What an insane idea… I guess it’s a double-whammy: another potential real estate bubble for the banksters plus more votes for the banksters’ friends currently in power. Just when you thought you’ve heard it all!
2 Likes
$40 a month doesn’t seem too bad if you can afford a 400k house, but don’t see how subsidy is supposed to help people who might default on a mortgage, guess that is just to protect the banks to be able to keep loan sharking people with lower risk to the bank of failing.
If you sell a house in L.A. for five million dollars, you have to pay the governor $250,000, “for the homeless,” what? Why give that money to the government instead of the homeless directley? How much of that money actually goes to skid row, if any?
1 Like
@Bahri
This is likely just the start of this sort of subsidy. Those with good credit having to bear the burden of those with bad credit, therefore, draining the average, working class even more. Really has nothing to do with concern about impoverished, homeless, etc.
Interesting . . .
The whole credit system doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, I guess maybe people see those people with bad credit as being irresponsible problems that are nothing more than burdens and somehow government subsidies are supposed to steal the life away from the regular good people of God to keep the problems alive?
Can anyone else help to explain this to me?
1 Like
You got it right. Exactly what’s happening.
SOCIALISM TO COMMUNISM
2 Likes
Communism failed so bad in the Soviet Union, some ideals of that and Socialism seem like they could be good for a society but for some reason governments tend to always invert and destroy positive ideas into something horrible.
Things could be better if people could cooperate more and share resources if they can afford to, if someone can spend five million dollars on a house I don’t see why they don’t just establish their own government that would see the benefit of allocating more resources to building shelters instead of prisons.
If the government is talking about subsidizing home loans for people with bad credit, they must have got the green light to do so from the big banks. If the big banks are on board, then either they see profits for themselves or they’re doing something to help build out the control grid (or both). I could see this leading to banks giving mortgages to people who really can’t afford them, which would pave the way for a replay of the 2008 financial crisis.
Maybe the goal is to engineer another big wave of foreclosures, which would then offer the opportunity for banks or the government to step in with a “solution,” such as: We’ll cancel your debt and let you stay in your house, but in return you sign over all your property to us. That’s one way to get people to “own nothing and be happy.”
The government gets short-term benefits from this policy too. First, it will win votes from people who’d qualify for the subsidy. Second, the subsidy could jump-start the real estate market, and help the economy a little, in some places. That also helps the popularity of the administration in power when it happens.
But, in my opinion, the worst part about this is the principle involved. If the government really wants to help people with bad credit, why does it need to take money from people with good credit? Why not do something to decrease unemployment or improve the economy? Why not take that $40 a month from the “defense” budget? Surely there’s enough fat in that budget that a few billion could be cut and given to the common folk, if that’s the real goal. No need to steal it from people who’ve been responsible with paying their bills.
2 Likes
@FiatLux
B-I-N-G-O!
It’s not a matter of just taking money from those with good credit, it’s a matter of breaking them financially. Bad credit pays 3% and good credit pays 6%, sort of thing. Numbers made up for example.
Debt is considered a liability for joining the navy as well, because there are so-called terrorist agencies offering to pay off debt for recruits just like the Army. The army and navy offer to pay up to 40k of federal student loans, but consumer debt doesn’t qualify for that.
The opposite is true of bankruptcy and some sketchy debt resolution agencies, they only work with consumer debt and can’t do anything about federal loans. There are law firms that can prove in court that consumer credit accounts aren’t legally valid especially when banks sell them to outside collection agencies, but it can take years for courts to accept that and the legal fees can be equal to if not even more than the original debt amounts.
This clearly has nothing to do with the government wanting to help people with bad credit, seems like just more nonsense.