Kamala Harris has a new advertising push to draw attention to her plan to build 3 million new homes over four years, a move designed to contain inflationary pressures that also draws a sharp contrast to Republican Donald Trump’s approach.

Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, highlights her plan in a new minute-long ad that uses her personal experience, growing up in rental housing while her mother had saved for a decade before she could buy a home. The ad targets voters in the swing states including Arizona and Nevada. Campaign surrogates are also holding 20 events this week focused on housing issues.

In addition to increasing home construction, Harris is proposing the government provide as much as $25,000 in assistance to first-time buyers. That message carries weight at this moment as housing costs have kept upward pressure on the consumer price index. Shelter costs are up 5.1% over the past 12 months, compared to overall inflation being 2.9%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Vice President Harris knows we need to do more to address our housing crisis, that’s why she has a plan to end the housing shortage” and will crack down on “corporate landlords and Wall Street banks hiking up rents and housing costs,” said Dan Kanninen, the campaign’s battleground states director.

  • @Rapidcreek
    link
    03 months ago

    So you’re saying that supply will not change cost?

    • BlackLaZoR
      link
      fedilink
      -163 months ago

      No, I’m saying there will be no more supply than it is now. She ain’t building these homes

      • @Rapidcreek
        link
        73 months ago

        The government uses incentive for builders and land owners to build certain types of projects. For instance, there are incentives for them to build low cost senior housing at fixed end cost. This is no different.

        • BlackLaZoR
          link
          fedilink
          -133 months ago

          Government incentives don’t decrease price of anything. If you want to buy a car with price tag of 100k and your good friend pays 30k for you so you pay just 70k, that doesn’t make car any cheaper. It still costs 100k.

          Same with housing.

          • @Rapidcreek
            link
            7
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Actually the government does this several ways. In order to qualify for incentives, the cost and make up of the structure is set. You dont want to provide incentives for someone to build McMansions. They can also outline where these structures are built. 3 million single family units hit the market and prices will go down.

            • BlackLaZoR
              link
              fedilink
              -73 months ago

              If it was so easy, it would’ve happened a long time ago.

              • @Rapidcreek
                link
                33 months ago

                Are you sure? Real Estate and builders have a lot of lobbying money to keep their assets at high value.

                • BlackLaZoR
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -43 months ago

                  Real Estate and builders have a lot of lobbying money to keep their assets at high value.

                  This is probably why it didn’t happen, and why it won’t happen

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            33 months ago

            I think we can all agree the government subsiding essential needs is a good thing.

            Many more folks would have a chance at ownership of the 70k vs the 100k and if we change the object from a car to a hypothetical essential good, that’s and essentially good thing to expand the group of people accessing it

            • BlackLaZoR
              link
              fedilink
              -63 months ago

              Except this is wasteful. It just took 30k that otherwise would be spent on something else, and spent that on a car. Someone else lost 30k of sales.

              • @StinkyOnions
                link
                63 months ago

                So transparent. Fuck your greedy ass. You’re only worried about your own bottom line.

                • BlackLaZoR
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -53 months ago

                  You’re only worried about your own bottom line.

                  First, being worried about my own bottom line is my sacred right.

                  Second, moving money like this is very similar to the broken window fallacy. Wealth is wasted in the end

                  • @StinkyOnions
                    link
                    43 months ago

                    First, being worried about my own bottom line is my sacred right.

                    Thanks for confirming that you’re a selfish prick.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                23 months ago

                I have changed the topic from a car, and highlighted that the subsidy dollars should be used on more critical things. Ya know, like housing.

                There’s no waste then , because people need homes, and the subsidy allows more people to access them

          • Verdant Banana
            link
            English
            -63 months ago

            just like the factories that get tax breaks because they hire people does not translate to people making living wages