Agreed. Thank you for sharing the context.
MountingSuspicion
joined 2 years ago
Yea, but these people are saying they are morally against it but still did it when push came to shove. I'm glad they're speaking about it, but it's so weird to be all "I'm morally scarred" about an action you did not have to take and knew was wrong at the time. Again, VERY glad they're speaking out, but I wish they just didn't do it in the first place.
Yea, I was definitely not denying it. Just wondering why someone who is morally against it would do it in the first place.
I'm glad that they are speaking out, but why didn't they say no? He says they tried to talk their commanding officer out of it, but then they just did it anyway? If they knew it was wrong, why didn't they do it? Again, glad they're speaking out, but it's so weird that they did it in the first place.
It literally isn't just "tax more". I explained that in the long term this would be a boon to the economy and taxes and that the program would have a gradual introduction which would allow for the program to begin paying for itself by the time it's fully implemented. I'm not sure if you're incapable or just unwilling to read, but there are solutions to the housing problem, and "people can't afford housing so let them be homeless" is not one of them.
You clearly just don't like the policy, but all of your points have responses.
- tax more. Literally everyone on the left agrees with that
- More money in the economy is more opportunity to tax. People that need this benefit will be most likely to actually spend their money on good and services. These programs will also give homes and stability to people so that they can get out of cycles that impede their upward mobility and cause them to continue to depend on benefits.
- it is not irrelevant because this would not be a check for billions being written overnight. There would be a roll out to ensure stability and work out issues with the market
- never said no penalties for defaulting and plenty of people with bad credit need housing and are being provided with it by the government anyways. Might as well not give that money to 3rd party landlords that drive up rents. Also, this is nothing like PPP, other than that the government is involved.
- the government would operate like any bank would. It would not allow a 500k loan for a house not worth 500k. You're not guaranteed a number. That should have been clear based on my above comment that mentioned potentially upgrading to a different house when your income increases. Houses aren't just more expensive because fha loans exist. And again, all of this would be in a market where investment properties aren't really a thing.
If you don't think the government should be involved in housing, you can just say that.
Yea. Before if you wanted to be part of the conversation, you had to see it in theaters. Now you can wait to watch at home and it hasn't even fully left theaters. I never got the appeal of theaters, so I'm loving this, but it's obvious that it's a big issue. It's gotten expensive too, but honestly I'm not sure that's making as big a difference as people are suggesting.
The studio has no idea how to make a DC movie. That's the issue. They don't care about writing or direction, so it doesn't matter who the movie is aimed at because it's going to be bad regardless.
- the government has absurd levels of money
- it will literally earn the government money long term
- it's not like it'll happen overnight
- it's not a grant it's a loan. The loan would be for the entire amount. This is already basically in place in a different country.
- prices would not skyrocket because there would be virtually no rental market so if you wanted to sell you're selling to someone who is going to occupy. Homes will not be investments the way they are currently seen. This will be a way for people currently in a position to only rent to start getting equity so they can have better opportunities in the future. Selling to upgrade will be done because a) you started earning more b) because you had a period with no payments and therefore were able to save c) originally purchased below your means. There will be inflation, but generally no one will be moving into a home for 500k and selling 2-3 years later for a million. There won't be enough buyers once investors are mostly disincentivized/removed from the market
I mean, it's not just them in that situation, and it seems uncharitable to claim their only concern is self interest. I stand by my original point that it's important people speak up about how situations affect them, and I'm not sure I'd call that self interested. Since I don't know them personally, I'll give the benefit of the doubt. Housing as a right is a cornerstone of leftist ideology, so I want to make sure people feel comfortable talking about it openly and debating implementation and bringing up when people might be left behind.
In my comment I explicitly stated that there is no need to stop new construction. I do not expect any area to absorb anything. I suggested construction will continue and "additionally" that some areas are being revitalized and will have different needs (rebuilding vs new homes). That's just true.
I'm not expecting renting to just end. I know people who do not want to own any kind of property and prefer short term rentals. It's not a sensible goal to force people into owning if they don't want to.
What does it mean to not be able to afford home ownership? Do you mean they not have enough money for housing in the first place, or do you mean they can just rent? If option one, they are considered homeless and the state should provide housing, if option two, then yes, rent to own should be a real thing. First time home buyers loans exist and the project should be expanded. These are not novel proposals that I just made up. People have been suggesting them for quite a while.
Literally every leftist I know IRL voted Harris and seeing this comment over and over is absolutely hilarious. Either you think bots are real people, think it's impossible to criticize democrats, think the democrats are not worth criticizing, or some combination of the above. The only thing I know for sure when I read comments like this is that you aren't and do not know any leftists. What kind of activism are you actually engaging in? What brings you into contact with the community? Nothing, because if so you would know better.