Should the government provide assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure?

Yes, as long as drug abuse, alcoholism, or other irresponsible behavior weren’t factors in the foreclosure

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

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

no, but there should be more help available afterwards and no penalties for first time foreclosures/evictions

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.

Dependent on the circumstances. If the homeowners are facing foreclosure because of irresponsible spending, then no.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Yes, there should be more programs in place to prevent foreclosure until all other avenues have been exhausted.

I feel like there should be assistance somewhere along the way, however, this could become a slippery slope real fast.

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.

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.

the homeowner should get an extension on foreclosure, but if it becomes too bad then you can take it away.

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.

Yes - After every attempt has been made by the homeowner and is proven to be under financial distress.

Depends on their circumstance. If they were reckless with money, then no. If they fell on hard times, then yes.

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!

Yes but restrictions on reason or history behind the foreclosure. Uncontrolled spending, no. Involuntary work limitation (eg: do they qualify for unemployment?), yes.

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.

Needs to be qualification factors and a way to qualify the homeowner facing foreclosure. Otherwise, people will take advantage of the program.

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.

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.

Yes, but only times of recession or with evidence of economic hardship following natural disasters/emergencies

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, but only in the case of financial hardship that was not brought about by irresponsible borrowing and/or spending habits.

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.

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

Yes, but only either as a last resort or if the government was responsible for the foreclosure in the first place.

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

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.

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.

Yes, but only if they lost it due to bankruptcy or extreme financial loss, due to medical bills or involuntary job-loss.

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.

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.

Yes, If they are responsible people that are facing foreclosure for reasons that they cannot control.

yes, only if the homeowner is receiving financial help from the government already and can prove they need the assistance.

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.

IF the homeowner have good credit then yes but if not then they government should help them get into affordable housing

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.

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.

Government should provide assistance when homeowners can show proof that they are trying to make payments by getting another job, looking for a job honestly, putting forth effort on their end.

Only the foreclosure is because said person couldn't keep up and not because said person refused or was quoted "too lazy".

depending on the situation of which the homeowners are in, the government should then asses that situation and then move on from there whether assistance should be given.

Under certain circumstances. A coherent policy that ensures that this is combined with efforts to reduce housing costs, protect people from predatory loans, and prioritize/protect people based on duration of residence in the house and number of people affected by the forclosure.

No, unless they are elderly and/or disabled for the sake of low taxes, capitalism, weak government, and low national debt.

I believe there should be some direct towards optional housing. Lets say they have so many months to figure it out.

Only for those that really need it, not for the rich. We should avoid incentivizing poor financial decisons.

No, for the sake of low taxes, low national debt, checks and balances, weak government, federalism, and capitalism.

Yes the government should provide assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure but don't over do it with the help because it will eventually lead to irresponsible borrowing because people think they can rely on the government forever for help with paying their bills.

Yes, but documentation needs to be provided as to why assistance is needed. There needs to be some kind of hardship that let up to the foreclosure proceedings taking place.

Yes, but impliment strict requirements and a limit to how many times assistance is allowed to be recieved

If the debtor falls 90 days behind on the mortgage, I would support a conversion of the agreement from a mortgage to a “rent with option.” If they bring the agreement current, the mortgage resumes; if they fall 180 days behind, the lien holder can convert the “rent with option” into a straight month to month lease, and remove the occupants in 30 days.

Yes and no. I believe it should depend on the reason the foreclosure was started. If the homeowner hit a tough patch and is actively trying to catch up then I believe yes. If the homeowner is not doing anything to help, then no.

Yes, however, this option should only be available for a certain number of times, and presented to those who are employed, and can pass a drug test.

Yes, but they don’t have a criminal background and have to prove they are allocating the funds properly

No. This will result in higher interest rates, higher taxes, and a higher national debt. On top of that, that seems like a mockery of capitalism, checks and balances, federalism, and weak government.

It would need to have specific criteria, proof, and if valid cases yes, but without specific criteria you’ll have people purposefully buying houses the can’t afford and they’ll know they’ll be bailed out.

Yes, but with oversight to ensure program isn’t abused by those willingly refusing to foot the bill.

Yes, governments, at both federal and state levels, often provide assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure through programs like the Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) and by connecting homeowners with HUD-approved housing counselors to explore options and resources.

Depends on the situation, people who work hard and can no longer afford it, yes. People who chose to not work for a long time and karma is catching up to them now, absolutely not.

The government should mandate that lenders provide alternate options for homeowners other than immediate foreclosure whether that be renegotiated payment plans or some other mitigation option before going to absolute foreclosure.

Yes, depending on financial background history (how much they contributed to government funding, credit, what happened to force them into foreclosure).

Sometimes it depends on if that person needs financial help or is just too lazy to pay the bills and doesn't care

Depends on the situation. In the case of thousands of federal workers being laid off, this can put people into default, and in this case, yes. There is no black or white answer.

Yes but make sure that these homeowners are trying to geta job or work harder. Don't just let them rely on the government if something bad happens.

I think that their is enough help out their already, that if its being foreclosed its on you. assisted living other things like that are their to help but truly it on them other then that.

Yes, provided employment is verified, and all other avenues or resources have been met. Favorable loan restructuring only.

Yes as long as its an unforeseen hardship and not just they quit their job and haven't paid for 3 years, I would prefer a restructuring of loan instead of support first.