Trump Promises Megathread: Kept or Broken

[BigRedBuster]

But. I'm trying to even figure out how any "friends" would benefit.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

Not a DJT fan but if he was going to roll it back, it had to be done right away.

 

It was undoing Obama's last cut in FHA mortgage insurance. FHA loans are most popularly used to facilitate purchasing a home with less than 20% down. The insurance is a percentage of the interest rate. When rates went up, Obama implemented a cut so that insurance wouldn't increase.

 

By removing the insurance decrease, it makes traditional mortgages more competitive in this space. Traditional mortgages are way more profitable for lenders than FHA loans; also a lot more risk. A large component of the last housing recession was exploitative lending practices specifically of those who did not have 20% but did not qualify for FHA/other subsidized loans or those who bought too much house. Keeping FHA interest low creates mortgage competition and help keep lenders in check. When FHA interest is high, it facilitates lenders to engage in exploitative lending practices. This has been the cycle since FHA subsidies were introduced in the 1930s...

[Danny Bateman]

The article mentions that the critics of the interest cut say that keeping interest rates low runs the risk of pushing the MMIF (the fund we use in case of default) toward insolvency.

 

But it also mentions that law requires the MMIF to be at LEAST 2% of the FHA's total funds. It says right now the MMIF is at 2.32%.

 

So to me, insolvency concerns don't hold water. It is most definitely solvent, and Obama was trying to pass savings on to the working class towards home ownership.

This seems like just a cheap opportunity to raise taxes for no real reason. Case 1 in Trump selling out his populist movement for traditional Republicanism.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

The article mentions that the critics of the interest cut say that keeping interest rates low runs the risk of pushing the MMIF (the fund we use in case of default) toward insolvency.

 

But it also mentions that law requires the MMIF to be at LEAST 2% of the FHA's total funds. It says right now the MMIF is at 2.32%.

 

So to me, insolvency concerns don't hold water. It is most definitely solvent, and Obama was trying to pass savings on to the working class towards home ownership.

 

This seems like just a cheap opportunity to cut taxes for no real reason. Case 1 in Trump selling out his populist movement for traditional conservatism.

 

Yes, with the cut the fund would have been completely solvent. The argument is nonsense as the math doesn't support it. Those arguing it are the same people that OK our federal government spending $30k on a hammer ;-)

 

I think Obama was trying to do a number of things. Passing on the savings to these people; keeping the mortgage market competitive and honest; incentivizing home ownership among 18-32 age group which is at its lowest in the modern era.

 

Home sales are necessary for our economy to thrive. As we remove restrictions to negative lending practices, we create a boom/bust cycle which hurts the bottom 85% of this country. Having the boom without the total bust is possible but only if predatory and exploitative lending practices are kept in check...

 

By repealing this, Trump is enabling the lenders to make more money off of consumers if not completely take advantage of this segment. I do not know why the media is not focusing on this piece. Harder headline to sell maybe?

[FrankWheeler]

Relevant to #21 (cut taxes on the middle class):

 

 

On His First Day in Office, Trump Raises Taxes on Middle-Class Homebuyers

 

 

IN ONE OF the first official acts of his presidency, Donald Trump has increased taxes on a million middle-class homebuyers.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development on Friday reversed a scheduled 0.25 percent cut in mortgage insurance premiums issued by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). For a mortgage worth $200,000, this adds $500 to a homebuyers annual costs.

These insurance fees are effectively a tax on middle-class homeownership. By reversing the cut, which was scheduled to go into effect on January 27, one week from today, Trump will be taking more money from FHA homebuyers to keep in government coffers.

I kind of like this advice I stumbled on yesterday from Vox:

 

Watch what Donald Trump does, not what he says. A con mans words have no value.

Have a buddy that pushed his closing back to take advantage of this cut. He's already regretting voting for Trump as this reversal is costing him close to $1k a year.

[Danny Bateman]

 

The article mentions that the critics of the interest cut say that keeping interest rates low runs the risk of pushing the MMIF (the fund we use in case of default) toward insolvency.

 

But it also mentions that law requires the MMIF to be at LEAST 2% of the FHA's total funds. It says right now the MMIF is at 2.32%.

 

So to me, insolvency concerns don't hold water. It is most definitely solvent, and Obama was trying to pass savings on to the working class towards home ownership.

 

This seems like just a cheap opportunity to cut taxes for no real reason. Case 1 in Trump selling out his populist movement for traditional conservatism.

 

Yes, with the cut the fund would have been completely solvent. The argument is nonsense as the math doesn't support it. Those arguing it are the same people that OK our federal government spending $30k on a hammer ;-)

 

I think Obama was trying to do a number of things. Passing on the savings to these people; keeping the mortgage market competitive and honest; incentivizing home ownership among 18-32 age group which is at its lowest in the modern era.

 

Home sales are necessary for our economy to thrive. As we remove restrictions to negative lending practices, we create a boom/bust cycle which hurts the bottom 85% of this country. Having the boom without the total bust is possible but only if predatory and exploitative lending practices are kept in check...

 

By repealing this, Trump is enabling the lenders to make more money off of consumers if not completely take advantage of this segment. I do not know why the media is not focusing on this piece. Harder headline to sell maybe?

 

 

Haha, I got ahead of myself. I was mistaken -- I meant to say raise taxes. I'll fix my post.

 

Ironic as it is for a Republican to raise taxes, their justification appears to be that it is fiscally responsible. So I guess it still counts as a move out of the GOP playbook?

[Danny Bateman]

On his first day in office, Trump broke 34 promises

34 broken, 2 kept.

It's almost as if he had no idea how the executive branch worked.

[ZRod]

I mean... he's going to need some time.

[GM_Tood]

I mean... he's going to need some time.

8 years.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

I mean... he's going to need some time.

 

8 years.

[funhusker]

 

I mean... he's going to need some time.

8 years.

 

Vegas has him at 50/50 of having a hard time even completing the first 4.

[Moiraine]

I mean... he's going to need some time.

 

Time's up on his first day promises.

[mrandyk]

 

 

I mean... he's going to need some time.

8 years.

 

Vegas has him at 50/50 of having a hard time even completing the first 4.

 

I'm seeing this too. The play reads as 'Trump leaves office as a result of impeachment or resignation during first term'. I could place money on a hand of Blackjack or with this bookie and the payout would be the exact same.

[AR Husker Fan]

[Danny Bateman]

 

Trump, Inc, follows neither of those axioms.