>

So basically a nothing burger. As someone who is fortunate enough to absorb the 30%+ raise in our rent prices, there are alot who aren't. On top of that it is making it harder for my fiance and I to find our first home. The average starter home here in south Florida is now over 400k. My sister just bought her first home in her mid 30s, and it was 562,000$. That's effing INSANE. all of my siblings have memories of being carted around by our parents to see model homes and whatnot and those signs read "New 3 and 4 bedroom homes starting at 120k!!". I was driving around with my fiance, 45 min outside of a big city this weekend and saw similar signs but the starting amount is now 800,000$...what the actual fuck? When I was 20 a 300$ car payment put you in a new BMW 3 series. Now the average new car payment is 700$+, A MONTH. As someone who makes close to 100k, that's fucking ridiculous. I'm still driving around a 2003 CRV with 220k on it because even cars are too damn expensive. 
I feel like I've made it to a really really good place financially and career wise and we're still living in apartments and driving beater cars. Why is that? We work really hard, we're good with money. 
It just doesn't make sense and feels like the American dream is not a thing anymore, it's just goto work, go home, hope that no one gets sick or laid off.
This is a call to action, when all those that have the power to change things invest in entities that own thousands of rental properties across the USA, and would lose money. There needs to be a BAN on corporations and investment funds on buying single family homes. They can own all the apartments they want, but in Orlando alone 53% of home purchases in the last 12 months were by corporations, not families. We're getting to the point to where owning a home is impossible, and that was the number 1 way for families to create generational wealth and prosperity. The rich and powerful saw that, and they're closing that path for normal hard working people.
The Biden administration is also releasing a “Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights” that highlights the need for clear and fair leases, the right to organize, and eviction prevention and diversion, among other principles.

Having a renters bill of rights would be a great step, and it is good to see the Biden administration taking positive steps to address the rental crisis. Unfortunately, Biden alone cannot offer the major changes needed without congress:

"The hard truth is that administrative action on its own can’t resolve the housing crisis that we’re in,” Yentel said. “It’s going to require major action from Congress, and unfortunately, the opportunity we had through Build Back Better passed by...We are clear-eyed about the limitations of administrative actions but are still pushing to do all we can now. The need is greater than ever.” >

People can't afford a a place to live and inflation and profits are at record highs. Nothing will change until the wealthy lose some of their power. They need substantially higher taxes on multiple properties and our mega-monopolies need to be broken up. Eg, the 5-6 companies that own everything in a grocery store.
Towards the end of the game Monopoly, fewer and fewer people own anything on the board and all of the money and power is in the hands of the people that least need it.
As the game progresses, the monopolists charge more because participants have fewer choices and the monopolists have increasing power. When a single player owns everything, the game is over unless money is re-added.
We can re-add money to the game through debt and direct stimulus, but it will never be enough to control the greed and exploitation we're dealing with. We didn't get here by coincidence. Does anyone in a position of power have the guts to do anything about it though? >

Guts has nothing to do with it. Half the country votes for people who explicitly oppose the things you want. >

And the other half are largely ok with letting their side do the same thing as long as they say they nominally support LGBTQ or other minority rights. 
Don’t kid yourself. When it comes to economics, both of our political parties are two sides of the same fascist coin. >

No they aren't, this is disingenuous. Lots of people vote for democrats because they are the objectively less fascist option. They aren't ok with the democrats aiding capitalism, they just know that the more the republicans lose, the more likely we are to prevent literal slavery and genocide, and if the right-most party loses enough, then we get closer to lowering capitalism.
There is a reason people like Bernie Sanders and AOC side with democrats. We have a two party system and it's better if we tip the scales however we can. Treating both parties as the same just helps the worse party. >

“Fascism is ok as long as it’s my flavor of it.”
Less fascist is still fascist honey. When unelected, undemocratic moneyed interests run your party, as it does in the American duopoly, fascism is always the end game.  
You can Keep telling yourself these pretty little lies, but the democrats just want to prop up the status quo for a bit longer while the republicans have given up on the charade altogether. >

Maybe the white house should limit corporations from buying up and owning so many single family dwellings so people can actually afford homes. And also limit foreign entities from owning real estate, or tax the shit out of them as a deterrent. >

The "White House" can't do that. It would take a Bill from Congress to become a Law to regulate that. >

Wait why not? Just declare a national emergency and write an executive order no? >

An Executive order would be temporary, could not address current ownership, and likely to be unenforcable. >

Adding more power to the presidency is also not something we should be advocating for?
It boggles my mind that we've decided instead of holding the legislative branch accountable for their failures, we've decided the best course of action is to give the president near unlimited power to do whatever he pleases. >

Well that's part of there problem though... The legislative branch isn't doing shit about this lol >

Yeah the solution to that isn't to give the executive branch more power, it's to force the legislative branch to do it's job
All these shortcuts we keep taking will inevitably just make it easier for a single bad actor to take power indefinitely. >

How do you propose we force them to do something about this....?
And btw this wouldn't give the exec branch MORE power, it's flexing the power it already has, no? >

Fire them all. I don't understand why we can't take a page out of other playbooks and just fire the whole lot and hold new elections if the ones we elected can't get anything done. >

The problem is that thanks to gerrymandering, instead of the voters choosing their representatives, the representatives choose their voters >


"The announcement involves multiple federal agencies that will gather information on unfair housing practices. It also includes a “Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights” that, while not binding, sets clear guidelines to help renters stay in affordable housing"

"gather information" and "not binding"
Why all those words to describe perfunctory executive action?