8 minutes ago, Kz! said:

 

It really is like having a conversation with a retarded child. 

 

 

F off with that crap

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

Hmm, actual socialist policies being implemented right now as we speak or speculative ideas without any concrete plans for funding. This is a tricky one. They're both so similar.  

Roughly translated: Trump is a buffoon who isn't intelligent or tenacious enough to follow through on the stuff he says. Biden will actually do what he says 

5 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Roughly translated: Trump is a buffoon who isn't intelligent or tenacious enough to follow through on the stuff he says. Biden will actually do what he says 

Also, this should be Trump's '24 slogan:

Quote

speculative ideas without any concrete plans for funding

 

32 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Actually, it started with you ripping on the redistribution of wealth, while forgetting that you whole-heartedly support it and will be happily voting for it in the next election. 

Absolutely, I rip socialist policies. You said it yourself, it's a binary choice. Neither is going to gut the federal government. The question is which one will implement less socialism? Will it be the guy who spent trillions during covid or the one who wanted him to spend more than that? Think hard, van, we believe in you!   

25 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Roughly translated: Trump is a buffoon who isn't intelligent or tenacious enough to follow through on the stuff he says. Biden will actually do what he says 

Yes, Biden is an unapologetic socialist who is actually actively implementing really stupid socialist policies. 

It's insane how easy it was for dem politicians to get their lemmings to whole-heartedly support puberty blockers and genital mutilation for minors. 

 

  "Zephyr"

Should we go ahead and post that in the Tell Me You're Crazy Without Telling Me You're Crazy Thread?

13 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Absolutely, I rip socialist policies. You said it yourself, it's a binary choice. Neither is going to gut the federal government. The question is which one will implement less socialism? Will it be the guy who spent trillions during covid or the one who wanted him to spend more than that? Think hard, van, we believe in you!  

When I said it was a binary choice that was what I assumed was an obvious joke.  Of course it's not a binary choice (yes or no, etc).  They're both socialists.  Except Trump wants to not only maintain every entitlement program that Dems want to maintain but also add on brand new socialism in the form of communist cities/federal homeless tent cities/walls/whatever embarrassingly stupid idea he comes up with next (Settlement on Jupiter?  Elevator to nowhere?). Yeah, it's a tough one.  Who will implement less socialism, Kz?   

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

When I said it was a binary choice that was what I assumed was an obvious joke.  Of course it's not a binary choice (yes or no, etc).  They're both socialists.  Except Trump wants to not only maintain every entitlement program that Dems want to maintain but also add on brand new socialism in the form of communist cities/federal homeless tent cities/walls/whatever embarrassingly stupid idea he comes up with next (Settlement on Jupiter?  Elevator to nowhere?). Yeah, it's a tough one.  Who will implement less socialism, Kz?   

Holy sheet you're retarded.  

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

When I said it was a binary choice that was what I assumed was an obvious joke.  Of course it's not a binary choice (yes or no, etc).  They're both socialists.  Except Trump wants to not only maintain every entitlement program that Dems want to maintain but also add on brand new socialism in the form of communist cities/federal homeless tent cities/walls/whatever embarrassingly stupid idea he comes up with next (Settlement on Jupiter?  Elevator to nowhere?). Yeah, it's a tough one.  Who will implement less socialism, Kz?   

Trump.  The answer would obviously be Trump.

Now Im on record as saying I dont want him to run.  But that's the answer to your question.

 

Democrats and former Libertarians are single issue voters and that issue ia universally:. "would celebrities think Im cool if I had a beer with this candidate?"

Thats it.  No more, no less.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Holy sheet you're retarded.  

We've been doing this long enough for me to know when you're conceding.  I accept your concession, Kz.

2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Trump.  The answer would obviously be Trump.

 

  Right, Mike.  The guy that spent more in a single term than any President in US history will spend responsibly this time.

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

We've been doing this long enough for me to know when you're conceding.  I accept your concession, Kz.

"wHo wIlL iMpLeMeNt LeSs SoCiAlIsM Kz?"

 Folks, they really are this stupid. It's not an act.

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

This was shared elsewhere..

I'd really like to see a source for this other than the Washington Times and a vague reference to "experts" who believe something. 

I don't doubt that Dems could further screw up housing financing, but I'd also like to see some reference to the actual rule change. 

The only rule change I see on FHFA's website is this one: DTS Conlonias Final Rule

The effective date for that though is July 1, not May 1 as stated by the Washington Times. 

I don't see any other final rule changes, or even proposed rules open for public comment that seem to imply the above: https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/RegulationFederalRegister/Pages/Rules-Notices.aspx

It's real. There's a link to the actual report in the first link from Reason.https://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/news/01192023-big-llpa-changes

Quote

Mortgage borrowers with good credit may face higher costs under a new scheme from federal mortgage associations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The firms have released a new Loan–Level Price Adjustment (LLPA) Matrix for loans sold to them after May 1, 2023. Under the new matrix, borrowers with high credit scores will face higher mortgage fees than before and those with lower credit scores will face lower fees.

"It's unprecedented," David Stevens, a former federal housing commissioner and former CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association, told the New York Post. "My email is full from mortgage companies and CEOs [telling] me how unbelievably shocked they are by this move."

The fee increase is unlikely to lead to significantly higher monthly mortgage payments for most borrowers. For instance, someone with a $400,000 loan and a 6 percent mortgage rate may wind up paying about $40 more per month, according to Stevens' calculations.

But an extra $40 per month means an extra $480 per year. And over the whole course of mortgage repayment, a homeowner could wind up paying thousands of dollars more due to the fee shift.

Regardless of what the shift means in terms of actual costs, it seems unfair that borrowers with extremely good credit are effectively being penalized while borrowers with lower credit scores are being rewarded.

"This was a blatant and significant cut of fees for their highest-risk borrowers and a clear increase in much better credit quality buyers – which just clarified to the world that this move was a pretty significant cross-subsidy pricing change," Stevens said.

"Overall, lower-credit buyers will still pay more in LLPA fees than high-credit buyers – but the latest changes will close the gap," notes the Post:

Under the new rules, high-credit buyers with scores ranging from 680 to above 780 will see a spike in their mortgage costs – with applicants who place 15% to 20% down payment experiencing the biggest increase in fees….

LLPAs are upfront fees based on factors such as a borrower's credit score and the size of their down payment. The fees are typically converted into percentage points that alter the buyer's mortgage rate.

Under the revised LLPA pricing structure, a home buyer with a 740 FICO credit score and a 15% to 20% down payment will face a 1% surcharge – an increase of 0.750% compared to the old fee of just 0.250%….

Meanwhile, buyers with credit scores of 679 or lower will have their fees slashed, resulting in more favorable mortgage rates. For example, a buyer with a 620 FICO credit score with a down payment of 5% or less gets a 1.75% fee discount – a decrease from the old fee rate of 3.50% for that bracket.

Mortgage News Daily explained it this way in January when the changes were announced:

The effective penalty for having a credit score under 680 is now smaller than it was.  It still costs more to have a lower score.  For instance, if you have a score of 659 and are borrowing 75% of the home's value, you'll pay a fee equal to 1.5% of the loan balance whereas you'd pay no fee if you had a 780+ credit score.  But before these changes, you would have paid a whopping 2.75% fee.  On a hypothetical $300k loan, that's a difference of $3750 in closing costs.

Elsewhere in the spectrum, things got worse.  Borrowers with higher credit scores will generally be paying a bit more than they were under the previous structure.…This doesn't necessarily come out of your pocket upfront as lenders can offer higher interest rates in some cases and pay these costs for you (but the costs are still there, and still technically being paid by you over time in the form of higher interest rates).

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Sandra L. Thompson called it "another step to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] advance their mission of facilitating equitable and sustainable access to homeownership."

 

 

https://www.fhfa.gov//Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Updates-to-Enterprises-SF-Pricing-Framework.aspx

 

4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

  Right, Mike.  The guy that spent more in a single term than any President in US history will spend responsibly this time.

Spending alone doesnt mean "socialism" though does it?

Biden is literally transferring wealth.  Thats way worse.

1 minute ago, Mike31mt said:

Spending alone doesnt mean "socialism" though does it?

Biden is literally transferring wealth.  Thats way worse.

Trump literally passed out federal checks to every American.  Face it, Mike, they're both socialists.  If Trump were a candidate for the Dems 10 years ago you would've called him a Communist.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

Trump literally passed out federal checks to every American.  Face it, Mike, they're both socialists.  If Trump were a candidate for the Dems 10 years ago you would've called him a Communist.

Youre being pedantic with this.

This is like saying theyre either evil or good, when hardly anyone on the planet is only evil or only good.

Trump had some capitalist initiatives, too.  So does that make him a capitalist again?

What is your purity test here?  One single idea or initiative that you deem "socialist" makes them a socialist for life?  

Why isnt that a 2 way street with capitalism?

2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Youre being pedantic with this.

This is like saying theyre either evil or good, when hardly anyone on the planet is only evil or only good.

Trump had some capitalist initiatives, too.  So does that make him a capitalist again?

What is your purity test here?  One single idea or initiative that you deem "socialist" makes them a socialist for life?  

Why isnt that a 2 way street with capitalism?

I'm holding Trump to the same standards you guys have held Democrats to for the last 40 years.  Ya'll never cared about nuance before.

11 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

It's real. There's a link to the actual report in the first link from Reason.https://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/news/01192023-big-llpa-changes

 

https://www.fhfa.gov//Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Updates-to-Enterprises-SF-Pricing-Framework.aspx

 

Pivoting to "and here why that's a good thing" from Riot Kitchen in 3...2...1...

9 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I'm holding Trump to the same standards you guys have held Democrats to for the last 40 years.  Ya'll never cared about nuance before.

Q: Isn’t it a fact that the president’s proposed budget proposes $4.7 trillion in new taxes?

Sec. Yellen: It does propose significant additional taxes, yes.

Q: $4.7 TRILLION?

Sec. Yellen: Something like that, yes.

   

Just now, Kz! said:

Q: Isn’t it a fact that the president’s proposed budget proposes $4.7 trillion in new taxes?

Sec. Yellen: It does propose significant additional taxes, yes.

Q: $4.7 TRILLION?

Sec. Yellen: Something like that, yes.

   

  You're so desperate for me to respond to that.  I can feel your panic. 

Yes, taxes suck but they're a necessary part of getting the debt back under control.  I guess I'd have to know how many years that covers to know the real scope of it.  One thing we know for sure is that Trump dug into the debt to the tune of $8T in only 4 years.   I know you'd prefer Trump's out of control socialism without new taxes but it's not particularly realistic.

Also, that budget is basically a marketing document to progressives. Everyone knows it has no chance of passing a GOP house, so it's a free option for Biden to load in all kinds of things with no risk. Then he can campaign saying he tried to get the progressive agenda passed and blame Republicans. 

It's all just political theater. 

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Also, that budget is basically a marketing document to progressives. Everyone knows it has no chance of passing a GOP house, so it's a free option for Biden to load in all kinds of things with no risk. Then he can campaign saying he tried to get the progressive agenda passed and blame Republicans. 

It's all just political theater. 

Stop bringing facts into the equation.  They're getting in the way of Kz pinching his wiener.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

It's real. There's a link to the actual report in the first link from Reason.https://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/news/01192023-big-llpa-changes

 

https://www.fhfa.gov//Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Updates-to-Enterprises-SF-Pricing-Framework.aspx

 

looks like parts of it were delayed to August: https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/Statement-from-FHFA-Director-Sandra-Thompson-on-Upfront-Fees-Based-on-Certain-Borrowers-DTI-Ratio.aspx (the new debt-to-income fees)

this looks like it adjusts the upfront fees. I'm not sure there's a direct line to the "such and such homebuyer will see $40/month increases in their mortgage" claim, unless they're assuming these increased upfront fees are rolled into a mortgage .. which, given the whole rationale behind upfront fees, seems a weird approach. 

for someone with a 750 score putting 20% it went from 0.5% to 0.875%. 

$400k house you're looking at an increased closing cost of $1,500. certainly not nothing. 

if you're at 650 putting 20% down you went from 3% to 2.25%. saves that buyer $3,000. of course that 650 shouldn't be buying a $400k house, but whatever. 

I don't love this, but I don't have a sense for how out of sync they are with actual risks they're intended to hedge against. the major increases in fees are around cash out refinances, even though there are certainly fee adjustments around straight home sales. 

the debt-to-income fees that are delayed are probably among the best parts if you're trying to ensure homebuyers are both healthy enough financially to meet the mortgage obligations as well as to potentially help cool the mortgage market. 

It's a zero sum game, so how about we just stop penalizing the financially responsible while continuing to incentivize financially irresponsible behavior. Student loan forgiveness, lower mortgage fees, etc. It's too much. I'm fine with a social safety net and all, but the Dems take this ish way too far.

24 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

It's a zero sum game, so how about we just stop penalizing the financially responsible while continuing to incentivize financially irresponsible behavior. Student loan forgiveness, lower mortgage fees, etc. It's too much. I'm fine with a social safety net and all, but the Dems take this ish way too far.

The only seemingly good part is what was delayed, the higher fees for buyers with worse debt to income ratios. One would think that would help prevent people from chasing "too much house" for their means.

That said, the table of upfront fees they had previously seemed arbitrary so it's hard to tell whether the up front fee changes are a correction based on risk data or what. The fees were last modified after the housing crisis so it's not implausible that the correlation between credit rating at purchase and defaulting is much different than 10 years ago. 

To be sure I'm probably being charitable, I'm just trying not to be too reflexive in my judgement.