Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)

[Seran]

So, people with higher credit scores are subsidizing people with lower credit scores.

It only took four days to get you where normal people were.

The government should stop incentivising poor behavior.

Your credit score is literally your own doing.

Four days was a long time for the original author of the hyperventilation post to provide accurate information. $375 dollars as a fee for a 30 year loan must seem like a lot of money to Conservatives, though not when you consider the average credit score in the national is under 700. Personally, I'm looking forward to any Republican presidential candidates attempt to make the argument that more affordable homeownership for the majority of Americans is a bad thing.

[Parkbandit]

Four days was a long time for the original author of the hyperventilation post to provide accurate information. $375 dollars as a fee for a 30 year loan must seem like a lot of money to Conservatives, though not when you consider the average credit score in the national is under 700. Personally, I'm looking forward to any Republican presidential candidates attempt to make the argument that more affordable homeownership for the majority of Americans is a bad thing.

But people with lower credit scores ARE being subsidized by people with higher credit scores.... which 4 days ago, you said they weren't.

[Suppressed Poet]

Four days was a long time for the original author of the hyperventilation post to provide accurate information. $375 dollars as a fee for a 30 year loan must seem like a lot of money to Conservatives, though not when you consider the average credit score in the national is under 700. Personally, I'm looking forward to any Republican presidential candidates attempt to make the argument that more affordable homeownership for the majority of Americans is a bad thing.

The problem with affordable housing is that there is a shortage. This effort does nothing to address the root cause.

[Shaps]

Four days was a long time for the original author of the hyperventilation post to provide accurate information. $375 dollars as a fee for a 30 year loan must seem like a lot of money to Conservatives, though not when you consider the average credit score in the national is under 700. Personally, I'm looking forward to any Republican presidential candidates attempt to make the argument that more affordable homeownership for the majority of Americans is a bad thing.

Do you even understand how compounding interest works? $375?

You were wrong from the start, as already proven... and you're wrong again.

Just move on... you're a fucking moron, and it's getting boring having to explain everything to you.

[Seran]

The problem with affordable housing is that there is a shortage. This effort does nothing to address the root cause.

Closing costs and interest rates /are/ a problem, especially if it's financed in lieu of being paid up front.

[Methais]

Just to put this in perspective, Shaps is wanting to start an uprising over lower credit scores paying $3,750 less in one-time closing costs, while high credit scores would pay an extra $375.00 in one-time closing costs. I do understand the concern of pro-classism Republicans that expanding homeownership and boosting entry into the middle class is frightening. Imagine a society where an individual family could afford a mortgage of $1,600 per month that they would normally be forced to rent from a corporation or foreign wealth fund for $2,200 per month.

Spoken like a true welfare addict.

Stop being a loser.

[Suppressed Poet]

Closing costs and interest rates /are/ a problem, especially if it's financed in lieu of being paid up front.

We need approximately 7 million more homes built in the United States to meet current demand, and until those are built all of this is just a small band-aide on an open head wound. If you want government to do something to help make homes more affordable, they should do something to incentivize the supply side & lower construction costs.

[Methais]

We need approximately 7 million more homes built in the United States to meet current demand, and until those are built all of this is just a small band-aide on an open head wound. If you want government to do something to help make homes more affordable, they should do something to incentivize the supply side & lower construction costs.

If Anton Jackson can do it, then anyone can do it.

[Seran]

We need approximately 7 million more homes built in the United States to meet current demand, and until those are built all of this is just a small band-aide on an open head wound. If you want government to do something to help make homes more affordable, they should do something to incentivize the supply side & lower construction costs.

Incentives to encourage builders to overlook their higher profits if they continue to throttle back supply and thus keep profits higher, that's a symptom of a much bigger problem and the government taking on greater debt isn't a solution. It's a bandaid.

-The nationwide homeownership rate was 65.4% as of 2022’s first fiscal quarter (2022Q1), a 1.53% decline from the previous quarter (2021Q4).
-As of 2019, 78.7 million out of a total 122.9 million households own their homes.
-44.2 million households rent their homes.
-2.7% of occupied housing units are second homes.
-10.6% of all housing units are vacant, up 0.28% from the previous quarter.

Whether deliberate or not almost 11% of all homes in the Untied States are vacant with another 2% partially occupied as vacation homes. That is millions of homes which are market available, either as rentals or preferably home purchases that are left open. Yes, adding tens of thousands of new homes by builders would help, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what is already available.

[Suppressed Poet]

Incentives to encourage builders to overlook their higher profits if they continue to throttle back supply and thus keep profits higher, that's a symptom of a much bigger problem and the government taking on greater debt isn't a solution. It's a bandaid.



Whether deliberate or not almost 11% of all homes in the Untied States are vacant with another 2% partially occupied as vacation homes. That is millions of homes which are market available, either as rentals or preferably home purchases that are left open. Yes, adding tens of thousands of new homes by builders would help, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what is already available.

I forgot for a moment I am conversing with someone incapable of understanding a supply & demand curve. Builders haven’t been throttling back supply for higher profits. New home construction has dropped considerably since the Great Recession & never really made a recovery. Covid, inflation, and high interest rates has really exacerbated the problem further. Builders would love to construct more homes, even if that means lower profit margins, for more market share and additional net revenue but face substantial challenges. I’m not even suggesting we do in fact need to incentivize builders as the market will find a way, but if you want government action to make a difference that would be where I’d point towards.

There can be all sorts of reasons for the vacancy rate. Of course you would have a problem with people owning vacation homes being an authoritarian communist and all… How about you start first with Bernie Sanders, the Clintons, the Biden family, etc. about giving up their vacation homes? Or you can just stop being a playa hater…