H.R.1106 - Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

To prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability. view all titles (5)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability. as introduced.
  • Popular: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Nationwide Mortgage Fraud Task Force Act of 2009 as passed house.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-60 of 98 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    JamesBarrett 03/05/2009 7:42am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Most banks will not work it out. They like getting paid the higher interest people are forced to pay due to lower credit scores. I was told when I bought my house in Aug 2006 if I made all my payments at this higher rate I would get a Refi. at a lower rate in 12 months. Guess what 2 month later they sold my note to another lender who will not do nothing so I am stuck at a very high rate.VOTE YES

  • deee3 03/03/2009 9:30pm

    Leaving it up to the lenders to work with borrowers is like letting a rookie plan a round with a bunch of sharks. Doesn’t have a chance. Throw in a BK bill..maybe

  • rmblount 03/04/2009 7:29am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    The governemnt causeed these problems. The Urban Redevelopment Act brought forth under Carter forced lenders to make loans to people that could not afford a mortgage. This finally caught up with us. These people signed up for the ride, I am truly sorry, but this is not my fault. I vote no.
    The other “stimulus” plans seemed to have done such a great job, right!

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/06/2009 5:38pm

    And in 2004, President Bush and Sen. Shelby doubled the numbers of loans given to people with questionable credit worthiness. Nice try at re writing history.

    The GAO has the report that Bush ordered – read it for clarification before you point fingers.

  • dewalker 03/05/2009 3:43am

    Many of the homes in foreclosure are in excess of $500,000. These homes are obviously more spacious and luxurious than needed for shelter. I for one bought an 1800 sq ft home that meets my needs and is within my budget. ($170,000) Why should I bail out someone who overextended living in a home that exceeds the basic requirements.

  • Comm_reply
    JamesBarrett 03/05/2009 7:46am

    VOTE YES VOTE YES.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/06/2009 5:41pm

    Becuase I have to pay $34,000 to finac an occupation that I was opposed to. Everyone has to pay for the decisions that our legislators make, whether we agree with them or not.

    PS There is still 9 years of payments due on the debt the Reagan got us into. I was opposed to that spending, and yet I pay

  • Comm_reply
    daringone 04/17/2009 5:04am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Exactly, which is why we should be discouraging all of this spending. Spend, spend, and spend some more the government says. Who cares, it’s not their money! It’s ours, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren, and our great great grand childrens! It sucks for the 3rd generagion of newmeximan’s that they will be born in debt to the government for over $30k through no fault of their own. STOP WASTEFUL SPENDING! GET OFF THE GOVERNMENT TEAT!

  • Daddyo 03/05/2009 6:26am

    I do not see the point on asking the Government for a hand out, but then again I never had to file for unemployment. My point being, as an American who lives in this great country of ours where all of your dreams do and will come true we have to take Accountability and have some Honor. If you cannot afford something you should not lie, steal or cheat. Stop whining and get a job or two. Let the private sector deal with this mess( Capitalism).Forgive for being bunt but is what is. I WILL VOTE NO.

  • fehrmann69 03/05/2009 6:52am

    I feel sorry for people who are being thrown out of thier homes, but since when does the law allow a judge to change the terms of a contract. If this passes it can be used as a precedent to allow a judge to change the terms of any contract. At this point contracts between individuals are legal, providing they do not violate any feedral, state, or local laws. Let a judge determine if this has been the case, and nullify the contract if this was so, otherwise the contract should be valid.

  • Comm_reply
    Daddyo 03/05/2009 7:22am

    Well said fehrmann69, but if may interject. If the people of this great country of ours think that the banks are make making it hard to lend now. Folks, let me said this, banks will refuse to lend on the notion that at any giving time a BK Judge can change their (banks) terms. I STILL VOTE NO

  • Comm_reply
    JamesBarrett 03/05/2009 7:48am

    This is just for mortgages not everything. Read it first. Why can lenders sell your contract to someone else without your permission?

  • Comm_reply
    Daddyo 03/05/2009 8:05am

    You are correct, it is for Mortgages only, and I do believe that’s where the bulk of our credit crisis stem from. As for your question “ asking for permission”. When you sign loan doc’s they do inform you that there is a possibility of changing loan servicers. It requires you initials and/or Signature. Hope that helps. I STILL VOTE NO.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/06/2009 5:46pm

    Judges change contracts every single weekday – in Bankruptcy Court. They are allowed to do that by law for businesses. Bankruptcy reform made that more difficult for individuals under GWB. Maybe we should make bankruptcy impossible for business, and asddle the owners with a lifetime of debt. That is what the bankruptcy reform did, in it’s reversal of consumer protection laws.

  • Comm_reply
    daringone 04/17/2009 5:07am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    The problem with this is that then there is exactly ZERO incentive to start a business. As it stands, a potential small business owner can scrimp and save up enough coin to start his business, and at worst if his business fails, he or she is out that money alone. While that sucks, it’s far worse to be paying back that debt the rest of your life. To do away with bankruptcy for businesses would be to do away with small business in general, and LOTS of jobs.

  • JamesBarrett 03/05/2009 7:52am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Or maybe this will make lenders lower the rates themselves before a judge has to step in and cost them more money. They still make money even at a lower rate over the life of the loan. They should work it out.

  • bbell116 03/05/2009 7:57am

    Bankruptcy Bill has been passed in the House by majority of DEM vote. GOP remained in their obstructionist mode. Mostly all GOP objections revolve around interests of special groups, banks, and do not even withstand a simple common sense test, at times flatly disregarding simple facts of this matter. It makes it very hard to imagine how grey haired, intelligent looking folks from GOP are as short sighted and are able to flat out, publically disregard the truth and facts of this issue, but they do time and time again. I have been a “hard core” GOP from 1979 to about 2003-2003, but having had observed what was going on for a rather long time I came to a realization that in the 21st century the values and beliefs of the 18th and 19th centuries, while having had worked in the relatively unsophisticated past, no longer work in the world of sophisticated complexity of today, yet these folks are clinging to these old dogmas like there is no tomorrow.

  • jkconat 03/05/2009 4:45pm

    I vote no for this bill.

    In the current market, I know of several people making 1500-2000 per month, that’s all folks, and getting mortgage financing for a 1200+/month house payment. How does that compute…in anybody’s brain? Lenders and borrowers are both to blame for this housing fiasco..lenders for feeding off the dreams of the borrowers, and borrowers for being stupid enough to believe they could afford to put 75% of their income to a house payment.

    Grow up people and take responibility for your own actions. Stop expecting the government to take care of you….YOU ARE the government. So you screwed up and are losing your home? It’s not the end of the world. Life will go on, it simply will be different. And maybe you’ll learn how to live below your means and keep a little extra money for a rainy day.

  • rodeoron1 03/07/2009 6:17pm

    I messed up. Instead of buying a house that I can afford I should have bought a big phat beyond my capabilities home and let the government bail me out?

  • Pissedoff 03/08/2009 5:28pm

    Are you people not reading the bill??? It does not say the governement is going to bail out anyone. It says that of you would qualify for a chapter 13 bankruptcy that the judge can modify the loan terms. Nothing about bail out money and nothing about if you bought a huge house that you could not afford at the time. There are lonas out there that adjusted upwards for the interest rate while the actual prime interest rate went down and there are poeple out there that bougth within their means and then where laid off. By your logic the no one should buy a house unless they can pay cash becuase you never know if the house you can afford today that you will be able to afford it a year from now if you get laid off.

  • Comm_reply
    JamesBarrett 03/09/2009 4:09am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I agree with you 100%. Let the Judge reduce the rate and payment so people don’t loose there homes and the banks we bailed out last year don’t lose again.

  • Comm_reply
    daringone 04/17/2009 5:13am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    The interest rate? Sure, go ahead and adjust for current times. I can buy into that. But the principal, that’s BS. If you borrow $100,000 you are obligated to pay back $100,000 whether the thing you borrowed it for is worth that now or not. No ifs, no ands, and no buts about it. If you want to bitch and moan about your $250,000 condo being only worth $150,000 now, and you should only have to pay that much back, then joe schmoe that bought his brand new car for $17,000 two years ago should only have to pay back the $9,000 it’s worth now. It’s the same faulty logic!

  • frawley30 03/09/2009 8:00am

    The American government cannot afford to subsidize stupidity!!
    Let the Banks carry the loss on their balance sheet so that in the future they are more careful.

  • myopencongress 03/10/2009 6:05am

    I oppose allowing bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal owed on mortgages because the people who were irresponsible and did not live within their means should not be rewarded for being irresponsible. Being responsible for your actions is called “growing up”. We do NOT want the United States of America to be turned into a “Nanny” state. If people get themselves into a financial mess it is between them and the entity who lent them the money. This is NOT the governments business.

  • Comm_reply
    Pissedoff 03/10/2009 8:58am

    So what you are saying is that if you loose your job or get laid off and the Mortgage company that services your loan wont help you then you are willing to loose it to a forclosure? What if you find a job 2 or 3 months after you loose your home and have to start all over again after having already paid on your house for 4 or 5 years or even longer? From what you are saying about being responsible is if you cant afford to pay for a house out right then you shouldnt buy one. This is not for those that bought a house they could not afford but for those that can ni longer afford the high rates and cant refi to a lower rate due to banks not lending and the house being upside down. If the lenders where to modifi the loans there would be no need for this but they wont so there is a need for it.

  • Comm_reply
    JamesBarrett 03/16/2009 3:18am

    You must not have a 13.25% rate on your mortgage that a bank who bought your mortgage from another mortgage company placed on it. I do and that is not my problem and I had no control over it.

  • Comm_reply
    daringone 04/17/2009 5:15am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I’m sorry for your poor decision to take an ARM. But that’s not mine or anyone else’s problem.

  • ramanajan 03/12/2009 3:28am

    What those of us are saying is that the housing market has risks involved. Yes, life isn’t always “fair”. People lose jobs. Adjustable loans go higher. This is reality. When you take the risks out of any financial market you are punishing those who have been willing to bear those risks. I pay a lower interest rate because I have always paid my bills on time and completely. I also waited almost a decade before buying a house and when I did buy I bought a house that was far below what the bank said I could afford because I knew it would be too much of a pinch otherwise. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t lose it tomorrow if I lost my job. I gave my word to pay this debt and I would not think it fair to have my principal reduced and burdened by someone else. Yes, I still believe in “old” 18th and 19th century beliefs like paying my own way and honoring my promises.

  • zzbudzz 03/14/2009 1:50am

    I wonder how this bill will help the banks? It seems like all the bills introduced now are out to help banks disguised to help the people?

  • Comm_reply
    melzellers 03/21/2009 10:01am

    I hear that!


Vote on This Bill

21% Users Support Bill

131 in favor / 490 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments