As the 2024 presidential race progresses, housing policy has emerged as a pivotal focus for real estate professionals and industry stakeholders. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump offer contrasting frameworks to address the pressing challenges of housing affordability, homeownership, and supply shortages. While both aim to alleviate the housing crisis, their policy scopes and strategies diverge significantly. Harris advocates for government intervention through subsidies and regulations, while Trump emphasizes deregulation and market-driven solutions. These differing approaches present varied potential impacts on the real estate sector and broader housing market dynamics.
Kamala Harris’s Housing Proposal
Kamala Harris’s 2024 economic plan, particularly her housing policies, builds upon and extends many of the Biden administration’s initiatives, but with a greater emphasis on large-scale reform. While both plans address housing affordability, Harris significantly expands the scope of intervention, proposing a more aggressive approach to supply shortages by advocating the construction of 3 million new homes. Additionally, she focuses on improving access to homeownership for first-time buyers through substantial subsidies. Her policy also targets corporate landlords, aiming to curb their influence in rental markets and limit rising costs for renters. These measures signal a broader, government-led reshaping of the housing market, with long-term implications for both supply and affordability. Harris’s proposal reflects a belief that without systemic intervention, the current housing crisis will only deepen, especially for lower- and middle-income Americans.
Key Aspects of Harris’s Housing Policy:
- Construction of 3 Million New Homes: Harris proposes a massive construction initiative aimed at building 3 million new housing units to alleviate the severe shortage of homes in the U.S. This effort is designed to reduce the supply-demand imbalance, a root cause of rising housing costs. Harris plans to offer tax incentives to developers focused on building starter homes, an area often overlooked by private builders due to lower profitability.
- First-Time Homebuyer Credit: One of the cornerstones of Harris’s housing policy is the introduction of a $25,000 subsidy for first-time homebuyers. This subsidy, larger than President Biden’s earlier proposal, aims to reduce barriers to homeownership for younger Americans and middle-class families struggling to save for down payments. The goal is to increase access to homeownership for those traditionally locked out due to financial constraints.
- Corporate Crackdown on Renters: Harris targets large corporate landlords and investors who, she claims, have contributed to the surge in rental prices by monopolizing the rental market. She seeks to limit the acquisition of residential properties by institutional investors to prevent market manipulation and ensure individual buyers face less competition.
- Reduction of Red Tape: A key aspect of Harris’s housing plan includes reducing bureaucratic delays in housing construction by cutting down on zoning restrictions and lengthy permitting processes. Harris believes that by expediting the construction of new homes, housing costs will stabilize as supply increases.
- Rental Market Reforms: In addition to homeownership initiatives, Harris proposes aggressive reforms to protect renters. She has called for investigations into algorithms used by rental companies that allegedly “collude” to set higher rental prices across markets. Additionally, Harris plans to introduce federal protections against rent hikes and curb price-gouging practices.
Donald Trump’s Housing Proposal
Donald Trump’s approach to the housing crisis is grounded in free-market principles and a belief in limited government intervention. His strategy focuses on reducing regulations and federal control to encourage private-sector investment and economic growth. By cutting red tape, particularly in zoning and environmental regulations, Trump aims to lower the barriers for developers to build more homes, thus increasing housing supply. Unlike Harris’s government-led initiatives, Trump’s approach emphasizes that an expanding economy and market freedom will naturally lead to higher homeownership rates without the need for direct subsidies or large-scale government programs. His plan hinges on the idea that economic growth, fueled by deregulation, will give individuals the financial capacity to purchase homes, promoting a self-sustaining housing market. This laissez-faire perspective assumes that the private sector, if unencumbered, can more efficiently address housing shortages and affordability issues.
Key Aspects of Trump’s Housing Policy:
- Deregulation and Free Market Solutions: Trump’s housing policy centers on the belief that deregulating markets will stimulate private-sector growth, increasing the supply of homes organically. By reducing zoning laws and allowing developers more freedom, Trump hopes to accelerate the construction of new homes and rental units without extensive government subsidies or involvement.
- Tax Cuts for Homebuyers and Developers: Trump’s housing policy revolves around leveraging the power of the private sector through targeted tax relief. By extending tax cuts for both developers and homebuyers, he aims to reduce the financial burden on builders, encouraging more residential developments, especially in areas facing housing shortages. These tax incentives for homebuilders are designed to stimulate construction without direct government intervention. Trump’s underlying belief is that the private sector, when incentivized appropriately, will efficiently address the housing crisis, increase supply, and ultimately make homeownership more affordable for buyers, especially middle-class Americans. This approach contrasts with heavily regulated, government-led initiatives, as it prioritizes market-driven growth over federal programs.
- Boosting Homeownership Through Jobs and Economic Growth: Rather than focusing on direct subsidies for homebuyers, Trump’s housing platform emphasizes the importance of overall economic growth and job creation. The Trump campaign argues that homeownership increases when the economy is robust, wages are high, and inflation is kept under control. By fostering job growth through deregulation, tax reform, and reducing government spending, Trump believes homeownership will naturally rise as more Americans will have the financial means to purchase homes.
- Focus on Local Control Over Housing Policy: Trump has expressed skepticism toward federal involvement in local housing issues and advocates for giving states and municipalities more power in determining zoning and construction regulations. He argues that local governments are better equipped to handle their unique housing challenges without interference from Washington, D.C.
- Opposition to Rent Control and Market Interference: Trump’s administration has historically opposed any form of rent control or direct market intervention, believing such policies lead to decreased investments in housing and deteriorate overall market conditions. His focus remains on keeping housing markets as free as possible from government mandates.
The divergence between Kamala Harris’s and Donald Trump’s housing policies presents two fundamentally different approaches to solving the nation’s housing crisis. Kamala Harris’s vision is predicated on robust government intervention, with a focus on direct relief for renters and first-time buyers, increased housing subsidies, and stricter regulatory oversight of developers and large corporate landlords. Her goal is to stimulate affordable housing construction while curbing corporate practices that contribute to rising costs. This approach reflects a belief that market failures have exacerbated housing shortages and unaffordability, requiring federal action to restore balance.
Harris’s policy addresses several layers of the housing crisis. By offering $25,000 in down payment assistance, she targets first-time buyers who are priced out of the market, addressing homeownership barriers for middle-class and lower-income Americans. This subsidy is part of a broader strategy to improve affordability, especially for younger buyers and minorities historically excluded from homeownership. Her plan also focuses on reducing the power of institutional investors, who, according to her, distort the market by purchasing large numbers of homes, driving up prices, and leaving fewer affordable options for individual buyers. Harris’s regulatory stance reflects a commitment to rebalancing the housing market by restricting predatory practices in the rental sector, enforcing stricter controls over rent increases, and ensuring large-scale corporate landlords are held accountable for exacerbating affordability problems.
Furthermore, Harris’s proposals aim to tackle the housing shortage through large-scale construction projects, particularly focusing on affordable units. By offering tax incentives and removing bureaucratic obstacles to developers willing to build starter homes, she seeks to stimulate construction in areas that have lagged due to financial unattractiveness for private builders. Her plan includes reducing zoning restrictions and expediting building permits, which could lead to a significant increase in supply, especially in high-demand areas.
However, the heavy reliance on government intervention raises questions about scalability and potential unintended consequences. Large-scale subsidies, regulatory oversight, and restrictions on private investors could create a more affordable housing environment but may also deter private capital from entering the market if profitability decreases. Additionally, while the emphasis on constructing affordable homes is necessary, the timeline for such projects could delay relief for renters and buyers facing immediate pressures from rising prices. Harris’s approach fundamentally argues that the market alone cannot rectify current imbalances and that comprehensive federal action is required to both stabilize and transform the housing landscape.
This presents a sharp contrast to Trump’s market-driven approach, which avoids federal intervention and believes in the power of economic growth and deregulation to resolve housing challenges. While Trump places trust in the private sector to respond to supply and demand needs, Harris’s proposals suggest that unchecked market forces have failed to deliver affordable housing and equitable opportunities, necessitating stronger federal oversight.
In contrast to Harris’s government-focused approach, Donald Trump’s housing plan is built on the belief that minimal government intervention, paired with economic growth, will naturally resolve the affordability and supply challenges facing the housing market. Trump advocates for a laissez-faire philosophy, emphasizing deregulation, particularly around zoning laws, and reducing the regulatory burden on developers. By removing federal restrictions and fostering an environment where the private sector is free to operate with fewer constraints, Trump argues that the market will efficiently adjust, leading to increased housing production and more competitive pricing.
Trump’s focus on economic growth as the primary solution to the housing crisis stems from the idea that a thriving economy will empower individuals with higher wages, better jobs, and greater purchasing power, ultimately increasing homeownership. His housing proposals, though less specific than Harris’s, suggest that a robust, deregulated market encourages private developers to invest in construction projects, which would alleviate the housing shortage over time. Tax incentives for homebuilders and cuts to business taxes are key components of his strategy, aimed at making the housing sector more attractive to investors, thereby increasing supply.
Trump’s approach also reflects a fundamental skepticism toward the government’s role in managing the housing market. Rather than imposing restrictions on developers or regulating the rental market, Trump’s plan prioritizes allowing the market to self-correct through supply and demand dynamics. His administration contends that government intervention often distorts market mechanisms and stifles innovation. By removing barriers, Trump believes developers will be more inclined to build not just luxury homes but also affordable housing to meet the demands of middle-class families.
However, the laissez-faire approach also presents challenges. Relying on the private sector assumes that developers will prioritize building affordable homes, but market forces often incentivize the construction of high-profit luxury units instead. Additionally, Trump’s plan does not directly address the rising influence of corporate investors in the housing market, which some argue has contributed to driving up housing prices and limiting availability for individual buyers. The absence of direct renter protections or first-time buyer assistance also raises concerns about whether this approach would sufficiently address the immediate needs of those struggling to afford housing in a highly competitive market.
In summary, Trump’s plan is fundamentally market-driven, reflecting a belief in the efficiency of private enterprise and economic growth to solve housing challenges. His policies emphasize deregulation and reduced federal oversight, positioning the private sector as the engine for growth in the housing market. However, the effectiveness of this approach in addressing affordability and supply issues, particularly for low- and middle-income households, remains a point of debate within the broader policy discussion.
For real estate professionals, the key consideration is how each plan will affect both the housing market and their clients. Harris’s policies could bring in more homebuyers, particularly younger or first-time buyers who would benefit from subsidies and housing market reforms. However, there may also be increased regulations and scrutiny on developers and landlords. Trump’s policies may appeal more to developers and real estate investors who prefer fewer regulations, though his lack of direct assistance to homebuyers may not do much to alleviate the current affordability crisis in the short term.
The choice between these two housing philosophies comes down to a fundamental debate: should the government take an active role in reshaping the housing market, or should the private sector be trusted to resolve housing challenges on its own? Harris’s plan offers immediate relief through subsidies and regulatory reforms aimed at controlling corporate influence and promoting affordable housing, while Trump’s vision relies on economic growth, reduced regulations, and free-market solutions to address long-term supply and affordability challenges. Both approaches will shape the future of the housing market in profoundly different ways, and the real estate industry must be prepared to navigate the implications of whichever path prevails in 2024.
John G. Stevens is the publisher of Weekly Real Estate News
;
I will take Trump’s plan. Any time the government gets into micromanaging the Real Estate Market, we end up with a boom and very serious bust. The government should simply offer the current loan guarantees and otherwise stay out of it. The feds have no say over landlords, that is up to state and local governments, at least according to the constitution.
Kamala wants socialistic government control. No thank you!! TRUMP 2024!! Common sense at work for we, the people. Protect our freedoms and the right to earn and prosper that aligns with the American way, not what works for a socialist government of distribution of wealth, reliance on the government and more control.
You are so wrong. Socialism is nor Communism. Socialism is to protect the majority of the people from the greedy ones.
Agree!
I totally agree.
The bust in 2008 came from deregulation!! I was in the mortgage business for many years! Honestly I think we need a combination of both! Make it easier on developers and give them incentives to build affordable housing and give tax breaks to homeowners while giving first time buyers a some assistance! We really need something in between!
I concur with Janet Lane!
As in everything, too much of something is never good. A balance of regulations to insure quality Developement & qualified developers who produce the products complete with guarantees & warranties that’s what will produce best results. Incentives to purchase must be spread over a period of time, not given at purchase creating a reason for the borrower to do what they signed up to do & pay as they promised☮️
If Kamali’s plan is so great, why didn’t the put it in place this year? I pick Trump’s plan since he has been doing real estate for 50 years.
And claimed bankruptcy 6 times
The Trump Organization, comprised some 500 companies involved in a wide range of businesses, including hotels and resorts, residential properties, merchandise, entertainment, and television. The 6 bankruptcies were Atlantic City Casinos. 6 fails out of 500 is a 98.8% success rate.
100% correct. She’s nothing but a puppet for the elite socialists. Total control over everyone’s lives. Liar liar pants on fire. Why didn’t she do it in office the last 4 years. Because they’ve been too busy trying to smear their opponent. I hope all of them thieves on both side end up in prison !! Have a nice day
The more government is involved, the worse EVERYTHING seems to become. I have yet to see any government involvement that works. Let people determine where to live, work, etc. Quit giving handouts to people, quit allocating resources to entities and individuals that stand there with a handout waiting for the government to redistribute the American taxpayer’s money. People need to abide by the laws in place in this country (INCLUDING POLITICIANS), speak English, and work for a living. I am sick of working 12-16 hours a day only to support others who do not work and wait on the government to give them what I have to work for to obtain.
So the $25,000 down payment assistance is for first time buyers whose parents have never owned a home….so to illegals and not Americans..yeah that will make us taxpayers happy
It isn’t meant for first time homebuyers, but for first generation homebuyers. Anyone who’s parents and grandparents(they left that part out) have never owned a home are excluded. The author of the article made a major mistake in wording it that way. This will exclude most Americans entirely and open doors for the recent immigrants. It’s also just a band-aid for a gaping wound. Lower interests rates are a much better deal than just a few grand down payment assistance. The whole plan looks good to those that lack knowledge and understanding of how home buying, loans and interest, and just basic math. In reality, it will not help most people and was never designed to help anyone but as a talking point in debates and rallies. Most people will see it as a free money like a stimulus check which we also ended up paying for with a higher national debt. Now let’s see if they figure out where they are borrowing the money from to give out this $25,000 down payment assistance for someone who’s family has never owned a home in the US…..
There are so many problems that need more attention than just handing out $25,000. Who is going to end up paying for that? Everyone knows the answer. By curbing inflation and getting it under control will will make it easier for developers to purchase material at a lower cost which will bring down the price of housing. What has made the price of houses more expensive is inflation and supply and demand of materials. Any time the government gets involved, things get out of control. You cannot force developers to lower the cost if inflation is still in place.
Who is going to construct these new homes? Trump wants to deport 20 million illegal immigrants. Most of the subs I use for my building business don’t speak English, show up on time, work 12-16 hours and do nice work. I can’t get white roofers, sheet rock, siding, stone work, painters, masons, concrete, landscapers. What will happen when they are too afraid to show up for work? We need a better solution.
Greg – I am sure there are several people here LEGALLY that would absolutely want to help you – especially if you pay good market wages.
Are you implying that you hire subs that have illegal workers, that you maybe underpaying if you can’t get legal immigrants or {sic} white roofers, masons, etc. to work for you – why would someone be too afraid to show up if they are here LEGALLY?
Exactly!
Incentivizing and supporting illegal immigration is the wrong way to get houses built. The GOP House offered a good Border Security and Immigration Reform Bill – HR2 – that would secure the border and provide more work visas for industries (like construction) that need labor. Biden-Harris Democrats refused to consider HR2 because it did not allow amnesty for immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally.
Border Security, National Security, Sovereignty and the integrity of our laws are critical to the success and safety of all Americans, including legal Immigrants.
Illegal aliens work cheap and if they don’t then you will threaten to call ICE on them.. Don’t want to pay Americans to do the work but want Americans to buy your properties.
You’re are disgraceful.
Greg-Just because someone shows up on time, works hard and doesn’t speak English, doesn’t mean they are here illegally. If your subs are intentionally hiring workers here illegally to save money on taxes, benefits or whatever, shame on them and shame on you.
Greg; You’ve hit the nail on the head, My firm owns and manages primarily single family houses in the Philly & suburban areas. We maintain the majority of what we manage & own. Our mechanics and laborers are 90% immigrants who as you have said, show up early, work late, do excellent work and appreciate the ability to be part of the American dream. So I’m with you on immigration as long as it’s done legally and the flow into America is controlled. The current influx is far too many for most cities to absorb. What I’m against is government subsidies to immigrants when our government has not taken care of the citizens of the USA. Back in the day we welcomed immigrants, but we didn’t financially support, they went to work or were removed from the USA. The best solution is limited government interference and a financing plan for 1st time home buyers, no gifts how about 4% interest, 25 or 30 year terms, fair or good credit rating, minimum down payments & fair closing costs (todays costs to close are ridiculous). I could go on and on but all of us in the industry see clearly the issues. Government overcharges, continual increase in RE taxes, permits, cities and feds check list goes on & on all costing owners and developers’ money that is passed thru to the consumers.
Trumps plan obviously. The market has to be free in order to find it’s true value.
It’s all about Character… When Trump was in charge… Mexico was going to pay for the wall… The Tax decreases were for the Rich… the middle classes had expiration dates. Let’s face it trickle down doesn’t work… VOTE BLUE.
Voting blue is really stupid because no one knows what her policies are outside of housing. She’s gone 100 days without having a press conference because she’s afraid of questions that she won’t be able to answer or won’t be pleasing to citizens of the United States.
Mary, so you think the economy is better off with BLUE, in for last four years? Harris has been in to help, and talks a good talk, but did squat ‼️ Because of ‘blue’ we are where we are NOW! Are you better off, now then you were 4 years ago?
Based upon the data and the agreement by the majority of economists… Heck Yeah! The economy is much better than it was 4 years ago … jobs growth at a 50 year high, wages up, Stack Market at an All Time High, inflation down much quicker than in the rest of the global economy… the only issue is the price gouging by corporations primarily in the Food & Energy sectors. Read the DOJ deposition from the CEO of Kroger about pricing levels being sustained though supply issues are solved because they can – and “competitors” mirror the pricing models. Pharm pricing was handled and set at a level most of the rest of the world pays for the drugs…
And why is there an immense epidemic of market amnesia… what happened to the supply chain issues, shelves empty, the market nervousness with the erratic non-policies by Tweet, and ONE Million Americans dead due to the mis-management of the pandemic by politicizing Public health. And a “President” that stood in front of the Nation and stated “I take NO responsibility for this”! And a tax policy that benefits not the middle class – who buys the real estate we are discussing, right?
Read the Economist, the recent report from HSBC, and every Nobel economist – remember 2011 when tax incentives jump-started the real estate market?
The market has not created the housing necessary by nearly 5.2 million units… there needs to be incentives, tax advantages and adjustment of biased Zoning regulations to start the path to a solution.
BTW, have you noticed who is fulfilling the majority of construction jobs in this country? Take a look next time you’re at a building site …
You’re voting blue without knowing what Kamala’s plan? It’s been blue for almost 4 years. Where are we now? You want 4
More years of unending recessions? If she has better plans for the future why did she not implemented it the last 3.5 years! Enough of Biden/kamala.
Trump/Vance 2024
You are so wrong. Mexico paid exponentially for the wall in many ways, just one is making illegals Stay in Mexico. You are so wrong, the middle class got a better deal with the tax cuts. Vote Righteous. Vote conservative. No Blues qualify.
As with every other aspect of Kamala Harris’ campaign, her housing proposals are nothing more than platitudes used to obfuscate her big-government centralized command-and-control intentions. She demonizes landlords and corporate owners to divert attention from the real cause of high housing costs: High inflation caused by her “Bidenomics” policies, and supply shortages caused by excessive government regulations.
We need only look at CA, her training ground, to see the horrible impact of government on housing. That Blue State’s regulatory approach has created chronic housing shortages and affordability crises. Kamala Harris has never run a business nor built anything; she does not understand nor support the free-market. Her boasts about being a “prosecutor” underscore her arrogant and destructive control-freak mentality.
President Trump is a highly successful builder-developer who has demonstrated his ability to motivate higher productivity through regulatory reduction and private sector incentives (not cash give-aways). The success of Opportunity Zones created during his first term serves as a prime example of his leadership, competence and policy-making insights.
The fastest way to build more houses and increase affordability is to eliminate government impediments and excessive costs, including so-called “environmental” regulations, impact fees and bureaucratic delays. Sadly, economic freedom, efficiency and limited government are not part of the Democrat DNA.
Exactly
Trump’s plan is best – all day long. Harris doesn’t have a clue, she just wants control over EVERYTHING. No thanks. Get the government out of the way. It’s the only real and lasting solution.
Trump’s plans 100%. Too much govt. is always a bad idea in my book.
Basically Trump hasn’t given any specifics on his plans to reduce the housing shortages just broad statements like reducing taxes and reducing government and letting markets take care of the problem. Harris has come out with specific plans to try and address the housing shortage.
The best parallel in history to today was the late 20’s when Herbert Hoover was president. He was very much the anti-government free market president. What followed from letting the free market take care of things during his presidency from 1929 to 1933 was the great depression (and WWII). Franklin Roosevelt then took over and implemented many government programs called the New Deal. His programs and presidency led the US out of the depression and into one of the best times to be an American, the 1950’s.
Government done correctly is what is needed not just letting the free market and billionaires have their way with the American people.
Sorry. Wrong. FDR’s New deal made the Depression last Way more than the rest of the world. Do some research.
going to point out a couple of Harris’ accomplishments – in addition to her bang up job as border czar (can you say 21,000,000 new blue voters)
She took $42,000,000,000 in “government infrastructure bill” Tax MONIES TAKEN from hard WORKING Americans to connect “people in remote areas to internet or high speed internet” 42Bln and NOT ONE PERSON CONNECTED… HUGE SUCCESS
$11,000,000,000 in same “infrastructure” bill money to build “charging stations” for the NEW (FLAILILNG) EV INFRASTRUCTURE – to DATE 9 STATIONS have been built — real good value for WORKING TAXPAYER MONEY
Notice how in EUROPE when Socialzed countries (PIGS: Portugal,Italy.Greece, Spain) to get out of FINANCIAL CRISES of overspending and mismanaging governments is to PRIVATIZE GOVERNMENT Programs – which are not only bloated and inefficient but rife with cronyism and corruption. a lesson for all of us of Government Involvement like Reagan used to say scariest words “Were form the Government and were here to help”
Have you looked at her actual proposals that aren’t just “talking points”?
If they even come close to her actual accomplishments – we are ALL in trouble.
At least FDR’s new deal got some HOUSING and Power projects built…
This ain’t your FDR’s Democrat party
KAMALA IS BASICLY A COMMIE TRAITOR TO USA JUST LIKE OBAMA ,SOROS,BIDEN AND MOST OF DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS THESE DAYS.
I like Trump’s plan, 100%! I’ve dealt enough with government agencies and bureaucracies to know that both waste and total FU’s will be the reality in the housing market should the democratic plan be put in place.
I also wonder if the “Bazillion” extra people who have come across our borders in the last 4 years have contributed at all to our housing crisis, especially in the rental sector!
I also have to say that I really dislike the way MAR (the MN Assoc. of Realtors) and NAR are now sending out campaign literature (for the democratic party) that we are paying for! Regardless of party, we as a group should not be advocating for a political party! Get out and vote, sure, but not political favoritism. I wonder who in MAR is getting a benefit…
Government intervention will lead to socialism. Trumps plan states common sense. Things were great for homebuyers during his 4 years and will be again.
Well said Jeff Pereue. Also , during Covid and the 2008 housing crisis. Government intervention was essential in solving the problem .
X 10 on what all but one has written. NO government intervention is necessary. Of course, house prices are what they are because of the last 4 years of “growth”/LOL. $25,000 doesn’t do anything when your interest rate is 7+%. Let’s get it back down to a respectable 5% at least and see what that savings is to the “average” AMERICAN!! Any incentive/discount offered to anyone that is not a U.S. citizen is an act of treason. TRUMP… oh yeah and I sure liked what my investment portfolio looked like for 4 straight years. I’ve only now, the last 4ish months been able to get back to where my money was 4 years ago. The sheeple seem to forget the last 3 years of LOW, if any, gains our investments made. Oh and let’s not forget about the “unrealized” profit tax. Once again… TRUMP. js…
I hate big government and too much meddling with the free market. Hate it. But Trump is the bigoted, misogynistic, unhinged candidate who admires people like Vlad Putin. Wants to be a dictator on day one. Sigh. NO CAN DO!
You spend too much time listening to the “journalists” on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, and finally, on national public radio that is also heavily left-leaning. You should vote on policies and not on personalities.
You are right, but she wants to be a hay terr.
When the people closest to former President Trump, like his former VP and his former chief of staff tell you they can’t vote for him, that he is a fascist and malignant narcissist, which is obvious to anybody with a brain, we need to pay attention. This racist, lying demagogue does not represent me, nor should he represent our nation. He will say anything to get your vote. He can’t do the stuff he is promising. It’s a fricking joke. My vote for Harris is less a vote for her than a protest against him as the candidate. Our election system is deeply flawed, if this is the best we can do. We should be deeply ashamed at this.
Oklahoma schools chief bills Kamala Harris $474M for education costs, citing illegal immigration
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oklahoma-schools-chief-bills-harris-474m-education-costs-citing-illegal-immigration
Trump‘s proposal is the proper proposal for a free market system. Less government and more private solutions is the better option. Certainly trump‘s expertise is in the real estate market and understands the systems better. Harris is proposal is a socialist government interference. That should never never be allowed. If you wanna remain free, please vote for the Trump solution.
The choice is simple: government versus private sector. You can have the government “give” you “affordable housing” or you can earn one on your own. With leftist judges allowing millions of fraudulent “votes” around the country, we may all end up in Soviet-style housing as Harris has proposed.
I’ll take DT’s plans over Kamala’s over reaching socialist type of control.
Harris’s plan will increase inflation with $25,000 giveaways and increase inflation causing higher interest rates and making housing more expensive. Mortgage rates will increase making it harder for first buyers to qualify for a loan.
Government intervention will destroy the economy and housing market.
With a year or two (OK 1/2 a century) in real estate, it has been the intervention of the federal government that generally leads to dire real estate economics.
Therefore any suggestion of more government control, oversight and continued deficit spending is, in my humble opinion, will be the catalyst for another 2008.
Government is NOT the answer to the housing shortage – government was more the cause of it……
When did the government get involved in building houses? If you think that the incentives being offered by Kamala won’t cause more damage, then you are kidding yourself!! More government money being used by people to purchase homes equals higher demand, and thus more inflation. Free market supply and demand will eventually stabilize the market, but it takes time. Oh, let’s not forget that adding 10 million people to the market has exacerbated the issue. Just a thought!!!
Interest rates were at an all time low 4-5 years ago. My rate is 2,6%. Why in the universe would I want to sell my house, purchase a smaller home for more money and a rate that is double? So, there are a bunch of Americans whom would normally downsize that simply don’t see the logic in doing so. Inflation has sent the cost of building supplies through the roof and covid created a generation of non worker hand out wanting individuals who otherwise would know the value of hard work. Rental rates have gone up up up because the laws that mandate section 8 housing have changed. Landlords can no longer simply say I don’t want government backed renters. Because of this and the government raising the amounts they are paying for section 8 rentals, the landlords who don’t want to deal with this form of housing have to keep their rents higher than the governments hand outs. A lot of this is common sense. The more government the more problems because they have no clue what they are doing and how their decisions make direct consequences to the working people.
Trump’s plan is all about what will work. Kamala’s plan is about big government socialism. J
Trump’s plan is the way that free enterprise works. We need to return prices to where t kmhey were in 2021. It can be done but will take some tough measures. Namely, we must “reduce the cost of government.” Kamala is touting some of the same things that Jimmy Carter advocated in 1980.
Very disheartening to see the general ignorance of economic systems, lack of factual and historical information and gross generalizations of comments.
Reagan’s edict that ‘government is the problem’ thrives here among Trump supporters still sporting simplistic ‘trickle-down’ economics and ignorant of what their government has helped provide–FHA, VA, FNMA, FHLMC, Social Security, civil rights, clean air and water………….
We could be SO much more by building on our American foundation rather than destroying it. Easy to tout ‘free enterprise’ and decry ‘socialism’ from the stoop. Let’s buck up and get to work.
Just look at where we are right this minute. We are where we are because of failed leadership. If you want to continue this path then vote blue. This article like many favor talking points in one direction. The issue is we all have eyes and we see what is going on. If Harris was going to do anything she could have done it over the last 4 years. Trump 2024 is the only way forward.
Free enterprise is about greed. That’s why rents are so high and people can’t afford to buy houses on the wages that the top 5% want to pay. Why are many of the citizens of the European countries so much better off than many working Americans? They live in Social Democracies where they have affordable medical insurance, lower prices for groceries and medicine and they don’t get bombarded by adds from corporations that want you to buy things you don’t need. Europeans for the most part don’t have this greedy mentality that you have to have more of everything.
When I sold my mother’s house in Germany to a nice couple, I said that they could fix it up and resell it and make money. They said they would have to wait 5-10 years to do this.
That’s why the prices don’t get inflated by greedy flippers. There are also many good rules like that you have to have energy efficient houses.
Many Americans have been brainwashed that Socialism is Communism, they are so wrong. Yes, you can say your opinion as long as you don’t have followers that would bring change for the better, that’s when you get eliminated like Jack Kennedy and Martin Luther King.
I hope that the right person gets voted in and that is not a narcissist.
“Additionally, Harris plans to introduce federal protections against rent hikes.” This sounds like communism! The government cannot control the price of my rental properties– commercial and residential. This would be a record housing crash.
Let Donald Trump come back and fix the economy.
if kamala wants to work at the white house, she has my vote to clean the kitchen and the toilets.
1. Secure the border & Mass Deportations of illegals will free up billions of dollars, open up job & housing opportunities, more money will allow improvements to crime, deter drug, human trafficking, improve infrastructure, education & medical services. Annually our govt spends almost $1.5 billion dollars on illegal aliens. That’s a lot of money PER YEAR going to non-citizens! 2. End endless wars (Ukraine), that will free up billions of dollars! Sheesh those are 2 simple things that Trump can do (not kamala). Evil globalists determined to destroy USA have been killing & enslaving us with illegals invasion & wars for decades!