Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Touts Low - Income Homes Plan
AP ^ | 15 June 2002 | AP

Posted on 06/16/2002 6:31:16 AM PDT by SBeck

Bush Touts Low - Income Homes Plan
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- President Bush pitched a plan to make it easier for black people and Hispanics to become homeowners through government incentives and grants to help on down payments.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, the president said he wants to remove obstacles ``that prevent minorities from owning a piece of the American dream.''

Bush noted that while three-quarters of white Americans own their own homes, fewer than half of all black and Hispanic Americans are homeowners.

``We must begin to close this homeownership gap by dismantling the barriers that prevent minorities from owning a piece of the American dream,'' said Bush, spending Father's Day weekend at his own home on his Texas ranch.

Bush has proposed giving developers almost $2.4 billion in tax credits over five years for building affordable single-family homes in low-income areas. The White House estimates the tax incentive could translate into construction of 200,000 lower-cost homes in the period.

Addressing his radio audience, Bush proposed a $200-million expansion to the American Dream Down Payment Fund, first outlined in January and awaiting action by Congress. It would provide grants to help about 40,000 families a year pay down payments or closing costs on houses. Most grants would be less than $5,000. The money would be distributed by state and local housing programs.

The radio address was a preview of a speech Bush is to make Monday in Atlanta to promote his broad housing agenda, which he summarized as ``empowering people to help themselves and to help one another.''

Bush plans a stop at south Atlanta's Pryor Road area, where housing development is replacing dilapidated and crime-ridden strip malls.

The program currently has a budget of $50 million and is to begin offering grants in July.

``The single greatest hurdle to first-time homeownership is a high down payment requirement that can put a home out of reach,'' Bush said Saturday. ``When a low-income family is qualified to buy a home but comes up short on the down payment, the American Dream Down Payment Fund will help provide the funds.''

Bush also urged better consumer education to help would-be buyers avoid pitfalls that often arise to obtaining affordable mortgages.

``Education is the best protection for families against abusive and unscrupulous lenders,'' Bush said.

``Financial education and housing counseling can help protect home buyers against abuses, greatly improve the loan terms they are offered and help families get through tough times with their homes intact.''


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: homeownership; lowincome; taxpayerfunded
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last
To: SBeck
Zoning and environmental laws have already strangled the housing market and caused a shortage. This has caused an increase in the cost of homes because the supply cannot meet the demand. Giving free government money to people so they can bid against others will further drive up the cost of homes making it even more difficult for people to afford one.
61 posted on 06/16/2002 9:03:13 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abclily
There's nothing like the pride of ownership to turn a welfare-minded citizen into a self-reliant citizen.

Government subsidies create a disincentive to be responsible.

62 posted on 06/16/2002 9:11:17 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
The government has created the problem by keeping minimum wages at a less-than-subsistence point.

To which problem are you referring? The housing shortage or the high cost of housing?

What defies the basic laws of economics is not paying a person enough to live.

I think you meant to say "defines", correct? Your assertion is false. What you consider "enough to live" is based on totally subjective criteria. The cost of living is determined by supply and demand. If the supply is low and the demand high, then the costs will be high. If the demand is low and the supply is high, then the costs will be low. Inflation factors into this equation as well. Everytime government prints more money the purchasing power of the dollar declines because there is more money competing for the same number of products.

Why should the gov't(the taxpayers) pick up the difference between crap wages and what it costs for food, housing, and medical care?

Why don't we let thieves rob convenience stores to make up the difference between their crap wages and what it costs them to live?

Make employers pay a floor wage that is livable...

What you consider livable may not be what others consider livable. Somebody may decide that you really don't need cable TV, or that you only need one car. Who would you prefer make these decisions, you or your neighbors?

63 posted on 06/16/2002 9:21:45 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SBeck
Vote whoring, not simply buying. I continue to be amazed at how Bush and the geniuses in the White House campaign strategy room came up with yet another way to piss of and enrage loyal conservative supporters who have done their damnedest to rid this country of the iniquitous, filthy, and divisive liberal racist quota driven entitlement programs, just to have this left-wing Democrat garbage dumped right back into our laps, giving credibility and steam to the racist, race-based politics that has ruined this country while enriching the peddlers of social division and race politics. What's next, a special monetary dispensation for women for suffering under thousands of years of male "domination and opression" or gays for homosexuality not as equally embraced as heterosexuality? Oops, I better not give the Bush Administration any new ideas or they'll implement them for the sake of yet another vote. Too bad these "geniuses" can't figure out that everytime they betray a conservative or a conservative principle, they lose conservative votes in the bargain. I guess Bush figures conservatives are either expendable or unimportant. I think come 2004, he'll be in for a helluva surprise.
64 posted on 06/16/2002 9:26:26 PM PDT by rebelsoldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
"To which problem are you referring?"

Letting wage differentials get out of control. Minwage should have been going up all along and taking the lower wages with it. Gov't didn't attend to business and had to step in with subsidies for the allegedly capitalist employers. parsy.

65 posted on 06/16/2002 10:22:37 PM PDT by parsifal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
Letting wage differentials get out of control. Minwage should have been going up all along and taking the lower wages with it. Gov't didn't attend to business and had to step in with subsidies for the allegedly capitalist employers.

Setting a minimum wage is not a legitimate government function. Government can no more determine appropriate wages than appropriate selling prices. Only an employer and employee can legitimately determine appropriate compensation for services rendered and only a buyer and seller can determine appropriate prices.

What does a government enforced minimum wage do? 1) It decreases the number of available jobs. 2) It places an artificial value on labor which should instead be determined by supply and demand. 3) It increases the cost of doing business and increases prices.

If you are legitimately concerned about employees earning to little I have a suggestion. When you buy groceries offer to pay 25% more for the groceries than they sell for. Tell the store to distribute the surplus among the lowest paid employees.

66 posted on 06/17/2002 2:20:51 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
"Setting a minimum wage is not a legitimate government function."

The Great Weight of History is against you. It all started in Babylonia. Gov't has always had to regulate business. In "Libertarian World", gov'ts aren't supposed to do this, but that is "theory". The real world works differently. Put down Ayn Rand for a while dude, and read something like "Common Things", or "Nickle and Dimed in America", or "Chasing the Red, White, and Blue." parsy.

67 posted on 06/17/2002 4:19:07 PM PDT by parsifal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
My father got a government grant to buy his first piece of heavy equipment. From this initial government help, he built a prospering business that today supports the third generation. I'm glad everyone else on this site has never needed financial help, but some of you could be a bit more compasssionate.
68 posted on 06/17/2002 4:57:36 PM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SBeck
President Bush is trying to get people in his corner who are born Rats. Its going to be interesting to see if his strategery pays off. I wouldn't bet the house on it though.
69 posted on 06/17/2002 4:59:32 PM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
The Great Weight of History is against you. It all started in Babylonia.

That isn't an argument. When something starts is irrelevant. What's relevant is if it works and wether or not it is compatible with rights.

If you can demand that an employer pay his workers a wage over and above what he and his workers have agreeded upon then it logically follows that somebody can demand that you pay a price for groceries over and above what you and the supermarket have agreed upon.

Gov't has always had to regulate business.

Government hasn't had to do anything. Government does what those in power want it to do. If those in power want to plunder then that's what government does. If those in power want to advance an agenda at the expense of taxpayers then that's what government does. If those in power believe in free-entrprise and competition then government stays out of the way.

In "Libertarian World", gov'ts aren't supposed to do this, but that is "theory".

In a Libertarian society government would be confined to two duties: 1) protecting people and their property, 2) maintaining justice.

The real world works differently. Put down Ayn Rand for a while dude, and read something like "Common Things", or "Nickle and Dimed in America", or "Chasing the Red, White, and Blue."

None of that is an argument.

70 posted on 06/17/2002 5:03:12 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SBeck
Compassionate conservatism or vote buying (with our tax payer dollars)? You decide.

I say it's both.

71 posted on 06/17/2002 5:05:13 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abclily
My father got a government grant to buy his first piece of heavy equipment...I'm glad everyone else on this site has never needed financial help, but some of you could be a bit more compasssionate.

Where did the money come from to supply your father with the government grant?

72 posted on 06/17/2002 5:10:43 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
"In a Libertarian society government would be confined to two duties: 1) protecting people and their property, 2) maintaining justice."

I maintain that paying a livable wage is justice. It is what one deserves. Some employers are not nice people and will try to screw their workers by paying based on the NEED of the employee, not the MERIT of the employee. Minwage is simply a floor, which sets a minimum, beyond which the employer may not screw his employee. (And please don't pull that 'But they can always leave' canard. Practically, they can't always leave any more than you could be requested to leave for an uncharted desert isle where you can make your own rules.)

" None of that is an argument."

True. It is advice from an ex-Randite cultist who got deprogrammed and can now see the light. Balance out your reading and you will gain insight as I did. parsy the altruistic enlightener.

73 posted on 06/17/2002 5:11:36 PM PDT by parsifal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
"There's nothing like the pride of ownership to turn a welfare-minded citizen into a self-reliant citizen."

Government subsidies create a disincentive to be responsible.

In this case I would have to disagree.

Unlike welfare or foodstamps, this program will not work for irresponsible individuals, and in fact is simply an incentive to encourage people to take on the responsibility of home ownership.

Whether it works or not is another story.
I would be interested in seeing stats a year from now on how many people squander the help they received.

74 posted on 06/17/2002 5:13:04 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
Got those g-dd-mn chickens out again, I see. ;)

parsy the altruistic enlightener.

Parsy, who has discovered, like so many others, that it's real easy to be altruistic with other people's money...

75 posted on 06/17/2002 5:17:21 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: general_re
No, but I mentioned them the other night. I forgot what I titled that thread and it is now lost to prosperity. (Was that a freudian slip?)parsy the de-constructionist.
76 posted on 06/17/2002 5:23:04 PM PDT by parsifal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
It is advice from an ex-Randite cultist who got deprogrammed and can now see the light.

Incidentally, I've never read a single piece of Rand's work. That was not intentional. It just happened.

Balance out your reading and you will gain insight...

Insight into what? I read several dozen reader reviews of Nickle and Dimed in America on Amazon. I can't say I was impressed. Her book sounds like a "blame free-enterprise for the plight of the poor" propaganda piece. Is my assessment correct? Does the author discuss any factors which contribute to poverty? One reader pointed out that the author draws comparisons between our system and those of countries in Europe which she considers progressive. Does she mean countries like France which has double-digit unemployment? Maybe she means Britian which has something like a 65% rate of taxation and rations health care.

77 posted on 06/17/2002 5:29:32 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
'Does the author discuss any factors which contribute to poverty? "---

Yes. Cheapskate wages paid by greedy employers. I have to go now and return a phone call, but I will try to pull you up some stuff from another book and post it to you. parsy.

78 posted on 06/17/2002 5:34:19 PM PDT by parsifal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
...this program will not work for irresponsible individuals, and in fact is simply an incentive to encourage people to take on the responsibility of home ownership.

There's already an incentive to take on the responsibility of home ownership. It's called learning marketable skills and making responsible choices in life so one can afford to own a home.

This program is going to create problems you can't even imagine. There will be special interest groups hiring lobbyists to make sure they're on the lists of those qualifying for grants. There will be lawsuits for discrimination and the like. The cost of homes will rise because of the increase in demand.

While the intent of the program may seem noble it is simply a government wealth redistribution scheme to buy votes. The grants are financed by taxes taken from other working Americans who, themsleves, may be trying to buy a home.

79 posted on 06/17/2002 5:38:35 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
Cheapskate wages paid by greedy employers.

That isn't a cause of poverty.

I made responsible choices in my life. I didn't sqaunder my money. I didn't father any children. I didn't waste away my youth getting drunk and partying. I didn't accumulate debt. I taught myself marketable computer skills by reading books and practicing on my computer. Today I command a nice salary and live comfortably. I didn't get there right away. I had to make sacrifices and work to get there. Anyone can do what I did.

No employer is going to offer to pay me minimum wage or anything near it. Why? Because I'll go work for a competitor who offers me more money.

How does minimum wage destroy jobs? Two ways:


80 posted on 06/17/2002 5:55:54 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson