politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
We are in the wake of one of the largest wealth transfers... robberies in history. The middle class has been drained, the poor have been robbed. There's nothing they can do to take back all the money they gave to the wealthiest in the country. It's going to take some serious reforms, none of which Biden is capable of. I'll fucking list the solutions if you want, as if that'd do anything. The bottom is going to fall out soon enough, we'll see change.
UBI and/or a wealth tax would do it. Hell I'd settle for USACorp doing Housing, Healthcare, Internet, and Groceries at cost. Especially in areas being literally left behind by the private sector.
There are a handful of politicians who actually care about people. Nothing will change unless we elect more people willing to change things. Barring that, we eat the rich.
You'd have to go back to around 2000 to find rates on a 30 year fixed comparable to today's. https://www.freddiemac.com/pmms
Historically we're still in a period of pretty good rates. However, the reality is who cares about what things were like more than 25 years ago. The new normal is 6ish percent, and we're over that right now. I don't think we're ever going to see rates below 5% again, not counting for some extraneous circumstance nobody can predict. But at this point any relief is going to be meaningful to a lot of people.
On the other hand, home prices are not coming down, and they probably will not come down even if there's plenty of overinflated valuations out there.
Therefore the only thing to give on affordability is increased supply to keep home values from continuing to grow in a pace that outruns incomes, and lower rates so more people can afford what's out there today.
You can't really use interest rates to compare our current situation with recent history.
A feeding frenzy at insanely low interest rates for an extended time caused prices to skyrocket. So even though interest rates are at a historically normal rate, the housing prices have insanely outpaced inflation to a ridiculous degree (in high cost areas like California, which is my situation).
I would be very interested in seeing the change in the distribution of:
- Corp owned properties (hedge funds, etc included)
- Multiple investment property owners
- Short term rentals
It doesnt seems like our population had some sudden boom and new housing couldn't keep up. Instead, it seems like greedy people have bought up every property they could, and continued to parlay the rental income into additional property purchases. And hedge funds have been buying everything up, even using AI to automate it.
If the above stands up to scrutiny, then legislation should be passed to encourage owner occupation.
- Tax the shit out of any properties beyond 2 or 3. This allows small time landlords, which is healthy for the rental market.
- Out right ban, via heavy taxation for X years until a full ban, businesses / hedge funds from owning single family homes / individually sold condos. The only place we need corporate money in is high density living like apartments. But these should be carefully limited in favor of individually owned condos.
Of course, there should be some grace period to allow owners to sell off their existing properties. But to be blunt, it needs to be relatively short, like 3 years, to actually affect housing prices in a good way.
Being able to own where you live should be a fundamental right to the working class. Instead, housing is treated as a commodity, and the greedy have caused runaway inflation, and the working class are suffering. Morally, I'm perfectly fine with them taking a loss.
For you individuals who bought in the last few years to occupy, you have your own home to call your own, and can afford the payments even if the value goes down. You are not entitled to your "investment" always increasing in value. Society is suffering because of the current paradigm. It needs aggressive correction.
I don't think we disagree here.
Rates are higher than the current market can bear, a result of the artificially extended period of historically low rates. The pandemic can only be blamed for some of this. The prior administration juicing the economy against sound economical principals telling us rates should have continued the rise that started around 2016/2017 contributed at least as much and hamstrung our tools to respond.
Housing stock shortages have long list of causes, as you line out. With so many things contributing to the problem it's hard to cope with, both at a policy level and for us regular folk. An average person needs an explanation that's easy and memorable, and thereby actionable in terms of throwing their support behind. That's not easy when there's not enough fingers to point, solutions to each aren't clear, and there's only so much political bandwidth that can be put towards making change.
It's going to be slow, and not everything will work, but I'm glad there is finally attention on it and it looks like the people who can do things are doing them instead of just talking.
Outright ban of hedge fund ownership of residential properties via life imprisonment for all executives of that hedge fund. Raising taxes just means the renters will pick up the tab.
CATO hates it. Which is generally a good thing. Okay, I'll give it to him for now. He's stepping up pressure on at least one part of the economy that's causing pain and suffering. The problem is as always, delivery. The last time he got pressured during campaign season it was about immigration and reforming a system that forced migrants to wait in dangerous areas. Then he continued most of Trump's policies and even took some of them further.
He needs to deliver or at least show progress. He's not just a candidate, he has the power to show his willingness before the election this time.
Hey, do Canada next!
“Biden knows you can’t buy a house in Canada”
I did it!
"You wouldn't download a Canada!"
This is the flip side of the US achieving a "soft landing", bringing down inflation without triggering a recession. Not having a recession is good, right? Yes, in the main, but one consequence is that asset prices, including housing, will remain elevated for the foreseeable future. These tax credits that Biden's proposing amount to no more than tinkering around the edges of the basic economic situation, at best. At worst, they could ruin the Fed's inflation-fighting campaign at the last stretch.
A healthy economy is no good if you get evicted. If too many people get evicted then the floor drops out of the housing market. Again.
Didn't the housing prices drop during a recession? It really feels that politicians have their own lingo. When people call something "bad" it actually means good; however, when a politician call the economy "good" it really means bad.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Polling indicates that it’s these voters — who are more likely to be renters — that Biden is now struggling with: those who cast ballots for him four years ago but are now leaning toward Donald Trump or considering staying home on Election Day.
In promoting his economic agenda in the summer of 2023, in what would become known as “Bidenomics,” the president emphasized three main planks: empowering workers, reviving domestic manufacturing, and reining in corporate power through competition.
In a newly released report, the president’s staff economists dedicated an entire chapter to increasing the supply of affordable housing and called for more aggressive federal action to lower costs, like pressuring cities to loosen zoning laws.
Biden also proposed new tax credits for first-time homebuyers and for middle-class families selling their starter homes, and a new $20 billion grant program to increase housing production.
“Biden’s backwards solution is to subsidize demand by handing out more government money to buyers, renters, and developers,” argued Judge Glock, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank.
It will be hard to make a real federal dent on housing without Congress, and it’s unlikely that any major congressional action will happen before the next election, with Republicans loathe to give Biden any more bipartisan victories to campaign on.
The original article contains 1,105 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
good bot