# Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.

Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.

Next May, I will be moving out too, and still haven't figured out where to move to. I have limitations because of a low credit score and income, but I'll find someplace, even if it's not as good as where I am now.

All this is because Florida has no limit of what landlords can raise rents to.  The only thing limiting them is new residents' capability to pay, and what they are able to rent apartments for.

But there is another side to this, This isn't oil or minerals mined from the ground. It's not furniture being made and sold.  This is about PEOPLE.  And it's about people who have been living in this complex for years, and these apartments are their HOMES.  One woman who just moved out, had been living here for 25 years. Longtime neighbor-friendships are being obliterated.

If landlords NEED to raise rents, (say 10% or less) for some reason, that's understandable, but to raise them by HUNDREDS of dollars, just for GREED, is not what we ought to be OK with in this country. When hundreds of people are forced out of their homes, this is unacceptable.  As is the case with most conservatives, I also favor deregulation of business, but this is one case that is screaming for MORE regulation, to a reasonable degree.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2018)

You sound like Gracie and what she was talking about in California 

Go to south Carolina or Wyoming.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bear513 said:


> You sound like Gracie and what she was talking about in California
> 
> Go to south Carolina or Wyoming.


"Going" costs money, and it's not easy to do when you have a cat. I have been thinking about going to Johnson City, TN, but getting there is the problem.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You sound like Gracie and what she was talking about in California
> ...




I lived there for a bit... It's kind of seedy ..


But they have industry ..I worked next to the river at a plastic factory..they have cheap places to live . 

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2018)

Do you have friends up there?


.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bear513 said:


> I lived there for a bit... It's kind of seedy ..
> But they have industry ..I worked next to the river at a plastic factory..they have cheap places to live .


They also have a VA hospital, or I would have chosen Knoxville.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2018)

They have a huge old Kodiak film factory,


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > I lived there for a bit... It's kind of seedy ..
> ...




Don't go to Knoxville, so you have VA stuff?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2018)

So do you have at least a car?


----------



## SweetSue92 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...



I'm a conservative and I don't disagree with this. It's the reason I'm not a libertarian. The free market needs some oversight.

I'm sorry about this--grossly unfair.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Don't go to Knoxville, so you have VA stuff?


Don't go to Knoxville ?  Why ? I lived there for 2 years. It was OK.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2018)

Pm me I can give you advice ..


Because I know been around the country , and can help.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't go to Knoxville, so you have VA stuff?
> ...




It's as bad as Johnson City more better places to go.

.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Do you have friends up there?


 Nope, but I play Bluegrass music. It's easy to make friends when you're a Bluegrasser, as long as there are other ones around.  Not many here in Tampa.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2018)

Then go to Myrtle Beach 


.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bear513 said:


> It's as bad as Johnson City more better places to go.


What's wrong with Johnson City ?  They have a VA hospital. That's important to me. Have a little snow at Christmas time.  Orange leaves in fall. Real seasons. 

Lower temperatures, and no alligators.

Have Walmart, Taco bell, Burger King, I don't need much more.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Then go to Myrtle Beach
> 
> 
> .


Too much in the hurricane path. That's another thing I want to get away from in Florida.  Red tide too.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2018)

We'll see..you don't need any help , so what you complaining about?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > It's as bad as Johnson City more better places to go.
> ...




It's too much city life for me..to much cluster fuck .


.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You sound like Gracie and what she was talking about in California
> ...



Everywhere they are raising rents like that. The rich get richer and the poor get homeless.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


I guess this kind of thing is all about whether it's YOUR ox being gored or not, eh?


----------



## bodecea (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have friends up there?
> ...


Then you'd like Knoxville...I have friends who play weekly at the Jig n' Reel in Knoxville.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 24, 2018)

*Michigan* House Introduces Bill to Repeal *Rent Control* Act. Representatives in the *Michigan* House *have* introduced a bill (HB4456) to repeal the *Michigan Rent Control* Act. ... When prices are capped, people *have* less incentive to fix up and *rent* out their basement flat, or to build *rental* property.
*Michigan House Introduces Bill to Repeal Rent Control Act - RPOA …*
--------------------------------------------------------
We have a Republican maj.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...



I disagree. I believe that it should just be much easier to buy a home in the first place.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 24, 2018)

*Johnson City Average Rent*
As of *October 2018*, average rent for an apartment in Johnson City, TN is $1002 which is a 27.74% increase from last year when the average rent was $724 , and a 0.9% increase from last month when the average rent was $993. 

One bedroom apartments in Johnson City rent for $761 a month on average (a 17.61% increase from last year) and two bedroom apartment rents average $1033 (a 29.04% increase from last year). 
Average Rent In Johnson City, Johnson City Rent Trends and Rental Comps


----------



## Aldo Raine (Nov 24, 2018)

Penelope said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




  Yup it is the Rethugicon utopia!


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

You are a conservative, but....

lol

But you have railed in favor of the federal gov't taking over major league baseball.
You want people arrested for calling you a "dumbass".
You want people arrested if they don't stand for the anthem.
And you want rent control.

And those are just SOME of the views you have raved about.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


Saying we need rent control is like saying you need to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.  If you don't want your rent to go up, then buy a place.  In places where they do have rent control people sign a lease and then live in that place for 30 - 40 years.  The owners go bankrupt because after 30 years the rent no longer covers the upkeep on the property.


----------



## Erinwltr (Nov 24, 2018)

I have a really hard time sympathizing.  Comment after comment you rail about liberals and regulations and yet you want rent control to help YOU.


----------



## playtime (Nov 24, 2018)

what do you expect when a brain surgeon who turned down the position to be sec of  HHS because it was 'too complicated' (ironically  though he ran for potus) then  accepts the position of sec of HUD?  what qualifications did he possess to be considered for such a position?   cause he had the right 'look'?  

trump has installed the most incompetent individuals to head every dept in order to destroy them.  betsy devos for ed sec?  scott pruitt & now his replacement for sec of EPA?     

what did you expect was gonna happen?


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> what do you expect when a brain surgeon who turned down the position to be sec of  HHS because it was 'too complicated' (ironically  though he ran for potus) then  accepts the position of sec of HUD?  what qualifications did he possess to be considered for such a position?   cause he had the right 'look'?
> 
> trump has installed the most incompetent individuals to head every dept in order to destroy them.  betsy devos for ed sec?  scott pruitt & now his replacement for sec of EPA?
> 
> what did you expect was gonna happen?


What does any of that have to do with rent control?  You think the Secretary of HUD is going to prevent rents from increasing?  That takes a special kind of stupid.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 24, 2018)

*Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necessary*
So, suddenly it is your ox being gored and the owners of property are to have their incomes dictated by government force.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

Huntsville Alabama was ranked number one for lowest cost of living in a article I posted on another thread.  Arkansas was also much lower rents.................

You can go to Zillow and search an entire state for rentals........Just put in the max you want to pay and only those rentals will come up.

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_re...2586,-76.311036,22.27893,-91.31836_rect/5_zm/


----------



## playtime (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > what do you expect when a brain surgeon who turned down the position to be sec of  HHS because it was 'too complicated' (ironically  though he ran for potus) then  accepts the position of sec of HUD?  what qualifications did he possess to be considered for such a position?   cause he had the right 'look'?
> ...



uh... where the hell do you think guidelines originate?  wow- you didn't think that one thru, did you?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...



Guidelines?   Those are not law.   If an area passes a law allowing rent control, HUD does not set the rent.  Nor does HUD have any control over what areas allow rent-control.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...


HUD doesn't issue "guidelines" on rent, dumbass.  The federal government doesn't control rents. It never has.


----------



## playtime (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



i didn't say that -  what i said is they set the guidelines as far as what can be done - or not done -  as far as raising rents to the point of evictions ... especially in 'rent controlled' apartments & housing.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

Which part of the State are you looking at........and have you used your VA loan.............You can still get a guaranteed loan on that with bad credit.  You can also talk to real estate companies to help you look for a home in your price range.  I have a Brother N law who doesn't make much.  Got into a brick home with a fenced in yard for only $350 a month.  Only about a 1000 square foot but very nice for such a low price.

If you rent you are always at the mercy of the land lord.  And even with bad credit you can possibly better your situation by buying.


----------



## Snouter (Nov 24, 2018)

This is interesting.  WHO ARE THE LANDLORDS?  Why is it some places have rents so high they are vacant for years.  Folks, real estate is not free market.  Certain groups bought stuff up decades ago.  Very troubling that this concept is not addressed.  Buying property is not free market since you have to pay ridiculous taxes on the property, plus the ridiculous amounts to the "realtors."

IMO, the local governments should take over a property if it is not leased or purchased within 12 months.  Rather than creepy, ethnic syndicates own the property.


----------



## sparky (Nov 24, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...



In my mind, maintaining a level playing field IS conservative

~S~


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_re...03,-81.907197,29.358837,-82.845154_rect/9_zm/

You of course would have to do a crime search to make sure that area is safe.........But that is near a VA Hospital in Gainsville, Florida


----------



## candycorn (Nov 24, 2018)

Having to Decide  between Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee.... great planning


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sa...03,-81.905823,29.358837,-82.843781_rect/9_zm/

Every house under 50,000 in the Gainsville area using the search engine.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...


"Guidelines" for who?  Do they issue them to landlords?  If so, I guarantee you the landlords would simply throw them into the the trash and then charge with the traffic will bare.  I'm fairly certain you just made up the "guidelines" thing.  

Saying it issues guidelines in the case of rent controlled apartments is even dumber.  Why would they need guidelines if the local government already has legal limits on what they can charge?


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

Snouter said:


> This is interesting.  WHO ARE THE LANDLORDS?  Why is it some places have rents so high they are vacant for years.  Folks, real estate is not free market.  Certain groups bought stuff up decades ago.  Very troubling that this concept is not addressed.  Buying property is not free market since you have to pay ridiculous taxes on the property, plus the ridiculous amounts to the "realtors."
> 
> IMO, the local governments should take over a property if it is not leased or purchased within 12 months.  Rather than creepy, ethnic syndicates own the property.


"Certain groups bought stuff up decades ago?" That's your "logic" proving the free market doesn't exist?

You don't know the meaning of the term "free market."  You're a Stalinist.  Landlords do not allow property to sit vacant for years at a time if they can help it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Which part of the State are you looking at........and have you used your VA loan.............You can still get a guaranteed loan on that with bad credit.  You can also talk to real estate companies to help you look for a home in your price range.  I have a Brother N law who doesn't make much.  Got into a brick home with a fenced in yard for only $350 a month.  Only about a 1000 square foot but very nice for such a low price.
> 
> If you rent you are always at the mercy of the land lord.  And even with bad credit you can possibly better your situation by buying.


The only poster who actually posted something that will help him.


----------



## JoeMoma (Nov 24, 2018)




----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 24, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...


Yes, because unqualified people buying houses worked SO WELL last time!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 24, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



I didn't say they should be mortgaging themselves out of a life. I said it should be easier to buy a home, as in, CHEAPER HOMES.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 24, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sa...03,-81.905823,29.358837,-82.843781_rect/9_zm/
> 
> Every house under 50,000 in the Gainsville area using the search engine.


And for good reason.


----------



## playtime (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



each state has their tweeked guidelines, but all must follow regulations set at the federal level. 

*'I'm fairly certain you just made up the "guidelines" thing'*

didn't even bother to look it up, huh?  that's why trump loves the poorly educated

HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_25304.PDF


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Having to Decide  between Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee.... great planning



Having lived in both Alabama and Tennessee, I'm not sure what your point is.   Protectionista is retired and living on a fixed income.  States with a lower cost of living is what he wants.   And the warmer climate is easier on the elderly.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...



Isn't that for places that already have rent control?


----------



## Penelope (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...



Where do they have rent control.  Also no ones signs a least for that long, 1 year is the normal lease time.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


He has a set income level.......and that set income level can be scheduled to be withdrawn directly from those checks.

Meaning they get paid before he does..............Guaranteeing the mortgage is paid.  And we are certainly not talking about him buying a mansion.............It is always better to buy than rent unless you want your fate decided by others.............

In this area.......if you can find cheap decent land in a low crime area you can get a brand new house built here very cheap.

Perhaps not as much as where he lives now but it's possible.  The cost of buying would be less than that of rent.

North Florida Models - Pensacola, FL - SS Steele Homes

Doesn't cost so much in the South to build a home...........if you know how to look...........or unless you want to get fucked by a developer and overcharged for a home.  Younger people should look into this and save every penny they can to get a place of their own..................

It all depends if you live in a high cost area for housing...........Plenty of places to get affordable places to live in this country.  Supply and demand works both ways as California is finding out.........People are hauling ass because it costs too much only to be replaced by illegal aliens at the work place...............People leave the companies there are screwed LOL

It's a 2 edged sword.


----------



## playtime (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



doesn't the OP want in on that?


----------



## Penelope (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> what do you expect when a brain surgeon who turned down the position to be sec of  HHS because it was 'too complicated' (ironically  though he ran for potus) then  accepts the position of sec of HUD?  what qualifications did he possess to be considered for such a position?   cause he had the right 'look'?
> 
> trump has installed the most incompetent individuals to head every dept in order to destroy them.  betsy devos for ed sec?  scott pruitt & now his replacement for sec of EPA?
> 
> what did you expect was gonna happen?



And the new Medicaid Secretary sought to end Medicaid in her state of Maine.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...



Yes he does.   Being a smaller gov't conservative, until he wants something from the gov't.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Having to Decide  between Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee.... great planning
> ...


Down in our area it's not real difficult to find affordable places to stay...........biggest issue is finding affordable places to stay that aren't in high crime areas..................which is part of the equation...............

The area my Brother n law got was pretty good..............safe............took a bit but we knew where to look because we live here and know where not to go.


----------



## playtime (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



that is the typical hypocritical   'conservative'.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Some areas are a lot tougher than others.   But since he is retired, he can be more flexible with location.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Having to Decide  between Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee.... great planning
> ...



Ok


----------



## candycorn (Nov 24, 2018)

If you move to S.C., I recommend an English-to-Hick dictionary.  Or master the seven basic grunts so you can effectively communicate


----------



## Pilot1 (Nov 24, 2018)

When government artificially controls things like wages, and prices BAD things happen.  Let the market work.  Move to a less expensive apartment.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


You've taken the first steps towards common sense and liberalism.

Congratulations.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...



Of course. It effects you. So we just regulate. 

The problem that you assholes have is that you don't have empathy for others. Nor do you understand that regulations on capitalism have helped you indirectly for your entire fucking selfish lives.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 24, 2018)

Quit renting and throwing away money. Buy a house. My house note is 485 a month and that includes full insurance coverage on a 3 bedroom, 2 bath brick home on over an acre of land with a dozen huge oak trees and it's on a recently repaved road. Oh yea, and that rate is locked in. I have a little piece of paper that guarantees that rate for the life of the loan. And paying more than the required amount will pay off the house sooner.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Nope.  A level playing field is what liberalism is all about.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Nope.  A level playing field is what liberalism is all about.



How is it not a level playing field? Rent goes up, everything is going up. You own property you should be able to rent it for whatever the hell you want to. If nobody rents it, it's too high. It's called a free market.  Quit trying to regulate everything. This is free fucking country. Leave me the fuck alone.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

candycorn said:


> If you move to S.C., I recommend an English-to-Hick dictionary.  Or master the seven basic grunts so you can effectively communicate



Of course, people in other states all speak English perfectly.


----------



## sparky (Nov 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...



_perhaps_, but then one would need agree our _insane_ national debt an act of liberalism as well here....

~S~


----------



## Thinker101 (Nov 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...



Careful what you wish, a level playing field would mean everyone lives in a shithole.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 24, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> *Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necessary*
> So, suddenly it is your ox being gored and the owners of property are to have their incomes dictated by government force.


Yep, why even own property? With things like rent control It’s no longer your property when the government tells you what to do with every aspect of your life.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 24, 2018)

Could it possibly be the prior owner sold due to not being able to afford it any longer, due to his low rent policy?  You want to scream, research what the local govt was doing with taxes, regulations, etc, what was the maintenance and insurance running on the place,  then come back to us.  If it is not the case, then we can talk.    





protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


----------



## DGS49 (Nov 24, 2018)

You say the building recently changed owners.  Do you know what the new owners paid for the building?  Maybe the selling price was based on market rents, and not the actual revenue of the building.  If that is the case, maybe the new owner has to raise the rents in order to pay the mortgage.  What are other comparable buildings in the same area charging for comparable rental units?

Regardless, the rents will shortly stabilize at rates that are consistent with market conditions.  If "nobody" is willing to pay the new, higher rent rates, then the building will go empty, right?  But the landlord will necessarily make an adjustment to fill up the building.

A renter has no vested interest beyond the term of his lease.  This unfortunate fact of life drives people to take extraordinary measures to buy a residence (condo, house, RV, whatever), so that they can complain about increases in taxes, rather than rents.


----------



## sparky (Nov 24, 2018)

Methinks that just a tad _exaggerated _101.

Our eco-social structure requires _some_ checks and balances , not fascist OR socialist control

You may argue what _metric_ is utlitized_ , _or what political stripe one may _be _advovating _for_, or pundit _against_ such doctrines, but w/o one society would dwell in the netherlands of libertopian anarchism
~S~


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


Wait wait wait....  Which party just invreaedd the deficit when we should be shrinking it because the economy is growing?


----------



## depotoo (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have friends up there?
> ...


Tampa?  Well, that helps explain it.  They also have an affordable housing committee.  Interesting...

Municode Library


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...



One can only claim our national debt is about liberalism if you have not been paying attention.


----------



## sparky (Nov 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


gawd, and here i thought we'd have a _lovely_ philisophical debate w/o going down _partisan _boulevard .....




~S~


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 24, 2018)

airplanemechanic said:


> Quit renting and throwing away money. Buy a house. My house note is 485 a month and that includes full insurance coverage on a 3 bedroom, 2 bath brick home on over an acre of land with a dozen huge oak trees and it's on a recently repaved road. Oh yea, and that rate is locked in. I have a little piece of paper that guarantees that rate for the life of the loan. And paying more than the required amount will pay off the house sooner.


Bull shit.


----------



## sparky (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



in my mind, conservative means to 'conserve'  ......not spend like drunken sailors on leave.....~S~


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...



While that was once part of what made conservatives conservative, that is no longer a valid definition.


----------



## sparky (Nov 24, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Quit renting and throwing away money. Buy a house. My house note is 485 a month and that includes full insurance coverage on a 3 bedroom, 2 bath brick home on over an acre of land with a dozen huge oak trees and it's on a recently repaved road. Oh yea, and that rate is locked in. I have a little piece of paper that guarantees that rate for the life of the loan. And paying more than the required amount will pay off the house sooner.
> ...








_*bon appetit.....*_


----------



## sparky (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



and perhaps you're_ right _, but you're ceratinly making it _difficult _to subscribe to conservatism here winter one.....~S~


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 24, 2018)

Thinker101 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


Only in the alleged conservative mind.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...



I am not making anything difficult.   I am a classic conservative.   By that I mean, I believe in being fiscally conservative.  I also believe in smaller gov't and less gov't interference in private lives.   The problem is that the modern or current conservatives do not follow that philosophy.


----------



## Thinker101 (Nov 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Yeah, and only in the alleged liberal mind living in a shithole is perfectly fine.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


Huh?  You started this, not me.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 24, 2018)

airplanemechanic said:


> Quit renting and throwing away money. Buy a house. My house note is 485 a month and that includes full insurance coverage on a 3 bedroom, 2 bath brick home on over an acre of land with a dozen huge oak trees and it's on a recently repaved road. Oh yea, and that rate is locked in. I have a little piece of paper that guarantees that rate for the life of the loan. And paying more than the required amount will pay off the house sooner.



What state do you live in??


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Quit renting and throwing away money. Buy a house. My house note is 485 a month and that includes full insurance coverage on a 3 bedroom, 2 bath brick home on over an acre of land with a dozen huge oak trees and it's on a recently repaved road. Oh yea, and that rate is locked in. I have a little piece of paper that guarantees that rate for the life of the loan. And paying more than the required amount will pay off the house sooner.
> ...


No it's not................if you shop around...my Brother N law is in a 3/1 on a half acre lot that has a fenced in back yard for only $350.

It's not BS........if you shop around and do a little digging.........he didn't even find it........he picked a safe area and the Real Estate company found it for him.............

Location..........location.....location.........Protectionist is retired he can move to a cheaper place ..........Not land locked.


----------



## sparky (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I'd _agree _to the same parameters Winter One, in fact methinks most folks today would as well.

maybe the devil is in the _details_ , and maybe i do not fully grasp the _modern_ conservtaive mantra

to me gub'mit is merely a _guide_ ,either constitutionally* or* ethically coaching the populace towards prosperity they can achieve by _themselves _

the left as well as right wishes extreemes , which almost always pave the road to perdition despite good intents

christ, maybe i'm really a _moderate centrist _......hold my calls while i hide under my bed!

~S~


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> You say the building recently changed owners.  Do you know what the new owners paid for the building?  Maybe the selling price was based on market rents, and not the actual revenue of the building.  If that is the case, maybe the new owner has to raise the rents in order to pay the mortgage.  What are other comparable buildings in the same area charging for comparable rental units?
> 
> Regardless, the rents will shortly stabilize at rates that are consistent with market conditions.  If "nobody" is willing to pay the new, higher rent rates, then the building will go empty, right?  But the landlord will necessarily make an adjustment to fill up the building.
> 
> A renter has no vested interest beyond the term of his lease.  This unfortunate fact of life drives people to take extraordinary measures to buy a residence (condo, house, RV, whatever), so that they can complain about increases in taxes, rather than rents.



Apartments and rental units are a commodity today.  Nobody wants to own, especially the Millennial generation.  They rent everything from their apartment to television set.  

So it's really a supply and demand issue.  If everybody demands rental units instead of houses, the price goes up, and I don't see it going down anytime soon as more people line up to get apartments.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 24, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...


Ok...there is BULL and there is SHIT. Which part are you having trouble with?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Could it possibly be the prior owner sold due to not being able to afford it any longer, due to his low rent policy?  You want to scream, research what the local govt was doing with taxes, regulations, etc, what was the maintenance and insurance running on the place,  then come back to us.  If it is not the case, then we can talk.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's exactly it and something people don't think about. 

My city started trouble with us landlord because the Mayor stated we landlords are making all this money in his city, and they're not getting a big enough cut. 

Besides the property taxes we pay, we draw working tenants to this city who also pay city tax. The city doesn't consider that.  So they started a goofy inspection program.  Before you rent a unit out, it has to be inspected by the city first.  Of course they charge you a fee for that and it creates more down time because after the unit and property is inspected, they almost always find something wrong.  So then you have to fix whatever it is they dreamt up, and have it reinspected.  Then after the inspection, they only give you 30 days to find a tenant.  If you cannot, you have to go though the process all over again.  

After you find a tenant, THEN you have to pay for an occupancy permit.  This goes on with each and every tenant I rent to. 

But that's still not enough.  Now the city wants to have occupancy permits renewed every year, and that would cost me several hundred additional dollars.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...



Right.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

candycorn said:


> If you move to S.C., I recommend an English-to-Hick dictionary.  Or master the seven basic grunts so you can effectively communicate



With people like you on the left, it's amazing you aren't drawing more voters.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

Penelope said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > what do you expect when a brain surgeon who turned down the position to be sec of  HHS because it was 'too complicated' (ironically  though he ran for potus) then  accepts the position of sec of HUD?  what qualifications did he possess to be considered for such a position?   cause he had the right 'look'?
> ...



Well thanks to Commie Care, I no longer have health insurance.  But my HUD neighbors living in the suburbs next to me are likely covered by Medicaid.  While I get up early every morning and go to work, their cars stay in their parking lot until about 1:00 pm.  

I don't care about people on Medicaid because working people should be attended to first--not the not working or low income people.  I contribute much more to society than they do, yet they get free medical care and I don't. 

That's liberalism for ya.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


What you believe is immaterial to me.............Happens that the home was a repossessed home and my Brother n law waited for 6 to 8 months with credit already approved for higher than that price range.......As soon as the deal came up the real estate company told him about it and he jumped on it.

In this thread I did a quick Zillow search and found about 13 pages of homes for sale under 50k..........

Again........I really don't care what you think............


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Many people who choose rent do not do so because it's their only choice.  They simply don't want all the problems of home ownership.  This is particularly true of women.  Once the kids are out of the house, if the woman is alone, she has no need for a house and all the care and money it takes to keep it up-kept. 

The toilet is leaking, water is coming into the basement, a window doesn't open, the lawn needs to be cut, the ceiling fan quit working are all things people don't want to deal with.  When renters have a problem, they simply make a phone call and the problem is solved.  It's up to the landlord to find a qualified HVAC person for a reasonable rate.  It's up to the landlord to have the grass cut or the snow removed from the driveway.  It's up to the landlord to find a garage door repairman to fix the garage door opener.   

That's the way a lot of people want to live.  It's the sign of the times.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 24, 2018)

Penelope said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Yep. No need at all to raise the MW.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



Valid points.   And in the long run, you pay more for those conveniences.

The OP wants the conveniences AND low prices.  He wants the gov't to force someone to accept less money for the use of their property because he did not plan for his own retirement.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


Free country and that is their choice..............the savings from what I talked about would pay for a lot of that if they set a little aside...............

A lot of that can be dealt with by watching DIY videos.............or finding a cheap handy man repair guy in the thrifty nickel........

Again...........a choice...........and I have chosen to own versus rent........


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

Snouter said:


> This is interesting.  WHO ARE THE LANDLORDS?  Why is it some places have rents so high they are vacant for years.  Folks, real estate is not free market.  Certain groups bought stuff up decades ago.  Very troubling that this concept is not addressed.  Buying property is not free market since you have to pay ridiculous taxes on the property, plus the ridiculous amounts to the "realtors."
> 
> IMO, the local governments should take over a property if it is not leased or purchased within 12 months.  Rather than creepy, ethnic syndicates own the property.



If it's your property, it's your business what you do with it. 

As long as the property taxes are paid and the property is kept up to code, it's the owners decision on what to do with that property--not the governments.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 24, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Having to Decide  between Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee.... great planning



Red state paradise.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 24, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Yep. Trailers.


----------



## katsteve2012 (Nov 24, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...



It is easier to buy than to rent in Califormia. The home that I own right now, was a foreclosure that originally sold for 750,000, and got it for 210,000 back in 2011 and got a very good mortgage rate Comparable properties are selling for about 600,000 now.


Just down the street from my home there are some loft apartments that just grand opened and they are asking 3500 a month for an 1100 sq. ft. 2 bd 2ba.

Unbelievable.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



I think it's more than just cost, it's the time involved as well. 

On the weekend when I'm working outside in the summer, my tenants go to their cars with picnic baskets packed out for the day with the family.  Me?  I'm stuck working.  

When they get home for the evening after work, the only thing they have to worry about is what to make for dinner.  Me?  I'm doing paperwork or attending to a repair on a unit.  

Some of my tenants take vacations--sometimes to Florida, California, Vegas or wherever.  Me?  I haven't taken a vacation in over 30 years.  I spend my vacations at home catching up on things.  

So if I actually make a profit or even a good profit, that's too much to ask for?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

Hutch Starskey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Having to Decide  between Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee.... great planning
> ...


LOL

The great liberal laughing about people having a home even if it's a mobile home.............I'm sure many in California would be glad to upgrade to that from a tent..............LOL

I showed a site......where a Brand new small house could be built for 77k........brick house.....tell me where you can do that in liberal paradise.............LOL


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

katsteve2012 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



My cousin lives in California and we met at a family gathering this past summer.  She told me she rents out the back of her house to somebody for like $900.00 a month.  There is not much there in the back of the house.  Just a bedroom and bathroom.  She said her renter was too happy to find it.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


Where the hell did you get the idea I'm for telling you what to do with your property.

The only thing I did was show cheaper places to live..........and suggestions for the OP. 

You do whatever is best for you...........and I'll do the same......

That is everyone's choice..............I never once said I favor rent control on this thread.  I gave options on how to find something else..........


----------



## Westender (Nov 24, 2018)

Aldo Raine said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Perfect world, I own rentals. I worked my ass off and invested wisely. Living the American Dream


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



At times people ask me if I have a job?  They just count the rental units and start adding up rents in their heads.  

The truth is I get an income tax refund every year between my full-time job and being a landlord. With all the money it costs to run this place, I write it off and get a refund, so there is no profit most years.  Last year was the first time I showed a profit in ten years only because I had no empty units the previous year.  

What people don't do is ask what I have to pay to keep the place going.  That's when the real story is learned. What I pay for water and sewer every month, what I pay for mortgage, what I pay in property taxes, what I pay for insurance.  After all that is paid, then I have the money to do all the repairs and maintenance here. 

For whatever reason, people think that just because you have rental property, you must be wealthy.  The truth is small time landlords like myself don't see any profit, and at times have to take a loan out for big repairs like a furnace replacement, new roof, or new windows.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 24, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I'm not the one bitching about housing costs.
Now tell me trailers aren't more affordable housing.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


You can roll your eyes all you want, doesn't change the truth of what I said.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

Hutch Starskey said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


I'm not bitching either...........I gave suggestions to the OP...........Mobile homes and trailers are cheap places to live............

Nothing wrong with poor finding a way to have a roof over there head..........Nothing wrong with a guy picking up your garbage on the street for a living either..............

To each his own...............You made a sarcastic remark........I replied in kind...........


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Commons sense liberalism?  Let's look at that: 

We have 40 million people in the US without healthcare insurance; mostly because they can't afford it.  To solve this problem, I'm going to make a law that everybody must have health insurance they can't afford, and when they can't get it, I'm going to keep their badly needed income tax check. 

The way to stop criminals with guns is to disarm law abiding citizens.  

If we raise taxes on job producers, that will encourage them to create more jobs. 

If we limit the size of soda cups, they won't buy two of the smaller coups, they will just drink less soda. 

To make American Thin again, I'm going to force all restaurants to put a calorie count on every item they sell, because people don't understand a big mac combo is fattening.  

Yep, liberalism is common sense alright.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



This is not the first time paying rent has been a struggle for some people.  This was very frequent many years ago.  What people did was get family, friends, and sometimes even strangers to share an apartment or house with.  That's how they used to solve the problem.  Granted, I would never want anybody living with me, but it's better than being homeless.


----------



## Pilot1 (Nov 24, 2018)

If government forcibly limits the amount of rent a landlord can charge, there are going to be a LOT of empty buildings around, failing into disrepair.  The number of units available to rent will be greatly reduced, so people would have a difficult time finding a place to live if they are looking to rent.  This happens when government puts artificial price controls on things.  Look what happened to the availability of gasoline when the government controlled pricing.  The Supply DISAPPEARED.  

So, again the unintended consequences of Liberal/Progressive policies comes back to bite you in the @ss.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Or they can haul ass, change jobs, and find a cheaper place to live............where property taxes aren't through the roof and the cost of living isn't high...........

I've looked at the prices out west and major cities ..........they want 250,000 for a dang dump......To each his own.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 24, 2018)

Hutch Starskey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Having to Decide  between Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee.... great planning
> ...



I'm just shocked they haven't tried to sing the praises of Arkansas or Mississippi; yet.  True story.  I have pretty much decided that if we make a forage into a new place, we try to stay at Hyatt Hotels.  I trust them (barely) to be pretty consistent in terms of cleanliness and service.  Anyway....one of the things that I'm looking into was the Air BNB market as an alternative to hotels. Haven't done it yet but am interested.  The Air BNB rentals for 3 days in some parts of Tennessee and northern Mississippi were cheaper than the Hyatt in Memphis.  I could imagine what the houses looked like.


----------



## HenryBHough (Nov 24, 2018)

Rent control results in no maintenance and buildings being abandoned.  Yes, that somehow makes living better.

Ask any Democrat.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 24, 2018)

When I was young most  everyone had a roommate in apartments.





Ray From Cleveland said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


----------



## dblack (Nov 24, 2018)

I love all these threads by Trumpster "conservatives" that go on to spout the usual statist crap.

I'm a conservative, but ....   RIIIIIGHT.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

Penelope said:


> *Michigan* House Introduces Bill to Repeal *Rent Control* Act. Representatives in the *Michigan* House *have* introduced a bill (HB4456) to repeal the *Michigan Rent Control* Act. ... When prices are capped, people *have* less incentive to fix up and *rent* out their basement flat, or to build *rental* property.
> *Michigan House Introduces Bill to Repeal Rent Control Act - RPOA …*
> --------------------------------------------------------
> We have a Republican maj.



What rent control does is discourage people from investing in property and becoming a landlord. Then renters would have no place to go.  If anything, encourage people to become landlord because that will create more supply.  The more supply, the less competition.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

dblack said:


> I love all these threads by Trumpster "conservatives" that go on to spout the usual statist crap.
> 
> I'm a conservative, but ....   RIIIIIGHT.


Hardly any here in support of price fixing.............LOL


----------



## dblack (Nov 24, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I love all these threads by Trumpster "conservatives" that go on to spout the usual statist crap.
> ...



The OP does. There's another thread by a so-called 'conservative' supporting single-payer. Anyone wanna bet Trump will support single-payer before his term is up?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

dblack said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


You put up a straw man quote and I responded.........one person thinking that it's right doesn't equate all the posters........


----------



## candycorn (Nov 24, 2018)

dblack said:


> I love all these threads by Trumpster "conservatives" that go on to spout the usual statist crap.
> 
> I'm a conservative, but ....   RIIIIIGHT.



Very true.

Most of us are different shades of purple.  The conservatives here, for whatever reason, seem to have a blood pact with one another to see who can be more belligerent, hate-filled, and just downright mean.  Anytime you have absolutists positions, you run the risk of hypocrisy. That the OP is in favor of rent control is hilarious when it is one of the most liberal positions one can hold.


----------



## TheDude (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...



All I can say is rent is the wrong way to go. If the rent is too high then move, it's not yours to begin with.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

depotoo said:


> When I was young most  everyone had a roommate in apartments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In the 60's it was very common for people to live together.  Even though I was a child back then, I don't recall many single people having their own apartment.  Unmarried couples was a no-no back then, so many guys and gals had roommates of their same gender.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 24, 2018)

candycorn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I love all these threads by Trumpster "conservatives" that go on to spout the usual statist crap.
> ...


His was an emotional response, rather than a factual, studied response to his problem.  Just as Dems are known to do.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...



The fairest way to control rental prices is to allow the new construction of rental properties. That way, the rent is determined by the true marginal cost of building the next unit. The free market will work out the problems.

Sadly, many government entities restrict new building. One can only guess how this process works...


----------



## depotoo (Nov 24, 2018)

Yep, they did.  It was uncommon to see it otherwise, even in the 70’s.





Ray From Cleveland said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > When I was young most  everyone had a roommate in apartments.
> ...


----------



## Pilot1 (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> In the 60's it was very common for people to live together.  Even though I was a child back then, I don't recall many single people having their own apartment.  Unmarried couples was a no-no back then, so many guys and gals had roommates of their same gender.



I was poor in college, and to afford an apartment I got room mates to share the rent, and other expenses.  I was poor when I had my first job, and going to grad school at night.  I lived in a very cheap, crappy apartment in a bad neighborhood where I would hear gun shots at night.  When my lease was up, I got together with a few guys at work, and we rented an affordable house, and again split the rent and expenses. Eventually, I made enough money to afford buying a home.  

Many Asian, Indian, and Hispanic new immigrants share apartments, and expenses to save money to then buy their own home.  It's not rocket science.  It can be done.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

percysunshine said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...



That is very true because some cities believe that by restricting rental property, they can stop the flow of lower income people into their upper-class community.  When a neighborhood starts to go downhill, it's usually rental properties that usher the lowlifes in.  

There is one town outside of the Cleveland area that's a bit in the sticks.  They created an ordinance that no home could be built less than 2,500 sq ft.  Their belief is lowlifes sneak into nice areas by buying very small homes that are worth less money and somewhat affordable for lower income people.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > In the 60's it was very common for people to live together.  Even though I was a child back then, I don't recall many single people having their own apartment.  Unmarried couples was a no-no back then, so many guys and gals had roommates of their same gender.
> ...



Oh yes, it can be done, but you give up a lot of privacy and independence in order to do that.  Many people are not willing to make such a sacrifice.  We all love our own space with nobody to bother us.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 24, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Quit renting and throwing away money. Buy a house. My house note is 485 a month and that includes full insurance coverage on a 3 bedroom, 2 bath brick home on over an acre of land with a dozen huge oak trees and it's on a recently repaved road. Oh yea, and that rate is locked in. I have a little piece of paper that guarantees that rate for the life of the loan. And paying more than the required amount will pay off the house sooner.
> ...



It is bullshit. 

When I first got the house the mortgage was 425 a month, but thanks to homeowners insurance DOUBLING under the Obama administration, it's up to almost 500 a month now.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Penelope said:


> Everywhere they are raising rents like that. The rich get richer and the poor get homeless.


No. Most housing complexes raise rent only in small degrees.  Let's not go crazy here, just to engage in rich bashing.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bodecea said:


> I guess this kind of thing is all about whether it's YOUR ox being gored or not, eh?


Well since there's 265 apartments in this complex, and dozens of them are being vacated in a short period of time, obviously that is a stupid thing to say. And your post is "all about" YOUR choice to take a shot at me, rather than discuss the topic.
EH ????


----------



## Penelope (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Everywhere they are raising rents like that. The rich get richer and the poor get homeless.
> ...



Well you had best more quick. 

*Johnson City Average Rent*
As of *October 2018*, average rent for an apartment in Johnson City, TN is $1002 which is a 27.74% increase from last year when the average rent was $724 , and a 0.9% increase from last month when the average rent was $993. 

One bedroom apartments in Johnson City rent for $761 a month on average (a 17.61% increase from last year) and two bedroom apartment rents average $1033 (a 29.04% increase from last year). 
Average Rent In Johnson City, Johnson City Rent Trends and Rental Comps


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 24, 2018)

The day my rent went above what my mortgage would be, I bought a house. I'll be paying it off in a month or two. 8 years after I signed the papers.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Then you'd like Knoxville...I have friends who play weekly at the Jig n' Reel in Knoxville.


It would have been my first choice, But there's no VA hospital there.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> I disagree. I believe that it should just be much easier to buy a home in the first place.


Sure it should, but that's going off topic a bit.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Penelope said:


> *Johnson City Average Rent*
> As of *October 2018*, average rent for an apartment in Johnson City, TN is $1002 which is a 27.74% increase from last year when the average rent was $724 , and a 0.9% increase from last month when the average rent was $993.
> 
> One bedroom apartments in Johnson City rent for $761 a month on average (a 17.61% increase from last year) and two bedroom apartment rents average $1033 (a 29.04% increase from last year).
> Average Rent In Johnson City, Johnson City Rent Trends and Rental Comps


I've looked at the prices of dozens of apartments and homes in Johnson City, They are Waaaay below what you describe. You are looking at somebody's analytical numbers (however obtained). I'm looking at actual apartment complexes and houses being rented, and sold, right now, complete with photographs.
I could post hem here now if anyone was interested.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> You are a conservative, but....But you have railed in favor of the federal gov't taking over major league baseball.
> You want people arrested for calling you a "dumbass".
> You want people arrested if they don't stand for the anthem.
> And you want rent control.
> ...


But the thread is about the quantitative aspect of rent control, not me, or whatever happens to suit you to talk about at the moment.  So I won't go off topic with you. It's YOU who needs to stay on topic, as the forum requires and requests.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Saying we need rent control is like saying you need to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.  If you don't want your rent to go up, then buy a place.  In places where they do have rent control people sign a lease and then live in that place for 30 - 40 years.  The owners go bankrupt because after 30 years the rent no longer covers the upkeep on the property.


I didn't say we need rent control. I said we need SOME degree of rent control, ie. not unrestricted rent increases, that cause hundreds of families lives to be disrupted.  Let's stay on topic.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 24, 2018)

Rent control is price fixing. I will never be in favor of that. 

Next question.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


You are a statist.   

Conservatives generally are statist authoritarians, like their leftist counterparts.   You propose a government intrusion, but it is okay in your mind because it is only when in certain exceptional situations (i.e. those effect you) and you forget or don't care about what such an intrusion does to landlords.  

This is what distinguishes me (a liberal) from conservatives and leftists.

You can throw out all your excuses about this being an issue of people and their homes, but it is all the same and that excuse is nonsense.  Who pays for the landlord's home?  What do you think the landlord will do with the extra money?  

If you were truly principled, you would never suggest such a statist authoritarian overreach--even one that benefits you or "people."

The market dictates price.  If the landlords did not have the market support for such a price hike, they would never get away with it.  There is high demand for rentals right now because nre home building is not keeping up with demand, making it harder for people to go from renting to buying.  Thus, higher demand for rentals.

The good news is that there is always a market solution and/or an excellent opportunity for someone get wealthy solving the lack-of-supply problem.  Landlords will likely use the temporary surplus to solve the problem by building more rental properties (increasing supply).  

That is all I will say on the matter.

.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Erinwltr said:


> I have a really hard time sympathizing.  Comment after comment you rail about liberals and regulations and yet you want rent control to help YOU.


You wouldn't have a hard time if you looked at the scenario, thoughtfully.  Some scenarios require some regulation ; others are overregulated.  And some are underregulated. This just happens to be one of those.

And the thread isn't about sympathy. It's about propriety.


----------



## dblack (Nov 24, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



I didn't say it equated to "all the posters". You're reading too much into my comment.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> what do you expect when a brain surgeon who turned down the position to be sec of  HHS because it was 'too complicated' (ironically  though he ran for potus) then  accepts the position of sec of HUD?  what qualifications did he possess to be considered for such a position?   cause he had the right 'look'?
> 
> trump has installed the most incompetent individuals to head every dept in order to destroy them.  betsy devos for ed sec?  scott pruitt & now his replacement for sec of EPA?
> 
> what did you expect was gonna happen?


Not watching what thread you happen to be in, huh ? One too many beers today ? Hope you find your way back.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> *Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necessary*
> So, suddenly it is your ox being gored and the owners of property are to have their incomes dictated by government force.


That poor ox is sure getting rough time today.  Maybe he should have left town for the holidays.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saying we need rent control is like saying you need to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.  If you don't want your rent to go up, then buy a place.  In places where they do have rent control people sign a lease and then live in that place for 30 - 40 years.  The owners go bankrupt because after 30 years the rent no longer covers the upkeep on the property.
> ...



The problem is when you have rent control, you have profit control.  If I was in the position to buy an apartment building of 100 units, I need to make X profit off of it every year for it to be worth my time.  Otherwise I would take that money and invest it somewhere else.  

This is a Pandoras Box.  If we allow rent control, then what's next?  Rental car price control?  Gasoline price controls?  Utility price controls?  Why just rent control?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> uh... where the hell do you think guidelines originate?  wow- you didn't think that one thru, did you?


They can originate at any govt level > federal, state, county, local.

But rent control is generally a local thing.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Which part of the State are you looking at........and have you used your VA loan.............You can still get a guaranteed loan on that with bad credit.  You can also talk to real estate companies to help you look for a home in your price range.  I have a Brother N law who doesn't make much.  Got into a brick home with a fenced in yard for only $350 a month.  Only about a 1000 square foot but very nice for such a low price.
> 
> If you rent you are always at the mercy of the land lord.  And even with bad credit you can possibly better your situation by buying.


I have already looked into buying.  One mortgage company said I could get a VA loan "no down payment", and then said the "closing costs" would be $7,000. I asked 5 companies to get back to me when they have houses that I could move into just by doing what rentals do. Pay the first months rent, a security deposit, pet fee, and keep on paying monthly payments. None ever called back.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Which part of the State are you looking at........and have you used your VA loan.............You can still get a guaranteed loan on that with bad credit.  You can also talk to real estate companies to help you look for a home in your price range.  I have a Brother N law who doesn't make much.  Got into a brick home with a fenced in yard for only $350 a month.  Only about a 1000 square foot but very nice for such a low price.
> ...



I think I would check into that myself instead of through somebody else.  Maybe times have changed, but when purchased my properties, they put the closing costs into the loan which made it more money per month, but at least the cost was divided out for 30 years.  I would think the VA would have something similar if not better than that.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Having to Decide  between Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee.... great planning


What's this ? Geograghic bigotry ?  Those states all look fine to me. You have a problem ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> ]
> Yes, because unqualified people buying houses worked SO WELL last time!


This is about qualified people.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Yes he does.   Being a smaller gov't conservative, until he wants something from the gov't.


I never said I was for smaller govt.  I'm willing to spend plenty of tax$ depending on the expenditure.  Here's a few good ones >  the military, ICE, CBP, DEA,


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> that is the typical hypocritical   'conservative'.


Stay on topic, or get lost.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...




Rent control just curtails the supply of rental property, and leads to deteriorating conditions.   The only people who benefit are the ones who are already in an apartment, which ends of being a taking as the owner's rights are destroyed.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

candycorn said:


> If you move to S.C., I recommend an English-to-Hick dictionary.  Or master the seven basic grunts so you can effectively communicate


More geographic bigotry.  These South Carolinians could out debate you in a minute.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> When government artificially controls things like wages, and prices BAD things happen.  Let the market work.  Move to a less expensive apartment.


You wanna pay my moving costs ?  

Sure, I'll let the market work.  But not in every case. Not where hundreds of people's lives are being damaged.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > When government artificially controls things like wages, and prices BAD things happen.  Let the market work.  Move to a less expensive apartment.
> ...



So you insist that other people support you.

Got it.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> You've taken the first steps towards common sense and liberalism.
> 
> Congratulations.


Not hardly.  I spent 40 years being liberal. Not going backwards. Conservatives are for business regulation, but not to extreme degrees.  Everything has limits.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Nov 24, 2018)

When the little one bedroom cottage I was renting was sold the new owners had a talk with me.  I was told that I was paying $500.00 a month.  But 3 Mexican families would move in there each paying $500.00 a month.  I could come up with $1,500 a month or move.

I moved.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > *Johnson City Average Rent*
> ...



I will take your word for it.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > You've taken the first steps towards common sense and liberalism.
> ...



Not all regulation is ethically equivalent.   Proper regulations ensure a free market of safe goods and services (i.e., we know what we are buying).  Rental control is not a proper regulation - it is a transfer payment of wealth from the owner to the renter.  It's rather disingenuous of you to call it "regulation" when it's actually getting the government to mug someone on your behalf.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


Lets see 20 illegals renting at $200 per head a month on a two bedroom house that I bought for 22,000 might just work if I can increase it to $600.00 a month per person.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> You are a conservative, but....
> 
> lol
> 
> ...



But for some reason he doesn't approve of capitalism and the apparent conservative landlord, go figure. To top it off uses the socialistic VA. WTF I thought you only get rent control if you're a democrat.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > It's as bad as Johnson City more better places to go.
> ...


How is it for illegals?


----------



## playtime (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...



that's why universal healthcare is the way to go.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have friends up there?
> ...


Don't live in suitcase city is down hill from there.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



That is correct.  I never purchased rental property as a social obligation.  I purchased rental property so that I could collect rent and eventually have my property paid off by the time I retire.  If any government turns my investment into a social obligation, it's time to get out.  

We landlords suffered for years during the housing bubble because many potential renters were buying homes for 0 down and no credit checks.  We were actually in a price war just to attract any possible tenants.  You didn't have much of a choice either.  Some of the email replies I received I could barely understand.  These people wrote like five year olds. 

But you had to take a chance at lousy tenants or have no tenants at all.  We were scraping the bottom of the barrel and losing money at the same time.  It was awful. 

But nobody suggested help for us by the government.  Hey!  You decided to invest in real estate, you take the good with the bad.  If you lose your ass, too bad.  That's the chance you took.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Of course. It effects you. So we just regulate.
> 
> The problem that you assholes have is that you don't have empathy for others. Nor do you understand that regulations on capitalism have helped you indirectly for your entire fucking selfish lives.


Your problem is you look at a few bad conservatives and then decide all are like that.  And then look at you look at a few good liberals and then think all of them are like that.

When you want to do a thread on empathy, let me know, and I'll join in and we can talk about your feelings toward the millions of low wage (mostly minorities) American workers having their jobs taken away by illegal aliens. And the thousands of family members of Americans killed by illegal aliens, whom your liberal pals protect in sanctuary cities.

And you tell us about how much _"empathy"_ you have for business owners deprived of hundreds of Billions$$ in sales, because of immigrants' remittances.  I could go on, but this will be enough.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You mean beautiful antebellum homes with friendly, gracious hosts?   Yeah, that would be tough.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



No, that's why government should stay out of the private market.  That's the way to go.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

airplanemechanic said:


> Quit renting and throwing away money. Buy a house. My house note is 485 a month and that includes full insurance coverage on a 3 bedroom, 2 bath brick home on over an acre of land with a dozen huge oak trees and it's on a recently repaved road. Oh yea, and that rate is locked in. I have a little piece of paper that guarantees that rate for the life of the loan. And paying more than the required amount will pay off the house sooner.


How much did you have to pay up front ?  What was your credit score ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Nope.  A level playing field is what liberalism is all about.


With the whole world.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

airplanemechanic said:


> How is it not a level playing field? Rent goes up, everything is going up. You own property you should be able to rent it for whatever the hell you want to. If nobody rents it, it's too high. It's called a free market.  Quit trying to regulate everything. This is free fucking country. Leave me the fuck alone.


The keyword of your post is "ME"  That says it all.


----------



## Pilot1 (Nov 24, 2018)

So it is OK to have government forcibly limit someone's income (landlord's), but your income (OP) is untouchable.  Got it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > I have a really hard time sympathizing.  Comment after comment you rail about liberals and regulations and yet you want rent control to help YOU.
> ...



So you think, because you cannot afford the rent, that the gov't needs to restrict what a person is allowed to charge for use of THEIR property?  That is the definition of impropriety.

Rental properties are there to make a profit, not to provide you with shelter for less money.


----------



## playtime (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



certain things should not be privatized.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > I have a really hard time sympathizing.  Comment after comment you rail about liberals and regulations and yet you want rent control to help YOU.
> ...



VA hospital in Biloxi, Ms and some reasonable housing rentals.

https://www.zillow.com/biloxi-ms/rent-houses/

Gulfport right next door check it out too.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > How is it not a level playing field? Rent goes up, everything is going up. You own property you should be able to rent it for whatever the hell you want to. If nobody rents it, it's too high. It's called a free market.  Quit trying to regulate everything. This is free fucking country. Leave me the fuck alone.
> ...




Since the "ME" involved in that statement is the owner of the property, it is not a problem.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Of course, people in other states all speak English perfectly.


She's from another state. The "Deep State" - by her own admission.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > When government artificially controls things like wages, and prices BAD things happen.  Let the market work.  Move to a less expensive apartment.
> ...



Not where it effects you.  If it effects others, who cares?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Yep, why even own property? With things like rent control It’s no longer your property when the government tells you what to do with every aspect of your life.


Government tells you not to murder. Not to steal. Not to commit arson.  Not to rape.  You want to do anything you want ? Find a deserted island.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Of course. It effects you. So we just regulate.
> ...




You are certainly a bad "conservative". Nobody here questions that. Now...try to post some facts.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...



_*"Only a fool would expect the entity that created the problem to find a solution to it." *_
Author unknown.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Could it possibly be the prior owner sold due to not being able to afford it any longer, due to his low rent policy?  You want to scream, research what the local govt was doing with taxes, regulations, etc, what was the maintenance and insurance running on the place,  then come back to us.  If it is not the case, then we can talk.


All I have to do is look at other apartment complexes on this street, and a few other streets. NONE of them are raising rents 60%. None are charging what these gougers are.  There's all the research I need.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, why even own property? With things like rent control It’s no longer your property when the government tells you what to do with every aspect of your life.
> ...



The person who is raped has no choice.  The victim of the theft has no choice.  The victims of arson and murder have no choice.   You have a choice to rent somewhere else.

The examples you gave are active attacks on another person.   Charging rent is providing shelter for a price.   The person who wants to live in someone else's property does not get to set the price.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Could it possibly be the prior owner sold due to not being able to afford it any longer, due to his low rent policy?  You want to scream, research what the local govt was doing with taxes, regulations, etc, what was the maintenance and insurance running on the place,  then come back to us.  If it is not the case, then we can talk.
> ...



Then move into one of the other apartment complexes on that street.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> You say the building recently changed owners.  Do you know what the new owners paid for the building?  Maybe the selling price was based on market rents, and not the actual revenue of the building.  If that is the case, maybe the new owner has to raise the rents in order to pay the mortgage.  What are other comparable buildings in the same area charging for comparable rental units?
> 
> Regardless, the rents will shortly stabilize at rates that are consistent with market conditions.  If "nobody" is willing to pay the new, higher rent rates, then the building will go empty, right?  But the landlord will necessarily make an adjustment to fill up the building.
> 
> A renter has no vested interest beyond the term of his lease.  This unfortunate fact of life drives people to take extraordinary measures to buy a residence (condo, house, RV, whatever), so that they can complain about increases in taxes, rather than rents.


Other comparable buildings in the same area are charging,
 for comparable rental units, what our rents have been before the new owners came in,​
If the new owner had to raise rents 60% to pay the mortgage, then he shouldn't have paid that high a mortgage.  I'm getting very uncomfortable with how many posters here are talking about landlords and mortgages, and not a word about people and their lives.


----------



## playtime (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



_*“Give people what they need: food, medicine, clean air, pure water, trees and grass, pleasant [enough] homes to live in, some hours of work, more hours of leisure. Don't ask who deserves it. Every human being deserves it.” *_
― Howard Zinn


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > You say the building recently changed owners.  Do you know what the new owners paid for the building?  Maybe the selling price was based on market rents, and not the actual revenue of the building.  If that is the case, maybe the new owner has to raise the rents in order to pay the mortgage.  What are other comparable buildings in the same area charging for comparable rental units?
> ...



Then move to one of the complexes.

I'm sorry you are not comfortable with people believing that your poor financial planning does not override the right of a property owner to do what he wants with HIS property.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > You say the building recently changed owners.  Do you know what the new owners paid for the building?  Maybe the selling price was based on market rents, and not the actual revenue of the building.  If that is the case, maybe the new owner has to raise the rents in order to pay the mortgage.  What are other comparable buildings in the same area charging for comparable rental units?
> ...



Yeah. Sort of feels like "shoot them on sight!"


----------



## Pilot1 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I'm getting very uncomfortable with how many posters here are talking about landlords and mortgages, and not a word about people and their lives.



Landlords are PEOPLE also, and have lives.  Many are just small time owners trying to scrape by, and build a future nest egg for retirement.  The big corps that own some of the larger apartment complexes are owned by individual stock holders.  Some are wealthy, some aren't.  They are people with lives also.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

playtime said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...



I don't know who Howard Zinn is, but if he really believes that, he needs to move to Cuba or a similar place.


----------



## sartre play (Nov 24, 2018)

Don't know anything about rent control. any one on here live where there is rent control like New York? learning is better than complaining.
We owned rentals for years, kept our rents low, one renter stayed for eleven years, no we did not make a lot of profit, but the renters paid off our property, an added to our income. a landlord is intiled  to make a profit. today I think greed rules, raising rent based on property taxes,& other increases is fair. but when the love of money becomes more important than being fair in your dealings with others I make a moral judgment on your humanity.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > You say the building recently changed owners.  Do you know what the new owners paid for the building?  Maybe the selling price was based on market rents, and not the actual revenue of the building.  If that is the case, maybe the new owner has to raise the rents in order to pay the mortgage.  What are other comparable buildings in the same area charging for comparable rental units?
> ...



Because you're only looking at things from your own perspective.  You have to put yourself in somebody else's shoes and look at the entire picture. 

I can only speak for myself of course, but I don't rent apartments to help anybody out.  It's a business deal like any other.  The market dictates what my price range is.  Don't get me wrong, if one of my tenants is having a hard time because they missed work due to illness, their only vehicle broke down and it cost them a lot of money, a sick child or something, I could work with them, but I wouldn't offer somebody an apartment who came with such problems. 

I have to keep the water running.  I have to pay the mortgages so I don't get foreclosed on.  I have to pay the insurance so the banks don't rescind the loan and demand full payment.  Property taxes are an arm and a leg here because they built new schools several years ago (which I voted down).  I have bills to pay.  When those costs go up, I have to find the money to keep up with those bills. 

Just one instance:  I bought this place 25 years ago.  Since that time, property taxes went up 120%.  How do you keep up with that without increasing rents?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Tampa?  Well, that helps explain it.  They also have an affordable housing committee.  Interesting...
> 
> Municode Library


Explains what ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

sparky said:


> gawd, and here i thought we'd have a _lovely_ philisophical debate w/o going down _partisan _boulevard .....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That won't ever happen in USMB (or most any computer forum)


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> While that was once part of what made conservatives conservative, that is no longer a valid definition.


In some ways it still is a correct definition of conservatism. especially with regard to conserving American culture, while liberals push multiculturalism (ex. foreign languages on voting ballots)

Another is international music played at public events, instead of American music (Blues, jazz, bluegrass, soul, country, rock'n roll)


----------



## playtime (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



cuba has many problems, but healthcare ain't one of them.  nor is illiteracy.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Apartments and rental units are a commodity today.  Nobody wants to own, especially the Millennial generation.  They rent everything from their apartment to television set.
> 
> So it's really a supply and demand issue.  If everybody demands rental units instead of houses, the price goes up, and I don't see it going down anytime soon as more people line up to get apartments.


But prices go up only as far as people can pay them, and landlords can rent units.  Hopefully, maybe these prices where I am, will start falling, as this place is emptying out a lot faster than it's filling up.

One other thing about renting vs owning. Maintenance is done by the landlord in rentals. In home ownership, maintainance can be expensive.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Many people who choose rent do not do so because it's their only choice.  They simply don't want all the problems of home ownership.  This is particularly true of women.  Once the kids are out of the house, if the woman is alone, she has no need for a house and all the care and money it takes to keep it up-kept.
> 
> The toilet is leaking, water is coming into the basement, a window doesn't open, the lawn needs to be cut, the ceiling fan quit working are all things people don't want to deal with.  When renters have a problem, they simply make a phone call and the problem is solved.  It's up to the landlord to find a qualified HVAC person for a reasonable rate.  It's up to the landlord to have the grass cut or the snow removed from the driveway.  It's up to the landlord to find a garage door repairman to fix the garage door opener.
> 
> That's the way a lot of people want to live.  It's the sign of the times.


Another consideration is the age of the renter (or buyer)  If a 20 year old buys a house, and pays off a mortgage in 30 years, he'll be 50 when he gets the deed.  

For me, in 30 years, I'll be 102.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Yep. No need at all to raise the MW.


Most Americans, Republicans and Democrats both, support raising the MW.  Can't imagine why they don't do it.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Valid points.   And in the long run, you pay more for those conveniences.
> 
> The OP wants the conveniences AND low prices.  He wants the gov't to force someone to accept less money for the use of their property because he did not plan for his own retirement.


Less money than an exhorbitant amount, extreme increase, inconsistent with neighboring properties. And this is HUNDREDS of resident moving out, not just me.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Apartments and rental units are a commodity today.  Nobody wants to own, especially the Millennial generation.  They rent everything from their apartment to television set.
> ...



Yes, correct.  That's why more people are turning to rentals even though they could afford a house.  Owning a home is just a hassle a lot of people don't want to get into.  

My sister recently moved into a townhouse.  She had a beautiful house here.  In fact it was built to her design by my father.  Everything in the home is quality material.  But she works a lot of hours and didn't have time to maintain the property or things inside the home.  It was built in the early 80's, and hiring people to fix stuff all the time was time consuming and expensive.  

The house she bought is much newer and newly remodeled, so everything in the unit is new. She has to pay a maintenance fee for snow plowing and yard maintenance and she doesn't mind paying one bit.  

As for your place, it sounds like the landlord is trying to get rid of people.  For what reason, I couldn't tell you.  Perhaps he is making them into high quality rentals where he can charge a much higher price.  I would find the name of the company that bought it and see if there are any local stories on it.  Or in most cases, you can find out what they paid for it and what their costs are.  That may help explain some things.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If it's your property, it's your business what you do with it.
> 
> As long as the property taxes are paid and the property is kept up to code, it's the owners decision on what to do with that property--not the governments.


Yes in Florida, it is entirely the owner's decision -which creates major hardships for hundreds of families, just to suit that ONE man.  Not good.

SOME rent control is a good idea in a case like this.  The QUANTITY of the increases are the issue. ANY increase is putting too much power in the hands of one person, and too little in the hands of hundreds of people.

We need to define what housing rental places really are.  Like TV set that somebody owns, or something where hundreds of peoples LIVES are intertwined with that thing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Many people who choose rent do not do so because it's their only choice.  They simply don't want all the problems of home ownership.  This is particularly true of women.  Once the kids are out of the house, if the woman is alone, she has no need for a house and all the care and money it takes to keep it up-kept.
> ...



I think a lot of considerations are on the table when deciding to be a renter or owner.  For instance, this neighborhood has been going downhill for a while.  If I sell out, I'd be taking a pretty good loss.  If you're a renter and concerned about the environment, you simply give your notice, pack your things and move somewhere else.  

So as for myself, I'm trying to get as much money as I can so I don't lose out too badly.  I keep my rents high enough to do this, but low enough to attract quality tenants at the same time.  Provided I have good tenants (which I do now) I have a policy of not raising rents.  I increase my rental prices when somebody new moves in.  One of my tenants has been here eight years, and he's paying the same rental price today as when he first moved in.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 24, 2018)

Housing Counseling: Florida | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Results | Income & Rent Limits | Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse

Gainsville area......

Fair Housing in Florida | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

katsteve2012 said:


> It is easier to buy than to rent in Califormia. The home that I own right now, was a foreclosure that originally sold for 750,000, and got it for 210,000 back in 2011 and got a very good mortgage rate Comparable properties are selling for about 600,000 now.
> 
> Just down the street from my home there are some loft apartments that just grand opened and they are asking 3500 a month for an 1100 sq. ft. 2 bd 2ba.
> 
> Unbelievable.


I lived in California for 12 years. It never did make any sense.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> At times people ask me if I have a job?  They just count the rental units and start adding up rents in their heads.
> 
> The truth is I get an income tax refund every year between my full-time job and being a landlord. With all the money it costs to run this place, I write it off and get a refund, so there is no profit most years.  Last year was the first time I showed a profit in ten years only because I had no empty units the previous year.
> 
> ...


If a landlord can't afford to buy an apartment complex, without raising rents 60%, he shouldn't be buying that place.  Plenty of others on the market.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> You can roll your eyes all you want, doesn't change the truth of what I said.


What you said was NOT the truth, and I refuted it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > If it's your property, it's your business what you do with it.
> ...



But then you create more problems than you solve. 

When money is available, I try to update my places when possible.  If somebody limits what I can charge for rent, I can't make any updates.  What you have today is what you'll always have.  

In the last ten years, I had to install three new roofs.  The total cost for all three was $21,000.  Now how do I recoup that money if I'm restricted on what I can charge for rent?  Our property taxes went up 60% in some places.  Who is going to limit that?  Mine went up about half of that.  

It's easy to look on the outside and add all those rents up, but unless you know what happens to that money you collect, then nobody has the right to tell me what I can or cannot charge.  Even though I am not required, I tell my tenants what things cost here so they don't get the impression I'm saving up for my yacht.  When I tell them what needs to be paid around here, most are shocked.  They had no idea.  Probably thought I was stuffing all the rent money under the mattress.  

As I mentioned earlier, all rent restrictions would do is discourage people from buying rental property.  That means less units to go around.  Depleting supply will never help the market out.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> This is not the first time paying rent has been a struggle for some people.  This was very frequent many years ago.  What people did was get family, friends, and sometimes even strangers to share an apartment or house with.  That's how they used to solve the problem.  Granted, I would never want anybody living with me, but it's better than being homeless.


So is just staying where you are, and paying a normal (by community standards) rental rate.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > At times people ask me if I have a job?  They just count the rental units and start adding up rents in their heads.
> ...



That's really up to him and nobody else what he does with it.  If that's what he wants to do, he owns it.  He can do as he pleases.  If his plans end up being a failure, then it's on him or his company.  Saying he shouldn't be allowed to buy those apartments if he is going to raise rents so high is like saying you shouldn't be allowed to buy that new car unless you have it washed once a week.  It's not your dealerships concern what you do with that car after you bought it.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> If government forcibly limits the amount of rent a landlord can charge, there are going to be a LOT of empty buildings around, failing into disrepair.  The number of units available to rent will be greatly reduced, so people would have a difficult time finding a place to live if they are looking to rent.  This happens when government puts artificial price controls on things.  Look what happened to the availability of gasoline when the government controlled pricing.  The Supply DISAPPEARED.
> 
> So, again the unintended consequences of Liberal/Progressive policies comes back to bite you in the @ss.


NO, you're changing the subject.  This is about just limiting rents to not be outlandishly high, with 60% increases.  Calm down.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Valid points.   And in the long run, you pay more for those conveniences.
> ...



Then move to a neighboring property.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 24, 2018)

And not for an apartment complex owner?





protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Apartments and rental units are a commodity today.  Nobody wants to own, especially the Millennial generation.  They rent everything from their apartment to television set.
> ...


----------



## ph3iron (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...



I thought that is the good old republican way.
I have mine screw the rest
It's called capitalism


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Then move to a neighboring property.


Of course, but it shouldn't have to be that way.  We could also say let the new owner raise the rents only 10% instead of 60%. Or not at all.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> You are certainly a bad "conservative". Nobody here questions that. Now...try to post some facts.


I just posted 3 of them. Nobody questions what ?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Then move to a neighboring property.
> ...



So let's say there was such a law.  Now the new owner would have never bought the place; nobody would because income from the investment is limited.  In fact, the seller would have to decrease their price on the units because nobody would buy the place with such a limited income.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> The person who is raped has no choice. The victim of the theft has no choice. The victims of arson and murder have no choice. You have a choice to rent somewhere else.
> 
> The examples you gave are active attacks on another person. Charging rent is providing shelter for a price. The person who wants to live in someone else's property does not get to set the price.



I was just responding to the poster's claim about govt telling him what to do,  Don't get a rash.
The person who wants to live in someone else's property most certainly DOES get to set the price, or al least have something to say about it, if/whenever the community decides there should be SOME limitations on what these prices might be.  This is a fair scenario, in that we are talking about people having a place to LIVE, a basic need, not just what computer they might own.

Smart communities *balance* business owners' needs, with those of everyone else.

As for renting somewhere else, that is easier said then done.  It is expensive, troublesome, breaks up friendships, and isn't easy to do.  As for "somewhere else", the landlord has a choice to *buy* "somewhere else."[/QUOTE]


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So let's say there was such a law.  Now the new owner would have never bought the place; nobody would because income from the investment is limited.  In fact, the seller would have to decrease their price on the units because nobody would buy the place with such a limited income.


Fine, then everything would remain as it is.  and we don't know the details of why the rents went so high. Since no other complexes are charging that much, my guess is the exhorbitant increases were not necessary. No reason to think they are.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> As for renting somewhere else, that is easier said then done. It is expensive, troublesome, breaks up friendships, and isn't easy to do. As for "somewhere else", the landlord has a choice to *buy* "somewhere else."



And you think if he bought somewhere else, the tenants there wouldn't be saying the same thing?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Then move into one of the other apartment complexes on that street.


Or let the new landlord buy another complex.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And you think if he bought somewhere else, the tenants there wouldn't be saying the same thing?


No they wouldn't, if it was one that had rents that high already.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > So let's say there was such a law.  Now the new owner would have never bought the place; nobody would because income from the investment is limited.  In fact, the seller would have to decrease their price on the units because nobody would buy the place with such a limited income.
> ...



Depends on how much he paid for it.  Like I said, rentals is the way of the future as far as I can tell.  I've never seen rentals in such demand.  As such, the owner was able to increase his price to the point the buyer figured he could realize a profit if he did raise rents.

So what you are suggesting is that government interfere so that a persons investment could only realize X profit. What if we limited profit on everything using government?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Then move to one of the complexes.
> 
> I'm sorry you are not comfortable with people believing that your poor financial planning does not override the right of a property owner to do what he wants with HIS property.


I don't have poor financial planning.  I've paid housing rents for 50 years, and never missed, or even been late on, any one of them.  It is this new landlord that is out of the ordinary, not us renters.  

As for HIS property, no property is entirely under the control of anybody.  There are dozens of laws restricting _"HIS property"_ (discrimination, height of buildings, use of barbeques, smoke alarms, etc)


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Yeah. Sort of feels like "shoot them on sight!"


I've lost interest in trying to ascertain what some looney laugher liberal has to say.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saying we need rent control is like saying you need to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.  If you don't want your rent to go up, then buy a place.  In places where they do have rent control people sign a lease and then live in that place for 30 - 40 years.  The owners go bankrupt because after 30 years the rent no longer covers the upkeep on the property.
> ...


A "degree of rent control" is rent control.


----------



## Pilot1 (Nov 24, 2018)

You are limiting someone else's ability to earn.  How would you like government forcibly limiting YOUR ability to earn, or receive whatever fixed income you receive?  Why is it OK to limit others, but not for you to be susceptible to the same limitation?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> Landlords are PEOPLE also, and have lives.  Many are just small time owners trying to scrape by, and build a future nest egg for retirement.  The big corps that own some of the larger apartment complexes are owned by individual stock holders.  Some are wealthy, some aren't.  They are people with lives also.


Sure, but the previous rents have been keeping this complex going for years.  Nobody here thinks the landlord or stockholder need a 60% increase in rent, when no other complex in the neighborhood is doing that.  We would laugh at the idea of this landlord " trying to scrape by"


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Landlords are PEOPLE also, and have lives.  Many are just small time owners trying to scrape by, and build a future nest egg for retirement.  The big corps that own some of the larger apartment complexes are owned by individual stock holders.  Some are wealthy, some aren't.  They are people with lives also.
> ...



I don't think it's a question of survival for the new owner.  Let's say he bought the place for 10 million dollars.  10 million dollars could be better invested somewhere else if he was not able to carry forth his plans with the place. But he calculated that his investment was going to pay a reasonable return if he used whatever plans he has.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Because you're only looking at things from your own perspective.  You have to put yourself in somebody else's shoes and look at the entire picture.
> 
> I can only speak for myself of course, but I don't rent apartments to help anybody out.  It's a business deal like any other.  The market dictates what my price range is.  Don't get me wrong, if one of my tenants is having a hard time because they missed work due to illness, their only vehicle broke down and it cost them a lot of money, a sick child or something, I could work with them, but I wouldn't offer somebody an apartment who came with such problems.
> 
> ...


I never said don't raise rents. I just said don't raise them 60%, (which no other complex is doing) I owned my own business for 13 years.  I know all about expenses. I didn't own real estate, but I paid a fortune in advertising.

Let's not change the subject. These guys are just GREED sharks.


----------



## Pilot1 (Nov 24, 2018)

^^^^^Have you seen their financial statements, and operating expenses for the past several years?  Have you seen their Proforma for future revenue, and expenses?  Do you realize that there may have been deferred maintenance, and now a great need for Capital, and Operational spending to keep the complex an attractive place to rent?

The MARKET sets the rental rate.  If the rent is too high for the market to bear, the new owners will not be able to lease the apartments, and will HAVE to lower rents in order to hit their target Occupancy Rate, which is 95%.  100% occupancy means your rents are too low.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's really up to him and nobody else what he does with it.  If that's what he wants to do, he owns it.  He can do as he pleases.  If his plans end up being a failure, then it's on him or his company.  Saying he shouldn't be allowed to buy those apartments if he is going to raise rents so high is like saying you shouldn't be allowed to buy that new car unless you have it washed once a week.  It's not your dealerships concern what you do with that car after you bought it.


I'm not buying that analogy. Nobody is harmed by not washing that car. Hundreds of people are being harmed by this sale, and its extraordinary rent increases.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Then move to a neighboring property.


I'll cash your check as soon as I receive it.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

depotoo said:


> And not for an apartment complex owner?



Not 60% rent increase per apartment, NO.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Then move to a neighboring property.
> ...



I’m not complaining about prices, dumbass.  

My mortgage is nice and stable.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> I thought that is the good old republican way.
> I have mine screw the rest
> It's called capitalism


You think wrong.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > That's really up to him and nobody else what he does with it.  If that's what he wants to do, he owns it.  He can do as he pleases.  If his plans end up being a failure, then it's on him or his company.  Saying he shouldn't be allowed to buy those apartments if he is going to raise rents so high is like saying you shouldn't be allowed to buy that new car unless you have it washed once a week.  It's not your dealerships concern what you do with that car after you bought it.
> ...



You can use any analogy you like, but I think after you move and allow the anger to escape, you'll see what's wrong with your rent control suggestion.  It just isn't American.  

I've been on both sides of the aisle.  Before I bought this place, I was a renter here.  In fact I was a renter for 12 years prior to that.  I've been kicked out of a place before because the landlord wanted to rent the place to his sister.  It put me in a very bad position because I was living with my girlfriend at the time, and she had two children.  Back then, you were allowed to discriminate against children and there was really nowhere for us to go.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what you are suggesting is that government interfere so that a persons investment could only realize X profit. What if we limited profit on everything using government?


That would be unacceptable. But "everything" isn't the same as what anthropologists call the _"basic element of human survival - shelter"._


----------



## Natural Citizen (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> "Going" costs money, and it's not easy to do when you have a cat. I have been thinking about going to Johnson City, TN, but getting there is the problem.



Most of my family was born in Johnson City. Cool place then, not sure about now, though.

Check out Damascus Va. That's where I grew up, we still have the property down there, too, 144 acres to be exact. With a trout river and a spring. How's that for living, huh?

The town hasn't changed in the 50 years I knew it.

Clicker - Home

The outskirts of town are truly colonial. As you venture into the trails in the mountain area, you'll discover some of the most beautiful waterfalls an Earth.

The school is still there, too, though it's now converted to an apartment building, it's the school I went to, they made it out of rocks from the beaver creek.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> A "degree of rent control" is rent control.


Not!  As my old physics professor used to say. >> 

"Qualitative measures are what they are, only in terms of Quantitative measures."


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > So what you are suggesting is that government interfere so that a persons investment could only realize X profit. What if we limited profit on everything using government?
> ...



It is the same as any other investment.  You pay money to buy something hoping for a good return on the money you paid.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Because you're only looking at things from your own perspective.  You have to put yourself in somebody else's shoes and look at the entire picture.
> ...


I admit the new owner sounds like a total douche, but freedom is where people are allowed to act like douches so long as they don't violate anyone's rights, and you don't have a right to rent an apartment at a given rate indefinitely.  In the end, this guy may find he has an empty building on his hands, and he will have a hard time filling it when his reputation is known.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > A "degree of rent control" is rent control.
> ...


Tell your physics professor to drink some soda that only as a little bit of cyanide in it.


----------



## Pilot1 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Not!  As my old physics professor used to say. >>
> 
> "Qualitative measures are what they are, only in terms of Quantitative measures."



Basic Russian military philosophy.  "Quantity has a Quality all its own".


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> You are limiting someone else's ability to earn.  How would you like government forcibly limiting YOUR ability to earn, or receive whatever fixed income you receive?  Why is it OK to limit others, but not for you to be susceptible to the same limitation?


It's OK because I'm being forced out of my HOME. That's not happening to the landlord.  And there are plenty of things limiting the landlords ability to earn. I already listed some of them. >> smoke detectors, heights of buildings, lead paint restrictions, asbestos restrictions , etc, etc


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't think it's a question of survival for the new owner.  Let's say he bought the place for 10 million dollars.  10 million dollars could be better invested somewhere else if he was not able to carry forth his plans with the place. But he calculated that his investment was going to pay a reasonable return if he used whatever plans he has.


In that short paragragh, you said the word "he" or "his" 7 times. Not once did you mention the hundreds of people losing their HOMES. 

 If you live in a unit for 5 years, 10 years, 25 years, it comes to be YOUR HOME, no matter who owns the title.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > And not for an apartment complex owner?
> ...


How many years had it been since a rent increase for those with that percentage of increase?  Are they doing any improvements?  Have to replace faulty equipment?   How much more value of the property between when the old owner and the new ne purchased?    How much more insurance is required vs the original owner?  Does the mortgage holder require more insurance than the last did?  I could go on and on.  You as a renter have no idea all the variables that could have changed from one owner to the next.  
You seem to be of the thought that nothing affects it, but you are mistaken.

And why not consider one of the other properties down the road you state are still much cheaper?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> ^^^^^Have you seen their financial statements, and operating expenses for the past several years?  Have you seen their Proforma for future revenue, and expenses?  Do you realize that there may have been deferred maintenance, and now a great need for Capital, and Operational spending to keep the complex an attractive place to rent?
> 
> The MARKET sets the rental rate.  If the rent is too high for the market to bear, the new owners will not be able to lease the apartments, and will HAVE to lower rents in order to hit their target Occupancy Rate, which is 95%.  100% occupancy means your rents are too low.


The MARKET in this area doesn't require rents as high as the new owner is charging. Other complexes charge the previous rate, and they're not going up by this extreme amount.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> I’m not complaining about prices, dumbass.
> 
> My mortgage is nice and stable.


You are the "dumbass". I was referring to my costs of moving, which YOU SUGGESTED. Get a brain transplant.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it's a question of survival for the new owner.  Let's say he bought the place for 10 million dollars.  10 million dollars could be better invested somewhere else if he was not able to carry forth his plans with the place. But he calculated that his investment was going to pay a reasonable return if he used whatever plans he has.
> ...



I understand that whole heartedly.  I understand how angry you must be.  But rental is no different than automobiles, houses, stores, restaurants.  It's an investment and as a renter, you have to expect anything.  

It's like when a company buys another company.  The new owners always tell employees nothing will change, you won't notice anything but improvements.  I've seen this many times and I worked for a company this happened to.  Within five years, every one of us who worked there were gone and replaced by all new workers.  Less money, less benefits, and the new owners could care less about us.  Find someplace else to work.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^^Have you seen their financial statements, and operating expenses for the past several years?  Have you seen their Proforma for future revenue, and expenses?  Do you realize that there may have been deferred maintenance, and now a great need for Capital, and Operational spending to keep the complex an attractive place to rent?
> ...



What they may be doing is pressuring people out so they can make condos out of those apartments.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You can use any analogy you like, but I think after you move and allow the anger to escape, you'll see what's wrong with your rent control suggestion.  It just isn't American.


I am amazed that you would call an objection to a 60% rent increase, that's forcing hundreds of people to abandon their homes, and friends and neighbors, unAmerican.  I've always thought of you as an outstanding poster in this forum. I'm reevaluating that now.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It is the same as any other investment.  You pay money to buy something hoping for a good return on the money you paid.


Again, you are seeing ONLY the landlord investment side of this issue.  You are seeing none of the personal investments of the residents + THEIR monetary investments.

Think about that.


----------



## Pilot1 (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What they may be doing is pressuring people out so they can make condos out of those apartments.



I don't know the market, and I don't know what comparable properties rent for, or what the trends are there.  If they wanted to condo the place, they could just not renew leases when they expired.  If the rents were below market prior, they may get a lot of renewals if people realize they are going to spend that somewhere else.  If their rents are way above market, they won't lease.  The markets self regulate, as you know.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > You can use any analogy you like, but I think after you move and allow the anger to escape, you'll see what's wrong with your rent control suggestion.  It just isn't American.
> ...



Sorry to hear that, but I think what's unAmerican about it is government dictating who can charge what for rent.  That's not what government is for.  Government is to govern.  What goes on between two parties under legal contract is not a position government should be taking.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > What they may be doing is pressuring people out so they can make condos out of those apartments.
> ...



That is true, but I've seen many apartment buildings around here converted to condos.  I don't know how or why the profit is better than apartments.  I would think just the opposite.  But for whatever reason, they are doing it.  

So if the landlord says he's not renewing the contract instead of increasing rents sky high, what's the difference? Either way, you cannot live there anyhow.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> I admit the new owner sounds like a total douche, but freedom is where people are allowed to act like douches so long as they don't violate anyone's rights, and you don't have a right to rent an apartment at a given rate indefinitely.  In the end, this guy may find he has an empty building on his hands, and he will have a hard time filling it when his reputation is known.


That doesn't do squat for hundreds of people whose lives have been turned upside down.  Think about how it would be if you suddenly found out you had to move out of where you are living now, in a few months, and you didn't have enough money to do it.  If you could have stayed, everything would have been allright.


----------



## Toro (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...



Fascists support rent control, and they're conservatives.

So, put two and two together ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it's a question of survival for the new owner.  Let's say he bought the place for 10 million dollars.  10 million dollars could be better invested somewhere else if he was not able to carry forth his plans with the place. But he calculated that his investment was going to pay a reasonable return if he used whatever plans he has.
> ...


No matter what you think about it, it's still his property.  Short of violating your contract, he can do what he likes with it.  Otherwise you are expropriating his property.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > I admit the new owner sounds like a total douche, but freedom is where people are allowed to act like douches so long as they don't violate anyone's rights, and you don't have a right to rent an apartment at a given rate indefinitely.  In the end, this guy may find he has an empty building on his hands, and he will have a hard time filling it when his reputation is known.
> ...


I've been in that situation, and it sure sucked, but that didn't mean I had the right to continue living in a property when the owner didn't want me there.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Pilot1 said:
> ...


Not if they are still leasing the units.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Tell your physics professor to drink some soda that only as a little bit of cyanide in it.


LOL.  Funny that you mention that. He gave an example. 

Two 8 ounce glasses of water. One with a drop of arsenic. Other with a whole eyedropper of arsenic. Both have same ingredients. Quantities are different, as are the qualities. One is a simple glass of water. Other is a deadly poison.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

depotoo said:


> How many years had it been since a rent increase for those with that percentage of increase?  Are they doing any improvements?  Have to replace faulty equipment?   How much more value of the property between when the old owner and the new ne purchased?    How much more insurance is required vs the original owner?  Does the mortgage holder require more insurance than the last did?  I could go on and on.  You as a renter have no idea all the variables that could have changed from one owner to the next.
> You seem to be of the thought that nothing affects it, but you are mistaken.
> 
> And why not consider one of the other properties down the road you state are still much cheaper?


No other apt complex nearby, or even miles around, is doing this.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell your physics professor to drink some soda that only as a little bit of cyanide in it.
> ...


Tell it to a teenage girl who is only a little bit pregnant. There are situations that are only a matter of quantity, and others that are either on or off.


----------



## Toro (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> You are a conservative, but....
> 
> lol
> 
> ...



Yes.  That's fascism.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I understand that whole heartedly.  I understand how angry you must be.  But rental is no different than automobiles, houses, stores, restaurants.  It's an investment and as a renter, you have to expect anything.
> 
> It's like when a company buys another company.  The new owners always tell employees nothing will change, you won't notice anything but improvements.  I've seen this many times and I worked for a company this happened to.  Within five years, every one of us who worked there were gone and replaced by all new workers.  Less money, less benefits, and the new owners could care less about us.  Find someplace else to work.


I still say SOME rent control is needed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > It is the same as any other investment.  You pay money to buy something hoping for a good return on the money you paid.
> ...



Like I said, I've been on both sides.  I was a tenant for years, and I became a landlord later on.  I never evaluate anything from only my point of view.  That's why I stated I could understand your anger because I've been in your shoes before.  I can't tell you how angry I was.  

But on the other hand, when somebody makes an investment like that, do they have a social obligation to the tenants outside of their contract?  The answer is no.  That's why leases are renewed every year.  

Maybe this isn't the exact same thing, but it did come to mind. 

I've been dealing with the same bank for 25 years.  It was called (and still called) Ohio Savings.  They got bought out by a bank called New York Community after the housing crash.  One day I got a letter that my Home Equity loan expired, and they had no plans to renew it.  

I was furious.  I owed 14 grand on that account, and they were demanding payment in full.  I called down there, I talked to all kinds of people explaining how long I've been a good and outstanding customer.  It didn't matter.  When I dug out the original contract, it stated the bank has the option to renew the loan at their discretion.  They decided not to. 

Okay, so I went to another bank.  They sent an appraiser out, and the appraiser said I owed more on the mortgage than the property was worth, so technically I had no equity in the home therefore, I couldn't get a Home Equity loan. 

Long story short, I finally got so pissed I called a credit card company and asked if I could transfer the loan to their card.  They agreed, and I actually saved money in the long run because I get 0% interest rates on all my credit cards.  I've been saving well over $600.00 a year by doing it that way.


----------



## Toro (Nov 24, 2018)

Snouter said:


> This is interesting.  WHO ARE THE LANDLORDS?  Why is it some places have rents so high they are vacant for years.  Folks, real estate is not free market.  Certain groups bought stuff up decades ago.  Very troubling that this concept is not addressed.  Buying property is not free market since you have to pay ridiculous taxes on the property, plus the ridiculous amounts to the "realtors."
> 
> IMO, the local governments should take over a property if it is not leased or purchased within 12 months.  Rather than creepy, ethnic syndicates own the property.



That's what communists do.  

And fascists.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > How many years had it been since a rent increase for those with that percentage of increase?  Are they doing any improvements?  Have to replace faulty equipment?   How much more value of the property between when the old owner and the new ne purchased?    How much more insurance is required vs the original owner?  Does the mortgage holder require more insurance than the last did?  I could go on and on.  You as a renter have no idea all the variables that could have changed from one owner to the next.
> ...


Your situation is why you need to buy rather than rent.  The main reason I own a home is the fact that I hate landlords.  Even when I like them as people, the invariably screw me over.  They own the property because they want to make money off it, and they will squeeze you any way they can to get it.  When you own a property, the list of things that can be done to you gets much shorter.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What they may be doing is pressuring people out so they can make condos out of those apartments.


Nah, I've talked to real estate investor and RE lawyers, Condos is passe" around here.   That died out years ago.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Sorry to hear that, but I think what's unAmerican about it is government dictating who can charge what for rent.  That's not what government is for.  Government is to govern.  What goes on between two parties under legal contract is not a position government should be taking.


Government has all kinds of restrictions on housing, as I've mentioned previously.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Your situation is why you need to buy rather than rent. The main reason I own a home is the fact that I hate landlords. Even when I like them as people, the invariably screw me over. They own the property because they want to make money off it, and they will squeeze you any way they can to get it.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


You’re a moron is what you are. 

What you need is apartments built in your area to create inventory.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > How many years had it been since a rent increase for those with that percentage of increase?  Are they doing any improvements?  Have to replace faulty equipment?   How much more value of the property between when the old owner and the new ne purchased?    How much more insurance is required vs the original owner?  Does the mortgage holder require more insurance than the last did?  I could go on and on.  You as a renter have no idea all the variables that could have changed from one owner to the next.
> ...


And you know this how?  Were any others recently sold?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > What they may be doing is pressuring people out so they can make condos out of those apartments.
> ...



Well let me ask you this:  Did you call somebody at the new company and discuss this with them?  I don't think it would help your plight any, but maybe they can tell you something that would at least make sense out of all this.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> No matter what you think about it, it's still his property.  Short of violating your contract, he can do what he likes with it.  Otherwise you are expropriating his property.


For about the 10th time, govt has all kinds of restrictions on housing. No industry is more regulated that residential housing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to hear that, but I think what's unAmerican about it is government dictating who can charge what for rent.  That's not what government is for.  Government is to govern.  What goes on between two parties under legal contract is not a position government should be taking.
> ...



On housing, yes.  On investment, no.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> I've been in that situation, and it sure sucked, but that didn't mean I had the right to continue living in a property when the owner didn't want me there.


It's not a case of owner doesn't want you there. If an owner didn't want you there, he could simply refuse to renew your lease. He wouldn't have to raise rents 60%.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Well they can't increase the rent until the lease is up.  So I'm just assuming here that's what's happening with Protectionist.  If they are increasing it while the contract is still valid, that would be illegal.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

Toro said:


> Yes.  That's fascism.


Liberals love to throw the word "fascism" around. In the meantime, fascism is more closely correlated to liberal ideals of BIG central govt, and lots of control over people (ex. gun control, queer wedding cakes)


----------



## protectionist (Nov 24, 2018)

depotoo said:


> And you know this how?  Were any others recently sold?


I just know what they rent for, because I've been looking for one of them to move to.


----------



## Toro (Nov 24, 2018)

Rent control is an absolute disaster wherever it is implemented, no matter what the justification or rationalization, i.e. "some rent control."

It is the government creating laws to help the privileged few at the expense of property owners and everyone else.  

It's typical statist socialist/fascist failure.


----------



## Toro (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Liberals love to throw the word "fascism" around. In the meantime, fascism is more closely correlated to liberal ideals of BIG central govt, and lots of control over people (ex. gun control, queer wedding cakes)



Dude, I sympathize with your plight, but you are pretty close to being a fascist.

You want Big Gubmint to help "the people" while keeping darkies out.  High trade taxes, government run healthcare, rent control, demonizing others with a different lifestyle, and keeping the scary black people away.  That's you.

I support free market capitalism.  Read up on fascism, because that's what you espouse here.  You just don't know it.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  That's fascism.
> ...


Demand is high there-
Red hot Tampa Bay apartment market means rents are on the rise
According to a new report by Real Data, a Charlotte, N.C.-based apartment market research firm, just 4.9 percent of all apartments in Tampa Bay are currently vacant — the smallest percentage in nine years. The bay area's vacancy rate is expected to remain below 5 percent over the next 12 to 18 months, lower than in the 19 other southeastern metro areas that the company tracks.

The flip side — that 95.1 percent of all Tampa Bay apartments are occupied — means that rents will go higher as demand nears supply.


At the north end of Fourth Street, Brenda Armstrong has been renting in the Inlet Bay at Gateway Apartments since 2010.

Born in Scotland, Armstrong spent 24 years on the Caribbean island of St. Thomas, where she once worked as a charter-yacht cook, before deciding to try a warm locale in the States. She figured Tampa Bay would be less frenetic than Miami, and that an apartment would be less trouble than a house. 

"Apartment living is so easy compared to anything else,'' said Armstrong, who owns a holistic health business in Largo. "This is convenient to everything. You can get to Tampa easily, you can go to the beaches, you can go to downtown St. Pete, and I like being close to the airport for when I go see my family.''

Armstrong, who has a one-bedroom apartment, worries a bit about rising rents. When she first looked at the complex five years ago the rent was $650, but it quickly jumped to $850 and is now $1,000.

"Rents are going up,'' she said, "and when the renewal comes up it might be a consideration.''


----------



## B. Kidd (Nov 24, 2018)

Last time I checked, most apt. renters don't pay for property taxes, sewage, trash, water, and most don't have renters insurance.

Local Govts, especially the Democrat controlled ones, cannot keep their hands off of constantly raising these fees.

Frankly, as a senior citizen homeowner, not a renter, I cannot sympathize with the OP.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > You've taken the first steps towards common sense and liberalism.
> ...


Lol, listen to your fellow conservitards, do they sound like they are ok with business regulation?

No, they don't.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 24, 2018)

boedicca said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


See what I mean?


----------



## katsteve2012 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> > It is easier to buy than to rent in Califormia. The home that I own right now, was a foreclosure that originally sold for 750,000, and got it for 210,000 back in 2011 and got a very good mortgage rate Comparable properties are selling for about 600,000 now.
> ...



Very costly to live here. I'm a native and while the trade off is good year around weather, it is stupid expensive. Gas is high. (3.45 a gallon for regular this morning) insurance is ridiculous.

 I just moved my 86 year old mother out here from Kansas to live with me. She sold a 3500 sq. ft home on 3 acres with a fully finished walkout basement and private lake, for 250,000.

And even though she and my dad lived in San Francisco for many years prior to retiring, she still was shell shocked when she saw the ridiculous cost of living here.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > You can roll your eyes all you want, doesn't change the truth of what I said.
> ...


Bit it was, and you can't.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...




And yet people voted to not raise homestead exemption AND increase taxes? 

The price of housing is ridiculous.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been in that situation, and it sure sucked, but that didn't mean I had the right to continue living in a property when the owner didn't want me there.
> ...


If you don't want to pay the rent he wants to charge, then he doesn't want you there.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  That's fascism.
> ...


Rent control is the perfect example of big government.


----------



## Pilot1 (Nov 24, 2018)

"The Rent is TOO DAMN HIGH!"

Jimmy McMillan - The Rent is too damn high party


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I’m not complaining about prices, dumbass.
> ...



So you can't even afford to move within your neighborhood?   How in the hell will you move to Tennessee?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



When moving out of state, you sell everything you can and buy new when you get to your new home.  Movers are a fortune and you'd be better off financially if you did it that way.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > katsteve2012 said:
> ...



Maybe you should have moved in with her.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 24, 2018)

Where the heck did you get gas?  Avg in Tampa is $2.13 per gallon.   Need to turn them in for price gouging.  Though I suspect you lied and therefore the rest of your post is dog manure.
Best Gas Prices & Local Gas Stations in Tampa FL


katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > katsteve2012 said:
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


I can testify to that fact. Sell all the furniture or any sizeable personal possessions. Get what you absolutely can't sell down to where it will fit in a U-Haul trailer.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Where the heck did you get gas?  Avg in Tampa is $2.13 per gallon.   Need to turn them in for price gouging.  Though I suspect you lied and therefore the rest of your post is dog manure.
> Best Gas Prices & Local Gas Stations in Tampa FL
> 
> 
> ...



He lives in California where they load so much anti-pollution crap in their gasoline that it has to cost a bundle.  Plus in such a high taxed state, I'm sure that plays a huge part in fuel prices as well.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



I didn't realize how much work maintaining a house was until I stopped doing it.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 24, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...


He's not a conservative...he is just a kookburger.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Where the heck did you get gas?  Avg in Tampa is $2.13 per gallon.   Need to turn them in for price gouging.  Though I suspect you lied and therefore the rest of your post is dog manure.
> ...


Ok, I thought he was in the Tampa area.  Thank you for the info.  That is insane gas prices are that much higher than here in FL.  Just wow!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > When government artificially controls things like wages, and prices BAD things happen.  Let the market work.  Move to a less expensive apartment.
> ...


Quit whining.  You sound like a CS130 with a bad bearing!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



It's something that you have to like to do.  I enjoy it although I admit, I would rather be doing other things than unclogging a sink.  But you have to take an interest in it.  

Before my sister moved, she was complaining how she didn't know how to do anything in a home.  I told her that YouTube has dozens of videos on just about anything.  I use them myself for things I don't normally repair.  Her claim was that she can't learn anything from videos.  She has to have somebody show her how to do anything.  No, I didn't understand that at all either.  

So she sold her home a few weeks ago and moved into a newer one that's recently been remodeled.  Now she doesn't have to worry about repairing anything for quite a while.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...



The problem is they can't get their gasoline from just anywhere.  Only certain refineries have their blends of gas.  So transportation is another issue.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 24, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > You can roll your eyes all you want, doesn't change the truth of what I said.
> ...


You would not recognize the truth if it grabbed you by the scrotum and did the tango.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 24, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


He's taking some baby steps, what with the rent control thing and all.  Give him some time.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



It takes more than something like this to turn somebody into a Commie.   He's an elderly gentleman who is facing a major change in his life that he didn't expect or want.  He's very upset and I can't blame him.  It's not easy for anybody to move and it gets worse as you age, especially if you are on a fixed income.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 24, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


Who said anything about commies?


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 24, 2018)

The OP is NOT a conservative.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 24, 2018)

Guy's the bottom line is this.  If you rent...you only control that space for the duration of the rent agreement you and your landlord have agreed to.  You don't OWN the property!  Moving is a total pain in the ass...trust me I get that...but the market will always determine rents.  If you don't own something then you have to understand that you are at the mercy of that market for good or for bad!  If the landlord raises the rent more than you think is right...move to an apartment that is cheaper.  If more people move out than stay...the landlord is punished as well as you.  They'll be forced to lower their rents.  It is what it is.  What you have to understand is that imposing rent control has it's own pitfalls.  You may find you like those even less than having to move.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



Yeah...right


----------



## Penelope (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> Rent control is an absolute disaster wherever it is implemented, no matter what the justification or rationalization, i.e. "some rent control."
> 
> It is the government creating laws to help the privileged few at the expense of property owners and everyone else.
> 
> It's typical statist socialist/fascist failure.



We have property tax control here, and the GOP is trying to end it. Most of our tax increases are due for millages.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > If you move to S.C., I recommend an English-to-Hick dictionary.  Or master the seven basic grunts so you can effectively communicate
> ...



That is the reason I would never move to SC and other reasons.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 25, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> The OP is NOT a conservative.


You guys always claim that whenever one of your own slips.the leash.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 25, 2018)

Penelope said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Rent control is an absolute disaster wherever it is implemented, no matter what the justification or rationalization, i.e. "some rent control."
> ...


What the hell is "property tax control?"


----------



## Penelope (Nov 25, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



The tax on our property.http://www.pawpaw.net/Portals/38/docs/michiganproptax.pdf

We voted to have the sales tax increased and the cap put on property tax.


----------



## sparky (Nov 25, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> You guys always claim that whenever one of your own slips.the leash.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 25, 2018)

Penelope said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


You make no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 25, 2018)

sparky said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > You guys always claim that whenever one of your own slips.the leash.


So stick a rocket up yer butt, light the fuze, and blastoff!  Morality here you come!


----------



## Penelope (Nov 25, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Really, I hate SC. I would never move to rebel land.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

candycorn said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


I could name a few that fit that description.   But I think that would be a waste of time.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more market friendly.  the more participation in markets the greater the potential for the accuracy of better products at potentially lower cost.

Why provide rent control instead of more market participation for more people to help pay for more housing?


----------



## sparky (Nov 25, 2018)

The Differences Between Supply Side and Demand Side Economics


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more market friendly.  the more participation in markets the greater the potential for the accuracy of better products at potentially lower cost.
> 
> Why provide rent control instead of more market participation for more people to help pay for more housing?



Unemployment compensation for people who quit their jobs or just refuse to work is lunacy.   It is rewarding laziness.   Unemployment compensation is meant to hold people over until they get another job.  It was never meant to be a career.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

sparky said:


> The Differences Between Supply Side and Demand Side Economics


the money has already been supplied; Labor has to "soak up that supply to circulate it".


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more market friendly.  the more participation in markets the greater the potential for the accuracy of better products at potentially lower cost.
> ...


You don't believe in Capitalism?  The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed.  Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I believe in capitalism.  I also believe in actually addressing what was said in the post I quote.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with your plea for unemployment compensation to be doled out to those who voluntarily quit their job or refuse to work.   Want money?  Get a job.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Thank you for your support of the Left wing not Right wing policy, by having nothing but fallacy instead of a capitally fine and capitally wonderfully due to being valid, argument.

The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed.  Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Please point out where I have said anything about minimum wage.    I can wait.    Oh yeah, I haven't.

Unemployment compensation is not for people who quit a job voluntarily or refuse to get a job.   That will not change.  You don't get to draw a check and sit on your ass in your parent's house.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


The minimum wage would be fifteen an hour, not fourteen equivalent for being unemployed. Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions.  That is a form of "free market", as compared and contrasted to "wage slavery".


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES!  "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions."  What does that even mean?  Self select what?  Their own wage?  What's he babbling about?  Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


What landlord or real estate firm would be worse off, in that case?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



In what case?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes, he babbles on and on without saying anything.   He also refuses to answer questions to clarify what he says.  His profile says he is 57.  I don't believe he is over 19.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers.  It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages!  What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs.  What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs.  If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers.  It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages!  What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs.  What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs.  If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!



What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person.   Even if they quit their job.  Even if they refuse to work.   He just wants a check for doing nothing.  And he wants people who work to have to pay him.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Explain what you mean by Market participants should "self-select" based on Market conditions, Daniel.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


the Case where every adult market participant has recourse to an income regardless of employment status in our more developed not less developed economy.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


employment is at will in our at-will employment States not for-cause.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers.  It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages!  What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs.  What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs.  If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!


Requiring a work ethic from the Age of Iron is socialism and a form of Control of the People.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers.  It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages!  What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs.  What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs.  If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!
> ...


cheaper than welfare as we currently know it.  why do you Care how the Poor get their money; or, should we have to Care how the Rich get their money?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers.  It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages!  What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs.  What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs.  If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!
> ...



He spews the same crap over and over again constantly trying to change the conversation.  That's why I put him on ignore so I don't have to see the repetitive BS.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


we subscribe to capitalism and an alleged, "free market".


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So you are asking what landlord or real estate firm would be worse off if working people had to pay people a salary despite the fact that they quit their job or refused to work?   Every single one of them.  The rest of the people (those who work) would have less money.  So they would have a tougher time paying rent or buying a home.   The people who only want to take from the system, while contributing nothing, would make lousy tenants because they expect everything to be given to them without their having to do anything.   And the costs of maintaining the rental units would go up.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


i don't mind reading up on the concepts.  the right wing usually only argues in a vacuum of special pleading.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers.  It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages!  What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs.  What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs.  If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!
> ...



LOL...well he needs to have some way to help all the people without job skills that he's going to make jobless with his fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, Winter!  He's going to create a massive pool of people who never will get a job and will become permanent members of the "unemployed caste"!

What's amusing is that he thinks the people who DO work are going to be fine with higher taxes on THEIR wages to help pay for the new entitlement program for those who never will work!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


why do you believe that?  only true socialists don't believe in capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No, not cheaper than welfare.   A young, healthy male cannot get welfare simply because he doesn't want to work.

I don't care how the poor get their money, until it is taken from me, by force (taxation).


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Capitalism will find a way, if we let it!


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers.  It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages!  What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs.  What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs.  If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!
> ...



No.  Requiring that you contribute something in exchange for what you take from others is basic civilization.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Yes, it is a lot cheaper and more efficient; thus, cost effective.  a better solution at lower cost; what concept, right wingers.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



"...a vacuum of special pleading."

Do you even know what it is you're trying to say, Daniel?  What comes out of your mouth is nothing more than double talk.  What is a vacuum of special pleading?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Capitalism is the basis for what I said.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


capital Has to work under capitalism; fools and horses, shouldn't.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You know what is even cheaper?   When healthy adults work to earn their money instead of demanding that others support them.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...


Yes, I do.  The right wing being, One Way, about things.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


That is Socialism, not Capitalism, good Comrade.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You are still spouting that nonsense?    That people shouldn't have to work?  

So who will build and maintain the things we need?   Who will grow the food?  Who will transport the food?   Who will teach our children?   Because people do that now for a paycheck.  Stop paying them and they stop working.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Here's the concept that you liberals never seem to grasp, Daniel.  In order to get capital to "work"...you first have to offer an inducement so those who control capital are willing to risk it.  That inducement is the promise of profits!  Anything that you do to diminish the potential for profits (like raising wages artificially!) will put a damper on the investment of capital.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Absolutely not.   If you think people earning their way is socialism, you are more ignorant about economics than I thought.

I have a good job because I work at it.  Businesses compete for my skills.   They pay me more because they get more from me.  That is capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


employment is at will; not for the Cause of "wage slavery", it depresses not increases pressure on wages.  We need an Institutional upward pressure on wages simply because, a first world economy Costs.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


the capital has already been produced; we need Labor to soak it up and Circulate that capital so we have more Liquidity in our Markets, to address Your concern.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Capitalism is Voluntary.  Socialism resorts to the "force of the law".


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Want higher wages?   Develop a skill that is worth money.

I notice you posted the "Funny" emoji on my question of who will produce things that we need if they are not paid.   But you have no answer.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


a cost of living adjustment, that is all.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

Penelope said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Rent control is an absolute disaster wherever it is implemented, no matter what the justification or rationalization, i.e. "some rent control."
> ...


Vehicle Miles Travelled far more equitable than gas tax

California’s State Legislature voted last week to provide $52.5 billion in transportation funding by increasing the fuel tax. The *10-year plan would boost gasoline excise taxes 12 cents per gallon – a 43% increase*. The cost of gas at the pump is the cost that everyone can see. It is so unpopular politically that California had not raised the gasoline tax in 23 years.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And yet, you want to be paid from money forcibly take from others, and claim it is capitalism.

Yes, capitalism is voluntary.   But if you do not voluntarily work, you get no capital.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Absolute bullshit.   There is no "cost of living adjustment" in what I said or asked.

You want others to work so that you can have the gov't take money from them by force, and pay you for doing nothing.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Government is socialism.  Providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated power.  

Capitalism has to play within the goalposts of Government.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


a cost of living adjustment, nothing more; we get what we pay for in the first world, too.

solving for simple poverty can, "save Detroit".


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Providing for the general welfare does not include paying healthy adults for doing nothing.

And your demands to be taken care of by others is socialism.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


lol.  Government is socialism.  Our welfare clause is General not Common.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And what do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you a salary for doing nothing?   YOu made the claim "we get what we pay for in the first world, too", so answer the question.  What do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

sparky said:


> The Differences Between Supply Side and Demand Side Economics


LOL

Both are really the same...........You create a supply you are guessing the demand will follow.  If you are wrong you eat it.

It's not like people are burning torches telling an inventor to create something for them to buy.  Most new gadgets are companies guessing there will be a demand and they win and lose at this.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



LOL...in order for Labor to "soak up" Capital they have to be employed, you buffoon!

If I'm the owner of capital and I'm trying to decide the best way to maintain or hopefully increase that capital...then using that capital to create goods to be sold or provide a service for money is one alternative.  If I make the decision to invest in a business that will do either of those things, the thing that I am ultimately looking at is whether or not there is substantial enough potential for profit to warrant the risking of my capital.  If there isn't...then I'm not going to pull the trigger on that investment!  So kindly explain to me how Labor is going to "soak up" capital when your raising of wages has created an environment that isn't conducive to jobs being created?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Government was to be limited.........The States to decide the lion's share of what is to be done there.  So one state can't infringe on the rights of another.  What's best for California isn't best for Alabama.  We don't want your stinking BS here.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


capital Has to circulate not Labor in a First World economy.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Oh, God...he just keeps on spouting gibberish!  

How do you get capital to "circulate", Daniel?  Duh?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Money is circulated because people proved something to get something.

Once again....

And what do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you a salary for doing nothing?   YOu made the claim "we get what we pay for in the first world, too", so answer the question.  What do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That is why the left comes up with solutions, not excuses.  We rely on the federal doctrine not the Republican Doctrine.

Solving simple poverty will ensure more not less market participation in a manner analogous to this maxim:



> If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.
> - Aristotle


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I think it's rather obvious that the reason California is so FUBARED right now is that it is full of people just like Daniel that don't have a CLUE about how the real world works!


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


He is a troll.............he spouts the same thing over and over again..........giving funnies or informative to everything.  then always goes back to the same 15 an hour and same nonsense.............

It is how he trolls and rolls.............LOL


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Compensation for Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You rely on the "federal doctrine"?  Explain what that is, Daniel!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


however did you get that idea?

we have a mixed market, command economy, and use fiat money.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You solve the problem by making everything cost more in places like California then say you are for the poor by making them spend more money.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


only Gossip, "gentlemen"?


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Oh, there's a "natural" rate of unemployment that you achieve through artificial manipulations of the minimum wage?  Really, Daniel?  That's total BULLSHIT, my ignorant little friend!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


nothing but fallacy and resorting to false of Cause instead of the Gospel Truth, right wingers, forshame.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


it is enumerated expressly, in our federal Constitution and supreme not superior law of the land.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


It's kind of like the wildfire issues there.  They help create laws that guarantee that no one can thin the forests.........Such as the Roadless law on Federal Land...........and even to the point that citizens need permission to cut down a tree in their own yard...............Then the place explodes and burns to the ground.........and they say we are here from the Gov't and are here to help you...............LOL

They are like an arsonist burning your house down then the arsonist comes back to help you..........They are that stupid.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

So were you going to explain what the "federal doctrine" is, Daniel?  Or was that simply more of your grade A manure that you're spreading today?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And what do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you a salary for doing nothing?   YOu made the claim "we get what we pay for in the first world, too", so answer the question.  What do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Fixing Standards for the Union, is an express power.  There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Really?  Interesting...I seem to have missed that part in all of my perusals of the Constitution!  Would you care to point out where the "federal doctrine" is in the Constitution?  I'd love to read it!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> So were you going to explain what the "federal doctrine" is, Daniel?  Or was that simply more of your grade A manure that you're spreading today?


read our whole Constitution.  that is the federal doctrine for federalists.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


if you knew any Thing about economics, you would know that stabilizing our economy is key for Commerce.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


How do you help the poor by making Gasoline more expensive.............how do you help the poor by increasing the cost of electricity by charging Carbon Taxes to those producing it..............

Simple answer is you don't............You screw the little man and say you are actually helping him.  And brain dead liberals actually believe them...............

While we are at it.......how do you help the poor with the highest State Income taxes in the country......not counting Hawaii.......................hmmm...............take their money away and it's better for them.............then wonder why they are living in tents.......

Hmmm.........this is the path of those stupid to follow the yellow brick road off a cliff..............


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And what do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you a salary for doing nothing?   YOu made the claim "we get what we pay for in the first world, too", so answer the question.  What do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you?

YOu made the claim, Daniel.   YOu said "we get what we pay for".    So why won't you answer the question?


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

Daniel is bringing a special kind of stupid to the board today.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


federalists got it ratified as our civic Constitution for our Body Politic.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Just because you have no money and others do does not destabilize our economy.

You made a claim.  I am simply asking what we get for paying you?    Because, if we get nothing we should not pay you.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Capitalism works.  Who would be worse off with More rather than Less People spending more money.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


We get fucked with no Vasoline.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> Daniel is bringing a special kind of stupid to the board today.


right wingers are just story tellers; nobody takes them seriously.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Ah, so the minimum wage is something given to us by the Constitution?  In what part exactly, Daniel?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Who could be worse off?   They people who are taxed to pay you for doing nothing.

And what do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you a salary for doing nothing?   YOu made the claim "we get what we pay for in the first world, too", so answer the question.  What do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


solving simple poverty solves our market based problems.  what Part of That, do you not get, right winger?


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Compensation for Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment.


Compensate who? For what?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


fixing Standards for the Union.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel is bringing a special kind of stupid to the board today.
> ...



Yeah, we're all story tellers, Daniel...but some of us are telling stories that are non fiction.  You on the other hand seem to fall in the Juvenile Reader Science Fiction genre!


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You are still dancing around the question.    You could solve your poverty by getting a job.

And what do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you a salary for doing nothing?   YOu made the claim "we get what we pay for in the first world, too", so answer the question.  What do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


What merchant in commerce would be worse off?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Compensation for Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment.
> ...


read the rest of the thread.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


you have to be sincere to establish confidence in your sincerity.  it really is that simple.  anyone with Any understanding of morals, knows that.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

Well, I've wasted enough of my life arguing with this idiot!  I'm off to the golf course...


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Every merchant.   The people who work would have less money to spend.

I see you are totally unable to answer my question.    Why am I not surprised?

And what do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you a salary for doing nothing?   YOu made the claim "we get what we pay for in the first world, too", so answer the question.  What do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I am sincere in my knowledge that you want us to pay you and get nothing in return.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployed.  i really can claim to be, naturally unemployed.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


What merchant in Commerce would be worse off if every Customer should have an income?

Henry Ford gave us the answer.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Claim away.   It changes nothing.

And what do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you a salary for doing nothing?   YOu made the claim "we get what we pay for in the first world, too", so answer the question.  What do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you?


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I'm sincerely confident that you don't have a clue what it is that you're talking about, Daniel!


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I have and so far all I have seen is gibberish that wouldn't even clear an entry level leftist/collectivist economics class, much less a righteous one.
The whole discredited to each, from each notion is nonsense


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


that is immoral.  our welfare clause is General not limited by Your selfishness.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



The customers will have less money.   They will have it taken from them by force, and receive nothing in return for it.  That is socialism.

And what do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you a salary for doing nothing?   YOu made the claim "we get what we pay for in the first world, too", so answer the question.  What do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


i am sincerely confident you don't understand economics to have nothing but fallacy instead of a good argument.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...


i gainsay your contention.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


fourteen or fifteen dollars an hour equivalent.  show your numbers, right winger.

How will any Merchant in Commerce be Worse off if every adult customer has an income?

Anyone with Any understanding of microeconomics want to explain the concept.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



LMAO!!!!    Immoral??    You want to live off of others, while offering nothing in return.  And you call me selfish?  I provide something for the money I get.  I have asked and asked and asked what you provide for the money you want, and you have no answer.

You want to be given money for doing nothing.   That money comes from people who work.   And you have the audacity to call me selfish?   LMAO!!

And as for immoral, it is not immoral at all.   If you will not lift a finger to take care of yourself, why should anyone else?


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Nov 25, 2018)

I pretty much agree. Landlords should be allowed a certain percentage of profit above their mortgage payment and maintenance costs. If, for example, a landlord has a mortgage of $20K per month on a small apartment complex with 10 identical units (including property taxes and insurance), and if his maintenance costs are, say, $6K per year, for a total of $246K per year or $20,500 per month/$2.050 per unit per month, he should be able to charge 20% more than his total monthly cost per unit. Thus, if each unit cost him $2,050 per month, he could charge $2,460 monthly rent per unit. At that rate, he would make $4100 per month profit after all expenses. If he owned 20 apartment units, he would make $8200 per month after all expenses.

And this is not including the fact that as a landlord, he gets tax deductions for his maintenance costs.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Oh, so now you want me to answer your questions.    Funny, you don't answer questions but you want others to answer yours.

Not a surprise there.  It is your economic model too.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


this is what we should be doing:



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

mikegriffith1 said:


> I pretty much agree. Landlords should be allowed a certain percentage of profit above their mortgage payment and maintenance costs. If, for example, a landlord has a mortgage of $20K per month on a small apartment complex with 10 identical units (including property taxes and insurance), and if his maintenance costs are, say, $6K per year, for a total of $246K per year or $20,500 per month/$2.050 per unit per month, he should be able to charge 20% more than his total monthly cost per unit. Thus, if each unit cost him $2,050 per month, he could charge $2,460 monthly rent per unit. At that rate, he would make $4100 per month profit after all expenses. If he owned 20 apartment units, he would make $8200 per month after all expenses.
> 
> And this is not including the fact that as a landlord, he gets tax deductions for his maintenance costs.


why no free markets here by solving simple poverty?  does Government have to solve All problems for the right wing.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

Now that danielfailosbot is posting, this thread is truly over.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


your morals don't concern me; we have a First Amendment.  you need an economic argument and never had one.  i got to practice my Tolerance, just for fun.  Thanks.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


That is what a troll does................They post nothing but the same comments over and over again.....never answer specific questions........Call you a moron.......wash, rinse, dry.........repeat.


----------



## dblack (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> Now that danielfailosbot is posting, this thread is truly over.



No, it's not truly over until daniel and specialEd square off.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> Now that danielfailosbot is posting, this thread is truly over.



Indeed it is.

Well, I am going to go add some waterproofing to my new Clamshell screen tent.  Gotta be ready for our December camping trips.

Ain't capitalism great?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> Now that danielfailosbot is posting, this thread is truly over.


if arguments were Gold.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Quit renting and throwing away money. Buy a house. My house note is 485 a month and that includes full insurance coverage on a 3 bedroom, 2 bath brick home on over an acre of land with a dozen huge oak trees and it's on a recently repaved road. Oh yea, and that rate is locked in. I have a little piece of paper that guarantees that rate for the life of the loan. And paying more than the required amount will pay off the house sooner.
> ...





protectionist said:


> How much did you have to pay up front ? What was your credit score ?



Honestly, how can you be your age and not have an understanding of these simple questions?  SMH.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


you need a microeconomic argument and can't come up with one.  who's fault is that?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


And now we rinse.............LOL

And now I ask the question again.............How do you help the poor by making everything more expensive..............

Now deflection.........drying............LOL ......please continue Daniel.........you are out of your cave now


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


how many times do i have to tell you?  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


And the one liners reappear Mr. Troll...........LOLLOL

Now for how do you help the poor by taking more of their money question...........which of course will not be answered...........LOL


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



No doubt there are some very charming antebellum plantation homes with well meaning albeit clueless owners who offer a genuine southern experience.

I have no desire to have an old school, white supremacist experience. Those places of pain and misery should be razed.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


only lousy capitalists have to be told how capitalism works. 

more people Spending more money is Always a Good thing for Merchants in Commerce.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


As Toro already said.............you have basically killed the thread which is your purpose...........


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Hutch Starskey said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



So the factories of the north will also be razed?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



For someone who extolls the virtues of capitalism, you certainly do not want to participate.   Capitalism is about people working and earning.  It rewards work and punishes those who do not work.

You want to steal the reward from others.   That is immoral and selfish.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I have no idea what this means or how it relates to air bnb or my point.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Hutch Starskey said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



You stated that antebellum homes should be razed because they were places of pain and misery.  The factories of the northeast, especially those using child labor, were also places of pain and misery.  I simply asked if they would be razed too.  Applying the same standards you used.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


upset you have no valid rebuttals, bro?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

we need an institutional upward pressure on wages to create more demand for new housing in more optimal locations.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

Tampa approves 5 percent property tax increase

TAMPA — The City Council late Tuesday approved a 5 percent property tax increase for next year. But no one seemed to mind.

That's because no one from the public showed up for the final hearing on next year's budget.

"Wow," council member Lisa Montelione said. "I'm shocked."

"We get to go home early," Chairman Frank Reddick said.

Mayor Bob Buckhorn's $850.2 million budget for 2016 is built on the same property tax rate — $5.73 in taxes for every $1,000 of assessed taxable property value — as for the previous eight years. But because the real estate market is recovering, construction is picking up and property values are rising, the same tax rate raises more revenue. Hence, the tax increase.

Consequently, a house that's assessed at $146,000 (the city's average) by the Hillsborough County property appraiser and has a homestead exemption will pay $550 in city taxes next year. That home's total tax bill, including taxes levied by Hillsborough County and the School Board, will be about $2,025.



Wonder how many more tax increases Tampa did since then.............

Let's say the property is worth about 30 million......that would add about $50 per unit to pass on the cost to the tenants there.........Don't know what the property is worth so I'm just guessing...........done with math based on 280 units which is what I thought he said a while back at a value of 30 million................guessing of course.........LOL


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Ok. Except the conversation was about housing accomodations in the south. Specifically, air bnb and your suggestion of an antebellum home.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

https://www.bizjournals.com/tampaba...-city-leaders-will-not-seek-property-tax.html

The city also has to advertise the proposed rate, if approved, as a tax increase because revenue will increase even though the rate assessed would remain the same. The “roll back rate” is the millage rate the city would have to impose to keep property tax revenue the same as the previous fiscal year. That would be 6.3513, nearly four-tenths lower than the proposed rate.

City council can lower the proposed rate during budget discussions but cannot increase it.

As proposed, the city would collect about $675 on every $100,000 of assessed value on a property.

Council will vote on the budget Sept. 6 and then again for final approval Sept. 20.

Same guess..............30 million property would cost the property owner about 202,000 a year.....380 units about $723 per unit a year ..........at about 60 a month to pay the property taxes...........that doesn't include the sewage increases and water increases ...............


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Tampa approves 5 percent property tax increase
> 
> TAMPA — The City Council late Tuesday approved a 5 percent property tax increase for next year. But no one seemed to mind.
> 
> ...


insist on upgrading wherever possible to reduce long term costs.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Hutch Starskey said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



Indeed it was.   And I know of several beautiful old homes that have been turned in B&Bs and are rented on AirBNB.    And I stated that very thing.  Plus, the hosts are gracious and friendly.   The hosts, as far as I know, are not white supremacists (I personally know that 2 of the host couples are not).    

There, now I have responded to the entirety of your post.  Better?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Why should he be upset.   You have already set the precedent for not responding to points and not answering questions.

You still have not answer mine.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

So ...........ignoring the troll.........Property values are growing in the Tampa area.............They've increased property taxes to pay for parks and such.................values are increasing at 6.75% a year via article posted..............and apartment complexes are paying more in taxes as a result................Definitely not 60% increases but increases passed on to the tenant as part of the equation.......................

might account for about 60 a month of the increase............don't know about the sewage tax increases and water increases.........


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Now that danielfailosbot is posting, this thread is truly over.
> ...


danielfailosbot would be a potmetal coin.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> Now that danielfailosbot is posting, this thread is truly over.



Not for me,  I have him on ignore.  I didn't see one post of his.  I don't read other posts that don't have a quote because it's likely they're talking to him.  A complete waste of time.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > katsteve2012 said:
> ...




The cost of living here is shocking due to the gross interference in free markets by the various state, county and local governments.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 25, 2018)

mikegriffith1 said:


> I pretty much agree. Landlords should be allowed a certain percentage of profit above their mortgage payment and maintenance costs. If, for example, a landlord has a mortgage of $20K per month on a small apartment complex with 10 identical units (including property taxes and insurance), and if his maintenance costs are, say, $6K per year, for a total of $246K per year or $20,500 per month/$2.050 per unit per month, he should be able to charge 20% more than his total monthly cost per unit. Thus, if each unit cost him $2,050 per month, he could charge $2,460 monthly rent per unit. At that rate, he would make $4100 per month profit after all expenses. If he owned 20 apartment units, he would make $8200 per month after all expenses.
> 
> And this is not including the fact that as a landlord, he gets tax deductions for his maintenance costs.



That's totally impossible to calculate.  My expenses change greatly by year.  People may not realize it, but empty apartments are killer in this business.  So if I have two empty apartments in one year, that changes my income greatly compared to the year before or perhaps next year.  

But that's besides the point nobody in government should be telling me what I can charge for rent no more than government telling a car wash what they can charge per vehicle or telling Sam at Sam's hardware the maximum he can charge for a shop vac.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > When government artificially controls things like wages, and prices BAD things happen.  Let the market work.  Move to a less expensive apartment.
> ...




Here's the flaw in your logic:   other people's lives are damaged by rent control.

Try reading Bastiat's parable of the Broken Window and think about the implications of rent control on the unseen in your equation.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

Apply for Rental & Housing Assistance

*How To*

If you think you qualify for assistance, contact your local Community Resource Center to schedule an appointment
Once you have an appointment, complete an application at a local Community Resource Center
Bring all necessary documentation _*to your appointment*_ in order to expedite your eligibility determination:
Social Security number verification for each household member
Two items showing verification of Hillsborough County residency:
Valid driver's license with current address
Letter or current lease from your landlord or mortgage company
Hillsborough County voter registration card
Public utility bill with Hillsborough County address
Vehicle registration with a Hillsborough County address
Current public school enrollment in Hillsborough County

Picture identification for all adults in the household
Verification of gross income for all household members for the last 30 days, such as: paycheck stub, employer letter, award letter for public assistance, Social Security income verification, unemployment benefits letter, or pension check stub
Proof of lease or mortgage obligation
Completed W-9 Form
Completed Landlord Verification form


Additional requirements may be necessary for eligibility determination depending on each household situation
Rents rising in Tampa Bay, more quickly than national average


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > And what do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you a salary for doing nothing?   YOu made the claim "we get what we pay for in the first world, too", so answer the question.  What do we, the taxpayers, get for paying you?
> ...


If you knew anything about economics, you would quit annoying the grownups with this halfassed nonsense of yours.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Hutch Starskey said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



I sincerely doubt a Southern mansion was being offered on the Air BNB website for $55 a night.  I didn’t look at the properties listed but that is what I saw in Memphis for the time we were there.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 25, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



How do you help the poor by spending nearly $700B on defense?


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Yes, thank you.
I never said the owners were white supremacists. Certainly though, the antebellum properties and the "charm" associated with that period are steeped in white supremacy. I'm sorry but I don't  find anything about that period of the south to be charming.  Savannah is a beautiful city, as many are, but is haunted by a history that I just can't abide.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

What is the Section 202 program?

Village at University Square Apartments in Tampa, Florida

HUD subsidized housing for the elderly at this site........if qualified........Protectionist may qualify for these programs.


----------



## dblack (Nov 25, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> What is the Section 202 program?
> 
> Village at University Square Apartments in Tampa, Florida
> 
> HUD subsidized housing for the elderly at this site........if qualified........Protectionist may qualify for these programs.


Do they have mental wards?


----------



## Pilot1 (Nov 25, 2018)

candycorn said:


> How do you help the poor by spending nearly $700B on defense?



The purpose of military spending is not to "help the poor".  It is to provide for the DEFENSE of the nation.  However, you do realize that many, many "poor" people join the military to have employment, benefits, and sometimes to earn money for college, or to learn a trade.  You do know that, right?


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> The purpose of military spending is not to "help the poor".  It is to provide for the DEFENSE of the nation.


Sadly, it does neither. It does enrich the hell out of contractors and former congressmen turned lobbyists


----------



## sartre play (Nov 25, 2018)

No answer, but its clear that regular working folks are getting squeezed by all sides.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > How do you help the poor by spending nearly $700B on defense?
> ...



Neither was it the goal of the programs mentioned by the dumbfuck I was responding to.  You do know that, right?


----------



## candycorn (Nov 25, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > The purpose of military spending is not to "help the poor".  It is to provide for the DEFENSE of the nation.
> ...


Some military families are on public assistance


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

candycorn said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > Pilot1 said:
> ...


Point being?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 25, 2018)

dblack said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > What is the Section 202 program?
> ...


You need a place to stay............lol why don't you apply and get your padded cell today.....


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You are a statist.
> 
> Conservatives generally are statist authoritarians, like their leftist counterparts.   You propose a government intrusion, but it is okay in your mind because it is only when in certain exceptional situations (i.e. those effect you) and you forget or don't care about what such an intrusion does to landlords.
> 
> ...


So you purport to know all about the _"market support"_ for the area that I live in, do you ?  Well answer this, Mr. Knowledge > If the "market support" is so good for $300-400/month rent increases, then why is this the ONLY apartment complex for miles around, that is raising rents this way ?

The answer is simple.  That you are just blowing off hot air, with a lot of emotion, and no facts.

What do I think the landlord will do with the extra money ? I think he'll buy jewels, 10 sportscars, or some other wasteful, stupid thing, or do nothing with it.  You think he needs this extra money ? Not hardly.  And if he did, that still wouldn't be any reason to raise rents to exhorbitant amounts, causing people to uproot their lives.

For all the landlords in this thread who have been crabbing about all the stuff they have to pay for, I say the same thing that I have said 100 times in this forum to business owners who hire low-wage aliens. If you can't afford to run a business(of any kind) without hiring low wage aliens (or raising rents 100s of $$), then you can't afford TO BE IN BUSINESS AT ALL.  And you shouldn't be in business, period. And you should do what all the rest of us (who can't afford it) do. GET A JOB.

And no, I'm not a statist.  I just see the state as having certain functions.  With regard to business (as a former business owner myself) I'd prefer the state be involved with business as little as possible. But raising apartment rents 60% ? Yes, that calls for some state support, and I'm not the slightest bit shy to say it.  Just being OK with the state taking action, in certain things, that doesn't mean you're a "statist" (is that word just a cover for someone not wanting to say "liberal")

If anybody wants to point fingers at those who accept some "state" intervention, let's see what they have to say about ICE, Border Patrol, and the National Guard.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > You are a statist.
> ...


Who are you to dictate terms to business people? Oh that's right, a welfare bum. Trolling the productive with dictates on how they spend their earnings and who they hire to maximise return on investment.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> Who are you to dictate terms to business people? Oh that's right, a welfare bum. Trolling the productive with dictates on how they spend their earnings and who they hire to maximise return on investment.


I'm retired, collecting a VA pension and Social Security, both of which were EARNED.  So you call find somebody else to throw your little "welfare bum" line at.  And I wonder if your income if 1/10 as much earned as mine is.

Who am I to dictate ?  A veteran. A 50+ year taxpayer. A citizen with free speech. And who are you to tell me to not exercise that freedom of speech, other than some babbling boob.  GET A JOB, whiner.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > Who are you to dictate terms to business people? Oh that's right, a welfare bum. Trolling the productive with dictates on how they spend their earnings and who they hire to maximise return on investment.
> ...


A welfare queen, riding on the back of taxpayers.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

dblack said:


> Do they have mental wards?


Just walk in and wave.  They'll take you.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > Who are you to dictate terms to business people? Oh that's right, a welfare bum. Trolling the productive with dictates on how they spend their earnings and who they hire to maximise return on investment.
> ...



That doesn’t give you the right to dictate to Americans how they should conduct their business and to restrict individual liberty.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > You are a statist.
> ...




If the landlord is increasing rent above what the market bears, then move to a more reasonably priced unit elsewhere.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.

And it's none of your business how your landlord spends his money. It's his, not yours.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> Sadly, it does neither. It does enrich the hell out of contractors and former congressmen turned lobbyists


If it didn't provide for the DEFENSE of the nation, you'd be a pile of ashes right now.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > You are a statist.
> ...



You sure sound like a leftist.

Leftists often decry how the wealthy spend their money. It’s none of your business how the capitalist spends his money.  But you want the government to restrict how much income he can earn. How’s that any different than what Obama believes?

If it’s the only place raising rents, you should have no problem finding a place nearby.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 25, 2018)

"I'm a conservative...but". What does that mean? Is it assumed that most conservatives are for rent gouging?


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly, it does neither. It does enrich the hell out of contractors and former congressmen turned lobbyists
> ...


That fairy tale story has been around long enough that nobody believes it any more and rightfully so.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> If the landlord is increasing rent above what the market bears, then move to a more reasonably priced unit elsewhere.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.
> 
> And it's none of your business how your landlord spends his money. It's his, not yours.


There is a thing called government. Of the people, by the people, for the people. At least that is the ideal we strive for.  Not government by and for GREEDY landlords. 

 No, it's not just "his" business.  With a business owner who sells furniture, that's his business. With one who deals with people's homes, that his AND THEIRS.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > If the landlord is increasing rent above what the market bears, then move to a more reasonably priced unit elsewhere.
> ...



You sound EXACTLY like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> That fairy tale story has been around long enough that nobody believes it any more and rightfully so.


Liberalism is a mental disorder.  Here's the proof.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

“You didn’t build that.” - Protectionist.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > You are a statist.
> ...



Saying that if an investor shouldn't do business without raising rents is like saying you shouldn't be a renter if you can't afford to pay any price increases in rent. 

What a person does with their own property that they paid for is not the business of government.  If you had boxes of Archie and Jughead comic books you paid 10 cents for as a child, and can now sell them at $100.00 per copy, should government tell you that you can't do that?  You can only charge 25 cents per copy?  

People make investments like that all the time.  My father built the house we grew up in for $9,000.  It's now worth $120,000.  Would it be wrong for my father to take advantage of the real estate market?  

You have no idea of what the new landlords plans are.  You have no idea if they will make money or lose money.  You're just making wild assumptions at this point.  I don't know either.  I don't know the name of your apartment complex or I'd look it up, or perhaps get the phone number of the company that bought the place to ask them for the reason of ridiculous rental increases.  If other apartments are going for much less than your new rental rates, then something has to be going on that you don't know about.  But you'll never know unless you try your best to find out.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> You sound EXACTLY like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


Yeah ?  _"EXACTLY ?"_ Does she call for all Muslim mosques to be closed? All Korans to be eliminated ? Does she proclaim Islam to be illegal in America ?

Does she call for ALL illegal aliens to be deported ? for sanctuary cities leaders to all be arrested, convicted, and imprisoned ? And birthright citizenship for illegal aliens' kids to be abolished ?

Does she call for Affirmative Action to be abolished, and all white people to be paid reparations$$$$$ by the supporters of AA (from their own pockets) ?

Does she call for teachers and staff in schools to be armed with guns ?  For nationwide CCW ?  For gun-free zones to be abolished ?

Does she proclaim that queers are deranged ?

If not all those things, then she couldn't sound "EXACTLY" like me.


----------



## dblack (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Liberalism is a mental disorder.



Been reading up on mental disorders?


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > You sound EXACTLY like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
> ...



You sound EXACTLY like her and all other leftists on your anti-capitalist, anti-liberty views.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Saying that if an investor shouldn't do business without raising rents is like saying you shouldn't be a renter if you can't afford to pay any price increases in rent.
> 
> What a person does with their own property that they paid for is not the business of government.  If you had boxes of Archie and Jughead comic books you paid 10 cents for as a child, and can now sell them at $100.00 per copy, should government tell you that you can't do that?  You can only charge 25 cents per copy?
> 
> ...


It's the business of government (to some degree) when it involves the fundamental survival aspects of lots of PEOPLE. You keep talking about the landlords. You don't say a word about the PEOPLE whose lives they hold in their hands.

As for the landlord's plans, I know EXACTLY what they are, because they have sent us letters telling us what the new rents are going to be. To the penny.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

dblack said:


> Been reading up on mental disorders?


Yeah. Your posts.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> You sound EXACTLY like her and all other leftists on your anti-capitalist, anti-liberty views.


LOL. See Post # 507.

Do YOU call YOURself a "Conservative" ?


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Saying that if an investor shouldn't do business without raising rents is like saying you shouldn't be a renter if you can't afford to pay any price increases in rent.
> ...



Your survival isn’t dependent on the rent in your building. 

Move to another place. 

Stop being a fascist/communist. 

Maybe if you’d made more money and/or made better financial decisions for yourself in your life, you wouldn’t be in this situation. 

Don’t whine for the government to bail you out for your bad life decisions.


----------



## dblack (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Been reading up on mental disorders?
> ...



Well, good for you! That's a start. But I'm no expert. Talk to a professional.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> A welfare queen, riding on the back of taxpayers.


A deranged lunatic, posting in a computer forum.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > You sound EXACTLY like her and all other leftists on your anti-capitalist, anti-liberty views.
> ...



I didn’t call myself a conservative. I called myself a capitalist. 

I’m not begging for Big Gubmint to bail me out for making bad financial decisions like a leftist like you are.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

dblack said:


> Well, that's a start. But I'm no expert. Talk to a professional.


You're the expert at having a mental disorder. > The disorder of liberalism. Mr LIBERAL.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that's a start. But I'm no expert. Talk to a professional.
> ...



This whole whining thread is a liberal thread.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


So, you're a Conservative *UNTIL* an issue impacts you directly and profoundly?

Conservatives are expected to own their own homes, to pay off their mortgages, and to be well-provisioned in their old age.

If you have not provisioned yourself in such a fashion, then you must endure the consequences.

This was a personal choice during your younger (earning) years... you are now about to reap what you have sown.

Perhaps you should have advocated for somewhat more liberal housing policies nationwide while you still could.

You are rather like Jacob Marley apologizing for not benefiting his fellow Man *after* he died - once it was too late.

Conservatism is all about laissez faire (hands-off)... whatever the market will bear... 

If you cannot afford your new rent, then you must move to cheaper quarters, or seek shelter or subsistence elsewhere...

Stop picking on poor Conservative businessmen doing what comes naturally and legally with their own properties...

Consider it a market correction...

Sucks, doesn't it?

Isn't an exclusive reliance upon Conservatism *soooo* rewarding?

------------

My condolences.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> I didn’t call myself a conservative. I called myself a capitalist.
> 
> I’m not begging for Big Gubmint to bail me out for making bad financial decisions like a leftist like you are.


Well, that just shows that you have ZERO CREDIBILITY in this thread.  It's quite obvious that anyone who holds the views that I stated in Post # 507 is not a "leftist", as you idiotically said. In fact, I might be the most far right conservative in this entire forum.And next to my views, you look like Nancy Pelosi.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > I didn’t call myself a conservative. I called myself a capitalist.
> ...



You’re a leftist on economics. It doesn’t matter how much you hate darkies and Muslims. On economics, you sound like a clueless leftist like AOC.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Kondor3 said:


> So, you're a Conservative *UNTIL* an issue impacts you directly and profoundly?
> 
> Conservatives are expected to own their own homes, to pay off their mortgages, and to be well-provisioned in their old age.
> 
> ...


Not "UNTIL". Because I don't see stopping 60% rent increases as being anything against Conservatism. I see it as being against insanity, and for common sense. There are limits to how far conservatism might go. I'm for deporting ALL illegal aliens, and imprisoning all sanctuary city leaders. But I wouldn't support having them all be shot.  Get it ?

And if you can't see without extra large print, got some glasses.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're a Conservative *UNTIL* an issue impacts you directly and profoundly?
> ...



Yup. You’re a fascist.


----------



## sparky (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> There is a thing called government. Of the people, by the people, for the people. At least that is the ideal we strive for. *Not government by and for GREEDY landlords*.


I see, so you're freedoms boild down to having Gub'Mit in your back pocket, when it behooves you to....



protectionist said:


> Liberalism is a mental disorder. Here's the proof.


Savage IS mentally challenged, on any appreciable level



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Saying that if an investor shouldn't do business without raising rents is like saying you shouldn't be a renter if you can't afford to pay any price increases in rent.


back to the free market, yet again....



Toro said:


> You sound EXACTLY like her and all other leftists on your anti-capitalist, anti-liberty views


*<<<Ouch>>>>*
The dif is, protectionist is out to protect _himself _via moral justification of selfishness.....where lefties focus on the great _unwashed
_


protectionist said:


> It's the business of government (to some degree) when it involves the fundamental survival aspects of lots of PEOPLE


welcome to the world of mentally challenged liberalism then



protectionist said:


> Do YOU call YOURself a "Conservative" ?


Your metric is somewhat challenged to do so now...



Toro said:


> Don’t whine for the government to bail you out for your bad life decisions


Unless you're too big to fail, and have numerous congresscritters on your leash...



Toro said:


> I didn’t call myself a conservative. I called myself a capitalist.
> I’m not begging for Big Gubmint to bail me out for making bad financial decisions like a leftist like you are.


and there in lies the great divide.....

~S~


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're a Conservative *UNTIL* an issue impacts you directly and profoundly?
> ...


Perhaps the 60% rent increase is merely to bring long-understated rents back in line with current rates in your geographical area.

Perhaps the owner is trying to drive-out his tenants in order to bulldoze the place down and sell or re-develop the land.

Perhaps the owner is just bat-$hit crazy or mean-spirited.

Doesn't matter.

It's *his* property... not yours.

You have an option.

Move.


----------



## LaDexter (Nov 25, 2018)

Every time I read or hear "I'm a conservative but I support BIG GOVERNMENT"

I yawn and wonder who is dumb enough to fall for that shit....


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> You’re a leftist on economics. It doesn’t matter how much you hate darkies and Muslims. On economics, you sound like a clueless leftist like AOC.


If I was a leftist on economics, I would be against rent control ENTIRELY. I'm not.  I'm just against unecessary gouging.   And landlord NEEDS all this extra money ?  

No, this isn't "economics". I support lowering the corporate tax rate.  In fact, I think it should have been lowered even more than it is.  I just don't support rent increases that are so high, that hundreds of people are forced to move. And for anyone who doe support that, it isn't a matter of "economics".  It a matter of sanity vs insanity.

Now, I will go back to watching football.  Your lamebrain and looneytune  "ideas" are not even worth the dignity of a response.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

LaDexter said:


> Every time I read or hear "I'm a conservative but I support BIG GOVERNMENT"
> 
> I yawn and wonder who is dumb enough to fall for that shit....


I don't support  BIG GOVERNMENT.  Get a brain.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > Saying that if an investor shouldn't do business without raising rents is like saying you shouldn't be a renter if you can't afford to pay any price increases in rent.
> ...



Perhaps, but you don't know why they are increasing the rents, and it might give you some peace to find out. 

You see, if I was in your position (and I have been) the first thing I would do is try to find out WTF is going on.  It's like when my one landlord refused to sign a new lease.  He finally broke down and told me family is before business.  It didn't make me any happier, but at least I understood what was going on.  It's not like he was kicking us out just to be an asshole.   He had different goals in mind and we were in the way.  In fact years later, I ran into his sister when I was teaching music at the music store, and she was taking piano lessons.  She apologized greatly for what happened.  I told her it wasn't her fault.  It was a business deal between her brother and I. 

Now if I didn't get a satisfactory answer from the landlord or company, my next move would be to call local news agencies.  They have investigative reporters and love stories just like yours.  If news is slow, they may investigate your concern and even air it on their show.   If they do, get some of your neighbors together when the reporter comes down to interview all of you.  Will it help?  I don't know.  But one thing for sure, it wouldn't hurt. 

It's not that I don't feel for you, it's just I'm looking at it from a rational point of view.  It's like if you leased a car for four years.  When the four years was coming up, you decide you want to keep the car, but the leasing company said they don't want to sell it to you.  It's their property.  They have a right to do with their property no less than you do with your property.  It doesn't matter how much you love the car, the memories of family vacations, the dependability of the vehicle, the vehicle is not yours.  You paid money to use  another persons property for X amount of time.  You met your end of the obligation, and they met theirs.  When the contract is up, you have to return their property back to them as promised.


----------



## LaDexter (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I don't support BIG GOVERNMENT. Get a brain.





Don't call yourself a CONSERVATIVE if you support RENT CONTROL.


Call yourself a NAZI if you support GUN CONTROL.

Get it right


YOU are NOT a CONSERVATIVE if you support RENT CONTROL by BIG GOVERNMENT.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > If the landlord is increasing rent above what the market bears, then move to a more reasonably priced unit elsewhere.
> ...




Spoken like a true collectivist.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Kondor3 said:


> Perhaps the 60% rent increase is merely to bring long-understated rents back in line with current rates in your geographical area.
> 
> Perhaps the owner is trying to drive-out his tenants in order to bulldoze the place down and sell or re-develop the land.
> 
> ...


That's where you're wrong   NO IT IS NOT "HIS" PROPERTY.  Not entirely.  There are many restrictions on what he can do or can't do with that property. The size of rent increases, when governed, is only one among many others.

Look at all the landlords here pissing in their pants over the fear of unrestrained rent control.  Well, they might be talking about that, I'm not. I'm just saying that raising somebody's rent from $600/month to $960/month is absurd and idiotic, and anybody who would support this lunacy is just that.  A lunatic.

And for those who say "Move", YOU PAY FOR THAT MOVING. And YOU DO THE WORK, or else


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > You’re a leftist on economics. It doesn’t matter how much you hate darkies and Muslims. On economics, you sound like a clueless leftist like AOC.
> ...



Yeah, you’re not “entirely” a leftist. Just when it affects _you_. 

That makes you not only a leftist, but also a hypocrite.

But I repeat myself.


----------



## LaDexter (Nov 25, 2018)

Yeah...

"I'm opposed to BIG GOVERNMENT unless it is HANDING OUT CASH TO ME ME ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


Sincerely

the entire REPUBLICAN CONGRESS 1998-2018


----------



## ph3iron (Nov 25, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...


At least you admit the dreaded socialist VA HAS A FEW ADVANTAGES


----------



## ph3iron (Nov 25, 2018)

LaDexter said:


> Yeah...
> 
> "I'm opposed to BIG GOVERNMENT unless it is HANDING OUT CASH TO ME ME ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
> 
> ...



Keep the gov out of my Medicare as the trumpie said


----------



## LaDexter (Nov 25, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> Keep the gov out of my Medicare as the trumpie said





Socialize senior drugs by lying to the Congress about the estimated "static" cost = W


Inquiry Confirms Top Medicare Official Threatened Actuary Over Cost of Drug Benefits


----------



## ph3iron (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


Good luck, try Delaware.
You don't have to join the KKK to live there


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the 60% rent increase is merely to bring long-understated rents back in line with current rates in your geographical area.
> ...




You sound like a whinger who wants other people to subsidize his lifestyle.  You also need some remedial instruction in the difference between Renting and Owning.

You are a renter.  Your landlord is the property owner.  The fact that he rents to you does not mean he cedes his property rights to you.


----------



## sparky (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> No, this isn't "economics". I support lowering the corporate tax rate. In fact, I think it should have been lowered even more than it is. I just don't support rent increases that are so high, that hundreds of people are forced to move. And for anyone who doe support that, it isn't a matter of "economics". It a matter of sanity vs insanity.



Which you apparently wish to foist on governance .....yet>>>>>



protectionist said:


> I don't support BIG GOVERNMENT. Get a brain.


lol....


----------



## Taz (Nov 25, 2018)

Pay what the apartment is worth on the open market. Anything else is socialism. Now stop crying, you’re a grown man for crissakes.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 25, 2018)

_“Yes, I'm a Conservative…”_

No need to start a thread to confirm the obvious.

Your fear, ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, bigotry, racism, and hate clearly identify you as a conservative.

That you’re wrong on the issues is likewise fundamentally conservative.

And that you’re inconsistent and hypercritical is indeed the epitome of conservatism.  

You’re wrong about government regulation, of course; it was clearly the Framers’ original intent that private business be subject to government regulation as authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways: one cannot support regulation simply because it benefits him personally yet oppose regulation in general.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I read or hear "I'm a conservative but I support BIG GOVERNMENT"
> ...


Of course you do.

Conservatives are authoritarians who use big government and more government to compel conformity and punish dissent.

More government to compel women to give birth against their will.

More government to oppose immigration.

More government hostile to transgender Americans.

More government to disadvantage gay Americans.

More government in citizens’ private lives, more government to ‘fight terrorism,’ more government to undermine citizens’ rights and protected liberties, more government to facilitate a wasteful, bloated military.  

Conservatism is nothing but big government and more government.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> _“Yes, I'm a Conservative…”_
> 
> No need to start a thread to confirm the obvious.
> 
> ...




He's not a conservative.  But thanks for playing.


----------



## LaDexter (Nov 25, 2018)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> More government hostile to transgender Americans.





Oh my, what really matters to leftists.....


Don't cock choppers like Michelle/Michael Robinson/Obama qualify for all sorts of "affirmative action?"


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Of course you do.
> 
> Conservatives are authoritarians who use big government and more government to compel conformity and punish dissent.
> 
> ...


That is more govt to protect unborn children (who liberals show no empathy for whatsoever)

Yes, more govt to PROTECT Americans from the HARMS of immigration.

Yes , more govt hostile to forces that ludicrously try to pass off transgender insanity as something normal and acceptable, and PROTECT Americans from this lunacy.

Yes, More govt to keep queers from pushing their lunacy on America,and PROTECTING America from that.

Yes more govt to fight terrorism (whose side are you on ?)

And YES, More govt to support a strong military to PROTECT America, unlike the shameful cuts of Obama and Clinton.

But these things are not BIG Govt. They are common sense govt., unlike liberals' lack of that.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> He's not a conservative.  But thanks for playing.


I'm the MOST Conservative poster in this forum.  Shut up FAGGOT!


----------



## sparky (Nov 25, 2018)




----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > He's not a conservative.  But thanks for playing.
> ...




You're not a conservative.   You're a vulgar cretin.


----------



## Taz (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > He's not a conservative.  But thanks for playing.
> ...


Not whining about a free market on apartments you’re not.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> _“Yes, I'm a Conservative…”_
> 
> No need to start a thread to confirm the obvious.
> 
> ...


This is not having anything "both ways".   Yes, there should be limits on business regulation, but that doesn't mean doing away with ALL limits on it.

 In many things, business regulation is needed and proper, and being for regulation where it is needed and proper, doesn't go against conservatism, because conservatism doesn't say that ALL regulations should cease, as many of the bonehead landlords in this forum are saying, about their properties.

Do any of them want to stop restrictions on Vioxxx ? Or Thalidomide ? How about lead paint ? Are you guys using that in your units ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Taz said:


> Not whining about a free market on apartments you’re not.


Oh no ? Who else claims that Islam is BANNED by the Constitution ? You ?


----------



## Taz (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Not whining about a free market on apartments you’re not.
> ...


Freedom of religion should allow them to chop off each other’s hand.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> You're not a conservative.   You're a vulgar cretin.


 Let us know when you think you have some substance to present an argument with.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Taz said:


> Freedom of religion should allow them to chop off each other’s hand.


1.  Islam is not a religion.

2. You DODGED my question.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You're not a conservative.   You're a vulgar cretin.
> ...




Someone who promotes the concept of Rent Control is not a proper conservative.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Taz said:


> Pay what the apartment is worth on the open market. Anything else is socialism. Now stop crying, you’re a grown man for crissakes.


The landlords are the ones who are crying - about not being able to raise rents $360 a month (60% increase).  Incredible.  As for your rush to judgement, When YOU have to move from where you have lived for years, just because of one person's GREED, then you can talk.

Old Indian saying - _"never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his mocassins."_


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Pay what the apartment is worth on the open market. Anything else is socialism. Now stop crying, you’re a grown man for crissakes.
> ...



You've lived there for years.  How many years and what was the rent when you first moved in?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Someone who promotes the concept of Rent Control is not a proper conservative.


BULLSHIT!  Nobody should be required to pay a 60% increase in rent (from $600 to $960) in order to be called a conservative.  Get a brain.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Someone who promotes the concept of Rent Control is not a proper conservative.
> ...




I have a perfectly fine brain.  I understand that the landlord owns the property and is perfectly free to charge whatever rent he chooses.  If it is not acceptable to you, then move.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> You've lived there for years.  How many years and what was the rent when you first moved in?


None of your F'n business, You've seen all you need to see. Shut up clown.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You've lived there for years.  How many years and what was the rent when you first moved in?
> ...



Then I conclude that the landlord hasn't increased the rent in years, and is finally doing so as his costs of doing business have increased.  And you are a whinging crybaby who wants a free ride.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> I have a perfectly fine brain.  I understand that the landlord owns the property and is perfectly free to charge whatever rent he chooses.  If it is not acceptable to you, then move.


I understand that the LL should be restricted to increase rents to levels that don't force hundreds of people to move (none of which the LL is helping to pay for).  You're just too dumb to figure that out.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > I have a perfectly fine brain.  I understand that the landlord owns the property and is perfectly free to charge whatever rent he chooses.  If it is not acceptable to you, then move.
> ...




What you understand is that you want the landlord to subsidize your lifestyle.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Then I conclude that the landlord hasn't increased the rent in years, and is finally doing so as his costs of doing business have increased.  And you are a whinging crybaby who wants a free ride.


You don't conclude a damn thing. You don't even know as much as what this thread has told you.  Idiot.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> What you understand is that you want the landlord to subsidize your lifestyle.


What I understand is that you are a LYING, stinking troll.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Then I conclude that the landlord hasn't increased the rent in years, and is finally doing so as his costs of doing business have increased.  And you are a whinging crybaby who wants a free ride.
> ...




You are a greedy rentseeker who wants the government to do your mugging for you.

The big tell is that you won't provide the information as to what your rent was when you moved in and how long you have lived in the rental unit.   I suspect you are whining because the landlord has provided below market rent for you, and now you are upset because he is no longer willing to do so.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > What you understand is that you want the landlord to subsidize your lifestyle.
> ...



You are a greedy greed monster.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> Yeah, you’re not “entirely” a leftist. Just when it affects _you_.
> 
> That makes you not only a leftist, but also a hypocrite.
> 
> But I repeat myself.


 You're just another angry leftist, who got kicked in the balls in November 2016, and again when 2 SCOTUS judges got appointed by Trump, and you're going to lash out any way you can.  LOL.  Not my problem.

What's the matter ? You run out of people to harass in restaurants ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> You are a greedy greed monster.


Yeah we want to hog all that extra $350/month, all to ourselves.  And deprive that poor landlord of his happy pillaging.  How greedy of us.  Is there a doctor in the house ?  I mean really.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> You are a greedy rentseeker who wants the government to do your mugging for you.
> 
> The big tell is that you won't provide the information as to what your rent was when you moved in and how long you have lived in the rental unit.   I suspect you are whining because the landlord has provided below market rent for you, and now you are upset because he is no longer willing to do so.


You are  greedy landlord, who wants to rob everyone and anyone you can, to stuff your pockets with all the money you can, with no regard for people and the hardships you impose on them.

And you're not even following the thread as evidenced by your posts. It's 2 DIFFERENT landlords, you idiot.  The new one is who is gouging the residents.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You are a greedy greed monster.
> ...




^^^ Greedy Greedman desperately tries to justify his insistence that his Landlord be forced to subsidize his lifestyle ^^^


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You are a greedy rentseeker who wants the government to do your mugging for you.
> ...




Ah, so the original landlord sold the building, and the new one wants to raise rents, which he is economically, ethically and legally justified in doing.   It's quite reasonable to assume that the new landlord has a higher mortgage to service.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> You sound like a whinger who wants other people to subsidize his lifestyle.  You also need some remedial instruction in the difference between Renting and Owning.
> 
> You are a renter.  Your landlord is the property owner.  The fact that he rents to you does not mean he cedes his property rights to you.


If govt is administered properly, than YES, it would mean that the LL DOES cede some property rights. The "rights" to not ROB US of hundreds of $$ per month.

Maybe you LIKE robbery.  Are you typing from a prison cell ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

sparky said:


> Which you apparently wish to foist on governance .....yet>>>>>


There isn't dissonance between not supporting big government, and not supporting 60% rent increases.  Don't talk stupid.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Greedy Greedman desperately tries to justify his insistence that his Landlord be forced to subsidize his lifestyle ^^^


Greedy Greedman desperately tries to justify his insistence that his Landlord be able to plunder his residents for $360 month rent increases.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Ah, so the original landlord sold the building, and the new one wants to raise rents, which he is economically, ethically and legally justified in doing.   It's quite reasonable to assume that the new landlord has a higher mortgage to service.


1.  Not ethically justified at all.  Highly UNethical.

2.  Not reasonable to assume anything, since you don't have the foggiest idea of what the hell you're yammering about.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Anyone with an understanding of how businesses function grasps that an artificially high minimum wage is going to hurt young people looking for their first job and older but unskilled workers who simply want a paycheck.  What liberals like you can't seem to grasp is that management seldom "takes advantage" of those people working at entry level jobs!  In most cases it costs a business to train new employees and absorb the cost of the things that they invariably don't do correctly.  Businesses DO hire and train those with few job skills however because they hope to keep that person working for them once they have acquired skills!  When they do have those new skills, businesses invariably give them a raise because they don't want that now skilled worker to go help one of their competitors!  That's the way it works when government doesn't intercede to screw things up as you are calling for!


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> Anyone with an understanding of how businesses function grasps that an artificially high minimum wage is going to hurt young people looking for their first job and older but unskilled workers who simply want a paycheck.  What liberals like you can't seem to grasp is that management seldom "takes advantage" of those people working at entry level jobs!  In most cases it costs a business to train new employees and absorb the cost of the things that they invariably don't do correctly.  Businesses DO hire and train those with few job skills however because they hope to keep that person working for them once they have acquired skills!  When they do have those new skills, businesses invariably give them a raise because they don't want that now skilled worker to go help one of their competitors!  That's the way it works when government doesn't intercede to screw things up as you are calling for!


in some cases, it's best for govt to leave business alone. In others, there is a need for some degree of govt intervention, to PROTECT consumers.  All depends on the particular situations, and its magnitude.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Greedy Greedman desperately tries to justify his insistence that his Landlord be forced to subsidize his lifestyle ^^^
> ...



I have no personal stake in the matter.  I do, however, recognize that the landlord OWNS the property and it is his business to set the rents.  If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, so the original landlord sold the building, and the new one wants to raise rents, which he is economically, ethically and legally justified in doing.   It's quite reasonable to assume that the new landlord has a higher mortgage to service.
> ...




Translation:  he wants the landlord to subsidize his lifestyle and his having a hissy fit that the landlord won't cede his property rights.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> I have no personal stake in the matter.  I do, however, recognize that the landlord OWNS the property and it is his business to set the rents.  If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.


We already got your take.(about 10 times now)  No need to belabor the point...unless TROLLING is your motivation.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You sound like a whinger who wants other people to subsidize his lifestyle.  You also need some remedial instruction in the difference between Renting and Owning.
> ...




^^^ Totalitarian statist trying to justify government taking of private property ^^^


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Translation:  he wants the landlord to subsidize his lifestyle and his having a hissy fit that the landlord won't cede his property rights.


TROLL…..REPORTED


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > I have no personal stake in the matter.  I do, however, recognize that the landlord OWNS the property and it is his business to set the rents.  If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.
> ...



I am here providing a public service to promote the concept of Property Rights.  And as a member here, I can post wherever I wish.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Translation:  he wants the landlord to subsidize his lifestyle and his having a hissy fit that the landlord won't cede his property rights.
> ...




^^^ SAD! ^^^


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Totalitarian statist trying to justify government taking of private property ^^^


Greed freak  trying to justify landlord taking of residents' private property
(their money)


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Totalitarian statist trying to justify government taking of private property ^^^
> ...



You can spin it however you wish, but trying to justify Rent Control as a conservative position pins the bogometer.  Property Rights are a cornerstone to liberty and the Rule of Law.   You want to the government to force the landlord against his will into giving up his property rights.  That says a great deal about your (lack of) character.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone with an understanding of how businesses function grasps that an artificially high minimum wage is going to hurt young people looking for their first job and older but unskilled workers who simply want a paycheck.  What liberals like you can't seem to grasp is that management seldom "takes advantage" of those people working at entry level jobs!  In most cases it costs a business to train new employees and absorb the cost of the things that they invariably don't do correctly.  Businesses DO hire and train those with few job skills however because they hope to keep that person working for them once they have acquired skills!  When they do have those new skills, businesses invariably give them a raise because they don't want that now skilled worker to go help one of their competitors!  That's the way it works when government doesn't intercede to screw things up as you are calling for!
> ...



ie, to protect you. 

IOWl socialism/fascism is bad unless it benefits me.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> You can spin it however you wish, but trying to justify Rent Control as a conservative position pins the bogometer.  Property Rights are a cornerstone to liberty and the Rule of Law.   You want to the government to force the landlord against his will into giving up his property rights.  That says a great deal about your (lack of) character.


Spinning it is what YOU'RE doing.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone with an understanding of how businesses function grasps that an artificially high minimum wage is going to hurt young people looking for their first job and older but unskilled workers who simply want a paycheck.  What liberals like you can't seem to grasp is that management seldom "takes advantage" of those people working at entry level jobs!  In most cases it costs a business to train new employees and absorb the cost of the things that they invariably don't do correctly.  Businesses DO hire and train those with few job skills however because they hope to keep that person working for them once they have acquired skills!  When they do have those new skills, businesses invariably give them a raise because they don't want that now skilled worker to go help one of their competitors!  That's the way it works when government doesn't intercede to screw things up as you are calling for!
> ...



Yes, the gov’t should protect consumers from fraud or dangerous profits.  

But the govt should not get involved simply to make some things cheaper.   If they are too expensive, the consumer should find cheaper products.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca is a real American conservative

protectionist is a fascist.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> ie, to protect you.
> 
> IOWl socialism/fascism is bad unless it benefits me.


265 apartments in the complex. Most residents have already moved out (at great personal expense-with no help from the new landlord)  

Try reading the thread (and OP) before posting.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

Toro said:


> boedicca is a real American conservative


No he's not, and neither are you.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, the gov’t should protect consumers from fraud or dangerous profits.
> 
> But the govt should not get involved simply to make some things cheaper.   If they are too expensive, the consumer should find cheaper products.


So you would oppose a rent control of ANY amount of rent increase ?  How about an increase of $3000/month on a $600/month apartment ? (600% increase)

Is there a line you would draw ? If so, at what point ?


----------



## Clementine (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...




Local governments, especially in San Francisco, are bad about allowing more housing to be built.   Then it's the supply and demand.    Right now, there is a shortage so the landlords will charge as much as they can get.    It sucks.    If more housing was available, the price would go down.

San Francisco is the worst when it comes to high rent but they will not allow more to be built.    

It's wrong to keep raising rent on people who live there but they know if you move, someone will take the place.   Of course, the best way is to buy your own place but looks like Dems have been busy trying to create another housing bubble by having Freddie and Fannie continue the same stupid practices.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 25, 2018)

Penelope said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



You fell for the scam.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone with an understanding of how businesses function grasps that an artificially high minimum wage is going to hurt young people looking for their first job and older but unskilled workers who simply want a paycheck.  What liberals like you can't seem to grasp is that management seldom "takes advantage" of those people working at entry level jobs!  In most cases it costs a business to train new employees and absorb the cost of the things that they invariably don't do correctly.  Businesses DO hire and train those with few job skills however because they hope to keep that person working for them once they have acquired skills!  When they do have those new skills, businesses invariably give them a raise because they don't want that now skilled worker to go help one of their competitors!  That's the way it works when government doesn't intercede to screw things up as you are calling for!
> ...



If you're talking about protection from dangerous products then I couldn't agree more.  If you're talking about manipulation of wages...experience tells me that always creates more problems than it solves.


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Totalitarian statist trying to justify government taking of private property ^^^
> ...



You don't have "property rights" to your money, Protectionist!  You do have property rights if you have a valid lease.  That's something that the landlord has ceded to you in return for your rent.  The landlord however has the right to determine what giving you those property rights should cost.  If you don't like the bargain?  It's time to mosey on down the road to a landlord who's willing to give you a better deal.


----------



## Toro (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > ie, to protect you.
> ...



You are a fascist.  

Embrace your true ideology.

Don't try to hide from it.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Yep


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the gov’t should protect consumers from fraud or dangerous profits.
> ...



If the apartments are outrageously priced, people will not rent them.   Are the other apartments in the area in the $600 a month range?


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the gov’t should protect consumers from fraud or dangerous profits.
> ...


If the market will bear a 600% increase, then it may just be that the landlord is trying to upgrade the quality of his tenants.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Then the question arises, what if the new landlord does get $950 a month for those apartments?  That would mean the new landlord knew what he was doing.  It would mean he was able to maximize the profits on his investment.  It could mean that the new and former landlord knew this rental price was possible, so the former landlord sold the complex at the highest profit he could make, and the new landlord has to charge that amount of rent to repay the loan he took to buy the place plus make a profit.  

Should government be there to intrude in such a business transaction?  

$600.00 a month range is about what I charge up here.  But by any stretch of the imagination, this is not Florida. Rents in better areas here go for up to $850.00 a month or better.  

What Protectionist told us thus far is that he was paying more than a reasonable price for rent.  Hell, that's even reasonable for the Cleveland area.  So it doesn't surprise me that rentals down there are going for, or expected to go for a lot more money.  

More and more people are flocking to the south than ever before, especially as more boomers like myself retire.  That means his apartment will be in demand regardless what he thinks about the new price.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



According to Protectionist, the landlord raised the rent by $3,000.    So what was renting for $600 now goes for $3,600.    If that is true, it sounds like the owner wants the place empty so he can do something else with the property.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I think you're mistaken.  I believe what he said was it went from $600.00 to $930.00 or something like that.  Still, a huge increase, especially for somebody on a fixed income.  That's an over 50% increase in one year.  

Maybe when I get out of the shower I'll go back to find a post where he mentioned the price, but I do recall one post where somebody posed the question about $3,000 a month, but it was just for the sake of making a point.  I believe.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You sound like Gracie and what she was talking about in California
> ...



Walking is cheap!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 25, 2018)

bear513 said:


> They have a huge old Kodiak film factory,



I thought Kodiak was smokeless tobacco.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



There are those UA reading skills!  He said it went up by 60% to almost $1000 a month.


----------



## JoeMoma (Nov 25, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > They have a huge old Kodiak film factory,
> ...



Auto correct I bet!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 25, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_re...03,-81.907197,29.358837,-82.845154_rect/9_zm/
> 
> You of course would have to do a crime search to make sure that area is safe.........But that is near a VA Hospital in Gainsville, Florida



He said he didn't want to be near Gators, and the University of Florida is filled with them!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 25, 2018)

Penelope said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



This is another topic you know nothing about.  Why not shut up now and save yourself the embarrassment?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 25, 2018)

Penelope said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > what do you expect when a brain surgeon who turned down the position to be sec of  HHS because it was 'too complicated' (ironically  though he ran for potus) then  accepts the position of sec of HUD?  what qualifications did he possess to be considered for such a position?   cause he had the right 'look'?
> ...



Who in the hell is the Medicaid Secretary?

Please stop the stupid!  It hurts!


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...





protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the gov’t should protect consumers from fraud or dangerous profits.
> ...



The bold is mine.

He said there was an increase of $3000/month and then specified a 600% increase.    A 600% increase on $600 equals $3,600.


----------



## Preacher (Nov 25, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


Here its not landlords buying and raising prices its all the damn yuppy trash from Atlanta buying or renting 2nd homes up here and its raising the prices. We pay 1,000 for a 3/2 home. I know a woman who works at Wal Mart and just bought her first home with her husband and with their taxes and insurance included pays 750$ a month!


----------



## Preacher (Nov 25, 2018)

bear513 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


The Tri Cities are nice. Lived there for a few months back in 2016. Wish I had stayed.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_re...03,-81.907197,29.358837,-82.845154_rect/9_zm/
> ...



Hey Admiral!    How did you like that game yesterday?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



No, he didn't say that.  What he asked was "what if" as to make a point.  He was questioning if there should be a limit and if so, how much.  Kind of like what we do in the Minimum Wage discussions where somebody asks why not make MW $50.00 an hour?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2018)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray From Cleveland said:
> ...



Oh, my mistake.   My apologies to those still in the thread.   But it sounds like the sort of whine Protectless would post, in my opinion.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Is anyone else getting private messages from Protectionist?   He can be damned annoying.


Nope and I am good with it.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 26, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...






Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...



Mary Mayhew. Look her up.  deputy administrator  same as secretary.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 26, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Renters sign a one lease or less.  We rented out house for 3 months, we figured if one didn't want to live there they would not take care of the place.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 26, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...





bripat9643 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The GOP scam.  I didn't vote for it.  By We , I mean the state of MI.


----------



## Snouter (Nov 26, 2018)

Land is a finite resource and needs government control assuming government is taxpaying nationalistic US citizens.  For example if an enemy of US citizens like Soros bought up a town and then raised rents and or property costs beyond anyone's means, it does not matter to him.  It is not a fair market exchange, it is extortion, invasion, etc.  Everything might be vacant for years and he does not care since free market is not in play with real estate.  This is what is quite common today.  Any property that is vacant for 6 months means the owner is trying to fuck with citizens and it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens.

That said, a safe town in Connecticut, meaning very few blacks and browns (over 90% of whom get free taxpayer supported rent), inflicts property tax of say $10,000 a year on a modest house.  Add to that insurance, oil heat, etc., no appreciation in home values plus commission to "agent" when buying and selling, it is much more economical to pay like $2,500/month rent .

The long dead "brick and mortar" (mom and pop who were usually crooks) real estate properties should be converted to residential housing for American citizens.  Sadly the democrat governor wants to TAX internet sales to help non-existant retailers and wants to install TOLLS on I-95 to pay for democrats ripping off taxpayers for their benefit.  Democrats really care about the environment!    Imagine the air pollution with vehicles stopping for tolls and waiting to pay.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 26, 2018)

Snouter said:


> Land is a finite resource and needs government control assuming government is taxpaying nationalistic US citizens.  For example if an enemy of US citizens like Soros bought up a town and then raised rents and or property costs beyond anyone's means, it does not matter to him.  It is not a fair market exchange, it is extortion, invasion, etc.  Everything might be vacant for years and he does not care since free market is not in play with real estate.  This is what is quite common today.  Any property that is vacant for 6 months means the owner is trying to fuck with citizens and it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens.
> 
> That said, a safe town in Connecticut, meaning very few blacks and browns (over 90% of whom get free taxpayer supported rent), inflicts property tax of say $10,000 a year on a modest house.  Add to that insurance, oil heat, etc., no appreciation in home values plus commission to "agent" when buying and selling, it is much more economical to pay like $2,500/month rent .
> 
> The long dead "brick and mortar" (mom and pop who were usually crooks) real estate properties should be converted to residential housing for American citizens.  Sadly the democrat governor wants to TAX internet sales to help non-existant retailers and wants to install TOLLS on I-95 to pay for democrats ripping off taxpayers for their benefit.  Democrats really care about the environment!    Imagine the air pollution with vehicles stopping for tolls and waiting to pay.


"There's no free market in real estate?" What a load of crap.


----------



## Snouter (Nov 26, 2018)

bripat, ever hear of the game called Monopoly?    If every real estate transaction was individual US citizen to another individual US citizen, then yes that would be free market.  But since the 1940's and beyond ethnic syndicates, assorted, creepy "corporations," etc. have conspired to use real estate to capitalize on the fact US citizens HAVE NO CHOICE but to concede to whatever they demand.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 26, 2018)

Well the Federal Gov under the GOP and Trump are now doing double taxation and is really hitting the Dem states hard, but that was the point, punish Dem states.  Here I thought the GOP was anti double taxation.
IRS to crack down on Connecticut tax workaround - The CT Mirror


----------



## Snouter (Nov 26, 2018)

Sorry Penelope, the CT legislature is playing politics.  Keep in mind CT is not really a Dem state.  Voter fraud and Blacks and Browns who get free rent and food and Jews who hate Whitey keep Dems in office.  That said Dems love to tax US American citizens as much as they can and have zero interest in feeling their pain.


----------



## sparky (Nov 26, 2018)

Snouter said:


> For example if an enemy of *US citizens *like Soros bought up a town and then raised rents and or property costs beyond anyone's means, it does not matter to him. *It is not a fair market exchange, it is extortion, invasion, etc*



then your heads really gonna explode over foreign owned american real estate




and i have not even delved into infastructure....

~S~


----------



## Snouter (Nov 26, 2018)

I am well aware of Asian folks buying real estate.  I know some folks who arrange loans for them.  They seem to be individuals  That said other ethnic groups such as Jewish syndicates operating from any of those "foreign countries" could disguise themselves as being "Chinese" or "Canadian" for example.


----------



## sparky (Nov 26, 2018)

Snouter said:


> I am well aware of Asian folks buying real estate. I know some folks who arrange loans for them. *They seem to be individuals* That said other ethnic groups such as Jewish syndicates operating from any of those "foreign countries" could disguise themselves as being "Chinese" or "Canadian" for example.



I see.....

So there appears to be a fine line betwixt '_individual investor'_ , and '_invasive extortionary invester_' to you Snout

perhaps you could expand on that?


~S~


----------



## Taz (Nov 26, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom of religion should allow them to chop off each other’s hand.
> ...


Islam IS a religion and I never claimed that any religion should be banned.


----------



## Taz (Nov 26, 2018)

protectionist said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Pay what the apartment is worth on the open market. Anything else is socialism. Now stop crying, you’re a grown man for crissakes.
> ...


I own my own house (and several others which are rented at market value because my renters don't expect me to subsidize their lifestyle).


----------



## sparky (Nov 26, 2018)

Even if they turn our real estate into mosques?

~S~


----------



## Taz (Nov 26, 2018)

protectionist said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Someone who promotes the concept of Rent Control is not a proper conservative.
> ...


You're against a free market.


----------



## sparky (Nov 26, 2018)

Taz said:


> You're against a free market.





Amazing how many_ define_ themselves as conservative, when_ it works for them
_
Which translates to _greed _cloaked in the guise of_ moral_ superiority .....

~S~


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 26, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...



It's about a business owner raising prices and people making a choice of whether or not to pay that higher price.  

Do you know what (fill in the blank) is worth?  The fill in the blank is any good/service that someone offers for a price to another person.

I've recently been shopping for trucks.  I priced a Ford F350 with almost everything on it you can imagine.   It was over $80,000.    I had a choice and chose not to buy it because I thought that was too much.    However, the dealership continues to sell them for that price.  Do you know why they don't lower the price?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 26, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...



How is it unfair?   The owners give a price and the renters have a choice.


----------



## sparky (Nov 26, 2018)

Conservative65 said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



fair or unfair _isn't_ the point

Protectionists is _insisting_ the GubMit *protect* him 

~S~


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 26, 2018)

sparky said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...


Apparently it was to the person to which I responded.    THEIR statement was that it was unfair.  I was asking why he/she thought so.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 26, 2018)

sparky said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > How is it unfair?   The owners give a price and the renters have a choice.
> ...


Well, he’s suckled on the gubberment teat for so long he knows nothing else.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 26, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


I have answered all your questions.  You merely like to "beg the question".


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 26, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


i have valid arguments.  the right eschews capitalism at every applied opportunity.  stop listening to right wingers who Only have fallacy instead of any valid arguments.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 26, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


all you have are childish outbursts of nonsense


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 26, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...


are you on the right wing?  Projection is a right wing trait, not good arguments.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 26, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Is anyone else getting private messages from Protectionist?   He can be damned annoying.


Spoke too soon, he's started with me.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 26, 2018)

I have a "Maginot" line of good arguments.   Even the chics don't bother.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 26, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No, you have not.   The people who will pay the taxes that provide your income would spend the money too.  You have not shown anything that we, the taxpayers, get for our money.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 26, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


automatic stabilization and solving simple poverty; it should be simple.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 26, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Except your poverty is self-imposed.   You simply want to be paid for nothing.

What do you provide for getting paid?   Nothing.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 26, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


who would be worse off?  a landlord and me, or You?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 26, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I provide a service for my money.    YOu provide nothing for the money you want.

The taxpayers that will be paying your salary will receive nothing for their money.  And your claims that it will help the economy are ridiculous.  The money taken in taxes would be spent by the people who earned the money.  So no "extra" money is being added to the system.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 26, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


You simply don't understand economics or capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  Only capital has to work under capitalism.  

Why do You believe that is not the case?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 26, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I am not saying it is not the case.   I have capital in my retirement account that is working, and will support me.

But you want someone else's capital to be taken from them to work to support you.   And not because you are unable to work.  But because you choose not to work.    Why should someone else work to earn and produce for you, when you will not work to earn and produce for yourself?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 26, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Not at all.  I am advocating for solving for simple poverty via market friendly means, merely to promote the general welfare.  

There should be no homeless on the streets, with recourse to an income as Compensation for Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 26, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



The natural rate of unemployment does not justify you want to be paid if you quit a job and do not search for another.

You are advocating being paid for not working, when you choose not to work.   The answer is no.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 26, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Circulating capital to ensure liquidity in our markets is what matters.  It is simply more cost effective to pay some people not to work, than that they have to apply for means tested welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 26, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It is most cost effective if they find another job or their own or don't quit the job they have.

Circulating capital is great when it is someone earning a living and spending their money.   What you want is to be given someone else's money.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


What part of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment do you not understand?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I understand it fine.  I also understand that, when the unemployment rate gets down to the "natural unemployment" rate, there are employment positions going unfilled.  You are not wanting one of those.  You are wanting money for doing nothing.

If you want money, don't quit your job voluntarily.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Learn to play the guitar on the MTV where you get money for nothing and the chicks are free. That’s the way you do it.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 27, 2018)

The nonsensical notion that, in the real world, anyone should receieve an unearned income for doing nothing, consuming without producing, and relentlessly hawking this absurdity, defies reason.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 27, 2018)

That or join the army, no critical thing skills required, decisions made for him, three hots and a cot.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


only Illegals to a federal doctrine and State laws concerning employment at the will of either party, say that.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> The nonsensical notion that, in the real world, anyone should receieve an unearned income for doing nothing, consuming without producing, and relentlessly hawking this absurdity, defies reason.


Only capital Has to work under capitalism, not fools or horses.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No, you are wrong again.   Most people would say that.  Most people would object to having their tax money spent to support someone who quit a job and is unwilling to find another.

Unemployment compensation is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own, and who are looking for another job.  It is not welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > The nonsensical notion that, in the real world, anyone should receieve an unearned income for doing nothing, consuming without producing, and relentlessly hawking this absurdity, defies reason.
> ...



That works great.  But you have to get your own capital.  I plan to retire on the capital I have earned and saved over my career.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > The nonsensical notion that, in the real world, anyone should receieve an unearned income for doing nothing, consuming without producing, and relentlessly hawking this absurdity, defies reason.
> ...



I find it telling that you continually use this quote that calls people who work "fools".   And yet, you are dependent on them to survive.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


we have a First Amendment.  I don't care about your alleged morality.  

the Law is the Law.  why be Illegal to the Law but blame less fortunate illegals for their illegalities?

Original Sinners should not be "blaming the Poor who have no Gold to make their own rules" under any form of Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...


you assume perfect information under capitalism.

we know right wing fantasy is just that, not economics.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Once again you resort to babbling nonsense in the attempt to sound like an intellectual.   But if you were a true intellectual, you would clarify what all that means and answer questions.   We have already established that you will no.

Yes, the law is the law.  And Unemployment Compensation is only for those who lost their job through no fault of their own and are seeking other employment.  That is the law.   I am not blaming illegals.   I am not blaming the poor.   You are simply avoiding the topic we have been discussing.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I assume nothing of the sort.   I simply find it telling that someone denigrates those who work, but demands a portion of their earnings in order to survive.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


A federal doctrine and State laws claim otherwise.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


not sure where you get your paradigm from.

We have a First World economy.

Our welfare clause is General not Common.

Solving simple poverty promotes the general welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No, they do not.  That is a lie.   Neither federal nor state laws require unemployment compensation for those who voluntarily quit their job and do not seek other employment.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And there are programs in place that provide for the poor.   Unemployment compensation is not, and never was, intended for that purpose.  

And it is not simple poverty that you are wanting to cure.   It is self-imposed poverty.  It is choosing to be unemployed because of some silly notion that only fools and horses work.  Of course, you consume endless products and services that are only available because of those "fools".


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


The right wing doesn't care about natural rights or equal protection of the law.  

Employment is at the will of either party.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


it should be, it is more cost effective than means tested welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes, employment is at the will of either party.    But when you voluntarily quit, you do not get paid.   It is a very simple concept.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No it shouldn't be.   Means tested welfare is much more efficient.   There is more paperwork up front, but the savings in fraud more than makes up for it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


then, how is that at the will of either party?  the law is the law.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


lol.  only story tellers tell those stories.  unemployment compensation is much more cost effective and efficient to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



How is it not?    You get paid for working.  If you decide to stop working, you stop getting paid.   You also stop getting the company health insurance, profit sharing, matching funds for your 401k and all the other benefits of being employed by that company.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Back to the "storyteller" nonsense?    I guess you still can't list any actual stories I have told that are not true?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Compensation for being unemployed in our at-will employment State.  Why does the right wing have a problem with natural rights and equal protection of the law, not to mention, simple equality.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than means tested welfare for the ready reserve labor pool.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



That is a gross misnomer for what you want.   It is not a "ready reserve labor pool".   You want to be paid even when you quit your job and do not look for another one.  A "ready reserve labor pool" would be individuals seeking employment.  Ready to work.

Unemployment compensation has one function.   To provide temporary financial assistance to people who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed and seeking employment.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


how does that solve our homeless problem?

The federal doctrine has no provision for excuses.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It encourages lazy bums like yourself to get a job.  That strengthens the economy more than your free lunch unemployment compensation.   A stronger economy provides more tax money without increasing the burden on any one group.   That allows for more assistance for those who need it.

Oh, and there is also a natural level of homelessness too.        Some people choose to be homeless.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I have offered no excuses.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


what market friendly solution do you offer the homeless?


----------



## g5000 (Nov 27, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


I have not read all 35 pages of this topic, so I apologize if what I am about to say has already been said.

The problem is not landlords.  The problem is zoning laws restricting the growth of residential properties. 

Seriously.

The reason there is such upward pressure on housing costs is because your local government is not allowing residential zones to grow in pace with the population.  

The liberal assholes are trying to squeeze you all to death.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



My personal idea on solutions?    Use empty gov't buildings to get them living inside, while we use job training, substance abuse programs and other programs designed to get them back on their feet, to get them places to live.    Just handing them money will not help many of them in the long run.  They have other issues that must be dealt with.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


how is that market friendly?  command economics must distort normal free markets.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It is far more market friendly than paying them unemployment when they do not fit the criteria. 

My plan creates viable workers and consumers.   It is not just handing out money but addressing the issues that caused the problems.   Your plan does nothing to address the issues that were the root causes the homelessness for many in the first place.   Substance abuse and mental health issues are rampant among the homeless.   Giving them money without any other help would feed those problems rather than help them.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


how is that any form of "free market" form of economics?

market participants should self-select.  those who have an income and still can't should be a priority for means testing and that form of welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I don't believe "free market" is always the best way.   There are things our society needs that should not be free market.   Free market involves profit.  Some areas of our society are not profitable, or should not be.   I think the privatization of the prison system is a prime example of this.

But that is not what we are discussing.  We are discussing your demand for unemployment compensation for those who would not normally fit the criteria for the existing system.  Namely that they quit their job and do not want another job.  Of course, that is an extreme minority of the unemployed.


----------



## Blackrook (Nov 27, 2018)

You can't claim to be a conservative and then say you are in favor of rent control.

For conservatives, property rights are a core value.

Rent control is deprivation of property rights, without due process, which is a violation of the United States Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I have answered this question several times.  You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.  

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money.   The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work.  And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty.  It is called welfare.  Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


that is what you are advocating for the poor.  in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.  

it is better for market participants to self select.


----------



## g5000 (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It has been shown over and over that just handing someone money (or housing) does not change the situation in the long run.   The care of the housing is terrible.  The money is spent badly, often on the drugs or alcohol that sent them into poverty in the first place.

What I am advocating for the poor is that they take an active role in their climb out of their situation.   I have no problem with helping them.  But there are systems in place for that, which I support.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

g5000 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


only if you argue in a vacuum of special pleading.

solving simple poverty means markets can operate more efficiently and lower costs to consumers.


----------



## g5000 (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Explain "means testing".  It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job.   Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

g5000 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


the right wing refuses to distinguish between "regular welfare" and unemployment compensation for Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment, as a more efficient social safety net.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Allowing anyone without a job to draw unemployment for as long as they want is not solving poverty.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

g5000 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



He and I have been arguing this for a long time.   He demands that unemployment compensation be given to people who voluntarily quit their job and do not look for another one.   Welfare requires some investigation into income and assets.  He wants to bypass all that and just get a check. 

He often posts a quote to the effect of "capital should work.  Only fools and horse work".    He is trying to justify not working but still getting paid.  He does so by extolling the benefits of more people having money to spend, while ignoring that taking money via taxes reduces more people's ability to spend.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


employers can't hire everyone.  Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment not a natural rate of Employment.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


the is employment at will.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You want that.  It would create an entirely new bureaucracy.   Duplication of services is never efficient.  The Welfare system is better designed to provide long term income.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



That does not mean those who quit a job and do not seek another deserve unemployment.


----------



## g5000 (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Ahhhhh.  You are referring to the violation of natural rights as described by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, to name a couple.

So are you in favor of Paine's minimum basic income and/or Jefferson's progressive taxation?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Indeed it is.   And, as I said before, the income comes with the employment.   You quit a job, you also quit getting paid.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Why do you want unemployment instead of welfare?    Why do you care where the money comes from?


----------



## g5000 (Nov 27, 2018)

*Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. * The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

To James Madison  Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


pay attention story teller.  the infrastructure already exists in every State and the federal districts.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


it has to do with economics, not morals; our First Amendment applies.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

g5000 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


no.  i favor solving for the actual dilemma of Capitalism's _natural_ rate of poverty inducing unemployment, in a market friendly manner.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


That solves nothing.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


market based metrics under Any form of Capitalism, "free market story teller".


----------



## g5000 (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


So what is your solution, exactly?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

g5000 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


Compensation for Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment.   It is public policy, eminent domain applies.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, to solve simple poverty.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes, the infrastructure already exists in every state and federal district for welfare.  What you want would be served by that existing system.  What you want from the unemployment compensation system would require major revamping of the system.

Also, what you receive in unemployment compensation comes from the employer.   If you quit your job, why should an employer continue to pay you?  Extra taxes on employers is certainly not good for the economy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



What the hell are you talking about?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What part of that has anything to do with you wanting unemployment compensation when you quit a job and do not seek another?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Correct.  You quitting a job solves nothing.     I have made no excuses.   There is a federal doctrine concerning welfare.  Address that instead of trying to pervert unemployment compensation away from its intended purpose & mission.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


why?  it should be simpler, not more difficult.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



If someone quits their job and does not seek another, they can use welfare to survive rather than twist a functioning system to suit their needs.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



A system already exists to provide what you want.  What could be simpler.

And why do you insist on it being unemployment compensation instead of welfare.   If you quit a job and don't look for another, why not draw welfare.  Why do you care where the money comes from.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



That answer does not make any sense as an answer for the question.    You want to create an entirely different bureaucracy to do what we already have one in place for.    

Why?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


unemployment compensation is less expensive than means testing everyone.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


you have no solution to the issue of homelessness.  there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Means testing is just determining whether or not a person can manage on their own.   If you change the Unemployment Compensation system to make it pay every unemployed person, regardless of how they left their previous employer and how long they are unemployed, there will undoubtedly be some sort of means testing.    People who have enough money in the bank or in investments to support themselves should not get a check from the gov't.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


lol.  only story tellers have no clue about economics.

the infrastructure already exists.  full employment of resources is what makes it more cost effective.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes, I do.  I have already explained it.   You dislike it because it does not help you draw an unemployment check for nothing.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Duplication of systems is never efficient or cost effective.

And it is certainly not more cost effective to revamp an entire system to avoid a simple means test.   And if you do manage to revamp the unemployment system, there will be a means test added.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


means testing is expensive and requires its own bureaucracy.  

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is based on market based metrics not means testing.


----------



## g5000 (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I do a lot of work with the homeless.  The chronic homeless are mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs and alcohol.  Not all of them, of course.  But I would dare say most.

I suppose one could make a stretch and blame their addictions on the violation of natural rights.  It is my deeply held conviction a significant proportion of the opioid crisis is due to the fact that publicly traded drug companies, like all public companies, are under constant pressure by their stockholders to keep growing.

There are only so many people in this country who actually need opioids.  The drug companies have flooded our country with more than is necessary, thus deliberately causing the crisis.

And that ultimately feeds the homeless crisis.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Unemployment compensation is a market friendly solution.  You have nothing but command economics.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Quitting a job and not looking for another is not part of the natural rate of unemployment.

Means testing is not expensive.   You fill out a form listing your income and assets.   Most are never verified.   If it turns out that you lied on the form, you are prosecuted.  The welfare system does not search bank records ect.   They have you fill out forms, which they file.

And if you think open-ended unemployment compensation when you are not looking for a job, would not add a mean test, you are laughably wrong.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


There is no duplication of service; one addresses market based phenomena and the other requires means testing.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

g5000 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Well said.    Solving the homeless crisis in this country involved far more than a check.   Substance abuse help and mental illness help are critical.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


why should Labor Have to get fired to collect unemployment?

employment is at the will of either party.

EDD must show proof of for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.  it really should be that simple.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Capitalism not Socialism, right wingers!


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Both will require means testing if unemployment compensation becomes what you want.   There is no way that state and federal agencies will do otherwise.   The reason there is no means testing now is that it is, by nature, short term.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Why should an employer continue to pay you when you stop working?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



You want to pay someone for doing nothing, regardless of their situation.   Both G5000 and I are talking about helping the homeless with the issues that caused their situation, thereby helping them back into being a productive and independent member of our society.   

Your solution is far more like socialism than what either of us have said.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 27, 2018)

g5000 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...


Nope zoning hasn’t been discussed, though other government interference in property usage has been touched upon. No sign of the op in a while.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No, it is not a market friendly solution.   It places an increasing tax burden on businesses.  It requires that they spend more money supporting employees who quit or were fired for cause.  And while the current system is short term, you want to make it open-ended.  That means businesses spend more and more without getting anything in return.  They have to raise prices of their goods and services to compensate for the increased expenses.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


nope; employment status under our form of capitalism versus means testing.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


They shouldn't.  We need to change the way we collect taxes for unemployment compensation.

A general tax should be enough.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


it has Everything to do with Economics not your alleged morality.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


yes, it is a market friendly solution Because more people will be circulating more money.  That money ensures liquidity and will be taxed once, if not several times as it changes hands in any local economy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



The other criteria aside, even with the extension of benefits created by Congress after the recession, the longest time you can draw unemployment is 73 weeks.  That is about 1.5 years.  After that you have to find a job.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So you want to change who is eligible for unemployment compensation.   Now you want to change the source of its funding?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



We are not discussing morality.   If we were, your desire to live off the labor of others would certainly come into the conversation.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, only results.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No, it is not market friendly.  It punishes employers for the actions of their employees.    Those employers are then forced to raise prices as the cost of business goes up.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


you have to be able to understand the concepts, to appreciate it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I offered no excuses.  I simply reminded you of the length of time you can draw unemployment.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I understand the concepts quite clearly.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


it has to do with economics, not Your misguided morality.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


when Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment ends.  There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I am discussing economics.  YOu were the one who brought up morality.  So don't try and blame me for it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


no, you don't.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So you think there should be no time limit on unemployment compensation?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


no, you aren't.  you are discussing your view on morality, not economics.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes, I do.   I understand that increasing taxes on employers does not help the economy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You have only to look at the various quotes above to see that is a lie.   When I addressed your comment "it has to do with economics, not Your misguided morality" was the very first time I spoke of morality.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

The standards and requirements for Unemployment Compensation are as follows:

1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


that is your story.  you would understand, if you knew anything about economics.  

a general tax is less intrusive than a direct tax.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> The standards and requirements for Unemployment Compensation are as follows:
> 
> 1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
> 2) You are actively seeking employment
> ...


Employment is at the will of either party.  A federal doctrine is more supreme than any State law on this issue.



> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The standards and requirements for Unemployment Compensation are as follows:
> ...



That has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.   Now, please answer it.   Which of those would you change or eliminate?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



But Unemployment Compensation is not funded by a general tax.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


those laws may need to be challenged in Court.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


not now.


----------



## sartre play (Nov 27, 2018)

78 pages & the best we have come up with (and the probable reality) is that Protect will have to suck it up and move. and you just have to hope its not coming to your town soon. where there is more demand for housing than housing available rent will go up . still find it to be sad there are so many people living in comfort with no real danger of losing that sweet spot will still take advantage of the situation because they can, just for a few more unneeded dollars. yes it there legal right. myself would have a hard time sleeping at night knowing some child went with out lunch because I raised the rent just because I could. but do get it, I new all my renters as people not numbers on a ledger. we have lost touch with the thought of other people being neighbors.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Which takes me back to the question I asked.

"1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?"


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 27, 2018)

sartre play said:


> 78 pages & the best we have come up with (and the probable reality) is that Protect will have to suck it up and move. and you just have to hope its not coming to your town soon. where there is more demand for housing than housing available rent will go up . still find it to be sad there are so many people living in comfort with no real danger of losing that sweet spot will still take advantage of the situation because they can, just for a few more unneeded dollars. yes it there legal right. myself would have a hard time sleeping at night knowing some child went with out lunch because I raised the rent just because I could. but do get it, I new all my renters as people not numbers on a ledger. we have lost touch with the thought of other people being neighbors.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


didn't understand my simple answer?  it covered every Thing.

Employment is at the will of either party.  Capital Has to circulate in our First World economy.  Applying for unemployment compensation is simpler than applying for means tested welfare.  Capitalism works.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed should be the poorest a person can be in our economy.  

Who is going to Want to be Poor, merely to be lazy?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So, you want to change or eliminate everything I listed.  Then what you want is welfare.   And the means test is not expensive at all.  It is merely a few forms you have to fill out.

Want an income for not working and without having to look for a job?  Apply for welfare.  That is what it is designed for.

And you extol the merits of simplicity, but what to completely overhaul the Unemployment Compensation system, from the criteria to qualify, the requirements while on it, the length of time you can draw it, to the source of the funding.   That is certainly not simple.

And as for the means testing, you can be sure that is the Unemployment Compensation system were to be changed into what you want, there would be some sort of means testing.  

If you want to help the poor, why do you dislike a simple filling out of forms to prevent greedy people from getting benefits when they can support themselves?  Why do you want to allow people to take resources they don't need?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


you don't understand the concepts, or the market based reality of capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I understand the concepts quite well.   You keep saying that I do not understand, but do not provide any actual details of what I have said that is wrong.

Why do you want to avoid a means test?   If someone is going to get a check from the tax payers, shouldn't they be required to swear that they do not have the means to support themselves?  That is the extent of the means testing for welfare.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


to avoid duplication of services.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



LMAO!!!     But what you want is to create a duplication of services.   You want to turn the Unemployment Compensation system into another welfare system.

And why?   What is the only reason you have given?   To avoid having to fill out a couple of forms concerning your income, net worth, and assets.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

that is your Story, story teller.

Compensation for the market based phenomena of Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment is what i am advocating solving for through the simple and existing mechanism of unemployment compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> that is your Story, story teller.
> 
> Compensation for the market based phenomena of Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment is what i am advocating solving for through the simple and existing mechanism of unemployment compensation.



All to avoid means testing.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > that is your Story, story teller.
> ...


it should be as simple as possible under capitalism with our market based economy.

Capitalism works, so we don't have to.  

With compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job?

The right wing prefers to use capitalism to punish rather than encourage.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Use capitalism to punish who?   Someone who quits their job?   Someone who is fired for cause?    In both those cases it is the employee who is at fault.

It IS as simple as possible.   Welfare and Unemployment Compensation are two different programs with 2 different goals and missions.

You want to make Unemployment Compensation like welfare but without means testing.    Why are you against the means testing used by the welfare system?   It is only a couple of forms filled out by the applicant.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

You have to understand the concepts.  Politics is all talk.  It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.  

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> You have to understand the concepts.  Politics is all talk.  It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.
> 
> How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?
> 
> Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.


You haven’t a clue when it comes to economics.  You only know what you have been fed, which is based on fantasy only.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

depotoo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > You have to understand the concepts.  Politics is all talk.  It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.
> ...


nice story, bro.  

how about a valid, economic rebuttal.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

depotoo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > You have to understand the concepts.  Politics is all talk.  It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.
> ...


Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing. 

The housing sector should be more stable for market participants.  That can Only happen if markets receive metrics from that market participation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> You have to understand the concepts.  Politics is all talk.  It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.
> 
> How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?
> 
> Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.



So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it?   And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves?  That is not promoting general welfare.  That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year?   YOu want the unemployed to make more?   Of course those workers would quit their jobs.   Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year.   If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00.    How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010.  At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US.   To pay the 158 million people $30k per year, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan.    That is $15k abovewhat they pay in taxes now.  It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation.  It does not cover the bureaucracy involved in having 158+ million people on welfare. 

And the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



If every working person making over $30k a year has to pay an additional $15k in taxes, above what they already pay, the economy would be in shambles.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > You have to understand the concepts.  Politics is all talk.  It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.
> ...


dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


guess that is why the right wing Only knows how to finance government.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Handing half the population $30k a year for doing nothing is not capitalism.  That you think it is shows you have no clue.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Absolute nonsense.   Giving half the population $30k a year would bankrupt the nation in no time.

And, since you seem adamant about not requiring a means test, it would be more than half.   Why wouldn't someone making $40k or $50k a year sign up too?   There is no method of checking.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Once again you avoid the topic and pretend I said something I did not.

I laid out what would happen if your plan were adopted.   I did it based on facts.   And you claim I said something about the value of morals? That is a blatant lie.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


landlords have some clue. 

the homeless have some clue.

only the right wing, has no clue.


----------



## dblack (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Once again you avoid the topic and pretend I said something I did not.



Sadly, that's an old standard in the partisan playbook.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You are the one who has no clue.

You claim your plan would cure poverty and solve the homeless problem.

Ok, answer me this, each monthly check would be for around $2,240.00.    Where will they mail the checks for the homeless?  How will they cash them if they have no valid ID (a valid ID requires a home address)?    And where will they keep the money?  In their pocket?


----------



## depotoo (Nov 28, 2018)

Ever heard of bettering yourself and working smarter?  Or do you believe that is not possible, maybe.  And would explain your erroneous beliefs.  





danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



It isn't that difficult, especially if it means an income to circulate and create demand, to be able pay story tellers to the stories we Want to hear.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Ever heard of bettering yourself and working smarter?  Or do you believe that is not possible, maybe.  And would explain your erroneous beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ever heard of Capitalism's Natural rate of unemployment?  only the right wing has no understand of economics.


----------



## basquebromance (Nov 28, 2018)

"30-year-old commutes 4 hours, and 140 miles, every day so he doesn't have to pay $4,500-a-month San Francisco rent" - CNBC


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

markets must be inefficient to the extent of any lack of participation.  poverty proves this to be a self-evident truth.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 28, 2018)

Oh, I know all about the Marxist/socialists theories on it.  Problem is their theories are erroneous.   What you don’t understand is why capitalism works, and Marxist theory doesn’t. 





danielpalos said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Ever heard of bettering yourself and working smarter?  Or do you believe that is not possible, maybe.  And would explain your erroneous beliefs.
> ...


----------



## Votto (Nov 28, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...



No, the landlords should not be told what to do.

What if they need to raise the rent so that they are not losing money?

The market will prove whether they chose wisely or not.  If people don't come back, they will either lower the price or sell the business.

For now, move.

Naturally, this is not pleasant but you CHOSE to live where you do now while knowing that rent can and does fluctuate.


----------



## Siete (Nov 28, 2018)

the anti regulation crowd wants regulation - 

the best wake up call in the world is to attack their wallet.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 28, 2018)

Siete said:


> the anti regulation crowd wants regulation -
> 
> the best wake up call in the world is to attack their wallet.


You choose to attack my wallet?  I will choose to move on.  Good luck to you.


----------



## oreo (Nov 28, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...




Rent price controls have been done in the past, but it's really not good overall for the government to get involved in this.

I understand what you mean. But it all boils down to supply and demand.  In my area people are now renting out bedrooms for $500.00 to a $1000.00 per month. Rentals are almost non existent. Others are renting out their basements to the influx of people moving into the area.

It just depends where you're living at. The lack of rentals will stir on construction of more housing in an area. Price controls on rent will bring on slum lords. They won't maintain the properties. People on fixed incomes or lower incomes are screwed, & will be forced to seek other housing. 

This is why it's important to purchase a home at a fixed interest rate when you're in your younger working years.

Here is a good article on what Nixon did.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1vCZzKGb6QtWRgqx7usj6y&cshid=1543424678739


----------



## Siete (Nov 28, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > the anti regulation crowd wants regulation -
> ...



Trumps tax cuts will save the op -


----------



## my2¢ (Nov 28, 2018)

protectionist said:


> If landlords NEED to raise rents, (say 10% or less) for some reason, that's understandable, but to raise them by HUNDREDS of dollars, just for GREED, is not what we ought to be OK with in this country. When hundreds of people are forced out of their homes, this is unacceptable.  As is the case with most conservatives, I also favor deregulation of business, but this is one case that is screaming for MORE regulation, to a reasonable degree.



Before the real estate bust 10 years ago many apartments around here were converting to condos.  Just wondering if a condo conversion  might be case in your situation?  Sounds like they want a lot of evacuations.  

Another possibility is that over the recent years the complex has appreciated to such an extent that for the new owner needs the rent hike to get any decent return on his investment.  

On the matter of greed I say it all depends on if the new rent is out of line with other apartments in the area.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 28, 2018)

Without those tax cuts, he would be even more enraged than now...





Siete said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


----------



## Votto (Nov 28, 2018)

Siete said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...



Lies!

There is only one savior.


----------



## g5000 (Nov 28, 2018)

oreo said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...


See post 693.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Oh, I know all about the Marxist/socialists theories on it.  Problem is their theories are erroneous.   What you don’t understand is why capitalism works, and Marxist theory doesn’t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


of course we know capitalism works; within the goalposts fixed by Government.


----------



## Votto (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I know all about the Marxist/socialists theories on it.  Problem is their theories are erroneous.   What you don’t understand is why capitalism works, and Marxist theory doesn’t.
> ...



Yes, government fixes everything.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

Votto said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


especially for the right wing, at the border.

free markets and less regulation!


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It isn't that difficult?    I am guessing you do not mean that as an answer to my questions.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.



Indeed it is.   We have established that.    And why do you get a job?  To have an income.   And if you quit that job, you no longer have an income.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Employment is at the will of either party; let's start with that.
> ...


yes. simply being unemployed means a person should be able to apply for unemployment compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Not if you quit or were fired for cause.  If you want an income, keep working and don't quit your job.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


what part of, employment at-will, do you not understand?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I understand it completely.

What part of being paid for workng do you not understand?   If you quit the job you quit the pay too.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 28, 2018)

What you want to do is blame everyone but the individual that gets fired, or chooses not to work, for their lousy job performance or attitude.  





danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


the pay of employment compensation, not the "pay" of unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

depotoo said:


> What you want to do is blame everyone but the individual that gets fired, or chooses not to work, for their lousy job performance or attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## caddo kid (Nov 28, 2018)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...




WOW, LOOK: ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE BITCHING ABOUT FREE MARKETS.


----------



## dblack (Nov 28, 2018)

caddo kid said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> ...



It's different when we do it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > What you want to do is blame everyone but the individual that gets fired, or chooses not to work, for their lousy job performance or attitude.
> ...



Perhaps it does.  But that does not change the fact that quitting or being fired from a job means you don't draw unemployment.

Want long term income without working?    Apply for welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No, the pay of unemployment compensation is not paid to those who quit their job.

Apply for welfare.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


that perception should be challenged.  a federal doctrine and State laws, claim employment is at the will of either party.  EDD must show proof of for-Cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in our at-will employment States.  It really is, for the public Good.


----------



## Siete (Nov 28, 2018)

if your job doesnt pay the bills pull up your boots and go get a couple more.

seems to be the RW mantra of days past ...

`snort~


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



If you are fired for cause you can challenge it via the labor board.  

And it is not a perception.  It is the rules & laws of the unemployment compensation system.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

Siete said:


> if your job doesnt pay the bills pull up your boots and go get a couple more.
> 
> seems to be the RW mantra of days past ...
> 
> `snort~


Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.  The right wing prefers to blame the Poor for it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


I also cited a federal doctrine and State laws.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Not for unemployment compensation, you didn't.   Welfare takes care of the federal and state doctrines you quoted.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > if your job doesnt pay the bills pull up your boots and go get a couple more.
> ...



No one blames anyone.   But with choices, like quitting a job or violating the rules and getting fired, come consequences.   One of those consequences is that you cannot draw unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


welfare costs more and does less.  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and results in automatic stabilization of our economy and a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 28, 2018)

Siete said:


> if your job doesnt pay the bills pull up your boots and go get a couple more.
> 
> seems to be the RW mantra of days past ...
> 
> `snort~


Actually, if you are able bodied in mind or physically, trim your bills or find a better paying job, or take on more jobs, or move to where the pay is better, or increase your skill level to get a better paying job, take advantage of that training many companies offer to increase your skills,.  One has to do what one has to do.  Don’t expect others to pick up your slack.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


employment is at the will of either party, only the Poor get blamed for it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > if your job doesnt pay the bills pull up your boots and go get a couple more.
> ...


compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more cost effective locally.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Welfare does not cost more.   An unemployment compensation, if it more cost effective, is only that way because of the limitations in amounts and terms.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...



No it is not.   In order for unemployment compensation to do what you want, it would have to be completely revamped and grown into a huge bureaucracy with checks and balances to avoid fraud.   It is more cost effective because it is strictly short term and for a much smaller group.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No one gets blamed.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


yes, it does.  and does less.  how lazy.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


it is easier to simply apply for unemployment compensation if a person doesn't have a job.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It costs more because it is far larger and more open to fraud.   Your idea for the changes to unemployment compensation would do the same thing.

Unemployment compensation and welfare do different things.  You want to make them do the same thing, in other words duplication of services, and claim it is more cost effective?   Nonsense.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So you, not only want to be paid for doing nothing, you want getting the money for sitting at home to be easier to get?

You are taking tax payer's money.   The least you can do is be willing to apply for it.    Its not like you are too busy.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


come on, story teller.  tell me how being honest about not wanting work and collect unemployment compensation, leads to more fraud.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


The homeless could be getting off the street.  

Why does the right wing use capitalism to blame the Poor?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



There are numerous ways to defraud such a system.

Like having income you do not report.
Like lying about how many people you support.
Like claiming you do not own your home.
Like you and your spouse both claiming to be single parents and claiming double.
Like getting a fake ID and claiming more than one check.
Like claiming you support yourself and living with your parents.

Those are a few, off the top of my head.

Lots of people don't want to work.  But if you want to live indoors, eat regularly, have decent clothes ect ect, you get a job to earn them.  You don't demand someone else give you money they earned.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I see you never answered my questions about the homeless drawing unemployment.    Where do they mail the check?  How do the homeless get an ID?  Where do the homeless keep the $2200 a month they will get (so they don't get robbed)?   What is done to prevent their addictions from taking all the money?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



At least you finally told the truth about why you want all this.  You don't want to work.   But people don't want to pay you for doing nothing with money they earned.  Why do your wants outweigh theirs?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


simply getting a job means you don't need unemployment compensation.  

why bother if you don't Have to work on unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


they could "pick, up their check" at the unemployment office.  

banks work.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment that is public policy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



None of that works without an ID.    Try getting a state ID without an address.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes, but that does not include those who refuse to work.

Remember when you talked about a "ready reserve work force"?   Someone who refuses to work doesn't qualify there, do they?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Because someone has to PAY for that.   And if you aren't trying to get work, and quit your job, you don't get unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Shelters could solve that dilemma, for some.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


yes, it does.  money doesn't care about employment status.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


employment is at will; and you have no solution to our homeless problem.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



But the people who earn the money care about having to pay you.

People WANT to keep more of their money.  You don't want to work.   Why are your wants more important?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



That is a lie.   I gave you a very good plan for solving the homeless problem.  And my plan, unlike yours, addresses the issues that likely caused their homelessness.   You simply make bogus claims to justify your own laziness.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


quit, and collect unemployment compensation.  don't whine.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 28, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


a lack of income caused their problem under Capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So everyone should just quit and collect.....wait, that won't work.

No, I think we'll just keep the unemployment compensation the way it is.  You can apply for welfare, get a job, or go without.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 28, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



2 of the top 3 causes of homelessness are substance abuse and mental illness.   If you do not deal with those, giving them money changes nothing.  In fact, where substance abuse is concerned, you might be killing them.


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Nov 28, 2018)

I am for rent control, but only if it is done at the state or county level.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


only if you don't believe in capitalism.  Gold makes some people work harder.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


all of our homeless who are on the street are "mentally ill"?  yet, the right wing only offers failed solutions.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



That is the best part about capitalism.  That people work for their money and have limitless possibilities.   But you want to take those people's money so you don't have to work.  Kinda the opposite of capitalism.

You want gold?   Work for it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Once again you try to claim I said something I did not.   No where in our conversations have I said "all of our homeless who are on the street are mentally ill".   So stop lying.

But mental illness is, as I clearly said, one of the top three causes of homelessness.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


What part of only Capital Has to circulate under capitalism do you not understand?  Your insistence on a fallacy of false cause; means I don't have to take You seriously in Any serious venue.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


You have no solutions.  Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment will take care of most; means tested welfare can take care of the rest.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



The definition of the fallacy of false cause is:
"*false cause* fallacy occurs when one cites to sequential events as evidence that the first caused the second.
The argument generally looks like this:
Event A happened.
Event B happened after A.
Therefore, A caused B.
The false cause fallacy is sometimes summarized and presented under the slogans “correlation is not causation” and “sequence is not causation”."

I did not present a false cause argument.  Payment *IS* a direct result of employment.   


As for your continued insistence that "capital has to circulate" has not been argued.   But you have offered no evidence that without giving the capital away, it would not be circulated.   The capital will circulate whether you are involved in the circulation or not.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Compensation to the mentally ill and those addicted to drugs will not solve the root cause of their homelessness.  In fact, simply giving them money, without any other help, can easily result in their deaths.   Do you think an addict on the streets will put the money in the bank so they can rent an apartment?   Or is it far more likely that they will over-indulge in their addiction?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


that is the fallacy of false Cause; some people don't work and receive a paycheck. 

some people provide labor input to any given local economy, yet may not get paid for it.

in any case, your "morals" don't matter.  It is a matter of law, since capitalism only provides a one in a thousand chance, for spontaneous Goodness.

We have a federal doctrine and State laws that define employment at the will of either party.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


you have no solutions.  anyone who "falls through the unemployment compensation" safety net, should be a priority for means testing.  Self-selection is capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I never said all work results in pay, nor did I say it was the only way to get money.

So my statement is a fallacy of false cause only if you add in all the things your imagination added.    Just as an FYI, I am only responsible for what I say.  I am not responsible for what you want me to have said or what you imagined I said.   

And, once again, please stick with what I actually said.   And stop lying when you claim I am talking about morality.  I have not.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Finally, something I agree with.

Yes, we should use unemployment compensation, as it exists now, for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own.
And use welfare for those who do not qualify.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


the fallacy of false Cause is that it is not the Only way to get money under Capitalism.  

Employment is at the will of either party.  The law is the law.  Why be illegal to the law, but blame less fortunate illegals for their sincere imitation.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Welfare is more expensive.  Besides, why should we care if someone can voluntarily quit and get the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour?  Some people want to work less and some may want to work more.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I never said it was the only way to get money.   You are lying when you claim I did.

And, yet again, you are trying to interject something into the discussion that is neither relevant nor something I have mentioned.  I have not blamed the poor or illegals for anything.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And some people want to keep the money they earned.  I have repeatedly asked you why your wants carry more weight than the wants of the people who work for their money.  You refuse to answer.

Welfare is more expensive because of the differences in the programs.   

If someone wants to work less or not at all, I have no problem with that.   But they will have to live with/on less.

And why should we pay someone the equivalent $14 an hour if they quit their job?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Yet, you appeal to ignorance of the law in this "political" venue.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


dude, Congress is delegated the power to tax to solve the problems of our Republic.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No I do not.  Once again, you lie.

I have not appealed to ignorance of the law.   In fact, I have acknowledged the law throughout this discussion.

It is you who want to change the unemployment compensation laws to fit what you want.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes they are.   But you not wanting to work is not a problem of the Republic.   It is your problem.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job.  You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you.   That is what welfare is for.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Yes, you do.  A federal doctrine and State laws support my contention and not yours.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job.  You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you.   That is what welfare is for.


upgrading that policy is more effective.  it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Any federal and state doctrine that supports your contention is satisfied by the welfare system.   There is no federal or state doctrine that supports the massive changes that you want for the unemployment compensation.


----------



## dblack (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Are you still talking to [Ignored Member]?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


no, it doesn't.  why make up stories, story teller.  why are You advocating for more bureaucracy rather than more market friendly public?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job.  You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you.   That is what welfare is for.
> ...



Ready reserve labor pool?   Of people who don't want to work or who cannot follow the rules set by their employer?   No.

The "upgrades" you want create a duplication of services.   That is not more effective.   The general public is not going to want to change the unemployment compensation system in order for you to draw wages without working or trying to find a job.  It isn't going to happen.

If you refuse to work or seek employment, the unemployment compensation system is not where you belong.  You belong under the welfare program.  So fill out the application, including the means test, and draw your welfare check.   Unless there is some reason the means test would disqualify you.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is not a duplicated service.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

dblack said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


right wingers don't believe in our First Amendment?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes it does.   Please show me any federal or state doctrine that is not satisfied by welfare but would be satisfied by the unemployment compensation as you want it recreated.   You made a claim not show evidence of it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



But you quit your job and do not want another one.   So you do not belong in the unemployment compensation programs.

And yes, it is duplication of services.   You want to remove every difference between the UC and welfare, except for the means test.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



What part of the 1st Amendment are you referring to?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What part of that amendment applies to this conversation?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job.  You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you.   That is what welfare is for.
> ...



It does function as a first line safety net for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own.   It does not act as a safety net for those who want to live off the taxpayers.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

dblack said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yeah, it is a slow day.  lol


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


it already exists in our Republic.  any for-cause criteria need to be challenged in any at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


employment is at-will, not for-cause.  that "restriction" on the Poor, needs to be challenged in any at-will employment State.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

Daniel, you have gone through amazing mental acrobatics, told lies, and twisted logic to the extreme to advocate huge changes just to avoid the means tests of welfare.

Do you have some reason for wnting to avoid the means test?   And spare me the "it is inefficient" or "it is too expensive" because both are lies.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


unequal application of the law needs to be challenged in any at-will employment merely for the sake of equality and equal rights.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No, it does not need to be challenged.    Any job will have rules.  Breaking those rules has consequences.   You just want to avoid the consequences.  If the rules are unjust, challenge them.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



The law is applied equally.   Anyone who quits their job or is fired for cause is not eligible.  That is not discriminatory.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Employment is "at will" for both employer and employee.    Being required to follow the rules of the employer is no discriminatory.   Breaking those rules violates the employee/employer relationship.   You don't get unemployment compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions.  I may come back to this conversation, or I may not.   For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.


----------



## Thinker101 (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions.  I may come back to this conversation, or I may not.   For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.



I see you've met danny.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


the rule, is employment at-will; every employer makes a big deal about it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


the law is employment at the will of either party.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


it is not against the rule to quit.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions.  I may come back to this conversation, or I may not.   For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.


you have no solutions; thank goodness you don't have any real opposition, in your district.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No, it is not.   But the rules of unemployment compensation are that quitting means you are not eligible for money.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions.  I may come back to this conversation, or I may not.   For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.
> ...



I have offered several solutions.  They just do not your desire to avoid the means testing.

Daniel, you are a parasite on our society.   Take what you can get.  Welfare.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


so, the employer can't take a tax break, if he fires anyone?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.  

it is simple economics.   the law of large numbers will be on our side.  we should be raising tax revenue by providing Compensation for Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

Thinker101 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions.  I may come back to this conversation, or I may not.   For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.
> ...


i am just glad for our doctrine of separation of powers.

should i start working on a more serious argument?

...your Honor, 

i tried and i tried to convince our politicians but they simply refused to pay attention to a  guy with "just one vote".


----------



## Thinker101 (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Yeah, that's the reason no one pays attention to you...because you only have one vote.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

Thinker101 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Thinker101 said:
> ...


not that serious, right, right wingers.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



He will pay lower payroll tax if he fired them for cause.  Other than that, no.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Morals?   You want to force others to give you part of the money they earned because you don't want to work.  And you have the audacity to keep bringing up morals?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


in an at-will employment State?  

why not hire Mr.Avenati, he can use more billable hours.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 29, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



More incoherent babbling.


----------



## protectionist (Oct 30, 2021)

It's happening again.  2 years ago I and hundred of others in my apartment complex were forced out of our homes (apartments), when a new landlord bought the complex we were living in, and immediately raised our rents from $550/month to $900/month (for a 1 bedroom).

Now the complex I'm living in (which I came to, to escape from the previous one), has also been bought, and this new owner, like in the other complex, has also raised the rents very high. From $600/month to $850/mo. 

There are certain things to take note of here.  This is not a typical apartment complex. Although there is no age restriction, almost all the residents here are senior citizens, retired, and on LOW fixed incomes.  Many do not own a car.  Must are unable to move, and the housing market here (Tampa, FL) is such that there simply is no place to move to around here that is less than about $900/mo for 1 bdrm. Most residents are trapped here, and either cannot pay the new rent, or like myself, can just barely pay it, and still cover other necessities.

So one greed freak, ignoring the fact that the complex is much more than just HIS business, it is also the homes of hundreds of people, looks at this as nothing but a lucrative cash cow to manipulate, just for him.

So now we get to the real crux of all this.  It comes down to what government is. Why it exists.  It is here for the PROTECTION of the people.  It is FOR the people. As much as l respect business ownership and private enterprise (I owned my own business for 12 years in the past), I recognize that business owners should not be be allowed to do ANYTHING. Rights of private property must have limits where the public would be excessively burdened to the point of some people becoming homeless.

As is the case with any business, owners cannot be allowed to do anything at all.  Amusement park owners must comply with regulations that keep their roller coasters and other rides, safe.  Builders must meet codes that restrict asbestos and other carcenogenic materials, and those that would allow buildings to collapse.  

It should be noted that unlike musical instruments, fishing equipment, computers, and stuff that are not necessities, housing is among the group of things that people HAVE TO HAVE. That makes its position unique, relative to government  Only food is as essential.  And when there is no alternative, the public should be protected by business price gouging.  Gasoline, food, housing, electricity, and other necessities do require SOME degree of regulation.

Let's hear what some people who are in this predicament have to say, not those who own homes and don't face danger of becoming homeless.  THis is far more than just somebody's economic ideology, who has no personal housing worries.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 30, 2021)

protectionist said:


> It's happening again.  2 years ago I and hundred of others in my apartment complex were forced out of our homes (apartments), when a new landlord bought the complex we were living in, and immediately raised our rents from $550/month to $900/month (for a 1 bedroom).
> 
> Now the complex I'm living in (which I came to, to escape from the previous one), has also been bought, and this new owner, like in the other complex, has also raised the rents very high. From $600/month to $850/mo.
> 
> ...


Let me guess. You live where Democrats control everything.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 30, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


Fucking commie.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 30, 2021)

Yes, amusement park owners must maintain their equipment to safe standards.  And builders must build to code, which is another safety issue.

But the amusement park owners can charge what they want for admission.   Builders can charge what they want for their services.   The only limitation is what the market will bear.

Your landlord must abide by rules too.    The aprtments must be safe and the grounds sanitary.    They cannot evict on a whim.    But they can charge you whatever they want.   If it is too much their properties will be empty.   If they are still full after the rent increase, they are obviously not overcharging.

There are ways you could have avoided this situation before you retired.   But you chose not to do so.   Now you have to live with it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 30, 2021)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Let me guess. You live where Democrats control everything.



Democrats are more likely to approve of rent control.     It is a liberal idea.    Conservatives are more likely to believe the property owner should control their own property.


----------



## easyt65 (Oct 30, 2021)

Rent control?

Democrats screwed owners by giving money to the renters then declaring they did not have go pay rent.  The money should have given the money to the owners and told renters they didn't have to pay rent.

Instead renters got free money and free rent.


----------



## protectionist (Oct 30, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> But they can charge you whatever they want.   If it is too much their properties will be empty.   If they are still full after the rent increase, they are obviously not overcharging.


FALSE!   The rents are too high for the present residents.  They LL can get college students who double or triple up in the apartments. Also the are is starting to get aliens flooding in (Mexicans,Haitians, Afghans, etc) who are getting public assistance $$$, so Biden can get their votes. The residents get no help from anybody.

As I said, the focal point of this is *the residents *and their plight, not the perspective of the landlords and business economics.   Let all those not struggling in this hot water, keep quiet.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 30, 2021)

protectionist said:


> FALSE!   The rents are too high for the present residents.  They LL can get college students who double or triple up in the apartments. Also the are is starting to get aliens flooding in (Mexicans,Haitians, Afghans, etc) who are getting public assistance $$$, so Biden can get their votes. The residents get no help from anybody.
> 
> As I said, the focal point of this is *the residents *and their plight, not the perspective of the landlords and business economics.   Let all those not struggling in this hot water, keep quiet.



I'm not struggling in this warm water.   I am also just a few years from paying off my house.   I decided to buy instead of renting.  Now I have something to show for it.

I am all for getting illegal aliens out.   But I think you blaming the illegals is a bit much.

The landlords own the properties.    If they can't make the money renting, they'll bulldozer the place and build something more profitable.


----------



## skews13 (Oct 30, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...



Feel your pain. The gop candidate running in va gov race was the ceo of a company that did the very thing.

And here’s the kicker. They’re getting those kind of tents because the alien population is willing to pay it to have a legitimate American address. They will rotate people living in the apartments and rental housing. Sharing  the rent among many people.

Ironic isn’t it. Rich landlords helping to house the current legal and illegal alien population. The housing market is contributing to illegals more than anyother industry.

Stop and think about it for a moment. Without a job, or a place to live, illegals can’t operate, much less stay here. Start going after these employers and landlords renting to them, and your alien problem becomes a lot smaller one.


----------



## JWBooth (Oct 30, 2021)




----------



## protectionist (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I'm not struggling in this warm water.   I am also just a few years from paying off my house.   I decided to buy instead of renting.  Now I have something to show for it.
> 
> I am all for getting illegal aliens out.   But I think you blaming the illegals is a bit much.
> 
> The landlords own the properties.    If they can't make the money renting, they'll bulldozer the place and build something more profitable.


But they CAN make money renting. They can do what the previous owner did for 14 years, They can rent at $600/month (2021 $$). 

As for the illegals yes, I blame them for entering the US in violation of our laws, disrespecting our laws (and therefore us as well). I blame Biden even more for facilitating their invasion and spreading them (unvaccinated and unvetted) all over the country.

In the past I bought 2 houses, but had to move, and I sold the houses. I liked being a homeowner, but I didn't like the refrigerator and air conditioning repairs.  Another thing is, most of the people in my complex are too old to buy a house.  Maybe they could've/should've when they were younger, but that doesn't help the current situation.


----------



## protectionist (Oct 31, 2021)

JWBooth said:


>


I didn't know you knew I was a violin player. Wanna take lessons ? I teach the mandolin & guitar too.  Become a musician in ONE HOUR.


----------



## protectionist (Oct 31, 2021)

skews13 said:


> Feel your pain. The gop candidate running in va gov race was the ceo of a company that did the very thing.
> 
> And here’s the kicker. They’re getting those kind of tents because the alien population is willing to pay it to have a legitimate American address. They will rotate people living in the apartments and rental housing. Sharing  the rent among many people.
> 
> ...


One cannot fully assess this whole situation without citing the illegal alien component, as well as Biden's blame for dumping so many of them here (and elsewhere-this isn't only Tampa's problem)


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

protectionist said:


> One cannot fully assess this whole situation without citing the illegal alien component, as well as Biden's blame for dumping so many of them here (and elsewhere-this isn't only Tampa's problem)



Sounds like you need to move to a city with a lower cost of living.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Democrats are more likely to approve of rent control.     It is a liberal idea.    Conservatives are more likely to believe the property owner should control their own property.


More importantly nobody owns rental property to lose money. The more risk, the less availability. The less availability the higher demand. The higher demand, the higher the prices.

Rent controls only make a bad situation worse. The only solution is to get more rental options for people. 

The recent actions of the government to let people live rent free at the expense of the property owner has killed the rental market forever


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can help this sector as well.  Increasing market participation can only be beneficial to any market based economy.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Oct 31, 2021)

Penelope said:


> Everywhere they are raising rents like that. The rich get richer and the poor get homeless.


Especially in liberal ran cities.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

protectionist said:


> But they CAN make money renting. They can do what the previous owner did for 14 years, They can rent at $600/month (2021 $$).
> 
> As for the illegals yes, I blame them for entering the US in violation of our laws, disrespecting our laws (and therefore us as well). I blame Biden even more for facilitating their invasion and spreading them (unvaccinated and unvetted) all over the country.
> 
> In the past I bought 2 houses, but had to move, and I sold the houses. I liked being a homeowner, but I didn't like the refrigerator and air conditioning repairs.  Another thing is, most of the people in my complex are too old to buy a house.  Maybe they could've/should've when they were younger, but that doesn't help the current situation.


Can you show us the express Immigration clause in our federal Constitution?   If it is about being Legal to the Law, stop being such hypocrites, right-wingers.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Especially in liberal ran cities.


Why do you believe that?


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why do you believe that?


I don't. I know.
Believing is thinking something is true based on partial or no information at all.
Knowing is thinking something is true based on the way it is.
All 10 of the highest rent cities in America are liberal cities.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> I don't. I know.
> Believing is thinking something is true based on partial or no information at all.
> Knowing is thinking something is true based on the way it is.
> All 10 of the highest rent cities in America are liberal cities.


Offhand, I would guess it is because they are financial centers or high-tech development centers.  Red States are economically "cheaper" for the same reason the less developed world is cheaper.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Offhand, I would guess it is because they are financial centers or high-tech development centers.  Red States are economically "cheaper" for the same reason the less developed world is cheaper.


To an extent, and as long as you are employed by those sectors.
If one earns $120,000 in San Francisco, but the average cost of living is 2.5 times that of someone in some other city.. that means someone there who only makes $75,000 is actually wealthier.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> To an extent, and as long as you are employed by those sectors.
> If one earns $120,000 in San Francisco, but the average cost of living is 2.5 times that of someone in some other city.. that means someone there who only makes $75,000 is actually wealthier.


Location may be everything.  

In my opinion, solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can only provide more metadata for that sector and those market based metrics for our economy.  

What market sector would be worse off with better market participation?


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Location may be everything.
> 
> In my opinion, solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can only provide more metadata for that sector and those market based metrics for our economy.
> 
> What market sector would be worse off with better market participation?


Nice way of dressing up socialism.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Nice way of dressing up socialism.


No need to dress it up.  Government is socialism defined by our Constitution.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> No need to dress it up.  Government is socialism defined by our Constitution.


HAha... you all or none folks are funny.
All governments have some socialist aspect to them, but that doesn't make them socialist.
 Not all aspects of socialism is bad, it is not being a socialist to borrow what is good about it and apply that.
As long as you stick to capitalism as the theme.
There is no other form of controlling production that improves the lot of the common man more than capitalism.
I would think by now this shouldn't have to be pointed out 12,000,000 times before it is understood.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> HAha... you all or none folks are funny.
> All governments have some socialist aspect to them, but that doesn't make them socialist.
> Not all aspects of socialism is bad, it is not being a socialist to borrow what is good about it and apply that.
> As long as you stick to capitalism as the theme.
> ...


We have a mixed market economy that is part socialism and part capitalism.  It really is that simple. 

Our Constitution declares that we have delegated the social power of taxation to our federal Congress. 

Capitalism is only about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> We have a mixed market economy that is part socialism and part capitalism.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Our Constitution declares that we have delegated the social power of taxation to our federal Congress.
> 
> Capitalism is only about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.


So you agree.
Thanks


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> So you agree.
> Thanks


Socialism is about social power not capitalism.


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 31, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Especially in liberal ran cities.


Because conservatives would never raise the rent


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Socialism is about social power not capitalism.


Socialism is about a handful of elitist controlling everything while telling everyone they are doing it for them while destroying every possible chance you have of escaping your predestined lot in life.
Capitalism is about controlling everything by a large number of risk takers while giving you every possibility to be one of them.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Socialism is about a handful of elitist controlling everything while telling everyone they are doing it for them while destroying every possible chance you have of escaping your predestined lot in life.
> Capitalism is about controlling everything by a large number of risk takers while giving you every possibility to be one of them.


Only because you misunderstand our federal Constitution. 

_The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation._


----------



## Penelope (Oct 31, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Especially in liberal ran cities.


all cites are run by Democrats because they are the only ones that can handle diversity.


----------



## j-mac (Oct 31, 2021)

bear513 said:


> You sound like Gracie and what she was talking about in California
> 
> Go to south Carolina or Wyoming.


SC not much better. My daughter recently lost her apartment to a neighboring fire. They wouldn’t let her move in to another apt while they redid hers, because they could remodel and charge $100s more.

She found a different apartment for $150 more than she was paying.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can help this sector as well.  Increasing market participation can only be beneficial to any market based economy.



No, it would not.   Your fantasy of getting a check for doing nothing will never come to be.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> No, it would not.   Your fantasy of getting a check for doing nothing will never come to be.


You need valid arguments not just you assuming your own conclusions.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You need valid arguments not just you assuming your own conclusions.



I have provided you valid arguments over and over and over.    You choose to ignore them.   And you continue to plead for this "unemployment compensation" pipedream for those who refuse to work, quit their job, or were fired because of their own behavior.    It would cost billions of dollars.   Get on welfare or draw disability if you can't work.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I have provided you valid arguments over and over and over.    You choose to ignore them.   And you continue to plead for this "unemployment compensation" pipedream for those who refuse to work, quit their job, or were fired because of their own behavior.    It would cost billions of dollars.   Get on welfare or draw disability if you can't work.


You are merely a parrot who understands nothing about the law.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You are merely a parrot who understands nothing about the law.



I understand the law quite clearly.    I also understand that you CAN work, but refuse to do so.   And you want to be paid for sitting at home, even if you do not NEED the money.

Your plan is parasitism, nothing more.


----------



## skews13 (Oct 31, 2021)

protectionist said:


> One cannot fully assess this whole situation without citing the illegal alien component, as well as Biden's blame for dumping so many of them here (and elsewhere-this isn't only Tampa's problem)



Actually, I can, and just did. I can easily notice who is moving into the working class neighborhood, apartment complexes, duplex houses, low income neighborhood single family homes, displacing poor blacks and whites, mobile home parks, and even camping site areas. The overwhelming majority are Hispanics. They are taking over whole areas of suburban, and out lying areas of cities and towns, and with 15 of them working various jobs, traveling construction crews, and Latinas working multiple low income jobs. They can easily share a $1200-$2400 monthly rent, and are doing it right before your very eyes. Why do you think these investors are buying up every real estate listing at asking or above? 

It ain't Joe Biden that's your problem son. 

And Donald Trump ain't your solution either sunshine.

But you tired ass conservatives keep right on believing that shit. Let me know how it's working out for you, when some fat little Latina is wiping your ass, after you just shit on yourself, when you are in your 80's in the old folks home.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 31, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


Giving government more control over our lives is not the answer. 

You can't say moving is too expensive if you're willing to stay there and absorb the increase.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I understand the law quite clearly.    I also understand that you CAN work, but refuse to do so.   And you want to be paid for sitting at home, even if you do not NEED the money.
> 
> Your plan is parasitism, nothing more.


You obviously don't understand that employment is at the will of either party and there is no right to work even in alleged Right to Work States.

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._

Just admit you don't have a problem with wage-slavery because you learned nothing from history.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You obviously don't understand that employment is at the will of either party and there is no right to work even in alleged Right to Work States.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Just admit you don't have a problem with wage-slavery because you learned nothing from history.



I said nothing about wage slavery.    I called you a parasite.

I am willing to fight for workers to have a livable wage.    But I will fight against people who want to be paid to sit on their ass when they are fully capable of working.

And if you know the law so well, why has your lawsuit not accomplished anything?    (if it exists)


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Oct 31, 2021)

Penelope said:


> all cites are run by Democrats because they are the only ones that can handle diversity.


They handle diversity by pillaging taxpayer revenue, making inside deals with corporations to pad their pockets... and oh... give some crumbs to minorities in their area and talk a good talk while doing it.

  Some of us have the intelligence and integrity to not play along with that.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I said nothing about wage slavery.    I called you a parasite.
> 
> I am willing to fight for workers to have a livable wage.    But I will fight against people who want to be paid to sit on their ass when they are fully capable of working.
> 
> And if you know the law so well, why has your lawsuit not accomplished anything?    (if it exists)


So what.  Your opinions mean less than gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> So what.  Your opinions mean less than gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.



So you say.    But you are still without an income.  Your lawsuit has failed.   And you will not achieve your goal of an income for sitting in your basement dreaming about women seeking you out.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> So you say.    But you are still without an income.  Your lawsuit has failed.   And you will not achieve your goal of an income for sitting in your basement dreaming about women seeking you out.


So what.  Who cares what hypocrites may believe?


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> So what.  Who cares what hypocrites may believe?



So who cares what a parasite who contributes nothing wants?


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can help this sector as well.  Increasing market participation can only be beneficial to any market based economy.



And giving money to social parasites would only increase the cost of living.   Those people would still not be able to afford rent.


----------



## B. Kidd (Oct 31, 2021)

protectionist said:


> It's happening again.  2 years ago I and hundred of others in my apartment complex were forced out of our homes (apartments), when a new landlord bought the complex we were living in, and immediately raised our rents from $550/month to $900/month (for a 1 bedroom).
> 
> Now the complex I'm living in (which I came to, to escape from the previous one), has also been bought, and this new owner, like in the other complex, has also raised the rents very high. From $600/month to $850/mo.
> 
> ...



How long was the rent moratorium?


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> So who cares what a parasite who contributes nothing wants?


Nothing but right-wing fantasy instead of any reason, right-wingers? 

I am the one with standing and a case before the Court.  Any other questions, dears?


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And giving money to social parasites would only increase the cost of living.   Those people would still not be able to afford rent.


Thanks for proving why, nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics.


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 31, 2021)

So you’re a conservative to a point, and that point being when it impacts you negatively?


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Nothing but right-wing fantasy instead of any reason, right-wingers?
> 
> I am the one with standing and a case before the Court.  Any other questions, dears?



Fantasy?    Why would I care about a parasite who wants money from the tax payers and yet contributes nothing to society?

You are capable of working.    So get a job instead of pretending you are owed something from everyone else's labors.


----------



## B. Kidd (Oct 31, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> So you’re a conservative to a point, and that point being when it impacts you negatively?



But the rent is too goddamned high!


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Fantasy?    Why would I care about a parasite who wants money from the tax payers and yet contributes nothing to society?
> 
> You are capable of working.    So get a job instead of pretending you are owed something from everyone else's labors.


Too bad you understand nothing.  Equal protection of the laws is guaranteed in our Constitutions.  Right-wing fantasy notwithstanding.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Too bad you understand nothing.  Equal protection of the laws is guaranteed in our Constitutions.  Right-wing fantasy notwithstanding.



As I have shown you before, there is already equal protection under the law.

You want protection from your own choice to refuse to work.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> As I have shown you before, there is already equal protection under the law.
> 
> You want protection from your own choice to refuse to work.


You have shown how you don't understand the law but still want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You have shown how you don't understand the law but still want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".



I have shown you have equal protection under the law.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I have shown you have equal protection under the law.


You have only shown your lack of understanding of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You have only shown your lack of understanding of the law.



And you have only shown you want money for doing nothing.    You want to take from society without adding anything.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You have only shown your lack of understanding of the law.



Exactly HOW are you a victim of unequal protection under the law?


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And you have only shown you want money for doing nothing.    You want to take from society without adding anything.


Promoting and providing for the general welfare is what we are supposed to be doing with our form of Government.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Exactly HOW are you a victim of unequal protection under the law?


Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer or the State, as the wealthiest market participants under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Promoting and providing for the general welfare is what we are supposed to be doing with our form of Government.



They do provide for general welfare.    Through welfare and disability programs.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer or the State, as the wealthiest market participants under our form of Capitalism.



Yes it is.   Either the employee or the employer can decide to end the relationship at any time and for any (or no) reason.    That is equal protection.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> They do provide for general welfare.    Through welfare and disability programs.


Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner better automatically stabilizes our economy.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Yes it is.   Either the employee or the employer can decide to end the relationship at any time and for any (or no) reason.    That is equal protection.


Thanks.  That is the whole basis for my petition for redress of grievances.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner better automatically stabilizes our economy.



You know what is really market friendly?  Not raising taxes.


----------



## B. Kidd (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You know what is really market friendly?  Not raising taxes.



Let's see. Dimm raised inflation + Dimm raised taxes + Dimm fiat money pumping = a Dimm financial apocalypse.
If this trifecta occurs, no plunge protection team can help!


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Thanks.  That is the whole basis for my petition for redress of grievances.



What grievance do you have?


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You know what is really market friendly?  Not raising taxes.


Not if tax cut economics result in deteriorating infrastructure.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Not if tax cut economics result in deteriorating infrastructure.



Raising taxes to pay for your "Unemployment for Anyone" plan will not pay for infrastructure.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Raising taxes to pay for your "Unemployment for Anyone" plan will not pay for infrastructure.


Solving simple poverty means any typical consumer will be able to afford the service.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Solving simple poverty means any typical consumer will be able to afford the service.



Absolute nonsense.     What the UC will pay will be enough to survive, and maybe a little more.   But nothing big.

And infrastructure is expensive.    So more people will be paying higher taxes to pay for your plan.  And paying even higher taxes to pay for infrastructure.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Absolute nonsense.     What the UC will pay will be enough to survive, and maybe a little more.   But nothing big.
> 
> And infrastructure is expensive.    So more people will be paying higher taxes to pay for your plan.  And paying even higher taxes to pay for infrastructure.


It has to solve simple poverty.   Right-wingers merely indulge in soo much special pleading, it merely seems like an externality.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It has to solve simple poverty.   Right-wingers merely indulge in soo much special pleading, it merely seems like an externality.



Welfare and disability provide the same safety net that your plan does.   Except they provide it only for those who need it.   Not for those who refuse to help themselves.

Why should society provide for someone who is unwilling to even try to provide for themselves?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It has to solve simple poverty.   Right-wingers merely indulge in soo much special pleading, it merely seems like an externality.



Solving simple poverty is about making sure people have enough to survive.   It does not mean providing a luxurious life.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Welfare and disability provide the same safety net that your plan does.   Except they provide it only for those who need it.   Not for those who refuse to help themselves.
> 
> Why should society provide for someone who is unwilling to even try to provide for themselves?


No, they don't.  Solving for capitalism's natural unemployment in a market friendly manner helps automatically stabilize our economy. It provides for the general welfare and that layer of social infrastructure resulting the requirement provide equal protection of the laws.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 1, 2021)

There is never a good excuse for govt control over any private property unless said property is impeding on others rights.
Raising prices doesnt do that.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Solving simple poverty is about making sure people have enough to survive.   It does not mean providing a luxurious life.


Solving for simple poverty means they would be still be Poor until they took the effort to improve themselves and seek a niche in the market for labor, etc.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> There is never a good excuse for govt control over any private property unless said property is impeding on others rights.
> Raising prices doesnt do that.


_No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._

Equal protection of the laws is a legal right guaranteed to individuals of the People in our State and Federal Constitutions. 

State legislators have no authority to deny or disparage equal protection of the laws in federal venues.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> No, they don't.  Solving for capitalism's natural unemployment in a market friendly manner helps automatically stabilize our economy. It provides for the general welfare and that layer of social infrastructure resulting the requirement provide equal protection of the laws.



The "natural unemployment" you speak of can just as easily be solved by existing welfare programs better than temporary unemployment compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Solving for simple poverty means they would be still be Poor until they took the effort to improve themselves and seek a niche in the market for labor, etc.



And that is exactly what existing welfare programs do.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> ...



Unemployment compensation does not abridge any privileges or immunities.    Every person who lost a job through no fault of their own is covered by unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The "natural unemployment" you speak of can just as easily be solved by existing welfare programs better than temporary unemployment compensation.


I have no idea why you believe that other than words are inexpensive for storytellers. 

Means testing is more expensive than this form of "Standardization":  _All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation._

It really is that simple, from an economic perspective.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And that is exactly what existing welfare programs do.


That is the problem.  Means testing is for complex forms of poverty not simple poverty.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Unemployment compensation does not abridge any privileges or immunities.    Every person who lost a job through no fault of their own is covered by unemployment.


State legislators have no authority to abridge employment law due to the contract clause.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I have no idea why you believe that other than words are inexpensive for storytellers.
> 
> Means testing is more expensive than this form of "Standardization":  _All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation._
> 
> It really is that simple, from an economic perspective.



Means testing is not more expensive than sending checks to people who do not need them.  It really is that simple.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That is the problem.  Means testing is for complex forms of poverty not simple poverty.



Means testing simply excludes those who do not need assistance from the tax payers in order to survive.     Why should tax payers give money to those who have the means to support themselves?


----------



## Augustine_ (Nov 1, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


Lol isn't that fucking something.  "I'm a conservative, except when it affects me."  The story of Trumpism right there.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> State legislators have no authority to abridge employment law due to the contract clause.



They are not abridging anything.  You and the employer can end the relationship at any time for any reason.   If you end it, the employer is deprived of your labor/services, and you are deprived of a paycheck.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Means testing is not more expensive than sending checks to people who do not need them.  It really is that simple.


Are words on sale today, storyteller?  Means testing is Always more expensive than at-will.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Means testing simply excludes those who do not need assistance from the tax payers in order to survive.     Why should tax payers give money to those who have the means to support themselves?


Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a solution to simple poverty.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> They are not abridging anything.  You and the employer can end the relationship at any time for any reason.   If you end it, the employer is deprived of your labor/services, and you are deprived of a paycheck.


Yes, requiring any Cause in an at-will employment State is an abridgement to at-will employment law for unemployment compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Are words on sale today, storyteller?  Means testing is Always more expensive than at-will.



Not addressing what I said at all.

I said means testing is more expensive than sending out checks to those who do not need them.

If you get a check for $500 a month, you are getting paid $6,000.00 per year.    No means testing will cost that much.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a solution to simple poverty.



And means testing is effectively making sure only those in poverty get paid.

Unemployment compensation is paid for by the employer.
Unemployment is temporary.
Unemployment is based on what you made at your last job.

None of those will requirements will help simple poverty.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Yes, requiring any Cause in an at-will employment State is an abridgement to at-will employment law for unemployment compensation.



No, it is not.    You repeating the same lie does not make it true.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Not addressing what I said at all.
> 
> I said means testing is more expensive than sending out checks to those who do not need them.
> 
> If you get a check for $500 a month, you are getting paid $6,000.00 per year.    No means testing will cost that much.


Solving for capitalism's natural unemployment is the benefit and economic stimulus; you simply appeal to ignorance of economics, like usual. 

Only capital must circulate under Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And means testing is effectively making sure only those in poverty get paid.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is paid for by the employer.
> Unemployment is temporary.
> ...


They got it wrong the first time.   Lousy implementation from a historical perspective is simply a mistake to not be repeated.  Only the right-wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> No, it is not.    You repeating the same lie does not make it true.


Storyteller, you are the one who is abusing words not me.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Solving for capitalism's natural unemployment is the benefit and economic stimulus; you simply appeal to ignorance of economics, like usual.
> 
> Only capital must circulate under Capitalism.



And the capital will circulate if we leave that money in the hands of those who earn it.

The welfare programs are supposed to be a safety net, as is unemployment compensation.

Why should the tax payers fund those who *choose* not to help themselves?  There is not logical reason to take money from those who work, and give it to people who are capable of working, but choose not to do so.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> They got it wrong the first time.   Lousy implementation from a historical perspective is simply a mistake to not be repeated.  Only the right-wing, never gets it.



They got it exactly right, given the stated goals of UC.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Storyteller, you are the one who is abusing words not me.



Liar.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> They got it exactly right, given the stated goals of UC.


So what.  I stated express law.  Be Legal to the Law, right-wingers just plain political hypocrites in border threads.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Liar.


Projection is what right-wingers do best.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And the capital will circulate if we leave that money in the hands of those who earn it.
> 
> The welfare programs are supposed to be a safety net, as is unemployment compensation.
> 
> Why should the tax payers fund those who *choose* not to help themselves?  There is not logical reason to take money from those who work, and give it to people who are capable of working, but choose not to do so.


You say that because you appeal to ignorance of economics.  People without capital don't circulate it.  Why do we have a problem with petty thievery now?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> So what.  I stated express law.  Be Legal to the Law, right-wingers just plain political hypocrites in border threads.



Border threads have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Existing programs cover everything you want UC to do, and more effectively.

Your pipedream would require a complete revamping of the Unemployment Compensation program. And it would duplicate existing programs.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Border threads have nothing to do with what we are discussing.
> 
> Existing programs cover everything you want UC to do, and more effectively.
> 
> Your pipedream would require a complete revamping of the Unemployment Compensation program. And it would duplicate existing programs.


Cool story, storyteller.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You say that because you appeal to ignorance of economics.  People without capital don't circulate it.  Why do we have a problem with petty thievery now?



I am not ignorant of economics.    People who work and earn money will spend that money.   It does not have to be taken away from them and redistributed in order to circulate.  Plus, the process of taking it away from those who earned it and redistributing it costs money.    So it actually reduces the amount available for circulation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Cool story, storyteller.



Are you denying that UC would have to be revamped?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

Daniel, I have asked you repeatedly why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.

Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?

Answer this before we continue discussing your pipedream.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I am not ignorant of economics.    People who work and earn money will spend that money.   It does not have to be taken away from them and redistributed in order to circulate.  Plus, the process of taking it away from those who earned it and redistributing it costs money.    So it actually reduces the amount available for circulation.


It is a simple solution to simple poverty.  Y'all have no better solutions only the morality of hypocrisy.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Are you denying that UC would have to be revamped?


Upgraded or refurbished could also be applied.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, I have asked you repeatedly why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.
> 
> Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?
> 
> Answer this before we continue discussing your pipedream.


It has to do with something right-wingers obviously know absolutely nothing about; equal protection of the laws.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Upgraded or refurbished could also be applied.



Changing the source of the funding, who is eligible, how long it lasts is completely revamping.

Now, why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.

Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It has to do with something right-wingers obviously know absolutely nothing about; equal protection of the laws.



No, it does not.  

Why do you think you should be able to sit at home doing nothing and get a check from the tax payers, when you can obviously support yourself without it?


----------



## dblack (Nov 1, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


Can't imagine what tortured definition of "conservative" would include your rampant statism.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Changing the source of the funding, who is eligible, how long it lasts is completely revamping.
> 
> Now, why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.
> 
> Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?


It could be funded through general forms of taxation since solving simple poverty means more capital will be circulating in our market based economy.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> No, it does not.
> 
> Why do you think you should be able to sit at home doing nothing and get a check from the tax payers, when you can obviously support yourself without it?


Yes, it does.  I have explained several times.  You simply insist on appealing to ignorance.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It could be funded through general forms of taxation since solving simple poverty means more capital will be circulating in our market based economy.



No, there would not be more capital circulating.

It costs to tax the money and redistribute it.   So less would actually be spent in the economy.

Whereas if the people who earned it were able to keep it, they would spend 100% of it in the economy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Yes, it does.  I have explained several times.  You simply insist on appealing to ignorance.



I appeal to the logic of it, or lack thereof.

And you refuse to tell us why you think you should be supported by tax payer money.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

Why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.

Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?


----------



## WEATHER53 (Nov 1, 2021)

Income control, rent control, on the dole.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.
> 
> Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?


He feels it’s fair 
Feelings, fairness, justice. All for those who can’t navigate their own boat


----------



## WEATHER53 (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Projection is what right-wingers do best.


Life is what we do best. Hiding from it and griping and blaming  about it is your speciality


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.
> 
> Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?


Equality matters for men.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Equality matters for men.



Still not an answer to my simple question.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Still not an answer to my simple question.


Your question is irrelevant.  Why do you have a problem being more than a hypocrite regarding being Legal to the Law?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WEATHER53 said:


> Life is what we do best. Hiding from it and griping and blaming  about it is your speciality


In right-wing fantasy, you arel Always Right.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Your question is irrelevant.  Why do you have a problem being more than a hypocrite regarding being Legal to the Law?



I am all for being legal to the law.

And no, it is not irrelevant.   You think you should be supported by the tax payers, when you are able to support yourself and fully capable of working.  I would love to know the reason behind such thinking.   Is it just laziness?


----------



## DrLove (Nov 1, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...



Wow, it's been almost three years since your original post. Did you end up moving or did the new owners come to their senses prior to losing all their tenants?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I am all for being legal to the law.
> 
> And no, it is not irrelevant.   You think you should be supported by the tax payers, when you are able to support yourself and fully capable of working.  I would love to know the reason behind such thinking.   Is it just laziness?


You have no standing and merely prove your lack of morals.  Just quit and go on unemployment compensation if you have any problem whatsoever.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You have no standing and merely prove your lack of morals.  Just quit and go on unemployment compensation if you have any problem whatsoever.



I have no reason to require tax payer money to support me, when I am capable of doing so myself.

What moral reason do you have for expecting others to work to earn money, to pay taxes, to support you?


----------



## WEATHER53 (Nov 1, 2021)

Most on the dole  are manipulators and grifters. They like taking other peoples money instead of earning their own. Media tries to wrap it up in fake need and humanity but only about 10% on the dole  are truely victims of perpetual bad circumstances beyond their control. Most cause their own mess and many deliberately.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

WEATHER53 said:


> Most on the dole  are manipulators and grifters. They like taking other peoples money instead of earning their own. Media tries to wrap it up in fake need and humanity but only about 10% on the dole  are truely victims of perpetual bad circumstances beyond their control. Most cause their own mess and many deliberately.



I don't know if the numbers of grifters is that high.    But I do know that the programs are designed as a safety net, not a career.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I have no reason to require tax payer money to support me, when I am capable of doing so myself.
> 
> What moral reason do you have for expecting others to work to earn money, to pay taxes, to support you?


Employment is at-will, drama queen.  Noone is making you work.  Just quit.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Employment is at-will, drama queen.  Noone is making you work.  Just quit.



LMAO!!    Still not an answer.   Someone has to work to pay for you, if your pipedream ever became a reality.    And the more people who quit, the higher the taxes on those who accept responsibility for their own lives.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> LMAO!!    Still not an answer.   Someone has to work to pay for you, if your pipedream ever became a reality.    And the more people who quit, the higher the taxes on those who accept responsibility for their own lives.


Why do you ask the question, drama queen.  Just quit.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why do you ask the question, drama queen.  Just quit.



Why do you refuse to answer the question?    Could it be that you have no reason other than your desire for more money without having to work?

It is a legitimate question.    Why do you think you deserve to receive tax payer fund when you do not need them and are capable of working?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Why do you refuse to answer the question?    Could it be that you have no reason other than your desire for more money without having to work?
> 
> It is a legitimate question.    Why do you think you deserve to receive tax payer fund when you do not need them and are capable of working?


Why are you being such a drama queen?   Noone is making you work in an at-will employment State.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why are you being such a drama queen?   Noone is making you work in an at-will employment State.



Actually, I am not working.  I am retired.  I was able to do so because I took responsibility for my own life.

You keep avoiding the question.  Why do you think you deserve to receive tax payer fund when you do not need them and are capable of working?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Actually, I am not working.  I am retired.  I was able to do so because I took responsibility for my own life.
> 
> You keep avoiding the question.  Why do you think you deserve to receive tax payer fund when you do not need them and are capable of working?


Why do you care?  You have no understanding of economics.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why do you care?  You have no understanding of economics.



I care because I am a tax payer and I care what our taxes are used for.

It is not drama to ask why you think you deserve to receive tax payer fund when you do not need them and are capable of working?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I care because I am a tax payer and I care what our taxes are used for.
> 
> It is not drama to ask why you think you deserve to receive tax payer fund when you do not need them and are capable of working?


I am a taxpayer as well and have a problem wasting all that money on a worthless and alleged, war on poverty for over a generation.  We need an automatically stabilizing solution on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I am a taxpayer as well and have a problem wasting all that money on a worthless and alleged, war on poverty for over a generation.  We need an automatically stabilizing solution on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.



You pay taxes?    You refuse to work.   What taxes do you pay?

I am not defending wars, either real or on poverty.    You are sidestepping yet again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2021)

Rent control, an idea whose time has passed.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You pay taxes?    You refuse to work.   What taxes do you pay?
> 
> I am not defending wars, either real or on poverty.    You are sidestepping yet again.


Whenever I circulate capital general taxes get paid.  

Because, silly right-winger, it is not about me but about our economy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Whenever I circulate capital general taxes get paid.
> 
> Because, silly right-winger, it is not about me but about our economy.



You cannot tax us into prosperity.

One more time, why do you think you deserve to receive tax payer fund when you do not need them and are capable of working?

What makes you so special that the rest of us should have what we earned forcibly taken from us to provide you with an income you do not need.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You cannot tax us into prosperity.
> 
> One more time, why do you think you deserve to receive tax payer fund when you do not need them and are capable of working?
> 
> What makes you so special that the rest of us should have what we earned forcibly taken from us to provide you with an income you do not need.


So what.  You are the one special pleading that conclusion.  Solving simple poverty is an economic stimulus.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> So what.  You are the one special pleading that conclusion.  Solving simple poverty is an economic stimulus.


And the welfare programs can do that.    But they are set up for those who need assistance to survive.    

Someone who is capable of taking care of themselves should do so.

Why do you think you deserve to receive tax payer funds when you do not need them and are capable of working?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And the welfare programs can do that.    But they are set up for those who need assistance to survive.
> 
> Someone who is capable of taking care of themselves should do so.
> 
> Why do you think you deserve to receive tax payer funds when you do not need them and are capable of working?


How did you come up with your conclusions?  Equal protection of the laws is simpler.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How did you come up with your conclusions?  Equal protection of the laws is simpler.



There is already equal protection under the law.   I have explained it until I am blue in the face.

Why do you think you deserve to receive tax payer fund when you do not need them and are capable of working?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> There is already equal protection under the law.   I have explained it until I am blue in the face.
> 
> Why do you think you deserve to receive tax payer fund when you do not need them and are capable of working?


All you have shown is that you don't understand the law.  You are welcome to come to Court instead of just being a storyteller here on this commercial forum.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> All you have shown is that you don't understand the law.  You are welcome to come to Court instead of just being a storyteller here on this commercial forum.



All you have done is refuse to answer a simple and relevant question.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> All you have done is refuse to answer a simple and relevant question.


You understand nothing, storryteller.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You understand nothing, storryteller.



I understand plenty.   You choose to ignore facts that are inconvenient.

I also understand that you still refuse to answer the question.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I understand plenty.   You choose to ignore facts that are inconvenient.
> 
> I also understand that you still refuse to answer the question.


Right-wing fantasy is all right-wingers have.  No judge has to put up with your stories, why should I?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Right-wing fantasy is all right-wingers have.  No judge has to put up with your stories, why should I?



You don't have to put up with anything.   Just like no judge will put up with your court case.

But I will tell you what will happen if, by some miracle, you should win your ludicrous case.    If your case wins and unemployment compensation has to be made available to every single person without a job, you would not get a check.

Given the billions of dollars that it would cost states and the federal gov't, the Unemployment Compensation program would be closed down.    There is no way the nation and the various states could afford what you want.  The burden would be shifted to the existing welfare programs.

Now, can you answer the question I asked?    No dodging and dancing.   Just a simple, direct answer to a simple and direct question.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You don't have to put up with anything. Just like no judge will put up with your court case.


Fantasy is all you have, storyteller.  There is a case before the Court now, it is in their court to return or drop.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Fantasy is all you have, storyteller.  There is a case before the Court now, it is in their court to return or drop.



And what I said stands.

And unlike you, liar, I fully participate in these discussions.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And what I said stands.
> 
> And unlike you, liar, I fully participate in these discussions.


This is the issue:

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> This is the issue:
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._



As I have explained over and over and over, there is no abridgement of privileges or immunities in the UC laws.

And, as I have explained, you will not receive UC even if you do manage to convince a judge that there is.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> As I have explained over and over and over, there is no abridgement of privileges or immunities in the UC laws.
> 
> And, as I have explained, you will not receive UC even if you do manage to convince a judge that there is.


The employer doesn't need good cause to fire.  

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The employer doesn't need good cause to fire.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._



And the employee does not need good cause to quit.

Answer the question.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And the employee does not need good cause to quit.
> 
> Answer the question.


Yes, the employee currently and extra-Constitutionally is required to have Cause in an at-will employment State in order to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.

Our State legislature simply has no authority to abridge, deny, or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws. 

_No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._

And,

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Yes, the employee currently and extra-Constitutionally is required to have Cause in an at-will employment State in order to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.
> 
> Our State legislature simply has not authority to abridge, deny, or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws.
> 
> ...



Just answer the question, daniel.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Just answer the question, daniel.


Just answer the question of whether or not requiring Cause in an at-will employment State is extra-Constitutional.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Just answer the question of whether or not requiring Cause in an at-will employment State is extra-Constitutional.



Why should I answer any question you ask?     You have steadfastly refused to answer my question, not on in this thread but in numerous others.

You refuse to answer and yet you expect to have your questions answered?    LMAO!!

Provide a reasonable and logical answer for my question and I will happily answer yours.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Why should I answer any question you ask?     You have steadfastly refused to answer my question, not on in this thread but in numerous others.
> 
> You refuse to answer and yet you expect to have your questions answered?    LMAO!!
> 
> Provide a reasonable and logical answer for my question and I will happily answer yours.


Because it is simple enough for any jury.  Can I start proclaiming to any jurist where I may have standing, that you are simply being frivolous and should be sanctioned until you start bearing true witness?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Because it is simple enough for any jury.  Can I start proclaiming to any jurist where I may have standing, that you are simply being frivolous and should be sanctioned until you start bearing true witness?



I asked why you should receive an income from the tax payer, when you can support yourself and are capable of working.

What you posted is not an answer to that question.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I asked why you should receive an income from the tax payer, when you can support yourself and are capable of working.
> 
> What you posted is not an answer to that question.


I already informed you the first time that this is a Constitutional issue not subject to your fake morality.


----------



## Mr Natural (Nov 2, 2021)

protectionist said:


> As is the case with most conservatives, I also favor deregulation of business, but this is one case that is screaming for MORE regulation, to a reasonable degree.



Socialism for me but not for thee?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I already informed you the first time that this is a Constitutional issue not subject to your fake morality.



Dodging the question again.

Just answer it.     I think everyone assumes you are just too lazy to work and want more money for doing nothing.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> Socialism for me but not for thee?


The Expense of Government.

We should be trying to achieve scale economies whenever possible:

_All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation._


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Dodging the question again.
> 
> Just answer it.     I think everyone assumes you are just too lazy to work and want more money for doing nothing.


Your fake morality is not superior to Constitutional Law for Legal purposes, right-wingers.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Your fake morality is not superior to Constitutional Law for Legal purposes, right-wingers.



Whether your argument about the constitutionality of the UC laws is accurate or not is not the answer to the question.   In fact, it is largely irrelevant to the question.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Whether your argument about the constitutionality of the UC laws is accurate or not is not the answer to the question.   In fact, it is largely irrelevant to the question.


It doesn't matter because Congress is already delegated the power to Tax for Legal purposes according to Law, right-wingers.  Don't be illegal to the law, right-wingers.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It doesn't matter because Congress is already delegated the power to Tax for Legal purposes according to Law, right-wingers.  Don't be illegal to the law, right-wingers.



If you were fighting for others to draw unemployment compensation without being eligible under the current laws, you might have some credibility here.

But you have consistently said that you would get UC as well.    So my question is valid.    Why won't you answer it?

No matter who has the power to tax for legal purposes, why should you draw an income from the tax coffers when you are capable of supporting yourself and capable of working?  Isn't requiring that you be supported from the fruits of other people's labors immoral?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> If you were fighting for others to draw unemployment compensation without being eligible under the current laws, you might have some credibility here.
> 
> But you have consistently said that you would get UC as well.    So my question is valid.    Why won't you answer it?
> 
> No matter who has the power to tax for legal purposes, why should you draw an income from the tax coffers when you are capable of supporting yourself and capable of working?  Isn't requiring that you be supported from the fruits of other people's labors immoral?


You simply make up stories, storyteller.  It is about equal protection of the Law for Legal purposes and to lead by example since we have a Statue of Liberty.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You simply make up stories, storyteller.  It is about equal protection of the Law for Legal purposes and to lead by example since we have a Statue of Liberty.



I am not making up anything.   I am asking you a simple question.

You are making up replies to my question that have little or nothing to do with my question.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I am not making up anything.   I am asking you a simple question.
> 
> You are making up replies to my question that have little or nothing to do with my question.


This is the Law for Legal purposes:

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> This is the Law for Legal purposes:
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._



And you have said, over and over, that you will draw a check from UC if the law is changed.    So my question remains valid.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And you have said, over and over, that you will draw a check from UC if the law is changed.    So my question remains valid.


Yes, being Legal to actual Law for juridical purposes is what is at issue.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Yes, being Legal to actual Law for juridical purposes is what is at issue.



Still not an answer to my question.

For some reason you think you should receive tax payer funds for doing nothing.   I am asking why you think that.    Whether your case has merit, whether you win or not, and whether there is an abridgement of privileges is irrelevant to my question.    My question is why you think you should be given tax payer's money when you can clearly support yourself and are capable of working but refuse to do so.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Still not an answer to my question.
> 
> For some reason you think you should receive tax payer funds for doing nothing.   I am asking why you think that.    Whether your case has merit, whether you win or not, and whether there is an abridgement of privileges is irrelevant to my question.    My question is why you think you should be given tax payer's money when you can clearly support yourself and are capable of working but refuse to do so.


Your fake morality is irrelevant.  What is at issue is equality and equal protection of the Laws for Legal purposes. 

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Your fake morality is irrelevant.  What is at issue is equality and equal protection of the Laws for Legal purposes.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._



The original OP was about rent control.   Your divergence is your own choice.

My question still stands and is relevant to this sub-topic.   Your refusal to answer shows you recognize your demand for an income from the tax coffers is immoral, or at the very least unethical.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The original OP was about rent control.   Your divergence is your own choice.
> 
> My question still stands and is relevant to this sub-topic.   Your refusal to answer shows you recognize your demand for an income from the tax coffers is immoral, or at the very least unethical.


How would any landlord be worse off with equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How would any landlord be worse off with equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?



Again, you are asking me a question while dodging mine.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Again, you are asking me a question while dodging mine.


Because your question is irrelevant and merely a distraction since you are not being required to work in any at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

How would any landlord be worse off under our form of Capitalism with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Because your question is irrelevant and merely a distraction since you are not being required to work in any at-will employment State.



My question is very relevant, since you plan to draw an income from the tax coffers if your court case falls in your favor.

I think asking why you think you should receive that income, despite your ability to support yourself and your unwillingness to work.     Why should tax payers support you?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How would any landlord be worse off under our form of Capitalism with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?



Give a real answer to my question and I will happily answer your question.    As long as you refuse to answer my question, I will not answer yours.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> My question is very relevant, since you plan to draw an income from the tax coffers if your court case falls in your favor.
> 
> I think asking why you think you should receive that income, despite your ability to support yourself and your unwillingness to work.     Why should tax payers support you?


You don't have to work just to complain in an at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Give a real answer to my question and I will happily answer your question.    As long as you refuse to answer my question, I will not answer yours.


Your question is too subjective.  What landlord would be objectively worse off with equal protection of the laws?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You don't have to work just to complain in an at-will employment State.



No, you do not.    But why do you expect an income from the tax payers when you don't need it and are capable of working?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Your question is too subjective.  What landlord would be objectively worse off with equal protection of the laws?



Too subjective?     LMAO!!!

I am not asking about why people should get that income.

I am asking why *you* specifically, expect an income at the tax payer's expense.  That is not subjective at all.   That is asking you for your reason(s) why you demand an income from the tax payers.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> No, you do not.    But why do you expect an income from the tax payers when you don't need it and are capable of working?


You are mistaken.  We are entitled to equal protection of the laws and You don't Have to work in an at-will employment State; so tell me again how You have Any Standing whatsoever and are being more than an obstructionist troll.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Too subjective?     LMAO!!!
> 
> I am not asking about why people should get that income.
> 
> I am asking why *you* specifically, expect an income at the tax payer's expense.  That is not subjective at all.   That is asking you for your reason(s) why you demand an income from the tax payers.


Yes.  You need to understand the difference between objective and subjective.  How would landlords be objectively worse off with equal protection of the laws?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You are mistaken.  We are entitled to equal protection of the laws and You don't Have to work in an at-will employment State; so tell me again how You have Any Standing whatsoever and are being more than an obstructionist troll.



I never said you had to work.   Obviously you can support yourself without working.

What I am asking is why you think you deserve to be paid from the tax coffers.   It really is a simple question.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I never said you had to work.   Obviously you can support yourself without working.
> 
> What I am asking is why you think you deserve to be paid from the tax coffers.   It really is a simple question.


Only right-wingers don't believe in equal protection of the laws?  Vote blue not red!


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Yes.  You need to understand the difference between objective and subjective.  How would landlords be objectively worse off with equal protection of the laws?



I understand the difference.    But your answer will be specific to why YOU expect to be paid from the tax coffers, so the subjectivity is fine.    Your reason for demanding an income at the tax payer's expense is obviously subjective.    In fact, it could not be anything other than subjective.    But that subjectivity shows motivation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Only right-wingers don't believe in equal protection of the laws?  Vote blue not red!



Still avoiding the question.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

Daniel, I am tired of you asking questions and yet refusing to answer a simple question.

I have some things to do today.    Answer the question and I will continue this discussion.    Otherwise.....


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I understand the difference.    But your answer will be specific to why YOU expect to be paid from the tax coffers, so the subjectivity is fine.    Your reason for demanding an income at the tax payer's expense is obviously subjective.    In fact, it could not be anything other than subjective.    But that subjectivity shows motivation.


Nobody is making you work in an at-will employment State.  Why is your fake morality relevant?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

How would any landlord be worse off with equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How would any landlord be worse off with equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?



How would any landlord be better off with equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How would any landlord be better off with equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?


People would still be able to pay their landlord for some if not all of their rent so the landlord can pay their mortgage so the bank can meet its interest obligations.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> People would still be able to pay their landlord for some if not all of their rent so the landlord can pay their mortgage so the bank can meet its interest obligations.



You want to damage the economy and massively hike taxes so bums can pay their
landlords with their bum checks? Nah.

Let's keep the UE system in the real world.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You want to damage the economy and massively hike taxes so bums can pay their
> landlords with their bum checks? Nah.
> 
> Let's keep the UE system in the real world.


Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics.  Automatic stabilization is what we are discussing not right-wing fantasy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics.  Automatic stabilization is what we are discussing not right-wing fantasy.



Your idiocy was supposed to be good economics?

LOL!

That's funny.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your idiocy was supposed to be good economics?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> That's funny.


Yes, for Every one who has some understanding of economics.  Only right-wingers believe automatic stabilization is economically Bad and not economically Good.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Yes, for Every one who has some understanding of economics.  Only right-wingers believe automatic stabilization is economically Bad and not economically Good.



Only idiots think bum checks fit the definition of automatic stabilizer.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Only idiots think bum checks fit the definition of automatic stabilizer.


Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics. 









						The Importance of Automatic Stabilizers in the Next Recession
					

This column explains the role that automatic stabilizers play in U.S. fiscal policy and provides a framework for examining their responsiveness to the next economic downturn.




					www.americanprogress.org


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> People would still be able to pay their landlord for some if not all of their rent so the landlord can pay their mortgage so the bank can meet its interest obligations.



If someone only pays part of their rent, they will eventually get evicted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You link an article about automatic stabilizers while claiming bum checks are automatic stabilizers.

How stupid are you?

I did like this portion.

_A textbook example of an automatic stabilizer is unemployment insurance (UI). UI helps jobless workers meet their basic needs. In order to qualify for benefits, the worker must have a sufficient earnings history and be looking for a job._


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> If someone only pays part of their rent, they will eventually get evicted.


It makes it more likely someone will pay their rent if they can obtain unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You link an article about automatic stabilizers while claiming bum checks are automatic stabilizers.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> ...


Only if you know nothing about economics.  And, they were paying out extended benefits without it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Only if you know nothing about economics.



Don't be so hard on yourself. 

You're probably stupid from the weed.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It makes it more likely someone will pay their rent if they can obtain unemployment compensation.



That is why unemployment compensation exists as it does today.    If a worker loses their job through no fault of their own they will receive money from unemployment.  It is temporary and meant to hold them over until they find a job.    If that person has had no job and is not looking for a job, it is inevitable that they will be evicted.  Since unemployment compensation is temporary and is less than they would make at a real job.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> That is why unemployment compensation exists as it does today.    If a worker loses their job through no fault of their own they will receive money from unemployment.  It is temporary and meant to hold them over until they find a job.    If that person has had no job and is not looking for a job, it is inevitable that they will be evicted.  Since unemployment compensation is temporary and is less than they would make at a real job.


The economic point is that it is an automatic stabilizer that can help keep people off the street.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The economic point is that it is an automatic stabilizer that can help keep people off the street.



_Automatic stabilizers__ are features of the federal government’s budget that automatically inject funds into the economy through transfer payments or tax reductions *when the economy goes into recession or otherwise slumps*. They are “automatic” because they do not require action by Congress_

Durr


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The economic point is that it is an automatic stabilizer that can help keep people off the street.



Another automatic stabilizer is when able bodied people get a job.    And that is what unemployment compensation was created for, to hold people over until they get another job.


----------



## Erinwltr (Nov 2, 2021)

protectionist said:


> It's happening again.  2 years ago I and hundred of others in my apartment complex were forced out of our homes (apartments), when a new landlord bought the complex we were living in, and immediately raised our rents from $550/month to $900/month (for a 1 bedroom).
> 
> Now the complex I'm living in (which I came to, to escape from the previous one), has also been bought, and this new owner, like in the other complex, has also raised the rents very high. From $600/month to $850/mo.
> 
> ...


Free Market Enterprise, Trumper.  Might as well get an EBT card while you are at getting rent subsidies.  Asshole.


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2021)

Erinwltr said:


> Free Market Enterprise, Trumper.  Might as well get an EBT card while you are at getting rent subsidies.  Asshole.


Trumpsters get an EBT Gold card.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 2, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


Of course you make no sense. Do you want regulation of all prices or just the ones you don't like?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Another automatic stabilizer is when able bodied people get a job.    And that is what unemployment compensation was created for, to hold people over until they get another job.


You obviously understand nothing about equality or equal protection of the laws. 

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You obviously understand nothing about equality or equal protection of the laws.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._



Equality?  You are capable of working, but choose to remain unemployed and you want the gov't to take my hard earned money, by force, and give it to you for no reason?   You have done nothing to earn it.

Like I have said, your plan will have UC shut down.   There is no way the states can afford the billions of dollars it would cost.

Get on welfare.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Equality? You are capable of working, but choose to remain unemployed and you want the gov't to take my hard earned money, by force, and give it to you for no reason?


Just admit you don't care about equal protection of the laws or the laws in general unless you can practice the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge) in border threads.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Just admit you don't care about equal protection of the laws or the laws in general unless you can practice the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge) in border threads.



Why don't you just admit you only champion this cause so you can get a check and not have to do a damn thing.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Why don't you just admit you only champion this cause so you can get a check and not have to do a damn thing.


Because inequality and unequal protection of the laws is a real economic problem that can easily be solved.  

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Because inequality and unequal protection of the laws is a real economic problem that can easily be solved.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._



_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._

They are entitled to collect unemployment, whenever they qualify. No bum checks.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> They are entitled to collect unemployment, whenever they qualify. No bum checks.


Who cares what right-wingers allege is legal to the law in border threads.  

Job 34:30 _That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared._


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Because inequality and unequal protection of the laws is a real economic problem that can easily be solved.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._



But it creates an even worse inequality in that one person works to support himself, while another is supported by living off that persons labors.

Why do you get paid to do nothing while others must work to support themselves?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Who cares what right-wingers allege is legal to the law in border threads.
> 
> Job 34:30 _That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared._



This has nothing to do with borders.   And quoting Job is worthless, since US laws cannot be based solely on biblical laws.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> But it creates an even worse inequality in that one person works to support himself, while another is supported by living off that persons labors.
> 
> Why do you get paid to do nothing while others must work to support themselves?


You merely make up stories, storyteller.  Nobody is making you work in an at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> This has nothing to do with borders.   And quoting Job is worthless, since US laws cannot be based solely on biblical laws.


A bible tells us to not take hypocrites seriously.  The "gospel Truth" according to Scripture.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You merely make up stories, storyteller.  Nobody is making you work in an at-will employment State.



You make it sound like everyone could quit work and just draw unemployment compensation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You make it sound like everyone could quit work and just draw unemployment compensation.



Of course, because that will stimulate the economy......just ask him.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You make it sound like everyone could quit work and just draw unemployment compensation.


lol.  You make it seem like you don't understand capitalism or economics.  Why would everyone want to do that?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> A bible tells us to not take hypocrites seriously.  The "gospel Truth" according to Scripture.



You are welcome to your scripture.  How about 1st Timothy 5:8?
"Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

So your own hypocrisy is blatant.   You want to use the scripture for your own ends, not as any show of faith.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> lol.  You make it seem like you don't understand capitalism or economics.  Why would everyone want to do that?



Someone has to work and pay the taxes to provide assistance for those who need it.   You do not need it.  You just want the money without working.  Laziness is a sin, dontcha know?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> lol.  You make it seem like you don't understand capitalism or economics.  Why would everyone want to do that?



Why would anyone want to do that?   I work so I can provide for myself and my family.   I work so I can enjoy the finer things in life.  I worked so I could retire early and enjoy traveling.

You want someone else to work so you can survive on subsistence wages and get to be lazy.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You are welcome to your scripture.  How about 1st Timothy 5:8?
> "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
> 
> So your own hypocrisy is blatant.   You want to use the scripture for your own ends, not as any show of faith.


_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._

We have to bear true witness for free to our own social laws.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Why would anyone want to do that?   I work so I can provide for myself and my family.   I work so I can enjoy the finer things in life.  I worked so I could retire early and enjoy traveling.
> 
> You want someone else to work so you can survive on subsistence wages and get to be lazy.


That is just you making up stories, storyteller.  You obviously don't care about express Law for Legal purposes.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That is just you making up stories, storyteller.  You obviously don't care about express Law for Legal purposes.



There is no inequality in the current unemployment compensation laws.    We have been through this before.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> We have to bear true witness for free to our own social laws.



Oh, so now your "Godliness" is gone?    Scripture no good anymore since it condemns laziness?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> There is no inequality in the current unemployment compensation laws.    We have been through this before.


So what.  You don't understand the issues, regardless.  There is inequality, we have been through this before.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Oh, so now your "Godliness" is gone?    Scripture no good anymore since it condemns laziness?


Render unto Caesar at-will employment laws. It really is that simple, except for right-wingers.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> So what.  You don't understand the issues, regardless.  There is inequality, we have been through this before.



Just because you are an American does not mean you qualify for every program the gov't offers.     If you quit your job or are fired, you do not qualify for UC.   That is not inequality.  That is consequences of your own actions.    No employer ever fired an employee that did his job, followed the established rules, and showed up on time.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Render unto Caesar at-will employment laws. It really is that simple, except for right-wingers.



Yes, UC is rendered unto those who lost their job through no fault of their own.    Those who quit or were fired because of their own actions do not qualify.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Just because you are an American does not mean you qualify for every program the gov't offers.     If you quit your job or are fired, you do not qualify for UC.   That is not inequality.  That is consequences of your own actions.    No employer ever fired an employee that did his job, followed the established rules, and showed up on time.


You have no idea what you talking about storyteller.  Equal protection of the laws is in our several Constitutions. It is a civil right.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, UC is rendered unto those who lost their job through no fault of their own.    Those who quit or were fired because of their own actions do not qualify.


Only if you appeal to ignorance of what at-will means, storyteller.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You have no idea what you talking about storyteller.  Equal protection of the laws is in our several Constitutions. It is a civil right.



Yep, it certainly is.    If there were unequal protection under the law concerning UC, I would agree with what you are doing.   There isn't.  I don't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Only if you appeal to ignorance of what at-will means, storyteller.



Unqualified.....no bum check for you.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Only if you appeal to ignorance of what at-will means, storyteller.



Not at all.   The "at-will" portion of the employment laws still apply.    There is just no program offering benefits to someone who quits or is fired for cause.

You are still free to end the relationship at any time, as is your employer.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Yep, it certainly is.    If there were unequal protection under the law concerning UC, I would agree with what you are doing.   There isn't.  I don't.


I really don't care what right-wingers may believe.  Y'all have nothing but fantasy via fallacy and it is not difficult to prove every time it comes up.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Unqualified.....no bum check for you.


How does that unqualification happen? Equal protection of the at-will employment laws is in our Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Not at all.   The "at-will" portion of the employment laws still apply.    There is just no program offering benefits to someone who quits or is fired for cause.
> 
> You are still free to end the relationship at any time, as is your employer.


That can only happen through unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I really don't care what right-wingers may believe.  Y'all have nothing but fantasy via fallacy and it is not difficult to prove every time it comes up.



And yet, you don't prove anything.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And yet, you don't prove anything.


You simply understand nothing.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That can only happen through unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.



Absolutely wrong.   There is equal protection under the law.    Right now you are free to end your employment relationship (if you had one) at any time, and for any reason.   Your employer (if you had one) can do the same.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You simply understand nothing.



I understand that all you do is make spurious claims and if anyone disagrees with you, they don't understand.    Despite having your claims debunked over and over.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Absolutely wrong.   There is equal protection under the law.    Right now you are free to end your employment relationship (if you had one) at any time, and for any reason.   Your employer (if you had one) can do the same.


Can a person legally quit on an at-will basis?  It really is that simple.  Our State legislators have no authority to abridge, deny, or disparage that civil right.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I understand that all you do is make spurious claims and if anyone disagrees with you, they don't understand.    Despite having your claims debunked over and over.


All right-wingers do is bear false witness like immoral hypocrites.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Can a person legally quit on an at-will basis?  It really is that simple.  Our State legislators have no authority to abridge, deny, or disparage that civil right.



Yes, they can legally quit, as long as they are not under contract.  There are jobs in an at-will employment state that have different parameters.

No one is abridging, denying or disparaging anyone's right to quit on an at-will basis.     That does not mean there are no consequences.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> All right-wingers do is bear false witness like immoral hypocrites.



You mean like the hypocrisy of quoting scripture and then denying the scripture that does not fit your agenda?

Or do you mean hypocrisy like asking questions and expecting them to be answered, while refusing to answer a single question posed to you?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, they can legally quit, as long as they are not under contract.  There are jobs in an at-will employment state that have different parameters.
> 
> No one is abridging, denying or disparaging anyone's right to quit on an at-will basis.     That does not mean there are no consequences.


If a person can legally quit, our State legislators have no authority to abridge, deny, or disparage that civil right for unemployment compensation.

_No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You mean like the hypocrisy of quoting scripture and then denying the scripture that does not fit your agenda?
> 
> Or do you mean hypocrisy like asking questions and expecting them to be answered, while refusing to answer a single question posed to you?


No.  I mean y'all appealing to ignorance and diversion.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> If a person can legally quit, our State legislators have no authority to abridge, deny, or disparage that civil right for unemployment compensation.
> 
> _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._



Unemployment compensation is not a civil right.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Unemployment compensation is not a civil right.


Equal protection of the laws is a Civil Right.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> No.  I mean y'all appealing to ignorance and diversion.



I have done neither.    You, on the other hand have done both.    How many times have you mentioned border issues?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Equal protection of the laws is a Civil Right.



Yes, it is.    And either you or your employer can end the relationship at any time, without legal prosecution.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I have done neither.    You, on the other hand have done both.    How many times have you mentioned border issues?


You don't understand analogies either?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, it is.    And either you or your employer can end the relationship at any time, without legal prosecution.


You omit the relevant part.  The State has no authority to abridge, deny or disparage those rights.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You omit the relevant part.  The State has no authority to abridge, deny or disparage those rights.



They haven't.   You can still quit at any time.  And the employer can terminate you at any time.    Those rights are still intact for both sides.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You don't understand analogies either?



How is our border situation an analogy for your claims about UC?    Since you rarely answer direct questions, let me answer for you.  It isn't.


----------



## Mr Natural (Nov 3, 2021)

Let’s get back to talking about rent control and conservative hypocrisy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> Let’s get back to talking about rent control and conservative hypocrisy.



Sounds good.    Sorry for my participation in this diversion.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> They haven't.   You can still quit at any time.  And the employer can terminate you at any time.    Those rights are still intact for both sides.


Special pleading is sort of like "lying with statistics".


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> How is our border situation an analogy for your claims about UC?    Since you rarely answer direct questions, let me answer for you.  It isn't.


lol.  Right-wingers are just plain hypocrites about being Legal to the Laws.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Special pleading is sort of like "lying with statistics".



Back to the original topic of rent control.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> Let’s get back to talking about rent control and conservative hypocrisy.


Would landlords be worse off if persons could obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

Would we need "rent control" or more "normal market activity"?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> lol.  Right-wingers are just plain hypocrites about being Legal to the Laws.



Back on topic now, please.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Would landlords be worse off if persons could obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?
> 
> Would we need "rent control" or more "normal market activity"?



Since the same amount of money would be spread among more people, the net loss would make it harder for the average landlord to get the rent money.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Since the same amount of money would be spread among more people, the net loss would make it harder for the average landlord to get the rent money.


Why would it be more difficult for a landlord to collect rent from persons with an income?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why would it be more difficult for a landlord to collect rent from persons with an income?



The point of the thread is not whether or not they have income.   It is whether or not they can afford to pay higher rent.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The point of the thread is not whether or not they have income.   It is whether or not they can afford to pay higher rent.


How many would be getting evicted now if they could have obtained unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State? 

How many homeless would prefer to stay on the street if they had an income?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How does that unqualification happen? Equal protection of the at-will employment laws is in our Constitution.



*How does that unqualification happen?*

See your state Department of Employment Security......here's Illinois' 





__





						IDES
					

The Illinois Department of Employment Security is the code department of the Illinois state government that administers state unemployment benefits, runs the employment service and Illinois Job Bank, and publishes labor market information.




					ides.illinois.gov
				




For details.

*Equal protection of the at-will employment laws is in our Constitution.*

Yup, all people are equally protected if they get laid off.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> If a person can legally quit, our State legislators have no authority to abridge, deny, or disparage that civil right for unemployment compensation.



LOL!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *How does that unqualification happen?*
> 
> See your state Department of Employment Security......here's Illinois'
> 
> ...


Is employment at the will of either party in that State?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How many would be getting evicted now if they could have obtained unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State?
> 
> How many homeless would prefer to stay on the street if they had an income?



And if the landlord raised the rent?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And if the landlord raised the rent?


It is better if you have some income rather than no income.  What if one person is still working a normal job while the other one got laid off?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It is better if you have some income rather than no income.  What if one person is still working a normal job while the other one got laid off?



The one laid off would collect unemployment compensation to get them through until they get their next job.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How many would be getting evicted now if they could have obtained unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State?
> 
> How many homeless would prefer to stay on the street if they had an income?



The issue raised by the OP was an increase from $600 a month in rent to $1,000 a month in rent.   Unemployment compensation will not cover that.  

So the landlord will evict.

Unless you propose rent control, in addition to your laughable idea on unemployment compensation.

Also, as stated by the OP, most of the tenants are retired.     Unemployment compensation would not apply to them.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The one laid off would collect unemployment compensation to get them through until they get their next job.


Assuming there is one available.  With equal protection of the law that person could simply go to school until they get employed.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The issue raised by the OP was an increase from $600 a month in rent to $1,000 a month in rent.   Unemployment compensation will not cover that.
> 
> So the landlord will evict.
> 
> ...


With equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, markets would have better metrics to work with and enable greater efficiency for our economy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Assuming there is one available.  With equal protection of the law that person could simply go to school until they get employed.



The unemployment office will also help them find a job.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> With equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, markets would have better metrics to work with and enable greater efficiency for our economy.



What?   What the hell does your post have to do with the topic?   What better metrics would they have to work with by sending checks out to people who have no interest in working?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The unemployment office will also help them find a job.


By "making" them work instead of get vaccinated?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> What?   What the hell does your post have to do with the topic?   What better metrics would they have to work with by sending checks out to people who have no interest in working?


Dear, only Capital must circulate under capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> By "making" them work instead of get vaccinated?



By helping them in their job search.    They don't MAKE anyone do anything.    You go to them and request assistance.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Dear, only Capital must circulate under capitalism.



You always seem to assume that capital will not circulate unless it is taken away from those who earned it and given to those who did not earn it.

People who earn their money will also spend their money, thereby circulating it.

But how does that circulation of capital, by either means, give anyone better metrics to work with?


----------



## Mr Natural (Nov 3, 2021)

But what about the landlord?

Doesnt he have the right to make as much off his investments as he possibly can?

This is America afterall, not the Soviet Union.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> By helping them in their job search.    They don't MAKE anyone do anything.    You go to them and request assistance.


Are you fantasizing about your story again? 

_An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work._


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You always seem to assume that capital will not circulate unless it is taken away from those who earned it and given to those who did not earn it.
> 
> People who earn their money will also spend their money, thereby circulating it.
> 
> But how does that circulation of capital, by either means, give anyone better metrics to work with?


No dear.  That is just You making assumptions, like usual.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> But what about the landlord?
> 
> Doesnt he have the right to make as much off his investments as he possibly can?
> 
> This is America afterall, not the Soviet Union.


Landlords would seem to have a vested interest in equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Are you fantasizing about your story again?
> 
> _An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work._



Nothing you said shows that the unemployment people are *making* anyone work.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> No dear.  That is just You making assumptions, like usual.



Oh, so you are saying that the people who earn the money will not spend it?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Nothing you said shows that the unemployment people are *making* anyone work.


Only if you appeal to ignorance like a typical right-winger.  Unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation influences decisions under any form of Capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Landlords would seem to have a vested interest in equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.



Landlords have a vested interest in making a profit from their investment.    As the OP said, the rent went from $600 to $1,000.    Unemployment will not cover that much.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Oh, so you are saying that the people who earn the money will not spend it?


How is that relevant?   Money was meant to be used.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Only if you appeal to ignorance like a typical right-winger.  Unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation influences decisions under any form of Capitalism.



Bullshit.   You are just spouting nonsense now.   Now one is forced to work, unless it is by their own need for money.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Landlords have a vested interest in making a profit from their investment.    As the OP said, the rent went from $600 to $1,000.    Unemployment will not cover that much.


So what.  You are assuming only that unemployed person is renting instead of having roommates.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Bullshit.   You are just spouting nonsense now.   Now one is forced to work, unless it is by their own need for money.


If you are not "forced to work" why do they require Cause to collect unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How is that relevant?   Money was meant to be used.



What is relevant is that I called you on your claim that the unemployment office was "making people work".

You spouted nonsense, and when I said that nothing you posted shows the unemployment office was *making* people work, you replied with your attempt to divert the topic by falling back on your old standard claims of ignorance by right-wingers.    What is ignorant is you claiming that the unemployment office is MAKING people work.   And what is even more ignorant is not recognizing you are wrong.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> If you are not "forced to work" why do they require Cause to collect unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?



No one is forced to work.    If you want to get paid by someone, you have to provide some service or labor for that person.  But you are not forced to work.

You are perfectly welcome to start your own business or live on your savings.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> So what.  You are assuming only that unemployed person is renting instead of having roommates.



Yes, I assume that people paying $600 a month in Tampa are living alone.    $600 rent will only get you a very small apartment in Tampa.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How is that relevant?   Money was meant to be used.



And the people who actually earned it will use it.    They will not stuff it in a mattress.  They will circulate it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> What is relevant is that I called you on your claim that the unemployment office was "making people work".
> 
> You spouted nonsense, and when I said that nothing you posted shows the unemployment office was *making* people work, you replied with your attempt to divert the topic by falling back on your old standard claims of ignorance by right-wingers.    What is ignorant is you claiming that the unemployment office is MAKING people work.   And what is even more ignorant is not recognizing you are wrong.


Do they require Cause to collect unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> No one is forced to work.    If you want to get paid by someone, you have to provide some service or labor for that person.  But you are not forced to work.
> 
> You are perfectly welcome to start your own business or live on your savings.


lol.  Maybe in right-wing fantasy.  Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation is a civil right that cannot be abridged by any State or the Union.


----------



## Erinwltr (Nov 5, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Who cares what right-wingers allege is legal to the law in border threads.
> 
> Job 34:30 _That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared._


"Job 34:30 _That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared."_
I haven't heard or read that quote in a long time.  Such simple nonsense.  Toilet paper time.  Flush.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2021)

Erinwltr said:


> "Job 34:30 _That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared."_
> I haven't heard or read that quote in a long time.  Such simple nonsense.  Toilet paper time.  Flush.


How I feel about any right-wing propaganda.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 5, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> But what about the landlord?
> 
> Doesnt he have the right to make as much off his investments as he possibly can?
> 
> This is America afterall, not the Soviet Union.


NO. Because unlike most businesses, housing involves a primary human NEED.  Anthropologists say that shelter (housing) is the #1 element of human survival.  When business owners involve themselves in it, they  are interfacing with a critical necessity of large numbers of people.  That needs to be recognized.

An apartment complex is much more than somebody's business to toss around as he sees fit. It is the HOMES of hundreds of people. That requires supervision by the government to do what is government's #1 job > PROTECT the people.

When rents are suddenly raised to such an extent that almost all the residents are forced to move out,  that should have been controlled to prevent that from happening. I could see small rent increases (5-10%) as being reasonable, to keep up with inflation, and landlord's costs, but currently my rent is going up 42% instantly. That's too much. 2 years ago, in another complex (from which I was forced to move), our rents went up 64%. That isn't inflation, that is simply gouging.

When gas prices go up very high, people start screaming, and the cists are much less than rent. I'm looking at a $250/month increase, with no redeeming addition to the product.  2 years ago, it was $350.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 5, 2021)

protectionist said:


> NO. Because unlike most businesses, housing involves a primary human NEED.  Anthropologists say that shelter (housing) is the #1 element of human survival.  When business owners involve themselves in it, they  are interfacing with a critical necessity of large numbers of people.  That needs to be recognized.
> 
> An apartment complex is much more than somebody's business to toss around as he sees fit. It is the HOMES of hundreds of people. That requires supervision by the government to do what is government's #1 job > PROTECT the people.
> 
> ...



Simple answer.  Find a cheaper place to live.  Obviously the landlord thinks he can rent the units for more than you were paying.   What a business owner does with his property is not the business of the gov't.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 5, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Simple answer.  Find a cheaper place to live.  Obviously the landlord thinks he can rent the units for more than you were paying.   What a business owner does with his property is not the business of the gov't.


FALSE! There IS NO cheaper place to live.  Last week 3 women from my apt complex walked the (not too good) neighborhood, checking out rents in 22 (seedy) apartment complexes. Not one was under $900/month for a 1 bedroom.  Most were over $1,000. and none had a vacancy. Many were filled with Biden's illegal aliens cramming 10 people into a 2 bedroom apt.  With a $1200/mo rent, each person's rent share ? $120/month.

The area (Tampa Bay) is housing saturated, and the landlords are taking full advantage.

What a business owner does with the HOMES of thousands of people, very much is the business of the government. If a business owner can't accept that, let him choose a different type of business, that doesn't deal with thousands of peoples' # 1 element of human survival - shelter.


----------



## surada (Nov 5, 2021)

protectionist said:


> FALSE! There IS NO cheaper place to live.  Last week 3 women from my apt complex walked the (not too good) neighborhood, checking out rents in 22 (seedy) apartment complexes. Not one was under $900/month for a 1 bedroom.  Most were over $1,000. and none had a vacancy. Many were filled with Biden's illegal aliens cramming 10 people into a 2 bedroom apt.  With a $1200/mo rent, each person's rent share ? $120/month.
> 
> The area (Tampa Bay) is housing saturated, and the landlords are taking full advantage.
> 
> What a business owner does with the HOMES of thousands of people, very much is the business of the government. If a business owner can't accept that, let him choose a different type of business, that doesn't deal with thousands of peoples' # 1 element of human survival - shelter.



So now you're a Socialist.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 5, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The issue raised by the OP was an increase from $600 a month in rent to $1,000 a month in rent.   Unemployment compensation will not cover that.
> 
> So the landlord will evict.
> 
> ...


The current increase of my complex is $600/mo to $850/mo. A  42% increase.

2 years ago, in another complex, the rent (instantly) went from $550/mo. to $900/mo.  A 64% increase.

Both are highly immoral, and should be illegal.  We're dealing with human beings, not sacks of potatoes.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 5, 2021)

The cheapest you can get is a small plot of rural land and a mobile home.  You can't get any cheaper than that.

Since this BS Covid Shitstorm Housing has went through the roof............never thought I'd see it this high where I live.  65% increases in less than 2 years.

That is your cheapest way out probably.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 5, 2021)

protectionist said:


> FALSE! There IS NO cheaper place to live.  Last week 3 women from my apt complex walked the (not too good) neighborhood, checking out rents in 22 (seedy) apartment complexes. Not one was under $900/month for a 1 bedroom.  Most were over $1,000. and none had a vacancy. Many were filled with Biden's illegal aliens cramming 10 people into a 2 bedroom apt.  With a $1200/mo rent, each person's rent share ? $120/month.
> 
> The area (Tampa Bay) is housing saturated, and the landlords are taking full advantage.
> 
> What a business owner does with the HOMES of thousands of people, very much is the business of the government. If a business owner can't accept that, let him choose a different type of business, that doesn't deal with thousands of peoples' # 1 element of human survival - shelter.



So you would prefer that the owner bulldoze the apartments and build another business?

Yes, the Tampa area is expensive.   Maybe you should move inland to where it is cheaper.    Move to Dover or the next town in (where they grow all the strawberries). 

No, it is not up to the gov't to make sure landlords don't raise rent.    That is a very liberal idea.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 5, 2021)

surada said:


> So now you're a Socialist.


USA is a combination of socialism and capitalism. Has been all my life.  Nothing new there.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 5, 2021)

__





						Foreclosures, HUD Homes, Foreclosure Auctions, Preforeclosures. HUDHomesUSA.org
					

HUDHomesUSA.org is the ultimate resource for locating, and researching distressed properties in the United States.



					www.hudhomesusa.org


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 5, 2021)

2/1 Mobile Home in Family Park! Low Down/Low Monthly!!...
					

We are offering for sale this spacious 2/1 single wide mobile home in a quiet family park. This home has it all. Newer cabinets, countertops, refrigerator, stove, hot water heater, and washer/dryer...



					tampa.craigslist.org
				




Craigslist  Real Estate.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 5, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> So you would prefer that the owner bulldoze the apartments and build another business?
> 
> Yes, the Tampa area is expensive.   Maybe you should move inland to where it is cheaper.    Move to Dover or the next town in (where they grow all the strawberries).
> 
> No, it is not up to the gov't to make sure landlords don't raise rent.    That is a very liberal idea.


1.  The landlord should not choose housing in the first place, if he cannot control his rents to a manageble level for the residents.

2.  "Move" is not an option for 90% of the residents here. Almost all are old, very low income (just getting by on a fixed income - Social Security).  Most don't even have a car.

3.  I didnt say landlords shouldn't raise rent. I could see a 5-10% increase just to meet inflation, but these guys are going waaaay beyond that, taking advantage of a demographic anomaly to maximize their enrichment. Not acceptable when so many people's shelter is involved.

4.  Rent control is not a liberal idea.  Almost every state in America has a statewide ban on rent control, including many blue states (ex. MA, CT, IL, WA, MN, CO, NM, et al)


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 5, 2021)

What we are seeing is the death of the dollar.  And continued printing of it til it turns into toilet paper.  Our corrupt gov't is responsible and it's WELL BEYOND  5 to 10 % inflation.  It has gone up about 65% here in Lower Alabama.

I would look at my earliest example .  Mobile home small lot.  The Hud Sight might help you.  You can sign up there and even call to get help to get into a cheaper home.  

It sucks these days for the prices going on.  It is insanity, but not the land lords fault.  Everything has gone up in cost dramatically.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 5, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> 2/1 Mobile Home in Family Park! Low Down/Low Monthly!!...
> 
> 
> We are offering for sale this spacious 2/1 single wide mobile home in a quiet family park. This home has it all. Newer cabinets, countertops, refrigerator, stove, hot water heater, and washer/dryer...
> ...


Only problem is the $3K down, and what is the lot rent ?  Home looks good though. I lived in one of these once for a short time. Was OK, except when Hurricane Jean arrived in 2005.  The house survived, but my nerves didn't.  Took me a week to get back to normal.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 5, 2021)

Results for 'real estate'; Citrus County - Real Estate, FL  - govdeals.com
					

GovDeals' online marketplace provides services to government, educational, and related entities for the sale of surplus assets to the public. Auction rules may vary across sellers.




					www.govdeals.com
				




government deals cheaper land within 100 mile radius of Tampa. Not sure about the areas there.  I don't live there.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 5, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> What we are seeing is the death of the dollar.  And continued printing of it til it turns into toilet paper.  Our corrupt gov't is responsible and it's WELL BEYOND  5 to 10 % inflation.  It has gone up about 65% here in Lower Alabama.
> 
> I would look at my earliest example .  Mobile home small lot.  The Hud Sight might help you.  You can sign up there and even call to get help to get into a cheaper home.
> 
> It sucks these days for the prices going on.  It is insanity, but not the land lords fault.  Everything has gone up in cost dramatically.


I don't think their costs are that high.  They're flipping these complexes, and trying to make quick big bucks$$$$$$.  It's like a game to them.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 5, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Only problem is the $3K down, and what is the lot rent ?  Home looks good though. I lived in one of these once for a short time. Was OK, except when Hurricane Jean arrived in 2005.  The house survived, but my nerves didn't.  Took me a week to get back to normal.


lot rent is high.  Think 600.  You would need to get a land home package deal.  Or call Hud to try to find a way out.  I really don't think there is a cheaper way.  The last site I sent is Gov deal land liquidation.  Not sure the money out front on that either.  But it is cheap land there.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 5, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I don't think their costs are that high.  They're flipping these complexes, and trying to make quick big bucks$$$$$$.  It's like a game to them.


When prices go sky high anywhere in this country they raise the prices to match.  Not to mention building supplies are through the roof.  We are having trouble getting electrical supplies at work right now.  Some places are tie wrapping conduit up for now as they can't get straps.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 5, 2021)

Get Help | Metropolitan Ministries
					

If you're in need of food, shelter/housing or trauma support, Metropolitan Ministries can help you. Supporting communities in Hillsborough, Pinellas & Polk.




					www.metromin.org


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> lot rent is high.  Think 600.  You would need to get a land home package deal.  Or call Hud to try to find a way out.  I really don't think there is a cheaper way.  The last site I sent is Gov deal land liquidation.  Not sure the money out front on that either.  But it is cheap land there.


As a Republican, I'm not too familiar with government agencies, or public assistance.  Never needed this before, but I did check into Section 8. I was disqualified, for being a household of one (plus 1 cat). They are only dealing with 3,4, and 5 bedroom large family units.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> When prices go sky high anywhere in this country they raise the prices to match.  Not to mention building supplies are through the roof.  We are having trouble getting electrical supplies at work right now.  Some places are tie wrapping conduit up for now as they can't get straps.


Yeah, it is a tough situation, but landlords are taking advantage of the illegal alien influx here. Biden has saturated this area with them.  The illegals are renting 2 bedroom apartments, and cramming 10 people into them. Landlords don't care who they rent to, and long as the money rolls in.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

Erinwltr said:


> Free Market Enterprise, Trumper.  Might as well get an EBT card while you are at getting rent subsidies.  Asshole.


I already have an EBT card, asshole. And I don't believe in an absolutely free market, and neither does Trump.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Of course you make no sense. Do you want regulation of all prices or just the ones you don't like?


Apparently you are not capable of discerning one scenario from another, so what would be the point of talking to you ?  And I don't expect to make sense to an IDIOT.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Equality?  You are capable of working, but choose to remain unemployed and you want the gov't to take my hard earned money, by force, and give it to you for no reason?   You have done nothing to earn it.
> 
> Like I have said, your plan will have UC shut down.   There is no way the states can afford the billions of dollars it would cost.
> 
> Get on welfare.


Off topic.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Just admit you don't care about equal protection of the laws or the laws in general unless you can practice the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge) in border threads.


Off Topic.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> Socialism for me but not for thee?


Nope.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rent control, an idea whose time has passed.


Actually, it is just the OPPOSITE of that.  Current events have made such that opposition to rent control is what has passed. That might have been OK for a few years ago, but Biden and his nationwide illegal alien floods have created an altogether new scenario, in which some rent control is now absolutely necessary, to PROTECT Americans >>

Unless the following scenario is OK with you - All Available rental housing rents are jacked up to astronomical levels. AMERICANS (including those with full-time jobs) are forced out of their homes with nowhere to move to.  All previously available rentals are now occupied by illegal aliens crammimg 10 people into a single 2 bdrm apartment or house.  Streets are filled with homeless Americans living in tents. Illegals have housing.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Wow, it's been almost three years since your original post. Did you end up moving or did the new owners come to their senses prior to losing all their tenants?


What you call "original post" was pertaining to an apartment complex that I (and hundreds of others) was forced out of when the landlord raised our rent (for a 1 bedroom apt) from $550/mo. to $900/mo.  A 64% increase.

To escape from that, I moved to another place where the rent was much cheaper.  Now 2.5 years later, the same thing is happening again. Now, a new owner has taken over here also, and is raising the rent from $600 to $850 (42% increase).

The new owners in the previous complex did not come to their senses. Instead, they tolerated some period of massive vacancies, and now have full occupancy with college students cramming 5 or 6 of them into a 2 bedroom apt, and illegal aliens doing the same thing with 10-12 people per apartment.  Whole local society has gone to the dogs.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

WEATHER53 said:


> Most on the dole  are manipulators and grifters. They like taking other peoples money instead of earning their own. Media tries to wrap it up in fake need and humanity but only about 10% on the dole  are truely victims of perpetual bad circumstances beyond their control. Most cause their own mess and many deliberately.


Off Topic. This post has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the OP, and I wonder if you ever even took the time to read it.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

I just noticed that the moderators have distorted this thread.  The title was written in November 2021, but the OP is an old one from 2018.  They don't correlate well.

This makes no sense.  No wonder there are now confusing posts popping up here and there.  I still don't know where my new OP went.  Somehere buried inside this thread, I guess.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

dblack said:


> Can't imagine what tortured definition of "conservative" would include your rampant statism.


Quite a few of things would evidently fit into your scenario of _"Can't imagine"_, but I'll try a simplified explanation for you.  It is one which does not define conservatism as 100% absence of government.  One which recognizes that the USA is a combination of socialism & capitalism, and certainly is not so idiotic as to ludicrously refer to some badly needed rent control to fix 2021 housing CRISIS chaos, as_ "rampant statism",_

My definition of conservatism recognizes governments # 1 responsibility >_ To_ PROTECT Americans (including from illegal alien invasion and housing saturation pricing).


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

Augustine_ said:


> Lol isn't that fucking something.  "I'm a conservative, except when it affects me."  The story of Trumpism right there.


There is no "except".  Rent control is just as conservative as it is liberal.  Rent control is banned in almost ever state in America, including most blue states.  Is just as liberal as it is conservative or anything else.  Rent control is not a liberal idea. Almost every state in America has a statewide ban on rent control, including many blue states (ex. MA, CT, IL, WA, _MN_, CO, NM...

If your brand of "conservative" means government ignoring AMERICANS when they truly need help, then NO, I'm not interested in that kind of conservatism, not one iota.
In fact, the call for rent control now might even be considered a conservative thing, becasuse it is in response to Biden's liberal saturation of communities with illegal aliens, and is in opposition force to that.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> There is never a good excuse for govt control over any private property unless said property is impeding on others rights.
> Raising prices doesnt do that.


Spoken like a true right-wing extremist ROBOT.  You give conservatism a bad name.

Of course raising prices does that (in this case). We are talking about people's* HOMES,* and becoming homeless. You are OFF TOPIC. Private property is not the topic.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

B. Kidd said:


> How long was the rent moratorium?


What rent moratorium ?  I know of no such thing.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> I don't. I know.
> Believing is thinking something is true based on partial or no information at all.
> Knowing is thinking something is true based on the way it is.
> All 10 of the highest rent cities in America are liberal cities.


Not any more. Biden's migrant program has dumped so many liens into cities all over the country, thereby saturating housing markets, that exorbitantly high rents are now nationwide, and housing units are almost non-existent. God help anybody looing for a place to live.

And more caravans are on their way here now.  They will have no place to live after they get here.  They'll be sorry. Actually I'm thinking of moving to where they came from > Mexico or Colombia. Low rents. Low cost of living.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Let me guess. You live where Democrats control everything.


No. We have Republican governor, and a statewide ban on rent control. (but those are common in both red & blue states).  Doesn't seem to matter about the party.  Republicans and Democrats both seem to be oblivious to America's new # 1 CRISIS.  Housing.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

depotoo said:


> Actually, if you are able bodied in mind or physically, trim your bills or find a better paying job, or take on more jobs, or move to where the pay is better, or increase your skill level to get a better paying job, take advantage of that training many companies offer to increase your skills,.  One has to do what one has to do.  Don’t expect others to pick up your slack.


So the landlords can do anything they want, but the worker has to change his whole life to adapt to them ? What makes landlords so special, and workers (& low-income retired) so insignificant ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

caddo kid said:


> WOW, LOOK: ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE BITCHING ABOUT FREE MARKETS.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

dblack said:


> It's different when we do it.


No it isn't.  The need for rent control in rent control banned states, is equal all across the country.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 7, 2021)

Votto said:


> No, the landlords should not be told what to do.
> 
> What if they need to raise the rent so that they are not losing money?
> 
> ...


And what if they DO NOT NEED to raise the rent, but are just looking to gouge the consumer, to feed their GREED ?

What you call the "market" is now a shambles of crazy sociological changes, brought on by Biden's illegal alien dumping, and a complete destruction of what was a legitimate "market".  It is NOT a scenario of rents simply fluctuating. That legitimate market no longer exists now. Now we're talking about extreme (and crazy) conditions that warrant extreme remedy.  We have a Biden-illegal alien-landlord alliance that is anti-American, immoral, and is destroying cities and AMERICANS who live there.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 7, 2021)

38028 Woodgate Ln, Zephyrhills, FL 33542 | Zillow
					

Zestimate® Home Value: $2,628. 38028 Woodgate Ln, Zephyrhills, FL is a mobile / manufactured home that contains 1,700 sq ft and was built in 1997. It contains 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.    The Rent Zestimate for this home is $2,139/mo, which has decreased by $113/mo in the last 30 days.




					www.zillow.com
				












						612 Mathew Rd, Lakeland, FL 33815 | Zillow
					

Zestimate® Home Value: $0. 612 Mathew Rd, Lakeland, FL is a mobile / manufactured home that contains 832 sq ft and was built in 2000. It contains 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.    The Rent Zestimate for this home is $1,162/mo, which has increased by $15/mo in the last 30 days.




					www.zillow.com
				












						70 Violet Ln #70, Lakeland, FL 33815 | Zillow
					

Zestimate® Home Value: $16,000. 70 Violet Ln #70, Lakeland, FL is a mobile / manufactured home that was built in 1969. It contains 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.    The Rent Zestimate for this home is $1,200/mo, which has increased by $13/mo in the last 30 days.




					www.zillow.com
				












						612 Mathew Rd, Lakeland, FL 33815 | Zillow
					

Zestimate® Home Value: $0. 612 Mathew Rd, Lakeland, FL is a mobile / manufactured home that contains 832 sq ft and was built in 2000. It contains 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.    The Rent Zestimate for this home is $1,162/mo, which has increased by $15/mo in the last 30 days.




					www.zillow.com
				












						19477 Snap Dragon Ln, Brooksville, FL 34601 | Zillow
					

Zestimate® Home Value: $53,000. 19477 Snap Dragon Ln, Brooksville, FL is a mobile / manufactured home that contains 984 sq ft and was built in 1989. It contains 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.    The Zestimate for this house is $69,400, which has increased by $2,333 in the last 30 days. The Rent...




					www.zillow.com
				












						117 Robert James Dr, Valrico, FL 33594 | Zillow
					

Zestimate® Home Value: $29,000. 117 Robert James Dr, Valrico, FL is a mobile / manufactured home that contains 896 sq ft and was built in 1983. It contains 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.    The Rent Zestimate for this home is $1,684/mo, which has increased by $127/mo in the last 30 days.




					www.zillow.com
				












						830 Walker Dr, Tampa, FL 33613 | Zillow
					

Zestimate® Home Value: $0. 830 Walker Dr, Tampa, FL is a mobile / manufactured home that was built in 1972. It contains 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.    The Rent Zestimate for this home is $1,998/mo, which has increased by $141/mo in the last 30 days.




					www.zillow.com
				




Call this rental agent and tell her your situation.  Then apply for rental assistance shown on these sites.

To the rest of you on this thread.  I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.  I DO NOT BELIEVE IN RENT CONTROL.  The Gov't did this to the people of this country by turning the dollar into Toilet paper.  Right now they are only giving a fraction of Trillions of dollars of spending to housing.  And most will earmarked for their buddies and the illegals they pander to for votes.

The shut down and printing of money has caused MASSIVE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP ACROSS THE ENTIRE WORLD.  The pandemic didn't do this.  GOV'T DID THIS.  We should have never shut down.  I NEVER THOUGHT the prices where I live would get to where they are now.  65% higher than just before the pandemic.

I consider Protectionist to be speaking for MILLIONS of Americans on this thread.  The I got mine up yours comments and the POLITICAL too bad for you from the left here make me sick.

Any who don't like what I have to say.  As always.  Please file a complaint in the 2nd Port O let to the left basement section.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 7, 2021)

16445 SE 95th Ct, Summerfield, FL 34491 | Zillow
					

Zestimate® Home Value: $70,000. 16445 SE 95th Ct, Summerfield, FL is a mobile / manufactured home that contains 672 sq ft and was built in 1970. It contains 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom.    The Zestimate for this house is $84,800, which has increased by $2,552 in the last 30 days. The Rent...




					www.zillow.com
				




Comfortable, charming and affordable living one mile from the Villages.  This 2/1 cozy single wide has a new HVAC, foam over metal roofing, 3 storage sheds, huge covered carport (12x24),a front and back enclosed lanai. She is snuggled on a corner lot, all fenced, already established with a  well and septic. *This home is yours when you buy, meaning no HOA's, lot rents or someone to tell you what to do with your fur baby! *Incredible value for the locale. ALL measurements are approximated and must be verified by agent and buyer. Schedule a view today!


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 7, 2021)

Most of these have HOA's or lot rents.  I haven't figured out how to filter those out yet.  Real Estate Agents could do that if you contact them.  So you would be owning instead of renting so NO ONE can raise your prices again.

Perhaps some on this thread could help look around for Protectionist instead of being assholes.


----------



## surada (Nov 7, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Actually, it is just the OPPOSITE of that.  Current events have made such that opposition to rent control is what has passed. That might have been OK for a few years ago, but Biden and his nationwide illegal alien floods have created an altogether new scenario, in which some rent control is now absolutely necessary, to PROTECT Americans >>
> 
> Unless the following scenario is OK with you - All Available rental housing rents are jacked up to astronomical levels. AMERICANS (including those with full-time jobs) are forced out of their homes with nowhere to move to.  All previously available rentals are now occupied by illegal aliens crammimg 10 people into a single 2 bdrm apartment or house.  Streets are filled with homeless Americans living in tents. Illegals have housing.



Why don't you look into a HUD property for seniors?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 7, 2021)

surada said:


> Why don't you look into a HUD property for seniors?


I posted a link to the HUD site but didn't post to the seniors site.  Not sure if that is the same.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 7, 2021)

protectionist said:


> No. We have Republican governor, and a statewide ban on rent control. (but those are common in both red & blue states).  Doesn't seem to matter about the party.  Republicans and Democrats both seem to be oblivious to America's new # 1 CRISIS.  Housing.


Life is filled with choices. You choosing to live where costs are high is one of those choices. Where I live lots of good jobs and you can rent a 3 bedroom home with land for $700.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 7, 2021)

protectionist said:


> As a Republican, I'm not too familiar with government agencies, or public assistance.  Never needed this before, but I did check into Section 8. I was disqualified, for being a household of one (plus 1 cat). They are only dealing with 3,4, and 5 bedroom large family units.



Sounds like you need to get a couple of roommates.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 7, 2021)

protectionist said:


> That might have been OK for a few years ago, but Biden and his nationwide illegal alien floods have created an altogether new scenario, in which some rent control is now absolutely necessary, to PROTECT Americans



We need to seal the border and deport 20 million illegal aliens.....to start.

Rent control is just a bad idea.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 7, 2021)

protectionist said:


> We are talking about people's* HOMES*



If we were talking about your HOME, rent wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## surada (Nov 7, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> I posted a link to the HUD site but didn't post to the seniors site.  Not sure if that is the same.



I don't know for sure, but I think HUD has properties for over 62 or disabilities.  Friend of mine from FL moved into a nice one in Atl. I think her rent is 1/3 her social security check up to $1300, untilities included and less medical/dental expenses.

Anyway, that's what she told me.


----------



## Mr Natural (Nov 7, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We need to seal the border and deport 20 million illegal aliens.....to start.


Twenty million at 100 per bus load is like 200,000 busses.

We’d better get started on this program.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 7, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> Twenty million at 100 per bus load is like 200,000 busses.
> 
> We’d better get started on this program.



After the first couple of million, some will start moving on their own.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 7, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> Twenty million at 100 per bus load is like 200,000 busses.
> 
> We’d better get started on this program.


Why bus them? They walked in, they can get marched out at bayonet.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 7, 2021)

If you want to reduce the illegal immigrant problem, start seriously going after the companies that hire them.   Make a few pay big fines and send some CEOs to jail and the reason for the immigrants coming in will evaporate.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> If you want to reduce the illegal immigrant problem, start seriously going after the companies that hire them.   Make a few pay big fines and send some CEOs to jail and the reason for the immigrants coming in will evaporate.


Unfortunately for those of that point of view, there is no express Immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Only right-wingers are hypocrites about a federal vaccine mandate.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 7, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Unfortunately for those of that point of view, there is no express Immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Only right-wingers are hypocrites about a federal vaccine mandate.



Federal vaccine mandate??   WTF?   How does that relate to the topic.

Oh, and whether it is mentioned in the US Constitution or not, it is against the law to hire illegal immigrants.


----------



## DrLove (Nov 7, 2021)

protectionist said:


> What you call "original post" was pertaining to an apartment complex that I (and hundreds of others) was forced out of when the landlord raised our rent (for a 1 bedroom apt) from $550/mo. to $900/mo.  A 64% increase.
> 
> To escape from that, I moved to another place where the rent was much cheaper.  Now 2.5 years later, the same thing is happening again. Now, a new owner has taken over here also, and is raising the rent from $600 to $850 (42% increase).
> 
> The new owners in the previous complex did not come to their senses. Instead, they tolerated some period of massive vacancies, and now have full occupancy with college students cramming 5 or 6 of them into a 2 bedroom apt, and illegal aliens doing the same thing with 10-12 people per apartment.  Whole local society has gone to the dogs.



Well, partly a sign of the times. My home value is up over 65% since I bought it three years ago. Rents in my beach community have gone up equally over the same period of time. But do you REALLY have illegal alien neighbors cramming a dozen illegal aliens into a two bedroom apartment? 

I used to be a landlord. I had very specific rules about the number of people allowed to live in my homes and condos written right into the lease. In fact, my tenants were obligated to inform me if they even had a houseguest for over two weeks. I'm sure your leases are the same, so if you're not just making a political point (as I suspect) then you should probably report them.

Btw, I do agree with you about rent control. I never once raised the rent on any of my places until somebody moved out. Most landlords (or even property management companies) would rather keep a good tenant than see them move out and take their chances with somebody else who might be their worst nightmare. _*Watch the Michael Keaton movie Pacific Heights - trailer below_

My final point is this: The next time you rent, find a place that doesn't involve a property management company and one where you work directly with an owner. PM companies for the most part SUCK.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Federal vaccine mandate??   WTF?   How does that relate to the topic.
> 
> Oh, and whether it is mentioned in the US Constitution or not, it is against the law to hire illegal immigrants.


lol.  Being Legal to the Law not just hypocritical in border threads.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 7, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> lol.  Being Legal to the Law not just hypocritical in border threads.


You just post nonsense when ever you get flustered, don't you.     Have you ever been tested for autism?   Maybe Aspergers?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You just post nonsense when ever you get flustered, don't you.     Have you ever been tested for autism?   Maybe Aspergers?


You need more than fallacy to make that stick, "incompetent right-wingers who need more control than women in abortion threads."


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 7, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You need more than fallacy to make that stick, "incompetent right-wingers who need more control than women in abortion threads."



The way you post with topics that have nothing to do with the discussion I think I am closer to right than wrong.    You continually bring up border issues when discussing your New & Improved Unemployment Compensation.  And now in a thread about rent control you suddenly bring up vaccine mandates.    There is some neurological connection not being made in your head.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 7, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The way you post with topics that have nothing to do with the discussion I think I am closer to right than wrong.    You continually bring up border issues when discussing your New & Improved Unemployment Compensation.  And now in a thread about rent control you suddenly bring up vaccine mandates.    There is some neurological connection not being made in your head.



He may have a traumatic brain injury.

Or maybe too many years of smoking too much weed have fried his synapses?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 7, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He may have a traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Or maybe too many years of smoking too much weed have fried his synapses?



I smoked a lot of weed for a lot of years.   Ol' Dannyboy must have done more than that.

The traumatic brain injury sounds possible.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The way you post with topics that have nothing to do with the discussion I think I am closer to right than wrong.    You continually bring up border issues when discussing your New & Improved Unemployment Compensation.  And now in a thread about rent control you suddenly bring up vaccine mandates.    There is some neurological connection not being made in your head.


lol.  The ignorant right-wingers understand nothing of the discussions they tell stories about.


----------



## Erinwltr (Nov 7, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I already have an EBT card, asshole. And I don't believe in an absolutely free market, and neither does Trump.


Free Loading Piece of Shit.  Whine and cry about rent controls and use an EBT card.  Fuck off.  Trump does not believe in anything but himself and the red meat idiots that follow him.


----------



## Erinwltr (Nov 7, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Apparently you are not capable of discerning one scenario from another, so what would be the point of talking to you ?  And I don't expect to make sense to an IDIOT.


You never make sense, dipshit.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 8, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Spoken like a true right-wing extremist ROBOT.  You give conservatism a bad name.
> 
> Of course raising prices does that (in this case). We are talking about people's* HOMES,* and becoming homeless. You are OFF TOPIC. Private property is not the topic.


Im not a conservative. Nor am i a "robot" 
Someone owns the rental property, you goober. That make sit a private property issue.
But its funny how your idea of "true conservatism" is govt control LOL. Round here, you would be called a RINO


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Im not a conservative. Nor am i a "robot"
> Someone owns the rental property, you goober. That make sit a private property issue.
> But its funny how your idea of "true conservatism" is govt control LOL. Round here, you would be called a RINO


I wish I could muster a laugh. This kind is hypocrisy is pretty standard for Trumpsters.


----------



## badger2 (Nov 8, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He may have a traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Or maybe too many years of smoking too much weed have fried his synapses?


Cannabis antagonizes androgen receptors. Thus, it effeminizes the gonads.


TNHarley said:


> Im not a conservative. Nor am i a "robot"
> Someone owns the rental property, you goober. That make sit a private property issue.
> But its funny how your idea of "true conservatism" is govt control LOL. Round here, you would be called a RINO


The owner of the property is renting the space to inhabit, which differs from the physical substance the renter is using up (valves, hinges, etc.). The renter-prisoner mostly pays for space to inhabit, pays homage to the capitalist-pimp-landlord for it always already having in its possession the means of production. The physical substance being used (up) by the renter is miniscule in comparison to the appreciation of value the pimp’s physical substance is producing, even when no one is renting it. Better to find ways to boycott this pimp and direct one’s income in other directions, by all means, if and when possible.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2021)

badger2 said:


> Cannabis antagonizes androgen receptors. Thus, it effeminizes the gonads.
> 
> The owner of the property is renting the space to inhabit, which differs from the physical substance the renter is using up (valves, hinges, etc.). The renter-prisoner mostly pays for space to inhabit, pays homage to the capitalist-pimp-landlord for it always already having in its possession the means of production. The physical substance being used (up) by the renter is miniscule in comparison to the appreciation of value the pimp’s physical substance is producing, even when no one is renting it. Better to find ways to boycott this pimp and direct one’s income in other directions, by all means, if and when possible.


Speaking of cannabis ...


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2021)

dblack said:


> Speaking of cannabis ...


I can be totally stoned and still resort to the fewest fallacies.  Right-wingers are simply clueless and Causeless.


----------



## Markle (Nov 9, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


Between now and May you can easily boost your credit rating.  Presto problem solved.

The price of real estate all over the country has skyrocketing, Florida is no exception, far from it.

If the property has been held by one party for many years, chances are the rents are well below the market rate.  If there is a new owner, chances are they paid substantially more than the seller.

With that all the ratios and percentages have to be redone.  If they're not, the owner can't afford to maintain the property then the tenants leave, rents drop, the place goes into disrepair, owner can't make the mortgage payments.  They can't sell because it's not worth what he owes.  Then everyone is out on their butts.


----------



## Markle (Nov 9, 2021)

protectionist said:


> What you call "original post" was pertaining to an apartment complex that I (and hundreds of others) was forced out of when the landlord raised our rent (for a 1 bedroom apt) from $550/mo. to $900/mo.  A 64% increase.
> 
> To escape from that, I moved to another place where the rent was much cheaper.  Now 2.5 years later, the same thing is happening again. Now, a new owner has taken over here also, and is raising the rent from $600 to $850 (42% increase).
> 
> The new owners in the previous complex did not come to their senses. Instead, they tolerated some period of massive vacancies, and now have full occupancy with college students cramming 5 or 6 of them into a 2 bedroom apt, and illegal aliens doing the same thing with 10-12 people per apartment.  Whole local society has gone to the dogs.


How much rental property would you own if you lost money every month?

What affect do you believe that the eviction moratorium had on the market?

Inflation is toughest on low income workers.  As that song lyric goes, " you ain't seen nothin' yet".


----------



## Markle (Nov 9, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> If you want to reduce the illegal immigrant problem, start seriously going after the companies that hire them.   Make a few pay big fines and send some CEOs to jail and the reason for the immigrants coming in will evaporate.


How do you do that when President Biden is inviting illegal aliens by the millions and is now enticing more with cash settlements.  What can go wrong?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Actually, it is just the OPPOSITE of that.  Current events have made such that opposition to rent control is what has passed. That might have been OK for a few years ago, but Biden and his nationwide illegal alien floods have created an altogether new scenario, in which some rent control is now absolutely necessary, to PROTECT Americans >>
> 
> Unless the following scenario is OK with you - All Available rental housing rents are jacked up to astronomical levels. AMERICANS (including those with full-time jobs) are forced out of their homes with nowhere to move to.  All previously available rentals are now occupied by illegal aliens crammimg 10 people into a single 2 bdrm apartment or house.  Streets are filled with homeless Americans living in tents. Illegals have housing.


Markle: you clicked "Disagree" to this post.  That doesn't make sense. The post stated FACT.  You can disagree with opinion, not fact.  Do I have to make videos of some of the people in my apartment complex who cannot pay the new 42% increase in rent (some complexes have over 100% increases) for you to understand ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

Markle said:


> How much rental property would you own if you lost money every month?
> 
> What affect do you believe that the eviction moratorium had on the market?
> 
> Inflation is toughest on low income workers.  As that song lyric goes, " you ain't seen nothin' yet".


Lost money, my ass.  These landlords are loan sharks who will do anything they can to make as much money as they can, with no thought whatsoever to the people they hurt.  When my previous landlord left, he left no warning that he was selling the complex, nothing about the rent jacking up 42% (2 yrs ago it was 64%). He just disappeared like a thief in the night, leaving everybody here in dire straights.
Even if a landlord was losing money, well, people in other types of businesses (sporting goods, jewelry, electronics) lose money too, but they're nt selling things which are people's #1 necessity to survival.  Big difference.

Eviction moratorium come from Joe Biden, whom I don't support, and never did.  Also, the EM only means people would not be evicted during some period of time. It doesn't mean they are still not responsible for those rents. I think they are still required to pay those rents, after the eviction moratorium ended, no ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

Markle said:


> How do you do that when President Biden is inviting illegal aliens by the millions and is now enticing more with cash settlements.  What can go wrong?


Correct.  The last thing that is going to happen is Anything that stops the illegal alien invasion.  Biden is engineering this lunacy (his VOTE machine), and he is in control of it.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> If you want to reduce the illegal immigrant problem, start seriously going after the companies that hire them.   Make a few pay big fines and send some CEOs to jail and the reason for the immigrants coming in will evaporate.


Even when Trump was in power, "going after the companies that hire them" was a dead end, and always has been, because IRCA law requires prosecutors to prove that the employer "KNOWINGLY" hired the illegals.

Over decades this has proven to be impossible enough, such that the government has moved away from that methodology, as nothing more than a time and money waster. Too many court cases have been lost by insufficient evidence.  Government gave up on this idea years ago. I posted this same post in 2006.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

DrLove said:


> Well, partly a sign of the times. My home value is up over 65% since I bought it three years ago. Rents in my beach community have gone up equally over the same period of time. But do you REALLY have illegal alien neighbors cramming a dozen illegal aliens into a two bedroom apartment?
> 
> I used to be a landlord. I had very specific rules about the number of people allowed to live in my homes and condos written right into the lease. In fact, my tenants were obligated to inform me if they even had a houseguest for over two weeks. I'm sure your leases are the same, so if you're not just making a political point (as I suspect) then you should probably report them.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the tip.  Actually though, I have already sent out the word to everybody I know, my doctors, attorneys, friends, family, etc that if they know somebody (an individual) renting a house, condo, whatever to please refer me.  

Yes, in many apartment complexes, illegals are moving in in bunches.  Most of these are in low class, seedy you might say, complexes, that had lower rents previously (almost nothing now is below $900.month-most much higher)


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The way you post with topics that have nothing to do with the discussion I think I am closer to right than wrong.    You continually bring up border issues when discussing your New & Improved Unemployment Compensation.  And now in a thread about rent control you suddenly bring up vaccine mandates.    There is some neurological connection not being made in your head.


Correct. The topic is 2 things > rent control and the housing crisis (change from the stability of a few years ago).


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> lol.  The ignorant right-wingers understand nothing of the discussions they tell stories about.


This somewhat weird MISperception is the cause of a lot of problems in our society. It isn't a lack of knowledge among right-wingers that is the problem (I've many times shown they are more knowledgable than leftists).  Many problems stem from leftist looney ideas (abolishing police, totally free abortion, trans loons in sports, etc)

Regarding the issue in this thread, there is some problem with right-wingers WRONGLY thinking that rent control is a left-wing thing, and that conservatives should automatically oppose it. Just as many blue states have bans on rent control as red states do.  What needs to be understood by everyone is that housing is much more than just a business for a property owner.  It is a fundamental facet of SURVIVAL for millions of people, which is not the case for just about anything else that is sold (other than food), and thus when it gets out of hand, controls NEED to be implemented.

If housing owners can't accept that, they should enter a business that does not interact with large numbers of peoples' basic survival.  Sell violins and guitars.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

Erinwltr said:


> Free Loading Piece of Shit.  Whine and cry about rent controls and use an EBT card.  Fuck off.  Trump does not believe in anything but himself and the red meat idiots that follow him.


Should I respond to this raving, foaming at the mouth, airhead robot, ?  Nah ?
PS - how does any of this have something to do with "free loading" ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

Erinwltr said:


> You never make sense, dipshit.


Gee, how will protectionist ever recover from this so insightful, substance-laden, enlightening post ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Im not a conservative. Nor am i a "robot"
> Someone owns the rental property, you goober. That make sit a private property issue.
> But its funny how your idea of "true conservatism" is govt control LOL. Round here, you would be called a RINO


Perfect example of the MISperception I mentioned in post #   .  It's nit a right/left issue. It is a common sense vs dumbass issue, and you are clearly on the side of the dumbasses, who can't see that it is a private property PLUS a sociological SURVIVAL issue all wrapped up together, and inseparable.

Anybody who believes that some degree of rent control is not acceptable in the CRISIS situation that exists now, is someone who believes that there never should be ANY government control of anything.  No laws pertaining to housing prices or anything else.

EARTH TO TNH:  Conservatism doesn't mean protection of business owners AT ALL COSTS.  If it was, that would be support of outsourcing to China, production of harmful drugs, etc.  One is not a RINO because of a support of rent control in extreme situations that lead to massive homeless.  There are many things that make people a RINO.  This is not one of them. I could easily call you a RINO for supporting Biden's open border lunacy, which is the crux of this whole issue. That's is a major part of the engine that is generating the skyrocketing rents, the shortage of units, and the whole CRISIS.  Haven't heard a word from you against that.

 As I stated already, bans on rent control are common in Democrat cities and states. You are ignorant.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

dblack said:


> I wish I could muster a laugh. This kind is hypocrisy is pretty standard for Trumpsters.


WHAT kind of "hypocrisy" ? Do you know what you're talking about ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

badger2 said:


> Cannabis antagonizes androgen receptors. Thus, it effeminizes the gonads.
> 
> The owner of the property is renting the space to inhabit, which differs from the physical substance the renter is using up (valves, hinges, etc.). The renter-prisoner mostly pays for space to inhabit, pays homage to the capitalist-pimp-landlord for it always already having in its possession the means of production. The physical substance being used (up) by the renter is miniscule in comparison to the appreciation of value the pimp’s physical substance is producing, even when no one is renting it. Better to find ways to boycott this pimp and direct one’s income in other directions, by all means, if and when possible.


In this case, that is NOT possible unless one is OK with living on the street in a tent (if the city's ordinances even allow that)


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I can be totally stoned and still resort to the fewest fallacies.  Right-wingers are simply clueless and Causeless.


You are clueless about right-wingers, and you are clueless of your own cluelessness. You should go to one of my QUIZ for Liberals threads, and find out how much you don't know.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 9, 2021)

Markle said:


> Between now and May you can easily boost your credit rating.  Presto problem solved.
> 
> The price of real estate all over the country has skyrocketing, Florida is no exception, far from it.
> 
> ...


Totally wrong.  The complex I live in (and many like it) has been doing just fine at rents of $600/month (all 1 bedroom), with many upgrades being paid for by the landlord. By his own admission, recently he was bragging about his profits.

What you call "market rate" is a fallacy. When thousands of people are forced out of their HOMES, with nowhere to go, to facilitate an illegal alien invasion, you call that a "market"?  I call that lunacy, public irresponsibility, and dereliction of duty (to PROTECT the AMERICAN public).

Nothing needs to be redone to adjust to mass lunacy, primarily caused by Biden's terror of relying on the American people to get re-elected.  What adjusting needing to be done, is to enact some rent control (10% increase perhaps), and bring everything back to normal, and keep people from being tossed out in the street, by the thousands. Your senseless proposal is all geared to the protection of landlords, and zero to residents. That's ridiculous.

And don't give me that "can't afford to maintain" crap.  I'm getting tired of all the whining BS we keep hearing, being blamed on the pandemic. Boy who cried wolf.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 9, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Perfect example of the MISperception I mentioned in post #   .  It's nit a right/left issue. It is a common sense vs dumbass issue, and you are clearly on the side of the dumbasses, who can't see that it is a private property PLUS a sociological SURVIVAL issue all wrapped up together, and inseparable.
> 
> Anybody who believes that some degree of rent control is not acceptable in the CRISIS situation that exists now, is someone who believes that there never should be ANY government control of anything.  No laws pertaining to housing prices or anything else.
> 
> ...


Sorry, not sorry. Im a constitutionalist and true liberal. I dont believe in your nanny state bullshit.
Rent is going up because everything is going up. Mostly due to the govt. You know, the ones you want control over rent prices. Try to THINK instead of just holding your hand out like a bum.
This reminds me of those retarded federal supremacists that want more govt control over healthcare because of prices. Even though govt is WHY prices continuously shoot up.
All of you are stupid. Truly.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 9, 2021)

Govt caused this.  Dont give them even more power.  They want you begging them for a sandwich.  That is how they roll.  The solution is the constitution and more competition.  These increases are from massive inflation from the money lauderers in the govt.

Call those realators and get your own place it will be cheaper.  Add in a hurricane shelter   small one and look for a grant from Fema


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2021)

protectionist said:


> WHAT kind of "hypocrisy" ? Do you know what you're talking about ?


You're a fine example.


----------



## Markle (Nov 9, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Markle: you clicked "Disagree" to this post.  That doesn't make sense. The post stated FACT.  You can disagree with opinion, not fact.  Do I have to make videos of some of the people in my apartment complex who cannot pay the new 42% increase in rent (some complexes have over 100% increases) for you to understand ?


You whined and expressed your OPINION.

For example:  "All previously available rentals are now occupied by illegal aliens crammimg 10 people into a single 2 bdrm apartment or house."

Is that not from your post?


----------



## Markle (Nov 9, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Markle: you clicked "Disagree" to this post.  That doesn't make sense. The post stated FACT.  You can disagree with opinion, not fact.  Do I have to make videos of some of the people in my apartment complex who cannot pay the new 42% increase in rent (some complexes have over 100% increases) for you to understand ?


----------



## Markle (Nov 10, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> Govt caused this.  Dont give them even more power.  They want you begging them for a sandwich.  That is how they roll.  The solution is the constitution and more competition.  These increases are from massive inflation from the money lauderers in the govt.
> 
> Call those realators and get your own place it will be cheaper.  Add in a hurricane shelter   small one and look for a grant from Fema


REALTOR


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 10, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I live in an apartment complex, that recently was bought by a new landlord.  That landlord has been increasing expired lease rents by as much as 60%.  Imagine that your rent is $600/month and suddenly it's damn near $1,000/month.
> 
> Whoa!  For low income seniors on  Social Security and small pensions, this aint gonna fly.  Actually, younger people still in the workforce with higher incomes, aren't taking to well to it either.  Practically everybody in this complex is moving out.  Some people are moving in and paying the higher rents, but not as many as are moving out.  I've never seen so many moving vans in my life.
> 
> ...


Yep, you are a conservative...you suddenly care about an issue when it affects you. It's like the definiing trait of conservatives.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 10, 2021)

Markle said:


> REALTOR











						Tampa, FL Real Estate - Tampa Homes for Sale | realtor.com®
					

View 24 homes for sale in Tampa, FL at a median listing home price of $350,000. See pricing and listing details of Tampa real estate for sale.




					www.realtor.com
				




Better search engine.  yup


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> I disagree. I believe that it should just be much easier to buy a home in the first place.


Buying a house is easy.  All you need is to have income and decent credit.  If you want rents and house prices cheaper, encourage new construction, increasing supply Reduces prices.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 10, 2021)

bripat9643 said:


> "Certain groups bought stuff up decades ago?" That's your "logic" proving the free market doesn't exist?
> 
> You don't know the meaning of the term "free market."  You're a Stalinist.  Landlords do not allow property to sit vacant for years at a time if they can help it.


Every day a property sits empty it’s costing the landlord money.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 10, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Valid points.   And in the long run, you pay more for those conveniences.
> 
> The OP wants the conveniences AND low prices.  He wants the gov't to force someone to accept less money for the use of their property because he did not plan for his own retirement.


I had a coworker that used to call me stupid for buying a house.  Now I own it free and clear and he’s still paying half his retirement check to rent an apartment and will until he dies.  If you want the convienice of owning an apartment, buy a condo, the association owns and repairs the building, all you have to maintain is the inside of your unit.


----------



## Markle (Nov 10, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Totally wrong.  The complex I live in (and many like it) has been doing just fine at rents of $600/month (all 1 bedroom), with many upgrades being paid for by the landlord. By his own admission, recently he was bragging about his profits.
> 
> What you call "market rate" is a fallacy. When thousands of people are forced out of their HOMES, with nowhere to go, to facilitate an illegal alien invasion, you call that a "market"?  I call that lunacy, public irresponsibility, and dereliction of duty (to PROTECT the AMERICAN public).
> 
> ...


YOU stated that the property had been sold and there was a new owner.  YOU made the choice to rent as opposed to buying.  Is that NOT your choice?

Did you actually advocate that it is okay if the owner LOSES money by owning rental property?

Face it, you stayed there because the rent was falling behind the market which is not uncommon.  You took the risk that nothing would change.  Whose responsibility is that decision? But you want to blame someone else, why?

Were the expenses for the owner suspended while the tenants could not be evicted?  Of course not.

Show your facts that rents are skyrocketing because illegal aliens are coming into those complexes and paying those rents.  If you cannot, then your comments have no basis and are false.

I am adamantly opposed to the catastrophe happening at our border.  As far as I'm concerned, it is an invasion against which President Biden has chosen not to defend our country.  Shameful.

You and I agree on, I would say, 95% of the issues where we meet on this board.  This affects you personally and suddenly you become a far-left soldier on this one issue.

It is public information.  You can find it on your computer.  Look up how much the new owner paid for the property and how much was paid by the seller.  My guess is that if the seller owned your property for more than a couple of years, the new owner paid substantially more.


----------



## Markle (Nov 10, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> Tampa, FL Real Estate - Tampa Homes for Sale | realtor.com®
> 
> 
> View 24 homes for sale in Tampa, FL at a median listing home price of $350,000. See pricing and listing details of Tampa real estate for sale.
> ...


The word is not realator.  realators is not a word.  The word has two syllables, not three it is also a trademark and must be capitalized.  Not important to you, but it is to me.  I was a REALTOR for over 50 years and was very active in the local, state, and national associations.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 10, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Well since there's 265 apartments in this complex, and dozens of them are being vacated in a short period of time, obviously that is a stupid thing to say. And your post is "all about" YOUR choice to take a shot at me, rather than discuss the topic.
> EH ????


Did you ever consider the possibility the new owner is raising the rents to drive tenents out?  Converting apartments to condos is very profitable.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 10, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Buying a house is easy.  All you need is to have income and decent credit.  If you want rents and house prices cheaper, encourage new construction, increasing supply Reduces prices.



Well, the income bit is the hard part. 

If you want to buy a house in, say, San Francisco, and you don't earn loads of money, you won't have that income.

Sometimes it's about making sure that people are able to buy a house, or rent, at affordable prices.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 10, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Perfect example of the MISperception I mentioned in post #   .  It's nit a right/left issue. It is a common sense vs dumbass issue, and you are clearly on the side of the dumbasses, who can't see that it is a private property PLUS a sociological SURVIVAL issue all wrapped up together, and inseparable.


No, it's not.  You are a renter, not the owner.  You have no right to remain there any longer than the landlord sees fit.  If he can get more for the apartment then he has every right to charge that much and if you don't like it you can get up and leave because someone else will take it.  You have no right to stay there as long as you want.  If you want that right, then buy it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 10, 2021)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> No, it's not.  You are a renter, not the owner.  You have no right to remain there any longer than the landlord sees fit.  If he can get more for the apartment then he has every right to charge that much and if you don't like it you can get up and leave because someone else will take it.  You have no right to stay there as long as you want.  If you want that right, then buy it.


Yes, all makes sense, is all codified into law at the present time.

BUT

We are going to have a problem. The wealth and income disparity in this country is causing higher prices both by housing shortages and by driving up housing costs via people buying up properties to be rented.

So, while everything you said makes sense, we really do need to be able to have a roof over our heads without spending half our income or more oin it. That just isn't sustainable. Every bump in the road is ruin, less money to spend on other things in the economy, etc.

So it's: everything you said, but in a growing inequity environment (that is already bad right now), where it is causing serious problems for our society.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, all makes sense, is all codified into law at the present time.
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...



Prices can only climb as high as people can afford to pay.  At some point it slows otherwise there will be vacant units and landlords aren't the business of leaving rental units empty.  We saw this last year.  Rents in NYC and other cities plummeted in 2020 because of people fleeing the city for more rural areas.


----------



## Markle (Nov 11, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, the income bit is the hard part.
> 
> If you want to buy a house in, say, San Francisco, and you don't earn loads of money, you won't have that income.
> 
> Sometimes it's about making sure that people are able to buy a house, or rent, at affordable prices.


Location, location, location!

If someone demands to stay in a particularly, HIGH COST OF LIVING location, say San Francisco, then they made that choice.  I don't think any of the services workers in the city actually lives in the city.  That includes police, firemen, waiters, waitresses everyone.  They are willing to commute, many for hours, to say they live in San Francisco.  That is their choice.  I don't know of a fence surrounding the city preventing people from leaving.

As it is, tens of thousands of people are leaving California due to that cost, taxes and the declining standard of living.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Sorry, not sorry. Im a constitutionalist and true liberal. I dont believe in your nanny state bullshit.
> Rent is going up because everything is going up. Mostly due to the govt. You know, the ones you want control over rent prices. Try to THINK instead of just holding your hand out like a bum.
> This reminds me of those retarded federal supremacists that want more govt control over healthcare because of prices. Even though govt is WHY prices continuously shoot up.
> All of you are stupid. Truly.


Nah.  Lot of stupid posting going on in this thread. If these loudmouths were having THEIR pockets picked for $250-$500 a month they'd be the authors of this thread.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 13, 2021)

Markle said:


> The word is not realator.  realators is not a word.  The word has two syllables, not three it is also a trademark and must be capitalized.  Not important to you, but it is to me.  I was a REALTOR for over 50 years and was very active in the local, state, and national associations.


Well I've never been that good at spelling ..............So.  You could help him with the search engine then.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 13, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Nah.  Lot of stupid posting going on in this thread. If these loudmouths were having THEIR pockets picked for $250-$500 a month they'd be the authors of this thread.



I had my pocket picked for $1,200 a month for decades.   That is why I own my home.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> Govt caused this.  Dont give them even more power.  They want you begging them for a sandwich.  That is how they roll.  The solution is the constitution and more competition.  These increases are from massive inflation from the money lauderers in the govt.
> 
> Call those realators and get your own place it will be cheaper.  Add in a hurricane shelter   small one and look for a grant from Fema


The increases are from massive influx of people (with money) to the Tampa bay area, and other places around the country. It's not a coincidence that this is happening simultaneously with Biden opening up the border, and transporting migrants all over the country.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

dblack said:


> You're a fine example.


Quit running away from the question, and answer it.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 13, 2021)

protectionist said:


> The increases are from massive influx of people (with money) to the Tampa bay area, and other places around the country. It's not a coincidence that this is happening simultaneously with Biden opening up the border, and transporting migrants all over the country.


Prices went up here.  It's everywhere.  You gotta find something cheaper and may need to move.  This isn't going away any time soon.  If you buy they can neve price you out again.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

Markle said:


> You whined and expressed your OPINION.
> 
> For example:  "All previously available rentals are now occupied by illegal aliens crammimg 10 people into a single 2 bdrm apartment or house."
> 
> Is that not from your post?


The FACT is rents escalating 42 %, 64%, and more.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

Markle said:


>


Nothing malarky about the housing rental crisis It is real.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 13, 2021)

protectionist said:


> The increases are from massive influx of people (with money) to the Tampa bay area, and other places around the country. It's not a coincidence that this is happening simultaneously with Biden opening up the border, and transporting migrants all over the country.



Either you are talking about people with money OR you are talking about illegal immigrants.    Not both.

Yes, the Tampa are is getting more and more expensive.   That is because there are more and more people retiring to Florida.

If you can't afford to live there, you move.   Don't cry to the gov't to fix it.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yep, you are a conservative...you suddenly care about an issue when it affects you. It's like the definiing trait of conservatives.


The defining trait of liberals is defining things wrongly.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Buying a house is easy.  All you need is to have income and decent credit.  If you want rents and house prices cheaper, encourage new construction, increasing supply Reduces prices.


And if you don't have enough income and what YOU CALL decent d-credit, then it is NOT easy.  And credit scores have nothing to do with housing, and landlords who deny good renters housing on that basis are idiots, who needlessly deprive themselves of of good customers.

The only credit record that is appropriate to check for housing rentals, is one's HOUSING rental record.

Encouraging new construction, also encourages new immigration, carrying with it a long list of harms.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Every day a property sits empty it’s costing the landlord money.


Off topic.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 13, 2021)

protectionist said:


> And if you don't have enough income and what YOU CALL decent d-credit, then it is NOT easy.  And credit scores have nothing to do with housing, and landlords who deny good renters housing on that basis are idiots, who needlessly deprive themselves of of good customers.
> 
> The only credit record that is appropriate to check for housing rentals, is one's HOUSING rental record.
> 
> Encouraging new construction, also encourages new immigration, carrying with it a long list of harms.



In other words, you have less than decent credit.   And I'm sure that was not your fault, was it?    So the gov't should bail you out of the mess you made by your own choices?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> I had a coworker that used to call me stupid for buying a house.  Now I own it free and clear and he’s still paying half his retirement check to rent an apartment and will until he dies.  If you want the convienice of owning an apartment, buy a condo, the association owns and repairs the building, all you have to maintain is the inside of your unit.


 

, When I had a good apartment complex (at a low rent), in addition to my apartment, I had 2 swimming pools, an exercise room, a large clubhouse, 2 tennis courts, a basketball court, use of computers, and a maintenance crew to attend to every thing needing to be fixed, at no cost to me. Let's look at the WHOLE picture.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 13, 2021)

protectionist said:


> , When I had a good apartment complex (at a low rent), in addition to my apartment, I had 2 swimming pools, an exercise room, a large clubhouse, 2 tennis courts, a basketball court, use of computers, and a maintenance crew to attend to every thing needing to be fixed, at no cost to me. Let's look at the WHOLE picture.



And what do you have now?   Had you bought a house the payment would not have gone up.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

Markle said:


> YOU stated that the property had been sold and there was a new owner.  YOU made the choice to rent as opposed to buying.  Is that NOT your choice?
> 
> Did you actually advocate that it is okay if the owner LOSES money by owning rental property?
> 
> ...


Not my choice,

These owners are not losing money. They're just feeding their greed.

What you call "the market" is nothing more than landlords choosing to escalate prices on something people have to have. Do you brush off escalating gas prices as "the market " ?

This isnt a question of blame.  I dont care who is to blame.  Government's #1 job is to PROTECT the people. Right now, the people (low income seniors on fixed incomes) need protection.  

It's not just illegal aliens that are coming into the Tampa Bay area, it is also Americans from up north, who want to escape the cold, md Americans from up north whose businesses are closing there, and reopening here. Once again, this thread is concerned with the ramifications, not the stimuli.

I don't knw where you get the idea that SOME rent control is a "far-left" issue. For you edification, almost all blue states have statewide bans on rent control.   The number of cities that have it, are somewhere around 1% of all US cities.  You are misinformed.

What the seller receives and the buyer paid is outside the scope of this thread.  The point of reference here is millions of people (mostly low income seniors( being forced out of their homes), with nowhere to go. Put yourself in THEIR shoes.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Prices can only climb as high as people can afford to pay.  At some point it slows otherwise there will be vacant units and landlords aren't the business of leaving rental units empty.  We saw this last year.  Rents in NYC and other cities plummeted in 2020 because of people fleeing the city for more rural areas.


The point here is that the prices are climbing as high as RICH people (many of them migrants) (and crammers) can afford to pay, leaving low income people unable to pay, and become homeless.

These same low income seniors are AMERICANS who worked and paid taxes to this country for 50+ years, and served in its military. Rich Arabs, et al who Biden is letting in, and transporting around the country, who are saturating the housing, have neither served in America's military, nor paid a penny in taxes to the USA.

I sense most people in this thread, are not seeing this issue as it is.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I had my pocket picked for $1,200 a month for decades.   That is why I own my home.


But not everyone can buy a home.  Too much $$ up front required.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> Prices went up here.  It's everywhere.  You gotta find something cheaper and may need to move.  This isn't going away any time soon.  If you buy they can neve price you out again.


If you buy, you still have escalating property taxes, increasing insurance rates, increasing repair/maintenance costs, and possibly decreasing value of your house if the neighborhood changes. But again, most low income seniors CANNOT buy houses even if they wanted to.,


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Either you are talking about people with money OR you are talking about illegal immigrants.    Not both.
> 
> Yes, the Tampa are is getting more and more expensive.   That is because there are more and more people retiring to Florida.
> 
> If you can't afford to live there, you move.   Don't cry to the gov't to fix it.


I'm talking about both.  Illegal aliens pack a group into one apartment and split the rent. Other illegal aliens (quite a few) are relatively wealthy.  The idea that they are all  indigent is ridiculous.  Coyotes are making fortunes, receiving $ 3-5000 a pop, from migrants to transport their children here, and then they come afterward.  I wish I had $3 or $5,000 to throw around like that.

Lots of wealthy aliens from Muslims countries are coming being wads of cash. Billboards are starting to appear in Arabic.

Leave it to someone not in this predicament to foolishly talk about what to do. "Move" ?  Get a grip man, these people can barely afford to pay their $600 month rent, you think they can afford to move ? Plus WHERE is there a place to move to ?  There's a good question for all of us to consider.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> In other words, you have less than decent credit.   And I'm sure that was not your fault, was it?    So the gov't should bail you out of the mess you made by your own choices?


Depends on what "credit" you 're talking about. My credit score form the 3 main credit reporting agencies is rather low (about 600) but these are FALSE readings.  They don't include 70 Amscot loans I paid back on time with a perfect record, because Amscot doesn't report to them.

The scores don't include a lot of good credit. Regarding housing, the landlords are idiots when it comes to credit. They stupidly look at credit reports, instead of applicants' HOUSING RENTAL RECORDS, (of which mine is 100% PERFECT) since 1967.

Many of them also have minimum income requirements of 3 times what the rent is. DUMB. The people who have that, are typically young people with jobs. They may have a high income now, and next week their income may be NOTHING.  But the lower income seniors with Social Security and pensions, have a more STABLE & SECURE income, and thus are lower risk.

When the pandemic hit and people went unemployed, my former apartment complex, with its new high rents, evicted 42 tenants in 2020-2021. Guess who they were. Young people with jobs.  Not one older person on high Social Security & pensions got evicted.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And what do you have now?   Had you bought a house the payment would not have gone up.


Post # 1385 answered that.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Did you ever consider the possibility the new owner is raising the rents to drive tenents out?  Converting apartments to condos is very profitable.


All the more reason for govt to step in and get this lunacy under control - to PROTECT low income folks.


----------



## Markle (Nov 13, 2021)

protectionist said:


> The FACT is rents escalating 42 %, 64%, and more.


Show us all where rents are escalating 42 to 64% above comparable properties in the same area.  You can't because it has not happened.

My guess is that for many years you silently gloated in the knowledge that, probably because you were a good tenant, you paid well below the rent of other comparable properties owned by others.  You chuckled when friends who maid the same but had to replace the HVAC system when it died and you just called the landlord.

How long have you lived in the complex?  How much has the price of houses in your area increased in that time?  Ten years?  Those who bought, still own the house at that price and they could have refinanced at a rate BELOW 3%.  You made a different decision.  Own it. That's all.

If rents should be fixed, why not gas prices?  Aren't far more people hurt by that than rent prices?  How about heating costs?  Aren't there millions who are going to suffer because of the skyrocketing prices?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 13, 2021)

Here's a bone for all the Oh-so-anti-government conservatives in this thread to bite on (hope it doesn't get stuck in your stomachs) >>>

There are 2 main victims in this crazy housing crisis scenario >>

1.)  Low income renters receiving huge rent increases.

2.)  Every other business outside of the housing sector, who are seeing plummeting sales, because of the massive reduction in disposable income.  When my rent went from $550/mo to $900/mo, and some people stayed there, and are paying the increase, huge losses happened to scores of businesses.  If I had stayed, the $350/mo that I was saving to buy a car, would have gone to my landlord instead.  Sorry Mr. car dealer. You just lost hundreds of sales$$$$$.

Want to cite who else ?  Businesses selling furniture, electronics, clothing, musical instruments, sporting goods, veterinarians, tutors, hardware, boats, bicycles, vacation packages, firearms, home improvement, etc, etc, etc.  Landlords are now getting their sales $$$$$$$$$$.  And the landlords are far fewer in number than the residents they gouge, so any increase in sales from the landlords, would be drop in the bucket, relative to the losses.

As a former business owner myself, I am well aware of what skyrocketing housing costs can do to a business' sales.  It happened to me in the San Francisco Bay area in the late 80's. It literally drove me out of business.  That's when I started appreciating rent control.


----------



## Markle (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> And if you don't have enough income and what YOU CALL decent d-credit, then it is NOT easy.  And credit scores have nothing to do with housing, and landlords who deny good renters housing on that basis are idiots, who needlessly deprive themselves of of good customers.
> 
> The only credit record that is appropriate to check for housing rentals, is one's HOUSING rental record.
> 
> Encouraging new construction, also encourages new immigration, carrying with it a long list of harms.


Nonsense.  Of course, a credit rating is relevant in housing.  It represents someone's willingness to pay.  How responsible a person is just as their criminal record is a reliable indicator of their honesty.

I was a REALTOR for over 50 years, here in Florida.  I have never, ever heard that new construction encourages immigration.  Increased construction doesn't encourage people to come to an area, it fills the demand already in that area.

Someone building 100 homes outside of Orlando is not spotted by a citizen of South America and he decides it is just for him and he's going to walk a thousand miles to walk across our border.  No education, no experience, no skills.  Yep, that builder had just that person in mind when he started construction on a hundred, quarter million dollar homes.

Just quit your whining and don't make the same mistake.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Markle said:


> Show us all where rents are escalating 42 to 64% above comparable properties in the same area.  You can't because it has not happened.
> 
> My guess is that for many years you silently gloated in the knowledge that, probably because you were a good tenant, you paid well below the rent of other comparable properties owned by others.  You chuckled when friends who maid the same but had to replace the HVAC system when it died and you just called the landlord.
> 
> ...


_"Above comparable properties" _?NO, They are ALL skyrocketing that way. All the more reason for government intervention to put it under control.

I was NOT paying well below other apartment complexes. They were all about the same, and they have all skyrocketed up about the same. So your "guess" is a bad guess.  Better to listen to those who know what they're talking about.

As I said (I've lost count now) a number of times already here, most low income people CANNOT buy a house.  As strange as that may seem to you.
However many people are hurt by rising gas prices, the increases are nowhere near as much as the housing increases.

Oh heating costs, going up too much ?  Maybe you should have rented an apartment with utilites included in the rent.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Markle said:


> Nonsense.  Of course, a credit rating is relevant in housing.  It represents someone's willingness to pay.  How responsible a person is just as their criminal record is a reliable indicator of their honesty.
> 
> I was a REALTOR for over 50 years, here in Florida.  I have never, ever heard that new construction encourages immigration.  Increased construction doesn't encourage people to come to an area, it fills the demand already in that area.
> 
> ...


What an IDIOTIC thing to say. You dumbass.  Credits scores PARTIALLY measure things that landlords have NOTHING TO DO WITH.   Buying jewelry, sporting goods, musical instruments, cosmetic surgeries, - things that actually are *none of the landlord's damn business,*

The landlord's only  business is receive housing rent, and thus his only interest is in an applicant's HOUSING RENTAL RECORD.  Period.  Honesty is not what landlords have any business investigating.  How people pay for HOUSING, is all they have any right to probe into.

The more housing you build , the more migrants you can get.  Duh!

if you were a low income senior, with a whopping rent increase, you would saying the same thing I'm saying now.  You are the last person in society to be qualified to comment on this. You have no dog in this fight. You aren't faced with this problem.

Old Indian saying >> _"Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his mocassins."_ You aren't staring HOMELESSNESS in the face, like many of Tampa's residents are. You really ought to


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

So let's hear from the *business owners here*. How do you feel about thousands of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of what could/should/would have been your sales $$$$, going into the pockets of landlords, instead of you. Feeling warm & fuzzy with that


----------



## Markle (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Here's a bone for all the Oh-so-anti-government conservatives in this thread to bite on (hope it doesn't get stuck in your stomachs) >>>
> 
> There are 2 main victims in this crazy housing crisis scenario >>
> 
> ...


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Markle said:


>


You are not qualified to be in this thread.


----------



## Markle (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> What an IDIOTIC thing to say. You dumbass.  Credits scores PARTIALLY measure things that landlords have NOTHING TO DO WITH.   Buying jewelry, sporting goods, musical instruments, cosmetic surgeries, - things that actually are *none of the landlord's damn business,*
> 
> The landlord's only  business is receive housing rent, and thus his only interest is in an applicant's HOUSING RENTAL RECORD.  Period.  Honesty is not what landlords have any business investigating.  How people pay for HOUSING, is all they have any right to probe into.
> 
> ...


No, SOME Tampa residents are facing homelessness.  Not many.

There are thousands of jobs in Tampa, get one, if that's not enough, get another.  Tampa is one of the most expensive locations in our great state.  Move.  Brooksville is a nice area. or, get a roommate.  Tallahassee is nice, we're about midway on state scale.  We have tens of thousands of students which drives up rents.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

candycorn said:


> If you move to S.C., I recommend an English-to-Hick dictionary.  Or master the seven basic grunts so you can effectively communicate


That's the end of your clammering about bigotry.  Not that anyone was seriously paying attention.

Liberals yammer about bigotry, while thinking nothing of insulting 5.12 Million people in 3 sentences.


----------



## Markle (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> So let's hear from the *business owners here*. How do you feel about thousands of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of what could/should/would have been your sales $$$$, going into the pockets of landlords, instead of you. Feeling warm & fuzzy with that


SURPRISE!  After the landlord pays his/her mortgage, they pay taxes, insurance, and maintenance on the complex.  They also have to go into that vacant unit, refurbish it for the next tenant all while not collecting rent.

You forgot that they too then pay for their kid's clothes, schooling and may take the family out to dinner too.

If you're so jealous of landlords, become one.  Or is that too hard for you?  Starting out, you have to be able and willing to repair the wood rot yourself, paint the units, mow the lawn, hire a plumber to replace that dead water heater, maybe borrow some money to replace that dead HVAC system in one of the units.  They won't wait a few weeks for you to get the money together.  Then dang, there's that roof leak, how long can it be repaired before it has to be replaced?  A new roof is HOW MUCH?

Some folks are absolutely, positively not suited to be a landlord.  Many others are not suited to be homeowners.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Markle said:


> No, SOME Tampa residents are facing homelessness.  Not many.
> 
> There are thousands of jobs in Tampa, get one, if that's not enough, get another.  Tampa is one of the most expensive locations in our great state.  Move.  Brooksville is a nice area. or, get a roommate.  Tallahassee is nice, we're about midway on state scale.  We have tens of thousands of students which drives up rents.


Oh, so you now claim to be an authority on low income renters in Tampa huh ?

Other places in Florida seem to be very high also, and the whole state is still absent of any rent control protection.  I have designs on moving out of Florida eventually , and leave the heat, the palmetto bugs, the alligators behind.

East Tennessee, and other areas of Appalachia have a built in rent control system which comes from a very large poverty population.  Will stay intact as long as vote-seeker Biden doesnt fuck it up with his migration lunacy.

The dude knows Americans wont vote for him, so he imports millions of foreigners, who will depend on him to not deport them. Everywhere they go, housing vacancies disappear, and rents jump up.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Markle said:


> SURPRISE!  After the landlord pays his/her mortgage, they pay taxes, insurance, and maintenance on the complex.  They also have to go into that vacant unit, refurbish it for the next tenant all while not collecting rent.
> 
> You forgot that they too then pay for their kid's clothes, schooling and may take the family out to dinner too.
> 
> ...


I didn't forget anything, I posted about landlords' spending vs renters spending. Can you read ?

Nothing dumber than trying to paint landlords as victims, in 2021.  Is there a doctor in the house ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Your turn to comment, *BUSINESS OWNERS.*


----------



## Markle (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Not my choice,
> 
> These owners are not losing money. They're just feeding their greed.
> 
> ...


Which tent is yours?  No matter how much taxpayers' money you spend, there will ALWAYS be poor and homeless people.  Tent cities spring up because the local government allows them to fester.  How does that help the local citizens and their economy?


----------



## Markle (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I didn't forget anything, I posted about landlords' spending vs renters spending. Can you read ?
> 
> Nothing dumber than trying to paint landlords as victims, in 2021.  Is there a doctor in the house ?


No, you posted about what the tenants might have spent.  You intentionally denied that the landlord was spending money at the hardware store that was paying their employees too!

Landlords are NOT a victim in 2021?  Did you have 20 rental units with seven of them not paying rent because they were forced out of a job by the government?


----------



## Markle (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Your turn to comment, *BUSINESS OWNERS.*


I did.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> If you buy, you still have escalating property taxes, increasing insurance rates, increasing repair/maintenance costs, and possibly decreasing value of your house if the neighborhood changes. But again, most low income seniors CANNOT buy houses even if they wanted to.,


I disagree.  Call those numbers I gave you and apply for the down payment assistance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 14, 2021)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Prices can only climb as high as people can afford to pay


People "can" afford to pay 100% of their salary, or be homeless. Your invisible hand fantasy has no morality or regard for human well being. It has no regard for the larger economic picture. If you want to sidestep morality and ethics in favor of deferring an amoral algorithm, be my guest. But there's a reason this is pure fantasy and why there is not and will never be a purely capitalist society. Several reasons, really.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> These owners are not losing money. They're just feeding their greed.



That's awful!

Sorry you have to move. Get a roommate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I don't knw where you get the idea that SOME rent control is a "far-left" issue.



Forcing someone to charge what the government thinks is fair.....kind of the definition of far-left.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 14, 2021)

Markle said:


> Which tent is yours?  No matter how much taxpayers' money you spend, there will ALWAYS be poor and homeless people.  Tent cities spring up because the local government allows them to fester.  How does that help the local citizens and their economy?


That happens due to unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.  We should have no poverty and homelessness in our first world economy.


----------



## Markle (Nov 14, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That happens due to unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.  We should have no poverty and homelessness in our first world economy.


What the heck does "due to unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation" even mean?

Under what theory should any country not have anyone living below the poverty line or homeless?  Because we are a rich nation, how does that translate to a country without anyone with alcohol, drug, or criminal records?

Please stop being so silly.  Join the real world.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Markle said:


> Which tent is yours?  No matter how much taxpayers' money you spend, there will ALWAYS be poor and homeless people.  Tent cities spring up because the local government allows them to fester.  How does that help the local citizens and their economy?


It doesn't.  In fact, it WORSENS the city and the economy of it, discouraging people from wanting to visit there, and spend money there.  Yet another reason for rent control to keep things normal, and not out of hand.

And no, I don't live in a tent (sorry to disappoint you).


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Markle said:


> No, you posted about what the tenants might have spent.  You intentionally denied that the landlord was spending money at the hardware store that was paying their employees too!
> 
> Landlords are NOT a victim in 2021?  Did you have 20 rental units with seven of them not paying rent because they were forced out of a job by the government?


If you're going to come in here yammering about what I posted, YOU POST THAT POST, so we can see what the hell you're blabbering about.

I dont recall saying anything about any hardware store or payment to employees. Post it or shut up. 

Generally, no, landlords are absolutely NOT victims. The victims are the low income (mostly older) renters who, because of those landlords' exhorbitant rent increases, are being forced out of their apartment homes, and into the streets, where there is no housing available for them to move to.

The whole idea of calling landlords victims, is almost as ludicrous as calling the Japs who attacked Pearl Harbor, victims.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Markle said:


> I did.


I said (in Post # 1391) >> " Every other business *outside of the housing sector*, who are seeing plummeting sales, because of the massive reduction in disposable income"

The last people this thread needs to hear from are rotten realtors who are the cause of all this misery.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> It doesn't.  In fact, it WORSENS the city and the economy of it, discouraging people from wanting to visit there, and spend money there.  Yet another reason for rent control to keep things normal, and not out of hand.
> 
> And no, I don't live in a tent (sorry to disappoint you).



Tourists rarely see how much rent is.   As long as workers in the tourism trade can find places to live.   Dover FL not far.  Plant City is only 25 miles from Tampa.   The workers will be there.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> I disagree.  Call those numbers I gave you and apply for the down payment assistance.


I applied for a VA home loan. I was told I would have ZERO down payment.  And my CLOSING COSTS on a house of only $60,000, were $7,000 - UP FRONT. That's not including tax & insurance. 

There a woman living here's whose total income is $800.mo.  In January, the rent goes up to $850.  Savings ? People here never heard of any such thing.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> People "can" afford to pay 100% of their salary, or be homeless. Your invisible hand fantasy has no morality or regard for human well being. It has no regard for the larger economic picture. If you want to sidestep morality and ethics in favor of deferring an amoral algorithm, be my guest. But there's a reason this is pure fantasy and why there is not and will never be a purely capitalist society. Several reasons, really.


But without ANY degree of rent control, with respect to housing, that is exactly what we have. A "purely capitalist society", with no control over  And this is true in red states and most blue states, both..


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's awful!
> 
> Sorry you have to move. Get a roommate.


Been there, done that. Never again.  Instead, I'll look hard to find areas where rents have not skyrocketed, are low, and hope they'll stay that way.  Appreciate your concern though.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Forcing someone to charge what the government thinks is fair.....kind of the definition of far-left.


It might have been if so many blue states didn't have laws against that.  Most do.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Markle said:


> What the heck does "due to unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation" even mean?
> 
> Under what theory should any country not have anyone living below the poverty line or homeless?  Because we are a rich nation, how does that translate to a country without anyone with alcohol, drug, or criminal records?
> 
> Please stop being so silly.  Join the real world.


In this thread, we are talking about millions of people who don't drink, do drugs, and don't have criminal (beyond traffic tickets) records.  We're talking about good people who are old, and no longer in the workforce with the high incomes they used to have. THAT 'real world".  Get it ?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> In this thread, we are talking about millions of people who don't drink, do drugs, and don't have criminal (beyond traffic tickets) records.  We're talking about good people who are old, and no longer in the workforce with the high incomes they used to have. THAT 'real world".  Get it ?



So these people used to have high incomes?   And they made no preparations for their retirement?   Didn't save any money?   Their only plan was to rely on the gov't to take care of them?   hate to break it to you, but that kind of thinking is NOT conservative.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Tourists rarely see how much rent is.


I was talking about them seeing tent cities, and the normal garbage that builds up when there are hundreds of people living on the street.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> It might have been if so many blue states didn't have laws against that.  Most do.



Blue states did something right? Crazy!


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> So these people used to have high incomes?   And they made no preparations for their retirement?   Didn't save any money?   Their only plan was to rely on the gov't to take care of them?   hate to break it to you, but that kind of thinking is NOT conservative.


I mean "high" relative to what they now get from Social Security + maybe small pension.  As for your word "save", many people's incomes (all their lives) have never been large enough to "save" anything.  you sound like somebody who hasn't had much experience seeing poverty or just very low income living.  

I remember when I lived in East Tennessee, talking to some people there who said they did not own a pair of shoes until they were 8 years old.  Some guys from Appalachia who I served in the Army with, (when getting their uniforms at the reception center), said "This is the best set of clothes I've ever had."  They didn't rely on the government for it. They just got it, that's all.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Blue states did something right? Crazy!


What is right about banning rent control ? It's about as WRONG as anything any state government ever did.  If your rent just went from $550/mo to $900/mo, and your whole income was less than $1200/mo, you'd see how wrong it is. 

Letting prices soar on luxuries is one thing.   Letting that happen on NECESSITIES is something alltogether different.  If business owners want to be fully free from price controls, they should enter businesses that don't deal with things people HAVE TO HAVE.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> What is right about banning rent control ? It's about as WRONG as anything any state government ever did.  If your rent just went from $550/mo to $900/mo, and your whole income was less than $1200/mo, you'd see how wrong it is.
> 
> Letting prices soar on luxuries is one thing.   Letting that happen on NECESSITIES is something alltogether different.  If business owners want to be fully free from price controls, they should enter businesses that don't deal with things people HAVE TO HAVE.


*
What is right about banning rent control ?*

Rent-control is a governmental taking.

*It's about as WRONG as anything any state government ever did*

Rent control is wrong, wrong, wrong.

* If your rent just went from $550/mo to $900/mo, and your whole income was less than $1200/mo, you'd see how wrong it is.*

If I own a property and the government said I can charge $550 but I can't charge $900, 
the government would be wrong.

It's sad that you didn't save enough. That doesn't make it right for the government
to steal from your landlord. Even if you feel the landlord is mean or unfair to you.

*Letting prices soar on luxuries is one thing*

Letting? Where does the government have the constitutional power to control luxury prices?

* If business owners want to be fully free from price controls, they should enter businesses that don't deal with things people HAVE TO HAVE.*

Quit your whining and move somewhere cheaper. Or at least stop claiming you're conservative.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I was talking about them seeing tent cities, and the normal garbage that builds up when there are hundreds of people living on the street.



So those tent cities are moved away from tourist areas.   As long as the hotels are nice, the attractions are good, and there is good food, the tourists will come.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I mean "high" relative to what they now get from Social Security + maybe small pension.  As for your word "save", many people's incomes (all their lives) have never been large enough to "save" anything.  you sound like somebody who hasn't had much experience seeing poverty or just very low income living.
> 
> I remember when I lived in East Tennessee, talking to some people there who said they did not own a pair of shoes until they were 8 years old.  Some guys from Appalachia who I served in the Army with, (when getting their uniforms at the reception center), said "This is the best set of clothes I've ever had."  They didn't rely on the government for it. They just got it, that's all.



I have been broke.   I had 3 kids and a wife with serious health issues.  We were on Food Stamps and live for a few years in gov't housing.   Don't try that "you have never been poor" bullshit with me.   And the gov't didn't rescue me.   I rescued me.  And once I got on my feet I saved money.  I put money into my 401k.   I did all that rather than going to bars and trying to convince 20something girls that I was young.


----------



## Markle (Nov 14, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I said (in Post # 1391) >> " Every other business *outside of the housing sector*, who are seeing plummeting sales, because of the massive reduction in disposable income"
> 
> The last people this thread needs to hear from are rotten realtors who are the cause of all this misery.


As you know, retail sales are soaring, as is the stock market because of the trillions of worthless paper dollars being pumped into the economy, throwing gas on the fire of inflation.


----------



## Markle (Nov 15, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I applied for a VA home loan. I was told I would have ZERO down payment. And my CLOSING COSTS on a house of only $60,000, were $7,000 - UP FRONT. That's not including tax & insurance.


Then your Realtor and/or lender did a terrible job for you.  Either that or it was decades ago and there were substantial discount points.  Today we rarely see discount points.  As you know, the VA funding fee can be included in the mortgage amount.

No, your closing costs were not all required upfront.  A small portion is required upfront so that the vendor is paid if the sale does not close.

All real estate is local and I have no idea in what state you live.  Depending on the date of your closing, you may have had property taxes due from the time you closed through the end of the year.  Hazard insurance is due as part of the closing costs and prepaid items so your property is insured for the coming year.


----------



## Markle (Nov 15, 2021)

protectionist said:


> In this thread, we are talking about millions of people who don't drink, do drugs, and don't have criminal (beyond traffic tickets) records. We're talking about good people who are old, and no longer in the workforce with the high incomes they used to have. THAT 'real world". Get it ?


That would leave fewer than 10% of the homeless we have today.  Very few indeed.  Get it?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 15, 2021)

Markle said:


> What the heck does "due to unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation" even mean?


You need to look up all the words and put them in context.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 15, 2021)

Markle said:


> Under what theory should any country not have anyone living below the poverty line or homeless? Because we are a rich nation, how does that translate to a country without anyone with alcohol, drug, or criminal records?
> 
> Please stop being so silly. Join the real world.


The Majestic equality of the Law. 

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 15, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The Majestic equality of the Law.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France



And we have programs that are designed to help those who are poor, and unable to help themselves.   Welfare, foodstamps, ect.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And we have programs that are designed to help those who are poor, and unable to help themselves.   Welfare, foodstamps, ect.


The police should be telling the People (and the EDD) to be Legal to the Law and get off the streets.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

All procedural and substantive due process should effect that Majestic goal.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 15, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The police should be telling the People (and the EDD) to be Legal to the Law and get off the streets.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ...



Be legal to the law?    lol

We are being legal to the law.  We are also legal where the US Constitution is concerned.    There is no requirement for UC to be changed due to a law that is merely a description of a relationship between employer and employee.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Be legal to the law?    lol
> 
> We are being legal to the law.  We are also legal where the US Constitution is concerned.    There is no requirement for UC to be changed due to a law that is merely a description of a relationship between employer and employee.


Why do you believe that, other than appealing to ignorance that is detrimental to the Poor?  Not enough morals to go around on the Right-Wing?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 15, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why do you believe that, other than appealing to ignorance that is detrimental to the Poor?  Not enough morals to go around on the Right-Wing?



I believe that because there is not one iota of evidence to the contrary.

My morality is fine.  So is my sense of duty.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I believe that because there is not one iota of evidence to the contrary.
> 
> My morality is fine.  So is my sense of duty.


Sure, if you do nothing but appeal to ignorance of the Law for Legal purposes.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 15, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Sure, if you do nothing but appeal to ignorance of the Law for Legal purposes.



I stand by the laws as they are now.   There is absolutely no evidence that there is an inequality in protection under the law.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I stand by the laws as they are now.   There is absolutely no evidence that there is an inequality in protection under the law.


So what.  I stand by the laws as they are now as well.  There is absolute proof, there is inequality in protection of at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 15, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> So what.  I stand by the laws as they are now as well.  There is absolute proof, there is inequality in protection of at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.



There is nothing that says by the meter description of the relationship between employer and employee that all benefits given by unemployment compensation are available to every unemployed person.

Especially since not all employment meets the at-will employment laws.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> There is nothing that says by the meter description of the relationship between employer and employee that all benefits given by unemployment compensation are available to every unemployed person.


I am not sure I understand your line of reasoning.  



> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."


That is federal doctrine and State Law for Legal purposes.


----------



## Markle (Nov 15, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You need to look up all the words and put them in context.


Well, at least it is a start, you acknowledge that you have no clue as to the meaning of your post either.  Thank you!


----------



## Markle (Nov 15, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The Majestic equality of the Law.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 15, 2021)

Markle said:


> Well, at least it is a start, you acknowledge that you have no clue as to the meaning of your post either.  Thank you!


With equal protection of the Law (for Legal purposes) rent control would be unnecessary under our form of Capitalism.  

How would that benefit landords?


----------



## Markle (Nov 15, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> With equal protection of the Law (for Legal purposes) rent control would be unnecessary under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> How would that benefit landords?


I'm pretty slow.  I have no clue what that post means.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 15, 2021)

Markle said:


> I'm pretty slow.  I have no clue what that post means.


In this case, it would mean unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. 

We could solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 15, 2021)

Markle said:


> I'm pretty slow.  I have no clue what that post means.



He thinks landlords will benefit if we give bums an unemployment check, even if they never worked.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 15, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> With equal protection of the Law (for Legal purposes) rent control would be unnecessary under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> How would that benefit landords?



There is already equal protection of the law.    Unemployment compensation is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   Go apply for welfare if you need to survive and are unwilling to work.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 15, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> In this case, it would mean unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> We could solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.



As long as the tax payers were willing to spend $2.5 billion to pay people who are able to work but choose not to.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 15, 2021)

Markle said:


> That would leave fewer than 10% of the homeless we have today.  Very few indeed.  Get it?


I get it that you have no idea what you're talking about.  Also, as I stated in the OP, last month, >> _*"Let's hear what some people who are in this predicament have to say, not those who own homes and don't face danger of becoming homeless."*_

That lets YOU out, Mr Realtor.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 15, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What is right about banning rent control ?*
> 
> Rent-control is a governmental taking.
> 
> ...


What is right about rent control is that it PROTECTS (notice my display name ?) low income people, from being forced out of their hoes with nowhere to go.

Rent control is right, right , right -and this was never more evident than with the current situation in Tampa and elsewhere, where AMERICANS, are losing their #1 NECESSITY, so price gouging landlords can opportunize wealthy foreigners.  Really bad policy.

This is NOT ABOUT if you _"own a property". _ It's about the* people who rent *.

The government is right to say you cant charge $900/mo on people who have been paying $550/month.  The government is nit stealing from the landlord. the LL has no moral right to push people out of their homes, and into the street with nowhere to go, at advance sage, many with health problems. I cant believe I even have to explain this.  Who am I talking to ?  A vicious subhuman beast ?

The stealing is being done by the landlords, who are stealing from the tenants who stay and pay the abnormal rent increase. If LL raises rent from $550/mo to 900, he is stealing $350 every month from every resident renter.  It's like being mugged on the street every month for $350.

Landlords need to realize their business is MORE THAN THAT. It is people's lives and survival, and that can't be allowed to mess with that.  Let them sell houseplants, if they want to raise prices 50-100%.

What is this crap about being conservative ?  Yes, I'm conservative , so what ?  What dies rent control have to do with that ?  Nothing, except that demanding rent control UNDER THE CURRENT SITUATION, is a very conservative position.  It is responding to Biden causing this whole crisis by filling our neighborhoods with migrants (many of them wealthy), thereby saturating available housing, and causing shortages and skyrocketing rents.  Opposing the rent control is falling right in line with Biden's scheme to turn red states into blue ones, allowing him to get re-elected (he thinks).


----------



## protectionist (Nov 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> So those tent cities are moved away from tourist areas.   As long as the hotels are nice, the attractions are good, and there is good food, the tourists will come.


The tents and the homeless people could be anywhere, and they have every right to be.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 15, 2021)

protectionist said:


> The tents and the homeless people could be anywhere, and they have every right to be.



Actually, they don't.   Most city streets and park have rules and ordinances about spending the night, much less living there.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I have been broke.   I had 3 kids and a wife with serious health issues.  We were on Food Stamps and live for a few years in gov't housing.   Don't try that "you have never been poor" bullshit with me.   And the gov't didn't rescue me.   I rescued me.  And once I got on my feet I saved money.  I put money into my 401k.   I did all that rather than going to bars and trying to convince 20something girls that I was young.


And you also accuse people of doing things they NEVER do. I haven't been in a bar in years, and even when I was for a job, playing music.  As for the 20 something (and late teens) girls I date, I don't try to convince them I'm young. They just think it.

It helps that I have all my dark Hispanic/Italian hair on my head, and dont have a face full of old-looking, gray hair.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 15, 2021)

Markle said:


> As you know, retail sales are soaring, as is the stock market because of the trillions of worthless paper dollars being pumped into the economy, throwing gas on the fire of inflation.


When the economy catches up with the housing fiasco, the economy will be a depression, with nobody having any money, except landlords (less than 1% of the population).


----------



## protectionist (Nov 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And we have programs that are designed to help those who are poor, and unable to help themselves.   Welfare, foodstamps, ect.


They don't help with housing except for families with kids.  This lets out low income older people.  And homeless people dont get EBT. Have to have a home address.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 15, 2021)

protectionist said:


> They don't help with housing except for families with kids.  This lets out low income older people.  And homeless people dont get EBT. Have to have a home address.



No, there is Section 8 housing for seniors too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 15, 2021)

protectionist said:


> What is right about rent control is that it PROTECTS (notice my display name ?) low income people, from being forced out of their hoes with nowhere to go.
> 
> Rent control is right, right , right -and this was never more evident than with the current situation in Tampa and elsewhere, where AMERICANS, are losing their #1 NECESSITY, so price gouging landlords can opportunize wealthy foreigners.  Really bad policy.
> 
> ...



*What is right about rent control is that it PROTECTS (notice my display name ?) low income people, from being forced out of their hoes with nowhere to go.*

Your poverty doesn't mean the government should steal from your landlord.
Move somewhere cheaper, get a roommate, stop claiming you're conservative.
*
This is NOT ABOUT if you "own a property".  It's about the people who rent .*

You want to steal from an owner. Shame on you.

*The government is right to say you cant charge $900/mo on people who have been paying $550/month. *

Wrong.

*The government is nit stealing from the landlord. the LL has no moral right to push people out of their homes, and into the street with nowhere to go, *

If I own property and the government stops me from charging $900 and makes me charge $550, the government is stealing from me.

No moral right? LOL! You're funny.

*The stealing is being done by the landlords, who are stealing from the tenants who stay and pay the abnormal rent increase. *

Not unless the landlord somehow forces you to stay there, when you are obviously free to move.

*It's like being mugged on the street every month for $350.*

Liar. 

*Landlords need to realize their business is MORE THAN THAT.*

It's not. It's business and you're whining like a liberal.

*What is this crap about being conservative ?  Yes, I'm conservative , so what ?*

Why are you whining like a liberal? Man up.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 15, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why do you believe that, other than appealing to ignorance that is detrimental to the Poor?  Not enough morals to go around on the Right-Wing?


Before you go whole hog ragging on the "Right-Wing: take note that the housing glut in Tampa et al places is a Left-Wing thing, part & parcel of Joe Biden's open borders, and his nationwide transport program to turn red states blue.









						Florida's DeSantis Takes Major Swing To Stop President Biden's Invasive Flights
					

Not here, Joe. Not ever.




					thepatriotjournal.com


----------



## protectionist (Nov 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> No, there is Section 8 housing for seniors too.


Not for individuals.  Section 8 now is only servicing families, with 3, 4, & 5 bedroom apartments.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 15, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Not for individuals.  Section 8 now is only servicing families, with 3, 4, & 5 bedroom apartments.



I guess you should move to Alabama or Georgia.    I know for a fact that individuals can get Section 8 housing.

But then, Section 8 housing is a federal program.   So Florida would have the same requirements.   You just may have to leave Tampa to find some 1 or 2 bedroom apartments.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 15, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Before you go whole hog ragging on the "Right-Wing: take note that the housing glut in Tampa et al places is a Left-Wing thing, part & parcel of Joe Biden's open borders, and his nationwide transport program to turn red states blue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny thing, you started this thread in 2018.    Right in the middle of Trump's presidency and before the pandemic.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 15, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What is right about rent control is that it PROTECTS (notice my display name ?) low income people, from being forced out of their hoes with nowhere to go.*
> 
> Your poverty doesn't mean the government should steal from your landlord.
> Move somewhere cheaper, get a roommate, stop claiming you're conservative.
> ...


Stop talking about conservative. If you oppose rent control under the current Biden airlifts, you're a liberal, and a far-left one.

When people's poverty (who were not "poor" before) is created by landlords and their astronomical rent increases, then yes, the government should act to PROTECT this people from the thieving, soulless landlords.

You want to steal from old, low income renters, > SHAME ON YOU. (while at the same time supporting Biden's looney leftist political sabatoge.  Some states have already turned blue, from this migration politicization (Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado) - you dont know what's going on ?

If the government stops gas price gouging, is that stealing from gas sellers ?

You can call it stealing or any name you want to put on it.  PROTECTION of the public comes before your "right" to gouge renters, and force them into homelessness. Guys like you are the scum of this country.

IDIOT.  NOBODy is "free to move".  First of all there is nowhere to move to, because the housing market is SATURATED, No units available, that why the rents are now so high. That + GREED.  Secondly, most older people have too many health issues to move about "free".  

YOU are the liar, and a soulless one as well.

Jeez, you are deranged, Of course housing is MUCH more than just your rotten business, it is millions of people's HOMES, and their very SURVIVAL, which you care nothing about.   

I'm not whining like a liberal. I'm facing up to Biden's migrant dumping red to blue program, which you are supporting, ToddsterLEFTIST.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I guess you should move to Alabama or Georgia.    I know for a fact that individuals can get Section 8 housing.
> 
> But then, Section 8 housing is a federal program.   So Florida would have the same requirements.   You just may have to leave Tampa to find some 1 or 2 bedroom apartments.


That's what I intend to do, by hook or by crook.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Funny thing, you started this thread in 2018.    Right in the middle of Trump's presidency and before the pandemic.


Yeah, that was when my previous apt complex got sold & new owner raised my rent from $550 to $900.

Actually I started this thread * Oct. 30, 2021 (when my current complex also got a new owner, rent going from $600 to $850.) >>>

*  It's Happening Again - Homes Lost - Some Rent Control Needed


----------



## protectionist (Nov 16, 2021)

Penelope said:


> Everywhere they are raising rents like that. The rich get richer and the poor get homeless.


Call you legislators.  Don't just tell us.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 16, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Yeah, that was when my previous apt complex got sold & new owner raised my rent from $550 to $900.
> 
> Actually I started this thread * Oct. 30, 2021 (when my current complex also got a new owner, rent going from $600 to $850.) >>>
> 
> *  It's Happening Again - Homes Lost - Some Rent Control Needed



So the situation was the same in 2018.  But now you blame Biden for it?    lol


----------



## Markle (Nov 16, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> In this case, it would mean unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> We could solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


So, a minimum income for everyone.  Free money.  Where does that come from and what would motivate someone to work?


----------



## Markle (Nov 16, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I get it that you have no idea what you're talking about.  Also, as I stated in the OP, last month, >> _*"Let's hear what some people who are in this predicament have to say, not those who own homes and don't face danger of becoming homeless."*_
> 
> That lets YOU out, Mr Realtor.


Yeah, facts just throw you into a tizzy, don't they?


----------



## Markle (Nov 16, 2021)

protectionist said:


> The tents and the homeless people could be anywhere, and they have every right to be.


How do people who consistently make bad choices, (the vast majority of homeless, as you know) have the right to throw up a tent and endanger the public?


----------



## Markle (Nov 16, 2021)

protectionist​
You have not bothered to find out when your previous owner bought the property and for how much, nor what the new owner paid.

That makes a huge difference even if it is irrelevant, unimportant, and useless to you.


----------



## Markle (Nov 16, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> So the situation was the same in 2018.  But now you blame Biden for it?    lol


Please show us where inflation was running rampant and housing prices were skyrocketing in 2018.

That's impossible because it didn't happen.  Although we did have the wages of low-income workers rising at a more rapid rate than high-income workers for the first time in modern history. 

I believe in helping those with the ability or motivation to find information far less than my own.  Plus, it is my profession.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 16, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Stop talking about conservative. If you oppose rent control under the current Biden airlifts, you're a liberal, and a far-left one.
> 
> When people's poverty (who were not "poor" before) is created by landlords and their astronomical rent increases, then yes, the government should act to PROTECT this people from the thieving, soulless landlords.
> 
> ...



*Stop talking about conservative.*

Stop claiming your desire for more government power makes you one.

*If you oppose rent control under the current Biden airlifts, you're a liberal, and a far-left one.*

We need to seal the border and deport 20 million illegal aliens....to start.
I also oppose government stealing from landlords. 

*When people's poverty (who were not "poor" before) is created by landlords*

It sounds like your poverty was created by your poor planning.

*You want to steal from old, low income renters*

Wrong. A also don't want to steal from landlords. 
*
Some states have already turned blue, from this migration politicization (Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado) - you dont know what's going on ?*

I'm very aware of what the flood of immigrants, legal and illegal, is doing.

*If the government stops gas price gouging, is that stealing from gas sellers ?*

No such thing as gas price gouging.

* NOBODy is "free to move". *

You live in East Germany? Russia? Your ignorant whining is annoying.

*YOU are the liar, and a soulless one as well.*

I already said I'm sorry that you're poor. Get a roommate.
One who can stand your constant, liberal whining.

*Of course housing is MUCH more than just your rotten business,*

Stealing is wrong. Even if pointing that out makes you sad.

*I'm not whining like a liberal. *

You're not whining like a conservative. 

*I'm facing up to Biden's migrant dumping red to blue program, which you are supporting, *

Liar. Biden is an evil asshole for transporting illegal aliens into the interior.
Boot the illegals. Today.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 16, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Before you go whole hog ragging on the "Right-Wing: take note that the housing glut in Tampa et al places is a Left-Wing thing, part & parcel of Joe Biden's open borders, and his nationwide transport program to turn red states blue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 16, 2021)

Rent control is an abuse of social power when equal protection of the Laws is available as a Civil Right.

Hypothetically, how would landlords be worse if persons can obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States?

_“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”_

― Anatole France


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He thinks landlords will benefit if we give bums an unemployment check, even if they never worked.


Yes, capital Must circulate under Capitalism.  That is the only requirement.  

It is why we have the socialism of our federal and State Constitutions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 16, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Yes, capital Must circulate under Capitalism.  That is the only requirement.
> 
> It is why we have the socialism of our federal and State Constitutions.



We don't need bum checks to circulate capital.
Bum checks are counterproductive.
Put down the weed and get a job. Bum.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We don't need bum checks to circulate capital.
> Bum checks are counterproductive.
> Put down the weed and get a job. Bum.


Thanks for your right-wing, bigoted, and fascist opinion.  Why do right-wingers allege to be for Capitalism in socialism threads?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 16, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Thanks for your right-wing, bigoted, and fascist opinion.  Why do right-wingers allege to be for Capitalism in socialism threads?



Anything to help my ignorant, left-wing fascist friends.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 16, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.



And, for the purposes of this topic, they are.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 16, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Rent control is an abuse of social power when equal protection of the Laws is available as a Civil Right.
> 
> Hypothetically, how would landlords be worse if persons can obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States?
> 
> ...



When the people have to pay an additional $2.5 billion or more in taxes, their potential renters would have less money to spend on rent.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 16, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Yes, capital Must circulate under Capitalism.  That is the only requirement.
> 
> It is why we have the socialism of our federal and State Constitutions.



The capital you would be taking from the tax payers already circulates.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 16, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The capital you would be taking from the tax payers already circulates.


You simply misunderstand economics, like usual.  Anyone with an income will pay general taxes that help contribute to the multiplier and automatically stabilize our economy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 16, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You simply misunderstand economics, like usual.  Anyone with an income will pay general taxes that help contribute to the multiplier and automatically stabilize our economy.



They will pay 12 percent in federal taxes.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2021)

protectionist said:


> What is right about banning rent control ? It's about as WRONG as anything any state government ever did.  If your rent just went from $550/mo to $900/mo, and your whole income was less than $1200/mo, you'd see how wrong it is.


So personally inconvenience is your definition of "wrong". I'm shocked.

If you don't like prices going up, stop voting for politicians who inflate the currency.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 16, 2021)

__





						FHA Loans - See Requirements, Benefits and How to Apply
					

Learn the ins and outs of the FHA loan with articles, guides and educational tools from FHALoans.com




					www.fhaloans.com
				




Try that .  I clicked through most of it guessing.  Might get you a FHA prequalified loan.  It has a 0% down option.  Worth a shot.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 17, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> They will pay 12 percent in federal taxes.


I am hoping for a cute rocket science chic to volunteer to help me re-memorize the quadradic equation before getting more into the more serious math part of the dilemma.  Some dissertations or case studies would be nice. 

The point is, they could do it via general taxation instead of direct taxation to keep it simple and to better help stabilize our economy while also giving Congress or an Agency better economic means to influence markets via market recognizable and friendly means.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 17, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I am hoping for a cute rocket science chic to volunteer to help me re-memorize the quadradic equation before getting more into the more serious math part of the dilemma.  Some dissertations or case studies would be nice.
> 
> The point is, they could do it via general taxation instead of direct taxation to keep it simple and to better help stabilize our economy while also giving Congress or an Agency better economic means to influence markets via market recognizable and friendly means.



Keep hoping.

As for your claim about the taxation on the $2.5 billion it would cost (every year) to create the new welfare (not counting the bureaucracy to run it), since those receiving the benefits would pay 12%, only $300 million would come back.   The program would be operating at a $2.2 billion deficit.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Keep hoping.
> 
> As for your claim about the taxation on the $2.5 billion it would cost (every year) to create the new welfare (not counting the bureaucracy to run it), since those receiving the benefits would pay 12%, only $300 million would come back.   The program would be operating at a $2.2 billion deficit.


Those receiving the benefits would not be the only ones paying general taxes.  And, even your estimation of two point five billion would still be affected by the multiplier.  One case study I have read showed a multiplier of two point zero.  

We get the biggest "bang for our buck" when the Poor spend most of their incomes on consumption.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Those receiving the benefits would not be the only ones paying general taxes.  And, even your estimation of two point five billion would still be affected by the multiplier.  One case study I have read showed a multiplier of two point zero.
> 
> We get the biggest "bang for our buck" when the Poor spend most of their incomes on consumption.



You need to get a job.....for the multiplier.


----------



## surada (Nov 18, 2021)

protectionist said:


> What is right about banning rent control ? It's about as WRONG as anything any state government ever did.  If your rent just went from $550/mo to $900/mo, and your whole income was less than $1200/mo, you'd see how wrong it is.
> 
> Letting prices soar on luxuries is one thing.   Letting that happen on NECESSITIES is something alltogether different.  If business owners want to be fully free from price controls, they should enter businesses that don't deal with things people HAVE TO HAVE.



Most 1 bedroom apartments these days are $1300 plus utilities. Why don't you check on HUD properties for senior citizens? Typically they charge about 1/3 of your income.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You need to get a job.....for the multiplier.


Even compensation for simply being unemployed will work.  It really is that simple and we could solve simple poverty in the process while giving another tool to Government to help automatically stabilize our economy in a market friendly manner.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Even compensation for simply being unemployed will work.  It really is that simple and we could solve simple poverty in the process while giving another tool to Government to help automatically stabilize our economy in a market friendly manner.



Getting a job works better than the bum check you'll never receive.
Bum checks will destabilize the economy.
They will harm the market.
Get a job.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Those receiving the benefits would not be the only ones paying general taxes.  And, even your estimation of two point five billion would still be affected by the multiplier.  One case study I have read showed a multiplier of two point zero.
> 
> We get the biggest "bang for our buck" when the Poor spend most of their incomes on consumption.



Yes, you have talked about the multiplier of 2.0 ad nauseum.     But that was a completely different program than the one you want.    You have also talked about welfare having a multiplier of 0.8.   And the program you want is far closer to welfare than to the current unemployment compensation.

And the $2.2 billion is every year.   It would take several years to see any real results from the 0.8 multiplier.   After 3 years the program would have $6.6 billion in deficits.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Even compensation for simply being unemployed will work.  It really is that simple and we could solve simple poverty in the process while giving another tool to Government to help automatically stabilize our economy in a market friendly manner.



No, it will not.  It would produce even higher deficits and reduce the paychecks of those who actually have a job and work to support themselves.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Getting a job works better than the bum check you'll never receive.
> Bum checks will destabilize the economy.
> They will harm the market.
> Get a job.


How would the landlord be worse with no need for rent control and Labor having recourse to compensation for simply bieng unemployed in an at-will employment State?  

Where is Winterborn, maybe he can help us out with the math until some rocket science chics demand their turn?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, you have talked about the multiplier of 2.0 ad nauseum.     But that was a completely different program than the one you want.    You have also talked about welfare having a multiplier of 0.8.   And the program you want is far closer to welfare than to the current unemployment compensation.
> 
> And the $2.2 billion is every year.   It would take several years to see any real results from the 0.8 multiplier.   After 3 years the program would have $6.6 billion in deficits.


The legal and physical infrastructure is already available and merely needs to be upgraded. 

Social means testing for general welfare benefits is more expensive and unnecessary to solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How would the landlord be worse with no need for rent control and Labor having recourse to compensation for simply bieng unemployed in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Where is Winterborn, maybe he can help us out with the math until some rocket science chics demand their turn?



Landlords would also be harmed by the economic damage caused by bum checks.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Landlords would also be harmed by the economic damage caused by bum checks.


In right-wing fantasy, anything is possible.   Let's keep it to economics. 

Can you explain the process and rationale for the harm you allege is a concern?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> In right-wing fantasy, anything is possible.   Let's keep it to economics.
> 
> Can you explain the process and rationale for the harm you allege is a concern?



Incentivizing bums will produce more bums.
That will reduce GDP, not increase GDP.
Get a job.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Incentivizing bums will produce more bums.
> That will reduce GDP, not increase GDP.
> Get a job.


Special pleading is only "gospel" on the right-wing.  Why should a landlord care since his tenants have an income to help pay the mortgage?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2021)

Winterborn, what would an ideal compensation for simply being unemployed need to be to keep the People in their homes and off the streets?

Fixing that Standard for a State or republic could be a market recognizable metric for better market organization and potential efficiences.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The legal and physical infrastructure is already available and merely needs to be upgraded.
> 
> Social means testing for general welfare benefits is more expensive and unnecessary to solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.



Means testing is not the reason for the difference in 0.8 and 2.0 multipliers.

And if you think the tax payers will shell out $2.5 billion without some sort of means testing, you are a bigger fool than I thought.

As for the existing infrastructure merely needing upgrading, that is pure bullshit.   Unemployment compensation has never had to deal with the vast numbers your program would bring.  And unemployment compensation has always been temporary.

But let's look at it for each program, shall we?

*Welfare: *Funded by the tax payers
*Current Unemployment Compensation: *Funded by the employer
*Your fantasy UC: *Funded by the tax payers

*Welfare: *Anyone is eligible
*Current Unemployment Compensation:* Eligibility limited
*Your fantasy UC: *Anyone is eligible

*Welfare:* No requirement to be seeking work
*Current Unemployment Compensation:* Must be seeking employment
*Your fantasy UC:* No requirement to be seeking work

*Welfare: *No limitations on how long you can draw
*Current Unemployment Compensation:*  Strict limits, usually 26 weeks, on how long you can draw
*Your fantasy UC:* No limitations on how long you can draw


And yet, you claim the multiplier will be the same as with the current Unemployment Compensation?    hahahahaha


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How would the landlord be worse with no need for rent control and Labor having recourse to compensation for simply bieng unemployed in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Where is Winterborn, maybe he can help us out with the math until some rocket science chics demand their turn?



You claim it is so Labor would have recourse to compensation for simply being unemployed.    Compensation?   For what?   You want millions of people to draw a check, paid for by the tax payers, for doing absolutely nothing?   That is nonsense.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Special pleading is only "gospel" on the right-wing.  Why should a landlord care since his tenants have an income to help pay the mortgage?



The landlord will care because his taxes go up to pay the $2.5 billion that is paid out for nothing.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Winterborn, what would an ideal compensation for simply being unemployed need to be to keep the People in their homes and off the streets?
> 
> Fixing that Standard for a State or republic could be a market recognizable metric for better market organization and potential efficiences.



What does welfare pay?   That is what it takes to survive.    But you have demanded the equivalent of $15 an hour for a 40 hour week.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> How would the landlord be worse with no need for rent control and Labor having recourse to compensation for simply bieng unemployed in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Where is Winterborn, maybe he can help us out with the math *until some rocket science chics demand their turn?*



If we have to wait until some hot rocket science chick demands her turn with you, we will be waiting forever.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 18, 2021)

DanielPalos, while you are waiting for some rocket science chick to demand her turn (and let's face it, that could take decades), why don't you tell us why you deserve to be supported by the tax payer when you are capable of getting a job and supporting yourself?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Means testing is not the reason for the difference in 0.8 and 2.0 multipliers.


Yes, it is the primary reason.  Anyone who understands anything about economics understands the concept.  Only right-wingers prefer to gainsay it with nothing but appeals to ignorance.  How disingenuous. 

How would landlords be worse off? How would our housing market not have better market based metrics with that form of full employment of capital resources?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Means testing is not the reason for the difference in 0.8 and 2.0 multipliers.
> 
> And if you think the tax payers will shell out $2.5 billion without some sort of means testing, you are a bigger fool than I thought.
> 
> ...


Means testing and this still happens:

_Total welfare improper payments and fraud of $129  billion is an enormous sum; greater than the entire budgets of TANF, Child Nutrition, Head Start, Job Training, WIC, Child Care, LIHEAP and the Lifeline programs, combined.  _


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> You claim it is so Labor would have recourse to compensation for simply being unemployed.    Compensation?   For what?   You want millions of people to draw a check, paid for by the tax payers, for doing absolutely nothing?   That is nonsense.


Any landlord is welcome to help out with this dilemma.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The landlord will care because his taxes go up to pay the $2.5 billion that is paid out for nothing.


Where is relative ethics when we can use his understanding of the issue?

Why should a landlord care on a for-profit basis?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> What does welfare pay?   That is what it takes to survive.    But you have demanded the equivalent of $15 an hour for a 40 hour week.


What if we assume the equivalent to fifteen an hour as compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> If we have to wait until some hot rocket science chick demands her turn with you, we will be waiting forever.


We should try to hurry them up.   I goad thee, i goad thee, i goad thee.  There, that should do it if "real women are involved".  xoxo


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Yes, it is the primary reason.  Anyone who understands anything about economics understands the concept.  Only right-wingers prefer to gainsay it with nothing but appeals to ignorance.  How disingenuous.
> 
> How would landlords be worse off? How would our housing market not have better market based metrics with that form of full employment of capital resources?



Horseshit.   Means testing, as done by the welfare office is largely done by the person applying.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> What if we assume the equivalent to fifteen an hour as compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?



So it will be compensation for being unwilling to get a job?   lol


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Horseshit.   Means testing, as done by the welfare office is largely done by the person applying.


Thanks for playing. 

How much does rent control cost?

Ensuring full employment of capital resources means the capitalists can rely on capital management principles.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> So it will be compensation for being unwilling to get a job?   lol


A parent would have the option of staying home of the best option at the moment is minimum wage work that only increases the cost basis from not staying home.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Thanks for playing.
> 
> How much does rent control cost?
> 
> Ensuring full employment of capital resources means the capitalists can rely on capital management principles.



It costs the owners of the property quite a bit.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> A parent would have the option of staying home of the best option at the moment is minimum wage work that only increases the cost basis from not staying home.



Parents have tax credits too.   I think the parental leave would be helpful.    But to offer them $31,200.00 for the rest of their lives?   No.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> It costs the owners of the property quite a bit.


I agree.  Rent control should be abolished in favor of promoting the general welfare. 

All procedural and substantive due process should strive to be this majestic:

_“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”_

― Anatole France


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Parents have tax credits too.   I think the parental leave would be helpful.    But to offer them $31,200.00 for the rest of their lives?   No.


You need more than your false morality due to our First Amendment.  The Law is the Law for Legal purposes.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You need more than your false morality due to our First Amendment.  The Law is the Law for Legal purposes.



And UC is completely legal and compliant to the US Constitution.

Your pipedream of $31,200 a year for sitting on your ass, while you are capable of working, will never happen.

And as for means testing, do you actually think a US Congressman would spend $2.5 billion on a program without any way of verifying the need of its participants?  One news story of someone with ample means of supporting themselves and still drawing $31,200 would bring such a backlash that the entire program would fold.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

It could be paid for by upgrading Post port operations until it does.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It could be paid for by upgrading Post port operations until it does.



Do you have a link to support that claim?   Because of the amount of lies you have told on this topic, just your claims won't cut it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Do you have a link to support that claim?   Because of the amount of lies you have told on this topic, just your claims won't cut it.


You are the math guy on this.  How many containers per year need to be serviced to break even?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

Let's include a customs detachment to the postal service for ease of integration and use of postal service communication cloud.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You are the math guy on this.  How many containers per year need to be serviced to break even?



An average of 12 million containers come into the US annually.    You would have to charge an additional $209 per container to break even.    Thereby raising the price of all imported items sold in the US.    So everyone would pay more for their goods, so that some people would be able to sit on their ass without working.

And yes, there would be means testing, as I have explained before.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Let's include a customs detachment to the postal service for ease of integration and use of postal service communication cloud.



The US Postal Service is funded by the federal gov't.    In 2016, the USPS had its fifth straight annual operating loss, in the amount of $5.6 billion.     And you want to add to that load by 12 million shipping containers coming into our ports?   

The ports themselves have not been expanded to any read degree in decades, while the volume has increased dramatically.   So you want to hand that over to the USPS?  Sure, what could go wrong?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> An average of 12 million containers come into the US annually.    You would have to charge an additional $209 per container to break even.    Thereby raising the price of all imported items sold in the US.    So everyone would pay more for their goods, so that some people would be able to sit on their ass without working.
> 
> And yes, there would be means testing, as I have explained before.


All those people "getting paid to do nothing" would still be circulation capital and paying general taxes.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The US Postal Service is funded by the federal gov't.    In 2016, the USPS had its fifth straight annual operating loss, in the amount of $5.6 billion.     And you want to add to that load by 12 million shipping containers coming into our ports?
> 
> The ports themselves have not been expanded to any read degree in decades, while the volume has increased dramatically.   So you want to hand that over to the USPS?  Sure, what could go wrong?


Streamlining operations can reduce operating costs while supply side economics can help generate general revenue for the general Government.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> All those people "getting paid to do nothing" would still be circulation capital and paying general taxes.



Yes, they would be paid to do nothing, while others work 40+ hours a week to live.    Whether the capital circulates or not is irrelevant.   You making it sound as though it were a good investment for the economy ignores the damages done to pay for it.

Soaking the tax payers for $2.5 billion just so people can live a good life without working is simply immoral.    You require others to work so you can sit on your ass.   And then have the audacity to demand that there be no means testing?   lol   Start buying lottery tickets.  Your chances are better.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Streamlining operations can reduce operating costs while supply side economics can help generate general revenue for the general Government.



The postal service is drowning in red ink.   They have neither the expertise or the manpower to handle the posts.

And the increase in the prices of all those good would put some businesses into bankrupcy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, they would be paid to do nothing, while others work 40+ hours a week to live.    Whether the capital circulates or not is irrelevant.   You making it sound as though it were a good investment for the economy ignores the damages done to pay for it.
> 
> Soaking the tax payers for $2.5 billion just so people can live a good life without working is simply immoral.    You require others to work so you can sit on your ass.   And then have the audacity to demand that there be no means testing?   lol   Start buying lottery tickets.  Your chances are better.



Imagine the negative multiplier.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The postal service is drowning in red ink.   They have neither the expertise or the manpower to handle the posts.
> 
> And the increase in the prices of all those good would put some businesses into bankrupcy.


Upgrading postal infrastructure means increasing supply for the private sector and revenue for the public sector.  Economies of scale are what help control inflation.  Supply side economics.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 19, 2021)

protectionist said:


> , When I had a good apartment complex (at a low rent), in addition to my apartment, I had 2 swimming pools, an exercise room, a large clubhouse, 2 tennis courts, a basketball court, use of computers, and a maintenance crew to attend to every thing needing to be fixed, at no cost to me. Let's look at the WHOLE picture.


You paid for all that every month in your rent.  You say it was low, but did you compare it to similar apartments without all those amenities?  Unless your landlord was an idiot, they were much cheaper.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And what do you have now?   Had you bought a house the payment would not have gone up.


And hundreds of thousands of bucks in equity would be in your pocket.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 19, 2021)

protectionist said:


> If you buy, you still have escalating property taxes, increasing insurance rates, increasing repair/maintenance costs, and possibly decreasing value of your house if the neighborhood changes. But again, most low income seniors CANNOT buy houses even if they wanted to.,


And all those things are included in your rent increases.  The owner kust passes them on to yoou.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 19, 2021)

Markle said:


> Nonsense.  Of course, a credit rating is relevant in housing.  It represents someone's willingness to pay.  How responsible a person is just as their criminal record is a reliable indicator of their honesty.
> 
> I was a REALTOR for over 50 years, here in Florida.  I have never, ever heard that new construction encourages immigration.  Increased construction doesn't encourage people to come to an area, it fills the demand already in that area.
> 
> ...


Building always follows demand, it doesn't create demand.  When I was a phone man in Ventura CA, we had a new development go up right near a freeway on ramp.  The houses were all well above local market value.  I asked the builder about that, and he told me that their target market wasn't people who worked in Ventura, but those who worked in Santa Barbara thirty to forty five minutes North.  The houses were much cheaper than anything available in Santa Barbara.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 19, 2021)

protectionist said:


> So let's hear from the *business owners here*. How do you feel about thousands of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of what could/should/would have been your sales $$$$, going into the pockets of landlords, instead of you. Feeling warm & fuzzy with that


So you think apartment owners should subsidize business owners.  What else should be frozen?  How about consumer goods prices?  How about wages?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 19, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I applied for a VA home loan. I was told I would have ZERO down payment.  And my CLOSING COSTS on a house of only $60,000, were $7,000 - UP FRONT. That's not including tax & insurance.
> 
> There a woman living here's whose total income is $800.mo.  In January, the rent goes up to $850.  Savings ? People here never heard of any such thing.


I've had three VA loans over my adult life.  Closing costs have ALWAYS been rolled into the mortgage.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 19, 2021)

Markle said:


> As you know, retail sales are soaring, as is the stock market because of the trillions of worthless paper dollars being pumped into the economy, throwing gas on the fire of inflation.


The smart thing to do RIGHT NOW is to buy a house.  Inflation will reduce the value of the dollars you pay for your mortgage and inflate the value of your house.  Talk to any homeowner of the Carter years when houses went from thirty grand to a hundred grand in just a few years.  The people who owned made out like bandits, new buyers got screwed.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 19, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Yeah, that was when my previous apt complex got sold & new owner raised my rent from $550 to $900.
> 
> Actually I started this thread * Oct. 30, 2021 (when my current complex also got a new owner, rent going from $600 to $850.) >>>
> 
> *  It's Happening Again - Homes Lost - Some Rent Control Needed


So you are upset because YOUR ox got gored.  Did you consider the new owner might have a much more expensive mortgage than the old one?  There are a lot of reasons a new owner might raise rent.  He may even want all the old tenants to move out so he can refurbish the entire building.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 19, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> And all those things are included in your rent increases.  The owner kust passes them on to yoou.


HA. No, their costs haven't increased 64%.  The increases are just power obtained from population increases.  Massive demand, decreased supply, zero rent control, zero morals, total greed.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 19, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> So you think apartment owners should subsidize business owners.  What else should be frozen?  How about consumer goods prices?  How about wages?


Business owners are getting shafted big, as an EFFECT of lndlord greed, was the point of my post.  What "apartment owners should" do is keep their rents even with what current renter are able to pay, thus not forcing those renters out of those apartments, and into streets that are devoid of anything even close to affordable housing.  This is what has created on localities all over America. People in other countries look at this, and are amazed at how we can allow this.

Since apartment owners have no consideration of this, those renters need to be protected by rent control.


----------



## Mr Natural (Nov 19, 2021)

protectionist said:


> HA. No, their costs haven't increased 64%.  The increases are just power obtained from population increases.  Massive demand, decreased supply, zero rent control, zero morals, total greed.


In other words, capitalism at work.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 19, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> I've had three VA loans over my adult life.  Closing costs have ALWAYS been rolled into the mortgage.


I'll take another look at it. Maybe I just had lousy realtors talking to me. If anybody has a link or a phone # to where/who I can get a VA loan and move right in, with just first month's $$, I'd sure appreciate hearing about it.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 19, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> In other words, capitalism at work.


Yes, without any mitigating control.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 19, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> So you are upset because YOUR ox got gored.  Did you consider the new owner might have a much more expensive mortgage than the old one?  There are a lot of reasons a new owner might raise rent.  He may even want all the old tenants to move out so he can refurbish the entire building.


Not hardly. see post # 1547.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Massive demand, decreased supply, zero rent control, zero morals, total greed.



LOL!

Tough.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Business owners are getting shafted big, as an EFFECT of lndlord greed, was the point of my post.



Landlords don't buy from business owners?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Upgrading postal infrastructure means increasing supply for the private sector and revenue for the public sector.  Economies of scale are what help control inflation.  Supply side economics.



The ports are operating at capacity now.    It would be hugely expensive to expand them.  And the additional revenue would be years away.

And there are things that could be done that are more important.    Veterans are dying of suicide at record levels.   Tens of thousands have no healthcare.  Our roads and bridges are crumbling.    VA hospitals are not capable of caring for the men & women we made promises to.

If someone is incapable of working, then we should provide for them.   That is what welfare does.

But if someone is capable of working and chooses not to, that puts them at the back of the line.   And the tax payers that keep more of their money will still circulate it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Streamlining operations can reduce operating costs while supply side economics can help generate general revenue for the general Government.



And you think the US Postal Service can streamline operations?  lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> And you think the US Postal Service can streamline operations?  lol



Maybe if they handed out his desired bum checks, enough 
poor performers at the Post Office would quit to improve operations.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

This morning, I wrote this letter to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis >>

You won't get my vote again.

2 years ago, my apartment rent jumped from $550/mo to $900. I moved (with a lot of discomfort).  Now, my rent is jumping from $600/mo to $850.  So my plan to save $250/mo to buy a car is shot. The $3,000 I would have had for a down payment, will now be scooped up by my landlord.
When I called your office, your aide said >> _*"Talk to your landlord."*_
No, I'm talking to YOU, Governor.  If some type of action is not taken to control housing rents (although mostly too late already), there will be TENT CITIES popping up all over Florida.  This is the best thing that ever happened to a Democrat candidate for governor.
As it stands now, you won't be getting my vote again.  I may be just one voice, but there's 1000's of others who are thinking the same thing, but they don't write.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LOL!
> 
> Tough.


Fuck you too, scumbag.


----------



## Mr Natural (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> This morning, I wrote this letter to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis >>
> 
> You won't get my vote again.
> 
> ...


Do you really think that people in high level positions in government actually read  the letters from constituents?

Sorry pal, but if you’re looking to the government to solve any of your problems, you are looking in the wrong place.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Landlords don't buy from business owners?







Those business owners who sell to landlords are a drop in the bucket compared to all business owners (who are suffering losses from huge drops of disposable income > ie, SALES$$$) And those business owners who DO sell to landlords are ALSO losing sales, because their sales to landlords will stay the same, but sales to everyone else will drop.
99% of businesses will suffer.  Sorry to disappoint. I don't snow easily.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> Do you really think that people in high level positions in government actually read  the letters from constituents?
> 
> Sorry pal, but if you’re looking to the government to solve any of your problems, you are looking in the wrong place.


The posting here isn't for effect on the governor. It is to further display the essence of the problem.  As for your idea about government, in some cases you are right. In other cases you are dead wrong.  

A few years ago, I was having trouble contacting the Florida Dept of Children & Families.  For a month & a half, couldn't get them on the phone.  I called then state representitive Sean Harrison's office. Spoke to an aide.  The NEXT DAY, I got a call back from DCF.

Also, 5 states have rent control laws, controlling rents.  Dozens of cities have them also.


----------



## Mr Natural (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Also, 5 states have rent control laws, controlling rents. Dozens of cities have them also.


Yes, the socialist/communist cities and states have them.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> Yes, the socialist/communist cities and states have them.


So do AMERICAN cities and states, in accordance with the capitalist/socialist society that we are.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The ports are operating at capacity now. It would be hugely expensive to expand them. And the additional revenue would be years away.


That is why they need to be upgraded.  It doesn't matter if they are expensive, they are going to generate revenue to offset the cost. All of our Post ports need to be upgraded for modern times.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, they would be paid to do nothing, while others work 40+ hours a week to live.    Whether the capital circulates or not is irrelevant.   You making it sound as though it were a good investment for the economy ignores the damages done to pay for it.
> 
> Soaking the tax payers for $2.5 billion just so people can live a good life without working is simply immoral.    You require others to work so you can sit on your ass.   And then have the audacity to demand that there be no means testing?   lol   Start buying lottery tickets.  Your chances are better.


You miss the point of all those persons with 30k to spend.  Even taxing only one percent would generate $300 in general taxes from all those millions of persons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Fuck you too, scumbag.



So many liberal tears.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> View attachment 566454
> 
> Those business owners who sell to landlords are a drop in the bucket compared to all business owners (who are suffering losses from huge drops of disposable income > ie, SALES$$$) And those business owners who DO sell to landlords are ALSO losing sales, because their sales to landlords will stay the same, but sales to everyone else will drop.
> 99% of businesses will suffer.  Sorry to disappoint. I don't snow easily.



You also don't understand math or economics. Typical liberal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Also, 5 states have rent control laws, controlling rents. Dozens of cities have them also.



Just the commie ones.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> So do AMERICAN cities and states, in accordance with the capitalist/socialist society that we are.



You should move to one of those socialist cities. I'm sure the rent will be very reasonable.

Post your progress.


----------



## surada (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> The posting here isn't for effect on the governor. It is to further display the essence of the problem.  As for your idea about government, in some cases you are right. In other cases you are dead wrong.
> 
> A few years ago, I was having trouble contacting the Florida Dept of Children & Families.  For a month & a half, couldn't get them on the phone.  I called then state representitive Sean Harrison's office. Spoke to an aide.  The NEXT DAY, I got a call back from DCF.
> 
> Also, 5 states have rent control laws, controlling rents.  Dozens of cities have them also.



You should check out HUD properties for seniors.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That is why they need to be upgraded.  It doesn't matter if they are expensive, they are going to generate revenue to offset the cost. All of our Post ports need to be upgraded for modern times.



I agree they need to be upgraded.    But I think you want the upgrade to facilitate your fantasy of getting paid $31,200 for doing nothing.

And yes, the revenue will offset the cost, but not for decades.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I agree they need to be upgraded.    But I think you want the upgrade to facilitate your fantasy of getting paid $31,200 for doing nothing.
> 
> And yes, the revenue will offset the cost, but not for decades.


Those are two separate issues and we could issue "junk" bonds to cover both since we already know how we are going to generate revenue to pay for it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

Upgrading Postal service operations first can help provide demand and supply considerations along with metrics for optimization for a more cost effective general rollout.

And, since the general government has to do it anyway, why not optimize the postal service to help reduce costs for the private sector while generating revenue?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Upgrading Postal service operations first can help provide demand and supply considerations along with metrics for optimization for a more cost effective general rollout.
> 
> And, since the general government has to do it anyway, why not optimize the postal service to help reduce costs for the private sector while generating revenue?


Because the postal system has never operated efficiently, it’s always wasted money.  The smartest thing the government could do would be to eliminate the subsidies to the postal service and open all mail delivery to competition from carriers like UPS and FEDEX.  To survive the postal service would have to get rid of its deadwood.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Because the postal system has never operated efficiently, it’s always wasted money.  The smartest thing the government could do would be to eliminate the subsidies to the postal service and open all mail delivery to competition from carriers like UPS and FEDEX.  To survive the postal service would have to get rid of its deadwood.


Your opinion doesn't matter. 

Congress is already delegated the social power;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads; "along with Post canals and Ports."


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Upgrading Postal service operations first can help provide demand and supply considerations along with metrics for optimization for a more cost effective general rollout.
> 
> And, since the general government has to do it anyway, why not optimize the postal service to help reduce costs for the private sector while generating revenue?



Because the USPS is already losing enough money.   No politician will bring forward a bill costing hundreds of billions of dollars for something that will not show a profit during his career.

And if we do manage to issue bonds, upgrade the ports (without the USPS, since they have zero experience) and the revenue increases, the money should go to other things besides making the UC into some welfare program.  I mentioned a few of those other things in a previous post.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Because the USPS is already losing enough money. No politician will bring forward a bill costing hundreds of billions of dollars for something that will not show a profit during his career.


That is the whole point of the upgrade, to generate revenue.   Only right-wingers seem to eschew Capitalism every time it comes up.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That is the whole point of the upgrade, to generate revenue.   Only right-wingers seem to eschew Capitalism every time it comes up.



Revenue?   And you would happily give it to those who had no part in earning it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Revenue?   And you would happily give it to those who had no part in earning it.


Only right-wingers have a problem increasing tax revenue by increasing the tax base, rendering rent control unnecessary in modern capital times, and solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

Vote blue not red!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

A case study could be obtained by maximizing port postal service operations to supply that capacity to the private sector and reduce costs to the private sector while generating revenue and providing for private sector capacity to meet demand when necessary.  Supply side economics in action.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Upgrading postal infrastructure means increasing supply for the private sector and revenue for the public sector.  Economies of scale are what help control inflation.  Supply side economics.


I have been allowing you and Winterborn to slug it out in your entirely OFF TOPIC chat fight, but it's about time to end that, and get on topic, and stop derailing the thread.

In case you've gone so far astray that you don't even know what we're talking about here, it is the CRISIS going on in Florida (and elsewhere) of overpopulation, excess demand leading to severe supply (of housing) shortage, and skyrocketing rents, with no rent control to control them
 The focus of the thread is on the people MOST AFFECTED. That is NOT LANDLORDS.  It is *elderly, fixed income, low-income renters, being forced out of their HOMES, with really nowhere to go.*


----------



## surada (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I have been allowing you and Winterborn to slug it out in your entirely OFF TOPIC chat fight, but it's about time to end that, and get on topic, and stop derailing the thread.
> 
> In case you've gone so far astray that you don't even know what we're talking about here, it is the CRISIS going on in Florida (and elsewhere) of overpopulation, excess demand leading to severe supply (of housing) shortage, and skyrocketing rents, with no rent control to control them
> The focus of the thread is on the people MOST AFFECTED. That is NOT LANDLORDS.  It is *elderly, fixed income, low-income renters, being forced out of their HOMES, with really nowhere to go.*



Dr Grump

And I thought you were a strict capitalist.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> You paid for all that every month in your rent.  You say it was low, but did you compare it to similar apartments without all those amenities?  Unless your landlord was an idiot, they were much cheaper.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.


What I was paying was the market price (rent).  It was about the same all over, with the same typical amenities, and was that way for the whole 32 years I've been in the Tampa Bay area. Only NOW is everything changed, and outrageously. Some people are getting 100% rent increases.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> What I was paying was the market price (rent).  It was about the same all over, with the same typical amenities, and was that way for the whole 32 years I've been in the Tampa Bay area. Only NOW is everything changed, and outrageously. Some people are getting 100% rent increases.



Market prices change.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Your opinion doesn't matter.
> 
> Congress is already delegated the social power;
> 
> To establish Post Offices and post Roads; "along with Post canals and Ports."


It’s granted by the constitution.  But it diesnt say congress has to fund it.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

surada said:


> Dr Grump
> 
> And I thought you were a strict capitalist.


Never have been. America has been a socialist/capitalist combined society since the 1930s.  Has been that way all my life.


----------



## surada (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Never have been. America has been a socialist/capitalist combined society since the 1930s.  Has been that way all my life.



So that's why you're always bleating "Communists and Socialists".


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That is the whole point of the upgrade, to generate revenue.   Only right-wingers seem to eschew Capitalism every time it comes up.


That’s not capitalism, it’s cronyism.  The ports are mostly privately operated.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Market prices change.


I don't give a rats ass what a market price is.  People having a place to live and basically survive, is more important that any market.  If the market causes people to go homeless (as it is doing just that), then we need to adjust the market (rent caps), to *PROTECT *the people.  Notice my display name ?  😐


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 20, 2021)

VA.gov | Veterans Affairs
					

Apply for and manage the VA benefits and services you’ve earned as a Veteran, Servicemember, or family member—like health care, disability, education, and more.



					www.benefits.va.gov
				




Main pillars of the VA home loan benefit​
*No downpayment* required
(_*Note: Lenders *may *require downpayments for some borrowers using the VA home loan guaranty, but VA does not require a downpayment_)
Competitively *low interest rates*
*Limited* closing costs
*No* need for Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI)
The VA home loan is a *lifetime benefit*: you can use the guaranty _multiple times_
_


			https://www.benefits.va.gov/HOMELOANS/documents/docs/VA_Buyers_Guide.pdf
		


_


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

surada said:


> So that's why you're always bleating "Communists and Socialists".


1.  I didn't say I supported Communists (internationalist globalists).   
2.  I never said I supported only capitalism (without ANY socialism mixture).


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 20, 2021)

Have you tried to do this process to get a price range for buying a home?

Have you contacted a Realtor to ask for advice and to help you look for a home?

Have you considered moving to a rural area where it is cheaper?  

Do you have friends that can help you move?


You have got to go to a cheaper area.  The inflation in this country is only going to get worse.  If you don't then you will be homeless.  You could even opt for looking at camp ground prices and a travel trailer that a dang Tow Truck can haul if you have to.

What HAVE YOU DONE TO TRY THESE OPTIONS?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I have been allowing you and Winterborn to slug it out in your entirely OFF TOPIC chat fight, but it's about time to end that, and get on topic, and stop derailing the thread.
> 
> In case you've gone so far astray that you don't even know what we're talking about here, it is the CRISIS going on in Florida (and elsewhere) of overpopulation, excess demand leading to severe supply (of housing) shortage, and skyrocketing rents, with no rent control to control them
> The focus of the thread is on the people MOST AFFECTED. That is NOT LANDLORDS.  It is *elderly, fixed income, low-income renters, being forced out of their HOMES, with really nowhere to go.*



When you started off claiming you are a conservative, your topic became a moot point.   You aren't.   You want a nanny state.

Feel free to report me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I don't give a rats ass what a market price is.  People having a place to live and basically survive, is more important that any market.  If the market causes people to go homeless (as it is doing just that), then we need to adjust the market (rent caps), to *PROTECT *the people.  Notice my display name ?  😐



_I don't give a rats ass what a market price is._

You said you did.

*What I was paying was the market price (rent). It was about the same all over, with the same typical amenities, and was that way for the whole 32 years I've been in the Tampa Bay area.*

_People having a place to live and basically survive, is more important that any market._

The market is telling you to get a roommate.

_we need to adjust the market (rent caps), to *PROTECT *the people. _

There are cheaper markets, find one.


----------



## surada (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> 1.  I didn't say I supported Communists (internationalist globalists).
> 2.  I never said I supported only capitalism (without ANY socialism mixture).



What a dumb thing to say.........

Globalism has been with us since the Bronze Age..


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> VA.gov | Veterans Affairs
> 
> 
> Apply for and manage the VA benefits and services you’ve earned as a Veteran, Servicemember, or family member—like health care, disability, education, and more.
> ...


Thanks for this very fine information.  I worry about about the closing costs though.  For many people closing cost of $50 above the monthly payment would be too much.  For others, the monthly payment itself would be too much.

And what about age ? Were I live, almost everyone is over 70. Some over 80.  Will they live to be 100, to pay off a long term note ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _I don't give a rats ass what a market price is._
> 
> You said you did.
> 
> ...


1.  No, I did NOT say I did (give a rat's ass about a market price, and I don't.

2.  Screw the market.  I don't care what it says, It is subordinate to the needs of the American people. And I'll never have a roommate.

3. NO, there are NOT cheaper markets, at least not within geographical range, without having to pay excessive moving costs. I was thinking of going to Johnson City, TN, until I found out it was $800 to move my 10 pieces of furniture, and that is without paying for guys to lift the furniture.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

surada said:


> What a dumb thing to say.........
> 
> Globalism has been with us since the Bronze Age..


Who cares how long it's been here, What's dumb ? ..besides your comment ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

How about if Toddsterpatriot and surada do some posting about the focal point of the thread ? >> Old, people on low, fixed incomes, forced out of their homes, while unable to have anywhere to go ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> 1. No, I did NOT say I did (give a rat's ass about a market price, and I don't.



*What I was paying was the market price (rent). It was about the same all over, with the same typical amenities, and was that way for the whole 32 years I've been in the Tampa Bay area.*

If you don't care, why should anyone else? Why mention it?

*Screw the market. I don't care what it says,*

Obviously, socialist.

*NO, there are NOT cheaper markets, at least not within geographical range, without having to pay excessive moving costs. *

LOL! Find somewhere cheaper. Get a roommate. Stop whining like such a liberal bitch.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> How about if Toddsterpatriot and surada do some posting about the focal point of the thread ? >> Old, people on low, fixed incomes, forced out of their homes, while unable to have anywhere to go ?



Rent control is a monumentally stupid and destructive idea.
I'm sorry that you didn't save enough to support yourself in your old age.
Now quit whining.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I have been allowing you and Winterborn to slug it out in your entirely OFF TOPIC chat fight, but it's about time to end that, and get on topic, and stop derailing the thread.
> 
> In case you've gone so far astray that you don't even know what we're talking about here, it is the CRISIS going on in Florida (and elsewhere) of overpopulation, excess demand leading to severe supply (of housing) shortage, and skyrocketing rents, with no rent control to control them
> The focus of the thread is on the people MOST AFFECTED. That is NOT LANDLORDS.  It is *elderly, fixed income, low-income renters, being forced out of their HOMES, with really nowhere to go.*


Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation can help stabilize the real estate market as well in the long run.  

A simple cost of living adjustment should be considered for those on a fixed income.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> It’s granted by the constitution.  But it diesnt say congress has to fund it.


It says Congress should fund alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror even less.


----------



## surada (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> How about if Toddsterpatriot and surada do some posting about the focal point of the thread ? >> Old, people on low, fixed incomes, forced out of their homes, while unable to have anywhere to go ?


 
I have posted to you twice. Why don't you look at a Hud Apartment complex for seniors.. It will cost you about 1/3 of your monthly income.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> That’s not capitalism, it’s cronyism.  The ports are mostly privately operated.


Part of the problem; besides, the Postal service can generate more revenue while lowering costs for the private sector.  

Supply side economics.


----------



## Mr Natural (Nov 20, 2021)

surada said:


> I have posted to you twice. Why don't you look at a Hud Apartment complex for seniors.. It will cost you about 1/3 of your monthly income.


Maybe he doesn’t want to live among a bunch of communists living in government housing?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> When you started off claiming you are a conservative, your topic became a moot point.   You aren't.   You want a nanny state.
> 
> Feel free to report me.


My being a conservative hardly matters. It is just a side issue.  The topic is not moot, it is the topic, and one of the most Important issues in America, right now.

I don't want a nanny state and to say that somebody does, just because they call for some level of rent control to control astronomical, prices in a product that Americans MUST HAVE, is ridiculous.  As I have said all along, America is not a purely capitalist country, with unlimited markets running totally wild.

Since the 1930's America has been a combination capitalist/socialist country, with some socialist policy where NECESSARY.  Nothing unusual about that.

And to claim that someone is not a conservative based on ONE issue that is of CRISIS proportion, is silly.  Let's see all the liberals who I've told that Islam is unconstitutional due to its violation of the Supremacy clause, and all mosques should be closed down, say I'm not a conservative. lol
Let's hear from the ones I've told we need a new Operation Wetback again, where Eisenhower deported massive #s of illegal aliens, to Vera Cruz, and dumped them in the shallow water.
Let's see the ones I've told we need trained armed teachers in the schools, say I'm not a conservative, or the ones I told that mayors of sanctuary cities should be imprisoned, and even executed, in related cases.  
And what do they say about my position that the death penalty is a total deterrent, and life imprisonment is a risk ?
And what do they say about my position that queers (misnamed as gays) are just sex perverts, and mentally deranged ?  And my question to PRIDE paraders >  "What is there to be proud of ?"
And what would Debbie Wasserman Shultz (who says abortion is between a woman & her doctor) say to my contention that abortion is a matter between those 2 AND the unborn child (who is represented by anti-abortion spokesmen) ?
And how about my OP calling on Biden to send thousands of troops back into Afghanistan, and rescue the reported 14,000 stranded Americans ?
And would they who argued over my stance to pay reparations$$$ to millions of white victims of racist Affirmative Action, say I'm not conservative ?  

Why don't you go ask them ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

surada said:


> I have posted to you twice. Why don't you look at a Hud Apartment complex for seniors.. It will cost you about 1/3 of your monthly income.


Yeah, like they really have vacancies, right ?  Sheesh.  PS - don't those places make you sign up and get govt approval first ?  (before you can be put on their 3 year waiting list)


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> Maybe he doesn’t want to live among a bunch of communists living in government housing?


When in situations like exists here in Tampa, right now, one does not get choosy.


----------



## surada (Nov 20, 2021)

Mr Clean said:


> Maybe he doesn’t want to live among a bunch of communists living in government housing?



Some of them arepretty nice.. I have several widowed friends who live in HUD apartments for seniors. Their rents run from $250 including utilities to $500.


----------



## surada (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Yeah, like they really have vacancies, right ?  Sheesh.  PS - don't those places make you sign up and get govt approval first ?  (before you can be put on their 3 year waiting list)



I asked.. Most wait 5 to 13 months.  There's nothing for the government to approve.You fill out an application with your financials. The ones I've actually seen are 1 bedroom 600 square  feet. ...


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

surada said:


> I asked.. Most wait 5 to 13 months.  There's nothing for the government to approve.You fill out an application with your financials. The ones I've actually seen are 1 bedroom 600 square  feet. ...


Got a link ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Rent control is unnecessary with equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.  What landlord would be worse off if any given tenant can obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States?


You seem to not understand the scope of the housing CRISIS. The level of the rents - $1,000/mo for 1 bedroom.  Recently rent were HALF that.  I doubt if unemployment would measure up to this + plus many renters are retired and dont get unemployment. Unemployment is Off Topic.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Thanks for this very fine information.  I worry about about the closing costs though.  For many people closing cost of $50 above the monthly payment would be too much.  For others, the monthly payment itself would be too much.
> 
> And what about age ? Were I live, almost everyone is over 70. Some over 80.  Will they live to be 100, to pay off a long term note ?


The VA would just resell it.  Team up and find a place with a few there.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2021)

protectionist said:


> You seem to not understand the scope of the housing CRISIS. The level of the rents - $1,000/mo for 1 bedroom.  Recently rent were HALF that.  I doubt if unemployment would measure up to this + plus many renters are retired and dont get unemployment. Unemployment is Off Topic.


I agree to disagree.  Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can only help with supply side economics.  What landlord would be worse off as a class?  How would the homeless be worse off as a class?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I agree to disagree.  Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can only help with supply side economics.  What landlord would be worse off as a class?  How would the homeless be worse off as a class?


I don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I agree to disagree.  Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can only help with supply side economics.  What landlord would be worse off as a class?  How would the homeless be worse off as a class?



Because the increase in taxes to pay for $2.5 billion in handouts to people unwilling to work to support themselves is unsustainable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Because the increase in taxes to pay for $2.5 billion in handouts to people unwilling to work to support themselves is unsustainable.



Where did you get $2.5 billion for Dan's bum check idea?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where did you get $2.5 billion for Dan's bum check idea?



I Googled the number of adults in the US who work, and subtracted that from the number of adults in the US.   Then multiplied that by $31,200.00 (that is the annual pay for someone who works 40 hours a week at $15 per hour).     All of that is per Dan's demands.   He wants everyone without a job to be paid the equivalent of $15 per hour.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 21, 2021)

protectionist said:


> I don't know what you're talking about.


Why should I care You don't care about the general welfare?

Vote blue not red!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 21, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Because the increase in taxes to pay for $2.5 billion in handouts to people unwilling to work to support themselves is unsustainable.


Why should landlords have to care?  

Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics. 

Vote blue not red!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where did you get $2.5 billion for Dan's bum check idea?


We can just print the money due to a multiplier of 2.0.  

Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics.  The general warfare not the general welfare is all gun lovers care about.

Vote blue not red!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 21, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I Googled the number of adults in the US who work, and subtracted that from the number of adults in the US.   Then multiplied that by $31,200.00 (that is the annual pay for someone who works 40 hours a week at $15 per hour).     All of that is per Dan's demands.   He wants everyone without a job to be paid the equivalent of $15 per hour.


General taxes means those receiving unemployment compensation could pay a minimum of one percent or around three hundred dollars times the number on unemployment compensation in addition to those working and making more money and paying more in taxes.

That is why nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics.

Vote blue not red!


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why should landlords have to care?
> 
> Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Vote blue not red!



Because they would be paying more in taxes.  And because their customers would have less of the money they earned.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I Googled the number of adults in the US who work, and subtracted that from the number of adults in the US.   Then multiplied that by $31,200.00 (that is the annual pay for someone who works 40 hours a week at $15 per hour).     All of that is per Dan's demands.   He wants everyone without a job to be paid the equivalent of $15 per hour.



$2.5 billion divided by $31,200 is only 80,128.
His bum checks would need to be sent to many more people than that.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> $2.5 billion divided by $31,200 is only 80,128.
> His bum checks would need to be sent to many more people than that.



Checking my math?   Probably a good idea.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Checking my math?   Probably a good idea.



You're probably missing three zeroes, to start.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're probably missing three zeroes, to start.



Probably so.   If I recall, it was late and I was also doing other things online.

Feel free to run the numbers.   Dani doesn't care.  He just wants a check for sitting on his ass, and has invented an entire scheme to justify it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Probably so.   If I recall, it was late and I was also doing other things online.
> 
> Feel free to run the numbers.   Dani doesn't care.  He just wants a check for sitting on his ass, and has invented an entire scheme to justify it.



About 165 million in the workforce, about 260 million adults.

95 million times $31,200 = almost $3 trillion.
Add in the negative multiplier.......who knows how high it would go?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 22, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why should I care You don't care about the general welfare?
> 
> Vote blue not red!


Democrat tall tale singers claim that Biden got more votes than Trump.  It didn't happen, but take a good look at what we've got now, with Biden having occupied the White House. Could anybody ever have assessed how much destruction could come from one man in this country ?

1.  14,000 Americans are still stranded in Afghanistan, left to the non-mercy of the Taliban, who continually hunt them down and execute them.   Biden's response ? There isn't any (other than phony claims abut the numbers)









						Team Joe’s neverending lies about how many Americans were left in Afghanistan
					

Before his utterly botched Aug. 30 withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, President Biden made a solemn vow: “If there are American citizens left, we’re going to stay until we get them all…




					nypost.com
				




2.  The Mexican border has all but been abolished by Biden, who knows he cant rely on Americans (who hate him) to vote for him.  Since Biden's only motivation as a US president seems to be what could get him re-elected + how to enrich himself and his family, his plan for re-election is to pull as many foreign migrants into the US as possible, and threaten that his election opponents will deport them, so they better (illegally) vote for him.  Long list of harms to Americans from this demographic catastrophe (I've posted it 100 times)

3.  Worst housing crisis in US history is happening now (grossly underreported by media which continually panders to Biden).  With millions of people streaming into US cities, demand for housing has skyrocketed, housing supply diminished to near zero and prices skyrocketed inversely proportional to the empty supply.  Tent cities of people (most of them employed, or receiving unemployment $$) springing up all over the country.  Victims of this are getting the same protection from Biden (et al) as the poor souls in Afghanistan.  100% ignored.

4.  Racial discrimination is at record levels. Affirmative Action proceeding along business as usual.   Biden's racist American Rescue Plan (which should be renamed Rescue Plan as long as you're not white) is being shredded in the courts.  CRT lunacy is flying high in schools all over the country, while Biden & cronies pretend its only in graduate schools (like that would make it OK ?)

5.  Inflation is soaring. Highest in 30 years.  Worst, of course, is housing, with rents jumping 40-200%, but gas at the pump (100-150%), food and utilities are bad too.

6.  Crime has been soaring.  The number of homicides increased by* 16%* during the first half of 2021 – 259 more homicides – compared to the same period the year before, and by 42% – claiming an additional 548 additional lives – compared to the same time frame in 2019.
The aggravated assault rate was 9% higher in the first half of 2021 than during the same period in 2020, and the gun assault rate was 5% higher in the first half of 2021 than the year before. Motor vehicle theft rates were 21% higher in the first half of 2021 than the year before.
Riots are an ongoing thing in Democrats cities, where Democrat politicians bow to farleft hatred of police, and rioting, looting, arson are tolerated by lunatic "leaders."









						Violent Crime Increases in 2021 | Crime in America.Net
					

Highlights Preliminary data for 2021 from non-federal sources indicate that violence continues to increase. Homicides increased by nearly 30 percent in 2020. Overall violence and aggravated assaults also increased. There is a surge in police officers leaving law enforcement per the Bureau of...




					www.crimeinamerica.net
				




7.  America's energy independence, established by Trump, is long gone now, as Biden has cancelled fracking, pipelines, drilling.  Embarrassing episodes occur like Biden asking OPEC to increase drilling (to get prices reduced), and OPEC rightly answering >_* "Increase drilling, yourself !!"*_

8. Weakness like never has been witnessed, is allowing foreign leaders to take advantage. Next in line > China/Taiwan. Russia/Ukraine.  Mexico/USA.


----------



## protectionist (Nov 22, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> We can just print the money due to a multiplier of 2.0.
> 
> Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics.  The general warfare not the general welfare is all gun lovers care about.
> 
> Vote blue not red!


Gun lovers are the #1 protectors of the general welfare.  Protection from mass shooters in schools is the prime example. When they are not there, you get mass shootings in schools.  Ex. Parkland massacre) In fact, every mass shooting in America, over the past 20 years has been in a gun-free zone (green light for mass shooters)


----------



## protectionist (Nov 22, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> General taxes means those receiving unemployment compensation could pay a minimum of one percent or around three hundred dollars times the number on unemployment compensation in addition to those working and making more money and paying more in taxes.
> 
> That is why nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Vote blue not red!


The TOPIC is *renters being forced out of their homes* by greedy landlords, and astronomically rising rents.


----------



## surada (Nov 22, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Democrat tall tale singers claim that Biden got more votes than Trump.  It didn't happen, but take a good look at what we've got now, with Biden having occupied the White House. Could anybody ever have assessed how much destruction could come from one man in this country ?
> 
> 1.  14,000 Americans are still stranded in Afghanistan, left to the non-mercy of the Taliban, who continually hunt them down and execute them.   Biden's response ? There isn't any (other than phony claims abut the numbers)
> 
> ...



You should check your facts. You do know there has been a  do not travel advisory for Afghanistan for years.


----------



## surada (Nov 22, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Gun lovers are the #1 protectors of the general welfare.  Protection from mass shooters in schools is the prime example. When they are not there, you get mass shootings in schools.  Ex. Parkland massacre) In fact, every mass shooting in America, over the past 20 years has been in a gun-free zone (green light for mass shooters)



You think vigilantes are protectors of the general welfare?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 22, 2021)

surada said:


> You should check your facts. You do know there has been a  do not travel advisory for Afghanistan for years.


I'm fine with my facts. What do you think needs checking ?


----------



## protectionist (Nov 22, 2021)

surada said:


> You think vigilantes are protectors of the general welfare?


Depends on who you are referring to as a "vigilante" and what they are doing.  As I said: "Gun lovers are the #1 protectors of the general welfare."  Typically more so than police, who often do their jobs with pens and pads, AFTER the damage has been done.


----------

