It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama mulls rental option for some homeowners-sources

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Obama mulls rental option for some homeowners-sources


www.reuters.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Landlord in Chief: All hail Obama!

Wow!!

To even be considering this is absolutely stunning and just further proof that Obama and his administration are nothing but a bunch of socialist left wing thugs.

The home owner would surrender ownership of their home and give it to the government then the kind and gentle government will allow you to live there for a while.


This is just crazy man. Just totally crazy!

The delinquent owners should be allowed to go the normal route. Yes, it's painful but better for them and us in the long run.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Nothing should be a surprise
I honestly don't think anything this Idiot does will shock me at this point .

Insane Clown Posse on a fast train to hell



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Because being homeless is better than having a home? I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

If someone's homes are foreclosed. Why kick them out immediately? It's not like someones going to run up to buy it the minute they remove the welcome mat.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


It's called contract law.

Now the government is once again overstepping its bounds. We all have failed at reigning in the government and now they are systematically destroying our constitution worse then even Bush and Co. and did.

Can you say Communism? Cause that is exactly what this is. Once the government "owns" your house you won't ever get it back.

Not only that but with the shape the economy is in, this is going to create a false floor and on a very select few are going to be able to afford to buy a home.

Welcome to the communist take over of America, you think people are just going to keep sitting back and do nothing? I wouldn't bet against them. Once the bill comes due for all this unconstitutional stuff, people are going to be rioting in the streets.

Don't think it will happen? Think again, everything is quickly deteriorating and irrationality is about to kick in. Which means the stripping of even more of our rights, which means even more irrationality.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
Because being homeless is better than having a home?

Huh?

Why would these people be homeless. Do you think everybody up to this point since the beginning of America, who lost their house, has gone homeless? Of course NOT. Please try and use your brain. People are NOT kicked out immediately. People know when they have not paid their mortage for 6 months that something has to give.

Have you ever heard of downsizing? People will have to get an apartment or live with family or friends until they can afford a house. Oh, the humanity.



I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

Judging by your response I am not surprised. I'm sure you enjoy and like when the government owns you from cradle to grave.

The point is that now government wants to get into the rental business and take people's homes from them. This is NOT how it works. So I guess the people who loaned the home owners the money are # out of luck right? If the banks loaned the money, they get first take on the house so they can sell it to get some of their money back. The government cannot just come in and take the house.


[edit on 7/14/2009 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


If you read the article, it's not that alarming at all. you have kind of quoted the thing out of context.


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


Well if you're behind and facing eviction, you're going to lose the house anyway right? What would be nice, is that the amount paid into the mortgage would be noted, and as and when the homeowner could afford to make mortgage payements again, he could pick up where he left off. Though I doubt this is likely to happen.


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.


Can't see anything wrong with that.


As part of this plan, jobless borrowers might receive a housing stipend along with regular unemployment benefits, the sources said.


I'm unsure whether this stipend would be going towards rent or mortgage payments, but whichever way, it looks like a clone of the UK's housing benefit. A government payout which has helped keep a lot of people off of the streets. Something your country, especially over in LA could use right about now.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
If you read the article, it's not that alarming at all. you have kind of quoted the thing out of context.

Umm....no, I have not.



Well if you're behind and facing eviction, you're going to lose the house anyway right?

See my previous post. I don't feel like repeating myself.


Can't see anything wrong with that.

What!!??
I am not surprised given your name of lazy.
Yeah, let's just let the government pay the mortgages of the homeowners. That's your big plan? Where do you think this money comes from? Do you think it grows on trees? That is your money and my money which means even higher taxes if the government is going to pay for mortgages.



I'm unsure whether this stipend would be going towards rent or mortgage payments

This is hilarious.

Not only are you ok with the government taking over and owning these houses and paying the mortgages but you also want to give extra money to the people who are deliquent.


You are essentially creating another welfare state. You will be paying people to let the government own their homes. Unbelievable!



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
This is an interesting idea... of course the "devil is in the details".

I for one am stuck in a house that I don't want.... it is a lemon, I have spent a fortune on plumbing, the foundation is sinking and I probably owe 20k more than it is worth. The builder is dead, no recourse and of course I have an "arbitrator" clause on my mortgage... which means the mortgage company hires an arbitrator to judge any claim... wonder which way he will decide???

LOL

I will gladly sign over this place and "rent" it for a few months until I can buy another.

(Sarcasm)

Now, I am not that bad off really, just making a point. I am only 20K in the whole and such is life, you win some, you loose some.... Now imagine all those California buyers who are 100-200K in the whole....

Yeah, this "could" turn into a real "bailout" for those who got the low end of the stick buying a house the last few years... Just an FYI and something to think about. First thing that came to mind when I read the article was "how are people going to take advantage of this" if the Govt. / banks doesn't take advantage of them.







[edit on 15-7-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Originally posted by WhatTheory



Umm....no, I have not.



But you did. You posted part of the article which actually sounds dangerous if dont read the whole thing. Topics become one sided backslapping events because nobody actually reads the article source, instead forming a snap opinion based on an often misquoted piece of information.



I am not surprised given your name of lazy.


Do you mind toning down the attitude? Bit of courtesy goes a long way on these boards, specially if you don't agree with someone else's thinking.



Yeah, let's just let the government pay the mortgages of the homeowners. That's your big plan? Where do you think this money comes from? Do you think it grows on trees? That is your money and my money which means even higher taxes if the government is going to pay for mortgages.


Like I said, you need this system right now. Do you propose that millions of people should be sitting out on the streets, with houses sitting empty? There has to be a solution to this problem, and I can't see any alternatives around this thread.



This is hilarious.

Not only are you ok with the government taking over and owning these houses and paying the mortgages but you also want to give extra money to the people who are deliquent.



You don't seem to get the point of the article. People facing eviction, will be given the option of renting the house. This saves them the massive problem of having to find another place. Take a look at California right now. Would you prefer living in a tent to renting the home you couldn't afford mortgage payments on?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazyninja
 

Oh hell, why am I wasting my time with you since you are from Europe.


You have no idea what you are talking about because you don't live in America hense you don't understand the system.

Although, you being from Europe does explain a lot regarding the reasons why you don't have a problem with government intrusion and regulation.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Originally posted by WhatTheory



You have no idea what you are talking about because you don't live in America hense you don't understand the system.


You guys are so cute. You still haven't gotten over the whole "red menace" thing yet have you




Although, you being from Europe does explain a lot regarding the reasons why you don't have a problem with government intrusion and regulation.



In my country the government has safety nets to catch people who would find themselves either homeless or unable to afford medical treatment. No matter which way you swing it, that's a good thing.

I know this concept is alien to you Americans, because you've essentially lived in a selfish system for so long. But not matter how averse to change you are, you will have to be dragged out of the dark ages at some point.

BTW I'm guessing the government doesn't just come and seize the house, they surely would pay off the estate agent right? And like I said, there is a record of how much of the mortgage had been paid, it's likely that you would be allowed to buy the rest of your house, as and when you can afford it.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
This is a bad idea.

I don't want our government buying up homes. If they are going to be foreclosed on, let them be foreclosed on. Much of the problem we are in today is because people bought homes they could never hope to afford. They were rather stupid in their purchase and when the housing market tanked and people were stuck in these homes they can't sell and can't afford to pay for. The inevitable outcome should be foreclosure.

This is the problem it is today because a bunch of narrow sighted and greedy people a few years ago decided to make a quick buck flipping property. They gouged the market inflated prices on homes well above the actual value of the property and created a bubble economy that was destined to pop.

The problem with this recession is the way that the government is trying to fix it. Instead of the jobs they promised to create, states are using the money from the "stimulus" to fill holes in their own budgets. A short sighted solution to a long term problem.

Now it seems that the government is going to go ahead with the frightening idea of buying up huge tracts of land thereby making large sections of the United States, Federal Property.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
In my country the government has safety nets to catch people who would find themselves either homeless or unable to afford medical treatment. No matter which way you swing it, that's a good thing.

Translation: You live in a welfare state where the government controls and regulates your entire life from cradle to grave.


Sorry, but that is NOT a good thing.



I know this concept is alien to you Americans, because you've essentially lived in a selfish system for so long.

Yeah, because individualism and self reliance is selfish.
You are such a tool.
Since you are from a nanny state, you don't understand the concepts of individualism and self reliance. You only understand government and you have the "what are you going to do for me" mentality. Sad, just sad.



But not matter how averse to change you are, you will have to be dragged out of the dark ages at some point.

Sorry, you have a typo. You should have said dragged into the dark ages. Don't you understand that your system of government control and regulation is an old and outdated system which does not work. That is why slowly, very slowly, Europe is becoming more like America.


BTW I'm guessing the government doesn't just come and seize the house

There is your problem. You are guessing.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by WhatTheory
 
Because being homeless is better than having a home? I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
Because suddenly the government has ownership of what was once private property. Add all those properties up and you begin to see large swaths of real estate no longer owned by citizens but instead by big gov who will NEVER let it out of their control.

Because the gov can say "OK, we've let you stay 3 extra years. Now we found someone we think needs your home more than you. After all, it's not actually yours, you turned it over to us. And hey, 3 extra years was better than immediate eviction right? You should be grateful."

Because when government owns all property and controls usage thereof they call it communism.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Originally posted by WhatTheory

That is why slowly, very slowly, Europe is becoming more like America.


I can't see that reality from where I'm sitting. Britain is definitely more orwellian than America, but some parts of the system work well. America has it's problems too, no country has found the perfect balancing act. There really can never be one, as times change, there must be fine tuning to all of the systems we use.

Some of the systems must be tuned to prevent the horrible exploitation done by the corporate elite. The government itself isn't inherently evil unlike the corporations you guys worship so much as the model of the American Dream, it is just trying to find the best solution for it's citizens, no matter how misguided that appears at times. As an entity a government has nothing to gain in the conventional sense from owning your property, if a government was a business with shareholders then you might have something to worry about.

This is just resistance to change I really think. You really have to experience something to see if it'll work well or not though.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Lazyninja]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 
A BIG thank you for telling it like it is.

Your espousal of common sense is much appreciated!



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   

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.


The article doesn't specify who the owners would surrender ownership to. They really can't surrender ownership to the government because the government has no claim on the home, so it would have to be the bank that they surrender ownership to. If that's the case it would be the banks decision to let the previous owner stay and rent, not the government's.


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,


If they can't afford the mortgage payments, they won't be able to afford the rent either. I seriously doubt that any bank is going to rent the house for less than the mortgage payment.



Officials are also considering whether the government should make mortgage payments on behalf of borrowers who cannot keep up with their home loans,


Oh yeah this makes perfect sense, force the taxpayers to fork over even more money to keep people in homes that they can't afford to live in in the first place



www.reuters.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


This is a very OLD practice..

It's called Feudalism.

And the contract to which a citizen may live on a property for a few years with no definite contract of time nor rights to assume the land, is called a Tenant At Will, which the government could if need be remove you from your plot for no reason what so ever.

Why, I do believe the President may be taking ideas from the Kings of England of old?? Such bitter irony..

As to who the property is surrendered to, probably the bank, but the bank and the Gov is so indecipherable anymore I hardly know who's who. Banks own the State, the State owns the Banks. Get your mortgaged foreclosed, pay an obscene rent to which you will have no equity, then the bank can remove you and sell the house at face value. Or find a better renter.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazyninja
 




I know this concept is alien to you Americans, because you've essentially lived in a selfish system for so long.


No what we've lived in for so long is a self reliant system.

It is the constant lean toward a extremely liberal, socialistic form of government lately that is leading to a selfish system where more and more people feel entitled to have things that they cannot afford and believe that others should help foot the bill.

I don't own a house because i can't afford one, my vehicle is 13 years old because that's what i can afford, it's called living within your means, that is called self reliance. If i had bought a house that i couldn't afford and then expected the government to bail me out at the taxpayer's expense, that would be selfish.



And like I said, there is a record of how much of the mortgage had been paid, it's likely that you would be allowed to buy the rest of your house, as and when you can afford it.


No once you give up ownership, or the house is foreclosed all the money you have paid into it is gone along with your house. You will not be given the option to finish paying for your house (that is called rent to own) they are merely giving the option to rent the property for a couple of years.



As an entity a government has nothing to gain in the conventional sense from owning your property,


Sure they do, more federal property that they have sole control over.



foreclosure filings — default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions — were reported on 321,480 U.S. properties during the month, a decrease of 6 percent from the previous month but an increase of nearly 18 percent from May 2008. The report also shows that one in every 398 U.S. housing units received a foreclosure filing in May.


www.realtytrac.com...

That's an awful lot of federal property, and that's only one month's worth


Just think if the federal government started scooping up all those properties. All those displaced people are gonna need someplace to live right
So hey even though we know you can't afford it, we're gonna let you stay for a couple of years (so you won't be homeless
). We may see the return of the endentured servant in America



Edit to add:



The government itself isn't inherently evil unlike the corporations you guys worship so much as the model of the American Dream, it is just trying to find the best solution for it's citizens, no matter how misguided that appears at times.


If this were really true they would be working on decent affordable housing for it's citizens, instead of working on more ways to dig their grimy hands deeper into our pockets.

[edit on 7/15/2009 by chise61]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join