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

[JWBooth]

How is it unfair? The owners give a price and the renters have a choice.

fair or unfair isn't the point

Protectionists is insisting the GubMit protect him

~S~

Well, he’s suckled on the gubberment teat for so long he knows nothing else.

 

[danielpalos]

how many times do i have to tell you? unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

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

only lousy capitalists have to be told how capitalism works.

more people Spending more money is Always a Good thing for Merchants in Commerce.

As Toro already said.............you have basically killed the thread which is your purpose...........

upset you have no valid rebuttals, bro?

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.

I have answered all your questions. You merely like to "beg the question".

 

[danielpalos]

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 any Thing about economics, you would know that stabilizing our economy is key for Commerce.

If you knew anything about economics, you would quit annoying the grownups with this halfassed nonsense of yours.

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]

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 any Thing about economics, you would know that stabilizing our economy is key for Commerce.

If you knew anything about economics, you would quit annoying the grownups with this halfassed nonsense of yours.

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.

all you have are childish outbursts of nonsense

 

[danielpalos]

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 any Thing about economics, you would know that stabilizing our economy is key for Commerce.

If you knew anything about economics, you would quit annoying the grownups with this halfassed nonsense of yours.

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.

all you have are childish outbursts of nonsense

are you on the right wing? Projection is a right wing trait, not good arguments.

 

[JWBooth]

Is anyone else getting private messages from Protectionist? He can be damned annoying.

Spoke too soon, he's started with me.

 

[danielpalos]

I have a "Maginot" line of good arguments. Even the chics don't bother.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

only lousy capitalists have to be told how capitalism works.

more people Spending more money is Always a Good thing for Merchants in Commerce.

As Toro already said.............you have basically killed the thread which is your purpose...........

upset you have no valid rebuttals, bro?

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.

I have answered all your questions. You merely like to "beg the question".

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]

only lousy capitalists have to be told how capitalism works.

more people Spending more money is Always a Good thing for Merchants in Commerce.

As Toro already said.............you have basically killed the thread which is your purpose...........

upset you have no valid rebuttals, bro?

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.

I have answered all your questions. You merely like to "beg the question".

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.

automatic stabilization and solving simple poverty; it should be simple.

 

[WinterBorn]

As Toro already said.............you have basically killed the thread which is your purpose...........

upset you have no valid rebuttals, bro?

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.

I have answered all your questions. You merely like to "beg the question".

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.

automatic stabilization and solving simple poverty; it should be simple.

Except your poverty is self-imposed. You simply want to be paid for nothing.

What do you provide for getting paid? Nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

upset you have no valid rebuttals, bro?

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.

I have answered all your questions. You merely like to "beg the question".

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.

automatic stabilization and solving simple poverty; it should be simple.

Except your poverty is self-imposed. You simply want to be paid for nothing.

What do you provide for getting paid? Nothing.

who would be worse off? a landlord and me, or You?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

I have answered all your questions. You merely like to "beg the question".

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.

automatic stabilization and solving simple poverty; it should be simple.

Except your poverty is self-imposed. You simply want to be paid for nothing.

What do you provide for getting paid? Nothing.

who would be worse off? a landlord and me, or You?

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]

I have answered all your questions. You merely like to "beg the question".

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.

automatic stabilization and solving simple poverty; it should be simple.

Except your poverty is self-imposed. You simply want to be paid for nothing.

What do you provide for getting paid? Nothing.

who would be worse off? a landlord and me, or You?

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.

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]

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.

automatic stabilization and solving simple poverty; it should be simple.

Except your poverty is self-imposed. You simply want to be paid for nothing.

What do you provide for getting paid? Nothing.

who would be worse off? a landlord and me, or You?

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.

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?

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]

automatic stabilization and solving simple poverty; it should be simple.

Except your poverty is self-imposed. You simply want to be paid for nothing.

What do you provide for getting paid? Nothing.

who would be worse off? a landlord and me, or You?

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.

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?

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?

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]

Except your poverty is self-imposed. You simply want to be paid for nothing.

What do you provide for getting paid? Nothing.

who would be worse off? a landlord and me, or You?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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]

who would be worse off? a landlord and me, or You?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

What part of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment do you not understand?

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

What part of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment do you not understand?

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.