this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2026
56 points (98.3% liked)

politics

28923 readers
1641 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
56
Senate passes bill aimed at making US housing more accessible and affordable (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 days ago by NomNom@feddit.uk to c/politics@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] grue@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The bill, which passed 89-10, would reduce regulations, regulate corporate investors, and expand how housing dollars can be used to build affordable homes and rentals.

I am sick and tired of articles like this, that say what the bill is "aimed at" doing and speak in generalities, but don't tell you the name, the bill number, or any details of how it goes about doing those things.

I have read the entire article and it gives no fucking clue which bill they're talking about or how to look it up!

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It’s a summary. It also hasn’t been passed, tested, or interpreted. The bill is public and you can read it.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's a summary of what? Which bill is it talking about? Why doesn't it make even the bare minimum of effort to help readers look it up?

If their goal is to inform, they should fucking inform! Link to the goddamn bill!

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The bipartisan bill’s future is uncertain, though, as Trump threatens to stall all legislation until voter-ID law is passed

About what I expected.

[–] ClownStatue@piefed.social 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

For the short term, good. Hold up the rare bit of bipartisan legislation in the name of a nonexistent problem. Keep digging that hole, asshole.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Yep. The only problem is that Democrats are likely to be terrible at making Republicans answer for that and messaging about it.

They'll get all tripped up on something not all that relatable and very wonky or take the bait on some trans side-quest.

This shit should be easy - call the Republicans what they are: fucking weird and demented.

The cons are more worried about "women in sports" or "wokeness" than they are about making shit affordable for you, including housing. They are more worried about covering up for a pedophile that is more fired up about designing a ballroom, or arches, or slapping his name on things than he is on doing the job. They are more worried about covering up for him than they are putting any kind of check on him for anything including taxing virtually everything you buy and invading countries for no reason and threatening our allies.

Stick to that message and also throw in what Democrats plan to do in contrast to all that unhinged chaos and nastiness. And for fuck's sake don't take the bait on their messaging about culture war shit. Don't take their narratives about BLM or burning cities to the ground, or trans or defunding the police or any of that, and constantly bring it back to how fucking weird the right wing is.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Even if this exact version gets passed into law, courts are going to kill the ban on venture capital buying homes or the rich assholes will just find a loophole, and the slashing of regulations and subsidies just mean for profit developers are going to get paid taxpayer money to build barely affordable shit boxes that will fall apart in a few years

We need actual public housing and to tax the big investors out of existence

[–] tmyakal@infosec.pub 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

The problem is construction. America needs millions of new homes to meet demand. And this bill doesn't stop venture capital from building new homes; it just mandates that they sell those homes within seven years.

So, yes, they'll be building barely-affordable shit boxes, but those shit boxes will be designed to last exactly eight years.

Edit: correcting autocorrect-induced typos

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Yep, and having seen all the ways for profit market based entities have screwed people over my entire life I think the only real answer to this problem of construction is a massive public works project. Housing healthcare education and public safety are all too important to be left up to markets.