The House of Representatives formally transmitted the Housing Act bill to President Trump last week. The delivery sets in motion a 10-day period where the bill becomes law without action from the president.
The legislation goes into effect at midnight tonight.
PRESIDENT TRUMP – “I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats. The Act states, quite simply, that to Vote a person must show PHOTO VOTER I.D., PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE CROOKED, CORRUPT, & DESTABILIZING MAIL-IN BALLOTS (EXCEPTIONS for Military, Disabled, Illness, and Travel!). THE SAVE AMERICA ACT’S non-passage is CRAZY, and a serious threat to any politician who votes against it!
If the Dumocrats, or any RINO (or worse!) working with them, do not allow a positive Vote on SAVE AMERICA, TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, and pass this, and every other Bill that true Republicans have ever dreamt of (In addition to the upcoming Budget BOMB and the 1929 catastrophic style DEBT CEILING BILL!). The Dumocrats will TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, if and when they ever get the chance to do so, in their very first hour – And I will no longer be able to call them Dumocrats again! The title of DUMB will revert to the Republicans who allowed this horrible calamity to happen to our Party, and our Nation, itself! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
A conviction or 3 would be helpful
It would be quite embarrassing to veto only to have the veto overturned. Seems the lame duck stage of this presidency has arrived well before the midterms, oof.
😂 😂 Ohhh, you’re serious 🤣🤣🤣 even funnier
Does it hurt your head to type such dumb shit or is it numb?
Trump should veto! there’s NOTHING embarrassing about getting a veto override.
Trump should show – let Congress show. Let it all show! … but letting it just pass? passive, weak, lame, wtf?! where’s the lion in that move?! kind’a like this Iranian situation dragging on and on and on … (show) or get off the pot
Trump’s objection isn’t to the bill, it’s the lack of action by Congress on an important priority.
I hope you are wrong …. I am concerned about the midterms.
Dems will be cheating like there is no tomorrow.
Not passing the SAFE Act helps that to happen.
What is the procedure in Kentucky for replacing an incapacitated senator (McConnell)?
The governor appoints a Republican temporarily if he steps down and calls a special election in September.
True, although the Dem governor has said in the past that requiring him to choose someone from the GOP is an incursion on executive authority.
Which means lawfare would jump into action and delay in court any R in that Senate seat, thereby reducing the R count in the Senate.
The governor of Kentucky is Democrat …
Wouldn’t he be appointing a Demoncrapper?
No, a republican, but he’d probably put in the deepest rino he could find
Here you go.
Here are a few sections related to special elections of the Kentucky Revised Statutes.
118.720 Proclamation for special election for Congressional representative or
United States Senator — Winner of special election to hold office for remainder
of unexpired term.
When an election is to be held to fill a vacancy in the office of representative in
Congress, or in the office of United States Senator, a proclamation therefor, in lieu of a
writ of election, shall be issued and signed by the Governor and shall be directed to the
proper sheriffs. The proclamation shall be published by the sheriffs as required by KRS
118.750. The candidate who is certified as the winner of the special election shall hold
the position of the office of which he or she has been elected for the remainder of the
unexpired term.
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=54597
118.760 Nominations of candidates for special elections.
Nominations by political parties, as defined in KRS 118.015, to fill vacancies at special
elections shall be made in the manner determined by the governing authority of the party
in the territory in which the election is to be held. An independent, or political
organization, or political group candidate may be nominated at a special election by a
petition of electors qualified to vote for him or her. The independent, or political
organization, or political group candidate shall not be a registered member of a political
party prior to the filing of the petition as prescribed in KRS 118.770. The form of the
petition and the required number of signatures on the petition are set forth in KRS
118.315(2).
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=27682
This is probably the one that you would want for a timeline.
118.770 Time for filing petitions and certificates of nomination for special election
of Governor, congressional representative, or General Assembly member.
When a writ of election or proclamation is issued to fill a vacancy as prescribed in KRS
118.710, 118.720, or 118.730, independent, or political organization, or political group
petitions and certificates of nomination shall be filed at least fifty-six (56) days before the
day of election, and if filed with the Secretary of State shall be immediately certified by
him or her to the proper county clerks.
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=54654
This last link is for Kentucky Revised Statutes chapter 118 that includes all of the above
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=37589
Thank you for providing that information!
That seat is up for the 2026 general election. I believe Andy Barr won the Republican nomination in the primary election. Since 2024 the Ky gov does not have authority to appoint pending a special election. If the vacancy occurs within 56 days of the general election (so around Sept 7), there is no special election. If McConnell were to resign today then I guess a special election would be held, but the remaining term is only a couple of weeks so no real point to it.
PRETEND UNTIL YOU CAN INSTALL A REPLACEMENT!
THE SHOW MUST GO ON!
They can pass a bill no one cares that much about with enough votes to avoid the veto, but can’t pass common sense legislation almost everyone wants.
At what point do we revolt again?
Who wants section 8 housing?
I loathe Congress critters.
Wouldn’t that be Corporal Klinger?
“………..section 8
housingclothing allowance?Section 8 healthcare…oh wait…we already have that!
Section 8 discharge….it’s no coincidence they share the same number.
Illegals are the problem.
Congress IS the problen.
Must be a graft scheme. Anywhere I’ve rented houses, landlords know that this group of people tends to trash your property and refuse to rent to section 8 people. Plus the gov’t steps in and “inspects” your home and require you to make upgrades, only to have your property trashed out at the end of the lease.
Hold firm.
The swamp is insisting on housing for ILLEGALS.
keeping prices up due to demand of ILLEGALS.
Good thing I sold and escaped from CA!
veto-ing it would have had greater impact.
Yes, greater impact, but the Dems currently are in disarray and have no real cudgel as of yet to gin up the minority vote for the mid-terms; how would the vetoing of section 8 housing before the mid-terms affect those elements?
Would it not be in effect just another form of Trayvon or Floyd?
Look at the bright side; any person chosen to replace McConnell will be an improvement, no matter whether he is dim, RINO, or MAGA.
Massie?
I don’t understand the thought behind the decision. Why wouldn’t vetoing it helped or at least delayed it?
Hurrah! The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act passed! That’ll fix things! /s
“Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, ‘See, if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.'” – Harry Browne, former Libertarian Party presidential candidate
Let’s analyze this, suckers:
What are the monetary drivers of high housing costs?
Monetary factors—particularly expansive Federal Reserve policies like quantitative easing (QE, often called “money printing”) and prolonged low interest rates—have been significant drivers of elevated housing costs, especially in the post-2020 surge. These policies increase the money supply, lower borrowing costs, and boost asset prices (including homes), but they interact with supply constraints.
Key Monetary Drivers
Quantitative Easing (QE) and Money Supply Growth:
During 2020–2022, the Fed aggressively purchased Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS), expanding its balance sheet dramatically. This injected trillions into the financial system (M2 money supply grew at record rates, peaking around 27% year-over-year in early 2021).
The Fed bought nearly 90% of the net new agency MBS during that period, directly supporting the mortgage market. This lowered mortgage rates further, increased liquidity, and fueled demand for housing as an asset. House prices rose sharply in tandem (often 30–40%+ in many markets from 2020 peaks).
Broader money supply expansion (via stimulus, deficits financed by Fed purchases) contributed to overall inflation and asset price appreciation. Homes, as a major store of value, benefited disproportionately.
Ultra-Low Interest Rates:
The Fed held the federal funds rate near zero for extended periods (post-2008 and especially 2020–2022). This reduced mortgage rates to historic lows (~2.5–3% in 2020–2021), making borrowing cheaper and encouraging refinancing, homebuying, and investor activity.
Low rates increase the present value of future cash flows from assets, bidding up prices. The “lock-in effect” (homeowners reluctant to sell low-rate mortgages) later reduced supply when rates rose.
Wealth and Portfolio Effects:
Easy money boosts stock and asset prices, creating a “wealth effect” that encourages spending and further investment in real estate. It also channels capital into housing as investors seek yield in a low-rate environment.
Critics (e.g., some Austrian economists or analysts like Karen Petrou) argue this disproportionately benefits asset owners and exacerbates inequality, while contributing to bubbles.
Historical and Recent Context
Similar dynamics played a role in the mid-2000s housing bubble (accommodative policy after the dot-com bust), though supply constraints and other factors amplified it.
Post-2020, the combination of QE, fiscal stimulus, and pandemic-related demand shifts led to rapid price gains. Subsequent rate hikes (to combat inflation) cooled the market somewhat but left prices elevated due to downward rigidity and low inventory.
How do governments benefit from higher housing costs?
Governments (federal, state, and local) can benefit from higher housing costs in several direct and indirect ways, primarily through increased revenues, economic activity tied to real estate, and political dynamics—though these benefits often come with trade-offs like reduced affordability, inequality, and slower growth.
Here are the main mechanisms:
1. Higher Tax Revenues (Especially Property Taxes)
– Property taxes are a major revenue source for local governments (schools, counties, cities). Higher home values automatically increase assessed values and thus tax collections without rate hikes. This funds public services without needing to raise income or sales taxes as aggressively.
– Capital gains and transfer taxes: Rising prices generate more revenue from real estate transaction taxes, stamp duties, or capital gains on home sales.
– Broader economic activity: Construction, renovations, real estate services (brokerage, appraisals), and related industries expand, boosting sales, income, and business taxes.
2. Wealth Effect and Economic Stimulus
– Higher home values increase household wealth (especially for owners), encouraging consumer spending, borrowing (home equity loans), and economic activity. Governments benefit from higher GDP, employment in housing-related sectors, and tax receipts from that growth.
– In some models, this supports “fiscal multipliers” where real estate booms prop up local economies.
3. Debt and Financing Advantages
– Higher property values improve governments’ balance sheets (e.g., for bonding capacity or collateral in municipal finance).
– Inflationary pressures from asset bubbles (including housing) can erode the real value of government debt over time, making fixed obligations easier to service in nominal terms.
4. Political and Constituent Benefits
– Existing homeowners (a large, politically active voting bloc) gain from rising equity, which feels like wealth creation. Politicians often face pressure to protect or enhance property values rather than risk price drops.
– Incumbent advantage: High costs create barriers to entry, benefiting established residents and reducing competition for services/schools in some neighborhoods.
– Developer and industry contributions: Real estate interests (developers, banks, Realtors) are significant campaign donors and lobbyists; policies that sustain high prices can align with their preferences.
5. Indirect or Targeted Programs
– Higher values can justify or expand means-tested programs, affordable housing mandates, or inclusionary zoning that generate fees/affordable units from developers.
– In some cases, governments use high prices as justification for more spending on subsidies, rent controls, or public housing—expanding bureaucratic scope and budgets.
These “benefits” are uneven: They favor existing owners, governments with large real estate tax bases, and connected industries, but harm renters, young buyers, low/moderate-income families, and overall mobility/economic dynamism. Prolonged high costs contribute to inequality, homelessness, slower household formation, and reduced labor mobility (workers can’t easily move to high-opportunity areas).
Many economists argue that while governments gain short-term revenue, the long-term societal costs (e.g., distorted markets, reduced productivity) outweigh them. Policies like the recent housing bill aim to increase supply partly to mitigate these pressures without fully sacrificing revenue streams.
In essence, higher housing costs act as a form of hidden taxation and wealth transfer that governments can tap into relatively easily compared to explicit tax increases.
Here’s another example of what Mr. Brown was talking about:
Have studies found that guaranteed government-backed student loans are responsible for most of the rise beyond CPI inflation of college costs?
Yes, multiple economic studies have found evidence that expanded access to government-backed student loans contributes significantly to tuition increases exceeding general inflation (the Bennett Hypothesis), though the effect size varies by time period, institution type, and study, and it’s not the sole cause.
The Bennett Hypothesis
Former U.S. Education Secretary William Bennett argued in the 1980s that colleges raise tuition because students can borrow more via federal guarantees, shifting costs without reducing demand. This is often called the “Bennett Hypothesis.” Research tests it by examining how changes in loan limits, Pell Grants, or eligibility affect “sticker price” tuition (published rates), sometimes distinguishing net prices after aid.
Key Empirical Evidence
– New York Fed Study (Lucca et al., 2015/2017): Using quasi-experimental variation around increases in federal loan caps (2007–2009), they found institutions raised sticker-price tuition by ~60 cents per additional dollar in subsidized loan maximums and ~15–40 cents for unsubsidized loans. Effects were stronger for private institutions, expensive programs, and for-profits/vocational schools. This supports a causal link via credit supply expansion.
– Gordon & Hedlund (Richmond Fed / model-based analysis): Passthrough from loans to tuition varied over time—high in the late 1980s (aligning with Bennett), near zero mid-1990s, rising again pre-2008, then dropping post-2008 as credit constraints eased. No single fixed rate exists, but loans explain a meaningful portion of tuition growth in certain eras.
– Cellini & Goldin (2014, NBER): For-profit schools eligible for federal Title IV aid charged ~78% higher tuition than similar ineligible programs, controlling for program type, location, etc. This isolates the aid effect.
– Other reviews: A James G. Martin Center survey of 25 studies found a majority showed some positive effect of aid on prices in at least some higher ed segments. Mercatus Center analysis attributed much of the 1987–2010 tuition rise (over 100% real increase in some models) to federal loan expansions. CRS (2014) overview noted mixed but often positive associations.
Tuition has risen far faster than CPI: real published tuition at four-year publics and privates increased dramatically from the 1980s onward, outpacing wages and general inflation, coinciding with massive growth in student loan volume.
Overall, the consensus from causal studies (difference-in-differences around policy changes, eligibility thresholds, etc.) is that guaranteed loans do inflate costs by boosting demand and enabling price increases—often substantially—but interact with other factors like reduced state support. This doesn’t mean loans have no value (they expand access), but it highlights a classic unintended consequence of third-party payer systems in higher ed. For deeper dives, see the NY Fed paper or Richmond Fed brief.
Is there a common saying that goes, “Prices will rise to what the market can bear”?
Yes, “Prices will rise to what the market can bear” (or very close variants like “the price will rise to what the market will bear”) is a common saying or idiomatic expression in economics, business, and everyday discussions about pricing.
That was once what could be paid for by going to college part-time and delivering pizzas part time or what the parents could save up. Now its how much is loaned to anyone who can fog a mirror for any useless degree since the lender has no skin in the game.
As Grok has previously detailed, the fundamental, root cause behind nearly every factor leading to high housing costs are government monetary policies!
The bill “restricts large institutional investors from buying additional single-family homes (beyond certain thresholds).” How much does that actually affect housing prices nationally compared to other factors and won’t they find a way around the so-called fix made by this bill?
The restriction on large institutional investors (generally those owning 350+ single-family homes) is expected to have only a modest—or even negligible—impact on national housing prices. It is one small piece of a larger supply-focused bill, and experts widely view it as more symbolic than transformative.
Scale of the Restriction
– National market share is small: Institutional investors own roughly 3% of the single-family rental market and under 1% of total U.S. housing stock. Their purchases have been concentrated in certain Sun Belt metros (e.g., Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas), where they can represent 10–20%+ of recent investor activity in some neighborhoods, but they are not dominant nationally.
– Limited price effect: Analyses suggest the investor share explains only a fraction of recent price growth. Broader drivers like chronic undersupply (zoning, underbuilding), high construction/land costs, interest rates, and monetary factors dwarf it. Economists (e.g., from Urban Institute, Redfin) estimate the ban is unlikely to meaningfully lower national prices or rents. It may have more localized effects in hot investor markets.
Comparison to Other Factors
– Supply shortages and regulation: Decades of restrictive zoning, slow permitting, and NIMBYism are the dominant long-term drivers. These create inelastic supply where demand pushes prices sharply higher. The bill tries to address this indirectly via incentives but doesn’t override local control.
– Interest rates and monetary policy: Post-2020 QE and low rates fueled demand and price surges far more than investor buying. Subsequent rate hikes cooled the market but locked in high prices via low inventory.
– Construction costs and other barriers: Labor shortages, materials inflation, land prices, and insurance costs add far more to new home prices than institutional demand.
– Overall, most credible estimates attribute the bulk of unaffordability to insufficient building, not corporate purchases. The investor cap is politically popular but ranks low among economists’ solutions.
Will Investors Find Ways Around It?
Yes, circumvention is likely and already anticipated:
– Exemptions and carve-outs: The bill includes exceptions for build-to-rent developments and smaller investors. Larger firms can restructure (e.g., via subsidiaries, partnerships, or staying under thresholds), focus on multifamily apartments, or shift to other markets.
– Workarounds observed historically: Real estate investors adapt quickly—using REIT structures, joint ventures, foreign entities, or buying in bulk through non-institutional vehicles. Some may accelerate purchases before full implementation or emphasize new construction that qualifies for exceptions.
– Market response: Critics (including from Cato and industry groups) note that limiting capital could reduce supply in the single-family rental segment if build-to-rent slows, potentially offsetting any price relief. Developers and nonbank lenders have shown flexibility in past regulations.
Bottom line: The provision is a targeted political response to public frustration with “Wall Street landlords,” but it is unlikely to move national housing prices appreciably. It may help in specific hotspots and signals priorities, but broader affordability requires addressing supply constraints, costs, and demand-side factors. Loopholes and adaptations mean its practical effect will probably be even smaller than intended. The bill’s other elements (regulatory streamlining, local incentives) are generally seen as more consequential, though still incremental.
In all cases, “your” government works to benefit itself and due to the fact that they can get away with crap like the above and a bazillion other bills like it shows that we have a low information voter majority which also means we can’t get away from this situation.
We can only apply a few band-aids, most via EOs which are then nixed by low-level judges. Don’t expect ANYTHING from CONgress.
Biden’s Big Brother open borders scam dumped 20-25 million new illegal trespassers requiring housing that drove the Demand side of the formula. When Demand exceeds Supply,… Prices rise.
This. Supply and demand. Basic.
Veto!! It has tons of graft.
In my opinion its a bill President Trump wants to pass but also wants to keep his word that he won’t sign any until the Save America Act is passed.
I would rather he vetoed the bill and forced CONgress to have to vote and override his veto. You know actually make them do their job.
Nah. We’re tracking well for the midterms, and any fresh ‘n spicy Trump Card on the field will only give the Dimms exactly what they so desperately need: focus.
I’m hoping and praying 🙏 we see a narrow win-back of the House by the Dims, (if at all) say of around 5 or 6 seats. No Senate.
Oh how grand that will be! Zero ways to spin it as anything other than what it is: the fast-track to complete and utter irrelevance in American politics.
First off……..THEY….the inept Rat Repub party is in bed with the demonrats…..they are ONE in the SAME!
And if you want some enthusiasm from the base…..MAGA…..REAL PATRIOTS…….
THEN SERVE UP SOME ACCOUNTABILITY…….LETS SEE ONE BIG NAME GO DOWN THAT STARTS THE DOMINO EFFECT!
SERVE UP A TRAITOR!
THAT……
will fire us up!
Please read my comment directly above. Also, maybe read and follow the news a bit more closely. For example, you could read all of the articles and opinions written by Sundance right here on this site and be well informed, knowing that there has been more than “one big name” brought to accountability in Trump’s term thus far. In fact, while I think Bolton may have negotiated down from the more treasonous charges, the stain and stench on him as a “traitor” will never wash out. Next up: Mr. grease-monkey himself.
Not to say I wouldn’t like to have more wicked deviants locked up for life, especially those of the “lawfare” persuasion. But in this life, you take what the Good Lord gives you. With thanks and gratitude.
Section 8 housing is just brand new homeless shelters that will deal in drugs and an address to send mail in ballots.
Truth.
Inflation adjusted = “real”.
Note in the graphs linked below that home prices are higher now than they were during the housing bubble (which was due to MASSIVE unpunished fraud – see the outstanding film “The Big Short”) the bursting of which caused the global financial crisis causing trillions of dollars of financial losses, 8.6 million homes in the US lost to foreclosure, put 15.3 million households underwater, and destroyed about 8.7 million jobs here.
Real Residential Property Prices for United States
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QUSR628BIS
S&P Cotality Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index / Median Household Income in the United States
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=n9xI
Inflation adjusted. “Ratio” is how many years to payoff if 100% of income was spent to pay the mortgage:
Year, Real Median Home Price, Real Median Yearly Earnings, Ratio (Years)
1990, ~$180k–$200k, ~$55k–$60k, 3.0–3.6 years
1995, ~$200k–$220k, ~$58k–$63k, 3.4–3.8 years
2000, ~$250k–$280k, ~$60k–$65k, 4.0–4.6 years
2005, ~$350k–$380k, ~$62k–$67k, 5.3–6.0 years * housing bubble
2010, ~$220k–$250k, ~$63k–$68k, 3.4–4.0 years
2015, ~$280k–$300k, ~$65k–$70k, 4.1–4.6 years
2020, ~$350k–$380k, ~$70k–$75k, 4.7–5.4 years
2025, ~$400k–$430k, ~$72k–$78k, 5.2–5.9 years * housing bubble II
With my last mail-in ballot I intentionally made a mark in the signature verification box on the envelope that was NOTHING like my signature. By all rights I should have been contacted to verify the ballot. Instead, after a couple days, a text message saying, “Your ballot has been counted.” So much for gold standard mail-in voting in CO!
THE SAVE AMERICA ACT’S non-passage is CRAZY, and a serious threat to any politician who votes against it!
This tells me our VSG Lion has something cooking!
Of course the real problem is that MAGA, outside of PT, has no overwhelming numbers applying pressure, no organization, strategy, or media strength.
So the Housing Bill becomes law without Trump’s signature. By Trump not signing it how does it hurt the RINOS for not passing the Save Act? The Housing Bill still goes into effect, right? What am I missing?
I won’t vote in the next election until they pass the SAVE Act and then my vote will automatically be voted by the corrupt system. Same same.
I love him, but less caffeine please.
I appreciate him and the mission he’s on to set this Nation upright.
So more caffeine please!
I don’t understand what Trump’s not signing the bill accomplished. The law goes into effect without his signing the bill.
If he wanted the bill to go into effect he could just sign it. If he didn’t want the bill to go into effect he had to veto it.
Just saying he isn’t going to sign it: what did that accomplish? I’m confused.
“The delivery sets in motion a 10-day period where the bill becomes law without action from the president.”
Eh? My School House Rock taught me if the President doesn’t sign by the deadline it’s a “pocket veto”, not a “pocket signature”. How did they finagle that one?
He should veto it! Not signing it, gives congress a win. Let congress override it, so the voters can see what idiots they are!
The D’s and RINO’s now own the legislation, for the good or for the bad. Why do I think Trump took the perfect path?
The only way to get to affordable RE is to either drastically increase the take home pay for all Americans without inflation or reduce the cost of the real estate. Sure, interest rates might matter for a year or two if you follow the fed, however, the fed is a private company making money for its owners not the American citizen.
Getting rid of 10-30M+ illegal immigrants increases home supply which lowers RE and rent prices probably by 30+%. Boomers and RE owners will be pissed, but I’ve lived through 3 RE boom busts over the past 40 years. Sure it was painful when you thought you were rich, but you were never rich when the Fed played games with currency value, inflation and interest rates. Fools gold!
Heck, I’d much rather have a gram of gold equal 1 USD way when the Federal Reserve Act was enacted in 1913. It’s now $125 per gram at $4000 per ounce. Who stole what from whom? Fraud vitiates everything? Prayers required. Remedy required.