Why isn't the government bailing homeowners out? (section 8, foreclosures)

[khall71350]

Due to my current job lost I had no choice but to rent my house out to a lady on section 8 with 4 boys and her secret boyfriend.

I had to move to my mom's who lives in another state with my teenage daughter just to avoid being homeless. I've tried very hard looking for employment for 6 months before it decided to rent my home out.

This lady is currently unemployed with 4 kids living with her boyfriend rent free, an the government continues to help her with a utility allowance.

Here I am struggling to keep my head above water, while she sit on her a** in my 4 bedroom 2 1/2 bath beautiful home doing nothing.

I recently, put 10,000 dollars worth of work into my nice home.

When will the government help hard working homeowners keep their homes? The bank are full of crap, they only give a bunch of excesses.

Frustrated to death,

[Java378]

I feel the same, except I am not in such a dire circumstance.

Wow, section 8, the last resort.

And you had to give up a 4 bedroom, 2 and a half bath to the program? jeez.

[noah]

Sorry about your situation, I hope it gets better. As a landlord you should not allow them to live in the house if they are not paying. Start the eviction process the first month they don't pay (If they can they will most likely pay when they get the letter from you) and follow state law. Have you done this yet? What communication have you had with them? How long have they been in your house?

In the future it is very important that you screen right or if you don't want to/or can't take the time to learn about landlording hire a property manager.

[Shagbark Hickory]

Have you looked into the home owner affordability and stability plan?
Check to see if you are eligible for either refinance or loan modification.
If you are renting out the house that might disqualify you. Not sure.

Making Home Affordable - Home

[yeyo1971]

Jesus lady, not everybody on section 8 sits around doing nothing. if the program were available for you would you not jump on it. if not for section 8 paying you what you asked would you even still have your home.... just food for thought.

[BeyondInfinity]

Originally Posted by yeyo1971

Jesus lady, not everybody on section 8 sits around doing nothing. if the program were available for you would you not jump on it. if not for section 8 paying you what you asked would you even still have your home.... just food for thought.

I was thinking the same thing. A rep point for you!

[Mill Creek Mom]

Originally Posted by yeyo1971

Jesus lady, not everybody on section 8 sits around doing nothing. if the program were available for you would you not jump on it. if not for section 8 paying you what you asked would you even still have your home.... just food for thought.

She has a "house" on paper only, not a home, because, um, she's no longer living there...what part of that did you miss?

[Huckleberry3911948]

they want the banks to own property not you. boats w/o an anchor are easier to move around.

[atlantagreg30127]

What it boils down to is the government both past and probably current, deep down feels it's a good "lesson" to learn for people to not be bailed out of everything. Right or wrong, that's pretty much the attitude.

The last time they public any kind of citizen savings type of story, I think they found that 90% of Americans had either "zero" in a saving's account, or saved so little it wasn't even truly measurable. The supposed standard is that you should have an abosulte minimum of 6 months of your total salary in savings (or to be safe, up to a full year), in order to weather unexpected hardships. So if you bring home $2,500 a month, you should have between $15,000 to $30,000 of untouched funds at your disposal in savings. Most of us (Americans) cannot claim to have this saying it's impossible to do, but there are others in foreign countries who do this and more, and by an earlier age, too.

Likewise, most Americans who buy homes, buy right up to the very limit of what they think they can afford with their current jobs (or what the realtors told them they could afford with "creating financing"), leaving every spare dime to go toward the mortgage and utilities as opposed to savings. Then there's a layoff in the household and poof - you now have hundreds of thousands of people losing their homes.

This might sound cruel, but if the people are so unwilling to accept publicly funded health care, then why should they be expected to bail out hundreds of thousands of people who live beyond their means and don't plan ahead to have savings accounts in the even of an emergency? It won't happen. There will be certain programs in place to HELP people in certain conditional circumstances to save their homes if they're not too far gone - but a flat out "bail"? No.

Not saying any of this applies to the OP, as the entire situation that led up to her particular situation could be any number of things, and sometimes bad things just happen to people and there's no way to get out of them no matter how much you plan ahead. I'm just saying the sheer number of foreclosures and home losses due to owner neligence going on right now make it impossible for the government to bail them all out.

[MisterNY]

Originally Posted by atlantagreg30127

What it boils down to is the government both past and probably current, deep down feels it's a good "lesson" to learn for people to not be bailed out of everything. Right or wrong, that's pretty much the attitude.

The last time they public any kind of citizen savings type of story, I think they found that 90% of Americans had either "zero" in a saving's account, or saved so little it wasn't even truly measurable. The supposed standard is that you should have an abosulte minimum of 6 months of your total salary in savings (or to be safe, up to a full year), in order to weather unexpected hardships. So if you bring home $2,500 a month, you should have between $15,000 to $30,000 of untouched funds at your disposal in savings. Most of us (Americans) cannot claim to have this saying it's impossible to do, but there are others in foreign countries who do this and more, and by an earlier age, too.

Likewise, most Americans who buy homes, buy right up to the very limit of what they think they can afford with their current jobs (or what the realtors told them they could afford with "creating financing"), leaving every spare dime to go toward the mortgage and utilities as opposed to savings. Then there's a layoff in the household and poof - you now have hundreds of thousands of people losing their homes.

This might sound cruel, but if the people are so unwilling to accept publicly funded health care, then why should they be expected to bail out hundreds of thousands of people who live beyond their means and don't plan ahead to have savings accounts in the even of an emergency? It won't happen. There will be certain programs in place to HELP people in certain conditional circumstances to save their homes if they're not too far gone - but a flat out "bail"? No.

Not saying any of this applies to the OP, as the entire situation that led up to her particular situation could be any number of things, and sometimes bad things just happen to people and there's no way to get out of them no matter how much you plan ahead. I'm just saying the sheer number of foreclosures and home losses due to owner neligence going on right now make it impossible for the government to bail them all out.

You are so on target, there isn't much more to add to what you are saying. So true, and that's what it really boils down to.

It seems to me that people are ok with the system being somewhat socialist (if you want to use that term) to benefit them, but for everyone and everything else that does not pertain to them, it's sink or swim. (Selfish society in deed).

I still feel sorry for the OP though.