Harris to Propose $25,000 Assistance for First-Time Homeowners

[Mac-7]

I voted for him in the primaries, but he never made it to a national ticket.

It is a shame he tried so hard to stay with the GOP

Ron Paul needed a time machine to transport everyone forward to 2035 or 2040

If they could experience even for a day what their lives would be like without fiscal responsibility Ron Paul would have won in a landslide

But without it he needed to compromise in other places to achieve his primary gosl and he never did

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But without it he needed to compromise in other places to achieve his primary gosl and he never did

He sure did not , I blame it on the people of the country. Lots of people talk about it, but it is normally like 10th on the list of things when it is actually time to vote

 

[Seymour Flops]

The increased demand will push the price of houses up, so the $25K toward a house will be largely eaten up by that increase. Meanwhile, people who would otherwise realize they cannot afford the payments and the maintenance costs that come with owning a home will be tempted to buy one anyway, while this money is available.

Maybe they will expect another "generous" grant of OPM from President Harris to cover those costs, or even fogiveness of the mortgages as Democrats are pushing for Student Loan deadbeats. If that comes at all, it will not be until 2028, the next presidential election year, by which time, they will likely have a foreclosure on their record and the house they might have afforded by then be out of the question.

Democrats never ask themselves "and then what will happen?"

 

[Mac-7]

He sure did not , I blame it on the people of the country. Lots of people talk about it, but it is normally like 10th on the list of things when it is actually time to vote

it takes a better communicator than ron paul

But no one can take the public where it doesent want to go

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But no one can take the public where it doesent want to go

This is the key. The public does not want less spending, they do not care about the debt.

 

[Mac-7]

This is the key. The public does not want less spending, they do not care about the debt.

If the voters could see the future they would do anything to avoid the consequences of what we are doing now

The WWII generation lived through the Great Depression

They would understand, but most of them are gone now

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If the voters could see the future they would do anything to avoid the consequences of what we are doing now

I doubt it.

They would argue it was not real or what have you.

Let me ask you this, if it was proven tomorrow 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt that climate change was being caused by humans (I am not saying it, just what if), do you think humans would give up what they have in an attempt to stop the change?

 

[Mac-7]

I doubt it.

They would argue it was not real or what have you.

Let me ask you this, if it was proven tomorrow 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt that climate change was being caused by humans (I am not saying it, just what if), do you think humans would give up what they have in an attempt to stop the change?

If it could be proven to be caused by man and reversible, then your time machine would be able to show the consequences in graphic detail

If it was as horrible as the greenies claim then a majority of people would go along with you

But what if the end result is not as catastrophic as the greenies predict?

 

[dblack]

If it could proven to be caused by man and reversible, then your time machine would be able to show the consequences in graphic detail

If it was as horrible as the greenies claim then a majority of people would go along with you

But what the end result is not as catastrophic as the greenies predict?

The climate change debate is a fake argument. By that I mean an argument where the participants pretend the debate is about one thing, when the struggle, what's really at stake, is something else entirely.

The real argument is about the scope and reach of the regulatory state. Liberals are forever looking to expand it, and conservatives seek to minimize it (or at least they pretend to). Liberals love climate change because it's a great excuse to expand regulation, and throw in a little socialism for good measure.

Conservatives oppose it, but rather than make the ideological argument against expansive regulation, and proposing alternatives, they copout and go with the much simpler claim that climate change isn't real.

The point here is that neither side cares whether climate change is real. If there was ironclad proof that climate change were real, conservatives would still oppose expansive regulation to deal with it. Likewise, if climate change is revealed to be a hoax, liberals will still favor more regulation.