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

[WinterBorn]

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

Liar.

 

[danielpalos]

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

So what. I stated express law. Be Legal to the Law, right-wingers just plain political hypocrites in border threads.

 

[danielpalos]

Liar.

Projection is what right-wingers do best.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You say that because you appeal to ignorance of economics. People without capital don't circulate it. Why do we have a problem with petty thievery now?

 

[WinterBorn]

So what. I stated express law. Be Legal to the Law, right-wingers just plain political hypocrites in border threads.

Border threads have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Existing programs cover everything you want UC to do, and more effectively.

Your pipedream would require a complete revamping of the Unemployment Compensation program. And it would duplicate existing programs.

 

[danielpalos]

Border threads have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Existing programs cover everything you want UC to do, and more effectively.

Your pipedream would require a complete revamping of the Unemployment Compensation program. And it would duplicate existing programs.

Cool story, storyteller.

 

[WinterBorn]

You say that because you appeal to ignorance of economics. People without capital don't circulate it. Why do we have a problem with petty thievery now?

I am not ignorant of economics. People who work and earn money will spend that money. It does not have to be taken away from them and redistributed in order to circulate. Plus, the process of taking it away from those who earned it and redistributing it costs money. So it actually reduces the amount available for circulation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Cool story, storyteller.

Are you denying that UC would have to be revamped?

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, I have asked you repeatedly why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.

Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?

Answer this before we continue discussing your pipedream.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not ignorant of economics. People who work and earn money will spend that money. It does not have to be taken away from them and redistributed in order to circulate. Plus, the process of taking it away from those who earned it and redistributing it costs money. So it actually reduces the amount available for circulation.

It is a simple solution to simple poverty. Y'all have no better solutions only the morality of hypocrisy.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you denying that UC would have to be revamped?

Upgraded or refurbished could also be applied.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, I have asked you repeatedly why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.

Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?

Answer this before we continue discussing your pipedream.

It has to do with something right-wingers obviously know absolutely nothing about; equal protection of the laws.

 

[WinterBorn]

Upgraded or refurbished could also be applied.

Changing the source of the funding, who is eligible, how long it lasts is completely revamping.

Now, why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.

Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?

 

[WinterBorn]

It has to do with something right-wingers obviously know absolutely nothing about; equal protection of the laws.

No, it does not.

Why do you think you should be able to sit at home doing nothing and get a check from the tax payers, when you can obviously support yourself without it?

 

[dblack]

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.

Can't imagine what tortured definition of "conservative" would include your rampant statism.

 

[danielpalos]

Changing the source of the funding, who is eligible, how long it lasts is completely revamping.

Now, why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.

Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?

It could be funded through general forms of taxation since solving simple poverty means more capital will be circulating in our market based economy.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it does not.

Why do you think you should be able to sit at home doing nothing and get a check from the tax payers, when you can obviously support yourself without it?

Yes, it does. I have explained several times. You simply insist on appealing to ignorance.

 

[WinterBorn]

It could be funded through general forms of taxation since solving simple poverty means more capital will be circulating in our market based economy.

No, there would not be more capital circulating.

It costs to tax the money and redistribute it. So less would actually be spent in the economy.

Whereas if the people who earned it were able to keep it, they would spend 100% of it in the economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it does. I have explained several times. You simply insist on appealing to ignorance.

I appeal to the logic of it, or lack thereof.

And you refuse to tell us why you think you should be supported by tax payer money.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why you think you should be able to draw a check from tax payer funds when you are fully capable of working and taking care of yourself.

Why do you deserve to be supported by tax payers when you can support yourself?