‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, means more people can pay more rent and help cover upgrade costs.

Do you even realize how short-sighted that viewpoint is in the real world? I'm not being facetious or argumentative. I'm just seriously curious if you even peek beyond giving all minimum wage workers a boost to $15.00 per hour.

I understand economics better than the right wing, and most especially You. It is not short sighted at all. It does solve simple poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing is even more clueless and more Causeless about economics.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

tax cut economics is WorthLess if it doesn't cover spending.

/----/ Conservatives say cut spending. RINOs and Libs sy NO WAY JOSE.
View attachment 206161

great, let's end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them anyway.

/—-/ Nothing stopping you from paying war time taxes. Get out the old checkbook...

fake wars, fake tax rates.

don't ask for cuts to social spending. we have a general welfare clause.

we don't have a general warfare clause.

General welfare meant something different to our FF's than what it means to you.

No, it doesn't. The right wing simply has lousy reading comprehension.

 

[danielpalos]

‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve this problem for us, via market friendly means. applied capitalism, what concept.

Boy, you really are stupid.

lol. You are even more stupid with nothing but an ad hominem instead of a valid rebuttal that explains your fake news alleged point of view and argument.

 

[Votto]

Da Comrade Da

Cool, each communist gets a building.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's see, Medicare for all and housing for all; what comes next, government for all?

I think government paid vacations would be nice. Start with two weeks paid vacation in your 20's, three in your 30's and four weeks paid vacation from the age of forty. A nice stipend for travel would be nice too. I'd love a new Harley every couple of years but realize maybe everyone wants a different toy. So maybe a nice annual stipend for that too. Yeah, sounds good!

Yeah! End the drug war to pay for it!

 

[Markle]

the right wing is even more clueless and more Causeless about economics.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

tax cut economics is WorthLess if it doesn't cover spending.

Sure didn't make any difference to you during the failed administration of President Barack Hussein Obama who doubled the debt from $10 TRILLION to $20 TRILLION in only eight years.

Why is that?

 

[Markle]

I understand economics better than the right wing, and most especially You. It is not short sighted at all. It does solve simple poverty.

You're being facetious, aren't you? You can't possibly believe that scenario.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing is even more clueless and more Causeless about economics.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

tax cut economics is WorthLess if it doesn't cover spending.

Sure didn't make any difference to you during the failed administration of President Barack Hussein Obama who doubled the debt from $10 TRILLION to $20 TRILLION in only eight years.

Why is that?

special pleading in a vacuum, fake news right winger? the Rich had to get Bailed out, not the poor.

 

[danielpalos]

I understand economics better than the right wing, and most especially You. It is not short sighted at all. It does solve simple poverty.

You're being facetious, aren't you? You can't possibly believe that scenario.

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

 

[amethyst]

Let's see, Medicare for all and housing for all; what comes next, government for all?

I think government paid vacations would be nice. Start with two weeks paid vacation in your 20's, three in your 30's and four weeks paid vacation from the age of forty. A nice stipend for travel would be nice too. I'd love a new Harley every couple of years but realize maybe everyone wants a different toy. So maybe a nice annual stipend for that too. Yeah, sounds good!

Pelosi''s office might be a good perk. I hear she stocked up on booze.


Michele Bachmann accuses Nancy Pelosi of spending $100,000 on alcohol

Judicial Watch wrote that "the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.
The purchases included "Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine,"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Universal income would incentivize people to work--not the opposite. Our social programs teach people never to be anything in life if you want to stay on the dole. With UI, you will be on the dole and able to breakout of sleeping on the couch all day long. You can make as much money as you want with UI.

What?

A universal income would encourage those already on welfare to continue to lie on the couch and watch TV, do drugs and have a couple bottles of booze.

I don't know how you figure that. Laying around is what they are doing now. It doesn't make sense to work because pay will come out of their stipend. It doesn't matter how many kids they have either because our social programs will go to support them. If all they had was UI, then they might get their lazy ass up and work or work more hours. They sure as hell wouldn't be able to afford a family of six on 18K a year or 36K a year per couple. Remember I said UI would replace all social programs.

The real advantage would be to people like me who work all the time to live in the suburbs. Lowlifes wouldn't be able to live here without HUD, so they would stay in the ghetto where they belong and that would bring up my property value and make our schools safer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Housing for all is not a radical idea. the American people support it, even though Crazy Bernie supports it

Please show us where the overwhelming majority of people support providing housing for all people.

the American people support Medicare for all. why wouldn't they support housing for all and education for all and basic income for all and ice cream in the mail for all

Yeah, well when you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Housing for all is not a radical idea. the American people support it, even though Crazy Bernie supports it

The American people support government giving them housing? Then why isn't everybody on HUD?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the reality on the ground of how severe the housing crisis has been is finally getting attention. Senator KH's proposal is very ambitious!

Nationally, over 21 million Americans spend more than 30% of the money they make on rent.

Only 30%? Where do I sign up for that?

 

[danielpalos]

Housing for all is not a radical idea. the American people support it, even though Crazy Bernie supports it

Please show us where the overwhelming majority of people support providing housing for all people.

the American people support Medicare for all. why wouldn't they support housing for all and education for all and basic income for all and ice cream in the mail for all

Yeah, well when you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

for Goodness it is OK. it is Only Bad, for Badness like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Different cities still have them and some used to have them, they're called the projects.
All that's missing is the 'universal basic income' that Obama is starting to chatter about. I think Stockton Ca. is going to sport it this fall.

Ah yes, the good times are coming folks.

That guaranteed income thing.....it's been done, and proved another Liberal failure....

1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased

marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on

welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the

separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of

fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

Actually I first heard about it in Switzerland, and as conservative as I am, it didn't sound like a bad idea. The catch is everybody would get this universal income, but it would be the elimination of all social programs.

In other words you get this money and do what you want, but if you F up or don't plan for the future, too bad, starve to death.

Our current social programs come with all kinds of problems. We have lowlifes living off them when they could otherwise work, moving into fancy neighborhoods that never wanted them in the first place, theft that takes place in these programs by the billions every year, and this dichotomy between the working and the users.

Universal income as a replacement to our social programs brings a solution to a lot of long standing problems. I believe the equivalent of their money equaled about 18K of US dollars.

So okay, you are a lowlife that doesn't want to work, so you take your 18K and do as you like. But because there is no HUD, you have to provide housing for yourself. Because there are no food stamps, you have to provide for your own food. Because there is no Medicaid, you have to provide for your own medical care. There are no benefits for having children either.

This would bring working parents together. 36K combined can give you these things and you don't even have to work. If you have kids, that could be a problem, so then you would have to get a job if you wanted kids too. Working people could no longer complain about what the non-working are getting because working couples get this 36K just like the non-working.

If a working couple continues to work, that 36K could buy them great health insurance if they don't have any. It could pay for the cost of college for their kids. It could encourage investments and spending. A lot of problems solved with Universal Income.

1. Government doesn't make money. It would have to take it from individuals who do, to give it to individuals who do nothing worthwhile.

As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
Peter Ferrara


"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.




2. The greatest flaw in the plan is not an economic one....it is based on human nature.

“Earned success is the secret to meaningful happiness. The government can improve your net worth with a check, but it cannot improve your self-worth.”
Jonah Goldberg

Yes, these payments would come from tax dollars, but with our social programs, they are paid for with tax dollars anyway, and only those who don't try receive them. In other words, you are taking away from the workers and giving their money to the non-workers.

Universal income would incentivize people to work--not the opposite. Our social programs teach people never to be anything in life if you want to stay on the dole. With UI, you will be on the dole and able to breakout of sleeping on the couch all day long. You can make as much money as you want with UI.

What a gross misunderstanding of the political and social milieu.

Of course social programs wouldn't cease......they're there to buy votes.

I'm surprised as your naivete.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

 

[amethyst]

Housing for all is not a radical idea. the American people support it, even though Crazy Bernie supports it

The American people support government giving them housing? Then why isn't everybody on HUD?

What incentive would they have to climb the ladder and improve their credit score to buy a home.

If they are going to provide housing, I want a free car rental too--hybrid please.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Housing for all is not a radical idea. the American people support it, even though Crazy Bernie supports it

The American people support government giving them housing? Then why isn't everybody on HUD?

What incentive would they have to climb the ladder and improve their credit score to buy a home.

If they are going to provide housing, I want a free car rental too--hybrid please.

That's the problem we have already. Government will provide you with housing in the suburbs, free food, utility assistance, free medical care, free schooling or daycare........what's the point of working?

 

[Meister]

/----/ Conservatives say cut spending. RINOs and Libs sy NO WAY JOSE.
View attachment 206161

great, let's end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them anyway.

/—-/ Nothing stopping you from paying war time taxes. Get out the old checkbook...

fake wars, fake tax rates.

don't ask for cuts to social spending. we have a general welfare clause.

we don't have a general warfare clause.

General welfare meant something different to our FF's than what it means to you.

No, it doesn't. The right wing simply has lousy reading comprehension.

That guaranteed income thing.....it's been done, and proved another Liberal failure....

1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased

marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on

welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the

separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of

fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

Actually I first heard about it in Switzerland, and as conservative as I am, it didn't sound like a bad idea. The catch is everybody would get this universal income, but it would be the elimination of all social programs.

In other words you get this money and do what you want, but if you F up or don't plan for the future, too bad, starve to death.

Our current social programs come with all kinds of problems. We have lowlifes living off them when they could otherwise work, moving into fancy neighborhoods that never wanted them in the first place, theft that takes place in these programs by the billions every year, and this dichotomy between the working and the users.

Universal income as a replacement to our social programs brings a solution to a lot of long standing problems. I believe the equivalent of their money equaled about 18K of US dollars.

So okay, you are a lowlife that doesn't want to work, so you take your 18K and do as you like. But because there is no HUD, you have to provide housing for yourself. Because there are no food stamps, you have to provide for your own food. Because there is no Medicaid, you have to provide for your own medical care. There are no benefits for having children either.

This would bring working parents together. 36K combined can give you these things and you don't even have to work. If you have kids, that could be a problem, so then you would have to get a job if you wanted kids too. Working people could no longer complain about what the non-working are getting because working couples get this 36K just like the non-working.

If a working couple continues to work, that 36K could buy them great health insurance if they don't have any. It could pay for the cost of college for their kids. It could encourage investments and spending. A lot of problems solved with Universal Income.

1. Government doesn't make money. It would have to take it from individuals who do, to give it to individuals who do nothing worthwhile.

As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
Peter Ferrara


"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.




2. The greatest flaw in the plan is not an economic one....it is based on human nature.

“Earned success is the secret to meaningful happiness. The government can improve your net worth with a check, but it cannot improve your self-worth.”
Jonah Goldberg

Yes, these payments would come from tax dollars, but with our social programs, they are paid for with tax dollars anyway, and only those who don't try receive them. In other words, you are taking away from the workers and giving their money to the non-workers.

Universal income would incentivize people to work--not the opposite. Our social programs teach people never to be anything in life if you want to stay on the dole. With UI, you will be on the dole and able to breakout of sleeping on the couch all day long. You can make as much money as you want with UI.

What a gross misunderstanding of the political and social milieu.

Of course social programs wouldn't cease......they're there to buy votes.

I'm surprised as your naivete.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

Perhaps in a small population as in Switzerland which has 8.4 million, it might work, we don't know. But, the US has 330 million, that's an entirely different animal.
Also, do you think our politicians would turn their backs to the people who blew through their UI. Not going to happen, and when the crack in the dam appears, you know what happens next.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

great, let's end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them anyway.

/—-/ Nothing stopping you from paying war time taxes. Get out the old checkbook...

fake wars, fake tax rates.

don't ask for cuts to social spending. we have a general welfare clause.

we don't have a general warfare clause.

General welfare meant something different to our FF's than what it means to you.

No, it doesn't. The right wing simply has lousy reading comprehension.

Actually I first heard about it in Switzerland, and as conservative as I am, it didn't sound like a bad idea. The catch is everybody would get this universal income, but it would be the elimination of all social programs.

In other words you get this money and do what you want, but if you F up or don't plan for the future, too bad, starve to death.

Our current social programs come with all kinds of problems. We have lowlifes living off them when they could otherwise work, moving into fancy neighborhoods that never wanted them in the first place, theft that takes place in these programs by the billions every year, and this dichotomy between the working and the users.

Universal income as a replacement to our social programs brings a solution to a lot of long standing problems. I believe the equivalent of their money equaled about 18K of US dollars.

So okay, you are a lowlife that doesn't want to work, so you take your 18K and do as you like. But because there is no HUD, you have to provide housing for yourself. Because there are no food stamps, you have to provide for your own food. Because there is no Medicaid, you have to provide for your own medical care. There are no benefits for having children either.

This would bring working parents together. 36K combined can give you these things and you don't even have to work. If you have kids, that could be a problem, so then you would have to get a job if you wanted kids too. Working people could no longer complain about what the non-working are getting because working couples get this 36K just like the non-working.

If a working couple continues to work, that 36K could buy them great health insurance if they don't have any. It could pay for the cost of college for their kids. It could encourage investments and spending. A lot of problems solved with Universal Income.

1. Government doesn't make money. It would have to take it from individuals who do, to give it to individuals who do nothing worthwhile.

As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
Peter Ferrara


"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.




2. The greatest flaw in the plan is not an economic one....it is based on human nature.

“Earned success is the secret to meaningful happiness. The government can improve your net worth with a check, but it cannot improve your self-worth.”
Jonah Goldberg

Yes, these payments would come from tax dollars, but with our social programs, they are paid for with tax dollars anyway, and only those who don't try receive them. In other words, you are taking away from the workers and giving their money to the non-workers.

Universal income would incentivize people to work--not the opposite. Our social programs teach people never to be anything in life if you want to stay on the dole. With UI, you will be on the dole and able to breakout of sleeping on the couch all day long. You can make as much money as you want with UI.

What a gross misunderstanding of the political and social milieu.

Of course social programs wouldn't cease......they're there to buy votes.

I'm surprised as your naivete.

I'm not. UI would replace all social programs is what Switzerland proposed, and I'm saying if that was the offer here, I'm all for it, because what they found is that UI would save the country money in the long run. It would probably be even cheaper here.

Perhaps in a small population as in Switzerland which has 8.4 million, it might work, we don't know. But, the US has 330 million, that's an entirely different animal.
Also, do you think our politicians would turn their backs to the people who blew through their UI. Not going to happen, and when the crack in the dam appears, you know what happens next.

Which is why the terms would have to be unconditional. UI is a leftist idea, so I say let's meet them halfway and then see how much they support it.

Our programs now take from the working and give to the non-working. UI would be taking from the working and giving to all. As a person who is the giver, I wouldn't mind being a giver and taker for a while. I get so sick of giving and watching the takers walking the streets or driving along the highways while I'm working.

If you really weigh the benefits, it makes so much more sense to replace our social programs with UI. It would inspire more people to work, it would eliminate fraud which costs us billions every year with our social programs, it would disable Democrats from telling people how the Republicans are going to take away this or take away that, it would allow people of different classes to live in peace, it could solve our never-ending problem of medical care and college tuition. It would solve most of the problems we have in this country today.