Homeowners' Jubilee Act

Can’t refinance your house? We can change that.

sponsored by aGREATER.US • co-sponsors: (1)Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Commerce (Growth)
secondary topics: Economy

STAR RATING — CLICK TO RATE
77%
BIPARTISAN RATING

Interest rates are at historic lows. If you could refinance your home you'd have thousands of dollars of disposable income to spend on education, feathering your nest, a new car, vacations, or paying down debt. But your home doesn’t appraise high enough to qualify. Doesn't seem fair, since you'd make your mortgage payment on time every month, either way.

The Homeowners' Jubilee Act would forgive the regulations on “value” of performing loans for refinancing them for a period of three years. Homeowners that are behind on their payments would have to become current, stay current for six months, and meet all other mortgage qualifications for refinancing.

All this increased disposable income would kick start the economy, create jobs, and therefore demand for existing homes. Home prices would rise which would strengthen banks' balance sheets.

Critics might say that gaming the down payment and interest rates is what got us into this economic mess in the first place. However, that ship has already sailed. Refinancing a performing mortgage loan has no effect on the bank's risk, in fact, they would get immediate income from the fees that would strengthen their balance sheets.

Please rate the Homeowners' Jubilee Act five stars, and let’s get back to being greater—sooner.

Op-eds

Submit an Op-ed

Name
   
Email
   
Subject:
 
Op-ed:
 

 

Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here