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 1-30 of 98 total comments.

fordfse 02/28/2009 4:03am

As much as I feel for the people who are loosing their homes and a large percent of them to an ARM which the bank got them into. A large percent of these people had no business getting that loan and the banks had no business qualifying them for the loan. The banks need to be stuck with these homes on their books or renegotiate the terms with the current owners. This is called Capitalism. The government created a large amount of this situation due to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac fiasco. And now the government is attempting to get us out of it? Give me a break. Who is now going to be responsible for the difference in the principal when the Judge adjusts the principal and interest? This is not Capitalism; this is socialism and big government.

csledbetter 03/01/2009 1:24pm

The housing market is a zero-sum game. The true value of a house has never changed. Greed and government manipulation chased the market up, and reality is settling it down again.
When the market was rising, some bought the most expensive house they could afford, extending their credit to the breaking point. They were betting on the fact that house prices would continue to go up. Greed, not need, was the motive. Since the market has turned, it is overwhelmingly these people who are in trouble, not those who acted responsibly when deciding whether to sign a mortgage agreement. Why do my tax dollars have to go to pay for their gamble? I would rather help my own daughter buy a house than bail out one of these gamblers.
This bill benefits only the very worst consumers in our country—the ones that cannot afford what they buy, and commit to promises they can’t keep. It hurts the most responsible consumers in our country and their families. Is that what the Congress is supposed to do?

MTPatriot 03/05/2009 10:15pm
in reply to Anonymous Mar 02, 2009 5:45am

Take a look at the foreclosure map for August of 2008.

http://blog.cleveland.com/cribnotes/2008/08/Foreclosure%20map.bmp

and look here to get another perspective.

http://www.themortgagereports.com/images/2008/06/13/reomay2008.jpg

Do you not see some distinct geographical areas that are the source of the problem?

I do. I see areas that were the epitome of the housing market bubble…overpriced real estate bloated to excess. I see this situation as the market finally trying to correct itself. But there goes our legislators thinking they can prop up this gaff made by bloodthirsty lenders, real estate agents, and greedy homeowners getting in over their heads and purchasing homes they could not afford.

jfreeman 03/06/2009 8:51am
in reply to JamesBarrett Mar 05, 2009 7:20am

This is ridiculous on so many levels.

Not everyone who is in mortgage trouble right now is a blue collar worker – many were speculators convinced the house would rise in value so they could sell before the adjusted rates kicked in.

You are creating a false dichotomy between banks and workers. Banks are not evil. They serve a legitimate purpose – connecting savers with borrowers. Otherwise, they wouldn’t exist. The people who give their money so that workers can buy homes do not deserve to be burned. It is their money – not yours!

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

CainLMT 03/30/2009 10:13am
in reply to MTPatriot Mar 05, 2009 10:15pm

You said it, MTPPartriot. People buying too much house based on a lower variable interest rate hoping they could sell it in a year or two for a major profit. That’s what got us all in trouble. My house is worth far less then what I bought it for two years ago but guess what I knew what I was getting into when I bought. I’m not going to ask anyone to make my mortage payment. It’s my house so it’s my responsiblity.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Autumnlc 03/03/2009 7:39am

I urge you to contact your represenative and sentators to oppose this bill. Judges should not have the right to modify a banks assets. This bill sends the message to people who are struggling and doing whatever possible to meet their obligations should just file bankruptcy. This bill will increase fees and interest rates on responsible borrowers.

Pissedoff 03/10/2009 8:58am
in reply to myopencongress Mar 10, 2009 6:05am

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.

MTPatriot 03/05/2009 10:32pm
in reply to plenko Mar 03, 2009 6:18am

I would agree with you on the following.

Was the handout to corporations during the bailout good for the nation? NO.

Was the bailouts for the banks good for the nation? No.

There is not much stimulating to the average American citizen when big business and banks get bailed out and we are left with the generation upon generation of debt.

Anonymous 04/06/2009 5:30pm
in reply to MTPatriot Mar 10, 2009 11:17am

Money was given to the taxpayers to stimulate the economy, twice under the Bush administration It did not work, because the money did not go into circulation in the form of goods and services It went into savings and paying down debt – the source of the problem

The government is the spender of last resort when the economy contracts If the taxpayers knew to to spenc, save and invest their money, we wouldn’t have these economic resessions – we would always have small but sustainable growth.

The problems began in 1978, when laws in place to preserve consumer protections and rampant credit began to be undone, and accelerated in 1999 by the repeal of the law that kept commercial and investment banking seperate businesses.

Economics is no longer a required subject taught in high schools, thanks to the NCLB act The majority of young people don’t understand that credit is an earned priviledge, not a right

extraordinaryboy 03/22/2009 1:26pm

My family has tried very hard to work with the bank to modify the loan to no avail. The bank bail out right now has made banks bigger bullies with more money for executives rather than training those who can modify loans. This legislation can actually help main street rather than simple wall street. The banks refuse to learn to help their customers even with the incentives the President’s legislation has given. I vote yes to help my family and many others..regular everyday people. And this is not a bail out for people. This is a bankruptcy judge modifying the loan because even though the banks have been given incentive to do so for some reason or other not all of them are ready to do so due to lack of training OR they just aren’t doing it for whatever reason. This gives the every day family another option for modification which is something they already were seeking but the banks just weren’t doing it for them.

MTPatriot 03/10/2009 11:17am
in reply to JamesBarrett Mar 09, 2009 3:40am

We have the same or at least a similar view on that James. I think the bailouts to the banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry was straight up theft by our legislators. Why should the American people have to pay an exhorbitant amount of interest for loans to major corporations and BANKS. Why could these banks and and corporations not take the loans directly from the Federal Reserve? After all, it too is a private corporation. There is nothing federal about the federal reserve.////I am in total support of giving the money to the people…WAIT, giving the money to American TAXPAYERS. The idea seems so simple that there must be some fundamental flaw. How would giving the money to the taxpayers be a bad idea? I know that if I would have received my portion I would have paid off some credit card debt and student loan debt. Thus recirculating this back into the banking system.

nandeane 03/24/2009 4:43am

The statement from Crystal: So modifying the contract is only delaying the inevitable.

Is certainly not true. There is no evidence of this being true, if it is I challenge her to provide it.

Many home owners have: 1. Gotten other jobs. 2. Borrowed from family members. 3. Rented out rooms to others in need.
Many are wanting to cooperate with the mortgage company. The persons, like Crystal, had better hope that there is relief for the homeowners, because if there is not, the foreclosures will drive the economy and home prices to a new all time low.
Sort of like; “You haven’t seen nothing yet!”

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.

MTPatriot 03/05/2009 10:15pm
in reply to MTPatriot Mar 05, 2009 10:15pm

While I could sympathize to a certain degree that an individual and his family has lost, or is loosing their home, I could not justify taxing the rest of America that acts responsibly and are accountable for their own actions financially. People everyday get the short end of the stick. Good people sometimes loose. Life is not fair.

Yet through these actions taken by Congress, the Senate, and the White House, by not even ASKING but merely TAKING responsible American’s money to pay for those that are irresponsible is undoubtedly a step towards socialism.

How else can you explain and justify taking from the haves to give to the have nots?

(Note: Just so you know when you look at the map…the red areas are the areas with the most foreclosures)

Daddyo 03/05/2009 7:22am
in reply to fehrmann69 Mar 05, 2009 6:52am

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

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.

plenko 03/03/2009 6:18am

This is a good piece of legislation and should be passed.

Businesses have an easy out when declaring bankruptcy….not to mention having socialism currently extended to them for their own greed, ignorance and mistakes.

Citizens do not have any easy manner of declaring bankruptcy due to extensive lobbying and bribery of Congress by banks and loan originators. Citizens also, as we are all aware, have received next to nothing in the current stimulus effort. They have, however, watched as their tax revenues have been mis-used to provide socialism to banks and other businesses.

Many borrowers were deceived by mortgage underwriters and brokers. Many underwriters and brokers also lied on borrowers’ applications..in order to jack up the corpus of the loan….and get larger commissions for themselves.

This is a good bill and the first chartiable handout to regular folks. Pass it!

Pissedoff 03/02/2009 6:47am

The greed was from the lenders and developers that charged the outrageous prices. When alot of people bought their homes (me included) we didn’t see the cost of the homes going down from what we paid for them. We also didn’t expect the market to drop in less then 2 years when you have a prepayment penalty before you go variable. The experts said the market would hold so how can you say that it was greed on the part of the american home buyer? I didn’t buy a house that was too big or too expensive but my new variable is killing me becuase I couldnt refi out of a bad loan before the market dropped.

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.

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.

daringone 04/28/2009 2:36am
in reply to myfam Apr 20, 2009 2:23pm

The banks don’t deserve the bailouts anymore than the people do! The problem is that we have a bunch of morons in DC that keep spending our money when we don’t want them to. I was against all the bailouts too, I’m against DC running Detroit, and I’m against any more spending when we don’t have the income to do it!

thecat 04/17/2009 1:57pm

Who else are we expected to bailout, the drug pushers when they run out of stash? The gun runners when they run out of ammo? You guys have gone completely money crazy, and it’s not your money to blow. What a joke you all have become and especially BO. He’s so in over his head he’ll never see daylight again. I hope the Tea Parties, which have started as a whisper, end as a resounding roar loud enough to get all of you who have participated in this madness out of the Senate and Congress.

katherinewatterson 04/27/2009 11:58pm

The people of this country need to be fiscally responsible as does the government. If people would have paid their debts as promised, our country wouldn’t be in the econimic mess its in.

lakotajk 05/01/2009 3:24am
in reply to Anonymous Mar 02, 2009 5:45am

Awsome Anonymous !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MTPatriot 03/05/2009 10:32pm
in reply to MTPatriot Mar 05, 2009 10:32pm

We differ on this. Many fingers can be pointed in various directions as to who should shoulder the blame when it comes to the housing market issue. I think it is fair to say that everyone involved with it (lenders, agents, buyers) should be accountable for their actions.

Would a handout to people that make poor financial investments be good for the nation? No.

This is all a form of welfarism that ultimately leads to the socialization of this once great Republic.

An argument that would have been worth making is that instead of bailing out Freddy and Fannie, that money could have went directly to the American people. Would it be a false assumption to say that if the people of the country received the money directly that they would have paid off their respective debt (or at least a portion) and thus would have saved the banks and mortgage lenders?


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