I already told you a million times that the status quo on 8pm April 28, 2020 is that if you don’t pay your rent you will be evicted.
It got my pupils As in upper division Econ classes though. It got the goods.
Wrong. Taxation is one of the few words that Econ doesn’t have a “baby talk” substitute for.
The status-quo (which means the right here now today… maybe that’s the problem you are having) is that there is an eviction moratorium in the state of California.
A hypothetical (which means an imagined state that’s not the right here now today… maybe that’s the problem you are having) is that this moratorium is not extended indefinitely.
If I cared to, I could handicap that hypothetical. I could say it’s -160, or +30000, or a “lock”, or it “doesn’t have a chance”. But note that this isn’t ‘arguing’ re: the hypothetical itself at all. Maybe you have been confusing handicapping something -vs- what that something is.
Or maybe not. IDK. I can’t read your mind.
There is a TEMPORARY moratorium. Because we do not live as a flashpoint in time, our evaluation of how something is is based on our expectation of future events. If there is a rocket that’s coming at you at 1000mph, the second before it hits you, is the scenario that I am describing one in which you are totally fine?
Maintain the status quo…
Does that mean we also maintain 20+% unemployment with these shutdowns?
1 Like
Huh. Not following that one. &TBF I DGAF. Why you liberals feel this bizarre need to keep Semantikes it up over gibberish beyond me. I’ve already noted that there is no reason we need to use the term ‘status-quo’ at all. But that got ignored… well except for @DrChesspain, who took this as in invitation to troll the thread. And so the monkey games continue, we go round-n-round, and we’re up to 1,500,000 post so far – and the ‘arguing’ has yet to even begin. Sigh.
Maybe after 1,500,000 posts, we should come to a realization that the ‘arguing’ simply isn’t going to happen ITT. Maybe the effective bandwidth has been so degraded by the likes of @DrChesspain 's trolling, that it can’t happen. Maybe it just wasn’t in our luck.
But, I’ll play Charlie Brown with that football one last time. Here goes…
We don’t have to use the term status-quo at all. In fact, since that bizarrely enough, seems to be the biggest stumping block keeping the ‘arguing’ from happening, I’m going to suggest, once again, that we don’t use strangely troublesome term at all. Instead…
-
I’ll stake out what is: 9:30 pm pdt April 28 2020, in California if it matters.
-
And you stake out what might be: 9:30 pm pdt April 28 2021, or any other date of your fancy.
Semantikes: Everyone under the sun operating under the assumption that there will be evictions in the future.
Not semantikes: “Well at 12:32am and 37 seconds on April the 29th in the year of our lord 2020, the bullet hasn’t hit me yet so technically the status quo is that I am fine.”
1 Like
Huh. Not following that one. &TBF I DGAF. Why you liberals feel this bizarre need to keep Semantikes it up over gibberish beyond me. I’ve already noted that there is no reason we need to use the term ‘status-quo’ at all. But that got ignored… well except for @DrChesspain, who took this as in invitation to troll the thread. And so the monkey games continue, we go round-n-round, and we’re up to 1,500,000 post so far – and the ‘arguing’ has yet to even begin. Sigh.
Maybe after 1,500,000 posts, we should come to a realization that the ‘arguing’ simply isn’t going to happen ITT. Maybe the effective bandwidth has been so degraded by the likes of @DrChesspain 's trolling, that it can’t happen. Maybe it just wasn’t in our luck.
But, I’ll play Charlie Brown with that football one last time. Here goes…
We don’t have to use the term status-quo at all. In fact, since that bizarrely enough, seems to be the biggest stumping block keeping the ‘arguing’ from happening, I’m going to suggest, once again, that we don’t use strangely troublesome term at all. Instead…
-
I’ll stake out what is: 9:30 pm pdt April 28 2020, in California if it matters.
-
And you stake out (a) what might be: 9:30 pm pdt April 28 2021, or any other date of your fancy.
@DrChesspain : stop trolling !!?
He’s going to do it anyways, why not beat him to the punch? Liberals !!!1!
Well duh considering anything other than the current unemployment rate would be handicapping.
I made the positive suggestion that we just drop the term ‘status-quo’ all together. You respond with some gibberish about The Bullet’s status-quo. Well, my dog’s name was The Missile, so you got that part wrong. Her status-quo is dead. Thanks for reminding me.
So, you’ve finally “Jumped the Shark” with your trolling. Congrats… asshole !!!1!
Sorry about your dog. 
Is this thread basically Sabo saying that homelessness should not exist in a fair system and almost everyone else saying “but how do you pay for it”?
No. There are other ways to address homelessness besides the silly shit proposed thus far itt.
TYVM.
IDK & IDK who the Bullet is, but obviously weren’t talking about my dead dog, so don’t worry about that. It did make me think of her however, and that she has gone onward… but that’s ok too. She had “miss” built right into her name, for goodness sake. She was a good little dog. Lake Michigan, 2009-9-9, the day she went onward…
You did however “jump the shark”. I made the positive suggestion we drop a certain word. You responded by literally Semaniking™ that same exact word. So we’re never going to drop that word. And the Samanking™ will never end. And that’s just the way it is.
And that’s ok too.
1 Like
Not really, Sabo’s solution of ending evictions would ensure more homelessness in the long run. People who have bad credit would neither be able to rent nor buy housing.
One of the main problems with a world where there are no evictions is who is going to supply housing?
You started re-saying the word first, but it doesn’t matter. You can take the words “status quo” out of my post; it doesn’t affect the meaning one bit.
IDK if you had any meaning. Can you express it in 25 words or less… without referencing me personally, or that certain word, or The Bullet? But before you do, how is any of this gibberish about The Bullet relevant to anything at all? Or let’s drop The Bullet too.
I don’t believe there is any possible string of Unicode I can push at you that would induce you to actually stake out a position.
But that’s ok too. It’s all good.
Let’s do an experiment. I push this string of ASCII at you:
“I’m ‘arguing’ for a snapshot of the relevant rules before tomorrow -and- after yesterday, while you are ‘arguing’ for _____________”.
Ignoring whether Sabo’s particular solution is effective, do you believe that it is possible to create a system where there is no homelessness?
I guess there will always be some people who are homeless by choice or mental illnesses for which they are unwilling to seek treatment, but I think it is possible to create a system where no one is homeless due to inability to pay.