Kamala's Housing proposal is a good idea

[atlkvb]

I read up on it, and it's a sound plan to increase minority home ownership. It's a good idea, and supports the basic economic principle of private home ownership which increases neighborhood values. Expanding access to down payments by providing financial assistance for lower income American borrowers should be something we can support if we can give driver licenses and free health care to non citizens.

Now with that being said can someone on the Left please explain to me why Democrats oppose the exact same concepts when it comes to school choice vouchers and tax free enterprise zones? With education vouchers, direct tuition assistance is provided for low income families to find better schools to educate their kids as opposed to leaving them trapped in failing government run schools.

With tax free enterprise zones, low interest loans and other tax incentives are provided to entrepreneurs, investors, and first time small business owners to help them establish their own income streams. All of these initiatives improve the economic fortunes of minorities and expand investments in areas often left neglected by policy makers.

I don't understand how Harris and her party can tell Black voters they're good enough for housing assistance vouchers to buy their own homes, but not good enough to receive education tuition vouchers for their kids, or lower taxes & other financial incentives like low interest bank loans to help start their own businesses? Why do Democrats oppose these initiatives designed to liberate Black families from Government dependence?

Can anyone explain this?

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

I read up on it, and it's a sound plan to increase minority home ownership. It's a good idea, and supports the basic economic principle of private home ownership which increases neighborhood values. Expanding access to down payments by providing financial assistance for lower income American borrowers should be something we can support if we can give driver licenses and free health care to non citizens.

Now with that being said can someone on the Left please explain to me why Democrats oppose the exact same concepts when it comes to school choice vouchers and tax free enterprise zones? With education vouchers, direct tuition assistance is provided for low income families to find better schools to educate their kids as opposed to leaving them trapped in failing government run schools.

With tax free enterprise zones, low interest loans and other tax incentives are provided to entrepreneurs, investors, and first time small business owners to help them establish their own income streams. All of these initiatives improve the economic fortunes of minorities and expand investments in areas often left neglected by policy makers.

I don't understand how Harris and her party can tell Black voters they're good enough for housing assistance vouchers to buy their own homes, but not good enough to receive education tuition vouchers for their kids, or lower taxes & other financial incentives like low interest bank loans to help start their own businesses? Why do Democrats oppose these initiatives designed to liberate Black families from Government dependence?

Can anyone explain this?

no they can't because it makes sense

 

[Retired PC FL]

Si.ple, maintain the welfare culture while providing better housing than current ghettos.
Raising education levels will break the welfare culture AND switch voters away from the DNC. Cant have tbat.

 

[atlkvb]

no they can't because it makes sense

I just don't get it Snow Sled Baby! How can subsidies for private housing, medical care and food be good, but subsidies for private education or running a small business is not?

See this is why I can't ever vote Democrat. They're nuckin' futs.

 

[atlkvb]

Si.ple, maintain the welfare culture while providing better housing than current ghettos.
Raising education levels will break the welfare culture AND switch voters away from the DNC. Cant have tbat.

That makes more sense than anything else I've heard. Nothing from any of them.

 

[Gunny46]

I read up on it, and it's a sound plan to increase minority home ownership. It's a good idea, and supports the basic economic principle of private home ownership which increases neighborhood values. Expanding access to down payments by providing financial assistance for lower income American borrowers should be something we can support if we can give driver licenses and free health care to non citizens.

Now with that being said can someone on the Left please explain to me why Democrats oppose the exact same concepts when it comes to school choice vouchers and tax free enterprise zones? With education vouchers, direct tuition assistance is provided for low income families to find better schools to educate their kids as opposed to leaving them trapped in failing government run schools.

With tax free enterprise zones, low interest loans and other tax incentives are provided to entrepreneurs, investors, and first time small business owners to help them establish their own income streams. All of these initiatives improve the economic fortunes of minorities and expand investments in areas often left neglected by policy makers.

I don't understand how Harris and her party can tell Black voters they're good enough for housing assistance vouchers to buy their own homes, but not good enough to receive education tuition vouchers for their kids, or lower taxes & other financial incentives like low interest bank loans to help start their own businesses? Why do Democrats oppose these initiatives designed to liberate Black families from Government dependence?

Can anyone explain this?

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Read more at https://www.beliefnet.com/columnist...essional-record-1963.html#mCYOcUXyxg0yusxI.99

 

[dave]

I read up on it, and it's a sound plan to increase minority home ownership. It's a good idea, and supports the basic economic principle of private home ownership which increases neighborhood values. Expanding access to down payments by providing financial assistance for lower income American borrowers should be something we can support if we can give driver licenses and free health care to non citizens.

Now with that being said can someone on the Left please explain to me why Democrats oppose the exact same concepts when it comes to school choice vouchers and tax free enterprise zones? With education vouchers, direct tuition assistance is provided for low income families to find better schools to educate their kids as opposed to leaving them trapped in failing government run schools.

With tax free enterprise zones, low interest loans and other tax incentives are provided to entrepreneurs, investors, and first time small business owners to help them establish their own income streams. All of these initiatives improve the economic fortunes of minorities and expand investments in areas often left neglected by policy makers.

I don't understand how Harris and her party can tell Black voters they're good enough for housing assistance vouchers to buy their own homes, but not good enough to receive education tuition vouchers for their kids, or lower taxes & other financial incentives like low interest bank loans to help start their own businesses? Why do Democrats oppose these initiatives designed to liberate Black families from Government dependence?

Can anyone explain this?

Is it different than the sub prime mortgage debacle?

 

[mneilmont]

Is it different than the sub prime mortgage debacle?

If one cannot qualify for entry into a house, how are they going to afford to maintain it. Totally understand the demand to get everyone out of public housing, but ownership of a house gets to be costly when they get a little older. Sounds to me like a perfect plan to flood the market with used housing. Design a better plan to get people who can afford to own a house over the years. Govt has to plan on subsidizing the ownership over time.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I read up on it, and it's a sound plan to increase minority home ownership. It's a good idea, and supports the basic economic principle of private home ownership which increases neighborhood values. Expanding access to down payments by providing financial assistance for lower income American borrowers should be something we can support if we can give driver licenses and free health care to non citizens.

Now with that being said can someone on the Left please explain to me why Democrats oppose the exact same concepts when it comes to school choice vouchers and tax free enterprise zones? With education vouchers, direct tuition assistance is provided for low income families to find better schools to educate their kids as opposed to leaving them trapped in failing government run schools.

With tax free enterprise zones, low interest loans and other tax incentives are provided to entrepreneurs, investors, and first time small business owners to help them establish their own income streams. All of these initiatives improve the economic fortunes of minorities and expand investments in areas often left neglected by policy makers.

I don't understand how Harris and her party can tell Black voters they're good enough for housing assistance vouchers to buy their own homes, but not good enough to receive education tuition vouchers for their kids, or lower taxes & other financial incentives like low interest bank loans to help start their own businesses? Why do Democrats oppose these initiatives designed to liberate Black families from Government dependence?

Can anyone explain this?

Simple my dear Watson. Homes are a commodity. While they are nice to have and build equity from, they really don't change your position in life. Everything else you mention is an investment, and changes people's stars.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Prove to me where charter schools out perform public schools so greatly that it deserves funding from tax dollars. Not individual successful charter schools. But as a whole. You can't. Because they don't.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Si.ple, maintain the welfare culture while providing better housing than current ghettos.
Raising education levels will break the welfare culture AND switch voters away from the DNC. Cant have tbat.

Don't be ignorant. That was a racist AF comment. The same problems exist in red states as blue states. Do you really think the schools in rural Appalachia are superior to all the school in Harlem or DC? They aren't. My niece attends a public HS in DC. She is fluent in 3 languages and will likely attend a top university in 3 years.

Here is the problem ....I live a city where the public schools are atrocious. There are a dozen reasons why from poor facilities, lack of parental care/involvement, inability of educators to discipline, unions, and other reasons that can mostly be traced to failed liberal agendas in education. The same issues plague schools in WV. This isn't a red and blue state issue.

Even if we ignore the parental involvement issue, we have to bring discipline to our classrooms. We have to teach kids to learn vs teach kids to pass standardized tests. We need teach kids to their capability level vs dumbing our system down to the lowest denominator. I am not against school vouchers but I think the money would be better improving the system overall. If you just provide vouchers, the current public school system will fall further into crap. What happens to those kids that are left behind??? The problem isn't solved.

BTW we need to start by getting rid of the teacher unions that protect poor teachers and accept poor performances.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Don't be ignorant. That was a racist AF comment. The same problems exist in red states as blue states. Do you really think the schools in rural Appalachia are superior to all the school in Harlem or DC? They aren't. My niece attends a public HS in DC. She is fluent in 3 languages and will likely attend a top university in 3 years.

Here is the problem ....I live a city where the public schools are atrocious. There are a dozen reasons why from poor facilities, lack of parental care/involvement, inability of educators to discipline, unions, and other reasons that can mostly be traced to failed liberal agendas in education. The same issues plague schools in WV. This isn't a red and blue state issue.

Even if we ignore the parental involvement issue, we have to bring discipline to our classrooms. We have to teach kids to learn vs teach kids to pass standardized tests. We need teach kids to their capability level vs dumbing our system down to the lowest denominator. I am not against school vouchers but I think the money would be better improving the system overall. If you just provide vouchers, the current public school system will fall further into crap. What happens to those kids that are left behind??? The problem isn't solved.

BTW we need to start by getting rid of the teacher unions that protect poor teachers and accept poor performances.

Here here!!

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Read more at https://www.beliefnet.com/columnist...essional-record-1963.html#mCYOcUXyxg0yusxI.99

Interestingly the 5 top states for public school performance are MA, NY, CT, CA, and MD. All blue states. Almost all the bottom 10 are red states......... I don't know why that is but an interesting note.

 

[Gunny46]

Interestingly the 5 top states for public school performance are MA, NY, CT, CA, and MD. All blue states. Almost all the bottom 10 are red states......... I don't know why that is but an interesting note.

Source ? Several reports on that subject with different opions out there.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Source ? Several reports on that subject with different opions out there.

I was looking at US News and World Reports list of best High Schools in the US by state.

 

[Walter Brennaneer]

If one cannot qualify for entry into a house, how are they going to afford to maintain it. Totally understand the demand to get everyone out of public housing, but ownership of a house gets to be costly when they get a little older. Sounds to me like a perfect plan to flood the market with used housing. Design a better plan to get people who can afford to own a house over the years. Govt has to plan on subsidizing the ownership over time.

If one cannot qualify for entry into a house, how are they going to afford to maintain it? I'd say they need to get a job like most Americans and quit blaming others. Individuals take care of themselves, not the freaking government.

 

[atlkvb]

Is it different than the sub prime mortgage debacle?

Unfortunately the qualifying guidelines weren't specified in her proposed legislation, however I'm speaking more in terms of the general concept (increasing home ownership) as opposed to how it's actually implemented by qualifying criteria for first time buyers.

I agree folks who cannot afford to make payments should not be qualified for these loans. I'm simply asking why Democrats support this idea and not school vouchers or tax free enterprise zones?

 

[atlkvb]

If one cannot qualify for entry into a house, how are they going to afford to maintain it? I'd say they need to get a job like most Americans and quit blaming others. Individuals take care of themselves, not the freaking government.

No disagreement at all. I simply support the concept of assisting first time buyers who may be struggling with gathering enough for a down payment on their own. As I mentioned, those not financially qualified for these loans should not be funded (this was the problem with the housing crisis in '08). They (Feds) were giving loans to folks who had no business qualifying for the amounts awarded, and worse had no intention of making good on those payments.

It's the reason I support the same idea behind school choice vouchers, and tax free or low interest loans for first time business startups. All things Democrats oppose...why?

 

[atlkvb]

Simple my dear Watson. Homes are a commodity. While they are nice to have and build equity from, they really don't change your position in life. Everything else you mention is an investment, and changes people's stars.

I agree with that. Home ownership also represents a personal financial stake for the borrower. Of course you can't just "give" money away but why are Democrats ready to support increasing subsidies for the personal advantages home ownership provides to their constituents and not do the same when it comes to educating their kids or setting folks up in their own private businesses? I still haven't read anyone on the Left explain the difference to me.

 

[pburg01]

The rankings of schools does not take into consideration many variables. It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that socio-economic issues have a major affect on test scores. Charter schools may be a good idea in certain areas where the public schools are hideous, but they are primarily a money-making scheme for the same people and companies who have designed the standardized tests and then sell the textbooks to enable the students to be able to pass their own standardized tests.
Why do you think that Carmichael here in WV was so hell-bent on getting charter schools into our state? He has financial interests in one which he wants in Putnam County. The legislature refused to pass an earllier bill which would exclude legislators, etc. from having ownership into charter schools. Charter schools which have been shown to be effective are allowed to select which students they will allow into the school, so what you have is basically schools which can exclude students who are "problems" but also are allowed to receive public funding.

 

[dave]

So public schools are better in states with higher taxes and wealthy citizens to put more money into local schools. Shocking

 

[atlkvb]

The rankings of schools does not take into consideration many variables. It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that socio-economic issues have a major affect on test scores. Charter schools may be a good idea in certain areas where the public schools are hideous, but they are primarily a money-making scheme for the same people and companies who have designed the standardized tests and then sell the textbooks to enable the students to be able to pass their own standardized tests.
Why do you think that Carmichael here in WV was so hell-bent on getting charter schools into our state? He has financial interests in one which he wants in Putnam County. The legislature refused to pass an earllier bill which would exclude legislators, etc. from having ownership into charter schools. Charter schools which have been shown to be effective are allowed to select which students they will allow into the school, so what you have is basically schools which can exclude students who are "problems" but also are allowed to receive public funding.

All of this deserves discussion and we've often argued this on the board...but I'm trying to steer this thread into commentary on the "concept" of individual private investments assisted by Government subsidies or incentives through lower taxes to increase private home ownership, provide better educational opportunities, or start up small business ventures in economically depressed areas.

The debate of over Charter/Private schools is robust but I'm not getting into that on this particular thread. I simply want someone on the Left to explain how they might support Kamala Harris's excellent idea of assisting first time home buyers in financial need but not doing so for their kid's education or starting up their own businesses?

What is the difference?

 

[atlkvb]

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Read more at https://www.beliefnet.com/columnist...essional-record-1963.html#mCYOcUXyxg0yusxI.99

It could be exactly that Gunny. I have not read one comment from anyone on the Left suggesting otherwise.

 

[atlkvb]

So public schools are better in states with higher taxes and wealthy citizens to put more money into local schools. Shocking

It's interesting how many folks who place their kids into Private education never complain about how poor the quality of the education is. That's not to say all Private schools are the same, but where Parents demand results for their education dollars there are far fewer complaints about Private education.

 

[Gunny46]

It could be exactly that Gunny. I have not read one comment from anyone on the Left suggesting otherwise.

Lots of answers to a lot of questions in those 45 communist objectives.

 

[dave]

It's interesting how many folks who place their kids into Private education never complain about how poor the quality of the education is. That's not to say all Private schools are the same, but where Parents demand results for their education dollars there are far fewer complaints about Private education.

In wealthy states Private schools serve the same role as Charter schools in poorer areas. They create competition which forces public schools to offer better programs

 

[atlkvb]

Lots of answers to a lot of questions in those 45 communist objectives.

As I read what you posted I was amazed at how much of that they have already successfully accomplished! I challenged anyone on the Left to pick just one objective and voice opposition to it...no one did.

Telling.

 

[atlkvb]

In wealthy states Private schools serve the same role as Charter schools in poorer areas. They create competition which forces public schools to offer better programs

True. So if the objective is improving education (similar to the objective of increasing home ownership) why are Democrats opposed?

It's stunning to me none of them can reasonably answer this question.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Interestingly the 5 top states for public school performance are MA, NY, CT, CA, and MD. All blue states. Almost all the bottom 10 are red states......... I don't know why that is but an interesting note.

Sky high property taxes, at least in MD. Guess where that’s occurring.

 

[atlkvb]

Sky high property taxes, at least in MD. Guess where that’s occurring.

Democrats are for raising property taxes, and giving some of that money to assist first time low income private home buyers...but not for private education tuition vouchers or small business startup loans & venture capital.

Too much private money in the hands of individuals is a dangerous thing to Leftists.

 

[mneilmont]

Democrats are for raising property taxes, and giving some of that money to assist first time low income private home buyers...but not for private education tuition or small business startup venture capital.

Too much private money in the hands of individuals is a dangerous thing to Leftists.

I heard one of the Dem candidates today,probably the avowed socialist, proposing a minimum teacher salary of $60,000. I think he may have extended that to all school personnel. Who can imagine what happens to taxes to support that? Been some time, but I would guess "salaries" to be in the 75-85% of the education budget for public schools. Some school districts probably have a minimum salary for first year teachers at $30,000 area. Support staff maybe half that on the average. I see government agencies going into foreclosure if it is possible.


Then to the support of start up companies. If you give adequate support to buy building and equipment, you are going to trade the new business for the old business. The mom&pops operation which are operating on very small margin cannot compete with the start up. Start up has improved location and better machinery with no outstanding debt. If old mom and pops try to compete, they are going to have to finance cost of moving to prime location and improved modern equipment. IMO it is totally unfair for a government agency to aid in closing current establishments assuring they will be unable to compete.

Certainly do not intend to put myself into the more liberal group you were challenging.

 

[atlkvb]

I heard one of the Dem candidates today,probably the avowed socialist, proposing a minimum teacher salary of $60,000. I think he may have extended that to all school personnel. Who can imagine what happens to taxes to support that? Been some time, but I would guess "salaries" to be in the 75-85% of the education budget for public schools. Some school districts probably have a minimum salary for first year teachers at $30,000 area. Support staff maybe half that on the average. I see government agencies going into foreclosure if it is possible.


Then to the support of start up companies. If you give adequate support to buy building and equipment, you are going to trade the new business for the old business. The mom&pops operation which are operating on very small margin cannot compete with the start up. Start up has improved location and better machinery with no outstanding debt. If old mom and pops try to compete, they are going to have to finance cost of moving to prime location and improved modern equipment. IMO it is totally unfair for a government agency to aid in closing current establishments assuring they will be unable to compete.

Certainly do not intend to put myself into the more liberal group you were challenging.

As I said when I opened the thread, I'm not opposed to the concept of using Government to incentivize or facilitate private economic activity. Tax breaks to attract businesses, or low interest Government backed loans repaid through property taxes. It's really the same idea behind those TIF bonds (tax increment financing) WVU AD officials used to help construct Mon county ballpark. Public debt is being repaid from increased economic activity & development in that area around the stadium and I'm good with that.

What I read about Kamala Harris's plan to use Government grants as a supplement to qualified first time low income home buyers I also generally support. Much better to give those tax dollars directly to recipients who in turn will invest in blighted neighborhoods or improve them by owning their own homes.

What I'm not for is Government subsidies instead of private investment. Or Government ownership instead of individuals. I can't understand why Leftists are OK with Harris's plan for private homeownership, and not for the same ideas of direct cash payments for public or private tuitions to improve education of poor minority kids, or tax breaks & low interest business loans backed by Government tax funding to help small privately owned minority businesses get started?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised no Leftist can explain to me why they support Harris's plan and not Trump's similar ideas on school choice vouchers or enterprise zones but since they all hate Trump and hope Harris defeats him next fall, I can understand their reluctance to back any idea that comes from "orange man bad" even if they support the same ideas from their side.

Still waiting for one of them to explain the differences to me. Hell might freeze over before one of 'em does though.

 

[mneilmont]

As I said when I opened the thread, I'm not opposed to the concept of using Government to incentivize or facilitate private economic activity. Tax breaks to attract businesses, or low interest Government backed loans repaid through property taxes. It's really the same idea behind those TIF bonds (tax increment financing) WVU AD officials used to help construct Mon county ballpark. Public debt is being repaid from increased economic activity & development in that area around the stadium and I'm good with that.

What I read about Kamala Harris's plan to use Government grants as a supplement to qualified first time low income home buyers I also generally support. Much better to give those tax dollars directly to recipients who in turn will invest in blighted neighborhoods or improve them by owning their own homes.

What I'm not for is Government subsidies instead of private investment. Or Government ownership instead of individuals. I can't understand why Leftists are OK with Harris's plan for private homeownership, and not for the same ideas of direct cash payments for public or private tuitions to improve education of poor minority kids, or tax breaks & low interest business loans backed by Government tax funding to help small privately owned minority businesses get started?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised no Leftist can explain to me why they support Harris's plan and not Trump's similar ideas on school choice vouchers or enterprise zones but since they all hate Trump and hope Harris defeats him next fall, I can understand their reluctance to back any idea that comes from "orange man bad" even if they support the same ideas from their side.

Still waiting for one of them to explain the differences to me. Hell might freeze over before one of 'em does though.

As I said when I opened the thread, I'm not opposed to the concept of using Government to incentivize or facilitate private economic activity. Tax breaks to attract businesses, or low interest Government backed loans repaid through property taxes. It's really the same idea behind those TIF bonds (tax increment financing) WVU AD officials used to help construct Mon county ballpark. Public debt is being repaid from increased economic activity & development in that area around the stadium and I'm good with that.

What I read about Kamala Harris's plan to use Government grants as a supplement to qualified first time low income home buyers I also generally support. Much better to give those tax dollars directly to recipients who in turn will invest in blighted neighborhoods or improve them by owning their own homes.

What I'm not for is Government subsidies instead of private investment. Or Government ownership instead of individuals. I can't understand why Leftists are OK with Harris's plan for private homeownership, and not for the same ideas of direct cash payments for public or private tuitions to improve education of poor minority kids, or tax breaks & low interest business loans backed by Government tax funding to help small privately owned minority businesses get started?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised no Leftist can explain to me why they support Harris's plan and not Trump's similar ideas on school choice vouchers or enterprise zones but since they all hate Trump and hope Harris defeats him next fall, I can understand their reluctance to back any idea that comes from "orange man bad" even if they support the same ideas from their side.

Still waiting for one of them to explain the differences to me. Hell might freeze over before one of 'em does though.

I really do not have problem with stimulus money in a place where something is stimulated, but as stated I do have a bit of problem with stimulus money that is only use to replace an existing business. If you are only going to replace a mom and pop with a walmart, I do questin that low interest govt to do that. I also have no problem with low interest to stimulate purchase of an idle house as long as they can pay payments to lending institution and maintain the house to living standards. Sorta have a little heartburn with giving low interest money to someone who has defaulted on one before. Really bad if talking about the same dwelling.

 

[atlkvb]

I really do not have problem with stimulus money in a place where something is stimulated, but as stated I do have a bit of problem with stimulus money that is only use to replace an existing business. If you are only going to replace a mom and pop with a walmart, I do questin that low interest govt to do that. I also have no problem with low interest to stimulate purchase of an idle house as long as they can pay payments to lending institution and maintain the house to living standards. Sorta have a little heartburn with giving low interest money to someone who has defaulted on one before. Really bad if talking about the same dwelling.

I think the type of financial decisions you are mentioning here are best settled in the private sector. I oppose Government "bailouts" or investment capital in place of privately raised resources. However I am not opposed to Government incentives particularly in the form of lower taxes to support economic growth or development.

We've seen the positive effect Trump's tax cuts had on corporations relative to their investments and business expansions. I say the more of that we get, the better.

 

[WVU82]

 

[EEResistable]

I read up on it, and it's a sound plan to increase minority home ownership. It's a good idea, and supports the basic economic principle of private home ownership which increases neighborhood values. Expanding access to down payments by providing financial assistance for lower income American borrowers should be something we can support if we can give driver licenses and free health care to non citizens.

Now with that being said can someone on the Left please explain to me why Democrats oppose the exact same concepts when it comes to school choice vouchers and tax free enterprise zones? With education vouchers, direct tuition assistance is provided for low income families to find better schools to educate their kids as opposed to leaving them trapped in failing government run schools.

With tax free enterprise zones, low interest loans and other tax incentives are provided to entrepreneurs, investors, and first time small business owners to help them establish their own income streams. All of these initiatives improve the economic fortunes of minorities and expand investments in areas often left neglected by policy makers.

I don't understand how Harris and her party can tell Black voters they're good enough for housing assistance vouchers to buy their own homes, but not good enough to receive education tuition vouchers for their kids, or lower taxes & other financial incentives like low interest bank loans to help start their own businesses? Why do Democrats oppose these initiatives designed to liberate Black families from Government dependence?

Can anyone explain this?

Does she use my tax dollars for this plan? If so it's robbery.

 

[atlkvb]

Does she use my tax dollars for this plan? If so it's robbery.

As I understand it the down payment assistance is provided through the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) which already underwrites billions of dollars in mortgages in this country. So it's tax money already being spent...the difference is it will be used to assist low income borrowers to purchase their first homes in areas often neglected with the idea being to stabilize those neighborhoods with solid, appreciating assets owned by people who live in the communities.

It of course needs more clarification, particularly on the underwriting guidelines and qualifying criteria...but I support the concept as much as I support school choice vouchers or tax free enterprise zones to improve education and ignite small business ownership in those same neglected areas. Democrats support the first, but oppose both the former and the latter.

I can't get anyone on the Left to explain why?