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

Skip to comments.

Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
USA Today ^ | 1-20-04 | Thomas Fogarty

Posted on 01/20/2004 6:19:31 AM PST by Salvation

Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.


(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; construction; economy; fha; homeownership; minorities; nodownpayment
For your information.
1 posted on 01/20/2004 6:19:32 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation
This is for minorities only????
2 posted on 01/20/2004 6:20:57 AM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Oh boy. Free houses for the new immigrants. And when it goes bust, guess who gets to bail out the bad loans.
3 posted on 01/20/2004 6:22:02 AM PST by steve50 ("There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
I don't know.......just found this article, that's all. (After seeing the other headline>)
4 posted on 01/20/2004 6:22:44 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Bush to Propose No Money Down FHA Home Loans
5 posted on 01/20/2004 6:23:51 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Let alone possible homes for the possible terrorists!
6 posted on 01/20/2004 6:26:18 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
This is for minorities only????

Seriously doubt it. It makes for a sensational headline, though.

7 posted on 01/20/2004 6:27:35 AM PST by alnick (The American people would rather reach for the stars than reach for excuses why we shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Poor people can't afford houses, simply because they are poor. That is not my problem. Let them work hard like everyone else. Damn this socialist president!
8 posted on 01/20/2004 6:30:31 AM PST by petercooper (DEAN = Democrats Experiencing Another Nightmare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alnick
**It makes for a sensational headline, though.**

And we know that USAToday would never slant anything! </sarcasm off
9 posted on 01/20/2004 6:31:56 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Not being able to save enough for a down-payment does not equal "blemished" credit, as stated in the article. I did not see that the proposal is for those with bad credit or even blemished credit, but those without credit or simply no nest egg to use for a down-payment. But I did see the assertion made...Are FHA loans available for those with "impaired" or "blemished" credit? This addresses the down-payment issue only as far as I can see.
10 posted on 01/20/2004 6:34:17 AM PST by cyncooper ("We call evil by its name")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
How nice. I had to work two jobs for a year to save up for my house. I guess the key word here is WORK.
11 posted on 01/20/2004 6:37:52 AM PST by meowmeow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I'm giving you 2 demerits for not putting up a Barf Alert warning.

My wallet and I are not amused!

12 posted on 01/20/2004 6:38:17 AM PST by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petercooper
Home ownership has always seemed a misnomer to me. You still have to pay rent for the rest of your life.

Real estate seems interesting as an investment vehicle (buy low, sell high) ... but if you quit making your payments, from what I understand, the property is "taken". And if from what I understand, as the value of the property appreciates, your rent increases. Or if you make an improvements that increase the value of the property, the rent increases.

What kind of warped view "ownership" is this? Nobody "owns" a home. I guess the right to sell the property to someone else who will take over the rental payments if where that term comes into play, but it's not like it's ever completely paid for.

13 posted on 01/20/2004 6:40:00 AM PST by Stu Cohen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Has it ever dawned on white American you are irrelevant?

You are being used!

1. When's the last time you heard a politician say they needed or wanted your vote? They only fight for the minority vote.

You fall in line just like the black community does. 2. How many times have you heard that without the white vote the dirt bag won't win.

All elections and politicians beg for the minority vote. Just watch GWB he'll show you!

It's soon time white America wakes up.

YOU ARE IRRELEVANT

14 posted on 01/20/2004 6:42:01 AM PST by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
As one of our freepers says:

Just Damn!

15 posted on 01/20/2004 6:43:23 AM PST by shiva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stu Cohen
What kind of warped view "ownership" is this? Nobody "owns" a home.

Ownership of property ceased to exist when property taxes began being collected. I'm just hoping to eventually either sell and make some sort of a profit, or else get a reverse mortgage in a few years. I don't really care what happens to the house afer I croak.

16 posted on 01/20/2004 6:46:16 AM PST by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: meowmeow
How nice. I had to work two jobs for a year to save up for my house. I guess the key word here is WORK.

You have a great advantage over someone who puts up a zero percent down payment -- equity.

17 posted on 01/20/2004 6:47:02 AM PST by alnick (The American people would rather reach for the stars than reach for excuses why we shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All
It's not a bad plan. It's great politics and costs the government nothing, and as is mentioned, it is compensated for by increased closing costs.

Never ever forget that key statistic that single women, blacks and Hispanics were (something like) 25% of the votes in 1990, 33% in 2000 and will be 40% in 2008. The growth in that segment is inexorable. The Republicans are losing those votes by 2:1 (65/35) and if something isn't done about it, total Democrat control of all branches of government is *inevitable*.

Bush is doing very well in seeking to make inroads into that group while remaining right of center philosophically. Tax cuts and PBA tell the tale. Note on other threads, btw, that Bush's domestic discretionary spending (% of GDP) is *less* than Ronald Reagan's was in the same year of their presidencies.
18 posted on 01/20/2004 6:48:28 AM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
To increase home-buying opportunities for minorities or anyone else you have to lower or at least stabillize housing prices. What drives housing prices, and has since 1965, is not low interest rates but population growth, the main cause of which is immigration. Immigrants are taking the dream of home ownership away from millions of Americas and, until immigration - both legal and illegal - is stopped, there will be no affordable housing.
19 posted on 01/20/2004 6:49:59 AM PST by henderson field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stu Cohen
We have a homestead exemption in Louisiana, so for low to moderately priced homes, there is no or very little property tax. There can be true home ownership then, especially with the low interest rates we have now. It's conceivable for a person to own a home after 10 or 15 years of payments, with only a small payment of property tax. Also, senior citizens, in my parish anyway, are exempt from property tax. I don't know if that applies to any home or just moderately and low priced ones.
20 posted on 01/20/2004 6:50:07 AM PST by alnick (The American people would rather reach for the stars than reach for excuses why we shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: Salvation
I have to be honest, if it helps me sell my rental property then I'm happy about it. I'd like to think that my profits from the sale of the property will outweigh the amount of money I may have to eventually put in - indirectly - to cover the cost of forclosures.
22 posted on 01/20/2004 6:54:35 AM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Bush is turning the Repub. party into a welfare party.

Are whites eligible for freebies?
23 posted on 01/20/2004 6:56:03 AM PST by Finalapproach29er ("Don't shoot Mongo, you'll only make him mad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I see some interesting results:

First, people that cannot save (no down payment = no savings) may have difficulty managing a home and the expenses the crop up with it.

Second, where does it say that you deserve a home?

Third, Increased home ownership as opposed to renting will improve a lot of neighborhoods- owners tend to care more about the homes they live in.

Fourth: but his could lead to a lot a forclosures and abandoned properties, and money from my pocket.

Fifth: I can buy those properties at a much better price and rent them out...

24 posted on 01/20/2004 6:56:45 AM PST by NativeSon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
This is not a good idea.
25 posted on 01/20/2004 6:59:10 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owen
Sounds too much like,"It's for the children!"So now the Republicans are offering welfare for votes as the Dims do?
26 posted on 01/20/2004 7:00:45 AM PST by quack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim; scholar; FBD
FYI.

...& the beat goes on.

27 posted on 01/20/2004 7:01:08 AM PST by Landru (Tagline Schmagline...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
FHA loans carry higher risks of delinquency and foreclosure than do private mortgages, and the proposed change presumably will lead to greater losses to the government than the current program does.

Well, isn't that special. My tax dollars going to guarantee high risk loans. This really makes me furious. One of things that started turning me into a conservative in the first place was finding out about subsidized home loans for low income people. I was unable to afford a house on my income, yet I didn't qualify for one of the subsized loans. The little light inside my head started coming on. My tax dollars going to help others buy homes, when I couldn't quite manage it on my own.

My husband and I live in a very high-cost housing area. We have finally managed to put together enough dough (after living in tiny rentals and paying off student loans) to buy a nice house. We did it ourselves, while paying high taxes. Now the government wants to take more of our tax dollars to help minorities buy houses. Just gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling all over. I can hardly wait until the "Thank You" notes come flowing in my mailbox.

I got a pitch for money from the Republican Party not too long ago. They had a nice little survey with it. One of the questions was about helping minorities buy homes. I editorialized a bit on that, and other, questions and sent it back without a check. I haven't received any more solicitations for money since then.

Morning rant over.

28 posted on 01/20/2004 7:07:30 AM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
What ever happened to Bush's proposal that the fedgov give down payment grants for home loans to low income people? Maybe he'll just tack that on to legislation or a FHA directive? Shall we count the giveaways tonight in his State of the Union address?
29 posted on 01/20/2004 7:10:48 AM PST by A Navy Vet (Can I get a no down payment on a 32 ft SeaRay, please?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .38sw
Bush announces additional welfare benefits........which can only be collected if the recipients buy new homes. These benefits will be in the form of a no-down payment loan. It is rumored that the president will also increase the earned income credit so that all closing costs will be covered also. (blah blah blah)
30 posted on 01/20/2004 7:13:16 AM PST by umgud (speaking strictly as an infidel,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
This doesn't seem any different to me than the current situation. FHA offers "no downpayment" loans, but still require the borrower to pay closing costs. They are also considered high risk and the interest rates reflect just that. I don't understand how this is different....

In addition, the federal garuntee is for the amount of the loan that isn't recovered by the lender after the foreclosure and sale. If a $100K loan is defaulted on, and if the market value is $115K, the bank can sell the home for $100K and give someone a good deal while covering the loan and the feds don't end up paying anything.

I just don't see how this is new.

BTW, I bought my home on a "no down payment" VHA loan. 4 years later I had enough equity to refinance at a lower interest rate and cash out some equity for student loan consolidation.......
31 posted on 01/20/2004 7:16:13 AM PST by CSM (Council member Carol Schwartz (R.-at large), my new hero! The Anti anti Smoke Gnatzie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Affirmative action from a Republican? I guess I can't be TOO surprised.
Mr. Bush, what about poor white people?
32 posted on 01/20/2004 7:21:01 AM PST by m1-lightning (Weapons of deterrence do not deter terrorists; people of deterrence do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM
You just had to be a stick in the mud(reply #31) for a good knee jerking thread for the malcontents on FR. :^)
33 posted on 01/20/2004 7:24:28 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dane
You trying to give me a heart attack? I mean, a post from you to me that isn't in argument? Must be a new year....

Glad to see we are on the same side of at least one thing.
34 posted on 01/20/2004 7:31:14 AM PST by CSM (Council member Carol Schwartz (R.-at large), my new hero! The Anti anti Smoke Gnatzie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
All politicians will break your heart. Bush's undignified pandering to Hispanics (immigration,home hand-outs) has caused me to lose a lot of respect for him.

Bush is destroying the conservative philosophy of the party the was built by Goldwater,Reagan, Gingrich,...

When you agree with (concede)the premise that the government can help certain people buy homes, we've lost the arguement. Sad.
35 posted on 01/20/2004 7:32:09 AM PST by Finalapproach29er ("Don't shoot Mongo, you'll only make him mad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NativeSon
LOL...good analysis.
36 posted on 01/20/2004 7:40:42 AM PST by goodnesswins (Poverty is more about the "mental" than the "money.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Owen
"it will cost the government nothing"

I beg to differ. It will cost the taxpayers megabucks in bailouts and foreclosures and repairs to damaged properties. When people have to invest nothing, they feel they have nothing to lose. Property upkeep costs money too, and many never figure these costs into the budget(if they actually have one.)
37 posted on 01/20/2004 7:42:11 AM PST by freeangel (freeangel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: freeangel
>
"it will cost the government nothing"

I beg to differ. It will cost the taxpayers megabucks in bailouts and foreclosures and repairs to damaged properties. When people have to invest nothing, they feel they have nothing to lose. Property upkeep costs money too, and many never figure these costs into the budget(if they actually have one.)
>

Does not the article explicitly say there are larger closing costs the buyer must pay. This is an investment, as is the principal portion of every payment. For there to be no investment at risk by the homeowner, they would have to steal the money from a liquor store for closing costs and never make a single payment. This would yield immediate foreclosure with almost no time for trashing the property.
38 posted on 01/20/2004 7:57:20 AM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Finalapproach29er
>
Bush is destroying the conservative philosophy of the party the was built by Goldwater,Reagan, Gingrich,...
>

Not supported by the facts. There was no PBA ban in place for RR, Gingrich or Goldwater. GW Bush has one. The governments of RR, Gingrich and Goldwater permitted PBA. Bush's does not.

Also, GW Bush's domestic discretionary spending as a % of GDP has been LOWER in the same year of presidency than was Ronald Reagan's. The numbers are there and clear. He's doing a good job.
39 posted on 01/20/2004 8:00:12 AM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
"In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans."

-----

Why is it that every time I turn around I'm seeing Bush propose a policy that's every bit as leftist as Clintoon would have proposed?

Nuts!

Gridlock in 2004!
40 posted on 01/20/2004 8:11:23 AM PST by applemac_g4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Landru
I'm guessing that like any FHA loan, if the "buyer" starts to make more income, the monthly payment goes up. Also, because of the subsidised low payments, very little equity accrues, and if the house is sold, the equity goes to paying the feds back for the subsidy.

After the "homeowner" figures this out, he does one of two things:
A. He refinances with a private lender...and has to come up with that down pmt. anyway, along with payment for the subsidized interest and down pmt.
Or more likely:
B. He stops making payments, turns into a squatter, and after the final eviction notice, trashes the house and moves on.

In the end; nothing ventured, nothing gained.
41 posted on 01/20/2004 8:46:20 AM PST by FBD (...Please press 2 for English...for Espanol, please stay on the line...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FBD
"I'm guessing that like any FHA loan, if the 'buyer' starts to make more income, the monthly payment goes up."

Is that true?
So help me I'd never heard FHA loans were on any kind of a "sliding scale" insofar as the home payment was concerned, FBD.
All I ever thought the FHA did was -- essentially -- "cosign" a loan; thereby, guarenteeing the prospective home buyer's loan.
In fact, someone else posted the specific nuts & bolts of the FHA loan & what it came down to was:
1) No down payment required for qualifing buyers.
2) Points paid by the seller (especially in the case of a VA loan) &...
3) If the buyer defaults on their obligation the FHA will make good on whatever amount of the loan's not satisfied after the foreclosure auction.

But, a FHA loan is like any other loan in that it's a *contract*.
That is it's signed for a specific loan amount, for a specified time & with monthly payments that're agreed to upon signing lasting the life of the loan; which, makes the FHA loan "stable".
FHA loans are unlike (what I know as) a, "bubble loan" which will increase monthly payments according to rising interest rates.

Where'd I go wrong?

"Also, because of the subsidised low payments, very little equity accrues, and if the house is sold, the equity goes to paying the feds back for the subsidy."

huh? >?<
Never heard of such a thing; because, IF the FHA home buyer is in good standing when they sell their home & they sell it at a profit, that profir belongs to the seller & not the FHA.

"After the "homeowner" figures this out, he does one of two things:
A. He refinances with a private lender...and has to come up with that down pmt. anyway, along with payment for the subsidized interest and down pmt."

Which is fine & dandy with me.

Or more likely:
B. He stops making payments, turns into a squatter, and after the final eviction notice, trashes the house and moves on.
In the end; nothing ventured, nothing gained."

Ummmm, I don't think that's so, FBD.
The former buyer may walk, sure's mortgage to the bank responsible for underwriting the loan, y'know; and, that'd be the FHA.

...a.ka the taxpayer.

42 posted on 01/20/2004 9:06:25 AM PST by Landru (Tagline Schmagline...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: freeangel
When people have to invest nothing, they feel they have nothing to lose.

Exactly. People with no equity in their houses are FAR more likely to walk away from the and the loans when times get rough. And guess who gets left holding the bag? We, the Taxpayer.

This is a stupid plan, just like a lot of ideas coming out of the White House recently. I'm beyond disgusted.

LQ

43 posted on 01/20/2004 10:12:22 AM PST by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Landru
I think that the poster is confusing the actual FHA loan with a payment subsidy. Two different things.

My family has a Rural Housing loan (basically an FHA loan in a rural area through the USDA), and it is a FIXED RATE LOAN. The payment does not change.
44 posted on 01/20/2004 10:20:01 AM PST by Marie Antoinette (Happily repopulating the midwest since 1991!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Marie Antoinette; FBD
"I think that the poster is confusing the actual FHA loan with a payment subsidy. Two different things."

Thank you kindly, MarieA.
I think you're correct & if I know "FBD", than -- at this instant -- he's doing some *research* before he responds. {g}

"My family has a Rural Housing loan (basically an FHA loan in a rural area through the USDA), and it is a FIXED RATE LOAN. The payment does not change."

Yup, & that FHA loan's written by a local bank where you're living now, right? (~originally, but the bank can always sell your mortgage to someone else)

You & your spouse had to meet certain criteria as set by the FHA, qualifing you for a loan the banks might not have been so inclined to make, for whatever reason(s), otherwise.

The FHA essentially "cosigned" your loan; but, the contract you have has a fixed interest rate & payment plan for either 15 or 30 years, just like anyone else.

The FHA -- or any of these "programs" -- "guarentee" the loan's repayment.

...& that's all they do.

45 posted on 01/20/2004 11:41:42 AM PST by Landru (Tagline Schmagline...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
There are seven black families on my street alone....how is it that they can afford to buy a house? Could it be that they worked and saved their money like my hubby and I did? What a concept huh!!!!
46 posted on 01/20/2004 2:38:45 PM PST by Arpege92
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Landru; FBD
"I'm guessing that like any FHA loan, if the 'buyer' starts to make more income, the monthly payment goes up."

Is that true?

No it's not. I had an FHA loan on my last house. It was locked in like any conventional loan.

1) No down payment required for qualifing buyers.

I made a down payment albeit minimal and paid closing costs.

IF the FHA home buyer is in good standing when they sell their home & they sell it at a profit, that profir belongs to the seller & not the FHA.

Right again!

that'd be the FHA. ...a.ka the taxpayer.

Right again. If you have ever known anyone who has been foreclosed by FHA, I guarantee they are total deadbeats. The FHA does not want to be in the real estate business. If you work with them, they will work with you. I was in pretty desperate straights. However, I had the home up for sale, the property was clean and well tended and no one gave me any grief.

47 posted on 01/21/2004 5:29:47 PM PST by scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: scholar; Landru; Marie Antoinette
Thanks to all for correcting me on facts about FHA loans. Possibly I was confusing it with a HUD subsidized loan?

I thought I knew what I was talking about, but I guess I was *fullovit.*

Oh well, considering many of the posters these days here FR? At least I know I've got plenty of company! :^)

Regards.
48 posted on 01/22/2004 9:32:34 AM PST by FBD (...Please press 2 for English...for Espanol, please stay on the line...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: FBD
"I thought I knew what I was talking about, but I guess I was *fullovit.*"

No-no, you were merely mistaken, my friend.

"Oh well, considering many of the posters these days here FR? At least I know I've got plenty of company!"

Whaaaaaaattttttt??

...shush yo' mouth! :o)

49 posted on 01/22/2004 9:43:16 AM PST by Landru (Tagline Schmagline...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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