Toggle sidebar

Trump Statement on Home Ownership

TigerGrowls

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
43,897
32,862
113
Trump is doing the right thing here. Congress needs to modify.



“People live in homes, not corporations.” ~ Trump


For years, something deeply unnatural has been unfolding beneath the surface of the so-called “free market.” The three financial giants; BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, who operate less like competitors and more like a single corporate hydra, had directed their sights on to American homes:


• Single-family houses
• Entire neighbourhoods
• Cash offers, above asking
• Families outbid, renters trapped


At this pace, institutional investors were projected to own up to 60% of U.S. single-family homes by 2030.


This was not accidental, it fits perfectly with the worldview behind Agenda 2030; a future where ownership is replaced with dependence, and citizens are reduced to permanent tenants in a system they no longer control.


Trump’s move to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and to push Congress to codify it into law, is not just a housing policy, it’s another nail in the coffin of Agenda 2030.


Home ownership was never just about property, it was about sovereignty, stability, and the ability to stand on your own two feet.


Thank you President Trump!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
@RealDonaldTrump
 
UrHuckleberry

UrHuckleberry

Heisman
Jun 2, 2024
9,273
18,850
113
TigerGrowls said:
Trump is doing the right thing here. Congress needs to modify.



“People live in homes, not corporations.” ~ Trump


For years, something deeply unnatural has been unfolding beneath the surface of the so-called “free market.” The three financial giants; BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, who operate less like competitors and more like a single corporate hydra, had directed their sights on to American homes:


• Single-family houses
• Entire neighbourhoods
• Cash offers, above asking
• Families outbid, renters trapped


At this pace, institutional investors were projected to own up to 60% of U.S. single-family homes by 2030.


This was not accidental, it fits perfectly with the worldview behind Agenda 2030; a future where ownership is replaced with dependence, and citizens are reduced to permanent tenants in a system they no longer control.


Trump’s move to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and to push Congress to codify it into law, is not just a housing policy, it’s another nail in the coffin of Agenda 2030.


Home ownership was never just about property, it was about sovereignty, stability, and the ability to stand on your own two feet.


Thank you President Trump!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
@RealDonaldTrump
Click to expand...

Will be interested to see what can legally be done here. Not sure how you stop anyone from buying homes. But I support whatever they can figure out.

I know there was a bill proposed in the Senate called I believe the Stop Predatory Investing Act that doesn’t make buying them illegal, but removes all the tax incentives for any entity that owns over 50 homes. Both by not letting the mortgage interest to be written off but also doesn’t allow depreciation on those homes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allornothing, fatpiggy and TigerGrowls
S

scotchtiger

Heisman
Dec 15, 2005
134,583
22,216
113
UrHuckleberry said:
Will be interested to see what can legally be done here. Not sure how you stop anyone from buying homes. But I support whatever they can figure out.

I know there was a bill proposed in the Senate called I believe the Stop Predatory Investing Act that doesn’t make buying them illegal, but removes all the tax incentives for any entity that owns over 50 homes. Both by not letting the mortgage interest to be written off but also doesn’t allow depreciation on those homes.
Click to expand...

Yep, will be interesting to see how this unfolds. I'm certainly supportive.

And from a political standpoint, this is a big winner for Trump. He will be seen as the president who finally attempted to stand up for American homebuyers against the institutional investors. And it's yet another 90-10 (or better) issue in terms of popularity and support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls, PalmettoTiger1 and Allornothing
UrHuckleberry

UrHuckleberry

Heisman
Jun 2, 2024
9,273
18,850
113
scotchtiger said:
Yep, will be interesting to see how this unfolds. I'm certainly supportive.

And from a political standpoint, this is a big winner for Trump. He will be seen as the president who finally attempted to stand up for American homebuyers against the institutional investors. And it's yet another 90-10 (or better) issue in terms of popularity and support.
Click to expand...
This was part of Kamala’s campaign that Trump is now stealing, but yes lol. I’m on board regardless.
 
UrHuckleberry

UrHuckleberry

Heisman
Jun 2, 2024
9,273
18,850
113
scotchtiger said:
Perhaps, but she was the #2 person in an administration which did nothing about it. If Trump actually does something material, he and the republicans will get all of the credit for housing affordability efforts.
Click to expand...
I mean, I said I support it. And I was saying it was part of her housing plan released for her campaign, not the Biden admin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheValley91
P

PawPride

Heisman
Nov 28, 2004
53,126
10,387
113
Good policy. Corps own less than 1% of SFH, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. I'd say the bigger problem leading to the housing shortage is individuals that own 10+ rental properties, but I don't know how you address that.
 
S

scotchtiger

Heisman
Dec 15, 2005
134,583
22,216
113
PawPride said:
Good policy. Corps own less than 1% of SFH, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. I'd say the bigger problem leading to the housing shortage is individuals that own 10+ rental properties, but I don't know how you address that.
Click to expand...

It's a good point. I was / sort of am in that group. Owned around 20 doors at one point and am now down to 7. Probably will sell those off in the next year. Have made a very good return and just don't really want to deal with it anymore (even with a PM).

With that, I'm not sure any of my tenants would be homebuyer candidates. It's mostly class C, lower income property. We have a couple who receive government subsidies. Others seem unlikely to have the creditworthiness for a home loan nor resources for a downpayment. And perhaps not the level of general responsibility required to be a homeowner.

So there's always going to be a need for SFHs owned by landlords of some sort. But perhaps we steer investors away from homes that middle class families would like to buy and solely toward homes where a landlord/tenant structure is needed. That in addition to getting massive corps out of the homeowner business.
 
B

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,085
3,697
113
scotchtiger said:
It's a good point. I was / sort of am in that group. Owned around 20 doors at one point and am now down to 7. Probably will sell those off in the next year. Have made a very good return and just don't really want to deal with it anymore (even with a PM).

With that, I'm not sure any of my tenants would be homebuyer candidates. It's mostly class C, lower income property. We have a couple who receive government subsidies. Others seem unlikely to have the creditworthiness for a home loan nor resources for a downpayment. And perhaps not the level of general responsibility required to be a homeowner.

So there's always going to be a need for SFHs owned by landlords of some sort. But perhaps we steer investors away from homes that middle class families would like to buy and solely toward homes where a landlord/tenant structure is needed. That in addition to getting massive corps out of the homeowner business.
Click to expand...
the idea sounds good on the surface. But it seems as if every time the government, federal, state or local, interferes with the market process results don't mirror the intentions/purpose. But, for sure, this time will be different I guess
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allornothing
nytigerfan

nytigerfan

Heisman
Dec 9, 2004
10,250
13,171
102
TigerGrowls said:
Trump is doing the right thing here. Congress needs to modify.



“People live in homes, not corporations.” ~ Trump


For years, something deeply unnatural has been unfolding beneath the surface of the so-called “free market.” The three financial giants; BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, who operate less like competitors and more like a single corporate hydra, had directed their sights on to American homes:


• Single-family houses
• Entire neighbourhoods
• Cash offers, above asking
• Families outbid, renters trapped


At this pace, institutional investors were projected to own up to 60% of U.S. single-family homes by 2030.


This was not accidental, it fits perfectly with the worldview behind Agenda 2030; a future where ownership is replaced with dependence, and citizens are reduced to permanent tenants in a system they no longer control.


Trump’s move to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and to push Congress to codify it into law, is not just a housing policy, it’s another nail in the coffin of Agenda 2030.


Home ownership was never just about property, it was about sovereignty, stability, and the ability to stand on your own two feet.


Thank you President Trump!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
@RealDonaldTrump
Click to expand...


Didnt the pubs argue that corporations are people?

This smells like communism.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: TigerGrowls, PalmettoTiger1 and TheValley91
M

m.knox

All-Conference
Aug 20, 2003
2,686
2,704
113
nytigerfan said:
Didnt the pubs argue that corporations are people?

This smells like communism.
Click to expand...

I believe the argument was that corporations are run by people which is correct. The employees gather together freely to a common, collective cause. Now you might ask if that collectivism makes them communist, and the answer is "no" as they come together "freely."

This smells like WINNING...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
nytigerfan

nytigerfan

Heisman
Dec 9, 2004
10,250
13,171
102
m.knox said:
I believe the argument was that corporations are run by people which is correct. The employees gather together freely to a common, collective cause. Now you might ask if that collectivism makes them communist, and the answer is "no" as they come together "freely."

This smells like WINNING...
Click to expand...

another swing and a miss skippy.

the Republican point of view has long been that corporations should have the same rights as people, allowing them to donate large amounts of money to republican candidates and own property.

Communism is telling a person what they can and cannot own, and even worse telling them they have to sell their property to someone with less means.

This is a communist policy. If Kamala had won and done the same, you would be making that argument. But since it came from dear leader, you ofcourse mindlessly follow.


"Corporations are people" refers to the legal concept of
corporate personhood, where courts grant businesses rights similar to individuals, notably through the First Amendment (free speech, campaign spending via Citizens United) and Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection), allowing them to own property, sign contracts, and influence politics, though they lack personal rights like voting or imprisonment, sparking debate over their powerful role in democracy.
 
B

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,085
3,697
113
nytigerfan said:
Mitt Romney single-handedly pushed citizens united? I had no idea he was that powerful.
Click to expand...
I have to admit, I have zero idea where your post came from. I didn't mention or even think of citizens united, only that Mitt Romney, during his campaign said that Corporations are people. And as has been pointed out here there is a legal concept supporting his statement, although Romney wasn't very clear in his position.
 
M

m.knox

All-Conference
Aug 20, 2003
2,686
2,704
113
nytigerfan said:
another swing and a miss skippy.

the Republican point of view has long been that corporations should have the same rights as people, allowing them to donate large amounts of money to republican candidates and own property.

Communism is telling a person what they can and cannot own, and even worse telling them they have to sell their property to someone with less means.

This is a communist policy. If Kamala had won and done the same, you would be making that argument. But since it came from dear leader, you ofcourse mindlessly follow.


"Corporations are people" refers to the legal concept of
corporate personhood, where courts grant businesses rights similar to individuals, notably through the First Amendment (free speech, campaign spending via Citizens United) and Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection), allowing them to own property, sign contracts, and influence politics, though they lack personal rights like voting or imprisonment, sparking debate over their powerful role in democracy.
Click to expand...

Google knows that corporations are composed of people. Why don't you?

When Mitt Romney said "corporations are people," he was defending his view that taxing corporations hurts real individuals because corporate profits eventually go to people (employees, shareholders, customers)...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnHughsPartner
nytigerfan

nytigerfan

Heisman
Dec 9, 2004
10,250
13,171
102
m.knox said:
Google knows that corporations are composed of people. Why don't you?

When Mitt Romney said "corporations are people," he was defending his view that taxing corporations hurts real individuals because corporate profits eventually go to people (employees, shareholders, customers)...
Click to expand...


Dealing with a moron like yourself is quite tiresome.

Google 1 USC § 1
Google Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
Google the 14th amendment

US law says corporations have the same rights as "persons". Including the right to own property. To force a person to give up property to a lesser person is communism. Can you tax them as punishment for owning too much property? Sure. But that is pretty darn communist as well.

Face it. You support communist ideals.
 
M

m.knox

All-Conference
Aug 20, 2003
2,686
2,704
113
nytigerfan said:
Dealing with a moron like yourself is quite tiresome.

Google 1 USC § 1
Google Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
Google the 14th amendment

US law says corporations have the same rights as "persons". Including the right to own property. To force a person to give up property to a lesser person is communism. Can you tax them as punishment for owning too much property? Sure. But that is pretty darn communist as well.

Face it. You support communist ideals.
Click to expand...

So you still cannot admit corporations employ people... HO LEE S H I T.....
 
M

m.knox

All-Conference
Aug 20, 2003
2,686
2,704
113
nytigerfan said:
it has nothing to do with what is being discussed you f#cking moron. I'm not wasting any more time with you.
Click to expand...

It most certainly does. You quoted the guy. You should try to understand what he was talking about instead of applying some silly nefarious reasoning.
 
M

m.knox

All-Conference
Aug 20, 2003
2,686
2,704
113
nytigerfan said:
I didnt quote him dumbass
Click to expand...

LOL... Thought you were done with me? You comments below can most certainly be attributed to Mitt Romney. Are you really going to argue they can't?

"Didnt the pubs argue that corporations are people?"

BTW, you missed an apostrophe in "Didn't."
 
B

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,085
3,697
113
nytigerfan said:
Dealing with a moron like yourself is quite tiresome.

Google 1 USC § 1
Google Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
Google the 14th amendment

US law says corporations have the same rights as "persons". Including the right to own property. To force a person to give up property to a lesser person is communism. Can you tax them as punishment for owning too much property? Sure. But that is pretty darn communist as well.

Face it. You support communist ideals.
Click to expand...
not sure about supporting communist ideas, but it does seem as if limiting corporations from commerce might somehow be a violation of law. But, again, one more time, to the courts
 
M

m.knox

All-Conference
Aug 20, 2003
2,686
2,704
113
baltimorened said:
not sure about supporting communist ideas, but it does seem as if limiting corporations from commerce might somehow be a violation of law. But, again, one more time, to the courts
Click to expand...

It should be fairly easy to manage. A community's homestead exemption gives homeowners who live there a break on property taxes. If an owner of a residential home doesn't live there, tax the s h i t out of them. If that is "communism" it's already here... lol..
 
B

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,085
3,697
113
m.knox said:
It should be fairly easy to manage. A community's homestead exemption gives homeowners who live there a break on property taxes. If an owner of a residential home doesn't live there, tax the s h i t out of them. If that is "communism" it's already here... lol..
Click to expand...
could do that, but the objective is to stop the purchase before you tax the crap out of them
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox
TigerGrowls

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
43,897
32,862
113
PawPride said:
Good policy. Corps own less than 1% of SFH, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. I'd say the bigger problem leading to the housing shortage is individuals that own 10+ rental properties, but I don't know how you address that.
Click to expand...
I think corporations also contributed to rising real estate values by overpaying for homes. Seemed that way to me.
 
TigerGrowls

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
43,897
32,862
113
Trump directed a federal purchase of 200B in mortgage bonds today in an attempt to drive down costs for homeowners. POTUS is working. Per Fox News.
 
TigerGrowls

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
43,897
32,862
113
Per Bessent they do not plan to force private equity to sell homes that they already own but plan to stop them from continuing purchases.
 
TigerGrowls

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
43,897
32,862
113


🚨 BREAKING: President Trump just STUNNED the "Experts" by announcing the purchase of $200 BILLION in mortgage bonds to immediately drive down mortgage rates

"I am instructing my Representatives to BUY $200 BILLION DOLLARS IN MORTGAGE BONDS. This will drive Mortgage Rates DOWN, monthly payments DOWN, and make the cost of owning a home more affordable."

"It is one of my many steps in restoring Affordability, something that the Biden Administration absolutely destroyed. We are bringing back the AMERICAN DREAM that was destroyed by the last Administration."

WOW. Trump is going all-out. This is HUGE!
 
TigerGrowls

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
43,897
32,862
113


It's official:

Mortgage rates have just dropped to their lowest level in nearly 3 years amid President Trump's latest actions.

The average interest rate on a 30-year mortgage in the US is down to 5.99%, the lowest since February 2023.

This comes just days after President Trump ordered the US government to buy $200 billion worth of mortgage bonds.

It also follow's President Trump's announcement which banned institutional purchases of single family homes.

Trump is going after the housing market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom