And its cool to make a fortune off of real estate, but it's not cool to do it by having other people pay for it in return for nothing. That's stealing, IMO.
I think that if people use this option, they should have to get that alternative lien I described above. If it is government funds that are used, then the governemnt should have that potential lien.
I don't see a problem with helping people in dire straights, I see a problem with giving the potential to profit off of the help beyond what they would have profited without it.
If they sell form more than the initial principle amount before the reduction, they should have to pay back all of it. If they sell for less than the initial principle amount before reduction, they should only pay back as much as possible and the rest could be forgiven.
For me, I see no problems with trying to keep people in their homes so long as they are not trying to abuse the situation (as I could, but wouldn't).
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.