TRUMP FORGETS THE FORGOTTEN

Only took him a few hours to go back on his promises to protect "the people" against "the elites".

http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/donald-trump-mortgage-bills/

Yep, and don't forget the overtime regulation. That's probably next.

I'm wintering in San Antonio, Texas. In the last couple of days there has been an onslaught of ads telling us how wonderful the Republican alternative to Obamacare will be. I hope that this is in response to people calling their elected leaders to share their opposition the repeal of Obamacare. Don't know if you're seeing these ads in NJ, but it sure seems like they're trying to do damage control here. San Antonio is a blue city and Obamacare is a popular program.

Remember the Alamo!

The premiums got cut in the orgy of orders as Obama went out the door. He knew that one would be reversed as soon as he left, and that the credulous would start lowing about how he was scewing the poor.

FHA loans are explicitly backed by the US taxpayer. The premium payments are akin (but not identical to) mortgage insurance payments. They're there to protect the taxpayer. They're there to keep a lender of last resort alive.

FHA will lend with 3.5% down. If a borrower is getting chased out of the market based on a TAX DEDUCTABLE 25bp fee to cover their extremely high LTV they may not be able to afford the house they're looking at.

What does that first sentence mean?

Jackson_Fusion said:

The premiums got cut in the orgy of orders as Obama went out the door. He knew that one would be reversed as soon as he left, and that the credulous would start lowing about how he was scewing the poor.

burble..burble..

Obama's FHA cut the rate days before leaving office without consulting Bannon, Kushner, Trump, etc. Obama was pretty active in the waning days of his administration.

drummerboy said:

What does that first sentence mean?

Jackson_Fusion said:

The premiums got cut in the orgy of orders as Obama went out the door. He knew that one would be reversed as soon as he left, and that the credulous would start lowing about how he was scewing the poor.

burble..burble..

There's are pros and cons to both sides of the move (though I tend to lean more pro). But looking at this move as merely going back on a promise is a rather narrow take, and may in fact also be rather shortsighted.

Either he's a "Populist" who favors the "common msn" the "forgotten man" or he's a "Conservative" who agrees with the positions of the Conservative Republican Establishment.

The result of his action is that regular people are shelling out more money to a government agency.

Trump never wanted tax breaks for the middle class. Trump's primary goal is to erase Obama. He may not have a secondary goal.

LOST said:

The result of his action is that regular people are shelling out more money to a government agency...

...to shore up reserves to enable the cushion that provides for a bit more risk to spur lending to better enable other folks to get mortgages...

Unless you're into the "I've got mine, so screw them" mindset, or have forgotten 2013, or won't mind another bailout, or...

There are assuredly two sides to this coin, no matter the spin otherwise.

LOST said:

Either he's a "Populist" who favors the "common msn" the "forgotten man" or he's a "Conservative" who agrees with the positions of the Conservative Republican Establishment.

The result of his action is that regular people are shelling out more money to a government agency.

So he's to conform to your limited, assigned boxes yeah? Or what? You won't support him?

Got a question- why did Obama wait till right before he left office to sign this piece of critically important support for the common man? Why wouldn't he have done so 2-3 years ago? Why did he wait till the last minute, doing it so late that his changes never impacted a single person?

Exactly.

er, to fkcu with Trump and send a corrective message to his followers?

a wholly worthwhile endeavor, I think. Essential even.

Jackson_Fusion said:

LOST said:

Either he's a "Populist" who favors the "common msn" the "forgotten man" or he's a "Conservative" who agrees with the positions of the Conservative Republican Establishment.

The result of his action is that regular people are shelling out more money to a government agency.

So he's to conform to your limited, assigned boxes yeah? Or what? You won't support him?

Got a question- why did Obama wait till right before he left office to sign this piece of critically important support for the common man? Why wouldn't he have done so 2-3 years ago? Why did he wait till the last minute, doing it so late that his changes never impacted a single person?

Exactly.

After yesterday, Trumpists look like what they actually are, an extremist cult, backed by the affluent who fear tax increases.

the explanation is that reserves in the insurance fund have grown to allow a rate cut. You can disbelieve that or believe it. Given the trajectory of the economy over the past couple of years, it seems like a pretty fair explanation. But if the real reason was nakedly political, to start to expose the GOP and Trump's empty rhetoric about helping working class folks, then it worked, didn't it?

Jackson_Fusion said:

LOST said:

Either he's a "Populist" who favors the "common msn" the "forgotten man" or he's a "Conservative" who agrees with the positions of the Conservative Republican Establishment.

The result of his action is that regular people are shelling out more money to a government agency.

So he's to conform to your limited, assigned boxes yeah? Or what? You won't support him?

Got a question- why did Obama wait till right before he left office to sign this piece of critically important support for the common man? Why wouldn't he have done so 2-3 years ago? Why did he wait till the last minute, doing it so late that his changes never impacted a single person?

Exactly.

Jackson_Fusion said:

LOST said:

Either he's a "Populist" who favors the "common msn" the "forgotten man" or he's a "Conservative" who agrees with the positions of the Conservative Republican Establishment.

The result of his action is that regular people are shelling out more money to a government agency.

So he's to conform to your limited, assigned boxes yeah? Or what? You won't support him?

Got a question- why did Obama wait till right before he left office to sign this piece of critically important support for the common man? Why wouldn't he have done so 2-3 years ago? Why did he wait till the last minute, doing it so late that his changes never impacted a single person?

Exactly.

Then how about the overtime regulation, which was issued months ago and implemented in many workplaces before the Republicans went judge-shopping and found one to stop it? When dealing with this kind of opponent, you have to use different strategies.

We can discuss either policy or politics but not both.

Since Trump does not care about policy why discuss it when discussing his actions.

Jackson_Fusion said:

LOST said:

Either he's a "Populist" who favors the "common msn" the "forgotten man" or he's a "Conservative" who agrees with the positions of the Conservative Republican Establishment.

The result of his action is that regular people are shelling out more money to a government agency.

So he's to conform to your limited, assigned boxes yeah? Or what? You won't support him?

I do not support Trump for many reasons. One of them is that he is a hypocrite.

OTOH you want him to be a hypocrite because you hope he will govern as a Conservative rather than as the Populist he campaigned as.

I can't my kid to clean his room but Trump and the GOP can get millions to vote against their personal interests.

Making it easier and cheaper for marginal buyers to purchase properties with very little $$ down helps home sellers much more than it does home buyers.

I see. It helps them more. And you calculated that how?

terp said:

Making it easier and cheaper for marginal buyers to purchase properties with very little $$ down helps home sellers much more than it does home buyers.

and not for nothing, but Jackson Fusion's description of Obama's role is kind of inaccurate , as Obama's order simply renewed an existing policy - it's not like he just threw a brand new program at Trump.

Another reason to take all of Mr. Fusion's proclamations of "fact" with a grain of salt.

the vast majority of people affected by this will already have homes and mortgages. They'll just have higher premiums on their insurance.

terp said:

Making it easier and cheaper for marginal buyers to purchase properties with very little $$ down helps home sellers much more than it does home buyers.

Leaving aside the negative spin in the quoted post -

Reducing an ancillary cost of purchasing a home, helps increase the pool of people who may be able to purchase a home.

And, of course, if more people are looking to purchase homes, that also helps the pool of home sellers (which, by the way, includes not only those "trading up", but also downsizers and families where a parent has passed away and its time to sell a family home, among others).

So people who otherwise might not be able to buy a home, and people who otherwise might not be able to sell their home, are helped.

That's sort of Econ 101.

Jackson_Fusion said:

LOST said:

Either he's a "Populist" who favors the "common msn" the "forgotten man" or he's a "Conservative" who agrees with the positions of the Conservative Republican Establishment.

The result of his action is that regular people are shelling out more money to a government agency.

So he's to conform to your limited, assigned boxes yeah? Or what? You won't support him?

Got a question- why did Obama wait till right before he left office to sign this piece of critically important support for the common man? Why wouldn't he have done so 2-3 years ago? Why did he wait till the last minute, doing it so late that his changes never impacted a single person?

Exactly.

I didn't read Lost's post as saying that Trump should "conform to ... limited assigned boxes". Trump had campaigned specifically as the "populist" and not the "establishment" candidate. They're categories that were part of Trump's message, as to what he claimed to be and not to be. At least, that's what I gathered from following the news.

As for "why did Obama wait", it's my understanding that this was not the first time the rate was eased since its high after the mortgage crisis. In other words, it's not the first reduction, it's the latest.

whether or not the FHA program is a good one or not is not the question here. Trump and the GOP aren't advocating ending it because they think it's bad for the economy or bad for working class homeowners or bad for the taxpayers. They're retaining it, but this policy change means working class people are going to be paying another $40 or $50 a month. Not a big amount, but putting $10 a week in the pockets of people who might be struggling to make ends could make a bit of a difference to them.

And it's money that immediately goes out into local economies.

Your analysis avoids the price mechanism. People who have saved a down payment are hurt. Foreclosure rates for those that put little $$ down are higher. So, we are raising prices by allowing additional people in the market.

This hurts buyers on the whole, especially our most responsible and prepared buyers. It definitely helps sellers...and those that make their $$ mediating and financing these transactions.

South_Mountaineer said:

terp said:

Making it easier and cheaper for marginal buyers to purchase properties with very little $$ down helps home sellers much more than it does home buyers.

Leaving aside the negative spin in the quoted post -

Reducing an ancillary cost of purchasing a home, helps increase the pool of people who may be able to purchase a home.

And, of course, if more people are looking to purchase homes, that also helps the pool of home sellers (which, by the way, includes not only those "trading up", but also downsizers and families where a parent has passed away and its time to sell a family home, among others).

So people who otherwise might not be able to buy a home, and people who otherwise might not be able to sell their home, are helped.

That's sort of Econ 101.

I am not avoiding or ignoring. I disagree with your negative view of helping both potential buyers and sellers.

terp said:

Your analysis avoids the price mechanism. People who have saved a down payment are hurt. Foreclosure rates for those that put little $$ down are higher. So, we are raising prices by allowing additional people in the market.

This hurts buyers on the whole, especially our most responsible and prepared buyers. It definitely helps sellers...and those that make their $$ mediating and financing these transactions.

South_Mountaineer said:

terp said:

Making it easier and cheaper for marginal buyers to purchase properties with very little $$ down helps home sellers much more than it does home buyers.

Leaving aside the negative spin in the quoted post -

Reducing an ancillary cost of purchasing a home, helps increase the pool of people who may be able to purchase a home.

And, of course, if more people are looking to purchase homes, that also helps the pool of home sellers (which, by the way, includes not only those "trading up", but also downsizers and families where a parent has passed away and its time to sell a family home, among others).

So people who otherwise might not be able to buy a home, and people who otherwise might not be able to sell their home, are helped.

That's sort of Econ 101.

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

Sure, and that's consistent with what I wrote.

I had noted the example of someone who wants to sell a house (such as for downsizing, or because it was a deceased parent's home), increasing the pool of buyers is of course beneficial to them. If someone is "upsizing", that also benefits them - with the additional benefit that the seller is also able to achieve the goal of becoming a new, "upsizing" buyer. Yes, that adds to the pool of buyers now, which again I disagree is something to look at as a negative.

terp said:

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

I want to discuss politics and you want to discuss something called "The Art of Economics". My Economics teachers never considered it an art. In any event do we know which economists advised Obama and recommended his actions and which advised Trump and recommended his actions?