Bush Touts Low - Income Homes Plan

AP ^ | 15 June 2002 | AP

[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.

I agree, but sometimes people who make those decisions still need help.
I made the decision to go back to college but could only afford it with a Gov't grant. I took advantage of it, worked hard and graduated first in my class with a 4.0 GPA...AND have been a more productive member of society ever since.

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.

We already have numerous Govt programs and grants that could just as easily cause all the problems you describe.
This program will be nothing new in that respect.

The cost of homes will rise because of the increase in demand.

That's funny, I could have sworn I heard some expert say just the opposite on Cavuto today.
In any case the cost of homes have been rising faster than incomes for several years anyway.

[abclily]

The money came from working taxpayers like myself and my nine siblings. I know where tax money comes from, since I pay enough of it myself. However, I'd rather see some of it spent on my fellow-citizens to improve their lives, instead of giving it to foreign governments to try to buy their allegiance.

[Twodees]

[One moment he is conservative,]

When? I missed it. ;-)

[Nonstatist]

Unlike welfare or foodstamps, this program will not work for irresponsible individuals, and in fact is simply an incentive

It wont work for irresponsible individuals? No kidding! And what if the majority of these homes end up in default anyway? Talk about money down a hole!

Oh, and this really is just a prop to the real estate industry, which is the last pillar of this economy not in retreat. If the housing industry goes south, he's screwed for '02, and '04 too, probably. Stupid, expedient politics. Bush, again.

[Twodees]

Now here you've done drug them damn chickens out here again. What did you want to do that for? I could have went ten more years without hearing about them starving chickens. I wisht you would leave the chickens out of this, parsy.

[Twodees]

You know, I think Bush doesn't care about reelection. His daddy didn't. Those Bushes seem to want to do all the damage they can in one term, then when they lose their bid to reup, they just start grooming another family member.

After two terms of Clinton, any conservative running for president should have won in a landslide. Bush's squeaker of a win shows that he never had any conservative base to start with. He isn't going to give a $#!+ whether he offends the few conservatives who voted for him. His base was a bunch of big tent liberals who would fit right in at any democrat party gathering. Just look around FR at the ones who defend him.

[Twodees]

Thanks. At least you don't "feel my pain". ;-)

[Alan Chapman]

...but sometimes people who make those decisions still need help.

Then open your checkbook and help them. You should be free to give as much of your own money to whomever you wish. But, politicians ought not be deciding which worthy causes to spend our money on. Our money is not theirs to spend as they see fit.

I made the decision to go back to college but could only afford it with a Gov't grant.

Many people cannot afford many things that they want. That doesn't mean they can rob their neighbors to pay for it. If it is theft for an individual to rob his neighbors to pay for something he wants then it is still theft for government to rob his neighbors on his behalf.

We already have numerous Govt programs and grants that could just as easily cause all the problems you describe. This program will be nothing new in that respect.

All of those government programs and grants should be ended.

In any case the cost of homes have been rising faster than incomes for several years anyway.

A housing shortage is the reason. High demand coupled with a low supply results in higher cost. The solution to the housing shortage is to repeal zoning and environmental laws which prevent developers from building. To reduce the costs further we should repeal the ridiculous amount of preliminary paperwork, studies, licenses, and bureaucratic red-tape which add to the cost of building homes. In Orange and LA county (southern California) government bureaucracy adds $30-50,000 to the cost of building a home.

[rebelsoldier]

Bush obviously thinks conservatives can be safely jettisoned in place of a larger group of liberals and "moderates" he can pick up by going ever left and growing government to gain their support. What he fails to realize is that liberals aren't going to jettison their own base or leftist ideology and values to rush to his candidacy in 2004. In short, they will play up to him, all the while planning to stab him in the back come November. It's political rope-a-dope. Of course Bush will gain liberal votes, he already has, but not to the extent that it will put him over the top against his Democrat opponent, especially when liberals en masse will vote for the Democrat candidate regardless of what Bush does. As for Republicans, they will split into three groups: dropouts who will stay home, suckers who will drink the Bush Koolaid no matter what and cast a vote for him anyway, and committed conservatives that will vote a third party or also stay home. At this point I have no reason to further support a man who has done as Clinton did, to destroy the base of his own party and sell it out for more power and a second term.

[Kevin Curry]

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

The fact is, we live in a nation where almost everyone has staked out a claim on nanny government largesse.

That includes you. You have personally benefited from some of these programs; you will benefit from more of them in the future.

As much as you hate it, you'll be suckling at the sow until the day you die. And you are wholly powerless to do anything but complain that some other "less worthy" piglet is getting too much.

[Twodees]

[At this point I have no reason to further support a man who has done as Clinton did]

I never supported him to start with. I didn't vote for him and won't vote for him in '04.He's behaving the way his daddy did. Wobbly would just suddenly, apropos to nothing from his own party's policy, announce his support for some liberal malarkey. That's how he did with his ban on importaion of "assault rifles". He obviously didn't care whether he got a second term and his boy doesn't care either.

Wobbly got a fair amount of Reagan's base to vote for him the first time. The second time, he got the koolaid drinker vote. W managed a squeaker the first time and won't even get that a second time, IMO.

[niki]

memory lane bump