dancingtongue · 80-89, M
1. It is not a proposal specifically aimed to help undocumented workers. It is a proposed amendment to an existing program to assist first time home buyers who are in lower-paying jobs to not exclude people on the basis of their residence status.
2. Applicants must qualify for bank loans; then the state will provide 20% of the down payment. When the homeowner sells the house they must repay the state the original 20% down payment, plus 20% of any increased value in the sales price over the original purchase price. In today's California housing market, that can be a hefty "interest rate" on the original 20%.
3. The program was established recognizing that housing near jobs was largely unaffordable for most lower-socioeconomic workers due to the high down payment required; the requirement of having secured a bank loan IF the down payment is met precludes it being a free hand out.
4. Expanding the program by eliminating documented residency recognizes that a significant percentage of the lower-wage earners in California are undocumented, but are still good workers, with families, striving to become a part of their communities.
5. It is till being debated in the State Senate, and then needs to be signed by the Governor to become law.
All of this you could have found by Googling it yourself instead of just repeating dog whistle talking points from MAGA.
2. Applicants must qualify for bank loans; then the state will provide 20% of the down payment. When the homeowner sells the house they must repay the state the original 20% down payment, plus 20% of any increased value in the sales price over the original purchase price. In today's California housing market, that can be a hefty "interest rate" on the original 20%.
3. The program was established recognizing that housing near jobs was largely unaffordable for most lower-socioeconomic workers due to the high down payment required; the requirement of having secured a bank loan IF the down payment is met precludes it being a free hand out.
4. Expanding the program by eliminating documented residency recognizes that a significant percentage of the lower-wage earners in California are undocumented, but are still good workers, with families, striving to become a part of their communities.
5. It is till being debated in the State Senate, and then needs to be signed by the Governor to become law.
All of this you could have found by Googling it yourself instead of just repeating dog whistle talking points from MAGA.
View 32 more replies »
jackjjackson · M
Absolutely. Folks who have been here and paying taxes should be citizens. @dancingtongue
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@jackjjackson So you are in favor of pathways to citizenship for all those who have been here and subsidizing Social Security and Medicare with payroll taxes they themselves will never be able to collect.
jackjjackson · M
Absolutely have been for years. I would change will not to may not don’t be a pessimist. @dancingtongue
@dancingtongue
And none of that has been achieved. What we have is near universal insurance requirements but not universal health care.
My memory of health care in the military was first class. We felt sick we went to sick call and were treated.by staff physicians and nurses. We had routine physicals, dental and vision checks. Much like most urgent care clinics today. And much like 70 years ago when nobody had health insurance. We felt sick, we went to see a doc, and at the end of the month got a tiny, affordable bill in the mail.
I recall once doing comparison charts between health care cost and whatever’s, if the government took over hamburgers like it took over health care, a hamburger at McDonalds would cost $76.00. To get with fries and a drink it would cost $132.00.
————-
So poor people in housing projects in the middle of food desert can’t put his clunker without insurance on the road to go buy food, because you say the roads are for exclusive use of people who can afford insurance. He says screw you and goes buy food anyway. He gets stopped by the police who demand to see his license, registration and proof of insurance. What happens next is a familiar story.
The reasons for universal health coverage are two-fold: to reduce over-all health care costs and to improve U.S. morbidity/mortality rates, which rank among the lowest in developed countries with some form of universal health care.
And none of that has been achieved. What we have is near universal insurance requirements but not universal health care.
My memory of health care in the military was first class. We felt sick we went to sick call and were treated.by staff physicians and nurses. We had routine physicals, dental and vision checks. Much like most urgent care clinics today. And much like 70 years ago when nobody had health insurance. We felt sick, we went to see a doc, and at the end of the month got a tiny, affordable bill in the mail.
I recall once doing comparison charts between health care cost and whatever’s, if the government took over hamburgers like it took over health care, a hamburger at McDonalds would cost $76.00. To get with fries and a drink it would cost $132.00.
————-
So poor people in housing projects in the middle of food desert can’t put his clunker without insurance on the road to go buy food, because you say the roads are for exclusive use of people who can afford insurance. He says screw you and goes buy food anyway. He gets stopped by the police who demand to see his license, registration and proof of insurance. What happens next is a familiar story.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@Heartlander
I would be interested in seeing some factual comparisons to back up this anecdotal argument you frequently hear. Most often it is a comparison of apples and oranges. The more affordable previous coverage turns out to be essentially catastrophic coverage, little or no primary care coverage, high co-pays, and previous condition/mother may I loop-holes that made the coverage extremely limited whereas the Affordable Care Act required a basic level of benefits in different categories of coverage for easier and more accurate comparisons on real terms.
Backing up a few steps to how to pay for universal health care, the Obama Affordable health care should be renamed Unaffordable Health Care. While it made health care affordable for some, it made health care unaffordable for many. And since many had to downgrade their health insurance to afford the rising cost of insurance, it means that for many the quality was also degraded.
I would be interested in seeing some factual comparisons to back up this anecdotal argument you frequently hear. Most often it is a comparison of apples and oranges. The more affordable previous coverage turns out to be essentially catastrophic coverage, little or no primary care coverage, high co-pays, and previous condition/mother may I loop-holes that made the coverage extremely limited whereas the Affordable Care Act required a basic level of benefits in different categories of coverage for easier and more accurate comparisons on real terms.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
nudistsueaz · 61-69, F
Socialistic state and the legal citizens have nothing to say about how their tax dollars are spent.

SW-User
They're not doing this. It was vetoed. I don't think there's even any more money left for the 0 down program.
jackjjackson · M
Certainly not malicious perhaps misguided in attempting to be too nice?
@SW-User
@SW-User

SW-User
@jackjjackson That program was about giving first generation families whose parents rented a chance for home ownership, which ultimately helps the economy and poverty rate decrease. It's a very small program though. I'm not sure why it would include anyone else, hence the veto. I'm not in favor of it. I'd rather see more education help than mortgage help but it is a leg up, which helps people who are first generation born get out from under in populations that tend to not go up the ladder.
jackjjackson · M
I agree re education @SW-User
Wasn’t this the formula that tried to bring down the US banking system just 2 or 3 economic emergencies ago?
IM5688 · 70-79, M
Probably because people are leaving California by the car load to escape what has become of their state due to the incompetence and mismanagement by the democrats they voted into office.
jackjjackson · M
A distinct possibility. @IM5688
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
jackjjackson · M
I see. Please explain. @jshm2
specman · 51-55, M
Only in today’s dark times can this happen!
jackjjackson · M
Criminals like Newsome see. to be always lurking around. @specman
daydeeo · 61-69, M
Mindboggling
jackjjackson · M
And mindless as in being without a mind. @daydeeo
daydeeo · 61-69, M
@jackjjackson I don't see how that can't be found unconstitutional
jackjjackson · M
Only if it goes to the SCOTUS. Those CA judges are corrupt. @daydeeo
carpediem · M
[media=https://youtu.be/50OJ0atfipo]
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
jackjjackson · M
Excellent point. @kodiac
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
jackjjackson · M
Brilliant! And we of course keep what we presently have too. @BEENOV
BEENOV · M
@jackjjackson exactly, it's a win win














