A "historic" day today, according to Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership
By Tom Stutzman 3-20-2010
It is too bad, However, that the Democratic leadership does not realize that just because something is "historic", it does not mean that it is good for the
I really don't know anything about the 34 democrats who voted against the bill but at least they had a little bit of character and common sense today. They were unwilling to take the multitude of kickbacks and special deals offered by the president, House, and Senate leadership.
I still have not heard anyone explain how we are to provide the American people all the health care they want on a limited budget. Can someone that voted for this bill, please explain this to myself, and the people of
During President Obama's victory speech tonight he stated that this was a victory for seniors "because it extends the life of Medicare for almost a decade". I thought this bill was to save these programs forever, while adding 30 million new enrollees, providing unlimited care, and reducing the deficit.
Ron Wyden said this bill would be a “good start”. I guess this was not really the fix we had been told for the last year and a half. Underhanded, double talk from career politicians has to stop, and the people of
HUD making rules change to prohibit all owner financing of Real Estate except in the case of owner occupied properties As if the government doesn't have enough to do already, HUD (Housing and Urban Development) has decided to take up the issue of "owner financing" of properties. They have now proposed that people should NOT be able to sell their OWN properties with owner financing. If a person chooses to provide owner financing, they need to be licensed as mortgage brokers according to new rules proposed. This rule will apply to all sales where the property being sold is not a primary residence. Three common areas where this might affect Oregonians are: The comment period for these rule changes has ended, so further comment is not possible. If you wish to see the comments made about this rule change, and hundreds of thousands of other rule changes being presented by all aspects of government you can go to regulations.gov and search for any topic you choose.
By Tom Stutzman, 3-17-2010
1. If a family inherits a property as part of an estate. It is relatively common for people to sell properties like this on an owner contract, so they get payments over a long period of time. Basically supplementing their monthly income.
2. Several investors I know sell homes they purchase, to buyers on an owner carried contract. They purchase properties and then sell them with small down payments to individuals, some of which have bad credit, and could not qualify with a traditional mortgage. It is part of their overall business strategy, to help people and to provide sustained income for their business.
3. As some owners of property age they downsize and I have seen several people who have sold their larger homes on an owner carried contract, which not only pays the mortgage of their new house but also provides long term retirement income to them.
How can it be the governments role to decide how a private citizen chooses to dispose of their property? The government should have nothing to do with contracts between two private citizens as long as they were entered into freely. We need to get back to a federal government that is both small and concerned with only those things that we as individuals can not do on our own.