Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I don't see how one's status as the recipient of a government subsidy tells one anything about a person that isn't better answered some other way. Rental history, credit report, criminal record, length of time in current job, length of time at prior residence, personal references.

You either don't own property or are very naieve.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You either don't own property or are very naieve.

You either don't own property in an area with a significant number of rentals or have an overdeveloped fear of the poor. Or have never looked at a credit report.

Depending on the region, those eligible to receive housing assistance can include school teachers, police, firefighters and soldiers (mostly junior in each case).

If someone on Section 8 with spotless credit, a stable job and no bad references wants to move in next to me, that's cool. One of those things is iffy, the section 8 status is irrelevant.

I'm telling you guys, you're missing the better argument. You can claim all you want it is a good indicator of likelihood of default, and it still sounds like a pretense. The pain of going through the paperwork, and payment problems from the government, are more legitimate gripes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by baltassoc
You either don't own property in an area with a significant number of rentals or have an overdeveloped fear of the poor. Or have never looked at a credit report.

Depending on the region, those eligible to receive housing assistance can include school teachers, police, firefighters and soldiers (mostly junior in each case).

If someone on Section 8 with spotless credit, a stable job and no bad references wants to move in next to me, that's cool. One of those things is iffy, the section 8 status is irrelevant.

I own property in an area with a very high number of renters. Put aside the issue of how would I ever gain access to a credit report of a potential renter that is not renting my unit (i.e., a renter renting someone else units). One of the first questions I asked when I was looking for property is how many of the units in my building were rented out. They call it pride in OWNERSHIP for a reason. Has anybody ever heard of pride of rentership? I know from first hand experience that I treated rental units far differently than I treat my home. The fact that there many be renters in my building increases the risks to my property value. A section 8 renter is just an additional level of risk on top of that which I believe it is rational to want to avoid.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
What if the Section 8 recipient was my grandmother, a retired elementary school teacher who, for various reasons, had a retirement income insufficient to support her living in even a one bedroom apartment without some Section 8 assistance?*

I think it is just awful if you have money that you leave your grandmother to take hand outs. Just awful. I would get a second and a third fucking job before I would let anyone in my family live off of welfare of any kind. Where is your pride and sense of family responsibility?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
A section 8 renter is just an additional level of risk on top of that which I believe it is rational to want to avoid.

For me, it would all depend on why the person was on section 8. If they were young and capable of working and just had too many fucking kids, no way I want them anywhere near me. I don't give a fuck what color they are. I think people who breed like animals like that and can't take care of their kids are fucking scum bags and I don't want them anywhere near me. Get a god damn job and pick who you spread your legs for more wisely.

Now if the person is disabled, fine. No problem if they are section 8. I mean a real disability, though. Not one of these fakers with neck/back pain.

Now if the person is elderly, same thing. Of course I will think her grandson who lets her live on section 8 welfare is a scum bag, but that is a different issue.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

[I drive a gas-guzzling SUV with OBL sitting right next to me and sending lot's o'cash with my gas purchases to fund wahhabi islam and think that is morally A-OK but I feel everyone else needs to accept section 8 vouchers to shoulder their fair share of the burden.]

I will oppose any plan that forces me to accept the scum bags/uncontrolled breeders in my neighborhood. I don't want those people around me.

Disabled on section 8- fine. Old people on section 8 - fine. Young people with too many kids - no fucking way I want them anywhere near me.

[Shape Shifter]

. . . prescription drug plan

[Atticus Grinch]

Minnesota ranked 7th in nation in total state and local tax burden; California ranked 17th.

Maybe Clubby's island is actually Catalina. My votes is for the Farallons.

[Hank Chinaski]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
What protectable interest does a landlord have in refusing to rent to someone based on section 8? If there is any legitimate reason (criminal background) etc., that's one thing. And if the recipients need to be evicted, the local laws should apply. But if you put out an ad in Lake Forest asking for $8000 to rent a mansion, and I show up with my 8 kids and a voucher statement (verifiable by one call to a federal agency), good for $8000 on a renewable annual lease, than what exactly is your protectable interest in refusing me?

My father had a rental home for awhile. He rented to a state dependant family for a few years. The regular check, on time and in the mail, was the best part. The worse part was the government insisting on various improvements etc. to keep the gravy train going. Landlords want to sign the back of a check once a month. That is the total investment they'd like to make. As much of a headache as any tenant is, the government can be worse- it's got teeth.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
As I said, I participate in, and buy into, such policy, supporting those programs, as well as charitable stuff. My beef was with the philosophy that holds it to be, not a mark of my social conscience, but my moral obligation to do so. Remember, I was objecting to the phrase "my share of the burden". I think it's fair to call it charity. It's not my burden.

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".

Why is it so taboo to say "I have no moral obligation to my irresponsible fellow man?" Why is the reality of social darwinism denied? America is unique in its refusal to address realities. No one will EVER stand up and say the following:

1. Its not wise to procreate if you can't afford children.

2. We ought to give free birth control to the impoverished.

3. A flat tax is the fairest system, and the only reason it isn't implemented is that its implementation would destroy entire industries and govt agencies, as well as eliminate many lucrative dodges for the wealthy.

4. Govt workers should be held to standards not unlike the "no child left behind" act, and they should not be able to retire early with lucrative pensions, unlike their counterparts in the private sector.

5. The drug war is a failure, both practically and intellectually; marijuana should be legalized because it is safer than alcohol, but again, to do so would hurt the alcohol industry and put a lot of people in law enforcement and the prison management businesses out of jobs. The money devoted to marijuana prosecution/investigation should be diverted to homeland security.

6. The Govt should not bail out airlines or subsidize farmers or engage in protectionist measures for the benefit of manufacturing or white collar workers whose jobs are outsourced. The free market should control.

7. The govt is not your parent and you should not think of it as a safety net. It provides protection and basic services - nothing more, nothing less.

These are just a few things that need to be said, but nobody wilkl ever say them.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think it is just awful if you have money that you leave your grandmother to take hand outs. Just awful. I would get a second and a third fucking job before I would let anyone in my family live off of welfare of any kind. Where is your pride and sense of family responsibility?

Hey, is this the month that I bought? If so, can I appropriately ask whether Not_Me has contributed too? I mean, otherwise she's living off of my welfare, and I saw a Help Wanted sign at my gas station this morning.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
You can claim all you want it is a good indicator of likelihood of default, and it still sounds like a pretense.

Not our argument. With S.8, there is a much less likelihood of default - like, zero. The problems to which I refer are the rowdy, destructive, irresponsible, property-damaging, neighbor-alienating, party-all-week kind of tenants. Statistically, people with S.8 support are less likely to have jobs, less likely to have a reason to get up early and thus less likely to wind down before 4:00 a.m., less likely to pause before breaking through the wallboard with their fist for fun, less likely to feel bad about dumping their bottles out the back window, and just generally less likely to treat MY property with any care or concern. See Club, supra, "Pride of Rentership".

Are there S8 recipients who do act properly regarding the property and rights of others? Of course - most, in fact. But, just playing the odds, the chances of encountering a sleaze are higher when you accept S8.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It is not so much the actual identity of the voucher recipient. It is the idea that the person living next door does not own their unit and does not have the same interests as me. So you're grandmonther likely would not be objectionable, but there is no guarantee that she would be the only renter for as long as I own my unit.

So you'll let me pull up the trailer I own in front of your building! Cool.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So you'll let me pull up the trailer I own in front of your building! Cool.

No. You're a lawyer. That brings up a whole different set of disqualifiers.