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

User Forum Topic
Submitted by ibjames on July 14, 2009 - 1:18pm

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNe...

Obama mulls rental option for some homeowners-sources

NEW YORK, July 14 (Reuters) - U.S. government officials are weighing a plan that would let borrowers who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments avoid eviction by renting their homes instead, sources familiar with the administration's thinking said on Tuesday.

Under one idea being discussed, delinquent homeowners would surrender ownership of their homes but would continue to live in the property for several years, the sources told Reuters.

Officials are also considering whether the government should make mortgage payments on behalf of borrowers who cannot keep up with their home loans, tapping an unused portion of a $50 billion housing aid kitty.

As part of this plan, jobless borrowers might receive a housing stipend along with regular unemployment benefits, the sources said. (Reporting by Patrick Rucker; Editing by Diane Craft)

WOW....

Submitted by AN on July 14, 2009 - 1:26pm.

Are you really surprised? I'm not surprised at all anymore.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on July 14, 2009 - 1:29pm.

No, because we obviously are living in a parallel universe now.

Submitted by DWCAP on July 14, 2009 - 3:02pm.

I think some little part of MY American dream died when I read that. Maybe it was just cardiac arrest and could be rescued, but I kinda doubt it.

Submitted by flu on July 14, 2009 - 3:18pm.

DWCAP wrote:
I think some little part of MY American dream died when I read that. Maybe it was just cardiac arrest and could be rescued, but I kinda doubt it.

Hell, you can now rent your american dream. Err. I mean obtain your american dream on lay-o-way.

Lol. Next thing. Section 8 subsidies for folks that can't afford their mortgages, rent under this plan, and can't afford the rent too.

Shit, I hope obama doesnt read this blog.

Submitted by ibjames on July 14, 2009 - 5:37pm.

yeah, this article made my heart sink a little.. I try not to be surprised, but I can't help it.

It is just like when you are bidding on a house you know that there is a 90% chance you won't get it, but you still hope anyway

Submitted by Nor-LA-SD-guy on July 14, 2009 - 5:59pm.

DWCAP wrote:
I think some little part of MY American dream died when I read that. Maybe it was just cardiac arrest and could be rescued, but I kinda doubt it.

Yea this is a bridge too far even for me.

Submitted by 5yearwaiter on July 14, 2009 - 8:31pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
No, because we obviously are living in a parallel universe now.

Don't tell me, soon we may be getting some kind of Law may pass with details as ... those who didn't buy home yet should pay at least 1% tax more to provide some support to those who bought home but suck in payments.

Submitted by moneymaker on July 14, 2009 - 9:06pm.

Isn't that what people have been doing tha last 5 years already? Who knows maybe rents will skyrocket like house prices did. That should make some slumlords salivate.
Slumlord=person who doesn't believe in reinvesting in the same property that they currently derive income from.Has anyone ever seen solar panels on the roof of a rental? I say reinvest 10% back into the property and karma will be good.

Submitted by Veritas on July 14, 2009 - 9:00pm.

Between cap and trade and health care, there will be no self-employed or small business owners left to tax. We live in egregious times all brought about by pettifogging attorneys who have government jobs and are bent on leveling the playing field so America is not so mean. God help us.

Submitted by mlarsen23 on July 14, 2009 - 9:20pm.

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.

Submitted by Arraya on July 14, 2009 - 9:58pm.

This is actually not a bad plan because it is cheaper for us than a foreclosure and keeps people off the streets.

I'd rather the banks not touch any of the money because they already proved they are irresponsible but it's good to help the people that got caught up in all this that did not do anything wrong.

Submitted by partypup on July 15, 2009 - 12:11am.

mlarsen23 wrote:
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.

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.

Submitted by Turtle69 on July 15, 2009 - 6:02am.

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

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 15, 2009 - 6:26am.

"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.

Submitted by mlarsen23 on July 15, 2009 - 9:36am.

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.

Submitted by NotCranky on July 15, 2009 - 11:42am.

partypup wrote:
mlarsen23 wrote:
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.

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.

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?

Submitted by Aecetia on July 15, 2009 - 11:57am.

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.

Submitted by sobmaz on July 15, 2009 - 4:05pm.

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.