Forget "going green", Liberal cities have gone "brown"

[Josshy0125]

Thanks for proving nothing again. I appreciate it.
You're still incorrect.

There's that bias. Keep ignoring factual statements because of your idiotic and immature bias. We need less people like you in this world, since you cannot separate logic and opinion, in a mature and factual manner. I've actually stated things in that last post, which show the correlation. If your'e just shutting your ears, singing, 'la la la', then you're the problem in this world, and you're the problem, and part of the issue of your country. You're the one ruining your country, keeping people dumber. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[PanTheFaun]

There's that bias. Keep ignoring factual statements because of your idiotic and immature bias. We need less people like you in this world, since you cannot separate logic and opinion, in a mature and factual manner. I've actually stated things in that last post, which show the correlation. If your'e just shutting your ears, singing, 'la la la', then you're the problem in this world, and you're the problem, and part of the issue of your country. You're the one ruining your country, keeping people dumber. Thanks for proving my point.

Learn that you can be incorrect without being such a crybaby about it.
I would be more than happy to change my opinion if I saw any statistical data that showed such things but you have yet to offer any. I'm not going to debate you any longer.

 

[Lacius]

And giving them homes will be expensive on the government which means expensive on us the tax payers if those house prices don't go down.

Yes. It costs money from taxes. Taxing the rich and using the money to give the homeless homes is the solution that demonstrably decreases homelessness by 90%. The Republicans won't do this, which is why they should not be taken seriously when they talk about reducing homelessness.

 

[SG854]

Crony capitalism and foreign investment is the reason housing prices go up. There are already more empty houses owned by banks than there are homeless people in this country. The issue isn't solely one of needing more homes, but needing AFFORDABLE homes and homes for people who can't work at all.

Crony capitalism caused this problem, so it's the people who profited most from that exploitation and corruption who should pay for the solution. That's exactly what Bernie Sanders has proposed.

It's simple economics of supply and demand. I'm telling you the solution to bring down housing prices making them more affordable, build more homes. Please stop defaulting to talking points of blaming crony capitalism, it becomes harder to talk to you when you are like that. It hard to make progress on anything when you have such type of thinking.


https://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/QR2005.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottb...ulations-increase-housing-costs/#7553beb44162
http://faculty.washington.edu/te/papers/Housing051608.pdf

 

[SG854]

Yes. It costs money from taxes. Taxing the rich and using the money to give the homeless homes is the solution that demonstrably decreases homelessness by 90%. The Republicans won't do this, which is why they should not be taken seriously when they talk about reducing homelessness.

Doing this without getting rid of bad land restriction laws will be a bad thing. Housing assistant programs will be constricted by governmental limits on density, and limits on the size and number of units. Basically your way is, "who cares about inefficient use of land and prices of homes become expensive because we'll just get rich people to pay for it."

 

[Xzi]

It's simple economics of supply and demand. I'm telling you the solution to bring down housing prices making them more affordable, build more homes.

According to multiple sources, there are six empty houses for every homeless person. Making that ratio seven/eight to one doesn't solve the problem if all we're doing is building more 10,000 sq ft Mcmansions in affluent neighborhoods. We need a national program specifically designed for housing the homeless, tailored to that objective.

Please stop defaulting to talking points of blaming crony capitalism, it becomes harder to talk to you when you are like that. It hard to make progress on anything when you have such type of thinking.

I'm sorry if pointing out the cause of the issue is inconvenient for you, but the cause is also potentially the solution in this case.

 

[Lacius]

Doing this without getting rid of bad land restriction laws will be a bad thing. Housing assistant programs will be constricted by governmental limits on density, and limits on the size and number of units. Basically your way is, "who cares about inefficient use of land and prices of homes become expensive because we'll just get rich people to pay for it."

As I said already, housing prices didn't go up when this was done. Aside from the price, there didn't appear to be a downside.

 

[SG854]

According to multiple sources, there are six empty houses for every homeless person. Making that ratio seven/eight to one doesn't solve the problem if all we're doing is building more 10,000 sq ft Mcmansions in affluent neighborhoods. We need a national program specifically designed for housing the homeless, tailored to that objective.


I'm sorry if pointing out the cause of the issue is inconvenient for you, but the cause is also potentially the solution in this case.

I don't see how controlling so many empty homes will benefit the bank. With those are empty homes they are not making a profit on. Why were they abandoned in the first place? How did they becomes so expensive? Wouldn't you think that they would've caught on that if they were greedy and raising housing prices too high to the point people stopped buying homes they wouldn't be making any money and that's wasted money building those homes.

Corporate Greed just doesn't seem like a good explanation for this. There has to be another explanation why those homes are too expensive for people to own, then be abandoned. No smart person would waste money like that building those homes then to screw themselves over with ridiculous prices.

 

[morvoran]

The Trump administration has not offered any viable way to curb homelessness in California or anywhere else. I saw your thread. It wasn't worth responding to too much.

You could have just said, "No, I didn't read your thread since it doesn't fit my agenda." I already knew you didn't due to the question you asked.

Corporations will only ever hire the bare minimum number of people they need to keep things running smoothly. And they'll only ever pay the bare minimum that the market/law requires. They aren't benevolent entities which will solve problems that they aren't obligated to. They couldn't possibly care less even if their own employees are homeless or living out of their cars.

Have you ever heard of "mom and pop stores"? You do know that not all business owners are corporations. Due to democrat policies, that also include letting the homeless sleep on the sidewalk in front of the stores of entrepreneurs along with doing nothing about them pooping and urinating on their doorstep, they are also taxed to the point they cannot raise enough capital to invest back into their company to offer raises and employ more people. Trickle-down won't work if the money they save is just taken away from them in unnecessary taxation. Try stepping out of your comfort zone and accept there is more out there than what CNN tells you.

 

[Xzi]

Have you ever heard of "mom and pop stores"?

What about them? They're allowed to turn a meager profit until they become a threat/nuisance to corporations, and then they're bought out, willingly or by force. Completely irrelevant to the topic of finding a solution for homelessness, though.

they are usually taxed to the point they cannot raise enough capital to invest back into their company to offer raises and employ more people.

Tax brackets exist for a reason. This is like the tenth time I've had to tell you to educate yourself about them. Small businesses thrived far more prior to the 1980s when the top tax bracket was at a much higher rate.

I don't see how controlling so many empty homes will benefit the bank. With those are empty homes they are not making a profit on.

They're not losing anything on them, either. They just wait until the right investor comes along, whether foreign or domestic.

 

[Lacius]

You could have just said, "No, I didn't read your thread since it doesn't fit my agenda." I already knew you didn't due to the question you asked.



Have you ever heard of "mom and pop stores"? You do know that not all business owners are corporations. Due to democrat policies, that also include letting the homeless sleep on the sidewalk in front of the stores of entrepreneurs along with doing nothing about them pooping and urinating on their doorstep, they are also taxed to the point they cannot raise enough capital to invest back into their company to offer raises and employ more people. Trickle-down won't work if the money they save is just taken away from them in unnecessary taxation. Try stepping out of your comfort zone and accept there is more out there than what CNN tells you.

I said it wasn't worth responding to, not that I didn't read it. Apparently, you didn't read my post.

 

[morvoran]

What about them? They're allowed to turn a meager profit until they become a threat/nuisance to corporations, and then they're bought out, willingly or by force. Completely irrelevant to the topic of finding a solution for homelessness, though.

When they put all of their life savings into their business and then have to close shop due to over taxation and unfair laws from the liberals in charge, they become homeless (and have to poop in the street). This isn't that hard.

Tax brackets exist for a reason. This is like the tenth time I've had to tell you to educate yourself about them. Small businesses thrived far more prior to the 1980s when the top tax bracket was at a much higher rate.

Yeah, and maybe when you realize how that is complete nonsense, you'll stop using that as a talking point. If the small business was in a tax bracket that would allow them to survive, then how are they being taxed to death? I mean "come on, give me a break!"

I said it wasn't worth responding to, not that I didn't read it. Apparently, you didn't read my post.

If you did read it, then you would know what Trump's admin was planning on doing to fix the issue, but I digress. This isn't that hard. I'm not sure if you were one of those people to say this, but so much for "good faith debates".

 

[Xzi]

Yeah, and maybe when you realize how that is complete nonsense, you'll stop using that as a talking point. If the small business was in a tax bracket that would allow them to survive, then how are they being taxed to death?

They aren't being taxed to death. You didn't even provide a single example to back this bullshit claim. Like I said, most are swallowed up by larger businesses/corporations, unless they fail early on due to providing a product or service that nobody wants.

 

[morvoran]

They're not losing anything on them, either. They just wait until the right investor comes along, whether foreign or domestic.

Not to jump into both of yours' conversation, but most, if not all, the abandoned homes in Baltimore are owned by the city, not banks or investors. Nobody in their right mind would invest in those communities unless they had people to live in them.

They aren't being taxed to death. You didn't even provide a single example to back this bullshit claim. Like I said, most are swallowed up by larger businesses/corporations, unless they fail early on due to providing a product or service that nobody wants.

I was just replying to your nonsense without proof with my good sense that doesn't need it.

Plus, here - That said, California is not all easy living for small business owners. In particular, business taxes in California are some of the most oppressive of any state. High taxes, combined with the onerous business regulations for which California is also known, have led many business owners in the 21st century to flee the state for places they perceive as more friendly operating grounds, such as Texas and Florida.

Hmm, so where is the highest population of homeless in the US? Could it be California? It's not easy to start a company or compete with corporations when you are already at a disadvantage due to liberal policies.

 

[KingVamp]

Yeah, public housing seems like a better idea than building more houses that people can just arbitrarily jack up prices.

As for having rent caps, I'm not sure about that. Is there any cons?

 

[chrisrlink]

you should do research on your sources https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pluralist/ 48th of 108 on the World Press Freedom Rank is nothing to cheer about it's almost extreme right stuff barely not ER

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

aim for right center or center news an unbias source

 

[morvoran]

you should do research on your sources https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pluralist/ 48th of 108 on the World Press Freedom Rank is nothing to cheer about it's almost extreme right stuff barely not ER

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

aim for right center or center news an unbias source

Yeah, but a lot of news sites out there are biased to the left and don't report the news that doesn't fit their agendas. This means that I have to use sources that may offend the weaker minds on this site that can't be open to the views of others. Also, if I were to use an independent source, I'm accused of using blogs as sources.
Unless I post stories that outright praise liberals and their policies, I won't make most of the commenters on my threads happy.

 

[Xzi]

Plus, here - That said, California is not all easy living for small business owners.

It's not surprising that competing in the state with the largest economy doesn't come cheap. Then again, all you need in California is one good app idea or a luxury dog hotel to hit it big.

Hmm, so where is the highest population of homeless in the US? Could it be California?

So let's solve the problem by relocating many of them and housing everybody nationwide.

It's not easy to start a company or compete with corporations when you are already at a disadvantage due to liberal policies.

Corporations have had the system rigged in their favor for decades thanks to both neoliberal and neoconservative policies. Since you're a part of the latter group, the image of Spider-Man pointing at Spider-Man comes to mind.

 

[morvoran]

Corporations have had the system rigged in their favor for decades thanks to both neoliberal and neoconservative policies. Since you're a part of the latter group, the image of Spider-Man pointing at Spider-Man comes to mind.

now that you're finally being civil, I'll throw you a bone. I agree that "corporate personhood" and the Citizens United decision are both big mistakes as they give corporations too much power since they are now considered "people" with the same rights and protections just with a lot more money and influence. I don't believe that a non-human entity should have human rights to persuade an election or other matters. They should not be allowed to grow bigger than the government but should be protected from theft by the government.

So let's solve the problem by relocating many of them and housing everybody nati

I also agree with you here, but people still have the right to choose where to live unless they break the law or are mentally unsound. I guess if politicians are trying to take away their first and second amendment rights, why not more?
The one thing that needs to happen in these liberals cities is to keep or make new laws making sleeping on the street/sidewalks illegal, as well as defecating, and to enforce those laws. Once they are processed into the system, then it can be decided what's best for them.
It would probably also make sense to start changing city statutes that would make it easier to afford to live there.

 

[Xzi]

I also agree with you here, but people still have the right to choose where to live unless they break the law or are mentally unsound.

I'm not suggesting we force anyone to relocate, but offering individual rent-free housing should be enough to convince a lot of homeless to relocate.

The one thing that needs to happen in these liberals cities is to keep or make new laws making sleeping on the street/sidewalks illegal, as well as defecating, and to enforce those laws.

If you agree that we need a national housing for all program, then this shouldn't be necessary. Additionally, what you're describing are basically debtors' prisons, which would create a vicious cycle of never-ending poverty.