Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between rising crime and penalizing achievement in favor of "equity", I'm not sure why Democrats don't understand how much they are at risk of losing the votes of hard working, middle class moderates. Especially Asian and Hispanic 1st and 2nd generation immigrants who have studied, saved and worked their way up and aren't impressed with the value signaling of rich, white people. This won't play well.

This doesn’t affect those people in a negative way it actually will help.

Anonymous wrote:YES LET'S ALL BELIEVE THE PSYCHOTIC RIGHT WING MEDIA AND THEIR LIES.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read once that the existence of Fannie/Freddie causes mortgage rates to artificially lower due to govt backing. That savings mainly goes to richer people who owns.

The interesting part that subsidy to the rich is far greater than welfare check cost.

Fannie and Freddie is welfare for the rich

False. Jumbo loans have lower interest rates than conforming loans backed by Freddie/Fannie.

This is not categorically true. It can be but rates and risks move all over the place so it’s not universal.

Anonymous wrote:So your saying I worked hard, saved, have excellent credit and now want to buy a house and I have to pay for those with bad credit scores AND compete with them to buy the same house I spent decades saying for?

Good old USA punish success and reward failure!!!

Anonymous wrote:So your saying I worked hard, saved, have excellent credit and now want to buy a house and I have to pay for those with bad credit scores AND compete with them to buy the same house I spent decades saying for?

Good old USA punish success and reward failure!!!

Anonymous wrote:Although I’m no Biden fan, I don’t understand the concern here. As I read the old and new LLPA rates, they are actually going down for loans with a high credit score and a traditional 20 percent down payment, while going up for loans with a high score and a down payment of 15-19.99%. Am I missing something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Communism

more like socialism

This is a government program to help very private banks protect their very private profits. You can hate communism and socialism but that should involve knowing what they are, or at least what they aren’t.

NP. I think the pp’s point is that banks should be charging the risky people fees to offset their risky mortgages and protect their own private profits that way. Interest rates and fees have always been a function of risk since that’s how the banks protect their investments. It shouldn’t be responsible people paying more fees for this, even if risky people still pay fees as well like they should.

This point can’t be made credibly by shouting out social systems designed to not enrich private banks.

To your point, private banks have since their inception taken advantage of blocked or limited access to bank resources in minority and poor communities to charge usurious fees to these communities for basic banking services. This has been the subject of decades of litigation. It has allowed banks to amass fortunes, while maintaining higher income clients by offering them better rates. Banks make money however the law allows them, as well as through extralegal ways until available laws are enforced. If you identify people being treated unfairly by a bank, that means there is a group of even richer people benefiting from that policy. Banks benefit when each group focuses anxiety on supposed unfair gains to the people below them instead of massive gains to the people above them. Look up! [/quote


None of the above is true. What even is a “private bank.” This is just silly. Do you know what the ECOA is? CRA? TILA? Humda?