Kansas Crimson

I dunno where this goes. But its kinda funny

https://youtu.be/H3VLqLLWxbQ

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Walrus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 12:48 pm I never said someone should buy home without 20% and a 700 fico. This automatically rules out a lot of poorer buyers (especially black and hispanic buyers). Some might call it "racist" (I'm surprised some of you did not pin this as racism), but it's not. Jeep just admitted that this is how it should be. A buyer has 20% or they don't.

The banks relaxed their standards in 2016-2019, just like they did before the last crash. A lot of those people who bought homes with 3% down are going to lose their homes.

No, it just rules them out of getting a mortgage with those larger companies. There is a bank out there somewhere that would be willing to give just about anyone a loan. You just have to find them and be OK with their crummier rates.

Buying a home is a goal, not a right. If pursuit of that goal requires people to keep their credit clean and save their money then it's a win-win.

Yeah, but non whites clearly cannot do that.

Hey Lobster, am I doing this correctly?

Walrus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 12:48 pm I never said someone should buy home without 20% and a 700 fico. This automatically rules out a lot of poorer buyers (especially black and hispanic buyers). Some might call it "racist" (I'm surprised some of you did not pin this as racism), but it's not. Jeep just admitted that this is how it should be. A buyer has 20% or they don't.

The banks relaxed their standards in 2016-2019, just like they did before the last crash. A lot of those people who bought homes with 3% down are going to lose their homes.

As I recall, poorer buyers were not the ones who benefitted from the relaxed standards before the last crash. I believe the buyers with $300,000 incomes who were intent on flipping properties and were overextended in doing so, were the ones that got caught. A good many of those were in the condo market in the 4 states that had 1/2 of all the foreclosures in the last crash (FL, CA, AZ, NV).

seahawk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:48 am

Walrus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 12:48 pm I never said someone should buy home without 20% and a 700 fico. This automatically rules out a lot of poorer buyers (especially black and hispanic buyers). Some might call it "racist" (I'm surprised some of you did not pin this as racism), but it's not. Jeep just admitted that this is how it should be. A buyer has 20% or they don't.

The banks relaxed their standards in 2016-2019, just like they did before the last crash. A lot of those people who bought homes with 3% down are going to lose their homes.

As I recall, poorer buyers were not the ones who benefitted from the relaxed standards before the last crash. I believe the buyers with $300,000 incomes who were intent on flipping properties and were overextended in doing so, were the ones that got caught. A good many of those were in the condo market in the 4 states that had 1/2 of all the foreclosures in the last crash (FL, CA, AZ, NV).

Correct. I think the % of poorer buyers foreclosures stayed relatively closer to the recent yearly average compared to other segments of the population...this happened for a few reasons, but the main one being is that low income owners dont move nearly as often so they the home value is relatively irrelavent until the sell or their financial picture goes bad...now that doesnt mean that the banks didnt get hurt worse on foreclosures across the board because they did....but at least my bank in particular changed how they did underwriting on speculative flips or development projects after that crash.. especially for what we consider "out of market lending/projects"...we took a bath on a condo development in FL that we financed for 1 of our customers (who was local in our area for half the year each year)...2 main things caused that loss to be worse than it needed to be: 1) the borrower was extremely leveraged with multiple projects going simultaneously which made it hard to get a true global cash flow for him...and 2) since we were not in FL to monitor the project every step of the way we couldnt easily see that he continued to make draws on funds from his construction line of credit when he got in trouble to float other projects. Basically a robbing peter to pay paul type scenario.....with more local projects we do construction inspections when each draw is being made....so if the customer makes a draw for concrete we go out there before the next draw is approved to make sure the concrete work was actually done....that way we can minimize our losses if a project or developer starts showing red flags....because once that money goes out it isnt coming back, and a half complete development project makes for piss poor collateral.

Like you mentioned, the last crash saw alot of "rich" property owners who had a lot of turnover of properties get hurt because they were allowed to get way too leveraged and banks felt way too comfortable with unrealistic appraised values with a lot of "blue sky" equity/value in certain areas. We had another very strong customer who purchased a magnificent residential property in Aspen CO that was purchased (mostly financed) in that 4mil range and we had an appraisal done on it that was around 5mil....that thing sat on the market for like 3 or 4 years before eventually selling for like 2mil...thankfully the borrower was so strong that he could withstand the loss, but we definitely were nervous about it and had to keep a tight eye on the rest of his financial world because if something went wrong we were going to take a huge loss on it since i think we had around 3.5mil loaned on it at the time it was listed for multiple years.

Biden holds 13-point lead over Trump in Florida: poll

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 ... fWfuGwcxoc

The former vice president leads Trump 51 percent-38 percent in the latest Quinnipiac poll released Thursday, a sharp increase since Florida voters were last surveyed by the pollster in April, when Biden led Trump 46 percent-42 percent.

Texas has Biden up 1, but Cornyn up 10 over the Dem challenger.

This the best thread for talking VP choice? Former GOP voice I respect a lot agrees about Kamala:
https://twitter.com/murphymike/status/1 ... 79777?s=20

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/politics ... index.html

Sounds like California Rep Karen Bass is getting some strong consideration for VP.

An interesting article by the Sacramento Bee about Bass: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editoria ... 10782.html

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:41 am https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/politics ... index.html

Sounds like California Rep Karen Bass is getting some strong consideration for VP.

She is definitely getting a vocal push from democrats to be strongly considered, but it is hard to say which of the 10 or so women are being most strongly considered by the Biden camp because they are keeping everything very quiet. I dont think many people know who the leaders are and the ones who know arent talking.

Is she ahead of Rice, Harris, Duckworth, etc.? Hard to say with any real certainty. Sounds like she is definitely 1 of the 10ish people he will be picking. I think i saw it will be announced in the next week or so.

I dont think it will be a man. I dont think it will be a white woman....and if it ends up being Warren then all of this secrecy and shadow games will look very intentional and disingenuous to me.

Other than a vote grab, who uncle joe picks for his vp is meaningless.

Might be the most meaningless ticket in the history of tickets.

Joe's getting a little long in the tooth. His VP pick is very important.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:16 pm Other than a vote grab, who uncle joe picks for his vp is meaningless.

Might be the most meaningless ticket in the history of tickets.

Contrary to the "I dont care what they do once they get in office, we won!" approach of the last 4 years, I would actually like to see Biden and his VP accomplish some things if they win. Someone who can work with Congress would be great.

Whoever we elect in November is a one termer. With the massive cluster phucque we are embroiled in, that gives me some comfort.

We can’t get to 24 fast enough.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:33 pm

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:16 pm Other than a vote grab, who uncle joe picks for his vp is meaningless.

Might be the most meaningless ticket in the history of tickets.

Contrary to the "I dont care what they do once they get in office, we won!" approach of the last 4 years, I would actually like to see Biden and his VP accomplish some things if they win. Someone who can work with Congress would be great.

I don't think there are anyone that has been floated that really has the horse trading skills that you think of. The more likely outcome if the senate goes to the Dems is to blow up the filibuster, and push through all the bills they've been wanting to push through since 2010.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:35 pm Whoever we elect in November is a one termer. With the massive cluster phucque we are embroiled in, that gives me some comfort.

We can’t get to 24 fast enough.

But how you do know 24 will be better? It could be even worse if say, AOC is running.

We have slogged through 12 years of junk. I’m gonna write off the next 4. That makes 16 years to be forgotten.

I’ll take my chances. 24! Full speed ahead.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:17 pm Joe's getting a little long in the tooth. His VP pick is very important.

I'd say it's an incredibly consequential pick.

Pence is the definition of inconsequential.

If 24 is worse than Trump vs Biden it will be time to implode the system and try something else.

At this point I'd settle for getting to 2024.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:58 pm At this point I'd settle for getting to 2024.

Fair point.

If a centrist Democrat who will put smart people in high positions and listen to them is so bad, are there any Democrats out there in the entire country that you wouldn't consider awful?