Mortgage Professional America forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Housing Election - Which Candidate is Better for Homebuyers?

Notify me of new replies via email
  • Barb Davis-Hassan | | 12 Sep 2012, 02:16 PM Agree 0
    As a practicing Realtor I am seeing, reading, hearing all good news every day that the Housing Industry is showing good signs of recovery. The programs that are in place to help with the housing recovery are working. I would therefore strongly support President Obama for a second term to keep the economic recovery moving in the right direction.

    On the other hand during the campaign trail GOP Candidate Gov. Mitt Romney was overhead suggesting that he wanted to eliminate mortgage interest deduction (MID) on second homes and also to eliminate HUD. Of course once that got out he became very defensive. To be fair there is one sentence in the GOP platform addressing the issue eliminating the MID which states the GOP "wants to strongly support tax reform, however if they are not successful in doing that then they say "we must preserve the MID". How nice of them. That's it! To me this means the GOP's first and primary task at hand is to reform the tax code which would mean eliminating the MID. If no luck doing this than the MID is safe. For buyers of second homes eliminating the MID would be devestating. The housing industry is very fragile and any mention of eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would be catastrophic.

    Gov. Deval Patrick, MA speach from the Democratic National Convention pretty much covers why Gov. Romney, MA, would not be good for the nations economy overall. He should know as he followed Gov. Romney when he left office in Massachusetts.
  • John C | | 12 Sep 2012, 05:59 PM Agree 0
    The author speaks as though Keynesian economics is the standard. It is not. Keynesian economics is a mid point between socialism and classical economics. It always rears its head when we have a depression. The question is whether we would have had 4 years of virtually no recovery or we would have recovered in a few years had we not gotten all of the new extraordinary regulations. Had the government not cut off no-income verification mortgages and private capital in the mortgage market, I doubt we would have continued the plunge into the abyss. They had a place until they were abused.

    I think Barb has the parties confused. Democrats want to raise taxes and eliminate deductions to reduce the deficit. Republicans say they want government spending to be cut rather than increase taxation.

    Perhaps the writer would have government enter his home-building business since they are such good managers. Government is very good at creating a stagnant economy. We actually need some boom and bust for the economy to continue to grow. The real reason we had a larger than normal bust this time wastpoor government policy where everyone received a mortgage, starting with Bill Clinton. That was complicated by irrational greed of people who sold out their employers, Fannie and Freddie and the investing public to pad their own pockets.
  • Tammy P | | 13 Sep 2012, 11:13 AM Agree 0
    John, perhaps it is you that is mistaken. Or is that you are so deeply rooted in your republican ideogy that you can't see the truth. No income verification mortgages are what got us into this MESS, along with all the other lending short-cuts and "creative lending" practices. You want to go back to that just so your own paycheck goes back up? Shame on you.

    Economic recovery is always slow. I and not willing to vote for a man who wants to take the country back to the same economic policies as George W. Hell, he won't even TELL US what his plans are, why should we think they are any different than before?

    Nope. I'll stick with a slow progression forward, thanks. Not backward.
  • William Matz | | 13 Sep 2012, 12:59 PM Agree 0
    Tammy, you are half right about the no income verification mortgages. they did cause a huge problem, but that was solely because the lenders could sell them into securitization without recourse. That destroyed any incentive for responsible underwriting. Had lenders remained on the hook for those mortgages, they would have underwritten much more carefully (or gone out of business).

    "There are no bad mortgage programs, only bad matches between the programs and borrowers."
  • Bill Morscheck | | 14 Sep 2012, 12:20 PM Agree 0
    Continued policies of unrestrained spending, greater reliance on the government for our existence, tax increases and regulation, together with the promotion of class warfare will give us more of what we have experienced in the past 3 1/2 years. Redistribution of income/wealth will work only until the government runs out of individuals to 'take' from. If our industry and the economy in general, are ever going to improve, we need to elect folks who believe in the American ideals of private property, personal responsibility, and innovation that has made our country strong and prosperous. Success and personal achievement is admirable, not an example of unfairness.

    A change at the top is required for America to prosper again.
  • After the Storm – What Has Sandy Done to the Real | | 06 Nov 2012, 01:03 AM Agree 0
    [...] = "#FFFFFF"; ch_color_text = "#000000"; ch_color_bg = "#FFFFFF"; After so much partisanship and election bickering, it’s good to see our leaders reaching across the aisle and embrace cooperation in the face of a [...]
Post a reply