House and Senate overwhelmingly pass atrocious relief bill. Trump slams it and says he'll veto.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'll think of the Heretics, as The God Emperor commanded me to sm...
Oh. PLATFORM. Yeah, don't got standing orders for that.
... Probably should just call Exterminatus, though. You know, just to be sure.
I think you have the wrong cake idiom to describe the situation where you could easily own a house, but choose not to because you prioritize your current job and friends and family over home ownership (which is a perfectly reasonable decision that I don't mean to criticize).
Why am I reminded of when Mitt Romney said he didn't understand why student debt was a big deal, because he and his wife just sold some stock options from their portfolios to pay for it? Just this almost childish understanding of economics, where anyone can be rich if they simply want it enough, the implication being the poor are only poor because they enjoy it.
Do I take this to mean you'd want the Republicans to support the Dems' congressional effort to introduce 2k individual payments?
I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that. That's no further than your benefit of the doubt extends, really.
Ah yes, very "easy" indeed. Just give up everything I've spent years to build, and it's right there (maybe)!
Last edited:
That's odd, then; the last fifty or so tweets you've reposted here have all been on a single theme.
It's so strange to see the opposite party is unanimous with the $2000 stimulus, but his own party is mixed on it.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
His own party is probably pretty strongly against it, aside from him deciding this is how he wants to shit on the turtle so a portion of them see themselves as having to back him.
Why?
The Republicans have ever only sent one stimulus to the people. They’ve always preferred the stimulus go to the rich
My understanding only seems childish because your understanding of it is childish. I'm not saying people are poor because they choose to be poor. I'm saying the evidence being used to show how poor people are is bad evidence. People in cities don't own houses because they choose to live in a place where there are too many people for traditional home ownership to be logistically feasible regardless of pricing, and renting is the price one pays to get the upsides of the location, and that's a decision economically self-sufficient adults can make.
And it never occurred to you at any point someone in the city may not have enough money to move out of the city? Or do you really think the families in the slums of New York just haven't chosen to save up enough to move into a $500,000 suburbs two-story? Or are you suggesting that its within the power of poor people to not pay bills? That they should just refuse to pay rent and save up to buy that house? Do you understand generational poverty, class restrictions, and the social-political history behind a lower class, especially here in America?
Perhaps I should remind you of Tulsa riots, and the middle-class black neighborhoods that were literally bombed from the air because the white government didn't like blacks having wealth? Or Civil Forfeiture, where the police, being part of the Government have stolen more than $68 billion from citizens in the last 20 years:
US Police have stolen $68 billion in the past 20 years from American citizens without due process | Boing Boing
The nonprofit Institute for Justice has just released the 3rd edition of its Policing For Profit report, examining the abuses of civil asset forfeiture by local police across the United States. Acc…
boingboing.net
Or are we to assume they've chosen to be robbed, bombed, and poor?
Eh?
If your cheap as chips rural community can provide 100 jobs, there's a problem if 200 workers try to fit into it. The thing is, ordinary people don't decide where jobs are, and most ordinary person's primary concern is to earn a living. Cities are the primary drivers of economic growth now and have been for the last 200 or so years for which there are a whole load of good reasons which aren't really important for this comment, suffice to say that moving to the countryside is not a realistic option for many people economically. And that's without even going into all the other reasons they may want to live in a city.
Traditional home ownership is perfectly feasible in cities. If we take the basic principle that any city provides sufficient housing stock for its population (which is basically true in developed countries), then in theory it definitely is possible for most everyone who lives there to own their own home. The reason they can't is simply that so much property is owned by landowners who make profit by extracting rent. Any government sufficiently interested could change this and boost home ownership. They just won't, chiefly for two reasons: laissez-faire ideology, and because landowners are rich and powerful people with a lot of influence over politicians.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Sure, you can tell everyone "it's easy to buy a house if you move to the middle of nowhere" but whenever people from California start actually moving to those more affordable places en masse the people living there immediately start complaining that prices jump and everything gets more expensive. The solution isn't to just have the people in higher price areas move to lower price areas, because then the people who live in those lower price areas get priced out.
Last edited:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
