Posted on 07/14/2009 1:08:38 PM PDT by GreaterSwiss
Thanks. That’s what I meant to put in the link, but somehow pasted the FR post itself.
You “fixed” one problem 0, now what do you do have planned if the “renters” can’t pay the rent? True liberalism, you fix one problem by creating a new one.
I don’t think it’s enough that he settles merely on the rental option.
I think he should require pastels on the walls, low flow toilets, linoleum instead of carpet, bifold instead of full doors, electric instead of gas ranges, and low wattage bulbs.
There should be a prescribed number of times per day per person to use the low-flow, the shower, the sink and the washer.
Dinner should be low-fat, chicken not beef, veggies not pasta, and water not beer.
These are all decisions the president is entitled to make by both the constitution and by virtue of being elected.
/s
I’m about to lose my lunch!
Agreed. If I were a bank in a market with a lot of foreclosures and declining property values, I might think about a policy that allowed home occupants that met some standards to sign over title to the house but continue renting for some period of time. However, the more government interferes in the market, the longer it's going to take to sort out the real estate mess. Banks aren't even thinking about innovative ways to recoup their losses, in part because everyone's sitting around waiting for their government bailout.
Actually they do own them and have the the bundle of rights of ownership, including exclusive use, renting, encumbering, and selling. The mortage is a lien interest by the lender and has legal consequence. Even if the home is free and clear of a first mortgage (or first trust deed in Calif and some other states) the property is still burdened by property taxes. Failure to pay those also has legal consequences, including potential public sale by the taxing authority. So whether there is a lien interest by a lender or by the state, a person whose name is on the deed does own the property.
There should be a hammer and sickle painted on each house....
Man isn't THAT the truth.
One has to wonder if they ever consider where the money comes from. There are many new houses in my area that have been empty for several years. If we are taxed to death, who can afford to rent these things so they can recoup any money? I have seen a few builders renting their houses. Property taxes must be killing them so they can't leave them empty.
More garbage from the Nanny-state
I am waiting for only GREEN toilet paper to be allowed and an Obamameter on how many times we flush the toilet.
LMAO!!!
lol. The Californication of the nation.
So Obama is the landlord for several years then? He’s gotta do the maintenance and cut the grass and fix the plumbing, etc.?
Sounds interesting.
And because his eyes are so kind.
but maybe i want to rent out that house there and can afford the rent. so i’ll be kpt out to keep the other guy in?
But if you give up ownership and rent the place, why would you be liable for property taxes or maintenance costs?
I own a house free and clear, and I also rent an apartment.
I only cut the grass and pay taxes on one...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.