YES! No evictions!! How we benefit from Bidens move

Agreed. This type of business is not for everybody. Some people get into it thinking their only challenges is collecting the rent and paying the bills. Cities and states think all landlords are sitting on a pile of cash naked and rolling around in it. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy what I do, but it's almost a full-time job and you have to love it in order to make it work.

I haven't been on a vacation in 30 years or more. I'm retired now, but when I was working, I spent all my vacation time at home catching up on projects I couldn't get to. At the age of 61, I have yet to see an ocean in my life outside of television or the window of an airplane. Now I'm not complaining. I signed onto this. What I object to is when government believes my investment is a social obligation to the public, and they can tell me what I can charge for rent, who I must keep as a tenant, and who I can throw out.
It's a bad business to be in Ray, and it's being suggested that it's the renters' fault.
It is! It's America's fault. Some will even call it black people's fault.

Sounds like you're making out to be the unsuccessful bum Ray, while blaming others for not finding jobs.
Was it your fault or was it America's fault for not providing the opportunities that paid well?
You're sounding a lot like a victim of 'income inequality'.
 
Landlords have abused tenants? No, tenants have been stiffing landlirds for years, and here you are openly encouraging more of it. Where is your god damn integrity? You singed an agreement, he supplied the house, and you stiff him?

Youre a fucking douche.
Excellent! You're facing up to the facts in America.
It's of little importance who's to blame. That's only based on extremist political attitudes of both sides.
 
Manufacturing can return if the companies want to pay considerably more than overseas labor. But if a company it truly american it will happily do that.
And if the customers are truly American they won't mind paying more for the same or less quality than they can get elsewhere?
 
The point I was making is that throwing more money at the problem won't help very much. When somebody from another country tells me we don't "fund our schools enough" is rather insulting given how much we do spend.

Now as for financial inequity, I believe if you took kids from an upper-class neighborhood, and put them in these lower funded schools, they would continue to be good students. While at the same time, if you took those kids in lower-income areas, and sent them to those upper-middle-class areas to attend school, their grades won't be that much different either.

Money is not the solution to this problem.
Money is part of the solution Ray. But a huge problem in America is people who are wealthy enough to send their kids to private schools, then think they don't have to uphold and support the public school system.
America's public school system is scorned for it's low quality.

Capitalism must always include a healthy mix of 'socialism'.
A public school system is 'socialism' at work and Americans know it and they hate it!

We're establishing how fkd up America is Ray, we're just not yet finding agreement on the reasons.


Keep referring back:
  • A good job market
  • Affordability
  • Economic stability
  • Family friendly
  • Income equality
  • Politically stable
  • Safety
  • Well-developed public health system
  • Well-developed public education system. *
*how does America score?
 
The wealthy will do what they've been doing for decades starting with the big union days, and that is move out of the country or invest in more automation to replace humans. Automation has taken more jobs from workers than any other action.
Yes! The wealthy will move out of the country rather than pay a living wage.

Those are the same people that others are saying will be good Americans who won't seek out the most lucrative marketplace overseas.

Government must shoulder some of the blame for not ensuring those businesses stay in America.

But how could government do that if not turning to 'socialist' policies being impressed on capitalism? Is that something Trump would consider doing?
 
Yes! The wealthy will move out of the country rather than pay a living wage.

Those are the same people that others are saying will be good Americans who won't seek out the most lucrative marketplace overseas.

Government must shoulder some of the blame for not ensuring those businesses stay in America.

But how could government do that if not turning to 'socialist' policies being impressed on capitalism? Is that something Trump would consider doing?

We are a free country. We don't force our industry or citizens to stay. We don't have an iron curtain.

This is a simple philosophy that you on the left hate called Action/ Reaction. When somebody takes an action regarding another, there will most likely be a reaction. But it gets more complex than that because there are positive and negative actions.

If we ever met at a bar and I extend my hand to shake yours, you will likely do the same. Positive action gaining a positive reaction. Now if I push you against the wall, you are going to push me right back. Negative action and negative reaction.

So why do liberals hate this philosophy so much? Because a liberal believes a negative action will result in a positive reaction, and it never works out that way, particularly where business is concerned.

Can government help? Yes they can if Republicans are in charge. Under Trump, the Republicans reduced their taxes so we were more in line with our worldwide competitors. He got rid of Commie Care mandates, and instituted a policy that for every new business regulation created, two had to be removed in it's place. Because he supported US fuel production, businesses also gained as well as citizens because all businesses use fuel, and many much more than the individual.

The result? Positive action/ positive reaction.
 
Why would a President ask for an extension for something the USSC declared to be Unconstitutional?

And why would anyone except idiots and Marxists try to defend him and / or celebrate the criminal act? This is reminiscent of Barry declaring his lack of authority to affect US Immigration law before doing it anyway.
 
Money is part of the solution Ray. But a huge problem in America is people who are wealthy enough to send their kids to private schools, then think they don't have to uphold and support the public school system.
America's public school system is scorned for it's low quality.

Capitalism must always include a healthy mix of 'socialism'.
A public school system is 'socialism' at work and Americans know it and they hate it!

We're establishing how fkd up America is Ray, we're just not yet finding agreement on the reasons.

I'm going to tell you of a true story, so for those that have already read it, skip the next paragraph or two.

Several years ago my then neighbor kid got a portable basketball hoop. Before I knew it, I was living next door to a kids park. We had kids here from the time they got out of school to well past dark. A few times I had to call the police. Now keep in mind I live in a community heavily populated by blacks. At 10:00pm I yelled at them to go home, and when they didn't that's when I called the cops.

The kids ranged in age from 6 to 16. Now when I was their age, my white ass had to be home before the street lights came on. At times there were a dozen kids here, and not one parent ever showed up to drag them home, get their homework done, and in bed to prepare for school the next day.

When our community was predominantly white, we had one of the best school systems in the county. We went to one of the worst, and that was after we laid out millions of dollars for a few new schools. So please tell me that it's the schools fault these kids are not getting proper education and not the parents.
 
They'll never collect from you because you're a leech but they will get a judgement against you which will screw your credit and keep you from obtaining a house. The bank will not loan you a dime.
Even if he manages to get a house, his ex-landlord will sue him, win and seize the house. Then the deadbeat will owe the bank hundreds of thousands he can’t pay, have no house, won’t be able to rent an apartment without a huge deposit and some kind of rider on the lease allowing immediate eviction on failure to pay rent. He will be homeless and blaming everyone except himself where the entire blame lies.
 
It's a bad business to be in Ray, and it's being suggested that it's the renters' fault.
It is! It's America's fault. Some will even call it black people's fault.

Sounds like you're making out to be the unsuccessful bum Ray, while blaming others for not finding jobs.
Was it your fault or was it America's fault for not providing the opportunities that paid well?
You're sounding a lot like a victim of 'income inequality'.

I'm doing fine. I'm the owner of several apartments and as I planned, supplemental income for when I retired. It's working well so far outside of the neighborhood. But I do okay.

Yes, I do blame young healthy people for not finding jobs. I did pretty well in my former career as a tractor-trailer operator for 25 years, and straight truck for a few years before I advanced myself. The apartment thing was an additional responsibility and business.

Besides all that, I have a pretty healthy IRA that I can hopefully keep growing until I can't do this any longer, and I plan on getting a part-time job come fall if I can find anybody to hire me at this age.

Don't worry about me. Worry about yourself.
 
You've almost convinced me that Americans are lazy bums who don't want to work. That's what you're trying to do right?

I've offered some 'other' reasons for the problem but you're choosing to ignore them. Do you have anything more that can convince me that Americans are lazy bums who just don't want to work?

Not unless you can give me a reasonable explanation how a country with a near 6% unemployment rate can have a huge labor shortage at the same time.
 
1. jobs that don't pay a wage that's attractive enough.
2. low paying jobs in some other region.
3. False unemployment rate from government.
4. Jobs that don't provide HC.

You did say please. But I don't think you really wanted to know. We'll see how you deal with those answers.
Can you think of any more please?

As to the first one, jobs are paying reasonable wages, it's just that government is paying people more to stay home. In my state, they calculated that a person on unemployment with the fed addition is making a comparable 43K a year for a working person. Now, people making that or less can afford apartments, houses, able to feed their family on that salary. So you lose on that one. Your second point is pretty much the same, but if there are no jobs paying enough, the answer is to move someplace where they are like in my state. There is no false unemployment. The Communists are running the country now, and if anything, they would fudge the numbers their way. Several years ago most jobs provided healthcare coverage, but then the morons elected a socialist asshole that destroyed that benefit for millions of Americans.
 
If the govt pays more than alot of jobs, we have a wage problem. Big time. It's rather disgusting. Shameful.
 
Landlords will just start abandoning the properties. No rent, repairs won't be made. That clogged toilet, take the rent you didn't pay and hire a plumber. When the tax bill comes due and isn't paid, what do you think happens? The property is foreclosed upon. The state is not obligated to abide by restrictions on landlords. Don't worry Blackrock is ready to make the purchase.
Then you have Detroit, a wasteland of abandoned housing where the government will sell you a house for next to nothing if you promise to fix it up, live in it and pay taxes.
 
If the govt pays more than alot of jobs, we have a wage problem. Big time. It's rather disgusting. Shameful.
No, we have a government problem, because while government doesn't worry about budgets and spending less than it earns, Business has to. When government wants to spend more than it makes, it either borrows money or prints it and spends it anyway. Business has to look at revenue and make sure things like labor costs don't exceed revenue. Really, this is not rocket surgery.
 
Ray From Cleveland
Yes, communists and socialists do want people to have a place to live.
You're effectively saying that America's capitalists don't.

Your country is as fukked up as Americans claim it is.
That's mostly because the working people's attitudes are fukked up. They still believe that if they work hard they will be the president! The very wealthy want you to keep on believing!
People born middle class or poor can be president. Neither Clinton, or Obama came from wealth.
 
If they can be president why are they never elected? Why only wealthy men who have no clue what it's like to work?
 
Money is part of the solution Ray. But a huge problem in America is people who are wealthy enough to send their kids to private schools, then think they don't have to uphold and support the public school system.
America's public school system is scorned for it's low quality.

Capitalism must always include a healthy mix of 'socialism'.
A public school system is 'socialism' at work and Americans know it and they hate it!

We're establishing how fkd up America is Ray, we're just not yet finding agreement on the reasons.


Keep referring back:
  • A good job market
  • Affordability
  • Economic stability
  • Family friendly
  • Income equality
  • Politically stable
  • Safety
  • Well-developed public health system
  • Well-developed public education system. *
*how does America score?
You know very little about America. If parents elect to send their kids to private school, they still have to pay the same taxes. Hell private school isn’t even a tax write-off and never has been. That’s one reason people are trying so hard for a school voucher system. Then your tax dollars would follow your kids. The high performing schools would get more money, the failing schools would die on the vine. The only students going to bad schools would be the ones whose parents don’t care about education. Rewarding performance is how you achieve excellence, not by rewarding failure.
 
If they can be president why are they never elected? Why only wealthy men who have no clue what it's like to work?
I just posted two in recent memory. Now I’ll admit that neither had any idea of doing real work, Clinton was a professional politician and Obama was a lawyer who only practiced at being a community organizer. But neither was even upper middle class when elected to the presidency and both became wealthy while in office.
 

Forum List

Back
Top