Is this the first improvement Trump made for middle class and ordinary working c

1. 92

   Au faitposted 17 months ago

   Is this the first improvement Trump made for middle class and ordinary working class people?
   
   Right afterTrump was sworn in as president, his administration undid one of Barack Obama’s last-minute economic-policy actions: a mortgage-fee cut under a government program for first-time home buyers and low-income borrowers.
   
   The new administration on Friday said it’s canceling a reduction in the Federal Housing Administration’s annual fee for most borrowers. The cut would have reduced the annual premium for low income and first time home buyers for up to $500 in the first year.
   
   Just curious if anyone knew Trump did this &  if you support his action?  If you do support it, why?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 51

   Ericdierkerposted 17 months ago

   For starters this cannot be answered by screaming or shouting or just loving Obama and hating Trump. It is a very complicated matter that includes keeping enough liquidity in the FHA to handle defaults and continue to offer the programs that are now so popular. A drop in reserves makes FHA "credit rating" spiral downward. Increasing the cost of money that FHA needs to borrow or bank against. Which would then pass that increase onto all the other FHA home owners. Actually kind of creating a Ponzi scheme.  It would create a type of soc. sec. scenario. Those that get a reduction now would for sure 100% effect those that get one next year very negatively.
   Sure the bonus reduction of $500 looks like a gift from the gov. that is now being revoked. Well in fact it is a gift to a select few at the cost for many.
   We should be cautious here. We are in one of those murky areas where our federal gov. is competing, using tax dollars, against free enterprise. If the gov. subsidizes Joe and John why not Mack and Mary? The FHA in fact justified discrimination against people who are not first time homeowners. The poor bastard that lost his home in the collapse now cannot qualify to buy a new one because he is not a first timer? That really does not make sense. It is competing against the free market with gov. tax dollars.
   It is undeniable that our last crash and recession was caused by allowing people who could not really afford a house to buy one. When the economy shifted ever so slightly millions who should not have been able to buy in the first place defaulted. This reduction goes right down the same road and will hurt millions more than it helps.
   Giving away money that is owed does not in the slightest help the middle class -- in fact it cheapens their labor.
   Do we really want "Bill earned his, Bob got his cheaper because of the gov."?
   Maybe some think that is good for the economy. Maybe a happier I got mine citizenry will produce more maybe just making them happy is good for the economy. That is an intangible none of us really know the answer to.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      gmwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      A++++++++.  Totally agree.  If one doesn't have the money, then wait until one has the money.  This is only logical. You are a smart man, Eric.

      replyreport
   2. 51

      Ericdierkerposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Grace, I think that we need to put who hates who - on the side, maybe not behind us yet. At the school I am Site Chairman of I am pushing to spend money to hire someone to teach finances to 5.6.7 graders. I think we "owe" it to our children.

      replyreport
3. 92

   Au faitposted 17 months ago

   Eric, you're over complicating this issue.  You should have Googled the issue before commenting.
   
   The cut is 1/4 of 1% reduction in the interest rate, giving first time and low income people a reduction of $500 to $1500 savings in interest over a year's time -- hardly enough to help them qualify as a buyer if they didn't qualify before the interest rate cut.  The difference in savings is determined by the value of the home purchased.
   
   True that bankers allowed people to purchase homes they couldn't afford that contributed to the Great Bank Heist of 2008, but that was because they were given incentives to do just that, as were the people who insured those risky mortgages.  I bet you would have sold mortgagees and mortgage insurance to anyone willing to sign the dotted line, qualified or not, if you were guaranteed a million or more dollars for so doing. 
   
   The bonus system was faulty and should have required that every transaction that counted toward the bonus be solid, as apposed to risky.  But instead, bankers were encouraged to make risky loans. After all this time, not a single banker has ever been held accountable for bringing down the economy of the entire world, and stealing from people (their houses, businesses, retirement funds, jobs, etc.) beyond the imaginations of most people AND receiving bonuses for so doing!  While all of this is true, it is irrelevant to the question I asked.
   
   All tax credits and government programs are unfair to somebody.  Tax credits and special programs are only applicable to people who qualify due to their particular circumstances.  Would you take away the dependent child credit because people with no children can't take advantage of it? 
   
   Government programs, tax credits, etc., are usually offered in order to either encourage or discourage certain behaviors, and I don't see them going away anytime soon. So why shouldn't first time home buyers get one?  Why shouldn't low income people get one? Why should only the wealthy people, the top 1%, get all of the loop holes?  Technically even the wealthy who are first time home owners would have qualified for this program.  Barron Trump, when he is of legal age, could have used this program to save on the mortgage interest rate of his first house if his father hadn't reversed it.
   
   Reversing this accommodation that would have taken affect January 27 of this year hurt ordinary people of ordinary means.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      Ericdierkerposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      No it does not. You are clearly speaking from a bent of hating Trump. That is OK. Mine answer was based on economics not handouts. Subsidize people and they become dependent' How can you hurt someone by not giving them money that was not agreed to?

      replyreport
   2. 86

      gmwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Eric, you are correct as usual.  The poor & lower middle class can't afford homes. If one can't afford to live in a home, get an affordable apartment.The poor & lower middle class have unreasonable expectations in that regard. Great comment,

      replyreport