I did answer you an answer. Again. Banks have zero risk giving out home loans, pretending otherwise is a complete rejection of recent history and how government has worked over the past 60 years. In fact, banks, under the law, made more money forcing fraudulent foreclosures than maintaining loans because the government immediately gives banks the “lost” revenue in deductions while the banks actually profited from previous payments on pure interest plus liquidation of the mortgaged homes.
Okay then my apologies but maybe I am missing your answer. My question: what is your proposal for people who don't have cash on hand equal to the full value of the listed price?
We already have that system in place. The only thing I would change is either remove the banks ability to profit on home loans (since they’re not taking risk, the government is) or remove government protections of bank loans (healthier option overall, but good luck, banks won’t give up their golden egg). What we have now is socialist corporatism which is worse than either alternative.
Man, I'm not sure if you and me just communicate in very different ways. "We already have that system in place?" ... Are you referring to your ideal, proposed system?
Or Is your proposal that if banks loans are gov backed, that they merely take the principal divided by 360 (the number of months in thirty years) and voila that's your mortgage payment each month? EX: a $360,000 home, 30 year loan, 360 payments of $1,000 ?
Is that your proposal. No interest for the borrower, and no profit for the lender?
Again. Lenders take zero risk making home loans. That’s been repeatedly covered. It’s so government regulated that it would be cheaper to cut out the middle man either way, either on the government side or the bank side.
I did answer you an answer. Again. Banks have zero risk giving out home loans, pretending otherwise is a complete rejection of recent history and how government has worked over the past 60 years. In fact, banks, under the law, made more money forcing fraudulent foreclosures than maintaining loans because the government immediately gives banks the “lost” revenue in deductions while the banks actually profited from previous payments on pure interest plus liquidation of the mortgaged homes.
Okay then my apologies but maybe I am missing your answer. My question: what is your proposal for people who don't have cash on hand equal to the full value of the listed price?
What exactly is your answer?
We already have that system in place. The only thing I would change is either remove the banks ability to profit on home loans (since they’re not taking risk, the government is) or remove government protections of bank loans (healthier option overall, but good luck, banks won’t give up their golden egg). What we have now is socialist corporatism which is worse than either alternative.
Man, I'm not sure if you and me just communicate in very different ways. "We already have that system in place?" ... Are you referring to your ideal, proposed system?
Or Is your proposal that if banks loans are gov backed, that they merely take the principal divided by 360 (the number of months in thirty years) and voila that's your mortgage payment each month? EX: a $360,000 home, 30 year loan, 360 payments of $1,000 ?
Is that your proposal. No interest for the borrower, and no profit for the lender?
Again. Lenders take zero risk making home loans. That’s been repeatedly covered. It’s so government regulated that it would be cheaper to cut out the middle man either way, either on the government side or the bank side.