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
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should we now mandate everyone must own a house? [View all]Proles
(466 posts)71. Actually, maybe that's not a bad idea.
Seriously, some sort of shelter is a necessity for basic living, and I'd be okay with that basic need being provided to every citizen if it was done in a realistic fashion.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
107 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
That must be why he has worked so hard to prop up the false valuations of real estate. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Jun 2012
#22
By keeping artificially inflated valuations high, he can avoid a call to help the homeless.
Egalitarian Thug
Jul 2012
#94
Right. And the odd thing is that renters help landlords buy their rental properties.
JDPriestly
Jul 2012
#104
No because there are other options. When it comes to the fact that one day everybody will need
jillan
Jun 2012
#4
What tax breaks are there for home owners? Do you mean tax breaks for mortgage
kelly1mm
Jun 2012
#36
I think a more thoughtful question would be 'Can the Federal Government mandate that
kelly1mm
Jun 2012
#41
I agree. How long are we going to have to put up with bitter OP's re. the mandate.Move on already.nm
rhett o rick
Jun 2012
#14
Social responsibility would be to provide universal health care thru a universal one-payer
sad sally
Jun 2012
#28
Well, that's what the Heritage Foundation always said. Democrats, otoh, opposed forcing
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#33
"The Right said they were just lazy bums who wanted the rest of us to pay for them"
loyalsister
Jun 2012
#38
People should never, ever support of not support policy based on their own biases. -- huh?
loyalsister
Jun 2012
#55
If everyone without insurance had it, they too would not be stressed or dying.
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#75
Republicans are not against mandates. They are against Obama. If he was against them they
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#74
Except they fawned over Obama's anti-mandate rhetoric and bashed Mitt for being pro-mandates.
joshcryer
Jul 2012
#76
"The only viable recourse" to what, elect republicans who will repeal the law?
dionysus
Jun 2012
#20
I am sorry you consider the ACA such a bitter pill. We have the mandate, let's move on. nm
rhett o rick
Jun 2012
#17
NO, because NOT having a house doesn't affect everyone else who does. Have a nice day.
FarLeftFist
Jun 2012
#19
Having a large homeless population doesn't affect anyone who isn't actually homeless?
Fumesucker
Jul 2012
#79
Does that mean I can move out of my house to the park and then a week later buy a house for $1???
CAG
Jun 2012
#35
Try missing a payment and get sick after that and see if you get anything returned to you.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#67
you don't rent services. you buy them either in one payment or 'on time.'
magical thyme
Jul 2012
#85
That's right and there should be a tax penalty if you don't have decent housing..
Fumesucker
Jul 2012
#80
All I know is that people have had to sell their houses because we didn't have the ACA.
freshwest
Jun 2012
#52
Silly boy. Tricks are for kids. If you don't buy a house, I don't have to buy you one, do I? nt
Honeycombe8
Jun 2012
#59
I'd go along with ensuring that everybody is able to afford access to shelter.
Live and Learn
Jul 2012
#101
Yes, fully funded by a hefty tax on all the assholes that own more than one house. nt
Comrade_McKenzie
Jul 2012
#103