|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Because then the evil fraudulent voters, of which millions exist, will already have voted for the other guy!
I must honestly ask, does anyone really believe that people exist who would drive a long way just to vote in another district in the same election? Half the people don't even bother going to vote in their own district, and suddenly there is this giant group of people who are a) so invested in the election that they take a lot of effort to try to change it, b) don't really care about compromising the democratic process to do this and c) are also fine with comitting a crime just to add 1 vote onto a pile of millions. Where do these people suddenly come from? And why are most of them minorities? Probably because them niggers can't be trusted?
This is obviously a ploy to remove some of the voters who vote against them.
|
On October 30 2014 00:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Election officials in 27 states, most of them Republicans, have launched a program that threatens a massive purge of voters from the rolls. Millions, especially black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters, are at risk. Already, tens of thousands have been removed in at least one battleground state, and the numbers are expected to climb, according to a six-month-long, nationwide investigation by Al Jazeera America.
At the heart of this voter-roll scrub is the Interstate Crosscheck program, which has generated a master list of nearly 7 million names. Officials say that these names represent legions of fraudsters who are not only registered but have actually voted in two or more states in the same election — a felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison.
Until now, state elections officials have refused to turn over their Crosscheck lists, some on grounds that these voters are subject to criminal investigation. Now, for the first time, three states — Georgia, Virginia and Washington — have released their lists to Al Jazeera America, providing a total of just over 2 million names.
The Crosscheck list of suspected double voters has been compiled by matching names from roughly 110 million voter records from participating states. Interstate Crosscheck is the pet project of Kansas’ controversial Republican secretary of state, Kris Kobach, known for his crusade against voter fraud.
The three states’ lists are heavily weighted with names such as Jackson, Garcia, Patel and Kim — ones common among minorities, who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, fully 1 in 7 African-Americans in those 27 states, plus the state of Washington (which enrolled in Crosscheck but has decided not to utilize the results), are listed as under suspicion of having voted twice. This also applies to 1 in 8 Asian-Americans and 1 in 8 Hispanic voters. White voters too — 1 in 11 — are at risk of having their names scrubbed from the voter rolls, though not as vulnerable as minorities.If even a fraction of those names are blocked from voting or purged from voter rolls, it could alter the outcome of next week’s electoral battle for control of the U.S. Senate — and perhaps prove decisive in the 2016 presidential vote count.
“It’s Jim Crow all over again,” says the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who cofounded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King, Jr. Lowery, now 93, says he recognizes in the list of threatened voters a sophisticated new form of an old and tired tactic. “I think [the Republicans] would use anything they can find. Their desperation is rising.” Source
So standard US election shennanies?
|
On October 30 2014 01:51 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2014 00:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Election officials in 27 states, most of them Republicans, have launched a program that threatens a massive purge of voters from the rolls. Millions, especially black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters, are at risk. Already, tens of thousands have been removed in at least one battleground state, and the numbers are expected to climb, according to a six-month-long, nationwide investigation by Al Jazeera America.
At the heart of this voter-roll scrub is the Interstate Crosscheck program, which has generated a master list of nearly 7 million names. Officials say that these names represent legions of fraudsters who are not only registered but have actually voted in two or more states in the same election — a felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison.
Until now, state elections officials have refused to turn over their Crosscheck lists, some on grounds that these voters are subject to criminal investigation. Now, for the first time, three states — Georgia, Virginia and Washington — have released their lists to Al Jazeera America, providing a total of just over 2 million names.
The Crosscheck list of suspected double voters has been compiled by matching names from roughly 110 million voter records from participating states. Interstate Crosscheck is the pet project of Kansas’ controversial Republican secretary of state, Kris Kobach, known for his crusade against voter fraud.
The three states’ lists are heavily weighted with names such as Jackson, Garcia, Patel and Kim — ones common among minorities, who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, fully 1 in 7 African-Americans in those 27 states, plus the state of Washington (which enrolled in Crosscheck but has decided not to utilize the results), are listed as under suspicion of having voted twice. This also applies to 1 in 8 Asian-Americans and 1 in 8 Hispanic voters. White voters too — 1 in 11 — are at risk of having their names scrubbed from the voter rolls, though not as vulnerable as minorities.If even a fraction of those names are blocked from voting or purged from voter rolls, it could alter the outcome of next week’s electoral battle for control of the U.S. Senate — and perhaps prove decisive in the 2016 presidential vote count.
“It’s Jim Crow all over again,” says the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who cofounded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King, Jr. Lowery, now 93, says he recognizes in the list of threatened voters a sophisticated new form of an old and tired tactic. “I think [the Republicans] would use anything they can find. Their desperation is rising.” Source Why the hell aren't they doing this right AFTER major elections?
Probably because the process takes a long time and there's a major election every two years.
My expectation is that the vast majority of people on the list will not have their registration removed. The list they're publishing looks like an early-ish pass from a database. It could result in legitimate voters being removed or it could not ... it really depends on how aggressively they decide to err on one side or another.
|
In other news:
U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages (Reuters) - The regulator of Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) said on Monday it was developing rules to let Americans buy homes with down payments as low as 3 percent, part of a push to boost access to credit. + Show Spoiler +Mel Watt, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, pledged the new guidelines for the two taxpayer-owned firms would be "sensible" without putting the safety of financial markets at risk.
"(They) will be able to responsibly serve a targeted segment of creditworthy borrowers with lower down payment mortgages," he said in a speech.
The two firms don't lend money directly, but rather buy mortgages from banks and then resell them with a guarantee. Over the last few years, both had stopped accepting most loans with 3 percent down payments after being criticized with helping inflate a housing bubble that burst during the 2007-09 recession.
But Watt, who was picked for his post by President Barack Obama, has made extending access to credit a priority since he took the helm at the FHFA in January.
He said the lower down payments would be allowed when taking into account "compensating factors" without specifying what those factors would be.
He also said the two firms, which guarantee most new mortgages in the United States, will change rules that will make it harder for them to force banks to repurchase faulty loans from the mortgage agencies.
The requirement for banks to buy back faulty loans from Fannie and Freddie is meant to encourage lending institutions to more carefully vet loan applications before offering financing. But lenders say the rules on buybacks are not clear, making the job of the banks more difficult and contributing to tighter credit.
Watt said guidelines released in the coming weeks would spell out more clearly when banks would be compelled to take back loans.
And some commentary:
Rolling the dice, again The headline on Reuters at Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:05pm EDT read “U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages.” At first, we thought perhaps the headline was from 2004, not 2014. After the financial crisis of 2007-2009, it seemed inconceivable that U.S. authorities would again put some of the largest U.S. intermediaries – or the taxpayers who provide for them – at risk of failure. Sadly, we were wrong. In a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association, Melvin L. Watt, the Director of the agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the following statement: “To increase access for creditworthy but lower-wealth borrowers, FHFA [Federal Housing Finance Agency] is also working with the [Government-Sponsored] Enterprises to develop sensible and responsible guidelines for mortgages with loan-to-value ratios between 95 and 97 percent.” + Show Spoiler +What Reuters dutifully reported is that the FHFA is developing rules to allow government guarantees on mortgages where borrowers put down as little as 3 percent of the purchase price. Ironically, Mr Watt delivered this astounding news in Las Vegas, where today, house prices are still more than 40% below their pre-crisis peak (see chart).
We can only hope that the U.S. government will quickly abandon this plan. The global cost of the financial crisis has been measured in the tens of trillions of dollars. While the crisis had many causes, it was initially known as the U.S. subprime crisis for a reason. Highly-leveraged lenders took on enormous risks and encouraged U.S. households to do the same. As a result, many people who could not afford to make mortgage payments became homeowners with little or no equity. In effect, they were renters who owned an option on the upside of the house price. We know how that turned out: the House of Debt came tumbling down with the price of houses.
Today, most jurisdictions are trying to figure out ways to ensure that borrowers can afford their mortgages. This generally means raising the minimum down payment (or lowering the maximum loan-to-value ratio) to lower leverage and reduce the probability of default. We know of no other regulator who proposes to return to the good old days of a decade ago. Put simply, it is difficult to overstate how bad this idea is. Let's be clear: we are not against homeownership. And we are not against subsidizing homeownership for young families or first-time homeowners. But there are good ways and bad ways to provide that subsidy. As we explained in an earlier post, if the government wishes to promote homeownership, it should provide people with home equity, not more “cheap” debt. We hope that the proponents of this plan, who supervise Fannie and Freddie, will read it.
|
Agreed, based on the whining complaints about not being able to move out of their crappy neighborhood, they now have the ability and motivation to be part of 2 states? The Republicans have an terrible tendency to use their political capital on useless battles. How does the US register their voters? Canadians tick a box when they submit their taxes, otherwise you have to jump through a couple hoops to register.
|
It shouldn't be that hard to create and enforce a fairly fraud-proof voting system that also doesn't create any undo barriers to voting. If nothing else, it will make people finally shut up on the issue.
|
In Sweden the place you are supposed to vote at have a list. They check you off against it based on personal identification and that is that. You vote anywhere else and they will tell you you are at the wrong place. Alternative is to vote before the election where you then are compared to the local list to see if there was a duplicate when they count the votes.
So our system is based on all people being allowed to vote being known when the election happens. It is up to you to notify them if they made a mistake (when you receive your vote card) so they have time to add you to the roll.
|
On October 30 2014 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:In other news: Show nested quote +U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages (Reuters) - The regulator of Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) said on Monday it was developing rules to let Americans buy homes with down payments as low as 3 percent, part of a push to boost access to credit. + Show Spoiler +Mel Watt, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, pledged the new guidelines for the two taxpayer-owned firms would be "sensible" without putting the safety of financial markets at risk.
"(They) will be able to responsibly serve a targeted segment of creditworthy borrowers with lower down payment mortgages," he said in a speech.
The two firms don't lend money directly, but rather buy mortgages from banks and then resell them with a guarantee. Over the last few years, both had stopped accepting most loans with 3 percent down payments after being criticized with helping inflate a housing bubble that burst during the 2007-09 recession.
But Watt, who was picked for his post by President Barack Obama, has made extending access to credit a priority since he took the helm at the FHFA in January.
He said the lower down payments would be allowed when taking into account "compensating factors" without specifying what those factors would be.
He also said the two firms, which guarantee most new mortgages in the United States, will change rules that will make it harder for them to force banks to repurchase faulty loans from the mortgage agencies.
The requirement for banks to buy back faulty loans from Fannie and Freddie is meant to encourage lending institutions to more carefully vet loan applications before offering financing. But lenders say the rules on buybacks are not clear, making the job of the banks more difficult and contributing to tighter credit.
Watt said guidelines released in the coming weeks would spell out more clearly when banks would be compelled to take back loans. LinkAnd some commentary: Show nested quote +Rolling the dice, again The headline on Reuters at Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:05pm EDT read “U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages.” At first, we thought perhaps the headline was from 2004, not 2014. After the financial crisis of 2007-2009, it seemed inconceivable that U.S. authorities would again put some of the largest U.S. intermediaries – or the taxpayers who provide for them – at risk of failure. Sadly, we were wrong. In a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association, Melvin L. Watt, the Director of the agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the following statement: “To increase access for creditworthy but lower-wealth borrowers, FHFA [Federal Housing Finance Agency] is also working with the [Government-Sponsored] Enterprises to develop sensible and responsible guidelines for mortgages with loan-to-value ratios between 95 and 97 percent.” + Show Spoiler +What Reuters dutifully reported is that the FHFA is developing rules to allow government guarantees on mortgages where borrowers put down as little as 3 percent of the purchase price. Ironically, Mr Watt delivered this astounding news in Las Vegas, where today, house prices are still more than 40% below their pre-crisis peak (see chart).
We can only hope that the U.S. government will quickly abandon this plan. The global cost of the financial crisis has been measured in the tens of trillions of dollars. While the crisis had many causes, it was initially known as the U.S. subprime crisis for a reason. Highly-leveraged lenders took on enormous risks and encouraged U.S. households to do the same. As a result, many people who could not afford to make mortgage payments became homeowners with little or no equity. In effect, they were renters who owned an option on the upside of the house price. We know how that turned out: the House of Debt came tumbling down with the price of houses.
Today, most jurisdictions are trying to figure out ways to ensure that borrowers can afford their mortgages. This generally means raising the minimum down payment (or lowering the maximum loan-to-value ratio) to lower leverage and reduce the probability of default. We know of no other regulator who proposes to return to the good old days of a decade ago. Put simply, it is difficult to overstate how bad this idea is. Let's be clear: we are not against homeownership. And we are not against subsidizing homeownership for young families or first-time homeowners. But there are good ways and bad ways to provide that subsidy. As we explained in an earlier post, if the government wishes to promote homeownership, it should provide people with home equity, not more “cheap” debt. We hope that the proponents of this plan, who supervise Fannie and Freddie, will read it. Link
I am curious what they mean provide more home equity.
|
On October 30 2014 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:In other news: Show nested quote +U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages (Reuters) - The regulator of Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) said on Monday it was developing rules to let Americans buy homes with down payments as low as 3 percent, part of a push to boost access to credit. + Show Spoiler +Mel Watt, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, pledged the new guidelines for the two taxpayer-owned firms would be "sensible" without putting the safety of financial markets at risk.
"(They) will be able to responsibly serve a targeted segment of creditworthy borrowers with lower down payment mortgages," he said in a speech.
The two firms don't lend money directly, but rather buy mortgages from banks and then resell them with a guarantee. Over the last few years, both had stopped accepting most loans with 3 percent down payments after being criticized with helping inflate a housing bubble that burst during the 2007-09 recession.
But Watt, who was picked for his post by President Barack Obama, has made extending access to credit a priority since he took the helm at the FHFA in January.
He said the lower down payments would be allowed when taking into account "compensating factors" without specifying what those factors would be.
He also said the two firms, which guarantee most new mortgages in the United States, will change rules that will make it harder for them to force banks to repurchase faulty loans from the mortgage agencies.
The requirement for banks to buy back faulty loans from Fannie and Freddie is meant to encourage lending institutions to more carefully vet loan applications before offering financing. But lenders say the rules on buybacks are not clear, making the job of the banks more difficult and contributing to tighter credit.
Watt said guidelines released in the coming weeks would spell out more clearly when banks would be compelled to take back loans. LinkAnd some commentary: Show nested quote +Rolling the dice, again The headline on Reuters at Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:05pm EDT read “U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages.” At first, we thought perhaps the headline was from 2004, not 2014. After the financial crisis of 2007-2009, it seemed inconceivable that U.S. authorities would again put some of the largest U.S. intermediaries – or the taxpayers who provide for them – at risk of failure. Sadly, we were wrong. In a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association, Melvin L. Watt, the Director of the agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the following statement: “To increase access for creditworthy but lower-wealth borrowers, FHFA [Federal Housing Finance Agency] is also working with the [Government-Sponsored] Enterprises to develop sensible and responsible guidelines for mortgages with loan-to-value ratios between 95 and 97 percent.” + Show Spoiler +What Reuters dutifully reported is that the FHFA is developing rules to allow government guarantees on mortgages where borrowers put down as little as 3 percent of the purchase price. Ironically, Mr Watt delivered this astounding news in Las Vegas, where today, house prices are still more than 40% below their pre-crisis peak (see chart).
We can only hope that the U.S. government will quickly abandon this plan. The global cost of the financial crisis has been measured in the tens of trillions of dollars. While the crisis had many causes, it was initially known as the U.S. subprime crisis for a reason. Highly-leveraged lenders took on enormous risks and encouraged U.S. households to do the same. As a result, many people who could not afford to make mortgage payments became homeowners with little or no equity. In effect, they were renters who owned an option on the upside of the house price. We know how that turned out: the House of Debt came tumbling down with the price of houses.
Today, most jurisdictions are trying to figure out ways to ensure that borrowers can afford their mortgages. This generally means raising the minimum down payment (or lowering the maximum loan-to-value ratio) to lower leverage and reduce the probability of default. We know of no other regulator who proposes to return to the good old days of a decade ago. Put simply, it is difficult to overstate how bad this idea is. Let's be clear: we are not against homeownership. And we are not against subsidizing homeownership for young families or first-time homeowners. But there are good ways and bad ways to provide that subsidy. As we explained in an earlier post, if the government wishes to promote homeownership, it should provide people with home equity, not more “cheap” debt. We hope that the proponents of this plan, who supervise Fannie and Freddie, will read it. Link
rollin rollin keep that ponzi rollin
|
On October 30 2014 02:47 Wolfstan wrote:
Agreed, based on the whining complaints about not being able to move out of their crappy neighborhood, they now have the ability and motivation to be part of 2 states? The Republicans have an terrible tendency to use their political capital on useless battles. How does the US register their voters? Canadians tick a box when they submit their taxes, otherwise you have to jump through a couple hoops to register.
It's a lot easier than that in most US states, although some Republicans are trying to change that. Many states will actually allow you to register the same day you vote.
Suppression of early voting is another recent ploy; in a lot of places, early voting is a big deal because churches will take their entire flock down to go vote right after service. This helps Democrats, so Republicans try to make it harder to do.
|
On October 30 2014 03:05 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2014 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:In other news: U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages (Reuters) - The regulator of Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) said on Monday it was developing rules to let Americans buy homes with down payments as low as 3 percent, part of a push to boost access to credit. + Show Spoiler +Mel Watt, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, pledged the new guidelines for the two taxpayer-owned firms would be "sensible" without putting the safety of financial markets at risk.
"(They) will be able to responsibly serve a targeted segment of creditworthy borrowers with lower down payment mortgages," he said in a speech.
The two firms don't lend money directly, but rather buy mortgages from banks and then resell them with a guarantee. Over the last few years, both had stopped accepting most loans with 3 percent down payments after being criticized with helping inflate a housing bubble that burst during the 2007-09 recession.
But Watt, who was picked for his post by President Barack Obama, has made extending access to credit a priority since he took the helm at the FHFA in January.
He said the lower down payments would be allowed when taking into account "compensating factors" without specifying what those factors would be.
He also said the two firms, which guarantee most new mortgages in the United States, will change rules that will make it harder for them to force banks to repurchase faulty loans from the mortgage agencies.
The requirement for banks to buy back faulty loans from Fannie and Freddie is meant to encourage lending institutions to more carefully vet loan applications before offering financing. But lenders say the rules on buybacks are not clear, making the job of the banks more difficult and contributing to tighter credit.
Watt said guidelines released in the coming weeks would spell out more clearly when banks would be compelled to take back loans. And some commentary: Rolling the dice, again The headline on Reuters at Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:05pm EDT read “U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages.” At first, we thought perhaps the headline was from 2004, not 2014. After the financial crisis of 2007-2009, it seemed inconceivable that U.S. authorities would again put some of the largest U.S. intermediaries – or the taxpayers who provide for them – at risk of failure. Sadly, we were wrong. In a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association, Melvin L. Watt, the Director of the agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the following statement: “To increase access for creditworthy but lower-wealth borrowers, FHFA [Federal Housing Finance Agency] is also working with the [Government-Sponsored] Enterprises to develop sensible and responsible guidelines for mortgages with loan-to-value ratios between 95 and 97 percent.” + Show Spoiler +What Reuters dutifully reported is that the FHFA is developing rules to allow government guarantees on mortgages where borrowers put down as little as 3 percent of the purchase price. Ironically, Mr Watt delivered this astounding news in Las Vegas, where today, house prices are still more than 40% below their pre-crisis peak (see chart).
We can only hope that the U.S. government will quickly abandon this plan. The global cost of the financial crisis has been measured in the tens of trillions of dollars. While the crisis had many causes, it was initially known as the U.S. subprime crisis for a reason. Highly-leveraged lenders took on enormous risks and encouraged U.S. households to do the same. As a result, many people who could not afford to make mortgage payments became homeowners with little or no equity. In effect, they were renters who owned an option on the upside of the house price. We know how that turned out: the House of Debt came tumbling down with the price of houses.
Today, most jurisdictions are trying to figure out ways to ensure that borrowers can afford their mortgages. This generally means raising the minimum down payment (or lowering the maximum loan-to-value ratio) to lower leverage and reduce the probability of default. We know of no other regulator who proposes to return to the good old days of a decade ago. Put simply, it is difficult to overstate how bad this idea is. Let's be clear: we are not against homeownership. And we are not against subsidizing homeownership for young families or first-time homeowners. But there are good ways and bad ways to provide that subsidy. As we explained in an earlier post, if the government wishes to promote homeownership, it should provide people with home equity, not more “cheap” debt. We hope that the proponents of this plan, who supervise Fannie and Freddie, will read it. I am curious what they mean provide more home equity.
In the original article they link to an earlier post they made.
Skimming through, I think this paragraph is what they were referring to:
If boosting home ownership were truly the policy goal, focusing the federal subsidy on entry-level homeownership (or, at least on houses below the March 2014 median sales price of existing homes of $198,500) probably would be more effective. And, to make the subsidy less risky for the financial system as whole, policymakers could transform it from a debt subsidy to an equity subsidy of roughly equal size. Imagine, for example, if the federal government were to match $1 for $1 for low-income families that had saved 10% of the value of a starter home (call it a 21st century land grant), giving them enough capital to put 20% down. Keeping the annual cost at $2.5 billion, that would allow the government to subsidize 200,000 purchases of $125,000 homes every year. With a bigger equity cushion, the resulting mortgages would be less risky and easier to securitize. But then, this is a solution only an economist could love.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
giving people money to move out of blighted neighborhoods is just sensible and good from a development point of view, but there is no way it happens in the united states.
|
On October 30 2014 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2014 03:05 Sub40APM wrote:On October 30 2014 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:In other news: U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages (Reuters) - The regulator of Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) said on Monday it was developing rules to let Americans buy homes with down payments as low as 3 percent, part of a push to boost access to credit. + Show Spoiler +Mel Watt, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, pledged the new guidelines for the two taxpayer-owned firms would be "sensible" without putting the safety of financial markets at risk.
"(They) will be able to responsibly serve a targeted segment of creditworthy borrowers with lower down payment mortgages," he said in a speech.
The two firms don't lend money directly, but rather buy mortgages from banks and then resell them with a guarantee. Over the last few years, both had stopped accepting most loans with 3 percent down payments after being criticized with helping inflate a housing bubble that burst during the 2007-09 recession.
But Watt, who was picked for his post by President Barack Obama, has made extending access to credit a priority since he took the helm at the FHFA in January.
He said the lower down payments would be allowed when taking into account "compensating factors" without specifying what those factors would be.
He also said the two firms, which guarantee most new mortgages in the United States, will change rules that will make it harder for them to force banks to repurchase faulty loans from the mortgage agencies.
The requirement for banks to buy back faulty loans from Fannie and Freddie is meant to encourage lending institutions to more carefully vet loan applications before offering financing. But lenders say the rules on buybacks are not clear, making the job of the banks more difficult and contributing to tighter credit.
Watt said guidelines released in the coming weeks would spell out more clearly when banks would be compelled to take back loans. And some commentary: Rolling the dice, again The headline on Reuters at Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:05pm EDT read “U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages.” At first, we thought perhaps the headline was from 2004, not 2014. After the financial crisis of 2007-2009, it seemed inconceivable that U.S. authorities would again put some of the largest U.S. intermediaries – or the taxpayers who provide for them – at risk of failure. Sadly, we were wrong. In a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association, Melvin L. Watt, the Director of the agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the following statement: “To increase access for creditworthy but lower-wealth borrowers, FHFA [Federal Housing Finance Agency] is also working with the [Government-Sponsored] Enterprises to develop sensible and responsible guidelines for mortgages with loan-to-value ratios between 95 and 97 percent.” + Show Spoiler +What Reuters dutifully reported is that the FHFA is developing rules to allow government guarantees on mortgages where borrowers put down as little as 3 percent of the purchase price. Ironically, Mr Watt delivered this astounding news in Las Vegas, where today, house prices are still more than 40% below their pre-crisis peak (see chart).
We can only hope that the U.S. government will quickly abandon this plan. The global cost of the financial crisis has been measured in the tens of trillions of dollars. While the crisis had many causes, it was initially known as the U.S. subprime crisis for a reason. Highly-leveraged lenders took on enormous risks and encouraged U.S. households to do the same. As a result, many people who could not afford to make mortgage payments became homeowners with little or no equity. In effect, they were renters who owned an option on the upside of the house price. We know how that turned out: the House of Debt came tumbling down with the price of houses.
Today, most jurisdictions are trying to figure out ways to ensure that borrowers can afford their mortgages. This generally means raising the minimum down payment (or lowering the maximum loan-to-value ratio) to lower leverage and reduce the probability of default. We know of no other regulator who proposes to return to the good old days of a decade ago. Put simply, it is difficult to overstate how bad this idea is. Let's be clear: we are not against homeownership. And we are not against subsidizing homeownership for young families or first-time homeowners. But there are good ways and bad ways to provide that subsidy. As we explained in an earlier post, if the government wishes to promote homeownership, it should provide people with home equity, not more “cheap” debt. We hope that the proponents of this plan, who supervise Fannie and Freddie, will read it. I am curious what they mean provide more home equity. In the original article they link to an earlier post they made. Skimming through, I think this paragraph is what they were referring to: Show nested quote +If boosting home ownership were truly the policy goal, focusing the federal subsidy on entry-level homeownership (or, at least on houses below the March 2014 median sales price of existing homes of $198,500) probably would be more effective. And, to make the subsidy less risky for the financial system as whole, policymakers could transform it from a debt subsidy to an equity subsidy of roughly equal size. Imagine, for example, if the federal government were to match $1 for $1 for low-income families that had saved 10% of the value of a starter home (call it a 21st century land grant), giving them enough capital to put 20% down. Keeping the annual cost at $2.5 billion, that would allow the government to subsidize 200,000 purchases of $125,000 homes every year. With a bigger equity cushion, the resulting mortgages would be less risky and easier to securitize. But then, this is a solution only an economist could love.
Yes, that would be both interesting and never pass in America, just like the idea of a basic income.
|
On October 30 2014 03:41 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2014 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2014 03:05 Sub40APM wrote:On October 30 2014 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:In other news: U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages (Reuters) - The regulator of Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) said on Monday it was developing rules to let Americans buy homes with down payments as low as 3 percent, part of a push to boost access to credit. + Show Spoiler +Mel Watt, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, pledged the new guidelines for the two taxpayer-owned firms would be "sensible" without putting the safety of financial markets at risk.
"(They) will be able to responsibly serve a targeted segment of creditworthy borrowers with lower down payment mortgages," he said in a speech.
The two firms don't lend money directly, but rather buy mortgages from banks and then resell them with a guarantee. Over the last few years, both had stopped accepting most loans with 3 percent down payments after being criticized with helping inflate a housing bubble that burst during the 2007-09 recession.
But Watt, who was picked for his post by President Barack Obama, has made extending access to credit a priority since he took the helm at the FHFA in January.
He said the lower down payments would be allowed when taking into account "compensating factors" without specifying what those factors would be.
He also said the two firms, which guarantee most new mortgages in the United States, will change rules that will make it harder for them to force banks to repurchase faulty loans from the mortgage agencies.
The requirement for banks to buy back faulty loans from Fannie and Freddie is meant to encourage lending institutions to more carefully vet loan applications before offering financing. But lenders say the rules on buybacks are not clear, making the job of the banks more difficult and contributing to tighter credit.
Watt said guidelines released in the coming weeks would spell out more clearly when banks would be compelled to take back loans. And some commentary: Rolling the dice, again The headline on Reuters at Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:05pm EDT read “U.S. regulator targeting lower down payments on mortgages.” At first, we thought perhaps the headline was from 2004, not 2014. After the financial crisis of 2007-2009, it seemed inconceivable that U.S. authorities would again put some of the largest U.S. intermediaries – or the taxpayers who provide for them – at risk of failure. Sadly, we were wrong. In a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association, Melvin L. Watt, the Director of the agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the following statement: “To increase access for creditworthy but lower-wealth borrowers, FHFA [Federal Housing Finance Agency] is also working with the [Government-Sponsored] Enterprises to develop sensible and responsible guidelines for mortgages with loan-to-value ratios between 95 and 97 percent.” + Show Spoiler +What Reuters dutifully reported is that the FHFA is developing rules to allow government guarantees on mortgages where borrowers put down as little as 3 percent of the purchase price. Ironically, Mr Watt delivered this astounding news in Las Vegas, where today, house prices are still more than 40% below their pre-crisis peak (see chart).
We can only hope that the U.S. government will quickly abandon this plan. The global cost of the financial crisis has been measured in the tens of trillions of dollars. While the crisis had many causes, it was initially known as the U.S. subprime crisis for a reason. Highly-leveraged lenders took on enormous risks and encouraged U.S. households to do the same. As a result, many people who could not afford to make mortgage payments became homeowners with little or no equity. In effect, they were renters who owned an option on the upside of the house price. We know how that turned out: the House of Debt came tumbling down with the price of houses.
Today, most jurisdictions are trying to figure out ways to ensure that borrowers can afford their mortgages. This generally means raising the minimum down payment (or lowering the maximum loan-to-value ratio) to lower leverage and reduce the probability of default. We know of no other regulator who proposes to return to the good old days of a decade ago. Put simply, it is difficult to overstate how bad this idea is. Let's be clear: we are not against homeownership. And we are not against subsidizing homeownership for young families or first-time homeowners. But there are good ways and bad ways to provide that subsidy. As we explained in an earlier post, if the government wishes to promote homeownership, it should provide people with home equity, not more “cheap” debt. We hope that the proponents of this plan, who supervise Fannie and Freddie, will read it. I am curious what they mean provide more home equity. In the original article they link to an earlier post they made. Skimming through, I think this paragraph is what they were referring to: If boosting home ownership were truly the policy goal, focusing the federal subsidy on entry-level homeownership (or, at least on houses below the March 2014 median sales price of existing homes of $198,500) probably would be more effective. And, to make the subsidy less risky for the financial system as whole, policymakers could transform it from a debt subsidy to an equity subsidy of roughly equal size. Imagine, for example, if the federal government were to match $1 for $1 for low-income families that had saved 10% of the value of a starter home (call it a 21st century land grant), giving them enough capital to put 20% down. Keeping the annual cost at $2.5 billion, that would allow the government to subsidize 200,000 purchases of $125,000 homes every year. With a bigger equity cushion, the resulting mortgages would be less risky and easier to securitize. But then, this is a solution only an economist could love. Yes, that would be both interesting and never pass in America, just like the idea of a basic income.
basic income would probably work in a smaller country with very high taxes and no outrageous amount of external spending like Switzerland or Norway.
|
On October 30 2014 03:00 xDaunt wrote:
It shouldn't be that hard to create and enforce a fairly fraud-proof voting system that also doesn't create any undo barriers to voting. If nothing else, it will make people finally shut up on the issue.
"The issue" is that there isn't really an issue. Other than republicans trying to win by making it harder for people who would likely vote against them to vote.
It's undeniably clear this has little to nothing to do with the integrity of the voting system. People who try to pretend that this is about voter integrity are just feeding the beast.
|
Everything I've read on the effects of voter id show that it has minimal, if any, statistically important bearing on turnout. In sevetal places, minority turnout has increased. Guess it's time for the racist Republicans to stop advocating it. Or they can keep going, since it actually has nothing to do with race.
|
On October 30 2014 04:29 Introvert wrote:
Everything I've read on the effects of voter id show that it has minimal, if any, statistically important bearing on turnout. In sevetal places, minority turnout has increased. Guess it's time for the racist Republicans to stop advocating it. Or they can keep going, since it actually has nothing to do with race.
I don't think it's a race thing. Other than minorities tend not to vote republican. It's about trying to make it harder for people to vote who would be more likely to vote republican to vote, period. Whether or not it has the intended effect or the opposite is irrelevant.
That's not to say Republicans don't find other 'reasons', just that it's completely clear this a solution seeking a problem where one doesn't exist.
Frankly, I'm surprised republicans have any money left after paying all those voter fraud bounties...
|
But statistically it doesn't appear to make it any harder to vote. And I'm all for making sure things are as clean as can be. If we should have GMO labels just because, then let's do voter id just because.
Edit: I dont think "just because" is a good reason, to be clear.
|
Looks like crosscheck is just election officials (both Dems and Reps) attempting to remove duplicates from registration rolls. There doesn't seem to be evidence that it's being used to suppress votes. Calling it "Jim Crow Returns" is just click bait.
|
Also, RIP in peace QE:
Fed completes the taper
The Federal Reserve ended its historic easing program Wednesday, ceasing the final $15 billion of monthly bond purchases it had made in an effort to keep the economic recovery going, in a statement that kindled market talk about a more hawkish central bank. ... Link
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
