Ben Carson..sigh

[sharingfantasies]

So the new plan is to get people on their feet and off government assistance by raising the rents in federal and section 8 housing. I guess they can make that tripling of their rent easily with that huge tax break they got.

It will work though. The people will be out of the government housing. They will be on the street instead.

I did read that HUD thinks that some of the legislators might not be happy about this, so Carson changed his stance from doing to talking about it.

 

[Hypoxia]

Good thing he's not doing more surgeries.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yea, the idea of getting these people off the system is just HORRIFYING....especially to Democrats who want as many people dependent upon the state as possible.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

So the new plan is to get people on their feet and off government assistance by raising the rents in federal and section 8 housing. I guess they can make that tripling of their rent easily with that huge tax break they got.

It will work though. The people will be out of the government housing. They will be on the street instead.

I did read that HUD thinks that some of the legislators might not be happy about this, so Carson changed his stance from doing to talking about it.

Hannity wants to increase the value of the HUD expensed apartment complexes the "ownes" so he wants to now convert them to condos. Fuck the people living there because he is Trump's friend.

 

[Blue]

Yea, the idea of getting these people off the system is just HORRIFYING....especially to Democrats who want as many people dependent upon the state as possible.

Geez I remember when I used to think like that.
When I was eight.

Ok so there's two issues with what you're saying here.

#1 is the underlying absolutely barbaric logic of wanting to price people out of their homes to save cash. Cracking down on public housing will just increase homelessness, not increase employment and consumption, how can you even claim to be a civilized person while simultaneously advocating for depriving people of one of their fundamental human needs; shelter?

#2 Is that a study by the central Florida commission on homelessness found that actually giving homeless people homes saves the taxpayer an average of about $7000 annually per homeless person assisted.
It turns out that when people are actually in a sheltered place instead of on the streets they are less likely to be a victim or perpetrator of crime, suffer exposure to the elements, and have serious mental health problems (even though most or a large minority of homeless people have serious mental health problems). Thus saving public funds since they're not in and out of hospitals and prisons all the time. Who would've guessed?

It might seem contradictory to you but investing in public housing with the aim of eliminating homelessness as well as the causes of homelessness (mental health issues, economic stagnation, etc) is both ethically and economically the best thing to do. Like how investing in education returns a massive long-term economic benefit, so does investing in reducing almost all other societal health issues.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

Geez I remember when I used to think like that.
When I was eight.

Ok so there's two issues with what you're saying here.

#1 is the underlying absolutely barbaric logic of wanting to price people out of their homes to save cash. Cracking down on public housing will just increase homelessness, not increase employment and consumption, how can you even claim to be a civilized person while simultaneously advocating for depriving people of one of their fundamental human needs; shelter?

#2 Is that a study by the central Florida commission on homelessness found that actually giving homeless people homes saves the taxpayer an average of about $7000 annually per homeless person assisted.
It turns out that when people are actually in a sheltered place instead of on the streets they are less likely to be a victim or perpetrator of crime, suffer exposure to the elements, and have serious mental health problems (even though most or a large minority of homeless people have serious mental health problems). Thus saving public funds since they're not in and out of hospitals and prisons all the time. Who would've guessed?

It might seem contradictory to you but investing in public housing with the aim of eliminating homelessness as well as the causes of homelessness (mental health issues, economic stagnation, etc) is both ethically and economically the best thing to do. Like how investing in education returns a massive long-term economic benefit, so does investing in reducing almost all other societal health issues.

I think the poster you were responding to was being sarcastic, yet realistic.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

So the new plan is to get people on their feet and off government assistance by raising the rents in federal and section 8 housing. I guess they can make that tripling of their rent easily with that huge tax break they got.

It will work though. The people will be out of the government housing. They will be on the street instead.

I did read that HUD thinks that some of the legislators might not be happy about this, so Carson changed his stance from doing to talking about it.

You don't think there's some kind of plan? You don't think there's some kind of alternative to gov't housing or some sort of transition?

I lived in gov't housing for while and we came out of it quick.I found a way out no problem. Fuck those legislators. They're CYA and got voters in gov't housing - you call them housing, I call them the housing projects.

 

[JackLuis]

You don't think there's some kind of plan? You don't think there's some kind of alternative to gov't housing or some sort of transition?

I lived in gov't housing for while and we came out of it quick.I found a way out no problem. Fuck those legislators. They're CYA and got voters in gov't housing - you call them housing, I call them the housing projects.

Oh there is a plan, drive out the tenants and then privatize the project for Condos, sold to slum lords. Simple Real Estate Deal. It has to be simple for Ben to do it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Geez I remember when I used to think like that.
When I was eight.

Ok so there's two issues with what you're saying here.

#1 is the underlying absolutely barbaric logic of wanting to price people out of their homes to save cash. Cracking down on public housing will just increase homelessness, not increase employment and consumption, how can you even claim to be a civilized person while simultaneously advocating for depriving people of one of their fundamental human needs; shelter?

How can you claim to be a civilized person when you advocate VIOLENTLY CONFISCATING PROPERTY (robbery/extortion) from the people who earned it to turn it over to others who did not? I'm not depriving them of shit, I'm just don't want to loose my shit because some do-gooder asshole took my shit and gave it to someone else.

IF they have needs THEY need to handle it....just like all the other folks who have to get the fuck off their ass every morning at zero dark as fuck and bust their hump to make it happen.

What about those folks? What about the people who didn't just lay down and give up.....what about all those single parents who grind away to give their kids the best?? The shakers, movers and producers???

You can only keep fucking that group of people out of their efforts to a certain extent before we all turn around and either start shooting you and your bum brigade or say "fuck it" and go Venezuela. What's the point in working?? Where is the motivation??? Why should I get up and do what I do? So you can have a warm fuzzy about giving my money to the bums??? LOL Fuck you gimme gubbmint house with some of that free internet.

#2 Is that a study by the central Florida commission on homelessness found that actually giving homeless people homes saves the taxpayer an average of about $7000 annually per homeless person assisted.
It turns out that when people are actually in a sheltered place instead of on the streets they are less likely to be a victim or perpetrator of crime, suffer exposure to the elements, and have serious mental health problems (even though most or a large minority of homeless people have serious mental health problems). Thus saving public funds since they're not in and out of hospitals and prisons all the time. Who would've guessed?

Well why not pay for everyone's house??? Free housing, free food, free health care, free EVERYTHING!!! The communist utopia awaits comrades LOL till you run out of other peoples money to spend....then it's time to eat the kids with some tree bark on the side.

Well yea, what's what happens when you have a bunch of welfare shit that you let bums use.....you wind up like LA, full of bums.

Cut them off and watch them all migrate to Canada. We'll see how well their socialism works when a few million of the USA's FINEST jump the border and sign up for all the good shit!

It might seem contradictory to you but investing in public housing with the aim of eliminating homelessness as well as the causes of homelessness (mental health issues, economic stagnation, etc) is both ethically and economically the best thing to do. Like how investing in education returns a massive long-term economic benefit, so does investing in reducing almost all other societal health issues.

It might be ethically the best thing to do? Maybe give the do-gooders a warm fuzzy, but it's not economically. The most economic thing to do would be to quit providing goods and services to people who can't pay for them.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/13/d0/fe/13d0fe4d942ed4b0deb6984431d06cee.jpg


So far our "education investment" is a joke....it's a public babysitting service and a haven for radical left wing indoctrination. The HS diploma is fucking WORTHLESS these days and a growing list of BA/BS's are too...let's hand some more of those out! Just sign up for all the debt and you get a degree!! Yay gold stars for everyone!!

LOL the US's "education" system is lamer than ever and in a total nose dive...worst thing you can do to a kid in the US is send them to a public school.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

Oh there is a plan, drive out the tenants and then privatize the project for Condos, sold to slum lords. Simple Real Estate Deal. It has to be simple for Ben to do it.

Maybe he can. Maybe.

Eh. Plan C is always in the wind to take them back. Strangely, the projects I lived in as a child for a short period have been rehabbed after being vacant for about 15 yrs. Better policed, yet worse thugs than when I was coming up. I mean, seriously, why would punks break into gov't apt of someone who's more broke than the thieves?

 

[Blue]

"Hey guys, screw the needy, the only thing we should provide is the cart to lob their bodies onto when they die from treatable illnesses and exposure"
- is not a more economically sound alternative to -
"Let's invest in improving peoples livings standards to help them become productive or improve their productivity."

I can hardly believe I actually have to write that as it should be a "DUH" moment.
But yeah I'm not going to bother arguing with somebody advocating for Victorian-era laissez faire social and economic policy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

"Hey guys, screw the needy, the only thing we should provide is the cart to lob their bodies onto when they die from treatable illnesses and exposure"
- is not a more economically sound alternative to -
"Let's invest in improving peoples livings standards to help them become productive or improve their productivity."

The fallacy is that they will become productive by taking from others to support their basic needs. If their own basic needs don't motivate them to get their shit together then giving them other peoples cash and property isn't going to help.

Setting money on fire is not an investment, it's a magnet for more bums.

I can hardly believe I actually have to write that as it should be a "DUH" moment.
But yeah I'm not going to bother arguing with somebody advocating for Victorian-era laissez faire social and economic policy.

Who said anything about Victorian-era laissez fair social and economic policy?

You're making stuff up.

There is a whole lot of in-between you jumped over to get from deep left field totalitarian leftism you support to victorian era laissez faire capitalism. I know ignoring that makes things convenient for you because then you have to engage with a different ideology and that's scary.

But don't let that stop you from stamping your feet and running off from a different view that doesn't support the nanny state model.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

You're talking about the same guy who says "Why should I care?" about global warming.

Laissez faire that the planet is burning up.

"Hey guys, screw the needy, the only thing we should provide is the cart to lob their bodies onto when they die from treatable illnesses and exposure"
- is not a more economically sound alternative to -
"Let's invest in improving peoples livings standards to help them become productive or improve their productivity."

I can hardly believe I actually have to write that as it should be a "DUH" moment.
But yeah I'm not going to bother arguing with somebody advocating for Victorian-era laissez faire social and economic policy.

 

[Blue]

There is a whole lot of in-between you jumped over to get from deep left field totalitarian leftism you support to victorian era laissez faire capitalism. I know ignoring that makes things convenient for you because then you have to engage with a different ideology and that's scary.

But don't let that stop you from stamping your feet and running off from a different view that doesn't support the nanny state model.

You're literally calling me a communist because I want to end homelessness and am advocating that the US adopt social policies that the vast majority of the rest of the industrialized world has adopted.
Do you honestly expect me to take you seriously?

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're literally calling me a communist because I want to end homelessness

No I literally called you a deep left field totalitarian leftist because you want to use violence to confiscate others property in order to do it.

That is definitively left wing and authoritarian.

and am advocating that the US adopt social policies that the vast majority of the rest of the industrialized world has adopted.

You say that as if that means something.

The US was not founded for nor set up to mimic the rest of the industrialized world, Europe or anyone else.

We were set up with our own set of ideals and principals, economic liberalism being of utmost importance.

Do you honestly expect me to take you seriously?

You're the guy advocating extreme socialism in the USA....you're right I shouldn't take you seriously at all.

 

[Hypoxia]

Do you honestly expect me to take you seriously?

Iggy is your friend.

 

[phrodeau]

You're literally calling me a communist because I want to end homelessness and am advocating that the US adopt social policies that the vast majority of the rest of the industrialized world has adopted.
Do you honestly expect me to take you seriously?

BotanyBoy doesn't "honestly" anything at all.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Iggy is your friend.

Oh yea...crawl into the iggy bunker with Hypoxia, cower from any opinion that differs from your own!

Like Hypoxia the great coward....too scared to hear anything that might conflict with it's grand delusions.

BotanyBoy doesn't "honestly" anything at all.

Ohhhh.....poor phro.


If you don't agree with him and toe his line, you must be dishonest!!

Like cowslinger... agree with him or he'll call you a liar and other nasty names.

 

[Tnt69]

......

 

[Hypoxia]

" Yup, getting more sheep dependent on the government is a great idea" said the communist to the socialist. Great start!

If society doesn't have your back, you're fucked. Just saying. Have fun on your trapline. You built your own beaver traps, right? You depend on nothing but weather, migrations, and your own skill as the bear gnaws your foot, right? You're the rugged fucking individualist. Stay off the public roads! They're socialist! And treat your own fucking diseases. No gov't vaccines, no!

I love watching the spews of those knowing nothing of history. Do it again.

ObTopic: Carson is a putz. Tromp should have put all his primary opponents in cabinet positions just to highlight what fools they are.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

If society doesn't have your back, you're fucked. Just saying. Have fun on your trapline. You built your own beaver traps, right? You depend on nothing but weather, migrations, and your own skill as the bear gnaws your foot, right? You're the rugged fucking individualist. Stay off the public roads! They're socialist! And treat your own fucking diseases. No gov't vaccines, no!

I love watching the spews of those knowing nothing of history. Do it again.

ObTopic: Carson is a putz. Tromp should have put all his primary opponents in cabinet positions just to highlight what fools they are.

And more ranting from the liberal in his ivory tower...We survived eight years I think you'll manage.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

And more ranting from the liberal in his ivory tower...We survived eight years I think you'll manage.

That particular Liberal.......appears to be one of the originals. Not some fly-by-night wannabes we see so much of these days. Just sayin'

 

[BotanyBoy]

And more ranting from the liberal in his ivory tower...We survived eight years I think you'll manage.

That particular Liberal.......appears to be one of the originals. Not some fly-by-night wannabes we see so much of these days. Just sayin'

Anti-civil rights hating, freedom despising blood red Socialist.

There isn't anything liberal abut that sack of lying shit....it fucking HATES liberty with a white hot passion more so than all but maybe one or two other stains who visit these boards.