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

[danielpalos]

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

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.

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.

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.

a cost of living adjustment, that is all.

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.

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]

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

That is Socialism, not Capitalism, good Comrade.

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.

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

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.

Government is socialism. Providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated power.

Capitalism has to play within the goalposts of Government.

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]

That is Socialism, not Capitalism, good Comrade.

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.

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

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.

Government is socialism. Providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated power.

Capitalism has to play within the goalposts of Government.

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.

lol. Government is socialism. Our welfare clause is General not Common.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

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.

a cost of living adjustment, that is all.

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.

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".

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]

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]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

Government is socialism. Providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated power.

Capitalism has to play within the goalposts of Government.

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.

lol. Government is socialism. Our welfare clause is General not Common.

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]

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.

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.

a cost of living adjustment, that is all.

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.

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".

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?

capital Has to circulate not Labor in a First World economy.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

a cost of living adjustment, that is all.

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.

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".

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?

capital Has to circulate not Labor in a First World economy.

Oh, God...he just keeps on spouting gibberish!

How do you get capital to "circulate", Daniel? Duh?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

a cost of living adjustment, that is all.

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.

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".

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?

capital Has to circulate not Labor in a First World economy.

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]

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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]

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

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.

Government is socialism. Providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated power.

Capitalism has to play within the goalposts of Government.

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.

lol. Government is socialism. Our welfare clause is General not Common.

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.

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]

a cost of living adjustment, that is all.

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.

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".

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?

capital Has to circulate not Labor in a First World economy.

Oh, God...he just keeps on spouting gibberish!

How do you get capital to "circulate", Daniel? Duh?

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]

a cost of living adjustment, that is all.

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.

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".

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?

capital Has to circulate not Labor in a First World economy.

Oh, God...he just keeps on spouting gibberish!

How do you get capital to "circulate", Daniel? Duh?

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

 

[Oldstyle]

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

You rely on the "federal doctrine"? Explain what that is, Daniel!

 

[danielpalos]

a cost of living adjustment, that is all.

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.

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".

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?

capital Has to circulate not Labor in a First World economy.

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?

however did you get that idea?

we have a mixed market, command economy, and use fiat money.

 

[eagle1462010]

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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]

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.

Government is socialism. Providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated power.

Capitalism has to play within the goalposts of Government.

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.

lol. Government is socialism. Our welfare clause is General not Common.

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.

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!

only Gossip, "gentlemen"?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

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".

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?

capital Has to circulate not Labor in a First World economy.

Oh, God...he just keeps on spouting gibberish!

How do you get capital to "circulate", Daniel? Duh?

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

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]

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.

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".

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?

capital Has to circulate not Labor in a First World economy.

Oh, God...he just keeps on spouting gibberish!

How do you get capital to "circulate", Daniel? Duh?

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

nothing but fallacy and resorting to false of Cause instead of the Gospel Truth, right wingers, forshame.