Public funds to pay for private debt - Houston aims to clear balances so some can buy

Have mid range credit scores => there is a good possibility they will miss their mortgage payments, which means they really can't afford them.

Artificially inflate someone's credit is just going to create more foreclosures in the future.

 

Cheap houses, cheap cars, free p*rn ........all good things.

Cause daycare is expensive, food cost more and let's not even start with medical coverage.

 

If you didn't notice, all property values have gone down and will continue to go down until debt/income ratio comes into norm. The whole thing is going to unwind regardless what anyone does.

The real estate bubble has popped, we just need to keep the rest of the financial system from collapsing with it. Let the house price drop to reasonable levels, that helps everyone in the long run.

 

people can have poor credit scores for any reason. secondly, they aren't talking about giving people with really bad scores a boost. right now banks have very stringent requirements to get a mortgage.


We're talking about increasing a credit score from a 710 to a 730.

 

Um... the article is about subsidizing some people's debt so they can bump up their credit score and qualify for a mortgage to buy a home. Your reading comprehension could use some work.

But if you want to go on this tangent, then yes I am against artificially propping up property values. Let the market decide how much your house is worth. I bought my house in 2005 at the peak for $473K. Zillow guess that it's worth $80K less now. My 401K and brokerage acct lost almost 50%. Should we subsidize my losses? Buying a house or a stock were a choice. The buyers made the choice. Live with the consequences.

 

That "any reason" reflects on them. If they truly should have a better credit score then its on them to improve it and maintain it. What does inflating a credit score achieve anyway? A negative net effect IMO

 

look, I don't agree with the program but you guys are reacting way over the top. the problem is using tax payer money to boost the housing market, but again, under normal conditions, and by normal I'm not talking about subprime, these scores would have gotten someone a mortgage.

 

when those 'consequences' include a very plausible depression, we can't just 'live' with the consequences.

 

No 'mid-level credit score' people would have received loans at all if banks weren't making a ****load of money from those loans.

I don't blame poor people for wanting a house. I do blame banks for wanting to use customers' money to make tons of money for themselves through incredibly risky investments that, collectively, put the entire nation into a recession - all the while they're flying around in private jets and giving themselves massive bonuses.

 

If they can't afford to repay 3k consumer debt, then they will be making the downpayment? Most banks require at least 10% down now. Even if the borrower buys a cheap little 100k house, that's $10k.

 

man, i totally agree with you, and i don't know if i was clear enough on that point in my initial comment.

anyway, it appears the mayor agrees that this is a poor decision.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6277344.html

 

Are you being serious?

Wellfare
Medicare
Social Security
healthcare in our hospitals for illegal aliens
WIC
food stamps
Lone Star Card
Earned Income Tax Credit

I can go on....

 

Wellfare-handout
Medicare-necessary
Social Security-R U serious??
healthcare in our hospitals for illegal aliens-should we let them die(we get free healthcare when we travel)
WIC-for babies
food stamps-for struggling families(along with unemployment)
Lone Star Card-redundant
Earned Income Tax Credit-you're a moron

Do you know the chaos our country would go through w/o these services?

People who are layed off, worked at one point and paid taxes. Don't they deserve some of what they paid out returned until they can find another position?

If it makes you feel better, don't give the homeless guy at the light any $$$ cause you are already being taxed to feed those stupid little babies

 

I think you're living in the wrong country if you find those programs offensive. (caveat: welfare - that one is legitimately a handout)

 

don't worry, it doesn't really exist anymore.

this didn't just happen yesterday. these programs have been incredibly successful. social security in fact is the model government program. its huge. before social security, seniors were the population most in poverty, now they are the least in poverty. it has very little overhead costs. and with few tweeks its solvent for the next century.

oh and none of it are handouts. they are entitlements. rich people use them just as much as poor people.

um. ok. im sorry people who're almost dying in our country can go to a hospital and get treated. i don't find that to be much of a handout.

redundant with welfare. its not really generous anymore. wic is great. gives mothers and infants milk and such. i don't see at all what's wrong with that.

food stamps, or lone star cards (which i think are the same thing right?) are also neither new programs, not really all that generous anymore. so what are you whining about?

yeah why would you want to reward work and incentivize it, especially for families with children?

please do. and explain why any of these are bad programs. for the most part they are enormously popular, well established, and tremendously efficient and beneficial. and welfare doesn't exist anymore unfortunately, so why are you still whining about that?

also when you make the new list, the post was originally talking about programs that have been created relatively recently. nothing you stated is recent. eitc i think started in the 70s and reagan enhanced it tremendously if im not mistaken. thats your most recent program.

 

I've always understood that Social Security was a mess and we will never see a dime of what we are puting in. Maybe I've been missinformed.

 

SS is a mess because of two fundamental issues:

1) A need to restructure to deal with the flood of baby boomers, longer life expectancy, and a shrinking younger population. IIRC in 2017 it starts to pay more than it receives...

2) The fed government has borrowed against SS like drunken twits.

Nothing is wrong with the programs fundamentals. It's insurance for citizens - not a gratuitous retirement plan or anything.

 

right and even then its not that significant. and if we raise the cap a bit in whatever form (preferably the donut hole) it won't even be an issue for several decades.

 

Hopefully they are working on correcting these issues. It just makes me sick to think of how much money we put in that we will never see again. Money that could be going to my own retirement.

 

Well, yes - but think of SS as an "oh ****" fund. As the last year has demonstrated, retirement plans are quite vulnerable. SS is insurance that you'll at least not end up starving in the street.