CDC puts eviction ban for renters due to lack of payment

[lfromnj]

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/housing/514898-trump-eviction-ban-tests-limits-of-cdc-authority

Surprised no one posted this.
This is super authoritarian and an overreach of power by Trump. Anyone want to join me?

[PSOL]

No, we will not join you.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

No, we will not join you.

But this is Trump massively overreaching power and becoming the fascist you all warned about !!!

With a Congress like yours, executive strength is good for democracy.

[Santander]

The CDC has the authority to do this?! Clearly a move to buy votes.

[Virginiá]

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/housing/514898-trump-eviction-ban-tests-limits-of-cdc-authority

Surprised no one posted this.
This is super authoritarian and am overreach of power by Trump. Anyone want to join me?

My first thought was that I didn't even know the CDC could do that.

Not that I disagree with this for the time being, but exactly how long is this going to be tenable? What are renters going to do about all the back rent owed? We can only kick the can down the road for so long, and the US government can not subsidize so much of society indefinitely.

[lfromnj]

The CDC has the authority to do this?! Clearly a move to buy votes.

I mean literally everything government does is that only

[Ancestral Republican]

Absolutely not, anything that keeps people in shelter is a good thing.

But the article is correct that dumping millions of people onto the streets in January is not the best idea.

Let's make housing a universal right.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I have a hard time believing that the CDC has the authority to do this.

I have to be honest and say that this sort of thing makes me less interested in buying rental property. Owning property is not free, and presumably the owners will still be expected to pay their mortgages, taxes, etc. on the property and keep it in good repair. None of that is free.

[lfromnj]

Can anyone explain why this isn't bigger news?
Is  it not actually real as I heard from the executive orders from a few weeks ago? Is it actually effective or is it weaker in scope?

[Battista Minola 1616]

Can anyone explain why this isn't bigger news?
Is  it not actually real as I heard from the executive orders from a few weeks ago? Is it actually effective or is it weaker in scope?

Because you have to understand, lfromnj, that this topic only interests Libertarians because of their cult of people of land, and Libertarians are <1% of the population.

[Former President tack50]

No, we will not join you.

But this is Trump massively overreaching power and becoming the fascist you all warned about !!!

With a Congress like yours, executive strength is good for democracy.

No it isn't? Executive overreach is always bad regardless of who does it or whether their goals are good

If the US Congress is ineffective, they should be voted out. Not Trump unilaterally seizing power from Congress. That is how you (eventually) get into a dictatorship.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

No, we will not join you.

But this is Trump massively overreaching power and becoming the fascist you all warned about !!!

With a Congress like yours, executive strength is good for democracy.

No it isn't? Executive overreach is always bad regardless of who does it or whether their goals are good

If the US Congress is ineffective, they should be voted out. Not Trump unilaterally seizing power from Congress. That is how you (eventually) get into a dictatorship.

The president is largely held responsible for the failure of Congress and I don't see any pre-reform change in that political culture. Unfortunately, without incentives most likely to come from the White House (the possibility of alternative political reform occurring without Congress), it is likely that said reform will never occur.

Obviously there should be limits on executive power to avoid getting a dictatorship, but many of the traditional presidential limits (mostly defined by convention) were too constricting to push Congress into action. While the legislature is so divided, compromised by special interests, dysfunctional and disinterested in legislating (they would prefer to leave everything to unaccountable Supreme Court judge-overlords), the presidency probably offers the best ability to break through gridlock and reflect the popular will (or at least have the ability to effect some kind of change, positive or otherwise) on most issues.

If Congress is simply left to fail in the absence of the threat of executive action, we can observe from its responses to both the virus and the protests that it will void responsibility to an instability-generating extent which probably poses a greater threat to democracy than a stronger executive.

[lfromnj]

Can anyone explain why this isn't bigger news?
Is  it not actually real as I heard from the executive orders from a few weeks ago? Is it actually effective or is it weaker in scope?

Because you have to understand, lfromnj, that this topic only interests Libertarians because of their cult of people of land, and Libertarians are <1% of the population.

lol, but in all seriousness it is a bit confusing how this has had very little media attention. Even on this forum, my other thread about Trump's much more minor affirmative action of banning critical race theory which although is good, is probably not as widereaching.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Can anyone explain why this isn't bigger news?
Is  it not actually real as I heard from the executive orders from a few weeks ago? Is it actually effective or is it weaker in scope?

It's not bigger news because if it were it would help Trump's poll numbers.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Of course, this does not say that the Federal Government will not make a law impairing the obligation of contracts.  Is that a deliberate omission.  Or did the Founders simply believe that the Federal Government would never try to do such a thing.

I think the questions about overreach are fair.  People decrying this do, however, have a moral need to discuss a solution to the problem of mass homelessness that will occur if these potential evictions go on as planned.

On the other hand, I get the fact that landlords still have to make payments, keep property up, etc.  Many are large real estate companies, but many others are ordinary citizens whose investments in real estate are their retirement plan, or even their own small business.  I get that no one has the right to profit from their investment and that entrepreneurs don't have the right to succeed.  But Sanctity of Contract is also a Feature of our Constitution, and that shouldn't just be blown off. 

[dead0man]

the people who are for this hate Trump, they aren't going to advertise that Trump has done something they approve of....they are way passed that.  Trump supporters, generally, would be against this, they ain't going to sing about it either.  So the only people that care are people in the middle (who would go both way on the issue) and Trump supporters who are for the eviction ban.  Neither group has big numbers, and the latter group is non-existent here at Atlas Talk Elections.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

the people who are for this hate Trump, they aren't going to advertise that Trump has done something they approve of....they are way passed that.  Trump supporters, generally, would be against this, they ain't going to sing about it either.  So the only people that care are people in the middle (who would go both way on the issue) and Trump supporters who are for the eviction ban.  Neither group has big numbers, and the latter group is non-existent here at Atlas Talk Elections.

Most Very Online Trump supporters will get behind protectionist policy whenever Trump champions it loudly and, offline, Trump won in 2016 with a coalition that was more blue collar, communitarian and populist than previous Republican arrangements. Mainstream Republicans might not have much to like here and the most economically conservative wing's elected representatives have probably told Trump it's not something to champion loudly, but these collectively represent a much smaller group of persuadable voters than the people open to voting Trump who wouldn't object to this.

Fuzzy is almost on the money here when he said that it would be bigger news if it helped Trump's poll numbers - if conservative media acknowledged that this sort of thing helped Trump's poll numbers, we would have heard more about it. However, its backers see little interest in encouraging that.

[lfromnj]

the people who are for this hate Trump, they aren't going to advertise that Trump has done something they approve of....they are way passed that.  Trump supporters, generally, would be against this, they ain't going to sing about it either.  So the only people that care are people in the middle (who would go both way on the issue) and Trump supporters who are for the eviction ban.  Neither group has big numbers, and the latter group is non-existent here at Atlas Talk Elections.

Most Very Online Trump supporters will get behind protectionist policy whenever Trump champions it loudly and, offline, Trump won in 2016 with a coalition that was more blue collar, communitarian and populist than previous Republican arrangements. Mainstream Republicans might not have much to like here and the most economically conservative wing's elected representatives have probably told Trump it's not something to champion loudly, but these collectively represent a much smaller group of persuadable voters than the people open to voting Trump who wouldn't object to this.

Fuzzy is almost on the money here when he said that it would be bigger news if it helped Trump's poll numbers - if conservative media acknowledged that this sort of thing helped Trump's poll numbers, we would have heard more about it. However, its backers see little interest in encouraging that.

Good point, the reason for not covering is it is either completely useless or the media on both sides is to blame as the left wing media doesn't want to help Trump while right wing media generally opposes this policy.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

the people who are for this hate Trump, they aren't going to advertise that Trump has done something they approve of....they are way passed that.  Trump supporters, generally, would be against this, they ain't going to sing about it either.  So the only people that care are people in the middle (who would go both way on the issue) and Trump supporters who are for the eviction ban.  Neither group has big numbers, and the latter group is non-existent here at Atlas Talk Elections.

I may qualify as part of the latter group.

I am undecided on the issue.  I don't believe, however, that Mass Homelessness is in the Public Interest and that a sudden jolt in homelessness (and the homelessness of Families, and not the behaviorally homeless (addicts, alcoholics, the chronic mentally ill, etc.).

My wife LOVES DIY and HGTV shows.  Good Bones.  Hometown.  Flip or Flop.  All of these shows glorify Real Estate Investors who, in actuality, do little for the overall economy.  They're speculators, and speculators do not add real wealth to GNP.  These are the people who have done much to drive up Real Estate values to where home ownership is out of reach for many working Americans, where now a single family rental (or even a one-bedroom apartment) is out of reach for people with full-time employment.  These speculators have done little but drive the price of land upward.  (It's the value of land going up which provides most of the inflation in housing prices.)  

In addressing this problem, it's time to come to grips with the fact that whether it's a "right" or not, it is not in the National Interest to have large numbers of working families that can't afford minimal, safe housing, enough for they and their families to reside in safely.  It's also time to realize that this is not a problem that the free market will provide a solution to any time soon; three (3) years of correcting is a short time in the life of a nation, but it is an eternity in the life of children growing up without stability in their home situation.  

Homeless drug addicts, homeless alcoholics, and homeless mental patients are one issue.  The former have often resisted or refused treatment options or communal living options that require rules, and the latter are often homeless because of legal  doctrines that require that they be treated in the "least restrictive modality" of treatment.  (I don't support a return to the long-term hospitals for the mentally ill that were deemed unconstitutional, but those places served a valid housing function and these people are, arguably, not better off homeless on the streets.)  Homeless Families are another matter.  Homeless working people are another matter.  We can do better by both groups, and we should.  I would ask the libertarians here just how this problem gets solved.  It is a case where the moral and legal obligations of a nation are at odds.  

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

the people who are for this hate Trump, they aren't going to advertise that Trump has done something they approve of....they are way passed that.  Trump supporters, generally, would be against this, they ain't going to sing about it either.  So the only people that care are people in the middle (who would go both way on the issue) and Trump supporters who are for the eviction ban.  Neither group has big numbers, and the latter group is non-existent here at Atlas Talk Elections.

Most Very Online Trump supporters will get behind protectionist policy whenever Trump champions it loudly and, offline, Trump won in 2016 with a coalition that was more blue collar, communitarian and populist than previous Republican arrangements. Mainstream Republicans might not have much to like here and the most economically conservative wing's elected representatives have probably told Trump it's not something to champion loudly, but these collectively represent a much smaller group of persuadable voters than the people open to voting Trump who wouldn't object to this.

Fuzzy is almost on the money here when he said that it would be bigger news if it helped Trump's poll numbers - if conservative media acknowledged that this sort of thing helped Trump's poll numbers, we would have heard more about it. However, its backers see little interest in encouraging that.

Consrevative media doesn't push it more because it is a conservative heresy that Trump is supporting here.  It's something that doesn't coincide with the interest of many conservative political donors.

[Indy Texas]

Can anyone explain why this isn't bigger news?
Is  it not actually real as I heard from the executive orders from a few weeks ago? Is it actually effective or is it weaker in scope?

It's not bigger news because if it were it would help Trump's poll numbers.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Of course, this does not say that the Federal Government will not make a law impairing the obligation of contracts.  Is that a deliberate omission.  Or did the Founders simply believe that the Federal Government would never try to do such a thing.

I think the questions about overreach are fair.  People decrying this do, however, have a moral need to discuss a solution to the problem of mass homelessness that will occur if these potential evictions go on as planned.

On the other hand, I get the fact that landlords still have to make payments, keep property up, etc.  Many are large real estate companies, but many others are ordinary citizens whose investments in real estate are their retirement plan, or even their own small business.  I get that no one has the right to profit from their investment and that entrepreneurs don't have the right to succeed.  But Sanctity of Contract is also a Feature of our Constitution, and that shouldn't just be blown off. 

It's a moratorium on evictions, it's not a unilateral cancellation of rents.

People are going to stay in their homes but they're still accruing unpaid rent, which the landlord will be able to negotiate with them to pay back at a later date.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Absolutely not, anything that keeps people in shelter is a good thing.

But the article is correct that dumping millions of people onto the streets in January is not the best idea.

Let's make housing a universal right.

Shelters aren't taking people, in CALI skid row, and neither is the Salvation Army, Covid; as a result, if they do take them in, it would be temporary, not a full year.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Can anyone explain why this isn't bigger news?
Is  it not actually real as I heard from the executive orders from a few weeks ago? Is it actually effective or is it weaker in scope?

It's not bigger news because if it were it would help Trump's poll numbers.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Of course, this does not say that the Federal Government will not make a law impairing the obligation of contracts.  Is that a deliberate omission.  Or did the Founders simply believe that the Federal Government would never try to do such a thing.

I think the questions about overreach are fair.  People decrying this do, however, have a moral need to discuss a solution to the problem of mass homelessness that will occur if these potential evictions go on as planned.

On the other hand, I get the fact that landlords still have to make payments, keep property up, etc.  Many are large real estate companies, but many others are ordinary citizens whose investments in real estate are their retirement plan, or even their own small business.  I get that no one has the right to profit from their investment and that entrepreneurs don't have the right to succeed.  But Sanctity of Contract is also a Feature of our Constitution, and that shouldn't just be blown off. 

It's a moratorium on evictions, it's not a unilateral cancellation of rents.

People are going to stay in their homes but they're still accruing unpaid rent, which the landlord will be able to negotiate with them to pay back at a later date.

A moratorium on evictions is an alteration of a contract.  The contract itself allows for eviction upon default, subject to whatever conditions are in the contract and the laws of the state the property is in.

That doesn't mean I oppose this, but even a moratorium on evictions alters a contract as it affects the landlord's ability to take possession of the property he/she owns and have use of that property.

[Ancestral Republican]

Absolutely not, anything that keeps people in shelter is a good thing.

But the article is correct that dumping millions of people onto the streets in January is not the best idea.

Let's make housing a universal right.

Shelters aren't taking people, in CALI skid row, and neither is the Salvation Army, Covid; as a result, if they do take them in, it would be temporary, not a full year.

I meant shelter in the abstract; any housing which people need is shelter.