Posted on 05/12/2010 1:24:20 PM PDT by Slyscribe
The Senate today rejected a proposal by Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., to impose a minimum 5% down payment for virtually all home mortgages. The amendment to the broader financial regulatory overhaul bill, which failed 42-57, would have required income verification and an assessment of borrowers’ ability to repay as well. Corker’s proposal also would have stripped out a provision that required financial firms securitizing loans to keep a 5% portfolio risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.investors.com ...
You REALLY expect Democrats to vote for a law that will require THEM to come up with 5% cash down on those DDC Mansions and Tropical vacation homes??
They already get sweet mortgage deals from the banks for that!!!
This is ludicrous. They shouldn’t do anything here. What they should do is:
1) allow banks that make bad decisions to fail, and
2) quit forcing banks to give loans to people that can’t afford them
The banks and the free market will figure out the rest by killing off banks that make bad decisions and rewarding banks that make good ones. This central planning crap has got to stop.
Up is down, down is up.
I thought NOT doing that was what got is into the current mess. The idea that is still not required is crazy, and the fact that Congress would reject the requirement is criminal!
Read; Mary Elizabeth Croft.
The dems were right on this one. I do NOT want the government getting involved in how me and the person lending me money come up with a mutually agreeable down payment.
I’m good with 5% - can’t believe this was rejected. Even FHA’s traditional 3% would be better if it were “real” money - as of now the 3% can come from a “gift” or the Ameridream thing, which is basically a con.
This amendment: The sentiment is right (bolstering financial stability in the housing market by encouraging lending only to financially-stable people) but the method is wrong (the government stepping in and requiring private bansk to do what they already out to be doing themselves). Shoot, if the government hadn’t already been pressuring private lending institutions to make high risk loans to begin with, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. This amendment seems like using government to fix a problem caused by government. Nasty, vicious circle.
So cut the Democrats pay by 5% and see how they like it. In fact, cut their pay 10% every three months until they balance the budget without raising taxes, of any kind.
Good point - this shouldn’t be legislated at all.
The free market doesn’t allow for the “good hearted” leftists to take a role that makes them feel good about themselves.
This is the penultimate goal of your rank and file leftist.
I agree completely.
I have pretty bad credit and more than likely cannot be approved for a house loan. You know what though, I’m not out there begging for a break. My credit score is a reflection of bad choices in the past and I should NOT be rewarded a house anyway just because I live in America. I will get a house one day when I have paid off ALL my bills and I am in a position where I CAN AFFORD THE MORTGAGE! WHAT A FREAKING CONCEPT THAT IS!
It ought to be 10% with mortgage insurance, 20% without.
I agree.
If a bank, without government intervention, wanted to lend on zero-down, that’s their perogative.
FORCING them to lend to people that can’t pay back with little or nothing down to boot, however, I have a problem with.
It has everything to do with the current economy.
Imposing those guidelines today, would be tantamount to suffocating the patient.
EVERY time a residential property changes hands, the economy gets stronger.
Transfer taxes, recording fees to the State and county. Real estate taxes escrow accounts equals ‘free’ money to invest at zero interest.
Utility accounts, Home Depot, appliances, nurseries....and on and on.
Sure, in a world where there's no Fannie or Freddy.
I do real estte. I’m not sure the low down is the problem, I think it is the inability of banks to bring themselves to foreclose. I have two short sales where the owners have been living without rent for eight months, we have buyers for both, but the banks can’t make a timely decision.
I hate to see rules on what deals can happen. The market rule is don’t pay your mortgage, get the boot. That solves the problem right there.
Congress got us into this mess by dictating that banks had to lend to those that couldn’t afford it...
...and you think the solution should be for Congress to dictate more of how banks should be run?!?
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.