Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
44. Why didn't you answer my question?
Mon May 21, 2012, 02:42 PM
May 2012
Supply and demand don't lower the mortgage amount, the cost of renovation to accommodate people, utility costs, liability or the cost of maintenance and upkeep. Who's going to pay all that?


You say, "Supply and demand fuels all free economic systems.". I say, yes ultimately, but not instantly. Before your economically ridiculous suggestion in post 22 could become reality you have to answer the question of who will pay for the cost of housing homeless people. The initial cost of your home, the structure, is only a portion of the cost of you living inside the home. Insurance, maintenance, repairs, cleaning, utilities, taxes, etc. Who will be paying these bills?

The owners of these properties have no personal obligation or moral obligation to bankrupt themselves to house the homeless.

"I remember a time when we didn't have homeless."

I'm no spring chicken and I remember a time when there was less, there has never been a time since the time of "poor houses" when there haven't been homeless. I remember a time when we as a society took care of and housed the mentally ill...interesting that at that time people walking into malls and shooting up the place was rare..wonder if there's any connection.. We were not exporting jobs to 3rd world countries at that time so it was a workers market and anyone who wanted to work could find a job. Insurance premiums had not become the behemouth they have now become. Healthcare was easy to get and generally affordable.

It is naive to blame this entirely on either party, both have contributed and both have been in a position to make change. I expect the rethugs to to side with huge business and not care about the needy. It is sorely disappointing to see the "labor party" destroy our job base and refuse to treat our social ills in favor of wars. Not until the last couple of decades have big industry figured out ways to get our government to pay out huge money to perpetuate these wars. We dropped dumb bombs which were nominally priced, now we are using bombs which cost tens or hundreds of thousands. Outsourcing shit to haliburton and hundreds of other companies whose only interest is in keeping the checks coming, and the bigger the better.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Wow. Couldn't be any simpler than that. Well done! nt gateley May 2012 #1
I and I'm sure many others have had that thought before IDemo May 2012 #2
Seriously. intheflow May 2012 #3
'xactly. TahitiNut May 2012 #36
Hey, TN! intheflow May 2012 #39
Hey, itf! TahitiNut May 2012 #40
I hope that is an empty building, otherwise he's a vandal. Odin2005 May 2012 #4
I would guess it is unoccupied since the electrical meter is removed. Arctic Dave May 2012 #5
That makes it unoccupyAble. WingDinger May 2012 #10
And that matters ... how? HuckleB May 2012 #8
I certainly would not want anyone spray-painting on my house. Odin2005 May 2012 #14
Get a clue. Fantastic Anarchist May 2012 #18
Yes, because it is so progressive to... Odin2005 May 2012 #24
You mean it's bad to make the big banks pay to stop people from telling the truth? HuckleB May 2012 #62
I think the point of the graffiti is to point out that it's an unoccupied house lunatica May 2012 #27
that's why I was saying that I hope it is unoccupied. Odin2005 May 2012 #28
I carried a sign with a similar message in the Occupy portion of the Rose Bowl Parade JDPriestly May 2012 #30
Who's spray painting your house? HuckleB May 2012 #61
No, he's socially aware. Fantastic Anarchist May 2012 #17
It's not about rules, it's about empathy. Odin2005 May 2012 #25
Whether the house is empty or not intheflow May 2012 #21
If it is bank-owned I don;t care who fucks with it. Odin2005 May 2012 #23
If it is bank-owned, it is owned pretty much by the Fed and by their depositors JDPriestly May 2012 #31
There are more abandoned foreclosed buildings in Florida than there are homeless people in the US Recursion May 2012 #6
Maybe we should impose a special tax on houses while they are not being lived in. JDPriestly May 2012 #32
Not exactly novel, no. HuckleB May 2012 #7
Now if someone would just buy pipoman May 2012 #9
.. rational_democrat May 2012 #11
True, it always infuriates me and I always point that out. freshwest May 2012 #12
Thanks for crediting us with being idiots. n/t JayhawkSD May 2012 #13
reallllly????? you think none of us has thought this before? wow. niyad May 2012 #15
Actually it never gets anywhere because someone actually pipoman May 2012 #19
They only own them because our laws allow them to own them Cleita May 2012 #22
Flawed as it may be, I opt for pipoman May 2012 #33
Yes, but should they let property go vacant from greed? Cleita May 2012 #35
Supply and demand don't lower pipoman May 2012 #41
Did you ever have a course in economics? Cleita May 2012 #42
Why didn't you answer my question? pipoman May 2012 #44
I thought I did. The 10% on top of the economic pyramid, should pay for it like they used to Cleita May 2012 #46
So then, do we agree or disagree? pipoman May 2012 #49
Yes, like in any business, if you can't make it work, get out. Cleita May 2012 #50
No.. pipoman May 2012 #53
Well, a lot of people overpaid for their rental real estate when Cleita May 2012 #54
Nobody has a right to pipoman May 2012 #56
Now you are talking. Cleita May 2012 #59
The flaw in this case is the hoarding of wealth (land in this case) by too few people. U4ikLefty May 2012 #55
Who, pray tell, do you speak of? pipoman May 2012 #57
Investing and speculation used to come with risk, not Cleita May 2012 #60
Anarchism 101 Fantastic Anarchist May 2012 #16
But vandalizing other people's possessions is vandalism. Odin2005 May 2012 #26
I see what you did there. Quantess May 2012 #20
Not just a fail - an utter spectacular epic fail. Initech May 2012 #29
HUGE K & R !!! WillyT May 2012 #34
The GOP is building housing for the homeless as fast as they can. TahitiNut May 2012 #37
1 in 7 houses are empty. 1 in 402 Americans are homeless. just1voice May 2012 #38
makes me think some asshole has a can of spray paint Scout May 2012 #43
There is graffiti and there is graffiti art pipoman May 2012 #45
So you would rather a gang banger with some creative colored Cleita May 2012 #47
Wow.. pipoman May 2012 #48
What was the point of your post then? n/t Cleita May 2012 #51
Simply that the OP mischaracterized pipoman May 2012 #52
This what happens when you make Shankapotomus May 2012 #58
How would that practically WORK? ErikJ May 2012 #63
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This Graffiti Artist Had ...»Reply #44