Something about that just doesn’t sit right with me. Dependency on the system makes the population easy to control and susceptible to dictatorship which is what our founders tried to prevent. Sure the system should provide certain things for its people for a limited time period to assist where needed but we now have generations of people who have become addicted and completely reliant on gov handouts and that’s wrong! We can do better as a nation with providing reasonable and affordable health care but beyond that, in my opinion, no other form of socialism should exist in our capitalist system.
Amy Coney Barrett (Supreme Court) Come on Down!
- Thread starter shon46
- Start date
Sounds like you would hate it then...
Wasnt that number 1 issue with trump 4 years ago? Now youd love to move there...to a place that is very hard to immigrate to while advocating that we in the us should be the savior for central america and let everyone in...make up ur mind.
Last edited:
No the number 1 issue I've always had with Trump is that he lies constantly. Big lies, small lies, lies of ommission.... He just can't quit. I wouldn't mind having a tougher immigration system if our citizens were expected to be as well versed in civics and as hard working as the prospective immigrants are expected to be.
Ill match your bid for lies by Trump, and raise you, bill Clinton, Hrc, BHO, Biden, Pelosi, shiff, Nadler, Schumar, blm, aclu, cnn, metoo, mothers march, science, mueller report, impeachment, paige, struck, dossier, fbi spying, antifa, sanders, aoc, the squad,
You could combine all of those people, and they still wouldnt have lied so much while running for or holding office as Trump has.
You provide low interest federally backed home loans and set federal reserve interest rates while maintaining oversight of credit worthiness. You encourage construction of low and middle income housing by developers. You regulate rental law. You combat discrimination of minorities when they are applying for home loans or rentals. (A law that Trump is currently trying to subvert)
You regulate the affordability of utilities and the access to modern basic human needs like the internet, public transit to populated areas, and you try to improve education which drives up home values.
Exactly my point; government interference and reliance. Maybe the people dont receive cash, but now the taxpayers have to fund an agency to oversee and regulate.
Last edited:
Internet is a basic human need? I'll give you mass transit and education.
People survived for many years before internet and still do in many parts of the world. Basic human needs are food, clothing, and shelter along with the above mentioned mode of transportation to work place, education etc.
People survived for many years before internet and still do in many parts of the world. Basic human needs are food, clothing, and shelter along with the above mentioned mode of transportation to work place, education etc.
In today's society access to the internet is as tantamount to a basic necessity as much as access to any other utilities are (and ISP's should be regulated as a utilities). This has become especially evident as people have been forced to work from home in this pandemic.
You can't even apply to most jobs in person anymore. They all direct you to their websites. In the pandemic response, operation of maintenance utilities (water, sewer, gas, and electrical) was listed under the same level of importance as communications services (telephone, internet, etc...) on many of the states' prioritization lists.
So? It's to the benefit of the public... that's literally what any government is for. "To promote the general welfare"
HUD has funded, overseen, and regulated since 1965. And the federal reserve has done so since 1913.
The only difference in putting something regarding the government concerning itself with housing into the constitution is that it would mandate that they do it, and that they do it with equal regard to minorities and majorities. We had the fair housing act of 1968 which was supposed to achieve that politicians and lobbyists have been trying to subvert it for decades. Obama tried to strengthen it with a rule which mandated, that to provide a metric for success of enforcement of the law, HUD had to conduct an "analysis of impediments" to fair housing and HUD employees were encouraged to report their findings and the actions taken to correct them to a database.
The Obama rule came after the GAO conducted a review of HUD's oversight of the law and found that some jurisdictions that were getting HUD funding weren't filling out the forms related to Fair Housing that the government already required or were not regularly updating their reports in accordance with HUD guidance. Then Trump and Republicans made it into an argument that the government was trying to mandate that projects were going to be built in suburbia which just wasn't the case. It was just that the administration wanted people to better follow a law that was approved 40 years prior and hadn't been successful implemented quite possibly to systematic racism in loaning practices to minorities. Having something guaranteeing fair and regulated stewardship of the federal governments housing program in the constitution would make sure that people like Trump or his buddies couldn't monkey with good and altruistic policies like that.
I'm not against federal subsidized housing but the way we've been doing for the last 50 plus years has caused as much harm as good imo. I don't know what the answer is but I do realize what these areas become and the conditions the family who live in them deal with on a daily basis.
As a single mother in 1976, my mom bought a house on a subsidized loan when she probably would have been turned down, if on the open market. The loan was paid off years later, and it gave me a decent quality home in broken arrow until my mother married and we moved to keystone lake in '82. It provided us with additional income from rental for several years after '82.
It was something my mother needed to get on her feet, and I am glad the opportunity was there. So if you want to poo poo subsidized housing, you are not okay in my book. Alternative methods in subsidized housing is ok, but I am vehemently against eliminating it. aTUfan, you don't have a clue. But that's nothing new.
It was something my mother needed to get on her feet, and I am glad the opportunity was there. So if you want to poo poo subsidized housing, you are not okay in my book. Alternative methods in subsidized housing is ok, but I am vehemently against eliminating it. aTUfan, you don't have a clue. But that's nothing new.
I'm using it right now although it's at the state level instead of the fed level (first time homebuyer's program with down payment assistance). It has allowed me to buy a house in my late 20's which isn't very typical of my generation.
I obviously wasn’t taking about subsidized loans but subsidized public housing. Which I will continue to poopoo. I deal with subsidized loans on a daily basis and have nothing but good things to say about the program.
Some of that distaste for subsidized public housing could be because the funds have been misused.
Last month in the Rose Garden, the President slammed his presumptive Democratic presidential opponent, Joe Biden, on his housing plan Trump said would "abolish the suburbs." The President specifically referenced Westchester County, New York, as an example of low-income housing being built in the suburbs, "I've been watching this for years in Westchester, coming from New York...They want low-income housing built in a neighborhood."
It appears President Trump is referring to a 2009 desegregation agreement the county made as part of a settlement in a lawsuit brought by an antidiscrimination group, years before Obama's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule was enacted. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the Anti-Discrimination Center sued the county in 2006 for failing "to affirmatively further fair housing" and alleged that the county had lied about their efforts to HUD.
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York found Westchester County had "utterly failed" to meet the AFFH guideline and that it had lied while claiming payments from HUD. The eventual settlement required the county to spend millions of dollars to build 750 units of affordable housing in 31 of the county's least diverse communities.
I don't have a problem if counties don't want to go through the hassle of having to conform to a fair housing act that might be burdensome for their already prosperous community.... but they certainly shouldn't be taking federal funds earmarked for promoting equal housing opportunity for the disadvantaged if they're not willing to follow the law saying that the poor should have an equal right to have a safe home.
Last edited:
I would love to see our Constitution revised to contain a civil rights section modeled after that of Ch. 1 of the Netherlands (which they revised in 1983)
They have articles regarding the
protection of privacy -- we have lots of laws on the books
the country's environment --- epa
equality -- we have lots of laws on the books
general health -- your responsibility
public housing -- for who
education -- Department of Education
employment -- just prove you are worth it
the distribution of wealth --- to who
They have articles regarding the
protection of privacy -- we have lots of laws on the books
the country's environment --- epa
equality -- we have lots of laws on the books
general health -- your responsibility
public housing -- for who
education -- Department of Education
employment -- just prove you are worth it
the distribution of wealth --- to who
Last edited:
The privacy laws on the books are a joke and they offer next to no protection. Anyone can collect and sell your data these days and they use it against you in a variety of ways.
The country's environment has not been adequately protected in many ways. Even if you want to argue that we haven't done enough prescribed burns.
Equality, if you think that's a problem the government has solved, you're dreaming.
Public Housing Availability - For the public. The responsibility of the government to assure that the market is working to create enough houses at a fair price of occupancy for every person who needs one in the US.
General Health - as we've seen in Covid, it's not, nor should it be an individual's own responsibility to guarantee the safety access to emergency healthcare or preventative healthcare to the benefit of themselves and those around them. We all need to work together to make sure that people have access to healthcare that won't bankrupt them for getting sick, and won't prevent them from seeing a doctor due to cost.
Education - We have constant fights over education, of what should be taught, how it should be taught, and in what setting... The Dutch charter basically says that each child should have access to a quality education and it's the government's responsibility to insure that's the case.
The distribution of wealth means that the government shall insure that wealth inequality does not become so rampant that it becomes detrimental to society's continuing function. (Basically it's an excuse for a robust and progressive tax system to fund the responsibilities listed for the government)
Putting some, if not all, of these things as guarantees in the constitution would mean they would be harder (though not impossible) for politicians to subvert via gamesmanship and that it would be easier for people to argue to the court system that their fundamental rights as citizens have been violated.
Wealth distribution.
Instead of just putting a bandaid on it, let's address the real problem.
Why do some people earn less than others?
Lack skills, unreliable, less hours, no value to the company, mineal task.
EDUCATION!!!!! not hand outs.
Instead of just putting a bandaid on it, let's address the real problem.
Why do some people earn less than others?
Lack skills, unreliable, less hours, no value to the company, mineal task.
EDUCATION!!!!! not hand outs.
With a lot of schools not having in person classes, your education may be tied to a decent home internet connection. A good job might be dependent on it too.
That's all theoretically temporary, but I'd say the internet is pretty essential for the time being.
I guess I should have stipulated what I was talking about was, imo, all part of the same programs. But yes, subsidized housing needs a lot more work than subsidized loans. It wasn't you I was referring to when I talked about poo pooing it. It was aTUfan who just came down on the whole program. He acts like there is no place for any regulation, oversight, and funding of any program in the government. Whether it be in housing, energy, health, environment, etc. He doesn't have a clue about the role of government, and how it works, needs to work.
Yeah it is necessary now. Those without it are at a disadvantage to the other 94% who have access. It's necessary in education, jobs, paying bills, finding products, self sufficency as a DIY'er, a news source, etc. etc.
We've had the war on poverty to address this since the 60s. We are losing!!!! We have more poor people now
The government has spent billions of dollars on programs to address this.
Throwing dollars at a problem does not fix it.
The emphasis should be to encourage people to be LESS reliant on the government not hand outs
When it comes to access to the internet, I’m not saying that it need be free for everyone... just that we attempt to make it guaranteed to be available and of a certain high quality (in regards to the infrastructure that delivers it) Mostly talking about rural areas not getting it and people having to pay out the butt for crap service.
A) show me how we’re losing...
B)Any government is not just giving handouts. It’s an organization with which we make a social contract to mutually benefit all the individuals who follow our laws and help fund the tasks that it was set up to accomplish.
i want to sell my house for 300k and someone is willing to pay that or more but the gov can say no, so they can control the housing market. WHY??????????????
Facts he doesn't know confuse him. The one's he does knows, confuse him even more.
I work hard and make lots of money. Why do I owe anything to people who dont/won't work?
mutually benefit? seems to be a one way train to me...
I saw the other day that the SC hasn't been this conservative since Thurgood Marshall's replacement about 28? years ago. I think the libs have done ok getting a less conservative agenda through since then, no?
It's not about abortion although the right wants to make the argument it is. It's about individual rights. You know the same one the self-anointed militia in Michigan was making about shut downs and mask requirements. The argument was mask mandates violated their individual rights. Also, government and courts should not dictate what types of medical care you seek. Individual medical care is between a patient and their doctor. The right use to stand on the premise of limited government and limited government intrusion into one's personal life. And this is where the hypocrisy of the right takes over. They want to limit individual rights to who you can love and marry, individual medical care, etc. And it's all based on their personal religion although the careful wording of the founders indicated our laws were to be free from any specific religious influence. You are free to worship the god of your choice and others are free to worship theirs. Who you or I worship should not force everyone else who chooses not to believe in God to be subject to laws clearly influenced by that faith.
BTW, Amy Coney Barrett is neither a Constitutional scholar nor capable jurist (impartial as jurists should be). You do understand that the term Conservative referenced the limited government and a very literal interpretation of the Constitution. The term originally had ZERO to do with family values or the evangelical right. ZERO. You do realize that the Roe v Wade decision (7-2) was issued by a court that was majority appointed by Republican presidents. The decision was issued based mainly on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and using medical expert (doctors) testimony that limited that freedom to the 1st 20 weeks of pregnancy based on viability outside of the womb. Part of the majority opinion read "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." By trying to undo this you simply tell a woman she does not have control over her life.
Personally, I hold the same view of abortion that many do. I do not believe it should be used as a method of birth control and should only be used in extraordinary instances whether it endangers the life of the mother or the fetus is known to be not viable and cannot survive outside the womb. We need to do a better job of educating both kids and adults on preconception methods of contraception and making them available (which the right doesn't seem to understand is a better option). The individuals trying to make these laws and undo Roe are individuals who will NEVER be in the position to have to make such a difficult decision. So why should I EVER tell someone what they can or cannot do when I will NEVER be in that position to make that decision for myself? It's hypocritical. The whole GOP pro-life stance is hypocritical to me as well as they push guns and "stand your ground" laws where they make it easier to take someone's life as well as push the death penalty. Then there is always the argument that they are pro-life until the baby is born, then it's someone else's problem as they continue to reduce SNAP and welfare benefits, do not believe in helping with child care so the parents can work, etc.
