Congress trying to do away with Down Payment Assistance

Wow...is that true? I can't believe that was not mentioned in any of the news. That's great news. If you can't put down 20%, you shouldn't be buying.

Well, if that's true, it's good news. Tired of these "renter" pretending to be home owners and making us foot the bill when they walk away from their foreclosure.

Wow... over 94% of these loans are up to date. Right about the same foreclosure rate as conventional loans. Not everybody has 20% or a rich mommy & daddy to give it to them. Good people with good jobs should be able to buy homes. If everyone needed 20% to buy a home there would be a lot of young couple living in their parents basement.

"Good people with good jobs should be able to buy homes."

Why?

Why? because it is part of our right as Americans. Sorry but you don't get to decide what is best for others.

"Why? because it is part of our right as Americans."

Really?  Who told you that?

Right? Right? What the fudge are you talking about?

And no, mommy and daddy didn't give me my 20% down. I have saved $20k a year for the past 6 years, living within my mean so I have a down payment to buy a house.

If you don't have the disciple to save money to buy a house, you don't deserve to buy a house. It's a privilege, not a right. Tired of this entitlement socialist crap!!!! Even in Communist China, you have to put 30% down to buy a house and most people in China buy with 100% cash.

Renter should stay renter.

The constitution. You remember that old document behind the glass case in Washington. I think it is part of the pursuit happiness crap they scribbled down

"The constitution."

Sorry, nothing about buying a house in there. Try again.

Yea? Well, my pursuit of happiness is a trophy wife that's hot in bed. The USA Government has failed me in my pursuit of happiness!  Rosie Palm is my only lover.

If everyone needed 20% to buy a home there would be a lot of young couple living in their parents basement.

Gotta disagree with you there, Michael.  Nothing wrong with renting until you save up enough money for a ... wait for it ... starter home.  Remember those?  You know, that was back when not every couple needed to start out in a home with 3+ bedrooms, 2+ bathrooms, 2+ car garage ...

People in this generation got too greedy.  Nobody wanted to save a down payment.  Nobody wanted to start out small.  Everybody had to have their little granite luxuries ...

Requring 20% down payment for a house will be the best thing that could happen to this country.

Thank god, there is at least one good clause in the horrible bill! 

Young couples don't have to live in parents' basement. They will save tons of money by renting for a few years and waiting for prices to fall to reasonable levels

its your right as an American to buy a home no money down!- what a tool!!!

OMG - it must be Armegeddon.  I agree with Mark75NYC.  Everyone in your bomb shelters stat.

The statistics we see show that the rates of defaulting are ~4x higher for those who put nothing down from their own pockets.    I'm pleased that these programs are going away.

We don't have rich parents, great uncles nor won the lottery and also came up with 20% down.   We rented, we lived frugally and we got there.   We didn't do it when we were 23.   

Home ownership is a privilege, that comes with risks.  It is not a constitutional guarantee.   As a taxpayer, we will be paying out our ears for all those who lost the risks.   Let's stop the bleeding sooner rather than later.

Why? because it is part of our right as Americans.

So, apparently getting your real estate sales license doesn't require any understanding of the most basic tenant of our legal system whatsoever:  the concept of a right.

You have absolutely NO RIGHT to buy a home.  That is preposterous.  You don't even have the RIGHT to health care in the US, let alone home ownership.  These are things, for right or wrong, which one must EARN the privelge to enjoy.

OMG - it must be Armegeddon. I agree with Mark75NYC. Everyone in your bomb shelters stat.

I have been sidetracked playing with Alpine, but generally I'm a pretty reasonable guy, and easy to agree with ;-)

LOL Mark - I was just busting your chops.  Seriously though, I've been screaming this for years and yet all I heard was - "OMG, I would never live there!" 

Why should I foot the bill for renters??  

HUD's Proposal

HUD has reissued its rule to ban seller-assisted downpayment assistance programs and the charitable organizations that make homeownership a reality for thousands of families across the United States. Yes, after more than 15,000 comments opposing this ban and Judge Friedman’s ruling against it earlier this year, we are, once again, rallying supporters of those who have been a part of and have seen the immeasurable benefits of enabling low-to-moderate income individuals and families achieve the dream of homeownership.

HUD continues to disregard implementing other recommended regulations that would strengthen DPA and the entire housing market. By acting now and taking a stand to oppose this ban and resolve this debate once and for all, you are demonstrating your commitment to your clients and their quality of life.
With your support, we will continue to keep the doors of homeownership wide open.
If HUD’s rule is implemented,
it would mean:

    * Many Americans would be unable to buy a home
    * The government would spend your taxpayer dollars to replace DPAs
    * There would be fewer homeowners to add to the tax base and improve communities
    * No mortgage options for people who can afford a monthly mortgage payment but do not have enough saved for a downpayment
    * The struggling housing market would be negatively impacted
    * Sellers would suffer from a smaller pool of potential buyers

Make your voice heard and stop HUD’s rule!

Well, it hasn't been completely ironed out yet...there is a version, where the DPA is just altered a little bit.

But this is FHA, if they get rid of that you still only need to bring in 3%.  Not some huge drastic change...besides there are still folks giving out no money down loans. 

This bill though is sneaking in crap that shouldn't be there, and it will be passed, because our rep's will be too afraid to vote no.

I hope that website really send this message to our Congress Scammers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Please Support Downpayment Assistance Programs
Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:58 PM
From:
"do-not-reply@congressweb.com" <do-not-reply@congressweb.com>
Add sender to Contacts
To:
youdiditr2@yahoo.com

Thank you for contacting your Legislators!
Below is a copy of the message you sent.

___________________________________________________________________



RE: Please Support Downpayment Assistance Programs

Dear Congresswoman Roybal-Allard:

Great news! I'm excited to see that we are doing away with assistance down payment.
If you don't have the disciple to save for a 20% down payment, you should not be a home owner. Home ownership is a long term committment for those that are finacially discipled. Tax payers should not foot the bill for those that should not be homer owners.

Sincerely,

Homer Simpsons

Mr. Homer Simpsons
666 South LA
Los Angeles, CA 90071

The only thing downpayment assistance does is make housing more expensive.  With out, prices come down and are more affordable for entry level buyers.  Just like most times the government tries to help and ends up creating a negative incentive.

Flip -

very creative with the 666 address!!  :)

Actually, I'm not against Non-profits giving away down payment money if they choose after screening the aplicants; BUT I'm completely against the Non-profits collecting the down payment from the seller to give to the buyer to give back to the seller, just to trick the mortgage companies out of having a buyer that has a loan to value ratio in a reasonable risk range.

Of course if the appraisers appraised more accurately, and the loan officers actually checlked loan to value ratio in addition to checking income sources, existing debt, and ability to keep up with payments, programs like Nehimiah would never have worked in the first place.

Regarding land ownership rights; I think the Native Americans had it right; no-one can really "own" land as it "belongs" to nature.  "Ownership" tends to only cause exploitation.  We should give all the land we stole back to the Native Americans.

Besides, there is nothing about land ownership in the Bill of Rights; and the constitution was origionally conceaved as giving only land owners "voting" rights.  The rest of the people were mostly considered property or ignorant people incapable of voting meaningfully.  Perhaps the drafters of the constitution were right?

why cant we just ban credit checks too? i feel i am always descriminated against by banks and you know if they never checked my credit i could get that boat i always wanted!

i am completely against the concept of the concept of a free handout in the form of downpayment assistance, i think that the non-profits (if they dont go away completely) would be far more helpful if they were matching my down payment 2 dollars for every 1 dollar, that way 20% down becomes 30% down and the person's payments are limited... of course refinancing this money back out would be out of the question

pasa, i also like your suggestion

elderly people can actually lose their homes, which have been paid for outright because of tax liabilities... i guess that even with the bank out of the picture, uncle sam disagrees that home ownership is a right, or that is just my impression?

I can't find anything in the body of the articles of the constitution that even discuss property.

What I do find is the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship rights:

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law".

Also the 5th Amendment regarding double jeapordy, due process and compensation for eminant domain:

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

This doesn't state everyone has a right to own land nor that everyone should own land.  It states that if you DO own it, the government cannot take it away arbitrarily and must compensate you if it is necessary to take it away for the use of the public good.

But if you didn't have it?  These two amendments only state you will not be deprived of it if you own it unless it goes through proper hearings...  It states nothing about people being granted things they cannot afford or don't need.

The bigger guarentee is in the Declaration of Independence:  ALL men (meaning people {including all races and genders...[it took us a while to get that sorted out]}) ...  they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursute..

(Notice that if you don't believe in a "creator" the rights no longer would have any basis and therefore no protection).

So, we state all people have a right to live, but we regulary take that away anyway.  And all people (even if not citizens) have a right to "liberty", but we regularly tell people they "must" do something, or "can't" do something...  And if they have a right to live, but don't have the money to buy a house, shouldn't they be allowed to live on the streets or in the wilderness or under a freeway bridge?  Yet we make all those options illegal stating they are "lottering".  So, we still let them "live", but we take them to the local jail and deny their liberty?

It states they have the right to live somewhere, it doesn't state they have a right to own what they live in or the land that it occupies, or the land surrounding the structure, or even street frontage.

People who can't save money shouldn't buy houses, Michael.  Especially with other people's money.  Obviously this line of thinking cuts into your commission schedule if everyone all of a sudden has to help pay for the things they would like to buy. 

what a strange concept-  planning ahead and saving money for a purchase.  crazy talk, i know.

Michael,

Have you read the Consititution lately?  Can you please tell us which part of it guarantees the right of every American to own a house?  I know the COnstitution says that the government can't require you to house soldiers in your house, but there is nothing in there about owning a house the last time I cheked. 

No free handouts?  If you "won" the lottery you would give it all back to the government since you didn't earn it?

If someone gave you a birthday GIFT you would REFUSE it because no one should EVER get anything for free that they didn't "earn"???

Anyone can give a gift, and anyone can receive a gift, that is why it is called a gift.  People that give away money to others for downpayments are no different than Habitat for Humanity that helps people build their own house and helps provide land and materials, from people that WANT to help by giving a gift.  You cannot deny people the opportunity to give to others.  And you also cannot claim people are not worthy of receiving a gift, because if it was based on "worth", it would no longer be a gift.

But when the value of a property is artificially inflated for loan purposes, that is outright loan fraud.  Get the property properly appraised and properly review the loan criterion and this wouldn't have happened.

Anything you have that is worth having you didn't "earn", it was a "gift".  Your life, your health, your eyesight, your mobility, your hearing, the air you breathe...  Capitalism has really distorted most people's thinking.  Nature does twice the economic value for people than all of mankind's futile efforts.  Besides, "capitalism" states that if you want to make a good profit on selling water, you must "polute" the water to make is scare, and that you must buy out access to most water sources so that people are obligated to buy from you.