If cutting Section 8 back to a much smaller and more tightly managed program is your goal then I'm fine with that as a starting point. Ultimately I see it as a case of "give a man a fish" vs teaching him to fish. Section 8 distorts the economics and people might think that they are making it but really they are not. I'm reminded of an article that I read about long term rent control renters who have a harsh shock when for whatever reason their situation changes and they must pay the full market rate.
As for being a victim of its own success, who wouldn't want to only pay 30% of their bills. Obviously everyone wants a deal like that. It's a deal that's too good to be true or sustained. Moreover it creates resentment with the neighbors who don't get the easy ride.
Final note - good luck getting an apology out of another person on the Internet:-)
One other comment - I am sorry I suggested that you die. That is uncalled for. I'll change that to "... if you support Section 8 then I can only hope that you stop and soon."
If you have that right, then so do the people living in those neighborhoods you look down on. But sounds like you already got yours.
How is it the posters responsibility to fix neighborhoods? You can't exactly go door to door and shoot gang members even when you know full well who they are. The best that an individual can do is leave. I'm not clear why you criticize him for wanting to lead a peaceful life. How would you propose the poster fix things?
Sounds like a bubble. What you'll find if you bother to actually look further is that you're confusing national crime rates with regional crime rates. For example crime can be going up in some areas why down in others. The question then would be why is crime going up in the areas where it is rising. That's what the article dealt with. You should read it, it really is quite interesting and is not disingenuous nor fact free.
Poor reading or just want to maintain your bubble? Being exposed to different viewpoints is how you might learn something. Or you can cover your ears and run away. Let me guess, you support "Safe Spaces" too;-)
I'm completely befuddled as to why you would support anything that helps export crime. It was a "victim of its own success" because who wouldn't want to only pay 30% of their bills. I imagine that I could sign up my whole block for that program. It's an insult to those who *do* earn their own way in the world to have a neighbor who only pays 30%.
Today, just about ANYONE who meets the income requirements can get on section 8 (it is awarded typically by lottery), there is no screening, no followup, or anything else. Its use has (as your citations notes) exported crime from the high crime areas to the low crime areas, all under the guise of "equality" (where everyone lives an equally shitty life, I guess?) it's basically the inverse of the "villas at Kenny's House" gag on South Park, with predictable results.I (strongly!) support section 8, but as it was originally designed and implemented, and not the gigantic mess we have today.
Why do you strongly support a program that is by your own admission a gigantic mess?
I'm normally fairly civil on the internet but if you support Section 8 then I can only hope that you die and soon. Section 8 is an insult to every hard working American and supports generational poverty while simultaneously enriching the already rich. In short just about everything bad is embodied in Section 8. The rich get guaranteed government checks, the poor get free housing and spread more crime (citation below) and the middle class just gets the shaft as usual.
1) Why didn't a similar list appear either during the Obama or Bush II years? Or for that matter why not during previous presidents terms?
2) Your friends in the band didn't have dealings with key people who might have wanted information to stay private. Musicians who take drugs are prone to dying early. Professionals with careers not so much.
In the 90's people who make excuses for the Clintons [I'm looking at you Snopes] suggested that anyone who knows so many people is bound to have some with questionable suicides. However I don't recall a similar list appearing either during the Bush II or Obama years. Just the Clintons. I guess we'll add that to the long list of amazing coincidences that continually surround the Clintons. For those too young to remember what I'm talking about, there is a long list of Clinton associates dying under questionable circumstances. The most notable was probably Vince Foster but there were others.
Bottled water is not as clean as you think it is...:)
I have a family member who works for a water district and he mentions periodically that the standards for drinking water are higher than the standards for bottled water.
Removing money is actually required to achieve less corruption. Here's an example from a sparsely populated state regarding local issues:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
There are many reasons why and ways that the obscenely rich can bend the rules. Transparency, the actual definition not the Obama et al version, and campaign limits are the only way to return democracy to the people.
Instead of "time for a law change" can we admit that the current setup is flawed and a reboot would be better than patching it? The sooner we can get the discussion going the better, because what we have now is past the expiration date.
Ignoring stereotypes as completely untrue is denying reality. Similarly expecting stereotypes to always be true for a given person is stupid. My experience is that stereotypes are useful for a first approximation. They are, on average, largely true. However like all averages there are variations among the samples and so not every member of a group will fit all aspects (or perhaps even most aspects) of the group stereotype.
LeftDot? Slashdot is only "left" if you are approaching Hitler and Mussolini in your wacko right-ness.
I think the comment is on to something. It's mostly a mix of left wing and libertarian. You can sort out the left wing folks by their general SJW tendencies as well as frequent use of Somalia as a retort to libertarians. I'd guess 50% left wing, 35% libertarian, and the rest is right wing / other.
Stereotypes exist for a reason. They are the top few traits that score above the mean for a histogram of traits for a given group. If a given group wants to change the stereotype then change the traits in enough of it's members and the problem will take care of itself. People bitching about stereotypes make me laugh since stereotypes aren't created, they are just observations.
This law is a flagrant F.U. to the separation of church and state...
"Digital versions of the Bible will be exempt from the digital downloads tax."
If they wanted an exemption that would do society some good, thye should exempt textbooks, but then kids might get exposed to more of that heretical "science."
The summary says the Bible and the law says religious organizations, which includes churches. Textbooks are also excluded. Essentially the summary was flamebait and you fell for it. Way to show your biases though:-) If you're interested in facts as opposed to your rant here are the exemptions:
There are a few exemptions to the tax.
Under current state tax laws, textbooks sales are tax-exempt. That same exemption applies for digital textbooks purchased from or through accredited schools.
Purchases made by charitable organizations, volunteer fire companies, religious organizations and nonprofit education institutions won't need to pay the sales tax, either.
And newspaper and magazine subscriptions sales are tax-free, too.
The money that various companies pay to be the official XYZ sponsor of the Olympics is paid to the Olympic Committee, which is a "not for profit" yet takes in billions and putts draconian restrictions on everyone attending. Here are some details of their various demands:
https://mises.org/blog/olympic...
Reasons like those outlined in the link are why any sensible country is opting out.
But no. It's unfair to developing nations to have all the prestige remain in the hands of colonial / first-world nations / pick your SJW bullsh!t.
I'm no fan of SJW, but I think that this is not a SJW issue. For the highest bidder they will hold the games anywhere. The Olympics are just a scam for the uber rich to make money off of unpaid athletes hoping for stardom. For reference the Olympic Committee is a not for profit based in Switzerland, land of the tax scams.
On a side note - the Republicans had the most winnable presidential race in decades, handed to them on a silver platter. So they decided to nominate just about the most unelectable candidate imaginable. Unbelievable.;
My observation is that the two political parties have an agreement that they will pick candidates in the league, much like how boxing or wrestling have opponents from the same weight class. Thus if the Democrats were going to run Hillary, as the leaked emails clearly show that they were going to do no matter what it took, the Republicans had no choice but to run Trump.
... First off, if this fortune 500 company is not one of the new inductees to the list from mainland China or some equivalent 3rd world country, I do not believe, they would risk anything like that.
To be fair there have been *many* major scandals by major companies that in hindsight seem spectacularly foolish. The most recent example is probably VW but FIFA getting charged under RICO, Olympic commission being so openly bribed that Rio & Sochi were deemed good sites for games, accounting scandals too numerous to name. Remember that Enron was at one time a fortune 500 company. I'd say that large organizations do dumb things all the time.
... Obviously. As evidenced by the "Trump 2016" - no sane person would vote Trump
You assume that a sane person likes the status quo. Trump gets us closer to whatever the next chapter in the story of the US holds. Current trends aren't sustainable, something has got to give. Hillary just postpones the inevitable. I'm hoping for a splintered US, where it breaks up into a few pieces personally. I trust neither the right nor the left on enough issues to like the current game of lets impose on will on everyone via the Federal government.
Slashdot Mirror
As for being a victim of its own success, who wouldn't want to only pay 30% of their bills. Obviously everyone wants a deal like that. It's a deal that's too good to be true or sustained. Moreover it creates resentment with the neighbors who don't get the easy ride. Final note - good luck getting an apology out of another person on the Internet :-)
One other comment - I am sorry I suggested that you die. That is uncalled for. I'll change that to "... if you support Section 8 then I can only hope that you stop and soon."
If you have that right, then so do the people living in those neighborhoods you look down on. But sounds like you already got yours.
How is it the posters responsibility to fix neighborhoods? You can't exactly go door to door and shoot gang members even when you know full well who they are. The best that an individual can do is leave. I'm not clear why you criticize him for wanting to lead a peaceful life. How would you propose the poster fix things?
Sounds like a bubble. What you'll find if you bother to actually look further is that you're confusing national crime rates with regional crime rates. For example crime can be going up in some areas why down in others. The question then would be why is crime going up in the areas where it is rising. That's what the article dealt with. You should read it, it really is quite interesting and is not disingenuous nor fact free.
Poor reading or just want to maintain your bubble? Being exposed to different viewpoints is how you might learn something. Or you can cover your ears and run away. Let me guess, you support "Safe Spaces" too ;-)
Today, just about ANYONE who meets the income requirements can get on section 8 (it is awarded typically by lottery), there is no screening, no followup, or anything else. Its use has (as your citations notes) exported crime from the high crime areas to the low crime areas, all under the guise of "equality" (where everyone lives an equally shitty life, I guess?) it's basically the inverse of the "villas at Kenny's House" gag on South Park, with predictable results.I (strongly!) support section 8, but as it was originally designed and implemented, and not the gigantic mess we have today.
Why do you strongly support a program that is by your own admission a gigantic mess?
Citation: http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...
1) Why didn't a similar list appear either during the Obama or Bush II years? Or for that matter why not during previous presidents terms?
2) Your friends in the band didn't have dealings with key people who might have wanted information to stay private. Musicians who take drugs are prone to dying early. Professionals with careers not so much.
for solid state drives. They are completely quiet.
In the 90's people who make excuses for the Clintons [I'm looking at you Snopes] suggested that anyone who knows so many people is bound to have some with questionable suicides. However I don't recall a similar list appearing either during the Bush II or Obama years. Just the Clintons. I guess we'll add that to the long list of amazing coincidences that continually surround the Clintons. For those too young to remember what I'm talking about, there is a long list of Clinton associates dying under questionable circumstances. The most notable was probably Vince Foster but there were others.
Bottled water is not as clean as you think it is... :)
I have a family member who works for a water district and he mentions periodically that the standards for drinking water are higher than the standards for bottled water.
Our cities on the coastlines (where we've historically loved building cities) will get flooded.
You had me at LA gets flooded. Makes me want to buy a hummer right now. That applies to both the city in California as well as the state in the South.
Removing money is actually required to achieve less corruption. Here's an example from a sparsely populated state regarding local issues: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... There are many reasons why and ways that the obscenely rich can bend the rules. Transparency, the actual definition not the Obama et al version, and campaign limits are the only way to return democracy to the people.
I think Snowden did this already.
Instead of "time for a law change" can we admit that the current setup is flawed and a reboot would be better than patching it? The sooner we can get the discussion going the better, because what we have now is past the expiration date.
Ignoring stereotypes as completely untrue is denying reality. Similarly expecting stereotypes to always be true for a given person is stupid. My experience is that stereotypes are useful for a first approximation. They are, on average, largely true. However like all averages there are variations among the samples and so not every member of a group will fit all aspects (or perhaps even most aspects) of the group stereotype.
LeftDot? Slashdot is only "left" if you are approaching Hitler and Mussolini in your wacko right-ness.
I think the comment is on to something. It's mostly a mix of left wing and libertarian. You can sort out the left wing folks by their general SJW tendencies as well as frequent use of Somalia as a retort to libertarians. I'd guess 50% left wing, 35% libertarian, and the rest is right wing / other.
Stereotypes exist for a reason. They are the top few traits that score above the mean for a histogram of traits for a given group. If a given group wants to change the stereotype then change the traits in enough of it's members and the problem will take care of itself. People bitching about stereotypes make me laugh since stereotypes aren't created, they are just observations.
This law is a flagrant F.U. to the separation of church and state... "Digital versions of the Bible will be exempt from the digital downloads tax."
If they wanted an exemption that would do society some good, thye should exempt textbooks, but then kids might get exposed to more of that heretical "science."
The summary says the Bible and the law says religious organizations, which includes churches. Textbooks are also excluded. Essentially the summary was flamebait and you fell for it. Way to show your biases though :-) If you're interested in facts as opposed to your rant here are the exemptions:
There are a few exemptions to the tax. Under current state tax laws, textbooks sales are tax-exempt. That same exemption applies for digital textbooks purchased from or through accredited schools. Purchases made by charitable organizations, volunteer fire companies, religious organizations and nonprofit education institutions won't need to pay the sales tax, either. And newspaper and magazine subscriptions sales are tax-free, too.
Source: http://lancasteronline.com/new...
The money that various companies pay to be the official XYZ sponsor of the Olympics is paid to the Olympic Committee, which is a "not for profit" yet takes in billions and putts draconian restrictions on everyone attending. Here are some details of their various demands: https://mises.org/blog/olympic... Reasons like those outlined in the link are why any sensible country is opting out.
Good luck getting 2 day delivery on a kickstarter
But no. It's unfair to developing nations to have all the prestige remain in the hands of colonial / first-world nations / pick your SJW bullsh!t.
I'm no fan of SJW, but I think that this is not a SJW issue. For the highest bidder they will hold the games anywhere. The Olympics are just a scam for the uber rich to make money off of unpaid athletes hoping for stardom. For reference the Olympic Committee is a not for profit based in Switzerland, land of the tax scams.
On a side note - the Republicans had the most winnable presidential race in decades, handed to them on a silver platter. So they decided to nominate just about the most unelectable candidate imaginable. Unbelievable.;
My observation is that the two political parties have an agreement that they will pick candidates in the league, much like how boxing or wrestling have opponents from the same weight class. Thus if the Democrats were going to run Hillary, as the leaked emails clearly show that they were going to do no matter what it took, the Republicans had no choice but to run Trump.
... First off, if this fortune 500 company is not one of the new inductees to the list from mainland China or some equivalent 3rd world country, I do not believe, they would risk anything like that.
To be fair there have been *many* major scandals by major companies that in hindsight seem spectacularly foolish. The most recent example is probably VW but FIFA getting charged under RICO, Olympic commission being so openly bribed that Rio & Sochi were deemed good sites for games, accounting scandals too numerous to name. Remember that Enron was at one time a fortune 500 company. I'd say that large organizations do dumb things all the time.
... Obviously. As evidenced by the "Trump 2016" - no sane person would vote Trump
You assume that a sane person likes the status quo. Trump gets us closer to whatever the next chapter in the story of the US holds. Current trends aren't sustainable, something has got to give. Hillary just postpones the inevitable. I'm hoping for a splintered US, where it breaks up into a few pieces personally. I trust neither the right nor the left on enough issues to like the current game of lets impose on will on everyone via the Federal government.