Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-10-2016, 10:00 AM   #1
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,755
Is this "fair"?

http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-...-less-wealthy/
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 10:13 AM   #2
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,595
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...
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 10:13 AM   #3
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Civil war is getting closer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 10:16 AM   #4
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,595
"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."
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 10:43 AM   #5
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

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
ecduzitgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 11:01 AM   #6
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
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...
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.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 11:01 AM   #7
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood View Post
They won't allow that by claiming they fear the island may capsize.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
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
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 11:41 AM   #8
FishermanTim
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
FishermanTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Hyde Park, MA
Posts: 4,080
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".

I am a legend in my own mind!
FishermanTim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 11:53 AM   #9
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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.
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?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 12:51 PM   #10
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
I don't trust articles like this from a tabloid with no references.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 01:36 PM   #11
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
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-
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2016, 01:42 PM   #12
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I don't trust articles like this from a tabloid with no references.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's typical...attack the source rather than express YOUR opinion of the plan.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 09:04 PM   #13
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"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."
The obvious solution is to put a wall around the Windy City.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 09:07 PM   #14
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles View Post
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.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 11:34 PM   #15
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles View Post
The obvious solution is to put a wall around the Windy City.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
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
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 04:41 AM   #16
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,530
just the same old same old about how Obama is out to destroy the country..

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
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 04:50 AM   #17
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

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


President Trump is inheriting quite a mess .......
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 06:00 AM   #18
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
just the same old same old about how Obama is out to destroy the country..

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
"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.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 08:35 AM   #19
Fly Rod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Fly Rod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gloucester Massachusetts
Posts: 2,678
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...

"When its not about money,it's all about money."...
Fly Rod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 09:57 AM   #20
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
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-
This is what I mean, the yahoo article doesn't mention anything about supersized subsidies to move poor people, it's about rezoning.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 10:34 AM   #21
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
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."
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 06:38 PM   #22
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"I didn't realize all people on section 8 were non whites ?"

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

you need to get out More If you actually believe That ^^^^ and the headline thinks it to be true how else to you make something less white


Please tell me exactly where I am wrong.
..
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 09:33 PM   #23
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
..
Earth to WDMSO,,,poor people are disproportionately black. It's a fact. You deny that? Really? Why? For what purpose?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2016, 05:11 AM   #24
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,530
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/
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2016, 05:30 AM   #25
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
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
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2016, 06:04 AM   #26
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Gerrymandering
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2016, 06:14 AM   #27
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
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/
Ummm...your article says that blacks are very disproportionately poor. That supports what I was saying.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com