/dev/null Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904233404576458300001332210.html Anyone with WSJ subscription care to fill in the details? Oh, and this sounds like a really bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904233404576458300001332210.html Anyone with WSJ subscription care to fill in the details? Oh, and this sounds like a really bad idea. Without the details it's difficult to know whether it's a good idea or a really bad idea but understand nothing good happens to an unoccupied house, you still have to pay property taxes, maintain insurance, you still have to pay to keep the lawn maintained, maybe the sidewalk shoveled, any utilities will have a connection fee, without security you could have your aluminum siding ripped off or copper plumbing etc, if you have a roof leak or flooded basement then the damage could continue for a long time before anyone knows about it let alone fix it - a lot of banks recently are making an effort not to foreclose, not out of the goodness of their hearts but because with the terrible housing market they have the bad options of paying to maintain an unoccupied house, being landlords, or selling at a much lower price than they have the asset valued at which would effect the banks paper value. If the government is guaranteeing rent payments and doing a renter property insurance it is a tremendous bailout for the banks. of course helping renters contradicts Bush's ownership society but what the Hey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 23, 2011 Author Share Posted July 23, 2011 Without the details it's difficult to know whether it's a good idea or a really bad idea but understand nothing good happens to an unoccupied house, you still have to pay property taxes, maintain insurance, you still have to pay to keep the lawn maintained, maybe the sidewalk shoveled, any utilities will have a connection fee, without security you could have your aluminum siding ripped off or copper plumbing etc, if you have a roof leak or flooded basement then the damage could continue for a long time before anyone knows about it let alone fix it - a lot of banks recently are making an effort not to foreclose, not out of the goodness of their hearts but because with the terrible housing market they have the bad options of paying to maintain an unoccupied house, being landlords, or selling at a much lower price than they have the asset valued at which would effect the banks paper value. If the government is guaranteeing rent payments and doing a renter property insurance it is a tremendous bailout for the banks. of course helping renters contradicts Bush's ownership society but what the Hey youtube.com/watch?v=CwPG-7FTkyM For starters Bush isn't President anymore. I know you guys have some kind of inbred trait that likes to knee jerk right back to Dubya but you're going to have to get over that. Now that that's out of the way. If the banks own the distressed properties, how does the Government become landlords? Do they nationalize the properties? ie Socialism Do they buy it from the banks? ie Bailout If they buy it what kind of price will they pay? Will they use taxpayers money to overpay and artifically keep prices high or will they get a bargain and drive prices lower? Will the rent for properties in slumland be the same as properties in Suburbia? Will it be racist or discriminatory to charge differing rents based on location? Most distressed properties need some work done. Who will pay for these updates while the house is unoccupied? I just bought a house. It doesn't have granite countertops. Can I get the Government to pay for that too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 If the banks own the distressed properties, how does the Government become landlords? Do they nationalize the properties? ie Socialism Do they buy it from the banks? ie Bailout According to the article, Fannie and Freddie (i.e. the government) own the foreclosures. of course helping renters contradicts Bush's ownership society but what the Hey youtube.com/watch?v=CwPG-7FTkyM You're an idiot. I had a long diatribe prepared explaining why you're an idiot...but then I realized it was completely useless to explain to you the government has been pushing low-income home ownership for a couple decades, long before Bush got into office...because you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 According to the article, Fannie and Freddie (i.e. the government) own the foreclosures. You're an idiot. I had a long diatribe prepared explaining why you're an idiot...but then I realized it was completely useless to explain to you the government has been pushing low-income home ownership for a couple decades, long before Bush got into office...because you're an idiot. Blaming it all on Bush was not my point, but he supported it as did many Republicans- and it wasn't like the financial industry was against it either, people were making a lot of cash and they didn't care about the risk because the housing market was going to do nothing but go up- also and I hate to say it but Obama is now to the right of Dubya and not by a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Blaming it all on Bush was not my point, but he supported it as did many Republicans- and it wasn't like the financial industry was against it either, people were making a lot of cash and they didn't care about the risk because the housing market was going to do nothing but go up- also and I hate to say it but Obama is now to the right of Dubya and not by a little bit. Even pBills would give that a HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Edited July 23, 2011 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 For starters Bush isn't President anymore. I know you guys have some kind of inbred trait that likes to knee jerk right back to Dubya but you're going to have to get over that. Now that that's out of the way. If the banks own the distressed properties, how does the Government become landlords? Do they nationalize the properties? ie Socialism Do they buy it from the banks? ie Bailout If they buy it what kind of price will they pay? Will they use taxpayers money to overpay and artifically keep prices high or will they get a bargain and drive prices lower? Will the rent for properties in slumland be the same as properties in Suburbia? Will it be racist or discriminatory to charge differing rents based on location? Most distressed properties need some work done. Who will pay for these updates while the house is unoccupied? I just bought a house. It doesn't have granite countertops. Can I get the Government to pay for that too? The gubment should mandate that people have to rent a foreclosed house when they go on vacation. If they don't, you're fined/taxed/whatever. They can rent anytime and the rent is the same no matter where they stay. They can even destroy the property and still pay the same rent in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Blaming it all on Bush was not my point, but he supported it as did many Republicans- and it wasn't like the financial industry was against it either, people were making a lot of cash and they didn't care about the risk because the housing market was going to do nothing but go up- also and I hate to say it but Obama is now to the right of Dubya and not by a little bit. Everyone supported it, with a great deal of very questionable policies. They still are - one of the reasons home sales are low is because borrowing is that much harder, because most of the lenders have tightened their lending standards (my wife can't recall the last time she closed a purchase financed 95/5, or with a first and a second. Most are requiring 20% down) despite being "encouraged" by the government to lend to the looser standards that got us into the mess to begin with. There's no partisan blame in the real estate or financial market mess...everyone involved spent several decades building that house of cards. Obama, to the right of Bush? You must be kidding. The gubment should mandate that people have to rent a foreclosed house when they go on vacation. If they don't, you're fined/taxed/whatever. They can rent anytime and the rent is the same no matter where they stay. They can even destroy the property and still pay the same rent in the future. Better yet, mandate that anyone currently renting has to be a house, or be fined... No, wait, that won't work. That'll drive housing prices down, like it's supposed to health care costs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Blaming it all on Bush was not my point, but he supported it as did many Republicans- and it wasn't like the financial industry was against it either, people were making a lot of cash and they didn't care about the risk because the housing market was going to do nothing but go up- also and I hate to say it but Obama is now to the right of Dubya and not by a little bit. Trying tell Tom... and everyone else... something we don't know. This was addressed in another thread just recently. Point is that the recession had its genesis with the liberal feel-good policy of putting poor people in homes they couldn't afford, and hoping that the high concept of home-ownership would somehow/magically make them less poor. Further point is, government should not be in the business of owning the markets, setting prices, etc. Way too many people of all stripes know exactly how to game the system to either get receive things they don't pay for (read: things that other people then have to pay for via taxes). And in addition to that, the government will often tell people exactly how to game the system. Edited July 23, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Everyone supported it, with a great deal of very questionable policies. They still are - one of the reasons home sales are low is because borrowing is that much harder, because most of the lenders have tightened their lending standards (my wife can't recall the last time she closed a purchase financed 95/5, or with a first and a second. Most are requiring 20% down) despite being "encouraged" by the government to lend to the looser standards that got us into the mess to begin with. There's no partisan blame in the real estate or financial market mess...everyone involved spent several decades building that house of cards. Obama, to the right of Bush? You must be kidding. Better yet, mandate that anyone currently renting has to be a house, or be fined... No, wait, that won't work. That'll drive housing prices down, like it's supposed to health care costs... Not kidding at all Bush waging war in two countries Obama waging war in six counties Bush's medicare part D was less a corporate give away than Obamacare Bush claimed the right to torture foreigners Obama claims the right to assassinate American citizens. Obama is willing to cut Social Security, medicare and medicare, in amounts that Bush never even dreamed about. Obama has collected more money from Individuals working for finance, insurance and real estate than either Bush or Romney. Obama has run an even less transparent government and has gone after whistle blowers harder than bush. American CEOs have had record bonuses despite being "nervous" Obama is perfect left cover for corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Not kidding at all Bush waging war in two countries Obama waging war in six counties Bush's medicare part D was less a corporate give away than Obamacare Bush claimed the right to torture foreigners Obama claims the right to assassinate American citizens. Obama is willing to cut Social Security, medicare and medicare, in amounts that Bush never even dreamed about. Obama has collected more money from Individuals working for finance, insurance and real estate than either Bush or Romney. Obama has run an even less transparent government and has gone after whistle blowers harder than bush. American CEOs have had record bonuses despite being "nervous" Obama is perfect left cover for corporations. interesting. even when someone is true left, he's actually right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Not kidding at all Bush waging war in two countries Obama waging war in six counties Bush's medicare part D was less a corporate give away than Obamacare Bush claimed the right to torture foreigners Obama claims the right to assassinate American citizens. Obama is willing to cut Social Security, medicare and medicare, in amounts that Bush never even dreamed about. Obama has collected more money from Individuals working for finance, insurance and real estate than either Bush or Romney. Obama has run an even less transparent government and has gone after whistle blowers harder than bush. American CEOs have had record bonuses despite being "nervous" Obama is perfect left cover for corporations. Ah, sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 For starters Bush isn't President anymore. I know you guys have some kind of inbred trait that likes to knee jerk right back to Dubya but you're going to have to get over that. Now that that's out of the way. Well, we are ALL trying to get over Bush's disasterous Presidency, even if the Tea Party thinks it was Obama that created every problem ever conjured up by guilty man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Well, we are ALL trying to get over Bush's disasterous Presidency I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Obama, to the right of Bush? You must be kidding. Yes in Bizarro editorial HuffPo/MotherJones/MediaMatters world, Obama is to the right of Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Barry is more to the wrong of Dubya, not the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Without the details it's difficult to know whether it's a good idea or a really bad idea You don't need details to know that even if the idea has merit, in the hands of the federal government it would be a colossally wasteful, corrupt, cluster-!@#$ whose costs would vastly outweigh any possible benefits. Fortunately, Obama will realize that there's no way something like this could impact economic conditions before next November so the idea will go nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts