Bernie Reveals Brilliant "Housing for All" Plan

Okay Jr, lets first get this out of the way....your use of the word we. There is no "we" in "I", in other words you are not part of the "we's" in my life nor will you ever be. We's will not be making decisions for me's.

The land value tax idea: Who in their right mind would want to own rental property if there wasn't any money in it. That's called an economic stimulus, it creates taxable money, you know....all those "good" things you talked about at the end of this video. No one's going to folk over their money to the government. You just have to look at the state of some public housing as to see why the government hasn't the greatest track record of upkeep, everything the government touches ends up costing more not less than the private sector.

1.4 million to rehab: The government is doing just that, we've had two pubic housing complexes ripped down to the ground and rebuild in the last five years or so.

Forced desegregation and integration: I say how about you and Bernie go first and the rest of us will follow. Gentrification....the new desegregation in disguise is one of the factors driving up housing prices. It's the systematic removal under the guise of renewal to force low income and minorities out of inner city neighborhoods. To keep them out they charge outrageous amounts of rent. Why? Maybe they don't like drive by shootings, bedbugs, roaches, or be exposed to four letter expletives, excessive alcohol use and drugs. You know what else drives up the cost of rents? Section 8 housing. Section 8 housing needs to freeze the amount they will pay. I say this because until Sec 8 became prevalent in use rental prices were pretty affordable, it wasn't until landlords seen the crazy amounts Sec 8 would pay that they to started charging outrageous amounts of money for rents. Here they started talking about forcing landlords to take Sec 8 vouchers if the applicant was just as qualified as anyone else. I'd say if someone is on Sec 8 their credit rating more than likely isn't as qualified. I wrote an editorial in the paper about it explaining why a lot of landlords don't want to take Sec 8. One of them being is Sec 8 paid the same amount for one individual as it did for a family of, say, four. Then that one individual gets a three bedroom place and rents out rooms to a bunch of other people to make money off Sec 8 even though it's a violation of the rules to let other people live there. Another reason is domestic abuse victims rise to the top of the list for Sec 8, most landlords don't want to deal with someone in a domestic abuse situation as the statistic's show they tend to go back several times to their abuser before finally leaving them...in the meantime a landlord don't want kicked in doors, broken out windows and holes in the walls. Some parts of that struck a cord with Sec 8 as they now changed the rules, if you are one individual you can rent a one bedroom place, Sec 8 set an amount that they will pay for one bedrooms, two bedrooms, etc., so the only way an individual could get a two bedroom is if they found it for the price of one. Another rule they changed was that kids could double up in a bedroom unless they were the opposite sex or a doctor wrote a note stating a child for whatever reason needed to have their own room. So if you had two girls, a boy and yourself you could get a three bedroom but not a four unless you found it for the same price they allocated for a three. They are building mix income complexes here but they will have separate entrances, that's hardly inclusive, that's saying you stay in your place low life.

Rural areas: One of the hardest hit area's for the opioid crisis is the rural area's, that's because there are no more jobs left, they've all moved to third world countries. It's also the #1 reason Trump carried rural area's. So your idea of forcing poor people out into the country where there are no jobs, no transportation to jobs will only create problems and increase other social programs they will need like food benefits to survive out there.

3 billion funding to Indian Housing: Not a bad idea but the problem with grant money is that it's only the tribes who can afford to hire a grant writer who get these grants....that's a well established fact, been written about many times. Not all tribes own casino's....which brings up the question of will tribes who are flush with money be able to get more money as is now the fact?

Via GND electrify and decarbonize: Maybe before you go on about that you may want to read about the electric industries dirty little secret:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

Fully fund Sec 8: I take it that means paying the full rental amount. It goes on a sliding scale basis according to income, if people can't afford it it gets paid in full.

Rent rule: I am sure if something like this was expanded it would be exclusionary to gentrification area's and be forced upon everyone else, no one should be able to tell me what I can or can't charge for rent unless that rule applies to everyone.

You know what else the taxpayer ends up paying for when it comes to emergency room visits and increase cost of incarceration? Illegal immigrants. To the tune of over two billion dollars a year. That would build a lot of housing for homeless people yet the left cares more about illegal immigrants than they do about our own citizens. We also foot the bill for illegal immigrants who take up space in public housing, housing our own citizens could use.

Before you want to go on about the "moral" consciousness of this all I think you should self reflect on the fact that taking stuff away from people and giving it to other people isn't the answer. What the answer is, and this also goes a long ways in cutting down on the so called carbonization by transportation of goods across the globe, is increased wages and health benefits by making it less lucrative to take jobs out of this country. People today are making what I made twenty five to thirty years ago, mostly through temporary employment agencies who offer no real cost effective means to healthy benefits. This is why there is a increase in homelessness, this is why people have lost hope, turned to drugs and alcohol to ease the pain, stress of trying to work for nothing. What hours they spend after laboring all day is spent trying to find food, medicine, or down at the social services building filling out forms. The true answer is paying people enough to live comfortably on, not lavishly but comfortably, like as before globalization and the quest for cheap labor became a thing. This isn't about the have's finding a way for government to take care of that "certain" segment of society, this is about finding a way for that certain segment to be able to live healthy, comfortable lives by taking the money you suggest above and putting into back into wage compensation.

Sort:

Trending

[-]

sunlit7 (62) 5 years ago (edited)

$1.01

13 votes

sykw (52) 5 years ago

This sounds so Good, but we all know this is hard to implement and giving away free houses to address the issues of homelessness is wrong at so many levels. You said "We are rich country" Huh??? When did that happened ???? We are poor, we only have money for war, that much only is left with us. How do you think this trillion dollar overhead cost to address housing crises will be recovered??? Someone has to pay. But I liked one thing you said, it is to STOP "Mass selling Mortgages to Wall street".

$0.63

12 votes

cyberdemon531 (75) 5 years ago

Its fundamental and neccessary. Homelessness sucks.

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.29

chireerocks (74) 5 years ago

@davidpakman, If issue of Homelessness is resolved then in my opinion that is one of the blessed aspect and biggest achievement and greatest change ever. Let's see what is written in the books of future.

phgnomo (64) 5 years ago

@berniesanders is amazing maybe?

$0.00

1 vote

Bernie Reveals Brilliant "Housing for All" Plan

Bernie Reveals Brilliant "Housing for All" Plan

What do you think of this plan?