Kill 10 kids, sell 7 chairs
Clearly the better solution, this will drive down the price of chairs and dramatically reduce the chairless population.
Of course there’s the best option which is an non-occupancy tax that goes up exponentially for each additional property you’re sitting on for speculation.
That right there would be a hard counter to wallstreet hoovering in the housing market.
It’s like you’re not even considering the feelings of the millionaires and billionaires with 72 houses each and I for one just won’t stand for it.
thinking that homeless illegal immigrants are the root cause of home shortage where a single corporation or a billionaire buys thousands of flats to rent them to people for exorbitant prices.
in one way it works because if you kick out many homeless people out of the country, you can say that in one year you cut homelessness by half.
Thats currently already done with jail. The main problem is homeless people don’t pay their jail bills. In my state 15 years ago it was 30$ per day you had to pay to be incarcerated in jail, not prison.
Okay america is sounding more and more like a joke. You have to pay to be in a processing facility? When you have no choice. And you’ll be incarcerated there during trial so before you are proven guilty of anything.
Fun fact! The Constitutional amendment that outlawed slavery also legalized slavery!
Yeah! And until right now, this very minute, as you’re reading this, some Americans didn’t know that.
Public Housing broski. Take a look at Vienna for example.
We have that. It’s a little complicated in ways that Vienna probably doesn’t have.
I recently moved to Vienna and don’t qualify for the public housing (you need to have lived here for a certain amount of time)but the sheer amount of it (and relative quality) means that even in the private market, competition is much less.
Compared to other cities we have lived in, the rent is much lower and the quality much higher.
Something like 60% of the population lives in either public or subsidized housing!
Yes but the real difference is the scale. Approx half of housing in Vienna is publicy owned. This means rent becomes affordable for most as prices depreciate. And it costs the government suprisingly little, saving a lot on crime, homelessness etc etc. Another big part of the market is tightly rent controlled. So you only have maybe 20% of housing that is in similar market conditions to 97% of US housing.
$25k down payment assistance where one bed one bath houses are routinely nearly half a million is a joke tbh.
That’s not everywhere in America. That’s not even most of America.
And while it’s an interesting discussion, it’s not the point of the post.
it’s not the point of the post.
Yes we know the point of the post is “Democrats good” so it sounds off topic to you when people push back against that. But $25k of down payment assistance is fucking pathetic and we need to be calling this shit out.
The democrat solution isn’t “get 3 more chairs” it is “provide the 7 kids who are already in chairs some extra materials to build more chairs for themselves”
Bullshit. Not that you would know.
Try using your words. What the fuck are you even trying to say?
This post is seriously sad though. Here you are enthusiastically disseminating propaganda for some of the most soulless, most evil humans who have ever lived just because they pretend that they’re better than their buddies from two doors down the hall
Try using your words. What the fuck are you even trying to say?
You’re fun. We should hang out more.
Quick reminder: The Nazi German government emptied out Eastern European towns and villages taken by the Wehrmacht during various campaigns, most notably Operation Barbarossa, for resettlement of “pure” Germans to those occupied lands (called Lebensraum)… this started almost literally once these occupied towns and villages were far enough from the front lines. Also, the whole point of the US Government’s genocidal forced march of native tribes, often referred to as the Tail of Tears, was to clear said native tribes out so the Southern aristocracy could seize the land for plantations worked by chattel slaves… whole swaths of what is today Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi were settled by whites as a result.
Many a “populist” (read: Fascist or proto-Fascist) operate their politics in this manner. Promise either cheap land (or, at the very least, housing) to the workers and others by committing what is, on it’s face, a genocide. There’s more modern examples (two in particular, going on right this minute for all the world to see), but I don’t want to get the ban-hammer so I won’t name them directly (I forgot to check the instance in which I am commenting before doing so, but not taking my chances).
Additionally, “Mass deportation” is a fucking genocide, I don’t know how this can even be said loudly. Guess people never learn…
It’s not in any way genocide. How do you figure that it is?
Pretty much any time in human history where someone has tried to displace that many people, they’ve either failed or it turned into an ethnic cleansing.
Are you saying that you believe that mass deportation would turn into mass murder?
Rounding up people based on their ethnicity usually goes poorly
This wouldn’t be rounding people up based on their ethnicity.
- It would not be rounding people up
- It would not be based on ethnicity
Instead:
- It would be applying a particular dispatch when people encounter the legal system
- It would be based on legal status
So in the same way that a government could have a policy like
IF you are stopped while driving drunk THEN you will be put in a jail cell for drunk people
this would be a policy like
IF you are brought into custody and we determine you’re here illegally THEN we will deport you
So no, this isn’t in any way like rounding people up (ie performing a dragnet across all of society to ferret people out) based on ethnicity. Like, at all.
Let’s say you suddenly got yanked from your home and sent to live in the land of your ancestors (where you don’t have a home or any friends). Would you survive?
If yes, ask yourself again, but now you’re broke and have a medical condition and you require medication to survive. How about now?
These people getting deported don’t have 2nd homes they can return to, and they can’t just put one on a credit card.
Don’t like homelessness? Mass deportation creates homelessness crises.
Is it being proposed that people be yanked from their homes?
What do you think mass deportation means?
Free lollipops?
Read a wiki.
Learn to articulate yourself
Both ideas are terrible.
Limiting how many homes that can be owned and preventing foreigners from owning rental homes would hurt the oligarchy, so our bought government would never do that, though.
The analogy is just incorrect. It’s not that there’s 7 chairs and 10 kids. It’s that there’s four kids and one asshole is taking up all seven chairs.
I’d say the middle ground of learning from your mistakes and focussing on having less children in the future is perhaps something to consider.
In the meantime you should get enough chairs.
“Kill 3 kids and bulldoze the neighboring nature reserve (it won’t give us more chairs, but it’ll feel good)”
If they really wanted to change regulations they’d push changing zoning regulations in cities to allow building anything other than detached single family housing. That would be totally reasonable and help alongside tax incentives. But I have a feeling that’s not what’s meant by changing regulations…
They said “making federal land available”. I take that as they want to sell off land in places like national parks to be developed.
Which, needless to say, is an awful idea.
The american dream isnt raising a family in an apartment, and a lot of people were raised on that dream.
We need to change the perception of condensed housing I think before there is support for that.
My perception of dense housing is smelling cigarettes and weed and hearing fighting, dogs barking, loud exhaust, and loud bass for hours on end.
I think we change the perception by enforcing rules to keep people from disturbing others peace at home. Make it a reality that dense housing isn’t a worse experience. That isn’t currently the case.
I’d be much more apt to go back to dense housing if I was confident that my complaints would be heard and actioned up to and including evicting the offenders (after many complaints and no corrective actions taken). But I have never heard of such a place.
I have one “weird” and “radical” proposal: public housing to rent. Not to but. At affordable price. That would lower the price of every house, flat, …
Those who live in apartments, and only they, should collectively and equitably own the building entirely.
Put the squeeze on the landlord and then collectively make a low-ball offer.
In the SF Bay Area, it costs over $1 million just to build one “affordable” housing unit.
Good thing the fucking country is bigger than the SF bay area then, isn’t it?
It’s sold at that price. I’m sure it doesn’t cost that much.
Trump’s sucks, but just giving people money will make all of the housing $25000 more expensive on average over time. There are so many better things to do with that money, like better public transportation and schools. She just wants to throw it down a hole and make housing more expensive, in exchange for some short-term support.
It’s assistance not giving. I think it’s just a fund you can borrow from to get enough to start a mortgage.
It would also only apply to people who can’t afford the mortgage.
So it’s not going to impact house prices in the sense you say it would. Except slightly increasing demand to buy and thereby decreasing demand to rent.
It’ll make the bottom of the market more expensive.
The increase in demand will a little. But not near the amount the aid is helping. We are talking a different order of magnitude.
I’d have to look at numbers to say one way or another. I do know that the bottom of the market is already disproportionately expensive for what it is, but it’s been a while since I learned about that that so I can’t explain it to satisfaction.
“destroy nature and ruins lives” vs “destroy nature, increase stock value, build three luxury chairs that no one is allowed to live in.”
Is this more projection from the right? The idea of ‘luxury chairs that no one is allowed to live in’ very comfortably includes golf courses and expensive hotels. I haven’t seen either of these things with Kamalas name plastered on the side. Trump makes this a part of his core identity. Figure it out.
Nice straw man, I was talking about dem nimbys refusing to tear down pointless low density housing, remove sfh zoning, and refuse to introduce regulations preventing mcmansions developers from receiving the funds like the ones being proposed as they always seem to be the ones to actually get federal funding.
California’s housing crisis is exclusively because of dem plans like Harris’ that refuse to address the elephant of old white nimbys refusing to give up their wastes of space.
The only thing proposed that’s reasonable is “changing regulation.” It’s too easy to block new housing, and often times it’s just flat out illegal to increase density or build mixed use.
But those regulations are largely controlled by local governments, not the federal government. Federal regulations can prevent building new housing in certain areas and conditions (like destroying habitat of an endangered species), but that is much rarer than a city council not approving projects or zoning changes because they want to keep property values high.
And that needs to change. Local communities are harming the nation with their NIMBY shit. Feds should step in.
So then the federal government should regulate zoning laws. Which is the opposite of fewer federal regulations.
You’ll never believe this, but you can actually add a regulation that removes or negates other regulations, resulting in overall fewer regulations.
That depends heavily on how you are counting regulations in this case. You are increasing the number of enforced federal regulations while the regulations at the local level may be increased, decreased, or unchanged based on how local regulations interact with the federal regulation.
Good thing I said “removes or negates.”
No one ever mentioned fewer federal regulations
It is in the figure as a part of the housing policy proposal of a presidential campaign. The executive of the federal government doesn’t control city councils so it must be federal regulations that will be impacted.
I hate any financial assistance that doesn’t address the root cause, because all it is at that point is more tax and wealth transfer to the rich.
Aaaaaand I know everyone hates when someone points out their hypocrisy so I’m sure I’ll get crucified for this…
This applies to student loan forgiveness too.
Absolutely. I’m for student loan forgiveness, but right now it’s just giving money to banks and then burdening the next generation with the cost.
Lol what???
Tell me you don’t understand what the student loan forgiveness was supposed to do…
Student loan forgiveness was not supposed to reduce the cost of schooling you.moron it was to stimulate the economy and.woukd have done exactly that.
God you people are dense.
Bullshit. You’re the first person I’ve ever seen mention that as a primary purpose.
I’ve seen it explained that way in multiple places. It’s what I understood it to be.
