All Things Kansas.
https://www.kansascrimson.com/boards/
i don’t know, but it seems silly to me to put all the onus on renters/homeowners/landlords when ultimately the ones “needing” the money are the banks/lending institutions...most of which have much more financial flexibility than those referenced aboveBasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:54 pmWhat do you suggest the governement do? Give profitable banks even more money? Part of lending money is loans going bad. They have reserves for it. The banks will be fine.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:58 am i’ve said from the beginning that banks are what congress need to be dealing with re: rent and mortgages in default
There are billions of dollars allocated by Congress for this issue but only a tiny portion of it has actually been distributed to this point. Yet another case of Congress giving away money with no plan or audit in place to make sure it ends up where it is supposed to in a timely manner.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:07 ami don’t know, but it seems silly to me to put all the onus on renters/homeowners/landlords when ultimately the ones “needing” the money are the banks/lending institutions...most of which have much more financial flexibility than those referenced aboveBasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:54 pmWhat do you suggest the governement do? Give profitable banks even more money? Part of lending money is loans going bad. They have reserves for it. The banks will be fine.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:58 am i’ve said from the beginning that banks are what congress need to be dealing with re: rent and mortgages in default
too much bureaucracy, and not all the fault of congresstwocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:16 amThere are billions of dollars allocated by Congress for this issue but only a tiny portion of it has actually been distributed to this point. Yet another case of Congress giving away money with no plan or audit in place to make sure it ends up where it is supposed to in a timely manner.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:07 ami don’t know, but it seems silly to me to put all the onus on renters/homeowners/landlords when ultimately the ones “needing” the money are the banks/lending institutions...most of which have much more financial flexibility than those referenced aboveBasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:54 pm
What do you suggest the governement do? Give profitable banks even more money? Part of lending money is loans going bad. They have reserves for it. The banks will be fine.
I think i misinterpreted the intent of your comment. If the governement provides direct assitance to renters then i think that is best way to bridge the gap. Could also work with landlords, but that becomes much more complicated because how do you identify those that truly need it and those that just appear to need it (thinking of rich people who own various properties in LLCs...tax returns, which is what they have to go off of, can look bad, but personally that property owner has plenty of personal funds to keep the properties afloat.. i dont want those guys getting more free money). If you provide direct assistance to the renters most in need for them to pay rent it will be the most efficient way to ease the financial pain.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:07 ami don’t know, but it seems silly to me to put all the onus on renters/homeowners/landlords when ultimately the ones “needing” the money are the banks/lending institutions...most of which have much more financial flexibility than those referenced aboveBasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:54 pmWhat do you suggest the governement do? Give profitable banks even more money? Part of lending money is loans going bad. They have reserves for it. The banks will be fine.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:58 am i’ve said from the beginning that banks are what congress need to be dealing with re: rent and mortgages in default
There is a difference between "you cannot afford that much" and "we cannot accept the level of risk that we believe is involved in you owing us that much".NotGutterGutter wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:14 am Crazy question. How many people in major cities are being told by a bank that they cannot afford let's say a $1250 a month mortgage payment so they are stuck paying let's say $1750 ($500 more) in rent instead?
Very true! Maybe I should rephrase the question.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:44 amThere is a difference between "you cannot afford that much" and "we cannot accept the level of risk that we believe is involved in you owing us that much".NotGutterGutter wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:14 am Crazy question. How many people in major cities are being told by a bank that they cannot afford let's say a $1250 a month mortgage payment so they are stuck paying let's say $1750 ($500 more) in rent instead?
No clue. Is she on a lease at her current place? Maybe involve your mother in mapping out a timeline for when this lease is up and she when she feels comfortable moving so that she is involved in the decision and doesn't feel like she is being made to do anything. She may not be ready to change if it is "do you want to do this right now?" but may see it as a necessary step down the road. I don't know, I am still hopefully a few years away from having to tackle those decisions.NotGutterGutter wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:34 amVery true! Maybe I should rephrase the question.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:44 amThere is a difference between "you cannot afford that much" and "we cannot accept the level of risk that we believe is involved in you owing us that much".NotGutterGutter wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:14 am Crazy question. How many people in major cities are being told by a bank that they cannot afford let's say a $1250 a month mortgage payment so they are stuck paying let's say $1750 ($500 more) in rent instead?
On a totally unrelated housing note.....
I'm dealing with a crazy conundrum right now.
I have an 88 year old mother who is currently pretty much self sufficient.
In the near future she is either going to move in to a two bedroom (she currently lives in a one bedroom) in her current building or a one or two bedroom in a very nice "senior living" facility.
My dilemma is if/when she does need a care giver, obviously being in the senior living facility would be a better place for her in regards to ease and quality of care but my mother seems to prefer living in her current building - right now - and even if/when she may need a caregiver.
I can't make her do anything but the problem is someone else is going to be paying for this.
That person prefers she move in to the senior living facility but as I said, my mother prefers to live in her current building. I feel bad for my mother in that she should be excited to move in to a newer nicer place and yet she has a lot of anxiety regarding her decision/s.
Yes thats not a function of capitalism. Capitalism and free market would have prices at what the market will bear. These are artificially increased market conditions with houses selling for 30% over market value. Its not at all market driven.ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:30 am I never said anything about the gummint.
But you have to ask yourself: should housing be more about keeping communities warm and dry?
or more about being just another commodity for rich people to get richer off of?
I’d ask why you think this example of the free market working its wonders is suddenly Alllllll bad, but I know all that does is get me labeled as the radical again
But yeah this almost seems less like capitalism and more like some kinda neo-feudalism. Soon enough, every single everything will be owned by the same few corporate conglomerates.