Home ownership...a fundamental right?
 

New real estate thread. Shrub just finished speaking on the RE crisis. I didn't listen closely to his pandering, but did catch a snippet that suggested avenues should be taken to give citizens the right to re-fi mortgages to save their homes.

It seems the American dream of owning your home is has become so ingrained that many think home ownership is a fundamental right. I dunno, but I can't find it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Its not there for a reason...the original language of early constitution drafts included the language "Life, liberty and property...." However, that was a relatively radical idea in 18th century social theory. Ultimately the language was changed to "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

So....is home ownership a fundamental right?

No.

Depends on who you ask.

If you ask an economic collectivist / statist like Bush, the answer is of course yes.

It says "pursuit", not "guarantee".

I interpret that to mean, "no caste system" (such as in the British aristocracy the U.S. had just separated from when that was written), meaning that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic background, is free to pursue whatever dreams and ambitions they might have.

It's an empowerment clause, not an entitlement one - at least the way I read it.



And to answer your original question, no - not everyone should own. Probably 2/3 of the people that bought in the last five years shouldn't either.

No, what's wrong with renting if you can't afford home ownership?


Sorry for taking this OT-

But what are the reforms that shrub is proposing?

I hope my taxes aren't going to help out speculators and people who got in over their heads buying houses they couldn't afford.

Too many people and a fixed amount of land/material/etc. will result in an inevitable furball over the scraps. (Human) nature. It'll end with tears.

Homesteading in Alaska ended in the 70's/80's(?), and Russia is now making a push for the arctic. With global warming, even Siberia will become a desireable destination.

No.

Yeah, instead of 70 below, it will be 67 below.

Our current mortgage crisis is the result of a massive oversupply of housing led by easy money.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/united_states_population_growth_graph.htm
Overpopulation is a reality, just wait and ask your grandchildren. Hearing aids will replace those pinkys.

The opportunity to buy a house is the "right", not a guarantee.

Obviously my question is rhetorical. We all know it is not a fundamental right.

But, when you look at the myriad of ways the gov't provides for facilitating home ownership through subsidized financing, etc you would think it was. I understand the public policy that a nation of homeowners promotes social stability. But is that just window dressing to make these bailout tactics more palatable to the masses? Is it just a ploy to prop up the economy? Is it a modern day "40 acres and a mule"? (And that is not a hidden racial reference)

Now....if I can only figure out a way to extend the current statute of limitations, I could charge individuals for all future associated fees based upon their current lifestyle choise which have and will affect my health and living standards.

See, mabye the NSA micro-managment program could be put to good use, from a purely statistical insurance perspective.....

In addition to national defense, the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America uses the term ".....promote the general welfare......"

What do you suppose was meant by that?

Certainly not FEMA:D

Government subsidizes homeownership because they want to keep people working (if they're indebted to banks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, they presumably have to stay working, busy and aren't out there conducting criminal acts or causing trouble). There's a "control" incentive.

Also, the government makes a lot of $$$ off the taxes. There's a money incentive.

Ultimately I think the government is less concerned about people actually owning their own property than they are with the populace-at-large being busy, content and not marching on City Hall with pitchforks and torches. If they felt they could get the same result by having the public stand on their heads all day long, they'd create incentives to have people do it.

Government is not concerned about peoples' well-being, they're concerned about control and power - the "well-being" part is an incidental.

Just ask that to peoples in Darfour...!

It's "PROMOTE the general welfare", not "PROVIDE general welfare". In other words, promote activities that are GENERALLY in the best interest of the nation - not specifically provide welfare bailouts for individuals.

But its OK to bailout big business, big agriculture, big oil companies and Wall Street, eh?;)

Yes. Who has the power to stop one from excercising that right if one has the money to do so?

However, if one buys a house in partnership with another person or a bank, and can't hold up their end of the bargain, I don't see where the buyer has any right at all to continue being an owner at the other person's or bank's expense.

Is it ethical/moral for a person or bank to go into partnership with or sell a mortgage to someone if they know that the person isn't really qualified/able to ride out the terms of the deal and will very likely default on the loan?

That's debatable, and being debated. No laws against it currently that I'm aware of.

Lender's greed in a market of rising home prices led them to lend money freely, knowing that if the borrower defaulted, they'd be able to reposses and sell it at a profit.

Now that the bubble's burst, I don't want the govt. to step in and spend my tax dollars to salve the wounds of those lenders who were greedy, ignorant of downside consequences or miscalculated and are now left holding the bag. It was their greed, ignorance or miscalculation, not mine.

Nor do I want my tax dollars spent to save those who, through their own ignorance, greed or miscalculation, put themselve's into a foreclosure position. I had nothing to do with that either and feel in no way responsible.

Maybe I'm missing something?