The New York Times decided to take a look at the Harris and Trump plans to solve the affordable housing crisis. They assigned Jeanna Smialek and Linda Qiu to scrape this barrel:
Their two visions of how to solve America’s affordable housing shortage have little in common, and Ms. Harris’s plan is far more detailed. But they do share one quality: Both have drawn skepticism from outside economists.
There we go, right from the start— Harris's plan is far more detailed, and as the next paragraphs show an actual plan, but...
BOTH SIDES!
Ms. Harris is promising a cocktail of tax cuts meant to spur home construction — which several economists said could help create supply. But she is also floating a $25,000 benefit to help first-time buyers break into the market, which many economists worry could boost demand too much, pushing home prices even higher. And both sets of policies would need to pass in Congress, which would influence their design and feasibility.
Yeah, planning to build 3 million new housing units might alleviate some supply issues, but the Times’ writers skip right over that impressive number so they can muddle its potential effect by citing a mere "several" economists who say it could help supply. Could? Several? Are there any economists who think building 3 million new homes wouldn't help supply? But then the Times writers show their house bias by referring to "many" economists who say boosting demand might push prices higher. So, by the NYT's bizarre framing more economists worry about the potentially deleterious effect of helping people to afford housing than about not having enough housing!
And then the article goes off the rails.
Mr. Trump’s plan is garnering even more doubt. He pledges to deport undocumented immigrants, which could cut back temporarily on housing demand but would also most likely cut into the construction work force and eventually limit new housing supply. His other ideas include lowering interest rates, something that he has no direct control over and that is poised to happen anyway.
Yeah. Deporting people is actually a way to solve housing! Okay, there are doubts about it, but it's a plan. As Andrea Pitzer, who literally wrote a book on concentration camps, explained:
If former president Donald Trump is elected for a second term, he and his advisers promise to remove from the U.S., via forced expulsions and deportation camps, as many as 20 million people—a number larger than the country’s current estimated population of undocumented residents. Put into effect, this scheme would devolve quickly into a vast 21st-century version of concentration camps, with predictably brutal results.
But to the New York Times, that's actually a plan to create more affordable housing! One that, sure, might have flaws, but Harris's plan also has flaws— "many economists" say— so,... Both Sides!
For the New York Times, like the modern GOP, there is no bottom.
