Correcting Idiocy

 https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2052034214933995865?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "Dear Senator Hickenlooper, I want to make sure I understand what just happened here. A man worth an estimated THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS -- who paid a 13% effective federal tax rate in 2012, used conservation easements as a tax shelter until the IRS said "nice try" and made him write a $52,486 check to settle it -- who takes campaign money from lobbyists in securities, real estate, and finance -- just posted "Trump picks the rich. Every. Single. Time." I mean. Okay. Sure. Let's start with where your framing falls apart, which is immediately. The Senate passed that bill 89-10, yes. The White House DID support its core direction -- limiting institutional investors from buying up existing single-family homes. What Trump is objecting to NOW is ONE specific provision: a mandate forcing large build-to-rent developers to sell properties after seven years. One provision. In a massive bill. A policy disagreement on implementation -- the kind that happens in legislation every single day. You turned that into "TRUMP PICKS THE RICH EVERY SINGLE TIME." That is weapons-grade stupid. Or it is deliberate. Pick one. Neither reflects well. Now. About this "Tax the Rich" routine from a man sitting on a $30 million net worth. I keep seeing these Democrats chant "Tax the Rich" while they ARE the rich -- not only knowing the loopholes, but writing them into law and filing accordingly. I do not want to hear a single word about the wealthy until you lead by example: standard deduction only, zero itemized write-offs, and pay DOUBLE whatever the IRS says you owe. Until that glorious day, Senator, you are as useful on this subject as a cordless extension cord. And if the rich are truly so catastrophically evil they deserve their own tweet every other week -- I have a modest proposal. Put the iPhone down. Tim Cook is worth a couple billion. Walk away from your house; wealthy financiers built the lending market that made its construction possible. That tailored suit? Textile executives. The medication in your cabinet? Big Pharma -- the very corporations you campaign against between fundraisers -- ran the clinical trials standing between "that disease kills you" and "that disease is now treatable." The internet you used to post this very tweet? Built on the backs of obscenely wealthy tech founders and private capital. Go ahead. Boycott the rich. I'll wait right here. Now. Who actually broke the housing market? Not landlords. GOVERNMENT broke the housing market. A hundred years of it, actually. 82% of residential land in the San Francisco Bay Area is zoned single-family only. Duplexes? Illegal. Triplexes? Illegal. A starter home a working family could genuinely afford? Banned -- not metaphorically, LITERALLY BANNED -- by minimum lot size rules that ensure the land costs more than a modest house can absorb. Environmental review laws -- reasonable in principle, weaponized in practice -- became litigation tools for wealthy NIMBY homeowners determined that affordable housing should be someone else's neighborhood problem. Parking minimums add $10,000 to $50,000 per unit before a single wall goes up. Permitting timelines in some jurisdictions stretch into years. The median age of a first-time homebuyer is now 40. In 1950 it was 25. THAT is Quinn's Law Number One at full throttle -- liberalism always produces the EXACT OPPOSITE of its stated intent. Your party spent a century making affordable homes illegal to build, and is now at the podium demanding credit for caring about the people it priced out. The families locked out of homeownership right now? Young. Working class. Lower-income buyers who will never build the generational wealth that homeownership creates -- not because of evil landlords, but because of zoning laws, environmental litigation, and regulatory cost stacks that your ideological coalition actively championed for DECADES. And now you want to be the hero. Senator -- which of these is true? You did not read the actual bill and are just running on spite-autopilot. OR you read it and the distinction between "objecting to one provision" and "siding with corporate landlords" was simply outside the cognitive bandwidth currently available to you. OR -- the one that should concern your constituents most -- you understood perfectly and decided they did not need to know the difference. Three options. All embarrassing. Only one requires an apology. But what do I know -- I am only a science teacher who spent time actually reading housing policy and discovered that the government does not fix problems it manufactured by doing more of what manufactured them."