|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2012 09:06:34 PM · #26 |
A couple of points.
Section 8 does not lower property values according to studies.
If a section 8 tenant trashes a unit, the landlord gets no help from the government. I repaired enough to know it works the same way as any other tenant, you hope the security deposit covers costs, because otherwise it is out of your pocket.
We can guess that this lovely looking home is being given to some shiftless woman who has been pumping out a baby a year just to bilk the government. Might be, might not be. Assume she was the wife of a Marine who had been killed in Iraq, leaving her and the 3 kids alone. Then her sister was killed in a car crash and left her 6 more kids. Can we still pillory her? Is she still a useless leach on society who would better be left to beg on the streets, until enough of the kids died off so she could care for them herself? |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 09:13:49 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Assume she was the wife of a Marine who had been killed in Iraq, leaving her and the 3 kids alone. Then her sister was killed in a car crash and left her 6 more kids. Can we still pillory her? Is she still a useless leach on society who would better be left to beg on the streets, until enough of the kids died off so she could care for them herself? |
Life insurance would be considered a good decision.
Besides, as I recall there was a $100,000 payout for combat deaths? And the SGLI policy is available for all personnel up to $400,000 - for a whopping $27 a month might I add.
So, that means, in your heart-breaking scenario, the poor widow should have only had about a half-million dollars to work with if responsible decisions were made, assuming of course that her poor sister wasn't married, and didn't have life insurance.
Again, good decisions lead to a good life, bad decisions and suffering is the result. I don't see how that is terribly unfair.
....
As for lowering property values, that isn't the big concern IMO. It's the friction that will be an inevitable result of this hare-brained idea.
Message edited by author 2012-09-14 21:19:37. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 09:43:26 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Cory:
As for lowering property values, that isn't the big concern IMO. It's the friction that will be an inevitable result of this hare-brained idea. |
So it would be better if she was forced to live where?
It would be better if this forclosed house stood empty and she lived on the street to teach what lesson to whom? Ever traveled to places where people live on the street if they are poor. It isn't pretty.
Is there no scenario you can fathom where you would want to help this woman?
Half of all Americans have no life insurance. I don't because if it isn't cost shared by folks like the military it is one of the worst dollar on dollar investments you can make. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 09:43:49 PM · #29 |
There is now a child cap in La. I think it's 4. Good thing
|
|
|
|
09/14/2012 09:48:01 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
As for lowering property values, that isn't the big concern IMO. It's the friction that will be an inevitable result of this hare-brained idea. |
So it would be better if she was forced to live where?
It would be better if this forclosed house stood empty and she lived on the street to teach what lesson to whom? Ever traveled to places where people live on the street if they are poor. It isn't pretty.
Is there no scenario you can fathom where you would want to help this woman?
Half of all Americans have no life insurance. I don't because if it isn't cost shared by folks like the military it is one of the worst dollar on dollar investments you can make. |
Install a freaking door between two units somewhere that's already low income housing.
As far as traveling to a place where people live on the street if they're poor, we just call it downtown Miami, and it's a few minutes away.. Besides, I'm not advocating that we make this woman homeless for cryin out loud. I'm simply RAILING against the decision here, as it was pretty damn poor IMO.
And I'm sure I can imagine some scenario in which I would advocate helping this woman. I just realize that the facts are VERY VERY VERY unlikely to align with that fantasy scenario.
Of course, that's the entire problem with your argument - it seems your imagination is working a little too well.
Life itself isn't really very pretty. I'd post a video of a baby elephant being eaten alive or something of the sort, but there's really no point, you're already probably pretty well aware of how brutal reality is. Some sheltering from that brutality is wonderful, and it is what defines our humanity, but it can be carried too far pretty easily, and this is, in my mind, a case of exactly that.
Message edited by author 2012-09-14 21:51:35. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 09:59:15 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Cory:
As far as traveling to a place where people live on the street if they're poor, we just call it downtown Miami, and it's a few minutes away..
Of course, that's the entire problem with your argument - it seems your imagination is working a little too well. |
If you like the 1,347 homeless in Miami-Dade, you would love traveling to India with its 78 million homeless people. Not exactly the same, but you might be able to extrapolate.
There is certainly a flaw with imagination here, and i am certain each of us believes they know where it lies. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 10:33:27 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Life itself isn't really very pretty. I'd post a video of a baby elephant being eaten alive or something of the sort, but there's really no point, you're already probably pretty well aware of how brutal reality is. Some sheltering from that brutality is wonderful, and it is what defines our humanity, but it can be carried too far pretty easily, and this is, in my mind, a case of exactly that. |
Sheltering from brutality defines our humanity? What the ..?
|
|
|
|
09/14/2012 10:48:38 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by Cory:
Life itself isn't really very pretty. I'd post a video of a baby elephant being eaten alive or something of the sort, but there's really no point, you're already probably pretty well aware of how brutal reality is. Some sheltering from that brutality is wonderful, and it is what defines our humanity, but it can be carried too far pretty easily, and this is, in my mind, a case of exactly that. |
Sheltering from brutality defines our humanity? What the ..? |
The thinking goes that taking care of others, especially the old, injured, infirm, etc, is a defining characteristic of what makes us human. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 01:14:33 AM · #34 |
It warmes me to think that there are people who work less than me but have more than me, happiness is not an individual matter.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2012 04:53:06 PM · #35 |
"It's all about me"
Think that sums it up really.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2012 05:00:48 PM · #36 |
Ok, I watched the video, please tell me, what does a teenage girl who sings about being a diva who has facebook, twitter and a bunch of friends have to do with this? I'm mostly just wicked confused now.
If you're just referring to the title, and saying that you think the neighbors or the sec8's are being selfishly "all about me", then I don't see that being true for either group. Frankly this isn't something that tends to do anything but cause unnecessary friction, and that affects everyone involved.
So, explain yourself in less cryptic terms, what exactly are you trying to convey here - don't hide behind vagueness.
Message edited by author 2012-09-15 17:01:10. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 06:12:18 PM · #37 |
I'm going to relate a story posted on the news site below that article I posted. I think this sums up my position nicely. I don't know that it can get much more authoritative than this.
Bebe Darling • a day ago
First of all, unless you your home is paid for, you've lived in it a
long time and then all of a sudden an influx of Section 8 recipients
move in, you have no idea what you are in for. You can't judge unless
you've experienced this first hand. I've lived in my home, which is just
about paid for, for many years. It's a great community, but a few homes
that I believe are being rented out (most likely Section 8), are in
disarray. Just this morning I walked by a neighbor's home that smelled
beyond anything you could imagine. I really believe she is on Section 8.
It's not the first time I've walked by this home and smelled this foul
odor. It's every time I walk by the home I smell one of the foulest
odors I've ever smelled in my life. Usually, I walk by on trash day to
pick up the trash they leave all over their yard. I clean up their yard
cause I don't want to drive by it everyday and see trash! The other
house, which is a few houses down, is also left in shambles. They have a
big hole in the window that has been smashed in for a long time and
nobody has fixed it, even though city code enforcement has been to that
home many times. Both of those homes have been written up by our
homeowner's association and city coding. I know because their black
roofs - full of mold - had to pressure cleaned. Screens needed to be
redone etc. Those homes look terrible, and that one home smells
horrific! Is that what you want in your neighborhood? I am sorry that
they can't afford to live in one of these homes without financial
assistance, but I don't want my neighborhood to smell like it does and
look like it does. I think I am entitled to better than that. I pay
taxes and I have every right to live in a decent community. My home is
just about paid off. I don't want to have to worry about packages being
stolen from the front of my doorstep either (which has happened on more
than one occasion). This really isn't the way to live. Why do I have to
clean those homes up. Why should I have to clean up their trash. Both of
them leave the sidewalks with mud and trash out front. You want to live
like that?
I personally think the cities are doing this because
they will be able to take in more revenue. If a homeowner can't pay
their taxes, hence we all suffer. Cities can't run without revenue.
Barren, foreclosed homes - with nobody living in them - are pretty
outrageous looking. I know, we have some home that are barren here
because they have been foreclosed on. So why not let the section 8
people move in, so that way the owner doesn't lose their home and the
cities get their fair share of the taxes? Wait a minute! That may be how
some of the people who manage the cities feel, but people who live in
our communities shouldn't have to be subjected to all of this. There has
to be a better way.
I actually have to clean one of our
neighbor's lawn (the one with the foul odor) on trash day. I go by, pick
up the trash, put it in their trash can and run away. The odor is
horrible. I can't stand passing by the home and smelling it - or looking
at it for that matter. Is that the way people who worked hard who are
homeowners have to live? This isn't fair to us.
Trust me, I have
a very open mind, but I also have a nose. And I smell something pretty
foul. I city city code enforcement drive by those homes, park there and
then write up all kinds of stuff. I see notices stuck on their doors.
It's one problem after another with those homes. Why should people who
paid off their homes off and live in a really good community all of a
sudden have to deal with all of this? It's just not fair. Something
should be done. If you are all for Section 8 housing, I'd like for you
to live next to this one home with the foul odor whose home looks in
disarray. You live next to them with all the trash in the front of their
house, lawn torn up, and a really stinky smell coming from that house
and then come tell me how you feel! I wish I could make everyone smell
this odor. I can't imagine what their next-door neighbors do when they
want to sit on their patio and go for a swim. Imagine having to smell
that everyday. Trust me, I think a skunk would smell better!
Bebe Darling • a day ago
One more thing regarding the part about missing packages. That happened before the people who aren't taking care of their homes moved in. I don't want to make it seem like they took the packages because I'm sure they didn't. But I really want to feel comfortable where I live. I don't want to feel like I have to stay home every moment before UPS comes and drops off a package at my home.
Look when you pay 200-800 a month for property taxes in our community, you want to know that you are getting what you paid for. If you pay for that, you want to make sure every body's homes are properly maintained in the area. Of course, property taxes vary in our community because people who moved in here years ago, don't pay as much as the people who just purchased their homes. Regardless, we pay property taxes and homeowner's fees and expect the property to be maintained regardless of who lives in the homes. It's not my responsibility to maintain the homes of others on Section 8. If you live in the home and you are renting, it's your responsibility period, if you rent a home with a homeowner's association. If you can't take care of the home or the owner can't, then you cause a burden on everybody else in the community. Nobody wants to live with people who have no work ethic and can't properly maintain their homes, whether they rent or own. Something has to be done about it.
Everyone should read the "American Murder Mystery" article. Google that and "Section 8." I've read part of it - not all. Of what I read, it seems interesting.
Bebe Darling • a day ago
I have one more thing to add: My next door neighbor, who has lived here for over 20 years, whose home is also paid off, told me he can't stand it here anymore and wants to move because of the homes I've mentioned on my other posts. So it's not just me. Him and I both feel as though this is some kind of injustice. We feel we are entitled to live in a decent community with people who respect and upkeep the homes. We worked hard, paid off our homes and paid taxes to the city for many years. The smell alone would drive people out! It's a good thing we live about 20 homes away from that one house. I feel so sorry for the people who live next to the home with the terrible odor. It's just not fair to us! Many people paid like 300,000 to 400,000k for our homes. We didn't ask for Section 8 housing when we moved in. It's just not fair for us to endure this.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2012 06:51:26 PM · #38 |
| Cory, no one is saying that the case represents any kind of brilliant solution. What some of us, I believe, are saying is that your reaction to it is offensive. Everything you say simply adds to the impression that you are full of resentment and justifications for resentment. Why this should be is part of the "American" story I suppose. I wonder what you think of the banks. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 07:10:19 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Cory, no one is saying that the case represents any kind of brilliant solution. What some of us, I believe, are saying is that your reaction to it is offensive. Everything you say simply adds to the impression that you are full of resentment and justifications for resentment. Why this should be is part of the "American" story I suppose. I wonder what you think of the banks. |
What does my opinion of the banks have to do with this? Because the home was foreclosed?
So let me get this straight - it's a foreclosed home, which means someone bought something they simply couldn't afford, and failed to meet their obligations on?
Your solution would be to what? Just forget about the money you loaned them? You do know that there are folks out there that if you don't repay them, they won't just take your stuff away right? They'll take away your stuff and beat you until you end up in the hospital, then you'll still owe them. Yeah, that's how the "real" bad guys do it. The banks? They're a business, they wrote a contract, it was signed by both parties, and one failed to comply. What's wrong with that?
Are you honestly suggesting that we shouldn't be held to our responsibilities and obligations?
I feel that this is the argument you are quietly making. I am full of resentment, and damn right I'm justified, same as I'm indignant about those who sell their food stamps to buy drugs, or get food stamps they don't need... Oh, speaking of - a neighbor I know just applied for food stamps, and he has a job that I would guess pays $800 a week... I don't know if he's gotten them yet, but his attitude on it was pretty simply: If I can, then why not? It's a common attitude, and I personally am very tired of it. I work too hard to be propping this stuff up.
I had friends who grew up on the reservation, 6 or 7 family members in about 100sq ft of dwelling. Now, you tell me, is this really necessary? BTW: the kids who grew up that way, I tended to like much better than the entitled rats I knew growing up. Of course, neither was as bad as some of the rich kids who spent their time bullying others. Funny how nothing ever seems to change in the big pattern as we go through life isn't it?
So, are you really saying that you think the banks are evil, and the people who signed the contracts they couldn't fulfill were really the innocent here? Please, do tell.. For me, it's again, all about responsible decision making, and the consequences that go along with not making good decisions. It's called life - if you're a frog and you screw up, you get eaten, if you're a dog - you get hit by a car, if you're a human, apparently you sign a contract that you can't meet the terms of.
If the house isn't worth what the loan was, the bank needs to take a smart loss and drop the property price until people can buy - yes it KILLS property values, but it's the smart and humane solution that the bank isn't doing, and should be. Of course, if I was a property owner in that area, I'd expect some losses in value because the reality is that the market has dropped, it is what it is - no reason to pretend otherwise.
As for my opinion being offensive, please elaborate upon that. What is offensive about thinking the story I posted above is tragically unfair to the residents? Did you even bother to read it? What would you say to her?
Now, please tell me why I'm not correct in my beliefs, you're right that I'm certainly feeling like enough is enough, and I do think I'm right for that, but I'm open to changing my opinion, should you present a compelling enough argument.
Message edited by author 2012-09-15 19:13:08. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 07:19:22 PM · #40 |
I see a theme- Sevlow and tnun are seemingly the two vocal dissenters against my position, and both of them seem to not take a very strong view of personal responsibility, I think that is exactly what I take issue with, and you two are incidentally displaying exactly the attitude that I'm talking about here.
If either of you wants to convince me of anything, take the care to actually go through the two dozen or three dozen questions I've posed in my last four or five posts. I can only, at this point, assume that you are either unable to answer without your position falling apart, or you're simply to lazy or uncommitted to your views on this. I'm not sure which it is, but unless you play this game well, you will fail to do anything but convince me further that you are a part of the problem.
ETA: Just to be triple clear here, it's really the system that I lay the blame on, the people are only doing what is easiest, and that's to be expected... It does, however, have some seriously unfortunate consequences as things are currently structured, and this situation seems to be a rather egregious example of such.
In the end I almost suspect that my posts just get TL;DR'd by most folks, and they gloss over the post without understanding me at all... A shame too, as I put significant thought into my replies.
We won't and can't change people, that's a fairly constant factor here - what we can change is the reward system, and the pressures upon them to produce what they can for their own benefit.
Message edited by author 2012-09-15 19:25:12. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 07:30:29 PM · #41 |
Well, Cory, the banks are doing business the best they can, right? By your standards? Renting out these houses they can't sell. The State has got its programs (which we may or may not think are excessively generous) for doling out assistance to those who are deemed in need of it, and housing assistance is part of that. So that part's all kosher unless the rules get changed, eh? And certainly the people receiving the assistance aren't at fault for taking what the government thinks they're entitled to, right?
But YOU seem to be saying, basically, that something's *wrong* when "people like that" get to move into "neighborhoods like this", as far as I can see. So that's just plain ol' housing discrimination rearing its ugly head.
Don't get me wrong, I feel for the lady who's watching her neighborhood go downhill, but neighborhoods have been going downhill, and for that matter recovering eventually, as long as there have BEEN neighborhoods, there's nothing new in this.
You have a beef with government entitlements, I GET that part. But the scope of your rant is painting ypou into a seriously bigoted corner, from where I'm standing anyway...
R. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 07:34:54 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And certainly the people receiving the assistance aren't at fault for taking what the government thinks they're entitled to, right? |
Just a semi-related aside here - couldn't that same statement (which I agree with, btw) be made about banks, corporations who take advantage of subsidies and loopholes, as well as Mitt Romney's tax shelters (assuming their all legit). |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 07:37:15 PM · #43 |
| Art, I think that is well worth discussing. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 07:42:36 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Cory:
In the future I would advise staying on topic, and not trying to pick fights with me, you will not come out the winner sir.
|
Ass handed to poster. Poster runs off with ball and whines to his mum/mom.
Cory, what do you reckon they should do with all these "ne`er do wells"? Round them up and put them back with `their own type`. Maybe in ghettos or something like that? A fella tried that back in the 1930s. Ended badly if I recall. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 07:43:46 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, Cory, the banks are doing business the best they can, right? By your standards? Renting out these houses they can't sell. The State has got its programs (which we may or may not think are excessively generous) for doling out assistance to those who are deemed in need of it, and housing assistance is part of that. So that part's all kosher unless the rules get changed, eh? And certainly the people receiving the assistance aren't at fault for taking what the government thinks they're entitled to, right?
But YOU seem to be saying, basically, that something's *wrong* when "people like that" get to move into "neighborhoods like this", as far as I can see. So that's just plain ol' housing discrimination rearing its ugly head.
Don't get me wrong, I feel for the lady who's watching her neighborhood go downhill, but neighborhoods have been going downhill, and for that matter recovering eventually, as long as there have BEEN neighborhoods, there's nothing new in this.
You have a beef with government entitlements, I GET that part. But the scope of your rant is painting ypou into a seriously bigoted corner, from where I'm standing anyway...
R. |
It's excessive. Plain and simple. Housing discrimination? Yeah, in this case, given the entire set of circumstances, yes... Yes I'm ok with that description. It's wrong to discriminate against a person who has earned the right, who has worked hard, but this is actually, in effect, doing just that. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 07:50:01 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by Cory:
In the future I would advise staying on topic, and not trying to pick fights with me, you will not come out the winner sir.
|
Ass handed to poster. Poster runs off with ball and whines to his mum/mom.
Cory, what do you reckon they should do with all these "ne`er do wells"? Round them up and put them back with `their own type`. Maybe in ghettos or something like that? A fella tried that back in the 1930s. Ended badly if I recall. |
My apologies, I forgot the third part of that: Stay on topic, don't try to pick fights with me on a personal level, and follow the forum rules.
Now, as to your question?
They are NOT "ne`er do wells" and don't try to put those words in my mouth, that's not playing fair.
Or did you too go TL;DR and not read my posts? Probably so, but let me remind you that a few posts ago I noted that it was NOT the people, but rather the system that is an issue.
I have no problem with these people, but I don't think they should be given these rewards for their bad decision making. It is inappropriate.
As for your inflammatory rhetoric about putting them in ghettos, shame on you. If you hadn't skipped what I wrote to just come spout, you would have read my suggestion: Combine two units in a building that is already in a low-rent area.
Make sure your next argument hasn't already been covered by me previously, and cease with your inflammatory crap. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 07:51:08 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I see a theme- Sevlow and tnun are seemingly the two vocal dissenters against my position, and both of them seem to not take a very strong view of personal responsibility, I think that is exactly what I take issue with, and you two are incidentally displaying exactly the attitude that I'm talking about here.
If either of you wants to convince me of anything, take the care to actually go through the two dozen or three dozen questions I've posed in my last four or five posts. I can only, at this point, assume that you are either unable to answer without your position falling apart, or you're simply to lazy or uncommitted to your views on this. I'm not sure which it is, but unless you play this game well, you will fail to do anything but convince me further that you are a part of the problem.
ETA: Just to be triple clear here, it's really the system that I lay the blame on, the people are only doing what is easiest, and that's to be expected... It does, however, have some seriously unfortunate consequences as things are currently structured, and this situation seems to be a rather egregious example of such.
We won't and can't change people, that's a fairly constant factor here - what we can change is the reward system, and the pressures upon them to produce what they can for their own benefit. |
Now you are questioning my 'personal responsibility' when you know absolutely nothing about me, my life or how I live it...but then that appears to be your way.
I have already stated how I see you as a person and I will not waste any more of my time responding to your inane and snide remarks.
Your just not worth it
|
|
|
|
09/15/2012 07:54:02 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by Cory:
In the future I would advise staying on topic, and not trying to pick fights with me, you will not come out the winner sir.
|
Ass handed to poster. Poster runs off with ball and whines to his mum/mom.
Cory, what do you reckon they should do with all these "ne`er do wells"? Round them up and put them back with `their own type`. Maybe in ghettos or something like that? A fella tried that back in the 1930s. Ended badly if I recall. |
My apologies, I forgot the third part of that: Stay on topic, don't try to pick fights with me on a personal level, and follow the forum rules.
Now, as to your question?
They are NOT "ne`er do wells" and don't try to put those words in my mouth, that's not playing fair.
Or did you too go TL;DR and not read my posts? Probably so, but let me remind you that a few posts ago I noted that it was NOT the people, but rather the system that is an issue.
I have no problem with these people, but I don't think they should be given these rewards for their bad decision making. It is inappropriate.
As for your inflammatory rhetoric about putting them in ghettos, shame on you. If you hadn't skipped what I wrote to just come spout, you would have read my suggestion: Combine two units in a building that is already in a low-rent area.
Make sure your next argument hasn't already been covered by me previously, and cease with your inflammatory crap. |
OK son. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 07:55:13 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And certainly the people receiving the assistance aren't at fault for taking what the government thinks they're entitled to, right? |
Just a semi-related aside here - couldn't that same statement (which I agree with, btw) be made about banks, corporations who take advantage of subsidies and loopholes, as well as Mitt Romney's tax shelters (assuming their all legit). |
Here's my opinion on that.
Pay your fair share assholes. You built your great business in this country, because of the economy that favored your success. Give back when you can, and cease paying your executives salaries that are simply insane, ESPECIALLY if you're in an industry that has either been bailed out, or helped otherwise by the US taxpayers. Pay the people more, reward effort where it is due, and pay the executives a wonderful, but fair salary and benefits. It's only fair to reward those who do the work as well, and to ensure that the business is healthy-- keep a big bank roll for the company, don't dole out huge bonuses. Etc.
Do be clear that I blame the corporations far more, because there is a difference between need and greed and laziness. They are all very different problems. And corporations are far more often guilty of greed than the people who are caught in the crossfire of this situation.
Message edited by author 2012-09-15 19:58:04. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 08:02:27 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Simms:
OK son. |
FFS, really?
smh :) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 09:02:11 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 09:02:11 PM EDT.
|
