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

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

A federal doctrine and State laws claim otherwise.

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.

The right wing doesn't care about natural rights or equal protection of the law.

Employment is at the will of either party.

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.

then, how is that at the will of either party? the law is the law.

 

[danielpalos]

you assume perfect information under capitalism.

we know right wing fantasy is just that, not economics.

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.

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.

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".

it should be, it is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

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.

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]

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.

A federal doctrine and State laws claim otherwise.

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.

The right wing doesn't care about natural rights or equal protection of the law.

Employment is at the will of either party.

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.

then, how is that at the will of either party? the law is the law.

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]

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.

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.

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".

it should be, it is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

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.

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.

Back to the "storyteller" nonsense? I guess you still can't list any actual stories I have told that are not true?

 

[danielpalos]

A federal doctrine and State laws claim otherwise.

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.

The right wing doesn't care about natural rights or equal protection of the law.

Employment is at the will of either party.

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.

then, how is that at the will of either party? the law is the law.

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.

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]

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.

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".

it should be, it is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

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.

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.

Back to the "storyteller" nonsense? I guess you still can't list any actual stories I have told that are not true?

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than means tested welfare for the ready reserve labor pool.

 

[WinterBorn]

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".

it should be, it is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

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.

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.

Back to the "storyteller" nonsense? I guess you still can't list any actual stories I have told that are not true?

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than means tested welfare for the ready reserve labor pool.

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]

it should be, it is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

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.

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.

Back to the "storyteller" nonsense? I guess you still can't list any actual stories I have told that are not true?

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than means tested welfare for the ready reserve labor pool.

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.

how does that solve our homeless problem?

The federal doctrine has no provision for excuses.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

Back to the "storyteller" nonsense? I guess you still can't list any actual stories I have told that are not true?

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than means tested welfare for the ready reserve labor pool.

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.

how does that solve our homeless problem?

The federal doctrine has no provision for excuses.

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]

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.

Back to the "storyteller" nonsense? I guess you still can't list any actual stories I have told that are not true?

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than means tested welfare for the ready reserve labor pool.

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.

how does that solve our homeless problem?

The federal doctrine has no provision for excuses.

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.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

 

[WinterBorn]

Back to the "storyteller" nonsense? I guess you still can't list any actual stories I have told that are not true?

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than means tested welfare for the ready reserve labor pool.

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.

how does that solve our homeless problem?

The federal doctrine has no provision for excuses.

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.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

I have offered no excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than means tested welfare for the ready reserve labor pool.

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.

how does that solve our homeless problem?

The federal doctrine has no provision for excuses.

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.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

I have offered no excuses.

what market friendly solution do you offer the homeless?

 

[g5000]

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.

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]

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.

how does that solve our homeless problem?

The federal doctrine has no provision for excuses.

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.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

I have offered no excuses.

what market friendly solution do you offer the homeless?

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]

how does that solve our homeless problem?

The federal doctrine has no provision for excuses.

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.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

I have offered no excuses.

what market friendly solution do you offer the homeless?

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.

how is that market friendly? command economics must distort normal free markets.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

I have offered no excuses.

what market friendly solution do you offer the homeless?

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.

how is that market friendly? command economics must distort normal free markets.

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]

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

I have offered no excuses.

what market friendly solution do you offer the homeless?

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.

how is that market friendly? command economics must distort normal free markets.

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.

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]

I have offered no excuses.

what market friendly solution do you offer the homeless?

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.

how is that market friendly? command economics must distort normal free markets.

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.

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.

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]

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]

what market friendly solution do you offer the homeless?

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.

how is that market friendly? command economics must distort normal free markets.

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.

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.

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.

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?