Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[baltassoc]

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?

Unfortunately, state and federal child labor laws made such efforts on my part impossible. I realize this only opens an additional concern for many Republicans, as yet another example of how the state is interfering with the market, but until the Republican's get full control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress (oh wait), the law's the law.

Which segues into my next point. She was eligible for the money, why shouldn't she take it? She worked for years for the state as a teacher, and put away all that she could for retirement (in the sense of making the maximum pension contribution and putting aside extra on the side). And yet she was eligible for housing assistance.

But I'm glad to here you'll be sending back to the government that tax refund check you received last year. Wouldn't want to take a government handout, now would you? And you won't be taking that child tax credit either, I suppose, once little Not Mes [shudder] are running about. I'm sure you didn't take any federal grants to go to college or law school, or a Stafford loan.
Someday that social security check will just be sent back too, won't it? I mean, your grandkids can just work a second job to support you, right?

Ultimately, you don't know shit about my family's sense of responsibility and pride. I'll put my family's work ethic and history of accomplishments up against anyone's.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

I look at more commercial leases than residential these days, but I'd consider all these to be defaults. Which was my intention, anyway, as a point of clarity.

But your argument ultimately collapses on itself. You say S.8 recipients are more likely to do X, or be Y, but then admit that not all, or even most, recipients fall into any of these undesirable categories. Why not just not rent to people who have a history of doing X, or who are Y, assuming it is permissable to discriminate on those basis (i.e. Y!=black, Y=unemployed)?

[Say_hello_for_me]

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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
But your argument ultimately collapses on itself. You say S.8 recipients are more likely to do X, or be Y, but then admit that not all, or even most, recipients fall into any of these undesirable categories.

Math is hard, eh?

("More likely than non-S8 renters.")

Why not just not rent to people who have a history of doing X, or who are Y, assuming it is permissable to discriminate on those basis (i.e. Y!=black, Y=unemployed)?

You can't always find those things out. Did your new prospective tenant trash his last place? If his last landlord wasn't part of the reporting network, you'll never know. Is the new guy going to party loud until the weee hours? What, should I ask him? Can I kick him out if he does? Sure, after he causes me tons of trouble, pisses off my good tenants, and I have to pay to do the UD and store his crap and lose three months rent in that process. And, why do you assume that problem renters are black? I think you're racist.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A lot of suburbanites zone their towns for low-density, single-family homes with large lots, ostensibly because this improves their homes' values. The result is cookie-cutter communities with bad traffic (a direct result of low density w/ no businesses, etc.) and no place for people like the elderly and students to live. You also have the same few stores everywhere, because there aren't enough people around to support more varied commercial uses. Oddly, when right-wingers start talking about takings and impairment of property rights, they almost never point the finger at suburban zoning laws that gives us miles of ranch homes.

eta: Indeed, David Brooks seems to think that Patio Man owes his natural habitat to this particular form of conservative-friendly government intervention in the market.

Bullshit. I live in an older suburban community. I bought there specifically because (a) the houses were older and there were no McMansions around (which drive value down), (b) there was no room for any sort of development anywhere nearby (which means the investment is protected and will likely appreciate) and (c) because I'm close to a train and a town with an eclectic mix of restaurants, shops, etc. I have just about every low end to high end store imaginable within 4 miles of my place, and about 30 bars/restuarants in walking distance.

You must be talking about those shitty developments of new McMansions on the outskirts of the burbs. But even those folks tend to have loads of good stores around them; they just don't get very good restaurants.

If you stick the elderly/college kids/section 8 folks near me, you'll kill my property value. So the tradeoff, if its a tradeoff at all, is that I get less "diversity" and better resale? Your point, if there was one, is beyond me. I think you just want to find a way to bitch about NIMBYs. Whatever. I'm proudly one - I have a lot of cash sunk into my house. You think I want to put that in jeopardy because of some upper-middle-class horseshit guilt complex about being selfish?

You're a few zeros on your paychecks from being a limousine liberal sometimes. Everybody's a democrat when he's young; but we're all republicans when we get older and start having real expenses.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

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

Because all the homes in the burbs are owned and occupied by families. I don't know about your area, but in my area, houses are on the market for days, not weeks, and bidding wars are the rule. There are no rentals in many of the attractive suburbs around here. The rentals that do exist are also usually filled.

Secondarily, if you live in the burbs, you have the added cost of the commute. People already cash strapped can't take on those added expenses (particularly here, where the fares are going up 25% - the monthly pass is between $100-150 now).

[sgtclub]

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".

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.

Your invite to the Island will be in the mail shortly.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Everybody's a democrat when he's young; but we're all republicans when we get older and start having real expenses.

Not true. They used to call me Alex P. Keaton when I was about 12.

[sgtclub]

Be quiet. If you listen very carefully, you can hear the house of cards come tumbling down:

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[sgtclub]

For those of you that have been crying wolf the last few years, here is what the politization of the war on terror really looks like:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040913/D8531M6O0.html

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by 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.

Bad methodology to that survey - they left out property taxes, among others. The survey, by the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, is part of a broader campaign to reduce taxes in Massachusetts, and so was measured in the way Massachusetts fares worst. The most recent census data has radically different ratings, because the numbers include all taxes.

In other words, we should try not to rely on Bilmoresque numbers.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Be quiet. If you listen very carefully, you can hear the house of cards come tumbling down:

Rather should have bought this right from the start:

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
For those of you that have been crying wolf the last few years, here is what the politization of the war on terror really looks like:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040913/D8531M6O0.html

So your new slogan is "Bush -- he's not as bad as Putin"?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please let me know if either of you take concrete steps to put this into law. I will want to sell my property well before then.

The question I have for all of you is who is going to make the determination as to who is permitted and not permitted to live where? And are you going to have compulsory acceptance of the vouchers? Seems to me you would have to in order for this to work. Also seems to me to be a taking, but as has been documented here before I'm no con law scholar.

The law already provides for, albeit ineffectively, compulsory acceptance of vouchers.* It's in the amendments to the Fair Housing Act. As to compulsory acceptance of vouchers constituting a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment (like the pun?), vouchers are a form of scrip, exchangeable for cash. In other words, they are compensation, the same as any other type of rent.

ETA at least in Chicago, where the City's ordinance on fair housing provides that governmental subsidies are not a permissible reason to deny a prospective tenant.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
For those of you that have been crying wolf the last few years, here is what the politization of the war on terror really looks like:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040913/D8531M6O0.html

Yes, a whole different order of magnitude.

It's a good thing that Bush has looked into Putin's soul and seen that he is a good man (that was the quote, right?), or I'd be really worried for Russia.

S_A_M