It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Obama wants to be your landlord!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:13 PM
Now I've heard it all. Let the gov't buy your house and rent it back to you.

We're gonna need socialized medicine before this guy gets done with us.

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.

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by jsobecky

world gone mad or what

what incentive will anyone have to work if you can get everything free from the state?

welfare much?

[edit on 14-7-2009 by warrenb]

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:36 PM
It wouldn't be welfare if people could just be responsible. It's not taking advantage if you need it for a short time to get yourself back on track. There should also be an option to own the house again after the situation has settled.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by patent98310]

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:54 PM
Renter: Hello, I would like to talk to the president.

White House: Sorry, he is busy at the moment. May I take a message.

Renter: Yes, please tell him one of his renters is calling and needs him to come and unclog the toilet. My mother in law just dropped a big one and the darn thing won't flush.

Pretty urgent if you ask me. Might want to bring FEMA along and some of them white suits just in case.

I swear Obama will leave no policy or issue untouched before he leaves the White House.

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:56 PM
I don't see how this could be considered a threat to one's liberties.

As it is now, if your home goes into foreclosure, you no longer own your home. Plain and simple. The lien holders of your mortgages own your home at that point. Once foreclosure proceedings take place, your time occupying that home owned by mortgage companies or banks is on borrowed time. They will ultimately evict you as soon as they legally can. (And after the sale of your home for pennies on the dollar, still bill you for the difference between the amount owed and the dollar amount of the final sale + fees + interest.)

What is being suggested by this is that mortgage companies and banks can no longer forcibly evict the previous homeowner who has gone into foreclosure, but for a period of time, must treat the occupants as tenants. The mortgage companies and banks still own the house which has been foreclosed by default, but they cannot forcibly evict the occupant if they continue to make payments. This also protects occupants who are renting a home from a home owner who has chosen to pocket that money rather than make payments on the property mortgage that he is subletting or renting out.

To me, this sounds like a very good idea.

Foreclosure rates are at an all time high. Not everyone who has had their home foreclosed is at fault for being economically negligent. Likewise, not every family that has been evicted because of a foreclosure was the one who defaulted on the house payments (it happens to far more renters than you might like to think). Even families that keep $0 Debt other than their Mortgage, live within their means, and have Saving Reserves for 6-12 months can face hard times when mass layoffs happen during a time of economic depression when there are no other jobs to be had for periods longer than a year. Even those who swallow their pride to work flipping burgers at McDs to try and keep their family afloat can't afford their mortgage on those wages which keep them below the Federal Poverty level. In most areas of the country, even at the Median Average Salary of $35,000 is not enough to afford house payments on the Median Average Home of $225,000. Don't point fingers at those who can't make ends meet during these tough economic times, just because you are fortunate enough to do so yourself.

Most importantly, the first plan that is mentioned is not a form of Federal Assistance or Welfare. It appears to be simply a change in the law that prevents families from being forcibly evicted after a Foreclosure, giving displaced home owners (or renters) the same protection from the Banks and Mortgage Companies that renters normally enjoy when renting from any other private party. Although the second suggestion, of subsidizing unemployed home owners just as we subsidize housing for unemployed renters, would be a for of Federal Assistance or Welfare. In either case, the government would not be your landlord...the Banks and Mortgage Companies would.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by fraterormus]

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:57 PM
Ouch! Really what else will the gov. own. So they are going to take more tax money to buy real estate that has been defaulted on.
It's like a huge pyramid scheme!!!

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:18 PM
This is pure communism - to the point where they own the private residential land as well?

Are people going to stand for this? When if ever is that land going to be again available for repurchase by citizens, or will the government simply continue to buy until it owns it all?

This is disgusting and should be resisted with all force and voice - private property ownership is a cornerstone of freedom - government interference in any free market is abhorrent - in the residential estate market - I can't think of anything worse.

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by fraterormus

No threat to our liberties???

So, in other words, Obama wants to declare current contract law null and void. He wants to replace it with a new version that is more favorable to one party. A version that he will author. Sort of like dictators do all the time.

What law, or Constitutional Article, gives him the power to do this?

This is not the first time he has exercised powers illegally. He needs to be reined in.

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by fraterormus

No threat to our liberties???

So, in other words, Obama wants to declare current contract law null and void. He wants to replace it with a new version that is more favorable to one party. A version that he will author. Sort of like dictators do all the time.

What law, or Constitutional Article, gives him the power to do this?

This is not the first time he has exercised powers illegally. He needs to be reined in.

And this is precisely why the Media has so much power! The use of sensationalist headlines that warp the truth to elicit an specific emotional response from people rather than convey facts and elicit rational thinking allows them to manipulate the masses to their own ends.

Did you think that the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act which passed into law on May 20th was a violation of your liberties? That Act did the same thing as what is being proposed now! That law provided tenants a minimum of 90-days notice of eviction or through the term of their lease (instead of the previous Federally mandated 60-day notice of eviction), require banks to honor leases, and protects Section 8 tenants after foreclosure. The only difference is that the changes being suggested here are taking the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act and applying it to not just renters or leasees of foreclosed properties, but to foreclosed homeowners as well, in addition to making Mortgage Companies and Banks abide Federal Tenant Law just like every other property owner.

Under both suggestions mentioned in the news article, neither of which have been formalized into an actual bill yet, the Government does not become a Leasor or a part-Owner in Housing Property. In neither case does the Government take ownership away from either the individual owner or from the Banks and Mortgage Companies. In neither case does the Government seek to extend powers beyond what already exists to protect tenants. The first of the suggestions is merely to extend the same Federal Tenant Laws that protect Renters to foreclosed Homeowners, protecting them from unreasonable eviction after a Foreclosure.

You are certainly free to believe that the Government is trying to take away your property rights if that is what you wish to believe. However, it is a far stretch to say that these suggestions of extending the Federal Tenant Laws to protect foreclosed Homeowners in the same way they already protect Renters are taking your property and liberties away. That's just downright beyond ridiculous.

Seriously, if you want to be booted from your home the moment it is foreclosed, you can still leave. The government isn't trying to force you to stay in your home after it is foreclosed. They are just making the Banks and Mortgage Firms give you the opportunity to stay for a longer period after foreclosure. About the only party who's rights are being affected are the rights of the Banks and Mortgage Firms to evict homeowners short and sweet. Heaven knows Banks and Mortgage Firms deserve to have special treatment and better rights than any other Leasor.

I can understand people getting upset at the second idea mentioned in the article where it was suggested allowing Subsidized Housing to apply to qualified unemployed Home Owners just as it does to qualified unemployed Renters. However, again that's not a violation of anyone's liberties, but yet another expense for our Tax Dollars to be applied to. If you want to get upset at yet another Welfare Program, that's a valid argument. Claiming the nullifying of Contract Law and the Government taking away your liberties by confiscating your property through this is not a valid argument.

Don't be a Media tool. Look past the headlines and think with your mind rather than blindly giving the same emotional response the media attempted to manipulate you to have.

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by fraterormus

You are totally missing the importance of this issue.

There is a contract between the bank and the mortgagee.

The first thing about a contract is that there must be an agreement between the parties.

This Act, and the other ones that you approve of, essentially nullify that agreement between the parties.

That is not "law". That is an edict, a fiat. No gov't has the legal or moral power to impose a contract in this manner.

That is how dictators and despots rule their prison-countries.

Don't be such a naive tool. Socialism sucks. Private property is one of the most important foundations of America.

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:52 PM
This is of course just one more step down the primrose path.

The government buys up major corporations and the property of those who are in dire straits because of the economy.

It's beginning to sound like a Marxist's dream.

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.
--Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
--Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Hmmm. This stuff sounds really familiar.

[edit on 2009/7/14 by GradyPhilpott]

new topics

top topics


log in