On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:53:41 -0700, John Gulick <john_gulick at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not smart or patient enough to figure it out, but there's gotta be
a
> fair and equitable way to keep folks in their houses without keeping the
> fizz on the real estate market, yes?
No doubt there is, but why only "mortgage-holders," why not all those who lack adequate housing for any reason?
Just to be clear, I don't use this argument expecting the US government to end homelessness any time soon, but rather to illustrate the tokenistic nature of it. The specter of the hardworking "owner-occupier" being kicked out is just a poster-child for the bailout lobby, which is really about bailing out the better-connected corporations involved in the housing industry, not the industry's politically irrelevant consumers.
"Bailout" or not, the only way any "owner-occupiers" who fall behind on their mortgages are not kicked out is if the potential repossessor realizes that the property is a white-elephant and concludes racking the existing occupier will be more profitable than the market-return for repossessing the property.
Cheers.
-- Dmytri Kleiner editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net