Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Paranoid Android]

Who is going to build homes? the government? The issue is that government is often slow, cumbersome, and government contracts can get out of hand real fast. One trend is to build "tiny" homes, but that's horribly inefficient.

@Endus beat me to it. Yes, this government implementing laws and I would still say they can fund building construction is how you build housing.

The government is slow and cumbersome compared to the private companies not building no housing at all? The private sector is deliberately not building housing now to drive up home sale value. Worse of all landlords sit on unoccupied places since they can drive up rent and likely benefit from some tax incentive where they probably don't lost money on keeping it open.

Also you bring up money when this a cost that benefits people just like any other government program.

The other issue is actual land. Land gets more expensive when you get into urban areas. Not only that, most of it is already taken up. that means the city/state either buys it from private owners, or they use eminent domain, or both.

Urban areas would actually be waaaaay more cheaper and I will say "fuck building suburban housing". Super efficient of buying/building a place in a dense area where tax dollars spending on infrastructure would be cheaper. Then You Know, packing a 100 tax payers in 1 acres say is better than 1 person in 1 acre suburban home.

/Urbanist rant

What works in Vienna will not sell in the United States. That's the problem.

You don't even know what Vienna social housing is do you?

Simply all this is government housing where the rent is fixed for people. If people know they have a relatively cheap and fixed cost on their rent how much that helps them economically?

So yes this can work in the US if You Know, you don't have effin Neo-Liberalism.

[Elegiac]

That's all well and good theory, but practically speaking all we've seen in the last 20+ years is wealth consolidation but the uber rich and miniscule pay rates along with a housing market that skyrocketed entirely out of synch with the flat pay rate increases.

And a pressure vessel is intact until it fails. You're seriously overestimating how resilient these structures are, especially considering they are by definition not socially or environmentally sustainable.

We are? Can you cite that please?

Little bit of a misspeak on my part: we're seeing unprecedented levels of unionization within the US, while the rates have remained stagnant due to systemic barriers.

However, as mentioned previously in the thread there are much stronger political pushes than there were previously at the state level for workplace reform. It's not correct to confuse institutional inertia with a lack of actual momentum, especially in countries that are set up as structural obstacles to change like the United States.

That impact doesn't necessarily equate to capitalism going away or anything other than staying where it is and getting worse. Can you elaborate?

Sure: insisting that capitalism is here forever and it's just going to keep getting worse is doomer talk that isn't supported by anything in human history, much less present attitudes. That's exactly the sort of brain rot that Capitalist Realism refers to.

[Doomcookie]

Daily reminder that having data doesn't make one not a bigot, as the bigotry is in the narrative that data is being used to paint.

And let's be entirely clear: "anti-homeless sentiment" is a form of bigotry. It entails many of the same processes of social death as seen in things like chattel slavery, and narratives like 'homelessness is the result of laziness' are fictions designed to buttress those processes.

The issue is that the GOP has the data on their side. They can do almost nothing, and as a result, have lower rates of homelessness. The homeless will either leave for cities and states with more benefits to offer, private citizens step up, or the homeless find a way to do it themselves.

This is a losing issue for Democrats, and they need to change the messaging.

[Milchshake]

It's crazy to see Jill Stein voters in the wild again.

[Doomcookie]

@Endus beat me to it. Yes, this government implementing laws and I would still say they can fund building construction is how you build housing.

The government is slow and cumbersome compared to the private companies not building no housing at all? The private sector is deliberately not building housing now to drive up home sale value. Worse of all landlords sit on unoccupied places since they can drive up rent and likely benefit from some tax incentive where they probably don't lost money on keeping it open.

Also you bring up money when this a cost that benefits people just like any other government program.



Urban areas would actually be waaaaay more cheaper and I will say "fuck building suburban housing". Super efficient of buying/building a place in a dense area where tax dollars spending on infrastructure would be cheaper. Then You Know, packing a 100 tax payers in 1 acres say is better than 1 person in 1 acre suburban home.

/Urbanist rant



You don't even know what Vienna social housing is do you?

Simply all this is government housing where the rent is fixed for people. If people know they have a relatively cheap and fixed cost on their rent how much that helps them economically?

So yes this can work in the US if You Know, you don't have effin Neo-Liberalism.

The Vienne model may not even be constitutional in the United States. It's certainly a loser at the ballot box.

[Elegiac]

It's crazy to see Jill Stein voters in the wild again.

Where else are Boomers going to LARP as socially conscious?

Hollywood went woke, remember?

[Paranoid Android]

The Vienne model may not even be constitutional in the United States. It's certainly a loser at the ballot box.

ROFL!!! What?

The constitution has an amendment on government social housing, which we do already, and fixed rents?

Wait providing housing and cheap rent is a loser on the ballot box? Holy shit! I will never discredit the American brain on individualism being convinced to vote against their interest. But just saying "I will give you housing and it's going to be inexpensive"

[Doomcookie]

ROFL!!! What?

The constitution has an amendment on government social housing, which we do already, and fixed rents?

Wait providing housing and cheap rent is a loser on the ballot box? Holy shit! I will never discredit the American brain on individualism being convinced to vote against their interest. But just saying "I will give you housing and it's going to be inexpensive"

I never said there is an amendmemt on it.

Yes,it is a loser at the ballot box, because the reality is that the cheaper rent is either heavily subsidized, or entirely controlled by government mandate.

Americans as a whole don't have much faith in the competency of their governments at any level.

[Paranoid Android]

I never said there is an endmemt on it.
.

You fucking said:

The Vienne model may not even be constitutional in the United States

Wtf does this mean then?

I can't even provide constructive commentary anymore cause like wtf!

Yes,it is a loser at the ballot box, because the reality is that the cheaper rent is either heavily subsidized, or entirely controlled by government mandate.

How are they subsidize? I really want your logic on this.

Here is from source of Vienna housing.

It wasn’t until we visited Vienna that we realized just how much this legalized theft of government assets has hurt America’s housing production. Because of housing programs created in the first half of the 20th century, the city uses minimal new taxpayer funds to subsidize housing construction. Vienna’s housing fund was seeded long ago, and it is self-sustaining because it gives loans, not grants, that get repaid and are recycled to produce new housing. In addition, “limited profit housing associations” (LPHAs), which must use their profits to build more housing, control half of the city’s social housing.

In bold:

The funding of social housing construction – both for rental flats and for subsidised owner-occupied units and single-family homes – is tied to a fixed portion of income tax, which corresponds to one percent of the combined income of both employees and employers (i.e. either group pays 0.5 percent), paid in the form of a housing construction contribution. On the basis of this national tax, Vienna receives an annual amount of approx. Euro 250 million for housing purposes. In all, Vienna spends around Euro 400 million per year on housing construction.

This funding via taxation creates a reliable basis for the planning of complex social housing programmes, which would be impossible under strictly market-dependent housing policies. In recent years, however, the increased demand for housing has forced the Vienna City Council to earmark additional, separate budget resources for housing purposes.

So you are wrong. It's a closed loop cause You Know, they don't rely on Neo-Liberalism of trying some private sector to profit off the housing market.

[Doomcookie]

You fucking said:



Wtf does this mean then?

I can't even provide constructive commentary anymore cause like wtf!




How are they subsidize? I really want your logic on this.

Here is from source of Vienna housing.



In bold:



So you are wrong. It's a closed loop cause You Know, they don't rely on Neo-Liberalism of trying some private sector to profit off the housing market.

I said it may not be constitutional, not that there's an amendment. Do you see the difference? It could be a direct hit to 5th Amendment rights. This goes beyond simple rent control.

It's a loop that was funded, and subsidized... along with co-ops. It even said it was seeded long ago. You even bolded the "NEW" for me.

[Kaleredar]

Isn’t this thread supposed to be about Kamala Harris and Joe Biden…?

[Doomcookie]

Isn’t this thread supposed to be about Kamala Harris and Joe Biden…?

Sure, let's stop talking about the homeless.

[Endus]

You just laid out one of the things people hate about local governments.

One of the things developers hate about local governments.

Most residents like the fact that you can't put a new biowaste recycling depot or high-rise condo tower right in the middle of their suburban neighbourhood.

Also, city governments also don't tend to care about homeless people. It's a problem that they want to hide, not fix.

Having worked with city governments, you're talking out your own ass.

It's not a lie. I provided you the data.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

You're using that data to misrepresent the facts. You're ignoring context, specifically, like why there's more homelessness in blue states. You're trying to draw a causative connection to the funding, where there's only correlation, and ignoring that the funding is insufficient by pretty much any independent measure.

Using facts outside of their context isn't a "factual argument", it's an attempt to mislead and misinform. See also such glorious precursors as the book The Bell Curve.

- - - Updated - - -

Urban areas would actually be waaaaay more cheaper and I will say "fuck building suburban housing". Super efficient of buying/building a place in a dense area where tax dollars spending on infrastructure would be cheaper. Then You Know, packing a 100 tax payers in 1 acres say is better than 1 person in 1 acre suburban home.

The "natural" process of city-building should be increasing urbanization. Set the city limits, and as the city expands, the suburbs that were at city limits will eventually get subsumed into high-rise development, squeezing out that suburbia completely in time. If you can't partition and development the farmland outside the city into residential plots, developers only have once choice; build up.

Suburbia is a choice, not a requirement. And a toxic one for urban economics.

[Kaleredar]

Sure, let's stop talking about the homeless.

You could start a thread about it.

[Doomcookie]

One of the things developers hate about local governments.

Most residents like the fact that you can't put a new biowaste recycling depot or high-rise condo tower right in the middle of their suburban neighbourhood.



Having worked with city governments, you're talking out your own ass.



Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

You're using that data to misrepresent the facts. You're ignoring context, specifically, like why there's more homelessness in blue states. You're trying to draw a causative connection to the funding, where there's only correlation, and ignoring that the funding is insufficient by pretty much any independent measure.

Using facts outside of their context isn't a "factual argument", it's an attempt to mislead and misinform. See also such glorious precursors as the book The Bell Curve.

- - - Updated - - -



The "natural" process of city-building should be increasing urbanization. Set the city limits, and as the city expands, the suburbs that were at city limits will eventually get subsumed into high-rise development, squeezing out that suburbia completely in time. If you can't partition and development the farmland outside the city into residential plots, developers only have once choice; build up.

Suburbia is a choice, not a requirement. And a toxic one for urban economics.

I'm no longer talking about homelessness in this thread, as it's not really related to the topic.

- - - Updated - - -

You could start a thread about it.

I didn't bring it up, but I am done talking about it.

[shimerra]

I'm no longer talking about homelessness in this thread, as it's not really related to the topic.

- - - Updated - - -



I didn't bring it up, but I am done talking about it.

And the world sighed with relief. Thinking the numbers are on the Gop's side rofl.

[Flarelaine]

City planners have immense power to control development if they're not overruled by City Council for bullshit political reasons. They can literally just look at a plan and say "nah, doesn't fit what we want in that part of the city". And then the developer needs to redesign it so it fits.

And then the councillor for that ward gets voted out by NIMBYs and his successor takes note of it. Runs on it, to begin with.

[unfilteredJW]

I didn't bring it up, but I am done talking about it.

Good. No need for you to keep cheerleading you and your ilk's misanthropy.

[Paranoid Android]

The Fed has been berated for being slow to raise rates in the face of rising inflation. But its passivity in the face of falling inflation has gone on longer, and may do much more harm

Let it be known, I despise Paul Krugman btw, a neo-Lib.

He does have a point in this tweet and the Fed whether intentionally or not can hurt this economy, well already hurting it, for the upcoming election. My rant here about when then raised interest rates to curb inflation was a horrible choice, hurting consumers or homebuyers. Yes, now the rates to be lowered as inflation has cooled quite significantly. Oh and I guess that using rates to stoke or cool an economy is not great, but here we are.

[Edge-]

https://apnews.com/article/house-rep...47fddd0f9150fb

House Republicans have released their initial impeachment inquiry report on President Joe Biden, alleging an abuse of power and obstruction of justice in the financial dealings of his son Hunter Biden and family associates.

The nearly yearlong investigation by Republicans stops short of alleging any criminal wrongdoing by the president. Instead, the almost 300-page report out Monday, the opening day of the Democratic National Convention, covers familiar ground, asserting the Biden family traded on its “brand” in business ventures in corrupt ways that rise to the Constitution’s high bar for impeachment.

Damn, two years of House Republican bullshit and the best they still have is, "Well we just don't like him and what he does!"

Also, hilarious given that we know Donald did this very thing. "Every accusation is an admission" etc. etc.