Assistance programs help homeowners who are at risk of losing their homes due to financial difficulties by providing financial support or restructuring loans. Proponents argue that it prevents people from losing their homes and stabilizes communities. Opponents argue that it encourages irresponsible borrowing and is unfair to those who pay their mortgages.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
County:
City:
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Yes
@9N5CK431yr1Y
It is not the responsibility of the taxpayers to save you. I do not want govenrment involved because they will inevitably try to control it.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
No
@9N6DPHN1yr1Y
Homes owned by whites should be kept by those whites and in their families and should go to their immediate relatives. Sheriffs should be required to exercise their authority to prevent asset foreclosure against white homeowners, or else face charge of dereliction of duty by the state governor. If sheriffs refuse to comply, or refrain from pursuing foreclosure on homes owned and occupied by non-whites, they should face criminal punishment, preferably death.
@9N5CK431yr1Y
If we had less government involvement in housing, including foreclosures, we'd have fewer problems with the housing market, thus fewer foreclosures.
@9NTH43Q1yr1Y
Yes, as long as drug abuse, alcoholism, or other irresponsible behavior weren’t factors in the foreclosure
@bunnies444 1yr1Y
Yes, only if there is proof that the homeowner is doing everything in their power to keep their home.
Depending on situation I believe the government should provide assistance
@ISIDEWITH12mos12MO
When some people receive help with their mortgage and others don't, do you think this creates an unfair situation, or is it just a necessary part of helping the most vulnerable?
@9TSXPTF12mos12MO
Yes because everyone works to be where they are so I feel like if they don't work as hard as other people why should they be getting the help.
@9TZTJ7QPeace and Freedom11mos11MO
i think is unfair because everyone should have the right to help themselves
@9TZTFN811mos11MO
i think its good to help those who need it, making it fair
I think landlords would gobble up limited available funds and take way bigger risks to the detriment of tenants. A right to housing should be enshrined into the Constitution, but this is too limiting and too dangerous a program.
@9SGS2K21yr1Y
Yes, but only if they are facing foreclosure due to things out of their control. If they bought a mansion they can't afford the government should let them fail just like big businesses that overextend themselves.
Yes, as long as alcoholism, drug abuse, or other forms of irresponsibility played no role in the foreclosure
Situational - ex. Paid mortgage for 20 years never late and became ill. Couldn’t pay mortgage because medical treatment was 7,000 a month
@9Q3B6HP1yr1Y
no, but there should be more help available afterwards and no penalties for first time foreclosures/evictions
@B63SK5W 1mo1MO
Yes, only if there is solid proof that the homeowner is doing everything in their power to keep their home
@B2GB9998mos8MO
Dependent on the circumstances. If the homeowners are facing foreclosure because of irresponsible spending, then no.
@9X38KX710mos10MO
It depends on why the homeowner is facing foreclosure. If the homeowner has gone through reasonable unforeseen circumstances leading to an inability to work, then yes. Otherwise, no.
@ISIDEWITH12mos12MO
Should there be a safety net for people who fall behind on their mortgage, or could that create a situation where some people take advantage of the system?
@9TT7S4512mos12MO
No, people should be able to support themselves and not rely on the on the government. People can try to cheat the system.
@9TT7DQW12mos12MO
While it would definitely create a situation where people take advantage of this, it still seems like a very useful and relevant thing to impliment.
@ISIDEWITH12mos12MO
Do you believe it's society's responsibility to help individuals facing financial hardship, or is it up to each person to handle their own debts?
@9TSY3FZ12mos12MO
I think that the government should help a little bit for people and help them get back to their feet and help them get a stable job.
@9TSXN3F12mos12MO
It isn't directly society's responsibility, but some people handle debt differently and need financial aid in order to get out of debt and basically live and make money.
@9S2PG431yr1Y
The steak and local government should be the assistance providers, the federal government should not be involved in this, beyond any other capacity, besides providing funds
@9WJB79N11mos11MO
I think that if they do that we will be spending more money on that and not be focused on the other things happening in the world, so I don’t think it will be the right thing to do.
@ISIDEWITH12mos12MO
How would losing homes in your community impact the neighborhood, and what value do you see in keeping people in their homes?
@9TRMZDK12mos12MO
Many people don’t have jobs that pay them enough to keep them in their homes and being taken out of them will just make everything worse. The cost of housing is currently too high especially for the middle and lower class. People worked to get the homes they’re in now and should be able to keep them and should be able to afford them.
@B6Q9MGJ4 days4D
It all depends on the situation. Did they get sick? Was this something beyond their control? if so then yes, but if it was self- imposed, then no
@B6RKQWH5 days5D
It depends on their financials, if they cannot pay because they gamble, have a drinking problem, drug problem, ect. Then no, they should not have assistance, but if the people that are going through foreclosure have like 2 jobs and still can't get their head above water then yes they should get help.
@B6RDKL65 days5D
I think that if the house owner is facing foreclosure because of something that they cannot control and is not their fault then yes the goverenment should provide assistance, but if the homeowner is facing foreclosure just becuase they were lazy and irresponsible then the government should not provide assistence.
@B6RDDXF5 days5D
I think the should but only if they run a background check on the loans and purchase history so then they would know if they are spending loans irresponsibly or if they're genuinely in a bad situation and need help like a hurricane damage may need help to get the house fixed and a family needs help cause they need to find a hotel and there area is expensive then the government should help.
@B6RD8N65 days5D
It depends because if the homeowner is consistently not able to pay the rent, the government doesn't need to assist, but if it's started happening recently and before you were doing ok, they should assist you. So what I mean is a limited amount they should help you, and it depends on your background
@B6PJVZ81wk1W
Depends on the circumstances, there should be appeal processes, and reviewed on case by case bases, place greater legislation on predatory loans.
@B6NR66T1wk1W
If the homeowner is facing foreclosure due to a string of unfortunate events then yes. However, if the person is being lazy or something like that, then no.
@B6NKGJM2wks2W
It depends on the reasons for the foreclosure, for example during the 2008 crisis it was not the homeowners fault the banks gave too many loans
If the homeowners have good jobs and just aren't paying, then foreclosure is deserved. If a family is working very hard but still does not make enough money to pay, the government should provide assistance.
@B6MFXMK2wks2W
Yes but for certain people, people who aren’t willing to work hard and try to help themselves shouldn’t be helped but a mom with 3 kids and 3 jobs should be helped by the government
@B6L83YM2wks2W
yes, only if the home owner has proved that they're doing everything in their power to keep the house.
@B6L7VYG2wks2W
Only legal assistance if foreclosure problems are unjust (ridiculously high water bill, electric, gas bill) etc.
@B6KHHKR2wks2W
If they're working-class, then yes, definitely. Because if they have the cost of their home go up, it will affect them more than a middle-class or upper-class person. So, to give them financial assistance will help them not lose their home when they are far likelier to than most people. If they're middle-class or upper-class, then probably, because they will lose their homes as well, but it really depends on the situation.
@B6KGB833wks3W
Yes, by helping people stay in their homes, we can curb homelessness. It's easier to prevent a problem than solve a problem.
@B6KDG2C3wks3W
It really depends on their situation. If it's a struggling college student, someone who works hours on end with minimum wage, then yes. It's on you if you use your money irresponsibly
@B6JKZ7NProgressive3wks3W
Yes, to an extent. If they’re taking the person is actually struggling , but still trying their hardest than there should be a program for them. People not even trying to support themselves should have to learn the hard way.
@B6GYW5S4wks4W
No because it was there fault for getting foreclosed they could have did somethig else before it got to this point
@B6FTD67Republican1mo1MO
I think if the circumstances call for help, and not due to someone’s lack of responsibility, then yes. But that would be hard to determine.
@B6F84R7 1mo1MO
Yes, depending on the circumstances. If there is a nation wide recession, and facing foreclosure through no fault of their own.
@B6BYVJZ1mo1MO
Yes, but on a case by case basis. If someone is financially struggling because they broke their leg doing their job they need help, if someone refuses to work or lose too much money on addiction they are not in a state to own a home
@B65SZ4T1mo1MO
Yes, assist by providing housing as a right, not a commodity to be dangled over the heads of the needy
@B64893R1mo1MO
Yes, but only if there is solid proof that the homeowner is doing everything in their power to keep their home
@B63VVMX2mos2MO
Yes. Only if the owner/owners have displayed a long enough track record of payments and have held jobs throughout owning the property.
@B62YMNY2mos2MO
Limitedly and when the situation is not the fault of the owner. There should be a process of fairness.
@B62RQWZRepublican2mos2MO
In limited situations, where it can be demonstrated that the person is not in this situation by irresponsible choices.
@B62NCXR2mos2MO
No, the primary residence to individuals that is earn less 150k a year, retired, or the property value is below a million dollars should have legislation that prevent them from losing their home.
@B62HPJPWomen’s Equality2mos2MO
Yes—if the person is responsible and the foreclosure is due to job loss, illness, or unforeseen situations like natural disasters, then they should receive support. But if the foreclosure is due to irresponsibility, then no.
@B5ZNHBT2mos2MO
Yes, but this should be income based with priority given to the homeless, disabled, veterans, and single moms who are domestic violence or human trafficking victims.
Deleted2mos2MO
YES... only when such assistance is targeted, conditional, transparent, and embedded within a broader framework of housing justice, financial education, and systemic reform. It must serve justice, not favoritism; dignity, not distortion.
It depends on the reason for the foreclosure. If due to medical bills and job loss, death, divorce, etc, Yes. People should always try to pay their rent or mortgage first with any money they have available.
@B5YSL5P2mos2MO
yes but case by case basis. incases like medical debt and unforeseen situations but not for self caused situations
I do not think the government should provide financial aide. However, I think they should allow for restricting of loans.
With intense mandatory financial literacy courses, drug and alcohol screenings, and an appropriate payback plan.
@7YS3KJPIndependent 2mos2MO
No, only if they are facing a situation beyond their control. I would prefer to have laws reformed to fix these issues rather than providing direct assistance
@B5Y5HJDIndependent 2mos2MO
Yes, there should be more programs in place to prevent foreclosure until all other avenues have been exhausted.
@B5X4XX32mos2MO
I feel like there should be assistance somewhere along the way, however, this could become a slippery slope real fast.
@B5WWGRXRepublican2mos2MO
Do it if you're in Financial trouble, and also even if you're in trouble with IRS if you have a lot of debt.
@B5WBNHYIndependent2mos2MO
It depends on the reason for facing foreclosure, if it's because of job loss or illness, yes. If it's because someone purchased a home beyond their means or are drug dealers, then no.
@B5W7NBTRepublican2mos2MO
the homeowner should get an extension on foreclosure, but if it becomes too bad then you can take it away.
@B5SBRY9 3mos3MO
Only if there is a reasonable issue that is causing the foreclosure, such as the homeowner being severely ill and not able to work to make payments.
@B5S6R4N3mos3MO
Yes - After every attempt has been made by the homeowner and is proven to be under financial distress.
@B5RGS3C3mos3MO
Depends on their circumstance. If they were reckless with money, then no. If they fell on hard times, then yes.
@B5NTNFZRepublican3mos3MO
No! Most people who foreclose are those that bought homes way out of their price range. Real Estate agents are partially to blame because they make more money and have no further responsibility after the sale!
@B5M5XGX3mos3MO
Yes but restrictions on reason or history behind the foreclosure. Uncontrolled spending, no. Involuntary work limitation (eg: do they qualify for unemployment?), yes.
@B5LZKRL3mos3MO
Yes, but those who are using it to irresponsibly borrow money will be punished by charges or jail time. I think it will be put in the same place as tax fraud as a criminal offense.
@B5LXP4GRepublican3mos3MO
Needs to be qualification factors and a way to qualify the homeowner facing foreclosure. Otherwise, people will take advantage of the program.
@B5KDV624mos4MO
It's circumstantial as if the homeowners we actively trying to pay their mortgage and working hard compared they should support. If they aren't working hard then no.
@B5HQV67Republican4mos4MO
depends on the circumstances surrounding the homeowner's inability to pay for their home. if its economic reasons such as lowered income and higher interest rates, the government should step in to stabilize this issue. if its a result of drug abuse or alcoholism, it's no one's problem but their own.
@B5DN8N54mos4MO
Yes, but only times of recession or with evidence of economic hardship following natural disasters/emergencies
@B5D8JZN4mos4MO
I think it depends. If it's they're foreclosing because forces outside of their control led to that, then yes I think government assistance could be nice. If they are foreclosing because of their own fault like bad financial decisions or something similar then no, they shouldn't get assistance as thats their own fault.
@B5CTRJB 4mos4MO
I think it depends on whether they are foreclosure because of forces outside of their control or if it's because of their own bad financial decisions or at their own general fault.
@B595YM34mos4MO
Depending on the issue behind, the owner facing foreclosure. If they are really trying and are able to pay with help, then it's possible to help.
@B555F6X4mos4MO
Depending on the homeowner's credit score, the government should help them only when holding a proven track record. Keep in mind I know nothing of credit scores.
@B5555CN4mos4MO
Yes, but only in the case of financial hardship that was not brought about by irresponsible borrowing and/or spending habits.
@B54JBZF4mos4MO
Yes, but only after a thorough investigation of why the individual is losing their house, and determining that reason, in addition to how much the person contributes to society.
@B53HSCD4mos4MO
Yes, but they should make it so that if it happens over a set number of times or they are being irresponsible with it, they are no longer eligible for assistance
@B4YKFQR4mos4MO
Yes, but only either as a last resort or if the government was responsible for the foreclosure in the first place.
@anim_xst 4mos4MO
Yes, but it depends on the reason for the foreclosure. For example, the government has no obligation to provide assistance to somebody who cannot reasonably afford the home
@B4VBZQB4mos4MO
Yes, restructuring loans only if there is a good reason (medical or loss of job) and they are working out a way to improve their situation. But should be temporary until they are back on their feet.
@B4SZQNT 5mos5MO
Yes, and companies should not be allowed to acquire already built homes. A foreclosure should only be finalized when another homeowner is prepared to purchase the property and the current owner agrees to the sale, or a jury decides the original loan agreement was fair, the current selling price is fair, and mandates the owner to sell.
@B4RHF2H5mos5MO
Yes, but only if they lost it due to bankruptcy or extreme financial loss, due to medical bills or involuntary job-loss.
@B4RFL585mos5MO
Only if there is a serious issue for example, a wife lost her husband who contributed heavily to the bills and now cannot afford to pay it, or if someone is struggling with medical bills.
@B4QN3TF5mos5MO
Yes, but only use it on people who have families and are trying there hardest, not on people who are unresponsible and using their money on the wrong things.
@B4NXVKH5mos5MO
Yes, If they are responsible people that are facing foreclosure for reasons that they cannot control.
@B4LMCRB5mos5MO
yes, only if the homeowner is receiving financial help from the government already and can prove they need the assistance.
@9ZTQW4V 5mos5MO
Yes, but with targeted assistance that focuses on homeowners who fell into hardship due to systemic factors (medical debt, job loss, economic downturns) — not reckless or speculative borrowing.
@B4KLCSB5mos5MO
IF the homeowner have good credit then yes but if not then they government should help them get into affordable housing
@B4KC2HZ5mos5MO
Somewhat but only if necessary. If the person is someone that is reoccurring with not paying their bills and have done for it more than 4 years they shouldn't receive the help and they should only get foreclosure help should only be offered once to a person.
@B4HGYGHRepublican5mos5MO
If they are a part of a vital industry like farming or dairy, then yes; otherwise, they probably are not. It would use up too much money.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
