Mortgage equity plan

Can anyone explain to me why this is a good thing?

Penalizing people with a credit score of 680 or greater? 680 isn't all that high. The article claims it's 2/3 of the population. In fact, if your score is less than 680, WTF are you even doing buying a house in the first place?!?

Also, didn't anyone learn their lesson in 2008 from pushing mortgages onto financially shaky people? That's what caused the first housing bubble.

It's not like inflation and rising interest rates haven't killed people's ability to afford a mortgage anyway. Now we're adding more fees to them?

Seriously. I don't get it. This seems like stupidity at it's finest. Someone want to edjumakate me as to why I should change my mind?

https://nypost.com/2023/04/24/bidens-mortgage-equity-will-screw-up-the-homebuying-market/

“When did being credit worthy become a federal crime” lol man when the article you’re linking starts with that maybe it’s time to hit pause and reevaluate what you’re reading before jumping straight into the outrage soup with them. It ends with a conversation about reparations, good lord is that ever dramatic.

But anyway.

“ For example, a buyer with a credit score of 650 putting a 25% down payment on a $400,000 home would now pay 1.5% in fees on the loan, or $4,500. That compares with 2.75%, or $8,250, under the previous fee structure.

Meanwhile, a borrower with a credit score of 750 who puts down 25% on a $400,000 home would now pay 0.375% in fees, or $1,125, compared with 0.250%, or $750, under the previous fee regime.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna81164

Yes, fees for borrowers with better credit scores are going up, You can see the actual fee structure here. I’m not sure that I would really say that 680 is good anyway. It’s fine. It’s not good. Better than that is much lower fees for lower credit scores are going down, but what the fear mongering article fails to mention is that fees are still significantly higher for borrowers with worse credit. I don’t really know if that’s a good idea or not, but breathlessly talking about 2008 is a bit extreme. I don’t think this is all that big a deal.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:“When did being credit worthy become a federal crime” lol man when the article you’re linking starts with that maybe it’s time to hit pause and reevaluate what you’re reading before jumping straight into the outrage soup with them. It ends with a conversation about reparations, good lord is that ever dramatic.

But anyway.

“ For example, a buyer with a credit score of 650 putting a 25% down payment on a $400,000 home would now pay 1.5% in fees on the loan, or $4,500. That compares with 2.75%, or $8,250, under the previous fee structure.

Meanwhile, a borrower with a credit score of 750 who puts down 25% on a $400,000 home would now pay 0.375% in fees, or $1,125, compared with 0.250%, or $750, under the previous fee regime.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna81164

Yes, fees for borrowers with better credit scores are going up, You can see the actual fee structure here. I’m not sure that I would really say that 680 is good anyway. It’s fine. It’s not good. Better than that is much lower fees for lower credit scores are going down, but what the fear mongering article fails to mention is that fees are still significantly higher for borrowers with worse credit. I don’t really know if that’s a good idea or not, but breathlessly talking about 2008 is a bit extreme. I don’t think this is all that big a deal.

LOL.  I looked for an article from a more moderate source, because I just KNEW someone was going to bitch about that.  Am not leaving disappointed.

But regardless.... we're charging people with (not really all that spectacular, but) good credit to subsidize people with bad credit.

WHY is this possibly a good thing?  And how are we not enabling more subprime(ish) borrowers by doing this?  Address the actual plan and not the reporting thereof.

TravelinMan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:“When did being credit worthy become a federal crime” lol man when the article you’re linking starts with that maybe it’s time to hit pause and reevaluate what you’re reading before jumping straight into the outrage soup with them. It ends with a conversation about reparations, good lord is that ever dramatic.

But anyway.

“ For example, a buyer with a credit score of 650 putting a 25% down payment on a $400,000 home would now pay 1.5% in fees on the loan, or $4,500. That compares with 2.75%, or $8,250, under the previous fee structure.

Meanwhile, a borrower with a credit score of 750 who puts down 25% on a $400,000 home would now pay 0.375% in fees, or $1,125, compared with 0.250%, or $750, under the previous fee regime.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna81164

Yes, fees for borrowers with better credit scores are going up, You can see the actual fee structure here. I’m not sure that I would really say that 680 is good anyway. It’s fine. It’s not good. Better than that is much lower fees for lower credit scores are going down, but what the fear mongering article fails to mention is that fees are still significantly higher for borrowers with worse credit. I don’t really know if that’s a good idea or not, but breathlessly talking about 2008 is a bit extreme. I don’t think this is all that big a deal.

LOL.  I looked for an article from a more moderate source, because I just KNEW someone was going to bitch about that.  Am not leaving disappointed.

But regardless.... we're charging people with (not really all that spectacular, but) good credit to subsidize people with bad credit.

WHY is this possibly a good thing?  And how are we not enabling more subprime(ish) borrowers by doing this?  Address the actual plan and not the reporting thereof.

Knowing that the article in front of you is designed to make you mad is half the battle. The other half is not saying fuck it and reading it so you get mad anyway.

I did address that though if you read the rest of what I posted instead of imagining what I posted in your head and responding to that.

We’re still charging people with lower credit significantly more than people with average credit. We’re charging them significantly significantly more than people with actually good credit. Those margins were narrowed a bit. That’s all.

Is it a good idea? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. But I don’t think it’s worth working yourself in a tizzy over.

Meanwhile, a borrower with a credit score of 750 who puts down 25% on a $400,000 home would now pay 0.375% in fees, or $1,125, compared with 0.250%, or $750, under the previous fee regime.”

If you can afford an extra $375 on a $400,000 home….

WTF are you even doing buying a house in the first place?!?

My credit score is 840. I've worked very hard (or, if you're Trapper Gus, I've been very lucky) to make it so. And now I'm going to have to pay additional fees? To subsidize Poors and their gross little shanties that they'll likely default on anyway?!? That's ridiculous. And the only arguments you have is "Well, it's not that big of deal and your source is bullshit?"

You're right. I'm probably not buying another house in my lifetime. I've got my guns, I've got my ICE vehicles, and I've got my houses. Go ahead and legislate whatever you want. I'll be up here in the mountains communing with the moose.

To use D Wag's favorite term "optics", the optics on this are fucked up. The logic is fucked up. How about lenders kick in the adjustment instead. They can make it up from the the thousands of people they are going to lay off as AI automates their jobs away.

TravelinMan wrote:My credit score is 840. I've worked very hard (or, if you're Trapper Gus, I've been very lucky) to make it so. And now I'm going to have to pay additional fees? To subsidize Poors and their gross little shanties that they'll likely default on anyway?!? That's ridiculous. And the only arguments you have is "Well, it's not that big of deal and your source is bullshit?"

You're right. I'm probably not buying another house in my lifetime. I've got my guns, I've got my ICE vehicles, and I've got my houses. Go ahead and legislate whatever you want. I'll be up here in the mountains communing with the moose.

TravelinMan wrote:My credit score is 840. I've worked very hard (or, if you're Trapper Gus, I've been very lucky) to make it so. And now I'm going to have to pay additional fees? To subsidize Poors and their gross little shanties that they'll likely default on anyway?!? That's ridiculous. And the only arguments you have is "Well, it's not that big of deal and your source is bullshit?"

You're right. I'm probably not buying another house in my lifetime. I've got my guns, I've got my ICE vehicles, and I've got my houses. Go ahead and legislate whatever you want. I'll be up here in the mountains communing with the moose.

Actually, no. Because you continue to fail to read and just want to be mad, with your credit score, depending on the circumstance of the mortgage you’re not getting this year anyway, you will either be paying the same or less than you would have previously. So, I dunno man keep being mad I guess.

Here’s the link to the old schedule that you won’t read. The new schedule is above

https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/9391/display

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:My credit score is 840. I've worked very hard (or, if you're Trapper Gus, I've been very lucky) to make it so. And now I'm going to have to pay additional fees? To subsidize Poors and their gross little shanties that they'll likely default on anyway?!? That's ridiculous. And the only arguments you have is "Well, it's not that big of deal and your source is bullshit?"

You're right. I'm probably not buying another house in my lifetime. I've got my guns, I've got my ICE vehicles, and I've got my houses. Go ahead and legislate whatever you want. I'll be up here in the mountains communing with the moose.

Just because you have worked hard does not preclude that you were lucky, too.

As pointed out by Travis, the lower credit scored buyers are paying more than you are in fees, thus they are subsidizing you, not you them. (You are making me think that you are exactly the weak-minded idiot that Murdock is trying to peddle lies to.) I get that a libertarian would say that the fees should be equal, but you are not saying that at all. You are bitching because the fees are more equal that they used to be.

The Poors SHOULD pay more in fees, because they are a higher credit risk.

Forcing people with good credit to subsidize those with bad credit is bullshit, regardless of the overall fee cost totals.

TravelinMan wrote:My credit score is 840. I've worked very hard (or, if you're Trapper Gus, I've been very lucky) to make it so. And now I'm going to have to pay additional fees? To subsidize Poors and their gross little shanties that they'll likely default on anyway?!? That's ridiculous. And the only arguments you have is "Well, it's not that big of deal and your source is bullshit?"

You're right. I'm probably not buying another house in my lifetime. I've got my guns, I've got my ICE vehicles, and I've got my houses. Go ahead and legislate whatever you want. I'll be up here in the mountains communing with the moose.

I just don’t think it’s a big deal. Do I like higher fees? Not generally. Do I like that my internet provider gives lower income households a better deal than me and probably results in my rate being .005% higher. Not really.

Think of it this way. When all these poors default you’ll have corporate entities buy up homes in droves and we’ll be that much closer to payroll deductions to pay for the house you’re buying supplied by the company you work for….

Sweet little baby Jesus stop calling a 680 credit score good. It’s average. The article you read to get you worked up called it good so that it could make you mad. It’s not.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Sweet little baby Jesus stop calling a 680 credit score good. It’s average. The article you read to get you worked up called it good so that it could make you mad. It’s not.

I couldn't agree with you more, and said as much in my OP. In fact, if you believe the statistics that this represents 2/3 of the population, it's technically BELOW average.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

The Poors SHOULD pay more in fees, because they are a higher credit risk.

Forcing people with good credit to subsidize those with bad credit is bullshit, regardless of the overall fee cost totals.

You might think that the credit score is a measure of risk the lender is incuring, that doesn't seem all that defendable even on a statitical basis given that:

The pie chart shown above shows a breakdown of the approximate value that each aspect of your credit report adds to your score:

Your payment history: 35%
Amounts you owe (your credit utilization ratio): 30%
Length of your credit history: 15%
Types of credit used (your credit mix): 10%
New credit: 10%

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/how-your-credit-score-is-calculated-1797900

Furthermore, on an individual basis this breaks down entirely, as data sets always have outliers.

So, your assertion is questionable at best and all wrong at worst.

The fees charged are probably mostly profit for the lender, as the lender is going to turn the mortgage into a monetized investment instrument and sell it, putting the risks on the buyers of those monetarized mortgages and keeping the fees in the lender's pockets.

So one of the major factors that JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and hundreds of other lenders use to determine credit worthiness is wrong in your opinion? Wow. Who am I to believe here? So confusing.

I mean, I can see where factors like "Do you have a history of paying things off?" "Are you up to your eyeballs in debt already?" and "How long have you been doing the right things?" are clearly bullshit questions.

LOL. Is there no liberal platform you won't twist yourself into a pretzel to defend? My god, man.

Subsidy is a way of life. Get over it. You think it's profitable to run infrastructure to suburbs? And the mountains where folks commune with the moose? It's not. It's subsidized by us folks living in cities where it's much cheaper to provide water/sewage/electricity/cell service/internet/etc. Yet we all pay similar amounts for these services. Grizzly Adams and friends should be paying 10x what I pay for this shit, but that's not how it works.

Another word for this is socialism. It's all around you. Sometimes you benefit from it. Other times you don't. That's what happens when resources are pooled for the good of all.

Heat Miser wrote:Subsidy is a way of life. Get over it. You think it's profitable to run infrastructure to suburbs? And the mountains where folks commune with the moose? It's not. It's subsidized by us folks living in cities where it's much cheaper to provide water/sewage/electricity/cell service/internet/etc. Yet we all pay similar amounts for these services. Grizzly Adams and friends should be paying 10x what I pay for this shit, but that's not how it works.

Another word for this is socialism. It's all around you. Sometimes you benefit from it. Other times you don't. That's what happens when resources are pooled for the good of all.

This thread has been humanly euthanized.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

So one of the major factors that JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and hundreds of other lenders use to determine credit worthiness is wrong in your opinion? Wow. Who am I to believe here? So confusing.

I mean, I can see where factors like "Do you have a history of paying things off?" "Are you up to your eyeballs in debt already?" and "How long have you been doing the right things?" are clearly bullshit questions.

LOL. Is there no liberal platform you won't twist yourself into a pretzel to defend? My god, man.

The credit scoring system was invented by a bunch of bureaucratic "Trappers" (people who like to play with numbers) probably modified buy a bunch of people who wanted their way of life to be on top. It's correlation with actual people paying on actual loans is nowhere near 100%. If they are lucky, it is above 50%, but since it is established and everyone uses it people don't question it, much. No Bank employee will be fired for following it, but that is about as much creditability as it has for an individual loan.

The banks you are naming do not hold onto the loans they make.

They bundle them into usually mortgage bonds which are sold to investors. They proved, back in 2008, that they really don't care what the credit scores are, as they were making loans to lots of wealthy people who were taking out sub-prime loans, and who then defaulted.

Mostly, at the retail level, they are a sales gimmick, trying to lure people in with lower fees, which are mostly profit for the original lender, and could easily be covered by the interest on the loans.

It is odd that you think that people with a higher credit rating should pay less, as, if you even believed that these fees cover loan defaults, which they clearly don't, aka 2008, but that is one way that our system justifies shitting on the poor to make more profits.

Hmm. I currently have two separate mortgages with Chase, and they've held them cumulatively for almost 19 years.

I think what you meant to say was that those banks don't hold on to loans from people without good credit.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

So one of the major factors that JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and hundreds of other lenders use to determine credit worthiness is wrong in your opinion?  Wow.  Who am I to believe here?  So confusing.

I mean, I can see where factors like "Do you have a history of paying things off?"  "Are you up to your eyeballs in debt already?" and "How long have you been doing the right things?" are clearly bullshit questions.

LOL.  Is there no liberal platform you won't twist yourself into a pretzel to defend?  My god, man.  

The credit scoring system was invented by a bunch of bureaucratic "Trappers" (people who like to play with numbers) probably modified buy a bunch of people who wanted their way of life to be on top.  It's correlation with actual people paying on actual loans is nowhere near 100%.  If they are lucky, it is above 50%, but since it is established and everyone uses it people don't question it, much.  No Bank employee will be fired for following it, but that is about as much creditability as it has for an individual loan.

The banks you are naming do not hold onto the loans they make.

They bundle them into usually mortgage bonds which are sold to investors.  They proved, back in 2008, that they really don't care what the credit scores are, as they were making loans to lots of wealthy people who were taking out sub-prime loans, and who then defaulted.

Mostly, at the retail level, they are a sales gimmick, trying to lure people in with lower fees, which are mostly profit for the original lender, and could easily be covered by the interest on the loans.

It is odd that you think that people with a higher credit rating should pay less, as, if you even believed that these fees cover loan defaults, which they clearly don't, aka 2008, but that is one way that our system justifies shitting on the poor to make more profits.

Hmm.  I currently have two separate mortgages with Chase, and they've held them cumulatively for almost 19 years.  

I think what you meant to say was that those banks don't hold on to loans from people without good credit.

My credit rating is around 830 and I've never been late with a payment. My mortgage has been sold multiple times. Doesn't mean shit.

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Hmm.  I currently have two separate mortgages with Chase, and they've held them cumulatively for almost 19 years.  

I think what you meant to say was that those banks don't hold on to loans from people without good credit.

My credit rating is around 830 and I've never been late with a payment. My mortgage has been sold multiple times. Doesn't mean shit.

So sometimes banks hold on to mortgages and sometimes they don't. This is contrary to Trapper's assertion.

This thread has me thinking. Are senior discounts, senior coffee, and early bird specials being subsidized by my full price dinner?

WHY am I being punished for not being old as fuck.

TravelinMan wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Hmm.  I currently have two separate mortgages with Chase, and they've held them cumulatively for almost 19 years.  

I think what you meant to say was that those banks don't hold on to loans from people without good credit.

My credit rating is around 830 and I've never been late with a payment. My mortgage has been sold multiple times. Doesn't mean shit.

So sometimes banks hold on to mortgages and sometimes they don't. This is contrary to Trapper's assertion.

I think there is some confusion as to how it works. Banks don't actually sell the mortgages as a bond bundle. Somebody still has to actually service the loans. Bondholders don't do that shit. Banks are just selling bonds that have the rights to the cash flow from the bundle of mortgages. It's a mortgage backed security.

The slippery slope there is that the bank has now gained additional liquidity from the sale of the bonds. That liquidity can be used to issue more mortgages. Rinse. Repeat. But if that liquidity is used to buy mortgage backed securities that ultimately fail, then you start to understand why 2008 happened. Mortgage backed securities were sold and resold over an over, causing a cascading effect when some of them started to fail.

kingstonlake wrote:This thread has me thinking. Are senior discounts, senior coffee, and early bird specials being subsidized by my full price dinner?

WHY am I being punished for not being old as fuck.

The short answer is yes. If you don't have children, you're also subsidizing people who do. If you do have children, you're the beneficiary of those subsidies. The easiest example is property taxes that pay for schools. If you don't have school aged children, why the fuck should you have to pay the same % property tax as those who do??? The answer of course is because educating all children is a benefit to everyone in a civilized society.

TravelinMan wrote:My credit score is 840.  I've worked very hard (or, if you're Trapper Gus, I've been very lucky) to make it so.  And now I'm going to have to pay additional fees?  To subsidize Poors and their gross little shanties that they'll likely default on anyway?!?  That's ridiculous.  And the only arguments you have is "Well, it's not that big of deal and your source is bullshit?"

You're right.  I'm probably not buying another house in my lifetime.  I've got my guns, I've got my ICE vehicles, and I've got my houses.  Go ahead and legislate whatever you want.  I'll be up here in the mountains communing with the moose.

I imagine that your tongue was somewhat in your cheek for that bolded sentence, but on the whole, you seem pretty sincere about this, so it comes across as... kinda gross.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Just because you have worked hard does not preclude that you were lucky, too.

As pointed out by Travis, the lower credit scored buyers are paying more than you are in fees, thus they are subsidizing you, not you them. (You are making me think that you are exactly the weak-minded idiot that Murdock is trying to peddle lies to.)  I get that a libertarian would say that the fees should be equal, but you are not saying that at all.  You are bitching because the fees are more equal that they used to be.

The Poors SHOULD pay more in fees, because they are a higher credit risk.

Forcing people with good credit to subsidize those with bad credit is bullshit, regardless of the overall fee cost totals.

This proposition makes sense in the abstract. In actuality, I feel like it contributes to a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle. People with less money are charged fees for shit people with more money get for free. My credit union charges a fee to cash checks if you have less than $250 in your account (I think that's the number, but whatever it is precisely is not really important). I believe the fee is $5. For someone with plenty of money, that $5 would go entirely unnoticed, yet they aren't charged. Someone with less than $250 in their account will certainly notice the $5, and they are being charged a fee for a service someone with more money (and accordingly more ability to pay said fee) is getting for free. I struggle not to view that as an absolutely psychotic and ass-backwards way of organizing things.

To be clear, I'm not a moron, and I understand the way a credit union functions by investing the deposits to generate a return, so accounts with low/no balance do not allow the credit union to invest any funds, and therefore a fee helps to cover costs. But, frankly, I am deeply okay with larger accounts effectively subsidizing the smaller accounts so that low income people can have access to some limited financial services that might otherwise be beyond their reach. If you oppose this, I would struggle not to view you as a sociopathic wanker.

TravelinMan wrote:My credit score is 840. I've worked very hard (or, if you're Trapper Gus, I've been very lucky) to make it so. And now I'm going to have to pay additional fees? To subsidize Poors and their gross little shanties that they'll likely default on anyway?!? That's ridiculous. And the only arguments you have is "Well, it's not that big of deal and your source is bullshit?"

You're right. I'm probably not buying another house in my lifetime. I've got my guns, I've got my ICE vehicles, and I've got my houses. Go ahead and legislate whatever you want. I'll be up here in the mountains communing with the moose.

(Sorry. You know how much I love that phrase).

Tldr

Feels like an unintended consequence of this would be the bank just not making as many loans to lower scores.

(Over 800, not sure where... don't plan on mortgaging anytime soon)

Cameron wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:My credit score is 840.  I've worked very hard (or, if you're Trapper Gus, I've been very lucky) to make it so.  And now I'm going to have to pay additional fees?  To subsidize Poors and their gross little shanties that they'll likely default on anyway?!?  That's ridiculous.  And the only arguments you have is "Well, it's not that big of deal and your source is bullshit?"

You're right.  I'm probably not buying another house in my lifetime.  I've got my guns, I've got my ICE vehicles, and I've got my houses.  Go ahead and legislate whatever you want.  I'll be up here in the mountains communing with the moose.

I imagine that your tongue was somewhat in your cheek for that bolded sentence, but on the whole, you seem pretty sincere about this, so it comes across as... kinda gross.

TravelinMan wrote:

The Poors SHOULD pay more in fees, because they are a higher credit risk.

Forcing people with good credit to subsidize those with bad credit is bullshit, regardless of the overall fee cost totals.

This proposition makes sense in the abstract. In actuality, I feel like it contributes to a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle. People with less money are charged fees for shit people with more money get for free. My credit union charges a fee to cash checks if you have less than $250 in your account (I think that's the number, but whatever it is precisely is not really important). I believe the fee is $5. For someone with plenty of money, that $5 would go entirely unnoticed, yet they aren't charged. Someone with less than $250 in their account will certainly notice the $5, and they are being charged a fee for a service someone with more money (and accordingly more ability to pay said fee) is getting for free. I struggle not to view that as an absolutely psychotic and ass-backwards way of organizing things.

To be clear, I'm not a moron, and I understand the way a credit union functions by investing the deposits to generate a return, so accounts with low/no balance do not allow the credit union to invest any funds, and therefore a fee helps to cover costs. But, frankly, I am deeply okay with larger accounts effectively subsidizing the smaller accounts so that low income people can have access to some limited financial services that might otherwise be beyond their reach. If you oppose this, I would struggle not to view you as a sociopathic wanker.

I don't think there's any doubt that I'm a bit of a sociopath. Not a serial killer type, but I have tendencies.

That being said, I'm very impressed in the number of you that (in theory at least) are willing to subsidize the Poor's mortgages. When I grew up, we were told that if you paid your bills, saved your money, and didn't do stupid things, that you would be rewarded. Now, if you do those things, you earn the opportunity to help pay for the people who didn't do those things. I applaud those who find virtue in this, but I don't.

No offense but that makes you uniquely un-American and Christian. Not that you personally subscribe to be either. I’m just noting what I’m told this country and the Bible recognize as something that’s important with regards to poorer people. Unless it’s changed to “fuck them”. If it has, my apologies.

kingstonlake wrote:No offense but that makes you uniquely un-American and Christian. Not that you personally subscribe to be either. I’m just noting what I’m told this country and the Bible recognize as something that’s important with regards to poorer people. Unless it’s changed to “fuck them”. If it has, my apologies.

I strongly believe in charity. I don't believe in the government forcing outcomes.

kingstonlake wrote:No offense but that makes you uniquely un-American and Christian. Not that you personally subscribe to be either. I’m just noting what I’m told this country and the Bible recognize as something that’s important with regards to poorer people. Unless it’s changed to “fuck them”. If it has, my apologies.

I'm not going to read this thread 'cause I don't understand the big words..

but I've often thought that if you need religion to be nice to folks, you lack compassion and empathy. Not the presence of some bearded guy in the sky.

that said, we absolutely need a government-funded safety net for folks. I'd much rather folks who need a helping hand rely on government vs. relying on christians who support an avowed rapist, misogynist, racist bigoted just because he, like them, is a christian and hates the same people as they do.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:No offense but that makes you uniquely un-American and Christian. Not that you personally subscribe to be either. I’m just noting what I’m told this country and the Bible recognize as something that’s important with regards to poorer people. Unless it’s changed to “fuck them”. If it has, my apologies.

I'm not going to read this thread 'cause I don't understand the big words..

but I've often thought that if you need religion to be nice to folks, you lack compassion and empathy. Not the presence of some bearded guy in the sky.

that said, we absolutely need a government-funded safety net for folks. I'd much rather folks who need a helping hand rely on government vs. relying on christians who support an avowed rapist, misogynist, racist bigoted just because he, like them, is a christian and hates the same people as they do.

Subsidizing people's mortgages is now considered part of the social safety net?!? Peeps be getting soft.