Open Congress : Comments on S. 896: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 2010-05-18T10:58:30Z,2007:/bill/comments/56984 New comment by rebeccanesler 2010-05-18T10:58:30Z,2010-05-18:/comment/196850 rebeccanesler I was mainly stating for the Tenant Protection section. Other than that I still disagree saying "don't have responsibility." As at the time they were able to afford what they got. I am glad laws are introduced to help people. Afterall people who buy homes are trying to do things "the right way." However when your down, your really down. New comment by rebeccanesler 2010-05-18T10:20:39Z,2010-05-18:/comment/196846 rebeccanesler WOW! Maybe you didn't read the TENANT part. Meaning the tenant did not purchase the home. They are simply renting. That's why it's go the arms-length provision! This is a big deal...especially for tenants who are victims of the landlord who didn't pay even though the renter was and now victim of the investor/bank just so they can make a buck, trying to kick the tenant out before the lease is up. New comment by jtimberman 2009-05-20T06:20:31Z,2009-05-20:/comment/107526 jtimberman When people buy things they can't afford on stupid loans they shouldn't have signed up for, why do those of us who are fiscally responsible have to fund it through taxes? Why do we need more legislation to allow people to continue in their stupidity and failure? This is not going to solve any problems, because the root of the issue is that people don't have personal responsibility in their lives. "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help" should be words that strike fear in the hearts of the people. The Government is NOT here to help, they're hear to make as many people as happy as possible so their campaigns get voted on and they can stay in office longer. New comment by Erwi31 2009-06-16T10:09:24Z,2009-06-16:/comment/109857 Erwi31 Why did the name change on this bill? I guess it was not meant for us homeowners to be bailed out. New comment by Erwi31 2009-05-01T10:24:32Z,2009-05-01:/comment/105071 Erwi31 Why can we not take advantage of this bankruptcy option when those who own more than one home can? New comment by CobwebsMom 2009-05-02T10:39:33Z,2009-05-02:/comment/105218 CobwebsMom The tragedy of failure of this bill is that it shows that we still haven't got "change" we can count on. The bankers have won, again. And thousands of victims of the banks unethical practices will lose their homes and life savings. New comment by ahummert 2009-05-04T04:57:14Z,2009-05-04:/comment/105335 ahummert I agree completely. What the banks dont realize, is that every time they defeate a bill as such as this one, they actually lose. Foreclosures will continue and banks will continue to fail. New comment by diane_HEARUS 2009-05-04T08:44:45Z,2009-05-04:/comment/105380 diane_HEARUS So why does the Senate feel compelled to add the ill-designed HEARTH Act as an amendment to this bill? The HEARTH Act problems: *The definition of homelessness in the HEARTH Act is arbitrary, complex, and will exclude many homeless children, youth, and families from services and from community efforts to address homelessness. *The explicit prohibition on requiring communities to count any homeless people other than those who meet HUD’s current definition will result in continued invisibility and inattention to vulnerable populations. Especially at a time of economic crisis and spiraling homelessness, HUD’s definition must be inclusive of the true extent of homelessness among children, youth, and families if communities are to accurately and appropriately respond. New comment by Erwi31 2009-06-18T08:10:20Z,2009-06-18:/comment/110057 Erwi31 Didn't the name of this bill used to be?: "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009" A bill to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability.