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

[WinterBorn]

Solving for simple poverty means they would be still be Poor until they took the effort to improve themselves and seek a niche in the market for labor, etc.

And that is exactly what existing welfare programs do.

 

[WinterBorn]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equal protection of the laws is a legal right guaranteed to individuals of the People in our State and Federal Constitutions.

State legislators have no authority to deny or disparage equal protection of the laws in federal venues.

Unemployment compensation does not abridge any privileges or immunities. Every person who lost a job through no fault of their own is covered by unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

The "natural unemployment" you speak of can just as easily be solved by existing welfare programs better than temporary unemployment compensation.

I have no idea why you believe that other than words are inexpensive for storytellers.

Means testing is more expensive than this form of "Standardization": All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

It really is that simple, from an economic perspective.

 

[danielpalos]

And that is exactly what existing welfare programs do.

That is the problem. Means testing is for complex forms of poverty not simple poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation does not abridge any privileges or immunities. Every person who lost a job through no fault of their own is covered by unemployment.

State legislators have no authority to abridge employment law due to the contract clause.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have no idea why you believe that other than words are inexpensive for storytellers.

Means testing is more expensive than this form of "Standardization": All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

It really is that simple, from an economic perspective.

Means testing is not more expensive than sending checks to people who do not need them. It really is that simple.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is the problem. Means testing is for complex forms of poverty not simple poverty.

Means testing simply excludes those who do not need assistance from the tax payers in order to survive. Why should tax payers give money to those who have the means to support themselves?

 

[Augustine_]

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.

Lol isn't that fucking something. "I'm a conservative, except when it affects me." The story of Trumpism right there.

 

[WinterBorn]

State legislators have no authority to abridge employment law due to the contract clause.

They are not abridging anything. You and the employer can end the relationship at any time for any reason. If you end it, the employer is deprived of your labor/services, and you are deprived of a paycheck.

 

[danielpalos]

Means testing is not more expensive than sending checks to people who do not need them. It really is that simple.

Are words on sale today, storyteller? Means testing is Always more expensive than at-will.

 

[danielpalos]

Means testing simply excludes those who do not need assistance from the tax payers in order to survive. Why should tax payers give money to those who have the means to support themselves?

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a solution to simple poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

They are not abridging anything. You and the employer can end the relationship at any time for any reason. If you end it, the employer is deprived of your labor/services, and you are deprived of a paycheck.

Yes, requiring any Cause in an at-will employment State is an abridgement to at-will employment law for unemployment compensation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Are words on sale today, storyteller? Means testing is Always more expensive than at-will.

Not addressing what I said at all.

I said means testing is more expensive than sending out checks to those who do not need them.

If you get a check for $500 a month, you are getting paid $6,000.00 per year. No means testing will cost that much.

 

[WinterBorn]

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a solution to simple poverty.

And means testing is effectively making sure only those in poverty get paid.

Unemployment compensation is paid for by the employer.
Unemployment is temporary.
Unemployment is based on what you made at your last job.

None of those will requirements will help simple poverty.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, requiring any Cause in an at-will employment State is an abridgement to at-will employment law for unemployment compensation.

No, it is not. You repeating the same lie does not make it true.

 

[danielpalos]

Not addressing what I said at all.

I said means testing is more expensive than sending out checks to those who do not need them.

If you get a check for $500 a month, you are getting paid $6,000.00 per year. No means testing will cost that much.

Solving for capitalism's natural unemployment is the benefit and economic stimulus; you simply appeal to ignorance of economics, like usual.

Only capital must circulate under Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

And means testing is effectively making sure only those in poverty get paid.

Unemployment compensation is paid for by the employer.
Unemployment is temporary.
Unemployment is based on what you made at your last job.

None of those will requirements will help simple poverty.

They got it wrong the first time. Lousy implementation from a historical perspective is simply a mistake to not be repeated. Only the right-wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it is not. You repeating the same lie does not make it true.

Storyteller, you are the one who is abusing words not me.

 

[WinterBorn]

Solving for capitalism's natural unemployment is the benefit and economic stimulus; you simply appeal to ignorance of economics, like usual.

Only capital must circulate under Capitalism.

And the capital will circulate if we leave that money in the hands of those who earn it.

The welfare programs are supposed to be a safety net, as is unemployment compensation.

Why should the tax payers fund those who choose not to help themselves? There is not logical reason to take money from those who work, and give it to people who are capable of working, but choose not to do so.

 

[WinterBorn]

They got it wrong the first time. Lousy implementation from a historical perspective is simply a mistake to not be repeated. Only the right-wing, never gets it.

They got it exactly right, given the stated goals of UC.