On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:43:15 -0700 (PDT), "shag" <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
> this is dishonest. I didn't say he got cash from the bail out. I said
that
> he paid off his house after 25 years and spent the rest of his life
living
> mortgage free.
While responding to my saying that he wont get any cash from the bailout.
>> Paying your mortgage is "supporing you community?"
> i'm disagreeing with a specific point: that most people buying homes were
> doing so in order to make a quick buck.
I never made this "point"
I said that private home ownership was already over subsidized and over speculated, and thus do not see the benefit of subsidizing it further and further fueling speculation.
> second, my contention that we will work to support our communities under
> socialism is simply the ordinary point that, how else to say it, we work
> to provide things for other people under a complex division of labor.
I said life-ling wage-slavery, not life long work. there is a difference.
>> Please realise it is you who has twisted what I have said.
>> There is a lot of profit-motive speculation in the housing market among
>> "home owners," regardless of your step-grandfathers moral standing, this
>> is just as much money-for-nothing greed that that wich drives the money
>> lenders.
> where's your evidence for this? I'm not denying that there isn't any, I'm
> just wondering what the actual numbers are.
If you are not denying the self-evident fact that //real-estate speculation exists//. Why are you asking me for numbers? Am I your secretary?
> i was describing for you one datapoint: that housing you'd describe as
> sustainable, is *more* expensive than housing that isn't. I didn't make
it
> this way. I don't like it that it is this way.
What are you talking about? What is more expensive than what?
I have not described any housing.
> But one thing I'm certain of: a leftist rhetoric that is hellbent on
> punishing everyone indiscriminately, moralizing about their greed, is
> going to continue on its crash and burn path.
One thing that I'm certain of is that you will continue typing whether or not you have a point and you will not bother to understand what you are responding to.
My argument remains as simple as it was first stated, private home ownership, which is not socially, environmentally, or economically desirable, is already over-subsidized, thus there is no benefit to subsidizing it further. What's more, any solution regarding housing should include all those who lack adequate housing or who pay an unreasonable part of their income for housing, whether or not they happen to be mortgage holders. Feel free to continue to refuse to know this if you prefer.
Thank you for cutting out the name calling.
-- Dmytri Kleiner editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net