On narrow vote, Supreme Court leaves CDC ban on evictions in place

Hmmm. The Supreme Court voted the way the left wanted on this one. I guess that means packing the court isn’t a big issue now?

 

I think after this fiasco, landlords are going to get incredibly picky and selective about who they rent to, scrutinizing things like credit histories, and criminal histories for the slightest little thing. Rent prices will be higher too to compensate.
You can't give something away from free without there being repercussions.

The slightest suspicion that the renter might not pay, and the landlord will not rent to them.
Why take the chance, when government can do this?

 

How is allowing landlords to starve somehow the "compassionate thing to do"?

 

This is exactly the kind of thing they never think through. They make rods for their own backs by fostering poverty causing habits, then have to do ill considered things like this to fix that damage, then have to do something even worse to fix THAT damage.

All because stupid lazy people think throwing money is the solution to everything.

 

Once those people finally get kicked out, no one is ever going to rent to them again. They'll be permanently homeless.

Unless (and maybe it wouldn't be that surprising) the government passed a new law that made it illegal to discriminate against persons who didn't pay their rent during the pandemic.

 

When you say 'abuse is rife', that is a sentiment, and sentiments are not merit worthy arguments,. Sentiments are non arguments, so, in order to make it a merit worthy argument you'll need to substantiate that idea if you want me to comment on it, agree with it, or refute it or continue discourse on that idea.

That being said, I do know that The gov goes out of their way to disallow those that do not deserve it do not get it. The difficulty with which my brother went through to get SSI, to me, proves that point.

Shrinking the budget will effect the good and the bad, evenly, which amounts to tossing the baby out with the bathwater, though gradually. Simple logic will lead anyone to that conclusion. Your premise is NOT logical.

Note that we had 'workfare', welfare reform in the 90s.

That is NOT a viable solution. It is simplistic, and not well thought out.

 

1) Abuse IS rife. Very few recipients of welfare (especially over longer time spans) are genuine. Genuine meaning in poverty through no fault or actions of their own. Genuine meaning victims of war, famine, natural disaster, age, youth, physical disability, etc. If you have contributed to your poverty via choices you have made, you are abusing the system.

2) I have no idea why you want to shrink the budget, but hey ... you do you. I'm focused on repurposing it, not shrinking it.

3) Of course it's viable. And it IS simple. Unfortunately people aren't simple, and so they would have some serious adjustment to make.

 

I repeat, your assertion amounts to a sentiment, an opinion. If you want it to rise to something that merits a debate, you'll need to substantiate it.

WTF? What are you talking about? I've been arguing against taking money out of the system, that has been YOUR argument, not mine.

You mentioned NOTHING about 'repurposing', you only mentioned cutting the funding, and you went on to support that idea.

That's an opinion, and an illogical one. If you want to debate that point, then substantiate it in some way beyond just blurting it out on this forum.

Otherwise, be gone with you.

 

I never ONCE said anything at all about 'shrinking' or 'cutting' the budget. That's an outright untruth, and I have no idea how you concluded that. A possible explanation is that you didn't understand what was said to you.

I'm for removing cash from benefits .. not removing it from the budget. Two completely different things, AND it was self evident in my saying "removed cash from benefits and replace with materials".

 

You wrote:

Remove the cash from the system and far FAR fewer will game the system.

Given the choice of your verbiage, drawing the inference that you favored shrinking the budget for welfare was reasonable.

Note that you didn't qualify that statement, though you are now.

Nothing in that sentence hints at, or implies remove cash from benefits and replace with materials'.

If that was your meaning, you should have stated it way back in the early start of this subthread.

When I asked you for your idea, you withheld key details of it, but I'm not a mindreader, I only respond to precisely what you write.

that is why a loathe unfocused, imprecise, i.e., mushy language.

Get some precision in your articulation, and you'll save both of us a lot of time.

 

Exactly. I said nothing at all about reducing resources. You have added that in for your own reasons.

 

But that line was given without qualification, and the inference drawn was perfectly reasonable.

If you mean something OTHER than what the line implies, state it, because I do not read minds.

 

I 'offered' it very clearly. I said that CASH should be replaced with MATERIALS.

 

Yes to be ended as soon as possible a point in time that has long passed, these property owners don't need to suffer any longer and face losing their property.

 

Materials have to be purchased, with CASH, and thus the balance sheet is unaltered.

So, what does 'replaced with materials' mean? Get specific.

 

I was very specific, but apparently you didn't read my post.

"Materials" means provide materials instead of cash ... obviously. It means that any benefits would be issued in the form of materials, not money, or any kind of currency analog like food stamps. It means providing housing, food, clothing, education, and healthcare for a fixed term while the recipient is working on becoming self-reliant. There would be no allowance for preferences. Take what you're given or take your chances in the world. And that last is a very important point in terms of justice and equity. Those in genuine need will welcome the far greater support in getting back on track (after all, no rent or bills to worry about, no groceries to buy etc, so any money earned can be saved towards future independence), and those who are currently abusing the system will hate it.

It's important to remember that this is basically what family does for us when we're in need. Provides us with the materials of survival, rather than an income. This is a way of turning a failed model into what is a highly successful and thoroughly tested (over thousands of years) model .. one which actively builds independence and self-determination, instead of decreasing it.

 

I'm inclined to side with Milton Friedman on this point, because giving cash leaves the market place freer.

Giving materials creates a logistical bureaucratic boondoggle, and it's bad enough as it is.

Workfare did just that (restricting the dole to get back on one's feet in the workplace), more or less, and that reform was initiated back in the 90s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

 

1) Maybe so, but it also creates and increases a dependent underclass - which ultimately adds to the power and wealth of those at the top.

2) Not really, because the numbers would be greatly reduced. You would instantly lose in excess of 80% of current recipients.

3) It didn't work, obviously. Not strong enough.

 

Their wealth doesn't come from this class, not so directly. If you want to argue inflation is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, though a different subject, you'd get some traction there.

You'd lose 80%, as you say, across the board, the good and the bad.
That is what they call tossing the baby out with the bath water.

As for what is the correct proportion, you have provided no data or evidence to give that picture.

I don't know, I haven't looked into it.

 

This reminded me of the famous Davy Crockett story that now will be told again by others.

The gist is the public not paying for things using public funds.

 

1) Corporate Wealth almost exclusively comes from the dependent consumer class. People who've reduced their autonomy to the point that they can't get out of bed without spending. Increasing that class (and it's very much an underclass) is their goal. A Welfare State works to that end, AND has the benefit of making people very easy to control.

2) No, you would not lose the 'good' (aka genuine). The genuine want help OUT of poverty, not an easy income. In providing only materials and no cash, you instantly eliminate almost all the abusers and retain only the 'good'. Not only do you save the taxpayers a fortune, but you increase the resources available to the genuine.

3) The proportion who are not utilising welfare for its intended purpose (as a temporary pathway out of poverty) is huge.

 

On narrow vote, Supreme Court leaves CDC ban on evictions in place
Admittedly I haven't been following this that close, but I have never understood what gives the CDC authority to ban evictions, other than opinions of some select people who wear black robes to work.