Why is there so much public housing in NYC?

someone's life

"People who have absolutely no concept, understanding or knowledge of the history of socialism and dictatorship are complete embracing government control. You are so willing to give up your individuality and liberty for security.... I find that pathetic and abhorrent."

Sorry to interject in this absolute inanity, but anyone conflating "socialism" and "dictatorship" doesn't really understand the terms "history", "control", "individuality", and "liberty." To name a few.

socialism is dictatorship

i've got news for you...for every rich person who stops working---there are 100's of qualified individuals who are ready, willing and able to take over from them.

very few high income people are crucial much less irreplaceable. and true innovators don't give a rat's ass about taxes or money--they're doing it because that's what they do.

do you think michael jordan excelled because of his salary or low marginal tax rate?

socialism is dictatorship.

just like being in the top income bracket is like being a galley slave?

>> that implies that you get no benefit from the government. absurd.

CC, we've had enough conversation for you to know that is not my position. although as i read julia's posts i'm beginning to think it is! i think you'll remember that i do not object to what is legitimate govt activity. i do benefit from many forms of government activity and i am no anarchist.

>> if 10's of millions of people were suddenly cut off from all funds?
dag...my mouth is getting full with all these words that you are trying to stuff in there CC! :) no one should stop social security, medicare/caid at once...that is irresponsible and is unfair to those that have framed their entire lives around anticipating that govt support. however, those systems are not fiscally sustainable and i do disagree with the *degree* of activity and the *source* of the activity (federal vs local). so why not scale it back over a long period...allow people to opt-out.... transfer the controls to the states if possible.

>> but also protects the rest of us?
i see where you are coming from but i have to tell you that your view on taxes and entitlements being the mechanism by which society is held together is odd-sounding to me...although it's certainly not the first time i've heard it so i know you have friends in your camp.

i do recognize that if society teaches the citizenry to embrace government solutions, to embrace taxes and entitlements, that this view will become more dominant over time. but try to see it from the other side...

the free marketeer believes in the "harmony of interests" as the mechanism which keeps society together. this is when a person that is allowed to pursue his/her self-interests satisfies themselves individually as well as society overall in the aggregate. for those that believe in this harmony we obviously view the over-involvement of government as a *threat* to the civil society, not a friend as the interests of the individual are suppressed and substituted with the interests of the state.

"I'm just curious, can someone here think of a single industrialized country that has free market capitalism? I've thought about this question last night, but I could not think of a single country. So come on, if free market capitalism is so great, you must be able to name at least 1 modern country that currently has it.

Thats moronic logic.

Not to mention, we're the more prosperous nation in the world, and are certainly closer to it than the majority of the world... and the European countries that fell WAY behind us did so because of their socialism, and their governments are now moving right (see what happened in the last elections).

Alpo, if socialism is so good, tell me what industrialized nation is pure socialism.

"At what tax rate do you think the "rich" will stop working ..50% 60% 70& 100% When you tax income you are taxing someone life. "

if 70% is the highest marginal rate on the "rich" you can think it not as a tax on life, but a tax on greediness and workaholism (members of that cult generally don't make good family members nor friends, it's not good for society imho). but if instead, that marginal rate is applied to people of all levels of income (even to those that barely cover necessities) then i agree with you julialg, that taxation system becomes oppressive.

>>Thats moronic logic.

:) and i should say that if it's not moronic it is a strange reverse band-wagoning argument. the absence of "pure capitalism"...whatever that is...does not de-legitimize proponents of capitalism and free markets. no system is perfect, but the free marketeer believes that our system provides the most prosperity to the most amount of people. america is fairly unique is this regard and that speaks to our exceptionalism.

oh...and you know what...the system promoted by the free marketeer is a system that is based on individual liberty and self-interest which is good.

totalitarian systems and socialist systems are based on outright force and coercion respectively. they are antithetical to the natural human state which is why they tend to fail so often. of course the socialist liberal believes that the "greater good" can be achieved....if only they can convince or force the citizen to surrender his/her property so it can put it to *better* use. after all, the individual is stupid and doesn't know what to do with their property...the state does.

"Alpo, if socialism is so good, tell me what industrialized nation is pure socialism."

we are talking about the need of a safety net, not about centrally designed allocation of capital. if socialism is what you deplore, there are clear candidates to go against (clearer than keeping a fragile safety net):

* wall street subsidies

* farm subsidies, especially to corn... sodas then help to create the obesity epidemic with it's diabetes epidemic, a boon for the health care industry

* help to struggling homeowners cause buying a house by design cannot be a losing proposition for any American, no matter how much you HELOC it nor how high was the ridiculous price you accepted to pay for it

* subsidizing elite universities much more than public ones (and allow them to call themselves "public" and charge a sky high tuition at the same time)

* bail out the big 2, GM and Chrysler, and any other enterprise that should have fall due to its own lack of merits if that enterprise is big enough and has a place in American's sentimentality. no matter that their unions did everything possible to bring them down, accountable? not really! taxpayers without pensions will end up paying up the pensions of those as*holes.

the list of anti-capitalistic measures the gov takes on a daily basis than waste much more $ than a bare bones safety net goes on and on and on and on... only a blind man (or julialg) cannot see this.

>> tax on greediness and workaholism

gosh i hope i am reading this wrong or you are joking...but are you saying that (success and productivity) = (greed and workaholism)? gosh, i hope you aren't...that's weird.

>> only a blind man (or julialg) cannot see this.

notadmin, you cannot clobber someone with their own argument. i believe if you read julia's posts in their entirety your find that she wants government "out of the way" in most if not all respects and would tend to agree with you on your last post as do i.

however, while your last post has merit your intent is unclear. are you saying that future entitlements, taxes, bailouts, and government controls are justified because of past illegitimate entitlements, taxes, bailouts, and government control?

i'm saying that those complaining that htey are paying a marginal rate of 70% cause they earn half a million should reconsider being a workaholic. clearly they are productive, so tehy should be capable of getting a livable salary paying much less taxes on half of the time they work.

being highly productive is to their advantage. the fact that they don't see that they have the freedom to work less (and that leisure time is actually being subsidized for them) is the scary part. yes, indeed, they sound like greedy and workaholic to me, which is not a plus.

"use. after all, the individual is stupid and doesn't know what to do with their property...the state does."

660, I was more or less with you until that very tongue-in-cheek, but very wrong statement. It has nothing to do with intelligence - government is simply better equipped/organized to redistribute the wealth generated by its people. The fundamental question behind all of this really has little to do with government though - the distinction is found in how much of your success is really attributable to you and only you, versus a product of the circumstances you're in due to others. And because of a) the near impossibility to measure and agree upon an answer, b) the lack of education, exposure, and time to truly consider others' circumstances, and c) greed, people will likely argue about this forever.

usually those earning such high salaries had invested a lot on human capital (the money making type). it's weird that they don't realize that at some point they have to invest the other type of human capital (having a life beyond work). the smart ones that recognize ahead how short life is and how much higher taxes would probably end up being (thanks to entitlements and unfunded pensions) are investing in having a life. that investment is being subsidized and it'll be even more subsidized thanks to high marginal rates.

when the highest marginal rates on income were so high pre-Reagan, highly productive guys solved it by not working as much. hence the distribution of income wasn't as bad as it is nowadays. having leisure is underrated imho nowadays, it shouldn't be. you need time to be a good father, to be a good friend, to have a balanced life.

>> clearly they are productive,
>> have the freedom to work less

on a personal level i agree with you and always try to have balance in my life which is good. and we also agree that taxing something tends to produce less of it. but we strongly disagree (i think) in what taxes are for. your statements seem to support the view of taxes as punitive whereas i see them as a necessary mechanism to raise revenue. maybe we're close on this but i can't tell yet honestly :)

but you see, how much i choose to work or not is rightfully *my* decision and is driven by *my* self-interest....not primarily yours or the state. productive individuals who *want* to work more is an enormous benefit to society...or no?

maybe you are implying that productive individuals are not productive but are criminal in some way...i know that this view is pervasive. but do tell.

or are you saying that some kind of *fairness* is promoted when government punishes productive individuals for having the good things in life? do tell

"however, while your last post has merit your intent is unclear. are you saying that future entitlements, taxes, bailouts, and government controls are justified because of past illegitimate entitlements, taxes, bailouts, and government control?"

intent? there's no agenda, just facts. the fact that major anti capitalist deals are given the "ok" by middle class and above (and shouldn't, check the items in teh list) and cost much more money than teh bare bones safety net USA has.

that's a fact, not an agenda. a very sad fact indeed that simply shows "i'm just f*cking anti poor cause i believe i will never be one)

that's teh point. when it's $ going to poor or kids people shout SOCIALISM! even though it's cents on the dollar (and often a good investment)... when it's plainly against every single capitalistic rule but they believe it might have an advantage to them... not a word about socialism.

to make my point more clear, julialg sounds to me like a city version of those farmers in the midwest shouting against socialism cause of giving health care to kids and their parents (parents work, still cannot afford them). these self-serving as*holes don't even dare to suggest that farm subsidies are not compatible with capitalism. that's my point... how much of julialg's tax dollars go to the poor and how much to hand outs with a big lobby? do the math! you'll be surprised and begin to complain about the real tax dollars drain.

>> hence the distribution of income wasn't as bad as it is nowadays.

gotcha. well we're not close :( oh well. i think i understand your position better now though. tell me if i'm close:

highly productive individuals are a net harm to society because they aren't spending enough time on the important non-work related activities AND they also are not making enough "investments" in society because they do not want to surrender the income they've rightfully earned through their efforts. we must empower government to punish these individuals with taxes or other means until they reduce their productivity and live their lives the way the state believes they should. there would not be as much of a maldistribution of wealth which is a good thing. with those confiscated monies and property the state can then provide higher levels of entitlement and services to the people which "liberates" the individual from personal responsibility and personal freedom...leading to the greater good of society.

how close am i?

660: you are clearly in love with the sound of your own voice. lets cut through the nonsense and come back to practical reality. this whole discussion began with your lovely friend julia telling us how all taxation is slavery and should be abolished. (try explaining that to abe lincoln) my question remains: how do the people who are dependent on the gov't survive? how do all the various gov't services that we all rely on (boring, but necessary) get handled?

"provide higher levels of entitlement and services to the people which "liberates" the individual from personal responsibility and personal freedom"

omg, how come having a safety net liberates people from personal freedom? lol, i guess if you don't see what i say by now, there's no hope. but here's the last try: when you earn enough to live and you think you are being taxed too much for your extra efforts, you have the FREEDOM to work less and have a life. you are also FREE to work as much as you can, but nobody is cheating in the sense that you know that tax rates up front. is it clear?

the rest is only admiration for those that instead of complaining like a martyr, take the labor market as it is and interact with it on their own terms (which is acting like a non-slave). do you have enough balls for that? well... it's worth to try imho. the areas of your life that you might be sacrificing cause of working too much will flourish.

What do you folks think the alternative to public housing is?

Shantytown.

notadmin.... lets take your argument to the extreme... The producers all take your advice, work a lot less or just stop working and live off their wealth and entitlements. Society collapses because there is no more $$$$ to take care of the rest of society.

>> 660: you are clearly in love with the sound of your own voice.

well, yes but really only during karaoke...fun stuff. do you go ever? oh...and julia's arguments are her own...not mine...although i agree with her 95%. understand that i depart from julia (i think) in that i recognize that society must protect the defenseless.

>>--------------------------------------------------
>> how do the people who are dependent on the gov't survive?

ok, i formatted this as a 5-point plank style plan just for you :)

1> they get a job and work.
2> if they don't get a job and work they have the option to go/stay on the dole.
3> those on the dole will have a lien against them until their debt to society is repaid.
4> the govt dole will be substandard in all respects (housing, food, health care, entertainment, etc)
5> private industry will partner with government to address regional joblessness, labor dislocations

>> how do all the various gov't services that we all rely on (boring, but necessary) get handled?
well, give me a list and i'll try to address it, cool?

notadmin .... Do i really sound like I am in favor of farm subsidies or any kind of corporate welfare. I am against All government transfer payments.

"notadmin.... lets take your argument to the extreme... The producers all take your advice, work a lot less or just stop working and live off their wealth and entitlements. Society collapses because there is no more $$$$ to take care of the rest of society."

it's self regulating and dynamic. for sure you know full well, welfare programs (like food stamps for example) are not used forever but when the need arises. not everybody is 100% productive all the time nor everybody is (as you will like to think) dependent on others. you are productive now but could be homeless 5 to 10 years from now, hence need a shelter. get it?

"Do i really sound like I am in favor of farm subsidies or any kind of corporate welfare. I am against All government transfer payments."

great! if more anger and energy was spent against the biggest 5 programs/bailouts/transfers... which ones would they be? where is public housing on that list?

3> those on the dole will have a lien against them until their debt to society is repaid.

lol, you mean like the debt of people that bought more house than they needed cause of greediness and is being bailout by transferring that debt to everybody else (unfortunately, not only to fellow homeowners)? sure! put a lien so that you can bail them out later.

why on earth would we bailout wall street and the middle class but not the poor???

>> omg, how come having a safety net liberates people from personal freedom?
>> lol, i guess if you don't see what i say by now, there's no hope. but here's
>> the last try: when you earn enough to live and you think you are being taxed
>> too much for your extra efforts, you have the FREEDOM to work less and have
>> a life. you are also FREE to work as much as you can, but nobody is cheating in
>> the sense that you know that tax rates up front. is it clear?

yes. we both acknowledge that a social safety net is good...albeit i think this net should be lighter in entitlement than you do, means-tested so that only the *truly* needy and defenseless can quality. so there's room for valid disagreements there.

however i must tell you that your very clear position linking the social safety net to punitive taxation and suppression of the productive individual is quite revealing. of course many people share your view..but this is rarely expressed outside of certain very-Left circles in my experience.

of course entitlements are ultimately funded by the taxes collected from productive individuals so don't be surprised that a lot of people see your position as disjointed and self-defeating. in fact i'm actually surprised that some of the more-Left people on this board don't find your position appalling. but hey, that's ok too i guess.

punishing success and then saying you are free to not be successful is a very odd perspective. i hope you recognize how your line of thinking heavily contributes to the cyclical joblessness and dependency that we're talking about at the moment.

but honestly, do you sense any resentment of productivity and success? that plainly seems to be the primary motivation behind your statements. but i may not be sensing things right so i apologize in advance if i'm not getting it right. if that case, please do tell me how you rationalize punitive taxes against the productive and where you think that will lead us...particularly in funding the entitlements. tnx

>> why on earth would we bailout wall street and the middle class but not the poor???

notadmin, i am consistent...are you?. i did not support a single bailout including the ones you've rattled off. government should not be in the business of rewarding and punishing. this is part of the "govt out of the way" line of thinking. people that have made bad decisions should be held accountable, period.

as you know, past wrongs do not justify future wrongs. so please don't try to box me into your convenient narrative as it's not my position at all.

with that said...i think we'd agree that "wall st", financial services generally, and much of large private industry does have much more access to government that me or you do and that is not right.

hey folks, good talking but i gotta grab some lunch. so don't think i've abandoned this conversation. till later

660incontract... I have tremendous respect for you. Thanks

"- government is simply better equipped/organized to redistribute the wealth generated by its people. " BJW2103

This statement is perhaps the most naive and silly statement posted so far. First, the government has to take the money from individuals by force; than the government "clerks" get to distribute the confiscated money as he arbitrarily deems. He picks winners and loser at his discretion making sure he will get enough votes to keep him in power. The trillions in waste from this scheme would be much better spent by the people who earned it.

julialg, are you arguing that individuals are better at redistributing wealth than the government? If so, then THAT's the most naive and silly thing I've seen on this thread. Because that's exactly what the government does in the form of police forces, firefighters, Medicare/Medicaid, public education, etc. Just imagine how a privatized police force would end up. Of course there should be limits to what government has its hand in, as well as how much taxation should be "forced" on its citizens, but if you think fairness and equality are more easily attained in a free-for-all, individualist scenario than one with a government and democratically-elected officials, you probably live in a bubble or are just here to play the part of rabble-rouser.

I am arguing that there should be absolutely no redistribution of wealth. There should be taxes so society functions. Sales tax, real-estate tax and user taxes to support police, courts, roads ,fireman etc.(preferably on a state and local level) But no income tax which is immoral.

Think America before 1913.. We had roads, military,schools ,courts,monuments,police fireman.,colleges,universities.teachers,subways,and all the services that made society function. But no federal income tax and no redistribution of wealth.

julialg, except even those taxes are effective redistribution of wealth. What you're advocating will probably never fly in this country, as you're in a distinct, extremist minority. It's something you'll just have to live with. You might be happier in the Cayman Islands.

BTW2103 No, those taxes are not redistribution of wealth.. Please, think about it. However, unfortunately, what i am advocating will never happen in this country. I agree, we are to far down the road.

julia, in 1913 we didn't have highways, legitimate public transportation, hospitals that actually made people healthier, or even 1/3 the population that we have today. If you want to live in 1913, like I said, move elsewhere. It ain't coming back.

so...now we want to return to 1913? why not 1840?

time to point back to the youtube?

julia, it is redistribution. Think about it: the wealthiest are taxed the most, and the pool of monies is used to fund public services that benefit all relatively equally. That's redistribution.

Think conceptually. The same principals would work today as in 1913. The entitlement mentality has bankrupted the country. The golden goose is not laying eggs because it is just about dead. The New York treasury is broke, the U.S treasury is broke and the taxpayers are squeezed to death. Entitlements have killed the country.. When will you admit it?

Sales tax ,real-estate and user taxes are not redistributive. First, I can choose and decide if i want to live in an area with low or high real-estate tax.(or rent) I can avoid user taxes if i wish..And the tax goes to services not to other people for entitlements.. But the income tax I can't avoid.. If i don't pay the income tax the government by force will take my income and put me in jail. Or, I can not work and starve... That is why the income tax is immoral.. It takes away my freedom and forces me to comply.

what about that small problem of all the people who are living on those entitlements? you still haven't explained what happens to them.

even your newest best friend, your comrade in arms has concerns about them. what's the plan?

CC Listen very very carefully. I will explain to you what to do... I know you have a tremendous overwhelming feeling for all the people on some form of welfare.(especially, no doubt yourself) We will faze them out slowly as to not cause the riots that cause you endless sleepless nights. Social security--- anyone under 40 no more social security for you and no more taxes. same with medicare. They will profoundly thank me for all that new found income.. For you old people, We will means test it and honor the payments to the people that truly need it...Same with all the Government programs... Lets unleash the fury of capitalism and get the government the hell out of the way. Everyone will have a better life except the parasites.

have you graduated high school?

if no one under the age of 40 pays taxes, there is no social security for those over the age of 40. same deal with medicare.

who will pay for the means test it if there is no more government? who will decide who qualifies---you?

calling social security and medicare a form of welfare is ignorant and dismissive of the facts.

Who will pay for the government if there is noone left to tax?

>> who will pay for the means test
i can't imagine this is really a point of contention.... the benefit should be there for those that need it. and no one is an anarchist here. govt does raise revenue from various sources exclusive of income taxes you know?

>> julia said "660incontract... I have tremendous respect for you. Thanks"

your welcome and ditto. you and i are surely in the minority here...but i'd like to think that we're the silent majority :)

I never post but can't help myself this time. I'm a native New Yorker. I grew up in public housing and as a matter of fact I visited my family on Avenue D yesterday so I know how the lifestyle is. My mother's a teacher and my father's a community activist. I can't even believe the ignorance at these comments. What you see as nasty buildings define the art, style, food and the essence of NYC. There is a solid community there and these are people that work hard to maintain their humble lifestyles. They have as much of a right to be there as anyone. Why would you'd want such a homogenous city? If you want pristine, move to the Connecticut suburbs. If you want London or Paris then go there. This is NYC and this is how we live - everyone grinding together. It's a way of life with edge, not a privileged gated community of Orange County. Keep public housing and stop ethnically cleansing Manhattan by pushing out vibrant communities. How about we have developers build their ugly, imposing skyscrapers in the Bronx and force the wealthy, arrogant, transplants to move over there instead of gentrifiying our neighborhoods. We lived better before you infultrated and drove prices up. Welcome to New York City - now go the f**k home.

how about you julia---where did you come from?

660: you should know better.

Jenay... We are having a philosophical discussion about the individual or collective in society.. Please join in. I personally love diversity and the comments you are referring to are on page 1 from yesterday.

> What you see as nasty buildings define the art, style, food and the essence of NYC

Now thats just dumb. Saying poor people are responsible for all the good of NYC is as ignorant as saying they're responsible for all the bad.

So, Nobu, Union Square Cafe, and Damien Hirst.... all are of the projects?

> They have as much of a right to be there as anyone.

Now thats a crock. Noone has a "right" to be anywhere. You have the right to pay for what you want... but that would actually mean these folks have less of a claim.

> Keep public housing and stop ethnically cleansing Manhattan by pushing out vibrant communities.

Now projects are "vibrant communities"? Really?

Perhaps you should look at the projects that are not adjacent to a relatively expensive part of Manhattan.

> We lived better before you infultrated and drove prices up

Actually, thats a load of crap. Folks in the projects essentially pay the same price.
And things are cleaner and safer, and you DON'T have to pay extra.

You didn't live better, you have benefitted from the gentrification, the same gentrification that removed a HUGE portion of the drugs and crime in the east village..

You really want to pretend living was better there in the late 70s?

Now we know you're full of sh*t.

Jeney, Manhattan is the wealthiest county in the US if we go by per capita income and top 5%, which even surpasses Fairfield County which is ranked at #2.

Imagine how extremely fabulously wealthy Manhattan would be if the welfare scrum parasites and their fugly brown buildings made an exit. Manhattan would be perfect.

PS -- it's not ethnic cleansing. I'm NOT white.

and some of my closest friends are....

somewhereelse: My friend, Drew Nieporent; owner of Nobu: Google him.

Where in Manhattan did young Drew live, with his family?

You elitist!

Norway ... discuss.
Belgium ... discuss.

CC Listen very very carefully. I will explain to you what to do... I know you have a tremendous overwhelming feeling for all the people on some form of welfare.(especially, no doubt yourself) We will faze them out slowly as to not cause the riots that cause you endless sleepless nights. Social security--- anyone under 40 no more social security for you and no more taxes. same with medicare. They will profoundly thank me for all that new found income.. For you old people, We will means test it and honor the payments to the people that truly need it...Same with all the Government programs... Lets unleash the fury of capitalism and get the government the hell out of the way. Everyone will have a better life except the parasites.

julia: time to check out the difference between phase and faze or was this intentional?

scotty, beam me up! (yet another use of phase(r).

daze and faze cc they are in for a shock.....No more nanny state.

this is from the "i am an idiot and proud of it" camp? i may not know how to speak or use language but i know what i know---go check out this neat youtube.

> somewhereelse: My friend, Drew Nieporent; owner of Nobu: Google him.
> Where in Manhattan did young Drew live, with his family?
> You elitist!

Stuyvesant High School (of course!), lawyer dad, radio star mom. Sounds like working class to me!

columbiacounty
about 3 years ago
Posts: 11958
Member since: Jan 2009
ignore this person
report abuse
>and some of my closest friends are...

You never did tell us...

se, why?

Over 60% of the rental market in NYC is government controlled: rent stabilized, rent controlled, public housing, Mitchell-Lama, In Rem, HUD, Article 4, etc. Market-rate renters subsidize the beneficiaries of those programs through higher taxes and rent.

Because there's a huge voting population of eligible recipients and catering to it is good politics.