Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Curious about DU'ers opinions on Ron Paul's latest column

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
TheWizardOfMudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 11:04 PM
Original message
Curious about DU'ers opinions on Ron Paul's latest column
As a proud Democrat, I have no problem with government programs designed to advance the poor. However, with the current administration, I wonder if this proposed bill is just another corporate giveaway. I'm ambivalent. Opinions, please?

"Zero Down for the American Dream (by Congressman Ron Paul)

The House Financial Services committee on which I serve often passes legislation that wastes taxpayer dollars, harms the economy, and egregiously violates the Constitution. The “Zero Downpayment Act” recently passed by the committee is a striking example of a bill that does all three.

This legislation is considered completely noncontroversial by both political parties, and will breeze through the full congress later this summer with the blessing of the administration. Nobody in Washington thinks twice about another welfare scheme that further entrenches the something-for-nothing mentality so prevalent today in America.

The Zero Downpayment Act, as its names suggests, creates a federal program that allows some homebuyers to obtain federally-insured mortgages without making a down payment. “Federally-insured” really means taxpayer-insured, as taxpayers like you foot the bill for defaults. So while Congress congratulates itself on yet another program that supposedly helps the poor, it is taxpayers who pay for the inevitable defaults.

Every mortgage banker knows that even a modest downpayment greatly increases the likelihood that a buyer will pay his mortgage as promised. A buyer who has consistently saved money for a down payment is by definition a better credit risk, and it’s harder to walk away from an obligation if it means losing a sizable amount of hard-earned money. A downpayment measures a buyer’s willingness and ability to make sacrifices in order to reach a goal and improve his standard of living. Banks used to recognize hard work and thrift as indicators of creditworthiness, and in a free market would demand a significant down payment for virtually all homebuyers.

But as with all federal intervention in the economy, housing welfare distorts the mortgage industry and makes ordinary Americans poorer. Banks, of course, love federal mortgage programs- after all, the risk of default is transferred to American taxpayers. The lending mortgage banks get paid whether homebuyers default or not, and what business wouldn't love having the federal government guarantee the profitability of its ventures? Between the Federal Housing Administration, which is the largest insurer of mortgages in the world, and the government-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac corporations, the mortgage market is hopelessly distorted. Millions of mortgages in this country are federally insured, and the tax bill for defaults could be astronomical if the housing bubble bursts.

Despite the congressional rhetoric about helping the poor, federal housing policies often harm poor people by pushing them into houses they may not be ready to buy. Given the realities of insurance, property taxes, maintenance, and repairs, many low-income buyers lose their homes and destroy their credit ratings. Easy credit and low interest rates, courtesy of the Federal Reserve, have dramatically increased housing demand and artificially increased prices. Zero down payment schemes do the same thing by pushing renters into the housing market. This increased demand actually serves to price many poor Americans out of the housing market indefinitely.

The American dream cannot be lived courtesy of taxpayer handouts. The experience of working hard, saving for a downpayment, and buying a home is the essence of the true American dream. Eventually the beneficiaries of government programs stop thinking of themselves as independent citizens, and start viewing themselves as wards of the state. It is impossible to maintain a free society when more and more people look to the state to provide what Americans used to provide for themselves."

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst062104.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. I disagree with the assessment.
Many people are paying rent that is an equivalent to a house payment, but saving for a downpayment over and above other expenses is almost impossible. If they found a house to buy and the payments were the same as their rent, zero downpayment would mean they could become homeowners. I see nothing wrong with the arrangements as long as they can pass a credit check which a bank would require anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWizardOfMudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 11:27 PM
Original message
Yes, but . . .
. . . do banks ordinarily allow people to purchase homes without a down payment? I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. No
Usually a bank requires at least ten percent down. Some federal programs will allow a five percent downpayment, but the buyer makes up for it by paying a form of insurance (I forget the term) with each payment. That insurance goes to cover the risk of the low downpayment.

Banks optimally want twenty percent, and charge mortgage interest on non-federal loans for more than 80% of the equity of the house. That's PMI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nevernose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sounds good. Almost.
Except for this part: "Banks, of course, love federal mortgage programs- after all, the risk of default is transferred to American taxpayers."

Banks freaking HATE federal mortgage programs. They allow poor people who live in bad neighborhoods to borrow money. How many violations are there every day of the Equal Credit Lending Act are reported in teh news across the country every day? And that's for people who actually HAVE the down payment.

If the U.S. Congress is passing this, then there has to be a payout to the banking industry/wealthy elite in it somewhere. Either that, or any Dems who won't pass it will look like monsters betraying their "poor" constituents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. Ron's wrong.
This bill is not that drastic a risk. When a homeowner defaults on a mortgage, he loses the house, the equity, and everything. The government gets the house, the equity, and everything. The government then sells the houses in auctions that often bring in more than market value on the house, meaning a lot more than the balance the government owes the bank.

This program won't be available to everyone, it sounds like. Only a few will qualify. Someone has to meet the rare combination of being successful enough to meet the credit requirements, and poor enough to not be able to afford the downpayment. That's not a big market segment.

The percentage of these homeowners who default within a short enough time to lose the government its money is going to be negligible, even when the bubble does burst.

The upside is that it this program will help people whose parents are too poor to help them with a downpayment to get into a house. This helps people move from apartments or even projects, and it helps people begin maybe the first significant investments they've ever had. That's a good tool in helping people move up the ladder.

As for his objection to the government helping someone get a home because Paul believes they should build character by saving for one... that's just a grumpy old man moaning that things have changed since he was a kid. The housing market, the loan industry, and the reality of wages in proportion to housing costs are nowhere near what they were when he actually had to pay attention to these things.

The only concern I do have about this program would be that with no down payment, many of these homeowners will not build up sizeable equity for many years. It would be better if they had a downpayment, and if this bill convinces anyone who can afford a downpayment not to make it, then it is harming that person. On the other hand, a greater number of people will be helped when their monthly housing payment goes to their own equity accruement, however slow to build, rather than to the equity of a landlord. So even the "slow equity" risk is offset by other benefits.

ROn Paul is a "libertarian," which means he believes the government should allow business to take over the nation while a powerless, broke government cheers them on. He will lead the nation nowhere fast. His views have led him to support us on the Iraqi invasion, but other than that, he's an old racist government-hating conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWizardOfMudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. You are dead wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Um, what part of that disagrees with what I just said? nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWizardOfMudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Only the most important issue facing us today
"His views have led him to support us on the Iraqi invasion . . ."

Read my links. Trust me. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I think the poster was saying "us"...
...as in "us" that oppose the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Yes. How was he reading it?
I thought maybe he left the "us" out, but then he included it in his recap of my post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWizardOfMudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. That depends on what the meaning of "us" is.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC