OK... why doesn't the gov't just seize people's houses by right of emminent domain and then give

[ddeclue]

them to the homeowners and tell the banks to go fuck themselves?

Bet you if Obama and the Congress did THAT the banks would be in a hurry to negotiate more reasonable terms with their borrowers.

If we are giving money to bail ourselves out of this mess why not just use that money to directly pay off the loans and give the homes outright to the person living in it?

Let the money trickle UP for a change and if the banks and stockholders and insurance companies that gamed the system to screw us all for the last decade by inflating home values and making bad loans and insuring them have to "take one for the team" then tought sh*t.

Doug D.

[flvegan]

1. Eminent domain doesn't work like that.

[backscatter712]

38. But it does work the other way.

State governments can and have seized people's houses by eminent domain, after declaring them "blighted", just so they could knock them down and build a Walmart on the land.

[jody]

2. "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." BOR 5th n/t

[ddeclue]

3. Hey just is what we say it is...

and right now they couldn't get 5 cents on the dollar for the vast majority of this distressed real estate so pay them 5 cents on the dollar and tell them to get lost.

:)

[jody]

6. Be careful, what goes around comes around and Repubs will eventually again control the White House.

[ddeclue]

26. Not likely in my lifetime...they've so screwed themselves that they are never coming back...

and what's amazing is that they keep on digging the hole deeper every day.

[Exilednight]

39. Rule number one ............

1. Never say never.

2. Politics is controlling your environment.

3. When in doubt, see rules one and two.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Quote from OP:

"why not just use that money to directly pay off the loans and give the homes outright to the person living in it?"

[jody]

8. So why should government take my tax dollars and buy a house to give to someone else? n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Well that's a different question, and not for me to answer, as it's not my opinion.

[jody]

14. Understand but it appears to be the opinion of the author of the passage you cited. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. I did it because your statement misrepresented the OP's statement.

I may not agree, but it's still important that we are correct in our arguments.

[jody]

18. How did I misstate "why doesn't the gov't just seize people's houses by right of emminent domain"?

Of course you know I didn't because I replied by quoting the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

Please explain how my citation of the 5th misrepresented the OP subject question.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Because it completely ignored that the OP wants to offer compensation.

Which is exactly the stipulation that is included within that amendment. So clearly, you misrepresented or misread the OP.

[jody]

22. The OP subject asked a question and I answered it. Why are you trying to change the OP subject? n/t

[ddeclue]

27. Because you mischaracterized and over simplified and truncated the OP to satisfy the needs of your

answer to it.

There was more to it than that and you know it.

Deal with the WHOLE OP, don't cherry pick.

[jody]

36. Perhaps you should suggest the OP author restate the subject. Oh, that's you. ROFL n/t

[Fire1]

24. Well, they're using 'our' tax dollars to to pay off hedge funds,

credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities, etc., etc. I'd rather give my tax dollars to keep a family in their home.

[RC]

23. Part of the reason that will not work is because quite often the loan holder

cannot show they have the title on the house. The paper trail is so convoluted and/or even lost that no one can legally show who really owns it. The up side here is they cannot prove you don't because you are living in it.

[Fire1]

25. That applies mostly to people who got a mortgage from

some place like 'countrywide.'

[RC]

28. Not really so. It can happen to anyone that had their mortgage sold for whatever reason.

[Fire1]

30. Conventional mortgages usually are not sold. Mortgages that

are sold are primarily subprime and issued by subprime lenders such as countrywide. These are the homeowners who are most affected by 'lost' titles as a result of the repeated sales and resales of the mortgages.

[Synicus Maximus]

41. My mortgage is not subprime and over the last 20 years has been

sold at least three times.

[cottonseed]

17. If the banks are nationalized. Is it still private property?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. That's actually a good legal question. (nt)

[jody]

21. If banks are nationalized, then they would be public property although they could be quasi-public

like the Fed and other institutions.

[sufrommich]

5. Let's tell all businesses to go fuck themselves.

What could go wrong?

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Let's establish a situation in which nobody is comfortable loaning money ever again

That'll solve the problem right up! Sure, nobody would lend at under 23% given the risk of sudden contract void by the government, but at least we'd feel like we were DOING SOMETHING RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!!!

:sarcasm:

Teh stupid. It hurts...

;-)

[moundsview]

9. And their farms too and give them to more deserving

people to....oh, that was tried somewhere?

[Uben]

10. Banks have to pay back the loans.....

Giving people homes would be like throwing money away! I'm not going to pay my taxes for someone to get a free home. I worked and paid thirty years to own my home, and I expect everyone to do exactly the same! If you want a house, get your credit in good order, save the money for a down payment and buy one! That is how it's done. There is no alternative.

[olkaz]

12. /sigh

A. That isn't how eminent domain works.

B. This is a stupid idea.

[On the Road]

13. Well, the First Thing That Would Happen

if this were done on any scale is that the banks would all fail. Then economic activity would pretty much stop. That would pretty much put the country on the road to third world status.

[onenote]

15. why don't you pay off your next door neighbor's mortgage?

Sort of the same thing as what you are proposing, isn't it?

[fuggbush21]

29. Not even going into the Constitionality of it...

if you hold a mortgage, that house does not really belong to you. Like it or not, your "renting" it from the bank until you pay off the loan.

I'm a victim of foreclosure, a house that I had half stake in (with my father) ended up foreclosing when the renters stiffed us several months of rent, and made the house unlivable. But this idea is BS. We lived in that house for 8 years, then when I joined the military and my parents got a divorce, everyone went their seperate ways, so this was a house that we lived in as well. Lots of fond memories there, and I eventually planned on fully owning it so I could retire there. I would not want the government to forcibly return this house to me though. We were unable to pay the loan off. Granted while we got stiffed by others, it was still our responsibility to make sure that payment was made. We failed in that responsibility, and the foreclosure was the penalty.

This crap I've been reading here about purposefully not paying off debt is just exactly that, a load of crap. You willingly, and knowingly took other peoples money. Whether it was through credit cards, loans, whatever. You took their money, and spent it. You have an obligation to pay them back, not just legally, but it damn well should be morally to. It's sad seeing so many people here who feel that it's ok to open a contract with someone, where you legally agree to something, and then without blinking go back on the agreement you made simply because times are a little tough. Thats some pretty bad moral depravity there.

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. well since you brought "morals" into this

Might want to see what God says about usury. He certainly mentioned it a lot more than He did anything about abortion or homosexuality.

http://www.tentmaker.org/lists/UsuryScriptureList.html

So, based on "God's word" I don't see anything morally wrong with not paying ridiculous interest on fictional money.

[fuggbush21]

37. Fictional money?

Do you even have any clue about how the banking system works?

[Top Cat]

32. Kick

[crimsonblue]

33. this takes the cake for craziest OP of the day. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. Because it would be totally unconstitutional. That's as good a reason as any, IMO.

[AZ Criminal JD]

35. I hope they start with your house

And give it to someone who has less money than you.

[prolesunited]

40. What the hell is wrong with you?