what's in fashion?
 

universal housing :rotf2:


"Teen Vogue recently published an op-ed by columnist Kandist Mallett in which she declared that no one should have the right to own property. She called for the elimination of landlords while averring that “an eviction crisis is coming” due to the coronavirus pandemic’s heavy toll on the United States, which, she says, is evidence of “the failures of capitalism.”

Mallett noted that “The pandemic didn’t create this housing crisis, but it did further expose the cruelty of payment-based housing.”

She rambled on: “Instead of seeing housing as a right and something that should not be commodified, the state enlists its own armed forces—sheriffs and police—to remove occupants from residences if they cannot pay rent. The lack of protections for non-landowners should be to no surprise from a country founded on the genocide and colonization of indigenous peoples.”

Mallett ended by stating, “We need a housing movement based on a rejection of the construct that any one person should own this earth’s land.” Teen Vogue took to Twitter to tout the piece with an excerpt reading, “While we’re working to abolish the police, we must also work to dismantle what the police were put here to protect: property.”

Dan Crenshaw blasts Teen Vogue op-ed advocating end to private property rights
Writer Kandist Mallett's article reads like 'Marxist propaganda,' the Texas congressman


Republicans love screaming communism socialism Marxism if they see a suggestion from anyone

Acting like urinating in the ocean ( her article) and suggesting they'll Turn it yellow..( or the nation red)

Just yesterday

Tucker Carlson: claimed The Left Is Attacking Kanye Because They’re ‘Worried About the Threat’ He Poses to Them

Universal Housing?

I started work framing condos at the age of seventeen in june of '73, before my high school graduation ceremonies took place. Ten hour days and side jobs on weekends helped me bank as much cash as I could. Two years later I had enough for a down payment on a 1 1/2 acre piece of land, while at the same time I learned a lot about carpentry and home building at my job. Also bought a variety of books on construction to teach myself. Paid off that land loan in one year by saving every dollar I could and not buying anything that wasnt a necessity. In '77 when I got engaged.....I built a modest house by myself...with no financial assistance other than a mortgage loan.
My blood, sweat, and tears earned me the "right" to own that property......and no....I dont think paying for it myself was "cruel".

Meanwhile most of my former buddies continued the alchohol and drug abuse kick they were on .....partying......now probably looking for free housing.
You only deserve something if you've worked very hard for it.

I agree with what your saying. this is just another OMG sound bite , more concerned over the comments of someone with zero power , yet look the other way with Trumps latest rounds of executive orders which once again distorting presidential powers :btu:

don't know if you are paying attention but it's actually your friends on the left screaming marxism socialism communism :o

I here a lot of people saying they deserve this.... or that.... without having done a damm thing.....I have always associated "deserve" with working diligently to achieve a goal.

Loan officer I first went to was skeptical ... an 19 year old with 1 1/2 years working experience buying vacant land.....he wanted a co-signer.....wouldnt think of asking my parents. Got approved by another lender who knew my employer. Finished building the house by our wedding day...and before my 22nd birthday.

I’m just impressed that Scott reads TeenVogue. Can we get an update on Cardi B?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rmarsh seemed to have a sensible response to your article. WDMSO's usual deflection. Spence's nonsense.

And your usual insults.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glad to oblige.

What deflection the women can suggest what ever she wants i have no worries Her ideas will left in the trash bin of history .. and I am the snowflake

And distorting presidential powers is deflection? Ok
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, yeah, anybody can suggest whatever they want, unless, of course, somebody calls it racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or hate speech and various other taboo things one cannot say in the Progressive world of fairness, and justice, and equity . . . I guess it's still OK to say you're a snowflake . . . not sure . . . things change . . . depends on who gets elected into power.

Try that today with current lending laws.
Actually if the original lending officer is still alive, ask him
The ones I know would tell you, it’s a whole new world
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My motto has always been "failure is not an option".

And I said I agreed with Rmarsh did you miss that part ? And focus your monologuing :btu:

Your post I responded to didn't say anything about Rmarsh. A previous post by you claimed he said the article in question was an OMG sound bite. I didn't find that claim in Rmarsh's post. If he meant it as that, it doesn't change what he otherwise actually said, which I responded to. And if he actually said it and I missed it, I would dismiss as irrelevant that OMG notion, but still respect the rest of what he said.

I assume that all posts are monologues of some sort. And they all must be focused on in order to post them as intended. You know, like focusing on how the Constitution is written in order to adjudicate by its precepts.

What lending laws would those be?
No one believed that I could build my own home at 21....not even my parents or future in-laws. When I told them they were very skeptical to say the least. Still living here 43 years later.
I learned not to listen to the doubters.

When I was in my twenties I could call the bank they’d put the money in my account and I would stop later and sign.
That bank has since been bought four times at least.
Very few local banks anymore and nothing done without an application and on and on.
Of course there’s very few locally owned businesses also
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank the preferred model of Progressives. Centralized business favored by centralized government regulations. Sure, monopolies can be an advantage for the consumer--so long as there is the possible threat of innovative competition to keep the monopolist honest. When onerous regulations make it difficult for smaller entrepreneurs, they provide a level of protection for monopolists against those smaller competitors.

Big government can more easily have a controlled relationship with a few large companies than tens of thousands of small ones. Big business in crony cooperation with big government is win-win for both.

Here's your huckleberry: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/j...big-government

great story and beautiful house!, pete is struggling to tread water in his sea of negativity

You're correct, now let's follow the money

In the 2014 campaign cycle, people and political action committees associated with commercial banks gave more than $28.2 million to federal candidates, committees, parties and outside money groups that support them. Besides trade groups such as the American Bankers Association, the industry includes financial institutions such as Quicken Loans, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase.

In the early 1990s, the industry split its support between Democrats and Republicans, but since then has heavily favored Republicans, with the exception of the 2008 election cycle. In recent years, the lean has become even more pronounced. In 2014, 72 percent of the industry's donations to candidates and parties, or more than $19 million, went to Republicans.

Thanks....Company I work for is selling so many new homes ...pre-construction more than ever.....its getting hard to keep up....at a time in my career where I'd like to slow down. Customers are working class people......getting loans easily with good credit and work history.

Old picture...cutting down first tree.....saved up and bought a chainsaw after that:o

Generally, not always, corporate money flows to the politicians or party in power or perceived to be coming into power. Probably why who the money goes to fluctuates. For instance there's this:

https://howmuch.net/articles/the-30-...he-fortune-500

And this:https://www.businessinsider.com/comp...ticians-2018-9

More to my point, Republicans, in the large picture, differ from Democrats mostly in degree. My concern is with Progressivism vs. constitutionalism. The first Progressive President was Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Republican Herbert Hoover was the Progressive presidential model for FDR. They all cemented and advanced Progressivism into American politics. They all were for centralized power, for the big government-big business complex. Their message was "for the people" but their policies were "for the government." Of course, "for the government" in their eyes was the most efficient way of gaining "for the people." But that turns out to be more wishful thinking than reality.

Both parties have been steadily taking us down the big government big business path. America has had a few "great awakenings" in the past, mostly religious. I think there is a current awakening in progress now. And its mostly political. And it is divided by two different views.

One, perhaps the descendent of the Tea Party, has come to the realization that the Progressive model of centralized government power at the expense of dispersed local power and connected to the centralization and growth of big business over small business was diminishing the opportunities and quality of life for far more than it was helping, and leading us into the oppressive authoritarian nation of homogenized citizens who could only be "diverse" within the "equality" defined by government, a sort of centralization into a uniformity of thought prescribed by big government and supported by big business in its hiring and advertising policies--a dictatorial nation that the U.S. was created to oppose.

The other has been been brewing in different cultural or racial groups, but, perhaps recently preceded and inspired by Occupy Wall Street has now "woke" a far more diverse and greater number to a political, cultural, and economic system in which the "privileged," who are the benefactors of the racist, capitalist founding of this country, control everything, and from whom power must be wrested, either by electing those who will transform this nation away from its racist, capitalist, mean, selfish, unfair system, or transform it by revolution, violent if necessary.

One may tend to vote Republican as the lesser of two evils. The other will vote Democrat as the party that speaks the right rhetoric. Both parties, in different degree, have disappointed. But both have seemed to reach a real point of departure from each other . . . again, by degree.

The Democrats have become less secretive about their Progressive agenda to centralize and grow federal power and about appointing administratively rather than constitutionally oriented judges to the local and Supreme Court systems. They show no sign of departing from their regulatory system of government along with its unavoidable big business/big government complex. Their penchant for control along with their leftist rhetoric and leftist leaning or actual socialist politicians give the best hope, between the two parties, for the "woke" awakening.

The Republicans, in large have not changed much, but been driven around the edges toward a more populist agenda by Donald Trump. The populist shift by the Republicans give a ray of hope to the descendants of the Tea Party that there can be a return to local government power and a constitutional return of power back to the people and a cutback of the regulatory system in order to remove systemic barriers to entrepreneurs, especially individualistic small business ones.

Since "you're correct" was your response to the Cato article on the symbiotic relationship between big business ang big government, I assume you agreed with the article.

Re your "follow the money" comment that most bank money has recently trended toward Republicans not Dems--does that translate to you that if Dems get control we will see a return of the small neighborhood banks that you prefer?

Do you think that Biden will bring back the small banks? Or the small mom and pop stores? Or the significant rise of small businesses?

The big bank monopoly is not concerned that either party will return us back to the nation of shop owners. Both parties joined to bail the big banks out the last time when they should have been allowed to fail. The banks' reasons for supporting either party would be various other selfish reasons than fear of losing their connection with and support of big government--no doubt couched in altruistic rhetoric when asked why. One possible reason might be that recent Republican policies favor market growth rather than stagnancy or weak market conditions. Strong markets benefit banks. But there are, no doubt, various reasons other than your suggestion that big bank money going to Republicans means, as the Cato article suggests, that Democrats would deregulate and make it easier for small business to grow in number in more effective competition with the big businesses.

In this current election cycle, Biden is getting more Billionaires to fund him than Trump is. So does that mean they think Biden will favor the big business/big government regulatory model and that Trump would deregulate and allow small businesses to compete with the biggies?

I don't think that's their concern. Some may have actually swallowed the notion that Trump will wreck everything. Since they're confident that both parties are, to different degrees, Progressively into the big business/big government connection, they are probably not concerned about losing that. Except, Trump's populism could be a possible problem to their preferred cozy relationship with government . So getting rid of him would clear the way for the Republicans to stay, or get back to being, on board with the Progressive centralization of everything.

Seriously. Do you think voting for Biden would bring back the small banks?

At any rate, if you agree that there is this Progressive big government/big business relationship that strangles out much of the independent small businesses along with the loss, therefor, of much of the middle class, wouldn't that be one of the more important considerations to discuss in this election rather than the reported character of two very blemished candidates? As well, the cultural direction and scope and power of government?

No
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obvious. You prefer to stay stuck in stupid politics that won't change anything for the good. Getting rid of Trump merely gets us back to the dumbed down progression of government getting bigger. And the citizen getting smaller--a shrinking dependent who constantly bitches about the cost of health care and where is the government program to fix it, and programs to get us jobs, and a program to bring back the middle class, and a program to fix income inequality, and a program to get rid of racism, and a program to get rid of hate, and a program ad infinitum. . .

Biden and the Democrats aren't going to change the government program addiction we suffer from, other than to just make it go more viral. We need a lockdown on spreading it from person to person. We Americans need to deprogram ourselves, to restore the confidence in ourselves that we can handle freedom. Or we will totally lose it.

And we need to see that same sickness existing in the government of our Republic. And we need to deprogram it. Or we will lose it.

Thanks for the view based on emotion and nostalgia of a bygone era.... that never existed except the day the country was founded,. Yet your solution to the problem is Trump. A cancer attacking a cancer interesting

Hey you can’t argue merit points with the blue man, he’d rather elect the dumbest president this country has ever seen, that of course is a recipe for disaster on so many fronts; Covid, foreign relations, environment, the list is long.

If you'd be a bit more specific, we might could have a conversation, but from this pastiche of gobbledygook . . . I don't think so.