Just gave $100.

Yup. The only thing republicans ever do is give money to farmers and ranchers.

“Please subsidize my rural lifestyle while not allowing any outside investment I don’t like. I am not an insecure, whiny crank.”

You’re spinning out because you can only continue to spout glib clap trap. You’re even assigning your level of bullshit magical thinking to me, and I haven’t said anything to indicate I believe such things. “Put the work in, take the risks” is a poster of a kitten at corporate headquarters ffs.

You’re projecting your biases onto me, and projecting your biases onto the Hungarian election. Everything you said is meaningless clap trap.m. It’s like people who complain the democrats aren’t exhibiting “leadership.” What’s leadership? “Thats when I like someone!”

You’re not recalling very hard.

if the presence of hype makes you completely unable to think about reality independent of the hype, that is not resisting hype, it is surrendering to it totally

Yup.

Are you a child? The 3 branches are independent. The executive does not control the judiciary. If Biden had the power to magically reform the court then any president could do so. There is no way to make a “no bad things happen” law, it’s up to voters to maintain our democracy.

There’s something wrong with you.

This is the same Joe Rogan everyone in the media has been telling us is turning on Trump and it means everything? Huh.

keep it? No. Why would we do that? Because it’s “housing?” Apartments are housing. We can (and do) give people money to live in apartments or other rentals. That makes sense. Giving people money to continue to own a home they cannot afford to maintain does not. Cash it in, that’s what it’s for.

that does not include helping people on any long term basis to continue owning an asset they cannot maintain. Helping people buy their 1st home? Sure, fine, at least you can be sure you’re not helping them make a bad financial decision. Helping someone who bought something they couldn’t afford to

can live off of it. Would you argue we should give money to people who don’t want to touch their IRA? And if it’s someone who isn’t retired and they can no longer afford their house, they should also sell because society doesn’t owe them home ownership. We should absolutely help people with housing,

If she’s retired and can’t afford upkeep on her house she should sell her house because she is not poor, she just doesn’t want to cash in her next egg. And that’s what her house is: a nest egg you can also live in. And that’s what you do with a nest egg after retirement: you cash it in so you

dollars worth of free maintenance because her property taxes were so high and she didn’t have any money etc. I looked it up and the assessed value of her house was something like $150k thanks to CA prop 13, so her property taxes in 2015 were $1,500 a year. Her house was worth $600-800k.

A person that owns a house is not poor. I was the planner for a bunch of historic districts once and one day this woman called and asked if we would give her money to paint her house. I told her there’s no program for that and she was very annoyed the city wouldn’t give her a few thousand

That’s not a serious question.

“Displacement” to people who complain about gentrification means as little as someone being kicked out of an old sfh when it’s torn down to build apartments. That’s inevitable and isn’t worth worrying about from a policy perspective.

Thats a bunch of meaningless nonsense.

Campaigning = earned it? No, no, no. That is not how the term is used by US-based idiots. “Earn my vote” means ‘make promises to me personally’ and ‘give me results first, then I will give you my vote,’ within a context where everyone agrees only democrats have agency. There’s no lesson there.

How did they “earn” it? And what does earn mean anyway? My understanding is the Tisza party is just as right wing, the only difference is they promise to not be so insanely corrupt, and Hungarians got tired of the corruption (but are fine with the RW stuff). So how’d they earn it?

No it’s not an answer. Why should we subsidize homeowners who can’t afford their homes? It’s a simple question.

Not old fashioned: a demented sociopath.

I don’t watch The Pitt but seeing glimpses of the rhetoric surrounding it makes me want to be swallowed by the sun. I have no idea what it’s about but it’s clearly completely unhinged and bonkers in a way that makes me despair for humanity *even more.*

That’s not an answer. Why should people who own a large asset be subsidized by anyone? Why shouldn’t they sell the asset when it becomes too much for them to handle?

Why? Why should we do that? Why should a renter be subsidizing someone who owns a large asset?

Her posts about it are so bizarre. Like she doesn’t care that 99.9% of the people who will see them have no idea what she’s talking about and just see some weird blood lust.

You want to give incumbent sfh owners a tax break, and incentivize landlords to not reinvest in properties by capping rents? Or do you want to give sfh owners, who own a big asset, money, or subsidize some people’s rent? You realize anything like that reduces new construction, right?

There is no “attempting to change it all at once.” We’re still building at a much slower rate than is necessary to keep up with demand, and we have never ending “programs” put in place by cities to restrict capital, they’re called zoning rules. There is no building boom.