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 homebuyer’s annual costs.
These insurance fees are effectively a tax on middle-class homeownership.
— The Intercept
I just can't figure out why this thing, this quarter of a percentage rate change on predominantly lower income buyers, was SOOOOOOOOOOOOO important that the orange one had to sign it within the first *hour* of becoming president?
Is he sincerely trying to say a loud and clear Fuck You to every non-wealthy person in this country? Or did he even know he what he was signing?
I need to give up on reason for the next four years or I'll lose my mind completely, apparently.
"...the Obama administration itself increased this fee four times between 2010 and 2013 — for the very good reason that the FHA’s capital was below congressionally required levels. The FHA ultimately did require a $1.7 billion federal cash infusion in 2013, and only regained the legal minimum 2 percent capital level in fiscal 2015. Even after the proposed Obama reduction, overall FHA insurance fees to the borrower (including an upfront payment) would have been slightly higher than they were when Barack Obama took office.
Yet even the current level might not be prudent, given the realities of the housing market and of the FHA’s $1 trillion portfolio. FHA borrowers have riskier credit profiles than those who are eligible for non-government-backed loans. That’s why lenders will serve them only if Uncle Sam, in effect, co-signs. What’s new is that a rapidly increasing proportion of FHA-insured loans are originated not by banks but by so-called non-banks with such names as PennyMac and Quicken Loans. These institutions generally hold less capital than banks. This may make them — and the taxpayers who are indirectly on the hook for their FHA loans — vulnerable to a market correction."...The Washington Post
Remember, though, the optics are the same: trump campaigns by saying he's good for the little guy, then he single-handedly removes a federal action that what put in place by the former administration to help the little guy.
He's enjoyed by people because he "says it like it is" then he immediately signs a gag order preventing anyone working for or with funding from the government from saying things that are true.
We're headed into disastrous times.
All 39 Comments
We should check with the Trump Administration's "Alternative Facts" before rendering a verdict?
This is the first step in fully privatizing Freddie and Franie and setting us up for another disastrous housing bubble followed by a credit crisis.
Maybe trump felt that the recession was not as good as the Great Depression. this may be part of his make america Great again, 1929 great again!
Over and OUT
Peter N
IN ONE OF the first official acts of his presidency, Donald Trump has increased taxes on a million middle-class homebuyers.
Inaccurate statement. A quarter point subsidy on an FHA mortgage interest rate is not a "tax." And quite the opposite of what Peter is saying, the MMIF is in place to protect the U.S. government against mortgage default. When the FHA is making loans to high risk borrowers (which it probably shouldn't be in the first place), mortgage insurance needs to be put in place to protect against default to avoid the government being on the hook as it was in 2008. The potential housing bubble we have to look forward is due to artificially lowering rates for high risk borrowers as has been done for years now. Facts matter as little to the left as they do the right.
As usual the right decides what is and isn't a tax according to whether they agree or disagree. Intellectual rigor and consistency be damned.
If you don't want to pay the "tax," then don't get an artificially cheap FHA loan. MMIF is like paying PMI on a conventional mortgage, but with an even riskier pool of borrowers. You can't have something for nothing, bud.
It's insurance, not a tax.
^ ding ding.
That being said, owning a home gives one a lot of tax breaks. If the insurance premium is kept unnecessarily high, it prevents a lot of would-be home buyers from getting those tax breaks if they are priced out of affording an FHA loan. One* could stretch that to say it is akin to a tax on those that are being priced out of affording a home because they are unable to take advantage of the tax breaks that would be available to them if the rate was lowered.
I'm really not looking forward to four years of sifting through BS like this coming from both sides of the aisle.
*I wouldn't, but someone could.
I'm really not looking forward to four years of sifting through BS like this coming from both sides of the aisle.
I wouldn't call this BS. This is an important function of government to determine. But don't worry - there will be plenty of real BS to complain about in the next four years. ;)
Sorry won, I should have been clearer. The BS I was referring to is the "journalism" of the article. I put journalism in quotes because real journalism is rooted in facts and accuracy. As is easily pointed out, the "fact" reported by the headline that this is a tax increase on homebuyers is simply false.
As linked from the The Intercept article ... this is a better piece of journalism on the same topic. It isn't great in-depth journalism, but it at least reports facts correctly.
I'll start caring when the politicians get their shit together on what constitutes a tax. They play fast and loose until it doesn't serve their agenda, then they cry foul and "fake news".
I just can't figure out why this thing, this quarter of a percentage rate change on predominantly lower income buyers, was SOOOOOOOOOOOOO important that the orange one had to sign it within the first *hour* of becoming president?
Is he sincerely trying to say a loud and clear Fuck You to every non-wealthy person in this country? Or did he even know he what he was signing?
I need to give up on reason for the next four years or I'll lose my mind completely, apparently.
Well D, the black one had it scheduled to go into effect January 27, so the orange one had to sign it asap lest the black one's gift to those who would crash the housing market would have gone through. Comprendre?
ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK!!!
"...the Obama administration itself increased this fee four times between 2010 and 2013 — for the very good reason that the FHA’s capital was below congressionally required levels. The FHA ultimately did require a $1.7 billion federal cash infusion in 2013, and only regained the legal minimum 2 percent capital level in fiscal 2015. Even after the proposed Obama reduction, overall FHA insurance fees to the borrower (including an upfront payment) would have been slightly higher than they were when Barack Obama took office.
Yet even the current level might not be prudent, given the realities of the housing market and of the FHA’s $1 trillion portfolio. FHA borrowers have riskier credit profiles than those who are eligible for non-government-backed loans. That’s why lenders will serve them only if Uncle Sam, in effect, co-signs. What’s new is that a rapidly increasing proportion of FHA-insured loans are originated not by banks but by so-called non-banks with such names as PennyMac and Quicken Loans. These institutions generally hold less capital than banks. This may make them — and the taxpayers who are indirectly on the hook for their FHA loans — vulnerable to a market correction."...The Washington Post
Thanks for that, Volunteer. Context is everything.
Isn't it amazing what good journalism can do?
Volunteer, can you provide a link to the article you quoted?
Archinect, can you then link to it instead of the propaganda piece Nicholas got the story from?
Archinect is propaganda. I don't think their 'news' people are capable of objective repeating (as opposed to reporting).
Remember, though, the optics are the same: trump campaigns by saying he's good for the little guy, then he single-handedly removes a federal action that what put in place by the former administration to help the little guy.
He's enjoyed by people because he "says it like it is" then he immediately signs a gag order preventing anyone working for or with funding from the government from saying things that are true.
We're headed into disastrous times.
He also killed TPP within a day and nary a word in praise or support from the left. (Except for Bernie - thank god for Bernie.) The left is determined to hate Trump a la Mitch McConnell and the right hated Obama. Pot meet kettle.
I think you all underestimate the fact that this guy wants popularity over all else. Maybe he will do a good job. Perhaps his ego is so strong that it will compel him to disprove the opposition by succeeding. Hopefully it outweighs his greed and business alliances. He likes to "win". That seems to be his guiding principle. Winning, in his mind may equate to high ratings and relection. The left may be trolling him into success...that would be ironic.
I mean, did you see how butthurt he got about the size of the crowd.
Also, I think many people are way too sensitive to his vulgar nature. Maybe its a cultural thing, but my grandmother used to say she would "crack my head open"...she was the sweetest lady ever and I would simply laugh and run away. little twats would call cps nowadays and have to go through counceling. Just an old school crude NY way of exaggerating expressions. All of my family talks in a vulgar and exaggerated way which is why I dont really take his words to seriously. That said, I still don't like trumps fascist leaning politics, and would never vote for him, but people are mostly upset about his potty mouth. Thats dumb.
Is the wall built yet?
Donna, I think the optics are what you want them to be. The optics could easily be worded to praise Trump for campaigning on a strong economy and taking immediate actions to shore up the housing market in case of a recurrence of the bust from 2008. Sure, it may hurt the little guy now, but ultimately a strong economy helps the little guy more in the long run.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually trying to defend Trump on this, nor am I saying it was a good thing or something that helps in the long run (let the economists figure that out). I'm just pointing out that trying to propagandize about the "failures" of Trump by falsely reporting the stories is just going to delegitimize it when there actually is a failure that he needs to be called out on.
Trump and his administration are already calling out the media on their inability to get things right. Sometimes accurately, sometimes by inventing their own reality. Either way, it only makes their supporters question everything the media does. If the media can easily point out that they are accurately reporting facts instead of propaganda, then the administration's attempt to call them out on it falls flat (see crowd size of inauguration ... although I was disappointed to see the comparison made in the first place). Trump's press secretary smartly pointed out that there was a false report circulating about the MLK bust being removed. It doesn't matter that everything else in the press conference was false, it gave their supporters something to easily point to and say, "the media is out for Trump and they can't be trusted."
By delegitimizing the media, Trump wins. The only solution is to call out the bad media for what it is on both sides and try to keep the media as legitimate as possible so Trump doesn't have things to point to. Also consider that while focus is going back and forth on things like crowd size and whether or not something is a tax, journalists aren't focusing on something else that is probably more important.
Jla, you consistently and pervasively mischaracterize the interests of liberal minded folks to point out offensive speech as being exclusive and harmful as an attempt to censor people, using personal anecdotes. Nobody wants to censor granny, and all you're doing with your misguided defense of "free speech" is providing ammo for people to continue their bad behavior.
Im liberal minded as well. I want people to have maximum liberty so long as they dont violate the liberty of others (flora and fauna included). I reject the notion of human superiority over nature, and believe rhe govt should ve as small as practically possible yet big enough to ensure/protect rights and liberties and also provide basic functional necessities like infrastructure. Most people who claim to be liberal are really establishment democrats. The power of words IS the real argument Pete. Its why Someone like Obama can get away with carpet bombing civilains and wire tapping americans and still get the peace prize. Words are given a heightened power amongst the dem/neo liberal crowd. They are easily serenaded and fooled into believing in a moral superiority that doesn't really exist beneath the surface.
Essentially, Im a libertarian who wants to extend rights and liberties to non-human life forms.
I agree, Everyday Intern.
But what I don't hear yet is any solutions to the things the current administration is opposed to. If they want the media to report the realities of their fully-researched and vetted workable solutions to things like, for example, improving access to moderate income housing or public education or healthcare, everyone is ready to listen.
Are those plans public yet? All I've heard so far is the machete falling on current policies and a gag rule prohibiting any federal employees from talking about it.
Free speech isn't a blank check to be an asshole. Simply because you don't use weaponized hate speech doesn't mean you need to defend the speech of those who do.
No, the consequences for being an asshole should be social, Not a function of govt. I defend the right of all speech, including flag burning. Its not the govts job to determine decency. They have too much power already...thats evident in the fear that this one orange man evokes...no single person should have power great enough to threaten your liberty.
if it's not the government's job to determine decency, then it would be ok for you wave your genitalia in front of a school bus. because that's liberty. you're not hurting any plants or anything.
obviously it's the government's job to determine decency. the cops aren't going to arrest your grandmother for saying she's going to hit you any more than the legislature is going to pass sharia law or obama is going to take your guns away.
the problem of course is the inability to understand what you observe in your environment. life repeatedly tells you that noone is going to call the cops when your granny says whatever. that happens over and over and over. yet you built a narrative in your head that suggests this "other" group of people are out to get you, and you alter your perception to reinforce that fantasy. maybe every now and then you see an article on a "fake news" website about a kid getting fined for having a lemonade stand or something equally stupid and get all excited and you get to say "i told you so."
Flashing genetalia is assault. Different.
you are incapable of understanding Anything outside of your bubble curt. Waste of finger tip skin to argue with you.
The law very clearly distinguishes from threats, assault, and speech. As I wrote, the govts job is to protect ones rights and liberty. The people on the bus have a right to not be sexually asaulted. There is a huge distinction from that and flag burning or generally racist sexist speech. If some one is screaming their rant in someones face thats very different than on a podium or via media.
"My liberty to swing my arms freely ends where your nose begins"
"I defend the right of all speech, including flag burning."
Woah there, that's going TOO far.
Wait a sec, we were talking about your fantasy about consideration and manners leading to some sort of government mind control, right?
this post and thread in a nutshell summarizes the worthlessness and offensive nature of journalism in this country and the complete lack of accountability of its citizens to distinguish fact from fiction and relevant from irrelevant. in other words - idiocracy on both side of lala land politics - partisan monkees at best. last but not least, what the hell does this have to do with architecture? (FHA loan utility are usually for homes that architects typically are never involved with, and who here is an economist?)
Everyday Intern.
The article was in the January 23 edition of the Washington Post. Just google: "Washington Post FHA fee hike' the title is "Trump's heartless fee hike? Not quite"
Thanks. I had found it yesterday, less than a minute after my comment. The point wasn't for you. It was intended for Archinect's editors.
You imagined that conspiracy sneakypete. I never suggested such a thing. My first post had nothing to do with govt. you brought the issue of free speech in. My point is that the lefts witch hunt on what they consider socially acceptable speech is ethnocentric and almost religous in that it suggests and attaches moral superiority to a political party that is undeserving of moral superiority. If it were a bunch of individuals protesting foul speech and the foul speech of specific people it would be different. Its not though. Its a real and devisive attempt to create a false narrative of good vs evil and attach that narrative to 2 parties which are really 2 sides of the same coin. This imo created a breeding ground for trump. Giving more power to his vulgar nature. The media exploited the shit out of that trend and created a defensiveness.
If I espouse a desire for decency in language, not censorship but instead an honest attempt on behalf of the speaker to be more considerate towards others (Not using phrases like "Chinese fire drill", not putting on ethnic accents to make an unfunny joke funny, etc), is your knee-jerk reaction to lump me in with your alleged "lefts witch hunt on what they consider socially acceptable speech"?
Don't answer, just give it an honest thought.
No. you can feel/say what ever you want. You are an individial. My beef is with political parties and media outlets that strategically (and they even tried to pin bernie as a sexist) lump some people who don't conform to their particular brand of politeness / norms / manners as a sexist/racist/ low brow for political gains. Even moreso creating a false sense of riotousness to align with dems. Not exactly Buddhist monks...dirty dems. They care abour votes...they couldnt care less about offensive speech....Its just a brand. If not, why is the black community pardoned for very sexist and homophobic speech norms in music?...isnt that racist Treating black people different. Holding them to a lower standard? The demorats are huge hypocrites. Im sure they realise it and would lose them some votes going all tipper gore. . Why not a single mention about the sexism in Islamic culture? Thats a major reason Orange don was elected, and why no one takes these holyer than thou demorats seriously. His popularity spiked like the "2 Live Crew" album after it was banned. Those dummies gave the album more power than it would have had by making it a controversy. Something dangerous. Trump realised the "explicit lyrics" label was an asset...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.