360
Senate passes bill to lower housing costs and restrict Wall Street from buying homes
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
360 points (99.7% liked)
politics
30153 readers
2424 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anything that verifies the claims the senators are making.
If you're a reporter trying to inform people about a bill that passed, you should have people read it and find out what it actually does, instead of just quoting the people who probably passed without reading it themselves.
My reading of the bill is useless, because I'm not a lawer, or trained in reading these sorts of legal documents. I can't tell what's important or not. And I don't have a week/month to understand it.
If you want to know how to learn Legalese, here's how I did it.
So I'll be honest, it can be worth the time to learn to read this shit but it takes time and effort. It's hard. You're learning a new dialect of English. Most folk I know call it Legalese or Lawriiwook. The Cornell Law Library has a great online, free collection of articles about legal decisions. Go read the important ones: Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v Sanford, Brown v. Board of Education, hell any decision authored by Learned Hand (what an awesome name, right?), just one a day reading the decision and then their article on it until you feel like you've got a grasp on it. The first week, read the article, then the decision, then the article again. Trust me, it'll help. Keep a legal dictionary nearby. And a latin one.My favorite teacher in B School told me that's what law school was like. Then he saw that I was enjoying it and dissuaded me as kindly and firmly as he could. Asked all the judges and lawyers and sinners in the family and they agreed with him.
Perhaps some people want to know what their legislator in particular is saying and that is valuable news to them.
You can verify the text of the bill yourself, but you can't get that quote yourself.
The claim they cited from Republicans is just that it pushes back regulations, which is, like... Are you seriously asking for proof of that from a 381-page bill voted on 85–5 by a Republican-majority Senate? Is that some kind of specific, deeply controversial claim that needs interrogating in an article for a general audience? And the claims from Warren and Trump (for which their own agreement itself can be used as evidence) are that it pushes back on corporate ownership of houses:
At which point, you, a functioning, literate adult, can go to the bill's table of contents, find that it's Sec. 1001 (pp. 360–379), and read through it. If you're looking for an in-depth legal analysis: congratulations. That's cool. I hope somebody like LegalEagle makes one for you. Here's a summary of the bill's sections from the US House Financial Services Committee if that helps you at all.
That again doesn't make this article "trash"; it means you're looking for something deeper than what most people are.