Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 27, 2021 12:54:03 GMT -8
I'm a lucky guy. Anyone who knows me and my wife well will tell you that I am a VERY lucky guy. (My wife, perhaps not so much. 
) Any way, my wife, besides being a remarkable woman (raised five children mostly single-handed, PhD from Unv. of Minnesota, taught at both Saint Cloud State and SDSU, expert web designer, award winning artist and jewelry maker, published author, great cook, etc.) she is also pretty lucky.
In 1975, when she wanted to buy a house in Clairemont, she was unable to sell the condo in which she was living at the time. Anyway, she had to rent it out. The property is now owned free and clear (by her I should point out; we did not meet until 1977).
Why do I tell this story? Joe Biden wanted (SCOTUS has just told him "No way") to tell my wife, as well as many, many thousands of rental owners, that if their tenants do not pay their rent or otherwise act in ways that no landlord would tolerate (sell drugs, trash the unit, etc., etc.) they were not permitted to evict the renters. This decision reveals Biden's political philosophy (or that of those who have his ear). For a start, it is an attack on private property. A landlord who does not own his unit free and clear, has his own mortgage payment to make. I guess such persons (many of whom are not giant property owners) are asked, in effect, to subsidize their renters.
Do you think FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, even Obama would have taken the position that landlords don't really own their properties, but instead were obliged to "help the needy" (my words) by subsidizing renters? That would be like telling automobile owners that (perhaps to serve the greater good?) they would have to provide transportation several times a week for needy persons.
This is collectivism. Individual rights are just fine, but should not take precedence over helping the needy when the government decides it is appropriate.
AzWm
) Any way, my wife, besides being a remarkable woman (raised five children mostly single-handed, PhD from Unv. of Minnesota, taught at both Saint Cloud State and SDSU, expert web designer, award winning artist and jewelry maker, published author, great cook, etc.) she is also pretty lucky.In 1975, when she wanted to buy a house in Clairemont, she was unable to sell the condo in which she was living at the time. Anyway, she had to rent it out. The property is now owned free and clear (by her I should point out; we did not meet until 1977).
Why do I tell this story? Joe Biden wanted (SCOTUS has just told him "No way") to tell my wife, as well as many, many thousands of rental owners, that if their tenants do not pay their rent or otherwise act in ways that no landlord would tolerate (sell drugs, trash the unit, etc., etc.) they were not permitted to evict the renters. This decision reveals Biden's political philosophy (or that of those who have his ear). For a start, it is an attack on private property. A landlord who does not own his unit free and clear, has his own mortgage payment to make. I guess such persons (many of whom are not giant property owners) are asked, in effect, to subsidize their renters.
Do you think FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, even Obama would have taken the position that landlords don't really own their properties, but instead were obliged to "help the needy" (my words) by subsidizing renters? That would be like telling automobile owners that (perhaps to serve the greater good?) they would have to provide transportation several times a week for needy persons.
This is collectivism. Individual rights are just fine, but should not take precedence over helping the needy when the government decides it is appropriate.
AzWm