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

[danielpalos]

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.

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?

no. i favor solving for the actual dilemma of Capitalism's natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment, in a market friendly manner.

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.

unemployment compensation is less expensive than means testing everyone.

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.

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]

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.

pay attention story teller. the infrastructure already exists in every State and the federal districts.

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.

why? it should be simpler, not more difficult.

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.

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

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]

pay attention story teller. the infrastructure already exists in every State and the federal districts.

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.

why? it should be simpler, not more difficult.

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.

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

Yes, I do. I have already explained it. You dislike it because it does not help you draw an unemployment check for nothing.

Unemployment compensation is a market friendly solution. You have nothing but command economics.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

no. i favor solving for the actual dilemma of Capitalism's natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment, in a market friendly manner.

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.

unemployment compensation is less expensive than means testing everyone.

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.

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.

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]

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

Why do you want unemployment instead of welfare? Why do you care where the money comes from?

market based metrics under Any form of Capitalism, "free market story teller".

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?

lol. only story tellers have no clue about economics.

the infrastructure already exists. full employment of resources is what makes it more cost effective.

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.

There is no duplication of service; one addresses market based phenomena and the other requires means testing.

 

[WinterBorn]

pay attention story teller. the infrastructure already exists in every State and the federal districts.

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.

why? it should be simpler, not more difficult.

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.

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

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.

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]

no. i favor solving for the actual dilemma of Capitalism's natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment, in a market friendly manner.

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.

unemployment compensation is less expensive than means testing everyone.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

why? it should be simpler, not more difficult.

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.

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

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.

Well said. Solving the homeless crisis in this country involved far more than a check. Substance abuse help and mental illness help are critical.

Capitalism not Socialism, right wingers!

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do you want unemployment instead of welfare? Why do you care where the money comes from?

market based metrics under Any form of Capitalism, "free market story teller".

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?

lol. only story tellers have no clue about economics.

the infrastructure already exists. full employment of resources is what makes it more cost effective.

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.

There is no duplication of service; one addresses market based phenomena and the other requires means testing.

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]

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.

unemployment compensation is less expensive than means testing everyone.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why should an employer continue to pay you when you stop working?

 

[WinterBorn]

why? it should be simpler, not more difficult.

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.

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

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.

Well said. Solving the homeless crisis in this country involved far more than a check. Substance abuse help and mental illness help are critical.

Capitalism not Socialism, right wingers!

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]

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.

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]

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.

why? it should be simpler, not more difficult.

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.

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

Yes, I do. I have already explained it. You dislike it because it does not help you draw an unemployment check for nothing.

Unemployment compensation is a market friendly solution. You have nothing but command economics.

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]

market based metrics under Any form of Capitalism, "free market story teller".

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?

lol. only story tellers have no clue about economics.

the infrastructure already exists. full employment of resources is what makes it more cost effective.

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.

There is no duplication of service; one addresses market based phenomena and the other requires means testing.

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.

nope; employment status under our form of capitalism versus means testing.

 

[danielpalos]

unemployment compensation is less expensive than means testing everyone.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why should an employer continue to pay you when you stop working?

They shouldn't. We need to change the way we collect taxes for unemployment compensation.

A general tax should be enough.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

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.

Well said. Solving the homeless crisis in this country involved far more than a check. Substance abuse help and mental illness help are critical.

Capitalism not Socialism, right wingers!

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.

it has Everything to do with Economics not your alleged morality.

 

[danielpalos]

why? it should be simpler, not more difficult.

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.

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

Yes, I do. I have already explained it. You dislike it because it does not help you draw an unemployment check for nothing.

Unemployment compensation is a market friendly solution. You have nothing but command economics.

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.

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]

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?

lol. only story tellers have no clue about economics.

the infrastructure already exists. full employment of resources is what makes it more cost effective.

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.

There is no duplication of service; one addresses market based phenomena and the other requires means testing.

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.

nope; employment status under our form of capitalism versus means testing.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why should an employer continue to pay you when you stop working?

They shouldn't. We need to change the way we collect taxes for unemployment compensation.

A general tax should be enough.

So you want to change who is eligible for unemployment compensation. Now you want to change the source of its funding?

 

[WinterBorn]

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

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.

Well said. Solving the homeless crisis in this country involved far more than a check. Substance abuse help and mental illness help are critical.

Capitalism not Socialism, right wingers!

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.

it has Everything to do with Economics not your alleged morality.

We are not discussing morality. If we were, your desire to live off the labor of others would certainly come into the conversation.