You'd think one of these days the parties would wake up and say what the h3ll are we doing. But that doesn't seem like a reality that's going to happen.. I'm afraid it's not even possible now. Both parties have a sizable minority of citizens that have been gullible, and think their parties direction is the right one. Those two sizable minorities don't seem to allow the parties to wake up. Instead each party tries to keep their extreme base happy. It's a vicious cycle.
This is the Republican Party
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
Both bases are very vocal and rather well funded. Dems and Pubs have to appeal to the extremes to get through the primaries….money and votes. Once you take their money they owe you. It’s a repeating cycle. The fact that people will blindly support numerous opinions simply because their identified party tells them to is one of the great mysteries to me. Yet we see it play out on a daily basis. The inability to think for one self is a vanishing trait.
Evidently even Chris Christie noticed That taking Disney is out of whack. And all for Disney’s disagreeing with DeSantis over his Don’t Say Gay law. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...-its-not-conservative-to-punish-corporations/
Even more terrifying to me is that it isn't just the US that political parties are becoming more extreme. I still believe it is a vocal minority causing it to happen. Most of the population is more centrist, IMO, but as your later post points out, most follow whatever party they identify with, even if they disagree.
DeSantis' constant fighting with Disney is a good example of what keeps me up at night. It isn't just him or Republicans, but it reminds me of the early periods when many country governments started overreaching and leading to being F'd.
Between the above, the inflation, and the recession, we are in a perfect storm that allows someone like Hitler to come to power. I am not saying it will happen or that DeSantis, Biden, or even Trump are the same as Hitler, only that these 3 things mixed together are similar to what allowed Hitler to go from a nobody to gaining power in Germany in the 20s.
Chris Christie is 100% right that it is scary the government now seems to be okay with punishing corporations for disagreeing with those in charge. I disagree with him saying that is something only Liberals used to do, but I know he's a politician, and they've always gotta try and make a swipe at the other side.
While I don’t agree with government punishing corporations for disagreeing with those in charge I’m much more concerned about the increasing willingness to punish individuals with dissenting views. Even to the extreme of silencing their voices. The best thing we can do to prevent the type of government we saw come to rise in Germany in the 20s is to preserve the right to speak out against our government. Large corporations have the money and political clout to fight back. Individual people have little recourse.
One company is driving the bus and the other one isnt interested in stopping them…. But sure.
Hopefully the unprecedented actions of government we’ve seen in the last several years to silence and/or punish dissenting views will be a wake up call to the masses. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you fall, individuals as well as companies should not be attacked or silenced for not following the government line.
Targeting a minority group is another tool of populist authoritarians. Hyping the dangers posed by gays and now the tiny number of trans people solely to create a political division is worrisome. Creating a scapegoat group as a target for people's anger has predictable results.
Good credit and 15% or more down payment is now going to result in an increase interest rate for those borrowers due to new and rather bizarre lending guidelines for government backed loans.
www.google.com
Exclusive | How the US is subsidizing high-risk homebuyers — at the cost of those with good credit
Experts say an “unprecedented” overhaul of mortgage fees would result in higher payments for most buyers.
www.google.com
I did, but I may or may not have already been drinking...
Aren't these new subsidies just begging for a repeat of the 2008 real estate crash?!Good credit and 15% or more down payment is now going to result in an increase interest rate for those borrowers due to new and rather bizarre lending guidelines for government backed loans.
Exclusive | How the US is subsidizing high-risk homebuyers — at the cost of those with good credit
Experts say an “unprecedented” overhaul of mortgage fees would result in higher payments for most buyers.
They will certainly result in more defaults. Now we would need to see a significant drop in home values or rampant fraud to see 2008 again.
Just as long as you are following the rules instituted since Bush 2...
The H-word is an automatic "whole board drinks"..
The most interesting thing about the fight over the law in question is the media wholly adopting dem activist branding of the law rather than calling it by its actual name or mentioning what it actually says. Being a dem coms person has to legit be the easiest job in the world
Both parties work the branding game, but in this case the label understates the stultifying effects on education about sex of any kind.
So.. you get punished for being responsible and playing by the rules?Good credit and 15% or more down payment is now going to result in an increase interest rate for those borrowers due to new and rather bizarre lending guidelines for government backed loans.
Exclusive | How the US is subsidizing high-risk homebuyers — at the cost of those with good credit
Experts say an “unprecedented” overhaul of mortgage fees would result in higher payments for most buyers.
Yes. This is an extraordinary change in the lending guidelines of this country. The safest loans will be flagged with higher interest rates while risky loans will be subsidized to lower their rates. There’s been lots of talk about the government seeking to punish corporations. This is the government directly punishing those who pay their bills. From a social policy standpoint, we are encouraging lower credit scores. Makes zero sense.
It makes zero sense.. unless.. your administration's agenda is wealth redistribution and potentially a zero ownership society...
It’s a directed tax on people with good credit to benefit those with poor credit. Nothing more nothing less. There are already numerous government programs in place to assist lower income and first time home buyers with home purchases. The difference in this program is the taxation of good credit borrowers.
Wealth redistributed via the good credit tax and home ownership discouraged via higher costs n fees.. thos with good credit wont buy.. those with bad credit will default.. in the end everyone will rent from a corporate landlord like Blackrock..
So… if I can were shopping for a new home I should just destroy my credit? Before buying?
Asking for defaults in which the banks makes as little as possible until default. SMH This really hurts me, in that I made a concerted effort to clean up my credit in the last 7 or 8 years. My achieved goal was to get it above 800. Thanks for penalizing me government.
I’m at 800 right now. Certainly not fun.
I would point out though, that a large number of people who have poor credit don’t have it because they’re irresponsible.
No argument from me. The question is why penalize those with good credit for being responsible ? There are plenty of other tools for helping those with poor credit purchase homes. Shouldn’t federal law/regulations encourage good behavior from its citizens? This does the opposite. Charging lower lending rates for more risky loans is nonsensical.
I actually misread the fine print. I will admit when I’m wrong. They are in face raising costs on the best credit borrowers with LTV over 70% to subsidize the cost cuts for those will poor credit with similar LTV. Someone with excellent credit should still pay slightly less than a poor credit borrower but the spread will now be much less. The policy is remains the same. It’s a tax in excellent credit borrowers to offset credits given to poor credit borrowers. I do support programs which provide low income borrowers with financial assistance in the purchase of a home. There are many such programs. However, this is the first time an Admin is directly punishing high credit borrowers to offset expected losses from more risky loans.
So if you have good credit but can't come up with 30% or more, then you pay a higher rate. That's phenomenal. Good thing I don't have any plans to take out a mortgage anytime soon.
Biden raises costs for homebuyers with good credit to help risky borrowers
The administration's new rule will reduce mortgage fees for riskier borrowers but will be subsidized by borrowers with higher credit scores.
www.newsweek.com
I skimmed the article before. I read that last one. They aren't raising the rates on loans they are just charging higher fees to better borrowers in order to charge lower fees to riskier borrowers. Like that article said, that won't affect higher home ownership to riskier borrowers. That one time fee won't be the panacea to push them to buy,. The interest rates might be, but not the fee.Biden raises costs for homebuyers with good credit to help risky borrowers
The administration's new rule will reduce mortgage fees for riskier borrowers but will be subsidized by borrowers with higher credit scores.
It will simply be a benefit to riskier borrowers that would have bought with or without the lower fee. And it will take the money from the better borrower to cover it. Will not change home ownership to lower income people or middle income people, except at the margins. And that change will offset itself between middle and lower income. Will probably only change home ownership to the positive by less than one 1% at best. What a crap policy that serves no one. The middle class borrower gets to pay the lower class borrower for a policy that doesn't increase home ownership.
credit scores are bogus. my wifes score is higher than mine. I earn 4 time what she does. I pay all tbe bills;
She has more credit cards than I do.
You have to have a solid history with credit cards and loans. Sounds like she does what it takes to have a higher credit rating. Are you paying her credit card bills? Because if so, you are partially responsible for her credit score, and not benefitting your own by doing so. If you pay most everything in cash you will never have a better rating. You have to use credit, and use it well.(Pay off everything on time.(or earlier.) It causes you a small hit to pay off a mortgage, car loan, etc early.
I was just reading about this. It's not the interest rate that is going up. It's the fee structure for the LLPA. It's a one time fee usually added into closing costs (or possibly lumped into your mortgage, but not as part of the interest rate, just as part of the prinbcipal)Good credit and 15% or more down payment is now going to result in an increase interest rate for those borrowers due to new and rather bizarre lending guidelines for government backed loans.
Exclusive | How the US is subsidizing high-risk homebuyers — at the cost of those with good credit
Experts say an “unprecedented” overhaul of mortgage fees would result in higher payments for most buyers.
The rates are going down for those with poor credit and up for those with good credit, yes. But it is still a tiered system. Poor credit will still get you a much worse rate than if you have good credit. What I saw was that the assessment was going from 0.5% to 1% for those with credit scores in the mid 700s, and going from something like 2.75% to 1.5% for those with scores in the 600s.
So there is no "bonus" to having poorer credit, you are still paying an extra 0.5% extra at closing than if you had better credit.
I have mixed feeling about this myself, as someone who works hard to maintain good credit. No doubt these changes are good news if you have poor credit and are in the housing market, and bad news if you have good credit. But it is still unequivocally better to have good credit. So let's argue about what is actually going on, not erroneous media portrayals that make it seem like having poor credit is being rewarded with lower locked in long term interest rates.
Edit: Just saw you already corrected yourself on it. Sorry, didn't mean to pile on.
I just remembered reading this here earlier this week and then yesterday saw an actual article on what it was. Didn't bother to check up on the thread in the meantime and I should have.
Last edited:
Suppose that gets you better ratings in Florida than pandering to the trans community. California probably not.
