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

[Thinker101]

You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions. I may come back to this conversation, or I may not. For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.

I see you've met danny.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, you do. A federal doctrine and State laws support my contention and not yours.

Any federal and state doctrine that supports your contention is satisfied by the welfare system. There is no federal or state doctrine that supports the massive changes that you want for the unemployment compensation.

no, it doesn't. why make up stories, story teller. why are You advocating for more bureaucracy rather than more market friendly public?

Yes it does. Please show me any federal or state doctrine that is not satisfied by welfare but would be satisfied by the unemployment compensation as you want it recreated. You made a claim not show evidence of it.

it already exists in our Republic. any for-cause criteria need to be challenged in any at-will employment State.

No, it does not need to be challenged. Any job will have rules. Breaking those rules has consequences. You just want to avoid the consequences. If the rules are unjust, challenge them.

the rule, is employment at-will; every employer makes a big deal about it.

 

[danielpalos]

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job. You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you. That is what welfare is for.

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

It does function as a first line safety net for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. It does not act as a safety net for those who want to live off the taxpayers.

unequal application of the law needs to be challenged in any at-will employment merely for the sake of equality and equal rights.

The law is applied equally. Anyone who quits their job or is fired for cause is not eligible. That is not discriminatory.

the law is employment at the will of either party.

 

[danielpalos]

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

Ready reserve labor pool? Of people who don't want to work or who cannot follow the rules set by their employer? No.

The "upgrades" you want create a duplication of services. That is not more effective. The general public is not going to want to change the unemployment compensation system in order for you to draw wages without working or trying to find a job. It isn't going to happen.

If you refuse to work or seek employment, the unemployment compensation system is not where you belong. You belong under the welfare program. So fill out the application, including the means test, and draw your welfare check. Unless there is some reason the means test would disqualify you.

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is not a duplicated service.

But you quit your job and do not want another one. So you do not belong in the unemployment compensation programs.

And yes, it is duplication of services. You want to remove every difference between the UC and welfare, except for the means test.

employment is at-will, not for-cause. that "restriction" on the Poor, needs to be challenged in any at-will employment State.

Employment is "at will" for both employer and employee. Being required to follow the rules of the employer is no discriminatory. Breaking those rules violates the employee/employer relationship. You don't get unemployment compensation.

it is not against the rule to quit.

 

[danielpalos]

You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions. I may come back to this conversation, or I may not. For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.

you have no solutions; thank goodness you don't have any real opposition, in your district.

 

[WinterBorn]

The thing is, Daniel, is that unemployment compensation is completely designed and intended to hold people over until they find a new job. You quit your job and don't want another one, so it is not intended to support you. That is what welfare is for.

upgrading that policy is more effective. it should function as a "first line" safety net for the ready reserve labor pool.

It does function as a first line safety net for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. It does not act as a safety net for those who want to live off the taxpayers.

unequal application of the law needs to be challenged in any at-will employment merely for the sake of equality and equal rights.

The law is applied equally. Anyone who quits their job or is fired for cause is not eligible. That is not discriminatory.

the law is employment at the will of either party.

Yes.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ready reserve labor pool? Of people who don't want to work or who cannot follow the rules set by their employer? No.

The "upgrades" you want create a duplication of services. That is not more effective. The general public is not going to want to change the unemployment compensation system in order for you to draw wages without working or trying to find a job. It isn't going to happen.

If you refuse to work or seek employment, the unemployment compensation system is not where you belong. You belong under the welfare program. So fill out the application, including the means test, and draw your welfare check. Unless there is some reason the means test would disqualify you.

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is not a duplicated service.

But you quit your job and do not want another one. So you do not belong in the unemployment compensation programs.

And yes, it is duplication of services. You want to remove every difference between the UC and welfare, except for the means test.

employment is at-will, not for-cause. that "restriction" on the Poor, needs to be challenged in any at-will employment State.

Employment is "at will" for both employer and employee. Being required to follow the rules of the employer is no discriminatory. Breaking those rules violates the employee/employer relationship. You don't get unemployment compensation.

it is not against the rule to quit.

No, it is not. But the rules of unemployment compensation are that quitting means you are not eligible for money.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions. I may come back to this conversation, or I may not. For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.

you have no solutions; thank goodness you don't have any real opposition, in your district.

I have offered several solutions. They just do not your desire to avoid the means testing.

Daniel, you are a parasite on our society. Take what you can get. Welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is not a duplicated service.

But you quit your job and do not want another one. So you do not belong in the unemployment compensation programs.

And yes, it is duplication of services. You want to remove every difference between the UC and welfare, except for the means test.

employment is at-will, not for-cause. that "restriction" on the Poor, needs to be challenged in any at-will employment State.

Employment is "at will" for both employer and employee. Being required to follow the rules of the employer is no discriminatory. Breaking those rules violates the employee/employer relationship. You don't get unemployment compensation.

it is not against the rule to quit.

No, it is not. But the rules of unemployment compensation are that quitting means you are not eligible for money.

so, the employer can't take a tax break, if he fires anyone?

 

[danielpalos]

You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions. I may come back to this conversation, or I may not. For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.

you have no solutions; thank goodness you don't have any real opposition, in your district.

I have offered several solutions. They just do not your desire to avoid the means testing.

Daniel, you are a parasite on our society. Take what you can get. Welfare.

it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.

it is simple economics. the law of large numbers will be on our side. we should be raising tax revenue by providing Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions. I may come back to this conversation, or I may not. For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.

I see you've met danny.

i am just glad for our doctrine of separation of powers.

should i start working on a more serious argument?

...your Honor,

i tried and i tried to convince our politicians but they simply refused to pay attention to a guy with "just one vote".

 

[Thinker101]

You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions. I may come back to this conversation, or I may not. For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.

I see you've met danny.

i am just glad for our doctrine of separation of powers.

should i start working on a more serious argument?

...your Honor,

i tried and i tried to convince our politicians but they simply refused to pay attention to a guy with "just one vote".

Yeah, that's the reason no one pays attention to you...because you only have one vote.

 

[danielpalos]

You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions. I may come back to this conversation, or I may not. For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.

I see you've met danny.

i am just glad for our doctrine of separation of powers.

should i start working on a more serious argument?

...your Honor,

i tried and i tried to convince our politicians but they simply refused to pay attention to a guy with "just one vote".

Yeah, that's the reason no one pays attention to you...because you only have one vote.

not that serious, right, right wingers.

 

[WinterBorn]

But you quit your job and do not want another one. So you do not belong in the unemployment compensation programs.

And yes, it is duplication of services. You want to remove every difference between the UC and welfare, except for the means test.

employment is at-will, not for-cause. that "restriction" on the Poor, needs to be challenged in any at-will employment State.

Employment is "at will" for both employer and employee. Being required to follow the rules of the employer is no discriminatory. Breaking those rules violates the employee/employer relationship. You don't get unemployment compensation.

it is not against the rule to quit.

No, it is not. But the rules of unemployment compensation are that quitting means you are not eligible for money.

so, the employer can't take a tax break, if he fires anyone?

He will pay lower payroll tax if he fired them for cause. Other than that, no.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are talking in circles and refusing to answer questions. I may come back to this conversation, or I may not. For now, I am just happy the system exists as it does.

you have no solutions; thank goodness you don't have any real opposition, in your district.

I have offered several solutions. They just do not your desire to avoid the means testing.

Daniel, you are a parasite on our society. Take what you can get. Welfare.

it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.

it is simple economics. the law of large numbers will be on our side. we should be raising tax revenue by providing Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

Morals? You want to force others to give you part of the money they earned because you don't want to work. And you have the audacity to keep bringing up morals?

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at-will, not for-cause. that "restriction" on the Poor, needs to be challenged in any at-will employment State.

Employment is "at will" for both employer and employee. Being required to follow the rules of the employer is no discriminatory. Breaking those rules violates the employee/employer relationship. You don't get unemployment compensation.

it is not against the rule to quit.

No, it is not. But the rules of unemployment compensation are that quitting means you are not eligible for money.

so, the employer can't take a tax break, if he fires anyone?

He will pay lower payroll tax if he fired them for cause. Other than that, no.

in an at-will employment State?

why not hire Mr.Avenati, he can use more billable hours.

 

[WinterBorn]

Employment is "at will" for both employer and employee. Being required to follow the rules of the employer is no discriminatory. Breaking those rules violates the employee/employer relationship. You don't get unemployment compensation.

it is not against the rule to quit.

No, it is not. But the rules of unemployment compensation are that quitting means you are not eligible for money.

so, the employer can't take a tax break, if he fires anyone?

He will pay lower payroll tax if he fired them for cause. Other than that, no.

in an at-will employment State?

why not hire Mr.Avenati, he can use more billable hours.

More incoherent babbling.

 

[protectionist]

It's happening again. 2 years ago I and hundred of others in my apartment complex were forced out of our homes (apartments), when a new landlord bought the complex we were living in, and immediately raised our rents from $550/month to $900/month (for a 1 bedroom).

Now the complex I'm living in (which I came to, to escape from the previous one), has also been bought, and this new owner, like in the other complex, has also raised the rents very high. From $600/month to $850/mo.

There are certain things to take note of here. This is not a typical apartment complex. Although there is no age restriction, almost all the residents here are senior citizens, retired, and on LOW fixed incomes. Many do not own a car. Must are unable to move, and the housing market here (Tampa, FL) is such that there simply is no place to move to around here that is less than about $900/mo for 1 bdrm. Most residents are trapped here, and either cannot pay the new rent, or like myself, can just barely pay it, and still cover other necessities.

So one greed freak, ignoring the fact that the complex is much more than just HIS business, it is also the homes of hundreds of people, looks at this as nothing but a lucrative cash cow to manipulate, just for him.

So now we get to the real crux of all this. It comes down to what government is. Why it exists. It is here for the PROTECTION of the people. It is FOR the people. As much as l respect business ownership and private enterprise (I owned my own business for 12 years in the past), I recognize that business owners should not be be allowed to do ANYTHING. Rights of private property must have limits where the public would be excessively burdened to the point of some people becoming homeless.

As is the case with any business, owners cannot be allowed to do anything at all. Amusement park owners must comply with regulations that keep their roller coasters and other rides, safe. Builders must meet codes that restrict asbestos and other carcenogenic materials, and those that would allow buildings to collapse.

It should be noted that unlike musical instruments, fishing equipment, computers, and stuff that are not necessities, housing is among the group of things that people HAVE TO HAVE. That makes its position unique, relative to government Only food is as essential. And when there is no alternative, the public should be protected by business price gouging. Gasoline, food, housing, electricity, and other necessities do require SOME degree of regulation.

Let's hear what some people who are in this predicament have to say, not those who own homes and don't face danger of becoming homeless. THis is far more than just somebody's economic ideology, who has no personal housing worries.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It's happening again. 2 years ago I and hundred of others in my apartment complex were forced out of our homes (apartments), when a new landlord bought the complex we were living in, and immediately raised our rents from $550/month to $900/month (for a 1 bedroom).

Now the complex I'm living in (which I came to, to escape from the previous one), has also been bought, and this new owner, like in the other complex, has also raised the rents very high. From $600/month to $850/mo.

There are certain things to take note of here. This is not a typical apartment complex. Although there is no age restriction, almost all the residents here are senior citizens, retired, and on LOW fixed incomes. Many do not own a car. Must are unable to move, and the housing market here (Tampa, FL) is such that there simply is no place to move to around here that is less than about $900/mo for 1 bdrm. Most residents are trapped here, and either cannot pay the new rent, or like myself, can just barely pay it, and still cover other necessities.

So one greed freak, ignoring the fact that the complex is much more than just HIS business, it is also the homes of hundreds of people, looks at this as nothing but a lucrative cash cow to manipulate, just for him.

So now we get to the real crux of all this. It comes down to what government is. Why it exists. It is here for the PROTECTION of the people. It is FOR the people. As much as l respect business ownership and private enterprise (I owned my own business for 12 years in the past), I recognize that business owners should not be be allowed to do ANYTHING. Rights of private property must have limits where the public would be excessively burdened to the point of some people becoming homeless.

As is the case with any business, owners cannot be allowed to do anything at all. Amusement park owners must comply with regulations that keep their roller coasters and other rides, safe. Builders must meet codes that restrict asbestos and other carcenogenic materials, and those that would allow buildings to collapse.

It should be noted that unlike musical instruments, fishing equipment, computers, and stuff that are not necessities, housing is among the group of things that people HAVE TO HAVE. That makes its position unique, relative to government Only food is as essential. And when there is no alternative, the public should be protected by business price gouging. Gasoline, food, housing, electricity, and other necessities do require SOME degree of regulation.

Let's hear what some people who are in this predicament have to say, not those who own homes and don't face danger of becoming homeless. THis is far more than just somebody's economic ideology, who has no personal housing worries.

Let me guess. You live where Democrats control everything.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Fucking commie.