The Instigator
Sidetrack
Pro (for)
The Contender
JonHouser
Con (against)

America Can't Be Made Great Unless We Nationalize Housing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Sidetrack has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 626 times Debate No: 99267
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Sidetrack

Pro

Abstract


America has the highest costs of living, which is primarily due to spending half their money on housing and transportation costs. By nationalizing rental housing alone, a monthly budget of 44 billion dollars a month could be created to build new 3D printed developments that could be designed to cut housing and transportation costs in less than half.


Argument: There is no single better way to get America out of debt and in a position to take back jobs better than nationalizing rental property and centralizing a development budget to create sustainable infrastructure that would make bringing our jobs homes feasible and make transportation in 3D printed smart cities far less expensive.


Americans Know Jobs Are #1


The most important issue to Americans is job creation. Several polls prove Americans are on track with what we need. http://www.pollingreport.com...


America Cannot Compete With Countries With A Lower Cost Of Living


The number one reason why American jobs are sent overseas is foreigners have a lower cost of living and can sustainable take a lower wage. http://www.supplychaindigital.com...


In order for America to compete with foreigners for these jobs, we need to lower our cost of living.


The Cost Of Living For An American Is Known By How Americans Spend Their Money


Cost of living for Americans can be broken down by how people spend their money.

Housing is number one. Transportation related costs come in second highest bill.

http://www.consolidatedcredit.org...

http://www.marketwatch.com...


Management and Development of Housing and Transportation Is Key To America’s Economic Answer


There is no other way to lower the cost of living more significantly than to focus on the biggest bills Americans have and lower them: Housing and Transportation which combined take 50% of Americans paycheck.


Micromanaging the Other Areas Will Only Bring Chump Change Savings In Cost Of Living and Require More Cost To Change Due To More Areas To Change


Even if we focused on everything lower than health care: Misc., Entertainment, Cash Contributions, Apparel and Education we only have 18% to work with. Imagine cutting education and entertainment in half. It will be a horrible impact on our socio-economics and quality of life. We’d be stuck with a petty 9% cut of cost of living.


Cutting Into Food Will Not Work


It is fairly obvious to understand the huge problems that will manifest if we cut into food, insurance and healthcare.


45 million Americans are justifiably getting food stamps. https://www.rt.com...


Without this supplement, the ability to look for work with be affected. An employer is not going to tolerate someone that is not energized to one’s job. Food is the only thing that does that.


Additionally, lack of nutrition causes health problems. 33 million Americans still don’t have health care, even after the efforts to try to get everyone affordable health care. https://fivethirtyeight.com... The lack of health care leads to worse medical conditions, uneployment and disability. The exact opposite of what the country needs: a working population that is the only solution to fixing the economy.


We won’t be cutting food costs anytime soon. In fact, they should go up, because we need to eat healthier to lower our overall costs. A working population needs to be fueled by organic foods that hold proven long term health promise vs. conventional chemical sprayed crops and gmo foods that threaten our health and environment and economy. Humans have lived on an organic diet for tens of thousands of years. That diet fueled human beings during evolution and put them at the top of the intelligence and food chain. Gmo’s are new, chemical soaked foods that are engineered for short term corporate profits, not human health. What good is bringing home jobs with everyone will be out of work with cancers and organ damage after eating gmo poisons for decades. It will be an economic catastrophe and cripple our health care system. It will not go away for generations because of it’s catastrophic gene altering impact on our offspring.

http://www.gmo.news... http://www.onegreenplanet.org...

http://articles.mercola.com...


Cutting Into Healthcare Will Not Work


Even if Trump were to pull the perfect solution out of his red hat and manage health care on par with how well other countries we won’t get much of a cut in cost of living. 8% is how much Americans spend on Healthcare. We spend 1.5 half times of most countries on average. We’d get a petty 3% cost in living cut. http://www.pbs.org...


By Deduction We Are Left With Housing And Transportation That Hold The Highest Promise For Cutting Cost Of Living


This leaves us with housing and transportation, the biggest bills with the biggest potential for lowering the cost of living without creating catastrophe.


As far as transportation goes, we can slap all the tariffs we want on foreign imported autos, like Trump plans. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...


This doesn’t change the fact that German cars are more in demand and Americans will be paying for a car of lesser quality for the same price just to create a tariff to help our economy.


Saving car manufacturing from going to Mexico, still creates a problem because American cost of living is higher than Mexico and means cars will be more expensive. America is 18th highest cost of living in the world. Mexico 112th on the list. https://www.numbeo.com...


While America may force it’s jobs homes, other countries will still invest and create a product like our own that will be far cheaper. In the end, if we don’t lower our cost of living at the same time we bring our jobs home, we submit to loss, because they will defeat us in capitalist game of price. In order to compete, we must submit to lowering our cost of living. Competition is out of the question really. We first must sustain ourselves by making enough of our own products to stop the trillions in increasing debt.


3D printed housing can be done at less than half the cost. Can be built in less than half the time of conventional homes. This lowers the cost of living for housing by over half. With careful design Americans could get a 20% drop in cost of living by dedicating housing development to this proven new technology. http://inhabitat.com...


Rental contracts bring up the cost of living, causing renters collectively to pay for properties several times over in their life. 20 Trillion in foreign debt can buy a lot of rental properties, guaranteeing a slave-like servitude of eternal debt for Americans to foreigners. These homes are paid for several times over, causing the cost of living to be artificially and unnecessarily high for those in disadvantaged socio-economic classes. The answer is to nationalize all rental properties by giving people their fair share of collective equity they have applied the American rental infrastructure. This will obviously lower the cost of living.


It will also allow development funds to be centralized creating the opportunity for the biggest infrastructure development budget possible. 43,701,738 people rent in America.http://www.nmhc.org...


If even just an average of $100 from each rental were were centralized for development, we’d get a month development budget of 44 billion. In one month, 9 million of the simple Chinese 3d printed model homes could be built. These homes would be easy to pay for, lower the cost of living because they’ll be owned by the occupants.


These new cities can be designed around the idea to lower transportation costs. Studies have been done that show the inefficient design in transportation forces people to waste several hours of their time in traffic and costs them thousands of dollars. https://smartasset.com...


Taking into consideration what works and what doesn’t from these studies creates the opportunity to build a smart city with far better transportation efficiency than any existing city. Our second highest bill will be lowered and again the cost of living will have a bigger cut than any other change we could make.


Lowering our cost of living will allow us to bring jobs home. The wages can be lowered without lowering the quality of life for Americans. This will make all American’s life better because the price of the product will go down. The price of the product will give us a better advantage in international trade.


America’s situation will not be micromanaged into health. Focusing on the smallest things will not do it for us.


To really live up to Making America Great Again, we must think huge. We need to think incredible. We have to build something amazing. When you go hunting, and your population is starving for a big answer, you go at the biggest beast in the forest. Housing and transportation are those beasts.

JonHouser

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for offering this topic for debate. While a socialistic approach might seem the right way to solve problems in society, it always causes more problems than it solves. I will make several points here that would help solve the problems my opponent seeks to eliminate. However, these solutions will be based on either increasing the benefits of private enterprise, or reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government.

First off, the federal budget currently has an deficit of $587 Billion. The highest deficit was in 2009 at $1,413 Billion. (1) This deficit could be eliminated completely if we eliminated the Cabinet level positions and departments that are unConstitutional. Those departments and their individual budgets are Agriculture $134.12 Billion, Labor $137.97 Billion, Health and Human Services $879.20 Billion, Housing and Urban Development $40.53 Billion, Transportation $73.20 Billion, Energy $24.10 Billion, Education $45.40 Billion, Homeland Security $40.00 Billion, and Treasury $19.56 Billion. (2) These total $1,394.08 Billion. If we eliminated all of these departments, we would have had a budget surplus of $604.38 per year over the last ten years. (As an aside, I think it is disgraceful that we spend more on Health and Human Services ($879.20 Billion) than we do on Defense ($651.16 Billion).)

Now you might say that we need those departments and programs. That might be true, but we don't need them at the federal level. According to the US Constitution, the federal government is granted only the powers specified in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the States or the people of the States. There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to exercise any of the powers of the cabinet positions listed above (and some of the ones that I left out are questionable).

Second, any time you give a government agency power and authority to handle a problem, you must allocate money to them to handle the problem. Of necessity, you will always spend more money through the government than you will through private enterprise, because all government expenses are "third person" expenses. First person expenses are made with your own money and you are going to use the item purchased. That means you are concerned with cost and quality. Second person purchases are made with your own money, but you will not use the item purchases (like a gift). You are concerned with the cost, but not necessarily with the quality. Third person purchase are made with someone else's money and you will not use the product. Government does not make money; it takes money in the form of taxes, and then purchases items that will be used by the populace. This, by definition, is a third person purchase. Because it is not their money, they are not worried about how much things cost (so they waste money all over the place (not to mention corruption)), nor are they worried about the quality of the purchased items, because they won't be (in this case) living in the housing.

Finally, I would ask my opponent what he thinks made America great in the first place. Was government responsible for our becoming great? Or was it the personal industry of the individual who was allowed to prosper through his own efforts, who committed himself to success, and overcame the obstacles to create a successful business out of nothing? I submit that the more freedom we have in America, the more we will allow the individual to succeed. We are not all supposed to end up at the finish line at the same time. We are all supposed to start at the start line at the same time, and based on our personal effort cross the finish line when we get there. America is not great because we guarantee a minimum lifestyle to every resident. We are great because we offer a level playing field upon which you can build a shack or a mansion based upon your own effort.

References:
1. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Sidetrack

Pro

I appreciate the argument my opponent brings, but he has brought up a totally different solution, which may very well be a more practical solution than mine. But, the problem is, I made an argument and I expected to hear why it can't work in some way.

Maybe he thinks he can lower the deficit by laying off people?

Okay. But this does nothing in terms of bringing jobs home. We still have some unemployed people to take care of. But putting them on section 8 and food stamps is cheaper than paying them all those high end wages. Okay, fair enough. Lower consumption. Less importing of foreign goods as a result. Not bad. But still, no job rise in productivity. No new industry. No exports created. Just is not enough to make America great. But thinning the fat is an outstanding idea still!

I'll stick to my guns, because my smart cities are a hot bed for jobs to come home. I will agree partially with my opponent. Let's lay off all those people and get them some jobs building 3D printed homes with my plan.

Nationalizing housing is not a socialist solution. Buying a product once, not eternally, is what makes Capitalism work.

Capitalism is based on competition. What makes competition work is that we have choices to buy products and services in the market. No one in their right mind will pay for something over and over unless they are forced into doing it. This happens in servitude. The dark parts of history when humans were shackled and forced to give up their labors to their masters. Ironically, this is the rental contract.

The current rental contract is not a choice, because 40% of the housing forces people into it. Socio-economic disadvantages force people into rentals. Logistical issues with those who can afford to buy are forced into the rental contract. All unnecessary with nationalized housing.

By my opponents definition of buying a gallon of milk one time is Socialist and to have to eternally pay for a gallon of milk the rest of your life is Capitalism. After all, by implication, he called my plan to make everyone pay for housing once Socialist and to make them pay over and over Capitalism.

If we had to apply the rental contact principle to all products and services, the economy would collapse. No one would be able to keep paying for every product and service several times over in their lifetime. This is the main reason why the rental contract and the principle it operates has a dilatory effect upon the economy and since it is the biggest bill, the dilatory is huge!

The excess renters are paying is being used in anarchistic ways vs. lowering our cost of living and using a centralized development fund that could solve so many inefficient infrastructure problems we are facing today that increase our cost of living.

Having to pay for housing only once, will lower our cost of living as well. It will lower our cost of living far more than laying off federal government employees. But, both together is a force to be reckoned with.

Basically, nationalizing rentals it making Papa Trump the landlord.

JonHouser

Con

I believe I did tell my opponent why his solution will not work. Because it is a government solution to a free market problem. These never work. Government always makes free market problems worse, not better.

I would like to ask my opponent, who creates a job? Can the government create a job? They cannot even make money, how can they make a job? Further, it is not the responsibility of government to create jobs. It is their responsibility to maintain a level playing field and stay out of the way of the free market. People create jobs when we take a risk, invest money into an idea, and create a business around that idea. The success of that business is then determined by the tenacity of the owner, the talent hired, the economic conditions of the time, and the level of government regulation, among others. Government is one of the hindrances to business (and therefore jobs), not a benefit to business.

I submit that the only viable option for creating jobs, increasing wealth, and creating new industries is increasing the availability of private business ownership.

In what way is nationalizing housing not a socialist solution? To nationalize means, "to bring under the ownership or control of a nation, as industries and land." (1) Socialism is defined as, "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." (2) Thus by definition, nationalizing is always a socialist solution. Socialism works only in very small, local applications, and only by voluntary consent. When it is forced, and on larger scales, it always fails.

Pro makes the comment that, "The current rental contract is not a choice, because 40% of the housing forces people into it." I don't understand his intent with this comment. Yes, as he says, "Socio-economic disadvantages force people into rentals." This is true. Most renters are low income households, either newly moved out of Mom and Dad's house, or they hold low skill, low paying jobs. This is in no way a bad thing. At its peak in the last 25 years, the home ownership rate was less than 70%. We are now around 64%. (3) While this is a significant change, it will not have a devastating effect on our economy or on the people who are now renting.

There are many reasons why a person might want to rent rather than own their home. A few examples are uncertainty of economic conditions, desire to be mobile, ease and speed of movement to follow employment or other attraction, lack of desire to commit, and poor financial (credit) history making purchase impossible, among others.

Pro said, "By my opponents definition of buying a gallon of milk one time is Socialist and to have to eternally pay for a gallon of milk the rest of your life is Capitalism. After all, by implication, he called my plan to make everyone pay for housing once Socialist and to make them pay over and over Capitalism." Excuse me!?!?!? When and where did I make that argument? I don't know from what source you got your definitions, but those definitions are way off. Socialism is defined as, "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." (2) Capitalism is defined as, "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." (4) I am definitely in favor of capitalism over socialism, but I am not in favor of paying over and over again for something that has been used up. Renting does not fall into this situation. Renting does not use up the item. Renting reduces the liability of the renter compared with the owner, and over time it will cost the renter more to continue to rent, but it is a better financial plan than ownership under certain conditions.

I don't know where Pro is getting this argument that renting is paying for something over and over again, and purchasing something is paying for it only once. When a person makes a typical purchase, they pay the total cost of the product up front. When a person rents, he pays only a small portion of the price of the product on an agreed upon schedule. There are many times when rental is a much better financial option than purchasing. For instance: when an item should last 2 years, but you only need the item for 2 months, when you are in need of a place to live, but expect to be moving to another city in 6 months, when your car is in the shop and you need a replacement for a week. In none of these situations does it make sense to purchase the needed item; rental is the best financial option. There is no case when you will find rental to be an option in consumable products. You cannot rent consumable products because the owner cannot get the item back in original condition when the rental period is over.

My point in round 1 about eliminating the Cabinet level departments would balance the national budget, which would in tern allow for a reduction in the tax burden on individual Americans, which in tern would allow for an increase in investable income. It would also reduce the government regulation limiting business growth, thereby allowing increased business profitability.

Finally, Pro constantly talks about nationalizing rentals, but then he talks about paying only once for (I assume) housing. Is he talking about the federal government building all these houses and then selling them, or is talking about the government renting them out? If they will sell them, what is the cost of production versus the cost to the consumer? If the will rent them, from where does his argument about paying only once for things come?

References:
1. http://www.dictionary.com...
2. http://www.dictionary.com...
3. https://www.nytimes.com...
4. http://www.dictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
Sidetrack
I apologize. I just didn't have enough time to finish editing for that last round. Too many things came up.
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
Sidetrack
My bad, for not defining nationalize. I do have a specific definition in mind which is important to 'how' housing can be stabilized in a nationalist way.
Posted by Perussi 1 year ago
Perussi
Also define key terms like "great" and "nationalize".
Posted by Perussi 1 year ago
Perussi
Make it is 5 rounds, 72 hours, and 10k characters. Also note i'm not formatting my text except for maybe bolding.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.