What an eyeopener! It makes perfect sense---You can take the scum out of the hoods, but you can't take the hood out of the scum. All that liberal program did was to scatter the problems around and make them harder to find and catch.
There was an interesting series in the St. Paul Pioneer Press about affordable housing in the Twin Cities and upper-income residents' ire over an "affordable housing" townhome complex.
Now, as someone who tends to lean considerably more to the left, let me ask you this? Do you honestly think that "that liberal program," which is predicated on the notion that a person shouldn't be paying half of their monthly income in rent like too many "working poor" do, is SOLELY or primarily responsible for "scattering the problems around and make them harder to find and catch?"
Let me tell you something. I hate to deflate your stereotypical, self-righteous claims, but I know a number of people who rely on CDA (Community Development Agency of Dakota County, Minnesota which administers Section 8) who are law-abiding and probably better tenants than many of the people who DON'T rely on CDA (persons who are on CDA pay 1/3 of their income as their monthly rent) versus people who pay the market rate. That's been my experience living in West St. Paul and I have lived in my apartment for five years.
Call it what you will, and call me what you will. Hate to burst your bubble but not everyone who is low-income fits the mold you and many like-minded conservative ilk would like to describe.
I am NOT a believer in the "free market will take care of everything" mindset.
Perhaps what you would call a "redistribution of wealth" or as my brother would go so far to say, "robbery" akin to Robin Hood, those more moderate (and liberal as well) would simply call a matter of "social justice."
(By the way, I got a solicitation recently for a subscription to The Atlantic. I tossed it.)
AA: You're right to some degree, but you simplify the issue way too much.
Jonathan: I hate to burst your bubble, wait, no I don't.
This situation is precisely the result of liberal programs and politics in general. First, racist politics, followed by an attempt to solve that problem puts a whole lot of poor people of a single ethnicity (good and bad) together in a large complex, then as they develop a dynamic which includes a higher level of crime, take them and scatter them on the wind, scattering weeds among the good seed.
However, because much of this has been caused by government trying to legislate and manage lives for the poor, there will have to be further government intervention to fix it.
Hopefully, if we can be honest about it, we can do three things: First, the good people in these areas need to become a community. That's the choice that everyone will have to make, and will make the rest possible. Second, where there were programs before that many of the poor relied on, those need to be replaced, then slowly scaled back as people become more independent. And third, we need to let the cops take out the criminals, which means the good people need to help.
By the way, the free market doesn't work in all situations, but most of the problems are the result of government intervention in said free markets.
There was never any implication here or in the story that "everyone who is low-income fits the mold you and many like-minded conservative ilk would like to describe." As you are wont to do Jon, it is best to not be led purely by emotion. Read the information, let it soak in and then make a sound and reasoned response to it. If, having done so, you've concluded that there is a generalization here with respect to the article in that everyone's been grouped together as you suggest, then I'd have to question your overall assessment.
Prior to receiving such assistance, were you engaged in criminal activity? Were you out selling drugs, stealing cars, etc.? No you were not. But, what the article asserts is that those who previously engaged in criminal behavior, by and large, will continue to engage in such behavior. It has nothing to do with where they live or the conditions in which they live. It is a behavioral thing.
Having been throughout the Caribbean and seen poverty first hand, I can see that poverty does not in fact cause crime. While it may be true that it makes for an environment where crime may in fact be more likely to be considered an option by which one can sustain their life, it is not to say that EVERYONE in poverty engages in crime.
Instead, what is infered and what is in fact true (and the findings from the Atlantic article support this) is that crime and criminal behavior and activity attribute to poverty.
"I am NOT a believer in the "free market will take care of everything" mindset."
With respect to that, you need to first disabuse yourself from the notion that everything will be taken care of to begin with. What's more, you need to come to terms with the fact that it is you and you only who shall determine and then set forth the resolve to that which needs to be taken care of.
The free-market is not to "take care of everything". It is instead a collaboration of sorts of the people (i.e., the market if you will) which determines what is viable to be taken care of.
Let us suppose as a simple example that you want a round-trip ticket to London for $400. Being unable to find a ticket at such a price, would we then conclude that the "free-market" has failed in providing for a $400 plane ticket?
Of course we wouldn't. What we would determine is that a $400 round-trip ticket to London doesn't exist because it isn't viable. The built in costs of providing air service to London cost more than $400. As such, the market (if we allow it to work) will reflect that. The market might instead reflect a roundtrip ticket price of $1000. But, you get enough people that aren't willing to pay $1000 for a roundtrip ticket and the cost will then invariably come down vis a vis the law of supply and demand.
Now, we can have government use its exclusive power and authority to regulate and mandate a $400 roundtrip ticket to London and at the same time assert that "the free-market has failed" to do so.
BUT, that doesn't mean that it is viable and can sustain itself without having to be subsidized. What invariably would happen then is that some other roundtrip fairs would go up in cost to make up for the loss incurred by providing the $400 roundtrip fair to London.
It's the same reason why solar and wind energy haven't come to fruition in the free-market. We could very well build them and provide the service. But, the costs would exceed the costs of energy provided by cheaper fossil fuels such as Coal, Oil, etc. thereby making it not a viable or reliable alternative.
"Perhaps what you would call a "redistribution of wealth" or as my brother would go so far to say, "robbery" akin to Robin Hood, those more moderate (and liberal as well) would simply call a matter of "social justice."
Objectivity is a wonderful thing. Let me remind you that there is nothing "just" about the social practice of taking money from persons to whom it belongs and giving it (forcibly mind you) to persons to whom it does not belong.
Whether an individual does it or the government does it, by very definition it is thievery.
Jon, social justice can be done privately, can it not? Doesn't that make more sense, then you can support that which you wish, I can can support that which I wish.
I would argue that doing so privately yields better results. If a program proves to be unsuccessful in administering services which it has set out to administer, then individuals would likely cease funding it until changes are made.
In government, this is hardly the case. Instead lawmakers routinely make it an issue of "funding". They throw money at ineffectual programs. The administering of services then doesn't change. The only thing that does is the increased level of bureaucracy and mismanagement.
Okay, I admit, it was an emotionally charged article and I, accordingly, well, became emotionally charged.
While I do not personally receive Section 8, but receive a subsidy similar to it through Dakota County in Minnesota--and my goal over the course of the next two years is to work my way off of it. I have never subscribed to a poverty mindset, though an awful lot of people who receive ANY form of assistance, sad to say, do.
It should be pointed out that Section 8 is NOT easy to get. If anyone thinks it is simply handed out like candy, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Only once in a blue moon do counties (especially Hennepin and Ramsey) even open up the process and allow people to apply and get on a waiting list and a person can be on that list for 2-5 years or more. Hennepin County recently opened their waiting list, which had been closed for more than five years.
Section 8, yes, is subject to income verification and the maximum annual income a person can earn under the program is around $26,000.
Two important questions that are asked on the application form are: 1) Have you ever been ARRESTED, particularly for violent or drug-related offenses? and 2) Have you ever been CONVICTED of an offense, particularly a violent or drug-related offense (regardless of whether or not it has been sealed, expunged, pardoned, etc.)
They DO perform background checks and I should also note that anyone who does become involved in said activity will likely lose their subsidy. Though I will admit, it being a government program, there are certainly things that need to be fixed and perhaps the background checks aren't as thorough as they could be or they aren't performed in as timely a fashion as they should be. I don't know.
Some people's definition of affordable housing goes something like this: I live in a $450,000 home. I earn enough that I can afford to live in such a home. Therefore it is "affordable housing."
I think some parts of the country probably do a better job than others in building real and lasting and safe communities for people who are looking for good, affordable housing. Dakota County and Ramsey County, particularly, Woodbury, have demonstrated a real commitment. Still, the building of affordable housing communities isn't necessarily the most profitable venture for builders, and it also faces fierce resistance from homeowners who have the PERCEPTION that such a development necessarily does the following: 1) Drive down home values and 2) Increase crime.
The reason that some affordable housing communities have been successful also has much to do with their proximity to employers, the availability of mass transit, and other factors.
Build it and they will come. And try as we may, we can do our part to eradicate the criminal elements. But "not in my backyard" doesn't really help anyone---rich, middle class, or poor.
Mr.SoapboxGod; I hereby award you the ” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Award” for ‘‘blog journalism’’. You may copy it and paste it into your blog which is as informative and useful as a Witches Tit! Is it my imagination, or are many of you angry? If I were a conservative and facing the rejection of conservatism on an unprecedented defeat this coming November, I suppose I’d be angry as well. Perhaps I can help you understand why your political philosophy is about to be rejected by the American people. The American people got tired of being lectured on “family values” by conservative clergy and Republican members of Congress, e.g. Larry Craig, who didn’t practice what they preached. Or maybe the voters got tired of Republicans controlling the US House of Representatives for 12 years during which they handed out more wasteful pork projects than all the pork handed out by Democrats in the 42 years preceding the GOP takeover. . Or maybe voters got angry when they learned the Vice President of the United States manipulated intelligence and misled the American people on why war with Iraq was in our national security interests. Or maybe the public didn’t like George Bush vetoing legislation to provide health insurance for millions of kids. Or maybe the public got embarrassed by conservatives in the Bush Administration who refused, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to accept the reality of global warming, aka “The Flat Earth Society”. This time around my side will win and I believe by a big margin. You don’t have to like it, but perhaps you might refrain from “hating” my side. In all the years of conservative control I never accused anyone of being unpatriotic, or fascist, or bad people. Maybe you would grant my side the same courtesy! I would encourage most of the people who have posted here, as well as those who make similar vitriolic, personalized attacks on liberal blogers to consider what you are doing to further real problem-solving
Why does disagreement with a liberal constitute "vitriolic, personal attacks"?
I'm not just talking about you, Matt, it seems to be an epidemic! I asked a lib once for a specific example for her rants and she laid into me like I was asking her something extremely inappropriate to ask. So, why are you all so aggitated?
The Republican leadership under W. Bush wasn't conservative. What they were and are is a bunch of NEOconservatives.
Conservatism in the sense that I know it does not encompass growing government to unprecedented levels, adhering to a destructive monetary policy which inflates the dollar and leads to its decline, subsidizing ethanol in an attempt to essentially buy the Agricultural vote, care one iota about gay marriage, intervene in a state issue (vis a vis Terri Schiavo), label anyone it deems problematic as "an enemy combatant" and then hold them indefinitely without charges, etc.
None of those things are what I would consider to be conservative positions.
What's more, with respect to your SCHIP comment, you'd do well to know that even the Congressional Budget Office found that while your beloved program is proposed to be a CHILDRENS Health Insurance Program, the CBO found that many states were using their Federal Funds to subsidize or provide care for (are you ready for this...) SINGLE, CHILDLESS, ABLE BODIED ADULTS (87% of Minnesota's Federal Contribution did just that)!!!
As for Global Warming, I've never once suggested that it isn't occuring. What I have suggested is that I think it premature to conclude that the debate (in the words of Al Gore who mind you has no educational credentials to make such an assertion) "is over".
Moreover, that all of the apparent solutions to Global Warming encompass virtually EVERYTHING that proponents of Socialism and Communism have espoused for well over 60 years gives me great cause for concern.
"...consider what you are doing to further real problem-solving."
You want to know what I'm doing to further real problem solving? Why don't you read the post below this one "Responding to the Opposition". Then you'll get an idea of how Conservatism (real, true, and honest Conservatism) can solve problems.
Additionally, while you probably don't know this, I'm working on a political campaign and within a PAC at present to "further real problem solving". So, don't lecture me on the virtues of problem solving. And, don't lecture me on "attacking" liberal bloggers. They get back ten-fold what they give. I don't find it to be a productive endeavor to spend my minutes, hours, and days attacking liberals or liberal bloggers. But, if they think that they'll come into this forum and personally attack conservatives or conservative positions without putting forth their own reasoned response to an issue, then know that I'm perfectly capable of taking the gloves off as well.
Platitudes and Generalities of any sort may be all fine and good on the presidential campaign trail but I don't much have any use for them here.
You want to talk about issues then address the one herein or any others which may strike your fancy. But, when my position or the position of any of my friends herein runs counter to your own, save the "conservatives are hateful" rant for someone else's blog.
18 comments:
What an eyeopener! It makes perfect sense---You can take the scum out of the hoods, but you can't take the hood out of the scum. All that liberal program did was to scatter the problems around and make them harder to find and catch.
There was an interesting series in the St. Paul Pioneer Press about affordable housing in the Twin Cities and upper-income residents' ire over an "affordable housing" townhome complex.
Now, as someone who tends to lean considerably more to the left, let me ask you this? Do you honestly think that "that liberal program," which is predicated on the notion that a person shouldn't be paying half of their monthly income in rent like too many "working poor" do, is SOLELY or primarily responsible for "scattering the problems around and make them harder to find and catch?"
Let me tell you something. I hate to deflate your stereotypical, self-righteous claims, but I know a number of people who rely on CDA (Community Development Agency of Dakota County, Minnesota which administers Section 8) who are law-abiding and probably better tenants than many of the people who DON'T rely on CDA (persons who are on CDA pay 1/3 of their income as their monthly rent) versus people who pay the market rate. That's been my experience living in West St. Paul and I have lived in my apartment for five years.
Call it what you will, and call me what you will. Hate to burst your bubble but not everyone who is low-income fits the mold you and many like-minded conservative ilk would like to describe.
I am NOT a believer in the "free market will take care of everything" mindset.
Perhaps what you would call a "redistribution of wealth" or as my brother would go so far to say, "robbery" akin to Robin Hood, those more moderate (and liberal as well) would simply call a matter of "social justice."
(By the way, I got a solicitation recently for a subscription to The Atlantic. I tossed it.)
AA: You're right to some degree, but you simplify the issue way too much.
Jonathan: I hate to burst your bubble, wait, no I don't.
This situation is precisely the result of liberal programs and politics in general. First, racist politics, followed by an attempt to solve that problem puts a whole lot of poor people of a single ethnicity (good and bad) together in a large complex, then as they develop a dynamic which includes a higher level of crime, take them and scatter them on the wind, scattering weeds among the good seed.
However, because much of this has been caused by government trying to legislate and manage lives for the poor, there will have to be further government intervention to fix it.
Hopefully, if we can be honest about it, we can do three things: First, the good people in these areas need to become a community. That's the choice that everyone will have to make, and will make the rest possible. Second, where there were programs before that many of the poor relied on, those need to be replaced, then slowly scaled back as people become more independent. And third, we need to let the cops take out the criminals, which means the good people need to help.
By the way, the free market doesn't work in all situations, but most of the problems are the result of government intervention in said free markets.
There was never any implication here or in the story that "everyone who is low-income fits the mold you and many like-minded conservative ilk would like to describe." As you are wont to do Jon, it is best to not be led purely by emotion. Read the information, let it soak in and then make a sound and reasoned response to it. If, having done so, you've concluded that there is a generalization here with respect to the article in that everyone's been grouped together as you suggest, then I'd have to question your overall assessment.
Prior to receiving such assistance, were you engaged in criminal activity? Were you out selling drugs, stealing cars, etc.? No you were not. But, what the article asserts is that those who previously engaged in criminal behavior, by and large, will continue to engage in such behavior. It has nothing to do with where they live or the conditions in which they live. It is a behavioral thing.
Having been throughout the Caribbean and seen poverty first hand, I can see that poverty does not in fact cause crime. While it may be true that it makes for an environment where crime may in fact be more likely to be considered an option by which one can sustain their life, it is not to say that EVERYONE in poverty engages in crime.
Instead, what is infered and what is in fact true (and the findings from the Atlantic article support this) is that crime and criminal behavior and activity attribute to poverty.
"I am NOT a believer in the "free market will take care of everything" mindset."
With respect to that, you need to first disabuse yourself from the notion that everything will be taken care of to begin with. What's more, you need to come to terms with the fact that it is you and you only who shall determine and then set forth the resolve to that which needs to be taken care of.
The free-market is not to "take care of everything". It is instead a collaboration of sorts of the people (i.e., the market if you will) which determines what is viable to be taken care of.
Let us suppose as a simple example that you want a round-trip ticket to London for $400. Being unable to find a ticket at such a price, would we then conclude that the "free-market" has failed in providing for a $400 plane ticket?
Of course we wouldn't. What we would determine is that a $400 round-trip ticket to London doesn't exist because it isn't viable. The built in costs of providing air service to London cost more than $400. As such, the market (if we allow it to work) will reflect that. The market might instead reflect a roundtrip ticket price of $1000. But, you get enough people that aren't willing to pay $1000 for a roundtrip ticket and the cost will then invariably come down vis a vis the law of supply and demand.
Now, we can have government use its exclusive power and authority to regulate and mandate a $400 roundtrip ticket to London and at the same time assert that "the free-market has failed" to do so.
BUT, that doesn't mean that it is viable and can sustain itself without having to be subsidized. What invariably would happen then is that some other roundtrip fairs would go up in cost to make up for the loss incurred by providing the $400 roundtrip fair to London.
It's the same reason why solar and wind energy haven't come to fruition in the free-market. We could very well build them and provide the service. But, the costs would exceed the costs of energy provided by cheaper fossil fuels such as Coal, Oil, etc. thereby making it not a viable or reliable alternative.
"Perhaps what you would call a "redistribution of wealth" or as my brother would go so far to say, "robbery" akin to Robin Hood, those more moderate (and liberal as well) would simply call a matter of "social justice."
Objectivity is a wonderful thing. Let me remind you that there is nothing "just" about the social practice of taking money from persons to whom it belongs and giving it (forcibly mind you) to persons to whom it does not belong.
Whether an individual does it or the government does it, by very definition it is thievery.
Jon, social justice can be done privately, can it not? Doesn't that make more sense, then you can support that which you wish, I can can support that which I wish.
I would argue that doing so privately yields better results. If a program proves to be unsuccessful in administering services which it has set out to administer, then individuals would likely cease funding it until changes are made.
In government, this is hardly the case. Instead lawmakers routinely make it an issue of "funding". They throw money at ineffectual programs. The administering of services then doesn't change. The only thing that does is the increased level of bureaucracy and mismanagement.
Thank you for your responses, everyone.
Okay, I admit, it was an emotionally charged article and I, accordingly, well, became emotionally charged.
While I do not personally receive Section 8, but receive a subsidy similar to it through Dakota County in Minnesota--and my goal over the course of the next two years is to work my way off of it.
I have never subscribed to a poverty mindset, though an awful lot of people who receive ANY form of assistance, sad to say, do.
It should be pointed out that Section 8 is NOT easy to get. If anyone thinks it is simply handed out like candy, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Only once in a blue moon do counties (especially Hennepin and Ramsey) even open up the process and allow people to apply and get on a waiting list and a person can be on that list for 2-5 years or more. Hennepin County recently opened their waiting list, which had been closed for more than five years.
Section 8, yes, is subject to income verification and the maximum annual income a person can earn under the program is around $26,000.
Two important questions that are asked on the application form are: 1) Have you ever been ARRESTED, particularly for violent or drug-related offenses? and 2) Have you ever been CONVICTED of an offense, particularly a violent or drug-related offense (regardless of whether or not it has been sealed, expunged, pardoned, etc.)
They DO perform background checks and I should also note that anyone who does become involved in said activity will likely lose their subsidy. Though I will admit, it being a government program, there are certainly things that need to be fixed and perhaps the background checks aren't as thorough as they could be or they aren't performed in as timely a fashion as they should be. I don't know.
Some people's definition of affordable housing goes something like this: I live in a $450,000 home. I earn enough that I can afford to live in such a home. Therefore it is "affordable housing."
I think some parts of the country probably do a better job than others in building real and lasting and safe communities for people who are looking for good, affordable housing. Dakota County and Ramsey County, particularly, Woodbury, have demonstrated a real commitment. Still, the building of affordable housing communities isn't necessarily the most profitable venture for builders, and it also faces fierce resistance from homeowners who have the PERCEPTION that such a development necessarily does the following: 1) Drive down home values and 2) Increase crime.
The reason that some affordable housing communities have been successful also has much to do with their proximity to employers, the availability of mass transit, and other factors.
Build it and they will come. And try as we may, we can do our part to eradicate the criminal elements. But "not in my backyard" doesn't really help anyone---rich, middle class, or poor.
But "not in my backyard" doesn't really help anyone---rich, middle class, or poor.
Amen on that.
Mr.SoapboxGod;
I hereby award you the ” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Award” for ‘‘blog journalism’’.
You may copy it and paste it into your blog which is as informative and useful as a Witches Tit!
Is it my imagination, or are many of you angry? If I were a conservative and facing the rejection of conservatism on an unprecedented defeat this coming November, I suppose I’d be angry as well. Perhaps I can help you understand why your political philosophy is about to be rejected by the American people.
The American people got tired of being lectured on “family values” by conservative clergy and Republican members of Congress, e.g. Larry Craig, who didn’t practice what they preached.
Or maybe the voters got tired of Republicans controlling the US House of Representatives for 12 years during which they handed out more wasteful pork projects than all the pork handed out by Democrats in the 42 years preceding the GOP takeover.
. Or maybe voters got angry when they learned the Vice President of the United States manipulated intelligence and misled the American people on why war with Iraq was in our national security interests.
Or maybe the public didn’t like George Bush vetoing legislation to provide health insurance for millions of kids.
Or maybe the public got embarrassed by conservatives in the Bush Administration who refused, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to accept the reality of global warming, aka “The Flat Earth Society”.
This time around my side will win and I believe by a big margin. You don’t have to like it, but perhaps you might refrain from “hating” my side. In all the years of conservative control I never accused anyone of being unpatriotic, or fascist, or bad people. Maybe you would grant my side the same courtesy!
I would encourage most of the people who have posted here, as well as those who make similar vitriolic, personalized attacks on liberal blogers to consider what you are doing to further real problem-solving
Why does disagreement with a liberal constitute "vitriolic, personal attacks"?
I'm not just talking about you, Matt, it seems to be an epidemic! I asked a lib once for a specific example for her rants and she laid into me like I was asking her something extremely inappropriate to ask. So, why are you all so aggitated?
One problem with your assessment Matty boy....
The Republican leadership under W. Bush wasn't conservative. What they were and are is a bunch of NEOconservatives.
Conservatism in the sense that I know it does not encompass growing government to unprecedented levels, adhering to a destructive monetary policy which inflates the dollar and leads to its decline, subsidizing ethanol in an attempt to essentially buy the Agricultural vote, care one iota about gay marriage, intervene in a state issue (vis a vis Terri Schiavo), label anyone it deems problematic as "an enemy combatant" and then hold them indefinitely without charges, etc.
None of those things are what I would consider to be conservative positions.
What's more, with respect to your SCHIP comment, you'd do well to know that even the Congressional Budget Office found that while your beloved program is proposed to be a CHILDRENS Health Insurance Program, the CBO found that many states were using their Federal Funds to subsidize or provide care for (are you ready for this...) SINGLE, CHILDLESS, ABLE BODIED ADULTS (87% of Minnesota's Federal Contribution did just that)!!!
As for Global Warming, I've never once suggested that it isn't occuring. What I have suggested is that I think it premature to conclude that the debate (in the words of Al Gore who mind you has no educational credentials to make such an assertion) "is over".
Moreover, that all of the apparent solutions to Global Warming encompass virtually EVERYTHING that proponents of Socialism and Communism have espoused for well over 60 years gives me great cause for concern.
"...consider what you are doing to further real problem-solving."
You want to know what I'm doing to further real problem solving? Why don't you read the post below this one "Responding to the Opposition". Then you'll get an idea of how Conservatism (real, true, and honest Conservatism) can solve problems.
Additionally, while you probably don't know this, I'm working on a political campaign and within a PAC at present to "further real problem solving". So, don't lecture me on the virtues of problem solving. And, don't lecture me on "attacking" liberal bloggers. They get back ten-fold what they give. I don't find it to be a productive endeavor to spend my minutes, hours, and days attacking liberals or liberal bloggers. But, if they think that they'll come into this forum and personally attack conservatives or conservative positions without putting forth their own reasoned response to an issue, then know that I'm perfectly capable of taking the gloves off as well.
Platitudes and Generalities of any sort may be all fine and good on the presidential campaign trail but I don't much have any use for them here.
You want to talk about issues then address the one herein or any others which may strike your fancy. But, when my position or the position of any of my friends herein runs counter to your own, save the "conservatives are hateful" rant for someone else's blog.
My liberal bleeding heart beats only for you......lol
Soap: You sure get the funny ones.
Matt: I think you need a hug.
"My liberal bleeding heart beats only for you..."
Be that as it may, I would suggest that you pay less attention to what your heart is doing and more to what your mind is or isn't doing.
"Soap: You sure get the funny ones."
Man, you got that right.
Post a Comment