Elections Kamala Harris for POTUS

[Islam Imamate]

this is why our country is in sure turmoil. Like yourself, many are going to vote for a candidate whose only policies they’ve presented so far you disagree with.

Yeah I'm the reason our country is in turmoil, not someone like Trump who polarized the nation with lies so he could try to overturn a free and fair election or the people who carried water for him the entire way.

Ahh, come on — it’s not that bad!

It is that bad and people like you are why we have a housing crisis.

 

[Andy Capp]

this is why our country is in such turmoil. Like yourself, many are going to vote for a candidate whose only policies they’ve presented so far you disagree with.


Ahh, come on — it’s not that bad!

So, you can only vote for someone if you agree with absolutely every single policy they propose?


And your post is a lie anyway.

 

[luckyshot]

this is why our country is in such turmoil. Like yourself, many are going to vote for a candidate whose only policies they’ve presented so far you disagree with.


Ahh, come on — it’s not that bad!

Versus a candidate who proposes literally no solutions to any of the problems that matter to people-- housing, healthcare, climate, education, inflation, etc.

(And, no, bitching about something incessantly is not a solution.)

 

[Rob Battisti]

Yeah I'm the reason our country is in turmoil, not someone like Trump who polarized the nation with lies so he could try to overturn a free and fair election or the people who carried water for him the entire way.

It is that bad and people like you are why we have a housing crisis.

I didn’t say you, I meant that one candidate is so bad(Trump) it’s driving you and others to vote for someone whose policies you don’t endorse.

 

[shockaholic12]

What do you all think of the Harris plan to address the housing price crisis?

The biggest criticism I've heard is that the 25k credit for first time home buyers would just inflate the price of homes further, and I can see that criticism. The main points, though, I think are right. In order to address the housing price crisis, we need to get 3 million new "starter homes" built and bar investment firms from buying them. That seems like the right plan to me... as far as the 25k credit goes, I think the timing is key. If we can get a couple million new homes built THEN issue the credit, I think it would work. If we just issue the credit without the new homes, yeah, it probably wouldn't accomplish much.

Does Trump even have a plan to address the housing crisis? If so, haven't heard it.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/16/business/harris-housing-plan/index.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawEwJstleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHeIq_ebWO1dsInsHAlrf5ACMdbQ12pjVhq8rHiCCh7XbnQ9tPGjeA9MaGQ_aem_By37TCKoNCpSPn7zou_v9Q

A majority of homebuyers aren’t first time so not sure everyone with a home sitting on the market can bump the price $25k if this goes through and not expect a tougher sell. Those increases are there for everyone to see online so it’d be an obvious thing for buyers to negotiate against.

But I’m not a realtor or expert.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Versus a candidate who proposes literally no solutions to any of the problems that matter to people-- housing, healthcare, climate, education, inflation, etc.

(And, no, bitching about something incessantly is not a solution.)

You’re both missing my point entirely.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I didn’t say you, I meant that one candidate is so bad(Trump) it’s driving you and others to vote for someone whose policies you don’t endorse.

I disagree with some of her policies and agree with others. She also supports deregulating local zoning laws and offering tax breaks to developers who build starter homes which I think are crucial to addressing the housing crisis.

 

[luckyshot]

I didn’t say you, I meant that one candidate is so bad(Trump) it’s driving you and others to vote for someone whose policies you don’t endorse.

Trump is a uniquely bad candidate, but no Republican nominee would be likely to have any suggestion to offer.

What is the last pro-active policy a Republican has suggested on ANYTHING, besides Trump's "Build that wall" (which, to his credit, was at least a suggestion to do something...)?

 

[Joe]

Isnt this the grifter rogan interviewed?

 

[WuDi]

That part strikes me as unnecessary and a distraction. The core issue is not investment firms buying up houses but rather a lack of supply stemming from local NIMBYism. I disagree with the $25k subsidy for first time homebuyers for the reason you stated there but I've read an argument for it that suggests to me its not a clearly bad policy like the price gouging nonsense she was going on about.

Based on the Project 2025 plan Trump would try to strengthen single family zoning which is largely to blame for the housing crisis so while I have some nitpicks of Harris' plan its probably significantly better than what Trump would come up with.

The problem is very obviously that of investment funds and to a lesser degree private investors buying up property, on top of development firms corrupting local government. Can't expect politicians to come up with a policy that will hurt their main donors, so instead they come up with policies that further transfer of public funds into the pockets of the mega rich.

The correct solution would be to tax any land/property purchased for investment purposes at a rate of 50%or more. Problem sorted. This will allow people looking for their home to outcompete investment funds on the market, or purchase land and build their own dwellings.

Unfortunately, such policy is too pro citizen, and as such will never be implemented by the corrupt politicians.

Comparing the two policies, Trumps is significantly more pro citizen. Developers and investment firms look to maximise profits and minimise effort. Local government wants to maximise bribes from the developers when they design their zoning plans. It's in their best interest to build low quality, tiny homes and apartment buildings and convert every last bit of available land into an urban shithole.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Trump is a uniquely bad candidate, but no Republican nominee would be likely to have any suggestion to offer.

What is the last pro-active policy a Republican has suggested on ANYTHING, besides Trump's "Build that wall" (which, to his credit, was at least a suggestion to do something...)?

Once again, I’m also saying republicans suck.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I disagree with some of her policies and agree with others. She also supports deregulating local zoning laws and offering tax breaks to developers who build starter homes which I think are crucial to addressing the housing crisis.

You’ve come out strongly against the majority of the small number of policies she’s put out. Price controls being just one of them.

 

[sanguinius]

Yeah I'm the reason our country is in turmoil, not someone like Trump

Yes.

 

[WuDi]

Trump is a uniquely bad candidate, but no Republican nominee would be likely to have any suggestion to offer.

What is the last pro-active policy a Republican has suggested on ANYTHING, besides Trump's "Build that wall" (which, to his credit, was at least a suggestion to do something...)?

Don't get offended, but is it natural for you to repeat propaganda lines and terminology? It's fascinating how the lefties repeat and express the exact same views using the exact same wording.
If it is, then I would almost be keen on believing that the media isn't actually centrally controlled and corrupt, but rather it's an effect of extremely strong echo chamber.

 

[Rational Poster]

Damn even Rasmussen giving Kamala some swing states now.

Trump is cooked.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The problem is very obviously that of investment funds and to a lesser degree private investors buying up property, on top of development firms corrupting local government. Can't expect politicians to come up with a policy that will hurt their main donors, so instead they come up with policies that further transfer of public funds into the pockets of the mega rich.

The correct solution would be to tax any land/property purchased for investment purposes at a rate of 50%or more. Problem sorted. This will allow people looking for their home to outcompete investment funds on the market, or purchase land and build their own dwellings.

Unfortunately, such policy is too pro citizen, and as such will never be implemented by the corrupt politicians.

Comparing the two policies, Trumps is significantly more pro citizen. Developers and investment firms look to maximise profits and minimise effort. Local government wants to maximise bribes from the developers when they design their zoning plans. It's in their best interest to build low quality, tiny homes and apartment buildings and convert every last bit of available land into an urban shithole.

Investment firms are simply not the issue here, they compromise a relatively small minority of all investors in the housing market. The largest class of investor in the housing market are small investors who own 2-10 units.

Local politicians aren't colluding with investment firms to keep prices up, they're colluding with their NIMBY constituents who are disproportionately older and wealthier to keep other younger, less wealthy citizens out of their neighborhoods.

You’ve come out strongly against the majority of the small number of policies she’s put out. Price controls being just one of them.

To be clear she never mentioned price controls but rather that she'd deal with price gouging. Still bad since its a non-existent problem but not necessarily price controls.

The other policies I came out against was the subsidy for first time homebuyers and the law regulating purchases of homes by large investment firms. I don't really agree with either in the sense that I don't think they help but I do think their impact is minimal either way. With the former I think there's a decent argument for it as a redistributive policy to make home ownership, the most common way to build wealth in the US, more accessible. I disagree in part because its inflationary and in part because I think homes are an overrated asset that gets propped up too much by the government but I'm in the minority on that I imagine.

The ones I agree with is the tax breaks for developers who build starter homes and deregulating local zoning laws. I strongly agree with both of those and especially the latter which to me is basically the primary solution to the housing crisis. I probably agree far more with Kamala on housing policy than I do with you for instance.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

apparently Joe and Jill are leaving after Joe’s farewell speech tonight (lol at giving him a Monday slot).

Hopefully Joe goes rouge and calls her a drunk bish or something.

Dunno which is a worse look for the DNC, that they want to distance Kamala as much as possible from Biden, the worst president ever. Or that the Biden’s are pissed and making it known

 

[WuDi]

Investment firms are simply not the issue here, they compromise a relatively small minority of all investors in the housing market. The largest class of investor in the housing market are small investors who own 2-10 units.

Local politicians aren't colluding with investment firms to keep prices up, they're colluding with their NIMBY constituents who are disproportionately older and wealthier to keep other younger, less wealthy citizens out of their neighborhoods.

To be clear she never mentioned price controls but rather that she'd deal with price gouging. Still bad since its a non-existent problem but not necessarily price controls.

The other policies I came out against was the subsidy for first time homebuyers and the law regulating purchases of homes by large investment firms. I don't really agree with either in the sense that I don't think they help but I do think their impact is minimal either way. With the former I think there's a decent argument for it as a redistributive policy to make home ownership, the most common way to build wealth in the US, more accessible. I disagree in part because its inflationary and in part because I think homes are an overrated asset that gets propped up too much by the government but I'm in the minority on that I imagine.

The one I agree with is the tax breaks for developers who build starter homes and deregulating local zoning laws. I strongly agree with both of those and especially the latter which to me is basically the primary solution to the housing crisis. I probably agree far more with Kamala on housing policy than I do with you for instance.

Local politicians colluding with developers is a story old as time, and deregulation of zoning would make it even easier. Europe is a great example of that, where majority of people under 30 are expected to never own a home and cities turn into concrete nightmares.

Developers bribe local government, investors fund developers. It is a simple system, and another way to channel public money into the hands of landlords, developers, corrupt politicians and investment funds is never an idea that benefits society.

Housing is a basic good, especially for Europeans, who culturally are independent and expect to have their own safe dwelling.

Strong zoning laws that promote family dwelling and heavy taxation or outright ban on property investments is the only way to fix the property market for the general population. Netherlands and a few German cities are already applying such measures.

 

[emefer]

A majority of homebuyers aren’t first time so not sure everyone with a home sitting on the market can bump the price $25k if this goes through and not expect a tougher sell. Those increases are there for everyone to see online so it’d be an obvious thing for buyers to negotiate against.

But I’m not a realtor or expert.

You want to buy a home now you better tell the seller you’ll pay 25k more that they are asking or you’ll get out bid.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Local politicians colluding with developers is a story old as time, and deregulation of zoning would make it even easier. Europe is a great example of that, where majority of people under 30 are expected to never own a home and cities turn into concrete nightmares.

Developers bribe local government, investors fund developers. It is a simple system, and another way to channel public money into the hands of landlords, developers, corrupt politicians and investment funds is never an idea that benefits society.

Housing is a basic good, especially for Europeans, who culturally are independent and expect to have their own safe dwelling.

Strong zoning laws that promote family dwelling and heavy taxation or outright ban on property investments is the only way to fix the property market for the general population. Netherlands and a few German cities are already applying such measures.

I strongly disagree, the influence of large investment firms is widely overstated and the real source of the housing crisis is excessive local regulations which stymie the ability of developers to properly build enough housing to meet demand within city limits. Its not developers telling you that you can't convert your single family home into a duplex or build an ADU in your yard, its your NIMBY neighbors.