Anathema- Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 45 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said: I don't see Democratic voters caring about her other baggage compared to the others' baggage that will bother people (old, unauthentic, corporate shills). No one besides foreign policy nerds knows or cares about Hindu politics. Donors care. Watch her income stream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 top cop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 21, 2019 Author Share Posted January 21, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 Lack of importance on climate change gives me a big pass on her for the primaries That said, I can totally believe this guy posted on ign a few years ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 Michael Tracey was an ign user? that would explain a lot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 I wonder what everyone here and all the candidates think of modern monetary theory. Cortez subscribes, but I’m not sure about any of the primary candidates. I think it’s bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 5 hours ago, Massdriver said: I wonder what everyone here and all the candidates think of modern monetary theory. Cortez subscribes, but I’m not sure about any of the primary candidates. I think it’s bullshit. It's interesting but I'd rather, at this point, have a smaller country test it out first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Papa Bear still mad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 peak lib Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Kamala Harris top 2020 choice in poll of women of color. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Harris/Gillibrand would be nice. If you want more progressive legislation then focus on Congress; and frankly I think Harris' worst critics have it wrong when they say her being a zealous prosecutor is a liability. Our next president needs to go in unafraid to prosecute their immediate predecessor. Obama's refusal to allow prosecutions of Bush admin officials and financial industry players is part of why the right is re-ascendant; they never faced consequences for their actions, why should they act any different? But I'm officially wait and see, the primary hasn't even finished starting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore D Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 On 1/21/2019 at 11:12 AM, SaysWho? said: Am I understanding this correctly; the $~76B in tax cuts are for people who rent to low income individuals? If so, she'd be my Ohio primary vote, and possible GE vote. I picked up a couple rental properties in the past six month, and Sec 8 will pay ~$1300 (which I currently get anyway) a month for four bedroom houses. While they aren't currently rented to low income people, I'd definitely be more willing for my next couple properties (or these if the people did not stay). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Commodore D said: Am I understanding this correctly; the $~76B in tax cuts are for people who rent to low income individuals? If so, she'd be my Ohio primary vote, and possible GE vote. I picked up a couple rental properties in the past six month, and Sec 8 will pay ~$1300 (which I currently get anyway) a month for four bedroom houses. While they aren't currently rented to low income people, I'd definitely be more willing for my next couple properties (or these if the people did stay). lol no, Kamala Harris is not proposing $76 billion in tax credits to upper-middle/upper class landowners. Get real. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Chris- said: lol no, Kamala Harris is not proposing $76 billion in tax credits to upper-middle/upper class landowners. Get real. That said, the landlords will make up the difference by increasing rent. If you want lower rents, you need more rental units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: That said, the landlords will make up the difference by increasing rent. If you want lower rents, you need more rental units. Yep; as 'Evicted' by Matthew Desmond proved, the landed gentry is lecherous. In a just world, they would see the razor, but some rent protections will suffice too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, Chris- said: Yep; as 'Evicted' by Matthew Desmond proved, the landed gentry is lecherous. In a just world, they would see the razor, but some rent protections will suffice too. Not to get too far off topic, but this post make me wonder how much rent control, and similar tenant protection laws in NYC and SF (among others) had to do with high rent in these areas, when compared to a lack of supply of new housing (infact a decrease in housing stock!) because people in the 60s-90s were leaving cities en masse for a multitude of reasons (white flight, subsidized highways carved through city centers, etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jason said: Oh yay, birther 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Not to get too far off topic, but this post make me wonder how much rent control, and similar tenant protection laws in NYC and SF (among others) had to do with high rent in these areas, when compared to a lack of supply of new housing (infact a decrease in housing stock!) because people in the 60s-90s we're leaving cities en masse for a multitude of reasons (white flight, subsidized highways carved through city centers, etc) I'm not savvy enough in urban planning to have any idea. But from my perspective, this is what needs to be done... - Fully-fund housing vouchers (IIRC it would cost around $60 billion to dissolve the waiting list, which is doable); - Tie the ability to deduct rental costs to the vouchers (i.e. if a landlord doesn't accept Section 8, they cannot deduct any costs associated with their properties; virtually guarantees that all landlords will start to accept Section 8); - As you pointed out, build more housing...More affordable, more market-rate, more more more; and - Rent protections tied to GDP (admittedly, someone like @Signifyin(g)Monkey will have a better understanding as to whether or not this is a good idea). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 11 minutes ago, Jason said: I want Wohl to be arrested way more than Trump. I cant stand that little shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 7 minutes ago, 2user1cup said: Oh yay, birther 2.0 whoever funds him is getting their moneys worth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Jose said: I want Wohl to be arrested way more than Trump. I cant stand that little shit. Remember that time he tried to frame Robert Mueller for rape? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore D Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Chris- said: I'm not savvy enough in urban planning to have any idea. But from my perspective, this is what needs to be done... - Fully-fund housing vouchers (IIRC it would cost around $60 billion to dissolve the waiting list, which is doable); - Tie the ability to deduct rental costs to the vouchers (i.e. if a landlord doesn't accept Section 8, they cannot deduct any costs associated with their properties; virtually guarantees that all landlords will start to accept Section 8); - As you pointed out, build more housing...More affordable, more market-rate, more more more; and - Rent protections tied to GDP (admittedly, someone like @Signifyin(g)Monkey will have a better understanding as to whether or not this is a good idea). What do you mean by doesn't accept? My rental properties are/ were on the Sec 8 listings, and I interviewed about 40 Sec 8 applicants, but found some better fits (husband, wife, small kids already in the school system) that didn't need Sec 8. To me, that would classify accepting Sec 8, but that isn't that isn't the gist I'm getting from you (I could be totally wrong). In which case, you would be saying renting to = accepting, which would be totally unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Commodore D said: What do you mean by doesn't accept? My rental properties are/ were on the Sec 8 listings, and I interviewed about 40 Sec 8 applicants, but found some better fits (husband, wife, small kids already in the school system) that didn't need Sec 8. To me, that would classify accepting Sec 8, but that isn't that isn't the gist I'm getting from you (I could be totally wrong). In which case, you would be saying renting to = accepting, which would be totally unfair. That's what 'accepting' means, so yes you have it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore D Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, Chris- said: That's what 'accepting' means, so yes you have it wrong. Ah, well that would definitely be unfair. Accepting Sec 8 applicants would be the correct method. Not forcing someone to just take them to get some tax credits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Commodore D said: Ah, well that would definitely be unfair. Accepting Sec 8 applicants would be the correct method. Not forcing someone to just take them to get some tax credits. What are you talking about? How have you made this so complicated? Accepting - able or willing to accept something or someone. A landlord who isn't receiving Section 8, but would if given the opportunity, accepts Section 8; you accept Section 8. A landlord who would deny that opportunity does not accept Section 8. I seriously don't know how you could get so twisted over this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore D Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, Chris- said: What are you talking about? How have you made this so complicated? Accepting - able or willing to accept something or someone. A landlord who isn't receiving Section 8, but would if given the opportunity, accepts Section 8; you accept Section 8. A landlord who would deny that opportunity does not accept Section 8. I seriously don't know how you could get so twisted over this. AHHHHH, yes, total bungled that, was putting your comment with the accepting = renting to (as in collecting money from). Thank you for the detailed clarification, we are now on same page, and I am in agreement with you on all your points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 8 hours ago, Chris- said: Kamala Harris top 2020 choice in poll of women of color. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 I will admit, there is a lot of good material to deflect Bernie's black problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 It's a good thing Bernie's "black problem" only exists in the minds of bougie liberals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.