Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Pretty much every working person already has no problem buying that stuff for himself and much more.

---

Quote:

---

$70 trillion in unfunded liabilities

---

Quote:

---

Yrat said:
so outright socialism is your proposed approach?

---

Quote:

---

Yrat said:
the problem in the markets is too much government involvement as it is, and you're proposing their complete takeover.  great idea!

---

Quote:

---

we all know how fantastically socialism ends up.

---

Quote:

---

Yrat said:
houses are a good that have a market just like any other good.  as such, they are subject to the laws of supply and demand.  if housing is too expensive for the poor, it simply means there is demand from actual working people who are willing to shell out the cash for a house.

you are proposing to completely do away with supply and demand.  what other markets would you like to destroy?  should everyone who can't afford a car get one too?

---

Quote:

---

Yrat said:
houses are a good that have a market just like any other good.  as such, they are subject to the laws of supply and demand.  if housing is too expensive for the poor, it simply means there is demand from actual working people who are willing to shell out the cash for a house.

you are proposing to completely do away with supply and demand.  what other markets would you like to destroy?  should everyone who can't afford a car get one too?

---

Quote:

---

Yrat said:
is the "basic human right" of shelter outlined in the Constitution?  if not (and the answer is no) then government has no business to interfere in such.

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
I haven't even mentioned housing.  Lack of affordable housing increasing the poverty rate is what I've been talking about.  As for food, I'm talking about a tax credit.  This will free up money at the bottom and create new markets and is ultimately good for a capitalist society.

---

Quote:

---

A tax credit for people who can't afford food?  People who can't afford food  don't pay taxes.

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:

Quote:

---

Yrat said:
is the "basic human right" of shelter outlined in the Constitution?  if not (and the answer is no) then government has no business to interfere in such.

---

Wrong.  Completely and utter ignorance of the law.  There is no excuse for that misinterpretation.

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:

Quote:

---

A tax credit for people who can't afford food?  People who can't afford food  don't pay taxes.

---

I mean for people who aren't going to use the public housing.  You use the public housing or get the tax credit.

Same concept for food.  You get however many food credits for free and what you don't use can be used as a tax credit.

Make sense now?

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
I haven't even mentioned housing.  Lack of affordable housing increasing the poverty rate is what I've been talking about.  As for food, I'm talking about a tax credit.  This will free up money at the bottom and create new markets and is ultimately good for a capitalist society.

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
I said they get free housing OR a tax credit.  Read what I write for christ's sake.

---

Quote:

---

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

---

Quote:

---

The Second Bill of Rights was a proposal made by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt

---

Quote:

---

What about tax credits for people who don't pay taxes?

---

Quote:

---

Ignoring / Ignored By 0 member(s) / 10 member(s)

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
If we replaced

Social Security
680 Billion

Income Security
520 Billion

Veterans Benefits and Services
95 Billion

and shaved off 25% of the the following budgets (health comes from reduced costs).

Defense
175 Billion

Medicare
110 Billion

Health
90 Billion

and a few other reduced costs, we get 1.7-1.8 billion dollars.  By my calculations, it would take about 2-3 trillion to feed and house every American on the cheap (or to give them the equivalent tax credit).  Assuming that not everyone will utilize it, that reduces that cost to closer to 2 trillion.  Assuming that this spending will increase GDP, this would fill the gap between the costs of the program and the funding sources I outlined above.  Of course, new taxes are an option too.

We could argue about socialism and which is more free, to pay taxes or to have basic necessities.  But I just want to point out that it's possible.

The costs are very flexible of course.  I didn't go too in depth into calculations there for that reason.

---

Quote:

---

I, as a human being, have the right to attempt to peacefully acquire shelter. If I fail in that attempt, this doesn't mean other humans must provide it to me. Pointing out this obvious truth is not trolling.

---

Quote:

---

PookztA said:
"If there were no Billionaires, we could ALL be millionaires."

---

Quote:

---

Phred, he was purposefully fucking with me with the whole tax credit bullshit.

---

Quote:

---

When land is hoarded and the means to build homes and to own land are taken away, the inalienable right to shelter has been infringed.

---

Quote:

---

If you reject that right exists, you are not a true follower of libertarianism.

---

Quote:

---

We may disagree on the mechanism, but the notion that that basic necessities to life are not a natural right is absolutely absurd.

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps it would be more fruitful to examine the causes of the admittedly difficult problems that you observe?

---

Yes, perhaps.  Like I said, there are definitely alternative mechanisms to solving the problem.  An analysis of the causes would give a clearer picture of what options are available.  I haven't throw my weight behind any one option yet, I was simply pointing out in the OP that it was possible, and what a small fraction of GDP goes to our basic needs, whereas the majority of the poor salary goes to it.  If the poor lived 100 years ago, they would have been able to feed and house themselves with a fraction of the work.  I think to blame inflation and the CPI are only a small part of the problem, one to which there is no readily available or desirable solution IMO.

I'll give a better analysis of the causes when I'm sure what they are

No need to half ass this.

Quote:

---

how incredibly ignorant.  if we were all millionaires, prices would rise accordingly and we'd be at the same exact spot we are now.  millionaire would mean nothing, and trillionaire and quadrillionaire would be the title you would aspire to.

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:

Quote:

---

I, as a human being, have the right to attempt to peacefully acquire shelter. If I fail in that attempt, this doesn't mean other humans must provide it to me. Pointing out this obvious truth is not trolling.

---

Phred, he was purposefully fucking with me with the whole tax credit bullshit.  No matter, I wouldn't expect you to do anything about it.

When land is hoarded and the means to build homes and to own land are taken away, the inalienable right to shelter has been infringed.  If you reject that right exists, you are not a true follower of libertarianism.  We may disagree on the mechanism, but the notion that that basic necessities to life are not a natural right is absolutely absurd.

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
The solution to regulatory burden isn't to eliminate regulations, which would have a far more ill effect on standard of living than does the income gap.  Rather, there should be an increased disparity in regulations between small and large businesses.  Regulation should be more targeted.

---

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
I can agree that the costs of HONESTLY ACQUIRING property have been grossly inflated through artificial means.

I think it is the banking/monetary system that has jacked up property valuations to the moon.

Perhaps it would be more fruitful to examine the causes of the admittedly difficult problems that you observe?

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
The solution to regulatory burden isn't to eliminate regulations, which would have a far more ill effect on standard of living than does the income gap.  Rather, there should be an increased disparity in regulations between small and large businesses.  Regulation should be more targeted.

---

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
Is it so hard to see that big business has the financial resources to fund armies of lobbyists whereas small businesses do not?

Is is not possible in the present lobbyist infested Washington D.C. to see regulation that is "correctly" targeted.

No es possible.

Comprende?

---

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
The solution to regulatory burden isn't to eliminate regulations, which would have a far more ill effect on standard of living than does the income gap.  Rather, there should be an increased disparity in regulations between small and large businesses.  Regulation should be more targeted.

---

Is it so hard to see that big business has the financial resources to fund armies of lobbyists whereas small businesses do not?

Is is not possible in the present lobbyist infested Washington D.C. to see regulation that is "correctly" targeted.

No es possible.

Comprende?

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
Is it so hard to see that big business has the financial resources to fund armies of lobbyists whereas small businesses do not?

Is is not possible in the present lobbyist infested Washington D.C. to see regulation that is "correctly" targeted.

No es possible.

Comprende?

---

As information sharing becomes more pervasive, the power of these lobbies are diminished, or so we can hope.  But yes, you're right for the most part.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
The solution to regulatory burden isn't to eliminate regulations, which would have a far more ill effect on standard of living than does the income gap.  Rather, there should be an increased disparity in regulations between small and large businesses.  Regulation should be more targeted.

---

Is it so hard to see that big business has the financial resources to fund armies of lobbyists whereas small businesses do not?

Is is not possible in the present lobbyist infested Washington D.C. to see regulation that is "correctly" targeted.

No es possible.

Comprende?

---

Which is, of course, bull shit.  Big companies are owned by shareholders, many of which are pension funds responsible for ensuring the retirement accounts of millions of workers.  They have an obligation to protect their investment and a right to petition the government just like anybody else.  Are you, too, a Napolean?  Some companies are more equal under the law than others?

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
I understand a lot of things that you don't, apparently.  At least one of them is the Constitutional right to petition the government.  Corporations, no matter how large, are still owned by individuals who have the collective right to be heard.  We don't have lobbyists because the politicians love them.  We have lobbyists because it is unconstitutional to forbid them.  It's a free speech issue.  You, too, can lobby Congress.  Knock yourself out.

---

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
I understand a lot of things that you don't, apparently.  At least one of them is the Constitutional right to petition the government.  Corporations, no matter how large, are still owned by individuals who have the collective right to be heard.  We don't have lobbyists because the politicians love them.  We have lobbyists because it is unconstitutional to forbid them.  It's a free speech issue.  You, too, can lobby Congress.  Knock yourself out.

---

It is a question as to when such behavior crosses the line.

Senator Chris Dodd has recieved around 148 grand (that we know about...) from fannie mae/ freddie mac.

Remember how vociferously he defended them when it was clear they were not solvent?

It's wrong for politicians to be receiving large sums of money from special interests.

It's o.k. though, Peter Schiff could be running against Dodd and I'm sure that would come up in said election.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Which is, of course, bull shit.  Big companies are owned by shareholders, many of which are pension funds responsible for ensuring the retirement accounts of millions of workers.  They have an obligation to protect their investment and a right to petition the government just like anybody else.  Are you, too, a Napolean?  Some companies are more equal under the law than others?

I understand a lot of things that you don't, apparently.  At least one of them is the Constitutional right to petition the government.  Corporations, no matter how large, are still owned by individuals who have the collective right to be heard.  We don't have lobbyists because the politicians love them.  We have lobbyists because it is unconstitutional to forbid them.  It's a free speech issue.  You, too, can lobby Congress.  Knock yourself out.

---

Quote:

---

danielx said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Which is, of course, bull shit.  Big companies are owned by shareholders, many of which are pension funds responsible for ensuring the retirement accounts of millions of workers.  They have an obligation to protect their investment and a right to petition the government just like anybody else.  Are you, too, a Napolean?  Some companies are more equal under the law than others?

I understand a lot of things that you don't, apparently.  At least one of them is the Constitutional right to petition the government.  Corporations, no matter how large, are still owned by individuals who have the collective right to be heard.  We don't have lobbyists because the politicians love them.  We have lobbyists because it is unconstitutional to forbid them.  It's a free speech issue.  You, too, can lobby Congress.  Knock yourself out.

---

sure they have the right to lobby, but if push comes to shove and new regulations get passed that effectively disable other businesses in the process, can we agree this is to be bullshit?

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Some regulation is necessary for some businesses.  Insurance and banking and finance for sure

---

Quote:

---

danielx said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Some regulation is necessary for some businesses.  Insurance and banking and finance for sure

---

elaborate. It is to my understanding that over regulation is what put us in the mess we are into today, not lack of regulation.

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
The CRA didn't make anybody make any loans, that's an outright lie.  If you look up the CRA inspection records, you'd see that it hadn't been enforced since 2001.  There was no mandate to make the loans, the mechanism of encouragement was that the banks in question wouldn't be allowed to expand into prime markets if they were given bad ratings (ie if they were outright red-lining).

---

Quote:

---

The Bush administration did away with a large number of post-depression SEC regulations, and allowed tranches to be created.  This led to higher volatility in the market and run-away bubble formation.

---

Quote:

---

So the banks used the CRA as an excuse to make the loans in the first place, while they profited and passed the liability onto others.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Irrational exuberance.  Tulips.  Campaign contributions are not bribes and should not be curtailed in any way.  As I said earlier, Dodd should be prosecuted for his Friend of Angelo loans and the phony valuation on his Irish cottage.

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
Really, as minimum wage drops back to a dollar, the number of people that can afford to buy a home drops drastically to pretty much nobody.

---

The minimum wage today is the highest it's ever been...

Quote:

---

Qubit said:
The amount of people without housing is infinitesimal and largley based off their own choices (even if they are poor choices due to mental health and substance abuse issues).

You are barking up the wrong tree.

---

Maybe so, but the amount of people struggling with rent is definitely not negligible.

Quote:

---

Yrat said:
houses are a good that have a market just like any other good.  as such, they are subject to the laws of supply and demand.  if housing is too expensive for the poor, it simply means there is demand from actual working people who are willing to shell out the cash for a house.

you are proposing to completely do away with supply and demand.  what other markets would you like to destroy?  should everyone who can't afford a car get one too?

---

Quote:

---

Poid said:

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
Really, as minimum wage drops back to a dollar, the number of people that can afford to buy a home drops drastically to pretty much nobody.

---

The minimum wage today is the highest it's ever been...

Quote:

---

Qubit said:
The amount of people without housing is infinitesimal and largley based off their own choices (even if they are poor choices due to mental health and substance abuse issues).

You are barking up the wrong tree.

---

Maybe so, but the amount of people struggling with rent is definitely not negligible.

Quote:

---

Yrat said:
houses are a good that have a market just like any other good.  as such, they are subject to the laws of supply and demand.  if housing is too expensive for the poor, it simply means there is demand from actual working people who are willing to shell out the cash for a house.

you are proposing to completely do away with supply and demand.  what other markets would you like to destroy?  should everyone who can't afford a car get one too?

---

Do you have any evidence that affordable housing significantly hurts the market?

---

Quote:

---

Poid said:

Quote:

---

Ferris said:
Really, as minimum wage drops back to a dollar, the number of people that can afford to buy a home drops drastically to pretty much nobody.

---

The minimum wage today is the highest it's ever been..

---

Quote:

---

Poid said:
The minimum wage today is the highest it's ever been...

---

Quote:

---

danielx said:

Quote:

---

Poid said:
The minimum wage today is the highest it's ever been...

---

but its all relative. Minimum wage is $8 an hour in california, seems pretty good right? But with 9% sales tax, and high cost of living its shit on a stick.

You could make minimum wage $1000 a hour, but it wouldn't make anyone rich. It would do the exact opposite and make the money we already have worthless.

---

Quote:

---

danielx said:
oh? Guess ill take your word for it, since you said so.

---

Quote:

---

Ferris said:

Quote:

---

danielx said:
oh? Guess ill take your word for it, since you said so.

---

Who's to say the money supply wouldn't be raised proportionally?  Who's to say it wouldn't be raised even higher?  It's illogical to assume a minimum wage raise occurs in a vacuum.

---