People with Good Credit to Supplement Riskier Home Borrowers! (socialism is here)

[Vine Abider]

My brother-in-law told me this last night and I could scarcely believe it.  But upon looking it up, it appears true.  Pres. Biden signed an executive order to tack on up to an extra $60 a month in mortgage payment to people with good credit.  This is to suppliment those who are borrowing with riskier credit scores.

I think this is the clearest thing I've seen for some time, that shows how much we're accelerating into full-blown socialism!

See here: https://www.newsweek.com/biden-raises-costs-homebuyers-good-credit-help-risky-borrowers-1795700

Homebuyers with good credit scores will soon be facing higher mortgage fees as the Biden administration seeks to close the racial homeownership gap and get more first-time and low-income buyers through the door.

A new federal rule could raise the monthly mortgage payments of buyers with good credit scores by over $60 a month, while riskier borrowers will get more favorable terms because their fees will be reduced.

Starting in May, the current structure of the Loan-Level Price Adjustment (LLPA) matrix will be upended by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in the hope of addressing housing affordability challenges in the U.S.

This from here:https://abc7.com/joe-biden-mortgage-fees-policy-homeowners-first-time-buyer/13190960/

The changes are part of a Biden Administration rule intended to provide equitable access to homeownership. First-time homebuyers with high credit scores would pay more under this new rule.

Before May 1, if you have a credit score of 740 or higher, on a $500,000 loan, you will pay 0.25% fee, which is $1,250. After that date, you could pay as much as .375% - or $1,875 - on that same loan.

People with lower credit scores will pay a lower rate.

[OneLight]

They got who they voted for ... but be assured that elections are coming, but will they get here fast enough?

[Vine Abider]

8 minutes ago, OneLight said:

They got who they voted for ... but be assured that elections are coming, but will they get here fast enough?

Yes, but our hope is not in man.

BTW - I'm hoping and praying it's neither Biden or Trump . . . (see Peggy Noonan piece in WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-vs-trump-dont-be-so-sure-rfk-third-party-rematch-2024-election-independents-bea741f2)

[FJK]

I believe this is what is meant by the doctrine of "Equity".

A doctrine that is being used to replace of the "Equality" our constitution gives under the fourteenth amendment so that people of lesser financial, intellectual and social status are able to have the same things people of greater financial, intellectual and social status are.

It's in the process of becoming a legal principle as well, equity before the law in place of equality before the law in terms of charges and sentences according the demographic profile of the perpetrator.

So a question:  Is this a Christian thing to do, or a non-Christian or even anti-Christian one?

[Vine Abider]

1 hour ago, FJK said:

I believe this is what is meant by the doctrine of "Equity".

A doctrine that is being used to replace of the "Equality" our constitution gives under the fourteenth amendment so that people of lesser financial, intellectual and social status are able to have the same things people of greater financial, intellectual and social status are.

It's in the process of becoming a legal principle as well, equity before the law in place of equality before the law in terms of charges and sentences according the demographic profile of the perpetrator.

So a question:  Is this a Christian thing to do, or a non-Christian or even anti-Christian one?

Yes, we should help the poor, but in the political realm this means one of two basic things: Private individuals should help the poor or it's the government's responsibility to help the poor.

I'm not opposed to the government helping the poor where it makes sense, however, the federal government's actions are often akin to swatting the proverbial gnat with a huge sledgehammer . . . much more damage is done than help being provided.

Some things the federal government is good at and is needed for and other things we'd all probably do much better if they stayed out of it.  For instance, the Civil Rights Act bill got passed in the 1960s.  To me that was a very good and needed thing for the federal government to do and well overdue  I think they over-extended on some things like Affirmative Action, but overall, I think the Civil Rights Act was very much needed and the federal government needed to do it.

But then, as part of LBJ's Great Society vision, in the 1960s we also began "The War on Poverty," which has spent nearly $25 TRILLION* (inflation adjusted) to date . . .   Handing out that much money, for several decades (things got revised some in the 1990s) with very little strings attached, has arguably had a most disastrous affect on the family structure and initiative of certain groups.  It seems like such a good and moral thing helping the poor and all, but with the feds in charge of doing it, not so much = applying proverbial sledgehammer to problem.

* From what I see, not much different from defense spending in USA

[FJK]

@Vine Abider, in practice today, political practice that rules over all else, equity usually means several things like the Wealthy using government to take from the working middle class that worked for what they have and giving it to the non working classes that did not.  Also giving special advantages to one group that does not really merit it by taking away from another that has worked hard and merits it (i.e. lowering standards to accommodate some who have little to merit advancement while deliberately holding others with more merit back to make room for them, such as is being seen in the Medical and other high ranking educational systems, holding the most qualified back to make the least qualified more "equitably" represented.)

I have a hard time justifying this as a Christian practice, but maybe I need to change my views about it?

Just my current opinion.

[Vine Abider]

13 hours ago, FJK said:

@Vine Abider, in practice today, political practice that rules over all else, equity usually means several things like the Wealthy using government to take from the working middle class that worked for what they have and giving it to the non working classes that did not.  Also giving special advantages to one group that does not really merit it by taking away from another that has worked hard and merits it (i.e. lowering standards to accommodate some who have little to merit advancement while deliberately holding others with more merit back to make room for them, such as is being seen in the Medical and other high ranking educational systems, holding the most qualified back to make the least qualified more "equitably" represented.)

I have a hard time justifying this as a Christian practice, but maybe I need to change my views about it?

Just my current opinion.

Didn't Jesus say, "Take from the rich and give to the poor?" Oh wait, maybe that was Robin Hood (interesting name . . .)

[Vine Abider]

5 hours ago, Slibhin said:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/04/28/biden-mortgage-fees/

 

That's interesting. So some news outlets attribute this move to Biden, while this Snopes report does not.  Newsweek.com was one that attributed it to Biden: https://www.newsweek.com/biden-raises-costs-homebuyers-good-credit-help-risky-borrowers-1795700 (Newsweek.com source has a central to leans left bias)

I'm wondering if it was the move Biden did back in late February which then triggered the Mat 1st rule change in FHA loans? This from White House fact sheet about that February action: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/22/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-action-to-save-homebuyers-and-homeowners-800-per-year/  

Regardless of how it came about, and how it gets explained, it looks like the net result are higher fees than before for those with better credit scores and lower fees than before for those with lower credit scores.  See here: https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/biden-fhfa-new-mortgage-fee-structure-2023-4

[other one]

On 4/29/2023 at 2:42 PM, OneLight said:

They got who they voted for ... but be assured that elections are coming, but will they get here fast enough?

that is the question.