Start A Petition

Wall Street's Latest Manufactured Outrage


Business  (tags: Wall Street, finance, homes, americans )

Nancy
- 2928 days ago - motherjones.com
The Fed and other regulators have proposed a set of rules that would put new limits on home mortgages: Borrowers would have to put 20 percent down and would have to show that their mortgage payments would amount to no more than 28 percent of their gross



   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

DORIS L (61)
Friday June 10, 2011, 5:46 am
Figures.
 

Shelly Peterson (213)
Friday June 10, 2011, 5:52 am
AURGH!!!....such a swamp & quagmire.........
 

Maria p (151)
Friday June 10, 2011, 6:27 am
the American Dream!!!!!! what next????
 

Carlene V (202)
Friday June 10, 2011, 6:38 am
Thanks Nancy. After reading the article, it makes sense that they have restrictions on the loans they make. I like it that the banks have to retain 5% of the loans not made with 20% down. They are the one's who got us into this mess and it sounds like they want to keep on keeping on. Selling junk loans without a care.
 

Kit B (276)
Friday June 10, 2011, 6:50 am

If I didn't already own a home, I would be pleased to just rent an apartment. Beyond the constant cost for upkeep and repairs that few think about when buying, there is the inevitable increases in the cost of insurance, taxes and even the basic payment. I did put 25% down on the purchase and I don't really have a problem with the requirement of banks/mortgage companies in doing that, it will work better for those who can't actually afford to buy and keep a home. Some think of home purchase as an investment...think again! It's a drain that will not pay out for the years of sucking money from your income.
 

Carol H (229)
Friday June 10, 2011, 7:10 am
noted, thanks Nancy
 

Nancy C (806)
Friday June 10, 2011, 7:17 am
I hear you Kit...I own a coop and our monthly maintenance fees are ridiculous. Most of us have a mortgage on top. I wanted something to leave to my daughter. I hope I can hold on to it...
 

patricia lasek (317)
Friday June 10, 2011, 7:59 am
Bloodsuckers!
 

. (1)
Friday June 10, 2011, 8:00 am
Noted. Thank you Nancy.
 

Carson K (0)
Friday June 10, 2011, 8:36 am
It seems as if there is never a way to "beat" the "man". Thanks for trying to lead a charge Nancy.
 

John Y (67)
Friday June 10, 2011, 10:41 am
Thanks Nancy. It is amazing that young people have to put up with it for twenty five years so that they can own their own house eventually but what is the alternative unless one is rich to be able to buy it outright.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday June 10, 2011, 11:28 am
Thanks Nancy, noted. Interesting it's the first Mother Jones leaves out "The proposed rules would not apply to loans backed by the federal government including those guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." from their source (WSJ).

And then, what the result of the new laws for elderly borrowers would be:

"Light offers a profile of a retired couple in their early 70s who want to put down $400,000 on a $600,000 home and take out a $200,000 mortgage. They have $1 million in the bank, but their monthly income is limited to $2,300 in Social Security.

Today, that couple would easily qualify for the mortgage if their credit is good, Light said, because they have lots of equity in the house. But under the federal proposal, they would not get the cheapest loan, because their debt would be 82 percent of their income."

Third, I fail to see any "manufacture outrage from the financial sector in the article (and I haven't heard any on the news).
 

Helen A (39)
Friday June 10, 2011, 12:57 pm
Do you ever really own anything anyway???
 

Wayne W (12)
Friday June 10, 2011, 1:54 pm
When I bought my first house (while Reagan was President, yet), the bank required a 20% down payment or you didn't get the mortgage. Then there's mortgage insurance the borrower pays until 20% equity is reached.

Do we have to treat every single issue as if it's the first time we've come across it? In a country where a suggestion we stop wasting money on bad food for our children and buy good food instead is greeted with accusations of "socialism" on MWF and "fascism" on TTh, is there any hope for us? Probably not.

John S., you won't see most important stories on the news. The news is too busy covering Charlie Sheen and Anthony Weiner. But there's plenty of Sturm and Drang. Follow the links in the story where it's documented.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/03/lawler-shrill-cry-from-lobbyists-on-qrm.html
Here are a couple of direct links.

NAR Call to Action on QRM!!!!
http://faarforum.com/2011/05/nar-call-to-action-on-qrm/
FOUR exclamation points!!!! They must really be outraged.

The QRM Rule is Imminent, or Maybe Not
http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/blogs/hearing/qrm-rule-imminent-1023556-1.html
 

Stelizan L (258)
Friday June 10, 2011, 2:04 pm
Yes, do you really own anything - but do they also limit your 'spend' when you are renting? Over here families spend up to 40%-60% of their monthly income in rentals and nobody gives a damn about that! But I agree that purchasing power should be limited to ensure it remains within your means until mortgages are settled, and not only for the first 6-12 months.
 

Mary T (178)
Friday June 10, 2011, 2:39 pm
Noted and thanks Anna.
 

Mary T (178)
Friday June 10, 2011, 2:42 pm
Sorry Nancy about this thanks Nancy I mean.
 

loreto q (18)
Friday June 10, 2011, 2:53 pm
noted
 

Rosie Lopez (73)
Friday June 10, 2011, 3:37 pm
wow!!
 

Sheryl G (359)
Friday June 10, 2011, 4:09 pm
When I bought my first home I had to put 20% down and show by a percentage of my income I could afford it. It protected both me and the bank, that I had an investment in the property already so I wouldn't just walk away and that I could pay for it. I had to show 5 years of previous income, I had to prove where I had lived in the last 5 years, it was a lot harder but it protected us both.

What happened is that the banks and other lending institutions started to do these scams so they were not at all asking for these things, some were doing what they call "no doc" loans, meaning they took your word for it and if you didn't have any papers to back it up, that was ok. No it wasn't for all they were doing was using this for speculation and too many of these homes are now in forclosure. We need to stabilize things and if the regulations we ask for on the banks are put in place then they too must have more solid mortgagees.

I don't see a problem in this, I see it as a return to when things worked better. Of coarse there is more than this to fix, but I don't see this as a bad thing as long as other protections get in place for the consumer. This use to be the way it was before all the con jobs started.
 

as s (201)
Friday June 10, 2011, 7:41 pm
This would not have been considered if the greedy GOP unregulated everything and said it would be good for America. Now they go the other extreme.
 

Mary Donnelly (47)
Friday June 10, 2011, 10:21 pm
Thanks Nancy.

That 5% is not nearly enough for most mortgage backed securities; and there is no such thing and a sure fire "good" mortgage. 5% would not have helped much in the recent debacle. A total capital adequacy test, legally and speedily enforced, for all assets of all financiers is needed, because most people have no idea just how indebted they are,--whether they are giving the loan (mortgage or anything else), or receiving it.
 

Bistra Staykova (4)
Saturday June 11, 2011, 1:24 am
It's a hard life...
 

Danuta Watola (1251)
Saturday June 11, 2011, 2:28 am
thanks
 

Ralph F (70)
Saturday June 11, 2011, 6:50 am
Noted.
 

Mary Anne B (202)
Saturday June 11, 2011, 7:08 am
If only Clinton Hadn't listened to his advisors -

Former President Clinton says he made the big mistake of listening to his former Treasury Secretaries, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers on derivatives. He admits he fell for their crap that they did not need to be regulated.

SoxFirst
 

Alet Coetzee (59)
Saturday June 11, 2011, 11:46 am
Noted, thanks
 

Yvonne White (229)
Saturday June 11, 2011, 12:28 pm
Banks are ripping people off, the FEDs KNOW IT & nobody's gone to Jail.. Appraisers tell the Banks what a property is worth, so why are none of them being sued by the Banks? None in jail for fraud?
THEN the local Assessors decide your property TAX, which you pay Forever.. they Also Over-state the worth & you pay until you die - or not & then someone else (some BANK, usually) snaps it up & Everything doubles! It's a Sick practice & the elderly are being priced out of their homes, which are Losing Value.. I'd like to see more vigilante action on this issue!;) Useless freakin' Tea Baggers.....
 

Roger G (148)
Saturday June 11, 2011, 3:55 pm
about time !
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Business





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.