pass" Omnibus spending bill at more or less the eleventh hour, and there was practically no debate. I guess the congress was anxious to get home for the holidays. Any way, Clinton was a lame duck at that point and he would have been under tremendous pressure to sign the Omnibus Bill to keep the government operating. It's nice of you to give Clinton the credit, but it's misplaced. The credit rightfully belongs to the Republicans! Especially Phil Gramm (whose wife at various times was on the CFTC and if memory serves me correctly, the ENRON Board as well)! Let's give credit where credit is due.