Obama wants to let you rent your house to avoid eviction, maybe make your payment for you!!.. yaaay!

[partypup]

[quote=mlarsen23]I actually think this is progress. If they go with a rental program, it means that the government is giving up any hope of these people owning their house. This would be a good thing. I’d be much happier putting them on a kind of straightforward welfare than I am trying to arrange some program that could ultimately allow them to keep their house.

A rental program could be good if it was limited to lower incomes/housing prices.[/quote]

But the thing is, not everyone who is losing their home now is doing so because of poorly-negotiated and poorly-thought out toxic mortgages. Now the rot is creeping up the ladder to Alt-A and prime because owners are losing their homes – not because they were irresponsible and bought more than they could afford – but because of something they really can’t control: unemployment. I don’t think most of the people losing their homes now would be considered welfare types. Heck, any one of us on this board who has a mortgage would fall into the “welfare” category if we lost our job now and went on a fruitless search for new employment for 6+ months. There but for the grace of God go I.

I personally think this rental proposal that Obama is “mulling” (like he “mulls” anything? The people who pull Obama’s strings have plotted out their steps YEARS ahead!) has been the end game of the Power Elite for decades now. I think we can all agree that home ownership has been the surest path to the middle class for decades. Block that path, and instantly you have a country that doesn’t resemble the former United States so much as many parts of Europe and medieval England, where serfs toil for the privilege of living on a lord’s feudal estate.

I remember a few years ago, just before this crisis started to heat up, I was trying like mad to sell my house. My father couldn’t understand my desperation. He kept telling me, “Even if there is a crash, the banks aren’t going to just kick people out of these houses en masse. At the very least, they need someone in the house to protect it from vandalism. They’re lenders, not landlords.” But I never saw it that way. I saw what was coming as the biggest wealth transfer in the history of mankind. And I could clearly see that it wasn’t absolutely necessary to kick people out of their homes to accomplish this. Because their homes would be sold from under them for pennies to whoever still had money (dollars, yuan, Euros, whatever), and the former “owners” would gladly stay put to preserve the illusion of a dream that was long gone. Because if you really stop to think about it, unless you own your home FREE and clear, you are already a renter of sorts. And the bank IS your landlord. The only difference now is that everyone who falls for this arrangement will effectively be making interest only payments with no ownership.

This is all history. The world has gone medieval before. Now it’s happening again.

[Anonymous]

Time to change the national anthem from the “Star Spangled Banner” to “The World turned Upside Down.” All this is crazy, but nothing is surprising me anymore.

Funny how only a year or two ago nobody would have thought any of this possible.

The Turtle

[Anonymous]

Time to change the national anthem from the “Star Spangled Banner” to “The World turned Upside Down.” All this is crazy, but nothing is surprising me anymore.

Funny how only a year or two ago nobody would have thought any of this possible.

The Turtle

[Anonymous]

Time to change the national anthem from the “Star Spangled Banner” to “The World turned Upside Down.” All this is crazy, but nothing is surprising me anymore.

Funny how only a year or two ago nobody would have thought any of this possible.

The Turtle

[Anonymous]

Time to change the national anthem from the “Star Spangled Banner” to “The World turned Upside Down.” All this is crazy, but nothing is surprising me anymore.

Funny how only a year or two ago nobody would have thought any of this possible.

The Turtle

[Anonymous]

Time to change the national anthem from the “Star Spangled Banner” to “The World turned Upside Down.” All this is crazy, but nothing is surprising me anymore.

Funny how only a year or two ago nobody would have thought any of this possible.

The Turtle

[SD Realtor]

“Funny how only a year or two ago nobody would have thought any of this possible”

That is not a correct statement. Some of us were saying quite far back that there would be an endless supply of federally instituted measures that would be quite breathetaking.

Arraya – Cannot agree with your reference to the people who got into this mess being without blame. They should not get bailed out anymore then the banks should get any money. They are just as stupid.

[SD Realtor]

“Funny how only a year or two ago nobody would have thought any of this possible”

That is not a correct statement. Some of us were saying quite far back that there would be an endless supply of federally instituted measures that would be quite breathetaking.

Arraya – Cannot agree with your reference to the people who got into this mess being without blame. They should not get bailed out anymore then the banks should get any money. They are just as stupid.

[SD Realtor]

“Funny how only a year or two ago nobody would have thought any of this possible”

That is not a correct statement. Some of us were saying quite far back that there would be an endless supply of federally instituted measures that would be quite breathetaking.

Arraya – Cannot agree with your reference to the people who got into this mess being without blame. They should not get bailed out anymore then the banks should get any money. They are just as stupid.

[SD Realtor]

“Funny how only a year or two ago nobody would have thought any of this possible”

That is not a correct statement. Some of us were saying quite far back that there would be an endless supply of federally instituted measures that would be quite breathetaking.

Arraya – Cannot agree with your reference to the people who got into this mess being without blame. They should not get bailed out anymore then the banks should get any money. They are just as stupid.

[SD Realtor]

“Funny how only a year or two ago nobody would have thought any of this possible”

That is not a correct statement. Some of us were saying quite far back that there would be an endless supply of federally instituted measures that would be quite breathetaking.

Arraya – Cannot agree with your reference to the people who got into this mess being without blame. They should not get bailed out anymore then the banks should get any money. They are just as stupid.

[mlarsen23]

I think you’ve got a skewed notion of who or what is a “welfare type.” Right now by my sights welfare types include most everyone who works for an investment bank, GM, Chrysler, on a farm, or any of numerous other places where government subsidies are required to keep folks employed. And sure, everyone who is on unemployment.

I think the question of whether home ownership is a societal good in and of itself is still open. Rates of home ownership are generally lower in modern day Europe, and most European countries have less income inequality, a larger middle class, and greater social mobility than the United States. I don’t think there are any serfs in modern day Europe either. At the end of the day houses are not an inherently great investment, although it can make a lot of sense for some folks some times.

I don’t want to see folks out on the street, so I am happy to spend my tax dollars to help them stay off the street. I am not happy to see my tax dollars going to help folks hold on to an asset that could some day appreciate. So I’m fine with a program that lets people who purchased their home below a certain price – say $400,000 or so – and can’t make their mortgage payments now – be allowed to convert to a market rate rental in their same home. And I’d even be OK with a rental subsidy type arrangement, kind of like the Section 8 that we already do in these circumstances. Like I said, I want to take care of folks.

But let’s be clear – these people are on welfare. Personally, I’d rather live in a society where we do more to take care of people.

[mlarsen23]

I think you’ve got a skewed notion of who or what is a “welfare type.” Right now by my sights welfare types include most everyone who works for an investment bank, GM, Chrysler, on a farm, or any of numerous other places where government subsidies are required to keep folks employed. And sure, everyone who is on unemployment.

I think the question of whether home ownership is a societal good in and of itself is still open. Rates of home ownership are generally lower in modern day Europe, and most European countries have less income inequality, a larger middle class, and greater social mobility than the United States. I don’t think there are any serfs in modern day Europe either. At the end of the day houses are not an inherently great investment, although it can make a lot of sense for some folks some times.

I don’t want to see folks out on the street, so I am happy to spend my tax dollars to help them stay off the street. I am not happy to see my tax dollars going to help folks hold on to an asset that could some day appreciate. So I’m fine with a program that lets people who purchased their home below a certain price – say $400,000 or so – and can’t make their mortgage payments now – be allowed to convert to a market rate rental in their same home. And I’d even be OK with a rental subsidy type arrangement, kind of like the Section 8 that we already do in these circumstances. Like I said, I want to take care of folks.

But let’s be clear – these people are on welfare. Personally, I’d rather live in a society where we do more to take care of people.

[mlarsen23]

I think you’ve got a skewed notion of who or what is a “welfare type.” Right now by my sights welfare types include most everyone who works for an investment bank, GM, Chrysler, on a farm, or any of numerous other places where government subsidies are required to keep folks employed. And sure, everyone who is on unemployment.

I think the question of whether home ownership is a societal good in and of itself is still open. Rates of home ownership are generally lower in modern day Europe, and most European countries have less income inequality, a larger middle class, and greater social mobility than the United States. I don’t think there are any serfs in modern day Europe either. At the end of the day houses are not an inherently great investment, although it can make a lot of sense for some folks some times.

I don’t want to see folks out on the street, so I am happy to spend my tax dollars to help them stay off the street. I am not happy to see my tax dollars going to help folks hold on to an asset that could some day appreciate. So I’m fine with a program that lets people who purchased their home below a certain price – say $400,000 or so – and can’t make their mortgage payments now – be allowed to convert to a market rate rental in their same home. And I’d even be OK with a rental subsidy type arrangement, kind of like the Section 8 that we already do in these circumstances. Like I said, I want to take care of folks.

But let’s be clear – these people are on welfare. Personally, I’d rather live in a society where we do more to take care of people.

[mlarsen23]

I think you’ve got a skewed notion of who or what is a “welfare type.” Right now by my sights welfare types include most everyone who works for an investment bank, GM, Chrysler, on a farm, or any of numerous other places where government subsidies are required to keep folks employed. And sure, everyone who is on unemployment.

I think the question of whether home ownership is a societal good in and of itself is still open. Rates of home ownership are generally lower in modern day Europe, and most European countries have less income inequality, a larger middle class, and greater social mobility than the United States. I don’t think there are any serfs in modern day Europe either. At the end of the day houses are not an inherently great investment, although it can make a lot of sense for some folks some times.

I don’t want to see folks out on the street, so I am happy to spend my tax dollars to help them stay off the street. I am not happy to see my tax dollars going to help folks hold on to an asset that could some day appreciate. So I’m fine with a program that lets people who purchased their home below a certain price – say $400,000 or so – and can’t make their mortgage payments now – be allowed to convert to a market rate rental in their same home. And I’d even be OK with a rental subsidy type arrangement, kind of like the Section 8 that we already do in these circumstances. Like I said, I want to take care of folks.

But let’s be clear – these people are on welfare. Personally, I’d rather live in a society where we do more to take care of people.

[Author]

Posts