Stupidity 101
Posted by fivedollargold 11 years, 1 month ago to Economics
PRICELESS AND BRIEF....
In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify for a loan.
His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a straight party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "Passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."
I can't add anything to this - - - - I just can't. (Note: I don't know who originally came up with this, but it is making the rounds. I can't add anything to it either. --$5Au)
In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify for a loan.
His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a straight party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "Passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."
I can't add anything to this - - - - I just can't. (Note: I don't know who originally came up with this, but it is making the rounds. I can't add anything to it either. --$5Au)
Add Comment
All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read
- 2Posted by MattFranke 11 years, 1 month agoFact is oft stranger than fiction; just like passing a bill to find out what's in it.... X-[| Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
- Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
- Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
- 1Posted by $ WillH 11 years, 1 month agoDisgusting, but not surprising.| Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
- 1Posted by KYFHO 11 years, 1 month agoThough extremely stringent and blatantly sexist by today's standards, as short a time ago as the 1970's a woman of "child bearing years" could not include her working income as viable on a home loan application. I am dating myself to say that even though, at the time, I found the provision discriminatory, I also found it understandable. Now we have swung so far in the opposite direction, exclaiming home ownership as a "right" that hopefully in 30 odd years or so, people will once again be amazed at the goings on we are now living through. And really, looking back, assuring steady income of loan applicants should not be viewed as discrimination, nor should it be now.| Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
- 1Posted by MattFranke 11 years, 1 month agoWe have not 'swung so far in the opposite direction' since the 70's, as much as we are just further in the direction that the country was put on by that bastard FDR,... and Woodrow Wilson,... and even further back than that. It was FDR that really started the acceptance of the faulty concept of 'economic rights'. The right to: a home, a job, "fair" pay, food, recreation, etc.| Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
-
-
