Then explain it to me.
Maybe the renter should thank me for paying his medical costs. Or his refund for his student loan payment, or welfare, or EIC, or on and on and on.

I understand what your syaing. The government helps fund home purchases. I dont understand how you equate that to socialism. Thats a hell of a stretch. The government doesnt make my house payment. The government doesnt own my house. The government doesnt own my land. My refund does not give me 100% of my interest paid back to me. The government didnt tell me what house I could or could not buy. The government did not tell me where or where not I could live.

How is that socialism?

I think it's socialism when the government intervenes in the market to make one choice artificially cheaper, to the detriment of all other choices. It's not socialism in the true sense, where the government owns the houses (or do they? Fannie Mae...), but it is very much a case of social engineering, a socialist mainstay. Now you can say you might be able to afford a house without the intervention of the government, and may even prefer it, but how would you know? That choice has been predetermined for you, and you're merely choosing the best deal the government has laid out for you. You'll hear no argument from me with regards to public education, student loans or medicine - topics always thrown out by the libertarian/right as examples of socialism. But you have to throw home ownership in there with it. The interest deduction alone amounts to an $80 billion/year entitlement program. If you think that U.S. renters will be able to shoulder that load post-PO, I'd like to have some of what you're smoking.

Your discussion and lumping in of building and development policy into 'Socialism' as some kind of unspeakable evil is a bit stupid.

We need to make communal choices for the betterment of all... it's just important to acknowledge that this is a sliding scale between absolute fat-ass greed and jack-booted government thugs. We are ALL somewhere in between.

I love my sewage system. Maybe that makes me a communist. Portland Oregon has a fairly strict urban density policy that artificially jacks up property prices... but develops neighborhoods that people are really happy to live in.

Of course we could throw that all out the window and let the free-market put up billboards downtown, smoking factories next door, and untreated sewage run down the middle of the street.

I love black and white thinking. Not.

Agreed, Gary. It is certainly not black-and-white thinking that I'm trying to achieve - I abhor absolutes. I'm just trying to point out that righties that purport to detest socialism are actually beneficiaries of that same system. The same system that aims to achieve equal education or medical care access for all is the same one that wants to have everyone own their own home and have free roads to drive on. At the expense of everyone else, of course. Of course, no system is perfect - in fact, you could say the single-family house social program (in its current auto-oriented setting) is very destructive, yet it works well in more transit-robust areas like Portland (your point taken). If the government is expected to achieve some ends for all, may we at least instruct it to achieve sustainable and constructive ends.

I think that when you are considering a socialist system,
you have to consider places like Sweden, Finland, Germany etc
as the closest model.
Having visited all these places and also having visited
Russia and Asia, I would tend to group these 2 as extreme capitalist
systems, eventhough they are considered communist by the world.
But the US is getting more and more capitalist like Russia and Asia
in my opinion, in terms of concentrating wealthe among fewere and fewer
people.

The Rich have allways been richer, and the poor have allways been poorer.

While we're not talking about socialism per se, here is a ranking of money-makers (i.e., users pay more out in taxes than they receive in services like fire, water, utilities, roads, schools, et. al.) and money-losers (users pay less than they receive in such services). Note where much of America's homes are ranked - and then wonder why we have big-box stores...



Now, obviously, this is a sliding scale. Dense, transit-oriented developments that have adjacent single-family detached homes at the periphery are more likely to be money-makers, especially when compared with 5-bedroom McMansions on 1/2 acre lots in the outlying exurban hinterlands. Ditto goes for the dense retail-center TOD when compared with the hinterland's sprawling megamall complex.

Link to Article about sprawling bedroom county's struggle to lure moneyed businesses, industries

The state is paying you to buy a home because the state decided, in typical central-planning fashion, that it was better for people to increase home ownership. Never mind that for many people it's better to be renters.

Interestingly the UK has one of the world's highest home ownership rates. I like owning my own home - (rant alert!) - it means the landlord can't decide on a whim to not renew my tenancy this year, I don't have to ask permission to put 1 picture up on the wall, and if I need to call the plumber, I pay, so I decide if he (my plumber is a he) needs to be called. I don't get my property regularly inspected to see if I am keeping it to a standard of tidiness as judged by the landlord, and if I choose to keep my bicycle in the front porch I can do so if I please. I can use the phone company of my choice, I do not get hassled if I have a guest to stay for 2 weeks etc etc etc.

Now it's probably cheaper for me to rent but I am prepared to pay the premium to not have the hassle of the above, to have a _home_ not just a place to stay. Having said that. it is not stretching me or my husband financially to have made that as we bought our appartment when I was still a grad student so it was on my husband's salary only back when this was not a fashionable part of town - and isn't gigantic - fine for 2 people though, and _very_ energy efficient.

You get sick and tired of dealing with idiot, unprofessional landlords (I know there are many perfectly businesslike, professional landlords out there but also many jokers).

The advantages of home-ownership are rather self-evident, and your personal experience reflects that. Now, as to WHY the government should also provide substantial financial incentives for homeownership makes little sense to me. The intrinsic value of owning should be incentive enough.

Troubling, yes. But this is just the tip of the iceberg as gas prices will keep going up.

The good news here, is that society is adjusting to PO now with the higher prices. The slower PO hits us, the better off we will be.

*POV of a single male* A home is a gigantic wooden box that people occupy when they don't want to be outside. I have no personal/emotional attachment to houses.

I have several theories as to why the gov. subsidizes home ownership.
1) Home owners like it and since most voters are home owners...
2) Banks and construction companies obviously like the idea.
3) Liberals like it because it's a form of social engineering.

What is the real reason or maybe it's all of the above?
I think when PO hits a lot of the subsidies that people enjoy will be given the ax.

You're making my point for me. Why should the government try its hand at this social engineering project of 'home ownership for all'?



Chicken and egg. Most voters were not homeowners before the government came along and 'helped' them.
Wouldn't voters on welfare always vote for more welfare?



Obviously.



You totally blew this one. Who stands to make the most money from a homeowning public? The retailing, construction, insurance, finance, automobile and energy industries. These industries, by and large, make up most of the conservative base, as they are essentially 'big business'. I would say these conservatives appreciate the government's help in promoting lifestyles that line their pockets with even more money than they would make in a truly free market. After all, large homes (places to put shit) make us better consumers.



I couldn't agree more.

If left up to the free market home ownership rates would be much lower. During the 1920's about 45% owned their homes (today 65%) and that was when the credit system was significantly "loosened" (you could actually get a home loan..something that was impossible during the 1800's). I'm guessing when the idea of subsidizing home ownership was proposed the people who didn't own homes probably thought they wouldn't have lost anything so there was no opposition to the idea even though they would not have personally benefitted from it.

There's no rule that says liberals can't support ideas that will benefit big business. Contrary to popular belief the conservatives aren't the only ones in bed with big business.

That's not conservatism, that's called following one's self interest even at the expense of others. That has more to do with a human condition called "greed" rather then political ideology.

BTW a true conservative (not what we have today) is a promoter of the free market. In it's purest form nothing is encouraged or discouraged. The price of a commodity would be based on it's fair market value and the government would NOT manipulate it's price to encourage or discourage it's consumption. Basically subsidies would NOT exist. Taxes would exist but it would be levied uniformly so nothing is made significantly expensive. Yes I know NO such government exists on this planet.

That sounds about right. Interest rates on mortgages in the 1920s were fairly high (~10%) and terms were short (10 years was long-term). If anything, this shows how lax the lending industry has become with the protection afforded by the government acting as the secondary mortgage lender.



Agreed, but you introduced the partisan tilt. Both parties (currently) are flip sides of the same coin.



You took the words right out of my mouth. You're right about conservatives (the ones in power) who are anything but.