So Romney's economic policy is to let banks foreclose on houses, then private investors will buy them, fix them up, and rent them back out to the original tenants? There are 2 ways this goes, and I know people who do both:
1. They make the properties legitimately nice, then the foreclosed-upon owners can't afford the rent/selling prices and are displaced. Gentrification occurs. Similar to Imminent Domain, but with less government involvement.
2. They fix up the properties only to the extent that the law requires (add railings to stairs, etc.) and charge cheap rent, but usually still more than the foreclosed-upon owners' mortgage payment had been. Which then increases every year because HAHA it's rent! So people are more strained to live in their same crappy properties.
Also this puts more control in the hands of people who can already AFFORD to have control, further widening the income gap. And that is the whole point of owning a house - having control of your residence, your finances. Not having money does not mean you don't deserve your own home. Or at the very least, doesn't mean you deserve to be thrown out of your home over and over again because someone considers you to be just a byproduct of a crappy job market. I don't know where the line is between bailing out every single person and letting the economic cycle run its course, but this idea truly terrifies me. Slumlords and hugely wealthy developers are not the backbone of a stable housing market. People without money are still people. I'm pretty sure the Mormon rules include "shelter the homeless" too.
I know most people who read my blog already agree with this, so it's really just preaching to the choir. But MAN. That guy...ugh.