• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie calls for national rent control

aociswundumho said:
Just when you think he can't get any worse:

Bernie Sanders on Twitter: "We need a national rent control standard now.… "


Rent control reduces the number of housing units, reduces the quality of housing units, and creates waiting lists. Sound familiar, Comrade?

How anyone would even consider voting for this guy is beyond my comprehension.





For a more technical discussion as to why rent control is very bad for society:


Click to expand...


Ask anyone who has rent control in NYC what they think about this. I bet they would all agree with Bernie.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The Bernie Sanders answer to all questions/issues is that we need more federal government control.
Click to expand...

True, ttwtt and all who liked your post. However, I believe that Bernie comes up with his ideas because he truly cares for those among us who are needy, no question in my mind.
BUT
you are right, he, and many who are standing firmly behind him, think that government can solve all our problems. If that were true, poverty, something that has been around since God created the earth, would most likely be eliminated, for many have tried, and many different variations of government have been in existence. Government should, of course, avail safety nets, temporarily for those who find themselves down on their luck, permanently for those who are infirm and unable to care for themselves, but also avail some dignity, pride, responsibility, a way out for the able.
 
Lovebug said:
True, ttwtt and all who liked your post. However, I believe that Bernie comes up with his ideas because he truly cares for those among us who are needy, no question in my mind.
BUT
you are right, he, and many who are standing firmly behind him, think that government can solve all our problems. If that were true, poverty, something that has been around since God created the earth, would most likely be eliminated, for many have tried, and many different variations of government have been in existence. Government should, of course, avail safety nets, temporarily for those who find themselves down on their luck, permanently for those who are infirm and unable to care for themselves, but also avail some dignity, pride, responsibility, a way out for the able.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) does not require a complete federal government takeover of any entire industry or the creation of a system where loafing "on the dole", often supplemented by "minor" crimes, becomes a way of life (open to any and all takers?). The first step is to ascertain why someone is "down on their luck", which requires a clear understanding of what luck actually is: the confluence of opportunity and preparedness. Most often, it is not the lack of opportunity (the USA is often described as the land of opportunity) but the lack of preparedness which is causing this case of "bad luck". It is that individual's lack of preparedness which must be carefully defined and specifically remedied with some temporary public assistance targeted at helping that alone.

Since this thread addresses housing, specifically the cost of rent (which varies widely across this vast nation), what is it that Bernie wants to accomplish that state/local governments are not (or should not be) responsible for? Rental costs cannot be "mandated" to become tied to (some fixed percentage of?) a potential tenant's current income and only a fool would advocate allowing "unlucky" folks to apply for an endless federal subsidy to make that happen. Otherwise, everyone would move to some very rich place (Waikiki, HI, Austin, TX or San Francisco, CA?) where nice housing, weather and views (and rich folks to steal from?) are guaranteed and then demand to be moved in to their dream apartment at taxpayer expense and then they will "look for a job".
 
ludin said:
your post was a non sequitur. had nothing to do with what i posted.
you are conflating talking points.
saving and budgeting is a learned skill.

if gen x is not doing it then that is their choice not to save money. is it smart? probably not, but it is their money and does not negate what i said.
so have a nice day.
Click to expand...



The following are the claims you made:

1. “I am doing way better than my parents”

You are assumedly doing better because you claimed…

2. “…i am making more money than my dad did working his entire life.”

You also claimed that…

3. “Gen x is doing fine and not only fine but actually pretty good.”

I am assuming that #3 is based on the same as #1 being that Gen X is making more money. I also assume you mean more money than your dad’s gen which I’m also assuming is the Boomer gen.

It is not “non-sequitur” and is consistent with what you brought up for me to add that you may be “doing way better” than your parents, based on income, and that Gen X is also doing better than dad’s gen, based on income, but that based on savings and wealth that is not true and, if fact, based on wealth Gen X is even below the younger Gen Y (millennials).

As I already said, nothing I said negates the fact of what you said regarding income as a measure of “doing better”. What I said puts matters into perspective of how you perceive “doing better” vs. how many would see total wealth as a better measure. As I implied, someone with higher income could always make adjustment in what is being saved and improve wealth. They have the time and likely will, based on historical patterns.

What I added, my reply, was perfectly in line with what you posted. If you can’t see that, there is nothing more I can say that might have you understand such.

“if gen x is not doing it then that is their choice not to save money. is it smart? probably not,”

Yup. We agree on this, too. Though they still have time to “get smart”.
 
bluesmoke said:
The following are the claims you made:

1. “I am doing way better than my parents”

You are assumedly doing better because you claimed…

2. “…i am making more money than my dad did working his entire life.”

You also claimed that…

3. “Gen x is doing fine and not only fine but actually pretty good.”

I am assuming that #3 is based on the same as #1 being that Gen X is making more money. I also assume you mean more money than your dad’s gen which I’m also assuming is the Boomer gen.

It is not “non-sequitur” and is consistent with what you brought up for me to add that you may be “doing way better” than your parents, based on income, and that Gen X is also doing better than dad’s gen, based on income, but that based on savings and wealth that is not true and, if fact, based on wealth Gen X is even below the younger Gen Y (millennials).

As I already said, nothing I said negates the fact of what you said regarding income as a measure of “doing better”. What I said puts matters into perspective of how you perceive “doing better” vs. how many would see total wealth as a better measure. As I implied, someone with higher income could always make adjustment in what is being saved and improve wealth. They have the time and likely will, based on historical patterns.

What I added, my reply, was perfectly in line with what you posted. If you can’t see that, there is nothing more I can say that might have you understand such.

“if gen x is not doing it then that is their choice not to save money. is it smart? probably not,”

Yup. We agree on this, too. Though they still have time to “get smart”.
Click to expand...

nothing you posted negates what i said have a nice day.
your continued no sequitur arguments are just that.
 
Parrish said:
Bernie, notwithstanding, 46 million people live in poverty that most cannot imagine. Just ask those who live in slumlord's properties. I'd love to hear what the Kushner's of the US think of those who pay to live in their housing.
Click to expand...

Almost nobody in the US lives in poverty.

Do you know what the word poverty means?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom