Is BO the April Fool?

Actually, I'm not quite done.

I don't claim deep understanding of this issue. I merely point to the article quoted and what it means.

If you can prove that the facts are incorrect and/or the reasoning is unsound, I have no problem changing my mind to the degree I even have a strong opinion about this.

Isn't loan insurance similar to other insurance where there is always some risk? I don't see where your evidence overturns the notion that historically these have been good risks.

The thrust of the article is that banks over-reacted to the crash by being too tight with money. Why not correct that?

"Do you want taxpayers paying for all these houses?"

No. The evidence is that they won't have to and that there may be a benefit for citizens and banks in this new policy.

That's the thrust of the article. Bending it to mean something else is probably my main issue with this thread. Within the confines of the link provided, the original interpretation that this is a policy that will recreate the crash of 2008 is unsupported by the article quoted.

You can agree with that can't you?
 
No ones taxes should go up to pay off any sort of private loans. Let the damn banks fail if they make bad loans. The gvt needs to STAY OUT of the private markets. Let the market run it's course.
 
rv
Do you think banks have data on whzat credit scores became delinquent in the mid2000s?
Knowing banks etc make money off mortgages do you think they want to refuse anyone who can make payments?
So 620 was historically acceptable, does that mean historically these people paid their loans? If that were so don't you think banks would loan them money so they could make money off them>
OR is there a good reason banks are hesitant

what is so wrong about telling people with weak credit scores to work on reducing their debt, making payments on time , getting their credit scores up and then looking for a home loan?

WHY is the answer to assure banks they can make what are to banks using their data are risky loans, assure the banks etc the taxpayer will pick up the tab on the defaults?

Really rv I can't understand why you think that is the answer. If a bank doesn't think someone is worthy of a loan when the bank would be on the hook for the default how stupid is it to make the taxpayer pay?

Are you really ok with YOUR taxes going up to bail out banks who made loans they didn't want to?
There is nothing more to say if you can't see this is a bad history that shouldn't be repeated/
 
Review your American History from after the Civil War to the Depression to see how well an unrestrained or unregulated market works.
 
VolHorn
I am sure rv does know that but he/she ignores facts and blindly sticks to an opinion once it is posted.
to continue to say that the fact that the gov't coerced leaning practices of makeing home loans to people with weak credit did NOT play a part in the housing crisis is just silly.

OR to try to pretend that it was the UNREGULATED banking / mortgage industry that make all those questionalbe loans is even sillier.

Of course the banks etc ran with the guarantees and looser requirements the gov't gave them knowing the gov't was guaranteeing those loans.

I can't understand why any intelligent person in today's economy would think it is ok for our taxes to go up to pay for more defaults made to people with weak/ bad credit.
 
I don't know what you want to believe I know.

You also project your own modus on me. Find all the threads I started that even remotely resemble your constant state of hysteria and outrage. I've never started such a thread.

I had a low opinion of W, but I didn't feel the need to play the part of the pathetically amateur operative by bending his every utterance or policy into a doomsday scenario for the US.
 
well then make yoiur point clear RV
Are you in favor of repeating the policy of bankers etc giving home loans to people whose credit is weak or shaky with the US gov't ( YOU the taxpayer) paying for any loan that defaults?

Rv
a simple answer , no emotion or ' hysteria
are YOU willing for your taxes to go up to pay for defaulted loans made to people the banks would not have otherwise made?

In other words the OP link
 
Of course I'm not for giving shaky loans. Sadly for you, that's not the point of the article you link to.

That is the point I'm making and it's clear. The link does not support the premise of the question you asked me. Now have the courtesy of answering my question from above.
 
rv?"Of course I'm not for giving shaky loans. Sadly for you, that's not the point of the article you link to. "Really? Be honest, you really don't think the point of the article was about the gov't again promising guaranteeing banks etc would not have to pay if shakier credited people default on their loans?

???
here is the headline from the Wapo link
Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit
from article
"Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default."

Gee I don't know, that seems to me EXACTLY what the aricle is saying.
Even though history ( see the FDIC link) shows that people with weaker credit default over 5 times as often as people with good credit BO etc wants bnaks to loan weak credit score people money AGAIN.
and we the taxpayer would pay again.

Rv
what do you think the point of the article was if not that the gov't was asking banks to make riskier loans that the gov't would gurantee?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top