it's rightful news to any that aren'y familiar with this deal. Being retired and travel a bit, I camp out at Quartzsites Az for the winter  (but not every year--some partially). This gives all the retired campers there to get to gether in an evening bondfire sit around. The thing is--- they,re all retired from jobs and their experiences come to the front. In a few of these convesations I've heard that phone companies and banks are real culprits. Here's the deal. Employees are put in cubicals and given a certain number of accounts ti handle (oversee) Their job was to mine every buck they could get from customers by closely scrtinizing each account for any mistakes made---and of course---attach fees to those mistakes. We Retired floks ended up paying overdraft fees on re-overdraft fees. In other words, a fee on an over draft was applied again after the fee was paid, but if late-another over draft fee was applied making to fees on one over draft. One overdraft could cause an 80 dollar overdraft fee. So, we all agreed to write our congess person and bitch---and---the practices stopped in less then 2 months. This was when congress began regulating bank fees about 6 years ago.

The cell phone companies were doing the same. They would overcharge the kids and it was supposed to look like the kids actually made the calls--but Nada. nd the parents would pay blaming the kids. We stopped that too, I think, because we bitched to congress about that too, and that stopped shortly after.

Vastet I really think most of our differences are about personality, not substence. I don't always get everything right. But what you just posted here is something lots of people, not just me have been screaming about for not just years, but decades.

In America our decline started with Reagan's deregulation. And we have had a bubble burst every decade since. Even though the 88 one day crash under Reagan was small, it was a symptom of lack of enforcement of regulation or not having the right or enough regulation. Clinton had the dot com bubble, and then Bush with his tripple whammy housing, car, bank crash. 

I have been screaming for years that it is NOT the fault of democrats. When you look from 1980 to today and the balance of power between the Executive Branch, House, Senate, and Supreme Court, the majority average in that time has been lopsided and mostly GOP. The White House has only been occupied 16 of those 36 years and dems have only had majority as an entire congress a fraction of that time too. Dems have never held enough of a majority for a long enough time to stop the "no rules" market you are discribing here. 

Regulations are not bad things. They are there to not only protect consumers, but to prevent long term disasters like what you discribe here. It actually costs society MORE to chase a short term quick buck, than it would if we would promote an honest sale in the first place. Regulations also long term are meant to promote innovation which they do. Car companies railed against taking lead out of gas. They railed against seat belts and air bags. But those regulations did not destroy them and they adapted and as a result created seat belt and air bag factories and the car companies learned to sell those as advantages.

It isn't the private sector the left hates. It is the shallow short term thinking. Trump and GOP are simply going to repeat a long term bubble for the same reasons you talk about with Canada. 

We need the top and the rich regulated not to end the private sector, but just like any aspect of society, be it class, political party or religion. Anything left to it's own divices can and will go off the rails with no oversight. 

I've been bothered by the real estate market, specifically in the rental market. If a tenant decides not to pay rent they just don't and it takes a long time to get rid of them. It costs money too.

I had a renter ruin a house and the security deposit was kept to cover the expenses. They took me to court.

The judge asked them for the pictures, they said the phone was lost. The judge asked for invoices, they said they didn't have them. They had no witnesses.

I had pictures, I had invoices, I had witnesses. In the end the judge gave him back almost all the security deposit.

I'll never understand why phone companies, cable companies and the electric company can shut off those services with out question but when it comes time to evict a tenant you have to pull out your teeth to get it done.

Absurd profit? Not for the common home owner. They do not make a lot of money. There is a lot of overhead. Repairs. General maintenance. Commission for the brokerage.

One bad tenant makes us stricter. It effects billions of people, the owners, the future tenants, the court system, the state regulators, in every county, in every state.

For every bad tenant:

1 - Management of properties have to make things stricter, like raising the rent to keep out undesirables

2 - Asking for double security deposit, because previous tenants trash the house

3 - Asking for the last month of rent in advance, because tenants tend to skip out on the month before the lease ends

4 - Having to get lawyers involved which cost an arm and a leg because some tenant knows a loophole or knows how to file paperwork and create frivolous complaints

5 - Bad tenants not only drag down the court system, but it often involves the state regulators and governing body of real estate for frivolous complaints

6 - Cause managers to spend more time driving out to properties to inspect them, only to find tenants are subletting a room (illegal here in Florida and others).

7 - Asking for more money for pet deposits and forcing all tenants to carry renter insurance because too many tenants will lie about if they have a pet

8 - Causing us to charge more for a more in-dept background check.

Are their bad owners? Sure. They do exist and the tenants should haven't to stay if the rental sucks. Laws should stop 'slum lords'

 Since when are banks unregulated? Seems to me is that extreme regulation has failed to prevent dishonesty. Why do you think the next round of regulation will have different results?

And you get someone paying your mortgage & bills for you. Most of those costs you eat whether you rent or not, it's part of being a home owner. The added expense to renting is covered dozens of times over by rent. Also, the majority of property owned by landlords is not individuals renting a single apartment out of their home. They are property groups who own hundreds of apartment buildings and townhouses.

No. One bad tenant affects one landlord. It takes thousands of bad tenants to have the impact you describe.

1: The vast majority of landlords increase rent by the maximum allotted amount every year to increase profits. It has absolutely no impact on undesireables, as the rich and comfortable are much more likely to skip a bill or cause damage than the poor and desperate.

2: Irrelevant impact. The security deposit is a one time deposit, not a monthly fee. A deposit is easy to get a hold of.

3: Has been a standard for decades. You will never convince me that it would end if all tenants paid as they were supposed to.

4: If you need a lawyer to defeat a highschool dropout then you have no business renting in the first place. If a tenant beats you, then you're a shitty landlord.

5: Bad landlords have MUCH greater impact than bad tenants.

6 You should be doing that anyway. It's your property. I'd be inspecting monthly, because it is my job to ensure the tenant is living in acceptable conditions and because my investment is on the line. If you don't inspect monthly, you're a shitty landlord.

7: Pets can't cause as much damage as people. Denying people pets is just asking for trouble.

8: Oh no a whole extra 1 time cost of maybe a couple hundred bucks. Nothing compared to one months rent, let alone a year or two. If you increase rent for that, then you made your money back in no time and you're gouging.

You speak about Canada? OK. Fine, but not here, not in America. Do you speak from experience from all sides of the coin? Well I do.

I speak with 20 years experience as a licensed manager and 20 years as a landlord. I also have another 10 years of experience working for a variety of entity's who work in the field of law enforcement, courts and properties. I have also been a renter for 10 years.

And as for your comments about ownership of properties that is untrue in the USA and in Florida. Florida is only second to Nevada in the number of rentals. The highest source of those rentals are either SFH or smaller duplexes or townhomes.

SFH account for 43% of all rentals in the United States (higher in Florida), plus 17% of townhomes and duplexes, 5% for mobile homes and less than 1% for "other". Large group apartment and condos account for 35%.

Your comments are too limited and lacking a broader view of the subject.

I have experience with twice as many landlords as you have tenants (not all of them were my landlords). I never met a good landlord who did his or her job. I fought all of them in the rental housing tribunal, and never once did I lose. To be fair, it sounds like you're a step up from the landlords I've dealt with. But the fact is that I beat all these assholes and did it soley based on experience working security in a tribunal for a few months. I have 0 formal education in law. I roflstomped them. Most often the landlord I was battling left 'court' (it's not really a court) in a blistering rage, and never bothered fixing anything. Which made the next battle even easier.

Bad landlords outnumber bad tenants, and have a significantly higher impact on everything. That is why tenants get the benefit of doubt. It isn't a tenants' responsibility to know the system and the industry, it is the landlords responsibility. Most of them shirk that responsibility, and prey on the ignorance of tenants. Most tenants won't even bother fighting an eviction, they don't know how to. The tenants who know what they're doing can game the system very well, but that is one tenant in a thousand. They simply stand out more.

Come back when you've actually got experience watching dozens of cases a day for months. Right now your experience is of decidedly small sample size and bias.

Then you're a liar, and nothing you say on this subject has any weight to it.

". I have had 7 tenants and only 1 of them were worth my time."

My comment was directly based on your comment, that you'd only had 7 tenants.

I STILL have more experience with landlord vs tenant disputes in adjudication. So it doesn't matter.

I agree it isn't profitable unless large scale. But not because it has to be that way, but just like every mega corperation has done they have convinced small businesses that "business owner" puts them in the same class and it does not. Small business owners are ALSO hurt by big busness because they are not in the same weight class. This is anti competition because the big businesses can run over anyone, becuase they don't get broken up as much like they used to. It is why we have only 1 cable company per county/region and even only 1 health insurance company per county/region. 

Not really different than how the NFL works. Big housing rentals work because when one property isn't doing so well the others compensate for those other properties, just like in the 1980s the Saints sucked but the rest of the league gave them part of the profits to keep them afloat despite sucking so bad year after year.

The truth of the top, not all businesses, but most of the climate of big businesses is about socializing the profits in the private sector when they win, and dumping the losses on the tax payers when they lose.

The left is not anti private sector, but America has gotten away from the anti trust laws that protected consumers and the GOP is pro monopoly not anti monopoly. The GOP economic policies ARE NOT pro competition like they claim. Only pro profit for the CEOs and Shareholders. 

If we got back to the post WW2 attitude of investment and livable wages and higher taxes on the rich that would create a long lasting economy. What the GOP is doing is short term and will only set us up for another future bubble because their lack of paying taxes is not only something the rest of us have to compinsate for, it adds up over time and that will cause another crash.

There is 1 cable company because it is illegal for you to just create a cable company and there is 1 health insurance company because it is illegal to just start one. Yes, government creates and protects monopolies. The main PURPOSE of most regulations is to block out new competition. 

[

How do you think proposed laws are written? Do you think that enlightened members of Congress take a pen to paper? Hell no. People who have a significant interest in a law write a draft and give it to their representative. Once a representative is encouraged to actually try to push the law through the churn, everyone else who has a strong interest pays lawyers thousands of dollars to suggest modifications- those lawyers are called lobbyists. In most cases, the lobbyists don't give a fuck what party is in power, they just change their sales pitch. For example, Romney Care is a "private sector" solution,  while Obamacare is "controlling big health" despite being extremely similar at the core. 

Laws will ALWAYS be strongly biased towards the largest company. They have the most money to spend on lobbyists, who are the ones offering proposed legislation and amendments. But beyond that is the simple fact that elected officials cannot possibly be experts on every topic they vote on. So what do they do? They contact experts to ask their opinion, they hold hearings where experts testify, they talk to supporters who are experts. On any given issue, who is the expert? Naturally, the person who has worked in the industry for 40+ years and now holds an executive position in the field being regulated. Nobody is going to come ask Brian37 about his expertise in the restaraunt industry. Everyone is going to want to ask a high level executive of McDonalds, Burger King, Darden or any other major restaurant.

Then AFTER a law is passed, it goes through a process of regulation writing, where more lobbyists spend countless hours interpreting the law and suggesting regulations to be enacted by the regulating agency. The agency posts the proposed regulations, has a period of feeback, again mostly from lobbyists, and then finally approves them. And that is what is ultimately enforced.

The GOP is not anti-regulation. That is why I am not a Republican and have not voted for any of them. 

How can we agree on regulations when there is not a single human alive who knows every regulation written last year, let alone be knowledgable enough to judge them?

NO the GOP is "fuck you I got mine" and write the "regulations" to benefit the top. Now you keep saying you don't vote for them because they regulate too much? NO again, they rigg regulations that allow the top to get richer. Now if you think less regulations will work you are a fool, if you are a libertarian then to me you are simply a republcian on steriods willing to turn America into Somolia.

You are simply trying to put lipstick on a pig. Just like when a theist says "I am not like the others". Yea, your worse than a republican. You'd allow someone to speed 100mph in a school zone. At least republicans keep the speed limits and only ticket the middle class and poor. 

Sorry you are worse than a republican. You are like them, they protect the rich too, but are simply willing to boil the lobster slowly like they have for the past 36 years. You want to dump America in the deep frier as quickly as possible. 

I want regulations. Regulations are what keep water clean. Regulations are why restaurants can be shut down for not keeping up with health codes. I want regulations becuase I don't want some fuckface going 100mph in a school zone. I want regulations like seat belts and air bags becuase that keeps everyone's car insurance down on top of saving lives. 

You don't like regulations? TOO FUCKING BAD, you are not the only voter in society and in a free society WE decide, not you alone.

More hyperbole from a biased renter.

I want clean water too, what the hell makes you think I don't? If you are a libertarian, then to me, you are simply a republican who is willing to extend poverty wages to LGBT and pot smokers. "Less regulation" does not make the top behave, they simply pocket the money overseas and blackmail or con voters into allowing them to write our laws for us. 

Restaurants break health codes all the time? No shit Sherlock. Been in retail/food service most of my life. That's like saying "People speed so lets not have any speed limits". Again, you are not making any arguments for less taxes on the rich that prove the way we do things is working. You are not making any arguments that our current regulations have improved anything but the profits of the top. 

Neither does more regulation. 

Of course I am not making that argument. I don't believe our current regulations have improved anything at all. Hence why I oppose more regulations, because they will only support existing large corporations. The mystery is why you sit there pointing out the abject failure of regulating, and then suggest more regulating is the solution.

Not remotely.

Which is exactly what happens when there are no rules.

Actually they aren't. The company is trying to get employees to make sales targets honestly, they just don't appreciate that the goals they set and the pressure to meet those goals creates an environment where people are forced to be shady or find a new job. The rich people running the show simply don't comprehend how little money the average person has, and assume it should be easy to sell people things. There is a disconnect between the rich and reality for the majority, and most people on both sides don't really appreciate how much of a disconnect there actually is.

Most of them want to jail competitors while acquiring monopolies. Give them the opportunity and that's exactly what happens. Every single time.

That is indeed a problem, but it isn't the problem.

They can't afford to.

No, the problem is the rich only investing in things that make them richer, while doing everything to maximise profits and minimise expenditures.

I'm all for immigration. There's plenty of room. It's not going to make any difference as long as the richest people keep things as they are, at least until they get themselves all killed again. Only a matter of time, and the cycle will begin anew.

These managers all knew what was going on. Of course the didn't explicitly tell them to break the law. A mafia boss doesn't usually say "kill him" when they order a hit. They use coded language to escape the law. Pleading ignorance is not supposed to be a legal defence. These banks are protected by both political parties.

Under communism/socialism, party bosses will pressure workers to meet production goals right? Sometime the employees will cheat and steal to meet these goals. Lower level bosses will often lie to the higher ups to hold their position of power. I fail to see how letting government run things changes this. How can an economy function if workers are not pressured to meet production goals?

Under communism/socialism, party bosses want to jail political competitors and acquire a monopoly of power. Outlawing greed is not going to make it go away.

What you propose is insane. The current government fails to jail scam artists, racketeers, fraudsters. So your solution is send more money and power to the politicians that don't jail these bank managers???? You tell me I should glad to pay taxes for policing and then the police don't arrest these criminals and take back their stolen money. WTF, the police and the government are crooks too.

The problem is not too much freedom, it is elitism. The politicians of both the left and right protect other elites like this bank CEO. The bank CEOs in return send a lot of their ill gotten gain to politians in the form of taxes and political donations. How does having an elite group of communist party bosses change things?

You're actually doing the same thing as thse banks. They use lies and deception to get people to turn over more of their money to the bank. You do the same thing to get people to accept paying more in taxes. Sorry I'm not falling for either scam. I will protect myself from all manner of scam artist, especially the politician that tells me he is looking out for me so send me all my money.

An individual purpose is to survive, to attain wealth and power. Making everything run by the government does not make greed go away. These bank managers and workers got into banking because that is where the money was, the easiest way to make their money. So under communism/socialism, they become goverment beauracrats and government employees. But there greed doesn't disappear. Their willingness to cheat the system and break the rules doesn't go away because they are employed by the government. This is driven by living in a competive society and world. Government does not have a magic want to make greed go away.

The leftists propagandists have duped you the same as these banks duped their customers. "Trust us with all the fruits of your labor, we can manage things better than you can yourself. We have your best interest at heart."

Sorry but I'm not falling for either scam.

The government officials now don't prosecute and jail these bank managers and employees, even though the voters of both parties want this to happen. In communism/socialism, what would cause the top official to order them to be prosecute? All you're doing is changing the title of who owns the banks from private shareholders to the government. Does this piece of paper have magical properties? Why would the greed and corruption go away just from a title change?

Can't you see the problem is not who's name is on the title to the bank? The problem is elitism, the top politicans look out for the top bankers and visa versa. No one looks out for the common man.

You're obviously calling it a stupid question because you can't answer it. Public officials now don't punish fellow elitiist that commit white collar crimes like these bank managers that knew this was going on. What is going to motivate them to act under communism/socialism?

We have leftist politicians and right wingers, but still they get away with their crimes? The system is set up to make it so the elistist protect each other from the irate public.

Here is a list of failures of government that led to this situation.

1. Little prosecution of white collar crimes like finacial fraud, making the bankers think they can do whatever they please.

2. An education system that produces people who's only job skill is to scam people.

3. An education system that produces bank customers that can't manage their own finances or spot an obvious scam.

4. A justice system that prevents these victims from recovering their money from the fraudsters.

This is why liberalism is a mental disorder. You double down on failed government by insisting that we need more government.

We need real power to the people where we refuse to live by the rules made by elitist bankers, elitist medical industry, eletist judges, etitist politicians, political parties, etc... The people need to be the police, judges and jailers. Not these fucking elitiest theives that tax you to death and then don't do shit with all the money they steal. 

No. I'm calling it a stupid question because it is a stupid question. Your inability to explain why any police officer does their job today shows just how stupid a question it is.

Today corporate entities exist independently, with the sole purpose of acquiring profits. Those entities are permitted lobbyists who can influence politicians to help them increase their profits.
In socialism, they would not be independent corporations, and their existence would depend on their services or products and the quality of their services or products. Profit would not be an objective at all, let alone the primary reason for being. They wouldn't have lobbyists, and ceo's would be elected by the population or earned through work and education instead of by a few dozen shareholders, because the entire population would be shareholders.
Everything you say adds up to a demonstration of your ignorance of socialism, which has been one of your biggest flaws since you started posting here. You don't have the slightest clue how socialism works, even though it has been thoroughly explained to you multiple times per year for almost a decade. Which means you are stupid, and explains why a 6 year old would whoop your ass in a debate. Unfortunately for you, I'm considerably smarter than a 6 year old, and as a result it's amazing you aren't too embarrassed to show your face after I obliterated your entire argument for the 500th time straight.

1: capitalism.
2: capitalism.
3: capitalism.
4: capitalism.

This is why you're clinically retarded. You constantly and consistently blame the problems of the day on completely unrelated issues or person's, refuse to educate yourself to find out what the real problems are, and come up with brainless solutions that not only won't fix anything, but in fact will only make things worse.

Under communism/socialism, there still is a hierachtical structure. Same as any corporation. The whole society just becomes one big monopolistic corporation. It exists to serve the beauracracy and enrich the leaders at the top of the pyramid. The existence of any enterpise or commune would depend upon how it served the needs of the elite leaders not society at large.

You have to get rid of the damn elitist structure. The only way to do that is stop feeding the beast. Taxes must be entirely replaced with user fees. Instead of stop feeding the elites with the fruit of people's labor, you want 100% taxation. How insane.

People need to get rid of this idea of that others can do things better. You don't need to turn control over to party leaders, beauracrats, politicians and judges. You don't need them to control your healthcare and every ohter aspect of your life. Taxation is a total scam, it is rarely a fee for services, but rather a way to maintain the elitist control.

Sure, in a dictatorship. Not in a democracy. Any hierarchy is constantly shifting. There is no comparison to a corporation which has the same people in charge year after year. There is no elite group to maintain power indefinitely. There isn't even much of a power base for the elite to claim provided power is sufficiently decentralised.

Which can only happen with socialism.

That will simply increase costs for everyone except the rich and make the elite even more powerful. Brainless suggestion based on a flawed understanding of the problems facing society.

What is truly insane is your having to make up lies because you're too stupid and uneducated to understand socialism. Instead of resdistributing wealth so the elites have less power, you want to give them the biggest break they've ever seen so they can double down on getting rich at the expense of everyone. THAT is insane.

No, they don't. It's an indisputable fact that some people can do some things better than other people.

If there is no power base then there is no society. Period. Say goodbye to all technology, emergency services, defence, running water, electricity, and everything that exists soley because of cooperative society.

Until you can show me a population where everyone is sufficiently educated as to be able to do every job in society at peak efficiency, yes we do need people in charge who know what they're doing and how to run things. There's a reason you go to a doctor instead of a lawyer or taxi driver or bureaucrat when you have a broken leg. Only the doctor knows how to fix it. The day you go to a lawyer to cure you is the day you lose all chance of being cured.

False. Taxation is by definition soley a fee for services and to redistribute wealth, and the only thing keeping the rich from seizing absolute power. Remove taxation and you give up on any chance of freedom and equality and prosperity for all.

Which can only happen with socialism.

What you keep missing is that that's only true in a dictatorship, not in a democracy. Which is why I can continue to call you a dumb shit who doesn't have a clue how socialism works.

The corrupt and greedy don't have access to taxpayer money today, which is why they recruit patsies like you to argue for them. They certainly wouldn't have access to it in socialism. You are incredibly ignorant of reality.

You seem to be living in a fantasy where everyone is highly educated on all subjects despite the fact you've completely eliminated the education system. Ridiculous.

That's exactly what I'm proposing. There is no need for a central power position to control everything. A federal government must be concerned only with making sure the country is adequately defended and that there is no significant disparity between locales. Everything else can be done more locally.

Because noone would ever be in such a position. It would be illegal. As would political parties be, if I had anything to say about it.