• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama seeks to aid 9 million homeowners

I dont have to -- for your argument to hold water, YOU have to prove that if the value of these houses increase in value by tens of thousands of dollars, they would then be overinflated.

It's your hypothetical situation. You need to show the plausibility of it for me to entertain it. That would mean that you show they are undervalued as opposed to being a corrected value.
 
It's your hypothetical situation.
It is, though it is apparently NOT going to be so hypothetical all that long from now.

You dismiss the isseu based on the idea that for people to get tens of thousands of dollars in free equity, the value of the houses would have to 'overinflate'.

You know that's not the case; as you dont want to have to admit that you dont REALLY have an issue with people getting free equity at the expense of taxpayers, you'll continue to avoid the point.
 
Last edited:
Well, this program is for people who owe more than 80% of their home's value and would look to bring payments into 31% of their income.

I'm not sure if you qualify. I'm also not sure if the 80% is based on value at time of purchase or the current value.

Either way, I would definitely fit the LTV requirements. I got an FHA loan when I bought and only put 3% down. Let's say that it is off of the purchase price, then I'd knock off about 10% of my loan. If it is off current market value, that would be more like 20%.

As far as income goes, at the time I made the purchase, I ran a carpentry company during the construction boom. I made a killing in those days. Now, I no longer run that company and have taken a severe pay cut from my income levels at that time*. My payments are about 50% of my current personal income (the loan is only in my name, so I don't need the wife's income).



But if you do qualify, you could only knock off 5 -10%. That's the current market value difference.

That's assuming I put 20% down, which I didn't. I do qualify, and could make a fortune off of this in the long run if I was of that sort of person, (which I'm not).








* One of the major reasons I took an FHA loan and only put 3% down was so that I could remain liquid and have enough of a reserve to prevent the worst case scenario if the construction industry went belly-up. It was definitely the right move.
 
That's assuming I put 20% down, which I didn't. I do qualify, and could make a fortune off of this in the long run if I was of that sort of person, (which I'm not).
Yes. Me too. A fortune. Well, a small fortune anyway.
When I do, I'll thank IT2002 for the $.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Me too. A fortue. Well, a small fortune anyway.
When I do, I'll thank IT2002 for the $.

Yeah. I'm overstating things a bit. It would be a small fortune for me as well.

With my money, though, it would feel like a big fortune. It probably wouldn't cover Bill Gates' drink tab though. :(
 
Yeah. I'm overstating things a bit. It would be a small fortune for me as well.

With my money, though, it would feel like a big fortune. It probably wouldn't cover Bill Gates' drink tab though. :(
It would be enough to pay off my debts (except for the house itself, of course). But then, I only have a car and a (very small, I am told) student loan.
 
It would be enough to pay off my debts (except for the house itself, of course). But then, I only have a car and a (very small, I am told) student loan.

I'd be able to do the same and have decent chunk left over. It's good not to be over extended on credit. :mrgreen:
 
Either way, I would definitely fit the LTV requirements. I got an FHA loan when I bought and only put 3% down. Let's say that it is off of the purchase price, then I'd knock off about 10% of my loan. If it is off current market value, that would be more like 20%.

As far as income goes, at the time I made the purchase, I ran a carpentry company during the construction boom. I made a killing in those days. Now, I no longer run that company and have taken a severe pay cut from my income levels at that time*. My payments are about 50% of my current personal income (the loan is only in my name, so I don't need the wife's income).





That's assuming I put 20% down, which I didn't. I do qualify, and could make a fortune off of this in the long run if I was of that sort of person, (which I'm not).








* One of the major reasons I took an FHA loan and only put 3% down was so that I could remain liquid and have enough of a reserve to prevent the worst case scenario if the construction industry went belly-up. It was definitely the right move.

Your FHA and 3% was a good idea.

And you are supposed to make a fortune off of real estate in the long run. Unless there is a major reduction in population or your area turns into Cicero.
 
Yes. Me too. A fortune. Well, a small fortune anyway.
When I do, I'll thank IT2002 for the $.

It's you or the banks. I'd rather you have it. You'll put the money back into the economy better than the banks will. ;)
 
It's you or the banks. I'd rather you have it. You'll put the money back into the economy better than the banks will. ;)
Personally, I have a HUGE problem with my money going to the irresponsible.
 
Personally, I have a HUGE problem with my money going to the irresponsible.

Then why do you want it to go to the banks? :2razz:
 
Your FHA and 3% was a good idea.

And you are supposed to make a fortune off of real estate in the long run. Unless there is a major reduction in population or your area turns into Cicero.

:rofl I doubt it'll become Cicero anytime soon. I'm like a half mile form the border of Park Ridge, and those bastards would sooner buy the whole town before they live next to "New Cicero". :lol:

And its cool to make a fortune off of real estate, but it's not cool to do it by having other people pay for it in return for nothing. That's stealing, IMO.

I think that if people use this option, they should have to get that alternative lien I described above. If it is government funds that are used, then the governemnt should have that potential lien.

I don't see a problem with helping people in dire straights, I see a problem with giving the potential to profit off of the help beyond what they would have profited without it.

If they sell form more than the initial principle amount before the reduction, they should have to pay back all of it. If they sell for less than the initial principle amount before reduction, they should only pay back as much as possible and the rest could be forgiven.

For me, I see no problems with trying to keep people in their homes so long as they are not trying to abuse the situation (as I could, but wouldn't).
 
:rofl I doubt it'll become Cicero anytime soon. I'm like a half mile form the border of Park Ridge, and those bastards would sooner buy the whole town before they live next to "New Cicero". :lol:

And its cool to make a fortune off of real estate, but it's not cool to do it by having other people pay for it in return for nothing. That's stealing, IMO.

I think that if people use this option, they should have to get that alternative lien I described above. If it is government funds that are used, then the governemnt should have that potential lien.

I don't see a problem with helping people in dire straights, I see a problem with giving the potential to profit off of the help beyond what they would have profited without it.

If they sell form more than the initial principle amount before the reduction, they should have to pay back all of it. If they sell for less than the initial principle amount before reduction, they should only pay back as much as possible and the rest could be forgiven.

For me, I see no problems with trying to keep people in their homes so long as they are not trying to abuse the situation (as I could, but wouldn't).

I completely agree with the lien that you propose.
 
HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said that, absent the program, as many as 6 million homes are projected to go into foreclosure over the next three years. "We believe we can help a very large share of these," he said. "We believe we can get to the majority of the foreclosures."

He emphasized that the program will help homeowners who are not in mortgage trouble by propping up home values. "The average home across the country would gain $6,000 in value," he said.

$75B Program Aims to Lower Mortgages, Foreclosures - washingtonpost.com

Sweet! Let's keep on artificially inflating home values! What POSSIBLE negative impact could THAT have?
 
An Obama representative was on the Today Show. Today.

Rewarding the bad behavior of borrowers is better than not rewarding them.

Spending $250,000 per job created is better than not spending it.

Got that?
 
An Obama representative was on the Today Show. Today.

Rewarding the bad behavior of borrowers is better than not rewarding them.

Spending $250,000 per job created is better than not spending it.

Got that?


Give me $5M and I'll create at LEAST 20 jobs in the next year.
 
Maybe I misunderstood something.

I heard that the FedGvmnt was going to spend $x to help people out of foreclosures, by getting/forcing lenders to lower interest rates and re-finance houses based on their current value.

So... I refinance my house at, say, 60% of what I bought it.

5 years from now, when real estate process go back up, it might be worth 25% more than what I bought it.

What keeps me from selling that house at a HUGE profit?

Obviously, I am not in that situation – but I am paying for people who are -- and thery stand to make a LOT of money off of it.

Anyone else have a problem with this?

If it turns out to be like you presented it then I will agree with you 1000%, however I think you might be misreading what is going on. I think what's going to happen is that they will refinance the house at the same value of their mortgage, but with a longer payment schedule. So say you started at a 15 year repayment rate, you will now be able to refinance to a 30 year rate and reduce your payments by say 35%. I could be wrong though.
 
MORAL HAZARD

That's all i have to say about that...
 
Sweet! Let's keep on artificially inflating home values! What POSSIBLE negative impact could THAT have?

If the value of a home is decreased to reflect its real market price, how is it being artificially inflated? Do you even try to understand these issues?
 
If the value of a home is decreased to reflect its real market price, how is it being artificially inflated? Do you even try to understand these issues?

This piece of legislation aims to alleviate the instances of foreclosure. While it might lack the short run ability to drive prices up, a decreased propensity of foreclosure would do wonders to end the drop in housing prices.

Which is a bad thing IMHO, because there is a fundamental reason why people are not buying houses. The prices are way to high for the given supply.
 
This piece of legislation aims to alleviate the instances of foreclosure. While it might lack the short run ability to drive prices up, a decreased propensity of foreclosure would do wonders to end the drop in housing prices.

Which is a bad thing IMHO, because there is a fundamental reason why people are not buying houses. The prices are way to high for the given supply.

Yeo.
People have little idea what the game is or what will happen.
There are a lot of other places for people to put their money at the moment, and when the rules of the game are not clear... why play against the government?
 
Back
Top Bottom