FHA Bombshell?

[Polk]

What truth? All you did was make up a series of absurd claims.

 

[namvet]

What truth? All you did was make up a series of absurd claims.

its obvious you were born yesterday. the claims about ACORN were all over the news. on a daily basis. maybe you should pull your head outta MSNBC's ass ????

 

[Polk]

If that's the case, why can't you provide evidence to support the claim?

 

[namvet]

If that's the case, why can't you provide evidence to support the claim?

ever hear of a search engine??? didn't think so. your a lib all right. someone always has to do it for you

[URL="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA="]link[/URL]

 

[Polk]

If that's the case, why can't you provide evidence to support the claim?

ever hear of a search engine??? didn't think so. your a lib all right. someone always has to do it for you

[URL="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA="]link[/URL]

Ah, the already debunked CRA myth.

 

[namvet]

If that's the case, why can't you provide evidence to support the claim?

ever hear of a search engine??? didn't think so. your a lib all right. someone always has to do it for you

[URL="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA="]link[/URL]

Ah, the already debunked CRA myth.

which of course is a total fake. like you

 

[Polk]

So explain how the CRA forced banks to give bad loans.

 

[namvet]

So explain how the CRA forced banks to give bad loans.

lets see if you can use a computer first. the burden of proof IS on you

 

[Polk]

So explain how the CRA forced banks to give bad loans.

lets see if you can use a computer first. the burden of proof IS on you

You're the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

 

[namvet]

So explain how the CRA forced banks to give bad loans.

lets see if you can use a computer first. the burden of proof IS on you

You're the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

I knew you couldn't prove a thing BTY I already found the CRA an hour ago.

night pokey

 

[Polk]

The only thing the CRA does is not allow banks to discriminate based on the location of the property being purchased. It does not force banks to give loans to those without credit.

 

[veritas]

The only thing the CRA does is not allow banks to discriminate based on the location of the property being purchased. It does not force banks to give loans to those without credit.

They can discriminate anyway if they want by lowballing an appraisal. It's done all the time.

 

[Polk]

The only thing the CRA does is not allow banks to discriminate based on the location of the property being purchased. It does not force banks to give loans to those without credit.

They can discriminate anyway if they want by lowballing an appraisal. It's done all the time.

Absolutely. Still racism in mortgage lending too.

 

[garyd]

Now let me ask you a question? Exactly how do you think they should go about selling all those 200k to 300k homes in a country in which the majority make less than 60k a year? And why are they not making any houses in a price range that working people can afford? The house payments that come with my dads first house in the mid fifties was about half of one weeks pay and dad was at the time grossing aobut one sixty a week. How many people now have a house payment or are paying rent that is about half of one weeks pay?

 

[veritas]

Now let me ask you a question? Exactly how do you think they should go about selling all those 200k to 300k homes in a country in which the majority make less than 60k a year? And why are they not making any houses in a price range that working people can afford? The house payments that come with my dads first house in the mid fifties was about half of one weeks pay and dad was at the time grossing aobut one sixty a week. How many people now have a house payment or are paying rent that is about half of one weeks pay?

200k to 300k won't get you much here, but I suppose in OK it would. Those are townhouse/condo prices around here.

FHA ratios are about 30%, maybe 33% with some ancillary debt not to exceed about 38% of gross monthly income. That includes PITI as well for calculation of the payment.

 

[Toro]

The FHA increased writing insurance to step into the void caused by the collapse of the credit markets last year but did not increase capital backstopping the loans. Defaults accelerated and now the FHA is in trouble.

 

[Toro]

If that's the case, why can't you provide evidence to support the claim?

ever hear of a search engine??? didn't think so. your a lib all right. someone always has to do it for you

[URL="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA="]link[/URL]

Ah, the already debunked CRA myth.

People who think the CRA caused this mess are ideological hacks who haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

Ideological hacks will always find a scapegoat to explain away their own failings.

 

[veritas]

The FHA is not a lender.

 

[Toro]

Excuse me, I misspoke. They increased insurance of mortgages. I will make that correction.

 

[veritas]

As far as I know, there was never any limit to the amount of loans the FHA would insure, just payment ratios, an appraisal and a housing inspection. Those were the underwriting guidelines along with a ceiling price. The ratios are stricter than for commercial money, as are the appraisals and the inspections. The money coming in monthly for premiums should have been hellatiously huge at the time the market crapped out. Some people were still paying premiums long after they had passed the 20% point of equity, a lot of people in fact. You had to apply to get the premiums stopped. Most people never even knew about it. Even at the foreclosure rate presently, there should be enough money there just from incoming premiums.