
Give the FHA a bailout?
L.A. Times
2012/11/16 16:48:53
|
|
|||||
|
403 votes
|
|
8% | |||
|
4,805 votes
|
|
92% | |||
The Federal Housing Administration, which has played a crucial role in stabilizing the housing market, said it ended September with $16.3 billion in projected losses -- a possible prelude to a taxpayer bailout.
The precarious financial situation could force the FHA, which has been self-funded through mortgage insurance premiums since it was created during the Great Depression, to tap the U.S. Treasury to stay afloat. The agency said a determination on whether it needs a bailout won't come until next year.

The precarious financial situation could force the FHA, which has been self-funded through mortgage insurance premiums since it was created during the Great Depression, to tap the U.S. Treasury to stay afloat. The agency said a determination on whether it needs a bailout won't come until next year.

Read More: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-fha...
Top Opinion
-
No+22That failed Democrat idea of "affirmative action mortgages" just won't go away will it? That's why the housing market will not rebound; Democrats keep propping up the bad decisions. Looks like the past four years were NOT Bush's fault, huh?




















Anyway, the banks didn't care that they failed because there were no consequences for failure. They knew the government had to bail them out.
We need to re-think the way we look at the whole lending industry. Since the entire country depends on it's success the entire country will have to pay for thier failure. If it is the entire country that pays for it, it's the entire countries concern and the legislation guiding the banks processes needs to ensure that they are doing business in a way that will allow long term success. The banks need to be regulated quite vigorously. That being said although many of the articles within Dodd Frank ensure that the banks don't make loans as haphazardly as in the past, but they go too far and the lending industry is now far too restricted to the point where they can't adequately do business. The purpose for the bailout was to allow the banks to continue operating and have enough liquidity to make sufficient loans to keep the economy afloat. Although rates are as low as imaginable (too low actually) the banks aren't able to keep lending to the people that need it the most. If the banks can't lend the people can't spend (nothing promotes spending more, than having money).
They need to fix the problem before they can hope for any significant growth within the economy. And they CERTAINLY need to address the roots of the problem before they go throwing any more money at it.
Pay day is about to hit the fan, and we have no money to pay for all the free-bees that our Government has been doling out to the takers. All the wanton Government spending has not worked, and more of the same will not work either. Doing the same thing over and over when it doesn't work, thinking it will eventually work, is just plain stupidity.
Issue loan to people with crappy credit who don't have a prayer of paying it back > Get FHA subsidy for issuing said loan > Watch borrower default on the ARM (which the government already subsidized you for) > Seize property > Rinse & Repeat using the same property > $$$$
to get a better idea of what I mean, see also...
http://flickcos.com/subsidies...
http://useconomy.about.com/od...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/0...
Thanks for the information.