It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
New footage captures dramatic rescue of Israeli hostage Noa Argamani
Israeli authorities released new footage Saturday of the rescue of 26-year-old Noa Argamani, one of the four Israeli hostages who were rescued in an operation in central Gaza about one week ago. The elite Israeli commandos stormed the apartment Hamas was holding her and said, "Noa, everything is fine, we're taking you home." Chris Livesay has...
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
I think the government needs to put a maximum price on houses because the houses in the U.S. and a lot of other countries is overpriced, and it's going to prevent a lot of people from being able to get houses. Most people in the U.S. aren't even millionaires. Houses should only be 1/10 of what they're worth. The government should make it illegal for people to price their house at $100,000 or more.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You are free to go out there and make your case before the house owners: "You want to sell me this house for $500,000, but you really should consider my economical position and sell it to me for $50,000". Good luck in such negotiations. You are not free to impose your world view on others, however, and compel them at a gunpoint to sell you the house for whatever you like - the latter is robbery, and robbers should be placed in a very special kind of housing, with bars and armed guards. And you will get that housing for free, guaranteed!
I will sell my house for however much I please, take it or leave it. You are free to do with yours however you see fit. Sell it for 1/10th of its market price if you like, but get off my lawn.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am sure you are asking the wrong questiom.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
So you had not been wondering what I was thinking or why? I apologize it would have been much more clear had you just written " I was wondering what everyone though but John_C_87."
Are you telling me what I am doing or are you telling me what I am thinking..I am think you are asking the wrong question. I will no bother you any more.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is caveman mentality. What does a caveman do when he wants something and does not have it, but his neighbor does? He picks up a club and goes to his neighbor to loot the goodies. Precisely what every socialist regime has done to its people. Rather than understanding the nuances of human interaction in markets, they want to just do what their stomach and reproductive organ tells them at the moment.
You could go out there, develop a real estate business, build houses and then live your dream and sell them for next to nothing. But it is easier to take something someone else has built, is it not?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am going to take a wild guess that you have never lived in a communist country. Would it surprise you to find out that in Cuba, where I spent some time, people can now own their homes. This wasn't always the case. Up until 2011 all property belonged to the state (in 2019 it became part of the 'constitution' in Cuba). You would pay a large fee (think cost of the home) to the government and it would remain your rented space until you died. Immediately at death anyone could 'rent' the property away from your descendants who were still in the home, if they were the first to apply for it. With the Cuban government getting all the money from 'rent', why do you think they switched to a private property model after so long? The short answer is Cuba's economy needs private property to bolster its lagging economy. If you think I'm wrong, I'd love to hear your rationale for why a long term communist country suddenly started allowing private property.
You think the government can fix the housing issue? Did it ever occur to you that the government may have caused the housing issue? Are there companies that would be happy to build less expensive housing? Certainly. Builders would gladly build homes for that market, but government restrictions on land use, construction standards, building type, number of floors permitted, etc. add to the cost of a home, and prohibit the creation of new homes because much of the land is not permitted to have them.
@Dreamer
Why do you think a death tax is fair? Seriously, if someone worked hard to buy their home or farm, why shouldn't they be able to pass that on to their descendants. Isn't it their property to do with as they wish? Death taxes place an unfair burden on family members to pay absorbent taxes on property they just obtained. Support for this tax seems motivated by envy and greed - 2 very deadly sins.
You said 'religious tax exemptions have to go'. Why? Are you going to take the property of other non-profit groups, or are you just targeting religious organizations? Religious groups purchased their property, much like other companies, non-profits, or citizens did. Why is it just to take away their right because of their religious status? I have to be honest with you, it seems incredibly bigoted on the surface. But, I think you should be given a chance to explain yourself. Can you explain your rationale?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Now, if you limit the price of a home to $100,000 and claim a shack in Appalachia is worth $100,000 and the Biltmore Estate is worth only $100,000. What do you think happens economically? Do you think the people who own luxury homes will invest in them as much? Why would anyone spend more on a home than it will resale for? For many people a home is not just a place to live, but a financial investment. Home ownership helps bring people out of poverty. And if you don't fix the issue of availability, making things cheaper will just reduce the number of homes available for purchase. You won't have solved the problem, but only made it worse on the economy.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Houses do not grow on trees. Go out there, build one, then sell it for 1/10th of its market price if you so desire. That would be an adult thing to do. Begging others to sell theirs at the price you like is a childish one.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The local government places an evaluated price on homes for taxation and for permit and zoning costs already. That is a City, County, Town, and State board or council issue there are working building restrictions on size already in many areas. The reason why they are not everywhere at once is the codes are not written as a United State of Consitutional Right the boards and councils make the desiisions by vote. Though much harder to write a United State Consitutional Right, it can includes a much larger demographic area that is inhabeted by all people and sets a standardized right. The principle is a flat fee is then to be charged when staying inside the united right.
The go to reason historically to force change is accusations of corruption in management and work force. This is not always factual accusation due to fines, penalties, and costs which go along with them increase the service areas can be seen as something else, to easy. A rise in new spending as an expense in budget to enforce these programs. There are abuses and pressures to increase budget and the fines and penalties to increase the productivity of the programs and draw higher skilled workers to the table.
Since I said you are asking the wrong question, what are the right questions to ask. How would it be best to limit the size of homes people live in? We know it should be done it is being done. Thus, the wrong question.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is all just magic thinking. You "want" something, so it has to materialize. The real world does not work that way.
The government does not need to step in when someone cannot afford something. The US government is not established for the purpose of helping people afford something at all; its role is entirely different.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
First, this is demonstrably not the case as currently approximately 2/3 of the US households own a house - 2/3 of the population cannot be characterized as "only extremely wealthy people". Second, read the foundational documents of the United States of America: it is NOT the government's job to provide people with the goods that they cannot afford. Third, you have not elaborated on how owning a million dollar house is "essential". And fourth, you have yet to explain how your proposal to put a maximum price on houses is actually going to result in a sufficient supply of houses in the long run.
Why set the maximum price at $100,000? Why not $1? You have provided absolutely zero economical reasoning. Rather than labelling everything you dislike as "fallacy", you would do well to do some research and strengthen your position. Right now it is just "I feel like..." and "I want..." level of analysis.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think you are exchanging lack of experience with opinion. You have a point, and the fact of this point is made by recognizing that America and most all nations already control the size of housing. Legislators have for some time now performed the task through building codes and planning boards. So, the Idea of it being an opinion is untrue it is something maybe you had just been unaware of until our talk?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Seriously, MayCaesar I know for a fact you have a understanding the houses are already built by mostly approvals...The issue here is the cost of a " Home" might not best be measured by mortgage value, interest rates, and resale value alone. A structure becomes obsolete by design as well making value of the structure of raw materials used to build, location of land, and the value of the land as far as what can be built on it next.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You can think whatever you want, but this is not what the foundational documents of the United States of America state. The phrase "working class" never appears there, not do "essential goods". The role of the government has nothing to do with any goods, but with protection of human rights - in a very different framework of "rights" than the one you are referencing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You do know Human Rights are an assignment from criminal law not everyone in America has human rights until they are charged with a crime and arrested. United States Constitutional Rights are on a whole other level then human right. International human rights again by a standard of law treat all people as a criminal that has been convicted. United States Constitutional Rights are a type of Law written without crime they are a series of truth as condition to set or hold an inalienable right.
So, the answer to theinfectedmaster is yes, it might be a violation of human rights. In America United States Constitutional Right supersede human rights as a type of law. They are a higher law because they are not based on crime where Human rights in Europe and some other places are basically just summarized as Criminal law in America. The argument is over titles of agencies of bureaucracy and orders of filing grievance.
lol.............
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Please respond to my actual words. Repeating the same assertion does not strengthen your argument.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra