Most Americans say feds should act on foreclosures

(MoneyWatch) 

A majority of Americans say the federal government should act to prevent home foreclosures, but a sharp partisan divide exists between Democrats and Republicans on the issue, according to a new Gallup poll.

Overall, 58 percent of Americans say the government should help prevent foreclosures, while 34 percent say they think the housing market should resolve its problems on its own.

However, political affiliation and personal income come into play when breaking down the results, Gallup found.

"A sharp partisan divide exists, with 76 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents favoring government action and 64 percent of Republicans opposing it," writes Dennis Jacobe, Gallup's chief economist.

Is Bank of America muzzling borrowers?
Consumer group to feds: Break up Bank of America
Jobs top list of Americans' economic fears

Furthermore, survey respondents who make at least $90,000 a year are less likely to favor government intervention in the foreclosure process. Americans who have graduated from college are also less likely to want the government to take action in the foreclosure crisis.

"Still, half or more of both groups are in favor of government intervention," Jacobe says. See the results, courtesy of Gallup, below:

(Credit: Gallup)

President Obama said in his State of the Union address that he is sending Congress a plan that "gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage," Jacobe notes.

"Regardless, with the majority of Republicans opposing any government action and preferring that the housing market fix itself, it seems unlikely that new housing market legislation is going to pass the Republican-controlled House this year," says Jacobe.

[hypnotoad72]

Look in this page:

http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm

And see which side Ron Paul is on.

(Hint, it's pretty much clear.)

[hypnotoad72]

Answer to my question:

"Don't bail out banks; bail out homeowners. (Oct 2011) "

How very socialist of him. ;)

Actually, it'd be very trickle-up economics of him. The banks would still get paid, but the people wouldn't end up homeless or rotting either. And he knows the score a lot better than a number of people around here... but that's not to say I'm voting for him...

[sirmarion-2009]

Who ever does not meet their mortgage payments,does not need a house of their own. It is called living beyond ones means,which limits your ability to buy things you want,no necessarily things you need.

[hypnotoad72]

Hi.

1. One can live within their means and then lose their job. When's the last time you saved up 30 years' worth of monthly payments to make up for in the event of a job loss?

2. Ditto, for a pay cut.

3. Ditto, for an unexpected health issue.

Spare us your one-dimensional drivel. "The new normal" economy has introduced a LOT of factors that go beyond your quaint beliefs. Beliefs I too would be more inclined to agree with... if this were 1970, where one person could have a job that paid enough so that the spouse could stay home and raise the children.

Never mind scores of other issues, which I know you're not ignorant of because I've responded to you on various issues in the past.

TIMES HAVE CHANGED.

STOP LIVING IN THE PAST.

AND GET REAL.

Thank you.

[credibility2]

While many homeowners are confronted with foreclosure because of the housing market collapse and their own financial challenges, many find themselves in the predicament because of their own greed and folly. While investors and lenders also contributed to the problem, so did our government and primarily out of control mortgage approvals to people who lied, misrepresented their financial histories, saw a government gimme just because they were breathing and believed that they were entitled to owning a home, etc. I found it laughable during the SOTU when our president referenced how many homeowners in trouble just didn't understand the paperwork, or words to that effect. Ignorance isn't any excuse, since there are plenty of vehicles to inform and educate the consumer. Of course, if a person is a liar and a fraud trying to get something due to illegitimate reasons, they'll either believe what any unscrupulous lender might tell them, or they won't get at least a second alternate opinion, or they're too lazy to find qualified attorneys. The government shouldn't do anything further to help people confronted with foreclosure, or who find their home values under water. The government must stop rewarding people and businesses for having made bad choices and for living beyond ones means. Many jumped on the home bandwagon because they got greedy and thought their home values would continue to rise. Too bad, markets change and that's part of the risk one takes. There's no guarantee that a home's value will appreciate. Given this type of mentality, perhaps anyone who is buying car through a lease should get a readjustment to their loan agreement, since the value of their car isn't what it was at the time of singing. Home ownership is no different.

[hypnotoad72]

Our government too?

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/index.cfm

http://www.americandreamdownpaymentassistance.com/whsp12162003.cfm

No way!

Bush was behind that, not Obama! :eek:

[hypnotoad72]

Our government too?

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/index.cfm

http://www.americandreamdownpaymentassistance.com/whsp12162003.cfm

No way!

Bush was behind that, not Obama! :eek:

(In terms of the downpayment act... not *everything*, which goes well beyond the scope of this article...)

But "too lazy" -- try "unable to afford" as well.

Besides, our government - over the last few years - has been too busy helping rich corporations move offshore, with our tax money. Ask this fella for more:

http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm#Corporations

"Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)"

Santorum too voted "NO" on that issue... I mean, without jobs, how do people earn the money so they can afford the damn payments? You people love to overlook certain, very relevant factors... ditto for this one:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704530204576237081117462892.html
(wages failing to keep up with inflation...)

And the number of articles I could post, but I think enough has been said. There's more to today's economy than one-dimensional drivel that you, sirmarion-2009 above, and others post. It's not 1970 anymore. Times and conditions HAVE changed.

BTW: As businesses pay less in wages, at what point will you too be affected since you work for a business as well?