Trump budget would spike deficits by nearly 5 times Harris proposal

In b4 Harris' proposal mirrors Trump's.

 

She's not going to mirror these:

• Add $4 trillion over the next decade to the national debt for the benefit of the ultra-rich.
• Increase taxes on Americans by approximately $4,000 annually due to a 10% across-the-board tariff, plus a 60% tariff on goods from China

You support these policies?

 

Yeah yeah, Trump is terrible. We already know that.

But this is also a terrible idea. Doesn't cost nearly as much as many of the other things in the article. But government subsidies are just going to put upward pressure on real estate prices. I think encouraging home ownership is good policy, but you can't just throw money at it.

 

It is terrible policy. The no tax on tips (without a dramatic change in culture that removes tipping as a primary form of compensation) is also a terrible policy. The housing problem can only be solved long-term via increased supply or decreased demand. Putting money in buyers pockets doesn't change supply, but increases demand. Even if we wanted to throw federal $$$ to homebuyers, I'd do it through FHA loans at dirt cheap rates, give them straight from the government, and greatly limit who can obtain them. What I really would want is limit investors ability to purchase homes, and encouraging them to actually divest of existing homes. This increases supply and decreases demand. The problem there is a lot of complaints would come out from declining home values, which would happen.

The government has been artificially inflating the economy for 25 years. When is anyone going to say it ends here?

 

But they increase the prices of homes. That made sense in 2008, but that doesn't make sense today.

 

When "adoo" says something about economics, it's always wrong lol.

 

Inflation and inflating the economy aren't exactly the same thing, though inflating the economy can certainly lead to inflation. Inflating the economy is subsidizing it, which is what the government does when it spends more than they take in via revenue. These are things that can make sense, but not for 25 straight years. We were headed in the right direction for awhile, but we hit a little hiccup, and then Trump tax cuts, then COVID, and something else will come up because it always does.

By increasing the number of buyers, without increasing the number of sellers, you get increased prices. Basic principle of economics.

 

@adoo this is not a policy election - things like Trump literally dancing on dead veteran's graves and his team brawling with Arlington National Cemetary Staff (and later slandering them as having "mental health episodes") in order to get an illlegal photo op is way more important than his shitty Project 2025 policy (which everybody already hates)



Basiclaly all your doing is giving MAGA types like @AroundTheWorld and boring bond issue dads like @JuanValdez an excuse to bloviate at length and posture as experts - this is a disservice to everybody.

 

I believe the current housing problem is caused by a lack of supply of entry level housing and not by a lack of funds necessarily. Lack of supply means real estate prices are up across the board since developers can't build houses fast enough. Add to the fact that in the last decade developers have not focused as much on entry level housing, but on more mid-tier home buyers (2nd and 3rd home buyers), plus people are no longer selling their home but instead keeping it for rental income, plus investment company buying up what is available to fatten their portfolio, I don't really see how giving a first time home buyer $25,000 is really getting to the root of the issue.

I believe Kamala talked about going investment firms that are buying up stock and increasing rent prices across the board. I think going after those people would be a good start to actually start getting home prices to be reduced.

As @JuanValdez mentioned, you can't just throw money at the problem and hope that this is the solution to the problem. The feds have gotten inflation under control to a certain extent. Wages have gone up, maybe not at inflation pace, but at least they haven't been stagnant. The issue is that the market doesn't offer cheap housing. Even if there is cheap housing, you are having to move so far away from your job that then you are sacrificing time with your family.

I don't know how Kamala is going to encourage developers to build 3 million homes during her term, but I don't think it's going to be that easy, and as long as investors can keep buying up inventory, the price of housing will only go up. Once the feds start dropping rates, then we are going to see low interest loans come back which will also wreck havoc on the housing market.

 

By the way, "billion" is a typo, right? I'd imagine dropping corporate rates would be in the "trillions", otherwise, we are getting a bargain.

 

Billion isn't the typo, but $6 is. It is $595 Billion.

 

Just a question.
How will subsidies increase the number of qualified buyers?
One qualifies for a home purchase with the individuals credit rating not the cash given to help on the down payment.

This is no argument on my end. I'm just open to hearing how this helps.
I was fortunate enough to qualify for a VA loan. So, if needed I could have gone 0% down on a house. I am fortunate to have been able to throw 24%

My ability to qualify for a home loan was based solely on my credit score. And, the previous owner's decision to sell the house to me.
I get the subsidy helps for the closing, but I don't think it makes more folks qualified.
Maybe i'm misinterpreting what you are saying.