WinterBorn
Diamond Member
Sure, if you do nothing but appeal to ignorance of the Law for Legal purposes.
I stand by the laws as they are now. There is absolutely no evidence that there is an inequality in protection under the law.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure, if you do nothing but appeal to ignorance of the Law for Legal purposes.
So what. I stand by the laws as they are now as well. There is absolute proof, there is inequality in protection of at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.I stand by the laws as they are now. There is absolutely no evidence that there is an inequality in protection under the law.
So what. I stand by the laws as they are now as well. There is absolute proof, there is inequality in protection of at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.
I am not sure I understand your line of reasoning.There is nothing that says by the meter description of the relationship between employer and employee that all benefits given by unemployment compensation are available to every unemployed person.
That is federal doctrine and State Law for Legal purposes.At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
Well, at least it is a start, you acknowledge that you have no clue as to the meaning of your post either. Thank you!You need to look up all the words and put them in context.
The Majestic equality of the Law.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France
With equal protection of the Law (for Legal purposes) rent control would be unnecessary under our form of Capitalism.Well, at least it is a start, you acknowledge that you have no clue as to the meaning of your post either. Thank you!
I'm pretty slow. I have no clue what that post means.With equal protection of the Law (for Legal purposes) rent control would be unnecessary under our form of Capitalism.
How would that benefit landords?
In this case, it would mean unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.I'm pretty slow. I have no clue what that post means.
I'm pretty slow. I have no clue what that post means.
With equal protection of the Law (for Legal purposes) rent control would be unnecessary under our form of Capitalism.
How would that benefit landords?
In this case, it would mean unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
We could solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
I get it that you have no idea what you're talking about. Also, as I stated in the OP, last month, >> "Let's hear what some people who are in this predicament have to say, not those who own homes and don't face danger of becoming homeless."That would leave fewer than 10% of the homeless we have today. Very few indeed. Get it?
What is right about rent control is that it PROTECTS (notice my display name ?) low income people, from being forced out of their hoes with nowhere to go.What is right about banning rent control ?
Rent-control is a governmental taking.
It's about as WRONG as anything any state government ever did
Rent control is wrong, wrong, wrong.
If your rent just went from $550/mo to $900/mo, and your whole income was less than $1200/mo, you'd see how wrong it is.
If I own a property and the government said I can charge $550 but I can't charge $900,
the government would be wrong.
It's sad that you didn't save enough. That doesn't make it right for the government
to steal from your landlord. Even if you feel the landlord is mean or unfair to you.
Letting prices soar on luxuries is one thing
Letting? Where does the government have the constitutional power to control luxury prices?
If business owners want to be fully free from price controls, they should enter businesses that don't deal with things people HAVE TO HAVE.
Quit your whining and move somewhere cheaper. Or at least stop claiming you're conservative.
The tents and the homeless people could be anywhere, and they have every right to be.So those tent cities are moved away from tourist areas. As long as the hotels are nice, the attractions are good, and there is good food, the tourists will come.
The tents and the homeless people could be anywhere, and they have every right to be.
And you also accuse people of doing things they NEVER do. I haven't been in a bar in years, and even when I was for a job, playing music. As for the 20 something (and late teens) girls I date, I don't try to convince them I'm young. They just think it.I have been broke. I had 3 kids and a wife with serious health issues. We were on Food Stamps and live for a few years in gov't housing. Don't try that "you have never been poor" bullshit with me. And the gov't didn't rescue me. I rescued me. And once I got on my feet I saved money. I put money into my 401k. I did all that rather than going to bars and trying to convince 20something girls that I was young.
When the economy catches up with the housing fiasco, the economy will be a depression, with nobody having any money, except landlords (less than 1% of the population).As you know, retail sales are soaring, as is the stock market because of the trillions of worthless paper dollars being pumped into the economy, throwing gas on the fire of inflation.
![]()
They don't help with housing except for families with kids. This lets out low income older people. And homeless people dont get EBT. Have to have a home address.And we have programs that are designed to help those who are poor, and unable to help themselves. Welfare, foodstamps, ect.
They don't help with housing except for families with kids. This lets out low income older people. And homeless people dont get EBT. Have to have a home address.