PDA

View Full Version : Entitlements much?



Pages : [1] 2

Pullinteeth
10-16-2013, 08:52 PM
This is awesome...the best line?

"Somebody needs to pay for aaaaaaaaaaalll my kids….somebody needs to be held accountable and they need to pay…"

http://www.westernjournalism.com/somebody-need-to-pay-for-my-15-kids/
In case you can't figure it out...this link takes you to the video...

How about YOU take responsibility for your kids? How about the daddies of your OTHER 5 kids (the father of 10 of them is in jail)... The state is already paying her rent and funishing the home they are renting for her...

Bunch
10-16-2013, 09:39 PM
I dont think awesome would be the word I will used to describe the video. Sad will be more fitting, to think that many if not all of these kids have basically zero shot at having a decent life and prosper in the future. My heart breaks for those children.

kool-aid
10-16-2013, 10:59 PM
Somebody needs to keep their damn legs closed or use contraception.

kyle23457
10-16-2013, 11:06 PM
I feel like people shouldn't be able to legally have more than 3 children max.

TJMAC77SP
10-16-2013, 11:45 PM
I have issues with forced contraception (as has been suggested during discussions of similar stories) but one simple fix is to stop increases in entitlement programs based on family size. One kid, ten kids....same $$. I have a feeling the birth rate would decrease.

I agree that these kids have dim prospects for the future........particularly with that role model

Bunch
10-16-2013, 11:52 PM
I have issues with forced contraception (as has been suggested during discussions of similar stories) but one simple fix is to stop increases in entitlement programs based on family size. One kid, ten kids....same $$. I have a feeling the birth rate would decrease.

I agree that these kids have dim prospects for the future........particularly with that role model

Not only that but make it a temporary assistance program with only few exceptions that could be allowed to stay in the program either permanently or for a longer period of time than allowed for everyone else.

efmbman
10-16-2013, 11:58 PM
Not only that but make it a temporary assistance program with only few exceptions that could be allowed to stay in the program either permanently or for a longer period of time than allowed for everyone else.

You have the makings of a proper government bureaucracy there! Have you considered running for congress?

Rusty Jones
10-17-2013, 01:38 PM
I actually have a lot of faith in what may be the cure for this: mixed income communities.

Much of this culture of lack of shame is the result public low income housing (i.e., "the projects") which concentrates poverty. If you're poor and on public assistance, and you live only around other people who are in the same situation as you are, you see this as normal and don't have any shame in it - because you don't know to have shame in it.

Many housing projects are being torn down now, and are being replaced with mixed income communities. For example, about ten years ago, probably the worst housing project here in Norfolk - Bowling Park - was torn down, and a mixed income community - Broadcreek - replaced it.

The concept here is simple: you break up the concentration of poverty (i.e., keep poor people away from each other to the extent that you can). You disperse the poor among those with higher income. They see the life that they could be living if they put in the work to get to where their neighbors are.

Tak says he frequently visits Chicago because that's where his wife is from. Chicago was one of the first cities to experiment with this, when they began tearing down Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes, etc - perhaps he can provide some input on the results of this. I know that Broadcreek here in Norfolk so far appears to be successful. People there actually take pride in their community, unlike those who live in the projects that are still standing.

Again, if you haven't seen it, check out The Pruitt-Igoe Myth (you can download the Torrent for free). It centers on a specific community that was in St Louis (some of the older people here probably remember the nationally televised implosion of the Pruitt-Igoe buildings in the early 1970's), but speaks of what was happening in all urban areas across the country. There, you'll find the answers as to how the current cultures and mentalities came to be. And you'll understand how mixed income communities will undo this.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-17-2013, 02:12 PM
Washington DC got rid of the poor and replaced them with yuppies and hipsters, they call it, gentrification, and it was part of the housing bubble that collapsed in 2008.

The process involves bringing yuppies and hipsters in to gobble up all the cheap properties to renovate into swanky hipster pads. You get the local NPR affiliate to run a few stories about how hip it is to live in the city and before you know it, property prices are climbing and the poor are streaming out into the suburbs.

The drug trade follows the poor out into the suburbs and the associated crime goes with it. It reaches critical mass when the first organic super market is built and all the yup-sters start wasting their pay checks on expensive organic food and default on their mortgage loans.

This was tried in Baltimore to varying degrees of success.

I've been trying to figure out a way to get poor people to waste what little money they have on organic food but I can't get it to work.

I might try selling organic heroin to yup-sters which seems a little more promising.

sandsjames
10-17-2013, 02:26 PM
Washington DC got rid of the poor and replaced them with yuppies and hipsters, they call it, gentrification, and it was part of the housing bubble that collapsed in 2008.

The process involves bringing yuppies and hipsters in to gobble up all the cheap properties to renovate into swanky hipster pads. You get the local NPR affiliate to run a few stories about how hip it is to live in the city and before you know it, property prices are climbing and the poor are streaming out into the suburbs.

The drug trade follows the poor out into the suburbs and the associated crime goes with it. It reaches critical mass when the first organic super market is built and all the yup-sters start wasting their pay checks on expensive organic food and default on their mortgage loans.

This was tried in Baltimore to varying degrees of success.

I've been trying to figure out a way to get poor people to waste what little money they have on organic food but I can't get it to work.

I might try selling organic heroin to yup-sters which seems a little more promising.

I have no doubt hipsters will be the downfall of the country. If there is any justification for everyone to carry a gun at all times, it's so that hipsters can be picked off on sight.

Rusty Jones
10-17-2013, 02:59 PM
Washington DC got rid of the poor and replaced them with yuppies and hipsters, they call it, gentrification, and it was part of the housing bubble that collapsed in 2008.

The process involves bringing yuppies and hipsters in to gobble up all the cheap properties to renovate into swanky hipster pads. You get the local NPR affiliate to run a few stories about how hip it is to live in the city and before you know it, property prices are climbing and the poor are streaming out into the suburbs.

The drug trade follows the poor out into the suburbs and the associated crime goes with it. It reaches critical mass when the first organic super market is built and all the yup-sters start wasting their pay checks on expensive organic food and default on their mortgage loans.

This was tried in Baltimore to varying degrees of success.

I've been trying to figure out a way to get poor people to waste what little money they have on organic food but I can't get it to work.

I might try selling organic heroin to yup-sters which seems a little more promising.

This actually began happening in the early 1990's. Basically, a photo-negative of what happened right after WWII. The "alternative/grunge" culture that preceded the "emo/hipster" was obsessed with Seattle and how people there lived, and tried to recreate it elsewhere. Then that show "Friends" came out, further romanticizing urban life.

The mixed income communities were proposed since the 1970's, so it's not a direct response to gentrification of urban areas - but I think it's an effective way to combat it.

If you watch Pruitt-Igoe myth, it spoke of how when whites left the big cities and headed toward the suburbs, the jobs followed them.

I'd actually put my money on that happening again - the jobs following middle class whites into the urban areas. If blacks are being expelled from urban areas due to gentrification - away from where the jobs are coming - this would continue the problems that have been going on the last couple decades. Mixed income housing would at least keep some of the low income people in the urban areas who otherwise would have been expelled with the rest.

Rusty Jones
10-17-2013, 03:28 PM
Black Friday comes early as computer glitches cause welfare benefits frenzy

Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/14/computer-glitches-causes-public-assistance-frenzy/

Say What Now? Louisiana Walmart Stores Ravaged After EBT Glitch Gives Recipients Unlimited Funds

B.Scott Site http://lovebscott.com/news/say-now-louisiana-walmarts-ravaged-ebt-glitch-gives-recipients-unlimited-funds-photos/

-------------------------------

Majority of U.S. fast-food workers need public assistance -- study

Yahoo Finance http://finance.yahoo.com/news/majority-u-fast-food-workers-160000493.html


They only screwed themselves by doing that. The amount that individuals overspent will be taken out of future payments - some won't even receive future payments at all until it's caught up.

SomeRandomGuy
10-17-2013, 03:35 PM
They only screwed themselves by doing that. The amount that individuals overspent will be taken out of future payments - some won't even receive future payments at all until it's caught up.

That is not what I heard. The report I read said Wal-Mart would be forced to pay the difference. When the computer system is down the vendor (Wal-Mart) is supposed to use the manual system. They document the purchase on paper and the person is supposed to be limited to only $50 since their balance cannot be verified. The Louisianna DFS already said Wal-Mart will only be reimbursed $50 for each customer. It looks like Wal-Mart is playing it up as a public relations situation where they decided to do the right thing so people could eat :hail

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-food-stamp-shopping-spree-choice/story?id=20579980

Rusty Jones
10-17-2013, 04:03 PM
You're right, then. The information I heard was second hand from a friend.

I'm actually surprised that the inviduals aren't being held accountable.

71Fish
10-17-2013, 04:37 PM
I have no doubt hipsters will be the downfall of the country. If there is any justification for everyone to carry a gun at all times, it's so that hipsters can be picked off on sight.

Hipsters with their tight pants and ironic t-shirts are worse than smelly hippies ever were.

Rusty Jones
10-17-2013, 06:02 PM
SRG,
I imagine the word got out at that Walmart that it was a free for all and I am quite sure people knew what it meant as people on benefits could almost be lawyers.
My wife said her mom overheard a conversation recently, two ladies were discussing how they had to keep their hours low at a certain amount to make sure they still qualified for assistance. People know the system and abuse the system and that is a problem. Everybody wants to feed the hungry and give elderly healthcare, but the abuse is rampant and people who are not hungry or elderly learn all the rules and abuse them. Huge corporations pay minimum wages, which enables these people to qualify for the tax payers to pay them as well, so they in effect have two employers, the main employer and uncle sam. The benefits keep getting easier to get, imagine the senate just added a verification step for income check in obamacare, what was the plan before they added that? In three years the country will be 20 trillion in debt and the democrats will still want to increase benefits and raise taxes to pay for them.

Welp, here's the thing: once upon a time, there used to be shame in being poor. In most parts of the world, there still is... but it's different in the US.

I'm not sure how many people here have seen Spike Lee movies, but there's one called "Crooklyn" and there was a particular scene that summed up our attitude towards public assistance back in the 1980's (though Crooklyn was set in either the 60's or 70's):

The girl who was the protagonist of the film was sent by her mother to the store to pick up a few groceries. She was given food stamps. The girl complained to her mother about it, because she didn't want to be seen with them. It was embarassing to her, and she told her mother that her friends would make fun of her. Her mother replied back, telling her that her friends' family were on public assistance too, and had no room to talk.

So she goes to the store and, lo and behold, her friends see her with the food stamps and start picking on her. She replies to her friends that she found them on the ground - but they weren't fooled.

And you know something? Every kid my age in my neighborhood experienced this growing up. We were all on public assistance, but we made fun of each other for being on it as if we weren't ourselves - when we knew damned well that we were. And the thing about finding food stamps on the ground was the most common lie - just as common as a 15 year old virgin saying that he had sex with a chick out of state.

I remember the few kids in school who got the reduced-price lunch, who used to think they were hot shit because they didn't get free lunch. And they really knew how to poke at that inferiority complex that those of us getting free lunch had.

Things like that was what motivated us to break that cycle when we grew up.

There's no shame in being poor now, so... the young people in that situation today don't have the motivation that we had.

71Fish
10-17-2013, 06:25 PM
Welp, here's the thing: once upon a time, there used to be shame in being poor. In most parts of the world, there still is... but it's different in the US.

I'm not sure how many people here have seen Spike Lee movies, but there's one called "Crooklyn" and there was a particular scene that summed up our attitude towards public assistance back in the 1980's (though Crooklyn was set in either the 60's or 70's):

The girl who was the protagonist of the film was sent by her mother to the store to pick up a few groceries. She was given food stamps. The girl complained to her mother about it, because she didn't want to be seen with them. It was embarassing to her, and she told her mother that her friends would make fun of her. Her mother replied back, telling her that her friends' family were on public assistance too, and had no room to talk.

So she goes to the store and, lo and behold, her friends see her with the food stamps and start picking on her. She replies to her friends that she found them on the ground - but they weren't fooled.

And you know something? Every kid my age in my neighborhood experienced this growing up. We were all on public assistance, but we made fun of each other for being on it as if we weren't ourselves - when we knew damned well that we were. And the thing about finding food stamps on the ground was the most common lie - just as common as a 15 year old virgin saying that he had sex with a chick out of state.

I remember the few kids in school who got the reduced-price lunch, who used to think they were hot shit because they didn't get free lunch. And they really knew how to poke at that inferiority complex that those of us getting free lunch had.

Things like that was what motivated us to break that cycle when we grew up.

There's no shame in being poor now, so... the young people in that situation today don't have the motivation that we had.

I remember being thankful that my dad made enough money that I wasn't able to get reduced lunches. At my school the kids on reduced lunches had different colored tickets so everyone knew. It was shameful. I wonder what was the point where being poor was something to be proud of (probably the wrong wording) rather than being ashamed of.

Stalwart
10-17-2013, 06:27 PM
I am originally from the part of Louisiana where the Wal-Mart incident took place, shameful. My younger brother got called there on his shift and told me about the chaos and pandemonium.
Rusty Jones brings up a good point, I was a reduced-price lunch kid (I will make fun of you Rusty at a later time). We had very little when I was a kid, my brother and I shared a bed until nearly the end of my freshman year in high school. I worked from the time I was 14, not to have a car, but to help with our food and our house. The only reason I could afford being a Boy Scout was a local family had a fund to pay the registration for kids who couldn't afford it and the troop had a uniform locker. Still, I managed to play sports, become an Eagle Scout and have a job until I left home. Once I got into the military and away from home, there was no way I was going back to that. I have been moderately successful in the military through hard work. In some ways we are removing the requirement for hard work to overcome a bad situation.

As far as the government shutdown, glad it is over, it should have never happened. That said, I just saw some scoring estimates on the cost of the employee back pay:

Average government civilian pay: $78,467
Median government civilian pay: $74,714
Pay is averaged based on 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year which is 2,080 hours in a year.
Average hourly pay: $37.73
'Non-essential' employees were furloughed 11.5 days or 92 hours.
Average loss of pay to be back paid per employee: $3,471.16
Number of civilians furloughed: 800,000 (final numbers are still out, some were furloughed longer than others)
Initial estimate for back pay as scored: $2,776,928,000

Don't get me wrong, I feel for people getting financially screwed over for the period the government closed down, but $2 BILLION paid for people when they were not working?

If our government was a business, it would be out of business.

sandsjames
10-17-2013, 06:33 PM
Welp, here's the thing: once upon a time, there used to be shame in being poor. In most parts of the world, there still is... but it's different in the US.

I'm not sure how many people here have seen Spike Lee movies, but there's one called "Crooklyn" and there was a particular scene that summed up our attitude towards public assistance back in the 1980's (though Crooklyn was set in either the 60's or 70's):

The girl who was the protagonist of the film was sent by her mother to the store to pick up a few groceries. She was given food stamps. The girl complained to her mother about it, because she didn't want to be seen with them. It was embarassing to her, and she told her mother that her friends would make fun of her. Her mother replied back, telling her that her friends' family were on public assistance too, and had no room to talk.

So she goes to the store and, lo and behold, her friends see her with the food stamps and start picking on her. She replies to her friends that she found them on the ground - but they weren't fooled.

And you know something? Every kid my age in my neighborhood experienced this growing up. We were all on public assistance, but we made fun of each other for being on it as if we weren't ourselves - when we knew damned well that we were. And the thing about finding food stamps on the ground was the most common lie - just as common as a 15 year old virgin saying that he had sex with a chick out of state.

I remember the few kids in school who got the reduced-price lunch, who used to think they were hot shit because they didn't get free lunch. And they really knew how to poke at that inferiority complex that those of us getting free lunch had.

Things like that was what motivated us to break that cycle when we grew up.

There's no shame in being poor now, so... the young people in that situation today don't have the motivation that we had.

Rusty...great point...and I can assure you that this is race exempt. We went through some very tough years when I was growing up. I remember my friends coming over and seeing the big block of cheese and huge tub of peanut butter and it always embarrassed me. Of course they wouldn't say anything at the time, but once we were at school and in groups of people, jokes would be made. Now, they've given cards to people so they aren't embarrassed while using food stamps at the grocery store. On one hand, I can see trying to take away the embarrassment. On the other hand, as you say, sometimes that embarrassment is just the motivation we need to get out of that situation.

Bunch
10-17-2013, 08:04 PM
I actually have a lot of faith in what may be the cure for this: mixed income communities.

Much of this culture of lack of shame is the result public low income housing (i.e., "the projects") which concentrates poverty. If you're poor and on public assistance, and you live only around other people who are in the same situation as you are, you see this as normal and don't have any shame in it - because you don't know to have shame in it.

Many housing projects are being torn down now, and are being replaced with mixed income communities. For example, about ten years ago, probably the worst housing project here in Norfolk - Bowling Park - was torn down, and a mixed income community - Broadcreek - replaced it.

The concept here is simple: you break up the concentration of poverty (i.e., keep poor people away from each other to the extent that you can). You disperse the poor among those with higher income. They see the life that they could be living if they put in the work to get to where their neighbors are.

Tak says he frequently visits Chicago because that's where his wife is from. Chicago was one of the first cities to experiment with this, when they began tearing down Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes, etc - perhaps he can provide some input on the results of this. I know that Broadcreek here in Norfolk so far appears to be successful. People there actually take pride in their community, unlike those who live in the projects that are still standing.

Again, if you haven't seen it, check out The Pruitt-Igoe Myth (you can download the Torrent for free). It centers on a specific community that was in St Louis (some of the older people here probably remember the nationally televised implosion of the Pruitt-Igoe buildings in the early 1970's), but speaks of what was happening in all urban areas across the country. There, you'll find the answers as to how the current cultures and mentalities came to be. And you'll understand how mixed income communities will undo this.

When I got to Chicago for the first year I used to live EXACTLY where the Cabrini Green Project used to be located. That now is called the Westhaven Park Apartments and you are right it is a mixed income community. In the short amount of time that I've lived there I realize that mix income communities have great potential but ONLY if the people that are on government assistance are willing to make their community a better one. My neighbor at the time used to tell me that at the beginning the relationship of those on Section 8 and that of owners was pretty bad. After years of meetings with housing authorities and previous mayor many of the issues were resolved and right now the Westhaven Park community and surroinding area is a really good and relatively safe area to live in. I never had an issue with any resident and I will go out walk my daughters, my dogs, take my daughters to the park and the like and never felt threatened at all. Many of these areas what they needs is jobs and better education for the kids and I think that's one thing that mix income communities can bring to the table.

efmbman
10-17-2013, 08:06 PM
In some ways we are removing the requirement for hard work to overcome a bad situation.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. There is something to be said for overcoming adversity - it can and does build positive character traits.


Don't get me wrong, I feel for people getting financially screwed over for the period the government closed down, but $2 BILLION paid for people when they were not working?

If our government was a business, it would be out of business.

I am torn on this issue. I agree with those that say the furloughed workers were not at home by their own choice, but at the same time they were not working. Where is the logic for compensating someone for not working. Which kinda leads us back to the first quote...

Bunch
10-17-2013, 08:15 PM
Welp, here's the thing: once upon a time, there used to be shame in being poor. In most parts of the world, there still is... but it's different in the US.

I'm not sure how many people here have seen Spike Lee movies, but there's one called "Crooklyn" and there was a particular scene that summed up our attitude towards public assistance back in the 1980's (though Crooklyn was set in either the 60's or 70's):

The girl who was the protagonist of the film was sent by her mother to the store to pick up a few groceries. She was given food stamps. The girl complained to her mother about it, because she didn't want to be seen with them. It was embarassing to her, and she told her mother that her friends would make fun of her. Her mother replied back, telling her that her friends' family were on public assistance too, and had no room to talk.

So she goes to the store and, lo and behold, her friends see her with the food stamps and start picking on her. She replies to her friends that she found them on the ground - but they weren't fooled.

And you know something? Every kid my age in my neighborhood experienced this growing up. We were all on public assistance, but we made fun of each other for being on it as if we weren't ourselves - when we knew damned well that we were. And the thing about finding food stamps on the ground was the most common lie - just as common as a 15 year old virgin saying that he had sex with a chick out of state.

I remember the few kids in school who got the reduced-price lunch, who used to think they were hot shit because they didn't get free lunch. And they really knew how to poke at that inferiority complex that those of us getting free lunch had.

Things like that was what motivated us to break that cycle when we grew up.

There's no shame in being poor now, so... the young people in that situation today don't have the motivation that we had.

Same here I can totally relate to what you are saying. But to say there is no shame in being poor now I think is not fair to those who still feel like we felt back in those days. I have many people near me, either neighbors and family that day in and day out are still trying to break the poverty cycle. I remember that my dad, a high school droput, used to tell me and my 2 brothers and sisters "all I want from you is to move at least one step up the ladder so you can provide your kids what I couldn't" he used to say that or something to that effect everytime he had the chance and there is still people who said that to their kids every single day.

Pullinteeth
10-17-2013, 08:16 PM
Rusty...great point...and I can assure you that this is race exempt. We went through some very tough years when I was growing up. I remember my friends coming over and seeing the big block of cheese and huge tub of peanut butter and it always embarrassed me. Of course they wouldn't say anything at the time, but once we were at school and in groups of people, jokes would be made. Now, they've given cards to people so they aren't embarrassed while using food stamps at the grocery store. On one hand, I can see trying to take away the embarrassment. On the other hand, as you say, sometimes that embarrassment is just the motivation we need to get out of that situation.

Yep and back then, the generic brands were pretty obvious... White with two bold black stripes and the product name in bold block letters... No "True Value" brand or anything... Bread was BREAD, potato chips POTATO CHIPS....

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-17-2013, 08:23 PM
I actually have a lot of faith in what may be the cure for this: mixed income communities.

Much of this culture of lack of shame is the result public low income housing (i.e., "the projects") which concentrates poverty. If you're poor and on public assistance, and you live only around other people who are in the same situation as you are, you see this as normal and don't have any shame in it - because you don't know to have shame in it.

Many housing projects are being torn down now, and are being replaced with mixed income communities. For example, about ten years ago, probably the worst housing project here in Norfolk - Bowling Park - was torn down, and a mixed income community - Broadcreek - replaced it.

The concept here is simple: you break up the concentration of poverty (i.e., keep poor people away from each other to the extent that you can). You disperse the poor among those with higher income. They see the life that they could be living if they put in the work to get to where their neighbors are.

Tak says he frequently visits Chicago because that's where his wife is from. Chicago was one of the first cities to experiment with this, when they began tearing down Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes, etc - perhaps he can provide some input on the results of this. I know that Broadcreek here in Norfolk so far appears to be successful. People there actually take pride in their community, unlike those who live in the projects that are still standing.

Again, if you haven't seen it, check out The Pruitt-Igoe Myth (you can download the Torrent for free). It centers on a specific community that was in St Louis (some of the older people here probably remember the nationally televised implosion of the Pruitt-Igoe buildings in the early 1970's), but speaks of what was happening in all urban areas across the country. There, you'll find the answers as to how the current cultures and mentalities came to be. And you'll understand how mixed income communities will undo this.Yep, cause the poor can only steal from each other for so long, they need so rich people to steal from in their communities or have a natural disaster like Katrina to help them get free stuff.

Rusty Jones
10-17-2013, 08:45 PM
Yep, cause the poor can only steal from each other for so long, they need so rich people to steal from in their communities or have a natural disaster like Katrina to help them get free stuff.

This statement, right here, shows that you know absolutely nothing about public housing.

Pullinteeth
10-17-2013, 08:54 PM
I actually have a lot of faith in what may be the cure for this: mixed income communities.

Much of this culture of lack of shame is the result public low income housing (i.e., "the projects") which concentrates poverty. If you're poor and on public assistance, and you live only around other people who are in the same situation as you are, you see this as normal and don't have any shame in it - because you don't know to have shame in it.

Many housing projects are being torn down now, and are being replaced with mixed income communities. For example, about ten years ago, probably the worst housing project here in Norfolk - Bowling Park - was torn down, and a mixed income community - Broadcreek - replaced it.

The concept here is simple: you break up the concentration of poverty (i.e., keep poor people away from each other to the extent that you can). You disperse the poor among those with higher income. They see the life that they could be living if they put in the work to get to where their neighbors are.

Tak says he frequently visits Chicago because that's where his wife is from. Chicago was one of the first cities to experiment with this, when they began tearing down Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes, etc - perhaps he can provide some input on the results of this. I know that Broadcreek here in Norfolk so far appears to be successful. People there actually take pride in their community, unlike those who live in the projects that are still standing.

Again, if you haven't seen it, check out The Pruitt-Igoe Myth (you can download the Torrent for free). It centers on a specific community that was in St Louis (some of the older people here probably remember the nationally televised implosion of the Pruitt-Igoe buildings in the early 1970's), but speaks of what was happening in all urban areas across the country. There, you'll find the answers as to how the current cultures and mentalities came to be. And you'll understand how mixed income communities will undo this.

Not a horrible idea. It HAS to be better than public housing is now. The only thing that I would see as a hurdle is that the gov would have less control. As it is now, a lot of "projects" have controlled access to the gov can regulate who lives in the housing the taxpayers are paying for. In a mixed income area, that would be harder to control and as we all know, the gov is diametrically opposed to giving up control of ANYTHING.

Monkey
10-17-2013, 09:01 PM
I actually have a lot of faith in what may be the cure for this: mixed income communities.

Much of this culture of lack of shame is the result public low income housing (i.e., "the projects") which concentrates poverty. If you're poor and on public assistance, and you live only around other people who are in the same situation as you are, you see this as normal and don't have any shame in it - because you don't know to have shame in it.

Many housing projects are being torn down now, and are being replaced with mixed income communities. For example, about ten years ago, probably the worst housing project here in Norfolk - Bowling Park - was torn down, and a mixed income community - Broadcreek - replaced it.

The concept here is simple: you break up the concentration of poverty (i.e., keep poor people away from each other to the extent that you can). You disperse the poor among those with higher income. They see the life that they could be living if they put in the work to get to where their neighbors are.

Tak says he frequently visits Chicago because that's where his wife is from. Chicago was one of the first cities to experiment with this, when they began tearing down Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes, etc - perhaps he can provide some input on the results of this. I know that Broadcreek here in Norfolk so far appears to be successful. People there actually take pride in their community, unlike those who live in the projects that are still standing.

Again, if you haven't seen it, check out The Pruitt-Igoe Myth (you can download the Torrent for free). It centers on a specific community that was in St Louis (some of the older people here probably remember the nationally televised implosion of the Pruitt-Igoe buildings in the early 1970's), but speaks of what was happening in all urban areas across the country. There, you'll find the answers as to how the current cultures and mentalities came to be. And you'll understand how mixed income communities will undo this.

As much as I feel encouraged with the short-term results of many mixed income communities in the U.S., living in rural England has shown me that it's quite possible to have the opposite effect. In the UK it seems that the children of working parents have figured out that they don't have to work and can live a very similar life to those who do. A very dangerous trend seems to be developing.

garhkal
10-17-2013, 09:07 PM
This is awesome...the best line?

"Somebody needs to pay for aaaaaaaaaaalll my kids….somebody needs to be held accountable and they need to pay…"

http://www.westernjournalism.com/somebody-need-to-pay-for-my-15-kids/
In case you can't figure it out...this link takes you to the video...

How about YOU take responsibility for your kids? How about the daddies of your OTHER 5 kids (the father of 10 of them is in jail)... The state is already paying her rent and funishing the home they are renting for her...

Damn skippy.
A) why the heck was she allowed to have so many kids when she is not working is beyond me. While i DON'T feel we should go hole hoc, like china and limit people to having 1 kid, i DO feel that those on welfare etc should be limited.
B) where are the babby daddies? Why are they not paying?


Somebody needs to keep their damn legs closed or use contraception.

Hows about sterilization or tying her tubes!


I have issues with forced contraception (as has been suggested during discussions of similar stories) but one simple fix is to stop increases in entitlement programs based on family size. One kid, ten kids....same $$. I have a feeling the birth rate would decrease.

I agree that these kids have dim prospects for the future........particularly with that role model

Only issue there, is you would then get all the standard bleeding heart liberals saying "What about the kids. Why punish them for the sins of the parents"... etc.
But i DO agree. Whether you have one or 10, you should not get more money as all that does is prompt people to Want to push out more.


SRG,
I imagine the word got out at that Walmart that it was a free for all and I am quite sure people knew what it meant as people on benefits could almost be lawyers.
My wife said her mom overheard a conversation recently, two ladies were discussing how they had to keep their hours low at a certain amount to make sure they still qualified for assistance. People know the system and abuse the system and that is a problem. Everybody wants to feed the hungry and give elderly healthcare, but the abuse is rampant and people who are not hungry or elderly learn all the rules and abuse them. Huge corporations pay minimum wages, which enables these people to qualify for the tax payers to pay them as well, so they in effect have two employers, the main employer and uncle sam. The benefits keep getting easier to get, imagine the senate just added a verification step for income check in obamacare, what was the plan before they added that? In three years the country will be 20 trillion in debt and the democrats will still want to increase benefits and raise taxes to pay for them.

Exactly. Every time people try to do the right thing and put restrictions on welfare etc, they get lambasted as "Hating the poor", so it never gets resolved..


Welp, here's the thing: once upon a time, there used to be shame in being poor. In most parts of the world, there still is... but it's different in the US.

There's no shame in being poor now, so... the young people in that situation today don't have the motivation that we had.

Its not just with being poor either. Take a look at places where judges have tried initiatives to shame people for their crimes.. Many get smacked by the liberals for it.



Initial estimate for back pay as scored: $2,776,928,000


That makes no sense to me. part of the reason they were furloughed was cause of their pay, it could not be given. So why give them back pay, when all the businesses hurt BY the closures won't get shit.??

AFcynic
10-17-2013, 09:10 PM
Thing is some people don't look at it as taking money from taxpayers or redistribution of wealth,
although some very well may and don't care. Would they think any different if they saw the people
paying taxes and actually saw money exchange hands. People may look at it as getting what is owed,
convienient or maybe making right a wrong. Some may grow up where the goal is to get off assistance,
whereas others goal is to get as much assitance money as possible. People become very smart in the
ways of the system and learn their rights as well as loopholes. They learn rights as a renter, learn
how to not make too much so as to still get food stamps, money for untilities, etc. They learn all the
tax assistance and credit ways to maximize not paying taxes, but getting as much back as possible.
They know that if they get too of a job, tthey will lose X benefit. They know if they get a job, they may
need to pay for daycare. They have no incentive to get off welfare except pride, which Rusty pointed out
is not in abundance these days. They have made being on welfare, not shameful, but make the people
believe they need the government for help, which comes in handy come voting time. Once the programs
get into the million plus range of people, the programs become unmanageable and the fraud skyrockets.
People learn and utilize all the tricks of the trade, putting utilities in your 5 year olds name, claiming kids
that are not yours on your taxes, etc. The welfare program goes from an economic to a social equality program.
It is not the people's fault they are on welfare, they have been put on welfare by someone; they are not the blame.
This brush is not for everyone, as there are surely legit people getting assistance. Now, do the people getting
assistance appreciate it and are they so very thankful of the government giving them taxpayer money.
I doubt there is much gratitude, which does not come when supposedly something is owed to you. It is
more a non emotional feeling of simply getting what is yours. There is no doubt the numbers of benefits
and people getting them are rising and fast. The system is getting easier, the money looser and accountability
is non existant. People cannot look down upon those getting assitance, for fear of getting labeled.
Why would someone work, when they can not work and get paid more money. With technology comes
a work ethic not on par with the past. Steel mill, auto, etc cities are shrinking as outsourcing and govt
regulations are strangling the working man. Many cities offer mainly part time, minimum wage jobs,
which still allow folks to get assistance. So, even when some find the job, the taxpayer still pays.
They made home loans easier to get years ago and look how that went. Anytime you create a
economic model based on social equality, you are asking for trouble. Food stamp program I believe
has increased from 24 to over 40 million people now, again who do you think the people getting money
from the government are going to vote for. This country is in very big trouble, economically and morally.
Anyways, just throwing some thoughts out there...

I agree that people have learned to exploit loopholes in social entitlement programs, and I believe that those who abuse the system should be punished. However, the same goes for the folks that have their money hidden in Swiss banks, off-shore investments, and other tax shelters. Hiding money to ensure you don't pay what you theoretically owe is cheating the system. The wealthiest people in the country have also "become very smart in the ways of the system".

It goes both ways with exploitation of laws and regulations.

Rusty Jones
10-17-2013, 09:26 PM
Not a horrible idea. It HAS to be better than public housing is now. The only thing that I would see as a hurdle is that the gov would have less control. As it is now, a lot of "projects" have controlled access to the gov can regulate who lives in the housing the taxpayers are paying for. In a mixed income area, that would be harder to control and as we all know, the gov is diametrically opposed to giving up control of ANYTHING.

Some, not all, but SOME housing projects are actually owned by the federal government; but managed either by the state or city. The federal government can assume management responsibilities if it feels that the state or city isn't doing its job.

I lived in such a complex in New London, CT from age 2 to 7; in a complex whose buildings look EXACTLY like the Cabrini-Green "reds." In fact, when I watched reruns of "Good Times," I actually used to think they lived in my building.

The problem is... (and what WJ5 didn't understand) is that the majority of the people causing problems in the projects actually don't live there. So measures have been put into place in various projects to keep non-residents out (although they've failed).

But I do agree with you on the government control. If the government wanted to do something even better for the poor - while being cost effective at the same time - they could have established subsidized home ownership programs for the lower income.

Think about this - Dearborn Homes is a Chicago housing project built in 1950 with 800 units that was renovated a few years ago with tens of millions of dollars.

That's 800 mortgages that could have been paid off by 1980, and the taxpayers wouldn't have had anything to do with it since then. BUT... taxpayer dollars are still going into Dearborn Homes, and have been for 63 years.

Stalwart
10-17-2013, 09:33 PM
Tak,

In many ways that is how people make the argument on the Hill. I work in the office of a Democrat, who I agree with on some issues and earnestly disagree with on others ... but my name is not the one on the door. I can say that many Democrats don't like fraud in the entitlement system, some for reasons of fairness and right vs. wrong, some because it paints a bad light on the system as a whole, some because of what you said.

I do see that both Democrats and Republicans want what is best for America, I have not seen any that I would say are evil or out to ruin the country, but many have a differing idea of what is good or not. To the Republican's credit, I am a fan of hard work and doing things yourself; I think things like National Defense are important. To the Democrat's credit, there are some serious social issues in the country, have been and always will be, that need to be considered and addressed (if we cancel just one JSF over the length of the program then transfer that money from Defense Appropriations to the Department of Education Appropriations, how many school lunches does that buy?) To the more polarized types on both sides negotiation is not an option, but negotiation ruins the candidate with their base (they cannot win the war if they cannot get reelected.)

In high urban areas, the mentality you described is observable and it is easy to identify entire sections where a cycle of dependence on government assistance is the norm. Politicians exploit this on both sides of the aisle. Use Maryland as an example, in Congress both Senators and 7 of 8 Congressmen are Democrats. Maryland is definitely a 'blue state' but based on percentages of registered voters it not nearly as lopsided as the congressional representation would make you think. Look at a map of the Congressional Districts, 2 districts (districts 2 and 3) that could be toss-ups almost every election were drawn to include significant sections of Baltimore City (districts 2, 3 and 7 -- the state gets to redraw those lines every ten years) while conceding a large (geographic) part of the state but that could just as easily (more straight lines) be put into parts of districts 4 and 5 to the Republicans in district 1. This image shows how a pretty evenly distributed citizenry can be gerrymandered into districting that favors one side or the other:

From debate.org: http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/2/1507/31365-1507-8zbcg-a.jpg

3516

Of note, many Democrats have stopped using the term Entitlements and have started using Earned Benefits, regardless if the Benefit was actually Earned.

Rainmaker
10-17-2013, 09:52 PM
I am originally from the part of Louisiana where the Wal-Mart incident took place, shameful. My younger brother got called there on his shift and told me about the chaos and pandemonium.
Rusty Jones brings up a good point, I was a reduced-price lunch kid (I will make fun of you Rusty at a later time). We had very little when I was a kid, my brother and I shared a bed until nearly the end of my freshman year in high school. I worked from the time I was 14, not to have a car, but to help with our food and our house. The only reason I could afford being a Boy Scout was a local family had a fund to pay the registration for kids who couldn't afford it and the troop had a uniform locker. Still, I managed to play sports, become an Eagle Scout and have a job until I left home. Once I got into the military and away from home, there was no way I was going back to that. I have been moderately successful in the military through hard work. In some ways we are removing the requirement for hard work to overcome a bad situation.

As far as the government shutdown, glad it is over, it should have never happened. That said, I just saw some scoring estimates on the cost of the employee back pay:

Average government civilian pay: $78,467
Median government civilian pay: $74,714
Pay is averaged based on 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year which is 2,080 hours in a year.
Average hourly pay: $37.73
'Non-essential' employees were furloughed 11.5 days or 92 hours.
Average loss of pay to be back paid per employee: $3,471.16
Number of civilians furloughed: 800,000 (final numbers are still out, some were furloughed longer than others)
Initial estimate for back pay as scored: $2,776,928,000

Don't get me wrong, I feel for people getting financially screwed over for the period the government closed down, but $2 BILLION paid for people when they were not working?

If our government was a business, it would be out of business.

This is one of the dumbest sayings constantly repeated in our brain dead media. The Government is not supposed to be a business. It needs to stop increasing it's revenues.

kool-aid
10-17-2013, 09:53 PM
Shame can be a great motivator (just like peer pressure on the screw up in your basic training unit). We got free lunches and government products in the white packages with generic labels when I was a kid, and the shame of it pushed me to want better for myself - and it worked. The government shouldn't try to ease the shame of using entitlements, but then again we make everyone feel good for everything these days.

Stalwart
10-17-2013, 09:55 PM
This is one of the dumbest sayings constantly repeated in our brain dead media. The Government is not supposed to be a business. It needs to stop increasing it's revenues.

I am not saying it should be a business. But simple business sense, spending more than we make is not good economics. The solutions are simple:

Increase revenues to cover your spending.
Decrease your spending to match your revenues.

If you take in more than you spend, I am kind of a fan of rebate checks since obviously I was taxed more than the government needed. But, I am not against some overage being used to cover future contingencies.

kool-aid
10-17-2013, 09:59 PM
I am not saying it should be a business. But simple business sense, spending more than we make is not good economics. The solutions are simple:

Increase revenues to cover your spending.
Decrease your spending to match your revenues.

If you take in more than you spend, I am kind of a fan of rebate checks since obviously I was taxed more than the government needed. But, I am not against some overage being used to cover future contingencies.

You would think this would make sense to anyone. Works the same way in your home budget, either make more money or cut your debt. I always choose the later because who wants to work more (or tax people more if that is your source of income)?

Measure Man
10-17-2013, 10:09 PM
Tak,

In many ways that is how people make the argument on the Hill. I work in the office of a Democrat, who I agree with on some issues and earnestly disagree with on others ... but my name is not the one on the door. I can say that many Democrats don't like fraud in the entitlement system, some for reasons of fairness and right vs. wrong, some because it paints a bad light on the system as a whole, some because of what you said.

I do see that both Democrats and Republicans want what is best for America, I have not seen any that I would say are evil or out to ruin the country, but many have a differing idea of what is good or not. To the Republican's credit, I am a fan of hard work and doing things yourself; I think things like National Defense are important. To the Democrat's credit, there are some serious social issues in the country, have been and always will be, that need to be considered and addressed (if we cancel just one JSF over the length of the program then transfer that money from Defense Appropriations to the Department of Education Appropriations, how many school lunches does that buy?) To the more polarized types on both sides negotiation is not an option, but negotiation ruins the candidate with their base (they cannot win the war if they cannot get reelected.)

Excellent.


In high urban areas, the mentality you described is observable and it is easy to identify entire sections where a cycle of dependence on government assistance is the norm. Politicians exploit this on both sides of the aisle. Use Maryland as an example, in Congress both Senators and 7 of 8 Congressmen are Democrats. Maryland is definitely a 'blue state' but based on percentages of registered voters it not nearly as lopsided as the congressional representation would make you think. Look at a map of the Congressional Districts, 2 districts (districts 2 and 3) that could be toss-ups almost every election were drawn to include significant sections of Baltimore City (districts 2, 3 and 7 -- the state gets to redraw those lines every ten years) while conceding a large (geographic part of the state but that could feasible be put into parts of districts 4 and 5) to the Republicans in district 1. This image shows how a pretty evenly distributed citizenry can be gerrymandered into districting that favors one side or the other:

From debate.org: http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/2/1507/31365-1507-8zbcg-a.jpg

3516

Of note, many Democrats have stopped using the term Entitlements and have started using Earned Benefits, regardless if the Benefit was actually Earned.

Spot on about the gerrymandering. The GOP likes to pound their chest about how "the American people" gave them control of the HOR for a reason. The real reason is that the gerrymandering that took place after the 2010 elections gave the GOP control of the House in 2012, despite the fact that more Americans voted for a Democrat to represent them in the HOR.


I am not saying it should be a business. But simple business sense, spending more than we make is not good economics. The solutions are simple:

Increase revenues to cover your spending.
Decrease your spending to match your revenues.

If you take in more than you spend, I am kind of a fan of rebate checks since obviously I was taxed more than the government needed. But, I am not against some overage being used to cover future contingencies.

Yes and no.

The govt. should not operate at a profit...if it does it is taxing too much. Running up debt then, is actually a control on govt. spending. Of course, it may seem that we've gone too far into debt...but some debt is necessary, IMO.


You would think this would make sense to anyone. Works the same way in your home budget, either make more money or cut your debt. I always choose the later because who wants to work more (or tax people more if that is your source of income)?

The govt. is not a household. Yes, it's a simple analogy and makes some sense...but you are going to retire some day soon and die,...the govt. isn't.

Most of the debt/deficit stuff is wildly exaggerated for poltical purposes.

Rainmaker
10-17-2013, 10:22 PM
I actually have a lot of faith in what may be the cure for this: mixed income communities.

Much of this culture of lack of shame is the result public low income housing (i.e., "the projects") which concentrates poverty. If you're poor and on public assistance, and you live only around other people who are in the same situation as you are, you see this as normal and don't have any shame in it - because you don't know to have shame in it.

Many housing projects are being torn down now, and are being replaced with mixed income communities. For example, about ten years ago, probably the worst housing project here in Norfolk - Bowling Park - was torn down, and a mixed income community - Broadcreek - replaced it.

The concept here is simple: you break up the concentration of poverty (i.e., keep poor people away from each other to the extent that you can). You disperse the poor among those with higher income. They see the life that they could be living if they put in the work to get to where their neighbors are.

Tak says he frequently visits Chicago because that's where his wife is from. Chicago was one of the first cities to experiment with this, when they began tearing down Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes, etc - perhaps he can provide some input on the results of this. I know that Broadcreek here in Norfolk so far appears to be successful. People there actually take pride in their community, unlike those who live in the projects that are still standing.

Again, if you haven't seen it, check out The Pruitt-Igoe Myth (you can download the Torrent for free). It centers on a specific community that was in St Louis (some of the older people here probably remember the nationally televised implosion of the Pruitt-Igoe buildings in the early 1970's), but speaks of what was happening in all urban areas across the country. There, you'll find the answers as to how the current cultures and mentalities came to be. And you'll understand how mixed income communities will undo this.

Yes because the Taxpayer hasn't given the Free stuff Army enough yet. After 50 years it should be obvious that no amount of welfare is going to help these people.

Stalwart
10-17-2013, 10:22 PM
The GOP likes to pound their chest about how "the American people" gave them control of the HOR for a reason. The real reason is that the gerrymandering that took place after the 2010 elections gave the GOP control of the House in 2012, despite the fact that more Americans voted for a Democrat to represent them in the HOR.

True, but nationally D's and R's are numerically more similar/closer than they are far apart and gerrymandering is done to widen the gap in some states which could be more 'in play', which is why I used MD as an example. Based on registered voters and where they live in MD, you could just as easily have 2 or 3 maybe 4 in an off year Republicans in the House, state-wide democrats are more prevalent and the Senate representation would likely still both be Democrats.



And I totally agree that while government can learn from good business practices, government should not be in the habit of turning a profit. If they do, I am more in favor of rather than seeing where we can spend that (hopefully slight) profit now and funding the contingency funds for supplemental spending that comes up (natural disaster relief funds -- hurricanes, tornados etc., short term Overseas Contingency Operations, and other unplanned expenditures.

Measure Man
10-17-2013, 10:52 PM
True, but nationally D's and R's are numerically more similar/closer than they are far apart and gerrymandering is done to widen the gap in some states which could be more 'in play', which is why I used MD as an example. Based on registered voters and where they live in MD, you could just as easily have 2 or 3 maybe 4 in an off year Republicans in the House, state-wide democrats are more prevalent and the Senate representation would likely still both be Democrats..

Okay, so Maryland should have perhaps a larger minority of GOP seats, but still a minority.

Check out Michigan...where 2.3 million people voted for a Democrat and 2.0 million people voted for a Republican (Majority voted for Democrat) Results? 5 seats for Dems, 9 seats for Repubs. So, Michigan is represented in the HOR by Republicans by almost 2:1, despite more Michigan voters wanting to be represented by a Democrat.

Stalwart
10-17-2013, 10:55 PM
First, let me say you are probably more knowledgeable on political subjects, as I am simple man with a penchant for one liners and specialize in dry wit.
Everyone in the Senate and Congress is saying the system is broke, I say that is a cop out and they are at fault, not just the "system". If someone is
peeing down my back, I am not concerned if it is because they are drunk, have a urinary tract infection or simply drank too much and have a loose bladder,
the fact of the matter is they are peeing down my back and there are consequences of said action. Whether or not Republicans and Democrats want what's best
for America, by their political actions, they have screwed up America. Perhaps everyone is to blame, even the American people, but they elect officials with the
thought that they will do what is best. Now, if I have a bike and one or both wheels do not turn, that bike becomes a stationary object of no use for motion
and will not take me anywhere, I will either replace the tires or get a new bike. In this case, hopefully the tire change will do the trick, but I doubt it.
I think the government is too corrupt politically and morally to fix anything, in affect it has become too big to function. The American people live their
lives and unless they are personally dramatically affected, they are not too concerned. It is like the mentally handicapped guy who thinks he has tons of
friends, then takes a new smart pill and then realizes all the friends he thought he had were really making fun of him and were not his friends, so in
the end he was better off being mentally handicapped, unaware and unconcerned. Just like when one looks at the stars, they don't truly grasp the
concept of space, life, or what a $17 trillion dollar debt really means. There is a point of no return sometimes and this may be it. They might as well
remove any debt ceiling, try to negotiate on immigration to achieve anything with the president. I doubt we will even balance any budget again let
alone chip away at the debt. Some people love America for what it stands for and they will do all they can for it, to include giving their life. Other
people love America for what it can give them and they will do nothing to improve it. The days of asking not what your country can do for you, but
what you can for your country are over. Now it's broken familes, broken communities, more debt, less kids, less hope and a broken government.
Perhaps earned benefits are ruinng America, guess it depends on who you ask. It's only an island if you look at it from the water. We have
stopped the rolling stone, eroded the moss and all that is left is the same rock we landed on hundreds of years ago when we proceeded to kill
millions of people who were already there in an effort to make them civilized. This country is lost at sea and the captain taking the wheel is
drunk with power as he takes the whole crew down with the ship.

I would agree. As far as the point of no return, government will never get smaller, so really trying to get government expansion under control is a focus.

To add to your point about why people vote unless impacted by something: Setting aside the pool of voters who will vote for a candidate based solely on the letter behind the name, going after swing voters is tricky. A lot of what I see at work that people have a small set of 'pet' issues: abortion, defense, social security, environment etc. Some are so passionate about their 'pet' that they don't look at everything else. "I am voting for JONES because he thinks XYZ" without looking at (being ignorant) the entire platform.

The strongest asset in an election is the incumbency. It enhances the ability to raise money and get the message out there. A candidate can run as a moderate and over time polarize one way or another to acquiesce to their base. For members of Congress who have served several terms, look up their election histories and the margins of victory tend to get larger with successive campaigns. It may not seem like a lot, but from the perspective of where the national parties reelection commissions and organizations tend to focus their campaign input is on 'in play' districts. So even if you KNOW your candidate is going to lose, there is still something gained in voting because that margin is kept closer and you are likely to see funds from the national parties in the next cycle.

grimreaper
10-17-2013, 10:57 PM
The real reason is that the gerrymandering that took place after the 2010 elections gave the GOP control of the House in 2012, despite the fact that more Americans voted for a Democrat to represent them in the HOR.

I hope you're not suggesting that only the GOP are the one's doing the gerrymandering. Gerrymandering happens with whomever the majority party is and it happened plenty while Nancy Pelosi was speaker. The fact the GOP won back the house in 2010 allowed them to do it, just like the Democrats did when they were the majority. Doesn't change anything. They were still elected just like the Democrats were elected when the districts were gerrymandered in their favor. Also, representatives are elected based on state districts, not national, so saying that more Americans voted for a Democrat to represent them is irrelevant, just like it would be irrelevant to say that so-and-so should be President because they won the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-17-2013, 11:00 PM
I actually have a lot of faith in what may be the cure for this: mixed income communities.

Much of this culture of lack of shame is the result public low income housing (i.e., "the projects") which concentrates poverty. If you're poor and on public assistance, and you live only around other people who are in the same situation as you are, you see this as normal and don't have any shame in it - because you don't know to have shame in it.

Many housing projects are being torn down now, and are being replaced with mixed income communities. For example, about ten years ago, probably the worst housing project here in Norfolk - Bowling Park - was torn down, and a mixed income community - Broadcreek - replaced it.

The concept here is simple: you break up the concentration of poverty (i.e., keep poor people away from each other to the extent that you can). You disperse the poor among those with higher income. They see the life that they could be living if they put in the work to get to where their neighbors are.

Tak says he frequently visits Chicago because that's where his wife is from. Chicago was one of the first cities to experiment with this, when they began tearing down Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes, etc - perhaps he can provide some input on the results of this. I know that Broadcreek here in Norfolk so far appears to be successful. People there actually take pride in their community, unlike those who live in the projects that are still standing.

Again, if you haven't seen it, check out The Pruitt-Igoe Myth (you can download the Torrent for free). It centers on a specific community that was in St Louis (some of the older people here probably remember the nationally televised implosion of the Pruitt-Igoe buildings in the early 1970's), but speaks of what was happening in all urban areas across the country. There, you'll find the answers as to how the current cultures and mentalities came to be. And you'll understand how mixed income communities will undo this.

Many counties in Maryland legislate that a certain percentage of housing developments are set aside as low income housing/section eight.

Howard County and specifically Columbia, Maryland are good examples of this. I wouldn't call it a complete success because the neighborhoods of Columbia that are subsidized housing are high crime areas; however, what it does do is provide a poor kid the chance to go to a decent school and be exposed to something different than endless urban blight like they would be in Baltimore.

There is a balance that is hard to achieve and maintain in things like this.

When Washington DC's poor were driven out of the city, they were for the most part relocated to Prince George's County, Maryland. DC has a low murder rate these days because the drug trade is now in PG County.

I have no clue how to de-fang the drug gangs. Legalize it? It sure as hell worked for stopping the gang violence associated will illegal alcohol during prohibition. But legal heroin? That sounds crazy to me.

I don't think a utopian society is possible and we might have to face the fact there is always going to be a poor side of the railroad tracks.

I think everyone agrees that the big high rise projects of the 1960s and 70s were a disaster.

Stalwart
10-17-2013, 11:07 PM
Okay, so Maryland should have perhaps a larger minority of GOP seats, but still a minority.

Check out Michigan...where 2.3 million people voted for a Democrat and 2.0 million people voted for a Republican (Majority voted for Democrat) Results? 5 seats for Dems, 9 seats for Repubs. So, Michigan is represented in the HOR by Republicans by almost 2:1, despite more Michigan voters wanting to be represented by a Democrat.

A agree, MI is the Republican MD. It isn't a perfect system, and it all works in cycles of power. I always look back to the 'Cornhusker Kickback' with the Affordable Care Act voting. When Sen. Nelson of NE would not vote to break cloture on the bill unless he got a deal for his state (a permanent federal subsidy to cover the state share of Medicare Payments -- later taken out with reconciliation amendments.) As much as I don't like it, he did EXACTLY what the people of Nebraska sent him there to do, represent their best interests. One of the issues with the Affordable Care Act is that many such deals had to be made to get to the 60th vote. I quoted Sen Moynihan somewhere recently "Sweeping, historic laws don’t pass barely. “They pass 70-to-30, or they fail.” While the Affordable Care Act did pass (barely -- straight down party lines) and President Obama got his signature legislation, the fallout has been nothing short of political war.

Part of me would love to believe that 51% of the effort of a member of Congress is representing constituents and 49% is in being concerned about national interests. But there is little incentive for a D from CA to side with Republicans (even if philosophically they agree) or an R from AL to do the same, if it may cost them reelection. I think once you see a member declare their intent to retire or be defeated and is waiting for the session to end is when you see the 'national interest' take the forefront in their voting.

Measure Man
10-17-2013, 11:13 PM
I hope you're not suggesting that only the GOP are the one's doing the gerrymandering. Gerrymandering happens with whomever the majority party is and it happened plenty while Nancy Pelosi was speaker.

Yes, both parties are guilty of gerrymandering districts to their advantage. It just so happens that currently, the Republicans are benefitting from it, more.


The fact the GOP won back the house in 2010 allowed them to do it, just like the Democrats did when they were the majority. Doesn't change anything. They were still elected just like the Democrats were elected when the districts were gerrymandered in their favor.

Not exactly. Winning the house is not what gets the GOP the ability to redistrict...winning their state legislatures in 2010 is what got them that.


Also, representatives are elected based on state districts, not national, so saying that more Americans voted for a Democrat to represent them is irrelevant, just like it would be irrelevant to say that so-and-so should be President because they won the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college.

I don't think either one of those arguments is "irrelevant"...it is very relevant. Yes, winning the electoral college, but not the popular vote still gives you the Presidency, but it isn't irrelevant.

It's also not irrelevant when the GOP claims to speak "for the American people"...when they are actually speaking for "the American people in very specifically drawn districts that were drawn so by us"

Yes...both sides are guilty of gerrymandering...and yes, in both cases it is nothing more than a party power grab and has nothing to do with the will of the People.

Measure Man
10-17-2013, 11:16 PM
Part of me would love to believe that 51% of the effort of a member of Congress is representing constituents and 49% is in being concerned about national interests. But there is little incentive for a D from CA to side with Republicans (even if philosophically they agree) or an R from AL to do the same, if it may cost them reelection. I think once you see a member declare their intent to retire or be defeated and is waiting for the session to end is when you see the 'national interest' take the forefront in their voting.

Fair argument for term limits.

grimreaper
10-17-2013, 11:38 PM
Yes, both parties are guilty of gerrymandering districts to their advantage. It just so happens that currently, the Republicans are benefitting from it, more..

Perhaps, but I don't recall the legitimacy of it being called in to question when the Democrats did it and benefited from it.



Not exactly. Winning the house is not what gets the GOP the ability to redistrict...winning their state legislatures in 2010 is what got them that.

Of course. I should have been more specific...in terms of majority party meaning state. But you have to win the majority in the state legislatures (and by big enough margins to override a potential governor's veto if they are of the opposition party). Also, under House rules, they could deny seating a Rep. Extreme? Yes, but it has happened before. Who's to say that democrat gerrymandering isn't what gave the house to the Dems and made Pelosi speaker?

I would argue that the in the spirit of the Constitution, the House is considered to be closer to the voice of the people since they are elected every 2 years.

Measure Man
10-18-2013, 12:11 AM
Perhaps, but I don't recall the legitimacy of it being called in to question when the Democrats did it and benefited from it.

Really? That's funny, since I remember learning about this "problem" in Junior High.


The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then-governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.[1]


Of course. I should have been more specific...in terms of majority party meaning state. But you have to win the majority in the state legislatures (and by big enough margins to override a potential governor's veto if they are of the opposition party). Also, under House rules, they could deny seating a Rep. Extreme? Yes, but it has happened before. Who's to say that democrat gerrymandering isn't what gave the house to the Dems and made Pelosi speaker?

Do you have the vote totals?


I would argue that the in the spirit of the Constitution, the House is considered to be closer to the voice of the people since they are elected every 2 years.

One could argue that, I suppose...that argument is not exactly strengthened with what is going on now though.

Measure Man
10-18-2013, 12:17 AM
Who's to say that democrat gerrymandering isn't what gave the house to the Dems and made Pelosi speaker?

Pelose became Speaker after the 2006 election.

The 2006 election saw, nationally, 52.3% of Americans voting Democrat and 44.3% voting Republican for the HOR.

So...we know this...when the Dems took control of the House in 2006, it seems more Americans wanted to be represented by a Democrat.

grimreaper
10-18-2013, 12:18 AM
Really? That's funny, since I remember learning about this "problem" in Junior High.

Of course most informed people know what it is and that it's been around for awhile, but you can remember it being used to question the legitimacy of the majority before as you stated was THE reason for the current republican majority?

Measure Man
10-18-2013, 12:27 AM
Pelose became Speaker after the 2006 election.

The 2006 election saw, nationally, 52.3% of Americans voting Democrat and 44.3% voting Republican for the HOR.

So...we know this...when the Dems took control of the House in 2006, it seems more Americans wanted to be represented by a Democrat.

So, out of curiousity I looked back to see another time when the party that took or retained control of the HOR, did not get the most votes....

the last time I saw was in 1996, when Dems won the most votes, but Reps. retained control of the HOR, with Newt Gingrich retaining his speakership.

I went back to 1980 and couldn't find another case like that.

Measure Man
10-18-2013, 12:28 AM
Of course most informed people know what it is and that it's been around for awhile, but you can remember it being used to question the legitimacy of the majority before as you stated was THE reason for the current republican majority?

Well, no because I couldn't remember a time when the party that got the least votes controlled the house...I see it has happened one other time...but the majority was very slim indeed 48.22% vs 48.15% (actually not a majority at all)...and the control was kind of slim too... (230 vs 204). So, probably wasn't much of an issue then...because the voting was so close.

Can you name a time when it should have or could have been an issue?

I went back to 1980...when I was 15 years old and couldn't vote...so any issue before then, I don't think it's fair to call me out for not posting it here :-)

grimreaper
10-18-2013, 12:28 AM
Pelose became Speaker after the 2006 election.

The 2006 election saw, nationally, 52.3% of Americans voting Democrat and 44.3% voting Republican for the HOR.

So...we know this...when the Dems took control of the House in 2006, it seems more Americans wanted to be represented by a Democrat.

Yup, and you get to vote for your rep in your district. Has nothing to do with what others in other states and districts do. We are not a pure Democracy and for good reason.

Measure Man
10-18-2013, 12:50 AM
Yup, and you get to vote for your rep in your district. Has nothing to do with what others in other states and districts do. We are not a pure Democracy and for good reason.

Perhaps.

It is not a perfect system to be sure...and it's imperfections can be exploited by those seeking to take, keep or otherwise perserve their power.

I, personally, don't believe that is in "the spirit of the Constitution" as you say.

AJBIGJ
10-18-2013, 12:52 AM
Well, I must say, we made it about 2-3 pages without partisan politics interfering with intelligent discussion... Seriously, please everyone follow this thread from about pages 2-4 when we did not include "Republican" and "Democrat" in the discussion, then look at how the tone changed when the "asses and elephants" stuff was added back in there. I think it's very revealing about how we perceive one another lately.

grimreaper
10-18-2013, 12:58 AM
Well, no because I couldn't remember a time when the party that got the least votes controlled the house...I see it has happened one other time...but the majority was very slim indeed 48.22% vs 48.15% (actually not a majority at all)...and the control was kind of slim too... (230 vs 204). So, probably wasn't much of an issue then...because the voting was so close.

Can you name a time when it should have or could have been an issue?

I went back to 1980...when I was 15 years old and couldn't vote...so any issue before then, I don't think it's fair to call me out for not posting it here :-)

If we elected members of the house by national vote totals, I would agree with you, but since we don't, I don't see the point. People in different states in different districts vote for different reasons. As the saying goes "All politics is local"


The former Speaker of the U.S. House Tip O'Neill coined this phrase, which encapsulates the principle that a politician's success is directly tied to his ability to understand and influence the issues of his constituents. - Wiki

Same phenomenon that shows Congress with a horrible approval rating, but when people are asked about their own representatives, the approval percentage is much higher.

Stalwart
10-18-2013, 12:59 AM
While talking about the 'will of the people' and numbers of Democrats and Republicans, it is actually possible to win the Presidency with 22% of the Electoral College.

It is pretty well explained in this video from You Tube (not an authoritative source, but the logic is actually sound and the numbers are right)

You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

AJBIGJ
10-18-2013, 01:37 AM
I personally think this thread is going well, considering the topic is Entitlements.
There is no talk of race, no name calling, no personal attacks, mostly people
voicing their opinion, without fear of judgement and that is a wonderful thing to see.

"You have to have men who are moral...and at the same time who are able
to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling...without passion...
without judgment...without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us."

- Colonel Kurtz

For me personally, I just notice the trend. We throw out the whole X vs Y group think that many seem to enjoy, and instead engage each other as individuals who really want to hold people accountable for their individual decisions, to avoid pure pauperism, while still not completely ignoring those who are truly indigent, the discussion no longer becomes a transcribed narrative, but a truly engaged exchange of observations and ideas. This for me has hit me like a brick with optimism, as I was wondering if we could move past this "Us vs. Them" dynamic which apparently has many of us so enthralled (and our media very actively encourages). I hope some, if not all, can see what genuine, critical thought can produce, and take note, because I think if this trend continues, we can remove the barricades towards being empathetic of the motives of the positions of those who do not universally agree with ourselves. I look at individuals in politics like Dennis Kucinich, who I personally disagree with on many issues, but who appears to approach his ideology not necessarily from a position of gaining and holding power, but because he truly believes that what he has to offer will better society, and is open to discussion about the issues the rest of us disagree with. What we saw in two branches of our government in the last two and a half weeks was a lot of the most vitriolic, self-destructive motivations to improve upon our futures. If we here in the MTF can continue what I saw here, and Americans in general can pick up on this trend, we may be able to move away from the direction this country appears to be taking.

Bunch
10-18-2013, 02:16 AM
Not a horrible idea. It HAS to be better than public housing is now. The only thing that I would see as a hurdle is that the gov would have less control. As it is now, a lot of "projects" have controlled access to the gov can regulate who lives in the housing the taxpayers are paying for. In a mixed income area, that would be harder to control and as we all know, the gov is diametrically opposed to giving up control of ANYTHING.

In Chicago the CHA (Chicago Housing Authority) along with other groups that represent owners, renters and the administrators of the complexes have develop strong elegibility requirements for those who wish to live in these places. Credit checks, background checks, family size, job verification, income verification is taken in consideration for both buyers and renters.

IMO is a good example of what can be put in place when government, the people and businesses work together with a common goal.

AJBIGJ
10-18-2013, 02:30 AM
In Chicago the CHA (Chicago Housing Authority) along with other groups that represent owners, renters and the administrators of the complexes have develop strong elegibility requirements for those who wish to live in these places. Credit checks, background checks, family size, job verification, income verification is taken in consideration for both buyers and renters.

IMO is a good example of what can be put in place when government, the people and businesses work together with a common goal.

One might argue there is one part of that trifecta that is essentially non-essential. Sounds like the former stuff would be good for both the business and the people. Not sure what the government adds, beyond restriction on the ability to do precisely this and the overall confusion...

Bunch
10-18-2013, 02:40 AM
Well, I must say, we made it about 2-3 pages without partisan politics interfering with intelligent discussion... Seriously, please everyone follow this thread from about pages 2-4 when we did not include "Republican" and "Democrat" in the discussion, then look at how the tone changed when the "asses and elephants" stuff was added back in there. I think it's very revealing about how we perceive one another lately.

Sometimes I think what happens is that people dont want to spend time analyzing the minutiae of poverty. We are caught up in our day to day that when it comes to spend time analyzing the situation of others is easier to make a quick generalization and trumpet it as fact for all people that happen to be in a particular circumstance and/or in this case poverty.

In this vacuum of knowledge is where the political parties step in to fill the mind of those of us who don't have the time to sit and analyze this situation. Poverty doesn't discriminate race, color, gender, ethnicity or political affiliation. What is different is the circumstances that causes poverty in a particular sector of the population, in a particular community.

Thats the debate we should be having... This "makers vs takers" or "republicans hate the poor" talk has been going on for decades and it has done absolutely nothing to improve the poverty situation in this county. To the contrary people are getting poorer and income inequality is becoming larger and larger.

AJBIGJ
10-18-2013, 02:52 AM
Sometimes I think what happens is that people dont want to spend time analyzing the minutiae of poverty. We are caught up in our day to day that when it comes to spend time analyzing the situation of other is easier to make a quick generalization and trumpet as fact for all people thay happen to be in a particular circumstance and/or in this case poverty.

In this vacuum of knowledge is where the political parties step in to fill the mind of those of us who don't have the time to sit and analyze this situation. Poverty doesn't discriminate race, color, gender, ethnicity or political affiliation. What is different is the circumstances that causes poverty in a particular sector of the population, in a particular community.

Thats the debate we should be having... This "makers vs takers" or "republicans hate the poor" talk has been going on for decades and it has done absolutely nothing to improve the poverty situation in this county. To the contrary people are getting poorer and income inequality is becoming larger and larger.

The question of course becomes "what is the cause?" In a strictly voluntary exchange between individual and enterprise the terms of the exchange SHOULD be relatively equitable. What factors can upset this? Inflation certainly, as the US Dollar retains about 5% of its original value, we definitely can see the disparity between the very rich and the very poor has operated fairly proportionately between the early 1900's and now. However, I doubt if that is the entire story. Monopolies/Oligopolies certainly come into play as well. When the demand for your products/services is high and the availability of those products/services has been confined between a few select entities, it definitely makes it a seller's market. The problem we seem to have is we like to apply cures to the minor disease that kills the patient.

Bunch
10-18-2013, 02:55 AM
One might argue there is one part of that trifecta that is essentially non-essential. Sounds like the former stuff would be good for both the business and the people. Not sure what the government adds, beyond restriction on the ability to do precisely this and the overall confusion...

The land used to build these complexes was owned by the government. When the first plans for mix income communities were presented many of the local communities with the backing of support groups file lawsuits claiming that they were being pushed out of their communities. The federal courts mandated to the local goverment to oversee the distribution of the housing complexes to make sure that those on federal assistance and low income will be placed in the new housing been built.

AJBIGJ
10-18-2013, 03:02 AM
The land used to build this complexes was owned by the government. When the first plans for mix income communities were presented many of the local communities with the backing of support groups file lawsuits claiming that they were being pushed out of their communities. The federal courts mandated to the local goverment to oversee the distribution of the housing complexes to make sure that those on federal assistance and low income will be placed in the new housing been built.

This is interesting, so the big question in my mind is why the local governments were so resistant to the changes that the Federal government chose to step in and override them?

Bunch
10-18-2013, 03:10 AM
The question of course becomes "what is the cause?" In a strictly voluntary exchange between individual and enterprise the terms of the exchange SHOULD be relatively equitable. What factors can upset this? Inflation certainly, as the US Dollar retains about 5% of its original value, we definitely can see the disparity between the very rich and the very poor has operated fairly proportionately between the early 1900's and now. However, I doubt if that is the entire story. Monopolies/Oligopolies certainly come into play as well. When the demand for your products/services is high and the availability of those products/services has been confined between a few select entities, it definitely makes it a seller's market. The problem we seem to have is we like to apply cures to the minor disease that kills the patient.

What is the cause?

You certainly make good and relevant points in regards to the economics side of the equation. I'm more concerned about whats going on in sections of the population and communities that make them fail. Poor or non existant parenting (like what seems to be the case in the OP video), access to quality and useful education, jobs and all other factors that play a key component in a persons life and their ability to prosper. What are we doing about that? Not much I think.

Bunch
10-18-2013, 03:11 AM
This is interesting, so the big question in my mind is why the local governments were so resistant to the changes that the Federal government chose to step in and override them?

Are you familiar with "Chicago politics"? ... Enough said...

AJBIGJ
10-18-2013, 03:12 AM
Are you familiar with Chicago politics? ... Enough said...

I can't deny the truth to that, I don't think the "title" came from a void!

AJBIGJ
10-18-2013, 03:18 AM
What is the cause?

You certainly make good and relevant points in regards to the economics side of the equation. I'm more concerned about whats going on in sections of the population and communities that make them fail. Poor or non existant parenting (like what seems to be the case in the OP video), access to quality and useful education, jobs and all other factors that play a key component in a persons life and their ability to prosper. What are we doing about that? Not much I think.

That's a good question you ask, and another is "what can we do?". Another of course is "why has this become as common as it appears to be?" and yet another is "Is this worse than it was before? Or are we just more informed about this than before?"

AJBIGJ
10-18-2013, 03:55 AM
Keeping in theme, another honest disagreement in politics:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2751219957001/

sandsjames
10-18-2013, 01:00 PM
What is the cause?

You certainly make good and relevant points in regards to the economics side of the equation. I'm more concerned about whats going on in sections of the population and communities that make them fail. Poor or non existant parenting (like what seems to be the case in the OP video), access to quality and useful education, jobs and all other factors that play a key component in a persons life and their ability to prosper. What are we doing about that? Not much I think.

You bring up a good point here. Is it an issue with "access to quality and useful education" or is it the non-existent parenting that plays the biggest role? Surely there are those who attend the shitty schools in the shitty areas and do well and move on to be successful. Why do some and not others? Is it fair to put the onus on the school? It can be the greatest school in the world but if the parent doesn't make the kid do the homework and study then there's nothing the school can do.

Pullinteeth
10-18-2013, 01:17 PM
If you take in more than you spend, I am kind of a fan of rebate checks since obviously I was taxed more than the government needed. But, I am not against some overage being used to cover future contingencies.

That isn't how the government works...they have an overage, they spend it.


Same phenomenon that shows Congress with a horrible approval rating, but when people are asked about their own representatives, the approval percentage is much higher.

It is much higher (33 percentage points) but lower than it has been since they started keeping track (1977)...Overall approval is 11% and approval of one's own rep is currently at 44%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165281/congress-job-approval-falls-amid-gov-shutdown.aspx

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-18-2013, 01:19 PM
This statement, right here, shows that you know absolutely nothing about public housing.

hahaha, gotcha. :) :fish2

Rusty Jones
10-18-2013, 01:43 PM
hahaha, gotcha. :) :fish2

If you "got me," then it was with this post here. Not the last one. What you said in that last post was in keeping with your beliefs.

Rusty Jones
10-18-2013, 02:31 PM
Shame can be a great motivator (just like peer pressure on the screw up in your basic training unit). We got free lunches and government products in the white packages with generic labels when I was a kid, and the shame of it pushed me to want better for myself - and it worked. The government shouldn't try to ease the shame of using entitlements, but then again we make everyone feel good for everything these days.

Here's where I think everything changed:

At one time, people's attitude towards those on public assistance was more of a condescending one. In 1985, if you whip out of book of food stamps at the checkout line, the person behind you likely thought "Oh, look! A poor chump on food stamps. Glad that's not me!"

Fast forward to the mid-1990's where people are screaming "welfare reform," and things are a bit different. The condescending attitude towards those on public assistance turned into one of anger and resentment. And, as we know, if you exhibit anger and resentment towards someone; they're going to get defensive and start lashing back.

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-18-2013, 02:34 PM
If you "got me," then it was with this post here. Not the last one. What you said in that last post was in keeping with your beliefs.

Nah, poverty follows crime, not crime following poverty. I see your point of the origional message, that the poor in the projects dont feel ashamed because everyone they live around is in the same boat. Its like living with a bunch of bed wetters, if that is the norm of what you see every day, then those who dont wet the bed are the weirdos.

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-18-2013, 02:36 PM
Here's where I think everything changed:

At one time, people's attitude towards those on public assistance was more of a condescending one. In 1985, if you whip out of book of food stamps at the checkout line, the person behind you likely thought "Oh, look! A poor chump on food stamps. Glad that's not me!"

Fast forward to the mid-1990's where people are screaming "welfare reform," and things are a bit different. The condescending attitude towards those on public assistance turned into one of anger and resentment. And, as we know, if you exhibit anger and resentment towards someone; they're going to get defensive and start lashing back.

Not to mention its no longer a book of stamps but what looks like a credit card. This was to deminish the shame that came along with pulling out the stamps.

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-18-2013, 02:54 PM
So, was the word "wellfare" used inplace of "handouts" so that the progressives would have a base to stand on when they claimed it was constitutional? And how is it that the poor are "entitled" to other people's money of which the poor did not earn? Entitlements are things that is earned, ie social security or VA benifits for years of service.

Rusty Jones
10-18-2013, 03:40 PM
I think everyone agrees that the big high rise projects of the 1960s and 70s were a disaster.

...and they were also built without regard for the people who lived in them.

For example... I'm not sure if this was always known, or if this was recently released; but Cabrini-Green - both the "reds" and the "whites" - was only built to last for 60 years. Cabrini-Green was also located in rich area of Chicago; and there are conspiracy theories going around in Chicago that these housing projects were built as a "holding place" for future developments that would benefit the rich.

It goes without saying that Cabrini-Green was poorly built, as were most other high rise projects. Robert Taylor Homes was actually so bad, that you could actually bust through the walls and run right through them - and that happened from time to time, during the few times when police would actually show up. The cops go into one apartment to bust someone, and the person being busted would run right through the wall into the next apartment to get away from the cops.

In the high rise that I lived in, in Connecticut, only the "internal" walls - the ones that separated the rooms, such as the bedrooms and bathroom - were regular drywall. The rest were painted cinderblocks. It was horrible. Unlike like most housing projects, when the shit and piss infested elevators got stuck; there was no way to climb out. You were stuck until the fire department came and got you out. Fortunately, high level crimes there - such as murder and rape - were relatively low; so it was actually safe to take the stairs there. You didn't have to worry about people hanging out in the stairs that might do something to you.

I believe it was in 1972, that Richard Nixon outlawed the high-rises; and most projects built since then were townhouse-style.

Rainmaker
10-18-2013, 04:32 PM
You bring up a good point here. Is it an issue with "access to quality and useful education" or is it the non-existent parenting that plays the biggest role? Surely there are those who attend the shitty schools in the shitty areas and do well and move on to be successful. Why do some and not others? Is it fair to put the onus on the school? It can be the greatest school in the world but if the parent doesn't make the kid do the homework and study then there's nothing the school can do.

Rainmaker's family Fled from Baltimore in the 70s. If the forced integration that happened to us in the blue collar white working class neighborhoods was reversed the liberal media would be screaming about genocide.

Now, that politicians have decided that public housing ghettos are bad for business and screw up your cool downtown baseball stadium plans. They want them out of site and out of mind. So, they have to relocate them (thru section 8 forced integration) out into the suburbs. Good for property developers. Bad for the Middle class. If the counties don’t want to play ball, then the fed turns off the HUD money spigot and greedy developers (job creator's) Can’t have that. As those neighborhoods in the burbs quickly get destroyed and their resources are overwhelmed, the people there that can afford to will move in. or even further away. If they can’t afford to move. No problem: f^$ck em. they become collateral damage. That's the price they get to pay for their "white privilege".

To the sick liberal mind all that’s needed is for these criminal parasites terrorizing the ghetto to become productive citizen’s is for them to just look around at the nice suburbs. and they’ll magically decide to assimilate into the middle class. It's not their fault that they have no values. It's just their surroundings.

You either believe in Math or You believe in Magic. Nomsayin?

sandsjames
10-18-2013, 04:36 PM
Rainmaker's family Fled from Baltimore in the 70s. If the forced intergration that happened to us in the blue collar white working class neighborhoods was reversed the liberal media would be screaming about genocide.

Now, that politicians have decided that public housing ghettos are bad for business and screw up your downtown baseball stadium plans. They want them out of site out of mind. So, they have to reloacate them thru section 8 forced integration out into the suburbs. Good for property developers. Bad for the Middle class. If the counties don’t want to play ball then the fed turns off the HUD money spicot. and greedy developers Can’t have that. As those neigborhoods in the burbs get destroyed the people there that can afford to will move in or even further away. If they can’t afford to move f^$ck em. they become collateral damage. That's the price they get to pay for white priveledge

To the sick liberal mind all that’s needed is for these criminal parasites terrorizing the ghetto to become productive citizen’s is for them to just look around at the nice suburbs that they’ve never had the opportunity to see before and they’ll magically decide to assimilate into the middle class.

You either believe in Math or You believe in magic. Nomsayin?

In Vancouver, before the winter Olympics, many of the homeless were moved from the streets, taken to an old, now unused mental institution for the duration to give the appearance that the downtown area wasn't like every other city downtown. And that's our great "liberal" neighbors to the north.

Rainmaker
10-18-2013, 04:39 PM
You bring up a good point here. Is it an issue with "access to quality and useful education" or is it the non-existent parenting that plays the biggest role? Surely there are those who attend the shitty schools in the shitty areas and do well and move on to be successful. Why do some and not others? Is it fair to put the onus on the school? It can be the greatest school in the world but if the parent doesn't make the kid do the homework and study then there's nothing the school can do.

Rainmaker's Famblee moved back to our ancestoral homeland (That they helped carve out of the wilderness in the early 1800's) in Western MD. Now, At the time this was the 2nd poorest MSA in the country. Yet, you could leave your doors unlocked and people weren't raping and pillaging their neighbors. Last time Rainmaker was there in 2005 he put a deadbolt on his 85 year old Grandmother's door (though it wasn't really needed). This concept of personal responsiblity for your community always seems to baffle the liberal social engineers.

Rusty Jones
10-18-2013, 05:17 PM
Rainmaker's family Fled from Baltimore in the 70s.

Ah yes, "the great white flight." The problem is that problems started after that in each city. With whites leaving urban areas; the jobs, quality education, and all other resources followed them.


If the forced integration that happened to us in the blue collar white working class neighborhoods was reversed the liberal media would be screaming about genocide.

Maybe, but there are reasons for this. Typically, this involves investors "buying low and selling high" in the poorer areas, thus raising property values and driving the original inhabitants out.

This doesn't always happen, though. There's a neighborhood in Norfolk called Park Place - a black neighborhood that sits between the two rich white neighborhoods, Ghent and Colonial Park. Ghent is the more popular of the two; everyone - especially hipster types - want to live in Ghent; but, of course, they can't all afford to. So there's been some overflow of people who would otherwise live in Ghent into Park Place.

Maybe it's because the investors haven't started coming yet, but Park Place is actually doing just fine - and the whites who live in Park Place are actually some of its proudest residents who are even looking at Ghent residents as snobs.


Now, that politicians have decided that public housing ghettos are bad for business and screw up your cool downtown baseball stadium plans. They want them out of site and out of mind. So, they have to relocate them (thru section 8 forced integration) out into the suburbs. Good for property developers. Bad for the Middle class. If the counties don’t want to play ball, then the fed turns off the HUD money spigot and greedy developers (job creator's) Can’t have that. As those neighborhoods in the burbs quickly get destroyed and their resources are overwhelmed, the people there that can afford to will move in. or even further away. If they can’t afford to move. No problem: f^$ck em. they become collateral damage. That's the price they get to pay for their "white privilege".

To the sick liberal mind all that’s needed is for these criminal parasites terrorizing the ghetto to become productive citizen’s is for them to just look around at the nice suburbs. and they’ll magically decide to assimilate into the middle class. It's not their fault that they have no values. It's just their surroundings.

You either believe in Math or You believe in Magic. Nomsayin?

You sound racist as hell, "nomsayin?"

Look, you don't have to worry about "forced integration" through Section 8. Landlords can choose whether or not they'll accept Section 8 for any given property; and if it's detrimental to property values in a particular neighborhood to accept it, then they typically won't.

Rainmaker
10-18-2013, 05:27 PM
Ah yes, "the great white flight." The problem is that problems started after that in each city. With whites leaving urban areas; the jobs, quality education, and all other resources followed them.



Maybe, but there are reasons for this. Typically, this involves investors "buying low and selling high" in the poorer areas, thus raising property values and driving the original inhabitants out.

This doesn't always happen, though. There's a neighborhood in Norfolk called Park Place - a black neighborhood that sits between the two rich white neighborhoods, Ghent and Colonial Park. Ghent is the more popular of the two; everyone - especially hipster types - want to live in Ghent; but, of course, they can't all afford to. So there's been some overflow of people who would otherwise live in Ghent into Park Place.

Maybe it's because the investors haven't started coming yet, but Park Place is actually doing just fine - and the whites who live in Park Place are actually some of its proudest residents who are even looking at Ghent residents as snobs.


You sound racist as hell, "nomsayin?"

Look, you don't have to worry about "forced integration" through Section 8. Landlords can choose whether or not they'll accept Section 8 for any given property; and if it's detrimental to property values in a particular neighborhood to accept it, then they typically won't.


The problems started before the flight. that's why there was white flight. So most landlords won't accept it if it's detrimental to values. Um sure. Unless the said property happens to be upside down. Or the property is owned by an investor that doesn't live in the particular neighborhood and doesn't care and just wants the guaranteed government rent check. You obviously live in a delusional world. Once, a neighborhood goes over 20% to section 8 rental it goes to shit. It's called pride in ownership. As far as sounding racist. I don't really give a shit how it sound to you slick.

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-18-2013, 05:30 PM
The problems started before the flight. that's why there was white flight. Unless the said property happens to be upsided down. Or owned by an investor that doesn't live in the particular neighborhood and doesn't care. You obviously live in a delusional world. Once, a neighborhood goes over 20% to section 8 rental it goes to shit. It's called pride in ownership. As far as sounding racist. I don't really give a shit how it sound to you slick.

Does it matter if it sounds racist if its the truth? Like saying its a BAD thing to have 70% of black babies born without a father. That might sound racist, but is it not the truth? And what does it matter if it does sound racist, if its a fact that negatively effects the race its being said about, does that mean you should ignore the problem because someone outside the race brought it up?

Pullinteeth
10-18-2013, 05:39 PM
Rainmaker's Famblee moved back to our ancestoral homeland (That they helped carve out of the wilderness in the early 1800's) in Western MD.

I'm not sure you know what "ancestoral homeland" really is...

Rusty Jones
10-18-2013, 05:40 PM
The problems started before the flight. that's why there was white flight.

Bullshit. Whites were fleeing because they saw black people coming. We're not talking about today. We're talking about the Jim Crow Era, and the years that immediately followed where the effects of Jim Crow had not yet been vanquished.


So most landlords won't accept it if it's detrimental to values. Um sure. Unless the said property happens to be upside down.

If the property value is upside down, the voucher likely won't cover enough to get the property right side up. Also, if it's upside down do the conditions of the property, Section 8 won't allow a voucher holder to rent that property.


Or the property is owned by an investor that doesn't live in the particular neighborhood and doesn't care and just wants the guaranteed government rent check.

Er, no. Because the investor wants his own property - even if he doesn't give two shits about the rest of the neighborhood - to appreciate in value.


You obviously live in a delusional world.

Delusional? Nope. Informed? Definitely. More than I can say for you.


Once, a neighborhood goes over 20% to section 8 rental it goes to shit. It's called pride in ownership.

It's called "concentration of poverty." And it takes more than 20%.


As far as sounding racist. I don't really give a shit how it sound to you slick.

Of course you don't. Because you're racist.

Rainmaker
10-18-2013, 05:42 PM
Does it matter if it sounds racist if its the truth? Like saying its a BAD thing to have 70% of black babies born without a father. That might sound racist, but is it not the truth? And what does it matter if it does sound racist, if its a fact that negatively effects the race its being said about, does that mean you should ignore the problem because someone outside the race brought it up?

In the modern PC society. Making any value judgements based on statistics or personal experience is racist.

Rusty Jones
10-18-2013, 05:44 PM
Does it matter if it sounds racist if its the truth? Like saying its a BAD thing to have 70% of black babies born without a father. That might sound racist, but is it not the truth? And what does it matter if it does sound racist, if its a fact that negatively effects the race its being said about, does that mean you should ignore the problem because someone outside the race brought it up?

WJ5 - how about you try this for once: stay on topic.

No one's talking about stats on blacks.

Rainmaker is talking about how those... you know... good, honest, blue collar white working class are getting fucked over by having to be around black people. Yep, he's a racist.

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-18-2013, 05:46 PM
Bullshit. Whites were fleeing because they saw black people coming. We're not talking about today. We're talking about the Jim Crow Era, and the years that immediately followed where the effects of Jim Crow had not yet been vanquished.I thought boston was in the liberal north where blacks and white all got along unlike the dirty south?

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-18-2013, 05:48 PM
WJ5 - how about you try this for once: stay on topic.

No one's talking about stats on blacks.

Rainmaker is talking about how those... you know... good, honest, blue collar white working class are getting fucked over by having to be around black people. Yep, he's a racist.

I was... But I was trying to see why you focusing on what you thought was "racist" had negatively effected his arguement? Stay on topic and stop focusing on racism, we arent discussing racial prejudice of Rainmaker here right?

Rainmaker
10-18-2013, 05:55 PM
Bullshit. Whites were fleeing because they saw black people coming. We're not talking about today. We're talking about the Jim Crow Era, and the years that immediately followed where the effects of Jim Crow had not yet been vanquished.



If the property value is upside down, the voucher likely won't cover enough to get the property right side up. Also, if it's upside down do the conditions of the property, Section 8 won't allow a voucher holder to rent that property.



Er, no. Because the investor wants his own property - even if he doesn't give two shits about the rest of the neighborhood - to appreciate in value.



Delusional? Nope. Informed? Definitely. More than I can say for you.



It's called "concentration of poverty." And it takes more than 20%.



Of course you don't. Because you're racist.

yes of course. got it. anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal grand utopian social engineering plans has got to be a racist. The point is section 8 landlords don't care if the property stays upside down as long as they make note(if there is one) eventually the loan gets paid off and in the meantime it's a tax write off and a non performing asset. Most of these are cash buys anyway. In 20 years the children of all the soon to be newly legalized immigrants will need someplace to rent and the REO industry will have tons a cheap section 8 property in the burbs to rent out to the new permanent underclass they create. win for everyone except for the taxpayers and the lower middle class families in the burbs. FORWARD!

Rusty Jones
10-18-2013, 06:07 PM
yes of course. got it. anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal grand utopian social engineering plans has got to be a racist.

No, anyone who feels like they're being fucked over by living near people of a particular race is racist.


The point is section 8 landlords don't care if the property stays upside down as long as they make note(if there is one) eventually the loan gets paid off and in the meantime it's a tax write off and it's a non performing asset. Most of these are cash buys anyway.

Which is completely false. Most landlords who own multiple properties actually have specific properties for which they'll accept Section 8, and others where they won't. And the houses that the landlord accepts Section 8 are in the same neighborhoods as all the other houses that landlords accept Section 8 for.

POTENTIALLY, what you're talking about can happen. But it doesn't. I'm from Dover. Anyone here that was stationed in Dover can tell you about the Queen Street area - what they may not know is that that neighborhood is a dumping ground for people on Section. Lincoln Park, outside of Simon Circle, is another. Capital Park - not too far from Dover AFB is another one. Try taking that Section 8 voucher and moving into Towne Pointe, or any other "white" neighborhood. You'll get laughed out of whatever room you whipped out that voucher in.

TJMAC77SP
10-18-2013, 06:19 PM
...and they were also built without regard for the people who lived in them.

For example... I'm not sure if this was always known, or if this was recently released; but Cabrini-Green - both the "reds" and the "whites" - was only built to last for 60 years. Cabrini-Green was also located in rich area of Chicago; and there are conspiracy theories going around in Chicago that these housing projects were built as a "holding place" for future developments that would benefit the rich.

It goes without saying that Cabrini-Green was poorly built, as were most other high rise projects. Robert Taylor Homes was actually so bad, that you could actually bust through the walls and run right through them - and that happened from time to time, during the few times when police would actually show up. The cops go into one apartment to bust someone, and the person being busted would run right through the wall into the next apartment to get away from the cops.

In the high rise that I lived in, in Connecticut, only the "internal" walls - the ones that separated the rooms, such as the bedrooms and bathroom - were regular drywall. The rest were painted cinderblocks. It was horrible. Unlike like most housing projects, when the shit and piss infested elevators got stuck; there was no way to climb out. You were stuck until the fire department came and got you out. Fortunately, high level crimes there - such as murder and rape - were relatively low; so it was actually safe to take the stairs there. You didn't have to worry about people hanging out in the stairs that might do something to you.

I believe it was in 1972, that Richard Nixon outlawed the high-rises; and most projects built since then were townhouse-style.

These buildings had no studs to hold up the drywall (in Chicago)? I know that in the movies they show people busting through walls all the time but I don't know how you do it in real life with studs installed 16" on center

sandsjames
10-18-2013, 06:29 PM
No, anyone who feels like they're being fucked over by living near people of a particular race is racist.





It's being fucked over by being forced to live in neighborhoods that deteriorate economically. It doesn't matter if it's all white, all black, or a mix. It's like those people who get fucked because they bought a house 3 miles away from everyone but now a main highway runs through their front yard. With the exception of a few, most people don't care who lives around them, as long as it doesn't screw over their property value.

Rusty Jones
10-18-2013, 06:30 PM
These buildings had no studs to hold up the drywall (in Chicago)? I know that in the movies they show people busting through walls all the time but I don't know how you do it in real life with studs installed 16" on center

I don't know enough about construction to really say. But during the latter half of the last decades, the last buildings of Robert Taylor Homes were being demolished, and lots of articles were being written that described things that happened in those buildings throughout the decades.

IIRC, the one particular story I read was an incident where someone was running a lab in one of the vacant units that the police busted. The person who was in there was eventually caught, after busting through the wall into an occupied unit.

Pullinteeth
10-18-2013, 06:39 PM
These buildings had no studs to hold up the drywall (in Chicago)? I know that in the movies they show people busting through walls all the time but I don't know how you do it in real life with studs installed 16" on center

As someone that grew up in a family of carpenters, It makes perfect sense that only the interior walls would be drywall. You can't MAKE the exterior walls out of drywall-If it were wood frame constuction the interior would likely be drywall but the exterior would have siding and there would be insulation in-between.. Yes they could put drywall or paneling over the cinderblocks but that would make the living space that much smaller for no reason at all except astetics... As to the spacing of the studs. You are correct to a point. On a non-loadbearing wall, you can space 'em at 24". It isn't inconceiveable that someone could run through such a wall but they would have a good chance of hitting a cross-brace or at the very LEAST some wiring or a pipe in the wall so I wouldn't recommend it...

20+Years
10-18-2013, 06:58 PM
I'm sorry, but I still see America as the land of OPPORTUNITY. You have the opportunity to be lower, middle or upper class. Race exempt.

There are too many people who CHOOSE to do nothing about thier situation. In MANY other cases, we see people that struggle for a good future and make it. Some don't. I have no problem with programs that assist those who can't quite make it on thier own. I support NO program that gives assistance to those who don't try (aside from disability - lack of being able to try).

I would not voluntarily live in a mixed income community. I did live down the street from some projects a while back, and I got tired of being robbed and attempted break-ins. More recently, I lived down the street from a trailor park, lots of teenagers. Guess what, constant vandalism in the neighborhood. To me, mixing incomes in an area only creates targets for those who are not pursuing opportunity. (Well, they are pursuing opportunity to take/damage your stuff)

I know not all low-income people are criminals. But I will be very aware of not only the house I purchase but the neighborhood around it for many blocks from here forward. I don't want to be involved in anyones "social experiment".

Rusty Jones
10-18-2013, 07:33 PM
Of note, Mr. T grew up in Robert Taylor Homes - and if you were a pre-pubescent kid in the mid 1980's like I was, you thought Mr. T was God.

I remember watching a special, where both Mr. T and Hulk Hogan were talking about vandalism and theft, and how they'd literally break us in half if they ever saw us doing it.

Either way... Mr. T grew up to be a someone who embodied all the morals that young people who grew up in his situation should aspire to.

Deval Patrick, by the way, also grew up in Robert Taylor Homes.

I stated earlier that much of the problems caused in housing projects are by people who don't live there. Or if they do live there, they do so illegally. Think about this - the overwhelming majority of the problems are caused by adult males.

The ONLY adult males that should be there are single custodial fathers, married men, and college students under the age of 23. And what percentage of the adult males there do you think actually fit any of these categories? And of the likely miniscule amount that do, do you think that they're involved in all the mess?

Typically, it's the people that go there to sell drugs; or the live-in boyfriends of the single mothers there that are causing all the problems.

Bunch
10-18-2013, 08:01 PM
That's a good question you ask, and another is "what can we do?"

What we can do is plenty and IMO it starts with education. Giving kids and youngsters access to good quality, useful and current education. For the most part our education system is antiquated. Schools are not working, kids go like herd and get the same repetitive stuff shove down their throats. Our education system is designed to send kids to college and even at that is failing miserably. Kids needs to get out of high school already with a skill, something that if plan A or B don't work at least they know how to do something. If they live on a capitalist system they need know from a very early age what capitalism is and what they need to do to succeed in it.


Another of course is "why has this become as common as it appears to be?"
Poverty has become more common but it has been gradually and thats why many people don't grasp the severity of it. The first wave of poverty that hit was after WW2 and hit the inner cities, with the suburbanization of America, the core of many inner cities began to die. As factories moved away to the suburbs, the white flight took place, leaving the majority of african americans that were working in the inner city unemployed, the revenues that the city collected that went to education also dry down which meant school closings and overcrowding and many teachers preferred working at the school in the suburbs because of better wages and new facilities so the overall education of these communities went down the drain. Many cities and african american communities to this day have not been able to recover from that change and IMO that was the start of the current economic problems you find within the african american communities that still reside in the inner cities. It became a poverty cycle were lack of education led to unemployment which led to crime (jail), crime led to drugs (jail), drugs led to money and money led to violence (jail and/or death).

Now lets analyze what is happening in the white community. What is the main driver of poverty in the white community?
After the suburbanization of American after WW2 many whites went on to live in the suburbs and you saw how the income disparity between the whites and black became larger. As many black start moving into some suburban areas and getting jobs in the factories the income disparity become to close but then all of the sudden a new phenomenon came into play...globalization. Globalization really took flight in the mid 1990's and it has become the main driver of income inequality because although it means more profits for companies who get to outsource their labor to countries that pay slave wages it didn't do anything for the American blue collar worker and that's where the majority of white america resides. Millions have lost their job due to outsorcing and that creates a drag effect on the economy as a whole, preventing businesses from expanding, preventing wages from going up among others.

Now, one can argue if globalization is good or not that's another debate. IMO once technology took flight globalization was all but unstoppable but what happened in the US was that politicians at the time (blues and reds) gave big business all they wanted disregarding the advice of many economist at the time that said that the US economy wasn't ready for globalization yet. Globalization had a larger effect than what suburbanization had because many suburban communities were build counting on those factories and industires to be there, once they left it cause an irreparable damage to many of these suburban communities, many of them have never recovered.

Then The Great Recession came and it sank many more on the white communities into poverty. More than 4 million good paying jobs were lost, the equity that families had on their houses all gone and there is no end in sight for many of these families. Many of them have resulted to do what they have seen people on the black communities done for years. Apply for all kinds of social welfare programs and no longer look for a job. There is a portion of our population that don't see or have the means to attain economic mobility, for them is not a option and instead have turned to economic survival mode.


"Is this worse than it was before? Or are we just more informed about this than before?"

Is it worse than before? IMO, yes once you factor in that the prospects of getting better are just not there. Where are the jobs? Where they going to come from? Are they going to pay a living wage or just a survival wage? IMO, the answer to this questions are not clear at the moment.

We also are better informed now because we can look at the past as analyze what had happen through the years and realize what has work and what hasn't.

Bunch
10-18-2013, 08:19 PM
You bring up a good point here. Is it an issue with "access to quality and useful education" or is it the non-existent parenting that plays the biggest role? Surely there are those who attend the shitty schools in the shitty areas and do well and move on to be successful. Why do some and not others? Is it fair to put the onus on the school? It can be the greatest school in the world but if the parent doesn't make the kid do the homework and study then there's nothing the school can do.

I definately think it starts at the house. You will always have outliers, those that have overcome situations that the grand majority didn't but I think that if you are born into a disfunctional family where drugs, violence, lack of support and guidance from parental figures are not in place chances are the individual will not succeed in life.

Bunch
10-18-2013, 08:31 PM
Does it matter if it sounds racist if its the truth? Like saying its a BAD thing to have 70% of black babies born without a father. That might sound racist, but is it not the truth? And what does it matter if it does sound racist, if its a fact that negatively effects the race its being said about, does that mean you should ignore the problem because someone outside the race brought it up?

Is not what's said... But how is said....

AFcynic
10-18-2013, 08:50 PM
Surely the community envionment plays a role.
Take for instance Minot. I am not worried my
kids will join gangs, there are none. I am not
worried they will get shot, there's hardly any
gun crime here. I am not worried about them
being on or selling drugs, there are hardly
any here as well I am not worried about them
dropping out of school, no one drops out here
and in middle school they're already talking
about college. They can walk anywhere at anytime
here and be safe. Point is, if they grew up somewhere
else, all those circumstances could be different
and I believe my kids would have adapted either
to fit in or survive. I believe family is very important
as well, but just that family in a bad environment will
face many challenges and obstacles.

*Begin sarcastic humor... Your family is one of what, 37 people that live in Minot, ND? Of course you're not worried about drugs or crime - there is no one there to sell drugs to, and no one to rob. Your only worry is not being killed by wildlife and/or snow... End sarcastic humor*

Rainmaker
10-18-2013, 08:54 PM
I definately think it starts at the house. You will always have outliers, those that have overcome situations that the grand majority didn't but I think that if you are born into a disfunctional family where drugs, violence, lack of support and guidance from parental figures are not in place chances are the individual will not succeed in life.

Good schools don't happen without Good students. Good students don't happen without Good Parents. No amount of redistributed free money will help. When Rainmaker's family left the utopian Charmed city for the evil Jim Crow practicing rural Allegany Mountains. They were looking for Good schools and a safe community to raise their kids. The academic types and their liberal minions in the Die Versity cult can try to reEngineer whatever they want. But, until the fundemental underlying causes are fixed (by the Black Community themselves) nothing will ever change. The diversity cult's unquestionable mantra is that: Diversity is our greatest strength. Serious Question for Rainmaker's liberal friends in the forum. Other than Music and Resturants what benefit has forced diversity brought to the middle class? and If diversity is so great why should the government have to force it on people? Please don't bore us with the usual cut and paste statistics from MSNBC or Fox News. Fire away. NomSayin Rusty??

Bunch
10-18-2013, 09:01 PM
Good schools don't happen without Good students. Good students don't happen without Good Parents. No amount of redistributed free money will help. When Rainmaker's family left the utopian Charmed city for the evil Jim Crow practicing rural Allegany Mountains. They were looking for Good schools and a safe community to raise their kids. The academic types and their liberal minions in the Die Versity cult can try to reEngineer whatever they want. But, until the fundemental underlying causes are fixed (by the Black Community themselves) nothing will ever change. The diversity cult's unquestionable mantra is that: Diversity is our greatest strength. Serious Question for Rainmaker's liberal friends in the forum. Other than Music and Resturants what benefit has forced diversity brought to the middle class? and If diversity is so great why should the government have to force it on people? Please don't bore us with the usual cut and paste statistics from MSNBC or Fox News. Fire away. NomSayin Rusty??

Please save your racist comments for others. First and last reply.

Rainmaker
10-18-2013, 09:03 PM
Please save your racist comments for others. First and last reply.

Pretty much what Rainmaker figured....Just keep screaming a lie often and loud enough and it might just become true.

AFcynic
10-18-2013, 09:09 PM
What we can do is plenty and IMO it starts with education. Giving kids and youngsters access to good quality, useful and current education. For the most part our education system is antiquated. Schools are not working, kids go like heard and get the same repetitive stuff shove down their throats. Our education system is designed to send kids to college and even at that is failing miserably. Kids needs to get out of high school already with a skill, something that if plan A or B don't work at least they now how to do something. If they live on a capitalist system they need know from a very early age what capitalism is and what they need to do to succeed in it.


Poverty has become more common but it has been gradually and thats why many people don't grasp the severity of it. The first wave of poverty that hit was after WW2 and hit the inner cities, with the suburbanization of America, the core of many inner cities began to die. As factories moved away to the suburbs, the white flight took place, leaving the majority of african americans that were working in the inner city unemployed, the revenues that the city collected that went to education also dry down which meant school closings and overcrowding and many teachers preferred working at the school in the suburbs because of better wages and new facilities so the overall education of these communities went down the drain. Many cities and african american communities to this day have not been able to recover from that change and IMO that was the start of the current economic problems you find within the africa american communities that still reside in the inner cities. It became a poverty cycle were lack of education led to unemployment which led to crime (jail), crime led to drugs (jail), drugs led to money and money led to violence (jail).

Now lets analyze what is happening in the white community. What is the main driver of poverty in the white community?
After the suburbanization of American after WW2 many whites went on to live in the suburbs and you saw how the income disparity between the whites and black became larger. As many black start moving into some suburban areas and getting jobs in the factories the income disparity become to close but then all of the sudden a new phenomenon came into play...globalization. Globalization really took flight in the mid 1990's and it has become the main driver of income inequality because although it means more profits for companies who get to outsource their labor to countries that pay slave wages it didn't do anything for the American blue collar worker and that where the majority of white america reside. Millions have lost their job due to outsorcing and that creates a drag effect on the economy as a whole, preventing businesses from expanding, preventing wages from going up among others.

Now one can argue if globalization is good or not that another debate. IMO once technology took flight globalization was all but unstoppable but what happened in the US was that politicians at the time (bluea and reds) gave big business all they wanted disregarding the advice of many economist at the time that said that the US economy wasn't ready for globalization yet. Globalization had a larger effect than what suburbanization had because many suburban communities were build counting on those factories and industires to be there, once they left it cause an irreparable damage to many of this suburban communities many of them have never recovered.

Then The Great Recession came and it sank many more on the white communities into poverty. More than 4 million good paying jobs were lost, the equity that family had on their houses all gone and there is no end in sight for many of these families. Many of them have resulted to do what they have seen people on the black communities done for years. Apply for all kinds of social welfare programs and no longer look for a job. There is a portion of our population that don't see or have the means to attain economic mobility, for them is not a option and instead have turned to economic survival mode.



Is it worse than before? IMO, yes once you factor in that the prospects of getting better are just not there. Where are the jobs? Where they going to come from? Are they going to pay a living wage or just a survival wage? IMO, the answer to this questions are not clear at the moment.

We also are better informed now because we can look at the past as analyze what had happen through the years and realize what has work and what hasn't.

Absolutely brilliant response, and beautifully worded. In the 1980's, greed was king. Corporations realized that they could pay 20 foreign workers half of what they were paying one American worker, and they could "maximize profit". That's why cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh suffered tremendously. Factory jobs were being shipped overseas, and hard working employees were laid off. In the 50's and 60's, if you graduated from high school in a small town, your only goal was to get a job at the factory. So, when you got that job at the factory, and worked there for 20-30 years, all you knew was the factory. When you're suddenly laid off, and still able to work at 53 years old, you're not going to get hired anywhere because of salary requirements. XYZ Corporation isn't going to pay you $60K a year to do a job that a 22 year old college graduate with student loans can do for half the cost. Almost immediately, you're on government assistance.

The great recession of 2008 was another excuse for companies to trim payroll, and "maximize profit". CEO's weren't going to take a pay cut, but Bob the floor leader can. The 53 year old who got laid off in 1986 is the same 53 year old who got laid off in 2008, and he/she still can't get a job. Unfortunately now, his unemployment benefits are probably gone, and he's up a creek with no paddle.

Most of us on here are probably middle class, and some of us have been conditioned to hate the poor. It's easy to pass judgment on the poor from our computer desks, but until you see the effect of poverty with your own eyes, and take the time to get to know the people and their stories, you're really doing a disservice to yourself.

Rusty Jones
10-18-2013, 09:34 PM
Probably the biggest fishing hook I've ever been caught with was me actually trying to have a good-faith discussion with Rainmaker. I knew better, but went against my better judgement. All the shit he says, and he still denies being racist - I wish JB was still here. Because I'm curious to know... are people like Rainmaker simply in denial, or do they really believe that they're not racist?

AFcynic is saying what I've been saying for awhile now.

Not too long ago, I brought up an old middle aged woman that I drove past - missing teeth, worn clothes, and old beat up Ford Windstar that probably barely passed inspection... with a bumper sticker on the back that said, "Your fair share is not in my wallet."

I really wanted to honk and scream to her, "Bitch, YOUR fair share isn't in your wallet!"

How to do keep the people from rising up against you? It's simple - you convince the lowly people that YOUR problems are THEIR problems. They begin to identify with you more than their fellow oppressed.

I know that sandsjames won't watch it, but if you get a chance - look up Malcolm X's speech on youtuble about the "field negro" and the "house negro" - but take race and slavery out of it, and apply it to the context of the working poor who vote Republican.

20+Years
10-18-2013, 09:51 PM
I have a 20 year old son that constantly loses jobs. Probably 16 or so since he dropped out of highschool. He can barely make it month to month, and sometimes doesn't. He loses jobs due to supervisors or managers, he never does anything wrong. "They" say he is lazy or unmotivated, but thats just them. I guess he would be poor, huh?

Someone could come along and say he is having a hard time because of the economy, or debate he can't get a "working" wage. Guess what? Wrong. Its him. Its not the environment he grew up in. Its his own motivation that is limiting him. He does just enough to get by, sometimes. Is this a burden that should be placed on fellow tax payers? Will you personally send him a check every month?

I can tell you this, if I were Bob the builder and the Air Force shut down tomorrow, you will see me take a survival job in a minute to support my family. I will then try to find better employment, and if its not working I'll take a 2nd survival job. At such a point, I would also expect all household members to contribute if possible.

You see, a lot of this discussion comes back to morals. It comes back to the person and what they are willing to do or how hard they will try. When someone goes on assistance, cool. But they shouldn't get comfortable on that assistance. It needs to be limited (exceptions could be made), and not depend soley on the number of children you breed.

If I were to ask my son would he like to stay home and have the govmnt pay his way, I know what the answer would be.

Am I conditioned to hate the poor? Thats ridiculous. You went out on a limb for that one. Anyone with an ounce of empathy won't hate the poor.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Hard choice?

efmbman
10-19-2013, 12:08 AM
Is not what's said... But how is said....

Would you agree that some are predisposed to hear "how" something is said, rather than take the comment at face value? That is very common and often leads to bad communication.

Bunch
10-19-2013, 12:58 AM
Would you agree that some are predisposed to hear "how" something is said, rather than take the comment at face value? That is very common and often leads to bad communication.

I don't want to turn this thread to a racism discussion. I think most of you by now know how deeply and personal I take the issue. Racism is self evident and when someone try to espouse it, it should be called out.

I think that what happens on this board is that people want to express their racist opinions but dont like to be called racist. Then they try to sweep it under the "PC banner". For much I hear people say that they "stand for what they believe in" when it comes to racism they act like cowards. They disparage a certain race(s), they make all sorts vitriolic comments and then try to blame me if I call them racist, how is that "standing for what you believe in"? If people believe that whites, asians, blacks, hispanics, arabs or what have you is/are the root of all whats wrong in this country they are entitled to that opinion but it's still a racist opinion.

I truly wish that one day we can move past this topic but as long as people try to act like is all cool to make racist statement I will be here to call them out on it. Now if we please can get back on topic that would be great.

TJMAC77SP
10-19-2013, 01:33 AM
As someone that grew up in a family of carpenters, It makes perfect sense that only the interior walls would be drywall. You can't MAKE the exterior walls out of drywall-If it were wood frame constuction the interior would likely be drywall but the exterior would have siding and there would be insulation in-between.. Yes they could put drywall or paneling over the cinderblocks but that would make the living space that much smaller for no reason at all except astetics... As to the spacing of the studs. You are correct to a point. On a non-loadbearing wall, you can space 'em at 24". It isn't inconceiveable that someone could run through such a wall but they would have a good chance of hitting a cross-brace or at the very LEAST some wiring or a pipe in the wall so I wouldn't recommend it...

I can't say that drywall is NEVER put up without studs because I have actually seen it once. It was an owner-completed addition to a house. He neglected to insulate the addition as well. Interesting in winter (Boston area)

As for normal construction. Studs would be in place. I cited 16" on center because that is almost the universal application. In rare cases (and where code allows it) they are placed 24" on center. In either case they would make it difficult to crash through a wall as described. It sounds more like anecdotal stories. Urban myths.

imnohero
10-19-2013, 01:54 AM
I can't say that drywall is NEVER put up without studs because I have actually seen it once. It was an owner-completed addition to a house. He neglected to insulate the addition as well. Interesting in winter (Boston area)

As for normal construction. Studs would be in place. I cited 16" on center because that is almost the universal application. In rare cases (and where code allows it) they are placed 24" on center. In either case they would make it difficult to crash through a wall as described. It sounds more like anecdotal stories. Urban myths.

There is what code requires, and then there's what unscrupulous contractors or owners will do to save a few bucks, like putting studs on 48" centers (just enough to screw the drywall to). Watch that show "Holmes on Homes" on HGTV, you'll see some of the shitty ways that things get built, just to save a few bucks, whether it's code required or not.

efmbman
10-19-2013, 02:35 AM
I don't want to turn this thread to a racism discussion. I think most of you by now know how deeply and personal I take the issue. Racism is self evident and when someone try to espouse it, it should be called out.

I think that what happens on this board is that people want to express their racist opinions but dont like to be called racist. Then they try to sweep it under the "PC banner". For much I hear people say that they "stand for what they believe in" when it comes to racism they act like cowards. They disparage a certain race(s), they make all sorts vitriolic comments and then try to blame me if I call them racist, how is that "standing for what you believe in"? If people believe that whites, asians, blacks, hispanics, arabs or what have you is/are the root of all whats wrong in this country they are entitled to that opinion but it's still a racist opinion.

I truly wish that one day we can move past this topic but as long as people try to act like is all cool to make racist statement I will be here to call them out on it. Now if we please can get back on topic that would be great.

You pretty much answered my question with your reply. You were either unwilling or unable to take my question at face value. I made no mention of race at all... you did in your reply. I asked a very simple question and you respond with a completely unrelated comments. You are so programmed to seek out racism you seem incapable of responding with anything other than a comment about racism. Your rush to judgment is in many ways similar to the racism you claim you want to "call out".

Bunch
10-19-2013, 03:26 AM
You pretty much answered my question with your reply. You were either unwilling or unable to take my question at face value. I made no mention of race at all... you did in your reply. I asked a very simple question and you respond with a completely unrelated comments. You are so programmed to seek out racism you seem incapable of responding with anything other than a comment about racism. Your rush to judgment is in many ways similar to the racism you claim you want to "call out".

I think I answered your question in the larger sense. If you think I'm here just to seek out people I perceive are racist then you really don't know me at all. I've been in this board for years and stayed mum and silent about the racist comments thrown around here and many of them directed specifically at me by members of this board. It wasn't until a few months ago that I really got tired of the racist shit going on here (and in my day to day life) and start calling people out. Then all of the sudden I'm the bad guy and a race baiter... Fuck that dude!! If people here want to dish it out they might as well have the thick skin to receive it back!!

I will ask you to go to the beginning of this thread and see if at any point I made any kind of race related or political comment. I didnt bring the political or race arguement to this thread and BTW the tone of the thread was excellent until a poster decided to crash the party with heavily charge race statements and then I'm the race baiter... Get a life dude!!

TJMAC77SP
10-19-2013, 03:48 AM
There is what code requires, and then there's what unscrupulous contractors or owners will do to save a few bucks, like putting studs on 48" centers (just enough to screw the drywall to). Watch that show "Holmes on Homes" on HGTV, you'll see some of the shitty ways that things get built, just to save a few bucks, whether it's code required or not.

I have watched the show. I was under the impression the stories told were of public housing developments built in the 1950's. Evidently I was wrong.

Of course, all in all, a fairly minor point but seems to have garnered some attention nonetheless.

imnohero
10-19-2013, 04:03 AM
I have watched the show. I was under the impression the stories told were of public housing developments built in the 1950's. Evidently I was wrong.

Of course, all in all, a fairly minor point but seems to have garnered some attention nonetheless.

You were right, the stories were about public housing. I was only making an associated minor point about building codes relative to actual practices. My apologies for sidetracking the conversation.

efmbman
10-19-2013, 02:08 PM
I think I answered your question in the larger sense. If you think I'm here just to seek out people I perceive are racist then you really don't know me at all. I've been in this board for years and stayed mum and silent about the racist comments thrown around here and many of them directed specifically at me by members of this board. It wasn't until a few months ago that I really got tired of the racist shit going on here (and in my day to day life) and start calling people out. Then all of the sudden I'm the bad guy and a race baiter... Fuck that dude!! If people here want to dish it out they might as well have the thick skin to receive it back!!

I will ask you to go to the beginning of this thread and see if at any point I made any kind of race related or political comment. I didnt bring the political or race arguement to this thread and BTW the tone of the thread was excellent until a poster decided to crash the party with heavily charge race statements and then I'm the race baiter... Get a life dude!!

It's like you are having a conversation with someone else... Again: I asked a simple question about preconceived notions and if you think that plays into misunderstandings. You continue to rant about racism and I don't understand why.

Let's recap: I asked
Would you agree that some are predisposed to hear "how" something is said, rather than take the comment at face value? That is very common and often leads to bad communication.

You replied with a rant about racism. I did not mention racism at all. So I accurately stated that you did. Do you deny this? I will quote the text to assist you:
I don't want to turn this thread to a racism discussion. I think most of you by now know how deeply and personal I take the issue. Racism is self evident and when someone try to espouse it, it should be called out. THAT is where you mentioned racism - in the first paragraph, and therefore that is your race related comment. Are you delusional? I did not state the you brought the race argument or politics into this thread. Your hysterical hostility is misdirected. If you have a problem with someone on this forum, take it up with that person. I asked a simple question and you start attacking me and ranting (again) about racism.

My question was a very simple one... I was trying to illustrate that some people are prone to connect a comment or statement to an unrelated issue simply because they are predisposed to the idea that the issue is prevalent with everyone. You, however, perfectly illustrated this because you actually did it. As far as dishing it out and having thick skin, I can't see how you think that is even remotely applicable with what I posted (again, a simple question). I never said you were a race-baiter. Quote me if I did and prove your baseless accusations. I agree that this thread was an interesting one at one point and it, like every other thread, devolves into something else.

AJBIGJ
10-19-2013, 02:11 PM
What we can do is plenty and IMO it starts with education. Giving kids and youngsters access to good quality, useful and current education. For the most part our education system is antiquated. Schools are not working, kids go like herd and get the same repetitive stuff shove down their throats. Our education system is designed to send kids to college and even at that is failing miserably. Kids needs to get out of high school already with a skill, something that if plan A or B don't work at least they know how to do something. If they live on a capitalist system they need know from a very early age what capitalism is and what they need to do to succeed in it.


First I would like to say I very much appreciate the comprehensive, well-considered answer you have composed here. It is truly refreshing to see these levels of individual personal thought put in for a site so often marred by other factors.

I would like to speak to the education piece first. Some might argue what the average people living in poverty lack is a quantity of such education. There is some trouble in the assertion however, as many if not most are offered the full K-12 opportunity to at least get into the door of the workplace, albeit not necessarily top management. Many yet choose of their own volition to rescind the offer somewhere along the line to pursue their own independent path. I think it would be unreasonable of us a compassionate society to ever expect to solve this problem for such individuals. One might go further and state that secondary and even graduate levels are a must for individuals to be successful in the job market. There is a solid argument for this, but applying the same mentality as the freely-offered K-12, is it even reasonable to ask a civilized society to provide a "one size fits all solution" to ensure that the average citizen has the opportunity through a combination of grants, subsidies, and other types of funding, with little mechanism of holding these individuals accountable for wasting the opportunity we provide? I tend to consider that many young men and women choose to party away their educational opportunities even when their parents are the ones funding the education, and if ones own parents aren't holding these young individuals accountable, how would we as a detached society expect to accomplish what the parents fail to do? Our current solution some offer is to recoup the expense, which is somewhat reasonable for the sake of our own pocketbooks, but in sense creates an "education economic bubble" that makes even the "housing bubble" of the 2000's seem potentially mild by comparison.

A better argument in my mind is the quality of the education provided. I personally feel that the mechanism for that is to offer more specialized education catered specifically for the desired vocation. We see this already today, where people in the Job market with a one year certification in a specialty stand competitive with graduate level educational resumes for certain types of positions being offered. I don't believe we have to confine these freedoms to pursue specialized types of education has to be limited to secondary levels of education. I think, if we opened up the playing field at the K-12 levels of education to some competition and freedom to define the curricula for the student, we might see a more meaningful high school diploma in years to come. If anyone was wondering, yes this is a direct attack on the giant turd GW Bush left on our laps known as "No Child Left Behind". Would such a solution deter some of those who choose to detach themselves from the educational pipeline pre-diploma? Probably some, not all. It would however offer those who have one a better chance of retaining the KSA's necessary for entry-level positions in the job market. The problem is you can't legislate that kind of flexibility and freedom. If you try you get documents that make the ACA and the Patriot Act look like light reading. This places the burden on the educator to spend a considerable amount of time, energy, and resources just to become compliant with the legislation, and considerably less of each being able to innovate for a catered opportunity that can reach the maximum number of students and provide them better opportunities to compete or even excel.

More comments to follow when my computer finishes its virus scan and reboots itself, to be continued...

AJBIGJ
10-19-2013, 02:58 PM
Now that my computer seems to be quasi-functional once again, I would be remiss to address only the education piece and not the poverty piece as well.

I think good points were made regarding the effects of globalization and technological advancement towards the US Economy. I think those low wage laborers do suffer the most when their competition becomes foreign outsourced labor that does not have the union/minimum wage representation keeping their costs of the individuals high or simply a robot. We all know and have heard about the effects of the "Cotton Gin" after so many years of slave labor followed by low wage labor for black Americans, but the education we currently provide at least glosses over the fact that the cotton gin has destroyed the low wage labor market in the cotton fields. I have a neutral position on this, I tend to think technology, unless we are faced with truly oppressive fascism in our government, is inevitable. I think it is the burden of free Americans to innovate new and better ways to utilize the services offered rather than expect the old types of labor long surpassed by globalization and automation can provide to fill the void of low wage labor.

So how do we as a society enhance innovation? Do we lock a bunch of Mensa students in a room for hours without coffee or bathroom breaks until they come up with something brilliant? The good news is that the capability towards being "innovative" exists in all of us, even the least educated among us. So what in our current market prevents us from utilizing this innovation to enhance our collective success?

The short answer is the amount of risk and personal investment required to fund a start up. This by itself presents a considerable barrier towards entry into a market niche. Even when overcoming that hurdle, an entrepreneur has to face the considerable level of competition in similar market niches.

One problem we face today in America is the considerable level of cronyism and corporatism that has instituted rather rigid, government subsidized monopolies and oligopolies. I always like to ask people why they think there is so much money going into politics these days? Do we believe these private investors create these multi-million dollar Super-PACs out of pure altruism in the pursuit of their collective individual ideology? I would consider it a no-brainer that there is much more to the story. We live in a world where lobbyists can employ smoke and mirror tactics to prevent new competition from entering the market. This allows them to have a modicum of control of pricing for their in demand goods and services without having to be especially innovative in ensuring that the quality of those goods and services is competitive with the advances in technology and efficiency that maybe offered if those new entrants did have the opportunity to gain market share. For instance, a power company may create a sort of "drug deal" with an aligned manufacturer of emission filters that specifically allows 0.149 microns through, knowing full well that the standard filter on the market provides 0.151 microns of filtration and is in common use throughout the power generation industry. The power company fits these filters on every single exhaust and prepares to go to economic war. In comes lobbied politician, who inserts a little harmless regulation from the EPA that enforces 0.150 micron filters or less on the power generation industry. The competition in the market is devastated! They all have to pay for expensive retrofits to the entire network of their power generating facilities or be faced with substantial fines. Meanwhile, the power company who weaseled this through gains substantial market share while the competition struggles to become compliant. Now that politician leaves office and becomes COO of that power company. Everyone involved with the legislation wins, and everyone else loses.

This type of legislation is everywhere, and thus oligopoly empires pervade the markets, controlling roughly 90% of the economy in revenues, while providing only about 10% of the total employment. More to follow when the caffeine kicks in later on today...

Rainmaker
10-19-2013, 03:44 PM
I'm sorry, but I still see America as the land of OPPORTUNITY. You have the opportunity to be lower, middle or upper class. Race exempt.

There are too many people who CHOOSE to do nothing about thier situation. In MANY other cases, we see people that struggle for a good future and make it. Some don't. I have no problem with programs that assist those who can't quite make it on thier own. I support NO program that gives assistance to those who don't try (aside from disability - lack of being able to try).

I would not voluntarily live in a mixed income community. I did live down the street from some projects a while back, and I got tired of being robbed and attempted break-ins. More recently, I lived down the street from a trailor park, lots of teenagers. Guess what, constant vandalism in the neighborhood. To me, mixing incomes in an area only creates targets for those who are not pursuing opportunity. (Well, they are pursuing opportunity to take/damage your stuff)

I know not all low-income people are criminals. But I will be very aware of not only the house I purchase but the neighborhood around it for many blocks from here forward. I don't want to be involved in anyones "social experiment".

No, No. don't you see? it was Rayciss for you to get tired of being robbed and move away. It's your civic duty to willingly submit to being victimized. Sort of a modern day White man's burden if you will. We're all so Raciss and evil that we can't even see it. What White people in the suburbs really need is more Government intervention to help them with admitting their guilt and accepting the transition to a more diverse population.

Rainmaker
10-19-2013, 03:58 PM
Rainmaker simply Asked a simple question. feel free to call him a racist or whatever, if it makes you feel better. but, the question he asked still stands

What benefit has forced diversity brought to the middle class? and If diversity is so great why should the government have to force it on people?

You may be right. Rainmaker is interested to hear your answers.

The only "-ism" Rainmaker believes in is Practical-ism. A simple cost-benefit analysis. for the cost over 50 years (Trillions) what benefit has the taxpayer gotten? By every objective measure HUD is a failure. everything the liberal social engineers touch turns to shit. There's no reason to think it will ever change.

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-20-2013, 10:50 PM
Is not what's said... But how is said....
You mean by who says it? Or if its said at all? Bill Cosby was gutted for speaking the truth, but it put blacks in a negative light.

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 01:07 PM
You mean by who says it? Or if its said at all? Bill Cosby was gutted for speaking the truth, but it put blacks in a negative light.

You mean Bill Cosby expressed disgust about living around black people?

TJMAC77SP
10-21-2013, 01:22 PM
You mean Bill Cosby expressed disgust about living around black people?

Are you saying that was his message?

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-21-2013, 01:29 PM
You mean Bill Cosby expressed disgust about living around black people?

He expressed his disgust about the way blacks live period. The way they exemplify the negatives of the black culture while shunning the norm of society that is a positive and condusive to getting a job.

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 01:31 PM
Are you saying that was his message?

No, that was Rainmaker's message. WJ5 has a habit of taking stuff like that way out in left field. I think it's on purpose, in order to take the focus away from where he doesn't want it.

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-21-2013, 01:35 PM
No, that was Rainmaker's message. WJ5 has a habit of taking stuff like that way out in left field. I think it's on purpose, in order to take the focus away from where he doesn't want it.

I think it was really relevant. Focusing on what you suspect as "racism" instead of the issue he was bringing up is how lefties love to avert attention from the issue and on to the people making the point.

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 01:37 PM
I think it was really relevant. Focusing on what you suspect as "racism" instead of the issue he was bringing up is how lefties love to avert attention from the issue and on to the people making the point.

How about this: Rainmaker expressed disgust at living around black people. That's racist, and he's racist.

And if you can't see that, then you are too.

End of dicussion.

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-21-2013, 01:51 PM
How about this: Rainmaker expressed disgust at living around black people. That's racist, and he's racist.

And if you can't see that, then you are too.

End of dicussion.

No, you precieved that was what he was talking about. He was discussing poverty displacement, you brought up the fact of the race.

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 01:53 PM
No, you precieved that was what he was talking about. He was discussing poverty displacement, you brought up the fact of the race.

Nope, he did. Put a sock in it, WJ5. You'd say the same thing to me if I called a Klansman racist.

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-21-2013, 01:56 PM
Nope, he did. Put a sock in it, WJ5. You'd say the same thing to me if I called a Klansman racist.

Klansman usually are. But please show me the first post from him about being forced to live with section 8 recepients and how he mentioned race.

TJMAC77SP
10-21-2013, 01:57 PM
How about this: Rainmaker expressed disgust at living around black people. That's racist, and he's racist.

And if you can't see that, then you are too.

End of dicussion.


No, that was Rainmaker's message. WJ5 has a habit of taking stuff like that way out in left field. I think it's on purpose, in order to take the focus away from where he doesn't want it.

Perhaps it is good to end the discussion because I am confused. Rainmaker didn't reference Bill Cosby, WJ5 did and the part about Bill Cosby being vilified for his remarks was true. On top of that Bill Cosby spoke of conditions within the black community and the cultural mindset and the fact that remedies would only come from within that community. His remarks (on multiple occasions) were dismissed as “classist and elitist”.

Perhaps Rainmaker's comments were tongue in cheek (the deliberate spelling of certain words was a clue) and his point was about the hair trigger default to cry racism or throw the racist label a little too quickly. Of course I could be wrong.
I do see racism on the MTF. Most of it is subtle and given away by its rhetoric but I will say that if it is racist to only point out the negative in a group based on an irrelevant condition (such as skin color), and it is, then it is equally racist to defend the negative for the same solitary reason.

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 02:03 PM
Klansman usually are. But please show me the first post from him about being forced to live with section 8 recepients and how he mentioned race.

Okay:


Rainmaker's family Fled from Baltimore in the 70s. If the forced integration that happened to us in the blue collar white working class neighborhoods was reversed the liberal media would be screaming about genocide.

Now, that politicians have decided that public housing ghettos are bad for business and screw up your cool downtown baseball stadium plans. They want them out of site and out of mind. So, they have to relocate them (thru section 8 forced integration) out into the suburbs. Good for property developers. Bad for the Middle class. If the counties don’t want to play ball, then the fed turns off the HUD money spigot and greedy developers (job creator's) Can’t have that. As those neighborhoods in the burbs quickly get destroyed and their resources are overwhelmed, the people there that can afford to will move in. or even further away. If they can’t afford to move. No problem: f^$ck em. they become collateral damage. That's the price they get to pay for their "white privilege".

To the sick liberal mind all that’s needed is for these criminal parasites terrorizing the ghetto to become productive citizen’s is for them to just look around at the nice suburbs. and they’ll magically decide to assimilate into the middle class. It's not their fault that they have no values. It's just their surroundings.

You either believe in Math or You believe in Magic. Nomsayin?

RobotChicken
10-21-2013, 03:39 PM
Perhaps it is good to end the discussion because I am confused. Rainmaker didn't reference Bill Cosby, WJ5 did and the part about Bill Cosby being vilified for his remarks was true. On top of that Bill Cosby spoke of conditions within the black community and the cultural mindset and the fact that remedies would only come from within that community. His remarks (on multiple occasions) were dismissed as “classist and elitist”.

Perhaps Rainmaker's comments were tongue in cheek (the deliberate spelling of certain words was a clue) and his point was about the hair trigger default to cry racism or throw the racist label a little too quickly. Of course I could be wrong.
I do see racism on the MTF. Most of it is subtle and given away by its rhetoric but I will say that if it is racist to only point out the negative in a group based on an irrelevant condition (such as skin color), and it is, then it is equally racist to defend the negative for the same solitary reason.
:spy"As growing up and memorizing EVERY Bill Cosby LP album ever released; and for him to serve our NAVY a Hospital Corpsman, Go to college to EARN his Doctor's Degree in Education while enduring an Comedians tour schedule is someone to look up towards with wonder and respect. How anyone of ANY RACE HAS ANY RIGHT to bad mouth MY FRIEND BILL COSBY does't even belong on the same forum that I occupy. 'RC'."

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 04:03 PM
I don't think anyone here takes issue with what Bill Cosby said. The problem is that Rainmaker expressed disgust at having to live around people of other races, and I said something about it. Then, out of the nowhere, WJ5 brings up Bill Cosby in order to defend what Rainmaker said.

sandsjames
10-21-2013, 04:31 PM
I don't think anyone here takes issue with what Bill Cosby said. The problem is that Rainmaker expressed disgust at having to live around people of other races, and I said something about it. Then, out of the nowhere, WJ5 brings up Bill Cosby in order to defend what Rainmaker said.



I may be off base here, but it seems like he was talking more about getting away from a certain class, not a certain race.

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 04:45 PM
I may be off base here, but it seems like he was talking more about getting away from a certain class, not a certain race.

Considering the fact that he was talking about things that happen to his beloved "blue collar white working class" (his OWN words); I say, yes, you are off base.

Pullinteeth
10-21-2013, 05:26 PM
I stated earlier that much of the problems caused in housing projects are by people who don't live there. Or if they do live there, they do so illegally. Think about this - the overwhelming majority of the problems are caused by adult males.

The ONLY adult males that should be there are single custodial fathers, married men, and college students under the age of 23. And what percentage of the adult males there do you think actually fit any of these categories? And of the likely miniscule amount that do, do you think that they're involved in all the mess?

Typically, it's the people that go there to sell drugs; or the live-in boyfriends of the single mothers there that are causing all the problems.

And that would be my only argument against your proposal... Sure some would be uncomfortable with poor people moving into the neighborhood but as long as it was done as you proposed with the neighborhood being mainly middle class with a few section 8...it could work. However, you and I both know that sometimes those that live in seciton 8 wouldn't leave these adult males behind. If walls, gates, and barbed wire can't keep them out of the projects, what would keep them out of the neighborhoods?


I can't say that drywall is NEVER put up without studs because I have actually seen it once. It was an owner-completed addition to a house. He neglected to insulate the addition as well. Interesting in winter (Boston area)

As for normal construction. Studs would be in place. I cited 16" on center because that is almost the universal application. In rare cases (and where code allows it) they are placed 24" on center. In either case they would make it difficult to crash through a wall as described. It sounds more like anecdotal stories. Urban myths.

I didn't say you COULDN'T make interior walls entirely out of drywall-it wouldn't be up to code but is POSSIBLE. I said you couldn't make EXTERIOR walls out of drywall (Rusty complained that they were cinderblock). You CAN put drywall on the interior of the exterior walls but you can't make them out of drywall (at least not for long).

Bunch
10-21-2013, 05:53 PM
I may be off base here, but it seems like he was talking more about getting away from a certain class, not a certain race.

"Forced integration" "diversity"... How much clearer does it has to be?

sandsjames
10-21-2013, 06:04 PM
"Forced integration" "diversity"... How much clearer does it has to be?

I don't know the circumstances, so it's entirely possible his family moved away because of the race integration.

What I do know is that if my neighborhood was being "integrated", and that integration brought in low income and hurt my property value, I'd leave too, no matter what race the people were.

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 06:13 PM
And that would be my only argument against your proposal... Sure some would be uncomfortable with poor people moving into the neighborhood but as long as it was done as you proposed with the neighborhood being mainly middle class with a few section 8...it could work. However, you and I both know that sometimes those that live in seciton 8 wouldn't leave these adult males behind. If walls, gates, and barbed wire can't keep them out of the projects, what would keep them out of the neighborhoods?

To my knowledge, there are very strict rules for those on public assistance living in mixed income communities - violations of these rules could result in them being sent right back to the existing projects.

I'm told that it's actually a crime - like, someone can get hauled off to jail for this - for a public housing resident to have an authorized adult living with them. I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble with the law for this; but I imagine that if it is against the law, then nothing is being done about it in the projects because of the mentality of "not being a snitch." Something that should be a non-factor if the majority of the neighborhood is middle class. This particular middle class value, as well as other, should hopefully rub off on the low income residents.

Oh, 20+ Years: If you wouldn't live in a mixed-income community, then that's your right. It's a free country. As for me, I'm not opposed to the idea in and of itself; but my wife is... so it won't happen for me. The location of the mixed income community in Norfolk is in the Bowling Green area and Ballentine & Virginia Beach Blvd - not the worst neighborhoods in Norfolk, but certainly not the best.

If Tidewater Park near downtown had been torn down to make way for the mixed income community instead, then I'd consider it.

I, myself, benefitted from living in a "mixed income" community myself. I put that in quotations, because I didn't live in a neighborhood that was specifically constructed for that purpose - but a "naturally" economically diverse neighborhood... that is, the Ocean View area of Norfolk during my pre-teens. I saw the things that my friends' families had that mine didn't; and I acted accordingly as I transitioned into adulthood.

Pullinteeth
10-21-2013, 06:33 PM
To my knowledge, there are very strict rules for those on public assistance living in mixed income communities - violations of these rules could result in them being sent right back to the existing projects.

I'm told that it's actually a crime - like, someone can get hauled off to jail for this - for a public housing resident to have an authorized adult living with them. I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble with the law for this; but I imagine that if it is against the law, then nothing is being done about it in the projects because of the mentality of "not being a snitch." Something that should be a non-factor if the majority of the neighborhood is middle class. This particular middle class value, as well as other, should hopefully rub off on the low income residents.

Oh, 20+ Years: If you wouldn't live in a mixed-income community, then that's your right. It's a free country. As for me, I'm not opposed to the idea in and of itself; but my wife is... so it won't happen for me. The location of the mixed income community in Norfolk is in the Bowling Green area and Ballentine & Virginia Beach Blvd - not the worst neighborhoods in Norfolk, but certainly not the best.

If Tidewater Park near downtown had been torn down to make way for the mixed income community instead, then I'd consider it.

I, myself, benefitted from living in a "mixed income" community myself. I put that in quotations, because I didn't live in a neighborhood that was specifically constructed for that purpose - but a "naturally" economically diverse neighborhood... that is, the Ocean View area of Norfolk during my pre-teens. I saw the things that my friends' families had that mine didn't; and I acted accordingly as I transitioned into adulthood.

There are rules...the same rules that apply to those in the housing projects. Not sure if it is something they prosecute for or if it is actually a crime. Usually what happens is if they are in the projects, they get to leave and if they are in non-housing project subsidized housing, they get to stay but in order to do that, they have to pay. While the gov actually pays their rent, they do have a lease so screwing up can end up costing them a LOT (they are legally responsible for any rent that the gov doesn't pay). Of course if you are the landlord, good luck getting that rent once the gov stops paying and good luck getting them evicted without them destroying your property.... And no, it isn't just the poor in section eight that lose their minds when they lose their homes...just look at what happened when all those homes were foreclosed on-people destroyed their own homes just so the bank couldn't recoup their $$....

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 06:50 PM
Straight talk from Tak...

Look, I have known multiple people throughout my life who flat out said they prefer
to live in a mostly if not all white neighborhood. The people who said it, were all black.
I did not judge them for saying that, it was their opinion based on their beliefs and
practical application to what neighborhoods they had grown up in.

I don't doubt this at all.

However... I have to question why they would say such a thing. Maybe they've never seen a middle class black neighborhood - a very rare sight, but they DO exist. Those of you who've ever been stationed at Langley have probably seen a few in Hampton.

Secondly... those who may not have grown up around a lot of white people may not exactly be aware of the "dilemma" that they're going to face when they're in an all-white environment.

That is... there's a difference between being "befriended" or "liked" and... being accepted by a group of people and seen as one of their own.

If they don't feel this difference upon moving into an all-white neighborhood, they may feel it later one. Even in the rare case that they do achieve "acceptance," then that acceptance will be fragile at best.

Remember what happened to Colin Powell in 2008 when he endorsed Obama?

Maybe they are aware of that difference, and see it as a fair price to pay to get away from whatever they experienced growing up.

Granted, this isn't meant to be a reflection of "white people," as this can pretty much go in any direction in any ethnically insular neighborhood.

As for me, I HAVE to live in an ethnically diverse area. I'd feel out of place if I didn't.

Pullinteeth
10-21-2013, 07:13 PM
I don't doubt this at all.

However... I have to question why they would say such a thing. Maybe they've never seen a middle class black neighborhood - a very rare sight, but they DO exist. Those of you who've ever been stationed at Langley have probably seen a few in Hampton.

Secondly... those who may not have grown up around a lot of white people may not exactly be aware of the "dilemma" that they're going to face when they're in an all-white environment.

That is... there's a difference between being "befriended" or "liked" and... being accepted by a group of people and seen as one of their own.

If they don't feel this difference upon moving into an all-white neighborhood, they may feel it later one. Even in the rare case that they do achieve "acceptance," then that acceptance will be fragile at best.
Remember what happened to Colin Powell in 2008 when he endorsed Obama?

Maybe they are aware of that difference, and see it as a fair price to pay to get away from whatever they experienced growing up.
Granted, this isn't meant to be a reflection of "white people," as this can pretty much go in any direction in any ethnically insular neighborhood.

As for me, I HAVE to live in an ethnically diverse area. I'd feel out of place if I didn't.

You are aware of course that there are people that have grown up in this type of environment right? They choose to stay there and actually like the neighborhood they grew up in?

wildman
10-21-2013, 07:23 PM
I reside in a subsisted apartment complex that contains every ethnic mixture one could think of. Even with assistance some think the rent is free and thus have found the sheriff at their door with eviction papers. Currently the complex is only 17% occupied. The area around me contains a strong mixture of every ethnic group as well. I have lived in this area going on 8 years now and while we do occasionally have problems I must say they are no more than I have experienced in any other community in witch I have lived.

Always,
Wildman

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 07:30 PM
Is it a 55 or 62 and up community? Because, if it's not... high vacancy can be pretty dangerous.

Pullinteeth
10-21-2013, 07:36 PM
Is it a 55 or 62 and up community? Because, if it's not... high vacancy can be pretty dangerous.

I take it you were replying to Wildhare?

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 07:44 PM
I take it you were replying to Wildhare?

Yes. Many public housing authorities will begin to freak once a public complex reaches 10% vacancy - vacant units attract squatters, drug labs, prostitution, among other things.

20+Years
10-21-2013, 07:48 PM
But if they would move some middle class folks into those empty units, then everyones morals would slowly change, the squatters, prostitutes and drug labs will go away, and people will aspire to be better. Mixed income developments for the win!

//sarcasm off//

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 08:02 PM
But if they would move some middle class folks into those empty units, then everyones morals would slowly change, the squatters, prostitutes and drug labs will go away, and people will aspire to be better. Mixed income developments for the win!

//sarcasm off//

Okay... look. Let's say we take what you said at face value. How do you get middle class people to move into the projects? It's a free country, right? Short of forcing them to move there, it isn't going to happen. Middle class people moving into the projects in droves has never happened. Hence, why projects are known for what they're known for.

Even if it has happened... in order to prevent a culture of poverty from forming in a particular community, the percentage of those below the poverty line has to be kept below 15%.

I understand that you don't like the concept of mixed-income communities. And that's fine. Don't move into one. But if another middle class person or family decides to, then that's their decision to make. Scoff at it all you want, but mixed income communities are the result of economists and sociologists who are far more competent than you on this matter.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-21-2013, 08:04 PM
But if they would move some middle class folks into those empty units, then everyones morals would slowly change, the squatters, prostitutes and drug labs will go away, and people will aspire to be better. Mixed income developments for the win!

//sarcasm off//

//sarcasm on//

I think they should just pipe country music into the housing projects because that will make everyone wholesome at an exponentially faster rate.

Just like many other posters have pointed out; country music, with it's good natured themes of dirt roads, trucks, and the occasional cold beer, point to the true secret of a happy and fulfilling life.

It is the polar opposite of that vile and nasty hippity-hoppity music that the detractors of Bill Cosby listen to.

//sarcasm off//

Pullinteeth
10-21-2013, 08:36 PM
Yes. Many public housing authorities will begin to freak once a public complex reaches 10% vacancy - vacant units attract squatters, drug labs, prostitution, among other things.

I'm not sure he is in public housing per se. If I were a betting man, I would say he is in a complex that accepts section 8 as well as more traditional renters. I have lived in three such complexes....


Okay... look. Let's say we take what you said at face value. How do you get middle class people to move into the projects? It's a free country, right? Short of forcing them to move there, it isn't going to happen. Middle class people moving into the projects in droves has never happened. Hence, why projects are known for what they're known for.

Even if it has happened... in order to prevent a culture of poverty from forming in a particular community, the percentage of those below the poverty line has to be kept below 15%.

I understand that you don't like the concept of mixed-income communities. And that's fine. Don't move into one. But if another middle class person or family decides to, then that's their decision to make. Scoff at it all you want, but mixed income communities are the result of economists and sociologists who are far more competent than you on this matter.

Oh fuck no....why would you WANT to force ANYONE to live in the projects? The only people that WANT to live there are the ones to lazy to work that want to mooch off of those that legitimately live in them... Even the ones entitled to live there would rather live somewhere else....

20+Years
10-21-2013, 08:37 PM
Okay... look. Let's say we take what you said at face value. How do you get middle class people to move into the projects? It's a free country, right? Short of forcing them to move there, it isn't going to happen. Middle class people moving into the projects in droves has never happened. Hence, why projects are known for what they're known for.

Even if it has happened... in order to prevent a culture of poverty from forming in a particular community, the percentage of those below the poverty line has to be kept below 15%.

I understand that you don't like the concept of mixed-income communities. And that's fine. Don't move into one. But if another middle class person or family decides to, then that's their decision to make. Scoff at it all you want, but mixed income communities are the result of economists and sociologists who are far more competent than you on this matter.


I appluad your answer, I was more than expecting a personal insult on that one. Your right though, its not for me. I wouldn't say a word to anyone who wanted to move into an area as such, but I don't like programs that move the poor into middle class neighborhoods. Rent may be subsidized (or eliminated) for such families, but I don't see existing homeowners reimbursed as property values go down (don't kid yourself on that one). On that issue, I do believe homeowners have a right to protect thier investments. If the subsidized housing existed in the area before they purchased a home, well then they have no room to complain.

You probably wouldn't guess it, but I own a house where the renter is subsidized. Why do I not mind? Much of the neighborhood is already the same. Plus it is a widow with children who was trying to move away from the house her spouse died in. Since I bought and lived in a low income area, it is what it is.

20+Years
10-21-2013, 08:39 PM
//sarcasm on//

I think they should just pipe country music into the housing projects because that will make everyone wholesome at an exponentially faster rate.

Just like many other posters have pointed out; country music, with it's good natured themes of dirt roads, trucks, and the occasional cold beer, point to the true secret of a happy and fulfilling life.

It is the polar opposite of that vile and nasty hippity-hoppity music that the detractors of Bill Cosby listen to.

//sarcasm off//

I think that would be a poor waste of perfectly good country music. //shrug//

Pullinteeth
10-21-2013, 08:45 PM
I appluad your answer, I was more than expecting a personal insult on that one. Your right though, its not for me. I wouldn't say a word to anyone who wanted to move into an area as such, but I don't like programs that move the poor into middle class neighborhoods. Rent may be subsidized (or eliminated) for such families, but I don't see existing homeowners reimbursed as property values go down (don't kid yourself on that one). On that issue, I do believe homeowners have a right to protect thier investments. If the subsidized housing existed in the area before they purchased a home, well then they have no room to complain.

You probably wouldn't guess it, but I own a house where the renter is subsidized. Why do I not mind? Much of the neighborhood is already the same. Plus it is a widow with children who was trying to move away from the house her spouse died in. Since I bought and lived in a low income area, it is what it is.

What I think you are missing is that Rusty said for his plan to work, the percentage of poor would have to be kept below 15%. How you can do this realistically? That I am not sure-people lose jobs but if the subsidies were based on that percentage threshold, while there would be the associated riff-raff occasionally, I do think that Rusty is right, it might bring back the culture in which being poor is not seen as something to be proud of but rather something to strive to get out of....but what the hell do I know? I know I have been broke and homeless, I didn't like it and I sure as hell don't want to do THAT shit again...

Oh, I also know a bit about the whole being ashamed of being poor thing though I would say we were more lower middle class. It was embarassing as hell wearing patched clothes, thrift shop clothes, homemade clothes and the ilk...

20+Years
10-21-2013, 08:59 PM
What I think you are missing is that Rusty said for his plan to work, the percentage of poor would have to be kept below 15%. How you can do this realistically? That I am not sure-people lose jobs but if the subsidies were based on that percentage threshold, while there would be the associated riff-raff occasionally, I do think that Rusty is right, it might bring back the culture in which being poor is not seen as something to be proud of but rather something to strive to get out of....but what the hell do I know? I know I have been broke and homeless, I didn't like it and I sure as hell don't want to do THAT shit again...

Nope, I caught the 15% part. There are just too many variables that keep that from being a certainty. 15% can cause a lot of problems. I have no doubt our neighborhood vandalism was done by 15% or less of the teenagers in the area, so it kind of depends on the 15% you get. You could get that family that feels bad and enrolls in college, or that family that could give a crap less and opens a crack house. If a kid gets beat up/or picked on two or three times a week by the crack houses kid at the bus stop, at least we can reassure ourselves its only the 15%.

The ONLY way you will ever get "shame" back in to being poor is to quit providing for those who CHOOSE to be poor. QUIT REWARDING LAZINESS. Unfortunately, this country is headed in the opposite direction faster than we can stop it.

Rusty Jones
10-21-2013, 09:24 PM
I wouldn't say a word to anyone who wanted to move into an area as such, but I don't like programs that move the poor into middle class neighborhoods.

A mixed-income community is not a middle class neighborhood that the poor move into. It's a community that was created to be a mixed-income community from the beginning.


Rent may be subsidized (or eliminated) for such families, but I don't see existing homeowners reimbursed as property values go down (don't kid yourself on that one). On that issue, I do believe homeowners have a right to protect thier investments. If the subsidized housing existed in the area before they purchased a home, well then they have no room to complain.

This is what I'm saying. If you buy property in a mixed income community, then why would property values go down? The proper values there are already lower than properties of similar quality located elsewhere. Whoever is looking to purchase a home there will already know from the beginning that it's in a mixed income community.


You probably wouldn't guess it, but I own a house where the renter is subsidized. Why do I not mind? Much of the neighborhood is already the same. Plus it is a widow with children who was trying to move away from the house her spouse died in. Since I bought and lived in a low income area, it is what it is.

...and this is exactly what I was saying to Rainmaker.


Nope, I caught the 15% part. There are just too many variables that keep that from being a certainty. 15% can cause a lot of problems. I have no doubt our neighborhood vandalism was done by 15% or less of the teenagers in the area, so it kind of depends on the 15% you get. You could get that family that feels bad and enrolls in college, or that family that could give a crap less and opens a crack house. If a kid gets beat up/or picked on two or three times a week by the crack houses kid at the bus stop, at least we can reassure ourselves its only the 15%.

In case you're not aware, there is a strict screening process for this - they check employment history, credit, criminal background, the works. They won't just take anyone who qualifies for Section 8 or public housing.


The ONLY way you will ever get "shame" back in to being poor is to quit providing for those who CHOOSE to be poor. QUIT REWARDING LAZINESS. Unfortunately, this country is headed in the opposite direction faster than we can stop it.

The problem I have with this mentality... many conservative want to rip the government "tit" out of people's mouth, and expect them to immediately start drinking out of glasses. What about the sippy cup?

People don't simply "rise to the occasion," as much as we may want them to.

Like you said before - give a man to fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.

Unfortunately, conservatives aren't interesting in doing either one.

20+Years
10-21-2013, 10:03 PM
A mixed-income community is not a middle class neighborhood that the poor move into. It's a community that was created to be a mixed-income community from the beginning.



This is what I'm saying. If you buy property in a mixed income community, then why would property values go down? The proper values there are already lower than properties of similar quality located elsewhere. Whoever is looking to purchase a home there will already know from the beginning that it's in a mixed income community.



...and this is exactly what I was saying to Rainmaker.



In case you're not aware, there is a strict screening process for this - they check employment history, credit, criminal background, the works. They won't just take anyone who qualifies for Section 8 or public housing.



The problem I have with this mentality... many conservative want to rip the government "tit" out of people's mouth, and expect them to immediately start drinking out of glasses. What about the sippy cup?

People don't simply "rise to the occasion," as much as we may want them to.

Like you said before - give a man to fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.

Unfortunately, conservatives aren't interesting in doing either one.

Not a terrible post until your last line. Then you want to paint your "enemy" with the broad brush. Who the hell says we don't want to taper people off of assistance. I think you have heard over and over suggestions about limiting the amount of time someone can be on certain programs. Thats ok though, close your ears and deny, deny, deny. Repubs can't be good decent people too, no way! Theres no way they could want to help people, but not make them dependent on a system for life. That would be crazy!

See Rusty, I think it would help you to come back down to earth a little and realize most of us want the same things. We may have different ideas of how to get there, or what the end result will be, but those things can be worked out. If, and this is a big if, those high and mighty on each side can quit condeming each other and learn to be adults (an area some people very, very close to this topic need to work on).

So I did learn what you refer to as a "mixed income community" has a different meaning than mine. But I'd debate that when a middle-class neighborhood starts getting subsidized renters in it, you do have a mixed income community... and I have seen the results. I did not know about the screening process either, its too bad communities in my definition don't get the opportunity to screen thier new residents.


So these mixed communities that you tout as successful is when you hand-pick the people in it. Yeah, it probably would be successful that way. But its not very true to real life.

garhkal
10-21-2013, 10:54 PM
So here's my theory. Democrats do not mind fraud, Which is why they didn't have income checks in Obamacare. They aren't concerned with costs As taxes can always go up. More importantly It makes it harder to stay on assistance, they Are forced to get jobs, get off assistance, Then they become republicans. So democrats Want benefits to be super easy and include
As many folks as possible. The more the better, As stigma is not so bad when half country on Assistance. The old 1.99 bobo's that made your Feet feel fine are now 200 Nike's. Money is A status system. What was uncool is embraced As unique and hip. The worst of community Is embraced as a cool culture. Just like credit Card companies love minimum payment and late fee people, Democrats pray on communities And claim to help, but really drain them morally By making them financially dependent forever.

That is how i feel it is. Notice how under obama and the dems, we have had a mass increase of those on EBT/food stamps..


I agree that people have learned to exploit loopholes in social entitlement programs, and I believe that those who abuse the system should be punished. However, the same goes for the folks that have their money hidden in Swiss banks, off-shore investments, and other tax shelters. Hiding money to ensure you don't pay what you theoretically owe is cheating the system. The wealthiest people in the country have also "become very smart in the ways of the system".

It goes both ways with exploitation of laws and regulations.

That is a valid point cynic. Those who are rich CAN exploit the system as much as the poor can. BUT we at least have laws that can punish those rich for failing to pay their taxes and such.. Not so much in the way of punishing those who cheat the welfare system (or at least i don't hear it happening)..


Here's where I think everything changed:

At one time, people's attitude towards those on public assistance was more of a condescending one. In 1985, if you whip out of book of food stamps at the checkout line, the person behind you likely thought "Oh, look! A poor chump on food stamps. Glad that's not me!"

Fast forward to the mid-1990's where people are screaming "welfare reform," and things are a bit different. The condescending attitude towards those on public assistance turned into one of anger and resentment. And, as we know, if you exhibit anger and resentment towards someone; they're going to get defensive and start lashing back.

Some of that might also be attributed to how people can qualify for being on food stamps etc.. I know of some E5s who are married who are on it, and even an E6 (6 kids and a wife to feed) who actually qualifies.


Not to mention its no longer a book of stamps but what looks like a credit card. This was to deminish the shame that came along with pulling out the stamps.

Which makes me wonder, WAS that shift to the card really done for making things easier / more efficient, OR to remove the shame factor? IMO i lead to the latter.



Er, no. Because the investor wants his own property - even if he doesn't give two shits about the rest of the neighborhood - to appreciate in value.


Which won't happen if all the other properties in the neighborhood are depreciating.


I'm sorry, but I still see America as the land of OPPORTUNITY. You have the opportunity to be lower, middle or upper class. Race exempt.

There are too many people who CHOOSE to do nothing about thier situation. In MANY other cases, we see people that struggle for a good future and make it. Some don't. I have no problem with programs that assist those who can't quite make it on thier own. I support NO program that gives assistance to those who don't try (aside from disability - lack of being able to try).

I would not voluntarily live in a mixed income community. I did live down the street from some projects a while back, and I got tired of being robbed and attempted break-ins. More recently, I lived down the street from a trailor park, lots of teenagers. Guess what, constant vandalism in the neighborhood. To me, mixing incomes in an area only creates targets for those who are not pursuing opportunity. (Well, they are pursuing opportunity to take/damage your stuff)

I know not all low-income people are criminals. But I will be very aware of not only the house I purchase but the neighborhood around it for many blocks from here forward. I don't want to be involved in anyones "social experiment".

I honestly wish we would go to how England does their income support programs for those who are jobless (i know about this cause my mother for her latter 7-9 years living in england had to do this). Every 2 months or so you would have to go IN and show proof of attempting to find work, to stay ON it. Also for a while, certain portions of income support were paid directly TO your bills such as gas/tv/electricity etc.. rather than the person getting a check which they could do what ever they wished..


I have a 20 year old son that constantly loses jobs. Probably 16 or so since he dropped out of highschool. He can barely make it month to month, and sometimes doesn't. He loses jobs due to supervisors or managers, he never does anything wrong. "They" say he is lazy or unmotivated, but thats just them. I guess he would be poor, huh?

Someone could come along and say he is having a hard time because of the economy, or debate he can't get a "working" wage. Guess what? Wrong. Its him. Its not the environment he grew up in. Its his own motivation that is limiting him. He does just enough to get by, sometimes. Is this a burden that should be placed on fellow tax payers? Will you personally send him a check every month?

I can tell you this, if I were Bob the builder and the Air Force shut down tomorrow, you will see me take a survival job in a minute to support my family. I will then try to find better employment, and if its not working I'll take a 2nd survival job. At such a point, I would also expect all household members to contribute if possible.

You see, a lot of this discussion comes back to morals. It comes back to the person and what they are willing to do or how hard they will try. When someone goes on assistance, cool. But they shouldn't get comfortable on that assistance. It needs to be limited (exceptions could be made), and not depend soley on the number of children you breed.

If I were to ask my son would he like to stay home and have the govmnt pay his way, I know what the answer would be.

Am I conditioned to hate the poor? Thats ridiculous. You went out on a limb for that one. Anyone with an ounce of empathy won't hate the poor.


Massive thumbs up to this whole post. I too know some who are this way, who will take what ever job they can get to stay OFF welfare etc.. while others i know (unfortunately) will only take the jobs they love and 'screw the rest' so stay on it.


Study: Food Stamps Most Rapidly Growing Welfare Program

Free Bacon http://freebeacon.com/study-food-stamps-most-rapidly-growing-welfare-program/

States like Florida have hired “food stamp recruiters,” who have a quota of signing up 150 new recipients each month. Rhode Island hosts “SNAP-themed bingo games,” and the USDA tells its field offices to throw parties to get more people on their rolls.

Which to me is all on Obama, as it is part of his push to get more and more people on the welfare roles, to keep the dems in power..


They have rules, whether they enforce them is the question.

And that is the crux (IMO) of a lot of the problems we have in society today. There are more laws on the books than are needed, simply cause a lot of those laws already are covered by OTHER laws, which are just not enforced..

sandsjames
10-22-2013, 01:25 AM
As Rusty said, middle class will never move into the projects. Instead of moving the projects into the middle class areas, how about people already in the projects becoming middle class? That's the only way it will happen. But expecting the poor to put in the effort to improve their situation isn't something we can rely on, so forced integration (of classes) is the only other option. I can see my property value plummeting already.

Oh, and Powell endorsing Obama was a piss off because he was a Republican. The endorsement was a race endorsement. He never would have endorsed Obama if Obama was white.

USN - Retired
10-22-2013, 02:08 AM
. They won't just take anyone who qualifies for Section 8 or public housing.

Will they take Angel Adams?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0


. The problem I have with this mentality... many conservative want to rip the government "tit" out of people's mouth, and expect them to immediately start drinking out of glasses. What about the sippy cup?

People don't simply "rise to the occasion," as much as we may want them to..

If the poor people are not going to "rise to the occasion" and improve their lives so they can support themselves financially, then why should I "rise to the occasion" and help them?

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-22-2013, 03:08 AM
Okay:

And not a single mention of race. Thanks.

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-22-2013, 03:11 AM
I don't think anyone here takes issue with what Bill Cosby said. The problem is that Rainmaker expressed disgust at having to live around people of other races, and I said something about it. Then, out of the nowhere, WJ5 brings up Bill Cosby in order to defend what Rainmaker said.

Nope, he said poverty people. You brought up race to detract from that statement, and I pointed out how you turned it into race. Then I said if ANYONE, including Bill Cosby, tried to talk about negatives of the black community, it falls on def ears and focus is reverted to the person talking and not the subject matter.

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-22-2013, 03:13 AM
"Forced integration" "diversity"... How much clearer does it has to be?

And that doesnt work in the EU, so why would it work here?

Rainmaker
10-22-2013, 03:16 AM
As Rusty said, middle class will never move into the projects. Instead of moving the projects into the middle class areas, how about people already in the projects becoming middle class? That's the only way it will happen. But expecting the poor to put in the effort to improve their situation isn't something we can rely on, so forced integration (of classes) is the only other option. I can see my property value plummeting already.

Oh, and Powell endorsing Obama was a piss off because he was a Republican. The endorsement was a race endorsement. He never would have endorsed Obama if Obama was white.

Since nobody will answer Rainmaker's first question, he'll aksks another one...Rainmaker'll even answer it for y'all. since, he know y'all can't

Q. How bout the government just get out the way and let people live where the hell they want to live?
A. masses of people must be relocated to achieve the social engineering goals of the government. see: forced school busing and creation of Section 8 housing in functional communities where it is not wanted.

In the name of "fairness" every majority white suburban community in the nation is being evaluated for "diversity" using 2010 census statistics. if a community does not fit the diversity "standards" set by .gov then the full wrath of the government (cutting off funding/justice dept lawsuits/IRS harassment, etc.) will be incurred. see: Communist Manifesto

Rainmaker
10-22-2013, 03:18 AM
And that doesnt work in the EU, so why would it work here?

It won't. See: killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Rainmaker
10-22-2013, 03:23 AM
Ghetto is not just a place it's a mentality. you can tear down the place but, the underlying problem (the mentality) still remains (and place will soon follow). They been drinkin out the "sippy cup" for 50 years Rusty. Maybe it's time to take off the chains in the concrete plantation and let the black man succeed or fail based on his own merit. Rainmaker thinks maybe he can. But, obviously you don't. NomSayin?

Bunch
10-22-2013, 05:20 AM
First I would like to say I very much appreciate the comprehensive, well-considered answer you have composed here. It is truly refreshing to see these levels of individual personal thought put in for a site so often marred by other factors.

I would like to speak to the education piece first. Some might argue what the average people living in poverty lack is a quantity of such education. There is some trouble in the assertion however, as many if not most are offered the full K-12 opportunity to at least get into the door of the workplace, albeit not necessarily top management. Many yet choose of their own volition to rescind the offer somewhere along the line to pursue their own independent path. I think it would be unreasonable of us a compassionate society to ever expect to solve this problem for such individuals. One might go further and state that secondary and even graduate levels are a must for individuals to be successful in the job market. There is a solid argument for this, but applying the same mentality as the freely-offered K-12, is it even reasonable to ask a civilized society to provide a "one size fits all solution" to ensure that the average citizen has the opportunity through a combination of grants, subsidies, and other types of funding, with little mechanism of holding these individuals accountable for wasting the opportunity we provide? I tend to consider that many young men and women choose to party away their educational opportunities even when their parents are the ones funding the education, and if ones own parents aren't holding these young individuals accountable, how would we as a detached society expect to accomplish what the parents fail to do? Our current solution some offer is to recoup the expense, which is somewhat reasonable for the sake of our own pocketbooks, but in sense creates an "education economic bubble" that makes even the "housing bubble" of the 2000's seem potentially mild by comparison.

The problem to access to quality education even by current standards is deeperl than lack of student motivation to go to school. No all schools are funded equal and thays a fact, the second problem is what type of community does a given student live. Here in Chicago you have kids graduating from public schools north to the city that go to Ivy League schools and students on the South Side of the city that can't even go to school because they might get shot, assaulted or worse. It is hard to recruit teachers to go to those schools so overcrowding will always be an issue.


A better argument in my mind is the quality of the education provided. I personally feel that the mechanism for that is to offer more specialized education catered specifically for the desired vocation. We see this already today, where people in the Job market with a one year certification in a specialty stand competitive with graduate level educational resumes for certain types of positions being offered. I don't believe we have to confine these freedoms to pursue specialized types of education has to be limited to secondary levels of education. I think, if we opened up the playing field at the K-12 levels of education to some competition and freedom to define the curricula for the student, we might see a more meaningful high school diploma in years to come. If anyone was wondering, yes this is a direct attack on the giant turd GW Bush left on our laps known as "No Child Left Behind". Would such a solution deter some of those who choose to detach themselves from the educational pipeline pre-diploma? Probably some, not all. It would however offer those who have one a better chance of retaining the KSA's necessary for entry-level positions in the job market. The problem is you can't legislate that kind of flexibility and freedom. If you try you get documents that make the ACA and the Patriot Act look like light reading. This places the burden on the educator to spend a considerable amount of time, energy, and resources just to become compliant with the legislation, and considerably less of each being able to innovate for a catered opportunity that can reach the maximum number of students and provide them better opportunities to compete or even excel.


And this is the debate that we should be having about education. What's the next frontier? What are the next industries that will take off? That's where our education system should be targeting. Kids these days learn most of their stuff either online or with friends rather than at school.

sandsjames
10-22-2013, 01:08 PM
Since nobody will answer Rainmaker's first question, he'll aksks another one...Rainmaker'll even answer it for y'all. since, he know y'all can't

Q. How bout the government just get out the way and let people live where the hell they want to live?
A. masses of people must be relocated to achieve the social engineering goals of the government. see: forced school busing and creation of Section 8 housing in functional communities where it is not wanted.

In the name of "fairness" every majority white suburban community in the nation is being evaluated for "diversity" using 2010 census statistics. if a community does not fit the diversity "standards" set by .gov then the full wrath of the government (cutting off funding/justice dept lawsuits/IRS harassment, etc.) will be incurred. see: Communist Manifesto

Ummm, that's pretty much what I was saying.

20+Years
10-22-2013, 01:50 PM
The problem to access to quality education even by current standards is deeperl than lack of student motivation to go to school. No all schools are funded equal and thays a fact, the second problem is what type of community does a given student live. Here in Chicago you have kids graduating from public schools north to the city that go to Ivy League schools and students on the South Side of the city that can't even go to school because they might get shot, assaulted or worse. It is hard to recruit teachers to go to those schools so overcrowding will always be an issue.

And this is the debate that we should be having about education. What's the next frontier? What are the next industries that will take off? That's where our education system should be targeting. Kids these days learn most of their stuff either online or with friends rather than at school.

I think you are wanting highschools to take over the job of college. Highschool gives you the basics for survival. Math, reading, home ec, woodshop, engine repair, ect. It is not meant to train you for a career, that is college or tech schools. If you want highschool trying to teach the next frontier, you will get a bunch of teenagers that know enough about a topic to make them think they know it all, but not enough to land a real job when competeing with someone with advanced training/education.

If the idea is to turn highschool into technical schools so kids can get a job upon graduation, how do you decide who gets to train in what? Why would anyone choose a menial labor job when they could check Surgeon when enrolling? Would it be a surprise the highest paying job got ALL the students? Maybe it could be like the AF where they assign you a career field? Also, if there are only a few choices; mechanic, ect... those markets would quickly become flooded with workers, still attributing to unemployment.

I think the education system we have now works, communities need to ensure thier children are getting and using the opportunities available.

Rusty Jones
10-22-2013, 01:57 PM
Deleted

20+Years
10-22-2013, 02:58 PM
Taco tuesday. Date night?

Pullinteeth
10-22-2013, 03:14 PM
I think you are wanting highschools to take over the job of college. Highschool gives you the basics for survival. Math, reading, home ec, woodshop, engine repair, ect. It is not meant to train you for a career, that is college or tech schools. If you want highschool trying to teach the next frontier, you will get a bunch of teenagers that know enough about a topic to make them think they know it all, but not enough to land a real job when competeing with someone with advanced training/education.

If the idea is to turn highschool into technical schools so kids can get a job upon graduation, how do you decide who gets to train in what? Why would anyone choose a menial labor job when they could check Surgeon when enrolling? Would it be a surprise the highest paying job got ALL the students? Maybe it could be like the AF where they assign you a career field? Also, if there are only a few choices; mechanic, ect... those markets would quickly become flooded with workers, still attributing to unemployment.

I think the education system we have now works, communities need to ensure thier children are getting and using the opportunities available.

Actually.....some states do exactly that. I had never heard of it but they have "Technical" high schools. Yes the kids still learn the basics but they are actually prepping for a career as well. I know the mantra is that everyone needs to go to college or they will be poor...that just isn't true.
I know that when I was in high school, you could tell which kids were just marking time until they could dropout or graduate and go do a job. If they did well enough in high school the state would pay for them to go to a technical college (for those so inclined, they would also pay for college).
So, while it may seem odd, IMO, these technical high schools aren't really a BAD idea and it isn't like anyone is forcing anyone to choose them, they are pretty much only where the population can support multiple schools so those that are so inclined have a choice... The alternative is that they dropout or just waste time at a conventional school taking classes they have absolutely no interest in...

Rainmaker
10-22-2013, 03:29 PM
Ummm, that's pretty much what I was saying.

Wassalaamu alaykum

TJMAC77SP
10-22-2013, 03:45 PM
//sarcasm on//

I think they should just pipe country music into the housing projects because that will make everyone wholesome at an exponentially faster rate.

Just like many other posters have pointed out; country music, with it's good natured themes of dirt roads, trucks, and the occasional cold beer, point to the true secret of a happy and fulfilling life.

It is the polar opposite of that vile and nasty hippity-hoppity music that the detractors of Bill Cosby listen to.

//sarcasm off//

A fairly transparent attempt to revive a failed argument...........with no change

Bunch
10-22-2013, 04:13 PM
I think you are wanting highschools to take over the job of college. Highschool gives you the basics for survival. Math, reading, home ec, woodshop, engine repair, ect. It is not meant to train you for a career, that is college or tech schools. If you want highschool trying to teach the next frontier, you will get a bunch of teenagers that know enough about a topic to make them think they know it all, but not enough to land a real job when competeing with someone with advanced training/education.

If the idea is to turn highschool into technical schools so kids can get a job upon graduation, how do you decide who gets to train in what? Why would anyone choose a menial labor job when they could check Surgeon when enrolling? Would it be a surprise the highest paying job got ALL the students? Maybe it could be like the AF where they assign you a career field? Also, if there are only a few choices; mechanic, ect... those markets would quickly become flooded with workers, still attributing to unemployment.

I think the education system we have now works, communities need to ensure thier children are getting and using the opportunities available.

I'm not asking for a radical change in the educatiom system. Like the other poster mentioned we already have technical/vocational high schools in some states. I will like to see those expand and make current the local school boards determine which area they would like to offer their students. For example a vocational school in Iowa could be teaching farming and related topics, a school like Chicago more towards technology (computer science, web programming). If kids after they graduate want to go to college they certainly have the right but at least those who are not interested or can't afford college have something to fall back on.

Rainmaker
10-22-2013, 06:07 PM
-Prepared Remarks of HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan (Before the NAACP's 104th Annual Convention 7/16/13)
source- HUD.gov,

"Perhaps most important — for the first time ever — HUD is providing data for every neighborhood in the nation, detailing what access African American families, and other members of protected class, have to the community assets I talked about earlier — including jobs, schools and transit.

Translation: If you live in a predominantly White Middle class suburb you are A racist and discriminating against inner city blacks. SO GIBMEDAT!!!

"With this data and the improved AFFH process, we can expand access to high opportunity neighborhoods and draw attention to investment possibilities in underserved communities".

Translation: If the neighborhood you are living in is not diverse enough, we are going to use your tax dollars and move the Free Shit Army into your neighborhood.

20+Years
10-22-2013, 06:23 PM
-Prepared Remarks of HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan (Before the NAACP's 104th Annual Convention 7/16/13)
source- HUD.gov,

"Perhaps most important — for the first time ever — HUD is providing data for every neighborhood in the nation, detailing what access African American families, and other members of protected class, have to the community assets I talked about earlier — including jobs, schools and transit.

With this data and the improved AFFH process, we can expand access to high opportunity neighborhoods and draw attention to investment possibilities in underserved communities"

Translation: If you live in a predominantly White and /or prosperous suburb you are A racist and discriminating against inner city blacks. SO GIBMEDAT!!!




DAMMIT! Guess I'm going to be a racist. My house when I retire is going to cost about $250K and I'll be living in the perfectly manicured yard area of town. You know, where you call 911 and the police show up in minutes. Sprinklers automatically turn on at 7 AM, the weather is perfect every day, and the hot neighbor sunbathes topless by her pool.

Vs. now where I repeatedly call the cops who won't come out to do a report and that overweight crazy lady walks down the street talking to herself and eating a burritto.

Rainmaker
10-22-2013, 06:34 PM
DAMMIT! Guess I'm going to be a racist. My house when I retire is going to cost about $250K and I'll be living in the perfectly manicured yard area of town. You know, where you call 911 and the police show up in minutes. Sprinklers automatically turn on at 7 AM, the weather is perfect every day, and the hot neighbor sunbathes topless by her pool.

Vs. now where I repeatedly call the cops who won't come out to do a report and that overweight crazy lady walks down the street talking to herself and eating a burritto.

Good plan. Just make sure that the neighborhood you pick is liberal and usually votes democratic (because they don't need any diversifying). They won't be moving Lakisha and her 5 Chitlins to those ones

TSgt"M"
10-22-2013, 06:38 PM
-
source- HUD.gov,

"Perhaps most important — for the first time ever — HUD is providing data for every neighborhood in the nation, detailing what access African American families, and other members of protected class, have to the community assets I talked about earlier — including jobs, schools and transit.


Members of a "protected class" What the hell is this shit!

Rainmaker
10-22-2013, 06:51 PM
Members of a "protected class" What the hell is this shit!

Good morning Mr. Van Winkle...

Rusty Jones
10-22-2013, 07:15 PM
-Prepared Remarks of HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan (Before the NAACP's 104th Annual Convention 7/16/13)
source- HUD.gov,

"Perhaps most important — for the first time ever — HUD is providing data for every neighborhood in the nation, detailing what access African American families, and other members of protected class, have to the community assets I talked about earlier — including jobs, schools and transit.


"With this data and the improved AFFH process, we can expand access to high opportunity neighborhoods and draw attention to investment possibilities in underserved communities".

Translation: We want to make sure that the instructure is conducive to all members of a protected class being able to function within, and contribute to, society. We can look at things such as incentives - tax-based or otherwise - for employers to open up shop in or near neighborhoods, so that the people living there will have better access to employement. We can look at improving education in these communities. We can also see if improvements can be made to the public transit system, so that people in every neighborhood have more direct routes to districts of the city where there are high concentration of workplaces - such as downtown and industrial park areas.

There, fixed it for you.

Rusty Jones
10-22-2013, 07:17 PM
Good plan. Just make sure that the neighborhood you pick is liberal and usually votes democratic (because they don't need any diversifying). They won't be moving Lakisha and her 5 Chitlins to those ones

Yep, all this stereotyping... but you're not racist, right?

Rusty Jones
10-22-2013, 08:21 PM
Rusty, thought for sure you'd comment about that fire video I posted...post #206

I would, but my smart phone broke... I tether it at home for internet access. So... unfortunately, I can't see youtube from where I am right now.

I may be without internet access at home for awhile, because I'm not in a hurry to replace my phone and when I do... I'm considering downgrading to a dumb phone. The wife and I found a few opportunities to go out, and when I did... I was kind of appalled at seeing how many other couples that were out on date night playing with their smart phones instead of interacting with each other. As soon as we sat down, I found that we were doing the same thing.

Yeah... with the exception of flat screen TVs, MP3s, and online billpay... I wish developments in technology would have come to a complete halt in the late 1990's.

garhkal
10-22-2013, 08:43 PM
Will they take Angel Adams?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0



If the poor people are not going to "rise to the occasion" and improve their lives so they can support themselves financially, then why should I "rise to the occasion" and help them?

My sentiments exactly. I am willing to assist those in actual need, but those unwilling to do for themselves are MOOCHERS and imo not in need so deserve no assistance.


I think you are wanting highschools to take over the job of college. Highschool gives you the basics for survival. Math, reading, home ec, woodshop, engine repair, ect. It is not meant to train you for a career, that is college or tech schools. If you want highschool trying to teach the next frontier, you will get a bunch of teenagers that know enough about a topic to make them think they know it all, but not enough to land a real job when competeing with someone with advanced training/education.

If the idea is to turn highschool into technical schools so kids can get a job upon graduation, how do you decide who gets to train in what? Why would anyone choose a menial labor job when they could check Surgeon when enrolling? Would it be a surprise the highest paying job got ALL the students? Maybe it could be like the AF where they assign you a career field? Also, if there are only a few choices; mechanic, ect... those markets would quickly become flooded with workers, still attributing to unemployment.

I think the education system we have now works, communities need to ensure thier children are getting and using the opportunities available.

I can see going to a middle ground, like how england used to have the A and O levels, where in the 6th grade there (what we call 12th here), they had the chance to take on tech school level training, had ;work weeks; at places to learn some trades etc..


Auntie shows more concern for purse and food stamps than the two kids that burned in the fire.


I wonder if/when she or the mother will get done for child neglect/endangerment?


Man seen toppling boulder claims 'debilitating injuries' from car crash in recent lawsuit

CNN http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/22/us/utah-boulder-boy-scouts/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Saw that on the news last night. 1st off i thought part n parcel of being a scout was being fit. So how can HIS fat ass be fit? 2nd, if he has the strength to go out hiking to where that boulder was AND to topple it, he is not suffering from any debilitating injuries.. IMO its a sham lawsuit and that clip of his should be used to prove it.


Craigslist makes turning food stamps into cash a SNAP

Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/22/craigslist-makes-turning-food-stamps-into-cash-snap/

Anyone that does that imo should be HAMMERED for fraud and removed from food stamps and any other welfare program they are on.

Pullinteeth
10-22-2013, 08:51 PM
Here's the verbiage.

Editor’s note: The video below was originally published in 2009, we’ve learned, but is just going viral this week. It’s a must-see.

Two kids are dead after they perished in a Memphis, TN. house fire. But what will surprise you in this story is what one relative is concerned about minutes after firefighters discovered the bodies of the kids.

The children, ages 2 and 3, were left alone in the house by their mother and aunt, and when they received word that the house was on fire they rushed back to the residence, but it was too late.

Neighbors tried to rescue the kids from the fire, but the flames and smoke did not allow the neighbors to enter the house. Immediately following the discovery of the bodies, the aunt of the two children expressed concern for her purse, which was still in the house. According to the children’s relative, her food stamp card was in her purse, and that’s what seemed to be her big concern immediately following the discovery of their bodies.

The aunt also said if they had to do it again, they would because you never know if the kids started the fire or if "someone threw something." I also found it odd that they both went to take "some guy" home...

Rainmaker
10-22-2013, 09:00 PM
Yep, all this stereotyping... but you're not racist, right?

Rainmaker don't personally believe in the theory of evolution (that every man owes his existence here to some little worm). So, he don't believe any race of man to be genetically inferior or superior to any other.

The dirty little secret that the liberal white egalitarians don't tell you is that they believe that the white man has a 200,000 year head start over the black man on the evolutionary tree of life.

To the egalitarian liberal mind these evolutionary differences can't be overcome on a level playing field and so black man needs special laws and favors to protect him from us. These laws and favors are never imposed in their own "enlightened" neighborhoods. Their children have no need to go to these schools because they are already enlightend after all. The fact they they make Billions on these programs is just a side benefit and poverty pimps are just useful idiots to their morally correct agenda. see?

However, Rainmaker do believe the black man has a serious cultural problem. A cultural problem can be overcome. But, first there has to be a recognition within the culture that it has to change. That recognition must come from within. That won't happen by blaming Whitey for it's failures and It won't be solved by any altruistic suicidal social re-engineering of the white race. If that makes Rainmaker a racist in your view and makes you feel better to call him Racist to invalidate his opinions then feel free. NomeSayin?

Pullinteeth
10-22-2013, 09:00 PM
I thought she said take someone home to cut his grass.

My point of video is she talks about food stamps with a laughing boostful pride on tv,
With the bodies of her relatives 1 & 2 years old across the street. I'm saying
Someone should have kicked her butt for that. How many other people
Watching laugh when she talks about food stamps. Sadly, most states
Have guidelines not laws for leaving kids home. I have not looked into if
Charges were pressed, but they should have been.

They lied.....they went shopping. The mother was charged Nov 10 2009 with two counts of aggravated child neglect or endangerment and two counts of reckless homicide.

from Yahoo; http://voices.yahoo.com/memphis-house-fire-kills-2-3-year-old-home-alone-4952722.html

The family claims the aunt is mentally ill. The mom pled guilty and got 14 years probation... she stopped checking in with her PO in 2012.

Memphis news http://wreg.com/2012/12/13/police-search-for-memphis-mother-guilty-of-toddlers-deaths/

Whew...in case you were concerned, they caught her but she wasn't able to make her court date for skipping out on her probation because she was having another baby...

Memphis news again; http://wreg.com/2013/01/18/woman-who-pleaded-guilty-to-aggravated-child-abuse-charges-gives-birth/

Rainmaker
10-22-2013, 09:35 PM
There, fixed it for you.


Obama administration plans on “preventing geospatial discrimination" of blacks by mapping every neighborhood in America based on it’s racial make up and financial strength.

Then, HUD will impose new rules that will go out to suburbs that are not racially diverse enough and demand ”affirmatively further fair housing” in the suburbs for minorities.

Grantees who fail to comply will be denied federal funding (made up of their own tax dollars).

what could go wrong? sounds like a great plan. FORWARD!!!

Rusty Jones
10-22-2013, 10:10 PM
Rainmaker don't personally believe in the theory of evolution (that every man owes his existence here to some little worm). So, he don't believe any race of man to be genetically inferior or superior to any other.

The dirty little secret that the liberal white egalitarians don't tell you is that they believe that the white man has a 200,000 year head start over the black man on the evolutionary tree of life.

Eh, no. That's white supremacist doctrine, and an impossible one at that - 200,000 years is how long anatomically modern humans have existed, and by biological definition, there's no such thing as race... because there is no genetic difference between the "races." Race is merely a social construct.

Even if race was genetically substantiated; 200,000 of modern human existence doesn't really leave much time for any race to be 200,000 years more genetically advanced than other.

Truth be told, it really sounds like that's YOUR beliefs that you're expressing.


To the egalitarian liberal mind these evolutionary differences can't be overcome on a level playing field and so black man needs special laws and favors to protect him from us. These laws and favors are never imposed in their own "enlightened" neighborhoods. Their children have no need to go to these schools because they are already enlightend after all. The fact they they make Billions on these programs is just a side benefit and poverty pimps are just useful idiots to their morally correct agenda. see?

So... you're saying that white liberals are benevolent racists?

Even if they were... it sure beats being a malevolent one.


However, Rainmaker do believe the black man has a serious cultural problem. A cultural problem can be overcome. But, first there has to be a recognition within the culture that it has to change. That recognition must come from within. That won't happen by blaming Whitey for it's failures and It won't be solved by any altruistic suicidal social re-engineering of the white race. If that makes Rainmaker a racist in your view and makes you feel better to call him Racist to invalidate his opinions then feel free. NomeSayin?

Yeah? And would you mind spelling out that cultural problem?


Obama administration plans on “preventing geospatial discrimination" of blacks by mapping every neighborhood in America based on it’s racial make up and financial strength.

Then, HUD will impose new rules that will go out to suburbs that are not racially diverse enough and demand ”affirmatively further fair housing” in the suburbs for minorities.

Grantees who fail to comply will be denied federal funding (made up of their own tax dollars).

what could go wrong? sounds like a great plan. FORWARD!!!

Where's the article that you got this from? You've already established a track record of purposely misinterpreting things in order to paint the picture of the government screwing white people to benefit blacks.

Rainmaker
10-22-2013, 10:30 PM
Eh, no. That's white supremacist doctrine, and an impossible one at that - 200,000 years is how long anatomically modern humans have existed, and by biological definition, there's no such thing as race... because there is no genetic difference between the "races." Race is merely a social construct.

Even if race was genetically substantiated; 200,000 of modern human existence doesn't really leave much time for any race to be 200,000 years more genetically advanced than other.

Truth be told, it really sounds like that's YOUR beliefs that you're expressing.



So... you're saying that white liberals are benevolent racists?

Even if they were... it sure beats being a malevolent one.



Yeah? And would you mind spelling out that cultural problem?



Where's the article that you got this from? You've already established a track record of purposely misinterpreting things in order to paint the picture of the government screwing white people to benefit blacks.

sure. ghetto culture is a culture where irresponsibilty, poor impulse control and excuse making are tolerated by those in the culture. maybe it's a black thang so Rainmaker wouldn't understand.

Mjölnir
10-22-2013, 10:48 PM
I am starting to lose track of what this thread is about.

RobotChicken
10-22-2013, 11:29 PM
I am starting to lose track of what this thread is about.

:spy "That's ok 'M'; cause the time you finish up responding to a post the govt. will have ready created another 'unearned Entitlement' for you to comment on so you will be covered coming and going all in one post!! (RC style too)"

imported_WILDJOKER5
10-23-2013, 02:38 AM
Oh, so he didn't say anything about blue collar whites getting fucked over by "forced integration" in that quote?

Are you really a ******* *****, or are you just pretending to be one?

Ah, I was looking for some mention of minorities. Forgot you have a homing beacon for the subtle racism. I read it and though integration of poverty levels, guess I am not in touch with the race thing as you are. Man, if we could all be as sensitive as you, we might not have this problem of seeing races anymore.

Rainmaker
10-23-2013, 02:56 AM
I am starting to lose track of what this thread is about.

Quick Rollup.
Rainmaker trying to convince Rusty Jones that 2 + 2 = 4 or else Rusty is a Communist Hippie and Rusty trying to convince Rainmaker that 2 +2 =5 or else Rainmaker is a White Supremacist.

Mjölnir
10-23-2013, 12:43 PM
RobotChicken, I am not sure what you are saying, but try to stay on topic.

Rusty Jones
10-23-2013, 01:15 PM
First off, I'd like to say that Kool-Aid's bootlicking ass needs to stop hiding behind the "likes," and join the damn discussion.


You do allow though that there are many genes that affect certain races differently, right?

Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

But the genetic differences aren't enough to substantiate biological "races." Put it this way... if Neanderthals and Denisovans were alive today, the three of us would constitute three actual "races" of human. But, they're extinct and there's only us. There's a DNA sequence found in the mtDNA that distinguishes the three from each other; and that's what defines biological "races." Not the variation that's found in modern humans.


sure. ghetto culture is a culture where irresponsibilty, poor impulse control and excuse making are tolerated by those in the culture. maybe it's a black thang so Rainmaker wouldn't understand.

So ghetto culture and black culture is one and the same?


Ah, I was looking for some mention of minorities. Forgot you have a homing beacon for the subtle racism. I read it and though integration of poverty levels, guess I am not in touch with the race thing as you are. Man, if we could all be as sensitive as you, we might not have this problem of seeing races anymore.

Of course you don't want to see race. You don't want to see race, because it benefits you not to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color-blind_racism#Criticism_of_color_blindness)

Quick Rollup.
Rainmaker trying to convince Rusty Jones that 2 + 2 = 4 or else Rusty is a Communist Hippie and Rusty trying to convince Rainmaker that 2 +2 =5 or else Rainmaker is a White Supremacist.

No, you keep expressing your disdain for blacks. That's racism... lock, stock, and barrel.

TSgt"M"
10-23-2013, 01:37 PM
One example would be retired military.

--------------------------

The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964

Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964

Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964

National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964

Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964

Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act

Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act

Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing

Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

So, is there a example of a class of people that fall outside of this definition?

RobotChicken
10-23-2013, 02:02 PM
RobotChicken, I am not sure what you are saying, but try to stay on topic.

:spy "Oh it was 'on topic & infrac resisitence ' in covering your '6' in your post!!" :thumb

kool-aid
10-23-2013, 03:39 PM
First off, I'd like to say that Kool-Aid's bootlicking ass needs to stop hiding behind the "likes," and join the damn discussion.

I just don't have anything to add that these others aren't explaining perfectly. And I don't have any interest in arguing with you because it's not worth my time.

Please explain bootlicking ass to me, what does that mean exactly?

Just because I think lazy, uneducated poor people of any race are entitlement sucking, good for nothing leeches on society like most hard working Americans doesn't make me a sychophant - just sick and tired of where society is headed.

kool-aid
10-23-2013, 03:42 PM
I am starting to lose track of what this thread is about.

It seems that it went from entitlement programs being a crutch to somehow it's all about black people on entitlements, rather than anyone entitlements. Now it's just another thread for Rusty to get hateful and for others to just speak their honest opinions.

20+Years
10-23-2013, 03:43 PM
Just because I think lazy, uneducated poor people of any race are entitlement sucking, good for nothing leeches on society like most hard working Americans doesn't make me a sychophant - just sick and tired of where society is headed.


Well, that summed up all my posts...

Bunch
10-23-2013, 04:47 PM
It seems that it went from entitlement programs being a crutch to somehow it's all about black people on entitlements, rather than anyone entitlements. Now it's just another thread for Rusty to get hateful and for others to just speak their honest opinions.

You are so disingenous that it is pathethic. Your username fits you quite well.

Bunch
10-23-2013, 04:51 PM
I am starting to lose track of what this thread is about.


At first it was about personal responsibility.

Then all the racist troops came in and made it about black people. Thread went to crap like they always do when they see a chance to disparage black people.

Rusty Jones
10-23-2013, 05:13 PM
I just don't have anything to add that these others aren't explaining perfectly.

No, you're simply "liking" any post that's in response to mine - like the one about genetics from Tak. What stake did you have in that discussion? You "like" genetic differences between geographical populations?

No... you "liking" Tak's post had more to do with me than what he said. And that's why I told you to bring your ass into the discussion.


And I don't have any interest in arguing with you because I don't have the gumption.

There, fixed it for you.


Please explain bootlicking ass to me, what does that mean exactly?

I told you that you're a bootlicker. You claim to be black; and judging by these posts... either you're nothing more than a bootlicking lawn jockey, or... you're really not black, and are just claiming to be in order to add false credibility to your posts.

Either way, that's not someone to be respected.


Just because I think lazy, uneducated poor people of any race are entitlement sucking, good for nothing leeches on society like most hard working Americans doesn't make me a sychophant - just sick and tired of where society is headed.

Yet, if you are black as you claim, you have no problem with anything Rainmaker says - how much he hates your people (oh, but you're cool though. Because you're "different" from the rest of those n***rs, right?).


It seems that it went from entitlement programs being a crutch to somehow it's all about black people on entitlements, rather than anyone entitlements. Now it's just another thread for Rusty to get hateful and for others to just speak their honest opinions.

Grow a pair and quit whining.

Bunch
10-23-2013, 05:31 PM
Now that my computer seems to be quasi-functional once again, I would be remiss to address only the education piece and not the poverty piece as well.

I think good points were made regarding the effects of globalization and technological advancement towards the US Economy. I think those low wage laborers do suffer the most when their competition becomes foreign outsourced labor that does not have the union/minimum wage representation keeping their costs of the individuals high or simply a robot. We all know and have heard about the effects of the "Cotton Gin" after so many years of slave labor followed by low wage labor for black Americans, but the education we currently provide at least glosses over the fact that the cotton gin has destroyed the low wage labor market in the cotton fields. I have a neutral position on this, I tend to think technology, unless we are faced with truly oppressive fascism in our government, is inevitable. I think it is the burden of free Americans to innovate new and better ways to utilize the services offered rather than expect the old types of labor long surpassed by globalization and automation can provide to fill the void of low wage labor.

You hit very key points on this discussion.

I pretty much agree that once technology took flight globalization was all but unstoppable and although we shouldn’t wait for the old jobs for come back and should be looking to grow our economy in line with industry trends it has to be pointed out that we are not competing on a level playing fields when it comes to jobs. We should not have gotten into FTA’s with countries that allow their workers to be paid slave wages and we should penalize countries like China that manipulate their currency so they can get an economic advantage.


So how do we as a society enhance innovation? Do we lock a bunch of Mensa students in a room for hours without coffee or bathroom breaks until they come up with something brilliant? The good news is that the capability towards being "innovative" exists in all of us, even the least educated among us. So what in our current market prevents us from utilizing this innovation to enhance our collective success?

The short answer is the amount of risk and personal investment required to fund a start up. This by itself presents a considerable barrier towards entry into a market niche. Even when overcoming that hurdle, an entrepreneur has to face the considerable level of competition in similar market niches.
And here is where the great divide between the red and blues reside. The role of government as an innovator, job creator and its ability to make the economy grow. Now before every single conservative scoffs at me please read this, IM NOT ADVOCATING FOR THE US TO BE THE SOLE PROVIDER OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, what
I’m saying is that government has shown that it can be great catalyst when it comes to growing the economy.

Very rarely you see companies like Apple succeed, for every Apple that succeeds hundreds will fail. Why? Because what a company like Apple manage to do is to create a demand and a market for something that is not needed. And even when it succeeds its good fortunes doesn’t even register in the US economy. In the US the company employs about 47,000 employees, compare that to GE133,000, Boeing 170,000, GM 287,000 and the king IBM 430,000+. Other hot companies like Facebook and Google employ even less people.

Government has shown that it can spur innovation. For the past 80 years you can see the fingerprints of Uncle Sam all over modern days products. Programs that started in NASA, DoD, DARPA, NIH, Dept of Energy have made an indelible mark in our economy. Through government R&D from the 50’s & 70’s we got the products that went directly to US manufacturers and created a job boom of well paying jobs that lasted until the 90’s. The Apollo Program by itself is credited with raising the quality the life standards for 3 decades after it ended for people in the US and the world due to the various patents and commercial applications that came out from the program. But again I’m not advocating for the government to start getting in the business of rolling out Iphones or any other product just to get back in the R&D arena like in the past. R&D money has been going down for decades (as a percentage of GDP) when many other countries a spending more than they have ever in their history and that’s placing the US at a great disadvantage.

What government capital for basic scientific research allows that private capital doesn’t is that allows people the chance to fail and try again. Private capital is not concern about how a particular research or product will benefit humanity is all about profit, I said that with no intent of bashing private capital it is just a statement of fact. 9 out of 10 start ups fail within their first year, so basically that means that as an entrepreneur you better be right the first time if not then your done.

Then there is the topic of where are our smartest and brightest? Why we don’t seem to be as smart as we were in the glory days of NASA and Los Alamos? Where the smartest brain of America went?

Back in the day it used to be that for many of the brightest and smartest their goal was to work for NASA, DoD, DARPA, Dept of Energy. Those days are long gone, now these kids are scooped up by the financial companies and they get put in a dungeon and have they come up with financial weapons of mass destructions. Instead of coming up with the next platforms of innovation they are creating the next platforms of financial destruction. So if you want to know where our smartest and brightest are look no further than Wall St.


One problem we face today in America is the considerable level of cronyism and corporatism that has instituted rather rigid, government subsidized monopolies and oligopolies. I always like to ask people why they think there is so much money going into politics these days? Do we believe these private investors create these multi-million dollar Super-PACs out of pure altruism in the pursuit of their collective individual ideology? I would consider it a no-brainer that there is much more to the story. We live in a world where lobbyists can employ smoke and mirror tactics to prevent new competition from entering the market. This allows them to have a modicum of control of pricing for their in demand goods and services without having to be especially innovative in ensuring that the quality of those goods and services is competitive with the advances in technology and efficiency that maybe offered if those new entrants did have the opportunity to gain market share. For instance, a power company may create a sort of "drug deal" with an aligned manufacturer of emission filters that specifically allows 0.149 microns through, knowing full well that the standard filter on the market provides 0.151 microns of filtration and is in common use throughout the power generation industry. The power company fits these filters on every single exhaust and prepares to go to economic war. In comes lobbied politician, who inserts a little harmless regulation from the EPA that enforces 0.150 micron filters or less on the power generation industry. The competition in the market is devastated! They all have to pay for expensive retrofits to the entire network of their power generating facilities or be faced with substantial fines. Meanwhile, the power company who weaseled this through gains substantial market share while the competition struggles to become compliant. Now that politician leaves office and becomes COO of that power company. Everyone involved with the legislation wins, and everyone else loses.
This type of legislation is everywhere, and thus oligopoly empires pervade the markets, controlling roughly 90% of the economy in revenues, while providing only about 10% of the total employment. More to follow when the caffeine kicks in later on today...

I don’t disagree with this at all.

It was bad before the Citizens United case and now is ten times worst. For decades both parties have let corporations dictate policy and regulations and many of those policies are the ones that have us in the hole that we find ourselves today.

Rainmaker
10-23-2013, 06:03 PM
"The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual’s loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system."

Sic semper tyrannis

Rainmaker
10-23-2013, 06:16 PM
The phrase is often said to have originated with Marcus Junius Brutus during the assassination of Julius Caesar,
but according to Plutarch, Brutus either did not have a chance to say anything, or if he did, no one heard what was said:
"Caesar thus done to death, the senators, although Brutus came forward as if to say something about what had been done,
would not wait to hear him, but burst out of doors and fled, thus filling the people with confusion and helpless fear..."

And we're living here in Allentown and it's hard to keep a good man down. machine noises...

Rusty Jones
10-23-2013, 06:19 PM
And we're living here in Allentown and it's hard to keep a good man down. machine noises...

If you mean you're from Allentown, NY; that explains a lot...

Rainmaker
10-23-2013, 06:27 PM
If you mean you're from Allentown, NY; that explains a lot...

It's a workin' man thang. You wouldn't understand.

Rainmaker
10-23-2013, 06:34 PM
Becareful with premature responding to a Tak post.

You need to give my post, time to expand in relation to the universe.

que up Rusty Jones post to lecture us how Black hole parallel universe myth is racist propaganda..

Bunch
10-23-2013, 06:41 PM
But anyways, back to the present...I am trying to figure out if the previous paragraph was talking about people being
more loyal to say the government and system of paying them benefits, all the while their community situation and family
never improves and community as a whole goes down the drain, despite the benefits. Whereas, if said community realized the
benefits and government where in fact holding them down, by mentally instilling dependency and keeping hope down.
If that community realized the power was within them, not in the money, maybe they could take back their community
and instill hope. Because that money is not going to change values, not going to keep their neighborhood clean, not
going to keep their kids off drugs and out of gangs, not going to ensure a high graduation rate. All of these things
are done by people, people instilling values in the youth, people instilling dreams in the youth.

For many people that live in impoverished communities and desire to improve in life the only way out of the poverty cycle is to move out. Responsible parents make sure that they can provide a place for their kids grow safe or at least guide them on how to improve their life. There is really no attachment to the community they are part of other than "I was raised there and made it out". That was my case along with that of many of my childhood friends. That's why in these communities is hard to break the cycle of poverty, those who "made it" do so by leaving those who stay do so because they probably have no alternative.

What can you do for those who don't want to help themselves?
There is no denying that there is a sector of out population that is content in living in government assistance for a variety of reasons. That's were some serious reforms need to be instituted to make sure people don't game the system. And that those that are able to look for work then do so.

Rainmaker
10-23-2013, 06:54 PM
For many people that live in impoverished communities and desire to improve in life the only way out of the poverty cycle is to move out. Responsible parents make sure that they can provide a place for their kids grow safe or at least guide them on how to improve their life. There is really no attachment to the community they are part of other than "I was raised there and made it out". That was my case along with that of many of my childhood friends. That's why in these communities is hard to break the cycle of poverty, those who "made it" do so by leaving those who stay do so because they probably have no alternative.


What can you do for those who don't want to help themselves?


There is no denying that there is a sector of out population that is content in living in government assistance for a variety of reasons. That's were some serious reforms need to be instituted to make sure people don't game the system. And that those that are able to look for work then do so.

Congratulations Bunch. You made it out. Be sure you pay it forward.

Am I my Brother's Keeper?

What if my Brother that i want to help keeps blowing all the money I give him on drugs and hoes? should we keep giving till until our own family is bankrupt and destitute?

kool-aid
10-23-2013, 06:55 PM
No, you're simply "liking" any post that's in response to mine - like the one about genetics from Tak. What stake did you have in that discussion? You "like" genetic differences between geographical populations?

No... you "liking" Tak's post had more to do with me than what he said. And that's why I told you to bring your ass into the discussion.

Sorry, I didn't know the moderators made you the boss of what people should and can like.


I told you that you're a bootlicker. You claim to be black; and judging by these posts... either you're nothing more than a bootlicking lawn jockey, or... you're really not black, and are just claiming to be in order to add false credibility to your posts.

Man, talk about racist, calling someone a lawn jockey? Color of skin has nothing to do with having an intelligent conversation and the day you get over yours you will prob get more respect around here rather than being considered a fun distraction that explodes all of the time.



Either way, that's not someone to be respected...

And I should care about forum trolls respecting me? This is just entertainment, don't take it so seriously. Makes you sound like a guy living in a basement at his mom's house. But then again you were all up in the rep war too if I remember correctly. This forum is for fun, learning and sharing, not worrying about who likes you.


Yet, if you are black as you claim, you have no problem with anything Rainmaker says - how much he hates your people (oh, but you're cool though. Because you're "different" from the rest of those n***rs, right?).

I'm red, white and blue. Racism and reverse racism are what's keeping minorities down. Get over it and be proud you live in a country with so many opportunites to excel and succeed.


Grow a pair and quit whining.

Look in the mirror, I was just agreeing with people, not one whine out me.

But enough time wasting with you, I honestly could care less about you, so don't take things so personal. Back to having a life...

Juggs
10-23-2013, 06:56 PM
que up Rusty Jones post to lecture us how Black hole parallel universe myth is racist propaganda..

Das racists.

Rainmaker
10-23-2013, 07:11 PM
Das racists.

Your screen name objectifies Wimmins and is offensive. Moderators get this sexist off the forums now!!!

71Fish
10-23-2013, 07:12 PM
The sooner you realize RustyNutz is a Tool, the better.


Sorry, I didn't know the moderators made you the boss of what people should and can like.



Man, talk about racist, calling someone a lawn jockey? Color of skin has nothing to do with having an intelligent conversation and the day you get over yours you will prob get more respect around here rather than being considered a fun distraction that explodes all of the time.




And I should care about forum trolls respecting me? This is just entertainment, don't take it so seriously. Makes you sound like a guy living in a basement at his mom's house. But then again you were all up in the rep war too if I remember correctly. This forum is for fun, learning and sharing, not worrying about who likes you.



I'm red, white and blue. Racism and reverse racism are what's keeping minorities down. Get over it and be proud you live in a country with so many opportunites to excel and succeed.



Look in the mirror, I was just agreeing with people, not one whine out me.

But enough time wasting with you, I honestly could care less about you, so don't take things so personal. Back to having a life...

garhkal
10-23-2013, 07:22 PM
They lied.....they went shopping. The mother was charged Nov 10 2009 with two counts of aggravated child neglect or endangerment and two counts of reckless homicide.

from Yahoo; http://voices.yahoo.com/memphis-house-fire-kills-2-3-year-old-home-alone-4952722.html

The family claims the aunt is mentally ill. The mom pled guilty and got 14 years probation... she stopped checking in with her PO in 2012.

Memphis news http://wreg.com/2012/12/13/police-search-for-memphis-mother-guilty-of-toddlers-deaths/

Whew...in case you were concerned, they caught her but she wasn't able to make her court date for skipping out on her probation because she was having another baby...

Memphis news again; http://wreg.com/2013/01/18/woman-who-pleaded-guilty-to-aggravated-child-abuse-charges-gives-birth/

So the butt head judge gives her probation which she goes to violate and now MAY keep her new kid (after killing the other 2 through neglect) if he does NOT send her to jail for her probation violation. What a sorry state of affairs.


Is Earned income credit an entitlement?

It is difficult to measure the cost of the EITC to the U.S. federal government. At the most basic level, federal revenues are decreased by the lower, and often negative, tax burden on the working poor for which the EITC is responsible. In this basic sense, the cost of the EITC to the Federal Government was more than $36 billion in 2004.

It is also estimated that between 22% and 30% of taxpayers claiming the EITC on their tax returns do not actually qualify for it. This led to an additional cost to the government (in 2010) of between $8 and $10 billion.

To me EITC should not be an entitlement, it should be something EARNED via qualifications (MEANS tested).. but few if any places it seems actually DO check for qualification for it it seems.


So ghetto culture and black culture is one and the same?

Maybe they should be.. I don't know of that many NON black ghetto's..

Juggs
10-23-2013, 07:23 PM
Your screen name objectifies Wimmins and is offensive. Moderators get this sexist off the forums now!!!

I'm offended by you being offended. Moderators need to limit the offensiveness of you being offended.

Juggs
10-23-2013, 07:26 PM
So the butt head judge gives her probation which she goes to violate and now MAY keep her new kid (after killing the other 2 through neglect) if he does NOT send her to jail for her probation violation. What a sorry state of affairs.



To me EITC should not be an entitlement, it should be something EARNED via qualifications (MEANS tested).. but few if any places it seems actually DO check for qualification for it it seems.



Maybe they should be.. I don't know of that many NON black ghetto's..

The Jews were forced into ghettos in WWII. Some Hispanics live in ghettos. The Irish lived in slums aka ghettos for white people.

Bunch
10-23-2013, 07:27 PM
I don't know of that many NON black ghetto's..

^^^^^^^^^^^And then this...

Rainmaker
10-23-2013, 07:27 PM
I'm offended by you being offended. Moderators need to limit the offensiveness of you being offended.

Rainmaker senses an opportunity to derail this thread toward one of his favorite subjects....Funbags!

Mjölnir
10-23-2013, 07:34 PM
This thread is coming close to outliving its usefulness.

Rainmaker
10-23-2013, 07:38 PM
This thread is coming close to outliving its usefulness.

No problem here Officer. Nothing to see.

Juggs
10-23-2013, 07:39 PM
No problem here Officer. Nothing to see.

Did you say Yea sure or yes sir?

Bunch
10-23-2013, 07:41 PM
This thread is coming close to outliving its usefulness.

Totally agree.

Rainmaker
10-23-2013, 07:45 PM
Totally agree.

Who is John Galt?

Juggs
10-23-2013, 07:51 PM
Who is John Galt?

That you John Wayne?

Greg
10-23-2013, 08:30 PM
Who is John Galt?

"It’s too bad that the set of solutions to today’s highly complex and intertwined economic challenges aren’t quite as binary as those of the fictional characters we create. So 'Who is John Galt?' That’s a question for each of us to answer as we so choose."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robclarfeld/2012/02/15/who-is-john-galt/

RobotChicken
10-23-2013, 08:38 PM
Doesn't sound right dropping hammer on a Wenesday...Thorsday much better!

:smoker2: "WAIT!!! NO VOTE NOW????"

Pullinteeth
10-23-2013, 08:53 PM
So ghetto culture and black culture is one and the same?


Maybe they should be.. I don't know of that many NON black ghetto's..

You realize the fallacy of this statement don't you? Let's forget for a few that there are people of every race that live in the "hood" and merely reflect on the implication of your statement. Your statement implies that either all black people should live in the ghetto or that black people that live elsewhere shouldn't/don't have a culture.

SomeRandomGuy
10-23-2013, 09:00 PM
You realize the fallacy of this statement don't you? Let's forget for a few that there are people of every race that live in the "hood" and merely reflect on the implication of your statement. Your statement implies that either all black people should live in the ghetto or that black people that live elsewhere shouldn't/don't have a culture.

In the South and Midwest there are plenty of non-black Ghettos. They call them trailer parks instead of the projects. Same thing though. Just low income housing that tends to have lots of crime.

On a lighter note do you know what a Tornado and a Divorce have in common in Missouri? Either way someone is going to lose a trailer. :drum

Rainmaker
10-23-2013, 09:32 PM
That you John Wayne?

Why Can't Muhfuggas just talk about Tig Ole Bitties??!!

Juggs
10-23-2013, 09:34 PM
Why Can't Muhfuggas just talk about Tig Ole Bitties??!!

Mmmhmm fo sho cuz, I loves me some tig ole bitties.

Mjölnir
10-23-2013, 10:21 PM
Military Times http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1597077-Tits&highlight=tits

That thread was closed based on the thread title.

Graphic sexual language and images
Graphic sexual language and images are not acceptable. Find another site for that. Posts will be removed with posting privileges suspended should your word choice and/or photos become too graphic. Social norms are the accepted guideline here, but as with all things in these forums, we have the final say.

It also looks like this thread has also ran its course.

AJBIGJ
10-24-2013, 01:26 AM
This thread is to continue the positive stuff from the "Entitlements Much?" thread, while avoiding the mod intervention stuff. If your "Free Speech" gets this closed as well you deserve to be banned for life!

AJBIGJ
10-24-2013, 01:37 AM
From Bunch Previously:
"And here is where the great divide between the red and blues reside. The role of government as an innovator, job creator and its ability to make the economy grow. Now before every single conservative scoffs at me please read this, IM NOT ADVOCATING FOR THE US TO BE THE SOLE PROVIDER OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, what
I’m saying is that government has shown that it can be great catalyst when it comes to growing the economy."

Honestly, I tend to quantify the values of government "innovation" on its ROI. I think there are only a few occasions where you see significant innovation coming from our government, and ironically mostly they seem to involve some war or military endeavor that is more an after-effect of the the conflict itself rather than a genuine leap in the betterment of humanity.

The psychological reasons are straightforward. We've all worked in government, the incentive to provide more than the bare minimum is essentially a combination of narcosis and masochism, we want to be more effective because it makes us "feel like a better person", essentially "altruism" defined. I hope it's not a surprise to many, but "altruism" is neither reliable nor predictable, and it mostly seems to happen when our very lives are at stake.

Without that stated impetus, what is an effective motive for such innovation? The only reliable one is as you stated, the quite rare occasion where the "Apple" and "Google" and every other innovator in the world comes up with something brilliant. The wonderful thing about such events is that they cost us, the common citizen, nothing at all unless we agree to purchase their products or services because we feel they have a value for ourselves.

Innovation is in fact very rare, which is why it is very valuable, and any attempts to socialize the capability will be extremely limited in its effect.

Bunch
10-24-2013, 02:48 AM
From Bunch Previously:
"And here is where the great divide between the red and blues reside. The role of government as an innovator, job creator and its ability to make the economy grow. Now before every single conservative scoffs at me please read this, IM NOT ADVOCATING FOR THE US TO BE THE SOLE PROVIDER OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, what
I’m saying is that government has shown that it can be great catalyst when it comes to growing the economy."

Honestly, I tend to quantify the values of government "innovation" on its ROI. I think there are only a few occasions where you see significant innovation coming from our government, and ironically mostly they seem to involve some war or military endeavor that is more an after-effect of the the conflict itself rather than a genuine leap in the betterment of humanity.

The psychological reasons are straightforward. We've all worked in government, the incentive to provide more than the bare minimum is essentially a combination of narcosis and masochism, we want to be more effective because it makes us "feel like a better person", essentially "altruism" defined. I hope it's not a surprise to many, but "altruism" is neither reliable nor predictable, and it mostly seems to happen when our very lives are at stake.

Without that stated impetus, what is an effective motive for such innovation? The only reliable one is as you stated, the quite rare occasion where the "Apple" and "Google" and every other innovator in the world comes up with something brilliant. The wonderful thing about such events is that they cost us, the common citizen, nothing at all unless we agree to purchase their products or services because we feel they have a value for ourselves.

Innovation is in fact very rare, which is why it is very valuable, and any attempts to socialize the capability will be extremely limited in its effect.

How can you honestly say that government doesn’t promote innovation when NASA alone since 1976 has fielded to the public more than 1,800 technological innovations in a wide variety of industries? Again the Apollo Program by itself has been credited with raising the quality of life standards for the entire human race than any other event in the history of the human race. That includes Health and Medicine, Manufacturing, Transportation, Public Safety, Energy and Environment, Information Technology, Industrial Productivity, Construction among other. And that’s just NASA!!! The National Institute of Health and Dept of Energy through the Human Genome Project manage to map the entire genes of the human body a task that will benefit humanity as long as we exist as a race, NIH also gave us vaccines for flu, hepatitis and HPV. DoD gave us GPS, the internet, microchips. The National Science Foundation gave us Google, bar code technology, touch screen technology . DARPA gave us Street View technology, the structure that Bill Gates used to develop Windows, Voice Recognition Systems, Urban Photonic Standable Displays (the way of the future). That's a pretty good ROI if you ask me. You can do your own research about this, all of these agencies have websites that direct you to what they have done through past decades that have had a direct impact on citizens of this country and all over the world.

One thing is for someone to hold a particular view of what the government role in its economy should be (like stay as far away as possible) and another is to dismiss the clear impact of these breakthroughs that US Federal Government through its R&D funding have brought. Those breakthroughs are clear and they have had a gigantic effect on the US economy for the past 80 years.

Innovation is not rare, private capital for basic scientific research that leads to innovation is and that's where the government should step in and fill this lack of access to capital that holds innovation back.

Capt Alfredo
10-24-2013, 02:57 AM
This place just doesn't make any sense anymore. This thread was actually getting good traffic, spirited posts, opposing ideas, and of course the mods close it down. If you have a problem with people going off-topic or violating ToS, then castigate THOSE people and clean it up. Sigh. I am really starting to believe there is a movement afoot to close this place down by starving it of oxygen.

AJBIGJ
10-24-2013, 03:06 AM
How can you honestly say that government doesn’t promote innovation when NASA alone since 1976 has fielded to the public more than 1,800 technological innovations in a wide variety of industries? Again the Apollo Program by itself has been credited with raising the quality of life standards for the entire human race than any other event in the human race. That includes Health and Medicine, Manufacturing, Transportation, Public Safety, Energy and Environment, Information Technology, Industrial Productivity, Construction among other. And that’s just NASA!!! The National Institute of Health and Dept of Energy through the Human Genome Project manage to map the entire genes of the human body a task that will benefit humanity as long as we exist as a race, NIH also gave us vaccines for flu, hepatitis and HPV. DoD gave us GPS, the internet, microchips. The National Science Foundation gave us Google, bar code technology, touch screen technology . DARPA gave us Street View technology, the structure that Bill Gates used to develop Windows, Voice Recognition Systems, Urban Photonic Standable Displays (the way of the future). That's a pretty good ROI if you ask me. You can do your own research about this, all of these agencies have websites that direct you to what they have done through past decades that have had a direct impact on citizens of this country and all over the world.

One thing is for someone to hold a particular view of what the government role in its economy should be (like stay as far away as possible) and another is to dismiss the clear impact of these breakthroughs that US Federal Government through its R&D funding have brought. Those breakthroughs are clear and they have had a gigantic effect on the US economy for the past 80 years.

Innovation is not rare, private capital for basic scientific research that leads to innovation is and that's where the government should step in and fill this lack of access to capital that holds innovation back.

Again, all after-effects. NASA itself was a reaction to the Cold War Soviet Union, every move into space was a means to imply the capability of putting nukes in the middle of Moscow.

Dig deep into every one of those, who did they contract? What were the surrounding factors that motivated the deep-depth research that made every single one of those things happen? You're looking at the ends, I would implore you to first explore the means, and without the bias that would think the government is "out for your best interest" but instead as a "pragmatic response to the norms of the society of the day". I think that adds a lot of perspective towards most if not all government innovation.

Bunch
10-24-2013, 03:28 AM
Again, all after-effects. NASA itself was a reaction to the Cold War Soviet Union, every move into space was a means to imply the capability of putting nukes in the middle of Moscow.

Dig deep into every one of those, who did they contract? What were the surrounding factors that motivated the deep-depth research that made every single one of those things happen? You're looking at the ends, I would implore you to first explore the means, and without the bias that would think the government is "out for your best interest" but instead as a "pragmatic response to the norms of the society of the day". I think that adds a lot of perspective towards most if not all government innovation.

You are losing me here.

I'm addressing your claim that government R&D have produced minimal results.

Now you are talking factors and motivation? How is that relevant to what I'm trying to address when my larger point is that the government has done a lot when it comes to innovation.

I'm not oblivious to the fact that many of the innovations that have come through the government came as a result of projects tied to the national security of this country, but even if that was the case, won't you consider that in "our best interest"? Would you rather had the Germans and Japan winning WW2 or Russians winning the Cold War?

AJBIGJ
10-24-2013, 03:33 AM
You are losing me here.

I'm addressing your claim that government R&D have produced minimal results.

Now you are talking factors and motivation. How is that relevant to what I'm trying to address when my larger point is that the government has done a lot when it comes to innovation.

I'm not oblivious to the fact that many of the innovations that have come through the government came as a result of projects tied to the national security of this country, but even if that was the case, won't you consider that in "our best interest"? Would you rather had the Germans and Japan winning WW2 or Russians winning the Cold War?

That's a good question,

But my point was, how do we ensure this innovation occurs?

It would seem that most if not all government innovation is a result from a proverbial "gun to the head", whether it be Nazism, Communism, or Whateverism.

So, other than locking those Mensa students in a room with a full bladder, how do we expect to inspire such government instituted innovations?

Bunch
10-24-2013, 03:54 AM
That's a good question,

But my point was, how do we ensure this innovation occurs?

It would seem that most if not all government innovation is a result from a proverbial "gun to the head", whether it be Nazism, Communism, or Whateverism.

So, other than locking those Mensa students in a room with a full bladder, how do we expect to inspire such government instituted innovations?

Went it comes to government, since it's not able to attract top talent any longer the solution to this is to get them in college or sooner. Move more R&D money to academia and top rated HS programs will be an effective way to capture some of this talent.

But I also believe that the onus shouldn't be on government investment in R&D alone. Remember that this discussion began with entitlements and poverty and I believe can enact right now better laws to raise living standards right now. Serious Tax Reform, passing laws that level the playing field with other countries that don't play fair will be some immediate solutions that can have a more faster impact in terms of creating jobs in the short term. A bit of protectionism won't hurt if other countries are not playing by the same rules.

AJBIGJ
10-24-2013, 03:59 AM
Went it comes to government, since it's not able to attract top talent any longer the solution to this is to get them in college or sooner. Move more R&D money to academia and top rated HS programs will be an effective way to capture some of this talent.

But I also believe that the onus shouldn't be on government investment in R&D alone. Remember that this discussion began with entitlements and poverty and I believe can enact right now better laws to raise living standards right now. Serious Tax Reform, passing laws that level the playing field with other countries that don't play fair will be some immediate solutions that can have a more faster impact in terms of creating jobs in the short term. A bit of protectionism won't hurt if other countries are not playing by the same rules.

Fair enough, and if academia itself were holding up its end of the bargain I would tend to agree with you. However, as we've already discussed, academia itself can only serve to make a bright person brilliant, but it can not seem to even make a dim, unmotivated person any less dim, so other than working with the willing, what purpose does it generally serve?

Bunch
10-24-2013, 04:25 AM
Fair enough, and if academia itself were holding up its end of the bargain I would tend to agree with you. However, as we've already discussed, academia itself can only serve to make a bright person brilliant, but it can not seem to even make a dim, unmotivated person any less dim, so other than working with the willing, what purpose does it generally serve?

There is a lot of people still out there on subsidies that want to work. We need those innovations to give a jump start to the larger economy so we can get those blue collar workers back into the job market. Me personally, I don't give too much thought about the unmotivated I rather spent my time and effort in advocating for those who want a job and want to make something of themselves.

I clearly believe in social programs like subsidized housing, food assistance and unemployment but I believe they should be temporary in nature with VERY few exemptions. But if politicians had the courage to deal with those that want to go through life having government pay their way they would have done so a long time ago.

AJBIGJ
10-24-2013, 04:32 AM
There is a lot of people still out there on subsidies that want to work. We need those innovations to give a jump start to the larger economy so we can get those blue collar workers back into the job market. Me personally, I don't give too much thought about the unmotivated I rather spent my time and effort in advocating for those who want a job and want to make something of themselves.

I clearly believe in social programs like subsidized housing, food assistance and unemployment but I believe they should be temporary in nature with VERY few exemptions. But if politicians had the courage to deal with those that want to go through life having government pay their way they would have done so a long time ago.

The problem with, well Federal politicians at least, is they don't really look at people as "people", they see them as a statistic. If that statistic will work in their favor to get them an additional term, they will move heaven and earth to satisfy that desire. I think if more Federal politicians were to become more forthright about this, and move to give up their personal motives in favor of what's better for the individuals, and move the control to a more local entity that recognizes an individual as a "face" rather than a "number", we'd be far better off.

UncaRastus
10-24-2013, 12:31 PM
The internet started as a way of communications in the Armed Forces, using a system of emailing. It all blossomed from there.

Pullinteeth
10-24-2013, 01:55 PM
This place just doesn't make any sense anymore. This thread was actually getting good traffic, spirited posts, opposing ideas, and of course the mods close it down. If you have a problem with people going off-topic or violating ToS, then castigate THOSE people and clean it up. Sigh. I am really starting to believe there is a movement afoot to close this place down by starving it of oxygen.

Yep...I think I am done....

Mjölnir
10-24-2013, 02:24 PM
The "Entitlements Much" thread has been opened and merged with the thread that replaced it.

When the thread went off topic on the subject of race, it remained open since that was germaine to the conversation. Off topic, unrelative comments or purposeful attempts to derail a thread will be handled.

AJBIGJ
10-24-2013, 02:24 PM
Thank you mods!

20+Years
10-24-2013, 02:40 PM
The "Entitlements Much" thread has been opened and merged with the thread that replaced it.

When the thread went off topic on the subject of race, it remained open since that was germaine to the conversation. Off topic, unrelative comments or purposeful attempts to derail a thread will be handled.

A much better decision Mods, thank you.

There was an article this morning I will have to find, I think it said 49% of households recieved gove benefits this past year. They did include Medicare/Medicaid & Social Security though. Some would argue SS was earned and is not a handout.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid

Yup, there it is.