PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Scotlands Cure for Capitalism


Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 06:36 AM
This cartoon originated nearly 3 months ago in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Scotland</st1:country-region></st1:place> . It looks like most of the world is laughing at our nation's current leadership.



Also:
In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained,

"....passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it." <o:p></o:p>

I can't add anything to this

chiefsnorth
08-17-2010, 06:41 AM
On a scale of 0 to Funny, I rate this 0. Negative bonus for cut and paste without parsing. Bad dog!

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 07:03 AM
On a scale of 0 to Funny, I rate this 0. Negative bonus for cut and paste without parsing. Bad dog!

Damn, this is a tough crowd!



A few weeks ago, BP was putting a new cap
on the leaking oil well in the gulf hoping it would<O:p</O:p
capture up to 90% of the disgusting filth spewing there.
It worked, now there is a move to get them to relocate to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on">Washington</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">DC.</st1:State></ST1:p<O:p</O:p

Slainte
08-17-2010, 07:18 AM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/downpayment.asp

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 07:51 AM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/downpayment.asp

oopsy.

InChiefsHell
08-17-2010, 09:47 AM
oopsy.

Meh. Everything was true except the quote at the end, which was an exaggeration of what Dodd actually did say. Satire, doncha know. In essence, it is what Dodd said. According to the snopes article anyway...

|Zach|
08-17-2010, 09:49 AM
T0m Cash.

Misinformed and not even funny. Double threat guy.

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 09:50 AM
Double threat guy.

like Thigpen!

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 02:58 PM
T0m Cash.

Misinformed and not even funny. Double threat guy.

WTF u talkin about willis?

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 03:01 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/downpayment.asp

oopsy.

You are both aware that the mikelsons lean to the liberal side of politics?

oopsey

|Zach|
08-17-2010, 03:56 PM
You are both aware that the mikelsons lean to the liberal side of politics?

oopsey

It leans towards the truth. Troubling as it is for your mindless narrative and e-mail crap.

Chief Henry
08-17-2010, 04:27 PM
Was the vote accurate ?

alnorth
08-17-2010, 05:36 PM
Meh. Everything was true except the quote at the end, which was an exaggeration of what Dodd actually did say. Satire, doncha know. In essence, it is what Dodd said. According to the snopes article anyway...

not really. People who do not happen to have the down payment yet, but a good job with reliable income can easily afford a mortgage if the payment is well within their means. Banks don't require down payments as proof you can afford a mortgage, they require the down payment to force you to have some skin in the game. They want to be sure that if you decide to default, it is going to hurt, because you lose a lot of money you put in.

(flipside example: If you have $20,000 but are unemployed with no marketable skills, you cant afford a $100,000 home even though you have 20% down)

alnorth
08-17-2010, 05:39 PM
You are both aware that the mikelsons lean to the liberal side of politics?

oopsey

That kind of argument is not really going to fly with snopes. The OP was factually incorrect, and snopes is widely regarded as a reliable source. This isn't some crazy-ass blog where you have to prove the source is reliable, snopes has basically gotten to the point where you have to prove bias, people wont just accept alleged bias.

Also, this particular snopes article did not rely on opinion at all to stamp it "false", it is a matter of record that it is false.

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 06:02 PM
That kind of argument is not really going to fly with snopes. The OP was factually incorrect, and snopes is widely regarded as a reliable source. This isn't some crazy-ass blog where you have to prove the source is reliable, snopes has basically gotten to the point where you have to prove bias, people wont just accept alleged bias.

Also, this particular snopes article did not rely on opinion at all to stamp it "false", it is a matter of record that it is false.So you are perfectly willing to deny the whole post because the last comment isn't exactly what the man said? The intent of what he said is clear in the snopes write up. How can they use such a small portion of what happened to call the whole story false?

Nope you are right, there was no bias there!

alnorth
08-17-2010, 07:19 PM
So you are perfectly willing to deny the whole post because the last comment isn't exactly what the man said? The intent of what he said is clear in the snopes write up. How can they use such a small portion of what happened to call the whole story false?

Nope you are right, there was no bias there!

yes, I am. The article said he was quoted as saying X, he did not say X, because X was a made-up parody. To the extent that snopes called it false, in that article they stuck strictly to the facts. You cant credibly allege bias, because there was no opinion in the article.

Getting away from the snopes article and what was or was not factual, to the "well ok, he didn't say X, but X is what he meant", no, that isn't right either. He basically said that not having a down payment is not related to whether you can afford a mortgage. He is correct. Having or not having a down payment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether you can afford a mortgage.

Now, the banks (and our government via FHA) would be stupid to allow no down payment because there would be a moral hazard if you can afford the mortgage but just dont feel like living in the house anymore you can walk away too easily. That's a matter of underwriting and making sure you are a partner in the deal with something to lose, it doesn't mean you can or can not afford the mortgage.

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 08:16 PM
yes, I am. The article said he was quoted as saying X, he did not say X, because X was a made-up parody. To the extent that snopes called it false, in that article they stuck strictly to the facts. You cant credibly allege bias, because there was no opinion in the article.

Getting away from the snopes article and what was or was not factual, to the "well ok, he didn't say X, but X is what he meant", no, that isn't right either. He basically said that not having a down payment is not related to whether you can afford a mortgage. He is correct. Having or not having a down payment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether you can afford a mortgage.

Now, the banks (and our government via FHA) would be stupid to allow no down payment because there would be a moral hazard if you can afford the mortgage but just dont feel like living in the house anymore you can walk away too easily. That's a matter of underwriting and making sure you are a partner in the deal with something to lose, it doesn't mean you can or can not afford the mortgage.

You know, you seem to be getting really worked up over this. All you have done is fucked up a good post that poked fun at the liberals. Good job there Al.

InChiefsHell
08-18-2010, 05:31 AM
not really. People who do not happen to have the down payment yet, but a good job with reliable income can easily afford a mortgage if the payment is well within their means. Banks don't require down payments as proof you can afford a mortgage, they require the down payment to force you to have some skin in the game. They want to be sure that if you decide to default, it is going to hurt, because you lose a lot of money you put in.

(flipside example: If you have $20,000 but are unemployed with no marketable skills, you cant afford a $100,000 home even though you have 20% down)

I see what you are getting at, but your flipside example doesn't work either. Because you may have 20% down, but you don't have a job or marketable skills...which means you don't fit ALL the criteria. My argument is, the bank requires that you have a good job, can afford the monthly payment, and can come up with 5% down...if you can't meet that criteria, you can't AFFORD the house. Plain and simple.

Shit, I could make the payments on a brand new luxury car, but I can't really afford it. So why the hell should I get one? If you can afford the monthly payment, then you can set aside a few hundred dollars a month for a year and save up a down payment.

Hence, they CAN'T afford it. But we'll give it to 'em anyway. That's why I said that in essence he was quoted accurately.

alnorth
08-18-2010, 07:54 AM
I guess we have different definitions of "afford a mortgage" in the context of this story, and your definition isn't totally crazy either in most cases.

My definition: If you can easily make equal amortized payments over 30 years, (assume closing costs are rolled into the mortgage) you can afford the mortgage. Requiring a down payment has more to do with the bank making sure that you are buried in the home and have to give up a pound of flesh to default than whether you can afford the payment.

Your definition: whatever the terms are, they are. If you cant meet them, you cant afford the mortgage.

Fair enough in most cases, except in the context of discussing whether the federal government should require a 3.5% down payment or 5% down payment as a matter of public policy. In that discussion, the terms aren't settled yet, and deciding what the down payment ought to be has more to do with how much skin we the taxpayers want you to put in than whether you can make the payments.

(I actually disagree with Chris Dodd btw, I think the FHA down payment probably ought to be 5%, I'm just being picky about being accurate when criticizing dems)