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.
Would you expect anything different from the guy who claimed balanced budgets are racist?
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.
Ok so you’re good with paying taxes and you’re ok with some income groups bearing more of the burden, we just disagree on how much and who. Cool, no problem with that.
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.
Yes, that's exactly what I can do. I OWN it. Ownership implies agency over activities occurring in it. Or it used to. Do you advocate for no private property rights? Nothing is owned, we all just wander around and sleep wherever like a giant commune?
Why would I let someone live in something I purchased for free? I do not understand your logic. Good luck the rest of the way I guess.
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.
Ah very well. I had not explicitly heard you call yourself a communist/socialist before. Clears everything up. I won't bother asking anymore questions as I now understand your answers. Good luck fighting the good fight, as long as you don't end up at my house advocating I give it to you.
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.
Ok so you’re good with paying taxes and you’re ok with some income groups bearing more of the burden, we just disagree on how much and who. Cool, no problem with that.
JFC. I did learn enough about your views in this thread to know you are an enemy of liberty and should be treated as such.
Quite honestly, I'm surprised they haven't at least put forth a tax exemption for lost rent. Then again, Dems need that money for "infrastructure"
Brushing aside Kobe's communist manifesto which has sucked this thread into an abyss - I still can't get over how fucking clumsy these covid bills have been.
The government threw a trillion+ that just about any "at risk" corporation could claim with little to no oversight (the PPP fiasco aside, the amount of CARES Act tax bill deductions that giant corporations have taken is obscene), yet essentially told landlords to fuck off. Some states and municipalities have stepped in with relief programs to fill the hole, but the entire CARES Act was arguably the laziest, most shittily implemented piece of legislation our esteemed Congress has ever passed.
Quite honestly, I'm surprised they haven't at least put forth a tax exemption for lost rent. Then again, Dems need that money for "infrastructure"
Brushing aside Kobe's communist manifesto which has sucked this thread into an abyss - I still can't get over how fucking clumsy these covid bills have been.
The government threw a trillion+ that just about any "at risk" corporation could claim with little to no oversight (the PPP fiasco aside, the amount of CARES Act tax bill deductions that giant corporations have taken is obscene), yet essentially told landlords to fuck off. Some states and municipalities have stepped in with relief programs to fill the hole, but the entire CARES Act was arguably the laziest, most shittily implemented piece of legislation our esteemed Congress has ever passed.
Yeah but the pork BBQ and kickback beans were delicious I'm sure!
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.
Every tim I read something from this guy, I ask myself, he can't possibly be this stupid right? It's just an act because he thinks that if people think he's an idiot, at least they're thinking about him. But then he continually goes above and beyond and I can't believe it's an act. He really is that stupid. Which makes it pretty amazing that he can actually type.
Quite honestly, I'm surprised they haven't at least put forth a tax exemption for lost rent. Then again, Dems need that money for "infrastructure"
Brushing aside Kobe's communist manifesto which has sucked this thread into an abyss - I still can't get over how fucking clumsy these covid bills have been.
The government threw a trillion+ that just about any "at risk" corporation could claim with little to no oversight (the PPP fiasco aside, the amount of CARES Act tax bill deductions that giant corporations have taken is obscene), yet essentially told landlords to fuck off. Some states and municipalities have stepped in with relief programs to fill the hole, but the entire CARES Act was arguably the laziest, most shittily implemented piece of legislation our esteemed Congress has ever passed.
The voters punished them though
Ballotpedia covered all state races on November 3, 2020, as well as local elections in America's 100 largest cities by population. In the 2020 general election, 93% of incumbents nationwide won their re-election bids. This percentage includes races in which incumbents ran unopposed but does not include recall elections.
The incumbent win rate remained at or above 90% in all states but California, New Hampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia.
The lowest overall incumbent win rate was in California with 85%. New Jersey was the only state to see a 100% incumbent win rate.
Congressional incumbents had a 96% win rate. Thirty-eight states had a 100% win rate in congressional races.
State-level incumbents had a 95% win rate. Five states had a 100% win rate in state-level races.
Local-level incumbents had an 89% average win rate. Eight states had a 100% win rate in local-level races.
The analysis below includes data compiled by Ballotpedia on the 7,636 incumbents who ran for re-election on November 3, 2020.
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.
Lol that you are too ignorant to know that the US already tried this, repeatedly.
Fuck, you've got to be so fucking insulated not to know what a failure "the projects" have been and continue to be.
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.
Lol that you are too ignorant to know that the US already tried this, repeatedly.
Fuck, you've got to be so fucking insulated not to know what a failure "the projects" have been and continue to be.
Government provided housing.
For some reason, people take better care of stuff they own than they do with stuff they don't own. Our local middle school has a large area of open ground which is a combination of grass and weeds which isn't irrigated. Always looks like sh*t, but good enough for T ball and little kid soccer. Next to it is some land that the school district leases to the West Linn/Wilsonville soccer club which runs Classic/Premier soccer teams. Irrigated, fertilized and treated for weeds. It's immaculate.
When morons like the Slobberer are ignorant of basic human behavior and think that the government knows better how to run things you get Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea etc.
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.
Ok so you’re good with paying taxes and you’re ok with some income groups bearing more of the burden, we just disagree on how much and who. Cool, no problem with that.
JFC. I did learn enough about your views in this thread to know you are an enemy of liberty and should be treated as such.
As with almost all authoritarians he had to hide and pretend to be a "libertarian socialist" because either
1. You're just ignorant/stupid and haven't thought through how that's contradictory
or
2. You're disingenuous and lying because deep down you know that what you are calling for is so abhorrent that "normal" people will be repulsed by 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.
You’re not a serious person. We should have government safety nets funded by consumption tax. I’m not a libertarian, dumb fuck.
Ok so you’re good with paying taxes and you’re ok with some income groups bearing more of the burden, we just disagree on how much and who. Cool, no problem with that.
JFC. I did learn enough about your views in this thread to know you are an enemy of liberty and should be treated as such.
As with almost all authoritarians he had to hide and pretend to be a "libertarian socialist" because either
1. You're just ignorant/stupid and haven't thought through how that's contradictory
or
2. You're disingenuous and lying because deep down you know that what you are calling for is so abhorrent that "normal" people will be repulsed by it.
I don't know about Kobe but #2 is definitely the leftist playbook
They advance an idea then lie and say they didn't as they work to get it in some acceptable lie
Who wouldn't want to live at Cabrini Green? Its green!
Is it as nice as Nickerson Gardens? Done some work there beautiful place.
We had a CONTRACT with Seattle Housing Authority. They had some really nice new development in West Seattle and South Seattle. When we walked out the door they were nice. Wonder how that lasted
When the in laws would visit from the east we'd drive through and they would be shocked at how nice the public housing was in Seattle
Who wouldn't want to live at Cabrini Green? Its green!
Is it as nice as Nickerson Gardens? Done some work there beautiful place.
We had a CONTRACT with Seattle Housing Authority. They had some really nice new development in West Seattle and South Seattle. When we walked out the door they were nice. Wonder how that lasted
When the in laws would visit from the east we'd drive through and they would be shocked at how nice the public housing was in Seattle
Comments
Why would I let someone live in something I purchased for free? I do not understand your logic. Good luck the rest of the way I guess.
The government threw a trillion+ that just about any "at risk" corporation could claim with little to no oversight (the PPP fiasco aside, the amount of CARES Act tax bill deductions that giant corporations have taken is obscene), yet essentially told landlords to fuck off. Some states and municipalities have stepped in with relief programs to fill the hole, but the entire CARES Act was arguably the laziest, most shittily implemented piece of legislation our esteemed Congress has ever passed.
Ballotpedia covered all state races on November 3, 2020, as well as local elections in America's 100 largest cities by population. In the 2020 general election, 93% of incumbents nationwide won their re-election bids. This percentage includes races in which incumbents ran unopposed but does not include recall elections.
The incumbent win rate remained at or above 90% in all states but California, New Hampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia.
The lowest overall incumbent win rate was in California with 85%. New Jersey was the only state to see a 100% incumbent win rate.
Congressional incumbents had a 96% win rate. Thirty-eight states had a 100% win rate in congressional races.
State-level incumbents had a 95% win rate. Five states had a 100% win rate in state-level races.
Local-level incumbents had an 89% average win rate. Eight states had a 100% win rate in local-level races.
The analysis below includes data compiled by Ballotpedia on the 7,636 incumbents who ran for re-election on November 3, 2020.
We? are the problem
Fuck, you've got to be so fucking insulated not to know what a failure "the projects" have been and continue to be.
Government provided housing.
When morons like the Slobberer are ignorant of basic human behavior and think that the government knows better how to run things you get Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea etc.
1. You're just ignorant/stupid and haven't thought through how that's contradictory
or
2. You're disingenuous and lying because deep down you know that what you are calling for is so abhorrent that "normal" people will be repulsed by it.
They advance an idea then lie and say they didn't as they work to get it in some acceptable lie
When the in laws would visit from the east we'd drive through and they would be shocked at how nice the public housing was in Seattle
Not the case elsewhere