Absolutely horrible idea that would explode the national deficit to an unprecedented level in no time flat, not to even go down the rabbit hole of how it would target the poor and middle class. 

The limitation was created as part of the 2017 Republican tax law to offset other tax cuts to firms in that legislation.Suspending the limitation will cost taxpayers about $90 billion in 2020 alone, part of a set of tax changes that will add close to $170 billion to the national deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the nonpartisan congressional body.The provision has fueled criticism by congressional Democrats and some tax experts who have called it a giveaway to the wealthy and real estate investors, who frequently face large losses on their investments.

I don't see it happening for a while, especially since it would mean needing way more inspectors and the city is in a deficit due to COVID.

In fact, the 2011 dispute over the debt limit and budget deficits contributed to Standard & Poor’s decreasing the U.S. credit rating for the first time ever.

In addition to the high property tax and tenant-friendly laws, I've been hesitant about investing in Illinois because of the state's pension deficit and how they're eventually going to have to address it.

It also leaves out any units that have been removed from traditional living arrangements - short term rentals, for example.On balance, in the US, we are in a housing deficit and have been for quite some time.

In the 1980's Reagan closed down all the sanitariums(the places like mental hospitals, for non-criminals and non-violent) to save on budget and reduce deficits, blah, blah, blah, but unfortunately when other politicians(from both partys) later jacked up the same budgets and taxes and even increased spending far past the Reagan cuts, eliminating any savings from the cuts, nobody thought to replace the eliminated services for the truly needy, the ones that wouldn't be able to get an apartment or a job(or would be limited in their options) even with supervision and training in doing.The reason I get so angry at you and your comments is because your solution and perspective is constantly blaming and vilifying the competent and productive of our society.

The amount of the loss, deduction, or Code705(a)(2)(B) expenditure which would have caused a Member to have aDeficit Capital Account shall instead be charged to the capitalaccount of any Members which would not have a Deficit Capital Accountas a result of the allocation, in proportion to their respectiveCapital Contributions, or, if no such Members exist, then to theMembers in accordance with their interests in the Limited LiabilityCompany profits pursuant to section 5.02 above.

You are starting off with a $10k to $15k deficit by not checking the Agency boxes, that deficit needs to be zeroed out one way or another (fees, rate, terms, etc) before the portfolio lender can even consider making an actual profit (relative to the other opportunity, lending that $500k to a vanilla ho-hum W2 couple buying a primary residence, etc, where there's an automatic guaranteed freshly minted $10,000 bill [it's a two-party bill, btw,  Trump and Biden's faces both appear on this $10,000 bill together] guaranteed to come their way).The sticker shock is sufficient that I try to avoid quoting non-Agency portfolio rates/fees/etc entirely, unless someone specifically requests it. 

CBO’s projection of the deficit for 2023 is now $0.4 trillion more than it was in May 2022; the projection of the cumulative deficit over the 2023–2032 period is now $3.1 trillion (or about 20 percent) more, largely because of newly enacted legislation and changes in CBO’s economic forecast, including higher projected inflation and interest rates."