|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 29 2020 16:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2020 16:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2020 16:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So the usual task force of internet fascists lead a grand campaign against Fauci because he undermines the Great Leader by, you know, saying the truth.
How Darwinism has allowed for those people to exist certainly challenges science.
I think some of you mix up populism and demagoguery. One is a narrative, the other one an attitude to the truth. They are not mutually exclusive, but don't necessarily go together.
Sanders is not really a demagogue, and I'm not sure himself is a populist. But in his campaign are elements and narratives that are strongly populistic: "the people against the establishment" for example is textbook populism. Populism is good. Demagoguery is bad. Conflating them serves the fascists in undermining necessary changes, is the point I and I believe Neb we're trying highlight. Did Vox, Huffpo, Newsweek, etc. running Tara Reade's story change your opinion on whether "#believewomen/#metoo" applies to Reade's allegations against Biden? There is nothing good about populism. It constitutes anyone with a different opinion into someone illegitimate and not worth listening. The moment you have decided that anyone who writes against your guy is doing so because he is "establishment media", that oppose him within the political sphere is "establishment politician" and so on and so forth, you have constituted yourself into an island of truth and legitimacy and assume that everyone who oppose you is either an agent of some sinister force (the establishment) or manipulated - and deceived - by those. Replace "establishment" by "neolibs", or "globalist", or "jewish" depending what flavour you like your populism.
You represent "the people" vs "the elite" but that doesn't mean all of the people agree with you or are on your side. It just means that you represent the interests of the common man, or of the working class if you want to use leftist terminology. Some people are in the elite, some people vote against their own interests because they're uninformed or lied to, some people have a different ideology where their class situation doesn't matter at all and something else does instead.
"As a side note, anyone who takes five seconds to think about it would realize that the term "establishment" means exactly nothing"
Wait, what? This sounds like the interesting part of your post, it shouldn't have been buried down there :p
|
At least as an American, I can't take anyone saying "establishment" means nothing seriously. An example of the "establishment" are politicians who routinely receive donations from, let's say pharmaceutical companies, so they are more inclined to vote to ban regulations / enforce patent law that is undeniably detrimental to the majority while lining the pockets of the rich.
|
On March 30 2020 07:24 Emnjay808 wrote:
So you guys side with the ones who doesn’t want to negotiate how to pay for 6-months worth of rent (on average about 13k USD without government relief)...
Yes. That's my politics, what I practice, and what the covid-19 reaction has made a more popular position. Depending on the specific properties they could be kinda boujee though so I suppose I should say not without reservations.
|
Agreed. I think it is weird that there is this expectation that the brunt of the crisis should be carried by those who cannot work due to it, but the landlords definitively need to be paid. Despite the fact that landlords basically do not do anything but own stuff.
If the workers don't get paid, why should the owners? Who definitively can afford getting less money a lot easier (after all, they own multiple houses. The workers don't even own the one they live in)
|
So the packed Easter church services aren't happening (which pretty much everyone said would happen). That it was extended to the 30th is a bitch for those not working and not sure how rent will be paid for the majority of those unable to get unemployment during the period.
Looks like in the end, the experts are winning out on this.
President Trump said on Sunday that federal guidelines urging Americans to social distance to slow the spread of coronavirus will remain in place for another month.
"During this period, it's very important that everyone follow the guidelines," Trump said at a news conference in the Rose Garden. "The better you do, the faster this whole nightmare will end."
Trump had initially announced 15-day social distancing guidelines and then suggested the recommendations could be relaxed. But on Sunday, Trump said the federal guidelines will ask U.S. residents to socially distance until April 30.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The problem here is assuming a level of goodwill on the part of the tenants that isn't there. A good-faith tenant that runs into difficult times should certainly deserve some sympathy. But one that uses a law meant to shelter those tenants in order to just receive free housing for several months because the system just lends itself to that kind of action? No, that's the exact kind of person that should be evicted in short order. It's not some sort of "evil landlord" situation when they have objections to providing free housing for tenants that decide they can, but won't, pay.
Practically, since landlord-tenant law generally favors tenants, with this being no exception, the landlords are mostly going to eat a lot of the costs. Banks are going to eat some costs too, though probably a lot less since they get lots of free money from the government. Shitty tenants who make it clear that they have no intention of doing anything other than legalized squatting shouldn't be protected, though, which is an unfortunate side effect of a well-intentioned buffer provided during the crisis.
|
On March 30 2020 07:53 LegalLord wrote:
The problem here is assuming a level of goodwill on the part of the tenants that isn't there. A good-faith tenant that runs into difficult times should certainly deserve some sympathy. But one that uses a law meant to shelter those tenants in order to just receive free housing for several months because the system just lends itself to that kind of action? No, that's the exact kind of person that should be evicted in short order. It's not some sort of "evil landlord" situation when they have objections to providing free housing for tenants that decide they can, but won't, pay.
Practically, since landlord-tenant law generally favors tenants, with this being no exception, the landlords are mostly going to eat a lot of the costs. Banks are going to eat some costs too, though probably a lot less since they get lots of free money from the government. Shitty tenants who make it clear that they have no intention of doing anything other than legalized squatting shouldn't be protected, though, which is an unfortunate side effect of a well-intentioned buffer provided during the crisis.
I think you know this, but to be clear, I don't think private landlords should even be a thing. I could see management/maintenance groups still being a thing and being an office manager of one being similar to being a competent landlord for people that want the continuity without extracting wealth from workers by way of ownership/rent seeking though.
|
Yes and you think the way to get there is to bankrupt landlords because they have money. Why can't apartment coops exist now?
|
On March 30 2020 08:03 Sermokala wrote:
Yes Yesand you think the way to get there is to bankrupt landlords because they have money. NoWhy can't apartment coops exist now?
they do.
|
Not to make this landlord conversation personal, but:
I bought a little single-family dwelling (3 bed, 2 bath) on a half-acre a couple years back, and started renting it out while we built a little granny flat in the back for me and my wife (then-fiancée). The only way we could possibly afford it was to use this kinda shitty contractor who only agreed to build it on condition that I drive straight out after work and put in whatever time I have helping him build it. That was supposed to be ready in 6 months, in time for me and my wife to move in after we got married, but I wound up living with my mother-in-law for almost a year because of construction delays. So for almost a year and a half I was working 6:30am-3pm so I could get to the house and put in a few hours before dark.
There are definitely people a lot less fortunate than me who wouldn’t even have the opportunity to do something like this, but none of my renters have been among them. They’ve all been a lot wealthier than me, which makes sense given that they can afford to rent a 3 bed 2 bath in San Diego, which would cost basically my entire salary. If they lost their job or something and had trouble paying rent, I’d do my best to work with them, but if they just quit paying completely immediately and without warning, I couldn’t keep making the mortgage payments for more than a month or two.
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks.
|
On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks.
I can understand why you feel that way but you also must see that this is literally something landlords can figure out themselves. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage).
The role you describe filling exists imo as a way to direct tenants anger at the rent-seeker they see rather than the rent seeker leeching off both of their (and other workers) labor and it gives the agent of the landlord a feeling of marginal social superiority over the tenants as well as practical control over others, vacillating them between petty nobility and freeman serf.
|
On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I can understand why you feel that way but you also must see that this is literally something landlords can figure out themselves. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). The role you describe filling exists imo as a way to direct tenants anger at the rent-seeker they see rather than the rent seeker leeching off both of their (and other workers) labor and it gives the agent of the landlord a feeling of marginal social superiority over the tenants as well as practical control over others, vacillating them between petty nobility and freeman serf.
How are you determining this distinction then? Most of the “landlords” you’re talking about probably have mortgages, so it’s a bank that really “owns” the property. If you’re calling for all mortgage payments to be cancelled, too, I can see a better argument for it; then it’s mostly the banks getting screwed. But if you’re just saying I’m not a “real landlord” so the policy wouldn’t apply to my situation (but would to the situation Emnjay is talking about), you’re gonna have to clarify how you’re making the distinction/what you’re actually advocating be done in such situations.
|
On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage).
and Emnjay808's mom isn't how exactly? This whole rant seems rather silly after this statement.
Context in Cornovirus thread if anyone is confused
|
On March 30 2020 08:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I can understand why you feel that way but you also must see that this is literally something landlords can figure out themselves. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). The role you describe filling exists imo as a way to direct tenants anger at the rent-seeker they see rather than the rent seeker leeching off both of their (and other workers) labor and it gives the agent of the landlord a feeling of marginal social superiority over the tenants as well as practical control over others, vacillating them between petty nobility and freeman serf. How are you determining this distinction then? Most of the “landlords” you’re talking about probably have mortgages, so it’s a bank that really “owns” the property. If you’re calling for all mortgage payments to be cancelled, too, I can see a better argument for it; then it’s mostly the banks getting screwed. But if you’re just saying I’m not a “real landlord” so the policy wouldn’t apply to my situation (but would to the situation Emnjay is talking about), you’re gonna have to clarify how you’re making the distinction/what you’re actually advocating be done in such situations.
You may have missed it (totally fair thread moves a lot) but I've expressed I support mortgage relief (not the government just paying banks off) on mortgages for houses where the person with the mortgage lives there. Your specific situation would fall under an "improving the land" category that would need to be handled slightly differently. But someone else paying the bill for the land you live on is what it is (if I understand your situation correctly).
On March 30 2020 08:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). and Emnjay808's mom isn't how exactly? This whole rant seems rather silly after this statement.
I'm not saying she's not, but land hoarder lackey isn't common parlance here (and might be taken personally rather than as descriptive of the relationship as I see it) so I eased into it. Plus it wasn't completely clear how much of the property is mortgaged in her case based on what I read. She could have 3k worth of mortgages and 12k in rent income which would be significantly different than what ChristianS describes.
|
On March 30 2020 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 08:28 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I can understand why you feel that way but you also must see that this is literally something landlords can figure out themselves. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). The role you describe filling exists imo as a way to direct tenants anger at the rent-seeker they see rather than the rent seeker leeching off both of their (and other workers) labor and it gives the agent of the landlord a feeling of marginal social superiority over the tenants as well as practical control over others, vacillating them between petty nobility and freeman serf. How are you determining this distinction then? Most of the “landlords” you’re talking about probably have mortgages, so it’s a bank that really “owns” the property. If you’re calling for all mortgage payments to be cancelled, too, I can see a better argument for it; then it’s mostly the banks getting screwed. But if you’re just saying I’m not a “real landlord” so the policy wouldn’t apply to my situation (but would to the situation Emnjay is talking about), you’re gonna have to clarify how you’re making the distinction/what you’re actually advocating be done in such situations. You may have missed it (totally fair thread moves a lot) but I've expressed I support mortgage relief (not the government just paying banks off) on mortgages for houses where the person with the mortgage lives there. Your specific situation would fall under an "improving the land" category that would need to be handled slightly differently. But someone else paying the bill for the land you live on is what it is (if I understand your situation correctly). Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 08:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). and Emnjay808's mom isn't how exactly? This whole rant seems rather silly after this statement. I'm not saying she's not, but land hoarder lackey isn't common parlance here (and might be taken personally rather than as descriptive of the relationship as I see it) so I eased into it. Plus it wasn't completely clear how much of the property is mortgaged in her case based on what I read. She could have 3k worth of mortgages and 12k in rent income which would be significantly different than what ChristianS describes.
Seeing as you think banks that hold mortgages are the problem it would make a lot more sense to call them banks instead of land hoarder lackey. Pretty sure most people here understand that banks lend people money.
|
Do you seriously think anyone would not take the term "land hoarder lackey" not personally? Its literaly multiple negative connotations strung together in order to create an obviously biased term.
|
On March 30 2020 08:41 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:28 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I can understand why you feel that way but you also must see that this is literally something landlords can figure out themselves. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). The role you describe filling exists imo as a way to direct tenants anger at the rent-seeker they see rather than the rent seeker leeching off both of their (and other workers) labor and it gives the agent of the landlord a feeling of marginal social superiority over the tenants as well as practical control over others, vacillating them between petty nobility and freeman serf. How are you determining this distinction then? Most of the “landlords” you’re talking about probably have mortgages, so it’s a bank that really “owns” the property. If you’re calling for all mortgage payments to be cancelled, too, I can see a better argument for it; then it’s mostly the banks getting screwed. But if you’re just saying I’m not a “real landlord” so the policy wouldn’t apply to my situation (but would to the situation Emnjay is talking about), you’re gonna have to clarify how you’re making the distinction/what you’re actually advocating be done in such situations. You may have missed it (totally fair thread moves a lot) but I've expressed I support mortgage relief (not the government just paying banks off) on mortgages for houses where the person with the mortgage lives there. Your specific situation would fall under an "improving the land" category that would need to be handled slightly differently. But someone else paying the bill for the land you live on is what it is (if I understand your situation correctly). On March 30 2020 08:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). and Emnjay808's mom isn't how exactly? This whole rant seems rather silly after this statement. I'm not saying she's not, but land hoarder lackey isn't common parlance here (and might be taken personally rather than as descriptive of the relationship as I see it) so I eased into it. Plus it wasn't completely clear how much of the property is mortgaged in her case based on what I read. She could have 3k worth of mortgages and 12k in rent income which would be significantly different than what ChristianS describes. Seeing as you think banks that hold mortgages are the problem it would make a lot more sense to call them banks instead of land hoarder lackey. Pretty sure most people here understand that banks lend people money.
On March 30 2020 08:43 Sermokala wrote:
Do you seriously think anyone would not take the term "land hoarder lackey" not personally? Its literaly multiple negative connotations strung together in order to create an obviously biased term.
I would hope not any more than they expect Trump supporters to take the things said about them personally at minimum. Less so given my explanation.
But to address both of you, I think banks (and lots of wealthy individuals) are land hoarders and the that "landlords" that take on mortgages act as agents/lackeys of the land hoarders.
|
|
|
On March 30 2020 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 08:28 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I can understand why you feel that way but you also must see that this is literally something landlords can figure out themselves. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). The role you describe filling exists imo as a way to direct tenants anger at the rent-seeker they see rather than the rent seeker leeching off both of their (and other workers) labor and it gives the agent of the landlord a feeling of marginal social superiority over the tenants as well as practical control over others, vacillating them between petty nobility and freeman serf. How are you determining this distinction then? Most of the “landlords” you’re talking about probably have mortgages, so it’s a bank that really “owns” the property. If you’re calling for all mortgage payments to be cancelled, too, I can see a better argument for it; then it’s mostly the banks getting screwed. But if you’re just saying I’m not a “real landlord” so the policy wouldn’t apply to my situation (but would to the situation Emnjay is talking about), you’re gonna have to clarify how you’re making the distinction/what you’re actually advocating be done in such situations. You may have missed it (totally fair thread moves a lot) but I've expressed I support mortgage relief (not the government just paying banks off) on mortgages for houses where the person with the mortgage lives there. Your specific situation would fall under an "improving the land" category that would need to be handled slightly differently. But someone else paying the bill for the land you live on is what it is (if I understand your situation correctly). Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 08:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). and Emnjay808's mom isn't how exactly? This whole rant seems rather silly after this statement. I'm not saying she's not, but land hoarder lackey isn't common parlance here (and might be taken personally rather than as descriptive of the relationship as I see it) so I eased into it. Plus it wasn't completely clear how much of the property is mortgaged in her case based on what I read. She could have 3k worth of mortgages and 12k in rent income which would be significantly different than what ChristianS describes.
So what do you do with people that improved the land? Again, I hate to make it personal, so let’s move to a simpler example. A guy bought an empty lot, bought materials, and spent a year building a house on it. Now he’s renting it to a family. What should happen? The family no longer owes rent, and he’s not allowed to evict them. Does he get... anything? Not even reimbursed for his costs, let alone for a year of his labor?
|
GH wouldn't believe that would be a problem because the person wouldn't be able to buy the lot or the materials. Private property is social theft after all. In order for apartments to be built the people who want to live in the apartment building would need to raise the money for the building and its construction amongst themselves and then would enjoy rent at cost as there would be no profit motive for housing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
