Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
BREAKING: Eldridge Recasner *gets it*
Comments
-
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?TheKobeStopper said:
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?Swaye said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.dnc said:
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.TheKobeStopper said:@dnc a q?
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'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.
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.
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people.
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? -
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.RaceBannon said:
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?TheKobeStopper said:
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.dnc said:
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.TheKobeStopper said:@dnc a q?
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'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.
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.
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
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.TheKobeStopper said:
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.RaceBannon said:
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?TheKobeStopper said:
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.dnc said:
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.TheKobeStopper said:@dnc a q?
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'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.
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.
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
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. -
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.
-
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.MikeDamone said:
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?TheKobeStopper said:
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?Swaye said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.dnc said:
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.TheKobeStopper said:@dnc a q?
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'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.
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.
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people.
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?
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.MikeDamone said:
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?TheKobeStopper said:
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?Swaye said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.dnc said:
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.TheKobeStopper said:@dnc a q?
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'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.
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.
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people.
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?
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. -
So government housing isn’t a good option now?Because I’m pretty sure you were just arguing it was.MikeDamone said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.RaceBannon said:
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?TheKobeStopper said:
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.dnc said:
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.TheKobeStopper said:@dnc a q?
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'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.
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.
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
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.
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. -
Just like all capitalists.SFGbob said:
Like all leftists Kobe feels like he has an entitlement to the labor of others.TheKobeStopper said:
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?Swaye said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.dnc said:
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.TheKobeStopper said:@dnc a q?
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'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.
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.
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people. -
We have government safety nets that don’t involved especially confiscating people’s real estate. Are you dense?TheKobeStopper said:
So government housing isn’t a good option now?Because I’m pretty sure you were just arguing it was.MikeDamone said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
Make housing a right. There’s a million different ways to fill in the blanks.RaceBannon said:
So how does free housing for everyone work in your model?TheKobeStopper said:
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.dnc said:
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.TheKobeStopper said:@dnc a q?
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'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.
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.
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
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.
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. -
Gaslighters gonna light gasTheKobeStopper said:
Just like all capitalists.SFGbob said:
Like all leftists Kobe feels like he has an entitlement to the labor of others.TheKobeStopper said:
So you can charge people to live and make sure they pay by threatening them with homelessness and that’s cool?Swaye said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.dnc said:
There aren't anywhere near 100 million Americans who can't reasonably pay their rent, that number is meaningless.TheKobeStopper said:@dnc a q?
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'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.
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.
I don’t think the eviction moratorium is a good situation. I’d love to solve it but muh freedom to coerce people.
