Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I couldn't agree more. But I'd add that what is even more angering is the instrumentality the democrats favor to enforce this "burden". ...
|
Damn. My issue ain't whether section 8 recipients are justified in the first place. Yo, I'd never endorse giving money to able-bodied adults for free when they are otherwise eligible to, e.g., get a job or join the military.
My issue is that once we do decide to give money, the burden should be distributed across communities to the extent reasonable. Right now, people like us tolerate this unworkable program because its only an incremental hit on our taxes. Just like we tolerate the war on drugs because hey, they're only really charging the black kids with felonies. And the way we tolerated the Vietnam drafts because hey, its really only the working class draftees who are getting killed in the infantry. And the way we tolerate taxes because hey, someone in the next higher bracket is really paying the bulk of taxes. And that's just the fairness aspect of distributing burdens, once we decide to impose the burden on anyone. The homeowners on the West Side are no less harmed by the risk of a bad section 8 renter than the homeowners in Lake Forest.
Fairness. And that's without even touching the concept that the program has helped perpetuate poverty over time in many cases, by subsidizing and concentrating the poverty similar to public housing.
So hey, if y'all don't want section 8 at all (or for able-bodied adults), get me a candidate who will advocate the position. But as long as we have it, I'm still not seeing why the working class city neighborhoods should have 25% of the homes occupied by section 8ers while the new suburban subdivisions have 0%. Particularly when its the government common to the city and the suburbs thats imposing the burden on anyone.
Hello
