Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So I can move into your house, tell you I've decided I need it more than you and have no money to pay you, and that's cool? I'm not expecting an answer. It's obvious there is no need to discuss this further. You dig socialism. I get it.
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people.
So there is a mutually and freely agreed to contract. On person breaches the contract. They need to abide by the terms of the contract they agreed to re: the remedy for breach of contract. Why is this a difficult concept? And who says they are threatened with “homelessness”? Is the place they are renting the only place to live? The only two options aren’t living in someone else’s place for free or living under a bridge. WTF?
There is also already government assistance for low income people. Section 8, vouchers, etc. People have not paid rent and been evicted since places for rent started. What’s so special now?
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
Christ. You don’t even know what a right is. If there was anyone had any doubt TKS is a fully blown communist that doubt should no longer exist. And using a sweet logical fallacy strawman is just icing on the cake.
Free government housing for all. Sounds like a winner.
This is the textbook definition of Politicians playing to their base.
Bernie/aoc, and the puppet they control in the white house love to play the class welfare card, where they can Robinhood from the evil, greedy rich and then "attempt" to distribute it to the poor(er).
By any metric, hiring signs are abundant all over America, yet the Dems still want to have a moratorium on paying rent. GDP/consumer spending is as good as it's going to get. What happens when the housing bubble and stock market finally re-sets and the economy cools?
I think a year ago many people were up against it w/ their jobs being suddenly pulled, but 2/3rd of them have been re-hired or are back to work.
If we could only get UBI in addition to people not having to pay rent, then we could really get somewhere w/ Gov't and cradle to grave.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So I can move into your house, tell you I've decided I need it more than you and have no money to pay you, and that's cool? I'm not expecting an answer. It's obvious there is no need to discuss this further. You dig socialism. I get it.
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people.
So there is a mutually and freely agreed to contract. On person breaches the contract. They need to abide by the terms of the contract they agreed to re: the remedy for breach of contract. Why is this a difficult concept? And who says they are threatened with “homelessness”? Is the place they are renting the only place to live? The only two options aren’t living in someone else’s place for free or living under a bridge. WTF?
There is also already government assistance for low income people. Section 8, vouchers, etc. People have not paid rent and been evicted since places for rent started. What’s so special now?
It doesn’t matter if you have a thousand contractual options, you have to sign one or you don’t have a place to live. That’s coercive, not freedom.
There’s a 100 million people in rental properties. They literally can’t all make the choice to live in government housing. There’s 1.2 million households in government housing and 43 million households renting. Come on, this is a garbage argument. I don’t even have to get to the part where many of them wouldn’t qualify.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So I can move into your house, tell you I've decided I need it more than you and have no money to pay you, and that's cool? I'm not expecting an answer. It's obvious there is no need to discuss this further. You dig socialism. I get it.
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people.
So there is a mutually and freely agreed to contract. On person breaches the contract. They need to abide by the terms of the contract they agreed to re: the remedy for breach of contract. Why is this a difficult concept? And who says they are threatened with “homelessness”? Is the place they are renting the only place to live? The only two options aren’t living in someone else’s place for free or living under a bridge. WTF?
There is also already government assistance for low income people. Section 8, vouchers, etc. People have not paid rent and been evicted since places for rent started. What’s so special now?
It doesn’t matter if you have a thousand contractual options, you have to sign one or you don’t have a place to live. That’s coercive, not freedom.
There’s a 100 million people in rental properties. They literally can’t all make the choice to live in government housing. There’s 1.2 million households in government housing and 43 million households renting. Come on, this is a garbage argument. I don’t even have to get to the part where many of them wouldn’t qualify.
Speaking of garbage arguments. 100 million people aren’t breaking their rental agreements. The vast majority are productive members of society and fulfilling an obligation they freely agreed to.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
Christ. You don’t even know what a right is. If there was anyone had any doubt TKS is a fully blown communist that doubt should no longer exist. And using a sweet logical fallacy strawman is just icing on the cake.
Free government housing for all. Sounds like a winner.
So government housing isn’t a good option now?Because I’m pretty sure you were just arguing it was.
I would hope anyone that had any doubt, of me being a communist, lost it when I said I’m a communist.
For the record, I do prefer the term socialist. I think any kind of communism is so far in the future that our idea of it will change a lot by the time we get there and it may not even be valid to call it communism then.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So I can move into your house, tell you I've decided I need it more than you and have no money to pay you, and that's cool? I'm not expecting an answer. It's obvious there is no need to discuss this further. You dig socialism. I get it.
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people.
Like all leftists Kobe feels like he has an entitlement to the labor of others.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
Christ. You don’t even know what a right is. If there was anyone had any doubt TKS is a fully blown communist that doubt should no longer exist. And using a sweet logical fallacy strawman is just icing on the cake.
Free government housing for all. Sounds like a winner.
So government housing isn’t a good option now?Because I’m pretty sure you were just arguing it was.
I would hope anyone that had any doubt, of me being a communist, lost it when I said I’m a communist.
For the record, I do prefer the term socialist. I think any kind of communism is so far in the future that our idea of it will change a lot by the time we get there and it may not even be valid to call it communism then.
We have government safety nets that don’t involved especially confiscating people’s real estate. Are you dense?
Communism just needs time to get it’s guys in there like TKS. He would do it way different than all the other failed communist nations.
You’re as nutty as OBK and should be treated as such. Hth.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So I can move into your house, tell you I've decided I need it more than you and have no money to pay you, and that's cool? I'm not expecting an answer. It's obvious there is no need to discuss this further. You dig socialism. I get it.
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people.
Like all leftists Kobe feels like he has an entitlement to the labor of others.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So I can move into your house, tell you I've decided I need it more than you and have no money to pay you, and that's cool? I'm not expecting an answer. It's obvious there is no need to discuss this further. You dig socialism. I get it.
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people.
Like all leftists Kobe feels like he has an entitlement to the labor of others.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
Why I love you bro. Got the race card in. Its the million different ways that's the issue.
We're not going to be in the same area code on this
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
So "Earning your Keep" is immoral and coercive. Got it.
When the folks die and you can't pay the property taxes (from the basement), the county will "coerce" your move by foreclosing on the house and tossing your ass into the street.
Just desserts from the Government you love so much.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
So "Earning your Keep" is immoral and coercive. Got it.
When the folks die and you can't pay the property taxes (from the basement), the county will "coerce" your move by foreclosing on the house and tossing your ass into the street.
Just desserts from the Government you love so much.
That’s what he wants. Then the government will own the property. Get it?
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
So "Earning your Keep" is immoral and coercive. Got it.
When the folks die and you can't pay the property taxes (from the basement), the county will "coerce" your move by foreclosing on the house and tossing your ass into the street.
Just desserts from the Government you love so much.
That’s what he wants. Then the government will own the property. Get it?
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
So "Earning your Keep" is immoral and coercive. Got it.
When the folks die and you can't pay the property taxes (from the basement), the county will "coerce" your move by foreclosing on the house and tossing your ass into the street.
Just desserts from the Government you love so much.
That’s what he wants. Then the government will own the property. Get it?
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
Christ. You don’t even know what a right is. If there was anyone had any doubt TKS is a fully blown communist that doubt should no longer exist. And using a sweet logical fallacy strawman is just icing on the cake.
Free government housing for all. Sounds like a winner.
So government housing isn’t a good option now?Because I’m pretty sure you were just arguing it was.
I would hope anyone that had any doubt, of me being a communist, lost it when I said I’m a communist.
For the record, I do prefer the term socialist. I think any kind of communism is so far in the future that our idea of it will change a lot by the time we get there and it may not even be valid to call it communism then.
We have government safety nets that don’t involved especially confiscating people’s real estate. Are you dense?
Communism just needs time to get it’s guys in there like TKS. He would do it way different than all the other failed communist nations.
You’re as nutty as OBK and should be treated as such. Hth.
Aww, it’s cute that you found a moment to pretend your right wing libertarianism isn’t extreme. Should we have government safety nets, Mike? How are you going to pay for it? With stolen tax dollars? Foh.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
Christ. You don’t even know what a right is. If there was anyone had any doubt TKS is a fully blown communist that doubt should no longer exist. And using a sweet logical fallacy strawman is just icing on the cake.
Free government housing for all. Sounds like a winner.
So government housing isn’t a good option now?Because I’m pretty sure you were just arguing it was.
I would hope anyone that had any doubt, of me being a communist, lost it when I said I’m a communist.
For the record, I do prefer the term socialist. I think any kind of communism is so far in the future that our idea of it will change a lot by the time we get there and it may not even be valid to call it communism then.
We have government safety nets that don’t involved especially confiscating people’s real estate. Are you dense?
Communism just needs time to get it’s guys in there like TKS. He would do it way different than all the other failed communist nations.
You’re as nutty as OBK and should be treated as such. Hth.
Aww, it’s cute that you found a moment to pretend your right wing libertarianism isn’t extreme. Should we have government safety nets, Mike? How are you going to pay for it? With stolen tax dollars? Foh.
You’re not a serious person. We should have government safety nets funded by consumption tax. I’m not a libertarian, dumb fuck.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?
Coercion is the government telling a landlord he doesn't own his property. Freedom is being able to earn enough to buy rent or live where your efforts allow
Your idea of freedom is strange to say the least
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
Funny you bring up slavery because that's exactly the way you think you should be able to treat property owners. The property they worked for and own isn't really theirs to do with as they choose, it's really yours to do with as you choose. Nothing new here, you Rat party supporters have always believed you had an entitlement to the labor of others.
Can you tell me how many Americans live in rental properties and how many mom and pop single property, reliant on that income, owners there are?
That’s why you can have one without the other. It’s 100 million to maybe 3 million. As much as I’m not a fan of landlords, I don’t want those 3 million to suffer. Thankfully, there have been ways, and there continues to be ways, for them to get help.
Make sure you don’t think things are unfair because you identify more with the group getting less help. It’s about harm reduction, that’s all we want.
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.
There's no reason virtually anyone should still be unable to pay rent baring disability, in which case there is other assistance available for them. Everywhere in the world is hiring right now. Vaccines have been free and widely distributed for months. There has been massive government assistance from stimuli to tax credits.
I have been on both ends of this having lived in multiple apartments and spare bedrooms. I've also had to kick my brother out of my house. It sucked, I was physically sick over it for days before and afterwards. I am not zealous to have a bunch of people put out of their homes. I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent, and when you take that motivator away you are asking people to take advantage of the system.
Bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to force people to continue letting someone live on their property for free. The CDC for sure doesn't even have anything close to that right.
All this is leading to is further corporatization of the housing industry which I'm shocked you are in support of.
You said you can’t do one without the other. I think the 100 million number is meaningful because it’s about political will. Even if you shrink it down to people at risk, that doesn’t make the numbers look better for landlords.
I don’t care who the landlord is and, honestly, you explained why.
I do think eviction is a great motivator for following through with your commitment to pay rent
That’s not freedom, it’s coercion. I don’t see any difference between the corporations taking your money under threat of homelessness and the “little guy” taking your money under the threat of homelessness.
So I can move into your house, tell you I've decided I need it more than you and have no money to pay you, and that's cool? I'm not expecting an answer. It's obvious there is no need to discuss this further. You dig socialism. I get it.
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people.
Like all leftists Kobe feels like he has an entitlement to the labor of others.
Just like all capitalists.
Nope, people are perfectly free to not work for me if they choose not to work for me. I have no entitlement to their labor. But you do feel like the property owner's property, that they worked for, isn't really theirs, and that you should have it.
Comments
There is also already government assistance for low income people. Section 8, vouchers, etc. People have not paid rent and been evicted since places for rent started. What’s so special now?
In the extreme, would you say slaves being freed was a coercive act? It was the government telling someone they didn’t own their property anymore. I would say it wasn’t because the freedom to own that “property” was impeding on the freedom of the slaves to not be property.
It’s not apples to apples but, to me, the logical arrow follows. Owning property, specifically to rent it, is coercive and impedes on what I believe should be everyone’s right, a place to live.
Free government housing for all. Sounds like a winner.
Bernie/aoc, and the puppet they control in the white house love to play the class welfare card, where they can Robinhood from the evil, greedy rich and then "attempt" to distribute it to the poor(er).
By any metric, hiring signs are abundant all over America, yet the Dems still want to have a moratorium on paying rent. GDP/consumer spending is as good as it's going to get. What happens when the housing bubble and stock market finally re-sets and the economy cools?
I think a year ago many people were up against it w/ their jobs being suddenly pulled, but 2/3rd of them have been re-hired or are back to work.
If we could only get UBI in addition to people not having to pay rent, then we could really get somewhere w/ Gov't and cradle to grave.
There’s a 100 million people in rental properties. They literally can’t all make the choice to live in government housing. There’s 1.2 million households in government housing and 43 million households renting. Come on, this is a garbage argument. I don’t even have to get to the part where many of them wouldn’t qualify.
Your argument is communism. It’s that simple.
I would hope anyone that had any doubt, of me being a communist, lost it when I said I’m a communist.
For the record, I do prefer the term socialist. I think any kind of communism is so far in the future that our idea of it will change a lot by the time we get there and it may not even be valid to call it communism then.
Communism just needs time to get it’s guys in there like TKS. He would do it way different than all the other failed communist nations.
You’re as nutty as OBK and should be treated as such. Hth.
We're not going to be in the same area code on this
When the folks die and you can't pay the property taxes (from the basement), the county will "coerce" your move by foreclosing on the house and tossing your ass into the street.
Just desserts from the Government you love so much.
Win-Win