Still nibbling around the edges of the problem — but at least it’s addressing the right problem:
The Federal Housing Finance Agency announced on Monday morning new rules that will allow many more “underwater” homeowners – who owe more than their properties are worth – to refinance at today’s ultra-low rates.
FHFA estimates up to a million borrowers will use the program, which was originally rolled out in early 2009 and has fallen far short of the number of people it was supposed to help.
Only mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be eligible.
In the past, borrowers who owed only more than 25 percent more than their homes are worth could participate in the program. Now, there is no cap on how much a borrower owes.
You have no idea how hard it is for the “volatile 1%”. I can hardly see through my tears…
Is not a wonderful Christmas present. It’s borrowing against future needs, and after 30 years of this horseshit, the loan is coming due.
You might want to call and let them know how you feel about this.
The’re running out of money and as you know, American banks have blocked their funds. You can still send checks or donate via Paypal.
I have this proposal, one I’ve brought up before and I still think it’s a great idea. Here it is: If you own a handgun, you have to own gun insurance.
Handguns cause untold damage to other human beings, mostly because that’s what they’re designed to do. And since craven politicians won’t offend the NRA by talking sense, I say it’s time to get the insurance lobby involved. (After all, they’re always looking for a new revenue stream!)
If you have a history of violence or other anti-social behavior, your premium will reflect that higher risk. If you keep your guns in a locked gun cabinet, have approved triggers locks and have taken a gun safety class, your premium will reflect responsible gun ownership.
Oh, and just like when you buy a car, you can’t walk out of a gun dealer’s without showing proof of insurance.
It’s legal, it rewards people who are careful with their handguns — and it makes it a lot more expensive for those who aren’t. What’s not to like?
A federal judge this week tossed out a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association challenging the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting the sale of handguns to people under 21 years of age.
The suit is one of two filed by the National Rifle Association challenging state and federal laws regarding the purchase and carry of firearms by young adults.
Because, as we all know, young people will certainly exhibit the same self-control and restraint on the use of guns as they display with the use of alcohol, motor vehicles and baseball bats!
U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings on Thursday dismissed the suit challenging a federal ban on the sale of handguns to people age 18-20, writing that precedent shows restrictions on the sale of firearms do not violate the U.S. Constitution.
The suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and others was filed by the NRA on behalf of the organization and three young adults, including Lubbock resident Andrew Payne, who claim they are harmed by the ban.
The plaintiffs claim the ban violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
[…] Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons, the high court held that laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms is constitutional.
This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters’ mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.