The purpose of this is to debate a Bill before it is added. Debate can center on whether the Bill should be passed or not, or it can center over which lobbyists care about the Bill in question. Some Bills are unconstitutional or simply redundant, so if this Bill is one of those, it won't be added in the first place, so feel free to debate that, too. Have fun.
February 25, 2010

Helping Homeowners Act

WHEREAS millions of Americans with low credit scores buy homes with low rates only to have those rates increase and put them at risk for foreclosure.

WHEREAS if these homes are foreclosed neighborhood property values decrease

WHEREAS the real estate bubble has popped and some loans are worth more than the property

This bill proposes:

1. A 90-day moratorium on the foreclosure process to allow renegotiating to lower, more affordable payments.

2. A freeze of the monthly rate on subprime adjustable-rate mortgages for at least five years or until they can be converted into affordable, fixed-rate loans.

3. Require the mortgage industry to give status reports on the number of mortgages that have been modified to make them more affordable.
Submitted 7:06 PM by Kristah Evans
cosponsor please
Senator Roseanne Connor, Massachusetts
Posted By Roseanne Connor on 2/25/10 at 10:14 PM | Reply
No title
This is an excellent bill; however, we should also put a restriction on what mortgage companies can foreclose over. At my job, I recently received a notification that a bank was foreclosing on a property assessed at $200,000 for a $25,000 debt. I understand companies need a way to be paid what is owed them but being allowed to foreclose for a debt that is barely over 10% of the value of the property is absurd.
Posted By Silas A. Holcomb on 2/26/10 at 8:59 AM | Reply
No title
If we were to add that to the bill, what would the threshold be?
Posted By Kristah Evans on 2/26/10 at 3:33 PM | Reply
No title
What if we set up a gradually reduced threshold over the five years mentioned in 2? Say a starting threshold of %80, and drop it 15% a year? With the theory being that the economy will improve over those five years? Initially make it so the banks are forced to work with home owners?

What if the bill also included a provision that for the five years, even if the house is foreclosed, the banks rent the home to the previous owner for a rent no more than 1/3 of the households income? The rent would increase as their income increased?

I even wonder if five years is long enough? If we are dealing with the current real world, I'm really not sure the economy will ever increase back to where it was 2, 3 years ago?

It's complicated because I really wonder if the housing maret will ever have the value it had three years ago? And if it never does, no matter how long we do this the banks will still never recoup their mortgages. And, sense many of the current mortgages were not made with loans of depositors money, but rather speculatory "collateralized debt obligations". what is the point of the banks holding out for the full amount?

it maybe that the banks should be forced to write off many of these loans and renegotiate them down to a "real" value?

Personally I would want to go so far as to have the government take over many or most of the bad loans, consolidate them under the FHA or something?
Posted By Roseanne Connor on 2/27/10 at 3:33 AM | Reply
No title
I totally agree
Posted By fitadude13 on 2/26/10 at 5:20 PM | Reply
No title
I would like to co-sponser if allowed.
Posted By John Berlac on 2/26/10 at 8:57 PM | Reply
No title
i totally agree
Posted By Lawrence Robertson on 2/27/10 at 7:04 PM | Reply
No title
Here are a couple of proposed amendments to the bill.

In no particular order, I'll let the submitting Senator decide which and where they might want to use these ideas.

I was also thinking there should be some mechanism whereby the federal gov takes over all the collateralizsed debt created from residential home mortgages, and when a financial institution does foreclose, they renumeration they receive on what ever is the current market value of the mortgage will be paid to the banks by the federal gov in the collateralized debt created with mortgages. And they wouldn't be able to trade this debt, they have to hold it on their books, and receive any real money only once the housing market stabilizes to historically nominal levels.

Make them bear the burden fr this disaster they =created, but at the same time protect home owners. This maintains the stability of neighborhoods, towns and cities. And stabilized localities need services and groceries.

I think it might be better to extend the life of the bill for ten years; I'm not convinced the US, foreign and global economies will "rebound" to previous values anytime soon. But I've written my proposed amendments based on a five years time frame. If Senator Evans wants to double the bills sunset date, they can just double ten time frame for what I am proposing here.

A) Banks will be resticted on homes they can foreclose on over the life of the bill, and their will be a gradually decreasing scale of limits on foreclosure as the economy hopefully improves.

In the first yea no home where the homeowner is more than 185% "underwater" on the value of the home compared to the mortgage as originally written.
Year 2 150%
Year 3 100%
Year 4 75%
Year 5 50%

2) For the term of this bill, once a financial institution has foreclosed on a primary residential property the financial institution shall rent it to the former homeowner at no more than 1/3 the household's income. This number will be tied to the household income fluctuation. During this time the home mortgage shall be renegotiated to a more traditional standard of mortgage payment to income ratio.

Posted By Roseanne Connor on 3/4/10 at 8:38 PM | Reply
Instead of paying their bills...teach them to manage their bills.
Posted By Daryl L. Brunner on 3/24/10 at 6:01 AM | Reply
How about if you can't afford to buy a house, don't buy one!
Posted By Randy Darrah on 10/24/10 at 5:01 PM | Reply
No title
Great bill pass it
Posted By e54boy on 12/15/10 at 6:03 PM | Reply
No title
This is a terrible idea - It will distort the market and cripple the recovery. It should not be supported.
Posted By justinbarbour1 on 6/9/11 at 3:42 AM | Reply
Simply pass this bill. If you do this then apart from the federal government having to take on debt(oh you didn't think those banks would give let you keep there money for free did you), we would also set a dangerous pattern of behavior. Now if this were the case then the second problem is that the banks will loans out like crazy to anyone with a heart beat and people will take out these stupid mortgages at ridiculously high interest rates because they know that if they cant pay it back, its ok, socialist america will bail them out. You can either have a free market economy where anyone can fail and be accountable for their choices, or you can stop calling this the United States of America.
Posted By sootie8 on 7/31/12 at 7:24 PM | Reply
No title
Posted By David b on 11/21/12 at 3:25 PM | Reply

Post New Comment

Comment (tags allowed: <b>,<i>,<u>,<a>):