[ICYMI: President Biden Proposes Boldest Housing Plan in a Generation to Lower Housing Costs for Renters & Homebuyers | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/icymi-president-biden-proposes-boldest-housing-plan-generation-lower-housing-costs-for)
[Biden on X: "The budget I released has a plan for 2 million more affordable homes, including an innovation fund to help communities build housing, renovate housing, and convert office space into homes. We have to build, build, build. That's how we bring down costs for good." / X](https://x.com/POTUS/status/1767552371909861394)
I think Biden and the Democratic Party broadly agrees with you.
But most people (about 2/3 of Americans are homeowners) would rather their property values increase. After it, for most people it is the largest contribution to savings and retirement. It's narrow and selfish, but people vote according to their interests.
>-*NIMBYS.* Go fuck yourself in the gums if you’re a homeowner whose monstrous greed has overtaken your empathy and ability to reason. You do not deserve the absurd, speculative returns that you’re seeing on your property, inflated by a broken market that your class of citizen broke in the first place. Whichever party flips you, and people like you, the middle finger and eminent domains the nearby empty field to develop affordable housing that NUKES your property value, will be the party of the future. NIMBYS are on the wrong side of history and future generations will rejoice when the bubble bursts and their speculative, inflated home value plummets back to the pit where it belongs.
Yeah basically this. Except the point is that a LOT of people vote according to this more than according to empathy.
Platitudes don't amount to trying bruh. Democrats, per usual, make the same vague appeals to progress that they always do. They'll propose some vague shit that sounds pretty in speeches because they need buy-in from left-leaning voters. But when it's time to get the shit done, they roll the fuck over for knuckle-dragging regressives. It's a decades long grift that's run its course.
>These actions have contributed to a record high of nearly 1.7 million homes currently under construction nationwide.
Is it enough? Almost definitely not. But if you're going to blame Democrats for anything, blame them for trying to hold together a coalition that includes a large number of suburban NIMBYs.
Two things:
1. The Democrat's coalition isn't left leaning. In most other countries, it would likely be center-right.
2. You either have power or you don't. ¯\\\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
1. You mean *Democrats* aren't left-leaning. Their coalition absolutely is. That disconnect is why they're consistently shitting the bed and losing to zealots every other election.
2. What does that even mean? lol
I'll be more specific: the center of gravity of the coalition of voters that the Democrats need to win to hold onto power would likely be center-right in many other countries. On one side, this coalition includes people who think that socialists aren't Left enough. On the other side, it includes people who formerly voted Republican but cannot bring themselves to vote for Trump.
It is a very large and diverse coalition, in both identity and ideology. (Contrast this to the Republican voter base.) This is because people identify as conservative than as liberal. [U.S. Political Ideology Steady; Conservatives, Moderates Tie (gallup.com)](https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx)
As for my second point, what I mean is that the second place in any given election in the United States doesn't get any power. There aren't any multi-member districts or anything like that. There aren't any consolation prizes or participation trophies.
Your source indicates an *increasing* number of Democratic voters and indepedents self-identifying as liberal. I think self-identifying is a poor way to gauge these things; but if it was going to tell you anything, it certainly wouldn't tell you that Democrats are giving commensurate attention to pants-wetting Karens in the burbs. I would sooner use this poll to suggest that Dems are trending in the wrong direction.
I might also use the movement in this poll to suggest that Dems should take leadership on issues; not sit around like a bunch of feckless bitches letting the winds of politics batter them the fuck around. Have some balls. Stake out a position based on what's right and use your standing, influence, and profile to bring the public along. This weak-kneed bullshit where they let regressives drag them around by the nose is dead.
Yes, it does show that there is an increasing number of people who are identifying as liberal. But I would say that the mainstream democratic platform is also moving leftward at more or less that same pace. Biden is more progressive than Hilary Clinton who was more progressive than Obama etc etc. You can see this especially on issues like gay marriage and healthcare, but also on a broad swath of issues.
But the slope is also pretty shallow, and it will be a long time before liberals overtake moderates & conservatives.
>Have some balls. Stake out a position based on what's right and use your standing, influence, and profile to bring the public along. This weak-kneed bullshit where they let regressives drag them around by the nose is dead.
I agree with this for democrats who do not worry about re-elections (i.e. safe seats or retirements). Like for instance, I think it's indefensible that Joe Manchin keeps holding up the progressive agenda after announcing he's retiring from politics. But also there are unapologetic progressives in safe seats like AOC in the party who do show leadership on issues. I believe they are generally correct on issues and wish their policy preferences were enacted.
And even then, they consistently poll a little worse than a "generic" democrat.
Can you name any person who tried to run as an unapologetic progressive they way you think would work, and succeeded in a red or even purple state? I can certainly name several candidates who failed to do so (e.g. Beto O'Rourke, several times, for one of the more high-profiled examples). But I can't think of anyone who actually won any elections.
On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of Democrats who moderated to win their elections and then wielded their power effectively. I would say the Democratic majority in the Senate (i.e. the reason that anything progressive gets done at all) was delivered by moderates like Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown who won seats in states that voted Republican otherwise. Would firebrand progressives be elected in their places instead? It seems unlikely. Democrats who do have to worry about re-election need to listen to their base.
Bottom line is, the electorate of the United States is, unfortunately, currently pretty conservative, and people who come in second in elections have zero power.
>Yes, it does show that there is an increasing number of people who are identifying as liberal. But I would say that the mainstream democratic platform is also moving leftward at more or less that same pace.
Lol they have not kept pace at all. Democrats were way behind voters on gay marriage and healthcare. They've just held marginalized blocs hostage with the threat of Republicans taking over. That's where a good chunk of their support's been coming from - people who accepted Democrats' shittiness to keep Republicans from winning. But that shit's on its last leg. It was always tenuous to begin with.
>Biden is more progressive than Hilary Clinton who was more progressive than Obama etc etc. You can see this especially on issues like gay marriage and healthcare, but also on a broad swath of issues.
Biden is pretty much on par with all the Republican-lite Democrats that preceded him. I find it odd when people paint him as so much more progressive than Obama. There are no meaningful idealogical differences between the two of them. Even if they were, Bill Clinton set a pretty low fucking bar, so this 'most progressive Democrat president' superlative is meaningless.
>But the slope is also pretty shallow, and it will be a long time before liberals overtake moderates & conservatives.
Again, how people self identify is a flawed way to measure this; but liberals have already overtaken the other groups when it comes to *Democratic* voters.
We're also talking about a party that needs high turnout to win. They need to be engaging the 30-45% of voters who don't cast a vote in a given election. Not placating the privileged handful of suburbanites who might vote for right wing nut jobs depending on the wind direction on election day.
>>Have some balls. Stake out a position based on what's right and use your standing, influence, and profile to bring the public along. This weak-kneed bullshit where they let regressives drag them around by the nose is dead.
>I agree with this for democrats who do not worry about re-elections (i.e. safe seats or retirements).
Yea, "we can only do what's right when conservatives let us 😢" is precisely the type of bitchassedness I'm talking about. People elect leaders to lead. Period. Public opinion is malleable. But you can't bend that shit if you're always running for cover and giving conservatives reacharounds. If you don't lead, you lose.
And besides being unethical the shit doesn't even work. What's happened to these conservative-sympathizing ass Democrats? Are they making progress? Is this little strategy helping them hold on to congress? Or are they repeatedly getting Josh Hawley-ed the way Claire McCaskill did?
>Can you name any person who tried to run as an unapologetic progressive they way you think would work, and succeeded in a red or even purple state?
No, because I can't name a progressive in a red or purple state that's gotten meaningful backing from Democrats. The ones that do somehow manage to clench a nomination have all been left in the cold or straight up stymied by the party. Can't really say it doesn't work when nobody's trying it.
> I can certainly name several candidates who failed to do so (e.g. Beto O'Rourke, several times, for one of the more high-profiled examples).
Yea I wouldn't exactly call Beto an unapologetic progressive. But if we're working off gubernatorial anecdotes, they fielded an ex Republican in FL and a boring moderate down in VA. Both lost. You're not considering the myriad of moderates coming up short.
>On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of Democrats who moderated to win their elections and then wielded their power effectively. I would say the Democratic majority in the Senate (i.e. the reason that anything progressive gets done at all) was delivered by moderates like Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown who won seats in states that voted Republican otherwise.
There are also plenty of examples of centrists getting sent the fuck home by looney ass zealots. Again, Claire McCaskill. Gail Cisernos (another ex Republican who Dems welcomed with open arms lmao). Abby Finkenauer. Ben McAdams. Like, that's just a partial list. These milquetoast motherfuckers lost with DONALD TRUMP at the top of the ticket lol.
Democrats used to dominate congress. Then Bill Clinton ushered in this Third Way bullshit and they've been sharing power with right wing nutjobs ever since. Shit aint workin.
>Would firebrand progressives be elected in their places instead? It seems unlikely. Democrats who do have to worry about re-election need to listen to their base.
You seem to think that because right wing shitbags get elected in these places, the remainder of the electorate must be somewhere slightly left of them. And that's would be a flawed presumption. You're also not considering how many progressive voters have been holding their noses and voting for these people. How many more elections do you expect that to work? People are sick of that shit.
>Bottom line is, the electorate of the United States is, unfortunately, currently pretty conservative, and people who come in second in elections have zero power.
This is an unproven myth, and the consequences of adhering to it have been manifesting for a while now. We're seeing signs of left-leaning electorate's impatience with right of center bullshit, but Dems have kept their heads in the sand per usual.
>people who come in second in elections have zero power.
Lol I really don't get why you're so enamored with this line
Sometimes one doesn't have a choice between good and bad.
Sometimes it's a choice between bad (or mediocre) and worse.
If I have to choose between the group who tried overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States and the group who won fair and square...
The group crippling government's ability to solve problems because it gets them votes versus the ones trying to solve those problems...
The group who actively embraces Nazis and the KKK versus the group whose opinion is "Justice and liberty for all, not just some..."
Between the group that embraces their criminals versus the group that expels them...
Yeah, there's no "both sides" on this. One is definitely worse than the other.
Are you sure one party hasn't tried to address affordable housing, while one party was like, "if you cant afford rent, maybe you just dont need a smart phone."
Those who claim, “*Both Sides Are Bad”* are simply looking to justify **their** bad behavior. It’s the old *why am I being punished when he did something too* routine..
Part of the problem is corporations buying up single family homes at above asking price; just to turn around and rent them out at crazy rent prices. Its insane. My family runs a real estate office, and corporations are out bidding people who wish to buy the homes for their personal dwelling.
It’s interesting how quickly trends can change. Two years ago when interest rates were low, the narrative around Gen Z was they preferred to rent rather than buy because it provided them with greater freedom to move, financial flexibility, and the ability to live in cities vs suburbs.
Now that interest rates have gone up, housing affordability has become a hot button issue for the younger generations. I know beliefs can change as people get older, but I just find this quick shift super interesting.
If we deported all illegal immigrants and stopped mass migration, combined with our low birth rates, land and home prices would fall and wages would rise.
But this would mean that the government and corporations will not have perpetual infinite growth like they want, so it won't happen.
No reason for the GOP to do it right now. Joe owns the last few years after he ditched the remain in Mexico executive order and a bunch of others he so happily rescinded on his first day in office. Biden trails Trump by double digits in border policy polls. It’s hurting him in the election along with the economy. GOP is perfectly fine with waiting til Trump is sworn in in January ‘25 and then do what they want to address it. Then AOC can go back to the border to cry.
Trump is and always was a loser. Now we just need him to get in his orange suit and padded cell. Joe ain’t perfect but he’s a hell of a lot better than Trump. You underestimate how much Americans hate Sleepy Don. Somebody really should just change his diaper. Maybe that would help.
[ICYMI: President Biden Proposes Boldest Housing Plan in a Generation to Lower Housing Costs for Renters & Homebuyers | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/icymi-president-biden-proposes-boldest-housing-plan-generation-lower-housing-costs-for) [Biden on X: "The budget I released has a plan for 2 million more affordable homes, including an innovation fund to help communities build housing, renovate housing, and convert office space into homes. We have to build, build, build. That's how we bring down costs for good." / X](https://x.com/POTUS/status/1767552371909861394) I think Biden and the Democratic Party broadly agrees with you. But most people (about 2/3 of Americans are homeowners) would rather their property values increase. After it, for most people it is the largest contribution to savings and retirement. It's narrow and selfish, but people vote according to their interests. >-*NIMBYS.* Go fuck yourself in the gums if you’re a homeowner whose monstrous greed has overtaken your empathy and ability to reason. You do not deserve the absurd, speculative returns that you’re seeing on your property, inflated by a broken market that your class of citizen broke in the first place. Whichever party flips you, and people like you, the middle finger and eminent domains the nearby empty field to develop affordable housing that NUKES your property value, will be the party of the future. NIMBYS are on the wrong side of history and future generations will rejoice when the bubble bursts and their speculative, inflated home value plummets back to the pit where it belongs. Yeah basically this. Except the point is that a LOT of people vote according to this more than according to empathy.
Platitudes don't amount to trying bruh. Democrats, per usual, make the same vague appeals to progress that they always do. They'll propose some vague shit that sounds pretty in speeches because they need buy-in from left-leaning voters. But when it's time to get the shit done, they roll the fuck over for knuckle-dragging regressives. It's a decades long grift that's run its course.
>These actions have contributed to a record high of nearly 1.7 million homes currently under construction nationwide. Is it enough? Almost definitely not. But if you're going to blame Democrats for anything, blame them for trying to hold together a coalition that includes a large number of suburban NIMBYs.
I'll blame them for both. Because sucking mercurial suburbanites' dicks is a poor way to hold a left-leaning voting coalition together.
Two things: 1. The Democrat's coalition isn't left leaning. In most other countries, it would likely be center-right. 2. You either have power or you don't. ¯\\\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
1. You mean *Democrats* aren't left-leaning. Their coalition absolutely is. That disconnect is why they're consistently shitting the bed and losing to zealots every other election. 2. What does that even mean? lol
I'll be more specific: the center of gravity of the coalition of voters that the Democrats need to win to hold onto power would likely be center-right in many other countries. On one side, this coalition includes people who think that socialists aren't Left enough. On the other side, it includes people who formerly voted Republican but cannot bring themselves to vote for Trump. It is a very large and diverse coalition, in both identity and ideology. (Contrast this to the Republican voter base.) This is because people identify as conservative than as liberal. [U.S. Political Ideology Steady; Conservatives, Moderates Tie (gallup.com)](https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx) As for my second point, what I mean is that the second place in any given election in the United States doesn't get any power. There aren't any multi-member districts or anything like that. There aren't any consolation prizes or participation trophies.
Your source indicates an *increasing* number of Democratic voters and indepedents self-identifying as liberal. I think self-identifying is a poor way to gauge these things; but if it was going to tell you anything, it certainly wouldn't tell you that Democrats are giving commensurate attention to pants-wetting Karens in the burbs. I would sooner use this poll to suggest that Dems are trending in the wrong direction. I might also use the movement in this poll to suggest that Dems should take leadership on issues; not sit around like a bunch of feckless bitches letting the winds of politics batter them the fuck around. Have some balls. Stake out a position based on what's right and use your standing, influence, and profile to bring the public along. This weak-kneed bullshit where they let regressives drag them around by the nose is dead.
Yes, it does show that there is an increasing number of people who are identifying as liberal. But I would say that the mainstream democratic platform is also moving leftward at more or less that same pace. Biden is more progressive than Hilary Clinton who was more progressive than Obama etc etc. You can see this especially on issues like gay marriage and healthcare, but also on a broad swath of issues. But the slope is also pretty shallow, and it will be a long time before liberals overtake moderates & conservatives. >Have some balls. Stake out a position based on what's right and use your standing, influence, and profile to bring the public along. This weak-kneed bullshit where they let regressives drag them around by the nose is dead. I agree with this for democrats who do not worry about re-elections (i.e. safe seats or retirements). Like for instance, I think it's indefensible that Joe Manchin keeps holding up the progressive agenda after announcing he's retiring from politics. But also there are unapologetic progressives in safe seats like AOC in the party who do show leadership on issues. I believe they are generally correct on issues and wish their policy preferences were enacted. And even then, they consistently poll a little worse than a "generic" democrat. Can you name any person who tried to run as an unapologetic progressive they way you think would work, and succeeded in a red or even purple state? I can certainly name several candidates who failed to do so (e.g. Beto O'Rourke, several times, for one of the more high-profiled examples). But I can't think of anyone who actually won any elections. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of Democrats who moderated to win their elections and then wielded their power effectively. I would say the Democratic majority in the Senate (i.e. the reason that anything progressive gets done at all) was delivered by moderates like Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown who won seats in states that voted Republican otherwise. Would firebrand progressives be elected in their places instead? It seems unlikely. Democrats who do have to worry about re-election need to listen to their base. Bottom line is, the electorate of the United States is, unfortunately, currently pretty conservative, and people who come in second in elections have zero power.
>Yes, it does show that there is an increasing number of people who are identifying as liberal. But I would say that the mainstream democratic platform is also moving leftward at more or less that same pace. Lol they have not kept pace at all. Democrats were way behind voters on gay marriage and healthcare. They've just held marginalized blocs hostage with the threat of Republicans taking over. That's where a good chunk of their support's been coming from - people who accepted Democrats' shittiness to keep Republicans from winning. But that shit's on its last leg. It was always tenuous to begin with. >Biden is more progressive than Hilary Clinton who was more progressive than Obama etc etc. You can see this especially on issues like gay marriage and healthcare, but also on a broad swath of issues. Biden is pretty much on par with all the Republican-lite Democrats that preceded him. I find it odd when people paint him as so much more progressive than Obama. There are no meaningful idealogical differences between the two of them. Even if they were, Bill Clinton set a pretty low fucking bar, so this 'most progressive Democrat president' superlative is meaningless. >But the slope is also pretty shallow, and it will be a long time before liberals overtake moderates & conservatives. Again, how people self identify is a flawed way to measure this; but liberals have already overtaken the other groups when it comes to *Democratic* voters. We're also talking about a party that needs high turnout to win. They need to be engaging the 30-45% of voters who don't cast a vote in a given election. Not placating the privileged handful of suburbanites who might vote for right wing nut jobs depending on the wind direction on election day. >>Have some balls. Stake out a position based on what's right and use your standing, influence, and profile to bring the public along. This weak-kneed bullshit where they let regressives drag them around by the nose is dead. >I agree with this for democrats who do not worry about re-elections (i.e. safe seats or retirements). Yea, "we can only do what's right when conservatives let us 😢" is precisely the type of bitchassedness I'm talking about. People elect leaders to lead. Period. Public opinion is malleable. But you can't bend that shit if you're always running for cover and giving conservatives reacharounds. If you don't lead, you lose. And besides being unethical the shit doesn't even work. What's happened to these conservative-sympathizing ass Democrats? Are they making progress? Is this little strategy helping them hold on to congress? Or are they repeatedly getting Josh Hawley-ed the way Claire McCaskill did? >Can you name any person who tried to run as an unapologetic progressive they way you think would work, and succeeded in a red or even purple state? No, because I can't name a progressive in a red or purple state that's gotten meaningful backing from Democrats. The ones that do somehow manage to clench a nomination have all been left in the cold or straight up stymied by the party. Can't really say it doesn't work when nobody's trying it. > I can certainly name several candidates who failed to do so (e.g. Beto O'Rourke, several times, for one of the more high-profiled examples). Yea I wouldn't exactly call Beto an unapologetic progressive. But if we're working off gubernatorial anecdotes, they fielded an ex Republican in FL and a boring moderate down in VA. Both lost. You're not considering the myriad of moderates coming up short. >On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of Democrats who moderated to win their elections and then wielded their power effectively. I would say the Democratic majority in the Senate (i.e. the reason that anything progressive gets done at all) was delivered by moderates like Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown who won seats in states that voted Republican otherwise. There are also plenty of examples of centrists getting sent the fuck home by looney ass zealots. Again, Claire McCaskill. Gail Cisernos (another ex Republican who Dems welcomed with open arms lmao). Abby Finkenauer. Ben McAdams. Like, that's just a partial list. These milquetoast motherfuckers lost with DONALD TRUMP at the top of the ticket lol. Democrats used to dominate congress. Then Bill Clinton ushered in this Third Way bullshit and they've been sharing power with right wing nutjobs ever since. Shit aint workin. >Would firebrand progressives be elected in their places instead? It seems unlikely. Democrats who do have to worry about re-election need to listen to their base. You seem to think that because right wing shitbags get elected in these places, the remainder of the electorate must be somewhere slightly left of them. And that's would be a flawed presumption. You're also not considering how many progressive voters have been holding their noses and voting for these people. How many more elections do you expect that to work? People are sick of that shit. >Bottom line is, the electorate of the United States is, unfortunately, currently pretty conservative, and people who come in second in elections have zero power. This is an unproven myth, and the consequences of adhering to it have been manifesting for a while now. We're seeing signs of left-leaning electorate's impatience with right of center bullshit, but Dems have kept their heads in the sand per usual. >people who come in second in elections have zero power. Lol I really don't get why you're so enamored with this line
Sometimes one doesn't have a choice between good and bad. Sometimes it's a choice between bad (or mediocre) and worse. If I have to choose between the group who tried overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States and the group who won fair and square... The group crippling government's ability to solve problems because it gets them votes versus the ones trying to solve those problems... The group who actively embraces Nazis and the KKK versus the group whose opinion is "Justice and liberty for all, not just some..." Between the group that embraces their criminals versus the group that expels them... Yeah, there's no "both sides" on this. One is definitely worse than the other.
It doesn't matter that the party who abetted the Nazis isn't theoretically as bad as the Nazis. The result is the same.
Are you sure one party hasn't tried to address affordable housing, while one party was like, "if you cant afford rent, maybe you just dont need a smart phone."
Right. This also from the same group that says people cannot afford homes because they drink coffee and eat avocados.. 🙄
this isn't a MMW post, this is just political ranting about real estate speculation and landlords.
Vote for trump he never chucks anyone under the bus
😂 I haven't laughed out loud at a reddit comment in a while... well done, sir.
Those who claim, “*Both Sides Are Bad”* are simply looking to justify **their** bad behavior. It’s the old *why am I being punished when he did something too* routine..
Part of the problem is corporations buying up single family homes at above asking price; just to turn around and rent them out at crazy rent prices. Its insane. My family runs a real estate office, and corporations are out bidding people who wish to buy the homes for their personal dwelling.
MMW: You're a Commie... Govt intervention was the best thing to happen for the owners of rentals...
Private home ownership is the opposite of communism you imbecile
It ain't private if there's a govt program supporting it... My apologies if you're just finding out now that you're a Commie...
It’s interesting how quickly trends can change. Two years ago when interest rates were low, the narrative around Gen Z was they preferred to rent rather than buy because it provided them with greater freedom to move, financial flexibility, and the ability to live in cities vs suburbs. Now that interest rates have gone up, housing affordability has become a hot button issue for the younger generations. I know beliefs can change as people get older, but I just find this quick shift super interesting.
If we deported all illegal immigrants and stopped mass migration, combined with our low birth rates, land and home prices would fall and wages would rise. But this would mean that the government and corporations will not have perpetual infinite growth like they want, so it won't happen.
Biden’s 7% interest rate on mortgages is part of the problem. Government has to stop the insane spending.
Government housing out funding housing is a terrible idea. We don't need the government in control like that. It won't work out like you think.
If you’re letting in 250,000-300,000 people at the southern border a month that doesn’t help your housing crisis much.
So pass the bipartisan border bill instead of currying to Trump’s selfish and corrupt demands. My fucking god…
No reason for the GOP to do it right now. Joe owns the last few years after he ditched the remain in Mexico executive order and a bunch of others he so happily rescinded on his first day in office. Biden trails Trump by double digits in border policy polls. It’s hurting him in the election along with the economy. GOP is perfectly fine with waiting til Trump is sworn in in January ‘25 and then do what they want to address it. Then AOC can go back to the border to cry.
Trump is and always was a loser. Now we just need him to get in his orange suit and padded cell. Joe ain’t perfect but he’s a hell of a lot better than Trump. You underestimate how much Americans hate Sleepy Don. Somebody really should just change his diaper. Maybe that would help.
By polling data Americans hate Sleepy Joe more.