United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

Reader mode
My guess is they drive a bunch of landowners into dire financial straights forcing them to sell or banks to foreclose, large companies like blackrock buy up everything they can, the government causes some kind of crisis that makes the companies seem to be in trouble, they get bailed out and the government gets the land as a part of the bailout, or they just partner with the government outright.

So the government buys our land from us with our own money through third parties.
 
Bigking321 said:
My guess is they drive a bunch of landowners into dire financial straights forcing them to sell or banks to foreclose, large companies like blackrock buy up everything they can, the government causes some kind of crisis that makes the companies seem to be in trouble, they get bailed out and the government gets the land as a part of the bailout, or they just partner with the government outright.

So the government buys our land from us with our own money through third parties.
Click to expand...
I mean, it just isn't financially viable for such a thing, doesn't matter of they keep getting bailouts.
 
King Arts said:
If you are going to hide behind the constitution then at least be honest the takings clause prevents the government from taking property without compensation. If it wanted to it could eminent domain every house being rented pay off the owner then give or sell it for ridiculously cheap like $1 to the renter.
www.law.cornell.edu

takings

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...
Actually it can't, the government is legally required to pay "fair value" for that sort of thing.

Further they have to legally justify that the eminent domain is actually in the public good before they can do it.
 
Vaermina said:
Actually it can't, the government is legally required to pay "fair value" for that sort of thing.

Further they have to legally justify that the eminent domain is actually in the public good before they can do it.
Click to expand...
Read what I typed the government has to give fair market value to the landlord, but once it owns the land it can sell to the renter at any price it wants even free. The government has given gifts before.

And they can argue that it is in the public good to ensure that there isn’t an increase of homelessness because of evictions. This situation isn’t ideal, the best solution would be if the government could force the land owners to forgive the past due rent and just accept that the renters will pay rent on time in the future.
 
King Arts said:
Read what I typed the government has to give fair market value to the landlord, but once it owns the land it can sell to the renter at any price it wants even free. The government has given gifts before.

And they can argue that it is in the public good to ensure that there isn’t an increase of homelessness because of evictions. This situation isn’t ideal, the best solution would be if the government could force the land owners to forgive the past due rent and just accept that the renters will pay rent on time in the future.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculously unfair to just say "tough shit you aren't ever getting your money, we are forgiving it," to people who have invested thousands of their own dollars, work and effort into building their business. Many of whom are already paying to subsidize the tenants that haven't been paying. They still have a mortgage and other expenses to cover. Where do you think that money comes from? If their tenants aren't paying, it's coming from their own pockets.

Against these aren't millionaires. It's not uncommon that the person renting actually makes more income from their job than the landlord does from the properties.

You people hear landlord and think of some millionaire owning tons of properties and sitting on their ass collecting checks. And that's just not the reality of the situation.
 
Rocinante said:
That's ridiculously unfair to just say "tough shit you aren't ever getting your money, we are forgiving it," to people who have invested thousands of their own dollars, work and effort into building their business. Many of whom are already paying to subsidize the tenants that haven't been paying. They still have a mortgage and other expenses to cover. Where do you think that money comes from? If their tenants aren't paying, it's coming from their own pockets.

Against these aren't millionaires. It's not uncommon that the person renting actually makes more income from their job than the landlord does from the properties.

You people hear landlord and think of some millionaire owning tons of properties and sitting on their ass collecting checks. And that's just not the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
Have people not seen the 80s and 90s sit coms where you have a poorish Italian man or woman, older, running a apartment complex in New York, and they themselves live in one of them. Not making a lot but enough to get by themselves paying for all the building
 
Zachowon said:
Have people not seen the 80s and 90s sit coms where you have a poorish Italian man or woman, older, running a apartment complex in New York, and they themselves live in one of them. Not making a lot but enough to get by themselves paying for all the building
Click to expand...
Yeah, and there's people like my friend who bought a duplex. He rents out the nice side and lives in the smaller side.

If his tenants weren't paying he might not be able to even afford it. He still has to work a full time job.
 
Rocinante said:
Yeah, and there's people like my friend who bought a duplex. He rents out the nice side and lives in the smaller side.

If his tenants weren't paying he might not be able to even afford it. He still has to work a full time job.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Hell, there are Soldiers who spend whole Bonus of thiers getting a place they can rent out. To make some extra money, using the VA loans.
Those soldiers are not rich. Mainting that makes it so they have less and less money
 
Rocinante said:
That's ridiculously unfair to just say "tough shit you aren't ever getting your money, we are forgiving it," to people who have invested thousands of their own dollars, work and effort into building their business. Many of whom are already paying to subsidize the tenants that haven't been paying. They still have a mortgage and other expenses to cover. Where do you think that money comes from? If their tenants aren't paying, it's coming from their own pockets.

Against these aren't millionaires. It's not uncommon that the person renting actually makes more income from their job than the landlord does from the properties.

You people hear landlord and think of some millionaire owning tons of properties and sitting on their ass collecting checks. And that's just not the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
It’s not unfair. Realistically they will not get their money back unless events transpire in a certain way. See you can’t get blood from a stone I’m gonna say there are three types of renters that haven’t paid. Group 1 got fucked by states shutting things down because of COVID and lost their job so they couldn’t pay rent, group 2 was irresponsible and did not pay because they were pieces of shit either ignorant or taking advantage they might still have their job, group 3 is some ass hole that is trolling the land lord he did not pay his rent because there was a hold on evictions but he saved the money so he could pay it back when the moratorium ends. Group 3 is probably the smallest since its pretty rare for someone to be malicious and forward thinking like that. If the land lords bring evictions proceedings because of unpaid back rent they won’t gain any money the only outcome is group 1 and 2 living on the streets. Only if the renter was part of group 3 will the land lord get anything back. So forcing the land lord to forgive the debts won’t make them lose anything it just prevent more suffering by making more homeless people. The only possible way for land lords to get paid back for last year realistically is if the government bails out the renters. But fiscal conservatives will bitch and moan about bailing out people who aren’t ceos.

Also there is a strong argument to be made that renting as a business should be done away with. If you own more than one house either sell it, or keep it as a summer home or something. People who say that people should be able to use what they own to make money however they want are dishonest unless they are extreme libertarian. Most conservatives are pro renting and leasing(instead of buying and selling ownership in the property as a whole) and are pro usury because they say people should be able to engage in commerce however they want, yet they also pass laws to ban prostitution where a woman might want to use what she has to make money. It’s not consistent.
 
Millionaire just doesn't mean what it used to, lot of folks in parts of the US that have nearly or more than million dollar homes thanks to the local property market. Owning even a few properties in less expensive parts of the US can readily put you over a million. When millionaire is a middling middle class thing, I think it's time to rethink the term.

I own one house that I don't live in, I use it to keep my Mom and nephew and grand niece in, and I don't charge them rent (it's cheaper than care for my mom to have my nephew and his daughter live there and look after her), but I have been a small landlord before and it's no fun, literally had a tenant do more than $10,000 in damage to a condo I rented out, really that was all my loss.
 
King Arts said:
It’s not unfair. Realistically they will not get their money back unless events transpire in a certain way. See you can’t get blood from a stone I’m gonna say there are three types of renters that haven’t paid. Group 1 got fucked by states shutting things down because of COVID and lost their job so they couldn’t pay rent, group 2 was irresponsible and did not pay because they were pieces of shit either ignorant or taking advantage they might still have their job, group 3 is some ass hole that is trolling the land lord he did not pay his rent because there was a hold on evictions but he saved the money so he could pay it back when the moratorium ends. Group 3 is probably the smallest since its pretty rare for someone to be malicious and forward thinking like that. If the land lords bring evictions proceedings because of unpaid back rent they won’t gain any money the only outcome is group 1 and 2 living on the streets. Only if the renter was part of group 3 will the land lord get anything back. So forcing the land lord to forgive the debts won’t make them lose anything it just prevent more suffering by making more homeless people. The only possible way for land lords to get paid back for last year realistically is if the government bails out the renters. But fiscal conservatives will bitch and moan about bailing out people who aren’t ceos.

Also there is a strong argument to be made that renting as a business should be done away with. If you own more than one house either sell it, or keep it as a summer home or something. People who say that people should be able to use what they own to make money however they want are dishonest unless they are extreme libertarian. Most conservatives are pro renting and leasing(instead of buying and selling ownership in the property as a whole) and are pro usury because they say people should be able to engage in commerce however they want, yet they also pass laws to ban prostitution where a woman might want to use what she has to make money. It’s not consistent.
Click to expand...
You can just tell us you're a lefty communist.
 
Robovski said:
Millionaire just doesn't mean what it used to, lot of folks in parts of the US that have nearly or more than million dollar homes thanks to the local property market. Owning even a few properties in less expensive parts of the US can readily put you over a million. When millionaire is a middling middle class thing, I think it's time to rethink the term.

I own one house that I don't live in, I use it to keep my Mom and nephew and grand niece in, and I don't charge them rent (it's cheaper than care for my mom to have my nephew and his daughter live there and look after her), but I have been a small landlord before and it's no fun, literally had a tenant do more than $10,000 in damage to a condo I rented out, really that was all my loss.
Click to expand...
To be fair you have like what? 20 million millionaires in the US? Kinda loses its edge when its mostly property and you have steady taxes and debt on it.
 
Robovski said:
Millionaire just doesn't mean what it used to, lot of folks in parts of the US that have nearly or more than million dollar homes thanks to the local property market. Owning a a few properties even in less expensive parts of the US can readily put you over a million. When millionaire is a middling middle class thing, I think it's time to rethink the term.

I own one house that I don't live in, I use it to keep my Mom and nephew and grand niece in, and I don't charge them rent (it's cheaper than care for my mom to have my nephew and his daughter live there and look after her), but I have been a small landlord before and it's no fun, literally had a tenant do more than $10,000 in damage to a condo I rented out, really that was all my loss.
Click to expand...
If there is no profit why did you do it?
Listen I have no problem with people owning multiple houses, you can live in a different one each day or the year I don’t want to set a limit on how many houses you can own no more then ten, I also don’t care if you decide to let people live in your houses for free in that case I would see them as guests if strangers, if they are family like your mom though they are part of your household and you have a duty towards them.
No what I have a problem with is you owning a house say worth $100,000. Then charging someone to live in there with rent $1000 a month within ten years if they lived there they would have paid more than the house is worth, that’s why I feel renting and usury should be banned because it’s immoral just like prostitution is immoral.
 
Rocinante said:
You can just tell us you're a lefty communist.
Click to expand...
Only if Jesus was a lefty communist or medieval Christian were lefty communists because they hated usury. I swear American style conservatives are the biggest cucks sometimes. Being against sucking off the rich isn’t what a communist is that you are ignorant about it is laughable.
 
Doomsought said:
Fiscal conservatives consider the bailout of CEOs to be a fascistic backstab by left leaning RINOs.
Click to expand...
That is bullshit it’s not just the RINOs that talked against bailing out ceos but then did it anyway other respectable conservatives did so. The only ones that actually kept the same standard for commoners and ceos were people like Ron Paul who I have actual respect for. A large majority over 50 percent of conservatives at least claim to be fiscally conservatives yet they apply that standard differently between common people and CEOs. And while RINOs exist they are at most 25% of the Republicans party that’s being generous it’s likely more like 10 that still leaves a large group who purport to be conservatives in economic and social matters yet still suck CEO dick.
 
King Arts said:
If there is no profit why did you do it?
Listen I have no problem with people owning multiple houses, you can live in a different one each day or the year I don’t want to set a limit on how many houses you can own no more then ten, I also don’t care if you decide to let people live in your houses for free in that case I would see them as guests if strangers, if they are family like your mom though they are part of your household and you have a duty towards them.
No what I have a problem with is you owning a house say worth $100,000. Then charging someone to live in there with rent $1000 a month within ten years if they lived there they would have paid more than the house is worth, that’s why I feel renting and usury should be banned because it’s immoral just like prostitution is immoral.
Click to expand...

The house I let my family live in? It's cheaper than care and I'd rather not have to look after my elderly mom myself if my nephew is willing to do so. I bought the house for this purpose, but I mentioned it as I am a landlord.

The condo I rented that was destroyed by the guy selling drugs out of it? I didn't want to eat the mortgage payment while I was away in Scotland and could not sell in a suitable timescale. But even if I were renting for profit it doesn't mean I'm not entitled to one. It's MY property. It's not a government housing scheme, it's not a charity, it would be my property rented for an expected monthly return that I paid for and am responsible for (taxes, maintenance, financing). I liquidated market investments to buy this house, it's not a better return barring that I'm not paying more for care.
 
King Arts said:
That is bullshit it’s not just the RINOs that talked against bailing out ceos but then did it anyway other respectable conservatives did so. The only ones that actually kept the same standard for commoners and ceos were people like Ron Paul who I have actual respect for. A large majority over 50 percent of conservatives at least claim to be fiscally conservatives yet they apply that standard differently between common people and CEOs. And while RINOs exist they are at most 25% of the Republicans party that’s being generous it’s likely more like 10 that still leaves a large group who purport to be conservatives in economic and social matters yet still suck CEO dick.
Click to expand...
You are mistaking Washington elites for republicans. They showed their true colors after the January 6 riots.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top