Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

USA Today ^ | 1-20-04 | Thomas Fogarty

[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.

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.

[T.Smith]

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.

[Finalapproach29er]

Bush is turning the Repub. party into a welfare party.

Are whites eligible for freebies?

[NativeSon]

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...

[biblewonk]

This is not a good idea.

[quack]

Sounds too much like,"It's for the children!"So now the Republicans are offering welfare for votes as the Dims do?

[Landru]

FYI.

...& the beat goes on.

[.38sw]

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.

[A Navy Vet]

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?

[umgud]

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)

[CSM]

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.......

[m1-lightning]

Affirmative action from a Republican? I guess I can't be TOO surprised.
Mr. Bush, what about poor white people?

[Dane]

You just had to be a stick in the mud(reply #31) for a good knee jerking thread for the malcontents on FR. :^)

[CSM]

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.

[Finalapproach29er]

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.

[goodnesswins]

LOL...good analysis.

[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.)

[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.)
>

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.

[Owen]

>
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.

[applemac_g4]

"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!