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

[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.

[NotCranky]

[quote=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.

[/quote]

Sounds like a bunch of rationalization party pup. I must say that it appears to have a tinge of class-ism.

If you or I lose our houses based on the agreements made to take the loan then we couldn’t afford it, period.That is no different for a sub-prime borrower or “prime”.

If someone gets a bailout or modification that reinstates their ability to “afford” the house, good for them,but in my opinion they are not entitled to it anymore than anyone else.

Unemployment has nothing to do with it. You always have the right to buy a house that you would have a hard time “losing” under any circumstances. That is, buy less than you can “afford” in the good times as an insurance policy… so as not to be a victim of unemployment in 6 short months. Many people did just that or went without. Why is someone entitled to keep their house with help after, 6 months of unemployment, when someone else bought cheaper hood and can keep the house independent of having a job,on minimum wage and/or spotty employment or made the decision not to buy anything because they couldn’t keep it in bad times?

[NotCranky]

[quote=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.

[/quote]

Sounds like a bunch of rationalization party pup. I must say that it appears to have a tinge of class-ism.

If you or I lose our houses based on the agreements made to take the loan then we couldn’t afford it, period.That is no different for a sub-prime borrower or “prime”.

If someone gets a bailout or modification that reinstates their ability to “afford” the house, good for them,but in my opinion they are not entitled to it anymore than anyone else.

Unemployment has nothing to do with it. You always have the right to buy a house that you would have a hard time “losing” under any circumstances. That is, buy less than you can “afford” in the good times as an insurance policy… so as not to be a victim of unemployment in 6 short months. Many people did just that or went without. Why is someone entitled to keep their house with help after, 6 months of unemployment, when someone else bought cheaper hood and can keep the house independent of having a job,on minimum wage and/or spotty employment or made the decision not to buy anything because they couldn’t keep it in bad times?

[NotCranky]

[quote=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.

[/quote]

Sounds like a bunch of rationalization party pup. I must say that it appears to have a tinge of class-ism.

If you or I lose our houses based on the agreements made to take the loan then we couldn’t afford it, period.That is no different for a sub-prime borrower or “prime”.

If someone gets a bailout or modification that reinstates their ability to “afford” the house, good for them,but in my opinion they are not entitled to it anymore than anyone else.

Unemployment has nothing to do with it. You always have the right to buy a house that you would have a hard time “losing” under any circumstances. That is, buy less than you can “afford” in the good times as an insurance policy… so as not to be a victim of unemployment in 6 short months. Many people did just that or went without. Why is someone entitled to keep their house with help after, 6 months of unemployment, when someone else bought cheaper hood and can keep the house independent of having a job,on minimum wage and/or spotty employment or made the decision not to buy anything because they couldn’t keep it in bad times?

[NotCranky]

[quote=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.

[/quote]

Sounds like a bunch of rationalization party pup. I must say that it appears to have a tinge of class-ism.

If you or I lose our houses based on the agreements made to take the loan then we couldn’t afford it, period.That is no different for a sub-prime borrower or “prime”.

If someone gets a bailout or modification that reinstates their ability to “afford” the house, good for them,but in my opinion they are not entitled to it anymore than anyone else.

Unemployment has nothing to do with it. You always have the right to buy a house that you would have a hard time “losing” under any circumstances. That is, buy less than you can “afford” in the good times as an insurance policy… so as not to be a victim of unemployment in 6 short months. Many people did just that or went without. Why is someone entitled to keep their house with help after, 6 months of unemployment, when someone else bought cheaper hood and can keep the house independent of having a job,on minimum wage and/or spotty employment or made the decision not to buy anything because they couldn’t keep it in bad times?

[NotCranky]

[quote=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.

[/quote]

Sounds like a bunch of rationalization party pup. I must say that it appears to have a tinge of class-ism.

If you or I lose our houses based on the agreements made to take the loan then we couldn’t afford it, period.That is no different for a sub-prime borrower or “prime”.

If someone gets a bailout or modification that reinstates their ability to “afford” the house, good for them,but in my opinion they are not entitled to it anymore than anyone else.

Unemployment has nothing to do with it. You always have the right to buy a house that you would have a hard time “losing” under any circumstances. That is, buy less than you can “afford” in the good times as an insurance policy… so as not to be a victim of unemployment in 6 short months. Many people did just that or went without. Why is someone entitled to keep their house with help after, 6 months of unemployment, when someone else bought cheaper hood and can keep the house independent of having a job,on minimum wage and/or spotty employment or made the decision not to buy anything because they couldn’t keep it in bad times?

[Aecetia]

I think this and the other bail outs (that Bush started with the banks) are a dangerous precedent. Once the camel’s nose is under the tent, the body will soon follow.

[Aecetia]

I think this and the other bail outs (that Bush started with the banks) are a dangerous precedent. Once the camel’s nose is under the tent, the body will soon follow.

[Aecetia]

I think this and the other bail outs (that Bush started with the banks) are a dangerous precedent. Once the camel’s nose is under the tent, the body will soon follow.

[Aecetia]

I think this and the other bail outs (that Bush started with the banks) are a dangerous precedent. Once the camel’s nose is under the tent, the body will soon follow.

[Aecetia]

I think this and the other bail outs (that Bush started with the banks) are a dangerous precedent. Once the camel’s nose is under the tent, the body will soon follow.

[sobmaz]

Bush did start the bail outs and Obama (my former guy) is doing a stellar job at expanding them.

I hope everyone knows that the FED, and the people in control of what really goes on would have Mccain doing the same thing. It is well known about 6 families control the worlds monetary system. What happens is always in their best interests.

That said, I can only do what I can and that is vote for the other guy even though the “other guy” is just as likely to do the same thing.

The Conservatives and Liberals out there need to wake up and understand that the Republican and Democratic politicians have been very successful in creating a diversion, a diversion that it is Conservatives versus Liberals when all along it has been Conservatives and Liberals verses the Republicans and Democrats who are controlling our lives.

Think about it. Both parties have held enough power to do all the things they talk about but neither do, they keep the status qua. THe status qua is to screw everyone out of their money, if not by taxation by the hidden tax of inflation. Millions of retirees have had their money stolen since 2001 via ultra low interest rates. They work their whole lives and save then that money produces ZIP, next to zero due to interest rates well below even the manipulated consumer price index.

It goes on and on while the Politicians continue to successfully pit Liberals against Conservatives and visa versa when it should be Liberals and Conservatives on the same side and seeing politicians for what they are.

[sobmaz]

Bush did start the bail outs and Obama (my former guy) is doing a stellar job at expanding them.

I hope everyone knows that the FED, and the people in control of what really goes on would have Mccain doing the same thing. It is well known about 6 families control the worlds monetary system. What happens is always in their best interests.

That said, I can only do what I can and that is vote for the other guy even though the “other guy” is just as likely to do the same thing.

The Conservatives and Liberals out there need to wake up and understand that the Republican and Democratic politicians have been very successful in creating a diversion, a diversion that it is Conservatives versus Liberals when all along it has been Conservatives and Liberals verses the Republicans and Democrats who are controlling our lives.

Think about it. Both parties have held enough power to do all the things they talk about but neither do, they keep the status qua. THe status qua is to screw everyone out of their money, if not by taxation by the hidden tax of inflation. Millions of retirees have had their money stolen since 2001 via ultra low interest rates. They work their whole lives and save then that money produces ZIP, next to zero due to interest rates well below even the manipulated consumer price index.

It goes on and on while the Politicians continue to successfully pit Liberals against Conservatives and visa versa when it should be Liberals and Conservatives on the same side and seeing politicians for what they are.

[sobmaz]

Bush did start the bail outs and Obama (my former guy) is doing a stellar job at expanding them.

I hope everyone knows that the FED, and the people in control of what really goes on would have Mccain doing the same thing. It is well known about 6 families control the worlds monetary system. What happens is always in their best interests.

That said, I can only do what I can and that is vote for the other guy even though the “other guy” is just as likely to do the same thing.

The Conservatives and Liberals out there need to wake up and understand that the Republican and Democratic politicians have been very successful in creating a diversion, a diversion that it is Conservatives versus Liberals when all along it has been Conservatives and Liberals verses the Republicans and Democrats who are controlling our lives.

Think about it. Both parties have held enough power to do all the things they talk about but neither do, they keep the status qua. THe status qua is to screw everyone out of their money, if not by taxation by the hidden tax of inflation. Millions of retirees have had their money stolen since 2001 via ultra low interest rates. They work their whole lives and save then that money produces ZIP, next to zero due to interest rates well below even the manipulated consumer price index.

It goes on and on while the Politicians continue to successfully pit Liberals against Conservatives and visa versa when it should be Liberals and Conservatives on the same side and seeing politicians for what they are.

[sobmaz]

Bush did start the bail outs and Obama (my former guy) is doing a stellar job at expanding them.

I hope everyone knows that the FED, and the people in control of what really goes on would have Mccain doing the same thing. It is well known about 6 families control the worlds monetary system. What happens is always in their best interests.

That said, I can only do what I can and that is vote for the other guy even though the “other guy” is just as likely to do the same thing.

The Conservatives and Liberals out there need to wake up and understand that the Republican and Democratic politicians have been very successful in creating a diversion, a diversion that it is Conservatives versus Liberals when all along it has been Conservatives and Liberals verses the Republicans and Democrats who are controlling our lives.

Think about it. Both parties have held enough power to do all the things they talk about but neither do, they keep the status qua. THe status qua is to screw everyone out of their money, if not by taxation by the hidden tax of inflation. Millions of retirees have had their money stolen since 2001 via ultra low interest rates. They work their whole lives and save then that money produces ZIP, next to zero due to interest rates well below even the manipulated consumer price index.

It goes on and on while the Politicians continue to successfully pit Liberals against Conservatives and visa versa when it should be Liberals and Conservatives on the same side and seeing politicians for what they are.

[Author]

Posts