Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
I hope Mitt Romney is elected and abolishes HUD.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford Beebe
Since Mitt refuses to name the agencies he plans to cut, it is only left to speculation.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
I doubt Romney would end HUD.
|
Will you people please read the goddam US Constitution?
The president has no such power. Only Congress can create or abolish a cabinet level position.
That's why I laugh when Paul-Freaks start touting his agenda. Paul's $1 TRILLION in budget cuts can only happen if Congress agrees to abolish several cabinets, and I assure they will, especially since Paul couldn't even get Congress to vote themselves a raise.
Constitutionally...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB
Only the disabled and elderly should get permanent support on social programs.
|
Sure, but the federal government does not need to manage or administrate those programs. The States can do that on their own, setting up and running their own programs.
Still Constitutionally...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga
Section 8 is a freakin mess.
|
A mess?
It's a freaking botched abortion.
Enhancing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u
If you go to Criagslist,some landlords actually prefer Section 8 renters.I hear its because they are guaranteed their rent money.
|
Not only are they guaranteed payment, they get more money than they normally would.
Originally, you just went to your local library on got the regulations which contained the formula. So many, um, you know, "rooms" at such and such square feet equals so many dollars.
Thanks to the Democrats, a landlord could charge $1,200 for an apartment that had a market value of $250.
And they did.
So the Section 8 beneficiary pays up to 1/3 of their monthly income as rent, and the tax-payer footed the bill for the rest.
As any intelligent person could probably imagine, there was a tremendous amount of abuse in the HUD system, and American taxpayers were bilked out of $TRILLIONS.
The Republicans changed the law in the 1990s and eliminated the fraud formula, replacing it with, oh, let's call it less vague criteria. Now an HUD slumlord cannot charge more than market value for the units.
Still, you have gross fraud because you still have a $250 apartment renting for $600, and the American tax-payers are still getting bilked (albeit not as badly).
That should be of some comfort I guess.
One other thing, and that is that HUD slumlords were entitled to a $5,000 no-questions-asked-free-money Grant every two years (before the Republicans ended it).
So, I'm walking through Hell looking at these buildings that have been HUD Section 8 for 40+ years and for 20+ years those buildings got a free-no-questions-asked $5,000 Grant bi-annually and yet....
...those buildings still have the same windows from the early 1900s when those buildings were built.
How is that even possible?
I as a tax payer gave the HUD slumlord $50,000 (or more) freaking free dollars and he couldn't replace the damn windows on a 16-unit apartment building?
What we need to do is change the law to an appraisal system, so that a HUD slumlord can only charge $250 for an apartment that would rent on the [free] market for $250.
Still hurting from the loss of $TRILLIONS...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
To claim that Section 8 housing is destroying communities is the height of idiocy.
|
I take it you've never actually seen Section 8 in action.
Well, I live in Hell, just a few hundred feet from what was just 4 years ago the most deadly street in the United States. More people were killed or injured on that street than any other street,
and none of the deaths or injuries involved automobiles or vehicles of any kind.
They were all shot, stabbed, clubbed or beaten to death or suffered injuries from being shot, stabbed, clubbed or beaten.
So they start a gentrification program. They are moving the Section 8 pukes out. Has the area improved?
Definitely.
It smells better, and the most obvious sign is the lack of trash on the streets.
I do confess that I miss the sparkling streets, you know, 'cause you-da-man and you know about Section 8, so you know that they sit on the stoops and steps and toss their 40 Ounce Missiles out onto the street where they break, and all that glass littering the street makes it sparkle quite beautifully.
I always thought the city should rename the streets, you know, Sparkling Elm instead of just plain ordinary Elm, and Shiny Race instead of Race and Glittering Main instead of Main, etc etc
In spite of the fact that some 10,000+ Section 8 scum have been evicted in the name of gentrification, the manager at Kroger's told me his sales have increased.
Imagine that.
Your shopping experience at Kroger's or Wal*Mart or Meijers was nothing like mine was. I can tell you it is a joy to walk through Kroger's and not have people come up to you and try to get you to commit Food Stamp fraud, or bum money off of you, or try to sell you something they stole.
When I was born, my parents lived in a 4-family and across the hall lived two guys, Tony Perez and Chico Ruiz. It was their rookie year with the Cincinnati Reds baseball club.
Over the years, I had wanted to take people like my friends, girlfriends, my wife etc etc there to show them, but I can't go there.
Black people are afraid to go to "The Fay" (originally Fay Apartments before it become Section 8). And white people fear "The Fay" more than black people do. Social workers won't go into "The Fay" and instead make their clients walk out of the area to see them. When the US Census goes there, they go with a police escort or not at all.
Back to the point, when those 10,000+ were evicted the all went to the west-side to a community originally called Westwood.
Now there's Westwood, and East Westwood.
Why? To distinguish between the non-Section 8 area and the Section 8 area. I'm sure some will scream "racism" but I didn't do it. The local TV, radio and newspapers keep calling it East Westwood and so do realtors.
And so do the black and white people who live in Westwood who are fighting tooth and nail to protect their community as well as the value of their homes.
If I was house hunting, I'd be hopping mad if I wasted my time looking at a house in Westwood, only to discover that it was actually East Westwood. Why would I want to place my family in harm's way? Why would I want to expose my children to drugs? Why would I want to risk my children's life in a drive-by shooting (now frequent in East Westwood thanks to HUD Section 8) and why would I be stupid enough to buy a home, knowing that its value will decrease over time, rather than increase?
Nothing like getting upside down on your mortgage.
So before you say that it is the "
height of idiocy" to claim that Section 8 is destroying communities, you might want to go look at communities that have been destroyed by Section 8, and I've already identified 2 of them.
Watching communities fall apart...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
I think it's a wonderful idea to have people in the US homeless and living on the streets.
|
There's no relationship between, uh, "homeless" (snicker) and Section 8.
In fact, there is a very real difference between the "homeless" (snicker) and Section 8 and that difference is that Section 8 people want a home, the "homeless" (snicker) do not.
Come round to 12th and Race and I'll introduce you to Chris and Chris.
They were, uh, you know, "homeless" (snicker) when I was an intern at OSHA years ago.
Chris and Chris are still, uh, you know, "homeless" (snicker) and when did I intern at OSHA? Oh, that was back in 2002.
How old are they? Hell, I don't know. He looks to be late 20s or early 30s and she, well, she looks like she's been ridden hard and put away wet. They both panhandle for beer and dope money (but they know to steer clear of me) and he prostitutes her out for dope and beer money, and then he usually gets drunk and ends up in lock-up for 30 to 90 days at a time, so she prostitutes herself for dope and beer money.
They used to live in Washington Park, but with the renovation, the Park has been closed, and I am so damn grateful, because that's where the, uh, "homeless" (snicker) hang out.
In fact, an "homeless" (snicker) woman was sleeping in the Park and was killed when a police car ran her over. How did that happen? Well, she was sleeping where she wasn't supposed to be sleeping, and she was in the Park when it was closed, and the cops were chasing someone who was running on foot and they cut through the Park to head them off.
I kid you not.
It was a tremendous fortuitous windfall for her family, who hadn't seen her in 6 years, but who were willing to come out of the woodwork and crawl out from under rocks to sue the city for her, um, "wrongful death."
Who says homelessness isn't fun and profitable?
Laughing at the superior intellect...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Ok, eliminate Section 8 assistance.
Now what? Where do those people live? Where do you think they'll go?
|
Who cares?
It is not my responsibility, but if you want to explore their options, then let's do that:
1] They were not hatched. They have families. Their families can put them up.
2] Their friends can put them up.
3] They can swallow a bit of pride and share living accommodations with others. Since when is it illegal to share housing? I shared housing with 2 others while pursuing my undergraduate and graduate degrees, and then shared housing with one person and then finally I had worked and saved enough money (by uh, you know, sharing housing) that I could afford my very own place.
It is not a crime to share housing and as a point of fact, if they had been sharing housing, then they wouldn't be, uh, "homeless" (snicker)
4] They can relocate to an area where work is available
5] They can emigrate from the US (like sharing housing emigration is not illegal -- even one-brain/little brain
Homo Habilis was smart enough to know when to move on)
I would gladly trade 1 "homeless" (snicker) for any 10 mentally retarded people in another country.
Optioning...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp
Yeah, lets make 'em all live under the bridges, or better yet, build shanty towns like Haiti.
|
Why? We have plenty of C-130 Hercules sitting idle. We can give the "homeless" (snicker) $10, a brown-bag lunch and a parachute and kick their goat-smelling asses out the back of the C-130 as its doing a drag run over Somalia or Afghanistan or some other place.
They couldn't be any worse off, right? I mean they can be, um, "homeless" (snicker) in Mauritania just as easily as they can be "homeless" (snicker) in the US.
As I proved on another post, you spend about $90,000 per year per "homeless" person. The information was obtained from the "homeless" coalition web-site so before you scream "propaganda" or something equally silly, you might want to check it out.
You know in the East Block we continue to do what we've always done with the "homeless"; a bus comes round, picks them up and sends them to work in the salt mines or coal mines or on farms.
I'd rather have 50 scum die in a coal-mining accident than 50 hard-working Americans.
Cleaning up the streets...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. It is used for developmentally disabled and handicapped people. The grounds are well-maintained also.
