Obama plan for new homeowners

[maat55]

Originally Posted by humandraydel

I signed into law the American Dream Downpayment initiative, which authorizes $200 million a year to assist an estimated 40,000 low-income families with downpayment funds. In this year's budget, I proposed the Zero Downpayment initiative, which would eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum 3% downpayment for Federal Housing Administration-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

-George Bush 9/20/04


BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE


BUSH SIGNS AMERICAN DREAM DOWNPAYMENT ACT

Just one of the many mistakes made by both sides.

[tripods68]

No kidding..

[cptacek]

Originally Posted by humandraydel

I signed into law the American Dream Downpayment initiative, which authorizes $200 million a year to assist an estimated 40,000 low-income families with downpayment funds. In this year's budget, I proposed the Zero Downpayment initiative, which would eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum 3% downpayment for Federal Housing Administration-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

-George Bush 9/20/04


BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE


BUSH SIGNS AMERICAN DREAM DOWNPAYMENT ACT

See, blaming Bush won't help win your argument. Fiscal conservatives (FCs) have been pulling their hair out because of the Congress's and Bush's bad fiscal policies for years now. It is just that other, louder, more-liberal citizens have dominated the blame Bush crowd and they don't see the cringes on the faces of the FCs with regards to these issues. Just because Bush supported or didn't support a certain issue, I don't care. I have thought about my position and it squares with how I view the world. I will support the politician that also views the world my way, regardless of the R or the D behind their name.

tripods68: I agree

kork13: lol!

[humandraydel]

Originally Posted by cptacek

See, blaming Bush won't help win your argument. Fiscal conservatives (FCs) have been pulling their hair out because of the Congress's and Bush's bad fiscal policies for years now.

I'm not blaming Bush - I'm blaming politicians and complete disregard of regulation! Regulation is not this horrible enemy of capitalism. Right now, banks and investors WANT (and need) more regulation. And if there were more regulations, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

Did you know that in 2004 the SEC granted an exemption to the net capital requirements for 5 companies? This exemption allowed those 5 companies to increase their leverage from 12-to-1 to over 30-to-1! Guess which 5 companies? Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman sachs - NONE of which exist in the same form today as they did in 2004.

[maat55]

Originally Posted by humandraydel

I'm not blaming Bush - I'm blaming politicians and complete disregard of regulation! Regulation is not this horrible enemy of capitalism. Right now, banks and investors WANT (and need) more regulation. And if there were more regulations, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

Did you know that in 2004 the SEC granted an exemption to the net capital requirements for 5 companies? This exemption allowed those 5 companies to increase their leverage from 12-to-1 to over 30-to-1! Guess which 5 companies? Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman sachs - NONE of which exist in the same form today as they did in 2004.

I agree that we need regulation. I think that many of the loan products out there are irresponsible. I would not loan 5 bucks to a drug addict, why did they loan money to people who could not afford it.

I want to know why the banks thought they could do this. Improper influence from the fed is my guess.

[bjl584]

I doubt something like this would pass. If it did, there is a good chance that there will be a lot of people buying homes that shouldn't be in the first place which is what caused a lot of this mess in the first place.

[geojen]

Why put this into effect for homes purchased since April? Why not just do all of 2008? It kinda pisses me off--we closed on our home in February. What is with this seemingly arbitrary month cut-off?

[ScrimpAndSave]

I think that the $7,500 tax credit also started is April 2008...does that sound correct? So this is supposed to replace it. We'll see what actually happens.

[globetraveler]

Here is the actual site supporting the $7500 first time buyer tax credit.


Federal Housing Tax Credit for First-Time Home Buyers: Home


We just started building our first home. So I plan to take advantage of the tax credit next year.


And someone had asked the question earlier if you build a new house, does that count. And per the website, it does! You can find the answers to several questions asked in this thread under the FAQ on the website.

"Instead of buying a new home from a home builder, I have hired a contractor to construct a home on a lot that I already own. Do I still qualify for the tax credit?
Yes. For the purposes of the home buyer tax credit, a principal residence that is constructed by the home owner is treated by the tax code as having been "purchased" on the date the owner first occupies the house. In this situation, the date of first occupancy must be on or after April 9, 2008 and before July 1, 2009."

I hope this helps!

[ScrimpAndSave]

Thanks globetraveler...I was actually wondering if Obama's credit would cover new construction. I know the old plan does.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Scrimp, it is NOT Obama's plan. It is what one group is lobbying for and has collected signer-supporters for on its website. It is no more Obama's plan than if you yourself cooked up a set of ideas and said, "Hey, let's do this."

[ScrimpAndSave]

Joan, yes I understand this...I understand that it is not his plan but he is interested in pushing it.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

My apology. I was mixed up about which "plan" you were asking about.

[ScrimpAndSave]

Oh it is ok!

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by kork13

I sometimes wish I had a button that I could push which would simultaneously smack the Congress upside the back of the head.


...correction: Scratch "sometimes"--make that "frequently"

I am sure that congress folk frequently wish the same thing back.

There was a Simpson episode where they each had buttons to shock each other - they brought the whole grid down.

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by maat55

I agree that we need regulation. I think that many of the loan products out there are irresponsible. I would not loan 5 bucks to a drug addict, why did they loan money to people who could not afford it.

I want to know why the banks thought they could do this. Improper influence from the fed is my guess.

You don't think that banks bundling loans into bonds for resale to investors had something to do with it? Here in Seattle, our local, friendly lender went whole hog into all those strangely named home loans like NINJA and so on - WaMu was the largest regional bank in the country. Now 52wk Range: 0.15 - 36.47.

There is no way that government regulation forced this bank to make the loans it made - they chose their route.

As a side note, why do you compare you loaning $5 to a drug addict to banks loaning money to someone who could not afford it?

[ScrimpAndSave]

Anyone hear any new information on this topic??