Is this "fair"?
 

Why do we have vouchers to help poor people live in affluent areas, but not vouchers to help middle class people live in those areas?

And why are the same liberals who support this, so adamantly opposed to school vouchers? Answer...teachers unions...

Civil war is getting closer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Dubuque, Iowa, for example, received an influx of voucher holders from projects in Chicago — and it’s had a problem with crime ever since. A recent study linked Dubuque’s crime wave directly to Section 8 housing."

Boy, that's a real shocker. You mean if you move violent criminals from a crappy place to a nicer place, that move doesn't instantly turn them into productive, law-abiding, churchgoing citizens?

What the hell is wrong with these people? Do they ever get tired of being wrong? Here is the liberal mindset..."Yes, let's move all the heroin addicts, and heroin dealers, from Lowell to Nantucket. Problem solved."

They won't allow that by claiming they fear the island may capsize.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo! That's why I asked if this program is "fair"? There are a lot of folks who are not "rich" who would like vouchers to move into nicer neighborhoods than they can afford. Inch by inch, it is becoming more advantageous to be poor as the "safety net" broadens and "subsidies" (food stamps, health care, etc.) are made "policy."

Equality rather than liberty. Dependence rather than freedom. Government as master of the productive few and servant of the dependent masses. That is . . . until we are all "equal." Then it will be the master us all.

I remember that well . The Admiral being being questioned by that democrat congressmen didn't even crack a smile . He just said they didn't anticipate that happening . Only in Washington
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It used to be the NIMBY reply when dealing with drug-infested areas. Now you can't even say that because, even with town meeting and petition signings, you can't win.

When they move the worthless dregs of society from a dump to the Ritz, they surely CAN claim "problem solved".....solved for the dump area that is!!

That's just the reciprocating factor of "spreading the wealth" by "spreading the filth".

Imagone telling a landlord, that he doesn't have the right to refuse to rent to a persion with a public voucher, even if they have a criminal record? How many drug dealers does the HUD commissioner have living in HIS house?

I don't trust articles like this from a tabloid with no references.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why? Does this not sound exactly like somehting that Obama would come up with?

Here. how's this...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hud-ru...NfMQRzZWMDc3I-

That's typical...attack the source rather than express YOUR opinion of the plan.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The obvious solution is to put a wall around the Windy City.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or we could start saying out loud, that these people in places like urban Chicago, would be better served to change their values, than to change their zip code. Zip code is meaningless in this context.

If a solution is required, there must be a problem.

If it is a problem that a poor person cannot afford to live in a rich neighborhood, the obvious solution is for the poor person to become rich.

If the poor person is made rich through government subsidy, then, to be "fair" that subsidy should be available to everyone who cannot afford to live in a rich neighborhood.

Then everyone would be equally rich, and, in effect, no one would be rich, since their would be no comparative disparity in wealth to define rich or poor. (Of course, that's an overriding goal of socialism.)

But the catch is that rather than a solution, the result would be a bigger problem. Solving problems by creating more problems is stupid. Not only will there be the functional problems pointed out in the article, there's that sneaky sociological problem that economic equality destroys motivation. All things being equal, there's nothing to strive for.

On the other hand, there's that Nancy Pelosi notion that not having to spend the time and effort to provide the necessities for yourself would free you to write poetry or create music. But what would there be to write or sing about. The ultimate problem with socialism, if it could actually work, would be that it is boring. Stultifyingly boring.

All that is an extreme oversimplification, but it is the germ of a worthwhile discussion which I doubt anyone cares to have. So, in keeping with simplicity: it is not "fair" (that being one of the major operative words driving progressive policy) to subsidize some to live in rich neighborhoods, but not to subsidize everyone else who would like the subsidy . . . especially when those who won't get the subsidy have to pay the taxes used to subsidize the others.

Then, there's that trampling the Constitution thing. And American values. And work ethic. And individual liberty. And all that stuff that nobody really cares about anymore. The important thing is that everyone is equal, and everything is fair. If that's possible

just the same old same old about how Obama is out to destroy the country..:drevil:

Obama’s last act is to force suburbs to be less white and less wealthy

I didn't realize all people on section 8 were non whites ?

oh wait they aren't... unless your a conservative apparently

President Trump is inheriting quite a mess .......:drevil:

"I didn't realize all people on section 8 were non whites ?"

No one claims they are all black. Certainly they are disproportionately black.

Most suburbanites don't care if their neighborhood becomes less white, as long as it doesn't become less safe. Since that argument cannot be refuted, your side claims that it's racist to not want crack dealers living next door to your children. There is no limit to the depths your side will go, no limit to the intellectual dishonesty.

The proposed bill says that landlords cannot refuse a tenant who has a criminal record. Does that sound like a free society to you? You want to invest in a rental property, and be told you don't have the right to say no if Willie Horton wants to live there?

Please tell me exactly where I am wrong.

What else would U expect from spence?....:)
My friend solved his section 8 problem, stopped renting the unit 15 years ago once there was a murder there.

I would like one of them vouchers so i could move into a 5 mil house on the sea shore....lol...:)

This is what I mean, the yahoo article doesn't mention anything about supersized subsidies to move poor people, it's about rezoning.

Did you read this part of the yahoo article: "In fact, HUD in its rule suggests that local housing authorities augment rental vouchers to cover higher rents in wealthy suburbs and give poor minorities a list of landlords willing to lease units, along with relocation counselors.

The agency also urges housing authorities to "take regional approaches to HCV (Housing Choice Vouchers) mobility practices," including forming regional consortia to coordinate Section 8 relocations.

But even HUD-sponsored studies have found a link between Section 8 tenants and higher crime. The Urban Institute found in a 2012 study that tenants who moved in the last decade from inner-city public housing to Section 8 rentals in Atlanta and Chicago suburbs tended to bring crime with them."

How is it "fair" to provide vouchers to a select group but not to everybody? Of course, the transporting of higher crime into lower crime neighborhoods is obviously "fair."

..

Earth to WDMSO,,,poor people are disproportionately black. It's a fact. You deny that? Really? Why? For what purpose?

we are talking section 8 and making areas less white

but since your brought it up

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/21/news...te-inequality/

let's get this very clear....it's the government and in particular, democrats, that look at a section of the country and declare that it is "too white or too wealthy" and that something must be done, usually in the form of tinkering by/through government, in this case subsidizing the migration of less white and less wealthy individuals and families into areas deemed unsatisfactorily integrated and unfairly affluent....of course, democrats have been trying this for decades and as WMD's article points out...things are about as bad as they've ever been for the less white and less affluent....soooo....I'm sure the democrats will promise to fix all of this during the current election cycle and enjoy overwhelming support

Gerrymandering
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ummm...your article says that blacks are very disproportionately poor. That supports what I was saying.