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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This Graffiti Artist Had An Interesting Idea You Probably Haven't Thought Of Before [View all]pipoman
(16,038 posts)44. Why didn't you answer my question?
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
63 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This Graffiti Artist Had An Interesting Idea You Probably Haven't Thought Of Before [View all]
Playinghardball
May 2012
OP
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
I carried a sign with a similar message in the Occupy portion of the Rose Bowl Parade
JDPriestly
May 2012
#30
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
I thought I did. The 10% on top of the economic pyramid, should pay for it like they used to
Cleita
May 2012
#46
The flaw in this case is the hoarding of wealth (land in this case) by too few people.
U4ikLefty
May 2012
#55