Harris campaign releases new ad to highlight plans to build 3 million homes and reduce inflation
Harris campaign releases new ad to highlight plans to build 3 million homes and reduce inflation
Vice President Kamala Harris has a new advertising push to draw attention to her plan to build 3 million new homes over four years.
Kamala Harris has a new advertising push to draw attention to her plan to build 3 million new homes over four years, a move designed to contain inflationary pressures that also draws a sharp contrast to Republican Donald Trump’s approach.
Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, highlights her plan in a new minute-long ad that uses her personal experience, growing up in rental housing while her mother had saved for a decade before she could buy a home. The ad targets voters in the swing states including Arizona and Nevada. Campaign surrogates are also holding 20 events this week focused on housing issues.
In addition to increasing home construction, Harris is proposing the government provide as much as $25,000 in assistance to first-time buyers. That message carries weight at this moment as housing costs have kept upward pressure on the consumer price index. Shelter costs are up 5.1% over the past 12 months, compared to overall inflation being 2.9%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
“Vice President Harris knows we need to do more to address our housing crisis, that’s why she has a plan to end the housing shortage” and will crack down on “corporate landlords and Wall Street banks hiking up rents and housing costs,” said Dan Kanninen, the campaign’s battleground states director.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
3 million homes
Not happening. She's trying to win the votes by implying she can reduce prices of homes, but she knows this won't happen. She lies into your faces
-
I'm sure you feel like you're correct with your armchair analysis. But that's just your feelings behind the matter, which we all can throw in the trash.
-
This would reduce the price of homes. Hell... even just announcing this plan might have an impact. I know I would be sweating if I were an investment organization that's been buying up houses.
-
I know I would be sweating if I were an investment organization that's been buying up houses.
It's the exact reason why she's going to fail. This is a metric ton of current homeowners votes to be lost, and another metric ton of political enemies to be made.
-
Get the fuck outta here with your "fuck you I got mine" mentality
-
Get the fuck outta here with your "fuck you I got mine" mentality
Where did you get that from?
-
Your claim that homeowners will vote against Kamala because they don't want new homes to be built is very FYIGM
-
It's not that they don't want new homes, but that falling prices would impact them negatively. This is more nuanced. For everyone who has mortgage, falling price of their home can be a diesaster
-
So we should continue to hold 44 million renters and half a million homeless hostage to prevent some people's investment vehicles from losing value? Womp.
-
Never said we should. I said this isn't going to change
-
-
It's only a disaster if your home is an investment vehicle, which housing really shouldn't be.
-
-
-
-
-
I’m a current homeowner and the idea of 3 million more new homes makes me very excited! This plus the credit for first time buyers is definitely what we need. Bolstering the middle class helps everyone.
-
Imagine other home owners who have 30y mortgage on them. They'll be so happy their house drops in value.
It's great that you own your house - but that's your perspective.
-
Treating a home as an investment vehicle is a big part of the problem. It’s a place to live, not a market dice roll.
-
I have a 30 year mortgage. I would be happy to lose value in my home if it helps other people get their own. It's not even a close contest.
-
-
-
Every homeowner I know is interested in more volume on the market. Most homes are way in the black on value but homeowners feel unable to sell or move due to high rates and low inventory.
3 million homes won't make a serious dent in value but will help the market unlock so people can make changes
-
-
-
So you're saying that supply will not change cost?
-
No, I'm saying there will be no more supply than it is now. She ain't building these homes
-
The government uses incentive for builders and land owners to build certain types of projects. For instance, there are incentives for them to build low cost senior housing at fixed end cost. This is no different.
-
Government incentives don't decrease price of anything. If you want to buy a car with price tag of 100k and your good friend pays 30k for you so you pay just 70k, that doesn't make car any cheaper. It still costs 100k.
Same with housing.
-
Actually the government does this several ways. In order to qualify for incentives, the cost and make up of the structure is set. You dont want to provide incentives for someone to build McMansions. They can also outline where these structures are built. 3 million single family units hit the market and prices will go down.
-
If it was so easy, it would've happened a long time ago.
-
Are you sure? Real Estate and builders have a lot of lobbying money to keep their assets at high value.
-
Real Estate and builders have a lot of lobbying money to keep their assets at high value.
This is probably why it didn't happen, and why it won't happen
-
Source: "trust me, bro"
-
Look, if you have better explanation of why housing is so increadibly expensive in US, compared to rest of the world, then be my guest
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think we can all agree the government subsiding essential needs is a good thing.
Many more folks would have a chance at ownership of the 70k vs the 100k and if we change the object from a car to a hypothetical essential good, that's and essentially good thing to expand the group of people accessing it
-
Except this is wasteful. It just took 30k that otherwise would be spent on something else, and spent that on a car. Someone else lost 30k of sales.
-
So transparent. Fuck your greedy ass. You're only worried about your own bottom line.
-
You're only worried about your own bottom line.
First, being worried about my own bottom line is my sacred right.
Second, moving money like this is very similar to the broken window fallacy. Wealth is wasted in the end
-
First, being worried about my own bottom line is my sacred right.
Thanks for confirming that you're a selfish prick.
-
-
-
I have changed the topic from a car, and highlighted that the subsidy dollars should be used on more critical things. Ya know, like housing.
There's no waste then , because people need homes, and the subsidy allows more people to access them
-
-
-
just like the factories that get tax breaks because they hire people does not translate to people making living wages
-
-
-
-
-