Section 8: Thousands May Lose Rental Vouchers

I think it's agood idea to end the section 8 program, too many people are using it as a easy way to live in good neighborhoods while the Government pays their rent, the only people who should be exempt are the elderly and sick, this program has become a way of life for most people...
I have seen abuse on many ocassions, most of these people who save money in housing use their money to buy video games, sneakers and drugs...
In Georgia they are starting a test program if you use public funds, you must take a drug test and I wish they would pass that law here, but I know Obama would think thats breaking into their civil rights, even thought those use public funds which are from our taxpayers money...

on the landlord side section 8 is a mess. We make the needed improvements to the units so the tenant will pay their share and the gov will pay the rest. As soon as we finish the work the tenant will knock a hole in the wall, or wack the faucet off the sink. Then they dont pay and the gov doesnt pay bc we have not completed repairs and maintainance requests are still active for the unit. This is obv a major cash flow issue. There are many people that use this service to live and there are many that abuse the system. Tighter regualtions need to be enforced in an effort to cut back on the programs abuse.

unfortunately, section 8 is vital to keeping class diversity alive in NYC.

I live in a very good neighborhood in Woodlawn Bronx, I have been here for a good part of my life and this year I have seen the changes take place, they started accepting section 8 and those buildings and houses are a problem, the people who live there have loud music playing at all hours, car horns blowing outside at all times of the night and bringing a lot of drugs into the area, we are a very tight community here and we are trying to get rid of the people who refuse to behave in a civil manner, but if we give up the whole neighborhood will go down and become section 8, we have to fight for our rights as taxpayers to keep our neighborhood safe...

amen deja. Like i said before, its a great program for those that are respectful of the service and appreciate what it can do for them. Sadly most of the people on section 8 are abusing the system and simply feel entitled to these types of benefits. That must stop. As one generation has been teaching the next to act and think this way.

> unfortunately, section 8 is vital to keeping class diversity alive in NYC.

I've heard 52 things that are all "vital" to class diversity in NYC. By definition, they can't all be.

I think stuff like section 8 makes it worse, when the full price folks resent the 8 folks... and stereotypes ensue.

Its not good for diversity to bring to certain neighborhoods low quality residents....

Glamma, unfortunately some people don't see keeping class diversity alive as a desirable objective. They want NYC, especially Manhattan, to exist solely for the rich and beautiful, regardless of how long others may have been here or how vital their contributions.

granted, I don't know the way to foster "quality" integration... but this certainly isn't it.

Perhaps the mixed-income route?

"section 8 is vital to keeping class diversity alive in NYC."

I disagree.

If you can't afford New York, you don't belong here.

NYCMatt has said it best. Why are we constantly subsidizing everything. Equality is a natural thing according to economics and now we seem to throw that out in favor of forced equality.

"I don't know the way to foster "quality" integration."

Why should it be "fostered" in the first place?

If you want to live in any expensive locale, whether it's New York, Miami Beach, Greenwich, or Beverly Hills, you do the things you need to do to be able to afford to live in that locale. And if you fall short -- like so many other Americans -- you don't live in that locale. It's really quite simple.

I see no reason why the people who CAN afford to live in the expensive locale should be forced to subsidize those who can not, simply for the sake of "integration" and "diversity".

"I don't know the way to foster "quality" integration."

Why should it be "fostered" in the first place?

If you want to live in any expensive locale, whether it's New York, Miami Beach, Greenwich, or Beverly Hills, you do the things you need to do to be able to afford to live in that locale. And if you fall short -- like so many other Americans -- you don't live in that locale. It's really quite simple.

I see no reason why the people who CAN afford to live in the expensive locale should be forced to subsidize those who can not, simply for the sake of "integration" and "diversity".

"they started accepting section 8 and those buildings and houses are a problem, the people who live there have loud music playing at all hours, car horns blowing outside at all times of the night and bringing a lot of drugs into the area"

I take it you're not embracing the "diversity".

What do you expect from people who not only don't have to actually WORK for a living, but who have absolutely no sense of respect for the property since they -- unlike you -- didn't have to WORK for it.

Every time I hear "section 8," all I think about is Cpl Klinger in a dress.

Even glamma and lizyank can't believe the nonsense they posted above.

> Why should it be "fostered" in the first place?

Because segregation is illegal, and despicable. Obviously, financial factors factor in, but so does flat out racism. And we as a country will do better when we are racially integrated. Everyone should be screwing everyone. Then poor white folks will be free to live among poor black folk, and away from me.

"If you want to live in any expensive locale, whether it's New York, Miami Beach, Greenwich, or Beverly Hills, you do the things you need to do to be able to afford to live in that locale."

Unfortunately, changing the color of your skin isn't totally doable.

"And if you fall short -- like so many other Americans -- you don't live in that locale. It's really quite simple."

We should tell all young black kids that they automatically fall short. Don't even bother trying! Sound simple to me.

"I see no reason why the people who CAN afford to live in the expensive locale should be forced to subsidize those who can not, simply for the sake of "integration" and "diversity"."

Here is a good reason... because they subsidized us.

How prosperous are the rich in America without centuries of slave labor? Or fighting our wars for us. Without the poor building the subways and the skyscrapers?

It should not be a permanent thing, but all Americans should have a fair chance at the dream, regardless of skin color.

somewhereelse- it was never meant to be a permanent thing. We all agree with your points however wellfare and sec 8 have become crutches for people that never learned to walk when these programs were only supposed to be temp assistance while one finds work and can better establish themselves. Why work when you have two programs paying rent and feeding your family. Where these programs stand today is a disgrace to the "assistance" that was being provided. Now they are standard means of income.

If we didn't outsource all our manufacturing jobs, lower & middle earners could earn a decent living & wouldn't need assistance. There's a great documentry on this on HBO (on demand) & it's very relevant to the NYC economy:

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/schmatta-rags-to-riches-to-rags/index.html

If we didn't outsource our manufacturing jobs, we'd be paying 5x as much for our drill bits at 2x for our cars. The lower and middle earners would be worse off in that scenario.

btw, we couldn't outsource healthcare... look how well that worked. Went up several times over and got worse...

> somewhereelse- it was never meant to be a permanent thing.

Agreed, and it should not be.

> We all agree with your points however wellfare and sec 8 have become crutches for people that never
> learned to walk when these programs were only supposed to be temp assistance while one finds work
> and can better establish themselves.

We don't disagree.

> Why work when you have two programs paying rent and feeding your family.

Yup.

One of the worst things about social security and medicare is the number of folks who started figuring they didn't need to save. Yes, I feel sorry for these folks, but come on... you retired with zero in savings? Really?

"If we didn't outsource our manufacturing jobs, we'd be paying 5x as much for our drill bits at 2x for our cars. "

Why's that, somewhere? How come the US was doing OK manufacturing in the 1950s, but not now?

Me thinks greed on both sides: both mngnt & labor unions got too greedy, so we have screwed ourselves as nation.

yes labor unions got way to powerful and competely ruined manufacturing in the US. Look at the auto companies paying an avg of $60/h with ridiculous ben programs. What was the result? cars that suck and companies that lost nearly $2000 per vehicle sold. You cannot compare labor in the 50s to labor today. The products were unsafe, inefficient and ultimately would have resulted in more problems for the country if we stuck with that.

jasieg16, just a question: do you actually know anyone who is abusing the system or anyone who is actually in this system? I'm just curious.

I worked for a company for 3 years that owned 8000 units in the bronx. The majority of our tenants were section 8. I know all too well how the system gets abused haveing worked on the landlord side. You get the best picture of how bad it really is when you are attempting to make a strugling portfolio cash flow positive. This is impossible bc the only way to get rent from these tenants is to remove all violoations and maint requests on a sec 8 unit and then get both the gov and tenant to pay. Before you can even request rent the tenant has smashed the wall, or broken the sink, or whatever we fixed for them that morning. So instead of cash flow positive we are forced to go back to our partners for additional capital infusion just to handle basic building oppex. Does anyone else have this kind of experience? Has anyone been in a sec 8 tenants apt and seen their 60" samsung plasma on the wall or noticed that the tenant has a Range Rover parked outside the entrace to the building? Let me know because I have.

Plasmas are cheap and did you check the reggy and vin numbers on the rover? ;)

cheap now, yes, but nothing should be cheap for someone out of work or making so little that they qualify for gov subsidy programs.

jasieg, was that before or after you worked on the TS/PCV deal?

how do you know who owns the range rover parked outside the building? also, did you memorize the tenants of the 8000 that received section 8? or did you just look them up prior to entering their apartments so you could check out their possessions? this reminds me of the thread where someone claimed that all the 20 in an 80/20 building didn't work. i guess the taint shows somehow.

btw, landlords are not obligated to accept section 8, no? so if your company had 8000 units, mostly section 8, i can only surmise that they were providing a certain type of apartment at a certain price that the regular market wouldn't bear. i wonder how that company would do without section 8 vouchers?

before AR... Im enjoying my career in RE, avoiding brokerage the entire way. Working in both the glamorous side and the dark side of the industry. On good deals and bad. If you read this thread you will see that we began talking about how not everyone takes advantage of the system but there are certainly too many that do. And yes i witnessed this particular tenant exit their Range Rover with my own eyes in addition to hours of video from our security cameras. We were only in this residents unit bc we were alerted to suspicious activity in that unit by our securty provider. SecureWatch 24 is a great security vendor. They opp the security for that entire portfolio. Figures that AR would only read the negative here and bash someone about it. I have heard that is your MO on these threads. Do you ever contribute or just yell at other posters?

"Why's that, somewhere? How come the US was doing OK manufacturing in the 1950s, but not now?
Me thinks greed on both sides: both mngnt & labor unions got too greedy, so we have screwed ourselves as nation."

Look how powerful the european unions are... they shut down ALL commerce when they strike. And thats certainly done wonders for their economies..... (which is also why they're moving RIGHT now in their elections).

Unions run the prices up, and then say "we need raises because prices are up". Then they also say "we need raises when prices are down, and folks are being laid off, and the city has no money".

Union membership is now mostly GOVERNMENT workers (and this doesn't even include government creating union workers that aren't government employees, like home health care aides). Turns out unions kill the industries they control, unless the government is footing the bill.

This particular portfolio was acquired with that built into the model. The task was to remove violations and get those units with sec 8 tenants fully compliant in order to properly opp the buildings and eventually sell them as a manageable package of properties and not the violation riddles mess we bought. Remember when that was how re worked. Buy low, fix it up, sell higher. Not buy high bc rents and values are going to keep climbing forever. We all learned that doesnt work.

oh please. if you're taking the comms seriously you have some issues. but you haven't answered my question. the landlord is not required to accept section 8 vouchers, correct? and what does it say of a landlord that has 8000 units with mostly section 8 vouchers? and how can you generalize from a couple of incidents? and how would your security provider give you information about activity that is occurring WITHIN someone's unit?

nice diversionary tactic, however. from the one who declared i'm living in hell (which was friendly, i must say).

but are they eating shrimp? that's what i'd like to know.

would like to add, may I?
Okay thxs...

there is abuse in any system, it's human nature.. look at Madoff. Funny, may dad refused to buy ketchup or napkins, thought it was his right to pick up extra from McD. The system is set up that way... if McD wanted to be hardazzes, they could charge for ketchup ala Nice, France McD.

Another thing, I've seen ppl pay $100K for a RR or $35K, hell I've even seen a married man buy a RR for his "gal" in the projects.... so I'd like to point the finger at our politicians who wrote up this brilliant Sect 8, home owner tax breaks, $500K home flip free, etc etc etc... oh and my favorite the 20% Cap Gain tax on Hedge fund "income" instead of the a regular income tax rate... oh and the first class ticket for a private jet....

I dont' disagree w/ jasieg16, abuse is abuse, but picking on a Sect 8 tenant for a plasma, a RR, and some extra $$$ is like pointing out the fact a homeless tent city on city property is not paying "rent" while letting the politician sign a sweetheart deal on the landlease for Tavern on the Green. Let's get the $12k toilet seats in the military first....

"so I'd like to point the finger at our politicians who wrote up this brilliant Sect 8". But.....we elect them, so the joke, blame & shame is on us.

well dwell, there aren't many alternatives, are there? you could stay home i guess. but the entire country has become corporatist. i'd bet section 8 would cease to exist the minute it didn't benefit landlords.

"i'd bet section 8 would cease to exist the minute it didn't benefit landlords."
I don't agree. This program was not created to benefit LLs, it was created to benefit Ts.

"well dwell, there aren't many alternatives, are there? you could stay home i guess. but the entire country has become corporatist."
So, why can't we change it? Do we give up in defeat?

dwell, yes and no. it gave landlords an incentive to accept lower-income tenants. as it subsidizes housing it artificially increases the rents those landlords are able to charge. landlords, at least to the best of my knowledge, do not have to accept section 8 vouchers. they choose to do so, and often are as a result able to provide lesser quality units at above natural rental rates. the intention MAY have been to assist the poor, but like so many other things the system winds up aiding the not-so-poor.

i'm not advocating defeat. but when you say the blame is ours for electing our officials, i wonder what you think we could have done instead. we are not a particularly politically active people. i'd love to see a real change, but little to no change is kind of baked into our political system (even more so now that so much of the wealth, thus power, has been transferred to so few who have zero desire for change. oddly the disempowered also like the system, so long as they believe that they or theirs may someday be successful as well. the horatio alger complex is really past its prime in this country, but oddly it's alive and well despite all the evidence to the contrary). i think it would take something seismic to change it, and i can't fathom what would be the impetus.

"we are not a particularly politically active people. "

Bingo! We got to become more active & not just let "others" govern us.

but how? we don't have the fire for political activism here. and our whole national identity is based on the assumption that we are the best, that the europeans are idiots, that the emerging markets are still emerging and will never catch us. groupthink is a powerful force, and now it tells the masses that no matter how bad it is, we're still the best and damned lucky to have what we have.

it's a popular sport to hate political figures. even political ideas. but most people will read rand or the post, or watch fox or maddow, and even to the extent that they agree, just sit in the barcalounger and ask for another beer.

i'm afraid the empire as we know it will be dead before the people even realize it is happening.

Good.

Now TEAR DOWN EVERY SINGLE PROJECT HOUSING COMPLEX IN NYC.

PLEASE.

jasieg16:
> on the landlord side section 8 is a mess
> it was never meant to be a permanent thing.

it seems to be getting more and more of a bureaucratic mess too according to what i've been reading. section 8 has to be renewed annually, so in years in which the feds pass less funds to the states for section 8 less will be renewed and less new ones issued. it's not designed as a permanent arrangement (as supposed to rent-controlled in the projects and other NYCHA's properties). for what i've read, the shift from rent-controlled to section 8 and then maybe to nothing (if fed funds dry up) is not a coincidence but the realization that NYCHA's properties are always going to end up with chronic lack of basic maintenance as many rents don't even cover utilities.

somewhereelse:
> One of the worst things about social security and medicare is the number of folks who started figuring they didn't need to save.

uf, cannot agree more! i even know relatively young people in the midwest that don't save for retirement given that social security worked well for their parents/grandparents. for god sakes, it's falling apart as we speak. these guys don't have the basic math needed to understand what a ponzi scheme is. but boy, i do envy such optimism.

noticed how obama postponed issuing the report till close to november's elections (even though SS financial picture does NOT interfere with Medicare's!)... remember that during his campaign he said "social security is just fine!"...

well, it's structural deficits from 2009 on cannot be covered by more taxes on the labor mkt imho nor take for granted that they will be willingly financed by foreign savings. given the still paltry savings rate in USA, unlike japan, that finance it's own collapsing pension scheme with its own local savings...

somewhereelse, according to your logic, if someone wants a $3000 shoes but cannot pay for them, that someone is entitled to have those shoes for $3 just because s/he wants them.
Let's do away with the concept of "expensive" things altogether!
Moron.

wonderboy, look at aboutready's post. Social and political activism? Good! Eradicating the projects is a start.
Now watch somewhereelse ect. to start lecture...

And let's face it, New York is a backward state. The state where the legislature BIBLE-THUMBED DOWN gay marriage! In New York! in 21st century!

Think about the following if you hate section 8. Many of the section 8 residents are restaurant employees, maids, waiters, grocery store employees, amongst others that receive this service, as well as the elderly and children. If you say that if you can't afford New York then get out, that means that a huge chunk of the American services sector will collapse. People that make your food and do other things that you rely on, will suffer. This problem is throughout the entire country, not just New York. That said, if the government has money to throw at an unneccessary war and unneccessary ear-marks then it should have money to help its American citizens in this time of obvious economic turmoil. The elderly and children without section 8 would also suffer. They would have to resort to soup kitchens and in the long run the government would have to put them in OTHER government programs at a higher cost (like government hotels, etc). What the gov. should do is have the tennant pay an extra 150 bucks a month in cases where the tennant also receives SSI, etc. Also the landlord should reduce the rent by 50 to 100 dollars per month. These changes will offset any deficits in the Section 8 program. But, terminating the program will cost tax payers a lot MORE in the long run.

Section 8 is a bad program -- it's part of the bullshit "private-public" partnership (i.e. privatization of social safety nets) trend that began in the 80s and really accelerated in the 90s. Anytime you hear the word "voucher", run away, far and fast ... it's the gutting of a good governmental program (in this case, the construction of low-income rental housing by the govt.) to feed greater amounts of money to beneficiary-contractors and the like, in return for lesser end-product.

Build more and better projects, and get much more bang for the buck.

ConcernedAmerican, how would children suffer without section 8? Maybe their parents should have children when they can afford them instead of counting on subsidies.
Elderly people deserve everything but they get nothing. Illusionary SSI, expensive Medicare, being treated as a burden by the country they've paid all these taxes to all their lives.
Maybe because all that money is overspent on all sorts of hypocritical subsidies for people who spend their time having 6 children they cannot support, and doing their hair and nails ...

"Why should it be "fostered" in the first place? Because segregation is illegal, and despicable."

--- No one is "segregating" anyone by not giving them free tax dollars to live in places they otherwise couldn't afford. Want to live in a locale you can't afford? Make more money.

***

"If you want to live in any expensive locale, whether it's New York, Miami Beach, Greenwich, or Beverly Hills, you do the things you need to do to be able to afford to live in that locale." Unfortunately, changing the color of your skin isn't totally doable."

--- You're playing the race card where it doesn't exist. There are plenty of brown and black faces living in some of the most expensive locales in the nation. Nice try. Next.

***

"And if you fall short -- like so many other Americans -- you don't live in that locale. It's really quite simple." We should tell all young black kids that they automatically fall short. Don't even bother trying! Sound simple to me."

--- No. What we should tell all young black kids is the same thing we tell all young white kids: work your ass off and succeed. Or don't and fall on your face. The choice is yours.

***

"I see no reason why the people who CAN afford to live in the expensive locale should be forced to subsidize those who can not, simply for the sake of "integration" and "diversity"." Here is a good reason... because they subsidized us. How prosperous are the rich in America without centuries of slave labor? Or fighting our wars for us. Without the poor building the subways and the skyscrapers?"

--- I call bullshit on the slave labor argument. I didn't benefit from slave labor, and neither did anyone else whose family wasn't even on this continent pre-1900. And the "poor" building the subways and skyscrapers all got paid fair wages. What's your point there?

***

"It should not be a permanent thing, but all Americans should have a fair chance at the dream, regardless of skin color."

--- I totally agree. And they do. They just don't need me paying their rent to do it.

I can agree with some of the factors here but it doesn't change the abusive and uncivilized behavior most section 8 residents commit when they are living in good neighborhoods, like I noted before Section 8 should always exempt the elderly and ill, it's not working out to be such a program I have seen so many people abuse the program to no end, they have husbands and the kids keep incresing every nine months, they go back to section 8 and get a new voucher for a bigger place, sometimes they end up moving into private homes in good neighborhoods, let's face it these people do not know how to behave, they act like they have an entitlement to the public service programs and you better not attempt to correct their behavior because they will verbally threaten you, I work hard to keep up with my rent and bills and they get everything handed to them, I don't think that's fair...
I was in a Cashier purchasing a money order for St. Jude and a lady was picking up her monthly check of $1200.00 dollars, she was talking to everyone on the line and told them she gets $1200.00 a month pays $400.00 for a 3 bedroom Section 8 apartment, her husband works and she was on her way to the mall with her friend to buy sneakers and video games for her kids, then she was going to take it easy and go to the casino with her friend and have dinner & drinks, I said wow she has money to go to the casino ??? during these trying times, I came home and I really thought this program has changed, it no longer serves the needy or the poor it serves the scammers and the fast talking charlatans...

Dejavu706, do you really mean to say 'most':

"the abusive and uncivilized behavior most section 8 residents commit when they are living in good neighborhoods"

or are you overwhelmed with hysteria?

re alanhart:

No, I'm overwhelmed with the abuse and the scammers, there are a lot of needy people who get the royal shaft because they are not familiar with all the public assistance programs and those people are the ones who suffer, the scammers take full advantage and discredit the program to the ground...
I hope that answers your question...

inquirer, you sure told those children what's what. sins of the father and all that.

so is it OK if someone only has one child they can't afford? or if they never get a haircut but do it themselves?

or is it OK if someone had three children they could afford but then met with hardship?

or is it never OK to help the less advantaged? unless they're the elderly, who have done a piss-poor job of saving over the years? or should we only help the elderly who can provide a spreadsheet and records showing they've lived within their means and contributed to their retirement?

come on, you can answer. these are easy questions.

I know several people who work in food/beverage + hospitality, they do not qualify for Sec. 8 because they are slightly above the income requirements; they commute every morning 6am from NJ and from Queens. On the other hand, I also know of someone who has a section 8 apt. one bedroom for $5/600, in a nice area of downtown. He rents out the room for $800 and lives in Brooklyn. It is corrupt and unregulated.

what would ruin Manhattan is lack of divisity and section 8 allows different people and cultures to thrive in Manhattan.

Wrong, Julia. What would ruin Manhattan is the lack of a working, tax-paying middle class. Programs like Section 8 only help to hasten the demise of the middle class by making market rate housing more unaffordable. Plus companies would be less likely to move to Manhattan if housing is prohibitively expensive for their employees.

julia's comment is so offensive. So people of a certain cultural background are not able to make enough money to afford living in NY because of their culture? That is quite elitist.

Aboutready - actually there are many people who believe (and I am one) that we should not continue to subsidize people having multiple children who have absolutely no intention of supporting themselves - limit them to one or two kids, then cut off the subsidies. Those people who as you put it "three children they could afford but then met with hardship" should have a safety net, but it is those folks who work the hardest to get back to supporting their family and get off the subsidies, because they are used to supporting their families and do not like having to take the subsidy (unlike those who have seen ONLY families being subsidized).

Of course we should help the disadvantaged, but it only makes sense to help those who will at least TRY to then help themselves. I believe that workfare did, to some extent, reduce the welfare roles, by weeding out those who never even tried to get a job.

Okay, you can start screaming now.

Doesn't aboutready only have one child?

Unbelievably lazy. On all fronts.

murray, i was responding specifically to inquirer's comments. i've seen no figures given regarding the abuses, just random invective against the poor. of course i agree that the system is fraught with both abuse and unintended consequences. but to just blanket say that the children deserve what they get because their parents were unwise seems rather heartless.

a good read is "the working poor, invisible in america," by david shipler. i think you'd be amazed at how many of the poor were gainfully employed, at least prior to this economic downturn. for people to be glad that safety nets are being constricted at this particular time, with 10% unemployment, numerous people who've recently been unemployed, and many others who are insufficiently employed, strikes me as punitive. most of us have had or will have our household incomes reduced at least somewhat (with those notable exceptions) either through increased taxes, reduced revenue, lack of promotion and income increases, but it's a far cry from what millions are going through as we type. we won't know the effects really until long after the crisis has past, but i have read reports of increased homelessness, particularly among the elderly, housing overcrowding that borders on unhealthy, and even hunger. i may not agree with the life choices that may or may not have caused such results, but in times like this i personally would be inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. and yes, i realize that it will affect my taxes. but i don't blame the poor for that, i blame the system that created the excesses that caused the collapse.

how's that for screaming?

aboutready
15 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
... and yes, i realize that it will affect my taxes. ...

You don't pay taxes because you sit home all day and blog. Do you earn money the more negative your blogging is?

aboutready - sounds like an interesting book, but you skip over the very important part of the title, namely "the WORKING poor. You simply want to ignore the many women (and their "baby daddies" who have three, four, five children, have never worked, have no intention of ever working, and give that to their children as a legacy to be passed down to the following generations (often starting at the age of 14). Many of these women began having the first of their multiple children BEFORE the economy went to hell in a handbasket. And, their "baby daddies" very often do not contribute anything to the care and feeding of the children that they have fathered. However, you and I, as taxpayers in NY, which is one of the most generous of welfare (and Medicaid) states, do. The parents have not been "unwise" - "unwise" would have been having the first child with no visible means of support. Keep going, and it's not being "unwise" it's being too wise to the ways of New York's welfare system.

And didn't you just say that the elderly just didn't save enough? They saved, they just didn't foresee the meltdown, like many others in this city and in this country. So, let's increase Medicaid, cut Medicare and social security for, as one poster so aptly put it, the ones who have paid into the system for years. And, in a country which does not value its elders, let's just ignore their suffering and concentrate on children and illegal immigrants. (I assume you did read about the dialysis clinic in another state which simply could not afford to keep treating the illegal immigrants who had come to the US because they didn't get good medical care at home. Big outcry, but the legal residents of that area would not have had their health care because the clinic was going to go under financially caring for the illegal. Even so, the clinic paid airfare back to the home countries, and the cost of dialysis in those countries for those returned immigrants for a YEAR).

Now, THAT's screaming.

so give me a figure, murray. how many are there? the people who have never worked? that's one of the things the book the working poor talks about. you do realize that under clinton work was made mandatory for most people for receipt of aid? how many? really. i want to know. because it's good to quantify how many ought to have aid eliminated. do you have figures about how many children these so-called welfare moms have? or is this just another generalization? should the kids of parents who have too many children live on the streets? or should they go to a workhouse and make trinkets to compete with the goods from China? should they work 40 hours a week, or should we send them to our substandard schools at least a few hours a day? maybe we should have schools inside the workhouses so that the more worthy people don't have to breath the same air as these blights on our society? how dickensian.

the aarp is one of the strongest lobbies in this country. please. and the boomers have been AWFUL at saving. even taking the meltdown into account.

i see your rant and raise you one.

aboutready, here we go:
so the old folks just have to save, save, save, never count on their tax dollars to help them but to help only "the disadvantaged"? OK... And those "disadvantaged" are who exactly?
Now, there's a difference between people who just cannot take care of themselves and to whom life wasn't fair (health problem, mental and physical) who MUST be helped.
But if you answer the question defining "the disadvantaged", many things will clarify themselves. Such as: people having 6-year-old's birthday party at 3 am are not disadvantaged. There's more where this one came from.

By the way, I have to add that aboutready is a classic example of a demagogue. There was another one, petrfitz, but he's probably in jail.

anecdotes. more and more anecdotes. i love them as a picture of what can happen in society. but they're meaningless when deciding why and how to change public policy. it's easy to attack the poor (and particularly poor children). they (unlike the elderly) have virtually no voice. but i have yet to read or see here any concrete evidence or quantification of the rampant abuses that are being alleged.

you really hang around with people who have their child's b-day party at 3 am? i must say i'm surprised, you didn't seem the sort to hang in such crowds. or maybe someone told you about a friend's friend's housekeeper's cousin holding such an event.

today's elderly will receive their social security benefits. i doubt our children will.

inquirer, next you'll tell me i need therapy. as you have so many times, under so many different handles.

Different handles? Whatever. If it makes you feel important.
No, demagogues don't need therapy, or any other self-aggrandizing tools. They are hopeless, that's what makes them demagogues.
No real discussion is possible with them. End of story.

makes me feel important? kind of like a penthouse and a terrace makes some people feel important?

btw, you didn't answer. do you really hang around with people who hold b-day parties for a 6 year old at 3 am?

and i never sensed any real discussion coming from you. just a few baseless assertions. end of story.

What a toilet whore.

Do you get along with anyone who isn't a cheat or a freeloader?

aboutready, what makes you think I'll be answering your silly questions? A way of a demagogue — to throw in an irrelevant and aggressive stupid question...
Please. I don't want to talk to you.

then don't. put me on ignore. but the question is valid, and you know it.

me a demagogue? who's pandering to the baseless prejudices of the masses? hmmm?

funny, you think you can insult me and say end of story and your will will be done.

Do you get along with anyone who isn't a cheat or a freeloader?

AR - of course it is important to help people. You just seem to focus on the greed/gaming of the system on one side of the ledger. There are many people who take advantage of section 8 and other programs and that is deplorable. I never hear you complain about these transgressions. Don't they matter? Don't they have a big impact, too?

of course they matter, waverly. but 9 out of 10 people on this board are excoriating the abuses, and few are representing the others. i've yet to see anyone offer any statistics, any proof at all about the extent of the abuse.

in times when we all feel pushed up against a wall it's easy to attack those without a voice, those with even less power than we have. my point is what do we do? that's always my point. it's easy to condemn the system, but when someone says who cares about the kids, it's the parents' fault, it irritates me. i reiterate, do we want children on the streets? do we want tent cities?

is the section 8 program problematic? absolutely, i said so earlier. it actually is a benefit to the landlords, and allows them to charge more for below-market-condition property. yes, so what do we do? move the poor into vacant condos? because waverly, we have a lot of poor people right now, and i suspect we'll have more before this is through. the increase in vouchers was misguided, and not sustainable, the money simply isn't there. but what do we do?

what are you suggesting? that i ought to join in and condemn all that receive section 8 benefits? you know me better than that.

oh, and inquirer, i guess you forgot your earlier comments, including this one. memory loss is a bitch. maybe you hadn't yet concluded that i was a demagogue?

"aboutready, you should be in bloody therapy. For god's sake, please stop this oversharing. I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out that you invented you whole sorry life."

from the dreadful 80% carpet thread.

No, but the time has come to acknowledge that those that have cheated the system have possibly poisoned the well for thos that truly need the help. That is unfortunate, but it is reality and the repurcussions are not going to be pleasant for those receiving section 8 help. Perhaps they should not turn a blind eye to those cheating...like a whistleblower in a company.

why waverly? because it suits us to condemn all? what does that say about us?

the abuses have always been there. the fault lies both in the abusers and the system. to say that now we will elect to do something about it beyond merely remedying the abuse and extending the punishment to all seems rather draconian.

this type of sentiment is frightening. americans make a sport out of assigning blame. and now we seem to want to assign punishment as well, much more so than usual. i understand why, but i'm not sure it bodes well for us as a society.

"i understand why, but i'm not sure it bodes well for us as a society. "

What does that mean? That you just needed to write something that sounded both negative and as if you are smart?

"americans make a sport out of assigning blame."
Really, like how you blame your landlord, how you want treble monetary damages for nothing, how you can't take criticism on streeteasy because your mother died and your daughter had asthma?

"somewhereelse, according to your logic, if someone wants a $3000 shoes but cannot pay for them, that someone is entitled to have those shoes for $3 just because s/he wants them. "

Inquirer, you either have no concept of logic or lack the ability to read.

I've never said, inferred, or hinted at anything like that.

> Let's do away with the concept of "expensive" things altogether!
> Moron.

Finish 3rd grade and then you can rejoin the discussion.

Why should it be "fostered" in the first place? Because segregation is illegal, and despicable."

"No one is "segregating" anyone by not giving them free tax dollars to live in places they otherwise couldn't afford."

Matt, your comment is completely nonsensical. Noone said that this is the source of segregation.

You are completely confused here.

>> Unfortunately, changing the color of your skin isn't totally doable."

> You're playing the race card where it doesn't exist. There are plenty of brown
> and black faces living in some of the most expensive locales in the nation. Nice try. Next.

Moronic.

Matt, once again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. First, you need to look up what "race card" means. You clearly don't know.

And if your evidence of there not being segregation is Shaq living on Star Island, then you are even dumber than I thought. There is segregation far beyond the effects of income.

Please try a logical argument...

***

"And if you fall short -- like so many other Americans -- you don't live in that locale. It's really quite simple."

> We should tell all young black kids that they automatically fall short. Don't even bother trying! Sound simple
> to me."

ROTFL.

What I love is you are going off on the idea of telling black kids they fall short... but actually have no problem pushing them behind!

Talk about absolutely hypcrisy!

> No. What we should tell all young black kids is the same thing we tell all young white kids: work your ass off
> and succeed. Or don't and fall on your face. The choice is yours.

Agreed.... but doing that while giving the white kids a head start (or limiting the options of the black kids no matter how much they accomplish) is COMPLETELY hypocritical!

Your logic makes little sense.

You pretend you want meritocrisy, except you're fine making allowances for giving folks head starts based on their skin color!

Its laughable that you pretend you want a level playing fireld, yet you essentially support white affirmitive action!
***

"I see no reason why the people who CAN afford to live in the expensive locale should be forced to subsidize those who can not, simply for the sake of "integration" and "diversity"." Here is a good reason... because they subsidized us. How prosperous are the rich in America without centuries of slave labor? Or fighting our wars for us. Without the poor building the subways and the skyscrapers?"

--- I call bullshit on the slave labor argument. I didn't benefit from slave labor, and neither did anyone else whose family wasn't even on this continent pre-1900. And the "poor" building the subways and skyscrapers all got paid fair wages. What's your point there?

***

"It should not be a permanent thing, but all Americans should have a fair chance at the dream, regardless of skin color."

--- I totally agree. And they do. They just don't need me paying their rent to do it.

actually the people who built the subways were paid poorly when you consider how dangerous and hard the work was. Back then there were no machines to help them or any govt. agency to enforce work safety laws.

"Plus companies would be less likely to move to Manhattan if housing is prohibitively expensive for their employees."

I don't think companies really give a dman about how much their employees have to pay for housing.

"Build more and better projects, and get much more bang for the buck."

That's a great idea. Can we build one directly next door to your building?

"actually the people who built the subways were paid poorly when you consider how dangerous and hard the work was. Back then there were no machines to help them or any govt. agency to enforce work safety laws. "

If we had today's unions back then, we'd have one subway line, half finished, and each train would take 100 people to operate, who retire at $500k after 5 years.

"I don't think companies really give a dman about how much their employees have to pay for housing."

BINGO.

*****

"If we had today's unions back then, we'd have one subway line, half finished, and each train would take 100 people to operate, who retire at $500k after 5 years."

We have only MANAGEMENT to blame for any union problems today. ANY union member, regardless of the contract or the union, can be fired for cause.

Managers just need to grow some balls and do some serious weeding.

"If we had today's unions back then, we'd have one subway line, half finished"

... you mean like London, which has been steadily churning out new tube/rail lines over the past 10-15 years, and has ongoing plans to keep building them? Or probably every other large western European city also?

I wasn't aware that the MTA union covered London...

"We have only MANAGEMENT to blame for any union problems today. ANY union member, regardless of the contract or the union, can be fired for cause."

Look up "United Federation of Teachers".

Try throwing out that absolute bs again...

nice try.

btw, when they're government employees, WE'RE management.

the politicians we elect are bought by the unions....

and, alan, are you really suggesting that the Europeans have their labor relations down?

Yes, I am ... their cities function, while in ours it takes 90 years to build a planned subway line.

"United Federation of Teachers": what sort of cause are you talking about, because I know only about things like teachers who get into fist-fights with other adults in New Jersey beach towns and are recorded by cable tv production companies; or have consensual sex with 16-year olds (not admirable, but if the justice system doesn't yank them out of circulation and they're doing a good job teaching, who is the DOE to pull them?

The bottom line is that the DOE gives a lot of lip service to the notion that there are all these bad teachers out, and that they're going to use some magical metrics to weed them out, but they don't have those metrics, they never will, and they're just trying to cut out those teachers who don't bow to the specific will of El Generalisito.

The most ridiculous is their latest move, giving a quick nod to the value of experience in teaching, then trying to eliminate seniority-based layoff priorities. They just want to complete their Vichy government takeover.

"move the poor into vacant condos? because waverly, we have a lot of poor people right now, and i suspect we'll have more before this is through."

Section 8 should be easily accepted in every single state to begin with and they should be helped to relocate to cheaper areas once they are too old to work or disable. The whole idea of keeping the elderly in the most expensive city in USA with their tiny SS check as only source of income is just mean. They would have much higher quality of life in cheaper areas once they are not tied to the city due to a job. I know several with section 8 and tiny SS or SSDI. They eat like s*it cause they cannot afford fruit and vegetables, so they are fat and most have diabetes. They stay all day long at starbucks cause of the air conditioning (where i met them). That's no way of ending your last years!

oh, alan, you lost me again. so fleeting....

...like a sidecar

all this talk of sidecars is making me thirsty.

notadmin, you know it's more complicated than that, section 8 is not just for the elderly. and many poorer individuals rely on extended family for childcare, etc. besides, even in the most expensive city in the country we need the underemployed to work at fast food joints, as home health aids and other caregivers, be housekeepers, etc.

"we need the underemployed to work at fast food joints, as home health aids and other caregivers, be housekeepers, etc."

no, you are very wrong. if somebody needs a housekeeper, that person should have a livable wage with full benefits. sorry, but the fact that people can get away paying a barely livable wage off the books is not a need and doesn't imply the need of section 8. those employers (whether they are white middle class moms that work full time and treat their nanny like that) should be prosecuted, not rewarded with making it all possible thanks to section 8.

> "United Federation of Teachers": what sort of cause are you talking about, because I know only about
> things like teachers who get into fist-fights with other adults in New Jersey beach towns and are
> recorded by cable tv production companies; or have consensual sex with 16-year olds (not admirable

Well, some of us know more about teacher than you, I guess..

> , but
> if the justice system doesn't yank them out of circulation and they're doing a good job teaching, who is
> the DOE to pull them?

Your assumption is that anyone not beating the kids is doing a "good job"... interesting...

> The bottom line is that the DOE gives a lot of lip service to the notion that there are all these bad
> teachers out, and that they're going to use some magical metrics to weed them out, but they don't have
> those metrics, they never will

Actually, there have been tons of metrics suggested, but knocked down... all by a union that doesn't want ANY metrics!

The UFT pushed the legislature to sign a law removing ALL performance measures from TENURE!

Seriously now...

> and they're just trying to cut out those teachers who don't bow to the specific will
> of El Generalisito.

Again, I love how all teachers to you are either criminals or great.
Perhaps if you knew anything of reality here...

> The most ridiculous is their latest move, giving a quick nod to the value of experience in teaching, then
> trying to eliminate seniority-based layoff priorities.

Yes, because if there is anything that government unions have taught us, its that the people who stick around and don't move to better jobs are the BEST people.

Alan, I'm not sure if you are serious here, but this is awful funny.

> They just want to complete their Vichy government takeover.

Call it what you want, but the current system is an absolute flop, and I can't imagine why any sane person would support it.

"no, you are very wrong. if somebody needs a housekeeper, that person should have a livable wage with full benefits. sorry"

Well, then fight for a higher minimum wage and 100% employer-funded healthcare.

Until then, don't say "should".