"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
There was a home foreclosed upon two houses down that frankly has me baffled. The owner filed bankruptcy but had a renter paying rent and keeping up the house and property. For some reason the renter was forced to move out and now the property is an eyesore with no income coming in for anyone. Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep renting it? Does the bank have some kind of ulterior motive or are they just plain stupid?
Bubbles pop. The world still goes round.
Chairman Obama & the poliburo will come up with another brilliant plan like a "cash for clunkers" except with houses where someone could trade in there 1973 Marshfield mobile home with leaking pipes & a rotted floor for a brand new house , compliments of the taxpayer of course.
It just doesn't make sense to me that we should be kicking people out of homes that won't be bought anyways and those people won't be able to find any cheaper housing because they don't have a job because they can't find one and so they have to move in a crowded house to pay for it.
Maybe we could do something where if the owners of the home is on unemployment their house has an automatic foreclosure freeze, and do something like child support in which a percentage of each paycheck is taken out and given to the bank, which the borrower can opt-in to do even if it's less than is mortgage payment.
Last edited by samsmart; 02-25-10 at 07:29 AM.
Then when the bubble ended badly, housing prices went down and people did lose jobs.
Not sure what the rational for bailing out the housing speculators versus the investors ( including pension funds) in something like Citicorp that have lost billions of dollars.