Joe officially announces he's running again

[soundforbjt]

So far what they've seemed to learn is that their policies are so very unpopular, so winning thru rigging is the way to go. Gotta keep the money funneling up.

That’s why their ads never have anything related to policy, they know how unpopular their positions are, therefore all they’re left with is BS attacks.

 

[HomerJS]

That is your opinion.

You are blind if you cannot see the difference in the last two and a half years.

You are right that is my opinion. It also happens to be the opinion of most people who watched it. I'm assuming you thought the Republicans were more mentally sharp during that exchange about Social Security.

That is your opinion.

I can acknowledge Joe is slower over the last few years. That's the main reason most Dems want another candidate, his age. It's not about the job he's done. Overall Joe Biden has done a good job.

I would take a diminished Joe Biden over a racist corrupt asshole as President any day.

Maybe you can tell us what Trump has done to earn your vote over Biden, since Trump is the leading candidate.

Maybe you can tell us what DeSantis has done or proposed that in your opinion would make him a good second choice.

BTW - "I would never vote for Biden no matter what Trump has done", is a perfectly acceptable answer for you. I would understand that. You know the old party over country thing.

 

[eelw]

I would take a diminished Joe Biden over a racist corrupt asshole as President any day.

But this is the most important fact, no matter the majority of voters wouldn’t want a 2020 rematch, Biden is ultimately the only choice. Originally I was going to say the lesser of two evils. But in terms of evil scale, everything bad Biden has done in his 50 year career pales in comparison to just the Mar A Lago documents let alone every other corrupt thing the orange monkey has done. Hell, you can take all Repugnicans it may only just equal to everything done in his 1 term.

 

[pcgeek11]

You have been corrected on this already. It is some simpleton nonsense to equate this to sub prime loans ca. 2007.

You’re not a simpleton repeating dumb shit debunked talking points, are you?

You understand that subprime is referring to interest rate over the lifetime of the loan vs the prime rate, not the fees, right? Of course you do, if you’re attempting to speak intelligently about the issue here 🙄

As I stated in an earlier post. From the article that YOU LINKED to explain this. Refer to post # 137 by you.

Why having good credit could cost you more on a home mortgage

If you’re looking to buy a home, new federal rules may impact how much you pay for a mortgage.

abcnews.go.com

Quotes from the linked article:

New federal rule causing major backlash from some home buyers. The new rule will hike mortgage rates for home buyers with higher credit scores in an effort to subsidize mortgage rates for those with riskier credit scores.

Beginning May 1, upfront fees for loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be adjusted because of changes in the Loan Level Price Adjustments (LLPAs). Those fees are based on things including the borrower's credit score, size of the down payment, type of home and more. In some cases, people with better credit scores may pay more in fees, while those with lower credit scores will pay less.


Some housing experts fear the new rules will encourage banks to lend to borrowers who perhaps shouldn't qualify for a mortgage in the first place. Lending to unqualified buyers is what led to the financial crisis of 2008; banks gave too many unqualified buyers home loans that they ultimately couldn't pay back.

"This confusing approach won't work and, more importantly, couldn't come at a worse time for an industry struggling to get back on its feet after these past 12 months," David Stevens, a former commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration during the Obama administration, wrote in a social media post. "To do this at the onset of the spring market is almost offensive to the market, consumers and lenders.

 

[fskimospy]

I would love to see the economic model where a 1% rate decline in one time origination fees triggers a subprime mortgage crisis.

Lol.

 

[pcgeek11]

I would love to see the economic model where a 1% rate decline in one time origination fees triggers a subprime mortgage crisis.

Lol.

Take it up with experts that made the comments in the article linked by @repoman0.

lol

 

[repoman0]

Big surprise that pcgeek11 can’t separate the facts in the article from the opinions.

This is basic stuff that you don’t understand, pcgeek11.

Here is a better article that more clearly explains the changes without those pesky opinions getting in the way. This way you can see for yourself that the sky isn’t falling, despite what some guy in an ABC news article that I arbitrarily linked tells you and you uncritically swallow. https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/new-mortgage-fee-rules/

 

[fskimospy]

Take it up with experts that made the comments in the article linked by @repoman0.

lol

No need - it’s a self evidently stupid prediction. There is no model there, just some guy making a quote for a news story.

 

[Fenixgoon]

riddle me this, how many times did the president attend the white house correspondents' dinner from 2016-2020, vs. 2021-present?

 

[ch33zw1z]

riddle me this, how many times did the president attend the white house correspondents' dinner from 2016-2020, vs. 2021-present?

President two scoops was a perfect representative for conservatives. Snowflakes all around

 

[blackangst1]

As I stated in an earlier post. From the article that YOU LINKED to explain this. Refer to post # 137 by you.

Why having good credit could cost you more on a home mortgage

If you’re looking to buy a home, new federal rules may impact how much you pay for a mortgage.

abcnews.go.com

Quotes from the linked article:

New federal rule causing major backlash from some home buyers. The new rule will hike mortgage rates for home buyers with higher credit scores in an effort to subsidize mortgage rates for those with riskier credit scores.

Beginning May 1, upfront fees for loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be adjusted because of changes in the Loan Level Price Adjustments (LLPAs). Those fees are based on things including the borrower's credit score, size of the down payment, type of home and more. In some cases, people with better credit scores may pay more in fees, while those with lower credit scores will pay less.


Some housing experts fear the new rules will encourage banks to lend to borrowers who perhaps shouldn't qualify for a mortgage in the first place. Lending to unqualified buyers is what led to the financial crisis of 2008; banks gave too many unqualified buyers home loans that they ultimately couldn't pay back.

"This confusing approach won't work and, more importantly, couldn't come at a worse time for an industry struggling to get back on its feet after these past 12 months," David Stevens, a former commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration during the Obama administration, wrote in a social media post. "To do this at the onset of the spring market is almost offensive to the market, consumers and lenders.

Ive been reading about this and its terrible. For obvious reasons.

 

[fskimospy]

Ive been reading about this and its terrible. For obvious reasons.

This seems like an extremely minor change in the scheme of things.

 

[pcgeek11]

Big surprise that pcgeek11 can’t separate the facts in the article from the opinions.

This is basic stuff that you don’t understand, pcgeek11.

Here is a better article that more clearly explains the changes without those pesky opinions getting in the way. This way you can see for yourself that the sky isn’t falling, despite what some guy in an ABC news article that I arbitrarily linked tells you and you uncritically swallow. https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/new-mortgage-fee-rules/

Hey it's your evidence from your link. Maybe you should choose better links.

 

[pcgeek11]

No need - it’s a self evidently stupid prediction. There is no model there, just some guy making a quote for a news story.

So David Stevens (former commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration during the Obama administration) and other housing experts are now just some guys making comments for a news article.

 

[FelixDeCat]

This was inevitable but disappointing. I was hoping to see a primary and hoping Gavin Newsom could show what he's potentially got, and Mayor Pete also, and potentially if someone rose up like Obama did.

The Dems don't need to win just because of Trump, they need to be inspired to go to the polls and win all the other races too. Biden is just not going to do that. He BARELY won last time.

Gavin Newsom?




He ruined a state. What makes you think he wont do any better as president?

 

[fskimospy]

So David Stevens (former commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration during the Obama administration) and other housing experts are now just some guys making comments for a news article.

Like I said if anyone wants to give a model to how that happens or hell, even some plausible series of events I would looooove to hear it. Lol.

As far as I can tell it must be ‘a couple thousand in fees that render some buyers unable to pay is the only thing preventing incompetent risk management departments from engineering a global financial catastrophe.’

El oh El.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry, another possible interpretation would be (using the example in the article) ‘customers putting down $108,000 for a $400k house is well and good. If they only had to put down $104,000 we will face a global financial calamity’

Lol.

 

[pcgeek11]

Like I said if anyone wants to give a model to how that happens or hell, even some plausible series of events I would looooove to hear it. Lol.

As far as I can tell it must be ‘a couple thousand in fees that render some buyers unable to pay is the only thing preventing incompetent risk management departments from engineering a global financial catastrophe.’

El oh El.

Well if I was going to pick these housing experts or some random people on the internet. Which one do you think I should listen too?
Hint: It isn't random people on a web tech forum.

 

[repoman0]

Hey it's your evidence from your link. Maybe you should choose better links.

Appeal to authority is not evidence.

Well if I was going to pick these housing experts or some random people on the internet. Which one do you think I should listen too?
Hint: It isn't random people on a web tech forum.

I would recommend thinking for yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Well if I was going to pick these housing experts or some random people on the internet. Which one do you think I should listen too?
Hint: It isn't random people on a web tech forum.

I would personally recommend you ask yourself what plausible causal mechanism would cause a global financial crisis from approximately a 3% reduction in one time upfront expenditures on a subset of loans.

Can you tell me how this works?

Oh also the statement that it could lead to a 2008 style crisis is not attributed to any of the experts named in the article. It is attributed to ‘some experts’ who conveniently go unnamed and unquoted.

 

[pcgeek11]

I would personally recommend you ask yourself what plausible causal mechanism would cause a global financial crisis from approximately a 3% reduction in one time upfront expenditures on a subset of loans.

Can you tell me how this works?

I'm no housing expert. So no, but they made a statement of what they think could happen in the linked article:

Some housing experts fear the new rules will encourage banks to lend to borrowers who perhaps shouldn't qualify for a mortgage in the first place. Lending to unqualified buyers is what led to the financial crisis of 2008; banks gave too many unqualified buyers home loans that they ultimately couldn't pay back.

My objection to the whole thing is penalizing good credit and rewarding poor credit.

 

[fskimospy]

Appeal to authority is not evidence.

I would recommend thinking for yourself.

Expert opinion is valuable evidence, it is just not a substitute for everything else like say, a plausible method of causation, lol.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm no housing expert. So no, but they made a statement of what they think could happen in the linked article:

Some housing experts fear the new rules will encourage banks to lend to borrowers who perhaps shouldn't qualify for a mortgage in the first place. Lending to unqualified buyers is what led to the financial crisis of 2008; banks gave too many unqualified buyers home loans that they ultimately couldn't pay back.

My objection to the whole thing is penalizing good credit and rewarding poor credit.

Right, so ‘some people are saying’, haha.

Lending to unqualified buyers was a collapse of underwriting standards in the 2000s. Origination fees are not underwriting.

So again, how does a lower origination fee lead to a collapse In underwriting standards? What’s the causal mechanism here?

 

[pcgeek11]

Expert opinion is valuable evidence, it is just not a substitute for everything else like say, a plausible method of causation, lol.

Some didn't think it was an issue prior to 2008 either...

 

[repoman0]

My objection to the whole thing is penalizing good credit and rewarding poor credit.

Great news! It’s not actually doing that. You still pay less the better your credit! In fact, if you aren’t a peasant with a credit score below 780, you pay no fees at all. So it sounds like you actually have no valid objections.