Simple, using standard liberalism,
you “help out” those that acted irresponsibly and are facing consequence
with money confiscated from those who acted responsibly.
Controversy solved.
I guess they done run out of Homeowners Helper , now it’s more Porkusboard of proposals, maybe they could just give us po’ folk some gubamint cheese instead of all the melodrama..
it is really easy, in a bankruptcy can the debtor afford the house at fair market price +$1? If it is the identical price the bank was going to get ANYWAYS then that is reasonable. It does not matter who gets the house just that is is priced at the free market price.
If the debtor can not afford fair market price then they are out ANYWAYS.
I’m pretty sure that active membership in the Demonrat Party will be an indicator of homeowner bailout eligibility. Hey, the Soviets thought that method was effective in doling out favors!
For the life of me I can’t see how this law, even as rewritten, can be constitutional.
Frankly, this idea is more a benefit to greedy lenders than it is to improvident borrowers. The “lenders”, like lets say GMAC or better yet Quicken and Ditech ought to take a page out of the books of small local banks which are cutting deals to reduce interest rates and extend the terms of troubled mortgages. The banks look good, the borrowers get to stay in their houses and the banks have a better shot at at least recovering their principal and maybe even a little interest.
There it is, you idiot politicians, most of whom are lawyers.
Nobody forces a contract (that nullifies it) so both parties have to agree to it. So what's the problem about living up to the terms you agree to? Obama likes to talk about "responsibility", but it doesn't seem to apply to Democrats and their core constituencies.
“Help” them all, across-the-board with massive tax relief. Duh.