Government Considers Ways to Rent Foreclosed Homes (government nationalizing the housing industry?)

The Obama administration is examining ways to pull foreclosed properties off the market and rent them to help stabilize the housing market, according to people familiar with the matter.

While the plans may not advance beyond the concept phase, they are under serious consideration by senior administration officials because rents are rising even as home prices in many hard-hit markets continue to fall due to high foreclosure levels.

Trimming the glut of unsold foreclosed homes on the market is "worth looking at," said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in testimony to Congress last week.

online.wsj.com...

So the government created the housing problem with Barney Frank and Co. forcing banks to take on risky loans.
You end up with a failed economy and homes all across America being foreclosed.
In steps the government with a possible solution to a problem they created!!!

Cloward-Piven strategy states this

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926-2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in left-wing[1] magazine The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".

en.wikipedia.org...

There are millions of homes currently foreclosed.
www.calculatedriskblog.com...

Obama has tried nationalizing the auto industry.
Obama has tried nationalizing the banking indusry.
Obama has tried to nationalize the heathcare industry.
Is Obama going to nationalize the housing industry?

Thoughts and comments welcome.

I don't believe the government ever forced banks to take on risky loans. I think banks were happy for every single person paying obscene interest on a granted loan.

What's wrong with renting empty homes so that they aren't sitting there rotting?

Eh, everyone's at fault. I guess I shouldn't be sticking up for any parties. Not the government who fought for the American dream for individuals. Not for the banks/rich who were happy to convince us of what we HAVE to HAVE to be successful/happy. Not for the individuals who fall for it.

reply to post by AkumaStreak

Subprime enablers: Fannie, Freddie, HUD and Barney Frank.
There is very little doubt that the underlying cause of the current credit crisis was a housing bubble. But the collapse of the bubble would not have led to a worldwide recession and credit crisis if almost 40% of all U.S. mortgages--25 million loans--were not of the low quality known as subprime or Alt-A.

These loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or involved low or no down payments, negative amortization and limited documentation of income. The loans' unprecedentedly high rates of default are what is driving down housing prices and weakening the financial system.
The low interest rates of the early 2000s may explain the growth of the housing bubble, but they don't explain the poor quality of these mortgages. For that we have to look to the government's distortion of the mortgage finance system through the Community Reinvestment Act and the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ).

www.forbes.com...

For your edification.

reply to post by beezzer


I appreciate the link and will digest it. Aren't these issues always more complex than they seem though? I mean, the economy is shi*, and I believe corporations would rather hoard money any day over hire when things are at all shaky. If we had decent jobs, we'd be making our house payments.

reply to post by AkumaStreak

True! Which leads me to believe that governmnt wants people to be dependent on them. If they actually allowed for jobs and more personal freedoms and personal responsibilities, then there would be less people relying on government, less reason for government to intervene in our lives.
Government exists to justify its' own growth.

reply to post by beezzer


No wonder that bunny is crying. So true. Haha. But I see the rich's dependency on consumerism (and the modern perpetual growth goal of corporate culture) as more threatening than the government's dependency on taxpayers, at least in the current climate.

reply to post by AkumaStreak

Consumerism SHOULD drive the economy.

Not government.

That's why we are in thi mess. Because government cn't keep their meddling hands to themselves. They always think that they can improve on a system that doesn't need or want them. Just look at the USPS, Amtrack to get an idea of how efficient government "business" is.

So the government forced these poor little bankers to make loans these profitable loans? (And at the time they were made they were profitable!)

If these laws were really against the banks interest than you would have seen the banking lobby screaming at the top of their lungs.

This whole housing crisis was made to transfer the wealth from the middle class to the elite. The elite developers got their money through inflated loans, the banks got bailed out by the taxpayers and the final part of the puzzle is the rich developers will now physically own the property.

So the middle class paid twice. They paid for the inflated price of the property through tax bail outs AND also lost the physical property.

The banks would actually end up making more money if they tried to save the current owner. But they are willing to forgo short-term profits for total control.

reply to post by Daughter2

Fannie Mae To Banks: Shut Up And Take It

Fannie Mae(FNM) and Freddie Mac(FRE) are pressing banks to buy back huge swaths of home loans as a way for the mortgage finance giants to recoup some of their massive losses that the taxpayer has to cover.

It’s hard to feel sympathy for lenders that slackened or ignored credit standards during the housing boom. But Freddie and Fannie knew what they were getting into when they bought the loans. The quasi-private firms were a major cause of the mortgage crisis, using their (then implicit) government subsidy to expand and leverage up far more than any truly private company could, then using their size to buy or back vast amounts of subprime debt.

Freddie and Fannie, now under government conservatorship, essentially are the market for buying mortgages. So banks have little choice but to knuckle under, Bloomberg reports:

blogs.investors.com...

To lay the blame soley on the banks is innacurate at best, plain lying at worst.

NO ONE FORCED THESE BANKS TO MAKE THE LOANS. SORRY IF THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD AN AGREEMENT TO MAKE MAKE LOANS AND THEN HAVE THE TAXPAYER FUND THEIR FRAUD!!

They just thought if there was a problem the taxpayer would bail them out - and they were 100% correct.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Daughter2

 

Fannie Mae To Banks: Shut Up And Take It

That sounds better than:

Fannie Mae to the Taxpayer: Shut Up and Take it

Yes, the banks are to blame, they thought they could defraud the taxpayer by using government funded programs.

The Banks were literally ordering statistical information from the US Government- including info on people who were unemployed- and offering them home loans to continue promoting their mortgage fraud.

Now we have hundreds of thousands of Americans who are homeless and whole neighborhoods full of empty, abandoned houses. The only insanity would be to let this situation get worse.

reply to post by Daughter2


You don't need to shout. I can hear you. Please read. . .

. . . it sounds like regulators are pressuring banks to make what could very well be lots of bad loans, if they're in areas where home prices will continue to fall and borrowers do not demonstrate a clear ability to pay. And of course, since the government is backing virtually all mortgage at this time through various agencies, many of those losses will ultimately hit taxpayers.

From this article. . .

Is the Obama Administration Pressuring Banks to Make More Subprime Loans?

www.theatlantic.com...

Just blaming banks for policies that were forced on them by the government is disingenuous.

Originally posted by Stratus9
The Banks were literally ordering statistical information from the US Government- including info on people who were unemployed- and offering them home loans to continue promoting their mortgage fraud.

Now we have hundreds of thousands of Americans who are homeless and whole neighborhoods full of empty, abandoned houses. The only insanity would be to let this situation get worse.

Who forced the people to get homes loans they couldn't afford? Who put the gun to their heads and made them sign?
Banks HAD to offer loans under federal madates.
The idiots who signed for the loans they could never afford, thought it was a friggin' Christmas present!

And now?

Government steps rght into the mess they created to come to the "rescue".

reply to post by beezzer

So the government created the housing problem with Barney Frank and Co. forcing banks to take on risky loans.

thats why i like beez right on the money.

considering fanny and freddy own all those mortgages in the first place the bailouts was just paying themselves back.

every single mortgage in this country is bought and sold many times over thanks to another creation mers the same people who created fanny and freddy.

but people think the banks own them not really the reason why is how can the government sell something they dont own in the first place?

they do so they can get away with this crap.

the op is yet another reason why i hate obama and the left.

fanny and freddy own 95% of all us mortgages so nationalization of foreclosed homes is possible

no matter how illegal is will be.

This would be like BP saying the government had to pay for their costs from the oil spill because the government agency made it too easy to ignore safety issues.

Banks didn't HAVE to make loans!!!!!

They WANTED to make loans - because they made a lot of money off them. In fact the housing boom created a lot of loans and we all know when a loan is made the bank makes a lot of up front money.

reply to post by beezzer


You got it all wrong. That is not how the goverment works. First they create the solution and then they create the problem to use it on.

Sounds to me like this was all plained out way ahead of time.

Originally posted by Daughter2

This would be like BP saying the government had to pay for their costs from the oil spill because the government agency made it too easy to ignore safety issues.

Banks didn't HAVE to make loans!!!!!

They WANTED to make loans - because they made a lot of money off them. In fact the housing boom created a lot of loans and we all know when a loan is made the bank makes a lot of up front money.

Bull cookies. They had to make the loans because the federal government stepped in and deterined the qualifications. Any bank that denied loans were pressured because of political correctness garbage.

reply to post by neo96

Government has healthcare, FDA (our food), now homes. They want to control us with jobs as well. Once they've done that. . . . cradle to grave government control.

Originally posted by fixer1967
reply to post by beezzer

 

You got it all wrong. That is not how the goverment works. First they create the solution and then they create the problem to use it on.

Sounds to me like this was all plained out way ahead of time.

Apologies. You are correct.