Posted on 05/13/2008 10:17:56 AM PDT by Bob J
I am for spending cuts also. However, connecting tax cuts to spending cuts is a bad idea because it assumes static behavior. The Bush tax cuts have increased, not decreased tax revenues. I realize that every tax cut does not increase tax revenues but a static model is inappropriate. In addition, tax cuts and spending decreases are not equivalent. Taxes are coerced from taxpayers. Much government spending is just taking from one group and giving to another group. Spending must always have a higher threshold to approve.
If there's a strong anti-MacCnai current, the candidate need only look to himself to wonder why. Time and again, he's proved that his word isn't worth a bucket of spit, and everything that he says MUST be sharply discounted.
How can a borrow in default qualify for a conventional mortgage? Homeowner is the wrong word for individuals in default. In most defaults on subprime mortgages, the borrower has no equity. The loan holder is the home owner.
This proposal will be the start of a new home ownership entitlement. The rats will extend it loans at purchase especially for favored groups (first time buyers, minorities, rat voters, ...). The rats do not like subprime mortgages. They want to replace subprime mortgages with an entitlement.
He can't qualify, that's the point. If he qualified at purchase, and can make the payments on a conventional loan now, he's given one. Obviously this isn't yet a legislative proposal, but if the lender is absorbing the loss rather than the taxpayer, it's a less costly alternative for the lender and the borrower. Few lenders relish the prospect of forclosure, though that should be an option if they prefer. It's a private market work out that would be available today, but for FHA qualifications.
This proposal will be the start of a new home ownership entitlement. The rats will extend it loans at purchase especially for favored groups (first time buyers, minorities, rat voters, ...)
If that happens, then you deal with it. It's not part and parcel of this plan.
#3 was spamming by my definition. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, have at it. Spamming is no way to win friends and influence people. Please refrain.
I agree but it seems like McCain is the only politician even TALKING about spending cuts...GWB certainly hasn’t for 8 years.
You just can’t let anybody have an adult discussion about McCain, can you?
When youpost the same thing on dozens of threads over weeks and months, that’s spamming.
Why won’t you let the adults have a discussion for a change?
Off to your room with no supper...
It’s a true story isn’t it?
If the mortgage companies have to write down the loan the costs would be pushed off in the form of higher rates to current mortgage holders...you know, the people who were financially responsible in the first place?
It was made clear at the outset of this post that the purpose was to have rational discussions about where McCain stands on each of the issues...good AND bad.
If you can’t do that, please go to another thread.
MH’s proposal as I understand it, is to provide conventional mortgages to borrowers in default. If my understanding is correct, this proposal involves a new entitlement. Although the proposal probably has qualifications, the qualifications will be relaxed over time to buy votes.
Lenders will be in favor of the proposal if they get out of bad loans with something near the note value. I do not see lenders voluntarily absorbing losses. Lenders already have the right to take losses on bad loans. In some situations, lenders are providing good terms to default borrowers such as providing a new loan. Lenders can best make these decisions, not JM or the rats.
Never underestimate the rats desire to create new entitlements. With solid rat control for the first time in many years, the rats will go crazy with entitlements. They want to attone for all of the unfairness in life. Their list of entitlements is endless.
Bob the plan standing alone is fine. When you place it as part of the whole this plan falls apart.
His enviroMENTAL plan will cause shprtages, price increases, higher unemployment in the US.
Now add his amnesty program and the trillons that will cost us in tax increases.
I am not a one issue voter, well actually I am, my one issue is Conservatism.
All parts of his package must be viewed as part of the whole.
And what I see us a house of cards.
Now I understand Ga-Newt’s sellout.
My sincere hope is that conservatives vote for all offices save one, POTUS.
We must stop the socialists within our own party before we can stop the one’s outside the gates.
I don’t see it as an entitlement, rather a revision of current federal regulations. Lenders shouldn’t be forced to participate, and should certainly have the option of pursuing foreclosure if they wish, though in most cases taking a loss on the face value of an under collateralized loan beats foreclosing and owning the property.
You’re correct some lenders are revamping terms for stressed borrowers, at their option of course. That’s the way the market should work. However that’s often not possible for borrowers in default, or with other credit problems, since the lender would be making a non conforming (sub prime) loan of limited marketability. The way I read the proposal, the FHA credit requirement is being waived if the homeowner qualified at purchase, and can qualify to make the new payments, intervening credit problems being ignored. I think it makes sense all the way around, though it not a bill, simply a paragraph long proposal so lots can change.
BTW, as to "voluntarily absorbing losses", lots of those losses have been recognized. And the lender is going to be taking loses on these loans whether they're resturctured or they go through forclosure. There aren't any other options.
The whole group of you is nothing but a gang of childish vandals who won't allow anyone else to have an opinion different than your own.
Oh ya, you're also a 3rd party nut...which explains your neurosis and need for attention.
So McCain is lying to us now, so he can lie to those he is trying to woe now later?
No, he is addressing the concerns of this set of people. One thing that you can bet on is that he will follow through on his promises, if at all possible. If the American people want cap and trade, they will get it. It may be right or wrong but a self-governing people will get what they demand. It does no good to stand and scream that global warming is bullshirt ‘cause I readed some guy on the internets. If conservatives can put together a rational and coherent argument to counter GW, then it is a jump ball.
“Will they be willing to back McCain , knowing they’ll be fighting him 50% of the time, or will they settle for fighting Obama 95% of the time.”
>>>>>>>>>>>.............................
I think we will be fighting him a lot more than 50% of time
lets get real:
taxes - he voted against them
oil-no drilling in anwar
free speech - neyt
closing of gitmo
no waterboarding and you guys think he is for the troops
global warming taxes - yeh we conservatives are on board there LOL
i say we end up fighting him 75% or more.
go away you mccainiaks all your bs is not going to work
conservatives know his record all too well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.