NationStates

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Yet seem to be opposing things that would aid in the prevention of people being evicted.

Rainbow Capitalism!

That explains why my local supermarket was filled with rainbow bunting in June.

San Lumen wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Well that’s if Trump doesn’t use executive orders to extend the eviction ban

Which might not be constitutional

Imagine a set of scales. Protecting the dignity of a scrap of paper versus protecting the dignity and lives of millions of people who will otherwise find themselves without rooves over their heads? A disproportionate number of the victims would be from the marginalised and vulnerable groups liberals keep telling me they care about. And yet, whenever it comes to needing anything more than pretty words and historical apologies the only thing on offer seems to be shrugs and excuses.

I am not saying here that you are right to say preventing mass evictions isn't constitutional, but if you believe this to be the case your constitutional fetishism in ruling out any action nevertheless seems very peculiar.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Which might not be constitutional

Imagine a set of scales. Protecting the dignity of a scrap of paper versus protecting the dignity and lives of millions of people who will otherwise find themselves without rooves over their heads? A disproportionate number of the victims would be from the marginalised and vulnerable groups liberals keep telling me they care about. And yet, whenever it comes to needing anything more than pretty words and historical apologies the only thing on offer seems to be shrugs and excuses.

I am not saying here that you are right to say preventing mass evictions isn't constitutional, but if you believe this to be the case your constitutional fetishism in ruling out any action nevertheless seems very peculiar.

It would be easy and constitutional for the feds to extend the eviction ban on section 8, considering there's federal money involved. Which seems like a good way to protect the most vulnerable while starting to ease out of the whole thing.

Cisairse wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Why bother having a congress then? Let’s just crown every governor a king or queen at this point and let them do whatever they want

...We literally can do that, you know, right?

There is nothing saying that states can't have dictatorial regimes. They just have to be republics. You can easily have an autocratic dictatorial republic.

Not really. The 14th Amendment opened up a window for the Bill of Rights to be applied to the state governments. In the past, yes, they could be authoritarian regimes and sometimes were, but not in today's time, unless the constitution is changed. Regardless, the constitution of the U.S. does not prevent governors or the president from temporarily halting evictions. If a court rules otherwise, it's probably just judges applying their own political views into the case.

Saiwania wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:This doesn't actually hurt any productive forces in the economy.

I would consider hurting the equity of an individual as harming a productive force in the economy. So far as banks go, they're in the business of making loans. If the banks don't get interest and enough collateral, they're not going to be willing to grant loans to people if the math doesn't make sense. The entire point of a down payment is so a bank won't lose a lot of money on a piece of real estate in the event that they have to foreclose on the property but the house in question has gone down in value if the bank wants their money back.

If a house is worth $1 million and it is now only worth $850,000 -if the down payment was $250,000 -the bank has some cushion to protect themselves against further losses in the event that the house might go down in value more if that bank can't resell the house quickly enough or do something to try to get back the remaining $750,000 to cover the $1 million mortgage that went bad.

Most individuals/businesses need to take out a loan for something at some point, so its not exactly viable to hurt the banks just because they're unpopular. What else is going to lend money/credit to those who need it and are willing to repay what they borrowed along with any interest?

You don't need banks to have money and you don't need money to get a house.*

*in theory

Breaking: Trump signs executive orders extending the eviction moratorium after talks broke down.


This also does a lot of other things: The executive orders establish a payroll tax holiday through the end of the year for Americans earning less than $100,000 a year. They also defer student loan payments through the end of the year; continue eviction moratoriums; and extend enhanced unemployment benefits that expired last week, but at a reduced level of $400 instead of the prior $600.

Kowani wrote:Breaking: Trump signs executive orders extending the eviction moratorium after talks broke down.


This also does a lot of other things: The executive orders establish a payroll tax holiday through the end of the year for Americans earning less than $100,000 a year. They also defer student loan payments through the end of the year; continue eviction moratoriums; and extend enhanced unemployment benefits that expired last week, but at a reduced level of $400 instead of the prior $600.

So now the democrats are going to sue him for doing something they were trying to get done.
I love our politics now. It makes zero sense whatsoever.

Kowani wrote:-snip-

That’s some good news for once.

San Lumen wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Well that’s if Trump doesn’t use executive orders to extend the eviction ban

Which might not be constitutional

who gives a shit?

these people need help damn it.

Diopolis wrote:

Kowani wrote:Breaking: Trump signs executive orders extending the eviction moratorium after talks broke down.


This also does a lot of other things: The executive orders establish a payroll tax holiday through the end of the year for Americans earning less than $100,000 a year. They also defer student loan payments through the end of the year; continue eviction moratoriums; and extend enhanced unemployment benefits that expired last week, but at a reduced level of $400 instead of the prior $600.

So now the democrats are going to sue him for doing something they were trying to get done.
I love our politics now. It makes zero sense whatsoever.

America: the cause of and solution to all of the world's problems!

San Lumen wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Well that’s if Trump doesn’t use executive orders to extend the eviction ban

Which might not be constitutional

It is unconstitutional, blatantly so. He is trying to bait democrats trying to sue to stop him.

Greed and Death wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Which might not be constitutional

It is unconstitutional, blatantly so. He is trying to bait democrats trying to sue to stop him.

Or try to impeach him again. That would be a Trump best case scenario.

Greed and Death wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Which might not be constitutional

It is unconstitutional, blatantly so. He is trying to bait democrats trying to sue to stop him.

It is fairly clever of him.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
It is unconstitutional, blatantly so. He is trying to bait democrats trying to sue to stop him.

It is fairly clever of him.

Right, like he thought of it.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
It is unconstitutional, blatantly so. He is trying to bait democrats trying to sue to stop him.

It is fairly clever of him.

I'll admit, it's a 4D chess move.

Farnhamia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:It is fairly clever of him.

Right, like he thought of it.

probably not, still clever.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Right, like he thought of it.

probably not, still clever.

It's meaningless, though. I think the only thing he can do is the deferment of payroll taxes, which I am under no illusions about him making it permanent. Or maybe he will, he seems to have bought into the idea of starving the government to death. After all, what better way to punish the working people than by reducing their payroll taxes and doing nothing to help them when they get old and or sick and really need the government's help? Serves them right for not being rich.

Farnhamia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:probably not, still clever.

It's meaningless, though. I think the only thing he can do is the deferment of payroll taxes, which I am under no illusions about him making it permanent. Or maybe he will, he seems to have bought into the idea of starving the government to death. After all, what better way to punish the working people than by reducing their payroll taxes and doing nothing to help them when they get old and or sick and really need the government's help? Serves them right for not being rich.

No its not, it keeps the unemployment checks coming. You can call it a cynical move to tell America. "The democrats and Republicans could not reach an agreement, but I Donald trump have acted to protect you working amercia"

But it is still clever

Ethel mermania wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:It's meaningless, though. I think the only thing he can do is the deferment of payroll taxes, which I am under no illusions about him making it permanent. Or maybe he will, he seems to have bought into the idea of starving the government to death. After all, what better way to punish the working people than by reducing their payroll taxes and doing nothing to help them when they get old and or sick and really need the government's help? Serves them right for not being rich.

No its not, it keeps the unemployment checks coming. You can call it a cynical move to tell America. "The democrats and Republicans could not reach an agreement, but I Donald trump have acted to protect you working amercia"

But it is still clever

Clever but cruel. He could have just renewed the previous deal and not tortured people, or implied that working people are lazy with that bit about $400 being just the incentive they need to get back to work. Okay, you might get COVID-19 and lose your job and your insurance anyway, but at least they won't be able to call you a lazy welfare tax sucking ... what's the Atlas Shrugged term for regular people?

Farnhamia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:No its not, it keeps the unemployment checks coming. You can call it a cynical move to tell America. "The democrats and Republicans could not reach an agreement, but I Donald trump have acted to protect you working amercia"

But it is still clever

Clever but cruel. He could have just renewed the previous deal and not tortured people, or implied that working people are lazy with that bit about $400 being just the incentive they need to get back to work. Okay, you might get COVID-19 and lose your job and your insurance anyway, but at least they won't be able to call you a lazy welfare tax sucking ... what's the Atlas Shrugged term for regular people?

Congress wasn't renewing the previous deal. So he turned it to his advantage. I think its fair to say its cleverness surprised me too.

Diopolis wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Housing decommodified and guaranteed for all people, no exceptions, ideally with local communities democratically making decisions about building more housing or converting unused housing. No one has to buy a house ever again, no one has to pay rent ever again. You want to live in the big city? Someone there wants to move out of the city, you can have the house they won't be using any more, no money need change hands.

How do you incentivize new housing to be built if the end user doesn't pay?

There are no incentives. The provision of housing would not be done on a for-profit basis.

Does the government pay for new housing construction at need

The cost of housing would be socialised, yes.

(and how does the government pay for this)?

How do governments pay for multi-trillion dollar foreign wars?

If so, what incentivizes the government to prioritize housing quality?

You don't need to incentivise the government to do things if you have an actual democracy.

What about converting housing in between occupants?

What about it?

Who pays for major repairs,

Socialise the costs of housing.

and what incentivizes them to actually do so? Who coordinates distribution of available housing?

Ideally, each community, but I suppose it could be done by the government.

What role do individual preferences play in housing allotment?

Obviously no one is going to move into a house they don't like.

Distributing housing is a complicated question, and these questions have to be answered.

Distributing housing is a complicated question, but how is housing distributed now? Profit, profit, and profit. Houses lie empty because they only exist as an investment, they'll be sold when the prices are better. There are more houses than homeless people, but there's no profit in housing the homeless, and without the threat of homelessness what incentivises people to spend so very much on housing? Cities all over the world are losing their housing stock to Airbnb landlords, or were before the pandemic, because there's more profit in short term rentals when you can set prices according to what tourists from all over the world will pay. How are workers supposed to live in the city and keep it working? Not a concern, just do what makes the most money. If anything, it is the capitalists that need to be answering questions about how they are distributing housing, because it's clearly not working very well.

---

Greed and Death wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Housing decommodified and guaranteed for all people, no exceptions, ideally with local communities democratically making decisions about building more housing or converting unused housing. No one has to buy a house ever again, no one has to pay rent ever again. You want to live in the big city? Someone there wants to move out of the city, you can have the house they won't be using any more, no money need change hands.

Local communities will under develop as they have no incentive to house people who do not yet live there and people will generally vote to maintain low densities.


How are these spots in high demand cities assigned when they open up ? Waiting list ? That could be decades. Lottery ? That could be even worse. Let the person moving out decide? He or she will be paid in such a case.

I'm sure the specific details can be experimented with to find what works the best. Possibly some kind of weighted lottery.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Cisairse wrote:...We literally can do that, you know, right?

There is nothing saying that states can't have dictatorial regimes. They just have to be republics. You can easily have an autocratic dictatorial republic.

Not really. The 14th Amendment opened up a window for the Bill of Rights to be applied to the state governments. In the past, yes, they could be authoritarian regimes and sometimes were, but not in today's time, unless the constitution is changed.

No, it means that states can be authoritarian regimes which rule by decree so long as they don't violate the extremely narrow list of rights that they're not allowed to violate.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Regardless, the constitution of the U.S. does not prevent governors or the president from temporarily halting evictions. If a court rules otherwise, it's probably just judges applying their own political views into the case.

That's not how enumerated powers works.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Cisairse wrote:...We literally can do that, you know, right?

There is nothing saying that states can't have dictatorial regimes. They just have to be republics. You can easily have an autocratic dictatorial republic.

Not really. The 14th Amendment opened up a window for the Bill of Rights to be applied to the state governments. In the past, yes, they could be authoritarian regimes and sometimes were, but not in today's time, unless the constitution is changed. Regardless, the constitution of the U.S. does not prevent governors or the president from temporarily halting evictions. If a court rules otherwise, it's probably just judges applying their own political views into the case.

Most laws and regulations aren't part of the Constitution.

San Lumen wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Really fucking easily? You just ban eviction procedings for the duration.

And how are you going to do that without bankrupting every landlord and possibly crippling banks too?

Really easily? In particular, note that I live in a country that did exactly that, and no such disaster unfolded.

Farnhamia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:It is fairly clever of him.

Right, like he thought of it.

So you are saying this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARZwUSfooFk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL5rVZJ0RNQ