I worked hard for my credit score. Now if I apply for a new mortgage, I’ll be penalized for it.
2 Likes
Yea I don’t like the sound of this at all. Sounds like a well intentioned bad rule.
1 Like
Yeah I get the idea behind it… But this doesn’t seem like a great implementation of the idea at all.
1 Like
Yeah, this sounds like a bad idea.
2 Likes
SKI-ROO that!!!
I worked too damn hard to get my credit score up to 800+ only to get PUNISHED for it in favor of people that were probably LESS responsible.
Glad I’m already likely in my “forever” home and won’t need to borrow for a new one.
If that weren’t the case, then I’d be REALLY PO’d.
Talk about subsidizing bad behavior and punishing good behavior.
And to think that Lefties act SHOCKED when reasonable people don’t vote for Dems.
Often times, there are damn good justifications for that.
3 Likes
Well that headline sure seems to make me think it’s a fubar approach.
“Why was this done? The answer is simple, it was to try to narrow the gap in access to credit, especially for minority home buyers who often have lower down payments and lower credit scores,” Stevens said.
Experts believe that borrowers with a credit score of about 680 would pay around $40 more per month on a $400,000 mortgage under rules from the Federal Housing Finance Agency that go into effect May 1, costs that will help subsidize people with lower credit ratings also looking for a mortgage, according to a Washington Times report Tuesday.
Note it is a Fox News story, so take the built in slant into consideration when reading it.
Ah I missed that… In that case more research should be done.
I don’t like it. There’s got to be a better way to help out people with bad credit.
That said, having a bad credit rating doesn’t always mean one is a scofflaw. 20 years ago after a series of catastrophic events, my credit score dropped like a rock to the bottom. I went from below 600 then to just below 800 now. It took a tremendous amount of discipline but I did it.
Now OTOH, giving someone help to buy a house is an admirable goal.
BUT …
This isn’t the best way to do it. I imagine a lot “bleeding heart liberals” such as me would agree and that this will not go over well, IMHO or maybe there’s more to the story. 
I earned my 850 and I have to subsidize people who may have poor fiscal restraint, bad money managing decisions or irresponsible with finances?
The admistration wants to punish good behavior?
4 Likes
Yea, that’s why I think there’s more to this.
So we’re all in agreement then… That the policy, as written in the article, is in fact a bad one.
And we did it all with minimal name calling or gifs. This calls for TAC… I’m just messing with everyone.
4 Likes
Oh but you guys are OK with forgiving student loans? Fairness?
Forgiving student loans doesn’t take money directly out of one’s pocket to pay for it like this does.
Who says we are OK with forgiving student loans?
I’m only OK with forgiving student loans when it comes to a few fraudulent ripoff schools like ITT, etc.
Otherwise, I’m opposed.
Uhhhhhh…if the loans are simply made to go away, then it definitely takes money out of the lender’s pockets, which can trickle down to employees, etc.
OTOH, does the government reimburse the lenders for the forgiven loans?
If so, then it’s taking TAXPAYER money to pay for someone else’s bad educational choices and financial irresponsibility.
2 Likes
Wine! Wine!Wine! Some of you are cry babies.
Complaining about an obvious injustice does NOT make one a “cry baby.”
I got a milk bottle for you with a nice soft nipple to suck on for you.
Would you care for a little cheese with your WHINE???
Some cracker’s to, if you don’t mind