The Biden Administration

156,119 Views | 3279 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by Oldsouljer
82TxPackFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
Several republicans have pointed out that the Dumbocrats have everything they need to increase the debt limit.

Time to see if the have the balls to do it.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Easy Vid.... you don't want to confuse them with "facts..."

They'll call you a troll or worse yet, a racist.... Low income government housing should be widely available in every middle class red state neighborhood. Just not in the gated communities of blue states!
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

ONE WOLF. ONE PACK.

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility" - John Stuart Mill - renowned SOCIALIST....
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
You want any of those near your place?
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

ONE WOLF. ONE PACK.

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility" - John Stuart Mill - renowned SOCIALIST....
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBW12OG said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
You want any of those near your place?
what are you defining as "those", just so I'm clear. And this isn't a gotcha, I just think maybe we're thinking of two different housing strategies.
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

BBW12OG said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
You want any of those near your place?
what are you defining as "those", just so I'm clear. And this isn't a gotcha, I just think maybe we're thinking of two different housing strategies.
Yeah...nice TROLL job... typical of you to interject a comment like that and then claim it was not what you were trying to do.

I'll be more specific. Would you want the following close to your parent's basement where you camp out and post, play video games and chug energy drinks all day? This isn't a a gotcha...it's a legitimate question.

Quote:

I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.

THOSE listed above. I guess too many energy drinks kill brain cells.... And you know damn well what you were implying. Don't come at me like that.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

ONE WOLF. ONE PACK.

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility" - John Stuart Mill - renowned SOCIALIST....
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

BBW12OG said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
You want any of those near your place?
what are you defining as "those", just so I'm clear. And this isn't a gotcha, I just think maybe we're thinking of two different housing strategies.
Let me take a stab...

We all (I am assuming here) buy a home for various reasons. Some being: quietness, schools, amenities, and similar median income. When you have cities zoning inclusion, similar to the school systems with busing (is that still a thing?); that changes the dynamics of why people buy certain homes.

One thing to consider is low to moderate higher occupancy housing affects the value and/resale opportunity. No one is ever saying that this people class is better than that class. What is being said is that I made a decision based on my values and zoning is affecting my decisions.

As far as investment bankers are concerned, they are looking at other ways to make money. Housing is always a good way. So, these firms buy up a lot of the housing real estate, thus driving up the value of homes. Ultimately, it turns the middle class into renters and not owners.

Remember, the money a lot of these investment firms are making are coming from retirement, pensions, and simple, small transactional investments the middle class has. They charge the fees, on a large amount of middle class investments, and get stupid rich, without any downside. When you win, they win. When you lose, they still win! Now, they are taking the wins, they've made, on your money, and buying housing. Why? So, the middle class can pay (rental fees), again, for them to build further wealth!
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

BBW12OG said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
You want any of those near your place?
what are you defining as "those", just so I'm clear. And this isn't a gotcha, I just think maybe we're thinking of two different housing strategies.
Let me take a stab...

We all (I am assuming here) buy a home for various reasons. Some being: quietness, schools, amenities, and similar median income. When you have cities zoning inclusion, similar to the school systems with busing (is that still a thing?); that changes the dynamics of why people buy certain homes.

One thing to consider is low to moderate higher occupancy housing affects the value and/resale opportunity. No one is ever saying that this people class is better than that class. What is being said is that I made a decision based on my values and zoning is affecting my decisions.

As far as investment bankers are concerned, they are looking at other ways to make money. Housing is always a good way. So, these firms buy up a lot of the housing real estate, thus driving up the value of homes. Ultimately, it turns the middle class into renters and not owners.

Remember, the money a lot of these investment firms are making are coming from retirement, pensions, and simple, small transactional investments the middle class has. They charge the fees, on a large amount of middle class investments, and get stupid rich, without any downside. When you win, they win. When you lose, they still win! Now, they are taking the wins, they've made, on your money, and buying housing. Why? So, the middle class can pay (rental fees), again, for them to build further wealth!



Can't be a coincidence can it?

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-to-know-about-blackrock-larry-fink-biden-cabinet-facts-2020-12
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sigh…..

So I asked for clarification because I'm a post above you were talking about low income housing clusters. That's why I wanted clarification because I didn't think that's what you meant. Thanks for insulting me again.
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Sigh…..

So I asked for clarification because I'm a post above you were talking about low income housing clusters. That's why I wanted clarification because I didn't think that's what you meant. Thanks for insulting me again.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

ONE WOLF. ONE PACK.

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility" - John Stuart Mill - renowned SOCIALIST....
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

BBW12OG said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
You want any of those near your place?
what are you defining as "those", just so I'm clear. And this isn't a gotcha, I just think maybe we're thinking of two different housing strategies.
Let me take a stab...

We all (I am assuming here) buy a home for various reasons. Some being: quietness, schools, amenities, and similar median income. When you have cities zoning inclusion, similar to the school systems with busing (is that still a thing?); that changes the dynamics of why people buy certain homes.

One thing to consider is low to moderate higher occupancy housing affects the value and/resale opportunity. No one is ever saying that this people class is better than that class. What is being said is that I made a decision based on my values and zoning is affecting my decisions.

As far as investment bankers are concerned, they are looking at other ways to make money. Housing is always a good way. So, these firms buy up a lot of the housing real estate, thus driving up the value of homes. Ultimately, it turns the middle class into renters and not owners.

Remember, the money a lot of these investment firms are making are coming from retirement, pensions, and simple, small transactional investments the middle class has. They charge the fees, on a large amount of middle class investments, and get stupid rich, without any downside. When you win, they win. When you lose, they still win! Now, they are taking the wins, they've made, on your money, and buying housing. Why? So, the middle class can pay (rental fees), again, for them to build further wealth!

I understand your argument, but I'll give you an example of where this type of housing mix didn't have an effect on single family home pricing - Dillworth in Charlotte. That neighborhood has a mix of condos, 4 plex condo buildings, and duplexes and those higher density units have zero effect on the cost of single family homes because it is considered a desirable neighborhood to be in.

I think having a mix of different types of homes scattered throughout a neighborhood is actually a good thing for housing stock. It allows for entry into the market in a desirable area by new home owners who can purchase a smaller unit in the neighborhood and then as their income and family grow they can move into a larger home on the same neighborhood. Then, as they age out, they can remain in the same neighborhood and not get priced out.

This is why I like the idea of eliminating single family zoning. That and it creates more density around cities and presents a better use of land.

WolfQuacker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You know, as a conservative leaning moderate, I peruse this and other threads on the regular and rarely participate. I just wanted to drop BBW a note that I've read your posts with genuine interest up until the last few weeks. I generally skip them now due to the level of juvenile name calling and condescending attitude. It didn't look good on Trump and it doesn't do you any favors in attempts at making what, otherwise, might be salient points.

Do with that information what you will, but I felt compelled to mention.


Oh, and yes I see it coming from others as well, but in much, much smaller doses.
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82TxPackFan said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
Several republicans have pointed out that the Dumbocrats have everything they need to increase the debt limit.

Time to see if the have the balls to do it.
That would explain why they and their media allies are frantically flogging to minority party "to do their part" because as they keep pointing lately, raising the debt ceiling must be a bi-partisan act.
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBW12OG said:


LOL....you antagonize, provoke and illicit responses. You "chum" the water and when you get a bite you cry and whine like a typical millennial.
This is a stunning lack of self awareness
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldsouljer said:

82TxPackFan said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
Several republicans have pointed out that the Dumbocrats have everything they need to increase the debt limit.

Time to see if the have the balls to do it.
That would explain why they and their media allies are frantically flogging to minority party "to do their part" because as they keep pointing lately, raising the debt ceiling must be a bi-partisan act.
I don't think that Democrats are worried about political blowback from increasing the debt ceiling. It's been increased multiple times in each of the previous administrations with little to no issues.

However, by denying a single Republican vote, McConnel is forcing Democrats to pass the ceiling raise through the budget reconciliation process. That reconciliation bill is a cluster that Democrats aren't close to working out. They'd like to have a lot longer to iron out details, but if they have to address the debt ceiling, they will be forced to rush it through now.

To rush it through, Democrats will either:

1. Cut massively to win over Manchin and Sinema which is a win for McConnel
or
2. Pass the larger, bloated bill over objections of moderates and give McConnel a big, juicy piece of pork to headline every 2022 add, another win for McConnel


I think otherwise McConnell is completely fine raising the debt ceiling. But he has leverage here and is using every ounce of it
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IseWolf22 said:

BBW12OG said:


LOL....you antagonize, provoke and illicit responses. You "chum" the water and when you get a bite you cry and whine like a typical millennial.
This is a stunning lack of self awareness
What's up comrade? I see your politicians have decided not to fund the Iron Dome to help protect Israel. Congrats.. you and the rest of your anti-Semites have done something that most Americans would have never thought would happen. Between that and getting all that free military equipment from Sleepy Joe you are having a good few weeks! Maybe if you are lucky you can get Amash and Talib to send you a signed copy of their votes that are going to help destroy our best and strongest ally in the Middle East.....

Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

ONE WOLF. ONE PACK.

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility" - John Stuart Mill - renowned SOCIALIST....
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IseWolf22 said:

Oldsouljer said:

82TxPackFan said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
Several republicans have pointed out that the Dumbocrats have everything they need to increase the debt limit.

Time to see if the have the balls to do it.
That would explain why they and their media allies are frantically flogging to minority party "to do their part" because as they keep pointing lately, raising the debt ceiling must be a bi-partisan act.
I don't think that Democrats are worried about political blowback from increasing the debt ceiling. It's been increased multiple times in each of the previous administrations with little to no issues.

However, by denying a single Republican vote, McConnel is forcing Democrats to pass the ceiling raise through the budget reconciliation process. That reconciliation bill is a cluster that Democrats aren't close to working out. They'd like to have a lot longer to iron out details, but if they have to address the debt ceiling, they will be forced to rush it through now.

To rush it through, Democrats will either:

1. Cut massively to win over Manchin and Sinema which is a win for McConnel
or
2. Pass the larger, bloated bill over objections of moderates and give McConnel a big, juicy piece of pork to headline every 2022 add, another win for McConnel


I think otherwise McConnell is completely fine raising the debt ceiling. But he has leverage here and is using every ounce of it
Amnesty for the Afghan people
Billions for another 190K IRS agents

I don't think McConnell will be the next Senate leader if the Pubs take it back! BTW, McConnell, Romney, Sasse, and others are worse than most Dems. I say they are worse because they say this and do that!
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

BBW12OG said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
You want any of those near your place?
what are you defining as "those", just so I'm clear. And this isn't a gotcha, I just think maybe we're thinking of two different housing strategies.
Let me take a stab...

We all (I am assuming here) buy a home for various reasons. Some being: quietness, schools, amenities, and similar median income. When you have cities zoning inclusion, similar to the school systems with busing (is that still a thing?); that changes the dynamics of why people buy certain homes.

One thing to consider is low to moderate higher occupancy housing affects the value and/resale opportunity. No one is ever saying that this people class is better than that class. What is being said is that I made a decision based on my values and zoning is affecting my decisions.

As far as investment bankers are concerned, they are looking at other ways to make money. Housing is always a good way. So, these firms buy up a lot of the housing real estate, thus driving up the value of homes. Ultimately, it turns the middle class into renters and not owners.

Remember, the money a lot of these investment firms are making are coming from retirement, pensions, and simple, small transactional investments the middle class has. They charge the fees, on a large amount of middle class investments, and get stupid rich, without any downside. When you win, they win. When you lose, they still win! Now, they are taking the wins, they've made, on your money, and buying housing. Why? So, the middle class can pay (rental fees), again, for them to build further wealth!

I understand your argument, but I'll give you an example of where this type of housing mix didn't have an effect on single family home pricing - Dillworth in Charlotte. That neighborhood has a mix of condos, 4 plex condo buildings, and duplexes and those higher density units have zero effect on the cost of single family homes because it is considered a desirable neighborhood to be in.

I think having a mix of different types of homes scattered throughout a neighborhood is actually a good thing for housing stock. It allows for entry into the market in a desirable area by new home owners who can purchase a smaller unit in the neighborhood and then as their income and family grow they can move into a larger home on the same neighborhood. Then, as they age out, they can remain in the same neighborhood and not get priced out.

This is why I like the idea of eliminating single family zoning. That and it creates more density around cities and presents a better use of land.


Hokie, I think cities should do as they please. When the Federal Government starts to put strings attached to money, then it's time for the cities to start managing better.

Unfortunately, most local city councils are full of people that don't understand the process of a sustainable city. Oh, I understand your point regarding developers that bring in multi-use places; however, if it's added to your existing quiet neighborhood, then you may see it differently... be careful what you ask for...
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Democrats are now blaming Republicans for not supporting an increase of the debt limit. The Dems need to present a plan (they are in charge) to get us out of this financial mess. Quit blaming Pubs!

Here's the thing: we are running a 1Trillion Dollar deficit! How are we going to pay for that? We're NOT! Both parties have said many times... we need to raise the debt limit? That's BS!

All, this debt is on us! The people, including everyone here, are the debtors in possession!

If you believe in increasing the debt; remember, when you look across the table at your kids and their kids, you are enslaving them to this massive debt!!! We and they have to pay for this!!
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboypack02 said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime
Yeah.... you see people in run down neighborhoods, i.e. the areas in Durham, that have been improved and the "lifers" there have been priced out due to gentrification of the neighborhoods. So what is the left's answer... let's move these people who couldn't keep their neighborhoods clean, crime free, drug free into "modest" middle class neighborhoods with hopes that they will change, step up and acclimate to that type of lifestyle.

Nope... doesn't happen. You are just moving a problem from one area to an area where problems don't/didn't exist. But... at least there is "equity" in that type of decision making.

Anything the left touches turns to S&*T..... FACT. And that doesn't spell salt.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

ONE WOLF. ONE PACK.

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility" - John Stuart Mill - renowned SOCIALIST....
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/a-trillion-here-and-a-trillion-there/

Quote:

The United States is the most indebted entity in the history of the world. As of January 1, 2021, the federal debt topped $28 trillion: that's twenty-eight million million, or $28,000,000,000,000. That is an increase of nearly $5 trillion in the last twelve months, and a nearly $14 trillion increase over the last ten years. For context, the public debt did not reach $14 trillion until 2010, meaning that we have added as much debt to our national ledger in the last decade as we did in the first 221 years as a country. None of this includes the trillions more that Congress appears intent on spending on "infrastructure" both "hard" and "soft," whatever those terms may mean.

These numbers are staggering enough, but not nearly as staggering as the coming tsunami of spending and debt that this country is facing from entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, at least as currently structured. The government's own estimates show that social-insurance programs will spend roughly $65.5 trillion more than they take in. But that may be low. By one estimate, promises made about future Social Security and Medicare benefits total over $95 trillion (again, that's ninety-five million million or $95,000,000,000,000).

So yes, America has a spending problem. We have spent more than we have taken in. And we have made promises of future spending that we have not adequately financed. This spending problem is bipartisan: In the four years of unified Democratic control of Congress from 2007 through 2010, the debt grew by $5.3 trillion, while it grew by nearly $4 trillion from 2015 through 2018 when Republicans had unified control of Congress. Each of those periods also featured two years of a Republican in the White House, and two years of a Democrat in the White House. While the faces may change, the story stays the same: We. Spend. Too. Much. Money.
Here is our problem. We need to be complaining about all the government waste now and every year regardless of who is in office!
Quote:

This is probably because there is no political constituency for fiscal restraint. There is no great mass of American people demanding that we spend less, while plenty are demanding that we spend more at least on what they want it spent on.
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

BBW12OG said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
You want any of those near your place?
what are you defining as "those", just so I'm clear. And this isn't a gotcha, I just think maybe we're thinking of two different housing strategies.
Let me take a stab...

We all (I am assuming here) buy a home for various reasons. Some being: quietness, schools, amenities, and similar median income. When you have cities zoning inclusion, similar to the school systems with busing (is that still a thing?); that changes the dynamics of why people buy certain homes.

One thing to consider is low to moderate higher occupancy housing affects the value and/resale opportunity. No one is ever saying that this people class is better than that class. What is being said is that I made a decision based on my values and zoning is affecting my decisions.

As far as investment bankers are concerned, they are looking at other ways to make money. Housing is always a good way. So, these firms buy up a lot of the housing real estate, thus driving up the value of homes. Ultimately, it turns the middle class into renters and not owners.

Remember, the money a lot of these investment firms are making are coming from retirement, pensions, and simple, small transactional investments the middle class has. They charge the fees, on a large amount of middle class investments, and get stupid rich, without any downside. When you win, they win. When you lose, they still win! Now, they are taking the wins, they've made, on your money, and buying housing. Why? So, the middle class can pay (rental fees), again, for them to build further wealth!

I understand your argument, but I'll give you an example of where this type of housing mix didn't have an effect on single family home pricing - Dillworth in Charlotte. That neighborhood has a mix of condos, 4 plex condo buildings, and duplexes and those higher density units have zero effect on the cost of single family homes because it is considered a desirable neighborhood to be in.

I think having a mix of different types of homes scattered throughout a neighborhood is actually a good thing for housing stock. It allows for entry into the market in a desirable area by new home owners who can purchase a smaller unit in the neighborhood and then as their income and family grow they can move into a larger home on the same neighborhood. Then, as they age out, they can remain in the same neighborhood and not get priced out.

This is why I like the idea of eliminating single family zoning. That and it creates more density around cities and presents a better use of land.




Yes, but this isn't being talked about being done in cities. They want to do this in the suburbs. The other side of this, the Dems will try and fill these units with the newly appointed citizens that will be living on the resettlement money they want to put in the infrastructure bill. Now you have tenants living in your area that aren't contributing to the tax paying base. Is that good for the local economy?
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBW12OG said:

cowboypack02 said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime
Yeah.... you see people in run down neighborhoods, i.e. the areas in Durham, that have been improved and the "lifers" there have been priced out due to gentrification of the neighborhoods. So what is the left's answer... let's move these people who couldn't keep their neighborhoods clean, crime free, drug free into "modest" middle class neighborhoods with hopes that they will change, step up and acclimate to that type of lifestyle.

Nope... doesn't happen. You are just moving a problem from one area to an area where problems don't/didn't exist. But... at least there is "equity" in that type of decision making.

Anything the left touches turns to S&*T..... FACT. And that doesn't spell salt.

Why do you keep conflating density, housing type diversity, market-rate affordable housing, and low income housing?
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Agree on all points. Not sure his legendary ability to rein in his allies will hold, though. You got sellouts like Tillis and Burr just panting to get these big bills passed.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

BBW12OG said:

cowboypack02 said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime
Yeah.... you see people in run down neighborhoods, i.e. the areas in Durham, that have been improved and the "lifers" there have been priced out due to gentrification of the neighborhoods. So what is the left's answer... let's move these people who couldn't keep their neighborhoods clean, crime free, drug free into "modest" middle class neighborhoods with hopes that they will change, step up and acclimate to that type of lifestyle.

Nope... doesn't happen. You are just moving a problem from one area to an area where problems don't/didn't exist. But... at least there is "equity" in that type of decision making.

Anything the left touches turns to S&*T..... FACT. And that doesn't spell salt.

Why do you keep conflating density, housing type diversity, market-rate affordable housing, and low income housing?
Because they are one in the same in the context of the Dems!
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Civilized said:

BBW12OG said:

cowboypack02 said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime
Yeah.... you see people in run down neighborhoods, i.e. the areas in Durham, that have been improved and the "lifers" there have been priced out due to gentrification of the neighborhoods. So what is the left's answer... let's move these people who couldn't keep their neighborhoods clean, crime free, drug free into "modest" middle class neighborhoods with hopes that they will change, step up and acclimate to that type of lifestyle.

Nope... doesn't happen. You are just moving a problem from one area to an area where problems don't/didn't exist. But... at least there is "equity" in that type of decision making.

Anything the left touches turns to S&*T..... FACT. And that doesn't spell salt.

Why do you keep conflating density, housing type diversity, market-rate affordable housing, and low income housing?
Because they are one in the same in the context of the Dems!
He will asks questions and not offer any solutions or explanation on why he doesn't understand exactly the points that are being made here. But yet I'm the one that trolls.... GTFOH with that noise... he and hokie both know what they are fishing for and what they are insinuating... typical.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

ONE WOLF. ONE PACK.

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility" - John Stuart Mill - renowned SOCIALIST....
TheStorm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBW12OG said:

caryking said:

Civilized said:

BBW12OG said:

cowboypack02 said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime
Yeah.... you see people in run down neighborhoods, i.e. the areas in Durham, that have been improved and the "lifers" there have been priced out due to gentrification of the neighborhoods. So what is the left's answer... let's move these people who couldn't keep their neighborhoods clean, crime free, drug free into "modest" middle class neighborhoods with hopes that they will change, step up and acclimate to that type of lifestyle.

Nope... doesn't happen. You are just moving a problem from one area to an area where problems don't/didn't exist. But... at least there is "equity" in that type of decision making.

Anything the left touches turns to S&*T..... FACT. And that doesn't spell salt.

Why do you keep conflating density, housing type diversity, market-rate affordable housing, and low income housing?
Because they are one in the same in the context of the Dems!
He will asks questions and not offer any solutions or explanation on why he doesn't understand exactly the points that are being made here. But yet I'm the one that trolls.... GTFOH with that noise... he and hokie both know what they are fishing for and what they are insinuating... typical.
The post I read implied that you were racist.
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think it's time to admit lefties that Sleepy Joe has a few "anecdotes" loaded into what is left of his memory and that's all he can regurgitate when he's not reading from a teleprompter...



Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

ONE WOLF. ONE PACK.

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility" - John Stuart Mill - renowned SOCIALIST....
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No way did this veg win a legitimate election.
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldsouljer said:

No way did this veg win a legitimate election.
Agree. And the "book" that states that he is being held in a "cocoon" by handlers and staff was proven true yesterday. Boris Johnson openly and willingly took questions. The supposed leader of the Free World's staff ran the media and press out of the Oval Office immediately when the Johnson asked Sleepy Joe if he wanted to field some questions.

Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

ONE WOLF. ONE PACK.

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility" - John Stuart Mill - renowned SOCIALIST....
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboypack02 said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

Steve Videtich said:

caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Oldsouljer said:

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.
never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose
They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.


Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?
Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?


I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.
Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?


Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.
Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...
Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.
I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime
Upzoning can increases property values in urban or near urban places because a piece of land with more tenants is inherently produces more economic value. I get objections to upzoning out in the burbs, but if you're anywhere near a city center, we're prolonging an unsustainable situation. To be clear I am specifically talking about upzoning to allow private investment and development, not creation of government housing.

The population of the US keeps increasing, but housing supply has not kept up. In huge parts of the country (especially West Coast), it's extremely onerous to be a developer trying to build multi-family homes. Environmental reviews, historical designations, parking requirements, and other regulations are a factor. But just a general lack of near urban places to build due to single family zoning may be the biggest constraint. We can't build out forever. At some point the areas that were suburbs 50 years ago get consumed by the urban core and increased density should be allowed if driven by market forces.
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Or quit letting illegal immigrants in by the thousands on a daily basis that are low wage earners that rarely contribute anything to society other than to drain already depleted resources and prop up the lefty voting base. I'm sure you are fine with that.

Now, brace yourself, imagine if these immigrants were Jewish....GASP!!! You wouldn't be singing that song and we all know it.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

ONE WOLF. ONE PACK.

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility" - John Stuart Mill - renowned SOCIALIST....
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.