Should the government encourage people to own their own homes, even if they have to go into debt to do that?

The idea of home ownership has always been revered in American culture, something young hard-working Americans should strive to achieve. The narrative, perpetuated to us by our government and the real estate industry, follows that home ownership is good for the individual because it helps him/her accumulate wealth. They say it’s good for the economy because it encourages individuals to save and it’s good for civic society because individuals invest in the well-being of their neighborhood.

For these reasons, the US government encourages home ownership by allowing homeowners to deduct mortgage interest payments from taxable income and setting up agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that provide cheap home loans to people who might otherwise be pushed out of the private housing market.

But it seems that the government tends to see only the positive benefits of home ownership while ignoring the many negative aspects. When evaluating both negative and positive aspects then, should the government be providing incentives to encourage home ownership?

Explanation:

1) the answer is b

senators serve a six-year term; representatives serve a two-year term, making them more responsive to (and responsible for) voter confidence.

2) the answer is d

to serve as president, one must:   -be a natural-born u.s. citizen of the united states;   be at least thirty-five years old;   be a resident in the united states for at least fourteen years.

3) the answer is a

ella,because it is constitutionally eligible

4) the answer is c: the u.s president