April 21, 20232 yr 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.
April 21, 20232 yr 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.
April 21, 20232 yr 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.
April 21, 20232 yr 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.
April 22, 20232 yr 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.
April 22, 20232 yr 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.
April 23, 20232 yr 16 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: 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. The head of the agency stated it is about "equity.”
April 23, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, vikas83 said: The head of the agency stated it is about "equity.” That's dumb.
April 24, 20232 yr 13 hours ago, lynched1 said: That not Biden’s world, that’s the world of willfully ignorant, MAGA snowflakes who get their panties in a bunch at the drop of a tweet.
April 24, 20232 yr It's a dumb policy. But you're still paying FAR less in fees with a better credit score. The rest of his post is /r/im14andthisisdeep "edginess" I'd expect from Lynched.
April 24, 20232 yr 48 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: That not Biden’s world, that’s the world of willfully ignorant, MAGA snowflakes who get their panties in a bunch at the drop of a tweet. so then you've met lynched before ...
April 24, 20232 yr 19 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said: so then you've met lynched before ... South Central Pa is full of people just like him.
April 24, 20232 yr On 4/21/2023 at 3:31 PM, 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. Oh, so the democrats load sheet up with a bunch of socialist nonsense and the republicans are the ones that have to stop it from happening? Well, it's almost as if there's a lesser of two evils when it comes to this socialism debate, huh?
April 24, 20232 yr 37 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: South Central Pa is full of people just like him. he's certainly not a unique snowflake.
April 24, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, Kz! said: Oh, so the democrats load sheet up with a bunch of socialist nonsense and the republicans are the ones that have to stop it from happening? ...when Dems are in charge. When Republicans are in charge, they cram through their own socialist nonsense with no resistance. If you're interested in curbing spending/federal overreach/new socialist programs, the best combination is a Dem President and a Rep House. But of course, you're not interested in that at all. You're the guy who's all in on this:
April 24, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Tnt4philly said: South Central Pa is full of people just like him. oh i know, we have a mountain spot out in perry county. edit; i will say this, quite a few of the people i know out there have had enough of trump, so there's a glimmer off hope, i guess.
April 24, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, VanHammersly said: ...when Dems are in charge. When Republicans are in charge, they cram through their own socialist nonsense with no resistance. How come there's no resistance?
April 24, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, Kz! said: How come there's no resistance? Because Republicans are full of sheet and have no problem with socialism as long as they're the ones that get credit for it.
April 24, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Kz! said: Oh, so the democrats load sheet up with a bunch of socialist nonsense and the republicans are the ones that have to stop it from happening? Well, it's almost as if there's a lesser of two evils when it comes to this socialism debate, huh? Do you actually follow politics? https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/18/pork-barrel-spending-explodes-under-republicans-column/792588002/
April 24, 20232 yr 18 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Because Republicans are full of sheet and have no problem with socialism as long as they're the ones that get credit for it. But there's no resistance to it, huh?
April 24, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, Kz! said: But there's no resistance to it, huh? Right. When Republicans are in charge, they easily push through their socialist programs. Correct.
Create an account or sign in to comment