First move by Trump to make America Great Again?

[Walter]

Jan 21, 2017 12:58:19 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jan 21, 2017 8:43:53 GMT -5 Walter said:

So to distill your argument down to its essence, if you have enough money, Trump is making your America great again. If you don't, then Trump is making your America a little worse for you..

I guess we have our first answer to Trump's question to poor urban black people. What do they have to lose? So far, after his first day, 25 basis points.

So that poor, urban, Black couple, more likely a single parent household, w several rug rats in tow, living in gov provided/financially supported housing, with food provided by several .gov programs, w a free smart phone, free trans coupons, is going to apply for a FHA loan with it's 3.5% min down stroke and min credit score? What planet are you living on? Jeez, Habitat for Humanity is wasting their time, I guess.

Let's wait and see if their lives do indeed get better by focusing on real core issues. Edu for their youngens, jobs, some kind of skill training for those of working age, safer neighborhoods and more local community political involvement. Those folks are in public supported housing w or w/o FHA. If and when, through better edu and expanded opportunities, they work, save their money and enter the household ownership arena, they'll be able to do so at a level appropriate to their station. This .25 increase will put them even w those who don't need FHA but, on average pay a higher rate. Or do you think it fair that they should get a lower net rate and easier access to funds?

Again, you're making the same money argument, only this time tossing in a classic white, elitist, racial stereotype to make your point. Try it this way....Trump DOESN'T have the backs of those who worked hard, studied hard, saved and fought to lift themselves up, and who are approaching the doorway of being able to own a home. Trump just moved the door.

And for Trump and you, that makes America great....again.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2017 13:17:00 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jan 21, 2017 12:58:19 GMT -5 daleko said:

So that poor, urban, Black couple, more likely a single parent household, w several rug rats in tow, living in gov provided/financially supported housing, with food provided by several .gov programs, w a free smart phone, free trans coupons, is going to apply for a FHA loan with it's 3.5% min down stroke and min credit score? What planet are you living on? Jeez, Habitat for Humanity is wasting their time, I guess.

Let's wait and see if their lives do indeed get better by focusing on real core issues. Edu for their youngens, jobs, some kind of skill training for those of working age, safer neighborhoods and more local community political involvement. Those folks are in public supported housing w or w/o FHA. If and when, through better edu and expanded opportunities, they work, save their money and enter the household ownership arena, they'll be able to do so at a level appropriate to their station. This .25 increase will put them even w those who don't need FHA but, on average pay a higher rate. Or do you think it fair that they should get a lower net rate and easier access to funds?

Again, you're making the same money argument, only this time tossing in a classic white, elitist, racial stereotype to make your point. Try it this way....Trump DOESN'T have the backs of those who worked hard, studied hard, saved and fought to lift themselves up, and who are approaching the doorway of being able to own a home. Trump just moved the door.

And for Trump and you, that makes America great....again.

Oh spare us your pompous liberal lecturing bullshit.

[daleko]

Jan 21, 2017 13:17:00 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jan 21, 2017 12:58:19 GMT -5 daleko said:

So that poor, urban, Black couple, more likely a single parent household, w several rug rats in tow, living in gov provided/financially supported housing, with food provided by several .gov programs, w a free smart phone, free trans coupons, is going to apply for a FHA loan with it's 3.5% min down stroke and min credit score? What planet are you living on? Jeez, Habitat for Humanity is wasting their time, I guess.

Let's wait and see if their lives do indeed get better by focusing on real core issues. Edu for their youngens, jobs, some kind of skill training for those of working age, safer neighborhoods and more local community political involvement. Those folks are in public supported housing w or w/o FHA. If and when, through better edu and expanded opportunities, they work, save their money and enter the household ownership arena, they'll be able to do so at a level appropriate to their station. This .25 increase will put them even w those who don't need FHA but, on average pay a higher rate. Or do you think it fair that they should get a lower net rate and easier access to funds?

Again, you're making the same money argument, only this time tossing in a classic white, elitist, racial stereotype to make your point. Try it this way....Trump DOESN'T have the backs of those who worked hard, studied hard, saved and fought to lift themselves up, and who are approaching the doorway of being able to own a home. Trump just moved the door.

And for Trump and you, that makes America great....again.

You brought up the illogical racial stereotype, not me. I just pointed out how it didn't apply. Nice dodge and deflection.  And money does revolve around everything unless you want to suggest that everyone ought to be have their own dacha, provided for by .gov. Or perhaps everyone should be able to move from E LA to your beaches neighborhood, gratis. So explain to me how a FHA loan helps that urban black rental household, YOU brought up, get a home w the realities I mentioned?

What % of the home loan market is FHA supported?

[Walter]

Jan 21, 2017 13:30:41 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jan 21, 2017 13:17:00 GMT -5 Walter said:

Again, you're making the same money argument, only this time tossing in a classic white, elitist, racial stereotype to make your point. Try it this way....Trump DOESN'T have the backs of those who worked hard, studied hard, saved and fought to lift themselves up, and who are approaching the doorway of being able to own a home. Trump just moved the door.

And for Trump and you, that makes America great....again.

You brought up the illogical racial stereotype, not me. I just pointed out how it didn't apply. Nice dodge and deflection.  And money does revolve around everything unless you want to suggest that everyone ought to be have their own dacha, provided for by .gov. Or perhaps everyone should be able to move from E LA to your beaches neighborhood, gratis. So explain to me how a FHA loan helps that urban black rental household, YOU brought up, get a home w the realities I mentioned?

What % of the home loan market is FHA supported?

Where it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. Those that don't qualify, don't. But where it does matter, where $500/year is the difference between noodling out a loan or not, Trump just slammed the door on those people. Don't matter what race or circumstance you want to suggest. That's the bottom line. I suggested it might apply to urban black folk and illustrate for them exactly what they "have to lose" in Trump. But it will also apply to rural white folks who voted for Trump as well.
And Trump, presumedly, is telling us that this action will make America great.
I'd suggest to him that there are a few families out there for whom the door just slammed, and in those families, there might be some disagreement about how great America just got..

[oujour76]

Jan 21, 2017 13:44:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

Where it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. Those that don't qualify, don't. But where it does matter, where $500/year is the difference between noodling out a loan or not, Trump just slammed the door on those people.

Would be curious on how many people you believe this will affect. In advance, I don't know the answer...iow, this is not a trick question.

[Walter]

Jan 21, 2017 13:51:05 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jan 21, 2017 13:44:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

Where it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. Those that don't qualify, don't. But where it does matter, where $500/year is the difference between noodling out a loan or not, Trump just slammed the door on those people.

Would be curious on how many people you believe this will affect. In advance, I don't know the answer...iow, this is not a trick question.

I have no idea either. But statistically, the loan committee bean counters, I would assume, will quantify the move and there will be a statistical movement of the needle downward of, "approved/not approved". There will be a certain sliver of Americans who just got an opening from the Obama administration to allow them to barely slip through the home ownership door, only to be hustled back outside by Trump bouncers on day one of his administration.

This, only hours after he promises to all America that he will "have your back" and "never let you down".
He spent 18 months telling us he was going to make America great. His first day, he pushes home ownership for however many or few might be affected, further away from the quintessential 'American Dream'.

I find that ironic....and something that easily could have been predicted by simply reviewing Trump's prior business dealings. And I don't think this will be the last time I will be reporting this type of thing. I think this is the beginning of a massive move to enrich himself and the 1% buddies who surround him in his family, the cabinet and the coterie of like-minded, well-heeled acquaintances that make up Trumpworld....at the expense of the rest of us.

[oujour76]

Jan 21, 2017 14:10:45 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jan 21, 2017 13:51:05 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Would be curious on how many people you believe this will affect. In advance, I don't know the answer...iow, this is not a trick question.

I have no idea either. But statistically, the loan committee bean counters, I would assume, will quantify the move and there will be a statistical movement of the needle downward of, "approved/not approved". There will be a certain sliver of Americans who just got an opening from the Obama administration to allow them to barely slip through the home ownership door, only to be hustled back outside by Trump bouncers on day one of his administration.

This, only hours after he promises to all America that he will "have your back" and "never let you down".
He spent 18 months telling us he was going to make America great. His first day, he pushes home ownership for however many or few might be affected, further away from the quintessential 'American Dream'.

I find that ironic....and something that easily could have been predicted by simply reviewing Trump's prior business dealings. And I don't think this will be the last time I will be reporting this type of thing. I think this is the beginning of a massive move to enrich himself and the 1% buddies who surround him in his family, the cabinet and the coterie of like-minded, well-heeled acquaintances that make up Trumpworld....at the expense of the rest of us.

Quite honestly, I don't know enough of the specifics (or the numbers) to argue this one way or the other. So, I won't.

[Walter]

Jan 21, 2017 14:38:42 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jan 21, 2017 14:10:45 GMT -5 Walter said:

I have no idea either. But statistically, the loan committee bean counters, I would assume, will quantify the move and there will be a statistical movement of the needle downward of, "approved/not approved". There will be a certain sliver of Americans who just got an opening from the Obama administration to allow them to barely slip through the home ownership door, only to be hustled back outside by Trump bouncers on day one of his administration.

This, only hours after he promises to all America that he will "have your back" and "never let you down".
He spent 18 months telling us he was going to make America great. His first day, he pushes home ownership for however many or few might be affected, further away from the quintessential 'American Dream'.

I find that ironic....and something that easily could have been predicted by simply reviewing Trump's prior business dealings. And I don't think this will be the last time I will be reporting this type of thing. I think this is the beginning of a massive move to enrich himself and the 1% buddies who surround him in his family, the cabinet and the coterie of like-minded, well-heeled acquaintances that make up Trumpworld....at the expense of the rest of us.

Quite honestly, I don't know enough of the specifics (or the numbers) to argue this one way or the other. So, I won't.

Here's a pretty good explanation of the issue. This is an article discussing the slow climb of FHA back to solvency.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-17/fha-insurance-fund-is-back-in-the-black-actuarial-report-shows

From the article:


Consumer advocates and industry groups including the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association have been urging the FHA to consider cutting its costs because many first-time buyers and families with modest incomes are priced out of the market.

The agency might need to cut its prices to prevent itself from being left with a pool of lower-credit borrowers as those with better credit turn to cheaper loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, MBA President and Chief Executive Officer David H. Stevens said in a telephone interview.

The actuarial report “clearly seems to highlight the possibility that there are some excess fees being charged, at a time when perhaps they should be more focused on ensuring relatively fair access to credit,” said Stevens, who was FHA commissioner from 2009 until 2011.

[AlaCowboy]

I pointed out that in his 8 years in the presidency that Obama raised those FHA rates 5 times, and asked Walter why he never expressed his outrage. You would think that a Leftist Liberal, defender of the poor, disadvantaged, oppressed minorities, would speak out against such an evil act.
Walter has yet to respond.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2017 15:40:19 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

I pointed out that in his 8 years in the presidency that Obama raised those FHA rates 5 times, and asked Walter why he never expressed his outrage. You would think that a Leftist Liberal, defender of the poor, disadvantaged, oppressed minorities, would speak out against such an evil act.
Walter has yet to respond.

Yeah, he didn't say anything when I asked for actual verifiable figures to his claim there were more protestors in D.C. yesterday than people attending the inauguration. Funny how that left wing echo chamber works.

[Walter]

Jan 21, 2017 15:52:26 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Jan 21, 2017 15:40:19 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

I pointed out that in his 8 years in the presidency that Obama raised those FHA rates 5 times, and asked Walter why he never expressed his outrage. You would think that a Leftist Liberal, defender of the poor, disadvantaged, oppressed minorities, would speak out against such an evil act.
Walter has yet to respond.

Yeah, he didn't say anything when I asked for actual verifiable figures to his claim there were more protestors in D.C. yesterday than people attending the inauguration. Funny how that left wing echo chamber works.

Apparently, you haven't turned on the news today. It isn't even close.

The city's metro system reported 275,000 rides as of 11 a.m. According to metro officials that's eight times more than a normal Saturday. Reuters adds that the number is also "82,000 more than the 193,000 rides reported at the same point on Friday," the day of Trump's inauguration.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2017 17:11:36 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jan 21, 2017 15:52:26 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Yeah, he didn't say anything when I asked for actual verifiable figures to his claim there were more protestors in D.C. yesterday than people attending the inauguration. Funny how that left wing echo chamber works.

Apparently, you haven't turned on the news today. It isn't even close.

The city's metro system reported 275,000 rides as of 11 a.m. According to metro officials that's eight times more than a normal Saturday. Reuters adds that the number is also "82,000 more than the 193,000 rides reported at the same point on Friday," the day of Trump's inauguration.

Yeah, uh huh... That proves it all right... Douche, and not the Grand type.



By the way douche, your claim was that there were more protestors in D.C. YESTERDAY than there were Inauguration attendees so you're either stupid or a dishonest jackass and you don't strike me as the stupid type.

ETA: Ok I went back and reread your post. You said consecutive days. Still no verifiable numbers, just a bunch of people riding the subway. Let the fools protest. It's their waste of time and their Constitutional right. It's a great day in America!

[daleko]

Jan 21, 2017 13:44:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jan 21, 2017 13:30:41 GMT -5 daleko said:

You brought up the illogical racial stereotype, not me. I just pointed out how it didn't apply. Nice dodge and deflection.  And money does revolve around everything unless you want to suggest that everyone ought to be have their own dacha, provided for by .gov. Or perhaps everyone should be able to move from E LA to your beaches neighborhood, gratis. So explain to me how a FHA loan helps that urban black rental household, YOU brought up, get a home w the realities I mentioned?

What % of the home loan market is FHA supported?

Where it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. Those that don't qualify, don't. But where it does matter, where $500/year is the difference between noodling out a loan or not, Trump just slammed the door on those people. Don't matter what race or circumstance you want to suggest. That's the bottom line. I suggested it might apply to urban black folk and illustrate for them exactly what they "have to lose" in Trump. But it will also apply to rural white folks who voted for Trump as well.
And Trump, presumedly, is telling us that this action will make America great.
I'd suggest to him that there are a few families out there for whom the door just slammed, and in those families, there might be some disagreement about how great America just got..

So why not just take the add-on down to zero if that is your felling about it? It's a number, one would assume, that's based on data. Just like any other type of insurance. Inconvenient that it went up on day 1 but it went up in Bamaland and down. What is the data and what went behind the decision, I don't know.

If Trump follows through on a plan for attempting to improve Black lives, a task that all politicians have been trying to do since the 60s, they won't need the FHA to buy said home. You're concern is putting the cart before the horse. Re all other lives the same analysis holds true. They have a number based on some data, again, no different than any other insurance. If you believe financial analysis should not enter into home purchasing then you'd support the .gov getting out of the loan insurance business and just pass out dollars.

[daleko]

Jan 21, 2017 14:51:28 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jan 21, 2017 14:38:42 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Quite honestly, I don't know enough of the specifics (or the numbers) to argue this one way or the other. So, I won't.

Here's a pretty good explanation of the issue. This is an article discussing the slow climb of FHA back to solvency.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-17/fha-insurance-fund-is-back-in-the-black-actuarial-report-shows

From the article:


Consumer advocates and industry groups including the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association have been urging the FHA to consider cutting its costs because many first-time buyers and families with modest incomes are priced out of the market.

The agency might need to cut its prices to prevent itself from being left with a pool of lower-credit borrowers as those with better credit turn to cheaper loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, MBA President and Chief Executive Officer David H. Stevens said in a telephone interview.

The actuarial report “clearly seems to highlight the possibility that there are some excess fees being charged, at a time when perhaps they should be more focused on ensuring relatively fair access to credit,” said Stevens, who was FHA commissioner from 2009 until 2011.

Clearly Realtors are hardly unbiased. They take their money on the front end and volume is where they make it. As do Bankers withe risk moderated by YOU the taxpayer. If the analysis suggests not to raise the rate w the FHA a performing asset than it shouldn't. If it does it should.

[Walter]

Jan 21, 2017 18:10:12 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jan 21, 2017 14:51:28 GMT -5 Walter said:

Here's a pretty good explanation of the issue. This is an article discussing the slow climb of FHA back to solvency.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-17/fha-insurance-fund-is-back-in-the-black-actuarial-report-shows

From the article:


Consumer advocates and industry groups including the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association have been urging the FHA to consider cutting its costs because many first-time buyers and families with modest incomes are priced out of the market.

The agency might need to cut its prices to prevent itself from being left with a pool of lower-credit borrowers as those with better credit turn to cheaper loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, MBA President and Chief Executive Officer David H. Stevens said in a telephone interview.

The actuarial report “clearly seems to highlight the possibility that there are some excess fees being charged, at a time when perhaps they should be more focused on ensuring relatively fair access to credit,” said Stevens, who was FHA commissioner from 2009 until 2011.

Clearly Realtors are hardly unbiased. They take their money on the front end and volume is where they make it. As do Bankers withe risk moderated by YOU the taxpayer. If the analysis suggests not to raise the rate w the FHA a performing asset than it shouldn't. If it does it should.

I'll say it again. Make any argument you like about the reasons for the reversal. It is what it is. If Trump's actions hurt first-time homebuyers ability to purchase a home, then that must be the specific intent.
Own it and let's move on.